And I imagine most of your readers have encountered at least one person who would absolutely concur with Harris, here.
Probably a lot more than one. "Oh, those stupid hicks in flyover country" is a declaration that those people aren't really entitled to vote. That's a pretty horrifying attitude to have in a constitutional republic that uses the mechanisms of democracy to mediate disputes between factions. It places people in the position of not being able to trust the mechanisms of government to mediate those disputes. That the law will protect them as well, and that they are even still within the embrace of the concept of "law". That those mechanisms will be anything approaching "fair", and fairness is a fairly deep level thing that's wired even into our close cousins, the chimpanzees.
How do other factions who are outside the law settle their disputes? Well, in this country, it's often labeled "gang violence". And those are typically fairly small groups.
Y'know, I really can't say that I'm particularly enjoying our descent into the Endarkenment. (Hat tip to Billy Beck for coining that one.)
Thanks for doing this. It is easy to be swayed by elaborate, well articulated, and well constructed arguments. It is also possible to clearly expose oneself and the mental gymnastics/poker that can be employed to try to make a turd smell good. Your fear of Sam's ability to go there is well placed and your piece enlightening....and frightening for exposing it.
Your analysis is spot-on, Holly, and rigorously presented, as usual. Thank you.
My immediate gut-brain reaction to the tweet thread was 2 things:
- He was flailing. He knew he was flailing. What he may not have known was that his ‘signature’ calm articulation was not going to save the day.
- He danced around concepts like ethics, impropriety, wisdom, and then, in the final tweet, hunkered down with: ‘I never endorsed anything illegal.’ A word popped off in my brain when I read that. The word: Clintonesque. ………. A huge tell.
That thread is mind-blowing. I get that Harris really doesn't like Trump, but it seems to me what he really hates is Straw Trump as depicted in the media, which is not necessarily the same as the real man. In the video he states a ton of things that Trump "did" without specifics (e.g. Trump doxxed people), which suggests he is just repeating what he heard other people say without digging in to see if the accusations where valid. Also his hate, his Trump Derangement Symptoms, mean he cannot accept that Trump might actually be the lesser of two evils in these elections and he can't grasp that not everyone agrees with him about the evilness of the Orange-haired one versus the evilness of his opponents.
I found the laptop tweet to be most telling because both laptops - Weiner's and Biden's - showed possible evidence (not proof, but evidence) of the malfeasance of Trump's opponents that were IMHO at least as bad as anything Trump was accused of.
In fact I am still 6 years on, absolutely furious about Clinton's email server, the fact the emails of hers appeared on her staffer's boyfriend's laptop and all that. Not only did she flagrantly violate state department and general US Government regulations, she also clearly and knowingly sought to hide what she had done and she got away with it. Plus so far as we can tell (see sought to hide) her server was sitting there vulnerable to any skript-kiddie who wanted to do an exchange hack let alone the various cyber teams of nation states. My assumption, ever since I learned bout that damn server, is that all of the US's rivals and many of her allies read most of her emails and therefore knew precisely what the US was planning in foreign relations for most of her tenure as Secretary of State. I don't think that quite rose to the level of treason as defined in the constitution, but if someone had accused her of it and a jury convicted her I'd have been fine with that outcome because she sure as heck was giving the US's enemies "Aid and Comfort".
Hunter Biden's laptop and the apparent evidence of the corruption that is shows may actually be not as harmful to the US but that's not exactly a high bar.
I am a good person > I hate Trump> the only way this can be so (because I am a good person), is that he is the embodiment of EVIL (not a blowhard, jerk, average politician, ruthless/unethical businesman, average selfish American, nice guy, etc...) > therefore I can justify anything that is done (with or without evidence of the EVIL done by the very bad man) to him and still be a good person. Sadly, people emote better than they think and it seems to be worse with every generation. Meanwhile we are all drowning in the wash of Trump news and distracted from all the other crap our perfidious government is doing.
If this had been many other intellectuals, the fans (for want of a better word) would have taken it more in stride. People are taking this more personally, because of his philosophy.
> Harris gave no limiting principle to his position that stopping Trump by hiding information from the voters (which is, again, itself unequivocally and absolutely lying by the standard he set in his book about lying) was justified by any means necessary.
His limiting principle seems to be that it's merely disinformation, and not actual election fraud. The justification he gives in the interview is that the information space is already so full of disinformation that this is not an escalation.
So a steelman of Harris' position might be: Democracy has always accepted that election campaigns are necessarily contests for power in which each side tries to shape the narrative for his benefit and is countered by the other side doing the same. Within this game, players -- and especially Trump -- routinely engage in tricks much more deceitful than hiding the laptop story. For liberals to scruple at this would be to tie one arm behind their back in an fight against a dirty brawler whereas democracy requires an even fight.
I'd be interested in whether you buy such an argument, and if not, why not.
Thanks, Holly.
And I imagine most of your readers have encountered at least one person who would absolutely concur with Harris, here.
Probably a lot more than one. "Oh, those stupid hicks in flyover country" is a declaration that those people aren't really entitled to vote. That's a pretty horrifying attitude to have in a constitutional republic that uses the mechanisms of democracy to mediate disputes between factions. It places people in the position of not being able to trust the mechanisms of government to mediate those disputes. That the law will protect them as well, and that they are even still within the embrace of the concept of "law". That those mechanisms will be anything approaching "fair", and fairness is a fairly deep level thing that's wired even into our close cousins, the chimpanzees.
How do other factions who are outside the law settle their disputes? Well, in this country, it's often labeled "gang violence". And those are typically fairly small groups.
Y'know, I really can't say that I'm particularly enjoying our descent into the Endarkenment. (Hat tip to Billy Beck for coining that one.)
Thanks for doing this. It is easy to be swayed by elaborate, well articulated, and well constructed arguments. It is also possible to clearly expose oneself and the mental gymnastics/poker that can be employed to try to make a turd smell good. Your fear of Sam's ability to go there is well placed and your piece enlightening....and frightening for exposing it.
Your analysis is spot-on, Holly, and rigorously presented, as usual. Thank you.
My immediate gut-brain reaction to the tweet thread was 2 things:
- He was flailing. He knew he was flailing. What he may not have known was that his ‘signature’ calm articulation was not going to save the day.
- He danced around concepts like ethics, impropriety, wisdom, and then, in the final tweet, hunkered down with: ‘I never endorsed anything illegal.’ A word popped off in my brain when I read that. The word: Clintonesque. ………. A huge tell.
That thread is mind-blowing. I get that Harris really doesn't like Trump, but it seems to me what he really hates is Straw Trump as depicted in the media, which is not necessarily the same as the real man. In the video he states a ton of things that Trump "did" without specifics (e.g. Trump doxxed people), which suggests he is just repeating what he heard other people say without digging in to see if the accusations where valid. Also his hate, his Trump Derangement Symptoms, mean he cannot accept that Trump might actually be the lesser of two evils in these elections and he can't grasp that not everyone agrees with him about the evilness of the Orange-haired one versus the evilness of his opponents.
I found the laptop tweet to be most telling because both laptops - Weiner's and Biden's - showed possible evidence (not proof, but evidence) of the malfeasance of Trump's opponents that were IMHO at least as bad as anything Trump was accused of.
In fact I am still 6 years on, absolutely furious about Clinton's email server, the fact the emails of hers appeared on her staffer's boyfriend's laptop and all that. Not only did she flagrantly violate state department and general US Government regulations, she also clearly and knowingly sought to hide what she had done and she got away with it. Plus so far as we can tell (see sought to hide) her server was sitting there vulnerable to any skript-kiddie who wanted to do an exchange hack let alone the various cyber teams of nation states. My assumption, ever since I learned bout that damn server, is that all of the US's rivals and many of her allies read most of her emails and therefore knew precisely what the US was planning in foreign relations for most of her tenure as Secretary of State. I don't think that quite rose to the level of treason as defined in the constitution, but if someone had accused her of it and a jury convicted her I'd have been fine with that outcome because she sure as heck was giving the US's enemies "Aid and Comfort".
Hunter Biden's laptop and the apparent evidence of the corruption that is shows may actually be not as harmful to the US but that's not exactly a high bar.
Sam should read: "On Bullshit" by Harry Frankfurter. At the moment, he is full of it. Seriously, it is a good little book and he'd just stop.
Sam Harris is the Keith Raniere of public intellectuals.
Brava,
I am a good person > I hate Trump> the only way this can be so (because I am a good person), is that he is the embodiment of EVIL (not a blowhard, jerk, average politician, ruthless/unethical businesman, average selfish American, nice guy, etc...) > therefore I can justify anything that is done (with or without evidence of the EVIL done by the very bad man) to him and still be a good person. Sadly, people emote better than they think and it seems to be worse with every generation. Meanwhile we are all drowning in the wash of Trump news and distracted from all the other crap our perfidious government is doing.
If this had been many other intellectuals, the fans (for want of a better word) would have taken it more in stride. People are taking this more personally, because of his philosophy.
> Harris gave no limiting principle to his position that stopping Trump by hiding information from the voters (which is, again, itself unequivocally and absolutely lying by the standard he set in his book about lying) was justified by any means necessary.
His limiting principle seems to be that it's merely disinformation, and not actual election fraud. The justification he gives in the interview is that the information space is already so full of disinformation that this is not an escalation.
So a steelman of Harris' position might be: Democracy has always accepted that election campaigns are necessarily contests for power in which each side tries to shape the narrative for his benefit and is countered by the other side doing the same. Within this game, players -- and especially Trump -- routinely engage in tricks much more deceitful than hiding the laptop story. For liberals to scruple at this would be to tie one arm behind their back in an fight against a dirty brawler whereas democracy requires an even fight.
I'd be interested in whether you buy such an argument, and if not, why not.