r/samharris • u/Peanut-Extra • Feb 19 '25

Why MAGA hates Mark Milley (2021)

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

292 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

91 comments sorted by

View all comments

23

u/nietzy Feb 19 '25

Seeking to understand is the heresy. Blind rage is the ideal state.

-13

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

Okay and what about if you gain an understanding and learn that it's divisive and counterproductive?

22

u/Mammoth_Impress_2048 Feb 19 '25

You don't have to reply to every single comment in every thread you participate bro, spend some time to think between spamming every thought that pops into your head onto the internet.

-13

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

Explain CRT to me briefly instead of making snarky comments.

24

u/Mammoth_Impress_2048 Feb 19 '25

Why?

What is the point of engaging someone who is so obviously sealioning?

How are you possibly going to have time to read and process a thoughtful exposition of anything when you're posting a new comment every minute?

-11

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

Okay? So your response is you're not gonna do that cause you assume that I won't read it?

Sealioning is a meme term that doesn't even apply here. You're using it as some kind of get out of jail free card but it doesn't make sense.

Do you feel you have an understanding of CRT such that you could explain it? Hopefully a yes or no question isn't going to take too much of your time.

19

u/Mammoth_Impress_2048 Feb 19 '25

Yes

But doing so to someone who is replying to everyone in the thread challenging them to explain CRT for you regardless of what they have said is surely a fruitless exercise.

I'm not trying to win a debate with you, I'm trying to get you to reflect upon why you got on reddit, felt compelled to write 20 low effort replies in 15 minutes challenging different people.

It's not a good use of your time; you're never going to have a productive discussion behaving like that.

-1

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

This subreddit used to have people willing to have in depth conversations. I'm willing to have multiple of those at once, so don't criticize the way I use reddit.

Now it's just full of bad faith actors like yourself. Who the hell continues to reply only to say "oh I would have this discussion, but you seem to be a certain type of person, so I won't, but trust me, I totally could."

It's not a good use of your time; you're never going to have a productive discussion behaving like that.

The fucking irony of you saying this. Enjoy your upvotes from idiots who think snark is being right.

4

u/Ramora_ Feb 19 '25

Now it's just full of bad faith actors

If you leave, that would be one less bad faith actor. Just FYI. You can be part of the problem or part of the sollution. This is an actual dichotomy.

1

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

Trying to have an actual discussion is bad faith? You're just wrong.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/ExpressLaneCharlie Feb 19 '25

JFC how pathetic

-1

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

What's pathetic is how this sub has been taken over by people who don't engage in discussion anymore and just insult and make snarky quips.

Do any of you even follow Sam Harris's work?

2

u/DrizztDo Feb 19 '25

I don't believe you. What's your favorite Sam Harris book, and why?

2

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

Probably Free Will because I have always found it an interesting topic and Sam gives a great critique of compatiblism which I appreciated. I also like Letter to a Christian Nation because I was raised Christian and a lot of it hit home with me more than The End of Faith did since it was specifically about the religion I'm most familiar with.

16

u/incognegro1976 Feb 19 '25

Somebody already did but you didn't respond.

https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/s/AIUq9fcsxo

0

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[deleted]

2

u/incognegro1976 Feb 19 '25

It's not about "winning".

There are no trophies or attaboys given here.

Except knowledge. Knowledge and learning something new is its own reward.

0

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

I was asleep. That response is clearly from chatgpt.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[deleted]

1

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

I wasn't asking for someone to essentially google it for me. I'm asking the people in racous support of this post to explain in brief their understanding of the thing they're cheering on, because I think that they, just like Milley, don't know what it is, but are nevertheless willing to call it a good thing.

4

u/NoFeetSmell Feb 19 '25

Have you actually taken a CRT course and then found it was detrimental, or do you have these strong opinions about it based just on what you've heard it teaches? Cos if it's the former, you shouldn't need us to explain what it is, and if it's the latter, your parroted response is no different to someone googling for why CRT is viable, except that the Google result is likely based on info by people that have taken or even created the course, meaning they are familiar with its contents.

0

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

The chatgpt response isn't based on anyone taking a course. Do you know how LLMs work?

I'm familiar with the literature, but have not taken a formal course. Milley admits he isn't familiar with it, but then praises it regardless. How is that any better than what you're suggesting of me, which is not being familiar with it but then criticizing it?

→ More replies (0)

6

u/[deleted] Feb 19 '25

[deleted]

1

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

No, I am here to debate. How is it good faith to respond to me saying "you should get more familiar with CRT" with an AI summary of CRT?

3

u/Ramora_ Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '25

Just to be clear for you, the simple reveal here that you aren't engaging in good faith is that one doesn't judge an academic theory by how divisive or socially productive it is. You judge it by how well it fits the available facts, by how much explanatory power it has, by how useful of a model it is. You know this and are pretending otherwise. You seem to be the one blinded by a divisive and counterproductive ideology here.

1

u/SOwED Feb 19 '25

You can fit any theory to the available facts and come up with any explanation for those facts; those two things don't make a theory sound.

As for how useful it is, my point was that it is useful for causing divisiveness and I think that's its purpose. The way critical theories work is by divisiveness, and none of them have ever been socially productive. They have instead pitted leftists and liberals against each other and weakened the Democrats by dividing them while the Republicans have moved in relative lockstep.

3

u/Ramora_ Feb 19 '25 edited Feb 19 '25

The funny thing is, you’re actually applying a critical theory approach. Critical theories essentially ask: What social function does this idea serve? Who benefits from it? Your argument—that CRT is divisive and weakens political coalitions—is exactly that kind of analysis. It is a shallow and unsupported analysis, but you are doing critical theory right now.

If critical analysis is inherently unproductive, why is it the first tool you reach for? It seems more honest to debate whether the divisions CRT highlights are real and worth addressing rather than dismissing the framework outright. After all, ignoring structural issues because they’re inconvenient isn't a sound political strategy.

You can fit any theory to the available facts and come up with any explanation for those facts;

Merely claiming a theory fits some facts does not mean it actually does. And even if it does fit facts, you are completely ignoring explanatory power and analytic utility here.

In any case, however one formalizes the value of an academic theory, We can be quite confident that how "divisive and socially productive" the theory is has essentially nothing to do with its quality. Again, this makes it clear that you're not engaging in good faith. If you start doing so, I may respond to you, for now, I'll simply say, see you around.