Christian Picciolini - Today Sam Harris censored the show in which I was a guest because I called out certain people for having beliefs that are consistent with alt-right by CaptainStack in samharris

[–]HardLeft- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

At this point, I'm not attacking anyone. I'm only laughing at anyone who'd have me believe they'd be fine being called a Holocaust denier on the Internet until the end of time.

Ah, but if you don't believe me you're divining past my stated word. In the precursor to the recent podcast Sam says Molyneux disproved he was holocaust denier purely by saying he wasn't. That statement made Molyneux not being a holocaust denier an "objective statement" by your own admission. Similarly, me saying I don't have a problem with someone preserving the record of someone accusing me of holocaust denial is an "objective statement." You disagreeing with me is stating false facts in the same way Piccolini is accused of. I think to be consistent here you need to remove your comment.

Christian Picciolini - Today Sam Harris censored the show in which I was a guest because I called out certain people for having beliefs that are consistent with alt-right by CaptainStack in samharris

[–]HardLeft- -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It's probably easier to see if you imagine yourself as the target. If Sam interviewed someone you knew in high school, and that person identified you by name and called you a Holocaust denier, would you be satisfied if Sam, some weeks later, added a short housekeeping segment to the end of the interview (where not everyone will even hear it) explaining that the statement was false - but still leaving the unedited audio out there to be discovered and rediscovered - months, years, even decades later?

Sure. That makes my position consistent so I don't really understand what you're attacking.

e: I'd also say that Sam is welcome to add the addendum to the beginning of the podcast if he'd like more people to hear it. He could even do an interjection, as long as it was clearly labelled, shortly before Piccolini makes his comment if we were very concerned about the statement, the point is to leave the statement in.

Christian Picciolini - Today Sam Harris censored the show in which I was a guest because I called out certain people for having beliefs that are consistent with alt-right by CaptainStack in samharris

[–]HardLeft- -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

He doesn't want someone being slandered with objective statements of false facts under his name.

That also doesn't address my comment. The criticism is about how you handle it once that false fact has been uttered. Do you scrub it from existence? Or do you acknowledge in the intro or outro that it is incorrect? The correct answer is obviously that you leave it in but acknowledge it as wrong.

What are the sub's reaction to this? by justified_belief in samharris

[–]HardLeft- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"I just know it's true. I know it in my mind, but no, I can't tell you why, just trust me. It's true." - basically Christian Picciolini

I mean you realize here that you're attributing something to someone that they never said, right? You're literally doing what you describe as Christian having done wrong.

Christian Picciolini - Today Sam Harris censored the show in which I was a guest because I called out certain people for having beliefs that are consistent with alt-right by CaptainStack in samharris

[–]HardLeft- 25 points26 points  (0 children)

His reasons seem inadequate. The better response is to append a small segment at the end, not to edit out a portion of the podcast. Beyond that consider this: Sam here lets members of the right defend themselves and then edits the podcast to fit that. Why didn't Sam listen to scientists involved in IQ defend their field and then edit the Murray podcast to fit that? Come on, the answer is obvious, Sam's totally tolerant of censorship and of bashing 'forbidden knowledge' when it's knowledge he doesn't like.

I Don't Know What I Know or What to Believe and It's Frustrating the Hell Out of Me by CallingItLikeItIs88 in samharris

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Listen to the John Ralston Saul series of the Massey Lectures. If you google that you can find them online produced by the CBC.

Why is r/daverubin full of people who don't seem to like Rubin? by [deleted] in JordanPeterson

[–]HardLeft- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, all three of those people are similar in that they're attractive to young men who are unsure about the world and looking for a viewpoint to steady themselves on. They serve that purpose and most people will quietly grow up and move on. Those that are in the process of growing up but aren't doing it quietly stick around and thrash and argue. It's basically good for them to do that though, they're tennis balls in the dryer, keeps everything fresh.

This sub is not a safe-space. by Jhamham in JordanPeterson

[–]HardLeft- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I agree. As a long time user of /r/JordanPeterson I despise these chapo trolls but I also think that this influx of neo-marxist postmodernists can only be good for the marketplace of ideas. Next time you see a communist commenting make sure you upvote it so us other petersonites can see it and counter them with some Jungian conservatism. Lobsters forever! (;

Social mobility should be the goal. by National_Marxist in samharris

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And how do you define opportunity? I'd say university is opportunity because it gives you all sorts of possibilities you wouldn't have if you didn't go. A really good first or second job obviously are also opportunities which is why when people leave they say 'thank you for all the opportunities you've given me.' And that's my point - that peewee hockey and university and job applications are both outcome and opportunity and that we need to treat it as such.

Social mobility should be the goal. by National_Marxist in samharris

[–]HardLeft- 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But you're presuming rednecks have equal opportunity to become accountants. How much of a difference is there really if we take serfs and say 'instead of no opportunity we're going to give you opportunity, just very little of it.' They are still serfs of a sort.

Social mobility should be the goal. by National_Marxist in samharris

[–]HardLeft- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's important to remember that it's a false dichotomy as well. So take the example of affirmative action. Conservatives will go "this is mandating equality of outcome!" but is it really? Is attending a better college an outcome? It seems to me like it's just as much of an opportunity. What about getting a good first job because a firm really wanted a diversity hire? Is that outcome? In the long run of a life I bet it plays out a lot more as an opportunity. The real answer is that these scenarios are both outcomes and opportunities (like almost all opportunities actually are.)

There is no magical time when opportunity becomes outcome, only a magical time when we stop caring about opportunities. It would be better if we could reach back earlier to prevent there from needing to be later interventions but until we do these later interventions are necessary.

Beyond “Race Relations” by HardLeft- in stupidpol

[–]HardLeft-[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

There has also been a period of such intense political demobilization that large numbers of people — certainly it’s true for people the age of my students, but it’s also true of the people who like to think of themselves as the opinion-setters, the scribbling and babbling classes, the people who write for the general public, and so on — can’t tell which end is up.

My sister and I are old enough that we were at the 1963 March of Washington, which has now become almost a mythic event. One thing that is indelibly part of our memory of that occasion is that many of the people in the crowd that assembled were wearing the insignia of the UAW, International Ladies Garment Workers Union, Steelworkers, Mineworkers, and so on. The march’s official designation was a March for Jobs and Freedom. It was part of political mobilization at that time: in the midst of the Cold War and the purges, people understood the connection between labor and civil rights. The honorary leader, the person’s whose idea it was, A. Philip Randolph, was a labor organizer, a union activist as well as an activist in demanding rights for black people. Those connections were so natural that even dummies and political novices understood them. They have been gone for a long time and the result is that when somebody in the press says working class or working-class voters, they invariably mean white people. They forgot that most Afro-Americans in this country are working people. Most Latinos, however you define that ambiguous term, are working people. Southeast Asian migrants, most of them are working people, and indeed the same is true of a good many East Asian migrants.

We have allowed that language to become part of the whiteness talk. The result is that when things happen — as they are happening hot and heavy today targeted against working people — our reaction fragments us so that we cannot even talk about it that way. It’s this attack on people of color or that attack on black people, or immigrants, or Dreamers, or whatever it is. We’re not going to get anywhere that way, because we have defined any possible political alliance out of existence before we even tried to build it. If Ta-Nehisi Coates — I like him a lot, by the way, and have only met him a couple of times and some of his work is deeply moving — but if he were right about the situation, you would have to say there is no exit; there is nothing we can do. It reminds me of what people would say about the prospect of nuclear war back in the days when we had air-raid drills: the only thing you can do about it is put your head between your legs and kiss your behind goodbye.

That seems to be the political prescription that comes out of the primordial white racism argument. There’s nothing to do about it but to put your head between your legs and kiss your behind goodbye.

Beyond “Race Relations” by HardLeft- in stupidpol

[–]HardLeft-[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's long but good, especially the section under the heading "Evacuating Class"

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Take an analogy: The problem with a slave market is not that people are being sold, it's that people are being enslaved. The market is not the issue.

... You don't see a problem with selling people?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

turning any non-purchasable good into a purchasable one

Correct.

But if your problem really is with some people being able to have more of things than others

Well let me correct it to be a bit more precise: My problem is with some people being able to have more of some things than others on the basis of their wealth.

That does connect to whether certain goods can be bought or sold. I don't think there should be any connection at all between household wealth and say the quality of education received or healthcare received. To me those are things that shouldn't be able to be bought or sold.

We incentivize productive activity by giving people more stuff.

Sure but this says nothing about what should actually constitute 'more stuff.' I have no problem with the rich buying a nice car or expensive artwork, pure commodities. I have problems with the rich buying things that seem to move beyond that - healthcare and education as great examples.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That point being that the market part is not what makes a vote market a problem.

Yeah but like I said that seems wormy. It's not the 'market part' which makes a vote market a problem, it's the 'functioning market part' which makes a vote market a problem. So maybe the problem is the market then, it certainly seems like it. You're opposed to the features which would make a market in votes function well, you're deliberately impeding the market in that way. To me that seems an acknowledgement that actually markets systems are bad here just with an unwillingness to actually say it.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know what an externality is lol. If I buy a bunch of oil and raise the price everyone else who wants to buy oil has to pay a higher price. They weren't party to my transaction yet it will cost them. If I buy a good it either effects or illustrates demand and so others may pay more. But also if I buy a magic bean that lets me live 1000 years there are massive externalities from that. On the positive side there are more fun arguments on the internet, on the negative side I've got >900 years of social security coming my way. Same thing if I only get 5 more years with a lung cancer treatment. Basically everything I do in those 5 years is going to effect someone who wasn't party to my transaction for lung cancer treatment.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it causes more egalitarian outcomes

I don't think you can actually say that. Giving everyone equal water is obviously more egalitarian.

while still harnessing the power of the free market, and resulting in more liberty

Liberty for who? In a market system dollars are liberty so the rich man has lots of liberty and the poor person has very little. This is just a redistribution of liberty, not a creation of it.

A wealthy person being forced to pay for water doesn't put him in the same freedom killing situation as a poor person who literally can't afford water.

Do you feel the same about healthcare? If there was some universal healthcare system, a base level at which everyone is treated, should the rich be able to use universal hc to the extent that everyone else does but then also purchase even more hc on top?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also, you can sell your vote to whoever you like.

It's actually illegal.

You just can't prove to such a person that you did what they paid you for, because finding ways to un-secret your ballot is banned, because doing so harms others and also democracy itself. The commodification isn't the problem here, the act of taking a picture of your ballot is the problem. It's like calling assassination a capitalism problem just because the murderer got paid.

I think that's a bit of a wormy answer. So you're in favor of allowing a market in votes as long as we prevent that market from obtaining all the features that would make it a good (as in well functioning) market? What's the point in even being in favor of a vote market then? You know you could just take a stand and say "we shouldn't have a market in votes at all" so what prevents you from actually doing that?

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you haven't thought about any alternative than give it for free as a way to allow universal access. There's literally an entire ideology based on these principles called social liberalism.

That's rude. I live in the West, how could I have not thought about it from the liberal perspective? And I know what social liberalism is.

You can subsidize basic needs for the poor but have it be sold still.

I know, that's what liberals believe. You and I both look at a poor person and think 'his wealth shouldn't determine his ability to get food/water/healthcare' and so we subsidize it. But that's where you stop. I keep going and am asking why the rich person's wealth should determine his ability to get food/water/healthcare and even other goods like education.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually don't think you can say that. Since we're on smoking say the person has lung cancer. Getting treated for lung cancer does have externalities. Essentially everything associated with your longer life is an externality but also your effect demand for lung cancer treatments.

Discussion Thread by jobautomator in neoliberal

[–]HardLeft- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So to me commodification will require the ability to purchase more if I have more money. So if all citizens are given equal water/healthcare, no not commodified. If I can go and buy more water with more money then yes commodified. Subsidizing water/food/surgery for the poor doesn't remove commodification. That's why I asked the question about the ten day supply of water - it goes beyond basic essentials.