The intellectual dark web

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And how many of those “left wing analogues” of Shapiro has Harris sat down with? Crank? Anyone else? We know he’s sat with Shapiro and numerous others like him, so again, why?

Do you even read my posts? Because while Ben Shapiro engages in conversation in good faith and a spirit of honest and civil disagreement, his analogues on the left don't. I asked you to supply a list of people on the far left who would engage in that manner, and you came up with Ta-nehisi Coates, who is dubious, but even if you're right, that's exactly one person. I then supplied two more, one who he has talked to, and one who I doubt he'd have any issue with talking to. So, that's three people squarely on the left of the political spectrum, of which Harris has only declined to speak to one. He's also on numerous occasions tried at length to have conversations with the more dishonest actors on the left, to no good effect (as I mentioned earlier). Meanwhile, you've been able to offer no more examples of honest, rigorous left-leaning thinkers he's apparently dodging, yet you've just repeated your so-far debunked premise. If you're not going to bother even trying to follow the conversation, why have it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by blankall

He takes a logical and scientific approach to most things. This also puts him at odds with sociologists, who believe most behaviour is socialized, not genetically pre-determined. Harris also takes a very opposing position on religion, including Islam. Since the right wing is historically pro-war against Muslim nations, that makes many on the left automatically pro-Islam, no matter how conservative the form of Islam.

Harris is more a-political if anything. He doesn't prescribe to any political party or belief system. That automatically puts him at odds with liberals who prescribe to a political package of beliefs, who will then label him right wing. Harris also a vocal critic of Chomsky, which once again puts him at odds with many liberals.

He self identifies as holding policy positions that align more closely with the left (for example climate change or universal basic income), but is also highly critical of the far left's excesses, especially on free speech and to some extent immigration. He's not a-political, he's highly political, he's just not all that partisan.

[Max Cow Disease]

Harris also looks to tackle a fairly broad range of topics within the 2-3 episodes he seems to release in a given month. His aim isn’t necessarily to devote most of his airtime to trying to browbeat every staunch subscriber of a certain end of the political spectrum.

Given that, I’d say that his efforts to have the “tougher” conversations from time to time seem adequate.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Bunk

He self identifies as holding policy positions that align more closely with the left (for example climate change or universal basic income), but is also highly critical of the far left's excesses, especially on free speech and to some extent immigration. He's not a-political, he's highly political, he's just not all that partisan.

Sorry. By A-political, I meant non-partisan. He obviously pushes for social change, which is by definition political.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

https://twitter.com/user/status/1014869233157713921

Mandrake, do you what else has an audience of mostly white males? Hockey, Mandrake. Children play hockey.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Do you even read my posts?

...

Meanwhile, you've been able to offer no more examples of honest, rigorous left-leaning thinkers he's apparently dodging, yet you've just repeated your so-far debunked premise. If you're not going to bother even trying to follow the conversation, why have it.

Sparingly, if possible.

I just find it curious he doesn’t make a bigger effort to engage with “the left” directly, as opposed to the right, who is very very often given an audience. I’m not posing this as some evidence that Harris is ______, it was in response to Cliff’s “where is the left?” Honest, “rigorous” left leaning thinkers are out there, they just aren’t represented on Harris’s program in a proportionate way, so if you are consuming things in your bubble, you’re going to miss a lot.

I’m following the conversation just fine, I just don’t find a lot of the points you’re making are worth addressing. If you think Ben Shapiro is a beacon of honesty and good faith, then I wouldn’t really even know what angle to enter from.

Do you, man. Nobody is trying to change your mind.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

Sorry. By A-political, I meant non-partisan. He obviously pushes for social change, which is by definition political.

Yeah, Harris very much seems like an “idea” person, not a “party” person.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sparingly, if possible.

I just find it curious he doesn’t make a bigger effort to engage with “the left” directly, as opposed to the right, who is very very often given an audience. I’m not posing this as some evidence that Harris is ______, it was in response to Cliff’s “where is the left?” Honest, “rigorous” left leaning thinkers are out there, they just aren’t represented on Harris’s program in a proportionate way, so if you are consuming things in your bubble, you’re going to miss a lot.

Sam Harris (in a recent subscriber-only "Ask me Anything" podcast) has said more or less the following about why he doesn't feature more people from the "social justice warrior" subgroup of the Left.

"The problem that I'm running into on the Left, and again it's not something that I run into on the Right, is that there are modes of attack that are obviously illegitimate, that are more or less omnipresent on the Left. One of them is what I've come to think of as leftist mind reading. SJW telepathy. Where the person criticizing me is criticizing me for thoughts that he is quite sure that I'm thinking in the privacy of my own mind...This mind reading move is incredibly frustrating. It is unfalsifiable, it breaks the conversation."


And he requests that listeners suggest good people to talk to on the SJW-left, and acknowledges there will be plenty of opportunity for these discussions because the SJW phenomenon is not going away.

[GreenLantern2814]

What's the difference between a SJW and someone who doesn't want people to be ####ty for no reason?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

What's the difference between a SJW and someone who doesn't want people to be ####ty for no reason?

