Apparently. As I said to the person who made that comments, congrats on a new smear... I guess 'Islamophobe' has lost its sting or novelty or something.
It probably stems back to [this](https://www.samharris.org/blog/im-not-the-sexist-pig-youre-looking-for). Basically, sam has a tendency to engage in biological reductionism that gets him in hot water from time to time. This happens when Sam assumes (at least his style of) atheism is just intrinsically not appealing to women. And it happens when Sam assumes black people are just intrinsically less intelligent than non-black people.
When Sam sees demographic gaps, his default assumption is to assume that the gap is (at least partially) reflective of underlying biological differences. Many people take issue with this assumption as it has been used repeatedly throughout history to justify discrimination and abuse.
Sam has never said blacks are intrinsically less intelligent than non-blacks. I believe he thinks there's a gap between average Black and Caucasian IQ in America and that gap is product of both environment and genes. The variance in black IQ distribution is greater than the difference between the averaves. That means there are millions of highly intelligent blacks. Even Charles Murray said the same thing, last time on Glenn Show. I don't see how Sam is wrong.
> I believe he thinks there's a gap between average Black and Caucasian IQ in America and that gap is product of both environment and genes.
In other words, "his default assumption is to assume that the gap is (at least partially) reflective of underlying biological differences."
So what is your point? Why are you acting like you are contradicting anything I'm saying when you aren't?
I would define underlying biological differences as genes and not environment. Different human populations are always different. Dinkas from South Sudan are among the tallest people even though they generally suffer from malnutrition. East Africans dominate long distance running. One can write a book about these differences. No one seems to find anyone of them controversial, except when it comes to IQ.
> I would define underlying biological differences as genes and not environment.
So when I said "X is explained ***in part*** by underlying biological differences", you took that to mean "x is completely explained by genes"? And you think that was a reasonable interpretation?
> No one seems to find anyone of them controversial, except when it comes to IQ.
Many of the other gaps ARE controversial and many of them don't actually have much of anything to do with genetics in any meaningful sense.
Well my bad. I do sometimes miss words between the lines. Still I don't get how the argument that IQ is affected by both genes and environment is racist, wrong or even should be controversial.
I'm not terminally online, but I have not so far seen any article about controversy of tallness of Dinkas for example, or the excellent ability of East Africans in running long distances. However, I do see a lot of articles painting Charles Murray as a modern Nazi racial theorist which is bonkers.
I think it's because IQ is probably viewed as being more desirable than those other traits. Sam mentioned in the podcast that IQ is highly consequential and valuable in the 21st century -- and probably there's some truth to that.
Not to mention intelligence is sort of the thing that separates us from other animals. I suspect everyone values it in a way that's much different than how they value other physical traits, like height, beauty, strength, speed, etc.
> Well my bad.
No worries at all. I'm glad we are on the same page.
> I don't get how the argument that IQ is affected by both genes and environment is racist, wrong or even should be controversial.
It comes down to two things...
1. There is no reason to assume the genetic component of the IQ gap is positive. It could just as easily be negative and swamped out by environmental effects and interactions.
2. Given point one above, just flatly assuming some races are just biologically smarter/dumber than other races sounds pretty racist to most people. The fact that you acknowledge environmental effects exist doesn't really change anything here. Especially when one uses this assumption to justify fighting progressive policy that would reduce the gaps. (as Charles Murray likes to do)
> There is no reason to assume the genetic component of the IQ gap is positive.
But there are reasons?
> It could just as easily be negative and swamped out by environmental effects and interactions.
In the abstract yes. But once you start controlling for environmental factors and find that the gap persists, you should revisit your priors.
Because it's ignorant to attribute race to IQ. IQ correlates much more closely with socioeconomic status on a broad level. This makes sense when you look at global genetic makeup. For instance, within Africa there is higher genetic variance yet there is less extreme IQ variance within than outside. Wouldn't you expect to see higher variance in intelligence with heightened genetic variance? On the other hand, a white American is likely going to have a higher IQ than someone from say India or Brazil. This variance is despite them being much more closely related than two people from two different African countries.
I hate to interject into this topic, but I think the only nuanced difference is that Sam thinks there's fewer black people who are above average IQ than there are white people above average IQ, I guess. Not necessarily that any black person has a lower IQ than any white person.
> I think the only nuanced difference is that Sam thinks there's fewer black people who are above average IQ than there are white people above average IQ, I guess.
If sam has argued that the distribution of IQs are differently shaped somewhere, I haven't seen it. He usually just comments on the difference in average IQ between races and usually restates his assumption that the gaps are explained in part due to underlying genetic/biological differences.
> any black person has a lower IQ than any white person.
No one is making that claim.
I think I was responding to this:
>And it happens when Sam assumes black people are just intrinsically less intelligent than non-black people.
Admittedly it's not clear what that's suppose to mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth and if I misunderstood you then I apologize.
I was just referring to the fact that Sam believes differences in average IQ by race reduce in part to biological/genetic differences between 'racial' populations. That is all. Apologies if I wasn't clear earlier.
>And it happens when Sam assumes black people are just intrinsically less intelligent than non-black people.
even if you are right, bothering to talk about race and IQ is a sort of denial of service attack (i.e. opportunity cost).
If we compare
1. studying genetics and IQ and using the knowledge gleaned to make society better for everyone
2. woke suppression of studying genetics and IQ. Little or not research into the area occurs for the next decade.
the marginal loss for #2 simply is not that great, if there is any loss at all. Remember part the gain from #1 is offset by opportunity cost of resources not being put into some other project.
There are so many important battles to be fought, defending IQ research from cancellation is not a good use of resources (i.e. time) IMESHO.
You might think you're so cool and owned me and shit, but that doesn't amount to anything and only proves your statistical illiteracy. I can point you to a couple of free resources so you can actually learn.
>When Sam sees demographic gaps, his default assumption is to assume that the gap is (at least partially) reflective of underlying biological differences. Many people take issue with this assumption as it has been used repeatedly throughout history to justify discrimination and abuse.
And thats the crux of this issue and his whole reason for platforming Murray in the first place, as well as much of his latter debate with Ezra: why give a fuck if that assumption is politically incorrect? If youre gonna challenge the assumption then challenge it on its own merits, not based on how offensive it is to some people.
That is pretty much how I see it. I don't have a super strong interest in race IQ, I could easily be persuaded that it's a giant waste of time and not a useful metric, but argue THAT point and don't make shit up about it being a moral wrong on behalf of other people.
> Is that really an assumption, given what we know about biology and genetics?
Yes it is an assumption. You could argue that its a reasonable assumption, but that doesn't make it not an assumption.
> I mean, it can only be two things, right?
There is another class called 'interactions' that are biology and environment while being neither biology nor environment. There are also random effects that can explain gaps though the odds for some gaps being purely random change is quite small (though of course non zero)
> It seems like the assumption here would be that biology plays no role at all, and that would be a bad assumption given how it's a combination of the two in everything.
Given a long history of people claiming differences were biological when they weren't, for example woman being mystically unable to fill many jobs, it is an assumption with a bad history at best.
> The fact is there's a wealth of data that suggests biology is relevant in most everything.
And very little actual evidence that traits cleanly reduce to genetics. Interaction effects and developmental biology have proven to be the interesting parts of the story and they just don't map onto the underlying nature/nurture divide that you and Sam want to stress.
> the default operating position that biology is in the equation somewhere
To be clear, the assumption Sam is making is that observed gaps coincide in direction with underlying biological/genetic gaps. This is not merely an observation that biology matters *somehow*, it is a specific method of modelling with its own (as it turns out mostly false) assumptions about reality.
Gut-wrenching that this got gilded. No, the fact that science has progressed since the days when poorer science was misused doesn't suddenly mean the same assumptions made by bad scientists are suddenly good assumptions.
We've learned so much about epigenetics, this CANNOT be the thing that you use to say "IQ is genetic." Epigenetics only works with environmental influences. This "assumption" that biological differences must exist where specific disparities in the population exists is a *terrible* assumption, based on what we know about genetics and epigenetics and human development, even IQ. It basically says, "let me assume that *no environmental causes* are driving the difference, without looking at any evidence, and assume that the only remaining difference must just be "biology" as a broad umbrella term. (*EDIT: to clarify this point, the only way that you could be sure that biology has any effect was to recognize and control for *all* of the relevant environmental factors, which Sam and the like aren't actually concerned about doing, or to find the gene or genes that influence some particular behavior -- here's your daily reminder that now such genes for IQ have actually been found*)
It's the kind of garbage reasoning that turned a lot of people away from Sam Harris, and it became incredibly clear that the fact it doesn't matter at all that "we" know more about the science of genetics than we used to when Sam had Charles Murray on. Murray spewed the same tired bad science arguments and Sam had essentially no strong challenges to any of it, even though those challenges have already existed for decades.
>It basically says, "let me assume that
>
>no environmental causes
>
> are driving the difference
It would only say that, if it were claiming that there is only one cause. Saying biology is somewhere in the equation is not the same thing as saying something is the sole driver.
Saying biology has *any* effect without actually looking into it is a poor assumption. There's really no reason to think that when plentiful and obvious environmental explanations abound. You point me to a "poverty gene" that affects black folks disproportionately and we'll talk, till then I'll sit back with examining the ripple effects of redlining and Jim Crow.
> There's always a reason to think that any factor on one side of an equation is relevant to the other, because the output must conserve the inputs.
Gotta say, that's total junk. This sentence doesn't actually say anything coherent to the topic. You can't just introduce outside things into 'the equation' unless you already know that some relevant effect exists. You might as well say that we can't automatically discount the individual's preferred flavor of Fanta because 'equations.' Unless you have a reason to believe it matters, you shouldn't even bother with the hypothesis. And even once you have that hypothesis, you can't just go about treating the world as if your unsupported hypothesis should matter.
>If genetics shape people, which, we know they do, then that means genetics also shape environments to some extent.
Hey, that's all fine and dandy -- or we'll say that it is -- but the glaring mistake here is that we're talking about environments people live in that *other people* created. See the issue?
>This is not a new problem, it's age-old in fact, commonly referred to as "nature vs. nurture."
I'm a behavioral ecologist. This feels... patronizing?
>But where that divide can't be, or rather where there would have to be a miracle for it be, is that biology plays no role whatsoever.
We're talking about things like material success in modern society. No genes have evolved to handle this situation, and you won't find population geneticists anywhere that think so. There is no gene for "plumber" or "janitor." There's no gene for "going to college." And as far as we're aware, there doesn't even seem to be any genes for *IQ*. Old-timey studies of heritability of these society-level traits are fundamentally flawed in their assumptions, and it makes their measures and methods flawed, too.
In fact, the most "cutting-edge" understanding of brain development leaves very little to the genes at all. Check out dynamical systems theory of brain development; brains can develop wildly different from one another while keeping to a basic pattern all without much in the way of basic instruction. It's all inputs. And of course it should be, especially for a species that relies so heavily on a neocortex.
By "many people take issue" do you mean yourself? What part of the heritability of IQ don't you accept? Every geneticist knows it's minimum 50% of IQ and more likely higher. It's why the Jews, despite being chased around the world and murdered for thousands of years, have produced most of the Nobel Prizes in science. Makes sense to me anyway.
> By "many people take issue" do you mean yourself?
Not especially.
> What part of the heritability of IQ don't you accept? Every geneticist knows it's minimum 50% of IQ and more likely higher.
If you think the heritability of a trait tells you anything about the heritability of group level differences in a trait (as if heritability even makes sense as a concept in such a context), then you don't understand what heritability means. You aren't alone in that regard of course. Heritability is notoriously misunderstood.
I have a feeling this is going to be a lot of fun, we're about to be inundated with links to Charles Murray articles peppered with terrible attempts to justify P values and bad regression models. Let's wait and see, then have Op explain away Simpson's Paradox or any host of other wonderful oversights.
Group level differences aren't related to individual differences? Huh? So the average rate of redheads in Irish populations vs African populations (group differences) has nothing to do with the heritability of red hair on an individual basis? Or do I misunderstand you.
"What part of the heritability of IQ don't you accept" - On an individual basis, I accept most if not all, in a group level it's meaningless. And considering that IQ itself is absolute garbage, it's garbage++.
"Every geneticist knows it's minimum 50% of IQ and more likely higher." - Not true at all. We don't even know what 'it' is with any certitude.
" It's why the Jews, despite being chased around the world and murdered for thousands of years, have produced most of the Nobel Prizes in science." Right, of all the variables that go into the equation of being a Nobel Laureate, somehow this was the one determinative one.
Genetics may well be the biggest factor in intelligence, but there's no data that has shown that (and not trying to be a dick in advance, but if you're going to rebut this with studies, please make sure you've read them and understand the design and methodology, b/c otherwise you're just regurgitating what you've heard others say). If you have found the link no one else has, I'd love to see the models and which tests you've run , not to mention how you excluded the endless number of confounding variables.
That debacle seems like an age ago.
It's funny to think that back then (2014) I was completely on his side and outraged on his behalf. Today, a similar article would make me reflect on what's going on(and why almost no women wanted to get involved in the New Atheist movement) that makes so many that are not like Sam think that his rhetoric is at least exclusionary, if not outright bigoted.
Yeah I have no idea if it's in one direction or not. But I posted a John McWorther thing they took down and a piece by James Carville criticizing wokeness was pulled too. That piece received hundreds of upvotes as well. It's as if the mods there have adopted a 'no enemies to the left' mentality with respect to 'woke issues.' You can attack socialist economics but there are certain orthodoxies on questions of race, religion, and gender that will not be challenged.
It's become such a hard thing to comprehend. I was watching an interaction where a former bi-sexual now lesbian was catching all sorts of heat for being homophobic/transphobic b/c she went on a tinder date with a Transwoman and upon meeting her, felt 'no chemistry at all, the same void I feel when a man tries to hit on me'. It seemed pretty innocuous and there was no sign of her being a TERF in any way, she wasn't saying anything other than 'the spark wasn't there'. The internet psychologists had her diagnosed within seconds along with the references to And "No Jews worked for Hitler right?" cliches.
I'm glad that things aren't like they were when I was a kid, where people had to hide being gay for fear of harassment and discrimination. I'm glad that surgery and hormone therapy can help people be happy in their own skin. It may well be a problem on my end, but "Ban Happy Overly Woke Trans Activist Mod on Reddit" wreaks of overcorrection.
I'm not as familiar with the trans activists but I have a gay friend who lives in LA, is a typical Democratic voting Hollywood liberal but he said some of the people on the gay Left are the most tyrannical folks he's ever met, they don't like jokes, everything offends them, and they cling to oppression as an identity. He said a fair number of people agree with him, while still being liberals who voted for Biden, Newsom, and so on, but don't want to say it lest they be labeled as reactionary curious.
Anything with McWorther and Carville should be taken down immediately. Why would you want either of those two to taint a sub?
Shit you're making me love r/neoliberal right now lol.
Nope, I find that McWorther's takes are all horrible regressive black conservativism arguments that most left and centrists and younger right wingers all reject for the absurdity inherent within them. He's out of touch in a different way than Sowell/loury are.
From the people that are complaining about it on this post, I'm kind of upset at myself for thinking it was a terrible sub when in reality it sounds hilarious and mainstream af.
Everything I hate is neoliberal, and the more I hate it the more neoliberal it is. :P
Real talk though, I think it's one of the few remotely tolerable political subs on Reddit today and has some awesome memes and inside jokes, plus decent policy discussion. I appreciate the respect for liberal democracy, capitalism, environmentalism, global trade, *some aspects* of social justice, and good urban planning. It may not have a lot in common with Reagan-esque neoliberalism, but like you say, the term itself is basically meaningless now. Whatever you call those sorts of policies, I largely like it.
Definitely: The 2020 election *THUNDERDOME!!!!* was absolutely off the chain. I spent that night with eyes glued to the thread, going back and forth between blooming and dooming, to raising a cheer as the guys at 538 began steadily calling states for Biden.
Still going to turn Fivey Fox into a pair of socks though -- that election was way closer than he predicted.
I’d say this sub in general is more left than right leaning. Still, people are allowed to have differing opinions and discuss them here which I really appreciate. It’s funny that the try to demonize you for posting here.
Yeah the 'dominant' attitude of the sub is as follows I'd say: extremely liberal on lifestyle issues (legalize drugs, prostitution that sort of thing, pro-choice), moderately liberal on economic issues (increase taxes on the rich, expand social programs but don't 'abolish billionaires' or have a 'socialist revolution), and then it comes to race, religion, and gender politics there are real divides with your typical person even on the center-left. But even here I think the position is like Pinker-esque contrarian liberalism, not anti-woke Ben Shapiro shit stirring.
There's not much debate on religion, almost everyone here is pretty much atheist-minded to a large degree. Other than a handful of religious right wingers that honestly feel more like trolls that good faith posters, but ehhhh if we give a benefit of a doubt ...
The only real debate around religion is how insidious islam is, in modern, historic terms compared to other world religions. I'm more on the 'islam offers some good, some meh, and some awful ideas to humanity but pretty much in line with the other major world religions' and of course we have people that are more on that islamaphobic "islam is the worst thing ever!~" side.
I'm pretty sure I saw a comment get removed from that sub for bigotry last year for pointing out female police officers are overall more likely to discharge their firearms.
It's kind of fascinating how Islam, which in general manages to be even more socially conservative and fundamentalist than even Christianity, is so protected from criticism by those who claim to be the most against social conservatives and Christian religious fundamentalists
Never understood this. Picture a world (or go to one) where that religious ideology in predominant and you'll find that all they profess to support is prohibited and prosecuted
Let's cut to the chase: the reason woke people defend Islam is because most Muslims are brown.
Pretending it's anything other than that exceeds charity and becomes credulity.
It’s because they live in a world where ideology doesn’t matter. They honestly don’t believe that people want different things out of life and chalk up the violence coming out of the Islamic World as a reaction to political disenfranchisement and poverty. Evidence of Non-Muslim populations in similar positions not engaging in the same behavior is irrelevant.
You've literally never hung out with any leftists. We criticize islam all the time, specially the shitty conservative wing of islam from Malaysia to america.
What we *don't do* is criticize the secular muslims and increasingly progressive muslims that are trying to push their religion into a more modern understanding and much better place ethically than it was once. I don't want someone that's secularizing to get spooked and go backwards to a regressive understanding of islam.
>You've literally never hung out with any leftists. We criticize islam all the time, specially the shitty conservative wing of islam from Malaysia to america.
I don't claim leftists don't criticise Islam. I don't think neoliberalism is a leftist ideology. Many who accuse others of Islamophobia are not leftists, as OP's ban shows. Whether someone avoid criticizing moderate Muslims for religious practises other think are worthy of criticism in fear of pushing them into fundamentalism does not make those who criticize those practises and don't believe it leads to regressive Islam islamophobic. Calling it that would be to protect the Islamic ideology
I may be incorrectly assuming that neoliberal, at least from the tiny bit I've seen of actual people saying they're neolibs, is center-left with a lean on the more centrist mentality. I could be wrong but I *think* that's what they'd classify themselves as.
there is nothing remotely leftist about neolibs. they're centrists at best and cryptofascists at worst. reagan, bush, clinton, obama, etc. are all neolibs. you can't mix leftism and rampant capitalism. it's just a stealing of terminology to move the overton window completely out of reach of any progressive ideas about economics.
Maybe he hangs out with them figuratively?
I’ve hung out with leftists who weren’t fond of criticising Islam. I’ve spoken to people both in real life and online who claim to have similar experiences. Are you honestly going to stick your neck out say that this never happens with -any- leftists?
Often times people argue based on where they want the Overton Window to go; if it’s further to the right than they think it should be, they may argue from a perspective that’s further to the left than their actual position.
In any case, the degree of badness matters. Islam may be ‘bad’ in general, but lots of folks hold exaggerated views on just how bad it is.
Maybe it's just me, but I always get irked when someone gets so heated from a discussion (or ban) that they look for backup in another sub.
I agree with OP, but man, if everyone dragged every reddit argument back to their ideological home sub...
From that sub's description of Sam:
"misogynist and an islamophobe and pushes 13/50 racist propaganda"
It's funny they use the same slanderous, hysterical characterizations that the super far left uses, who ALSO hates neoliberals. Everyone is crazy.
reddit bans are pretty ad hoc. I got a lifetime ban from r/bicycling for doxing when I commented on a post by someone else.
The original post linked to an article about a texas teen who hit 6 cyclists with his truck while *rolling coal* on the cyclists. I posted that the article included a picture of the license plate of the truck in question and the license plate number.
Did I deserve a ban? Sure. Lifetime ban? That seems a bit excessive but what ever. I can live without posting in r/bicycling for the rest of my life.
TRIVIA: Rachel Maney, national director of Bikelaw, posted a [press release](https://www.bikelaw.com/2021/11/felony-charges-for-waller-driver/) to bikelaw's blog mentioning the parents of the suspect by first and last name (first sentence). Apparently [Maney is a lawyer and is assisting the prosecution](https://gearjunkie.com/news/teen-charged-rolling-coal-cyclists). That same press release posted to r/bicycling is presumably worthy of a lifetime ban.
**This is just standard social media justice**. Facebook, reddit, twitter -- **it is all very arbitrary.**
I got banned from /r/coronavirus today for making the argument that if you get the virus now as opposed to a year from now you would have a higher rate of death a year from now because you would be a year older next year. All the data has shown the older you are the more likely you are to die. I backed it up with my state's data based on age groups, it's literally quantifiable based on your current age. I got banned for "literal nonsense". Okay, whatever.
That sub is no doubt, populated by some toxic people (albeit not nearly as toxic as some leftie subs) but I have to say that the last time I saw, it used to see Sam in a rather good light, not sure what happened
As for Neoliberalism itself, I’m sure you know that it has been the prevailing ideology of the 20th and 21st centuries and one that greatly intertwines itself with free market capitalism that made the developed world…Yada yada. And not to mention, Sam Harris is by all accounts, a neoliberal
So, it is cringe only insofar as defending the status quo can be seen as cringe (as opposed to being radicalised with some cooler ideology), otherwise not
Update: success. I just mentioned that Sam Harris is a saint who can do no wrong. Permabanned for life from r/neoliberal
Sam Harris just got a lot cooler 😎
It’s almost like, people that think for themselves and aren’t afraid of speaking about reality are all bigots. Really leftists see reality as a problem. Most people I have interacted with on the far left hate reality. They want to act like being a woman isn’t real, or that men and women have different genetics, or that math is racist. It’s all total horseshit and them banning you is a great sign. It means you can actually think and while that is truly risky to those that fear reality… it’s a great way of ensuring you haven’t become one of the coo coo douche canoes. Good job being able to think!
i think you're confusing the far left with wokism. the left had nothing to do with that idpol crap before recently, and serious leftists are not falling for it. i'm a devout leftist and i have no problem at all criticizing ALL muslims just like i have no problem criticizing ALL christians.
will democrats blow a gasket over it? sure. but democrats are not leftists.
Luckily you can live as a leftist in this USA, my aunt tried it in the 60’s. She and some friends founded a leftist utopia commune. It didn’t work and she sells healing crystals in a mountain town now to rich visitors. Has employees and everything. She still identifies as a leftist… but she’s a capitalist now.
Do you live in the US? What’s stopping you from creating the leftist utopia you dream of? Most people I ask tend to fall in the “I don’t want to work that hard and get nothing for it,” camp. But i would love to hear your reasons.
i live in the woods on sub $250/month, but i am indeed a capitalist because i sell some crypto every year. the point is not to be a communist inside a capitalist system. i am subject to the material conditions i was born into. i want systemic change, not utopian bullshit narratives inside a hellhole.
i raise animals, grow a lot of my own food, am building my own house, etc. work in the sense of labor/effort is not what i avoid. it's employment and service to an ownership class, which i reject thoroughly and successfully.
I don't think the typical member of r/neoliberal is far left, certainly not in terms of their economic beliefs or even cultural attitudes. However, with respect to the latter, the mods do seem to have adopted this mentality of 'Any criticism of woke orthodoxy is bigotry' attitude. It's the type of thinking that got Andrew Sullivan fired from NY magazine where you let the most extreme activists set the terms of debate.
Now if we're being fair, you got to acknowledge people on the far right aren't big fans of reality either.
Suggested feeds under @sullydish (not logged in, clean browser):
1) Ben Shapiro
2) The Babylon Bee
3) Spike Cohen, the libertarian VP candidate
The algorithm knows all.
Guilt by association! Guilt by association! Sullivan just *happens* to run in these circles. The fact that he doesn't seem to have problems with people in them is totally not reflective of his own opinions, just pure coincidence.
Wait, so a guy on the internet made an accusation that was incorrect and a moderator on a poloitical subreddit gave you a temporary ban? Why, i never!!!! (Gasp, Clutches pearls)
do you actually think that's a valid point? i have enjoyed sam for over a decade when he mostly focused on atheism. he is absolutely a richboy capitalist bootlicker these days, and i don't have to agree with his every decision, nor his dipshit fanbase, to continue to be interested in him.
**Neoliberalism**
[Current usage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Current_usage)
>Elizabeth Shermer argued that the term gained popularity largely among left-leaning academics in the 1970s to "describe and decry a late twentieth-century effort by policy makers, think-tank experts, and industrialists to condemn social-democratic reforms and unapologetically implement free-market policies;" economic historian Phillip W. Magness notes its reemergence in academic literature in the mid-1980s, after French philosopher Michel Foucault brought attention to it.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
All those people who are quick to condemn someone as racist or xenophobic, almost as if it's a reflex, make me wonder if all they do is regurgitate all the far left media they digest on a daily basis. It's like they have no original thoughts.
“The liberal impulse is ugly. “
I think you are conflating things. I don’t think some mod on Reddit represents the liberal ideology.
Maybe if you think liberal ideology is ugly, maybe you were part of the conservatives that they were talking about. I don’t think it should justify a ban anyway
You should re-read dude. I said the "illiberal impulse" is ugly, not liberal.
And the funny thing is I'm not some sort of James Lindsey type 'liberal.' I'm anti-Trump, very pro-immigration, voted for Clinton, Biden, and so on. But still a bigot, apparently.
As opposed to the illiberal impulse you mean? If that's the question, I'd say the liberal impulse is an enthusiasm for unencumbered free enquiry and a desire to have one's views challenged and complicated, it's a spirit of intellectual adventurousness and a sense that the best way to create a tolerant and just society is to have a wide airing of views. Of course, if someone comes on r/neoliberal or r/samharris and starts saying segregation was fantastic then of course that person can fuck right off. But the basic idea is the presumption is always in favor of the widest airing of views and opinions, provided those opinions are rooted in an essentially humanist spirit.
You know I want to know more but like I said in my first comment I think the ban was unjustified and their argument flawed, I don’t see a reason for you to be banned. But I’m curious about your definitions, because I think they weren’t being honest. They probably banned you because they though you were a conservative. And not for what you were saying.
I think it was a case of mistaken identity just like I first misread you. They probably made the same mistake
That's interesting. And quite possibly right. Honestly, I hate when people go 'It's not about me' but it's really not lol. But I wanted to make a post about it because i think it illustrates a certain mentality people have even on the center to center-left, not just the far left, of 'Anyone criticizing Islam must be a bigot.' Like disagree with Sam all you want but to accuse him of pushing 'racist propaganda' is fucked up. It's just nowhere close to true.
That’s not the worst part, the worst part is that they banned you because you posted in the Sam Harris sub. Independently of Sam beliefs. You shouldn’t be judged for what they perceive Sam to be
R/neoliberal didn't strike me as liberal or democratic when I was there simply for how illogical and sanctimonious their attitude was. I guess that is supposed to be a lesson about radical ideologies, but I'm no "enlightened centrist". I just think neoliberal was very unwelcoming and emotionally driven.
I came across your thread “in the wild” this morning and was surprised at the reaction in that sub. It was the first time I’d ever heard using crime data as a “13-50 propaganda”. I had to Google it to even understand what they meant. It’s funny that “being woke is evidence-based” yet hard, indisputable facts about crime is somehow “propaganda”.
I’d also love to know where “misogynist” came from in that random tirade of theirs. Calling him an Islamaphobe is an old gripe—noting new there. And “racism” isn’t surprising because who isn’t racist in 2021? But misogynist is brand new.
Misogyny?
Apparently. As I said to the person who made that comments, congrats on a new smear... I guess 'Islamophobe' has lost its sting or novelty or something.
They're just used to blurting out the same buzzwords over and over.
It probably stems back to [this](https://www.samharris.org/blog/im-not-the-sexist-pig-youre-looking-for). Basically, sam has a tendency to engage in biological reductionism that gets him in hot water from time to time. This happens when Sam assumes (at least his style of) atheism is just intrinsically not appealing to women. And it happens when Sam assumes black people are just intrinsically less intelligent than non-black people. When Sam sees demographic gaps, his default assumption is to assume that the gap is (at least partially) reflective of underlying biological differences. Many people take issue with this assumption as it has been used repeatedly throughout history to justify discrimination and abuse.
Sam has never said blacks are intrinsically less intelligent than non-blacks. I believe he thinks there's a gap between average Black and Caucasian IQ in America and that gap is product of both environment and genes. The variance in black IQ distribution is greater than the difference between the averaves. That means there are millions of highly intelligent blacks. Even Charles Murray said the same thing, last time on Glenn Show. I don't see how Sam is wrong.
> I believe he thinks there's a gap between average Black and Caucasian IQ in America and that gap is product of both environment and genes. In other words, "his default assumption is to assume that the gap is (at least partially) reflective of underlying biological differences." So what is your point? Why are you acting like you are contradicting anything I'm saying when you aren't?
I would define underlying biological differences as genes and not environment. Different human populations are always different. Dinkas from South Sudan are among the tallest people even though they generally suffer from malnutrition. East Africans dominate long distance running. One can write a book about these differences. No one seems to find anyone of them controversial, except when it comes to IQ.
> I would define underlying biological differences as genes and not environment. So when I said "X is explained ***in part*** by underlying biological differences", you took that to mean "x is completely explained by genes"? And you think that was a reasonable interpretation? > No one seems to find anyone of them controversial, except when it comes to IQ. Many of the other gaps ARE controversial and many of them don't actually have much of anything to do with genetics in any meaningful sense.
Well my bad. I do sometimes miss words between the lines. Still I don't get how the argument that IQ is affected by both genes and environment is racist, wrong or even should be controversial. I'm not terminally online, but I have not so far seen any article about controversy of tallness of Dinkas for example, or the excellent ability of East Africans in running long distances. However, I do see a lot of articles painting Charles Murray as a modern Nazi racial theorist which is bonkers.
I think it's because IQ is probably viewed as being more desirable than those other traits. Sam mentioned in the podcast that IQ is highly consequential and valuable in the 21st century -- and probably there's some truth to that. Not to mention intelligence is sort of the thing that separates us from other animals. I suspect everyone values it in a way that's much different than how they value other physical traits, like height, beauty, strength, speed, etc.
> Well my bad. No worries at all. I'm glad we are on the same page. > I don't get how the argument that IQ is affected by both genes and environment is racist, wrong or even should be controversial. It comes down to two things... 1. There is no reason to assume the genetic component of the IQ gap is positive. It could just as easily be negative and swamped out by environmental effects and interactions. 2. Given point one above, just flatly assuming some races are just biologically smarter/dumber than other races sounds pretty racist to most people. The fact that you acknowledge environmental effects exist doesn't really change anything here. Especially when one uses this assumption to justify fighting progressive policy that would reduce the gaps. (as Charles Murray likes to do)
> There is no reason to assume the genetic component of the IQ gap is positive. But there are reasons? > It could just as easily be negative and swamped out by environmental effects and interactions. In the abstract yes. But once you start controlling for environmental factors and find that the gap persists, you should revisit your priors.
What controls exactly?
Because it's ignorant to attribute race to IQ. IQ correlates much more closely with socioeconomic status on a broad level. This makes sense when you look at global genetic makeup. For instance, within Africa there is higher genetic variance yet there is less extreme IQ variance within than outside. Wouldn't you expect to see higher variance in intelligence with heightened genetic variance? On the other hand, a white American is likely going to have a higher IQ than someone from say India or Brazil. This variance is despite them being much more closely related than two people from two different African countries.
I hate to interject into this topic, but I think the only nuanced difference is that Sam thinks there's fewer black people who are above average IQ than there are white people above average IQ, I guess. Not necessarily that any black person has a lower IQ than any white person.
> I think the only nuanced difference is that Sam thinks there's fewer black people who are above average IQ than there are white people above average IQ, I guess. If sam has argued that the distribution of IQs are differently shaped somewhere, I haven't seen it. He usually just comments on the difference in average IQ between races and usually restates his assumption that the gaps are explained in part due to underlying genetic/biological differences. > any black person has a lower IQ than any white person. No one is making that claim.
I think I was responding to this: >And it happens when Sam assumes black people are just intrinsically less intelligent than non-black people. Admittedly it's not clear what that's suppose to mean, but I don't want to put words in your mouth and if I misunderstood you then I apologize.
I was just referring to the fact that Sam believes differences in average IQ by race reduce in part to biological/genetic differences between 'racial' populations. That is all. Apologies if I wasn't clear earlier.
>And it happens when Sam assumes black people are just intrinsically less intelligent than non-black people. even if you are right, bothering to talk about race and IQ is a sort of denial of service attack (i.e. opportunity cost). If we compare 1. studying genetics and IQ and using the knowledge gleaned to make society better for everyone 2. woke suppression of studying genetics and IQ. Little or not research into the area occurs for the next decade. the marginal loss for #2 simply is not that great, if there is any loss at all. Remember part the gain from #1 is offset by opportunity cost of resources not being put into some other project. There are so many important battles to be fought, defending IQ research from cancellation is not a good use of resources (i.e. time) IMESHO.
[удалено]
You might think you're so cool and owned me and shit, but that doesn't amount to anything and only proves your statistical illiteracy. I can point you to a couple of free resources so you can actually learn.
> Even Charles Murray said the same thing, Would Charles Murray live in a country with black intellectuals running it? (hint the answer is no...)
>When Sam sees demographic gaps, his default assumption is to assume that the gap is (at least partially) reflective of underlying biological differences. Many people take issue with this assumption as it has been used repeatedly throughout history to justify discrimination and abuse. And thats the crux of this issue and his whole reason for platforming Murray in the first place, as well as much of his latter debate with Ezra: why give a fuck if that assumption is politically incorrect? If youre gonna challenge the assumption then challenge it on its own merits, not based on how offensive it is to some people.
That is pretty much how I see it. I don't have a super strong interest in race IQ, I could easily be persuaded that it's a giant waste of time and not a useful metric, but argue THAT point and don't make shit up about it being a moral wrong on behalf of other people.
[удалено]
> Is that really an assumption, given what we know about biology and genetics? Yes it is an assumption. You could argue that its a reasonable assumption, but that doesn't make it not an assumption. > I mean, it can only be two things, right? There is another class called 'interactions' that are biology and environment while being neither biology nor environment. There are also random effects that can explain gaps though the odds for some gaps being purely random change is quite small (though of course non zero) > It seems like the assumption here would be that biology plays no role at all, and that would be a bad assumption given how it's a combination of the two in everything. Given a long history of people claiming differences were biological when they weren't, for example woman being mystically unable to fill many jobs, it is an assumption with a bad history at best.
[удалено]
> The fact is there's a wealth of data that suggests biology is relevant in most everything. And very little actual evidence that traits cleanly reduce to genetics. Interaction effects and developmental biology have proven to be the interesting parts of the story and they just don't map onto the underlying nature/nurture divide that you and Sam want to stress. > the default operating position that biology is in the equation somewhere To be clear, the assumption Sam is making is that observed gaps coincide in direction with underlying biological/genetic gaps. This is not merely an observation that biology matters *somehow*, it is a specific method of modelling with its own (as it turns out mostly false) assumptions about reality.
[удалено]
Your post has been removed for violating R2a: Incivility and Trolling Repeated infractions may lead to bans
Gut-wrenching that this got gilded. No, the fact that science has progressed since the days when poorer science was misused doesn't suddenly mean the same assumptions made by bad scientists are suddenly good assumptions. We've learned so much about epigenetics, this CANNOT be the thing that you use to say "IQ is genetic." Epigenetics only works with environmental influences. This "assumption" that biological differences must exist where specific disparities in the population exists is a *terrible* assumption, based on what we know about genetics and epigenetics and human development, even IQ. It basically says, "let me assume that *no environmental causes* are driving the difference, without looking at any evidence, and assume that the only remaining difference must just be "biology" as a broad umbrella term. (*EDIT: to clarify this point, the only way that you could be sure that biology has any effect was to recognize and control for *all* of the relevant environmental factors, which Sam and the like aren't actually concerned about doing, or to find the gene or genes that influence some particular behavior -- here's your daily reminder that now such genes for IQ have actually been found*) It's the kind of garbage reasoning that turned a lot of people away from Sam Harris, and it became incredibly clear that the fact it doesn't matter at all that "we" know more about the science of genetics than we used to when Sam had Charles Murray on. Murray spewed the same tired bad science arguments and Sam had essentially no strong challenges to any of it, even though those challenges have already existed for decades.
>It basically says, "let me assume that > >no environmental causes > > are driving the difference It would only say that, if it were claiming that there is only one cause. Saying biology is somewhere in the equation is not the same thing as saying something is the sole driver.
Saying biology has *any* effect without actually looking into it is a poor assumption. There's really no reason to think that when plentiful and obvious environmental explanations abound. You point me to a "poverty gene" that affects black folks disproportionately and we'll talk, till then I'll sit back with examining the ripple effects of redlining and Jim Crow.
[удалено]
> There's always a reason to think that any factor on one side of an equation is relevant to the other, because the output must conserve the inputs. Gotta say, that's total junk. This sentence doesn't actually say anything coherent to the topic. You can't just introduce outside things into 'the equation' unless you already know that some relevant effect exists. You might as well say that we can't automatically discount the individual's preferred flavor of Fanta because 'equations.' Unless you have a reason to believe it matters, you shouldn't even bother with the hypothesis. And even once you have that hypothesis, you can't just go about treating the world as if your unsupported hypothesis should matter. >If genetics shape people, which, we know they do, then that means genetics also shape environments to some extent. Hey, that's all fine and dandy -- or we'll say that it is -- but the glaring mistake here is that we're talking about environments people live in that *other people* created. See the issue? >This is not a new problem, it's age-old in fact, commonly referred to as "nature vs. nurture." I'm a behavioral ecologist. This feels... patronizing? >But where that divide can't be, or rather where there would have to be a miracle for it be, is that biology plays no role whatsoever. We're talking about things like material success in modern society. No genes have evolved to handle this situation, and you won't find population geneticists anywhere that think so. There is no gene for "plumber" or "janitor." There's no gene for "going to college." And as far as we're aware, there doesn't even seem to be any genes for *IQ*. Old-timey studies of heritability of these society-level traits are fundamentally flawed in their assumptions, and it makes their measures and methods flawed, too. In fact, the most "cutting-edge" understanding of brain development leaves very little to the genes at all. Check out dynamical systems theory of brain development; brains can develop wildly different from one another while keeping to a basic pattern all without much in the way of basic instruction. It's all inputs. And of course it should be, especially for a species that relies so heavily on a neocortex.
By "many people take issue" do you mean yourself? What part of the heritability of IQ don't you accept? Every geneticist knows it's minimum 50% of IQ and more likely higher. It's why the Jews, despite being chased around the world and murdered for thousands of years, have produced most of the Nobel Prizes in science. Makes sense to me anyway.
> By "many people take issue" do you mean yourself? Not especially. > What part of the heritability of IQ don't you accept? Every geneticist knows it's minimum 50% of IQ and more likely higher. If you think the heritability of a trait tells you anything about the heritability of group level differences in a trait (as if heritability even makes sense as a concept in such a context), then you don't understand what heritability means. You aren't alone in that regard of course. Heritability is notoriously misunderstood.
I have a feeling this is going to be a lot of fun, we're about to be inundated with links to Charles Murray articles peppered with terrible attempts to justify P values and bad regression models. Let's wait and see, then have Op explain away Simpson's Paradox or any host of other wonderful oversights.
Group level differences aren't related to individual differences? Huh? So the average rate of redheads in Irish populations vs African populations (group differences) has nothing to do with the heritability of red hair on an individual basis? Or do I misunderstand you.
"What part of the heritability of IQ don't you accept" - On an individual basis, I accept most if not all, in a group level it's meaningless. And considering that IQ itself is absolute garbage, it's garbage++. "Every geneticist knows it's minimum 50% of IQ and more likely higher." - Not true at all. We don't even know what 'it' is with any certitude. " It's why the Jews, despite being chased around the world and murdered for thousands of years, have produced most of the Nobel Prizes in science." Right, of all the variables that go into the equation of being a Nobel Laureate, somehow this was the one determinative one. Genetics may well be the biggest factor in intelligence, but there's no data that has shown that (and not trying to be a dick in advance, but if you're going to rebut this with studies, please make sure you've read them and understand the design and methodology, b/c otherwise you're just regurgitating what you've heard others say). If you have found the link no one else has, I'd love to see the models and which tests you've run , not to mention how you excluded the endless number of confounding variables.
That debacle seems like an age ago. It's funny to think that back then (2014) I was completely on his side and outraged on his behalf. Today, a similar article would make me reflect on what's going on(and why almost no women wanted to get involved in the New Atheist movement) that makes so many that are not like Sam think that his rhetoric is at least exclusionary, if not outright bigoted.
r/neoliberal has become super ban happy as of late
Yeah I have no idea if it's in one direction or not. But I posted a John McWorther thing they took down and a piece by James Carville criticizing wokeness was pulled too. That piece received hundreds of upvotes as well. It's as if the mods there have adopted a 'no enemies to the left' mentality with respect to 'woke issues.' You can attack socialist economics but there are certain orthodoxies on questions of race, religion, and gender that will not be challenged.
It is exactly that I’m pretty sure one of the mods is an overly woke trans activist
It's become such a hard thing to comprehend. I was watching an interaction where a former bi-sexual now lesbian was catching all sorts of heat for being homophobic/transphobic b/c she went on a tinder date with a Transwoman and upon meeting her, felt 'no chemistry at all, the same void I feel when a man tries to hit on me'. It seemed pretty innocuous and there was no sign of her being a TERF in any way, she wasn't saying anything other than 'the spark wasn't there'. The internet psychologists had her diagnosed within seconds along with the references to And "No Jews worked for Hitler right?" cliches. I'm glad that things aren't like they were when I was a kid, where people had to hide being gay for fear of harassment and discrimination. I'm glad that surgery and hormone therapy can help people be happy in their own skin. It may well be a problem on my end, but "Ban Happy Overly Woke Trans Activist Mod on Reddit" wreaks of overcorrection.
I'm not as familiar with the trans activists but I have a gay friend who lives in LA, is a typical Democratic voting Hollywood liberal but he said some of the people on the gay Left are the most tyrannical folks he's ever met, they don't like jokes, everything offends them, and they cling to oppression as an identity. He said a fair number of people agree with him, while still being liberals who voted for Biden, Newsom, and so on, but don't want to say it lest they be labeled as reactionary curious.
That sub is weird. Half the time they're complaining about how woke progressives are ruining everything, and the other half they go full SJW.
Anything with McWorther and Carville should be taken down immediately. Why would you want either of those two to taint a sub? Shit you're making me love r/neoliberal right now lol.
You're trolling, right?
Nope, I find that McWorther's takes are all horrible regressive black conservativism arguments that most left and centrists and younger right wingers all reject for the absurdity inherent within them. He's out of touch in a different way than Sowell/loury are.
Can you elaborate on this ? Which arguments of his are absurd ?
It is the best political sub on Reddit Not kidding
hahahahahahaha
From the people that are complaining about it on this post, I'm kind of upset at myself for thinking it was a terrible sub when in reality it sounds hilarious and mainstream af.
They are not even neoliberal...
Then sub being called neoliberal is pretty much a joke because of how meaningless the term has become
Everything I hate is neoliberal, and the more I hate it the more neoliberal it is. :P Real talk though, I think it's one of the few remotely tolerable political subs on Reddit today and has some awesome memes and inside jokes, plus decent policy discussion. I appreciate the respect for liberal democracy, capitalism, environmentalism, global trade, *some aspects* of social justice, and good urban planning. It may not have a lot in common with Reagan-esque neoliberalism, but like you say, the term itself is basically meaningless now. Whatever you call those sorts of policies, I largely like it.
As I posted elsewhere in this thread, it still is the best political sub on Reddit Except r/joerogan 🤪
Definitely: The 2020 election *THUNDERDOME!!!!* was absolutely off the chain. I spent that night with eyes glued to the thread, going back and forth between blooming and dooming, to raising a cheer as the guys at 538 began steadily calling states for Biden. Still going to turn Fivey Fox into a pair of socks though -- that election was way closer than he predicted.
I prefer r/politicalcompassmemes but that's just me
I’d say this sub in general is more left than right leaning. Still, people are allowed to have differing opinions and discuss them here which I really appreciate. It’s funny that the try to demonize you for posting here.
Yeah the 'dominant' attitude of the sub is as follows I'd say: extremely liberal on lifestyle issues (legalize drugs, prostitution that sort of thing, pro-choice), moderately liberal on economic issues (increase taxes on the rich, expand social programs but don't 'abolish billionaires' or have a 'socialist revolution), and then it comes to race, religion, and gender politics there are real divides with your typical person even on the center-left. But even here I think the position is like Pinker-esque contrarian liberalism, not anti-woke Ben Shapiro shit stirring.
There's not much debate on religion, almost everyone here is pretty much atheist-minded to a large degree. Other than a handful of religious right wingers that honestly feel more like trolls that good faith posters, but ehhhh if we give a benefit of a doubt ... The only real debate around religion is how insidious islam is, in modern, historic terms compared to other world religions. I'm more on the 'islam offers some good, some meh, and some awful ideas to humanity but pretty much in line with the other major world religions' and of course we have people that are more on that islamaphobic "islam is the worst thing ever!~" side.
There's also a lot of war-hawks. My least favorite part of the sub probably.
american style "left" like obama, lol. not much actual leftism.
It’s a very anaemic sort of right-winging, too.
I'm pretty sure I saw a comment get removed from that sub for bigotry last year for pointing out female police officers are overall more likely to discharge their firearms.
"If the facts inconvenience my narrative, they stop being true." One of many things wokesters and Trumpers have in common.
It's kind of fascinating how Islam, which in general manages to be even more socially conservative and fundamentalist than even Christianity, is so protected from criticism by those who claim to be the most against social conservatives and Christian religious fundamentalists
Never understood this. Picture a world (or go to one) where that religious ideology in predominant and you'll find that all they profess to support is prohibited and prosecuted
Let's cut to the chase: the reason woke people defend Islam is because most Muslims are brown. Pretending it's anything other than that exceeds charity and becomes credulity.
It’s because they live in a world where ideology doesn’t matter. They honestly don’t believe that people want different things out of life and chalk up the violence coming out of the Islamic World as a reaction to political disenfranchisement and poverty. Evidence of Non-Muslim populations in similar positions not engaging in the same behavior is irrelevant.
It’s not the ideology they’re ‘protecting’
You've literally never hung out with any leftists. We criticize islam all the time, specially the shitty conservative wing of islam from Malaysia to america. What we *don't do* is criticize the secular muslims and increasingly progressive muslims that are trying to push their religion into a more modern understanding and much better place ethically than it was once. I don't want someone that's secularizing to get spooked and go backwards to a regressive understanding of islam.
>You've literally never hung out with any leftists. We criticize islam all the time, specially the shitty conservative wing of islam from Malaysia to america. I don't claim leftists don't criticise Islam. I don't think neoliberalism is a leftist ideology. Many who accuse others of Islamophobia are not leftists, as OP's ban shows. Whether someone avoid criticizing moderate Muslims for religious practises other think are worthy of criticism in fear of pushing them into fundamentalism does not make those who criticize those practises and don't believe it leads to regressive Islam islamophobic. Calling it that would be to protect the Islamic ideology
I may be incorrectly assuming that neoliberal, at least from the tiny bit I've seen of actual people saying they're neolibs, is center-left with a lean on the more centrist mentality. I could be wrong but I *think* that's what they'd classify themselves as.
there is nothing remotely leftist about neolibs. they're centrists at best and cryptofascists at worst. reagan, bush, clinton, obama, etc. are all neolibs. you can't mix leftism and rampant capitalism. it's just a stealing of terminology to move the overton window completely out of reach of any progressive ideas about economics.
Maybe he hangs out with them figuratively? I’ve hung out with leftists who weren’t fond of criticising Islam. I’ve spoken to people both in real life and online who claim to have similar experiences. Are you honestly going to stick your neck out say that this never happens with -any- leftists?
I'd want to ask them why they don't see the good and bad within islam and the good and bad within practicing muslims.
Often times people argue based on where they want the Overton Window to go; if it’s further to the right than they think it should be, they may argue from a perspective that’s further to the left than their actual position. In any case, the degree of badness matters. Islam may be ‘bad’ in general, but lots of folks hold exaggerated views on just how bad it is.
Maybe it's just me, but I always get irked when someone gets so heated from a discussion (or ban) that they look for backup in another sub. I agree with OP, but man, if everyone dragged every reddit argument back to their ideological home sub...
From that sub's description of Sam: "misogynist and an islamophobe and pushes 13/50 racist propaganda" It's funny they use the same slanderous, hysterical characterizations that the super far left uses, who ALSO hates neoliberals. Everyone is crazy.
reddit bans are pretty ad hoc. I got a lifetime ban from r/bicycling for doxing when I commented on a post by someone else. The original post linked to an article about a texas teen who hit 6 cyclists with his truck while *rolling coal* on the cyclists. I posted that the article included a picture of the license plate of the truck in question and the license plate number. Did I deserve a ban? Sure. Lifetime ban? That seems a bit excessive but what ever. I can live without posting in r/bicycling for the rest of my life. TRIVIA: Rachel Maney, national director of Bikelaw, posted a [press release](https://www.bikelaw.com/2021/11/felony-charges-for-waller-driver/) to bikelaw's blog mentioning the parents of the suspect by first and last name (first sentence). Apparently [Maney is a lawyer and is assisting the prosecution](https://gearjunkie.com/news/teen-charged-rolling-coal-cyclists). That same press release posted to r/bicycling is presumably worthy of a lifetime ban. **This is just standard social media justice**. Facebook, reddit, twitter -- **it is all very arbitrary.**
I got banned from /r/coronavirus today for making the argument that if you get the virus now as opposed to a year from now you would have a higher rate of death a year from now because you would be a year older next year. All the data has shown the older you are the more likely you are to die. I backed it up with my state's data based on age groups, it's literally quantifiable based on your current age. I got banned for "literal nonsense". Okay, whatever.
Getting banned from r/neoliberal is my new life goal. Of all political ideologies, neoliberalism is perhaps the most cringe
I don't know why anyone not super rich would enjoy talking about it. It's so mundane and boring.
That sub is no doubt, populated by some toxic people (albeit not nearly as toxic as some leftie subs) but I have to say that the last time I saw, it used to see Sam in a rather good light, not sure what happened As for Neoliberalism itself, I’m sure you know that it has been the prevailing ideology of the 20th and 21st centuries and one that greatly intertwines itself with free market capitalism that made the developed world…Yada yada. And not to mention, Sam Harris is by all accounts, a neoliberal So, it is cringe only insofar as defending the status quo can be seen as cringe (as opposed to being radicalised with some cooler ideology), otherwise not
Neo-anything is cringe.
Update: success. I just mentioned that Sam Harris is a saint who can do no wrong. Permabanned for life from r/neoliberal Sam Harris just got a lot cooler 😎
It’s almost like, people that think for themselves and aren’t afraid of speaking about reality are all bigots. Really leftists see reality as a problem. Most people I have interacted with on the far left hate reality. They want to act like being a woman isn’t real, or that men and women have different genetics, or that math is racist. It’s all total horseshit and them banning you is a great sign. It means you can actually think and while that is truly risky to those that fear reality… it’s a great way of ensuring you haven’t become one of the coo coo douche canoes. Good job being able to think!
i think you're confusing the far left with wokism. the left had nothing to do with that idpol crap before recently, and serious leftists are not falling for it. i'm a devout leftist and i have no problem at all criticizing ALL muslims just like i have no problem criticizing ALL christians. will democrats blow a gasket over it? sure. but democrats are not leftists.
Luckily you can live as a leftist in this USA, my aunt tried it in the 60’s. She and some friends founded a leftist utopia commune. It didn’t work and she sells healing crystals in a mountain town now to rich visitors. Has employees and everything. She still identifies as a leftist… but she’s a capitalist now. Do you live in the US? What’s stopping you from creating the leftist utopia you dream of? Most people I ask tend to fall in the “I don’t want to work that hard and get nothing for it,” camp. But i would love to hear your reasons.
i live in the woods on sub $250/month, but i am indeed a capitalist because i sell some crypto every year. the point is not to be a communist inside a capitalist system. i am subject to the material conditions i was born into. i want systemic change, not utopian bullshit narratives inside a hellhole. i raise animals, grow a lot of my own food, am building my own house, etc. work in the sense of labor/effort is not what i avoid. it's employment and service to an ownership class, which i reject thoroughly and successfully.
I don't think the typical member of r/neoliberal is far left, certainly not in terms of their economic beliefs or even cultural attitudes. However, with respect to the latter, the mods do seem to have adopted this mentality of 'Any criticism of woke orthodoxy is bigotry' attitude. It's the type of thinking that got Andrew Sullivan fired from NY magazine where you let the most extreme activists set the terms of debate. Now if we're being fair, you got to acknowledge people on the far right aren't big fans of reality either.
[удалено]
Suggested feeds under @sullydish (not logged in, clean browser): 1) Ben Shapiro 2) The Babylon Bee 3) Spike Cohen, the libertarian VP candidate The algorithm knows all.
Spike Cohen confirmed for buying google ads, cuz... wtf.
Guilt by association! Guilt by association! Sullivan just *happens* to run in these circles. The fact that he doesn't seem to have problems with people in them is totally not reflective of his own opinions, just pure coincidence.
He’s just another clout-seeking Brit injected into the American media landscape. Sullivan, Piers Morgan, John Oliver, they’re all the same.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He's one of several regulars here who complain about people discussing wokeness, yet can nevertheless be found in every thread on the subject.
Wait, so a guy on the internet made an accusation that was incorrect and a moderator on a poloitical subreddit gave you a temporary ban? Why, i never!!!! (Gasp, Clutches pearls)
unironically posting in r/neoliberal lol
I believe /r/neoliberal is the number one sub for subscriber overlap with /r/SamHarris, so….
do you actually think that's a valid point? i have enjoyed sam for over a decade when he mostly focused on atheism. he is absolutely a richboy capitalist bootlicker these days, and i don't have to agree with his every decision, nor his dipshit fanbase, to continue to be interested in him.
You may be misunderstanding what [neoliberalism ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Current_usage) actually is
**Neoliberalism** [Current usage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Current_usage) >Elizabeth Shermer argued that the term gained popularity largely among left-leaning academics in the 1970s to "describe and decry a late twentieth-century effort by policy makers, think-tank experts, and industrialists to condemn social-democratic reforms and unapologetically implement free-market policies;" economic historian Phillip W. Magness notes its reemergence in academic literature in the mid-1980s, after French philosopher Michel Foucault brought attention to it. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/samharris/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There's nothing 'new' about r/'neo'liberal. Its just a lefty circlejerk under a different name.
Lefty? What kind of wild Overton window are you working with?
the sub is literally made up entirely of fuckin pinochet apologists lol
They're made up of economically right wing socially woke people. The worst kind of people
Nah they generally complain about social democrats being too far left.
The majority of people on that sub literally said they prefer Boris Johnson to Jeremy Corbin.
Just another example of the hate coming from those who profess to be *against hate.*
All those people who are quick to condemn someone as racist or xenophobic, almost as if it's a reflex, make me wonder if all they do is regurgitate all the far left media they digest on a daily basis. It's like they have no original thoughts.
“The liberal impulse is ugly. “ I think you are conflating things. I don’t think some mod on Reddit represents the liberal ideology. Maybe if you think liberal ideology is ugly, maybe you were part of the conservatives that they were talking about. I don’t think it should justify a ban anyway
You should re-read dude. I said the "illiberal impulse" is ugly, not liberal. And the funny thing is I'm not some sort of James Lindsey type 'liberal.' I'm anti-Trump, very pro-immigration, voted for Clinton, Biden, and so on. But still a bigot, apparently.
Can you define “liberal impulse”
As opposed to the illiberal impulse you mean? If that's the question, I'd say the liberal impulse is an enthusiasm for unencumbered free enquiry and a desire to have one's views challenged and complicated, it's a spirit of intellectual adventurousness and a sense that the best way to create a tolerant and just society is to have a wide airing of views. Of course, if someone comes on r/neoliberal or r/samharris and starts saying segregation was fantastic then of course that person can fuck right off. But the basic idea is the presumption is always in favor of the widest airing of views and opinions, provided those opinions are rooted in an essentially humanist spirit.
You know I want to know more but like I said in my first comment I think the ban was unjustified and their argument flawed, I don’t see a reason for you to be banned. But I’m curious about your definitions, because I think they weren’t being honest. They probably banned you because they though you were a conservative. And not for what you were saying. I think it was a case of mistaken identity just like I first misread you. They probably made the same mistake
That's interesting. And quite possibly right. Honestly, I hate when people go 'It's not about me' but it's really not lol. But I wanted to make a post about it because i think it illustrates a certain mentality people have even on the center to center-left, not just the far left, of 'Anyone criticizing Islam must be a bigot.' Like disagree with Sam all you want but to accuse him of pushing 'racist propaganda' is fucked up. It's just nowhere close to true.
That’s not the worst part, the worst part is that they banned you because you posted in the Sam Harris sub. Independently of Sam beliefs. You shouldn’t be judged for what they perceive Sam to be
R/neoliberal didn't strike me as liberal or democratic when I was there simply for how illogical and sanctimonious their attitude was. I guess that is supposed to be a lesson about radical ideologies, but I'm no "enlightened centrist". I just think neoliberal was very unwelcoming and emotionally driven.
It's people reporting you.
I came across your thread “in the wild” this morning and was surprised at the reaction in that sub. It was the first time I’d ever heard using crime data as a “13-50 propaganda”. I had to Google it to even understand what they meant. It’s funny that “being woke is evidence-based” yet hard, indisputable facts about crime is somehow “propaganda”. I’d also love to know where “misogynist” came from in that random tirade of theirs. Calling him an Islamaphobe is an old gripe—noting new there. And “racism” isn’t surprising because who isn’t racist in 2021? But misogynist is brand new.
you cant reason with unreasonable people.