LawTalkers
Page 51 of 126 « First 414950 51 525361101 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   We are all Slave now. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=882)

Hank Chinaski 07-31-2018 11:26 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516519)
I have the technological means to censor you, by modifying or deleting your posts. Instead, I am exposing that you are full of shit
Ty showed restraint this time, but for all the newbers n.b. This is no different than Harry Truman telling China he could drop the bomb. Ty has censored perfect fully appropriate posts here, time and again.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2018 09:10 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Bull. Shit. Quote where he is "pro-censorship." That is complete bullshit. He is pro-not-taking-Murray-seriously, which is not at all the same thing as saying that Murray should be censored.
Did you read my second to last post? That's responsive to a lot of what you've written here.

Klein is telling Harris, quite directly, how and in what limited fashion Harris may examine or discuss Murray. That is absolutely seeking to censor - both Harris and Murray. (It's also highly amusing, coming from a 34 year old who's never been anything but a pundit.)
Quote:
That, too, is bullshit. Klein is in an extended conversation with Harris, which is the exact opposite of preventing him from a discourse. I am in an extended conversation with you, which is the exact opposite to attempting to censor you. I have the technological means to censor you, by modifying or deleting your posts. Instead, I am exposing that you are full of shit, which is something quite different.
Let's not be obtuse.

Quote:
Fantastic.
Not really. I take no pleasure in calling you out for the cheapest debate tricks. I like conversing with you, and wish you could occasionally take off the lawyer hat and concede a point. But no... You've always got to be the smartest guy in the room. Even going down in flames, you'll grab any small or narrow criticism of the other side you can to save face.

Quote:
Haven't said anything about your intent, have I? You are doing that yourself.
You've lied, as you do, in suggesting Harris and I seek to rehabilitate Murray. Neither he nor I took that position. You did that to confer advantage to your argument.

Quote:
Why are you trying so hard to defend Murray's views? That is, after all, what you are doing. You can explain your own intent -- I am not putting words in your mouth.
Again, you are lying. You know I did not defend Murray. And you can see Harris is not defending Murray, but the right to debate Murray on the merits. Stop lying.

Quote:
Great. When you see censorship, let me know.
Klein's attempts at censorship are sly, but pretty obvious.

Quote:
Absolutely nothing. Murray has failed on the merits, and Harris is pretending otherwise. Why does Harris just ignore that Murray's work is terrible, that Murray has an agenda, and that reputable experts have said so? Why do you ignore that?
Now you're the arbiter of what's acceptable to debate and what's not? (See my post referenced at the start of this reply for context.) I'll grant, you're far smarter, open minded, experienced, and more qualified than Klein. But you do not have the right, or the gravitas, to run around telling people what is or is not terrible and unworthy of debate. You also undo your own aim by assuming this elite position without qualification. The better course is to examine Murray's most recent arguments and decide them on merits. And no, Murray's most recent arguments have not been settled. The Bell Curve has been largely debunked, but the man writes a book every year or so. And it's also worth noting that Harris did not have Murray on to discuss only his most recent work (most of which focuses on differences in white culture, I believe), but to discuss the issue of academic censorship. On that subject, Murray, having some unique experience (among other dis-invited speakers), is an appropriate guest.

In closing, for Christ's sake, you're better than to fawn over, or even cite, a Pez dispenser of stale liberal bromides like Klein.* Find some other milquetoast lefty darling to laud. There's no shortage of better ones out there.

______
* Yglesias and Chait go in this bucket as well.

ThurgreedMarshall 08-01-2018 10:40 AM
For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/IO...in=nytimes.com

Article sums up discussion (we're all tired of here*) of tech companies, their cafeterias, and efforts attempting to get them to interact with actual people.

TM

*I know, I know.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2018 12:35 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516512)
I neglected to respond to this.

I can't speak for Harris, but I find Klein particularly offensive because Vox is a stridently biased website that works assiduously to hide its bias and present itself as a neutral arbiter. And arbiter isn't chosen there for lack of a better pronoun. Vox, and Klein particularly, offer themselves as authorities. The writing always holds the undercurrent, "We're the enlightened. We've the last word."

Except the site sucks. It's as predictable as Fox and only differs in extent of effort to cover up its slip. It'll almost always offer some lengthy, seemingly thoughtful assessment of an issue ending with the accepted liberal doctrinaire view.

Charles Murray is a hack. He has an agenda and he dressed it up with science. Much of what he posits can be debunked with science. Klein is a hack. He has an agenda. Much of what he posits can be debunked with economics/political science/basic reasoning.

