U.S. Politics

[Dan2016]

I've only recently paid attention to Harris, but a couple of things Ive seen tonight really show that for all his talk of good faith and honesty, he is as much a deployer of sophistry and mendacity as those he denounces.

The attempted evasion in the Liam Neeson thing is simply staggering. Did Harris not ask himself why Neeson sought out the ethnicity of the rapist, rather than on finding that the rapist was a man, simply walk up and down the street waiting to be attacked by a man, so that he could kill him?

Harris's preface on so-called social justice warriors really shows what his motivations are. Tribalism? FFS

The other piece I watched was this: https://youtu.be/dFb88lyCf84

I was literally stunned by the false equivalence of Harris asking what would the Palestinians do if they could kill all Israelis (Harris's answer: kill them all) versus what would Israelis do (Harris's answer: not kill all Palestinians, because they already could if they wanted, and they haven't, therefore they wouldnt) Harris can't see that the question could only be valid if the power imbalance and social realities are reversed accordingly. Or maybe he can see it...

And this guy is being hailed as a great thinker of our times?

Yes, sophistry is correct. He is verbally fluent, calm, has scientific credentials to his name and is relatively adept with rhetorical devices, and apparently many don't see through that, but you obviously do, and I suspect you will only be increasingly bewildered the more you read or listen to him (if you do). Unfortunately, as I think you are perhaps finding here, any critique of him does not go down at all well with his fans.

I do find his ideas interesting, however - not remotely in and of themselves, but solely in the contexts I mentioned above.

As you say, Harris, Peterson and their ilk are apparently lauded as the ''leading intellectuals'' of our age, a situation I find quite amazing, personally, and quite an interesting phenomenon.

[aphronesis]

But he's not racist/ fascist or any of those things. So your week of lenghty research and scowering all the far left literature to try find that one headshot soundbite that would back you up and....

zilch.

Couldn't make anything stick so to save face "sam is a turd". Same place as a week ago. No progress.

I mean I certainly didn't expect anyone who says Peterson is a fascist to have any respect for Sam. The man stands against everything you types believe.

But I am surprised you stopped short of "harris is a facist" as well. I guess you didn't think of it. Neither "turd" nor "fascist" really mean anything from people who use these terms all the time, so I don't see the difference.

I'm posting though because while scrolling down I did come accross a funny bit.

How Sam is only in it for the money.
Followed by a screenshot of Sam's patreon.
Which says "ended" December 19th

Now why does Sam's patreon say "ended December 19th"?

Ah yes, because he voluntarily disbanded it himself. As a political protest

I deliberately summarised that very briefly as I know you wont accept any retelling of the story on my part.

So I'll let you read about what happened yourself, but it was a big thing. Or like with the Murray podcast, you can just not read it and make massive assumotions based on what you imagine could have happened. Up to you how you want to intepret the Patreon scandal.

In any case, Sam abandoned Patreon. And he was reportedly one of the biggest profiteers from the platform.

So he he made a pretty big sacrifice financially. Money far greater than whatever incremental gain he made from having Murray on.

But yeah, Sam Harris who walked away from all that money, purely to make political point, is all about the money

Its quite funny to see you make such assumptions about people you knew nothing or next to nothing about until a few days ago. Like with the "peterson chose lobsters cos he's sexist", it makes no sense cos even if you spent a few days doing selective reading to try to find bad things, you still know very little about these people and your random assumptions often fly in the face of their actual track records

Hitch, you’re boring. I’m sorry. The moment you say “you guys”; “you types”, you’re saying nothing. Maybe that floated you to cyclenews stardom years ago, but that’s not the discussion we’re having. Grow up or go away.

[macbindle]

If he'd spent a moment considering what my posts said, rather than what he wanted them to say in order that he could employ his one crude dunderheaded rhetorical device, he'd have noticed that not once have I accused his idols of racism or fascism.

[macbindle]

As you say, Harris, Peterson and their ilk are apparently lauded as the ''leading intellectuals'' of our age, a situation I find quite amazing, personally, and quite an interesting phenomenon.

There is a certain religious zeal to Harris/Peterson devotees. It's ironic.

