Sam Harris on Orlando and the Response of Obama, Trump & Clinton

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

One of the most obvious examples is the controversy caused by the statement "rape is perfectly natural", which was in one of his books. It was in the context of rebutting the naturalistic fallacy - the notion that if something is natural, it is somehow morally acceptable. His point was that something being "natural" tells you almost nothing about its moral content, and the example used was that many animals rape. This was then taken by some less than scrupulous critics and put into internet memes to suggest that Harris is pro-rape.

The naturalism fallacy, along with the blank slate myth, is the religion of the left. When science and empiricism challenge either, it's science and empiricism that come under fire - or rather, the soul brave enough to present the science and empiricism.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think you were closer to the mark when you said it's not right vs. left. For example, the left is going to instantly reject the naturalistic fallacy in the arena of gay rights or trans issues. Even though you can make the point that animals also have same-sex relationships for example, one of the tired, simplistic memes leveled in support of homosexuality being wrong is that it's somehow just "not natural", that it defies procreation. The best answer to that isn't "actually it is natural because animals do it too", it's that the whole line of inquiry is completely irrelevant.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Why wouldn't you just put it in the mass shooting thread where everyone is talking about Orlando anyway.

Not everything needs to go into a mass thread. Besides, after you made this post you've had the most posts in this thread.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Not everything needs to go into a mass thread. Besides, after you made this post you've had the most posts in this thread.

I know. I listen to Sam and agree with him on much, so I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of a thread about him, and now that it's going I'm happy to participate.

I just think if it's the context of a longer thread, and someone says something that you think the super long video is particularly relevant to and you post it and say "you should watch this, it's responsive to some of the things you're thinking about" that's one thing. But posting a thread with a 25 minute video in it and saying "EVERYONE SHOULD LISTEN TO THIS" is not actually that useful a thing to do.

[nik-]

Megathreads are lame.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The naturalism fallacy, along with the blank slate myth, is the religion of the left. When science and empiricism challenge either, it's science and empiricism that come under fire - or rather, the soul brave enough to present the science and empiricism.

Most of your posts seem to be about the "left". Where does this come from? Just curious.

[calgaryblood]

Started watching 2 minutes of the video and turned it off because it started off with a blatant lie right off the bat. Obama did mention terrorism and specifically Isil and Alqaeda.

He also said he will destroy those groups so him saying he didn't mention Islamic radicalism or terrorism is a flat out lie and this video doesn't deserve to be listened to after that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Started watching 2 minutes of the video and turned it off because it started off with a blatant lie right off the bat. Obama did mention terrorism and specifically Isil and Alqaeda.

He also said he will destroy those groups so him saying he didn't mention Islamic radicalism or terrorism is a flat out lie and this video doesn't deserve to be listened to after that.

You're free to ignore everyone you might disagree with and live in your little regressive bubble (your posts on other topics have demonstrated a propensity for this that is not rare, particularly on twitter) but just so you know, here's the full text of the remarks he's talking about.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...rlando-florida

Islam was mentioned twice, and once in the context of ISIL being a "perversion" of Islam - that is, not really Islamic, which he's said many times before. I don't think Sam's remarks were a particularly good spiel by his own standards, as I said, but this response is frustrating, mostly because I know there are a lot of people who will similarly just put their fingers in their ears and say "I'm not listening".

Incidentally, here is a good article about why President Obama takes the rhetorical tack he does on this issue. I'm far more sympathetic to it than Harris is, though I still think he should be more direct in his responses.

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-islam/487079/

Obama, in my reading, does not—contra his right-leaning critics—suffer illusions about the pathologies afflicting the broader Muslim world. If anything, his pessimism on matters related to the dysfunctions of Muslim states, and to the inability of the umma—the worldwide community of Muslims—to contain and ultimately neutralize the extremist elements in its midst, has, at times, an almost paralyzing effect on him. The president has come to the conclusion (as I outlined in my recent Atlantic cover story, “The Obama Doctrine”) that the underlying problems afflicting Islam are too deep, and too resistant to American intervention, to warrant implementation of the sort of policies that his critics, including his critics in foreign-policy think tanks, demand.

[calgaryblood]

So what more should he say? And I'm not on Twitter what are you talking about?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Buster

I have yet to hear Harris say anything inaccurate about Islam.

Use of the word "Islamophobe" has run its course. It now says more about the user, than the target.

That is sometimes true, in that it is misused, but dismissing it's use as more indicative of a user fault than a target fault is just an example of profound intellectual vacancy.

His anti-Muslim bigotry, as Corsi corrected for clarity, is not found in the accuracy of his statement about Islam itself but in his suggested treatment of Muslims and his over-demonization of Islam above all else, regardless of any evidence.

Is Islam the most dangerous active religion based on dogma and sheer size? I think so, absolutely. Does that mean there is no limit to what one can say without being guilty of bigotry? Of course not. Does talking about something dangerous in a way that surpasses reason and logic absolve one of criticism? Of course not.

I disagree with Corsi on the point of Harris' greatest strength being his clarity. He is prolifically unclear and poorly thought-out. His constant need to clarify his own statements is evidence of this.

[calgaryblood]

Sam Harris literally said "Obama gave a speech without ever mentioning Islamism, Jihadism, Islamic terrorism, radicalism".

I've watched and read the entire Obama speech and he mentions those things several times and even says he will destroy the terrorist groups they are fighting.

How can anyone listen to him with blatant lies right off the bat?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

Most of your posts seem to be about the "left". Where does this come from? Just curious.

Basically, I'm an instinctive skeptic. I can't help but identify the assumptions underlying any argument and having a go at them. And in the last 10 years, that has put my off-base and drawn criticism from those on the ideological left far more often than those on the ideological right.

For instance, if I point out that the same thing Harris pointed out, that there's strong evidence rape is natural behaviour, I'm certain to be attacked by self-professed progressive leftists who can't distinguish between a descriptive statement and a prescriptive statement. When I challenge a shibboleth of the right, like the notion that marriage is a religious union between a man and a women, I find I get far less criticism. Probably because social conservatives are in retreat in Canada today, and accustomed to being challenged, while the modern left seems to rarely have their assumptions challenged in mainstream media. But this could also be because I simply don't hang out in a lot of places (virtual or meat-world) where conservatives hang out.

If I have to self-identify with anything, it's as a liberal. A liberal in the traditional sense, which is more about casting a wide net and relentlessly asking questions than advocating for a particular ideology. It's about genuine tolerance of dissenting opinions, and habits of scepticism and doubt.

In Canada in 2016, I see liberalism under threat more from the left than from the right. It's the left that is enthusiastically narrowing the range of acceptable debate, policing language, and using blaming and shaming to enforce conformity. It's also the left that is increasingly embracing irrational dogma in the face of scientific evidence that the world doesn't subscribe to that dogma (ie the naturalism fallacy and the blank slate myth). Most importantly, identity politics, which is the dominant dogma of the left today, is fundamentally illiberal. It eschews rigorous empirical analysis (ie women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man earns), and its prescriptions for how to address disparities (safe spaces, quotas, check your privilege) are hostile to the bedrock liberal principle that people should be treated as individuals.

Hope that answers your question.

[crapshoot]

Say what you want about Sam Harris, I tend to agree with him on a lot of points, not so much on others, but after listening to a bunch of his podcasts I am convinced that this man loves his own voice so much that he would probably marry it if it was possible.

[nik-]

uhh, what are podcasts other than a bunch of talking? What are you expecting?

[crapshoot]

Originally Posted by nik-

uhh, what are podcasts other than a bunch of talking? What are you expecting?

Well, he's also doing "interviews", or rather "talks" where he answers his own questions and delves into arguments with himself while his guest just sits by waiting in silence.

[CliffFletcher]

Harris gets caught up in the internet forum habit of endless cycles of rebuttals and defences against his opponents. Which is okay in a forum. But it's kinda tedious when he does it in a podcast. He'd be better served laying out an argument for people to take or leave, and them moving on to something else.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

His anti-Muslim bigotry, as Corsi corrected for clarity, is not found in the accuracy of his statement about Islam itself but in his suggested treatment of Muslims

Such as?

and his over-demonization of Islam above all else, regardless of any evidence.
Is Islam the most dangerous active religion based on dogma and sheer size? I think so, absolutely.

Okay... so you guys agree. Where is the "over-demonization of Islam above all else", outside of noticing that it's the primary source of religious violence at this particular moment in history? As far as Harris is concerned, the Old Testament is a much worse moral guide than the Qur'an - he's said so on a number of occasions - but right now, no one is killing Amalekites or burning witches or stoning people for working on the sabbath.

Does that mean there is no limit to what one can say without being guilty of bigotry? Of course not. Does talking about something dangerous in a way that surpasses reason and logic absolve one of criticism? Of course not.

Indeed. It's a good thing no one has or would ever suggest this. Not sure who you think you're rebutting here.

I disagree with Corsi on the point of Harris' greatest strength being his clarity. He is prolifically unclear and poorly thought-out. His constant need to clarify his own statements is evidence of this.

Only for people who are incapable of thinking in thought experiments. His statements are clear to people who have the ability to think in the manner required by philosophy - hypotheticals, corner cases, thought experiments, and very narrow bands of applicability of particular principles. If you remove the conclusion from the specific premises that underlie it, as people are often wont to do, the conclusion suggests, to someone who's barely paying attention, something different from what it actually was.

The problem is that much of the public is only capable of thinking in 240p.

I actually think the guy is held to a much higher standard in this area because of his emphasis on accurate language. By way of example, on this specific issue, he criticized Hillary for failing to talk about what he described as the "root cause" of the problem, being Islamic extremism, in favour of laying everything at the feet of gun control. Many of his supporters then ripped him for using the term "root cause", because it's inaccurate in this context: there's never a "root cause" for an event like this, there are always multiple contributing causes.

Even though his supporters can sometimes be cult-ish, and frankly need almost as much guidance on intellectual honesty as the people who take him out of context deliberately in order to smear him half the time, there are a lot of them who are totally willing to nitpick everything he says for perfect accuracy. Partly because it's a given that if he misspeaks, he's going to get lit up by the usual suspects, as happened when he somewhat ham-handedly suggested that Ben Carson made more sense on foreign policy than Noam Chomsky. That was a statement made for dramatic effect in the course of a 2 hour long podcast, but it was blown up by detractors for a week afterwards. The guy can't have a single slip up in how he speaks or it'll inevitably be given the least charitable interpretation and used against him ad nauseum.

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Sam Harris literally said "Obama gave a speech without ever mentioning Islamism, Jihadism, Islamic terrorism, radicalism".

I've watched and read the entire Obama speech and he mentions those things several times and even says he will destroy the terrorist groups they are fighting.

How can anyone listen to him with blatant lies right off the bat?

I just posted the text of the speech in question. Go ahead and search for the terms "Islamism" or "Jihadism" (which I'm not sure the President has ever used), or the phrases "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamic radicalism". See them? No, you don't, because he systematically tries to diminish the specific religious motivations of religious terrorists. He'll frequently say that ISIL isn't Islamic, or that it is "perverting a great religion", or some version thereof.

The reason Obama chooses to speak this way is set out quite nicely in the Atlantic article above. It's up to you whether you agree with that rationale. Obviously, Harris doesn't.

Originally Posted by crapshoot

Well, he's also doing "interviews", or rather "talks" where he answers his own questions and delves into arguments with himself while his guest just sits by waiting in silence.

He's addressed this, when he started doing podcasts. He's not doing interviews, he's inviting people on to have a conversation with him on what he thinks are important topics. He's said that he assumes if you're listening to his podcast, you want to hear what he thinks on any particular issue in addition to his guest, not just ask questions and wait for their answer.

[peter12]

I've always found Harris to be an enormous joke, particularly in how he pulls punches regarding religion when it comes to his own weird brand of New Age Zen Buddhism.

[nik-]

Zen Buddhism needs punches?

[Buster]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That is sometimes true, in that it is misused, but dismissing it's use as more indicative of a user fault than a target fault is just an example of profound intellectual vacancy.

His anti-Muslim bigotry, as Corsi corrected for clarity, is not found in the accuracy of his statement about Islam itself but in his suggested treatment of Muslims and his over-demonization of Islam above all else, regardless of any evidence.

Is Islam the most dangerous active religion based on dogma and sheer size? I think so, absolutely. Does that mean there is no limit to what one can say without being guilty of bigotry? Of course not. Does talking about something dangerous in a way that surpasses reason and logic absolve one of criticism? Of course not.

I disagree with Corsi on the point of Harris' greatest strength being his clarity. He is prolifically unclear and poorly thought-out. His constant need to clarify his own statements is evidence of this.

The term Islamophobe presents a problem when discussing Islam, and when someone uses that term it indicates that they have not considered the problem. The problem is that all complaints about Islam are not equal, and some are more valid than others. For instance, it is pure bigotry to suggest that Islam is a problem because it is predominantly populated by people with brown skin. However, that logic does not apply to a complain about Islam regarding the mainstream nature of LGBT intolerance and hate among the Muslim population. I pick this last example because it is not something that can realistically be disputed.

So people tend to lazily use the term "islamophobe" when they hear any criticism of Islam.

It's also dangerous because there are so many legitimate complaints about the religion and most (not all) of its adherents. It is not fair to say that all Muslims are willing to fly planes into buildings are blow themselves up in a market. However, it is fair to say that the (almost) unanimous views of intolerance and hatred towards LGBT people in Muslim communities shares culpability in the Orlando shootings by instilling an environment of intolerance.

People naturally recoil at sweeping statements, and generalizations, even when they are valid.