The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[White Out 403]

The more I view of Sam Harris online I really really like what he has to say and how he gets to his conclusions. Has anyone read his book and can recommend a good one to start with?

[peter12]

Resurrection coming very late into the game.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

I would argue that if anything the exact opposite is true.

I'm going to paint a couple of exaggerated pictures to make the point clear.

Right wing philosophy assumes that people are generally good enough that everyone in the society that really needs and deserves help will get help, simply because so many people are Good Christians or equivalent. Right wing politicians generally promote carte blance style rights for the police and government agencies and opposes oversight of such institutions, with the ridiculously naïve assumption that they will not abuse or misuse those powers. (Despite the mountains of proof that people absolutely always will abuse their power over other people if there is no oversight.) They oppose inspections and oversight committees because they assume they'll just get in the way of honest business and people just trying to do their jobs. They don't want to fund councelors and guides because people have parents to do that stuff, and anyway normal people are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. All this is to me extremely naïve.

Left wing philosophy assumes that you can't trust people to take care of anything that's not written down, be it a road, a river, a sick child, a homeless person... Anything. Every single thing needs to be a law, and anything that is not a law will be ignored by people. Every right a person has needs to be written down because otherwise people will be horrible to other people. Left wing philosophy also strongly believes that just writing something down as a law is not enough, that there is a constant need for oversight committees and independent inspectors to keep a check on people.

Left wing philosophy is also highly cynical about welfare. Essentially, welfare will always be abused to some extent so there's really no point in trying to stop it. It's like trying to stop politicians from lying. Oh, and the left wing is constantly fact-checking everyone who speaks in public, because the assumption is that everybody lies. The right wing is much less interested in fact-checking.

Trying to find welfare abusers is generally not cost-effective, because either there are so many "abusers" that you can't really blame anyone, or so few that the cost of oversight is more than the money potentially saved. The left wing philosophy also generally tends to assume that some people will just never get a job, period. The easiest and most cost-effective way to keep those people out of the way is to just give them enough money that they'll stay home smoking pot (which should be legalized because people are smoking it anyway) and playing video games. Also, left wing social policies tend not to be based on morals, but sociological studies. In other words, they're inherently calculating and immoral, unlike the right wing approach which is often mostly based on morals.

In general, left wing philosophy tends to assume that there's not really a huge difference between people. We're all generally kind of lazy, kind of selfish, prone to break or ignore laws we don't like etc etc. If someone gets a lot of money and power, they probably got it by abusing others and so they're kind of suspicious people. As a result, left wingers are much more prone to be suspicious of authority figures. Yeah, and the left wing also things people need a whole bunch of guidance all the time because they're clueless idiots that panic easily, and that people need to be sheltered with trigger warnings.

Right wing philosophy tends to assume that most people can handle themselves and guidance is only needed for "special" people.

Left wing idols tend to by cynical, sceptical, foulmouthed and even antisocial figures, living unhealthy lives and declaring everyone an a-hole. Stand-up comedians, rock stars, directors of arthouse films about child abuse etc.

Right wing idols tend to be clean-cut, idealistic, fighting for or at least representing the best moral values or greatest achievements of our society, preaching national exceptionalism and so on. Athletes, soldiers, CEO's...

Now, while both views here are obviously caricatures of a really wide spectrum of ideas, I would still argue that if you have to make an argument about which side is the cynical side and which side is the naïve side, IMO it's the right wing that is too naïve, and the left that is too cynical.

I'm going to disagree and provide health care in the USA as an example.

The right wing argues that it should not be paid for. They argue for small government and that any free health care will simply be abused. I argue with your assumption that people will get buy on the kindness of others, and, therefore, don't need government intervention. In the right wing model, if you can't pay for healthcare, you simply don't get it.

The extreme left provides free health care for all. They don't ask any questions and assume anyone getting the care is getting it, because they need it. No one would lie or take advantage of the system, for example, to build up a disability claim.

At the basis of leftist though is the motto:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

It relies on the fact that, in a socialist system, everyone will work as hard as they can and only take what they need.

I also disagree with your presumption that the larger welfare state implies that everyone is incapable of caring for themselves and needs the extra help. Under the socialist model, only those that truly need it should take advantage of those services. The average person should be so self-sustaining, that they can not only sustain themselves but have extra to pay to the government to sustain the needy.

[PepsiFree]

Harris is just a poor-man's Hitchens anyway.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

That's a pretty poor summary of the arguments for/against universal health care blank all. Also you completely fail to tackle the left and right wing economic arguments which are probably the most compelling of the arguments.

The US pays way more for a worse version of health care. There are very solid arguments from left wing economists as to why universal health care is significantly cheaper than non-universal health care. You've demonstrated zero understanding of the basic economic arguments around healthcare.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Harris is just a poor-man's Hitchens anyway.

Ehh, that's not really accurate. At his core Harris is a leftie. By the end Hitchens was pretty right wing.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

Ehh, that's not really accurate. At his core Harris is a leftie. By the end Hitchens was pretty right wing.

Hitchens always identified as a Trotskyist.

[nik-]

Well that's great, his opinions at the end were pretty much NeoCon

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well that's great, his opinions at the end were pretty much NeoCon

Most of neo-conservatism actually comes from disaffected Trostky globalists, and does not have a lot in common with a conservatism dedicated to maintaining the social and moral boundaries of a stable society.

The American Left was predominately anti-war, primarily for partisan reasons, but Hitchens never really found a place for himself on the Right either, which is profoundly influenced by Christianity.

[Gozer]

Hitchens was an antecedent to Harris as an anti-theist.

Otherwise, I think they have very little in common.
Harris values being 'sterile' in analysis, where Hitchens would prefer the opposite.

Harris argues with empirical data & very charitable premises; Hitchens would prefer a more visceral debate.

Imagine Harris responding as Hitchens did:
Preacher "I do not consider you an enemy"
Hitchens "You don't know an enemy when you see one"

[peter12]

To continue, there is a significant difference between conversations about how to deal with potentially socially-disrupting, mass-scale Muslim immigration and how to outright change Islamic societies into democratic ones.

Two different minds, with some dove-tailing, for sure. However, solving radicalization in French suburbs doesn't come about by invading Saudi Arabia.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

Most of neo-conservatism actually comes from disaffected Trostky globalists, and does not have a lot in common with a conservatism dedicated to maintaining the social and moral boundaries of a stable society.

The American Left was predominately anti-war, primarily for partisan reasons, but Hitchens never really found a place for himself on the Right either, which is profoundly influenced by Christianity.

I guess it depends on what we're referring to as "the Right". Did he hold the whole umbrella? No, obviously not. But since the majority of Harris and Hitchens talks refer to religion in a foreign policy context, he definitely was carrying the water of the right in that sphere.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by nik-

I guess it depends on what we're referring to as "the Right". Did he hold the whole umbrella? No, obviously not. But since the majority of Harris and Hitchens talks refer to religion in a foreign policy context, he definitely was carrying the water of the right in that sphere.

Hitchens even explicitly denied any real connection to the Right because he partially understood the connotations viz-a-viz American traditionalism.

Hitchens was so thoroughly normalized by the end that many forget he was a very promiscuous bi-sexual man for most of his life.

Anyway, the man loved a soundbite, was eloquent in an argument, but displayed no rigor when it came to any kind of cohesion amongst his own arguments, or that of his opponents.

Look at his debate partners. Not a serious scholar among them. He preferred the flim-flam artists, the backwoods preachers, the fools...

That's probably part of the Orwell in him - although Orwell was far greater - but Hitchens definitely felt it was important to fight fire with fire.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by nik-

But since the majority of Harris and Hitchens talks refer to religion in a foreign policy context, he definitely was carrying the water of the right in that sphere.

Do you consider Bill Maher, and his advocacy for French-Revolution-style liberals to agitate against moderate Islam to be "carrying the water for the right" ?

I think your post legitimizes the entire thread.
Why aren't progressive values, such as equality of women, the bastion of the Left?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Do you consider Bill Maher, and his advocacy for French-Revolution-style liberals to agitate against moderate Islam to be "carrying the water for the right" ?

I think your post legitimizes the entire thread.
Why aren't progressive values, such as equality of women, the bastion of the Left?

I wasn't referencing disagreement with Islam as carrying the water. Hitchens was a massive supporter of Bush/Cheney foreign policy at the end.

As for my post legitimizing the entire thread do you mind clarifying that statement? I think people who've seen me discuss this issue in other threads kind know where I stand on this issue and it's pretty firmly in the camp that derides "progressives" for abandoning liberal values in an attempt to appear tolerant and not racist.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

That's a pretty poor summary of the arguments for/against universal health care blank all. Also you completely fail to tackle the left and right wing economic arguments which are probably the most compelling of the arguments.

The US pays way more for a worse version of health care. There are very solid arguments from left wing economists as to why universal health care is significantly cheaper than non-universal health care. You've demonstrated zero understanding of the basic economic arguments around healthcare.

I wasn't arguing for or against health care. I was just pointing out a couple of the more extreme views on why people might support or be against it from a totally philosophical point of view.

My position is always that purely ideological positions never work in real life and always require compromise. I'm pro-universal health care as well. Although I wouldn't be against a small user fee ($20) to discourage superfluous visits.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hitchens even explicitly denied any real connection to the Right because he partially understood the connotations viz-a-viz American traditionalism.

Hitchens was so thoroughly normalized by the end that many forget he was a very promiscuous bi-sexual man for most of his life.

Anyway, the man loved a soundbite, was eloquent in an argument, but displayed no rigor when it came to any kind of cohesion amongst his own arguments, or that of his opponents.

Look at his debate partners. Not a serious scholar among them. He preferred the flim-flam artists, the backwoods preachers, the fools...

That's probably part of the Orwell in him - although Orwell was far greater - but Hitchens definitely felt it was important to fight fire with fire.

I disagree with a lot of this:

1) Hitchens stated he had a couple of same sex affairs when he was very young, but was a monogamous straight man.

2) As for his debate partners, yes he took on some over the top people. When one of your main topics of debate is religion, you simply aren't going to attract many people that non-religious people would consider to be serious scholars. Most people having these debates are going to be experts in religion and not scholarly subjects.

3) Hitchens lacked "cohesiveness" because he wasn't a partisan. He didn't subscribe to one distinct political bundle of beliefs. He looked at each position on its merits, regardless of whether it was politically cohesive with other positions. He was also open to change in his positions. Both great qualities IMO.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Hitchens was not a Trostkyite after, like, 2000. Probably earlier. He definitely didn't identify as such "all his life".

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by nik-

I wasn't referencing disagreement with Islam as carrying the water. Hitchens was a massive supporter of Bush/Cheney foreign policy at the end.

As for my post legitimizing the entire thread do you mind clarifying that statement? I think people who've seen me discuss this issue in other threads kind know where I stand on this issue and it's pretty firmly in the camp that derides "progressives" for abandoning liberal values in an attempt to appear tolerant and not racist.

I don't agree with the first paragraph.
As I recall, Hitch supported the Iraq war as an aggressive regime change endorsed by the UN.
Hitchens, however, vehemently opposed the Afghanistan war and did not hold GWB or his administration in high regard.

As for the second paragraph, I plead ignorance of your stance and withdraw the slight. I think we're talking about Hitchens, and agree on the other.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree with a lot of this:

1) Hitchens stated he had a couple of same sex affairs when he was very young, but was a monogamous straight man.

2) As for his debate partners, yes he took on some over the top people. When one of your main topics of debate is religion, you simply aren't going to attract many people that non-religious people would consider to be serious scholars. Most people having these debates are going to be experts in religion and not scholarly subjects.

3) Hitchens lacked "cohesiveness" because he wasn't a partisan. He didn't subscribe to one distinct political bundle of beliefs. He looked at each position on its merits, regardless of whether it was politically cohesive with other positions. He was also open to change in his positions. Both great qualities IMO.

Hitchens only stopped sleeping with men when they stopped finding him attractive - his own words.

There were many historians who challenged his mis-characterization of the early Church. Theologians who challenged his rhetoric on doctrine. The list goes on.

He wasn't an intellectual. He was a celebrity, and a good essayist. I really feel that he wanted to step into the shoes of his idol, George Orwell, and spent his entire life looking for a moral crusade that was worthy of Orwell's own battles against totalitarianism, but was unable to do so - both because he was not as serious as Orwell, and thus, lacked the true moral clarity that Orwell embodied as a journalist and writer.