MG is a cynical opportunist who deserves scorn and should be held accountable for the way he carried water for big tobacco. He also defended broken-windows policing and ridiculed criticism of his work until well into the second Obama term. His ideas have hurt people.
Could you give us the cliffs note version of the big tobacco and policing thing please? I'm a fan but I'm definitely open to changing my tune with more information.
Last week, I got an email from Malcolm Gladwell. He told me he read the S.H.A.M.E. report I wrote about him a few weeks ago, and asked if I had time to answer a few of his questions . . .
Weird choice to white knight for Malcolm Gladwell lol. I like his podcast but I don’t feel the need to defend him. He’s done some tacky stuff too, like having his name next to JK Rowling on the Harper letter. I’m sure history will think that was reeeeeally smart
Pretty sure history will think that was 'reeeeeally smart'. Whether or not forcing LBGTQ+ propaganda and rights down the throats of everybody and cancelling any doubters is a morally good thing or not, no such society can survive in the long run. It's really a question of whether social historians in the likes of China or Iran in a couple of centuries will even care about that letter.
"Don't force this 'women voting' thing down my throat"
The author nails Gladwell for his clear deficits, but is himself prone to some of the same tendencies, but without any sociological fig leaves as 'evidence.' In Ferguson's book, Crazy U, he writes, "I hate to generalize (actually, I love to generalize)" and proceeds to do so for entertainment and education, like Gladwell. Gladwell's generalizations are probably wrong but they provide food for thought, thought that pretty much eviscerates his claims, but nonetheless this is what has to pass for (public) intellectual fodder in today's America.
The author nails Gladwell for his clear deficits, but is himself prone to some of the same tendencies, but without any sociological fig leaves as 'evidence.' In Ferguson's book, Crazy U, he writes, "I hate to generalize (actually, I love to generalize)" and proceeds to do so for entertainment and education, like Gladwell. Gladwell's generalizations are probably wrong but they provide food for thought, thought that pretty much eviscerates his claims, but nonetheless this is what has to pass for (public) intellectual fodder in today's America.
To you and BhaktaDon:
It’s not so much that he engages in artifice and sophistry in the name of provocation. It’s that he shamelessly filters through research selecting only the things that might support his arguments. With the imprimatur of the Post and the New Yorker, you can do a lot of mischief. He’s actually one of the reasons that I stopped subscribing to the New Yorker.
He’s had PLENTY of opportunities to walk back from broken windows, but he hasn’t. He could have explained his tobacco writing more or even excused it as the excess of youth. He can’t though, because there’s nothing to replace his discredited ‘ideas’ with. There’s no insight and his writing is nothing but a vapid exercise in vanity.
In short, to me MG represents much of what ails American culture these days. It’s a if a racewalker started prancing around saying he could hold his own in diamond league 5000m events. Oh, and that anyone could do it so long as they ran x number of miles.
I read the criticism of his tobacco writing, and it's clear he wasn't choosy about his sources, though he's right that reporting that tobacco allegedly leads to lower long-term health costs because it kills quickly doesn't exactly support the tobacco industry, but I agree that he never should have spoken to tobacco industry shills or taken their money, nor those killing public health insurance bills, as they did a great deal of harm. You wonder why we have lower longevity than other nations. That's one of the big reasons, the lack of national health care insurance.
And there's this, that study seems to have been roundly disproved.
"The High Cost of Tobacco Use For every American who dies because of smoking, at least 30 are living with a serious smoking-related illness. That’s over 16 million Americans.5,12 Smoking-related economic costs in the United States are more than $300 billion(b) each year. This includes more than $225 billion(c) in direct medical costs.12 Smoking-attributable costs associated with premature death are more than $156 billion(d) each year and include $5.6 billion in lost productivity due to secondhand smoke exposure.5 Indoor smoking is associated with $117(e) in additional health care expenditures for respiratory conditions for each exposed child from birth to 4 years.13 Globally, tobacco use leads to about $1.4 trillion a year in health care costs and lost productivity.14"
CDC is at the forefront of the nation’s efforts to reduce diseases and deaths that result from tobacco use, which can help reduce smoking-attributable costs.
I read the criticism of his tobacco writing, and it's clear he wasn't choosy about his sources, though he's right that reporting that tobacco allegedly leads to lower long-term health costs because it kills quickly doesn't exactly support the tobacco industry, but I agree that he never should have spoken to tobacco industry shills or taken their money, nor those killing public health insurance bills, as they did a great deal of harm. You wonder why we have lower longevity than other nations. That's one of the big reasons, the lack of national health care insurance.
M G has some cookie contrarian views. He has suggested that PEDs should be allowed in sport to balance the unfairness of talent.
Or kooky? The irony of Coevett labeling Malcolm as having kooky ideas is rich indeed. I will say that it does appear as if the Caucasian runners can even the playing field a bit with the African runners by using PEDs. From what I see it is starting to work, much to the pleasure of Coevett. How is that kooky?
Pretty sure history will think that was 'reeeeeally smart'. Whether or not forcing LBGTQ+ propaganda and rights down the throats of everybody and cancelling any doubters is a morally good thing or not, no such society can survive in the long run. It's really a question of whether social historians in the likes of China or Iran in a couple of centuries will even care about that letter.
"Don't force this 'women voting' thing down my throat"
-some guy in the 1910s
Not saying I think women should never have been given the vote, but it's likely 'women voting' does ultimately lead to the death of your culture.
Or kooky? The irony of Coevett labeling Malcolm as having kooky ideas is rich indeed. I will say that it does appear as if the Caucasian runners can even the playing field a bit with the African runners by using PEDs. From what I see it is starting to work, much to the pleasure of Coevett. How is that kooky?
Hahaha, I think you've got it the other way around, as you well know.
