This is British media, it would be a boring segment if there was noone to provide counterpoints. How will anyone find Sam Harris convincing if he's just talking to a sycophant? Check Andrew Neil's interview with Ben Shapiro. While the BBC does have a serious problem with political correctness this interview is not the same thing
@@Athelian some of this hardtalk could have been done better. You can't sit there saying what right does a white middle class... when you are white middle class, you exclude yourself on those grounds.
@@seekingsomething9026 I guess you're right about that. But isn't that exactly how every SJW is going to write off this interview? At least by saying it it deflects some of the inevitable incoming criticism.
@@markfenlon244 hi Mark hope your safe and well. I agree with Sam here as much i understand him. But is the interviewer attempting to question and critic Sam,s point of view with that question / statement As I feel it comes from the point of view of people that don’t think so logically and are more feeling or emotionally guided. have a great day.
I agree with Sam but these interviews are always cut up to put on TV. And there was a cut there. You can tell. It just seemed like he was hurrying out of the conversation. And hey. They didn't sit there and call him stupid. They didn't chop up the footage so bad it manipulated Sam's opinion. Good job.
"You claim to be rational and not persuaded by emotion over evidence. My emotion-based ideas have just made me feel uncomfortable at you bringing up evidence that contradicts them, so let me totally ignore the extremely important and telling fact you raised, quickly shift the topic to other data points that I think validates my emotions so I can go on believing that my emotion-based ideas are supported by evidence."
@Major Coats are you sure this opinion is supported by evidence and not emotion-based? (to be fair, you never claimed that it wasn't) you will find magical thinking, logical fallacies, nonsensical beliefs, faulty reasoning, appeals to emotion/authority/nature/common sense/anecdote or personal experience, etc on both the political "left" and political "right" (whatever that means... both are subjective and moving targets). Almost all political movements place ideology over facts, evidence, or reasoned argument. Granted, some of that ideology is often BASED ON facts, evidence, and reasoned argument... but... once it becomes accepted ideology, adherents to that political philosophy or party quickly become loathe to accept new or contradictory evidence. This goes as much for "leftists" who believe that American police officers are committing genocide against "Black" men, or that men and women are biologically identical and gender has nothing to do with sex, or that women are oppressed and that rape culture is real, or who say that using someone's non-preferred pronoun negates them as a person and is a form of violence.... as it goes for American conservatives who believe that COVID was a hoax, or that horse & sparrow/VooDoo/supply side/Reagan-omics actually work and make for good tax policy, or that Donald Trump was intelligent or competent or a good president, or that he really won the 2020 election.... as much as it goes for anyone else who believes that: vaccines cause autism, or Mr. Potato Head losing the "Mr." is an important problem we need to pay attention to, or that global warming isn't real, or that God IS real, or that a "White" person wearing dreadlocks is cultural appropriation and that arguing against this is a racist micro-aggression, or that Q Anon is legit, or that the world economy is governed by an international Jewish banking conspiracy, or the 9/11 was an inside job, or that faeries collect children's teeth and the queen of England is a time-traveling interdimensional lizard person who is in cahoots with them. ALL of the above is equally absurd, equally divorced from reality, and equally unsupported (often outright refuted) by facts, logic, and reason. Though no one political party or persuasion has a monopoly on stupid or on nonsensical anti-reason arguments; I feel like n my lifetime I've seen the bulk of this sort of thing migrate back and forth. During my childhood and formative years I feel like it was more or less equally split - on the one hand you had Republicans slashing taxes and regulations which would inevitably lead to economic recession if not catastrophe, and working to dismantle the American middle class without seeming to realize the enormous long-term harm this would have on the country and the world; but I guess you could argue that at the time it wasn't AS clear that Reagan's economic policies were objectively terrible, and they also hadn't gone as far in the 80s as they would in the future - at the time it's not completely unreasonable to argue that it represented a needed correction from the tax & regulation heavy period of the late 40s through the mid-70s. In the 1970s the term "politically correct" was first coined by Feminists who used the term in a sometimes self-deprecating but overall positive way, before it was made into a pejorative by those opposed to PC culture and used against those who tried to be PC. But then in the late 80s/early 90s it was Democrats who were usually on the side of defending free speech and Republicans who had recently been infiltrated by the "Moral Majority," "Religious Right" and "values voters who frequently did ridiculous bullshit like trying to ban Mortal Kombat for being too violent, or get rappers to stop using dirty words, or blame Columbine on Marilyn Manson and not on.. say... bullying, mental health, lax school security, and/or guns. After PC culture mostly seemed to go away in the late 80s, felled by the likes of the Simpsons and Married with Children, and we went through a period where it seemed like both parties agreed that free speech was vital and important, it came back with a vengeance sometimes around the late 90s/early 2000s... then sort of died-off again... then came back stronger and worse than ever in the late 2000s and has persisted ever since. In it's most recent form this is definitely more of a "leftist" phenomena, at least in the United States, and Republicans, "conservatives," and Neo-Liberals took over as defenders of free speech and being able to say what you meant if it was true even if not politically expedient... but... that didn't really last that long before Donald Trump entered the scene, the biggest fucking snowflake in history, who publicly endorsed "toughening up those libel laws" so that he could sue anyone who accurately insulted or criticized him, he openly praised and admired foreign despots like Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, Kim, and the Saudis and also publicly expressed his wish to be more like them and thus able to imprison or execute critics of him or the administration, he banned popular social media app TikTok through a fucking tweet - the same way he conducted the majority of his idiot-child-with-Tourette's approach to public policy, he corruptly used his own political power to try and punish Jeff Bezos and Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post and he also went after Facebook and Twitter even though these companies irresponsibly allowed this man to spread his hateful racist misogynistic bigoted violence-inspiring democracy-endangering lies straight up until 4 years into his presidency when he instructed a violent mob to invade the US Capitol to overturn an election,
@Major Coats oops. I accidentally pressed "enter." And then I rambled on after that for so long that RUclips would not allow me to publish the comment. Oh well. You wouldn't have read it anyway. The short version is this: ideas and values migrate back and forth. What is "Left" or "right" changes. And both sides have their own set of beliefs they take on faith without evidence. The average person is NOT properly skeptical. The average person is also ignorant, stupid, highly emotional, irrational, bigoted, biased... hard to escape those things. And while certainly there are those on the far left these days, particularly the SJW/Intersectional Feminist crowd, as well as the good ol' radical Marxists they never went away, who believe in some outrageously stupid and dangerous bullshit... ... it's impossible to reasonably argue that currently the American political "right" (definitely deserves quotes as most of these people have no coherent political ideology, they only worship a man)... the Trumpist retards, the Q Anon nuts, the anti-vaxxers (used to be mostly a left thing, now overwhelmingly a right thing, thanks Trump), anti-maskers, diehard borderline anarchist Libertarians, quasi-religious gun nuts, "stop the steal," "fire Fauci," "hang Mike Pence" crowd... is not very VERY much worse. But I suspect that eventually, some day, things will be rebalanced. If the country survives that long.
Because of the context. At the start of the interview he looks like his normal self. After a few questions and interruption from the anchors, his faces changes. It’s disappointment.
Michael M don’t throw out the baby along with bathtubs water u don’t like. I don’t have black employee doesn’t mean I’m racist. Don’t label everything racist is the god damn point.
@@willweng305 Exactly. Just I don't hire any black people and throw CVs with the names of people I suspect might be black in the bin doesn't mean I am aracist.
@@willweng305 I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is that these people are extremely quick to call white people racists for the same behavior they would either ignore or even celebrate if done by a non-white person. They also tend to hold white people collectively responsible for what some of them do and demand they make ammends collectively too. For them, it is justice if a white kid living in a trailer park with his single mom is rejected from college in favor of a rich black kid who scored lower. They define you by your race and wants to implement racist policies. That IS racist.
David Heffron you are racist for exactly the reasons you’ve expressed here. Words don’t suddenly become flexible to protect white peoples’ feelings. Very disappointing.
Stephen Sackur's estimated net worth $1 - $5 million dollars. Sam Harris estimated net worth $2 million dollars Stephen Sakur: we are both middle class
You get that class and personal wealth are different right? If a bus driver wins the lottery he is still working class. Additionally, you don't have anything higher than the middle class in America as you have no aristocracy.
He's not talking to a wall. He's talking to a completely bought and owned sell out whose job it is to destroy anybody who disagrees with leftist elites. It's much more dangerous than a wall. These people have mastered the ability to win over the minds of the masses. They own my parents. They own my friends.
Sam Harris bought up statistics, Stephen just talked about feelings and identity. I don't agree with Sam's argument, but Stephen is as about as useful as a chocolate teapot here.
Did Stephen Sackur just say to Sam Harris "who are you to tell black people how to feel ?" and then Tell Sam Harris how black people really feel ? Nice self awareness Mr BBC
In fairness, the BBC has to appear to be balanced. So they have to be seen to put the counter-arguments to someone like Sam Harris. It's not necessarily an endorsement of a particular point of view.
@@rajo741 Not entirely, but this is a RUclips comments section, not a philosophical symposium, concision is essential. Try this for more; if ones race and class disqualifies you from making comments about any other race or class, then many important discussions will become impossible. Furthermore, under any reasonable classification both Sackur and Harris are in the global elite, top 1%. The only way that either can be considered middle class is that they are not old school blue blood aristocrats
This is painful to watch. Sam is one of the few intellectuals still publicly sharing sane views on this topic (and many others). There’s a reason why both the hard left and right don’t like him - because he’s rational. People need to grow up
For some reason, and I used to be guilty of this, folks are really worried about being “woke-ified” and don’t want to come off as not for the cause. Sam isn’t afraid to push back against the flawed parts of a movement, however well intentioned.
@@errands8253 I think TDS is "Trump Derangement Syndrome," which means over reacting and freaking out about everything that Trump does. Not sure where I stand on that, but I think that's what TDS is referring to.
A good example of a major problem we have in the UK, particularly with the BBC, where interviewers are only interested in conflict, rather than extracting an interviewee's point and exploring it. People like Stephen Sakur, and the BBC, desperately need to understand that they are not presenting their point of view and squeezing and squashing other people's opinions through that, they are supposed to be the conduit for other people's points of view.
I know, he should have done some actual research before this, or at least not lied about the findings from the studies he's citing. That would be a start.
You have to remember, facts NEVER matter when they run contrary to a dogma that a group(s) of individuals are trying to promulgate, especially when it is a super-emotional subject matter; why let facts get in the way of a good narrative? To further your point, the interviewer purports as a matter of fact that there is systematic racism throughout the US and yet he cannot quantify it just like virtually everyone else who says the same thing phrase with their sycophantic virtue-signaling. As logic dictates, example does not make a rule and the continual and complete lack of understanding about this delineation is dangerous
No different from when a tele- evangelist says "I know that I know that I know that I know that there is a God." Substitute the last word for 'racism' and the argument is no different. "What, you want me to demonstrate my claim?! That in itself is a form of sinfulness/racism! Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil/racism, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he/it may devour." Etc.
For all of Sam's greatness, he's not a statistician nor a data scientist. The data can only show correlations, not causes and effects, therefore it is pretty impossible to make categorical conclusions and compare the way he's doing it, i.e., how do we know from the data whether racism was not the cause on those encounters with blacks? the numbers can't tell us anything about this question
@@st3ppenwolf Sam Harris didn't say the statistics indicate that there is no racism involved. He didn't even offer an explanation why blacks have more police encounters. He is asking for proof from the other side - who indeed make a claim - that racism is the cause of all economic disadvantages the blacks suffer, and the violence blacks have to endure from other blacks.
@@godbyelebenohnegott Actually he does cite often the numbers of whites getting killed by police as a way of contrasting with the situation of blacks. I've heard him making that argument before. A seasoned statistician wouldn't even try using those if asked about the "cause" of blacks getting killed, because simply we don't know... we can't know from the data alone
I don't like the way some people apply the label "racist" to people that aren't extremists. There are racists, but they are few. YOU MAY HOLD A RACIST VIEW WITHOUT BEING A RACIST. Some laws and views are racist. If you can't see that, just look at the number of minorities in poverty or worse in jail. If you care to listen and find out how very nice normal people were duped into following racist ideas and laws, there is plenty of material on this, from the "Freedmen's Bureau" the the FHA.
His right eyebrow is inherently raised up, his left eyebrow is normal-esque eyebrow... His face looks like a distorted version of Ben Stiller... More like, Sten Biller.
As a black dude I concur with Sam's assessment. It's complicated and nuanced. Racism isn't everywhere and isn't exhibited by everyone yet still it has a disproportionate impact on people's lives. Just want to give Sam some support for being reasonable, measured, and debating in good faith about such a sensitive topic for many.
@@michaelbrewer1968 who said you have to be? And are you arguing in good faith that different races and genders have different lived experiences that should be represented in conversations on topics like this. Let's say you were watching a long form documentary on racism with multiple interviews intermixed wouldn't you give more creditability to it if you saw multiple races opinions represented compared to a similar documentary that just interviewed one race. Bottom line, you are attaching a feeling to something that is only meant to convey additional information. I would argue, if me being black didn't convey any information about my perspective, racism would be much less of a topic in American discussion at least as it relates to people who share my skin color.
"Who are you to tell black Americans how to feel?" Missing the point so completely he might as well have been listening to the wall behind Sam. He's not "telling black Americans how to feel". He's questioning whether or not the facts support the actual reality claimed, which is that there is a completely disproportionate amount of force used by police against black people, and the source of that disproportion is racism. "Feeling" that some event was racist doesn't actually prove it WAS racist. And it is HARMFUL to throw racism accusations around willy-nilly.
Because "facts" and statistics reveal injustice and discrimination. When it comes to politics Sam Harris is just another American capitalist apologist in denial of white supremacy systems of power which are entrenched in all aspects of the world. Obviously people like Sam and Pinker will ignore that.
To be fair, BBC HARDtalk is by design adversarial toward the guest. In the program the interviewer intentionally puts the interviewee in the spotlight and pushes back on them deliberately aggressively. The treatment of Sam Harris is no exception in this regard; it's the norm on the show.
Yup more white people are shot PER police encounter so racism doesnt exist. Love Sam’s genius. Its unparalleled. When does he get his Nobel Prize for ending racism?
I did notice it and it made me chuckle out loud but it's really not funny - The left push a point, get an irrefutable kickback, and simply ignore it - he's learnt nothing.
Um racism is the root of the problem HISTORICALLY. Man u conservatives are dumb. Also what a cringe crap comparison of Santa lol it doesn't even work and you only prove leftist and communist and scientists correct. Lol
BBC: Who are you to tell black people how to feel? Sam Harris: ok let’s look at emotionally neutral facts. BBC: why are you using evidence, it’s so unfeeling!
Man you are very dishonest here. What you quoted was so far from the context of the BBC interviewer. You are trying to make it appear as if the BBC guy is an idiot and did not raise any valid points. "Who are you to tell black people how to feel?" That was not the whole point BBC was trying to make. He was arguing that the feelings of black people in US are rooted in facts. He was asking whether or not the BLM movement is justified from the point of view of black people. Then, Sam Harris responded with facts about likelihood of getting shot by the police. You write above: "BBC: why are you using evidence, it’s so unfeeling!" You are misrepresenting the BBC guy's rebuttal. Sure he raised that Sam seem to unsympathetic. But that is not what he just said. He raised valid points too like the fact that blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. I like Sam Harris too because he is an independent thinker. Dont be a blind fan boy and be dismissive of the point of views of others that are opposed to your point of view.
@Ryan Tandy ok. point is well taken regarding the likelihood black men of getting shot. However, as the BBC guy argued that is not the only ground for the BLM for there are others. for example the incarceration rate. Well anyway this is beside the point. My reply to the original post is that the poster DID misrepresent what the BBC guy said and highlight Sam Harris who happen to agree with his world view instead of engaging the arguments raised against Sam's point. Is that NOT also showing bias? Is not that identity politics? The gist of the original post i was replying too is very dismissive as if BBC guy is stupid and unable to make valid arguments. I would disagree with your argument that feelings don't matter, because I think it does in the most important of ways. All revolutions in history are all fueled by the passionate desire of the masses for change in order to bring about a new reality. Feelings move people to action.
Harris gave a specific argument about the misunderstanding surrounding race and likelihood of being shot by police. This backed up his claim that much of what is generally accepted as fact is actually false because it is not backed up by the evidence. Thw BBC replied with "...surely there's an overwhelming tract of evidence...[to the contrary]". As a rule in debate a specific claim cannot be refuted with a general argument. Furthermore, it is not a stretch to understand the BBC rebuttal as meaning "but everyone feels a certain way so those feelings must reflect fact, and since you don't feel that way you're emotionally unintelligent". The BBC reporter's argument was vague, fallacious, evasive, and insulting.
@@rasaecnai thank you for making this observation. I am a fan of Sam Harris but I find sometimes his brilliant intellect is limited by a lack of empathy and a sense of distance. Not everyone has the tools to process life when in an turmoil. I like Alan Watts as well, who Sam Harris occasionally recommends, and Alan Watts had the capacity of connecting emotionally in a was that Sam Harris seems unable to. Sam Harris is very wealthy and grew up very comfortably and sometimes I feel he can be a bit out of touch with people who experienced hardships. But I find his points on police brutality in the USA not always based on race and a reflection of a violent society with guns very valid. A violent police that is a reflection of a violent society. The BBC interviewer made valid points and did not come across as a Woke shill
In other words you don't feel comfortable having your views challenged. Tough questions are the usual format of interviews about controversial subjects, and Sam was wrong, so you didn't like it. Tough luck, try not to get mad when reality defeats expectations.
Blm seem to spread violence in action and speech, intent on destruction - no sensible suggestions on how to evolve, just defund the police, destruct the nuclear family and fundamentally alter societal structures. I also believe reparations have been suggested. From the outside listening to black people in American society reject blm and point to way deeper issues, they are gaining a voice- listen to them not the white left wing- delighted at further divisions or the black extremists. Let’s help all the poor and prove it’s.nothing to do with colour or politics. Although that’s not the bbc narrative. .why? I suppose this is the price you pay for independence not favouring one side or the other, as the BBC must do, but they just want to tell us we’re racist and need reprogramming. Which they’re gladly do for us. F off we literally pay for your bloody salaries. #Defundthebbc let me guess that is racist and exactly the facts a white supremicist would say- the terrible things slavery did many generations ago doesnt mean now it is acceptable to want to inflict suffering on many because they are the same skin colour as those who did wrong to your ancestors. Doing this under the banner of racial equality is sick.
6:25 "Which black people are saying right now .. [looks down at notes] they will no longer tolerate without expressing their anger." Very nice of the unified league of black people to release a statement to the BBC for this interview..
The interviewers are allowed to debate their guests points but they are able to move on as soon as the guest says something completely reasonable. I wish the guests would ask the host if he agrees or disagrees with what they just said before they move on to a new subject.
This is the BBC and the interviewer should not be voicing his opinion at all. That is the point of the BBC , to be impartial..just to get to the truth. Unfortunately, recently the BBC has failed to report on subjects impartially. Unless they change that will be their downfall.
They can't let guests expatiate on topics when their job is to cover a range of subjects. They could be more loose with the format if it weren't a clearly defined time slot.
This is a common misinterpretation from Americans. This is the British style of interview WHICH IS SUPERIOR TO THE AMERICAN. It drives debate. Thats why Ben Shapiro looked like a dummy in his BBC segment. He's so used to being coddled by pro business media outlets that he accused an Arch conservative of being a liberal and got laughed off the panel. Please look it up, it was quite funny. I like Sam and only by playing the devils advocate uncovers his line of thinking. It doesnt matter what the reporter actually believes his job is to troll
@@leninswalrus his job is to troll? Oh deary me. Complete bullshit,his job is to drive down the propaganda which he does throughout. Notice his answer on Jacob Blake. The presenter didn't say a word then changed subjects to religion
If you're suggesting he be labeled a scientist for that, one isn't considered a scientist for having graduated with a degree in science. Scientists are people who've actively worked in and kept up with a certain field of science, which Sam has not done. At best one can say that PhD makes him a philosopher of science, though professionally he is an author and public educator of ethics and meditative practice - always informed by current scientific understanding but never an active specialist.
@@AncientDarkElf He has spoken and taught how meditation can positively impact brain function. He used his scientific knowledge to educate his fan base on meditation. So, yes he is a “neuroscientist” based on your logic.
@@AncientDarkElf Ok so here's why you're wrong and most likely stupid: 1. Firstly. Would you consider Charles Darwin a scientist? No? How about Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking? No? I think its obnoxious to qualify someone only being a scientist if they're an active specialised researcher. Especially when researchers change their field so often and most of the greats don't sit in front of microscopes. I wonder how people would react if you called Hawking a philosopher. 2. As for technical definitions, lets ask google: "Hey google, Define Scientist" "a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences." - Google Sam received a Ph.D. degree in cognitive neuroscience in 2009 from the University of California, Los Angeles, *using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.* 3. The vast majority of Sams books are embedded and referenced with Neuroscientific research, it takes a lot of research to form these theories and arguments and honestly I think your comment is not only invalid but corrosive.
OMG these comments... When do people understand that: THE JOURNALIST IS NOT VOICING HIS OPINION BUT HE IS CHALLENGING THE INTERVIEWEE SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION...
Wrongo. If the point was a meaningful discussion, the interviewer would ask Sam follow-up questions about his alleged evidence. Here, as soon as Sam refutes the BBC's PC nonsense, the BBC changes the topic. The BBC clearly is trying to state its propaganda line and not have any discussion that challenges that line. Which is CLASSIC propaganda. Read Chomsky. The people making comments bemoaning the bias of the BBC are correct.
It's like a grownup trying to explain something to a third grader.. "Every problem doesn't equal racisms" "what about all these problems" "Yeah what about them" "Is that not racisms?" "No it's not" "X, Y and Z explains these issues." "Let's move on"
@@phillytothemax There is no other end of the issue they are speaking of. Not in America. If you idol(worship) your skin color every problem is, because of it. It's all you think about. You define yourself by your skin color. This is a problem Kid. Put your faith(identity) in Christ Kid, and follow his teachings. The worldly ideologies(secular religions) have swept you up, and captured your mind. You believe your skin color plays a role in your life, and it doesn't. Intersectionality has rotted your head. Pagan worship.
@@WilliamEllison @Philmore James Yeah exactly, a lot people experience racism, and we aren’t saying that it isn’t happening. But the thing is that the western world has definitely taking it to the next level by saying that racism is the only reason for things. First of all you have to put yourself in the position of the cops as well. My whole life I’ve been the only person of color in my kindergarten/school, obviously that is going to leed to what people would call racism. Such as for example name calling, being called the n-word etc. But it really rare that this happens, and I know for a fact that pretty much no one is being a victim of racism on a regular basis in the western world unless it’s in freaking elementary school(emphasis on pretty much). It would be like boys making fun of girls, and girls making fun of boys. Because it’s very, very obvious that racism is a two way street. Black people make fun of white people all the time, you see it in movies and other forms of media. Just because white people were very racist before, doesn’t mean you should do it back. You can’t solve this with more racism. If you revolve around your skin color so much, how are you going to expect others not to?
I don't know how Sam manages to remain so patient with people who aren't engaging the most cursory of critical thinking skills and appear to ask questions only so that he can ignore the answers and move seamlessly back into pushing their own ignorant narrative.
When he tells Sam Harris “Who are you to tell black people how to feel”, I immediately thought of Milton Friedman saying “would you only let a doctor treat you for cancer if he himself had cancer” to those who said the same BS to him on similar topics
I live in a small village. When I go shopping in the next village, all the locals eyeball me, with faces of wonder, probably asking themselves who I am and what I could be doing in their town. If I had a different skin colour, people would probably call these villagers racist. They're not, they just suspicious of every stranger they see, regardless of colour. We use the word racism way too quickly to judge others we don' t agree with.
When I grew up in Switzerland in the 80ies, I was the outcast, the other, because my family lives 1 mile and a half away from the village. An effing mile and a half. And today, I have to consider truly foreign peoples and cultures as the same and if I don't, I am a racist? Yeah, F.U., 2020ies.
I love how at the end when Sam has given Stephen Sackur the upper punch of an argument he can't counter instead of acknowledging it as a good point he says "to move on from race" and changes the subject.
Your right... May I share a quote... “Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.” ― Fulton J. Sheen
Most of the time, showed his profound ignorance this time. Doesn't even understand how to interpret statistics. Its either that or he's an unscrupulous narcissist. You're 6x more likely to get shot by police if you're black in america. I read both studies he cites and they show clear police bias to profile black americans as criminals over every other race, and also that the stats do not support this imbalance in targetting with successful apprehensions. The stats don't lie, but this fucker does. Watch out for him.
@@Kollektive I read the studies myself, both in fact that he references. They state you are 6x more likely to get shot if you are black than white. It helps to do your due diligence and not take people’s word on faith. Seems kind of religious to blindly accept the words of your authority figures. Nice try though 😉
He only states that more white people are shot, and not how that is reflected in population representation. He’s misrepresenting facts at best, lying to push his “anti identity politics” agenda. He’s usually smart but lets himself down here
@@calumcooke2040 It's not his job to be ham-fisted in doing so (or is it?). Intelligent disagreement I'm all for. Obvious idiocy presented as if it's a counter-argument is just absurd, pointless, and insulting. It's just not worth the viewer's time.
@Colin Cleveland Literally every single time the host disagreed. If you have any examples, with time stamps, where his disagreement was worth listening to, I'd be curious to see that.
Hard Talk: As soon as somebody smarter makes a point that can't be refuted: "moving away from that point where I fell flat on my face..." credit to Sam Harris and shame on the BBC for running with this over inflated narrative.
Broadcast TV gets money in proportion to the pure numbers of listeners. So they cater their news to pull the heartstrings of the majority of the public. Be they right or wrong.
"As soon somebody smarter" ,something a really dumb person would say cz they can't analyze simple thing in life without looking at so called higher intellect beings who make them feel like dumb
@@johnkennedy9121 This kind of elitist mental gymnast pride might work on pleasing dumb MAGA chads but not anyone else ,Sam Harris ,the Guy thinks like Binary 0 & 1 with poll number when it comes to any social issue .The guy is literal example of Dumbest way to analyze humans & funnier part is other dumb humans think he is someway smart as he think like a Data entry Software .
Indeed. I think the people who see racism behind every set back in their lives are more likely the source of the majority of their own problems. They're just externalizing their problems to a handy straw man because it easier and more comforting than taking ownership of them.
Sam on the money as always. Absent fathers matter, studying at school matters, self esteem matters, staying away from crime matters, looking at evidence and facts matter.
Sam Harris is a clear and logical voice that cuts through the madness of the day. 🙏🏽 Sam’s committed to civil rights and ending racism in a sustainable way. I applaud him for it. The BBC host comes off as dismissive and seems like he’s not willing to have a real conversation and reverts back to dogma. ideas > identities facts > opinions data > anecdotes
The data Sam Harris cites to support his statements are actually false. He claims you are more likely to get shot as a white man in America than if you are a black man. I literally read the study he cites and he misrepresents the data. More white men are killed by police than black men in the US, but that does not take into account population representation. Black around 13% and white around 73% or so. You're actually 6x more likely to be shot by police if you are a black man statistically in the US, and 40% of those instances are where the black male is unarmed. Also a very high percentage (around about 90% I think) of cases in which white men are fatally shot by police involves either hostage situations where the perp is threatening the lives of others, or themself. Harris is great and quite interesting when talking about his anti-religious views, but I think he's made the same mistake a lot of people in the comments here have of forgetting the fact that racism isn't some abstract idea you can simply debunk with a few vapid phrases like he has. I sincerely distrust his commitment to civil rights when he either willingly distorts data to support his own preconcieved views that the problem is being overblown, or he is simply not able to understand the data(which I highly doubt). He seems more preoccupied with painting any ideological movement as corrupt, apart from his own unwavering faith in himself.
I bet on both of my nuts you wouldn't be able to find any other public debater who's as calm as he is and almost all of the things he debates on are considered taboo/sensitive. Definitely check out the app and also the books.
I would say he's incredibly blinkered on this issue and his statements are quite clearly those of an apologist for an injust system. Trying to reframe the issue of racial profiling as simply that of the plight of penury accepts not only accepts the prejudicial notion that black people intrisically deserve or should accept poverty, but also that the link between poverty and how the media negatively enforces stereotypes is irrelevant. A huge dereliction of duty here, although I find Sam Harris very compelling and thoughtful on other topics he is learned in, he reveals a huge weakness in his approach to deny the existence of racism as if it were a religious chimera. He uses the phrase "black people are 'roughed up'" as a euphemism for police brutality to shirk the obvious conclusions, and mentions a decontextualised statistic about white people being more likely to be shot when a gun is pulled. What he casusitically does not include is the number of black people who have guns drawn on them without probable cause, which I might add is a HUGE part of the issue. What is actually important within this issue is to speak to people who actually experience racism and not to accept the conclusions drawn by a man who is so over-confident in his ability to reason that he tries to misrepresent an issue in a way that conforms to his own (political)belief system. Funny how you so rarely hear black people saying identity politics is irrelevant and racism isn't as bad as they say. Just indifferent unaffected insecure people who cannot understand a life with any more hardship than themselves.
@@cornsockgabz I acknowledge that you have given this time and thought but I think I have to disagree with you on almost every count. Of course, I do not dispute that people with darker skin are over represented in lower socio-economic groups in North America and other continents, but the question is: what is being claimed as a conclusion from this observation? You claim that Harris is denying the existence of racism and he is explicit in claiming the opposite. What he disputes is the claim, upon which much of BLM is based, that black people are disproportionately killed by police because the police are racist. This is the claim he is disputing. The onus is on you, if you find fault in his analysis, to dispute it as he makes it, not by how you might wish to frame it.
