6
7

Is Sam Harris a racist Islamophobe? (/r/AskPhilosophy FAQ) (reddit.com)

Hyfflepuf が 投稿

全 196 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]UmamiSalami 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

Hey, as someone who is generally detached from this debate, I have to say that the way this was handled by the /r/askphilosophyFAQ team was very unimpressive. I'm a regular panelist on /r/askphilosophy and I don't follow or pay much attention to Sam Harris, but I have seen these people comment on him frequently. I normally respect what they have to say on philosophy and have no logical disagreement with their criticisms of Harris, but the tone, attitude and behavior displayed by them throughout this thread and the linked one is simply poor and not befitting of the standards which philosophy should follow. It's really shameful that even in the creation of a formal FAQ, they have eschewed any intention of actually persuading people, and have instead stooped to some kind of petty party politics.

Posting this here because the mods aren't allowing any over there.

Edit: actually, I disagree with the accusation that Harris is racist. That is just a stupid thing to claim. One of the other comments on the thread posted by another /r/askphilosophy panelist, before being deleted by mods, said the following:

However, the section on racism seems extremely wrong to me; this absolutely doesn't seem like a common or central reason why philosophers object to Sam Harris or deem him 'wrong'. There are dozens of book reviews, responses, comments, blog posts, etc. by well-known philosophers responding to Harris and his books. Some responses are completely dismissive, others find something to commend even while offering severe critiques. But I haven't seen one of these that makes the racism claim. Also, I can't claim to have read every mention of Harris in r/askphilosophy, but out of many dozens I've seen, zero (or nearly zero) mention racism at any length. This is good, because the point of the sub is draw from the philosophical literature, and this racism claim isn't in it! (Racism has been mentioned in r/badphilosophy, but then, the primary criticisms of Harris there seem to be Zoolander-related).

Maybe Harris is a racist or maybe not—I'm not addressing that here. And certainly a philosopher could deem Harris a racist, but for that to be a philosophical position, I think we'd probably want a philosopher who has some expertise in what constitutes racism, why racism is bad, and so on—for example, Kwame Anthony Appiah. As it happens, he has written a critical review of one of Harris's books and includes general discussion of Harris, but a discussion of racism appears nowhere. I think he would mention it.

[–]maxmanmin 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think I speak for many here when I say that /r/askphilosophy has a lot of work to do in order to regain my respect.

My impression is that /r/askphilosophy has been hijacked, and I have stopped paying attention to anything going on there. It is indistinguishable from /r/badphilosophy. Indeed, several people that we have banned because of trolling are regular contributors in /r/askphilosophy.

I invite you to have a look at the discussions taking place in here, compare it to any thread about Sam Harris in /r/askphilosophy, and ask yourself where Socrates would have preferred spending his time. There is some house cleaning to be done in /r/askphilosophy.

[–]Jaeil 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

I invite you to have a look at the discussions taking place in here, compare it to any thread about Sam Harris in /r/askphilosophy, and ask yourself where Socrates would have preferred spending his time.

Socrates liked hanging out with people less wise than himself and pointing out their mistakes, so let's not shoot ourselves in the foot here.

[–]maxmanmin 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol, good one.

He actually was looking for people that were willing to engage in open ended and unprejudiced conversations, and loathed people who would rather be clever than honest.

[–]HamParis 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

This reads like a satire. "Self-proclaimed neuroscientist" with some link that directly states that Harris touts this horn wherever he goes and uses it as a basis for his arguments. Complete nonsense, it wouldn't even surprise me if a lot of Sam Harris fans don't even know that he has a PhD. I have never heard him mention his PhD in any other sense than when directly answering questions about his life before he became famous, I haven't heard anyone call him "Dr. Harris", he calls himself foremost a philosopher, and believes that doctorates don't have any direct value.

The whole title is also hilarious: "What's wrong with Sam Harris? Why do philosophers think Sam Harris is a joke? Isn't Sam Harris right about everything?"

I understand that many people disagree with him, but why even bother responding to this kind of slander, who can't even pretend to be reasoned?

What is this place, anyway? Most of the other topics seemed like they real FAQ questions, don't tell me that this is supposed to be an official, dispassionate and serious FAQ?

[–]maxmanmin 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

It is, but the subreddit is a joke, unfortunately.

[–]Feierskov 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

I posted a comment saying I didn't find any valid arguments, people agreed with me and upvoted my comment, which resulted in me being banned from the subreddit. I suppose we now know what kind of people are in charge of that sub. LOL. Edit: They locked the thread and have deleted most comments disagreeing with it and they are defending them selves saying "no no, it's not us saying this, we are simply trying to explain why other people think these things." Sure that post wasn't biased at all, just a completely factual list of objective truth.

[–]maxmanmin 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, their line is actually to claim that the truth of what Harris actually means is irrelevant. The thread is there just to document what philosophers think. In other words, the thread is there to document how little philosophers care about the truth.

[–]Grumpy_Cunt 27ポイント28ポイント  (2子コメント)

A near perfect crystallisation of all the kind of nonsense and subterfuge Sam Harris is faced with. It's like a compendium. If we were playing bullshit-bingo this would be the full-house.

