Comments

  1. Sean Rachar says

    At the beginning of the show Matt commented that everyone is racist. I noticed that almost the entire youtube chat blew up in outrage in response, seemingly taking his words to mean that they consciously discriminate against people by race. I’m here to suggest that anyone who genuinely doubts Matt’s assertion look into the reality of implicit bias. At the following website you can take an interactive test designed to reveal your implicit racial bias: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html

    If any of you outraged folks have the maturity to put your feelings to an objective test, I invite you to try it out.

  2. Nathan says

    Wow Mark has been calling in for a few years now, and he seems just as confused as ever.

  3. chew says

    Gen 3:24 “After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.”

    That’s the archaeological evidence Christian apologists should be looking for: a flaming, flashing sword somewhere in the Middle East that’s still aflame and still flashing around because God never rescinded that order. They wouldn’t even need to leave their armchairs; they should be able to find it on Google Earth.

  4. Nima says

    Let me start off by saying I’ve been a long-time fan of the show and specifically a fan of Matt’s, and I found both his and Jen’s responses to Jeremy’s call absolutely infuriating.

    First, it’s just plain gross that Matt seemed to be glorifying his ignorance of the people he was associating with. Maybe you *should* listen to Sam Harris’ podcast, Matt, so you know how anti-trans, race-realist he’s gotten recently. Maybe take an afternoon and visit reddit.com/r/samharris and see what influence Sam platforming people like Charles Murray and Ben Shapiro is having on his audience. He had Jordan Peterson on his podcast and not only didn’t challenge Peterson on his anti-trans views, but conceded that they probably agreed on them so there was no point in discussing it. Maybe you should take an hour or two out of schedule to listen to that one, since you’re going to be sharing a stage with Peterson. Maybe it would be helpful to watch the conversation Contrapoints had with Michael Brooks where they talked about Peterson’s rhetorical style, and how it keeps trapping well-meaning people, so you don’t end up falling into his trap nearly everyone that’s tried to pin him down has.

    Being ignorant isn’t cool. You shouldn’t be proud to not know things. Especially when it’s about people you’re sharing a stage with. You were absolutely right, at many big events with multiple speakers people don’t know the details about every speaker. They see Sam Harris on stage with Ben Shapiro, get along famously and never actually argue about anything (including how a cake shop should be allowed to discriminate against gays if it wants to) and that gives Ben Shapiro, a far-right religious loon, credibility and access to an audience he might not have otherwise had. That is precisely the problem.

    Second, both Matt and Jen seemed to dismiss Jeremy’s concern that “skeptic” was becoming synonymous with anti-SJW, etc. Again, this might be a function of your willful ignorance (which is a problem). For example, Michael Shermer, founding publisher of **Skeptic** Magazine, has repeatedly attacked SJWs on Twitter and even publishing a “hoax” article in Skeptic Magazine claiming to be a take-down of gender studies programs. Michael Shermer, btw, has had sexual misconduct allegations laid against him, and in the lead up to the Krauss revelation published an article is Skeptic Magazine defending Jerry Sandusky and arguing that we shouldn’t believe accusers.

    Sam Harris, James Lindsay, and Peter Boghossian (the latter two wrote the BS gender studies take down) are just a few of the skeptic thought leaders that are overtly and aggressively anti-SJW. They aren’t some small fringe. Dawkins and Coyne have waded into the anti-SJW tub at times as well. And don’t get me started on Bill Maher, who’s had Bari Weiss on his show twice already to talk about how dangerous political correctness and the MeToo movement are. These are major figures in the skeptic community, with a huge audience, propagating increasingly right-wing views, and oftentimes couching their anti-SJW-ness as a product of their skepticism.

    And that says nothing of the influence the YouTubers Jeremey mentioned have. **You** might not know who they are, but these are people with hundreds of thousands of views, who are greatly influencing young people.

    What Jeremy was describing is something anyone that has any awareness of the skeptic community on social media has realized a long time ago — it is becoming an increasingly right-wing movement. Don’t take my and Jeremy’s words for it — sit down with Thomas Smith, or Kristi Winters, or Eiynah (Nice Mangoes), or Eli Bosnick, or Steve Shives, or Callie Wright (who you just had on your show), or any of a hundred other left-leaning atheists who aren’t proud to be ignorant of what’s happening in their community.

  5. Sean Rachar says

    I don’t understand Matt’s attitude regarding the YouTube skeptic community. He comments that he doesn’t know certain people and that he therefore sees no need to criticize them, and essentially that he should not be the subject of guilt by association. He proceeds from here to a Trumpian “both sides” rhetoric equally critical of the political left and right. While I acknowledge that there are, in fact, problems on both sides, I find that Matt’s attitude is too dismissive of its consequences. The skeptics present at Mythcon are in many ways hurting public perception and discourse, driving it towards anti-feminism and other humanist ideals. While I respect that ideally it should not fall on Matt to speak out against any particular individuals, and that he shouldn’t ideally be burdened with knowing these people and their influence, as a public figure he has the opportunity to do good by educating himself and others on the harm being done by these individuals. Given that Matt felt the rare need to speak out after encountering the awful reality of this ideology at Mythcon, it is obvious to me that given further knowledge of what we’re dealing with, he would again feel impelled to act.

    Matt, when you plead ignorance, you cannot simultaneously moralize. If these people are far more harmful than you realize, you must not self-righteously brush off those who reasonably ask you to educate yourself and engage with the problem.

  6. ScottM1973 says

    I enjoyed the discussion about youtube skepticism.

    I’ve subscribed (for a short while) and then unsubscribed to Sargon and still listen to ArmouredSkeptic and ShoeOnHead. Sargon has some good talking points but it’s quite clear he’s become “radicalised” in his views on feminism and social justice and therefore unreliable for challenging my own bias towards feminism and social justice. I didn’t realize that Sargon was the idiot who made the “too ugly to rape” comment. ArmouredSkeptic is entertaining however he doesn’t always apply his skepticism uniformly.

    Aron Ra did a very very good imitation of Kent Hovind in a Prophet of Zod video. Very funny video!

  7. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @ ScottM1973 – 3
    Having watched Sargon alot, and prefacing this with once again saying I’m NOT a fan of his NOR do I think what he tweeted was anything approaching a good idea, “you’re too ugly to rape” was not how that tweet was intended. It’s been a while, but if memory serves, the MP Jess Phillips was promoting some kind of anti-hate speech legislation or some such that Sargon and others felt went too fart and in an attempt to highlight that she would take something not meant to be a threat AS a threat, he fired off that clumsy tweet. The idea, in Sargon’s words, was supposed to be something along the lines of “I wouldn’t rape anybody, including you.” However, he worded it the way he did and because he’s a naturally caustic individual it became easy to inject more nefarious meaning than was there. Also because he reveled in the notoriety he would do more shit to egg on the people he considered his ideological enemies anyway. While at some point it may have mattered to him, in recent years I don’t get the impression that Sargon particularly cares about changing minds and that is to his great detriment if anyone is gonna take him seriously.
    As for Skeptic and Shoe, they’re not without their justified criticisms but I find their relationship to be adorable bordering on saccharine. I enjoy their movie reviews/culture critiques, though amusingly I find myself hating the same shit they do but for different reasons *coughthelastjedicough*. Apparently Greg (Armored Skeptic) made a video about Post-Modernism that was an embarrassment but exactly why wasn’t something I was interested enough to investigate. However, he also recently did a breakdown of his greatest fuck-ups/shit he got wrong that I thought was interesting.
    All in all this seemed a good episode. Always appreciate a good “this conversation’s going nowhere so bye” hang up, hahaha.

  8. Tokikot says

    This caller Mark, is basically afraid of telling what he really thinks. This is a clear summary of what he believes in:

    1. He believes that if Matt died instantly, without ever having the opportunity to convert and surrender himself to Christ, Matt is gonna go to hell.

    2. When asked by Matt if he thinks that Matt deserves to go to hell, his answer is he cannot make a judgment on that because he doesn’t know much about how Matt has lived his life.

    3. Based on his answers, it’s quite clear that he believes that:

    a) Whether or not one deserves to go to hell is dependent on how one has lived his life.
    b) That someone is bound for hell is not an indicator of how that someone has lived his life.
    c) Going to hell has no relevance on whether or not you deserve it.

    So what he clearly believes is this: At the end of the day, going to hell has nothing to do with how good or evil you are, but rather on whether you are willing to accept, as your personal savior, a guy believed to have lived in the Middle East more than 2,000 years ago, who’s exploits are chronicled in copies of copies of copies of copies of translations of alleged copies of copies of copies of ………copies of lost originals, filled with anachronisms, contradictions and stories no different from what you would hear from unfortunate patients of lunatic asylums, canonized by the institution whose foundation for credibility rests on its war against science and rational thinking, the invention of indulgences, witch-hunting and heretic-burning, the promotion of antisemitism, slavery and war in the name of religion, oppression of women and the abuse of innocent children.

    This is what Mark believes, he’s just too afraid to admit it openly during the show.

    To me, hell is nothing but a representation of the hatred lurking within the religious mind, while heaven, and the eternal life it represents, is the highest expression of greed which, ironically, is not considered a virtue under Christianity.

  9. Monocle Smile says

    @Evil God

    The idea, in Sargon’s words, was supposed to be something along the lines of “I wouldn’t rape anybody, including you.” However, he worded it the way he did and because he’s a naturally caustic individual it became easy to inject more nefarious meaning than was there. Also because he reveled in the notoriety he would do more shit to egg on the people he considered his ideological enemies anyway

    See, this just tells me that Sargon jumps feet-first into being a professional troll. At this point, I give less than a hundredth of a shit what he “meant” to say, because at that point, it doesn’t fucking matter. I don’t get to do and say heinous shit and then pretend it’s all an act to dodge culpability. Sargon is a plague.

  10. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Monocle Smile
    I’m not gonna argue that he’s not a troll, or that he’s not worthy of the dislike he’s garnered. However, I’m of the mind that if someone is gonna dislike someone, it should be for shit they ACTUALLY did/said instead of what one has heard they did/said.
    It’s kinda like a while ago there was a meme going around of Trump alleging that back in the 90’s or whatever, he said that if he ever ran it’d be as a Republican because the right wing is fucking stupid, etc etc. This meme got alot of traction and was repeated as fact by even some people I regarded as canny individuals. However, it wasn’t true. They hated Trump and readily believed bad shit about him. Same thing happened to me when I read an article talking about Kanye West dunking on some dudes in wheelchairs during a charity basketball game because he didn’t like to lose. He didn’t, but I disliked Kanye and it completely sounded like something he would do so I didn’t immediately fact check it.
    In Sargon’s case, the guy’s an ass and it’s easy to believe the worst shit ye hear of him. However like the example with Trump, he says enough ridiculous and hateful bullshit without needing to make stuff up about him. When such things are revealed to be bullshit it can cast doubt on OTHER crazy shit he says and does and make people less inclined to take criticism of him seriously when it needs to be.
    Over the years I’ve made it a rule to be suspicious of anything I hear or read, ESPECIALLY if it gels with shit I already believe or want to believe. Sargon is an easy guy to dislike and does alot to cultivate notoriety, but even for such people I think it’s important to check and see “wait, before I lose my mind at this or that did they ACTUALLY say that? What was the context? Were they being serious or just being assholes for the lulz or whatever?” In the case of Sargon’s notorious tweet, just saying “oh, Sargon tweeted to a sexual assault survivor that she’s too ugly to rape” is not an accurate breakdown of things.
    If it’s not a conversation ye feel like having, that’s cool. The Gods know I’ve no desire to delve into that fucking tweet or what happened at Mythcon or any of that kind of shit. All I’m arguing for is thoughtfulness to make sure that people don’t immediately believe the worst about others because they’re already ill disposed towards them.

  11. Scope says

    “It’s kinda like a while ago there was a meme going around of Trump alleging that back in the 90’s or whatever, he said that if he ever ran it’d be as a Republican because the right wing is fucking stupid, etc etc. This meme got alot of traction”
    Yea. I’m from northern Europe and I saw one of my facebook friends posting it and I immediately was skeptical. I checked it and commented to that person that it was a fake quote. I don’t hate Trump. He is immensely entertaining with his silly ideas and funny presentation style. I just don’t think that the president of the United States of America should be dumber than an average person, a pathological liar (possibly even insane to some degree? maybe a split personality or memory loss?) and act like a spoiled teen.

    Anyway.. My original intention was to comment about what Jen said about the mythicist position. I too lean more towards Jesus not being a real person, because when you ask almost anyone “Who do you think Jesus was”, they will say that he did some miracles, rose from the dead, said “blessed are the meek” etc. Even atheists and people from other religions say this even though they may not believe that he actually did those things. The reality, however, is that there is no way of knowing if it really was “blessed are the meek” or “blessed are the cheesemakers”. People like Ehrman agree that Jesus didn’t perform any miracles or rose from the dead. So, what is there left? Some guy who walked from town to town, hanged out with 12 guys and his name was possibly Jesus? The real Jesus is so far from the Jesus, everyone today recognizes, that it would be a disservice to the public to agree that he existed.

  12. Omer Bar says

    Matt , I’ve been following your work for quite some time now and I am astonished by what you said about beeing aware that we’re all racist to an extent. I hope I misunderstood your view on the matter. Here are few of my points i wish you to elaborate on, if you please.
    A. Can you show factual data to support that there is a racial trend by an institution or any social body ?
    B. How does your statment about “we are all racist and need to be aware of that ” different from “religion has us all sick and ordered to be well”

  13. dalrath says

    The whole archaeological evidence thing is a fraud. The way I heard it, I think from Francesca Stavrakopoulou. The Israeli’s have been looking since 1954 for archaeological evidence of Moses, to justify the state of Israel. If that archaeological evidence had been found the whole world would know about it. And the Israeli’s have searched everywhere 2 or 3 times.

  14. Simon & Mrs Wendy Hosking says

    My take on Sargon et al. is that if I had said something to be a ‘provocative’ and instead came out with ‘really, really offensive’ then I would apologise. He/they haven’t done this. Instead they just double down and show what arsehats they are.

    Change of Topic – I think the problem with Mark is the classic case of having a belief and trying to find justification for it, rather than following the evidence to where it leads you. I can relate because I used to do exactly the same thing.

    Great show from one of the many ‘dream teams’.

    – Simon

  15. lusspanik says

    @1:08:16 when Jeremy characterized Andy Warski’s stream as “Sargon and white nationalists discussing how best to implement white nationalism” he was legitimately outright lying. Not only was Sargon there to counter the white nationalists, but he has been getting grief from the alt-right for at least 2 years on a non-stop basis. In addition, the entire reason Sargon was banned from Twitter was because he filled his timeline with gay interracial adult photos to make the alt-right angry because they wouldn’t leave him alone.

    Also Andy Warski has never defined himself as a skeptic or being in the “skepto-sphere,” none of them have. The label was applied to them because they all came from secular roots and were skeptical about the rise in pop-feminism, so it stuck. Sargon has denied the label because it’s vague and he could be associated with any number of people under it who he wouldn’t like to be associated with, which is exactly what Jeremy did when associating him with Warski who doesn’t challenge alt-right ideas. It’s a dishonest tactic to mischaractarize someone and Jeremy was outright dishonest when he explicitly said Sargon sympathized with white nationalism, that couldn’t be further from the truth.

  16. paxoll says

    @Evil God
    It is quite easy to track down the information and how it was represented in the show is accurate.

    did they ACTUALLY say that? What was the context? Were they being serious or just being assholes for the lulz or whatever?”

    What he “actually” said was, “I wouldn’t even rape you”, now I think anyone with a native understanding of the english language knows what that means, but this breaks it down for people trying to argue what it means http://www.patheos.com/blogs/barrierbreaker/english-lesson-wouldnt-even-means/ . So what was the context? Well there are multiple contexts based on who is subjectively experiencing what he wrote. The first context was the recipient, who says she was a rape survivor, what is the rational interpretation of his words? It sounds like a threat. What is his context? Well he was arguing against her proposed legislation that would make online harassment a criminal offense. His purpose was to make a harassing comment that was not an actual threat in order to make an argument ad absurdum. He acting like a shitty mobster walking up to a man who owes money and saying, “thats a cute kid, it would be a real shame if something was to happen to her”. It’s an implied threat, and it’s illegal. Now does it actually matter if he was joking or doing it for the lulz? Not really. This is a tweet, it is not some automatic reaction in the spur of the moment. He had time to think about what he was saying and his words were very carefully chosen. What he said, and the purpose behind what he said even looking at it from his context are disgusting and reprehensible.

  17. ScottM1973 says

    When the whole Krauss thing came out I commented on the buzzfeed page stating how I’m not going to lynch someone based on an article with such a clear bias and against a man who has come out against, in some way, the MeToo movement. The crap that has gotten flung at me from that simple stance… just wow! So I went around looking for youtube videos about it and came across this guy who amde pretty much all the same points as I did plus some other good points…. and then dived head fucking first into the shallow end of misogyny! A suggested channel from that guys was Sargon.

    Sargon started off better than that but the more you listen to him (and others) the more you get the sense that they aren’t saying things for rational reasons. It’s along the same lines as not believing in God because you’re mad at him. I’m sorry but I want to surround myself with people who say things and want to believe things for rational reasons and Sargon just can’t be trusted for that. As far as the whole rape comment I see it pretty much the same as in the bible when the guy gives his daughters up to be raped. Is there a possible context where that’s okay… maybe(??)… but that doesn’t excuse it and it certainly doesn’t excuse him essentially revelling in it afterwards!

    Armoured Skeptic (and ShoeOnHead) is entertaining and don’t say shit just to be salacious, explain the rationale behind points, and when they say ‘shit’ generally let you know they’re just talking shit. Armoured Skeptic isn’t always rational though. He did video about Netflix’s Bill Nye show in which he was quite a bit biased, signalling skepticism, yet not applying skepticism properly. Still a pretty good channel all in all however.

    There’s a guy that goes by GreaterSapien who debunks flat earth who I enjoy and would recommend. I’d also recommend, cuz they’re Canadian (if I’m remembering correctly) Viced Rhino and Paulogia, and for being good channels Professor Stick, Genetically Modified Skeptic, Cosmic Skeptic, and Rationality Rules.

  18. ScottM1973 says

    @Shaun
    “Interesting to hear Matt’s comments about having a purity test applied to him. Not surprising”

    I remember thinking I have no idea if this is going to be awkward or not?! I get the feeling that Matt has to do a bit of censoring of any possible criticisms with regards to the social justice movement so as to avoid getting attacked. Jen is definitely “in” that crowd (I’m not saying she can’t back up what she says with logic and reason but she just doesn’t care to on facebook so comes off as very authoritarian to me) so when he said he got attacked from both sides I was like hmmmm?! I paid much more attention to their body language. Matt looked very relaxed in talking about it in the presence of Jen which suggests to me that Jen isn’t one of those social justice “warriors”. I’ve nothing against social justice but I think it’s wrong to equate something like touching a person’s elbow to punching them or to murder which does happen within the movement. Anyways…

  19. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Omer Bar
    I’m not Matt, but I could point you towards some basic resources.

    we’re all racist to an extent

    Consider the well known word association tests.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test
    http://www.understandingprejudice.org/teach/assign/iatrace.htm

    A. Can you show factual data to support that there is a racial trend by an institution or any social body ?

    I’m not sure of the original context. Let me offer this. It’s well known that blacks and whites in America use illegal drugs at approximately the same rate. Yet, blacks are convicted of such offenses far more frequently, by proportion of total population, than whites. We can also talk about the ludicrously disproportionate sentencing guidelines between crack and powder cocaine offenses, which is assuredly entirely racist in origin, because one drug is commonly used by blacks, and another drug is commonly used by whites.

    B. How does your statment about “we are all racist and need to be aware of that ” different from “religion has us all sick and ordered to be well”

    One is true, and one is false. That’s a big difference. The implication with the religious statement is that religious leaders personally benefit, monetarily, from selling a fake cure to the fake illness, but I don’t see how Matt personally benefits from telling you that you’re racist, even if in some very small part.

  20. ScottM1973 says

    Talking about Trump (someone mentioned him right?!) Sam Harris did a podcast recently (Hidden Motives??) where the guest talked about signalling and counter signalling which I found really insightful!

    Example of signalling friendship (for example) is you compliment, you use polite language, you show you trust them etc.
    Example of counter signalling friendship would be farting, or burping when you’re alone with them. It’s things which you do which demonstrate you trust the other person to not get offended by, or take the wrong way, because you ARE friends.

    The point is that Trump does things that the left, when looking for signalling cues, sees as him being incompetent that the right recognizes as counter signalling cues.

    I’ve lost count of the number of times I asked myself how the right can’t see how disgustingly racist and sexist Trump is and this explains it fairly well. The right sees all the bad stuff in the light of that’s just how friends act cuz they’re not worried about being taken the wrong way.

    My brother has a friend who does nothing but talk about how he cheats on his wife and has 3 phones (a work phone, the 2nd being a decoy phone and the 3rd being the one he uses for his cheating). I’m completely repulsed by it but my brother doesn’t believe for one minute his friend cheats. It’s all counter signalling to him. I can understand that pretending to be sexist by making the occasional sexist joke (knowing it’s sexist) doesn’t make you a sexist however I just don’t understand how my brother can’t see how it speaks to a persons character to constantly be making and acting sexist. My brother’s friend is also a Christian Flat Young Earther who has threatened to beat me up every time I’ve seen him my whole life but hey who am I to judge my brothers choice in friends….sigh

    AND that also sums up how I feel about Trump and Trump supporting Republicans. lol

  21. Pony says

    @Nima
    You must be listening to different Sam Harris podcasts than I am. It’s one of the few places I will go to listen to a contrary point of view that doesn’t devolve into idiotic virtue signaling and streaming.

    Perhaps I didn’t listen carefully enough, but I don’t think I heard Harris say anything like he concurred with Peterson’s ideas about trans issues. Likewise, one may not like what Murray says, but it became clear after listening to the podcast with Harris that his critics have gone wildly overboard in trying to paint him as a monster. I abhorred most of the conversation with the execrable Scott Adams, and found him absurdly willing to ignore Occam’s Razor when it comes to his beloved Trump (Adams seems to think that everything Trump does is the product of genius, whereas the most plausible, simple explanation is that he is an erratic, narcissistic buffoon), but I was glad to listen to that point of view.

    In short, I’m sick of the “platforming/deplatforming” strategy. It has more than a little whiff of authoritarianism to it. None of Harris’ more “controversial” guests are as awful as you suggest, and they didn’t change my mind on much, if anything. But if we aren’t willing to listen to what those who disagree with us have to say, regardless of our sensitivities and background, we’re going to be in deep trouble.

  22. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To ScottM1973
    It is true that some people from the likes of Pharyngula attacked him for going to MythCon (skipping the details for now), but afterwards Matt did say, loosely, that the Pharyngula people were spot-on concerning the horrible lecturers that were invited, and Matt also said that he will never go to another event by the same organizers or some such.

    Matt is a social justice warrior. He was, and is, supportive of atheism+. So too is practically the entire cast and crew. You’re barking up the wrong tree here. You’re probably construing “social justice warrior” too narrowly, and with too much preconceived baggage. Not all social justice warriors are the Pharyngula type, and atheism+ is not defined by the actions of one particular web-forum.

  23. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    […] it became clear after listening to the podcast with Harris that his critics have gone wildly overboard in trying to paint him as a monster.

    Sam Harris supports torture. Sam Harris supports the actual torturing of actual Muslim terrorists. He has defended the torturing of one particular Muslim terrorist by name.

    Sam Harris has also said that we should kill people for what is protected free speech – he said that it was right to kill Osama bin Laden because his political advocacy was too dangerous to let him live. For me, this is beyond-the-pale. It’s completely bizarre to me – Sam Harris wrote point-blank that there is no other possible reason to capture or kill Osama bin Laden except for his dangerous political advocacy. It’s truly bizarre that Sam cannot imagine crimes such as conspiracy, money laundering, weapons trafficking, etc. I wish I was making this up, but I’m not.

    Citation:
    https://samharris.org/response-to-controversy/

    It’s also a fact that we have not obtained one single useful bit of information from torture of Muslim captives. Not a single bit.

    Then there’s the occasional “faux-pas” regarding his apparent (mild) misogyny.

    I really wish Sam Harris wasn’t quite such of a jackass, and I really appreciate his earlier work and his lectures, and some of it still guides me to this day, but he has some severe problems.

  24. gshelley says

    ““you’re too ugly to rape” was not how that tweet was intended. It’s been a while, but if memory serves, the MP Jess Phillips was promoting some kind of anti-hate speech legislation or some such that Sargon and others felt went too fart and in an attempt to highlight that she would take something not meant to be a threat AS a threat, he fired off that clumsy tweet. The idea, in Sargon’s words, was supposed to be something along the lines of “I wouldn’t rape anybody, including you.”

    I don’t see how “Your to ugly to rape” could be interpreted as “I wouldn’t rape anyone, even you”. It could be “If I was going to rape someone, it wouldn’t be you”, but sometimes, the most reasonable explanation is the most obvious – he meant what he wrote

  25. Pony says

    @Enlightenment Liberal

    Having listened to, and read, a whole lot of Sam Harris, I think your characterization of his views on torture is overstated. From what I’ve heard and read, he does seem to support the notion of torture in the abstract, theoretical “ticking bomb” sorts of scenarios. I have never, ever heard him specify anything about Muslims in regard to torture.

    His position has problems, obviously, and personally I am leery of such reasoning — who, after all, gets to decide when torture is “necessary”?

    I’ve also never once perceived a whiff of misogyny from Harris. Not a single bit, in all my reading and listening.

    I understand you feel his positions are in some cases “beyond the pale.” I appreciate his willingness to wrestle with difficult questions and speak civilly with people with whom he disagrees in what is, in my opinion, almost always a rational fashion. Also, some of his critics (Glenn Greenwald, Reza Azlan, and others) have wildly, gleefully misrepresented his words, taken them (for real, not in a Bible-y, Christian-y, whiny way) out of context and maliciously edited his words and video to make him “say” things he does not believe.

  26. lusspanik says

    @gshelley It’s almost like you have no idea what you’re talking about and are just parroting what other people have told you because you have an already held opinion about Sargon without going into any further research on your own. Skepticism™

    I find it so strange that people who understand, or whom I presume understand, religious argumentation and mischaracterization tactics fall so easily into them when discussing politics. I can’t even begin to go into the nonsense I’ve read here regarding Sargon, or the roundly debunked “implicit bias” studies and what the people here claim they determine.

  27. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @ScottM1973 #19:

    I commented on the buzzfeed page stating how I’m not going to lynch someone based on an article with such a clear bias and against a man who has come out against, in some way, the MeToo movement. The crap that has gotten flung at me from that simple stance… just wow!

    That simple stance… Now anyone can click the link to see whether the response was flung crap, astonishing or otherwise.
     
    Article: BuzzFeed – The Unbeliever
    (Permalink has “Scott M” comment thread sorted first, but still below the article.)
     

    Whenever someone accuses you of not being sceptical it’s a big red flag they’re trying to sell you something a skeptical person won’t buy.
     
    In this case it’s a bunch of accusations against a vocal anti-SJW with out any evidence aside from he said – she said. Can’t seem to find him being banned posted on any of these university he’s supposedly been banned from. I bet you none of these accusations came up before he became vocal against extreme SJWs.

     

    Being skeptical of a number of women claiming something, especially when there is a logical concern of them doing so based on his anti-SJW stance, is perfectly logical considering it’s being claimed in an article with a clear SJW bias.

     

    Find me a reference by one of the universities that they broke ties or banned him. Site me some of this forest of evidence you speak of from other credible sources!
    […]
    I could write an article claiming 73 people saw the Pope take his face off and he’s actually a reptoid in disguise but it doesn’t make it true.
    […]
    All you’re doing is seeing what you want to see! You’ve already made up your closed minds that since I don’t agree (don’t join the lynch mob) I’m a misogynist and everything I say you’re just going to say that I’m just rationalising. You’re soo sure you’re correct and you’re on the moral high ground you don’t even try to back up your arguments with sources which I’ve continually asked for! I’m not the fucking hypocrite!

  28. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Pony
    See:
    https://samharris.org/response-to-controversy/

    The case of Baitullah Mehsud, killed along with 12 others (including his wife and mother-in-law), is a perfect example: Had his wife been water-boarded in order to obtain the relevant intelligence, rather than merely annihilated by a missile, we can be sure that torrents of outrage would have ensued.

    So, defending the hypothetical torture of a real person, by name.

    And yet, anyone who would defend the water-boarding of a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad will reap a whirlwind of public criticism. This makes no moral sense.

    So, defending the actual torture of a real person, by name.

    When one asks why it would be ethical to drop a bomb on Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of al Qaeda, the answer cannot be, “Because he killed so many people in the past.” To my knowledge, the man hasn’t killed anyone personally. However, he is likely to get a lot of innocent people killed because of what he and his followers believe about jihad, martyrdom, the ascendancy of Islam, etc. A willingness to take preventative action against a dangerous enemy is compatible with being against the death penalty (which I am). Whenever we can capture and imprison jihadists, we should. But in many cases this is either impossible or too risky. Would it have been better if we had captured Osama bin Laden? In my view, yes. Do I think the members of Seal Team Six should have assumed any added risk to bring him back alive? Absolutely not.

    So, clearly stating that we should kill people, by name, because it’s too dangerous to let them live because they will talk to people.

    As for the misogyny, with 1 minute of google.
    https://the-orbit.net/greta/2014/09/29/why-both-of-sam-harriss-recent-comments-were-sexist-even-if-you-accept-some-degree-of-innate-gendered-behavior/
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2014/09/12/can-atheist-sam-harris-become-a-spiritual-figure/

    It can only be attributed to my “overwhelming lack of sex appeal,” he said to huge laughter.

    “I think it may have to do with my person slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people..People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree instrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this – it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

  29. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Oh, I missed one of the important quotes.
    https://samharris.org/response-to-controversy/

    It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason—but our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it would be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator found himself in such a circumstance and broke the law, there would be little will to prosecute him (and interrogators would know this). If he broke the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to prison for a very long time (and interrogators would know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me.

    So, Sam Harris wants the official documents to read that torture is illegal in every case, but he also wants to create a culture where the torturers can torture people and get away with it. He even lists several real-world examples where we should torture people (quotes in earlier post). Sam Harris clearly pro-torture, in a very non-abstract, very real way.

    Sometimes Sam Harris is quite evasive and duplicitous when he talks. One of those times is when he talks about torture. He rarely tells you that he really wants to torture real Muslims terrorists, with an official apparatus set up to protect the torturers from legal prosecution.

  30. WAD says

    Matt isn’t interested in Podcasts blogs and videos from other skeptics? Curiosity is a good precursor to being well informed, being obstinate or uninterested of new information and voices isn’t a good sign of being open to new information and points of view.

  31. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Paxoll –

    He acting like a shitty mobster walking up to a man who owes money and saying, “thats a cute kid, it would be a real shame if something was to happen to her”.

    I was following Sargon on twitter at the time and was at ground zero when all this shit was going down, and will say that up to here yes, that’s a pretty fair relation of events. However, likening the tweet to the veiled mobster threat was one thing I heard said one other time and was taken aback at how out of left field that take seemed. Whatever the motivations for it, and from what I’ve seen of Jess Phillips I can see how she would draw some ire, Sargon’s tweet was dumb. There were 100 better ways he could have made his point that would have better served his purpose, but there we are. That’s just the kinda shmuck Sargon is. But I think any attempt to make into the veiled mobster threat is a stretch.

    @gshelley – 27

    I don’t see how “Your to ugly to rape” could be interpreted as “I wouldn’t rape anyone, even you”. It could be “If I was going to rape someone, it wouldn’t be you”, but sometimes, the most reasonable explanation is the most obvious – he meant what he wrote

    The tweet wasn’t “You’re too ugly to rape.” It was “I wouldn’t even rape you.” Still a bad tweet to say to anyone regardless of how ye feel about them, and depending on where ye place the emphasis when ye read it in yer head it can come out even worse. It’s bad enough without injecting EXTRA meaning that’s not there.

    Which brings me back to my original point of just taking objectionable shit as it is without injecting extra context into it to make it easier to dislike. Sargon sucks. He’s pro-Brexit for some weird conspiracy level reasons. He conflates Bernie-style Democratic Socialism with Communism with Marxism and pretends that if ye criticize income disparity at all yer a filthy fucking Leninist or something. He completely bitched out of just being like “yeah, Climate Change is dumb” pretending not to know much about it. There’s a lot there to dislike, but he’s not the neo-Hitler boogeyman some make him out to be. At the most generous he’s barely a Milo Y. level shithead.
    And with that I’d like to say I’m done defending him or the likes of him, but I get the distinct impression if I did it’d be like one of those people going “And I’ve said my piece and now I’m out of here” and then immediately coming back. I’m annoyed at having to defend nuance in regards to a dude I don’t like and am, at the moment, done with the exercise. However, it’d be dishonest to say I won’t do it again if I think I see shit spinning out of control.

  32. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    There’s a lot there to dislike, but he’s not the neo-Hitler boogeyman some make him out to be.

    Yes, he is. Sargon is a neo-Nazi.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/792560/sargon_is_planning_on_doing_a_video_on_the_jewish/

    At least, he pretends to be one. He’s either a neo-Nazi, or he’s pretending to be a neo-Nazi, or he’s pandering to neo-Nazis. I don’t much care about the difference.

    If you were like me and wondering “what is the Jewish question?”, here’s a hint: The Final Solution is the Nazi answer to the Jewish question.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution
    In Nazi documents, it’s commonly referred to as “the final solution to the Jewish question”.

  33. says

    I’ve nothing against social justice but I think it’s wrong to equate something like touching a person’s elbow to punching them or to murder which does happen within the movement. Anyways…

    @Scottm1973

    It would appear at the moment there are some people within a thing called an atheist “movement” who are seeking to apply purity tests all the time.

    You mentioned allegations against Lawrence Krauss. It seems these are widespread. What I notice is that these allegations are being made against anyone who questions the orthodoxy of the movement and once they are made they are expected to be believed without any testing of the allegations. It’s a real star chamber atmosphere.

    And as you say, all sense of proportion is gone. When Matt Damon (rightly) pointed out that grabbing someone on the ass is not the same as rape, he was pilloried.

    I for one am glad I don’t belong to a movement.

  34. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal – 34
    Yes, I recall ye linking that last time Sargon came up in it. Again, without hunting down the livestream and pouring it over for exactly this bit (and I’ve no interest whatsoever in doing that) I’ve no context for exactly WHAT he was talking about discussing the Jewish Question or what his stance on it potentially is. I’ve not seen anything from him or heard anything from him actually addressing it. Until he actually comes out with something about how Jews need to be dispossessed and rounded up, I don’t find him entertaining the thought of discussing “the Jewish Question” to be anything to lose sleep over.

    As someone else pointed out in this thread, one of the strikes against him on twitter was gotten because he was tweeting gay porn AT the alt right and nazis who started following him.

  35. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Evil God
    There’s that, and there’s also this, straight from you:

    He’s pro-Brexit for some weird conspiracy level reasons. He conflates Bernie-style Democratic Socialism with Communism with Marxism and pretends that if ye criticize income disparity at all yer a filthy fucking Leninist or something.

    That’s actual Nazi propaganda. Like, straight-up out of the mouths of Hitler, Goebbels, etc. See:

  36. lusspanik says

    @Evil God of the Fiery Cloud #33
    The depth of the “I wouldn’t even rape you.” line was showing how hysterical people would get over a silly non-threat, and I’d say it did it’s job quite effectively. Not to mention, this is a tweet. It’s not some grand statement from which Sargon derives his principles, it was a shit throwing tweet meant to elicit unreasonable reaction due to the volatility of the climate, saying you wouldn’t rape someone turns into a threat. Injecting any other meaning is assigning motive where it doesn’t exist.
    Apologies, this is the first time I’ve used this and I can’t find formatting help anywhere, so I’m forced to quote you with simple text:
    “Sargon sucks. He’s pro-Brexit for some weird conspiracy level reasons.”
    He’s pro-Brexit because he believes a country should be sovereign and not beholden to unelected officials determining what’s best for their country, agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with a conspiracy.
    “He conflates Bernie-style Democratic Socialism with Communism with Marxism”
    Is socialism leaning more toward laissez faire capitalism or communism? If he has made that comment about Sanders’ democratic socialism in passing, I’m sure it was a comment on taking economics in the wrong direction, away from individual liberty, so the comparison might be apt.
    “and pretends that if ye criticize income disparity at all yer a filthy fucking Leninist or something.”
    I haven’t heard him say income disparity is good and if you don’t like it you’re a Leninist, what I have heard him say that the income disparity the media and progressives cite doesn’t exist for the reasons they say it does and they use it as an excuse to push equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, which is antithetical to liberalism.
    ” He completely bitched out of just being like “yeah, Climate Change is dumb” pretending not to know much about it.”
    How can you presume to know what Sargon does and doesn’t know about the specifics of climate change? From my perspective he legitimately doesn’t know much about the issue and is more interested in where political power lies.

  37. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    You can use some standard html tags here, like blockquote. Example:
    <blockquote>put stuff here</blockquote>
    Also, be sure to use the preview button.

  38. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    […] to push equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, which is antithetical to liberalism.

    But that’s just wrong. It’s antithetical to libertarianism, but that’s not liberalism, and especially not classical liberalism aka Enlightment liberalism, aka my name. Most people who call themselves classical liberals are not. They’re really just Ayn Rand style modern libertarians.

    Liberalism, in the historical sense, is closely identified with the rejection of religion and its replacement with the values of humanism. Humanism is primarily about actual outcomes – equality of opportunity be damned. We should strive for a society where everyone is actually well off, not merely a society where everyone has the potential to be well off but many people suffer needlessly.

    Now, if you want to start getting into the details, sure, let’s do that. I’ll endorse some policies that you call socialist, and I’ll reject other policies that you call socialist. Let it be known that I call myself a card-carrying Marxist. In short, I’m basically a social-democrat of Europe.

  39. says

    He’s pro-Brexit because he believes a country should be sovereign and not beholden to unelected officials determining what’s best for their country, agree or disagree, that has nothing to do with a conspiracy.

    You mean sovereign like before Brexit? You mean unelected officials like the British members of the European parliament? Don’t believe everything the Sun and Boris Johnson’s big red bus tells you mate.

    As it is, in order to trade with Europe, Britain will now have to comply with all of Europe’s trade rules, without the ability to shape those rules through parliamentary representation.

    I personally think Europe is better off without England. I think the Europeans are realising that now. Love to see the shock on the face of the British when it all goes pear shaped and they reapply for admission to be politely told, “Sorry, Europe works better without you”.

  40. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    Shaun #35:

    purity tests all the time […] allegations are being made against anyone who questions the orthodoxy […] expected to be believed without any testing […] star chamber

     

    all sense of proportion is gone

  41. lusspanik says

    But that’s just wrong. It’s antithetical to libertarianism, but that’s not liberalism,

    The intellectual founders of liberalism would disagree, their economic principles relied heavily on the individual and providing a equal pathway to opportunity to the best of their abilities. They weren’t in favor of collectivizing wealth for the purposes of artificial redistribution. What I’m describing here differentiates itself from libertarianism in that libertarian solution to poverty is “Fuck ’em, the market will work it out.” whereas the liberal position is to provide a bare essential foundation in the form of a social safety net and the individuals can have the opportunity to compete in the marketplace if they choose.

    Humanism is primarily about actual outcomes – equality of opportunity be damned.

    Great, and that’s something we should strive for, but as long as we live in a society defined by scarcity, equality of outcome means making everything worse for a lot of people to make things better for a few, including those who choose not to work or contribute in any way, which is unjust in my estimation. Sure, let’s strive for equality of outcome, but let’s not implement it prematurely and lower the majority standard of living and a country’s ability to produce and compete in doing so, that’s a recipe to quickly lose influence in the world.

  42. Evil God of the Fiery Cloud says

    @Lusspanik – 38
    I think I’ve spoken on Sargon more than I want. I will admit to some hyperbole in my little “shit not to like about him” but outside his disregard for identity politics, there’s little I personally agree with him on. By conspiracy level shit on Brexit I recall him taking what ye said about “unelected officials” and extrapolating it to invading armies and shit like that, but knowing him he could have just as well been shit talking a scenario and I took him seriously. The conflation with D. Socialism with Marxism is something he does (or did) alot , but I’ll admit that I pulled the income disparity thing out of my ass as a generic thing because I couldn’t remember if I heard it from him or someone he runs with. As for the Climate Change thing, that was from a Drunken Peasants episode and the exchange was pathetic, which is why it stuck with me.
    For me personally I don’t care for Carl, but it just so happens that some of his greatest detractors are people I legitimately fucking despise so he becomes the lesser of two evils to me. I’m guessing from the tone of yer post that yer a fan of his, or at the very least more favorable to him than I am. Since my only motivation was for people not going off the deep end with shit, I gleefully hand over arguing about whether or not he’s a nazi with EnlightenmentLiberal to ye.

  43. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #41

    You mean unelected officials like the British members of the European parliament?

    MP’s are elected representatives of the citizens within the nation they govern.

    As it is, in order to trade with Europe, Britain will now have to comply with all of Europe’s trade rules

    A small price to pay for national sovereignty. In any case, the EU treating Britain unfairly in trade is indicative of their coercion, not something to rally around. It makes it sound like they hold their members hostage at the barrel of an economic gun, which they clearly are in the case of Britain.

    I personally think Europe is better off without England.

    Great, I hope it works out for everyone, but as it stands more nations are considering leaving and hesitant because of the punitive measures the EU will take. It’s not really a good look to hope the EU works at the expense of Britain, seems kind of vindictive.

  44. lusspanik says

    @Evil God of the Fiery Cloud #44

    I’ve never found a person I agree with completely, but I find myself agreeing and sympathizing with Sargon to a further extent than most other commentators. If there’s one thing in regard to him we can both agree on, it’s that his main detractors are people from both sides that shouldn’t be taken seriously, alt-right and far-left. Of course someone can honestly and rationally disagree with what Sargon says, but so much of what I see criticizing him is disingenuous, like you said.

    I appreciate you handing the reins of proving Sargon isn’t a nazi, but that’s not something I care to even entertain. haha The claim that he’s a nazi in any way is so outlandish it borders on absurdity and I don’t have the patience to point out what should be self-evident. Anyone legitimately calling him a nazi is either unfamiliar with his work or has an axe to grind. I usually just encourage people to check out his work for themselves and see if that accusation holds any water.

  45. says

    Great, I hope it works out for everyone, but as it stands more nations are considering leaving and hesitant because of the punitive measures the EU will take. It’s not really a good look to hope the EU works at the expense of Britain, seems kind of vindictive.

    Really? What nations? How do you know this? Because the Sun told you? Every time I go to Europe, it all seems very united.

    Why would you consider Britain is being treating unfairly in trade? These are simple principles. If you are in a trading bloc, it is a lot easier trade with other members than it is if you are outside that trade bloc. That’s not unfair, that’s simply how trading blocs work.

    Explain to me how it’s unfair for Britain to be treated like any other non EU country if they choose not to be part of the EU?

  46. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #47
    I don’t know what the Sun is, does The Guardian meet your journalistic standards? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/frexit-nexit-or-oexit-who-will-be-next-to-leave-the-eu
    There has been discussion all over the place about other members of the EU and prospective candidates on a platform of leaving. None of them have majority support, but its disingenuous to say the idea is novel. 43% in the Netherlands is no fringe idea.

    Why would you consider Britain is being treating unfairly in trade?

    I should have more carefully worded that, they haven’t settled on trade deals but during the campaigns and aftermath for soft or hard brexit, remainers would talk about how Britain would suffer an avalanche of tariffs from the EU, disproportional to any trade agreements they have with other non-EU members. It’s yet to be seen whether this is actually what happens or not.

  47. Monocle Smile says

    @lusspanik

    Great, and that’s something we should strive for, but as long as we live in a society defined by scarcity, equality of outcome means making everything worse for a lot of people to make things better for a few, including those who choose not to work or contribute in any way, which is unjust in my estimation

    Here in the US, this isn’t actually true, and if it is, it’s only true in a very technical sense. In order to “make things better” for the poorest here, the standard of living for the vast majority of people could be effectively unchanged. We produce to excess and our wealth is super concentrated. Pay no mind to the “average” standard of living; pay mind to the median standard of living. Furthermore, I really, really don’t give two shits about what you call “unjust” (people who “choose not to contribute” receiving benefits) if such “unjust” policy leads to fewer painful, preventable deaths.

  48. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    We may not disagree. We’d have to go into details more to see. Some of my more “outrageous” positions:

    99% or higher inheritance tax on the top 0.1% of the population.

    Comparatively high income taxes on the top 0.1% of the population.

    All necessary foreign trade taxes to ensure that this is not subverted by rich people simply leaving the jurisdiction.

    Guaranteed education, food, and shelter for everyone. We live in a world of scarcity, but it’s not scarce enough that we cannot afford to give education, food, and shelter to moochers. My common litmus test is: What’s worse: People (unjustly) going hungry in this country, or a 0.1% income tax to fund food stamps, even if 90% of the money goes to moochers and corruption.

  49. says

    @lusspanik

    I think your material is a bit dated. I know it was a common fantasy among brexiteers at the time that Britain would be the first domino to fall but it didn’t work out that way.

    I was in Paris when the pro Europe Macron was elected with a two thirds majority. The whole feeling of France was very pro a united Europe from what I could see.

    Personally I only care about brexit inasmuch as it affects my right to live on the continent. I find the English myopic, xenophobic and backward looking.

    I don’t think brexit will end well for the English, but as long as it doesn’t affect me, I don’t care.

  50. Monocle Smile says

    Also, it’s a bit frustrating to see EL do the work to back up his statements about Sargon and Sam Harris only to see it be completely ignored. If I didn’t already know about the things EL brought up, I would be strongly convinced by what’s been presented.

  51. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile #49
    I suppose you could rationalize any number of well intentioned but half-baked policies when you don’t care about what is just or unjust. Good on you. btw Tell an economist the US exists in a post-scarcity society and see what they say before you get laughed out of the room. Things are getting exponentially better for the poor under the current system, and you’re proposing implementing ideas that have historically led to economic and social collapse because they sound good and virtuous to a short sighted outlook. I’ve already advocated for a social safety net, but a person who chooses not to try for no reason other than they feel like it has no right to what I’ve earned. Sorry, but I care about what is just.

  52. Monocle Smile says

    @lusspanik
    That is a singularly uncharitable and dishonest reading of my post, and you appear to be making stuff up without citation.

    but a person who chooses not to try for no reason other than they feel like it has no right to what I’ve earned. Sorry, but I care about what is just.

    If you won’t give up a dollar to feed someone because it’s “unjust,” then you’re part of the problem, and that’s the nicest thing I can say about you. This is potentially also uncharitable and slightly dishonest, but turnabout is fair play.

  53. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To MS
    Eh, you might be overreacting. I also got the same vibe, but he did offer the fig leaf of a social safety net, and that’s a very large fig leaf. I could drive a mountain through that fig leaf shaped hole.

  54. Monocle Smile says

    @EL
    This is true. The typical libertarian “what I’ve earned” nonsense triggers my rage. It just screams self-importance and failure to understand social contracts.

  55. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #50
    I don’t think I’d ever agree to a 99% tax on anything, they have a right to pass their wealth down to their survivors just as anyone else does.
    I would agree to a disproportionately higher tax on the top .1% with one stipulation, they aren’t reinvesting that wealth back into jobs or the market. If they are doing nothing but hoarding that profit, they aren’t contributing to the system that made their wealth possible and should be taxed accordingly. However, I don’t want to disproportionately tax people like Elon Musk who are doing incredible things to further humanity, taking risks, creating means of innovation, and creating jobs. That’s the risk you take when taxing the wealthy disproportionately, it ultimately hurts the middle and lower class and decreases the country’s effective output as a whole. And I’d agree there needs to be some solution to offshore banking as it isn’t a benefit to anyone in this nation, it’s essentially robbery by the wealthy, taking from the wealth of the nation.

    I don’t know what you mean by education, so that would depend, but I’ve toyed with the idea of UBI, I think it might be a better alternative to our current welfare system, but the capital required to even provide the bare essentials to all citizens below the wealthy is astronomical, might still be years away from that happening.

    @Shaun #51
    [blockquote]I think your material is a bit dated.[/blockquote]
    Yes, I’m sure 43% of the Dutch people radically changed their stance on the EU over the past year and a half, seems reasonable. Forgive me if I say you’re moving the goalposts, though. My only claim was that anti-EU sentiment isn’t a fringe position in Europe only propagated by tabloids, I’m sorry that the Guardian article was 1 1/2 years old.

    [blockquote]I find the English myopic, xenophobic and backward looking.[/blockquote]

    What an insane thing to say. They have hate speech laws in Britain and prosecute people on the grounds of “being offensive”, that’s more “progressive” than any nation in the world.

    @Monocle Smile #52

    I suppose we have different standards by which we’re convinced?

  56. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile #54

    That is a singularly uncharitable and dishonest reading of my post, and you appear to be making stuff up without citation.

    What have I made up? And it’s my fault you said “It isn’t true we live in a society based on scarcity”? Perhaps you could express your position more clearly?

    If you won’t give up a dollar to feed someone because it’s “unjust,” then you’re part of the problem

    I will give them the dollar if I don’t need it and I choose to. Just as nothing prevents you from giving all your money to charity right now. The issue is free choice, and the government has no right to force me to give that dollar to a homeless man when I have an idea to turn the one dollar into 10 dollars and then give 5 dollars to the same homeless man. Why would you want to take 5 dollars from the homeless man?

  57. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Ok, so we do have some areas of disagreement.

    I don’t think I’d ever agree to a 99% tax on anything, they have a right to pass their wealth down to their survivors just as anyone else does.

    Many of the founders of America did not recognize such a right.
    Thomas Jefferson: “A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.”
    Adam Smith rejected that right.
    Adam Smith: “There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death.”
    I also reject that right. I’m a Marxist. I believe that property rights are an indispensable tool for creating human happiness, but I believe that property rights are only a tool, and not an end unto themself. In particular, I don’t believe that the rich should have the same property rights as the poor. I find it indescribably horrific that some people should have a better lot in life just because of the random chance of who their parents were, and their grand-parents, etc. I’m in good company here, with the actual philosophers of the Enlightenment, and more modern Marxists.

    That’s the risk you take when taxing the wealthy disproportionately, it ultimately hurts the middle and lower class and decreases the country’s effective output as a whole.

    And I disagree quite strongly. This is known pejoratively as “trickle down economics”. I strongly believe that this is mostly factually false concerning the actual state of the US economy and the marginal tax rates. In particular, these people who are drawn to these positions are very often sociopaths. They might complain that they won’t make more jobs in order to avoid higher taxes, but if it’s the only game in town, they’ll play. It doesn’t matter how high the marginal tax rate goes, as long as they can be richer than everyone else. That’s what drives them. Taxing the rich more does not hurt the middle class. It’s a giant crock of shit.

    And I’m not even proposing those taxes in order to fund public programs. I’m advocating for these taxes for the express purpose of lowering the disparity of wealth, because money is power, and these people have too much power, and it’s uncertain if our free society can survive in the face of such wide power disparities. Here, again, on this philosophical point, I stand in good company with the founders of this nation.
    https://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

  58. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    The issue is free choice, and the government has no right to force me to give that dollar to a homeless man when I have an idea to turn the one dollar into 10 dollars and then give 5 dollars to the same homeless man. Why would you want to take 5 dollars from the homeless man?

    I have every right to do so. In the real world, if I don’t use the force of government, then people will go hungry and starve. If our ancestors didn’t use the force of government, we’d still be serfs living in the gilded age, serving the robber barons.

    I have every right to use threats of violence, and actual violence, against you to pay your portion of taxes to ensure that no one is denied food and water. I would rather live in this world where we use violence, i.e. taxes, to ensure that no one goes without food and water, compared to a world like the real world where millions of people in the United States go hungry every year. The state of this country is obscene beyond all reasoning. It is indescribably awful that we, as the most powerful nation on the planet, permit millions of our citizens to not have food security, when it would be so so easy to fix it.

  59. Monocle Smile says

    @lusspanik

    And it’s my fault you said “It isn’t true we live in a society based on scarcity”? Perhaps you could express your position more clearly?

    I didn’t actually say that, and while I could be clearer, it was pretty damn clear that’s not what I said.
    Overall, my position is that the degree of perceived scarcity is largely a lie perpetuated by those hiding behind it in order to deprive the less fortunate of what little they have left.

    The issue is free choice, and the government has no right to force me to give that dollar to a homeless man when I have an idea to turn the one dollar into 10 dollars and then give 5 dollars to the same homeless man. Why would you want to take 5 dollars from the homeless man?

    Because you won’t give $5 to the homeless man. It’s just a false promise. No matter how strongly you claim otherwise, you won’t do this. The entirety of human history tells us you won’t do this. Not without coercion. Now, you can point to a few examples of people who do what you claim you would do, but they are so incredibly rare that they don’t affect my point. I agree entirely with EL on this.

  60. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also, it’s a bit frustrating to see EL do the work to back up his statements about Sargon and Sam Harris only to see it be completely ignored. If I didn’t already know about the things EL brought up, I would be strongly convinced by what’s been presented.

    Also, thanks.

  61. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    I want to say that I’m entirely sympathetic to the notion that communism failed because of the lack of proper individual incentives in a market economy. I’m totally on board.

    I remember a recent conversation on Pharyngula, where I said that it’s obviously true that a society would self-implode, or change very quickly, if they tried a government guaranteed minimum income of 100k USD per year. To my great surprise, plenty of people actually disagreed. I’m still flabbergasted to this day. It’s truly bizarre.

    However, I still think you’re totally wrong about the motivations of filthy rich people, and how they would react to 90% income taxes and 99% inheritance taxes for the top 0.1%, and the claimed negative consequences for the middle class.

    I also think that we could easily guarantee free housing, food, water, and education to everyone, at a small cost to everyone else in society. This might not have been true in the past, but due to our technological developments, we can do this. The idea of moochers is IMO largely exaggerated. No one wants to live in a shitty life in shitty public housing, without a job, etc. Of course, I agree that we have to keep it just shitty enough to provide proper motivation to avoid the failure of cliche communism, but I think that we can give away a lot more than what you seemingly think without hitting the failure point.

  62. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @lusspanik #58:

    the government has no right to force me to give that dollar to a homeless man when I have an idea […] Why would you want to take 5 dollars from the homeless man?

     
    Article: Chronicle of Philanthropy – Paying Taxes and Giving to Charity Aren’t the Same Thing

    Millionaires and other wealthy people argue that they would give more to charity if they paid lower taxes
     
    That assertion is directly contradicted by scholarly studies. We know that when taxes go down, people give less generously.
    […]
    While there may be more discretionary money in the pockets of millionaires, it tends to stay there. As a matter of fact, the wealthy give a smaller percentage of their income to charity than do moderate- and low-income people.
     
    They also give to different charities […] That includes elite universities, museums, operas, and performing-arts groups as well as other cultural institutions and some hospitals and medical facilities.
    […]
    While such philanthropic activity is to be commended, few would consider these institutions to be on the frontline of charities dealing with today’s most pressing problems.
    […]
    It is government that has the ability, through our democratically elected representatives, to identify and analyze threats to Americans’ safety and welfare, to set priorities, and to propose and adopt appropriate responses.
    […]
    Neither civil society nor the market can fulfill the role of government. Donors can decide to support anything they want, and they should-but they are not obligated to look out for the common good in the way we demand of elected representatives.
    […]
    The tax money being diverted to millionaires’ pockets will quite likely not make it to charities’ bank accounts, especially not to those of organizations that try to serve the needy.

  63. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #59
    Then I suppose I disagree with Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith on those two points and thank goodness Jefferson didn’t include that line of thought into the founding documents. I don’t have complete agreement with anyone that I know of. I believe in private property and it being used however the individual sees fit, and if I work for my entire life to provide a better future for my family/people in my community/etc. I don’t see how anyone has the authority to impose their ideas on how to better spend my money onto me, beyond what is necessary to provide for the incapable among us. I think a social safety net is necessary, for the mentally unfit/disabled/veterans etc. but to extend that safety net into a blanket forcing me to provide for every 22 year old sitting on his couch playing video games until he’s 35 is absurd. Not only does it hurt me, but it hurts him. Supply side economics gets a bad rap, it’s not a holy grail or anything, but it can’t be disregarded outright either. Imagine if starting out PayPal as a company was taxed at 80%, things could look very different. Musk couldn’t have hired as many people as he did, couldn’t have hired the quality of people he did, and couldn’t go on to create a handful of other successful businesses that all create jobs and the opportunity for innovation in space travel that allows him to freight resources to the ISS for a fraction of the cost the state could achieve. The result of a relatively free economy is competition, if there are companies being run by sociopaths who hoard all their profit and don’t reinvest into society, don’t support them, and advocate other’s don’t support them, but to put hurdles in front of well intentioned business owners that do create jobs, compete, and innovate is counter-productive to achieving the goal of post-scarcity, where we can then implement a decent UBI without hesitation.

    I completely agree with you that such large wealth disparity is a problem, I was a member of Occupy Wall St. when it first started, but I’m unconvinced that your solution of redistribution would do anything but take us further from the end goal where capital is no longer necessary.

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #60

    I have every right to do so. In the real world, if I don’t use the force of government, then people will go hungry and starve.

    This is just untrue, not only has the standard of living for people below the poverty line increased exponentially over the past 100 years, but all over the world under our current system. Without government force, people as individuals can still give anything they like to any charity they like. Of course we want to prevent people from going hungry and starving, but it’s my position that in a society defined by scarcity, targeting the job creators to a grossly disproportionate extent is detrimental to achieving that goal. I think we’re at a place now where we can and should feed people who genuinely need it, what I’m opposed to is incentivizing laziness for any and every person who just says, “Yeah, I’ll have some of the money you worked for, thanks.”

    The state of this country is obscene beyond all reasoning.

    This might be a little hyperbolic, wouldn’t you say? The standard of living for people below the poverty line is far better off than it used to be and it’s only getting better. I wholeheartedly agree that we should help people who are in danger of starvation, it’s surprising we don’t already, and I’d be all for social programs to help that but at this point it isn’t reasonable to expect I contribute what I’ve worked hard for and earned to the state under the pretext they can redistribute it to every Tom, Dick, and Harry choosing to do nothing. I also believe in the dollar as a vote for companies and products you want to see succeed, if you artificially prop up things that wouldn’t succeed in a free market, it skews the game.

    It’s really two different worlds, talking about scarcity and post-scarcity, if we used the market system as a tool to arrive at post-scarcity, I’d be in full agreement everyone should have a comfortable standard of living regardless of their position or choices in life. But until that point I see the best solution is encouraging competition, advocating against companies who don’t meet your standards of charity/job creation/productive growth, promoting charity on the basis of individuals, and working to provide a better future for your children who can pick up where you left off because they might then be the ones who finally arrive at that post-scarcity society.

  64. sayamything says

    Most religions seem to think their holy scriptures are perfect and divinely inspired, but it only took a few minutes to get into scriptural issues. One thing I wish we got into with the Quran and menstruating women is why the perfect inspired word of Allah needed a rewrite, because the caller was trying to go down that route. I mean, Matt did the right thing in not letting him off the hook, but the caller was trying to say another verse changed that and I would have liked to see his rationalisation for why one verse needed to overrule another. I would think Allah would be wise enough to know better from the start.

    Matt has a habit of essentially saying “I don’t know anything about this,” then turning around and defending it anyway. he did this as well with whether or not Jordan Peterson’s views deserved a platform, and he apparently doesn’t know anything about them but feels he should get on stage with him anyway.

    To be honest, I don’t care much about the people in question. I dislike Sargon and Peterson and just don’t care for Skeptic’s videos, so I don’t follow any of them. I’m not bothered that Matt’s debating Peterson, and despite disliking him I will likely at least check out part of the debate. If I don’t like what I see, I’ll just turn it off. I wish more people would do this: thanks to watching Steve Shives’ video on Mythcon, my entire recommendations feed was Bearing, Declan Black, and some other “antifeminist” dude I’d never heard of for a couple of weeks. It seems like “no platforming” is another way of saying “scoring a home goal.” But I’m getting away from the point.

    It’s the apparent defense of ignorance that bugs me. He did this with Milo, too, and I don’t mean what he said on this episode, though that’s kind of a refrain. He made a free speech argument because he decided to affirmatively talk about a scenario he didn’t know the facts on: it was after Milo had been shut down following plans to out people to endanger them. You know, for the lulz. And while Matt might think he and Milo are on equal footing, I really don’t think that he’s done anything with the intent to cause violence against a minority. I mean, if Matt’s okay with LGBT people being hurt or dying because some troll wants attention, I wish he’d just tell us so I could stop wasting my time following him, but otherwise it’s ignorance of why people take issue with Milo specifically.

    I’m less concerned with who Matt gives a “platform” to than I am this notion of seemingly blindly talking about the merits of people without knowing anything about them. It seems like he could have simply gone with his “I want to make the world a better place” argument, and just gone with the notion that that sometimes involves getting down and dirty with some people I/anyone else might personally dislike.

  65. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile #61

    Overall, my position is that the degree of perceived scarcity is largely a lie perpetuated by those hiding behind it in order to deprive the less fortunate of what little they have left.

    Labor is a commodity, capital investment is a commodity, these commodities are not unlimited, thus scarcity. We will agree when a majority of things are automated and the necessity for human time and labor is eliminated. Bridging the gap, however, is the hardest part and I think jumping the gun on UBI would set society back, not forward.

    Because you won’t give $5 to the homeless man. It’s just a false promise. No matter how strongly you claim otherwise, you won’t do this.

    You presume to know a lot about me. If I don’t invest my profit into further growth and charity, you can choose not to support me, what you can’t do is assign malintent onto me before I’ve had a chance to do anything.

    Now, you can point to a few examples of people who do what you claim you would do, but they are so incredibly rare that they don’t affect my point.

    Then don’t support companies that don’t meet your standard of charity and advocate others don’t either. Don’t artificially limit my economic growth where I could potentially invest back into people before I even try.

  66. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    This might be a little hyperbolic, wouldn’t you say?

    Millions of United States citizens go without proper food every year. I’m talking the basics – food, water, shelter. (Education as a surplus and to help them get off welfare.) If you don’t see the lack of food security of millions of fellow citizens as arguably the most important issue facing this country, then you’re a heartless bastard, and MS was right to go full boar on you.

    I wholeheartedly agree that we should help people who are in danger of starvation,

    Ok, so you’re not going to go there. Good.

    Supply side economics gets a bad rap, it’s not a holy grail or anything, but it can’t be disregarded outright either. Imagine if starting out PayPal as a company was taxed at 80%, things could look very different. Musk couldn’t have hired as many people as he did, couldn’t have hired the quality of people he did, and couldn’t go on to create a handful of other successful businesses that all create jobs and the opportunity for innovation in space travel that allows him to freight resources to the ISS for a fraction of the cost the state could achieve.

    I didn’t say anything about a corporate tax rate. I meant to talk only about personal income taxes, and there, you’re still wrong. You could have whatever marginal rate that you wanted, and Elon Musk would have hired the same number of people. Doesn’t matter whether his personal profit is 1 million or 1 billion. If that’s the best game in town, then he’s going to play. No matter what marginal rate you apply, he is not not going to pick up and toys and go home and thereby make zero total money – that’s just silly.

    I completely agree with you that such large wealth disparity is a problem, I was a member of Occupy Wall St. when it first started, but I’m unconvinced that your solution of redistribution would do anything but take us further from the end goal where capital is no longer necessary.

    Wait what? What end goal? You skipped a lot here. You totally lost me.

  67. says

    @Lusspanik

    Allow me to explain. Firstly I need to explain, that as you do, I also have a right to an opinion. My view on the English is my view, whether or not you consider it insane.

    I am intimately aware of the English psyche (Note I say English, not British) because I am English. I have a right to assess my kin in such a way as I see fit.

    So let’s address each item point by point.

    Xenophic? Yes. These people hate really well. They are dismissive of “the continent” as being somehow inferior to them. In fact all races are inferior to them.. they after all are British. They have the idea of British exceptionalism just like America has the idea of American exceptionalism.

    As far as progressive laws are concerned, so what? It doesn’t change what the great unwashed think in regional areas.

    Backward looking? Very much so. Why do they believe in British exceptionalism in the first place? Because they had an empire. Once. 56% of English surveyed long for a return of empire. They don’t realise those days are never coming back.

    Myopic? Absolutely. The country was a basket case before entry into the common market. The next few decades saw ever improving standards of living due to the membership of the EU, which they took for granted. However, when the Tories implemented austerity policies from 2007 onwards, the people were easily tricked into seeing the fault lay with Europe, not their own government’s policies.

  68. Monocle Smile says

    @lusspanik

    Labor is a commodity, capital investment is a commodity, these commodities are not unlimited, thus scarcity

    You’re still not reading my posts. Go back and try again.

    You presume to know a lot about me. If I don’t invest my profit into further growth and charity, you can choose not to support me, what you can’t do is assign malintent onto me before I’ve had a chance to do anything.

    I thought it was pretty clear I wasn’t referring specifically to you.
    But it doesn’t matter. If your “solution” worked, then we straight-up would not have poor people. So why do we have poor people?

    but to extend that safety net into a blanket forcing me to provide for every 22 year old sitting on his couch playing video games until he’s 35 is absurd

    Do you imagine that this caricature encapsulates any significant portion of the population? What’s wrong with you? And why is “punishing” them worth letting people’s lives suck?

    The result of a relatively free economy is competition, if there are companies being run by sociopaths who hoard all their profit and don’t reinvest into society, don’t support them, and advocate other’s don’t support them, but to put hurdles in front of well intentioned business owners that do create jobs, compete, and innovate is counter-productive

    Yeah, this is a wet dream and nothing more. The truth is that “choice” is almost entirely an illusion, and it’s for two reasons: 1) there are plenty of goods and services that we can’t simply choose to not have (food, water, shelter, health care), and 2) the US is essentially a giant oligarchy. Almost every commodities industry is owned by a small number of enormous corporations. “Competition” barely exists and thus there is very little freedom to make different decisions.

    Here’s the thing…this is an extremely easy outcome to spot from a mile away (like EL said, some people have far too much power), and it used to be okay for a while when anti-trust laws and unions were strong, but somehow right-wingers managed to convince enough people that unions and minorities were the causes of all the country’s ills, and now employers and businesses have all the power over employees and customers.

    On another note, I’m an aerospace engineer. Want to know how Musk launches rockets for a fraction of the cost of “the state” (it’s ULA, not “the state”)? Heinous, unethical exploitation of his employees. They sweat blood for 100+ hour weeks with no overtime pay because they’re deluded into thinking he’s going to both take SpaceX public (lolz) or bring them to Mars with him. It’s disgusting.

  69. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #68
    The current state of the US may be obscene to some hypothetical future state where automation takes over 90% of work and all citizens are afforded a decent standard of living regardless of choices, sure, but obscene compared to where we’ve come from and the fact that the western world has done the most to alleviate world hunger and poverty in the world consistently declining as a result of a profit driven system is what I considered hyperbole. I think a lot of people are doing the best they can while still ensuring they can keep building on what they’ve started and do more.

    Millions of United States citizens go without proper food every year. I’m talking the basics – food, water, shelter.

    I’ve agreed many times, I’m in favor of doing whatever we can to help these people. That doesn’t necessarily mean giving anybody and everybody free money by taxing the rich at 90%.

    If you don’t see the lack of food security of millions of fellow citizens as arguably the most important issue facing this country, then you’re a heartless bastard, and MS was right to go full boar on you.

    Woah slow down there, turbo. I’d go back and count the number of times I’ve said we should help people in need if I thought it would matter. Getting to the point where we start ascribing malice despite my objection to people starving. I just object to the solution being proposed.

    Doesn’t matter whether his personal profit is 1 million or 1 billion. If that’s the best game in town, then he’s going to play.

    I’m not sure that’s the case, he could just as easily set up manufacturing in a country without such strict taxation. He came from South Africa because we provided opportunity, if you disincentivize companies to operate here, we lose assets to the country.

    Wait what? What end goal? You skipped a lot here. You totally lost me.

    I meant the end goal of work being largely unnecessary and the state providing every citizen with a basic standard of living.

    @Shaun #69

    I also have a right to an opinion. My view on the English is my view, whether or not you consider it insane.

    Yes. It is your view regardless of what I think of it. Hopefully one of us could persuade the other, but considering the UK has some of the most excessively “progressive” laws in the world and you still call them notably myopic and xenophobic doesn’t give me much hope.

    These people hate really well.

    Seems like a staggering generalization on an entire country of people.

    In fact all races are inferior to them.. they after all are British.

    British isn’t a race.

    They have the idea of British exceptionalism just like America has the idea of American exceptionalism.

    Every country thinks it has better ideas than the others, if it didn’t, it would change its ideas. If they’re vocal about it, there’s nothing wrong with that. But I don’t think British exceptionalism comes close to the ferocity of American exceptionalism.

    As far as progressive laws are concerned, so what? It doesn’t change what the great unwashed think in regional areas.

    Wait, is it the entire country or pockets of areas scattered around Britain? Now I’m confused. And in a democracy the laws for the most part are indicative of the majority will of the people. That’s why those “progressive” laws were relevant.

    Why do they believe in British exceptionalism in the first place?

    Because if they didn’t then they would change what they thought wasn’t exceptional about their country.

    56% of English surveyed long for a return of empire.

    I’d really like to see a citation on this.

    The next few decades saw ever improving standards of living due to the membership of the EU

    Correlation ≠ causation, the standard of living was going up steadily for the entire industrialized world.

    However, when the Tories implemented austerity policies from 2007 onwards, the people were easily tricked into seeing the fault lay with Europe, not their own government’s policies.

    I’m sure blame lies with both the EU and UK for any misgivings in Britain circumstantially in these micro-political events. I’m sure the nation and the continent both benefited the people in certain ways as well. What I’m talking about here is long term sovereignty of a nation being preferable to unelected bureaucrats deciding how a country should conduct immigration, trade, economics, etc. Britain is a strong country, if they take a hit in the short term, in my opinion it’s worth for the people to decide the fate of their country again.

  70. Lorena says

    No, Matt…it’s “Don and I…” 😊

    I will be here next week.
    (Don and) I will be here next week.
    Don and I will be here next week.

    Great show this week…love you guys! \m/

  71. says

    but to extend that safety net into a blanket forcing me to provide for every 22 year old sitting on his couch playing video games until he’s 35 is absurd

    @Lusspanik. A social safety net is a fairly simple concept. It’s the price you pay for walking down the street feeling safe. Desperate people will do what they need to in order to survive. If you have money and they have none and they feel they have no choice…well, you know.

  72. says

    @Lusspanik

    British isn’t a race.

    Please don’t split hairs. It doesn’t make for good debate.

    Correlation ≠ causation, the standard of living was going up steadily for the entire industrialized world.

    No, correlation doesn’t. But figures don’t lie. British growth rates were lagging behind European members of the EEC before 1973. It is why Britain sought membership in the first place.

    Are you actually English? Do you live in England? Do you know anything of the psyche of these people? This is a country in two parts. That Eton educated politicians make progressive laws mean nothing to the people of Bradford, Preston, Manchester or dozens of other places that are not part of the cosmopolitan environments of London, Bristol and the home counties.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/07/26/britain-proud-its-empire/

    Sorry, the numbers were a third of respondents wanted the British Empire to still exist, 59% thought the empire was a good thing.

    Still, backward looking – a whole third of the population yearning for a return of something that collapsed over 70 years ago?

  73. says

    As for my remark that they hate well, passive aggression, thy name is England. A thousand unwritten rules and woe betide anyone who breaches any one of them. They’ll stare in an annoyed manner at you.

  74. lusspanik says

    @Monocle #70

    You’re still not reading my posts. Go back and try again.

    Yes I did. You said, “My position is that the degree of perceived scarcity is largely a lie perpetuated by those hiding behind it in order to deprive the less fortunate of what little they have left.”

    My response of human labor being a finite resource self evidently makes the case that “perceived” scarcity is not largely a lie etc. etc. My pointing out that human labor is a scarce commodity and must be paid for is a demonstration that scarcity exists and is not a lie. I’m trying to put the same idea to you multiple ways so you can’t play this rhetoric game of claiming I don’t know what you’re saying. This is the second time you’ve used that defense and at this point you should invest time in more clearly communicating exactly what you mean, because if my demonstration of scarcity didn’t address your claim that the idea of scarcity is a lie to keep people down, then I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

    If your “solution” worked, then we straight-up would not have poor people. So why do we have poor people?
    Poor people will exist in a free society, it is the consequence of free choice. Person A can choose to start a company, Person B can choose to work for the humane society, Person C can choose to never leave his bedroom and do nothing with his life, Person D can be severely handicapped and receive social welfare because they don’t have the ability to CHOOSE like the others. I’m happy to pay taxes to benefit Person D, I’m happy to donate to a charity that might help people like Person D, what is unjust is a government forcing me to provide for Person C because of their choice.

    Do you imagine that this caricature encapsulates any significant portion of the population?

    No, it’s an archetype describing a specific kind of person who doesn’t try and doesn’t care to try.

    What’s wrong with you?

    Maybe you should tell me considering you’ve spent a good amount of time here presuming my motives and intent. What a disingenuous question. This is the last time I will be responding to you but I will finish your message out of courtesy since you took the time to type it out.

    there are plenty of goods and services that we can’t simply choose to not have (food, water, shelter, health care)

    You understand more than one company makes food and water, right? As for shelter and health care, I don’t think the political affiliations of the person selling the house should come into play when buying a house, you’ve probably got more important things to worry about. Healthcare, you’re right, you can’t change your healthcare provider according to free association depending on who you want to do business with. That should be changed to create competition.

    “Competition” barely exists and thus there is very little freedom to make different decisions.

    There’s plenty if you take the time to look. McDonalds and Walmart aren’t the only companies. Neither is Amazon. Support companies that manifest your standard of ethics and buy their goods. If none of them do, start your own. Advocate other people do the same. The beauty of a free market is it dynamically responds to an informed consumer, don’t tell me there’s a lack of diverse company outlooks because they’re all over the place. Chik-fil-A for instance, if you are pro choice, don’t use your money there, advocate other people don’t use their money there. It’s simple and effective, companies have gone down for their principles and practices due to economic pressure so many times its unbelievable.

    and now employers and businesses have all the power over employees and customers.

    Over employees, sure. Over customers, absolutely not. Unless you’re talking about pseudo-monopolies like internet and cable providers, then I agree there should be some legislation to stop price gouging. In the case of employees, nothing is stopping them from collectivizing into a labor union besides their own unwillingness to do so. If that’s something you want to see, you should advocate for that, I personally have no problem with unions fighting for what they think they deserve. But as it is, I can only assume they think they’re getting what they deserve for the most part and don’t want to rock the boat.

    Want to know how Musk launches rockets for a fraction of the cost of “the state” (it’s ULA, not “the state”)?

    I don’t know what ULA is, when I said Musk launches rockets for a fraction of the cost of the state, I was referring to the government funded National Aeronautics and Space Administration that carried the bulk of space operation before private companies such as SpaceX got involved and radically innovated using capital he earned.

    They sweat blood for 100+ hour weeks with no overtime pay

    It’s almost like sending rockets into space isn’t child’s play, huh? Is Elon personally keeping them there with a gun to their head? If scarcity is a lie, there should be many, many jobs they could leave SpaceX for, why don’t they do that if they don’t like it at SpaceX? Perhaps they enjoy their work and know they’re making a difference in humanities future and they’re willing to lend their talent and effort to the betterment humanity?

    because they’re deluded into thinking he’s going to both take SpaceX public (lolz) or bring them to Mars with him. It’s disgusting.

    Yeah, I’m sure that’s the reason they’re applying their degrees they worked over a decade of their life to get, they think they’re gonna get rich off Elon or take a rocket ship ride. I’m obviously being sarcastic. As an aerospace engineer I’d jump at the opportunity to work with SpaceX even if everything you said was true, you’d be part of history and live a good life in the process. Interesting how you’re so opposed to what they’ve managed to accomplish through sheer will and determination.

  75. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Doesn’t matter whether his personal profit is 1 million or 1 billion. If that’s the best game in town, then he’s going to play.

    I’m not sure that’s the case, he could just as easily set up manufacturing in a country without such strict taxation. He came from South Africa because we provided opportunity, if you disincentivize companies to operate here, we lose assets to the country.

    As I wrote, my plan also requires any necessary import and export taxes and tariffs to prevent exactly that. This might mean that I might need to start some trade wars against countries that don’t properly penalize their rich, and I don’t mean to take this step lightly at all, but I know that this might be necessary. I’d really rather not attack free trade, but I will if I have to in order to properly tax the filthy rich who operate in my country.

    Of course, this is all a fantasy because it requires living in a fantasy world where people are like me and not like you, and where they value human well-being of the general populace more than the property rights of the filthy rich.

  76. lusspanik says

    where they value human well-being of the general populace more than the property rights of the filthy rich.

    Aaaand we’re back to ascribing intent. I value the well being of everyone, but not to the exclusion of individual liberty. Everyone deserves property rights, and everyone deserves a foundation for upward mobility. These are not mutually exclusive concepts and they don’t produce the necessity of UBI without the majority elimination of human labor. On the bright side, in 15-20 years when automation has all but taken over, you might see some of your ideas implemented. Have a great day.

  77. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Aaaand we’re back to ascribing intent. I value the well being of everyone, but not to the exclusion of individual liberty.

    It sounds very much like you just agreed with my description of you. I am confused. Again, it seems that you just implied that you value “individual liberty” aka property rights moreso than the improvements that could be done for general welfare of the public via taxes and government public works programs. I am ascribing intent, and you just agreed with my description. What’s the problem?

  78. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #72

    A social safety net is a fairly simple concept. It’s the price you pay for walking down the street feeling safe. Desperate people will do what they need to in order to survive. If you have money and they have none and they feel they have no choice…well, you know.

    I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, the police are part of a social safety net? Okay, if that’s how you’d like to define it, I’ll accept that.

    @Shaun #73

    Please don’t split hairs. It doesn’t make for good debate.

    It’s hard not to split hairs when you’ve literally defined a national identity as a race. If I were to try and tease out what you meant, are you saying British Sikhs think they’re superior to all races? I really don’t know what you’re getting at.

    No, correlation doesn’t. But figures don’t lie. British growth rates were lagging behind European members of the EEC before 1973. It is why Britain sought membership in the first place.

    I’d have to look into it more, but countries have downturns and upturns all the time, would you consider the downturn in the state of Greece to be a product of being an EU member, or are economic woes only the fault of the governing body when they’re outside the EU, and the EU gets all credit for any success?

    Sorry, the numbers were a third of respondents wanted the British Empire to still exist, 59% thought the empire was a good thing.

    That poll is nothing like what you originally described. To address what it’s actually saying though, I don’t see anything wrong with being proud of your country while condemning the darker parts of its history. In any case, they shouldn’t be ashamed for the sins of their father, isn’t that a biblical idea? They had nothing to do with it, nobody living today did, and everyone all over the world was doing the same thing at best, far more ruthless at worst.

    a whole third of the population yearning for a return of something that collapsed over 70 years ago?

    Again, that’s not how the poll reads. 35% said they would like if Britain still had an empire, not if they wanted it back. Respondents could interpret that in any number of benign ways, not necessarily backward looking but thinking, “Yes, if other countries aligned with Britain as to never leave, that would be preferable to them leaving.” which is a perfectly reasonable opinion for someone to hold.

    @Shaun #74

    A thousand unwritten rules and woe betide anyone who breaches any one of them. They’ll stare in an annoyed manner at you.

    I gather you wouldn’t feel comfortable in Japan then, they have pretty strict social values. But now that I know you define hate as having a stiff upper lip, yes, I can imagine the British are pretty hateful by that definition. On the plus side, a liberal culture with strong social values like that is what makes subversion so exhilarating and typically gives rise to great art.

  79. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #78

    It sounds very much like you just agreed with my description of you. I am confused. Again, it seems that you just implied that you value “individual liberty” aka property rights moreso than the improvements that could be done for general welfare…

    You would be correct if I said “more so.” I didn’t say “more so,” I said “not to the exclusion of…”

    It seems like your position is a dichotomy of individual liberty and welfare, of which I don’t accept the premise. In fact, even if I did accept your premise, I am unconvinced your solution would result in what you claim the outcome would be, the alleviation of suffering and betterment of society. I think it would alleviate suffering in the short term and collapse on itself in the long term and create more suffering as a result.

    We can have different opinions, that’s okay, we don’t need to start ascribing malice to each other. I believe you have good intentions that come from a place of empathy, and I would have hoped you’d afford me the same courtesy, but it’s fine. I just don’t agree your proposed solution will do what you claim it will. If we can agree on something though, it’s that more should be done for the people that don’t have opportunity to engage the market.

  80. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    We can have different opinions, that’s okay, we don’t need to start ascribing malice to each other.

    I did no such thing in that post. I simply, and IMO accurately, described the differences in values and fact-beliefs between us.

    Sometimes I think this libertarian-esque mindset is borne out of malice, but I don’t see that in this case (yet). More often, I see the libertarian-esque mindset borne out of a genuine and profound ignorance about how the world actually works, which is often displayed by someone who is sheltered, naive, and privileged. Let me guess, cis-straight white male in a family with relatively stable financials? Went to college? I’m guessing that I’m right on most or all of those guesses. It’s typical, and expected.

    I do ascribe a very certain kind of hidden and opaque evil to you, the evil of even suggesting that we should balance the property rights of the filthy rich against the rights of the poor to have food and water. Of course, in response to this, I expect that you’ll say that you never said nor implied that (but you did), and I also expect you to rebut with the factual claim that my policies will not actually ensure that people will be supplied with food and water (you’ve basically already made this claim). Of course, I think that idea is completely and utterly ridiculous, and I am struggling a little bit to keep this level of politeness. I hate libertarians more than I do Christians, Trump supporters, and maybe even Nazis. I’m not saying that libertarians are worse for society than Nazis, but I think I do hate libertarians more than Nazis. I may find their views more repugnant on a sheer visceral level, in particular this notion that we should do interest balancing between the property rights of the filthy rich vs the rights of the poor to have food and water. To that kind of reasoning, I know that if it comes to violent revolution, I’ll be siding with the poor, and I probably won’t shed a tear if that mob of repressed poor people brings out the guillotine for the filthy rich.

  81. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #81

    I see the libertarian-esque mindset borne out of a genuine and profound ignorance about how the world actually works, which is often displayed by someone who is sheltered, naive, and privileged. Let me guess, cis-straight white male in a family with relatively stable financials? Went to college? I’m guessing that I’m right on most or all of those guesses. It’s typical, and expected.

    If a civil, charitable, honest discussion was taking place before, it certainly isn’t now with your attempt to poison the well and attribute my position to my identity rather than a genuine application of reason as I have to you. I’ve already given you the reason why I’m not a libertarian, but a liberal according to any coherent definition of the two, and for your information, I am a straight male, not white, dropped out of college, and moved 800 miles away from my family at 18 receiving no aid. What difference would it make if I were all the things you said? You are no longer engaging in any productive discussion and it’s been trending this way for about 3 messages, I’ve tried appealing to your better nature but you’ve decided to go this direction of character attacks and talking about political violence. And if you hate libertarians more than nazis, you should probably reevaluate your world view, just saying.

    I do ascribe a very certain kind of hidden and opaque evil to you,

    You’ve gone completely off the rails. I will no longer be responding to you. I hope you have a great day.

  82. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Lol, this is not going completely off the rails. But no matter, further conversation probably wasn’t going to help. Attempting to educate you on the factual matters concerning the real world would take too much effort, and you wouldn’t listen.

  83. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Why do you think that I have problems sleeping? I’m not the evil one. I’m quite satisfied with my moral philosophy and actions in the world.

  84. says

    But now that I know you define hate as having a stiff upper lip

    Er no.. the stiff upper lip thing is about British stoicism in the face of adversity and is a strong character attribute.

    The hate I am talking about is where a foreigner has lived next door to someone for 20 years and the day after referendum result they decide it’s time to chuck a brick through their window.

    Anyway, yes I do know it’s a gross generalisation, and yet it fits surprisingly well.

    And it’s been interesting discussing things with you. Thanks for the the debate.

  85. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    lusspanik, let me know if you have any real questions for me. I don’t want to engage in this petty bickering.

  86. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #87

    Likewise, it’s nice when people can speak civilly, even though our discussion was a bit more adversarial toward the beginning, much respect for the cordial sentiment. In any case, hopefully no more bricks get thrown through windows if people can learn to talk through their issues.

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #88

    Considering a discussion on the merits of ideas devolved into character attacks, I don’t think I’ll have any more questions, but thanks for the invitation.

  87. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I still think that I did a good job of keeping it professional, and attacking views, not the person. However, when I find the views to be morally repugnant, it’s hard to attack the view without also attacking the person. People have this nasty habit of taking attacks on their beliefs as an attack on their person. The problem is that this is a reasonable thing to do. It’s entirely reasonable to take personal offense when someone attacks their core beliefs and values. Unfortunately, sometimes it must be done. I did try to be as professional and polite as I could, while still making my points clearly and straightforwardly. I didn’t mean to demean you as a person, but I do mean to demean some of your particular beliefs as extremely vile.

  88. lusspanik says

    I wouldn’t mind if that’s all you did, attack my ideas as much as you like, I’d encourage it. I just wasn’t aware my ideas included inherent traits like my sexuality, my gender, my racial and educational background, and my family life contributing to my genuine and profound ignorance as a consequence of being sheltered, naive, and privileged. It was also a shock to me that my ideas were a display of my “hidden and opaque evil” while I actively try incredibly hard to maintain the maximally ethical position.

    For example, I’m a vegan, and I’ve never, ever attributed evil or sinister motivation or the person’s identity as the foundation for their rationale when they are explaining to me why they believe what they do. The mind frame that would produce that style of argumentation is just so alien to me.

  89. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I just wasn’t aware my ideas included inherent traits like my sexuality, my gender, my racial and educational background, and my family life contributing to my genuine and profound ignorance as a consequence of being sheltered, naive, and privileged.

    Was I wrong? It is relevant. It is relevant that you are sheltered and privileged, and you don’t understand how the real world works. This is a very common trait among people who lean libertarian. It’s a variation of the just world fallacy, (“just” as in “justice”), the false notion that bad things only happen to bad people, and people who work hard will be rewarded. It’s a variation of the American Dream, one of the biggest crocks of shit ever. I think the American Dream is one of the most rhetorically damaging and dangerous ideas that has ever been invented. I actually want to quote George Carlin saying the same thing, because he said it so eloquently.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ4SSvVbhLw

    For example, I’m a vegan, and I’ve never, ever attributed evil or sinister motivation or the person’s identity as the foundation for their rationale when they are explaining to me why they believe what they do.

    Never ever? Then you are supremely sheltered. Comically so. Not mundane thieves, murderers, rapists? Really? What you wrote is obviously wrong. Patently wrong. Undeniably wrong. Maybe you’re exaggerating for some rhetorical purpose that I cannot guess right now. Get off your false high horse, and drop this bullshit pretense that you never judge people and that you never ascribe evil motives to people. It’s laughable.

  90. lusspanik says

    Was I wrong?

    Yes. But I wouldn’t expect you to admit it. The fact that you refuse to see that comment as anything other than an attempt at poisoning the well tells me everything I need to know and I shouldn’t have reengaged this discussion. That was my mistake.

    Never ever? Then you are supremely sheltered.

    How’d you determine how sheltered I was by the fact that I’ve never thought to pull someone’s identity into a genuine exchange of ideas and assign them motivation? You just can’t resist attacking a person’s character, can you?

    Not mundane thieves, murderers, rapists?

    I don’t know what you mean here.

    What you wrote is obviously wrong. Patently wrong. Undeniably wrong.

    Are you telling me I’m wrong about my own style of argumentation? How can you even begin to presume that?

    Get off your false high horse, and drop this bullshit pretense that you never judge people and that you never ascribe evil motives to people. It’s laughable.

    I’m not on any high horse, friend, I’m pointing out a clear and present flaw in your ability to hold a civil discussion. On the bright side, at least we’re both laughing.

  91. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I’ve never, ever attributed evil or sinister motivation […] as the foundation for their rationale when they are explaining to me why they believe what they do.

    I simply don’t believe you. I know this is not true. I know that you understand the concept of a con man, and I know that you have met someone at least once in your life that you believed who was trying to cheat you out of something. You’re a fool if you actually believe this – a brazen act of willful delusion.

  92. lusspanik says

    I simply don’t believe you.

    That’s fine, I wouldn’t expect you to considering how ingrained the productiveness that line of reasoning seems to be in your mind. It’s not in mine. Maybe when I was a kid I argued that way, but now I’m an adult and learned it isn’t conducive to productive conversation.

    I know this is not true.

    You literally can’t know. Matt would certainly have a field day with this line.

    I know that you understand the concept of a con man, and I know that you have met someone at least once in your life that you believed who was trying to cheat you out of something.

    I have, and I presented evidence of a con, not asserting a person is a conman first and looking for the evidence second. Either way, it’s a flawed comparison because it’s two (presumably) rational actors discussing how and why they’ve come to believe what they do, not someone trying to steal from you or fool you.

  93. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    Also, in this case, I have to mention tone trolling.
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tone%20Troll
    There’s several problems here. You’re saying that I’m being uncivil because I called some of your beliefs vile. Yes, I did do that. Yes, I stand by that. Is that being uncivil? Maybe? Depends on your perspective. If it is uncivil, I don’t care. Again, some things need to be said, even if it makes some people upset. This is one of those times. The idea that I shouldn’t say mean things about your beliefs because it’s uncivil – that’s straight out of the playbook of the religious, and how you shouldn’t attack their religious beliefs because it’s mean, or uncivil, or rude, or blasphemous, etc. It’s bullshit in both cases. I won’t stand for someone telling me that I shouldn’t tell them that their beliefs are shitty. I’m going to completely disregard such concerns in practically every case. I decided long ago that the kind of person that I wanted to be was someone who cared about the truth and being honest, and if that offends people, then so be it.

    Your attempts at silencing me via tone trolling tactics simply makes me mad, and more dedicated to my particular cause here. It’s completely counterproductive. It just makes me more convinced that you need someone to be rude to you, to attack your core beliefs, because apparently no one else is doing so.

  94. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    You literally can’t know. Matt would certainly have a field day with this line.

    I cannot know that at some point in your life, you believed that someone was trying to cheat you? Are you serious? Really? I don’t know what to say to something so foolish.

    I have, and I presented evidence of a con, not asserting a person is a conman first and looking for the evidence second. Either way, it’s a flawed comparison because it’s two (presumably) rational actors discussing how and why they’ve come to believe what they do, not someone trying to steal from you or fool you.

    I’m glad that you walked-back that really silly position. Thanks for not digging the hole deeper.

    If you don’t like how I interpreted that, then you should speak more correctly and more clearer. I am not a mind-reader. Don’t appeal to “but it was obvious”, because it’s not obvious to me. I took what you said at face value, and you were very clear and explicit. I’ve met plenty of people on here with incredibly silly beliefs.

    So, let’s continue on the earlier point:

    For example, I’m a vegan, and I’ve never, ever attributed evil or sinister motivation or the person’s identity as the foundation for their rationale when they are explaining to me why they believe what they do. The mind frame that would produce that style of argumentation is just so alien to me.

    Explain to me the leaders of Nazi Germany, or the typical American racist. How else do you explain their beliefs and behavior except by appealing to malice? I hope to see you walking-back your position even further.

  95. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Instead of “typical American racist”, I should have chosen something like “typical American KKK member” or some such.

  96. lusspanik says

    You’re saying that I’m being uncivil because I called some of your beliefs vile.

    That’s not what you did and I would wager that you know it. Also, heads up, pointing out fallacious argumentation isn’t “tone trolling.” as wonderful a resource as “Urban Dictionary” is to make a point.

    I won’t stand for someone telling me that I shouldn’t tell them that their beliefs are shitty.

    If that’s what you did (and it isn’t) I literally wouldn’t care at all, I’d respond with, “Okay, and so are yours.” It’s not productive at all, but if that’s what you wanted to do it’d be a lot less intellectually dishonest than attempting to poison the well, attribute my motive, and then trying to rationalize it.

    I decided long ago that the kind of person that I wanted to be was someone who cared about the truth and being honest, and if that offends people, then so be it.

