PC Principal V: What The Fuck Am I Reading

[Zealot]

I have no issue with private enterprises deciding that they stand to lose or upset more of their audience and potential revenue by allowing people approaching topics from hateful, disingenuous, and/or ignorant positions and seeking to spread that those positions, and deciding that as such they will simply not allow said individuals a voice on their platform.

Also this dude is taking himself off of Patreon, they didn't even do anything to him. Why are we having this conversation.

[Salodin]

sorry, I mixed up nazi with white supremacist. They always seem synonymous to me. Is that better? Does that clear things up? I await the next 20 pages of pointless garbage berating me for mixing the two up

You're the one that helped start a stupid conversation that bled into spam about libturds calling white supremacists nazis when no one ever called this one guy in particular a nazi. Your self owning is so God damned sad and lame.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

to elucidation, in Harris's own words

It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon.

What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns. That it would be a horrible absurdity for so many of us to die for the sake of myth does not mean, however, that it could not happen.

... a hostile regime that is avowedly suicidal acquires long-range nuclear weaponry (i.e. they can hit distant targets like Paris, London, New York, Los Angeles, etc.). Of course, not every Muslim regime would fit this description. For instance, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons... and there is every reason to believe that the people currently in control of these bombs are more pragmatic and less certain of paradise than the Taliban are. The same could be said of Iran, if it acquires nuclear weapons in the near term. But the civilized world (including all the pragmatic Muslims living within it) must finally come to terms with what the ideology of groups like the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, etc. means—because it destroys the logic of deterrence.

he is not calling for the Muslims to be glassed, indeed the nuclear armed Muslims of Pakistan inspire no special hostility, and even the conservative bogeyman of a nuclear armed Iran he is somewhat dismissive of.

what he is not dismissive of is the notion of an ISIS-style polity getting their hands on the bomb, and does anyone truly think they would not have used one had they access to one? does anyone truly think in the decades to come it is inconceivable an Islamist group gets access to one, or that an Islamist insurgency in a nuclear armed state is successful? proliferation will only get easier with time.

[Zealot]

Dude is arguing we gotta wipe them out before they get to us, even if it means killing the women and children, he's like super Hitler.

I'm sorry AG, I don't have my heart in it today.

[Andalusian girls]

should note I don't even like Harris, he reminds me of Neil Degrass Tyson in that he was a scientific non-entity in his chosen discipline before jumping to the celebrity ship and is of the belief a PhD in one field makes him authoritative in all fields into which he conducts even marginal research. but this infantile reductionism of all actors we consider part of the out-group is not productive.

[Athas]

I wasn't able to make it further then his statement that the US and Russia's cold war was stable. Seems his biggest offence is being dumb and revisionist, never mind racism.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk

[Niiro]

to elucidation, in Harris's own words



he is not calling for the Muslims to be glassed, indeed the nuclear armed Muslims of Pakistan inspire no special hostility, and even the conservative bogeyman of a nuclear armed Iran he is somewhat dismissive of.

what he is not dismissive of is the notion of an ISIS-style polity getting their hands on the bomb, and does anyone truly think they would not have used one had they access to one? does anyone truly think in the decades to come it is inconceivable an Islamist group gets access to one? proliferation will only get easier with time.

Why would you need to nuke ISIS to stop them from nuking you when conventional weapons would work.

When I read this I hear a man brainstorming a hypothetical scenario where nuking Muslims could be justified, and I make that Fry squinty-face.

[Salodin]

should note I don't even like Harris, he reminds me of Neil Degrass Tyson in that he was a scientific non-entity in his chosen discipline before jumping to the celebrity ship and is of the belief a PhD in one field makes him authoritative in all fields into which he conducts even marginal research. but this infantile reductionism of all actors we consider part of the out-group is not productive.

What reductionism? Dude has some problematic as fuck views, the likes of which you say you wont even defend lol. No one even deplatformed him for it, he did it himself. What is the problem here?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[BaneTheBrawler]

should note I don't even like Harris, he reminds me of Neil Degrass Tyson in that he was a scientific non-entity in his chosen discipline before jumping to the celebrity ship and is of the belief a PhD in one field makes him authoritative in all fields into which he conducts even marginal research.

this was a very eloquent description of how i feel about NDT, thank you.

[Roranora]

Without Brad Pitt to carve up his forehead, can we really identify a Nazi with any certainty?

[NynJa]

If theyre gonna willingly wear a nazi armband, i think thats a pretty solid indication

[Greatguardian]

.

It wouldn't be YCS if we didn't spend at least a full page on the distinction between calling someone a White Supremacist and calling someone a Nazi. Because most of the folks people lambast and call Nazis are literally German agents trying to revive the third Reich.

[Salodin]

It wouldn't be YCS if people weren't bitching about the bitching, in a group of posts where they started the bitching lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

What reductionism?

calling him a white supremacist and implying he's worse than a Nazi because he wants to nuke Muslims.

Why would you need to nuke ISIS to stop them from nuking you when conventional weapons would work.

When I read this I hear a man brainstorming a hypothetical scenario where nuking Muslims could be justified, and I make that Fry squinty-face.

as clearly stated he doesn't believe conventional weapons could ensure such (true) while believing a nuclear strike could (less true). weaponry is only as good as intelligence and it took us ten years to find Osama in an allied state and we never found al-Baghdadi or Abubakar Shekau in hostile ones. there's no guarantee we could find and destroy a single bomb, none the less several that proliferate at once, say in the event Pakistan's fourteen year old insurgency overruns a nuclear arsenal (Obama famously saying that scenario kept him up at night more than anything else in his presidency).

regardless I take exception to the rather amoral misrepresentation of his views. his thoughts that nuclear deterrence will not work with Islamists and pondering a nightmare scenario which he refers to as insane and absurd and criminal and tragic is not the same as brainstorming a way to justify nuking Muslims. more than anything he wants us to take that possibility seriously and do everything in our power to prevent nuclear proliferation in that region of the world.

[Eurell]

it took us ten years to find Obama in an allied state.

Thank God we finally got the bastard!

[Andalusian girls]

D: what would Sigmund have to say

[Andalusian girls]

prolly something about MILFs tbh

[Salodin]

calling him a white supremacist and implying he's worse than a Nazi because he wants to nuke Muslims.

I never implied hes worse than nazis, or was even a nazi, and I wasnt the one saying he wanted to glass muslims. I even asked for receipts for that so you can kindly suck my wand.

In fact my only opinion of him is based on how he described his position and views on that show I talked about earlier with Ezra Klein. He talked about bell curves, neanderthal genes mixing with homo sapiens, and tried real hard to make a case that it takes just one discovery of genes found in one race and not another to give science a reason to think one race is inferior to another. Nevermind secondary genes negatively or positively affecting transcription of that gene, institutional processes keeping opportunities away from certain races, etc.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Salodin]

Basically, he tried using science to justify why there is likely to be a superior race, then used statistics to say it's probably white people. This is a super generalization of the topic at the time, but I'm trying to keep it at tweet length here.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Byrthnoth]

Are we Pinkering over here?

No thanks adios byebye