|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans.
I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest.
The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising.
How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations.
|
The "Hillary would make a good Republican" meme really just shows how skewed some people's conceptions of the political spectrum are.
|
On April 25 2016 02:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
The "Hillary would make a good Republican" meme really just shows how skewed some people's conceptions of the political spectrum are.
That's with Republican's generally not making good republicans. It's not a comment on the current Republican party but of what a reasonable one would look like.
|
On April 25 2016 00:09 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2016 12:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 24 2016 05:10 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote:
Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word.
2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups.
3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him. On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where people have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move. Well we can disagree about Sam Harris. I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of his. I don't really read his books or follow him on any sort of media, but I watch some interviews he does and so on. That said I know what his views are on most things because I have listened to him express them, and the misrepresentation of his views by the far left are fairly blatant. My main point is that he has relevant criticisms of Islam that get drowned out by the far left misrepresenting what he says and then attacking his character based on that. That is the thing I was initially talking about is that the discourse in general (from left/right/everyone) has degraded so much, that everyone seems more content to engage in frivolity than have serious discussion about important issues. I agree with you about the costume thing, and the people in this thread who go on and on about how costumes can be offensive annoy me to no end. My point isn't that speech , costumes, or anything else can't be offensive, it is that offensive things are to be allowed (not banned on college campuses and what have you) and (in most cases) shouldn't lead to the kind of overreaction that they have recently. Some of the costumes they were bitching about were quite ridiculous, especially given that there could be actually offensive costumes like a nazi officer or klan uniform. I agree that there are consequences to wearing certain things or saying certain things, but the 'pc culture' and 'regressive left' that everyone keeps talking about just take it to the level of absurdity.
If you want to present specific elements about Harris I can debunk them. If you don't, then I'll come with mine, and that will be a very long post.
And you manifestantly don't agree with me about the costume thing cause you use terms like "PC culture" and "regressive left" that are at the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
|
On April 25 2016 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 02:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
The "Hillary would make a good Republican" meme really just shows how skewed some people's conceptions of the political spectrum are. That's with Republican's generally not making good republicans. It's not a comment on the current Republican party but of what a reasonable one would look like.
i think you pretty much proved my point :p
|
The context he brought up Sam Harris was as an example of issues that regressives sweep under the rug and try to avoid engaging. I don't think the point is that Sam Harris is 100% right about something specific and you just need to prove that specific author wrong (and it sounds like you have many, many ways, tremendous ways, of debunking, we're going to debunk, so many ways). It's that regressivism tends to stifle dialogue. The subject could be immigration, transsexualism, Islam, whatever - many of the most interesting questions of our world. If it serves their purpose, regressives don't seem to want the conversations to happen.
|
On April 24 2016 12:03 Nebuchad wrote:
Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him.
On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where peope have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move.
It's amusing that you are misrepresenting his views just by typing that. Though I've never heard him say it outright, I have a very hard time believing that he is attacking political correctness as a whole. He is pretty specific when he complains about the "regressive left" in that they are a group of people who, in the name of fairness and equality, become oppressive idiots. If Harris had the opportunity to meet Obama, I doubt he'd take the opportunity to use racial slurs against him just to exercise his freedom of speech.
oBlade has the right view of him. Agree or disagree with him, it's extremely important that he is asking for the discussion to happen. The reason his fanboys (I've never met one) might be so rabid is that at any opportunity to debate, the regressive left shows up with weak arguments at best, and raging rhetoric at worst.
|
On April 25 2016 02:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 02:32 ticklishmusic wrote:
The "Hillary would make a good Republican" meme really just shows how skewed some people's conceptions of the political spectrum are. That's with Republican's generally not making good republicans. It's not a comment on the current Republican party but of what a reasonable one would look like.
It appears we've wandered into No True Scotsman territory.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/is-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html?_r=1
|
On April 25 2016 03:03 oBlade wrote:
The context he brought up Sam Harris was as an example of issues that regressives sweep under the rug and try to avoid engaging. I don't think the point is that Sam Harris is 100% right about something specific and you just need to prove that specific author wrong (and it sounds like you have many, many ways, tremendous ways, of debunking, we're going to debunk, so many ways). It's that regressivism tends to stifle dialogue. The subject could be immigration, transsexualism, Islam, whatever - many of the most interesting questions of our world. If it serves their purpose, regressives don't seem to want the conversations to happen.
He's defending Sam Harris, so I want him to go into specifics. Of course it wasn't the context he brought him in, but now that he's in, we're going to have a conversation about it. You don't mind that, do you? You wouldn't want to stifle dialogue about it...
Cause in actual context, what happens is that people use the term regressive to stifle dialogue. Sure, you have just made an argument, but you're representative of the regressive left, so I don't really need to answer. I can just put you in that category and that signals others that they can ignore you just like I do.
Thaniri: My post doesn't associate Sam Harris with the comment on political correctness. You're accusing me of misrepresenting him based on me having said something that I haven't said. Which, funnily enough, is a common tactic from Harris himself. Lesson learned...
|
On April 25 2016 02:36 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 00:09 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 12:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 24 2016 05:10 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote:
Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word.
2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups.
3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him. On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where people have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move. Well we can disagree about Sam Harris. I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of his. I don't really read his books or follow him on any sort of media, but I watch some interviews he does and so on. That said I know what his views are on most things because I have listened to him express them, and the misrepresentation of his views by the far left are fairly blatant. My main point is that he has relevant criticisms of Islam that get drowned out by the far left misrepresenting what he says and then attacking his character based on that. That is the thing I was initially talking about is that the discourse in general (from left/right/everyone) has degraded so much, that everyone seems more content to engage in frivolity than have serious discussion about important issues. I agree with you about the costume thing, and the people in this thread who go on and on about how costumes can be offensive annoy me to no end. My point isn't that speech , costumes, or anything else can't be offensive, it is that offensive things are to be allowed (not banned on college campuses and what have you) and (in most cases) shouldn't lead to the kind of overreaction that they have recently. Some of the costumes they were bitching about were quite ridiculous, especially given that there could be actually offensive costumes like a nazi officer or klan uniform. I agree that there are consequences to wearing certain things or saying certain things, but the 'pc culture' and 'regressive left' that everyone keeps talking about just take it to the level of absurdity. If you want to present specific elements about Harris I can debunk them. If you don't, then I'll come with mine, and that will be a very long post. And you manifestantly don't agree with me about the costume thing cause you use terms like "PC culture" and "regressive left" that are at the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
I use the terms because people know what I mean when I say them, notice how I put them in quotation marks. They describe the type of people whom I have a problem with, or attempt to anyways. A few pages back I went into specifics about it, but it truly is much easier to sum it all up in a phrase, however inadequate or disliked the phrase might be.
What aspect of Sam Harris' ideas are you speaking about, because he does talk about a range of topics. I'll assume you mean his thoughts on Islam as that is what he is probably most known for and gotten the most flak over. He has said a lot, and it would be better to listen to his talks and read his stuff than it would be for me to summarize. But some of the general points he makes that I agree with that we can start with are:
(1) All religions have issues, but in today's world we find our selves in a time where Islam is causing us the most problems. (Islamic fundamentalists, terrorism, ISIS, and so on).
(2) While the large majority of muslims don't engage in violence, majorities of them , when polled, are consistently for things like stoning adulterers, removing the hands of thieves, death to apostates, and so on (implementation of sharia law). Likewise in countries with large muslim populations, large portions of the muslim population say they would like for sharia law to be implemented.
(3) There is a direct line between things that the faith teaches and words in the Koran and Hadiths and in the Islamic tradition, that all explain the types of fundamentalist behaviors and problems we are facing today. Harris often describes it as a mother-load of bad ideas.
Those are me rewording what I think of as his main points whenever he discusses Islam. We can start there I guess, unless you were thinking of other things entirely. I don't see how the charge of him being an islamophobe or a racist or all these other things are at all based in reality, or are representative of the things he says on the topic.
EDIT: I honestly think it would be easier for you to briefly describe why you don't like him or what he has said that you take issue with. Because asking me to both state and defend all of his positions on any given topic seems a lot more effort than you stating what you take issue with ;]
|
On April 25 2016 03:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 03:03 oBlade wrote:
The context he brought up Sam Harris was as an example of issues that regressives sweep under the rug and try to avoid engaging. I don't think the point is that Sam Harris is 100% right about something specific and you just need to prove that specific author wrong (and it sounds like you have many, many ways, tremendous ways, of debunking, we're going to debunk, so many ways). It's that regressivism tends to stifle dialogue. The subject could be immigration, transsexualism, Islam, whatever - many of the most interesting questions of our world. If it serves their purpose, regressives don't seem to want the conversations to happen. He's defending Sam Harris, so I want him to go into specifics. Of course it wasn't the context he brought him in, but now that he's in, we're going to have a conversation about it. You don't mind that, do you? You wouldn't want to stifle dialogue about it... Cause in actual context, what happens is that people use the term regressive to stifle dialogue. Sure, you have just made an argument, but you're representative of the regressive left, so I don't really need to answer. I can just put you in that category and that signals others that they can ignore you just like I do. Thaniri: My post doesn't associate Sam Harris with the comment on political correctness. You're accusing me of misrepresenting him based on me having said something that I haven't said. Which, funnily enough, is a common tactic from Harris himself. Lesson learned...