    And has attempting to poison the well by injecting people’s identity into a conversation about ideas gotten you any closer to that goal? I’d reckon you believe it has.

    Your attempts at silencing me via tone trolling tactics simply makes me mad

    Oh, I’m not trying to silence you at all, the more you double down on this, the deeper you’re digging your hole. I’m just getting weary of responding to someone so blatantly intent on rationalizing something as clearly fallacious as injecting motive and background into a discussion on ideas. It’s just a bonus that you were way off in your prejudiced assessment to poison the well.

    It just makes me more convinced that you need someone to be rude to you, to attack your core beliefs, because apparently no one else is doing so.

    You know a lot about me, but somehow also nothing at all. This is becoming entertainment now.

  97. ultravany says

    @lusspanik

    Hey there, I’d just like to point out that I actually never called Sargon a white nationalist, although he’s spent more than his fair share of time defending them (See Mouthy Buddha), but in the context of the Race Warski debate, he was brought on as the “Liberal” perspective, because he doesn’t support the systematic removal of all non-white elements from the west, meanwhile Richard Spencer, JF Gariepy, and Styxenhammer, all open ethnostatists, were mostly able to ignore Sargon and chat among themselves about how much brown people suck, while Andy occasionally interjected to read a $0.50 superchat about Nazis being awesome, and reassure everyone in the conversation that they are all super cool in his book. That is why I characterized the “debate” the way I did, not because Sargon was supporting white nationalism, but because his rebuttals to it were so pathetically impotent and drowned out by dissent, that he may as well not have been there.

  98. lusspanik says

    I cannot know that at some point in your life, you believed that someone was trying to cheat you? Are you serious? Really? I don’t know what to say to something so foolish.

    This isn’t what you claimed to know.

    If you don’t like how I interpreted that, then you should speak more correctly and more clearer.

    You think it’s a reasonable interpretation when I say I have never injected identity and motive into a discussion of ideas that I was referring to a conman trying to con me and not calling them out? Why are you doing this?

    Explain to me the leaders of Nazi Germany, or the typical American racist.

    They thought what they were doing was good. Not that much of a brain buster.

  99. The Wild Monk says

    LOL. Matt assumes races are interchangeable! He doesn’t realize different races evolved different traits, natures, and temperaments.

    Loving your own race more than others IS NOT RACISM
    Preventing your own race being outbred and replaced by other races IS NOT RACISM

    Matt confuses “racism” with ethnic nepotism (a natural, healthy preference for one’s own)

    God, I can’t wait to see the look on whites’ faces when they become a US minority. Will it be safer, wealthier, and more united than now? NO! He knows that.

    Only white’s evolved the ability to pretend diversity is a strength to avoid being called a racist and seize the moral high ground.

  100. The Wild Monk says

    Matt is virtue signaling. It looks extremely cucky. At least he’s shown his true colors.

  101. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    I am pointing out that your beliefs, and who you are, are probably a product of your history, your life experiences. This seems like such an obvious truth – I don’t know why you’re objecting to it. Are you saying that you’re not in part a product of your life experiences and history? I should hope not. I don’t understand what you’re trying to say at all.

  102. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also, is this the first post from “The Wild Monk”? How did this get past moderation?

  103. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also:

    They thought what they were doing was good. Not that much of a brain buster.

    Really, none of the Nazis and KKKers acted on malice? There is no hatred or bigotry in Nazism and white supremacy at all? You are a fool.

  104. lusspanik says

    I am pointing out that your beliefs, and who you are, are probably a product of your history, your life experiences. This seems like such an obvious truth

    And yet you were only right about the straight male part, in a medium that’s majority straight male. How did it serve to further the discussion of ideas? At all? Or was it a failed attempt to poison the well?

    In addition, am I to believe that you don’t think a person can be a rational actor, that all ideas derive from environment and inherent characteristics? I believe that people are rational actors, and sure environment plays a role in what kind of ideas you are primed to, but there’s no reason to suspect either of us have arrived to our ideas with anything other than an application of reason. There’s no other reason to (incorrectly) guess my background to explain why I hold the positions I do when I am TELLING you my reasoning for why I hold the positions I do. Other than attempting to use it as a justification for dismissal on arbitrary characteristics.
    I don’t know if you’re a guy/girl/anything straight/gay/trans/ black/white/arabic/asian/jewish/hindu/native american and frankly I don’t care because it isn’t relevant to your idea that mass wealth redistribution holds merit in solving problems of the world today. It’s not a productive method of reasoning to determine from where your ideas derive, only the intellectual merit of the ideas you hold.

  105. lusspanik says

    Really, none of the Nazis and KKKers acted on malice? There is no hatred or bigotry in Nazism and white supremacy at all? You are a fool.

    They acted on malice that they perceived as being good. There was nothing but hatred and bigotry, but from their perspective they were righteous. Call me a fool all you like, you’ve done nothing but misinterpret me, seemingly willingly, ever since I called you out on injecting identity.

  106. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I still don’t understand why you think it’s bad that I called out your probable identity. You keep making it out as though it’s bad, and I still don’t understand why.

    They acted on malice that they perceived as being good. There was nothing but hatred and bigotry, but from their perspective they were righteous.

    Goddamnit. Can you not keep track of the thread of conversation for just 2 seconds? This is in relation to your absurd position that you don’t ascribe malice to other people. When I pressed you on this concerning Nazis and racists (KKKers), you held fast to that position. Now you’re walking it back, but in such a way as to pretend that you didn’t change your position at all. That’s dishonest. Knock that shit right off. We were not talking about how they saw themselves. We are talking about whether you would ascribe malice to them.

  107. Pony says

    @ Enlightenment Liberal

    The Harris quotes you cite re torture do, in fact, mention specific Muslim people by name. But once again, I read that as simply providing real-world examples to bolster his professed beliefs on the utility of torture in some situations. Again, I don’t agree with his ideas about torture, but unlike you, I believe he’s engagingly the subject honestly.

    The quotes you offer in support of his “misogyny” is, to my eye, weak tea indeed. And of course, anyone who speaks publicly as often as Harris is in danger of being quote-mined to death—as would most of us, I presume.

    I don’t concur with Harris on everything he says or believes. But again, my perception is that he is honestly engaging and wrestling with difficult ideas and he is willing to have his own beliefs challenged, publicly, by speaking to those with whom he disagrees (mostly; he has said he doesn’t think, for example, that a conversation with Ta Nehisi Coates would be fruitful, and I strongly disagree).

    BTW, I have long appreciated your thoughtful, evidence-based contributions to the AXP forum.

  108. The Wild Monk says

    Detect God? How can use science to detect the laws of logic? You can’t. Science cannot validate anything immaterial. Where did the laws of logic and nature come from? A God. Something beyond the material world.

    What about first person experience? Science can’t show that.
    How do atheists demonstrate science is the only tool required to uncovering all truth. They can’t. It’s untenable.

  109. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Again, I don’t agree with his ideas about torture, but unlike you, I believe he’s engagingly the subject honestly.

    I am unsure about Sam Harris. I don’t know how much dishonesty I want to ascribe to him in this situation. It certainly feels as though he’s being a dishonest shit from my perspective, but I could totally see him believing that he’s been nothing but honest and forthright. Still, he supports torturing captured Muslim terrorists, and he supports killing Muslim terrorist leaders because their ideas are too dangerous (and not because of weapons trafficking, conspiracy to commit mass murder, etc.), and so fuck Sam Harris, whether he’s dishonest or not.

  110. Pony says

    Hey @Heicart and other show hosts:

    Is there some reason the March 25 episode has not yet been made available as a podcast?

    Thanks

  111. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Detect God? How can use science to detect the laws of logic? You can’t. Science cannot validate anything immaterial. Where did the laws of logic and nature come from? A God. Something beyond the material world.

    The typical description of god is that of a creature, a person, with a mind, and desires, and motivations, and with the ability to do stuff like create burning bushes, throw lightning bolts, etc. That means it’s physical, in the sense that matters here. He is able to influence physical events, like the burning bush, etc., which means that it’s susceptible to scientific investigation. More broadly, anything that influences observable events is susceptible to scientific inquiry.

    What about first person experience? Science can’t show that.

    Ever heard of self-reporting? That’s science. How about fMRIs? Also science.

    How do atheists demonstrate science is the only tool required to uncovering all truth. They can’t. It’s untenable.

    This is not something that is showed. This is something that is assumed as first principles. I don’t show that I only believe things about physical reality on the basis of good reason and evidence. Rather, it’s simply the default position, and it’s the only sane and reasonable position.

  112. Pony says

    @ Enlightenment Liberal

    Fair enough, re your opinion of Harris.

    As for me and my house (sorry!), I am a confirmed liberal/progressive on most issues, but I want to resist the current moralistic trend of purity-testing. Democracy works best, IMO, when we can engage honestly with those we disagree with and — the horror, the horror — even compromise with them sometimes.

  113. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To Pony
    Sure, I don’t recall having any problems with you. I’m in bit of a tear atm, because libertarians really piss me off. I hope that I didn’t say anything unkind towards you.

  114. lusspanik says

    I still don’t understand why you think it’s bad that I called out your probable identity. You keep making it out as though it’s bad, and I still don’t understand why.

    Because the only possible reason you would posit that I was a “college educated, cis-straight, white male in a family with relatively stable financials and therefore sheltered, naive, and privileged” would be to dismiss the ideas I presented out of hand based on my identity.

    Goddamnit. Can you not keep track of the thread of conversation for just 2 seconds?

    Why do you feel as if you have to patronize me? I’ve been nothing but civil to you.

    Now you’re walking it back, but in such a way as to pretend that you didn’t change your position at all.

    I’m not walking it back at all. I’ll clarify, in a hypothetical situation where I’m talking to a Nazi and have yet to discover he’s a Nazi, he might say something like, “We need a final solution to recover our nation from the Jews.” and I would say, “What do you mean?” and he would say, “We round them up and kill them for the betterment of Germany.” At that point I have complete certainty in attributing malice as the evidence is present. This is simplified for demonstration, but this isn’t what happened in our discussion, you attributed malice onto me even though I said I think the outcome of my ideas would produce a better solution for everyone, the rich and the poor, and yours would provide a short term solution for the poor. These two things aren’t equivalent as you had no evidence that I was motivated by malice. Do you see?

  115. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Because the only possible reason you would posit that I was a “college educated, cis-straight, white male in a family with relatively stable financials and therefore sheltered, naive, and privileged” would be to dismiss the ideas I presented out of hand based on my identity.

    No no. You misunderstand. I would have dismissed your ideas no matter what your background was. My mind was already made up, and my beliefs on the matter were not going to change based on whether you were a man or woman, etc. I’ve already made up my mind on the matter, and you have come nowhere close to challenging me on this matter.

    I was simply hoping that I might stir you into deeper thought about the privileges that you grew up with, and how others might live less fortunate lives. More broadly, I wanted you to think about and reject the “just world” hypothesis, and all of your libertarian beliefs along with it. Presumptuous, I know, but in some ways I’m the eternal optimistic.

  116. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #115

    I’m not sure how many times I need to tell you, I’m not a libertarian and I’ve given you the aspects where I differ from libertarianism and fall into liberalism.

  117. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    You clearly said / implied that we need to make trade-offs between the property rights of the filthy rich, and the right of poor people to have water and food. You also clearly said / implied that any government welfare program that I could come up with to give people water and food would fail. Did I misunderstand you? Did you misspeak? Did you want to change your position on these matters? In order to qualify as a decent human being in my book, one must agree that there is no tradeoff here at all. The property rights of the filthy rich should always lose when it comes to ensuring that everyone has food and water. There is no tradeoffs. It is black and white. Maybe you’re not as bad as some libertarians because you believe that welfare programs are sometimes ok, based on some sort of interest-balancing approach that considers the property rights of the filthy rich. However, that’s still too libertarian for me to consider your beliefs on this matter as anything but truly vile, despicable, worthy of nothing but scorn and contempt.

  118. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #117

    No no. You misunderstand. I would have dismissed your ideas no matter what your background was. My mind was already made up

    Well at least you’re honest about your intellectual dishonesty. I’m willing to have my mind changed based on sufficient reason, and have in the past. You know what that reminds me of? Fundamentalist Christians who say the same exact thing you just did about their faith.

    I was simply hoping that I might stir you into deeper thought about the privileges that you grew up with

    Oh sure, that’d be great, too bad you were completely wrong in your prejudicial assessment or I really could have been shown the err of my ways.

    and how others might live less fortunate lives.

    You’re saying this as if I don’t understand it when I’ve said multiple times I want to help people who can’t help themselves, it’s my position that your ideas would do more harm than good and that’s why I’m opposed to them, therefore I want to help the disenfranchised just as much as you do, I just have different ideas of what the best method is. How is this so hard for you to understand?

    More broadly, I wanted you to think about and reject the “just world” hypothesis, and all of your libertarian beliefs along with it.

    I don’t know what this means and I’m not a libertarian for the 30th time.

  119. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    Oh come on. I clearly implied that I would change my mind if presented with compelling evidence and reason. Don’t cherrypick what I write. I simply said that you were coming nowhere close, and I said that knowledge of one specific detail (whether you were a man or woman) wouldn’t change my position. Don’t incorrectly represent my position so negligently.

  120. lusspanik says

    You clearly said / implied that we need to make trade-offs between the property rights of the filthy rich, and the right of poor people to have water and food.

    I said exactly the opposite, you’re just misrepresenting my position.

    You also clearly said / implied that any government welfare program that I could come up with to give people water and food would fail.

    Cite that. I never said anything like that. Why are you being absurdly dishonest?

    Did I misunderstand you?

    Clearly.

    The property rights of the filthy rich should always lose when it comes to ensuring that everyone has food and water.

    My position is that’s a false dichotomy.

    Maybe you’re not as bad as some libertarians because you believe that welfare programs are sometimes ok

    That’s not what libertarians believe, and exactly why I’m not a libertarian.

  121. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #117

    No no. You misunderstand. I would have dismissed your ideas no matter what your background was. My mind was already made up, and my beliefs on the matter were not going to change based on whether you were a man or woman, etc. I’ve already made up my mind on the matter, and you have come nowhere close to challenging me on this matter.

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #121

    Oh come on. I clearly implied that I would change my mind if presented with compelling evidence and reason.

    It might just be me, but I’m getting some real mixed messages here.

  122. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    I never said anything like that. Why are you being absurdly dishonest?

    You did just say this:

    your ideas would do more harm than good and that’s why I’m opposed to them,

    So, please clarify yourself: What is your position regarding the proper tradeoffs and balancing when it comes to respecting property rights of the filthy rich, vs taxing them to fund programs to ensure that no one goes without food and water? Is there ever a situation where we should protect the property rights of the filthy rich at the penalty of someone going without food or water? If you answer “yes”, then I think your positions are despicable. If you answer “no”, then I welcome that answer, but I would also say that it seems like you’re changing your position from the rest of the thread.

    My position is that’s a false dichotomy.

    I don’t know what that means in this context. Surely, sometimes these rights come into conflict – the right of the filthy rich to their property, and the right of everyone else to food and water. They are not always in conflict, but when they come into conflict, should we adopt a balancing approach? Or should we always sacrifice the property rights of the filthy rich in favor of the rights of having food and water?

  123. lusspanik says

    So, please clarify yourself: What is your position regarding the proper tradeoffs and balancing when it comes to respecting property rights of the filthy rich, vs taxing them to fund programs to ensure that no one goes without food and water?

    We were originally discussing the implementation of a UBI funded by taxing the rich at 90%, which is mass wealth redistribution and what I objected to. Now you’ve scaled it back to “food and water so people don’t starve on the streets.” I think this is achievable moderate taxation, intelligent planning, and the supplementation of charity. In addition to planning and charity, I would be in favor of whatever tax rate on the rich it would take to achieve this, but it would be nowhere near 90% or merit mass wealth redistribution to every citizen, which is what I was opposed to.

    Is there ever a situation where we should protect the property rights of the filthy rich at the penalty of someone going without food or water?

    No, but that’s not what we were talking about.

    I don’t know what that means in this context. Surely, sometimes these rights come into conflict

    I mean I don’t think alleviating starvation of our citizens comes at the cost of mass wealth redistribution. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. I think if there comes a time where a large minority of people are struggling to get food, it would justify taxing the rich at relatively high rates to alleviate hunger. Because at that point nobody would be buying what they’re producing and they would be legitimately hording profit to ride out the supply shortage. But at this point that’s not what’s happening, at this point, under our current system, the rates of hunger and starvation are consistently decreasing all across the world.

  124. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Ok. I’ll take your silence on the matter as agreement with me on the position that the property rights of the filthy rich should always be sacrificed in order to guarantee that no one goes without food and water. With that understanding, I’ll agree that using “libertarian” to describe you is not reasonable nor accurate.

  125. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    Also, it may be that I didn’t do a proper and high-quality job reading your posts. For that, I do apologize.

  126. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #127
    It seems that despite our disagreement and it getting particularly contentious for a portion of the discussion, we were able to find a point of mutual agreement and I appreciate being challenged on these concepts. Always good to sharpen that blade. Thanks.

  127. houndentenor says

    Three points about Sunday’s show:

    1) I’m with Jen on the historical Jesus. I think this is the most likely explanation for the discreaencies among the many (not just the four canonical) gospels. We know there were a lot of messianic preachers in that era. Maybe one of them was even named Yeshua (Jesus, in Latin). Or not. Maybe some of the sayings, parables, etc. are from various people at the time. This kind of thing happens even now with stories becoming attached to other people or multiple people’s stories merged into one. And that’s in an era where it’s possible to verify such things. Also, even fiction tends to mostly be based on real people and events just artfully rearranged to form a more interesting narrative. We humans aren’t nearly as original or creative as we like to think we are. I could be wrong, obviously. We don’t really have any way of knowing which parts of the gospels were taken from which earlier sources. There seems to be one for the synoptic gospels, but what that was we don’t know.

    2) Matt is right. Everyone is a little bit racist. Why is that such a controversial statement? We were all raised in a racist society and some parts of that influence our thinking. The question isn’t “are we racist?” but “what are we doing to do about it?” And related to that I’d like to recommend the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. The entire war on drugs, both in conception and implementation, is racist. The fact that a few white people get caught up in it (necessary collateral damage to disguise the racist intent of the laws) doesn’t change that.

    3) As I regularly tangle with both the SJW and the MRA/alt-right crowds, there are assholes on both extremes. Sometimes PC culture does run amok, and in those cases it needs to be called out. That does not mean that I’m not in favor of a lot of the leftist agenda, but some of the tactics do more harm than good. And in some cases a simplistic binary thinking has blinded people and distracted them from the work at hand. What, for example, is SPLC’s real beef with Maajid Nawaz? He should not be on their hit list. That’s absurd. If me calling that out causes people to think I’m a far right loon, then that just shows how nuts some people on the left are these days.

  128. leontiev says

    Help! Where is the MP3 in the archive. I want to hear this show everybody is talking about. (Sit in front of my computer and watch talking heads for an hour+? No way.)

  129. ScottM1973 says

    @CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain

    What’s with all the quote mining? Thanks for the info that my post was stickied (or whatever). I find it interesting you left out where people commented how awful I am, where I complimented someone for actually providing me with a secondary source, where I modified my position, etc. I’d mine some of those shit slinging comments but I swore never to go back and I’m keeping my word! lol

    Yes that is the exact same username I use here AND the one I use on youtube so go ahead and have fun mining! I’m also scott.a.mutch on facebook. Seriously kind of feel like I’m being doxied or something. I’d share my home address (It’s in London, Ontario, Canada) too but I’m not the only one who lives here. I’m not going to claim everything I’ve ever put out on the internet is squeaky clean but I’m not ashamed of anything and if and/or when I’m wrong I’ll admit to it.

    – – – –

    It’s interesting that I used to think that I’m liberal leaning because the liberal position is the one that aligns most often with the way I think (which it does) but lately I’ve come to the realisation that I lean left, more than I care to admit, because of how much I hate stuff done by the right. Lately stuff done by the left has been pushing me back towards the middle. I don’t think being pushed is the best way to “live” but don’t see how to avoid that other than trying to recognize when it’s being done.

  130. Serge Rubinstein says

    Why is it so difficult for people to understand there couldn’t be time “before ” the Big Bang ?
    Time is only the perception we have of objects moving relating to each other. There were no objects before the Big Bang, so they could not move, so ther was no time to percieve !

  131. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @ScottM1973 #131:

    Thanks for the info that my post was stickied (or whatever).

    I was supplementing your unsourced post. It’s an easily overlooked feature that BuzzFeed allows permalinking to comments. Clicking the comment age (e.g., “4w”) works but doesn’t scroll as one might expect.
     

    you left out […]

    Brevity. The link was there, with instructions, for anyone curious to validate your claim and context, as stated.
     

    I swore never to go back

    *shrug*

  132. says

    Hi guys, this is Jacob from New York. I’m the one Matt hung up on mid sentence. First of all I am appalled at the hate of some people in the live chat (including the moderators) right after my call was ended. They said some nasty things bout me, and they automatically assumed I was Muslim even though I never said I was, the most I said was “it was worth considering” but its okay. I have devolved a think skin, I am used too people making fun of me- I happened to be wheelchair bound. So I don’t give a damn what was said bout me. What got me mad was being hung up on mid sentence, my reply was gonna be that “women were required to cover just like men were, no deference and no bias, women and men must both cover there private parts…what you think men don’t have to? men cant run round naked. Lol” All the extra stuff like burkas, face cover, etc… are cultural and have nothing to do with Islam…I wish people stop mixing culture with religion. Thank You for answering my phone call, and I hope you guys give me another chance to be on show. I have other topics to bring up.

  133. Curt Cameron says

    It’s Tuesday afternoon and this show has not yet been made available through the podcast. Is there an ETA on that?

  134. ScottM1973 says

    @CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain

    Okay if your intent is simply to point to my comments on the buzzfeed page. The quotes you chose don’t really point to any hidden agenda but I kind of would of preferred people decide for themselves without someone else’s relevance filter put on top of what was said. *shrugs*

  135. demianenemy says

    Seems a little weird that Matt is doing an event with Jordan Peterson, the dumbest smart guy in the world. I will probably check it out though. He’s very inadvertently hilarious.

  136. says

    @Wild Monk

    Oh, we’re going down the laws of logic path are we? Well… though the laws of logic are not tangible, they are in fact DEMONSTRABLE.

    A god that has no tangible interaction with the world, by contrast, is not demonstrable.

    When the only evidence of a god is people who want you to believe is them saying “god did this” or “god did that” I tend to not find that credible.

    I am as religious as the level of interaction god has with me would demand – i.e. 0.

    I am opposed to religion as the level of demands that I bend to the will of their imaginary friend requires. In Australia not as much as America, but enough to make me very opposed to it.

    For example the recent gay marriage debate here. My imaginary friend says gays shouldn’t have rights, therefore you must obey him. Even though you don’t believe in him. Because I do.

    Now the thing is, if you want to believe and obey all well and good. If you want to believe and want OTHERS to obey, you had better show some fucking tangible evidence.

  137. says

    @ScottM1973

    I don’t actually know what the intent behind Sky Captain’s communication is.

    In my view, communication is about getting your message across. Once he started to just put up quotes from other people (such as me) without any further comment, he lost me.

  138. Salalamander says

    I’m a black Hispanic female and I really like Sam Harris. I disagree with his views on torture, but mostly agree about Bin Laden. I prefer to listen to people that I disagree with sometimes, I think it’s healthy. I think overall he’s a pretty good person, and Matt seems to think so too, hence why he does events with him so often. Shrug.

  139. ScottM1973 says

    @Salalamander

    I greatly admire Sam Harris. I like how he unabashedly engages with people regardless of his and their differing stances on things as long as they are willing to have a civil conversation. It’s remarkable given the time frames between his podcasts that he is able to not only assimilate various topics but then discuss them at such a high level. I see him as one of the brightest minds on the planet.

    (If I had the equipment I’d have his babies! lol)

  140. indianajones says

    @ EL Paraphrase ‘Since no one else seems willing to engage’. Well, for me this all happened while I was at work or asleep (It is approx 4 PM in Straya where I am), so..

    @ lusspanik I found your argumentation to be mostly obtuse, goal shifty, and generally hard to take seriously.

    @ Wild Monk Is there a bingo card are you asking us all to fill in here? Cos I can think of several that would apply to say the least.

  141. Yasmin Mohammed says

    Discussion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S) with the atheists, a part of which has been mentioned earlier: The Holy Prophet asked them: “What is the reason of your belief that the universe has neither beginning nor end and that these things are from ever and will remain for ever?”

    Atheists: “We believe only what we see. As we have not seen the beginning of the universe, therefore we say that it has always existed, and as we have not seen its extinction, we say that it will remain for ever.”

    Holy Prophet: “Well, have you seen that the universe is without beginning and without end?”

    Atheists: “No, we have not seen its being without beginning nor have we seen its being without end.”

    Holy Prophet: “Then how do you believe in its eternity? And why should your view be preferred to the view of that person who believes the universe to be transient because he has not seen it being without beginning or without end?”

    Then after some more arguments the Holy Prophet asked: “Can you tell me whether the days (time) which have passed on this earth were finite (limited) or infinite (limitless) ?

    If you say that the time which has passed so far was limitless, then how the later time came in if the former did not pass away?

    “And if you say that the time is finite (limited) then you will have to admit that it is not eternal.”

    Atheists: “Yes, it is finite.”

    Holy Prophet: “Well, you were saying that universe is eternal, not created nor finite. Do you realize what is the implication of your admission that time is finite?

    What were you denying? What have you admitted? ”

    Atheists accepted that their belief was not correct.

    Incidentally, this argument of the Holy Prophet shows that `time’ has unbreakable relation with matter. Otherwise, he could not have introduced the element of time in the discussion about matter. The beauty of this can best be appreciated by only those who have studied the theory of Relativity.

    For further research – click >>> https://www.al-islam.org/god-islamic-perspective-sayyid-saeed-akhtar-rizvi/part-1-belief-god

  142. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #140

    I found your argumentation to be mostly obtuse, goal shifty, and generally hard to take seriously.

    If you interpret my unwillingness to involve personal background in a discussion about economic policy and refuting all of @Monocle Smile’s points while he claims “You are misunderstanding me” without clarifying his position as “obtuse, goal shifty, and hard to take” then that sounds like you might have a bias, because I’ve been very clear and can’t help if it’s “hard to take” whatever that means. In addition, I’d love you to cite one time I moved the goalposts.

  143. indianajones says

    Well then!

    @MS Cheers mate 😉

    @lusspanik ‘If I interpret’? Nope, I only addressed your style of argumentation. If you would like me to address economic policy? Or MS’s points while he claims whatever it is you assign to him (her? IDK)? Or that I have a bias? Well, sure, maybe, if I can be bothered. As a perhaps. But you asked me for an example of goalposts whooshing off to the horizon in the general direction of points slightly north of Alpha Centauri in particular. That, right there, as an example of you failing to address the substantive point I made AKA shifting goalposts (you also obtuse and hard to take seriously debater you) would be just one of many of them.

  144. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #143

    ‘If I interpret’? Nope, I only addressed your style of argumentation.

    You addressed your interpretation of my style of argumentation. This isn’t to say you’re right or wrong in your interpretation, but it is an interpretation regardless. Now with that bit of rhetorical dodge out of the way, I’m curious if you would back up your interpretation of how I’ve argued instead of just asserting it.

    If you would like me to address economic policy?

    No. Don’t go moving the goalposts already, I specifically asked you to back up your statement about how I communicate and particularly one example where I moved the goalposts.

    Or MS’s points while he claims whatever it is you assign to him (her? IDK)

    I can’t, for the life of me, figure out what you mean by this.

    Or that I have a bias?

    No, I don’t want you to address whether or not you have a bias. That was my estimation of why you came to the conclusion you did, but I’d be happily corrected. So you claimed I was “goal shifty.” Please cite one example where I did that.

    That, right there, as an example of you failing to address the substantive point I made AKA shifting goalposts

    Let me get this straight, you’re claiming that asking for an example where I’ve moved the goalposts in response to you saying I moved the goalposts is itself moving the goalposts? From this comment it’s blatantly obvious that you don’t know what that fallacy is. Failing to address something doesn’t constitute moving goalposts.
    In addition, I addressed every single point you made regarding me so not even that claim is accurate. Which substantive point do you think I failed to address? I asked you to back it up with examples which is literally an address of every “point” you made.

    (you also obtuse and hard to take seriously debater you)

    There’s incredible irony in this line. Still think he “gets it” @Monocle Smile or is this a manifestation of bias?

    just one of many of them.

    Many of them, huh? Okay, I’m still waiting on one coherent example.

  145. indianajones says

    Umm Glerble shmergle

    Quote from lusspanik: ‘You addressed your interpretation of my style of argumentation. This isn’t to say you’re right or wrong in your interpretation, but it is an interpretation regardless.’

    I, also, am a big fan of Yes Minister. Just whilst we are all a fan of good argumentation.

  146. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #145

    Umm Glerble shmergle

    Incredible.

    I, also, am a big fan of Yes Minister. Just whilst we are all a fan of good argumentation.

    I have no idea what this means in regard to what I’ve said. While we’re talking about fallacies, after you look up “moving the goalposts” you should also look up “red herring.”

    Thanks for playing.

  147. indianajones says

    *sigh* After this I am out for another 20 hrs. Sleep, work and all. But after that, tis a 4 day weekend! Happy Zombie Awareness Weekend folks Remember the 2 rules: !) Only head shots count. 2) Always Double Tap!

    Moving on

    Well, real quick, I know what a red herring is better than you. Bare assertion, completely unsubstantiated, but I am right, you are wrong so there and also I know that ‘more like you are so what am I?’ or something else equally sub juvenile.

    My apologies, I take it all back, I shall make my comments from now on addressable to an assumed audience that can be addressed at the level at the least of an intelligent and interested juvenile.

    Your argumentation against EL was obtuse etc. It was hard to take seriously. The goal post shifting occurred when you failed to address my substantive point, and instead chose to address a peripheral.

    And again you goal post shiftier you, in your last post above, when you you say ‘While we are talking about fallacies’. We weren’t. Goddammit, can’t you stick to a point for 2 seconds? (Thanks @EL).

    Obtuse? Goalpost shifty? Hard to take seriously?

    Stop it Indy cos (takes deep breath)

    ‘Umm Glerble shmergle

    Quote from lusspanik: ‘You addressed your interpretation of my style of argumentation. This isn’t to say you’re right or wrong in your interpretation, but it is an interpretation regardless.’’

    I guess

  148. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #147

    Well, real quick, I know what a red herring is better than you. Bare assertion, completely unsubstantiated,

    That’s a bold assertion considering you have no idea what I know, and frankly hard to believe considering you used a red herring. It’s not a bare assertion, I quoted exactly where you did it, shifting the topic to whatever “Yes Minister” is and talking about your fondness for argumentation is a red herring in the context of the only thing I’ve been asking of you this entire time… Provide one coherent example of me moving the goalposts.

    Your argumentation against EL was obtuse etc. It was hard to take seriously.

    You can say this all you like, but you’ve yet to even attempt to substantiate it with anything more than, “Because it is.”

    The goal post shifting occurred when you failed to address my substantive point

    This is the exact same point you made in your previous comment that I’ve already explained. You’ve now made the same assertion twice. Allow me to copy and paste my response from the last time and maybe this time you’ll address it:

    “Let me get this straight, you’re claiming that asking for an example where I’ve moved the goalposts in response to you saying I moved the goalposts is itself moving the goalposts? From this comment it’s blatantly obvious that you don’t know what that fallacy is. Failing to address something doesn’t constitute moving goalposts.
    In addition, I addressed every single point you made regarding me so not even that claim is accurate. Which substantive point do you think I failed to address? I asked you to back it up with examples which is literally an address of every “point” you made.”

    You claimed my argumentation was “obtuse, goal shifty, and generally hard to take seriously” and I pressed you to provide examples and elaborate, to which you then wrongly applied the “moving the goalposts” fallacy. How is me asking you to provide examples and elaboration for your statement anything other than addressing your point?

    instead chose to address a peripheral.

    Please just describe for me the exact peripheral point I addressed and what substantial point I failed to address. You’re telling me there is both a peripheral and substantial point in, “I found your argumentation to be mostly obtuse, goal shifty, and generally hard to take seriously.” and me pressing you to give examples to support your conclusion doesn’t address exactly what you said? Do you understand how absurd what you’re saying is?

    And again you goal post shiftier you, in your last post above, when you you say ‘While we are talking about fallacies’. We weren’t. Goddammit, can’t you stick to a point for 2 seconds? (Thanks @EL).

    While I appreciate the unnecessary patronization, fallacies are exactly what we’re talking about whether you realize it or not. You do know “moving the goalposts” which you accused me of doing in my previous conversation, is a fallacy, right? Why is it so hard to admit you have a bias and are unsure of why you disagree with me, but instead continue on this tapdance nonsense. I’ve asked one simple thing, can you or can you not provide a single coherent example of me moving the goalposts as you claimed in your original comment? You said there were many, give me one. And don’t repeat the “failed to address my substantial point” for a third time because I’ve explained in great detail why that doesn’t constitute moving the goalposts and contains a flawed premise.

    Glerble shmergle

    Not that this is relevant to the conversation, but can I ask how old you are? I’m actually curious.

    If after this message you still refuse to provide a single example of me moving the goalposts, I’ll take that as a concession that you were only trying to rationalize your bias and don’t have any coherent critique of my argumentation. At that point I will no longer respond.

  149. says

    Have to say that im very disappointed with this episode. The whole politcal agenda and dishonesty or at best igroance about racism is abhorrent. I think that you are conflating racism with selectivism. We as humans have a right to be selective in our lifes, however we should be respectful of all humans if they deserve that respect. When matt said, when you hear a person talk, depending on how they speak determines your biasness. Well of course, if some is speaking rual then you will think that person is rual, no matter the color if the person. the presumption of being rual is in no means a judgement of their moral character but of their group idenity/sterotype/culture. We dont limit interaction with people of like minds only people that we cant relate too. eg. if im an atheist, im not going to go to church every sunday. If i dont like pimps, im not going to go to pimp school. That Modus isnt racist. Also i think that you are conflating racism with culture. Culture is apart and created by the group and when humans group they create culture. Differentes of culture should be judged by the same criterion as we judge morality and wellbeing and in doing so isnt being racist. Racism as defined by the dictionary has to do with superiority and hate or a policy or system based on discrimination. Discrimination is as defined as a treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit. If you a except that usage then its decribing progressive idenity politics. So yes all people that dont judge people by individual merit are racist.

  150. indianajones says

    Nope, that you don’t like my example, doesn’t make them invalid. I find your contention that they are invalid to be insufficiently sup[ported, but we’ll let history be the judge eh? Take it whatever way you like.

    As for my age. Could it be old enough to know better but too young to care? 14 odd billion years if you date all my subatomic particles? Shall I get my Sound of Music on and declare singingly that ‘I am 16, going on 17, I am still naive’ even? Deep Thought famously calculated the answer to be 42, maybe you nailed the exact right question! Or, and this is most likely, perhaps the question in this context is only worthy of having the urine extracted from it and only then just barely.

    Hi actually curious, I thought your name was lusspanik, but never mind. Folks often call me Indy.

  151. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #149
    Still no example of your claim, I see.

    Thanks for the concession and affirming my position that your criticism was motivated entirely by bias. Better luck at being dishonest next time, friend.

  152. indianajones says

    Actually here’s the tl;dr of my opinion of our above discussion from my point of view

    Insisting that I defend a subjective opinion (I find your argumentation to be blah blah blah) with factual examples is rather absurd. For instance:

    ‘I don’t like that rug. It is too red, the edges are too frilly and round is a silly shape anyway’
    ‘It’s actually more a crimson/ochre blend than red.’
    ‘Don’t care still don’t like it’
    ‘Well, unless you can prove to me with spectropic analysis that it is indeed ‘red’ then you are wrong and you like the rug after all’

    Silly me for being suckered into then pointing at the red and giving you further excuse to argue the point I suppose.

  153. Monocle Smile says

    @lusspanik

    If you interpret my unwillingness to involve personal background in a discussion about economic policy and refuting all of @Monocle Smile’s points while he claims “You are misunderstanding me” without clarifying his position as “obtuse, goal shifty, and hard to take

    I did clarify my position, but you chose to blatantly lie about it a second time while refuting jack shit (unless masturbating to a childish economic fantasy counts as “refuting”), so I decided you’re not worth the energy.

  154. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #151

    Insisting that I defend a subjective opinion with factual examples is rather absurd.

    You had two subjective opinions: That my discussion was 1. Obtuse and 2. Hard to take seriously. The third, however, was not subjective and that’s what I chose to focus on, your claim that I moved goalposts many times during the discussion. So I asked you to cite one time I did, and you couldn’t, so instead you tap danced around and claimed me asking you to clarify your position was moving the goalposts, which it obviously isn’t to anyone who understands what moving the goalposts means.

    Secondly, you could elaborate on the two subjective opinions and make a reasonable case for why you have the impression you do, but judging from this conversation I doubt that will be happening.

    Lastly, I find it comical that you feel the need to explain to me what subjectivity is when you couldn’t define moving the goalposts and didn’t realize when you had used a red herring. That’s rich. But from your analogy, I can only draw that your opinion is not based on any conclusion you reached through reason, but analogous to liking a color or not, in which case you have no reasonable foundation for your criticism by your own admission, it’s only a feeling based opinion. For that reason, it has no weight and I’m glad you’ve admitted it.

  155. says

    @lusspanik

    Are you trying to make valid points or are you trying to (in your mind) win?

    If you are trying to communicate, addressing one point at a time in less convoluted language would help. I find most of your posts to be in the category of of tl;dr.

    I tend to agree with the sentiment of what Indianajones is saying. You can’t argue that people’s subjective opinions are wrong. You have done it to me on my view of the psyche of the English. “But they can’t be xenophobic – they have strong race hate laws”. Hmmmm, maybe the 1st world countries with the strongest race hate laws have them because they need them the most.

  156. says

    It took 40 years for the Jews to reach Israel. Assuming a distance of 300 miles from Cairo to Jerusalem (including a very generous amount of mileage from the actual mileage) and only walking 8 hours per day, for 40 years, works out to a ground speed of 0.0025684932 MPH. For context, the common garden snail travels at 0.00626342162 MPH with speed bursts up to .029080172 MPH. So…a garden snail going slowly would have reached Jerusalem before the Jews (assuming the snails didn’t have to crawl across any salt). There is your archaeological evidence rebuttal for Raul. There should have been 14,610 campsites along the way, with fire pits and likely animal bones (all those offerings to god, ya know) assuming they stopped and camped every night. At the speed they were traveling, they would have had a campsite every 108.42 FEET!

  157. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile #152

    but you chose to blatantly lie

    Show me where I did that.

    @Monocle Smile #153

    This guy belongs here: https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/

    I’ll be the first to admit I have a fairly average level of intelligence, so I’m sorry you feel that way.

    @Shaun #155

    Are you trying to make valid points or are you trying to (in your mind) win?

    Make valid points, and in the case of @indianajones, refute his criticism.

    If you are trying to communicate, addressing one point at a time in less convoluted language would help.

    I’ve been quoting a whole lot and feel as if I’ve done an adequate job at going point by point. As for convoluted language, that certainly isn’t my intention, I’m just trying to word things precisely to avoid misunderstandings.

    I find most of your posts to be in the category of of tl;dr.

    There isn’t much I can do there when I’m responding to longer comments and trying to address everything.

    I tend to agree with the sentiment of what Indianajones is saying. You can’t argue that people’s subjective opinions are wrong.

    That’s why I didn’t do that, I appealed to a claim he made that wasn’t subjective, that I (many times) relied on moving the goalposts, and my response was to ask for an example.

    You have done it to me on my view of the psyche of the English.

    Your opinion on the English isn’t based on nothing, I was trying to get you articulate why you felt the way you did as I have a completely different outlook on the English. Opinions are sometimes more than feeling like what your favorite color is, sometimes opinions are reached through application of reason.

    “But they can’t be xenophobic – they have strong race hate laws”

    Do some xenophobic people exist in the UK, sure; as they do in every country, but to generalize the UK on the whole as xenophobic is where my contention lied. It’s my position that truly xenophobic people are in the extreme minority and my example of the strong hate speech laws was to demonstrate the will of the majority in that country. The claim that the country as a whole is xenophobic is what I took exception to.

    Hmmmm, maybe the 1st world countries with the strongest race hate laws have them because they need them the most.

    As far as I can tell the UK has some of the most integrated populations in the western world, along with Canada.

  158. indianajones says

    Ty MS for the link and the support.

    Ty Shaun for the support

    I am particularly enjoying the whole ‘I will no longer respond unless I get x’ thing because when s/he doesn’t get x, s/he responds anyway, too. Twice so far by my count…

  159. indianajones says

    Also, ‘I find your argumentation to be goal shifty’ is objective as an opinion in the same way as ‘I prefer the metric system over imperial’ is. They are talking about objective things, sure, but it is still a subjective statement.

  160. says

    Do some xenophobic people exist in the UK, sure; as they do in every country, but to generalize the UK on the whole as xenophobic is where my contention lied. It’s my position that truly xenophobic people are in the extreme minority and my example of the strong hate speech laws was to demonstrate the will of the majority in that country. The claim that the country as a whole is xenophobic is what I took exception to.

    I think you would be wrong there. The will of the people is not reflected in the laws of Westminster.

    That there are people now in England who have lived there for 4 generations and are still told “go home, Paki” is symptomatic of what I am talking about.

    To know what I am talking about, you need to know people. You need to know the socially stratified environment that England still is. A cosmopolitan metropolis that is London. Another oasis that is Bristol. And then vast areas of the country that are backward looking and moribund. This was reflected in the map of the UK when the Brexit vote was taken.

    You also need to actually hang out with the people I know, and hear them say, “I hate them Paki bastards”, or go to your grand dad’s house, go to the corner shop and be told, “don’t buy anything that isn’t wrapped, them Pakis are dirty”.

    Or speak to my mate in Bradford as I did when I asked him what happened about the Brexit vote and he said “most people round here are closet racists. They thought if they voted for Brexit they could get the Pakis to leave”.

    Or my aunt, who said she voted “out and proud”. I didn’t know whether she had voted to leave or had come out late in life. She voted to leave because of some empire nostalgia. It doesn’t affact her; she doesn’t go to the continent. She barely gets out of her living room.

    Or just read the papers like the Sun, where there are continuing petty digs at the French because it plays well to the working class masses that are their audience.

    Not all English are like that of course, but 52% most definitely.

  161. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #157

    #151 was me affirming the end of the conversation.
    #152 you decided to actually attempt substantiating your criticism by explaining it away as subjective.
    #153 I responded to your attempt at weaseling away from providing the one thing I asked you to provide.
    I should have stopped responding to you when you couldn’t back up your claim though, you’re right.

  162. indianajones says

    Whereas I am glad that I realized that going to go get a spectroscopy machine wasn’t worth the effort after all.

  163. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #158

    Also, ‘I find your argumentation to be goal shifty’ is objective as an opinion in the same way as ‘I prefer the metric system over imperial’ is.

    No it absolutely isn’t, metric vs. imperial is a preference based on subjective standards, claim that I shift goals is empirically demonstrable.

    Anyways, why would you spend all this time running in circles if I moved the goalposts “many times” like you said and you could just cite ONE example? What is it inside you that motivates you to be dishonest?

    If a Christian said “I believe in God because it’s my opinion.” would you find that to be sufficient reasoning?

  164. says

    If a Christian said “I believe in God because it’s my opinion.” would you find that to be sufficient reasoning?

    Actually, generally speaking I think most people on this blog accept that Christians have a right to believe what they want, whether it makes sense to an atheist or not. Private beliefs are fine. The big problem is when they try to direct the behaviour of other people due to their beliefs.

  165. indianajones says

    1: Asked and answered.
    2. Gosh, so many urine extraction type answers, I’ll leave it to the audience.
    3. Nope

  166. lusspanik says

    Not all English are like that of course, but 52% most definitely.

    All of the anecdotes aside, 52%, really? If that’s the case, why are there still Pakistani people in the UK? Isn’t the UK a parliamentary democracy? If 52% of people all felt that way, how have they been stopped from electing MP’s that represent their interests and moving forward on Pakistani deportation laws? I seriously doubt the claim that a majority want Pakistani people gone, and from hate crime statistics I’d doubt if it’s even a large minority in the UK.

  167. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #165

    Actually, generally speaking I think most people on this blog accept that Christians have a right to believe what they want

    I didn’t say anything about whether or not they had the right to believe it, I asked if it was a reasonable justification for their belief. This is why I use the words I do, people are already primed to misinterpret me.

    @indianajones #166

    1: Asked and answered.

    I asked for an example where I moved the goalposts like you claimed and you still refuse to present it, so no, you did not answer it.

    2. Gosh, so many urine extraction type answers

    I have no idea what this means. Care to elaborate?

    3. Nope

    My point exactly.

  168. indianajones says

    urine extraction is taking the piss (primarily) or the mickey/rinse/others. AKA Making fun of.

  169. says

    You can’t deport people who are British citizens.

    The figure for people opposed to immigration in the UK is 70%. You can ask me to cite a source all you want. i’m not going to.

    Why have they not elected more racist MPs? Because it is not their primary motivation in voting. Usually jobs are the primary motivation and running the economy. It’s why the Tories get in.

    Those whose primary motivation was racism voted UKIP, which managed to get 4 millions votes at its peak out of a voting population of around 30 million.

    By the way, you need to watch “yes minister”. It pretty much shows how irrelevant the will of the people is to Whitehall.

  170. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #169
    So are you saying you’re making fun of me because I asked you to back up your claim or that I’m making fun of you by asking you to back up your claim?
    Either way at this point I’m convinced you have no intention of being intellectually honest, so now I really will stop responding to this line.

  171. indianajones says

    Really will huh? Ok, why wouldn’t I take your word for it after all? Oh yeah, that ‘all the things’. And to answer your question: No.

  172. says

    I asked if it was a reasonable justification for their belief.

    OK. I don’t think it’s a reasonable justification, but it’s not one you can argue with.

  173. lusspanik says

    @Shaun

    You can’t deport people who are British citizens.

    You can if lawmakers moved on legislation to do it. The reason they can’t now is because there are laws in place to prevent discrimination under the law.

    The figure for people opposed to immigration in the UK is 70%. You can ask me to cite a source all you want. i’m not going to.

    The fact that you preemptively state you’re unwilling to provide a source is concerning. In any case if I were to take that statistic at face value, hatred of Pakistani citizens isn’t the only reason to be opposed to unchecked immigration.

    Why have they not elected more racist MPs? Because it is not their primary motivation in voting. Usually jobs are the primary motivation and running the economy

    Seems like if that was really the will of the people, they could find someone to represent all three interests. Do you honestly believe a politician who openly said they would deport all Pakistani citizens would even get a large minority of the vote? I think they’d get 5% if I’m being generous and it’s anything like the US racial motivation, and I assure you the US is far worse off in that regard than the UK.

    Those whose primary motivation was racism voted UKIP, which managed to get 4 millions votes at its peak out of a voting population of around 30 million.

    Okay, so the racists voted for UKIP for their own reasons. Now how do you know how many of the 4 million were the racists and how many voted UKIP for non-racial reasons? And how did you determine the number of UKIP voters that are racist and the number that aren’t?

    By the way, you need to watch “yes minister”. It pretty much shows how irrelevant the will of the people is to Whitehall.

    So they hold referendums and then what? The government says, “Nah, we’re gonna do the other thing instead.” and people keep voting them into power? I think the very concept of a proper democracy produces a state based around the will of the majority.

  174. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #173

    OK. I don’t think it’s a reasonable justification, but it’s not one you can argue with.

    It could be easily argued if you wanted to pursue it, Matt has done it plenty of times, you simply say, “That isn’t a reasonable justification for your belief.”

  175. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #175

    Single issue party. Out of Europe. Full to the brim with racists.

    Sounds like the type of language hyperbolic partisans use for the Republican party in the US. Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it.

  176. says

    And why is it concerning that I don’t want to spend time to find sources? This is a background thing I do as recreation, not a scholarly pursuit.

  177. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #178

    When someone preemptively says they’re going to use statistics without citing them, it’s usually a red flag that those statistics aren’t accurate. I’m not saying you’re right or wrong that 70% are opposed to migration, I’m just saying it’s a red flag. I’d be willing to accept the number you provided at face value, but I’m unwilling to accept that translates into that 70% being motivated by racism.

  178. says

    It could be easily argued if you wanted to pursue it, Matt has done it plenty of times, you simply say, “That isn’t a reasonable justification for your belief.”

    Actually no. There are plenty of times when people have said “I believe due to personal revelation” and Matt has said, “well I can’t argue with that”.

    As for UKIP, do your own research. If you try to argue with me that black is white, I’m not there.

  179. indianajones says

    Well, best of luck Shaun! Here comes a self indulgent anecdote

    Way back when, I was a crew member of good old HMAS ANZAC. Putting the hip into warship baby yeah! We crossed the equator and had a day off at sea, a rare thing. And so we had a bit of a swim in the Pacific. Side note ‘How deep is it here sir?’ ‘Dunno but the depth finder runs out of guts at 5 kilometers’. So, anyway, a shark was spotted by passive sonar a ways off so rifles and everyone outta the water. It was 500 meters away, but still safety first! So it got shot and floated to the surface! A boat was sent out, and hooked a rope around its tail and it was towed back. Lunch! We haul this thing up onto the flight deck and wanted to confirm it was dead. It wasn’t. It hit air and started thrashing around. Rifles again. Approach cautiously. Get within a meter, it thrashes. Bastard thing took six hours to die. That was a good dinner :D:D

    Dunno why that occurred to me, but there it is.

  180. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #180

    Actually no. There are plenty of times when people have said “I believe due to personal revelation” and Matt has said, “well I can’t argue with that”.

    I’ve watched nearly every episode of AXP for 7 years and I never recall Matt saying anything remotely like that in response to someone saying, “I believe due to personal revelation.” In fact, from my experience that goes completely against Matt’s character. If you have a clip of him saying anything like that, I’d love to see it.

    As for UKIP, do your own research. If you try to argue with me that black is white, I’m not there.

    I don’t believe the majority of people who vote for a major political party are motivated by racism. People try to say the same thing about the Republican party in the US and it’s always hyperpartisan nonsense. Just because people disagree on immigration doesn’t make the other side majority racist. Sure, racists will vote against immigration, but that doesn’t mean that’s the only motivation to do so. Some are motivated by economics, others are motivated by security, to say a majority of people who vote that way are racist seems disingenuous and over simplistic.

  181. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #181

    That poor animal bleeding out, suffocating, and suffering for 6 hours until it finally dies… what a horrific image. Someone there should have shown some mercy and put it out of its misery.

  182. indianajones says

    Oh, we tried! We were hoping for lunch as opposed to dinner after all. But the silly thing refused to admit it was dead even after all the evidence pointed towards that conclusion being so.

  183. says

    I don’t believe the majority of people who vote for a major political party are motivated by racism.

    Like I said, do your research. UKIP are not a major party. Yet they were the tail that wagged the Tory dog.

    OK, so you don’t know about UKIP, you don’t know about the Sun, you don’t know about the regions of the UK, you don’t know about the social dynamic of the country and the psyche of the people yet you are venturing strong opinions on them? How does that work?

    As for your anecdote @Indianajones, I see what you’re getting at.

  184. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #185

    Because I’m aware of Brexiteer arguments that aren’t motivated by race. Admittedly I don’t know the specifics of the UKIP party or the tabloids in Britain, but I do know there are motivations other than race to support UK independence and I have seen statistics to dispute the claim that hate crimes are rampant and that racism is an epidemic or majority held opinion. Rather that the people motivated by race are a vocal minority heavily emphasized in the media, and with good reason, but not indicative of the broader culture where many races are highly integrated and the majority of people hold the positions they do without consideration for race. And in addition I still feel that my example of radical “progressive” laws reflect the will of the majority.

    As for your anecdote @Indianajones, I see what you’re getting at.

    The analogy didn’t go over my head. Even if you disagree with me and think I’m wrong, it would be hard to argue that I’m not speaking in good faith. I don’t see how you could see indianajones as anything other than disingenuous with the way he’s conducted himself here. He made a claim, I asked him to support that claim, and he wouldn’t. It’s as simple as that. Instead he choose to meander through all kinds of red herrings until I gave up. That’s not the kind of personality I expected to come across when I came here, but it’s even more surprising other people are on board with what happened in that exchange.

  185. says

    “but I do know there are motivations other than race to support UK independence”

    The UK is independent. I never said their were no other motivations.

    I did however say that xenophobia and yearning for the good old days of empire were strong motivating factors. This has been borne out by other people’s analysis. Migration has definitely been identified as one of the major factors.

    Like I said, don’t quibble details like this with me. You’re trying to split hairs and argue to me that black is white.

    That is not arguing in good faith that is being a pain in the arse.When things such as immigration levels to the UK have already been identified by many people as a major contributor to the leave victory, I shouldn’t have to prove this to you. If you want to deny that you’re welcome to, but you will be wrong.

  186. uglygeek says

    I think there is a misunderstanding here. Being an atheist means not believing in the existence of Gods without evidence; but there is no political connotation in this stance. Nothing says that an atheist person must also be a liberal or have leftist political views. I really doubt that Donald Trump is a believer, for example, even though he pretends to be.

    It is quite clear that the hosts of the Atheist Experience, besides being indeed atheists, are also liberals. Somebody like Jen could be classified as a SJW, I think. Most of the followers share the same ideas. But they should not expect that the whole skeptic community to be positioned on the left, politically, there is some orthogonality between atheism and politics which is totally lost here.
    That’s why I don’t understand what the criticism of Sam Harris has to do with this show, since there is no doubt Harris is a strong atheist. Why doesn’t the show stick to religion rather than wading into other domains?

    On the merits of the allegations against Harris, then, there is a lot to debate too. Harris is clearly against the SJW movement, but is he wrong? Most of the criticism seems caused by political animosity. The example of his opinion about torture is quite telling: Harris said that we all more or less accept the possibility of ‘collateral damage’ in the fight against terrorism, and instead we are more concerned about torture. But Harris rightly points out that logically this does not make much sense. And this is just an example. Even treating him as a nazi only because he had a conversation with Charles Murray, who may have some questionable ideas, but is no Goebbels and in the Bell Curve did not write things that were very different from the results of most of the research on the topic of the genetic of IQ, is quite infuriating. We need to have open debate of ideas, not to censor the ideas we don’t like.

    In any case, I think that the influence of too much politics is now detracting from the original message of the Atheist Experience. You can see the hesitancy they now have when they need to criticise Islam, which is in any case a much more dangerous religion than Christianity in 2018 (at least in Europe and in most of the World, if not in the Bible Belt). For example, it was watching a very old episode of the show on YouTube, on the topic of a “Draw the Prophet day” that I learned the story of Molly Norris (Google her if you don’t know her story). There is no way they would talk of Islam in these terms today, when the fear of going against PC seems to trump everything else.

    Even in this episode the long initial complain of Jen that “Had the Austin bomber be found to be black and Muslim…” is quite amiss, in my opinion. Had the bomber targeted abortion clinics or even just atheists, I could have agreed. But the bomber targeted random people, and he was a psychopath motivated maybe by racial hatred but not by religion. So why bring up Christianity here? What has it to do with this case?

  187. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #187

    I never said their were no other motivations.

    Sure, you didn’t explicitly say it, but you used UKIP support and the Brexit referendum as an example of xenophobia, to which I offered the case that there are other strong motivating factors not to do with race.

    I did however say that xenophobia and yearning for the good old days of empire were strong motivating factors.

    Perhaps for a minority of pro-Brexit voters, I’m sure those were motivating factors. The poll you offered before about “liking if the British still had an empire” could be interpreted any number of ways. A better poll would be, “Would you like if the UK were still imperialistic?” I’d wager that poll would have a very different result.

    Migration has definitely been identified as one of the major factors.

    I’d expect it was, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to xenophobia.

    Like I said, don’t quibble details like this with me. You’re trying to split hairs and argue to me that black is white.

    I’m not trying to, all I’m saying is that what you’ve presented to support your claim that the majority of the UK is racist isn’t convincing to me. You could very well be right, the majority of the UK could be incredibly xenophobic, but from everything I’ve seen I’m not convinced that’s the case. Not to mentioned being from America, I’m primed to be extremely skeptical about claims of racism as that word gets thrown around like candy over here.

    That is not arguing in good faith that is being a pain in the arse.

    I think you’re arguing in good faith and I’m sorry you are not willing to grant me the same courtesy. I believe I’ve been nothing but civil, but think what you will.
    I just find it hard to believe that anyone can look at that simple exchange with Indianajones where he couldn’t give a single example for his claim as anything other than disingenuous on his part.

    When things such as immigration levels to the UK have already been identified by many people as a major contributor to the leave victory, I shouldn’t have to prove this to you. If you want to deny that you’re welcome to, but you will be wrong.

    Again, I don’t deny that, I never did. I’m saying there are more motivations than xenophobia to support immigration policy reform, especially when quotas are being set by unelected non-national officials.

  188. says

    especially when quotas are being set by unelected non-national officials.

    Where did you get that one from? That is simply not true. You been listening to Sargon again?

  189. says

    @lusspanik

    Seriously, where are you getting your opinions about Brexit from? Because that was a blatant falsehood of the type peddled by the leave campaign.

    This idea that Britain (or any nation in the EU for that matter) is not a sovereign nation due to its membership of the EU is an absolute lie. Where do you even get that rubbish from? Right wing propaganda style websites like Breitbart?

  190. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #191
    I’ve never read a single Breitbart article in my life. How do you feel about The New York Times and the BBC? Are they rags?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/world/europe/eu-migrants-hungary-slovakia.html

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34331126

    How about the European Council President criticizing their mandatory immigration quotas? Is he enough of a reputable source for you?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/11/eu-may-scrap-refugee-quota-scheme-donald-tusk

  191. t90bb says

    i am late to the party!!! wassup fellas…..I am trying to understand the beef going on here…is lusspanik a theist???

    Hey Shaun…miss you big guy!

  192. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @uglygeek #196:

    Being an atheist means not believing in the existence of Gods without evidence; but there is no political connotation in this stance. […] I think that the influence of too much politics is now detracting from the original message of the Atheist Experience.

    Religious institutions form and direct voting blocs. Atheism, in practice, is a rejection of their authority – on both academic and humanitarian grounds, because theistic decision making is recklessly detached from reality. The act of promoting atheism is political.
     
    One could, of course, focus exclusively on abstract SIWOTI (debate theologians) and ignore the tangible harm religion does to people (both directly to adherents and societal ills). That’s not the mission of the ACA, however. Your counter-advocacy publicly complaining that they abandon their mission, is also political.
     
    Article: Atheist Community of Austin – Position Statements

    These statements represent the official positions of this organization and do not represent the position of all atheists or ACA members. Acceptance of these positions is not required for membership in the ACA.

     

    they should not expect that the whole skeptic community to be

    There is no monolithic cathedral to fight for control over. It’s a bazaar. Visitorship is interconnected and norms propagate. The ACA doesn’t even require absolute agreement from its own members.
     

    Why doesn’t the show stick to religion rather than wading into other domains?

    Why were atheists disappointed when some skeptics denounced criticizing religion (That’d drive away the Christian skeptics!) to advocate exclusively focusing on bigfoot and ghost hunting?
     

    You can see the hesitancy they now have when they need to criticise Islam

    You are remarkably unfamiliar with the show.

  193. uglygeek says

    @Sky Captain #202

    Religious institutions form and direct voting blocs. Atheism, in practice, is a rejection of their authority – on both academic and humanitarian grounds, because theistic decision making is recklessly detached from reality. The act of promoting atheism is political.
    Does this mean that, since the most important religion in the States today directs voting block towards the right wing, any atheist must be a leftist? I’d found this idea problematic. I see that there is a correlation between a given religion and a political worldview, but theoretically different religions could lead to different political views, so an atheist should reject a priori all of them?

    For example Jen in this episode says something like “today being opposed to marriage equality is a fringe idea, if you don’t agree you are on the radical fringe”. Maybe in Austin, but in the rest of the world?
    I totally agree with SSM and rights for anybody, totally, but there are probably still more than 6 billion people in this planet who would totally disagree with Jen. So, isn’t maybe this itself a form of extremism from a radical fringe?
    And what there was a religion that wanted to allow same sex marriage as a rule… should we atheists be against ssm in order to reject that religion? You see that there must be some orthogonality between religion and politics.

    You are remarkably unfamiliar with the show.
    Not really. Regarding Islam, is interesting what Jen said at the beginning of this show. “Had the bomber be a Muslim, people would have called him a terrorist, would have said that he was radicalised, because he went to this madrassa… But maybe this guy was educated in a Christian madrassa…” And this makes no sense, if ideas are important. If a Muslim guy kills random people, why shouldn’t we say that the fact that he believes in his religion may play an important role in his decision, and why should not we admit that it is much more problematic to assert the same for a Christian today? Isn’t trying to equate two religions that are very different today in terms of dangerousness a kind of hypocrisy. I can understand the reasons why a person educated in a madrassa wants to kill random Christians in Austin, but why should a Christian want to do the same?

  194. says

    @lusspanik

    Yep.. A lie as I said. Read what you sent me. This was specifically in response to the Syrian crisis. And it was voted on by members of the European parliament – who are elected by voters in the country they are from.

    So.. it fails on two fronts – one that general migration was set by quota, and two that quota was set by unelected officials.

    Anyway with that ability to lie and distort facts, I am done. Besides that, the debate has nothing to do with theism and time to stop an irrelevant debate.

    hey t90bb, how’s things?

  195. Monocle Smile says

    @uglygeek

    I totally agree with SSM and rights for anybody, totally, but there are probably still more than 6 billion people in this planet who would totally disagree with Jen

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Regardless, Jen was talking about the US, I believe.

    If a Muslim guy kills random people, why shouldn’t we say that the fact that he believes in his religion may play an important role in his decision, and why should not we admit that it is much more problematic to assert the same for a Christian today?

    Because this is simply not true. That’s why. It appears you know very little of Christianity, Islam, or the influences those religions have worldwide, yet pretend as though you do. Why is that?
    Here’s a hint: Muslims are actually underrepresented among US attacks by terrorists since 9/11.

  196. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #205

    This was specifically in response to the Syrian crisis.

    Speaking of splitting hairs, is an immigration quota motivated by the Syrian crisis not an immigration quota? You claimed, quote:

    This idea that Britain (or any nation in the EU for that matter) is not a sovereign nation due to its membership of the EU is an absolute lie.

    Now I’ve presented an instance where nations had immigration quotas set upon them against their collective will, how does that not translate to a betrayal of national sovereignty?

    And it was voted on by members of the European parliament – who are elected by voters in the country they are from.

    Each country’s representatives are proportional to the population of the country. This means higher population countries have vastly more representation in European parliament than lower population countries. For that to work a country would necessarily have to forfeit national sovereignty and grant federal authority to a European superstate. The question is to what extent the EU would take that authority, and as time has gone on it’s only gotten more invasive.
    The problem comes in when members don’t agree a specific policy is in their national interest, the inevitable outcome is the dissolution of individual European nations, because you can’t have such disparate and distinct populations as is seen in Europe under one federal governing body. The national interests of Greece, for example, aren’t necessarily congruous with the national interests of Slovakia. Something has to give, and that thing would be the sovereignty of individual nations for the interest of the whole.
    If countries want to collectivize and assimilate under the authority of a federation, more power to them, but I say the more authority is localized and able to independently pursue their particular national interests, the better. Especially considering Europe’s vastly distinct histories and cultures and interests.
    I’m a big advocate for freedom of association, interacting with other countries according solely to the will of national officials elected by the people, not the prescription of a disperate federal body.

    So.. it fails on two fronts – one that general migration was set by quota, and two that quota was set by unelected officials.

    1. It was. An immigration quota is an immigration quota, the motivation is irrelevant when a subject nation is opposed to the mandatory application of it.
    2. It was. Officials unelected by the people of a nation had a hand in deciding the nation’s policy, did they not? Just because the nation in question has representatives doesn’t mean the nation’s interests are expressed by policy.

    Anyway with that ability to lie and distort facts

    “Anyone who disagrees with me has malintent.”
    Aww, be nice. People can disagree, it’s okay, friend. The person you disagree with isn’t always motivated by malice and I’d expect you don’t have the justification to ascribe my intent anyways.

    Besides that, the debate has nothing to do with theism and time to stop an irrelevant debate.

    If that’s what you want to do, I understand. I’m sure we’d both agree on the topic of theism, so anyways, for the most part it’s been a pleasure talking with you. Thanks.

  197. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile #206

    Muslims are actually underrepresented among US attacks by terrorists since 9/11.

    I wonder if that has anything to do with America’s rigorous vetting process and immigration laws.
    Hmm, who’s to say really. Who knows why 1% of the highly selected population isn’t an issue, it’s anyone’s guess. I wonder if we’d see any differences in statistical likelihood with less stringent vetting and if that number were higher, say something like 5-6% in France or Germany or Sweden. Your guess is as good as mine.

  198. says

    @lusspanik

    No. Disagreement is fine. Twisting end distorting is not. I’m not alone in noticing this about you.

    FWIW, I agree that the EU parliament crossed a line with the mandating of Syrian refugee quotas. There is some reform needed in the EU.

    But your claim that a country has no right to set it’s own immigration quotas and instead has them set by unelected officials is in fact false.

  199. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #209

    No. Disagreement is fine. Twisting end distorting is not. I’m not alone in noticing this about you.

    Setting aside the appeal to popularity on a blog thread with currently ~5 active commenters, you’re free to believe I’m twisting and distorting. I don’t believe I am, I think we simply have a difference of opinion.

    FWIW, I agree that the EU parliament crossed a line with the mandating of Syrian refugee quotas. There is some reform needed in the EU.

    Now we’re reaching some common ground, if the EU’s authority was confined to trade agreements, I wouldn’t see any problem with it. If that were the case I’d say a country would be dumb to not join that coalition. My issue is when it has aspirations of becoming a legitimate superstate and undermines the national sovereignty of individual members.

    But your claim that a country has no right to set it’s own immigration quotas and instead has them set by unelected officials is in fact false.

    Why would an immigration quota be mandatory for specific countries and enforced with the penalty of fines if it was voluntary? Who is enforcing these mandatory quotas against the will of a country’s democratically elected government if not unelected officials?

  200. Monocle Smile says

    @lusspanik

    I wonder if that has anything to do with America’s rigorous vetting process and immigration laws.

    I see that “underrepresented” is yet another concept that escapes your brain.

    Hmm, who’s to say really. Who knows why 1% of the highly selected population isn’t an issue, it’s anyone’s guess

    What’s it’s like going through life so brazenly ignorant? Why do you pretend as if we’re all this pathetically uninformed?

  201. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile #211

    I see that “underrepresented” is yet another concept that escapes your brain.

    I never disputed they were underrepresented, I said I wonder why that is. Maybe America’s rigorous vetting process and immigration laws that have resulted in them being a highly selected 1% of the population has something to do with it.

    What’s it’s like going through life so brazenly ignorant? Why do you pretend as if we’re all this pathetically uninformed?

    Please elaborate what you mean by this in regard to my statement that they’re highly selected and make up 1% of the population. Is that false? Please do inform me.

  202. says

    “Why would an immigration quota be mandatory for specific countries and enforced with the penalty of fines if it was voluntary?”

    Is comprehension not your strong suit? This was a specific vote, in response to a specific issue. The issue of Syrian refugees swamping Greece and Italy and a response being to share the load.

    How.. and consider your answer carefully here… does that in any way relate to general immigration policies?

  203. CompulsoryAccount7746, Sky Captain says

    @uglygeek #203:

    I see that there is a correlation between a given religion and a political worldview, […] so an atheist should reject a priori all of them?

    An atheist rejects the religions’ authority. The newly deconverted (ideally) then go through a long process reassessing their education and opinions to decide whether each is worth keeping (for reasons other than divine mandate) or whether it needs to be discarded/replaced. This would be the case whatever denomination they left.
     
    Some people are… less reflective. They may carry that unexamined baggage out of inertia, poorly developed critical thinking skills, lack of awareness of better info, or simply not encountering challenging situations and alternate perspectives. Or they may shore up those opinions by falling for secular crackpottery: find an ‘expert’ who affirms what they had already taken for granted, then stop looking.

  204. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #213

    Is comprehension not your strong suit? This was a specific vote, in response to a specific issue. The issue of Syrian refugees swamping Greece and Italy and a response being to share the load. How does that in any way relate to general immigration policies?

    Again, love the patronization. I can’t fathom having a discussion without it at this point and it’s totally necessary.
    Now, I carefully considered my answer on your advice, are you ready… It doesn’t relate to general immigration policies.

    It relates to the EU undermining the collective wishes of sovereign nations to be in complete control of their borders because the EU feels it has the power to do so. What happens next time there’s a sweeping migration of people, and the time after that? How about when they get a little more confident and start pushing other mandatory policies justified by the will of foreign nations? How about when they conscript a military force on behalf of their members to take actions disagreed upon by entire member nations?
    Like I said, I’m in favor of free association between nations, I don’t play with these coercive punishment schemes under pseudo-democratic superstructures, it’s a recipe for trouble and the EU’s growing influence over its member states doesn’t show any signs of suddenly reversing its trajectory. It’s going to be a gradual progression to full assimilation and dissolution of the distinct national identities that make up Europe.

  205. says

    @Lusspanik

    Very good. Why didn’t you concede that 50 posts ago?

    With that it is not relevant to theism/atheism so should stop. It only started because of a side point about Sargon.

    As far as overreach by the EU, don’t agree either. But to say that is a valid reason for Brexit? Nah.

  206. indianajones says

    ‘I said I wonder why that is. Maybe America’s rigorous vetting process and immigration laws that have resulted in them being a highly selected 1% of the population has something to do with it.’

    JAQing off with an integrated awesomely racist dog whistle? Lovely.

  207. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #216

    Alright, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree and the future will tell. At least we can agree on the theism question. lol

    @indianajones #217

    JAQing off with an integrated awesomely racist dog whistle? Lovely.

    Would you care to expand on that? I’m not sure what you mean.

  208. indianajones says

    Just Asking Questions. With a specific pre-conceived answer in mind whilst pretending that you don’t have one. And the racist dog whistle? Dog whistling is appealing to racists (in this particular case) with plausible deniability. As an example, voter ID laws. Propoinents piously claim to be not racists and only interested in the integrity of the voting system, whilst utterly refusing to acknowledge that in fact they are effectively racist as hell.

    But I’m pretty sure you knew all of that already.

  209. uglygeek says

    @Sky Captain #214:

    Because this is simply not true. That’s why. It appears you know very little of Christianity, Islam, or the influences those religions have worldwide, yet pretend as though you do. Why is that?
    Here’s a hint: Muslims are actually underrepresented among US attacks by terrorists since 9/11.

    Excuse me, but I find all stats that start with “Since 2011/9/12…” to be a joke. And anyway this would be true for the US not for Europe, and we are talking of religions here, which are universal topics, so I would not focus the attention on our navel.

    But anyway, when we talk of religious terrorists we refer to acts of terrors that are made strictly in the name of a religion, following (rightly or wrongly) the alleged dictates of the sacred books. That’s very important. Most Italian mafia bosses are Catholic, but they don’t kill people, ask for protection money, sell drugs because they are Christian. They do so to gain power and earn money. Then maybe the police will find holy images in their hideouts, but still, as much as I can despise the message of the Bible, it does not call for organised crime. So when we talk about crimes and acts of terrors we need to look at the motivation behind these crimes.
    There are many mass shootings in the States, but how many of them are committed in the name of or because of religious motivations? Not many I thing. You can say that some white supremacists are Christian, but it is quite specious to associate white supremacy with Christianity. Maybe only Breivik, that Norwegian terrorist, was really motivated by religious fervour.
    What about Islam? Do you think jihad has nothing to do with the Quran and has nothing to do with terrorism? Do you think an (certainly extreme) interpretation of the Quran cannot lead somebody to wage war against Western values? What do you think motivated the Orlando nightclub shooting?

    Have you read Qutb? (Do you even know who Qutb is?)
    There is in Islam an intrinsic political push towards the transformation of society to adapt it to Islamic values by any means, even military, which directly leads to terrorism.
    That’s why I don’t accept this equating between Islam and Christianity (and I am absolutely a non believer). These two religions are not equally dangerous in 2018.

  210. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #219

    Let me get this straight, in your mind you think stating the Muslim population in the US and the fact that the US immigration system heavily vets all immigrants regardless of race is… racist…? How does that work exactly? You’re going to need to break this down for me a little more.

  211. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #222

    I’m asking bad faith questions because I’m asking you to clarify what you’re saying. Sure thing, man.
    You seem sensible and I’ve learned a lot from your name calling. Your ability to hold a civil conversation and articulate your ideas is unparalleled. Thanks.

  212. indianajones says

    Either you honestly misunderstand my and others clarifications, in which case I can’t teach calculus to a beagle (Noting that I can and have gotten the basics across to a switched on and interested 10 year old) OR you willfully misunderstand in which case you are a fucking sea lion. And not just to me, see much of the above with other people too. Either way, I have toe nails to go pick at and that is 100 words or so of distraction from this comparatively much higher priority right now.

  213. StonedRanger says

    Maybe it isn’t a duck or a sea lion. Maybe its a new species: Seaduck. Kinda like a crocoduck but more obtuse.

  214. lusspanik says

    @indianajones #224

    Oh, I’ve understood others’ clarifications, I just disagreed with them. You, on the other hand, have been entirely unable to make a single coherent point in any interaction you’ve had with me, and when asked to clarify something silly you’ve said, you start name calling and tap dancing. That’s your maneuver and it’s disingenuous. If I had to guess it’s a method to hide incompetence on your part. Seems like a convenient justification to dismiss the Socratic method as “obtuse.” It’s not my fault you have such a hard time explaining your ideas.

    @Shaun #225
    @StonedRanger #226

    It’s honestly surprising how similar the handful of commenters’ arguments here are to Christians. Can’t make your point, character attack, character attack, character attack. This isn’t at all what I expected when I came here. Frankly, think a few of you should be ashamed of yours and other’s conduct on this blog. I certainly would be, it’s embarrassing to act as if you’re civil and reasonable then resort to name calling and dismissal. How can you be so unaware that you’re being almost completely motivated by bias in this interaction?

  215. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    To lusspanik
    I might agree with you a little bit about the conduct of others. I also could have done better. However, I am still entirely nonplussed by your conduct here. For example, your ridiculous assertions. For example, your claim that you don’t judge people and you “never ever” ascribe malicious intent to others. For example, your asinine claim that I could not know that you once met someone in your life that you thought was trying to cheat you. At several times, I did feel like I was pulling teeth, and that you were being purposefully disingenuous and dishonest (see examples I just listed). I simply do not believe that you’re as foolish, naive, and gullible as you pretend to be.

  216. says

    “It’s honestly surprising how similar the handful of commenters’ arguments here are to Christians. Can’t make your point, character attack, character attack, character attack”

    No, the issue is quite clear. it takes you 50 posts of arguing minutae (and shifting the goalposts I might add) for you to be pinned down to any single point.

    My example: The amount of post it took you to concede that your assertion that the rules that governed EU member countries were not in fact determined by unelected officials.

    If you are going to argue that disingenuously in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary, then why are you surprised when people suggest a method to your style? I looked up the link that Indianajones provided and it fit you MO, so I said I agreed with him.

    As for questioning your motives, when all of the anti Europe propaganda has made big of the “unelected officials in Brussels”, a major lie among the leave campaigners, it’s a reasonable assumption to make that your world view is formed by such sources.

  217. says

    “My example: The amount of post it took you to concede that your assertion that the rules that governed EU member countries were not in fact determined by unelected officials.”

    Sorry that should read:

    The amount of post it took you to concede that your assertion that the rules that governed EU member countries were determined by unelected officials was in fact false.

  218. lusspanik says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal #228

    For example, your claim that you don’t judge people and you “never ever” ascribe malicious intent to others.

    Thanks for at least some concession at the beginning of your post. As for the quote, I’m entirely certain this is the case. Maybe on occasion I will accidentally do it and correct myself when it’s pointed out to me that I’ve done that, but I actively try to avoid fallacious argumentation like that.

    For example, your asinine claim that I could not know that you once met someone in your life that you thought was trying to cheat you.

    Simple misunderstanding, I never said you couldn’t know if someone had tried to cheat me, I said you couldn’t know whether I actively ascribe intent where it isn’t justified or not, which I don’t. At least not intentionally, as I mentioned in response to the last quote.

    At several times, I did feel like I was pulling teeth

    As have I, welcome to the nature of disagreement.

    and that you were being purposefully disingenuous and dishonest (see examples I just listed).

    The examples you gave aren’t sufficient evidence of me being disingenuous and dishonest for the reasons I’ve explained.

    I simply do not believe that you’re as foolish, naive, and gullible as you pretend to be.

    I’ll take that as a compliment, I guess. And it’s fair to disagree with me, but I’m curious if there are specific examples where I’ve made myself to look “foolish, naive, and gullible” other than, “Because you have obviously.” I don’t think I’ve pretended to be any of those things.

    @Shaun #229

    (and shifting the goalposts I might add)

    Oh cool, we’re doing this again. Cite one instance where I moved the goalposts.

    No, the issue is quite clear. it takes you 50 posts of arguing minutae for you to be pinned down to any single point.

    Perhaps it takes you that long, how can you presuppose you’re correct and I don’t have a legitimate perspective? This is what I’m taking about when not even giving the other side benefit of the doubt that they’re rational actors.
    Anyways, the point you think you pinned me down on, that distinction between “general” immigration policy and EU mandated immigration was an irrelevant distinction because it was never my claim that they had no ability to make their own policy, only that it’s superseded by other nations when they so choose.

    My example: The amount of post it took you to concede that your assertion that the rules that governed EU member countries were not in fact determined by unelected officials.

    I never conceded this at all. Please quote me. If you send representatives and other nations send representatives and your countries interests aren’t being expressed in policy, by definition unelected officials have decided what your country will do. The people in Slovakia didn’t elect the German and French MEPs who decided Slovakia should do something it didn’t want to do. That’s what I’m saying. It’s simple tyranny of the majority except that foreign nations are the ones establishing what another country will do.

    If you are going to argue that disingenuously in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary, then why are you surprised when people suggest a method to your style?

    The problem is I haven’t.

    I looked up the link that Indianajones provided and it fit you MO, so I said I agreed with him.

    Then you’re just as confused and eager to dismiss my perspective as he is. Congrats.

    a major lie among the leave campaigners

    It’s not a lie.

    it’s a reasonable assumption to make that your world view is formed by such sources.

    Do you mean sources like The New York Times and the Guardian and the Telegraph that I cited to support my position, or do you mean like the Sun and Breitbart because you have a preconceived notion of which ideas fit in which box?

  219. says

    @lusspanik

    Goal post shifting example? Yeah sure.

    I said your claim about unelected officials setting immigration quotas was an outright lie.

    At that point you went on to say well, the countries with smaller populations would have less representation in the European parliament, so they could get outvoted in such circumstances and that was unfair to them.

    Now while this is a valid point, and if you had put that up first I would have agreed with you, In this instance at was as clear an example of goal post shifting as you could possibly get.

  220. says

    “a major lie among the leave campaigners

    It’s not a lie.”

    What the fuck? Are you denying the existence of the European parliament now?

  221. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #232

    In this instance at was as clear an example of goal post shifting as you could possibly get.

    I just don’t see my explanation to clarify my position as goal shifting. Not sure what more I can say other than I gave an explanation in support of my statement, I didn’t change the parameters of the discussion.

    What the fuck? Are you denying the existence of the European parliament now?

    No. I’m saying the point about unelected officials setting policy for foreign nations when the nation itself is against the policy is not a lie.

    Cue now a tl;dr post about how my above example does not amount to goal shifting,

    Not sure if my explanation was tl;dr as that’s pretty subjective, but you did foresee that I would dispute it. Credit where it’s due.

    Can you give me some tips on shark killing?

    Not sure I can help you with that, what I can tell you though is what you’re doing now is akin to shooting confetti at the shark, and the shark is actually a dolphin curious about all the confetti.

    @indianajones #236
    Dangerous indeed, as honesty inherently is to poorly articulated ideas.
    I made a special picture just for you btw.
    https://i.imgur.com/TWrHnmp.jpg

  222. Monocle Smile says

    @Shaun
    Lusspanik is essentially arguing that anyone who votes for a losing politician is by definition being oppressed by unelected officials. Yes, it’s that stupid.

  223. says

    “I just don’t see my explanation to clarify my position as goal shifting.”

    You don’t? Well allow to explain.

    If you go, oh yeah you are right, and I was wrong it was not unelected officials, it was in fact a vote in a parliament, that is conceding a point. We can then move in to the rights and wrongs of eastern European countries being forced to accept migrants against their wishes because they lost a vote in the European parliament.

    When you move without skipping a beat to saying, “that’s what I meant by unelected officials” that is NOT clarifying your position, that is shifting your position without conceding that you have shifted it. If you don’t concede this, you are not worthy of debate.

  224. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile

    Lusspanik is essentially arguing that anyone who votes for a losing politician is by definition being oppressed by unelected officials.

    No. Because the winning politician of the nation is an elected official for that nation. Another nation’s elected official setting policy for your nation is what I mean when I say unelected official. Your country did not elect them, yet they are deciding what your country will do. It’s not that complicated.

    Yes, it’s that stupid.

    This must be embarrassing considering you didn’t understand what I was saying and decided to make a value judgement anyways.

  225. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #239

    If you go, oh yeah you are right, and I was wrong it was not unelected officials

    The problem is I never said that. Feel free to quote it if I did. The fact that other countries elected officials are voting is an irrelevant distinction. The policy of your nation is still being determined by officials your country did not elect. Hence unelected officials. Unelected by the nation being impacted. I don’t know how much more simply I can put this.

    We can then move in to the rights and wrongs of eastern European countries being forced to accept migrants against their wishes because they lost a vote in the European parliament.

    Sure, my position is that a nation should have sole sovereign control of its borders and decide as a nation what they’d like to do with them.

    When you move without skipping a beat to saying, “that’s what I meant by unelected officials” that is NOT clarifying your position, that is shifting your position without conceding that you have shifted it.

    It actually is clarifying my position. When I say, “They are unelected officials.” and you say, “Somebody elected them therefore they are elected.” my clarification is, “They are not elected by the country they are governing, therefore they are unelected to represent that nation’s interests.” I honestly don’t understand how this is being misconstrued as concession.

    If you don’t concede this, you are not worthy of debate.

    Oh no, an ultimatum founded on a flawed premise. What ever will I do?

  226. says

    @lusspanik

    Unelected officials mean unelected officials mate. As I said, you’re shifting the goalposts. I meant they weren’t elected in that country. So fucking what?

    When congress makes laws that the rep from Alabama doesn’t agree with but they get up because of support from California congressmen, does that mean Alabama is being governed by unelected officials? No it means you are working in a federal system, just like the European system.

    A good question may be why don’t they have a second house, like the US and Australian senates, but that is another debate entirely.

    Fuck me you’re good at splitting hairs.

  227. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #242

    Unelected officials mean unelected officials mate.

    You’re absolutely right, an elected official of another nation is not an elected official of your nation, hence being unelected to govern your state.
    Shinzo Abe is an elected official in Japan, Shinzo Abe is not an elected official in Zimbabwe. If Shinzo Abe starts directing policy in Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe would then be at the governance of an unelected official. This whole thing is a rhetorical argument, it’s clear when I say unelected official I don’t mean nobody elected them, I mean the country being enacted upon did not elect them, hence they are unelected to govern that nation. Hence unelected official.

    When congress makes laws that the rep from Alabama doesn’t agree with but they get up because of support from California congressmen, does that mean Alabama is being governed by unelected officials? No it means you are working in a federal system, just like the European system.

    You’re absolutely right, the only problem is America was founded as a single nation. States never had national sovereignty in the way independent European countries do. The federal system in Europe was not founded as a single nation. This necessarily results in a previously sovereign nation to voluntarily give up aspects of sovereignty.
    Now, if countries are willing to integrate into a European superstate, they can very well do that, but they shouldn’t be under any illusions that they have national sovereignty when the representatives of foreign nations are deciding what your nation will do. And I think national sovereignty is an appealing idea to a lot of people.

    A good question may be why don’t they have a second house, like the US and Australian senates, but that is another debate entirely.

    Like you said, that’s an entirely different discussion, and a valid one to have. I’m not saying it’s inherently wrong for Europe to federalize, but if a country wants to do that while remaining sovereign and independent, they can’t have it both ways. I think the problem is the EU was initially seen as a glorified trade union and time has gone on, Europe has taken the image of a fully functioning state while independent members are still holding onto being completely sovereign nations, torn between the idea of a unified Europe and independent agency over their nation.

    Fuck me you’re good at splitting hairs.

    Likewise. But it seems like we’re finally not running in circles over rhetoric now, so let’s not backslide into petty, backhanded insults, ok? Ok.

  228. Monocle Smile says

    @lusspanik

    This whole thing is a rhetorical argument, it’s clear when I say unelected official I don’t mean nobody elected them

    No, it’s not clear. You’ve come out with some serious nonsense in this thread, and “unelected” means “unelected,” not “elected by someone else.” Don’t blame us for your carelessness and stupidity.

    You’re absolutely right, the only problem is America was founded as a single nation. States never had national sovereignty in the way independent European countries do

    You know, some of the bullshit you spout is so unbelievably wrong it sounds like you pulled it straight from your ass (like your notion of the US immigration process), which is why people accuse you of being dishonest and sealioning. I get what they’re saying. This actually wasn’t really how the US started out, and it was only trivially true for a while.

    Also, this doesn’t fuckin’ matter. Only your xenophobia and excessive nationalism(?) finds this to be a significant distinction.

    Now, if countries are willing to integrate into a European superstate, they can very well do that, but they shouldn’t be under any illusions that they have national sovereignty when the representatives of foreign nations are deciding what your nation will do. And I think national sovereignty is an appealing idea to a lot of people.

    And there are a few US states filled with people who wish to secede as their own nation, but they can fuck themselves because they’re utterly clueless as to the consequences of that action.

  229. lusspanik says

    @Monocle Smile #244

    No, it’s not clear. You’ve come out with some serious nonsense in this thread, and “unelected” means “unelected,” not “elected by someone else.” Don’t blame us for your carelessness and stupidity.

    Is the elected official of Japan an elected official of Zimbabwe, or is he an unelected official in Zimbabwe? Your inability to recognize this distinction is telling of your unwillingness to speak on the topic honestly. Jean-Claude Juncker is not an elected official of Slovakia, yet he has a hand in determining Slovakian policy.

    some of the bullshit you spout is so unbelievably wrong it sounds like you pulled it straight from your ass (like your notion of the US immigration process)

    Care to elaborate where you disagree on my characterization of the US immigration process? By the way, why are only one of you capable of having a discussion without relying on insult tactics? Just curious?

    This actually wasn’t really how the US started out, and it was only trivially true for a while.

    America was founded as a single nation that expanded into more territory. Sovereign nations did not engage with America under the precept of a trade union then become assimilated into federalization.

    Also, this doesn’t fuckin’ matter. Only your xenophobia and excessive nationalism(?) finds this to be a significant distinction.

    It absolutely matters when independent nations are concerned about their national sovereignty. If you want to argue the legitimacy of nations to have agency, that’s a completely different discussion. Also, care to elaborate on how you came to the conclusion that I’m xenophobic and my recognition of independent nations having the right to self-interest equates to me being “excessively” nationalistic? Even if I’m in favor of nations having agency, it’s highly debatable whether or not that’s excessive.

    And there are a few US states filled with people who wish to secede as their own nation, but they can fuck themselves because they’re utterly clueless as to the consequences of that action.

    “Full of” is vague. Sure there are secessionist groups, but I’d be surprised if you provided evidence that any of them constituted a majority population of any given state.

  230. says

    Anyone on here ever tried to nail jelly to a wall?

    I’m done. I could attempt an explanation of the system of treaties that the member nations entered into et c, but there wouldn’t be any point. I’ve been in these type of discussions before. They go nowhere.

    I’ve made points and given examples of where I consider the goalposts to have been shifted. Just because, in the process of shifting them yet again the shifter says, “nah-ah, I’m not shifting goal posts” doesn’t mean they ain’t being shifted.

  231. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #246

    so let’s not backslide into petty, backhanded insults, ok?

    Anyone on here ever tried to nail jelly to a wall?

    Can’t say I didn’t try. But anyways, yes I have. Right now specifically.
    No goalposts have been moved, you just misinterpreted what I meant by unelected official and consider my explanation to be moving the goalposts.
    If it’s more palatable to you, we can call “unelected officials” something like, “officials from foreign nations who we didn’t elect” deciding what we do as a nation. Both mean exactly the same thing and it doesn’t change the parameters of the discussion, before you go claiming that as “moving the goalposts” as well. What you’re digging your heels in on is a completely rhetorical point, “They aren’t unelected because they’re elected somewhere.” is pedantic. They are unelected because the governed body didn’t elect them, a foreign nation did.

    I could attempt an explanation of the system of treaties that the member nations entered into

    Not sure what that would be in response to, I don’t know what points I’ve made hinge on member states entering into a system of treaties or not. I’d be completely willing to accept that and don’t know what it changes about what I’ve said.

    I’ve been in these type of discussions before. They go nowhere.

    You’re right, I wonder if getting this hung up on rhetoric when you know what I mean by unelected official due to my multiple explanations has anything to do with it going nowhere. I wouldn’t be surprised if you have been in these type of discussions before considering you seem so unwilling to accept a perfectly legitimate definition of a specific term and move on to the principle of the thing.

    I’ve made points and given examples of where I consider the goalposts to have been shifted.

    And I’ve made points and given examples of why I consider it’s being misapplied. Defining “unelected official” as “an official elected in a foreign nation expressing control over another nation’s policies that didn’t elect them” is a perfectly legitimate definition and doesn’t change the parameters of the discussion in any way, and is therefore not moving the goalposts.

    Just because, in the process of shifting them yet again the shifter says, “nah-ah, I’m not shifting goal posts” doesn’t mean they ain’t being shifted.

    “Just because, in the process of witchcraft, the witch says, “nah-ah, I’m not a witch” doesn’t mean they ain’t a witch.”
    Solid reasoning, my dude. Not to mention any honest representation of my defense would be much more substantial than “nah-ah.”
    Ironic how someone talking so much about people being disingenuous says something like this.

  232. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #248

    Fair enough. I agree with what you said, it wasn’t going anywhere. I’m sure one of the other three people are still going to try to mischaracterize my position from here, but I’m done too.
    I feel I’ve adequately expressed my position unless someone wants to talk about something else.
    For now I’ll leave this here as a reminder that @indianajones #222 @Shaun #225 @StonedRanger #226 all thought this was a reasonable point: https://i.imgur.com/TWrHnmp.jpg

  233. says

    Ha.. the old, I win because people got sick of responding to my bullshit line… good luck with that one. Still ain’t being drawn back in.

  234. lusspanik says

    @Shaun #250

    Ha.. the old, I win because people got sick of responding to my bullshit line… good luck with that one.

    I didn’t say anything even implying “I win.” I said, like you, I was also sick of the subject. Sit down.

  235. indianajones says

    ‘The rich kid becomes a junkie, the poor kid an advertiser. What a tragic waste of potential! Yeah, and the junkie’s not so great either.’

  236. jlsc says

    Confused, about the whole accept him at the end and you are forgiven. If that is true, then what was the point of the whole 10 commandments ? Apparently we can break them all, repeatedly, and all is forgiven at the end. Seems like just another contradiction…like another one is needed.

  237. says

    Nima says You have said everything I wanted to say and more. Matt and others have a platform and therefore a responsibility to check out some basic facts about the people they are talking about and talking to. Matt will be talking with Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson is an anti- woman, neo-nazi but one who can sound intellectual. However, this intellectualism is just on the very surface. Beneath it is a muck of bias, stupidly and hate. Anyone who is engaging to talk with him needs to research this so that a more honest and relevant conversation can take place. Just showing up unprepared is a waste of that event.

  238. mikejjj says

    Mohammad is a prime example of the most pig headed, ignorant, close minded person. It just makes me so angry that people like this exist. His reasoning is so incoherent. Please, one call from him is enough, stop accepting his calls.