g = window.googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; window.googletag = googletag; googletag.cmd.push(function() { var interstitialSlot = googletag.defineOutOfPageSlot('/17085479/redcafe_gam_interstitial', googletag.enums.OutOfPageFormat.INTERSTITIAL); if (interstitialSlot) { interstitialSlot.addService(googletag.pubads()); } });

Peterson, Harris, etc....

Shinjch

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
1,382
Rogan had that Tim Pool guy on yesterday. He was "debating" Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde (the head of legal, policy, trust and safety on Twitter).

Pool came off like a seriously spoilt little child. Throwing Twitter incidents at Jack and Vijaya and expecting them to know and comment on all the ins and outs right away. Then when they did have the facts on some of the cases he went straight into whataboutery and talking over them. Not surprised now to see him slap bang in the middle of that influence web. Came off like a poor man's Shapiro. Which is saying something.
 

Eboue

nasty little twerp with crazy bitter-man opinions
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
61,231
Location
I'm typing this with my Glock 19 two feet from me
some of those names are hilarious.

sargon of akkad
wife with a purpose
coach red pill
the irish cretin
mister metokur
no bullshit
blockbuster cashier
true facts stated
that guy t
mundane matt
calcium deficient chris
styxhexenhammer666
little bo-peep
chris ray gun
mouthy buddha
epic fecknugget
bunty king
computing forever
banger in the mouth
blonde in the belly of the beast
some black guy
some black guy's cousin
tree of logic



i mean ffs
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,269
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Im surprised Milo is so peripheral TBH, he always seems pretty high profile. Has his stock gone down since his Twitter ban?
He was chewed up and spat out by his own team. In a way, it was inevitable. A flamboyant gay man was always going to be an obvious target for the conservative right, when push came to shove. The paedophilia stuff was just a convenient excuse to kick him out of their gang.
 

Nucks

RT History Department
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
4,462
Looking at that makes me want to never listen to Joe Rogan again.
Rogan doesn't belong on that list. He's openly stated he leans left. Rogan being on that list, is emblematic of outrage culture in general. If you go to the youtube comments section of any of his political guest episodes, if the guest is right wing, the left is calling him an alt-right apologist. If the guest is left wing, the right is calling him a shill and a sellout and a socialist ****.

He brings people on from all sides of the debate. In one episode he brings on Tim Pool, in another he has Abby Martin, or Tulsi Gabbard. He gives people a platform and offers very little push back, however, he does push back when his guests say idiotic shit, like when Dave Rubin was on, or Candice Owens. In fact, he pushes back on the right wingers far more often than he does than the left. The issue with Rogan is, he isn't a journalist, doesn't consider himself a journalist, and as such, he very rarely has specific knowledge to call people out on. He typically calls people out on shit, when their position flies in the face of common sense. Like when he made Rubin look like an absolute tool over the post office, or when he demolished Candice Owens over science denial.
 

freeurmind

weak willed
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,883
Rogan is by no means perfect but he definitely gives a platform to left leaning people and his podcasts are generally entertaining.
 

freeurmind

weak willed
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,883
Rogan doesn't belong on that list. He's openly stated he leans left. Rogan being on that list, is emblematic of outrage culture in general. If you go to the youtube comments section of any of his political guest episodes, if the guest is right wing, the left is calling him an alt-right apologist. If the guest is left wing, the right is calling him a shill and a sellout and a socialist ****.

He brings people on from all sides of the debate. In one episode he brings on Tim Pool, in another he has Abby Martin, or Tulsi Gabbard. He gives people a platform and offers very little push back, however, he does push back when his guests say idiotic shit, like when Dave Rubin was on, or Candice Owens. In fact, he pushes back on the right wingers far more often than he does than the left. The issue with Rogan is, he isn't a journalist, doesn't consider himself a journalist, and as such, he very rarely has specific knowledge to call people out on. He typically calls people out on shit, when their position flies in the face of common sense. Like when he made Rubin look like an absolute tool over the post office, or when he demolished Candice Owens over science denial.
The parts where he dismantled Rubin on the USPS was amazing.
 

Andrew~

Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
6,190
Do you guys consider Jocko Willink in this 'right wing' circle? Because if you're putting Joe Rogan in it, then all of them are in it.
 

altodevil

Odds winner of 'Odds or Evens 2023/2024'
Joined
Oct 16, 2013
Messages
17,612
I've not read or listened to Sam Harris since around Hitchens passing. Is he considered alt-right now? He's always been critical of religion, but until recently that's not been considered a right-wing viewpoint.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
I've not read or listened to Sam Harris since around Hitchens passing. Is he considered alt-right now? He's always been critical of religion, but until recently that's not been considered a right-wing viewpoint.
He is not alt-right at all. The people calling him alt-right or accusing him of spreading racism or whatever honestly have no clue. He's attacked because he has the audacity to believe there's a clear connection between ideas/ideology and actions. He absolutely loathes racism and bigotry.

