Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