Except they differ in one regard that makes Klein far more dangerous than Murray. Klein deems himself (particularly in that argument with Harris) a worthy judge of what's within and what's outside the spheres of deviancy. I'm sympathetic to people doing this (I love William Henry's In Defense of Elitism). Sometimes, someone simply has to stand up and say, "Nope. You can't argue flat earth theories. You're wasting our time." Klein, however, is not worthy to shine Henry's shoes. Klein's a predictable and quite dull writer who'll 90% of the time default to an accepted liberal narrative. He has no business judging how or whether the views of Murray or Harris should be considered.

Hearing Klein lecture Harris on how Harris ought to reason (to fit Klein's sensitivities) is mind-bending. Here's a blogger telling a neuroscientist with a staggering resume that he ought to temper his approaches to suit the sensibilities of the blogger's audience. He's completely confused as to who is the elite in the room.

I think this stems from confusion that to hold an empathetic viewpoint somehow makes one more enlightened, "better" than the non-empathetic. Klein and his ilk, who hold views similar to a lot of people here, confuse tolerance and a desire to see fairness as superior, perhaps even smarter, views. That's comforting, of course. But it's also untrue. To desire to help people, as opposed to someone like Charles Murray, does not render one more intelligent or enlightened. It makes one a nicer, kinder person. But it's not proof of some broader intellect that ought to give a blogger gravitas to tell a neuroscientist how he ought to approach scientific matters.

This is why Klein irks me. This is why I'll take the other side of a coin here all the time. Charles Murrays are easy to debunk. Murray's a crank howling into the wind. The Ezra Kleins of the world are officious consensus builders. They have a much more pernicious effect - attempting with some success to craft a narrative of what's acceptable commentary and what's not. These people have no business telling a serious thinker like Harris how or what to think. They are charlatans selling the feel good angle to an often Pavlovian audience, and they should be viewed with intense skepticism at every turn.
This sort of thing exposes your sometime conservative sympathies. Murray and Klein are similar but Klein is the more dangerous. Klein doesn't give the proper deference to Harris. Klein defaults to a liberal narrative. Really?

Murray spends his career promoting the idea that blacks are genetically inferior and that the government should not try to help them, and Harris wants to take him seriously, but Klein is the dangerous one with a pernicious effect. If you really think that, that's too bad.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2018 12:58 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516521)
Did you read my second to last post?
There's a transcript. Quote what Klein says that is pro-censorship. Just quote it.

Quote:
Klein is telling Harris, quite directly, how and in what limited fashion Harris may examine or discuss Murray. That is absolutely seeking to censor - both Harris and Murray.
Just quote it.

You can't, because you're mischaracterizing him.

Quote:
You've lied, as you do, in suggesting Harris and I seek to rehabilitate Murray. Neither he nor I took that position.
That's not a word I think I used. If you're going to accuse me of lying, you should be a little more careful about what I said. I think I said you and Harris are defending Murray. Here's Harris:

Quote:
[Sam Harris, to Klein:] You’ve suggested that Murray is trying to establish that the differences between the mean IQs in various groups are genetic, right? He’s not. He’s simply suggested that there’s good reason to believe that genes and environment both play a part.
You have described Murray as a hack. Harris is bending over backwards to avoid acknowledging that Murray is a hack, and is striving to pretend there is something worthwhile in the idea that blacks are genetically less intelligent than other people. How did I lie?

Quote:
Again, you are lying. You know I did not defend Murray. And you can see Harris is not defending Murray, but the right to debate Murray on the merits. Stop lying.
You are defending Harris, and Harris is defending Murray.

Quote:
Klein's attempts at censorship are sly, but pretty obvious.
I think you don't know what that word means.

Go ahead, quote where Klein is pro censorship. Just quote him.

Quote:
Now you're the arbiter of what's acceptable to debate and what's not? (See my post referenced at the start of this reply for context.) I'll grant, you're far smarter, open minded, experienced, and more qualified than Klein. But you do not have the right, or the gravitas, to run around telling people what is or is not terrible and unworthy of debate. You also undo your own aim by assuming this elite position without qualification. The better course is to examine Murray's most recent arguments and decide them on merits. And no, Murray's most recent arguments have not been settled. The Bell Curve has been largely debunked, but the man writes a book every year or so. And it's also worth noting that Harris did not have Murray on to discuss only his most recent work (most of which focuses on differences in white culture, I believe), but to discuss the issue of academic censorship. On that subject, Murray, having some unique experience (among other dis-invited speakers), is an appropriate guest.

In closing, for Christ's sake, you're better than to fawn over, or even cite, a Pez dispenser of stale liberal bromides like Klein.* Find some other milquetoast lefty darling to laud. There's no shortage of better ones out there.

______
* Yglesias and Chait go in this bucket as well.
None of this has anything to do with what Klein said, which is that experts in their fields have rejected Murray's work. As you said, Murray is a hack, not an academic. He puts out work with an academic veneer to try to influence politics. Pointing that out is not censorship.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2018 01:05 PM
Re: For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516522)
https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/IO...in=nytimes.com

Article sums up discussion (we're all tired of here*) of tech companies, their cafeterias, and efforts attempting to get them to interact with actual people.

TM

*I know, I know.
I don't get how tech companies are that different from the investment banks and large law firms that have filled SF and NYC and provided their employees with food and dry-cleaning since the late Mesozoic, except that tech company employees are less likely to go out to lunch. Since I am perfectly happy to eat my lunch at my desk, I kind of resent the idea that Aaron Peskin wants to take away that option. If Aaron Peskin wants to revitalize Mid-Market, that article suggests that it would help more to do something about the people who are shitting and shooting up dope on the sidewalks. They don't bother me that much, but many people are turned off. After that's fixed, force me to go down the block to buy a sandwich.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2018 01:20 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516523)
This sort of thing exposes your sometime conservative sympathies. Murray and Klein are similar but Klein is the more dangerous. Klein doesn't give the proper deference to Harris. Klein defaults to a liberal narrative. Really?

Murray spends his career promoting the idea that blacks are genetically inferior and that the government should not try to help them, and Harris wants to take him seriously, but Klein is the dangerous one with a pernicious effect. If you really think that, that's too bad.
Ah, yes, now you paint me out as admiring hierarchies. Offering another liberal bromide.

Murray can debunked on the science. He’s weak in this regard.

Klein is not weak, and indeed dangerous, as he seeks to mainstream the notion that ideas, however offensive, should be pre-emptively rejected, or debated within his preset rules, where they offend his liberal doctrinaire views. That’s trying to control the medium, to slant the result by fixing the rules of engagement. Whether coming from right or left, this sort of rigging public debate can only be met with the response, “Fuck you.”

Re Klein, I’d add, “...you arrogant, naive little shit.”

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2018 01:35 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516525)
There's a transcript. Quote what Klein says that is pro-censorship. Just quote it.



Just quote it.

You can't, because you're mischaracterizing him.



That's not a word I think I used. If you're going to accuse me of lying, you should be a little more careful about what I said. I think I said you and Harris are defending Murray. Here's Harris:



You have described Murray as a hack. Harris is bending over backwards to avoid acknowledging that Murray is a hack, and is striving to pretend there is something worthwhile in the idea that blacks are genetically less intelligent than other people. How did I lie?



You are defending Harris, and Harris is defending Murray.



I think you don't know what that word means.

Go ahead, quote where Klein is pro censorship. Just quote him.



None of this has anything to do with what Klein said, which is that experts in their fields have rejected Murray's work. As you said, Murray is a hack, not an academic. He puts out work with an academic veneer to try to influence politics. Pointing that out is not censorship.
To tell someone how he may examine something, and that he must apply certain sensitivities where he does, is censoring him. Klein is not merely rejecting Murray. He states numerous times that he believes Harris must treat Murray, or any other controversial theorist, a certain way.

Harris states many times that he has no interest in proving Murray’s underlying points, but does believe that Murray’s views should be assessed on the merits. That Harris defends Murray when Klein says he’s been debunked does not mean Harris defends Murray’s views. Harris states that he had read that the person Klein said debunked Murray had recanted. That’s an argument of proof regarding a discrete fact separable from Murray’s theories.

Harris is bending over backward for the proposition that people like Klein (and you) should not have the right to pre-emptively tell the public what ideas are proper for debate and what aren’t. You cannot or will not separate that issue from Murray’s theories because it confers advantage in this debate, and because you believe you and people like Klein, would be enlightened sorts, are fair arbiters of what society ought to debate and not debate. You’re not. And Klein certainly isn’t.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2018 01:41 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516528)
To tell someone how he may examine something, and that he must apply certain sensitivities where he does, is censoring him. Klein is not merely rejecting Murray. He states numerous times that he believes Harris must treat Murray, or any other controversial theorist, a certain way.
Quote it. Quote where Klein advocates (what you call) censorship.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2018 01:48 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516527)
Ah, yes, now you paint me out as admiring hierarchies. Offering another liberal bromide.
Dude, I don't need to paint you as anything -- I was paraphrasing what you said. I can just quote you:

Quote:
Hearing Klein lecture Harris on how Harris ought to reason (to fit Klein's sensitivities) is mind-bending. Here's a blogger telling a neuroscientist with a staggering resume that he ought to temper his approaches to suit the sensibilities of the blogger's audience. He's completely confused as to who is the elite in the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516527)
Murray can debunked on the science. He’s weak in this regard.
Ah, yes. Hello?

Quote:
Klein is not weak, and indeed dangerous, as he seeks to mainstream the notion that ideas, however offensive, should be pre-emptively rejected, or debated within his preset rules, where they offend his liberal doctrinaire views. That’s trying to control the medium, to slant the result by fixing the rules of engagement. Whether coming from right or left, this sort of rigging public debate can only be met with the response, “Fuck you.”
I haven't really tried to defend Klein, so it's telling that you keep beating on him. He's not trying "fix the rules" or "preemptively reject" anything. Why is it so important to you that Murray (or Harris) be a martyr? Klein doesn't control what anyone says, and if you don't like Vox you don't have to read it. You can't just disagree with him -- you have to pretending he is somehow preventing Harris or Murray from being heard, rather than publishing an extended exchange in Vox.

Quote:
Re Klein, I’d add, “...you arrogant, naive little shit.”
Klein really does get under your skin.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-01-2018 03:33 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Guys, what do you mean by "censorship"?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-01-2018 03:44 PM
Re: For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516522)
https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/IO...in=nytimes.com

Article sums up discussion (we're all tired of here*) of tech companies, their cafeterias, and efforts attempting to get them to interact with actual people.

TM

*I know, I know.
Query: Does google take care of this by just opening their cafeteria to outsiders as a restaurant, maybe with a separate room designated for "google only" meetings/discusion?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2018 04:07 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516529)
Quote it. Quote where Klein advocates (what you call) censorship.
Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.
More concisely, address the issue the way I believe you should address the issue. If there's nothing to be censored from the conversation, or avoided, then there's no need for Klein to tell Harris how he should approach Murray. It's only because Klein believes certain elements of Murray's theories need to be avoided (are deviant) that he believes Harris should "think through the context." This "thinking through the context" is a sly way of saying, "be more careful," particularly when you listen to the podcast rather than read it. Klein has no business telling Harris to be careful or not careful.
Klein again:

"I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.

I continue to think that the way you handled the conversation with Murray, framing it as a question of political correctness, did too much to ignore what this conversation has meant to people, for whom the dangers is not that Charles Murray will be — and I think this was bad — be de-platformed and even have his chaperone assaulted at Middlebury, or what has been more normal in his career, be extremely successful but widely criticized. I think that a conversation with a broader range of experts would give you more texture and more empathy for the people whom this conversation and its imprecision and the way it gets leveraged in American life really hurts them."
Once more, Klein is telling Harris that Harris needs to drop a straight-up empirical approach to the subject and consider a broader context. He's telling Harris to consider the social political realities (his words) as he assesses a scientific theory.

I don't know how you don't see the censorship. (Except to be obtuse and say Klein doesn't come out and forbid Harris from taking a purely empirical approach, which he obviously cannot.) When you tell a person they should follow your preferred limits on how a debate may proceed, you have put borders on that debate. Those borders requires that certain things not be said, or that certain things be said differently. This is request for the prohibition of certain expressions and ideas. Is it Orwellian? No. Is it violent and compulsory? Of course not. But it's an attempt to pre-empt the blunt scientific discussion of controversial theories and replace them with a softer discussion including non-scientific considerations.

It's massaging the conversation to a murky place where there's no straightforward assessment of Murray's "work." It's a really pernicious attempt at subtle censorship, and it only serves to prolong Murrayism.

ThurgreedMarshall 08-01-2018 04:18 PM
Re: For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516532)
Query: Does google take care of this by just opening their cafeteria to outsiders as a restaurant, maybe with a separate room designated for "google only" meetings/discusion?
Is this a serious question? If so, no. If not, good one.

TM

Adder 08-01-2018 04:23 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516533)
Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.
More concisely, address the issue the way I believe you should address the issue. If there's nothing to be censored from the conversation, or avoided, then there's no need for Klein to tell Harris how he should approach Murray. It's only because Klein believes certain elements of Murray's theories need to be avoided (are deviant) that he believes Harris should "think through the context." This "thinking through the context" is a sly way of saying, "be more careful," particularly when you listen to the podcast rather than read it. Klein has no business telling Harris to be careful or not careful.
Klein again:

"I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.

I continue to think that the way you handled the conversation with Murray, framing it as a question of political correctness, did too much to ignore what this conversation has meant to people, for whom the dangers is not that Charles Murray will be — and I think this was bad — be de-platformed and even have his chaperone assaulted at Middlebury, or what has been more normal in his career, be extremely successful but widely criticized. I think that a conversation with a broader range of experts would give you more texture and more empathy for the people whom this conversation and its imprecision and the way it gets leveraged in American life really hurts them."
Once more, Klein is telling Harris that Harris needs to drop a straight-up empirical approach to the subject and consider a broader context. He's telling Harris to consider the social political realities (his words) as he assesses a scientific theory.

I don't know how you don't see the censorship. (Except to be obtuse and say Klein doesn't come out and forbid Harris from taking a purely empirical approach, which he obviously cannot.) When you tell a person they should follow your preferred limits on how a debate may proceed, you have put borders on that debate. Those borders requires that certain things not be said, or that certain things be said differently. This is request for the prohibition of certain expressions and ideas. Is it Orwellian? No. Is it violent and compulsory? Of course not. But it's an attempt to pre-empt the blunt scientific discussion of controversial theories and replace them with a softer discussion including non-scientific considerations.

It's massaging the conversation to a murky place where there's no straightforward assessment of Murray's "work." It's a really pernicious attempt at subtle censorship, and it only serves to prolong Murrayism.
This is perhaps the least interesting conversation we've ever had, but "deliver more nuance and more understanding" sounds like urging him to say more, not less.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2018 04:23 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
I haven't really tried to defend Klein, so it's telling that you keep beating on him. He's not trying "fix the rules" or "preemptively reject" anything. Why is it so important to you that Murray (or Harris) be a martyr? Klein doesn't control what anyone says, and if you don't like Vox you don't have to read it. You can't just disagree with him -- you have to pretending he is somehow preventing Harris or Murray from being heard, rather than publishing an extended exchange in Vox.
Klein is absolutely trying to win by defining the rules of the game to suit his views. His chief criticism is that Harris should not invite Murray on a podcast to discuss "Forbidden Knowledge" (I think that's what Harris's podcast with Murray was called, or something similar) in a purely clinical manner. He's telling Harris he should not have done something, and is trafficking in dangerous waters to continue to do so.

I've never met a third rail I wouldn't touch, and Harris steps over every one he sees. I find people who try to prevent such "dangerous" behavior detrimental to a free society.

Everything can be the source of a joke.
Everything can be the source of a discussion.

Klein can offend me. I can turn him off. I cannot tell him how to conduct his debates. And he cannot tell me how to conduct mine. And most certainly, neither of us has any business trying to create codes of behavior that suppress even the most preposterous views. Dumb ideas will and should fail on their own lack of merit.

Quote:
Klein really does get under your skin.
He's terribly predictable and very muddy. That transcript is a fucking mess. The guy's Trumpian in his asides.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-01-2018 04:25 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516535)
This is perhaps the least interesting conversation we've ever had, but "deliver more nuance and more understanding" sounds like urging him to say more, not less.
No. It's "include the considerations I, Ezra Klein, want considered in the debate."

Hold you own debate then, Ezra, and leave Murray and Harris to have theirs.

Adder 08-01-2018 04:36 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516537)
No. It's "include the considerations I, Ezra Klein, want considered in the debate."
Yes, and? "Hey, I think it's misleading not to include X bit of context" is an entirely common and valid critique.

Hank Chinaski 08-01-2018 05:58 PM
Re: For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 516534)
Is this a serious question? If so, no. If not, good one.

TM
GGG, I think the fight is "if google has a free lunchroom for its people, how does the presence of google in the neighborhood, benefit the neighborhood?" Like, no google folks are walking outside to buy food and also not shopping at local stores. Your proposal would be actually worse- assuming I'm correct what the fight is.

Now the I helped clear this up, who is the interviewer sebby linked, is that "harris?'

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-01-2018 08:13 PM
Re: For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516539)
GGG, I think the fight is "if google has a free lunchroom for its people, how does the presence of google in the neighborhood, benefit the neighborhood?" Like, no google folks are walking outside to buy food and also not shopping at local stores. Your proposal would be actually worse- assuming I'm correct what the fight is.

Now the I helped clear this up, who is the interviewer sebby linked, is that "harris?'
I don't click on sebby links.

My comment was in jest. I really think what Google would do is just buy up all the neighborhood eateries and let their employees spend "google bucks" at them.

Let's face it, SV and SF are starting to look like Company towns. It's straight outa 1930s West Virginia.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2018 09:03 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516533)
Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.
More concisely, address the issue the way I believe you should address the issue. If there's nothing to be censored from the conversation, or avoided, then there's no need for Klein to tell Harris how he should approach Murray. It's only because Klein believes certain elements of Murray's theories need to be avoided (are deviant) that he believes Harris should "think through the context." This "thinking through the context" is a sly way of saying, "be more careful," particularly when you listen to the podcast rather than read it. Klein has no business telling Harris to be careful or not careful.
Klein again:

"I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.

I continue to think that the way you handled the conversation with Murray, framing it as a question of political correctness, did too much to ignore what this conversation has meant to people, for whom the dangers is not that Charles Murray will be — and I think this was bad — be de-platformed and even have his chaperone assaulted at Middlebury, or what has been more normal in his career, be extremely successful but widely criticized. I think that a conversation with a broader range of experts would give you more texture and more empathy for the people whom this conversation and its imprecision and the way it gets leveraged in American life really hurts them."
Once more, Klein is telling Harris that Harris needs to drop a straight-up empirical approach to the subject and consider a broader context. He's telling Harris to consider the social political realities (his words) as he assesses a scientific theory.