*Edit: And also because he believes the way to the ideal colour blind society is not by meddling in identity politics, which he sees as detrimental to this end.
 

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
23,836
Location
The Zone
I've not read or listened to Sam Harris since around Hitchens passing. Is he considered alt-right now? He's always been critical of religion, but until recently that's not been considered a right-wing viewpoint.
He is not alt-right at all. The people calling him alt-right or accusing him of spreading racism or whatever honestly have no clue. He's attacked because he has the audacity to believe there's a clear connection between ideas/ideology and actions. He absolutely loathes racism and bigotry.
Harris is into race i.q stuff now. He hosted a hour long podcast with Charles Murray.

He is pretty much Michael Palin character from the film Brazil.
 

Minimalist

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
15,091
Sizeable part of his audience is right wing. Doesn’t mean he’s necessarily that way but clearly they like what he says.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
Harris is into race i.q stuff now. He hosted a hour long podcast with Charles Murray.
Did you listen to the podcast? He had Murray on to give him a chance to explain himself after becoming pretty much a public pariah, and because he himself didn't even want to touch him when Murray first published The Bell Curve, without even reading it.

Harris consistently states that the questionable difference in IQ between "races" is so small and insignificant that it doesn't have any impact on the individual or societal level, thereby making studies on IQ and race pointless.

If that's considered an alt-right view now, then I frankly don't know what to say.
 

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
23,836
Location
The Zone
Did you listen to the podcast? He had Murray on to give him a chance to explain himself after becoming pretty much a public pariah, and because he himself didn't even want to touch him when Murray first published The Bell Curve, without even reading it.

Harris consistently states that the questionable difference in IQ between "races" is so small and insignificant that it doesn't have any impact on the individual or societal level, thereby making studies on IQ and race pointless.

If that's considered an alt-right view now, then I frankly don't know what to say.
Why was Murray a turned into a public pariah? Because his book was a load of racist shite


If your have race IQ people on for a chit chat I think its fair enough to say your right wing.
 
Last edited:

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
23,836
Location
The Zone
Find me a direct source of Harris saying something racist if you want to push this argument.
Er.........call yourself a fan

Sam Harris said said:
I'm a massive racist

Page 1 of Sam Harris - The Racist Years
I mean your not one of those people who unless someone screams the N word they can't be a racist ? Harris is right wing and promotes racists ideas because of his views on American foreign, his views on policing and that one time he did a podcast with a IQ racist.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
Why was Murray a turned into a public pariah? Because his book was a load of racist shite
Nope, some of it was flawed and the policy implications were highly debatable. But otherwise it didn't fall below the empirical standard adhered to by most work of that genre. It received massived scrutiny, and rightly so, because of the topic.

If your have race IQ people on for a chit chat I think its fair enough to say your right wing.
It wasn't a chit chat at all. Harris repeatedly asked Murray why he went looking for this information in the first place, knowing it would be used by white supremacists to further their bs agenda.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
Er.........call yourself a fan
You know as well as I that in this day and age it would be a piece of cake to find something like that if he had ever said it.

I mean your not one of those people who unless someone screams the N word they can't be a racist ? Harris is right wing and promotes racists ideas because of his views on American foreign, his views on policing and that one time he did a podcast with a IQ racist.
Of course you can be racist without using the N-word. But I think someone who voted for HRC, wants to raise minimum wage, wants to tax the rich, praises most of the consequences of metoo, thinks having to pay for basic healthcare is unethical, is positive about immigration, and repeatedly talks about a colour blind society as the end goal, etc, isn't really a racist or right wing.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,850
Sam Harris is obviously left wing. He just has a few opinions which many vocal left wing people consider sacrilege so they're keen to evict him from "their" group.

The idea that a political stance can be reduced to a handful of controversial issues is tragic but that's our reality and he opens himself up to that attack knowingly, so we really shouldn't care how other people identify him. If you want to know his position you can listen to him talk about it in simple terms many times. Pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but kind of amusing all the same.

He's a good litmus test for how extreme your views are and how you perceive politics in general. The people that want to claim him on the right or eject him on the left are only communicating something about themselves, not about him. Mostly intentionally too.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
Sam Harris is obviously left wing. He just has a few opinions which left wing people consider sacrilege so they're keen to evict him from "their" group. The idea that a political stance can be reduced to a handful of controversial issues is tragic but that's our reality and he opens himself up to that attack knowingly, so we really shouldn't care how other people identify him. If you want to know his position you can listen to him talk about it in simple terms many times. Pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but kind of amusing all the same.

He's a good litmus test for how extreme your views are and how you perceive politics in general. The people that want to claim him on the right or eject him on the left are only communicating something about themselves, not about him. Mostly intentionally too.
Exactly. It's amusing but also a bit sad, because his ethical reasoning in support of matters that are important to the left are drowned out by these outright false claims that he wants to nuke the middle east and thinks brown people are inherently stupid, or whatever bs is said about him nowadays.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
Harris said:
People don’t want to hear that a person's intelligence is in large measure due to his or her genes and there seems to be very little we can do environmentally to increase a person's intelligence even in childhood. It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story. People don't want to hear this. And they certainly don't want to hear that average IQ differs across races and ethnic groups.

Now, for better or worse, these are all facts. In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than these claims. About IQ, about the validity of testing for it, about its importance in the real world, about its heritability, and about its differential expression in different populations.

Again, this is what a dispassionate look at [what] decades of research suggest. Unfortunately, the controversy over The Bell Curve did not result from legitimate, good-faith criticisms of its major claims. Rather, it was the product of a politically correct moral panic that totally engulfed Murray's career and has yet to release him.
Like, even if you ignore the evident racism from people like Murray, there is a lot of criticism of IQ as a measure of intelligence - especially as applied to race and the whole planet. Being dispassionate when you're telling black people they're dumb is sus af.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,269
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
Like, even if you ignore the evident racism from people like Murray, there is a lot of criticism of IQ as a measure of intelligence - especially as applied to race and the whole planet. Being dispassionate when you're telling black people they're dumb is sus af.
Which gets discussed in the podcast. It’s a flawed metric but it’s the most studied. So obviously worthy of discussion. Ignoring all the data is just sticking your fingers in your ears and going “nah nah nah I can’t hear you”.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
Like, even if you ignore the evident racism from people like Murray, there is a lot of criticism of IQ as a measure of intelligence - especially as applied to race and the whole planet. Being dispassionate when you're telling black people they're dumb is sus af.
Yeah, he probably exaggerated the reasons for Murray's villifications, I'll agree to that.

Harris's interest in IQ comes from worrying about the stratification of IQ in society in general, and that stratification goes across race since the racial difference is so insignificant It's tied to the accumulation of wealth by the top percents to the detriment of the people in the lower categories, because intelligence plays an increasingly important role in what you can achieve in today's society, as opposed to previous times where the determinstic element was much stronger.

It's an inherently humanistic worry, and it's damn shame that this very real problem is untouchable because of the racial implications which *surprise surprise* aren't even worth taking into consideration at all!
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,850
Exactly. It's amusing but also a bit sad, because his ethical reasoning in support of matters that are important to the left are drowned out by these outright false claims that he wants to nuke the middle east and thinks brown people are inherently stupid, or whatever bs is said about him nowadays.
He's said some things on the topic of "brown people" that can only incite hatred. Irrespective of his reasoning for it I think it's embarrassing that he's been unable to recognise why people have legitimate issues with what he said.

I agree with his condemnation of this culture of outrage but he loses legitimacy in that discussion when he denies the legitimacy of any outrage against him on that subject. Especially when he bangs the drum so loudly about the need to leave a lot of room in discussions for alternative viewpoints. He does that very poorly in some aspects and lacks a remarkable amount of self reflection on that front at times.

For an open minded person he has a very poor temperament when people challenge him on fundamental questions. He admits the poor temperament but never legitimises the other, much more important element of that issue.

That doesn't make me want to evict him from my side of the political spectrum though. It's normal to have fundamental disagreements with people that share broad worldviews. It's really odd to avoid facing that reality by simply denying his right to self identify. Dangerous too I think.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
He's said some things on the topic of "brown people" that can only incite hatred. Irrespective of his reasoning for it I think it's embarrassing that he's been unable to recognise why people have legitimate issues with what he said.

I agree with his condemnation of this culture of outrage but he loses legitimacy in that discussion when he denies the legitimacy of any outrage against him on that subject. Especially when he bangs the drum so loudly about the need to leave a lot of room in discussions for alternative viewpoints. He does that very poorly in some aspects and lacks a remarkable amount of self reflection on that front at times.

That doesn't make me want to evict him from my side of the political spectrum though. It's normal to have fundamental disagreements with people that share broad worldviews. It's really odd to avoid facing that reality by simply denying his right to self identify. Dangerous too I think.
Absolutely, I agree.
 

Sweet Square

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
23,836
Location
The Zone
Did you listen to that podcast? You really should. Otherwise you’re just arguing from a position of ignorance.
It's just check its........TWO AND HALF HOURS long. I could watch Tarkovsky Stalker in the same amount of time(Fast forwarding all the boring parts)

Some who has listen to it

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech

In an episode that runs nearly two and a half hours, Harris, who is best known as the author of The End of Faith, presents Murray as a victim of “a politically correct moral panic” — and goes so far as to say that Murray has no intellectually honest academic critics. Murray’s work on The Bell Curve, Harris insists, merely summarizes the consensus of experts on the subject of intelligence.

The consensus, he says, is that IQ exists; that it is extraordinarily important to life outcomes of all sorts; that it is largely heritable; and that we don’t know of any interventions that can improve the part that is not heritable. The consensus also includes the observation that the IQs of black Americans are lower, on average, than that of whites, and — most contentiously — that this and other differences among racial groups is based at least in part in genetics.

Harris is not a neutral presence in the interview. “For better or worse, these are all facts,” he tells his listeners. “In fact, there is almost nothing in psychological science for which there is more evidence than for these claims.” Harris belies his self-presentation as a tough-minded skeptic by failing to ask Murray a single challenging question. Instead, during their lengthy conversation, he passively follows Murray to the dangerous and unwarranted conclusion that black and Hispanic people in the US are almost certainly genetically disposed to have lower IQ scores on average than whites or Asians — and that the IQ difference also explains differences in life outcomes between different ethnic and racial groups.

In Harris’s view, all of this is simply beyond dispute. Murray’s claims about race and intelligence, however, do not stand up to serious critical or empirical examination. But the main point of this brief piece is not merely to rebut Murray’s conclusions per se — although we will do some of that — but rather to consider the faulty path by which he casually proceeds from a few basic premises to the inflammatory conclusion that IQ differences between groups are likely to be at least partly based on inborn genetic differences. These conclusions, Harris and Murray insist, are disputed only by head-in-the-sand elitists afraid of the policy implications.

(In the interview, Murray says he has modified none of his views since the publication of the book, in 1994; if anything, he says, the evidence for his claims has grown stronger. In fact, the field of intelligence has moved far beyond what Murray has been saying for the past 23 years.)
Finally, let us consider Sam Harris and his willingness to endorse Murray’s claims — his decision to suspend the skepticism and tough-mindedness we have come to expect from him. There is a fairly widespread intellectual movement among center-right social theorists and pundits to argue that strong adherence to the scientific method commits us to following human science wherever it goes — and they mean something very specific in this context. They say we must move from hard-nosed science of intelligence and genetics all the way — only if that’s the direction data and logical, unbiased interpretation lead, naturally — to genetically based differences in behavior among races.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
134,269
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
It's just check its........TWO AND HALF HOURS long. I could watch Tarkovsky Stalker in the same amount of time(Fast forwarding all the boring parts)

Some who has listen to it

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/20...murray-race-iq-sam-harris-science-free-speech
I read the vox piece before, after listening to the podcast. It’s seriously biased and misrepresents most of what they discuss. Which is actually fairly level-headed and well meaning. Although, like most psychosocial research, the findings need to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. And, as usual, Harris is a bit too interested in banging the drum about freedom of speech.

Reactions like that are part of the reason genuinely abhorrent right wing views are getting so much traction. People like the Vox writer are so desperate to see racists and nazis absolutely everywhere that the real ones can slip through unnoticed.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
@Sweet Square Not only does that article completely misrepresent how the conversation went, and in particular which parts of Murray's claims Harris agreed to, but it's by Vox, who pretty much mounted an entire smear campaign on Harris after the podcast. Besided, as far as I understand the topic, Turkheimer and Nesbitt are the scientifically controversial ones on this topic.

I get that you don't want to listen to the podcast just for the argument, but what you're claiming simply isn't true. The way Harris handled the whole aftermath was reckless and stupid of him, but that podcast does not make him racist and right wing. The fact that you're so careless and intent on labeling him as such is a bit frightening.

Edit: The thing which should be criticised in all this is Murray's ridiculous policy claims, which I find abhorrent, and I wish Harris had pushed harder back on that, but that wasn't really the purpose of the whole conversation.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
3,376
Location
Learn me a booke
It’s barely been two days since a lunatic shot up a mosque and people out here bending over backwards to defend an islamaphobe like Harris. FFS.
The fact that a lunatic shot up a mosque doesn't mean one shouldn't argue against false accusations of racism and wrongful political labels.
 

Minimalist

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
15,091
Think the idea Sam Harris is a ‘lefty’ is pretty nonsensical. He’s not a far right nutcase either but I’d put him in the centre right category.

My main issue with him is he’s no where as smart as he thinks he is. Silver spoon kid to boot.