The one time he allows for a persons life experience, he gets it wrong.

"My mom is Catholic and she believes in hell" is absolutely NOT a valid response to "Catholics don't believe in hell". For someone who believes in data, that's a terrible response. It's a sample size of one out of over 1 billion. And if you were to dig up the canonical Catholic teaching on hell, that STILL wouldn't be the right data (the argument was "Catholics don't believe in hell", not "Catholicism does not teach the concept of hell". Even if you were to say "actually every Catholic I know believes in hell" that's still not a valid argument, unless you know thousands of Catholics.

I've lost a lot of respect for Sam Harris over the years and this just reinforces that.

Of course, data is important, especially when it comes to things like whether vaccines cause autism (they don't).

But if you're talking about things like how police treat black people or whether women are paid less in the workplace... the life experience of those people are a vital part of the data, especially when the data isn't clear cut.

Rule number one is true only to a certain extent. There comes a point in time when the gun is empty and 100% safe. This has to be the case otherwise you can't clean it and you can't store it empty (as it has to legally be in NZ and Aus).

The way the rule works is, always assume the gun is loaded until everyone in the room is satisfied that it is not. Then it can be safely handled among the people in the room (i.e. inspected, dry fired, cleaned, or stored). Even though everyone knows it is empty you still don't point it at anyone - this is to reinforce the habit of the rule and for ultimate safety (say everyone got it wrong somehow that the gun was empty or not - very unlikely but possible).

As the whole building was reinforced, shielded concrete, only the obliterated half needed containment. In fact, this is the permanent fix, as most of the damaged area was already contained, but not particularly long term.

Um, do you realize that you are advocating retreating into a safe space bubble where ideas that don't reinforce your preconceptions are simply ignored rather than considered? I feel like that's becoming a significant factor in the downfall of civility and reason.

I would ask you...ARE you boring? If not, you must admit that the preconception you expect from others is in error, and I hope you might think it through to see your preconceptions about them may be erroneous as well.
I still talk to strangers all the time, because I already know what people in my bubble think....just hearing my own thoughts and assumptions repeated with no critical analysis...now THAT'S boring.

"We secretly replaced Bruce Silva's headbang bricks with 250MPa steel fibre-reinforced concrete, let's see if he notices the difference!"

Do you know who "those people" are? I don't.

There are some people whose ideology is easily identified and most likely well-entrenched: KKK, white supremacists, nazis, take your pick. They are difficult to talk to and even more difficult to persuade.

I happen to live near a popular gathering spot for nazis (real nazis, not just someone you don't like) and have tried many times over the years: it's no bueno.

But that's only the hard core, a fraction of the ~60 million votes for Trump. If you put all of them into the corner of shame and refuse to interact with them, much less try to understand their point of view, you'll never know their reasoning for voting the way they did. You'll only push them away, reinforcing any feeling of being left behind or ignored by the, for a lack of a better word, liberals. That's no bueno either. Want to see how that turns out? Look at the state of Brandenburg in Germany.

You can either try to breach their echo chamber in an attempt to convince them of your perspective or you'll end up with either an even more divided country than before or a second Trump presidency (or Trump 2.0). It's an uncomfortable thing to do, but looking at the emergence of safe spaces, trigger warnings, blatant groupthink and whatnot on certain university campuses, some people seem to have become outright allergic towards differing opinions -- that's highly unhealthy for a society.

You weren't joking.

"Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as fully too rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

That's the international political equivalent of acting crazy when someone tries to mug you. Give 'em the old crazy eyes.

Also, partly thanks to separate feeds for the two of them and being allowed time to fully answer, Chomsky was fantastic at dealing with Cathy Fucking Newman. The poster child for modern condescending journalism, with her "Ah, no one is surprised you're critical of the US...." --having listened to supporting facts for several minutes, she comes back with tongue-in-cheek-but-not-really insinuations about bias. Subtly and with plausible deniability, attacking the person not the argument.

It's good that this kind of discussion appears on TV at all, especially on a major British channel, but they get away with the same kind of shit that people lambaste RT for.

It's a known thing among women in business meetings. She says something, convo continues, man in room repeats it, gets the credit.

Happens so much, it makes the list of top most annoying things about being a woman in a business meeting.

Interesting point about generational norms. It would be very very cool if this kind of nonsense comes to an end. [Edit -- now that I re-read your comment, I see you were making a different point. Which actually reinforces the "woman in the business meeting" meme. A younger man doesn't have status, all women don't have status. Yep. Sexism.]

I wondered about the helicopter reporter -- I got the feeling that he thought he was being congratulated on tracking the guy down and working so well with the pilot. I could be wrong, it was very subtle the miscue. He was justifiably proud of their work in the chopper -- somehow I got the feeling he was expecting THAT compliment, not something that had had happened ten minutes in the past.

I accept your appology. ;-)

I understand. I was not condoning it, I was decrying a situation where that is a reasonable response in self defense. I do not condone, nor do I wish for cops being shot/killed any more than I condone or wish for them to kill others...which is not at all, or barring that, only when absolutely necessary to save lives.

Not having sympathy for a group's pain is not the same thing as advocating more pain infliction. I understand the misunderstanding, I'm often unclear. I am not sympathetic for the losses of a group that causes 30 times the killings they receive....but I want them to kill fewer, not for more of them to be killed.

Yes, and no. You could say I 'dehumanize' them, but really I humanize them. Dehumanizing them would be elevating their position IMO...I have a terrible estimation of humanity, so dehumanizing someone is being nice. ;-)

No, I'm a LOT twisted. ;-)

Again, no I don't think more dead cops fixes anything....but I do see it as a likely outcome of this behavior....and understandable. If you honestly believe any member of a particular group is likely to attack and kill you without provocation, with recent evidence provided daily to reinforce that belief, any reasonable person would act in self defense.

As it turns out, according to his superior, you are correct....he intended to kill the autistic man. That makes the triple handcuffing even more curious, to put it mildly. They now admit he was NEVER a suspect, but have not offered any reasoning behind handcuffing him or not offering any medical attention for an unreasonable time.

Just so I'm clear, had you used '....' instead of "....." to paraphrase what you thought I was saying, I would not have taken offence at the misunderstanding. I only got upset because using quotation marks indicated I said exactly what you mistakenly thought I meant.

I'm totally with you on the need to understand the motives that drove him to this desperate and indefensible action.
I don't think trying to understand what happened is condoning it, but I do think it's a necessary step in trying to keep it from repeating.

I don't think it's a stretch to think that he had some bad encounters with police. I don't think it's a stretch to guess that he felt abused by a nation that he served in war but wouldn't stand with him (or those like him) when police abuse them. I don't think it's a stretch to believe he thought his community was under attack from the police, and that belief was reinforced daily on the news. It's only a guess, but I would guess he didn't have a great life, so didn't have much to lose in this suicide attack (he couldn't think he would survive).

I also don't think it's a stretch to believe this won't be the last time this happens if the current division between police and citizens continues to grow. One can only hope that this terroristic act will foster empathy in both directions...for, and from police, or I fear we're doomed to see an escalation of this kind of thing.

Maybe, but it certainly seems there are plenty of Mexican stereotypes that are reinforced by the cartoons!

Republicans live in a self reinforcing loop of ignorance..fox news .AM radio etc.

Reinforcements are awesome.

No one ever suggested it should. I only ever suggested that it's not right for ME, even though I've been supporting it for decades. EDIT: The misplaced angry responses I've received for simply expressing my opinion has done nothing but reinforce the idea that I absolutely don't belong with 'feminists'.

Thanks to Babymech, I have found that school of thought, egalitarianism, equality for ALL, the only kind of equality that's equal.

Clearly 'feminism' is only about gender equality FOR WOMEN....and I think you don't find equality by ignoring unfairness that happens to the other 1/2 of the population (that's the reason I've identified as 'feminist' before now, I care about being fair to others, even if they aren't like me)....that's what you're upset about, inequalities to women being ignored and minimized, why on earth would you do it back to men? That's not gender equality, that's gender based vengeance.
EDIT: If you wish to argue that point, I insist you start with an example of 'feminism' working against women to secure equal rights for men or I'll discount your argument at the outset.
Otherwise, I'm out.

"We" is those like me, that have always supported equality( for over 40 years in my case), but never liked calling that "feminism", as that word implies both separation and a bias, both of which EXCLUDE equality. There are many who think that. My mother is one, it's not just men.

You do not have to fight at all, I don't know why you seem to want to. Because someone suggests that it might be something to think about is not the same as saying 'YOU MAY NOT USE THAT TERM'! You may chose to not think about it if that is your choice, you may chose to think differently. No one is telling you how to think, I'm telling you how I think.

No one said "your wrong to use that term". I said there are reasons it's not a good name for a movement that is NOT based on a female centric, female dominant mindset. No scolding. My choice is my choice, my thoughts and reasons are mine, yours are yours, why are you so looking for me to be scolding you or telling you you're wrong? I'm not doing either.

It is only descriptive if the goals are promotion of purely female causes and rights, but not if the goals are equality....but that means they lose a LOT of people that have called themselves 'feminists' in the past, and not just men.

Um....OK....so forget equality for men then? Any time the equation is in the woman's favor, that's fine, huh? No thanks, THAT'S why we need another name. You can keep "feminism", as I think that's exactly what it describes, "equality for WOMEN, period". 'Humanist' as a concept (as I understand it) excludes that mindset of separate and pit against, it does not embrace and reinforce it.
Equality for people. Period.

Why is it that my stating my thoughts, to you, means I'm instructing you how to think, and stating you must "hew" to my definition? I certainly made no such conscious implication. May I, a man, not have an opinion without being labeled an oppressor of women?

No, clearly you don't understand my reason or goal in stating my thoughts and I feel that you have over-reacted based on that total misunderstanding.

Fine. Then I'm an equalitist. I care about equality and fairness for all people. You may separate and then choose sides, that's your right, your option, and your choice to make for yourself.
EDIT: Make that egalitarian...thank you @Babymech for pointing me to the correct term.