Charles I think your essay provides a useful assessment on whether Candice Owens is truly anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, while suspect she may well be, your essay by juxtaposing her conflict with Ben Shapiro and comments from some of her followers,frankly is not enough to prove the case.
I also was a bit disappointed that you assumed that raising questions about your own group, i.e., in her case blacks andl women, somehow can be used as evident her.supposed bigotry-- using this framing would lead to concluding that a number of talented public intellectuals --such, as Glenn Loury, john McWhorter, Thomad Soule, and Coleman Hughes --are suspect because they have voiced critiques concerning blacks. Indeed,you come close to saying that critiques of certain groups are almost certainly racist, or xenophobic and therefore suspect. Putting Candace aside, i'm sure you dont mean to imply that voicing policy differences with lthe iberal narrative about issues such as race, culture, immigration and other issues makes you a bigot. The issue with Candace Owens is that she is basically an intellectual lightweight. You are correct in identifying her as a diversity hire.
Conservatives in their rush to build a broader constituency for their ideas and policy positions have often looked to find allies among blacks and other minorities. I find nothing wrong with this per see--indeed I would count myself as black conservative classical liberal. Unfortunately, in this effort to broaden their reach conservatives have often been taken in by charlatants and grifters. Candace Owens is such a grifter. With little to contribute intellectually, she is similar to the empty suits on the left, Brianna Joy Grey is one such example. I don't know Owens is anti semite , I do know that this conflict has further elevated her brand and her status. Given that she has little intellectually to contribute to public discourse on the major concerns of the day these types of controversies is how she remains relevant.
John, your comments make sense, so let me explain my position better.
As my article concludes, I didn’t say she’s antisemitic outright, but she certainly straddles that line. I try to be very careful about making such accusations. Candace has plausible deniability, but she does come off as anti-Semitic.
As to whether she’s bigoted against her own group, she certainly is, and it’s not because she calls out certain things about the black community in America; many other black people like the ones you mentioned do that, and I would never accuse the likes of Glenn Loury of being bigoted against their own group.
However, Candace has given more than enough reason to think that she is. It is perfectly possible to be bigoted against one’s group. For example, when Candace says Black people are in the Democratic plantation and refuse to leave, that’s kinda racist because it assumes that Black people are either slaves who like being slaves or they lack the capacity mental or otherwise to break away from being slaves. Whether you like Black voting pattern or not, Black people have a right to vote however they want. Perhaps the question should be, Why is the Republican Party so repulsive to Blacks that they would commit for decades upon decades to a single party even with the understanding that it was the Republican Party that freed slaves and the earliest Black politicians were Republican.
Candace, in all her critiques of groups in America, has never once, to my knowledge, criticized white people but always comes to their defense. Not that I want her to do so for no reason, but her constant attack on almost every group in America, save white people, is telling.
As per your question, on whether voicing policies about race, immigration, etc makes one a bigot. The answer would be, it depends on the context and what is being said. Using Ann Coulter as an example, you can tell her she is clearly bigoted based on race, ethnicity, and religion. She said so herself to Vivek. I can understand her being critical of policies, but she agreed with Vivek on policy but still said she won’t vote for him. She clearly also prefers immigrant of a certain racial and ethnic makeup
There is a lot I don’t like about liberal policies like open borders or the madness around gender and the trans issue, but bigoted people can easily sneak in their bigotry under the guise of legitimate criticism. For example, on the feud between Candace and Ben, I mostly agree with Candace, but I assess her holistically, and I came to the conclusion that her attack isn’t just about Ben, it’s probably something deeper and more sinister.
Charles thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that some people who say bigoted things are actually bigots—the Ann Coulter example is a good one. However, at the same time I’m careful not to dismiss observations that might be true simply because the communicator might be a bigot. My standard is to judge the truth of their position. For example, there is plenty of evidence that group differences do exist and that many may have nothing to do with public policy or context. However, people who have pointed this out like Charles Murray are dismissed out of hand as bigots. As such, the public and policy makers avoid wrestling with a challenging situation, if uncomfortable fact. I would also not judge observations and opinions people express based on who they did not criticize. The fact that Candace generally does not criticize whites tells me nothing about the truth of her opinions. For example, it is a fact that blacks have disproportionately voted for Democrats despite questions about whether this support has led to material advances for blacks. I think the reason why is that Republicans have championed individual rights and advancement while Democrats have promised distribution of social benefits based on group identity and commitment to vote for them. So Candace’s rhetoric is certainly flamboyant but not wrong. Whether she presents a compelling reason for the black masses to rethink their political support is a different matter. My observation is that she has not. Instead she makes the critique but provides no alternative view. On her conflict with Ben Shapiro, I tend to find Ben’s position more compelling. Given all the evidence, critiques of Israel seem to increasingly be a stand in for Jew hatred. Again I don’t know if Owens is a Jew hater but she certainly has started to embrace the current—woke—use of anti Israel rhetoric as a stand in for anti Jewish sentiments. However, my problem with Owens is that she provides no intellectual heft to public debate. One final point, many have cried that Ben and the daily wire are hypocrites for shutting down speech they disagree with just like those on the left they disagree with. This is an interesting point but as an employer I do not have to hire employees who take public stances that are inconsistent with my company mission.
Let me respond to your last point first. Does the daily wire have a company mission that says you cannot be critical of Israel or Jews? How is Candace's critique of either against the daily wire's stated mission? It is not. You can say a company has the right to fire for whatever reason, but when you posture as a "free speech" anticancel culture organisation, you can see how much of a bad look it is for them.
Charles Murrays observations as a matter of neutral scientific inquiry are on point. However, I became suspect of him when he stated his motivations for such inquiry, which as he states is to combat the narrative that systemic racism is what's holding Black people down. While I have issues with the systemic racism angle, Charles's proposal is just as bad, which is to say, Black people are being held back not because of systemic racism, but because of their IQ i.e "they are just not smart enough"
As for Candace. I agree with almost all her points in isolation, but when you put them together, they tell a very sinister picture. I'm not interested in her critiquing white people, it just happened to be an observation that she doesn't
Finally, you are right, Candace offers nothing of intellectual value, she like I've always described her was Ben Shapiro's attack dog, that needed to be put down because it turned it's teeth on its owner
Charles again thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply. On whether Ben and the Daily Wire are hypocrites for shutting speech they don’t like such as criticism of Israel, given their strongly stated and held positions championing free speech it is a valid critique. However, Candace was given quite a bit of space to provide her criticism of Israel. In fact as I recall there was considerable internal dialogue point out why her criticisms were mistaken. I think the problem went from criticizing Israel (presumably Israeli policies) to what by any standard was clearly anti Jewish statements—including channeling her friend Kanye, clearly an anti semitic bigot. As her anti semitic statements escalated I think that was the point of no return. As a black man if I have a company if a white employee continuously expresses racist opinions about blacks—not so much an honest disagreement on how to interpret say group differences, but gratuitous racist times—at some point you have to ask if they’ve crossed a line. In our communication you have referred to Owens as Ben attack dog—why? I can’t understand your assessment. Having watched Shapiro over the years that he needs an intermediary to express his views. Indeed, I’ve seen no indication that Ben has ever used Owens as an attack dog. Because she has no substantive intellectual contribution to make being an attack dog is her brand. Ben agree or disagree with his position brings substantial intellectual firepower to any conversation. As to Murray, think raising the issue of whether group disparities should to systemic racism or some other cause is far from being suspect—indeed this is one of the key questions of our time. I find Murray to be a sold and honest researcher. I may not agree with all his analysis and his subsequent conclusions but I don’t question his motivations as a scholar.
Thanks, John; its been an interesting conversation with you. I would love to do an interview with you one of these days. Let me know if it's something you’re open to, and then we can fix a time and date.
Thank you Charles! It has been an interesting conversation. I would certainly be open to further conversations.
Charles, it would be very interesting if you wrote an essay on Justice Clarence Thomas. Is he a menace to civil rights? 🤔
I would think about that.
The Daily Wire hired a shit slinger. Then when some of this landed on the people who sign her check, they opted to cut her loose.
That's exactly what happened
Charles I think your essay provides a useful assessment on whether Candice Owens is truly anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, while suspect she may well be, your essay by juxtaposing her conflict with Ben Shapiro and comments from some of her followers,frankly is not enough to prove the case.
I also was a bit disappointed that you assumed that raising questions about your own group, i.e., in her case blacks andl women, somehow can be used as evident her.supposed bigotry-- using this framing would lead to concluding that a number of talented public intellectuals --such, as Glenn Loury, john McWhorter, Thomad Soule, and Coleman Hughes --are suspect because they have voiced critiques concerning blacks. Indeed,you come close to saying that critiques of certain groups are almost certainly racist, or xenophobic and therefore suspect. Putting Candace aside, i'm sure you dont mean to imply that voicing policy differences with lthe iberal narrative about issues such as race, culture, immigration and other issues makes you a bigot. The issue with Candace Owens is that she is basically an intellectual lightweight. You are correct in identifying her as a diversity hire.
Conservatives in their rush to build a broader constituency for their ideas and policy positions have often looked to find allies among blacks and other minorities. I find nothing wrong with this per see--indeed I would count myself as black conservative classical liberal. Unfortunately, in this effort to broaden their reach conservatives have often been taken in by charlatants and grifters. Candace Owens is such a grifter. With little to contribute intellectually, she is similar to the empty suits on the left, Brianna Joy Grey is one such example. I don't know Owens is anti semite , I do know that this conflict has further elevated her brand and her status. Given that she has little intellectually to contribute to public discourse on the major concerns of the day these types of controversies is how she remains relevant.
John, your comments make sense, so let me explain my position better.
As my article concludes, I didn’t say she’s antisemitic outright, but she certainly straddles that line. I try to be very careful about making such accusations. Candace has plausible deniability, but she does come off as anti-Semitic.
As to whether she’s bigoted against her own group, she certainly is, and it’s not because she calls out certain things about the black community in America; many other black people like the ones you mentioned do that, and I would never accuse the likes of Glenn Loury of being bigoted against their own group.
However, Candace has given more than enough reason to think that she is. It is perfectly possible to be bigoted against one’s group. For example, when Candace says Black people are in the Democratic plantation and refuse to leave, that’s kinda racist because it assumes that Black people are either slaves who like being slaves or they lack the capacity mental or otherwise to break away from being slaves. Whether you like Black voting pattern or not, Black people have a right to vote however they want. Perhaps the question should be, Why is the Republican Party so repulsive to Blacks that they would commit for decades upon decades to a single party even with the understanding that it was the Republican Party that freed slaves and the earliest Black politicians were Republican.
Candace, in all her critiques of groups in America, has never once, to my knowledge, criticized white people but always comes to their defense. Not that I want her to do so for no reason, but her constant attack on almost every group in America, save white people, is telling.
As per your question, on whether voicing policies about race, immigration, etc makes one a bigot. The answer would be, it depends on the context and what is being said. Using Ann Coulter as an example, you can tell her she is clearly bigoted based on race, ethnicity, and religion. She said so herself to Vivek. I can understand her being critical of policies, but she agreed with Vivek on policy but still said she won’t vote for him. She clearly also prefers immigrant of a certain racial and ethnic makeup
There is a lot I don’t like about liberal policies like open borders or the madness around gender and the trans issue, but bigoted people can easily sneak in their bigotry under the guise of legitimate criticism. For example, on the feud between Candace and Ben, I mostly agree with Candace, but I assess her holistically, and I came to the conclusion that her attack isn’t just about Ben, it’s probably something deeper and more sinister.