[Robert5091]

As you say, Harris, Peterson and their ilk are apparently lauded as the ''leading intellectuals'' of our age, a situation I find quite amazing, personally, and quite an interesting phenomenon.

When the US President is a stable genius with the world's best memory etc it's a high bar to reach up to.

[macbindle]

There is an interesting discussion to be had around such talking-heads, I think, but only insofar as they are embedded within and reflect a completely dysfunctional, rapacious socioeconomic and geopolitical order; culture wars and the rise of demagogues (in their various guises); what precisely gives traction to such retrograde ideas within the contemporary setting, etc., and yourself and aphro have already been pointing towards such considerations. In the context of which, a little fuel for discussion, perhaps (without wanting to get into it further here myself):
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/29/new-atheism-worse-than-you-think/

This is a whole universe of debate to be had, and there are connections to be made to points raised in this thread. I find the glib and ahistorical dismissal of the socio-economic drivers at play in the Muslim world to be most concerning, as so eloquently described by Eagleton, and the subsequent crass conflation of Muslims with Islamic fundamentalism.

I'm alarmed by the reductive and decontextualised use of data by otherwise thoughtful forum posters. We were treated to selective citations from Pew Research on Muslim attitudes, for example, as evidence of the polarised value differences between 'them' and 'us', but we were not treated to data from the same source which shows that far from being crazed, one-eyed, hook-waving loons, Muslims in Muslim countries are as concerned, or more concerned, about Islamic Extremism than people in Western countries:



Of course, part of the mischaracterisation of Muslims by Westerners is due to the pernicious effects of people like Sam Harris.

So I'm minded to wonder what is the actual point of Harris's anti-muslim rhetoric. In whom is he supposedly trying to enact change? Muslims?

There is a section in Pew on relations between Muslims (in Asia) and Westerners, which states:

"Muslims associate a number of negative traits with Westerners. Across the Muslim publics surveyed, the median percentages saying people in Western countries such as the U.S. and Europe are selfish, violent, greedy, immoral, arrogant and fanatical exceed 50%."*

...So clearly Harris's views are not helping to foster better relations between Muslims and the West. Nor are Harris's views convincing Muslims to give up the faith because as the Pew research states  the Muslim population is predicted to rise from 1.6 billion in 2010 to 2.2 billion by 2030. So what actually is the point of Harris's polemics?

Could the answer be found in his own book sales, and lucrative speaking circuit at $30,000 per hour? His podcasts serve to re-generate both of these revenue streams, and his decision to quit Patreon needs to be seen in the light of this rather than as some sort of principled stand against forces impeding free-speech.

Harris is an excrable presence in public discourse, and his proponents need to think wider and harder about their involvement in the monetised dissemination of bigoted and divisive ideas.

*http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/muslim-western-tensions-persist/

[Bustedknuckle]

Hey Hitch, still think trump the dunce isn’t a ignorant racist?? And the little inbred son too.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-pocahontas-donald-jr-savage_us_5c5f792de4b0f9e1b17dd52c

[Unchained]

This disconnect between cookies and crumbs is downright hilarious. Most adult men laughing at lots of young girls buying creams,clothing and cosmetics just for starters based on internet -social media "influencers ". People who are making a living,often a good living blurring life by acting ecstatic over goods and services that sponsor them..the viewer wants to be like the influencer..and so rolls on the consumer juggernaut smeared w propaganda..
Here we are acting as if Harris,Murray or a couple of podcast poops are somehow voices of a generation or "lauded thinkers" . BS ..we are them because we are being hearded into algorithm cattle pens. Hitch saying Joe Rogan is an apt right skinhead means that he is not sure what either is..Rogan is another guy w no overhead living in the podcast bubble.
Lots of writers and political pundits referenced here are not scholars but instead currently available voices..
some guy in middle America is thinking that Joel Osteen,Laura Ingram,Rush Limbaugh,Hannity and Alex Jones are preprogrammed in everyone's car radio and their every comment pops up as "everyone" is surfing around the internet.
Yes..some of the mentioned are popular,but compared to what? Compared to who?
Take Steve Bannon..in the US our media from right to left spent millions of dollars reporting about Bannon and British influence trip(s) . And the people of the UK barely know who the guy is! But American media acted like Steve Bannon was headed across the pond to change everything and everyone from Brexit to the Prime minister..not true..just a bunch of fluff,loads of silly hype.
These political influencers come and go..ask Milo Yiannopolous who is still listening? And as important how many people are listening? The way it's all monetized.
We discovered that many we thought were Twitter,Instagram gods were false,fake followers,some in the 100's of thousands. And now we are hearing popular names and thinking..if millions are viewing this there must be something to it..nope. Just like most viruses it passes. Like a bout of gas..Harris or Murray or Limbaugh go away in a stinky cloud.

[Robert5091]

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/02/fox-friends-host-says-hasnt-washed-hands-10-years-germs-not-real-thing-cant-see/

Fox News host Pete Hegseth explained on Sunday that he doesn’t wash his hands because “germs are not a real thing.”

Following a commercial break, Fox & Friends co-host Jedediah Bila revealed that Hegseth had been munching on day-old pizza that was left on the set.

“Pizza Hut lasts for a long time,” Hegseth replied, defending himself. “My 2019 resolution is to say things on air that I say off air. I don’t think I’ve washed my hands for 10 years. Really, I don’t really wash my hands ever.”

“I inoculate myself,” he continued. “Germs are not a real thing. I can’t see them. Therefore, they’re not real.”

Hegseth argued that his unsanitary habit leaves him immune to sickness.

“These hands look pretty clean to me,” he remarked.

... and POTUS sits watching this every day? Geezus!

[The Hitch]

I've only recently paid attention to Harris, but a couple of things Ive seen tonight really show that for all his talk of good faith and honesty, he is as much a deployer of sophistry and mendacity as those he denounces.

The attempted evasion in the Liam Neeson thing is simply staggering. Did Harris not ask himself why Neeson sought out the ethnicity of the rapist, rather than on finding that the rapist was a man, simply walk up and down the street waiting to be attacked by a man, so that he could kill him?

Harris's preface on so-called social justice warriors really shows what his motivations are. Tribalism? FFS

The other piece I watched was this: https://youtu.be/dFb88lyCf84

I was literally stunned by the false equivalence of Harris asking what would the Palestinians do if they could kill all Israelis (Harris's answer: kill them all) versus what would Israelis do (Harris's answer: not kill all Palestinians, because they already could if they wanted, and they haven't, therefore they wouldnt) Harris can't see that the question could only be valid if the power imbalance and social realities are reversed accordingly. Or maybe he can see it...

And this guy is being hailed as a great thinker of our times?

Yes, sophistry is correct. He is verbally fluent, calm, has scientific credentials to his name and is relatively adept with rhetorical devices, and apparently many don't see through that, but you obviously do, and I suspect you will only be increasingly bewildered the more you read or listen to him (if you do). Unfortunately, as I think you are perhaps finding here, any critique of him does not go down at all well with his fans.

I do find his ideas interesting, however - not remotely in and of themselves, but solely in the contexts I mentioned above.

As you say, Harris, Peterson and their ilk are apparently lauded as the ''leading intellectuals'' of our age, a situation I find quite amazing, personally, and quite an interesting phenomenon.

Lol. What hole did you climb out of?

Sam gets falsely accused of Islamophobia by people who barely know him.
People who actually follow him: This makes no sense
You: "Sam's fans don't accept any criticism"

I guess that's the world we live in. On this board anyway.

[The Hitch]

If he'd spent a moment considering what my posts said, rather than what he wanted them to say in order that he could employ his one crude dunderheaded rhetorical device, he'd have noticed that not once have I accused his idols of racism or fascism.

Complains about hyperbolic words being used.
Accuses anyone he doesn't like of "fascism", then uses words like "idols" to mock those who question such attitude.

I should make a meme out of this before those get banned.

[macbindle]

Again, childish, facile and boring.

Or, given that I've implicitly challenged you to find an accusation of fascism, and instead of doing so you've merely repeated your misrepresentation.....just plain low-quality trolling.

