Support NeoGAF

[cackhyena]

If he responds, I'm curious what Harris will say. Beyond his addressing it already on his podcast. I guess this guy didn't take kindly to the dismissal.

 

[gogosox82]

Sam Harris is white af and he includes himself among those who would be profiled. In his own words he's saying his stance on profiling isn't merely on the basis of skin color.

That's a ridiculous thing to say though. In what scenario would he be profiled? You don't subject yourself to being profiled. Your profiled based on several key things that are easily identifiable by law enforcement. Things like skin color. By looking at Harris you wouldn't think he's a muslim because he's a white American so I find that fact he says he would be profiled to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

That's a ridiculous thing to say though. In what scenario would he be profiled? You don't subject yourself to being profiled. Your profiled based on several key things that are easily identifiable by law enforcement. Things like skin color. By looking at Harris you wouldn't think he's a muslim because he's a white American so I find that fact he says he would be profiled to be intellectually dishonest.

He's saying he believes he should be.

 

[ElFly]

You clearly haven't actually listened to him speak on the subject, because he never once mentions skin color.

In fact he uses particular clothing styles as his example. I don't know the exact name of the article of clothing he used to make his point, but apparently there is a particular article of clothing that he argues only someone belonging to an Islamist group would wear.

Mohammed Atta wore a blue shirt and dark pants for 9/11.

If your profiling is so useless that it would not stop 9/11, what is the point?

Other than harassing people dressed like you say.

Besides, this is a beyond, way beyond, stupid way of constructing a defense against terrorism. If terrorists know airport security will be looking for a determined piece of clothing, they will just stop using it.

Congratulations, you are now profiling for a useless piece of clothing and also being racist.


edit: Bruce Schneier demolishes this kind of profiling...in Sam Harris own's blog.

I recommend researching before making silly points.

 

[aeolist]

He's saying he believes he should be.

and that's really easy for him to say when he knows full well that it would never happen

 

[pigeon]

And yet law enforcement does it. Each and every day. If there's a serial killer on the loose.... They're looking especially at white males.

They seem to think it's useful to narrow down suspects to specific demographics. They just can't say it bluntly or risk causing offense.

Again, it is true that law enforcement profiles. For example, law enforcement officers will frequently arrest young black males for no good reason and subject them to years of trial and prison.

But that does not make it a good idea to profile. It just makes law enforcement subject to the same racial biases as any other profession.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'll admit to some of this, even on my part, but I strongly object to everyone acting as if myself and some others haven't directly addressed the contents and logic of some of his positions and statements.

Since we're showing our cards, I'll admit to being affected by Harris' podcast. It seems to be the ongoing drama of how people take his pedantically explained and well reasoned arguments on difficult subjects (agree with them or not), they are misrepresented by some liberal pundit in a characterized attack, and then he pedantically re-explains his original point which is certainly more nuanced and less "bigotry" than the attack indicated.

If you follow this drama long enough, you see the pattern. He is misrepresented and smeared on the regular.

Harris isn't a bigot. He's more of a naively stubborn Socrates-like figure who just won't stop asking annoying questions about subjects that are taboo, and it keeps getting him in trouble.

I frequently disagree with him, but the fact that he opens these kinds of discussions seems like a good thing.

 

[RustyNails]

Again, it is true that law enforcement profiles. For example, law enforcement officers will frequently arrest young black males for no good reason and subject them to years of trial and prison.

But that does not make it a good idea to profile. It just makes law enforcement subject to the same racial biases as any other profession.

The broader point that's missing is that profiling Muslims say at an airport is not the same thing as LAPD looking for black/white/hispanic male suspects after a robbery. First one is prejudiced towards Muslims.

 

[gogosox82]

He's saying he believes he should be.

And I'm saying that its completely pointless for him to do so because he will never be profiled for being a muslim. If you never met Sam Harris and knew nothing about him, would you assume that he is muslim? Of course you wouldn't because he's a white American. That's why its pointless to say "I'll be profiled" when he knows damn well that there is little to no chance that he would be subjected to it in the first place.

 

[nynt9]

Since we're showing our cards, I'll admit to being affected by Harris' podcast. It seems to be the ongoing drama of how people take his pedantically explained and well reasoned arguments on difficult subjects (agree with them or not), they are misrepresented by some liberal pundit in a characterized attack, and then he pedantically re-explains his original point which is certainly more nuanced and less "bigotry" than the attack indicated.

If you follow this drama long enough, you see the pattern. He is misrepresented and smeared on the regular.

Harris isn't a bigot. He's more of a naively stubborn Socrates-like figure who just won't stop asking annoying questions about subjects that are taboo, and it keeps getting him in trouble.

I frequently disagree with him, but the fact that he opens these kinds of discussions seems like a good thing.

I agree with this characterization. He is often pragmatical to a fault, talking about very emotionally charged subjects with detached rhetoric, which leads to him being labeled a bigot because he does not weigh the emotional impact of the statements he makes into his conclusions.

 

[haxamin]

Serious question. What do you want the religious leaders to do instead? Vigilantism? Find every parent of every victim and say something? Compare the leaders of every other religion; what do they do in the face of scrutiny? They're clearly trying to spread their teachings against hate and violence. It's all that they can do.Leaders are insufficient. Ordinary muslims need to do something. Campaigning, teaching, self-regulating. What have you done?ive attended plenty of meetings and talks about counter-extremism. I also regularly debate with muslims on these issues. We should all be chill like Buddhist monks or something, right? Oh wait, they're killing people too.Wonderful comparison(!) Shall we send Seal Team 6 against them?

And lets be real, Portsmouth is home to some income-deprived families, most of these young supporters are illiterate(wrong) and last I read there were demonstrators gathered outside a mosque, protesting against a Muslim primary school in the city. By that equation (animosity and economic hardship) is it a real wonder why youths are being seduced to a frontline? Economic hardship/protests ===> Joining a bloodthirsty cult? okayyyy

Alienating people is not the answer.

.

 

[cackhyena]

Harris isn't a bigot. He's more of a naively stubborn Socrates-like figure who just won't stop asking annoying questions about subjects that are taboo, and it keeps getting him in trouble.

This is pretty spot on lol.

 

[Joel Was Right]

It's a shame the New Atheist movement of intellectuals consists of morally dubious who lament the immorality of religion. We can do better.

 

[Foffy]

Since we're showing our cards, I'll admit to being affected by Harris' podcast. It seems to be the ongoing drama of how people take his pedantically explained and well reasoned arguments on difficult subjects (agree with them or not), they are misrepresented by some liberal pundit in a characterized attack, and then he pedantically re-explains his original point which is certainly more nuanced and less "bigotry" than the attack indicated.

If you follow this drama long enough, you see the pattern. He is misrepresented and smeared on the regular.

Harris isn't a bigot. He's more of a naively stubborn Socrates-like figure who just won't stop asking annoying questions about subjects that are taboo, and it keeps getting him in trouble.

I frequently disagree with him, but the fact that he opens these kinds of discussions seems like a good thing.

Harris is really my go-to guy for a modern perspective on the illusion of free will/self that is found outside of philosophy and meditation.

Mainly because anything else this guy says gets his ass lit, even if it doesn't need to. I'm amazed Golden Girls hasn't been used against him in "white guilt" arguments, seeing as his mother made that show. That's like the last thing he needs and he's had it all thrown at him.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Since we're showing our cards, I'll admit to being affected by Harris' podcast. It seems to be the ongoing drama of how people take his pedantically explained and well reasoned arguments on difficult subjects (agree with them or not), they are misrepresented by some liberal pundit in a characterized attack, and then he pedantically re-explains his original point which is certainly more nuanced and less "bigotry" than the attack indicated.

If you follow this drama long enough, you see the pattern. He is misrepresented and smeared on the regular.

Harris isn't a bigot. He's more of a naively stubborn Socrates-like figure who just won't stop asking annoying questions about subjects that are taboo, and it keeps getting him in trouble.

I frequently disagree with him, but the fact that he opens these kinds of discussions seems like a good thing.

And yet this thread has been filled with a bunch of Harris supporters all very much agreeing with each other, generally without linking to any specific posts, how everything being said against him here is wrong, ignorant, irrational, emotionally driven, and/or character assassination compared to him and his extremely well reasoned and thoughtful and insightful. All while at the same time pretty much completely ignoring any posts and points of substance directed at him and his stated positions unless they have what appears to be a sort of canned response and not really proving any substance of their own. If people want to show the Salon piece from the OP to be wrong this is pretty much the exact opposite of how to do that.

 

[Dicktatorship]

If this shit is freethinking throw the fucking cuffs on me and swallow the key

 

[Jackpot]

Fatwah? Do you really think that's enough. A condemnation; give me a break.

I'm from Portsmouth. It has one of the highest number of people fleeing to join ISIS. And amongst the muslim community: radio silence.

Heck, upon hearing news of one of them dying the only thing they said was "it is said he died smiling"

No mention of "so what are the underlying causes of extremism etc etc"

Edit; Heck many muslims I know think the jews did 9/11!!

Double Edit: Im no longer a Junior

ok, I'll bite. What do you consider good enough for it to be "of substance"?

 

[The Adder]

I don't even know the guy but holy shit is this topic the biggest fucking intellectual circle jerk I've ever seen. I'm reading actual solid arguments against Harris' statements and the reply from his fans is consistently "Isn't it terrible how no one understands him and are just so emotional about everything?"

 

[pigeon]

Harris is really my go-to guy for a modern perspective on the illusion of free will/self that is found outside of philosophy and meditation.

Mainly because anything else this guy says gets his ass lit, even if it doesn't need to. I'm amazed Golden Girls hasn't been used against him in "white guilt" arguments, seeing as his mother made that show. That's like the last thing he needs and he's had it all thrown at him.

Well, that's because Golden Girls is awesome, duh.

 

[haxamin]

ok, I'll bite. What do you consider good enough for it to be "of substance"?

oh idk... How about critically reassessing whats actually taught in mosques, actively campaigning, encouraging more integration with the public, privately finding and counselling those that are allegedly having extremist views?

 

[RustyNails]

oh idk... How about critically reassessing whats actually taught in mosques, actively campaigning, encouraging more integration with the public, privately finding and counselling those that are allegedly having extremist views?

How many terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims because they were not well-integrated?

 

[Coriolanus]

oh idk... How about critically reassessing whats actually taught in mosques, actively campaigning, encouraging more integration with the public, privately finding and counselling those that are allegedly having extremist views?

Your ignorance is staggering.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

that's fucking racist

Muslim isn't a race.

How many terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims because they were not well-integrated?

Do you deny that groups like ISIS prey on and recruit Muslims who feel like outcasts in Western society?

 

[BocoDragon]

And yet this thread has been filled with a bunch of Harris supporters all very much agreeing with each other, generally without linking to any specific posts, how everything being said against him here is wrong, ignorant, irrational, emotionally driven, and/or character assassination compared to him and his extremely well reasoned and thoughtful and insightful. All while at the same time pretty much completely ignoring any posts and points of substance directed at him and his stated positions unless they have what appears to be a sort of canned response and not really proving any substance of their own. If people want to show the Salon piece from the OP to be wrong this is pretty much the exact opposite of how to do that.

I guess we've seen it all before. It's hard to engage with crticisims you already know to be vacuous. The original Salon article was one of those typically uncharitable attack pieces. Harris wanted to do a point by point to clear it up, because he foolishly believes that he can correct them with enough logical debate... And I suppose it made for bad content.

Because of recent events... I can easily believe all this.
Just last week, Harris did publish a podcast with an interview that went badly. It was an infuriating interview because it was with someone determined not to come to any kind of consensus... And the woman in question received a torrent of abuse of social media. Now Harris says he regrets publishing this podcast, and would have rather did what he did with the Salon rebuttal. If you know what I know... This makes sense. No reason to suspect Harris of being malicious in his intent on the "not publishing interview" front, because he is indeed damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I'll also add (re: Salon) that the format of dialogue where liberals dismiss people as "bigots" or other pejoratives off hand, so they can be destroyed/ignored, is target number one of a liberal movement that's been brewing. Have you heard of the debate over the "regressive left"? People are increasingly sick of this form of liberal smearing of opponents, and are building themselves the language to fight it. So pieces like this Salon article are pretty much primed to be ignored by those of us in this area of debate. Witch hunts looking for "bad people" are so out. Open inquiry is in.

 

[haxamin]

Your ignorance is staggering.

Please elaborate. Clearly growing up in a muslim household, going to mosque everyday for a decade, facing islamophobia, memorizing the quran puts me in a position of ignorance.

 

[Infinite]

Muslim isn't a race.

Islam is is a racialized religion.

 

[The Technomancer]

I guess we've seen it all before. It's hard to engage with crticisims you already know to be vacuous. The original Salon article was one of those typically uncharitable attack pieces. Harris wanted to do a point by point to clear it up, because he foolishly believes that he can correct them with enough logical debate... And I suppose it made for bad content.

Because of recent events... I can easily believe all this.
Just last week, Harris did publish a podcast with an interview that went badly. It was an infuriating interview because it was with someone determined not to come to any kind of consensus... And the woman in question received a torrent of abuse of social media. Now Harris says he regrets publishing this podcast, and would have rather did what he did with the Salon rebuttal. If you know what I know... This makes sense. No reason to suspect Harris of being malicious in his intent on the "not publishing interview" front, because he is indeed damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I'll also add (re: Salon) that the format of dialogue where liberals dismiss people as "bigots" or other pejoratives off hand, so they can be destroyed/ignored, is target number one of a liberal movement that's been brewing. Have you heard of the debate over the "regressive left"? People are increasingly sick of this form of liberal smearing of opponents, and are building themselves the language to fight it. So pieces like this Salon article are pretty much primed to be ignored by those of us in this area of debate. Witch hunts looking for "bad people" are so out. Open inquiry is in.

I mean, is this post inaccurate? Maybe the reason many of us consider Harris increasingly illiberal is because we see him saying things we think are illiberal?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=197808007&postcount=66

 

[haxamin]

Do you deny that groups like ISIS prey on and recruit Muslims who feel like outcasts in Western society?

one and done.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

And I'm saying that its completely pointless for him to do so because he will never be profiled for being a muslim. If you never met Sam Harris and knew nothing about him, would you assume that he is muslim? Of course you wouldn't because he's a white American. That's why its pointless to say "I'll be profiled" when he knows damn well that there is little to no chance that he would be subjected to it in the first place.

So how should I be judging his criteria? Based on what he's arguing for or based on the fact that Sam Harris likely wouldn't get profiled in an airport today?

I'm taking him at his word that this is his stance on profiling. What will or wont happen in an airport is irrelevant because the TSA isn't being advised by Sam Harris on airport security. I'll assume -- based on his blog and addendum -- that if they were to he may get profiled.

I agree his opinion may be pointless, many are. But the assertions was that it was racist and from reading the article his criteria for profiling wasn't race.The point he's making seems a lot like this old Lewis Black bit I've always liked. It didn't come off as racist to me.

 

[ElFly]

Muslim isn't a race.

In his discussion on profiling, he continuously stresses on how the TSA should focus on those who look muslim, and ignore the white people, or people who are obviously not terrorists, people who look, and I quote "as if it just stepped out of a Ralph Lauren ad".

Of course, muslim is not a race, but it is suspicious that he concentrates on "looking muslim" vs "looking like a ralph lauren ad".

Even if it wasn't racism, it is still a hateful discrimination, and one discrimination that doesn't really increase airport security, and thus, stupid.

 

[partyphone]

Do you deny that groups like ISIS prey on and recruit Muslims who feel like outcasts in Western society?

mainly the ones who have been bombed by western militaries.

 

[Moral Panic]

I guess we've seen it all before. It's hard to engage with crticisims you already know to be vacuous. The original Salon article was one of those typically uncharitable attack pieces. Harris wanted to do a point by point to clear it up, because he foolishly believes that he can correct them with enough logical debate... And I suppose it made for bad content.

Because of recent events... I can easily believe all this.
Just last week, Harris did publish a podcast with an interview that went badly. It was an infuriating interview because it was with someone determined not to come to any kind of consensus... And the woman in question received a torrent of abuse of social media. Now Harris says he regrets publishing this podcast, and would have rather did what he did with the Salon rebuttal. If you know what I know... This makes sense. No reason to suspect Harris of being malicious in his intent on the "not publishing interview" front, because he is indeed damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

I'll also add (re: Salon) that the format of dialogue where liberals dismiss people as "bigots" or other pejoratives off hand, so they can be destroyed/ignored, is target number one of a liberal movement that's been brewing. Have you heard of the debate over the "regressive left"? People are increasingly sick of this form of liberal smearing of opponents, and are building themselves the language to fight it. So pieces like this Salon article are pretty much primed to be ignored by those of us in this area of debate. Witch hunts looking for "bad people" are so out. Open inquiry is in.

I am 90% sure this is a parody post.

 

[Maxim726X]

I am 90% sure this is a parody post.

And you would be 100% incorrect.

I agree with him.

 

[BocoDragon]

I mean, is this post inaccurate? Maybe the reason many of us consider Harris increasingly illiberal is because we see him saying things we think are illiberal?

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=197808007&postcount=66

I don't see what's illiberal here.

He might be wrong. I mean, I don't know the details of this, but let's assume it is a straight up rebuttal of his claim. Was having this discussion illiberal? Liberalism implies open discussion.

 

[aeolist]

here's one of the better harris bits i've found in 30 seconds of googling his fallacies

It is sometimes alleged of Harris that no amount of data and facts will budge his doggedly anti-Muslim atavism. I think this is unjust; Harris does evolve with the facts. But like the ever moving goal post, he does so with stealth so as to mask his contradictions. A case in point: For years he hotly denied the reality of Christian suicide bombers in the Middle East, defying critics to name “Where are the Christian suicide bombers?” until a public encounter with the distinguished anthropologist Scott Atran forced him into a collision with just such a lot of Christians, namely the PLFP. And since then he's quietly dropped this denial and switched to carping at their small numbers: “Palestinian Christians suffer the same Israeli occupation. How many have blown themselves up on a bus in Tel Aviv? One? Two?”

Wrong. The PFLP has conducted ten suicide bombings. And that's just Palestinian Christians.

 

[Rentahamster]

I keep reading the thread title as "My secret date with Sam Harris".

 

[pigeon]

I don't see what's illiberal here.

He might be wrong. I mean, I don't know the details of this, but let's assume it is a straight up rebuttal of his claim. Was having this discussion illiberal? Liberalism implies open discussion.

If you are consistently wrong, always in the same direction, eventually there's a point where you lose the benefit of the doubt that you are doing a fair and unbiased investigation of the available evidence.

 

[Moral Panic]

I don't see what's illiberal here.

He might be wrong. I mean, I don't know the details of this, but let's assume it is a straight up rebuttal of his claim. Was having this discussion illiberal? Liberalism implies open discussion.

Where's the open discussion when he dictates the terms of the debate, still gets owned and refuses to publish the record?

 

[BocoDragon]

If you are consistently wrong, always in the same direction, eventually there's a point where you lose the benefit of the doubt that you are doing a fair and unbiased investigation of the available evidence.

But he's not consistently wrong.

People are doing the thing where they are looking for a reason to dismiss everything he ever says because of some minor (and surely debatable) discrepancies.

Is this honest debate? Should everyone of us be dismissed for our minor faults?

 

[Simply Sarah]

I guess we've seen it all before. It's hard to engage with crticisims you already know to be vacuous. The original Salon article was one of those typically uncharitable attack pieces. Harris wanted to do a point by point to clear it up, because he foolishly believes that he can correct them with enough logical debate... And I suppose it made for bad content.

This is not a fair way to address a piece. It's patently unfair and biased, actually. You can make almost anything sound bad doing one-sided responses, which is what he proposed and insisted on being how it would be done, even if it's not what actually happened. Rational and reasonable discussion requires a back and forth and a give and take of ideas. He apparently wanted none of that. I don't care if the original article was unfair or not, what he was demanding was as one sided as the article he stated was faulty.

Besides, what has been said in this thread has not been about the Salon piece for the most part but has been ignored anyway.

I'll also add (re: Salon) that the format of dialogue where liberals dismiss people as "bigots" or other pejoratives off hand, so they can be destroyed/ignored, is target number one of a liberal movement that's been brewing. Have you heard of the debate over the "regressive left"? People are increasingly sick of this form of liberal smearing of opponents, and are building themselves the language to fight it. So pieces like this Salon article are pretty much primed to be ignored by those of us in this area of debate. Witch hunts looking for "bad people" are so out. Open inquiry is in.

Again, there has been substance in this thread that has been completely, totally, and utterly ignored. I've assumed you didn't mean those in you "It's hard to engage with crticisims you already know to be vacuous." statement because that would be ridiculously dismissive, utterly unhelpful to anything, would assume a ton of bad faith, and, I've discovered, my post about cost/benefits of such profiling pretty much mirrors what Bruce Schneier said in his response to Harris' first piece. I mean, to dismiss the reasoned opinion on security policy by Schneier, a quite well regarded and accomplished security expert among other things, as being vacuous would be hubris to say the least.

But he's not consistently wrong.

People are doing the thing where they are looking for a reason to dismiss everything he ever says because of some minor (and surely debatable) discrepancies.

Is this honest debate? Should everyone of us be dismissed for our minor faults?

Dude, where is the honest debate? Ignoring basically every point from people on one side is not honest debate. Dismissing them as emotional, misguided, wrong, and dishonest out of hand is not honest debate. Handwaving non-specified points as "minor discrepancies" is not honest debate.

 

[BocoDragon]

Where's the open discussion when he dictates the terms of the debate, still gets owned and refuses to publish the record?

He's published a lot of interviews that went sour.

The one with Chomsky. The one last week with Maryam Namazie.

I believe him when he says it makes for bad content. Should it be published anyway for journalistic integrity? Okay, that's an argument that can be made.

You'd be in a make believe zone if you actually think it's about suppressing embarassing information though. Harris embarrasses himself on the reg.

 

[Muffdraul]

i don't see why it's so difficult to admit that he is especially prejudiced against islam. the evidence is abundant and puts all of this so-called "reasonable" statements in question.

Maybe he's like me: an atheist who is stridently against all religions, but can't help but notice that one of them in particular has been working extra hard to win the Worst Religion of the Year award for the last, I dunno, three or four decades at least?

 

[aeolist]

Maybe he's like me: an atheist who is stridently against all religions, but can't help but notice that one of them in particular has been working extra hard to win the Worst Religion of the Year award for the last, I dunno, three or four decades at least?

but he has consistently revealed a vast ignorance of what is actually happened in the islamic world, while repeatedly producing apologia for the hegemonic butchery of the US and israel

islam is disgusting because all life is sacred unless it's snuffed out by an american drone strike because that's just unfortunate necessity i guess

 

[cackhyena]

Where's the open discussion when he dictates the terms of the debate, still gets owned and refuses to publish the record?

Where did he get owned, exactly?

 

[BocoDragon]

This is not a fair way to address a piece. It's patently unfair and biased, actually. You can make almost anything sound bad doing one-sided responses, which is what he proposed and insisted on being how it would be done, even if it's not what actually happened. Rational and reasonable discussion requires a back and forth and a give and take of ideas. He apparently wanted none of that. I don't care if the original article was unfair or not, what he was demanding was as one sided as the article he stated was faulty.

Besides, what has been said in this thread has not been about the Salon piece for the most part but has been ignored anyway.

Dont you at least see Harris' motivation here?

Someone wrote a hit piece on him, and he wanted to actually address each fact in it and correct it bit by bit.

I think it's misguided and idealistic and of course it turned into a disaster. That's the angle I can agree with here: foolish Sam Harris thought he could actually correct the record by convincing his attacker that he was wrong by going over each fact. It's incredibly naive.

But the angle of this Salon rebuttal that it's about some arrogant control freak suppressing information.. Naw. Thats silly. That's an uncharitable fallout from a disastrous interview written by the guy who wrote an uncharitable hit piece in the first place.

Again, there has been substance in this thread that has been completely, totally, and utterly ignored. I've assumed you didn't mean those in you "It's hard to engage with crticisims you already know to be vacuous." statement because that would be ridiculously dismissive, utterly unhelpful to anything, would assume a ton of bad faith, and, I've discovered, my post about cost/benefits of such profiling pretty much mirrors what Bruce Schneier said in his response to Harris' first piece. I mean, to dismiss the reasoned opinion on security policy by Schneier, a quite well regarded and accomplished security expert among other things, as being vacuous would be hubris to say the least.

In regard to the original Salon article, I was explaining to you why people in Harris' circle are unlikely to be sympathetic towards heavy-handed attack pieces that paint him with a broad brush. They've been talking about the "regressive left" for months now. This feels exactly like one of those smear pieces, whether it truly is or not.

If there are real points to be discussed (and I can see that there are), they're lost in the general tone of trying to paint him as persona non grata. And that goes for both Salon and the aggregate of much of this thread.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

So beyond the profiling stuff (which is going way too far, imo), what's the issue with what Harris believes with regard to Muslims?

I'm not entirely versed in his views, but I know he's spoken out against honor killings, female genital mutilation, treating women as second class citizens, and the fact that many (even so-called "mainstream") Muslims believe that those who leave the religion and/or speak ill of Muhammad should be put to death.

Surely we can all agree he's right on those points, correct? I mean, it's wrong when anyone does any of those things, religiously motivated or not. We don't believe in giving large numbers of people a free pass on batshit crazy stuff just because it's their religion, right?

 

[JesseEwiak]

They've been talking about the "regressive left" for months now.
.

Sorry, but for me, at this point anybody who uses the phrase "regressive left" unironically is lumped in with Gamergators and people who think All Lives Matter.

So beyond the profiling stuff (which is going way too far, imo), what's the issue with what Harris believes with regard to Muslims?

I'm not entirely versed in his views, but I know he's spoken out against honor killings, female genital mutilation, treating women as second class citizens, and the fact that many (even so-called "mainstream") Muslims believe that those who leave the religion and/or speak ill of Muhammad should be put to death.

Surely we can all agree he's right on those points, correct? I mean, it's wrong when anyone does any of those things, religiously motivated or not. We don't believe in giving large numbers of people a free pass on batshit crazy stuff just because it's their religion, right?

The thing is, none of that is because of Islam. It's because of the nomadic cultures that large portions of Islam rose up in had honor killings, female genital mutilation, and all the rest before Islam became popular. The trouble with Muslim portions of the world isn't Islam - it's because those parts of the world are poor and largely ran by assholes.

So, yes, those things are wrong, but that doesn't mean somebody who believes in Islam for whatever reason should be profiled or frankly criticized until they try to make public policy based on it.

 

[cackhyena]

Sorry, but for me, at this point anybody who uses the phrase "regressive left" unironically is lumped in with Gamergators and people who think All Lives Matter.

So you'd say the guy who created that phrase, Majid Nawaz, falls in that camp, huh?

 

[Muffdraul]

So beyond the profiling stuff (which is going way too far, imo), what's the issue with what Harris believes with regard to Muslims?

I'm not entirely versed in his views, but I know he's spoken out against honor killings, female genital mutilation, treating women as second class citizens, and the fact that many (even so-called "mainstream") Muslims believe that those who leave the religion and/or speak ill of Muhammad should be put to death.

Surely we can all agree he's right on those points, correct? I mean, it's wrong when anyone does any of those things, religiously motivated or not. We don't believe in giving large numbers of people a free pass on batshit crazy stuff just because it's their religion, right?

Respect their culture! Stop punching down!

 

[K.Sabot]

Pfft, regressive left? I prefer using the term "Fox News Liberals". The type that label and compartmentalize people so they can say to the world that they no longer have to listen to them while willfully ignoring any actual point in an argument.

JesseEwiak just tried this by attempting to label people who believe in a regressive left as gamergators so that everyone puts them away into the gamergate trashbin and he no longer has to listen to them.