My bad, I misread your post.
I haven't seen the term regressive left used to stifle dialogue. The only instances I have heard of it being used is by political pundits discussing them. Every time the word has been used it's been an attempt to invoke dialogue on the subject.
|
Stacey McHoul left jail last summer with a history of heroin use and depression and only a few days of medicine to treat them. When the pills ran out she started thinking about hurting herself.
"Once the meds start coming out of my system, in the past, it's always caused me to relapse," she said. "I start self-medicating and trying to stop the crazy thoughts in my head."
Jail officials gave her neither prescription refills nor a Medicaid card to pay for them, she said. Within days she was back on heroin — her preferred self-medication — and sleeping in abandoned homes around Baltimore's run-down Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood.
Thousands of people leave incarceration every year without access to the coverage and care they're entitled to, jeopardizing their own health and sometimes the public's.
Advocates for ex-convicts held high hopes for the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion that promised to deliver insurance to previously excluded single adults starting in 2014, including almost everybody released from prisons and jails.
Many former inmates are mentally ill or struggle with drug abuse, diabetes or HIV and hepatitis C infection. Most return to poor communities such as West Baltimore's Sandtown, which exploded in violence a year ago after Freddie Gray died from injuries sustained in police custody.
But Maryland's prison agency, which three years ago said it was "well positioned" to enroll released inmates in Medicaid, is signing up fewer than a tenth of those who leave prisons and jails every year, according to state data. Few other states that have expanded Medicaid under the health law are doing any better, specialists say.
Officials of the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services say they do the best they can with limited resources, enrolling the most severely ill in Medicaid while letting most ex-inmates fend for themselves.
Source
|
On April 25 2016 03:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 03:03 oBlade wrote:
The context he brought up Sam Harris was as an example of issues that regressives sweep under the rug and try to avoid engaging. I don't think the point is that Sam Harris is 100% right about something specific and you just need to prove that specific author wrong (and it sounds like you have many, many ways, tremendous ways, of debunking, we're going to debunk, so many ways). It's that regressivism tends to stifle dialogue. The subject could be immigration, transsexualism, Islam, whatever - many of the most interesting questions of our world. If it serves their purpose, regressives don't seem to want the conversations to happen. He's defending Sam Harris, so I want him to go into specifics. Of course it wasn't the context he brought him in, but now that he's in, we're going to have a conversation about it. You don't mind that, do you? You wouldn't want to stifle dialogue about it... Cause in actual context, what happens is that people use the term regressive to stifle dialogue. Sure, you have just made an argument, but you're representative of the regressive left, so I don't really need to answer. I can just put you in that category and that signals others that they can ignore you just like I do.
Regressives use, for example, "racism" as a foil for discussing issues immigration, "transphobia" as a foil for discussing issues in transsexualism. It also invites self-censorship because people, erring on the side of caution, want to avoid the perception of "offense" in whatever form. That's not good for the free exchange of ideas. The question "why?" is pretty obvious - if you can't challenge a position because it'd be politically incorrect, then whatever the "regressive" position is wins out. Or, like with immigration, it's simply left in the expert hands of a bureaucratic establishment. I'm not, and nobody is, stopping you from going into detail about the work of Sam Harris.
I would actually love to see you talk with Kickstart about actual content of Sam Harris because all you did was call him a professional troll and then say you had a miraculous way of debunking him that your post was too small to contain. I don't think he's on the right track about free will, but he's usually thought-provoking.
|
On April 25 2016 03:51 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 02:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 00:09 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 12:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 24 2016 05:10 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote:
Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word.
2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups.
3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him. On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where people have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move. Well we can disagree about Sam Harris. I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of his. I don't really read his books or follow him on any sort of media, but I watch some interviews he does and so on. That said I know what his views are on most things because I have listened to him express them, and the misrepresentation of his views by the far left are fairly blatant. My main point is that he has relevant criticisms of Islam that get drowned out by the far left misrepresenting what he says and then attacking his character based on that. That is the thing I was initially talking about is that the discourse in general (from left/right/everyone) has degraded so much, that everyone seems more content to engage in frivolity than have serious discussion about important issues. I agree with you about the costume thing, and the people in this thread who go on and on about how costumes can be offensive annoy me to no end. My point isn't that speech , costumes, or anything else can't be offensive, it is that offensive things are to be allowed (not banned on college campuses and what have you) and (in most cases) shouldn't lead to the kind of overreaction that they have recently. Some of the costumes they were bitching about were quite ridiculous, especially given that there could be actually offensive costumes like a nazi officer or klan uniform. I agree that there are consequences to wearing certain things or saying certain things, but the 'pc culture' and 'regressive left' that everyone keeps talking about just take it to the level of absurdity. If you want to present specific elements about Harris I can debunk them. If you don't, then I'll come with mine, and that will be a very long post. And you manifestantly don't agree with me about the costume thing cause you use terms like "PC culture" and "regressive left" that are at the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I use the terms because people know what I mean when I say them, notice how I put them in quotation marks. They describe the type of people whom I have a problem with, or attempt to anyways. A few pages back I went into specifics about it, but it truly is much easier to sum it all up in a phrase, however inadequate or disliked the phrase might be. What aspect of Sam Harris' ideas are you speaking about, because he does talk about a range of topics. I'll assume you mean his thoughts on Islam as that is what he is probably most known for and gotten the most flak over. He has said a lot, and it would be better to listen to his talks and read his stuff than it would be for me to summarize. But some of the general points he makes that I agree with that we can start with are: (1) All religions have issues, but in today's world we find our selves in a time where Islam is causing us the most problems. (Islamic fundamentalists, terrorism, ISIS, and so on). (2) While the large majority of muslims don't engage in violence, majorities of them , when polled, are consistently for things like stoning adulterers, removing the hands of thieves, death to apostates, and so on (implementation of sharia law). Likewise in countries with large muslim populations, large portions of the muslim population say they would like for sharia law to be implemented. (3) There is a direct line between things that the faith teaches and words in the Koran and Hadiths and in the Islamic tradition, that all explain the types of fundamentalist behaviors and problems we are facing today. Harris often describes it as a mother-load of bad ideas. Those are me rewording what I think of as his main points whenever he discusses Islam. We can start there I guess, unless you were thinking of other things entirely. I don't see how the charge of him being an islamophobe or a racist or all these other things are at all based in reality, or are representative of the things he says on the topic. EDIT: I honestly think it would be easier for you to briefly describe why you don't like him or what he has said that you take issue with. Because asking me to both state and defend all of his positions on any given topic seems a lot more effort than you stating what you take issue with ;]
You're right, it'll be easier if I describe my problems with Harris, but I don't think I can be brief about that. I'm at my parents' right now so I don't have all of my sources with me, I'll get on it when I come back (tomorrow night CET)
|
On April 25 2016 04:07 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 03:51 Kickstart wrote:On April 25 2016 02:36 Nebuchad wrote:On April 25 2016 00:09 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 12:03 Nebuchad wrote:On April 24 2016 05:10 Kickstart wrote:On April 24 2016 04:53 JW_DTLA wrote:
Very few people actually defend "political correctness". The term is usually a straw man for conservatives who want to apply group prejudice without feeling bad. So when I hear it, I try to think of which definition of political correctness the conservative is attacking. I can think of three functional definitions of PC:
1) Don't use racial epithets - White people often complain they can't use the N-word.
2) Don't apply actions of some in a group to others based on group membership - White people like tarnishing blacks/Muslims with actions of some in those groups.
3) General resentment of liberal arguments against conservative positions - this is the original definition of politically correct from the 70s, where liberals would argue down conservative positions.
