SIO64: No, Progressives Aren’t Embracing Hate

But first, I give a little book review of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. The book illustrated some vital concepts that are often missing from our conversation on race. I share some highlights. Then, it’s a voicemail segment during which I talk at length about a column a lot of people have been sharing lately. It’s called When Progressives Embrace Hate and it talks about the leaders of the Women’s March and their ties to some questionable people.

Hollywood Harris Hit Piece; Article with Anti-Semitism Poll

Leave Thomas a voicemail! (916) 750-4746, remember short and to the point!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod

For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com

 

 

Direct Download

Leave a Reply

20 Comments on "SIO64: No, Progressives Aren’t Embracing Hate"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
kyle
Guest
On the topic of racism, I think it’d be worth looking into whether the recent surge in incidents of racial hatred that arose with Trump have affected the claims made about the overall decline in overt racism. It may be too soon to tell, but I think it’s something to be aware of. Additionally, while I’m sure I’ve posted about this before, I think it bears repeating that focusing on individual acts and actors (e.g., “bad apples”) not only shifts focus from the systematic ways racial inequality exists in society, but it also implies that to whatever extent there is… Read more »
Dee
Guest

What would you have him speak and write about? Farming practices in the 1600s? Isn’t the entire point of his speaking and writing career to address topical issues that are on everyone’s minds given the social and political climate? You think the timeliness of his podcast and writing topics are suspect, because those topics themselves are timely?

kyle
Guest
I take your point, and I do agree that as a social commentator, topical issues are Harris’s focus, and he has relevant insight on a whole host of topical issues. There is value to what Harris does, and in many ways, it’s probably better that he’s not teaching us all about bygone agrarian rituals. I’m not saying Harris shouldn’t be talking about topical issues. I’m saying that it’s fair to criticize him if he’s talking about topical issues in a way that is irresponsible. If he’s making claims from shoddy or biased statistics, if he’s presenting only part of a… Read more »
Chris
Guest

TLDR:
‘Criticism of Harris’s statements are valid to the extent that they are valid, but I am forsure not making such a critique’

kyle
Guest

Troll.

Chris
Guest

Public Service Announcement, in hopes of saving poor Dee the slog.
Is it wrong? I consider it true to the source material and stylistically more persuasive. The latter point particularly rings more true when the former is put briefly, as opposed to dozens of paragraphs regarding how imminently valid criticism of Harris is (though again, you can’t stress this enough, you are forsure not making one).

Chris
Guest

So Harris isn’t a bad guy, you just take issue with him talking about important events that you’ve ruled have no effect on him? I don’t see that as a persuasive criticism, nor a reason he was wrong for talking about things. I think people asking tough questions is a good thing because it either makes us confront possible weaknesses in our position or it makes us adopt a better position. SoI disagree with you.

kyle
Guest
That’s okay. We don’t have to agree. I take your point that I was wrong to say the consequences wouldn’t affect him, because obviously we’re all affected by world events. The point I was trying to make, maybe too succinctly, was that as a non-muslim, and someone who does not live in the Middle-East, Harris has considerably less skin in the game when it comes to the topic of the moral permissibility of torturing muslims and/or detonating a nuclear missile in the Middle-East than someone who is muslim and/or does live in the Middle-East. That’s not to say he’s not… Read more »
Chris
Guest

Either criticize him or don’t, or post a link to a criticism you find compelling. I don’t understamd writing paragraph after paragraph of milquetoast contradictions. ‘It’s valid but it’s not, but other people could criticize but that doesn’t mean I do…’
Take your own advice and leave the reader with something more than they had before reading your take.

To that point, I totally agree with your actual criticism of him, his faux objectivity. For all his posturing to the counter he’s just as emothional and irrational on some subjects as anyone else.

kyle
Guest

I understand being frustrated, but that was rude and mean.

kyle
Guest
Okay. I’m having a lot of trouble tracking your complaints. You’re accusing me of equivocating and failing to stand behind the things I say, but then you offer as evidence something that seems like a pretty straightforward claim. The claim you cite is me saying “I think it’s valid to criticize someone if they make an argument in an irresponsible manner, time, or place which, as a result of their making said argument, heightens danger faced by others.” That’s the claim I’m making, and your response is “either attack Sam Harris better, or shut up.” There’s no “nonsensical device for… Read more »
Chris
Guest

Correction: I failed to acknowledge a very obvious third option, that you are both.

Chris
Guest

It was not, because you’re still doing it. Hell, you’re doubling down on equivocation by pretending that you fail to comprehend I’ve made a very straightforward observation/criticism that you have made a criticism of Sam, and if not, you have added nothing to the topic. Nobody needs your blessing to criticize his stance, that adds nothing to the discourse.
You’re either an equivocator or a blowhard. Neither is valued, appreciated, or helpful.

kyle
Guest
I guess I’m not sure how I’m supposed to intuit what, to you, seems self-evident, especially when your summation of my comment is “people disagree about Sam’s intent.” My comment was not an observation about people’s opinions on Harris’s intent, except maybe for the implicit suggestion that focusing on Harris’s intent allows people to avoid discussing the context and effect of the things he says. I grant that my writing is nothing near succinct, but if you read my comment, and your interpretation was that I said nothing more than “people disagree about Sam’s intent,” I’m not sure that’s all… Read more »
Chris
Guest
I’m coming at you hard because you are doing something and then pretending not to do it. I fon’t need a degree in psychology to be put off by that. [[[[[[[[[it seems entirely valid (to me) to criticize the way he waded into a national conversation with genuine and horrible consequences that wouldn’t affect him, all the while claiming that he was “just asking questions.”]]]]]]]]] That is a critique. It’s shoddily couched in what I guess you perceive to be some kind of nonsensical device for deniability ghat you are making a criticism, which if true can only be interpreted… Read more »
kyle
Guest
Allright, well, I’m not your personal assistant, so you can do what you want with my comments, and I’ll try to be more mindful of your personal preferences in the future. I didn’t post my initial comment to criticize Harris, but to respond to the suggestion that his critics take him out of context and misrepresent his claims, speciffically citing his statements involving nuclear weapons and torture. My goal wasn’t to hijack the episode’s commentary with my personal views on Harris, but to pointedly respond to something Thomas noted. Moreover, I don’t think it’s milquetoast to acknowledge complexity, nor do… Read more »
Chris
Guest
Too much complexity is not my criticism of the vast quantity of words comprising your ‘it wasn’t a critique’ critique, or whatever you’re claiming/not claiming it was from one post to the next (or even between paragraphs in any single post). I don’t think you said anything that wasn’t self evident, and which couldn’t have been better said in 5 words: ‘People disagree about Sam’s intent.’ Your bringing up a wholly different, novel point (and stating it succinctly, nice work) I perceive to be evidence of at least subconscious admission that I’m right. Write like that from now on, not… Read more »
TheMiddlist
Guest
I think on LGBTQ issues you are right that the right is more at fault but with antisemitism I think it’s pretty on par. It is a long known fact that a lot of left thinking has antisemitic undercurrents and that has been true for a very long time as well. It just so happens that right wing antisemitism is more noticable and open and less flowery in language. But even what is usually called right wing antisemitism is not always only right wing oriented. Even the actual Nazis talking were talking about “Jewish capital” and “Jewish capitalist oppressors” –… Read more »
Ullrich Fischer
Guest
Posting the link to the “Sam Harris hit piece” seems to put you in the Greenwald camp, Thomas. The article excoriates Sam for coming from “Hollywood royalty” while repeating the lies of the Greenwalders and accepting the “validity” of the ridiculous, ignorant “Gross! Racist!” argument which Sam and Bill Maher endured from that vastly over-rated actor on “Politically Incorrect”. It is a good thing that Sam has lots of money because he needs it to provide security to protect him from assassination by the Islamists whose hatred is being fanned by ctrl-left hypocrites who claim to support Social Justice and… Read more »