I guess because HRC didn't say R^d|c@L IsL@m|c TeRRRR0r|sM or something

This was after the san bernadino shooting. Trump took a hard line and Hillary played it politically correct. The initial statement you quoted, the first half at least was in reference to if liberals don’t speak honestly about the problem, then it will make Trump stronger. Trump campaigned hard on this topic and appealed to people’s fears at the time.

The polarization of opinions on Sam Harris is so bizarre to me.

Sam's willingness to die on the Charles Murray hill is dumb, and I wish he would stop giving platforms to pieces of **** like JP and Shapiro. The podcast with Ezra was painful because Sam clearly didn't get Ezra's point--they just talked past each other for the entire time. I subscribed to Ezra's podcast afterwards.

That being said, Sam's views themselves never seemed like anything to get worked up over, and several of his non-political podcasts are interesting enough to keep me subscribed. It seems weird that there seems to be more conversation on this board about how bad Harris is rather than JP or Shapiro, which may just be because people occasionally pop up to defend Harris while there is no defense of JP or Shapiro. Shrug.

Because people here mostly agree that JP and Shapiro are douchebags. Nothing really to discuss.

Sam's whole debacle with Ezra combined with his cozying up to the right-wing griftosphere, joining it while trying to maintain a skin-deep appearance of not joining it, turned me off from his show.

I also get bothered by people who refuse to apologize or even double down when they **** up. Sam should have apologized for insinuating that the reason people thought he was in the wrong was because they weren't smart enough to see why he was right. Of course he didn't because causing kerfluffles that people would talk about in environments outside of his normal stomping grounds was the intent in those situations.

TLDR: Sam's a dick regardless of his opinions.

This is exactly the Jordan Peterson idiocy that you're claiming (not very well) Sam Harris is smarter than!

What he said: "Liberals are marching with Islamists"
How you explain that: "He just means they're not speaking out against Islam enough" (much like Peterson: "You have this crazy alliance between feminists and radical Islamists...as evidenced by the fact that they aren't protesting Saudi Arabia every day???")

THOSE AREN'T THE SAME JFC

Just a pro tip dude, if you’re pretending to be just one of us libs it kind of gives the game away when you insist that Trump is actually right about how the savage Muslim menace should be handled. Also, actual liberals don’t use the term “political correctness” unironically.

Pro Tip: read what I’ve wrote and the article if you want to comment otherwise gtfo with your drivel.

JP is saying there is an actual alliance. SH is saying one group isn’t talking honestly about the problem and in fact going against people trying to reform Islam. So no, they are not the same.

Does it really anger you guys this much to talk about a complex subject because it involves religion? I thought we were well past that.

SH: "liberals are marching with Islamists"

dudeoflife, on like his 3rd try to address this:

Yeah, I think I know who isn't talking honestly here. Thanks for playing.

Holy ****, way to take it out of context. Reading comprehension ftw.

I mean, “liberal who likes Sam Harris and is confused about why the left supports the SPLC” is a tough angle to start off with. You come in here and no-sell this act and immediately introduce a “Trump is right about demonizing Muslims!” plot twist and it’s just a mess. You have to give your audience some reason to buy into your story. Put some work in, commit to the bit.

I’m missing this whole bit thing. Yeah this is just fun game I like to play....sigh

“It is perfectly possible—and increasingly necessary—to speak about the ideological roots of Islamism and jihadism, and even about the unique need for reform within mainstream Islam itself, without lapsing into bigotry or disregarding the suffering of refugees. Indeed, when one understands the problem for what it is, one realizes that secular Muslims, liberal Muslims, and former Muslims are among the most desirable allies to have in the West—and, indeed, such people are the primary victims of Islamist intolerance and jihadist terror in Muslim-majority countries.” -SH

Going after bad ideas does not = demonizing all Muslims. Imagine 2 concentric circles, a smaller circle in the middle being extremist Muslims and outer being moderates. Given that there are 1.8B Muslims, even if that smaller circle is only 10-20%, that’s a huge #. The idea that it’s a handful of dudes with box cutters is cringeworthy.

“Hello, fellow liberals! Did you know 20% of Muslims are box-cutter wielding savages who want to cut your head off? We need to be less politically correct, like Trump!”

Man, ikestoys was way better at selling a routine than this and even then no one bought into his “I’m a moderate!” angle.

also the SPLC is bad and useless donchaknow

"I'm not demonizing all muslims , just the 100 to 200 million who I think are terrorists."
Jesus.

Again reading comprehension...how do you think jihadism exist globally and isis has this far reach in other countries? Is it all because of US imperialism or is it the actual doctrines that decry that one gets reward from martyrdom.

I’m going off the polls. Do you want people in the country that say, yes I’m believe suicide bombing/shootings are justified? I don’t. How slippery is that slope from holding such beliefs and then becoming a terrorist?

Is it not worth trying to reform such religion and working with such people who are trying to change it from within.

LOL. Sounds like maybe the rest of the world should ban Americans that think we deserve to play world police and bomb dozens of countries, until we can be reformed

The SPLC should not have settled and was in the right.

Literally 200-400 million militant Islamists out there and somehow ISIS only has a few tens of thousands of fighters. Pretty crummy recruiting, honestly.

Factcheck: no, I was right, you hadn't followed it at all, you were in fact flatly lying. Like you're still lying, pretending to be "perplexed" at people who disagree with Harris' actual views instead of agreeing with some poorly defined imaginary views you assure you Harris has.


LOL the discourse reasoners with a ****ing logical surgical strike here. Harris lost that argument! He's dumb as ****!

I imagine there's a lot of stuff you sincerely don't get, but this isn't one of those things, you're just lying.

FYI I was the only person in that entire debate who quoted Harris or Murray at any length. We absolutely want to address the content, your side wants to cry and make **** up and cry more. White fragility.

It's not a slippery slope. Even allowing your poll unchecked, it's a very weak statement with almost no content. People commonly talk about violence in a very casual manner - very few commit the acts because that's a totally different thing. This is obviously true of your data as it's simply a matter of fact that ~all Muslims in our countries do not carry out unspeakable acts despite it being pretty easy.

I agree but Sam Harris and Co don't really do this and it's the crux of the problem. Islamism and jihadism (read: Salafism and Wahhabism... so-called Islamism and jihadism are insidious terms) are recent geopolitical problems but Harris handwaves these rebuttals.

Blue circles incoming. There's a P7 revival whenever I post a bunch in a thread.

Like you always point out, there's that weird projection where they assume everybody else is unprepared and uninformed simply because they themselves are.

Aytumious here thought I'd say, "Oh, sorry, I did not know Hirsi Ali suffered some tragedies as a young person. Touche, I guess advocating super genocide is fine then," and when I didn't he took his white ball and went to his white home.