ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Sam Harris Trashes Bret Weinstein With Alex Jones Comparisons
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2021
- The Majority Report crew reacts to audio of Sam Harris explaining why he would not debate or feature Bret Weinstein given their disagreements over Covid-19. The Majority Report crew discusses how Harris' rise to fame was due to right-wing views on torture and the war on terror and how that is being jeopardized with his views on Covid-19 and the dangers of disinformation.
We stream our live show every day at 12 PM ET.
We need your help to keep providing free videos! Support the Majority Report's video content by going to / majorityreport
Watch the Majority Report live M-F at 12 p.m. EST at / samseder or listen via daily podcast at Majority.FM
Download our FREE app: majorityapp.com
SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: jointhemajorityreport.com
We Have Merch!!! shop.majorityreportradio.com
LIKE us on Facebook: / majorityreport
FOLLOW us on Twitter: / majorityfm
SUBSCRIBE to us on TH-cam: / samseder
![[#SHORTS CLIP] ครูอึ้ง กรรมการอึ้ง ฮ่าๆ l ซานิเบาได้เบา l One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qeBTuMJs4t0/mqdefault.jpg)
![อยู่ได้แล้ว - LIPTA feat. Mirrr [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-9-hpntNym4/mqdefault.jpg)
Always nice to hear from Ben Stiller
Man, he's starting to get old
Ahaha 😅🤣
How does Sam Semen move so quickly from the topic Harris is discussing to something totally unrelated? Because he just has to try to put the boots in to Harris? Harris is correct here -- period.
Hahaha
@@666marquis if Harris is correct, Sam was too, about the context around Harris' earlier rhetoric. That is the point.
Sam Harris's rise to fame was not due to "right wing views on torture". It was due to his views on religion and how he tore apart religious people's arguments in debates and made them look completely ridiculous, which evidently some religious people here are still sore about.
@markwood3389 Whatever the reason for the rise in Sam's popularity, I have one thing to add... Praise the lord and pass the ammunition!! 😅 I only found him this year (MR also) but I love his views on religion and atheism. I'm sure there's a huge overlap in evangelicals & conspiratorial bible stories and maga-cultists. Both start with or end with mental illness & ignorance, like dinosaurs & humans living together, 4,000 yrs ago. Look what we're up against. 😱😢
Very rightly said. However, that introduction presents the bias of these people, who love to put on lofty faces as they listen, as if the can produce thoughts that even come close to the erudite abilities of Mr. Harris. Every episode of this that I have watched, the guy with the glasses makes a point by repeating the same thing, over and over and over ...and then smirking as if he has established something. It's people like this that make it hard for myself and others to reveal we are politically left of centre.
Agreed. Nothing that Sam said in "The End of Faith" was unreasonable, TBH.
This whole idea of arguing for or against the existence of the gods is a pre-scientific endeavor. If you enter the argument you simply support the idea that perhaps there may be better arguments that might prove the existence of the gods one day. The whole endeavor is irrational. We are now in the age of science where the existence of living entities is not a matter of debate. It is a matter of evidence. If there is no evidence of the gods then they are dismissed with the flick of the wrist. Entering some debate is folly.
@PixiePaperclip Sam Harris always was and still is a shill. He is a new face on elitism and neo colonialism. He is an establishment shill with little to no substance. When push came to shove was he was a big pharma puppet.
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled.
Carl Sagan was a Science communicator and he believed that the Scientific method was the best way to come to the truth of things, over time.
Carl Sagan also said,
“ It is the responsibility of scientists never to suppress knowledge, no matter how awkward the knowledge is, no matter how it may bother those in power; we are not smart enough to decide which pieces of knowledge are permissible and which are not.”
Leave it to the real experts, not the people claiming to be experts who often just misinform others and fear monger.
Oh SNAP!!!
And here I was thinking it was Mirage from Apex Legends.
I'm just so curious as to why they don't do a follow up on this video, lol. Hmm, maybe they aren't as eager to point out their profound stupidity and hilarious arrogance. So entertaining.
