So his defense of himself/TED with regard to TED's abysmal treatment of Coleman Hughes boils down to the fact Coleman's talk is "deeply upsetting" to some on the left and made some of his staff "uncomfortable". This is literally feelings trumping careful, reasoned discourse at TED.
Yea his argument here is pretty awful. He said they consciously left it out of popular streams then literally laughs at the idea woke staff censored Coleman. This whole discussion is a grand example of the blindness of TED and their ilk and gives credence to the rising cynicism he says he’s trying to quell.
Sounds like Coleman was correct in his perception of his TED Talk being suppressed because of woke staffers. Anderson just presents this information somewhat cheerfully, but doesn't actually undermine anything.
Sam Harris himself, a few years ago described TED as "Unbearably woke". A seat costs from $2,500 to $25,000. The event really is a circle-jerk of woke rich liberals who pay a fortune to people who tell them what they want to hear.
Oye. The Coleman Hughes controversy did not get better by this. He not only doubled down. But semi-agreed with his staff for deliberately suppressing the talk. Wow
Yes they have a difference of opinion. And Sam’s ideas were quite stronger than Chris’. So instead of being upset that he didn’t immediately admit total fault and utterly disavowed his employees, let’s rather have faith that this conversation will nudge him in the right direction.
It was awkward. The guy sounded almost embarrassed because he knows it's ridiculous but he has no backbone. Stating why they don't like Coleman's views is not a rebuttal to the travesty of trying to silence them. They think his views are harmful. Ok. Well everybody who has a political views on anything, thinks their opponents views are a net harm, or else they would share their opponents views. That's life. A couple of hundred years ago we sketched out an albeit imperfect way to get past these divergent views, which gave rise to parliaments etc. And then he suggests the Barbara Streisand effect that has accidentally garnered Coleman's talk more views ultimately, somehow admonishes TED of any wrong doing is dishonest and weak. Sam should have spent longer there.
@@vaffelproductions His handling of the whole debacle as well as doubling down and poor responses were lazy and cowardly. He should have admitted total fault and utterly disavowed his employees.
Man, this guy still really doesn't understand how bad TED failed, with regard to the Coleman Hughes situation. Some people are so far behind in the race they think that they're leading...
@@seoz774 Oh yeah of course, it's just that people in the progressive bubble seem to use it in a slanderous way so they can lazily avoid taking their arguments seriously
The fact that this guy is pretending to hold centrist values like he has no responsibility that his organisation has drifted so far to the radical left that coleman is someone they can hardly offer a platform to is rather aggravating
@@twntwrs I love Sam Harris (not all his ideas) but you are right. He will put himself in positions to hold the feet of others to the fire but is very careful not to ever let that happen to him. It's like his high intelligence has ironically made a fool of himself. He seems to act like his ideas are are the right ideas and his way is the only true way ( kinda like Muhammad ironically lol)
Anderson's position on the Hughes debacle is "TED is so wonderful and brave for allowing this guy to say what MLK used to say. How dare Hughes demand an equal treatment to other presenters?" This Anderson guy has no shame.
"TED is non-partisan", right after explaining himself catering to complaining leftists. Here's my question, if enough right wing people complained about a lot of the horse shit videos TED produces would he cater the same way he did to those leftists? We all know the answer to that.
"Follow the money" is my policy. If the people who fund, attend and consume Tedtalks are leftist, it all make perfect sense as to why he responded to pressure from leftists. It's a business, thats all!
@@ChrisAnderson-qz8hi- The problem is that it tries to be all things to all people in a "non-partisan" way when, where the rubber meets the road, it's still filtering messages because of personal feelings and bias. TED is a lot less than it thinks it is.
@@ChrisAnderson-qz8hi If there are complaints about the platforming of others by people, no matter the political view, you should not pay them any attention or care. So you should have told those people who complained about platforming Coleman that you don't care if they're offended and should have asked if they care about the free exchange of ideas. What I'm saying about the double standard is not that conservatives should complain about the platforming of leftists but that because of the bias of media orgs and academia towards one side complaints amounting to almost nothing are being treated as a big deal. While if a conservative did the same thing it would be laughed out of the room and rightfully so.
"Horse shit videos" is the key here. TEDtalks used to be , many years ago, quite interesting. Now they're so bland and cuddly it makes you want to puke. A modern day readers digest.
In response to Coleman, he says the problem here is tribalism. He fails to see that his tribe treated Coleman differently than any other person who went on TED because Coleman is not part of his tribe. He fails to acknowledge any wrongdoing there. How can I trust his opinion on generosity or the future of doing good when he only knows cynicism.
Thanks Sam for another great discussion and also to Chris Anderson - I think TED is a great venture and although their are plenty of TED talks (especially TEDx) that I take issue with, that is OK. The viewpoint of others is always worth hearing, regardless of what feelings it evokes in you. I have learned that when something makes me angry, to ask myself why and critically evaluate why that is because it is true what they say - what you dislike about other ppl is often a mirror for what you dislike about yourself, which is an awesome to challenge yourself and your own beliefs systems and where they come from. Never stop growing; never stop learning, nothing in this ecosystem is anymore valuable than anything else. Everyone has a story and I truly believe that everyone has something to teach me, if they will trust me enough to share their story
I had a friend trapped in bitterness after an experience with a homeless person to whom he had given money and perceived that he was not rewarded with sufficient gratitude. I asked him to examine the motive for his actions. I suggested that he reframe the experience and understand that he had done the right thing in the moment when he saw another person in need and chose to act with compassion. When he accepted that he is only responsible for his actions and that his were admirable, he was able to let go of his cynicism and embrace his own generous nature.
That said, your friend did the WRONG thing. Ask professional social workers who deal with the homeless whether you should EVER give money to a homeless person. 99% will say "NO". They say, "If you want to help the homeless, give to a homeless shelter." It's not compassion to encourage and validate begging.
I have actually stopped giving money to homeless people. I used to and realized that half the ones I see for whatever reason don't actually want to do anything for money. The other half probably need some form of help. The final point is that I've had too many negative experiences where the "homeless" person asking for things I find later "selling" the food they were given for free to get actual cash. Whatever their problems - its organizations that have to help them and your individual 1 dollar or if you're super generous 20 dollars will not do anything except your personal gratification. One of my friends argued that to keep ones humanity you must use these small moments for that personal gratification. I have sympathy with that perspective. I have started just donating to the best charity possible (I know its not the local foodbank) but its some form of impact. so about 400 a year. Not a ton, but I don't think I can do more unless I want to live the "peter singer life" - which I don't.
Liked the guest but his stance is indicative of the confusion in our public debate. If the issue with colour blindness is its effectiveness - let’s discuss how to measure what “effective” means and how to be effective. We should not avoid talking about issues because they are complicated. That is a confusing and confused position.
I consider myself a Classical Liberal, though not particularly Libertarian, even though the two are related. I think Sam should have a conversation with one of these ppl who worships Ayn Rand, I don't entirely understand them. Top pick, definitely Stephen Hicks.
Mr. Harris, the reason no one has ever made those comments about buying a book is that you are buying a physical item that you now own when you buy a book. You get to keep it, read it over and over and share it with loved ones without having to pay more and more money to do so. A podcast is a radio show, or a tv show and it is dependent on the availability of electricity, to charge the phone, laptop or tablet, which we all also have to pay for and the internet, which we all are already paying for too. Sort of like the TV show M. A. S.H., which so many of us tuned in to watch almost religiously, but none of us actually gave any money directly to the studio or the cast and crew...we were paying with our time and attention, not our wallets. As far as I am concerned, the platforms you broadcast on should be the ones paying you because of the amount of attention the people watching or listening are giving to that platform. For example, youtube should be paying you because of the ratings your show has and the ads that run. The viewer is already giving your show the attention and not the millions of other shows that are on at the same time and they are already paying for the access to the internet and electricity on top of that. A book is a one time purchase with no hidden or extra fees. Hope that helps you to understand why people react differently to podcasts. If I buy your book you will make money off of me once....if I pay for your podcast you will get money each time I watch an episode....we, the consumer, are not all ignorant to this fact and many of us disagree with the ethics of making money repeatedly off of one person watching the same episode several times vs the consumer paying you royalties once for a book they can read ten thousand times for free afterwards.
A small footnote to your carefully crafted note. I pay TH-cam a monthly to watch ad free and to get TH-cam music. This reduces my inclination to pay for individual podcasters.
Almost half hour so far... The guest just asserts without evidence that colorblindness doesn't "work" (without defining what that means either). Not a serious person.
I find the "rah rah" attitude in some of these comments dispiriting. The one concrete claim of Coleman against TED was that they failed to promote him on their podcast. Chris said (1) that he wasn't aware at the time that this happened and (2) that he has since rectified the problem. This seems like a reasonable response to me. Let's see what the 2024 lineup for TED looks like, as Chris suggests. Let's try to adopt some generosity of spirit.
