# Interesting podcast conversation between Sam Harris and Charles Murray (of "Bell Curve" fame) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 23, 2017, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052 "2017-04-23T09:21:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 88
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1741 "2018-10-13T20:13:17Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sure, I saw those criticisms of Obama’s drone strikes, from the peacenik crowd (including my own mom). The same naive crowd who thinks if we zero out the Pentagon’s budget and replace the Defense Department with a Department of Peace, everything will be yippee skippee and we can all run around peacing out to double rainbows. :rolleyes: Yet even those people prove your original claim is false, yet you will still believe it. And no that wasn’t the only group, you are just ignorant of the other efforts because the dozens of actual veterans and other people who were against it were filed as being “the peacenik crowd” because you refuse to do anything but shove people into little groups you can easily dismiss. The same tying you try to do with black people or any other group you want to label as inferior. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1742 "2018-10-13T20:22:15Z")
What “original claim”? It’s worth noting BTW that although Sam is guilty of being less critical of U.S. foreign policy than Noam, he’s still more critical than at least 75% of Americans—maybe 90%: > **[Sam Harris | Home of the Making Sense Podcast](https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-limits-of-discourse)** > > Join neuroscientist, philosopher, and best-selling author Sam Harris as he explores some of the most pressing and controversial questions of our time. > [@](#): > > There is no doubt that the United States has much to atone for, both domestically and abroad. In this respect, we can more or less swallow Chomsky’s thesis whole. To produce this horrible confection at home, start with our genocidal treatment of the Native Americans, add a couple hundred years of slavery, along with our denial of entry to Jewish refugees fleeing the death camps of the Third Reich, stir in our collusion with a long list of modern despots and our subsequent disregard for their appalling human rights records, add our bombing of Cambodia and the Pentagon Papers to taste, and then top with our recent refusals to sign the Kyoto protocol for greenhouse emissions, to support any ban on land mines, and to submit ourselves to the rulings of the International Criminal Court. The result should smell of death, hypocrisy, and fresh brimstone. > We have surely done some terrible things in the past. Undoubtedly, we are poised to do terrible things in the future. Nothing I have written in this book should be construed as a denial of these facts, or as defense of state practices that are manifestly abhorrent. There may be much that Western powers, and the United States in particular, should pay reparations for. And our failure to acknowledge our misdeeds over the years has undermined our credibility in the international community. We can concede all of this, and even share Chomsky’s acute sense of outrage, while recognizing that his analysis of our current situation in the world is a masterpiece of moral blindness. But that last bit is the apostasy these Noamheads cannot abide. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1743 "2018-10-13T20:24:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > What “original claim”? > > It’s worth noting BTW that although Sam is guilty of being less critical of U.S. foreign policy than Noam, he’s still more critical than at least 75% of Americans—maybe 90%: > > [Sam Harris | Home of the Making Sense Podcast](https://samharris.org/the-limits-of-discourse/) > > But that last bit is the apostasy these Noamheads cannot abide. Or…he is justifying his own his own Islamophobia which is his "masterpiece of moral blindness. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1744 "2018-10-13T22:04:06Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > Number one, the painting done by the author is your interpretation. “Each time Harris said something about Islam that created outrage, he had a defense prepared. When he wondered why anybody would want any more “fucking Muslims,” he was merely playing “Devil’s advocate.”” That’s a true statement. > > Number, even if your interpretation is correct (it isn’t), painting something in a completely unfair light is vastly different from a complete lie. Here is another true statement: Sam Harris said “What is the fucking point of having more Muslims in your society?” But me stating that is dishonest. Whether or not you’d call it a ‘lie’, I don’t care. If you can’t see the author is being dishonest, I can’t help you. But I’d love to know why you think the author would include those two statements if not to add to a list of reasons why Harris is an Islamophobe. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1745 "2018-10-13T22:27:08Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Here is another true statement: Sam Harris said “What is the fucking point of having more Muslims in your society?” > > But me stating that is dishonest. Whether or not you’d call it a ‘lie’, I don’t care. > > If you can’t see the author is being dishonest, I can’t help you. But I’d love to know why you think the author would include those two statements if not to add to a list of reasons why Harris is an Islamophobe. Wait—I think you and I are more or less on the same “side”. But I’m having trouble seeing how that’s dishonest. The full paragraph seems to me to endorse that perspective, and provide valid reasons for doing so. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1746 "2018-10-13T22:47:03Z")
> [@nate](#): > > Here is another true statement: Sam Harris said “What is the fucking point of having more Muslims in your society?” > > But me stating that is dishonest. Whether or not you’d call it a ‘lie’, I don’t care. But that’s not like what the author said in the article. A closer hypothetical would be something like… > [@](#): > > Sam Harris said “What is the fucking point of having more Muslims in your society?” while he was playing Devil’s advocate. Honest or dishonest? The author clearly labeled the statement as playing Devil’s advocate. I’m having trouble seeing what you think is dishonest about that. You seem to agree that he did say it and he was playing Devil’s advocate. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1747 "2018-10-13T22:56:15Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > But that’s not like what the author said in the article. A closer hypothetical would be something like… > > Honest or dishonest? > > The author clearly labeled the statement as playing Devil’s advocate. I’m having trouble seeing what you think is dishonest about that. You seem to agree that he did say it and he was playing Devil’s advocate. Sam uses the ‘Devil’s advocate’ stance often to express his views as a way to deflect blame. It is a more refined version of ‘i’m not racist, but . . .’ ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2018, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1748 "2018-10-13T23:02:10Z")
As several people have pointed out here is a typical Sam Harris misdirection pattern. > [@](#): > > (1) Say something that sounds deeply extreme and bigoted. > (2) Carefully build in a qualification that makes it possible to deny that the statement is literally bigoted. > (3) When audiences react with predictable horror, point to the qualification in order to insist the audience must be stupid and irrational. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1749 "2018-10-14T00:04:30Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Wait—I think you and I are more or less on the same “side”. But I’m having trouble seeing how that’s dishonest. The full paragraph seems to me to endorse that perspective, and provide valid reasons for doing so. If you listen to the referenced conversation in the podcast, it is very clear why this is a dishonest statement in the article. It is obvious this is not a view Sam holds, yet, in the article, as rat avatar quotes, you see: (1) Say something that sounds deeply extreme and bigoted. (2) Carefully build in a qualification that makes it possible to deny that the statement is literally bigoted. (3) When audiences react with predictable horror, point to the qualification in order to insist the audience must be stupid and irrational. Do you think the author put that statement in the article as a counterpoint to this list or as evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1750 "2018-10-14T00:41:55Z")
> [@](#): > > “Each time Harris said something about Islam that created outrage, he had a defense prepared. When he wondered why anybody would want any more “fucking Muslims,” he was merely playing “Devil’s advocate.”” This is exactly saying something that sounds deeply extreme and bigoted with the qualification that he was playing Devil’s advocate. It’s not even a little dishonest to point that out. ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1751 "2018-10-14T02:35:21Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > This is exactly saying something that sounds deeply extreme and bigoted with the qualification that he was playing Devil’s advocate. It’s not even a little dishonest to point that out. I’m going to make the assumption you haven’t listened to the referenced part of the podcast. Maybe you should. I mean, your advocating that one shouldn’t be able to express what opposing viewpoints exist without having said viewpoints. I don’t think anyone wants that. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1752 "2018-10-14T03:05:54Z")
> [@nate](#): > > I’m going to make the assumption you haven’t listened to the referenced part of the podcast. Maybe you should. > > I mean, your advocating that one shouldn’t be able to express what opposing viewpoints exist without having said viewpoints. I don’t think anyone wants that. I’m not advocating that at all. I’m trying to understand why you think its dishonest to say that Harris said something while playing Devil’s advocate when you agree that he did in fact say that thing while playing Devil’s advocate. You said this true statement was a complete lie… > [@](#): > > “…Each time Harris said something about Islam that created outrage, he had a defense prepared. When he wondered why anybody would want any more “fucking Muslims,” he was merely playing “Devil’s advocate.”” You said you stopped reading the article because you were so turned off by that ‘lie’ in the fifth paragraph. You have agreed that he did say it, and that he said it while playing Devil’s advocate. You seem to be arguing that the conclusions the article draws later on are incorrect therefore the supporting facts are lies, but there are two problems with that. 1. That’s not how logic works. 2. You should have no way of knowing what comes up later in the article that you stopped reading in the fifth paragraph. I am in no way saying, “that one shouldn’t be able to express what opposing viewpoints exist without having said viewpoints.” I am saying that quoting Sam Harris and pointing out that that quote was said while playing Devil’s advocate is not dishonest when the quote is accurate and he was indeed playing Devil’s advocate. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1753 "2018-10-14T03:08:42Z")
You are ignoring the body of evidence, like how he doesn’t think that Robert Spencer is a bigot. [![]( " - YouTube") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EB908NRdCc&t=26m13s) Spencer, the man who has said “at least I was born in time for the race war” to cheers? Add in Sam Harris’ common habit of being Islamophobic > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]“the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.”[/li][li]“we are not at war with terrorism. We are at war with Islam.”[/li][li] “All civilized nations must unite in condemnation of a theology that now threatens to destabilize much of the earth.”[/li][li]“Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.”[/li][li]“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.”[/li][li]“We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.”[/li][/ul] Even freaking Christopher Hitchens, who is not exactly pro-Muslim called out Harris for that first quote. > **[Facing the Islamist Menace](https://www.city-journal.org/article/facing-the-islamist-menace)** > > Mark Steyn’s new book is a welcome wake-up call. In the prologue, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Steyn sarcastically alludes to two people. > [@](#): > > The most alarming sentences that I have read in a long time came from the pen of my fellow atheist Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith, at the end of a September Los Angeles Times column upbraiding American liberals for their masochistic attitude toward Islamist totalitarianism. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1754 "2018-10-14T03:10:05Z")
> [@nate](#): > > I’m sorry, I can’t possibly take any of the article seriously after such an intentional misrepresentation of Sam’s comments. How could anyone? The author should have been more careful if his intentions were to present legit criticisms. I think the article lands good criticisms of SH, and yes some misses. And discussing both is interesting to me. I think you’re being disingenuous in saying you disagree with the first point, therefore you will not read on, or even read parts of the article that have been quoted in this thread. > [@Paranoid Randroid](#): > > Really? Richard Dawkins of the “dear muslima” Rebecca Watson debacle? Going after teenagers like Ahmed Mohamed for no good reason other than being a jerk? Seems out of bounds to you to imply that Dawkins may not be all that civil? Yes. Dawkins is a prolific public speaker, and the fact that these incidents (which frankly are quite tame and he did apologize) are the worst examples, shows that he generally walks the line very well. He generally gets painted as being uncivil just because he does something you’re not supposed to do: talk about religion as bluntly and objectively as we do other topics. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Sure, we could call what Roof did “terrorism”. So let me more carefully define what I mean. > > The West engaged in colonial exploitation of many non-Western peoples. But only in the Muslim world have people been consistently, for decades now, plotting to attack the West. How do you explain that? The U.S. behaved abominably in Latin America, right up through the Reagan years. Why aren’t people from that region, who can get here much more easily than Middle Easterners can, attacking us this way? To the contrary, it is a very reasonable counterpoint to right wing paranoia about the southern border to point out that immigrants from that direction are a notably benign group. How do you explain this? The first thing I would say is _don’t give them ideas_. Terrorism is not something that’s necessarily proportional to the list of grievances. Like I say, one generation the main problem might be Irish separatists, the next it’s Jihadists. The other is that this is just generally weak reasoning: _OK, America has committed many atrocities around the world, however, only Muslims have responded to them, so the problem is with Islam_ To be clear: I condemn all terrorist acts. But I also condemn bigotry, and Sam engages in it far too often (sadly…like I say, I’m a big fan of much of Sam’s writing, he just gets this topic wrong) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1755 "2018-10-14T04:17:11Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Even freaking Christopher Hitchens, who is not exactly pro-Muslim called out Harris for that first quote. > > [Facing the Islamist Menace | Mark Styn's New Book is a Wake Up Call](https://www.city-journal.org/html/facing-islamist-menace-12993.html) You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting Hitch’s objection there. Maybe you didn’t read the whole thing? From near the end: > [@](#): > > When I read Sam Harris’s irresponsible remark that only fascists seemed to have the right line, I murmured to myself: “Not while I’m alive, they won’t.” So Hitch there is not saying that fascists _don’t_ have the right line vis-a-vis Muslims, or that most liberals _do_. He is solely objecting to the “only” qualifier, and insisting that he, Hitch, _also_ has the right line but is not a fascist. > [@Mijin](#): > > The first thing I would say is _don’t give them ideas_. Terrorism is not something that’s necessarily proportional to the list of grievances. Like I say, one generation the main problem might be Irish separatists, the next it’s Jihadists. > > The other is that this is just generally weak reasoning: _OK, America has committed many atrocities around the world, however, only Muslims have responded to them, so the problem is with Islam_ These are both interesting and well-stated arguments. I could quibble with them around the edges, but they are solid as concerns morality and the assignment of blame. As concerns American pragmatic realpolitik threat assessment in the current geopolitical climate, however, they are utterly irrelevant. Do you see what I mean or should I elaborate? > [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > The author clearly labeled the statement as playing Devil’s advocate. I’m having trouble seeing what you think is dishonest about that. You seem to agree that he did say it and he was playing Devil’s advocate. > [@nate](#): > > It is obvious this is not a view Sam holds _Is_ it obvious? Not to me. Why is no one addressing my surmisal that he said it and was _not_ playing devil’s advocate, but in fact was expressing a valid argument? 😕 Sure, he was being a little flippant by couching the statement in that vulgar manner, but I don’t believe he actually disagrees with the fundamental thrust of that assertion, and I don’t believe he _should_ disagree with it. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1756 "2018-10-14T04:47:45Z")
