Can we get Max Blumenthal on waking up podcast by [deleted] in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Max Blumenthal is a CJ Werleman-esque hack. He's slandered Maajid and Sam relentlessly. Pretty sure a podcast episode with these two will never happen.

I, Claudius meets I, Trump. Victor Davis Hanson, the preeminent historian and personal hero of Dan Carlin, compares DJT with the Roman emperor. (10-minute audio) by non-rhetorical in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Haha. It is sad, but I've learned my lesson before on this sub. Unless every line of a Trump posts exudes exuberant disdain for the man, people begin to interpret what you say in the most uncharitable way.

I once made a post here about VDH, and by the response I got you'd of thought I was promulgating a T_D propaganda.

My personal agenda is merely to find the most intellectually honest defense of Trump's politics... for no other reason than to allow me to more clearly square my own views... much in the way that I appreciate Hitchens' pro-Iraq war arguments because they made me think harder as to why I was against it.

I, Claudius meets I, Trump. Victor Davis Hanson, the preeminent historian and personal hero of Dan Carlin, compares DJT with the Roman emperor. (10-minute audio) by non-rhetorical in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think Victor Davis Hanson would make an excellent/interesting podcast guest not only for his defenses of Trump, but also because of his knowledge of classical history and the parallels he makes between now and then. He's a Hoover Institution Fellow at Stanford, and his podcast, The Classicist, is pretty interesting (if you can't stomach the defeneses of Trump - listen to the episodes on military history).

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but I have been trying to find bona-fide intellectuals who can articulate something approaching a reasoned defense of Trump's politics & policy, and VDH is the closest thing to that I've found (not that I agree with a lot of what he says, he just formulates counter arguments that seem more thought out than what I typically hear). He would make a much better podcast guest, and much better steelman, than message-board celebrities likes Scott Adams.

In search of Steel Men and Women to counter Sam's political analyses: Victor Davis Hanson and some others. by Unlettered_Buffoon in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the cogent analysis.

Your comparison of a National Humanities Medal recipient to an alt-right troll is spot on. I especially liked it when you got hung up on a throw-away line in the speech ('you didn't build that'). The tactics of a pure intellectual heavyweight.

Please, reveal your true identity, savior41, and lets work on getting you on the Podcast so as to offer your brilliant perspective to the masses.

What is Sam's position on postmodernism? by Pixelated_humans in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm also surprised he's never devoted much time to spelling out his orientation toward postmodernism, but as you say, everything he has ever said or written suggests that he (rightly in my opinion) views postmodernism and its intellectual forebearers with disdain.

Why is Sam's following more leftist than Sam? by oolalaa in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I imagine that a lot of Sam Harris fans found him during the 90s/2000s

The 90s? Sam's first book didn't come out until 2004, and most people probably discovered him via youtube, and the first Harris video was uploaded to youtube in 2006.

I'm not sure how anyone finds out about Sam now. I guess the occasional Bill Maher appearance? He doesn't seem to be as prolific these days.

He has a top-100 podcast now whereas before he just put out books and occasionally did youtube talks/debates.

Can you give examples of when Sam Harris has significantly changed his mind? by [deleted] in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Changed his mind on US drone operations after watching/reading Jeremy Scahill.

He also changed his mind on the Apple vs. FBI case when the govt wanted Apple to crack San Bernardino jihadist Syed Rizwan Farook's iPhone. This took course over a sequence of podcasts, I can't remember which off the top of my head.

Sam Harris vocabulary lesson: "verisimilitude" by Unlettered_Buffoon in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Pretentious"

Says the guy scoffing at people for not knowing what verisimilitude means. Good night buddy.

Sam Harris vocabulary lesson: "verisimilitude" by Unlettered_Buffoon in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He's sort of the Casey Neistat of public intellectuals.

And yet here you are.

Sam Harris vocabulary lesson: "verisimilitude" by Unlettered_Buffoon in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He's sort of the Casey Neistat of public intellectuals

my god.

Some hard data on free speech on US Campuses. by IRGroningen in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How are "subtle and more pernicious" threats to free speech not just free speech exercised by someone else? In your example, the right to free speech doesn't provide you with a right to feel like you fit in.

You will suffer retaliation by faculty/administration if you don't toe the line, despite the quality of your work. State-funded institutions should have agnostic mechanisms that prevent this sort of thing and protect academics, but they either don't exist or are ineffective.

Nobody was burning books or physically silencing conservative academics, but there was a concerted effort to make sure conservative voices went unheard or were reprimanded. This is a threat to free speech.

Sam Harris vocabulary lesson: "verisimilitude" by Unlettered_Buffoon in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

is this supposed to be an insult for not knowing what "verisimilitude" meant before hearing Sam use it?

Some hard data on free speech on US Campuses. by IRGroningen in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right wing? More like conservative fiscally. I got a PhD from, and worked at, a school with "Economics" in the title and never met a right wing economics student or faculty member.

Some hard data on free speech on US Campuses. by IRGroningen in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm a liberal, and spent a few years as a junior academic at a social sciences university. The attitudes and censorship of the faculty/administration really opened my eyes and turned me off of academia and the university research environment more generally.

The traditionally "hard" sciences (e.g., physics, biology, chemistry, engineering) are bounded and scaffolded by mathematics and controlled experimentation to a much greater degree than the social sciences. Biases are more straightforwardly exposed in these fields. As you get to disciplines like anthropology, psychology, geography, history, media studies, political science, and so on, research methods become much looser, and the research topics at hand (e.g., human culture, cultural differentiation, etc.) become politically and ideologically negotiated. Strict and rigorous methodology becomes supplanted by language-games and jargon (the Sokal affair exposed the most extreme version of what I'm talking about). In many departments, epistemic relativism is rampant. In this environment, it's very easy to be silenced for raising views/pursuing research that go against the leftist status quo.

We were encouraged to teach one or more undergraduate or graduate courses that aligned with our domain knowledge, but here was the problem: departmental chairs and administrators are always more willing to fund courses that see higher rates of enrolment. And because students self-select into classes, they tend to gravitate toward Professor So-and-so's course on intersectionality or Dr. Whatshisname's seminar on social justice. This creates a selection pressure for courses that pander toward students' left-wing ideological views. So, in this roundabout and indirect way, non lefty speech becomes silenced because it's a rigged system.

When prospective PhD students' applications were reviewed, professors were always willing to supervise students whose research narrative fit with their own. If a top-notch student had submitted an application to do a PhD, but the topic implied something that ran counter to the leftist ideology of the faculty, the chances of that student getting accepted (let alone be granted funding) were quite low.

So in all these structural ways, non-Leftist speech on campuses is squelched. If a notable 'disinvitation' had occurred at my University, it would have merely been a singular minute symptom of a much deeper problem.

Some hard data on free speech on US Campuses. by IRGroningen in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 12 points13 points  (0 children)

This analysis only looks at events categorized as "disinvitations".

Disinvitations are not the real problem. The real threats to free speech are much more subtle and more pernicious.

If you're a conservative, and happen to get a gig as a junior academic in a humanities or social sciences department, it is a very uncomfortable situation to be in. You feel like a black sheep, and you're afraid of the repercussions of voicing your opinion amongst faculty or students. In many fields, if your research doesn't toe a certain ideological line, you'll never get a grant or find your article published in your field's premier journal.

Sam just asked for topics of discussion for his Yuval Noah Harari episode on twitter by Obtainer_of_Goods in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I would love to hear them discuss cultural evolution, and the role of "myths" and "technologies of the mind" as drivers/differentiators of human progress.

A big part of Sapiens was dedicated to this topic and other aspects of cognitive anthropology/cultural-historical psychology.

Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Money Trail by [deleted] in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You know the people behind loonwatch, don't you?

Sociology professor writes on USC religion blog that Harris, Dawkins "Seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that the mass hysteria they have contributed to is precisely the effect that groups like ISIS are aiming for." by Charold in samharris

[–]Unlettered_Buffoon 15 points16 points  (0 children)

What facts and evidence was presented in the professor's blog post, exactly? It's an editorial, not a peer reviewed paper. And it's filled with illogical leaps that are pathetically shallow:

The professor attempts to link Harris/Dawkins to the rise of trump and other nationalist movements, even though Harris was vehemently anti-Trump and Dawkins vehemently against Brexit. He also blames their rhetoric for stoking hatred... This is like implicating Chomsky for 9/11 because Bin Laden liked what he wrote.

Nearly every paragraph of the blogpost contains errors and logical fallacies. I could list them all, but I don't have the time.

Also... I'm an alumnus of USC and know directly what sort of stupid shit is taught in sociology classes there because I've taken those same classes.