The level of dismissiveness you wish to convey when ignoring their point.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

What's the difference between a SJW and someone who doesn't want people to be ####ty for no reason?

Probably about the same as the difference between an environmentalist and someone who doesn't want people to pollute for no reason.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

What's the difference between a SJW and someone who doesn't want people to be ####ty for no reason?

SJW at its core is a pejorative term targeted at people who actively seek conflict where it shouldn't exist. You expect a SJW to, for instance, create a charged situation if you hold a door open for them out of common courtesy.

It's not a term to be taken literally for someone who wants actual social justice.

[GirlySports]

Harris just finds the left disingenuous at times. He is a science guy so he will believe the science of climate change, radical islam statistics and IQ levels within groups. The left believes in one of these but not the other two which boggles his mind.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m not posing this as some evidence that Harris is ______, it was in response to Cliff’s “where is the left?” Honest, “rigorous” left leaning thinkers are out there, they just aren’t represented on Harris’s program in a proportionate way, so if you are consuming things in your bubble, you’re going to miss a lot.

Do you have any links? Honestly, I'm looking for some deliberate, rational, in-depth podcasts or Youtube streams from the social justice left. Not people agreeing with other about how bad those other people are, but serious debate, grounded in science and empiricism.

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

What's the difference between a SJW and someone who doesn't want people to be ####ty for no reason?

One calls out groups of people as ####ty because because of their identity, and the other calls out ####ty actions by specific people.

For an example of the former, see Psycnet's screen capture from earlier today showing the demographics of Peterson's fanbase, and its implication that anyone with a fanbase that is mostly white males is ####ty because white males are mostly ####ty.

[AltaGuy]

For an example of the former, see Psycnet's screen capture from earlier today showing the demographics of Peterson's fanbase, and its implication that anyone with a fanbase that is mostly white males is ####ty because white males are mostly ####ty.

No, that's not the point: the funny part is that whatever Peterson is selling has as narrow a demographic interest group as any other identity-based philosophy. Get it? He rails against it, but maybe he is it. The ironing is the funny part.

Anyway, I did think it was a funny chart. No need to take it too seriously.

[gottabekd]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

What's the difference between a SJW and someone who doesn't want people to be ####ty for no reason?

I can't help but read "social justice warrior" as anything but derogatory. Maybe some have adopted the title for themselves somewhat ironically.

I think "SJW" is used to label people who claim a moral superiority for their views. It makes their views very hard to debate if any disagreement is tossed aside as racism, sexism, etc.

I think the main problem with this air of moral superiority is that there is no room to stand on in the middle. You either have the 'correct' views, or are part of the Right. The ironic thing is that I see anyone moderate (those who "generally don't want people to be ####ty", but are put off by the antics of the extreme left) being pushed more to the right. I think Sam Harris has described this as "The Left is eating itself".

Bringing it back to Peterson, he seems to have the opposite philosophy. Willing to take support from anyone, and trying not be alienating and dismissive to the majority of the political spectrum. What started his snowball of popularity was speaking out on a social topic. A lot of people were sick of social justice warriors and rallied around Peterson more for his willingness to speak out rather than fully agreeing with his message. (Now he seems to gather more conservative support, but that is beside the point of how his profile skyrocketed).

The first time I heard of him is when I heard about his "free speech rally" being shut down by such "social justice warriors". And he has had other events cut short when an activist pulls the fire alarm in protest. Some of his views are a little conservative, but compared to a group that wants to deny him the chance to speak, I know where my values are more closely aligned. I think that's the same for a lot of people.

Finally, coming at it from the other side, it might sound like I'm saying if you disagree with Peterson you must be a far-left SJW. No. The main point is that the moderate-left seems to get attacked from both the far-left and the right, so they either stay silent, or start finding more common ground with the moderate-right.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

For an example of the former, see Psycnet's screen capture from earlier today showing the demographics of Peterson's fanbase, and its implication that anyone with a fanbase that is mostly white males is ####ty because white males are mostly ####ty.

Huh, I thought the post said nothing more than “lol.” .... I think Harris has something to say about this sort of tactic...

Originally Posted by gottabekd

One of them is what I've come to think of as leftist mind reading. SJW telepathy. Where the person criticizing me is criticizing me for thoughts that he is quite sure that I'm thinking in the privacy of my own mind...This mind reading move is incredibly frustrating. It is unfalsifiable, it breaks the conversation."

Funny.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by gottabekd

the moderate-left seems to get attacked from both the far-left and the right, so they either stay silent, or start finding more common ground with the moderate-right.

This is the most spot on thing I've read in this thread. I definitely feel like I'm in this position these days.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814

What's the difference between a SJW and someone who doesn't want people to be ####ty for no reason?

Read the comments to this article and see if you can spot the SJWs. It isn't hard.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...omment-2670713

[KipperFaNaTic]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, Harris very much seems like an “idea” person, not a “party” person.

Which is what everyone should strive for.

Peterson, Shapiro, and Harris all agree on one thing; and that is the absurdity of identity politics.