I like how you dubbed Sam Harris the king of non substance and fluff after spending 25 minutes on a segment about how “Sam Harris is right about antivaxxers but we still don’t like him.”
I wish Brooks were still alive to see the IDW completely break apart. Anyone read “Against the Web?” He basically predicted it.
I read it during lockdown. I really enjoyed it and agree with your premise here ( he did predict it) but I felt it was like reading a practise run. The world was cheated out of some heavy hitting material when Brooks died.
In my opinion.
What did he say?
@@morenitomoreno1282 buy the book
@@morenitomoreno1282 he exposes the lies of the intellectual dark web you should read the entire book to understand the propaganda that comes out of these people
He is an excellent writer
You could read some reviews online if you don't have money I did that the first time before buying a book
✋
So now we know the efficacy of the vaccine is now down to 30 percent and the vaccine does not stop the transmission of covid and there are thousands of injuries including myself as a result of the vaccine then yes there are huge concerns.
Here from August 2022
How you feeling about the vaccine now???
Everyone is backing away now. Saying they "always knew" the vaccine was not good. Nobody likes to admit they were duped.
@@knielson1201 Not me.
It is amazing that you would be surprised that Sam Harris is reasonable and grounded in science. It is unbelievable that you are still upset that he maintains that extremist fundamentalism is dangerous.
But he's pro all of the foreign policy prescriptions that create more religious fundamentalism. That's like republicans complaining about Antifa at the Charlottesville riot without acknowledging the other side that was there that brought the counter-protestors in the first place.
@@wildfox7076 That's not a legitimate comparison. Religious fundamentalism would exist without the foreign policy prescriptions, which isn't a defence of the foreign policy in question (but just a reality check that interventionism BY ITSELF doesn't create all of the problems in theocracies).
@@wildfox7076 Also, I don't think Sam Harris is anywhere close to being the "pro-foreign policy" hawk that your comment implies.
@Francisco Rivera No he was never pro-the war in Iraq, and his "in defense of torture" article is a philosophical position stating that, while he isn't in favour of torture and thinks it should be illegal in every circumstance, there are a VERY specific set of circumstances where it may be justifiable and the person may have been moved to break the law. He contrasts this with collateral damage which he argues is much worse but is always accepted as a casualty of war. It's all ultimately about what can be considered ethical in the language of philosophical thought experiments. I think you've been misinformed about him.
What did he say about Charles Murray and The Bell Curve?
Late comment, but Sam Seder really does come off as a tad sociopathic/narcissistic when he makes this whole segment about himself and his irrelevant beef(s) with Sam Harris from the past. Just be gracious and let Sam Harris make a good point; there's no need to hijack the topic to try and score points against him. The people on this show are so obsessed with trashing Harris that their praise comes off as disingenuous and phony.
Matt Lech on Brett Weinstein ... "The aesthetics of reason".
The most perfect encapsulation of the IDW and their adjacents I've ever heard.
If you haven’t, read Michael’s book. This is one of his main points about the IDW
sam mother wants to talk to ya.
@@john-paulhunt5666 Sam bad because rich mom, amirite, lulz
I suggest you read and listen to him before just blindly believing an opinion on him.
@@emcats84 - While I was still a naive little boy I read his books and listened to numerous talks of his. That's why Matt's phrase resonates with me, ding dong.
Brett and Heather are having the last laugh now.
no doubt!!! that alone should be enough to cancel these fools on this channel and all the shils that keep bullshit alive
how?
@@gigig6021 how what? How about the latest admission from the CDC that vacxed and unvaxxed people are exactly the same in regard to protection. It was all horseshit a huge LIE propagated on people to inject an experiment to make the elites rich. Surprise surprise
No, 9 months later, and wide-spread vaccination has not resulted in anything negative, those of us who have been vaccinated, and aren’t getting sick, are having the last laugh.
