I am like Solomon » « Today’s example of responsible gun ownership

That’s how it’s done

Greta Christina deservedly excoriates Sam Harris for his sexist remarks, and does a magnificent job of shredding him and his doubling down. It’s brutal.

She also replied to Phil Zuckerman’s comments. That one had me a little worried — I thought Zuckerman was temperate and appropriate, so especially when I read the first part I thought I was going to have to disagree with her…and then she does a flawless 180°, and I have to agree completely with her again.

I am like Solomon » « Today’s example of responsible gun ownership

Comments

  1. Suido says

    I said it over there, but I’ll say it again here: it’s sad that a writer of Greta’s skill and clarity should need to include so many caveats in her works.

    Whatever happened to skeptics arguing in good faith and applying critical thinking to their reasoning? They’re so good at it when the evidence supports their opinions…

  2. says

    Greta Christina:

    1: It makes the “social training and enforcement” angle invisible.

    2: It absolves you — and your readers — of the responsibility to do anything about it. Even if you believe that gender differences are a blend of innate and learned, zeroing in on the innate makes it easy to dismiss the learned part. “We’re just born different! It totally makes sense that women would be grossly under-represented in Fortune 500 companies! Women are just born to be more nurturing and less competitive! It’s innate! Why are you asking us to do anything about it?”

    These two points in particular are the ones I wish people would thing about and actually grok, before jumping straight to defensive doubling down.

    Which wouldn’t be such a terrible thing. We all have sexist ideas. Me, and you, and everyone we know. We all say wrong things sometimes — especially on the spur of the moment, when we’re on the spot and don’t have time to think.

    So many people have gone full court twitchy, that’s it’s barely possible to simply point out an example of saying something sexist, whether conscious or unconscious. If those who say something sexist would take a moment to think, and say something like “yep, it was. I’ll be aware of that now, and more thoughtful in the future”…but no, it’s witch hunts, lynchings, thought police, and not the sexist pig you’re looking for, oh my.

    Anway, that is a great fisking, Greta, thank you.

  8. says

    Tony! @ 3:

    Shame at least one person doesn’t get it in her comments.

    If you mean Jeff S., who also comments here, I think it’s beyond a shame. Jeff S. has been defending the white privileged atheist dudes for so long, that I don’t think it’s a matter of not getting it anymore. It’s willfully refusing to see sexism, even when it bites him on the nose. His ‘arguments’ are past annoying, because he keeps saying the same thing over and over again, as if that is some sort of magic spell, and people will somehow start posting “oh, yes, you’re right, not sexist at all!”.

  11. says

    Thanks Iyeska. It’s a screencap of the new Simpsons couch gag created by Don “Rejected” Hertzfeldt (look him up!), currently set as my FB profile shot. It’s a Homersquid!

  12. says

    Iyeska @8

    If Tony wasn’t thinking of that poster, I am. I wish I was more confident in making arguments because I was not finding his arguments persuasive.

  13. A. Noyd says

    ajb47 (#12)

    I wish I was more confident in making arguments because I was not finding his arguments persuasive.

    Why bother arguing with ass pimples like that who will forever refuse to consider that they’re wrong. It’s perfectly okay to tell someone their perspective is disgusting and they need to go away without explaining why. If they want explanations, it’s their job to signal that they are worth the effort.

  14. says

    A. Noyd @ 13

    I can only say that the arguing was because I hoped someone might see through the crap. Didn’t have to be the person I was arguing against.

  15. says

    ajb47 @12:

    I wish I was more confident in making arguments because I was not finding his arguments persuasive.

    In this case, I wouldn’t worry. Jeff S treats his opinion on anything as set in concrete, and simply repeats the same shit over and over and over and over, regardless of how many times or how many people explain things to him. He did this in the Good Morning America thread, and it was fucking infuriating.

  16. says

    I’m clearing up some ignorance on my part WRT racial stereotypes of blacks in the US. In looking up the “Some of my best friends are…” crap I came across this RationalWiki page on the Friend Argument. I’m sure many people here are familiar with it, but I thought I’d share it in case someone isn’t:

    It is one of the easiest ways to try to worm out of accusations of prejudice. The thinking is that someone cannot be prejudiced if they have friends of that demographic; if they had a real prejudice against a full group, then none of them would be okay to hang around. In a rather absurd example, someone can cite a specific example that excuses their general behaviour, for example “how can I be a misogynist, I love my mother.”- or, in an even more absurd example “I’m not sexist- after all, all of my girlfriends have been female.” While this line of reasoning might be true for someone who genuinely doesn’t have a general prejudice, it isn’t a good argument to prove it – and it certainly doesn’t absolve someone who actually does hold such a belief. The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one “friend,” completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone’s views. This is simply not valid reasoning. The presence (or not) of a prejudice is determined by what follows the “But…” in those above examples, not what comes before.

    Often, the excuse is accompanied by the fact that this hypothetical friend is “not typical” of the group being discriminated against. This would be like saying “I have a Muslim friend, he’s not a typical Muslim because he doesn’t fly planes into buildings,” or “my friend is an atheist and he doesn’t preach like Dawkins and co.!” This usually reveals more about where someone’s prejudices towards a group stem from; anecdotal evidence, selective reporting of the “bad” ones, or existing stereotypes. The fact is, a person attempting this argument is guilty of forming a prejudice against an entire group by only looking at a few examples that confirm their views.

    Having a friend who belongs to a demographic that one hates isn’t incompatible with a prejudice against that demographic – and this is the key to the fallacy. A prejudice, is by its etymology a “pre-judgement” of someone, based on more general information that may not necessarily apply to an individual. This can be a relatively benign conclusion (“he’s a gay man, he must like fashion”) or it can be the considerably more negative (“he’s a black man, he’s going to stab me”). However, once some has actually gotten beyond the stage of judging someone on prior knowledge, they can change their mind about that individual. In many cases, this might overturn the prejudice entirely but in the case of people using the friend argument, it has only overturned the prejudice against one individual, or maybe a few more. The prejudice, the pre-judgement against a group of people, still stands. This is why saying you have a friend in one particular demographic doesn’t excuse racism, homophobia or other prejudice; you can’t have a pre-judgement about someone you already know, but you can still maintain your pre-judgement against people you haven’t met.

    I wonder if Sam Harris is familiar with this…

  17. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    Of course Jeff S is there repeatedly describing Sam Harris’ thought process and masturbating over a single phrase in his explanation and completely ignoring all the other detailed and thoughtful points Greta made. What a pompous, supercilious ass he is.

  18. ck says

    @Seven of Mine,

    That seems to be a trait most of Sam Harris’ defenders have in common. Somehow Harris manages to be misunderstood time and time again, but when given the chance to clarify, he appears to restate what people were offended by. However, despite the fact he’s almost always “misunderstood”, Harris must be considered a top notch communicator for secularism.

  19. vaiyt says

    In a rather absurd example, someone can cite a specific example that excuses their general behaviour, for example In a rather absurd example, someone can cite a specific example that excuses their general behaviour, for example “how can I be a misogynist, I love my mother.”- or, in an even more absurd example “I’m not sexist- after all, all of my girlfriends have been female.”

    Even the most cold-blooded gangster loves their mama, but that’s not evidence in favor of them not being dangerous for everyone else.

  20. Seven of Mine: Lost in the Ether says

    ck @ 18

    Pretty sure there’s a subset of skeptics who think “rational” is a state of enlightenment one ascends to and that correct reasoning is therefor merely a description of your own thought process as opposed to a conscious method to be employed. It would seem to explain why so many people have this tendency to do nothing but repeat themselves, each time getting more verbose. They actually think the problem is that we’re not following their thought process.

  21. Seven of Mine: Shrieking Feminist Harpy says

    ck @ 18

    Pretty sure there’s a subset of skeptics who think “rational” is a state of enlightenment one ascends to and that correct reasoning is therefor merely a description of your own thought process as opposed to a conscious method to be employed. It would seem to explain why so many people have this tendency to do nothing but repeat themselves, each time getting more verbose. They actually think the problem is that we’re not following their thought process.

  22. azhael says

    Argh…that jakup idiot in the Zuckerman’s thread…

    ‘If you’re not especially careful not to offend the easily offended, then you’re a bigot.’ Fuck that mentality.

    Maybe the shit that you say is actually, genuinely offensive for excellent reason and you are just too fucking bigoted to even realise it.
    Maybe asking you to mind the feelings of others and not be prejudiced against them is reanosable and it’s not a completely disproportionate, extreme, unreasonable thing to ask because after all you are fine with women voting and you don’t beat/kill gays or blacks so isn’t that enough? How dare you ask for more? EXTREMISTS!! RADICAAAAAAAAAAALSSSSS!!!!!

  23. tsig says

    Sam “I am not a sexis pig” Harris:

    I was born of a woman, I have women friends, I love me some women, oink, oink, oink.

  25. cicely says

    Tony!:
    “Some of my best friends are….” intersects with “S/he’s one of the good ones.” And that’s how the racist rabbit is pulled out of the bigot’s hat.
    –