Now I had exactly zero interest in the Royal Wedding. I am quite happy for others

[Monty92]

Have you spent the two hours on it? If so what did you think? #tldr

Yeah.

I think it was about as good a debate as that kind of format will ever allow. That is, wholly inadequate and ultimately frustrating

[Burney]

Fry has always done that, to be fair. He's been railing against 'offensive culture' for years.

He does talk about the point you're making during this debate, though - in particular how he would be ostracised if he expressed certain opinions among his media luvvie counterparts.

Of course, the pastor's response was pretty much "Don't talk to me about oppression - you're a rich white man."

Yes. But he seems to have become a bit more active about it recently.

The pastor's response, of course, is a classically oppressive one and demonstrates the problem neatly, since it is explicitly designed to clamp down on free expression of contrary opinions by dint of race and socio-economic status. The blindness to this profound contradiction can only be wilful, which is what makes it so sinister.

[Burney]

Yeah.

I think it was about as good a debate as that kind of format will ever allow. That is, wholly inadequate and ultimately frustrating

But there is no debating anymore. We're dealing with dogma. You might as well put two rational atheists and two clerics on the stage and have them debate. At some point, the argument runs into the brick wall of unbending dogmatic belief in a monolithic idea that is not subject to rational critique for the simple reason that it is not rational.

[Monty92]

but I think the format is the main obstacle.

With a longer format and a good moderator, it would be possible to cut through the dogma and get to the nub of the matter.

One-to-one podcasts with no time limit are by far and away the best format for these things. Did you listen to Sam Harris vs Ezra Klein, by any chance?

But there is no debating anymore. We're dealing with dogma. You might as well put two rational atheists and two clerics on the stage and have them debate. At some point, the argument runs into the brick wall of unbending dogmatic belief in a monolithic idea that is not subject to rational critique for the simple reason that it is not rational.

[Burney]

but I think the format is the main obstacle.

With a longer format and a good moderator, it would be possible to cut through the dogma and get to the nub of the matter.

One-to-one podcasts with no time limit are by far and away the best format for these things. Did you listen to Sam Harris vs Ezra Klein, by any chance?

But the nub of the matter is that one side insists things that are empirically false are 'emotionally true' and the other refuses to accept those things. I've never heard an argument with those premises that ends in anything other than frustrated, furious deadlock.

[Monty92]

But the nub of the matter is that one side insists things that are empirically false are 'emotionally true' and the other refuses to accept those things. I've never heard an argument with those premises that ends in anything other than frustrated, furious deadlock.

Exactly. But with the right format, the credibility of these claims can be effectively interrogated and exposed. Someone who insists, for example, that there is no objective reality and the validity of the 'lived experience' should always be given primacy can easily coast through your average 2-hour debate in which the moderator's main job is to ensure the panel doesn't get stuck on specific points of disagreement and to keep things flowing...

But actually it is that final demand that ruins such debates.

Take the first podcast between Sam Harris and Peterson. They were intending to discuss many issues but from the very outset got stuck on their respective beliefs on the right definition of the word 'truth'. They ended up discussing this single point for three hours!!!

It was of course faintly ridiculous, but sometimes that's what you need...

[Burney]

Exactly. But with the right format, the credibility of these claims can be effectively interrogated and exposed. Someone who insists, for example, that there is no objective reality and the validity of the 'lived experience' should always be given primacy can easily coast through your average 2-hour debate in which the moderator's main job is to ensure the panel doesn't get stuck on specific points of disagreement and to keep things flowing...

But actually it is that final demand that ruins such debates.

Take the first podcast between Sam Harris and Peterson. They were intending to discuss many issues but from the very outset got stuck on their respective beliefs on the right definition of the word 'truth'. They ended up discussing this single point for three hours!!!

It was of course faintly ridiculous, but sometimes that's what you need...

Problem is that any dialogue now is retrospectively spun into something it never was to suit whatever agenda people want. Look at the Cathy Newman/Peterson thing. A rational conversation in which he examines ideas rationally and rightly refused to be tarred with ideas or opinions he's never held or espoused (leading to her receiving some legitimate ridicule) becomes 'Evil alt-right trolls attack female presenter'. Everything is now weaponised in order to suit an agenda and further polarise opinion. Debate and discussion therefore become redundant and nobody changes anybody's mind.

There's nothing else for it. We're just going to have to start shooting these people.

[WES]

Problem is that any dialogue now is retrospectively spun into something it never was to suit whatever agenda people want. Look at the Cathy Newman/Peterson thing. A rational conversation in which he examines ideas rationally and rightly refused to be tarred with ideas or opinions he's never held or espoused (leading to her receiving some legitimate ridicule) becomes 'Evil alt-right trolls attack female presenter'. Everything is now weaponised in order to suit an agenda and further polarise opinion. Debate and discussion therefore become redundant and nobody changes anybody's mind.

There's nothing else for it. We're just going to have to start shooting these people.

Ever seen that Mehdi Hassan chap debate Islam and its role in terrorism, or something similar?

It's mental. The audiences (British and non-British) seem to love him but when you examine his arguments he has only two. One, since 99.99% of Muslims don't blow themselves up any argument that ties terrorism to Islam is invalid and an example of racial bias and two, whataboutery.

My favourite was his response to someone who pointed out how barbaric it was that the Koran encourages beheading people under certain conditions. Mehdi replied and I paraphrase 'you are aware that our allies Saudi Arabia allow beheading'.

The British audience applauded him for that one.

[Burney]

Ever seen that Mehdi Hassan chap debate Islam and its role in terrorism, or something similar?

It's mental. The audiences (British and non-British) seem to love him but when you examine his arguments he has only two. One, since 99.99% of Muslims don't blow themselves up any argument that ties terrorism to Islam is invalid and an example of racial bias and two, whataboutery.

My favourite was his response to someone who pointed out how barbaric it was that the Koran encourages beheading people under certain conditions. Mehdi replied and I paraphrase 'you are aware that our allies Saudi Arabia allow beheading'.

The British audience applauded him for that one.

He is a revolting Islamist apologist and I'd have him shot, of course.

Mind you, in the unlikely event that Saudi ever becomes a liberal democracy, lefties would be completely fvcked for whataboutery.

[Monty92]

He is a revolting Islamist apologist and I'd have him shot, of course.

Mind you, in the unlikely event that Saudi ever becomes a liberal democracy, lefties would be completely fvcked for whataboutery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZAfYpdn468