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

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.

I am tolerant of many beliefs and opinions, but that does not mean that I respect them or the people who hold them. One is free to believe in Jesus, Xenu, the Boogeyman, or that the world is flat. One should be free to shout it to the moon. But, rational thinkers will always distrust that person's opinion on everything else, and think less of their intellect.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am tolerant of many beliefs and opinions, but that does not mean that I respect them or the people who hold them. One is free to believe in Jesus, Xenu, the Boogeyman, or that the world is flat. One should be free to shout it to the moon. But, rational thinkers will always distrust that person's opinion on everything else, and think less of their intellect.

And it they're packing, that "thinking less of their intellect" points to me STFU.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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?

That's one question, but it's not the one I was considering. I'm still considering if we're at the point where emotional impact on others is a metric upon which arguments should be measured, as Swisher seems to suggest. Relatedly, I'm also wondering if her comments to Harris, or any other person with a platform, suggesting he has a duty to refrain from criticizing well-intentioned movements, mean that we are at this point:

Look, we know that a lot of progressive ideals are built on less than rigorous thinking. But the aims of the people pushing for these ideals to be accepted are on the side of good. Of course gender is not a social construct. Of course religion is made up and probably not worth analyzing, as opposed to developing greater tolerance for various forms of it. But tolerance and understanding are good, so if defective thinking gets us there, so what? To attack the often kooky academies that push progressive theories forward risks giving credibility to their enemies, who are often intolerant. So even though your critiques are logical and reasonable, please keep them to yourself.

Regarding Harris' critiques of Islam, I haven't listened to them in detail because it's not really of interest to me. Less and I share the view that religion is silly. One might as well debate Dungeons and Dragons. And while its history is important and worth understanding, it's ultimately a relic of a time when men didn't know science. I find it highly depressing, actually, as it divides people for no good reason and absorbs untold tens of billions each year, worldwide, which could be used for research that would improve the lives of millions of of people. I view it a bit like I view our defense budget.

But what I have heard of Harris on religion accrues from neuroscience. He comes at the subject from a clinical perspective and sees religious fervor as a form of mental illness. I think given his background there, he is qualified to opine. If he gets into the history of religion, however, I'd agree with you that he's over his skis.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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

I read the End of Faith and found his measured tone and analysis to be refreshing. He dismantles religion, but not in a mean or heated fashion. While I of course adored the superb hit job Hitchens delivered in God is Not Great, ultimately, I found that Hitchens' need to cleverly insult the religious undercut his message. It was highly amusing, but a bit dickish in spots. And Dawkins suffered from the same approach. His science is impeccable, but his tone is a bit patronizing and pompous. I may not care much for religion, but I don't think I can discount the religious as knaves and cavemen. I think people hew to religion for complex reasons and as long as they don't try to press their rules on me, I'm fine letting them do as they like. Dawkins and Hitchens lack that empathy.

Harris's assessment, on the other hand, was cool, linear, and economical. Where God is Not Great or The God Delusion would compel the religious to double down, The End of Faith might convert them to atheism. Or at least leave them deeply shaken.

Lying and Free Will were also interesting mini-books. I don't buy Harris's argument in Free Will, but I nevertheless enjoyed seeing his clean analysis develop over its pages.

Harris is also "on the bus." He's taken loads of psychedelics and given many interesting interviews about how they impacted his thinking. I have a similar affinity for psychedelics (mushrooms, in particular). Harris is the rare writer and speaker who can describe the benefits of a "trip" in detail (most attempts at that are incoherent and dull). I think this informs his powers of analysis. He seems to have a rare skill for taking an issue or an argument down not only to its scaffolding, but to its raw material, if not its basic atoms. He can get to the heart of a complex topic at amazing speed. There's a form of insight he has which I think I can understand. It's like seeing around corners, an ability to read into people, that I suspect one acquires in not insignificant part from use of psychedelics. And he's also a bit of a kindred spirit in that, despite having an expanded mind in this regard, he can also be the least self-aware man on the planet.

