Harris, New Atheists, anti-Muslim animus

[sandwiches]

Well, I feel this article hits the Sam Harris on the head:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus?commentpage=1

Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus

A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism

Sam Harris and his ilk do seem to flourish the "rationality" card like an excuse-all.

[sankari]

Apr 3, 2013 18:08:50 GMT sandwiches said:

Well, I feel this article hits the Sam Harris on the head:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus?commentpage=1

Sam Harris, the New Atheists, and anti-Muslim animus

A long overdue debate breaks out about whether rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism

Sam Harris and his ilk do seem to flourish the "rationality" card like an excuse-all.

Ah, the New Atheists. Still polarising atheist opinion with their fanatical fundamentalism.

Good times!

[merkavah12]

"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"- Sam Harris

......woah.

[ignorantianescia]

That's one juggernaut of an article. I agree it pins Harris' views down accurately. It might have persuaded more people if it weren't written from such an explicitly left-wing perspective, though.

Apr 3, 2013 20:29:06 GMT merkavah12 said:

"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"- Sam Harris

......woah.

Yup, that surely is one dubious statement. Here's the full context:

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it. And, again, I wouldn’t put someone who looks like me entirely outside the bull’s-eye (after all, what would Adam Gadahn look like if he cleaned himself up?) But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance.

Addendum (5/1/12):

Many readers found this blog post stunning for its lack of sensitivity. The article has been called “racist,” “dreadful,” “sickening,” “appalling,” “frighteningly ignorant,” etc. by (former) fans who profess to have loved everything I’ve written until this moment. I find this reaction difficult to understand. Of course, anyone who imagines that there is no link between Islam and suicidal terrorism might object to what I’ve written here, but I say far more offensive things about Islam in The End of Faith and in many of my essays and lectures.

(...)

1. When I speak of profiling “Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim,” I am not narrowly focused on people with dark skin. In fact, I included myself in the description of the type of person I think should be profiled (twice). To say that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest. It is the charm of political correctness that it blends these sins against reasonableness so seamlessly. We are paying a very high price for this obscurantism—and the price could grow much higher in an instant. We have limited resources, and every moment spent searching a woman like the one pictured above, or the children seen in the linked videos, is a moment in which someone or something else goes unobserved.

From www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profiling

Despite all his considerations, "looking conceivably Muslim" is a criterion that will likely lead to a good deal of effectively racial profiling, mostly affecting Arab Christians, (not that I'm in favour of religious profiling either, just to make clear). Are his critics' sensitive reactions so strange?

And this statement:

"In our dealings with the Muslim world, we must acknowledge that Muslims have not found anything of substance to say against the actions of the September 11 hijackers, apart from the ubiquitous canard that they were really Jews."

is simply vile.

[sankari]

But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance.

What the hell...

[bjorn]

And here is a refutation of the article:
saiu.org/2013/04/03/greenwald-and-hussain-on-sam-harris-and-racism/

Still, if Harris really has been taken out of context every time, it is strange he doesn't seem to have taken any hint and made himself a lot clearer over all these yars.

[ignorantianescia]

Apr 4, 2013 7:02:19 GMT bjorn said:

And here is a refutation of the article:
saiu.org/2013/04/03/greenwald-and-hussain-on-sam-harris-and-racism/

Still, if Harris really has been taken out of context every time, it is strange he doesn't seem to have taken any hint and made himself a lot clearer over all these yars.

That actually addresses a different article by Hussain. Greenwald has said he doesn't agree with everything in Hussain's column.

That won't suffice for the writer of that blog, though:

Jeff asked, “Please, I beg, show me where Greenfield said that he stands behind the article.”

When Harris pointed out that the article misrepresented Harris’ stated views, Greenwald responded: “I know Murtaza [Hussain]’s writings really well and he’s always trustworthy and diligent, and I think he was here, too.” www.samharris.org/blog/item/dear-fellow-liberal2

In a more recent article by Greenwald, written after I’d finished the above post, Greenwald went so far as to say that he wouldn’t actively defend 100% of the claims made by Hussain: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus . If that’s as close as Greenwald is going to come to counteracting the spread of misinformation he’s helped engender, then I remain unimpressed.

Note the Newspeak here, it looks like a retweet equals helping to engender the spread of misinformation now.

[merkavah12]

"But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance."- Sam Harris, President of the Psychic Friends Network

[sandwiches]

Interestingly, The Guardian closed the comments section on this article, as the comments neared 4,000 in total (rather more, to say the least, than the usual response).

Harris's supporters rallied around eventually but the overwhelming (and more thoughtful) response seemed to be against Harris.

New Atheism and the Emperor's New Clothes?

[himself]

Apr 4, 2013 16:59:02 GMT merkavah12 said:

"But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance."- Sam Harris, President of the Psychic Friends Network

Actually, it's much easier to tell who is not likely a jihadist than who is. A 75-year old Norwegian-American grandmother from Minnesota is much more likely to be a Lutheran baker of meat loaf than a muslim suicide bomber. Similarly, when profiling a serial killer, the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit is more likely to focus on white males of a certain age, because experience shows that neither women nor black men are often serial killers. This does not mean that none have ever been, but that the smart money goes with the short odds.

In point of fact, all decision-making rules are subject to two kinds of errors.

• To identify X when it is not X. This is Type I error, aka False Positive, aka Cry Wolf, Wild Goose Chase, etc. Its probability, given the decision rules, is the alpha risk.
  
• To not identify X when it is X. This is Type II error, aka False Negative, aka Fat Dumb and Happy, Asleep at the Switch, etc. Its probability, given the decision rules, is the beta risk.
  

This applies to scientific measurements and experiments, random acceptance samples, industrial control charts, trials by jury, FDA approvals, and psychological profiling. In general, if you reduce the alpha risk, you increase the beta, and vice versa.
Which risk to favor depends on the consequences of the risk, if it should happen to occur. FDA trials emphasize the beta risk even if it means that beneficial and safe medical devices and drugs are withheld from the market. The courtroom rules of evidence otoh favor the alpha risk, even if it means the guilty may walk free.
Further comment on Risk Analysis can be found in the old MIL-STD-1629A
www.fmeainfocentre.com/handbooks/milstd1629.pdf

[penguinfan]

I have to side with Sam Harris, especially against the current crop of detractors.

Greenwald retailed the same quote Murtaza Hussain first ripped out of context about fascists; and, while doing so, seems to even have misunderstood Christopher Hitchens as well.

This, from a loony (Greenwald) who routinely argues how right-wing 'Islamo-fascists' critiques of the West are perfectly spot-on. It seems Glenn is only keen on agreeing with one fascist but not another; and apparently believes someone is automatically wrong if they've been branded a fascist.

The profiling thing is terribly obvious. If you are going to profile someone for security risks against commercial airplanes, it might be a good idea to start with religious/ethnic profiling of Muslims and Middle Easterners. All suicide bombings and attempted suicide bombings on commercial airplanes I can think of in the past 15 years have been by Muslims.

True, they are profiled based on religion/ethnicity, but so does affirmative action. I might change my views on racial profiling when Liberals begin decrying AA as something just as wrong. Until then, they're simply talking out both sides of their mouth and I don't know to support or oppose profiling.

As for the White serial killer, I have read (Wikipedia) Whites might not actually be more likely given their population to be serial killers than other groups. Eh, who know? But I certainly don't care about profiling Whites if serial killers were almost exclusively White.

I'm in favor of common sense over ... well, I'm not sure what avoiding reality for political correctness would be called. Stupidity, perhaps?

[sandwiches]

Even the mainstream press seems to have woken up to New Atheism and Islamophobia:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/atheists-richard-dawkins-christopher-hitchens-and-sam-harris-face-islamophobia-backlash-8570580.html

Atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris face Islamophobia backlash
Dawkins surprised his fans and critics when he admitted he had not read the Koran

[penguinfan]

Oh dear, I certainly hope you don't have to read every nation's constitution before you criticize their actions.

As for Chomsky, I'm happy to compare his comments on the Jewish community to what any "Islamophobe" mentioned in the article has said about Muslims.

[sandwiches]

Dawkins chips in and is ridiculed by Andrew Brown:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/richard-dawkins-islamophobic


Richard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world's great pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins' technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I suppose it saves time and it's a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim:

"Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."

I suppose those of us who believe in the resurrection or Jehovah or in the teachings of Buddha, or Hinduism etc are all beyond the pale and not fit for employment by anyone?

I suppose agnostics should be allowed to work part-time?

[jamierobertson]

www.richarddawkins.net/foundation_articles/3846#

Dawkins graciously apologises for any misunderstanding, and clarifies his point in a thoughtful, sensible way. Er... sort of.