< 1 2
 
   
 

#164- Cause & Effect A Conversation with Judea Pearl

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  684
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
07 August 2019 17:35
 
DEGENERATEON - 07 August 2019 11:46 AM
mapadofu - 07 August 2019 10:08 AM

So we’re back to you setting impossibly high standards for what constitutes racist behavior; I thought we had gotten past this in post 3.  If you want to use very restrictive and idiosyncratic criteria to capture the meaning of racism, in effect defining it out of existence, I’m not going to argue semantics with you.  It’s clear enough to me that Trump exhibits racist behavior, so Sam’s claims of the same seem reasonable.


In short, pressing the envelope on the amount and explicitness of racism he exhibits has worked for him politically so far.

I don’t think I’m trying to set impossibly high standards, or at least that isn’t my intent.  The intent of the post was to point out how Sam said the tweets about the representatives didn’t necessarily display racism.  You say he is taking the comment “send her back” alone, but that doesn’t seem to be what Sam is saying.  Most people would point to those tweets and say “there’s all the proof you need”.  Sam isn’t doing that.  He’s saying Trump is a racist, but those tweets are not an example of this.  So that’s my main question (and maybe only one Sam could answer) - in what other utterance does trump pass the racist test? 

I’m not saying Sam is correct.  But if he has set the bar at something above those tweets, then what clears that bar?

The relevant section of the podcast is from 13:45 to 14:45 (12:50 is the start of his comments on Trump).

Sam said of telling Omar “to go back to where she came from”, (a better reproduction of what Trump actually said than “send them back”), that “it can be read in other ways”.  Sam did not elaborate on this specific point further.

I said what I said in post 6, that the statement is ambiguous if taken in isolation.

However, When I consider the three tweets together, and in the context of the rest of his public life, I do interpret this comment as racist.

We all, you, me, Sam, Twissel, are in agreement that Trump is racist, presumably on the basis of things we’ve observed. you, for some reason need to qualify it as not being “full-blown” racism, but still you must have observed things that Trump has done that make you recognize that he is racist to some degree.  Presumably, Sam could be aware of those things in order to have drawn that conclusion.

 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  154
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
07 August 2019 20:07
 

And for some reason you don’t feel the need to qualify it.  Let’s say a 24 year old male has sex with a 17.5 year old Brittany Spears.  He’s a child molester.  Then you have a 58 year old who has sex with a 12 year old girl.  He’s a child molester.
We all agree they’re both child molesters, but i feel the need to describe the degree of their pedophilia. 
If you want to say Trump is a racist and that’s all we need to know, so be it.  I’m just not satisfied with that position.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  684
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
07 August 2019 20:22
 

You say tomato, I say tomato….

If you think it’s important to go into the hows and what’s, I’m perfectly happy to delve into the nuances of how Trump is racist.  In what ways do you think Trump is racist?

[ Edited: 07 August 2019 20:36 by mapadofu]
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17535
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
07 August 2019 20:36
 
DEGENERATEON - 07 August 2019 08:07 PM

And for some reason you don’t feel the need to qualify it.  Let’s say a 24 year old male has sex with a 17.5 year old Brittany Spears.  He’s a child molester.  Then you have a 58 year old who has sex with a 12 year old girl.  He’s a child molester.
We all agree they’re both child molesters, but i feel the need to describe the degree of their pedophilia. 
If you want to say Trump is a racist and that’s all we need to know, so be it.  I’m just not satisfied with that position.

The 24 year old is only a child molester in the context of the those who dislike him (girls family, religious nuts, the self-righteous etc) and are looking for something they think they can use against him.

[ Edited: 14 August 2019 00:31 by GAD]
 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  2735
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
07 August 2019 23:17
 

In October 2016, Harris wrote a blog post on why Trump is worse than Clinton (and Harris is no Clinton fan):

https://samharris.org/trump-in-exile2/

Maybe it helps explain where he is coming from.

 
 
DEGENERATEON
 
Avatar
 
 
DEGENERATEON
Total Posts:  154
Joined  14-09-2017
 
 
 
08 August 2019 11:40
 

I was listening to the housekeeping segment again on youtube (a clip of the show titled ‘sam harris responds to shootings….).  Something was edited for this version (but not on his homepage version).  At 14:48 on his homepage, he states “a Washington Post opinion editor accused Nancy Pelosi of dog whistling”.  On the youtube clip, it has been edited to say “Omar, AOC, etc. accused Nancy Pelosi of dog whistling”. 

Wonder if he got some pushback from the WaPo editor?

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6339
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
13 August 2019 23:55
 

Forgive me for nudging in with a comment on the podcast interview. Carry on.


Mr. Pearl shows promise as a semi-trioonist. At 28 mins or so, he casts the three perceptual gleans of trioon as “seeing, doing and imagining”.

“Seeing” our primary stimuli is followed by observing what we’ve seen and finding corollaries until “observation changes belief”. I suppose that is a “do thing” and qualifies as a description of our Cinematic Perception. He draws an accurate line between a perception that makes us a picture and a perception that makes corollaries and contrasts of it. Then, there’s the really impressive part.

Instead of piling more characteristics onto doing, he cites “imagining” as a third thing to do. It is “considering the impossible, the what-if’s and mights have been”. Wouldn’t that be a capacity to re-sequence our cinematic perceptions and re-invent what happened or could happen? Together, they cover the basics of the trioon machinery in action.

Granted, Mr. Pearl is not describing a trioon structure but his comments re: “time is symmetry” had me waving pom-poms. Then things took an upward turn into the usual totem pole-like idea of emergence where it is easy to imagine these inner-mental experiences as emerging ‘up’ like a thought balloon with no way for anything that happens up there to come back down and impact something on a blood and bone level. One can only conclude that emergent thought balloons are of no actual consequence and are for entertainment purposes only. At best it is a replica of processes and decisions made deep down where consciousness cannot reach.

That is the creed of the Cult of Zero. This model inflates instead of unfolds. It is like suggesting that if you build a car factory, cars will emerge from it. No, you have to run the machinery. Likewise, if you run seeing, doing and imagining in three de-correlated time-frames, there is no need for emergence or a totem-pole. How does the thought balloon feedback to the blood and bone? Both “seeing” and “doing” have the ability to steer OUR EYEBALLS. There is a distinction to notice.

It was an amusing episode full of cross-generational befuddlement.

Is Trump a racist? It’s in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? Most folks with racist-like views re-define racism as something they are not. Their’s is hate-free or they cite the lack of foam around their mouth. Even when it is hard not to notice it. 

 
 
 < 1 2