LoveUni since the whole thread is about Harris I took that as given. Harris opposed Trump but in many ways supports Trumpism. He agrees with Trump about Islam, racial profiling and bombing civilians in principle, he just thinks Trump is not the guy to execute the policies because he is crazy. I have listened and read a lot by Sam Harris, probably more than you.
Sam Harris on Trump - The Most Powerful Clown
by cofty 103 Replies latest social current
-
-
LoveUniHateExams
I have listened and read a lot by Sam Harris - good, but how much of it have you remembered?
since the whole thread is about Harris I took that as given - ok but, to be fair, that was unclear from your comments.
He agrees with Trump about Islam, racial profiling and bombing civilians in principle - Cofty pointed out that Harris said that if Islamic terrorists acquired nuclear weapons, a pre-emptive nuclear strike would be necessary.
I actually happen to disagree with him there but think that if ISIS do acquire nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, the West should pre-emptively strike with extreme prejudice that involves the use of ordinary bombs and missiles.
Harris brought up the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike in extreme circumstances. Boo-hoo. Bad things happen in wars, such as the unfortunate death of innocents. He should not be vilified for giving his opinion. Suggesting that Harris laid the foundation for Trump is a strange analysis of the situation. How can Harris support 'Trumpism' but be so vehemently against Trump?
So, out of the list Cofty gave, Harris definitely didn't support Trump but supported (and possibly voted) Hillary and Murray and Nawaz couldn't vote for Trump because they're not American - Maajid Nawaz, being a LibDem likely doesn't support Trump either.
-
slimboyfat
On my side I just noticed Zizek said he would vote from Trump.
Although he's backtracking a bit since. Even as he admits Trump is ("almost"?) proto-fascist.
I'm done with that guy too. When the history of this period is written ( if there are people alive to write it) it should be noted where the "intellectuals" of our time stood.
-
Simon
Gad Saad supported Trump. Murray refused to say if he supported Trump but said he opposed Clinton. I don't know about the rest, where did they stand?
Interesting. He (Gad Saad) was pretty specific on the threat of Islam growing in the west. Not the sudden terrorist attacks, but the slow creep where pretty soon women are not safe to walk the streets and anyone dressing how they want to faces harassment.
I don't think he's the only person who find Trump's position more appealing than the regressive left.
I know from my own experience on this forum that as much as you can be pro-fairness and civil treatment for Muslims or Gays / Transgender or whatever, it is never enough. Someone will want to make an issue of anything you say if you voice anything but 100% admiration and support for people from the group, even when they are dangerous or are just being complete and utter dicks.
I'm now at the point of thinking "fuck em". I was sympathetic at first but when people go trying to make issues and cause problems for decent people who are just trying to make a living so they can sue and harass them they lose my sympathy.
These groups have made enemies out of groups who were not their enemy and drove their sympathy and support away.
Now "we" (usually white men) are supposed to be guilty again because so many voted Trump while at the same time, so many who were threatened didn't bother to turn out?
Also turned into enemies were anyone who spoke out about the true threats to these groups, the ones throwing them from buildings, not the ones using the wrong (invented yesterday) pronoun.
Fuck you regressives. You got greedy. You messed it all up. Trump, and everything he does, is all your fault (and of course Hillary for putting ambition and personal convenience ahead of everyone else's wellbeing).
-
cofty
Fuck you regressives. You got greedy. You messed it all up. Trump, and everything he does, is all your fault - Simon
I think there is a basic problem of supply and demand.
A whole generation of young liberals have grown up learning about the evils of racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia etc. Excellent! However the victories of the previous generation seem to have escaped their attention. There is a dearth of genuine social justice battles to be fought so they invent new ones. "Micro-aggressions" have been elevated to a level of moral atrocity equivalent to Jim Crow Laws of the '50s. Social Justice is the new secular religion with all of the irrational ideologies of a cult.
The Regressive Left have been indoctrinated with the ideology of moral relativism and equality: not equality of opportunity but equality of outcome. The algorithm is simple.
1 - Identify a field of human activity
2 - Observe that some people are doing better than others in this specific area
3 - Identify those doing less well as victims
4 - Label those doing better as over-privileged perpetratorsThe majority have had enough of the whining. Some cultures are superior: vastly superior. There are significant biological differences between the sexes. Some belief systems are incompatible with human progress. Mass immigration is damaging to society.
Trump is what you get when you try to force the majority to suppress their common sense and believe impossible things.
-
bohm
SBF:
Gad Saad supported Trump. Murray refused to say if he supported Trump but said he opposed Clinton. I don't know about the rest, where did they stand?
It's amazing you'd hold up as admirable a list including people who supported Trump. Why does the world need more voices of people who are so confused in their moral thinking that opposing Trump is not a no brainer for them?You won't like this comparison, but Sam Harris has a phrase that if you can't stand up to radical islamism and condemn it without 'but's, that's failing a moral litmus test.
Supporting Donald Trump is IMO such a test. I can't understand why it is not black and white clear that a candidate who so openly says he WILL erode constitutional rights and institutions is not fit to be president, issues that are unaffected by whatever mean things the supporters of the other candidate might say.
-
bohm
Trump is what you get when you try to force the majority to suppress their common sense and believe impossible things.
This might be true in a causal sense, but it is simply saying that Trump supporters act in the same way as those they criticize...
The worst a blue-haired idiot on tumbler can hope to accomplish is creating institutional problems at Yale that can eventually be fixed in the legal system if they are actually unlawfull. That's a whole other ballgame than promising to fuck with the constitution...
-
cofty
it is simply saying that Trump supporters act in the same way as those they criticize...
Indeed.
Authoritarianism on the right and the left.
If I am not mistaken Orwell's 1984 was a warning about the leftist version.
-
Finkelstein
The only reason Trump won the Collegiate vote which won him the presidency is because he promised to bring back jobs to the US and rebuild the sorely economic depressed areas of the US, such as in the States of Michigan and Iowa, excluding such States as California and New York.
So sensitive and vitally important to these areas that people were willing to overlook his questionable character. Money was the real concern to these people and Trump sounded like he was going to help them out with their problem. They weren't confident that Hillary would do what they felt was needed, that she was too closely aligned to the corporate world, which to them gave the shaft and left them high and dry.
And a problem that the now in place Democratic President didn't fully address. So lets try this guy out he seems to have some ideas which sound feasible in theory.
-
slimboyfat
You won't like this comparison, but Sam Harris has a phrase that if you can't stand up to radical islamism and condemn it without 'but's, that's failing a moral litmus test.
Supporting Donald Trump is IMO such a test. I can't understand why it is not black and white clear that a candidate who so openly says he WILL erode constitutional rights and institutions is not fit to be president, issues that are unaffected by whatever mean things the supporters of the other candidate might say.I agree rejecting Donald Trump should be a litmus test and Douglas Murray, Gad Saad and (sadly) Slavoj Zizek failed miserably. Trump is a man who suggested violence and imprisonment of his opponent, encouraged supporters to throw punches, intimidated reporters who said things he didn't like, and promoted war crimes involving killing civilians, among many, many other other things, each of which should have disqualified him instantly. It's hard to fathom how awful his election is. I would take some convincing that a good and proper thinking person would have any hesitation in rejecting him completely. Bye, bye Saad, Murray and Zizek.
By the way I have no trouble condemning radical Islam without reservation if by radical Islam we have in mind people like ISIS, the Saudi regime, and extremists who plot terror across the world. Who really has reservations about that? Are there good examples Harris points to? The trouble with Harris is when he attempts to extend and smear Muslims in general and paint the whole religion as essentially evil.