A Beheading In France

[Secondhand Revenant]

In that Terminal Blue is insinuating that "white French" are the group that isn't allowed to be offended, posted on a thread that's sparked about an Islamist committing murder after being offended.

There's certainly no rule on who's allowed to be offended, but right now, certain individuals take worse offence to being offended than others. Like, your Christian example. I'm sure Christians would be offended. I doubt there's many Christians who'd decapitate people over it.

Are you having site issues? There was more to my post than that.

Maybe if I repeat myself you'll actually address the context: someone said France had a tradition of personal liberty. His counter suggestion is that it is a narrow one and not for everyone based on examples he actually brought up.

His point seemed to be about France's tradition not being what Gordon said it was.

That has nothing to do with who is more offended over something, it's about whether France actually has such a tradition or not, not about your hate boner.

 

[Hawki]

Are you having site issues? There was more to my post than that.

Maybe if I repeat myself you'll actually address the context: someone said France had a tradition of personal liberty. His counter suggestion is that it is a narrow one and not for everyone based on examples he actually brought up.

His point seemed to be about France's tradition not being what Gordon said it was.

That has nothing to do with who is more offended over something, it's about whether France actually has such a tradition or not, not about your hate boner.

France has a tradition of personal liberty that's been tinged with hypocrisy since at least the 19th century. Which is more or less the case for every democratic country on Earth.

French Revolution based around liberty, get Napoleon, who brings back slavery. France preaches democracy, has a colonial empire, fights to keep it.

So yes. France has hypocrisy. But I'll take hypocritical secularism over Islamism. France has banned the wearing of religious symbols in government buildings. Meanwhile, Pakistan is still debating whether forced conversion should actually be illegal.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

France has a tradition of personal liberty that's been tinged with hypocrisy since at least the 19th century. Which is more or less the case for every democratic country on Earth.

French Revolution based around liberty, get Napoleon, who brings back slavery. France preaches democracy, has a colonial empire, fights to keep it.

So yes. France has hypocrisy.

So there's no real reason to object to his point, it's entirely accurate.

But I'll take hypocritical secularism over Islamism. France has banned the wearing of religious symbols in government buildings. Meanwhile, Pakistan is still debating whether forced conversion should actually be illegal.

Can you please point out to me where he said we should be picking one over the other again? Or why you think it's one vs the other and there's no other options aside from French hypocrisy or Pakistan? Because it not it looks like you're just creating a false dichotomy to stand on a soap box.

 

[Hawki]

So there's no real reason to object to his point, it's entirely accurate.

The response was made in the context of who 'gets' to be offended. I was honing in on that, not the wider point.

Can you please point out to me where he said we should be picking one over the other again? Or why you think it's one vs the other and there's no other options aside from French hypocrisy or Pakistan? Because it not it looks like you're just creating a false dichotomy to stand on a soap box.

I chose Pakistan off the top of my head because the suspension of the debate occurred less than a week before the attack.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

The response was made in the context of who 'gets' to be offended. I was honing in on that, not the wider point.

The response was made in the context of making a clear example for why France's personal liberty shit is selective, as it was directly replying to someone talking about that.

I chose Pakistan off the top of my head because the suspension of the debate occurred less than a week before the attack.

I didn't ask why Pakistan, I asked you to point out that where it had to be France's thing or islamism. Is there a reason you're dodging the point? If it's that you don't understand I can repeat myself.

 

[Hawki]

The response was made in the context of making a clear example for why France's personal liberty shit is selective, as it was directly replying to someone talking about that.

Again, I wasn't commenting on the question of personal liberty, I was commenting on the supposed "right" to be offended.

I didn't ask why Pakistan, I asked you to point out that where it had to be France's thing or islamism.

Where did I state it had to be one of those two things?

Is there a reason you're dodging the point?

Is there a reason you're putting words in my mouth?

If it's that you don't understand I can repeat myself.

Do I? Fine. Let's explain this again.

1) I wasn't commenting on personal liberty, I was commenting on the insinuation that the French majority/government/"white French" are more adverse to taking offence than French Muslims/Islamists. It's an absolutely bizzare claim when this thread is literally about someone murdering another person due to taking offence.

2) There's more than two options in the world. I used Pakistan as an example, because a) the two events occurred in close proximity, and b) Pakistan is an Islamic nation, whereas France is a secular nation.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Again, I wasn't commenting on the question of personal liberty, I was commenting on the supposed "right" to be offended.



Where did I state it had to be one of those two things?



Is there a reason you're putting words in my mouth?



Do I? Fine. Let's explain this again.

1) I wasn't commenting on personal liberty, I was commenting on the insinuation that the French majority/government/"white French" are more adverse to taking offence than French Muslims/Islamists. It's an absolutely bizzare claim when this thread is literally about someone murdering another person due to taking offence.

2) There's more than two options in the world. I used Pakistan as an example, because a) the two events occurred in close proximity, and b) Pakistan is an Islamic nation, whereas France is a secular nation.

1) No one said they were more adverse to it than Muslims. Although it says something you just kinda tried lumping all of them together and with 'Islamists' at that. It's an absolutely bizarre claim that no one but you has just introduced.

2) The thing is you're limiting it to Islam related options or a hypocritical one. There's no reason one can just not by hypocritical about it and actually advocate for personal liberty, but you make it an option of anything but that.

 

[Trunkage]

I feel like we've reached peak Sam Harris

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

I feel like we've reached peak Sam Harris

What's he typically do? Heard of him but never actually watched him talk

 

[Neuromancer]

What's he typically do? Heard of him but never actually watched him talk

Pseudo-philosophizing

 

[Iron]

Pseudo-philosophizing

that's my favorite kind of philosophizing

 

[Neuromancer]

that's my favorite kind of philosophizing

Reading a Sam Harris book is like reading Current Events. Entertaining at times, but ultimately a hollow, gainless experience.

At least I don't have to pay to gain access to the forums.

 

[Hawki]

I feel like we've reached peak Sam Harris

You can never have too much Sam Harris.

Course, I'd rather have Christopher Hitchens still around, but alas...

 

[Trunkage]

What's he typically do? Heard of him but never actually watched him talk

Debate. Although he's a neuroscienst, he talks about society. He used to get up on stage insult Christians for their beliefs.

Now he does the same to Muslims but apparently they're way worse. So you gotta call them evil at every turn. So much so I stopped listening to him. He has lost all nuance.

He's also into race realism. You know, blacks aren't as smart as whites and we just can't help it.

He's what Sargon of Akkad would call a Regressive. Although they're both IDW. Which is fine because Sargon is Regressive himself.

It funny, his attitude and utter derision for Christians all those years ago encouraged Youtubers to copy. Then those Youtubers started splitting left and right and you get cancel culture. Which Sam Harris complains about incessantly, not realizing he was doing Cancel Culture against Christians many years.

 

[Hawki]

Debate. Although he's a neuroscienst, he talks about society. He used to get up on stage insult Christians for their beliefs.

Which Sam Harris complains about incessantly, not realizing he was doing Cancel Culture against Christians many years.

Did he stop them from talking or being published? Because if not, that isn't cancel culture. That's simply criticism.

He's also into race realism. You know, blacks aren't as smart as whites and we just can't help it.

Huh. Maybe you can have too much Sam Harris.

 

[Iron]

*coughs nervously*
Intelligence is mostly an inheritable trait, though, so, um...
I'll just go hide somewhere.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

*coughs nervously*
Intelligence is mostly an inheritable trait, though, so, um...
I'll just go hide somewhere.

What exactly are you trying to say now that you went and dropped hints at it.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Did he stop them from talking or being published? Because if not, that isn't cancel culture. That's simply criticism.

Most cancel culture is, it just often has delusions of grandeur.

 

[Agema]

Debate. Although he's a neuroscienst, he talks about society. He used to get up on stage insult Christians for their beliefs.

I went a lecture by Dawkins years ago. It was a deeply underwhelming exercise in shooting fish in a barrel. Probaby fired up the faithful well enough, though.

* * *

It's not that I'd say Sam Harris wasn't a neuroscientist, but on the other hand I don't think that accurately expresses the main thrust of his career either. The sort of neuroscience his PhD was on is the interface between psychology and biology, and traditionally more the former than the latter. Secondly, since his PhD he has evidently barely practiced science at all.

He would be better described, I think, as a practical philosopher, who troubled himself to find out some stuff about how people think.

 

[Iron]

What exactly are you trying to say now that you went and dropped hints at it.

I mean, the whole nature vs. nurture debate is very relevant (apparently not to this thread, so I won't continue). I'd say that the majority of a person's traits were heritable.