Feet of Clay

Holy Crap!
User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Feet of Clay

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:27 am

Some of the people mentioned in this article I failed to find agreeable from my first encounter with their work (mostly Sam Harris but also to a lesser extent, Pinker), one I admit I've never heard of (James Lindsay) and a couple I used to admire (mainly Lawrence Krauss, though I still appreciate his work in cosmology). David Silverman elicited nearly instant dislike. This piece is a rogue's gallery; the subjects tell the story with their own actions and words. I disagree that they can all be lumped in with the 'far right,' but that's probably the work of the headline editor.

'Godless grifters: How the New Atheists merged with the far right'
It was inspiring — really inspiring. I remember watching clip after clip of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens debating Christians, Muslims and "purveyors of woo," exposing the fatuity of their faith-based beliefs in superstitious nonsense unsupported by empirical evidence, often delivered to self-proclaimed prophets by supernatural beings via the epistemically suspicious channel of private revelation. Not that Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens were saying anything particularly novel — the inconsistencies and contradictions of religious dogma are apparent even to small children. Why did God have to sacrifice his son for our sins? Does Satan have free will? And how can the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be completely separate entities but also one and the same?

...

New Atheism appeared to offer moral clarity, it emphasized intellectual honesty and it embraced scientific truths about the nature and workings of reality. It gave me immense hope to know that in a world overflowing with irrationality, there were clear-thinking individuals with sizable public platforms willing to stand up for what's right and true — to stand up for sanity in the face of stupidity.

Fast-forward to the present: What a grift that was! Many of the most prominent New Atheists turned out to be nothing more than self-aggrandizing, dogmatic, irascible, censorious, morally compromised people who, at every opportunity, have propped up the powerful over the powerless, the privileged over the marginalized. This may sound hyperbolic, but it's not when, well, you look at the evidence. So I thought it might be illuminating to take a look at where some of the heavy hitters in the atheist and "skeptic" communities are today. What do their legacies look like? In what direction have they taken their cultural quest to secularize the world?

... [Rogue's gallery]

This is hardly an exhaustive list. But it's enough to make clear the epistemic and moral turpitude of this crowd. There is nothing ad hominem in saying this, by the way: The point is simply that the company one keeps matters. What's sad is that the New Atheist movement could have made a difference — a positive difference — in the world. Instead, it gradually merged with factions of the alt-right to become what former New York Times contributing editor Bari Weiss calls the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW), a motley crew of pseudo-intellectuals whose luminaries include Jordan Peterson, Eric and Bret Weinstein, Douglas Murray, Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro, in addition to those mentioned above.

At the heart of this merger was the creation of a new religious movement of sorts centered around the felt loss of power among white men due to the empowerment of other people. When it was once acceptable, according to cultural norms, for men to sexually harass women with impunity, or make harmful racist and sexist comments without worrying about losing a speaking ppportunity, being held accountable can feel like an injustice, even though the exact opposite is the case. Pinker, Shermer and some of the others like to preach about "moral progress," but in fighting social justice under the misleading banner of "free speech," they not only embolden fascists but impede further moral progress for the marginalized. ...

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by pErvinalia » Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:57 am

Sam Harris is a troubling one, as he comes across as eminently reasonable. It's easier to dismiss the nut jobs like Boghossian.

Interestingly haven't heard much out of Dawkins for a while. Has he become a Hermit?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 8950
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by NineBerry » Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:34 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:57 am
Sam Harris is a troubling one, as he comes across as eminently reasonable. It's easier to dismiss the nut jobs like Boghossian.

Interestingly haven't heard much out of Dawkins for a while. Has he become a Hermit?
He has become a literary critic. He doesn't like Kafka's "Die Verwandlung" because it's not realistic. :dunno:

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Cunt » Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:20 pm

They sound like a nice bunch. Hadn't heard of Douglas Murray before, so this is probably an ad for his material.

I listened to a bunch of Jordan Peterson stuff, so I understand most of the attacks against him. They most often rely on misrepresenting his words, or simply attacking his character. Doesn't work because as I said I listened to his words myself, and I already knew he had character.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Sean Hayden
Microagressor
Posts: 17879
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
About me: recovering humanist
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Sean Hayden » Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:03 pm

Have you read any of his books? That's what ended my interest in Sam Harris. The Moral Landscape -- :lay:

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Hermit » Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:16 pm

Richard Dawkins is an egocentric member of the establishment. His ambition is to rise ever higher within its ranks. His collection of doctorates honoris causa, his fellowships and his begging for a knighthood attest to that. His frequent foot in mouth type utterances suggest to me that he is also somewhat autistic in some way or another. I can't say I have ever been impressed by him. This might have something to do with the fact that I have slotted quite comfortably into de facto atheist mode around three decades before the publication of The God Delusion. The book may have been an eye-opener to quite a number of theists, but to me it was a passable polemic, containing little material I was not already aware of.

One thing that irked me is that he claimed not to have insulted theists. That is a lie. He manifestly did when he invented this quote, purportedly written by Robert M. Pirsig "When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." Dawkins claimed it can be found in Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It can't. Not there, nor anywhere else (until it showed up in The God Delusion). What Pirsig did write, was "An insane delusion can't be held by a group at all. A person isn't considered insane if there are a number of people who believe the same way. Insanity isn't supposed to be a communicable disease. If one other person starts to believe him, or maybe two or three, then it's a religion." This is pretty much the opposite meaning of the "quote" Dawkins made up. It also did not appear in the book Dawkins cited. It comes out of a later one, which was titled Lila - An Inquiry Into Morals. If i were charitable, I'd say that in light of Dawkins's academic background this is a particularly striking instance of slovenliness. I don't feel charitable.

What irks me even more is the arrogance exemplified by his shortlived campaign to have atheists become known as "the Brights". It does not just display immoderate arrogance. It also reveals a complete ignorance of the social dimension. Most of us don't become atheists because we are bright. As Phil Zuckerman put it
Concerning the actual raising of children, it appears that, just as religious offspring tend to follow in the footsteps of the irreligious parents, secular children also tend to be raised by secular parents [...] if the father had no religion but the mother did, about one-sixth of such children grew up to become religious ‘‘Nones;’’ if the mother had no religion but the father did, about half of such children became religious ‘‘Nones;’’ and if both parents had no religion, approximately 84 percent of such children grew up to have no religion themselves. Clearly, childhood socialization is a major factor in determining whether someone will be religious – or not.
(My emphasis)

Then there is the question of opportunity. How many bright people spend their lives flipping burgers, changing tyres or doing other menial, soul-destroying jobs because they have neither the social or material support for furthering themselves intellectually, while thoroughly mediocre or even inadequate minds find their way into proper education because they have both?



Dawkins is a dork. Sam Harris is a catastrophe. I think his racism à la Richard Herrnstein's and Charles Murray's The Bell Curve has been mentioned in the article linked to by l'Emmerdeur, as has his advocacy of torture and his opinion that a preemptive nuclear strike against a Muslim nation may be necessary. What has not been mentioned is his academic achievement. In 2010 he presented a Ted talk on how (he claimed) science can answer moral questions. Yes, you read that right. Harris proposed a set of objective morals, sort of ethics running in parallel to evolutionary behaviourism, or something like that. It is a confused clusterfuck of epic proportions.

The Ted talk was a summary of his forthcoming book on the topic, which in turn was based on his PhD thesis. If I had anything to do with that, I would have given him an F for it. Then I would have sacked everyone connected with giving him a pass. Those people proved their irredeemably scientific and/or philosophic incompetence. Then I'd cancel any and all of the university' accreditations as an educational institution. How the fuck could they possibly confer a PhD on Harris when he had earnt no other degrees? It can only be fraud or political skulduggery.

Although they tend to talk about different topics, the main differences between Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro are that the former talks more slowly, he does not sound like a chook being strangled, he can be funny and he is passive-aggressive rather than simply aggressive. Apart from that, they are just another two members of the allegedly intellectual right, aka the intellectual dark web.



As for the rest of the people mentioned in the article, I don't know enough about them to comment in detail. All I can say is that I am not surprised that middleaged men in privileged positions tend to make a sharp right turn. Also, that apart from a common lack of belief in the existence of a supernatural creator of life, the universe and everything, atheists are about as varied as the population at large.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Cunt » Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:25 pm

Harris never interested me that much. I read one of the books (The End Of Faith) but he wasn't all that good. Or I'm not.

As to Peterson, never read his books, but he has been interesting enough to listen to. His critics don't do all that well disturbing his ideas, because a lot of times, they aren't criticizing his words, but their 'straw-Peterson'.

Like his description of Pareto distribution...it's easy enough for the ignorant to blame the distribution on him, when he is simply relaying facts.

Of course, some of his topics are difficult to talk about, but if you go to places where people are free to speak about both sides, it gets easier.

His stuff isn't all that revolutionary, but he firmly refuses to say things he doesn't believe, and for some, that is heresy. For others, they call it 'a hatespeech'. Same thing, different colour.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
NineBerry
Tame Wolf
Posts: 8950
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:35 pm
Location: nSk
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by NineBerry » Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:48 pm

20210608_204750.jpg

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Seabass » Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:17 pm

Cunt wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:20 pm
They sound like a nice bunch. Hadn't heard of Douglas Murray before, so this is probably an ad for his material.

I listened to a bunch of Jordan Peterson stuff, so I understand most of the attacks against him. They most often rely on misrepresenting his words, or simply attacking his character. Doesn't work because as I said I listened to his words myself, and I already knew he had character.
Cunt wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:25 pm
Harris never interested me that much. I read one of the books (The End Of Faith) but he wasn't all that good. Or I'm not.

As to Peterson, never read his books, but he has been interesting enough to listen to. His critics don't do all that well disturbing his ideas, because a lot of times, they aren't criticizing his words, but their 'straw-Peterson'.

Like his description of Pareto distribution...it's easy enough for the ignorant to blame the distribution on him, when he is simply relaying facts.

Of course, some of his topics are difficult to talk about, but if you go to places where people are free to speak about both sides, it gets easier.

His stuff isn't all that revolutionary, but he firmly refuses to say things he doesn't believe, and for some, that is heresy. For others, they call it 'a hatespeech'. Same thing, different colour.
Don't forget to wash your dick and ass, Cunt. :prof:
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:10 pm

Cunt wrote:
Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:25 pm
Harris never interested me that much. I read one of the books (The End Of Faith) but he wasn't all that good. Or I'm not.

As to Peterson, never read his books, but he has been interesting enough to listen to. His critics don't do all that well disturbing his ideas, because a lot of times, they aren't criticizing his words, but their 'straw-Peterson'.

Like his description of Pareto distribution...it's easy enough for the ignorant to blame the distribution on him, when he is simply relaying facts.

Of course, some of his topics are difficult to talk about, but if you go to places where people are free to speak about both sides, it gets easier. r.
I'm interested to hear how Pareto Distribution can be specifically talked about in "places where people are free to speak about both sides". What particular information, explanations, or insights have you gleaned about Pareto Distribution in these places that you were prevented from, or weren't able to glean in other, less favourable places?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Cunt » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:17 pm

That it applies to distribution, regardless of our preferences, prejudices or wishes. Some do better than others.

That's equality.

Equity, on the other hand, seeks to make outcomes match.

They conflict directly, with the funniest example being how many proponents decline to take their wealth and make 'equity' with those around them.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:15 pm

Cunt wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:17 pm
That it applies to distribution, regardless of our preferences, prejudices or wishes. Some do better than others.

That's equality.

Equity, on the other hand, seeks to make outcomes match.

They conflict directly, with the funniest example being how many proponents decline to take their wealth and make 'equity' with those around them.
That's a point of view for sure, but can you explain how this might actually play out within the context of a Pareto Distribution model, perhaps applied to a specific instance of your choosing - and by that, show the additional insights or understandings about Pareto Distribution you arrived at in those "places where people are free to speak about both sides", and which, presumably, you would not have arrived at otherwise?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Cunt
Lumpy Vagina Bloodfart
Posts: 18529
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:10 am
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Cunt » Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:15 pm

No thanks. I'm not good at controversial subjects. I'll be happy to read along if you find someone to discuss it with you though. Maybe I'll learn something.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists


Joe wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:22 pm
he doesn't communicate

The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.

Update: I've been offered one!
rainbow wrote:
Mon Nov 06, 2023 9:23 pm
It is actually quite easy. A woman has at least one X chromosome.
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Brian Peacock » Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:25 pm

What's controversial about a statistical formula? At least you can talk about what "both sides" of the Pareto Distribution are or might be, surely?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Seabass
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:32 pm
About me: Pluviophile
Location: Covidiocracy
Contact:

Re: Feet of Clay

Post by Seabass » Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:26 pm

Cunt wrote:
Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:15 pm
No thanks. I'm not good at controversial subjects. I'll be happy to read along if you find someone to discuss it with you though. Maybe I'll learn something.
In other words, you were parroting something Peterson said without actually understanding it.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." —Voltaire
"They want to take away your hamburgers. This is what Stalin dreamt about but never achieved." —Sebastian Gorka

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests