Why can’t I speed read his transcript of the entire conversation? It gives me plenty to shake my head about without wasting 25 minutes of my time on someone who makes points which are no better than any other moderate conservative view on this issue (including not fully understand what people mean when they say ‘defund the police’)? He tends to acknowledge systemic racism before saying “… but”, which appears to minimize things… as per the things I pointed out in my previous post (and let me add he also seems to be blaming deaths on non compliance and resisting arrest).
I can’t tell you how to spend 25 minutes of your life.
Me, I’m willing to accept that Harris is wrong in his arguments. If he is, I want to unpack the arguments that he makes and understand where he is wrong and what the actual facts are. I know what the commonly used arguments are to what he claims and I do not dismiss them out of hand. I just don’t know if they are sufficient to prove Harris wrong.
P.S.: I get it. If I was asked to listen to 25 minutes of Jordan Peterson, I’d be seriously pissed and disinclined.
My point here isn’t that we shouldn’t engage with these (IMO very wrong and somewhat simplistic) arguments which seems to minimize racial issues in policing and Black Lives Matter. But that Harris is echoing arguments made by people on the right (Andrew Sullivan says similar for instance) - and he isn’t been canceled for it. People are arguing against his points and that’s it. I just don’t think Harris is all that impressive or important of a thinker for me to directly engage with (I think Sullivan is far more important of a writer to directly engage with for instance).
Interesting. I find Sullivan much more of a hothead and self-important.
That’s fine. We can let this drop. Another place, another time.
A scathing and hilarious critique of Andrew Sullivan’s mostly fact-free take on “critical theory”:
Sullivan is becoming, or has already become, what he pretends to oppose – someone who relies on feelings rather than facts.
That’s fantastic! LOL
A fantastic takedown, especially when he points out that trying to slam together Marxism, Postmodernism, and Social Justice into one historical dialectic makes no rational sense.
Looks like he’s taking his cue, chapter and verse, from that smacked ass, Jordan Peterson. Very disappointing and completely unnecessary.
Thus is the power of ego, IMO. Ego can make otherwise intelligent and rational people go absolutely nuts when their ideas are criticized.
Indeed. I enjoyed how the author pointed out that historically Marxists and Postmodernists (to a point - depends on who one is calling a PoMo) have been at odds with each other (which is fairly easy to figure out if you think about Postmodernism being critical of structural analysis and Marxism being a structural theory).
Another article about the stifling of debate, this time focusing on academic freedom:
Never mind all that now. It’s all Lib hands on deck now that “Democrat Party” is a slur.
Is that a joke or serious? I can never be sure these days.
I’m no longer sure myself.
Good to see that while the world goes the hell Dopers are concentrating on the important things…!
Picking the wrong targets. Interesting choice of words.
Anyways, what you are doing as an individual isn’t wrong. Your money your choice. Just like a baker shouldn’t be compelled to make a specific case. However, what works well on an individual level doesn’t always translate to a good outcome if widespread. If everyone engaged in ideological discrimination the costs to society are much higher. That’s the dangerous thing about the online mob. The unhinged now have an amplified voice and the historically ignorant and mentally weak find appeasement convenient. Which is an unfortunate positive feedback cycle as it encourages the mob further.
You’re making a hypothesis. I find it unconvincing.
I don’t need to convince you. How you spend your money is your business. However, appeasement has a historical correlation of not working and being counterproductive.
Not when it’s the right thing to do. It’s a good thing if racists stay quiet because they’re afraid of broader society isolating and socially sanctioning them, as an example. This way they’re less likely to convince others to support racism.
Anything can be labeled racist and then be used as an excuse to harm the target. Now even dinosaur statues are being toppled. Somebody brought up guillotines earlier. Know the lesson missed with that? It’s not that the poor used mob violence to enact justice. It was that the powerful exploited the passions of the poor to eliminate enemies under the pretext of failing a purity test.