JRPC wrote:

Right, I've just read it.

Broadly I'm with Sam on the actual issue, but as an exchange I think Chomsky lets himself down enormously. Aggressive and unwilling to engage in any meaningful dialogue.

As Harris points out, he seems to start off at the end of his tether and deteriorates from there.

Harris fans in a nutshell. Quite how anyone can read that and come to that conclusion is insane.

Harris and shills like him essentially say: western values are rational. Western harm is unintentional fallout from rational good intentions. Basically a state religion. Clinton never lies, the US doesn't. Harm caused by them is never as morally repugnant as the harm caused by religious extremists. The fact that it causes thousands more deaths is neither here nor there. Not that Chomsky ever argued that 9/11 was in any way excus d by US wrongs, as JRPC claimed (and didn't retract even after reading the exchange)

Just fanboys getting conned, they're all over the internet.

At 8:24 of that video, same argument as the Sudan bombing. No doubt Israeli soldiers commit atrocities vs Palestinians. But we know that this is not the "general intent" of Israel.

Funny how bad things done by some muslims are ipso facto evidence of the general stink of the whole fucking lot of the brown bastards, eh.

Much of what you say above is total bullshit, and I think I can clearly demonstrate that to you if you're actually interested in being corrected.

Some of it's opinion. I mean, I don't object to anything in the israel video you posted but if you do I can't really call you out for being wrong as such.  

And then there's the "funded by Zionists" bit which is just conspiracy nonsense and cheapens everything else you have to say.

legaldinho wrote:

I think any intellectually able person, any real independent person, should be ashamed to share this guy's views.

What's your view of Majiid Nawaz?

For the record, I own a few of his books, and think Harris is genuine. I just think he's flat out wrong and simplistic on some important topics.

He wrote a great article about wanting smart polies when Palin was running. I'm sure it would stand up today given trump.

JRPC wrote:

Much of what you say above is total bullshit, and I think I can clearly demonstrate that to you if you're actually interested in being corrected.

Some of it's opinion. I mean, I don't object to anything in the israel video you posted but if you do I can't really call you out for being wrong as such.  

And then there's the "funded by Zionists" bit which is just conspiracy nonsense and cheapens everything else you have to say.

Bullshit. You can't have an opinion that you know that Israel's general intent isn't to commit atrocities against Palestinians. You just assume, like he does, that the guys who say they're good guys must be good guys because they say they're good guys.

A single look at the kill count on both sides of the Israeli Palestinian conflict in the last 15 years will show you how odious that view is, never mind how it produces irrational results.

I think even if you give the benifit of doubt regarding intent, there is still the knowledge that there will be a number of civilians killed (within a range) if a certain action is taken, so even without intent there is acceptance of the known consequences. Harris does little to address that.

Congrats, Rev. Top work.

Hi Rev!!!

GooberTheHat wrote:

I think even if you give the benifit of doubt regarding intent, there is still the knowledge that there will be a number of civilians killed (within a range) if a certain action is taken, so even without intent there is acceptance of the known consequences. Harris does little to address that.

a piece called in defence of torture wrote:

]I will now present an argument for the use of torture in rare circumstances. While many people have objected, on emotional grounds, to my defense of torture, no one has pointed out a flaw in my argument. I hope my case for torture is wrong, as I would be much happier standing side by side with all the good people who oppose torture categorically. I invite any reader who discovers a problem with my argument to point it out to me. I would be sincerely grateful to have my mind changed on this subject.

The argument is lifted from Jack Bauer fyi and need not be reproduced. This man knows what he is doing, he is fairly smart, and manipulative. These are not the words of a genuine person.

JRPC wrote:

Much of what you say above is total bullshit, and I think I can clearly demonstrate that to you if you're actually interested in being corrected. Some of it's opinion. I mean, I don't object to anything in the israel video you posted but  if you do I can't really call you out for being wrong as such.   And then there's the "funded by Zionists" bit which is just conspiracy nonsense and cheapens everything else you have to say.

Bullshit. You can't have an opinion that you know that Israel's general intent isn't to commit atrocities against Palestinians. You just assume, like he does, that the guys who say they're good guys must be good guys because they say they're good guys.

You’re ignoring everything I’ve said there Gonz, but OK. I think Harris makes a decent stab in that video trying to reason out the motivations of Israel, but even if I grant you the Israeli intentions are a complete mystery, that absolutely cannot be said for Palestinians. We know precisely what their intentions are because they repeatedly tell us both through their actions but also by explicitly actually telling us. Like Harris says, imagine for a minute a reversal of power where the Palestinians had the kind of resources/firepower available to the Israelis and vice versa. You tell me Gonz - how well do see the Jews doing in Gaza 24 hours later? 

You just proved my point 

All strawman and misdirection (don't criticise Israel because look at charter of Hamas and Muslims hate Jews and deny Holocaust etc)

I don't think you understood what I was saying there, or you wouldn't have worked so hard to prove my point. What Harris does, apart from assuming the benevolence of Israel's intentions which, as you reluctantly acknowledge, is not opinion or fact but a position, is misdirect the argument.

We are not arguing from this position:

1. Israel is a powerful state supported by America with a competent military and economy.
2. Israel intentionally commits a number of acts, from the wilful settling of the west bank, to the cordoning off of Gaza, blockade etc, right down to individual acts of murder by its armed forces.
3. Let's consider what the moral position is of Israel in all this.

We are instead talking about an entirely different counterfactual.

1. Palestine is the weak, angry party whose intentions we are going to establish based on this position - the one where there are over 1000 civilian deaths to Israel's military deaths. I don't know what the civilian:civilian count is nowadays, it probably is close to infinity depending on when you count.
2. Let's establish what Palestinian's intentions are from public utterances of this weak, angry party  which is based on its position in this, the real factual scenario.
3. What is more, in doing so, we are going to totally discount the views of Palestinians from certain backgrounds - the Palestinian authority, civilian sources, etc. Instead, we will establish this intentionality from stuff like Hamas leadership, certain clerics, the Hamas charter. From this handpicked exercise we establish that  "we know exactly what their intentions are because they tell us". Notice here the difference in methodology between establishing Israel's motivations and intentions (we take them from Israel's official announcements, or what Mark Regev or the likes of him tell BBC news). Just a nice aside for you to ponder there: Hamas tells us what Palestine wants, not the moderates. The Israeli PR machine tells us what Israel wants, not the nutjob settlers or extreme fundamentalist zionists.

4. The crucial step: We're now going to imagine a world where these handpicked views are then given Israel's power and the situations are reversed. It's not hard to imagine, since we have taken the words and mentality of a traumatised weak party and given them the power and capability of a strong party, that Israel wouldn't last a day. Ergo plato, we should commend Israel for its restraint.

It shouldn't be hard to see that this is a convoluted argument based on emotions rather than rationality. It is specifically designed to misdirect from Israel's culpability by focusing our attentions on a wholly irrelevant (and intellectually and academically laughable) counterfactual scenario. 

The rational argument would go something like this:

1. In establishing Israel's culpability, we should examine Israel's actions (including its motivations) critically.
2. The fact that Israel could do a lot worse eg by committing genocide is no argument in favour of Israel.
3. The fact that Israel says it does not target civilians should not matter if in fact thousands of civilians die as a direct result of its military actions, while millions' lives are made worse and endangered indirectly from malnutrition, lack of medical resources, no economic prospects etc. 


I mean, there is an argument to be had here, you could say Israel is forced to go down a road by the lack of Palestinian unification behind a political agenda of compromise, etc. I happen to disagree and believe that Israel has long worked to prevent the rise of and/or undermine entities working towards such agenda - eg by propping up Hamas vs Fatah and obliterating polities like the PFLP and so on. The point is Harris doesn't even try to do that. He poses that sick counterfactual, inviting us almost to marvel at Israel's constraint. It's a sick trick and you should see it for yourself.

JRPC wrote:

A single look at the kill count on both sides of the Israeli Palestinian conflict in the last 15 years will show you how odious that view is, never mind how it produces irrational results.

You can’t rely on body count to tell you anything meaningful about motive or morality. So for another example, for every 1 US fighter ISIS has killed, American forces have killed 15000 of theirs. What does that tell us about who is right and who is wrong here? How close do these numbers get you to the relative moral positions of the two parties? Oh and just back to the whole thing about Harris being on the Zionist payroll for a sec - here's a quote from the exact same video that you posted above:

"I don't think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organised around a religion"

They should probably ask for their money back.

I'm not gonna say much about that, except to say:

I'm comparing the numbers of civilians, not fighters, dead. I'm forced to include IDF casualties in the ratios because so few civilians actually are killed by Palestinians. The point is that you should take note of civilian casualties when deciding the moral justification for Israel's continuing military stance. At some point you need to decide whether a political solution would be more proportionate. 

This bit of the argument I have to say strikes me as unhelpful, so I won't say much beyond: no need to bring isis here. The argument for action vs isis is to save the civilians and others (since it is an aggressive expansionist movement) from its yoke. I disagree with it, but the argument would go: we'll kill 20000 civilians stuck with isis but we will free 180000 more, and prevent millions from being caught up in Islamic states. This is why I don't think it's helpful.

As for the zionist payroll point, this is pure conjecture on my part. I believe he is cynical and guess that he is well rewarded for what are clearly intentional contortions designed to help Israel's aggression. But I acknowledge this is conspiracy theory-ish. Nevertheless, I note that to be on someone's payroll, you do not need to believe in their cause. 

In fact: 

I don't think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organised around a religion

is exactly what one should say if one were on said state's payroll. He wouldn't be paid to justify Zionism, he would be paid to misdirect millions of otherwise neutral persons into supporting the actions of said state.

Couldn't resist pointing it out, but happy to let that go. It's unnecessary. The TLDR is:

1. A rational person would judge Israel's actions based on things as they are, would be skeptical of taking Israel at its word as to intentions, and would look at objective facts including the death toll in establishing Israel's moral culpability.

2. An emotional person would fantasise about counterfactuals where the current, angry, weak and vengeful party was given a magical god mode cheat, imagine what it would do if situations were reversed, and allow herself to be distracted from the real argument.

3. A principled person would try to be rational, and would further try to be practical: what can I do to influence the actions of said state. Thus, if you are American, you should focus on the actions of America since in a democracy some things can be done. Israel can be influenced through America and, to a lesser extent, the UK whose denial of a veto caused such shockwaves. This is Noam Chomsky's position. He will spend 30 seconds absolutely condemning the action of (depending on the era), the USSR, Iraq, whatever. He will then focus on the actions of the state he lives in, in which he is trying to influence opinion for the better. Noam Chomsky is a principled, rational person.

4. A shill totally ignores the actions of their own state (America, Britain), and focuses on the bad things "the other" side says or does. The shill is by far the most successful beast in public discourse in history, because shills naturally prosper. Sam Harris is an irrational shill on public affairs, rarely, if ever, criticising any of the world's powerful actors, choosing instead to beat up on the other guys. The ones you and I can do nothing to change their views, their state, their policies or power structure.

I know I'm a cunt, and my posting style has long been blase, ad hominem, aggravating. But deep down I wanna believe that a simple thing like: I shouldn't trust Sam Harris on Israel or Islam without being very critical and careful, is achievable. I don't wanna be that cynical that I don't believe JRPC can't change his mind. But I suspect even he is too far gone. Harris' army of online fanboys certainly seems gone. 

Anyway, to me this shit is obvious. Since you did a long post and all, I decided I had to make an effort to post my thoughts. But I don't think I will do another. You either agree or don't. Sam Harris is very dangerous, or he's wrong, or he has a weak spot when it comes to Islam, take your pick. But Sam Harris is a lone rational voice who bravely defies liberals in support of oppression or torture, fuck me. Tell me it ain't true.

Yup, great post.

Any good British history pods people?

Diversion of sorts, is there a decent comprehensive book on World War 2? Probably highly unlikely but with almost a daily update format. Watching Dunkirk recently, I was wondering how each stage of the war was being presented in the media. Lots of the WW2 books are overly retrospective with a hindsight approach. As inane as I can put it, almost a World War Z approach.