Might be an issue of interpretation between cultures/legal systems/regions? 

In the US, at least, a person might be complicit in some offense for having been witness to the offense and not, in effect, discharging their civic duty.  For example, a person who knows that someone intends to commit arson, watches them commit arson, does not call the fire department, and does not notify authorities actively seeking information regarding that arson.  They've done absolutely nothing...and that, in that instance, is what -makes- them complicit.

Or a person who, not knowing a robbery was committed, nevertheless drives the getaway car.  An accomplice. In this case, they have done something..maybe they didn't intend to or realize that they had. From their point of view they;ve done nothing wrong..but from the point of view of the injured they have - and when there is an injured party, we generally place the compelling interest with them. Essentially, demanding that someone clarify their remarks and repudiate any seeming offense in a compelling way.

I guess the disagreement is over whether or not Harris has or can, do that, in this case? Was Harris actively complicit in laughing and providing the vehicle? Was he passively complicit in that he provided no opposition to those remarks, having at least some idea as to what the guest he had on was going to say.....and did his clarification compellingly address the issue, or was it an attempt to duck the entire thing by claiming, in effect, ignorance?

(I still think it was just an insensitive moment, not an antipathetic or apathetic moment, only spitballing above)

(June 1, 2017 at 12:17 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Might be an issue of interpretation between cultures/legal systems/regions? 

In the US, at least, a person might be complicit in some offense for having been witness to the offense and not, in effect, discharging their civic duty.  For example, a person who knows that someone intends to commit arson, watches them commit arson, does not call the fire department, and does not notify authorities actively seeking information regarding that arson.  They've done absolutely nothing...and that, in that instance, is what -makes- them complicit.

Or a person who, not knowing a robbery was committed, nevertheless drives the getaway car.  An accomplice.  In this case, they have done something..maybe they didn't intend to or realize that they had.  From their point of view they;ve done nothing wrong..but from the point of view of the injured they have - and when there is an injured party, we generally place the compelling interest with them.  Essentially, demanding that someone clarify their remarks and repudiate any seeming offense in a compelling way.

I guess the disagreement is over whether or not Harris has or can, do that, in this case?  Was Harris actively complicit in laughing and providing the vehicle?  Was he passively complicit in that he provided no opposition to those remarks, having at least some idea as to what the guest he had on was going to say.....and did his clarification compellingly address the issue, or was it an attempt to duck the entire thing by claiming, in effect, ignorance?

(I still think it was just an insensitive moment, not an antipathetic or apathetic moment, only spitballing above)

It's understandable that in some legal situations it makes someone complicit to not report a crime or drive a get away vehicle.

But in a general non legal sense you could look at it either way.

What the person did that some people think was morally wrong is make a statement likely backed up by what people would think is an immoral opinion.  Sam Harris didn't help him say the words or come up with the opinion.  A get away driver drives a vehicle that helps someone commit an illegal act. And in regards to not reporting an arson/illegal act, Sam Harris did the opposite.  He's letting anyone who wants to watch the youtube video see and hear the words the man is saying that some people think is immoral.

I'm probably going to step away from this convo though because I don't have much interest in transexuals or the politics surrounding sexual identity, I think Sam Harris is usually quite boring, I don't know who Douglas Murray.

(June 1, 2017 at 2:54 pm)paulpablo Wrote: It's understandable that in some legal situations it makes someone complicit to not report a crime or drive a get away vehicle.

But in a general non legal sense you could look at it either way.

What the person did that some people think was morally wrong is make a statement likely backed up by what people would think is an immoral opinion.  Sam Harris didn't help him say the words or come up with the opinion. 

He helped him broadcast them to a wide audience, and did nothing, in doing so, to suggest that he did not endorse those views.   Her did, however, act in a way that suggests to some that he did, or that he didn;t oppose them all that much..or whatever...who knows.

Quote:A get away driver drives a vehicle that helps someone commit an illegal act.

Right...but, again here in the us..the getaway driver doesn't always have to be party to that crime - or even know that it was committed.  Just a comment on varying levels of complicity as some conceptualize them.

Quote:And in regards to not reporting an arson/illegal act, Sam Harris did the opposite.  He's letting anyone who wants to watch the youtube video see and hear the words the man is saying that some people think is immoral.

That sounds like some pretty weak spin.  That;s not what he was doing..if he, as he claims, didn't even realize it was "about that".....so? 
(honestly, can't the man just have had an insensitive moment...does he need to be condemned -or- absolved?)

Quote:I'm probably going to step away from this convo though because I don't have much interest in transexuals or the politics surrounding sexual identity, I think Sam Harris is usually quite boring, I don't know who Douglas Murray.

I'm not particularly invested in that either...but I do find people's assessments of complicity interesting.

(June 1, 2017 at 6:26 am)paulpablo Wrote: Being complicit is actually taking an involvement in something someone else is doing that's immoral. Rather than just being inaction.

I suppose someone could say him laughing is being involved but I agree with what other people are saying and what Sam Harris is saying that he was laughing at the political incorrectness and exaggeration of it.

Inaction in the face of a serious issue, and worse, laughter in the face of it (not only failing to discourage it but at least seeming to encourage it ) is very much complicit.

(June 4, 2017 at 11:06 pm)Hammy Wrote:

(June 1, 2017 at 6:26 am)paulpablo Wrote: Being complicit is actually taking an involvement in something someone else is doing that's immoral. Rather than just being inaction.

I suppose someone could say him laughing is being involved but I agree with what other people are saying and what Sam Harris is saying that he was laughing at the political incorrectness and exaggeration of it.

Inaction in the face of a serious issue, and worse, laughter in the face of it (not only failing to discourage it but at least seeming to encourage it ) is very much complicit.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke.

https://youtu.be/LF5vpNkB8UM

(May 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm)Hammy Wrote: I am shocked, appaled and highly surprised at the myopic views Sam Harris has on gender.

Why, does he think something crazy, like there's two genders, or something?

Douglas Murray is a notorious puppet for the Right-wing, who claims to hate identity politics while parroting Right-wing talking points playing up the identity of a "conservative gay man". It's more transparent than one of Katie Price's t-shirts. He's also lying through the back teeth by saying people on The Right don't hit back with buzzwords and the same behaviour. They do, all the bloody time. What's a "cuck"? What's a "libtard"? What's "autistic screeching"? Those are buzzwords used by the Right to shut Leftists up, comparable to The Left's knee-jerk use of "-phobias" and "-isms".

That said if I am being totally honest, I think there's a point in there. As open minded and ok with transgender people transitioning as I want to be (I would never be a snarky cunt who would deliberately misgender someone who is actually trans), I do struggle with what they were talking about too. The idea of "I have no intention of transitioning, but I don't need that to be trans and you still have to deny you see my birth sex when you look at me" is just unreasonable and not living in reality.

I do also see this claiming any amount of gender nonconformity as "trans" or "queer", by people who when you look at their life situations are (really) just normal straight people, to be a hijacking and co-option of genuine LGBT peoples' language and movement. I saw a particularly notorious individual on YouTube a few months ago, who is biologically male and physically living his life totally as male (has no intention to transition) but claims he is a "trans lesbian" because he has long hair and eye makeup, talking about how LGBT people shouldn't criticise Islam. Well that's easy for him to say, when he can simply cut that hair off and get a makeup wipe and go live in any Middle Eastern country as a normal man. I can't. I am gay for life, just as a genuine trans person suffering from gender dysphoria will have that for life. We can't just throw off our "identity" in a tight pinch when we're living in a political climate that doesn't accept us. That is the problem that I have with this "anyone who feels queer is queer" and "I'm LGBT just because I'm not 100% gender conforming" movement. It's insulting and a trivialisation of my life experience, in my opinion.

Do not trivialise same-sex attraction and/or gender dysphoria down to clothing, and I thank you.

Harris was also right with what he said about stepping outside the social "norms" of your side of the political spectrum. I am a Leftist, I am pretty far Left on any political test that I do and I stand by that because I believe in it. But it's true, when I "break rank" and want to make an introspective criticism of the toxic ways Leftists behave at times, I get all kinds of assumptions made about me. That's part of the knee-jerk emotional political climate we live in right now.

Hammy,

Nobody's perfect.  Even you and I.

I think a lot of people are oddly okay with transphobia. Just like everyone used to be okay with Homophobia (many still are). And people used to be okay with Racism. Whatever makes people 'uncomfortable' it's okay to attack because they're all a bunch of fucking children. No wait, that's unfair to children, because most Children only learn such behaviors from their fucking parents.

We always have excuses. Maybe one day we'll run out. Probably fucking not though.