LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > Politics

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 351
0 members and 351 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2018, 01:37 PM   #1981
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Don't expect any crazy exchanges in that podcast. The conversation is lucid, thoughtful, and low key.

The one where Klein and Harris go at it is way hotter. Klein makes some really solid points, but in the end, Harris corners him on being pro-censorship and Klein, realizing he's in a tight spot, pretty much concedes that yes, he is.

I have to respect Klein's candor in it.
Here's the transcript:

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/1721024...script-podcast

Where does Harris corner Klein on being pro-censorship?

You didn't mention that much of what they're discussing is whether Charles Murray's work should be taken seriously. Do you think Charles Murray should be taken seriously? Do you think that declining to invite Charles Murray to speak at a college is the same thing as censorship? Do you think that Charles Murray has been censored?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 01:38 PM   #1982
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
What bias? Roberts is reporting about a poll. Seriously?



I was amazed that anyone could think that Harris came off well in that exchange. Maybe you can quote where Klein "argues for censorship in academia," because that's not what I recall. (Or maybe you can't.)
Harris says Murray's work should be considered. Klein argues we must consider the science within the social context before just throwing it out there. It's an artful dodge, but amounts to, "Murray says terribly uncomfortable things. We should weight their impact before debating them on purely scientific bases."

Klein has a point. (I also think Murray's work is scientifically lacking because he's a gross generalist who loves dividing complex groups into black and white.) Murray's stuff is incendiary and we should be careful about those discussions. Where Klein goes too far is suggesting the potential social damage from debating Murray augurs in favor of pre-emptively marginalizing Murray, effectively censoring him. Harris's point - let the science do the talking and debunk Murray as it may - is far more compelling and intellectually honest.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 01:39 PM   #1983
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,041
Re: Report from the Patch

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
"It's always the economy, stupid."

The way to beat Trump in a state like that is to cite wages lagging, and how little of the tax cuts went to lower to middle class voters. Also blame the gas price increases on Trump's middle eastern policy (that's untrue, but whatever) and highlight the damage he's done to Obamacare.

Emphasizing Russia, pee tapes, and #metoo is the dangerous and unnecessary route. Use those only as icing where necessary.
I was talking about the senate. If the R candidate that emerges runs on a Trump-ie agenda he will lose big. The Dems have winning michigan statewide sorted.
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts
Hank Chinaski is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 01:41 PM   #1984
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Here's the transcript:

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/1721024...script-podcast

Where does Harris corner Klein on being pro-censorship?

You didn't mention that much of what they're discussing is whether Charles Murray's work should be taken seriously. Do you think Charles Murray should be taken seriously? Do you think that declining to invite Charles Murray to speak at a college is the same thing as censorship? Do you think that Charles Murray has been censored?
Klein is incredibly slippery:
__________

Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.

Sam Harris

The weight of American history is completely irrelevant to—

Ezra Klein

It can’t possibly be irrelevant on something that even you admit is environmental!

Sam Harris

No, the only thing that is relevant. Yes, but that part of the conversation has been had. You don’t have to talk about slavery. You don’t have to talk about the specific injustices in the past to have a conversation about the environmental factors that very likely keep people back. I completely agree with you that it is right to worry that the environment for blacks, or for any other group that seems not to be thriving by one metric or another, that the environment almost certainly plays a role. And the environment, we just know that the environment plays a role across the board in behavioral genetics. There’s no one who’s arguing that any of these traits — forget about intelligence, anything we care about — is 100 percent heritable. It’s just that nothing that complex is 100 percent heritable.

And again, I have zero interest in establishing differences among races, and my reading of Murray and, again, he said this on my podcast several times, his focus is not on groups, his focus is on individuals. It’s just a fact that individuals find themselves with whatever cognitive toolkit they have, however they got it, based on genes and environment, and we have a society that is massively rewarding specific tools.

No one on Murray’s side of this debate is saying that all social self-worth is indexed by IQ scores. No one is saying that, and this is the point I was trying to make when I said, “Look I am inferior to John von Neumann?” I don’t think so and I don’t think you think so.

What’s at stake here is not a person’s intrinsic worth, right? And using words like inferior completely loads the dice here. It’s a highly charged, moralistic assertion, which just does not map onto any sane person’s thinking about this. Yes it mapped on to Thomas Jefferson’s thinking about this, but to summarize what I’m doing with the slaveholders of our distant past and talk about these things as though it’s a single set of ideas, it’s completely unfair journalistically, and it has the consequence that I’ve described.

. . .

Ezra Klein

Look, you talked about the stakes of this conversation, and there are stakes to it. Some of them are policy stakes. Those are the ones Charles Murray is fundamentally interested in, ones that when you asked him why you should have this conversation he kept bringing up. There are stakes in how we treat each other and what kind of groups we see in each other. I think using these conversations to become more precise, as opposed to less precise — using these conversations to begin to question social categories that we build for political purposes in this country, as opposed to validate them in strange ways that don’t have consistency across them — I think we could be doing a better job on that.

In all this, what I would say, and I’ll let this be my final point, and I appreciate the time you’ve given to this conversation today, is I think that to have this conversation well, to be ready for what may or may not come down the pike, to be able to talk about this, as you say, like adults, I think that you would be doing your audience a service to let go of some of the feelings you have about what you call identity politics and what you see in others with identity politics and have more conversations about race in America and the way it is built and they way it is seen and the way it acts on people’s life chances.

I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.

_______

Klein can't come right out and say he believes Murray should be shunned. Instead, he takes a roundabout, arguing over and over about how Murray is interested in policy. In doing this, he's trying to remove Murray from the scientific realm and put him in the policy realm. This affords him a stronger argument that Murray's policy prescriptions are odious. It entirely avoids the debate over whether Murray's science is lacking, which I think it very much is, as his generalized groupings are cultural, and cultural studies is a soft-headed and hardly rigorous field. (Harris is dead wrong is asserting that Murray focuses on individuals. I see none of that in Murray, and all of the contrary.)

Harris, OTOH, says let Murray's "science" be put to the test as science.

I favor letting a person like Murray have his day on the proofs and fail on those proofs. What on earth could be the objection to that?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 07-31-2018 at 01:56 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 01:47 PM   #1985
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Harris says Murray's work should be considered. Klein argues we must consider the science within the social context before just throwing it out there. It's an artful dodge, but amounts to, "Murray says terribly uncomfortable things. We should weight their impact before debating them on purely scientific bases."

Klein has a point. (I also think Murray's work is scientifically lacking because he's a gross generalist who loves dividing complex groups into black and white.) Murray's stuff is incendiary and we should be careful about those discussions. Where Klein goes too far is suggesting the potential social damage from debating Murray augurs in favor of pre-emptively marginalizing Murray, effectively censoring him. Harris's point - let the science do the talking and debunk Murray as it may - is far more compelling and intellectually honest.
That bears only the faintest resemblance to what Klein said. Actually, that's too kind. Among other things, Klein repeatedly points out to Harris that academics say that Murray's work is shite, and that Harris is bending over backwards to avoiding acknowledging that. For example:

Quote:
Ezra Klein
The scientists, Nisbett and Paige Harden and Turkheimer, said that they believe Murray’s interpretation of this, ultimately, is pseudoscience and is way, way, way out in front of the data. I

Sam Harris
But you know Turkheimer has apologized for that. What do you with the fact that he’s apologized for that?

Ezra Klein
I spoke with him yesterday. He holds all the same views on this, but that he feels that that wasn’t helpful to the debate, which is nice of him. He may be, you know, it’s good to keep the debate’s temperature down, but that doesn’t change his view.

Sam Harris
Okay, but if it’s junk science, then it’s disagreement about the actual science.

Ezra Klein
I think you’re going to have to ask Turkheimer what he thinks on this. I think you’re misreading him. At any rate, I think it would be not useful for us to spend our time on that.

David Reich, in the very article that you sent to me, his view on this is that whatever we think now is going to be proven wrong, that whatever confidence we have now, is going to be shown to be incorrect. The ideas and the information coming down the pike are going to surprise us. So, the argument of Turkheimer, Paige Harden, Nisbett, in the piece that, again, people should go to the show notes and read these pieces, is that, who knows? Maybe some time in the future we’ll find this, but right now there’s no reason to believe it.
The question you have to ask yourself is, why is Harris working so hard to rehabilitate Murray's work? Why all the preening about his courage in being able to consider the science, and the courage only to consider pro-Murray science? Why is that so compelling to Harris, and why is it so compelling to you?

Murray is a political hack. He has been a political hack for ever. He clearly has an agenda. Why does Harris so easily impute bad motives to people on one side of the spectrum, like Klein, but simply ignore that Murray's work is in the name of trying to get the government to do less for people who are less well off? Doesn't that seem relevant to you?
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 01:51 PM   #1986
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 32,939
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
Klein is incredibly slippery:

Ezra Klein

I think there is what you would call confusion here. I do think it’s just important to say this. I have not criticized you, and I continue to not, for having the conversation. I’ve criticized you for having the conversation without dealing with and separating it out and thinking through the context and the weight of American history on it.
Sam Harris

The weight of American history is completely irrelevant to—

Ezra Klein

It can’t possibly be irrelevant on something that even you admit is environmental!

Sam Harris

No, the only thing that is relevant. Yes, but that part of the conversation has been had. You don’t have to talk about slavery. You don’t have to talk about the specific injustices in the past to have a conversation about the environmental factors that very likely keep people back. I completely agree with you that it is right to worry that the environment for blacks, or for any other group that seems not to be thriving by one metric or another, that the environment almost certainly plays a role. And the environment, we just know that the environment plays a role across the board in behavioral genetics. There’s no one who’s arguing that any of these traits — forget about intelligence, anything we care about — is 100 percent heritable. It’s just that nothing that complex is 100 percent heritable.

And again, I have zero interest in establishing differences among races, and my reading of Murray and, again, he said this on my podcast several times, his focus is not on groups, his focus is on individuals. It’s just a fact that individuals find themselves with whatever cognitive toolkit they have, however they got it, based on genes and environment, and we have a society that is massively rewarding specific tools.

No one on Murray’s side of this debate is saying that all social self-worth is indexed by IQ scores. No one is saying that, and this is the point I was trying to make when I said, “Look I am inferior to John von Neumann?” I don’t think so and I don’t think you think so.

What’s at stake here is not a person’s intrinsic worth, right? And using words like inferior completely loads the dice here. It’s a highly charged, moralistic assertion, which just does not map onto any sane person’s thinking about this. Yes it mapped on to Thomas Jefferson’s thinking about this, but to summarize what I’m doing with the slaveholders of our distant past and talk about these things as though it’s a single set of ideas, it’s completely unfair journalistically, and it has the consequence that I’ve described.
. . .

Ezra Klein

Look, you talked about the stakes of this conversation, and there are stakes to it. Some of them are policy stakes. Those are the ones Charles Murray is fundamentally interested in, ones that when you asked him why you should have this conversation he kept bringing up. There are stakes in how we treat each other and what kind of groups we see in each other. I think using these conversations to become more precise, as opposed to less precise — using these conversations to begin to question social categories that we build for political purposes in this country, as opposed to validate them in strange ways that don’t have consistency across them — I think we could be doing a better job on that.

In all this, what I would say, and I’ll let this be my final point, and I appreciate the time you’ve given to this conversation today, is I think that to have this conversation well, to be ready for what may or may not come down the pike, to be able to talk about this, as you say, like adults, I think that you would be doing your audience a service to let go of some of the feelings you have about what you call identity politics and what you see in others with identity politics and have more conversations about race in America and the way it is built and they way it is seen and the way it acts on people’s life chances.

I think that there is room to have conversations about genetic findings, but because we are mapping those conversations onto social-political realities, having more conversations where you deliver more nuance and more understanding, where you yourself get more understanding of the social-political realities — I feel uncomfortable being the person on the other side of the chair here. I don’t think — I’m not an expert on race and IQ — but I’m also not someone who I think is the right spokesperson for the experience of other races in this country. And I don’t think that is me falling into a trap of identity politics. I think that is me being honest about what are the limits of my own perception. There’s a lot I can learn, but, you know, I’m a political journalist and I’ve only learned so much.
I asked you where Klein was -- as you called him -- pro-censorship. You respond by calling him slippery, and quoting a huge chunk of text that says, well, it's not clear to me why your point is. Someone is being slippery here, and it's not Klein or Harris.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
Tyrone Slothrop is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 02:06 PM   #1987
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I asked you where Klein was -- as you called him -- pro-censorship. You respond by calling him slippery, and quoting a huge chunk of text that says, well, it's not clear to me why your point is. Someone is being slippery here, and it's not Klein or Harris.
Klein is absolutely being pro-censorship. He's accusing Harris of failing to view a scientific argument in necessary social context - to work to soften a debate in advance. He's saying Harris is acting dangerously.

Klein is attempting to prevent Harris from a discourse, not unlike what you are attempting here.

You know I see exactly what you're doing, as does anyone else viewing this back and forth honestly.

You're going to try to corner me as someone with ill intent. This is quite cheap, but you've trended cheap as of late, so it's hardly unexpected.

I am a free speech absolutist. I do not like any form of censorship, particularly those attempted on the sly.

And you still have not answered my inquiry: What on earth is lost in letting Murray, or any other "intellectual," fail on the merits?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 07-31-2018 at 02:11 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 02:07 PM   #1988
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
That bears only the faintest resemblance to what Klein said. Actually, that's too kind. Among other things, Klein repeatedly points out to Harris that academics say that Murray's work is shite, and that Harris is bending over backwards to avoiding acknowledging that. For example:



The question you have to ask yourself is, why is Harris working so hard to rehabilitate Murray's work? Why all the preening about his courage in being able to consider the science, and the courage only to consider pro-Murray science? Why is that so compelling to Harris, and why is it so compelling to you?

Murray is a political hack. He has been a political hack for ever. He clearly has an agenda. Why does Harris so easily impute bad motives to people on one side of the spectrum, like Klein, but simply ignore that Murray's work is in the name of trying to get the government to do less for people who are less well off? Doesn't that seem relevant to you?
I think Klein and Murray are birds of a feather. Bullshitters with agendas.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 02:28 PM   #1989
Adder
I am beyond a rank!
 
Adder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 17,113
Re: Report from the Patch

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Michigan is a blue state, that, as we know, went red. Our state legislature is heavily R, but that is Gerrymandering. We've regularly had R governors and the odd Senator- but to win statewide they have to be a business R, who feels close to liberal on abortion/gay rights etc.

So I was curious what the upcoming R primaries look like- are the candidates distancing from Trump? I watch little live TV, not claiming to read constantly so I don't watch anything (Hi Ty!), I constantly watch stuff, but mostly things like Mr. Ed on disc.

So I only recently saw the current TV ads- there is a smear ad for candidate 1 showing candidate 2- film of him saying things like, "Of course I don't agree with what Trump does, I mean, the stuff with women." 3 or 4 things quite similar.

The voice over then explains that #2 cannot be trusted to help move Trump's good works forward.

2's answer? I expected, "No shit. I'm not that kind of R." He'll need that to win in November.

But instead, the answer was film continuing after the earlier quotes- in each case he went on to say- "but, I can live with that behavior because he's the best President ever!" Or something like that.

There is no attempt to distance, to the contrary.
Same in Minnesota, where the two main Rs in the governor's race are competing to sound the most anti-immigrant and pro-45. Hard to imagine that's really a winning strategy, but maybe they back off post primary? Especially as a recent poll (small sample, hilariously large margin of error) showed them both losing by double digits to the top Dems.
Adder is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 03:40 PM   #1990
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 18,595
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I think your hostility to Google and their cafeterias, or the notion of them that you have, has not so much to do with the way they make food available to their employees. The Google cafeteria I went to wasn't "pimped out," whatever that means. The eBay cafeteria I went to wasn't subsidized, as far as I can tell, and I don't think you really object to subsidies there -- or do you think law-firm cafeterias need to calculate the market cost of the rent they don't pay and increase their prices by that amount? Surely no.
Okay, this is going to be the last response because I just don't care anymore. I thought it was a simple fix that would actually help local businesses without doing any real harm to companies like Google. You don't or don't care because...progress. Fine.

But I can't let you get away with this bullshit. Google's cafeteria in New York (and the ones cited in the article I posted awhile ago--and I'm sure lots of others) are absolutely insane. I have a friend who works there. I met him for lunch. The cafeteria is huge, the food is everything from serious gourmet to whatever type of fast food you want. It is absolutely overwhelming, delicious, amazing. And it's free (or complimentary). And then there are snack rooms and coffee spots everywhere. It's crazy. Hell, if I worked there, I wouldn't go out either. So, like I said, there isn't a business that can compete with a behemoth who can spend truckloads of cash on something like this.

If you put Google on a block in Chelsea, rent goes up for everyone. That's great news for the suburbs and Brooklyn where those employees will live. But if Google is like a cruise ship sitting on land and none of the employees spend any money at any of the businesses that are in that neighborhood, those businesses, who used to service the people who didn't bring their lunch (and that example below is so fucking stupid, I'm really surprised you included it in your argument), fail. That means that there are many empty spots (or tons of turnover because in NYC people take those spots and then realize two months in the expenses are unsustainable) and the people who live in those neighborhoods suffer even more. No one at Google even notices, because they don't give a fuck about the neighborhood. They are their own neighborhood.

The big negative for Google is that their employees lose a perk. They're not going to lose employees because of that. The big negative for everyone else in the neighborhood is that expenses have gone way up, restaurants leave, and you have a bunch of rich tech assholes treating your neighborhood like a parking lot.

Your example of law firms is not on point. Sure a few of them have cafeterias. Some are even subsidized. But they're simple, small cafeterias. When I used to work at White & Case, I went here and there, but not that much. If I wanted a slice or a burger or a specific type of salad, I had to go outside. Google now owns two adjacent city blocks in Chelsea. That's insane. Not terrible. Just crazy. It would be amazing for the businesses in the area if they didn't have a cafeteria.

I can't speak on a personal level to how San Fran and Silicon Valley residents feel about tech people, but I've heard that almost everyone hates them because they buy up everything in residential neighborhoods and do shit like this where they work so businesses and the people who live there don't like them much either. Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Aaron Peskin's proposal is a stupid idea.
Ah. Well, I guess that settles it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
If, like some of us, you work at a company that brings in a decent lunch and you much prefer that to having to go out and get food, it's hard to understand why taking away the former option makes anyone better off. But if you have a bee in your bonnet about something else, maybe it sounds awesome.
These last two sentences are completely ridiculous and a waste of the time it took your sweaty little fingers to type out.

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 04:26 PM   #1991
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield View Post
I think Klein and Murray are birds of a feather. Bullshitters with agendas.
Murray's agenda is, explicitly, white supremacy and male supremacy. He writes books arguing that whites are better than blacks and men are better than women.

What do you view Klein's agenda as?

As to Harris' discourse, its been dismissed. Blather all he wants, the right approach is to not feed the troll. No one should bother listening to him, engaging with him, showing up on a show to debate him.
__________________
A wee dram a day!

Last edited by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy; 07-31-2018 at 04:28 PM..
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 04:30 PM   #1992
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Registered User
 
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Government Yard in Trenchtown
Posts: 20,182
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
Murray's agenda is, explicitly, white supremacy and male supremacy. He writes books arguing that whites are better than blacks and men are better than women.

What do you view Klein's agenda as?

As to Harris' discourse, its been dismissed. Blather all he wants, the right approach is to not feed the troll. No one should bother listening to him, engaging with him, showing up on a show to debate him.
By the way, I once went down this rabbit hole, read Murray's original trash book and a couple of the rebuttals, discovered I'd not get that time back, and that I should have dismissed him as a nutjob long before.
__________________
A wee dram a day!
Greedy,Greedy,Greedy is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 04:30 PM   #1993
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Murray is a political hack. He has been a political hack for ever. He clearly has an agenda. Why does Harris so easily impute bad motives to people on one side of the spectrum, like Klein, but simply ignore that Murray's work is in the name of trying to get the government to do less for people who are less well off? Doesn't that seem relevant to you?
I neglected to respond to this.

I can't speak for Harris, but I find Klein particularly offensive because Vox is a stridently biased website that works assiduously to hide its bias and present itself as a neutral arbiter. And arbiter isn't chosen there for lack of a better pronoun. Vox, and Klein particularly, offer themselves as authorities. The writing always holds the undercurrent, "We're the enlightened. We've the last word."

Except the site sucks. It's as predictable as Fox and only differs in extent of effort to cover up its slip. It'll almost always offer some lengthy, seemingly thoughtful assessment of an issue ending with the accepted liberal doctrinaire view.

Charles Murray is a hack. He has an agenda and he dressed it up with science. Much of what he posits can be debunked with science. Klein is a hack. He has an agenda. Much of what he posits can be debunked with economics/political science/basic reasoning.

Except they differ in one regard that makes Klein far more dangerous than Murray. Klein deems himself (particularly in that argument with Harris) a worthy judge of what's within and what's outside the spheres of deviancy. I'm sympathetic to people doing this (I love William Henry's In Defense of Elitism). Sometimes, someone simply has to stand up and say, "Nope. You can't argue flat earth theories. You're wasting our time." Klein, however, is not worthy to shine Henry's shoes. Klein's a predictable and quite dull writer who'll 90% of the time default to an accepted liberal narrative. He has no business judging how or whether the views of Murray or Harris should be considered.

Hearing Klein lecture Harris on how Harris ought to reason (to fit Klein's sensitivities) is mind-bending. Here's a blogger telling a neuroscientist with a staggering resume that he ought to temper his approaches to suit the sensibilities of the blogger's audience. He's completely confused as to who is the elite in the room.

I think this stems from confusion that to hold an empathetic viewpoint somehow makes one more enlightened, "better" than the non-empathetic. Klein and his ilk, who hold views similar to a lot of people here, confuse tolerance and a desire to see fairness as superior, perhaps even smarter, views. That's comforting, of course. But it's also untrue. To desire to help people, as opposed to someone like Charles Murray, does not render one more intelligent or enlightened. It makes one a nicer, kinder person. But it's not proof of some broader intellect that ought to give a blogger gravitas to tell a neuroscientist how he ought to approach scientific matters.

This is why Klein irks me. This is why I'll take the other side of a coin here all the time. Charles Murrays are easy to debunk. Murray's a crank howling into the wind. The Ezra Kleins of the world are officious consensus builders. They have a much more pernicious effect - attempting with some success to craft a narrative of what's acceptable commentary and what's not. These people have no business telling a serious thinker like Harris how or what to think. They are charlatans selling the feel good angle to an often Pavlovian audience, and they should be viewed with intense skepticism at every turn.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 07-31-2018 at 04:36 PM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 04:41 PM   #1994
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,077
Re: We are all Slave now.

Quote:
Murray's agenda is, explicitly, white supremacy and male supremacy. He writes books arguing that whites are better than blacks and men are better than women.
Agreed.

Quote:
What do you view Klein's agenda as?
To feed his audience what it wants to hear. He's a fabulous brand architect. He gets a 120 IQ set of readers, plays to their sympathies and views, and leaves them thinking they're in the 130-140 range. He pushes well crafted tripe.

Slate's similar. They're both the high end of the HuffPo Continuum.

Quote:
As to Harris' discourse, its been dismissed. Blather all he wants, the right approach is to not feed the troll. No one should bother listening to him, engaging with him, showing up on a show to debate him.
We're never going to agree on this. Suffice it to say, I hold a 100% opposed view. Let's leave it at that.
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
Old 07-31-2018, 04:56 PM   #1995
LessinSF
Wearing the cranky pants
 
LessinSF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pulling your finger
Posts: 7,100
Re: We are all Slave now.

I was pretty sure that Mueller would not be trial counsel against Manafort, but hadn't seen anything on point, but I just found this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rial-who-s-who
__________________
Boogers!
LessinSF is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:50 AM.