Listen now | 0:00 How this conversation came to be 1:34 What surprised Glenn most about the Kirk killing 7:38 Who (or what) is driving our polarization? 16:39 Cognitive empathy for MAGA 24:27 Reacting to Charlie Kirk on affirmative action 43:34 Are we re-running the 1960s? 50:50 Coming up in part 2: Israel-GazaRobert Wright (Nonzero, The Evolution of God, Why Buddhism Is True) and Glenn Loury (https://glennloury.substack.com/, Brown University, Late Admissions, Self-Censorship). Recorded September 15, 2024.Twitter: https://twitter.com/NonzeroPods
Oh ok we’re doing the Both Sides “it takes two to tango” thing regarding speech and hate. On the one hand, I get it, the toxic times are what they are and there’s plenty of poison to pick from but really: does it matter that only one side is doing this at the highest levels of govt? Trump, Vance, Bondi, Miller, et al, are talking about using the power of the govt to potentially punish citizens for protected speech. Can Mr. Loury name one elected Democrat who has done this? And if he can, can he name two?
And "we must imagine how this looks to MAGA," but no "how does this look to non-MAGA" or "what's the objective truth." Yeah, people have to be smart about how they come across, but Glenn's analysis was extremely one sided. It can border on speech policing.
I mean, is substituting "black women" for the actual names of 4 prominent black women really such a grave sin here? Did he literally say those words? No. But it is obviously what he was communicating to his audience, pretty explicitly to be honest, while trying to maintain this exact out. An out I think you're foolishly granting him.
This is how bad faith commentators like Kirk operate ALL THE TIME. They're smart enough to know they shouldn't say something like "black women don't have the brainpower for xyz" so they set up their delivery just carefully enough that they can always defend themselves by throwing up their hands and saying "but I didn't say all black women - I was only talking about these *particular* black women". Meanwhile, a significant portion of his audience is happy to interpret the latter as the former, which is obviously Kirk's goal. Is this really so mysterious? Plenty of other examples of Kirk, and lots of other right wing commentators, behaving this way.
We can reckon meaningfully with how to chart a constructive path forward out of the dysfunctional quagmire we've found ourselves in as a nation without sanitizing the true nature of an agitator like Kirk or the reality about how odious his views and his willingness to openly promulgate them were.
Oof. Another one here. Loury is pretty incensed about this notion of getting secondhand embarrassment about black people being called out for "underperforming at the highest levels of requirement", immediately on the heels of semi-validating Kirk's derision of Joy Reid. I mean, can Glenn get more specific here? How exactly does Joy Reid fall short as a political pundit on cable news as compared to, say, Jesse Waters? For God's sake, Tucker Carlson has gone on public record admitting his TV career was kicked off based on a lie he told in order to get on to some discussion panel segment. But of course, it's always immediately assumed that these people are where they are on pure merit alone and thus never face any of the same kind of generalized scrutiny.
Kirk mentioned Ketanji Jackson during his screed, alongside Reid. Anyone can go take a look at her Wikipedia page. Pretty distinguished background. Graduated from Harvard Law School. Clerked for a Supreme Court justice. Worked in private practice. Was a federal district judge for a decade. Not a bad resume.
Loury mentioned Michelle Obama's unimpressive thesis, but, don't worry, we can all rest assured that Donald Trump's senior thesis was undoubtedly top notch.
So yeah, all this rhetoric by Kirk and his ilk is the selective application of a double standard that is explicitly used in an effort to validate feelings of racism, latent or otherwise, against black people by (primarily) white people in his audience. It's just that simple. Loury seems to be confusing the act for some kind of sincere exercise in comparative analysis. Very bizarre.
Isn’t the reason the “very good people on both sides” Trump comment is more complicated than the way Bob is remembering it because Trump had to give (I think) 3 speeches and only on the 3rd speech did he condemn the white nationalists? Someone posted a video to the Substack comments another time when Bob brought this up, and the video made it seem pretty clear that the way Bob is remembering the story does not paint the entire picture accurately. I tried finding the video but I was unable to, maybe someone could post it again.
