|
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Coach on Mar 14, 2017 12:57:48 GMT 1, I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die. That is vile I really wouldn't want to belong to the club that these people belong to
Could not agree more. I even find it distasteful that some were saying that they were praying that he would find God in his dying moments.
I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die. That is vile I really wouldn't want to belong to the club that these people belong to Could not agree more. I even find it distasteful that some were saying that they were praying that he would find God in his dying moments. |
|
|
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Coach on Mar 14, 2017 13:38:51 GMT 1, When I was particularly actively atheist I read and watched a lot of Hitchens (as well as Dawkins and Sam Harris etc.) - I remember enjoying a good debate between Hitchens and Tony Blair on religion, which I'm sure is easily tracked down on the Internet. This video has inspired me to watch more of his talks. I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die.
Add Daniel Dennett to that list and you have the Four Horsemen.
It makes me smile that Hitchens was known as the Rebel of the four.
When I was particularly actively atheist I read and watched a lot of Hitchens (as well as Dawkins and Sam Harris etc.) - I remember enjoying a good debate between Hitchens and Tony Blair on religion, which I'm sure is easily tracked down on the Internet. This video has inspired me to watch more of his talks. I found it disgusting that when he was suffering from oesophagal cancer that some religious folk put it down to God's punishment and were willing him to die. Add Daniel Dennett to that list and you have the Four Horsemen. It makes me smile that Hitchens was known as the Rebel of the four. |
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 14, 2017 13:43:38 GMT 1,
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 21:03:04 GMT 1,
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 16, 2017 16:19:58 GMT 1,
This post is for those who manage to get through the initial 5-minute pain barrier in the Competition 7 video, i.e. someone with a bad cold being long-winded while introducing a guest speaker.
If you enjoyed the lecture and Q&A session but are unfamiliar with Steven Pinker, there follows a bit of (extracurricular) information about the man โ excerpted from the introduction, Biography and Public debate sections of his Wikipedia page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker
Steven Arthur "Steve" Pinker (born September 18, 1954) is a Canadian-born American cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and popular science author. He is Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.
_____
About his Jewish background Pinker has said, "I was never religious in the theological sense ... I never outgrew my conversion to atheism at 13, but at various times was a serious cultural Jew." As a teenager, he says he considered himself an anarchist until he witnessed civil unrest following a police strike in 1969, when:
Pinker identifies himself as an equity feminist, which he defines as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology". He reported the result of a test of his political orientation that characterized him as "neither leftist nor rightist, more libertarian than authoritarian."
Pinker also identifies himself as an atheist. In the 2007 interview with the Point of Inquiry podcast, Pinker states that he would "defend atheism as an empirically supported view." He sees theism and atheism as competing empirical hypotheses, and states that "we're learning more and more about what makes us tick, including our moral sense, without needing the assumption of a deity or a soul. It's naturally getting crowded out by the successive naturalistic explanations."
_____
In January 2005, Pinker defended Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, whose comments about a gender gap in mathematics and science angered much of the faculty. Pinker noted that Summers's remarks, properly understood, were hypotheses about overlapping statistical distributions of men's and women's talents and tastes, and that in a university such hypotheses ought to be the subject of empirical testing rather than dogma and outrage.
Steven Pinker is also noted for having identified the rename of Phillip Morris to Altria as an "egregious example" of phonesthesia - with the company attempting to "switch its image from bad people who sell addictive carcinogens to a place or state marked by altruism and other lofty values".
This post is for those who manage to get through the initial 5-minute pain barrier in the Competition 7 video, i.e. someone with a bad cold being long-winded while introducing a guest speaker. If you enjoyed the lecture and Q&A session but are unfamiliar with Steven Pinker, there follows a bit of (extracurricular) information about the man โ excerpted from the introduction, Biography and Public debate sections of his Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_PinkerSteven Arthur "Steve" Pinker (born September 18, 1954) is a Canadian-born American cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and popular science author. He is Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and is known for his advocacy of evolutionary psychology and the computational theory of mind.
_____
About his Jewish background Pinker has said, "I was never religious in the theological sense ... I never outgrew my conversion to atheism at 13, but at various times was a serious cultural Jew." As a teenager, he says he considered himself an anarchist until he witnessed civil unrest following a police strike in 1969, when:
Pinker identifies himself as an equity feminist, which he defines as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology". He reported the result of a test of his political orientation that characterized him as "neither leftist nor rightist, more libertarian than authoritarian."
Pinker also identifies himself as an atheist. In the 2007 interview with the Point of Inquiry podcast, Pinker states that he would "defend atheism as an empirically supported view." He sees theism and atheism as competing empirical hypotheses, and states that "we're learning more and more about what makes us tick, including our moral sense, without needing the assumption of a deity or a soul. It's naturally getting crowded out by the successive naturalistic explanations."
_____
In January 2005, Pinker defended Lawrence Summers, president of Harvard University, whose comments about a gender gap in mathematics and science angered much of the faculty. Pinker noted that Summers's remarks, properly understood, were hypotheses about overlapping statistical distributions of men's and women's talents and tastes, and that in a university such hypotheses ought to be the subject of empirical testing rather than dogma and outrage.
Steven Pinker is also noted for having identified the rename of Phillip Morris to Altria as an "egregious example" of phonesthesia - with the company attempting to "switch its image from bad people who sell addictive carcinogens to a place or state marked by altruism and other lofty values". |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 16, 2017 22:00:00 GMT 1, COMPETITION 7 โ Monday, 13 March to Thursday, 16 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Thursday, 16 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 16, 17, 18 and 19Steven Pinker: Three Reasons to Affirm Free Speech (18 February 2015) [1:20:53] โ uploaded by Thomas Cushmanstevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/stevenpinkerfreedomprojectlecture.pdf
C7 QUESTIONS
Each time reference below is to the broad period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found.
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. [00:00โ30:00] One position advanced in the lecture is free speech being inseparable from the mission of higher education. A university should be a forum where ideas are studied, evaluated and debated. For Professor Pinker, among the things foreign to this mission is the idea that students are to be protected from something he describes as being:
(i) "another word for tolerance"; and
(ii) "the price we pay for living in a democracy and participating in the open exchange of ideas."
What specific word was Pinker referring to in (i) and (ii)?
2. [30:00โ1:00:00] Pinker is asked for his thoughts on possible reasons for the emergence over the last decade of terms and concepts like trigger warnings and microaggressions. He replies by stating he suspects that stifling political correctness comes from genuine liberation or rights movements having reached their decadent phase. In two or more sentences, describe what he's referring to by "decadent phase".
3. [1:00:00โend] During the Q&A session, someone plays devil's advocate by questioning the notion of free speech being fundamental. Pinker first challenges a claim made by that audience member (that people were happy hundreds of years ago). He then emphasises their common ground โ that it's "hard work to advance intellectually defensible ideas".
Pinker also refers to free speech in a sense succumbing to temptation and becoming a type of "intellectual junk food". In two or more sentences, explain what he means by this.
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).]
COMPETITION 7 โ Monday, 13 March to Thursday, 16 March 2017Three questions related to the video below will be posted on Thursday, 16 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 16, 17, 18 and 19Steven Pinker: Three Reasons to Affirm Free Speech (18 February 2015) [1:20:53] โ uploaded by Thomas Cushmanstevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/stevenpinkerfreedomprojectlecture.pdf Each time reference below is to the broad period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found. Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. [00:00โ30:00] One position advanced in the lecture is free speech being inseparable from the mission of higher education. A university should be a forum where ideas are studied, evaluated and debated. For Professor Pinker, among the things foreign to this mission is the idea that students are to be protected from something he describes as being: (i) "another word for tolerance"; and (ii) "the price we pay for living in a democracy and participating in the open exchange of ideas."What specific word was Pinker referring to in (i) and (ii)? 2. [30:00โ1:00:00] Pinker is asked for his thoughts on possible reasons for the emergence over the last decade of terms and concepts like trigger warnings and microaggressions. He replies by stating he suspects that stifling political correctness comes from genuine liberation or rights movements having reached their decadent phase. In two or more sentences, describe what he's referring to by "decadent phase". 3. [1:00:00โend] During the Q&A session, someone plays devil's advocate by questioning the notion of free speech being fundamental. Pinker first challenges a claim made by that audience member (that people were happy hundreds of years ago). He then emphasises their common ground โ that it's "hard work to advance intellectually defensible ideas". Pinker also refers to free speech in a sense succumbing to temptation and becoming a type of "intellectual junk food". In two or more sentences, explain what he means by this. [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).] |
|
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 16, 2017 22:01:34 GMT 1, Have guests over and struggling to get through vid tonight. There's so many great videos on this thread,good luck tonight.
Have guests over and struggling to get through vid tonight. There's so many great videos on this thread,good luck tonight.
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 16, 2017 23:02:13 GMT 1, 1. The word Pinker is referring to is 'discomfort'.
2. When he talks about the decadent phase he is referring to legitimate movements who, having once worked hard to remove the crude barriers by groups who were stigmatised and reached the majority of their goals, are now continuing to find obscure grievances to 'maintain their moral franchise'. This has led to what is known as 'political correctness'.
3. When he mentions 'intellectual junk food' he is explaining how it is intellectually lazy to be continuously surrounded by opinions/arguments of like-minded individuals. While it may 'feel good' it is actually not good for us intellectually.
1. The word Pinker is referring to is 'discomfort'.
2. When he talks about the decadent phase he is referring to legitimate movements who, having once worked hard to remove the crude barriers by groups who were stigmatised and reached the majority of their goals, are now continuing to find obscure grievances to 'maintain their moral franchise'. This has led to what is known as 'political correctness'.
3. When he mentions 'intellectual junk food' he is explaining how it is intellectually lazy to be continuously surrounded by opinions/arguments of like-minded individuals. While it may 'feel good' it is actually not good for us intellectually.
|
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 16, 2017 23:48:04 GMT 1, 1. The word Pinker is referring to is 'discomfort'. 2. When he talks about the decadent phase he is referring to legitimate movements who, having once worked hard to remove the crude barriers by groups who were stigmatised and reached the majority of their goals, are now continuing to find obscure grievances to 'maintain their moral franchise'. This has led to what is known as 'political correctness'. 3. When he mentions 'intellectual junk food' he is explaining how it is intellectually lazy to be continuously surrounded by opinions/arguments of like-minded individuals. While it may 'feel good' it is actually not good for us intellectually.
I was preparing myself to try and answer the questions after a few pints, but in a way glad to see doyle seems to of nailed it, as i'd of been more incoherent than normal.
Luckily i've totally run out of money so my social lifes over for a week or so, I'm gonna aim to get back to the winning way. Well done doyle , more lottety numbers than me now, right?
1. The word Pinker is referring to is 'discomfort'. 2. When he talks about the decadent phase he is referring to legitimate movements who, having once worked hard to remove the crude barriers by groups who were stigmatised and reached the majority of their goals, are now continuing to find obscure grievances to 'maintain their moral franchise'. This has led to what is known as 'political correctness'. 3. When he mentions 'intellectual junk food' he is explaining how it is intellectually lazy to be continuously surrounded by opinions/arguments of like-minded individuals. While it may 'feel good' it is actually not good for us intellectually. Damn! I was out too, i had a look at just before 10 and was really surprised to see noone had answered! I was preparing myself to try and answer the questions after a few pints, but in a way glad to see doyle seems to of nailed it, as i'd of been more incoherent than normal. Luckily i've totally run out of money so my social lifes over for a week or so, I'm gonna aim to get back to the winning way. Well done doyle , more lottety numbers than me now, right? |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 16, 2017 23:57:59 GMT 1, 1. The word Pinker is referring to is 'discomfort'. 2. When he talks about the decadent phase he is referring to legitimate movements who, having once worked hard to remove the crude barriers by groups who were stigmatised and reached the majority of their goals, are now continuing to find obscure grievances to 'maintain their moral franchise'. This has led to what is known as 'political correctness'. 3. When he mentions 'intellectual junk food' he is explaining how it is intellectually lazy to be continuously surrounded by opinions/arguments of like-minded individuals. While it may 'feel good' it is actually not good for us intellectually.
Lottery numbers 16, 17, 18 and 19 allocated to doyle. Excellent work. Congratulations.
C7 REFERENCE ANSWERS
Light edits have been made to the quotes for clarity.
1. Discomfort. [26:16โ26:44]
[Pinker: "A liberal education should make certain habits of rationality second nature. Educated people should be able to express complex ideas in clear writing and speech. They should appreciate that objective knowledge is a precious commodity, and know how to distinguish vetted fact from superstition, rumour, and unexamined conventional wisdom. They should know how to reason logically and statistically, avoiding the fallacies and biases to which the untutored mind is vulnerable. They should think causally rather than magically, and know what it takes to distinguish causation from correlation and coincidence. They should be acutely aware of human fallibility โ most notably their own โ and appreciate that people who disagree with them are not necessarily stupid or evil. Accordingly, they should appreciate the value of trying to change minds by persuasion rather than by intimidation or demagoguery.
I believe that the more deeply a society cultivates this mindset, the more it will flourish.
This also means, in my view, that we should resist periodic demands that a university should throw its symbolic weight behind some moral or political cause, by issuing affirmations of certain political beliefs, or boycotting or disinvesting in certain companies or countries. A university should be a forum in which ideas are to be studied, evaluated and debated. It has no mandate to ratify the beliefs of a subset of its constituents. Nor is it empowered to make symbolic statements, engage in political agitation, or implement economic pressure to advance those beliefs.
Equally foreign to the mission of a college or university is the idea that students are to be protected from discomfort โ or so-called microaggression โ when they are exposed to beliefs that differ from theirs. Or when the university does not accede to demands that it prosecute their moral or political crusades. Discomfort is another word for tolerance. It's the price we pay for living in a democracy and participating in the open exchange of ideas." [24:28โ26:44]]
2. Pinker argues that what starts out as defensible and desirable moral movements go too far after achieving the majority of their goals. Once they become successful, they do not disband. Instead, such movements find "increasingly obscure grievances and causes to retain their moral franchise" โ which Pinker describes as their decadent phase. He suspects this is what happened to current political correctness, of which many aspects were understandable and reasonable in their original moderate form. [44:04โ48:14]
[Pinker: "I actually haven't studied the history of this myself, so I'm relying on my own recollection, having lived through it.
A lot of these are outgrowths of movements that originally were completely legitimate. Like when I was a child, even a teenager, it was perfectly acceptable to tell ethnic jokes. You could hear them on the radio. Polish jokes, for example. And before my time, I guess when I was a child, African Americans were excluded from campuses. Women were the butt of sexual insults and jokes when they did set foot on a campus, like MIT. And there was a legitimate movement to remove these kinds of crude barriers to full participation of stigmatised groups. Gay people as well. Those of us above the age of 50 can remember limp-wrist jokes and lisping imitations of gay people and so on.
And so there was some increase in decency that made those kinds of demeaning remarks and discriminatory policies no longer acceptable. But often movements kind of reach their decadent phase where, having achieved the majority of their goals, having picked the low-hanging fruit, they don't go out of business. But they need to find increasingly obscure grievances and causes to retain their moral franchise. And I suspect that's what happened to what we now call "political correctness" โ many aspects of which, in their original moderate form, were completely reasonable.
I talk about this a little bit in 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' in talking about the various rights revolutions that began with the Civil Rights revolution that began in the late 50s. Time after time you see what starts out as an understandable and defensible and desirable moral movement just go completely overboard, having achieved its major goal.
Another example โ which doesn't involve political correctness but involves another kind of madness โ is our treatment of children. Those of us who've read 'Oliver Twist' know how children used to be treated in the 19th century: they were put to work as coal miners, as chimney sweeps, and starved in orphanages, and so on. Then there was a kind of children's rights revolution where children were treated, in the words of one economist, as "economically worthless, emotionally priceless". So that's our new understanding of children, as opposed to economic resources to be exploited. And that led to a lot of great reforms: child labour laws, compulsory education, and child welfare agencies. It led to a reduction of corporal punishment of children, of spanking. It led to a greater attention to children's safety โ like car seats, and not exposing kids to second-hand smoke or playground equipment that led to fractured skulls. But now we've gotten to the point, as any parent knows โ in fact, as any grown-up child knows โ where parents won't let children out of their sight, where kids can't walk to school, where they can't play by themselves in the playground... out of fear that they might fall, or get insulted, or get abducted by sex perverts. All of it totally out of proportion to any assessment of the objective risks. But the hyper parenting movement is an example of a progressive trend that just went too far.
And I suspect that a lot of the stifling political correctness comes from genuine liberation movements and rights movements that also went too far." [43:45โ48:14]]
3. By free speech succumbing to temptation, Pinker is referring to the temptation of what is pleasant, easy, and requires less intellectual work (cognitive ease, anyone?) โ i.e. surrounding ourselves with people who share the same or very similar views, echo-chamber style. He refers to this as intellectual junk food because, intellectually, it is both lazy and bad for us. [1:03:50โ1:04:22]
[Pinker: "But I agree with you that it is hard work to advance intellectually defensible ideas. I see that as one of the reasons to favour free speech. Namely, it's easy to fall back on comfortable groupthink if you can wall off uncongenial opinions. I see this in myself: It's really enjoyable to read something that agrees with you. And it's really annoying to read someone who disagrees with you, especially if they have a good argument.
So the challenge โ and again this is part of the mission of higher education โ is to get people used to the idea that some unpleasant things are very, very good. Including hearing the opinions of people you disagree with.
In the same sense that working out on a treadmill, and favouring broiled fish over pizzaโฆ Pizza tastes really good, but we can exert the self-control not to eat too much of it, sometimes. And so, just being with like-minded ideologues also feels really good. But an enlightened, educated person knows that you should avoid the temptation. And in a sense free speech is kind of intellectual junk food. It's kind of succumbing to the temptation to make life pleasant, by being intellectually lazy and only hearing from people you agree with. And I agree it feels really good. But then we can all realise that it's not very good for us โ and so push back." [1:02:46โ1:04:22]]
_____________________________
Additional reply by Pinker, when asked for his thoughts on the intolerance to other viewpoints (at a level compared to religious fundamentalism) โ and a lack of self-awareness of this fact โ that sometimes manifests itself in the left-leaning academic sphere:
"I agree with you, it's a scandal. And I occasionally have friends who are not in universities, who say kind of ironically, "I don't know how you can stand it at a university. You just can't say anything you want. You always have to walk on eggshells out of fear of expressing some dangerous opinion." [...]
This is a tremendous irony. The reason taxpayers and alumni support these institutions is that it's considered a social good for ideas to be thrown out, evaluated, and the bad ones criticised.
There is certainly political correctness on the right. But because surveys show that, overwhelmingly, professors and students at the elite colleges and universities lean quite leftward, the left-wing brand of intolerance is more acute, at least in these forums. I think the right-wing version is more of a problem in government and in certain broadcast media, where there's also intolerance for discordant beliefs. But here on our own turf, we have to be concerned with the version that, for no particularly good reason, tends to be associated with the left.
It's a disappointing and sad commentary that free speech has gotten the brand of a right-wing issue. Now, why should that be? By definition, it's just free speech, whether it's from the right or from the left. But people who defend and extoll free speech tend to be branded as right-wingers because of this ironic intolerance.
I sometimes refer to the mythical place called the Left Pole. Just as when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south, the Left Pole is the mythical spot from which all directions are right. So any opinion that does not conform to this orthodoxy is branded a right-wing opinion โ including people who are by no stretch of the imagination ideologues of any sort, including right-wing ideologues.
I know you recently had Christina Hoff Sommers [author, former philosophy professor, and equity feminist known for her critique of contemporary feminism] speaking in this same forum. And she's often branded as someone on the right โ even though there's nothing particularly right-wing about her, other than the fact that she disagrees with a particular kind of orthodoxy.
So that is I think to our shame as academics, scholars and professors that free speech should itself be politicised, when it should be prior to any political discussion in the first place." [28:36โ32:29]
1. The word Pinker is referring to is 'discomfort'. 2. When he talks about the decadent phase he is referring to legitimate movements who, having once worked hard to remove the crude barriers by groups who were stigmatised and reached the majority of their goals, are now continuing to find obscure grievances to 'maintain their moral franchise'. This has led to what is known as 'political correctness'. 3. When he mentions 'intellectual junk food' he is explaining how it is intellectually lazy to be continuously surrounded by opinions/arguments of like-minded individuals. While it may 'feel good' it is actually not good for us intellectually. Lottery numbers 16, 17, 18 and 19 allocated to doyle. Excellent work. Congratulations. C7 REFERENCE ANSWERSLight edits have been made to the quotes for clarity. 1. Discomfort. [26:16โ26:44] [Pinker: "A liberal education should make certain habits of rationality second nature. Educated people should be able to express complex ideas in clear writing and speech. They should appreciate that objective knowledge is a precious commodity, and know how to distinguish vetted fact from superstition, rumour, and unexamined conventional wisdom. They should know how to reason logically and statistically, avoiding the fallacies and biases to which the untutored mind is vulnerable. They should think causally rather than magically, and know what it takes to distinguish causation from correlation and coincidence. They should be acutely aware of human fallibility โ most notably their own โ and appreciate that people who disagree with them are not necessarily stupid or evil. Accordingly, they should appreciate the value of trying to change minds by persuasion rather than by intimidation or demagoguery.I believe that the more deeply a society cultivates this mindset, the more it will flourish.This also means, in my view, that we should resist periodic demands that a university should throw its symbolic weight behind some moral or political cause, by issuing affirmations of certain political beliefs, or boycotting or disinvesting in certain companies or countries. A university should be a forum in which ideas are to be studied, evaluated and debated. It has no mandate to ratify the beliefs of a subset of its constituents. Nor is it empowered to make symbolic statements, engage in political agitation, or implement economic pressure to advance those beliefs. Equally foreign to the mission of a college or university is the idea that students are to be protected from discomfort โ or so-called microaggression โ when they are exposed to beliefs that differ from theirs. Or when the university does not accede to demands that it prosecute their moral or political crusades. Discomfort is another word for tolerance. It's the price we pay for living in a democracy and participating in the open exchange of ideas." [24:28โ26:44]]2. Pinker argues that what starts out as defensible and desirable moral movements go too far after achieving the majority of their goals. Once they become successful, they do not disband. Instead, such movements find "increasingly obscure grievances and causes to retain their moral franchise" โ which Pinker describes as their decadent phase. He suspects this is what happened to current political correctness, of which many aspects were understandable and reasonable in their original moderate form. [44:04โ48:14] [Pinker: "I actually haven't studied the history of this myself, so I'm relying on my own recollection, having lived through it.A lot of these are outgrowths of movements that originally were completely legitimate. Like when I was a child, even a teenager, it was perfectly acceptable to tell ethnic jokes. You could hear them on the radio. Polish jokes, for example. And before my time, I guess when I was a child, African Americans were excluded from campuses. Women were the butt of sexual insults and jokes when they did set foot on a campus, like MIT. And there was a legitimate movement to remove these kinds of crude barriers to full participation of stigmatised groups. Gay people as well. Those of us above the age of 50 can remember limp-wrist jokes and lisping imitations of gay people and so on.And so there was some increase in decency that made those kinds of demeaning remarks and discriminatory policies no longer acceptable. But often movements kind of reach their decadent phase where, having achieved the majority of their goals, having picked the low-hanging fruit, they don't go out of business. But they need to find increasingly obscure grievances and causes to retain their moral franchise. And I suspect that's what happened to what we now call "political correctness" โ many aspects of which, in their original moderate form, were completely reasonable.I talk about this a little bit in 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' in talking about the various rights revolutions that began with the Civil Rights revolution that began in the late 50s. Time after time you see what starts out as an understandable and defensible and desirable moral movement just go completely overboard, having achieved its major goal.Another example โ which doesn't involve political correctness but involves another kind of madness โ is our treatment of children. Those of us who've read 'Oliver Twist' know how children used to be treated in the 19th century: they were put to work as coal miners, as chimney sweeps, and starved in orphanages, and so on. Then there was a kind of children's rights revolution where children were treated, in the words of one economist, as "economically worthless, emotionally priceless". So that's our new understanding of children, as opposed to economic resources to be exploited. And that led to a lot of great reforms: child labour laws, compulsory education, and child welfare agencies. It led to a reduction of corporal punishment of children, of spanking. It led to a greater attention to children's safety โ like car seats, and not exposing kids to second-hand smoke or playground equipment that led to fractured skulls. But now we've gotten to the point, as any parent knows โ in fact, as any grown-up child knows โ where parents won't let children out of their sight, where kids can't walk to school, where they can't play by themselves in the playground... out of fear that they might fall, or get insulted, or get abducted by sex perverts. All of it totally out of proportion to any assessment of the objective risks. But the hyper parenting movement is an example of a progressive trend that just went too far.And I suspect that a lot of the stifling political correctness comes from genuine liberation movements and rights movements that also went too far." [43:45โ48:14]]3. By free speech succumbing to temptation, Pinker is referring to the temptation of what is pleasant, easy, and requires less intellectual work (cognitive ease, anyone?) โ i.e. surrounding ourselves with people who share the same or very similar views, echo-chamber style. He refers to this as intellectual junk food because, intellectually, it is both lazy and bad for us. [1:03:50โ1:04:22] [Pinker: "But I agree with you that it is hard work to advance intellectually defensible ideas. I see that as one of the reasons to favour free speech. Namely, it's easy to fall back on comfortable groupthink if you can wall off uncongenial opinions. I see this in myself: It's really enjoyable to read something that agrees with you. And it's really annoying to read someone who disagrees with you, especially if they have a good argument. So the challenge โ and again this is part of the mission of higher education โ is to get people used to the idea that some unpleasant things are very, very good. Including hearing the opinions of people you disagree with.In the same sense that working out on a treadmill, and favouring broiled fish over pizzaโฆ Pizza tastes really good, but we can exert the self-control not to eat too much of it, sometimes. And so, just being with like-minded ideologues also feels really good. But an enlightened, educated person knows that you should avoid the temptation. And in a sense free speech is kind of intellectual junk food. It's kind of succumbing to the temptation to make life pleasant, by being intellectually lazy and only hearing from people you agree with. And I agree it feels really good. But then we can all realise that it's not very good for us โ and so push back." [1:02:46โ1:04:22]]_____________________________ Additional reply by Pinker, when asked for his thoughts on the intolerance to other viewpoints (at a level compared to religious fundamentalism) โ and a lack of self-awareness of this fact โ that sometimes manifests itself in the left-leaning academic sphere: "I agree with you, it's a scandal. And I occasionally have friends who are not in universities, who say kind of ironically, "I don't know how you can stand it at a university. You just can't say anything you want. You always have to walk on eggshells out of fear of expressing some dangerous opinion." [...]
This is a tremendous irony. The reason taxpayers and alumni support these institutions is that it's considered a social good for ideas to be thrown out, evaluated, and the bad ones criticised.
There is certainly political correctness on the right. But because surveys show that, overwhelmingly, professors and students at the elite colleges and universities lean quite leftward, the left-wing brand of intolerance is more acute, at least in these forums. I think the right-wing version is more of a problem in government and in certain broadcast media, where there's also intolerance for discordant beliefs. But here on our own turf, we have to be concerned with the version that, for no particularly good reason, tends to be associated with the left.
It's a disappointing and sad commentary that free speech has gotten the brand of a right-wing issue. Now, why should that be? By definition, it's just free speech, whether it's from the right or from the left. But people who defend and extoll free speech tend to be branded as right-wingers because of this ironic intolerance.
I sometimes refer to the mythical place called the Left Pole. Just as when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south, the Left Pole is the mythical spot from which all directions are right. So any opinion that does not conform to this orthodoxy is branded a right-wing opinion โ including people who are by no stretch of the imagination ideologues of any sort, including right-wing ideologues.
I know you recently had Christina Hoff Sommers [author, former philosophy professor, and equity feminist known for her critique of contemporary feminism] speaking in this same forum. And she's often branded as someone on the right โ even though there's nothing particularly right-wing about her, other than the fact that she disagrees with a particular kind of orthodoxy.
So that is I think to our shame as academics, scholars and professors that free speech should itself be politicised, when it should be prior to any political discussion in the first place." [28:36โ32:29] |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 17, 2017 0:16:27 GMT 1,
To forum members not participating in the game, are the videos uninteresting? Maybe too long?
If so, I quite like the Peak-End Effect video posted here with the C2 Reference Answers. Only five minutes, and it's a good watch.
_____________________________
COMPETITION 8 โ Thursday, 16 March to Sunday, 19 March 2017
Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Sunday, 19 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof).
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following five lottery numbers: 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24
Ayaan Hirsi Ali with Maajid Nawaz โ Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Series (JW3 / Jewish Community Centre London, 23 February 2016) [1:14:42]
โ uploaded by The Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Series
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz
Sarah Haider: Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique (AHA Conference 2015) (American Humanist Association 74th Annual Conference, 7โ10 May 2015, in Denver, Colorado) [38:41]
โ uploaded by American Humanist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Muslims_of_North_America
To forum members not participating in the game, are the videos uninteresting? Maybe too long? If so, I quite like the Peak-End Effect video posted here with the C2 Reference Answers. Only five minutes, and it's a good watch. _____________________________ COMPETITION 8 โ Thursday, 16 March to Sunday, 19 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Sunday, 19 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following five lottery numbers: 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24Ayaan Hirsi Ali with Maajid Nawaz โ Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Series (JW3 / Jewish Community Centre London, 23 February 2016) [1:14:42] โ uploaded by The Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Seriesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Alien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_NawazSarah Haider: Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique (AHA Conference 2015) (American Humanist Association 74th Annual Conference, 7โ10 May 2015, in Denver, Colorado) [38:41] โ uploaded by American Humanisten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Muslims_of_North_America |
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 17, 2017 0:17:00 GMT 1, Thanks ed you're still killing it right now 
Thanks also to met for compiling this competition.
Thanks ed you're still killing it right now Thanks also to met for compiling this competition. |
|
|
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Schrรถdinger's Chat on Mar 17, 2017 6:44:56 GMT 1, Hi Met, can't speak for anyone else but for me most of the videos have been really interesting. The challenge I have is that my life is crazy busy except for my commute, but on my commute I can only watch or listen to things that I can download (I can't stream anything). Some of the films were downloadable from Netflix so were easy to watch, but long YouTube videos (for example) not so easy for me.
Hi Met, can't speak for anyone else but for me most of the videos have been really interesting. The challenge I have is that my life is crazy busy except for my commute, but on my commute I can only watch or listen to things that I can download (I can't stream anything). Some of the films were downloadable from Netflix so were easy to watch, but long YouTube videos (for example) not so easy for me.
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 17, 2017 20:18:14 GMT 1, Hi Met, can't speak for anyone else but for me most of the videos have been really interesting. The challenge I have is that my life is crazy busy except for my commute, but on my commute I can only watch or listen to things that I can download (I can't stream anything). Some of the films were downloadable from Netflix so were easy to watch, but long YouTube videos (for example) not so easy for me.
Thank you for letting me know.
Although I'm largely relying on YouTube, Competition 9 (Sunday, 19 March to Wednesday, 22 March) and Competition 10 (Wednesday, 22 March to Saturday, 25 March) will be podcasts that can also be downloaded from SoundCloud.
I will make sure to include the SoundCloud links when posting on Sunday and Wednesday.
Hi Met, can't speak for anyone else but for me most of the videos have been really interesting. The challenge I have is that my life is crazy busy except for my commute, but on my commute I can only watch or listen to things that I can download (I can't stream anything). Some of the films were downloadable from Netflix so were easy to watch, but long YouTube videos (for example) not so easy for me. Thank you for letting me know. Although I'm largely relying on YouTube, Competition 9 (Sunday, 19 March to Wednesday, 22 March) and Competition 10 (Wednesday, 22 March to Saturday, 25 March) will be podcasts that can also be downloaded from SoundCloud. I will make sure to include the SoundCloud links when posting on Sunday and Wednesday. |
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 1:24:33 GMT 1, The videos are great and the thread a form of mind yoga. From the quiz to the videos it would make a great one week course where people would benefit from the experience.
Being able to debate or converse logically with others is good but often debating with people who are not honest or have an agenda can be a waste of time and especially with corrupt officials and similar people.
Liberalism and religion is a label used by many for non liberal and dishonest ends
People will either accept that pandering to religion does more harm than good in the long run or they won't and then blame others for the opression. Religious freedom is not freedom.
"Dominic Lawson: Nationalism has its roots in socialism as well as fascism"
www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-nationalism-has-its-roots-in-socialism-as-well-as-fascism-1543648.html
The videos are great and the thread a form of mind yoga. From the quiz to the videos it would make a great one week course where people would benefit from the experience. Being able to debate or converse logically with others is good but often debating with people who are not honest or have an agenda can be a waste of time and especially with corrupt officials and similar people. Liberalism and religion is a label used by many for non liberal and dishonest ends People will either accept that pandering to religion does more harm than good in the long run or they won't and then blame others for the opression. Religious freedom is not freedom. "Dominic Lawson: Nationalism has its roots in socialism as well as fascism"
www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-nationalism-has-its-roots-in-socialism-as-well-as-fascism-1543648.html
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 19, 2017 21:04:04 GMT 1, Next competition coming up... anyone who wants a break from recent threads should come on board
Next competition coming up... anyone who wants a break from recent threads should come on board
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 19, 2017 22:00:00 GMT 1, [...] _____________________________ COMPETITION 8 โ Thursday, 16 March to Sunday, 19 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Sunday, 19 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following five lottery numbers: 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24Ayaan Hirsi Ali with Maajid Nawaz โ Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Series (JW3 / Jewish Community Centre London, 23 February 2016) [1:14:42] โ uploaded by The Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Seriesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Alien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_NawazSarah Haider: Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique (AHA Conference 2015) (American Humanist Association 74th Annual Conference, 7โ10 May 2015, in Denver, Colorado) [38:41] โ uploaded by American Humanisten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Muslims_of_North_America
C8 QUESTIONS
Each time reference below is to the half-hour period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found.
