I Used To Be A Fan But I Am Now Shocked, Disgusted And Appalled With Sam Harris

[Crunchy]

But why the equivocation? Surely you must see the difference between Stop and Frisk (which absolutely is a removal of rights) and saying that maybe the progressive movement is doing more harm by insisting that everyone who doesn't recognize a pangender asexual heteromorphic person by sight or---even worse---doesn't recognize that as an actual thing, is a bigoted, transphobic asshole.

When Murray says they're all "weirdos" and Sam Harris laughs along and agrees with him... that certainly makes them bigoted transphobic assholes, though.

Lot's was said. It was a rant so you're assuming you know exactly why he was laughing but you don't really know you're just assuming. Harris himself said he thought it was about political correctness.

[paulpablo]

It seems to me like he can't get his words out eloquently and he's making a joke about the overly complex but meaningless labels people are putting on themselves to describe their gender and Sam Harris is laughing at that.

Sam Harris only starts laughing after Murray gets to the point where he's saying 

"Wierdo, sexual obsession, transgender, transpoly gender (slight chuckle) identify CIS.........."

So to me it looks like a joke about overly complex gender titles and Sam Harris is laughing at the word transpoly gender identify CIS, which seems to me to be a meaningless collection of words for the purposes of a joke.  And the rest seems to be Jenner jokes.

[SteelCurtain]

I despise Charles Murray, but equating his use of Weirdo in this context with a slur is a bit much IMO.

[Edwardo Piet]

When Murray says they're all "weirdos" and Sam Harris laughs along and agrees with him... that certainly makes them bigoted transphobic assholes, though.

Lot's was said. It was a rant so you're assuming you know exactly why he was laughing but you don't really know you're just assuming. Harris himself said he thought it was about political correctness.

Yes lots was said. Including transgender people being referred to as "weirdos" while his friend laughs along and agrees.

There is a such thing as being complicit.

To pretend to be completely ignorant about why he is laughing and agreeing with what was said is just disingenuous.

---

I despise Charles Murray, but equating his use of Weirdo in this context with a slur is a bit much IMO.

Who is Charles Murray and when did he say "weirdo"?

I think you mean Douglas Murray

Anyways, this is where your mistake is: Calling any entire group of people "weirdos" merely for belonging to that group is bigoted. Just because you don't consider the word bad enough in that context to be a slur doesn't make it not a slur in that context.

Or if it does make it not a slur the fact it's not technically a slur ("That's not a true slur!") is irrelevant to the fact that it's an extremely bigoted label for all transwomen either way. It's as bad as a slur. And the fact he thinks transwomen are "weirdos" because to him they're just "men with penises" and he think that makes them "weirdos" is why I would consider it a slur.

But, again, slur or not is irreevant. The whole point is that bigoted views are bigoted views and that is exactly what he is expressing here. Saying that transwomen are weirdos and men with penises is analogous to referring to black people as N-words who like watermelons and fried chicken.

And of course my whole point is that transphobia, homophobia and racism are all equally bad because all bigotry against a whole group of people is equally bad. If Murray had came onto Sam's show saying that all gay people or all African Americans were "weirdos" and Sam Harris laughed along with it and said it was hilarous... suddenly my view that Sam Harris is a bigoted friend of a bigot wouldn't be seen as so ridiculous. And this just betrays the ignorance about the very real issue of transphobia.

[Crunchy]

Hammy Wrote:
Yes lots was said. Including transgender people being referred to as "weirdos" while his friend laughs along and agrees.

Well that's the point I made. You can't just cherry pick out one part of a rant. 

This is what you think occurred.
Murray: "trans people are weirdos."
Harris: "Ha ha ha" (thinking YES, trans people are weirdos")

There was lots said and some of it was a screed against political correctness. Live conversations are not written statements to be parsed in this way.

There is a such thing as being complicit. 

To pretend to be completely ignorant about why he is laughing and agreeing with what was said is just disingenuous.

And to pretend to know what is in someone's mind when they are laughing at a long rant that contains more than one idea is poor reasoning and in the long run, that type of behavior will rob the words transphobic and racist of their meaning. Those are strong accusations that require strong evidence, they're not labels to be applied on an assumption of intent.

[The Grand Nudger]

I laugh riotously when bigots get down to the business of being bigoted.  I appreciate that some people probably think I'm laughing at their bigoted jokes, for example..... (plenty of the bigots think so).  

I'm actually laughing at -them-, the sheer unthinking effrontery it takes to open up one's bigoted self to another person makes me giggle.  Can't help it.   It is true that, in some cases, amidst the unfiltered stream of idiocy those people offer up..I can pick out -something- I agree with.  I would understand if a person saw me laughing, and then agreeing with that thing..and on that basis concluded that I was agreeing with bigotry, and was, effectively, a bigot myself.   That's probably what gave me social cover in the land of the burning cross, you know..other than my being the right shade of lipstick.

Ultimately, I suppose a person could place any given positive reaction to bigotry on a scale of antipathy, apathy, and insensitivity. Racists/bigots comprise the first two categories. I don't think that everyone in the third category is a racist/bigot. I;d put harris performance, in that clip, in the third category. Perhaps made to seem more grave by proximity to a person who is absolutely in the first.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hammy Wrote:
Yes lots was said. Including transgender people being referred to as "weirdos" while his friend laughs along and agrees.

Well that's the point I made. You can't just cherry pick out one part of a rant. 

That's not cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is when you throw out the parts you don't agree with and only focus on the parts you agree with. i.e. exactly what you're doing.

I'm recognizing the parts I don't agree with and consider bigoted; not ignoring them.

---

And to pretend to know what is in someone's mind when they are laughing at a long rant that contains more than one idea is poor reasoning and in the long run, that type of behavior will rob the words transphobic and racist of their meaning. Those are strong accusations that require strong evidence, they're not labels to be applied on an assumption of intent.

You're just burying your head in the sand about complicity in the face of bigotry. If we agree that referring to transgender people as "weirdos" is bigoted and we agree that it's bigoted to be complicit in the face of bigotry then we agree that Sam Harris is being bigoted.

The reason why you agree with premises that entail a conclusion but you deny the conclusion is simply because, like many people, you're terrible at logic and full of bias.

[Crunchy]

That's not cherry-picking. Cherry-picking is when you throw out the parts you don't agree with and only focus on the parts you agree with. i.e. exactly what you're doing.

You have this totally backwards. 
"Picking" does not involve throwing out, it involves selecting like you're doing. I'm listening to the whole thing and realizing that it is impossible to know exactly which parts are in the mind of Harris at any given moment. 

I'm recognizing the parts I don't agree with and consider bigoted; not ignoring them.

 
While leaving out the parts concerned with political correctness and ignoring them. Cherry picking. You don't know what Harris thinks about trans people from this interview but you're convinced that you do. 

You're just burying your head in the sand about complicity in the face of bigotry. If we agree that referring to transgender people as "weirdos" is bigoted and we agree that it's bigoted to be complicit in the face of bigotry then we agree that Sam Harris is being bigoted.

The reason why you agree with premises that entail a conclusion but you deny the conclusion is simply because, like many people, you're terrible at logic and full of bias.

You just assume complicity and that's where you're wrong. You're sure he's complicit with every single word said in a rant and that's a terrible assumption to make. Many here (who are not transphobic) don't agree with you. Do you think everyone is illogical when they don't jump to the same conclusions you do? 

Referring to trans people as weirdos is bigoted. Did Harris do that? No
It is also bigoted to be complicit is the face of bigotry. No disagreement there, but was Harris complicit with the parts you cherry picked or complicit with the parts you ignore? Again, you think you know the answer but you don't know that and can't know that because you're not a mind reader. There were several ideas at play and you just focus on the ones that make you angry and ignore the others. 

Again, here is what Harris said about that interview:
"I think at one point in my conversation with Douglas Murray, he said some things people interpreted as being disparaging of transgendered people, and I was faulted for not pushing back at that point. I think I took Douglas to be just railing against political correctness on this, and really every other topic."

He's telling us it was about political correctness in his mind. But you think you know better than the person himself what was in his mind. You cherry pick the bad words and attribute complicity to those and think that represents logic?

There is simply not enough in this interview to justify your accusations. As I said, those are strong accusations that require strong evidence, they're not labels to be applied on an assumption of intent.  
I'm willing to consider that Harris could be transphobic if you can show anything he's said or done to indicate so... but this isn't it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol.... you say I'm assuming complicity. Lmao. Complicity is literally not taking action or calling out bigotry in the face of it. Laughing along at bigotry is complicity by definition. It's not rocket science.

---

You have this totally backwards. 
"Picking" does not involve throwing out, it involves selecting like you're doing. I'm listening to the whole thing and realizing that it is impossible to know exactly which parts are in the mind of Harris at any given moment. 

LOL. You're just messing about with semantics there. It's bloody obvious that when I'm saying that you're focusing on the parts you agree with and throwing the rest out I mean you're selecting the parts you agree with and ignoring the rest. You're cherrypicking. And now you're even doing it with semantics.

I'm focusing on the whole thing but I'm actually not ignoring the part where transgender people are called "weirdos" and Sam Harris laughs along with it.

The way you turn a blind eye to the whole thing and attempt to justify it or pretend that laughing about that isn't complicity (when it's literally not only not calling it out but it's acting like it's funny) is pretty fucked up on your part.

---

While leaving out the parts concerned with political correctness and ignoring them. Cherry picking. You don't know what Harris thinks about trans people from this interview but you're convinced that you do. 

I'm not ignoring them. I'm not talking about them because they're fucking irrelevant to the part where transpeople were called "weirdos".

You're pretending like in full context it's somehow non-bigoted to call transpeople "weirdos" and it's not complicit to laugh along at that like it's funny.

Bullshit.

You're ignoring it because you're only focusing on all the parts you agree with it and pretending like the bigoted part isn't bigoted.

---

Referring to trans people as weirdos is bigoted.

By admitting that you just proved me right.

It is also bigoted to be complicit is the face of bigotry. No disagreement there, but was Harris complicit with the parts you cherry picked or complicit with the parts you ignore?

He was complcit in the face of the part you admit was bigoted. He was complcit in the face of the part that you admit it's bigoted to be complcit in the face of. Q.E.D.

Guess what, when you don't respond to the whole of something and that whole includes a part that is bigoted... that's being complicit in the face of bigotry. This is basic logic. The fact that you pretend like ignoring the whole isn't ignoring part of the whole... and the fact you admit that what Murray said was bigoted, that being complicit in the face of bigoted things said is bigoted, and the fact that Sam Harris didn't respond to it other than laughing about it... this is all proof that you're wrong. You're literally accepting all the premises that entail the conclusion and ignoring the conclusion.

I'll spell it out for you and show you that you're accepting all the premises but ignoring the conclusion that is entailed:

Premise 1: Saying bigoted things is bigoted.
Premise 2: Laughing along in the face of something bigoted without calling it out as bigoted is being complicit in the face of bigotry.
Premise 3: Being complicit in the face of bigotry is bigoted.
Premise 4. What Murray said was bigoted
Premise 5. Sam Harris laughed along in the face of it without calling it out as bigoted
Conclusion: Sam Harris was bigoted.

You admit that what Murray said was bigoted, you admit that being complicit in the face of it is bigoted, and you know what being complicit is... it's not taking action in the face of something. Your insistence that I am not talking full context into account is irrelevant. If you are complicit in the face of the whole of something and part of that whole is bigoted then you're complicit in the face of something bigoted. Focusing on what's relevant to what I'm complaining about is not 'cherry-picking'. Cherry-picking is what you're doing where you'll literally accept all the premises but ignore the conclusion. It's when you'll listen to the whole thing and ignore the parts that are relevant to what I'm fucking complaining about.

It's disgusting how widespread transphobia is. If the same things had been said about gay people or black people or any other minority I wouldn't have to make these fucking arguments when someone laughs along at bigoted statements giving no impression that they disagree with any of it. That's what complicity in the face of bigotry is for fuck's sake. I wouldn't have to be doing this if it was any other minority. It's disgusting how common transphobia is. The fact you're trying to justify this shit when you wouldn't do the same for any other minority is fucking vile. It makes me sick. Look at the premises you've already accepted and the conclusion it actually entails that you're ignoring. You're fucking ridiculous.

[paulpablo]

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.