Gee, I dunno…maybe radical pacifists and cultural separatists in deep space?
Well that’s cute, but it doesn’t actually make for a decent argument when we look at the world today. Again - the problem people have is not “we don’t have access to information”. Everyone and their fucking dog has access to a massive repository of humanity’s combined knowledge at their fingertips. You could spend 8 hours a day on Wikipedia learning true, interesting, important facts every day for the rest of your life and barely scratch the surface of the knowledge available. (Interestingly, the same is probably true of TVTropes, minus the “important” part, or NaturalNews, minus the “true” part.) What matters is how we curate that information. And in that environment, the phrase “sunlight is the best disinfectant” stops applying. Unless that sunlight is paired with actual counterarguments - unless the propaganda is accompanied by people refuting it, and doing so carefully and well so as not to produce a backfire effect - all it’s doing is exposing more people to dangerously bad ideas.
Or are you going to argue that the “bad ideas” that I’m talking about, notably racism and fascism, aren’t actually bad ideas? Because that’s what the Mill quote you’re citing sounds like. It sounds like the problem is less with the idea that sunlight might not be the best disinfectant, and more with the idea that I’m starting from the premise that the ideas in question are bad.
This is cute 'n all, but… those aren’t the reasons these people are considered part of the IDW. Nobody considered Weinstein “intellectual dark web” because of his principled stance against strippers and fraternaties. Nobody considers Sam Harris “an intellectual outcast” because of his stance on Trump. The fact that you can find mainstream or even progressive positions for these people does nothing to change the fact that the reason they are considered “IDW” in the first place is because of some grossly regressive views that rightfully get them rejected in the progressive mainstream. Not the actual mainstream, mind you - glowing NYTimes columns is about as close to “mainstream” as anyone’s ever gonna get.
Yes, Mill thinks (and I agree) that it is not tenable to start from that position, to the point that you won’t even give the ideas an airing:
…But… we’re not. Like, we really aren’t. “Is racism bad” is a question we’ve quite definitively discussed, as a society, and we’ve answered it quite definitively as well! What possible justification is there, when most people will never be exposed to something like 99.99% of the breadth of human knowledge, to spend a whole lot of time rehashing shit we know is wrong? The ideas don’t deserve another airing. We left them behind decades ago because they’re fucking stupid. How far does this extend? Should each person have to spend time arguing that phlogiston is wrong? That germ theory is right? If we have to go back and waste time debating every single stupid fucking idea humanity has ever had, we will never have time to actually spend learning what is true.
Mill is just wrong. The fact that you can find some shitbag crank who thinks that the earth is flat does not mean we should, as a society, waste any more fucking time debating flat-earthers. And I will gladly call myself “the judge of certainty” on that one; I got better shit to do and so does literally everyone else. And in this fractured world of bubbles, finding someone who believes something stupid is really fucking easy, because it’s so easy to fall into a bubbled-off community based around that stupidity in the age of the internet.
Well, he was a racist cunt too, so, yeah…
Just wondering if you’re Slacker’s sock, someone else’s, or just a driveby troll, Mr “Just registered but already diving into contentious Pit threads”?
Also, how well do Mill’s ideas work when the people we’re talking about are most commonly defined by their deep-seated intellectual dishonesty?
:rolleyes:
Per Wikipedia:
If he thought they were once enlightened but had declined, that’s not racism.
Still, for those not terribly familiar with Mill, that bit in isolation admittedly does not show him in his best light. Let’s keep in mind, also per Wiki:
A Wiki quote of Mill on the subject of women’s rights:
“The legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human improvement; and…it ought to be replaced by a principle of perfect equality.”
The discussion notes that it was virtually unheard of in that era for a male writer to advocate full equality for women.
Wiki also cites Mill as declaring slavery “revolting”, and an institution he regarded with “unmitigated abhorrence”. This was in the 1860s, so he certainly would not have been considered very racist for a white man of his era.
While digging those quotes up, I came across another one relevant to what we have been talking about here:
And:
That last sentence could be clearer. He’s saying that even on those subjects he feels most certain about, he denounces any suppression (including, obviously, non-governmental suppression) of speech expressing the exact opposite view.
I have never engaged in sock puppetry and am not doing so now. However, I have linked to this thread a couple times in Sam Harris Twitter mentions, with the hope that his fans would come join the fray. That may be what is happening now. That’s encouraging, so perhaps I’ll redouble my efforts in that vein. 
You act like this is a brand-new question you’re posing, but I dealt with it at least twice upthread (as in, within the past few days, since we’ve been talking about Mill). In short, he believes that it is a double standard, because those defending orthodox viewpoints use dishonest, sophistic debating tactics all the time, and are generally lauded for doing so.
By all means, apply your racist cunt logic to the “thinking” of another racist cunt, I’m sure it’ll be sooooper convincing, racist being famous for their internal consistency and adherence to reason :rolleyes:
Whoop, he wasn’t also a misogynist (well, where the white Women are concerned, anyway…doubt he was all about votes for Indian women.) I’ll send him a posthumous cookie.
Sure, buddy, whatever you say 
I have more of your racist ignoramus ilk to look forward to? Yay?.
You misspelled nauseating, but whatever.
Not surprisingly, racists are usually not proficient in recognizing racism in others.
People like you fail to understand that looking askance at other cultures is not racism. It may be ethnocentrism or some other kind of prejudice you would like to plant your flag as denouncing, but it’s not racism as such.
BTW: no one has any comment on the Vox piece that very much comes down on the “nature” side of the nature/nurture question? I thought that was awfully interesting.
That’s a stupid fucking answer which utterly erases the line between good-faith and bad-faith actors by pointing out that sometimes people use bad arguments for things. Even if it’s true (which I’m not convinced of), I don’t care if sometimes people defend orthodox ideas in dishonest ways. That can be dealt with on a case by case basis while simultaneously pointing out the good arguments for the position and/or debunking them. But when it comes to something like Young Earth Creationism, where even its proponents know full well that it cannot win on its own merits, you need a fundamentally different approach. These people go into the debate knowing that you intend to debate honestly, and that their idea cannot win on the merits. That changes the dynamic drastically, and requires a different approach.
For a great example of this, take a look at Sye Ten Bruggencate vs. Matt Dillahunty. There’s a pretty broad consensus here that Matt “won”, that Sye was arguing in bad faith, and that there is no reason to ever again waste time arguing with presuppositionalists. Matt’s conclusion is, IMHO, a complete and valid rebuttal to Mill on this point.
Also, guys, criticizing anyone from the 1800s for racism is a bit like criticizing them for using coal. Nobody is entirely separate from their society, and society in the 1800s was hella racist.
From a more modern Briton:
“It is sometimes said that Britain liberated India. In fact the reverse is the truth. Gandhi and Nehru liberated us. By winning their freedom, they freed us from the ignorance and prejudice that lay behind the myth of Britain’s imperial destiny.”
-Tony Benn, 1964.
[quote=“SlackerInc, post:2228, topic:785052”]
I have never engaged in sock puppetry and am not doing so now. However, I have linked to this thread a couple times in Sam Harris Twitter mentions, with the hope that his fans would come join the fray. That may be what is happening now. That’s encouraging, so perhaps I’ll redouble my efforts in that vein.
I would think that showing all how big a racist and an asshole and a coward one can be over here is not something that one should made one’s peers aware of, but assessing oneself properly is also missing from his tool box. As I noted before, not many are willing to stand by his side, or for long.
Racist still doesn’t understand racism (and bigotry in general). No surprise here.
Racist thinks random unrelated article that has nothing to do with race/intelligence (or even anything in that ballpark) thinks it supports his bullshit evidence-free racist pseudoscientific beliefs. Again, no surprise – racists are often delusional.
‘Dat’s racist!1!’ repeated ad nauseum is an anachronistic tactic.
Whoops, guess what?
Patreon kicked Benjamin off for “racist and homophobic slurs,” an apparent reference to a February rant in which Benjamin called his foes on the extreme right “niggers” and “faggots.”
But even Catlin seemed shocked by Benjamin’s tirade, which was provoked by alt-right chatroom users’ insults. “See, look, look, this is what I mean about the chat, I just can’t be bothered to deal with people who treat me like this, it’s really annoying,” he complained. “You are acting like a bunch of niggers, just so you know. You act like white niggers.”
“You understand I’m a person, don’t you?” Benjamin whined after being called an “upper class twat.” “You guys understand that I am a person?” One chatroom user compared his reaction to that of Anita Sarkeesian — by far Benjamin’s favorite harassment target — causing him to dismiss alt-righters as “faggots.”
And he once again admonished them for not behaving how white people are supposed to behave: “Maybe you’re just acting like a nigger, mate. Have you considered that? You think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another.” This, of course, isn’t a shocking revelation for anyone who’s paid attention to this garbage person’s career.
Hmm, yeah, can’t imagine why Patreon wouldn’t want him earning money on their platform. And I continue to maintain that this is a really fucking bad look for Sam Harris.
(And before you ask: yes, I know the context. It still doesn’t leave Sargon smelling like roses.)
Here’s an article on Patreon’s removal of Milo Yiannopoulos’s account.
Here are Patreon’s Community Guidelines explaining what sorts of behavior count as bannable offenses.
By the way, I was impressed with Patreon’s policies and purpose so I signed up to be a patron of some artists I admire. Thanks to whichever poster brought this to our attention, for the opportunity to support both artistic endeavors and the Patreon site.
That he needs to improve. But people only improve if they get the chance to learn from their mistakes. People need to be allowed to make these kind of mistakes because we’re always gonna need people to debate nazis. You can say “Fascists lost the debate in the 40s” or whatever, but that won’t be true forever. Fascists never really go away. Better to drag them out into the open and kick their ass rhetorically while they’re weak than to ignore them til they’re strong and have to fight them for real. Unfortunately, this means losing the occasional argument, but just because they might win the occasional battle doesn’t mean they’re going to win the war.
Also, Sargon doesn’t have millions of followers. And his fans don’t think he’s some infallible galaxy brain. They’re more than willing to call him out when they think he’s wrong.
Sargon’s audience is mostly economically centre right and centre left social libertarians. He got people to send him their political compass results and did a video on it. These aren’t the sort of people who are going to get bowled over by some glib nazi in a fancy suit. They’re much more likely to call Sargon out for not doing better. Which quite a lot of them did. In fact, I remember Sargon calling himself out for not doing better in that debate. That’s not something a nazi or a sympathiser would do. On that note, can we at least agree that, whatever else he may be, he’s not a nazi?
Also, you’re overstating how hard he lost. Yeah, he could’ve done better but he could’ve done a lot worse. Also, Spencer isn’t the only nazi Sargon has debated. He’s debated a Scottish nazi called Millennial Woes a couple of times and kicked his ass. So it goes both ways.
No. It shows his audience he wasn’t very well prepared for the debate. Also, since 90% of his videos are about why individualism is good, why do you think his audience are going to join the klan just because he lost one debate to a racist collectivist dickbag like Spencer? You’re massively overplaying the dangers of debating these people.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not like you don’t have a point. Some people probably were convinced by Spencer during that debate. But Spencer managed to convince plenty of people before YouTubers started debating him and he could do that because he didn’t have any pushback.
But deplatforming them just pushes them further underground where they can go about spreading their poison unsupervised. Let that go on long enough and you get…well, Richard Spencer. Sooner or later you have to debate these people. Might as well be sooner.
Also, debating them doesn’t mean giving them the Queensbury rules treatment and kissing their ass. It can be “Here’s ten reasons why you’re a moron who’s wrong about everything” if you like.
Until they get one comprehensive public (rhetorical) ass kicking. The example I like is when David Irving sued Deborah Lipstadt. She wrecked him in court and destroyed his career overnight. If she’d just punched him it probably wouldn’t have done anything much.
What’s Jordan Peterson? Please don’t tell me you think he’s a nazi too.
First off, citing Vice on deplatforming is like citing FOX on immigration. Second, that’s a terrible way to judge if deplatforming works. Yeah, if you ban someone from YouTube and Twitter and Facebook and all the others you’ll hear less from them. No duh. But that doesn’t tell you anything about how much currency their ideas have in the real world
Who cares what Anglin likes? He’s wrong about everything else in his life. Why is he right about this?