He talks like a tough guy who still itches for a fight, just with skinheads now instead of with POC.
But that’s not why it matters. It’s basic etiquette, decency, that if someone invites you to present your views and promote your book on a platform far bigger than you can generate on your own, and gives you friendly questions, you decline the offer or at least raise your beef with them in the interview to give them a chance to respond. To instead go on, play nice, wait until you are sure the podcast is released, and THEN stick the knife in his back? Any decent person knows that is super weaselly. Not cool at all, Picciolini. Not that I should be all that surprised: he came off like an insufferable douche on the podcast.
Really? That’s a little hard for me to believe. He was on the podcast pretty recently, long after the podcast episode that started this thread, and the accompanying Vox articles and so on.
Who the hell knows? I don’t care about etiquette when it comes to the appropriate ways to criticize those who enable white supremacists and white supremacism.
I would call that a bogus characterization of Sam. But you obviously believe it. Would you play nicey-nice with him so you could pimp your book, then shit talk him later? If so, you’re a scuzzy weasel too, just like Picciolini.
He certainly enabled Murray, without challenging any of Murray’s bullshit views in any way at all. As for the rest, I’m not interested in your childish nonsense.
Really? Not a legitimate question to ask if you would play a two-faced, self-serving game like that with someone you deeply disapproved of? I call that a dodge.
I had never heard of Picciolini before his book was recommended last week in this thread. This did not give me a good first impression. From taking a look at his social media, I get the sense that, similar to the SPLC, he’s a mixed bag who provides value in exposing some groups while having struggles categorizing other people and difficulty correcting mistakes. I think Harris made a very poor choice in C. Murray as an interview subject and has not come out looking great defending it (to Klein). I just don’t see a pattern of Harris continually bringing up the subject multiple times. I don’t think he does and his own views oughtn’t steer folks in that wrong direction.
Another interesting episode this week. The description:
This is not the type of conversation you will find in the usual places on the left or right. Obviously left wing outlets will not agree with the bemoaning of “callout culture”, “safe spaces”, etc. But right wingers won’t thrill to hearing Sam do things like raise the studies that show identical resumes are treated quite differently depending on whether the person’s name is WASPy or stereotypically black. Nor will they agree with Haidt when he says that a lot of what is called “microaggression” is a serious thing that people should be educated about, although he would prefer a different label.
He responds to an analysis of the research that disputed his original thesis, and admits that he has had to reevaluate it in light of this very careful survey of the evidence. He now acknowledges that most colleges are relatively free of this PC “callout culture”, and that even at those elite schools in the Northeast and West Coast where it is a problem, it’s a noisy minority of students pushing the agenda while the silent majority simply does not stand up against them. (It’s hard for me to totally buy into it just being a Northeast/West Coast thing, though, when one of the worst examples occurred at the University of Missouri when I was still a resident of that state.)
Haidt also points out that “living while black” is a real thing that people should talk about, and that it is indeed a very unfortunate and racist thing when a student has the cops called on them for sleeping in his dorm’s lounge area. But he also makes a strong case that if an incident is caused by one person’s actions out of a community of 20,000, and similar things are not happening more than a few times a year (and are not defended or even tolerated by the administration or the wider campus community), it’s not fair to call a whole university “systemically racist” because of the actions of a very small percentage of the student body.
Haidt persuasively argues that this culture has now spread from elite schools to the elite media companies that hire graduates of these schools. He has found that people over 30 working at these companies generally continue to have a strong belief in free speech, but are increasingly finding their youngest hires at odds with them on the value of that principle.
One thing I staunchly oppose, though, is this whole “free range parenting” movement Haidt has signed on to. He even acknowledges that accidents (“unintentional injuries”), including fatal ones, are way down for children. But I guess he thinks it’s a good plan to sacrifice tens of thousands of kids to death and dismemberment every year so they learn more independence at an earlier age? Not buying it.
I think that depends on the individual child, on how long they will be unsupervised, where they will be, whether there are older siblings present, etc. But when I was a kid, there were lots of kids four, five, six years old wandering the neighborhood, going off into the woods where no one could see us, etc. And I definitely don’t think that’s okay.