I do, however, share your view that his criticisms of Islam in particular are not his best moments. I don't think you can criticize one without criticizng them all. The only proper way to attack Islam in the moment, I believe, is to say it is one of many paths men think will align them with the "man in the sky," all of which do immeasurable harm to humanity and are long past their sell by date.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am tolerant of many beliefs and opinions, but that does not mean that I respect them or the people who hold them. One is free to believe in Jesus, Xenu, the Boogeyman, or that the world is flat. One should be free to shout it to the moon. But, rational thinkers will always distrust that person's opinion on everything else, and think less of their intellect.

I'm with you except for doubting their intellect. I think a person can be incredibly smart and still be religious. Religion provides comfort and community to some people. Some people also like structure, rules. For some, it seems to be a hobby. I think these people can separate this irrational interest from the rational side of their brain in which they do their important thinking.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm with you except for doubting their intellect. I think a person can be incredibly smart and still be religious. Religion provides comfort and community to some people. Some people also like structure, rules. For some, it seems to be a hobby. I think these people can separate this irrational interest from the rational side of their brain in which they do their important thinking.

I agree with you. That said, all things being equal, I am not going to hire or give as much credence to a Scientologist. The same applies to people who believe in more popular fantasies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I agree with you. That said, all things being equal, I am not going to hire or give as much credence to a Scientologist. The same applies to people who believe in more popular fantasies.

You moved to the most anti Semitic place on Earth. The food pix are nice but let us know how you are responding to the Nazis? Not hiring? Easy enough for where you’re at job wise.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You moved to the most anti Semitic place on Earth.

Really? Doesn't seem right to me.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Really? Doesn't seem right to me.

1. I haven't moved. 2. I've had random strangers hug me at bars here when I have shared my background.

LessinKiel

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

1. I haven't moved. 2. I've had random strangers hug me at bars here when I have shared my background.

LessinKiel

"On May 26, Germany’s government anti-Semitism Commissioner warned Jewish men against wearing the kippah in public following a spike in attacks against Jews."

The anti-Semetism Commish's advice is for Jews to hide that, well, to hide that they're Jewish?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"On May 26, Germany’s government anti-Semitism Commissioner warned Jewish men against wearing the kippah in public following a spike in attacks against Jews."

The anti-Semetism Commish's advice is for Jews to hide that, well, to hide that they're Jewish?

Not to deny that anti-Semitism exists here, but your statement was hyperbolic bullshit. Most? More than Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Poland, or the US? Spare me.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-as...historic-high/

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

"On May 26, Germany’s government anti-Semitism Commissioner warned Jewish men against wearing the kippah in public following a spike in attacks against Jews."

The anti-Semetism Commish's advice is for Jews to hide that, well, to hide that they're Jewish?

And, compare Germany's response to Trump's:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ss-and-honesty

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Not to deny that anti-Semitism exists here, but your statement was hyperbolic bullshit. Most? More than Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Poland, or the US? Spare me.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-as...historic-high/

I’m in a Jewish US family. No one has warned us not to wear keepas. SA has no Jews. Poland few. And Germany has proven its ability to extrapolate from its basic hatred, so yep, most.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I’m in a Jewish US family. No one has warned us not to wear keepas. SA has no Jews. Poland few. And Germany has proven its ability to extrapolate from its basic hatred, so yep, most.

Ask yourself where you would feel most and least comfortable wearing a yarmulke - Ramallah, Riyadh, Warsaw, Berlin, Poway or Pittsburgh?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Ask yourself where you would feel most and least comfortable wearing a yarmulke - Ramallah, Riyadh, Warsaw, Berlin, Poway or Pittsburgh?

To elaborate, in which city do you think a one-day life insurance policy (premised upon walking around while wearing a yarmulke) would be the most expensive? Hint, it is not Berlin.