Damn, that cuts to the core.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Is there any public intellectual or political commentator that people do actually like listening to? Apart from John Oliver maybe.
I mean, wow, all that belittling of others while your precious self manage to post very little of substance except some reddit unknowns wrong take on a person you apparently haven’t read much yourself. I must say I’m happy to feel like the very opposite of someone like what you seem to represent. Well done “scout”
I was wondering about this
I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.
Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.
Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
This is definitely the issue. Hosts spend a couple hours on a topic that to some people is the most important issue in the world, then get taken to task for not being as researched/ nuanced / learned about that issue. And people feel extremely justified in going after the hosts in a personal way.I was wondering about this
I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.
Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.
Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
surely we can all agree that Chomsky is alright?
actually I know he answer to that, we can't
someone will be along to tell me he sucks at something
I was wondering about this
I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.
Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.
Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
Well I've just noticed that a lot of time we spent on the Caf is on hating mainly right wingers people don't like and I just wonder if there are actually any intellectuals or political commentators that people actually do like who weigh in on the issues of our times.
I think Chomsky is also criticized every now and then. Don't know why though. I guess because he's a linguist but also involves himself in scientific issues?
he's linguistic theories have been criticised tonnes to be fair
perhaps rightfully so, but its been so long since I read about it I've forgotten
this is probably why I like so many people, I just forget the stupid shit they did
I dont think there is to be honest. If Jordan Peterson was just a psychologist he might be worth listening to, public intellectual suggests he throws an opinion out about pretty much everything and inevitably says stupid shit. Which would probably be tolerable if there was a bit of recognition that he doesn't know what he doesn't know. There isn't in general.
I dont think i'd describe any of the people being talked about in this thread as political commentators really.
I'm actually not really into Chomsky to be honest. That's not to say he is without his merits and obviously has a heavy weight of an career.
Dave Rubin and Chomsky are both public intellectuals, yes? A bit like those chimp-graphs you'll see, chicken at the bottom, some distance up a chimp, closely follow by a human. One can agree on something with Rubin and disagree with Chomsky, dosent tell much about said person. I don't particularly care for either, just saying
What
Lots of interesting thinkers around that I really like reading/listening to, but not always because I necessarily agree with them - it can also be good to push your intuitions around a bit sometimes! A few I would recommend: Kwame Anthony Appiah, Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Peter Singer, Yuval Noah Harari, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Niall Ferguson, Jonathan Haidt, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, Douglas Murray, Adam Tooze and obviously Chomsky, who has already been mentioned above.
I feel like the standard of public discourse is pretty impoverished at the moment, but if you want to see how it used to be done, I'd highly recommend the documentary film Best of Enemies, which is about the televised debates between public intellectuals Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley during the 1968 United States presidential election. It is great (and includes a contribution from Christopher Hitchens, of whom I was also a fan).
You have The Moral Landscape, which is one of those modern clickbait books where the title says one thing but the book is about something else (Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing which is about a universe from something is another prime example). Harris claims that we can get moral truths from science, but defines science as everything from actual science to plumbing to philosophy to regular reasoning. His actual philosophical (not scientific) arguments for his thesis that morality is about maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures is variants of "maximum suffering is obviously bad, therefore it's obviously true that maximizing well-being is the right thing" and "this is true because it is obviously true". Utilitarianism isn't a crazy position to hold, but his arguments for it are vacuous.
This he manages to get more than 300 pages out of.
Disagreements are one thing, but the lads discussed in this thread regularly come out with bigoted shit which then isn't really about a difference of opinion anymore.I was wondering about this
I think it's almost impossible for a commentator who covers a lot of subjects to not say something that people disagree with or riles people up. It seems people latch on more to the topics or opinions of disagreement than they do points of agreement.
Probably easier for comedians to overcome as its just a joke, innit.
Think the smart ones sense that it's best to step away from public discourse except on issues they're most keen on. Stephen Fry perhaps as example of someone who is almost universally revered, doesn't say too much these days. Only those with incredibly thick skin or a monstrous ego continue to put themselves in the firing line of public scrutiny, and that's probably the sensible thing for them as people.
I have a lot of time for Akala, and then Blindboy has interviewed a lot of people who at least come across well on his podcasts.
I'd say most people really worth listening to on a given subject probably stays away from the limelight as they just want to do their thing and not deal with TV debates, fame and what have you.
Akala is a great shout. Even his speaking style has a certain melodic tone to it which makes him very easy to listen to as well as interesting.
His music is a different level of rap for me given the content he’s able to pack into the lyrics. Only really Lowkey who I can think of who does that style better within the UK.
He's also someone who seems honest when discussing the limitations of his observations and his own fallibility. In his book he wasn't trying to conclude on more than what he thought the data warranted, which is something a lot of people seem to forget, either through incompetence or worse, to deceive.
Kind of like how you're dismissing anything that goes against yours?
I think what he means is "how the feck does Dave Rubin qualify as a public intellectual?" and it's a fair question. The guy's obviously a fecking idiot, and that has nothing to do with his political leanings. He's just dumb, a complete simpleton whose only "talent" is blaming anything you don't like on the left/Antifa.
Wide definitions? I don't know.. He wrote a book, didn't he?
So true. It’s impressive how ignorant and yet confident he manages to come across
Dave Rubin... "intellectual"
Joe Rogan comes up in this thread semi often and I'm so much more well disposed towards him by virtue of him saying 'im a meathead' most episodes of his podcast.
I have actually listened to a lot of debates and interviews and read quite a few books by Douglas Murray. I think he's a very emotive and powerfull speaker and a fairly good author. He has a great not politically correct sense of humour. However he's definitely a right wing provocateur, but for me that's part of the entertaintment value. However I am on the different end of the political spectrum than he is and definitely disagree with him on some points. A lot of his topics become a bit samey. It's either about Islam, Identity politics or conservatism. Someone here said that we shouldnt feel proud reading Douglas Murray. I don't feel pride or shame in reading anyone. It's a weird attitude to take towards any author. I already know what hit-job someone would like to do on him and I don't really care. I can enjoy his good points and discard his bad points without anyone watching me over the shoulder.
I would obvously love if Hitchens were still alive, I think he would be excellent for the times we live in and no one has been able to step up and take his place. I still find Hitchens views together with the antitheists who believe that nothing good can ever come out of religion a bit simplistic, but that doesn't mean he didn't have or point, and he was absolutely excellent on everything else. I will look up some of the other names you mentioned.
The dismissiveness isn't the most interesting point for me, but the way it's done. I've only seen the user in action twice, once with me and the second the interaction you're commenting on, but the method is the same both times (and symptomatic for Harris fans in my experience); talk of "out of context" etc but no engaging with the things actually said. Always talking about talking, never talking.
Looking forward to the individually listing of fallacies they promised, though, that'll be great. I have three heuristics I live by: it's not lupus, it's not entrapment and it's not an ad hominem (and sometimes but rarely a formal fallacy).
The correct diagnosis for 176/177 cases. Pretty good rate tbf.
Just yesterday I was told I'd hear an Easter Bunny story with it called Lupus. It was Lepus, after the constellation.
One of mom's friends was diagnosed with Lupus, and even then I couldn't stop myself it's never Lupus. To her. Damn you Hugh!
He engaged with a couple of the things I daid. Countered the Islamophobia charge with the standard "he's critical of all religion" and countered Harris defending Trump's racist attacks on AOC, Omar, Tlaib and Pressley with "but he's a staunch critic of Trump, so that's an odd point to make." So, you know, pretty weak, but I guess it qualifies as engaging.
He ignored the points about Harris palling around with racists, Harris claiming systemic racism isn't real and him claiming the police and judicial system doesn't treat black and white people differently. It's clear why, though. It's because all of these things are true, and you can't really defend them. But, you can't acknowledge them either, lest you want to scupper your argument that Harris is different from the Petersons and Shapiros.
Right, I suppose that's true.
I suspect the "can't really defend them" isn't true, though. Or, it is in a certain sense, but not in the overtly malicious sense but rather a weird lazy sense. I think they just assume it's true, and haven't bothered looking into it. It's an automatic reaction for a lot of people that any seemingly harsh criticism has to be "out of context" or "[intellectually] dishonest", so automatic that any engagement is deemed uncessesary. One salient example is his defense of torture. A common defense is that he isn't really defending torture, it's just a thought experiment using the ticking bomb scenario. But, that just isn't true, and the only way people can claim that with a straight face is them not being able to read or them not actually reading the piece but rather taking Harris's later characterisation at face value. The fact of the matter is that Harris 1) compares torture favourably with collateral damage/killings (which he finds acceptable), 2) uses the real person and real torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an example (something that produced real negative effects, and obviously wasn't a ticking bomb scenario) and 3) by his own admission means by a "ticking bomb" the War on Terror in itself rather than an actual Jack Bauer 24 scenario but something that has been ticking since 9/11. That's not seconds in the conventional sense, that's by my napkin math 616 464 000 seconds. Yet I almost can't count the amount of Internet people that have claimed that Harris doesn't actually defend the use of torture in his piece title In Defense of Torture.
I'm a big fan of Akala too - loved that time he melted Tommy Robinson's face off on Question tIme
I waved at him once in Toronto as he rode past on his bike, and he waved back - so the feeling seems to be mutual
I waved at him once in Toronto as he rode past on his bike, and he waved back - so the feeling seems to be mutual
Haven't heard much from either in a while. Peterson seems alright, although his Kermit voice can be distracting, he seems to have good intentions. Doesn't Harris pal around with some questionable figures?
That's a sensible approach and I think we'd be better off it most people thought in the same vein. What Lone Star might have been trying to point out (if I didn't misunderstand the opening bit in that post) is that lots of people whose insight comes from social media tend to have their existing views amplified because of the way social media platforms algorithms are created. You're suggested accounts with similar viewpoints and find yourself more obstinate as you continue to read only similar opinions.
Your approach is drastically different, and is probably the way people ought to be wired.
Well I mean we live in an age where people worhship celebrities. I guess it's not surprising that there some who are able to cultivate a cult like adulation of people like Rubin and Shapiro.
It still doesn't cease to amaze me when I see that.
Ad hominem, straw man, appeal to authority, false dichotomy. Have a splendid day
I’m not at all, I wonder how you’d think I am? Harris has made many blunders; he’s not above criticism. I don’t think his mistakes have been accurately represented here, though, and more importantly, I don’t think he’s the malicious narcissist many in here suggest he is.
I really think the intro to this video misses the point. I've never heard the phrase cultural Marxism used and thought that the person using it was literally implying that it is a Marxist plot or somehow cultivated by Marxists. I've always interpreted it as referring to the well meaning but flawed application of egalitarian solutions to cultural problems, the idea that all inequality is entirely the product of discrimination, racism, sexism.
I do think Peterson's arguments on Marxism are real poor though, so I'm referring solely to the first three minutes of the video. Also the last minute or so I think is an unfair analysis of Peterson. I get that some people may disagree with his world view or solutions (which can be summarised as take self responsibility). But it's a complete mischaracterisation to suggest he's defending the status quo or saying people should accept unfairness or inequality. Perhaps it's because I work in a similiar field to Peterson that I am more inclined to see the origins of his viewpoint and in turn give credit for good intentions, but I've always considered Peterson to be clear and consistent with regards to saying life and society is harsh, brutal and unfair, and your best and only real option is to maximise your own abilities. I haven't listened to his debate with Zizek so I may be overlooking something daft Peterson said (he does say some daft things on occasion), but I know his belief is not that all inequality is natural or fair, just that it's more complicated than being the result of discrimination and exploitation by those in power.
To be honest I dislike all debates about Capitalism vs Marxism because they all end the same way whether it's two esteemed professors or two mates down by the pub putting the world to rights. Both sides end up claiming the other has evil intentions. I used to be a full blown Communist and it was the most difficult thing for me to accept - that some people believe in the free market and Conservative principles because they genuinely believe that is the best model. Its not all born out of self interest and greed. I'm sure it plays a part for many (eg little Englanders, privileged brats born into wealth, or those who have climbed the corporate ladder), but characterising your opponents as all fear mongers or Nazis just misses the point.
Last edited: