Imagine thinking the media that portrayed the MLK riots and debauchery as peaceful protests were biased against the left. The "far-right" journalist of that era was represented by William Buckley who harangued Enoch Powell and others for racism in a similar, albeit more sophisticated, form as Gladwell does here.
What an utterly embarrassing buffoon, and I'm ashamed of having read his book 'Blink' and that I took him seriously. Be more than 50% white, and then spend the entire debate complaining about white people, and demanding privileges based on your 25% or so blackness without which you would have gotten nowhere in your life.
This is not even considering how laughable his claims are. That journalists never spoke to "black people" or "poor people" during the 1960s, the decade of the greatest civil rights legislation and arguably the greatest expansion of the welfare state is just absurd. Not to mention that journalists apparently never spoke to "women", more than half the population.
Gladwell also later on said, while arguing that there should not be more conservatives in media, that it does not matter who the journalist is, undermining all his race-baiting during the entire debate.
Gladwell thought that he could argue the way he does in the media, by saying "white". In today's media, this wins you the argument (proving Taibbi and Murray's assertion that the MSM is not to be trusted), but in any reasonable company, that makes you an absolute embarrassment.
It was well-deserved as the greatest loss in the history of the Munk debates. Surprisingly, Michelle Goldberg carried herself with some minimal amount of dignity, which is quite unusual for her. But Gladwell beclowned himself even worse than Michael Eric Dyson did in her previous debate.
His racial makeup really has nothing to do with it. You'd get the same from a woke white dude. This is just how Woke pod people argue. This is the air they breathe, the lens through which they see the world.
Yeah, he never explicitly brought up his race. I used to think that he was white, so maybe people viewed it as exactly this. BTW, I did just discover that Matt is 50% non-white (apparently his father was Native Hawaiian and Filipino), more than Gladwell, which is quite ironic. Though not to them.
It's quite liberating. No longer must you attend to inconsequential trivialities like "facts" and "reason."
I wonder what the response would be if someone said: "Aye! Facts and reason are indeed the monopoly of White [sic] people, which is why we should be in charge!"
Some of his strawmen arguments about the Walter Cronkite golden-age of journalism was that "people like himself and Michelle" wouldn't have been allowed in the newsroom and wouldn't have been given a voice/polled by journalists of the day.
No, you are correct - he is good at storytelling (I think). His derivative work is mostly "take ideas from others and package them", and sometimes introduce errors into it. In other words, pop science.
Imagine thinking the media that portrayed the MLK riots and debauchery as peaceful protests were biased against the left. The "far-right" journalist of that era was represented by William Buckley who harangued Enoch Powell and others for racism in a similar, albeit more sophisticated, form as Gladwell does here.
What an utterly embarrassing buffoon, and I'm ashamed of having read his book 'Blink' and that I took him seriously. Be more than 50% white, and then spend the entire debate complaining about white people, and demanding privileges based on your 25% or so blackness without which you would have gotten nowhere in your life.
This is not even considering how laughable his claims are. That journalists never spoke to "black people" or "poor people" during the 1960s, the decade of the greatest civil rights legislation and arguably the greatest expansion of the welfare state is just absurd. Not to mention that journalists apparently never spoke to "women", more than half the population.
Gladwell also later on said, while arguing that there should not be more conservatives in media, that it does not matter who the journalist is, undermining all his race-baiting during the entire debate.
Gladwell thought that he could argue the way he does in the media, by saying "white". In today's media, this wins you the argument (proving Taibbi and Murray's assertion that the MSM is not to be trusted), but in any reasonable company, that makes you an absolute embarrassment.
It was well-deserved as the greatest loss in the history of the Munk debates. Surprisingly, Michelle Goldberg carried herself with some minimal amount of dignity, which is quite unusual for her. But Gladwell beclowned himself even worse than Michael Eric Dyson did in her previous debate.
Yeah, he never explicitly brought up his race. I used to think that he was white, so maybe people viewed it as exactly this. BTW, I did just discover that Matt is 50% non-white (apparently his father was Native Hawaiian and Filipino), more than Gladwell, which is quite ironic. Though not to them.
I wonder what the response would be if someone said: "Aye! Facts and reason are indeed the monopoly of White [sic] people, which is why we should be in charge!"
He did though.
Some of his strawmen arguments about the Walter Cronkite golden-age of journalism was that "people like himself and Michelle" wouldn't have been allowed in the newsroom and wouldn't have been given a voice/polled by journalists of the day.
You are 100% correct, I forgot about that one.
Like we all forgot about the guards posted at newsrooms checking that you're not too dark or too female to enter them.
The intriguing thing about Gladwell was never the he was good at politics. I think he's out of his depth there.
But I'm not sure he has actual depth anywhere. Most of his works are derivative at best and spun at worst.
His skill is pop-science, is all I meant
Maybe the skill is his publisher's
No, you are correct - he is good at storytelling (I think). His derivative work is mostly "take ideas from others and package them", and sometimes introduce errors into it. In other words, pop science.
The intriguing thing is how hideous of a creature miscegenation can produce.
What is he a jewnigger?
Jiggajew.