Discussion in 'EtcetEra' started by activepassive, Sep 11, 2018.
"What's wrong, don't want to be challenged?! What doesn't kill you makes you stronger! Etc. etc."
And the whole idea that good people vs. evil people is an "untruth" just sounds like something an asshole who doesn't want to be called "evil" would come up with (even calling it "evil" seems like an over-exaggeration to make the asshole more justified in saying "nuh uh, I'm not evil I just have a different view than you!".
Are your views/ideals/actions/voting habits actively demeaning or hurting or making life worse for other people? Then you're an asshole. And if people want a few moments in their lives where they don't have to suffer around these assholes, then more power to them.
If anything it's not coddling people, it's strengthening people who have been put down for generations and making them realize they don't have to put up with or "engage" with their racism/sexism/homophobia/etc just to make their lives easier.
Oops misread nevermind.
Thanks for sharing OP!
Haidt's last book "Lost Connections" was really interesting. I'll admit I'm curious about this one, even if the subject is less exciting to me.
I have nothing to add to this topic other than I'm starting to feel like the "market place of ideas" concept is heavily flawed.
If you want to have a discussion, make a valid point worth responding to in the first place. You honestly seem more like the type to show up in a PETA shirt than any of the other people ITT. Not that I'm sure why having a PETA shirt would inherently be bad, but like everything else in your posts, you didn't bother explaining that either…
Why, if they had to engage with actual arguments, they might risk saying what they really mean! It's so much easier to say a bunch of nothing over and over again.
"appeal to popularity" is even a formally defined fallacy!
EXTREMELY HOT TAKE that i just made up: the "marketplace of ideas" does not want hours of meandering interviews and instead wants a transcript - CHECKMATE HARRIS, the marketplace has spoken
but shockingly you've ignored all the actual discussion! almost as if the best ideas in the marketplace get passed over
I don't know why you guys are indulging such an obvious troll. Dude's posted under 50 times in almost a year. Just report his ass and move on.
The great irony of the whole 'free speech is under attack!' argument parroted by conservatives is that it comes as a result of conservatives having their opinions and beliefs challenged which they absolutely cannot stand. So they twist and contort and bend until their argument becomes them wishing people would stop engaging them.
They're afraid of free speech.
a lot of science is also hella complicated and people have a tendency to stick to what they learned in high school
They want to spout their bullshit unchallenged. The_Donald being a good example.
I am in the forum almost daily, but I don't post very often. I have already clarified in the OP that I'm not trying to stir up unnecessary controversy. Even before that, what would you report me for?
I was surprised that this thread is still going, and I was also surprised to see my post quoted in the OP. I listened to the New York Times Review of Books podcast that interviewed the author and the tone from one of the authors, Jonathan Haidt, and it's very different than what I'd imagine Sam Harris is going at it... And it's very different than where this thread has gone. Haidt is a Social Psychology professor at NYU, a liberal, and I don't know if he'd reach the sort of conclusions that seem to immediately be drawn out as soon as someone like Sam Harris features your book on his show. But, then again, I don't listen to Sam Harris' podcast, go to his website, or any of that, I just know his reputation and have no interest in giving him any more ad revenue.
Here's a link to that NYT book review episode: https://pca.st/8Sqq (begins at about 0:30:00) and also the print review of this book with another one on a similar topic.
The case in the book as far as I can tell from the NYT Interview and the book review, is less the idea that "free speech is under attack" (though that is definitely the case of the other author, Lukianoff's organization, although FWIW, his organization isn't a right wing org though he may be... WHen I worked in college administration I was very familiar with it, but more so for its defense of the ACLU and what was considered, at the time, to be the "radical left wing" ... I worked at a college that ran afoul of FIRE for not hosting social activists on a particular issue). What I took away from the Haidt interview and the NYT book review wasn't that the books were advocating for the right wing or defending right wing speakers on campus (Although I'm sure that 'FIRE' would defend that today), but rather, that the consequence of colleges not challenging your preconcieved notions about something are precisely what allow for things like the radical alt-right to move into the White House. And the The_Donald is a great example of the rise of a safe space.
One major annoyance of mine is how publishers are lack so much creativity that they just can't avoid referencing Allan Blooms 'The Closing of the American Mind,' in any book that challenges the conventional narrative of higher education.
Hes a cunt in cunts clothing.
The claim to a larger platform under the guise of free speech has always been to me, a cry from those who don't understand the central component of Free Speech's existence, which is the free exchange of ideas, with the purpose of separating the good ideas from the bad, and then rejecting the bad ones. These alt-right talking points are merely championed by those who are in the denial stage of seeing longstanding hegemonic ideas fall into the refuse pile of discourse.
It's the equivalent of saying "But wait, before we work to get rid of racism, did anyone stop to ask if racism is actually correct?"
Edit: My main problem with people like Harris, Peterson, or even with Hitchens while he was alive, is that they would use actual reason to build up a point and then draw a conclusion that is either contradictory or hypocritical. And then have no self-awareness of their own hypocrisies (either that or they are aware and simply malevolent).
Clubs and organizations are different. They are designed to be safe spaces and always have been. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Hate speech doesn't need a platform and shouldn't be heard out in college. It doesn't add anything of value to the discourse. And if one wants to teach students to deal with hate speech in a certain way then one must create a safe space without hate speech to show them how.
People have to stop pretending Harris is worth listening to if they expect to be taken seriously by non-white people
You could have brought this up earlier.
My point about The_Donald was building off of theory suggested by the NYT Book reviewer. The_Donald is the quintessential example of a safe space in the way the Right vitriolically thinks of them. I think it is the perfect example of a group of people, self-selected by ideology/cult-of-personality, who are incapable of comprehending that opinions other than their own exist, and when they encounter them, they can't tolerate them. While I don't think the concept of safe spaces on campus led to the_Donald (echo chambers like The_Donald have existed long before the 'safe space' was a concept on college campuses), the thing that the NYT Book Review was mentioning -- this breakdown in our inability to comprehend and combat opinions -- is definitely something that contributes to a community like The_Donald becoming so pervasive and powerful. I think it also contributes to the overwhelming partisanship, purity tests, and ideological fervor that many people have today.
This is a major contributor to the rise of Donald Trump, and ideologues like Steve Bannon or Stephen Miller are exceptionally effective at capitalizing on it and making political movements out of it.
Though I'm only going off of the NYT Review of Books & the Chronicle interviews, both of which are left leaning publications. I'm sure a guy like Sam Harris latches onto the more bombastic, partisan, politicized claims in the book and goes off in another direction that might appeal to his political base.