@@stuffandnonsense8528 @Stuff and Nonsense The onus is not on me to disprove Sam's point but for Harris and yourself to prove its veracity. BLM is not based on the entire premise that black people are disproportionately killed, but that they are targeted and harassed unjustly and recieve undue discrimination. It makes it easier for you and him to frame it as a simplistic and absolutist premise, that the police are racist. The purpose of BLM as stated on its own website and elsewhere is the advocation of non-violent protest against instances of police brutality and of course, murder. The movemenet was born out of the injust acquittal of George Zimmerman in 2013 where he murdered a black child. Black Lives Matter started as a hashtag because it is an important social issue, and you treating this like a theological discussion asking me to prove the existence of racism in police brutality as if there isn't thousands of hours of footage just shows to me how off the mark you are in this debate. If you want to oversimplify the discussion in to terms of absolutism like 'the police are racist' and that BLM is concerned only with murder and not harassment itself, then you are ignoring salient points to reframe the issue on your own terms. BLM is not so naieve as to accuse the entire personage of policemen as racism, but to advocate for policies that give the correct punitive measures for the crime itself. Harassment is harassment whatever uniform you have on. My question to you would be what interest do you have personally in undermining BLM if it is a non-violent movement advocating for police reform which is obviously necessary. "I do not dispute that people with darker skin are over represented in lower socio-economic groups in North America and other continents, but the question is: what is being claimed as a conclusion from this observation? " If you don't tactitly agree with the notion that skin tone should intrinsically determine your socio-economic worth and standing, how do you explain or justify the gross iniquity apparent in the statistics. The law of parsimony exists so people like yourself do not exercise casuistry in these questions, trying to deflect and deprive the context of the USA and the mistreatement of black people from the conversation as a legitimate variable. Its simply dishonest. You seem to think you can move the goalposts of the discussion here by choosing certain facts over the other. I did already dispute Sam Harris's position by pointing out the fact he mentioned only one statistic to represent his view that race was not relevant to the discussion. He mentions that white people are more likely to be shot when drawn on, but conveniently ignores the amount of black americans who have guns drawn on them. But anyway, you want to talk about figures and stats so lets bring some of those up. 96 per 100,000 are at risk of being shot by the police which is more than twice as liekly compared to white people. The studies Sam cites are from 2015 and the one I'm citing is from 2019 which includes the aggregate data from the study Sam cites himself. He also misrepresents the data by saying that more white people are shot, but that black people are more likely to be shot. Which is significant considering the disparity in their representation in general population. ……………… Anyway you want me to disprove his viewpoint even though it is not incumbent on me to do so, but here goes. An FBI study from 2018 revealed that black americans are at risk of being fatally shot by poilce at a rate of 96 per 100,000. And this figure is more than twice the rate of white people which is around 38 per 100,000. Sam Harris's argument is that you're more likely to be shot if you are white, but what he deliberately fails to mention is that is only because african americans represent only 13% of the population. The stats show clear prejudice based on race, and you simply trying to reframe it as poverty is just casuistry and misrepresentation. I can provide you to a link to the study I mentioned, and the one Harris cites if you are interested? So anyway TL:DR I can show the figures that prove that black people are disproportionately shot by the police than white people, and Sam Harris is cherry-picking stats to obfuscate already determined and ratified facts.
@@cornsockgabz your many points do deserve careful response but I want to raise an important point which you seem to have neglected. The issue is killings per police encounter. Do you dispute that these are lower for black Americans?
I've already pointed out that the likeliness of being fatally shot by police is more than twice as likely if you are a black american. 96-100,000 if black, 38-100,000 if white. The fact that en masse more white people are killed in the US is irrelevant when you apply the actual ikelihood of a fatal police encounter based on race. If the US was populated 50/50% white/black americans, more black people would be killed than white people by these numbers so your point is completely irrelevant and misleading. African-american people represent 13% of the US population whereas caucasian people represent 76.3%. This means, even to use your basis of measurement, african americans would actually have to be roughly 6x the risk of being fatally shot by police to match this statistic. Its crucial to be able to understand what the stats and figures actually mean before taking it on faith that Mr Harris is not cherry picking stats to suit his own agenda. Its kind of strange how many fans of Harris take what he says on faith, despite purporting to be free-thinkers and anti-tribalism.
6:10 This is insanity, he's spewing out results/facts suggesting because there are differences between ethnic groups racism has to be a factor, without actually seeing any racism. It's as if we would watch the 100m dash and say: "Well, clearly racism is the deciding factor in these races."
@@outofbluepills So you've seen and lived the life of a black man yourself? Didn't realise racism works in the same way that peekaboo works on babies because they lack object permanence. If any of you actually read the studies he's citing you'd see that none of the data supports his claims, in fact contradicting his assertions he's so keen to present as legitimate. So, I'm guessing you think systemic racism doesn't exist? Clearly not a US history buff.
@@cornsockgabz Yet another comment from you about the same thing, yet no provided evidence still. ... To be clear: I don't think you read those studies and are just steering shit.
@@9xqspx6 Read the studies yourself then if you don't believe me. I could normally provide links, but youtube wont allow it in these comments. Sam Harris has provided no evidence, and has contradicted the findings of the studies he's citing as well.
@@cornsockgabz I think there are people in this comment section who would actually want to have a look into those studies, but you - who obviously (?...) read it - did not bother to provide a link, or the title of it, or the numbers that you claim Harris lied about.
Sam Harris is one of those people you could listen to all day and not know the day has passed, he is so intelligent, so accurate, this should be shown at schools.
Agreed! The problem there are many dumb people whose brains are so simple and can’t understand the complexity of his thinking like this Avi Gindratt guy! Can’t argue with idiots and ideologues
Just so everyone knows, the whole point of Hard Talk is to pressure the guest, and make it difficult, these are not the views of the interviewer. Its his job to see if he can get the guest to crack. Sam did a great job.
I'm worried that this kind of exchange legitimizes (to some people, at least) the left's stupid stubbornness / stubborn stupidity around the topic... but, anyway, great to know that's how that show goes, and really Sam did great.
@Gabriel Halford, I hope it’s safe to do so over there... kinda dangerous in the US and other places (at least among certain strata). I also hope BLM and the likes of Antifa die out and spare the UK and Europe...
@@UP-To-The-Time What a daft comparison. Besides the gentleman isn't saying that he isn't outraged by anything, he's saying he isn't doesn't have a *duty* for moral outrage.
@@TheAcad3mic everyone should have a duty for moral outrage. Somethings are just so cruel everyone should be outrage. That's the duty. I don't think you understand what's having a duty for moral outrage.
@@UP-To-The-Time Disagree. The problem with outrage is that it's blind and often destructive and fruitless. People should be driven to think, take action, but not be outraged. Emotional outbursts don't get us anywhere and leave us prey to people who would just walk us to the cliff edge.
That BBC interrogator was not the least bit interested in Sam's rational, cogent responses. Every time Sam was about to dismantle his contention, he rudely interrupted him with another "question". Sam really exercised admirable restraint.
that is the classic aggressive modus operandi of the broadcast msm to shut down (mainly) right wingers. Every time they are about to complete an answer or even halfway through their answer, the interviewer jumps in with the next provocative question, sometimes at a tangent to the last. Whereas if it's say, Emily Maitlis, interviewing Hilary Benn about a second referendum, then suddenly he's given all the time in the world. What a contrast.
I don’t think it was admirable, the interviewer was just too rude , Sam should have called him out on his bs , and refused to play his game . Agreeing with the first part of what you said of course
"rational, cogent responses" hahaha. Using fancy words does not a smart man make. Sam Harris is an idiot disguised as an intellectual and if you scratch the surface of his arguments, you realize it's all nonsense
@@peterduff9281 "mainly" right wingers 😂 when was the last time you heard on MSM anything about anti war voices, Palestenian rights, socialists, universal healthcare, etc. The right wing voices are always heard, just not the super right wing ones. Msm isn't left wing.
@@eagleleft Sorry, just what is "super" right wing? Is it people who are for controlled borders, limits on immigration, Brexit and anti-identity politics? Does the BBC allow these voices much if any airtime? Its roster of guests on programmes like Question Time demonstrates that it is fully on board with the mass-immigration/identity politics, pro-EU, quotas, diversity, multiculturalism bandwagon - were you born yesterday? And most of the media in the US is fully on board with universal healthcare - name me one, Fox news apart, that isn't. And Palestinian rights, correct me if I'm wrong, is one of the vanishingly few examples where you can spin an anti-white narrative. That's why people like you are so obsessed with it. If other ethnic cultures trample all over the rights of other minorities, well you don't give a........
As soon as Sam Harris made a valid point, the interviewer: “To move on from race to religion”. Why do these aggressive interviewers bother jousting with someone who has facts at their fingertips. The media is causing so much of the divide by pushing false narratives. What America needs is a more honest and less divisive media, rather than a media that is more interested in viewing numbers than reporting honest news.
I don't like Sam Harris and there were legitimate challenges to what he said, but all he could do was make emotional arguments. It's almost as if he needs to feel guilty about his beliefs, not because they're wrong, but because they make people feel bad.
This is NOT a typical sycophantic American interview. You've obviously never seem this program before so let me explain it to you. Hard Talk is a program that is designed to put the interviewer in the position of Devil's Advocate - the interviewer will challenge the guest on his statements, to explain his reasoning. That's the whole point of the program. It is not a softball Fox news interview.
Grimtraveller Yes, but how well do you think he challenged Sam Harris. If you remember Sam mentioned the police statistics. He said that in relation to the number of interactions with the police, unarmed while people are shot slightly more. You do know what the interviewer said to challenge that statement? Like you said, this isn't no softball or sycophant show, so he must have said something really challenging right?
The show is called 'Hard Talk', the interviewer, no matter how annoying, is playing 'devils advocate', he does it with all guests thats the point of the show. Go back check years back worth of episodes. But yes if you are not familiar with the format, very annoying, and sure being the BBC too, makes it easy to suggest it's all literal.
I politely disagree. The title of the program IMO should reflect the stress-testing of ideas and positions not the rote recital of the tenets of an opposing (and strangely consistent in its orientation) ideology stated as fact. What is strange and uncomfortable here is the host does not refer to other intellectuals who may differ from Mr Harris in their views and present their academic evidence as their proxy to counter Sam's assertions which would be a genuine trial by fire if handled well. Instead Mr Sackur makes repeated statements as fact with absolutely no supporting data so we end up with the usual "my opinion/lived experience versus your facts" scenario which is nearly always divisive and unproductive. I'll add in relation to your comment that this is de rigueur for the format that having watched many episodes (courtesy of business travel where BBC World is the only English channel!) I struggle to recall examples where the political poles were reversed but I am obviously happy to be corrected on the point.
@@adrianclarke6829 if you watch his interview with Paul Krugman he rips him apart saying Trump's economy is flourishing and that liberals got it wrong, he really does just try to rip whoever is in front of him. He asks the questions anyone's opponent would
@@JacobHawkins-io1ij thx, I'll take a look, though I still question the premise if any counter-position is arbitrary. It starts to sound like the Monty Python arguments sketch!
@@adrianclarke6829 I agree, it can feel very silly at times but I think it's good it gives everyone a level of scrutiny that they are not used to. It's quite typical of BBC shows that they are very antagonistic to everyone to make it fair like Andrew Marr show, Jeremy pacman, Andrew O Neil. And I think it gives people an opportunity to defend themselves and how well they defend themselves is a good sign of how credible their views are
@@JacobHawkins-io1ij I've just watched the Klugman episode and though I agree with the view that Sackur took him to task regardless of his political orientation, it felt far more measured and fact driven. I'll try and find a few more left wing interviewees to see how it plays out.
Good for you Sam! I highly repect that you value the pursuit of truth over value-signaling to score easy points. Two things can be true at once: racism exists and is bad, but not every shooting of a black person is due to racism. I agree that lately there is a tendency to think that it is and that's creating more problems rather than resolve racism. The viewpoint of the reporter, though probably well-intended, is most likely not helping the very group it is intended to help (unfortunately)
You're quite correct in your first point but fail at 2 things: - identifying the weaknesses in what Harris said (ignore the interviewer; Harris is explicity the subject) - using a "fallacy fallacy" - just because a point is fallacious, doesn't mean the argument is proports is wrong
He lied about the stats in this interview. He presents a false reality which directly contradicts the findings of the studies he's suposedly read. He doesn't value truth at all it seems, just wanting to appear to be smarter at whatever cost. Embarassing really.
"Jacob Blake" Does anyone know why he was shot? Because he had attacked the person that put a restraining order against him, stole her car keys and potentially was going to kidnap her kid (who was in the back seat of the car he was attempting to steal). He was only shot after getting physical with police, brandishing a knife (he said he had it, and was found on him), and attempting to get into the vehicle to flee from police with at least 1 child that wasn't his in the back seat of the car. The police had every reason to shoot Blake. Anyone defending Blake is defending violent, woman-beating criminal.
"Anyone defending Blake is defending violent, woman-beating criminal." Don't you get it, Marxist love criminals....and for that reason, they're obviously going to defend Blake
@@JohnSmith-su3ze There's more strawmen in this comments section than there are scarecrows in the US. You must all get sore fingers jerking each other off to feel smart.
I can say this unequivocally. Police shoot men. Yes MEN. There is a much more "Taken for granted" feeling for police shooting men than Police shooting blacks. The disparity however you look at it, of police shooting when looked at in terms of gender is far far greater than police shootings in terms of race. I will say this again, Floyd had a much greater chance of surviving if he was a Black woman than a white man. (Tony Timpa was killed in similar ways, a white man).
Uneducated in this field, lacking empathy with his euphemising phrases like “roughed up” to describe harassment. Its so weird how the people in the comments here act as if empathy is rare and venerable. Its literally normal to think empathetically if you’re a human being, if you only understand it abstractly then you’re not really one of us.
@@cornsockgabz Actually, that was the interviewer engaging in identity politics to dismiss thoughts based on skin color. That statement was a glaring example of the interviewer's delusion, questioning Sam's ability to discuss this topic as a white person, when he himself is not only also a white guy, but doesn't even live in the society/country he is presuming to educate us on.
@@cornsockgabz Funny how easily you can construct a narrative when you focus exclusively on every fact that supports that narrative, and disregard the rest.
@@deek0146 Its only easy to do so when the facts are painting an obvious and easily understood picture. If you're one of those people that just distrusts all news media however please move on, its such a boring and spoonfed view to have. So yeah, its easy to understand that systemic racism exists in America when you can literally see thousands of hours of footage of dirty cops harassing innocent black people. Its not a "narrative" or a "story" its just reality sometimes.
@@cornsockgabz Yea you've ignored what I said. Statistically, black people are not more likely to be harrassed than white people. What you're suffering from is a combination of media amplification bias and confirmation bias
@@deek0146 Mate, if you want me to provide you with the verified studies that contradict that statement proving it to be utterly false, I am very happy to do so. What I'm actually suffering from is a bunch of white people trying to pretend racism doesn't exist cus they've never experienced in and are massively uncomfortable with the idea that their personal hardships have been a lot easier than the results of that would imply.
The interviewer is a complete intellectual coward. And he serves as a great example of why this type of media format is dying an increasingly rapid death.
U do realize he is supposed to challenge ppl on the show right. He even challenged anti uygher camps figures. It doesn’t necessarily represent his views. Ur so close minded that u want interviewers to just agree with the person they are talking to and disregard any possible challenges to their arguments
@@ino-fg4qv You do realize that it's an antiquated, unnatural, divisive way for two people to speak? Kind of like what we're doing here. Minus the antiquated part.
@@ino-fg4qv Regardless, if his job is to take the opposite view, there should actually be a logical argument. Otherwise what the hell is the point of propagating the other idiotic viewpoint.
I can’t stand when people say “but you’re not _______ so how can you speak for them?” (Black, a woman, Hispanic, trans, etc.) I’m not black and I can’t speak for black people. I mean of course, I never suggested I could. What I CAN do is give my view as a human being. I’ve never been called the n-word or suspected of being a criminal because of who I am. But I’ve seen that very thing happen to other people, and it infuriates me. Not because I feel like I need to save them or that white people are evil, but because I know that it could be me or my loved ones had my ancestors gotten more sun. None of us choose our birth. I can say I have opinions on policy affecting black people because I bloody well care about ALL people. Design society in a way that you didn’t know who you would be until you’ve set it up. Pretend you have the same chance of being any race, religion, sex, or orientation, and design a world that will be best for all kinds and types of people.
Sam has much patience, I was irritated by this guy pushing his narrative and showing little interest in facts. All Sam is saying is that the battle against racism is being fought on the battleground that is not where the core of the problem exists. Crime, education, culture, poverty, kids raised without fathers are the bigger dragons to slay. The fact that BLM will not acknowledge all this as part of the problem exposes their ignorance and only opens up a door of speculation to their true objectives. Dishonesty and never changing a mind, never admitting mistakes are symptoms of a movement that lacks character.
Can i ask what do you mean by "being fought on the battleground"? From my understanding the way cities were set up in the US was minorities were pushed to these parts of the city were no opportunities were given, which then in turn created poverty which then brought down the standard of education, this created huge problems with drugs and crime and through decades of this cycle and media manipulation of the nation landed us to where we find ourselves. So surely these protests are being fought on the correct battleground.
The problem is whenever black people try to protest on what is a very clear message, white people think all black people have to apologise for the supposed parts of their culture they disagree with. The actual problem is that you cannot see black people as individuals so you think they have to be inerrant and pious to be able to have an opinion without people like you trying to undermine it. So when a white boy shoots up a church for terroristic reasons, does the entire"white community" have to come up and say they disapprove. Didn't think so. White people telling black people how to come out of poverty is too fucking rich, gimme a break.
the stats he cites about whites being more likely to be shot, are BS. Those stats conflate Hispanics as white, and Hispanics are more likely to be shot. It is fake news.
Let's be honest "we are two white middle aged guys, and who are you to tell black people anything". This host is saying that you don't have a right to give your input on a subject, because are a certain race. Hmmm? I believe we have found who the real racist is! Watching Sam get annoyed is a guilty pleasure of mine. Sam is so articulate and precise with his responses it is amazing, however you can see the irritation in his facial expressions and gestures. I just sit back and enjoy every single second of it. I have listen to and re-listened to Sam Harris vs Ezra Klein at least 4 times. Sam and I do not share the same political views, but I absolutely love listening to and watching Sam take apart people's B.S. regardless of what side of the political aisle he is on.
Bravo Sam. Well thought out, comprehensive and rational thinking as always. It’s such a shame that people appear to be incapable of having a rational or evidence based discussion these days. They don’t even try to get at the truth, they only try to blindly support their own ‘truth’.
Harris is also incapable of having a facts based discussion. Many of the "facts" he mentions are direct contradictions of the most up to date studies, and I've even read the one he refers to, which also contradicts him. So, he's either lying outright to maintain his public persona of a rationalist contrarian, or he's simply not intelligent enough to understand the figures properly, which of course we know he is. I implore to read the studies yourself, despite Harris' sangfroid and the interviewers irritable demeanour, he's not actually right about really anything he's said here.
No, it just means you lack the ability to think outside your own rigid thought patterns to understand other people's experiences with compassion. Sam Harris didn't even present the other salient points of the study he cites which contradict his entire position, such as the fact that black people are more than twice as likely to die than white people from police brutality. Also, the fact that in teh cases of white men being shot, they are nearly always armed, whereas most incidences of fatal shootings by police on black people weren't even armed. He conveniently tries to ignore the long history of racial injustice within the country which is still ongoing, in favour of a deliberately decontextualised statistic. You've made a falty assumption that emotional intelligence impedes your ability to reason objectively. You believe your ability to be unemotional about an issue which does not affect you, means you are able to see it more objectively and logically. What this actually is is the privelige of inexperience, masquerading as lucidity. Also when you discount the evidence, of which there are thousands of hours on youtube, of police brutality against black people given the huge context of not only excessive state force in the US, and that slavery was only outlawed 155 years ago in that country which is still young, you do a grave injustice to those who have experienced it, many who are alive today. The bigotry of people like you who genuinely believe your faith in your own intelligence refutes all criticisms of faulty thinking, is alarmingly common. It sounds like it bothers you because I imagine its been said to you before. Sam Harris does lack emotional intelligence though. His entire identity is founded on wanting to be always right, so his blind-spots are becoming very apparent in this misguided and intellectually dishonest interview
@@cornsockgabz If I tell you that you are rigid and unable to understand my position because you luck compassion, would you change your mind? I guess no, because that is BS argument. Actually, that is not an argument at all. Just BS.
@@aleksandarlazic4620 If your only response is to take offence and ignore my arguments, you've evinced a stronger tendency to react emotionally than rationally in this instance. I also made a case as to why the thought process which led you to be so bumptious with your views shows tribalistic thinking, typical of irrational behaviour. When someone responds so dismissively with a salient observation relating to their credibility, they're clearly unable to defend themselves as well as their contrary position. My argument wasn't simply to tell you you lacked emotional intelligence, of which I outlined why I made these inferences, but to show the weakness of arguing without or simply discounting it as unnecessary, which I can you're reluctant to acknowledge.
@@cornsockgabz I've applied you logic on you to see if you are in favor of "double standard or not". There is nothing dismissive about that. I hear you but I do not believe you. I can address your statistics and ideas how to correct them, by playing a fool: Statistically speaking, majority of violent crime was committed by male individuals of minority ethnic group. There is a lot of youtube videos where you can see this in action. Therefore, it is totally OK to accuse/punish every single individuals from that gender/ethnic group, even if they haven't done anything wrong. That would fix statistic. Now, if I'm serious about that logic, would you conclude that I'm compassioned person or that I'm an idiot. While you are thinking clever response, remember that you are not tribal. You are noble thinker who applies the same standard to everyone.
This is how to handle Debate/Discussion, by communicating this efficiently. Keep with the facts and be rational, open-minded and don’t let emotions cloud your mind. Be aware of them.
I’ve cancelled my license they are insane. I believe they have decided to become the most woke liberal media outlet they can be after the abhorrent behaviour of previous employees predominantly jimmy savile and others. It’s a swing what’s been developing for 10 to 15 years. No nuance or balance just one view on everything and if you disagree you are a right wing racist.
If Sam Harris wants an interviewer who worships his every word, he has Joe Rogan for that. BBC is where interviewers frequently play the devil's advocate. You clowns should know that by now, at least from the Ben Shapiro interview.
What a great interview. The guy challenged Sam, but always gave him ample time to respond. Obviously that's exactly what an interviewer should do, but it's quite rare these days.
Appalling interviewer. He's so set upon pushing his own woke agenda that he both fails to listen to Sam, or acknowledge the validity of Sam's evidence.
That’s the format of HardTalk. It’s deliberately set up to put guests on the defensive. Most guests understand this, and I’m sure Sam Harris does as well.
My question is: how do we objectively know if somebody is a racist or not? I think that's not the point at all. It's not about anybody being a racist or not. It's a system, because of colonial processes like slavery, being inherently racist. That's what is being said when we talk about systemic racism. Poverty, drug trafficking, crimes, incarceration for racialized minorities are the result of historical sociopolitical processes that goes beyond anybody's intention but are part of the structure of society itself. Racism needs to be defined before having any further discussion.
"Who are you to tell black Americans how to feel?" and then Mr BBC goes on to explain what Black people really feel.
Harry Robertson
The lack of awareness is breathtaking.
Yeah at that point I was saying out loud "why are you talking about it then!?" lol.
This is British media, it would be a boring segment if there was noone to provide counterpoints. How will anyone find Sam Harris convincing if he's just talking to a sycophant? Check Andrew Neil's interview with Ben Shapiro.
While the BBC does have a serious problem with political correctness this interview is not the same thing
@@Athelian some of this hardtalk could have been done better. You can't sit there saying what right does a white middle class... when you are white middle class, you exclude yourself on those grounds.
@@seekingsomething9026 I guess you're right about that. But isn't that exactly how every SJW is going to write off this interview? At least by saying it it deflects some of the inevitable incoming criticism.
"You are too logical so let's change the subject..."
THIS ^
'you are too rational - perhaps you lack emotional intelligence' - breath takingly stupid.
@@markfenlon244 hi Mark hope your safe and well. I agree with Sam here as much i understand him. But is the interviewer attempting to question and critic Sam,s point of view with that question / statement As I feel it comes from the point of view of people that don’t think so logically and are more feeling or emotionally guided. have a great day.
Lol that guy didn’t want to listen to anything he just made his mind
I agree with Sam but these interviews are always cut up to put on TV. And there was a cut there. You can tell. It just seemed like he was hurrying out of the conversation.
And hey. They didn't sit there and call him stupid. They didn't chop up the footage so bad it manipulated Sam's opinion.
Good job.
"You claim to be rational and not persuaded by emotion over evidence. My emotion-based ideas have just made me feel uncomfortable at you bringing up evidence that contradicts them, so let me totally ignore the extremely important and telling fact you raised, quickly shift the topic to other data points that I think validates my emotions so I can go on believing that my emotion-based ideas are supported by evidence."
Basically Cognitive dissonance
Now that’s a good comment
@Major Coats are you sure this opinion is supported by evidence and not emotion-based? (to be fair, you never claimed that it wasn't) you will find magical thinking, logical fallacies, nonsensical beliefs, faulty reasoning, appeals to emotion/authority/nature/common sense/anecdote or personal experience, etc on both the political "left" and political "right" (whatever that means... both are subjective and moving targets). Almost all political movements place ideology over facts, evidence, or reasoned argument. Granted, some of that ideology is often BASED ON facts, evidence, and reasoned argument... but... once it becomes accepted ideology, adherents to that political philosophy or party quickly become loathe to accept new or contradictory evidence. This goes as much for "leftists" who believe that American police officers are committing genocide against "Black" men, or that men and women are biologically identical and gender has nothing to do with sex, or that women are oppressed and that rape culture is real, or who say that using someone's non-preferred pronoun negates them as a person and is a form of violence.... as it goes for American conservatives who believe that COVID was a hoax, or that horse & sparrow/VooDoo/supply side/Reagan-omics actually work and make for good tax policy, or that Donald Trump was intelligent or competent or a good president, or that he really won the 2020 election.... as much as it goes for anyone else who believes that: vaccines cause autism, or Mr. Potato Head losing the "Mr." is an important problem we need to pay attention to, or that global warming isn't real, or that God IS real, or that a "White" person wearing dreadlocks is cultural appropriation and that arguing against this is a racist micro-aggression, or that Q Anon is legit, or that the world economy is governed by an international Jewish banking conspiracy, or the 9/11 was an inside job, or that faeries collect children's teeth and the queen of England is a time-traveling interdimensional lizard person who is in cahoots with them.
ALL of the above is equally absurd, equally divorced from reality, and equally unsupported (often outright refuted) by facts, logic, and reason.
Though no one political party or persuasion has a monopoly on stupid or on nonsensical anti-reason arguments; I feel like n my lifetime I've seen the bulk of this sort of thing migrate back and forth. During my childhood and formative years I feel like it was more or less equally split - on the one hand you had Republicans slashing taxes and regulations which would inevitably lead to economic recession if not catastrophe, and working to dismantle the American middle class without seeming to realize the enormous long-term harm this would have on the country and the world; but I guess you could argue that at the time it wasn't AS clear that Reagan's economic policies were objectively terrible, and they also hadn't gone as far in the 80s as they would in the future - at the time it's not completely unreasonable to argue that it represented a needed correction from the tax & regulation heavy period of the late 40s through the mid-70s. In the 1970s the term "politically correct" was first coined by Feminists who used the term in a sometimes self-deprecating but overall positive way, before it was made into a pejorative by those opposed to PC culture and used against those who tried to be PC. But then in the late 80s/early 90s it was Democrats who were usually on the side of defending free speech and Republicans who had recently been infiltrated by the "Moral Majority," "Religious Right" and "values voters who frequently did ridiculous bullshit like trying to ban Mortal Kombat for being too violent, or get rappers to stop using dirty words, or blame Columbine on Marilyn Manson and not on.. say... bullying, mental health, lax school security, and/or guns. After PC culture mostly seemed to go away in the late 80s, felled by the likes of the Simpsons and Married with Children, and we went through a period where it seemed like both parties agreed that free speech was vital and important, it came back with a vengeance sometimes around the late 90s/early 2000s... then sort of died-off again... then came back stronger and worse than ever in the late 2000s and has persisted ever since. In it's most recent form this is definitely more of a "leftist" phenomena, at least in the United States, and Republicans, "conservatives," and Neo-Liberals took over as defenders of free speech and being able to say what you meant if it was true even if not politically expedient... but... that didn't really last that long before Donald Trump entered the scene, the biggest fucking snowflake in history, who publicly endorsed "toughening up those libel laws" so that he could sue anyone who accurately insulted or criticized him, he openly praised and admired foreign despots like Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, Kim, and the Saudis and also publicly expressed his wish to be more like them and thus able to imprison or execute critics of him or the administration, he banned popular social media app TikTok through a fucking tweet - the same way he conducted the majority of his idiot-child-with-Tourette's approach to public policy, he corruptly used his own political power to try and punish Jeff Bezos and Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post and he also went after Facebook and Twitter even though these companies irresponsibly allowed this man to spread his hateful racist misogynistic bigoted violence-inspiring democracy-endangering lies straight up until 4 years into his presidency when he instructed a violent mob to invade the US Capitol to overturn an election,
@Major Coats oops. I accidentally pressed "enter." And then I rambled on after that for so long that RUclips would not allow me to publish the comment.
Oh well. You wouldn't have read it anyway.
The short version is this: ideas and values migrate back and forth. What is "Left" or "right" changes.
And both sides have their own set of beliefs they take on faith without evidence. The average person is NOT properly skeptical. The average person is also ignorant, stupid, highly emotional, irrational, bigoted, biased... hard to escape those things.
And while certainly there are those on the far left these days, particularly the SJW/Intersectional Feminist crowd, as well as the good ol' radical Marxists they never went away, who believe in some outrageously stupid and dangerous bullshit...
... it's impossible to reasonably argue that currently the American political "right" (definitely deserves quotes as most of these people have no coherent political ideology, they only worship a man)... the Trumpist retards, the Q Anon nuts, the anti-vaxxers (used to be mostly a left thing, now overwhelmingly a right thing, thanks Trump), anti-maskers, diehard borderline anarchist Libertarians, quasi-religious gun nuts, "stop the steal," "fire Fauci," "hang Mike Pence" crowd... is not very VERY much worse.
But I suspect that eventually, some day, things will be rebalanced. If the country survives that long.
@James G you really listed Howard Zinn as a source... smh...
