34
35

Harris has invited Charles Murray onto WU (mobile.twitter.com)

Joplinpicasso が 投稿

全 101 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

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

What I want Harris to address with Murray: steel-manning Murray's detractors; Murray's cross-burning incident; Murray's opinions on the potential future of eugenics; etc.

[–]non-rhetorical 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

steel-manning Murray's detractors

Is that still steel-manning? To me, it seems self-evident that you can only steel-man the person you're arguing with. The whole point is to make your interlocutor feel that their argument is understood. If you can do that yet still disagree, then their ears are wide open.

[–]Herr_Bert 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

not necessarily. For example, in the podcast with Glenn Loury he and Sam made an exercise of steel-manning something that Ta nehisi coates would say.

[–]-belgarath 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'd think you can and should steel man anyone you're talking about, not just anyone you're talking to.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 28 ポイント29 ポイント  (55子コメント)

Well, he seems interesting... Even though I enjoyed the episode with David Frum, I maintain my criticism from before. Sam's trend of talking to people either primarily on the right or in the center despite his very sharp criticism of the left seems... I don't know, not wrong, but I really feel like he owes prominent, reasonable leftists some air time.

Hopefully that's coming down the pipe.

[–]Joplinpicasso[S] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Look, I'm right there with you. I think it's self-proving, though, in that his interests and how he pursues them just aligns with center or center-right thinkers. If he devoted a whole episode to income inequality, freedom of hallucinogens, etc., I'm sure there'd be more cause for a 'Leftist.'

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

To that end, I really think bringing on more people he disagrees with is what I want from him. edit: Also, his savage criticism of Trump sure would lend itself well to some of those on the left, speaking of his interests.

I don't know, I kind of think he's avoiding them or ignoring them.

[–]Joplinpicasso[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Maybe. Where's our letter?

[–]kidamnesiac94 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't know, I kind of think he's avoiding them or ignoring them.

He hasn't exactly been treated with respect by the left. Ultimately he wants to have a productive conversation with someone who comes to the table in good faith. He obviously doesn't trust many of the left to participate in that.

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

"The left" is barely aware of him.

Reza Aslan, Glenn Greenwald and Noam Chomsky are really the only high profile encounters he's had. What, because Abby Martin is kind of a jerk, now he refuses to talk to anyone on the left, despite his constant (and often unfair) bashing of them?

He obviously doesn't trust many of the left to participate in that.

And he's obviously wrong to feel that way.

[–]Madening 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (35子コメント)

reasonable leftists some air time.

Give us some names

[–]PixyFreakingStix 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (34子コメント)

I did in another comment the last time this was brought up. My first choices would be Rachel Maddow, Van Jones, Jon Stewart, Ana Marie Cox, Paul Krugman, and Jon Oliver.

[–]StrangelyBrown 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Jon Oliver is a comedian with politically-minded writers. He wouldn't give more than a surface representation of the left.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Jon Oliver is a writer as well, and has been for years. He knows his stuff. Being a comedian doesn't change that.

Incidentally, he gives some of the best left-leaning analysis of different issues of anyone talking about them. His interviews are fantastic, as far as I can tell his analysis is fair and he's got a great perspective on politics.

I'd argue he's the best voice on the left next to Rachel Maddow.

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

I've listened to Jon on over 200 episodes of the Bugle podcast. He's purely reactionary. He has opinions like 'anyone who would question any climate change policy is basically a nazi'.

(I'm not saying we shouldn't have climate change policy. I'm saying ideas should be debated)

So it's true to say that he is an aware and staunch defender of the left, but he's exactly the kind of regressive left that Sam has completely lost hope in. He's not the one to bridge the gap.

edit: spelling

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

He can remind us what year it is though.

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

In a debate with Bill O'Reilly Jon Stewart didn't even know the difference between the debt and the deficit.

Jon Stewart thought that Bill Clinton had wiped out the entire US debt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdDr7yYSPV4

Jon Stewart isn't a serious person.

What's also telling is the fact that the audience clapped and approved of Jon Stewart when he was saying things completely and totally factually incorrect.

Also I won't be surprised if I get down voted for saying this, because liberals treat Jon Stewart like a God and down vote anyone who points out his errors.

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

How is Jon Oliver reactionary? He's firmly left-wing. What do people mean when they call liberals reactionary? It makes no sense.

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

Reactionary might the wrong word. I would say idealist or dogmatic.

[–]HawkFood 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Paul Krugman is the opposite of reasonable and the rest aren't really intellectual heavyweights

[–]PixyFreakingStix -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Even if I were to grant that (which I don't), it's not like the conservatives he brings on are all intellectual heavyweights either.

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

David Frum and Douglas Murray aren't intellectual heavyweights?

[–]PixyFreakingStix 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

No moreso than Paul Krugman or Rachel Maddow.

[–]joeyswampwater 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in hearing any cable news talking head who goes on every night and presents partisan arguments ever talk about anything ever at any time even for one second.

[–]tyzad 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

How is the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman not reasonable?

[–]HawkFood 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am aware of his credentials, Obama has a nobel peace prize. Krugman's analysis is pretty much always off target, among other ridiculous things he predicted a recession to end all recessions to start if Trump got elected. How is that economic Trumpocalypse coming?

[–]tyzad -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh you just wait until his 40% tariff on Chinese imports.

[–]HawkFood 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am not a Trump supporter (not even american), and i don't think there are any compelling anti-free trade arguments. 40% tariffs on imports would be terrible but it would not create a global recession we would never recover from, which is what Krugman predicted in an article in The Economist before the election

[–]joeyswampwater 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Of all those people, only Jon Stewart and Paul Krugman sound like they wouldn't be absolutely terrible podcasts. Rachel Maddow and Van Jones aren't reasonable. They are ideologues who would give no ground and would be a totally pointless "debate". They are talking heads.

Reasonable leftists would be someone who isn't a nationally known personality and instead someone respected for their actual work. There's a bunch of academics and journalists who would fit this bill. I would actually like Sam to get one of them on. The fact that Sam hasn't shows me he's not nearly as much on the left as he thinks he is.

Honestly, the two leftists I would most want to hear, Chomsky and Greenwald, would never happen because Sam hates them so much. Jeremy Scahill would be interesting. His book on Blackwater was fantastic.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy9Qtf3P6Nw

One of the finest bits of commentary and exposition I've ever seen. Talking head? Unreasonable?

I know projection when I see it.

[–]phrizand 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They are ideologues who would give no ground and would be a totally pointless "debate".

Van Jones did a whole series where he talked to Trump supporters in their homes, heard their concerns, and didn't demonize them. He's really quite fair and open to debate. Also, whether or not they would be debating at all depends on what they talked about; Van Jones and Sam Harris agree on a lot of things.

[–]Joplinpicasso[S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I think only Krugman or Cox would be viable.

[–]Nessie 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

And Harris, like Hitchens before him, shies away from economic topics.

[–]ptbarnum7 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

he should get someone like Dan Drezner to really talk politics

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

I LOVE Drezner! He's super knowledgeable on international economics, foreign policy, and has the best sense of humor.

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

Harris has written about it but not podcasted about it.

[–]tyzad 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'd add Lawrence O'Donnell, Michelle Alexander, Michael Pollan, Kurt Andersen, Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, David Rothkopf, Kevin Drum, James Fallows, Hendrick Hertzberg, Bill Moyers, David Shipley, Ed Rendell, and David Pakman.

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

Oooh, David Pakman is a good choice. I don't really know the others that well aside from their names.

Lawrence O'Donnell strikes me as a little too partisan, maybe.

[–]spongish -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (6子コメント)

People like Krugman and Maddie are largely criticised by even sensible people on the right. Someone like Stewart might have a better chance of being considered.

[–]PixyFreakingStix 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm not sure "reasonable people criticize you" is a very good basis for not considering someone. I'm pretty sure reasonable people have criticized every one of Sam's guests thus far.

[–]spongish 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I supposed ridiculed would be better, rather than just criticise. Surely it'd be better to get people who are at least taken seriously by those who disagree with them.

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

I don't know a lot about Krugman, just that I've really appreciated his work during and after the election. But maybe he deserves ridicule.

Rachel Maddow, as far as I can tell, is more or less flawless and any ridicule aimed at her is either coming from partisan motivations or ignorant ones.

[–]spongish 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Rachel Maddow, as far as I can tell, is more or less flawless and any ridicule aimed at her is either coming from partisan motivations or ignorant ones.

Well that's just ridiculous. To consider someone as flawless so you can dismiss her opponents as ignorant or partisan is just absurd.

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

You should re-read the phrasing. There's nothing ridiculous about the claim from what I've seen of Maddow. She does a solid job of explaining facts, explaining connections, and as far as I've seen she doesn't distort the facts and/or their context to fit her narrative. I'm open to being wrong on this, if you have counterexamples.

[–]evanescott 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Lol people actually believe this. Wow

[–]TheRiddler78 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

but I really feel like he owes prominent, reasonable leftists some air time. Hopefully that's coming down the pipe.

while i kind of agree, i'd argue that getting the 'right' side of his audience to listen to murray/frum instead of (censored) they seem to be a good idea.

as frum is among the more enlightend minds of the US right, so murray is on the european right.

those of us on the left end of the spectrum can (at least to some degree) better differentiate between the center-left(on what ever issue) and the fringe part of the left that has just thought themselfs to far into relativism.

and tbh the potential backlash from the crazy left is enough that i think it is not 'easy' for him to find sane voices on the left that dare risk the wrath of batman.

tho' he seems to be getting a lot less toxic lately, as it seems there are indications of pushback against the fringe on both sides. so big hopes for the future

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

That's a good point. But I'm not saying he shouldn't have them on, and I'm not saying there isn't a lot of good to be had from them being on. I want to see a varied group of people with lots of different ideas. I want to hear those who agree and disagree with Sam. One of the best podcasts he's done was with, ah... that security expert woman whose name I keep forgetting. I thought that was a really interesting, productive conversation from someone who was clearly leaning pretty hard toward the left.

It seems like this aspect of the show has just bottomed out, though. Every guest he brings on to talk about politics is conservative. I don't want no conservatives. I don't even mind there being mostly conservatives.

But again, he just rips the left to shreds all the time, and I think a big chunk of this criticism isn't fair to some degree or another. And so he really ought to have a reasonable leftist on.

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

Juliette Kayyem!

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

Yes! Why can't I remember that!

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

Kayyem is the best. Maybe he should have her back?

[–]TheRiddler78 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And so he really ought to have a reasonable leftist on.

agreed, but we may have to build a left leaning AI first.(a blue one)

[–]bizud 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Charles Murray's American. You're thinking of Douglas Murray.

[–]TheRiddler78 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

/starts looking for a hole...

my excuse is I'm still preoccupied thinking about blue sexbots;-)

[–]Joplinpicasso[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, he did just say on Twitter that both ends of the political spectrum are insane. I would disagree if he means objectively and wholly equally the same.

[–]TheRiddler78 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

the fringe part of the SJW 'movement' are imo so far out on relativism or emotion that i can only call them crazy

while the insane right are either caught up on traditions to a point of dogma that are obviously wrong(e.g drugs are bad) are straight up rasists or religious. all crazy.

so imo he's right but it comes down to how you define center, i guess i use it to mean the ppl that use reason to argue their political ambitions while the fringe is the ppl that argue from feel or belief.

in this context i'd argue this is the 'right' way to define the terms.

[–]mista0sparkle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't listen to many political pundits far on the left but would be open to actually hearing from some coherent leftists. Unfortunately I think the most famous 'leftists' that are thought provoking on Sam's level are the late Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, and we all know how that worked out.

Can you recommend any leftist personalities that would make for a good conversation?

[–]Strange_Vagrant 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Harris is looking for a DM?!

I can do that. I'm down a player, if he wants to join my table. It's 5E and meets monthly.

It's actually a great time for him to jump in because we're in between story archs.

[–]Joplinpicasso[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Let's get real: Harris would spend too much time engaged in PvP.

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

I imagine him having trouble role playing a bit, but he'd know his character, wouldn't meta game once meta gaming was explained to him, and would have fun after a couple drinks, less so before.

I think he'd struggle with the intricate rules, but grasp the basics pretty well.

I think he'd go along with the story more than try to derail and do his own thing, in so far as a clear story is presented to him.

He would celebrate 20s and get sad with 1s, but wouldn't practice rolling dice or swap out a 'bad' die if he happen to be doing poorly.

All in all, a solid player, not overly remarkable characters, but consistent and dependable.

[–]Los_93 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

He would celebrate 20s and get sad with 1s

Nope. Meditation has freed him from bondage to happenstance. He will attend to whatever the dice say and fit the story to the result.

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

I think that DnD TV Show, the name of which I can't remember would be better if they invited public intellectuals onto the show. I think it'd be really funny to watch an ethicist play DnD.

[–][deleted] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I want to try DnD but ive never been a part of that crowd

[–]vrsailles 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Scientific racism ftw!

[–][削除されました]  (11子コメント)

[deleted]

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

    You know they won't.

    [–]thepillowcover 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (9子コメント)

    The Bell Curve and Coming Apart are actually very similar books.

    People who haven't actually read The Bell Curve have a totally distorted view of the book. They think the book is dedicated to race and IQ. When the reality is the book has 22 chapters and only 2 chapter is about race (or as he says ethnicity) and IQ.

    Most of The Bell Curve is actually about the same thing as Coming Apart. A TLDR is that Murray and his coauthor foresaw that the United States would become a more divided country in the future, and that IQ plays a significant role in this division.

    Coming Apart though is interesting because Charles Murray completely and totally ignored race in that book. He completely eliminated the messy issue of race/ethnicity and only focused on white people. He shows in the book that even when you eliminate the variable of race entirely and only focus on whites, you still find all these significant changes and differences in our society and how they are linked with IQ differences.

    Both books are worth reading for people who have an independent mind and aren't afraid to question the usual leftist dogma we are force fed by our mainstream culture.

    [–]thecbusiness 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    Leftist dogma or scientific inaccuracies?

    [–]thepillowcover 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Leftist dogma.

    [–]thecbusiness 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    So the scientific community pointing out errors and inaccuracies, all leftists afraid to question their dogma?

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

    So the scientific community pointing out errors and inaccuracies

    I didn't talk about that.

    So no that isn't what I'm talking about.

    How about lets try to not straw man people if we talk to them.

    Putting words in people's mouths and pretending they said something they didn't isn't a productive way to have a conversation.

    It is a good way to be a demagogue though.

    Also speaking of the scientific community pointing out errors and inaccuracies, a team of experts in the field of psychometrics came out with a report about IQ research after the Bell Curve came out, and they confirmed most of what Charles Murray and his coauthor Richard Herrnstein (someone with an expertise in the field) said in The Bell Curve.

    https://www.mensa.ch/sites/default/files/Intelligence_Neisser1996.pdf

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

    You see those question marks at the end, right there? See that? I'm asking to clarify what you meant, not creating a straw man.

    Anyways, they confirmed some of his points and pointed out inaccuracies in others: mostly on race and IQ, which is where a lot of the controversy comes from.

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

    You see those question marks at the end, right there? See that?

    Yeah it's called a rhetorical question.

    From a dictionary

    "a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer."

    I'm asking to clarify what you meant, not creating a straw man.

    No you made a rhetorical question in order to pretend I was saying something that I actually didn't.

    Point out in one area in my post where I said anything about scientific inaccuracies before you made this point. You won't find any, because that wasn't remotely what I was talking about.

    You know and I know it.

    pointed out inaccuracies in others: mostly on race and IQ, which is where a lot of the controversy comes from.

    So what was Charles Murray wrong about in regards to race and IQ that this study points out?

    [–]thecbusiness 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I like how you know my intentions on asking questions it's pretty cute actually.

    Did you read the study you posted or not?

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

    I like how you know my intentions on asking questions it's pretty cute actually.

    Point out in one area in my post where I said anything about scientific inaccuracies before you made this point.

    Did you read the study you posted or not?

    So what was Charles Murray wrong about in regards to race and IQ that this study points out?

    [–]ptbarnum7 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    He completely eliminated the messy issue of race/ethnicity and only focused on white people.

    haha. in a lot of ways the whole book was about race

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

    I love that at the top of Charles Murray's timeline is a retweet of Ayaan tweeting a link to some anti-liberal shit in the WSJ. :/

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

    I know it's terrible.

    Everyone should just agree with left wingers like you.

    [–]TheSean85 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Looking forward to this if it happens. I don't make a habit of emailing strangers but way back when WU first started I did email SH and made a case to have Murray on. I assumed Sam wouldn't go near him. In episodes since he has mentioned Murray but admitted he'd never read the Bell Curve or the infamous chapter on race/IQ.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]TheSean85 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Yep, he has. A few times. But he's also said he hasn't read it. Maybe he will before Murray comes on (if he is coming on)

      [–]TotesMessenger 0 ポイント1 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)

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

      I just hope Sam actually reads both of Murrays books. I know he hasn't read them, as he mentioned in one of his podcasts that he hasn't - and he considered the subject too hard to touch.

      I haven't read murrays books myself, but I did listen to several interviews with murray about the books (one of them a marathon cspan interview), and it seems there is much and more to learn from the man and the push back he received from publishing his books.

      [–]mrsamsa -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (17子コメント)

      I hope Harris uses some of his background in neuroscience/psychological science to push back a little against Murray and ask him how he managed to write a book like "The Bell Curve" and get so much science wrong, to the point that the entire scientific community came out to release documents explaining to the public all the points they got wrong.

      Although I fear that if they touch on that topic Harris will likely just agree when Murray accuses his critics of "misrepresenting him" and then they'll talk about how much they hate the left.

      [–]Keith-Ledger 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (15子コメント)

      Aren't you of the opinion that both these men are racists? Why would you have all these "hopes" and "fears" about and want to listen to a podcast of two racists talking to each other about race?

      I mean aren't you, as far as you're concerned, reading Mein Kampf and hoping for a redeeming sentence or two when you already know how that story ends, as it were?

      [–]mrsamsa -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (14子コメント)

      Aren't you of the opinion that both these men are racists? Why would you have all these "hopes" and "fears" about and want to listen to a podcast of two racists talking to each other about race?

      Murray certainly is and Harris has undeniably said racist things, but Harris attempts to be a rationalist and he has a related background on the science of the issue so he should still be able to push back. If he doesn't then he isn't just saying racist things but he appears to be a full-blown racist.

      I mean aren't you, as far as you're concerned, reading Mein Kampf and hoping for a redeeming sentence or two when you already know how that story ends, as it were?

      Murray's work is on par with that but Harris tends to tease the line a little bit so I'm optimistic, and hoping for the possibility that he'll call Murray out for being insane.

      But as I mention in my post above, I don't hold out too much hope that such a thing will occur.

      [–]winterfjell 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (13子コメント)

      Can you post some undeniable evidence?

      [–]mrsamsa -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (12子コメント)

      We've gone through this a million times and it just ends up with people denying that racial profiling is racist.

      [–]Amida0616 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (11子コメント)

      Is racial profiling for sickle cell racist?

      [–]mrsamsa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (10子コメント)

      What law enforcement agency is doing broad racial profiling for sickle cell?

      If you're trying to draw an analogy to racial profiling then what you're describing would be more similar to narrow or targeted profiling which is something entirely different to what Harris/Trump propose.

      [–]Amida0616 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

      If a certain race is more likely to have a characteristic you are searching for does it not make sense to profile for that race.

      It does not speak to someone having the opinion that races are inferior or superior to each other.

      [–]mrsamsa -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (8子コメント)

      So if black people are more likely to commit crimes, it makes sense to stop and frisk them more than other groups?

      [–]Amida0616 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

      Well no because I think stop and frisk is a violation of anyone's rights. Even someone who we could imagine factually is a criminal leaving the scene of a crime. Unless the cops have probably cause to stop him for some reason it seems unconstitutional.

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

      I doubt that's the case. Even when he had Gad Saad or Jon Haidt on, they had their kicks about misrepresentation and PC and the Left, but then he argued against some of their pet points.