Former Neo-Nazi: Peterson, Harris & Molyneux Are Part of the Problem
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 ต.ค. 2024
- --The conclusion to our interview with Christian Piccioloni, Founder of the Free Radicals Project, host of Breaking Hate on MSNBC, author of White American Youth, and former white supremacist
-Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
-Become a Patron: / davidpakmanshow
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-Follow David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-Follow the show on Instagram: / davidpakmanshow
-Discuss on our subreddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on August 16, 2018
I don't know enough about Peterson & Molyneux to comment.
But to claim that Harris is a white identity type of guy is plain wrong.
You may be thinking of someone else. From his first book in early 2000s he has said the US needs a Manhattan type project to get off oil so we don't have to be hostage to Saudi Arabia for oil. He doesn't like identity politics but consistently says white identity politics is the worst. He is for the legalization of drugs. He wasn't for or against the Iraq war leading up to it and knows it was a huge fuck up. He isn't a neoconservative and knows the US isn't good at nation building. Does that make him a gateway to white supremacy?
He is 100% a racist
It sounded to me that he was claiming that harris is a useful idiot for them not that he is one himself.
actually, Black Death, there are a number of things I disagree with Harris. I don't agree with his anti-profiling position. His position that phones should have an backdoor entrance for law enforcement. I agreed with Sean Carroll who said he backdoors his metaethics to declare well being is the best ethical system. However, I think accusations that he is a gateway to white supremacy is baseless. Christian is doing exactly what I hate the far left is known for doing. Jumping to making accusations and not really looking at what Harris has been really saying.
I mean Harris says he hates all id politics but white identity politics is the worst. Harris consistently calls for the US to strive for equal opportunity. He had Christian on the show to discuss what attracted him to join and leave a neo-nazi type group. He always says he is critical of Islam but he is against bigotry towards Muslims. He has and supports the work of people like a liberal Muslim like Maajid Nawaz and Sarah Haider who is an ex-Muslim who also is critical of Islam and is not bigoted towards Muslims. He is going to be on the Secular Jihadist show who are ex-Muslims who want to create a new middle. I don't see that as dog whistles for the white identity crowd.
I know Sam Harris is an atheist and I agree with him on most of the stuff regarding religions. On everything else I don’t know what his views are. Same for Christopher Hitchen I agree with him on separation of church and state but on Middle East he was dead wrong or so purposely naive.
Lumping Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Stephan Molyneux into the same category is like declaring Star Wars, The Count of Monte Christo, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to be the same genre of film.
EXACTLY!!!! They are all quite different, and I would say Molyneux is by far the furthest right and least like Sam and Jordan. Not even in the same boat.
I think what he actually said is that they are all contributing to the wave of white nationalism, or at least validating the fears that white nationalists feel. They may occupy different spheres of academia or media, but the underlying tone of their arguments are all sending the same message. You're conflating genre with theme. Kurosawa and Shakespeare worked in different mediums, but that doesn't change the fact that Throne of Blood is a samurai version of Macbeth. Different genre. Same theme.
"Peterson, Harris & Molyneux Are Part of the Problem"
He even says that Molyneux is different than the other two.
Basically he and David are not saying that their parts are equal in size or method, so your analogy serves as a strawman.
YensR Exactly. This is a perfect example of building a straw man and tackling it. No one said they were alike.
Ok I’m saying they are in that they’re all assholes. :)
I haven't laughed so hard in a long time. Thank you. 😂
Out of the three, I see Molyneux as the most dangerous. What he does is actually insidious.
They even admit he's on their side. Millenial Woes in a conversation with Bre Faucheux even said: Stefan basically is alt-right at this point, he just can't say it.
3rdCoastAlliance oohhhh insidious!? Did you feel good about yourself for using that word?
3rdCoastAlliance How so? Please give an example.
^ How so ? LOL...Do some investigating on your own if you wanna know. Jesus.... you have all the info at your fingertips and you're asking for examples ?
@sanniyasin....Do you even know what "insidious" means? Unlike you, the OP can use the English language to full affect.
Sam Harris has nothing to do with white nationalism.
except for his race realism talking points. he does a great job maintaining plausible deniability though, gotta give him that
Nor does peterson. I can't talk about molyneux as i don't know his views all that well. But this video is a joke.
He is a devout anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, and a fascist pretending to be a sceptic and a biological professor. He supports Israel, apologetic to Nazi Germany, flirts with Social Darwinism and Eugenics, downplays the genocide in Gaza, etc.
Why is sam Harris continually being smeared as if he is some white nationalist peddling conspiracies? Why can't anyone actually address anything wrong he has said?
Mentioning him in the same light as Molyneux is nothing but laziness.
Legitimizing the dubious research done by Charles Murray, while not being something wrong that he said, illustrates Harris's misuse of his platform. And the aftermath with Ezra was just pitiful...
because he is, and i have to you many times. stop acting in bad faith
Artful Dodger I may be misremembering, if I am please correct me, but isn’t Murray’s conclusion that these differences in IQ are largely biological?
The Bell Curve isn't just a presentation of the data. They make the conclusion that the differences are largely genetic and that America should implement social/economic policies that will destroy the lives of minorities and in some cases lead to their deaths. To say it's just a benign presentation of the facts shows either a complete ignorance of the book and why it's a problem or of some ulterior motive.
If you want to read why Charles Murray is a racist, here's a piece from Nathan J. Robinson at Current Affairs that makes a great case for that claim: www.currentaffairs.org/2017/07/why-is-charles-murray-odious
Molyneux ABSOLUTELY. Peterson...it's an stretch to call that, but some of his ideas do push bigotry but not really straight out white supremacy. Harris...NO, just no. Come on, it is really lazy to group these 3 together.
NO, just no. Grouping them together is accurate.
Exactly my thought on his comments too.
what you correctly observe is the slippery slope they put everyone on. It will become more and more extreme. Soon everyone righht of Karl Marx will be called a Nazi. We have to come to our senses and push back against these untruths.
Sez B yes, that makes him part of the problem.
Pepe Silvia he doesn't group them together. He says Molyneuax is in a different league.
But Peterson and Harris are gateway drugs and yes I meet very bigoted people on Sam Harris videos
I don't really feel like Sam belongs on that list
why? is promoting race and IQ pseudoscience not racist?
Psycho Lefty says a vile white supremacist zio fascist
Andrew Welder
Actually, you’re the racist. See how easy that is? I don’t have to have any argument or supporting evidence; I can just dismiss you and feel good about myself. That’s a pretty sweet deal. How do I join your cult?
@anakides
Did he not just say "promoting race and IQ pseudoscience"? Are you presuming that race realism or scientific racism is valid?
You are right, saying he is correct does however.
How did Sam Harris get looped into this?
Philip Whitmarsh because picciolini and Sam had a tiff. David’s capitalizing on a misunderstanding
twitter.com/samharrisorg/status/994617952400896005 the guy was talking out of his ass on Sam's podcast so Sam took it down for a while.
Because resons
He dog whistles same as the rest of them. You just don't hear it because you aren't racist and aren't familiar enough with them or their ideas to hear it.
By platforming Charles Murray, for one. Calling him "the most unfairly maligned academic of our lifetime." That was a fucking whopper.
I greatly respect this man for crawling out of those deep trenches of fear and hatred and now working to combat them. People who have been attracted to hatred tend to listen much better to someone who's been through it directly. Most of the people I've seen who are involved in hate crimes were violently abused at home, as kids. I don't excuse their hatred toward anyone; but yes, they need to find a way out of their pain and rage, for the sake of all of us.
Yes he's so brave to call out harris and peterson who have absolutely nothing to do with white nationalism. But I heard msnbc somewhere so honestly I'm not surprised lol, talk about one extreme to the other!
Stop pulling Harris into this crap, people!
Sammy would be horrified to be bundled into the same group as Moly.
Harris does it to himself...
Sam Harris No, Peterson maybe and Molyneux most definitely.
Conquering Lion No, didn't you see Molyneux's great talks in Australia? Just straw man him, though.
Peterson definitely
^This
Molyneux? yes. the other two? I don't think so.
peterson is just a sophisticated version of Molyneux
did you watch the video? he specifically goes over why he groups in harris
ayy lmao-
and he's wrong. I used to be a far right libertarian and it was specifically due to people like Christian that i was in an echo chamber because i felt as though all people from the left were these race baiting sjw types, calling everyone nazi's or useful idiots to the nazi movement in his case. In the long run, i assure you, this type of absurdity, calling someone like charles Murray a nazi or even a racist, is doing more harm than good.
Murray never suggested that the difference in IQ between races was due to genetics. It takes up a whopping paragraph in his book and murray has also said that we need to diminish the role of IQ in our society.
Sam has even stated that we shouldn't even look at differences in race and IQ, but even if you look at the results, you can't point to them as evidence of white supremacy because Jews and asians and blacks from west India have higher scores than whites
Molyneux? Yes. The other two? Also yes. Just because it's not as obvious, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Xavier Cortinaz I agree but I'd like to see some reasons to support your claim. I haven't watched a lot of Harris lately but Molyneux eclipses him completely in white nationalist talking points.
I dont really see that Sam Harris should be on the list. I have a few really minor axes to grind with him but nothing as significant as the other two. On top of that i’m no Peterson fan but i think there’s a pretty big gulf between him and that lunatic stefan.
So constantly peddling the Bell Curve is not enough?
MFJon777 That indeed is one of the two main axes. But i wouldn’t say it’s constant. Besides personally the bell curve has provided a pretty good jump off point to point out how dumb peoples perception of race is. But even if it was constant peddling of the bell curve. I think id rank that as being not nearly as bad as the mental cult stefan runs or whatever in the fuck Jordan Petersons doing.
Rains tv I know you werent talking to me but i hope you dont mind if i reply. So the thing for me was that he didnt point out that ‘race’ as talked about in the book and as it is used in common parlance. Is nothing like race in terms of its actual genetic footprint that points to the specific locale where youre from. I mean if you take the U.K for example,obviously a pretty tiny patch of land, there are five races here that have been here for varying amounts of time which you’d consider native and that number increases when you go backwards (not like exponentially but you have your celts and other historic groups which would have had racial markers but are now obviously extinct) and that to me just didnt seem to be something one gleaned from the book. And the implication of that is that most of the statistics which are given as the average for a single race are in fact showing a parity amongst different races which would suggest race is a non factor. Its been awhile since ive read the thing but i think i recall him saying that basically he was still undecided as to whether it was race or environment. Well personally i think the evidence points towards environment alone really, including that evidence cited in his book. I think this is somewhat inline with Thomas Sowells’ criticism although id actually had the same problem with his defining of race as well.
l. kerr
Charles has said he thinks it's mostly environmental anyway
Rains tv Yeah i know. But its the absence of that more accurate and convoluted definition of race that irks me. Plus as you say he did say ‘mostly’ which i disagree with. But again i don’t think that makes him racist or anything. I do think such an omission opens one up to accusations of racism given that that’s just how society is. To add to that i’d say the only reason i know this stuff is my mother is quite a succesful professor of genetics. And within her line of work there are many areas of political hot bed topics along these lines which you just have to deal with as part of job. Like genetic abnormalities that are unique to a particular group of people essentially because of historic inbreeding. As well as things like some communities having higher rates of cousin to cousin marriage or even closer relations. So yeah you have to be careful when youre talking about this stuff that’s for sure.
This title reflects the incredible intellectual laziness and double-downism of Christian Piccioloni. Lumping Harris, Peterson and Molyneux together (somehow without any push back from Pakman) is such a big tell on how uninformed this guy is. Harris gave Piccioloni all the space he wanted on his podcast, Piccioloni somehow said some incorrect stuff on some people, Harris corrected that (yes, even for Molyneux who he refuses tot have on his podcast for obvious reasons, Harris developed a serious allergy for Greenwalding people). Saying talking to Murray is a tell is also just so terrible. Listen to Harris' podcast with Murray and step over your prejudice and assumptions for a second. Piccioloni means well, but damn son, some critical thinking please.
Which proves the point, simply engaging in "debate" with all-comers is almost a waste of time. Imagine you try to engage with everyone in this comment section because you suggest you are "open to debate anyone." Good luck with that. You'll have to engage in 80 bad debates to just have 20 "good" debates (Pareto Principle...). Good and bad in this context simply meaning "civil," forget about even advancing any ideas. Debate is a necessary skill for many things, but impactful massive transformative social change is not one of them.
This guy cites the SPLC as a credible source. Enough said.
Wow, I'm sorry but I must dislile this :/... People who denonce SJW and PC culture insanity are not a part of the problem at all, they are part of the solution.
Former Neo-Nazi: Peterson, Harris & Molyneux Are Part of the Problem....I saw what you did there, Pakman. Pretty skeazy inference. Bottom of the barrel journalism at it's finest.
Very typical of his tribe.
Everyone, never underestimate the power of love! We can see the result of what can occur. Now this guy is a force to eradicate hate.
Stefan "women are to blame for all the evil in the world" Molyneux
Of course he's never said ALL, dumbass...nobody would buy his bullshit if he were that hyperbolic. He hates women and finds ways to assign them blame for many, many social problems, discounting other relevant yet inconvenient information and drawing conclusions quickly if it fits his narrative.
Remember when Molyneux blamed Robin Williams' suicide on his wife, immediately and before Williams' health status was revealed? Or when he concluded that Dylann Roof murdered nine people because of the way his mother treated him? Molyneux guy starts with a conclusion--that women cause all the world's problems--and he works backwards to make the evidence fit his conclusion.
It’s not wrong in the case of Canada. Women in Canada elected a brainless dilettante because they liked his rear end. Women’s suffrage was a mistake.
saganist I would disagree with the broad distinction.
I think it's what they're conditioned into with environmental factors (post modernism, welfare etc.) That would lead to their nature playing out as such.
BobbyBaboon I have a hard time buying your bs when I see you being this hyperbolic.
I can understand why people may have this reaction to his videos but I don't think it's without bias, at all.
Most people will been over backwards defending and excusing women and particularly their mothers. I think it's pretty sexist and unfortunate we do that at large as a society.
"Parents are inherently awful for the development of children."
-Stefan Molyneaux
"Pee pee poo poo"
-Stefan Molyneaux
Truly one of his most devastating and insidious qoutes.
He is right about how you can be pulled in by the useful idiots. I remember when I was watching a lot of Stefan stuff, Paul Joseph Watson, Lauren Southern, and even some Gavin McGinnis. What pulled me out was H. Boomer guys debunking of the Soy Boy video Pual JW made, but what hit the nail on the coffin was Shaun's video on the Alt-right in Charlottesville. That moment I realized how wrong I had been.
Story & Spice xo I'm so happy you've found the joy to be had in living a life without biases · warmest welcome earth sibling💕
From a black guy who listens to the waking up podcast, I have never heard or read Sam say anything racist. I dont get why he gets grouped in with these other people.Can someone explain is there something I don't know?
He talked to Charles Murray about race and iq and people think hes racist now.
Including 'Harris' in the title is just plain dishonest and 'click-baity'. Christian had no problem at all appearing on Sam's podcast and making a few unfounded and fabricated claims- then Sam had to distance himself from Christian because of those claims. How convenient for Christian to say Harris is a contributor to the racist climate. It's pathetic and insulting to anyone who has any knowledge of these figures. David, I love your show- but it's tiny pieces like this that have me shaking my head.
No. Harris doesn't want to alienate the alt-right portion of his audience and removed a part of the interview without this guy's consent. That's unethical behavior and he was rightfully called out for it. Claiming the Google moron is alt-right or that the canadian dude is a fascist are not unfounded or fabricated claims, they're obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.
oh, the saltright is here
Harris firmly belongs on that list. The whole point is that these "intellectuals" may or may not be racists themselves, but they serve as a vector to get people hooked into those ideas. When Sam Harris has Charles Murray on to talk about how unfair "the left" is being to him, that his book is factually accurate, and claims that he has has personal correspondents with prominent academics that agree with people like Murray but are just too afraid to be public about it, how can you really come to any other conclusion other than being an enabler for racist ideology?
Harris might not hold white nationalist views himself (and I am fairly certain that he doesn't) but you have to see how actual white nationalists would look at people like Harris as an opportunity for recruitment. Harris claims to be left himself, but when he actually talks politics he mostly just talks about political correctness and the horrors of identity politics; bog standard right wing talking points culture war issues.
I used to be a huge Harris fan. In my college years he was easily my favorite New Atheist. I still own several of his books. However, over the years his forays into other topics have been far less insightful. Harris has shown himself to have a narcissistic streak that cannot handle criticism. He publishes personal correspondence without permission and often assumes malicious intentions behind disagreement. Even his PhD is suspect. He essentially used his parents trust fund to buy his way into a PhD program at UCLA and played a minimal role in the experiments that the money funded. I would read the forward that he wrote in the published work. It literally has nothing to do with what the actual experiments were about, or of the conclusions published in the paper. Harris has also not conducted any scientific work outside of his academic training; so when he calls himself a "neurosciencetist," I think he is being misleading.
(Edit: Fixed typo for on Murrays first name.)
Dude, Bill Murray is cool, you're thinking other Murray, that old racist fart.
Anyone that manages to escape the idw anti feminist far right pipeline is a hero.
David, I like your content, but this willful ignorance both you and TYT seem to have towards Sam Harris is quite frankly just absurd. I'm not sure what it is that you find so wrong with what he says. He's literally a human computer stating facts and statistics. Everything he talks about is fairly nuanced and requires more than just a soundbite to fully understand. Usually, it's the more intelligent people who see this and know that it's not simply black and white. Which is why I'm surprised to find you and TYT on the wrong side of it. Continuing to group him in the same category as these other people is not only a dis-service to Harris and the truth, but to your own image of intelligence and in depth journalism. Pretty disappointed, to be honest...
The problem is not Sam Harris, the problem is dumb people not being able to distinguish between a Neo-natzi and Sam Harris.
Laurence White: Agreed. But that would mean that when it comes to this subject, David is part of those dumb people who can't distinguish. Which I find very surprising. Because he's usually very accurate.
I do find it very surprising myself. I don't see him as a hard Harris hater, more like a guy who doesn't want to enter the arena when it comes to this topic.
The fact is, science and facts can't be racist in and of itself, unless you lie about the facts and create propaganda, but Harris has not done any of these things.
He simply discussed a book about intelligence, and that there are test results that show a difference in IQ between whites, blacks and asians. THATS IT!
And the test results are not fake, phony or wrong. We can argue the reason for the difference, but not that the difference exists.
That was his whole point!
the book in question has been debunked , you dozey Incel
Debunked? There is no such thing as debunking actual scientific facts. Either they are facts, or they are not. There is a thing called IQ tests and there is a difference among whites, blacks and asians, in the results. That is an indisputable fact. It does not make you a racist to read about it, talk about it or having a podcast discussing it. That is what Sam Harris did. And if you are not intellectually equipped to tell the difference between Harris and a racist, then I feel sorry for you.
I’m getting tired of this shit David. Invite Sam to your show, pretty sure he’d be open. You wouldn’t have a word of disagreement with him. Your entire video “debunking” science on race never addressed Sam’s arguments. Not even close. When Sam spoke with Sidhartha Mukherjee they didn’t disagree on anything and Mukherjee had to give ground on calling Murray a pseudo scientist in his book the Gene which is otherwise great.
A scientific theory cannot be racist. There are measurable difference among ethnic group when it comes to melanin, skull shape, tendency to certain illnesses, brain size, eye, bone density, testosterone, etc. Why would any rational being expect homogenous results when it comes to IQ?
Andrea Stagni There are measurable difference among people in the same ethnic group when it comes to melanin, skull shape, tendency to certain illnesses, brain size, eye, bone density, testosterone, etc. :)
Martine ohhh ok ok. So you haven’t bothered to read the opposite side argument then! If you had you’d realize how fucking ignorant you sound, “Debunking” something which nobody has claimed.
Mr. R
What the fuck is a “scientific racist theory”?
Oh man has this guy fallen off his rocker
David, I’m not sure what your current perspective on Sam Harris is; but based on the passing comments I’ve heard, and you allowing Christian to group him in with Molyneux without any push back, I suspect that you are quite mistaken about his ideas. You two should do an interview, I listen to you both and find that you are very similar.
I think would be their only debate, however... David’s had other guest interviews specifically about Race & IQ, that have also reluctantly confirmed that there are minor differences between races when it comes to IQ. And David offered no push back.
The important point here is that, as many have stated time and again, there is a far greater range between individuals within races than there between races as groups. Therefore, in dealing with individuals, race tells us essentially nothing about an individuals IQ.
The only reason Harris has even touched this topic is because he’s defending science, and the science on this issue is sound. It’s also science that is not worth while in my opinion.
At any rate I’d love to hear them discuss this and put it to bed.
Harris isn't apart of the problem. The other two are... This guy had a conversation with Sam 3 months ago and didn't say a word to his face, very cowardly.
He did, and then Harris deleted a portion of the interview without his consent to avoid alienating the canadian fascist.
from what I heard, sam edited out contents from the interview that were critical of moleneux. sam knows that a there is a significant overlap in the fanbases of his and moleneux's. my guess is he didn't want to alienate that demographic. unfortunately, a big portion of that demographic are actual racist white supremacists.
80386 he did that cause his guess caused him of denying the holocaust. I don't like Stephen but Im not gonna smear him with such a charge. You're wrong about Harris' views on this topic
Peterson and Molyneux suck but why Harris? He’s actually level-headed.
He's not racist, it's only a thought experiment...
SailingSeignior Not anymore since he's willing to talk to an undergrad that agrees with him not someone who had many years of experience and wrote multiple book due to not agree with his views.
Harris has promoted The Bell Curve including a patented Harris meltdown over criticism of him promoting the Bell Curve and he deleted criticism of Stefan Molyneux and James Damore from a podcast he did with Picciolini.
Harris for at least two reasons. Firstly, his discussions of Islam exhibit a massive bias. While he correctly identifies the Christian Old Testament (ie, the Jewish Tanakh) as being significantly worse than the Quran in terms of its exhibited ethics, he allows that Christians and Jews can have superseded those problems without being apostate. Moderate Muslims, on the other hand, who have equally superseded the problems in the Quran, he describes as apostate. Worse, he has a very specific reading of the Quran which coincides with that of the Wahhabi-ist sect (ie, the source of nearly all Sunni terrorism in recent times). That is not the only literal reading of the Quran, or even the most plausible IMO, yet Harris effectively treats it as the only possible reading. The result is that he allows no nuance in his discussion of Islam, and in effect insists that any Muslim must be either an apostate or a supporter of terrorism, which is a false, and harmful dichotomy. It is harmful, first, because it may be believed and acted on by people unwilling to give up their religion; and second, because it portrays the situation as a civilizational conflict, feeding into the narrative of the terrorists. It also blinds your analysis of significant causal factors to Islamic terrorism.
Second, Harris uncritically embraces the work of Charles Murray - a work that purports to give a scientific account of IQ and race without bothering with the first step of a scientific account of race; and which is most noteworthy for the way it ignores confounding factors and evidence that tends to refute it (such as the Bantu expansion). Murray's work, in turn, is an obvious rhetorical boon to white supremacists, while an active hindrance to understanding what is actually going on with regard to "race" and intelligence.
+Rob McCune Translation: He dared to speak to Charles Murray and deleted demonstrable lies from his podcast so as not to spread disinformation. What a monster!
Sam Harris?
I mean, Sam Harris?
Of course not...this is crazy.
Christian I know was pissed off at Sam because Sam cut out his rant against Molyneux from his podcast. But to attack Harris like he does is disingenuous. Harris respects and rightfully embraces the principle of charity more than anyone I know, Sam doesn’t deserve these attacks like being compared to Molyneux, it’s a shame.
Keith X +1
Strange of him to lump Harris in there after the productive convo they had on Harris's podcast
Right? The Charles Murray podcast did irreparable damage to Sam's reputation. People misunderstand that podcast to no end, and Sam showed no signs of racism or even veiled racism in that podcast.
Piccioloni thought Harris was great until Sam had to edit one sentence out of his podcast because he was being threaten with a lawsuit....and now Harris is an alt right recruiter. This guy is so disingenuous that it is sickening
A lot of people seem to be having knee-jerk reactions to this video’s title without actually watching it. The argument is much more nuanced in the video than what it seems like in the comments, and Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are not really being demonized but only classified as “useful idiots” who are not aware of what they are doing or the effects of their actions. This is a very good, nuanced video that is not even remotely like the people denouncing it in the comments or downvoting it think it is, I doubt most of them even watched the whole thing.
Best comment
'de-fooing' sounds like something a cult would ask you to do.
I'm a big fan of Sam Harris and don't see a single reason why he is on this list. Peterson just advocates for free speech and is against the stupidity in the feminist and LGBT movement, I've never seen him say anything racist (only people calling him racist without backing it up), aaand Molyneux I don't know too much about but I haven't seen anything bad exactly (only that he has talked about the IQ differences between races (which is just factual, not a reason to offend anyone) so can someone explain why everyone's so horrified with him?
Z'Q Thanks for the thorough analysis. Jordan Peterson is definitely flawed when it comes to how he views how women should be (like when he said they shouldn't wear make up or lipstick in the office because they're pretty much asking to be harrassed) but that's pretty much the only thing I disagree with him on regarding gender. I think he's pretty spot on with the Trans community and being forced to say certain pronouns you don't necessarily believe in.
Molyneux oh boy, I really gotta look into him properly. Even though I first saw his videos YEARS ago when he was a nobody, I never watched enough of his content to see the bad stuff or to have a real understanding of his views. Judging by what you and others have said, sounds like he's borderline crazy. And I just saw the interview him and Laurern Southern had on that NZ news channel where he completely humiliated the host, so I thought he wasn't too bad. This "defoo" thing I've never heard of before so I'm going to look into that, sounds scary though.
However I still don't see the problem with Harris, I see what you said but I still need to see examples of this. After seeing the horrible slanderous interview Cenk from TYT had with him years ago it's hard to hear proper criticism against him that isn't biased. So I guess I'll look into that too. Though I feel like these "thought experiments" have been taken out of context.
I've seen hundreds of videos and talks from harris and peterson, and not a shred of evidence of racism or sexism. I've just recently seen some stuff from Molyneux, from what i've seen his arguments are very sound and logically you can't really form an argument of him being racist or sexist, although I sense there may be an insidius undertone there, but this is my personal feeling. I havent seen him denying the holocaust (edit: native american genocide).
im not a historian so even if i watch his video on native american genocide i wont be able to confirm or deny facts persented in his arguments (which i presume are logically sound), and i dont have time to watch his half hour video and then spend additional 5 hours on confirming or denying his presented facts, so I will admit ignorance on this topic.
Z'Q Z'Q Ahh I figured that was the meaning of defoo since I read somewhere some case where these parents were worried about their kids following Molyneux because he told them to dettach themselves from their parents, tbh that sounds insane just because of political differences. I have very different beliefs to my parents, doesn't mean I'll just abandon them! I had no idea he denied the Native American genocide though :/ idk how one denies that exactly. As for Harris and his thought experiments, that one where he mentioned nuking an islamic country I'm pretty sure was greatly taken out of context. I remember that was the main thing TYT used to smear him and he explained in another video what he meant in his book. That said it was so long ago I can't remember exactly what his justification for it was, but I see where you're coming from. No point using what ifs if the hypothetical can never or should never happen. But I think he was just trying to illustrate how vastly different things would be if such a thing were to happen. Specifically regarding terrorism. I'm preeeeetty sure he wasn't advocating the genocide of muslims like people were insinuating. He copped a lot of flack for that and has since improved the way he expresses his sentiments to be more thorough and understandable.
|| Co-Kane || First of all, cool name... second... it's a heresy on a left-leaning channel to suggest this, but in the market place of ideas... Jordan Peterson... international following in the millions... this channel.... few thousand?
I think that says it all. No one will ever convince everyone. Ever. If Jesus Christ in the flesh were resurrected today... he would have rabid detractors. Valid criticisms are okay, but a lot of comments on this thread are beyond nonsensical. You learn to screen out the detractors and focus on the people who want to work with you.
Christian Piccioloni, thank you for breaking out of that cult and telling us about it.
I don't know very much about Molyneux, but Jesus Christ David, how can you have this guy on to badmouth the other two? I'm not a big fan of Peterson, but I've never heard him say anything racist, yet people will call him one without being able to cite one racist thing he said. I am a fan of Sam Harris, and similarly I've never heard him say anything racist yet people will call him racist without being able cite one racist thing he said. Hence, your guest. When you asked him who was preaching holocaust denial, he didn't even bother to try to badmouth Peterson or Harris. I have an idea, instead of listening to two guys with doctorates. Let's take the word of an ex Neo nazi. The fact is this guy was to weak to live a non hateful life. Reading Harris or Peterson, or listening to their podcasts doesn't make you join extremist groups or align yourself with the alt right. Literally no one in their right mind finishes a book by Peterson or Harris and says to themselves, "Well I guess I'm going to become a Neo nazi now."
@Nonquack: I almost laughed out loud at the "I've never heard him say anything racist" part. Please, don't make me search-back the videos with him pushing racist ideas in an interview. I don't have time for this now. Can you simply watch his interviews yourself, again, and see past his facade?
Please, put your money where your mouth is Leeloo. Right now you're doing what many regressives do saying "he's racist. There's proof, but it's to much of a chore to search for it". It would be hilarious to watch a lawyer do that in court, saying "he did it, there's proof, but please don't make me search for it." You claimed you almost laughed out loud. That's not equivalent to proof. Either provide proof or refrain from commenting.
"Literally no one in their right mind finishes a book by Peterson or Harris and says to themselves, "Well I guess I'm going to become a Neo nazi now."
Maybe because that's not how it works, or what Piccioloni says. Radicalization never starts with the most extreme positions, no matter the ideology: from white-nationalists to jihadists. It's a gradual easing into a movement with seemingly mundane positions. Peterson, Harris, Molyneux all, for instance, say western civilization is superior. Peterson claims its under attack by "cultural marxists." Cultural Marxists is a term that has its origins in Nazi conspiracy theories and in modern times by Pat Buchanan. It doesn't take long to connect these positions to those of white nationalists. The lexicon and positions these people hold aren't that far off, where racists and white nationalists can then swoop in and radicalize the young.
Is there something wrong with saying that western civilization is superior? I'm genuinely intrigued.
C Business, Western civilization is superior. That's not a racist thing to say, that's just fact. If you're in disagreement please name any non western nation that you would prefer to live in and articulate, what advantages it has be they economic, cultural, educational, advantages with respect to rights and liberties, etc. Also, explain to me why, in recent history, after several countries became "westernized" we've never witnessed a reverse migration. We've seen plenty of people want to come into western countries, but the numbers are very few of those who want to leave them, and migrate to a non-western country. Beyond the issue of western civilization, who cares who invented a term, or who used it. The idea of the Volkswagen was thought up by Hitler (He believed every German should have a car. Hence Volkswagen which translates to peoples' car. BMW and Krupps had huge roles in ww2. Are you going to say that anyone who drives a VW, or a BMW, or uses a Krupps coffee pot is committing an act of evil cause these items manufacturers had roots/history in ww2. The same is true with the term cultural marxism. Who cares if someone uses it. That doesn't automatically link him to Naziism.
"The Lexicon and positions these people hold (Which by the way you're incapable of naming) aren't far off, where racists and white nationalists can swoop in and radicalize the young"....
It's painfully obvious that you need a boogeyman.
Curious how Christian initiated this spat with Sam once he landed his own show on MSNBC.. this guy is reflective of the modern SPLC, like claiming Maajid Nawaz is a “gateway to anti-Muslim extremism” for criticizing Islam. Sam discussed scientific findings regarding Murray and the bell curve, Sam pushed Murray on it and explicitly stated that the trends don’t reflect individuals regarding IQ. Christian cites Harris’ criticisms of identity politics as evidence for his white-supremacy sensitive rhetoric. Perhaps Christian doesn’t realize that David is ALSO highly critical of identity politics. He gonna lump David in as well, or does he not have a big enough fan base worthy of triggering for his own brand improving twitter war?
Anyone with a brain should repudiate identity politics, I guess we are all white supremacists now
The amount of time David spends railing (or bringing on guests to rail) against the so-called "Intellectual Dark Web" (which he's been doing long before the name existed) really is a waste of everyone's time. It's your show, and you can do what you want, but if your goal is to inform the public about important things going on, this is a total disservice. The world doesn't need another Sam Seder.
This is important and it's definitely not keeping him from covering other things. The right is taking on the extremists for their political clout because the GOP is dying and they're snakes who will take anything they can get and they're willing to even openly court these groups politically. It makes me sick to think of young people falling prey to this irrational and actually evil thinking. It can happen to anyone, most anyone at certain points in their lives, especially youths. It's defi itely not something pakman focuses on intensely but hes right to address these issues. He feels morally obligated. I'm almost sure he wouldnt have had it not been for the groups recent political relevance and trumps embrace of them
I invite any tags or links that could remotely demonstrate Jordan Peterson EVER denying the holocaust, EVER using the bell curve to imply ANY inherent qualities of ANY race, or EVER discussing ANY form of nationalism in favor of any racial groups or to exclude any racial or religious group.
Congrats on the 500k subscribers David.
The Freedman Subs are bullshit
+Robert Grant Sub numbers mean jackshit. How many channels you actually watch among subscriptions. Judging by my own habits, fewer than 1%. Views are not a perfect measure of assessment (Indonesian click farms), but better than subs. Good point and thumbs up.
+BLACK DEATH There's a last time for everything.
How did Peterson get wrapped into this?
I really hope this is a joke
Great Interview. I really enjoyed listening to every word of Christian Piccioloni. It's hard to believe he was once a neo-nazi. His transformation is strength.
Imagine still being subscribed to this channel after watching this.
just wow
It's his testimony, and there has been a study published on this. its not everyone, But there is a link between TH-cams algorithms leading to radicalising people. It's mental, Sam Harris is a democrat haha.
As an example, Jordan Peterson rails against a cabal of 'cultural Marxists' controlling universities and institutions when really it's pc culture run wild, like what did people think would happen when millenials enter the corporate world. Unfortunately, It's not a huge step in the algorithms to go from 'cultural Marxists' to Jewish cabals or 'globalists' then you're in a chat room talking about ethnostates haha. It sounds silly but it's happening.
holy shit, these Sam Harris/JBP fans are insufferable
christian had a great chat with sam harris, i'm surprised to see this headline
You missed the fallout. Christian is such a bitch that when Sam removed 60 secs from *his own podcast* of the dipshit lying, he's been pouting ever since and calling these vanilla race realists worse than David Duke.
i wonder if you get a life-time credibillity pass if you're a reformed white nationalist. christian's done some great work but are we allowed to call him out if he's in the wrong about something he says post-seeing the light?
More proof that Christian is a hack trying to piece together a career and internet fame based on some bad decisions he made as a youth. He's just looking to stir up headlines to keep himself relevant.
well to me, it's a little weird to publicly equate someone with white nationalism weeks after sharing an honest and good-faith conversation-turned podcast; sam cut out parts where christian without presenting evidence was defaming someone or a few someones and sam harris ain't about that
I consider myself someone who is on the left and is concerned with social justice issues, so I do not throw this term around, but if you listen to Picciolini enough it becomes clear he is a stereotypical "SJW" who just likes to be outraged and "virtue signal". Again, I do not use that term lightly and virtue signaling is not inherently a bad thing, but Picciolini does nothing but pander in order to generate headlines and promote his own brand. Also, he repeats that Molyneux is a holocaust denier, which is just false. He even mentioned this lie on Sam Harris' podcast, and Sam had to back track on a later episodes and apologize for allowing Picciolini to voice such a baseless claim without being pushed back on it. I'm fairly certain Sam even deleted the episode because of that. Even in this interview, David asks him to explain how Molyneux denies the holocaust and he has 0 evidence to support it, and immediately starts side stepping saying things like "he chooses his words very carefully because holocaust denial is illegal in Canada". Make no mistake about it, Molyneux is dangerous, but lying about him does not accomplish anything.
Glad to see people defending Sam. I have my disagreements with him, but he's no Peterson
Sam is honestly proof that you can technically be very smart and well educated and still be a useful idiot.
Molyneux in on a different league, he's up there with Alex Jones.
he's worse in my opinion.
I think the most important take away from this is that it was the people that showed him love that he least deserved it from (blacks, Jews, gays etc.) is what changed him, If you want to change the mind of people you disagree with don't do it from a feeling of superiority but from a place of compassion
A more accurate title for you: Right wing extremist becomes left wing extremist.
deserk except that Nazis are leftists so he never really changed. He’s just now in a different faction of leftist totalitarianism.
Lumping Harris with Peterson and Molyneux is ridiculous and dishonest.
Molyneux, I can see how one can come to that conclusion, but Harris & Peterson?? lol comon dude!
Jack Offson most people in the comments agree.
Jordan TRusso Now most disagree actually.
Harris never implied that genetics was the reason for a racial IQ gap but I will say his inability to see the dubiousness behind Murray is definitely a legit point.
So Harris has Piccioloni on his podcast because he thinks his message is super important to get out to his audience ..... yet Piccioloni tweets out that Harris helps turn people in radicals (racists). What kind of alt right recruiter would have Piccioloni on his show and agree with him on every issue ?
All Christian had to do was admit he got a little carried away when talking about Molyneux, but that ample evidence still remains to show Molyneux is a piece of shit... and everyone would agree and all would be forgiven. But no, he double down, got called out to provide evidence of Molyneuxs Holocaust denial , could NOT produce any, triples down, and now he is making the rounds on the internet saying Harris is recruiter for the alt right.
Literal white nationalist have cited that Harris is a stepping stone into the Alt-Right
Remember that time Christian just made shit up about Molyneux in Harris’ podcast? Sorry if I don’t take him seriously.
Perfect David, keep name dropping in the video titles, got to get as many hits as possible to keep the show afloat. The truth is a close second, of course.
Christians perception of Harris', Peterson's and Molyneux's motivations for and influencing of others is very misunderstood and frankly a bit insulting.
I highly disagree with putting Peterson on par with Nazis. He has stated many times he doesn't like Nazis. Just because the Nazis like some of what Peterson has to say doesn't mean he himself is a Nazi. Calling him a Nazi diminishes the word. I mean if we are just going to call everyone a Nazi for any disagreement we have with them. It will only be a matter of time before we are all considered Nazis. Let's be smart about how we use these words. I'm Mexican in case you are wondering so I'm very opposed to Nazis
Nobody thinks JBP is a nazi, did you even watch the video? He says JBP uses some flimsy science that can be a gateway for people to become nazis
Why the hell doesn't anyone just friggin debunk the scientific studies that Peterson cites or his interpretation of them? There's a metric truckload of people just saying he's wrong but very few honest efforts at debunking his scientific claims. That's what makes me so damn skeptical of these people.
Joe Strik the fact that they group them together in the title kind of implies it. Most people only read titles and or don't watch the whole video. You have to idiot proof things these days. I'm not trying to say people are dumb now just that most people are bombarded with so much info to be able to pay attention to every detail is impossible.
NotANameist Does Pakman have to sit here and debunk scientific studies because you are too lazy to type "The Bell Curve debunked" into google?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.
David, if you want to make a video about people, have them on your show and talk with them yourself. Getting a third-party voice to talk about these individuals only serves to obfuscate what these people are all about. No one wants to hear about what a person said, they want to hear them say it.
The point of the video, one of em at least, was to show that these issues can be overcome. It's important to talk to people who have actually been there themselves. It speaks to those affected by the issues, among other things. I liked this video
Sam Harris - Social Liberal
Jordan Peterson - Social Conservative
Stefan Molyneux - Social Conservative
Spot the odd one out.
Good interview, David!
finally someone said it
Isn't Harris a few notches better than the other 2??
Better at "shape-shifting" his agenda?
OK, that was a troll - having a choice I would go with Harris over Peterson without blinking (I don't know the other, Molyneux guy - and from the video above, I suspect I don't want to know him, really.) Harris simply does not emanate with malevolent psychopathy at every step, like Peterson, and that's a big plus in my book.
BTW: That guy David talks too is pretty good: spot on consistently throughout the whole video.
Harris shouldn't even be in the same category as Peterson and Molyneux.
No.
Yeah, he is better (more nuanced, more intelligent) than the other two, but he kinda tapped into that whole anti-Islam, anti-SJW, "regressive left" meme complex of the right, which is why, at least for a time, his fanbase had so many Trumpists, who only listened to him because of his Islam-criticism and cultural clash fear mongering. When he critizied Trump, he got a lot of backlash from that part of his fanbase.
Im a 49 yr old Black Woman who just wants to Hug this dude. Because I think what hes doing is a good thing for the KIDS, that get caught up in this Hate. Grown Adults are generally a LOST CAUSE, although not ALL. But you gotta go for the babies who can RUIN, their entire lives with this stuff. He is no different than a Fmr Black or Mexican Gangbanger. Who wants to steer our Kids onto the right path. And when I first heard him speak about Obama giving his Organization, "Love After Hate", a $400k Grant and then it being CUT, by the Drumpf Admin. I was pretty convinced THEN, that Drumpf was not only a Bigot. But a Neo Nazi Sympathizer to boot. Because why would an Administration come in and CUT, funds already alloted to such an important cause. Unless they didnt WANT, these kids to BECOME Hateful and Violent? Its sad. But Chris forging ahead and bringing a Voice to Mothers like Heather Heyers. Is what has to be done.
We Black Mothers know the grief of a White Mother is no different, nor LESS important than ours. And we can all see, thad Heather been killed by anyone else. Her Mother would get bombarded , by Media. But she was Murdered by a Neo Nazi. And thats not NEWS to our Media. And its not right.. So her Mother isnt given much of a Voice. But Chris has given her one. And thats to be applauded.
BAHAHAHA. You think Peterson and Harris are in the same boat with Molyneux? WTF is this?! Is that why literally all of Christian's claims are based around examples from Molyneux? Come on Pakman! Call him out on that! You used to be so intellectually honest :/
I'm concerned about where this is headed. We obviously have our hands full with Trump. But that doesn't mean that nothing else matters; it doesn't mean that our ability and willingness to reason and dialogue with others is suddenly something that we have to sacrifice.
Essentially my concern is that we're getting to a point where everyone who isn't a full blown progressive is "the enemy." Or a "Trumpster" (even if they don't support Trump). Or a Russian bot, whatever. If people like Dave Rubin and Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are now the enemy, then what I would like to know is whether anyone here can name non-progressives that they do NOT consider the enemy. Is there no room at all for disagreement?
You can criticise people for their shitty politics without them being "the enemy." I'm sure David Pakman or Sam Seder or anybody who relentlessly criticises the "intellectual dark web" people would be more than willing to sit down with any of them. You realize that these intellectual dark web people all criticise "the left" just as much if not more?
David, as someone who listens to both your show and Harris's podcast on a daily/weekly basis I really don't think you are giving Harris a far shake here. He got caught up in that whole Charles Murray/Ezra Klein debacle but having listened to both podcasts I don't know how you could hear those conversations and walk away thinking Harris is a white supremacist.
He never said Sam Harris is white supremacist but he contributes to the climate of white nationalist ie the poll in which literal white nationalist cite Harris as a steppingstone to their beliefs.
Peterson is one thing, but I feel genuinely offended that Sam Harris is lumped in the same group with Stefan Molyneux, a proud misogynist, fascist, white supremacist and conspiracy theorist.
There is nothing wrong with Sam Harris. He is absolutely right about the bad ideas that come from religion. He isn't right wing.
The 1980 Republicans want their gateway metaphor back.
I really respect what this man does and fully agree with him in principle but concerning his specific examples here, I really can't see Harris as being part of the problem, even though I disagree with him on a bunch of stuff politically and even philosophically.
Jordan Peterson probably is at the very least a useful idiot.
Molyneux...he's a different thing altogether. Regarding that racist piece of sh$t, I agree completely.
He's not even hiding it very well at all and knows full well what he's doing. That man is malevolent and probably beyond reproach.
No one is claiming Sam Harris is a racist. What they are claiming is that Sam Harris is a racist. People like Sam Harris enable racists to portray themselves as reasonable sensible people. People like richard Spencer often go on his podcast and present their views in a way that seems palatable. Sam then conceeds all of their points because he hates the sjws as much as they do. They come off of his podcast looking reasonable and unchallenged and then they defend these people making claims like he was such a nice guy there is no chance he's a racist
elliott collom I know what they are claiming and I'm saying that's some seriously ignorant bullshit.
Like your claim about Richard Spencer for instance. Sam Harris has never had him on, and has explicitly explained as to why he doesn't want to give such guys a platform at all. He even said that he will never have Stefan Molyneux on his podcast, because he sees Molyneux as a racist enabler.
So, basically...you're full of it, talking about stuff you know nothing about, because you never bothered to check and you're just regurgitating talking points.
elliott collom, reread the first two sentences in your comment, and then slap yourself at least 20 times for such a grotesque display of idiocy.
Gøran Greggor i said like like Richard Spencer because I don't remember every fucking alt righters name but that doesn't. The point still stands that he has done this. Like when he had Charles Murray the author of the bell curve. This dude literally wrote a book about eugenics and how black people have lower iq's genetically and when sam had him on the podcast he pretty much agreed with everything he said despite the fact that a quick Google is all it takes to find out that none of the data cited has any scientific background.
elliott collom The point doesn't stand. You're just evading the fact that you're wrong.
And as for Charles Murray, you are once again just regurgitating talking points without ever checking anything out for yourself. The data on race and IQ is definitely scientifically sound. So don't use that bs on me.
Maybe instead of doing a quick google search leading you to some leftie podcast or a Huffington Post article, you should learn to do an actual academic, scientific search of the web. It's really not that hard.
Even the freaking Richard Dawkins confirmed the data and a bunch of similar people most qualify to asses it. Is Dawkins now in this group too? Because if that's the case, get ready to fucking lose the argument forever. On anything. Welcome to a long lasting Trumpian dystopia!
Jesus, the radical left, and I don't include Pakman into that category, but you're certainly in it, has turned into an insane asylum. The Dunning-Kruger really knows no bounds with you guys.
Btw...both Dawkins and Sam Harris in that podcast with Murray have said the same thing. The data is correct, that's why they couldn't object to that. You see scientists deal with facts. But Harris DID object to the idea that the scientific data is conclusive AND in addition to that, he did say that even if it were conclusive, it wouldn't mean a thing, because it's not applicable to individuals regardless of what race they belong to, plus in addition to that, he explicitly stated that even if this were somehow applicable, it would be absolutely immoral and irrational to make policy, or societal decisions based on it.
But when you're performing a typical character assassination, of course that you need to conveniently omit that bit.
4:40
I'm lost on what distinguishes a pseudo-philosopher from a philosopher and how Piccioloni is qualified to make that call. I'm loving the like-to-dislike ratio, though.
They need to label us as Nazis because Socialists vs Libertarians is a losing headline for socialists. Socialists look like Nazis compared to Libertarians, but Socialists look like libertarians compared to Nazis.
i get that sam could be more careful, but i wouldn't consider him to be in agreeance with Peterson or Molyneux.
Why do you think Harris gave Murray so much benefit of the doubt? Interesting, isn't it?
His opinions about the Bell Curve and genetic intelligence are troubling to say the least.
I genuinely think he spreads the Islamic version of the White Genocide Nazi propaganda every time he speaks to Douglas Murray about Muslim migration in Europe. Maybe I'm off on that one, but that's my 2 cents.
Edit: or as Lauren Southern and others I would also classify as borderline (being generous 'a gateway to') alt-right refer to it, The Great Replacement. *Bum Bum Bum*
ookpwnd
The Bell Curve was debunked many times decades ago. Its voluminous footnotes cleverly hid the fact that most of them referenced co-author Richard Herrnstein. It is complete garbage and someone of Harris' caliber has no business lauding it or shyster Murray either. Studies have shown that black children have gained 18-30 IQ points simply being adopted by middle class families. That is one to two standard deviations of improvement which is gigantic. The removal of lead from gasoline has probably made a huge difference in some communities such as the Bronx. Just looking at a bunch of numbers is meaningless and highly destructive.
@@Redpy5 Lauren Southern is not borderline. She has a fucking bullhorn. She's definitely a racist propagandist, no question.
It's amazing to see Sam Harris listed alongside Stefan Molyneux as part of the same problem...
Sam Harris didn't even want to have Stefan Molyneux on his podcast due to the fact that Molyneux has had conversations with Jared Taylor of all people and did not push back in the slightest against anything he said.
I've listened to Harris, Peterson, Molyneux; even add Shapiro, the Weinstein bros, Rubin, Christakis, Saad, Hitch, Dennet, Pinker, and a few more people a lot of commenters probably recognize. I do it for the same reason I think most people do: part entertainment, part hearing differing views on a topic. I don't have the time nor the inclination to become an expert in multiple fields, just so I can personally guarantee I am getting the most accurate information -- I let the marketplace of ideas, which I think does a pretty good job of sifting through the BS -- do much of the work for me. When someone says something controversial, I attempt to seek out the strongest argument against it.
I cannot believe this guy views Sam Harris as part of the problem. Thats like saying the guy who invented fire is part of the problem because some people are going to end up burning things down. Our misuse of the information, or extending some benign conclusion to a point not at all intended by Harris is on us, not him.
Sometimes my daughter gets annoying -- the fact that some twisted fucks beat little kids into a coma for crying doesn't make my statement "part of the problem".
This guy is fucking nuts. No wonder he fell for the Nazi propaganda.
If these people have their way, you won't even be allowed to listen to milquetoast commentators like Rubin or Harris anymore. They'll freaking ban them by force of law. That's how dangerous this has become.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what intellectual dishonesty looks like.
This is some "Sam Seder" quality stuff there, David.
Sam Seder is one of the reasons Pakman has a show. You don't know what you're talking about.
And what does that have to do with anything?
the IQ and race things isn't the idea of stefan Molyneux or any other pundit it is the concrete measurable data of over century of work.
It’s bogus on its face because there is no biological definition of “race” - the concept is fluid and thus not viable in linking IQ to genetics.
But wat abt dem SJAYDOUBLEYOUS
-DAVE RUBIN
HAVE YOU BEEN TO A COLLEGE CAMPUS LATELY?!?!?!?!?!
I AGREE!
No its I...A...GU...RU...EEE!
Abraham Soriano I'M A CLASSIC LIBERAL!
THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS
How are direct opponents and critics of racial identitarianism (Harris & Peterson) gateway drugs to racial identitarianism at its most toxic, or part of that problem? What kind of doublethink is that? I'm beginning to understand how this chump was so easily taken in by neo-Nazis to begin with.
David I have been following your channel for quite a while and I really do enjoy your take on things... but the fact that you just let him portray sam harris as a potential racist and you didn t follow up on it and you put him afterwards with molyneux in the same title, honestly blows my mind and shows me you haven t listened to a single podcast of him and you have already made up your mind about who he is and thats not you... your guest even was on sam harris’s podcast not that long ago and didn t tell his concerns about him to his face, quite to the contrary...
At last i don t like defending jordan peterson that much but I have no idea what he has done to deserve to be mentioned next to molyneux either so that is that...
I really hope you are going to change your mind on sam why not interview him to sort things out?
The title is quoting what the guest said
Interviewing Sam Harris is pointless. The guy is the most aggrieved, victim-complex having political commentator that has ever existed.
you can't be arrested for hate speech in Canada, where did he get that idea?
The problem with former extremist or say former staunch political voices who switch political sides still have overtly over passionate views no matter what, even if your efforts are noble as being anti-extremist your efforts still mirror extremism, what you call dog whistle may just be an excuse for slandering.
I've always thought about possibility for such a thing for a long time but yeah I think your right, just cause you converted an extremest or a stupid person to your way of thinking does not mean their negative tendencies will just suddenly disappear from their personalities
SAM MILLER he’s still a stupid person. Great you renounced your nazism doesn’t give credibility to your current opinions
Sez B because extremism on the left and right come from the same place within us
Yeah I really don't understand why a leftist is listening to a neo-nazi for advice.
And just because he has "turned himself around" doesn't make it better.
He was once retarded enough to call himself a neo-nazi, I don't think we need advice from those kind of people.
Yes, also true with alot of ex-bolsheviks. Former communists are often still extreme and utopian in their thinking. Not always, but often.
I like this guy! 💯👍🏾
I've always thought Picciolini was a hack. He's just taking advantage of an experience in his life that's so easy for anyone to hear and be intrigued by. Now he's trying to stir up controversy by name dropping some of the most popular podcasters out there, like Sam, who Christian even spoke with at length on a podcast. Molyneux however is 100% a dangerous individual.
There is a huge gulf between Sam Harris and Peterson and Molenuex, lumping them to together is disingenuous.
good to see so many comments supporting Sam Harris. I think one day David will come to the realization that he has made a mistake regarding Sam.
Has David ever talked to Sam or even talked about him extensively?
i have not seen him address Sam individually but he always lumps him in with the "intellectual Dark web" (not my term) with the likes of jordan perterson and Stephan Molunix which is think is unfair. i think he is diffrent enough from those guys that he at least deserves too be criticized individually or with others of his ilk.
I may have missed on something these years but I just can't see how Harris fits with the likes of Peterson and Molyneux.
I've have been thinking the same thing a lot recently. I still a big supporter of Harris but I have a major problem with how he downplays racism. The racism people are fighting against today has been embedded in society for hundreds of years and it's very hard to tackle practically speaking. The stance he takes hurts the efforts and his ideological clout, which is a whole lot, is being coopted by alt right extremists. It's not as big a problem as many on the left would have people believe I dont think, not in the way many are presenting it actually. I like what slovoj zizek has to say about it and even hes gotten guff from left reactionaries. Sam's on the left on most any issue but his handling of the race issue has been bad. I dont understand how he can hold the positions he does knowing the influence he has and the far reaching effects his podcast has.
It’s VERY interesting to me that he mentions Sam Harris, and his podcast, when it was through that very podcast that I discovered this dude. Imo, that podcast episode was one of the best of the past year, and I’m not saying it’s shady of him to not mention that he was on the podcast, but I wish that he would have.
It’s definitely true that Sam has totally gone off the rails over the last year, with his enmity against BLM, his speaking to black intellectuals who frame the narrative in a way he prefers, while simultaneously refusing to speak with those who do not share that perspective, his absurd support for Murray, and his disastrous conversation with Ezra Klein. I think it’s all really revealed a massive bias Sam had, which many of his listeners (myself included) didn’t recognize. I always disagreed with many of his views, and thought he was downright idiotic in the way he spoke about some public policy problems, but I never actually thought that the guy was truly a problematic dude up until the last year. It’s a shame really, bc the guy gets some things really spot on, and he has come out against Trump in a very aggressive manner that alienated a portion of his audience, but he’s just plain lost the plot where race in America is concerned.
He criticises molyneux, Harris and Peterson because he doesn’t understand what they are saying. I don’t suggest everything they utter is gold but this seems a case of hyper polarisation, if you are not on my side side you must be way over to the other side.
this cult/echo chamber in this comment section is really sad.
Sam Seder and David pakman have lumped Sam Harris into this catagory too many times. 2 dumb to understand what he's saying probably. Won't be supporting either channel anymore
I totally forgot Stefan even existed.
He was tweeting today begging for help because his TH-cam channel was about to be deleted... so hopefully that's a step closer to him actually not existing anymore.
He's been traveling Australia and New Zealand with his nazi daughter Lauren Southern
Troy Barnes Nice to see some of the venues down there cancel some of their "shows"
sausagemcbean “I can’t refute his facts so let’s do like Mao and Stalin and just shut him down!”
Yt Yt Sorry what? Who is Mao and Stalin? I don't understand what your point is. Simply hoping that someone with a toxic message no longer has as large of an audience is not "like Mao and Stalin".
Very sloppy, resulting in false accusation. Christian needs to correct his errors or be forever considered not credible.
To this day I've never seen any good reason to lump Sam Harris in with these other "dark web" people... If you think critizing bad ideas (Islam for example) is the same thing as racism, then I understand why people want to discredit him this way, but I've yet to hear him promote racism or anything similar tbh.
Like inviting that discredited race and iq guy to spew bullshit unchallenged?
cubankhan and then making a point to point out how reasonable they were compared to the 'evil sjws'
islam is not a 'bad idea'. it's a collection of thousands of ideas of which, an overwhelming majority are totally reasonable and helpful for maintaining a functioning society. there are a few ideas that are questionable when looked through 21st century lens. the problem with constantly bashing muslims is that for a certain racist part of the viewer/fanbase, the argument in their head very quickly moves from 'their idea is bad' to 'lets therefore treat them like criminals and marginalize them for things that we think they might do.
80386 I'd argue it is a bad idea but only in the sense that any unquestionable authority is a bad idea. The idea that Qur'an is dramatically worse than the Bible is constantly propagated by dumb fucks who haven't read either of them