I don't know how you don't see the censorship. (Except to be obtuse and say Klein doesn't come out and forbid Harris from taking a purely empirical approach, which he obviously cannot.) When you tell a person they should follow your preferred limits on how a debate may proceed, you have put borders on that debate. Those borders requires that certain things not be said, or that certain things be said differently. This is request for the prohibition of certain expressions and ideas. Is it Orwellian? No. Is it violent and compulsory? Of course not. But it's an attempt to pre-empt the blunt scientific discussion of controversial theories and replace them with a softer discussion including non-scientific considerations.

It's massaging the conversation to a murky place where there's no straightforward assessment of Murray's "work." It's a really pernicious attempt at subtle censorship, and it only serves to prolong Murrayism.
Whatever you think Klein is doing, it's not censorship, and you should just admit you got that one wrong. As Adder says, Klein is not trying to shut anyone up, he's saying that if you are going to give credence to someone who is arguing that blacks are genetically inferior, you should acknowledge the context instead of pretending it doesn't exist.

Far from being censored, Murray has no problem spreading his views, far out of proportion to their merits. There are a lot of people who really want to hear what he is saying, and who want to pretend it's good science, or at least good enough to be taken seriously.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-01-2018 09:05 PM
Re: For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516540)
Let's face it, SV and SF are starting to look like Company towns. It's straight outa 1930s West Virginia.
You should visit and see, because that's ridiculous.

Hank Chinaski 08-01-2018 09:32 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Nvm

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-02-2018 09:36 AM
Re: For everyone not named, "Ty"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516542)
You should visit and see, because that's ridiculous.
I spend time around at various company campuses and office parks around there.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-02-2018 10:48 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 516538)
Yes, and? "Hey, I think it's misleading not to include X bit of context" is an entirely common and valid critique.
That is entirely fine. I have no issue with Klein registering that criticism. Where Klein steps over the line is telling Harris how he should conduct his discussions. Klein is not merely saying, "Sam Harris fails to put a discussion in the proper context." He is saying, "It is not valid, or appropriate, to discuss things in the manner Sam Harris has with Murray." You can't divorce that comment from its intrinsic meaning: "Certain discussions should not be had."

There is no way to have the discussion Murray and Harris did in the manner Klein prescribes. That would be a different discussion. The only way to have the discussion Harris and Murray had is to have it the way they wanted to have it. If they are pressured to have it differently, then the discussion is censored.

I actually agree with Klein, oddly. I think Murray should be treated with extreme skepticism because he bases a lot of conclusions on generalizations, cherry-picked stats, and anecdata. I just don't think Klein or I have the right to tell Harris or anyone else what's appropriate in a discussion with Murray or anyone else. That sort of thinking seems similar to the anti-hate speech laws in Europe, which are anathema to the concept of free speech.

ETA: But of course, Klein has every right to say whatever he likes, and prescribe whatever rules he likes.

Adder 08-02-2018 11:00 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516545)
You can't divorce that comment from its intrinsic meaning: "Certain discussions should not be had."
This part is in your head. If we're paraphrasing, Klein said, "certain discussions should not be had without providing proper context." That does not sound objectionable to me. Nor is it censorship.

Quote:
There is no way to have the discussion Murray and Harris did in the manner Klein prescribes.
There isn't? Harris couldn't ask Murray about critiques of his work? That sort of thing happens all the time.

Quote:
I actually agree with Klein, oddly. I think Murray should be treated with extreme skepticism because he bases a lot of conclusions on generalizations, cherry-picked stats, and anecdata.
So, if you were interviewing Murray, wouldn't you want to ask him about those things? Don't you think you'd owe it to listeners to do so? Did I just censor you?

sebastian_dangerfield 08-02-2018 11:11 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Whatever you think Klein is doing, it's not censorship, and you should just admit you got that one wrong. As Adder says, Klein is not trying to shut anyone up, he's saying that if you are going to give credence to someone who is arguing that blacks are genetically inferior, you should acknowledge the context instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
My reply to Adder covers this.

Quote:
Far from being censored, Murray has no problem spreading his views, far out of proportion to their merits. There are a lot of people who really want to hear what he is saying, and who want to pretend it's good science, or at least good enough to be taken seriously.
Murray's haunted the race issue for decades now because there's never been a straightforward dismantling of his theories in a public forum (a Joseph Welch moment, if you will, rather than some dense critique from a fellow academic in some obscure journal). You realize that as long as this man can assert that he's being censored, the question of whether his "science" holds water remains unresolved. I only play a scientician on television, but I've read enough on this issue to conclude that we could entirely dismiss the notion that certain groups genetically have higher IQs than others with lots of comprehensive, clinical, empirical data. We don't need to get into soft-headed discussions of the "socio-political realities" to refute Murray's prime argument. It should be addressed directly, on the science. Which Harris would, could and hopefully will do.

On a personal note, my pet theory, shared with Harris, is the sooner we can stop focusing on background (race, ethnicity, etc.), the better. None of this bigotry ends until the notion someone is alien to us based on unscientific, tribal, "cultural" bases, the sooner we'll have a truly functioning and enlightened society. I understand that's pie in the sky, that it'll never happen in our lifetimes. But I'd hope that maybe, 200 years down the road, people would stop categorizing each other. It's a rotten fetish long past its sell by date. And it's fucking dumb. The only proper assessment of a person - clinically, scientifically, logically - is based on consideration of that exact person. Not his race or his ethnicity.

You wouldn't invest in a person's business based on loose facts about his background. You'd invest based on meeting him, assessing his intelligence and business model one-on-one. You'd want the greatest amount of detail you could get on him. That same rigor should be applied to judgments about people in everyday life. Identity politics is understandable, but it's inherently generalization-based, and generalizations are dangerous.

And with that, I leave the soapbox.

Not Bob 08-02-2018 11:22 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516543)
Nvm
I feel oddly gratified whenever I learn that I read one of your posts before it was removed.

For those keeping track of such things, please note that a rich white high school kid can get a pass on participating in a murder of a supposed rival gang member if he says he only joined the gang because he was studying the gang culture.

Hank Chinaski 08-02-2018 11:48 AM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 516548)
I feel oddly gratified whenever I learn that I read one of your posts before it was removed.
It just felt like piling on- for those of you not up late- I brought up some of Mr. Harris's thoughts from the potion of the interview with the Columbia student, and asked how one could say he wasn't racist? I suppose each of us have our own definition, but from what i heard, you'd have to go a bit to not find the man had problems with black people generally. But this board has bigger fish to fry, censorship and cafeteria questions, so i deleted.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-02-2018 12:10 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516547)
My reply to Adder covers this.
Whatever.

Quote:
Murray's haunted the race issue for decades now because there's never been a straightforward dismantling of his theories in a public forum (a Joseph Welch moment, if you will, rather than some dense critique from a fellow academic in some obscure journal).
His work has been debunked plenty of times in plenty of public fora, but the Harrises of the world keep finding reasons to bring it back.

Quote:
On a personal note, my pet theory, shared with Harris, is the sooner we can stop focusing on background (race, ethnicity, etc.), the better.
No forced Harris to look at Murray's work, or to downplay the criticisms of it. No one forced you to post about Harris and Klein here.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-02-2018 12:11 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516549)
It just felt like piling on- for those of you not up late- I brought up some of Mr. Harris's thoughts from the potion of the interview with the Columbia student, and asked how one could say he wasn't racist? I suppose each of us have our own definition, but from what i heard, you'd have to go a bit to not find the man had problems with black people generally. But this board has bigger fish to fry, censorship and cafeteria questions, so i deleted.
I appreciated the effort you put into the post, fwiw.

Adder 08-02-2018 12:12 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516547)
... I've read enough on this issue to conclude that we could entirely dismiss the notion that certain groups genetically have higher IQs than others with lots of comprehensive, clinical, empirical data.
I think we can entirely dismiss the notion that those "groups" actually exist from a genetic point of view.

Quote:
None of this bigotry ends until the notion someone is alien to us based on unscientific, tribal, "cultural" bases, the sooner we'll have a truly functioning and enlightened society. I understand that's pie in the sky, that it'll never happen in our lifetimes.
Consider why humanity involved to so strongly identify with in and out groups, and maybe it's not possible at all. And aside from whether it's an evolved trait, think about how it can and has been used to perpetuate existing power structures, making it a powerful drug regardless.

sebastian_dangerfield 08-02-2018 12:24 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
His work has been debunked plenty of times in plenty of public fora, but the Harrises of the world keep finding reasons to bring it back.
Harris didn't bring it back. Harris brought him on to discuss the issue of censorship.

Harris stated at least a dozen times in his podcast that he had no interest in digging into Murray's work. He was interested in digging into the issue of attempts to stifle inquiry.

Is Murray not the best vessel for this argument? Yes. But I'm not Harris's booker. I'd have preferred to hear Harris address the issue with Maher.

Quote:
No forced Harris to look at Murray's work, or to downplay the criticisms of it. No one forced you to post about Harris and Klein here.
Harris did not downplay criticisms of Murray's work. He took issue with people seeking to censor certain debates.

And the only reason I offered the Harris and Coleman Hughes podcast here, which started this whole thing, was because there was an ongoing discussion of race and white guilt about race discussions. Hughes and Harris were having a discussion about race.

You reserve the right to discuss the issue of white discomfort with race discussions. Yet you have a problem with a white man (Harris) discussing race with a black man (Hughes). I'm a bit confused, and you sound a lot like Klein: "Let's discuss race, but let's discuss it within the narratives that suit my views."

sebastian_dangerfield 08-02-2018 12:32 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
I think we can entirely dismiss the notion that those "groups" actually exist from a genetic point of view.
That's an excellent point, "race" itself being a dubious concept.

Quote:
Consider why humanity involved to so strongly identify with in and out groups, and maybe it's not possible at all.
I don't want to agree with this, but I struggle to argue against it. I'd like to assert that people will evolve to something close to pure rational thought over time, but the science refuses me.

Quote:
And aside from whether it's an evolved trait, think about how it can and has been used to perpetuate existing power structures, making it a powerful drug regardless.
We're ultimately dim animals, wired to tribalize. But that realization leaves me utterly hopeless. I can't think of anything darker and shittier than the notion people will still be categorizing themselves against one another in 500 years.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-02-2018 02:52 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 516553)
Harris didn't bring it back. Harris brought him on to discuss the issue of censorship.

Harris stated at least a dozen times in his podcast that he had no interest in digging into Murray's work. He was interested in digging into the issue of attempts to stifle inquiry.

Is Murray not the best vessel for this argument? Yes. But I'm not Harris's booker. I'd have preferred to hear Harris address the issue with Maher.
Harris chose to give Murray another platform. If he's going to talk about censorship, it's an odd choice to do it with one of the most notorious public intellectuals in the country, someone who has had no problem disseminating his views for many, many years. And it's crazy to think you can talk about the reaction to Murray's work without getting into the substance of his work. It's like inviting Elizabeth Holmes to talk about the glass ceiling for female executives, and thinking you can do it without talking about her fraud.

Quote:
Harris did not downplay criticisms of Murray's work. He took issue with people seeking to censor certain debates.
You should just stop using that word, since you either don't understand what other human beings mean when they use it, or you don't care.

Quote:
And the only reason I offered the Harris and Coleman Hughes podcast here, which started this whole thing, was because there was an ongoing discussion of race and white guilt about race discussions. Hughes and Harris were having a discussion about race.

You reserve the right to discuss the issue of white discomfort with race discussions. Yet you have a problem with a white man (Harris) discussing race with a black man (Hughes). I'm a bit confused, and you sound a lot like Klein: "Let's discuss race, but let's discuss it within the narratives that suit my views."
I don't know who Coleman Hughes is, so I'm not sure why you think I am familiar with his race or have a problem with someone discussing race with him. Stop censoring me, bro.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-02-2018 03:59 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
So, to be clear, complete agreement that Murray is a racist ass and white supremacist, that Harris is a racist but Sebby likes him sometimes anyways, and that Klein can sometimes be insufferable but Ty likes him sometimes anyways.

Can we all just now agree that being openly racist is a pretty fucking awful thing and being insufferable just kind makes him one of us?

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 08-02-2018 04:03 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 516549)
It just felt like piling on- for those of you not up late- I brought up some of Mr. Harris's thoughts from the potion of the interview with the Columbia student, and asked how one could say he wasn't racist? I suppose each of us have our own definition, but from what i heard, you'd have to go a bit to not find the man had problems with black people generally. But this board has bigger fish to fry, censorship and cafeteria questions, so i deleted.
I think a zoning restriction on Google would violate the first amendment right to peaceably assemble, and that Google should deploy endless numbers of Amazon drones in defense of its rights.

The only way they'll take Sergey's avacado is from his cold dead hands.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-02-2018 06:55 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 516556)
So, to be clear, complete agreement that Murray is a racist ass and white supremacist, that Harris is a racist but Sebby likes him sometimes anyways, and that Klein can sometimes be insufferable but Ty likes him sometimes anyways.

Can we all just now agree that being openly racist is a pretty fucking awful thing and being insufferable just kind makes him one of us?
I really don't know much about Harris and don't have a view about him apart from his contretemps with Klein, which did not show him in a good light. I'm not much of a fan of Klein, though I respect Tyler Cowen, who is. Klein's wife just wrote a hot book on a topic Sebby likes, so maybe that will pull him up in his opinion. I think of Klein as more of a curator of other people's views than as having interesting things to say himself, so I'm a little taken aback by Sebby's venom about him, which seems to have more to do with mood affiliation than anything he has said. The conservative part of Sebby's brain bridles at earnest liberalism and belief in policy, and is overcome by a powerful desire to tell people like Klein to shut up, and it has almost zero to do with the substance of what Klein might say.

eta: Maybe it's more appropriate to say that Klein is Lowrey's husband.

Tyrone Slothrop 08-03-2018 02:58 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Would like to hear reactions to this, especially from SEC Chick.

Hank Chinaski 08-03-2018 04:09 PM
Re: We are all Slave now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 516559)
Would like to hear reactions to this, especially from SEC Chick.
Are you advocating "claw backing" any ideological Justices already there?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 PM.
Page 51 of 126 « First 414950 51 525361101 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com