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!

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 KZfaq 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 dont need a degree to be a scientist nor need a degree to be anything. The best artists and authors I've seen were engineers. I dont know enough about Murray to defend him here, but attacking his authority is not fair. He doesnt come off as stupid and so Id give good faith to his ideas.

​@@ewanhassall7350like those christian scientists.

​​@@ewanhassall7350don't know who it is. I do know people who are not scientists but are well read on the subject. They don't conduct research but are brilliant at reading the research and synthesizing the information. Like a really good contractor. A guy I grew up with can't driver a nail but he can supervise and organize a build like no ones business. Edit: know of a person would be a better way of stating it. Still they have a PhD but not in field but really good communication skills.

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 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!

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?"

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 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

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!

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.

@@CayeDaws What is wrong with being a fan of somebody? It doesn't mean you believe everything they say, just that maybe they have taught you things and opened your mind to new ideas. There's nothing wrong with that.

@@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.

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

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?

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.

@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.

That is kinda stating the obvious...

@@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.

@Ésteban Universidad Do we? I'm not sure who "we" is or which culture you're talking about. As far as I'm aware there is massive cultural diversity across the planet and your statement simply does not apply to many of them.

@@mauricea.tillman4956 Stans? What the hell is a Stan, lol?!

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?

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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 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.

@@MrBrianSchumacher I used to be a Harris fan but the guy just gets too much stuff wrong. I have most definitely "grown out" of my Sam Harris stage!

I disagree... rather strongly.

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 KZfaq videos or his meditation app, and what was it like?

@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!

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 :-)

👍🏼

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.

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?

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.

All heroes are flawed but you learn something from each of them.

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

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 KZfaq 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 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.

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?

would be nothing new

😂😂 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?

James Heelis he did insult. It’s the first thing he did.

Nah dude, scam harris works on agenda lol. Hes a 🤡

He went on to show the profiling article. Which isn't a claim he is expressing its his view on the issue, he was vague about the details e.g. Weather he fits the mound etc. But this is irrelevant for the article he is writing he is talking about the concept there's no need to go into what variables the airports should use to select, and I imagine this would change over time as the terrorists use different methods. If we select randomly then it's much easier for the terrorists to pass through. I found all of the arguments against sam here very weak.

The entirety of “the moral landscape”

​@@adamsmithintin2803 So there's a little bit of slight of hand here in what Sam Harris is doing. The profiling article could exist for one of two reasons and be pretty valid: to say we should start profiling based on "religion", or to say we shouldn't stop. I think it's obvious that his intent is the second, but digging into it, both are kinda disingenuous, we already attempt to profile based on "religion" so there's no need to argue for starting, and the most relevant and intelligent critiques against profiling based on "religion" are that this form of profiling is never actually carried out on the basis of "religion" because there is no strict list of determining factors marking someone outwardly as Muslim. There is a list of things that will apply to your "average Muslim" but when carried out these trends are obvious to outside observers. Which I argue is a weakness against terrorism. Whenever you assume what your enemy looks like, you are weakened against the enemy that knows what this imagined appearance is. Whenever you cluster "possible terrorist" on a list of physical traits, then any intelligent terrorist is going to look to convert and radicalize someone OUTSIDE of those traits. This is a weakness in profiling based terrorism prevention. So to argue for "religious profiling" you'd need to have a robust list of physical traits that are associated with the religion you are looking for. Sam Harris doesn't have this list, because this list doesn't exist. Whenever you create a rule, you create a pressure to circumvent that rule. So Sam Harris lets this list of traits form in the reader's mind, washing his hands of any implication; he's not arguing to make a list, he's arguing to enforce that list which doesn't exist. Whenever someone accuses him of having a racist list, he can go "woah, I didn't make a list, even if I did, I could be on it", but everyone that already has a list in their head feels more confident in applying it. This is why it's hard to talk about Sam Harris, the questions he chooses to think about have a trend to them, but he himself doesn't want to appear racist, he thinks these are valid important questions, and the only thing holding your average person back from talking about these questions is that they SOUND racist when asked. So he works very hard to not SOUND racist, assuming that is what it means to not BE racist. He doesn't think he's a racist, he just doesn't think to question the sources and methods of IQ data that he looks at or the societal structures that might have caused it (if you look up lead poisoning symptoms it's kinda a perfect overlap with the image of the "black thug"). He doesn't think he's racist, he's just wildly more concerned about the followers of Islam committing terrorism than he is of atheists shooting up schools, or masques... For some reason.

anxez dude you do not need to write this much on KZfaq

@@anxez i dont agree with anything you said, but I read the whole thing if that makes you feel any better ☺

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!

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.

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

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.

Yeah, his views on Israel are pretty disgusting.

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.

You're right. And Sam Harris has made the point many times that other religions and ideologies have gone through similarly destructive periods due to adherents interpreting their beliefs in particularly destructive ways. His focus today is on Islam because, he says, a significant portion of Muslims are interpreting their beliefs in a particularly toxic way at present.

A small detail you missed. Reincarnation wasn't a big talking point during Meiji Period Japan because state Shinto and the emperor cult overtook people's belief in Buddhist values. The government shifted from the old Samurai ways that included types of Buddhism and embraced using the once powerless emperor as a figurehead who in reality still had little power. This era saw a bastardization of Bushido to fit an imperialistic worldview that led to the Sino wars and later world war 2

The thing is Islam can't be reformed .

That’s you not the atheism. I say this as a Christian myself😂

But does he really try to be as anti inflammatory as possible? Also, he has large gaps in understanding. I listened to him on Kyle Kulinski's podcast yesterday, it was an old episode, 2hrs long, and in it he showed a shocking ignorance of US politics. He said that it was the goal of the architects of US foreign policy that the middle east be turned into Nebraska. He thinks they had altruistic motives for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Shockingly ignorant for a man like Harris, a man who has branched out from philosophy into the sociopolitical realm. And his understanding of sociological issues is just as ignorant often times

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

It is a tactic that all flat earthers use.