Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

This is how the left will die - Sam Harris

Reply
#2
Magical Realist Offline
And this is how the right will die:

Sam Harris:

"Those of you who are mystified that I could forgive Clinton her lying and other indiscretions just don’t understand what a dangerous imbecile I think Trump is. I really think he is a child in a man’s body. He is a malignantly selfish, ignorant and petty person… and a tyrant in the making in so far as our system could accommodate a tyrant.

If you are supporting the guy because “he can shake things up,” I think you are playing a game of chicken with human history, and there is no one in the other car. It is absolutely astonishing to me that this guy is a candidate for the Presidentcy."

https://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com...-on-trump/
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
And as much as I disagree with Harris, I would largely agree with that description of Trump. The difference is that the problem with the right is one man, while the problem with the left is widespread intolerance to (classically) liberal rights.
Reply
#4
RainbowUnicorn Offline
(Mar 14, 2017 03:21 AM)Syne Wrote: And as much as I disagree with Harris, I would largely agree with that description of Trump. The difference is that the problem with the right is one man, while the problem with the left is widespread intolerance to (classically) liberal rights.

all the church groups who politacise themselves vote for the right and are opposed to liberal rights.
they are die hard republican supportes and huge financial contributors who buy republican politicians so they will vote a certain way to vote against liberal rights.
that includes anti GMO Anti abortion Anti gay marriage Anti LGBTQ rights Anti Equality for women.(countless anti liberal policies being purchased as they continue to bride republican politicians to social engineer the country into a church run state.)
Republicans are making millions from these church groups and are doing so to repress liberal rights.

mixing church and state trying to make the church the state Authority.
Republicans have been driving that for decades.

every TV evangelist you see on american Tv is a die hard republican voter & campaign contributor.
Reply
#5
C C Offline
(Mar 13, 2017 11:21 PM)Syne Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-z_GAygD7c


The militant or violent Left isn't really anything new, though. Its former incarnation just seems have gone into hibernation (for the most part) in between the years since its last major outbreaks of the '60s and early '70s.

Harris has built up quite a history in connection with apologists for "medieval theocracy". Rational Wiki suggests that "regressive left" was a distinction or "in-house" critique which originated within progressive culture itself rather than necessarily being a pejorative from the outset, picked-up by outsiders.

Sam Harris Unloads on the Regressive Left: . . . It's hardly surprising that Harris finally erupted against this surly bunch, given that they’ve called him a bigot, racist, fascist, Islamophobe, neocon and proponent of torture. One of their favorite tricks is taking a partial quote of his that might sound bad as a stand-alone and spreading it around, because that's how they play the game. Also, since their arguments against Harris and the New Atheists are so full of holes, the strategy of defaming their opponent is perhaps their only viable option....

- - - - - -

Sam Harris: The ‘Salon’ Interview

SH: . . . In the end, Salon published a bowdlerized version of my interview, cutting out the parts that were critical of the website. I don’t blame [Sean] Illing for this. He was a pleasure to correspond with and appears to have made his best effort to get the whole text of our conversation published. And I’m actually happy that his editors decided to help make my case for me by further demonstrating their lack of integrity. Salon is irredeemable. I urge the few talented writers left there to flee a sinking ship.

[...]

After World War I, for example, countries like Britain and France and Russia constructed the modern Middle East, for reasons of self-interest and without concerns for sectarian rivalries. These agreements prepared the way for much of the political chaos we’ve seen since. In Iraq, for instance, where ISIS was born, the British imposed a Hashimite monarchy which marked the boundaries of the country irrespective of ethnic and religious tensions. We can’t sidestep this history when talking about these problems today; it’s only part of the story but it absolutely matters. Do you agree?

SH: But the religious lunacy and tribalism was already in place—and that is why the West’s careless partitioning of the region was so problematic. I agree that the history of colonialism isn’t pretty. But the example you raise just proves my point. In fact, this practically became a science experiment that dissected out the crucial variable of religion. There are (or were) Christians living in all these beleaguered countries. How many Christian suicide bombers have there been? Where are the Pakistani, Iraqi, Syrian, Egyptian, and Palestinian Christians who are blowing themselves up in crowds of noncombatants? Have there been any? I’m guessing there must have been a few, but the Muslim supply of such people is apparently inexhaustible. In every case, we’re talking about the same people, speaking same language, living in the same places, enduring the same material deprivation. In fact, the Christians of the Middle East have it worse. They’ve not only suffered the legacy of colonialism, they’ve been hounded out of their countries and often killed outright by their Muslim neighbors—and they still haven’t organized themselves into a death cult. What’s the difference that makes the difference? Religion.

We can also look outside the Muslim world to see that mere injustice and inequality rarely produce such destructive behavior. Many countries in Latin America have legitimate grievances against the U.S. Where are the Guatemalan suicide bombers? Where are the Cherokee suicide bombers, for that matter? If oppression were enough, the Tibetans should have been practicing suicidal terrorism against the Chinese for decades. Instead, they practice self-immolation, for reasons that are totally understandable within the context of their own religious beliefs. Again, specific beliefs matter, and we deny this at our peril. If the behavior of Muslim suicide bombers should tell us anything, it’s that certain people really do believe in martyrdom. Let me be very clear about this: I’m not talking about all (or even most) Muslims—I’m talking about jihadists. But all jihadists are Muslim. If even 1 percent of the world’s Muslims are potential jihadists, we have a terrible problem on our hands. I’m not sure how we deal with 16 million aspiring martyrs—but lying to ourselves about the nature of the problem doesn’t seem like the best strategy.

A key difference I see is that Islam is bound up with a civilization and a culture in way that Christianity isn’t, or isn’t any longer. The enlightenment project, the modern scientific revolution – these things prepared the way for secular politics in the West; they made possible Jefferson’s wall. And I don’t think there’s a “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” equivalent in Islam – though perhaps I am mistaken. How significant is this difference and do you think it matters in terms of our expectations and our approach to dealing with the Muslim world?

SH: Yes, these are points I’ve often made. Islam hasn’t suffered the same collisions with secularism and science that Christianity has. And there are also doctrinal differences that make it more impervious to these collisions than Christianity and Judaism were. Unfortunately, the Qur’an doesn’t contain anything like that line from Matthew, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” To the contrary, it is difficult to find an Islamic rationale for truly separating religion and politics. Finding a durable basis for such a separation is one of the great challenges of our age, and that’s why I support reformers like Maajid Nawaz, who is attempting to do just that. As you know, he and I have written a book together, Islam and the Future of Tolerance: A Dialogue. The whole point of the book is to find a path forward, toward Islamic secularism and liberal reform. But the thing that has to be admitted up front, is that Islam presents some unique challenges in this regard.
Reply
Reply
#7
C C Offline
". . . the whole notion of a qualitatively unique and distinct form of atheism is nonetheless considered to be erroneous. AC Grayling highlights the absurdity of the claim, remarking, 'how can we be new if the arguments are old?'. In any event, for many, the novelty of ‘new’ atheism is not to be found in the details of its intellectual arguments, but in the extent to which atheists are now willing to openly criticise religion, and the degree to which such an approach has found wider public resonance. As Tom Flynn observes, 'There’s nothing new about the new atheism', beyond the fact that atheist arguments have now found mainstream publishing success and exposure 'to millions who would never otherwise pick up an atheist book'." --Faithless: The politics of new atheism

If taking Sam Harris's claim of the perceptual equipment for the domain having dwindled down to there being only two cognitive slots or concepts available for apprehending politics today -- nut-jobs (extremists) on the left and nut-jobs (extremists) on the right, with no middle ground or degrees between... Then that does place new atheism in something of a pickle.

So taken for granted that it is here only bothered to be mentioned for balance: Decades of militant atheist attacks on Christianity has ensured a dammed lake of hostility always poised to be released towards them from the "nut-job right".

Whereas on the other side... According to Steven Kettell (below), most new atheists are white males with above average incomes and education. Which would make them applicable suspects[*] for potential evil status on the "nut-job left". Not the least due to any failure to exempt Islam in their diatribes against religion. ([*] When minus prior, public white-male guilt redemption rituals of endorsing this or that southpaw propaganda; i.e., exorcising their applicable Euro-ethnic and economic demons.)

Since (according to Harris) new atheists are going to be represented by others in one of those two cognitive slots regardless of their own personal claims and disavowels, it will be interesting to see over time just which of the options for inconsistency (in regard to their anti-theist agenda) each individual decides to take-up as they reluctantly settle into one pigeon-hole or the other just to keep being "perceived" or acknowledged as a visible "shaker & mover" by the masses.

Harris's dogged persistence at clinging to the throat of Islam seems destined to tumble him into the "right nut-job" category for good, despite his "valiant" efforts to resist classifications in the short-term. In addition, his pointing-out cultures and beliefs in the world that aren't fermenting "death-cults" on a wide scale due to past mistreatment from colonialism and imperialism (in contrast to supposed Muslim grievances engendering terrorism), would seem no help to him in curbing his slide to that identity-label, either.

- - - - - - -

Steven Kettell: In political terms, these core elements of new atheism prescribe no particular viewpoint in and of themselves. As PZ Myers notes, when it comes to “the diversity of political views within the New Atheists - we’re a madly disorganized mob, united only by our dislike of the god-thing”. That said, research conducted in the United States suggests that the general atheist population does share a number of common demographic and psychological qualities that are likely to be politically influential. Compared to religious believers, for example, atheists are more likely to be younger, male and single, to have higher than average levels of income and education, to be less authoritarian, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, less conformist and more tolerant and open-minded on religious issues.

Atheists are also more likely to be politically independent (not affiliated to any particular party) and to support progressive, liberal values and political campaigns. Right-wing atheism, though not unknown, is comparatively rare. Evidence also shows that atheism is linked to distinct sociocultural, economic and political conditions. One of the defining features is its geographical distribution. While estimates put the number of atheists worldwide at just under a billion people (around 13% of the human population according to WIN-Gallup International, 2012), levels of naturally developing or ‘organic’ atheism (as opposed to state-led atheism of the kind found in Communist countries such as China) are especially predominant in advanced post-industrial societies, most notably in Western Europe, Australia, Japan, Canada and South Korea.

As a sub-section of atheism in general, the preponderance of new atheism also appears to be correlated to certain social conditions. In particular, although evidence indicates that new atheist ideas are gaining popularity in a number of countries, it remains, to a large extent, an Anglo-American phenomenon, and, primarily, a U.S. one. At first blush, this might be considered somewhat anomalous. After all, levels of atheism in the United States remain relatively low compared to other advanced post-industrial nations. Most studies put the figure at less than 3%, and publicly avowed atheism in national political life is practically non-existent.

Yet the explanation, perhaps paradoxically, may owe much to the preponderance of religion in the United States, and to the fact that, as Zuckerman notes, politically active atheism is more likely to emerge in situations where there is a perceived conflict with religion. Research illustrating the extent of discrimination experienced by atheists makes the point. A study conducted at the University of Minnesota, for example, found that atheists were America’s “most distrusted minority”, being thought less likely to share common American values (54%) than other minorities, such as Muslims (64%), immigrants (70%) and homosexuals (80%). Other studies have revealed similar findings. Research by Cragun et al. found that more than two-fifths (41%) of self-identifying atheists had experienced discrimination over the last five years, compared to just 19% of people identifying as having ’no religion’.
--Faithless: The politics of new atheism
Reply
#8
Syne Offline
(Mar 14, 2017 05:23 PM)RainbowUnicorn Wrote:
(Mar 14, 2017 03:21 AM)Syne Wrote: And as much as I disagree with Harris, I would largely agree with that description of Trump. The difference is that the problem with the right is one man, while the problem with the left is widespread intolerance to (classically) liberal rights.

all the church groups who politacise themselves vote for the right and are opposed to liberal rights.
they are die hard republican supportes and huge financial contributors who buy republican politicians so they will vote a certain way to vote against liberal rights.
that includes anti GMO Anti abortion Anti gay marriage Anti LGBTQ rights Anti Equality for women.(countless anti liberal policies being purchased as they continue to bride republican politicians to social engineer the country into a church run state.)
Republicans are making millions from these church groups and are doing so to repress liberal rights.

mixing church and state trying to make the church the state Authority.
Republicans have been driving that for decades.

every TV evangelist you see on american Tv is a die hard republican voter & campaign contributor.

Apparently you completely missed where I said "(classically) liberal rights". You do know there's a difference between liberalism and classical liberalism, right? You're just a leftist shill.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  On Biden's fail at getting digitally hip via campaign surrogate Jerry Harris C C 0 113 Sep 18, 2020 04:48 AM
Last Post: C C
  Sam Harris Drives His Critics Insane (evo-blog) + Luboš Motl: T-Ms reality impaired C C 0 569 Dec 14, 2015 08:46 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)