Cancelling Seder

[Trunkage]

Alright, I don't know Sam Seder that well. He seems like a 'gotcha' guy but tends to provide background details (that tend to be accurate) before playing the 'gotcha clip.' Sort of like Sargon or Shapiro but no where near as insulting to the person talking. I've watched a few of his videos and this title caught my attention. Nice click bait Sam, you got me on this ne. (He was also fired by MSNBC through Mike Cernovich and was reinstated a year later... which is very related to Cancelling but then that's Cernovich's MO)

Here he is taking a podcast and just letting it play and adding a couple of comments. Sorry for its length...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVt7YfitHk4


What I found absolutely fascinating is that Sam Harris is apparently all about Free Speech but finds an excuse to not talk to Sam Seder. He compares him to Pakman who literally does the same thing as Seder (gotcha videos). I've never seen any of these two (Pakman or Seder) debate anyone, so maybe there is something there I'm not aware of.

Anyway, my main point is: Sam Harris, bastion of Free Speech, enough to leave Paetroen because they Cancelled Alex Jones, discusses how he has been Cancelling Seder.

I do wish to talk about Harris language, because I think he thinks he's not being insulting, while being pretty insulting. I think Harris finds certain language unacceptable and that what should be Cancelled, but calling Seder psychopath is not such language. He is enforcing his own version of Hate Speech, that excludes certain language being used in conversation with him. So... you know... totally against Harris' own principals.

(Why am I picking on Harris instead of Weinstein, Harris partner on the podcast, you may ask. I've never heard Weinstein be pro-Free Speech.)

 

[Worgen]

Destiny and Pakman did a talk awhile back that went over things like free speech and such.


But yeah, Harris is a weenie who constantly dodges anyone who can really challenge him.

 

[Pseudonym]

So Sam Harris is a hypocrite. Big whoop. In general I find people care too much about hypocrisy, and it serves as an excuse not to take a stand yourself and merely point out inconsistencies in others. Small minds care about people, big minds about ideas, and such. I don't much care for Sam Harris and I occasionally watch Sam Seder but if Harris doesn't want to speak to some youtuber, that is perfectly within his rights. It isn't quite the same as deplatforming somebody either (if the platform is big enough, that arguably has enough of an impact on the spread of certain discourse to be concerned about, but I don't have a very strong position on what to do with that either way). He just doesn't want to speak to Sam Seder. That is him exercising his freedoms, not infringing on those of Seder.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

So Sam Harris is a hypocrite. Big whoop. In general I find people care too much about hypocrisy, and it serves as an excuse not to take a stand yourself and merely point out inconsistencies in others. Small minds care about people, big minds about ideas, and such. I don't much care for Sam Harris and I occasionally watch Sam Seder but if Harris doesn't want to speak to some youtuber, that is perfectly within his rights. It isn't quite the same as deplatforming somebody either (if the platform is big enough, that arguably has enough of an impact on the spread of certain discourse to be concerned about, but I don't have a very strong position on what to do with that either way). He just doesn't want to speak to Sam Seder. That is him exercising his freedoms, not infringing on those of Seder.

There's a reason people care about Hypocrites now more than ever.

It is a stand. It's trying to point out that we can't have actual impartial rule of law if all it takes is a majority who chooses to ignore said law when it's convenient for them.

Having to hear day in and day out that SJWs are ruining the culture and you can't talk about anything any more has actually been Eclipsed for me by how many people whine about how SJWs are making it so political and hard to speak nowadays without having someone railing against it.

Like, it really never occurs to them that they are actually the force they supposedly hate. As politics have to do with the Public Affairs of the state, government, and/or community, flooding every measure of conversation with how tired you are of public affairs counts as being political. That makes people incredulous and look at those people complaining about politics negatively.

We could talk all night about the current flip flop about why should a President be impeached. Republicans were gung-ho of getting Clinton and Obama out for whatever reason. With Trump's 6th associate convicted [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/11/15/roger-stone-becomes-6th-trump-associate-convicted-under-mueller-probe/#3cdf23815f64], Trump's handpicked 'best people' in the quagmire that is the mess of Ukraine [https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/], and oh yeah, Trump admitting to it again on live TV [https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11]... No, he's an angel and this whole impeachment thing is a witch hunt.

All and all, people are just tired of one another. Of people flagrantly ignoring the rules that they might even have set up because it's not beneficial to focus on them now. Regardless of race, creed, political leanings, or whatever... Hypocrites can be universally hated as the other. We play by the rules, they don't, look how much of a scum they are.

We were better off in the 80's where we weren't completely connected at all times. Now, people 'know' so much that they are just angry and will lash out for having a different opinion, being a hypocrite, being different, and whatever.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

We were already connected in 2012, and there wasn't nearly as much lashing back then. Whatever is making people angry, being connected isn't it.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

snip

We were already connected in 2012, and there wasn't nearly as much lashing back then. Whatever is making people angry, being connected isn't it.

Wasn't there? Directly as a result of President Obama, Hate Groups were on the rise [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/number-of-us-hate-groups-on-the-rise-report-says.html]. That's also when Patriot [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/patriot-movement-explodes] became slang for Alt-Right Extremists. And without the structure of the Tea Party being a catch-all of "I'm for less Taxes and less Government", that movement had nothing but stewing in their own anger [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/], just wishing things were different.

And there's a lot of belief that the Tea Party gave way for the Politics of Anger and led the way to the man in the office now [https://www.courthousenews.com/study-finds-trump-support-rooted-in-tea-party-movement/].

The fires burn brightly now, but they were definitely set in our past.

 

[Trunkage]

So Sam Harris is a hypocrite. Big whoop. In general I find people care too much about hypocrisy, and it serves as an excuse not to take a stand yourself and merely point out inconsistencies in others. Small minds care about people, big minds about ideas, and such. I don't much care for Sam Harris and I occasionally watch Sam Seder but if Harris doesn't want to speak to some youtuber, that is perfectly within his rights. It isn't quite the same as deplatforming somebody either (if the platform is big enough, that arguably has enough of an impact on the spread of certain discourse to be concerned about, but I don't have a very strong position on what to do with that either way). He just doesn't want to speak to Sam Seder. That is him exercising his freedoms, not infringing on those of Seder.

1. How is Harris any different that Youtube then? Why aren't they allowed to exercise their Freedom on who they want to promote, in Harris' eyes, but if he wants to exclude people, that's fine

2. So, we cant point to someone's flaws in their argument because that means we don't have our own argument?

3. I'm trying to find out if Seder actually said something that is actually offensive

4. How is that worse than what Charles Murray says, which is someone Harris likes to have on?

5. One of the reasons I wrote this is because I don't understand why some people are allowed to insult their opponents (Harris) but if they ade insulted back, they opponent gets banned. Like, as another example, why was Trump allowed to insult liberals, immigrants, Muslims, South Americans, women, homosexuals, etc. Constantly. But Hillary insulting a Trump supporter and it's the end of the world. As a wild sweeping statement, I guess I'm just tried of liberals being called Politically Correct when Conservatives do it all the time and use it to deplatform people

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

You're right. Also SPLC reported a sharp decline of hate groups between 2013 and 2015. [https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/year-hate-and-extremism-0] Not much of a counterpoint from my part tho, as the amount of hate crimes stayed more or less the same.

Spoiler: The last time when patriot groups hit its lowest point was during Bush administration by the way.

But really, do you want America to go back to the 80's or the Bush administration? Because that's supposedly what the Trump administration promised it was going to be like ("turn back the clock" and "make America great again"), and probably we wouldn't be having this discussion if that had been accomplished.

Also...

♫ We didn't start the fire ♫
♫ No we didn't light it ♫
♫ But we tried to fight it ♫

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

[Seanchaidh]

snip

We were already connected in 2012, and there wasn't nearly as much lashing back then. Whatever is making people angry, being connected isn't it.

It is an ingredient, but there are other reasons, too.

There's more class consciousness than there was in 2012. The media is more obviously biased in favor of the ruling class than it was in 2012. There isn't a Democratic President right now, so the many forms of violence perpetrated by our country are less likely to be dismissed as an inevitability or ignored because they don't fit the correct narrative of the Democratic Party supposedly being against such things.

 

[Trunkage]

snip

We were already connected in 2012, and there wasn't nearly as much lashing back then. Whatever is making people angry, being connected isn't it.

It is an ingredient, but there are other reasons, too.

There's more class consciousness than there was in 2012. The media is more obviously biased in favor of the ruling class than it was in 2012. There isn't a Democratic President right now, so the many forms of violence perpetrated by our country are less likely to be dismissed as an inevitability or ignored because they don't fit the correct narrative of the Democratic Party supposedly being against such things.

I mean, Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party were a thing 3 years earlier. That's total class consciousness. And also points to the problem. Just becuase heaps of people can totally point to a problem and agree with it, doesn't mean they will agree on solutions

Also, the Dems don't represent the Left. Antifa is against the DNC, but the solution there are have a possibility of being worked out through negotiations. But an extreme Alt-righter... isn't interested in what anyone says and is willing to punch first

 

[Pseudonym]

1. How is Harris any different that Youtube then? Why aren't they allowed to exercise their Freedom on who they want to promote, in Harris' eyes, but if he wants to exclude people, that's fine

A person is not a platform, an organisation should not be able to appeal to free speech rights and youtube has serious influence on which ideas get disseminated and which don't, whereas Harris doesn't.

2. So, we cant point to someone's flaws in their argument because that means we don't have our own argument?

You didn't point out a flaw in an argument. If Harris applies his position inconsistently (which I believe he does) that tells us nothing about any kind of argument. Hypocrisy is not a flaw in an argument, but a flaw in a person. To make it more specific. I agree with you that Harris is a hypocrite. This tells me nothing about whether we should deplatform him or anyone else, or whether he should talk to Sam Seder about whatever.

3. I'm trying to find out if Seder actually said something that is actually offensive

From what I know of him as an infrequent viewer, he and some of the people on his show have very dim views on Harris which they express in no uncertain terms. (fair enough, the guy argues in favor of torture and ethnic profiling) I'm not surprised that would offend Harris, and neither should Sam Seder be. That no doubt clashes with what some people, like possibly Harris, claim about that people shouldn't be snowflakes and so forth, but usually the complaining about snowflakes is nonsense anyway.

4. How is that worse than what Charles Murray says, which is someone Harris likes to have on?

I have no idea what 'that' refers to. Is this some kind of gotcha?

5. One of the reasons I wrote this is because I don't understand why some people are allowed to insult their opponents (Harris) but if they ade insulted back, they opponent gets banned. Like, as another example, why was Trump allowed to insult liberals, immigrants, Muslims, South Americans, women, homosexuals, etc. Constantly. But Hillary insulting a Trump supporter and it's the end of the world. As a wild sweeping statement, I guess I'm just tried of liberals being called Politically Correct when Conservatives do it all the time and use it to deplatform people

So should we insult our political opponents? I'm inclined to be fine with it if you do it coincidentally to some other purpose. I think it is fair enough to point out Trumps racism and his supporters eagerness to ignore it, even if it insults some of his supporters. The reason is that I think it is true and relevant. Insulting them for no reason should be legally allowed of course, but I do think it is rude and counterproductive, so I'd recommend against it. Now you don't seem to have much of a position on this, since you are only interested in the fact that Harris is a hypocritical asshole, an obvious fact but also a point of discussion with very low stakes since Sam Harris doesn't matter and our opinions on him as a person don't matter.

 

[Trunkage]

1. How is Harris any different that Youtube then? Why aren't they allowed to exercise their Freedom on who they want to promote, in Harris' eyes, but if he wants to exclude people, that's fine

A person is not a platform, an organisation should not be able to appeal to free speech rights and youtube has serious influence on which ideas get disseminated and which don't, whereas Harris doesn't.

Are Youtube allowed to discriminate (I fear writing the Right to Discriminate will make you automatically discriminate against it)? On anything? When they discriminated against Muslim extremists, by taking down beheading videos, that was a bad thing? What about if they only threatened to behead them?

Also, let's look at something different. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-27/israel-folau-damage-claim-rises-to-14-million-dollars/11741500

A organisation against a player. Is the organisation not allowed to choose who they keep in their employ, even when the player says on twitter, repeatedly, something they don't like? Would it be different if it was a Muslim player who was saying all others should be beheaded, instead of Homosexuals etc should burn in hell?

This is really interesting to me, as I personally got a breach of contract for complaining about a regulatory assessment of our workplace. So, I should get off Scot free, no consequences.

2. So, we cant point to someone's flaws in their argument because that means we don't have our own argument?

You didn't point out a flaw in an argument. If Harris applies his position inconsistently (which I believe he does) that tells us nothing about any kind of argument. Hypocrisy is not a flaw in an argument, but a flaw in a person. To make it more specific. I agree with you that Harris is a hypocrite. This tells me nothing about whether we should deplatform him or anyone else, or whether he should talk to Sam Seder about whatever.

No. I didn't point out a flaw in THE argument. I was ONLY point out a flaw in his personal argument. I didn't claim otherwise. I am only trying to point out that he is not aware that he is discriminating exactly like he detest. I, personally, didn't call him a hypocrite. My aim is to point out that I think Harris has no (or at least flawed) understanding of Freedom of Speech.

4. How is that worse than what Charles Murray says, which is someone Harris likes to have on?

I have no idea what 'that' refers to. Is this some kind of gotcha?

I was going to write some stuff but fortunately, a guy called Shaun did a comprehensive analysis of Murray's book a couple of days ago. The premise is that minorities have less IQ and definitely not from 'oppression'. (Despite taking data from under Apartheid in South Africa which spent a lot less money on education of Black Africans than White.) And that spending money on these people is not cost effective, limiting our society. I took my time replying, as I wanted to watch this first. But I only got 1.5hrs in, its a hefty meal. So I know Shaun covers the first point (and the last hour might cover the welfare issue, IDK.) People who have criticized his work have been labelled as 'calling Murray a Racist.' You know, the normal 'don't attack the criticism, become the victim' response.

So, Harris has had Murray on and agreed with a lot of his point. Shaun spends 2.5 hours listing how many times Murray incorrectly assessed IQ and manipulated results to get what he wanted to say. Just to be clear. Shaun is NOT the first person to do this. It's a book from '95. It also has created a lot of talking points that certain political groups use as talking points now.

So, think Shapiro from his day. And Murray is somehow less offensive than Seder? I dont get any of that.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

Isn't Sam Seder against GMOs.

Other than that he is a very social democratic, and I enjoy his Ancap calls.

 

[Silvanus]

Refusing to talk to somebody isn't a denial of their free speech. Denying them an elevated platform is not a denial of their free speech either.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Refusing to talk to somebody isn't a denial of their free speech. Denying them an elevated platform is not a denial of their free speech either.

This. This 100 times over. Is that how loosely we're using the term "cancel" now?

And this is coming from someone who KINDA like Seder and has no time for the likes of Harris too.

 

[Trunkage]

Refusing to talk to somebody isn't a denial of their free speech. Denying them an elevated platform is not a denial of their free speech either.

This. This 100 times over. Is that how loosely we're using the term "cancel" now?

And this is coming from someone who KINDA like Seder and has no time for the likes of Harris too.

Congratulations. You got the right answer. Pity that matters little in reality. Society, in general, for some reason, has decided on a different definition. They also have a very different interpretation of Freedom of Speech.

As to Sam Seder, he's pointing out Harris hypocrisy. He removed himself from Patreon etc of Freedom of Speech issues (I.e. Alex Jones couldn't participate in YouTube etc.) Then turns around and says 'Seder bad. Not going to talk to him." I don't think he cares two whits about Harris or being platformed by him. I think he's just pointing out that Harris doesn't live up to his own definition of Freedom of Speech/ Cancelling. Which is not a surprise to me. Harris make a whole bunch of logic leaps that don't make sense.

I personally am just trying to find out 1) How Seder gets anywhere near as offensive as Alex Jones? 2) How is Seder worse than Murray? 3) How Seder is more offensive than David Pakman, who Harris thinks is a good Leftie? Because I have seen Seder and Pakman before and I don't know if I see a difference.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Refusing to talk to somebody isn't a denial of their free speech. Denying them an elevated platform is not a denial of their free speech either.

This. This 100 times over. Is that how loosely we're using the term "cancel" now?

And this is coming from someone who KINDA like Seder and has no time for the likes of Harris too.

Congratulations. You got the right answer. Pity that matters little in reality. Society, in general, for some reason, has decided on a different definition. They also have a very different interpretation of Freedom of Speech.

Not unreasonably.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty#Introduction

Society and social control is more than just the government and the police. Liberty is much more than the absence of legal obstacles.