illegal immigration

[Paracelsus]

Is Sam Harris still peddling junk race science on I.Q. like Jordan Peterson? He is not an author I would recommend, particularly in regard to religion or ethnicity, his views back in the day on Muslim faith in particular were to my mind extreme and somewhat biased.

I can't remember the details of the fallout from the Charles Murray interview, but IIRC, it was mainly for platforming the guy, not for agreeing with his views.
Was one interview of hundreds he's done with all kinds of people. Sam is openly quite liberal - barring a typical American shift to the right when it comes to military etc - , openly despised Trump, etc. Clearly not a racist, at the very least.
The problem is, to the Ezra Kleins (Vox) of the world, even discussing something like that, or discussing anything with someone like Murray, is off the table.
Hence their insufferable podcast where Klein just missed the point for two hours straight.

These days he's shifted from religion and science to more politics and science. I think because between what he and the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins et al have already covered, there's not much more to be said about religion at this point.

Turns out he has a page devoted to responses to controversy, if you're interested.
There's a section touching on the problem conflating religion and race, to stay on that topic - I'd hate to see the thread derail onto IQ...

 

[efish]

What specially about Harris's view on religion do you find extreme? He has been a vocal critic of Christianity (End of faith and letter to a Christian nation) as well as religion more broadly. He strikes me as entirely reasonable, though clearly that view isn't shared by everyone.

Most if not all of the attacks on him I would describe as ad hominems, mischaracterisations, out of context quotes or outright lies but I'm open to hear where you think he has crossed the line. I dont much care for his recent work but I do find him intellectually honest at least.

Have you listened to the Sam Harris podcast with Murray? If not its worth taking the time to at least listen to the first 12 mins or so. Murray it seems has also been unfairly characterised for decades.

https://youtu.be/dv0SFuArjGI

He has been most vocal on Muslim rather than Christianity.

I find it difficult to read new atheist writers generally as my educational background is in history and the history of science. New atheist's are somewhat notoriously known for promoting historical myths that stem from the 19th century and are thoroughly debunked historically but still very popular in wider public discourse on science and its history.

Harris I am not so familiar with but Dennett, Dawkins, P.Z Meyers etc, If you are a historian their historical perspectives are difficult to read as they are rather dire. They are notoriously ahistorical, Dennett is an outstanding philosopher, Dawkins is a seriously accomplished biologists but they have no interest in history and present very political and distorted accounts when they touch on the subject.

But I am well out of date, like most historians I simply read with horror as this form of historical storytelling established itself online, years ago. It resulted in a sea of historical nonsense endlessly looping through secular online forums as justification for contemporary political and cultural perspectives.

I'm a pragmatist I don't really care what peoples underlying beliefs are as long as they do not get in the way of altering when the evidence suggests they need to change to correspond with reality.

 

[Murphy]

It's a stand alone test that is language and culture neutral.

Did i say otherwise?

For someone with such a large chip on their shoulder about their own perceived intelligence you sure seem to struggle when it comes to the written word.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

He has been most vocal on Muslim rather than Christianity.

I find it difficult to read new atheist writers generally as my educational background is in history and the history of science. New atheist's are somewhat notoriously known for promoting historical myths that stem from the 19th century and are thoroughly debunked historically but still very popular in wider public discourse on science and its history.

Harris I am not so familiar with but Dennett, Dawkins, P.Z Meyers etc, If you are a historian their historical perspectives are difficult to read as they are rather dire. They are notoriously ahistorical, Dennett is an outstanding philosopher, Dawkins is a seriously accomplished biologists but they have no interest in history and present very political and distorted accounts when they touch on the subject.

But I am well out of date, like most historians I simply read with horror as this form of historical storytelling established itself online, years ago. It resulted in a sea of historical nonsense endlessly looping through secular online forums as justification for contemporary political and cultural perspectives.

I'm a pragmatist I don't really care what peoples underlying beliefs are as long as they do not get in the way of altering when the evidence suggests they need to change to correspond with reality.

Its certainly true that his criticism of Islam generally has been the most amplified. Its not really a fair assessment of his views overall though.

By your own admission you are out of date and/or not familiar with his work so I expect you've bought into others views on him without giving him a fair hearing. You also didn't really answer my question as to what constituted his "extreme" views. I've yet to hear anything from him that is genuinly concerning, though obviously I can't pay attention to everything he has said. You sound like you've made your mind up on him anyway so won't push any further.

 

[efish]

Its certainly true that his criticism of Islam generally has been the most amplified. Its not really a fair assessment of his views overall though.

By your own admission you are out of date and/or not familiar with his work so I expect you've bought into others views on him without giving him a fair hearing. You also didn't really answer my question as to what constituted his "extreme" views. I've yet to hear anything from him that is genuinly concerning, though obviously I can't pay attention to everything he has said. You sound like you've made your mind up on him anyway so won't push any further.

Thanks for not pressing further

p.s. I would note in regard to you're own imaginative speculation in regard to how I have formed my opinion on Harris is entirely wrong and of you're own invention .

I was very clear that I have no idea how his views may have changed overtime as I am only familiar with his early online output ( which I read and considered to be extreme comments about Muslim religion). That is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I also stated clearly what my actual bias is in regard to new atheism generally. Its lack of historical credibility. This is a very common issue with the subject. Does not mean its all nonsense, but if you work or research in a particular area you have a tendency to ignore material which offers no insight or is simply incorrect in regard to you're chosen field of study.

New atheism generally is not popular with science historians as I noted as it has a tendency to deal in myth rather than history to support its contemporary political perspective.

 

[efish]

I can't remember the details of the fallout from the Charles Murray interview, but IIRC, it was mainly for platforming the guy, not for agreeing with his views.
Was one interview of hundreds he's done with all kinds of people. Sam is openly quite liberal - barring a typical American shift to the right when it comes to military etc - , openly despised Trump, etc. Clearly not a racist, at the very least.
The problem is, to the Ezra Kleins (Vox) of the world, even discussing something like that, or discussing anything with someone like Murray, is off the table.
Hence their insufferable podcast where Klein just missed the point for two hours straight.

These days he's shifted from religion and science to more politics and science. I think because between what he and the likes of Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins et al have already covered, there's not much more to be said about religion at this point.

Turns out he has a page devoted to responses to controversy, if you're interested.
There's a section touching on the problem conflating religion and race, to stay on that topic - I'd hate to see the thread derail onto IQ...

Sam from the what I can remember went further than simply complaining about Murray being de-platformed.

Harris's response to criticism (from memory) is generally to accuse critics of ad-hominem unfair attacks, which is not entirely untrue, its really common for a proportion of people to behave in this way, but less than honest to suggest all criticism of his views is simply down to such attacks.


Basic point I was attempting to make, if you think someone is making spurious accusations of racism, Harris is perhaps not the best example to use as he is controversial, has a history here and it is really easy to throw such accusations at him, if that is you're bag.

Harris and New atheist movement has always been about politics and science. I have always found it a bit preachy and dogmatic. "John Knox without the religion," is one description. Bit to secular fire and brimstone for my taste and many other humanists as well.

Also rather prone to suggest that all criticism is groundless 'because science.'

 

[arknor]

If aliens can build space ships they could understand Raven's Matrices. But I'm sure the post-2016 SC intellectuals understand the subject way better than all those people with crazy outlier IQs.

most aliens on a space ship probably couldn't tell you how it works the same way as you would struggle to explain how a computer actually works.
how does a cpu work? can you build a mechanical one to show us?

most people on this planet probably couldn't even tell the time from a sun dial

 

[garnett]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1473297180148604929

We probably need to examine the parameters of this debate.

There's the definite sense a lot of posters are mistaken about who is described by "illegal immigrants".

 

[The Running Man]

Just the kind of people we would want in this country.

 

[The Running Man]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1473297180148604929

We probably need to examine the parameters of this debate.

There's the definite sense a lot of posters are mistaken about who is described by "illegal immigrants".

So why are the Polish allowed to fight back against asylum seekers from crossing their border if it isn't illegal entry?

It's most likely our judges who are the problem.

 

[Skunkworks]

Just the kind of people we would want in this country.

They can live next door to Murphy. He's oh-so enlightened and doesn't judge.

 

[Greebo]

So why are the Polish allowed to fight back against asylum seekers from crossing their border if it isn't illegal entry?

It's most likely our judges who are the problem.

No our Govt are the problem for writing bad laws. People like you always complain about Judges when they rule against something you think is black and white. almost 100% of the time its down to bad laws, normally rushed in as a knee jerk reaction to something as the Govt want to be seen to do something.

Instead of taking weeks using Parliament and the Lords to properly discuss and fine tune things. This is what happens when you cut corners.

 

[Murphy]

They can live next door to Murphy. He's oh-so enlightened and doesn't judge.

Wow, it's like you're stalking me or I'm living in your head rent free.

Who can? I'm guessing you were replying to that poster who keeps posting curated screenshots of race-baiting articles from their phone without linking to the source.

Also, maybe it's not a case of me being "oh-so enlightened and [not judging]" and more about your lack of knowledge, poor understanding, and judgmental attitude.

 

[The Running Man]

Portuguese lorry driver dies after he was attacked by three Calais migrants who tried to sneak into his vehicle to reach Britain

Sunday evening's clash was not the first violent incident involving drivers and migrants hoping to reach the UK via Calais.

In 2017, a Polish driver of a van was killed after migrants put tree trunks on roads to slow traffic and sneak on to lorries. Nine Eritrean nationals were later arrested over the incident.

In the same year, a migrant struck a lorry driver in the head with a brick as others hijacked the man's vehicle.

Both of the incidents in 2017 also occurred on the A16.

Citizen material right there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...iver-dies-attacked-three-Calais-migrants.html

 

[potatolord]

No our Govt are the problem for writing bad laws. People like you always complain about Judges when they rule against something you think is black and white. almost 100% of the time its down to bad laws, normally rushed in as a knee jerk reaction to something as the Govt want to be seen to do something.

I agree completely with this. The government proposes, agrees to amendments, and has a majority sufficient to pass laws.

Blaming judges for interpreting poorly defined legislation is missing the point.

 

[Moley]

Portuguese lorry driver dies after he was attacked by three Calais migrants who tried to sneak into his vehicle to reach Britain

Citizen material right there.

It's crazy, why are these Doctors, Lawyers and Teachers doing this?

 

[The Running Man]

It's crazy, why are these Doctors, Lawyers and Teachers doing this?

Maybe this is how doctors operate in Eritrea

 

[Irish_Tom]

FYI — we did the Harris/Murray/Race/IQ debate a while back in this thread.

I would say it’s a far more complex and nuanced topic than anyone ITT has expressed so far.

 

[explicit4u]

Portuguese lorry driver dies after he was attacked by three Calais migrants who tried to sneak into his vehicle to reach Britain




Citizen material right there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...iver-dies-attacked-three-Calais-migrants.html

Do you understand what confirmation bias is?

 

[The Running Man]

Do you understand what confirmation bias is?

Are you saying that these immigrants are not attacking people to either gain entry into the UK or to avoid being deported from the UK?

Is it a coincidence that a large proportion of recent teeror attacks have involved either immigrants, their direct descendants or failed asylum seekers?

It appears that we are creating a problem for today or tomorrow.

You may want to turn the other cheek. But having walked through the MEN stadium just a few hours before the Manchester bombing

The bomber, Salman Ramadan Abedi, was a 22-year-old British Muslim of Libyan ancestry.[40][41] He was born in Manchester to a Salafi[42] family of Libyan-born refugees who had settled in south Manchester after fleeing to the UK

Abedi's father was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a Salafi jihadist organisation proscribed by the United Nations,[55] and father and son fought for the group in Libya in 2011 as part of the movement to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi.

Are you comfortable telling the families of the 1000 injured that it was simply a matter of confirmation bias and not the product of asylum seeking jihadist immigration?