Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
I honestly don't know what actual conversation these people want to have about race. Harris wants to whine about SJWs and forbidden knowledge because that's clickbait for his audience of white NEETs, but if he got his way, what, Charles Murray would give speeches to respectful silence or empty auditoriums and nobody would agree or disagree?
Where are we going with all of this?
I saw your answer to my question, so thank you for answering, and I have no problem with it.
Anyways, I listened to the first half of the podcast Harris did with Ezra Klein on my way to work this morning. Anyways, it seems to me that what Harris wants (at least at the time he did the podcast, maybe his feelings have changed since) is for academic research to have this sacred space where it can be evaluated on whether it is true or not, without consideration for the motivations of the person doing the research, the political ramifications, or how the data may be weaponized in the real world.
It seems like he wants for Murray to be able to give a talk about The Bell Curve, and then have a civil debate centered around how "true" the data is, not on how big of a racist Murray is for writing the book, or how big of a racist he is for having Murray on his podcast.
It seems he wants for someone to be able to read the Bell Curve with no preconceived notions, and look at the data and decide for themselves whether blacks in the US on average have lower IQ centered around a normal distribution (I admit I have never looked at any data on race IQ or read the Bell Curve, so I am just inferring what it says), and if they decide the data is sound this doesn't and shouldn't make them a racist.
This is getting off track a little, and I know I am probably being sloppy with my words, but it seems to me Harris's whole worldview seems to revolve around there being such a thing as "rational truth" we should all be striving to reach, in order to transcend our base human instincts, and in doing so we can have true moral clarity and reach utopia. And in such a world he could have Murray on his podcast, or read The Bell Curve, and maybe even agree with some of the data, without it being a moral transgression.
This is opposed to more "progressive" ideals of relativism that everything is contextual, and there is no absolute truth. And in this worldview, given the context of historical racial inequality and systemic bias, not to mention Murray's own history as a policy entrepeneur, even the act of reading the Bell Curve with an "open" mind or having a civil conversation with Charles Murray is an act of sin.
That was a bit rambly and might not have gone where intended, but I really am trying to make sense of how seemingly the same event can be perceived so radically differently depending on where you are coming from.