The Second Apocalypse

Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: Conditioned on May 28, 2018, 01:38:58 pm

Title: Bakker and Harris
Post by: Conditioned on May 28, 2018, 01:38:58 pm
So I have read Bakker since his debut way back when, though I can't really say I had more than a superficial understanding of his writing until I reread the first trilogy after TTT was released... Anyway, I had no prior experience with philosophy or neuroscience, so Bakker really fucked with my head (in a good way, or at least I occasionally like to believe). I none the less find myself in way over my head time and time again.

So I have recently been on a Sam Harris kick and have been finding more and more of his ideas covering the same ground as Bakker. I can't seem to figure out the search function for these forums but I was trying to see if this was already something discussed around here? I find it interesting because Sam Harris is somebody who is thoughtlessly articulate and relatively recently made the decision to turn to podcasting as his media outlet but only makes money from donations by subscribers. While I think Bakker is probably better with evoking vivid illustrations and horribly frightening ideas I think Harris is someone that the mainstream crowds could almost tolerate in the US (if only he would quit fucking around with Jesus lol). Now there are probably people here that are way deeper into these fields than I am that might have a multitude of reasons to disagree with Harris on different subjects... but for some reason I can't help but feel like Harris and Bakker have similar concerns about our immediate future.

I started thinking about whether it might be more beneficial for Bakker to maybe start a podcast to go along with TPB... I personally would love to have his ideas explored with other voices familiar with the subjects he covers.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 28, 2018, 04:35:45 pm
Bakker would probably hate that. He seems to kinda shun publicity in general. Also, Sam Harris is a racist.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: Conditioned on May 28, 2018, 06:17:28 pm
Yeah, I can't help but think he wouldn't jump at the chance either. But after watching the few videos on youtube that I have found with him, I am starting to think that his social uh 'awkwardness' is all in his head. I do think that podcasting is a better vehicle for his ideas though, for the most part. Podcasting is one of the best long-form discussion tools we currently have... at least for debate-type discussion and introducing new ideas and whatnot.

Yeah, in the last year or so, I have listened and read pretty much everything Sam Harris has had his name on and I have found there to be no real claim to the racism bs that certain people are spouting. Inviting people with different things to say about science is what Harris does. He realized he had put Murray in the "that guy's a racist" category a long time ago and ignored any work that he had produced. He had him on his podcast to admit that it was unfair and had Murray present his findings. There is nothing inherently racist about this, regardless of the findings or opinions of Murray.

Not that I think that it is impossible for anybody to be a racist or anything. I only require more evidence than someone's namecalling.

Corrected Murray's name... that's what I get for not double checking before posting lol.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TaoHorror on May 28, 2018, 09:33:57 pm
I enjoy listening to Harris, he's put a lot of elbow grease into his research and expression. But, he is light on formal education into the areas he discusses - which is good, we don't need a PHD in an area to have an opinion, but it is important to know his background for a full understanding of what he is, what he wants to be and what he says. Simply put, he's an impressive layman, not an "expert". But I do like him and feel he's made some cool contributions to the popular consciousness. I agree, nothing he's said is racist and kudos for him not getting weak in the knees like so many do when they're "called out" just by talking about different peoples/cultures ( for a while there, I was afraid to say the word black in any context ). We haven't kicked around Harris much in this forum, but Petersen has been popular. Would be fun to know what connections between Harris and Bakker you see.

Bakker is who he is and it appears he is void of interest beyond his writing, his blog and some post interviews after a release of one of his books. He does seem interested in PON being produced as a tv series or movie(s), but nobody has taking the plunge for it just yet - I'm hoping the slowly disappearing GoT tv show will yield more interest to "fill the void" as I think an episodic tv series of PON would be awesome.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 28, 2018, 09:44:05 pm
There's actually nothing "racist" about Charles Murray, for that matter, regardless of what the herd of independent minds believes to be the case.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 28, 2018, 11:57:25 pm
Just because you don't state something outright doesn't mean you don't have political and/or racial motivations. You don't have to say "blacks are inferior", just imprint it by saying "well, the data says that..."
I haven't actually heard the interview, just heard different statements about it including this (biased) article. https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/5/18/15655638/charles-murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech but from what I have gathered, Sam Harris never denied having agreed with these claims, e.g.
Quote
he passively follows Murray to the dangerous and unwarranted conclusion that black and Hispanic people in the US are almost certainly genetically disposed to have lower IQ scores on average than whites or Asians — and that the IQ difference also explains differences in life outcomes between different ethnic and racial groups.
If this is wrong, go ahead and correct me, but if it's true, then he IS racist, by definition, since this view is not supported by genetic science.

I enjoy listening to Harris, he's put a lot of elbow grease into his research and expression. But, he is light on formal education into the areas he discusses - which is good, we don't need a PHD in an area to have an opinion.
Not as a layman of course, but as an influential media person, it would be desirable.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 12:20:50 am
I'm really not interested in pursuing this matter with you much further, Tleilaxu. I don't care for your style. I guess you see nothing wrong with baldly stating "So-and-so is a racist".

Here's a long post from Sam Harris that contains 1) the email exchange between Harris and Ezra Klein (editor at Vox); and 2) two podcasts that further the discussion (the second being a 2 hr. podcast with Harris and Klein)

https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 01:39:50 am
Here's Andrew Sullivan objecting to Ezra Klein's article in Vox:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

I don't think that the relationship between genetic science and the heritability of intelligence is crystal clear at this moment in time; certainly Harvard geneticist David Reich believes it to be an open question (according to Sullivan's summary). So let's not shut down the debate by waving the bloody shirt of racism, OK?
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 01:45:22 am
I just want to compliment Conditioned on his measured response to Tleilaxu. His take on why Harris interviewed Murray in the first place is exactly correct. Well said.

Also a shout out to Tao, who notes the bravery needed to face down the hordes shouting "Racist!". Amen, brother.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TaoHorror on May 29, 2018, 03:53:13 am
If this is wrong, go ahead and correct me, but if it's true, then he IS racist, by definition, since this view is not supported by genetic science.
Well, ok, you're defining in the sense of concrete - if I killed someone, then I'm a killer by definition, even if it was completely unintended ( like I accidentally bumped into someone and they fell off the roof of a building - so I would disagree and blame gravity as the killer, not me ). By definition, someone positing differences in race beyond skin pigmentation is racist. But what we really mean by racist is treating/judging people differently based on pigmentation. Someone researching differences in race is not racism. Harris and Murray are simply incorrect in their conclusions ( well, really everything imho - even their thought to embark on such research ) and are not "racists" in the regard they're coming to the table with ill intent ( well, they could be, of course, I can't read their minds - but from these taped discussions, I simply find them lost, not "bad" people ).

I think the phenomena of IQ has derailed polite society for far too long now. It's a distraction at all levels of consideration. What makes a person outnumbers the number of atoms that make up the planet Earth, so this "IQ" is an odd preoccupation as it is a single thread of focus from the exa-trillion threads that make the human consciousness. So much about our intellect is still mystery, we're not even scratching the surface, barely voyeurs really. Simplistically put, we can be "smarter" today than tomorrow and yet smarter still the next day than today. IQ is combobulation (yes, I know, not a word, but you get me ) ... like a focus on the differences in traffic intersections. I simply see 2 people who went to hell with themselves over the irrelevant and of course anything they would conclude would be false - so they needlessly exposed themselves to ridicule as anyone will indulging in the exercise of IQ. Doesn't make them racists/bad actors ( but they could be ), but simply misguided. They're in good company, quite the ruckus over IQ. I find those suffering the demands of determining the number of possible shades of the color green to be on a more worthwhile path.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: H on May 29, 2018, 12:02:18 pm
As if an IQ score could, or would, be a definitive measure of anything except "ability to take IQ tests."
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TaoHorror on May 29, 2018, 12:05:34 pm
As if an IQ score could, or would, be a definitive measure of anything except "ability to take IQ tests."

So much better said than my banter, thank you, H! It just wouldn't come to me as beautifully succinct as you just did here.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 12:15:05 pm
Here is an actual expert in the field of intelligence weighing in on the Klein/Harris/Murray matter. Richard Haier is referenced in the Harris blog post upstream, and this was Haier's offered contribution to Vox that was rejected.
http://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: H on May 29, 2018, 12:55:29 pm
As if an IQ score could, or would, be a definitive measure of anything except "ability to take IQ tests."

So much better said than my banter, thank you, H! It just wouldn't come to me as beautifully succinct as you just did here.

Well, I don't know about that, but consider that if the "IQ tests" in question were made by, say, people more "similar" to the people who score lowest, do you hypothesize the results would be different?

Also, I might be wrong, but I don't think IQ has a strong correlation to much of anything, let alone something so nebulous such as "life outcomes."  Unless, of course, you tailor make something called "life outcome" and then fit the data.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TaoHorror on May 29, 2018, 02:25:31 pm
Here is an actual expert in the field of intelligence weighing in on the Klein/Harris/Murray matter. Richard Haier is referenced in the Harris blog post upstream, and this was Haier's offered contribution to Vox that was rejected.
http://quillette.com/2017/06/11/no-voice-vox-sense-nonsense-discussing-iq-race/

Fair enough, I can accept I misunderstand any/all of this conversation. My point is that those who engage in same, though not necessarily a racist pursuit ( so I'm disagreeing with TL here, motive does matter ), the foundation of the exercise is flawed, so why bother. If you want to map the brain, cool! But making connections/relationships on something too abstract to be true as is IQ is a waste of time and dumb's us down. I scored a 128 on a written IQ test and a 166 on a verbal one ( apparently I got a complex math question correct in my head and that screwed the results big time ). What they think they're seeing could well be a result of oppression ( the fuck you factor, if you will - fuck you, I'm not taking your stupid test because you're a piece of shit who doesn't like me, so why help you ) - groups under-performing as self proving theorem.

Allow me a little room here and I'll tackle this from another angle. Let's say IQ is a real something that has meaning. Let's say genetics has something to do with it. Let's say genetically across groups, it varies. Ok - then what? The person with the highest IQ could still be non-white as these are averages. Also, there's nothing to do about it. All that matters is everyone is treated equally under the law, everyone has the right to pursue their life within reasonably accepted cost to others ( liberty ). Performing well in life is too wide angle to mean anything as most of those who "perform well" "made it" by networking with those with capital better than others and not really contributing much of anything. All of this is a mistake, regardless of intention. This has the odor of humans prioritizing what they think evolution can teach us to improve our lives - Harris should know better, he's being inconsistent as he has argued against Petersen for this very thing. Regardless of how we think our behavior and society are anthropological, that should not influence how we decide to live our lives.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 29, 2018, 06:19:51 pm
I'm really not interested in pursuing this matter with you much further, Tleilaxu. I don't care for your style. I guess you see nothing wrong with baldly stating "So-and-so is a racist".

Here's a long post from Sam Harris that contains 1) the email exchange between Harris and Ezra Klein (editor at Vox); and 2) two podcasts that further the discussion (the second being a 2 hr. podcast with Harris and Klein)

https://samharris.org/ezra-klein-editor-chief/
You're right, I have zero problems calling out people on being racist.
I don't have time go to through all of this but let's take one example.
Ezra Klein says:
Quote
The overwhelming thrust of your discussion features Murray arguing that racial IQ differences are real, persistent, significant, driven by genetic racial differences (he has a long discourse on how strong that signal must be to make it through the noise of racial mixing), and immune to virtually every intervention we’ve thought of. Yes, there are caveats sprinkled throughout, but there’s also a clear and consistent argument being made, or so it seemed to me. That was, as I understood it, the Forbidden Knowledge referred to in the title: you can’t just wish away the black-white IQ gap as a matter of environment and history and disadvantage.
Sam Harris' response:
Quote
Yes, it is very hard to wish it away. That doesn’t stop people from trying—and doing their best to destroy the reputations of others in the process.
He all but flat out states that there are genetic differences between whites and blacks that results in blacks being less intelligent than whites. This is not supported by genetic science, and is thus politically motivated and racist.

Here's Andrew Sullivan objecting to Ezra Klein's article in Vox:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/denying-genetics-isnt-shutting-down-racism-its-fueling-it.html

I don't think that the relationship between genetic science and the heritability of intelligence is crystal clear at this moment in time; certainly Harvard geneticist David Reich believes it to be an open question (according to Sullivan's summary). So let's not shut down the debate by waving the bloody shirt of racism, OK?
I skipped that and read the article by David Reich instead ( https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html ). It's actually pretty good and nuanced, and most importantly does not make broad statements or insinuations. Look at the part where he discusses James Watson as an example.
Compared with what Sam Harris seems to be saying though there's a world of difference.

By definition, someone positing differences in race beyond skin pigmentation is racist.
It is when their position is politically motivated and not supported by science.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 06:51:21 pm
Tleilaxu, you didn't "call out" Sam Harris as a racist. "Calling out" would require some evidence, wouldn't it? You just made an unsupported allegation. You said, "Also, Sam Harris is a racist." End scene.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 07:24:06 pm
From David Reich's article:

"If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong."

From my reading of the Reich article, I'm confident that he would take issue with your absolutist stance on what genetic science does or does not support, Tleilaxu.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 29, 2018, 09:51:42 pm
( so I'm disagreeing with TL here, motive does matter )
No, I completely agree.

As if an IQ score could, or would, be a definitive measure of anything except "ability to take IQ tests."
Wait, weren't you supposed to be a Jordan Peterson fanboy xd?

From David Reich's article:

"If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong."

From my reading of the Reich article, I'm confident that he would take issue with your absolutist stance on what genetic science does or does not support, Tleilaxu.
Maybe he's a racist too then.

Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TaoHorror on May 29, 2018, 10:06:57 pm
Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

I know you're not asking me, but a resounding NO. Anything to the contrary is incorrect at best, racist at worst. And even if I'm wrong, it simply does not matter and the approach for a completely inclusive/equal opportunities for all does not change.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TLEILAXU on May 29, 2018, 10:16:39 pm
Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

I know you're not asking me, but a resounding NO. Anything to the contrary is incorrect at best, racist at worst. And even if I'm wrong, it simply does not matter and the approach for a completely inclusive/equal opportunities for all does not change.
Aight aight.
Personally, I could easily see there being some population specific differences, but it'd be damn hard to tell for sure, especially because different population specific alleles might cause a similar thing. For example, the alleles that give Europeans white skin are different from the alleles that give Asians white skin.

The problem is just that in this age of (mis)information there's a lot of people who invoke the science card to justify political/ideological agendas. They say it's all in the science, all in the genetics, to justify e.g. their beliefs in women having specific gender roles. David Reich showcased some nice examples in his article.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: Conditioned on May 29, 2018, 11:24:40 pm
Thanks Beard, just trying to have a talk that is more about what was actually said and less about how people think their motivations, intent, and political philosophies played into it all. I don't feel like the Murray stuff plays into 99% of the stuff Harris gets into anyway, so I think it shouldn't really color everyone's opinion of him so much. He  really has a lot of interesting opinions on a lot of different subjects.

Oh and I also totally agree that Harris is by no means an expert in every field he discusses. Though he does have a BA in philosophy and a PhD in neuroscience from what I just gathered from wiki... so I believe he at least is more qualified than most laypeople to discuss this stuff.

I probably should've been writing down Harris and Bakkers similar ideas before I started this thread, huh? Give me a few days (pretty busy most of the time between my full time job and my demonically possessed toddler) and I will try to put together something more substantial.

I guess I should start with both of their apprehension in regards to the approaching technological shitstorm and the implications of meddling too early with the human brain without enough thought to unintentional consequences, or even intentional consequences. They cite a lot of the same work when talking about their ideas. Cases of face blindness, being blind to being blind and all that kind of stuff lol

Also Bakker and Harris both seem to have a certain proficiency for infuriating the extreme left and extreme right of the US political spectrum and I think they both consider themselves to liberal leaning.

This is a start at least. Just caught my toddler sranc growling and trying to bite my Siberian husky, so I better start paying attention to him before one of them gets hurt.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 11:31:00 pm
From David Reich's article:

"If scientists can be confident of anything, it is that whatever we currently believe about the genetic nature of differences among populations is most likely wrong."

From my reading of the Reich article, I'm confident that he would take issue with your absolutist stance on what genetic science does or does not support, Tleilaxu.
Maybe he's a racist too then.

Just to be clear, do you believe that there is a genetic basis for the difference between black and white intelligence?

You need to formulate your questions with more care. There is no "black" intelligence. There is no "white" intelligence. Try again.

I will say, as a layman, that I believe intellectual capacity/aptitude is hereditary in some degree. That would seem to be a non-controversial statement, but in a time where Sam Harris gets labelled as a racist apparently because he failed to distance himself sufficiently from Charles Murray, who is apparently beyond the pale, perhaps it is not.

It's pretty clear from David Reich's article and from his work that scientists are currently finding genetic differences among various population groups. What these differences amount to, I haven't a clue. But Reich did note the much more significant biological (and, hence, genetic) differences between men and women. More landmines, I'm afraid. Is David Reich "sexist" as well as "racist", Tleilaxu?
The problem is just that in this age of (mis)information there's a lot of people who invoke the science card to justify political/ideological agendas. They say it's all in the science, all in the genetics, to justify e.g. their beliefs in women having specific gender roles. David Reich showcased some nice examples in his article.

When you refer to those people that use the "science" card to justify political/ideological agendas, would that group include climate change alarmists? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 29, 2018, 11:32:26 pm
Sorry, Conditioned, we derailed your thread.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: Conditioned on May 30, 2018, 12:44:33 am
Lol Beard, I won't lie... I saw the potential for the conversation veering this way before I posted it. But all it took for me was to listen to his podcast with Murray and i was able to make a decision based on the things that were said. I don't think that it was some great idea on Harris' part to decide to trod this path, then again, I pretty much felt exactly the same when Bakker did something similar all those years ago. Sometimes picking a fight to prove a point ends up making even your best friend's look at you a little different, let alone people who are willing to make an 'informed decision' without ever being willing to look at either your body of work as with the accusations of sexism with Bakker or listen to the evidence from the podcasts in question with Harris.

I am an atheist that lives in the deep south, so I tend to find myself on the left side of virtually any real life conversation. Like Harris, I have found many of the same extremes of the left hard to defend. In the south, it is actually hard to find a household that doesn't have a firearm inside. I am a huge advocate for more responsible gun owners and even tighter restrictions on the acquisition process and mental health checks and whatnot, yet I find myself debating even more liberal people than me on whether we should totally ban guns in the US... which simply seems like the most unlikely thing to happen to me. Or some other stuff that I am not sure I would've ever been aware of if not for Harris like the Evergreen University stuff, which is also about people declaring other people racist due to their unwillingness to let the extreme left dictate the terms of what an actual racist is. And whether or not people with opposing views can speak/debate at universities without fear or threats of violence. I mean, this is the very fucking idea of free speech.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: MSJ on May 30, 2018, 02:23:52 am
Never read the article, but let me give some life experience here, in regards to what is racist. Well, I have 3 half sisters (same Mom, different dads, theirs is a black man), and I've found myself saying something in which, I felt, was completely harmless and never meant as racist and been told that it is. Does that make me a racist? No. I love my sister's, stepfather, nieces and nephews and have more black friends than white. But, what you feel is harmless, doesnt mean it isn't to someone else. Its a very hard subject. I usually get carte Blanche on that side of my family, because they know the love I have for them, but I have been put in my place before.

I do think it is very unreasonable to call someone a racist without total, undeniable proof that one is. A wrong word here, a mistaken assumption there and all of a sudden, your racist. And, please, none of us bullshit here and be honest with ourselves, this is a leftist tactic in America. A very, very hard thing to put up with. I am a democrat, though moderate. And, these tactics the extreme left employ are doing nothing but hurting the Democratic party, which is sad. Look what it got us, 4-8 years of a bumbling fucking idiot, who will, before its said and done, have us in either a civil war or a World War. Its scary. The majority of the left needs to come back more to the center.

And, this extreme leftism is fostered at UNI's across the nation, and quite frankly gotten out of control. It would never make me turn Rep., but its hindering any chance the left has to regain the Oval Office. It needs to end. Its become so outlandish and extreme, that when politics are brought up IRL, I just walk away...if I can.

TLEILAXU, I think its very irresponsible to make a claim that one is racist, just what ibe read in this thread. From a lot of stuff ive read on genetics, indont think that any one ethnicity is smarter than another because of genetics. Your smarts come from the environment in which you are brought up and how much attention and devotion the parentsnput forth towards their children. I could be wrong, but that is what ive read. But, to make a claim that one person is racist, because of article, and not strong facts and multiple incidentsnto back that up, is just more extreme left-wing ignorance, imho. They just throw claims like that around too often. Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: BeardFisher-King on May 30, 2018, 03:09:50 am
Btw, Conditioned, welcome back!
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: H on May 30, 2018, 09:49:17 am
As if an IQ score could, or would, be a definitive measure of anything except "ability to take IQ tests."
Wait, weren't you supposed to be a Jordan Peterson fanboy xd?

I do like a fair share of Peterson's thoughts, especially those on the psychology of religion, but I'm not sure where you are going with that...
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: themerchant on July 26, 2018, 07:49:59 am
I don't like Sam Harris I feel most of the things he says are laced with his politics which i consider toxic.

Calling for indiscriminate nuclear strikes
Saying loads of stupid shit for examples:

"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live."

9/11 was done for religious reasons.

we are at war with islam, not terrorism.

He'd vote for Ben Carson over Noam Chomsky (this was cause his ego was hurt)

“I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.”

Would differentiate refugees coming into the country by their religion. Christians get to queue jump Muslims.


Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: Wilshire on August 07, 2018, 03:49:08 pm
Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them.
This is a curiously extreme proposition that, Catch 22 aside, seems likely to get one killed by their own idea. Like "Ok sounds good, we'll start by killing people who think that killing like that is a good idea, then we'll revote and see if there's anyone else that thinks this way".
For that reason, its a silly idea that can be used to kill off any group of people that happen to disagree with the proposer. Though at some point you probably will end up with a group of people that all say they think alike under this regime.
... Thinking on it, I'm pretty sure this idea has been used by governments historically. Natzi's come to mind, but I'm no history buff.

And whether or not people with opposing views can speak/debate at universities without fear or threats of violence. I mean, this is the very fucking idea of free speech.
Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: H on August 07, 2018, 05:36:17 pm
Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).

It's also (seemingly) essential to whatever we want to call it, liberty, freedom, efficacy, etc.

The thing is, and too many people seem to have a very hard time understanding this practically, that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence or freedom from responsibility for speech.  Also, it doesn't guarantee a forum; for example, the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire).  No one says you can't say the word "fire," however, you can't yell it in a place that where doing so would cause a danger.  In the same way, not speaking of "danger" however but perhaps more abstractly of "harm," no one is "entitled" to have their videos hosted by say, Facebook or YouTube.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: Wilshire on August 07, 2018, 06:20:49 pm
Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: TaoHorror on August 07, 2018, 07:13:55 pm
Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!

I'm not "sticking up" for Harris - I'm neutral to him ( like some stuff, some I don't ), but I think he was referring to violent speech, not simply people who believe in Shariah Law, for example ( although I would gather he would fret over that line ). I agree with you, if he said this, it's a mistake of intellect and argumentation. If I'm right, he should make it very clear that he's referring to violent speech ( and even then, I would have to think it through more to determine if I agree or not, as you say, very dicey logic we're dealing with here ). If someone is directing those who are oppressed should violently attack their oppressors, there are some contexts where it would be legitimate to kill said director.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: H on August 08, 2018, 12:04:25 pm
Of course.  I agree with all these things.

I just think its funny that someone relying on free speech as a premise for their entire career advocates for killing people who think differently than himself. As if its so difficult to imagine someone would think your ideas and beliefs are extreme enough for them to kill you. Seems super short sighted, and so ironic that it literally makes me chuckle. (Same goes for any group, his is hardly a new or unique idea, either today or in recent, middle, or distant history.)

If its not obvious, I don't follow him and only am just looking at a couple of quotes from themerchant. Maybe he's a stand-up guy with great thoughts, but this particular quote seems silly. Self reflection is hard!

Well, I really don't know much about Harris, in reality either.  From what I have seen, he is generally pretty smart.  So, chances are good that if he said something, he had a definite agenda in doing so.  I mean, the little I have read from him makes it seem that he likes to take some hard-line objectivity stance and then back it up with "scientific" rationale.  Possibly a noble endeavor, but flawed all the same...

Taken in isolation, it probably is true, that some ideas are so detrimental to have and to hold that it would be best that those that hold them simply did not exist.  The issue of course is, who gets to be the arbiter of that?  What is the threshold criterion for expunging such?  The problem comes in the humans are irredeemably (yes, I mean that literally) biased.  That includes humans engaged in science.  So, I'd distinctly reject the idea that science could or should be the arbiter.  So, then, we are back in the lurch for how we could know what is "too dangerous" and what isn't.

I believe the Harris is firmly against any sort of "transcendental" ideas.  While objectively factual, you are going to be missing something with that kind of hard line.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: themerchant on August 08, 2018, 05:11:33 pm
Free speech is probably without argument the most dangerous thing to any person with any modicum of power (outside physical violence - human bodies are so squishy).

It's also (seemingly) essential to whatever we want to call it, liberty, freedom, efficacy, etc.

The thing is, and too many people seem to have a very hard time understanding this practically, that freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence or freedom from responsibility for speech.  Also, it doesn't guarantee a forum; for example, the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater (where there is no fire).  No one says you can't say the word "fire," however, you can't yell it in a place that where doing so would cause a danger.  In the same way, not speaking of "danger" however but perhaps more abstractly of "harm," no one is "entitled" to have their videos hosted by say, Facebook or YouTube.

Free speech is essentially the government cant prosecute you for the content of what you say generally. It's not people have to employ you regardless of what crazy shit you say.

Folk like to stand behind a shield that only exists in their mind.
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: themerchant on August 08, 2018, 05:22:46 pm
He didn't even do his own experiments from which his phd is based on. I consider him pretty useless, but his politics are so opposed to mine and he advocates for so much violence that I probably can't judge him objectively on other subjects.

I just have a problem with folk who advocate fighting for some cause but then won't join up to fight themselves. All around my locality families have ancestors who walked to Spain in the 1930's to fight Franco and Fascism a lot didn't come back. Scottish volunteers made up 25% of the total numbers of the international brigade.

I just don't like the dude. I'm very biased. :)
Title: Re: Bakker and Harris
Post by: Wilshire on August 08, 2018, 07:26:30 pm
I just don't like the dude. I'm very biased. :)
Hey at least you're aware. 90% of the time most people don't get that far.