He should know better than to lend legitimacy to a white supremacist like Charles Murray.
Harris has also been trending rightward on Black Lives Matter recently as he has been arguing there is no epidemic of police violence. That on top of his Islamophobia makes him not much better than the others on the @iiandyiiii list
That is what is called locker room material.
If you were to become more persuasive, you will find yourself being at least two of those four things.
I heard his critique and that is distinctly not what he was saying. He went into detail and cited studies that outline that there is absolutely a problem with police violence and racism. Did you actually listen to him talk about it or did you read or hear someone else comment on it?
Just want to add that because something is more aligned with what is commonly seen as a “right-wing” view, does not reflexively make it wrong. The left does not hold a trademark on correct thinking, nor is everyone on the right absolutely wrong about everything. Would you say that’s a fair and reasonable position to hold in rational conversation?
I can’t comment on this because I’ve not heard him speak on this subject. I’ll do some research about this and respond back with an informed opinion.
I wasn’t going to pick a fight about this but it’s Friday, so why the heck not!
Without resorting to emotional appeals about the wretched and the poor, because Iets assume we all agree that the wealthy can and should bear a larger share of the tax burden; is the kind of society that you understand to be “better”, the kind of society in which the guillotine is seen as a useful tool for control of wealth and power distribution? Or is this more of your strident hyperbole? If you’re only partly serious, feel free to share to how great or small a part.
A bit of hyperbole.
But here’s what I mean - a better society means that poor and working people have very significant political power. Things like the guillotine come about only when they have no political power, and the only way they can express themselves is by physical force of numbers. So the guillotine is only a threat in a profoundly unfair society. In a fair society, poor and working people can and do vote in a government that takes their interests seriously.
Before you get to work building that scaffolding and sharpening that blade, perhaps you can put more thought and effort into describing what it is you mean by “poor and working people have very significant political power”.
How should we go about achieving giving the poor and working people very significant political power? Are we still talking about a democracy, or something else?
Bear in mind, I’m a Canadian social democrat at heart and my young life experience was quite formative under a communist regime with all the bells and whistles of institutionalized racism (anti-semitism). I’m somewhat jaded about human nature but remain open to hearing radical ideas. All I ask is that you don’t try to mask lack of rational thinking with thoughtless hyperbole. If you don’t know, say you don’t know.
A democracy with policies that enable poor and working people to have a decent chance at a decent education and a decent life. This includes making it trivially easy for them to vote. We don’t have that yet.
Right. The continuing struggle towards a more just society. I think President Obama and John Lewis spoke about that quite recently and very eloquently. They left out the guillotine part.
The guillotine is the unspoken part.
Iz it. 
I have read some transcripts on his opinions on this going back to 2016 where it seems he minimizes the problems. Talks about the issue is black on black violence, going back since when slavery was abolished, without even trying to think through why that may be. Even discusses that he can’t have Ta-Nahesi Coates on his show because he (Coates) panders to white guilt and black rage and so he feels he can’t have a civil conversation with him… which seems problematic to me.
And the point of saying he’s trending rightward is to counter the “he’s a liberal” statement used to show that the left is ‘devouring their own’. Same applies to Maher. On issues of race both have fairly conservative views.
For example, here is an actual quote from Sam Harris in 2016 on his podcast with conservative African-American economist Glenn Lowry:
Harris isn’t being canceled for this opinion, nor do I think he should be, but this isn’t a liberal opinion about BLM.
Well, I’d encourage you to listen to him speak on the subject more recently and provide your thoughts. Not because I want to convince you to change your mind but because it would be good to get another perspective on what I heard him say and discuss it. Here is a link to the podcast I am referencing.
Now, I’m no sycophant of Sam Harris. I like Ta-Nahesi Coates a lot. It’s disappointing to hear that Harris didn’t think he could have a conversation with Coates. I hope he changes his mind.
So no room in the liberal tent for somewhat more conservative views? Isn’t this what we’re getting at in this conversation – people who are liberal on most issues are being marginalized and ostracized on a single issue that doesn’t align. An issue where it isn’t even entirely correct to conclude that they are wrong.
How is Harris or Maher being ostracized or marginalized here? Has anyone on the left called for a boycott? I don’t understand how disagreeing with their points or pointing out that they aren’t liberals on this issue is a form of canceling. It seems to feel as if simply disagreeing with some people is considered wrong. You may ask why is it necessary to say they aren’t liberals on this issue. Well there are number of people, including here, who say well even this LIBERAL said it, as if that shows that mainstream liberal thought is hypocritical here. So it’s fair to say on these issues Harris and Maher are not liberals at all.
No one is being boycotted or canceled - conservatives did that to Bill Maher in the early 2000s. Liberals aren’t doing that to him now, even if they feel his views are knuckleheaded on race and Islamophobia.
And that’s fair enough. If I’ve overstated the degree to which some liberals are being called out for “non-liberal” views, then I retract my position, particularly with respect to Harris and Maher.
I’ve skimmed the transcript and heard the first five minutes and am shaking my head… Harris is talking about white people getting killed by cops more based on arrests… ignoring that black people get arrested more for similar crimes (we know this by the drug war). And that black and Hispanic cops also shoot black and Hispanics at a higher level so maybe racism doesn’t explain things - not fully understanding how systemic racism works. And then saying things like MLK wouldn’t agree with BLM protesters (I suggest Harris read “Why We Can’t Wait”). He thinks identity politics are the issue (as if King wasn’t engaged in a form of identity politics himself). It is somewhat telling that he only cites conservative black thinkers in his latest podcast - Lowery, McWhorter, Hughes. On this matter, Harris is a conservative and has a massive blind spot on race. I don’t think that should be controversial, but apparently it is.
No worries. I just think that the mainstream left’s dealing with Harris and Maher is exactly the conservation that people think isn’t happening. Harris disagrees with what most of the left believes but there is conversation not ostracism.
Well, if you’re going to skim it and then jump to your own conclusions without hearing his argument in which he acknowledges systemic racism and the impact that slavery and generational institutional discrimination had on the black community in America, then I guess there is not a conversation to be had.
Or you could just listen to the 25 minute monologue and we can maybe have a better conversation about it.