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.
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%:
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.
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.
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 . . .’
As several people have pointed out here is a typical Sam Harris misdirection pattern.
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?
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.
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.
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.
You are ignoring the body of evidence, like how he doesn’t think that Robert Spencer is a bigot.
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
Even freaking Christopher Hitchens, who is not exactly pro-Muslim called out Harris for that first quote.
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.
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.
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)
You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting Hitch’s objection there. Maybe you didn’t read the whole thing? From near the end:
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.
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?
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.
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
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”.
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?
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
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?