Definition number (2) is by the most important and most discussed. Lots of people want to use group attributes to tarnish individuals. This is a natural human instinct from back in the cave man days. Being politically correct involves resisting this temptation. People like Sam Harris, who have made valid criticisms of Islam as an ideology, the 'regressives' have went all out completely misrepresenting his views and what he has said. Sam Harris has claimed to be misrepresented at least three times more often than he has been... He's a professional troll, the fact that his first book got a following is a disgrace given what it contains, and his fanboys are the closest thing to a cult I've seen in the atheist community. I'm perfectly comfortable with my PC position of strongly disliking him. On the general topic of political correctness, I think the attack is misplaced. I don't think political correctness is a problem, I think being wrong while trying to be politically correct is. On a recent example, I don't think the problem with criticizing Halloween costumes because they're offensive is that we're trying to be nice, I think it's that we're wrong. Halloween costumes are not offensive. And I think using examples where people have been wrong while trying to be politically correct to criticize political correctness as a notion in its entirety is a politically motivated move. Well we can disagree about Sam Harris. I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy of his. I don't really read his books or follow him on any sort of media, but I watch some interviews he does and so on. That said I know what his views are on most things because I have listened to him express them, and the misrepresentation of his views by the far left are fairly blatant. My main point is that he has relevant criticisms of Islam that get drowned out by the far left misrepresenting what he says and then attacking his character based on that. That is the thing I was initially talking about is that the discourse in general (from left/right/everyone) has degraded so much, that everyone seems more content to engage in frivolity than have serious discussion about important issues. I agree with you about the costume thing, and the people in this thread who go on and on about how costumes can be offensive annoy me to no end. My point isn't that speech , costumes, or anything else can't be offensive, it is that offensive things are to be allowed (not banned on college campuses and what have you) and (in most cases) shouldn't lead to the kind of overreaction that they have recently. Some of the costumes they were bitching about were quite ridiculous, especially given that there could be actually offensive costumes like a nazi officer or klan uniform. I agree that there are consequences to wearing certain things or saying certain things, but the 'pc culture' and 'regressive left' that everyone keeps talking about just take it to the level of absurdity. If you want to present specific elements about Harris I can debunk them. If you don't, then I'll come with mine, and that will be a very long post. And you manifestantly don't agree with me about the costume thing cause you use terms like "PC culture" and "regressive left" that are at the exact opposite of what I'm saying. I use the terms because people know what I mean when I say them, notice how I put them in quotation marks. They describe the type of people whom I have a problem with, or attempt to anyways. A few pages back I went into specifics about it, but it truly is much easier to sum it all up in a phrase, however inadequate or disliked the phrase might be. What aspect of Sam Harris' ideas are you speaking about, because he does talk about a range of topics. I'll assume you mean his thoughts on Islam as that is what he is probably most known for and gotten the most flak over. He has said a lot, and it would be better to listen to his talks and read his stuff than it would be for me to summarize. But some of the general points he makes that I agree with that we can start with are: (1) All religions have issues, but in today's world we find our selves in a time where Islam is causing us the most problems. (Islamic fundamentalists, terrorism, ISIS, and so on). (2) While the large majority of muslims don't engage in violence, majorities of them , when polled, are consistently for things like stoning adulterers, removing the hands of thieves, death to apostates, and so on (implementation of sharia law). Likewise in countries with large muslim populations, large portions of the muslim population say they would like for sharia law to be implemented. (3) There is a direct line between things that the faith teaches and words in the Koran and Hadiths and in the Islamic tradition, that all explain the types of fundamentalist behaviors and problems we are facing today. Harris often describes it as a mother-load of bad ideas. Those are me rewording what I think of as his main points whenever he discusses Islam. We can start there I guess, unless you were thinking of other things entirely. I don't see how the charge of him being an islamophobe or a racist or all these other things are at all based in reality, or are representative of the things he says on the topic. EDIT: I honestly think it would be easier for you to briefly describe why you don't like him or what he has said that you take issue with. Because asking me to both state and defend all of his positions on any given topic seems a lot more effort than you stating what you take issue with ;] You're right, it'll be easier if I describe my problems with Harris, but I don't think I can be brief about that. I'm at my parents' right now so I don't have all of my sources with me, I'll get on it when I come back (tomorrow night CET)
Sounds good. I usually follow this thread even though I don't post too much~
|
On April 25 2016 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 02:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sandernistas have become the useful idiots of the Republican party.
Basically they have been doing their whole campaign on personal attacks about Hillary being corrupt, dishonest and sold to Wall Street.
In fact there is not the slightest evidence that HC has ever been corrupt or bought by anyone, or that she is dishonest. This is right wing propaganda, based on nothing. When Sanders was asked when she had done anything that could be linked to her being "bought by Wall Street", he was left speechless.
This is rather sad because Sanders has plenty to bring to american politics. But if all his troops can do is hate speech, insults and defamation against their own side, they are not worth much better than Republicans. I feel like her being dishonest is somewhat irrefutable. As an example, the transcripts, there is no explanation for how her excuse isn't dishonest. The rest just takes removing the idea that these folks are giving millions of dollars without any expectation to influence policy. Which the Democrats did in 2014, but have since abandoned due to Hillary's fundraising. How does the change in fundraising rules at the DNC not signal that lobbyists will be more influential under her potential administration, not less? It's not that they are giving her $1million cash so she votes X, I don't think many politicians are that stupid. There's no question she would be more heavily influenced to lean toward her donors when making policy considerations.
Yes but no.
The transcripts are absolutely not a proof of her being dishonest. She might not want to release things she said to a closed circle of people during her campaign for strategic reasons, or because she thinks it could be used in a way or an other against her. How is that dishonesty??
And that's all you have to call someone dishonest? That's quite slim.
Now she is playing american politics by the book, and yes, it is contributors who pay for campaigns. It doesn't make her sold. There is a problem with the system, not with her. Blaming her for the system is sterile and unfair.
A question: if Sanders wins the primaries, how do you think he will fund his election campaign? With 10$ donations? He'll probably turn down all the big donor's money, right? Just think about that. If accepting money from big donors means being bought, Bernie will be bought the second he is up against Trump or whichever monster the Republican chose for themselves.
What does Sanders and his campaign have answered about that? Nothing. They just pretend the problem doesn't exist.
So let's recap.
Sanders is playing an ad hominem campaign based on right wing propaganda "Hillary is dishonest and corrupt!!" and the fact her opponent is playing american politics by the book the exact same way he will have to play them the moment he is chosen.
And that's the guy who will make american politics better. Wow.
(I am not voting for that election since I am not american, and I am much closer ideologically to Sanders - I do agree with most of what he says - than Clinton. But the disgraceful campaign he is leading makes me want to root for Clinton. When your troops are so toxic they turn people who are perfectly aligned politically with you away, you have to change something. And that would apply to you. Instead of discussing proposals and policies, you basically concentrate on defaming the most likely candidate to face Trump. Not smart.)
|
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor.
Source
|
On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source
Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east.
|
More likely that the pages in question do not contain anything overtly incriminating, and I doubt he'll back down from his stance that any form of lawsuit against the Saudis by US citizens is impossible given sovereign immunity.
|
On April 25 2016 05:17 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2016 04:50 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will likely soon release at least part of a 28-page secret chapter from a congressional inquiry into 9/11 that may shed light on possible Saudi connections to the attackers.
The documents, kept in a secure room in the basement of the Capitol, contain information from the joint congressional inquiry into "specific sources of foreign support for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were in the United States."
Bob Graham, who was co-chairman of that bipartisan panel, and others say the documents point suspicion at the Saudis. The former Democratic senator from Florida says an administration official told him that intelligence officials will decide in the next several weeks whether to release at least parts of the documents. The disclosure would come at a time of strained U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia, a long-time American ally.
"I hope that decision is to honor the American people and make it available," Graham told NBCs' "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "The most important unanswered question of 9/11 is, did these 19 people conduct this very sophisticated plot alone, or were they supported?"
Tim Roemer, who was a member of both the joint congressional inquiry as well as the 9/11 Commission and has read the secret chapter three times, described the 28 pages as a "preliminary police report."
"There were clues. There were allegations. There were witness reports. There was evidence about the hijackers, about people they met with — all kinds of different things that the 9/11 Commission was then tasked with reviewing and investigating," the former Democratic congressman from Indiana said Friday.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government says it has been "wrongfully and morbidly accused of complicity" in the attacks, is fighting extremists and working to clamp down on their funding channels. Still, the Saudis have long said that they would welcome declassification of the 28 pages because it would "allow us to respond to any allegations in a clear and credible manner."
The pages were withheld from the 838-page report on the orders of President George W. Bush, who said the release could divulge intelligence sources and methods. Still, protecting U.S.-Saudi diplomatic relations also was believed to have been a factor. Source Obama giving no fucks towards the end of his presidency it seems. Though to be fair we've known for a long time how suspect the Saudis are and how terrible their regime is. Just wish we took energy independence more seriously so we didn't have to align ourselves with such regimes, or care so much about our 'interests' in the middle east.
I believe the only criteria in US diplomacy is not whether or not a regime is horrible or oppressive but how pro free market countries are. The Saudi being an example of a horrendous regime with which you can do good business.
I think that unbelievably short sighted method is meeting its limits with the rise of globalized terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