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. First video: [0:00โ30:00] During the conversation, Ayaan Hirsi Ali refers to people living in the West being used to framing political and cultural matters as left-wing or right-wing. But with big civilisational issues like Islamism and jihadism, Hirsi Ali argues such a narrow framework is unsuitable. It results in the left accusing those who disagree with them of being racist, and the far right expressing themselves only in nationalistic terms. She states this impedes helpful discussion while an "enormous tsunami of problems" is coming our way.
Maajid Nawaz says he calls that the "triple-threat" in Europe. The first threat is the far right. The second threat is Islamism (which he defines as the desire to impose a version of Islam over society, i.e. a theocracy). What expression does Nawaz use to describe the third threat, and how does he define it?
2. First video: [0:00โ30:00] Early in the discussion, Nawaz states, "as Muslims, as Muslim communities, we have to get used to the fact that people will criticise the idea called Islam. Which is very different to picking on individual Muslims, which I call anti-Muslim bigotry." He adds that he's often said, "No idea should ever be above scrutiny. And no people, and no person should be beneath dignity."
Later on, Nawaz refers to his concern about multiple polls and surveys that have gauged the opinions of British Muslims, which demonstrate what he sees as "a very worrying trend". He cites the statistics as being the reason for his own thinking having evolved, for his involvement with Quilliam (a counter-extremism think tank), and why he believes Islam as a religion requires reform. Give one of the example statistics that Nawaz cited.
3. Second video: [0:00โ30:00] As an apostate, Sarah Haider says she always expected feeling unwelcome when speaking to Muslim audiences. But she never anticipated receiving an equal amount of hostility from her allies on the political left. When considering why many on the left shy away from criticising Islam, she offers different possible reasons. Describe one of those reasons along with Haider's argument against it.
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).]
[...] _____________________________ COMPETITION 8 โ Thursday, 16 March to Sunday, 19 March 2017Three questions related to the videos below will be posted on Sunday, 19 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof). The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following five lottery numbers: 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24Ayaan Hirsi Ali with Maajid Nawaz โ Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Series (JW3 / Jewish Community Centre London, 23 February 2016) [1:14:42] โ uploaded by The Alan Howard Foundation / JW3 Speaker Seriesen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Alien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_NawazSarah Haider: Islam and the Necessity of Liberal Critique (AHA Conference 2015) (American Humanist Association 74th Annual Conference, 7โ10 May 2015, in Denver, Colorado) [38:41] โ uploaded by American Humanisten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-Muslims_of_North_AmericaEach time reference below is to the half-hour period in the video where the answer to the relevant question can be found. Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. First video: [0:00โ30:00] During the conversation, Ayaan Hirsi Ali refers to people living in the West being used to framing political and cultural matters as left-wing or right-wing. But with big civilisational issues like Islamism and jihadism, Hirsi Ali argues such a narrow framework is unsuitable. It results in the left accusing those who disagree with them of being racist, and the far right expressing themselves only in nationalistic terms. She states this impedes helpful discussion while an "enormous tsunami of problems" is coming our way. Maajid Nawaz says he calls that the "triple-threat" in Europe. The first threat is the far right. The second threat is Islamism (which he defines as the desire to impose a version of Islam over society, i.e. a theocracy). What expression does Nawaz use to describe the third threat, and how does he define it? 2. First video: [0:00โ30:00] Early in the discussion, Nawaz states, "as Muslims, as Muslim communities, we have to get used to the fact that people will criticise the idea called Islam. Which is very different to picking on individual Muslims, which I call anti-Muslim bigotry." He adds that he's often said, "No idea should ever be above scrutiny. And no people, and no person should be beneath dignity."Later on, Nawaz refers to his concern about multiple polls and surveys that have gauged the opinions of British Muslims, which demonstrate what he sees as "a very worrying trend". He cites the statistics as being the reason for his own thinking having evolved, for his involvement with Quilliam (a counter-extremism think tank), and why he believes Islam as a religion requires reform. Give one of the example statistics that Nawaz cited. 3. Second video: [0:00โ30:00] As an apostate, Sarah Haider says she always expected feeling unwelcome when speaking to Muslim audiences. But she never anticipated receiving an equal amount of hostility from her allies on the political left. When considering why many on the left shy away from criticising Islam, she offers different possible reasons. Describe one of those reasons along with Haider's argument against it. [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).] |
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 19, 2017 22:35:43 GMT 1, 1.Nawaz uses the term 'regressive left' to describe the third threat in Europe. It is a section of the left who in the name of being very PC and a believer of multiculturalism, would prefer to silence debate rather than engage in dialogue, especially of the minotities within the minorities part of the Muslim world.
2. Nawaz states as one of the statics that of the British muslims in the UK, 0% do not tolerate homosexuality. In addition, one third welcome the return of the Caliphate. In this modern day and age he finds extremely worrying.
3. Haider states one of the reasons the left shy away from critiquing Islam is that they are likely to be potion-holed and in such a way that ignores what they are actually trying to say and debate and question. So whilst it may be ok to criticise Christianity and it is welcomed, it is not welcomed to be critical of Islam. Her argument is also that in her experience as a critique of the religion, she has also been pigeon-holed and instead of her arguments being debated, instead they have questioned her motives and called her a 'native informant' a term she is absolutely appalled by as it brands her a traitor when what she is trying to to is great ea dialogue and platform for debate without threats.
1.Nawaz uses the term 'regressive left' to describe the third threat in Europe. It is a section of the left who in the name of being very PC and a believer of multiculturalism, would prefer to silence debate rather than engage in dialogue, especially of the minotities within the minorities part of the Muslim world.
2. Nawaz states as one of the statics that of the British muslims in the UK, 0% do not tolerate homosexuality. In addition, one third welcome the return of the Caliphate. In this modern day and age he finds extremely worrying.
3. Haider states one of the reasons the left shy away from critiquing Islam is that they are likely to be potion-holed and in such a way that ignores what they are actually trying to say and debate and question. So whilst it may be ok to criticise Christianity and it is welcomed, it is not welcomed to be critical of Islam. Her argument is also that in her experience as a critique of the religion, she has also been pigeon-holed and instead of her arguments being debated, instead they have questioned her motives and called her a 'native informant' a term she is absolutely appalled by as it brands her a traitor when what she is trying to to is great ea dialogue and platform for debate without threats.
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 20, 2017 0:07:24 GMT 1, 1.Nawaz uses the term 'regressive left' to describe the third threat in Europe. It is a section of the left who in the name of being very PC and a believer of multiculturalism, would prefer to silence debate rather than engage in dialogue, especially of the minotities within the minorities part of the Muslim world. 2. Nawaz states as one of the statics that of the British muslims in the UK, 0% do not tolerate homosexuality. In addition, one third welcome the return of the Caliphate. In this modern day and age he finds extremely worrying. 3. Haider states one of the reasons the left shy away from critiquing Islam is that they are likely to be potion-holed and in such a way that ignores what they are actually trying to say and debate and question. So whilst it may be ok to criticise Christianity and it is welcomed, it is not welcomed to be critical of Islam. Her argument is also that in her experience as a critique of the religion, she has also been pigeon-holed and instead of her arguments being debated, instead they have questioned her motives and called her a 'native informant' a term she is absolutely appalled by as it brands her a traitor when what she is trying to to is great ea dialogue and platform for debate without threats.
Lottery numbers 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 allocated to doyle. Congratulations. Over the course of just a few days, the game suddenly changes.
C8 REFERENCE ANSWERS
Light edits have been made to the quotes for clarity.
1. The "regressive left".
Maajid Nawaz describes this as a section of the left who โ in the name of respecting cultural diversity, multiculturalism, political correctness, antiracism, and/or challenging Islamophobia โ would prefer to silence and shut down debate rather than risk offending people from minority ethnic backgrounds.
[Nawaz: "I call that the triple-threat in Europe. I talk about the threat of the populist and the far right. I talk about the threat of Islamism. And I talk about the threat of what I call the regressive left.
What I mean by "the regressive left"... Both you and I have fallen prey to their insidious means. And it's a section of the left who, in the name of respecting cultural diversity, in the name of multiculturalism, in the name of political correctness, in the name of antiracism, in the name of challenging Islamophobia, would prefer โ it's almost an authoritarian response โ would prefer to silence and shut down debate than offend communities from, people that are from minority ethnic backgrounds.
The reason I'm focusing on these guys by the way is I expect, I've grown up... Neo-Nazis have chased me in Essex with hammers and knives and have stabbed my friends... I am used to neo-Nazis not liking me. And of course, I know Islamists intimately. I know they won't like me; I know they consider me a traitor to their cause.
What I didn't expect when we first founded Quilliam was that those who pander to universalist rhetoric, talk about human rights and the principles you've talk about, the importance of free speech... I didn't expect them to turn, on you and me, in the way that they have.
And I emphasise it's a section within the left, so I call them the regressive left. But they often in the name of these things (antiracism, cultural tolerance and diversity) have decided... And I call it "the bigotry of low expectations"... They have decided to not just tolerate but champion all forms of bigotry when it comes from minority-community contexts, and silence those who within those minorities are themselves minorities. The minorities within the minority communities: the ex-Muslims, the feminist Muslims, the liberal Muslims, the minority sects like the Ahmadiyya community...
There are a whole bunch of minorities within Muslim-community contexts who are attempting to challenge the hegemony. But the regressive left says, "What do the Muslims think?" And, if you're not speaking in that way, well, "You're not speaking the way the Muslims are meant to be speaking. So you must be either Islamophobic or racistโฆ"
I mean, have you been called a racist ever? I have!" [13:20โ15:37]]
2. Example statistics cited by Nawaz:
(i) 0% of British Muslims have expressed any sympathy to homosexuality.
(ii) A third expressed sympathy to the Charlie Hebdo killings.
(iii) A third expressed sympathy for the notion of resurrecting a caliphate.
[Nawaz [to Hirsi Ali]: "The statement you've just made about Muslim culture, often people have accused you of generalising. So I want to give some statistics of Britain, because we're obviously in London. And I think the stats in themselves, in survey after survey, speak to this truth, which is why my own thinking evolved. When we first met, I was arguing Islam is a religion of peace. I now advocate very openly that it's neither a religion of peace nor war, or it's both โ because it's interpreted in many ways. And so how we judge it today is how Muslims respond to their scripture today.
So some stats. And this is in multiple surveys where polling companies have gauged opinion of British Muslims. It's the reason I'm so concerned, and why we do what we do [at Quilliam]: 0% of British Muslims have expressed any sympathy to homosexuality. A third, when polled in a different survey, expressed sympathy to the Charlie Hebdo killings. A third also expressed sympathy for the notion of resurrecting a caliphate.
You know, and when we talk about these numbers, give or take a few 0.01% margin of error, 0% expressing no toleration for homosexuality is a serious concern. When we have ISIS throwing gays off the top of buildings, a third romanticising the resurrection of a caliphate, it should be concerning to us. [โฆ] Any notion of the resurrection of a theocracy in the modern day and age cannot be good for civilisation. [...]
Currently, with the snapshot in time that we can survey at the moment, the statistics demonstrate a worrying trend, a very worrying trend. And what I've often said is that whereas Islamism needs to be intellectually terminated, Islam today, as the religion, requires reform.