The "sources" are wonderful too - Omer Aziz, Glen Greenwald, CJ Werlman... and a bunch of random redditors. We're only a couple of obvious names away from a perfect rouge's gallery.

[–]maxmanmin 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

There is lots of this stuff there. Just search /r/askphilosophy for "sam harris", and you'll find thread after thread of sage proclamations such as these:

  • "philosopher" is a protected title, so since Harris hasn't been given his license to philosophize, he can't possibly be taken seriously
  • Denying compatibilism on the grounds that it doesn't address the real issue is what undergraduates do, and most philosophers are compatibilists according to a survey. Therefore compatibilism is true/Harris is wrong.
  • And of course: Did not mention litterature/Hume disproved objective morality etc.

These are hardly parodies of what people with fancy flairs will actually say over there. /r/badphilosophy, /r/askphilosophy and /r/philosophy should be ignored most of the time. They do not represent philosophy as a discipline. They might, though, represent what will be the end of philosophy.

[–]greenca6 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

"philosopher" is a protected title, so since Harris hasn't been given his license to philosophize, he can't possibly be taken seriously

This is so irritating to hear, and such a terrible argument.

"No sir, your rational ideas and logic are no good here without a piece of paper."

This thinking puts up a wall between the two sides, and completely kills discussion/rational thought. It's precisely the same wall that religious people use to stop decision, and is used by people like Abby Martin ("Sam is a neuroscientist, I don't want to hear his thoughts on foreign policy.") And Reza Aslan ("Just to be clear here, I'm an expert on religion.").

[–]GFYsexyfatman 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

"philosopher" is a protected title, so since Harris hasn't been given his license to philosophize, he can't possibly be taken seriously

Denying compatibilism on the grounds that it doesn't address the real issue is what undergraduates do, and most philosophers are compatibilists according to a survey. Therefore compatibilism is true/Harris is wrong.

And of course: Did not mention litterature/Hume disproved objective morality etc.

None of these three claims is remotely correct, or representative of any panelist consensus on the subreddits you mention. I'd encourage readers not to take this misreading as authoritative - go see for yourselves what the arguments about being a philosopher/compatibilism/Hume involve!

[–]maxmanmin 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Indeed, do so. Or, hell, I can save you the trouble. Here are some excerpts from the top answers from the top result when searching /r/philosophy for "sam harris":

You also bring up [William Lane] Craig a few times. And here we should be clear. What gets Craig the title of "philosopher" is not the arguments he makes in popular debates. Those arguments are fairly basic. (Though, watching the Harris-Craig debate it's clear that Craig wins. Harris never offers a formal argument, and never responds to Craig's formal arguments.) Craig gets counted as a philosopher for his philosophical work, which is published in numerous peer-reviewed journals, and makes contributions to the field at large

In other words, what makes an argument "philosophical" is not defined by its content, but by who and where it is uttered.

What discredits [Sam Harris'] views are all the fallacies and counter-arguments.

No examples provided by this eminent scholar, unfortunately, so we have to take his word for it.

If you're engaged in contemporary philosophy, you're a philosopher. If you're not, you'd better have a damn good reason why you ought to be called one. Harris isn't engaged in contemporary philosophy and has nothing to offer in support of his being called one, so he's not a philosopher.

Philosophy, then, is about "engaging with contemporary philosophy". Bad news, Socrates!

Candidates for philosopher-making properties which seem obvious to me are (i) being trained as a philosopher, (ii) being employed as a philosopher, and (iii) making contributions to philosophy

Of course, spreading interest and awareness of philosophical topics to millions of people shouldn't be thought of as a "contribution". I mean who in their right mind would say that Dan Carlin is a "historian", or that Richard Dawkins has made any significant contribution to biology?

You might be thinking "But Harris has a degree in philosophy!", but no:

a BA does not make someone a candidate for regular membership in the American Philosophical Association

So there!

My other claims come from the lovely FAQ thread that seems to have passed as good stuff for the panel in /r/askphilosophy. If you are a panelist over there and able to read this without your eyes watering, I am thoroughly impressed:

Harris is racist - specifically, he's an Islamophobe who thinks that we ought to do terrible things to people with brown skin from predominantly Muslim countries, like nuclear bomb them, torture them, and racially profile them. [...] This topic is also somewhat controversial because Harris often denies that he is committed to these positions, going so far as to edit blog posts he's made (without giving any indication that he has edited them) to back away from these sorts of positions (while at the same time continuing to espouse them elsewhere).

Now listen here. It was pointed out to the panelists that these claims were false, and that the sources listed are part of a smear campaign that has been condemned by just about every clear thinking person on the entire political and religious spectrum. The answer has been that the truth of the claims made about Harris in this post is not at stake at all. The point of the FAQ was to document what philosophers thought about Harris.

In case you do not spot how preposterous this is, I will spell it out: That is in effect saying that the point of that FAQ is to document how little philosophers care about the truth.

In case you're now sitting with some lingering hope that the charges leveled here are true after all, I invite you to look at the sources provided. It is pretty cringe-worthy stuff, for the most part, and some of it just doesn't deliver. For instance, this post on /r/badphilosophy isn't even interesting, much less damning in the way the FAQ presents it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/badphilosophy/comments/4b9uat/harris_is_secretly_editing_his_blog_article/

[–]jamietwells 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't bother going there to defend Sam, I've just been banned for arguing with OP and going against the accepted idea that Sam Harris is a racist islamophobe who wants to nuke brown skinned people.

[–]StevefromRetail 23ポイント24ポイント  (2子コメント)

Harris is racist - specifically, he's an Islamophobe who thinks that we ought to do terrible things to people with brown skin from predominantly Muslim countries, like drone bomb them, torture them, and racially profile them.

This reads like it was written by Abby Martin.

[–]siledas 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

It reads like it was written by an arrogant fool who's never bothered to read anything Harris has ever said, and is content with regurgitating the same slanderous bullshit pedalled by Salon because it makes them seem intelligent to people even less inclined to challenge their bullshit than they are.

So, yeah, Abby Martin, I guess.

[–]winter-sun 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

well he lists Salon for his source x 2.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 13ポイント14ポイント  (95子コメント)

As always, please do not vote on linked threads. Just a note; some folks from /r/badphilosophy did get their accounts temporarily suspended from Reddit from the brigading incident we had the other day.

As for this... yikes.

Harris is racist - specifically, he's an Islamophobe who thinks that we ought to do terrible things to people with brown skin from predominantly Muslim countries, like drone bomb them, torture them, and racially profile them.

Is Obama racist because he drone bombs Muslim countries?

Harris often denies that he is committed to these positions, going so far as to edit blog posts he's made

The horror.

[–]Bleuski 10ポイント11ポイント  (3子コメント)

Check out the edit:

As evident by the upvote/downvote count on this post and on various replies below, and by various other replies below, Sam Harris is rather popular on reddit among non-philosophers. That is in fact why this FAQ question is here - when redditors find out that philosophers don't share their love of Harris, questions often arise. This FAQ question is not a place to substantiate accusations against Harris in any detail - the goal here is just to mention them in enough detail to show why philosophers have problems with him. If, like many redditors, you don't have problems with him, you're welcome to downvote me or argue in the comments below, but this FAQ post is not going to engage with you in any detail.

I still don't understand how racism fits under problems that philosophers have with Harris, specifically.

But only "non-philosophers" would ever take issue with baseless character assassination of someone they might not agree with on other issues, surely! /s

[–]dahlesreb 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

They locked the thread and are purging all of the heresy, with this wonderful comment stuck at the top of the thread.

I wish these guys weren't able to hide behind their flair. I just can't believe they actually were awarded degrees from reputable universities. Writing like /u/TychoCelchuuu's would not have received a passing grade in a freshman-level course at any of the universities I attended. They make terrible representatives of philosophers here on reddit.

[–]Bleuski 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think my comments were some of the only ones that didn't get deleted. Yay?

And yes, they hide behind their flair. They present themselves as philosophers expressing the informed opinions of philosophers on (presumably) philosophical matters(given that it's a philosophy FAQ), but when challenged on the point of Harris being racist and how that's relevant or informed(which is what the vast majority of contentious posts were doing), they immediately retreat to saying it's just personal opinion, and "has little to do with his philosophical arguments or their opinions of them."

I think the motte and bailey argumentative technique would be a good description of what's going on there.

[–]stoicpanic 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The /r/askphilosophy is notoriously bad-tempered and prickly; a quick glance at the responses to most questions will show a lot of one-upmanship and condescension in answers given, and it really isn't the helpful place it purports to be.

The mod team are also all mods of /r/badphilosophy which has something of an agenda.

The problem with the FAQ posted is that it immediately and authoritatively claims Harris is racist, and posts links to Salon and The Guardian as proof. The post continues to say that this is not up for discussion, as the purpose is to highlight why people have a problem with Harris, not engage in debate over positions.

Of course, this sidestep is to allow for the post to make unsubstantiated claims, and then remove the need to justify them. The links to Salon being proferred as sufficient for substantive info is laughable, and hardly befits the thoroughness of philosophy, which the poster claims to practice and represent.

Post-edit, the mods of the sub deleted all dissenting criticism of the FAQ, leaving only the post of the mod-team in their place. This is so contrary to the idea of debate and free-speech that it is extraordinary /r/askphilosophy can continue to claim it presents good philosophical practice and philosophers' opinion. As noted above, it was also a coward move merely to sidestep the need to justify claims such as 'Harris is a racist': the reasons for deletion of dissension being that discussion of the FAQ's listed statements was not allowed! Extraordinary.

It's grating that the mods and frequent posters of /r/askphilosophy present themselves as representing 'philosophers' and mainstream opinion in philosophy. The prickly, combative and unpleasant - not to mention pretentious - atmosphere on that sub is foreign to philosophy as I find it practiced, at least in Europe. I get the impression that a lot of the regular posters are frustrated no-reputation philosophy lecturers in the middle of nowhere dustbowl US colleges.

Which brings us on to why the self-proclaimed philosophers of /r/askphilosophy really dislike Harris: as noted in the FAQ, Harris openly criticised academic philosophy in 'The Moral Landscape' - its unnecessary reliance on specialist terms (useful in themselves I might add, and necessary; but not so when the concepts they cover are communicated well to a popular audience, as Harris does) and ivory-tower obscurity. This, I think, just hurt the feelings of some, but not all, self-proclaimed / practicing philosophers, and to use the US phrase, 'they got all butt-hurt.'

Professional jealousy and wounded egos all.

DISCLAIMER: I have a BA in Philosophy, and am completing an MA in Philosophy, concentrating on virtue-ethics and the philosophy of well-being. I also have an MA in Applied Linguistics (all British universities.) I do not claim to represent 'philosophers' or the 'philosophical community' as does /r/askphilosophy, and I am not a philosopher, self-proclaimed or otherwise, as professionally I work in cultural-relations. I do know a lot about the subject though, and it is far from the case that Harris is a dunce when it comes to philosophy.

[–]Fenixx117 14ポイント15ポイント  (11子コメント)

self-proclaimed neuroscientist

Holy shit these people are literally retarded. Didn't he get is PhD in Neuroscience of Stanford?

Also calling him a racist when he criticizes the belief system called Islam is cognitive dissonance so severe you would have to have brain damage or be friends with Glen Greenwald to believe such utter horseshit.

This is either the lamest parody of the philosophy subreddit or this is what they actually believe.

RegressiveLeftists in action

[–]haram_CD_ROM 11ポイント12ポイント  (3子コメント)

Didn't he get is PhD in Neuroscience of Stanford?

UCLA:

His latest writings were published this January, not in a book but in the scholarly Annals of Neurology

So self-proclaimed! /s

[–]Fenixx117 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

Love how the 'fact' is is a racist is from articles in Salon (!) from serial plagiarist CJ Werleman and all round demagogue Omar Aziz.

It is clear the OP is extremely gullible and believes in every single factious regressive talking point

[–]Ginguraffe 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am sort of sympathetic to their claim to be speaking for "philosophers." If /r/philosophy and /r/badphilosophy are any indication, these basically are the reasons some "philosophers" don't like Sam. What's telling is that they are all really dumb reasons...

[–]Shitgenstein 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Holy shit these people are literally retarded.

Literally?

[–]Fenixx117 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

As in they have an IQ of less than 80. Literally retarded

[–]Shitgenstein 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Good. I was just doubting your commitment to the circlejerk. Glad to know you jerk sincerely.

[–]weavjo 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

"Noam Chomskey, self proclaimed Linguist". OP and all those sacastaturds on /r/badphilosphy would have a stroke if they saw such bizarre phrasing

[–]mrsamsa -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think they'd just be confused as to why you say that, as Chomsky meets all reasonable definitions for being considered a linguist. He's qualified, he has worked and currently works in the field, he's contributed a significant amount of research to it, and is universally regarded as a linguist.

This obviously isn't true for Harris though, as he has a degree in the field but beyond that he meets no other possible criteria for being called a neuroscientist. And strong arguments can be made as why we shouldn't think that having a degree is sufficient to be considered a professional within a field (namely that understanding the theory isn't the same as engaging with the field).

[–]justsoicanpostit -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hahaha. All these people here complaining about not hearing legit criticisms and they down vote instead of answering.

Also check William m Briggs' criticism of Harris' phd. Kind of a nutter but makes some devestating points nevertheless.

There is simply no comparison in terms of how vital chomsky is to linguistics and how vital harris is to neoroscience. One is a recognized name who's contributions will be essential for ages, the other obtained a phd. That girl from tbbt has one too, doesn't she? But she's an actress because,,, she acts. Just like harris is a pop intellectual and author and not a neproscientIST.

[–]mrsamsa 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's just an issue of confusion with people who aren't familiar with academia and a case of treating science as an honorific status rather than just another field of study. So when people have a degree in a field it seems amazing, and of course their BSc in biology makes them a biologist!

But that doesn't really make much sense to actual scientists and how we actually operate. Having formal qualifications is a great start to beginning your career, but you aren't a biologist or even a scientist just because you have a degree. You need to actually be working in and contributing to your field of study in some way.

[–]the_hovering_life 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Whoa, askphilosophy went full retard.

[–]TotesMessenger 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]Snoochems 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The author should not have led with the 'he is gross and racist' argument. This just showed an unbelievable amount of stupid, that I couldn't help but be incredibly sceptical of the remaining points.

[–]Keith-Ledger -3ポイント-2ポイント  (65子コメント)

Will the day come when the Left will fall out of love with Islamism? What would it take?

[–]PixyFreakingStix 3ポイント4ポイント  (62子コメント)

If you're being snarky, then okay, but if you're not, that's really not a fair assessment of the criticism here. The left isn't in love with Islamism, they just think that people who are critical of Muslims are motivated by racism. And a lot of them absolutely are.

I don't think Sam is, but I think the left is right to be sensitive about this. Being overly sensitive to racism and believing terrorism and Islamic extremism is caused by bad foreign policy doesn't mean you support terrorism or Islamic extremism.

I think there's probably some truth to that, and I think that the left's refusal to admit that there's something wrong with Islam is a problem. But the people on Sam's side need to do a better job of recognizing that racism/xenophobia/etc really does play a big part in this for many people.

[–]Keith-Ledger 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

haha we've collided before on this topic so I would have hoped you wouldn't think I was being snarky, but then I am easily forgotten so...

they just think that people who are critical of Muslims are motivated by racism. And a lot of them absolutely are.

This is of course the primary problem that one day needs to be resolved, but I disagree with the second sentence. Not that it isn't an issue, but racism just isn't that huge of a problem, atleast in the UK where I am. I honestly think it's one the least racist, most tolerant societies in the world. Slightly different in the US, of course, but not massively so. Again, to stress - not saying that racism doesn't exist as a societal problem. Yet I'm aware what I've said in this paragraph is still going to seem absurd and laughable to those with worldviews that find racism, sexism etc literally everywhere in the Western world.

Which is exactly what the left tends to do when it comes to Islamism. Sure, they will occasionally be correct in thinking some given criticism is covertly motivated by an individual hatred of Arabs/Muslims/brown people - but their paranoid telepathy comes in and so often extends this to the very act of criticism itself. That folks publicly critical of Islam/Muslims are only ever motivated by racism.

So yeah, being overly sensitive to perceived racism is one the main issues here in my view, as it seriously stifles actual progressive dialogue. Not to mention, even if absolutely all critics of Muslim theocracy came from a place of disgusting bigotry, that doesn't in any way invalidate such criticism. Now, it's when that turns into actual ugly anti-Muslim animus, do we have a problem. And trust me, coming from a Muslim family myself, having Hijabi sisters, a Niqabi mother, a bearded Muslim father - I care a whole lot more about preventing anti-Muslim bigotry than most Western non-Muslim liberals do. But we have to be honest and recognise that perfectly decent anti-racist people can and do have views, fears, worries about Islamic ideology that don't stem from ignorance and bigotry that are completely legitimate.

You may have noticed my seemingly interchangeable use of Islam/Islamism/Muslims. Unlike the RL, I do think the distinctions are important but nevertheless neither concept is above scrutiny.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 1ポイント2ポイント  (16子コメント)

Slightly different in the US, of course, but not massively so

Can I ask why you think this? Given the popularity of Donald Trump, given the reaction to building the "Ground Zero Mosque," given the reaction to people accusing Obama of being a Muslim, among a hundred other examples, I really don't see how anyone could honestly say (at least in America) that it isn't a common problem.

[–]darthr 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

Western cultures are the least racist in the world. Anyone that has been in other countries knows that for a fact.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

I don't see why that's relevant to what we're discussing. I think it's probably true, but mostly because we've had to reckon with the absolute horror European and American colonialism has visited on the rest of the world.

[–]darthr 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

No, no, no. You should see how most Asian countries treat black people. Racism exists in every society, and the west is the only place where white guilt really exists that makes it shunned and a touchy subject. Name a country outside of the west and minorities probably have a tougher time than they would in the west.

[–]dahlesreb 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

but mostly because we've had to reckon with the absolute horror European and American colonialism has visited on the rest of the world.

As someone from Eastern Europe, I just don't understand how anyone can believe this. The Ottoman Empire was always the aggressive imperialist power in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, not Europe or America. They just picked up the reigns when the Ottoman Empire collapsed after WW1.

Apparently the Ottomans didn't have to reckon with the absolute horror they visited on the rest of the world. Neither did Genghis Khan, or Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong.

History didn't start in the late 1800s, and there have been ruthless conquerors of every skin color and ethnicity.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think by any reasonable metric, European colonization, exploitation and enslavement of Africa, the Americas and Southeast Asia doesn't come close to touching anything the Ottoman empire did. The conquered, sure, but the Ottomans (and Arabian empire before them) were reasonably progressive compared to others in the world.

History didn't start in the late 1800s, and there have been ruthless conquerors of every skin color and ethnicity.

Absolutely true. Aside from Genghis Khan, European colonization was probably the most ruthless. I think the slave trade is the greatest crime in human history.

[–]dahlesreb 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

doesn't come close to touching anything the Ottoman empire did.

I think the slave trade is the greatest crime in human history.

Slavery in the Ottoman Empire

Barbary Slave Trade

African participation in the slave trade

Whereas my white ancestors banned slavery in the 1400s. They were still being enslaved by the Ottomans for several more centuries.

See also, Timeline of the abolition of slavery.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I know slavery existed in the Ottoman Empire. I know the Ottoman empire did very bad things.

It didn't come close to what the Europeans did.

And yes, Africans participated in the slave trade, which was enabled, funded and propped up by European markets. And it's very bad that Africans participated in it. I think what Europeans did was worse.

And the slave trade is just scratching the surface. What Europe did to Africa in terms of colonization doesn't even touch anything the Ottomans did. Southeast Asia was just as bad. The Americas were just as bad. Maybe India was slightly less horrific.

That's not to say the Ottomans wouldn't have done it if they were in position to do it. I'm not saying the Ottomans were intrinsically better. I'm talking about what the Europeans actually did.

So yeah, I stand by my statement. It wasn't even close.

[–]Keith-Ledger 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Aren't they slightly cherry picked sensationalist stories that have little to do with the actual experience of American Muslims, though? In fact, from everything I've seen, they're far more liberal and integrated a group in general than British Muslims.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Aren't they slightly cherry picked sensationalist stories that have little to do with the actual experience of American Muslims, though?

Well, there is surely some element of that at play.

Is it possible you're downplaying the issue while I am exaggerating it?

[–]Keith-Ledger 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Of course. Downplaying because others tend to somewhat exaggerate, possibly. I don't think it's unjustified though.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

You couldn't be downplaying it for other reasons? Possibly for similar reasons to why others are exaggerating it?

I'm just suggesting that it's possible you're doing something wrong here. From what I've seen, the problems are underreported if anything.

[–]Keith-Ledger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, what are the reasons people exaggerate the issue and how is what I'm doing similar? I don't want to seem narrow minded or dogmatic but my views are merely shaped by my own experiences of growing up Muslim in a very Muslim area of the West, intimately knowing the effect of specific forms of religious thinking on a believing mind, losing said faith and so on and so on.

I'm not sure if you're trying to suggest I have some suspect ulterior motives here other than merely observing and thinking about the world the way I see it.

[–]SleepingUp 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

The other things you mentioned I see your point, but the ground zero mosque was never a serious suggestion, right? Because that is a completely retarded idea. We would never think that it was OK for Bush to kill off 3000 muslims in one blow and then build a church on the ruins. You don't have to be an islamophobe to recognize how perverse that kind of an action is and how respectful it is to the dead and their survivors. The people in the twin towers were killed by muslim religious lunatics. That doesn't mean that we should attack muslims, or not allow mosques or whatever, but come on, why there? I'm not from USA so I might be missing some nuance in this debate.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The other things you mentioned I see your point, but the ground zero mosque was never a serious suggestion, right?

I believe there really was a mosque that was going to be built near (not on) ground zero.

I don't think it's appropriate to say "these 4 blocks cannot have a mosque on them because of 9/11".

[–]SleepingUp 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh ok, that's what I missed, then. I thought that it was going to be built on the ruins on purpose, like a peace seeker. Yeah, I'm not sure then, it might not be completely appropriate to forbid it, but I understand people's frustration, too. It's far less outrageous to me than many of the things that Trump has said.

How big of an area is four blocks? Because I could see their point if it was like the exact neighbor, too, so where exactly to draw the line to where it stops being tactless? I guess there will be some kind of non-official area where it won't be possible, depending on how damning it is utility-wise and how other political battles goes, it will probably shrink with time.

[–]drunkentune -6ポイント-5ポイント  (42子コメント)

Why on Earth are you continually surprised that regulars on this subreddit say such patently insane bullshit?

[–]PixyFreakingStix[M] 4ポイント5ポイント  (38子コメント)

I'm not surprised, but I don't think it's that insane. Are you trying to get me to ban you? Because these kinds of comments are treading awfully close to "troll" territory.

Despite the fact that we are, shall we say... not particularly fond of one another, I welcome you to participate in this subreddit, even if a lot of what you say I disagree with.

I reeealllyyy don't want to ban you, but this comment isn't an attempt to have a conversation. It's attempt to make somebody mad. That's called trolling.

You can hate me, you can hate us, you can hate our subreddit, you can bitch about us wherever you want as much as you want... but you can't troll in /r/samharris.

Please stop. And please don't waste either of our time pretending like that's not what that comment was for.

[–]drunkentune -3ポイント-2ポイント  (37子コメント)

You have the power to stop this subreddit from devolving into a place where critics are dismissed as 'regressives', 'lovers of Islam', 'feminists', or 'cucks'. If you refuse to acknowledge that this is a genuine problem on this subreddit, then take what I say as trolling.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 7ポイント8ポイント  (35子コメント)

If you refuse to acknowledge that this is a genuine problem on this subreddit,

It is. I've acknowledged that a number of times.

I'm a 21 year old woman, I consider myself radical feminist, I am probably what most people here would classify as an SJW, I am surely one of the most sensitive people in this sub when it comes to bigotry, I'm a former SRSer, and if you haven't noticed, I am constantly pushing back against this problem.

Your previous comment is not an attempt to have a conversation about this problem. You know damn well that what you said, and the way you said it, is just taking a jab at people. I don't know if I'd call that trolling or not, but it's really close to it.

If you care whether or not you're banned, please don't do that.

This comment here, the one I'm responding to? That's legit. I'm happy to talk about this. I think Keith's views are incorrect, but it's not "patently absurd" to think that. (Edit: I also don't mean to imply Keith is racist, but I do think he's drastically underestimating the problem of racism as it exists in America and Europe). And moreover, I think Sam has a terrible habit of lumping all his criticism together under the "regressive" banner. But having said that, a ton of the criticism he gets really is dishonest.

So what do you want from me? I became a mod here because I recognized that racists and bigots are attracted to Sam, but I don't think his ideas actually are racist. I feminism has a similar problem. "Regressive" leftists really are a thing. Crazy Tumblr feminists absolutely do exist.

What Sam says lends itself well to terrible ideas and so does feminism. But that isn't the fault of feminism or of Sam.

I think feminists should push back harder against people in their own community with bad ideas, and I think Sam and his supporters should push back harder against the bigots that flock to him. I really am trying to do my part in that.

There's a reason everybody here hates me.

[–]SleepingUp 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I won't read through all of these walls of text, but I read enough to want to say thank you a lot for being a moderator here. You seem to represent exactly what Harris stands for to me.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

That means a lot to me, thank you. <3

[–]drunkentune -4ポイント-3ポイント  (31子コメント)

I've acknowledged that a number of times.

No, act on it. Clean up the rubbish. You should be calling out this behaviour with warnings that this behaviour will not be tolerated. The comment you responded to was anything but legit. It is literally shitposting. 'Will the day come when the Left will fall out of love with Islamism? What would it take?' Good grief! You have the power to remove these comments. Do what is right and clean this place up.

I recognized that racists and bigots are attracted to Sam, but I don't think his ideas actually are racist.

Then purge this subreddit of the racists and bigots, otherwise how else are critics of Harris' fans to think of /r/SamHarris when it is brimming with racists and bigots?

What Sam says lends itself well to terrible ideas

Then maybe Harris should watch what he says, if what he says 'lends itself well to terrible ideas', because he apparently attracts racists and bigots like moths to a flame.

I think feminists should push back harder against people in their own community with bad ideas, and I think Sam and his supporters should push back harder against the bigots that flock to him. I really am trying to do my part in that.

Do your part. You have the power. Remove the shit from this subreddit. Get rid of the bigots and racists.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 11ポイント12ポイント  (30子コメント)

No, act on it.

I think arguing to the best of my ability is acting on it.

The comment you responded to was anything but legit. It is literally shitposting.

I don't think it counts as shitposting if he really believes it's true. I just think he's wrong. I'm not going to warn and ban people for saying things I think are wrong.

Good grief! You have the power to remove these comments.

I will never do that. If they're not openly racist, openly sexist, openly homophobic, or openly bigoted against what I considered protected classes (the 'left' isn't one of them) I am not going to warn or ban anyone.

Saying "I think women are stupid" will get you a ban. Saying "I think women are intellectually inferior to men for the following reasons" and proceeding to attempt to make a case for your views will not.

And I say that as someone who really, really thinks that it isn't true that women are intellectually inferior to men.

Then maybe Harris should watch what he says, if what he says 'lends itself well to terrible ideas', because he apparently attracts racists and bigots like moths to a flame.

I actually agree, but I also don't think you can't blame someone for saying what they think is true, and someone else behaving badly because of it.

If he says that torture is morally permissible under certain circumstances, and someone else says SAM HARRIS SAYS TORTURE IS GREAT, ROUND UP ALL THE BROWN PEOPLE is that really his fault?

I'd love to see him push harder against that kind of thing. Maybe he doesn't recognize how many of his fans have issues with racism and anti-Muslim bigotry. Maybe he doesn't believe it. He's not down here in the trenches where he can see it, and considering the mountains of dishonest criticism he gets, I honestly don't blame him for not taking it seriously.

Do your part. You have the power. Remove the shit from this subreddit. Get rid of the bigots and racists.

I think your assessment of the people here isn't fair. I don't think they're as racist as you think (and Sam isn't nearly as racist as I would assume you think), but it's definitely a problem here. I am going to do my best to help remove bigots and racists through argument, and not through censorship.

Maybe I will fail. I don't know. But I will try. And I am sorry if that is not good enough for you, but I believe it is the right thing to do.

I think racists should be allowed to speak (provided they attempt to back up their claims with an attempt at legitimate argumentation). I think people that aren't racists but have bad ideas about race should be allowed to speak.

You and I are on the same side, I think. And... I mean, look, I was part of SRS for a while for a reason. The only reason I stopped going was... well, because I got banned, but the reason I got banned was for calling out something I vewed as dishonest. Reddit itself is brimming with racists and sexists and other ists and it's just awful. Believe me, I share your frustration.

I think the way to handle it is argument. And so I'm going to keep doing that as best I can.

And you know what? It's not perfect or anything, but I think I've actually done a pretty good job...

[–]drunkentune 0ポイント1ポイント  (29子コメント)

I'd love to see him push harder against that kind of thing. Maybe he doesn't recognize how many of his fans have issues with racism and anti-Muslim bigotry.

That would require a wholesale revision on his choice of language. He is dog whistling.

considering the mountains of dishonest criticism he gets, I honestly don't blame him for not taking it seriously.

Why is it that all the criticism is de facto dishonest? Why are all the experts in numerous fields dishonest? Or is it more likely that the experts are right, most of the criticism from the experts are right, and you're protecting someone that says the indefensible and who opens discussion to more people to spread indefensible ideas?

Ah, but context, you see! I'm glad you realise that Harris says intensely stupid and insensitive things, but don't you realise that when I responded with 'You just don't understand the context' I did nothing but reiterate what was said on that thread? Any response of 'You just don't understand the context' and the like is shitposting. Most of the behaviour on this subreddit is based on shitposting. You can see it only when Harris goes beyond the pale and his fans defend the indefensible.

I am going to do my best to help remove bigots and racists through argument, and not through censorship.

Shitposting is shitposting. Nothing will fix shitposting, for more effort will always go into correcting shitposting than a single sentence shitpost. Remove comments. Ban the worst offenders. Put in a policy that arguments matter, not low-effort shitposts by racists and bigots. Do something more than what you're doing.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

That would require a wholesale revision on his choice of language. He is dog whistling.

Hmm. Well, as someone who, as I said, is extremely sensitive to bigotry, and someone who rarely finds herself disagreeing with Sam, it's hard for me to believe this is intentional.

It's possible I'm insensitive to anti-Muslim bigotry and only sensitive to racism and sexism and homophobia and transphobia, etc, etc, but... I don't... think that's true.

I've spent more time arguing lately against anti-Muslim bigotry here and elsewhere than I have anything else. But that still could be true. It still would solve that problem.

The issue really might be with me, but... I don't know, it sure doesn't feel like that.

Why is it that all the criticism is de facto dishonest?

I don't think all the criticism he gets is de facto dishonest. I just think a lot of it is.

Or is it more likely that the experts are right, most of the criticism from the experts are right, and you're protecting someone that says the indefensible and who opens discussion to more people to spread indefensible ideas?

What about all the experts that agree with him?

To be fair, I'm not particularly well-versed in what the experts who are critical of him are saying. I read the exchange between Sam and Dan Dennet and came away from it still agreeing with Sam, and was (and still am) a fan of both.

Juliette in his recent podcast didn't agree with him and I thought that was a pretty good exchange.

but don't you realise that when I responded with 'You just don't understand the context' I did nothing but reiterate what was said on that thread

No, I do.

Any response of 'You just don't understand the context' and the like is shitposting.

But sometimes that's really true. Though I think it's more often that people don't care about the context rather than that they don't understand it.

Most of the behaviour on this subreddit is based on shitposting. You can see it only when Harris goes beyond the pale and his fans defend the indefensible.

I don't think anything he's said is indefensible. Even the rape comment, which I think is the worst thing he's said (at least, that I'm aware of) isn't indefensible. It's totally possible to think religion really is worse than rape, and while I don't think that's true myself, it's not crazy.

But it was just incredibly insensitive. I don't think Sam understands why rape hurts so much or what it does to people, and maybe if he did, he wouldn't feel the same way. Or, if he did, he'd at least be more sensitive to it. And that's a totally fair criticism.

Shitposting is shitposting. Nothing will fix shitposting, for more effort will always go into correcting shitposting than a single sentence shitpost.

I don't know if that's true, but for now, I will proceed as though it isn't. I think I can win this war with arguments.

Ban the worst offenders. Put in a policy that arguments matter, not low-effort shitposts by racists and bigots.

I just... I don't know. I don't see this happening that often. I don't scan every comment, so I could be missing a lot... but we're picky about what sort of submissions are allowed. I've removed a lot of stuff that I thought was pushing an anti-Muslim narrative and said the post could be resubmitted as a text post with the link included, but you have to try to argue yourself why you think this is relevant.

Nobody ever does, incidentally.

Maybe you're right. I suspect I'm a few years younger than you at least, and maybe you just know better than me. But, right now, I'm not convinced.

I'm going to fight with words and we will see how it goes.

[–]Bleuski 6ポイント7ポイント  (21子コメント)

He is dog whistling.

How could you possibly know that?

Why is it that all the criticism is de facto dishonest? Why are all the experts in numerous fields dishonest? Or is it more likely that the experts are right, most of the criticism from the experts are right, and you're protecting someone that says the indefensible and who opens discussion to more people to spread indefensible ideas?

Think for a second over what /u/pixyfreakingstix said. Did they say 'all the experts in numerous fields (are) dishonest?" Did it follow from what they said? Did they imply it? No, they did not.

And yes, I'm mimicing what you said yourself earlier. The double-standards you display in your discourse are astounding.

[–]Baabda 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

devolving

Implying that's not the present state.

[–]Keith-Ledger 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah Pixy, given that badphillers are pretty much regulars here - why would you be?!

[–]drunkentune -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

The Left are in love with Islam!

[–]Keith-Ledger 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Perhaps worded slightly hyperbolically, but a point I stand by. The unholy synergy between the progressive left and the Islamist right isn't exactly a novel concept

[–]Kai_Daigoji -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

You don't have to capitalize 'the Left' just because it's your girlfriend.

[–]Keith-Ledger 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok babe, I typed an uppercase character where you think it should have been a lowercase one, I beg your forgiveness O Wise One.

[–]kurtgustavwilckens -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Reported for brigading.