People also forget that both the Friday night torchlight rally (where they chanted “Jews Will Not Replace Us”) and Saturday’s Unite the Right rally were both organized by Jason Kessler, a white nationalist associated closely with Richard Spencer, David Duke, and other openly white nationalist figures. Kessler insisted the Unite the Right rally’s goal was to defend “white heritage”. He promoted the Unite the Right rally as a gathering of white identity movements. So yes there were differences between the Friday night torchlight rally and the Saturday Unite the Right rally where counterprotester Heather Heyer was murdered by white nationalist James Alex Fields Jr, but they were both organized by the same white nationalist for white nationalists. It should have been incredibly simple to condemn them and the event, regardless of your stance on statues.
Thanks Ed, this is useful. Yes, that’s the video I watched. This is a great example of how we remember things in very simple, black and white terms. The truth is always more complicated, and it was never just about what Trump said on August 15, 2017. The controversy was over the statement he made on August 12, and also his disavowal of the prepared statement he read August 14, and then finally the obfuscating statement on August 15 which he made to roll back his August 14 statement.
The "which side is worse" debate will always be subjective depending on your tribe. But a recent study by the NIJ shows that the actual hard data demonstrates that "the number of far-right attacks outpaces all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism." (link below). Other studies have come up with similar results. Glenn, aren't you supposedly a data guy? More concerning is that the study was on the DOJ website briefly but has now been removed. Jimmy Kimmel was fired by ABC after pressure from the feds. Another Trump critic bites the dust, and the Kirk incident is now being used to increase censorship even more. Hmm.... I wonder if Glenn will critique censorship by the Trump administration as enthusiastically as he did of the left "woke" folks. Or does it only matter if your tribe is censored and it's OK when it's the other guys?
The fact you quickly jump into Charlottesville (2017), shouldn't be overlooked. I typically enjoy both Bob and Glenn, but this is a first term Trump conversation. We're not accounting for National Guard and US military deployments inside the USA, and things like Trump himself and JD Vance himself directly saying that they will now go after the Left and dismantle it.
This conversation was premised on the idea that Charlie Kirk was killed for advancing a racist or far-right agenda. Has the shooter's motivation as a Groyper, one of Nick Fuentes' acolytes, been ruled out already?
I have not seen this discussed much the media, but numerous TikTok videos, presumably by people who know the subculture, make a good case for it. It's all steeped in obscure message board culture and meme sharing, buried beneath layers of irony and in-jokes. If they are right, this whole thing is basically far-right infighting.
I worry that we may be entering a time when niche, chronically-online subcultures will bubble up to the surface—subcultures obscure enough to be miscategorized and misunderstood—and be used to distort the narrative and manipulate the public in any direction.
I was thinking how interesting it would be to hear from Glenn about the Charlie Kirk events, so I was excited when this episode popped up.
Listening to the talk, I, too, felt frustrated with Glenn's take on things. But after letting it sit a bit, I'm landing on this: Glenn has lived his inner journey in the open. He knows he's triggered by racial issues in his own particular ways that reflect where he's been. And he's honest about it. At least you have to hand it to him--he's authentic and seems to be acting in good faith, as far as I can tell. I think he has huge blind spots, but he seems to understand his own biases.
Speaking of Black pilots, once when I (a white guy) was flying in the airlines, I had a Black copilot. We talked about affirmative action. He said he didn't like it because he worried his friends thought he wasn't qualified--that he'd gotten there because of quotas or something. I responded by asking, wouldn't he rather his friends assume he was qualified instead of doubting that?
