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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My opinion on media dovetails with Taibbi's.

Do you suppose Maher is part of the problem Taibbi sees, or part of the solution?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you suppose Maher is part of the problem Taibbi sees, or part of the solution?

Neither. Maher has not "picked a side" thoroughly. He's all over the map.

To truly be part of the problem, one must prosthelytize or accept most, if not almost all, of one side's views. Maher is too much of a heretic on too many important issues to be embraced by either side. He's anti-Trump, pro-environment, feminist, and socially more liberal than 99.99% of people. But he's also intolerant of religion, anti-woke, and absolutist on free speech trumping the interests of those who feel hurt by it.

Maher hasn't accepted and parroted the adequate number of their virtues to fit on the left or right. In fact, he shits on a bunch of them every week for a living. So no. He's not part of the problem. He's part of the solution.

(On a side note, I'd wager Taibbi isn't on Maher's show anymore because Maher has been a strident Russiagate investigation proponent. They definitely do not see eye to eye on that. But the nice thing about Maher is, when he's wrong, he'll admit it. Mueller came up snake eyes and Maher's response was, "Ok, we lost on that... but we'll catch him on something else soon enough." And he was right. He's also admitted over and over that the only way to nail Trump is in an election. That impeachment is a waste of time. Counter that to most of media which followed Russiagate assiduously and flipped out when Mueller came up with an underwhelming report. Counter that with Maddow, who hasn't apologized for her conspiracy theories once.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't listen to Harris' critiques of Islam because his big argument - that Islam is more problematic than Christianity or Judaism - is just weak. It relies on viewing Islam only over the last fifty years, and it focuses on the crazies rather than the moderates. If one takes a longer view and assesses Christianity's crimes, Christianity was a far more pernicious "problem religion" for a longer period of time than any other.

I'm not familiar with Harris' views on Buddhism. I think he's a bit off kilter to be picking fights with a religion as benign as that one. (I actually kind of like Buddhism to the extent it's more a way of thinking than a religion.)

Maher doesn't pretend to be enlightened. Maher is an opinion machine. He's thoughtful, but he's also got a quick trigger finger. He doesn't care to go deep into the weeds. He sells judgment. I like him because, while he is wrong on certain things, he's right far more often, and where he's right, he's ruthless. His disdain for religion generally, his views on climate, his stance on animal rights, and his free speech absolutism make him an essential voice.

Murray wrote one good book about excessive govt regulation and when I heard him talk about how society is bifurcating into "two Americas" (similar to John Edwards' shtick) on Harris' show, I thought he made some good points. But it struck me a bit odd that a guy who wrote on those soft anthropological subjects would also feel comfortable getting into biology. That takes an exceptionally nimble mind. The only person I've seen do that convincingly is Dawkins. And he does it in reverse - starting from the science and expanding into cultural issues. When you start with views derived from anthropology and then seek out the hard science to support them, as did Murray, you're doing it all backwards, and you're going to get flawed results.

Harris is a fan of Buddhism, but not as a religion. It's kind of a thing. It's really only possible to do with a religion you view in the abstract whose texts are in a language you don't read and whose temples you don't visit and whose practitioners you don't talk with.

My point though was a little more fundamental. Why do people like this, who revel in their factual ignorance and lack of background in the things they discuss, get listened to for "ideas"?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Neither. Maher has not "picked a side" thoroughly. He's all over the map.

To truly be part of the problem, one must prosthelytize or accept most, if not almost all, of one side's views. Maher is too much of a heretic on too many important issues to be embraced by either side. He's anti-Trump, pro-environment, feminist, and socially more liberal than 99.99% of people. But he's also intolerant of religion, anti-woke, and absolutist on free speech trumping the interests of those who feel hurt by it.

Maher hasn't accepted and parroted the adequate number of their virtues to fit on the left or right. In fact, he shits on a bunch of them every week for a living. So no. He's not part of the problem. He's part of the solution.

No, until he tries to understand facts before he opines on them, he's a big problem.

That's separate from his virulent racism and bigotry, which is also problematic, but that we don't need to beat that dead horse again.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Harris is a fan of Buddhism, but not as a religion. It's kind of a thing. It's really only possible to do with a religion you view in the abstract whose texts are in a language you don't read and whose temples you don't visit and whose practitioners you don't talk with.

My point though was a little more fundamental. Why do people like this, who revel in their factual ignorance and lack of background in the things they discuss, get listened to for "ideas"?

Harris lived in India and Nepal and studied and practiced with notable Buddhists. I don’t know what languages he speaks.

To your point more broadly, I think Harris is uniquely lucid and inquisitive. When he questioned Murray, he dismantled some of Murray’s points using science rather than insisting Murray was morally repugnant for even addressing the third rail issues he has. That’s a much more satisfying conversation than just calling Murray names. He’s enlightening listeners in that regard. He’s also banishing the dim sorts who don’t grasp the science and just like to call people racists, sexists, phobes, etc.

On Islam, however, Harris is rigid. And I think noting that it is the “problem religion” of the moment without explaining the geopolitical reasons for that is disingenuous and preempts necessary debate.

Harris is a much needed thinker. But like any thinker, you have to assess him issue by issue. Assessing Harris as an “identity” is worthless.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

No, until he tries to understand facts before he opines on them, he's a big problem.

That's separate from his virulent racism and bigotry, which is also problematic, but that we don't need to beat that dead horse again.

Depends, again, on the issue. When Maher decries opponents of free speech as dangerous idiots, he’s unassailable. When he feels empowered to use a slur as a stunt, he’s a low rent provocateur. When he has a victim of genital mutilation on to expose a crime for which all perpetrators should suffer penectomy (but keep their testicles, so they may suffer all the appropriate pain), he offers a worthy criticism of religion generally. When he asserts only Islam’s lunatic fringe has engaged in vile practices of that nature, he lets the other religions off the hook too easily.

Any thinker must be assessed thought by thought. As “identities” or “personalities,” they’re all just flawed humans.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Neither. Maher has not "picked a side" thoroughly. He's all over the map.

That makes sense if you think that Taibbi objects to anyone having a point of view. But if Taibbi sees a problem with the media propensity to stir shit to get people agitated and watching, then Maher looks more like part of the problem.

In this characteristically turbocharged new book, celebrated Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi provides an insider’s guide to the variety of ways today’s mainstream media tells us lies. Part tirade, part confessional, it reveals that what most people think of as “the news” is, in fact, a twisted wing of the entertainment business.

"A twisted wing of the entertainment business?" Isn't that Maher's middle name?

You like Maher because you agree with him.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That makes sense if you think that Taibbi objects to anyone having a point of view. But if Taibbi sees a problem with the media propensity to stir shit to get people agitated and watching, then Maher looks more like part of the problem.



"A twisted wing of the entertainment business?" Isn't that Maher's middle name?

You like Maher because you agree with him.

On your last point, I like Maher because the number of his positions I agree with far outweighs the number of those with which I disagree. But I could no more generally agree with him on everything than I could any other person.

But to the extent he is occasionally a cheap provocateur (slurs, wishing Koch brother was in hell, etc.), I’m not a fan. But it is very easy to separate the instances in which he pot stirs from those where he is making interesting points you’ll rarely hear elsewhere.

ETA: But I agree with your assessment that Taibbi would label Maher a part of “Hate, Inc.”. Taibbi himself could be part of it, as he is a firebrand of sorts. But neither Maher nor Taibbi are amassing audiences aligned with doctrinaire party-line political positions like Hannity or Maddow. And neither is actively lying or spinning. If by pot stirring occasionally, Maher and Taibbi can cause people to stop watching Fox or MSNBC, they’ve done us all a great service. If they can drag people away from the parties, if they cause people not to trust the parties, to question rather than follow, is that not doing what the Fourth Estate was designed to do?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Harris lived in India and Nepal and studied and practiced with notable Buddhists. I don’t know what languages he speaks.

To your point more broadly, I think Harris is uniquely lucid and inquisitive. When he questioned Murray, he dismantled some of Murray’s points using science rather than insisting Murray was morally repugnant for even addressing the third rail issues he has. That’s a much more satisfying conversation than just calling Murray names. He’s enlightening listeners in that regard. He’s also banishing the dim sorts who don’t grasp the science and just like to call people racists, sexists, phobes, etc.

On Islam, however, Harris is rigid. And I think noting that it is the “problem religion” of the moment without explaining the geopolitical reasons for that is disingenuous and preempts necessary debate.

Harris is a much needed thinker. But like any thinker, you have to assess him issue by issue. Assessing Harris as an “identity” is worthless.

I probably shouldn't have charged Harris with as much ignorance of Buddhism, I'm too used to dealing with him on Islam. Maybe he's done more of the real work there. I'll let you know when I read my friends book that comes out next month. On Islam, Harris really just hasn't done the work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

On your last point, I like Maher because the number of his positions I agree with far outweighs the number of those with which I disagree. But I could no more generally agree with him on everything than I could any other person.

But to the extent he is occasionally a cheap provocateur (slurs, wishing Koch brother was in hell, etc.), I’m not a fan. But it is very easy to separate the instances in which he pot stirs from those where he is making interesting points you’ll rarely hear elsewhere.

ETA: But I agree with your assessment that Taibbi would label Maher a part of “Hate, Inc.”. Taibbi himself could be part of it, as he is a firebrand of sorts. But neither Maher nor Taibbi are amassing audiences aligned with doctrinaire party-line political positions like Hannity or Maddow. And neither is actively lying or spinning. If by pot stirring occasionally, Maher and Taibbi can cause people to stop watching Fox or MSNBC, they’ve done us all a great service. If they can drag people away from the parties, if they cause people not to trust the parties, to question rather than follow, is that not doing what the Fourth Estate was designed to do?

Sounds like you have beliefs about the role of the press that I'm not sure I share.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Is there another country outside of the Western hemisphere we have fucked as badly and repeatedly as Iran?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Is there another country outside of the Western hemisphere we have fucked as badly and repeatedly as Iran?

Was gonna quibble but you said outside the Western Hemisphere...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Was gonna quibble but you said outside the Western Hemisphere...

Yeah, there are a lot of countries we have screwed with pretty badly south of the border.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I'll bet Sebby is even willing to defend Bret Stephens, who proved himself, once again, a racist bedbug.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'll bet Sebby is even willing to defend Bret Stephens, who proved himself, once again, a racist bedbug.

I'll tell you about the intelligence of the Ashkenazi, my MIL would bake spaghetti.

But the piece, ultimately, tries for a "nurture" explanation for the facts on Nobel prizes, etc. Basically Eastern European Jews have had to rely on the intangible because they keep having the tangible taken away. Citing this paper for the IQ stat is certainly sloppy, but racist because the author is? I assume the NYT has an editor (two maybe?) that read the piece before publication. Are they racist?