Charles thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that some people who say bigoted things are actually bigots—the Ann Coulter example is a good one. However, at the same time I’m careful not to dismiss observations that might be true simply because the communicator might be a bigot. My standard is to judge the truth of their position. For example, there is plenty of evidence that group differences do exist and that many may have nothing to do with public policy or context. However, people who have pointed this out like Charles Murray are dismissed out of hand as bigots. As such, the public and policy makers avoid wrestling with a challenging situation, if uncomfortable fact. I would also not judge observations and opinions people express based on who they did not criticize. The fact that Candace generally does not criticize whites tells me nothing about the truth of her opinions. For example, it is a fact that blacks have disproportionately voted for Democrats despite questions about whether this support has led to material advances for blacks. I think the reason why is that Republicans have championed individual rights and advancement while Democrats have promised distribution of social benefits based on group identity and commitment to vote for them. So Candace’s rhetoric is certainly flamboyant but not wrong. Whether she presents a compelling reason for the black masses to rethink their political support is a different matter. My observation is that she has not. Instead she makes the critique but provides no alternative view. On her conflict with Ben Shapiro, I tend to find Ben’s position more compelling. Given all the evidence, critiques of Israel seem to increasingly be a stand in for Jew hatred. Again I don’t know if Owens is a Jew hater but she certainly has started to embrace the current—woke—use of anti Israel rhetoric as a stand in for anti Jewish sentiments. However, my problem with Owens is that she provides no intellectual heft to public debate. One final point, many have cried that Ben and the daily wire are hypocrites for shutting down speech they disagree with just like those on the left they disagree with. This is an interesting point but as an employer I do not have to hire employees who take public stances that are inconsistent with my company mission.
Let me respond to your last point first. Does the daily wire have a company mission that says you cannot be critical of Israel or Jews? How is Candace's critique of either against the daily wire's stated mission? It is not. You can say a company has the right to fire for whatever reason, but when you posture as a "free speech" anticancel culture organisation, you can see how much of a bad look it is for them.
Charles Murrays observations as a matter of neutral scientific inquiry are on point. However, I became suspect of him when he stated his motivations for such inquiry, which as he states is to combat the narrative that systemic racism is what's holding Black people down. While I have issues with the systemic racism angle, Charles's proposal is just as bad, which is to say, Black people are being held back not because of systemic racism, but because of their IQ i.e "they are just not smart enough"
As for Candace. I agree with almost all her points in isolation, but when you put them together, they tell a very sinister picture. I'm not interested in her critiquing white people, it just happened to be an observation that she doesn't
Finally, you are right, Candace offers nothing of intellectual value, she like I've always described her was Ben Shapiro's attack dog, that needed to be put down because it turned it's teeth on its owner
Charles again thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply. On whether Ben and the Daily Wire are hypocrites for shutting speech they don’t like such as criticism of Israel, given their strongly stated and held positions championing free speech it is a valid critique. However, Candace was given quite a bit of space to provide her criticism of Israel. In fact as I recall there was considerable internal dialogue point out why her criticisms were mistaken. I think the problem went from criticizing Israel (presumably Israeli policies) to what by any standard was clearly anti Jewish statements—including channeling her friend Kanye, clearly an anti semitic bigot. As her anti semitic statements escalated I think that was the point of no return. As a black man if I have a company if a white employee continuously expresses racist opinions about blacks—not so much an honest disagreement on how to interpret say group differences, but gratuitous racist times—at some point you have to ask if they’ve crossed a line. In our communication you have referred to Owens as Ben attack dog—why? I can’t understand your assessment. Having watched Shapiro over the years that he needs an intermediary to express his views. Indeed, I’ve seen no indication that Ben has ever used Owens as an attack dog. Because she has no substantive intellectual contribution to make being an attack dog is her brand. Ben agree or disagree with his position brings substantial intellectual firepower to any conversation. As to Murray, think raising the issue of whether group disparities should to systemic racism or some other cause is far from being suspect—indeed this is one of the key questions of our time. I find Murray to be a sold and honest researcher. I may not agree with all his analysis and his subsequent conclusions but I don’t question his motivations as a scholar.
Thanks, John; its been an interesting conversation with you. I would love to do an interview with you one of these days. Let me know if it's something you’re open to, and then we can fix a time and date.