9 Comments

Worth saying that Johann Hari's book has been thoroughly debunked by Matthew Sweet: https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1479125910896975877?s=20

Expand full comment

I wanted to watch What Killed Michael Brown. It is not banned on Amazon. It’s available and can be rented for 4.99. You may want to correct the newsletter.

Expand full comment

Although it was initially banned by Amazon, the ban was later reversed.

Expand full comment

Good to know they came to their senses!

Expand full comment

I’m very disappointed in the lack of action by FAIR to state, in no uncertain terms, that the ideology espoused by Amy Wax on Glenn Loury’s Substack recently is a clear example of the intolerance and racism this organization was created to oppose. This does not mean she needs to be “cancelled,” or that Glenn is not allowed to platform her. But if FAIR doesn’t stand against such blatant racism, what is the point?

Expand full comment

FAIR does stand against blatant racism and intolerance, however, for FAIR to explicitly state that the ideology espoused by Amy Wax is an example of the intolerance and racism FAIR is against to show their opposition is nearly antithetical to the approach FAIR takes to oppose such ideas. "We are pro-human, and promote compassionate opposition to intolerance and racism rooted in dignity and our common humanity."

Expand full comment

Mike- I do not follow. Are you saying that for FAIR to say, “this is an example of the intolerance and racism we compassionately oppose” is antithetical to their stated mission? I am not saying Amy Wax needs to be demonized, but if what she said isn’t an example of intolerant racism, I don’t know what is.

Expand full comment

Yeah, my reply wasn't all that coherent, I was struggling thinking of the right words to make my point. Otherwise, I agree that overall what she said is an example of what most people likely think intolerance and racism is. I think for FAIR the compassion Is more about how to converse with a person who we perceive/know is intolerant/racist without the conversation breaking down into anger or rage. I think the longer we can hold a conversation with such a person, the better our chances of helping them break through their prejudice.

Expand full comment

Fair point. Also, I initially read the transcript of her discussion with Glenn- I have been watching the video and can see Glenn in his own way *very gently* pushing back on some of the more outrageous statements. It was really her follow up email exchange with George Lee that really crossed the line for me ("We can speculate (and, yes, generalize) about Asians’ desire to please the elite, single-minded focus on self-advancement, conformity and obsequiousness, lack of deep post-Enlightenment conviction, timidity toward centralized authority (however unreasoned), indifference to liberty, lack of thoughtful and audacious individualism, and excessive tolerance for bossy, mindless social engineering, etc." ... "I think the United States is better off with fewer Asians and less Asian immigration.") Given how often FAIR highlights Glenn's Substack (many of whose posts I find very insightful!), and given FAIR's mission, this seems like a good opportunity to show how to compassionately oppose racism and intolerance, and put a stake in the ground for what this group considers racism to be (It seems to fit their definition of "neo-racist": https://www.fairforall.org/resources/glossary-of-terms/). FAIR speaks very forcefully against public figures and institutions all the time for actions it considers to be racist (or, more often, "neo-racist"); a public identification of unacceptable or disappointing behavior would not be outside of its mission. I agree with you that it can and should be done in a open-minded, tolerant way, just as I hope FAIR can do for all concerns it raises regarding public figures.

Expand full comment
Error