We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

According to science, the responsibility for saving my ass was 99.44% mine alone.

You waffled all over the place and tried to change the subject, as you always do.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

And I have to say that if you couldn't read and understand my succinct responses to you, I have a hard time believing that you read and understood much of that study.

Nonsense. The study did exactly what you said could not be done. You're dissembling.

You've got the transcript. Prove me wrong. Show me where Klein suggests that.

Klein's suggestion that Harris self-censor is inescapable. But of course he doesn't dare say that out loud. You know what. The text in aggregate makes the point beyond doubt, particularly when read in context of his article that started the whole thing, and Harris's interview with Murray that spurred that article.

Timmyism isn't going to get you the "win" here.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

The preceding pages have reminded me of a 100+ page opinion by the Nevada Supreme Court that purported to discipline a dead judge. https://law.justia.com/cases/nevada/...2/18326-1.html

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...like_thumb.png

Edited by Not Bob because the very appropriate image really fucked up the margins.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Harris's point was very simple: There's knowledge out there today that politically correct people don't want discussed.

Is there? What is it? It's certainly not Murray's "work" which has been discussed far more frequently and widely than it merits, given that it's bullshit.

Klein responded, Those politically correct people have a point, and you should listen to them. That's ludicrous.

Klein said maybe you should point out that Murray's work is bullshit. There's nothing ludicrous about that.

If Harris desires to discuss the positives of Nazism, or nuclear war, he can do so, and Klein has no business telling him he shouldn't do it.

You are a deeply strange human being.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I guess I'll just keep doing so. It is not a logical inquiry. It is not an exercise one can perform. I don't give a shit about Klein. I have given you reason after reason after reason.

And I'm going to tell you, I don't agree with you, for the 50th time. You very well can assess how much an individual is responsible for his own disadvantages relative to forces beyond his control. You can look at his actions over the course of his life, figure out which of his behaviors caused self-harm, and which were directly attributable to outside forces. Is it easy? No. Is it technically possible? Yes.

Your argument has shifted so often that I don't know what the fuck you're saying. You say things like this:

"This takes right back to Murray and Harris and Klein. To talk effect is to examine inequality between races, which involves an analysis of causes. That analysis includes an examination of how much responsibility a disadvantaged group has for its circumstances versus how much was inflicted by outside forces beyond its control.

I agree with the approach, but this is the third rail conversations of all third rail conversations, apparently."

I don't like that group approach. I don't think it provides accurate data for reasons I've stated. But the hypo, the issue as it was framed by Klein and Harris, involved groups.

If you're going to engage in the analysis they did, the only approach is the one I offered above.

And you've said this often. You talk about logical inquiry into a group's responsibility for their circumstances. Then you turn around the next minute and talk about how this can't be done for groups. You are making no sense. The argument you have seized on and keep making (and denying you're making) is ridiculous. But you can't drop it no matter how stupid it is.

There's absolute consistency. If I'm compelled to debate this involving groups, as Harris and Klein did, then within those limits, you'd have to take a number of sets of people in that group, assess how many suffered disadvantage as a result of their own acts versus outside acts, compare these smaller sets to one another and reach average percentages which are then extrapolated to the whole group. I don't like it because I think it's terrifically inaccurate, but if we must chop people into groups, this is how it'd be done.

This is the dumbest fucking analogy to support an argument I've seen in quite some time.

No it's not. It's simple. X, Y, and Z are members of an oppressed group. X makes certain decisions, Y makes others, Z makes others. All decisions are discrete. Their lives take different trajectories afterward. Each bears a certain degree of responsibility for his trajectory. The fact that they're oppressed does not erase that.

Either we discuss the impact of the disadvantages an individual faces in the context of the treatment that person endured as a part of a group or we don't. Discussing what an individual does outside of that context is fucking pointless because it has nothing to do with whatever impact on that class of people the negative treatment has had.

The above does that.

Again, you are arguing a point that no one is making anywhere.

It took me several go-rounds before Ty would concede that an oppressed person is not completely absolved of all responsibility for decisions.

The whole point of the conversation is that if one group suffers a difference in circumstances than another after disparate treatment, whatever evidence you think you're analyzing about why part of it is their fault is really evidence of how they are treated differently. I don't know why you keep bringing up individuals in the context of this conversation to make your point. It makes absolutely no sense.

That wasn't the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation, going way back, was whether Harris should be engaging in an assessment of self-responsibility regarding oppressed individuals.

It's not a logical argument. That's the whole fucking point. You can't shift the conversation into something that no one was discussing and call it logical. It is illogical to try to figure out a percentage of blame that you can assign to a group that has suffered oppression for their current circumstances. Period. End of story.

It is entirely logical to accord a percentage of personal responsibility to every single person, everywhere, in every circumstance. You yourself admitted earlier that every person bears a certain level of responsibility for his circumstance. This includes all people, advantaged people and disadvantaged people.

We can take a look at any individual's life and understand that any specific choice they make is a bad one or a good one. Of course. We can gauge to what extent that person's choices are limited or influenced by racism and oppression. We can step back and say, "Okay. We see you don't have the same opportunity that others do, but you could have started a business like this other guy in a similar situation." But what the fuck does that do? And how do we measure a percentage of blame for each individual and then aggregate it for a group. And even if that were possible, what is the point other than to point to the group and say, "See? It's __% your fault."

So we should just ban such inquiry? We should police against it by having people like Klein cast opprobrium on Harris? Free speech is absolute. Period. End of story. That's my ultimate point here.

Your inability to understand the point of what you have deemed to be "identity politics" is sickening. Black people don't engage in identity politics because it's fun. They do it because they are in a class of people that is treated worse than other people. They are asking to be treated in the same way as white people. "Fans of identity politics." What a stupid fucking way to look at it.

I don't think black people engage in identity politics at all. I think things like BLM are direct, rational reactions to clear racism. I think white people like Klein, and on the other side, the bigoted Trumpkins, are the peddlers of identity politics. Harris says numerous times, in his podcast and elsewhere, "Isn't the goal to see people as individuals, not groups?" At one point, he says, "If we get to Mars and people are still fixating on skin color, haven't we failed miserably?" (Those are paraphrases, T[imm]y.)

Again, didn't read it, but based on what everyone else has said here, that's not what Klein said at all. In any case, whatever.

Klein's points can be distilled to, "What good is it to analyze self-responsibility of an oppressed person. It can only be used for negative ends. You shouldn't do that."

He does not get to make that call. No one gets to make that call. All questions may and should be asked, always.

TM[/QUOTE]

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Klein's points can be distilled to, "What good is it to analyze self-responsibility of an oppressed person. It can only be used for negative ends. You shouldn't do that."

He does not get to make that call. No one gets to make that call. All questions may and should be asked, always.

I never heard of Harris before this debate and my thoughts on Ezra Klein are mostly limited to musing how such a dude ended up with the delightful Annie Lowrey (who writes circles around him). She is, indeed, Better than Ezra.

But I agree with you, Sebby! No, really. Why shouldn’t we discuss all of the scientific data that leading European scientists collected regarding groups of people during the 1940s? I mean, sure, we might disagree with their views or the reasons why (and how) they collected that data, but who are we to say “you shouldn’t do that”? Argue their points by refuting their data, I say.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

But I agree with you, Sebby! No, really. Why shouldn’t we discuss all of the scientific data that leading European scientists collected regarding groups of people during the 1940s? I mean, sure, we might disagree with their views or the reasons why (and how) they collected that data, but who are we to say “you shouldn’t do that”? Argue their points by refuting their data, I say.

to be fair to Sebby, I don't think he is saying such studies are particularly instructive or valuable, I think he is saying the one guy should be able to say they are instructive or valuable and the other guy shouldn't be trying to shut him up.

what is saddest here is that this board once held the promise of an Abba or gwnc fuck story and now we are reduced to this. We can't even hope for adder strikes out stories anymore{sad face}

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to be fair to Sebby, I don't think he is saying such studies are particularly instructive or valuable, I think he is saying the one guy should be able to say they are instructive or valuable and the other guy shouldn't be trying to shut him up.

what is saddest here is that this board once held the promise of an Abba or gwnc fuck story and now we are reduced to this. We can't even hope for adder strikes out stories anymore{sad face}

We never should have put you in charge of recruiting new blood.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And I'm going to tell you, I don't agree with you, for the 50th time. You very well can assess how much an individual is responsible for his own disadvantages relative to forces beyond his control. You can look at his actions over the course of his life, figure out which of his behaviors caused self-harm, and which were directly attributable to outside forces. Is it easy? No. Is it technically possible? Yes.

I don't like that group approach. I don't think it provides accurate data for reasons I've stated. But the hypo, the issue as it was framed by Klein and Harris, involved groups.

If you're going to engage in the analysis they did, the only approach is the one I offered above.

There's absolute consistency. If I'm compelled to debate this involving groups, as Harris and Klein did, then within those limits, you'd have to take a number of sets of people in that group, assess how many suffered disadvantage as a result of their own acts versus outside acts, compare these smaller sets to one another and reach average percentages which are then extrapolated to the whole group. I don't like it because I think it's terrifically inaccurate, but if we must chop people into groups, this is how it'd be done.

No it's not. It's simple. X, Y, and Z are members of an oppressed group. X makes certain decisions, Y makes others, Z makes others. All decisions are discrete. Their lives take different trajectories afterward. Each bears a certain degree of responsibility for his trajectory. The fact that they're oppressed does not erase that.

The above does that.

It took me several go-rounds before Ty would concede that an oppressed person is not completely absolved of all responsibility for decisions.

That wasn't the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation, going way back, was whether Harris should be engaging in an assessment of self-responsibility regarding oppressed individuals.

It is entirely logical to accord a percentage of personal responsibility to every single person, everywhere, in every circumstance. You yourself admitted earlier that every person bears a certain level of responsibility for his circumstance. This includes all people, advantaged people and disadvantaged people.

So we should just ban such inquiry? We should police against it by having people like Klein cast opprobrium on Harris? Free speech is absolute. Period. End of story. That's my ultimate point here.

I don't think black people engage in identity politics at all. I think things like BLM are direct, rational reactions to clear racism. I think white people like Klein, and on the other side, the bigoted Trumpkins, are the peddlers of identity politics. Harris says numerous times, in his podcast and elsewhere, "Isn't the goal to see people as individuals, not groups?" At one point, he says, "If we get to Mars and people are still fixating on skin color, haven't we failed miserably?" (Those are paraphrases, T[imm]y.)

Klein's points can be distilled to, "What good is it to analyze self-responsibility of an oppressed person. It can only be used for negative ends. You shouldn't do that."

He does not get to make that call. No one gets to make that call. All questions may and should be asked, always.

This is all drivelous nonsense. But at least I now have a new word. I plan on using "drivelous" as often as I can. In fact, I shall label Trump's single term the Drivelous Era.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

to be fair to Sebby, I don't think he is saying such studies are particularly instructive or valuable, I think he is saying the one guy should be able to say they are instructive or valuable and the other guy shouldn't be trying to shut him up.

He has shown zero evidence of anyone trying to shut anyone up. He's as full of shit as ever.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

He has shown zero evidence of anyone trying to shut anyone up. He's as full of shit as ever.

TM

Bullshit. That’s entirely Klein’s point. Of course he can’t say it bluntly. That would expose him as squelching inquiry, and an illogical sort who places his politics above intellectual honesty. That’s why Ty keeps trying to quote him literally, and avoid considering the context and totality of his arguments. Klein’s slippery. He’s dancing around saying, “You shouldn’t do this, Sam,” because he knows the minute he does it that bluntly, Harris can call him a politically correct censor.

The Harris podcast to which Klein objected was called “forbidden knowledge.” Klein is engaging in bullshit political correctness. That’s so obvious I have a hard time believing we’re even going through this debate.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bullshit. That’s entirely Klein’s point. Of course he can’t say it bluntly. That would expose him as squelching inquiry, and an illogical sort who places his politics above intellectual honesty. That’s why Ty keeps trying to quote him literally, and avoid considering the context and totality of his arguments. Klein’s slippery. He’s dancing around saying, “You shouldn’t do this, Sam,” because he knows the minute he does it that bluntly, Harris can call him a politically correct censor.

The Harris podcast to which Klein objected was called “forbidden knowledge.” Klein is engaging in bullshit political correctness. That’s so obvious I have a hard time believing we’re even going through this debate.

I've always been like so free speech I thought Nazi should be able to march in Skokie but Sebby has me rethinking the wisdom of such an approach.

Enough.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bullshit. That’s entirely Klein’s point. Of course he can’t say it bluntly. That would expose him as squelching inquiry, and an illogical sort who places his politics above intellectual honesty. That’s why Ty keeps trying to quote him literally, and avoid considering the context and totality of his arguments. Klein’s slippery. He’s dancing around saying, “You shouldn’t do this, Sam,” because he knows the minute he does it that bluntly, Harris can call him a politically correct censor.

You think Klein would be embarrassed to say what he really wants to say. I don't think anyone else thinks he would. You're seeing some sort of conspiracy where none is necessary.

Harris (and anyone else) should not let Murray speak to his audience as though he isn't full of shit. If you're going to give him a platform, you should be calling him on his shit. If you're not going to call him on his shit, you shouldn't give him your platform.

None of that is motivated by "political correctness" (although that's a perfectly legit motivation too). It's motivated by thinking it's inappropriate to mislead people and realizing that if you do give his ideas a platform without context, you're implicitly endorsing them.

The Harris podcast to which Klein objected was called “forbidden knowledge.”

Even you do not think there's any knowledge to be gained from Murray.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You think Klein would be embarrassed to say what he really wants to say. I don't think anyone else thinks he would. You're seeing some sort of conspiracy where none is necessary.

Harris (and anyone else) should not let Murray speak to his audience as though he isn't full of shit. If you're going to give him a platform, you should be calling him on his shit. If you're not going to call him on his shit, you shouldn't give him your platform.

None of that is motivated by "political correctness" (although that's a perfectly legit motivation too). It's motivated by thinking it's inappropriate to mislead people and realizing that if you do give his ideas a platform without context, you're implicitly endorsing them.



Even you do not think there's any knowledge to be gained from Murray.

You just channeled Klein perfectly. Utterly chilling.

Where do I get the authority to tell Harris who he can have on his show and how he must approach them? Because I find flaws in Murray’s stuff? I find flaws in the opinions of lots of people. That doesn’t give me the right to tell third parties how to handle those people.

Do you see the authoritarianism there? You’re dictating to Harris how he should think, and who he should avoid. That’s the core of political correctness.

The better approach is to say, “Harris had Murray on, Murray said X, and here’s why Murray’s wrong.” Win on the idea, not by some authoritarian form of debate preclusion (and yes, demanding Harris disparage any guest in advance to satisfy the political views of you, me, or anyone else, is a form of preclusion).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

https://www.newsweek.com/couple-coul...-years-1089162