Originally Posted by rhaikh

Shame on you for falling back on straw men when you run out of good points, and shame on me for using euphemisms. Gravity is not alt-right ideology, racism is. Racial priming works on people who have already learned to be racist.


You have no moral standing to shame anyone, as this would imply that you could have a moral high ground on this issue. I don't see how this would ever be possible after you attempted guilt-by-association.

I am also not clear how to take your response on Harris. Are you conceding that accusations of racism against him are baseless, or are you doubling-down on calling him alt-right because his atheism includes opposition to Islam? Please clarify.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
He found purchase (multiple meanings implied) with controversy. It's not relevant to this topic his ideas on atheism, what's relevant is that he has become literally a peddler of controversy, and that is the reason he is giving platform to scientific racism. And herein is the intersection with the central point of this topic: Weinstein appearing on Fox is him following the same formula.


So you are doubling-down.

Restating your argument for clarity:

P1. Harris general views on atheism are not relevant to his critiques of Islam
P2. Harris critique of Islam is controversial
P3. Alt-right criticizes Islam for racist reasons
P4. Alt-right is also controversial
---
C1 Therefore, Harris criticizes Islam for racists reasons
C2 Therefore, Harris is an alt-right

or

P1. Apples are round and small
P2. Baseballs are round and small
P3. Baseballs are sport implements
---
C1 Therefore, apples are sport implements

I don't think I even need to enumerate logical flaws in this, as it is plainly obvious that such argument is deeply flawed.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I personally disagree with multiple facets of your assessment, but again, a) where's Gerard Alexander's evidence? and b) where's the formal refutation you are presenting?


One valid, but weak, argument that fair.org has made is that polarization of conservative voters due to actions of Left have not been thoroughly researched. Everything else they say, including attempting to misinterpret a working paper to claim it as evidence to contrary, is bunk.

Originally Posted by rhaikh
I think it's fair to leave criticism of academic work to academia.


I disagree. When academic work is core of your argument it behooves one to understand it. At the very least one must not misstate or overstate findings. It is also helpful to be familiar with statistics and research methods to spot flaws.


[Linked Image]