Choose Your Own Adventure (Adam Serwer & Dayo Olopade)

[Bloggingheads]

[badhatharry]

Hmmmm two liberals again...fourth time running by my count. Could this be a mid-term election conspiracy? Is Bloggingheads leaning forward?

[bkjazfan]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Hmmmm two liberals again...fourth time running by my count. Could this be a mid-term election conspiracy? Is Bloggingheads leaning forward?

Yes, there seems to be a pattern - boring.

John

[db63]

Two liberals again ... underwhelming--and this is coming from a self-described member of the moderate left. Also, Adam Serwer continues his tradition of spouting out insipid liberal tropes like they're going out of style. Replace him with a journalist who actually knows something, please. Bloggingheads needs more academics (read: specialists) and fewer journalists who, although smart, due to the vagaries of their profession, cannot know enough about something to sustain an interesting conversation.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by db63

Also, Adam Serwer continues his tradition of spouting out insipid liberal tropes like they're going out of style.

sort of, like, what do you mean?

[db63]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

sort of, like, what do you mean?

The entire first section on black conservatism is absurd. Clarence Thomas is not an idiot as these two portray him. They may disagree with his conservatism, but it is a failure of the left to not take him seriously. Also, if you listened to his discussion with Amy Wax a week or so ago, he basically just repeated what people learn in Sociology 101. A view that has been immeasurably complicated in the last five years of scholarship.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by db63

Clarence Thomas is not an idiot as these two portray him. They may disagree with his conservatism, but it is a failure of the left to not take him seriously.

The mental prowess of Mr. Justice Thomas to the side, it is a failure to make an argument in which "the left" is asserted to hold a view, on any topic, unanimously.

[db63]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

The mental prowess of Mr. Justice Thomas to the side, it is a failure to make an argument in which "the left" is asserted to hold a view, on any topic, unanimously.

If the left can be said to have any opinions on legal matters relating to the supreme court, the belief that Clarence Thomas isn't that bright must be one on them. But yes, of course, no group can ever be said to ascribe to any idea unanimously. Also, I'd like to reiterate, I myself am a leftist. I'm just anti lazy-leftism of the traditional type that permeates much of academia and, from my admittedly limited knowledge, the liberal blogosphere.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by db63

If the left can be said to have any opinions on legal matters relating to the supreme court, the belief that Clarence Thomas isn't that bright must be one on them.

What is "the left" as you are using it? As a lawyer, I think the view of Thomas is a lot more complex, and his "brightness" really hasn't been the focus of the discussion for a long time. Not among people really discussing the SC seriously. Not because there's some consensus about it, but because it's not really the issue. What people like or don't like about his opinions or his demeanor on the bench (the I don't ask questions thing) isn't about that.

I'm just anti lazy-leftism of the traditional type that permeates much of academia and, from my admittedly limited knowledge, the liberal blogosphere.

From my brief observations here, you are making assumptions about what people think and stereotyping in a way that is inconsistent with how liberals (and the left, though admittedly I don't run into the real left all that much on a regular basis) actually think.

This also seems a kind of weird diavlog to make your stand against leftwing orthodoxy.

[db63]

Originally Posted by stephanie

What is "the left" as you are using it? As a lawyer, I think the view of Thomas is a lot more complex, and his "brightness" really hasn't been the focus of the discussion for a long time. Not among people really discussing the SC seriously. Not because there's some consensus about it, but because it's not really the issue. What people like or don't like about his opinions or his demeanor on the bench (the I don't ask questions thing) isn't about that.



From my brief observations here, you are making assumptions about what people think and stereotyping in a way that is inconsistent with how liberals (and the left, though admittedly I don't run into the real left all that much on a regular basis) actually think.

This also seems a kind of weird diavlog to make your stand against leftwing orthodoxy.

I would imagine lawyer's discussion of the SC would be more nuanced than non-lawyers. I wasn't referring to lawyer's views of Thomas, but rather the left-wing caricature of his positions. What assumptions and stereotypes am I making? I've been in the academy for over a decade, which I think is fair to say is one of the last bastions of the "real left" that you mention. Just a quick side note: pretty much anything anyone says about any group (African-Americans, whites, the left, right, etc.) can be deconstructed. But this is silly, as we use and think in these constructs so they do have meaning on both a surface and deeper level. Regarding whether or not this is a weird dialogue to stake a stand against left-wing orthodoxy: I came to this position in response to others' accusations about my motives. See above.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by db63

I wasn't referring to lawyer's views of Thomas, but rather the left-wing caricature of his positions.

I don't think you can separate them (assuming you are talking about the usual liberal discussion of Thomas' opinions). I also think the "Thomas is dumb" thing hasn't been the primary criticism by the non-lawyer liberals I read for ages.

I've been in the academy for over a decade, which I think is fair to say is one of the last bastions of the "real left" that you mention.

I don't think I mentioned the "real left." I asked what you meant by "the left," because -- for example -- I don't see what it has to do with the diavlog we are currently talking about or what liberal non-lawyers may have said about Thomas in the '90s or the like. The real leftwing critique of Thomas has nothing to do with brightness. And I say this as someone who's not remotely "left" on legal issues.

I'm also not buying the "the academy is the bastion of the left" thing. Depends on what area therein. I have friends who teach at colleges that aren't what I'd call leftwing -- either due to their area, the school, or the field. In fact, based on the two schools I graduated from (one traditionally reputed to be on the left, one that happens to be a northeast liberal arts school, so often gets that rep) and another I've taken classes at (in a school that has a conservative rep, admittedly), I think that's way overstated or at least overgeneralized.

Just a quick side note: pretty much anything anyone says about any group (African-Americans, whites, the left, right, etc.) can be deconstructed.

To what are you responding with this comment?

Regarding whether or not this is a weird dialogue to stake a stand against left-wing orthodoxy: I came to this position in response to others' accusations about my motives. See above.

I see you raising the "two liberals" thing in the second post.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I don't think you can separate them (assuming you are talking about the usual liberal discussion of Thomas' opinions). I also think the "Thomas is dumb" thing hasn't been the primary criticism by the non-lawyer liberals I read for ages.

As a follow-up to this, I lost sight of why we were even discussing it, which is the assertion that the diavloggers called Thomas an idiot. However, they didn't -- they were critical of him (although Adam only in nuanced way), but didn't at all suggest that.

So again, there seems to be a disconnect between the complaints and the diavlog.

[cragger]

Originally Posted by stephanie

So again, there seems to be a disconnect between the complaints and the diavlog.

Isn't that unfortunately standard for the BH commentariat?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by cragger

Isn't that unfortunately standard for the BH commentariat?

Is that fair as a general characterization? (I assume you're not complaining about straying from the topic, but about misrepresentations or misunderstandings regarding what the diavloggers said or meant.)

[cragger]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Is that fair as a general characterization? (I assume you're not complaining about straying from the topic, but about misrepresentations or misunderstandings regarding what the diavloggers said or meant.)

Fair enough for a one sentence post I suppose. While I do find that people often misrepresent what the diavloggers say much as they often misrepresent other commenters' positions since it is easier and apparantly more fun to attack straw men, I was really referring more to what you were assuming I wasn't.

There have been quite a few diavlog threads in which a considerable majority of the comments have been repeating partisan squbbles largely unrelated to the subject of the diavlog. Enough so that at times I have wondered both whether the hosts have considered removing the forums as something that doesn't add a lot of value to the site, or have considered separating them into a second site on which people could conduct partisan warfare without the bother of watching the diavlogs. I suspect at least a few do so now.

[bjkeefe]

What Stephanie said. I'd just add that I am glad you at least put it this way (emph. added):

Originally Posted by db63

... from my admittedly limited knowledge, the liberal blogosphere.

While it is fair to say there are some intellectually lazy liberals, and some commonly-shared beliefs on general issues, in the blogosphere as anywhere else, I'd recommend you resist the urge to generalize beyond that.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by db63

The entire first section on black conservatism is absurd. Clarence Thomas is not an idiot as these two portray him. They may disagree with his conservatism, but it is a failure of the left to not take him seriously. Also, if you listened to his discussion with Amy Wax a week or so ago, he basically just repeated what people learn in Sociology 101. A view that has been immeasurably complicated in the last five years of scholarship.

yeah I should have put smileys on my comment. I was refering to the over use of sort of and like as default adverbs. I was like trying to unpack my feelings. Clarence Thomas sort of makes me want to vomit. Stuff like that.... I also notice that a majority of the sentences of great import end in a verbal question mark.

And no I didn't hear the Amy Wax diavlog but caught the Glenn Loury one?

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by db63

Two liberals again ... underwhelming--and this is coming from a self-described member of the moderate left. Also, Adam Serwer continues his tradition of spouting out insipid liberal tropes like they're going out of style. Replace him with a journalist who actually knows something, please. Bloggingheads needs more academics (read: specialists) and fewer journalists who, although smart, due to the vagaries of their profession, cannot know enough about something to sustain an interesting conversation.

yep. abominable. i'll be stopping at seventeen minutes - can't bear anymore.

the assumption of the first section of this diavlog is that any black conservative is a dishonest sellout until proven otherwise. hence the condi kremlinology. talk about guilty until proven innocent!

i can't imagine a more disgustingly illiberal, intolerant, and frankly nauseating sentiment. and this from 'liberals.'

[db63]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

yep. abominable. i'll be stopping at seventeen minutes - can't bear anymore.

the assumption of the first section of this diavlog is that any black conservative is a dishonest sellout until proven otherwise. hence the condi kremlinology. talk about guilty until proven innocent!

i can't imagine a more disgustingly illiberal, intolerant, and frankly nauseating sentiment. and this from 'liberals.'

Well, they aren't real liberals. They are just kids who graduated with BAs and are now journalists. This is perhaps the most annoying thing about Bloggingheads--the over reliance on bloggers and journalists. It would be great if they could get journalists like Sebastian Junger who are intelligent, articulate, and experienced. Instead we get mid-20s kids who really don't have much interesting to say.

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by db63

Well, they aren't real liberals. They are just kids who graduated with BAs and are now journalists. This is perhaps the most annoying thing about Bloggingheads--the over reliance on bloggers and journalists. It would be great if they could get journalists like Sebastian Junger who are intelligent, articulate, and experienced. Instead we get mid-20s kids who really don't have much interesting to say.

hey! olopade went to israel once! for five days! on a junket! i mean, she had some meetings! clearly, she's an expert!

[db63]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

hey! olopade went to israel once! for five days! on a junket! i mean, she had some meetings! clearly, she's an expert!

Haha, I know. It sounded like she was describing a study abroad semester.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by db63

This is perhaps the most annoying thing about Bloggingheads--the over reliance on bloggers ...

Sometimes there are no words.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Sometimes there are no words.

ROFL.

[db63]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Sometimes there are no words.

"BloggingHeads" puts the emphasis on "heads that are blogging," not on "bloggers discussing things." These heads do not necessarily have to bloggers.

Indeed, "sometimes there are no words."

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by db63

"BloggingHeads" puts the emphasis on "heads that are blogging," not on "bloggers discussing things." These heads do not necessarily have to bloggers.

Indeed, "sometimes there are no words."

that's how i've always read the name, too.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Sometimes there are no words.

Heh. I was going to comment (agreeing with TwinSwords) on this whole thing, but really that says it all.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

yep. abominable. i'll be stopping at seventeen minutes - can't bear anymore.

the assumption of the first section of this diavlog is that any black conservative is a dishonest sellout until proven otherwise. hence the condi kremlinology. talk about guilty until proven innocent!

i can't imagine a more disgustingly illiberal, intolerant, and frankly nauseating sentiment. and this from 'liberals.'

I'm sorry you felt that way. And I'm sorry you did not hear what I heard, which is that both Adam and Dayo acknowledged that the kneejerk "sellout" accusation is a problem, that they have gone through some growth and learning on this, that they do not equate all black conservatives (e.g., they don't see Condi Rice in the same way as they do Clarence Thomas), and they especially deplore excessive and simplistic characterizations of this nature (as with DougJ calling Juan Williams [overstrike orig.] "the official Fox News <strike>lawn jockey</strike> stooge," for example).

I have long thought that it has to be on the mind of some would-be pundits who are black about how much easier it might be to climb the ladder telling white conservative audiences things they like to hear. I am not saying that there is no such thing as someone who is sincerely conservative who happens to have dark skin, not by any means. But the phenomenon is not non-existent -- it cannot be, since nothing I have ever dreamed up about how to gain an edge has been anywhere near unique --and I am glad Adam and Dayo spoke frankly about it.

