GooberTheHat wrote:

It's why you can't trust die-hards to be objective. They've got too much invested in things being the way they think they are.

And also why there is little utility in debating them, because anything that threatens their core held beliefs is an existential threat to their understanding of who they are, and so they will dig in and set that belief in concrete so as to protect themselves.

This seems a bit unfair - the idea that JRPC’s beliefs are set in concrete are kinda disproved by him not being religious anymore imho.

@reddave
Except the bc data is presented with bias as Klein already pointed out. Murray is as biased as can be yet Harris and Jrpc are unwilling to admit it.
'tard may be a harsh word but meh....

Jrpc has been called out by me and others a few times for defending alt rightean views yet he's never flat out denied it. I could be wrong in my assessment but I seriously doubt it.

Dark Soldier wrote:

This is why you don't do opinions on here (or the internet in general), you'll always get three or four chucking out ridiculous insults for having a different viewpoint.

I like the people that chip in every now and then just to shit stir.

Dark Soldier wrote:

This is why you don't do opinions on here (or the internet in general), you'll always get three or four chucking out ridiculous insults for having a different viewpoint.

I'm not going to get in any debate over who said what and maybe there's context that I'm not aware of which is fine, my bad, but I found some of the stuff thrown around was ridiculous OTTand I'd very much agree with you on this DS.

Too quickly some comments seemed to be aimed at JRPC as a person rather than his argument. I'm never really on-board for that kind of debate, regardless of the issues being discussed.

monkey wrote:

Dark Soldier wrote:

This is why you don't do opinions on here (or the internet in general), you'll always get three or four chucking out ridiculous insults for having a different viewpoint.

I like the people that chip in every now and then just to shit stir.

Not chipping in, its just quite clear with a few of the comments. 

Have at it etc, its a solid cesspool of a thread.

I dunno, Face has conducted himself well IMO. I have sympathy for JRPC trying to deal with a lot of comments but I think his responses to face have been poor. I get it's been frustrating. Maybe they need their own Harris-esque email exchange to go down.

Tempy wrote:

I dunno, Face has conducted himself well IMO. I have sympathy for JRPC trying to deal with a lot of comments but I think his responses to face have been poor. I get it's been frustrating. Maybe they need their own Harris-esque email exchange to go down.

Name-calling is a bit much but I don't think JRPC did himself any favours by ignoring countless valid responses. I think folks got annoyed that when they did argue with his points, he just ignored them.

I agree. I also don't think there is a winner or a loser, though I feel Face has put across the far more convincing argument.

Science is the winner with ethics a close second.

Quarantine zones lost.

djchump wrote:

GooberTheHat wrote:

It's why you can't trust die-hards to be objective. They've got too much invested in things being the way they think they are.

And also why there is little utility in debating them, because anything that threatens their core held beliefs is an existential threat to their understanding of who they are, and so they will dig in and set that belief in concrete so as to protect themselves.

This seems a bit unfair - the idea that JRPC’s beliefs are set in concrete are kinda disproved by him not being religious anymore imho.

I think Monkey addressed that point in his first sentence of his post.

And it wasn't intended as an insult. Everyone is the same. If you have a belief that is central to your understanding of what makes you who you are, it is incredibly difficult to process information that contradicts that belief. A natural, self preserving instinct is to dismiss that information and discover or invent reasons as to why it can be true.

It's is for that exact reason that you can't expect to debate someone with strong religious beliefs into not being religious. They need to be religious because that is a core part of who they are, and if they are not religious, well then what are they?

Same with JRPC with this. He has admitted that this idea is now integral to his way of looking at and processing the world. It forms part of his core belief system, so trying to debate him into not believing it is going to be a frustrating exercise.

I would hope that no one, JRPC included would consider that to be an insult (although I would expect JRPC to disagree with my reading of him).

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that, but that's a long, slow process. Not a couple of week with some dudes over the interweb.

GooberTheHat wrote:

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that, but that's a long, slow process. Not a couple of week with some dudes over the interweb.

Not necessarily - if you want to go the whole hog, like that fella in America who puts his ass on the line trying to convert KKK types, then yeah, it’s long and slow and you need the patience and fortitude of a Saint: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes

But planting doubt, that can come from anywhere, and doesn’t even need to have been intentional. Curiosity is one of the defining characteristics of humans imho. Apparently even gorillas that have learned sign language never ask questions - it’s the single thing I think that separates us from the rest of the animals, the realisation that others know things and we can learn from them.

/shrug

I had fun.

RedDave2 wrote:

hunk wrote:

Jrpc has sipped from the alt right kool Aid and fell down Murray's rabbit hole whilst dreaming of superior genetic IQ. He wants to believe....

I think he said he is a fan of Harris and approves of Harris stance that data should be viewed without bias or fear of repocusion. I don't think he actually said he was agreeing with the superior genetic IQ, just that it should be allowed to be discussed and is a possibility in his eyes.

Haven't agreed with JRPC on his arguments and I think he deliberately ducked some stuff bit the alt-right tag feels a bit thrown too easily. And surely no need for the 'tard comment either.

Haven't read latest page, but yes. Apart from anything else alt right is the wrong term.

Just on the alt right label:

You can't just throw it around and apply it to anyone. As much as left right labels are useful, and that's debatable, you at least have to distinguish traditional right/conservative and alt right.

Murray is just an old school conservative/libertarian.

Harris may once have described himself as left, but he would almost certainly see himself as a lapsed liberal (or, knowing his ego, a "real" liberal while everyone else is faking the funk.)

Quillette isn't alt right. It's old school rightish.

I mean, Harris has spent as much time as anyone hammering trump, he doesn't line up with other alt righters at all on many issues.

Amongst various histories of recent online culture wars, one I read about issues with sexism within the new atheist movement was enlightening.

Certainly, some NAs (not necessarily the famous ones, I mean the nerd followers) went on to be a part of GG. A subset of which will have gone full breitbart and then probably into the same melee in comics...

(thunderfoot is probably the most famous NA dude I can think of who went full gg.) dickhead.

Feminism split a bunch of the NA movement, and the camp that went anti feminism, IMO, has clearly then had a chunk splinter down to alt right land.

Harris, coyne, pinker, dawkins all just fall into this old school camp of old white dudes shitting on the yoof. And generally, identity politics etc. They ain't woke. As I mentioned in the CA thread a couple of times, it's not as simple as left right though, because pilger and a number of other hard left folk are equally dismissive of new school progressivism.

Anyhoo.