Why Didn’t you Talk to Bret, Sam?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ม.ค. 2023
- Sam Harris and Bret Weinstein have had a famous friendship. Why didn’t they use it to debate publicly about Covid-19?
Watch the full episode here: • Reimagining the Projec...
Podcast episodes drop every Thursday, 4 PM PT I 7 PM ET
Follow Sam Harris on,
Podcast - bit.ly/3ZrHq6U
Website - www.samharris.org
Follow John Wood Jr. on,
Twitter - bit.ly/3X9gwPn
TH-cam - bit.ly/3vzkF3g
Facebook - bit.ly/3QdWgJT
Instagram - bit.ly/3vDPG66
Website - bit.ly/3Gcf3AE
Follow the Podcast on,
Apple Podcasts - apple.co/3Du7ZON
Spotify - spoti.fi/3DM9SaO
Google Podcast - bit.ly/3GVUjOi
Stitcher - bit.ly/3SSlHk8
Pandora - bit.ly/3DnCQMN
i-Heart Radio - bit.ly/3DOnuCd
Amazon & Audible - amzn.to/3DOv7sn
RSS Feed - feeds.megaphone.fm/unitingame...
#UnitingAmericaPodcast #JohnWoodJr #samharris #braverangels #america #politics #podcast #polarization #depolarization #republican #democrats #liberal #conservative #trump #persuasion
Sam, again letting everyone know how far Bret was ahead of the curve. What's sad is how far Sam is behind the curve. He's totally consumed with saving face that he just spews bullshit.
Hey remember how ahead of the curve Bret was when he went on Rogan and said if everyone took Ivermectin the pandemic would be over. Then everyone taking Ivermectin got covid. Man, that was so smart, he was so right. If only we had listened to him and spent billions of dollars sending people Ivermectin to take daily for like three years.
@@CraigTalbert got covid and the next day started ivermectin thanks to a neighbor, lasted 2 days. The same week hospitalized a loved one that was vaxxed.
Here's the truth it's not right or left, it's admitting when you're wrong. Tons of doctors admitting they were were wrong these days. Hey, I was wrong! I was scared to death for a long time. I was wrong!!!
@@comcoff1728 yes, you are obviously a Bret fan if you think your anecdote means giving the world daily Ivermectin as a prophylaxis would have been justified.
@@CraigTalbert you're crazy. never took ivermectin a day in my life until I got covid. and it helped!
Imagine your whole brand being for years not falling into dogmatic thinking then publicly digging your heels in when you’ve been proven dead wrong for over a year…
That unyielding need for humans to want/need to be right (some more than others).
On what was Sam wrong about in regards to the vaccines?
@@troyzieman7177 Nothing. They continue to follow the narrative of the guy who pushed ivermectin for two years. That's all you need to know.
@@banorris49 it is incredible , billions of doses of the vaccine given out and yet these guys cling to their paranoia.
Greenwald I get , he has always been agenda biased reporter.
Bret Weinstein is a comple mystery too me . I have no idea how he got on this garbage . He was a guy I had a great deal of respect for.
@@troyzieman7177 ...everything
The "friendship" Sam stated here certainly has not stopped him from publicly saying a lot of "something critical" of Bret and also misrepresenting Bret's position and messages. Bret is open to conversation with Sam, but Sam is just too afraid to be challenged with science and data.
The notion that he "didn't want to torch a friend" is straight up saying he wasn't ever going to take Bret seriously. The height of arrogance and hubris. Admitting now that he was wrong is what the true critical thinker would be able to do. Harris isn't strong enough to do so. The funny thing about it is the more he talks, the more his neuroses are revealed and the more his precious career will suffer. Shutting his mouth to do some introspection would be the wisest course, but he can't allow himself to bother with such a thing.
Sam shows a shocking lack of integrity both as a friend and as an intellectual. Makes me wonder what's going on in his meditation practice.
Bret is open to using debaters tactics on a friend to grow his audience.
@@CraigTalbert Sam is running away because he’s a coward and he knows he lost the argument and been wrong over and over and over again
@@Gloria_Smess exactly right. I learned so much from Bret’s podcasts during the pandemic.
Sam who made fame by debating religious figures to 'combat dangerous ideas' suddenly didn't want to debate someone he believed to have dangerous ideas... yeah makes sense
Brett would have humiliated him.
@@dmvbawse4265 given Bret has yet to make a breakthrough on proving ivermectin as a safe and affective preventative to covid strains I doubt it. Of course, he is completely out of his league. He isn't, nor was he ever a virologist. He's a biologist and if you think the curriculum is anywhere near the same you have no Business having an opinion on the subject.
@@firefly9838 you are so wrong about Brett not being able to have an opinion on a virus because he is an evolutionary biologist. His field of biology is the basis for virology and his perspective is worth looking at. What a stupid statement on your part. What worthy credentials does Sam Harris have regaurding vaccines or viruses by your measure? Sam is obviously neurotic on this issue and NOBODY has the right to force another to inject themselves with something they do not want or need to be injected with. The Greatest atrocities of the 20th century were carried out by the so called intellectual class and scientists.
@@roryteal5940 my father has a masters in Evolutionary biology. I know what the curriculum is. I was alive when he was getting that degree. If you think that has anything to do with vaccines or medicine... that shows just how much you don't know to me. Which is why I'm not going to continue this conversation. If you want to ignore CDC guidelines on ivermectin be my guest. Just know, I've seen people die from getting the dosage wrong. Ivermectin is a neurotoxin. Did you know that? It's used in incredibly specific and small cases. Across the United States there have been thousands of calls to poison control over this specific drug, and people taking it irresponsibly. You have been conned. I have no vested interest, and I get nothing from lying to you.
He also made fraudulent claims in his big speeches in order to 'win' debates.
Not talking to Bret publicly was fair. Misrepresenting him (intentionally, in my opinion) was not.
nothing sam said was misrepresentation.
bret weinstein literally said that covid vaccines were "crime of the century"
dude found fame that he was looking for.
@@davorrudovic9580 Even if you find one claim that is represented accurately (and you either misstated this one or Sam did), it doesn't mean all claims are represented accurately. Don't be as braindead as Sam.
it wasnt fair unless he admits his opinions were completely wrong
What misrepresentation are you referring to?
@@ManicMindTrick Go to the full podcast and read the pinned comment.
Sam showing what a sellout hè really is.
I used to admire his desire to debate "dangerous ideas", but he has really made himself look stupid and cowardly with his refusal to engage in a perspective that he had already written off and belittled, and now the emerging data is falling on Bret's perspective, and it looks like the man who seemed to be fairly free of ego, might have a much bigger one than we all first imagined.
Sell-out for what? It's not like he is getting paid to shill the vaccine.
I would believe Bret way before a very confused, narcissistic Sam Harris. That is all.
Don't be like my cousin. He bought into the ivermectin crap. Took the wrong dosage and strain and it killed him. Bret encouraging his base what's best when he's not their doctor or virologist is wrong. It has consequences. He's way out of his depth and it's gotten people killed. Maybe you should reflect on that a little. Sam is a narcissist sometimes, however he also happens to be correct in his skepticism. People will be Skeptical of the mainstream medicine and that's fine. I get it. However they turn around and refuse to use an once of that skepticism towards Bret. They treat what he says as gospel. He's a nice guy sure, doesn't mean he's thought of every scenario and side effect. Tread carefully my friend.
ivermectin isnt fringe or wierd sam, its been around for along time and used in quite a few applications. ya, it might be better to not debate bret.
Ivermectin doesn’t fit Harris’s narrative. Silly, silly, plebs believing in voodoo medicine. Shut up and take your shot, and don’t ask questions like a good lab rat. His arrogance is maddening.😡
i think he meant specifically in its use for covid treatment.
@@ImHeadshotSniper it was used to treat the original sars, among many other viral infections and is known to be safe. There is a paper in nature describing its precious viral applications. mRNA vaccines had literally never been used is humans until COVID, were rushed through trials skipping years of safety precautions.
