I have wanted to do a blog post on Sam Harris for some time. I’ve had trouble sort of knowing where to begin. My first introduction to his work was his short book, or perhaps long essay, on free will. I found him to be an excellent thinker. Then I noticed that he was being attacked a lot by the left and I wanted to learn why. Like many great thinkers, they can seem unfeeling, and I do think there have been many instances where atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris have been taking completely out of context. For them ideas are not something that can be handled in a sound bite. They like to break down arguments into their components and take a line of reasoning in a particular direction and test it out. And I can see why people find distaste for Dawkins at times, and after reading a lot of Sam Harris I can see why there is distaste for him as well. But I would say if you don’t like Sam Harris it’s because you haven’t really read what he has to say and have been going by what critics say about him, or you find what he has to say uncomfortable. He is critical of the left, even though he himself is clearly a liberal. Like me, he is against bad ideas. And he is very good at reasoning what is a good idea and a bad idea. In this era of identity politics it seems like there should only be us and them and Sam Harris is trying to find common ground. Trying to promote reasoned discourse. I connect with him for this reason, and I connect with him because he is scientifically minded, and I find him to be brilliant. That doesn’t mean that I always agree with him. I’ve come to a place in my life where I feel sure enough of my intelligence that I can even disagree with someone I find profoundly brilliant. I’ll tell you this much though, if you are a liberal, you do yourself a disservice if you’ve written him off. Whether you end up agreeing or disagreeing, if you want to be liberal and progressive, truly try to take in what he is saying and follow his logic, it will at the very least lead to some quality introspection. Proving him wrong through reasoned arguments will make you richer than dismissing him on an emotional level.
The main reason for this post is that I was listening to his podcast called Waking Up With Sam Harris, and there was a segment that was so wonderfully said that I had to transcribe it and share it. I know myself, my wife, and many that I know have been feeling this sense of complete disbelief at Trump’s win. Not that Republican’s won, but Trump in particular. It’s so obvious to many of us what a complete liar and con man he is, and he’s not even a good one. It makes 100% sense why many people would vote for almost any other Republican candidate, but in many ways Trump still remains a mystery to many. We can read story after story about why Trump won, but in the end, there is still this sense that many other politicians could have also had this appeal. Anyway, Sam Harris here simply breaks it down perfectly and provided structure to my disbelief in all this, and why I find Trump as such a dangerous person to be president of this country and why I worry about our future and wonder if we, as a nation, can head in the right direction once again. So without more of my rambling I wanted to share these words with you from episode #64: Ask Me Anything 6.
“There is a difference between truth and lies. There is a difference between real news and fake news. There is a difference between actual conspiracies and imagined ones. And we cannot afford to have 100’s of millions of people, in our own society, on the wrong side of those epistemological chasms. And we certainly can’t afford to have members of our own government on the wrong side of it. As I’ve said many times before, all we have is conversation…you have conversation and violence. That’s how we can influence one another. When things really matter and words are insufficient, people show up with guns. That’s the way things are. So we have to create the conditions where conversations work. And now we’re living in an environment where words have become totally ineffectual. This is what has been so harmful about Trump’s candidacy and his first few weeks as president. The degree to which the man lies, and the degree to which his supporters do not care, that is one of the most dangerous things to happen in my lifetime, politically. There simply has to be a consequence for lying on this level. And the retort from a Trump fan is “Well all politicians lie.” No. All politicians don’t lie like this. What we are witnessing with Trump and the people around him is something quite new. Even if I grant that all politicians lie a lot. I don’t know if I should grant that. All politicians lie sometimes, say…but…even in their lying they have to endorse the norm of truth telling. That’s what it means to lie successfully in politics (in a former age of the Earth). You can’t obviously be lying. You can’t be repudiating the very norm of honest communication. But what Trump has done, and the people around him get caught in the same vortex, it’s almost like a giddy nihilism in politics, you just say whatever you want. And it doesn’t matter if it’s true. “Just try to stop me”, is the attitude. It’s unbelievable.
Finding ways to span this chasm between people, finding ways where we can reliably influence one another, through conversation, based on shared norms of argumentation and self-criticism, that is the operating systems we need. That is the only thing that stands between us and chaos. And there are the people who are trying to build that, and there are the people who are trying to take it down. Now one of those people is people is president. And I really don’t think this is too strong. Trump is, by all appearances, consciously destroying the fabric of civil conversation, and his supporters really don’t seem to care. I’m sure those of you support him will think I’m just winging now in the spirit of partisanship. That I’m a democrat, or that I’m a liberal, but that’s just not the case. Most normal Republican candidates, who I might dislike for a variety of reasons like Marco Rubio, or Jeb Bush, or even a quasi-theocrat like Ted Cruz, would still function within the normal channels of attempting a fact based conversation about the world. Their lies would be normal lies, and when caught there would be a penalty to pay. They would lose face. Trump has no face to lose. This is an epistemological pot latch.” (Sam Harris then describes what a pot latch is: a Native American practice of burning up your prized possessions as a way of showing how wealthy you are). “This is a pot latch of civil discourse. Every time Trump speaks he’s saying, “I don’t have to make sense. I’m too powerful to even have to make sense.” That is his message. And half the country, or nearly half, seems to love it. So when he’s caught in a lie, he has no face to lose. Trump is chaos. And one of the measures of how bad he seems to me is that I don’t even care about the theocrats he has brought to power with him, and there are many of them. He has brought in Christian fundamentalists to a degree that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, and 10 years ago I was spending a lot of time worrying about the rise of the Christian right in this country. Well it has risen under Trump, but honestly it seems like the least of our problems at this moment. And it’s amazing for me to say that given what it means and what it might mean to have people like Pence and Jeff Sessions and the other Christian fundamentalists in his orbit, empowered in this way. ”
Resist my friends.
Cloak Unfurled 
Oh my, my! Swarn… I wish EVERYONE took that advice to heart and practiced it! Imagine the “progress” this world or the U.S. would experience! 😮
“So we have to create the conditions where conversations work.” YES! More refined conversations; much less violence! But Swarn, and for the sake of inclusion: Sam Harris, HOW can we begin to find an effective way to converse with Christian Fundamentalists now in positions of governmental power? This is what I mean contextually by my question…
When there is a large segment of the population that vehemently believes THEY have exclusive rights to universal truth, i.e. the inerrant omniscent God-inspired Word (Scripture) via the church, the Pope, the Holy Spirit, or Allah (Quran) or Yahweh (Tanakh), etc, etc, whatever “source of truth” they accept beyond any shadow of doubt… HOW does one even discuss lies or non-lies, real news or fake news, sound reasoning or emotional bias when they refuse (because of “faith” only) to budge off that fundamental foundation of existence!? The power of the Placebo Effect and Peer-assimilation too often outweighs the power of progressive empirical evolution where TRUTH is constantly refined over time, over reexamination, and over failing better each time. And there’s my point! When a large group believes they are eternally infinitely RIGHT (the case for some 2-3 millenia minimum now) then HOW can actual reasoning and truth (which is actually quasi-fluid like scaffling) be the norm?
Would it be education starting with our youth? And if so, what type of education or not-education? LOL
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Professor. I do think ultimately education is the most important part of it. The problem of finding common ground with evangelical Christians in the south is a hard bridge to cross. It may be that it’s less about this generation than the next at this point. But I think with someone like Trump at the helm. Possibly even for longer than 4 years is the way that he is taking away from reasoned discourse. As he illuminates, even theocratic politicians like Pence would have to at least try and sincerely explain their position rather than the “anything goes” mentality, and I think that many of these people aren’t even necessarily evangelical Christians voting for Trump. While he certainly dominated the vote, many of them would have voted Republican anyway. I would say that the nature of the discourse simply gets worse, even in the way that liberals react to it. Also in the same podcast he talks about the liberal reaction to the creeping alt-right authoritarianism has a lot of issues and in many ways it’s not helping. Trump’s presidency is letting irrationality thrive and it’s making it difficult to challenging theist intrusions into government eve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re most likely correct. Look how long racism has stuck to us/U.S. since the early 1800s… 6 or 7 generations? Yikes! We are a VERY difficult species to dislodge from self-perceptions! 😮
With DeVos’ history of always advocating private (or semi-chartered) education instead of public education FOR ALL families, including the poor, it could be way too many future generations before Harris’ idea of creative brainstorming conversation in public and private offices free of rigid religious restrictions are realized, huh? Should I even get into dealing with tRumptopia authoritarianism and meglamania? 😦
I’ve been somewhat FORCED to watch/listen to tRump speeches and I am continually nauseated by his high school level at best sentence structures and crudely basic repeative adjectives to his nouns, verbs and topic points. I guess that is the result of tRump’s Kew-Forest prepatory school, University of Pennsylvania, Fordham University (and other minor campuses) in the 1960s produce? I cannot help but continually relate the 2016 campaign and this Presidency to the 2006 Idiocracy film, but there are seriously MANY similarities! LOL
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prof, you’ve put it far more succintly and lucidly than could I. Conversation is one thing. Conversation with a Stepford-wife/husband Fundamentalist is quite another. (Having grown up Mormon, believe me when I say I know of what I speak.) Many of these people are beyond/beyond reason, totally hypnotized, totally searching for a Prophet, for someone, anyone to tell them not what Jesus would do, but what on earth They should do. Just give them a cheap tacky red ‘baseball’ hat proclaiming, ‘Make America Great Again’ along with a mantra and they are all set. That’s all that’s required of them, let someone else do the work of thinking and governing and damn the consequences. Not having furthered their minds or hearts through higher education or by actually Practicing what Jesus preached, the amount of denial and anger that is seething under the surface is astounding. And there he is, this orange buffoon, perhaps the most ignorant man to ever hold the office of President, giving their ilk a voice while pandering to his own gigantic narcissistic ego.
Now I know I’m supposed to include everyone, that is, I realize of course, the higher ground. But this travesty is unprecedented, at least in my lifetime – there is less and less common ground to meet upon, and it’s getting dangerous out there for many innocent souls who don’t happen to conform to the desired gender or race. Personally I have lived far too long to believe that enough love is going to solve this. We need to resist in any and all ways possible. Good article by Harris. Aloha, Swarn.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Aannddd just read Pink’s latest post in my Reader with this, “If we are going to throw out facts as a prerequisite to discussion, we are reversing centuries of cognitive progress.”
Full text: The Butchering of the Age of Reason – The Daily Beast
Just had to add it here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Bela. I would certainly not discount your first. I guess I just hang on to some sort of hope, but I agree things feel different and the future never more uncertain.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Listening to the podcast now. For anyone interested:
Thanks for this post, Swarn, I’ve already shared my thoughts with you on FB, but I will add that there isn’t a day that goes by now where I don’t experience moments of grief. No amount of meditation, or other forms of escapism, can squelch the ache I feel regarding the state of this country, and where it is likely headed. But, I think having this painfully uncomfortable awareness is necessary. We must resist — in more ways than one.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Agreed Victoria. Knowing what we’re up against definitely has value.
I’ve only listened to the part up to the end of where he talks about Trump myself, so you are probably ahead of me now. He covers a lot of ground in his Ask me Anything episodes. But there is always some good meat in there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trump’s dead in the water — gone this autumn, history — bring it on, Comey.
What did you think about Sam Harris’ argument concerning consideration of a preemptive nuclear strike against a radical Islamist nation state armed with a nuclear weapon, Swarn?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I hope you’re right about Trump Hariod.
As an atheist myself, when I came to read many articles criticism Harris I became concerned. Of course there is nothing about atheism that implies that someone might not have the views that Harris had been purported to have, but nevertheless I get concerned when someone representing atheism seems to have such a compassionless view of the world. Thus I read numerous essays of his, and I read defenses of the criticism against him. Of course he has written them himself, and unless he is being dishonest I have found criticisms against him to be out of context. Regarding the one you mention, I am not sure exactly what you think his position is, but at least according to what he has written in defense of that criticism I find myself agreeing with him. While critics imply that he has said we should pre-emptively launch a nuclear missile on the Islamic world, again, if we are to believe his quoting from his own book, this is not what he said at all. His argument centers around a belief system that currently advocates martyrdom and a lot of people willing to take that step. Such an ideology he argues does not make for a very good cold war where nuclear armaments act as a deterrent. He is simply postulating about the terrible choice that might await us if something like ISIS had long range nuclear weapon capabilities. It would indeed be extremely dangerous. But I don’t see any place where he advocates a preemptive strike as a desirable, and that we should rather do everything we can to make sure that nuclear weapons stay out of ISIS or Al Qaeda’s hands. You can read his defense here. https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/response-to-controversy
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks Swarn, I have a reasonably accurate appreciation of Harris’ position on this subject, I think, and as a thought experiment on a potential moral dilemma, then yes, it’s perhaps a stimulating academic exercise. I sympathise with him in that he’s been forced to exert so much energy defending (what was it?) a couple of paragraphs tacked on at the end of one of his books, as I’ve nearly always admired his work, and always, his intellectual prowess. I watched a three hour-long rebuttal he made against Cenk Uygur’s charges that he was deeply misguided, not to say xenophobic, in using such an emotive subject as a kind of quasi-philosophical, academic talking point. I find I can’t ally with anyone’s argument that might hypothesise a major preemptive nuclear strike, possibly killing millions. Harris’ argument that what we might normally regard as the fringes of religious extremism are, in the case of Islam, not fringes at all, but rather more mainstream positions, doesn’t yet convince me, so I find his thought experiment a little suspect in that regard, and also in his consideration of using nuclear weapons offensively.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I don’t disagree with you. Harris does seem to collaborate with numerous people that were previously fairly radical Muslims and thus I feel like he is at least attempt to get a good handle on what life is like in the Muslim world before making his assertions, but at the same time I have also read that martyrdom itself in Islam isn’t quite as common as Harris sometimes makes it out to be and may not always be for religious ideological reasons. So perhaps he fears that aspect of radical Islam than he should. But I would have to think that nuclear weapons in the hands of ISIS does prevent different scenarios than they currently do with Pakistan. I have a hard time believing we would ever initiate nuclear attacks against a nation even if we had every reason they would not hesitate to do so with us. And I personally would stand by that attitude, but in an academic sense it might not be the right one. Or it may be pointless regardless because a retaliatory strike might still result in the same level of chaos and death ensuing.
I have talked with people who believe solely, (theists and atheists), that behavior comes first and we pick the ideology that justifies it. While others like Harris, lean the other way. I think such things are much more of a chicken and egg scenario. They feed each other, and I do find that Sam Harris doesn’t incorporate other factors that might lead to extremism into his discussion. That being said there are some differences between the Bible and the Koran that I think make it hard to necessary cherry pick the Koran to the same degree as people cherry pick the Bible.
I also do agree that the left here tends to attack Christianity with much more vehemence than Islam, when I do think that many Islamic countries are far less progressive in terms of things like gender equality and LGBT rights as many Christian groups in the west and so I do think it’s worthwhile to recognize that there are some bad ideas in Islam that we do need to be vigilant against in the same way we are against Christianity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Moral Absolutism isn’t always so easy, eh? And yet when I tell people I’m a Moral Relativist they usually remind me how unfashionable and wrong I am.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Haha…indeed it isn’t. I can’t quite tell if Harris is a moral relativist or an absolutist. I’ve heard him say that he does believe in their being moral truths, but he also says that science has a lot to say about morality as well and says that morality can evolve and change. Perhaps it’s possible that there are moral truths, but I find it hard to apply a certain set of morals consistently across a wide range of contexts. Perhaps the best way is to approach it scientifically, in that we want to keep searching for “truth” but with morality arriving at some endpoint seems a lot harder.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, Sir.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hariod, why do you think Trump is dead in the water? Do you think a bombshell scandal/crisis is imminent, so much so that his supporters will snap out of their cognitive dissonance?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Victoria! It’s obviously enough just an instinct that’s accumulated in my mind based on the same information we all have access to, but for two months now I’ve been sticking my neck out in the blogosphere to that effect — I suspect he’ll be gone by the autumn, give or take. I don’t think it’ll have anything whatsoever to do with his supporters, and needn’t have to. I suspect Comey will, in the coming weeks and months, set out evidence that leads inexorably to his impeachment, and it’ll be on the grounds of business dealings with Russia. We might hear about Rosneft and Alfa Bank, but my suspicion is that we’ll hear about some sort of deal*. It may otherwise happen that Pence pulls the plug on him with Section 4 of the 25th. amendment, but it seems far more likely that his own cupidity will sink him and it’ll be dealings with, or facilitated by, Russia. I only hope my instinct is right!
* Maybe one this size: http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-russia-rosneft-privatisation-insight-idUKKBN1582OH
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Hariod, thanks for your feedback and for the article. You’re not alone in that instinct. I just thought you might know more than what we already know from the MSM. I spend 8+ hours a day reading everything I can get my eyes and fingers on. I’ve gotten quite active in my community, town halls, rallies and calling representatives, etc. My point in bringing up his supporters was to highlight something Harris said, given the fact that so many are aggressive and fearful (neurologically speaking) and have guns. Lots and lots of guns.
LikeLiked by 4 people
So do you have an intuition as to how this may play out Victoria? You sound well informed on the situation, so surely you don’t see him lasting a whole term, do you? Do you think his supporters — the crazies who are left believing he ever had any credibility post-impeachment — will rise up with arms, and if so, against who?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hariod, I think we are ripe for civil war.
https://www.thenation.com/article/are-we-on-the-verge-of-another-civil-war/
The values and ideologies are so vastly different, it’s just a matter I time, I think.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks Victoria, I’ve just read the article. It’s a very frightening prospect that U.S. society may degenerate to such a level. I imagine the overwhelming forces of the nation state, assuming they maintained allegiance to the state, would swiftly crush any organised rebellion, which is not to say vigilante groups may not be able to make life hellish in pockets if nimble on their feet and in their not seeking to secure territorial authority.
Perhaps I have a misplaced faith in the nature of American people as a generality, but from over here I see them as being ahead of the political curve in leaning towards progressive thinking, cultural inclusivity, ethnic tolerance and social liberality — things representatives of the two political parties often are not, ironically enough. Perhaps these are hopelessly generalised impressions, but how far off the mark would you say they are?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hariod, you must be thinking about Canada, Lol. The U.S. has a poor rating among developed countries, and no doubt will get much worse with this new administration.
http://www.sciencealert.com/global-social-progress-index-lists-the-best-nations-in-the-world-to-live-in
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m obviously out of touch, Victoria. I only know Vancouver as far as Canadian cities go, but I used to be a regular (twice-yearly) visitor to the States during the 70s/80s/90s. I still think your country is more progressive politically than the two-party system admits of. I’m hoping Justice Democrats gathers in force and that the Dems swing behind, say, Warren and progressive policy in 2020 — my fear being that they’ll remain in thrall to corporatist interest and Pence gets to continue in office (due to the short-term Keynesian bounce you may well get from Trump’s economic policies). I believe you could yet see a progressive administration, a real paradigm shift, in 2020. Do you?
I read the article, thanks, and it was notable that in terms of social progress, “the world on average performs about as well as Mongolia or Kyrgyzstan.” The U.S. is in the Top 20 of 133 countries ranked — though of course we tend to judge these things by our own standards, or as you say, by the standards of ‘developed countries’. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yeah, we’re still in the boonies, as we say here, when it comes to being progressive. Women still have to fight for their reproductive rights and equal pay, etc., massive college debt if you’re lucky enough to go, half the country living in poverty or damn near it, xenophobia and homophobia flourish, rampant gerrymandering, and it’s quite possible that the First Amendment Defense Act will be signed by Trump, giving bigots the right to discriminate against gays and people who have sex out of wedlock. I think we are progressive in the sense that we are constantly having to be vigilant, constantly having to fight to keep any progressive laws that have been passed, the law of the land. We are losing that battle right now. The U.S. is becoming like Mississippi.
Having a progressive administration without a supportive congress won’t accomplish much, but I’m hopeful that many people will have a change of heart and realize that authoritarian leadership and neoliberalsm are toxic and deadly. The problem is, approximately half of the citizens in this country see the world through their right amygdala.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve gotten quite active in my community, town halls, rallies and calling representatives, etc
See, Agent Orange is Making America Great Again 😉
LikeLiked by 3 people
Haha — It wasn’t until just recently that I started meeting (offline) progressive activists. I was in a discussion with a guy I met last month, who has been a progressive and a human/civil rights activist in Mississippi for 30+ years, and he said he’s had similar experiences — just becoming aware of a growing movement of progressives/activists.
Certainly, we are outnumbered by a huge margin, and there are local militia who show up at some of these events to intimidate us. We’ve even received death threats. But it’s encouraging to learn that I’m not completely isolated here. I’ve never really been that into FB until recently. It’s become a tool to find other progressives, locally, and get organized. So, yes, there has been a silver lining in Cheeto country.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You might be outnumbered, but you own the moral ground. You own “right,” so don’t forget that.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It seems though that for impeachment to happen, enough Republican congress members need to be a part of that. While I believe their are many ready to spring into action, what has been holding them back thus far is the 87% Republican support in their districts. It’s not clear to me that will change by fall. But I suppose if the evidence is compelling enough they will simply have to act. I don’t know…I would think that there has been enough evidence for them to realize that Trump is off his rocker by now, but still they remain silent. Unless there is some stock market crash (which is likely) or other economic catastrophe, I’m not sure. I also worry about some Islamic terror event here at home helping keep support strong. 😦
LikeLiked by 5 people
We’re all guessing and hoping Swarn, even on this side of the pond and across Europe. I do think Comey holds the cards, but won’t show his hand yet — though he may yet be subpoenaed to do so. Can you see the Trump-Bannon axis lasting 4 years? I find it utterly inconceivable myself.
LikeLiked by 4 people
P.S. Did you mean to say ‘likely’ as regards a stock market crash?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, sorry. I was typing on the phone!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No I don’t think another 4 years… But I’m guessing somewhere around a year and half, were Republican congress members are going they can save face before the mid term elections. But the sooner the better.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It’s not productive to borrow trouble (guilty as charged), but at the same time, it’s not productive to stick our heads in the sand, either. It’s like being on a sinking ship, where one end of the ship is well above the waterline, and using that as evidence that the ship is not sinking. Another thing that stood out in Harris’ podcast was when he said that he hoped we didn’t experience an Islamic terror attack while Trump is president. Trump has used strategies that promote the recruitment of jihadists, then if there is a terrorist attack, will use that crisis to say “see I told you so”, and bam, he gets a second term.
Indeed, and the fact that the majority of Republican legislators are avoiding town hall meetings (in order to avoid media),speaks volumes.
LikeLiked by 4 people
The quote from Swarn and your added comment go along with my sentiments exactly!
LikeLiked by 2 people
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-director-letter
Just ran across this, Hariod – thought you’d find it of interest vis a vis the Comey comment.
Cheers!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Long but interesting article!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes to both! 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just read that Bela, so many thanks. I don’t doubt the labyrinthine politics Comey must navigate for one minute, but don’t you sense that he’ll have Reps like Graham and McCane who’ll assist? I read a while back that Comey’s not averse to being in the limelight, so if he can be perceived as taking down Trump he might like that. I think he’ll get one of them to squeal: Flynn, or Page, or Manafort, or Stone — one of them will want to save their own arse. I’d guess Manafort, but who knows?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hariod, you have a point about the limelight. And I’ve observed McCain for years – he can be a bit duplicitous, too much a darling of the political machine, though he too basks in attention. I’m not as familiar with Graham, so there’s that. Can’t say. As to taking Trump down, there’s no wish dearer to my heart, but they have to clean house at the same time – this couldn’t be happening with only the one, er, figurehead. Aloha, sweet ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyway, 59 Cruise missiles later . . . H ❤
LikeLiked by 2 people
Exactly. What a world. xoxo
LikeLiked by 1 person
This …
… sums things up perfectly!
LikeLiked by 4 people
Thanks Nan!
LikeLike
The degree to which the man lies
It. Is. Astonishing.
This is a nice graphic of his first 30 days
http://i1027.photobucket.com/albums/y336/johnzande/Trumps%20Lies_33%20days_zpsdmbarc3e.png?t=1487691480
LikeLiked by 5 people
Wow…an extremely telling graphic indeed!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ghastly. Seems we now need two measures: 1) Lies and 2) Conspiracy Theories tauted per day.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed. Or 1) Lies and 2) Delusions. LOL
LikeLiked by 2 people
In Harris’ podcast, something he said really stood out and reminded me of some research I read about the underdeveloped brains of juveniles. Their frontal lobes aren’t fully developed (judgement, critical thinking, impulse control), so juveniles are prone to impulsive and risky behavior because they are predominately functioning from their limbic system, also known as the paleomammalian cortex. They are driven by neurochemical rewards. Harris said that Trump is a boy in a man’s body.
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s a cute, perhaps even quaint defence. Harris uses verifiably spurious arguments. I have the impression he embarked on that quest because it garnered great media attention- but then it took on a life of its own. Have you ever heard him introducing Hirsi Ali? An exercise in snake-oil-salesmanship.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Pink, the *logic* seems to be that if a Jihadist group armed with a nuke sails across the Med and seizes Languedoc-Roussillon, then that region and all its inhabitants may have to suffer a nuclear strike — and this is because the lives of the inhabitants of Languedoc-Roussillon are somehow worth less than those of the Parisians which the Jihadist’s threaten. Do I understand it correctly?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, that does seem to be the logic. Quite in line with the ideology that led to the Iraq war.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hmm…I’ve heard Harris talk about her before. He seems to support her, as do I, so perhaps I have not noticed any snake-oil-salesmanship. Islam does need a reformation. One must be able to openly discuss Islam and be critical of it without fear of punishment. Women especially live in a great deal of fear and are often not educated in many Islamic countries. I see nothing wrong with advocating for gender rights and religious reform as she does. I am not familiar with all her writings, so perhaps I am missing something nefarious about her. I’ve only read a few articles by her and seen her in interview.
LikeLike
Google is there, so you can check. Her general proposition is Islam=Extremism=Terrorism. She uses murky language so she can go back and forth on her attacks whilst maintaining plausible deniability. She says “all”, then claims she meant “most”, unless an interviewer corners her, in which case she only meant “some”.
She’s gone so far as to link FGM to Islam when it’s in fact a tribal practice. She’s no fool, so promoting that trope is intentional deception. Scam artistry. The idea she wants to “reform” Islam is utterly disingenuous. As disingenuous as Sam Harris “not knowing” that we don’t ascribe behaviours to entire groups based on minority behaviours within said group.
LikeLike
I agree that her political actions do seem to indicate a more militaristic stance against Islam, but after reading the writings of Harris and Aayan Hirsi Ali, it is provocative, but nothing in the words seem like a direct call to violence against people of the Muslim faith. And just because FGM existed before, almost any practice existed before the religions of the world today, the fact that a certain ideology that is oppressive to woman would adopt it or endorse it, is still important. I came across this article today which seems to indicate FGM is likely more prevalent across the Islamic world as previously thought. That doesn’t contradict the idea that it has been practiced by other ideologies far before Islam adopted it. The fact that many women think it’s an Islamic practice which is what I found Hirsi Ali to be saying (I could find nowhere, where she said it was historically an Islamic practice, or commanded by the Koran). I do not think it is fair to simply put Christianity today and Islam on equal footing. I don’t think the fringe Christianity is as populous as radical Islam. Again if you believe that beliefs at least to some degree influence behavior than you have to be concerned how much injustice Islam brings to many of the Islamic nations where you have no separation of church and state. As with many thinkers out there I am interested only in their attack on ideas, and as I say, I find nothing in their writing that demonstrates they advocate violence against large populations of people, especially in regards to Harris. I do think Hirsi Ali is largely impacted by the traumatic experiences she saw as a woman growing up in Somalia. She does seem to have some angerness underneath the surface. Perhaps it’s understandable. After reading about her experiences and what she saw, I’d probably be much angrier than she is.
So I’ll leave it up to you, to prove that their writing advocates violence against Muslims over the opposition of harmful ideologies and behaviors. I find Harris to be rather consistent in his challenging of harmful religious ideas across all religions.
http://www.meforum.org/1629/is-female-genital-mutilation-an-islamic-problem
LikeLike
I found an absence of examples. People make such a big deal of his win, and how he’s Voldemord, but I don’t get real examples. I disagree with his climate change stance. I disagree with bringing so many Christian fundamentalists. I don’t see the Muslim ban thing as a problem because it isn’t a Muslim ban. It’s a ban on people of certain countries and these particular countries were also highlighted during Obama administration. I don’t know about the health care thing, but it’s not a lying problem. It’s something he did, and lying doesn’t feature in that. He promised the wall and he’s working on that apparently. So alleging certain ridiculous decisions is understandable, but Sam just based everything on his lying and simply neglected examples. Personally, I haven’t heard much of Sam Harris. The only time I heard was when he spoke against Ben Afflek about how Muslims are dangerous and the concentric existence of radicalism in Muslim and I largely agreed with him. I prefer Dawkins tbh. He’s got coop humor
LikeLike
Let’s see…millions of illegal votes, inauguration crowd, unemployment rate, zero GDP…it is difficult to keep up with the veritable Gish Gallop of bullshit (I know, that’s redundant). And now Obama was wiretapping him.
The volume has a numbing effect, and it is sometimes difficult to fix on the individual drops in the spray.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve found myself using the Gish Gallop line an awful lot lately when describing Agent Orange 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately I have to agree with the other person that replied to your comment. I find evidence of his lies rather voluminous. I agree that in principle is Muslim ban is not a ban, but interestingly enough these are the words that he himself used when introducing it at a press conference, so he seems to have lied then about his own executive order.
I’d be interested to here your response on the many lies listed here by politifact. This only goes up to March 2nd and does not include his most recentl lies about Obama tapping the Trump tower. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
Whether or not his policies themselves are good or bad (although I think they are demonstrably myopic and damaging) the fact remains that he lies. A lot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not talking about whether he actually lies or not, but am talking about what Sam Harris said. Since he based it all upon accusations if Trump being a liar, shouldn’t he have quoted which specific outrageous lies he was speaking against that were so disastrously harmful?
LikeLike
Hmm…I don’t think that was the point. Someone who lies as much as Trump regardless of whether it is disastrous or not is problematic in of itself. It’s difficult to have a reasoned conversation, to debate, when almost everything someone says is a lie, and that most of his supporters don’t care. The fact that Trump lies a lot was well documented and Harris is commenting on the problem of having someone who lies that much in charge of a country.
LikeLike
Well, I’m not American so I don’t know of these instances of lying. To be honest, the major reason why Trump got elected was because of the left wingers. I encountered so many talks of how trump says grabbing women by the pussy is okay, and then I found out it was just him talking to some other guy. It wasn’t like he held a press conference to discuss that. And frankly, unless he passes laws encouraging sexual harassment, his personal opinions don’t matter.
LikeLike
I have to disagree with you on that. The factors as to why Trump got elected are many, I would say it’s the neoliberal government establishment that is the reason for Trump, not because people want to live in a secular society where people are treated equally. There is also decades of fear mongering by the right which played a big role in allowing those fear being exploited by a populist.
In regards to his admission to sexual assault. For one he knew he was being recorded, and to me it doesn’t matter whether he was having a conversation with another guy or a press conference. He admitted and normalized sexual assault. I talk to guys and that’s not what I talk about. And that’s just one of many of his comments which demean and belittle women. I support feminism and gender equality and a president who has such an attitude towards women should not be in charge of the country. But we can agree to disagree on that.
LikeLike
I support gender equality, not feminism, but that’s beside the topic. I think that the media highlighted the wrong things. I mean his stance on global warming is much more disastrous for America than his personal opinions which he isn’t legally enforcing. And from what I’ve seen, the reason Trump got elected is because he represented drastic change. People were sick of leftists and their language policing. I see incidents like those in UC Berkeley and I’m like ‘What! Not allowing a person to speak? But that’s America! Surely that’s not what happens in developed countries.’
When he began claiming to make America great again, people perceived it as bringing about changes that would reform the system from its current ‘I’m offended’ whiny position.
LikeLike
If political correctness is a reason to elect somebody with such backwards economic and social views, that allows theocrats to rise to power in the government then this is a far worse reason to vote for someone than any harm that being overly political correct can cause. I am not sure where you are getting your information from because to generalize the left as being all in support of overt political correctness would be incorrect. This of course is what the alt-right wants to highlight as being a problem, but just as you said there are much worse problems the nation is facing and so if Trump supporters are voting purely because of a FOX News talking point that has little bearing on their lives than their reasons for voting for Trump were even more spurious. I agree that what happened at Berkeley is ridiculous and I know many on the left, including Sam Harris, agree. Also feminism is about gender equality. I was being unnecessarily redundant there actually. Whatever source is telling you that political correctness is the reason for Trump’s victory is probably also giving you an incorrect portrayal of feminism. I know numerous feminists in my life and they have never fought for anything but equality between men and women.
LikeLike
Gender equality but not feminism? I’d suggest you’re either playing word games or you don’t quite understand the history or conceptualisation of feminism itself.
LikeLike
Oh please. Feminism is not synonymous with equality. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Don’t come to me with feminism is equality crap.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/only-7-per-cent-of-britons-consider-themselves-feminists/amp/
LikeLike
Appeal to popularity arguments are fallacious. Just because a lot of people misunderstand a position, doesn’t make their perspective true.
LikeLike
Fascinating! So as a definition of feminism are you using the version by Olympe de Gouges, Simone de Beauvoir or Clara Campoamor? Or are you going with Yiannopoulos? Thanks for the Telegraph link but I don’t need a simplistic newspaper article to teach me about the history of what is in effect a complex topic. And just so you know, yes, the soul of feminism is equality. It’s not being raped. It’s not being paid less money for the same job. It’s not being grabbed by the pussy- even though you seem to think that’s perfectly acceptable talk. I’m sure you’d feel differently if roles were reversed and I said it was okay to stick my thumb up your anus. Without your consent. How does equality look now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not being less money for the same job? Not really happening. If you knew basic economics, you’d see why the gender pay gap is bull. And while you talk of sticking thumbs in anus, keep in mind that in many countries, including mine, rape laws are not gender neutral. They were temporarily, but then there was feminist protests which forced the laws back to helping only women.
And a political movement cannot claim rights over the entire concept of equality. That’s like saying Republicans want to development ergo development and Republicans are synonymous. I do not believe feminism, especially third wave feminism, is about equality. And obviously, I’m not alone. I’d call myself egalitarian and still be supporting equality. But that’s the thing. With feminists, they don’t care whether you want equality or not. They are concerned with getting more people to their team, to further their propaganda. Feminism isn’t about equality, because simply saying that it’s about equality doesn’t make it so.
LikeLike
1. Do you have any idea of how profoundly stupid you sound? There is (respected) study after study which points to gender pay gaps. Even at places like Cambridge: http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/news/0033578-over-8k-gender-pay-gap-at-cambridge-university.html
2. People can argue “choices”, but the fact of the matter is just 30 years ago women were still primordially encouraged to marry and have children instead of pursuing careers. It was 1947 before France had a first female minister. Women in Spain couldn’t travel, work or sign checks without their husband’s consent for most of the 20th century.
3. It’s funny you were okay with pussy grabbing talk, but the second I mention sticking a thumb up your anus, you’re suddenly talking about rape laws! Why aren’t you okay with thumb up Aaayush Priyank’s anus talk? It’s just talk, right?
4. Stop being arrogant because you don’t get to unilaterally and arbitrarily define feminists or feminism. Much less do so just so you can criticize your own arbitrary definition. It’s ridiculous because feminism is a movement founded to correct the historical imbalances- many of which still exist today. And grow up because equality isn’t a matter of teams, it’s a matter of human rights, individual liberties and human dignity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1) http://www.dailywire.com/news/4858/7-facts-you-need-know-debunk-equalpayday-lie-ben-shapiro
You claimed women are paid less for same work which is simply not true. That is a blatant misinterpretation of gender pay gap. Women are paid equal for equal work and discrepancy in average wage is due to their tendency to enter lower earning fields.
2) I don’t give a damn about the past cause I’m living in the present and I’d like present day facts.
3) I don’t mind talking about thumbing anuses. I’m not particularly interested in doing so either. My problem is that male rape is legal, whereas pussy grabbing is not. Ergo, bullshit analogy, just like the rest of your arguments.
4)
Please. Most of the people do not consider feminism synonymous with equality. I just gave you statistics showing that, and your response is it doesn’t matter what most people think. Well, my opinion is obvious not unilateral since most of the people agree with me. Don’t use words just for the sake of it. Learn something, kid. Then try to talk to me. Here’s how I recommend you go about defeating me in an argument :
Step 1- Get the facts.
Step 2- Realise there’s no need to argue because the facts show I’m right.
LikeLike
1. I see, so you start with conclusions rather than starting with questions. You realize the Daily Wire is run by a Breitbart editor, right? Try looking at actual evidence instead of bargain basement stupidity by partisan hacks who are pushing discrimination as part of their agenda. The Daily Wire does not pass the bar as a credible source. Try these instead:
Harvard: http://harvardmagazine.com/2016/05/reassessing-the-gender-wage-gap
Oxford:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-01-13-study-reveals-careers-gender-gap-university-graduates
2. The past has a direct effect on the present, genius. If women were kept out of most high paying professions just one generation ago, that makes entering them now much more difficult than it is for members of the dominant group. Men still dominate in politics and in boardrooms by a mile.
3. I don’t know where you live, but in the civilized world raping men is *not legal*. But the important point in that discussion is rape is something women live with as a second skin. How many times in the past 6 months did you think you had to be careful where you parked your car, or careful about the taxi you got into, or careful not to wear something too revealing- because someone might rape you? In the past year gang rapes have made the news in South Asia, Africa, Brazil and Argentina. All of the victims were women. Some died. You want to compare that to the risk of you being raped?
4. Learn how to not only read statistics, but how to interpret evidence. A small sampling in the UK is hardly the last word on the issue. The facts don’t show you’re right because you’re not using facts. You’re fluctuating between spin, bad reasoning and biased sources. Try spending less time on alt-right sites.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You accuse me of starting with conclusions? Really? Did you read what you started with? Your comment started with ‘ do you realise how stupid you sound?’
So you were the one starting with conclusions, and this hypocrisy is suffocating.
Secondly, the fact that it is run by Shapiro makes no differences, since he did not make up the facts, unlike feminists, and actually cited sources. Oh really? Civilised world. I’m in India. Not as ‘civilised’ as the West, but hey, we don’t chop pieces of baby dick in the name of religion, so that’s saying something ain’t it? Speaking of which, where’s all the feminist protests against circumcision? Certainly non consenting mutilation of genital areas would be the major concern for people propagating equality? Guess not…
It’s pretty obvious how you’re ignoring everything that contradicts your views and are engaging in blatant hypocrisy. Don’t watch alt right sites. I don’t know if Ben Shapiro is alt right, but I’m guessing the only reason you’d avoid him is because you’re too afraid of being exposed to actual logic and being forced away from your ignorant, cognitive dissonance driven ‘facts’ and exposed to actual data.
LikeLike
Right… so you think Feminist means “one thing”? A monolithic group that all believes exactly the same thing? Same goals, same mindset?
Seriously?
Do you know how imbecilic that is?
“Feminism is a *range* of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women”- it includes various historical and national varieties. The idea you think you can reduce it to one thing as defined by alt-right idiots speaks for itself.
Great try at deflecting and changing the topic, but you didn’t answer how many times you were afraid to be raped in the recent past. You know why? Because it’s not an issue for you.
You haven’t presented any actual evidence. Or are you trying to imply an opinion piece by a Breitbart related site has the same value as studies done by professionals at respectable universities? The answer to that is self evident. So it’s not me who’s the ignorant idiot with the cognitive dissonance. All the available evidence actually backs up what I’ve said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have to agree with Pink here that you seem to be getting a lot of your information from a rather monolithic source that seems to be focused on the extreme right. This was evidenced also in your view of why Trump won the election here.
Circumcision is a feminist issue actually. So much so that many criticize feminists for putting male circumcision and female circumcision on equal footing. While I do think there is a difference myself, the practice is completely unnecessary, and studies of the damage of male circumcision, compared to female circumcision is questionable. That being said, I think there are strong reasons not to do it. That aside, I don’t think one can compare that to the largely patriarchal culture in India. The prevalence of rape in India far outweighs the diminishing practice of circumcision here in the west. That doesn’t mean that India doesn’t have lots to offer other countries in terms of value. But feminism and gender equality isn’t one of them. India has a rather high gender inequality index.
LikeLike
Well, Pink seemed to avoid any point I put against feminist. For instance, when I pointed out how they protested to make rape against males legal, he completely overlooked that. He engaged in blatant hypocrisy by
1) accusing me of starting with conclusions though he had done the very same thing in the previous comment
2) disregarding the gigantic percentage of people who don’t consider feminism of being equality, and then going to on to claim my view is unilateral.
3) saying feminism is equality and now saying it’s a range of political movement for social,…. Rights for women. If it’s so concerned with rights of women that would make it women empowerment.
4) accusing me of using alt right sources whereas he himself is quoting only those sources that agree with his view point. Tell me the problem with the research they cite, because I’ve believed in attacking the argument not the stance.
5) Circumcision is not given equal importance, which is obvious from the fact that circumcision is legal whereas FGM is not. And FGM type 1 A is exactly similar to circumcision.
6) I wouldn’t call the situation in India black and white. There’s over 50% of false rape cases, a statistic quoted from Delhi Commission Of women. In rape cases burden of proof of often on the accused, and innocent until guilty seems forgotten.
I support equality. I stand by that. I don’t support feminism because I do not agree with the issues it prioritises. I simply can’t accept that a single group of movements can claim copyright over gender equality. Feminism is not synonymous of gender equality. You may argue that it is a part of it, but it cannot cover the entire concept of gender equality. What feminism considers important is abundantly clear, when you see how issues like gamer gate became so controversial. Wouldn’t you agree that male genital mutilation is more important than depiction of women in video games?
LikeLike
Right if woman become more empowered in a society in which men hold the power, that would tend to make things more equal. Thus the goal to empower women is to bring about a situation of equality.
Sure genetic fallacies are never good, but there are certainly sources that have been found to be far less reliable than others. Which means that if we look at different sources that don’t seem to support our own views it should at least call them into question and require further analysis. So for instance when you look at the daily caller article the finding of several of the authors do not go very deep into the psycho-social reasons why women make different choices. For instance Claudia Goldin only measures entry level positions out of college as evidence that there isn’t a difference in bargaining between men and women, but many entry level positions have little leeway for salary when you are just out of college. The bargaining power often comes in, when asking for raises later on. So I agree that there are always problems in just pointing out studies that agree with your point of view, but keep in mind you were doing the same thing.
In regards to male circumcision there are certainly many feminists advocated against it, but to point to type 1A as similar to male circumcision is besides the point. If both were the only type of circumcision practice you might not see so much activism trying to prevent it. However we know that Type 1B and Type II are extremely prevalent and these are practiced strictly for the purpose of reducing female pleasure during sex which is a much more of a violation of their human rights. The time it takes to heal is much different as well, which makes it much more of a medical issue with females than with males.
In regards to rape false reporting doesn’t mean that there isn’t a problem. The only reason women might think they could get away with false reports would be that there is some truth to the idea that it happens a lot. Something that almost never happens, wouldn’t be something you think you could easily fake. It also doesn’t take into account the massive underreporting that would be far worse in India given the taboos on women who have had intercourse before marriage, or the fact that they would only have mail police officers to report to who are less likely to believe their story. I am well familiar with India as I have been there several times. Women have made a lot of progress, but they are still dehumanized quite a bit.
LikeLike
First you claimed feminism is equality, now it’s women empowerment aimed at equality. Women empowerment movements neglect situations where men are a disadvantage. The suicide rate is twice as high in males. Males are 3 times more likely to be murdered and be victims of violent crimes in general. Practically the only violent crime women experience more is rape.
Women are more inclined towards nurturing activities, hence their predominant presence in teaching, nursing, and other such fields. Men are more aggressive. Besides, there is pressure on men to get high paying jobs because they are expected to maintain a family. Women aren’t expected by the society to provide for the family. A distribution of labor isn’t harmful, as long as it is not forced. I don’t see any reason why we must push women into certain fields simply to balance the number. You ignored my point of how feminists raised a bigger issue of Gamergate than they do of male circumcision. So let’s consider your accusations of patriarchy. Women are less likely to be murdered. Less likely to commit suicide. Higher life expectancy. Are not required to provide for the family. Are not pressurised to hold jobs. Which other form of oppression ever involved the oppressed having higher life expectancy, less rate of suicide and other such things? When the whites oppressed the Blacks, did they make the Blacks sit at home as punishment? Over 90% work related deaths are male. All dirty jobs like construction, sewage cleaning, etc. Are done by men. If you’re forcing a woman to not work, it’s wrong. But simply the fact that most women tend to enter lower paying jobs is not evidence of oppression. There are differences in treatment of gender. Men are expected to behave in a certain manner while women are expected to behave in a different manner. These differences do not equate to oppression.
LikeLike
No I claimed that empowering women in a patriarchal society is a way to achieve equality.
Many feminists do actually advocate for men’s issues as well. I know several personally myself. But many of things you mention actually prove the importance of feminism. You say women are more nurturing? What evidence do you have of this? Did you ever think the reason why men commit suicide more often might not be because of that very attitude. That men shouldn’t be allowed to display their emotional side? That men can maybe nurture as well as any men? The fact that hyper-masculinity is revered in society is part of the problem. It does a disservice to men. But part of the reason why hyper-masculinity continues to flourish has to do with the fact that women are not valued. Nurturing is seen as a weakness in men, but for what other reason, than the fact that we don’t value women who as you say are more nurturing.
And it’s not pushing women into certain fields, it’s allowing them to live in a society where they are not seen as the sole caretakers of children, the ones that should always be doing the housework, the ones that should have to make the career choice that men don’t have to make. Until we see women as equals and valuable, things won’t get better for men either. The stereotyping of both genders is connected. Every man would do well being a feminist also. When women become more equal in society we also benefit because our stereotypes fall away as well.
LikeLike
I don’t see any problem with division of labor between genders so long as it is not forced. Women are not forced into teaching. Women are rather given more freedom in choosing subjects. Men are forced towards subjects like engineering due to parental pressure.
I do agree hyper masculinity should not be revered. However, simply because the feminists you know believe that doesn’t mean feminism as a movement believes that or is acting towards that. As if mentioned twice already, the laws allowing male rape were enforced DUE TO FEMINIST PROTESTS. These acts by feminists themselves reinforce a stigma of weaker gender to females. Why would people consider females equal if feminists take actions that indicate women are weaker? The fault I see in your views is that you take the beliefs of feminists that you apparently know and equate them to be the ideology for all feminists. Answer me this, what do you want people to be? Egalitarian or feminists? Because egalitarianism is undoubtedly gender equality whereas feminism is controversial movement which has lost the faith of the masses due to predominant presence of vocal misandrists. What is your aim? If your aim gender equality? If so, why not support egalitarians, rather than attempting to persuade them to adopt the feminist label. When the large portion of people believing in equality are not supporting feminism, why not simply abandon feminism and have a fresh start with something that includes all people who want equality? Third wave feminism carries forth feminism. Feminism was initially a movement for issues like voting for women and other stark inequalities. If you carry forth the same movement, there is obviously going to be a bias towards female issues. If your goal is to encourage improvement, try to unite all people by creating a movement everyone agrees with. Abandon feminism and move towards egalitarianism or humanism. And above all, don’t focus on the labels people have, but whether their ideology matches yours. We both want gender equality; our disagreement rises from whether feminism is actually attaining gender equality or not. So try to market a movement that appeals to more people. Feminism is not doing that. Men do feel neglected because our issues are not given equal importance. You’re neglecting half the population, every time a feminist goes around ranting how all men are pigs and how all men are rapists.
https://psmag.com/study-of-emotion-women-s-brains-are-wired-for-compassion-b7f42b40a030
LikeLike
I ignore points against feminists? That’s a meaningless statement because there isn’t a “single” feminist ideology. When I first responded to you I mentioned Olympe de Gouges (French, born in 1748), Clara Campoamor (Spanish, born in 1888), and Simone de Beauvoir (born in 1908)- all of them feminists, each with their own goals in their own time and worlds. I should have added Simone Veil who was born in 1927 and made abortion a legal reality in France.
If you want to have a serious discussion on feminism, you should probably know something about these women, their history, what they fought for and accomplished. Feminism isn’t some obscure conspiracy theory, it’s the method through which women have claimed their right to equal citizenship. Opposing equal citizenship isn’t the most noble of causes. It’s what got your compatriots killed somewhere in the American south because they were a shade too brown for their own good:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/Indian-engineer-shot-dead-in-Kansas/article17359339.ece
When anyone rejects the concept of equality which is the foundational principle of feminism, they embrace this arbitrary hierarchy in which people *just like you* can also be brushed aside, and not just raped, but eliminated all together.
LikeLike
I began the discussion with admitting that I am completely in favor of gender equality, so you accusing me of otherwise displays blatant and wilful ignorance. Do you think that Muslims should be free to practice their religion? Yes? Then you’re a Bin Laden supporter. You are so intellectually deficient it pains me to educate you. Here’s a simple fact. Simply because I agree with Group A on some issues does not mean I am a supporter of Group A. I simply support those issues. You and bin Laden may both believe Muslims should be free to practice Islam. Yet it would be stupid to call you his supporter because you (presumably) do not agree with his views on terrorism. I agree to equal citizenship, but I do not agree that feminism is a movement that encompasses the expanse and depth of equality, and thus refuse to consider it synonymous with equality. “Don’t talk, you bring down the IQ of the whole street”
Can’t remember where I heard this quote, but damn does it suit you.
LikeLike
Are you sure about all that? I’m pretty sure I was the one who explained feminism isn’t a monolith. If you’re in favour of gender equality that means you’re a supporter of de Gouges feminism! What will you do with yourself?
LikeLike
How does de Gouges feminism come into play? What’s happening right now is third wave feminism, and I’m not supporting it. I’m getting pretty tired of having to repeat myself; if only you were able to understand what is being said rather than beating around the bush. But then again, you’re a feminist so I shouldn’t hold too much expectations…
LikeLike
Beating around the bush? I’m asking for clarification. What precisely do you oppose in de Gouges’ theory? Or is your problem actually with a later feminist? Name? date? position?
LikeLike
Try this, it should enlighten you:
LikeLike
Important to note the difference between an opinion and a known falsehood. Trump has always known when he was deceiving his listeners. These are intentional and planned acts- as is also the case for Sam Harris.
LikeLike
A lot of comments, so forgive me if I have repeated someone else’s idea.
You end your post with “Resist my friends.” I assume these are your words, not Sam Harris’. How do you propose to resist? Trump has not left room for rational discourse, for the reasons described in the article. That seems to leave either irrational discourse, but how many can pull that off at the level of Trump? Or, you wait it out and hope he self-destructs. What are your thoughts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well for one it means keep spreading good information. Keep countering information being spread by the alt-right. Keep telling yourself this is not normal.
Then there is activism. Whether it’s marching, whether it’s going to town hall meetings with your congressmen. It means staying involved politically as much as you can.
It also means being a force of good in your community. Volunteer for values and causes you believe in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well said!
LikeLiked by 1 person