I'm also tired of 'emotional' being used as a pejorative. It's really stupid, especially when you can see that the person they are calling 'rational' is also emotionally invested/ motivated by what they are saying.
I agree that we shouldn't call people names, but not being able to control emotions is what has brought war and suffering through all of human history. We shouldn't celebrate "being emotional", we should celebrate being able to control them.
@@Colaglass I would say that in order to control, you have to acknowledge and know the nature of the thing being controlled. Many people who criticize the left for talking too much about feelings could know better than strawmanning and choosing those who are unstable as the true representatives of the left while ignoring those who can control their feelings while talking seriously about them.
@@somedragontoslay2579 I wasn't really having a stab at either side of the political spectrum, the issue transcends those borders. If you're in political office, you are probably pushing patos on someone. Usually it works because many endorse the idea of "living in the moment", then the next complaining about the fact that they didn't plan ahead for the future, and they're in fact worse off. We need to get better as a species not of following leaders, but paving our own path. I don't think society in general is built on anything of the like. It's all about giving up yourself so somebody else can make decisions based on some rules which is just creating deeper issues which in turn... You get the point. Humanity is complicating itself because of our inability to deal with emotion. I wish for a world where people have some sort of perspective on how reality **is**, not necessarily what we **want it to be**. I have a sneaking suspicion we're being led on.
@@Colaglass I agree, and sorry for bringing those partisan issues to the table, it's just that most times, I find that structure used to belittle the left from the right. Like: oh! You're talking about feelings too much, therefore you're too sensitive. But, in connection with what you said, sometimes I feel those people who belittle talking about emotions are talking about a world they want where people are unsensitive, instead of the world we have. Is vs. want, like you pointed out but upside down. However, I'm happy that is not the case with you and I was in error. 😁
@@somedragontoslay2579 Nah, it's understandable. I get that politics is a big deal, and has always been, it's just that it all seems so nonsensical to me, and I keep assuming that people think the same. Ever since I was a little kid I've tried to control my emotions because I've always found them to be very illogical in the situations they overpower my reasoning. Being mindful about them is key, I think. Thank you for the respectful conversation (very uncommon on the internet), and I wish you everything well for the future!
And yet, exploring someone else's ideas with zeal is one of the best gateways to start thinking for yourself, because you eventually discover that they aren't perfect.
I agree. I think that people admire Harris largely because he is well spoken and evidently practiced at debating but he seems like a cold fish who has a very simplistic attitude to most topics. He fails to take any account of the decades of damage and abuse wrought on the Middle East for decades and therefore implies that the geopolitical tensions in the area and the outside interference by Western powers and the former USSR mean nothing and have nothing to do with terrorism and radicalized Muslims.
@@skywriter4308 As a person who has gone through phases of zeal for different ideas, such as the nofap movement, I wholeheartedly concur. Nothing guards against zeal and idolization more than the hard experience, and consequences, of being a zealot/idoliser yourself.
"speak well"..or voluminously or rapidly or with unbridled & UNselflective confidence. it really is a sign(possibly of the last days of 'man'?), that young ppl, most especially young MEN, are so quick to sign up for any flavor du jour of "public intellectual" that comes careening (or slithering) down the pike. i stopped feeling the need to address men as 'father' or 'reverend' as i DO NOT revere any man & you ain't my damn father. there is probably a gene, as yet not specifically identified, labelled "worship & obey" that would account for so much of the gullible lemming rushes in our species; think 'cults', think 'organized religion', think 'monarchies'. no matter what value or helpful insight 1 may gather from these guys (& sometimes women), you need to separate the chaff from the wheat & that most essentially begins with identifying their personal pathologies. "rhetoric, it seems, is a producer of persuasion for belief, not for instruction in the matter of right and wrong...and so the rhetorician's business is not to instruct a law court or a public meeting in matters of right and wrong, but only to make them believe." -socrates in the gorgias
Josie Fox same thing with Ben Shapiro an many other people that we idolized. I think the problem is that RUclips is filled with videos of them “owning” other people and that make our brain to wire that they are perfect and smart and all knowing, but if you take a moment to listen you’ll see that most of them are full of shit.
"You should give a shit about the impact of your words and how you make other people feel." I remember when I _finally_ figured this out. I spent so many years being angry at people for misunderstanding me. I internalized it as a deliberate attempt to reject me, without actually trying to understand what I was saying. I _finally_ realized that _I_ should be able to pay enough attention to the person/people I'm talking to, to craft my message in a way that *makes sense to them*. They are after all the person/people *I want to understand me*. This change in attitude changed everything. Surprise surprise, when I started caring more about how my words were taken, then what I meant by them, more people understood me.
There is a humongous flaw in that quote and what you just said there. There are only two ways through which you can be outraged or feel negatively about someone's comments/opinions: You have either correctly understood what that someone is saying, and for whatever reason feel outraged or touchy about it, or you have misunderstood what they're saying, and, for whatever reason still, you're also outraged by it. Either way, something Hitchens said on this comes to mind: "I'm terribly depressed how in this country you can be told 'That's offensive!', as if those two words are somehow supposed to constitute an argument." Regardless of whether or not someone feels offended because they understood (or misunderstood) what a person is saying, it still falls on the offended party to lay out their criticisms in a way that honors the call for civil discourse. Your feelings are not an argument, no matter what. One could of course try to re-explain it to them, but your basic opinion shouldn't change in the process. If someone out there genuinely thinks that the likes of Sam Harris is too offensive to be grappled with, despite his tireless efforts to carefully re-articulate his opinions (and having repeatedly said that he is not looking to offend anyone), then I really wanna see some examples of people who express the same views that Dr. Harris opines, without the ensuing spawn of online complaints for offenses being felt everywhere. You're going to have to look long and hard for that. At a certain point people have to grow up. But until they do grow up, mature people have to insist on continually drawing the line and saying "Look, this is what I meant and still mean, and if you're unwilling to recognize and accept that as what I'm saying, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, then that's your problem. My statements are here, ready for you to lay them on the chopping-board. You have to combat my ideas, not just bitch about how you feel. If all you have to come back with are complaints on how offensive I come across to you, then the conversation is over. It's not something that I should even have to contend with. It's not my job to play nanny on account of how you might feel personally about my opinions. " This is especially true with regards to these kinds of topics where caring about peoples' feelings just completely misses the mark. Serious social problems aren't solved by appealing to how everyone might feel on the matter. Actual douchebags who are just out to cause trouble are easy to recognize, and they don't last very long because they either lose all credibility very fast or people just stop listening to them. Sam Harris obviously doesn't even remotely apply in that category. Finally, try it for yourself for good measure perhaps? I did... Pick any controversial topic, and try to communicate what you really think on the subject, on a platform where at least 10 000 or so people will see it, where anyone can also comment back. I suggest some big online transgender group or a "Black Lives Matter"-forum. See what happens. You'll get so much shit thrown back at you I quite honestly admire how poised and collected Sam is at all times when this inevitably happens. It's really something to learn from. Some of his hate mail is really astonishing, and some of it is just quite freaking hilarious. You can't please everyone, but we sure as hell try, so long as a principle of not compromising our original position on the matter is upheld.r Peace.
@@sirriffsalot4158 Wow guy. I don't really see how you got all of that from my comment. I was really just talking about making an effort to clear up what you mean, instead of digging in your heals and getting pissed. I'll give you an example of the kind of attitude I was speaking against. One of my good friends once said the following to another person in front of me, "It's not my fault that you're too stupid to understand what I mean." I'll give you a guess how the rest of the conversation went. Later I was talking with that person, and was able to explain what my friend meant in 3 short sentences. I was able to do this, because I had taken the effort to understand how that other person uses language. It turned out they completely agreed with my friend, and their entire argument had been a waste of their time. My friend was angry for days, when he could have just taken a second to clarify what he meant. The other person in this situation was not particularly aggressive, they were just very confused and a little annoyed.
@@t3tsuyaguy1 Fair enough. But none of that applies here, as I've already pointed out, so I refer you again to what I originally wrote with regards to all of that. It's not as if I didn't understand that that was the overall drift of your message to begin with, but rather that the message itself is very misleading, if that's all it meant. We're in the realm of academia, intellectuals and hundreds of thousands of people all chiming in with their various complaints of personal offense taken. Such a basis for a public conversation on social issues just don't fly in these dimensions, and certainly not under the banner of "you should give a shit what people feel". Granted, my reply was a bit lengthy, but I was bored and felt the need to articulate myself just right so it doesn't seem like I'm just flinging gunk for no reason. Peace out!
@@sirriffsalot4158 Hi! I don't know if you still feel the same way you felt in the original reply, but there's a bit of an issue with saying that it lies on the offended person to offer criticisms that promote civil discourse. Namely, that the offended person has zero responsibility for listening to or responding to you. If you won't be bothered to consider your audience, why the heck should they consider your ideas? According to this logic, wouldn't that presumed responsibly fall back on the original speaker should they get offended at people getting mad at them? I really vibe with the OP's comment. It wasn't about miscommunicating or changing the meaning of what you're saying, it's about respecting your audience. If you respect your audience; I imagine you're also listening to them (not just formulating a counterattack), so it's very natural for your original position or opinion to shift.
@@xenophiliuslovegood6914 Hey! I think if you re-read those claims you just brought forth a little more carefully, you might actually see what an insane predicament that would put us all in if it were put into practice. One thing you're right about is that there is no responsibility on any offended party what so ever to have to "listen" to or respond to anything. But come on dude, if you're offended, then obviously that presupposes that you listened to something that offended you.. No one is compelled to listen to anything, where did I even say anything remotely close to that? Leaving that aside, there is no compulsion for anyone to respond to something they don't like, of course. But that in itself I just don't see as constituting any sort of argument here. You don't have to respond, but if you do decide to respond, you're at the very least going to have to make the response mirror the nature and spirit of the original content. Anyone can yell that they're offended, and you're of course entitled to -- but a lot of people these days actually think that being offended, and saying as much publicly, constitutes an argument. It doesn't. As far as considering your audience is concerned.. I'm all for a healthy dose of respect mate. But respect here does not, and should never mean, being inoffensive at the cost of what you actually want to say. Talking to someone respectfully, in this context, means to not talk down to your audience, because why would you unless you're really not so sure of yourself in the things you're saying? Sam himself has pointed out that anyone's capacity to be outraged is not something that I, or anyone else for that matter, needs to respect. As a matter of fact, it's not even something that YOU (the offended party) should respect. To the contrary, it's something that all of us should be very much on our guard for, because it can easily mislead us. I mean I'm offended at boy-bands for crying out loud, that doesn't mean my offense has any real say in whether or not they should exist. No offense but I honestly don't understand where you got your last logical conclusion from... "According to this logic, wouldn't that presumed responsibly fall back on the original speaker should they get offended at people getting mad at them?" You made your own logic there my friend.. :-) Wherever you got this from, it really has nothing to do with what I said at all. I'm saying that being offended isn't an argument, lol. But just to take what you said for what it is, sure: If the original speaker in question here is offended, and then cries abuse at being offended, then yeah that doesn't constitute an argument either.. so I don't see how would that in any way demolish my fundamental point..? :-P In conclusion: there is no issue with saying that it lies on the offended person to offer criticisms that promote civil discourse, as long as civil discourse is what you're after of course. If that's not the sort of discourse you're after, and you just want to scream abuse or tell someone you're offended -- fine, knock yourself out. But it begins and ends there. Being offended and saying as much does not in any way inform on the facts at hand. There are all kinds of feelings and audiences out there, so whose offended feelings should trump whose? We solve this problem by ruling them all out as redundant. *If you won't be bothered to consider your audience, why the heck should they consider your ideas?* Again, this is the sort of contorted way of looking at what I said that I really don't understand how you arrived at... No one is compelling anyone to consider anything here. But once you engage in a discussion about it, you better bring some facts and arguments beyond "I'm offended" along with you, that's it. Otherwise your position is cancelled out by anyone else's capacity to also just "feel a certain way about it". Is that finally clear? :-P Lastly: to think that one, or even several offended parties manifesting themselves, means that a speaker is just at-large not bothered to consider his or her audience? Well that just completely fails to explain how anyone could have any audience at all, lol. You can't please everyone. I'm sorry, but your whole approach to this problem dances around the fact that we actually need to insist on people getting past mere feelings if we actually want to make progress on difficult issues. Peace out!
I thought that Sam Harris was Ben Stiller when I clicked on this video, and I wondered why you would ever idolize Ben Stiller. I thought you just were some big Night at the Museum fan!
@@kristynicole6201 haha! Actually, Sam Harris has claimed that he is often mistaken for Ben Stiller. Pretty sure he said people have even asked for his autograph under the false belief that he is Ben Stiller.
You shouldn't idolize anyone. We are all just people and we are all flawed. The most brilliant minds have glaring blindspots and imperfections. I teach graduate prep courses, which is a mix of logic, test and subject prep. My students are mostly intelligent, well educated, and academically inclined individuals. My students include professors, post graduate researchers, Ph.D. students, etc. at prestigious universities, including Harvard, Carnegie Mellon and Berkeley. They are all brilliant experts in their field; they are also all obviously intellectually flawed. I listen to what these people have to say in their fields of expertise but I do not assume they are correct, ever, as they often are not.
@@o.fm.a5573 Because it seems the appropriate word to use? I could instead say, intellectual friend or numerous others terms, but fan is a good term for many. I like it because everyone seems to get it - at least when they share the same context.
I think it's good the author has moved beyond what he feels was idiolization. But I don't feel it is really Sam that he's moved away from. One example: Sam's vague language. What drew me to Sam -- was his appropriate dynamic with regard to precise terms and vague ones.
Ya. Like anything in life. We're first introduced to something and it's "the answer". Then after a time we begin to see it's flaws and it's no longer "the answer", but just another thing we've experienced that's made us grow.
Becoming an Atheist, I sought a better understanding of my stance and started studying arguments that I may potentially have thus stumbled upon Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krause etc. Being an Atheist and a student of reason and logic plus a lifelong student of experience, I'd advice you not to idolise anyone. Everyone of apparent sound intellect has something to offer, not everything. Collect all that wisdom to for your own. Sam Harris has my respect.
Mathias Yung I agree whole heartedly. I’m glad the title wasn’t “Why Sam Harris is a tool”. Nobody has all the answers but nuggets of wisdom and perspective can be obtained from many different voices.
When the answer wasn’t answer enough? How can be that? The first answer had definitely not been the answer from the beginning but the observers putting faith to believing in it! That’s when critical thinking plays its role to determine the validity of the answer!
I've gotta say, your own introspection is really helping me through a formative time in my life. I'm 27 and I've been looking back in the person I've been and realizing it's not who i want to be. Your content is an indispensable resource for me. I appreciate lessons learned the hard way, and that you don't want others to make the same mistakes you've made.
@beanie0112 So we can infer from your statement that anyone who is "anti-sjw" wants their rights to be "asshole" to remain unimpeded )love your lack of specificity there) and by the same logic SJWs represent all of society. Cool thesis bro. 🙄
Isn't it weird how all these 'free speech advocates' constantly use their free speech to harass and spread hateful rhetoric? It's almost like they're intentionally trying to provoke people until they get push back so they can claim to be the victim and gain sympathy for their awful views... Nah, must be an SJW conspiracy :B
@@devonhitchens4804 as you grow older you will see he is also fallible. Milton friedman is the only one who has stood the test of time. With that said, as a Hitchens fan, Prager objectively wins the debate.
You shouldnt idolize anyone to the point of blindly agreeing everything they say. Take the best points that someone articulates and be critical of their weak points.
@Oners82 yet its not commonly occuring, if u cant recognize humans have blindspots where we know better but fail to act appropriatly. then ur either a narcisistic prick or just naive.
See: Dr. Jordan Peterson Stans Peterson is a brilliant man but a lot of his Stans cherry pick his quotes out of context and ignore what they disagree with. For example, he’s often quoted by “red pills” when bashing uppity women. Yet, Dr. Peterson is an advocate of marriage, which conflicts with red pill philosophy.
@Oners82 🙂 A "Stan" is a fan that is obsessed with their favorite celebrities. The term derived from the Eminem song, "Stan." In the beginning, it was an insult. Yet, many casual fans use it as term of endearment. Fan: "I love James Bond soundtracks! "Sky Fall" is one of the best songs of the franchise. Adele is hot af..." Friend: "Bro, she has a great voice but she's not THAT good looking. She's a solid 6 at best without makeup. You're such f'ing Stan, I swear..."
@@MoeinthePhilippines I think being redpill has many many different niches. Including trad wives and Christians which hugely support marriage. Not every "redpilled" individual thinks the same if you could believe that.
Your mistake was seeing him as a hero in the first place. He's just another guy. Appreciate the good stuff and accept the negative as part of human complexity and inconsistency.
@@rgcooke what if the bad outweighs the good? I think in his case it does. racial profiling is a pretty bad thing to ask for and even worse to defend. I think that's reason enough to not take him seriously imo.
@@TV-ob1if assuming 1.8 billion people are potential terrorists is a bad belief to hold. Not only it’s incorrect, it’s harmful for that a particular race in the short run and all of humanity in the long run. What if racial profiling became a norm? Every white Person was considered a potential nazi and a war criminal? Every asian person was considered a potential bio hazard? Every black person a stupid guy who is good at sports? It will create animosity between races and causes more problems than it solves. Islam is a harmful religion like all other religions but treating it differently will cause more harm than good.
Oh man, he is clearly promoting right. Not that it's bad, but he claims to be liberal while mostly promoting right quests while and agreeing with them. So it's just really deceptive. I mean his show is even sponsored by right wing.
dave rubin never claimed to be an intellectual and incase one of you dishonestly goes "LOL GOOD CUZ HE ISNT SMART" or something silly ....do any of you claim to be an intellectual? chances are you don't, so don't give me that bullshit
I remember those simpler times, when _Fight Club_ seemed like an awesome movie, and RUclips atheists had it all figured out. Acquiring wisdom is painful, and occasionally embarrassing.
DrippyRL I’d be curious to hear why you’re a fan? I’m not super familiar with him, and this video seems contrary to supporting him, which is why I’m wondering, from the perspective of someone who clearly knows more about him, what still makes him worth following as a fan?
@@allie2549 the thing about Sam is that his opinions transcend political norms he's never all right or all left. The issue with Sam is that he takes premises that are true and will run with them. Profiling is a perfect example for this, take a premise such as "Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than non-muslims". While this premise is true to conclude that we need to profile Muslims at the airport seems to negate the French revolution in the values that emerged from it all together. The issue is the Sam often doesn't mediate facts through the values of the enlightenment when making public policy prescriptions. However I genuinely respect his courage in saying things that are incredibly controversial. A lot of his more liberal thoughts are entirely rational and often entail a very interesting means to a common end. With that said I haven't listened to or read Sam in years however much of his work on religion has been formative in my intellectual development. I am thus a fan
I am an atheist, and am one of the few Americans who lives in an area where I interact with Muslim people all the time. Minneapolis has a huge tightly knit community of Somali people who are almost all Muslim, and a lot of west African people with varying religious affiliation as well, some Muslim. Islamophobia, and I feel comfortable using this terms because the suburban christians I interact with are actually afraid of my Muslim friends, makes my blood boil. I do think that parts of Islamic ideology deserve critique. But I am not the one to do that. I have gay, woman and black (there are significant dividends between "Arab" and African" Muslim people) Muslim friends who have a relationship with Allah but routinely speak about certain aspects of their faith and interactions with other muslims have made them feel marginalized. It's as common as christians questioning homophobic, misogynistic, and racist Christian belief. But they do not get platforms. The only people I see who get platforms speaking against Islam are white people who have very little interaction with muslims themselves, and use racially charged rhetoric to paint Muslim men as abusers and terrorists and Muslim women as victims. This enables the aforementioned islamphobic suburban white people to fear, literally fear people who look vaguely East African or middle eastern. If Sam Harris cares so much about terrorism and problematic beliefs held by conservative muslims, he should have elevated progressive Muslim people to his platform and used interviews and testimonies from them to make his point. But he didn't. If he's not racist, he's at least really comfortable stoking racial fears.
@@gtpk3527 wow...... let me get this straight, me calling out Nawaz for his anti-Islamic propaganda is equivalent to me criticizing him for not being conservative enough?? what are you smoking
I have a careful distrust of idolizing people to begin with. Same with the feeling of 'pride'. It can be good, useful, or 'deserved', but I can also see that it can often lead to less opportune situations.
idolizing makes people astray from the truth it makes them sustainable to manipulation to people who have a personal agenda its similar to worshiping cult leaders they all have a agenda and are always wrong
Same. Never understood why people get so attached to a person they obviously know hardly anything about and then end up being really disappointed when they find out that they are human too.
not just that intellectuals entice people who look for role models with logic then they veer off track to their own personal ideological beliefs i catch them doing this quiet often psychopaths tend to do the same to manipulate people to their favor they also enter fields of study of which they have no idea what theyre talking about usually like psychology and philosophy pushing there own personal narrative with every topic such behavior is quiet disasters to free thinking people
I know this is old and nobody will probably read this, but there's one thing here I cannot let slide: Daria. I understand where you're coming from, but I'd still defend her character as unique and likable. Anyway, subbed.
I actually re-watched Daria relatively recently and I have to say, I largely agree with t1j here. Her cynicism was cool when we were teens but later now, my reaction is basically something along the lines of 'ergh, get over yourself'. Her character is very good at criticising and putting other people down intellectually, but isn't very good at providing solutions to the issues she raises (funnily enough, this is directly addressed in an episode, but she doesn't really seem to be affected by it). (i know I'm probably taking this too seriously but... yeah... Daria really isn't as cool as it used to be. Would recommend you re-watching it to see what I mean)
@@ihaveanametoo I agree, but I still think she's likable. She's got an ego and a superiority complex as many real teenagers do, and as I certainly did as a teenager. I re-watched Daria as well recently, and found the whole show to do a pretty good job of showing that every character is flawed in various ways, including Daria.
@@ihaveanametoo I think the show did a good job of addressing the limitations of nihilistic sarcasm through the last season and showing Daria be more vulnerable and grow out of this (painfully). But I think her attitude isn't as cool for two reasons: 1. we're older now and exercising control over our surroundings is a part of our life that teenagers genuinely don't have. Teens have to cope with being old enough to see problems but having next to no agency to do anything about it. And angry sarcasm with no solutions is a pretty realistic expression of this that adults have the luxury to reject. And 2. times have changed and everyone including teens assumes and expects to be able to make themselves heard online and affect the world in a way they couldn't when Daria came out. Daria was incredibly isolated and felt defeated, like a lot of weird teens did, whereas nowadays she'd probably find others like her online and join some communities, and would probably be more solution-focused instead of stewing in pithy resentment. It does feel grating nowadays to see someone putting down the people around them for the crime of being normal and I'm glad media has moved on from that trope, but I don't necessarily think it means Daria ages badly as a character the way, say, Carrie from Sex and the City or Ross from Friends did. She's a true representation of a real phenomenon of the 90s, something you can see in Ghost World and Reality Bites as well; and it's not like 90s people were just inherently less mature than nowadays, instead I think times changed and allowed us/society an outlet to behave in a more mature way, really.
Good on you for recognizing that and working on it! Too many people are in denial of their prejudices these days and are only getting more entrenched in them.
Rekreant What evidence have you found on racism being a biological function? I understand that people may be naturally afraid of the unfamiliar, but does that automatically translate into racism? What if you’ve grown up in a multi racial community, or even a multi racial family? Would racism still be natural? I haven’t especially looked into this, which is why I’m asking. I would think though, that both nature and upbringing & life experience would play a role here.
@@manny9564 As a bisexual person I agree that things like racism or homophobia are products of our tribalistic nature and our desire to have an identity that is shared with others who reflect our identity for the sake of self-consciousness (me vs "the other") and a feeling of belonging (us vs "the other"). Now of course just because those things are natural or biological doesn't mean that they are good. To claim so would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Racism and homophobia are not only irrational, but also immoral.
But hey honestly, i’m a huge sam Harris fan. But this is NO way a smear or anything. Your video was actually well thought out, you didn’t take any cheap shots, you had some honest critiques. Subscribed 👍🏻
Very much agreed. I think Sam Harris is awesome, that however does not mean I think he is perfect and doesnt make his own share of mistakes. I think this video was well thought out and put together. There might be a couple points I disagree with, but that is only to be expected, I think.
I was not at all sure what I would think when I started watching this video - I was concerned it was going to be a biased rant. In fact I think this came across as well balanced, well researched material and very well presented. I found the arguments compelling. Thank you.
I find it embarrassing you need Sam to water down or sugar coat his speech...not on the merits of the logic of it, but because of how some third party may interpret it.
@@brucesmith54 Ideas are nothing if you cannot present them in a way that will be informative but also cognisant of opposing view points and how to disect them in a way that can alter someones viewpoint.
And the weird thing is that one of things I used to love most about Sam was *his ability to be concise and precise with his arguments.* It always flabberghasted me when people did misrepresent him in debates because he was so clear in his arguments that I couldn't understand how he could have been misunderstood. But then he starts talking about social issues and the script is completely flipped and he's using all the same shady argumentative tactics that theists used to use against him. And it's just....ugh. Why.
@@zachariayusuf6688 Like him or not he is highly intelligent and very articulate with his opinions. you look like a hater tbh. even tho i'm an atheist there are some christians which i respect and would say are very knowledgable and articulate, much more than me, i always try to be objective even towards those i dislike.
For me, it was the way he spoke of Trump and Hillary (so absolutely childish and ridiculous, not fit for someone like him), and how he said free speech is for the likes of him... but not for the likes of people who have questions about the official narrative of history. "They don't even deserve a platform", he said.
THANK YOU. his defense of the IDF, arguing for a nuclear first strike against Muslims, defense of torture and the Iraq war *scream* imperialist, bigoted white guy to me. i don't understand the extremely charitable interpretation this video has.
I just started watching your video's and I completely agree with you. I went thru almost exactly the same process as you with Sam Harris but have not been able to express as well as you did. I really wish a couple of the new atheist youtubers that fanboy a little too hard on Sam Harris will watch this and take it to hart.
Check out Big Joel, if you don't already know him. He's pure joy, and super good at calling out bullshit. There's also Some More News. If you can get over him trying to be the next John Oliver, he's critical of Harris too.
I understood Sam's views on religion before he was born. Nothing new there. His views on society belong to an amateur who just discovered he can have an opinion. His view on policing is very narrow and shortsighted. If he is espousing a white supremacy narrative without intention, he is just a useful idiot. I've been a follower of Sam for quite some time now. Studied all his books and I know he is a scientist and at least agnostic. I threw the god line there just to provoke a reaction and vent my frustration about how Sam can be so right in his field BUT soooo wrong on social issues. He clearly emphasizes the white supremacy narrative carefully; cherry picking data that would make him appear "Objective". This time, he's clearly on the wrong side of History. He reminds me of Candace Owens, a black skinned white supremacist. And Kanye West to boot. Sam Harris, I'm no longer a fan. You are cancelled.
@@call4sorrow1 Hitchens may have been right or wrong about many of his political stances, and we can have a discussion about that. But I do agree with the point made by @steelersguy74. And I think you would agree with this: if all Hitchens had spoken about was politics and not religion, he would have been considered just as another political talking head. There was nothing special, original, or genius about his politics.
Wow, man. I'm a huge Sam Harris fan and was ready to hear a bunch of the usual criticisms of Harris. This was super thorough and fair and gave me a lot to think about. I don't fully agree with the criticism that he uses vague arguments and then defends against being held accountable for them. I think his opinions and views are very nuanced and it simply isn't possible to explain all the finer points of them each time they're brought up. While I agree he sees malice more often than it actually occurs, I do think his viewpoints are often misunderstood and misrepresented, whether intentionally or not.
I understood Sam's views on religion before he was born. Nothing new there. His views on society belong to an amateur who just discovered he can have an opinion. His view on policing is very narrow and shortsighted. If he is espousing a white supremacy narrative without intention, he is just a useful idiot. I've been a follower of Sam for quite some time now. Studied all his books and I know he is a scientist and at least agnostic. I threw the god line there just to provoke a reaction and vent my frustration about how Sam can be so right in his field BUT soooo wrong on social issues. He clearly emphasizes the white supremacy narrative carefully; cherry picking data that would make him appear "Objective". This time, he's clearly on the wrong side of History. He reminds me of Candace Owens, a black skinned white supremacist. And Kanye West to boot. Sam Harris, I'm no longer a fan. You are cancelled.
@@juanmireles8756 I am not familiar with Sam Harris's work in general, but the thing about profiling muslims seems like an excellent example..He is say there are features that makes it likely that someone might be muslim, and we should profile and scrutinize them accordingly. The result of instituting this as policy is that people with brown skin, and names associated with countries with high muslim populations would be unduly targeted regardless of their religion. Perhaps, from a practical perspire one of the most ironic possible outcomes would be that Sikhs would be targeted the most by such a policy. However, by bit explaining what he actually means, he just allows us to imagine what would be the outcome and how it would work. I have no idea if Sam Harris is racist; it doesn't really matter. I can say that he is arguing for at least one policy that would have a racist outcome, and that matter a lot more than his personal prejudices.
His rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism. I'm not fan of Islam, but I can see a paid propagandist. Now imagine if muslims were to speak ill on Judaism. It would be blasted everywhere as antisemitism. He also believes that US had legitimate reason for war in Iraq. He also believes America "accidentally" killed 500 thousand Iraq kids by medical sanctions and brushes it off as "oh well, we meant well", he says America had good intentions in Iraq. He argues that killing people while trying to take their resources is an "unintended" collateral of war which we need to do and that is just like dying while driving cars which is also what we need to do. But then he turns around and vilifies the victims who try to fight back against their pillagers and argue that they are doing it out of ideological evil and not just out of fighting back against their plunderers.
I agree with what most of you said in this video. Generally speaking I appreciate balanced, nuanced and reasonable criticisms and critiques of people I follow and ideas I agree with. This video was refreshing in a sea of other videos/tweets/articles that do in fact, either intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresent his views on Islam. I found your critiques to be very fair. My biggest critique of him is his naïveté of the “intentions” of US foreign policy. I actually do agree with his point that intentions do actually matter. However his biggest flaw is the assumption that our intentions are good in regards to our foreign policy. On Joe Rogan I believe it was, he said something along the lines of “All America wants is there to be peace and democracy. To America any innocent person killed in the crossfire is a tragedy, and it’s not our intent to kill them.” This is completely false. We do not want to spread freedom and democracy through our foreign policy. Our foreign policy facilitates Western Corporations having easy access to foreign resources (mainly oil). In 1953, we overthrew Mohamed Mossadegh, the secular leader of Iran who wanted to model his county on the freedom of American and European societies, was overthrown by the CIA and MI6, and a fundamentalist dictator was installed. This was because he did not want to sell his oil to the USA and UK for cheap prices, and instead wanted to nationalize the resource. In many ways, with our regime change wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq, we have made things worse in terms of stability and democracy. This is also not to mention the callous indifference we have to civilians dying in drone strikes (over 80%). But Sam thinks we’re basically the Boy Scouts. His foreign policy beliefs are at least partially motivated by the idea of American exceptionalism.
This comment is what I was looking for, thanks! US intentions and track record are perhaps Harris's biggest blind spot and it merits more than the passing and generalized mention it received in this video.
Maserati7200 In fact, the absurd naivete of Harris's view of US intentions is perhaps the single strongest factor to suspect that, in fact, he is well aware of true US intentions, and is in fact, in favor of those intentions.
@masserati7200 Sorry, but the left wing "the US is trying to rule the world, but can't figure out how to do it" narrative is totally false. Mosaddegh is a great example of left wing revisionism. The Shah and the US opposed overthrowing Mosaddegh for years, even if he was strongly linked to the assisination that caused his appointment. Mosaddegh was legally fired by the shaw (the second time) after he dissolved parliament and imposed a soviet backed dictatorship because he had lost democratic support. Notice that most countries supported both the Iranian boycott and the Shah. We know what role the US played. We'll never know what role soviet imperialism played. I mean do you blame the US for Al-Qaeda, but not the USSR? The modern leftist revisionism of that story is even more clear. It would be like blaming china for Viet Nam... There's a lot of ideological narrative passing for history, and it comes from people like Noam Chomsky, who said China had "truer democracy" than the US in 1969, during Mao's cultural revolution. People like that have been lying by omission, only telling one side of the story, and getting away with never having to admit when they are completely wrong. The cold War was not mostly about American exceptionalism or greed. It was about soviet colonialism and communist exceptionalism.
I consider myself quite the fan of Sam Harris, but I wouldn’t say you were being unfair. It was a thoughtful and well considered critique, even if i may not agree on every point. Good job.
@@omarsharif2995 chomsky lost me when he wont even admit daniel Everett COULD have possibly found exceptions to his language theory. I cannot stand people who wont even entertain the possibility of being wrong.
At least his fans seem more reasonable than what I've seen from Peterson fans, at least as far as RUclips comments on critical videos are concerned. Not sure about the other 2 in the intellectual dark web.
@@willowarkan2263 I mean, Peterson's cult of personality is basically centered around 'being right'. Dawkins and Harris also attract a lot of 'very smart's, but it's not because their work lacks any merit.
I've always loved anti-SJW videos. But I've also always had a feeling of discomfort maybe because on some level I knew these people are cherry picking the worst of the worst and mocking them, just to promote their own ideologies. Now I understand precisely why. You've articulated my thoughts better than I ever could have. SUBSCRIBED!
I’m still yet to find a SJW that can have a productive conversation. Most of them are just keyboard warriors, on the intellectual level they stand no where near Sam Harris.
I'm really happy you made this video and admitted you were part of the kind of cult surrounding atheist leaders currently. I was also this way after leaving religion and didnt realize how I went from following one dogma to another, it took almost 2 years for me to realize I needed to look as critically at people whom I agreed with as those I disagreed with and point out their problematic beliefs and behaviors. Its definitely a journey for each person but thankfully we are always able to change when we keep our minds open
@@michelen5728 there is no dogma of atheism. But I think what @Sara H was getting at is that there's a kind of dogma surrounding these "four horsemen" anti-theists that, much like religion, leaves their fans not questioning their worldview.
You jumped from one pot to another, and I hate to break it to you but it's pots all the way down. It's better to think of "religion" as a part of human psychology than magic book.
That was EMBARRASSING for Harris. Honestly it shows why Harris is not taken seriously in academic Poli Sci circles. And we all know Harris is so protective of his reputation that when he heard that apparently Chomsky said something negative about him (it's in the exchange), he tried to argue WAY above his weight class and he embarrassed himself.
Drawing partly from some of your points in this video, here’s where I stand on Sam Harris: his positions on Charles Murray’s theories, on profiling and other controversial issues dance so far on the side of justifying bigotry that it’s not particularly worth it to a well-meaning person on the left to tease through all the angles of his argument just to agree with his underlying point. Harris’s insensitivity on these and other subjects makes him an accessory to bigoted people whether he agrees with them or not. So, I’m inclined to side with some of the more emotional responses of his critics, even if they’re technically mistaken about what Harris’s views are.
“His claims are so vague and quick that he still has access to deniability. He can accuse you of misrepresenting him because he hasn’t really represented anything of substance to begin with.” Thank you!!! This sums up perfectly Sam Harris' take on virtually everything I've seen or heard from him.
The objectivity, detachment and nuance in your videos is the perfect antidote to the gradual degradation of discourse that the twitter era has brought about. I appreciate your work, . The only dispiriting thing is the thought that there are tens of thousands of videos made in the opposite vein for every one of yours... I went through a similar thing in the last few years with Dawkins. I always found Harris to be a bit tepid, and was more attracted to the academic rigour of Dawkins and Hitchens (I must add that there are a whole generation of biologists to whom Dawkins' atheist work is a mere footnote, albeit a long one, to his academic career-he was a formidable teacher at Oxford). It has been dispiriting to find that he has become quite indefensible latterly with his twitter escapades, and whilst it is possible to put much of it down to the inevitable follies of social media use, you would naturally expect better from somebody who is so clearly able to consider the impact of the things he writes. The militant atheism thing in general has also lost its allure for me. The moment I realised that all of those 'Dawkins/Hitchens DESTROYS religious argument/person' videos are borne of the same propaganda template as those archetypal alt-right videos, I started to see the problem. There is no easy way out, the temptation to believe that you have the right to be indignant about something is great, but actually the only way to approach these issues effectively is as you do, with thorough research and self-scrutiny. You are an example for us all.
Yeah, I also was a Dawkins fan. I eventually realized I was more concerned with feeling superior and being 'right' than any injustices caused by religion. Fortunately I started gaining some humility and perspective by adulthood; and do my best to maintain that trend to this day :) Not to discredit his own work, which I still respect. I don't even want to claim that his own aggression towards the harm religion causes is disingenuous or unfounded, even if I personally think it's often counter-productive. I think the real problem is the toxic 'very smart' folks he attracts. Then, when he gets called out over whatever and feels attacked, it's this community that will defend vehemently defend him, encouraging him to appeal and listen to that toxic base, and perpetuating a nasty cycle. I feel like that happens with a lot of public figures.
man you're smart holy shit. this was well put, i envy your writing, structure and premise in a paragraph its simply amazing, im terrible at grammar and writing so funn to see such long paragraph being so easily digestible.
As odd as it may sound watching videos about Turkish cats really changed my mind about Islam. Definitely had a somewhat negative opinion due to my "new atheist" days. But then I got a small glimpse of Turkish culture and bingo bango. Turkish people were far more humanized since I saw their compassion for arguably the most perfect animal on the planet. Any society that goes way out of their way to care for animals as much as the Turks can't be all that bad.
@13:05 "Now I'm pretty sure that Sam would deny that he thinks Islam is worse than other religions, on paper." Based on what? Everything I know about Sam Harris suggests he would indeed think that, and he's said as much a number of times. I'm not saying this to attack him - I largely agree with the statement - but simply to counter a point you have raised. Which religions - on paper - would you cite as being 'worse' than Islam? Which faith's doctrines do you feel pose a greater threat to Western culture and liberal values? On reflection, I am absolutely positive tham Sam would say that Islam is worse than other religions.
I know, 15:20 on this very video is a clip of Sam Harris making the case that the Quran is the most harmful scripture, and that coupled with the life of its founder, Muhammad, make it instrinctly the worst religion
+Ece Boran "The religion in the Old Testament is absolutely the worst religion ever." I'm pretty sure Sam actually said this somewhere. Maybe in his Cenk interview? Though, he's also said that the Bible (especially including the New Testament) is more contradictory and less streamlined than the Quran.
S L, as far as I recall, there's no written encouragement to marry children in any part of the Bible or Quran. However, the culture of the ancient Middle East has long been known to regard any girl in menstruation cycles to be "old enough". The mother of Jesus is supposed by many religious scholars to have been about 12-15 years old when she conceived. It seems sick to us now, but Mohammed was far from unique in marrying such a young girl. What makes most sense to me is that the reason the Quran seems streamlined is that a merchant of the Silk Road with open ears gleaned the easier bits of Judaism, Christianity, and science, and, without much help, put them together with a simple purpose in mind for his own people. Other monotheistic religions had many more authors, and when there's an outlandishly extreme verse by one author, there's generally another author that tames it. (Contradiction, or context, depending how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.)
I met Hitchens in college before I knew who he was. He was a speaker at the beginning of my freshman year and later spoke at my lit class. My lit professor was a former nun and knew him personally. He was intimidating and clearly hung over at 8am on a wednesday.
What do I think of this? Well sir I think you did a great job. I'm a 38 year old left leaning, atheist and skeptic. As I get older I question my heroes. I too am growing despondent with my base and I think real criticism of ourselves is needed. Why do we hold on to ideas that most of us don't even understand. You feed my brain today. I'll take another. Great job.
Great video. I’d say a part of getting wiser as years pass is recognizing not to put large amounts of faith into one individual. I have yet to find a public figure worth idolizing. Sam Harris is awesome for many reasons but is as flawed a human as anyone else.
Okay? The 13/50 statistic is very relevant when discussing issues of policing and justice in the US. It’s also a fascinating sociological phenomenon which is worth understanding and studying.
@@maddhatter6938 I believe they may have been referencing problematic interpretations of the 13/50 idea. Not gonna speak for OP here, just my understanding, but like, there are many ways people have chosen to understand that statistic, and often times it is referenced in an edgy context wherein the speaker is attempting to make an argument for racial profiling, which Harris has a history of. For example, a white person may hear that 13/50 argument and then feel empowered to mistrust more black people and reinforce their pre existing prejudices, or maybe police start feeling even more justified to stop and arrest black men purely for being black, because hey statistics don't lie right? Like you said, it is worth understanding and studying, but let's be honest, the internet does not inherently foster nuanced anthropological, sociological, and political theory debates, and often times complex issues get boiled down into oversimplified problems with oversimplified solutions. I mean, 13/50 is case in point. Back to the original post, I could be wrong, but I think they were using 13/50 as short hand for referencing racial profiling endorsed by Harris, and not the statistic itself. TL;DR I agree, debate is important, and sociological statistics have value, but this person was just making a general statement about how the figure in question has really gone off the deep end with racial profiling. Fellow academic here by the way, hope this didn't come across as overly sarcastic, you clearly were making a good point, it just doesn't really apply in this particular thread (thanks for reading my dissertation if you did the whole thing XD)
@@leolong2984 I had no idea that Sam Harris has used the 13/50 statistic to support racial profiling. If so, I disagree with him entirely on that point. I agree with everything you said.
@@maddhatter6938 Oh I have no idea in regards to what Harris said specifically in regards to 13/50 actually lol just clarifying the original posters position based on interpretation, and I think the 13/50 thing was shorthand/slang in the OP. I'm relatively young generationally and so the Four Horsemen are little before my time, so my knowledge of them is relatively superficial at best. All I do know about Harris in particular is from this video and articles where he talked about racial profiling being an effective solution (though he was referencing Brown individuals who he conflated with Islamics and thus terrorists, still bad for similar reasons of course). I figured you weren't endorsing anything problematic by any means, just clearing some air to avoid a potential misunderstanding lol hope you are safe in this hecked up world we are in right now!
"[Harris] can accuse you of misrepresenting him because he hasn't really represented anything of substance to begin with." (10:15) Thank you! You've clearly represented what it is that pisses *me* off about Sam "Gish Galloping" Harris, he says way too much poorly.
I'd be interested in your best counterargument for a single Sam Harris argument. I don't think his positions are poorly represented, nor that he often engages in gish galloping (even though it's possible to do so against theists in a way where it seems like gish galloping but in reality it is just a lot of pretty much irrefutable points that demolish their claims and, even if they spent lots of time trying to produce good counterpoints, there really aren't good counterpoints to be made) but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if you can produce evidence to the contrary.
@@itWouldBeWise Agreed. I regard Sam as a rarity in that he doesn’t drag out or obfuscate points. Whereas someone like Jordan Peterson, who I admire in different ways, can dance around topic without ever simplifying his point.
err I think I'd rather trust a ex Muslim that actually woke up and realized his beliefs were bullshit over someone that still believes in it. Islam is the worst.
err no actually he is right. I dont care if you are muslim, ex muslim or whatever. That doesnt change the fact that Islam is hateful, genocidal and very unhealthy for the people that really take it serious. Read your holy book.
I never seen this RUclipsr before. I've never been an admirer and never will be of Sam Harris, I just come here to see why others depart from him. Very impressed in a positive way with what this guy had to say. A turn for better. Thumbs Up.
~ Bright Romeo ~ so you will just look at this bias interpretation of someone? you are arrogant AF. Please have no other opinions until you are educated.
Good points. I really liked what Neil deGrasse Tyson said to Sam when they had a conversation a while back. Something about it being your own responsibility to make your public statements as easy understandable as possible and to minimize the potential to be misrepresented. I would recommend their conversation for anyone who hasn't watched it. Of course that advise doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of being misrepresented intentionally, but it surely makes it harder for people to do so. Sad that Sam didn't take this into consideration very much.
Oh, but I could still listen to Sam for hours and hours, he should just do audio books :) And his criticism of Donald Trump was (and is? Didn't hear much about that topic for some time) very much on point. In general I enjoyed most his podcasts and I will definitely continue doing so if the topic interests me, but I agree that he is not the misunderstood and wilfully misunderstood intellectual giant that many of his fans view him as (me included for some time)
The same advice has been frequently given to Richard Dawkins, and he was equally arrogant (or perhaps more so) in brushing it aside as irrelevant ("all that matters is the truth").
I find Harris often gives easy to understand examples to support his position on most things, usually in the form of thought experiments. He is clear and easy to understand in his statements.
Which is exactly why so many politicians and many others never say anything of import except for sound bites. As someone else said in the comments, Tyson almost never says anything that even approaches controversy. He won't even admit he's an atheist.
I just discovered your videos and I’ve only watched a few but I have to tell you: your writing style is on par with any op-ed magazine columnist I’ve read. What an incredible talent.
I feel like the end of this video really nails it. Sam Harris gets defensive when he's criticized because he assumes he's already correct and/or being misunderstood. If he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would pause to consider the possibility he's said something wrong
1:00 you do realize richard dawkins had a very successful career in his field of science WAAAY before he ever started into his anti-religion scene right?
Cole McGass ya i guess so. I misunderstood what he said the first time around when he briefly stating richard dawkins as if he didn’t know his credentials. But ya upon listening again he was being tongue and cheek
Hi T1J, I'm about 4 years late here, but I'm fascinated by this topic and Richard Dawkins was my personal villain in all that. I think there's a really important conversation to be had about pseudoscience and scientific literacy in the world today, in the same vein as writers like Carl Sagan and Stephen J Gould were doing in the 80s and 90s. And people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as well. It's very strange and sad how "new atheism" has become a political conservative hate movement that's completely divorced from the secular and scientific discussion it originally was. I'd love to see the other three videos if you ever decide to do them...........
If someone's only an atheist because an authority told them to be, then they've missed the point and squandered a perfectly good learning experience. You can just as easily stumble into atheism by accident, as you can reach it through reason. I do think atheism is the most reasonable conclusion, but if you can't explain in your own words how you got here, it doesn't count for much.
In part true but I'm a convert. I accidentally came across atheists through Richard Dawkins and Hitchens is a huge influence on me but as I grow older and 8 years into my non belief I am still influenced by these and others although I draw my non belief from my own wellbeing being an atheist but also I'm starting to disagree with those who influenced me not on atheism and non belief but on my own values I have from that non belief.
@@mjintegrale I love Christopher Hitchens. The rest of the four I've never really liked and the rest of the ashiest movement is kind of annoying (except Jimmy Snow), but Hitchens was an excellent man. He's also the only one with real credibility, being a serious and respected journalist in the 60's and 70's, I had no idea he had anything to do with the other three people.
@@kendroctopus That's kind of his point. You don't need to be a super rational person who considers all the evidence to be an atheist. For example, if I don't believe in unicorns because I find the idea of a horn growing out of an animal's head absurd. I may have reached a correct conclusion that there are no unicorns (at least in traditional depictions), but I have not used good arguments to do so. Therefore, just because someone's a charismatic atheist doesn't mean they're experts at finding good arguments or thinking rationally.
I too found atheism on my own, i just found Sam Harris not gonna lie i see him as an actual intellectual that is soft spoken with a calm charisma. I see why people idolise him. But I do agree with you on the experience of finding atheism through reason and not to go from one cult like following to another.
I listened to the Murray interview. Sam fully endorsed the idea that the genetics of white people led to higher IQ scores. He dismissed (along with Murray) the idea that environmental factors likely explained the difference in IQ scores, despite the copious evidence that there are severe environmental and educational deficits in African American communities and the copious evidence that such differences impact IQ scores. Like... no one takes Murray's racial essentialism seriously because it isn't a serious hypothesis--it can only be adapted if one chooses to ignore both everything we know about population genetics and everything we know about racial history in America. To me, someone who chooses to ignore known facts in order to support a theory of racial essentialism is a racist by definition. And that's what's so insidious about the "identity politics separates us, we shouldn't talk about equity because that's racist" argument. Because if you pretend that the playing field is level, and you pretend that history has no modern impacts, then all you are left with when comparing groups is skin color.
I cannot like this (and many of your other videos) enough! I applaud how you take great care to be honest, transparent, and fair/balanced in showing how you come to your conclusions. We need more nuanced discussions like this. Thank you.
Sam harris criticizes Islam, and Christianity but never dares to criticize Judaism which is somehow very hypocritical given the fact that Judaism is full of hate speech and racism towards Gentiles (non-jews) unlike Islam and Christianity. And you can see this reflected in his opinion of the war on Gaza where he completely blames islam ignoring the fact that it's not a religious conflict like the Western media wants us to believe
As far as anti-theist, sam Harris, bill Maher, and seth MacFarlane are cut from the same vein. I'm a Christian, and I respect your God your choice or nonbelief, but there's a way to speak to opposition without absolute disrespect as well as for people faith to do the same
If someone came up to you professing the Olympians to be the true Gods and sincerely believed it because centuries ago someone made art and wrote books about them, you'd probably act with the same derision as the people you mentioned above.
@@AshDemonYoung that's making an assumption of what I would think to back your narrative. You're still trying to prove a point that is not viable. If you believe in that, you believe in it. I don't but that doesn't change how I would treat you. It's about respect. Not what you believe in a hypothetical argument
14:12 is on point. I'm non-theistic, not from a Muslim or Arab background, but I find his vitriolic singling out of Muslims to be extremely bigoted and irrational.
Great video as always, T.1.J. While from my perspective, you're more charitable to Sam Harris than I am, the video is overall very good because you're stating your honest agreements with him & why you're not as much of a fan of him as in the past.
At minute 15:30 Sam Harris says: “The central message of the Quran is spread this message by conquest and not by conversation” The Quran (16:125): ‘Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way.’
Muslims when they see violent verses, "you have to look at the context" but apparently for this verse, context doesn't matter? Stop defending your warlord of a prophet and admit he was evil
I still like Sam Harris too and you make some fair points. Like that he's so used to being right that it might be difficult for him to consider the possibility that he could be wrong. Your criticisms of your younger self spoke to me. I still think that ridiculous beliefs deserve to be and should be ridiculed, lest we lend them respect that they've never earned and give the illusion that they are as valuable as actual knowledge. But, lately I've been considering that maybe that ridicule is just counter productive. It's difficult to argue that someone's beliefs, upon which they base much of their identity are a lie without sounding like an asshole. Just something I need to reflect on, I guess.
I just discovered your channel yesterday, already shared two of your videos, you should be proud your channel is great, your talk about topics without coming across clic base you really got an opinion about things and they all makes a lot of sense
These are great thoughts! I'm a huge fan of Harris. Though I'm not an athiest, and I'm probably more progressively minded than he is, I think he demonstrates a lot of virtues that are missing in the cultural conversations that dominating right now. The thing you said at 21:00 about how Sam is easily misunderstood due to the need to investigate so much of his work is really true and really sad. I think it's sad because it indicts our culture and its mechanisms for debate. He is certainly not a well tuned rhetorician, customizing his message to the medium or format that he's placed in. But I'm saddened that someone of his obvious intelligence and care can't be processed by many because he requires long-form communication and/or has a monotone voice and mannerisms. Your final point is well taken and the one thing I wish he would have done with the Ezra Klein collision. Klein refused to even talk about the issue of the data, and how a political movement can/should process it. Sam's convinced that if the left can't figure that out, they are doomed. But frustratingly, Sam couldn't just admit that the more airtime that kind of talk about race/IQ gets, the more fuel it gives to true racists.
Josh Foreman he's in the Sam Harris business and he's quite good at it. I never understood being a devoted fan to anyone (except larger than life cartoons where you suspend your disbelief in order to cherish them and forgive any true character flaws because you don't care, like with Elvis, Michael Jackson, Hulk Hogan, or Steven Segal). All these guys are is businessmen and they promote themselves and their characters to sell products. So be it. And who cares are true racists. They're going to be racists anyway. The same data that's presented and claims blacks have lower IQs than whites, also claims Jews and Asians have higher IQs than whites. I've yet to see a white racist go out and start heralding Jews and Asians for it. They hate Asians just like they hate blacks. So be it. If I didn't know the sunshine I wouldn't curse the rain.
It is not fault of culture nor mechanisms of a debate that he: A) can't articulate what he thinks, in even a long fomat, as an essay, and can't comprehend implications of his words and can't address them adequately. B) or. He knows exacly what he is talking, he knows his audience and keeps dogwhistleing to them. Either way I have no idea how anyone can consider him to be any sort of top level "intellectual"
Your relationship with Sam Harris is very relateable to me. I went through the exact same process. I would like to think that Sam is actually open to this kind of criticism. I don't believe him to be a lost cause. As you said, his podcast and some of his books articles are still fantastic. I wish he'd see that closely associating himself with fraudsters like Benny Shaparino is terrible for his image.
Quick addition for those who are unfamiliar with the details: Richard Dawkins is most famous for his Evolutionary History popular science books. He wrote one book on religion called the God Delusion, explaining his position. But it's certainly not his best work, and his most famous title is The Selfish Gene, famous especially amongst biologists. Other titles include An Ancestors Tale, The extended Phenotype (follows the selfish gene), Unweaving the rainbow, The Magic of Reality, Climbing Mount Probable...
His statement about a preemptive nuclear first strike against Muslims in found in his book End of Faith, in the chapter "The problem with Islam." Yet he keeps saying people take him out of context...
Every time I hear a criticism of Sam & his opinions on Islam I remind myself of the people who live in Muslim majority countries I’ve listened to who speak about the problems of the spread of Salafi interpretations spreading through their countries, and have been for many decades. I’ve taken the time to read the foundational texts, although I admit not all the Hadith, and Milestones by Qutb published in the 1960’s as a call to action for the Muslim brotherhood. I also speak to many ex-Muslims living in the Westand I haven’t met one who disagree with his views, although some disagree with how it should be addressed. I haven’t heard him deny geopolitics as a tool for recruitment, indeed his book with Maajid Nawaz “Islam and the future of tolerance”says as much. I’ve only heard him lament the denial that religion is a causal factor too by my fellow lefties. It’s fine to change your mind. We all do. He predicted it 2006 the right would rise if we don’t talk sensibly about this stuff.He was right. It’s sad to see we haven’t moved forward on the left.
roxee57 I think Islam is fundamentally violent. That doesn’t mean Muslims are. It means the founder was a violent, murderous man who designed it to help him conquer and control the Middle East, violently. There might be different interpretations, to the point of people creating their own religion by taking the good pieces and ignoring the bad. The problem is if they call themselves Muslim, then the bottom line is Muhammad is idolized, not to be criticized, and the Koran is considered holy and perfect. The Koran is a disgusting piece of work, but beautiful in places too. The overall goal, to spread the violent subjugation of other religions is woven through it though. So no matter even if you redesign an “interpretation” that ignores the subjugate or murder infidels part, you’re still pretending Muhammad and the Koran are the authority. So what happens is a radical shows someone what the Koran really says, and if they consider themselves Muslim, there’s really no arguing with it..
+de "I think this whole issue about apostasy in Islam is misunderstood, even by scholars of today. I took a seminar with a renowned scholar and we examined all the material, and came to the conclusion that the penalty of apostasy is not death, its actually for treason." As you formulate it, I can, without much effort, see that being interpreted as "betrayal of the Prophet and Allah is punishable by death" Or and I mistaken that a Muslim's life is in service of Allah and the Prophet? That his allegiance is to Allah and the Prophet, first and foremost as dictated by the Quran?
Here’s the irony: You idolized Sam Harris and identified with what you perceive to be his worldview, yet Sam Harris’ worldview is centered on the belief that you shouldn’t identify with anything material, such as your health or possessions, nor anything egoistic such as your thoughts. Not only did you identify with his views, but you idolized the man himself. You did exactly what he warns against.
😂😂😂 Sure. Sure. Sam doesn't do everything he can to remain relevant to his fans-- it's not as if his ability to make money depends on this. He AND his fans lack awareness of the paradox that is Sam Harris.
Well this is weired cause if that is the case then sam Harris's statement and his world view would be an oxymoron. He says to not identify with your thoughts, but he is a man of science who himself is a hard core atheist. so, he certainly identifies as an atheist. which he probably decided by himself based on his own thoughts, didn't he? He idebtifies himself to be a man doesn't he? or does he see no difference between him and a chim. I am sure he does in fact thinks him and a chimp are different on many levels and he himself would point that out that they indeed both different physically and mentally. But if he identifyes himself as a man then by considers himself to be one and thinking that he is a man. he is going against his beliefs . So, is his word view only applicable to other people. Or is he trying to say that he is open minded and non biased. The problem with non identification with thoughts is that you as a person are made of thought and experiences and your sense of self is just a collection of thoughts. Sometimes in the past baby sam Harrison probably thought of becoming a neuro- scientist if Sam didn't have that though then he wouldn't be a neuro scientist . It is good to be open minded, but don't open your mind so much that it falls off- carl sagan.
What the hell am I supposed to "identify" with if its neither my thoughts, emotions, nor my phyiscal well being? I have goals in my life and intellectual curiosity but I also enjoy simple things, like cooking. Or art.
So basically in the end as you've grown in your adult years you stopped putting Sam on a pedestal and realized he's just a man who like many men and women, is always trying to think critically about important discussions but like many of us, will no doubt be wrong or at least misinformed at many points throughout life. Congratulations, you are now a more level headed thinker. I myself also appreciate Sam's thoughts on many topics and have followed his writings, videos and podcast material for years. Of course I don't always agree with him but of the few individuals who have such a public platform reach like he has in this day in age, I believe he is still one of the more balanced nuanced thinkers of our time. I'm sure if Christopher Hitchens was still with us today videos like this would have eventually been made about him too. In the end, these guys are just fallible humans like the rest of us. Go figure. By the way, since you used the article of "In Defense of Profiling" as an example of his rhetorical style (something he wrote almost 10 years ago), I just want to mention to any potential reader of this comment that he also posted a guest response by Bruce Schneier about a month later called "The Trouble With Profiling" to again provide a nuance conversation about his initial stance on the issue.
@Rick Well, he had his reasons. Not that I agreed with any of them but he sure seems confident in his position as he did on everything else he discussed.
I totally agree, just because Sam Harris is a Neuroscientist, doesn’t mean he reached intellectual pinnacle and stopped growing and evolving in his views.
0:28 Well, FYI, regarding a comment on the "four old white dudes." Ayaan Hirsi Ali was invited to the Four Horsemen chat, but couldn't make it at the last minute. I think that would've been important to mention here. One should always try and maintain a little perspective.
U have a point. I actually liked Stephen Fry's take on criticizing both political correctness and religions with respect, and by trying to reach the opponent rather than being offended and dismissive. Fry seems to speak from wisdom rather than principles, with no anger and like he says, with love. Him and Hitchens teamed up in debates though, were absolutely brilliant. Sorry, but Hitchens is just untouchable, we all know this. Cosmic skeptic got him on the objectivity of morality, and still, while being wrong Hitchens was too good.
Do you think a 4-year-old girl could be a Jihadist? Do you think an 80-year-old white dude could be a Jihadist? I'm taking extreme examples here but it's just to show you that there are people that can be easily ruled out as not being Jihadists...
Jup you are using extreme examples. Nope we cant read minds and say someone is not a Jihadist. It is not like they have a reason to hide they are a Jihadist. Oh no no wait. They do. So the the OP still stands. Example volunteer stopped working on ships picking up refugees in the Mediterranian when ISIS propaganda was waved in front of his face by one of the refugees. But the refugees would be screened you know. Nope that never happens en lieing is easy.
Stuart Tusspot Yes, an 80 yo white guy could be a jihadist. A Jihadist can be anyone who believes in, advocates for, or participates in Jihad. Jihad can mean a spiritual battle against evil, or a military battle for an Islamist state. As for suicide-bombing, well, the 80 yo has less to lose.
@@stuarttusspot4769 I know you commented this six months ago, but actual children have been used in a bunch of suicide attacks at a variety of points throughout history, and I have to assume disguising as an older person could work. Not that you can never narrow the chances of finding someone based on a description... I just thought those were bad examples. You can't ever really sweep a crowd and efficiently know that it doesn't contain threats
Sam consistently makes valid points that are worth considering. I think that your criticisms of him were mostly fair. You were definitely “Making Sense”🙂 No one should be put on a pedestal.
......he has stopped being the intellectual hero that he once was in my eyes...... But this is absolutely normal man! We grow and evolve. Ultimately it is NOT about having gurus we agree/respect/follow 100% but to help us in finding our own way. Nothing else can substitute for it. Take what is useful and/or helps and move on leaving all the harrises of this world being what they are. Separate human beings.
Lol thats what im saying .sounds like offense honestly. This guy by no means gives off a "blind follower guy" so dont assume it and argue against something not ment .
Wow, this exactly how I felt about Sam. Sam often ignores his audience and the realm of debate. It's like the timeless argument allowing a poor country in drought to starve. As a political statement that sounds horrible. But there is an academic argument for this. Just supplying that country with food doesn't address the problem, and only exacerbates starvation because the population will increase without self reliance or sustainability... in either case, you ignore all the nuances. Like feed the population AND build the infrastructure necessary to supply adequate water for crops. Sam completely ignores nuances. And in an academic debate this is important for creating a foundation of knowledge. You can't know absolutely every parameter for a situation, so you set parameters, and your control, and make rational deductions based on them. Sam does not define his parameters in many of his more controversial arguments. Furthermore, he makes such bold claims in the realm of political discourse and not in the realm of academia. This is a criticism Neil deGrasse Tyson leveled against Sam when Sam was playing the victim in an interview with the brilliant deGrasse. Anyway, my that's my 99 cents.
I listened to this when it came out and again now. It's fucken spot on. As someone who likes Sam Harris's takes on things sometimes, I would love to hear your reaction to his recent take on police brutality.
@@dannyclub09 That although it does exist and should be rigorously rooted out, the media plays a role in hyping up people into a frenzy that is also not good. There's more to it than that because it's a complicated issue and he goes into great detail. It's hard to explain in a short summary.
This is literally the reason why when I find an appealing person on the internet I look up their name plus the words IS BAD or IS WRONG so I see videos like these before I fully submerge into their psychology and lectures. First Kent Hovind, and then Bill Nye, and then Neil Degrasse Tyson, and now. Sam Harris. Thanks.
Fantastic video. I've been on the SH bandwagon around the same period of time as you seemed to be, and still quite enjoy his work (but mostly Waking Up and earlier Christian Nation). Your progress and evolution all feel quite similar to my own. Which is probably why you're still one of the few atheist/non religious YT'ers I enjoy watching. Stay awesome. I do very much still enjoy Dan Dennet's talks and work as he seems masterfully capable of putting forward strong arguments without being confrontational or provoking.
Agreed. I'g even further and pose that T1J is at the least, the equal of SH as a brilliant, intellectual articulant. Using a different suite of exquisite words of dialogue than Sam, TiJ possibly does it more effortlessly, more flowing, less hesitantly, more animated and expressive. He's a new one on me, but I'm now on the look out for more and more of T1J' stuff. Love them both, Sam and TiJ
I thought it was an interesting "conversation"...I was definitely on the Harris side of the arguement...but Chomsky really doesn't like being critiqued...He totally freaked out.
@@dukedematteo1995 Your doing the same thing that Harris’ critics do to Harris, regarding Islam - but instead to Chomsky. Harris criticises Islamic laws, as well as historical and current Muslim transgressions he deems oppressive and backwards... so anti-Harris, leftist, people generalise and say he’s a racist islamaphobe. In the same way, Chomsky pinpoints legitimate concerns over US foreign policy and US transgressions overseas (strongly supported by evidence might I say) that are so self evidently backwards and oppressive - and so right-wing nationalists label him as an anti-American traitor.
"He's a guy who seems to be driven by his own principles and perspective..." Oh, the horror! ...How can someone not be driven by their own principles? I know your next statement is about taking into consideration how your ideas affect other people, but I think ultimately rationality must take priority over emotions. If you grant that Sam is *correct* in his statements, then you also imply that people who have emotional reactions to his statements are being irrational. In a world where far too many people are far too easily offended, I find Sam's approach refreshing. I would go so far as to say that sometimes, people *need* to be a little offended. Offending someone can be a jolt to their brain that shifts their perspective and makes them aware of ideas they previously hadn't considered.
You misunderstood what he meant. He meant something more like Harris is blinded by his own perspective and the principles (assumptions) that guide it, unable to see outside of that perspective into other possibilities. This is an essential characteristic of stupidity, and intelligent people should not see it as a virtue, but as something to be continually struggled with and overcome within their own cognitive activity.
LOVE this. I’m (still) a huge fan of Sam’s and I consider him to be an important voice but it’s always baffled me how someone so experienced in psychedelics AND meditation can be so pissy, bratty, self-oblivious, fragile, and entitled (did I get everything there? Lol.) Thanks for really helping me add clarity to what was previously unfocused frustration and disappointment, T1J 🤘
I understood Sam's views on religion before he was born. Nothing new there. His views on society belong to an amateur who just discovered he can have an opinion. His view on policing is very narrow and shortsighted. If he is espousing a white supremacy narrative without intention, he is just a useful idiot. I've been a follower of Sam for quite some time now. Studied all his books and I know he is a scientist and at least agnostic. I threw the god line there just to provoke a reaction and vent my frustration about how Sam can be so right in his field BUT soooo wrong on social issues. He clearly emphasizes the white supremacy narrative carefully; cherry picking data that would make him appear "Objective". This time, he's clearly on the wrong side of History. He reminds me of Candace Owens, a black skinned white supremacist. And Kanye West to boot. Sam Harris, I'm no longer a fan. You are cancelled.
Couldn’t agree more!! How can one be so into Zen and mindfulness, even having a whole app dedicated to this, but not see how mind/ego-driven they themselves are being?
Cringing at the reminder of my new atheist past. It was... necessary, I suppose, like my baby gay and baby trans phases, but it's uncomfortable to remember what an asshole I was. When you think you've got everything figured out, you stop learning, and it took a while for me to realize I knew fuck all.
I feel that the comment section is bringing up good points regarding the fact that Sam has some issues coming off as someone who wants to help rather than someone who just wants to be right. I do not think Sam is a racist however, I think what people are starting to notice is that people are using his arguments as a support for racism. Those people are misguided. I think Sam is frustersted with the fact that he feels he has to tip toe with his words regarding Islam. On one hand I understand his frustration on the other hand I do believe he should, no matter how much he dislikes it, try and get his message accross in a peaceful way, and in a way that does not incite hatred. Finally, I think that the people who are defending Islam are warranted, but at the same time I think we still seriously need to consider its fundamental doctrines in an objective manner. Islam, like, everything else, is not immune from criticism nor should we completely displace the onus on other factors that have contributed to the destabilization of the Middle East. All of these factors need to be considered and thought about. Best. My english is meh here I apologize.
I liked your point about the need for looking at how we can help, and not just how we can be right. There might be a little too much of the latter with Sam... I don't know
You've made a new fan - my hero-worship of various intellectuals (including the Weinstein brothers and Sam and even Hitch) has been cracking of late. Your breakdown is exactly what I needed to help coalesce why Sam's been bugging me lately. Thank you!
I kinda listen and see these people differently when I 'move on' to another thinker. I feel like I understand them better without that attachment. But that said, it's genuinely enjoyable 'finding' new thinkers haha.
This was an accurate and honest assessment. Nice to see a video form someone that can understand there's often nuance in every situation. I got into Sam Harris from his meditation app, and arguments on the lack of free will. Both of these improved my life massively, and I felt the similar feeling that he could do no wrong. He's so articulate, and he's so bang on on certain things, that you begin to value his opinion on all things. When I started to hear grumblings about his views on Islam, it made me take pause though. Like all organised religions (especially Abrahamic) I'm not a fan, but he seems to take it a step too far, at least on the surface. I'm glad you took the time to quote him honestly, and it helped me get a better gauge on where he stands. Fortunately, I don't need to agree with him on everything to take the bits of his work that improved my life.
I'm also tired of 'emotional' being used as a pejorative. It's really stupid, especially when you can see that the person they are calling 'rational' is also emotionally invested/ motivated by what they are saying.
I agree that we shouldn't call people names, but not being able to control emotions is what has brought war and suffering through all of human history. We shouldn't celebrate "being emotional", we should celebrate being able to control them.
@@Colaglass I would say that in order to control, you have to acknowledge and know the nature of the thing being controlled. Many people who criticize the left for talking too much about feelings could know better than strawmanning and choosing those who are unstable as the true representatives of the left while ignoring those who can control their feelings while talking seriously about them.
@@somedragontoslay2579 I wasn't really having a stab at either side of the political spectrum, the issue transcends those borders. If you're in political office, you are probably pushing patos on someone. Usually it works because many endorse the idea of "living in the moment", then the next complaining about the fact that they didn't plan ahead for the future, and they're in fact worse off. We need to get better as a species not of following leaders, but paving our own path. I don't think society in general is built on anything of the like. It's all about giving up yourself so somebody else can make decisions based on some rules which is just creating deeper issues which in turn... You get the point. Humanity is complicating itself because of our inability to deal with emotion. I wish for a world where people have some sort of perspective on how reality **is**, not necessarily what we **want it to be**. I have a sneaking suspicion we're being led on.
@@Colaglass I agree, and sorry for bringing those partisan issues to the table, it's just that most times, I find that structure used to belittle the left from the right. Like: oh! You're talking about feelings too much, therefore you're too sensitive. But, in connection with what you said, sometimes I feel those people who belittle talking about emotions are talking about a world they want where people are unsensitive, instead of the world we have. Is vs. want, like you pointed out but upside down. However, I'm happy that is not the case with you and I was in error. 😁
@@somedragontoslay2579 Nah, it's understandable. I get that politics is a big deal, and has always been, it's just that it all seems so nonsensical to me, and I keep assuming that people think the same. Ever since I was a little kid I've tried to control my emotions because I've always found them to be very illogical in the situations they overpower my reasoning. Being mindful about them is key, I think. Thank you for the respectful conversation (very uncommon on the internet), and I wish you everything well for the future!
What do I think?
I think people should start thinking for themselves and stop idolizing others because they speak well.
And yet, exploring someone else's ideas with zeal is one of the best gateways to start thinking for yourself, because you eventually discover that they aren't perfect.
I agree. I think that people admire Harris largely because he is well spoken and evidently practiced at debating but he seems like a cold fish who has a very simplistic attitude to most topics. He fails to take any account of the decades of damage and abuse wrought on the Middle East for decades and therefore implies that the geopolitical tensions in the area and the outside interference by Western powers and the former USSR mean nothing and have nothing to do with terrorism and radicalized Muslims.
@@skywriter4308 As a person who has gone through phases of zeal for different ideas, such as the nofap movement, I wholeheartedly concur. Nothing guards against zeal and idolization more than the hard experience, and consequences, of being a zealot/idoliser yourself.
"speak well"..or voluminously or rapidly or with unbridled & UNselflective confidence. it really is a sign(possibly of the last days of 'man'?), that young ppl, most especially young MEN, are so quick to sign up for any flavor du jour of "public intellectual" that comes careening (or slithering) down the pike. i stopped feeling the need to address men as 'father' or 'reverend' as i DO NOT revere any man & you ain't my damn father. there is probably a gene, as yet not specifically identified, labelled "worship & obey" that would account for so much of the gullible lemming rushes in our species; think 'cults', think 'organized religion', think 'monarchies'. no matter what value or helpful insight 1 may gather from these guys (& sometimes women), you need to separate the chaff from the wheat & that most essentially begins with identifying their personal pathologies.
"rhetoric, it seems, is a producer of persuasion for belief, not for instruction in the matter of right and wrong...and so the rhetorician's business is not to instruct a law court or a public meeting in matters of right and wrong, but only to make them believe." -socrates in the gorgias
Josie Fox same thing with Ben Shapiro an many other people that we idolized. I think the problem is that RUclips is filled with videos of them “owning” other people and that make our brain to wire that they are perfect and smart and all knowing, but if you take a moment to listen you’ll see that most of them are full of shit.
"You should give a shit about the impact of your words and how you make other people feel." I remember when I _finally_ figured this out. I spent so many years being angry at people for misunderstanding me. I internalized it as a deliberate attempt to reject me, without actually trying to understand what I was saying. I _finally_ realized that _I_ should be able to pay enough attention to the person/people I'm talking to, to craft my message in a way that *makes sense to them*. They are after all the person/people *I want to understand me*. This change in attitude changed everything. Surprise surprise, when I started caring more about how my words were taken, then what I meant by them, more people understood me.
There is a humongous flaw in that quote and what you just said there. There are only two ways through which you can be outraged or feel negatively about someone's comments/opinions: You have either correctly understood what that someone is saying, and for whatever reason feel outraged or touchy about it, or you have misunderstood what they're saying, and, for whatever reason still, you're also outraged by it. Either way, something Hitchens said on this comes to mind:
"I'm terribly depressed how in this country you can be told 'That's offensive!', as if those two words are somehow supposed to constitute an argument."
Regardless of whether or not someone feels offended because they understood (or misunderstood) what a person is saying, it still falls on the offended party to lay out their criticisms in a way that honors the call for civil discourse. Your feelings are not an argument, no matter what. One could of course try to re-explain it to them, but your basic opinion shouldn't change in the process. If someone out there genuinely thinks that the likes of Sam Harris is too offensive to be grappled with, despite his tireless efforts to carefully re-articulate his opinions (and having repeatedly said that he is not looking to offend anyone), then I really wanna see some examples of people who express the same views that Dr. Harris opines, without the ensuing spawn of online complaints for offenses being felt everywhere. You're going to have to look long and hard for that. At a certain point people have to grow up.
But until they do grow up, mature people have to insist on continually drawing the line and saying "Look, this is what I meant and still mean, and if you're unwilling to recognize and accept that as what I'm saying, regardless of whether or not you agree with it, then that's your problem. My statements are here, ready for you to lay them on the chopping-board. You have to combat my ideas, not just bitch about how you feel. If all you have to come back with are complaints on how offensive I come across to you, then the conversation is over. It's not something that I should even have to contend with. It's not my job to play nanny on account of how you might feel personally about my opinions.
" This is especially true with regards to these kinds of topics where caring about peoples' feelings just completely misses the mark. Serious social problems aren't solved by appealing to how everyone might feel on the matter.
Actual douchebags who are just out to cause trouble are easy to recognize, and they don't last very long because they either lose all credibility very fast or people just stop listening to them. Sam Harris obviously doesn't even remotely apply in that category.
Finally, try it for yourself for good measure perhaps? I did...
Pick any controversial topic, and try to communicate what you really think on the subject, on a platform where at least 10 000 or so people will see it, where anyone can also comment back. I suggest some big online transgender group or a "Black Lives Matter"-forum. See what happens. You'll get so much shit thrown back at you I quite honestly admire how poised and collected Sam is at all times when this inevitably happens. It's really something to learn from. Some of his hate mail is really astonishing, and some of it is just quite freaking hilarious.
You can't please everyone, but we sure as hell try, so long as a principle of not compromising our original position on the matter is upheld.r
Peace.
@@sirriffsalot4158 Wow guy. I don't really see how you got all of that from my comment. I was really just talking about making an effort to clear up what you mean, instead of digging in your heals and getting pissed.
I'll give you an example of the kind of attitude I was speaking against. One of my good friends once said the following to another person in front of me, "It's not my fault that you're too stupid to understand what I mean." I'll give you a guess how the rest of the conversation went.
Later I was talking with that person, and was able to explain what my friend meant in 3 short sentences. I was able to do this, because I had taken the effort to understand how that other person uses language. It turned out they completely agreed with my friend, and their entire argument had been a waste of their time.
My friend was angry for days, when he could have just taken a second to clarify what he meant.
The other person in this situation was not particularly aggressive, they were just very confused and a little annoyed.
@@t3tsuyaguy1 Fair enough. But none of that applies here, as I've already pointed out, so I refer you again to what I originally wrote with regards to all of that.
It's not as if I didn't understand that that was the overall drift of your message to begin with, but rather that the message itself is very misleading, if that's all it meant. We're in the realm of academia, intellectuals and hundreds of thousands of people all chiming in with their various complaints of personal offense taken. Such a basis for a public conversation on social issues just don't fly in these dimensions, and certainly not under the banner of "you should give a shit what people feel".
Granted, my reply was a bit lengthy, but I was bored and felt the need to articulate myself just right so it doesn't seem like I'm just flinging gunk for no reason.
Peace out!
@@sirriffsalot4158 Hi! I don't know if you still feel the same way you felt in the original reply, but there's a bit of an issue with saying that it lies on the offended person to offer criticisms that promote civil discourse. Namely, that the offended person has zero responsibility for listening to or responding to you. If you won't be bothered to consider your audience, why the heck should they consider your ideas? According to this logic, wouldn't that presumed responsibly fall back on the original speaker should they get offended at people getting mad at them?
I really vibe with the OP's comment. It wasn't about miscommunicating or changing the meaning of what you're saying, it's about respecting your audience. If you respect your audience; I imagine you're also listening to them (not just formulating a counterattack), so it's very natural for your original position or opinion to shift.
@@xenophiliuslovegood6914
Hey!
I think if you re-read those claims you just brought forth a little more carefully, you might actually see what an insane predicament that would put us all in if it were put into practice.
One thing you're right about is that there is no responsibility on any offended party what so ever to have to "listen" to or respond to anything. But come on dude, if you're offended, then obviously that presupposes that you listened to something that offended you.. No one is compelled to listen to anything, where did I even say anything remotely close to that?
Leaving that aside, there is no compulsion for anyone to respond to something they don't like, of course. But that in itself I just don't see as constituting any sort of argument here. You don't have to respond, but if you do decide to respond, you're at the very least going to have to make the response mirror the nature and spirit of the original content. Anyone can yell that they're offended, and you're of course entitled to -- but a lot of people these days actually think that being offended, and saying as much publicly, constitutes an argument. It doesn't.
As far as considering your audience is concerned.. I'm all for a healthy dose of respect mate. But respect here does not, and should never mean, being inoffensive at the cost of what you actually want to say. Talking to someone respectfully, in this context, means to not talk down to your audience, because why would you unless you're really not so sure of yourself in the things you're saying?
Sam himself has pointed out that anyone's capacity to be outraged is not something that I, or anyone else for that matter, needs to respect. As a matter of fact, it's not even something that YOU (the offended party) should respect. To the contrary, it's something that all of us should be very much on our guard for, because it can easily mislead us. I mean I'm offended at boy-bands for crying out loud, that doesn't mean my offense has any real say in whether or not they should exist.
No offense but I honestly don't understand where you got your last logical conclusion from... "According to this logic, wouldn't that presumed responsibly fall back on the original speaker should they get offended at people getting mad at them?"
You made your own logic there my friend.. :-) Wherever you got this from, it really has nothing to do with what I said at all. I'm saying that being offended isn't an argument, lol. But just to take what you said for what it is, sure: If the original speaker in question here is offended, and then cries abuse at being offended, then yeah that doesn't constitute an argument either.. so I don't see how would that in any way demolish my fundamental point..? :-P
In conclusion: there is no issue with saying that it lies on the offended person to offer criticisms that promote civil discourse, as long as civil discourse is what you're after of course. If that's not the sort of discourse you're after, and you just want to scream abuse or tell someone you're offended -- fine, knock yourself out. But it begins and ends there. Being offended and saying as much does not in any way inform on the facts at hand. There are all kinds of feelings and audiences out there, so whose offended feelings should trump whose? We solve this problem by ruling them all out as redundant.
*If you won't be bothered to consider your audience, why the heck should they consider your ideas?*
Again, this is the sort of contorted way of looking at what I said that I really don't understand how you arrived at...
No one is compelling anyone to consider anything here. But once you engage in a discussion about it, you better bring some facts and arguments beyond "I'm offended" along with you, that's it. Otherwise your position is cancelled out by anyone else's capacity to also just "feel a certain way about it". Is that finally clear? :-P
Lastly: to think that one, or even several offended parties manifesting themselves, means that a speaker is just at-large not bothered to consider his or her audience? Well that just completely fails to explain how anyone could have any audience at all, lol. You can't please everyone.
I'm sorry, but your whole approach to this problem dances around the fact that we actually need to insist on people getting past mere feelings if we actually want to make progress on difficult issues.
Peace out!
I want to have a beer with you. You seem rad, thanks for the vid man.
I total misread this comment as "I want to have a bear with you" and then I wondered "is having a bear with someone the new 'you are my king/queen?'"
I thought that Sam Harris was Ben Stiller when I clicked on this video, and I wondered why you would ever idolize Ben Stiller. I thought you just were some big Night at the Museum fan!
THANK U FOR SAYING IT 🙈🙈🙈🤣🤣
Heavyweights is a perennial classic
@@kristynicole6201 haha! Actually, Sam Harris has claimed that he is often mistaken for Ben Stiller. Pretty sure he said people have even asked for his autograph under the false belief that he is Ben Stiller.
I loved Sam Harris in Mystery Men
"But why male models?"
You shouldn't idolize anyone. We are all just people and we are all flawed. The most brilliant minds have glaring blindspots and imperfections.
I teach graduate prep courses, which is a mix of logic, test and subject prep. My students are mostly intelligent, well educated, and academically inclined individuals. My students include professors, post graduate researchers, Ph.D. students, etc. at prestigious universities, including Harvard, Carnegie Mellon and Berkeley. They are all brilliant experts in their field; they are also all obviously intellectually flawed. I listen to what these people have to say in their fields of expertise but I do not assume they are correct, ever, as they often are not.
Indeed, we can idolize the spark of divinity in a human being, but not a human being entirely.
I hate it when people are "fans" of public speakers and politicians.
@Oners82 why use the Word fan?
@@o.fm.a5573 Because it seems the appropriate word to use? I could instead say, intellectual friend or numerous others terms, but fan is a good term for many. I like it because everyone seems to get it - at least when they share the same context.
I think it's good the author has moved beyond what he feels was idiolization. But I don't feel it is really Sam that he's moved away from. One example: Sam's vague language. What drew me to Sam -- was his appropriate dynamic with regard to precise terms and vague ones.
Ya. Like anything in life. We're first introduced to something and it's "the answer". Then after a time we begin to see it's flaws and it's no longer "the answer", but just another thing we've experienced that's made us grow.
Becoming an Atheist, I sought a better understanding of my stance and started studying arguments that I may potentially have thus stumbled upon Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krause etc. Being an Atheist and a student of reason and logic plus a lifelong student of experience, I'd advice you not to idolise anyone. Everyone of apparent sound intellect has something to offer, not everything. Collect all that wisdom to for your own. Sam Harris has my respect.
Well said!
Mathias Yung I agree whole heartedly. I’m glad the title wasn’t “Why Sam Harris is a tool”. Nobody has all the answers but nuggets of wisdom and perspective can be obtained from many different voices.
So are you more agnostic regarding religion, assuming you're an atheist?
When the answer wasn’t answer enough? How can be that? The first answer had definitely not been the answer from the beginning but the observers putting faith to believing in it! That’s when critical thinking plays its role to determine the validity of the answer!
I've gotta say, your own introspection is really helping me through a formative time in my life. I'm 27 and I've been looking back in the person I've been and realizing it's not who i want to be.
Your content is an indispensable resource for me. I appreciate lessons learned the hard way, and that you don't want others to make the same mistakes you've made.
"Sam Harris would call this political correctness, I"d call this not being an asshole!!' Wow, such a great quote.
@beanie0112 Yep. Some of us have been saying that very line since youtube activism was a thing.
@beanie0112 So we can infer from your statement that anyone who is "anti-sjw" wants their rights to be "asshole" to remain unimpeded )love your lack of specificity there) and by the same logic SJWs represent all of society. Cool thesis bro. 🙄
Isn't it weird how all these 'free speech advocates' constantly use their free speech to harass and spread hateful rhetoric? It's almost like they're intentionally trying to provoke people until they get push back so they can claim to be the victim and gain sympathy for their awful views... Nah, must be an SJW conspiracy :B
@Johnny Casteel I agree
beanie0112 no.
Idolize No one
Yup people can fail but ideas are all that matter.
i.pinimg.com/originals/01/f5/60/01f560eb77afaf9a918a09543c930ad9.jpg
*Except Hitchens*
@@devonhitchens4804 You beat me to it! Hitchens..........and Beatles
@@devonhitchens4804 as you grow older you will see he is also fallible. Milton friedman is the only one who has stood the test of time. With that said, as a Hitchens fan, Prager objectively wins the debate.
When you idolize none, you often end up idolizing yourself
You shouldnt idolize anyone to the point of blindly agreeing everything they say. Take the best points that someone articulates and be critical of their weak points.
@Oners82 yet its not commonly occuring, if u cant recognize humans have blindspots where we know better but fail to act appropriatly. then ur either a narcisistic prick or just naive.
See: Dr. Jordan Peterson Stans
Peterson is a brilliant man but a lot of his Stans cherry pick his quotes out of context and ignore what they disagree with.
For example, he’s often quoted by “red pills” when bashing uppity women. Yet, Dr. Peterson is an advocate of marriage, which conflicts with red pill philosophy.
@Oners82 🙂 A "Stan" is a fan that is obsessed with their favorite celebrities. The term derived from the Eminem song, "Stan." In the beginning, it was an insult. Yet, many casual fans use it as term of endearment.
Fan: "I love James Bond soundtracks! "Sky Fall" is one of the best songs of the franchise. Adele is hot af..."
Friend: "Bro, she has a great voice but she's not THAT good looking. She's a solid 6 at best without makeup. You're such f'ing Stan, I swear..."
@@MoeinthePhilippines I think being redpill has many many different niches. Including trad wives and Christians which hugely support marriage. Not every "redpilled" individual thinks the same if you could believe that.
Your mistake was seeing him as a hero in the first place. He's just another guy. Appreciate the good stuff and accept the negative as part of human complexity and inconsistency.
appreciate the good stuff and criticize the bad.
@@youisstupid2586 Yes, criticize the bad, but don't write him off because you disagree with part of what he says.
@@rgcooke what if the bad outweighs the good? I think in his case it does. racial profiling is a pretty bad thing to ask for and even worse to defend. I think that's reason enough to not take him seriously imo.
@@youisstupid2586 why is racial profiling bad ? Much less “worse”?
@@TV-ob1if assuming 1.8 billion people are potential terrorists is a bad belief to hold. Not only it’s incorrect, it’s harmful for that a particular race in the short run and all of humanity in the long run. What if racial profiling became a norm? Every white Person was considered a potential nazi and a war criminal? Every asian person was considered a potential bio hazard? Every black person a stupid guy who is good at sports? It will create animosity between races and causes more problems than it solves. Islam is a harmful religion like all other religions but treating it differently will cause more harm than good.
I think it's very dishonest of you to associate Dave Rubin with the word intellectual. :)
i aaauuuu-greee with that
Oh man, he is clearly promoting right. Not that it's bad, but he claims to be liberal while mostly promoting right quests while and agreeing with them. So it's just really deceptive.
I mean his show is even sponsored by right wing.
@@wa57s577 "alt right"
dave rubin never claimed to be an intellectual
and incase one of you dishonestly goes "LOL GOOD CUZ HE ISNT SMART" or something silly
....do any of you claim to be an intellectual? chances are you don't, so don't give me that bullshit
@@mukkaar the left avoids talking to him, not his fault
I remember those simpler times, when _Fight Club_ seemed like an awesome movie, and RUclips atheists had it all figured out.
Acquiring wisdom is painful, and occasionally embarrassing.
Osiris Malkovich is fight club a bad movie?
I still enjoy Fight Club. It's not a good basis for a personal philosophy though.
Well, fight club is a good movie, esp if u view it as criticism of toxic masculinity :P
Very wise.
Idk if you were modeling yourself off of Tyler Durden I think you missed the point of fight club.
I’m fairly sure the ‘4 horsemen’ thing started as a joke.
And one of the best discussion I've ever heard
Isn't that obvious?
It was, sarcastic...people have different humor I guess.
Yeah just like the IDW.
Only fairly?
I'm a fan of Sam Harris, but literally every point in this video is entirely valid
DrippyRL I’d be curious to hear why you’re a fan? I’m not super familiar with him, and this video seems contrary to supporting him, which is why I’m wondering, from the perspective of someone who clearly knows more about him, what still makes him worth following as a fan?
@@allie2549 the thing about Sam is that his opinions transcend political norms he's never all right or all left. The issue with Sam is that he takes premises that are true and will run with them. Profiling is a perfect example for this, take a premise such as "Muslims are more likely to be terrorists than non-muslims". While this premise is true to conclude that we need to profile Muslims at the airport seems to negate the French revolution in the values that emerged from it all together. The issue is the Sam often doesn't mediate facts through the values of the enlightenment when making public policy prescriptions. However I genuinely respect his courage in saying things that are incredibly controversial. A lot of his more liberal thoughts are entirely rational and often entail a very interesting means to a common end. With that said I haven't listened to or read Sam in years however much of his work on religion has been formative in my intellectual development. I am thus a fan
His work on spirituality seems pretty spot on, that's what I listen to him for nowadays.
@@RUSE321 I used to listen to his meditation advice while on large dose acid trips
@@mpnewell10 That sounds trippy haha. Was it with RUclips videos or his meditation app, and what was it like?
I am an atheist, and am one of the few Americans who lives in an area where I interact with Muslim people all the time. Minneapolis has a huge tightly knit community of Somali people who are almost all Muslim, and a lot of west African people with varying religious affiliation as well, some Muslim. Islamophobia, and I feel comfortable using this terms because the suburban christians I interact with are actually afraid of my Muslim friends, makes my blood boil.
I do think that parts of Islamic ideology deserve critique. But I am not the one to do that. I have gay, woman and black (there are significant dividends between "Arab" and African" Muslim people) Muslim friends who have a relationship with Allah but routinely speak about certain aspects of their faith and interactions with other muslims have made them feel marginalized. It's as common as christians questioning homophobic, misogynistic, and racist Christian belief.
But they do not get platforms. The only people I see who get platforms speaking against Islam are white people who have very little interaction with muslims themselves, and use racially charged rhetoric to paint Muslim men as abusers and terrorists and Muslim women as victims. This enables the aforementioned islamphobic suburban white people to fear, literally fear people who look vaguely East African or middle eastern. If Sam Harris cares so much about terrorism and problematic beliefs held by conservative muslims, he should have elevated progressive Muslim people to his platform and used interviews and testimonies from them to make his point. But he didn't. If he's not racist, he's at least really comfortable stoking racial fears.
He literally did just that - he co-wrote book called Islam and the Future of Tolerance with Maajid Nawaz, a progressive Muslim from UK.
@@gtpk3527 He's a "muslim" who posts derogatory cartoons on his twitter of Islam... right... "progressive muslim".
👏👏👏
@@ValentineCrescent Wait are you criticizing Nawaz for not being conservative enough? Wth?
@@gtpk3527 wow...... let me get this straight, me calling out Nawaz for his anti-Islamic propaganda is equivalent to me criticizing him for not being conservative enough?? what are you smoking
I have a careful distrust of idolizing people to begin with. Same with the feeling of 'pride'.
It can be good, useful, or 'deserved', but I can also see that it can often lead to less opportune situations.
idolizing makes people astray from the truth it makes them sustainable to manipulation to people who have a personal agenda its similar to worshiping cult leaders they all have a agenda and are always wrong
youre a very wise fellow
Exactly. Idolizing anyone is childish.
Same. Never understood why people get so attached to a person they obviously know hardly anything about and then end up being really disappointed when they find out that they are human too.
not just that intellectuals entice people who look for role models with logic then they veer off track to their own personal ideological beliefs i catch them doing this quiet often psychopaths tend to do the same to manipulate people to their favor they also enter fields of study of which they have no idea what theyre talking about usually like psychology and philosophy pushing there own personal narrative with every topic such behavior is quiet disasters to free thinking people
I know this is old and nobody will probably read this, but there's one thing here I cannot let slide: Daria. I understand where you're coming from, but I'd still defend her character as unique and likable. Anyway, subbed.
I read your post. Thanks for your thoughts.
I actually re-watched Daria relatively recently and I have to say, I largely agree with t1j here. Her cynicism was cool when we were teens but later now, my reaction is basically something along the lines of 'ergh, get over yourself'. Her character is very good at criticising and putting other people down intellectually, but isn't very good at providing solutions to the issues she raises (funnily enough, this is directly addressed in an episode, but she doesn't really seem to be affected by it).
(i know I'm probably taking this too seriously but... yeah... Daria really isn't as cool as it used to be. Would recommend you re-watching it to see what I mean)
@@ihaveanametoo I agree, but I still think she's likable. She's got an ego and a superiority complex as many real teenagers do, and as I certainly did as a teenager. I re-watched Daria as well recently, and found the whole show to do a pretty good job of showing that every character is flawed in various ways, including Daria.
@@ihaveanametoo I think the show did a good job of addressing the limitations of nihilistic sarcasm through the last season and showing Daria be more vulnerable and grow out of this (painfully). But I think her attitude isn't as cool for two reasons: 1. we're older now and exercising control over our surroundings is a part of our life that teenagers genuinely don't have. Teens have to cope with being old enough to see problems but having next to no agency to do anything about it. And angry sarcasm with no solutions is a pretty realistic expression of this that adults have the luxury to reject. And 2. times have changed and everyone including teens assumes and expects to be able to make themselves heard online and affect the world in a way they couldn't when Daria came out. Daria was incredibly isolated and felt defeated, like a lot of weird teens did, whereas nowadays she'd probably find others like her online and join some communities, and would probably be more solution-focused instead of stewing in pithy resentment. It does feel grating nowadays to see someone putting down the people around them for the crime of being normal and I'm glad media has moved on from that trope, but I don't necessarily think it means Daria ages badly as a character the way, say, Carrie from Sex and the City or Ross from Friends did. She's a true representation of a real phenomenon of the 90s, something you can see in Ghost World and Reality Bites as well; and it's not like 90s people were just inherently less mature than nowadays, instead I think times changed and allowed us/society an outlet to behave in a more mature way, really.
As a shockingly racist young person who now tries hard to not be racist I find this really interesting. Onward and upward.
Good on you for recognizing that and working on it! Too many people are in denial of their prejudices these days and are only getting more entrenched in them.
Racism is a natural biological function; it is uniquely HUMAN to be able recognize and readjust.
Rekreant What evidence have you found on racism being a biological function? I understand that people may be naturally afraid of the unfamiliar, but does that automatically translate into racism? What if you’ve grown up in a multi racial community, or even a multi racial family? Would racism still be natural? I haven’t especially looked into this, which is why I’m asking. I would think though, that both nature and upbringing & life experience would play a role here.
Amilah as a black individual racism is a bi-product of tribalism in my personal opinion
@@manny9564 As a bisexual person I agree that things like racism or homophobia are products of our tribalistic nature and our desire to have an identity that is shared with others who reflect our identity for the sake of self-consciousness (me vs "the other") and a feeling of belonging (us vs "the other"). Now of course just because those things are natural or biological doesn't mean that they are good. To claim so would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Racism and homophobia are not only irrational, but also immoral.
But hey honestly, i’m a huge sam Harris fan. But this is NO way a smear or anything. Your video was actually well thought out, you didn’t take any cheap shots, you had some honest critiques.
Subscribed 👍🏻
I agree with you. There is such a thing as constructive criticism. Subscribed as well.
Very much agreed. I think Sam Harris is awesome, that however does not mean I think he is perfect and doesnt make his own share of mistakes. I think this video was well thought out and put together. There might be a couple points I disagree with, but that is only to be expected, I think.
Chris Stayner well said.
I disagree... rather strongly.
Can you please summarize the critique in short?? English is not my native
I was not at all sure what I would think when I started watching this video - I was concerned it was going to be a biased rant. In fact I think this came across as well balanced, well researched material and very well presented. I found the arguments compelling. Thank you.
I like Sam Harris quite a lot. I also find this to be a fair-minded critique. Job well done!
I find it embarrassing you need Sam to water down or sugar coat his speech...not on the merits of the logic of it, but because of how some third party may interpret it.
Bruce Smith Was your response directed at me, or the video creator? I think I can clarify if you were speaking directly to me. :-)
@@brucesmith54 Ideas are nothing if you cannot present them in a way that will be informative but also cognisant of opposing view points and how to disect them in a way that can alter someones viewpoint.
@Casey Brown Anyone who has a thought process such as yours, in tandem with a Peppy Hare profile pic, is alright by me! haha :-)
👍🏼
And the weird thing is that one of things I used to love most about Sam was *his ability to be concise and precise with his arguments.* It always flabberghasted me when people did misrepresent him in debates because he was so clear in his arguments that I couldn't understand how he could have been misunderstood.
But then he starts talking about social issues and the script is completely flipped and he's using all the same shady argumentative tactics that theists used to use against him. And it's just....ugh. Why.
He’s always talked on circles. Just because you talk slowly and use big words doesn’t make you an intellectual titan.
I really feel sorry for you if you thought Sam was a very high knowledge person
@@robertwilliams1167 this is just a self report, you can't understand someone, therefore no one can? Yikes dawg you gotta hit the mental gym
@@zachariayusuf6688 Like him or not he is highly intelligent and very articulate with his opinions. you look like a hater tbh. even tho i'm an atheist there are some christians which i respect and would say are very knowledgable and articulate, much more than me, i always try to be objective even towards those i dislike.
Do you feel similar about Christopher hitchens?
For me it came down to his defence of Israel and the IDF after they murdered dozens of protestors last year
For me, it was the way he spoke of Trump and Hillary (so absolutely childish and ridiculous, not fit for someone like him), and how he said free speech is for the likes of him... but not for the likes of people who have questions about the official narrative of history. "They don't even deserve a platform", he said.
Lady Ylva second part is too ambiguous. What questions on the narrative of history?
@@trapped_monkey Vague on purpose, due to algorithm. More specific would be WW2 and some kind of juice.
Lady Ylva WW2, like holocaust denial? I wouldn't give them a platform either.
THANK YOU. his defense of the IDF, arguing for a nuclear first strike against Muslims, defense of torture and the Iraq war *scream* imperialist, bigoted white guy to me. i don't understand the extremely charitable interpretation this video has.
I just started watching your video's and I completely agree with you. I went thru almost exactly the same process as you with Sam Harris but have not been able to express as well as you did. I really wish a couple of the new atheist youtubers that fanboy a little too hard on Sam Harris will watch this and take it to hart.
Check out Big Joel, if you don't already know him. He's pure joy, and super good at calling out bullshit. There's also Some More News. If you can get over him trying to be the next John Oliver, he's critical of Harris too.
@@JR-xv6mv thank you for for the recommendations
I understood Sam's views on religion before he was born. Nothing new there. His views on society belong to an amateur who just discovered he can have an opinion. His view on policing is very narrow and shortsighted. If he is espousing a white supremacy narrative without intention, he is just a useful idiot.
I've been a follower of Sam for quite some time now. Studied all his books and I know he is a scientist and at least agnostic. I threw the god line there just to provoke a reaction and vent my frustration about how Sam can be so right in his field BUT soooo wrong on social issues. He clearly emphasizes the white supremacy narrative carefully; cherry picking data that would make him appear "Objective". This time, he's clearly on the wrong side of History. He reminds me of Candace Owens, a black skinned white supremacist. And Kanye West to boot.
Sam Harris, I'm no longer a fan. You are cancelled.
Juan Mireles amen
Check out, Dr.Zakir Naik. You will not regret it.
I look at Harris the same way I looked at Hitchens: great on religion but I wouldn’t turn to him for policy advice.
apart from the war on Afghanistan , im curious as to what u disagree with hitchens on politics?
brian bridges He probably still hasn’t gotten over the fact Hitchens was wrong about the Iraq war
@Orlaith McManus what hitches ??
@@tofu8688 what did hitches think about the war?
@@call4sorrow1
Hitchens may have been right or wrong about many of his political stances, and we can have a discussion about that. But I do agree with the point made by @steelersguy74. And I think you would agree with this: if all Hitchens had spoken about was politics and not religion, he would have been considered just as another political talking head. There was nothing special, original, or genius about his politics.
Wow, man. I'm a huge Sam Harris fan and was ready to hear a bunch of the usual criticisms of Harris. This was super thorough and fair and gave me a lot to think about. I don't fully agree with the criticism that he uses vague arguments and then defends against being held accountable for them. I think his opinions and views are very nuanced and it simply isn't possible to explain all the finer points of them each time they're brought up. While I agree he sees malice more often than it actually occurs, I do think his viewpoints are often misunderstood and misrepresented, whether intentionally or not.
I understood Sam's views on religion before he was born. Nothing new there. His views on society belong to an amateur who just discovered he can have an opinion. His view on policing is very narrow and shortsighted. If he is espousing a white supremacy narrative without intention, he is just a useful idiot.
I've been a follower of Sam for quite some time now. Studied all his books and I know he is a scientist and at least agnostic. I threw the god line there just to provoke a reaction and vent my frustration about how Sam can be so right in his field BUT soooo wrong on social issues. He clearly emphasizes the white supremacy narrative carefully; cherry picking data that would make him appear "Objective". This time, he's clearly on the wrong side of History. He reminds me of Candace Owens, a black skinned white supremacist. And Kanye West to boot.
Sam Harris, I'm no longer a fan. You are cancelled.
Juan Mireles oh god, you’re copy and pasting this comment everywhere.
@@punctuationman334 What did you expect of someone who can't think for himself.
@@juanmireles8756 I am not familiar with Sam Harris's work in general, but the thing about profiling muslims seems like an excellent example..He is say there are features that makes it likely that someone might be muslim, and we should profile and scrutinize them accordingly. The result of instituting this as policy is that people with brown skin, and names associated with countries with high muslim populations would be unduly targeted regardless of their religion. Perhaps, from a practical perspire one of the most ironic possible outcomes would be that Sikhs would be targeted the most by such a policy. However, by bit explaining what he actually means, he just allows us to imagine what would be the outcome and how it would work.
I have no idea if Sam Harris is racist; it doesn't really matter. I can say that he is arguing for at least one policy that would have a racist outcome, and that matter a lot more than his personal prejudices.
His rational atheism is being used as a cover for Islamophobia and US militarism. I'm not fan of Islam, but I can see a paid propagandist. Now imagine if muslims were to speak ill on Judaism. It would be blasted everywhere as antisemitism.
He also believes that US had legitimate reason for war in Iraq. He also believes America "accidentally" killed 500 thousand Iraq kids by medical sanctions and brushes it off as "oh well, we meant well", he says America had good intentions in Iraq.
He argues that killing people while trying to take their resources is an "unintended" collateral of war which we need to do and that is just like dying while driving cars which is also what we need to do. But then he turns around and vilifies the victims who try to fight back against their pillagers and argue that they are doing it out of ideological evil and not just out of fighting back against their plunderers.
I agree with what most of you said in this video. Generally speaking I appreciate balanced, nuanced and reasonable criticisms and critiques of people I follow and ideas I agree with. This video was refreshing in a sea of other videos/tweets/articles that do in fact, either intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresent his views on Islam. I found your critiques to be very fair.
My biggest critique of him is his naïveté of the “intentions” of US foreign policy. I actually do agree with his point that intentions do actually matter. However his biggest flaw is the assumption that our intentions are good in regards to our foreign policy. On Joe Rogan I believe it was, he said something along the lines of “All America wants is there to be peace and democracy. To America any innocent person killed in the crossfire is a tragedy, and it’s not our intent to kill them.”
This is completely false. We do not want to spread freedom and democracy through our foreign policy. Our foreign policy facilitates Western Corporations having easy access to foreign resources (mainly oil). In 1953, we overthrew Mohamed Mossadegh, the secular leader of Iran who wanted to model his county on the freedom of American and European societies, was overthrown by the CIA and MI6, and a fundamentalist dictator was installed. This was because he did not want to sell his oil to the USA and UK for cheap prices, and instead wanted to nationalize the resource.
In many ways, with our regime change wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq, we have made things worse in terms of stability and democracy. This is also not to mention the callous indifference we have to civilians dying in drone strikes (over 80%).
But Sam thinks we’re basically the Boy Scouts. His foreign policy beliefs are at least partially motivated by the idea of American exceptionalism.
I agree with you on this point. His comment is so naive, that it’s hard to believe he said it.
This comment is what I was looking for, thanks! US intentions and track record are perhaps Harris's biggest blind spot and it merits more than the passing and generalized mention it received in this video.
Maserati7200 In fact, the absurd naivete of Harris's view of US intentions is perhaps the single strongest factor to suspect that, in fact, he is well aware of true US intentions, and is in fact, in favor of those intentions.
@masserati7200 Sorry, but the left wing "the US is trying to rule the world, but can't figure out how to do it" narrative is totally false. Mosaddegh is a great example of left wing revisionism. The Shah and the US opposed overthrowing Mosaddegh for years, even if he was strongly linked to the assisination that caused his appointment.
Mosaddegh was legally fired by the shaw (the second time) after he dissolved parliament and imposed a soviet backed dictatorship because he had lost democratic support. Notice that most countries supported both the Iranian boycott and the Shah. We know what role the US played. We'll never know what role soviet imperialism played.
I mean do you blame the US for Al-Qaeda, but not the USSR? The modern leftist revisionism of that story is even more clear. It would be like blaming china for Viet Nam...
There's a lot of ideological narrative passing for history, and it comes from people like Noam Chomsky, who said China had "truer democracy" than the US in 1969, during Mao's cultural revolution. People like that have been lying by omission, only telling one side of the story, and getting away with never having to admit when they are completely wrong. The cold War was not mostly about American exceptionalism or greed. It was about soviet colonialism and communist exceptionalism.
Great Moose Detective haha talk about ideological narrative!
I consider myself quite the fan of Sam Harris, but I wouldn’t say you were being unfair. It was a thoughtful and well considered critique, even if i may not agree on every point. Good job.
I liked him until I started following prof Noam Chomsky. Then Sam became a shallow man to me.
@@omarsharif2995 chomsky lost me when he wont even admit daniel Everett COULD have possibly found exceptions to his language theory. I cannot stand people who wont even entertain the possibility of being wrong.
AdlockHungry His bigotry is very gross.
At least his fans seem more reasonable than what I've seen from Peterson fans, at least as far as RUclips comments on critical videos are concerned. Not sure about the other 2 in the intellectual dark web.
@@willowarkan2263 I mean, Peterson's cult of personality is basically centered around 'being right'. Dawkins and Harris also attract a lot of 'very smart's, but it's not because their work lacks any merit.
I don’t think Sam Harris would want anyone to idolize him.
That is besides the point.
@@Hemzees well, that’s the title of the post.
I disagree...I feel he is in love with himself beyond belief
@@mrhw2526 Have you met his fanboys?
@@eliza1826 I have not. Guess I have some things to learn?
I've always loved anti-SJW videos. But I've also always had a feeling of discomfort maybe because on some level I knew these people are cherry picking the worst of the worst and mocking them, just to promote their own ideologies.
Now I understand precisely why. You've articulated my thoughts better than I ever could have.
SUBSCRIBED!
Same here - and also a lot of indulgence in sjw cringe. I actually can’t enjoy cringe anymore after watching Contrapoints video on it.
I’m still yet to find a SJW that can have a productive conversation. Most of them are just keyboard warriors, on the intellectual level they stand no where near Sam Harris.
I'm really happy you made this video and admitted you were part of the kind of cult surrounding atheist leaders currently. I was also this way after leaving religion and didnt realize how I went from following one dogma to another, it took almost 2 years for me to realize I needed to look as critically at people whom I agreed with as those I disagreed with and point out their problematic beliefs and behaviors. Its definitely a journey for each person but thankfully we are always able to change when we keep our minds open
What is the dogma of atheism? Thanks
@@michelen5728 there isn't one
@@michelen5728 there is no dogma of atheism. But I think what @Sara H was getting at is that there's a kind of dogma surrounding these "four horsemen" anti-theists that, much like religion, leaves their fans not questioning their worldview.
You jumped from one pot to another, and I hate to break it to you but it's pots all the way down. It's better to think of "religion" as a part of human psychology than magic book.
For me is was his American exceptionalism. After watching his debate with Noam Chomsky I lost a lot of respect for him.
That was EMBARRASSING for Harris. Honestly it shows why Harris is not taken seriously in academic Poli Sci circles. And we all know Harris is so protective of his reputation that when he heard that apparently Chomsky said something negative about him (it's in the exchange), he tried to argue WAY above his weight class and he embarrassed himself.
Drawing partly from some of your points in this video, here’s where I stand on Sam Harris: his positions on Charles Murray’s theories, on profiling and other controversial issues dance so far on the side of justifying bigotry that it’s not particularly worth it to a well-meaning person on the left to tease through all the angles of his argument just to agree with his underlying point. Harris’s insensitivity on these and other subjects makes him an accessory to bigoted people whether he agrees with them or not. So, I’m inclined to side with some of the more emotional responses of his critics, even if they’re technically mistaken about what Harris’s views are.
“His claims are so vague and quick that he still has access to deniability. He can accuse you of misrepresenting him because he hasn’t really represented anything of substance to begin with.”
Thank you!!! This sums up perfectly Sam Harris' take on virtually everything I've seen or heard from him.
The objectivity, detachment and nuance in your videos is the perfect antidote to the gradual degradation of discourse that the twitter era has brought about. I appreciate your work, . The only dispiriting thing is the thought that there are tens of thousands of videos made in the opposite vein for every one of yours...
I went through a similar thing in the last few years with Dawkins. I always found Harris to be a bit tepid, and was more attracted to the academic rigour of Dawkins and Hitchens (I must add that there are a whole generation of biologists to whom Dawkins' atheist work is a mere footnote, albeit a long one, to his academic career-he was a formidable teacher at Oxford). It has been dispiriting to find that he has become quite indefensible latterly with his twitter escapades, and whilst it is possible to put much of it down to the inevitable follies of social media use, you would naturally expect better from somebody who is so clearly able to consider the impact of the things he writes.
The militant atheism thing in general has also lost its allure for me. The moment I realised that all of those 'Dawkins/Hitchens DESTROYS religious argument/person' videos are borne of the same propaganda template as those archetypal alt-right videos, I started to see the problem. There is no easy way out, the temptation to believe that you have the right to be indignant about something is great, but actually the only way to approach these issues effectively is as you do, with thorough research and self-scrutiny. You are an example for us all.
Yeah, I also was a Dawkins fan. I eventually realized I was more concerned with feeling superior and being 'right' than any injustices caused by religion. Fortunately I started gaining some humility and perspective by adulthood; and do my best to maintain that trend to this day :) Not to discredit his own work, which I still respect. I don't even want to claim that his own aggression towards the harm religion causes is disingenuous or unfounded, even if I personally think it's often counter-productive. I think the real problem is the toxic 'very smart' folks he attracts. Then, when he gets called out over whatever and feels attacked, it's this community that will defend vehemently defend him, encouraging him to appeal and listen to that toxic base, and perpetuating a nasty cycle. I feel like that happens with a lot of public figures.
man you're smart holy shit. this was well put, i envy your writing, structure and premise in a paragraph its simply amazing, im terrible at grammar and writing so funn to see such long paragraph being so easily digestible.
The irony. These figures preach logic and reasoning. Then their audience develops enough logic and reasoning to unfollow them.
@@ThatCoCoa - the ultimate goal of the teacher is to produce a superior student.
Akray Bothorda Wise words
As odd as it may sound watching videos about Turkish cats really changed my mind about Islam. Definitely had a somewhat negative opinion due to my "new atheist" days. But then I got a small glimpse of Turkish culture and bingo bango. Turkish people were far more humanized since I saw their compassion for arguably the most perfect animal on the planet. Any society that goes way out of their way to care for animals as much as the Turks can't be all that bad.
@13:05
"Now I'm pretty sure that Sam would deny that he thinks Islam is worse than other religions, on paper."
Based on what? Everything I know about Sam Harris suggests he would indeed think that, and he's said as much a number of times. I'm not saying this to attack him - I largely agree with the statement - but simply to counter a point you have raised.
Which religions - on paper - would you cite as being 'worse' than Islam? Which faith's doctrines do you feel pose a greater threat to Western culture and liberal values?
On reflection, I am absolutely positive tham Sam would say that Islam is worse than other religions.
100% agree and now I don't have to say it! You saved me a lot of time. :)
The "motherload of bad ideas" as hes said. But remember, hes white :(
Something worth pointing out apparently... lmao
I know, 15:20 on this very video is a clip of Sam Harris making the case that the Quran is the most harmful scripture, and that coupled with the life of its founder, Muhammad, make it instrinctly the worst religion
+Ece Boran "The religion in the Old Testament is absolutely the worst religion ever."
I'm pretty sure Sam actually said this somewhere. Maybe in his Cenk interview? Though, he's also said that the Bible (especially including the New Testament) is more contradictory and less streamlined than the Quran.
S L, as far as I recall, there's no written encouragement to marry children in any part of the Bible or Quran. However, the culture of the ancient Middle East has long been known to regard any girl in menstruation cycles to be "old enough". The mother of Jesus is supposed by many religious scholars to have been about 12-15 years old when she conceived. It seems sick to us now, but Mohammed was far from unique in marrying such a young girl.
What makes most sense to me is that the reason the Quran seems streamlined is that a merchant of the Silk Road with open ears gleaned the easier bits of Judaism, Christianity, and science, and, without much help, put them together with a simple purpose in mind for his own people.
Other monotheistic religions had many more authors, and when there's an outlandishly extreme verse by one author, there's generally another author that tames it. (Contradiction, or context, depending how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.)
I met Hitchens in college before I knew who he was. He was a speaker at the beginning of my freshman year and later spoke at my lit class. My lit professor was a former nun and knew him personally. He was intimidating and clearly hung over at 8am on a wednesday.
What do I think of this?
Well sir I think you did a great job.
I'm a 38 year old left leaning, atheist and skeptic.
As I get older I question my heroes. I too am growing despondent with my base and I think real criticism of ourselves is needed.
Why do we hold on to ideas that most of us don't even understand.
You feed my brain today.
I'll take another.
Great job.
Great video. I’d say a part of getting wiser as years pass is recognizing not to put large amounts of faith into one individual. I have yet to find a public figure worth idolizing. Sam Harris is awesome for many reasons but is as flawed a human as anyone else.
At this point he's flat out repeating 13/50, so you definitely made the right move
@Brett Sylvester yeah of course those statistics are true. so what? why does it matter? what do you want to do to solve the issues behind it?
Okay? The 13/50 statistic is very relevant when discussing issues of policing and justice in the US. It’s also a fascinating sociological phenomenon which is worth understanding and studying.
@@maddhatter6938 I believe they may have been referencing problematic interpretations of the 13/50 idea. Not gonna speak for OP here, just my understanding, but like, there are many ways people have chosen to understand that statistic, and often times it is referenced in an edgy context wherein the speaker is attempting to make an argument for racial profiling, which Harris has a history of. For example, a white person may hear that 13/50 argument and then feel empowered to mistrust more black people and reinforce their pre existing prejudices, or maybe police start feeling even more justified to stop and arrest black men purely for being black, because hey statistics don't lie right? Like you said, it is worth understanding and studying, but let's be honest, the internet does not inherently foster nuanced anthropological, sociological, and political theory debates, and often times complex issues get boiled down into oversimplified problems with oversimplified solutions. I mean, 13/50 is case in point. Back to the original post, I could be wrong, but I think they were using 13/50 as short hand for referencing racial profiling endorsed by Harris, and not the statistic itself. TL;DR I agree, debate is important, and sociological statistics have value, but this person was just making a general statement about how the figure in question has really gone off the deep end with racial profiling. Fellow academic here by the way, hope this didn't come across as overly sarcastic, you clearly were making a good point, it just doesn't really apply in this particular thread (thanks for reading my dissertation if you did the whole thing XD)
@@leolong2984
I had no idea that Sam Harris has used the 13/50 statistic to support racial profiling. If so, I disagree with him entirely on that point.
I agree with everything you said.
@@maddhatter6938 Oh I have no idea in regards to what Harris said specifically in regards to 13/50 actually lol just clarifying the original posters position based on interpretation, and I think the 13/50 thing was shorthand/slang in the OP. I'm relatively young generationally and so the Four Horsemen are little before my time, so my knowledge of them is relatively superficial at best. All I do know about Harris in particular is from this video and articles where he talked about racial profiling being an effective solution (though he was referencing Brown individuals who he conflated with Islamics and thus terrorists, still bad for similar reasons of course). I figured you weren't endorsing anything problematic by any means, just clearing some air to avoid a potential misunderstanding lol hope you are safe in this hecked up world we are in right now!
"[Harris] can accuse you of misrepresenting him because he hasn't really
represented anything of substance to begin with." (10:15) Thank you!
You've clearly represented what it is that pisses *me* off about
Sam "Gish Galloping" Harris, he says way too much poorly.
I'd be interested in your best counterargument for a single Sam Harris argument. I don't think his positions are poorly represented, nor that he often engages in gish galloping (even though it's possible to do so against theists in a way where it seems like gish galloping but in reality it is just a lot of pretty much irrefutable points that demolish their claims and, even if they spent lots of time trying to produce good counterpoints, there really aren't good counterpoints to be made) but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise if you can produce evidence to the contrary.
@@itWouldBeWise Agreed. I regard Sam as a rarity in that he doesn’t drag out or obfuscate points. Whereas someone like Jordan Peterson, who I admire in different ways, can dance around topic without ever simplifying his point.
As an exmuslim, I can assure you Sam Harris is right on Islam.
err I think I'd rather trust a ex Muslim that actually woke up and realized his beliefs were bullshit over someone that still believes in it. Islam is the worst.
err no actually he is right. I dont care if you are muslim, ex muslim or whatever. That doesnt change the fact that Islam is hateful, genocidal and very unhealthy for the people that really take it serious. Read your holy book.
err so you take the Koran for the perfect word of god?
err and why dont you kill nonbelievers?
err and is a woman worth less than a man?
I never seen this RUclipsr before. I've never been an admirer and never will be of Sam Harris, I just come here to see why others depart from him. Very impressed in a positive way with what this guy had to say. A turn for better. Thumbs Up.
~ Bright Romeo ~ so you will just look at this bias interpretation of someone? you are arrogant AF. Please have no other opinions until you are educated.
@@TheCountfilth My opinion is based on more than one interpretation. That's a low level of mentality of one to think of another as you just did.
Bullshit
Never idolize people, only their ideas or accomplishments.
Good points. I really liked what Neil deGrasse Tyson said to Sam when they had a conversation a while back. Something about it being your own responsibility to make your public statements as easy understandable as possible and to minimize the potential to be misrepresented. I would recommend their conversation for anyone who hasn't watched it. Of course that advise doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of being misrepresented intentionally, but it surely makes it harder for people to do so.
Sad that Sam didn't take this into consideration very much.
Oh, but I could still listen to Sam for hours and hours, he should just do audio books :)
And his criticism of Donald Trump was (and is? Didn't hear much about that topic for some time) very much on point. In general I enjoyed most his podcasts and I will definitely continue doing so if the topic interests me, but I agree that he is not the misunderstood and wilfully misunderstood intellectual giant that many of his fans view him as (me included for some time)
The same advice has been frequently given to Richard Dawkins, and he was equally arrogant (or perhaps more so) in brushing it aside as irrelevant ("all that matters is the truth").
I find Harris often gives easy to understand examples to support his position on most things, usually in the form of thought experiments. He is clear and easy to understand in his statements.
yup, maybe if everybody is always taking sam harris out of context, and misunderstanding him, maybe the problem isnt with everybody ?
Which is exactly why so many politicians and many others never say anything of import except for sound bites. As someone else said in the comments, Tyson almost never says anything that even approaches controversy.
He won't even admit he's an atheist.
I just discovered your videos and I’ve only watched a few but I have to tell you: your writing style is on par with any op-ed magazine columnist I’ve read. What an incredible talent.
I feel like the end of this video really nails it. Sam Harris gets defensive when he's criticized because he assumes he's already correct and/or being misunderstood. If he were as smart as he thinks he is, he would pause to consider the possibility he's said something wrong
He's one of the least defensive, most willing to listen to criticism of his arguments, person I've ever come across.
@Jonathan Smith The video said the exact opposite of that.
Great observations.
No man is perfect. even those you admire and look up to most will have blind spots in their world view.
& end up getting into bed with the far right...
1:00 you do realize richard dawkins had a very successful career in his field of science WAAAY before he ever started into his anti-religion scene right?
Jason Borne I would think he knows that but omitted it because the scope of the video is about religion.
Cole McGass ya i guess so. I misunderstood what he said the first time around when he briefly stating richard dawkins as if he didn’t know his credentials. But ya upon listening again he was being tongue and cheek
Remember, if it wasn't for his anti religion crusade, nobody outside the scientific community would have even heard of RD
.
Hi T1J, I'm about 4 years late here, but I'm fascinated by this topic and Richard Dawkins was my personal villain in all that. I think there's a really important conversation to be had about pseudoscience and scientific literacy in the world today, in the same vein as writers like Carl Sagan and Stephen J Gould were doing in the 80s and 90s. And people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins as well.
It's very strange and sad how "new atheism" has become a political conservative hate movement that's completely divorced from the secular and scientific discussion it originally was.
I'd love to see the other three videos if you ever decide to do them...........
I think you are far too generous to Sam Harris, but enjoyed the video anyway.
‼️
Which clown?
If someone's only an atheist because an authority told them to be, then they've missed the point and squandered a perfectly good learning experience. You can just as easily stumble into atheism by accident, as you can reach it through reason.
I do think atheism is the most reasonable conclusion, but if you can't explain in your own words how you got here, it doesn't count for much.
In part true but I'm a convert. I accidentally came across atheists through Richard Dawkins and Hitchens is a huge influence on me but as I grow older and 8 years into my non belief I am still influenced by these and others although I draw my non belief from my own wellbeing being an atheist but also I'm starting to disagree with those who influenced me not on atheism and non belief but on my own values I have from that non belief.
@@mjintegrale I love Christopher Hitchens. The rest of the four I've never really liked and the rest of the ashiest movement is kind of annoying (except Jimmy Snow), but Hitchens was an excellent man. He's also the only one with real credibility, being a serious and respected journalist in the 60's and 70's, I had no idea he had anything to do with the other three people.
Hard disagree. Atheism by itself is just the absence of belief.
@@kendroctopus That's kind of his point. You don't need to be a super rational person who considers all the evidence to be an atheist. For example, if I don't believe in unicorns because I find the idea of a horn growing out of an animal's head absurd. I may have reached a correct conclusion that there are no unicorns (at least in traditional depictions), but I have not used good arguments to do so.
Therefore, just because someone's a charismatic atheist doesn't mean they're experts at finding good arguments or thinking rationally.
I too found atheism on my own, i just found Sam Harris not gonna lie i see him as an actual intellectual that is soft spoken with a calm charisma. I see why people idolise him. But I do agree with you on the experience of finding atheism through reason and not to go from one cult like following to another.
Sam's an interesting dude, but he's fallen way down my playlist over the past few years.
I listened to the Murray interview. Sam fully endorsed the idea that the genetics of white people led to higher IQ scores. He dismissed (along with Murray) the idea that environmental factors likely explained the difference in IQ scores, despite the copious evidence that there are severe environmental and educational deficits in African American communities and the copious evidence that such differences impact IQ scores. Like... no one takes Murray's racial essentialism seriously because it isn't a serious hypothesis--it can only be adapted if one chooses to ignore both everything we know about population genetics and everything we know about racial history in America.
To me, someone who chooses to ignore known facts in order to support a theory of racial essentialism is a racist by definition. And that's what's so insidious about the "identity politics separates us, we shouldn't talk about equity because that's racist" argument. Because if you pretend that the playing field is level, and you pretend that history has no modern impacts, then all you are left with when comparing groups is skin color.
I really liked your description of how you've changed and where you were wrong. Much to think about, thank you.
I cannot like this (and many of your other videos) enough! I applaud how you take great care to be honest, transparent, and fair/balanced in showing how you come to your conclusions. We need more nuanced discussions like this. Thank you.
I don’t get why people make their brains an open sponge to ANY person. Testing people’s thoughts is a good thing.
Sam harris criticizes Islam, and Christianity but never dares to criticize Judaism which is somehow very hypocritical given the fact that Judaism is full of hate speech and racism towards Gentiles (non-jews) unlike Islam and Christianity. And you can see this reflected in his opinion of the war on Gaza where he completely blames islam ignoring the fact that it's not a religious conflict like the Western media wants us to believe
As far as anti-theist, sam Harris, bill Maher, and seth MacFarlane are cut from the same vein. I'm a Christian, and I respect your God your choice or nonbelief, but there's a way to speak to opposition without absolute disrespect as well as for people faith to do the same
If someone came up to you professing the Olympians to be the true Gods and sincerely believed it because centuries ago someone made art and wrote books about them, you'd probably act with the same derision as the people you mentioned above.
@@AshDemonYoung And if he didnt?
That's one of my problems as well. The problem is not faith. The problem is unsecular faith.
@@AshDemonYoung that's making an assumption of what I would think to back your narrative. You're still trying to prove a point that is not viable. If you believe in that, you believe in it. I don't but that doesn't change how I would treat you. It's about respect. Not what you believe in a hypothetical argument
“he can accuse you of misrepresenting him because he hasn’t represented anything of substance to begin with.“ That sums it up. Spot on
I gave you an upvote because of the "gish gallop".
It is a tactic that all flat earthers use.
14:12 is on point. I'm non-theistic, not from a Muslim or Arab background, but I find his vitriolic singling out of Muslims to be extremely bigoted and irrational.
Great video as always, T.1.J. While from my perspective, you're more charitable to Sam Harris than I am, the video is overall very good because you're stating your honest agreements with him & why you're not as much of a fan of him as in the past.
At minute 15:30 Sam Harris says:
“The central message of the Quran is spread this message by conquest and not by conversation”
The Quran (16:125):
‘Call unto the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way.’
Dude . There plenty of verses in quran which are violent , sexist etc.
You will defend them no matter what. I have see ton of imams saying it
Muslims when they see violent verses, "you have to look at the context" but apparently for this verse, context doesn't matter? Stop defending your warlord of a prophet and admit he was evil
Just shut up
I still like Sam Harris too and you make some fair points. Like that he's so used to being right that it might be difficult for him to consider the possibility that he could be wrong.
Your criticisms of your younger self spoke to me. I still think that ridiculous beliefs deserve to be and should be ridiculed, lest we lend them respect that they've never earned and give the illusion that they are as valuable as actual knowledge. But, lately I've been considering that maybe that ridicule is just counter productive. It's difficult to argue that someone's beliefs, upon which they base much of their identity are a lie without sounding like an asshole. Just something I need to reflect on, I guess.
He also says later in the video that he still largely indentifies with anti-theism, so it sounds like he's in the same boat as you.
I just discovered your channel yesterday, already shared two of your videos, you should be proud your channel is great, your talk about topics without coming across clic base you really got an opinion about things and they all makes a lot of sense
These are great thoughts! I'm a huge fan of Harris. Though I'm not an athiest, and I'm probably more progressively minded than he is, I think he demonstrates a lot of virtues that are missing in the cultural conversations that dominating right now. The thing you said at 21:00 about how Sam is easily misunderstood due to the need to investigate so much of his work is really true and really sad. I think it's sad because it indicts our culture and its mechanisms for debate. He is certainly not a well tuned rhetorician, customizing his message to the medium or format that he's placed in. But I'm saddened that someone of his obvious intelligence and care can't be processed by many because he requires long-form communication and/or has a monotone voice and mannerisms.
Your final point is well taken and the one thing I wish he would have done with the Ezra Klein collision. Klein refused to even talk about the issue of the data, and how a political movement can/should process it. Sam's convinced that if the left can't figure that out, they are doomed. But frustratingly, Sam couldn't just admit that the more airtime that kind of talk about race/IQ gets, the more fuel it gives to true racists.
Josh Foreman he's in the Sam Harris business and he's quite good at it.
I never understood being a devoted fan to anyone (except larger than life cartoons where you suspend your disbelief in order to cherish them and forgive any true character flaws because you don't care, like with Elvis, Michael Jackson, Hulk Hogan, or Steven Segal).
All these guys are is businessmen and they promote themselves and their characters to sell products. So be it.
And who cares are true racists. They're going to be racists anyway. The same data that's presented and claims blacks have lower IQs than whites, also claims Jews and Asians have higher IQs than whites. I've yet to see a white racist go out and start heralding Jews and Asians for it. They hate Asians just like they hate blacks. So be it. If I didn't know the sunshine I wouldn't curse the rain.
It is not fault of culture nor mechanisms of a debate that he:
A) can't articulate what he thinks, in even a long fomat, as an essay, and can't comprehend implications of his words and can't address them adequately.
B) or. He knows exacly what he is talking, he knows his audience and keeps dogwhistleing to them.
Either way I have no idea how anyone can consider him to be any sort of top level "intellectual"
None are more fallible than those who are sure they are right.
"Stubborn pedant that I just happened to agree with sometimes", that crystallized my feels about Harris perfectly into words, thank you sir.
Your relationship with Sam Harris is very relateable to me. I went through the exact same process. I would like to think that Sam is actually open to this kind of criticism. I don't believe him to be a lost cause. As you said, his podcast and some of his books articles are still fantastic. I wish he'd see that closely associating himself with fraudsters like Benny Shaparino is terrible for his image.
I think he's very deliberately reaching out to a conservative right-wing audience.
Probably with both good and bad motivations.
Check out, Dr.Zakir Naik. You will not regret it.
@Brett Sylvester are you okay friend?
Nope. Scam Harris is a lost cause
@@torpidfella293 No
I wish more RUclips videos were so well thought out
Quick addition for those who are unfamiliar with the details: Richard Dawkins is most famous for his Evolutionary History popular science books. He wrote one book on religion called the God Delusion, explaining his position. But it's certainly not his best work, and his most famous title is The Selfish Gene, famous especially amongst biologists. Other titles include An Ancestors Tale, The extended Phenotype (follows the selfish gene), Unweaving the rainbow, The Magic of Reality, Climbing Mount Probable...
This was great. I went through a similar experience with Harris.
His statement about a preemptive nuclear first strike against Muslims in found in his book End of Faith, in the chapter "The problem with Islam." Yet he keeps saying people take him out of context...
Every time I hear a criticism of Sam & his opinions on Islam I remind myself of the people who live in Muslim majority countries I’ve listened to who speak about the problems of the spread of Salafi interpretations spreading through their countries, and have been for many decades. I’ve taken the time to read the foundational texts, although I admit not all the Hadith, and Milestones by Qutb published in the 1960’s as a call to action for the Muslim brotherhood. I also speak to many ex-Muslims living in the Westand I haven’t met one who disagree with his views, although some disagree with how it should be addressed. I haven’t heard him deny geopolitics as a tool for recruitment, indeed his book with Maajid Nawaz “Islam and the future of tolerance”says as much. I’ve only heard him lament the denial that religion is a causal factor too by my fellow lefties. It’s fine to change your mind. We all do. He predicted it 2006 the right would rise if we don’t talk sensibly about this stuff.He was right. It’s sad to see we haven’t moved forward on the left.
roxee57 I think Islam is fundamentally violent. That doesn’t mean Muslims are. It means the founder was a violent, murderous man who designed it to help him conquer and control the Middle East, violently. There might be different interpretations, to the point of people creating their own religion by taking the good pieces and ignoring the bad. The problem is if they call themselves Muslim, then the bottom line is Muhammad is idolized, not to be criticized, and the Koran is considered holy and perfect. The Koran is a disgusting piece of work, but beautiful in places too. The overall goal, to spread the violent subjugation of other religions is woven through it though. So no matter even if you redesign an “interpretation” that ignores the subjugate or murder infidels part, you’re still pretending Muhammad and the Koran are the authority. So what happens is a radical shows someone what the Koran really says, and if they consider themselves Muslim, there’s really no arguing with it..
What's your interpretation of Sahih al-Bukhari Book 84 Hadith 58? Not trying to troll or anything, I'm honestly interested.
+de
"I think this whole issue about apostasy in Islam is misunderstood, even by scholars of today. I took a seminar with a renowned scholar and we examined all the material, and came to the conclusion that the penalty of apostasy is not death, its actually for treason."
As you formulate it, I can, without much effort, see that being interpreted as "betrayal of the Prophet and Allah is punishable by death"
Or and I mistaken that a Muslim's life is in service of Allah and the Prophet?
That his allegiance is to Allah and the Prophet, first and foremost as dictated by the Quran?
+de
So abandoning it would be treason to the God and the Faith
Making the punishment of death justified
Isn't "apostasy" merely semantics for betraying your faith and god
8:07 --> 10:50 you put your finger on what makes sam so slippery.
thank you from this first-time viewer.
Here’s the irony:
You idolized Sam Harris and identified with what you perceive to be his worldview, yet Sam Harris’ worldview is centered on the belief that you shouldn’t identify with anything material, such as your health or possessions, nor anything egoistic such as your thoughts.
Not only did you identify with his views, but you idolized the man himself. You did exactly what he warns against.
😂😂😂 Sure. Sure. Sam doesn't do everything he can to remain relevant to his fans-- it's not as if his ability to make money depends on this. He AND his fans lack awareness of the paradox that is Sam Harris.
True
Well this is weired cause if that is the case then sam Harris's statement and his world view would be an oxymoron. He says to not identify with your thoughts, but he is a man of science who himself is a hard core atheist. so, he certainly identifies as an atheist. which he probably decided by himself based on his own thoughts, didn't he? He idebtifies himself to be a man doesn't he? or does he see no difference between him and a chim. I am sure he does in fact thinks him and a chimp are different on many levels and he himself would point that out that they indeed both different physically and mentally. But if he identifyes himself as a man then by considers himself to be one and thinking that he is a man. he is going against his beliefs . So, is his word view only applicable to other people. Or is he trying to say that he is open minded and non biased. The problem with non identification with thoughts is that you as a person are made of thought and experiences and your sense of self is just a collection of thoughts. Sometimes in the past baby sam Harrison probably thought of becoming a neuro- scientist if Sam didn't have that though then he wouldn't be a neuro scientist .
It is good to be open minded, but don't open your mind so much that it falls off- carl sagan.
What the hell am I supposed to "identify" with if its neither my thoughts, emotions, nor my phyiscal well being? I have goals in my life and intellectual curiosity but I also enjoy simple things, like cooking. Or art.
@@tinyrobot9989 hes stated many times he doesnt like being associated with the atheist crowd though
So basically in the end as you've grown in your adult years you stopped putting Sam on a pedestal and realized he's just a man who like many men and women, is always trying to think critically about important discussions but like many of us, will no doubt be wrong or at least misinformed at many points throughout life. Congratulations, you are now a more level headed thinker. I myself also appreciate Sam's thoughts on many topics and have followed his writings, videos and podcast material for years. Of course I don't always agree with him but of the few individuals who have such a public platform reach like he has in this day in age, I believe he is still one of the more balanced nuanced thinkers of our time. I'm sure if Christopher Hitchens was still with us today videos like this would have eventually been made about him too. In the end, these guys are just fallible humans like the rest of us. Go figure. By the way, since you used the article of "In Defense of Profiling" as an example of his rhetorical style (something he wrote almost 10 years ago), I just want to mention to any potential reader of this comment that he also posted a guest response by Bruce Schneier about a month later called "The Trouble With Profiling" to again provide a nuance conversation about his initial stance on the issue.
Well said
Agreed... in fact those videos of Hitchens already exist as he was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq.
@Rick Well, he had his reasons. Not that I agreed with any of them but he sure seems confident in his position as he did on everything else he discussed.
I totally agree, just because Sam Harris is a Neuroscientist, doesn’t mean he reached intellectual pinnacle and stopped growing and evolving in his views.
0:28 Well, FYI, regarding a comment on the "four old white dudes." Ayaan Hirsi Ali was invited to the Four Horsemen chat, but couldn't make it at the last minute. I think that would've been important to mention here. One should always try and maintain a little perspective.
U have a point. I actually liked Stephen Fry's take on criticizing both political correctness and religions with respect, and by trying to reach the opponent rather than being offended and dismissive. Fry seems to speak from wisdom rather than principles, with no anger and like he says, with love. Him and Hitchens teamed up in debates though, were absolutely brilliant. Sorry, but Hitchens is just untouchable, we all know this. Cosmic skeptic got him on the objectivity of morality, and still, while being wrong Hitchens was too good.
"People can know when people are not Jihadists"
That must be why it is so easy to identify people who are Jihadists? Is this dishonesty or just dumb?
Do you think a 4-year-old girl could be a Jihadist? Do you think an 80-year-old white dude could be a Jihadist? I'm taking extreme examples here but it's just to show you that there are people that can be easily ruled out as not being Jihadists...
Jup you are using extreme examples. Nope we cant read minds and say someone is not a Jihadist. It is not like they have a reason to hide they are a Jihadist.
Oh no no wait. They do. So the the OP still stands.
Example volunteer stopped working on ships picking up refugees in the Mediterranian when ISIS propaganda was waved in front of his face by one of the refugees. But the refugees would be screened you know. Nope that never happens en lieing is easy.
Stuart Tusspot Yes, an 80 yo white guy could be a jihadist. A Jihadist can be anyone who believes in, advocates for, or participates in Jihad. Jihad can mean a spiritual battle against evil, or a military battle for an Islamist state. As for suicide-bombing, well, the 80 yo has less to lose.
Amilah Ok, thank you for explaining! I had a very simple understanding so this helps
@@stuarttusspot4769 I know you commented this six months ago, but actual children have been used in a bunch of suicide attacks at a variety of points throughout history, and I have to assume disguising as an older person could work.
Not that you can never narrow the chances of finding someone based on a description... I just thought those were bad examples. You can't ever really sweep a crowd and efficiently know that it doesn't contain threats
Sam consistently makes valid points that are worth considering. I think that your criticisms of him were mostly fair. You were definitely “Making Sense”🙂 No one should be put on a pedestal.
......he has stopped being the intellectual hero that he once was in my eyes......
But this is absolutely normal man! We grow and evolve. Ultimately it is NOT about having gurus we agree/respect/follow 100% but to help us in finding our own way.
Nothing else can substitute for it. Take what is useful and/or helps and move on leaving all the harrises of this world being what they are. Separate human beings.
All heroes are flawed but you learn something from each of them.
Y'all are taking the term "idolize" way too literally. Calm down.
A literal comparison of a person to an idol is that of a person to an inanimate object.
@@J_The_Colossal_Squid Well. That makes being called someones idol, way less flattering!! :)
Lol thats what im saying .sounds like offense honestly. This guy by no means gives off a "blind follower guy" so dont assume it and argue against something not ment .
I think they like many know idolize means mindless mob and Harris definitely has those kind of followers...not all but quite a few.
Wow, this exactly how I felt about Sam. Sam often ignores his audience and the realm of debate. It's like the timeless argument allowing a poor country in drought to starve. As a political statement that sounds horrible. But there is an academic argument for this. Just supplying that country with food doesn't address the problem, and only exacerbates starvation because the population will increase without self reliance or sustainability... in either case, you ignore all the nuances. Like feed the population AND build the infrastructure necessary to supply adequate water for crops. Sam completely ignores nuances. And in an academic debate this is important for creating a foundation of knowledge. You can't know absolutely every parameter for a situation, so you set parameters, and your control, and make rational deductions based on them. Sam does not define his parameters in many of his more controversial arguments. Furthermore, he makes such bold claims in the realm of political discourse and not in the realm of academia. This is a criticism Neil deGrasse Tyson leveled against Sam when Sam was playing the victim in an interview with the brilliant deGrasse. Anyway, my that's my 99 cents.
I listened to this when it came out and again now. It's fucken spot on. As someone who likes Sam Harris's takes on things sometimes, I would love to hear your reaction to his recent take on police brutality.
I think since he left leaning and he rlly dosent like corruption and evil I think he would notice the biases and flaws within the systems
What is his take on police brutality?
@@dannyclub09 That although it does exist and should be rigorously rooted out, the media plays a role in hyping up people into a frenzy that is also not good. There's more to it than that because it's a complicated issue and he goes into great detail. It's hard to explain in a short summary.
@@rickfakhre2400 Oh right, yeah that's a pretty rational view I can agree with.
This is literally the reason why when I find an appealing person on the internet I look up their name plus the words IS BAD or IS WRONG so I see videos like these before I fully submerge into their psychology and lectures.
First Kent Hovind, and then Bill Nye, and then Neil Degrasse Tyson, and now. Sam Harris.
Thanks.
good approach....I'll try it. (although with Matt Gaetz I don't think it's all that necessary LMAO!)
what did bill nye and neil tyson say?
Well this was a weird place to find myself on RUclips today.
Fantastic video. I've been on the SH bandwagon around the same period of time as you seemed to be, and still quite enjoy his work (but mostly Waking Up and earlier Christian Nation). Your progress and evolution all feel quite similar to my own. Which is probably why you're still one of the few atheist/non religious YT'ers I enjoy watching. Stay awesome.
I do very much still enjoy Dan Dennet's talks and work as he seems masterfully capable of putting forward strong arguments without being confrontational or provoking.
Agreed. I'g even further and pose that T1J is at the least, the equal of SH as a brilliant, intellectual articulant. Using a different suite of exquisite words of dialogue than Sam, TiJ possibly does it more effortlessly, more flowing, less hesitantly, more animated and expressive. He's a new one on me, but I'm now on the look out for more and more of T1J' stuff. Love them both, Sam and TiJ
I just found your channel and I truly love your content. We are living in a Gish Gallop world. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
See harris' attempted discussion/debate with noam chomsky. VERY interesting. We need more noams.
I thought it was an interesting "conversation"...I was definitely on the Harris side of the arguement...but Chomsky really doesn't like being critiqued...He totally freaked out.
We dont need more masochistic, cynical, morally confused lefties that hate America.
@@dukedematteo1995 Your doing the same thing that Harris’ critics do to Harris, regarding Islam - but instead to Chomsky. Harris criticises Islamic laws, as well as historical and current Muslim transgressions he deems oppressive and backwards... so anti-Harris, leftist, people generalise and say he’s a racist islamaphobe. In the same way, Chomsky pinpoints legitimate concerns over US foreign policy and US transgressions overseas (strongly supported by evidence might I say) that are so self evidently backwards and oppressive - and so right-wing nationalists label him as an anti-American traitor.
"He's a guy who seems to be driven by his own principles and perspective..."
Oh, the horror!
...How can someone not be driven by their own principles? I know your next statement is about taking into consideration how your ideas affect other people, but I think ultimately rationality must take priority over emotions. If you grant that Sam is *correct* in his statements, then you also imply that people who have emotional reactions to his statements are being irrational. In a world where far too many people are far too easily offended, I find Sam's approach refreshing.
I would go so far as to say that sometimes, people *need* to be a little offended. Offending someone can be a jolt to their brain that shifts their perspective and makes them aware of ideas they previously hadn't considered.
You misunderstood what he meant. He meant something more like Harris is blinded by his own perspective and the principles (assumptions) that guide it, unable to see outside of that perspective into other possibilities. This is an essential characteristic of stupidity, and intelligent people should not see it as a virtue, but as something to be continually struggled with and overcome within their own cognitive activity.
underrated comment, this needs more likes :)
LOVE this. I’m (still) a huge fan of Sam’s and I consider him to be an important voice but it’s always baffled me how someone so experienced in psychedelics AND meditation can be so pissy, bratty, self-oblivious, fragile, and entitled (did I get everything there? Lol.) Thanks for really helping me add clarity to what was previously unfocused frustration and disappointment, T1J 🤘
😂😂 so what parts of his work are you actually a fan of?
I understood Sam's views on religion before he was born. Nothing new there. His views on society belong to an amateur who just discovered he can have an opinion. His view on policing is very narrow and shortsighted. If he is espousing a white supremacy narrative without intention, he is just a useful idiot.
I've been a follower of Sam for quite some time now. Studied all his books and I know he is a scientist and at least agnostic. I threw the god line there just to provoke a reaction and vent my frustration about how Sam can be so right in his field BUT soooo wrong on social issues. He clearly emphasizes the white supremacy narrative carefully; cherry picking data that would make him appear "Objective". This time, he's clearly on the wrong side of History. He reminds me of Candace Owens, a black skinned white supremacist. And Kanye West to boot.
Sam Harris, I'm no longer a fan. You are cancelled.
You just described people who abuse psychedelics
Couldn’t agree more!! How can one be so into Zen and mindfulness, even having a whole app dedicated to this, but not see how mind/ego-driven they themselves are being?
Cringing at the reminder of my new atheist past. It was... necessary, I suppose, like my baby gay and baby trans phases, but it's uncomfortable to remember what an asshole I was. When you think you've got everything figured out, you stop learning, and it took a while for me to realize I knew fuck all.
Dude, our atheistic journeys have been virtually identical.
I feel that the comment section is bringing up good points regarding the fact that Sam has some issues coming off as someone who wants to help rather than someone who just wants to be right.
I do not think Sam is a racist however, I think what people are starting to notice is that people are using his arguments as a support for racism. Those people are misguided.
I think Sam is frustersted with the fact that he feels he has to tip toe with his words regarding Islam.
On one hand I understand his frustration on the other hand I do believe he should, no matter how much he dislikes it, try and get his message accross in a peaceful way, and in a way that does not incite hatred.
Finally, I think that the people who are defending Islam are warranted, but at the same time I think we still seriously need to consider its fundamental doctrines in an objective manner. Islam, like, everything else, is not immune from criticism nor should we completely displace the onus on other factors that have contributed to the destabilization of the Middle East. All of these factors need to be considered and thought about.
Best. My english is meh here I apologize.
I liked your point about the need for looking at how we can help, and not just how we can be right. There might be a little too much of the latter with Sam... I don't know
You've made a new fan - my hero-worship of various intellectuals (including the Weinstein brothers and Sam and even Hitch) has been cracking of late. Your breakdown is exactly what I needed to help coalesce why Sam's been bugging me lately. Thank you!
I kinda listen and see these people differently when I 'move on' to another thinker. I feel like I understand them better without that attachment. But that said, it's genuinely enjoyable 'finding' new thinkers haha.
This was an accurate and honest assessment. Nice to see a video form someone that can understand there's often nuance in every situation. I got into Sam Harris from his meditation app, and arguments on the lack of free will. Both of these improved my life massively, and I felt the similar feeling that he could do no wrong. He's so articulate, and he's so bang on on certain things, that you begin to value his opinion on all things. When I started to hear grumblings about his views on Islam, it made me take pause though. Like all organised religions (especially Abrahamic) I'm not a fan, but he seems to take it a step too far, at least on the surface. I'm glad you took the time to quote him honestly, and it helped me get a better gauge on where he stands. Fortunately, I don't need to agree with him on everything to take the bits of his work that improved my life.