Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

No. He hides it because of the vicious personal attacks he receives. San Francisco is an example of how the free speech movement inculcated at Berkeley in 1964 has been perverted into an echo chamber where contrary ideas and thoughts are shouted down with name calling and accusations (think Godwin's law).

I was at the gym the other day, waiting in line to get a towel. A group of women who'd just finished some pilates or bike class were talking in the hallway. Old man walked down the hall in a MAGA hat. Things got really quiet. You could practically feel the temperature drop from the stares.

ETA: Listen to this Kara Swisher interview of Sam Harris (Vox): https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/8/...ka-new-zealand

Swisher's an excellent interviewer, and Harris is a very open guest. As it goes along, Swisher engages Harris on numerous topics and in regard to each (many of which are controversial), Harris applies a cold, rational analysis. He walks her through his thinking, and his responses and the methods he uses to reach them are almost all rationally sound, which Swisher admits. But then she does something interesting. She pokes him with variations of the question, "You're right. Your logic is sound. But don't you think you have a duty to consider the emotional impact of what you're saying?" In doing this, Swisher is toying with the notion of emotion as a metric equal to logic. Stated another way, she is inviting the argument that being right is not the most important thing. That when being right hurts another, this must be taken into account. By extension, one could argue that logic should take a back seat to being politic -- that when truth is at odds with people who feel hurt by it, or it undercuts a movement or way of thinking in which well-meaning people are engaged, maybe that truth should be stifled. Maybe when well intentioned people feel strongly about something they think would make the world better, nurturing their efforts to effect change is so important that rational, logical critiques of their thinking or their goal which would perhaps impede such efforts should not be offered.

I think that's what we're seeing in a lot of dissent stifling these days. The people shouting over critical voices understand that their positions have holes in them, that much of their "scholarship" is suspect. But their ultimate aim is laudable, so squashing logical challenges is not only acceptable, but necessary... Get over the finish line at all costs, and engage the challenges later, after the movement has succeeded.

This of course does not apply to a guy wearing a Trump shirt in Berkeley. That guy is wearing a Cowboys shirt at an Eagles game. He's asking for something, and he deserves to get it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I was at the gym the other day, waiting in line to get a towel. A group of women who'd just finished some pilates or bike class were talking in the hallway. Old man walked down the hall in a MAGA hat. Things got really quiet. You could practically feel the temperature drop from the stares.

ETA: Listen to this Kara Swisher interview of Sam Harris (Vox): https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/8/...ka-new-zealand

Swisher's an excellent interviewer, and Harris is a very open guest. As it goes along, Swisher engages Harris on numerous topics and in regard to each (many of which are controversial), Harris applies a cold, rational analysis. He walks her through his thinking, and his responses and the methods he uses to reach them are almost all rationally sound, which Swisher admits. But then she does something interesting. She pokes him with variations of the question, "You're right. Your logic is sound. But don't you think you have a duty to consider the emotional impact of what you're saying?" In doing this, Swisher is toying with the notion of emotion as a metric equal to logic. Stated another way, she is inviting the argument that being right is not the most important thing. That when being right hurts another, this must be taken into account. By extension, one could argue that logic should take a back seat to being politic -- that when truth is at odds with people who feel hurt by it, or it undercuts a movement or way of thinking in which well-meaning people are engaged, maybe that truth should be stifled. Maybe when well intentioned people feel strongly about something they think would make the world better, nurturing their efforts to effect change is so important that rational, logical critiques of their thinking or their goal which would perhaps impede such efforts should not be made.

I think that's what we're seeing in a lot of dissent stifling these days. The people shouting over critical voices understand that their positions have holes in them, that much of their "scholarship" is suspect. But their ultimate aim is laudable, so squashing logical challenges is not only acceptable, but necessary... Get over the finish line at all costs, and engage the challenges later, after the movement has succeeded.

This of course does not apply to a guy wearing a Trump shirt in Berkeley. That guy is wearing a Cowboys shirt at an Eagles game. He's asking for something, and he deserves to get it.

Oh god I just wasted ten minutes on that Harris shit. Basically, from that you can tell he doesn't like Trump, the left, or Islam, even though some of his best friends, people he'd take a bullet for, are with Trump, on the left, or Muslim, but he has nothing substantive to say about any of them.

Once upon a time, the fun of Sam Harris was picking apart a moron who like to bloviate about Islam without knowing jack shit about it. I suspect that he's now finding out how to skate on the surface enough so he doesn't keep making an ass of himself.

It makes me yearn for the substance of David Brooks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Oh god I just wasted ten minutes on that Harris shit. Basically, from that you can tell he doesn't like Trump, the left, or Islam, even though some of his best friends, people he'd take a bullet for, are with Trump, on the left, or Muslim, but he has nothing substantive to say about any of them.

Once upon a time, the fun of Sam Harris was picking apart a moron who like to bloviate about Islam without knowing jack shit about it. I suspect that he's now finding out how to skate on the surface enough so he doesn't keep making an ass of himself.

It makes me yearn for the substance of David Brooks.

Swisher is the interesting part of the interview. We all know what Harris will say. She either agrees with him, or agrees to disagree. She does not seem interested in having an argument on merits. Instead, she challenges him on whether the emotional impact of something someone says is as important as the veracity of it.

That speaks to Less's point, I think. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Harris is secondary. Swisher is suggesting that even raising a logical argument criticizing something may be a foul. To use Islam as an example, Harris argues that Islam has features that lend it to abuse. This would be the elements of the religion which encourage conversion and conquer (not unlike all other religions). To say that is not at all controversial. It is a valid criticism to make. Swisher is suggesting that because this rather tame criticism can be used to support intolerance of Islam, perhaps it should not even be made. She is asking whether tolerance is so important that even reasonable arguments which would perhaps undercut tolerance should not be offered.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Swisher is the interesting part of the interview. We all know what Harris will say. She either agrees with him, or agrees to disagree. She does not seem interested in having an argument on merits. Instead, she challenges him on whether the emotional impact of something someone says is as important as the veracity of it.

That speaks to Less's point, I think. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Harris is secondary. Swisher is suggesting that even raising a logical argument criticizing something may be a foul. To use Islam as an example, Harris argues that Islam has features that lend it to abuse. This would be the elements of the religion which encourage conversion and conquer (not unlike all other religions). To say that is not at all controversial. It is a valid criticism to make. Swisher is suggesting that because this rather tame criticism can be used to support intolerance of Islam, perhaps it should not even be made. She is asking whether tolerance is so important that even reasonable arguments which would perhaps undercut tolerance should not be offered.

Every conflict in the world today has historical factors that led to it and that color it and talking knowledgeably about them is always interesting. If you want to talk about the role the Hejira has in facilitating communication between fundamentalists or revolutionaries in the Islamic world, I'm there for the discussion, as are any number of Muslims. Likewise, if you want to talk about the decentralized nature of the faith, say, as compared to Catholicism. Interesting stuff. Complex enough to get in the way of people looking for throw-downs, offensive statements, and screaming matches to drive biases and clicks.

Harris is an exercise in confirmation bias and click-bait, and, yes, when you do that kind of shit, your goal is the reaction you get, not any understanding of the subject matter.

It is a uniquely boring interview.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Every conflict in the world today has historical factors that led to it and that color it and talking knowledgeably about them is always interesting. If you want to talk about the role the Hejira has in facilitating communication between fundamentalists or revolutionaries in the Islamic world, I'm there for the discussion, as are any number of Muslims. Likewise, if you want to talk about the decentralized nature of the faith, say, as compared to Catholicism. Interesting stuff. Complex enough to get in the way of people looking for throw-downs, offensive statements, and screaming matches to drive biases and clicks.

Harris is an exercise in confirmation bias and click-bait, and, yes, when you do that kind of shit, your goal is the reaction you get, not any understanding of the subject matter.

It is a uniquely boring interview.

I wish this interview was not with Harris. Swisher's inquiry is what's fascinating. I think the question of whether certain questions should not be asked is centrally important to a lot of our polarization.

A better example might be the Omar debacle. Omar's comments were not facially anti-Semitic. Her critics looked back into her history of criticism of Israel to find context to so brand them. But... Is she not allowed to criticize Israel? Apparently, yes. Because of historical atrocities visited on Jews, to many in this country, criticism of Israel is a third rail. And thus, the reference to "Benjamins" she made was a Jews-love-money slur.

There were many reasons for attacks on Omar. Much of it was right wing opportunists. But what cannot be removed, and sits at the heart of those and similar attacks, is a form of prior restraint. The idea that tolerance of Israel is so important because of what's happened to Jews in the past that critics of it are perhaps better off silenced.

To say Islam has features which lend it to abuse, like all other religions, is not controversial. It's a valid position. And I agree, somewhat boring. What is not boring, and is indeed fascinating, is the emerging cultural prior restraint being applied. That Swisher is comfortable suggesting, "Perhaps you shouldn't say something, because that harms tolerance, and tolerance is most important" is stunning. There's a value system being created there running headlong into freedom of speech. And this conflict is popping up in many other places as well (Twitter barring white supremacists, etc.).

In some regards, I'm comfortable with it (I have no sympathy for deplatformed climate change deniers). In others, it seems a bit scary, a bit religious -- placing certain values, certain ways of thinking, into a sort of "sacred" bucket.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

To say Islam has features which lend it to abuse, like all other religions, is not controversial. It's a valid position. And I agree, somewhat boring.

This is not the boring part if you do it (i) with specificity - for example, by noting that the presence of a gathering of members of the religion from all over the world allows ideas and plans to be transmitted more quickly than in other religions, you say something interesting; and (ii) noting the contras as well as the pros for your position - for example, by noting that there are longstanding Islamic theologies, going back to the original Caliphate, that provide a unique conceptual framework for allowing other religions to continue to be practiced in a territory otherwise run by faithful muslims, and one that, by virtue of special taxes, even gives the rulers a reason to avoid full conversion, and that this meant that, for example, Medieval Andalusia was a more diverse and accepting society for the most part when compared to post-reconquista Spain.

This is the interesting part that no one in that interview has any interest in.

What is not boring, and is indeed fascinating, is the emerging cultural prior restraint being applied.

Do you want to think about that "prior restraint" phrase? I mean, prior restraint is a concept that has meaning and relates to state action and is not present in any of these situations.

What you seem to be fascinated by is that people don't want to say unpopular stuff and don't want to look stupid. Really?

To the first, well, buck up, speak your peace, and deal with it. Yes, much of what I have to say on Israel is unpopular and Hank will hassle me when I say, and sometimes preemptively. Tough snoogies, as long as Hank doesn't get the state to apply a prior restraint (see how it is used!), assault me over it, or get to have a judge fine me or throw me in prison because I said it.

To the second, I wish more people were seriously concerned with not looking foolish. [Stares at Sebby].

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is not the boring part if you do it (i) with specificity - for example, by noting that the presence of a gathering of members of the religion from all over the world allows ideas and plans to be transmitted more quickly than in other religions, you say something interesting; and (ii) noting the contras as well as the pros for your position - for example, by noting that there are longstanding Islamic theologies, going back to the original Caliphate, that provide a unique conceptual framework for allowing other religions to continue to be practiced in a territory otherwise run by faithful muslims, and one that, by virtue of special taxes, even gives the rulers a reason to avoid full conversion, and that this meant that, for example, Medieval Andalusia was a more diverse and accepting society for the most part when compared to post-reconquista Spain.

This is the interesting part that no one in that interview has any interest in.



Do you want to think about that "prior restraint" phrase? I mean, prior restraint is a concept that has meaning and relates to state action and is not present in any of these situations.

What you seem to be fascinated by is that people don't want to say unpopular stuff and don't want to look stupid. Really?

To the first, well, buck up, speak your peace, and deal with it. Yes, much of what I have to say on Israel is unpopular and Hank will hassle me when I say, and sometimes preemptively. Tough snoogies, as long as Hank doesn't get the state to apply a prior restraint (see how it is used!), assault me over it, or get to have a judge fine me or throw me in prison because I said it.

To the second, I wish more people were seriously concerned with not looking foolish. [Stares at Sebby].

By the way, one thing that is fantastic these days is Ilhan and AOC and their crowd. Talk about a group that is fearless and intelligent and not subject to prior restraint. Many have tried to silence Congresswoman Omar in particular, but she has stood her ground and spoken her piece and it ought to be applauded by all, whether they agree with her or not. I bet even the people who slime and belittle her (hi Slave!), have some grudging respect.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is not the boring part if you do it (i) with specificity - for example, by noting that the presence of a gathering of members of the religion from all over the world allows ideas and plans to be transmitted more quickly than in other religions, you say something interesting; and (ii) noting the contras as well as the pros for your position - for example, by noting that there are longstanding Islamic theologies, going back to the original Caliphate, that provide a unique conceptual framework for allowing other religions to continue to be practiced in a territory otherwise run by faithful muslims, and one that, by virtue of special taxes, even gives the rulers a reason to avoid full conversion, and that this meant that, for example, Medieval Andalusia was a more diverse and accepting society for the most part when compared to post-reconquista Spain.

This is the interesting part that no one in that interview has any interest in.



Do you want to think about that "prior restraint" phrase? I mean, prior restraint is a concept that has meaning and relates to state action and is not present in any of these situations.

What you seem to be fascinated by is that people don't want to say unpopular stuff and don't want to look stupid. Really?

To the first, well, buck up, speak your peace, and deal with it. Yes, much of what I have to say on Israel is unpopular and Hank will hassle me when I say, and sometimes preemptively. Tough snoogies, as long as Hank doesn't get the state to apply a prior restraint (see how it is used!), assault me over it, or get to have a judge fine me or throw me in prison because I said it.

To the second, I wish more people were seriously concerned with not looking foolish. [Stares at Sebby].

I used “cultural prior restraint” because I could not think of another word for the concept. I’m aware it’s a state action. I regret the lack of consistency in using it a second time without including “cultural.” I assumed it related back to the first use, so I didn’t need to use it twice. My bad.

If people like Harris are so foolish, why is there an effort to shut them down preemptively? You and I disagree on a lot, and I find when I try to make you look foolish, I often fail. But when I let you write at length, I often succeed. I trust you feel the same about me. And this would fit within the rule, “Buck up and take the blowback.”

That which anyone feels the need to preemptively protect usually has a hole in it. I’m confident we agree on that axiom.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By the way, one thing that is fantastic these days is Ilhan and AOC and their crowd. Talk about a group that is fearless and intelligent and not subject to prior restraint. Many have tried to silence Congresswoman Omar in particular, but she has stood her ground and spoken her piece and it ought to be applauded by all, whether they agree with her or not. I bet even the people who slime and belittle her (hi Slave!), have some grudging respect.

I like AOC. And I respect her. But I also have heard her say many dumb things. And I don’t know if she’s going to get a second term. Her ownership of the Amazon debacle has created a huge crowd of AOC haters in her district. That was a colossal political blunder.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I used “cultural prior restraint” because I could not think of another word for the concept. I’m aware it’s a state action. I regret the lack of consistency in using it a second time without including “cultural.” I assumed it related back to the first use, so I didn’t need to use it twice. My bad.

If people like Harris are so foolish, why is there an effort to shut them down preemptively? You and I disagree on a lot, and I find when I try to make you look foolish, I often fail. But when I let you write at length, I often succeed. I trust you feel the same about me. And this would fit within the rule, “Buck up and take the blowback.”

That which anyone feels the need to preemptively protect usually has a hole in it. I’m confident we agree on that axiom.

How have I (or anyone else) ever tried to shut him down? I have pointed out that he's a fool, and that his foolishness is motivated by and embodies bigotry, but that's not shutting him down, that's just pointing out the obvious. I turn the channel when he is on, because he is not worth listening to. But, somehow, I still read that moronic interview of him.

Ain't no one trying to "shut him down".

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

How have I (or anyone else) ever tried to shut him down? I have pointed out that he's a fool, and that his foolishness is motivated by and embodies bigotry, but that's not shutting him down, that's just pointing out the obvious. I turn the channel when he is on, because he is not worth listening to. But, somehow, I still read that moronic interview of him.

Ain't no one trying to "shut him down".

I didn’t accuse you or anyone else of shutting him down. He’s being chided to shut himself down without consideration of the reasonableness or veracity of his criticisms.

By “cultural prior restraint” I meant, as I said, there appears to be an effort, noted by Swisher, to suggest that logical criticisms which might adversely effect well-intentioned movements (greater tolerance, wokeness, etc.) should not be offered. It’s not Orwellian to any degree. It relies on a form of shame and the use of emotional impact as a metric (“Your criticism is logically reasonable, but emotionally, to those who place tolerance above logic, it is for too damaging and so should be tempered or left unsaid”)*

Swisher is telling Harris his sin is not saying something wrong, but something that hurts others who are on the side of expanding tolerance and understanding. She’s saying he might have a duty to restrain himself. I agree with you that the better approach is to let him say whatever he likes and allow the marketplace of ideas decide the verdict on it.

____
* You get around this by saying Harris is wrong. But that’s you. In the marketplace of ideas, his criticisms are considered reasonable and often valid.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn’t accuse you or anyone else of shutting him down. He’s being chided to shut himself down without consideration of the reasonableness or veracity of his criticisms.

Footnote it all you want, he's an ignorant fool who has gotten people's attention by spouting rubbish.

He constantly goes on about how he is a neuroscientist to give himself credibility. Look, I have an undergraduate degree in Middle Eastern History, which gives me more credibility, and I wouldn't put myself on TV as an expert on this stuff. You and I both have JDs, but we aren't experts on neuroscience.

Why does anyone listen to him? Isn't that the right question. What is going on in this world that people are listening to him instead of someone who knows something about the subject? What cultural morass have we sunk into that we so disrespect and devalue knowledge?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Footnote it all you want, he's an ignorant fool who has gotten people's attention by spouting rubbish.

He constantly goes on about how he is a neuroscientist to give himself credibility. Look, I have an undergraduate degree in Middle Eastern History, which gives me more credibility, and I wouldn't put myself on TV as an expert on this stuff. You and I both have JDs, but we aren't experts on neuroscience.

Why does anyone listen to him? Isn't that the right question. What is going on in this world that people are listening to him instead of someone who knows something about the subject? What cultural morass have we sunk into that we so disrespect and devalue knowledge?

Another question: why does he have credibility with you? Why do you listen to him?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Yes, but to be fair, we've heard you spout off an awful lot here, and often you do sound a lot like the people who caused some of my family to flee Germany.

To paraphrase the debate below, we are too tolerant of stupiity and irrationality. Feel free to express ignorance, but don't expect to not be shunned and abhorred for it, whether that be wearing a MAGA hat or expousing religion.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

To paraphrase the debate below, we are too tolerant of stupiity and irrationality. Feel free to express ignorance, but don't expect to not be shunned and abhorred for it, whether that be wearing a MAGA hat or expousing religion.

For certain personal reasons I am spending time an hour east of Dallas. Yokels walk around with pistols holstered on their hip. The next table at the restaurant? Packing: packing: packing: packing. Kind of hard to think about being intolerant of anything they might say.