The bullying of the Regressives

[Zeke's Chaingun]

Bigotry isn't just another word for racism. I used the term accurately. Bigotry towards people that hold religious beliefs is still bigotry. On the other hand we have you equating religion with Nazism and White supremacy... a good example of your atheist bigotry.

Yes, yes I did, but not in the way your simple mind thinks that I did.

You see, in your pathetic view, you think that I just compared religion to Nazism in terms of what the teachings say. In other words, that religion - as a whole - is teaching ideas as bad as nazism so they are equal.

But that's NOT how I compared them. I compared them in the sense that they are IDEAS. If Nazism is an idea and Heliocentric Universe is an idea, I can call them both ideas. In this I am not aligning them up beside each other and comparing threats.

This isn't that difficult and you should apologize for making such a stupid statement.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yes, yes I did, but not in the way your simple mind thinks that I did.

You see, in your pathetic view, you think that I just compared religion to Nazism in terms of what the teachings say. In other words, that religion - as a whole - is teaching ideas as bad as nazism so they are equal.

But that's NOT how I compared them. I compared them in the sense that they are IDEAS. If Nazism is an idea and Heliocentric Universe is an idea, I can call them both ideas. In this I am not aligning them up beside each other and comparing threats.

This isn't that difficult and you should apologize for making such a stupid statement.

I'm fully aware of how you were trying to make a comparison, in defence of bigotry.
My point stands.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

I didn't say "racially". His call for profiling was just as ignorant.

No it isnt, but again and again you demonstrate that you have this inability to follow the conversation at all. You didn't even understand the comparison about ideas being ideas.

 

[Ruprecht]

No it isnt, but again and again you demonstrate that you have this inability to follow the conversation at all. You didn't even understand the comparison about ideas being ideas.

...and we get to the point where all you've got left is arrogant bluster. Have a good one.

 

[Fawlty]

He's done much the same thing again and again, whether it's calling for the profiling of muslims, through to, "In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews." ( The End of Faith, p. 134)
He's defended the use of torture.
He's not a bigot on the level of Spencer, Litman/Ye'Or, Geller or Gabriel, but his generalisations still amount to bigotry.

On the profiling question, his answer:

When I speak of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim,” I am not narrowly focused on people with dark skin. In fact, I included myself in the description of the type of person I think should be profiled (twice). To say that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest. It is the charm of political correctness that it blends these sins against reasonableness so seamlessly. We are paying a very high price for this obscurantism—and the price could grow much higher in an instant. We have limited resources, and every moment spent searching a woman like the one pictured above, or the children seen in the linked videos, is a moment in which someone or something else goes unobserved.

I can't fault his logic in the reality of Jihadist terrorism through airports. If we move away from his position, we are doing it at some risk, and it's a question of balance. I happen to think he's wrong on this one too, because we should indeed jeopardize our safety to some degree in the name of both liberty and equality (and that reduced profiling serves both purposes is the clincher to me), but I won't pretend that it doesn't open the door to jihadist terrorism a crack wider. What he advocates is extra screening for basically anybody of "fighting age," especially men, and no extra screening for old ladies and children. Again I feel he's being taken out of context by his critics, though he begs them to with his phrasing, which is meant to stir people.

We both see a pattern of crude statements up front, and then an explanation of them in context. You think it makes him somewhat of a bigot, and I think it makes him slightly histrionic.

 

[Ruprecht]

On the profiling question, his answer:

I can't fault his logic in the reality of Jihadist terrorism through airports. If we move away from his position, we are doing it at some risk, and it's a question of balance. I happen to think he's wrong on this one too, because we should indeed jeopardize our safety to some degree in the name of both liberty and equality (and that reduced profiling serves both purposes is the clincher to me), but I won't pretend that it doesn't open the door to jihadist terrorism a crack wider. What he advocates is extra screening for basically anybody of "fighting age," especially men, and no extra screening for old ladies and children. Again I feel he's being taken out of context by his critics, though he begs them to with his phrasing, which is meant to stir people.

We both see a pattern of crude statements up front, and then an explaining of them in context. You think it makes him somewhat of a bigot, and I think it makes him slightly histrionic.

What do you mean "you can't fault his logic"? It's the same faults that have always applied to "profiling". The idea that he'd defend profiling and torture while calling other liberals "regressive" would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Ok. Now what GOP member do you see selling the peons out to their corporate overlords here?

Just what this site needs another noob hack

 

[Jack V Savage]

Just what this site needs another noob hack

Ehtheist has the potential to make good posts, and she sometimes does, but she also trolls. Kind of weird.

 

[Fawlty]

What do you mean "you can't fault his logic"? It's the same faults that have always applied to "profiling". The idea that he'd defend profiling and torture while calling other liberals "regressive" would be hilarious, if it wasn't so sad.

We can talk about torture too if you like, because I think his comments on that are smart. The ticking time bomb scenario is much more of a possibility today. His stance is that torture should remain illegal (because of the many problems it poses), and I believe he feels that we should torture the guy who knows where the ticking time bomb is anyway, and suffer the consequences. But his best point on that is essentially a thought experiment in collateral damage. We know that we could blow up a wedding with a 500 lb bomb and virtually guarantee the death of a prominent terrorist. But we also have an important lieutenant of his in custody, and we know that he knows where the terrorist is heading after the wedding. We should be able to discuss whether torturing him for that information is a better moral action than guaranteeing the death of a large wedding party. That he wants to discuss this rather than put it completely off the table, is this really a problem?

 

[Ruprecht]

We can talk about torture too if you like, because I think his comments on that are smart. The ticking time bomb scenario is much more of a possibility today. His stance is that torture should remain illegal (because of the many problems it poses), and I believe he feels that we should torture the guy who knows where the ticking time bomb is anyway, and suffer the consequences. But his best point on that is essentially a thought experiment in collateral damage. We know that we could blow up a wedding with a 500 lb bomb and virtually guarantee the death of a prominent terrorist. But we also have an important lieutenant of his in custody, and we know that he knows where the terrorist is heading after the wedding. We should be able to discuss whether torturing him for that information is a better moral action than guaranteeing the death of a large wedding party. That he wants to discuss this rather than put it completely off the table, is this really a problem?

He inserted a theoretical defence of secret torture into the political discussion on the actual use of secret torture (the End Of Faith was published in 2004).
You tell me how you would consider that "in context"?

 

[dontsnitch]

I didn't say "racially". His call for profiling was just as ignorant. Regressive, in the literal sense.

Why is profiling ignorant?

 

[Ruprecht]

Why is profiling ignorant?

Because there isn't a "looks like muslim" profile. Because using selective attention as a solution to resource limitations actually opens up exploitable weaknesses. Because profiling feeds off of and contributes to actual discriminatory bigotry.

 

[dontsnitch]

Because there isn't a "looks like muslim" profile. Because using selective attention as a solution to resource limitations actually opens up exploitable weaknesses. Because profiling feeds off of and contributes to actual discriminatory bigotry.

So you're saying that profiling leads to discrimination and is ineffective.

 

[Fawlty]

He inserted a theoretical defence of secret torture into the political discussion on the actual use of secret torture (the End Of Faith was published in 2004).
You tell me how you would consider that "in context"?

I don't see an endorsement of our use of torture during the wars of the last 15 years. His grounds for torture have (to public knowledge) not been met during these conflicts. I could be missing something of course. And I think he makes a good point that torture may be ethically superior to collateral damage in some circumstances. I would like for him have gone out of his way to criticize the actual torture done by our government though.

 

[Ruprecht]

So you're saying that profiling leads to discrimination and is ineffective.

Yes, that's always been the way it's played out. That's the civil libertarian argument, and it's a perfect example of where Harris has espoused literally regressive ideas in regards to liberal ideals.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't see an endorsement of our use of torture during the wars of the last 15 years. His grounds for torture have (to public knowledge) not been met during these conflicts. I could be missing something of course. And I think he makes a good point that torture may be ethically superior to collateral damage in some circumstances. I would like for him have gone out of his way to criticize the actual torture done by our government though.

Maybe you don't remember 2004, but torture was a hot topic. Harris has a habit of saying "both sides are wrong" and then defending the conservative position.
I guess that's his "libertarianism". His theoretical defence of torture in the context of the revelations on water boarding, extraordinary rendition etc is hard to see as anything else.

 

[Fawlty]

Maybe you don't remember 2004, but torture was a hot topic. Harris has a habit of saying "both sides are wrong" and then defending the conservative position.
I guess that's his "libertarianism". His theoretical defence of torture in the context of the revelations on water boarding, extraordinary rendition etc is hard to see as anything else.

I don't have the same problem you seem to have with him criticizing liberal views. He challenges views I hold very strongly and I appreciate him for that. Maybe you think it's cheap to play in the gray area the way he does? I just don't see it like you do, I suppose. He's provocative and I don't find him dishonest. I hope we can at least agree that the left seems not to give much of a shit about the freedoms of a huge portion of the Muslim population of the world, and those of their detractors.

 

[Ruprecht]

I don't have the same problem you seem to have with him criticizing liberal views. He challenges views I hold very strongly and I appreciate him for that. Maybe you think it's cheap to play in the gray area the way he does? I just don't see it like you do, I suppose. He's provocative and I don't find him dishonest. I hope we can at least agree that the left seems not to give much of a shit about the freedoms of a huge portion of the Muslim population of the world, and those of their detractors.

Which "left"?
I think Harris's criticisms usually involve building up straw men and then knocking them down. I think his attempts to be provocative (if that's what it is) are often just superficial defences of regressive (in the literal sense) positions (see his arguments on torture, profiling, gun control etc etc).
I don't find him personally objectionable like I do Maher (whose shallow political commentary, smugness, and use of "humour" and "not being pc" to cover for being an outright bigot, disgusts me), but I don't hold him in very high regard at all.

 

[Fawlty]

Which "left"?
I think Harris's criticisms usually involve building up straw men and then knocking them down. I think his attempts to be provocative (if that's what it is) are often just superficial defences of regressive (in the literal sense) positions (see his arguments on torture, profiling, gun control etc etc).
I don't find him personally objectionable like I do Maher (whose shallow political commentary, smugness, and use of "humour" and "not being pc" to cover for being an outright bigot, disgusts me), but I don't hold him in very high regard at all.

Fair enough. We have two very different ways of looking at his arguments. I imagine you feel that he constructs a "See- I'm not a bigot!" position for himself that is transparent and dishonest.

 

[Ruprecht]

Fair enough. We have two very different ways of looking at his arguments. I imagine you feel that he constructs a "See- I'm not a bigot!" position for himself that is transparent and dishonest.

I think the "I'm only against Islam, not muslims" defence is patently false given the explicit political actions and positions he defends, along with some of the risible statements (such as the one I posted earlier) he's made.
Of course the major flaw in almost all his criticism of Islam is that he treats it as a singular thing.
He treats Salafist views as if they were "true Islam" or in some way representative of all of Islam. Now Salafism is certainly a growing phenomenon (thanks largely to Saudi Arabia), and there's supposedly about 50 Million of them, but it's still a minority (and not all Salafists are "Jihadist" or "Islamist" either, some are explicitly apolitical).
You can't generalise minority views to a majority without being a bigot.