[bkjazfan]

It seems that Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas are true, diehard conservatives. I can't envisage either of them seeing the light and going left like David Brock, Arianna Huffington, Glenn Loury, and Diane Ravitch (admittedly her conversion was a surprise).

John

[ledocs]

Ravitch is a life-long Democrat. What was surprising, and what remains surprising, is that she was in a Republican administration and that she is now as vehement in her opposition to the "educational reform" movement as she is.

[Bopcity]

Our depressed job market holds few brights prospects for gainful employment, but a gig as a black tea party spokesperson is surely one of the brightest. I know some unemployed black guys, trained in varied social sciences, who get together and openly speculate about an ideological conversion for utilitarian (pay check) purposes. Incidentally, did I hear Adam Serwer say he once consulted Charles Krauthammer for his cues on Mideast policies? Where were his parents?!

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by db63

... underwhelming ... Also, Adam Serwer ... Replace him with a journalist who actually knows something, please.

You're entitled to your assessment of the man, and I'm not going to try to argue you out of it, but just for the record, I want to say that I think Adam Serwer is one of the most incisive bloggers I know. I read him regularly, and quote or otherwise refer to him quite often. I am delighted to see that he has gotten some slots on Bhtv and I hope he gets a lot more.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

You're entitled to your assessment of the man, and I'm not going to try to argue you out of it, but just for the record, I want to say that I think Adam Serwer is one of the most incisive bloggers I know. I read him regularly, and quote or otherwise refer to him quite often. I am delighted to see that he has gotten some slots on Bhtv and I hope he gets a lot more.

And I would like to second all of that.

And I'm happy Dayo also appears here.

For that matter, I was happy when Nikkibong did a diavlog.

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

And I would like to second all of that.

And I'm happy Dayo also appears here.

For that matter, I was happy when Nikkibong did a diavlog.

thanks.

this is an argument that has been hashed over time and again. i was even smacked down on this point by Bob The Great himself when i complained about yglesias DVing about china. clearly, BHTV does not think this is a problem - i, and evidently, db, do.

i just find it strange that you take a strong stand AGAINST expertise in this context.

[db63]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

thanks.

this is an argument that has been hashed over time and again. i was even smacked down on this point by Bob The Great himself when i complained about yglesias DVing about china. clearly, BHTV does not think this is a problem - i, and evidently, db, do.

i just find it strange that you take a strong stand AGAINST expertise in this context.

Second!

I think the main reason is that journalists started the website, so journalists don't think it is a problem listening to other journalists. Meanwhile, people who consider themselves "experts" (generally, but not always, those with a PhD) would prefer to listen to other experts because they themselves are familiar with the nuances that one must know before discussing any topic at length, let alone one as complex as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I feel like I have to quote Max Weber, from his essay "Politics as Calling," on the subject. As Weber says, it is very difficult for journalists “to deliver prompt and yet convincing judgments on anything and everything that the ‘market’ happens to call for, on every conceivable problem of life, without succumbing to absolute superficiality[.] … Not everyone realizes that to write a really good piece of journalism is at least as demanding intellectually as the achievement of any scholar.”

I do believe this to be the case. We should therefore praise "really good" (in Weber's terms) journalism, while at the same time calling out material we find superficial.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by db63

Second!

I think the main reason is that journalists started the website, so journalists don't think it is a problem listening to other journalists. Meanwhile, people who consider themselves "experts" (generally, but not always, those with a PhD) would prefer to listen to other experts because they themselves are familiar with the nuances that one must know before discussing any topic at length, let alone one as complex as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

I feel like I have to quote Max Weber, from his essay "Politics as Calling," on the subject. As Weber says, it is very difficult for journalists “to deliver prompt and yet convincing judgments on anything and everything that the ‘market’ happens to call for, on every conceivable problem of life, without succumbing to absolute superficiality[.] … Not everyone realizes that to write a really good piece of journalism is at least as demanding intellectually as the achievement of any scholar.”

I do believe this to be the case. We should therefore praise "really good" (in Weber's terms) journalism, while at the same time calling out material we find superficial.

Absolutely true, but bloggingheads is a very different medium from traditional journalism. A dialogue is by nature more loosely structured and inconclusive than an in-depth article on some subject. Besides, have you ever read a German newspaper, such as Die Frankfürter Allgemeine Zeitung? A PH.D. in philosophy may be necessary....

While I sympathize with your point of view, and agree that the opinions of non-experts on issues like Israel and Palestine are no more interesting than my own opinions, I think there may be a simple explanation for the absence of experts: money.

[db63]

Originally Posted by Florian

Absolutely true, but bloggingheads is a very different medium from traditional journalism. A dialogue is by nature more loosely structured and inconclusive than an in-depth article on some subject. Besides, have you ever read a German newspaper, such as Die Frankfürter Allgemeine Zeitung? A PH.D. in philosophy may be necessary....

While I sympathize with your point of view, and agree that the opinions of non-experts on issues like Israel and Palestine are no more interesting than my own opinions, I think there may be a simple explanation for the absence of experts: money.

I do read the German language press; I wouldn't say a PhD in philosophy is necessary, but I would say that a degree at a German university is necessary. Now, there are serious problems with the German educational system--for one, it is so class based that it basically reforms class structures to a ridiculous degree--but, for the bourgeoisie who are able to attend college, they get a much better education than we do in America. I'm not sure the issue is money; I know myself and other academics who would be willing to blog on this site. I think the issue is more networks: a site created by journalists is going to have more journalists, because this is who the site's creators and administrators know. So, when they want a "young up and comer," they ask a journalist friend, and, boom, bloggingheads is populated by journalists. I just find the vlogs of academics like Steph Walt, John McWhorter, Glenn Loury, Amy Wax, etc., to be of so much more interest than non-specialists. But this is, of course, my own bias. I guess some could prefer hearing two smart people talking about something of which they are aware--it is just not my preference.

[bkjazfan]

Sometimes smart people don't know what they are talking about. Recently, Timothy Noah was on BHTV talking his series on downward mobility. Mickey got into with him on the nature of factory work and it was obvious that Noah had never stepped inside a factory and his knowledge of them was limited to say the least. What I like to see is someone who is intelligent but well rounded in life outside of academia.

John

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Sometimes smart people don't know what they are talking about. Recently, Timothy Noah was on BHTV talking his series on downward mobility. Mickey got into with him on the nature of factory work and it was obvious that Noah had never stepped inside a factory and his knowledge of them was limited to say the least. What I like to see is someone who is intelligent but well rounded in life outside of academia.

John

Actually, I thought Noah came off much better in that exchange, and it was Mickey who was exposed for being ignorant of how factories and factory jobs work. I say this as a former resident of Dearborn, Michigan, which was home to the world's largest assembly line and thousands of UAW jobs. I'd have to go back to the diavlog to refresh my memory about the glaringly wrong things that Mickey said, and which Tim corrected him on, but suffice it to say Tim demonstrated greater awareness of the realities of the factory floor than Mickey did.

Mickey has an anti-union ax to grind and he's not going to let facts get in the way of his narrative.

[bkjazfan]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Actually, I thought Noah came off much better in that exchange, and it was Mickey who was exposed for being ignorant of how factories and factory jobs work. I say this as a former resident of Dearborn, Michigan, which was home to the world's largest assembly line and thousands of UAW jobs. I'd have to go back to the diavlog to refresh my memory about the glaringly wrong things that Mickey said, and which Tim corrected him on, but suffice it to say Tim demonstrated greater awareness of the realities of the factory floor than Mickey did.

Mickey has an anti-union ax to grind and he's not going to let facts get in the way of his narrative.

I know Mickey's stance on unions. His recent run here for the Senate had his dislike of teachers unions as part of his platform. I did enjoy the Kaus interview with Noah. The hollowing of the middle class (currently in the low 20 percentile in Los Angeles) is a subject I have followed for quite some time. One that no administration (other than lip service) has been able to get a handle on. I agree to disagree with you on their discussion concerning factory work. Afterall, the world would be boring if we all agreed with one another.

Enough said.

John

[db63]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Sometimes smart people don't know what they are talking about. Recently, Timothy Noah was on BHTV talking his series on downward mobility. Mickey got into with him on the nature of factory work and it was obvious that Noah had never stepped inside a factory and his knowledge of them was limited to say the least. What I like to see is someone who is intelligent but well rounded in life outside of academia.

John

This was my exact point I made when talking about Weber, see above.