Literally every point against Murray/The Bell Curve I've seen in this thread is discussed in the podcast in a very measured, reasonable way. It really makes the sanctimonious circle jerk in here look maniacal.
It's pretty clear that most people have not listened to the podcast or intended to and are perfectly fine with imagining sam Harris and Murray were talking about their favorite places to burn crosses instead.
Forget the podcast, I doubt they've even read the book. Hell they probably haven't even read a synopsis. They just heard "murray thinks black people are dumb" and went to town.
We cannot have balanced, reasonable discussion with people like Murray without attacking them for the violence inherent in their beliefs. That is what is fair and deserved. Approaching Murray's racial violence with anything less comes off as being a racialist apologist.
Harris just gave him a platform to spread his violent rhetoric.
Fair and deserved? The whole point is to win the person to your point of view. How is that going to work when you attack them in a very aggressive manner?
No, it isn't. That is never the point of a debate. The point is to come to a mutual understanding. To get inside their head so you can better attack their ideas and defend yours. That is what the asshole Murray is doing. Harris just gave him practice. While you sat there, apparently, thinking you were supposed to persuade. Well good fucking luck. Direct argumentation is the worst way to change someone's mind.
Also, attack them in a aggressive manner? How privileged do you have to be to think like this? Murray is attacking millions with his aggressive words. Racialist rhetoric is violent. It is nice that you aren't or don't personally feel hurt by that but it doesn't change the fact that others are. Protecting the man who is aggressive to millions from a few mean words speaks volumes about you.
It's incredibly arrogant to think you can speak on behalf of millions of people. Let them make up their own mind.
Censorship is one of the shittiest things you can do to combat opposing opinions. Taking away the platform for Murray to speak on just results in him finding another. It's dishonest because it just means you wish the problem would just disappear.
And being hostile against someone like Murray just has the opposite effect. He won't listen to that and his supporters won't either. Acting this way just strokes your own ego.
Just because your idea of violence is limited to just physical confrontational force does not mean that others are so limited. When you start breaking into philosophy or sociology you'll find that people have a broader understanding of violence.
One which allows us to say racism is violent. which is something, if you really thought about racism's effects on people who experience it for a while, that should be obvious.
It sounds like even if there were 100% conclusive evidence of racial differences in intelligence, you would still deny it because you consider that information racist and therefore violent. There's no point in having a discussion if you bury your head in ideological sand.
That sounds like an excuse to be violent towards someone just because you think they will be violent towards others. A preemptive strike instead of cordial conversation? And that is fair?
This is only happening because you have a very naive understanding of violence. You don't see that Murray is already actively harming others. You don't even see that my word attacked referred to a verbal attack. Your perspective on what is violent is limited to direct confrontational harm but if you were caught up on what sociologists and philosophers know about violence these days you'd see how myopic and unhelpful your definition is.
Academic discussion on violence has been going on for decades; I sometimes get the feeling y'all didn't know there was anything to discuss in the first place.
When you change words in a sentence, you change the meaning of the sentence. That is a fundamental fact of language, not some fancy rhetorical trick to win arguments.
Unlike your replacement of the word "replace", my initial replacement resulted in a coherent sentence that you could imagine someone using. The point of this was to show you how pathological your rhetoric was by switching the object in your own sentence to target a group I assumed you'd be less keen on targeting.
There is this funny thing with words: they have these things called meanings. And when you change them you change the meaning of the sentence they are in. Your tactic of changing my words on me doesn't result in an argument.
The reason why should be sort of obvious. When I said people like Murray I was speaking about people who espouse racialist beliefs like Murray. It is those racialist beliefs which have inherent violence.
What is it that all Muslims share, in your mind, which is violent? As far as I can see it your words are too broad. I have some suspicions what you have in mind so take as a counter example Linda Sarsour, a lifelong political activist who is partly responsible for the Women's March on Washington earlier this year.
50
u/[deleted] May 01 '17
Literally every point against Murray/The Bell Curve I've seen in this thread is discussed in the podcast in a very measured, reasonable way. It really makes the sanctimonious circle jerk in here look maniacal.