Oh ok we’re doing the Both Sides “it takes two to tango” thing regarding speech and hate. On the one hand, I get it, the toxic times are what they are and there’s plenty of poison to pick from but really: does it matter that only one side is doing this at the highest levels of govt? Trump, Vance, Bondi, Miller, et al, are talking about using the power of the govt to potentially punish citizens for protected speech. Can Mr. Loury name one elected Democrat who has done this? And if he can, can he name two?
And "we must imagine how this looks to MAGA," but no "how does this look to non-MAGA" or "what's the objective truth." Yeah, people have to be smart about how they come across, but Glenn's analysis was extremely one sided. It can border on speech policing.
Dr Loury ;)
Nice photo of St. Mark's :)
I mean, is substituting "black women" for the actual names of 4 prominent black women really such a grave sin here? Did he literally say those words? No. But it is obviously what he was communicating to his audience, pretty explicitly to be honest, while trying to maintain this exact out. An out I think you're foolishly granting him.
This is how bad faith commentators like Kirk operate ALL THE TIME. They're smart enough to know they shouldn't say something like "black women don't have the brainpower for xyz" so they set up their delivery just carefully enough that they can always defend themselves by throwing up their hands and saying "but I didn't say all black women - I was only talking about these *particular* black women". Meanwhile, a significant portion of his audience is happy to interpret the latter as the former, which is obviously Kirk's goal. Is this really so mysterious? Plenty of other examples of Kirk, and lots of other right wing commentators, behaving this way.
We can reckon meaningfully with how to chart a constructive path forward out of the dysfunctional quagmire we've found ourselves in as a nation without sanitizing the true nature of an agitator like Kirk or the reality about how odious his views and his willingness to openly promulgate them were.
Exactly. Always leave room for plausible deniability.
Oof. Another one here. Loury is pretty incensed about this notion of getting secondhand embarrassment about black people being called out for "underperforming at the highest levels of requirement", immediately on the heels of semi-validating Kirk's derision of Joy Reid. I mean, can Glenn get more specific here? How exactly does Joy Reid fall short as a political pundit on cable news as compared to, say, Jesse Waters? For God's sake, Tucker Carlson has gone on public record admitting his TV career was kicked off based on a lie he told in order to get on to some discussion panel segment. But of course, it's always immediately assumed that these people are where they are on pure merit alone and thus never face any of the same kind of generalized scrutiny.
Kirk mentioned Ketanji Jackson during his screed, alongside Reid. Anyone can go take a look at her Wikipedia page. Pretty distinguished background. Graduated from Harvard Law School. Clerked for a Supreme Court justice. Worked in private practice. Was a federal district judge for a decade. Not a bad resume.
Loury mentioned Michelle Obama's unimpressive thesis, but, don't worry, we can all rest assured that Donald Trump's senior thesis was undoubtedly top notch.
So yeah, all this rhetoric by Kirk and his ilk is the selective application of a double standard that is explicitly used in an effort to validate feelings of racism, latent or otherwise, against black people by (primarily) white people in his audience. It's just that simple. Loury seems to be confusing the act for some kind of sincere exercise in comparative analysis. Very bizarre.
Isn’t the reason the “very good people on both sides” Trump comment is more complicated than the way Bob is remembering it because Trump had to give (I think) 3 speeches and only on the 3rd speech did he condemn the white nationalists? Someone posted a video to the Substack comments another time when Bob brought this up, and the video made it seem pretty clear that the way Bob is remembering the story does not paint the entire picture accurately. I tried finding the video but I was unable to, maybe someone could post it again.
This reddit comment debunks it well
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1g61cwb/comment/lsfwurm
People also forget that both the Friday night torchlight rally (where they chanted “Jews Will Not Replace Us”) and Saturday’s Unite the Right rally were both organized by Jason Kessler, a white nationalist associated closely with Richard Spencer, David Duke, and other openly white nationalist figures. Kessler insisted the Unite the Right rally’s goal was to defend “white heritage”. He promoted the Unite the Right rally as a gathering of white identity movements. So yes there were differences between the Friday night torchlight rally and the Saturday Unite the Right rally where counterprotester Heather Heyer was murdered by white nationalist James Alex Fields Jr, but they were both organized by the same white nationalist for white nationalists. It should have been incredibly simple to condemn them and the event, regardless of your stance on statues.
Thanks Ed, this is useful. Yes, that’s the video I watched. This is a great example of how we remember things in very simple, black and white terms. The truth is always more complicated, and it was never just about what Trump said on August 15, 2017. The controversy was over the statement he made on August 12, and also his disavowal of the prepared statement he read August 14, and then finally the obfuscating statement on August 15 which he made to roll back his August 14 statement.
Also maybe you're thinking of this video?
https://youtu.be/4T45Sbkndjc?si=H_GYqJ07dty0aNrY&t=433
The "which side is worse" debate will always be subjective depending on your tribe. But a recent study by the NIJ shows that the actual hard data demonstrates that "the number of far-right attacks outpaces all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism." (link below). Other studies have come up with similar results. Glenn, aren't you supposedly a data guy? More concerning is that the study was on the DOJ website briefly but has now been removed. Jimmy Kimmel was fired by ABC after pressure from the feds. Another Trump critic bites the dust, and the Kirk incident is now being used to increase censorship even more. Hmm.... I wonder if Glenn will critique censorship by the Trump administration as enthusiastically as he did of the left "woke" folks. Or does it only matter if your tribe is censored and it's OK when it's the other guys?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/17/doj-removes-study-on-far-right-attacks/86206037007/
The fact you quickly jump into Charlottesville (2017), shouldn't be overlooked. I typically enjoy both Bob and Glenn, but this is a first term Trump conversation. We're not accounting for National Guard and US military deployments inside the USA, and things like Trump himself and JD Vance himself directly saying that they will now go after the Left and dismantle it.
This is not a ’both sides’ time period.
This conversation was premised on the idea that Charlie Kirk was killed for advancing a racist or far-right agenda. Has the shooter's motivation as a Groyper, one of Nick Fuentes' acolytes, been ruled out already?
I have not seen this discussed much the media, but numerous TikTok videos, presumably by people who know the subculture, make a good case for it. It's all steeped in obscure message board culture and meme sharing, buried beneath layers of irony and in-jokes. If they are right, this whole thing is basically far-right infighting.
I worry that we may be entering a time when niche, chronically-online subcultures will bubble up to the surface—subcultures obscure enough to be miscategorized and misunderstood—and be used to distort the narrative and manipulate the public in any direction.
I know, TikTok, but where else should we expect discussions of obscure internet subcultures to show up?
Larry Summers is a likely pedophile, Glenn. No need to cite him as a paragon of anything.
Is part II not an overtime? Are they posting a second episode later?
I like Glenn, and I used to listen to him… but it really feels like he’s just “playing the hits” here and not actually engaging Bob’s questions.
I was thinking how interesting it would be to hear from Glenn about the Charlie Kirk events, so I was excited when this episode popped up.
Listening to the talk, I, too, felt frustrated with Glenn's take on things. But after letting it sit a bit, I'm landing on this: Glenn has lived his inner journey in the open. He knows he's triggered by racial issues in his own particular ways that reflect where he's been. And he's honest about it. At least you have to hand it to him--he's authentic and seems to be acting in good faith, as far as I can tell. I think he has huge blind spots, but he seems to understand his own biases.
Speaking of Black pilots, once when I (a white guy) was flying in the airlines, I had a Black copilot. We talked about affirmative action. He said he didn't like it because he worried his friends thought he wasn't qualified--that he'd gotten there because of quotas or something. I responded by asking, wouldn't he rather his friends assume he was qualified instead of doubting that?
Bob has always had a certain sensitivity towards Trump and MAGA. Don't do anything to upset the crazy neighbours. Texas Baptist roots I guess.
He's a consequentialist so he's sensitive to expected consequences, not "Trump and MAGA" per se