Andrey (azangru) wrote,

John McWhorter's article in response to Murray's latest book (I only listened to the first chapter of the book; but then it became too reliant on charts and tables and became impossible to listen).

McWhorter: Yet it’s reasonable to ask of Murray: Why are you airing this information? To what end? And it’s here that I find Facing Reality weak.

Is it though? Is it reasonable to ask this of Murray? He is saying things that are tabooed in the society. He is seeing that the taboo is getting stronger and that his previous attempts to address it have been met with hostile rejection; so he is hoping (as I believe he mentions in the introduction) to phrase this attempt in such a language as to make it the least offensive to the liberals (somehow he pictures them among his target audience) and generally as objective as he can make it. At least as he sees things. Judging by his age, he may not have many more opportunities to get his point across. He may, of course, be completely wrong.

McWhorter: We read the first six chapters and internally ask, “Okay. Let’s say these things are true. What now?”

Oh, I don't know. Does there have to be a what now? Do you ask yourself what now after you have read how humans have evolved from ape ancestors? Or how brain's function declines with age? Or about heat death of the universe? What now? Go on with your life. Make a mental note of his factual argument or find a better one if you are unsatisfied with or disturbed by his. I mean, what did you expect when you opened a book by Murray?

  • (no subject)

    A beautiful cartoon on the front page of The Week:

  • (no subject)

    This is just as bad as a brief exchange with a belligerent guest on a regular news show: Six minutes! Six minutes, during which Rand Paul is…

  • (no subject)

    The war on repetitions:

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.