Haha, so you admit you think fascism is OK? Or you don’t get the problem with genocidal nationalism? But at least you seem to accept that Sam is an Islamophobic ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1757 "2018-10-14T05:53:26Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > As concerns American pragmatic realpolitik threat assessment in the current geopolitical climate, however, they are utterly irrelevant. Do you see what I mean or should I elaborate? No need to elaborate; I agree. If the topic was: Which religion is most responsible for terrorism right now? The answer is Islam, obviously. I am not here as some kind of muslim apologist: Full disclosure: I think religion is fuckdumb and we’d be better off without it, and Islam is the one that I’d be happiest to hear the end of first. Evangelical Christianity in the US taking second place. But bigotry is bigotry, and it is really not helpful to fighting terrorism. I’m also going to continue to call out incorrect statements like “All terrorists are muslims”. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1758 "2018-10-14T06:01:28Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Haha, so you admit you think fascism is OK? Or you don’t get the problem with genocidal nationalism? > > But at least you seem to accept that Sam is an Islamophobic It’s only a phobia if the fear is irrational. As for your first question: no, you don’t get where Sam and I are coming from at all concerning fascists. We are lamenting the fact that if reasonable people in the center look for someone who actually understands the danger of admitting large numbers of Muslim immigrants, they will find (nearly) only fascists recognizing this. That sucks, because fascists are bad. Sam and I want center-left parties to be more realistic and less politically correct, so that people who have a reasonable fear of mass Muslim immigration have a voting option who will also stand up for free speech, freedom of the press, equal rights for women and gays, universal health care, environmental protection, redistribution of wealth to ameliorate inequality…etc. BTW, are you going to admit you totally misunderstood Hitchens’s comment? ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1759 "2018-10-14T06:10:05Z")
> **[Political correctness is widely unpopular with Americans of all ages and...](https://www.businessinsider.com/political-unpopular-with-americans-all-ages-races-2018-10)** > > 80% of Americans think that political correctness is a problem, a new study has found. A majority of Americans in all race and age category felt this way, the report by More in Common found. It found that most Americans are part of an 'exhausted... > [@](#): > > 80% of the US public believe that political correctness is a problem. > [The poll] found that even young people are uncomfortable with it, including 74% of people aged 24-29 and 79% percent of those under 24 - meaning those who don’t see it as a problem are in the minority across all ages. > And it found that a majority of people of all races dislike political correctness. > 79% of whites saw political correctness as a problem compared to 82% of Asians, 87% of Hispanics, and 88% of American Indians. African Americans are most likely to support political correctness, with 75% seeing it as a problem. ETA: Bill Maher pointed out on HBO that Gabby Giffords’s husband, a war hero, was forced by the Twitter mob to apologize for approvingly quoting Winston fucking Churchill. SMH ---
**Author:** ![nate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nate/32/13085_2.png) [@nate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nate)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2018, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052/1760 "2018-10-14T06:42:11Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > I’m not advocating that at all. > > I’m trying to understand why you think its dishonest to say that Harris said something while playing Devil’s advocate when you agree that he did in fact say that thing while playing Devil’s advocate. > > You said this true statement was a complete lie… > You said you stopped reading the article because you were so turned off by that ‘lie’ in the fifth paragraph. > > You have agreed that he did say it, and that he said it while playing Devil’s advocate. > > You seem to be arguing that the conclusions the article draws later on are incorrect therefore the supporting facts are lies, but there are two problems with that. > > 1. That’s not how logic works. > 2. You should have no way of knowing what comes up later in the article that you stopped reading in the fifth paragraph. > > I am in no way saying, “that one shouldn’t be able to express what opposing viewpoints exist without having said viewpoints.” I am saying that quoting Sam Harris and pointing out that that quote was said while playing Devil’s advocate is not dishonest when the quote is accurate and he was indeed playing Devil’s advocate. If it needs to be explained, yes, I think the authors statement is a “lie” even though it is a factual statement due to the way it is presented. I’m not going to argue semantics about what a “lie” is, but being deliberately misleading, IMO, is a lie. If you have an objection to a lie falling under that definition I don’t really care. It’s really not the point. Again, have you listened to the referenced podcast segment? This is really simple. I don’t see how anyone could listen to it and think, “yeah, that’s just Sam expressing his own views although he claims he is merely playing Devil’s advocate.”. It’s just weird someone would have such a strong opinion about this without even hearing the source material. I disagree with several positions Sam has had (on torture, on Apple/iPhone vs FBI security, on the severity of college campus protests against certain speakers), and I have to admit that lately my disagreements have grown, but I can’t stand when something is so clearly taken out of context and used against him. Why not just debate his actual views? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=87) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-podcast-conversation-between-sam-harris-and-charles-murray-of-bell-curve-fame/785052.md?page=89)