That's not the part of the argument Harris had an issue with (he agreed that the historic context was important). It was the "Sam Harris duped by pseudoscientist" bits that were his main sticking point.
It's splitting hairs though isn't it? Sam Harris is one step above a pseudoscientist. He's comfortable examining and critiquing non-scientific ideas, but he'll never examine and critique actual science - which is ridiculous given the sheer quantity of crap science out there. This is why he spouts off about the "scientifically proven" value of x and y, simply because a crappy paper in a crappy journal said so. Case in point - meditation.
That piece is exceptionally well-written. Takes are always so much better when they're accompanied by original research or insider knowledge.
Cathy Young is a good writer. One of the better ones going around conservative/libertarian circles imo.
Yeah it's always pretty funny how massively into affirmative action conservative pseudo-intellectuals are in practice.
News last week that George Mason Uni gave the Kochs a say in academic hires in exchange for funding. Bleak af because I have a lot of time for some of the people working there. But it puts into perspective the notion that angry students are the real threat to academic freedom.
this article is a hit piece and has a ridiculous message "black woman who claims she is conservative isn't really conservative, she is just looking for shine"Yeah, really right-wing.
did you even read the article?
And this is absurd as well:
Yeah, really right-wing.
She's not the brightest bulb on the right and her website was a disaster idea, but at least she's not a leftist. I think she is genuine in that regard. Now she has to learn how deep the rabbit hole goes and she is self-admittedly still learning.
There's no evidence that it is though. Lunatic claims of ginned up harassment were, I thought, meant to be taken with a hint of scepticism if there's nothing to support it.
I'l give her credit for getting such a grovelling apology out of Jack anyhow at least
Obviously Trump figures there.
That's why I said "wouldn't be surprised". They epitomise the word charlatan and other AGG figures have been caught as the source of the abuse they received. They've also destroyed the start ups of their competitors and given they're serial doxxers I find it hard to believe their opposition to the project was anything other than self serving.
That may be the case, but Candace Owens is suddenly one of the most prominent public figures on the right. I don't even remember the last time I heard about either Harper or Quinn that wasn't in reference to things they did a few years ago.
How are you measuring that? She doesn't appear in my bubble very often.
2nd most public figure in a very prominent conservative org in TPUSA. I'm not judging her as just some random youtuber here, although obviously that's how she first made her "name". Plus, see the numbers she racks up on social media.