You might be right! I’m relying on people to notice the gaslighting and evasiveness on simple points (“racialist”, “pseudoscience”, etc,) Many won’t. Defending oneself against this type of character assassination may be impossible. Might be better never to engage. https://twitter.com/comradewilsonov/status/978795568838336512 …
-
-
Right... it's your critics who are always being dishonest. Just, wow.
-
Sam is unfortunately reminding me a bit of our good friend, Trump.
-
This just isn't surprising -- anyone who's followed Peter Boghossian, Michael Shermer, Jerry Coyne, and the others will know how aggressive, heavy-handed, blindly over-confident, alarmist about SJWs, and *intolerant of dissent* this "atheist" culture is.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
1.Did you read Ezra's article? The one he posted today? The reason Sam thought it reasonable to defend himself? 2. In the emails Ezra was committing a fallacy of avoidence. Cherry picking what Sam said and leaving out the most egregious. To some of us, that's dishonesty.
-
Intellectual dishonesty.
-
@ezraklein goes out of his way to quote Sam at length to avoid cherry picking. When Sam says something like "It's not that the environment doesn't matter, but genes appear to be 50 to 80 percent of the story" he's saying something that is not supported by the available evidence. -
Ezra’s article today was pretty well thought out and reasonable. I am inclined to view him favorably in this debate.
-
https://twitter.com/stoobe/status/978832589023739905?s=19 … I found this to be a good summation of my issues with the article.
-
I guess I just completely disagree that any of what Ezra said was unfair. Charles Murray *should* be considered racist (broadly defined as a person who contributes to racial inequality via their underlying racist ideologies).
-
We can disagree. Though suggesting anyone is a racist without overwhelming evidence is dangerous, and I just don't see said evidence. If reasonable people disagree, it may be too early to exile someone as a racist. e.g. everyone reasonable agrees Richard Spencer is a racist.
- 15 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Engaging in conversation with dishonest people is not effective: 1. If they were dishonest in their article, they'll be dishonest in conversation. 2. It rewards dishonesty and sets the precedent, "If I smear Sam he'll invite me on his podcast." 3. It spreads the lies further.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
As one who has read most of your books and followed your podcast for years, while scarcely reading Ezra Klein's material, I find your response to Ezra and behaviour in general, to be utterly baffling, if not embarrassing.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you don’t think we should study it then why do we need “a rational conversation” on an “important issue”? Racial differences in IQ are important? What’s more important? How verifiable and tangible destructive white actions have contributed to current black predicament?
-
You don’t want to address that and when pressed on it, you’re insulted anyone even attempts to. How about this, bring on a black person to debate Bell Curve or identity politics. Engage people impacted by the negative applications of Murray’s work and get their side of argument.
-
Would love to see you engage on topic of whether there are genetic differences in dealing with adversity in blacks and whites using suicide rates in rural America vs inner cities as the metric. Tough topic right? Worth studying more? Where are your podcasts/blog posts on that?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I think people perceive you are much more in need of a solution than Ezra. He's being polite, true, and that comes off strong & in control. You're in need of something, and people perceive that as digging yourself in. I follow your logic, but people gloss over, go by gut.
-
Ezra's done you a tremendous disservice by 1) publishing the piece 2) tweeting about it & characterizing you w/ those labels 3) refusing to publish Haier. All this is unfair & not the proper way for a publisher to handle a dispute of this magnitude & an intellectual's reputation.
-
To a careful reader of both the initial Vox paper, and of your email exchange, your moral rectitude & perfect intentions are clear.
-
It's clear labels are applied to you that you don't merit. It's clear people are reacting impulsively & don't have the patience to treat both the topic & your reputation with the care that both so deserve. You did it right in the Murray podcast. That will speak for itself.
-
Takeaways for me from the Murray podcast: 1) there are differences in IQ btw people, for ethnic, historical & environmental reasons—reasons beyond their personal control 2) we must make society more equitable & distribute income more fairly to account for this #2 gets lost a lot
-
Sam has a history of racism which is why he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt here.
-
Please show the racism. Just saying it doesn't do anything, but make you look like a fool, while pretending to know something you don't.
-
How many examples of Sam Harris racism would you like?
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.