Sam Harris says it like it is

[Tony]

There's no such thing as needless overcomplication! Although you might be right.

Now thats just mean.

 

[ravdin]

Yes, it is bad when bullies stifle speech, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore them. To pick a somewhat hyperbolic example, if a person threatens to nuke seven major cities if you publish some book, it seems somewhat unpragmatic to publish the book for the sake of freedom of speech. The costs and benefits of an action need to be weighed.

Actually, that would be cowardice. Our freedom to publish whatever books we like is a prize that has been hard fought and won. I would rather perish in one of those cities than surrender it to a tyrannical madman.

Fortunately, this is a hyperbolic scenario as you say. But the best way to avoid having to face something like it in the future is to stop giving ground now. The demands for exaggerated respect will be followed up by more demands as we continue to give way.

 

[dudalb]

Actually, that would be cowardice. Our freedom to publish whatever books we like is a prize that has been hard fought and won. I would rather perish in one of those cities than surrender it to a tyrannical madman.

Fortunately, this is a hyperbolic scenario as you say. But the best way to avoid having to face something like it in the future is to stop giving ground now. The demands for exaggerated respect will be followed up by more demands as we continue to give way.

It's called "Peace At Any Price" and the irony is those who give up freedom for "Peace" end up having neither.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, it is bad when bullies stifle speech, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore them. To pick a somewhat hyperbolic example, if a person threatens to nuke seven major cities if you publish some book, it seems somewhat unpragmatic to publish the book for the sake of freedom of speech. The costs and benefits of an action need to be weighed.

False dilemma. Publish away, and track that sumbitch down and wax his arse. You posit an unrequired either/or.

No balls, no blue chips.

DR

 

[JoeEllison]

Naw, you're simply projecting your own tactic of dishonestly labeling everyone a "bigot" onto me. Those of us not living in a fantasy see you for what you are.

I'm sure most people DO see me as a pretty liberal, fair-minded, anti-bigotry type of person... which makes me wonder what YOUR problem is.

I think all religion is pretty stupid, and that all kinds of bigotry is wrong, including bigotry against religious people. Call me overly liberal if you like, but there it is.

 

[dudalb]

I'm sure most people DO see me as a pretty liberal, fair-minded, anti-bigotry type of person... which makes me wonder what YOUR problem is.

You sure as heck do not show that side of yourself here, since you label anybody who disagrees with you as either an idiot or evil.

I think all religion is pretty stupid, and that all kinds of bigotry is wrong, including bigotry against religious people. Call me overly liberal if you like, but there it is.

BS,Joe.
Your definitiion of Bigotry against Moslems is saying anything negative about any Moselm no matter how extreme.
And you have said some pretty nasty things about Christians, which if the same things were said about Moslems you would be on your high horse condemning as bigotry. It's called a double standard.
You just echo whatever the current "Left Radical Chic" party line of the moment is.

 

[Tony]

I'm sure most people DO see me as a pretty liberal, fair-minded, anti-bigotry type of person... which makes me wonder what YOUR problem is.

I've no doubt thats how you see yourself. But if you consider yourself as such, why do you defend islamic bigotry and extremism?

I think all religion is pretty stupid, and that all kinds of bigotry is wrong, including bigotry against religious people.

Aww, thats your problem. You interpret criticism of religion as bigotry against followers of religion. Others have a more liberal/nuanced view.

Call me overly liberal if you like, but there it is.

Nope. Considering your constant defense of islam, I'd call you insufficiently liberal to the point of being illiberal. There is nothing liberal in standing up for islam against free speech.

 

[ravdin]

I'm sure most people DO see me as a pretty liberal, fair-minded, anti-bigotry type of person... which makes me wonder what YOUR problem is.

I think all religion is pretty stupid, and that all kinds of bigotry is wrong, including bigotry against religious people. Call me overly liberal if you like, but there it is.

There you go, claiming that Muslims are the victims of our bigotry. Most other religious groups seem to be fair game for public comment and criticism. What makes Muslims so special?

Do you see yourself as so superior to Muslims that they deserve your pity and condescension?

 

[JoeEllison]

I've no doubt thats how you see yourself. But if you consider yourself as such, why do you defend islamic bigotry and extremism?

I don't... and it is rather stupid and insulting of you to make that claim.

 

[Tony]

I don't...

Yes, you do.

and it is rather stupid and insulting of you to make that claim.

Your behavior speaks for itself.

 

[UserGoogol]

False dilemma. Publish away, and track that sumbitch down and wax his arse. You posit an unrequired either/or.

No balls, no blue chips.

DR

That's not how thought experiments work. If you want, for the purposes of argument, let's say he's on the moon or something. My point is that "preserving freedom of speech" is not of infinite value. (Especially since the freedom to say "yeah, you're right, I guess I don't want to publish after all" is a kind of freedom of speech.) There comes a point where causing immense suffering for the sake of principle is just insane.

(And if you want to bring things back to the word of real-life situations, it should be noted that "track that sumbitch down and wax his arse" is an unrealistic option when the sumbitch consists of millions of people distributed over the entire world rather than being some supervillain with a moonbase.)

 

[ravdin]

There comes a point where causing immense suffering for the sake of principle is just insane.

Agreed. And if we show a little resolve today, we won't have to make terrible decisions like this in the future.

 

[Travis]

I loved this bit:

Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for "racism" and "Islamophobia."

That is really telling it like it is.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's not how thought experiments work.

Your so-called thought experiment is at best mental masturbation, and haphazardly constructed to boot.

Care to try again, for a scenario that fits the real world?

If you want, for the purposes of argument, let's say he's on the moon or something.

More mental masturbation. Build a scenario that can plausibly happen, else you are wanking faster, and more furiously.

My point is that "preserving freedom of speech" is not of infinite value. (Especially since the freedom to say "yeah, you're right, I guess I don't want to publish after all" is a kind of freedom of speech.) There comes a point where causing immense suffering for the sake of principle is just insane.

The person causing immense suffering is the jackass who is threatening the alleged world with seven nukes, not the guy who wrote an essay.

Do you get that part yet?

Agency?

(And if you want to bring things back to the word of real-life situations, it should be noted that "track that sumbitch down and wax his arse" is an unrealistic option when the sumbitch consists of millions of people distributed over the entire world rather than being some supervillain with a moonbase.)

Fine, you change the scenario, and then tell me my response is unrealistic? How about you stick to your own scenario?

To pick a somewhat hyperbolic example, if a person threatens to nuke seven major cities if you publish some book, it seems somewhat unpragmatic to publish the book for the sake of freedom of speech. The costs and benefits of an action need to be weighed.

I don't disagree with the general idea of practical risk management, but your scenario doesn't approach the practical.

I'll quit nagging now, since I appreciate that you tossed it in at the end of a post, off the cuff.

Well, I cuffed it.

DR

 

[Travis]

I also really liked this part:

And if anyone in this debate can be credibly accused of racism, it is the western apologists and "multiculturalists" who deem Arabs and Muslims too immature to shoulder the responsibilities of civil discourse. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, there is a calamitous form of "affirmative action" at work, especially in western Europe, where Muslim immigrants are systematically exempted from western standards of moral order in the name of paying "respect" to the glaring pathologies in their culture. Hirsi Ali has also observed that there is a quasi-racist double-think on display whenever western powers trumpet that "Islam is peace," all the while taking heroic measures to guard against the next occasion when the barbarians run amok in response to a film, cartoon, opera, novel, beauty pageant--or the mere naming of a teddy bear.

 

[WildCat]

Hi Wildcat,

I italicized that sentence, because I found it incredibly objectionable. There are varied fascist groups in Europe - from the National Front to Eastern-European nationalists, but all of them lambast Islam purely to add respectability to their racism and subsequent anti-immigration arguments. They are wildly bigoted and can only poison reasonable and critical debate.

Finnegan

The part of your response I bolded is exactly what I think he was commenting on - that the traditional defenders of western freedoms (liberals) are staying silent on this matter and allowing fascists to step in and hijack an issue that liberals should be speaking out on.

 

[RandFan]

Well, there is a line. I am not entirely opposed to the idea of hate speech legislation, (although I'm not exactly in favor of it either, since freedom of speech is important) and am not entirely sure where you draw the line. The fact that Islam is a belief system and therefore should be free to criticizes makes this less justifiable to ban, but there are still limits. Even criticism of rape should not go so far as to demonize and threaten rapists. Although I don't think that this movie is that much of a threat to Muslims (or non-Muslims), which pushes me to the side of not banning it, and if I was made to vote on the matter, I would vote against banning it, but it's a complicated issue and I can't jump to one conclusion too hastily.

Fair enough. I understand your point I just whole heartedly disagree. I would be hard pressed to ever find a reason to supress speech.

Perhaps it's going over my head or something, (and in which case please explain) but I really didn't find any sort of logical argument in Fitna. It's just a bunch of clips of terrorist attacks and angry Muslims with somber music. There is no argument being made, it's just "Hey, this sure does suck, eh?"

It's just information. I don't claim that it is any thing more than that. I don't know that it needs to be anymore than that.

Well, civil rights activists did inflame the prejudices of those who were against civil rights, and a responsible civil rights activist should have acknowledged that but then said that it's an acceptable cost to the long term goal of civil rights for all.

I think we are talking the same thing here. We are criticizing a religion that is by and large oppressive to women. A religion that is intolerant to homosexuals and people who are different. A religion that makes it easier, IMO, to foment hate and enmity than peace and reconciliation.

Yes, it is bad when bullies stifle speech, but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore them. To pick a somewhat hyperbolic example, if a person threatens to nuke seven major cities if you publish some book, it seems somewhat unpragmatic to publish the book for the sake of freedom of speech. The costs and benefits of an action need to be weighed.

I love that example. If a person threatens to nuke seven major cities can we torture him to get him to reveal the whereabouts of the devices?

 

[Beerina]

Criticism of Islam is not bigotry. I dislike Islam but I've met many Muslims who I like just fine- I hope everyone can see the distinction.

I am an equal opportunity mocker of all religions.

 

[Elind]

That's not how thought experiments work. If you want, for the purposes of argument, let's say he's on the moon or something. My point is that "preserving freedom of speech" is not of infinite value. (Especially since the freedom to say "yeah, you're right, I guess I don't want to publish after all" is a kind of freedom of speech.) There comes a point where causing immense suffering for the sake of principle is just insane.

You've already been waxed on this comment, but it is so fundamental that I have to add some more.

Your approach has no end and the appeasement you propose has no end, until you have lost everything to those you appease, and just when you think they have won, they will find new issues for you to appease.

There comes a point when those pretending great suffering from words, and those who appease them, need to get their whatevers waxed.

 

[UserGoogol]

You've already been waxed on this comment, but it is so fundamental that I have to add some more.

Your approach has no end and the appeasement you propose has no end, until you have lost everything to those you appease, and just when you think they have won, they will find new issues for you to appease.

There comes a point when those pretending great suffering from words, and those who appease them, need to get their whatevers waxed.

That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I am not saying that appeasement categorically is a good thing. I am merely saying that there are plusses and minuses to both sets of actions, and that you need to weigh them carefully and judge them accordingly. As I have said a few times, I am somewhat agnostic as to whether appeasement (and what kind of appeasement) is a good thing or a bad thing in this situation. I merely think that Harris and Fitna lack rigor, and lack of rigor is the root of all evil.