I was never going to answer your stupid question again because, of course, I already had. But since I’m honestly feeling sorry for you I’ll throw you a bone.

No Harris does not think Murray is a racist. About 1000 posts ago I said several times Harris is completely wrong about Murray. I couldn’t possibly have been more clear that Harris was wrong. You of course ignored this because your tiny little brain kept telling you that you were scoring points pretending I hadn’t.

But you see I have the intellectual capacity to think someone is wrong about one thing but right about others and that being wrong about one thing doesn’t mean I write off an entire body of ideas. This of course will make zero sense to you because it is a level of nuance you are incapable of imagining.

I guess you got me there? Until 2 minutes ago I had no idea who Koppelman was, and now that I do, I don't care. But that still leaves open the question of why you mentioned Jillette in the first place. Where did I go wrong in assuming you were defending the honor of literal Clown College graduate Penn Jillette? It seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of your post to me.

Clovis, are/were you, perchance, unaware of Jillette's hardcore libertarian beliefs? His Cato fellowship? His climate change denial? All the creepy-ass weirdness in his personal life?

For a pro-science liberal, you seem to end up listening to and defending an alarming number of objectively terrible people.

Impressively trump. You are the closest thing I have experienced in real life to his personality.

No collusion
No collusion
No collusion
No collusion

Here we go again. Now I’m defending jillete because you were too stupid to have understood it was not his podcast?

Your brave “I don’t care” defense shows impressive intellectual curiosity.

It is clear from your post that it was not his podcast, and that you were defending him.

This post so perfectly illustrates why you and fly are an embarrassment.

Let’s say I was defending him (which of course there is nothing in my post to suggest so) I would have been defending THE CONTENT OF THE PODCAST. A podcast you have not listened to.

You and fly of course would interpret such a defense as my support for the Cato institute, climate change denial and whatever else he has ever said because nobody is allowed to have a single idea you disagree with in your world. You would of course make such a claim without listening to the podcast or ever realizing the Cato institute or climate were never discussed.

Being wrong once or believing in one thing counter to your worldview renders said person as 100% evil.

Are just cycling through the complete list of all the godafwul libertarian ****boy public intellectuals out there? Looking forward to when we get to have a tantrum over Bill Mahr.

Defending the content of that podcast against what attack? You brought the podcast up! For the second time this debate you randomly brought up a podcast that AFAIK only you listened to, and got FURIOUS at imaginary attacks on it.

That's what disagreement means! It means we disagree! You're allowed to disagree, but the consequence of that will be disagreement. I'm not going to agree with Harris that black people are naturally inferior, and that disagreement will cause conflict between his worldview and mine.

Like, this is the thing where you're just totally off the rails,
You sure didn't! As recently as slightly earlier today you were still trying to own the libs for doing guilt by association smears, man, this entire ****ing meltdown is because you were FURIOUS that people were impugning Harris' good name.

I guess you finally got around to reading that transcript, though, lol. Whoops.

I think we need a term like “transitive purity” to describe the idea what speaking to someone who has different ideas than your own means endorsing 100% of said ideas.

Koppelman is as much a libertarian as you are but that’s ok he is clearly is a climate change denier because he hosted Jillete for a chat.

Like you got so mad at us for calling Harris racist for agreeing with Murray you tried, twice, to assume we'd call other people who discussed the same issue also racist.

But your own examples prove that we aren't doing guilt by association smears or whatever, we got mad at Harris for the content of his podcast. We didn't call Gladwell or Koppelman racist because we don't know what they said, and I think at least in Gladwell's case the lack of controversy(as compared to Harris) is a pretty strong indicator he didn't say a bunch of super racist ****.

So your own curated examples of the regressive left show that we engage on substance, in good faith, and don't throw around words like "racist" without reason.

Good work, everyone.

You are trump.

Why do you keep saying “we” like I’m accusing everyone itt of being intellectual black holes? Not everyone, just you Zikzak and rep.

I'm so unintellectual I don't listen to podcasts at all.





Clovis, do you own a fedora?

This was flatly contradicted by Harris' own words, which is why I quoted them and then you didn't read them.

Harris said Murray was correct! He shares Murray's ideas! That's what everyone but you knew when this debate started, which is why you were so bewildered and angry. Because we knew what we were talking about and drew conclusions from that knowledge, while you operated entirely on an emotional reaction to a member of your tribe being slandered by outsiders.


P.S. LOL I missed this the first time, but hooooooo-boy
Clovis thinks black people are genetically inferior, too.

No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.
No collusion.

Free and open debate is absolutely critical, but if literally anyone calls something racist, rather than disagree on the substance the appropriate response is to melt down into free association gibberish for weeks at a time.

Again, buddy, nobody is in here laughing at me. Nobody is popping into the thread to tell me that I look bad or that I'm embarrassing myself. When I say "we" I mean everyone except the 2-3 hardcore SMP racists who briefly left their safe-space to defend race science before running off in tears.

You stuck around to gleefully troll the dang libs, but like we keep telling you, the "i'm too good for this" act only works if people think there's some chance you are.

Instead you're a raving moron who bumped this thread with a strawman about how the race traitor SJWs call everything racist! You did that, not me. ****ing think one step ahead, man.

Translation

You and Donald Trump agree about Muslims, by the way, and that issue is super important to you. It's the ****ing reason you hate the libs despite allegedly agreeing with them about everything else.

Translation

Hard to understand I know but two ideas can be exist at the same time. If you actually listened to the various podcasts, instead of posting one quote, in a pathetic attempt to spike the ball at the 15 yard line, you would know Harris spoke over and over again and over about wanting open debate and feeling Harris wasn’t given that opportunity.

He ALSO (you can look up what also means) made the stupid claim that Harris wasn’t being racist in one quote. This dumb claim didn’t make up more than a few seconds of the several hours he has discussed the issue.

He was clearly correct about the first one and wrong about the second.

Now you can try to get the ball that final 15 yards.

lol

I'd guess that we are way less hierarchical than tribal life, where your survival and reproduction are at the behest of higher ups in the tribe.

Status is a bit like privilege, it's not a big deal unless you don't have any. I don't see how you can go through public education without noticing status all around you though. For most people, every object purchased, every post on instagram, their clothes, cars, houses, hobbies, food choices, occupation, sexual partners, all of these things are in part an attempt to signal value and status. For some people more than others, obviously.

Opting out of the status-game is usually a sign of immaturity and resentment, see your fedora wearing basement dwellers. Or just not being neurotypical in some fashion. Either way, ignoring the importance of status is likely to hurt your chances of success in life.

Clovis,

I think fly has a pretty simple purity test. It doesn't need to be transitive and it isn't death by association per se. Basically the test is does person X agree with Charles Murray that black people are genetically intellectually inferior. He has what he considers to be strong evidence that Harris agrees with Murray on that point therefore Harris is racist. He doesn't seem to yet have any particular evidence that Penn Jillete, David Copperfield or any other Las Vegas magicians agree or disagree with Murray so he hasn't taken a position on their racism to this point.