Still boring.

[Unchained]

There is little hyperbolic about a government shutdown regardless of the cause. As American politics lumbers on,both parties are ignoring the obvious,the economy.
The Democrats have taken the impossible disgusting position of watching Trump fall for what they see as a gain from his massive loss. The sanctions are slamming farmers period. Farm default and bankruptcy are exploding.
This is a loss for all Americans.
The idea that this will come to a love triangle were a veto is the most extreme but possibly only answer to presidential crazy. We can't afford @3 million people to be arbitrarily unemployed for an undisclosed period.
The Democrats have not said in plain language that people who run national parks have nothing to do with a border wall. Employees at federally funded day care centers and cafeterias have zero relationship to a border wall. People checking bags and people at the airport,again no association to any wall.
The people investigating child prostitution need to be funded, those trying to stop opioid death and addiction need to get paid.

[aphronesis]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2017/jan/24/what-if-we-gave-universal-income-to-people-in-biodiversity-hotpots

[aphronesis]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/02/maryland-socialist-policy-vaughn-stewart-gabriel-acevero

[red_flanders]

@ Red

I'm unlikely to devote the time needed for a cogent reply as there is a lot to say, so I'll scatter some brief poorly expressed thoughts. You deserve a better answer than this, but it's not going to happen today.

You are falling for this myth that Murray is a victim of curtailment of free speech. Murray hasn't been silenced. You can buy his book if you want. There is frequent positive reference to him in your national media. He is enormously successful. Harris perpetuates this myth of a silenced Murray and accords him heroic martyr status. Murray is criticised, but he isn't silenced.

My post was largely a response to the notion that Harris is some kind of shill for right-wing nonsense, which I strongly disagree with.

As an aside, Murray has been de-platformed, that's just a fact. Of course he's not been silenced, but there are any number of examples of left-wing hysteria about speakers at college campuses, this being but one example. The de-platforming of people who disagree with whatever the "right thinking" of the day is on whatever college is antithetical to free speech and free inquiry, which colleges used to stand for. I don't care about Murray as a writer, though I would agree the reaction to his books has been hysterical at times. Harris does not claim he's been silenced, he does however claim that many scientists who actually agree with his views are afraid to speak out because of all the blowback and the time it would cost them to defend such support.

The overarching concern being that hysterical reactions to ideas people don't like have the effect of chilling free speech and inquiry. It's a legitimate concern. Again, no one suggested Murray had been silenced, that's hyperbolic.

[macbindle]

Was he de-platformed? I thought he was subject to a somewhat aggressive protest and chose to cut short his speech. I view that as different to being de-platformed, which to me means having his platform withdrawn on an official basis. He still has plenty of other speaking dates. I happen to think the students were foolish and I wonder whether any of them had read his book.

Re: Harris, I certainly don't think he is a shill for extreme right wing ideas, but I do think he is surfing the wave of right-wing resurgence for reasons of personal exposure and personal gain (ditto Peterson) As per my previous post, I can't see any other reason for his frequent and virulent campaign against Muslims The only result is to enrage non-muslims, rather than engage Muslims. There is literally no positive outcome from what he does.

I dont think he is a fascist, but in my heart of hearts I wonder if his anti-muslim rhetoric is seated in a deeply internalised racism.

With regards to the moral-panic over alledged threats to free speech, we know that the right has tried to manoeuvre themselves into a position of victimhood, as noisy allegations invariably originate with them.

For a more sober view, read this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

[aphronesis]

Yeah, it’s tragic. When Bush W had the bully pulpit and the Patriot Act firing up the FBI after 9/11 conservatives and whatnot weren’t too alarmed about a defanging of left critical speech.

[Robert5091]

Yeah, it’s tragic. When Bush W had the bully pulpit and the Patriot Act firing up the FBI after 9/11 conservatives and whatnot weren’t too alarmed about a defanging of left critical speech.

Any critical speech! GOPers were also too scared to voice criticsm.

[aphronesis]

That’s true, but they recovered after a few years. A lot of the older left lost perspective and began to simply settle for Obama, Hillary etc. and could no longer even critique the party.