On Disappointing My Audience (Episode
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- In this episode, Sam discusses some of the topics he has and hasn't covered, to the disappointment of many Making Sense listeners.
Released: January 10, 2022
SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/...
Subscribe to the YT channel: www.youtube.com...
Follow Making Sense on Twitter: / makingsensehq
Follow Sam on Facebook: / samharrisorg
Follow Sam on Instagram: / samharrisorg
For more information about Sam Harris: www.samharris.org
You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become Ben Affleck
Theres alot of best comments here but this is my favourite
Free thinker Sam Harris is in a dark dungeon since 2016, Ham Sarris, his evil twitter twin took his place.
😂😂😂😂😂
🏁
You either die a token 'genius' for a bunch of maladjusted weirdos, or live long enough to realise that they make up the bulk of your audience and you're totally fucked.
The main problem I see even in the first ten minutes is that Sam seems to be arguing “if the crisis is big enough, free speech and conversation become harmful.” This is the same argument used against Sam for years, the argument that racism, white supremacy and Islamophobia are such real and present dangers that conversation about them is harmful. Sam doesn’t seem to disagree on a moral level, he just has a slightly different gauge for level of danger.
Also Sam, I think you are wrong to lump all people who are worried about vaccine policy as Trump-aligned anti-vaccers… many of us were happy to see Trump go and received the vaccine ourselves, and are still concerned about authoritarianism in mandates and the suppression of concerns about potential negative side effects, especially in children.
A better way of looking at it (I think, and I'm not sure to what degree I agree) might be 'if the subject is (complicated + large real life outcomes) enough, free speech and conversation *that is imprecise, misinformed or needlessly pandering or polarizing* can make the situation worse and itself cause harm.'
Harris' view seems to be that the only utility in having some conversations is hypothetical, whereas in order to have conversations about those topics (race, for instance) one has to grant the legitimacy or existence of certain fictional, prejudicial or objectively incorrect ideas (race, for instance).
Sure, you should be totally free to talk about whether or not the lochness monster is real, but what if that conversation began to actively influence voting/research/social health/cultural cohesion, and some people only half listening drown themselves in Loch Ness - if you believe, with decent reasoning, that the *mere discussion* of an idea (that you believe, with decent reasoning, is objectively false) will directly correlate with real people really dying (and you believe, with decent reasoning and robust evidence you can cite, is objectively true) would you not question whether or not an idea is *worth* talking about? You know, the whole heat/light thing? Both things are vital, but too much of either - or both - can really fuck you up.
@@iamjurell what I despise in all of this, based off your point, is that responsibility then falls on the interlocutors having to decide if a conversation is worth it based off the reactions that other people have to it. In other words, why aren't the people responsible for each their own actions thereafter?
If I talk about jumping off a bridge, and then someone does it, when did the responsibility of their decision of actually taking the jump leap from their shoulders to mine? Where do we draw that line?
One could say if I directly ordered it or called for it, or coerced them, sure. But if someone read this comment who was thinking about committing that act, even though I merely bring up the hypothetical idea of it as an example of my point, eventually commits that act, I think it's grossly irresponsible to set a precedent of blame on to me, instead of onto the listener who made up their own mind.
Because eventually, we run out of things we can talk about, lest some negative consequence *can* occur. Or, we have "sanctioned" topics, and then free speech dies in the darkness of exculpating the irresponsible.
Thoughts?
You clearly only listened for 10 minutes.
@@loffel1700
'In other words, why aren't the people responsible for each their own actions thereafter?'
Indeed - however, in this case it doesn't seem as if Harris is letting them off with no responsibility for their actions so much as focusing on a known quantity rather than a hypothetical anonymous stranger.
'If I talk about jumping off a bridge, and then someone does it, when did the responsibility of their decision of actually taking the jump leap from their shoulders to mine? Where do we draw that line?'
If you talk about jumping off a bridge and some nutter mindlessly does it just from hearing the words, no worries. Sure.
I suppose the quandary comes in if you were to make a regular feature of talking about a highly politicized global event involving the jumping off of bridges, where there was a direct correlation between your statements about the *best way* to jump off a bridge that *the bad guys* don't want you to know about and people inappropriately jumping off bridges - you could be completely correct in your assessment of bridge jumping and it could be entirely a misapprehension of behalf of the bridge jumpers, but would you not start to at least consider the cost of winning the argument?
I'm a free speech absolutist but that doesn't mean I think speech comes at no cost. Yes, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, but I don't say that in the creepy, 'yeah, say what you like but it would be a shame if there were.....consequences...' type way that pussy authoritarians use it, I mean that, like all things in the material universe, words have an outcome....I mean, otherwise what would be the point in speaking in the first place?
'Or, we have "sanctioned" topics, and then free speech dies in the darkness of exculpating the irresponsible.'
Indeed, but it doesn't appear that Harris is insisting on any kind of top-down resolution of this problem so much as making a moral judgement, which he seems to be enforcing mostly upon himself.
I guess *my* overall position is: Harris is correct that low-resolution, large-audience 'discussion' (it's not a discussion, but obviously the meta game is a whole other thing) does more real-world harm than it generates even conceptual good and that we're dealing with a crisis that is in the realm of the *meta individual* However, given that it *is* being discussed, regardless of rigour or rectitude, it seems like a worse option to abstain from arguing the *correct* point - but then it easily becomes a matter of rhetoric all the same, so it's tough to see a real way around it.
@@gabriellevitale4670 Or listened to all of it and aggregated.
This is a good example of the question at hand though: what is the value of succeeding in making this point?
The scary part about vaccines are the mandates. There is a difference between taking a drug for cholesterol because a doctor recommended it vs. being mandated to take an injection by the government; in some countries it’s being forcefully enforced.
Vaccines have always been different in this regard, because it concerns contagious diseases, so you are not only affecting your own health.
@@kedrednael the current science suggest the vaccines do not stop transmission but slightly improve outcomes. You can’t believe that the vaccines stop transmission, and also be afraid of getting it from an unvaccinated person (if you are vaccinated) without contradicting yourself. This is much more about money and compliance than public health.
@@Kman-jm9no it's about numbers. Saying you can still catch and spread it even if you are vaxxed, is just as dishonest as pretending the fact that I can catch and throw a ball, and Nolan ryan can catch and throw a ball, makes me equivalent to a MLB pitcher.
@@logikylearguments6852 that was not a useful or accurate analogy.
@@Kman-jm9no it's completely analogous. A major league baseball player is going to produce more strikes, and less hits than any average joe.
A vaccinated person is going to have more resistance to catching it, and if they do, they are going to have a smaller viral load, and a shorter period where they can spread. This was especially true for the entire year before omicron, but it is still true even today.
Sam saying January 6th was the most shocking thing to happen in over 200 years in this country... we’ve had a civil war.
And 9/11! I don't know how in the fuck Jan 6th was more shocking than that...
And 9/11 Pearl Harbor etc
Bizarre. Couple of meat heads walked into the place, took some photos and had a little party. Not the finest moment but the most shocking thing in 200 years? C’mon, Sammy. That’s way off
It was bad, but you could think of 5 things off the bat that were worse!
I try really hard to listen to Sam, even though I disagree with him on many things. But comments like this - in his own podcast, rather than in an interview when he would be speaking extemporaneously - really erode his credibility with me.
I would give my left ear 👂 to bring back Christipher Hitchens right now to get his pov on everything going on.
So many times I've wondered what Hitchens would say about this or that. Then again, imagine if he turned out to be a BLM loving Biden apologist totalitarian vax yahtzee...that would be 10 times more disappointing than Sam's embarrassing fall from grace.
@@robk5427 If Hitch believed those things, how do you know his justifications for them would be bad? Maybe he would have good reasons to believe in those things.
@@bill7282 Unless you're an ostrich, the verdict is pretty much in on BLM, Biden, totalitarianism and vax yahtzees.
@@robk5427 I dont know what a vax yahtzee is, but I would agree that BLM is a disgraceful organization, Biden has cognitive issues and is unfit to be president, and that totalitarianism is bad.
The confusing part for me is that you seemed to levy those criticism against Harris in your first comment.
Sam has been a pretty consistent critic of BLM. Also, unless he praises Biden in this video, the extent to which I've seen Harris defend Biden is to say that he is favorable to Trump.
Is that what qualifies as an BLM loving Biden apologist vax yahtzee?
He’d have to be unpersoned like Alex Jones.
Would Hitch have refused to debate with people holding opposing, "dangerous " viewpoints?
If he didn't feel like he could win the debate, at least in the minds of the lowest common denominator, yeah probably.
@@tayzk5929 I think Hitch had enough intellectual honesty, at least on most topics, to admit that if he couldn't win a debate, he would need to reexamine his views. The same can't be said for Harris.
@@tayzk5929 lol ok, so pure thrasymachus, which sam just said he wasn't doing but actually is...Sam said he never lies...hmm
I think losing Hitch was bad for Sam. I didn't realize it back then, but Hitch's energy carried that whole movement, and Sam's many many debates during that time were part if that whole phenomenon.
No.
I think he would simply use those views as an example to argue from, not avoid.
He ran towards opposition in his debates.
What Sam is missing is that these arguments are exactly the kind of arguments people use to attack him for hosting thinkers like Charles Murray. "Having that conversation in the current climate is irresponsible." Disappointing argument. Oh well.
Free speech for me but not for him.
That’s an awful comparison.
Those who are against Murray, just call him racist with low quality of evidence and say that he should never speak.
Sam says that anti-vaxxers are conspiracy theorists and we should not entertain these fools IN THE MIDDLE OF A DEADLY PANDEMIC.
@@lSomeRandomGuyl Granted for many of those people it is true, they simply read that he is a racist and spout that line. But if you speak to more nuanced critiques of Sam having him on the show, including arguments more iron-man counter arguments constructed by Sam himself on his programs where he discusses Murray's appearance, the better argument, which I would still consider dangerous "There may be something to discover in what Murray is investigating, perhaps even in some future world it might be helpful for understanding how to better support certain communities, but in modern day America, still so steeped in institutionalised racism, to bring up this as a topic of conversation can only do more harm than good".
So yes, while you're correct that many people who attack Murray aren't that thoughtful, I have heard, and it is a perfectly tenable argument on its face, that the issue is not the facts, but the context in which they are brought up that is problematic about Murray's work.
If you give way to the idea that in certain contexts you shouldn't have certain conversations, you've really left the barn door open and will find it very hard to close it without simply engaging in special pleading.
@@lSomeRandomGuyl Agree.
@@djknox2 Your statement regarding merit v. standing characterizing the various court decisions is inaccurate, but, to give you the benefit of the doubt, we're still waiting for any 'merit' to Trump's claims of election fraud.
Paraphrasing: "My audience can't handle too many divergent opinions, so I'm taking it upon myself to control the scope of information they consider."
Bruh, you once debated Deepak Chopra.
Thats why he's qualified to make this call. The Deepak Chopra discussion had no time-critical component to it nor did it have any pressing urgency.
@@Thisisahandle701
That's completely untrue. It was extremely pressing and urgent, and Sam was constantly reiterating the urgency. His entire spiel, from the moment he stepped into the limelight, was that humanity needed to abandon the kinds of religious foolishness he spent so much time debunking, and as quickly as possible, because it was a threat to the very survival of our species.
He wasn't debating those religious zealots for academic fun... It was literally sold as a matter of survival for civilization.
"The possibility that we could elect a U.S. President who takes biblical prophesy seriously is real and terrifying; the likelihood that we will one day confront Islamists armed with nuclear or biological weapons is also terrifying, and growing more probable by the day. We are doing very little, at the level of our intellectual discourse, to prevent such possibilities." - Sam Harris, January 2, 2006
---- Suuuuch as, debating Deepak Chopra?
@@sharpenedge There's a deadline like: "my thesis is due in 2 months I really need to kick my self into gear and get to writing it". And there's a dealine like "if I dont throw my wallet at this mugger in 4 seconds I'm going to get blasted in the face with a .38". We're talking about society's response to a pandemic, vs society's musings with quackery. Two very different types of immediate urgency.
@@Thisisahandle701 I think you're privileging the crisis being experienced today over the one(s) experienced yesterday. That's recency bias.
Those "musings with quackery" could rear their ugly heads again tomorrow and precipitate civilization's unraveling (religiously motivated nuclear or biological weapons come to mind) - In that scenario, observing aliens could say, "While they were obsessed with a disease, religion ultimately bit in them in the ass."
They're both crises. They both require more debate.
21:52 Proclaiming those speaking out against the vaccine as anti-vax is a straw-man. They have a problem with the Covid vaccine not with vaccines in general. The vast majority of Americans have been vaccinated with a plethora of other vaccines.
…yes…but the majority of Americans have had the COVID vaccine.
Yep. I’m vaccinated but totally disagree with Sam.
If I am only a racist against Asians am I not a racist?
There is no problem with the covid vaccine
I am old enough to remember when all of the most vocal pro-coerced-vac people today said that they would not trust a vaccine developed under the orange man.
there are things we don’t know - such as are the vaccines safe for children…is that irresponsible to discuss?
Discuss? No. If we have evidence that needs to be a part of the discussion that matters though. When people simply don't believe evidence then they aren't worth talking to and shouldn't be left with an opinion.
Opinions on testable things need to be part of reality
@@keithboynton sorry, but no longterm safety data is available. However, there’s plenty of data about adverse events for young males
@@keithboynton lol! the arbiters of truth (who incidentally have been lying and been wrong about everything thus far) have spoken about the safety and effectiveness, and you are irresponsible efor criticising our god.
Of course it’s worth it. Problem is 99%of ppl isn’t expert nor having any knowledge of medication. Yet, people prefer to trust their friends retweet then government public information.
Lets trust the data supplied by the companies that are just settling for billions of dollars after their involvement in the opiod crisis, that seems rational.
To suggest that there are times in history when censorship is ok is ridiculous.
If someone has a 'dangerous idea'... Don't censor it. Just counter it with a better argument. If you cannot, perhaps it is you who has the terrible idea.
Censoring somebody, and not allowing ones platform to echo bad ideas are not the same. If you have a nutcase idea, sure, feel free to scream it at people in the streets, but nobody else should be forced to allow you to use their media as a loudspeaker to people susceptible to bad ideas.
It doesn't matter how well and thorough you counter those bad ideas with facts, if dumb people hear them enough times, they believe there's validity to the claims.
How do you counter made up facts in a live conversation?
@@Studeb time and again, ' ideas that are not allowed to be echoed because they're so nutty' end up being correct or reasonable.
1) lab leak
2) incidental covid hospitalizations and deaths inflating the true count
... I actually can't think of other examples...
@@Studeb Robert Malone argues in good faith. He basically invented mRNA technology. If he is wrong, censoring him will not convince anyone that he is wrong.
Robust open debate is the only way.
Private companies can host whoever they want. What is so hard about this to understand?
I'm sorry Sam but you lost me when you said you wouldn't talk to Brett Weinstein now because now is the time to talk. That's a real cop out. Also, I'm triple vaccinated but I don't believe in vax mandates and apparently the Supreme Court doesn't either.
But bro he could say things
To be clear, they ruled a vax mandate through businesses would have to be passed through Congress, NOT that it was specifically unconstitutional
Can something be immoral yet justified? Clearly a vaccination mandate violates the principle of bodily autonomy which is literally the first ethical principle you are exposed to in medical school, but if you imagine that there was a virus that was extremely lethal, perhaps 30% will do, then it would start to become a really difficult problem. I hate to use one of Sam's more lampooned arguments but if in that case a mandate wasn't ethical, I'm not sure what the word even means.
@@mrbouncelol but in that case no one needed to be coerced because the danger of the virus would be chrystal clear...
@@philippeichert exactly
I hear The View is hiring, I think it would be the perfect fit for you Sam now that you're starting to sound just like Joy Behar.
Sam is slowly turning into Ben Affleck.
But not as likable, and that's saying something
😂
burn
woah - that cuts deep
There's a lot to unpack there.
I remember Sam’s impassioned defence of having difficult conversations when it came to Charles Murray.
Yes, data is difficult.
hes become what he despised
@@theamazingbrokenman yeah, kind of like how it did din india and japan... and how the rhetoric of "this will end when you take our fake vac that doesnt protect you in any way that a vac by any previous definition is supposed to" didnt end th epandemic in 100% vac places like new york and gibraltar?
Spot on my friend!
@Savior Money lmao
I remember when Sam said "any criticism of Islam gets conflated with bigotry" - I remember thinking that was such a sophisticated and midly "dangerous" point to make. Now he doesn't see that's he's doing the EXACT same thing w the Vax. He truly can't have a nuanced conversation about the vaccine, in the same way that Ben Affleck couldn't hear him out a out Islam
the guy yis so dense to be so completely blind to it... like banging your head against a wall
THIS. Thank you.
You get a +1
Same happens to people being pro vax. Don't act like it's only one camp doing this.
@@junimeme5626 fair assessment
Basically Sam has turned into Don Lemon
For real!
Scary
lol
Without the sexual assault.
The quality of these critiques makes me feel good about losing you guys from future discussions
Sam basically said I don’t want to debate them because they are “too wrong” in their ideas which will cause more harm. Ironically leftists used this argument against Sam too.
Yes, but he wants us all to come together and heal the country! Lol.
Come together to save free speech by denying free speech. So logic
@@micley2440 I love how ppl try to questions sams logic but we all know those same ppl, if given a chance to debate sam would get wrecked in like 3 seconds haha
@@J1mb0Y88 Smart people have stupid ideas... don't worship this guy. You can only get wrecked if his ideas are based on his intelligence---- in this case, he's using his intelligence to try to rationalize his leftist views, and they don't hold water to scrutiny. I dont need 160 IQ to poke lots of holes in everything he just said
@@jmilber You see, the problem is that you're "culture war-ifying" - Sam has an opinion you don't like, and you- like so many here- immediately label him as a leftist to discredit him, when really he's barely a leftist and his hesitancy to debate this particular subject has nothing to with being left or right
Reminds me of when my older brother used to "sneeze" and knock all the chess pieces to the floor when he was losing, and then declare that he had won because he was winning when the sneeze happened, then march off shouting that he didn't have time to argue with losers.
It's a very childish tactic that, unfortunately, works rather effectively as an adult.
That's the level that Sam has brought himself down to with his blind and flagrant TDS. Isn't it a great thing we have Brandon and his fine upstanding son, Hunter, eh? They'll set things right won't they?
Except it's not at all like that, that was a terrible example, and it must have sucked for you to lived under your big brother's mighty shadow to let him push you around like that. I can tell you are still not over it.
@@raidermaxx2324 found another big brother whose only way to feel powerful is to bully his younger brother. You completely misunderstood his post and projected a strange emotional layer on top.
@@JackBirdbath no. i didnt really. I just straightened him out, AND exposed him to the reality of the situation, that anyone who disagrees with what Sam Harris is doing, is dealing with. You are all being held hostage, and bullied by liars, grifters and spreaders of misinformation who are doing that to keep their pockets fat, and they dont care if you feel bad or even die. But keep up my dude.
Dude you personally pestered Jack Dorsey to have Alex Jones permanently banned from Twitter? That's... that is a little redic to my mind... You wouldn't think ToS violations would warrant a literal celebrity asking Jack Dorsey himself to revoke the guy's social media presence. Dang I didn't even know I was disappointed til I heard that bit.
Everything is a power play, mate. Friend/enemy distinction.
It demonstrates that these aren't private companies. These are tools for suppressing speech.
This broadcast brought to you by pFizer
Quick everybody, get your stones and shun the heretic! Doesn't sound like any sort of religious fundamentalism at all...
@@keithboynton Because their decisions are uniform, and what speech is promoted defines the perimeters of discourse, most often. Basically how a society can think. Being a private company only appeals to naive principles on how the world works. Not how it actually does.
18:10 Sam if we are being at all honest we must first acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of those publicly speaking out against covid vaccines are not against the vaccine in general but against them being mandated to be taken. If the vaccines are mandated to be taken then we must acknowledge the potential externalities. If they are to be mandated then we must divulge the safety data for public scrutiny.
In Portland we call people who think like this white supremacists
They purposely conflate this.
We already mandate vaccines in many aspects of public life, and have nearly since vaccines were invented. Anyone who went to public school or public universities had to have them (unless exempted for medical or religious reasons). Same for international travel and temporary residence visas (for ex, tropical destinations).
Should we seriously revisit vaccinations for schoolchildren? Is that a worthwhile conversation to have? Are both sides on equal footing in empirical reality? I agree with Sam, it's a waste of time, and no, theyre not on equal footings.
@@samwise1790 this argument is flawed. The difference here is that children die at an exceptionally low rate from Covid (much lower than the rate of myocarditis) from the vaccine. What benefit would you garner from force vaccinating children who will likely exhibit mild symptoms? Also, those vaccines have solid long term data. This vaccine is less than 2 years old. What you are doing is trying to straw man my argument by conflating an argument against a vaccine mandate for a specific vaccine in a specific context with an argument against all vaccines for children.
@duckraul this is blatantly untrue. Children do not exhibit high rates of myocarditis from Covid. I don’t mind debating with you but we have to be honest about the facts.
"The events of Jan 6th really are the most shocking thing to have happened in the last 200 years, in the united states" - Really? 9/11, Pearl Harbor, The Civil War...
He said shocking for fuck's shake. also when you speak for 40 minutes straight about a bunch of hard topics you might be hyperbolic about a thing or two.
But he is right. We have autonomous cars and the president of the most free, most advanced civilized country in the world incited his followers to go inside the capitol.
He also ordered the counting of votes to stop while he was ahead, spread lies about election fraud, refused to concede among other things. All of these are associated with Jan 6.
If that's not shocking to you I don't know what is.
@@xLightcrystalx Sam is the biggest idiot in the last 200 years. Sorry i was beign a little hyperbolic.
@DCheetham What's shocking about enemies attacking each other?
@@keithboynton No.i'm right, just a little hyperbolic. But Sam is trully the biggest fool of the last 200 years.
Civil War, yes. All the others were hardly democracy-risking.
Man, I used to think so much more of Sam.
Me three
Same... Now he's just a babbling tool 🤤
What bothers me most is his "this is so much a fact, you cannot debate it". He treats some topics like that. If he had lived a few hundred years ago he would then be one of the "The earth is flat" crowd. After all all the scientists and all the judges settled that. I mean he went on previously about the argument of authority and he said JUDGES RULED AGAINST TRUMP so it is so untrue that the vote was rigged that he does not even bother.
For a thousand years the earth has been flat. Why should I invite someone that OBVIOUSLY is wrong.
He's a scared human being, like everyone else. Too afraid to cover topics that would cause backlash.
That is your problem, for a lot of people, the shallowness of Harris it was clear from the beginning.
2012 Sam Harris - speaks at the "Festival of Dangerous Ideas"
2022 Sam Harris - won't speak to someone he views as having "dangerous ideas"
This.
If we had tons of hate crimes being committed against Muslims the same thing would apply to Sam discussing the problems with Islamic ideology. To say that you always should act the same way is actually dogma
@@sandcastledx How would anti-Muslim hate crimes affect a person’s ability or willingness to criticize a religion? What a strange thing to say!
@@haircutdeluxe...are you serious? You think it would be responsible on a public platform to be criticizing what most people will perceive as a group of people during some sort of violent uprising?
How can you not see what would be wrong with that?
@@haircutdeluxe the same thing would be true of openly criticizing the Jewish religion during Hitler's reign. Even if your intentions are pure it is a highly irresponsible thing to do given what people are going to take away from what you're saying
"a 1/3rd of our population are antivaxxer" Equating an antivaxxer to an academic and other educated people is wrong. There are legitimate concerns regarding corporate and government overreach and the vaccines lack of science and disinformation.
Not legimate concerns, Its retardation.
“Lack of science and disinformation” - the line used by right wingers against actual scientists.
Yes
@@RealFuckingReviews that helps haha. Sigh
@@dougg1075 re-tar-da-tion.
Old Sam Harris “all we have are conversations so good ideas can fight bad ideas” New Sam Harris “Some conversations clearly aren’t worth having”… wow, this is disappointing to say the least. Just dismissed one whole side of the conversation as it isn’t worth your time.
Yes because as he states in his video, some sides are worth being summarily dismissed.
I think he is creating something beyond the podcast. The echocast, where every guest is just another version of Sam.
@@chiznowtch That's a cop out.
@@chiznowtch I understand he said that in his video, yes but that statement is very dismissive. He could have just as easily said the same thing on the topic of religion that he is so far to one side and the other view is so far to the other that a conversation isn’t worth having. But he didn’t do that, he debated his views on religion with opposing views, to his credit. I just find it disappointing on this subject he has dismissed the other view entirely. That being said, I do respect his views on many other subjects. It just seems to me that he shouldn’t comment on politics with his viewpoint if all he is going to do is say the other side is wrong and that it isn’t worth debating… okay then don’t bring it up?!
It's the height of arrogance and completely unscientific
Intellectual honesty is the highest value until there is an element of confusion or fear? That’s exactly when it’s needed
Yeah all those statistics of red counties having lower rates of vaccination and soaring mortality rates are so intellectually dishonest lol.
@@hughsmith5151 sOarIngG
@@Rotoeye lol i hope yall never stop believing this shit its so funny to watch yall kill urselves to own the libs
@@hughsmith5151 I was going to highlight the irony of your intellectual dishonesty, but it appears it's really just ignorance.
Sam would not be confused or have fear(A). The audiences will(B). And that is the case that Sam tries not to let happen. The two cases are different but you pretend like (A) is (B). And you argue that “Sam rejects the conversations because of (B), but (A) is okay, so he cannot reject the conversations”.
Sam is open. The audiences get confused.
And even if you meant that the audiences should be confused(skeptical about their pre-existed beliefs):
If a talk happens, audiences are not merely turning their opinions to neutral. They get misled.
as Sam said, A guest who tries to stick to what he thinks can produce and provide any imaginary “evidence” and refusing them one by one is IMPOSSIBLE in time. But if him refusing to counter the bullshit “evidence” makes people believe that he is trapped in self-confirmation bias and the evidences are considerable, it would mislead the people. And the people who are exposed to the nonsense but superficially seeming legitimate arguments will be increased.
Please, people, think.
Sam is obsessed with his own opinions. I can't remember a time where I've heard him retract a statement or idea that he eventually realized was problematic or incorrect. It shows that he is either overwhelmingly arrogant or obstinate, because the bottom line is that we all miss the mark from time to time.
Yet, not wrong here...
He's "overwhelmingly arrogant", and I'd add "unbearably smug" too.
He realised that the IDW was wrong and left it about a year ago, he saw his mistake and changed. Does that not count because it doesnt support your narrative?
@@jimmybeaton4438 "mistake" ... he gave up being a torch in the dark. Next he'll be converting to Islam.
@God_speed Jensen S*, if this is what mushrooms does to you, keep them the f* away from me.
This logic of not debating something because you're worried about the consequences of too many people coming to the wrong conclusion.........can be applied to almost anything.
If you're going to use this argument you need to explain why these 2 issues are different than everything else. Sam's only reason seems to be "well they are to me".
He has explained why. He wouldn't debate because the effort and time it takes to debunk such outrageous claims to people with such short attention spans is a lose-lose situation. Believe it or not things aren't as simple as "just debate and everything will work out" there's a lot more nuance to discussions like this that most regular people don't really see.
@@joshmccrillis9950 he has attempted to debunk claims that have actually been outrageous though. How about the countless debates on the existence of god?
I wholly agree with that logic.
Conversations with disagreement is the preferable method in scientific debate, removing the decision to disagree by force wouldn't be.
We must resist the urge to paint skeptics in a group, as those disagreed threads of conversation are complicated.
Sam hasn't debunked the visual spatial quality of the Word, as its Wholly measurable.
Presentation of spatial quality.
Sacrifice the Deity argument and erase the magical implication by forgiving our ancestors.
The Words Whole relationship:
G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth.
O is a Whole.
D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth.
(Drawn in Earth to observe its objective shape relationship.)
As we add a Whole relationship to the Words middle way we see GOOD expanded from its Whole contracted image.
As we draw the Words first and last into its middle way to measure a Whole halved once squared twice to the right for its:
Time 12-3-6
Time, times 12x-3-6
Time, times and half a time 1/2x-3-6
Additional elements from the table:
12 Magnesium
3 Lithium
6 Carbon
1 Hydrogen
One clock wise cycle out of many observed and measured from drawing the Words Whole relationship.
Drawn together so we have something to agree with when we gather together in our image, as many into one Whole.
The long and short of this video is " i have transitioned from being a public intellectual into being an ideolog because of my prejudices and feelings"
Nailed it. Right on the money, it’s hard to imagine this could’ve happened to specifically this man.
I disagree. Would you mind explaining how you took this away from the conversation? Is Covid misinformation a “liberal” concern? I thought it affected everyone?
@@randoH3000 the worst part is the hypocrisy...
@@angmaugeri you didn't answer his response. How did anybody who actually listened to the conversation take away his compromises? He literally said he won't entertain of platform misinformation and he talked about the threats Trump poses to democracy. He was very clear in his conversation.
@@TheeSeniorJr the fuck are you on about?
people who disaagree with sam are stilling willing to listen to him and engage with him in any way we know how to. that should say something about your audience.
who said that? it was Eugene, Foo... ok Mr T
I gave up on Sam a while back even though I still admire some aspects of him. I just put this on because of the title and to fall asleep to his calm voice. Boy was that a mistake. Listening to him betray everything I thought he stood for has wound me up and now I can't sleep. I see that even the best of us are hopelessly vulnerable to tribalism blinding our perceptions. I'm left wondering if Sam was just being tribal the whole time.
When I think back all of Sam's views just seem to coincidentally aligned with his tribal loyalties. Sigh.
"On Disappointing My Audience Squared"
@@rawnukles tribalism eh? So because he doesn’t feel that debating someone right now is the right time he is automatically aligned with some sort of sect of a worldview you disagree with? You completely missed the point of what he’s saying and why he titled the video “On disappointing my audience”.
I don't feel like debating you right now.
@@rawnukles yes!!!!! I go through this with certain people and sometimes I have to cool down to reassess my feelings, motivations, arguments, intellectual consistencies. Imagine him who is a public figure!
Who cares if you have a live debate/discussion with Brett. The least you could do is talk to him privately rather than have guests on who'll attack him without any opportunity to defend himself.
Anti-vaxxers, are they even people?
Sam Harris.
If the probability is so low of the other sides argument being correct, then someone like Sam Harris should easily be able to debate them. Am I wrong?
Why waste time debating quacks and grifters?
@@shanecondon369 Because the problem is that many people believe the quacks and grifters, and those believers never hear good counter-arguments. They are just called idiots, not worthy of any attention, which makes them dislike 'the other side' even more.
But it is hard to have a debate between two people without aids, when one side is just wrong. It'd be best if evidence could be presented on screen, or a summary of the arguments given and their retorts. That is not happening in this podcast format.
If you run out all the empirical evidence and we'll reasoned and factually supported arguments and the other side just trots out innuendo, falsities, misinterpreted data, and outright 'well what if it's just a giant conspiracy?' and other untestable positions, what is there to debate? It's exhausting, the facts and arguments have been had ad nauseum. Is one more podcast or TV debate going to be the one that finally does it? No. People who hold these contrary and almost baseless positions do so out of ideology and personal belief/biases to justify their aggrievement and world view, for any number of reasons, legitimate or otherwise.
@@shanecondon369 didn’t he spend the better part of his early career debating fundamentalist religious scholars and creationists? The public by and large are generally receptive to a well reasoned argument.
@@kedrednael I spent decent time over the course of *years* trying to point out the issues with the arguments of physics crackpots to their supporters. I made zero progress. The reason people say it is a waste of time is because it really often is. The beauty of the grifters is that they know _just_ enough to make their arguments pretty much impossible to counter by people who haven't studied the subject. Exactly the same happened after the election in 2020, where the same type of grifters used carefully crafted, but flawed, statistical arguments to claim there was obvious interference in a way that would be impossible for the average person to see the issues with. People in these circles love to believe they're on to something that the rest of the world isn't, and in the process massively overestimate their ability in the very subject that would allow them to see how stupid it is.
No they do need to be debated. Twitter Facebook and UA-cam that’s all we have. They should be public institutions. Freedom of Speech is at stake when anyone is banned from them. It’s frustrating to hear Sam talk about their privacy rights as if they weren’t an oligopoly. He should at least make this caveat.
What do you have to say that is so important?
@Yohan D. They have and maintain a stranglehold on public discourse. Look what happened with Parler. Compare Google search returns to duck duck go. If a private company builds a road or say, makes wedding cakes, do they really get to choose the demographic that benefits from their services?
@Despize Perform There is plenty of evidence to suggest that political alignment may very well be a hardware issue for instance high openness being a trait heavily represented on the left. This is a can of worms though if the argument is based on traits we're supposedly born with. Does the rubric become, discrimination is okay if you deem the person able to change if they could?
@Yohan D. They're not purely private as the infrastructure goes through governmental bodies as its a distributed network. It's an interesting debate though. I would argue that once an institution becomes so ubiquitous that to *not* use it would put you at a significant disadvantage to your competitors then it becomes something entirely different. For instance, my IPS could disconnect me for wrong-think and my location means no option for another company.
@Despize Perform The question still remains though; who decides what actions are deemed right or wrong? The people that are in charge might just be good at business and have no handle on philosophy or politics etc so when a platform becomes as large as Google say then what happens. I have no answer btw I'm just a concerned citizen. Also [gulp] where would a gender fluid person come under, free to change their mind?
What the heck is this? "I won't have a conversation because this time is not the right time for disinformation, it's irresponsible to host both sides" this is a ridiculous argument.... Never has there been a time to discuss all sides.. it sounds to me like, when politics becomes too real then just hide away, hide away Sam, you're done
"January 6th was the initial milestone, not the last, in the growth of the first violent mass movement in politics since the 1920's". Did you miss Portland, LA, Kenosha, Philadelphia, NYC, Minneapolis, and Atlanta?
To not understand the difference between riots in these cities, no matter how violent and destructive they were, and a violent insurrection/coup perpetrated and backed by the sitting President of the United States, whose goal was to cancel an election, kill the VP, establish a dictatorial government, end democracy in this country, and end the role of Congress, is to not have a single functioning brain cell in your head.
The guys created a fake lawless country inside Seattle, killed 9 people with impunity inside (all black), burned half of Minneapolis, the police were ordered to stand down by partisan mayors, were incited by senators to burn and loot, were given carte blanche to burn business, burned police stations and court houses.
F Sam and his hypocresy.
@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016 give me a break 🙄
What an embarrassing take. I’m not sure where you conjure up Trump’s apparent goal to “kill the VP”, and “end the role of Congress” from. You can’t seriously believe Trump thought some idiots breaking into the capital building would have any sort of legitimacy. An “insurrection” implies some actual effectiveness, yet there was no expectation for it outside of the most diehard Q nuts. It is also a little bit of a stretch to call it “violent” when compared to actual governments in Africa that have been overthrown where the heads of state were murdered and replaced by warlords. The entire Romanov family was killed at gunpoint yet I’m sure you’d use the same word for this as the idiotic deaths at the capital.
@@DanielOnFire101 you're not sure where it came from because you're incredibly biased. You've ignored key facts or sought alt-right news. You're not listening to both sides in good faith and have rendered yourself ignorant and then criticize reality.
@@jhonatancock2302 rioters =/= protestors.
What's your message to your viewers who find Bret to be making a lot of sense, but are also cautious about the danger of that type of thinking if he turns out to be wrong? How do we come to your stance on this issue, when you won't have the debate? Do you think so little of our ability to think that you figure that a strong argument against Bret's case in a debate is more likely to cause anti-vax sentiment than it is to change our minds? I don't think you're lying here - I just don't get it. You seem to have lost faith in us.
Not taking a vaccine when you have a 99.97% chance of survival is actually rational and Sam can't handle it. That's why he's totally done. Over.
He said debating people making conspiracies is hard because you can't fact check in real time, whatever they bring up
Such a debate may further misinform audience than highlight the truth
@@gkoogz9877 If you're a healthy individual it's not about YOUR survival.
Regardless, some long term effects can be quite bad. I don't get why people would not choose to avoid them in the first place.
@@junimeme5626 How would me taking the vaccine affect someone else? LOL!
Did Poseidon reveal this truth to you at the swimming pool? Read a newspaper, not tea leaves!
@@haircutdeluxe how would not taking the vaccine affect someone else, it doesn't work?
Sam assumes. that in order to have a conversation, you need two legitimate points of view. You don’t. If a point of view has no legitimacy, then exposing that through conversation moves that illegitimate view to the fringes of society. I’ll quote someone I admire. “Conversation is all we have.”
Sam's point is the energy and research necessary to debunk all the nonsense out there is orders of magnitude larger than the energy needed to produce said nonsense. People just make up bullshit all day long, with no care in the world for the truth, just furthering their cause. The right and left fringes both do this. Even the media did it during BLM riots last year.
Yep conversation is all we have - and not even close friends of his are always worthy of having a conversation with. And sometimes friends commit so much wrong think that we must have a one sided conversation where those friends are disparaged and humiliated without being given the dignity to respond.
@@JokerisWild4 people just make up bullshit all the time. But the people you agree with don’t right?
That would be true if the other side and those who believe the other side were capable of being convinced.
@@JokerisWild4 I see his point, but suggesting Banon, Guiliani or Jones as the only candidates seems like a straw man. Many of us have doubts on many topics without wearing tin foil hats.
So the new way to spot a ratio is simply looking at the number of comments (as of this writing, over 5K) to likes (as of this writing, just over 2K).
I learned something from this, thank you Sam.
Browser extensions are guessing, they can't get the actual data
@@VolcanicPenguin They become more and more accurate, the more people use them. And it's better than nothing. At the moment it is 3200 up vs 1900 down. Which means it is controversial (the video). If you hadn't installed the exension you would only see the 3200 up and had no clue wheter it is controversial or not.
If there were only 100 downvotes and 3200 upvotes the video would be uncontrovertial (for this audience).
The same Sam Harris that wrote an article 'In Defense of Torture' now claims it is irresponsible to talk about certain things...? Has he not also argued for using nuclear weapons? It seems like those would have been two good subjects to hold your silence on, not issues that threaten the very values and principles of our entire society.
I would say, I don't think you should change the topic constantly to vaccination efficiency. We must discuss the other alarming things going on.
Quebec has now announced a health tax on unvaccinated individuals. They have a curfew in place till 5 PM. These are absolutely disgusting and alarming problems. For some reason, they are not a concern enough for Sam to discuss?
I'm educated in statistics and engineering. I've read the clinical trial papers. I don't understand why people have objections to getting the vaccine.
Respectfully, that vast majority of arguments I've seen refusing the vaccine are a grave misreading of the clinical research, a grave misreading of the value of random facebook posts, or plain old emotional reasoning ("You can't tell me what to do!"). So it's very hard for me to be sympathetic. I've never seen a good argument based on the merits. Rather, I see arguments based on conspiracy.
American conservatives have traditionally been totally unsympathetic towards minorities in ghettos, teenage mothers, etc, telling them to just take responsibility for their choices and suffer the consequences. Now that US conservatives are are being called upon to be responsible for their choice to decline the vaccine, suddenly, personal responsibility doesn't even factor into the conversation. That seems strange to me.
On top of that, prior to 2020, people tended to accept that there are certain times the government can compel you to be vaccinated (for example, to attend public school, or work in certain settings... I had to get treated for latent TB or lose my job). Many vaccines require boosters, I was amazed at just how bitter people got at the idea that the vaccine called for a booster (like most vaccines). Apparently people felt entitled to something else? It's not clear to me what's really going on there.
I just don't see how you rationally square all these things.
I live in Quebec and some of the restrictions are shitty, but not nearly as apocalyptic as you're making it out to be. The curfew starts at 10pm not 5pm, and was only in place for a few weeks. The vast majority of Quebecers are vaccinated but the hospitals are overloaded with unvaccinated patients getting sick from Covid. It's a single-payer health system, so the tax makes sense. Why should vaccinated people pay the price for the hospital costs of unvaccinated people?
@@wolfumz Well since you are so well read, any comment on things l ike 10 1016 j toxrep 2021 08 010 ?
@@maxwellnyangani4623 cool, but society must be equal. So we must also tax fat people, because a fat person is more likely to end up in a hospital because of covid and heart conditions, use intensive care units, burial cost and so on.
@@jhonatancock2302 I'm not a medical researcher, and there are no statistics in the abstract. This just looks like a Taiwanese paper that concluded "oral toxicity studies in rats, ovatodiolide did not produce any adverse effects." Apparently ovatodiolide is suspected to be the active ingredient in an herb used in traditional Chinese medicine. These kinds of studies are dime a dozen.
Just, as an aside, this study looked at 28 rats for 4 weeks. The clinical trial for the Moderna vaccine looked at a little under 40,000 humans for 14 months.
When you only bring in speakers that agree with the majority of your point of view, people that never challenge you or you challenge them.
You disappoint people.
This podcast becomes an echo chamber, one sided and intellectually dishonest.
Joe Rogan brings on people with many different points of view.
I think people just want something more from you, and people feel you failed them on that.
rogan brings on people with different points of view on comedy, mma, etc, not vaccines.
Yeah. Hitch. I thought Sam was like Hitch. He used to be.
Hitch didn’t say “not useful to talk about it.” He explained it like a boss.
@@juancsmix Sanjay Gupta is an "anti-vaxxer"?
You mean people with your point of view, sorry but you were trying to hide your bias.
Joe Rogan does his show out of intellectual curiosity. Sam Harris does his show to circle jerk. Seriously, when was the last time Sam Harris learned anything from one of his guests on the show?
I have great respect for Sam and have been a listener since I first found him as one of the four horsemen of atheism years ago. I passed judgement on folks like Glenn Greenwald who I’ve now come to respect because Sam considered them an enemy at the time. That was my mistake for not looking critically at all angles (although I still take Sam’s side on the islamophobia debate). I dropped off listening for a while and picked up here. It saddened me to hear the change in Sam’s tone. The unwillingness to engage in serious and thoughtful dialogue in the war of ideas, and the request to shut down speech in what for better or worse has now become the public square - social media platforms - really surprised me. No serious follower is asking Sam to engage with Rudy Giuliani…and I doubt much of his audience would even care for that conversation. How about engaging the more relevant questions about COVID, like tech platforms joining to create a joint narrative regardless of fact (see lab leak). Or how about not condemning someone as “anti vax” because they’re a healthy 30 year old who took their first dose of the vaccine, got COVID afterwards, and now sees no reason to get a booster? I can’t stress enough that I have great respect for Sam and value his opinion, but this will be the last podcast of his I spend time on for now. I hope that changes in the future. If you got to this point, thanks for working through my text vomit. This is my first UA-cam comment. Good wishes to all.
Could not have said it better myself. Thanks for sharing. Sam we miss you... hopefully he’ll be back at some point... who knows. I would have no problem if Sam never changed his opinion on this... but for him to not even be willing to be challenged on the subject... I don’t know. It’s upside down world.
If anything I think these conversations would help more than anything rather than skew the public opinion in the wrong direction. Free speech helps expose people’s thoughts, for better or worse, to the public in a transparent manner. I doubt that Sam was worried during his religious debates of giving his opponents an opportunity to express their opinion to the public with the possibility of making more people turn religious. He didn’t worry about this because he had faith that open conversation would help give a more clear picture of the issue, and the public would naturally trend towards the truth. I don’t know why that’s changed now for him. Free speech and open dialogue does have a price to pay but the benefit is far greater when everyone’s opinion is up for display and people have the freedom to judge the information for themselves. Ironically this is the same argument that he made for why people should get vaccinated. There is a cost for the public decision of getting vaccinated (because some people will still die), but the net benefit is so much greater that it makes the decision an easy one to make.
I stopped listening to Harris because he was attracting too many fans like this. If he’s culling them now, maybe I’ll return. Before I watch it, did he accept the blame?
You liked Sam because he agreed with views you already had. Then disliked him once he didn't.
Very well said mate
I can't believe how smart I used to think Sam Harris was
It is funny reading some of these comments. It shows a vocal portion of the audience that previously considered itself as rationale now shirking reason because it doesn't match their worldview. Almost as if reason was never important in places like the IDW, it was just a useful veneer.
Conformation bias (intentionally misspelled)
He still is, but everyone seems to face some sort of limit, or a wall, when their biases rise to the surface. Look at Jordan Peterson. One of the most intelligent individuals ever to grace us, and he believes in religious mumbo jumbo (albeit a significantly more sophisticated take on religion than most people).
Sam, in all his rational approach, can’t get over his TDS and leftist biases. Truly incredible.
@@cognitivescience9924 "TDS" isn't a thing. Other than a straw man for those that can't address the numerous shortcomings of the individual.
@@cognitivescience9924 Leftist biases? What exactly are you referring to? And how could you possibly say Jordan Peterson is one of the most intelligent individuals ever? He's so nonsensical on so many topics. Literally the most overrated public intellectual.
There are people who believe in free speech because the right to think and speak freely is a natural right. There are others (utilitarians) who believe in it because they think the outcomes of having free speech are good. Sam is in the second group and has no problem with people’s natural rights being stripped from them if he disagrees. This is not the sam Harris of 2016.
@@keithboynton If you think the government is the only institution that can prohibit your ability to communicate, then you have to take a good hard look at what free speech actually means.
Sam went from sounding genius to sounding like my drunken liberal cat lady Aunt real fast. Crazy times.
One of reason's greatest, one of its hopeful leaders has fallen. But the Great Conversation will carry on nevertheless!
Disparaging use of the world "liberal" immediately disqualifies you as an impartial commentator.
@@tefilobraga no shit genius
Sam's heated exchange with Ezra Klein was completely unnecessary given the fact that he now appears to be in agreement with most all of Ezra's statements regarding platforming. Interesting.
Their conflict is that Ezra lies about more things than Sam, and Sam wants him to only lie about the things Sam lies about.
@@sheriffbigdog9671 Yeah well, it seems like that number of "things" is ever shrinking
Sam, you're in a box that you can't see outside of, and it's your unwillingness to entertain the perspectives of those you disagree with than keeps building the walls.
Good analogy.
The mind clearing meditations have cleared his mind of the ability to think in all likelihood.
Traditionally, mind clearing meditations are then paired with evening readings on the traditions of the faith, absent that likely causes a mental imbalance.
thats not his point. Dont be an idiot. Figure it out. FFS
It is clearly beyond them
How are you sure you're not in the box?
sam there is so much wrong with the things you've said here. my dissapointment has reached acritical mass
It seems never to occur to Sam that misinformation could be spread by people in the government. As a devout statist, he sees that as sacrilege.
100% correct. I noticed this with my mother breaks my heart. I used to be this way as well, it's called thinking the best of people. Once you open your eyes though to what's going on it's hard to unsee it
@@arthurfonzarelli9828 Same with my mom too, and it makes me really sad-angry.
Sam Harris used to be my go to rational left opinion, sadly he has given into the same dogmatic thinking he used to criticize so thoroughly in the form of fundamentalist religions.
Choose your enemies wisely for you will soon become them
The answer is always to have your friend, enemy distinction clear and keep to it.
Dogmatic thinking about what? Vaccines? You're honestly equating vaccines against a global pandemic with religious dogmatic thinking? I am honestly surprised someone with this irrational and illogical train of thought has ever listened to a word Sam has said.
Yeah I agree…vaccines aren’t for everyone and there is no responsibility from the government for people that have hormone, immune issues and that have died or are severely disabled. Gov is just as bad as religion, they don’t care about your health. It’s crazy people actually believe they are trying to help people get healthy when the majority of people pass away severely sick and depressed in nursing homes and now all alone as well…modern day diet is maybe making peoples inflammation so bad can’t think straight…
Sam doesn't seem to appreciate the cult he has become apart of.
What is that... Nietzsche? Shut the fuck up!---
Rustin Cole
Sam doesn't talk about Israel either because he would probably tip his hand where he's really coming from with all the anti-Islam stuff.
Lost much of my respect for Sam since he started repeatedly using straw-man arguments and hyperbole and he's doing it again. Sigh, shakes his head.
Those kinds of things are why I finally cancelled my sub to his site.
I think it's good that he's losing that portion of the audience. If you genuinely listened to this whole podcast and think he was using 'strawman' arguments, then it's good to lose you.
@@Thisisahandle701 Also curious about what exactly the straw-man is. But a dishonest take that I noticed is him linking the Jan 6 riot to the real issue of what would have happened if Pence & other senators would have supported overthrowing the election results.
IMO he seems to want to kind of panic people by dramatizing the events and linking the political problem to a riot is trying to give the listener the impression that we were about to have our government violently overthrown like something you see in a 3rd world country. This without saying it directly.
It's not just hyperbole, it's condescension and ad hominem attacks as if they add merit to his position.
@@jonsnow9649 I think he's just genuinely quite well-read about the core tenets of what separate countries like the US from the broken democracies of third world countries. I think Sam actually understands the damage of a sitting president telling blatant lies about how the election was stolen from him. I think his reaction to it completely rational.
So basically if it takes too long to refute certain claims, we ought to not bother with refuting them at all and simply believe what our intuition leads us to believe? What kind of logic is that.
The kind of logic a person falls into when they convince themselves they've mastered their own ego. Dude repressed its expression, it grew and it consumed him when he looked away.
Let's say that a person states that the moon is made out of cheese. Would you take the time to engage that person to refute his claim? That's what Sam is talking about. It's about arguing with people who refuse to accept valid evidence so they can hold onto their beliefs.
…you do realise that literally wasn’t his point. You listened to the entire video, right? That…that wasn’t…he didn’t…
Never mind
Go down to the nearest psych ward and get busy refuting claims made from the schizophrenic patients.
Will that be productive?
Is the only other option to "believe our intuition"?
Some insanity can be dismissed without the effort needed to address it. There really is no other way. The important debates must continue. The opportunity cost of engaging with some arguments is too high.
@@jacksfavorite4808 It's a bit of a straw man to compare someone stating the moon is made out of cheese to the claims of Bret Weinstein, Dr. McCullough and the like on COVID-19.
“The posture of our many institutions, have earned the mistrust”. That goes for people too, Mr. Harris.
Then don't listen to him. Go back to learning about the world from sages like Joe Rogan.
@@georgekleinfelter7041 Can I borrow your Spotify password then?
Turns out the wisest man is the man who knows he knows nothing...
He says that but then doesn’t seem to have sympathy or understanding towards people who want nothing to do with the big corpo-political-media solution to the pandemic. Like, what does he think lack of trust results in?
Where is a mirror when you need one?
Sam used to be a worthwhile voice laying down mind blowing perspectives on modern day issues. The moment he decided to avoid Bret I completely lost interest.
This is history in the making. Sam seems stuck on these critical issues.
This sh*t will work itself out when the “dust settles”. For now, I wish Sam the best. Take a step back, Sam, and try to be more open minded. Don’t let this pandemic cripple your academic output.
yes same! it wasn’t just that he avoided him but he the way he disrespected him by saying he was acting in bad faith. this is a buddy of his why say this publicly smh
boohoo sam doesn’t spoon feed you what you want to hear
@@michealjaymurphy regarding the vaccine and the mandates, perhaps this is the case. I strongly disagree with a potential mandate for something that doesn’t prevent transmission of the virus. Let alone there is no long term data on this technology. The entire narrative really creeps me out, mostly because science doesn’t start with a conclusion and work backwards, censoring any necessary dialogue.
Sam is a part of the problem. Please talk with Bret, Sam.
@@IxHATExUCLA Did you listen to this podcast? Sam addressed the "no long term data" argument as spurious.... because that can also be said of COVID. Even your "doesnt prevent transmission" argument is incorrect; they actually do a decent job at preventing infection, which therefore means they do a decent job at preventing transmission because less people will get it in the first place.
What is the conclusion you are referring to? That vaccines reduce the risk of catching, becoming very ill and dying of covid?
From previous podcasts it sounds like Sam has talked to Bret in private.
@@JoshyStuart yes, it’s all very concerning. Especially when somebody as intelligent as Sam Harris makes these conclusions about the situation.
The scientific method is not applied here. We should be making observations and testing a hypothesis, begging to prove our ideas wrong. Amongst this paranoia we have concluded that the vaccine is “safe and affective” and censor the scientific discourse. Something isn’t right here.
Sam worsens the situation using terms like “anti vax” to identify the thing we need to eliminate, affectively turning people against each other. Ironically, this is the dangerous message of our time.
Sam is in a position to shed some light and clarity on these issues, and recognize the road he is traveling down with this train of thought. We have a dangerous ideology here which leads to “death to the unvaccinated”.
To clarify, we should be ecstatic over the development of these vaccines, and celebrate the countless lives saved or protected with this technology.
Let’s not confuse anti vaxers with those who oppose the vax mandate. Many of the “anti vaxers” simply disagree with making the jab mandatory to participate in society. We see right through this troubling ideology.
The obsession with vaccinating everybody is based on irrational fear stirred up by the MSM narrative. Sam is being a good puppet squawking these talking points while embracing cancel culture tactics. Somebody as bright as Sam ought to recognize the trouble with this narrative and where it leads us.
Hindsight is 20-20, and when looking back at these times the nonsense of how this pandemic was handled will be clearly defined.
Sam, you are worsening the problem with your language. Please take the fingers out of your ears and participate in public discourse.
Sam, you’ve been a really important person in my journey, I’ve been influenced by your thinking and benefited from your work (your podcast, your meditation app, your books, debates, etc). I’ve shared a ton of your podcast episodes and recommended your app to numerous friends (many of which became subscribers).
I didn’t always agree with everything you had to say, but I benefited by your willingness to have the hard conversations and to meaningfully engage with opinions that are contrary to your own. That helped me make up my mind about important issues and that is what I valued in your podcast. I am not interested in merely hearing what you think is true without it being challenged (this isn’t how rationality is supposed to work nor how objectivity is being reached: engaging with well-meaning but opposing points of view is necessary for both). This is a huge change of course for your podcast and this is the reason why I recently cancelled my subscription to it.
I honestly wish you the best.
Sam used to seem a clear thinker, but somewhere along the way he caught TDS and totally lost the plot. Very sad to see.
Same feelings and end
We desperately need a cure for TDS. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. Scare a Lib with a virus and reveal an authoritarian. Pathetic.
Agree totally with the OP, but I can't help but laugh that the missteps from Sam are somehow related to "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or some such nonsense. If you truly believe the ridiculous claims that the 2020 Presidential election was stolen, then you are part of a cult.
Petros…. I applaud you sir. Sad that Trump Derangement Syndrome broke Sam’s brain. Hopefully one day he’ll recover. However, his current manner of “rationality” is the same type that brought the world eugenics. It’s the same type that brought us several tens of millions dead in the experimentation of communism. It’s the same type that has Venezuelans living through a 1930s depression in the year 2022. It makes me wonder if he is literally bought off by the status quo powers that seek to remain to be status quo.
If people with dissenting opinions didn’t have a point, you wouldn’t hesitate to dissect their logic with them. This reminds me of Kendi being unwilling to discuss the ideas in his book with anyone who remotely disagreed with him.
1. People with dissenting opinions like this aren't willing to entertain the fact that they may be wrong.
2. The audiences who believe the dissenting opinions don't have the intellectual wherewithal to understand Sam's arguments.
3. You can't reason people out of something they didn't reason themselves into.
It's a lose-lose for Sam and would only end up spreading further misinformation to more people.
@@joshmccrillis9950 1. You're predetermining guilt.
That's it.
@@bradspitt3896 if you don't know where the guilt falls by this point, you're lost.
@@joshmccrillis9950 "Aren't willing to entertain the fact that they might be wrong."
You're mind reading. There's only one person who refuses to engage in dialectic.
As Sam Harris said, it is remarkable how partitioned a human mind can be. Francis Collins saw a frozen waterfall and lost the ability to think critically about Christianity. Sam Harris saw an Orange Man, and that was enough for him to lose all critical faculties.
Wow you fing nailed it.
I think the opposite is the case- Trumpers saw a lib basher and forgot all else, and ignore or forgive Trump for everything. I hope you like Putin because that's who Trump is.
@@GaryKirkpatrickart all politicians are evil. Power always corrupts.
Trump Justice Warriors....sickening.
@@GaryKirkpatrickart forgive Trump for what exactly? Be specific.
It is an interesting phenomenon. I have never had the experience of admiring someone so much to basically not caring about what they say at all. So much of the beginning of this podcast is just name calling, condescension and an arrogant (dare I say) supremacy of views from an elite class.
So whats your point?
@@marionow6227 Hello Professor Mario, I apologize for expressing my thoughts without a point. Forgive me, sir.
You're right, would you like to debate me in whether or not Elvis is alive? Or if the earth is flat? How about man made climate change? We need to get to the bottom of these topics.
@@dustinhaas8538??
@@deerstreamstudio what?? Would you like to discuss? Or do you have a supremacy of views in these subjects?
Sam now sounds like someone he would have argued with before 2020... he taught us the value of free speech, and now expects us to forget all we have learned from him?
Free speech =/= useless speech.
Vaccine denialists have blood on their hands
@@dcdarrbare hows that "vac" tha tby no previous definition would have ever been called a vac, working out for you?
how about that vaers huh?
just forget about it, nothing to see... just listen to the arbiters of reality CDC who blatantlyand nonsensically lies about there being virtually 0 vac deaths.
Ridiculousness. I followed along sam Harris through the atheist uprising over the last 15 years or so. Thoroughly enjoyed his guide to spirituality without religion, but now that little voice in the back of my head that said somehow this guy is still compromised by ego has finally been given a concrete form to make evidence its reality. Very disappointed but somehow not shocked. Thanks for finally making it apparent Sam.
Still too self-assured to listen to. I can see the argument that Sam Harris declines a topic because he has nothing to add to a particular conversation. That's fine. However, that argument fails when Sam Harris goes on to hold a one-sided conversation with himself on that same topic, not engaging with any serious critics.
If nothing else, conversations with contrary guests are more entertaining and satisfying. I've been weaning myself off of the editorial podcasters. Even great hosts need decent guests to make the podcast worth watching.
The 'rabbit hole of questioning the election'?? There was 4 years of questioning the election after Trump was elected - by the media, politicians and supporters.
Why wasn't questioning the election then irresponsible??
Suddenly "not my president" is a form of treason.
Sam has really lost lots of his audience, his message boards is something he should really look into but he doesn't, as if he still still has all the proof Russia was involved, yet presents it with no evidence at all, blames the other side as the one that has wishful thinking!
I tried listening to this one because of the title made me think that maybe the old Sam was back, but nope. He completely lost his mind in 2015, and I don't think he's ever going to find it.
@@Joshua-gu5nj I am not aware of this change you are talking about. Can you guide me to check in about the biggest conflicts of his audience and him since 2015?
@@Joshua-gu5nj What are you even talking about?
@J Rocker not all atheists are far left lunatics replacing their former right wing religion with a new far left one. Sam is treating the state when under left wing control as god
So sad to hear this happening to you, Sam. You were once braverly defending the things that allow us freedom, now you argue to allow others to take ours.
yeah i miss him braverly defending freedom too lol
we all agreed that having a high school gym full of people waiting to vote was a dangerous thing to people. The Trumpist are pissed that they lost the election because of the changes that were necessary, and they even now deny that taking such scenarios to public health were taken into consideration shouldve been taken to begin with . Ruthless.
Are you purposely mischaracterizing his viewpoint or did you fail to actually listen to the episode?
You my friend are what he was talking about. He explained his reasoning quite clearly. He also predicted there would be no point in trying to change the minds of those who blindly support Trump, Jones etc as legitimate actors in public discourse.
its because he got "the talk"
I'm still a big fan of Sam and definitely see his point regarding the timing of debating certain topics. However, the exact same argument can be made for cancel culture and deplatforming in general by anybody at any time - namely, 'it's not good for society to be exposed to these ideas right now'. Who has the authority to make that decision? Whether he is correct or not about these specific circumstances, Sam is using the same logic as the very worst arbiters of truth online.
big facts
Not inviting crazy people onto your podcast is not canceling or deplatforming them. Pretty sure he has the authority to make the decision about who to interview for his podcast.
Sam can actually back up his reasoning with undeniably persuasive arguments. And that difference is everything. Woke censorship cannot do the same
@@world_musician You don't have to directly cancel someone yourself to participate or support the concept of cancel culture. No one here nor op is claiming that Sam is directly doing that. The point we're making is that the same logic is used by those who very much do cancel people, including the people who have gone after him over his views on Islam or race and crimes. Try to be less like Sam and do a better job of not straw manning others views.
@@synthesizerneil you just had to add that last sentence huh. couldn't possibly reply without a personal insult.
How sad it is to witness the corrosion of one of the brightest minds of recent decades
its very babbly, and brain foggy except for one aspect, telling everybody to tow the line. denying there are perfectly good reasons for not taking the vax, even in the middle of an anti vax ill-informed cult, is just wrong. i'm triple vaxxed, i strongly object to forcing everybody regardless of their personal risk/situation/immunity status.
Sam is on the defense because the angry masses are pointing the finger at his class of people.
@@Ryan-lo1kg ' The following 28 **** are in Creepy Joe Biden’s Cabinet
and most important Administrative positions:
1) Doug Emhoff, Jewish Husband of Kamala Devil Harris
2) Janet Yellin, Jewish Secretary Treasury
3) Anthony Blinken, Jewish Secretary of State
4) Robert Klain, Jewish Chief of Staff
5) David Cohen, Jewish Deputy Director CIA
6) Merrick Garland, Jewish Attorney General
7) Alejandro Mayorkas, Jewish Secretary Homeland Security
8) Avril Haines, Jewish Director National Intelligence
9) Wendy Sherman, Jewish Deputy Secretary of State
10) Victoria Nuland, Jewish Secretary State Political Affairs
11) Eric Lander, Jewish Office of Science Technology
12) Jeffry Zeints, Jewish Covid Czar
13) Rachel Levine, Jewish Assistant Health Secretary
14) and 15) Cass Sunstein, Jewish Senior Counselor at the Departmentof Homeland Security, and his wife, Samantha Power, Head of USAID
16) Dana Stroul, Jewish Pentagon Senior Policy Official on the Middle East
17) Rochelle P. Walensky, Jewish CDC Director
18) Anne Neuberger, Jewish Director of Cybersecurity at NSA
19) Chanan Weissman, Jewish Director of Technology at National Security Council
20) Avril Haines, Jewish Director of National Intelligence
21) Polly Trottenberg, Jewish Deputy Secretary of Transportation
22) Jessica Rosenworce,l Jewish Acting Chairwoman FCC
23) Jennifer Klein, Jewish Co-Chair of the Gender Policy Council
24) Jared Bernstein, Jewish Member of Council of Economic Advisers
25) Zeke Emmanuel, Jewish Member of Biden COVID-19 Advisory Board
26) David Kessler, Jewish Chief Science Officer of COVID Response
27) Stephanie Pollack, Jewish Deputy Administrator Federal Highway Administration
28) Gary Gensler, Jewish Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission
You may ask yourself, what is the likelihood of this happening?
The chance of these 28 Jews to be in the most important positions in the United States government, well, that’s impossible. '
“ brightest minds of recent decades”
I hope this is a joke
“Sometimes in history it’s irresponsible to have certain conversations to ‘air both sides out.’” 😖. Why did I come here hoping for more 😔. **sigh**
Sam, there _are_ enough notable aspects of your “opponent’s” argument (regarding the jab) that make it worth discussing. I’m sorry, but to suggest that such conversations would be irresponsible and that those opinions are held by unintelligent or ignorant people is appalling. It really is. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, AND I am vaxxed despite being young and healthy, and yet I can still acknowledge the non-insignificant times in history that things turned out not to be as they seemed / that institutions lied to the public / that corruption ran deeper than most people thought logically possible.
If an argument can be well articulated, supported with evidence, presented clearly, and make logical sense, it AT THE VERY LEAST deserves to be heard. You’re a good guy Sam, but your _certainty_ is unfortunate and concerning. The only way to suggest that a conversation best not be had for fear of it being too harmful, is to be absolutely certain that your position of that argument is correct. Because, clearly, you’d have to completely dismiss the even remote possibility that the other side might have merit.
Conversations can only be seen as harmful when you’re certain you’re right. And absolute certainty is, in my opinion, (one of) the most dangerous perspectives. And one that is too prevalent these days.
Bravo.
Well said
I would add one caveat:
It's not dismissing the conversation out right, but with whom that sometimes should be brought up in question. If you cannot see any way that some debator would come in good faith to the discussion, then it makes sense to dismiss that person. Or even if it's "the headbutting gets too much," I can see that being a fine reason too.
But I do agree: too many "vaxxers" are so self indignant about their position and look down upon "the other side" and yet have little to no understanding of the points/positions that lie there. It's almost too much a religious tribalism of the saints vs the sinners, and cutting out the conversation seems only to harden such tribalism, not heal it.
In essence, I hard agree with your general point. Cheers.
Exactly. Thank you.
I haven't listened to Sam in a while and listening to this podcast was painful. Thanks for speaking the truth Mr. K.
Sam Harris for a long while was someone to look up to for critical thought (even when I didn't agree with his positions)...now he is a mirror image of everything he said he stood up against. Cheering on censorship, refusing to debate serious topics (most likely because he fears the debate will paint him in an even worse light) ....45 mins later and all he has done is circle back to the same hyperbolic talking points he's used for the last year. Ep 272 will be the last episode I choose to listen to. He has turned his back on his own audience, and this episode just drives home how little Mr. Harris cares about those who have supported him over the years.
Because he has integrity. Good. He should stand up for what he believes in. At least he isn't pressured by his audience to lie to you. Would you prefer a liar? How many do you follow that lie? You won't know. But Sam is reasonably honest
Exactly
He hasn't turned his back on his whole audience, just the ones who think Trump is the good guy and that coronavirus is a plandemic
@@chiznowtch - I like how you ascribed the most ridiculous arguments to EVERYBODY who disagrees with an aspect of the accepted narrative. People are laughing at your logical fallacy here.
I used to love this podcast and looked forward to every episode, sometimes re-listening to good ones. I was never a Trump fan so I wasn't butthurt by Sam's chronic TDS over the past six years, but diverting every episode regardless of guest or subject to make sure to gripe about Orange Man did get pretty boring... yet I continued listening. At the start of the pandemic Sam seemed to consider it a badge of honour that he was an early bird to the hysteria, and since then it's seemed like his identity has been tied in to the authoritarian covid regime. After a while I found that episodes would languish at the end of my podcast playlist, and before I knew it there were 15 unlistened to episodes stacked up. I clicked on this one because the title caught my attention, but mainly to read the comments. After all, I'm a "cultist" because I haven't allowed the government to repeatedly inject me with an experimental medication, the negative side-effects of which are hidden by the media, the manufacturers of which have been given total immunity from any liability for problems, and the safe, effective alternative medications and those who promote them are mercilessly slandered and deplatformed, while every single person is coerced into taking the experimental medication which gives some moderate and temporary degree of protection against an illness which I'm not afraid of getting. I used to value what Sam said, but years of avowed globalism, platforming anti-white podcast guests with zero pushback, and displaying an ever increasing "intellectual coastal elite" attitude just wore me out.
Amen
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I voted for Trump. Besides that, ditto
I couldn't say it better.
And thank goodness for people like Glenn Greenwald.
Well put, very much how I feel. Voted as dem all my adult life (64 now) until 2020. I am so done with their elitist BS. I lived in NYC on 9/11. Read Matt Tiabbi’s Substack about 1/6 anniversary, Dems & Cheney. Sharpest observations I have seen.
@@andrewwiest4685Yes! And Matt Tiabbi, brilliant.
Sam made a false equivalency error with his comparison of statins to the COVID vaccine. To be clear, I have my shots, I understand the function and mechanisms of the vaccine, so I am not here to be an advocate for the 'anti-vax cult'. But to be fair, governments are not forcing people to take statins. In my country, my government is essentially forcing people to be vaccinated. That is not a trivial difference. Terrible argument, Sam.
Yes, he's rational but totally dislusional. He sees the world as needing an elite cabal of keepers to maintain order. He mentions nothing about rights and the liberty to live or die by your own choices. He would love to see an authoritarian mother figure take care of us. Too much meditating? He's like a violinist in a mad house. He's lost it. No subject, pandemic or politics is too sacred to not discuss.
Correct. He is an coastal elite that believes smart people who know better than everyone else not only have the right to - but necessarily should - control our lives. It's a very serious distinction
@@synthesizerneil He is right in a way. It just depends which smart people. Your average person isn't very bright.
He's having these conversations in person, like more people need to be doing. Podcasts have rotted your cummy little brains.
@@Junk_Yogurt Excuse me but wtf did you just say? Are you from China dude? It is quite literally fundamentally unamerican to believe that distant unelected bureaucrats in federal government agencies should in any way be governing citizens or states unilaterally. You're definitely trolling right? Please just say you're trolling - if you attempt to walk this back you will not be taken seriously.
Yep
I'm sad to say that over the last few years Sam has changed from being a bountiful font of reason and wisdom, somebody whose books and podcasts I would buy and download with eager anticipation to being another talking head with a rigid, dogmatic, quasi-religious pomposity who off-handedly and often disingenuously dismisses things that to me seem entirely reasonable..
Not that I should always agree with him, though frankly, I generally did back when he was putting out books like Lying and Waking up, and when I took issue with things he said I'd mull over it, re-read/listen to his points and generally find an answer or at least a compromise in my head that was clearly a better way of thinking than I had before, and usually rather closer to his position than where I was before I heard what he had to say..
To make a software analogy; his input was always either compatible with, or more often, an upgrade to my thinking.
The thing that has turned me away from Sam of late is that now where we disagree, he seems to want to dismiss and belittle my opinion rather than tease out the errors in my thinking and deal with them in a mature and cogent manner.
So, from being a keen adept say five years ago, I'm now just stupid and wrong. So no more books, no more podcasts, not even sure why YT suggested this video, I gave up on Sam a while back.
To reference the title of this video, which I'm sorry but I can't bring myself to listen to; I'm not angry with Sam, just disappointed, which in the spirit of the parental cliche is much worse.
What do you think about race realism?
Well said. He's lost it.
I've found his thinking to be entirely consistent with his earlier approach as was this podcast.
Why don't you tell us which opinion of yours Sam has belittled?
Well said
Saying a libertarian is a hypocrite for being concerned about the overwhelming control of Twitter and other megacorps is insane. Resisting government and corporate powers for individual liberties is not hypocritical. The line between these corps and the government are thinning and both are reducing your ability to share information and live a free life.
What is the alternative? More government control and regulations? Does it sound libertarian to you?
Agree. It seems fairly disingenous to say that one of the most powerful corporations in the world exercising it's right to silence individuals is also a type of freedom, and therefore if you don't support that silencing you don't support freedom. It's an argument on the level of Patriot Act branding. There's a very obvious imbalance of power there and someone concerned about freedom should likely fall on the side of the individual being booted than the megacorp doing the booting, even if you assume accusations of terrible moderation, vague guidelines, consistently biasing to one side , etc. are all a conservative delusion.
I’ll spell it out for you. It’s hypocritical for libertarians who have mocked left wingers for wanting to curtail the power of corporations, on the grounds that “companies should be free to make their own decisions / if you don’t like a service go elsewhere or make your own” all of a sudden jump on the “socialise twitter” bandwagon when they find out they can actually be victims of their corporate overlords as well. But of course, you only do this when it affects you, and not to defend the wider principle of freedom like you pretend. Guess all that “free market/let consumers choose” rhetoric goes out the window when you’re at the other end of the power differential
@@unknownknowable “I prioritise crushing big corporations and the right”
@@UA-camMadeMePickHandle Sounds like a case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. The libertarian in your head has upset you and now you'll allow yourself to be stepped on as long as a red tie is standing next to you.
But "they did it first!", so I guess why worry about morality or being better than the people you're complaining about when you could regress to a child, sink to their level and exact revenge. It's a lot more fun for sure.
"There's certain moments in history that really will not benefit from airing 'both sides' on any given debate, especially when one of those sides is either obiviously illegititmate or the probability of it being legitimate is so low, that it becomes irresponsible to have certain conversations in certain moments of history."
This is such a concerning view to hold, Sam...
Especially coming from a guy who gave voice to lunatics such as David Buss, while ignoring real humanists and heros, such as Justin Trottier.
Yes its too bad there weren't male-supplement pushing podcasters to provide an equally legitimate opposing view back when we were administering the polio vaccine. So many more idiots would have died.
@@hughsmith5151 good one ..
@@cmhardin37 yeah he is clever, tries very hard at it
label your opposition as "obviously false" without saying why it's false is not an argument. Labeling an argument you disagree with as false but also labeling it dangerous so you don't have to address its points is no not an argument either. Just calling the people you disagree with liars and don't prove they're liars with any evidence is no way to form a convincing argument.
Except that these people have been proven to be liars and disingenuous.
What you're saying is that we have to keep expending time and energy disproving new false claims on the very very off chance that they got something accidentally right.
Nah, yeah, nah. I'm good. There are plenty of people with whom I disagree but are at least experiencing the same reality as I am. Who can be reasoned with and who can convince me of different viewpoints.
There is little to no overlap between those people and the people Sam doesn't want to platform.
@@tymone3544
That’s weird considering Sam used to debate religionists, whose claims were debunked before he was born. I was raised in religion but having the debate got me to see what religion was. Without the debate I would still be stuck in that mind warp.
So good for you I guess; but what about the people who you think are wrong? Too bad for them?
If you aren't willing to have the debate, then you've lost the debate.
If your contention is that we need to coerce people into vaccinating, then the burden is on you to explain why that must be done. And you aren't going to win people like me over by talking to yourself and your like-minded friends beating the hell out of strawmen. And worse, by turning your back on people who were willing to call you a friend when people called for your de-platforming not too long ago. Advocating their de-platforming now is shameful. You're damn right I'm disappointed.
This comment is on point
Well said. I see a man who wants to cut out the tongues of his enemies because he fears what they have to say. I see a coward.
Sam is a total coward
No I don’t agree. Speech is finite, we can only have so many conversations, mainly because we should only be having one conversation at once lol
In this case it makes sense to ask who ‘can’ you debate with. If someone has already gone down the rabbit hole of becoming anti vax, it’s not worth the bandwidth to try and see why
@@thecolourorange9499 So you have decided that entire population will be continously injected with a multinational pharmaceutical product less than a year old and there will be no debate whatsoever. Great plan.
TDS is real, bro, hang in there...
Clearly Sam has fallen out of his meditative practice.
It’s funny to see Sam amassed this right wing audience and then see them universally turn against him. 😂
I had a similar thought. He has forgotten that he preaches that meditation can help get one out of all these ego traps. Or is this proof that it doesn't work? The human animal is such a head case lol.
@@DZ-yk2ew it's funny you think centrist, clasical liberals and left wing don't disagree with Sam or your position.
@@jhonatancock2302 Of course, right wingers of the Liberal Conservative tradition disagree, majority of left wingers do not oppose present health policy.
@@DZ-yk2ew sure, that is why vaccines mandates were approved by a majority democrat senate. Oh wait they didn't. That is why blacks are less vaccinated than whites per 10k population. Must be all those right wing blacks, aint it? . Keep praying in your echo chamber, you and Sam deserve each other.
You don’t think Twitter, UA-cam , Facebook etc. have gone beyond the “private company”. In this world it’s practically the only way we communicate with each other. So when you sensor someone on these platforms your cutting off their main way of communication. Should ONE person be able to control the voices of billions? I would seriously question if someone like Jack Dorsey should have that power. It should be treated like free speech is treated in our society. Not the decision of one human being, and what they find appropriate or not.
@@WalkinAlex If the algorithms are, as you say, not based on civilised discussion but on maximising interaction then that's *more* reason to not have them policed by CEOs with a clear political agenda. If we allow that we are entering an information dictatorship, and I do mean information rather than opinion. Just compare searches for actual data on hot button topics between Google and Duckduckgo... I thought at first the results were an artefact of the particular engine, but no, the biases are obvious, which is incredibly worrying.
+ dont forget the people who leave you comments on social media represents a very small minority of your listeners!
Yes, but you can scale that up to reveal how disappointed people are in the collapse of sams critical thinking skills
13:11 Points out that Trump claimed the election was illegitimate before it even occurred
32:23 Claims the 2024 election will be illegitimate before it's even occurred 🤔
False equivalence. Yours, that is.
@@countdebleauchamp why?
@@countdebleauchamp It could only be a false equivalence if equivalence was being claimed. People who don't really understand informal logic always claim false equivalence incorrectly.
The claim in instances like this is not one of equivalence. The claim is that reduced to first principles the two statements are incoherent at best hypocritical at worst.
Logical equivalence is not a requirement for an idiomatic discussion of hypocrisy.
summary of Sam Biglogic Harris
@@tetrapharmakos8868 I appreciate the lesson in the finer points of logic, but my point stands, so I'll phase it in your preferred terms:
What Sam said may be seemingly incoherent, but it certainly is not hypocritical. And it doesn't take a terribly subtle or strained analysis to get past the pedantic 'first principles' and come to that conclusion.
Sam Harris has fallen so far as a thinker. His rationality another casualty of the Trump administration.
He made me realize that even the smartest people of our age can fall victim to dogmatic, partisan thinking. When he was legitimately concerned about Trump "having the nuclear codes" I knew he was no longer perceiving things objectively, only through a partisan lense.
@@PerpetualSmile I wonder why anybody who likes Trump would ever follow Harris in the first place. Was it that Bell Curve episode?
I'm not state that you are wrong here. But it is incredibly frustrating that you give no examples or counter anything said in this. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@Studeb I listened to Sam long before Trump was President, and I'm sure many others did. I voted for Trump twice. His audience is primarily comprised of general, explorative thinkers, who were much more likely to vote for Trump, in my opinion.
I'm unsure what episode you're talking about. If it's something racist/sexist/whatever-ist, no, that wasn't it.
@@Studeb You don’t have to like Trump to disagree with Harris’s hysteria towards him.
Sam used to be a great thinker and communicator, what a shame Trump broke his brain.
It's crazy how his brain 'broke' only when it came to critiquing something that you personally care about. Really a pretty amazing coincidence.
@@Thisisahandle701 I would not have put it better.
Before Trump was even officially president, Sam was peddling the russian hoax. That day Sam the thinker died, and Sam propagandist was born.
@@Thisisahandle701 actually, noticing it was one of the things that lead me to take a closer look at what people were saying about Trump. Exactly the inverse of what you said.
@@invictusinmoralis6953 Before the second election was finished Trump declared victory, and months before the second election Trump said the only way he could lose was because of cheating. Evidence of collusion existed before the election, why couldn't that even be the case? The specific timing of the election is irrelevant since polical campaigns take months anyways.
Just wanted to add to the voices of those who are of the opinion that Sam has turned into exactly what he used to advocate against. I've been listening on and off since 2017, and he used to say the thing that made him different from other thinkers is that he was accountable to his audience, and that he was willing to have difficult discussions instead of ignoring them or shutting them down. He seems to have gone against both of those over the last couple of years. It's really a shame.
It's almost like he built an audience of dumb clowns by being an anti-sjw edgelord, and he's finally getting tired of them.
He wouldn't think twice, back in the day, a revolutionary thinker, having nothing to lose; now, a victim of circumstance, he thinks twice ...
Feels like the momentum is lost, sad to say.
He sounds more and more like what used to be called a Reagan Democrat. His conflating wokeness with the whole of left politics is revealing and saddening. He is the disappointment he's trying to rescue himself from, so obviously. Someone down the line wishes Christopher Hitchens were still with us. So do I...
I believed everything until you said you told a private company to take somebody off their platform because you didn't like them.
I think you are missing a "because" there
Fascism is a real genuine threat I mean you can't genuinely think Trump is not an enemy of democracy? You think that guy is pro democratic vote? Haha he's the most blatant dictator to ever walk around freely in the American political space. It's actually quite incredible.
@@liamdevine8063 #blueanon
Wow over 100,000 views and less than 3,000 likes. That doesn’t look like the majority loved it
Since when was Brett Weinstein comparable with Alex Jones?
Since the machine widened it's net. Bret is far right now. Only a matter of time until we all are, I guess
Since Sam lost the plot.
According to Sam Harris we should should had stop free speech just before Benny Hill, that is just in case he said something outside Sams limits of actable humor, sorry anyone else who thinks differently!!! Sam will explain to you later while you are wrong, that is after Sam will ask Bennies removal
from Twitter or any other platform. Thankfully it’s because Sam is smarter than you and better than Benny. Oh, and Sam is not a hypocrite, just ask him!!!
Since people got themselves injured and killed taking horse dewormer. Like it or not but the people who listen to Bret Weinstein are the same people buy it off the shelves, eat it, and get sick, cause internal organ damage and sometimes die from horse dewormer.
They are comparable in they both allege to a degree conspiracies
Sam, when are you going to admit you were wrong about Trump ?
He will take that to his grave.
@@keithboynton Trump not leaving the seat peacefully for example...
There is literally disgust in his voice when ever talks about Trump. I'm now, quite sure that is the most powerful negative emotion than anyone can have. Sam's extraordinary talent of choosing right words is hiding it very well, even from himself.
Had the upload date been April 1st I would have assumed this was a joke.
No, you're just feeling the pain of hearing your religious beliefs criticised.
@@Thisisahandle701 I am sorry but I don't really understand your comment? I am not religious I think most people that know me would consider me to be an atheist.
@@Thisisahandle701 Sam's right about religion. Everything else he's a brainwashed fool.
@@TheHeroRobertELee Do you think Muslims felt any different than you do now when Sam criticised Islam? This is what it feels like to be unhappy about having your beliefs attacked, but that doesn't make you correct.
@@Thisisahandle701 that's besides the point. He's objectively wrong on political issues. Irrefutably wrong and probably wrong and empirically wrong.
Not inviting someone who’s got different point of view is cowardly.
5 minutes in and this is unfathomably delusional
Hardly
@@Shiggystardust Sneed
You are delusional (but in the opposite direction).
@@tefilobraga What am I delusional about?
@@con_sci First please tell me what "this" is delusional about (your comment above), and then I will tell you what you may be delusional about.
I can only assume other fans are learning what I did about Sam. Despite his even tone and meditation Sam is a deeply emotional and highly sensitive man.
As are most men who grew up with a single mom.
@@genzcurmudgeon8037 go back to your JBP channel, lobster boy. Pop psychology from internet trolls with no training in psychology.
@Savior Money yeah, stupidity definitely hits a nerve. Every moron with a keyboard acts like they're experts on every topic.
@@urinetrouble4999 I can see you are also a highly sensitive, emotional man. That’s too bad. May you be free from suffering and the shackles of emotion.
I think you're in trouble
The BS asymmetry principle - The ammount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
That may well be true, but it is necessary, and to simply claim your omniscience and superior understanding is to insult the many who think differently or who have not made up their minds.
@@davethebrahman9870 Hopefully this isn't about Sam. The reason he's not debating people about Covid is because he knows there are people who are more qualified to do that than him. Not that he already knows everything and doesn't need to engage with differing opinions.
@@La0bouchere I was referring more to his view of Trump, which is in no way the subject of special expertise. On covid I agree with you, and I have no opinion on the matter.
@@davethebrahman9870 You don't need special expertise to correctly identify Trump as a lying despot.
@@CyanCooper Thanks for your opinion. See how easy it is?
come on Sam, so only unimportant and inconsequential topics should ever be debated? listen to what you are saying. these are the kinds of issues are precisely what debating is for.
He's more concerned about the potential of a unilateral nuclear strike by a sitting U.S. president than the erosion of our basic rights. This guy is unhinged.
An Appeal to the Body Snatchers: Please give us Sam back. Take Ben if you have to
Batman Ben? 😭
Neoliberalism stole Sam's body. He is a "free market" democrat which is an oxymoron.
Sam's still the same person. He's just being rationale. The rest of you have decided cultism is a better route.
@@billn2348 Either you believe in the 1st Amendment and Freedom of Speech or you don't. Which side are you on?
@@Ryan-lo1kg Nothing in this thread is about free speech unless you're (a) commenting on Sam deciding what or what not to discuss on his podcast or (b) commenting on private businesses right to moderate what is said on their private property. The latter having nothing to do with free speech. In either case, I'm not sure why it would bother you.
You cant have such a strong view on lying as Sam has and base your arguments on a clear and constant liar who is busy with covering up his own mistakes too..Bringing up trump is just low hanging fruit to manipulate the audience who as Sam followers ofc arent anywhere close to being Trump supporters. Sam became a contradiction.
@@keithboynton i would guess most are not supporters in the way you’re thinking. I get the impression (based on browsing various YT comments) that a not-insignificant amount of Sam’s listeners voted for trump, but mostly out of opposition to the alternative. Or that some listeners are not trump fans but just aren’t as appalled by him as Sam is.
@@11peterson1 Sam is linking Trump with the vaccine to get you on his side but im sure that the unvaxxed inner city blacks arent Trumpsters and we all know they have a good reason to be waiting a little longer than Sam to get jabbed. Besides that..what happened to Sams stance on lying? Was Sam lying when he explained us his stance on lying? As sad as it is,It sure looks like it.
It’s jarring to see Sam go from what he was to what he is… I have respected and valued his insight for many years, I would have never imagined he would push the moral righteousness of censoring opponents while refusing to debate the issue.
His reasons seem insincere when you compare the issue he made much hay with in yesteryear.
For example,we all know that jihadism is an insane proposition, more so than Trumps election fix theory, yet that clear as day fact never stopped him debating the issue in the past.
Dark days indeed.
Trust me, Sam is sincere about his censorship rhetoric which is just devastating.
Sam Harris was spreading the Russia hoax election fix theory for four years. So even his disdain for Trump over that is just hypocrisy.
Years ago, I was a fan of Sam Harris's podcast, and I listened to every episode. He had scientists and philosophers as guests and discussed fascinating issues, such as philosophy, science, consciousness, artificial intelligence, free will, and more. After Trump was elected, I had to stop listening. It felt like every time I tuned in, Sam was just ranting about Trump. Whenever he had a guest on to discuss any topic, Sam seemed to steer the conversation toward Trump. So I stopped listening. I finally came back today, thinking that a year after the Trump administration ended, Sam had moved on, and I can get my beloved old podcast back. Finally--more science, no more Trump talk! Within two minutes of checking out a new episode, Sam is ranting about Trump again. Even now, a year after his presidency. I give up.
Agreed, 100%. It's bizarre, and sad.
He hasn't changed. You have. At the very least do what you are suggesting....listen. Just for a second start with SAM was smart. You liked Sam. What changed? Consider Sam is correct...try to see that. Then consider why do you believe Sam is wrong today but so smart before. Now be honest with yourself....what changed? Are you willing to throw away all that you used to know was true...for some recent bullshit you heard recently? Are you that weak minded and insecure that you can no longer see bullshit that comes out of the mouths of people like Trump and Giuliani? Because you like them? You couldn't possibly trust them...unless you're nuts.
My experience exactly
Exactly the same with me. Harris went full TDS
Exact same feeling