Why does Sam Harris look like a GTA character in this video
Grand Theft Atheist, bruh
Hahaha!!
Ha
Because of the context. At the start of the interview he looks like his normal self. After a few questions and interruption from the anchors, his faces changes. It’s disappointment.
😂😂👌
"If you're gonna find racists everywhere, you're gonna find the real racists nowhere."
That's kind of a powerful line.
It needs a small change:
"If you're gonna find racists everywhere, you're gonna find the real racists WITHIN"
Michael M don’t throw out the baby along with bathtubs water u don’t like. I don’t have black employee doesn’t mean I’m racist. Don’t label everything racist is the god damn point.
@@willweng305 Exactly. Just I don't hire any black people and throw CVs with the names of people I suspect might be black in the bin doesn't mean I am aracist.
@@willweng305 I think you're misunderstanding me. My point is that these people are extremely quick to call white people racists for the same behavior they would either ignore or even celebrate if done by a non-white person. They also tend to hold white people collectively responsible for what some of them do and demand they make ammends collectively too. For them, it is justice if a white kid living in a trailer park with his single mom is rejected from college in favor of a rich black kid who scored lower. They define you by your race and wants to implement racist policies. That IS racist.
David Heffron you are racist for exactly the reasons you’ve expressed here.
Words don’t suddenly become flexible to protect white peoples’ feelings.
Very disappointing.
Stephen Sackur's estimated net worth $1 - $5 million dollars. Sam Harris estimated net worth $2 million dollars
Stephen Sakur: we are both middle class
He was probably referring to their upbringing
@@Revengex19999 no I don't think he was based on the dialogue
Sam is way too smart for this situation to bother him
@@landi2244 I agree
You get that class and personal wealth are different right? If a bus driver wins the lottery he is still working class. Additionally, you don't have anything higher than the middle class in America as you have no aristocracy.
It's fascinating how listening to Sam Harris is amazing even when he's talking to a wall
Being passive aggressive isn't fascinating 😃
Lmaoo
hahahaha love itttt
He's not talking to a wall. He's talking to a completely bought and owned sell out whose job it is to destroy anybody who disagrees with leftist elites. It's much more dangerous than a wall. These people have mastered the ability to win over the minds of the masses. They own my parents. They own my friends.
@@alphamilkrecordings8974 You do realize that by trumpists standards, Harris is absolutely a leftist!
Stephen Sakur has never impressed me as an interviewer. That trend continues.
I'm impressed he has any viewers doing such a shitty job. He could be a poster boy for the meme "when you lied in your CV and still got the job".
Sam Harris bought up statistics, Stephen just talked about feelings and identity. I don't agree with Sam's argument, but Stephen is as about as useful as a chocolate teapot here.
Sakur is a lightweight with a predictable line of questioning.
it's because he only conducts interviews while sexually aroused. Makes it difficult for him to think clearly. That's why they call it hard talk.
Tim Sebastian was way better.
Did Stephen Sackur just say to Sam Harris "who are you to tell black people how to feel ?" and then Tell Sam Harris how black people really feel ?
Nice self awareness Mr BBC
In fairness, the BBC has to appear to be balanced. So they have to be seen to put the counter-arguments to someone like Sam Harris. It's not necessarily an endorsement of a particular point of view.
This is a fake counter argument, at best.
That’s your takeaway from this exchange? Really?
@@rajo741 Not entirely, but this is a RUclips comments section, not a philosophical symposium, concision is essential.
Try this for more;
if ones race and class disqualifies you from making comments about any other race or class, then many important discussions will become impossible. Furthermore, under any reasonable classification both Sackur and Harris are in the global elite, top 1%. The only way that either can be considered middle class is that they are not old school blue blood aristocrats
In his view, he says that Sam is telling black people WHAT TO FEEL, and he is describing how black people DO FEEL, based on his interactions.
This is painful to watch. Sam is one of the few intellectuals still publicly sharing sane views on this topic (and many others). There’s a reason why both the hard left and right don’t like him - because he’s rational. People need to grow up
For some reason, and I used to be guilty of this, folks are really worried about being “woke-ified” and don’t want to come off as not for the cause. Sam isn’t afraid to push back against the flawed parts of a movement, however well intentioned.
Sam has TDS though
@@voiceofreason2771 what's that
@@voiceofreason2771 AHH yeah. He absolutely detests him. He's a lefty tho. To be expected
@@errands8253 I think TDS is "Trump Derangement Syndrome," which means over reacting and freaking out about everything that Trump does. Not sure where I stand on that, but I think that's what TDS is referring to.
A good example of a major problem we have in the UK, particularly with the BBC, where interviewers are only interested in conflict, rather than extracting an interviewee's point and exploring it. People like Stephen Sakur, and the BBC, desperately need to understand that they are not presenting their point of view and squeezing and squashing other people's opinions through that, they are supposed to be the conduit for other people's points of view.
The latest Elon Musk interview with the BBC is another prominent example unfortunately.
Those are the best interviews where they address counterarguments.
well, that was a terrible waste of sam's time...
Agreed
And mine
I know, he should have done some actual research before this, or at least not lied about the findings from the studies he's citing. That would be a start.
Well done BBC! Challenge the arrogant so-called intellect- arrogance at its best.
@@cornsockgabz What lies? Be more specific or we'll assume you're the one lying. Only fair.
A very telling point: Sam Harris cites statistics, and the interviewer immediately accuses him of a lack of compassion. Facts don't count?
You have to remember, facts NEVER matter when they run contrary to a dogma that a group(s) of individuals are trying to promulgate, especially when it is a super-emotional subject matter; why let facts get in the way of a good narrative?
To further your point, the interviewer purports as a matter of fact that there is systematic racism throughout the US and yet he cannot quantify it just like virtually everyone else who says the same thing phrase with their sycophantic virtue-signaling. As logic dictates, example does not make a rule and the continual and complete lack of understanding about this delineation is dangerous
No different from when a tele-
evangelist says "I know that I know that I know that I know that there is a God." Substitute the last word for 'racism' and the argument is no different. "What, you want me to demonstrate my claim?! That in itself is a form of sinfulness/racism! Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil/racism, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he/it may devour." Etc.
For all of Sam's greatness, he's not a statistician nor a data scientist. The data can only show correlations, not causes and effects, therefore it is pretty impossible to make categorical conclusions and compare the way he's doing it, i.e., how do we know from the data whether racism was not the cause on those encounters with blacks? the numbers can't tell us anything about this question
@@st3ppenwolf Sam Harris didn't say the statistics indicate that there is no racism involved. He didn't even offer an explanation why blacks have more police encounters.
He is asking for proof from the other side - who indeed make a claim - that racism is the cause of all economic disadvantages the blacks suffer, and the violence blacks have to endure from other blacks.
@@godbyelebenohnegott Actually he does cite often the numbers of whites getting killed by police as a way of contrasting with the situation of blacks. I've heard him making that argument before. A seasoned statistician wouldn't even try using those if asked about the "cause" of blacks getting killed, because simply we don't know... we can't know from the data alone
Douglas Murray: "There is a great of demand for racists these days but there is a supply problem". ( I know, we'll just redefine it. )
Worked for antisemitism. Why stop there?
I don't like the way some people apply the label "racist" to people that aren't extremists. There are racists, but they are few.
YOU MAY HOLD A RACIST VIEW WITHOUT BEING A RACIST.
Some laws and views are racist. If you can't see that, just look at the number of minorities in poverty or worse in jail. If you care to listen and find out how very nice normal people were duped into following racist ideas and laws, there is plenty of material on this, from the "Freedmen's Bureau" the the FHA.
@Daniel Ropierre the quote isnt about racists not existing its about the fact that nowadays everyone is called a racist for anything which is absurd
I hate Douglas Murray with a passion!
@@tekkertruth1256 hahahah why so?
Eyebrow game is on point.
Lmao
What?
His right eyebrow is inherently raised up, his left eyebrow is normal-esque eyebrow...
His face looks like a distorted version of Ben Stiller... More like, Sten Biller.
I think his camera emphasis it
As a black dude I concur with Sam's assessment. It's complicated and nuanced. Racism isn't everywhere and isn't exhibited by everyone yet still it has a disproportionate impact on people's lives. Just want to give Sam some support for being reasonable, measured, and debating in good faith about such a sensitive topic for many.
You're not black stop it
Same.
So you have to be black to offer an opinion ? That my friends, is racism. Oh…..the hypocrisy
@@michaelbrewer1968 who said you have to be? And are you arguing in good faith that different races and genders have different lived experiences that should be represented in conversations on topics like this. Let's say you were watching a long form documentary on racism with multiple interviews intermixed wouldn't you give more creditability to it if you saw multiple races opinions represented compared to a similar documentary that just interviewed one race. Bottom line, you are attaching a feeling to something that is only meant to convey additional information. I would argue, if me being black didn't convey any information about my perspective, racism would be much less of a topic in American discussion at least as it relates to people who share my skin color.
@@GMUTaylor6 when a so ''called'' intellectual supports the idea of racism he is promoting racism.
"Who are you to tell black Americans how to feel?"
Missing the point so completely he might as well have been listening to the wall behind Sam. He's not "telling black Americans how to feel". He's questioning whether or not the facts support the actual reality claimed, which is that there is a completely disproportionate amount of force used by police against black people, and the source of that disproportion is racism. "Feeling" that some event was racist doesn't actually prove it WAS racist. And it is HARMFUL to throw racism accusations around willy-nilly.
Exactly. Couldn’t have said it better.
Seems to me the nasty interviewer is telling black people how they should feel.
Agreed. How people feel about reality is independent of the actual nature of reality. Also, not all Black Americans agree with this narrative.
And also the implication that the perps involved in these incidents were completely innocent and the police attacked them without cause
John Johnson, a non-mainstream viewpoint does not discredit a thinker. Otherwise, where is the thinking/debate/growth?
Sam argued on facts and statistics, the BBC was having non of that, simply focusing on emotion and white self loathing.
Because "facts" and statistics reveal injustice and discrimination. When it comes to politics Sam Harris is just another American capitalist apologist in denial of white supremacy systems of power which are entrenched in all aspects of the world. Obviously people like Sam and Pinker will ignore that.
BBC in a nutshell
@@GM-yb5yg That's exactly what the statistics obviously do NOT reveal.
@@GM-yb5yg " which are entrenched in all aspects of the world". You mean like, say, China?
The BBC have a legal responsibility to be neutral therefore they have to present the other side of the arguement
Notice how interviewer ignores Sams insight at the end about "a man defying the cops and reaching into car" 10:30. He immediately changes subject.
To be fair, BBC HARDtalk is by design adversarial toward the guest. In the program the interviewer intentionally puts the interviewee in the spotlight and pushes back on them deliberately aggressively. The treatment of Sam Harris is no exception in this regard; it's the norm on the show.
Yup more white people are shot PER police encounter so racism doesnt exist. Love Sam’s genius. Its unparalleled. When does he get his Nobel Prize for ending racism?
@@CalvinJunior88 You see how your putting words into his mouth to fit what your ego would like to hear?
I did notice it and it made me chuckle out loud but it's really not funny - The left push a point, get an irrefutable kickback, and simply ignore it - he's learnt nothing.
@@CalvinJunior88 if you need create your own statements and then assign them to others you lost the argument before you started.
Telling a progressive that racism is not the root of the problem is like telling a child there is no Santa Claus.
Nothing progressive about them, let's get that right
You could see how upset he was that his emotional position was challenged by rationality
Um racism is the root of the problem HISTORICALLY. Man u conservatives are dumb. Also what a cringe crap comparison of Santa lol it doesn't even work and you only prove leftist and communist and scientists correct. Lol
@@Golems_wrath racism is one of MANY human failings you twit. You obsess over it because it makes you feel superior to your ancestors.
BBC: Who are you to tell black people how to feel?
Sam Harris: ok let’s look at emotionally neutral facts.
BBC: why are you using evidence, it’s so unfeeling!
Man you are very dishonest here. What you quoted was so far from the context of the BBC interviewer. You are trying to make it appear as if the BBC guy is an idiot and did not raise any valid points.
"Who are you to tell black people how to feel?" That was not the whole point BBC was trying to make. He was arguing that the feelings of black people in US are rooted in facts. He was asking whether or not the BLM movement is justified from the point of view of black people.
Then, Sam Harris responded with facts about likelihood of getting shot by the police.
You write above: "BBC: why are you using evidence, it’s so unfeeling!" You are misrepresenting the BBC guy's rebuttal. Sure he raised that Sam seem to unsympathetic. But that is not what he just said. He raised valid points too like the fact that blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. I like Sam Harris too because he is an independent thinker. Dont be a blind fan boy and be dismissive of the point of views of others that are opposed to your point of view.
@@rasaecnai : Ah yes Zesty. That wonderfully-impartial BBC. Spare us Zesty. Spare us.
@Ryan Tandy ok. point is well taken regarding the likelihood black men of getting shot. However, as the BBC guy argued that is not the only ground for the BLM for there are others. for example the incarceration rate. Well anyway this is beside the point.
My reply to the original post is that the poster DID misrepresent what the BBC guy said and highlight Sam Harris who happen to agree with his world view instead of engaging the arguments raised against Sam's point. Is that NOT also showing bias? Is not that identity politics? The gist of the original post i was replying too is very dismissive as if BBC guy is stupid and unable to make valid arguments.
I would disagree with your argument that feelings don't matter, because I think it does in the most important of ways. All revolutions in history are all fueled by the passionate desire of the masses for change in order to bring about a new reality. Feelings move people to action.
Harris gave a specific argument about the misunderstanding surrounding race and likelihood of being shot by police. This backed up his claim that much of what is generally accepted as fact is actually false because it is not backed up by the evidence. Thw BBC replied with "...surely there's an overwhelming tract of evidence...[to the contrary]". As a rule in debate a specific claim cannot be refuted with a general argument. Furthermore, it is not a stretch to understand the BBC rebuttal as meaning "but everyone feels a certain way so those feelings must reflect fact, and since you don't feel that way you're emotionally unintelligent". The BBC reporter's argument was vague, fallacious, evasive, and insulting.
@@rasaecnai thank you for making this observation. I am a fan of Sam Harris but I find sometimes his brilliant intellect is limited by a lack of empathy and a sense of distance. Not everyone has the tools to process life when in an turmoil. I like Alan Watts as well, who Sam Harris occasionally recommends, and Alan Watts had the capacity of connecting emotionally in a was that Sam Harris seems unable to. Sam Harris is very wealthy and grew up very comfortably and sometimes I feel he can be a bit out of touch with people who experienced hardships. But I find his points on police brutality in the USA not always based on race and a reflection of a violent society with guns very valid. A violent police that is a reflection of a violent society. The BBC interviewer made valid points and did not come across as a Woke shill
The amount of "narrative" engineering is disgusting from the BBC.
It's a show called Hardtalk. He plays devil's advocate with everyone, that's the point of the show
@@kurisensei Ah, I get it. Thx.
In other words you don't feel comfortable having your views challenged. Tough questions are the usual format of interviews about controversial subjects, and Sam was wrong, so you didn't like it. Tough luck, try not to get mad when reality defeats expectations.
kleptobyte is this Jordan Peterson’s youtube account?
Blm seem to spread violence in action and speech, intent on destruction - no sensible suggestions on how to evolve, just defund the police, destruct the nuclear family and fundamentally alter societal structures. I also believe reparations have been suggested. From the outside listening to black people in American society reject blm and point to way deeper issues, they are gaining a voice- listen to them not the white left wing- delighted at further divisions or the black extremists. Let’s help all the poor and prove it’s.nothing to do with colour or politics. Although that’s not the bbc narrative. .why? I suppose this is the price you pay for independence not favouring one side or the other, as the BBC must do, but they just want to tell us we’re racist and need reprogramming. Which they’re gladly do for us. F off we literally pay for your bloody salaries. #Defundthebbc let me guess that is racist and exactly the facts a white supremicist would say- the terrible things slavery did many generations ago doesnt mean now it is acceptable to want to inflict suffering on many because they are the same skin colour as those who did wrong to your ancestors. Doing this under the banner of racial equality is sick.
6:25 "Which black people are saying right now .. [looks down at notes] they will no longer tolerate without expressing their anger."
Very nice of the unified league of black people to release a statement to the BBC for this interview..
Brilliant!
The interviewers are allowed to debate their guests points but they are able to move on as soon as the guest says something completely reasonable. I wish the guests would ask the host if he agrees or disagrees with what they just said before they move on to a new subject.
This is the BBC and the interviewer should not be voicing his opinion at all. That is the point of the BBC , to be impartial..just to get to the truth. Unfortunately, recently the BBC has failed to report on subjects impartially. Unless they change that will be their downfall.
They can't let guests expatiate on topics when their job is to cover a range of subjects. They could be more loose with the format if it weren't a clearly defined time slot.
He's not even listening to what Sam is saying, just wants to drive his narrative
This is a common misinterpretation from Americans. This is the British style of interview WHICH IS SUPERIOR TO THE AMERICAN. It drives debate.
Thats why Ben Shapiro looked like a dummy in his BBC segment. He's so used to being coddled by pro business media outlets that he accused an Arch conservative of being a liberal and got laughed off the panel.
Please look it up, it was quite funny.
I like Sam and only by playing the devils advocate uncovers his line of thinking. It doesnt matter what the reporter actually believes his job is to troll
Welcome to the BBC
@@leninswalrus his job is to troll? Oh deary me. Complete bullshit,his job is to drive down the propaganda which he does throughout. Notice his answer on Jacob Blake. The presenter didn't say a word then changed subjects to religion
@@leninswalrus I now realise you meant the host * enter homer backtracking into a bush gif *
It's not "his narrative." BBC interviewers deliberately play devils advocate.
Sam Harris: “Author and Philosopher”
Sam’s PhD in neuroscience: “Am i a joke to you?”
If you're suggesting he be labeled a scientist for that, one isn't considered a scientist for having graduated with a degree in science. Scientists are people who've actively worked in and kept up with a certain field of science, which Sam has not done. At best one can say that PhD makes him a philosopher of science, though professionally he is an author and public educator of ethics and meditative practice - always informed by current scientific understanding but never an active specialist.
@@AncientDarkElf He has spoken and taught how meditation can positively impact brain function. He used his scientific knowledge to educate his fan base on meditation. So, yes he is a “neuroscientist” based on your logic.
@@AncientDarkElf Ok so here's why you're wrong and most likely stupid:
1. Firstly. Would you consider Charles Darwin a scientist? No? How about Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking? No? I think its obnoxious to qualify someone only being a scientist if they're an active specialised researcher. Especially when researchers change their field so often and most of the greats don't sit in front of microscopes. I wonder how people would react if you called Hawking a philosopher.
2. As for technical definitions, lets ask google:
"Hey google, Define Scientist"
"a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences." - Google
Sam received a Ph.D. degree in cognitive neuroscience in 2009 from the University of California, Los Angeles, *using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.*
3. The vast majority of Sams books are embedded and referenced with Neuroscientific research, it takes a lot of research to form these theories and arguments and honestly I think your comment is not only invalid but corrosive.
@@firstandforever8294 AFFECT brain function
@@zapkvr Thank you, Mr. Pedantic
OMG these comments... When do people understand that: THE JOURNALIST IS NOT VOICING HIS OPINION BUT HE IS CHALLENGING THE INTERVIEWEE SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE A MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION...
Wrongo. If the point was a meaningful discussion, the interviewer would ask Sam follow-up questions about his alleged evidence. Here, as soon as Sam refutes the BBC's PC nonsense, the BBC changes the topic. The BBC clearly is trying to state its propaganda line and not have any discussion that challenges that line. Which is CLASSIC propaganda. Read Chomsky.
The people making comments bemoaning the bias of the BBC are correct.
It's like a grownup trying to explain something to a third grader..
"Every problem doesn't equal racisms"
"what about all these problems"
"Yeah what about them"
"Is that not racisms?"
"No it's not" "X, Y and Z explains these issues."
"Let's move on"
Typical straw man. Yawn.
Hilarious .... and spot on.
It's easy to support Sam when you have no idea what it looks like to be on the other end of the situation they are speaking of
@@phillytothemax There is no other end of the issue they are speaking of. Not in America. If you idol(worship) your skin color every problem is, because of it. It's all you think about. You define yourself by your skin color. This is a problem Kid. Put your faith(identity) in Christ Kid, and follow his teachings. The worldly ideologies(secular religions) have swept you up, and captured your mind. You believe your skin color plays a role in your life, and it doesn't. Intersectionality has rotted your head. Pagan worship.
@@WilliamEllison @Philmore James Yeah exactly, a lot people experience racism, and we aren’t saying that it isn’t happening. But the thing is that the western world has definitely taking it to the next level by saying that racism is the only reason for things. First of all you have to put yourself in the position of the cops as well. My whole life I’ve been the only person of color in my kindergarten/school, obviously that is going to leed to what people would call racism. Such as for example name calling, being called the n-word etc. But it really rare that this happens, and I know for a fact that pretty much no one is being a victim of racism on a regular basis in the western world unless it’s in freaking elementary school(emphasis on pretty much). It would be like boys making fun of girls, and girls making fun of boys. Because it’s very, very obvious that racism is a two way street. Black people make fun of white people all the time, you see it in movies and other forms of media. Just because white people were very racist before, doesn’t mean you should do it back. You can’t solve this with more racism. If you revolve around your skin color so much, how are you going to expect others not to?
I don't know how Sam manages to remain so patient with people who aren't engaging the most cursory of critical thinking skills and appear to ask questions only so that he can ignore the answers and move seamlessly back into pushing their own ignorant narrative.
When he tells Sam Harris “Who are you to tell black people how to feel”, I immediately thought of Milton Friedman saying “would you only let a doctor treat you for cancer if he himself had cancer” to those who said the same BS to him on similar topics
Underrated comment.
I don't think a white man should tell a black man how to live! Beacause its discusting!
@@Instrumental26 vice versa as well?
@@Instrumental26 what does the pigmentation have to do with it?
Same lol
San Harris is the most influential person in my life. I really hope I can meet him one day.
Me too.
I must confess.. He is influencing me greatly..
I live in a small village. When I go shopping in the next village, all the locals eyeball me, with faces of wonder, probably asking themselves who I am and what I could be doing in their town. If I had a different skin colour, people would probably call these villagers racist. They're not, they just suspicious of every stranger they see, regardless of colour. We use the word racism way too quickly to judge others we don' t agree with.
This has to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen
@george chapelle lol not you man that was funny. Was talking to OP.
It’s natural to prejudice people
When I grew up in Switzerland in the 80ies, I was the outcast, the other, because my family lives 1 mile and a half away from the village. An effing mile and a half. And today, I have to consider truly foreign peoples and cultures as the same and if I don't, I am a racist? Yeah, F.U., 2020ies.
@@austinpruitt1064 makes sense to me. What are you missing here? Are you slightly offended on other peoples behalf?
Wow, Ben Stiller is pretty smart
😂😂😂
🤣😂😂🤣😭😭😭 he gets that all the time and I'm sure you know that. That was hilarious. Thank you. 🙏🏻
loooooooool
wow never put that together before :-/
Journalist: “B-b-b-but may I stop you?”
Sam: “Yeah, please.”
T Clark rarely ever is it a worthy retort.
Sam welcomes a challenge, and to be proven wrong. Journalist has a line to give out by his network and is a deluded prick.
I love how at the end when Sam has given Stephen Sackur the upper punch of an argument he can't counter instead of acknowledging it as a good point he says "to move on from race" and changes the subject.
He litterally tells Sam Harris off like talking to a child: "Who are you to critisize black peoples feelings with facts???"
He's not "criticizing black people's feelings".
no, he said "you re not telling all the facts"
Classic BBC narrative driven journalism. He’s not even listening to the responses. It’s sad the BBC has fallen so far.
That's the point of this show. The interviewer plays the devil's advocate to push the interviewee on their perspective.
Totally agree. There was one point where buddy must’ve thought the camera was on Sam and he’s reading the papers in front of him.
The BBC are a dead man walking. Credibility is in the toilet.
How thoughtful and serious Harris is. Much needed.
Your right... May I share a quote... “Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil … a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. Tolerance applies only to persons … never to truth. Tolerance applies to the erring, intolerance to the error … Architects are as intolerant about sand as foundations for skyscrapers as doctors are intolerant about germs in the laboratory. Tolerance does not apply to truth or principles. About these things we must be intolerant, and for this kind of intolerance, so much needed to rouse us from sentimental gush, I make a plea. Intolerance of this kind is the foundation of all stability.”
― Fulton J. Sheen
Getting nowhere. Hard Talk should be renamed 'Waste of Time.'
i learned IMMESURABLE important piece of information though
Man, Ben stiller is a smart guy lol
Most of the time, showed his profound ignorance this time. Doesn't even understand how to interpret statistics. Its either that or he's an unscrupulous narcissist. You're 6x more likely to get shot by police if you're black in america.
I read both studies he cites and they show clear police bias to profile black americans as criminals over every other race, and also that the stats do not support this imbalance in targetting with successful apprehensions.
The stats don't lie, but this fucker does. Watch out for him.
Ben harris
@@Kollektive I read the studies myself, both in fact that he references. They state you are 6x more likely to get shot if you are black than white.
It helps to do your due diligence and not take people’s word on faith. Seems kind of religious to blindly accept the words of your authority figures.
Nice try though 😉
He only states that more white people are shot, and not how that is reflected in population representation. He’s misrepresenting facts at best, lying to push his “anti identity politics” agenda. He’s usually smart but lets himself down here
@@Kollektive you’re a zealot for Harris. Ironic
"Hard Talk", as in this interviewer has a hard time talking with people without sounding stupid?
*Pats head*
It's his job to disagree with his guests and ask tough questions. Don't know why people can't understand this.
@@calumcooke2040 It's not his job to be ham-fisted in doing so (or is it?). Intelligent disagreement I'm all for. Obvious idiocy presented as if it's a counter-argument is just absurd, pointless, and insulting. It's just not worth the viewer's time.
@@davidmurphl5846 'my leader'? Don't pretend you know random people on the internet, you dear little child.
@Colin Cleveland Literally every single time the host disagreed. If you have any examples, with time stamps, where his disagreement was worth listening to, I'd be curious to see that.
Sam Harris is the only public figure speaking on this topic with clarity and is brave to do so.
Not the only, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on the DarkHorse podcast are as well.
Ben Shapiro has given a similar fact-based analysis.
Coleman Hughes is probably the leasing guy on this.
@@richardkohn4153 nah Larry alder is the leading public figure on black America as it pertains to the institutional narative
Brother you need to get out more!
Hard Talk: As soon as somebody smarter makes a point that can't be refuted: "moving away from that point where I fell flat on my face..." credit to Sam Harris and shame on the BBC for running with this over inflated narrative.
Broadcast TV gets money in proportion to the pure numbers of listeners. So they cater their news to pull the heartstrings of the majority of the public. Be they right or wrong.
"As soon somebody smarter" ,something a really dumb person would say cz they can't analyze simple thing in life without looking at so called higher intellect beings who make them feel like dumb
@@openmind2161 Read what you wrote here again and you'll realise you are in no position to call anybody dumb...
@@johnkennedy9121 This kind of elitist mental gymnast pride might work on pleasing dumb MAGA chads but not anyone else ,Sam Harris ,the Guy thinks like Binary 0 & 1 with poll number when it comes to any social issue .The guy is literal example of Dumbest way to analyze humans & funnier part is other dumb humans think he is someway smart as he think like a Data entry Software .
@@openmind2161 When you have a PhD from UCLA and graduate from Stanford with honours, then you can speak. Until then, pipe down you fool.
We need more Sam Harris in our society.
"If you're going to find racists everywhere, you're going to find the real racists nowhere." Indeed, Sam. Well said. This insanity must end.
Except racism is everywhere.... because its natural.
Indeed. I think the people who see racism behind every set back in their lives are more likely the source of the majority of their own problems. They're just externalizing their problems to a handy straw man because it easier and more comforting than taking ownership of them.
@@greoricm771 stupidity is everywhere, because it's natural.
@@oleksandr8371 People do stupid things yes, because its natural not to be perfect.
@@greoricm771 so is it racism that's the problem, or stupidity
Sam on the money as always.
Absent fathers matter, studying at school matters, self esteem matters,
staying away from crime matters, looking at evidence and facts matter.
Why is the black community in poverty? Make sure you check the housing act of 1934
Harris never mentioned these things. History also matters. Sam Harris said it didn't when he spat the dummy out.
Sam Harris is a clear and logical voice that cuts through the madness of the day. 🙏🏽 Sam’s committed to civil rights and ending racism in a sustainable way. I applaud him for it. The BBC host comes off as dismissive and seems like he’s not willing to have a real conversation and reverts back to dogma.
ideas > identities
facts > opinions
data > anecdotes
The data Sam Harris cites to support his statements are actually false. He claims you are more likely to get shot as a white man in America than if you are a black man. I literally read the study he cites and he misrepresents the data.
More white men are killed by police than black men in the US, but that does not take into account population representation. Black around 13% and white around 73% or so.
You're actually 6x more likely to be shot by police if you are a black man statistically in the US, and 40% of those instances are where the black male is unarmed. Also a very high percentage (around about 90% I think) of cases in which white men are fatally shot by police involves either hostage situations where the perp is threatening the lives of others, or themself.
Harris is great and quite interesting when talking about his anti-religious views, but I think he's made the same mistake a lot of people in the comments here have of forgetting the fact that racism isn't some abstract idea you can simply debunk with a few vapid phrases like he has.
I sincerely distrust his commitment to civil rights when he either willingly distorts data to support his own preconcieved views that the problem is being overblown, or he is simply not able to understand the data(which I highly doubt). He seems more preoccupied with painting any ideological movement as corrupt, apart from his own unwavering faith in himself.
@@cornsockgabz How many black men are shot each year by police, and how many police are there in the United States?
The interviewer was totally out of his depth yet Harris was so calm. This makes me want to check out Harris’s meditation app...
I bet on both of my nuts you wouldn't be able to find any other public debater who's as calm as he is and almost all of the things he debates on are considered taboo/sensitive. Definitely check out the app and also the books.
The reason for this the fact that he is correct.
harris is one of the most intelligent peaple ive ever heard
I can't recommend his app highly enough.
"Waking up" for anyone interested.
His app is awesome. I use it everyday, I'm also currently reading his book, "waking up", it's a great read.
(after being owned by reason) "Let's move on from from race to religion..."
Hah if he only knew who he was interviewing...
Sam Harris is a brave and lucid thinker. I’m very grateful he is active and successful enough to have a voice which is heard.
I would say he's incredibly blinkered on this issue and his statements are quite clearly those of an apologist for an injust system.
Trying to reframe the issue of racial profiling as simply that of the plight of penury accepts not only accepts the prejudicial notion that black people intrisically deserve or should accept poverty, but also that the link between poverty and how the media negatively enforces stereotypes is irrelevant.
A huge dereliction of duty here, although I find Sam Harris very compelling and thoughtful on other topics he is learned in, he reveals a huge weakness in his approach to deny the existence of racism as if it were a religious chimera.
He uses the phrase "black people are 'roughed up'" as a euphemism for police brutality to shirk the obvious conclusions, and mentions a decontextualised statistic about white people being more likely to be shot when a gun is pulled. What he casusitically does not include is the number of black people who have guns drawn on them without probable cause, which I might add is a HUGE part of the issue.
What is actually important within this issue is to speak to people who actually experience racism and not to accept the conclusions drawn by a man who is so over-confident in his ability to reason that he tries to misrepresent an issue in a way that conforms to his own (political)belief system.
Funny how you so rarely hear black people saying identity politics is irrelevant and racism isn't as bad as they say. Just indifferent unaffected insecure people who cannot understand a life with any more hardship than themselves.
@@cornsockgabz I acknowledge that you have given this time and thought but I think I have to disagree with you on almost every count.
Of course, I do not dispute that people with darker skin are over represented in lower socio-economic groups in North America and other continents, but the question is: what is being claimed as a conclusion from this observation?
You claim that Harris is denying the existence of racism and he is explicit in claiming the opposite.
What he disputes is the claim, upon which much of BLM is based, that black people are disproportionately killed by police because the police are racist. This is the claim he is disputing.
The onus is on you, if you find fault in his analysis, to dispute it as he makes it, not by how you might wish to frame it.
@@stuffandnonsense8528 @Stuff and Nonsense The onus is not on me to disprove Sam's point but for Harris and yourself to prove its veracity.
BLM is not based on the entire premise that black people are disproportionately killed, but that they are targeted and harassed unjustly and recieve undue discrimination.
It makes it easier for you and him to frame it as a simplistic and absolutist premise, that the police are racist. The purpose of BLM as stated on its own website and elsewhere is the advocation of non-violent protest against instances of police brutality and of course, murder.
The movemenet was born out of the injust acquittal of George Zimmerman in 2013 where he murdered a black child. Black Lives Matter started as a hashtag because it is an important social issue, and you treating this like a theological discussion asking me to prove the existence of racism in police brutality as if there isn't thousands of hours of footage just shows to me how off the mark you are in this debate.
If you want to oversimplify the discussion in to terms of absolutism like 'the police are racist' and that BLM is concerned only with murder and not harassment itself, then you are ignoring salient points to reframe the issue on your own terms.
BLM is not so naieve as to accuse the entire personage of policemen as racism, but to advocate for policies that give the correct punitive measures for the crime itself. Harassment is harassment whatever uniform you have on.
My question to you would be what interest do you have personally in undermining BLM if it is a non-violent movement advocating for police reform which is obviously necessary.
"I do not dispute that people with darker skin are over represented in lower socio-economic groups in North America and other continents, but the question is: what is being claimed as a conclusion from this observation? "
If you don't tactitly agree with the notion that skin tone should intrinsically determine your socio-economic worth and standing, how do you explain or justify the gross iniquity apparent in the statistics.
The law of parsimony exists so people like yourself do not exercise casuistry in these questions, trying to deflect and deprive the context of the USA and the mistreatement of black people from the conversation as a legitimate variable. Its simply dishonest.
You seem to think you can move the goalposts of the discussion here by choosing certain facts over the other. I did already dispute Sam Harris's position by pointing out the fact he mentioned only one statistic to represent his view that race was not relevant to the discussion. He mentions that white people are more likely to be shot when drawn on, but conveniently ignores the amount of black americans who have guns drawn on them.
But anyway, you want to talk about figures and stats so lets bring some of those up.
96 per 100,000 are at risk of being shot by the police which is more than twice as liekly compared to white people.
The studies Sam cites are from 2015 and the one I'm citing is from 2019 which includes the aggregate data from the study Sam cites himself.
He also misrepresents the data by saying that more white people are shot, but that black people are more likely to be shot. Which is significant considering the disparity in their representation in general population.
………………
Anyway you want me to disprove his viewpoint even though it is not incumbent on me to do so, but here goes.
An FBI study from 2018 revealed that black americans are at risk of being fatally shot by poilce at a rate of 96 per 100,000. And this figure is more than twice the rate of white people which is around 38 per 100,000.
Sam Harris's argument is that you're more likely to be shot if you are white, but what he deliberately fails to mention is that is only because african americans represent only 13% of the population.
The stats show clear prejudice based on race, and you simply trying to reframe it as poverty is just casuistry and misrepresentation.
I can provide you to a link to the study I mentioned, and the one Harris cites if you are interested?
So anyway
TL:DR I can show the figures that prove that black people are disproportionately shot by the police than white people, and Sam Harris is cherry-picking stats to obfuscate already determined and ratified facts.
@@cornsockgabz your many points do deserve careful response but I want to raise an important point which you seem to have neglected. The issue is killings per police encounter. Do you dispute that these are lower for black Americans?
I've already pointed out that the likeliness of being fatally shot by police is more than twice as likely if you are a black american.
96-100,000 if black, 38-100,000 if white.
The fact that en masse more white people are killed in the US is irrelevant when you apply the actual ikelihood of a fatal police encounter based on race. If the US was populated 50/50% white/black americans, more black people would be killed than white people by these numbers so your point is completely irrelevant and misleading.
African-american people represent 13% of the US population whereas caucasian people represent 76.3%. This means, even to use your basis of measurement, african americans would actually have to be roughly 6x the risk of being fatally shot by police to match this statistic.
Its crucial to be able to understand what the stats and figures actually mean before taking it on faith that Mr Harris is not cherry picking stats to suit his own agenda.
Its kind of strange how many fans of Harris take what he says on faith, despite purporting to be free-thinkers and anti-tribalism.
6:10 This is insanity, he's spewing out results/facts suggesting because there are differences between ethnic groups racism has to be a factor, without actually seeing any racism.
It's as if we would watch the 100m dash and say: "Well, clearly racism is the deciding factor in these races."
BRILLIANT analogy! I'm going to start using that as my 1st argument against the "systemic racism" nonsense.
@@outofbluepills So you've seen and lived the life of a black man yourself? Didn't realise racism works in the same way that peekaboo works on babies because they lack object permanence.
If any of you actually read the studies he's citing you'd see that none of the data supports his claims, in fact contradicting his assertions he's so keen to present as legitimate.
So, I'm guessing you think systemic racism doesn't exist? Clearly not a US history buff.
@@cornsockgabz Yet another comment from you about the same thing, yet no provided evidence still. ... To be clear: I don't think you read those studies and are just steering shit.
@@9xqspx6 Read the studies yourself then if you don't believe me. I could normally provide links, but youtube wont allow it in these comments.
Sam Harris has provided no evidence, and has contradicted the findings of the studies he's citing as well.
@@cornsockgabz I think there are people in this comment section who would actually want to have a look into those studies, but you - who obviously (?...) read it - did not bother to provide a link, or the title of it, or the numbers that you claim Harris lied about.
Sam Harris is one of those people you could listen to all day and not know the day has passed, he is so intelligent, so accurate, this should be shown at schools.
Only when he shows no TDS
Only unintelligent people take this man seriously
Agreed! The problem there are many dumb people whose brains are so simple and can’t understand the complexity of his thinking like this Avi Gindratt guy! Can’t argue with idiots and ideologues
@@BHTQ18 🤣🤣🤣
Just so everyone knows, the whole point of Hard Talk is to pressure the guest, and make it difficult, these are not the views of the interviewer. Its his job to see if he can get the guest to crack. Sam did a great job.
This certainly gives another perspective to this interview, thanks
thanks for this comment
I'm worried that this kind of exchange legitimizes (to some people, at least) the left's stupid stubbornness / stubborn stupidity around the topic... but, anyway, great to know that's how that show goes, and really Sam did great.
Gibran Elias luckily, in the UK we give the public the benefit of the doubt to use their own brains to determine what they believe.
@Gabriel Halford, I hope it’s safe to do so over there... kinda dangerous in the US and other places (at least among certain strata). I also hope BLM and the likes of Antifa die out and spare the UK and Europe...
I’m not “duty bound to be outraged” by anything
100%
So you are not outrage by child trafficking?
@@UP-To-The-Time What a daft comparison. Besides the gentleman isn't saying that he isn't outraged by anything, he's saying he isn't doesn't have a *duty* for moral outrage.
@@TheAcad3mic everyone should have a duty for moral outrage. Somethings are just so cruel everyone should be outrage. That's the duty. I don't think you understand what's having a duty for moral outrage.
@@UP-To-The-Time Disagree. The problem with outrage is that it's blind and often destructive and fruitless. People should be driven to think, take action, but not be outraged. Emotional outbursts don't get us anywhere and leave us prey to people who would just walk us to the cliff edge.
That BBC interrogator was not the least bit interested in Sam's rational, cogent responses. Every time Sam was about to dismantle his contention, he rudely interrupted him with another "question". Sam really exercised admirable restraint.
that is the classic aggressive modus operandi of the broadcast msm to shut down (mainly) right wingers. Every time they are about to complete an answer or even halfway through their answer, the interviewer jumps in with the next provocative question, sometimes at a tangent to the last. Whereas if it's say, Emily Maitlis, interviewing Hilary Benn about a second referendum, then suddenly he's given all the time in the world. What a contrast.
I don’t think it was admirable, the interviewer was just too rude , Sam should have called him out on his bs , and refused to play his game . Agreeing with the first part of what you said of course
"rational, cogent responses" hahaha. Using fancy words does not a smart man make. Sam Harris is an idiot disguised as an intellectual and if you scratch the surface of his arguments, you realize it's all nonsense
@@peterduff9281 "mainly" right wingers 😂 when was the last time you heard on MSM anything about anti war voices, Palestenian rights, socialists, universal healthcare, etc. The right wing voices are always heard, just not the super right wing ones. Msm isn't left wing.
@@eagleleft Sorry, just what is "super" right wing? Is it people who are for controlled borders, limits on immigration, Brexit and anti-identity politics? Does the BBC allow these voices much if any airtime? Its roster of guests on programmes like Question Time demonstrates that it is fully on board with the mass-immigration/identity politics, pro-EU, quotas, diversity, multiculturalism bandwagon - were you born yesterday? And most of the media in the US is fully on board with universal healthcare - name me one, Fox news apart, that isn't.
And Palestinian rights, correct me if I'm wrong, is one of the vanishingly few examples where you can spin an anti-white narrative. That's why people like you are so obsessed with it. If other ethnic cultures trample all over the rights of other minorities, well you don't give a........
The BBC guy really didn’t like it when Sam was pointing at the raw data....
As an English man I apologise for this interviewer
He's utterly unwatchable. I just can't stand his tone..
Thank you
He's not your fault, haha.
Someone hasn't done their due diligence, and it is not Sam.
@Chris Smith I don't think that comment means what you think it does.
Sam is right and the interviewer isn’t.
His eyebrow almost never goes down during this one.
As soon as Sam Harris made a valid point, the interviewer: “To move on from race to religion”. Why do these aggressive interviewers bother jousting with someone who has facts at their fingertips. The media is causing so much of the divide by pushing false narratives. What America needs is a more honest and less divisive media, rather than a media that is more interested in viewing numbers than reporting honest news.
At least he didn't respond like Ben Shapiro did. He remained cool throughout the interview and that's to his credit.
Valid point? Name me one!
I don't like Sam Harris and there were legitimate challenges to what he said, but all he could do was make emotional arguments. It's almost as if he needs to feel guilty about his beliefs, not because they're wrong, but because they make people feel bad.
This is NOT a typical sycophantic American interview. You've obviously never seem this program before so let me explain it to you. Hard Talk is a program that is designed to put the interviewer in the position of Devil's Advocate - the interviewer will challenge the guest on his statements, to explain his reasoning. That's the whole point of the program. It is not a softball Fox news interview.
Grimtraveller
Yes, but how well do you think he challenged Sam Harris. If you remember Sam mentioned the police statistics. He said that in relation to the number of interactions with the police, unarmed while people are shot slightly more. You do know what the interviewer said to challenge that statement? Like you said, this isn't no softball or sycophant show, so he must have said something really challenging right?
The show is called 'Hard Talk', the interviewer, no matter how annoying, is playing 'devils advocate', he does it with all guests thats the point of the show. Go back check years back worth of episodes. But yes if you are not familiar with the format, very annoying, and sure being the BBC too, makes it easy to suggest it's all literal.
I politely disagree. The title of the program IMO should reflect the stress-testing of ideas and positions not the rote recital of the tenets of an opposing (and strangely consistent in its orientation) ideology stated as fact.
What is strange and uncomfortable here is the host does not refer to other intellectuals who may differ from Mr Harris in their views and present their academic evidence as their proxy to counter Sam's assertions which would be a genuine trial by fire if handled well. Instead Mr Sackur makes repeated statements as fact with absolutely no supporting data so we end up with the usual "my opinion/lived experience versus your facts" scenario which is nearly always divisive and unproductive. I'll add in relation to your comment that this is de rigueur for the format that having watched many episodes (courtesy of business travel where BBC World is the only English channel!) I struggle to recall examples where the political poles were reversed but I am obviously happy to be corrected on the point.
@@adrianclarke6829 if you watch his interview with Paul Krugman he rips him apart saying Trump's economy is flourishing and that liberals got it wrong, he really does just try to rip whoever is in front of him. He asks the questions anyone's opponent would
@@JacobHawkins-io1ij thx, I'll take a look, though I still question the premise if any counter-position is arbitrary. It starts to sound like the Monty Python arguments sketch!
@@adrianclarke6829 I agree, it can feel very silly at times but I think it's good it gives everyone a level of scrutiny that they are not used to. It's quite typical of BBC shows that they are very antagonistic to everyone to make it fair like Andrew Marr show, Jeremy pacman, Andrew O Neil. And I think it gives people an opportunity to defend themselves and how well they defend themselves is a good sign of how credible their views are
@@JacobHawkins-io1ij I've just watched the Klugman episode and though I agree with the view that Sackur took him to task regardless of his political orientation, it felt far more measured and fact driven. I'll try and find a few more left wing interviewees to see how it plays out.
Good for you Sam! I highly repect that you value the pursuit of truth over value-signaling to score easy points. Two things can be true at once: racism exists and is bad, but not every shooting of a black person is due to racism. I agree that lately there is a tendency to think that it is and that's creating more problems rather than resolve racism. The viewpoint of the reporter, though probably well-intended, is most likely not helping the very group it is intended to help (unfortunately)
You're quite correct in your first point but fail at 2 things:
- identifying the weaknesses in what Harris said (ignore the interviewer; Harris is explicity the subject)
- using a "fallacy fallacy" - just because a point is fallacious, doesn't mean the argument is proports is wrong
He lied about the stats in this interview. He presents a false reality which directly contradicts the findings of the studies he's suposedly read.
He doesn't value truth at all it seems, just wanting to appear to be smarter at whatever cost. Embarassing really.
@@cornsockgabz ^Surprisingly^ you failed to provide evidence to what you wrote...
The interviewer is asserting his own bias too much in this interview.
"Jacob Blake"
Does anyone know why he was shot? Because he had attacked the person that put a restraining order against him, stole her car keys and potentially was going to kidnap her kid (who was in the back seat of the car he was attempting to steal). He was only shot after getting physical with police, brandishing a knife (he said he had it, and was found on him), and attempting to get into the vehicle to flee from police with at least 1 child that wasn't his in the back seat of the car. The police had every reason to shoot Blake. Anyone defending Blake is defending violent, woman-beating criminal.
Facts. The media lied once again for political leverage.
"Anyone defending Blake is defending violent, woman-beating criminal."
Don't you get it, Marxist love criminals....and for that reason, they're obviously going to defend Blake
@@JohnSmith-su3ze There's more strawmen in this comments section than there are scarecrows in the US.
You must all get sore fingers jerking each other off to feel smart.
"Let's move on, i am losing this argument"
Sam Harris is so calm, it's awesome.
Haha I'm sorry.. but maybe you're just easily impressed?
@@afrodinho no, I like his calm demeanor.
He's a meditator
Well he's a debator, most debators are mostly calm.
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 no
I can say this unequivocally. Police shoot men. Yes MEN. There is a much more "Taken for granted" feeling for police shooting men than Police shooting blacks. The disparity however you look at it, of police shooting when looked at in terms of gender is far far greater than police shootings in terms of race. I will say this again, Floyd had a much greater chance of surviving if he was a Black woman than a white man. (Tony Timpa was killed in similar ways, a white man).
2:16 "who are you"
An educated person, with the ability to reason and have empathy.
Uneducated in this field, lacking empathy with his euphemising phrases like “roughed up” to describe harassment.
Its so weird how the people in the comments here act as if empathy is rare and venerable.
Its literally normal to think empathetically if you’re a human being, if you only understand it abstractly then you’re not really one of us.
@@cornsockgabz Actually, that was the interviewer engaging in identity politics to dismiss thoughts based on skin color. That statement was a glaring example of the interviewer's delusion, questioning Sam's ability to discuss this topic as a white person, when he himself is not only also a white guy, but doesn't even live in the society/country he is presuming to educate us on.
Reason and empathy ....not likely to be found in BBC priviliged interviewers who are clearly champagne socialists
He’s a guy doing the people’s eyebrow by the looks of things.
@@VonDutch68 yeah like Ben Shapiro😂
Interviewer: "There's only one variable that explains everything we're seeing now."
Sam: "No, there are multiple variables."
There is certainly one clear denominator which all you pseuds are trying to pretend doesn't exist.
@@cornsockgabz Funny how easily you can construct a narrative when you focus exclusively on every fact that supports that narrative, and disregard the rest.
@@deek0146 Its only easy to do so when the facts are painting an obvious and easily understood picture. If you're one of those people that just distrusts all news media however please move on, its such a boring and spoonfed view to have.
So yeah, its easy to understand that systemic racism exists in America when you can literally see thousands of hours of footage of dirty cops harassing innocent black people. Its not a "narrative" or a "story" its just reality sometimes.
@@cornsockgabz Yea you've ignored what I said. Statistically, black people are not more likely to be harrassed than white people. What you're suffering from is a combination of media amplification bias and confirmation bias
@@deek0146 Mate, if you want me to provide you with the verified studies that contradict that statement proving it to be utterly false, I am very happy to do so.
What I'm actually suffering from is a bunch of white people trying to pretend racism doesn't exist cus they've never experienced in and are massively uncomfortable with the idea that their personal hardships have been a lot easier than the results of that would imply.
Mr BBC is that special type of intellect to fail an open book test.
Im incredibly proud to have Sam Harris represent America on a foreign channel
bet u aint so happy about ur con man president trump lol
@@craigmitcham2619 Hes not even president anymore and i didnt support him when he was. Dumb comment
Disagree but you're probably white. So it makes sense.
@@phillytothemax Who would you rather have represent the country?
@@TR13400 no clue
"who are you to tell us x "
I'm the person you asked on the show specifically to tell you x
Exactly lol
The interviewer is a complete intellectual coward. And he serves as a great example of why this type of media format is dying an increasingly rapid death.
U do realize he is supposed to challenge ppl on the show right. He even challenged anti uygher camps figures. It doesn’t necessarily represent his views. Ur so close minded that u want interviewers to just agree with the person they are talking to and disregard any possible challenges to their arguments
@@ino-fg4qv You do realize that it's an antiquated, unnatural, divisive way for two people to speak? Kind of like what we're doing here. Minus the antiquated part.
This isn't fox news bbc actually ask hard questions
@@hotepkiller1180 Don't let them dupe you, they're both garbage.
@@ino-fg4qv Regardless, if his job is to take the opposite view, there should actually be a logical argument. Otherwise what the hell is the point of propagating the other idiotic viewpoint.
10:03 You can see Stevie Boy thinking "How can I get this awkward conversation back to my narrative?"
I can’t stand when people say “but you’re not _______ so how can you speak for them?” (Black, a woman, Hispanic, trans, etc.) I’m not black and I can’t speak for black people. I mean of course, I never suggested I could. What I CAN do is give my view as a human being. I’ve never been called the n-word or suspected of being a criminal because of who I am. But I’ve seen that very thing happen to other people, and it infuriates me. Not because I feel like I need to save them or that white people are evil, but because I know that it could be me or my loved ones had my ancestors gotten more sun. None of us choose our birth. I can say I have opinions on policy affecting black people because I bloody well care about ALL people. Design society in a way that you didn’t know who you would be until you’ve set it up. Pretend you have the same chance of being any race, religion, sex, or orientation, and design a world that will be best for all kinds and types of people.
The bias of the interviewer is beyond the pale. He's quite appalling and the reason the BBC is finished.
Sam has much patience, I was irritated by this guy pushing his narrative and showing little interest in facts. All Sam is saying is that the battle against racism is being fought on the battleground that is not where the core of the problem exists. Crime, education, culture, poverty, kids raised without fathers are the bigger dragons to slay. The fact that BLM will not acknowledge all this as part of the problem exposes their ignorance and only opens up a door of speculation to their true objectives. Dishonesty and never changing a mind, never admitting mistakes are symptoms of a movement that lacks character.
Can i ask what do you mean by "being fought on the battleground"? From my understanding the way cities were set up in the US was minorities were pushed to these parts of the city were no opportunities were given, which then in turn created poverty which then brought down the standard of education, this created huge problems with drugs and crime and through decades of this cycle and media manipulation of the nation landed us to where we find ourselves. So surely these protests are being fought on the correct battleground.
The problem is whenever black people try to protest on what is a very clear message, white people think all black people have to apologise for the supposed parts of their culture they disagree with. The actual problem is that you cannot see black people as individuals so you think they have to be inerrant and pious to be able to have an opinion without people like you trying to undermine it.
So when a white boy shoots up a church for terroristic reasons, does the entire"white community" have to come up and say they disapprove. Didn't think so.
White people telling black people how to come out of poverty is too fucking rich, gimme a break.
@@cornsockgabz Sorry but your comment seems rather incoherent. In fact, I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.
the stats he cites about whites being more likely to be shot, are BS. Those stats conflate Hispanics as white, and Hispanics are more likely to be shot. It is fake news.
wtfdoihavetodohere I believe what I’ve said makes complete sense and is a direct rebuttal to the comment.
not gonna lie, this is not what I expected when I saw Sam Harris vs BBC
You’ll never get an interview like this on tv over here in the states
Let's be honest "we are two white middle aged guys, and who are you to tell black people anything". This host is saying that you don't have a right to give your input on a subject, because are a certain race. Hmmm? I believe we have found who the real racist is!
Watching Sam get annoyed is a guilty pleasure of mine. Sam is so articulate and precise with his responses it is amazing, however you can see the irritation in his facial expressions and gestures. I just sit back and enjoy every single second of it. I have listen to and re-listened to Sam Harris vs Ezra Klein at least 4 times. Sam and I do not share the same political views, but I absolutely love listening to and watching Sam take apart people's B.S. regardless of what side of the political aisle he is on.
Bravo Sam. Well thought out, comprehensive and rational thinking as always. It’s such a shame that people appear to be incapable of having a rational or evidence based discussion these days. They don’t even try to get at the truth, they only try to blindly support their own ‘truth’.
Harris is also incapable of having a facts based discussion. Many of the "facts" he mentions are direct contradictions of the most up to date studies, and I've even read the one he refers to, which also contradicts him.
So, he's either lying outright to maintain his public persona of a rationalist contrarian, or he's simply not intelligent enough to understand the figures properly, which of course we know he is.
I implore to read the studies yourself, despite Harris' sangfroid and the interviewers irritable demeanour, he's not actually right about really anything he's said here.
Another interviewer seemingly incapable of having a genuine conversation.
Sam Harris is awesome. I love that he has the fortitude to stand his ground and not allow this BBC reporter brow beat him into submission.
guy didn’t even listen to a single one of Sam’s answers.
Sackur wasn't interested in hearing anything counter to his "middle-class" view. The true intolerance of the Left.
Because Harris is erecting strawman arguments left and right. He's become something of a reactionary, and it really looks terrible on his CV.
@@Viconius you've already outed yourself as MAGAt. Please go away.
@@peteraleksandrovich5923 and you should hide your tiny brain before someone touches one of your eye stalks. Roll away.
@@Viconius my GOD that's the weakest insult I've heard in years. I'll give you another shot before I humiliate you...
"You luck emotional intelligence" really means: "Why don't you pretend to be stupid like we do? It's easier..."
No, it just means you lack the ability to think outside your own rigid thought patterns to understand other people's experiences with compassion. Sam Harris didn't even present the other salient points of the study he cites which contradict his entire position, such as the fact that black people are more than twice as likely to die than white people from police brutality.
Also, the fact that in teh cases of white men being shot, they are nearly always armed, whereas most incidences of fatal shootings by police on black people weren't even armed. He conveniently tries to ignore the long history of racial injustice within the country which is still ongoing, in favour of a deliberately decontextualised statistic.
You've made a falty assumption that emotional intelligence impedes your ability to reason objectively. You believe your ability to be unemotional about an issue which does not affect you, means you are able to see it more objectively and logically. What this actually is is the privelige of inexperience, masquerading as lucidity.
Also when you discount the evidence, of which there are thousands of hours on youtube, of police brutality against black people given the huge context of not only excessive state force in the US, and that slavery was only outlawed 155 years ago in that country which is still young, you do a grave injustice to those who have experienced it, many who are alive today.
The bigotry of people like you who genuinely believe your faith in your own intelligence refutes all criticisms of faulty thinking, is alarmingly common. It sounds like it bothers you because I imagine its been said to you before.
Sam Harris does lack emotional intelligence though. His entire identity is founded on wanting to be always right, so his blind-spots are becoming very apparent in this misguided and intellectually dishonest interview
@@cornsockgabz If I tell you that you are rigid and unable to understand my position because you luck compassion, would you change your mind? I guess no, because that is BS argument. Actually, that is not an argument at all. Just BS.
@@aleksandarlazic4620
If your only response is to take offence and ignore my arguments, you've evinced a stronger tendency to react emotionally than rationally in this instance.
I also made a case as to why the thought process which led you to be so bumptious with your views shows tribalistic thinking, typical of irrational behaviour.
When someone responds so dismissively with a salient observation relating to their credibility, they're clearly unable to defend themselves as well as their contrary position.
My argument wasn't simply to tell you you lacked emotional intelligence, of which I outlined why I made these inferences, but to show the weakness of arguing without or simply discounting it as unnecessary, which I can you're reluctant to acknowledge.
Damn... what you have to say about that? @Aleksandar Lazic?
@@cornsockgabz I've applied you logic on you to see if you are in favor of "double standard or not". There is nothing dismissive about that. I hear you but I do not believe you.
I can address your statistics and ideas how to correct them, by playing a fool:
Statistically speaking, majority of violent crime was committed by male individuals of minority ethnic group. There is a lot of youtube videos where you can see this in action. Therefore, it is totally OK to accuse/punish every single individuals from that gender/ethnic group, even if they haven't done anything wrong. That would fix statistic.
Now, if I'm serious about that logic, would you conclude that I'm compassioned person or that I'm an idiot. While you are thinking clever response, remember that you are not tribal. You are noble thinker who applies the same standard to everyone.
"Here's the data showing this notion is untrue".
"But you should have empathy for the lie".
"..."
The interviewer makes large generalized statements without backing them up with evidence
"How can you tell x how to feel?!" He wasnt.
“So what you’re saying is...?”
Exactly my thoughts sir!
This is how to handle Debate/Discussion, by communicating this efficiently. Keep with the facts and be rational, open-minded and don’t let emotions cloud your mind. Be aware of them.
I saw a video with this exact title on RedTube but it was a bit different.
That is hilarious! :)
Yikes. What’s going on at the BBC?
I’ve cancelled my license they are insane. I believe they have decided to become the most woke liberal media outlet they can be after the abhorrent behaviour of previous employees predominantly jimmy savile and others. It’s a swing what’s been developing for 10 to 15 years. No nuance or balance just one view on everything and if you disagree you are a right wing racist.
Mr BBC should not be interviewing Sam Harris. He’s out of his league.
If Sam Harris wants an interviewer who worships his every word, he has Joe Rogan for that. BBC is where interviewers frequently play the devil's advocate. You clowns should know that by now, at least from the Ben Shapiro interview.
Sam: points out that cops are reasonable in assuming that every car in america has a gun in it.
Host: "hey, lets change the subject"
What a great interview. The guy challenged Sam, but always gave him ample time to respond. Obviously that's exactly what an interviewer should do, but it's quite rare these days.
The quality of his questions is also notable
Appalling interviewer. He's so set upon pushing his own woke agenda that he both fails to listen to Sam, or acknowledge the validity of Sam's evidence.
BUT BUT BUT BUT
HE never changes ,the guy is a moron.
His JOB is to play devils advocate. Why do ppl not get this!!
That’s the format of HardTalk. It’s deliberately set up to put guests on the defensive. Most guests understand this, and I’m sure Sam Harris does as well.
@@LeMerch too busy getting triggered 🤣
He’s actually Ben Afleck
"But but but eh eh eh eh lets be honest we're both white"
It was wonderful, how he stayed calm all the time...
My question is: how do we objectively know if somebody is a racist or not? I think that's not the point at all. It's not about anybody being a racist or not. It's a system, because of colonial processes like slavery, being inherently racist. That's what is being said when we talk about systemic racism. Poverty, drug trafficking, crimes, incarceration for racialized minorities are the result of historical sociopolitical processes that goes beyond anybody's intention but are part of the structure of society itself. Racism needs to be defined before having any further discussion.