Quote:
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.
Threaded Mode