brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think that's fair, rather a no true Scotsman.
Why? Just correcting what his position is. Wasn't using it as an argument against his positions in the video. I do agree with him on the safe spaces-thing in the first video (haven't watched the others).
brimstoneSalad wrote:He votes democrat, he believes in a progressive tax structure, he espouses liberal social values.
He's liberal on many issues, yes, but it would be cherry picking to therefore conclude he's a liberal. I don't think it's unreasonable to say he's a centrist when advocating liberals have impoverished moral sensibilities, and should therefore compromise with conservatists (who have a stronger sense of them). Maybe this was off topic, but because of the topic title and the amount of videos you posted, I thought it was about all of the man himself.
brimstoneSalad wrote:He seems pretty solidly blue. He said his research made him respect some conservative arguments more, but I don't think it made him so much a centrist.
What does 'respect' imply, if not at least thinking they are of importance. If it were merely more understanding (which he definitely should, doing the job he does), it wouldn't have changed his own position. I'm all for understanding, but it's about what you do with this understanding.
But don't take my word for it, watch the first video you linked, he himself is stating he's a centrist. He also states that the word 'liberal' has got another meaning in U.S. than what it traditionally meant (and Europe still holds by the way). I used the word 'liberal' in this discussion in the U.S. way (meaning 'left'), although I'm fully aware of the hijack and use 'liberal' in my own (European) country in the traditional way.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think he's saying they're morally better -- I don't think he's as much of a "relativist" as he thinks he is -- but that they may more accurately reflect where society is right now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u-ahvx3pkc (linked in the first post)
In this talk, it seems like he fundamentally agrees with the goals of the institution, and he's advocating some compromise and consideration of those values for the sake of efficacy, and saying they may have some place in terms of consequentialism as long as they're not overdone (he always seems to appeal to the harm or benefit of those values). In that sense, I think he's a rule consequentialist (he talks about virtue ethics, which is basically rule consequentialism when you justify the virtues and their comparative weights like that).
He's definitely not a real conservative, no, and not an unreasonable person either. I think he's just wrong on this point, which is a regressive position to hold. Just think about what it would imply: accepting more abortion restrictions, holding down on environmental regulations, is that really what we want?
He is still an regular utilitarian by the way. He's quite contradictory in that sense. On the one hand he argues that the liberals and utilitarians have bad moral taste by having such limited values, which he thinks originates from the enlightenment period, especially from the autistic (which without doubt had effect on his philosophy) philosopher Jeremy Bentham. But then to the question 'what should we do?', he concludes that he has no better alternative than utilitarianism (given that there is ethnic and cultural diversity in society and we have to have some common currency).
brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm not sure he's really concluding that, though: at least not in that way.
Not sure what you mean by 'that way', but if you think I wasn't nuanced: that's true. He also thinks conservatists should understand and compromise to liberals. But the point is, that he thinks liberals are the ones who really have work to do because of their moral insensitivities. I don't think it's unfair to focus on this aspect more, since he's mostly talking about this as well.
brimstoneSalad wrote:How do you think he's regressive? That didn't come across to me in his social and political views.
I think I've repeated it enough by now to get a understanding why I think he's position is regressive.
brimstoneSalad wrote:He wants more progressive tax structures and good social programs, from what I've seen (although he's only talked a little about his personal politics in what I watched).
I'm less interested in his personal political views as I am in his professional work, which have ethical and political implications.
brimstoneSalad wrote:He had some very choice words for objectivists and people who worship capitalism; he definitely doesn't want an unregulated market.
I think most right-wingers don't really want that either, but that's going off topic too much.
brimstoneSalad wrote:I think it's fair to use it in any way it fits, although this is my main concern.
If it were only used in places where it fits, I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problem I have with it is that it has become right from the start a rethorical tool that even conservatives now use to either legitimize actual right-wing policies, or to dismiss some legitimate types (also illegitimate sometimes, I'm not delusional about that) of left-wing viewpoints. I think Sam Harris is guilty of this (his fan base even more) as well. The original usage of Maajid Nawaz to describe people dismissing minority views within minorities was appropriate (although I haven't actually come across people from the left actually holding this believe).
brimstoneSalad wrote:Academics is heading in a very intellectually chilling direction. I went to school a bit too long ago to have really seen much of that, but looking at all of the censorship of speech, the trigger warnings, impositions on professors, safe spaces; it's not psychologically healthy or conducive to an environment that's supposed to challenge students. I typically learn more in debates with opposition than I do on my own (and I have probably spent more time reading things I disagree with than most, but reading only goes so far).
I think these are legitimate concerns to have (weird things going on in the U.S.). But to balance the view a bit since it's a popular one these days, I also think some popular YouTubers are going too far in their criticism by attacking social science at large and wanting universities to ban (read: censor) certain studies they don't like.
brimstoneSalad wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN42ZLwNFBY
Here's a pretty good interview following the book. He talks about how because he was writing the book for a liberal audience, he was too generous to conservatives and too hard on liberals, but he should have been harder on the conservative view of Karma too (how conservatives sometimes assume karma is true and that people who are suffering always did something to deserve it), and more even handed with his criticism and praise.
I hadn't yet seen his reflections on the book, thanks. It's good that he realizes this was valid criticism against his book. I still disagree with his normative ethical view, but it's great he's aware of this point.
brimstoneSalad wrote:The main message he seems to drive home is dialogue and understanding; that people need to be socially engaged too, so that on an emotional level they can't just reject each other's ideas as coming from bad or dishonest people. To stop the hard line partisanism and demonization of the other.
He seems to be saying he went from a liberal partisan to just being liberal, and non-partisan, although he's pretty vague about what his own views are. I think the key to his changing mindset was losing the partisan thought process and being more considerate of other views.
I'm all for constructive discussions and understanding. It's the compromising aspect I don't agree with (I believe he doesn't state this in this interview though). Middle ground isn't always (many of not most times not) the best option.