Peterson, Harris, etc....

dumbo

Don't Just Fly…Soar!
Scout
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
9,362
Location
Thucydides nuts
There’s a reddit thread ‘proving’ the earth is flat - hardly a convincing argument. What you have done, though, is betray the fact that you’ll believe anything, no matter how flimsy, if it supports your preconceived opinion of something/someone. Even in your little paragraph denigrating Harris, you rely on multiple logical fallacies to assassinate the man’s character - I can highlight them individually if you’d like. It’s all rather ironic, as I do believe you criticised a poster recently for a fallacious post. Gotta see the funny side!
Sam Harris is a sort of Carole Caplin lifestyle guru for dull, wannabe-hip, middleaged men and dull teenagers with Early Onset Middleaged-man Brain; a dress-caj dilettante that sells comforting, clean-cut justifications for half-arsed reactionary opinions, for blokes that no longer understand the world.

He's not just a rent-a-gobshite like your Shapiros and Petersons, no, Sam's twaddle commands a whole platform, that he sells to unsuspecting berks. Want someone in a suit and middle management haircut to tell you it's ok to be worried about the Muslim at the grocery store? Then Sam's the man that can.

The ferocity of his fans is unmatched though. I will give him a win for that. Fans stan Sam.

Also do whatever you like I couldn't give a feck.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
Sam Harris is a sort of Carole Caplin lifestyle guru for dull, wannabe-hip, middleaged men and dull teenagers with Early Onset Middleaged-man Brain; a dress-caj dilettante that sells comforting, clean-cut justifications for half-arsed reactionary opinions, for blokes that no longer understand the world.
Damn, that cuts to the core.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
Is there any public intellectual or political commentator that people do actually like listening to? Apart from John Oliver maybe.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,564
Sam Harris is a sort of Carole Caplin lifestyle guru for dull, wannabe-hip, middleaged men and dull teenagers with Early Onset Middleaged-man Brain; a dress-caj dilettante that sells comforting, clean-cut justifications for half-arsed reactionary opinions, for blokes that no longer understand the world.

He's not just a rent-a-gobshite like your Shapiros and Petersons, no, Sam's twaddle commands a whole platform, that he sells to unsuspecting berks. Want someone in a suit and middle management haircut to tell you it's ok to be worried about the Muslim at the grocery store? Then Sam's the man that can.

The ferocity of his fans is unmatched though. I will give him a win for that. Fans stan Sam.

Also do whatever you like I couldn't give a feck.
I mean, wow, all that belittling of others while your precious self manage to post very little of substance except some reddit unknowns wrong take on a person you apparently haven’t read much yourself. I must say I’m happy to feel like the very opposite of someone like what you seem to represent. Well done “scout”
 

Trequarista10

Full Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2020
Messages
2,536
Is there any public intellectual or political commentator that people do actually like listening to? Apart from John Oliver maybe.
I was wondering about this :lol:

I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.

Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.

Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
I was wondering about this :lol:

I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.

Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.

Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
This is definitely the issue. Hosts spend a couple hours on a topic that to some people is the most important issue in the world, then get taken to task for not being as researched/ nuanced / learned about that issue. And people feel extremely justified in going after the hosts in a personal way.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,537
Location
Sydney
Is there any public intellectual or political commentator that people do actually like listening to? Apart from John Oliver maybe.
surely we can all agree that Chomsky is alright?

actually I know he answer to that, we can't

someone will be along to tell me he sucks at something
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
I was wondering about this :lol:

I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.

Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.

Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
Well I've just noticed that a lot of time we spent on the Caf is on hating mainly right wingers people don't like and I just wonder if there are actually any intellectuals or political commentators that people actually do like who weigh in on the issues of our times.
 

VorZakone

What would Kenny G do?
Joined
May 9, 2013
Messages
32,621
surely we can all agree that Chomsky is alright?

actually I know he answer to that, we can't

someone will be along to tell me he sucks at something
I think Chomsky is also criticized every now and then. Don't know why though. I guess because he's a linguist but also involves himself in scientific issues?
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,537
Location
Sydney
I think Chomsky is also criticized every now and then. Don't know why though. I guess because he's a linguist but also involves himself in scientific issues?
he's linguistic theories have been criticised tonnes to be fair

perhaps rightfully so, but its been so long since I read about it I've forgotten

this is probably why I like so many people, I just forget the stupid shit they did :lol:
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
8,270
Location
Dublin
Is there any public intellectual or political commentator that people do actually like listening to? Apart from John Oliver maybe.
I dont think there is to be honest. If Jordan Peterson was just a psychologist he might be worth listening to, public intellectual suggests he throws an opinion out about pretty much everything and inevitably says stupid shit. Which would probably be tolerable if there was a bit of recognition that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. There isn't in general.
I dont think i'd describe any of the people being talked about in this thread as political commentators really.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
surely we can all agree that Chomsky is alright?

actually I know he answer to that, we can't

someone will be along to tell me he sucks at something
I'm actually not really into Chomsky to be honest. That's not to say he is without his merits and obviously has a heavy weight of an career.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,564
surely we can all agree that Chomsky is alright?

actually I know he answer to that, we can't

someone will be along to tell me he sucks at something
Dave Rubin and Chomsky are both public intellectuals, yes? A bit like those chimp-graphs you'll see, chicken at the bottom, some distance up a chimp, closely follow by a human. One can agree on something with Rubin and disagree with Chomsky, dosent tell much about said person. I don't particularly care for either, just saying
 

UnrelatedPsuedo

I pity the poor fool who stinks like I do!
Joined
Apr 15, 2015
Messages
10,047
Location
Blitztown
Dave Rubin and Chomsky are both public intellectuals, yes? A bit like those chimp-graphs you'll see, chicken at the bottom, some distance up a chimp, closely follow by a human. One can agree on something with Rubin and disagree with Chomsky, dosent tell much about said person. I don't particularly care for either, just saying
What
 

Infra-red

Full Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
13,387
Location
left wing
Is there any public intellectual or political commentator that people do actually like listening to? Apart from John Oliver maybe.
Lots of interesting thinkers around that I really like reading/listening to, but not always because I necessarily agree with them - it can also be good to push your intuitions around a bit sometimes! A few I would recommend: Kwame Anthony Appiah, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, Yuval Noah Harari, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Niall Ferguson, Jonathan Haidt, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Douglas Murray, Adam Tooze and obviously Chomsky, who has already been mentioned above.

I feel like the standard of public discourse is pretty impoverished at the moment, but if you want to see how it used to be done, I'd highly recommend the documentary film Best of Enemies, which is about the televised debates between public intellectuals Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley during the 1968 United States presidential election. It is great (and includes a contribution from Christopher Hitchens, of whom I was also a fan).
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,757
There doesn't seem to be a lot of it. A 14 page essay on free will with about 4 pages of whitespace. Then theres the atheism bit, riding on the coattails of Dawkins and Hitchens which i haven't read tbf. Sounds like you're more familiar with him than me tbh
You have The Moral Landscape, which is one of those modern clickbait books where the title says one thing but the book is about something else (Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing which is about a universe from something is another prime example). Harris claims that we can get moral truths from science, but defines science as everything from actual science to plumbing to philosophy to regular reasoning. His actual philosophical (not scientific) arguments for his thesis that morality is about maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures is variants of "maximum suffering is obviously bad, therefore it's obviously true that maximizing well-being is the right thing" and "this is true because it is obviously true". Utilitarianism isn't a crazy position to hold, but his arguments for it are vacuous.

This he manages to get more than 300 pages out of.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
11,929
Location
Denmark
I was wondering about this :lol:

I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.

Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.

Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
Disagreements are one thing, but the lads discussed in this thread regularly come out with bigoted shit which then isn't really about a difference of opinion anymore.
Is there any public intellectual or political commentator that people do actually like listening to? Apart from John Oliver maybe.
I have a lot of time for Akala, and then Blindboy has interviewed a lot of people who at least come across well on his podcasts.
I'd say most people really worth listening to on a given subject probably stays away from the limelight as they just want to do their thing and not deal with TV debates, fame and what have you.
 

AgentSmith

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
1,555
Disagreements are one thing, but the lads discussed in this thread regularly come out with bigoted shit which then isn't really about a difference of opinion anymore.

I have a lot of time for Akala, and then Blindboy has interviewed a lot of people who at least come across well on his podcasts.
I'd say most people really worth listening to on a given subject probably stays away from the limelight as they just want to do their thing and not deal with TV debates, fame and what have you.
Akala is a great shout. Even his speaking style has a certain melodic tone to it which makes him very easy to listen to as well as interesting.

His music is a different level of rap for me given the content he’s able to pack into the lyrics. Only really Lowkey who I can think of who does that style better within the UK.
 

Maagge

enjoys sex, doesn't enjoy women not into ONS
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
11,929
Location
Denmark
Akala is a great shout. Even his speaking style has a certain melodic tone to it which makes him very easy to listen to as well as interesting.

His music is a different level of rap for me given the content he’s able to pack into the lyrics. Only really Lowkey who I can think of who does that style better within the UK.
He's also someone who seems honest when discussing the limitations of his observations and his own fallibility. In his book he wasn't trying to conclude on more than what he thought the data warranted, which is something a lot of people seem to forget, either through incompetence or worse, to deceive.
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
3,921
Location
Chair
There’s a reddit thread ‘proving’ the earth is flat - hardly a convincing argument. What you have done, though, is betray the fact that you’ll believe anything, no matter how flimsy, if it supports your preconceived opinion of something/someone. Even in your little paragraph denigrating Harris, you rely on multiple logical fallacies to assassinate the man’s character - I can highlight them individually if you’d like. It’s all rather ironic, as I do believe you criticised a poster recently for a fallacious post. Gotta see the funny side!
Kind of like how you're dismissing anything that goes against yours?
I think what he means is "how the feck does Dave Rubin qualify as a public intellectual?" and it's a fair question. The guy's obviously a fecking idiot, and that has nothing to do with his political leanings. He's just dumb, a complete simpleton whose only "talent" is blaming anything you don't like on the left/Antifa.
 

e.cantona

Mummy, mummy, diamonds, I want them too
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
2,564
Kind of like how you're dismissing anything that goes against yours?

I think what he means is "how the feck does Dave Rubin qualify as a public intellectual?" and it's a fair question. The guy's obviously a fecking idiot, and that has nothing to do with his political leanings. He's just dumb, a complete simpleton whose only "talent" is blaming anything you don't like on the left/Antifa.
Wide definitions? I don't know.. He wrote a book, didn't he?
 

Eriku

Full Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
16,123
Location
Oslo, Norway
I think what he means is "how the feck does Dave Rubin qualify as a public intellectual?" and it's a fair question. The guy's obviously a fecking idiot, and that has nothing to do with his political leanings. He's just dumb, a complete simpleton whose only "talent" is blaming anything you don't like on the left/Antifa.
So true. It’s impressive how ignorant and yet confident he manages to come across
 

caid

Full Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
8,270
Location
Dublin
He's also someone who seems honest when discussing the limitations of his observations and his own fallibility. In his book he wasn't trying to conclude on more than what he thought the data warranted, which is something a lot of people seem to forget, either through incompetence or worse, to deceive.
Joe Rogan comes up in this thread semi often and I'm so much more well disposed towards him by virtue of him saying 'im a meathead' most episodes of his podcast.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
Lots of interesting thinkers around that I really like reading/listening to, but not always because I necessarily agree with them - it can also be good to push your intuitions around a bit sometimes! A few I would recommend: Kwame Anthony Appiah, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, Yuval Noah Harari, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Niall Ferguson, Jonathan Haidt, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Douglas Murray, Adam Tooze and obviously Chomsky, who has already been mentioned above.

I feel like the standard of public discourse is pretty impoverished at the moment, but if you want to see how it used to be done, I'd highly recommend the documentary film Best of Enemies, which is about the televised debates between public intellectuals Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley during the 1968 United States presidential election. It is great (and includes a contribution from Christopher Hitchens, of whom I was also a fan).
I have actually listened to a lot of debates and interviews and read quite a few books by Douglas Murray. I think he's a very emotive and powerfull speaker and a fairly good author. He has a great not politically correct sense of humour. However he's definitely a right wing provocateur, but for me that's part of the entertaintment value. However I am on the different end of the political spectrum than he is and definitely disagree with him on some points. A lot of his topics become a bit samey. It's either about Islam, Identity politics or conservatism. Someone here said that we shouldnt feel proud reading Douglas Murray. I don't feel pride or shame in reading anyone. It's a weird attitude to take towards any author. I already know what hit-job someone would like to do on him and I don't really care. I can enjoy his good points and discard his bad points without anyone watching me over the shoulder.

I would obvously love if Hitchens were still alive, I think he would be excellent for the times we live in and no one has been able to step up and take his place. I still find Hitchens views together with the antitheists who believe that nothing good can ever come out of religion a bit simplistic, but that doesn't mean he didn't have or point, and he was absolutely excellent on everything else. I will look up some of the other names you mentioned.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,757
Kind of like how you're dismissing anything that goes against yours?
The dismissiveness isn't the most interesting point for me, but the way it's done. I've only seen the user in action twice, once with me and the second the interaction you're commenting on, but the method is the same both times (and symptomatic for Harris fans in my experience); talk of "out of context" etc but no engaging with the things actually said. Always talking about talking, never talking.

Looking forward to the individually listing of fallacies they promised, though, that'll be great. I have three heuristics I live by: it's not lupus, it's not entrapment and it's not an ad hominem (and sometimes but rarely a formal fallacy).
 

AgentSmith

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
1,555
The dismissiveness isn't the most interesting point for me, but the way it's done. I've only seen the user in action twice, once with me and the second the interaction you're commenting on, but the method is the same both times (and symptomatic for Harris fans in my experience); talk of "out of context" etc but no engaging with the things actually said. Always talking about talking, never talking.

Looking forward to the individually listing of fallacies they promised, though, that'll be great. I have three heuristics I live by: it's not lupus, it's not entrapment and it's not an ad hominem (and sometimes but rarely a formal fallacy).
The correct diagnosis for 176/177 cases. Pretty good rate tbf.
 

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,551
The correct diagnosis for 176/177 cases. Pretty good rate tbf.
One of mom's friends was diagnosed with Lupus, and even then I couldn't stop myself it's never Lupus. To her. Damn you Hugh!
 

Halftrack

Full Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
3,921
Location
Chair
The dismissiveness isn't the most interesting point for me, but the way it's done. I've only seen the user in action twice, once with me and the second the interaction you're commenting on, but the method is the same both times (and symptomatic for Harris fans in my experience); talk of "out of context" etc but no engaging with the things actually said. Always talking about talking, never talking.

Looking forward to the individually listing of fallacies they promised, though, that'll be great. I have three heuristics I live by: it's not lupus, it's not entrapment and it's not an ad hominem (and sometimes but rarely a formal fallacy).
He engaged with a couple of the things I daid. Countered the Islamophobia charge with the standard "he's critical of all religion" and countered Harris defending Trump's racist attacks on AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley with "but he's a staunch critic of Trump, so that's an odd point to make." So, you know, pretty weak, but I guess it qualifies as engaging.

He ignored the points about Harris palling around with racists, Harris claiming systemic racism isn't real and him claiming the police and judicial system doesn't treat black and white people differently. It's clear why, though. It's because all of these things are true, and you can't really defend them. But, you can't acknowledge them either, lest you want to scupper your argument that Harris is different from the Petersons and Shapiros.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
3,757
He engaged with a couple of the things I daid. Countered the Islamophobia charge with the standard "he's critical of all religion" and countered Harris defending Trump's racist attacks on AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley with "but he's a staunch critic of Trump, so that's an odd point to make." So, you know, pretty weak, but I guess it qualifies as engaging.

He ignored the points about Harris palling around with racists, Harris claiming systemic racism isn't real and him claiming the police and judicial system doesn't treat black and white people differently. It's clear why, though. It's because all of these things are true, and you can't really defend them. But, you can't acknowledge them either, lest you want to scupper your argument that Harris is different from the Petersons and Shapiros.
Right, I suppose that's true.

I suspect the "can't really defend them" isn't true, though. Or, it is in a certain sense, but not in the overtly malicious sense but rather a weird lazy sense. I think they just assume it's true, and haven't bothered looking into it. It's an automatic reaction for a lot of people that any seemingly harsh criticism has to be "out of context" or "[intellectually] dishonest", so automatic that any engagement is deemed uncessesary. One salient example is his defense of torture. A common defense is that he isn't really defending torture, it's just a thought experiment using the ticking bomb scenario. But, that just isn't true, and the only way people can claim that with a straight face is them not being able to read or them not actually reading the piece but rather taking Harris's later characterisation at face value. The fact of the matter is that Harris 1) compares torture favourably with collateral damage/killings (which he finds acceptable), 2) uses the real person and real torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an example (something that produced real negative effects, and obviously wasn't a ticking bomb scenario) and 3) by his own admission means by a "ticking bomb" the War on Terror in itself rather than an actual Jack Bauer 24 scenario but something that has been ticking since 9/11. That's not seconds in the conventional sense, that's by my napkin math 616 464 000 seconds. Yet I almost can't count the amount of Internet people that have claimed that Harris doesn't actually defend the use of torture in his piece title In Defense of Torture.
 

Tarrou

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
25,537
Location
Sydney
I'm a big fan of Akala too - loved that time he melted Tommy Robinson's face off on Question tIme

I waved at him once in Toronto as he rode past on his bike, and he waved back - so the feeling seems to be mutual
 

Schmeichel's Cartwheel

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Dec 21, 2014
Messages
11,420
Location
Manchester
Haven't heard much from either in a while. Peterson seems alright, although his Kermit voice can be distracting, he seems to have good intentions. Doesn't Harris pal around with some questionable figures?
 

Ladron de redcafe

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,681
If i'm interested in a person's work, I just read their work or listen to their podcasts and interviews. I'm not particulary interested in the purity test or reddit hit jobs, I can make my own mind up about what I think about a person or his/her work. I don't really have a cult of personality type of mentality. Flawed people can make some very good points and correct the mistakes they have made in the past. And even if they are not 100% spot on everything they made be spot on other topic or provide a meaningfull perspective.
That's a sensible approach and I think we'd be better off it most people thought in the same vein. What Lone Star might have been trying to point out (if I didn't misunderstand the opening bit in that post) is that lots of people whose insight comes from social media tend to have their existing views amplified because of the way social media platforms algorithms are created. You're suggested accounts with similar viewpoints and find yourself more obstinate as you continue to read only similar opinions.

Your approach is drastically different, and is probably the way people ought to be wired.
 

Gehrman

Phallic connoisseur, unlike shamans
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
10,994
That's a sensible approach and I think we'd be better off it most people thought in the same vein. What Lone Star might have been trying to point out (if I didn't misunderstand the opening bit in that post) is that lots of people whose insight comes from social media tend to have their existing views amplified because of the way social media platforms algorithms are created. You're suggested accounts with similar viewpoints and find yourself more obstinate as you continue to read only similar opinions.

Your approach is drastically different, and is probably the way people ought to be wired.
Well I mean we live in an age where people worhship celebrities. I guess it's not surprising that there some who are able to cultivate a cult like adulation of people like Rubin and Shapiro.
 

Ladron de redcafe

Full Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2020
Messages
3,681
Well I mean we live in an age where people worhship celebrities. I guess it's not surprising that there some who are able to cultivate a cult like adulation of people like Rubin and Shapiro.
It still doesn't cease to amaze me when I see that.
 

jungledrums

Full Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
2,673
Kind of like how you're dismissing anything that goes against yours?

I think what he means is "how the feck does Dave Rubin qualify as a public intellectual?" and it's a fair question. The guy's obviously a fecking idiot, and that has nothing to do with his political leanings. He's just dumb, a complete simpleton whose only "talent" is blaming anything you don't like on the left/Antifa.
I’m not at all, I wonder how you’d think I am? Harris has made many blunders; he’s not above criticism. I don’t think his mistakes have been accurately represented here, though, and more importantly, I don’t think he’s the malicious narcissist many in here suggest he is.