And so we're dealing with a twin challenge of the absolute necessity to completely, totally, civilisationally destroy Islamism the ideology โ and that's the desire to impose a version of Islam on society. But on top of that, the vast majority of Muslims who may not be Islamists, still, the understanding of Islam that they have โ as demonstrated by statistics and polls and surveys โ isn't where I'm comfortable with. And that's because, for whatever reason, that reform process... we may be going through it, but it hasn't completed." [19:55โ23:06]]
3. Possible reasons put forward by Sarah Haider for why it's difficult for many on the left to criticise Islam [17:48โ25:08]:
(i) Many are simply incapable of separating the criticism of an idea with a hate directed towards a people.
[Haider: "I believe that the primary reason is that many are simply incapable of separating the criticism of an idea with a hate directed towards a people โ and immediately call the first, racism. That idea should not be entertained for very long. As if there can be no valid reasons to critique an ideology rooted in 7th century patriarchal norms, except for hatred toward the very people imprisoned by those ideologies.
There are people who use the phrase "Islamophobia" both to mean criticism of the people and of the religion. I know that many Muslims do this. It's an easy way of stopping others from criticising their religion. But I believe many in the West use this word because they haven't quite thought of why it might be harmful. "Islamophobia" is a meaningless term. It serves to confuse and to muddle two very different forms of intolerance, based on two very different reasons, towards which there should be two very different reactions."]
(ii) The belief that critique of a religion is critique of the identity of the believer, and is therefore bigotry.
[Haider: "Sometimes it is claimed that critique of religion is critique of the identity of the believer, and is therefore bigotry: "This person's identity happens to be based on their ideology. So if you criticise their ideology, you are necessarily generating hate towards that person." But I wonder what would happen if we applied this type of thinking to everything. What if New Agers decided that criticism of New Age spiritual healing was a form of hate against people who chose to identify that way? What if Hindus decided criticism against the caste system was a deeply offensive form of racism against Hindu people? How much of that would retard reform?"]
(iii) The belief that criticism or ridicule of Islam feeds into the bigotry by the far right.
[Haider: "There's another version of this argument which claims that criticism or ridicule of Islam feeds into the bigotry by the far right, and therefore causes harm. And I want everyone to note that the argument is almost never that Islam doesn't deserve the critique or ridicule as a religion, but it is harmful to voice it for the damage that it would do.
Now, one of the writers who opposed the award for Charlie Hebdo [the Freedom of Expression Courage Award by the American centre of PEN, the international writer's organisation] claimed that, "the narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders, of white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists, is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our governments to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East." The "narrative" of the Charlie Hebdo murders. I read that statement and I realised that for some writers the problem wasn't just that the cartoons were offensive. It was that the reaction by Muslims to the cartoons fed into a stereotypical Muslim trope โ a reaction that was very inconvenient for a group trying their best to paint a picture of a peaceful Islam, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
It's quite clear that allegiances here aren't to the truth. Instead, the aim is to selectively hide inconvenient truths โ truths that are deemed to be harmful should they ever be acknowledged.
I assume the fear is that we do not want to give support to actual bigoted people. Anyone who watches Fox knows how they use fear-mongering tactics to promote xenophobia. But the liberation of a billion and a half Muslims in the world, Muslims who are suffering under the yoke of an ever-present theological authority, should be at the forefront of our minds. As has been repeated hundreds of times by critics like myself, the primary victims of Islamism are Muslims. Be it in terms of terrorism, violence, misogyny, freedom of expression and religion, and economic decline. Yet, bizarrely, to some, these concerns are secondary still to not presenting offence."]
(iv) The belief that people in the West have no right to speak about the problems of "brown cultures", due to the legacy of colonialism and other forms of violence the West has cast upon the East.
[See video for Haider's rebuttal of this position.]
[Haider: "The moral paralysis out of fear of the right, out of fear of furthering bigotry, out of shame of prior crimes committed by other white people, should not trump all considerations.
When I read articles about why Muslims shouldn't be ridiculed, I get a sense of condescension. A sense that there are those who believe that the most central trait of brown people is their religion โ a defining feature in fact. And due to this they presume that either we won't reform or we can't, that religion is something inherent to what we are, and that it won't respond to pressure to change the way Christianity responded to pressure by secularists.
While they believe themselves to be supporting tolerance, what they're actually supporting is the religious right of the East. And not just any religious right, not the religious right we have here [in the United States]. It's a religious right the West hasn't seen for centuries.
To me, someone who opposes the most foundational liberal principle โ the freedom of expression โ in order to protect the sensibilities of this Islamist religious right is a liberal only in name.
In fact, what kind of person holds two different groups of people accountable to two different standards of acceptable behaviour, but a bigot?"]
1.Nawaz uses the term 'regressive left' to describe the third threat in Europe. It is a section of the left who in the name of being very PC and a believer of multiculturalism, would prefer to silence debate rather than engage in dialogue, especially of the minotities within the minorities part of the Muslim world. 2. Nawaz states as one of the statics that of the British muslims in the UK, 0% do not tolerate homosexuality. In addition, one third welcome the return of the Caliphate. In this modern day and age he finds extremely worrying. 3. Haider states one of the reasons the left shy away from critiquing Islam is that they are likely to be potion-holed and in such a way that ignores what they are actually trying to say and debate and question. So whilst it may be ok to criticise Christianity and it is welcomed, it is not welcomed to be critical of Islam. Her argument is also that in her experience as a critique of the religion, she has also been pigeon-holed and instead of her arguments being debated, instead they have questioned her motives and called her a 'native informant' a term she is absolutely appalled by as it brands her a traitor when what she is trying to to is great ea dialogue and platform for debate without threats. Lottery numbers 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 allocated to doyle. Congratulations. Over the course of just a few days, the game suddenly changes. C8 REFERENCE ANSWERSLight edits have been made to the quotes for clarity. 1. The "regressive left". Maajid Nawaz describes this as a section of the left who โ in the name of respecting cultural diversity, multiculturalism, political correctness, antiracism, and/or challenging Islamophobia โ would prefer to silence and shut down debate rather than risk offending people from minority ethnic backgrounds. [Nawaz: "I call that the triple-threat in Europe. I talk about the threat of the populist and the far right. I talk about the threat of Islamism. And I talk about the threat of what I call the regressive left. What I mean by "the regressive left"... Both you and I have fallen prey to their insidious means. And it's a section of the left who, in the name of respecting cultural diversity, in the name of multiculturalism, in the name of political correctness, in the name of antiracism, in the name of challenging Islamophobia, would prefer โ it's almost an authoritarian response โ would prefer to silence and shut down debate than offend communities from, people that are from minority ethnic backgrounds.The reason I'm focusing on these guys by the way is I expect, I've grown up... Neo-Nazis have chased me in Essex with hammers and knives and have stabbed my friends... I am used to neo-Nazis not liking me. And of course, I know Islamists intimately. I know they won't like me; I know they consider me a traitor to their cause. What I didn't expect when we first founded Quilliam was that those who pander to universalist rhetoric, talk about human rights and the principles you've talk about, the importance of free speech... I didn't expect them to turn, on you and me, in the way that they have. And I emphasise it's a section within the left, so I call them the regressive left. But they often in the name of these things (antiracism, cultural tolerance and diversity) have decided... And I call it "the bigotry of low expectations"... They have decided to not just tolerate but champion all forms of bigotry when it comes from minority-community contexts, and silence those who within those minorities are themselves minorities. The minorities within the minority communities: the ex-Muslims, the feminist Muslims, the liberal Muslims, the minority sects like the Ahmadiyya community...
There are a whole bunch of minorities within Muslim-community contexts who are attempting to challenge the hegemony. But the regressive left says, "What do the Muslims think?" And, if you're not speaking in that way, well, "You're not speaking the way the Muslims are meant to be speaking. So you must be either Islamophobic or racistโฆ"
I mean, have you been called a racist ever? I have!" [13:20โ15:37]]2. Example statistics cited by Nawaz: (i) 0% of British Muslims have expressed any sympathy to homosexuality. (ii) A third expressed sympathy to the Charlie Hebdo killings. (iii) A third expressed sympathy for the notion of resurrecting a caliphate. [Nawaz [to Hirsi Ali]: "The statement you've just made about Muslim culture, often people have accused you of generalising. So I want to give some statistics of Britain, because we're obviously in London. And I think the stats in themselves, in survey after survey, speak to this truth, which is why my own thinking evolved. When we first met, I was arguing Islam is a religion of peace. I now advocate very openly that it's neither a religion of peace nor war, or it's both โ because it's interpreted in many ways. And so how we judge it today is how Muslims respond to their scripture today. So some stats. And this is in multiple surveys where polling companies have gauged opinion of British Muslims. It's the reason I'm so concerned, and why we do what we do [at Quilliam]: 0% of British Muslims have expressed any sympathy to homosexuality. A third, when polled in a different survey, expressed sympathy to the Charlie Hebdo killings. A third also expressed sympathy for the notion of resurrecting a caliphate. You know, and when we talk about these numbers, give or take a few 0.01% margin of error, 0% expressing no toleration for homosexuality is a serious concern. When we have ISIS throwing gays off the top of buildings, a third romanticising the resurrection of a caliphate, it should be concerning to us. [โฆ] Any notion of the resurrection of a theocracy in the modern day and age cannot be good for civilisation. [...] Currently, with the snapshot in time that we can survey at the moment, the statistics demonstrate a worrying trend, a very worrying trend. And what I've often said is that whereas Islamism needs to be intellectually terminated, Islam today, as the religion, requires reform. And so we're dealing with a twin challenge of the absolute necessity to completely, totally, civilisationally destroy Islamism the ideology โ and that's the desire to impose a version of Islam on society. But on top of that, the vast majority of Muslims who may not be Islamists, still, the understanding of Islam that they have โ as demonstrated by statistics and polls and surveys โ isn't where I'm comfortable with. And that's because, for whatever reason, that reform process... we may be going through it, but it hasn't completed." [19:55โ23:06]]3. Possible reasons put forward by Sarah Haider for why it's difficult for many on the left to criticise Islam [17:48โ25:08]: (i) Many are simply incapable of separating the criticism of an idea with a hate directed towards a people. [Haider: "I believe that the primary reason is that many are simply incapable of separating the criticism of an idea with a hate directed towards a people โ and immediately call the first, racism. That idea should not be entertained for very long. As if there can be no valid reasons to critique an ideology rooted in 7th century patriarchal norms, except for hatred toward the very people imprisoned by those ideologies.There are people who use the phrase "Islamophobia" both to mean criticism of the people and of the religion. I know that many Muslims do this. It's an easy way of stopping others from criticising their religion. But I believe many in the West use this word because they haven't quite thought of why it might be harmful. "Islamophobia" is a meaningless term. It serves to confuse and to muddle two very different forms of intolerance, based on two very different reasons, towards which there should be two very different reactions."] (ii) The belief that critique of a religion is critique of the identity of the believer, and is therefore bigotry. [Haider: "Sometimes it is claimed that critique of religion is critique of the identity of the believer, and is therefore bigotry: "This person's identity happens to be based on their ideology. So if you criticise their ideology, you are necessarily generating hate towards that person." But I wonder what would happen if we applied this type of thinking to everything. What if New Agers decided that criticism of New Age spiritual healing was a form of hate against people who chose to identify that way? What if Hindus decided criticism against the caste system was a deeply offensive form of racism against Hindu people? How much of that would retard reform?"](iii) The belief that criticism or ridicule of Islam feeds into the bigotry by the far right. [Haider: "There's another version of this argument which claims that criticism or ridicule of Islam feeds into the bigotry by the far right, and therefore causes harm. And I want everyone to note that the argument is almost never that Islam doesn't deserve the critique or ridicule as a religion, but it is harmful to voice it for the damage that it would do. Now, one of the writers who opposed the award for Charlie Hebdo [the Freedom of Expression Courage Award by the American centre of PEN, the international writer's organisation] claimed that, "the narrative of the Charlie Hebdo murders, of white Europeans killed in their offices by Muslim extremists, is one that feeds neatly into the cultural prejudices that have allowed our governments to make so many disastrous mistakes in the Middle East." The "narrative" of the Charlie Hebdo murders. I read that statement and I realised that for some writers the problem wasn't just that the cartoons were offensive. It was that the reaction by Muslims to the cartoons fed into a stereotypical Muslim trope โ a reaction that was very inconvenient for a group trying their best to paint a picture of a peaceful Islam, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.It's quite clear that allegiances here aren't to the truth. Instead, the aim is to selectively hide inconvenient truths โ truths that are deemed to be harmful should they ever be acknowledged. I assume the fear is that we do not want to give support to actual bigoted people. Anyone who watches Fox knows how they use fear-mongering tactics to promote xenophobia. But the liberation of a billion and a half Muslims in the world, Muslims who are suffering under the yoke of an ever-present theological authority, should be at the forefront of our minds. As has been repeated hundreds of times by critics like myself, the primary victims of Islamism are Muslims. Be it in terms of terrorism, violence, misogyny, freedom of expression and religion, and economic decline. Yet, bizarrely, to some, these concerns are secondary still to not presenting offence."](iv) The belief that people in the West have no right to speak about the problems of "brown cultures", due to the legacy of colonialism and other forms of violence the West has cast upon the East. [See video for Haider's rebuttal of this position.][Haider: "The moral paralysis out of fear of the right, out of fear of furthering bigotry, out of shame of prior crimes committed by other white people, should not trump all considerations.When I read articles about why Muslims shouldn't be ridiculed, I get a sense of condescension. A sense that there are those who believe that the most central trait of brown people is their religion โ a defining feature in fact. And due to this they presume that either we won't reform or we can't, that religion is something inherent to what we are, and that it won't respond to pressure to change the way Christianity responded to pressure by secularists.While they believe themselves to be supporting tolerance, what they're actually supporting is the religious right of the East. And not just any religious right, not the religious right we have here [in the United States]. It's a religious right the West hasn't seen for centuries.To me, someone who opposes the most foundational liberal principle โ the freedom of expression โ in order to protect the sensibilities of this Islamist religious right is a liberal only in name.
In fact, what kind of person holds two different groups of people accountable to two different standards of acceptable behaviour, but a bigot?"] |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 20, 2017 0:44:12 GMT 1,
COMPETITION 9 โ Sunday, 19 March to Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Three questions related to the podcast below will be posted on Wednesday, 22 March at 21:00 GMT (or within a few minutes thereof).
The first person to correctly or sufficiently answer all three questions (in accordance with the Game Format and Rules) will be allocated the following four lottery numbers: 25, 26, 27 and 28
Waking Up with Sam Harris #21 โ On the Maintenance of Civilization (with Douglas Murray)
(28 November 2015 โ after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and pre-Trump) [2:12:13]
โ uploaded by Sam Harris
www.samharris.org/podcast/item/on-the-maintenance-of-civilization
soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/on-the-maintenance-of-civilization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Murray_(author)
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 20, 2017 1:25:53 GMT 1, Thank you met I particularly enjoyed the 1st video listening to 2 people who originally did not agree on each others perspectives, but who, over time in their meetings have come to respect the other and somewhat agree in their approach of what is needed to be done to overcome institutional resistance and modify the basic tenets of Islam.
Thank you met I particularly enjoyed the 1st video listening to 2 people who originally did not agree on each others perspectives, but who, over time in their meetings have come to respect the other and somewhat agree in their approach of what is needed to be done to overcome institutional resistance and modify the basic tenets of Islam. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 20, 2017 17:05:54 GMT 1, Thank you met I particularly enjoyed the 1st video listening to 2 people who originally did not agree on each others perspectives, but who, over time in their meetings have come to respect the other and somewhat agree in their approach of what is needed to be done to overcome institutional resistance and modify the basic tenets of Islam.
I'm pleased you enjoyed the discussion between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz. It's one of the most insightful videos I watched online last year.
As you refer to, that exchange highlights what can be achieved through dialogue โ provided people are open to dialogue and resist dogmatic temptations to shut it down.
Towards the beginning of the video, when the camera is just on Nawaz, did you notice the man behind him in the shadows? Presumably, that was a personal bodyguard, or at least part of the security detail brought in for the evening. This in itself is a sad indictment of where we still are as a society when it comes to certain fundamental rights.
_________
In comparison, the lecture by Sarah Haider was less impressive. She hasn't yet acquired the poise of Hirsi Ali or Nawaz. And trying to engage with an audience will always be a challenge when you're just reading text from a page.
That said, I found the substance of Haider's talk very interesting. Her thoughts on the possible reasons for people holding double standards are worth listening to โ i.e. why those who otherwise embrace human rights like freedom of speech suddenly go weak-kneed or even aggressive towards people expressing their right to free speech on the subject of Islam.
In my view, a key point Haider mentions is the common confusion between (or conflation of) the criticism of ideas and the expression of hatred towards a people.
Thank you met I particularly enjoyed the 1st video listening to 2 people who originally did not agree on each others perspectives, but who, over time in their meetings have come to respect the other and somewhat agree in their approach of what is needed to be done to overcome institutional resistance and modify the basic tenets of Islam. I'm pleased you enjoyed the discussion between Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Maajid Nawaz. It's one of the most insightful videos I watched online last year. As you refer to, that exchange highlights what can be achieved through dialogue โ provided people are open to dialogue and resist dogmatic temptations to shut it down. Towards the beginning of the video, when the camera is just on Nawaz, did you notice the man behind him in the shadows? Presumably, that was a personal bodyguard, or at least part of the security detail brought in for the evening. This in itself is a sad indictment of where we still are as a society when it comes to certain fundamental rights. _________ In comparison, the lecture by Sarah Haider was less impressive. She hasn't yet acquired the poise of Hirsi Ali or Nawaz. And trying to engage with an audience will always be a challenge when you're just reading text from a page. That said, I found the substance of Haider's talk very interesting. Her thoughts on the possible reasons for people holding double standards are worth listening to โ i.e. why those who otherwise embrace human rights like freedom of speech suddenly go weak-kneed or even aggressive towards people expressing their right to free speech on the subject of Islam. In my view, a key point Haider mentions is the common confusion between (or conflation of) the criticism of ideas and the expression of hatred towards a people. |
|
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 20, 2017 18:01:21 GMT 1, Yes, thank you met, the exchange and dialogue between two opposing sides, was refreshing to hear. I think it shows an example that this could be potentially replicated at grass roots in the future, and educating the young generation of the future. I did not know about the difference between the Mecca muslims and the medina muslims Hirsi referred to in her book so it was interesting to listen to her explain the differences.
Yes, I briefly noted a man in the background and didn't really acknowledge it until he said he had been in jail and since out of jail had received death threats. It is sad, I agree that that is the current state of affairs in order to voice an opinion. Perhaps in time it will be less so, but how long that will take, who knows?
I found Haider more difficult to engage with as well. Hirsi takes her time and pauses with reflection a lot more in her speech patterns, which I guess she has more life experience to contemplate and her arguments were more easier to understand to me because of this. Haider will I'm sure over time improve her connection as her experience improves during her speeches. The answers I think to haiders reasons for people fearing critiquing Islam I think is echoed in the 1st video on how to educate the future generation, especially on how to argue and critique ideas and separate it it from being personal.
Yes, thank you met, the exchange and dialogue between two opposing sides, was refreshing to hear. I think it shows an example that this could be potentially replicated at grass roots in the future, and educating the young generation of the future. I did not know about the difference between the Mecca muslims and the medina muslims Hirsi referred to in her book so it was interesting to listen to her explain the differences. Yes, I briefly noted a man in the background and didn't really acknowledge it until he said he had been in jail and since out of jail had received death threats. It is sad, I agree that that is the current state of affairs in order to voice an opinion. Perhaps in time it will be less so, but how long that will take, who knows? I found Haider more difficult to engage with as well. Hirsi takes her time and pauses with reflection a lot more in her speech patterns, which I guess she has more life experience to contemplate and her arguments were more easier to understand to me because of this. Haider will I'm sure over time improve her connection as her experience improves during her speeches. The answers I think to haiders reasons for people fearing critiquing Islam I think is echoed in the 1st video on how to educate the future generation, especially on how to argue and critique ideas and separate it it from being personal. |
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 22, 2017 1:46:30 GMT 1, This Sam Harris one is pretty hard going, I've gotta say. I've always found Douglas Murray a difficult person to listen to but this is something else. I'm only half an hour in ffs.
I wait in trepidation for the milo yiannopoulos round.
This Sam Harris one is pretty hard going, I've gotta say. I've always found Douglas Murray a difficult person to listen to but this is something else. I'm only half an hour in ffs.
I wait in trepidation for the milo yiannopoulos round.
|
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 22, 2017 5:37:43 GMT 1, This Sam Harris one is pretty hard going, I've gotta say. I've always found Douglas Murray a difficult person to listen to but this is something else. I'm only half an hour in ffs. I wait in trepidation for the milo yiannopoulos round.
Perfect. Many thanks.
For the game to avert complete failure, what you describe โ the testing of your patience and goodwill โ should happen at least once with every participant.
And whenever this situation does arise, hopefully the early videos are kept in mind, like the ones in Competition 3 covering ad hominem and straw man fallacies. Perhaps players who might not otherwise have done so will avoid resorting only to comments along the lines of, "That individual expressing their opinion [is an idiot / is a dreadful human being / has an insufferable voice]."
To advance honest discussion on whatever topic, ideally people can instead argue the opposing side's reasoning is flawed, or the facts they mention are incorrect or misleading. Or that their own stance is preferable and more convincing for x, y and z reasons.
See also Q&A 33.
This Sam Harris one is pretty hard going, I've gotta say. I've always found Douglas Murray a difficult person to listen to but this is something else. I'm only half an hour in ffs. I wait in trepidation for the milo yiannopoulos round. Perfect. Many thanks. For the game to avert complete failure, what you describe โ the testing of your patience and goodwill โ should happen at least once with every participant. And whenever this situation does arise, hopefully the early videos are kept in mind, like the ones in Competition 3 covering ad hominem and straw man fallacies. Perhaps players who might not otherwise have done so will avoid resorting only to comments along the lines of, "That individual expressing their opinion [is an idiot / is a dreadful human being / has an insufferable voice]."To advance honest discussion on whatever topic, ideally people can instead argue the opposing side's reasoning is flawed, or the facts they mention are incorrect or misleading. Or that their own stance is preferable and more convincing for x, y and z reasons. See also Q&A 33. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 22, 2017 22:00:00 GMT 1,
C9 QUESTIONS
Each time reference below is to the broad period in the podcast where the answer to the relevant question can be found.
Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following:
1. [0:00โ30:00] Douglas Murray mentions his think tank in London, The Henry Jackson Society. Briefly describe one of the things Murray says it does, along with a reason he gave that prompted this work.
2. [1:00:00โ1:30:00] Murray refers to the countries in Europe "that are best equipped to deal with the problems of the mass migration crisis, of the Islamist crisis, and others". Which countries is he talking about?
3. [1:30:00โend] Sam Harris took the unusual step of including an addendum to this podcast. In general terms (without the need for specific examples), what was the main impetus for his doing so?
[Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).]
C9 QUESTIONSEach time reference below is to the broad period in the podcast where the answer to the relevant question can be found. Keeping in mind point 4 of the Game Format and Rules, please answer the following: 1. [0:00โ30:00] Douglas Murray mentions his think tank in London, The Henry Jackson Society. Briefly describe one of the things Murray says it does, along with a reason he gave that prompted this work. 2. [1:00:00โ1:30:00] Murray refers to the countries in Europe "that are best equipped to deal with the problems of the mass migration crisis, of the Islamist crisis, and others". Which countries is he talking about? 3. [1:30:00โend] Sam Harris took the unusual step of including an addendum to this podcast. In general terms (without the need for specific examples), what was the main impetus for his doing so? [Competition winner to be confirmed as from 22:00 GMT (but no later than 23:59 GMT).]
|
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 22, 2017 22:17:49 GMT 1, 1. One of the pieces of work that the society did was analyse every single person convicted of terrorism in UK and US over the last 15 years. This was to research the perpetrators education levels, to refute claims that people who were involved in terrorism were dumb. His research states that they are infact above averagely (?) academic.
2. He is referring to those countries that best allow freedom of expression, including the freedom to express a view that migration isn't working or concerns about lack of integrity in the claims of the migrant population and are able to have a 'grown up' debate without accusations of racism or bigotary being used.
3. In the period after the release of the podcast, certain people used out of contxt qoutes to further their own view of Sam Harris and to attack him. He added the addendum to rebut these claims and attempt to add context back to these points.
1. One of the pieces of work that the society did was analyse every single person convicted of terrorism in UK and US over the last 15 years. This was to research the perpetrators education levels, to refute claims that people who were involved in terrorism were dumb. His research states that they are infact above averagely (?) academic.
2. He is referring to those countries that best allow freedom of expression, including the freedom to express a view that migration isn't working or concerns about lack of integrity in the claims of the migrant population and are able to have a 'grown up' debate without accusations of racism or bigotary being used.
3. In the period after the release of the podcast, certain people used out of contxt qoutes to further their own view of Sam Harris and to attack him. He added the addendum to rebut these claims and attempt to add context back to these points.
|
|
doyle
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 930
๐๐ป 743
September 2008
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by doyle on Mar 22, 2017 22:59:58 GMT 1, I'm still listening to the podcast with reference to today's attacks in London. It's a great chat between these two. One of the topics is how it takes an event (such as today's attacks in Westminster) for people to do something rather than listen to ideas and debate which already exist to provide evidence that these things will only continue or get worse. It seems speech isn't enough.
And in response to this, people offload on social media i.e. after the French massacre, everyone put the French flag on their Facebook....I agree with the speaker, it's not enough...the Yale Uni students moaning about their Halloween costumes and the other jack Munro example...we have become too scared to tell the truth and discuss the facts. No one is standing up to question ridiculous ideas/beliefs people have, and not just religion. What have we become? I can see how much clearer through these videos how we have ended up at this point in society. I'm still listening so well done ed ๐
I'm still listening to the podcast with reference to today's attacks in London. It's a great chat between these two. One of the topics is how it takes an event (such as today's attacks in Westminster) for people to do something rather than listen to ideas and debate which already exist to provide evidence that these things will only continue or get worse. It seems speech isn't enough.
And in response to this, people offload on social media i.e. after the French massacre, everyone put the French flag on their Facebook....I agree with the speaker, it's not enough...the Yale Uni students moaning about their Halloween costumes and the other jack Munro example...we have become too scared to tell the truth and discuss the facts. No one is standing up to question ridiculous ideas/beliefs people have, and not just religion. What have we become? I can see how much clearer through these videos how we have ended up at this point in society. I'm still listening so well done ed ๐
|
|
ed
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 697
๐๐ป 666
September 2007
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by ed on Mar 22, 2017 23:18:22 GMT 1, This Sam Harris one is pretty hard going, I've gotta say. I've always found Douglas Murray a difficult person to listen to but this is something else. I'm only half an hour in ffs. I wait in trepidation for the milo yiannopoulos round. Perfect. Many thanks. For the game to avert complete failure, what you describe โ the testing of your patience and goodwill โ should happen at least once with every participant. And whenever this situation does arise, hopefully the early videos are kept in mind, like the ones in Competition 3 covering ad hominem and straw man fallacies. Perhaps players who might not otherwise have done so will avoid resorting only to comments along the lines of, "That individual expressing their opinion [is an idiot / is a dreadful human being / has an insufferable voice]."To advance honest discussion on whatever topic, ideally people can instead argue the opposing side's reasoning is flawed, or the facts they mention are incorrect or misleading. Or that their own stance is preferable and more convincing for x, y and z reasons. See also Q&A 33.
After listening to the whole thing, I stick with my hard going view. I found it interesting to notice my behaviour during the two hours; i was much more distracted and missed certain points as i was having arguements in my head about what i'd heard. That said, I'm glad I listened to it as with views i agree with i tend to make assumptions about what they are going to say and perhaps think less deeply about it.
I found it interesting for Douglas to criticise the left as crying wolf and their need to create an enemy by over reacting to vanilla statements. For me, i think he also took part in this.
Additionally i felt he lacked the warmth, humour or charisma of other speakers and he'd take an interesting proposition to a level that included direct personal attacks on people.
At one point he lamented people focusing more on what they think rather than why they think it. I felt he was guily of this and spent far too much time expressing, imo vitriolic, views he held on people.
Annnnddd i felt he consistently conflated and over exagerated information to further his own ends.
In short, I think he is a dick 
hopefully i've won doyle ... your winning streak needed to come to an end at some point and i agree, it was quite eerie listening to it whilst reading about the London attacks.
This Sam Harris one is pretty hard going, I've gotta say. I've always found Douglas Murray a difficult person to listen to but this is something else. I'm only half an hour in ffs. I wait in trepidation for the milo yiannopoulos round. Perfect. Many thanks. For the game to avert complete failure, what you describe โ the testing of your patience and goodwill โ should happen at least once with every participant. And whenever this situation does arise, hopefully the early videos are kept in mind, like the ones in Competition 3 covering ad hominem and straw man fallacies. Perhaps players who might not otherwise have done so will avoid resorting only to comments along the lines of, "That individual expressing their opinion [is an idiot / is a dreadful human being / has an insufferable voice]."To advance honest discussion on whatever topic, ideally people can instead argue the opposing side's reasoning is flawed, or the facts they mention are incorrect or misleading. Or that their own stance is preferable and more convincing for x, y and z reasons. See also Q&A 33. After listening to the whole thing, I stick with my hard going view. I found it interesting to notice my behaviour during the two hours; i was much more distracted and missed certain points as i was having arguements in my head about what i'd heard. That said, I'm glad I listened to it as with views i agree with i tend to make assumptions about what they are going to say and perhaps think less deeply about it. I found it interesting for Douglas to criticise the left as crying wolf and their need to create an enemy by over reacting to vanilla statements. For me, i think he also took part in this. Additionally i felt he lacked the warmth, humour or charisma of other speakers and he'd take an interesting proposition to a level that included direct personal attacks on people. At one point he lamented people focusing more on what they think rather than why they think it. I felt he was guily of this and spent far too much time expressing, imo vitriolic, views he held on people. Annnnddd i felt he consistently conflated and over exagerated information to further his own ends. In short, I think he is a dick hopefully i've won doyle ... your winning streak needed to come to an end at some point and i agree, it was quite eerie listening to it whilst reading about the London attacks. |
|
met
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,796
๐๐ป 6,762
June 2009
|
THE MET LOTTERY, by met on Mar 22, 2017 23:57:30 GMT 1, 1. One of the pieces of work that the society did was analyse every single person convicted of terrorism in UK and US over the last 15 years. This was to research the perpetrators education levels, to refute claims that people who were involved in terrorism were dumb. His research states that they are infact above averagely (?) academic. 2. He is referring to those countries that best allow freedom of expression, including the freedom to express a view that migration isn't working or concerns about lack of integrity in the claims of the migrant population and are able to have a 'grown up' debate without accusations of racism or bigotary being used. 3. In the period after the release of the podcast, certain people used out of contxt qoutes to further their own view of Sam Harris and to attack him. He added the addendum to rebut these claims and attempt to add context back to these points.
Lottery numbers 25, 26, 27 and 28 allocated to ed. Congratulations. Yet another pendulum swing in the game.
C9 REFERENCE ANSWERS
Light edits have been made to the quotes for clarity.
1. As an ongoing project, The Henry Jackson Society analyses those convicted of Islamist-related offences in America and the UK. Douglas Murray states one of the reasons for carrying out this work is that he was tired of hearing demonstrably wrong explanations for why these offences were taking place (e.g. lack of education or integration in society).
[Harris: People have a hard time taking our enemies at their word. Speech doesn't count, even when the speech entails a crystal clear discussion of what they plan to do, want to do, aspire to do, if only they had the power to do it, and incremental evidence, ever accruing, that they are accomplishing many of these aims. I find that secular people tend to doubt that anyone really believes what they say to believe. They can't imagine anyone really believes in paradise. I've told listeners this many times but I have literally met anthropologists who have told me that no one believes in paradise โ and no one is ever motivated by the content of their religious doctrines; it's always some other reason. [...]
Murray: Look, I've for many years marvelled at the capability of reasonable and intelligent people to put reasons into the mouths of terrorists that the terrorists never asked for. And also to come up with increasingly bogus and now demonstrably wrong explanations for why things are happening.
My think tank โ the Henry Jackson Society in London โ we've analysed every single person convicted of Islamist-related offences in America and in the UK in the last 15 years. It's an ongoing project. It's the only project of its kind that actually just does the statistical analysis of people.
And one of the reasons we did that was that, some years ago, I got fed up with hearing people saying for instance that terrorists we're dealing with were suffering from a lack of education. Obviously not true, demonstrably not true. But I used to demonstrate it wasn't true by giving the anecdotal cases: the murderer of Daniel Pearl was at the London School of Economics; the people who blew up Mike's Bar [Mike's Place] in Tel Aviv were from King's College in London; the 2009 Detroit bomber was from University College London... I'm just focusing on about a square mile of London.
I used to give those, they were anecdotal... so I thought it's worth doing this in a statistical analysis with hundreds of cases. And actually, the terrorists in America and in Britain that have been convicted โ we're not talking about putative cases or disputed cases or anything, we're talking about people who have been convicted โ are disproportionately well educated, are disproportionately likely to have attended university, disproportionately likely to have done further education.
So one by one you can shoot down these things [misconceptions] โ it's laborious, it takes a long time, it's very costly, but you can shoot these things down. And you don't hear it so much any more. Sure you do from some people โ I mean, Tariq Ramadan, a long foe and very close enemy of mine, was on the radio in Britain this morning saying it was to do with lack of integration, education, a whole load of other things. But fewer and fewer people buy that, I would argue. What this means is you whittle them down to, "What is the point?", "What is the cause?", "What is the propulsion?"
This I say is a long and slow trudge that people in liberal Western democracies are making towards the truth. And it's going to take a long time, but things like this do take a long time, because there are so many reasons for us to want to avoid the truth. Because it's very worrying. It has all sorts of very serious implications. And one thing lurking in a lot of people's minds may be, "Oh my god, if that's the case, then we're screwed". [15:20โ20:15]]
2. Murray is referring to countries that have allowed open political discussion about the issues.
[Murray: [...] And I think what's more is that there should be a serious reckoning before then, against these people who have tried to deracinate the public square in our societies, who want to talk about fake problems and ignore real ones, who want to police the parameters of the discussion of free people in free societies, and help out every totalitarian and dictator and theological fascist in any society around the world. The people who migrate and flock to anybody as long as they're not a free person in a free society. Those people, I don't envy them in the end. Because the way they have done it, they are stopping people waking up in a decent way at a decent time.
Let me give you a very quick example of that, if I may. If you look around the continent now, the countries that are best equipped to deal with the problems of the mass migration crisis, of the Islamist crisis, and others, are the ones which allowed a political discussion to go on. Because they allowed the mainstream to mop up and respond to the concerns of the public. The countries that are going to be screwed are the ones that's trying to stop the discussion. [...]
Harris: [...] I want to summarise a point you just made, which is a point I made in a podcast I did yesterday in response to Paris. The thing that has to change it seems to me is that the obscurantism we witness on this topic, which has been so safe to engage in, and the charges of bigotry that get hurled at us for singling out Islam as an area of special concern... What has to happen is the balance has to swing, and that obscurantism has to become as disreputable and as costly to one's reputation as a real expression of dangerous bigotry now is.
So if you and I were to start speaking in starkly racist terms here, we reveal that we're racists and that we hate brown-skinned people... What that would do to our careers, just the cost of that would be enormous, and rightly so. There has to be an analogous cost to lying and diverting around this issue. Because it is genuinely dangerous to confuse people about what is going on here. And I will only be confident that we're dealing with the problem when it just becomes that unseemly to be publicly confused about jihadism. [1:27:-00โ1:29:48]]
3. Critics of Sam Harris (including Max Blumenthal, Cenk Uygur and Glenn Greenwald) cynically took some of his quotes out of context. In doing so, they misled their own audiences. But they also succeeded in alienating some of Harris's own fans, who didn't realise Harris's views were being misrepresented.
[Ironically, this validates a point Harris and Murray had discussed during the podcast itself, regarding tactical dishonesty by opponents:
Murray: [...] It is the left that has been throwing around wilful โ and I think deliberately, knowing that they're not true โ allegations against people. [...] You know, the accusation of racism, for instance. I don't think it's going to wash for very much longer. I just don't. Nobody cares as much as they used to about that, because they have seen the left use it on everyone. I've seen it for years. I've seen my black friends called racists. I've seen my black friends called sell-outs and coconuts and all sorts of things. I've seen the most vile racial abuse of racial minorities by the left. And I don't care about this any more. It's too late to be willing to be blackmailed by people who are fundamentally insincere in their insults.
Harris: Yeah, but there still seems to be a mystery here. Because I agree with you and it's something I've often remarked on โ that the tactics being used here are just shockingly dishonest. But the commitment to using such tactics, the fact that people see no ethical problem in accusing somebody of being a racist who they know isn't a racist, or a fascist who they know isn't a fascist... There must be some underlying urgency motivating that. They must think that the ends justify the means in some sense.
Murray: Of course. It's politics.
Harris: But what's amazing is that they are, and certainly on the topic of Islamism, functioning as de facto apologists for theocracy.
Murray: Sure.
Harris: So the fact that they don't see this, or they don't care about this, the fact that identity politics and their concern for generic brown-skinned people or generic immigrants, trumps any concern they should otherwise have about real fascism and real theocracy and real human rights abuses... That still strikes me as somewhat mysterious. I feel like I'm in the presence of people who have made some kind of reverse Faustian bargain, where it's like they've sold their souls to the devil and they got stupid in return. [22:38โ27:18]]
1. One of the pieces of work that the society did was analyse every single person convicted of terrorism in UK and US over the last 15 years. This was to research the perpetrators education levels, to refute claims that people who were involved in terrorism were dumb. His research states that they are infact above averagely (?) academic. 2. He is referring to those countries that best allow freedom of expression, including the freedom to express a view that migration isn't working or concerns about lack of integrity in the claims of the migrant population and are able to have a 'grown up' debate without accusations of racism or bigotary being used. 3. In the period after the release of the podcast, certain people used out of contxt qoutes to further their own view of Sam Harris and to attack him. He added the addendum to rebut these claims and attempt to add context back to these points. Lottery numbers 25, 26, 27 and 28 allocated to ed. Congratulations. Yet another pendulum swing in the game. C9 REFERENCE ANSWERSLight edits have been made to the quotes for clarity. 1. As an ongoing project, The Henry Jackson Society analyses those convicted of Islamist-related offences in America and the UK. Douglas Murray states one of the reasons for carrying out this work is that he was tired of hearing demonstrably wrong explanations for why these offences were taking place (e.g. lack of education or integration in society). [Harris: People have a hard time taking our enemies at their word. Speech doesn't count, even when the speech entails a crystal clear discussion of what they plan to do, want to do, aspire to do, if only they had the power to do it, and incremental evidence, ever accruing, that they are accomplishing many of these aims. I find that secular people tend to doubt that anyone really believes what they say to believe. They can't imagine anyone really believes in paradise. I've told listeners this many times but I have literally met anthropologists who have told me that no one believes in paradise โ and no one is ever motivated by the content of their religious doctrines; it's always some other reason. [...]Murray: Look, I've for many years marvelled at the capability of reasonable and intelligent people to put reasons into the mouths of terrorists that the terrorists never asked for. And also to come up with increasingly bogus and now demonstrably wrong explanations for why things are happening. My think tank โ the Henry Jackson Society in London โ we've analysed every single person convicted of Islamist-related offences in America and in the UK in the last 15 years. It's an ongoing project. It's the only project of its kind that actually just does the statistical analysis of people. And one of the reasons we did that was that, some years ago, I got fed up with hearing people saying for instance that terrorists we're dealing with were suffering from a lack of education. Obviously not true, demonstrably not true. But I used to demonstrate it wasn't true by giving the anecdotal cases: the murderer of Daniel Pearl was at the London School of Economics; the people who blew up Mike's Bar [Mike's Place] in Tel Aviv were from King's College in London; the 2009 Detroit bomber was from University College London... I'm just focusing on about a square mile of London.I used to give those, they were anecdotal... so I thought it's worth doing this in a statistical analysis with hundreds of cases. And actually, the terrorists in America and in Britain that have been convicted โ we're not talking about putative cases or disputed cases or anything, we're talking about people who have been convicted โ are disproportionately well educated, are disproportionately likely to have attended university, disproportionately likely to have done further education.So one by one you can shoot down these things [misconceptions] โ it's laborious, it takes a long time, it's very costly, but you can shoot these things down. And you don't hear it so much any more. Sure you do from some people โ I mean, Tariq Ramadan, a long foe and very close enemy of mine, was on the radio in Britain this morning saying it was to do with lack of integration, education, a whole load of other things. But fewer and fewer people buy that, I would argue. What this means is you whittle them down to, "What is the point?", "What is the cause?", "What is the propulsion?" This I say is a long and slow trudge that people in liberal Western democracies are making towards the truth. And it's going to take a long time, but things like this do take a long time, because there are so many reasons for us to want to avoid the truth. Because it's very worrying. It has all sorts of very serious implications. And one thing lurking in a lot of people's minds may be, "Oh my god, if that's the case, then we're screwed". [15:20โ20:15]]2. Murray is referring to countries that have allowed open political discussion about the issues. [Murray: [...] And I think what's more is that there should be a serious reckoning before then, against these people who have tried to deracinate the public square in our societies, who want to talk about fake problems and ignore real ones, who want to police the parameters of the discussion of free people in free societies, and help out every totalitarian and dictator and theological fascist in any society around the world. The people who migrate and flock to anybody as long as they're not a free person in a free society. Those people, I don't envy them in the end. Because the way they have done it, they are stopping people waking up in a decent way at a decent time. Let me give you a very quick example of that, if I may. If you look around the continent now, the countries that are best equipped to deal with the problems of the mass migration crisis, of the Islamist crisis, and others, are the ones which allowed a political discussion to go on. Because they allowed the mainstream to mop up and respond to the concerns of the public. The countries that are going to be screwed are the ones that's trying to stop the discussion. [...]Harris: [...] I want to summarise a point you just made, which is a point I made in a podcast I did yesterday in response to Paris. The thing that has to change it seems to me is that the obscurantism we witness on this topic, which has been so safe to engage in, and the charges of bigotry that get hurled at us for singling out Islam as an area of special concern... What has to happen is the balance has to swing, and that obscurantism has to become as disreputable and as costly to one's reputation as a real expression of dangerous bigotry now is. So if you and I were to start speaking in starkly racist terms here, we reveal that we're racists and that we hate brown-skinned people... What that would do to our careers, just the cost of that would be enormous, and rightly so. There has to be an analogous cost to lying and diverting around this issue. Because it is genuinely dangerous to confuse people about what is going on here. And I will only be confident that we're dealing with the problem when it just becomes that unseemly to be publicly confused about jihadism. [1:27:-00โ1:29:48]]3. Critics of Sam Harris (including Max Blumenthal, Cenk Uygur and Glenn Greenwald) cynically took some of his quotes out of context. In doing so, they misled their own audiences. But they also succeeded in alienating some of Harris's own fans, who didn't realise Harris's views were being misrepresented. [Ironically, this validates a point Harris and Murray had discussed during the podcast itself, regarding tactical dishonesty by opponents:Murray: [...] It is the left that has been throwing around wilful โ and I think deliberately, knowing that they're not true โ allegations against people. [...] You know, the accusation of racism, for instance. I don't think it's going to wash for very much longer. I just don't. Nobody cares as much as they used to about that, because they have seen the left use it on everyone. I've seen it for years. I've seen my black friends called racists. I've seen my black friends called sell-outs and coconuts and all sorts of things. I've seen the most vile racial abuse of racial minorities by the left. And I don't care about this any more. It's too late to be willing to be blackmailed by people who are fundamentally insincere in their insults. Harris: Yeah, but there still seems to be a mystery here. Because I agree with you and it's something I've often remarked on โ that the tactics being used here are just shockingly dishonest. But the commitment to using such tactics, the fact that people see no ethical problem in accusing somebody of being a racist who they know isn't a racist, or a fascist who they know isn't a fascist... There must be some underlying urgency motivating that. They must think that the ends justify the means in some sense.Murray: Of course. It's politics. Harris: But what's amazing is that they are, and certainly on the topic of Islamism, functioning as de facto apologists for theocracy. Murray: Sure.Harris: So the fact that they don't see this, or they don't care about this, the fact that identity politics and their concern for generic brown-skinned people or generic immigrants, trumps any concern they should otherwise have about real fascism and real theocracy and real human rights abuses... That still strikes me as somewhat mysterious. I feel like I'm in the presence of people who have made some kind of reverse Faustian bargain, where it's like they've sold their souls to the devil and they got stupid in return. [22:38โ27:18]] |
|