@@anthonythompson1677 i can't find any information at all actually regarding it being used to treat the original sars, but it is primarily known for anti-parasitic use.
i can however find that for SARS-Cov-2 (COVID 19), it was in fact demonstrated to have anti-viral effects against it in-vitro by NCBI in 2020. nobody was hiding this, and this was the exact reason that people began pushing for its potential use in treating covid which on its own was completely logical.
the very rational issue began when we had to wait to see how ivermectin works through digestion (wait for studies and testing). just because ivermectin had anti-viral effects in vitro (in a petri dish) did not necessarily confirm that consuming it into your body will have those same anti-viral effects against your infected body.
while i agree that the vaccine is currently very unneccesary with more possible downsides in general such as requiring boosting and possible real negative effects for certain people, i do think that they at least pretended to take the scientific approach of doing tests and studies to see how long.
and the only reason i said pretended to take the scientific approach is because i believe that with such a strict time limitation on the development of a vaccine for a rapidly spreading virus with conclusive studies and testing, it seemed kind of like a big ask.
of course while i don't think there is a conspiracy behind vaccines, i did think that this one was very incomplete and experimental compared to how we treated other diseases.
also while people like Joe Rogan certainly did not tell people to take the horse version of ivermectin as he certainly was slandered by the liberal extemist CNN network, i literally knew people directly in my small ass Canadian city that took that shit because they're retarded farmers and had access to animal medicine, and while Joe Rogan can't be directly to blame, i assure that the farmer would have had no idea what ivermectin was if Joe hadn't mentioned it on his (entertainment) podcast, though once again i don't blame Joe Rogan, i just blame the individuals themselves for being so stupid.
this shit clearly bandwagoned off the rails before any confirmation of any real functional benefit of consuming it was ever concluded (and it still isn't concluded as far as i've been able to research), and i personally feel that ignoring that is a huge issue.
and finally i just wanted to bring up the idea that just because someone comes to a correct conclusion based on false or lacking information, does not make them right, because they didn't understand why they're right. it very simply means that they made a gamble on someone elses judgement.
while it might sound counter-intuitive, consider the idea of someone who knows that when water gets cold it solidifies into ice. someone "more" right would be someone who knows that when the water gets cold, it doesn't simply solidify into ice, but actually slows down the molecules in the water and get closer together.
to be fair, there is definitely a bit of a gamble on the judgement of those who teach us something like that before we ever experimentally conclude it ourselves which sometimes even get proven wrong later on, but that is the imperfectly perfect goal of science.
@@UlyssesDrax yep..
Sam has perverted authenticity in his pursuit of recognition. Bret is the sanity that sam is searching for.
Interesting opinion, random dude.
Nice vague comment that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
@@AlanDantes76 🤓
How does a focus on philosophy qualify one to condescend about biology to a biologist who's been engrossed in the field for decades? If one claims to know more about a subject of a PhD researcher's field, then I think brushing aside well-researched thought as a bee in a bonnet is woefully insufficient.
Appeal to authority much?
@@dawidvanstraaten At some point, God and man are not the same thing and we should be humble enough in our knowledge to admit as much. If authority is earned, then it should be respected whether they're in agreement on a topic or not.
@@dawidvanstraaten “appeal to authority much 😏” says the guy siding with literally every form of authority on this planet for the last three years, in an attempt to discredit a man who was attacked by every institution of authority until his ultimate vindication against every one of those institutions. Well done
Both of them have a PhD in Biological Sciences neither of them chose to work in the field.
Bret is an evolutionary biologist, while sam has a phd in neuroscience.
They seem to be about equally qualified on the topic to me, that is - way more than the average person, but still not very qualified.
To add to this, I watched one of Bret's earlier videos on the topic, where he was just stumbling his way poorly through basic immunology, trying to pull out some conclusions, while I was studying immunology for an exam in med school.
Sam: Bret isn't qualified to talk about this.
Also Sam: Isn't even qualified enough to comment on Bret's qualifications.
I really don't need to get intellectual about Sam Harris. Not any more. His bias makes him an absolute clown, straight out the 🤡🗺Ministry of Clownthink. 🤡🗺
Sam isn't criticizing Bret's "qualifications" as a biologist, so if that's what you're trying to say, you're missing the point. Are you saying that Sam is criticizing Bret's lack of evidence for his views, but doesn't have good evidence himself? If that's what you're saying, then neither have any long term data about covid.
@@TheKlutchsletsplays no, to my knowledge he's specifically said that Bret isn't qualified to talk about the issue.
HhhAa😂😂😂 lmfao
@julian marx the point is that I would be happy to listen to someone more qualified than Bret challenge him on the basis of qualifications. If Sam is going to challenge Bret, he needs to bring an argument. In fact even someone more qualified than Bret needs to bring an argument to the table. People are free to follow the authorities they trust, because we can't all be experts. But there has been far too much censorship and far too little counter argument. Don't bother replying because I won't continue this conversation with someone who thinks my post here has anything to do with Q'anon or cultish behavior. You're delusional or dishonest or assume that I am. I do not engage with anyone on those terms.
If in doubt, the measure of the more righteous position is its willingess to subject itself to debate in the public square. After all, isn't that in essence what separates science from dogma?
Not entirely. If someone is spewing QAnon level crazy then why would you legitimize them by giving…
@@dogecoin1692 You would not be legitimising them but rather fullfilling your obligation to the purpose of a public square as the source of trust, faith and hence peace.
If it's such a crazy conspiracy then it wouldn't be hard to debunk.. Doesn't justify not having the debate.
@@cbot3400 so by your logic flat earth is valid
@@dogecoin1692no.
Brett is a biologist, Sam is not. There could have been much value in that conversation, and the reactions of people like Sam made me (and apparently many others) lose all trust in them, the vaccines, the CDC, etc.
I’m adult human. Once you lie to me, I’m done listening. And they have lied, consistently, throughout the entire pandemic. It was not the proper role of any of those people to decide which scientists were allowed to have an opinion.
Sam seems fine with suggesting he knows more about hearts than Peter McCullough. Whether McCullough is correct or not, his opinions should not have been silenced, and all of those who still insist on defending that behavior are simply digging their credibility hole deeper by the day.
Seeing Sam gaslight with sarcasm and name calling is very sad. That's been done to him over and over.
This is to let Sam Harris know that Brett has officially dropped the debate "gauntlet". Sam has been served!
He’ll never take that invitation.
damn the fall of Sam Harris has been sad, never seen him so afraid to defend his positions. bret’s been making a lot of sense, and sam’s been wrong about literally everything to do with COVID
Agree up to one point: he didn‘t fall. He was always down there.
His interview with Triggernometry did it for me. Maybe he'll come around, but his debate with Noam Chomsky was also painful.
Name one specific thing Sam’s been wrong about on Covid. One. I’m waiting.
@@mikebasketball11 They won't, they can't. It's all feels and vibes. "We were lied to by someone about something, someone told us."
Sam is a pharma shill, he needs to stick to bashing religion. I guy who's thing is logic can't even admit he is wrong
No matter how much knowledge a person has, clinging to preconceived ideas will make them get it wrong.
Very true and observable all around.
Sam wont debate Bret but talk behind his back 🤡
Just remember folks, it's not Sam's fault that he's devolved into such a half-hearted thinker since - according to him - free will doesn't exist. And assuming this is the case, how can he possibly prevent those synapses in his brain from firing in such a manner which makes him look stupid?!
I love this! 😂
This comment wins! 🤣
Being an arrogant biased fool is your DESTINY Sam!
Embrace it!
🤡🗺And embrace it he has.🤡🗺
I've probably read comments like this one a dozen times now, and I'm not sure I get the joke exactly. Are you claiming free will DOES exist?
@@DiogenesNephew It doesn't matter: the point is to make fun of Sam, who has gone nuts from Trumpcovax. Goes to show anyone can be biased & illogical & ludicrous... so maybe it does argue against Free Will a little...
The real question is why anyone thought Sam wouldn’t behave like an asshole given that he drips self-identified superiority and always has
Sam has 3 choices
1) debate Bret (and look like a fool)
2) keep slander Bret (and look like a fool)
3) admit you are wrong
(And look like a fool)
Pure intellectual jealousy. Sam Harris simply lacks Bret's ability to think critically & without bias.
Sam's instability lately if a horrific advertisement for his waking up app.
True 😂
It was so important that I had to challenge a friend publicly, but not important enough to have a 2 side conversation, especially as I seem to be more wrong as time goes forward.
Sam is eventually going to realize that he was wrong but I doubt he will ever admit it.
He can never admit it now so will probably just become a modern day establishment shill
Projection of zealotry much...
If Brett’s ideas are so fringe wouldn’t you expect Sam to be able to refute them with ease??
It’s clearly difficult for Sam to publicly admit he’s wrong as evidenced by the fact that he refuses to talk with Bret in a public conversation.
Sam essentially accuses Bret of being irresponsible for speaking out against against the Covid vaccines (it’s looking like Bret was/is correct in doing so) and advocating the use of ivermectin (Sam demonstrated his ignorance about ivermectin because it’s fairly common knowledge that ivermectin has been safe, inexpensive and effective and regularly used in several countries making Bret correct again). Sam, the truth is that YOURE THE IRRESPONSIBLE ONE FOR INSISTING THAT BRET IS WRONG THUS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO NOT LISTEN TO HIM THUS PUTTING THEM IN DANGER! Sam, you are way out of line to the point that I’d even call you an evil egomaniac. You owe Bret an apology and you owe those of us who (formerly) followed you an apology and a promise to tell the truth , keep your mouth shut when you don’t know what you’re talking about or investigate until you do understand the subject at hand and to mitigate your overblown ego problems in the future.
Bret went on Rogan and said if everyone took Ivermectin the pandemic would end. People taking Ivermectin still got covid. Bret was wrong.
He's basically incapable of saying he was wrong.
Because he can not admit he was wrong!
😂 arrogance is blind. Rough watching Sam’s spiral down.
Sam works so hard to maintain the illusion of being an impeccable thinker and the smartest guy in the room. He does this by carefully keeping to his own lane….evangelizing atheism. As long as you have your toolbox of canned answers, you never have to concede anything. With Covid, he carelessly swerved out of his lane and right into Bret’s. For the first time, he faces the prospect of having to do what he’s constitutionally incapable of….admitting he got something wrong. So he cowers away from the debate with the weasely excuse that the whole subject is beneath him, and suggesting he’s somehow the bigger man by mercifully sparing Bret the humiliation of a public “torching”.
I like your interview style. Just a side note, man. It really is okay to let Sam take a breath. You don't need to spend time editing out the microsecond he breathes.
It's fine.
Really.
The absolute efficacy of the vaccine is less than 1%, the relative efficacy was 95%. What is Sam not getting here? Does he not know the difference between relative and absolute efficacy?
Sam doesn't care. He doesn't care about truth or reason. He is a left wing propagandist.
Absolute efficacy is not a useful statistic during a pandemic.
@@Pumbear Why do you think it's not useful?
@@nova4005
Because it is heavily influenced by the period in which it is measured. The figure only says if a measure is relevant at that time, rather than relevant in general. During a pandemic there is a constant change in risk, outbreaks spiking the momentary risk up while lockdowns drastically diminishing it. This makes it pointless to determine absolute risk since it's constantly shifting. Relative risk tells you how a measure will perform in general, and 95% reduction is pretty amazing.
Now I take it you disagree so I would like to ask you to explain how absolute risk reduction isn't pointless based on the way it is calculated compared to relative risk reduction.
@@Pumbear thanks for your response. Both absolute and relative risk reduction comes from Phizer's randomized placebo trial. That's where risk reductions are determined with a drug - in a trial. So perhaps you don't understand what those terms really mean since you're talking about them in the population. The 95% efficacy rate came from Pfizer's phase 1 trial. There were about 22,000 people in the vaccine group and the placebo group, so there were forty four thousand people total in the trial. 170 people out of 44,000 got PCR positive symptomatic covid. That's your absolute risk - 170 illnesses out of 44,000 people. That's 0.3% risk of getting symptomatic covid . Out of 170 ill people, 162 where in the placebo arm and eight were in the vaccine arm. The relative risk reduction is the difference between 8 and 162 people. So there is a 95% reduction in 0.3% risk, which brings the risk down to 0.285%. You can see how important it is to know the absolute risk, and that's let's studies and doctors normally talk about for obvious reasons. The New York Times and the British medical journal spoke about the 95% risk reduction being relative, just 170 people ill. But corporate media didn't let people know the difference.
He was happy to debate Cenk for 3 hours because he knew he had the upper hand on the issue. He isn't willing to debate Bret because he knows Bret has the upper hand. So he just slanders him from a distance. What a fall from grace for this formerly respectable man
This Sam Harris is just the worse and people are only know figuring it out. The good news is he's tone deaf and appears to have 0 EQ about this topic so he keeps showing his true colors. Hopefully this way people will stop defending his lunacy and take him as he is.
Having a bee in your bonnet is better than a bat in your belfry.
Or clots everywhere.
Lefty talking point. Not defending your position due to the fear of giving the other side validity. Then tell me Sam, how does one know they are wrong without defending your position? You have to do that in any academic pursuit. You don’t just get a PhD without a defense.
When Sam put Ben Aflac in his place, I was impressed. In my opinion, history will bring clarity to Sam and he will recognize that cognitive bias got the best of him. All of us at any time can fall into the trap of tribalism, and not be able to see it, for many seasons.
Sam is now a lunatic.
We used to call it:
“Articulate incompetence”
Wait.....? Why did it seem that Sam was being edited while he spoke?
was there a reason for over 30 video edits ? Every shot seemed like it was a snippet . Would it be safe to say that there is a chance both persons speaking in this video could be taken out of context? Does anyone have the beginning to end analysis of this dialogue?
ICD 10 Y59 from two Pfz shots with HZO and neurological damage even after 9 months of last shot.
I have an autism diagnosis, last psychiatrist I met started crying in the middle of our first session because the Pfz shot killed one of his elderly patients, first herpes-zoster flare 4 days after the pfz shot. I told my story and the guy cried like a baby.
lol a psychiatrist cried because a patient died?
I call BS on that one. I'm a Swedish medical doctor and it's completely unheard of here that doctors cry when their patients die or suffer. You lose that type of sensitivity already in medical school.
@@gulanhem9495 I very sorry you became robots.
@@LNVACVAC
It's normal, it's a normal psychological reaction. You cannot avoid desensitization. You get a proffessional relationship with the emotions of patients.
@@gulanhem9495 It seems you are ignoring strong tendencies are not rules.
@@LNVACVAC
Could you elaborate?
In a time when people wanted a healthy conversation between two opposite narratives to gain understanding, he wouldn't even consider it because such a conversation would be "too dangerous."
Makes sense to me.
I’m a fan of both.
Don’t expect either to be infallible saints.
“The human animal has a hard time dealing with feelings of inferiority. In the face of superior skill, talent, or power, we are often disturbed and ill at ease; *this is because most of us have an inflated sense of ourselves, and when we meet people who surpass us they make it clear to us that we are in fact mediocre, or at least not as brilliant as we thought. This disturbance in our self-image cannot last long without stirring up ugly emotions.* At first we feel envy: If only we had the quality or skill of the superior person, we would be happy. But envy brings us neither comfort nor any closer to equality. Nor can we admit to feeling it, for it is frowned upon socially-to show envy is to admit to feeling inferior. To close friends, we may confess our secret unrealized desires, but we will never confess to feeling envy. So it goes underground. *We disguise it in many ways, like finding grounds to criticize the person who makes us feel it. He may be smarter than I am, we say, but he has no morals or conscience.* Or he may have more power, but that’s because he cheats. If we do not slander him, perhaps we praise him excessively-another one of envy’s disguises.”
Law 46
‘The 48 Laws of Power’
by Robert Green
I believe many of the commenters regarding Sam fall victims of envy towards him.
We are just average people shouting opinions from the sidelines. It’s important, I think, to keep that in mind.
Sam's sentences are filled with a lot of fluff. I never noticed it until that triggernometry interview
if only Hitch were alive to remind sam who he once was
Are u sure ? You think hitch didn't fall out with people too ?? Hitch would have hated the IDW
Sam harris is so wrong here and will never admit it
Yes, that whole lab leak hypothesis was very fringe too, and couldn't be dignified with a debate either, right Sam?
When one of our good friends has an idea that may seem outlandish, we should at least be able to hear them out and understand where they are coming from. But to dismiss them outright because their claim *seems* outlandish, that just seems like someone who is likely a religious zealot, a shitty friend or both. And clearly Brett’s position stood the test of time but Sam’s ego is preventing him from seeing that.
Bret's approach was vindicated even at the time because his point was caution. This was a novel technology being mass-deployed during a pandemic. This had never been done before and it was obvious that the drug companies and corporate press narrative about "safe and effective" was a lie. Even if the drug companies turned out to be correct, Bret's approach still would have been correct given what was known at the time.
Sam was very wrong then. Sam is very wrong now.
@@user-gy1pu3gq3d well said.
I understand Sam though. It's a complicated thing when your friend says what he wants and both of ur stances are not compatible and you feel the need to call it out but don't want to expense energy on publicly butting heads with a friend. It's draining, and calling Bret out (since he is the one making claims against the vaccines) is the most painful yet necessary thing to do if you care about your stance too. So.. yeah. That's that. I hope they talk about this privately and casually tho.. we here on the internet actually doesn't care about the dynamic of their friendship, we just want to see the better argument. Funny thing is Bret wants it too and he is willing to stake any friendship.. welp that's that too. Lol. It's complicated when it touches on the personal side, not just on the argumentative side.
lots of cuts here, why is this so edited? The running transcript is also used in a pointed way for no apparent reason other than to annoy. Very sad state for both John woods and Sam to have allowed whatever this nightmare is to go public.
Sam won't debate him in public because he knows Bret is right and will make him look like a fool. Not that he needs help doing that regarding Covid.
On what basis does "fringe" mean unworthy of engagement? Wasn't the darkweb that he started with Brett "fringe"? And wasn't the belief that the earth moved around the sun at one point " fringe"?
Sam seems to have a bee in his own bonnet.
Sam is the most prideful, dishonest man in the intellectual public sphere.
Kinda cheap this is perfect for a debate.... But Sam is clearly out his league on this one .
to dignify it with a debate seemed to -play into the responsibility of it- leave me open to getting my clock cleaned.
Doesn't seem like Bret was the one with a bee in his bonnet. Sam wanted to prove he was right, Bret wanted to warn people of a potential harm. Who's the A-Hole in this situation.
Amazing that he said he didn't want to "torch" a friend publicly. Suggesting he's got all the right, unquestionable answers.
Bret, all the way thru this, has spoken out, when he's been wrong, amended his views dependent upon new findings, etc.
That seems more intellectually honest & open, that Sam has been.
Who in this clip, comes of as rather arrogant & dismissive.
I don't know what's happened to Sam's approach & thought processes in recent years.
Every so often, he shows glimpses of himself, as exactly the sort of person - that previously - he'd have taken to task.
I feel like Brett and Heather are more professionally qualified to breakdown research papers on medical matters than Sam is. Sam seems to know a lot about ideologies, unfortunately from the inside though, where he's absolutely trapped in one. You could even say to an almost 'religious' degree.
Glad to see Sam fully exposed. Why did he sell out so hard?
It‘s sad to see Sam has gone from promoting the importance of conversations and to now talking „behind the back“ of Brett and Jay Bhattachary. It‘s just cowardly.
He’d argue it’s not that sad considering North Korean leaders and that German deceased guy 🤮
Sam has gone off the deep end. It's fringe for Sam but he's clearly not checked himself.
Harris didn’t “torch” Bret- my esteem of Bret Weinstein has grown because of his COVID podcasts, and the guests he brought on. Grow some humility for God’s sake.🙄
Ah, the old "I don't want to dignify the idea by debating it" deflection!
It sounds like Sam is saying that Brett's opinions are so ridiculous and irresponsible as not to be worthy of debate. Am I missing something?
Sam is done. Bye.
Sam, debate him on it like a man then. If you're so confident that it's outlandish, stand behind it. I respect the hell out of you but this is cowardice.
But Sam… you were wrong. Stop doubling down and trying to say if you were right, you would’ve been right.
and please don’t keep jabbin - it’ll make that heart erupt like a volcano
I think it's a large ego that's preventing a discourse with Bret. It's quite idiotic to say that Bret's argument was so outlandish, that's why you wouldn't countenance a discussion, that's pathetic. Bret is no where near a tin foil hat conspiracist he's a professional..
Sam… you were wrong 🙁
I love how bret admitted that ivermectin didn't work in covid instead of doubling down on it oh wait...
If it was only Bret that disagreed with Sam he might have a point.
Sam is at odds with ome of his closest friends, companions and co-authors. When so many of those who you have collaborated with you in the past are saying something different, odds are YOUR the one who is wrong
Wasn't irresponsible at all Sam! It's been proven effective. You just chose not to believe it at all. Your mistake!
I hope Sam reads these comments. I am going to go listen to Bret right now. I will scroll in disgust every time I see Sam from now on.
Dude is an automaton. He looks confused by his own words.
What Sam is saying here is that it would be irresponsible to debate Bret on points that are so fringe, because a debate would mean that Bret’s points aren’t fringe. This would be very dangerous.
Now, where have I heard this argument before? 🤔oh right, left wing politics during the Trump era
Damn, that's cold af
Because Sam has too fragile of an ego and isn't, frankly, wise enough to recognize his own failure.
No one was demanding a DEBATE, we ONLY wanted them to talk to each other in whatever forum, including NO forum, that they could agree upon so they could arrive at a consensus. We all know Bret wanted to talk, but Sam did not. Imho it's all Sam's fault and I don't even understand what Sam was trying to convey in this short video. It sound pretty mealy-mouthed to me. Meanwhile Bret continues on his long and arduous path towards more or less *complete* vindication.
Smartest npc on the block
Sam is blackmailed or something. It fn hurts to listen.
Your question was a little verbose lmao. I almost thought you were trolling
Sam is actually Ellen DeGeneres incognito
I never thought I'd be this disappointed in Sam Harris......
Sam just doubling down on how wrong he was, his mightier than thou attitude is shameful.
How is it not entertainment if everyone wants it
Sam is one of those people who thinks he's smarter and better than everyone els! The worst thing about him is he has no personality!
Why do you cut out every split second of pause? It is unnatural.
This logic is baffling to me. It's basically
"I respect Bret Weinstein as an intellectual but I'm not willing to take his opinion and argument on this subject seriously and have a debate about it, because I'm so right and he's so wrong that it doesn't even need to be discussed"
Care to explain why it's "fringe" Sam?
"Seemed so fringe" Those words coming from the mind of a supposedly powerful intellect. Smh
Not sure how I ended up here, but the comment section is really surprising. I had no idea there were so many people who took Bret this seriously.
I listened to his podcast a lot for the first couple months of the pandemic until I realized he’s just a bag of hot air.
why is bret a bag of hot air ?
can you explain why?
@@panchol7796 He's one of those people who talks a lot without saying much. He's also very good at sounding smart on topics he doesn't know very well.
you sound like a bag of hot air
@@DarkEyedJunko Hello. Can you please give some examples. Thank you
I’m a little surprised too. And honestly disappointed. Brett is often a nearly incoherent word salad.
I used to be such a big fan of Sam, but even in his response here of "It 'SEEMED' so fringe to me that it 'SEEMED' not worth entertaining" is just such a cowardly way of responding to a position that if it 'SEEMED' to be on shaky ground he could have blown it out the water with his "superior" knowledge. 'SEEMED' means you don't know Sam. It means there's room for doubt or that you could be proven wrong, so why nor engage in an adult debate. I think Sam has a much bigger ego than he appears to have and is worried about looking like the one whose perspective is based on shaky ground.
Not "dignifying" a disagreement with offering a good faith dialectic is just not on. Sam is a guy who has debated religious leaders, it seems obvious to me that there is no God, do I therefore wish he hadn't had those debates? No! Because the public practice of open air reasoning and rhetoric is enlightening!
What nonsense.... he can't admit he was wrong.... and coming from a guy who wrote a book on why it is wrong to lie.
New Subscriber here, I really blv Sam Harris is a jackass! Having moral convictions while trying to navigate around everyday life makes it difficult sometimes for me to go about my business, do my job or even be creative. Tho as a musician unable to ignore the world falling apart around me i admit i get plenty of inspiration for new material, now available for casters of pods, particularly those exploring truths and bringing them to light such as this one!
Hahaha, he was afraid of embarrassing Weinstein, was he?
It's literally all Sam's fault. I suggest he goes on another silent retreat.
Yeah i remember the first time he started talking about brett on his show. was just a total smear job.. brett's response was really diplomatic but Sam just kept on throwing shade.
@@ticklegolems6793 Yeahh man, it's sort of sad really :/ I hope Sam gets better soon.