Yeah, let's see. Sadly he missed the opportunity of putting on Jimmy Savile - who has now passed away. But he managed to get two real intellectual heavy-weights: Ghislaine and Greta.
I still don't get what's so deeply unsettling about Coleman Hughes talk. might be that I am too stupid, but maybe it's because I am not from the US and Americans don't see how deep they have dug these stupid trenches
If you aren't cynical about truth you're gullible. The truth is more often than not shrouded in uncertainty. Forget about trusting single sources for it. This isn't some new thing. It has always been this way. If the truth really matters to you, then you need to make the time to read multiple sources and accounts. Even then, it is probably dubious. Or you can do what most people do, pick a side and be told what to think by whatever tendentious actor you see yourself aligned with. It is well documented that news sources trying to compete have become more and more biased. If you trust what any of them say you might as well think the moon landing was fake and pro wrestling is real.
@@gregorysgarrisonIt’s sad to read this comment. Being cynical about the truth is by definition a form of blindness. The truth is the truth. Not recognizing it is your fault. What you think is a product of how you think. Be better at knowing truth when you see it. Better at putting the puzzle pieces where they fit. Knowledge is having lots of puzzle pieces, wisdom is knowing which are important and where they fit. Peace.
We should become (somewhat) cynical in a world full of liars. A liar prospers in a world full of trusting people. What we actually want is an honest society that punishes dishonesty heavily, and we can only punish dishonesty if we have enough cynicism to see it.
I replayed the part about the TED controversy to see if I was missing something just to be fair. But Chris said a whole bunch of sweet nothings. He was too mealy-mouthed
Making the universe a better place for the consciousnesses that will exist is very important, bit I think people need to understand why they should care... And Generic Subjective Continuity provides us with one of the best reasons that could even possibly convince malignant narcissists to be good to others. (Sam discussed GSC in his "The Paradox of Death" episode).
Sam has jumped the shark. Don't expect him to have anyone on who can't be counted on to confirm his biases. It's been years and those rare encounters he, surprise surprise, wrote off as failures.
i'm not sure i like this guy. he talks like a politician with lots of slippery language and endless speeches about the great things he wants to achieve. i'm still not satisfied about how they treated coleman hughes. all he did was reassert what happened rather than justify it. he went on to say that he doesn't think colour blindness works, but didn't explain how and even so, why would that mean that coleman hughes shouldn't talk about it without these extra conditions being thrown in that wouldn't have happened with other topics? i didn't hear a justification for what they did as it seems that if he did give the real reason, then he'd be contradicting his stance on how he wants the industry to run, which i think he was aware of. i'm not sure if it's his own bias or pressure from other people however. i still can't believe "colour blindness" is controversial. it seems quite sinister to me. i can't help, but think it's because there are certain people of races out there whom have their special "victim status privileges" and they're aware that colour blindness would mean giving that special treatment/justice up. then again, now i might be being cynical, which is ironic considering the topic lol.
Offering a platform to someone who "caught your eye" is exactly at the core of the problem - who caught your eye is affected by a myriad things not least of which have to do with race and gender. In Sam's case it's not that he doesn't see all people relatively equal which I wholeheartedly believe but the people that he comes to notice have passed multiple other potentially more prejudiced loopholes. The other thing is the motivation behind acts of generosity. I don't think people are even aware of their own motives oftentimes. Our perceptions of ourselves are often distorted - some are biased towards the negative side, some are the opposite. Also you have to remember that throwing money at a cause doesn't always end up doing good, and good intentions don't justify bad outcomes. If your money/time/effort ends up profiting, say, Hamas terrorists you have de facto supported their terrorist activities. With giving there's a responsibility to follow through and some people might be deterred by that.
there usually is quite mixed bag of motives/emotions attached to generosity/altruism and it may not be the best approach to demand absolute purity(not saying, that intentions doesn´t matter!); i mean, in extreme its like saying, that you are either saint or worthless piece of selfish garbage... ...regarding coleman; i agree, that postponing his speech + not boosting it with usuall ted support is double standard (sam is also kinda needling chris by touching theme of public image vs integrity of teds founding intentions)...its dissapointing...same as lack of appreciation for undertaking such as ted; just reading colemans substack about his speech surprized me; every ted speech is preceded with profound and lenghty consultation + fact checking by ted staff; its not some careless "ok, we invite someone and see where it goes" bussiness; that said, i am taking this outcry as fair criticism, while looking forward to teds future guest list...btw (and i am aware of tribalism trap) is there some similar "rightish" platform?
It's nice they point out that a proper conception of selfishness does not entail a lack of concern for others' well-being, but they act as if they are hot on the trail of some fresh insight. Harris needs to get over his Ayn Rand allergy and have the guts to properly credit her for sorting out this issue 60 years ago.
Yeah.. this guy lost me in literally a couple of minutes. Watched 80% of the video and it got boring. He was "concerned" for some muslims in the audience, hence he opposed Sam's points and then doubling down with his staff about suppressing Colrman.. No thanks. Another wokester apologist.
Idk I think that’s a bit harsh. Not saying they made the right move but having to vet and decide on countless different speakers while balancing all sorts of different values like your financial status, doing good, having a life, getting along with others etc etc etc on limited means you have a non infinite amount of time to think about and understand all the various speakers and the controversy around them so sometimes you might just make a call to not include something just because it saves you the stress regardless of if it’s deserved or not and I don’t think it’s clearly obvious that’s a bad move.
O don't understand how the idea of colourblindness triggers the "woke left". I mean colourblindness is like directly from a Lennon song, everyone is equal, we live in harmony, how. much worker can an idea get? this is the motherlode of wokeness
I think what Sam says here about it being a huge loss of opportunity for miniority groups of any kind, to wind up spending most of their time talking about issues related to that, when often they have so much else to give. NOW, I UNDERSTAND that this is a utopian worldview and not how things really are. And I totally get why people who are disadvantaged whether socioeconomically, racially, because of disability or sexual identity, when given an audience as big as TED offers, will WANT to talk about those issues preferentially to other things, because we simply just are still so far from anything like an inclusive, non-judgemental and fair society and furthermore, justice system, that we do NEED to keep talking about it. F**k, in Australia, this problem is 10x worse than in the US (at least based on my own observations, and watching a lot of documentary/reading a lot of books by credible writers) - racism in Australia is still 100% accepted; normalised and justified. Hell, we just had a referendum which was about two things, one of which was RECOGNITION OF FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE IN THE CONSTITUTION and the vote went 40:60 Yes:No. Now, 40% isn't bad. But FFS colonisation rendered Aborignal culture, philosophy, art, medicine ENDANGERED. Luckily not extinct. Momentum is growing but I have a number of Aboriginal friends and they all say the same thing - they don't like going into stores because they will be tailed by store security. There is a lack of trust, often fear, manytimes disgust expressed towards ordinary Aboriginal Australians just going about their lives doing nothing wrong by us British ex-pats, immigrants from Europe & more recent immigrants from other parts of the world. But grass roots change is about, as Sam says, being "colour blind". People are just people. We are all just trying to make our way in this messed up world and I personally could care less about race, religion, neurodiversity, age, gender identity or sexual preference. I think there is little hope left for my generation (Gen X) and definitely not for our parents. But Gen Y and younger need to shift their perspective, drop the stereotypes, stop pidgeonholing & judging people and let everyone give you a chance to show you who they are before you decide whether or not you care to get to know them.
The one thing that is alwaus interesting about Sam is one episode he will talk about peace, generosity, the space for all beings to experience joy and happiness. And the next he will have a hate mongering far right supoorter on that he considers a great friend and loves his message. Lol. Free thinker. I guess so
Love Sam but his hatred and mischaracterization of trump is such a blindspot and a bias in his thinking. Strange to see someone usually so precise speaking in sweeping generalities that reek of bitterness. Trump has been and likely shall remain misunderstood
It's a common phenomenon unfortunately. 80 percent of the Democrats I know have had their brains broken by him; bringing up even one positive word about the guy can ruin a family gathering lol
@@tejasnair3399 I think that Hamas are “bad” and wrong… Hamas thinks that they are good and I’m wrong… Your analogy is very “ bad” If you can’t see the difference between math and moral matters then I can’t help you…
@@tejasnair3399 Emmanuel Kant will agrees with you Hamas thinkers will deeply disagree with you and with Emmanuel Kant , they have their own differences and definitions… you can’t rationalize ideology political beliefs and moral matters and values .. all are subjective matters …
@@tejasnair3399 Some people are very happy walking on the streets while it’s snowing outside and very cold Some people will be suffering from doing the same thing.. Are we talking about subjectivity? Or what?
@@tejasnair3399 Hamas thinkers don’t give a damn about what the philosophers have to say, They have their own definitions of what good is… in other words “ good and bad “ are subjective matter .. what make you think that I didn’t read any philosophy?? ( is like me saying that you are a jack ass, without any real knowledge of you) As a matter of fact I love philosophy, especially when it come down to metaphysical issues.. (
@@dermotmeuchner2416 Misanthrope is by definition what Hamas organization are But you can be sure that Hamas thinks that you and I are by definition a misanthropist.. Good and bad are subjective matters…
Oh my word. Chris. Chris. Chris. You did the TED Talk brand no favors today. Ick. Your take on the controversy that TED TALK CREATED around Coleman Hughes is laughable. Just apologize. Your muzzling of him was gross and anti-spreading of worthy ideas. What I learned from it is, TED Talk doesn't want the open exchange of new ideas. It wants to be an echo chamber - and its product now is malignant virtue-signaling. So disappointed by this Mr. Anderson and this conversation. BUT, I'm glad it exists in the ether - and see how it has a place, unlike Ted Talk "uncomfortable" with the ideas of a black man talking about color-blindness.
The argument that it's absolutely ok for people to give even though their motive is self serving is so flawed. If you are encouraging people to do that so that it encourages others to then the illumination it once gave will become totally obsolete and people won't bother giving. Think about what we all put on our CVs in order to get an interview for a job, we'd embellish everything so that it would make us look amazing, except once everyone started doing it it totally lost its lustre. In addition to that, the motive of giving to virtue signal is basically so that their status in society can go up, which in itself contributes to inequality. If someone knows that virtue signalling is going to increase their chances of promotion then someone else has to lose out. I'm surprised at how blinkered this interviewee is. I'm afraid to say that most people who run these podcasts, including Sam Harris himself, are just virtue signalling about how they want to make the world a better place, yet neglecting to realise that they do so from a position of privilege.
I remember the interview Sam Harris did with bankman freid, listening to him waffling on about how much his company gives to charity to make himself feel good and indicate he was helping society, when at literally the same time he was commuting fraud and ripping off customers. All this altruistis giving nonsense is a total waste of time.
I recently watched the movie "Amadeus" with our current societal lens.... He (Wolfgang) comes across as a complete idiot.... It may be very annoyed realizing that
Given the SBF debacle, I’d like to hear Sam’s thoughts on e/acc before he doubles down on altruism. I find Beff Jezos’ arguments convincing and I want Sam’s take.
SBF fucking up and losing shit tons of money really doesn't negate the fact SBF had been a legendary giver and world improving donating force, man still was great at giving and had nothing to do with the ugliness.
The world has always been mean, it hasn't just become. Your fear has helped the bad guys turn our country into a big brother (corporate) surveillance state. It's only going to get worse but not for the reasons you're suggesting. Money Money Money. WOKE cannot become the new religion
Sam Harris says that he was against the Iraq war, or as he puts it *he always thought that Iraq war was a bad idea* (Let's not misinterpret the most misunderstood intellectual in America). We never heard "that" from him until recently, and also his good friend Christopher Hitchens was the biggest cheerleader for the Iraq war, we never heard Sam Harris debate Christopher Hitchens on that topic.
Maybe you remember him saying the exact words. I also remember him saying the exact words as in my comments. But his problem is that he's always surrounded himself with propagandists like David frum. About important events he pulls the same Schtick about Iraq war, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden story "the truth is I couldn't make up my mind about Edward Snowden story" the truth is I couldn't make up my mind about Julian Assange story" i remember him calling Julian Assange a Sociopath.
@@anuragsinha2013 his thinking always ends up with him supporting establishment positions- the war on terror, covid, Ukraine etc. He hosts disgusting warmongers like Anne Applebaum and helped rehabilitate Frum. He's basically a boomer who dropped acid, a product of ivy league America who firmly believes in its bullshit veneer of prestige. He's never entertained serious criticism of anything beyond religion.
You’ll notice some personal remarks, in here, indicate this was taken from a texted conversation I had in a group. Just ignore those personal remarks. This is a great conversation. Sam is talking to the man who owns TED Talks. It gets tedious when they’re discussing the people who were at the base of Effective Altruism and DEI - but it gets more interesting when they start talking about Coleman Hughes and what Wokeism and Anderson did to him-which I completely disagree with-and there is much talk about color blindness, population groups and - you know - what stubborn people call ‘race‘. It’s another conversation that’s great for those who care about what’s going on in the world-maybe more so, in the American World. It’s very much like many of our conversations, Bob - very much like what you were just talking about, when mentioning the way things might be, or should be or could be. Here’s a question for you fellas: My logic on this is: As long as one is going to take a superficial feature of a human “group” and describe them by it - there is no way that superficial taste cannot be attached to that superficial feature, and it doesn’t matter if the people using that descriptor don’t see anything wrong with the “group” described by that superficial feature; what I mean is, even one who claims not to have anything intrinsically against that “group” - must submit to the notion that that group is different in a substantial way (by attributing the “group” to that superficial feature), simply by calling them out according to that feature-defining them by it; and of course the worst among us in contributing to any prejudice derived or connected to this superficial feature-are those who submit to it and name themselves in this way, turning the name into a badge of honor-or a pejorative. For example; Imagine calling Kangaroos, “tailers”, simply because they have evolved and still have tails. Who does this? Well people have a use for those tales. So what’s the obvious problem? Well - the obvious problem is the kangaroos are so much more than the sum of the use of their tails. Now, if we were taxonomists studying different mammalian groups-this would only be typical use of a time-honored and useful practice, as it is in real animal taxonomy. Animals in different sub-species are often named after the feature which is most obviously different from those of their brother and sister subspecies. But you might say to me - ‘why wouldn’t you call them something that relates to their pouches or even their muscular, and human arms? Well, that’s the point. For people(s) who have no use in describing themselves by the variations in their skin tone, there would be no reason to name and put them in different groups according to the color of their skin (and of course, it goes without saying, that people assigned to different skin-tone groups have different tones in contrast with one another in the same group; you know what I mean, here: no two people are black in the same way, nor white, etc. - and many are disparately complected and within and disagreeing with one another over it: ‘I’m brown, and he’s black; I’m witer than you; she’s blacker than me.’) It’s all so stupid - unless you’re a colorist, a taxonomist - or “racist‘ (one I define as deluded into thinking races exist among Homo sapiens and that a superficial feature could describe those “distinct” races-of which neither is true); it’s language dealing in the bullshit of a subdivision that doesn’t exist among humans. No one is saying here - and I’m being facetious in describing myself - that we can’t describe different groups, but ‘races’ and ‘colors’ are the wrong descriptors and cause pejorative language and false distinctions socially and politically. We just need different names. Someone is going to bring up how these classifications are helpful to police officers and doctors. Fine; just called them something accurate. The science shows that we are not divided into races. That should be the end of the argument and the end of it forever. Someone is going to say but this group or that group likes the descriptor. Doesn’t matter. It’s causing harm - and, again, it’s inaccurate. This inaccuracy falsely educates people and maintains false barriers. And every time we open our mouths and we use these inaccurate terms or we set them down in text-we are contributing to the false education and the divide between us. There are still others - as you will hear given voice two in this discussion between Sam Harris and Chris Anderson - who will say that color blindness doesn’t work. Well that’s because people wanted to work with certain names on top of each category involved. Again! I’m just saying change the fucking names. Because the names are wrong. Words matter - because they inform cognition which informs behavior. As I’ve told most of you in private conversation - I am completely confident that the day is going to come when the word ‘race‘ is in the trash bin of linguistic history, where it belongs - with the N-word. Why not(?)- as Christopher Hitchens used to say - “bring it on.” And I mean now. I simply can’t accept the arguments that ‘people aren’t ready for that’-just as Sam was not ready for Anderson’s explanation about what was done to Coleman Hugh’s at TED-to satisfy the woke and defy MLK…. Here’s a question for you fellas: How can we get beyond prejudice when people insist on using the word ‘race‘? My logic on this is: As long as one going to take a superficial feature of a human group and describe them by it - there is no way that superficial taste cannot be attached to that superficial feature, and it doesn’t matter if the people using that descriptor don’t see anything wrong with the group of its superficial feature; what I mean is, even one who claims not to have anything intrinsically against that group - must submit to the notion that that group is different in a substantial way (by attributing the group to that superficial feature), simply by calling them out according to that feature-defining them by it; and of course the worst among us in contributing to any prejudice derived or connected to this superficial feature-are those who submit to it and name themselves in this way turning the name into a badge of honor-or a pejorative. For example; Imagine calling Kangaroos, “tailers”, just because they have tails. Who do this? Well people have a use for those towels. So what’s the obvious problem? Well - the obvious problem is the kangaroos are so much more than the sum of the use of their tails. Now if we were taxonomist studying different mammalian groups-This would be the time honored and useful practice as it is in real animal taxonomy. Animals in different sub species are often named after the feature which is most obviously different from those of their brother and sister subspecies. But you might say to me - why wouldn’t you call them something that relates to their pouches or even their muscular, and human leg arms? Well that’s the point. For people(s) who have no use in describing themselves by the variations in their skin tone, there would be no reason to name out them in different groups according to the color of their skin (and of course, it goes without saying, that people assigned different skin - tone groups have different tones in contrast with one another in the same group; you know what I mean, here: no two people are black in the same way, nor white, etc. - and many are disparately complected and whine up disagreeing with one another over it: ‘I’m brown, and he’s black; I’m wider than you; she’s blacker than me.’) It’s also stupid unless you’re a colorist, a taxonomist - or ‘ racist ‘ - Language Stickley dealing in the bullshit of a subdivision that doesn’t exist among humans. No one is saying here - and I’m being facetious in describing myself - that we can’t describe different groups, but ‘races’ and ‘colors’ are the wrong descriptors and cause pejorative language and false distinctions socially and politically. We just need differentul to
Which part of this podcast on “generosity” and “doing good” do they talk about the justified reasons of slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza? You know, the reasons for leveling a city to root out some bad apples? Sam the moral philosopher seems to have no moral qualms about it.
Halfway through watching this interview, and with knowledge of the wealth of great content to be had now, I do not feel compelled to ever watch another TED talk. The heavily woke filtered philosopher/ standup-comedian format does not interest me. TED can melt into the obscure DemocracyNow! or Richard Wolff or Young Turks corner of the web.
I used to look forward to these but not now. Sam's failure to call out Israel's atrocities or show any understanding to the Palestinian just cause, has exposed Sam in my view as disingenuous.
@@jackd6129 Thanks for that. First part was interesting as you suggested but the second part was just pure mental gymnastics stuff. Basically justifying Israel's actions. He called Palestinians aggressors even though they're under occupation. He said Israel want to leave in peace with its neighbours, even though Israel has taken everything from Palestinians down to their dignity with no hope for the future, generation after generation, effectively prisoners in their own land, who could accept peace like that?! No one. He talks about Muslim hatred for the Jews when in fact Germany was committing genocide towards the Jews alongside other Eastern European countries collaborating with them, Palestinians and Jews were living in peace In Palestine. There are Jews today understand the suffering of Palestinians and are actively pursuing justice against the Zionist fascistic regime, like Norman Finkelstein, ilan pape, gideon levy, noam chomsky to name just a few, shame Sam Harris isn't one of them. Make no mistake he knows, this isn't about religion as he claims, this is about someone taking whats yours and expecting you to accept it without resistance, hence why I still think he is disingenuous.
@@Forksake82 glad you found it a timely recommendation. I think we can probably agree that many of our viewpoints on this subject depend on the particular algorithmic rabbit hole we found ourselves descending. At least I hope we can. I think one thing is pretty clear - Sam is not a big fan of Israel, but he’s pragmatic. The world is in turmoil. Given the current state of affairs, what’s the alternative? Hamas is clear. They explicitly want the elimination of an entire ethnoreligious group and are proud of that goal. History is history up against such a clear and present danger imho. But I’m prepared to be proven wrong.
8:00 Hey, Sam. How are you feeling today? After Trump practically winning the primaries. I hope your meditation is still working to lower your stress levels! Buhahahahaha!
The absolute obsession with altruism is not healthy. Obviously "color blindness" does not work if your goal is equality. Any group is going to contain a statistical difference. That is fine. The goal itself is wrong. You both need to think more about Ayn Rand's deeper insights. The goal in life is happiness aka self interest. Generosity can be part of this. Read Ayn Rand the virtue of selfishness.
Look up Rand’s hypocrisy in regards to the affair she had with that married man, but then when he had an affair with someone else Rand got all jelous, vain, petty and vindictive. Those traits describe Rand the best…look it up
Can you not be a coward and invite Norman Finkelstein to debate what's happening in Gaza and the atrocities that the Israeli government continue committing
Why? There are so many other wars and thing to understand. I'ts nonsensical at this point, and the longer you spend trying to figure it out the more complicated it gets. @@loopperson8836
@@toby9999 Last i checked, Israel wasn't under a complete blockade or occupation by Palestine. Nor have they been subjected to curfews, routine incursions called "mowing the lawn", illegal settlements...etc. Hamas even explicitly states in their charter that their issue with Israel isn't over religion, but over sovereignty. Boggles my mind how the media seem to miss that fact and simply fall for the IDF narrative. So I'll ask you... Free Israel from what exactly? All they had to do was to act in peace with those around them, something they have never done.
8 minutes in and the TDS rears its head. Sam calls Trump selfish but Forbes write that Trump “probably” donated his entire salary back. That doesn’t seem like the act of a selfish person to me.
So his defense of himself/TED with regard to TED's abysmal treatment of Coleman Hughes boils down to the fact Coleman's talk is "deeply upsetting" to some on the left and made some of his staff "uncomfortable". This is literally feelings trumping careful, reasoned discourse at TED.
Yea his argument here is pretty awful. He said they consciously left it out of popular streams then literally laughs at the idea woke staff censored Coleman. This whole discussion is a grand example of the blindness of TED and their ilk and gives credence to the rising cynicism he says he’s trying to quell.
I stopped listening when Anderson bemoaned, "hemorrhaging a million a day." Completely out of touch and he seems devoid of significant self-awareness.
Sounds like Coleman was correct in his perception of his TED Talk being suppressed because of woke staffers. Anderson just presents this information somewhat cheerfully, but doesn't actually undermine anything.
Sam Harris himself, a few years ago described TED as "Unbearably woke".
A seat costs from $2,500 to $25,000. The event really is a circle-jerk of woke rich liberals who pay a fortune to people who tell them what they want to hear.
Oye. The Coleman Hughes controversy did not get better by this. He not only doubled down. But semi-agreed with his staff for deliberately suppressing the talk. Wow
Absolute lunacy
Absolute lunacy
Yes they have a difference of opinion. And Sam’s ideas were quite stronger than Chris’. So instead of being upset that he didn’t immediately admit total fault and utterly disavowed his employees, let’s rather have faith that this conversation will nudge him in the right direction.
It was awkward. The guy sounded almost embarrassed because he knows it's ridiculous but he has no backbone. Stating why they don't like Coleman's views is not a rebuttal to the travesty of trying to silence them. They think his views are harmful. Ok. Well everybody who has a political views on anything, thinks their opponents views are a net harm, or else they would share their opponents views. That's life. A couple of hundred years ago we sketched out an albeit imperfect way to get past these divergent views, which gave rise to parliaments etc. And then he suggests the Barbara Streisand effect that has accidentally garnered Coleman's talk more views ultimately, somehow admonishes TED of any wrong doing is dishonest and weak. Sam should have spent longer there.
@@vaffelproductions His handling of the whole debacle as well as doubling down and poor responses were lazy and cowardly. He should have admitted total fault and utterly disavowed his employees.
The world is full of good people. If you can't find one, be one.
If you can’t find one…. It usually means this isn’t with in you’re fkn comprehension
Do you get it?
It is difficult in this fkn 🌎 world
You are in a world of possibilities
Not what most people think or believe or actually think
@lostnumer08
Somehow you have been denied or rejected from the real world
You’re middle class bullshit reality isn’t the fkn real world
…
@ lostnumber08
Your denial of humanity is the obvious
Reason isn’t your best
Argument and justice is beyond you
So glad Sam asked about Coleman's awful treatment by TED. Pretty bad response.
Man, this guy still really doesn't understand how bad TED failed, with regard to the Coleman Hughes situation. Some people are so far behind in the race they think that they're leading...
Coleman Hughes isn’t controversial, he isn’t right wing, Chris’s response is actually non-factual. Absolutely atrocious. What a spineless man.
Indeed. Also many forget that people are allowed to be right wing
@@seoz774 Oh yeah of course, it's just that people in the progressive bubble seem to use it in a slanderous way so they can lazily avoid taking their arguments seriously
The fact that this guy is pretending to hold centrist values like he has no responsibility that his organisation has drifted so far to the radical left that coleman is someone they can hardly offer a platform to is rather aggravating
Radical left? What are you NAZI right?
Thank you for holding his feet to the fire there Sam.
Sam has an almost perfect record of avoiding to invite people who hold *his* feet to the fire.
@@twntwrs I love Sam Harris (not all his ideas) but you are right. He will put himself in positions to hold the feet of others to the fire but is very careful not to ever let that happen to him. It's like his high intelligence has ironically made a fool of himself. He seems to act like his ideas are are the right ideas and his way is the only true way ( kinda like Muhammad ironically lol)
i don't think he held his feet to the fire enough tbh. chris' explanation were such non-explanations
Anderson's position on the Hughes debacle is "TED is so wonderful and brave for allowing this guy to say what MLK used to say. How dare Hughes demand an equal treatment to other presenters?" This Anderson guy has no shame.
Thank you Sam. I can’t put a price in the help you have provided me with your literature and conversations.
Go Sam
"TED is non-partisan", right after explaining himself catering to complaining leftists. Here's my question, if enough right wing people complained about a lot of the horse shit videos TED produces would he cater the same way he did to those leftists? We all know the answer to that.
"Follow the money" is my policy. If the people who fund, attend and consume Tedtalks are leftist, it all make perfect sense as to why he responded to pressure from leftists. It's a business, thats all!
Well, here I am on TH-cam doing my best to cater to you, Cody! TED is a lot more than you think it is.
@@ChrisAnderson-qz8hi- The problem is that it tries to be all things to all people in a "non-partisan" way when, where the rubber meets the road, it's still filtering messages because of personal feelings and bias. TED is a lot less than it thinks it is.
@@ChrisAnderson-qz8hi If there are complaints about the platforming of others by people, no matter the political view, you should not pay them any attention or care. So you should have told those people who complained about platforming Coleman that you don't care if they're offended and should have asked if they care about the free exchange of ideas. What I'm saying about the double standard is not that conservatives should complain about the platforming of leftists but that because of the bias of media orgs and academia towards one side complaints amounting to almost nothing are being treated as a big deal. While if a conservative did the same thing it would be laughed out of the room and rightfully so.
"Horse shit videos" is the key here. TEDtalks used to be , many years ago, quite interesting. Now they're so bland and cuddly it makes you want to puke. A modern day readers digest.
In response to Coleman, he says the problem here is tribalism. He fails to see that his tribe treated Coleman differently than any other person who went on TED because Coleman is not part of his tribe. He fails to acknowledge any wrongdoing there. How can I trust his opinion on generosity or the future of doing good when he only knows cynicism.
He even SOUNDS like Tony Blair.
Thanks Sam for another great discussion and also to Chris Anderson - I think TED is a great venture and although their are plenty of TED talks (especially TEDx) that I take issue with, that is OK. The viewpoint of others is always worth hearing, regardless of what feelings it evokes in you. I have learned that when something makes me angry, to ask myself why and critically evaluate why that is because it is true what they say - what you dislike about other ppl is often a mirror for what you dislike about yourself, which is an awesome to challenge yourself and your own beliefs systems and where they come from. Never stop growing; never stop learning, nothing in this ecosystem is anymore valuable than anything else. Everyone has a story and I truly believe that everyone has something to teach me, if they will trust me enough to share their story
I had a friend trapped in bitterness after an experience with a homeless person to whom he had given money and perceived that he was not rewarded with sufficient gratitude. I asked him to examine the motive for his actions. I suggested that he reframe the experience and understand that he had done the right thing in the moment when he saw another person in need and chose to act with compassion. When he accepted that he is only responsible for his actions and that his were admirable, he was able to let go of his cynicism and embrace his own generous nature.
That said, your friend did the WRONG thing. Ask professional social workers who deal with the homeless whether you should EVER give money to a homeless person. 99% will say "NO". They say, "If you want to help the homeless, give to a homeless shelter." It's not compassion to encourage and validate begging.
That’s beautiful
I have actually stopped giving money to homeless people. I used to and realized that half the ones I see for whatever reason don't actually want to do anything for money. The other half probably need some form of help. The final point is that I've had too many negative experiences where the "homeless" person asking for things I find later "selling" the food they were given for free to get actual cash. Whatever their problems - its organizations that have to help them and your individual 1 dollar or if you're super generous 20 dollars will not do anything except your personal gratification. One of my friends argued that to keep ones humanity you must use these small moments for that personal gratification. I have sympathy with that perspective.
I have started just donating to the best charity possible (I know its not the local foodbank) but its some form of impact. so about 400 a year. Not a ton, but I don't think I can do more unless I want to live the "peter singer life" - which I don't.
Liked the guest but his stance is indicative of the confusion in our public debate. If the issue with colour blindness is its effectiveness - let’s discuss how to measure what “effective” means and how to be effective. We should not avoid talking about issues because they are complicated. That is a confusing and confused position.
I agree. It's worth a much longer discussion than was possible here.
I consider myself a Classical Liberal, though not particularly Libertarian, even though the two are related. I think Sam should have a conversation with one of these ppl who worships Ayn Rand, I don't entirely understand them. Top pick, definitely Stephen Hicks.
Libertarian is throwing the baby out
Different meaning in the uk
Liberal has different meanings in the uk and fkn Murica
Socialism is in Murica seen as spot on society
You don’t seem too understand the meaning of
A social democratic society is not understood by the average American
Liberals aren't libertarian. Their ideas are quite different from each other, contrary to what one might expect given how close the terms sound.
Mr. Harris, the reason no one has ever made those comments about buying a book is that you are buying a physical item that you now own when you buy a book. You get to keep it, read it over and over and share it with loved ones without having to pay more and more money to do so. A podcast is a radio show, or a tv show and it is dependent on the availability of electricity, to charge the phone, laptop or tablet, which we all also have to pay for and the internet, which we all are already paying for too. Sort of like the TV show M. A. S.H., which so many of us tuned in to watch almost religiously, but none of us actually gave any money directly to the studio or the cast and crew...we were paying with our time and attention, not our wallets. As far as I am concerned, the platforms you broadcast on should be the ones paying you because of the amount of attention the people watching or listening are giving to that platform. For example, youtube should be paying you because of the ratings your show has and the ads that run. The viewer is already giving your show the attention and not the millions of other shows that are on at the same time and they are already paying for the access to the internet and electricity on top of that. A book is a one time purchase with no hidden or extra fees. Hope that helps you to understand why people react differently to podcasts. If I buy your book you will make money off of me once....if I pay for your podcast you will get money each time I watch an episode....we, the consumer, are not all ignorant to this fact and many of us disagree with the ethics of making money repeatedly off of one person watching the same episode several times vs the consumer paying you royalties once for a book they can read ten thousand times for free afterwards.
A small footnote to your carefully crafted note. I pay TH-cam a monthly to watch ad free and to get TH-cam music. This reduces my inclination to pay for individual podcasters.
@@simonalexanderwood I don't pay you tube at all but one get you
Ghislaine Maxwell will save the oceans with her Ted talks.
I'm pretty sure they would have handed Jimmy Savile a TEDtalk if he was still alive. Now we'll simply have to do with Ghislaine and Greta.
Almost half hour so far...
The guest just asserts without evidence that colorblindness doesn't "work" (without defining what that means either).
Not a serious person.
Not an intellectually interesting guest.
Handpicked to not wander off Sam's reservation.
I find the "rah rah" attitude in some of these comments dispiriting.
The one concrete claim of Coleman against TED was that they failed to promote him on their podcast. Chris said (1) that he wasn't aware at the time that this happened and (2) that he has since rectified the problem. This seems like a reasonable response to me.
Let's see what the 2024 lineup for TED looks like, as Chris suggests. Let's try to adopt some generosity of spirit.
Yeah, let's see. Sadly he missed the opportunity of putting on Jimmy Savile - who has now passed away. But he managed to get two real intellectual heavy-weights: Ghislaine and Greta.
Bullshit. Anderson described his role as "brave" and implied that Hughes has to be grateful for being able to speak so controversially at TED.
I still don't get what's so deeply unsettling about Coleman Hughes talk. might be that I am too stupid, but maybe it's because I am not from the US and Americans don't see how deep they have dug these stupid trenches
Great place to end this part of the podcast!
You can’t “do” good… you can only “be” good.
You can do nice things for people but that’s not what it means to be good.
@@tejasnair3399 Can you give me an example?
Meditate more.
@@jackd6129 🤔
Not sure who persuaded you of this, but no: doing good is just as much part of the English language as being good.
@@MrCmon113 So please define what it means to “do” good for me if it’s so obvious
Speaking of Coleman, does anyone know where he's been? He hasn't updated his podcast in over a month.
imagine if we became cynical about truth just because some random people lied about something.
If you aren't cynical about truth you're gullible. The truth is more often than not shrouded in uncertainty. Forget about trusting single sources for it. This isn't some new thing. It has always been this way. If the truth really matters to you, then you need to make the time to read multiple sources and accounts. Even then, it is probably dubious. Or you can do what most people do, pick a side and be told what to think by whatever tendentious actor you see yourself aligned with. It is well documented that news sources trying to compete have become more and more biased. If you trust what any of them say you might as well think the moon landing was fake and pro wrestling is real.
Manufactured Consent
That wouldn't be a good reason to become cynical. There'll always be liars.
@@gregorysgarrisonIt’s sad to read this comment. Being cynical about the truth is by definition a form of blindness. The truth is the truth. Not recognizing it is your fault. What you think is a product of how you think. Be better at knowing truth when you see it. Better at putting the puzzle pieces where they fit. Knowledge is having lots of puzzle pieces, wisdom is knowing which are important and where they fit. Peace.
We should become (somewhat) cynical in a world full of liars. A liar prospers in a world full of trusting people. What we actually want is an honest society that punishes dishonesty heavily, and we can only punish dishonesty if we have enough cynicism to see it.
I replayed the part about the TED controversy to see if I was missing something just to be fair. But Chris said a whole bunch of sweet nothings. He was too mealy-mouthed
Making the universe a better place for the consciousnesses that will exist is very important, bit I think people need to understand why they should care... And Generic Subjective Continuity provides us with one of the best reasons that could even possibly convince malignant narcissists to be good to others. (Sam discussed GSC in his "The Paradox of Death" episode).
sounds like a slippery guy with the content of his answers and to hear him speak his voice is very similar to Tony Blair
Great podcast sam. Some of his podcast are still great. 10/10
Too much phycobabal re Colman Hughes. Just admit you were wrong in the way he was treated. A truly great thinker.
False claim:
The Coleman Hughes Ted Talk did NOT get 800,000 views on YT.
It's less than HALF of that
teds website exists.
One could not be more wrong than to believe in determinism and altruism.
Link to the Coleman Hughes talk please?
Thanks @@UsernameVincent !
Not the most interesting guest in my opinion
Sam has jumped the shark. Don't expect him to have anyone on who can't be counted on to confirm his biases. It's been years and those rare encounters he, surprise surprise, wrote off as failures.
Sammy babay! Keep it going brother 🌞👍
people scamming people, or making nonsense statements are not really trying to do good are they?
i'm not sure i like this guy. he talks like a politician with lots of slippery language and endless speeches about the great things he wants to achieve. i'm still not satisfied about how they treated coleman hughes. all he did was reassert what happened rather than justify it. he went on to say that he doesn't think colour blindness works, but didn't explain how and even so, why would that mean that coleman hughes shouldn't talk about it without these extra conditions being thrown in that wouldn't have happened with other topics? i didn't hear a justification for what they did as it seems that if he did give the real reason, then he'd be contradicting his stance on how he wants the industry to run, which i think he was aware of. i'm not sure if it's his own bias or pressure from other people however.
i still can't believe "colour blindness" is controversial. it seems quite sinister to me. i can't help, but think it's because there are certain people of races out there whom have their special "victim status privileges" and they're aware that colour blindness would mean giving that special treatment/justice up. then again, now i might be being cynical, which is ironic considering the topic lol.
Offering a platform to someone who "caught your eye" is exactly at the core of the problem - who caught your eye is affected by a myriad things not least of which have to do with race and gender. In Sam's case it's not that he doesn't see all people relatively equal which I wholeheartedly believe but the people that he comes to notice have passed multiple other potentially more prejudiced loopholes.
The other thing is the motivation behind acts of generosity. I don't think people are even aware of their own motives oftentimes. Our perceptions of ourselves are often distorted - some are biased towards the negative side, some are the opposite. Also you have to remember that throwing money at a cause doesn't always end up doing good, and good intentions don't justify bad outcomes. If your money/time/effort ends up profiting, say, Hamas terrorists you have de facto supported their terrorist activities. With giving there's a responsibility to follow through and some people might be deterred by that.
there usually is quite mixed bag of motives/emotions attached to generosity/altruism and it may not be the best approach to demand absolute purity(not saying, that intentions doesn´t matter!); i mean, in extreme its like saying, that you are either saint or worthless piece of selfish garbage...
...regarding coleman; i agree, that postponing his speech + not boosting it with usuall ted support is double standard (sam is also kinda needling chris by touching theme of public image vs integrity of teds founding intentions)...its dissapointing...same as lack of appreciation for undertaking such as ted; just reading colemans substack about his speech surprized me; every ted speech is preceded with profound and lenghty consultation + fact checking by ted staff; its not some careless "ok, we invite someone and see where it goes" bussiness; that said, i am taking this outcry as fair criticism, while looking forward to teds future guest list...btw (and i am aware of tribalism trap) is there some similar "rightish" platform?
Can you please do your podcast with video. its so much more engaging
great episode!
Sam didn’t do a good job in sticking up for Coleman, this podcast could have made a difference - Sam seemed weak
I agree but that wasn’t the point of the podcast. I’m just glad he brought it up.
That cliffhanger though.
It's nice they point out that a proper conception of selfishness does not entail a lack of concern for others' well-being, but they act as if they are hot on the trail of some fresh insight. Harris needs to get over his Ayn Rand allergy and have the guts to properly credit her for sorting out this issue 60 years ago.
Yeah.. this guy lost me in literally a couple of minutes. Watched 80% of the video and it got boring. He was "concerned" for some muslims in the audience, hence he opposed Sam's points and then doubling down with his staff about suppressing Colrman.. No thanks. Another wokester apologist.
Idk I think that’s a bit harsh. Not saying they made the right move but having to vet and decide on countless different speakers while balancing all sorts of different values like your financial status, doing good, having a life, getting along with others etc etc etc on limited means you have a non infinite amount of time to think about and understand all the various speakers and the controversy around them so sometimes you might just make a call to not include something just because it saves you the stress regardless of if it’s deserved or not and I don’t think it’s clearly obvious that’s a bad move.
O don't understand how the idea of colourblindness triggers the "woke left". I mean colourblindness is like directly from a Lennon song, everyone is equal, we live in harmony, how. much worker can an idea get? this is the motherlode of wokeness
I think what Sam says here about it being a huge loss of opportunity for miniority groups of any kind, to wind up spending most of their time talking about issues related to that, when often they have so much else to give.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND that this is a utopian worldview and not how things really are. And I totally get why people who are disadvantaged whether socioeconomically, racially, because of disability or sexual identity, when given an audience as big as TED offers, will WANT to talk about those issues preferentially to other things, because we simply just are still so far from anything like an inclusive, non-judgemental and fair society and furthermore, justice system, that we do NEED to keep talking about it. F**k, in Australia, this problem is 10x worse than in the US (at least based on my own observations, and watching a lot of documentary/reading a lot of books by credible writers) - racism in Australia is still 100% accepted; normalised and justified. Hell, we just had a referendum which was about two things, one of which was RECOGNITION OF FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE IN THE CONSTITUTION and the vote went 40:60 Yes:No. Now, 40% isn't bad. But FFS colonisation rendered Aborignal culture, philosophy, art, medicine ENDANGERED. Luckily not extinct. Momentum is growing but I have a number of Aboriginal friends and they all say the same thing - they don't like going into stores because they will be tailed by store security. There is a lack of trust, often fear, manytimes disgust expressed towards ordinary Aboriginal Australians just going about their lives doing nothing wrong by us British ex-pats, immigrants from Europe & more recent immigrants from other parts of the world.
But grass roots change is about, as Sam says, being "colour blind". People are just people. We are all just trying to make our way in this messed up world and I personally could care less about race, religion, neurodiversity, age, gender identity or sexual preference. I think there is little hope left for my generation (Gen X) and definitely not for our parents. But Gen Y and younger need to shift their perspective, drop the stereotypes, stop pidgeonholing & judging people and let everyone give you a chance to show you who they are before you decide whether or not you care to get to know them.
The one thing that is alwaus interesting about Sam is one episode he will talk about peace, generosity, the space for all beings to experience joy and happiness. And the next he will have a hate mongering far right supoorter on that he considers a great friend and loves his message. Lol. Free thinker. I guess so
Word
Word Word
Sam Harris. What a sad story of a fall from grace, interviewing uninteresting nobodies
Love Sam but his hatred and mischaracterization of trump is such a blindspot and a bias in his thinking. Strange to see someone usually so precise speaking in sweeping generalities that reek of bitterness. Trump has been and likely shall remain misunderstood
It's a common phenomenon unfortunately. 80 percent of the Democrats I know have had their brains broken by him; bringing up even one positive word about the guy can ruin a family gathering lol
He is irrelevant now. Destroyed by his delusions
Not a great guest unfortunately. He had zero interesting insights and his overly emotive conversational style felt jarring on this podcast.
My good is the opposite of what Hamas considers to be good, in other words , good and bad are subjective..
@@tejasnair3399
I think that Hamas are “bad” and wrong… Hamas thinks that they are good and I’m wrong…
Your analogy is very “ bad” If you can’t see the difference between math and moral matters then I can’t help you…
@@tejasnair3399
Emmanuel Kant will agrees with you
Hamas thinkers will deeply disagree with you and with Emmanuel Kant , they have their own differences and definitions… you can’t rationalize ideology political beliefs and moral matters and values .. all are subjective matters …
provoking viewpoint
@@tejasnair3399
Some people are very happy walking on the streets while it’s snowing outside and very cold
Some people will be suffering from doing the same thing..
Are we talking about subjectivity? Or what?
@@noend-2626Hamas are bad and wrong. What is Israel killing 10,000 infants and children?
First, you have to define good
Then we can continue ( maybe)
@@tejasnair3399
Hamas thinkers don’t give a damn about what the philosophers have to say,
They have their own definitions of what good is… in other words “ good and bad “ are subjective matter .. what make you think that I didn’t read any philosophy?? ( is like me saying that you are a jack ass, without any real knowledge of you)
As a matter of fact I love philosophy, especially when it come down to metaphysical issues.. (
@@tejasnair3399go on. Give him the reference. He’s not going to work it out by himself
It’s easier to be a misanthrope.
@@dermotmeuchner2416
Misanthrope is by definition what Hamas organization are
But you can be sure that Hamas thinks that you and I are by definition a misanthropist..
Good and bad are subjective matters…
@@noend-2626 I respectfully disagree.
Oh my word. Chris. Chris. Chris. You did the TED Talk brand no favors today. Ick. Your take on the controversy that TED TALK CREATED around Coleman Hughes is laughable. Just apologize. Your muzzling of him was gross and anti-spreading of worthy ideas. What I learned from it is, TED Talk doesn't want the open exchange of new ideas. It wants to be an echo chamber - and its product now is malignant virtue-signaling. So disappointed by this Mr. Anderson and this conversation. BUT, I'm glad it exists in the ether - and see how it has a place, unlike Ted Talk "uncomfortable" with the ideas of a black man talking about color-blindness.
The argument that it's absolutely ok for people to give even though their motive is self serving is so flawed. If you are encouraging people to do that so that it encourages others to then the illumination it once gave will become totally obsolete and people won't bother giving. Think about what we all put on our CVs in order to get an interview for a job, we'd embellish everything so that it would make us look amazing, except once everyone started doing it it totally lost its lustre. In addition to that, the motive of giving to virtue signal is basically so that their status in society can go up, which in itself contributes to inequality. If someone knows that virtue signalling is going to increase their chances of promotion then someone else has to lose out. I'm surprised at how blinkered this interviewee is. I'm afraid to say that most people who run these podcasts, including Sam Harris himself, are just virtue signalling about how they want to make the world a better place, yet neglecting to realise that they do so from a position of privilege.
I remember the interview Sam Harris did with bankman freid, listening to him waffling on about how much his company gives to charity to make himself feel good and indicate he was helping society, when at literally the same time he was commuting fraud and ripping off customers. All this altruistis giving nonsense is a total waste of time.
I recently watched the movie "Amadeus" with our current societal lens.... He (Wolfgang) comes across as a complete idiot.... It may be very annoyed realizing that
Given the SBF debacle, I’d like to hear Sam’s thoughts on e/acc before he doubles down on altruism.
I find Beff Jezos’ arguments convincing and I want Sam’s take.
@@mychannel5019 oops then I missed one. Can you give me the #?
SBF fucking up and losing shit tons of money really doesn't negate the fact SBF had been a legendary giver and world improving donating force, man still was great at giving and had nothing to do with the ugliness.
@EpicLemonMusic yeah a force of donations to politicians
@@EpicLemonMusic seems a little simplistic. Very much doubt SBF had a net positive effect
Wtf is SBF? 'Single Black Female'? Or is this one of those fake bot conversations talking about Amazon AX4 or investing with Kim Wong?
The exact moment where they begin to discuss the paywall model of the podcast, and how it shouldn’t be a barrier to the podcast, ….part one ends….
Anderson should grow a spine. Pathetic. The guy even SOUNDS like Tony Blair!
The world has always been mean, it hasn't just become. Your fear has helped the bad guys turn our country into a big brother (corporate) surveillance state. It's only going to get worse but not for the reasons you're suggesting. Money Money Money. WOKE cannot become the new religion
Sam Harris says that he was against the Iraq war, or as he puts it *he always thought that Iraq war was a bad idea* (Let's not misinterpret the most misunderstood intellectual in America).
We never heard "that" from him until recently, and also his good friend Christopher Hitchens was the biggest cheerleader for the Iraq war, we never heard Sam Harris debate Christopher Hitchens on that topic.
Maybe you remember him saying the exact words.
I also remember him saying the exact words as in my comments.
But his problem is that he's always surrounded himself with propagandists like David frum.
About important events he pulls the same Schtick about Iraq war, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden story "the truth is I couldn't make up my mind about Edward Snowden story"
the truth is I couldn't make up my mind about Julian Assange story" i remember him calling Julian Assange a Sociopath.
@@anuragsinha2013 his thinking always ends up with him supporting establishment positions- the war on terror, covid, Ukraine etc. He hosts disgusting warmongers like Anne Applebaum and helped rehabilitate Frum.
He's basically a boomer who dropped acid, a product of ivy league America who firmly believes in its bullshit veneer of prestige. He's never entertained serious criticism of anything beyond religion.
@@pinkle257he did acid? Ayuasca ok yes but acid ?
Are you being facetious? Chris cldnt stand him and Sam felt Chris was beneath him. Chris saw Sam as the dumb mans smart guy
Wow what a shocker TED is woke.
"Ted is non-partisan". Yes, and I have some land to sell you in Florida
Sam still making podcasts?
8 minutes it took Sam to bring up Trump ...ffs go meditate and get over him
Fake it till you make it. It’s worked great for me! 😇
Call whatever name you want. People will believe you. Image is image.
I believe no one is perfect and the hatred is so deep. The use of invention is for good and evil.
Tx
Hi Sam can you do a talk on abundance mindset, manifesting reality
Doesn't work
You’ll notice some personal remarks, in here, indicate this was taken from a texted conversation I had in a group. Just ignore those personal remarks.
This is a great conversation. Sam is talking to the man who owns TED Talks. It gets tedious when they’re discussing the people who were at the base of Effective Altruism and DEI - but it gets more interesting when they start talking about Coleman Hughes and what Wokeism and Anderson did to him-which I completely disagree with-and there is much talk about color blindness, population groups and - you know - what stubborn people call ‘race‘.
It’s another conversation that’s great for those who care about what’s going on in the world-maybe more so, in the American World.
It’s very much like many of our conversations, Bob - very much like what you were just talking about, when mentioning the way things might be, or should be or could be.
Here’s a question for you fellas:
My logic on this is:
As long as one is going to take a superficial feature of a human “group” and describe them by it - there is no way that superficial taste cannot be attached to that superficial feature, and it doesn’t matter if the people using that descriptor don’t see anything wrong with the “group” described by that superficial feature; what I mean is, even one who claims not to have anything intrinsically against that “group” - must submit to the notion that that group is different in a substantial way (by attributing the “group” to that superficial feature), simply by calling them out according to that feature-defining them by it; and of course the worst among us in contributing to any prejudice derived or connected to this superficial feature-are those who submit to it and name themselves in this way, turning the name into a badge of honor-or a pejorative.
For example;
Imagine calling Kangaroos, “tailers”, simply because they have evolved and still have tails.
Who does this? Well people have a use for those tales. So what’s the obvious problem?
Well - the obvious problem is the kangaroos are so much more than the sum of the use of their tails.
Now, if we were taxonomists studying different mammalian groups-this would only be typical use of a time-honored and useful practice, as it is in real animal taxonomy.
Animals in different sub-species are often named after the feature which is most obviously different from those of their brother and sister subspecies. But you might say to me - ‘why wouldn’t you call them something that relates to their pouches or even their muscular, and human arms? Well, that’s the point.
For people(s) who have no use in describing themselves by the variations in their skin tone, there would be no reason to name and put them in different groups according to the color of their skin (and of course, it goes without saying, that people assigned to different skin-tone groups have different tones in contrast with one another in the same group; you know what I mean, here: no two people are black in the same way, nor white, etc. - and many are disparately complected and within and disagreeing with one another over it: ‘I’m brown, and he’s black; I’m witer than you; she’s blacker than me.’)
It’s all so stupid - unless you’re a colorist, a taxonomist - or “racist‘ (one I define as deluded into thinking races exist among Homo sapiens and that a superficial feature could describe those “distinct” races-of which neither is true); it’s language dealing in the bullshit of a subdivision that doesn’t exist among humans.
No one is saying here - and I’m being facetious in describing myself - that we can’t describe different groups, but ‘races’ and ‘colors’ are the wrong descriptors and cause pejorative language and false distinctions socially and politically. We just need different names.
Someone is going to bring up how these classifications are helpful to police officers and doctors. Fine; just called them something accurate. The science shows that we are not divided into races. That should be the end of the argument and the end of it forever.
Someone is going to say but this group or that group likes the descriptor. Doesn’t matter. It’s causing harm - and, again, it’s inaccurate. This inaccuracy falsely educates people and maintains false barriers. And every time we open our mouths and we use these inaccurate terms or we set them down in text-we are contributing to the false education and the divide between us.
There are still others - as you will hear given voice two in this discussion between Sam Harris and Chris Anderson - who will say that color blindness doesn’t work. Well that’s because people wanted to work with certain names on top of each category involved. Again! I’m just saying change the fucking names. Because the names are wrong. Words matter - because they inform cognition which informs behavior.
As I’ve told most of you in private conversation - I am completely confident that the day is going to come when the word ‘race‘ is in the trash bin of linguistic history, where it belongs - with the N-word. Why not(?)- as Christopher Hitchens used to say - “bring it on.” And I mean now.
I simply can’t accept the arguments that ‘people aren’t ready for that’-just as Sam was not ready for Anderson’s explanation about what was done to Coleman Hugh’s at TED-to satisfy the woke and defy MLK….
Here’s a question for you fellas:
How can we get beyond prejudice when people insist on using the word ‘race‘?
My logic on this is:
As long as one going to take a superficial feature of a human group and describe them by it - there is no way that superficial taste cannot be attached to that superficial feature, and it doesn’t matter if the people using that descriptor don’t see anything wrong with the group of its superficial feature; what I mean is, even one who claims not to have anything intrinsically against that group - must submit to the notion that that group is different in a substantial way (by attributing the group to that superficial feature), simply by calling them out according to that feature-defining them by it; and of course the worst among us in contributing to any prejudice derived or connected to this superficial feature-are those who submit to it and name themselves in this way turning the name into a badge of honor-or a pejorative.
For example;
Imagine calling Kangaroos, “tailers”, just because they have tails.
Who do this? Well people have a use for those towels. So what’s the obvious problem? Well - the obvious problem is the kangaroos are so much more than the sum of the use of their tails. Now if we were taxonomist studying different mammalian groups-This would be the time honored and useful practice as it is in real animal taxonomy. Animals in different sub species are often named after the feature which is most obviously different from those of their brother and sister subspecies. But you might say to me - why wouldn’t you call them something that relates to their pouches or even their muscular, and human leg arms? Well that’s the point. For people(s) who have no use in describing themselves by the variations in their skin tone, there would be no reason to name out them in different groups according to the color of their skin (and of course, it goes without saying, that people assigned different skin - tone groups have different tones in contrast with one another in the same group; you know what I mean, here: no two people are black in the same way, nor white, etc. - and many are disparately complected and whine up disagreeing with one another over it: ‘I’m brown, and he’s black; I’m wider than you; she’s blacker than me.’)
It’s also stupid unless you’re a colorist, a taxonomist - or ‘ racist ‘ - Language Stickley dealing in the bullshit of a subdivision that doesn’t exist among humans.
No one is saying here - and I’m being facetious in describing myself - that we can’t describe different groups, but ‘races’ and ‘colors’ are the wrong descriptors and cause pejorative language and false distinctions socially and politically. We just need differentul to
Glad you're enjoying your virtual online non-anonymous therapy session...
How does this trading stuff work? I'm really interested but I just don't know how it go about it. I heard people really make it huge trading
As a beginner, it's essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. I'm guided
by a widely known crypto
consultant
Mrs Nancy Williams Laplace
Please do you mind sharing any means of reaching out to her easily?
She's mostly on Telegram, using the username.
Nancy18 👈
At’ aboy, Go get’m Sam!
Sam that is a very rare L from you,you do the same to elon as the people you are critisicing
bubble and bubbler
If book would cost 60$ people would be asking the same questions dont u think
Which part of this podcast on “generosity” and “doing good” do they talk about the justified reasons of slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Gaza? You know, the reasons for leveling a city to root out some bad apples? Sam the moral philosopher seems to have no moral qualms about it.
Hunter Biden’s laptop
Noncesense
I got booted off my subscription. Weird
Chris should have Sam Hyde back on Ted!
How nice to lose a million a day, you and your guest are out of touch. Wildly.
Yes, it was off-putting
Halfway through watching this interview, and with knowledge of the wealth of great content to be had now, I do not feel compelled to ever watch another TED talk. The heavily woke filtered philosopher/ standup-comedian format does not interest me. TED can melt into the obscure DemocracyNow! or Richard Wolff or Young Turks corner of the web.
Generosity.. happiness and love is all good when you fkn feel it
Sam Harris and the Hollywood elite will always have the fkn pleasure
????
Oh, to be this high.
@@livmilesparanormalromanceb6891😂
I love it
@
Dandy the drugs will eventually not work
I used to look forward to these but not now. Sam's failure to call out Israel's atrocities or show any understanding to the Palestinian just cause, has exposed Sam in my view as disingenuous.
You might find it interesting to return to episode #2 right now.
@@jackd6129 Thanks for that. First part was interesting as you suggested but the second part was just pure mental gymnastics stuff. Basically justifying Israel's actions. He called Palestinians aggressors even though they're under occupation. He said Israel want to leave in peace with its neighbours, even though Israel has taken everything from Palestinians down to their dignity with no hope for the future, generation after generation, effectively prisoners in their own land, who could accept peace like that?! No one. He talks about Muslim hatred for the Jews when in fact Germany was committing genocide towards the Jews alongside other Eastern European countries collaborating with them, Palestinians and Jews were living in peace In Palestine. There are Jews today understand the suffering of Palestinians and are actively pursuing justice against the Zionist fascistic regime, like Norman Finkelstein, ilan pape, gideon levy, noam chomsky to name just a few, shame Sam Harris isn't one of them. Make no mistake he knows, this isn't about religion as he claims, this is about someone taking whats yours and expecting you to accept it without resistance, hence why I still think he is disingenuous.
Gideon Levy of Haaretz, Miko Peled, Ilan Pappe’ are just a few Israelis who are on the right side.
@@Forksake82 glad you found it a timely recommendation. I think we can probably agree that many of our viewpoints on this subject depend on the particular algorithmic rabbit hole we found ourselves descending. At least I hope we can.
I think one thing is pretty clear - Sam is not a big fan of Israel, but he’s pragmatic. The world is in turmoil. Given the current state of affairs, what’s the alternative? Hamas is clear. They explicitly want the elimination of an entire ethnoreligious group and are proud of that goal. History is history up against such a clear and present danger imho. But I’m prepared to be proven wrong.
Question…did you publicly call out the evil committed on October 7th by Hammas when they murdered and kidnapped innocent people?
8:00 Hey, Sam. How are you feeling today? After Trump practically winning the primaries. I hope your meditation is still working to lower your stress levels! Buhahahahaha!
The absolute obsession with altruism is not healthy. Obviously "color blindness" does not work if your goal is equality. Any group is going to contain a statistical difference. That is fine. The goal itself is wrong. You both need to think more about Ayn Rand's deeper insights. The goal in life is happiness aka self interest. Generosity can be part of this. Read Ayn Rand the virtue of selfishness.
Look up Rand’s hypocrisy in regards to the affair she had with that married man, but then when he had an affair with someone else Rand got all jelous, vain, petty and vindictive. Those traits describe Rand the best…look it up
You Ayn Rand freaks are hilarious.
It was honest and consensual initially. He cheated. He got what he deserved. Try to stay on the theme of the thread. @@Joey-b8w
She was a hypocrite and a shitty writer imo. In the end it’s all about class above all else.
@Bob-sd8ns Einstein left his wife and kids for his first cousin.
I guess that makes the theory of relativity bullsh*t?
Can you not be a coward and invite Norman Finkelstein to debate what's happening in Gaza and the atrocities that the Israeli government continue committing
For Sam its all about having a good BM...
business model or bowe movement seems the same to me
Free Palestine ❤
Free Israel ❤️
Wow, I wish I understood this war?
Why? There are so many other wars and thing to understand. I'ts nonsensical at this point, and the longer you spend trying to figure it out the more complicated it gets. @@loopperson8836
@@toby9999 Last i checked, Israel wasn't under a complete blockade or occupation by Palestine. Nor have they been subjected to curfews, routine incursions called "mowing the lawn", illegal settlements...etc. Hamas even explicitly states in their charter that their issue with Israel isn't over religion, but over sovereignty. Boggles my mind how the media seem to miss that fact and simply fall for the IDF narrative. So I'll ask you... Free Israel from what exactly? All they had to do was to act in peace with those around them, something they have never done.
LOL TDS SAM IS GONE
Your brain is gone
8 minutes in and the TDS rears its head. Sam calls Trump selfish but Forbes write that Trump “probably” donated his entire salary back. That doesn’t seem like the act of a selfish person to me.