Sam invited a harsh critic on, and published the result even though it was unlistenable: search for the “best podcast ever” or maybe “greatest”. And of course he takes heat on appearances at places like “Real Time”, as the infamous clip with Ben Affleck illustrates.
But I will stand up for almost anything Sam represents, whoever wants to come at me.
Too bad that they can’t avoid the bigots…
Let’s not miss the point Slacker. The point is that a lot of conservatives whine about not having a platform (demonstrably horseshit) and claim they only want the free flow of ideas. But they prefer to debate imaginary opponents rather than real ones.
Googling, the great podcast was with Omar Aziz. Considerable negotiation preceded the making of that podcast. Harris demanded that Aziz read his 2,800 word essay out loud, with Harris getting to stop him at the parts he found objectionable. That’s a weird way to structure a conversation. Harris insisted though, and Aziz eventually relented.
My secret debate with Sam Harris: A revealing 4-hour dialogue on Islam, racism & free-speech hypocrisy | Salon.com
Harris called Aziz back to say -surprise surprise- the interview was boring and would not be broadcast. Aziz then published the Salon piece. The podcast came out shortly afterwards.
This doesn’t exactly look like a profile in courage to me.
ETA: I called Harris an asshole upthread. That was unfair, as I really don’t know enough about the guy to judge his character. “Acted like an asshole” would be better.
The worst thing about Sam Harris is he has essentially chosen to be a friend of a friend to the likes of InfoWars. He has chosen to needlessly situate himself 2 degrees of separation away from some truly reprehensible people. Rubin, the former TYT correspondent discussed in the article, is backed by the Koch brothers and takes the “the left is silencing everyone” propaganda so far as to portray Alex Jones as a centrist. A key to Rubin’s grift is pretending almost all leftists are too intolerant to come on his talk show. Recently Rubin had a lovely chat with Seb Gorka. To my understanding Harris fails time and time again to criticize folks like Rubin, with whom he shares some common foes, when conspicuous opportunities arrive. Harris treats some of the enemies of his enemies as allies, only taking it to a less extreme degree than those who have supported Trump for that reason.
I wasn’t aware until 2.5 years ago of Harris having any noteworthy weaknesses or flaws. That changed when I heard this excerpt that rubbed me the wrong way of him yukking it up with Douglas Murray. Douglas Murray rant about Transgenders makes Sam Harris laugh - YouTube
Well it’s not just friend of a friend; it’s uncritically supporting many of the things they say, and painting them solely as victims.
And Harris himself sometimes crosses the line, but here’s the thing: more often than that he makes valid but uncomfortable points.
So if you try to suggest Harris sometimes engages in bigotry himself, many people will assume that you mean one of those kinds of statements, and you’re being a “snowflake”.
He’s a perfect pawn for the alt right crowd in that sense, dancing along the line, just a short step from Shapiro.
Very interesting. You zeroed in on two of the major sticking points that required me to precede “anything Sam stands for” with the qualifier “almost”. In particular, I found Douglas Murray to be a sleazebag, and wished Sam would not be so friendly to him. You’re also right about Rubin to a lesser degree. At least in that case, he did dedicate much of an AMA podcast episode to that controversy. Did you hear that?
Full disclosure: after posting the above, I listened to the YouTube clip. TBH, if that were all I had heard from the conversation, I would not have such a problem with Douglas Murray. It was some more racist-sounding language that I found very discomfiting.
I have now had a chance to read the NYT piece. Great read, well worth 20% of my monthly NYT ration.
Agree wholeheartedly.
Ha, this is totally me. I said this on another forum (I knew he had an album called “Yeezus”, so I figured there might be an eponymous track), and people actually accused me of lying! Fact is, before the recent Trump stuff, I knew “George Bush doesn’t care about black people”, “I’ma let you finish”, and “Yeezus” supposedly being a masterpiece according to many culture critics. That’s it.
This exact thing happened to my older daughter’s stepsister. I predicted that outcome, and sure enough I was right. But boy oh boy, was my daughter angry with me about it!
I have yet to find myself impressed by Jordan Peterson, however.
Nice quote from Sam:
See, he’s calling people out, even if not by name.
At least you admit to being a true believer, just don’t try to sell your blind faith as science.
It is little more than genetic astrology at best.
But kudos on finally admitting that faith and loyalty and not facts are your trumpet call.
I take it you didn’t read post #1506 before dashing this off? :dubious:
ETA: I also think Sam’s philosophy about “the greatest possible agony for every sentient being” has some clear logic holes, and I’m not convinced that there is no such thing as a self.
What percentage of it do you think you understood?
I read it but the fact that you have your limits to your adherence to a cult of personality does not temper the fact that you are still a true believer.
It is still likely that you would drink the kool-aid if a few fellow believers were set up to run and get shot like at Jonestown.
You have stated your loyalty to the person, to the cult and not ideas or the facts.
I have of course done nothing of the sort.
Cool palindrome SN though. I wonder if in any language, the word for “palindrome” is itself a palindrome? Seems like it should be.
Really, define what a white person is in a meaningful biological way then?
I know you hope to “win” though attrition, but it is not a victory if you can’t defend your premise by defining it.
You are defending dogma, not facts.
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/february9/med-race-02-09-05.html
I have mild curiosity about what sort of goalpost-shifting or “No True Scotsman” argument rat avatar will advance in response to this cite.
Well at least this shows that you are not capable of learning that there were studies that countered that. Heck, even the cite you make does mention that they exist.
Furthermore, one has to notice that you are once again attempting to ignore that the issue is about denouncing the use of genetics as the main factor on driving the differences in intelligence among the “races”.
One has to point out again that, even when some genes are taken into account, guys like Murray and others do remain racists in the eyes of researchers like Reich; who continues to point out that “there is no genetic evidence to back up any of the racist stereotypes” that guys like Murray promotes; and guys like Sam still believe that they deserve to be heard when he is himself showing to be a willful ignoramus about the bullhorn that conservative outfits already give to racists like Murray and others.
There has been no goalpost shifting for pages, but are you claiming this 2005 study is representative of your enumeration of “races”?
“either white, African-American, East Asian or Hispanic”
That leaves a lot of options undocumented, and can you clarify about Hispanic? As this study claims to use the Census definitions, where
In your gospel is India “white” or “asian”?
Because from the 2000 census it stated that “Asian” was *“Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent” *
Note how your fringe prophet Risch ignored that fact and thus ended up begging the question? Because including Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent populations would have changed the numbers significantly. But it is far more convenient to ignore the racial groupings that wouldn’t fit the claim.
I doubt you will, just as I doubt that you will ever gain the courage to actually define what “white” is in your mind.
That made me laugh out loud.
Matthew Yglassias: “I’m just asking for a civil discussion that’s not dominated by taboos and censorship but also where nobody is allowed to call me racist no matter what I say or do.”
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/994567535629611010
and I’ll add for the heck of it:
“There are significant tactical benefits to being the party of old people (much higher turnout) and white people (much more favorable electoral geography) so we have a fiercely contested politics but there’s little sign “dark web” YouTubes are winning the argument.” https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/994547027337007106
Continuing this tangent, here’s Brad DeLong:
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT] Note to Self: This is your reminder:
180.8 million people are represented by the 49 senators who caucus with the Democrats.
141.7 million people are represented by the 51 senators who caucus with the Republicans.
65.9 million people voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton and Tim Kaine to be their president and vice president
63.0 million people voted for Donald Trump and Mike Pence to be their president and vice president. [/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT] http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/05/note-to-self-this-is-your-reminder-1784-million-people-are-represented-by-the-48-senators-who-caucus-with-the-democ.html
“Studies that countered that”. So the Stanford researchers made 3,631 lucky guesses and only five unlucky ones? :dubious: