Which one? The one in which they can’t agree on Trump?
-
-
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Isn’t the name of the episode “Triggered” or something?

- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
"Increasingly, fights are simply about who has the standing to talk about certain issues, and not about the issues themselves" -
@kshahroozpic.twitter.com/sDX6qqVJZB
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Beyond some of the straw men here, it’s really tough to look at Sam’s ~98% white podcast guests relative to the pretty diverse Vox staff and EK’s guests and accept the premise here. There are valid points, but the headline’s absurd.
-
Impossible not to be diverse. Do you think you and I have anything in common because our skin color is closer to each other’s than ours to
@kmele? Think again -
Given the extent to which our history has been explicitly organized around race, and to which it determines outcomes now it’s pretty absurd to assert that it’s not a primary element of diversity.
-
Nothing is the same, which is another way of saying everything is diverse. Notice we do not say these two seemingly identical statements at the same time because nothing is the same, which is another way of saying everything is diverse
-
You’re being willfully(?) obtuse. Some differences are more important than others when it comes to determining experience. People with small noses don’t experience radically different things than those w large. Between races there are meaningful differences in aggregate.
-
I’d like to call attention back to the point: the closest we ever get is similar, which isn’t the same. This is an important point as we consider the person. When we realize we occupy a unique space and time we can participate in groups without being beholden
-
I thought the point was this article that’s specifically about representing the PoV of PoC.
-
Several points were raised in the article, and more still here in this thread. You alluded to greater diversity by comparing Harris’ audience to Vox’s. I’ve experienced both—have done so not representing any particular group—as an individual, which is a relevant distinction
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is the key point. Klein is correct in stating that it is natural for members of an infringed group (such as a gay lady like myself) to INFER that “This is my experience & you don’t understand it.” But it isn’t necessarily true that this PARTICULAR person “doesn’t get it.”pic.twitter.com/9BenmQ54Z1
-
The primary reason being that you have no idea what unique life experiences an individual may have been exposed to, that might break your “group modeling” of them.
-
When you don’t even admit the possibility that someone outside your group might actually have achieved the very thing you’re hoping for – mutual understanding – it reveals a lack of faith in the potential for that happening on a larger scale.
-
To a very real, & potentially disturbing extent, you’ve ceded the ground to those who wish to claim that racism, sexism, homophobia are the inevitable product of the past, and justified in the present – thereby dooming our future to its wretched continuance.
-
It’s ironic to say this, particularly about him, but I think Sam Harris has more faith in the future than that.
-
He’s saying, “If I devote myself to objectively reasoning about ideas, I can escape getting bogged down by personal identity & see past my tribalism to understand both your point of view, be compassionate about your experience, AND simultaneously examine ideas dispassionately.
-
He’s literally asking us to step outside our silos, and examine the value of ideas exclusively in relation to the facts which may, or may not support them, in order to find objective truth that obliterates barriers between people. That is a profoundly Liberal method of approach.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.