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

[burn_this_city]

The entire fear of radical Islamic terrorists is a complete joke. Never before have I witnessed so much fear and division over such a tiny risk to the average person.

If Harris and his ilk were true intellectuals they would be calling out the media and government's fear mongering and bed wetting. These people aren't a real threat to us or our way of life. They are illiterate, small minded band of cultists that live in destitute countries.

We've created this fear monster and given rise to the lone wolf terrorist losers with our cowardice and overboard reactions. What better way to make your mark than shoot up a night club and end up on CNN for weeks after. Think of the trillions spent since 911 on security and the war on terror. People are getting rich off this racket and they will perpetuate it forever.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think that's actually a not unreasonable response - granted, there have been two large-scale mass shootings motivated by this particular ideology in the past year, San Bernadino and Orlando. However, they resulted in a combined death toll of under 70 people. So we could reasonably say, "this is just one of those things that is going to happen from now on occasionally, it's just part of living in the world at this moment in history, and it's not killing as many people as other problems we could focus our attention on. So let's focus on those other things more, leave this one alone, and the net benefit will be greater".

However, the counterpoint is that there's good reason to think these sorts of events will continue to happen with greater frequency going forward. Further, someone might eventually going to use something that causes more widespread damage than a gun - some form of bomb. Given that it only takes a small number of people to pull that off, even if they're a marginal group from a band of cultists in a destitute country*, the amount of damage that could be pulled off is disproportionately large. So in light of that, isn't this something we should rightly worry about?

(*I'd also note that actually the threat isn't from someone in the Levant coming over and bombing in the USA or Western Europe or whatever, but more the threat of a radicalized person already living there doing it).

[burn_this_city]

I think the worry should be proportional to the actual threat. Lately I can't shake the idea that the majority of this is distraction politics emanating from the US. Just look at the vapid commentary about whether Obama used "Radical Islamic Terrorism" or not.

I'm not suggesting its something we ignore or dismiss outright. A plot to set off a nuke or large bomb would be catastrophic, but is it likely? I believe the intelligence community is fairly successful at stopping those since the Oklahoma city bombing.

I just believe there are bigger fish to fry, especially domestically in the US, and those issues are largely ignored because so much of the public conscience is focused on Islamic terrorism.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Israel has massive security fears, and they use racial profiling. Seams to be working....

Can confirm.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

If Harris and his ilk were true intellectuals they would be calling out the media and government's fear mongering and bed wetting. These people aren't a real threat to us or our way of life. They are illiterate, small minded band of cultists that live in destitute countries.

We've created this fear monster and given rise to the lone wolf terrorist losers with our cowardice and overboard reactions. What better way to make your mark than shoot up a night club and end up on CNN for weeks after. Think of the trillions spent since 911 on security and the war on terror. People are getting rich off this racket and they will perpetuate it forever.

While the fear might be disproportionate to the risk, it doesn't follow that it's all some kind of government conspiracy. You may have noticed that someone getting stabbed to death generates far more media attention and public alarm than someone dying in a car crash. Same for children who are strangled by pedophiles versus children who die of meningitis.

It would be interesting to see a political leader who made decisions solely on a utilitarian cost/benefit basis. Who didn't concern himself with serial killers, gang shootings, children mauled by dogs, and other marginal threats. However, I don't like his odds of getting re-elected.

And when we're dealing with Islamic radicals, we also need to consider that they have a lot bigger ambitions than blowing up dozens of people in night clubs and train stations. If they could get their hands on far more powerful weapons - biological weapons, tactical nukes, etc. - they would. So how would you like to be a leader in the aftermath of an attack that killed a million? Would you simply shrug it off as a really, really unlikely eventuality.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Aren't drugs screened by an entirely separate set of standards / a different process? One which we're not presently talking about?

Of course. It also debunks Harris (and yours) entire theory over how airport screening should be.

Harris (and you) reasons that he can say with some certainty who is most likely not a terrorist. He also suggests we should be screening all Muslims or people who could be Muslims as a potential terrorist threat. Let's call that 80% of the population.

Your suggestion is that this is a logical idea. White (or maybe not) elderly people and children? Unlikely to be a terrorist. 20% of the population.

But we're also screening for drugs on the rest of the population, since drug mules could literally be anyone, and traffickers have been known to use people who might get through security. Which means both the 80% and the 20% are being screened.

How, as an outsider, do you differentiate between 80% of people being screened for a risk of terrorism, and 100% of people being screened for a risk of drugs trafficking. You know what that looks like? 100% of people being screened.

It's basically a straw man. "We have limited resources so we should screen only select people for terrorism risk." Yeah well, you still need to screen everyone for all the other risks they might pose. It legitimately solves nothing. It's a great example of Harris at his worst and most muddy. Poorly thought out and devoid of any actual solution to the problem he thinks exists.

It's just lacking any real logic.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm not going to bother going any further in arguing with you on this topic, after you picked out a portion of a long post, gave it the most uncharitable interpretation possible, accused me of being "smug and vapid", and then made a bunch of unsupported statements. Incidentally, Peter12's criticism of him was nonsensical in that Harris isn't a Buddhist of any stripe, but that's beside the point.

As for what I actually said there, I'm in fact mirroring the observations made by Neil Degrasse Tyson in the podcast I posted earlier. While I'm not going to appeal to his authority and suggest that that makes me right and you wrong, I will say that I'm okay being in his company on this and leave it at that. Feel free to ignore the guy if you don't like him.

In his book "Waking Up," he says that his goal is to provide a Buddhism shorn of its miracles and irrational assumptions."

[jammies]

Buddhism without miracles and irrational assumptions is remarkably like atheism.

[Buster]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The entire fear of radical Islamic terrorists is a complete joke. Never before have I witnessed so much fear and division over such a tiny risk to the average person.

If Harris and his ilk were true intellectuals they would be calling out the media and government's fear mongering and bed wetting. These people aren't a real threat to us or our way of life. They are illiterate, small minded band of cultists that live in destitute countries.

We've created this fear monster and given rise to the lone wolf terrorist losers with our cowardice and overboard reactions. What better way to make your mark than shoot up a night club and end up on CNN for weeks after. Think of the trillions spent since 911 on security and the war on terror. People are getting rich off this racket and they will perpetuate it forever.

This is far too simplistic.

"Radical Islam" is often spoken of as separate entity apart from the mainstream Muslim community. This isn't a particularly useful distinction. Radical Islam is a product and extension of the mainstream religion. This is why when people (Obama) say that ISIS is not Islam, they are being disingenuous, or at least inaccurate. ISIS, Saudi Arabia, et al are the purest form of Islam, in many ways. This is why you see such overwhelming majorities of Muslim communities around the world displaying intolerance for LGBT people.

It is also the reason why the "blowing up planes" aspect of Islamism is a poor way to look at things. We should be looking at the general consensus in Muslim communities on much more pedestrian issues: women's rights (fail), LGBT rights (fail), separation of church and state (fail, see: Sharia Law). Etc.

Saying that most Muslim's would not blow up a plane is far too low of a bar.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Buster

It is also the reason why the "blowing up planes" aspect of Islamism is a poor way to look at things. We should be looking at the general consensus in Muslim communities on much more pedestrian issues: women's rights (fail), LGBT rights (fail), separation of church and state (fail, see: Sharia Law). Etc.

I agree that the average Canadian should be more concerned about the extreme social conservatism of Islam than with any threat of being shot or blown up. If the grip of conservative Islam were weakened, millions on millions of people, especially women, would live better lives.

[SeeGeeWhy]

What do Harris detractors think of his work with Maajid Nawaz?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Buster

This is far too simplistic.

"Radical Islam" is often spoken of as separate entity apart from the mainstream Muslim community. This isn't a particularly useful distinction. Radical Islam is a product and extension of the mainstream religion. This is why when people (Obama) say that ISIS is not Islam, they are being disingenuous, or at least inaccurate. ISIS, Saudi Arabia, et al are the purest form of Islam, in many ways. This is why you see such overwhelming majorities of Muslim communities around the world displaying intolerance for LGBT people.

It is also the reason why the "blowing up planes" aspect of Islamism is a poor way to look at things. We should be looking at the general consensus in Muslim communities on much more pedestrian issues: women's rights (fail), LGBT rights (fail), separation of church and state (fail, see: Sharia Law). Etc.

Saying that most Muslim's would not blow up a plane is far too low of a bar.

What a load of rubbish. Islam has different sects with a wide range of attitudes towards issues. If anything is simplistic here, it is your failure to understand that.

[Cole436]

A politics thread by T@T with a 15 minute video?


lol nope.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What a load of rubbish. Islam has different sects with a wide range of attitudes towards issues. If anything is simplistic here, it is your failure to understand that.

I think you need to look up the Pew Centre polls of Muslim countries. Yes, there is diversity. But in many countries, the support for Sharia law is over 80 per cent. Even in countries like the UK, close to half of Muslims believe homosexuality should be illegal.

It's not simplistic to recognize that most of the Muslims on the planet are extremely socially conservative.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jammies

Buddhism without miracles and irrational assumptions is remarkably like atheism.

Maybe in a Heideggerian mode, not in the current conception put forward by Harris et al.

[Thor]

I have been very involved with the ex islam, or islam reformists movements and trying to get those people out to the west where they won't be killed.

There is a long list of these refugees like the leader of the very popular Global Humanist Secular Movement, Faissal who lead voices of those who have fled to the west and are utterly furious at the left and their unwillingness to attack many of Islam's ideas that are held by their followers.

My friend, a former Muslim went to speak at a college in the UK, the Feminists on the campus teamed up with the Islamic group to try to stop her from speaking, and even went to try to stop her during her speech.

Because the left see's the obvious hatred and ignorance of the right towards Muslims, they assume any attack on its ideology is something we should stop.

I'm beyond frustrated with the left, liberalism is under attack, and the movement by groups like The Young Turks, and the regressive left should be ashamed of themselves when it comes to attacking the ideology of Islam and its followers who adhere to it!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

I have been very involved with the ex islam, or islam reformists movements and trying to get those people out to the west where they won't be killed.

There is a long list of these refugees like the leader of the very popular Global Humanist Secular Movement, Faissal who lead voices of those who have fled to the west and are utterly furious at the left and their unwillingness to attack many of Islam's ideas that are held by their followers.

My friend, a former Muslim went to speak at a college in the UK, the Feminists on the campus teamed up with the Islamic group to try to stop her from speaking, and even went to try to stop her during her speech.

Because the left see's the obvious hatred and ignorance of the right towards Muslims, they assume any attack on its ideology is something we should stop.

I'm beyond frustrated with the left, liberalism is under attack, and the movement by groups like The Young Turks, and the regressive left should be ashamed of themselves when it comes to attacking the ideology of Islam and its followers who adhere to it!

I see what are you doing here, and from a certain perspective I respect the efforts to remove people from harmful, repressive, and extreme religious environments - particularly in the case of young women or children.

However, from another perspective, based on many of the comments from atheists in this thread and others, how is this any different from ultra-conservative Christian attempts to create therapeutic programs to remove homosexual impulses from gay people? Where do you draw the line?

[nik-]

oh brother

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Cole436

A politics thread by T@T with a 15 minute video?


lol nope.

Thanks for stopping by anyway.

I would have like to see your unedited version.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Of course. It also debunks Harris (and yours) entire theory over how airport screening should be.

Harris (and you) reasons that he can say with some certainty who is most likely not a terrorist. He also suggests we should be screening all Muslims or people who could be Muslims as a potential terrorist threat. Let's call that 80% of the population.

Your suggestion is that this is a logical idea. White (or maybe not) elderly people and children? Unlikely to be a terrorist. 20% of the population.

But we're also screening for drugs on the rest of the population, since drug mules could literally be anyone, and traffickers have been known to use people who might get through security. Which means both the 80% and the 20% are being screened.

How, as an outsider, do you differentiate between 80% of people being screened for a risk of terrorism, and 100% of people being screened for a risk of drugs trafficking. You know what that looks like? 100% of people being screened.

It's basically a straw man. "We have limited resources so we should screen only select people for terrorism risk." Yeah well, you still need to screen everyone for all the other risks they might pose. It legitimately solves nothing. It's a great example of Harris at his worst and most muddy. Poorly thought out and devoid of any actual solution to the problem he thinks exists.

It's just lacking any real logic.

The guy - along with Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, and the entire crowd - doesn't give a wit about nuance

David Bentley Hart has called Harris's anti-religious rants as "verging on unintentional parody."

So yes, obviously we need to fight radical Islam - in its various forms. Groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda are disgusting, but we have not come up with a clear path forward on how to effectively combat them. This is essential because we believe our regime to be more just than the utopian regime proposed by the Islamists.

It's like Harris doesn't understand that there are huge limitations in trying to create accurate screening procedures that adhere to accepted population norms, and that the potential margin of error will cause enormous miscarriages of justice that will have potentially scarring effects on our democratic and liberal institutions. Unintentional parody, indeed.