Do some people listen to Sam Harris just to fall asleep more easily? 🤔
I did around 5:00 Min in. I don’t know much about Sam Harris, but I do know he’s got a great voice, very soothing.
Yes that's why his podcasts are such a tough listen. Regardless of the topic his monotone voice is very hypnotic.
Love him as a sleep aid . His voice is amazing
I 100% used to put Waking Up on to fall asleep.
No he's the only one that speaks as clear as the logic in my own mind, is the considered and rational thought.
I would love to hear Seder use his Harris voice more often. It is very soothing.
Is Sam's regular voice "too Jewish" for you?
I miss Michael's Harris impression
@@jackallenproductions What the hell? Chill out foo, they didn't say nothing that can even be interpreted as that.
Another instance of Sam Semen not being able to just agree with a good point someone made and move on. What is it with this guy and his everlasting grudges? Harris was right on the money about the Whineschemes. Enough said.
@@jackallenproductions *adult Milhouse
Sam Harris didn't want to play 'whack a baseless claim' with Brett. I don't blame him. Debating people who's claims aren't falsifiable and don't care about how substantiated your claims and evidence are is just going to give them a platform to spread their mis/dis information.
Right, never argue with a fool.
@@bccsivxx-xxivvii Harris is 100% correct about Bwett Whinescheme.
@@666marquis Yea, of course he is. I was agreeing with OP and saying it goes back to the old adage, 'Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.' it's a win-win for the fool, and a losing endeavor for everyone else.
Can someone ask Sam Harris at his next AMA if he can define irony?
*whose
I’ll take “thing that didn’t age well” for $200.
If you didn’t say it, I was going to lol
It aged fine among the non brain scrambled population.
This is aging terribly
A couple brainiacs who felt academia didn’t give them enough attention. The things people do to garner attention.
Don't forget that donation/Patreon/ad revenue, it's nothing to sneeze at when you've got an audience of that size. Probably pulling in way more than he would at a university.
They were forced out after clashing with the students on wokeness and racism issue. And they were not doing anything substantial academically. Wrote maybe a few papers in the last 20 years working at not so substantial institution.
For me it's more like, oh they can make good money saying contraversial things. They found their niche audience and the easy money is hard to keep saying no to. Much better than having regular day job teaching kids. That's my take.
On one hand, It's good that Weinstein and Peterson with their abhorrent behavior are bringing a light into academia and hopefully convincing more and more people to get an education but at the same time, these ex-academic money-hungry narcissists erred in their careers by going themselves into academia. What they wanted from the beginning is money and social media "fame".
@@thep751
Very spot on 👍
trust fund kids can learn something
Brett and Heather turned out to be spot on...he was worried about additional harm to him...his reputation
The vaccines are an IQ test. All the smart people got vaccinated.
And then he later came out and revealed himself to be an authoritarian ideologue who would gladly trample people's rights based on that same bad information, despite what the science and the data now show. Sam Harris has been his own worst enemy in this, hopelessly unscientific despite his positioning as a leading scientific thinker, and has ruined his credibility all on his own. He didn't need Bret's help doing any of it.
Bret Weinsteins guests were virologists and immuniologists and now we see a 300% increase of heart attacks besides the alarming excess deaths. Who were right? the CEO of Pfizer admitted they never tested the Vaxx for transmission in the EU hearings!
@@Melchersson, All of Bret’s guests were quacks and alarmists, and the recent increase in heart attack is because Covid damages your heart and millions of people were infected before the vaccines were available.
@@Melchersson, Millions of Covid damaged hearts == 300% increase in heart attacks.
This aged well ha ha
It confuses me that you two threw so many criticisms at Harris then admitted you don’t even know what he’s been talking about on his podcasts recently.
A lot of the hate for Sam Harris stems from his views on Islam and the fact that he had Charles Murray on his podcast.
Reminds me of Richard Dawkins refusal to debate with creationists. Richard likens this to a geographer debating a flat earther. There is nothing to gain by giving these lunatics some level of equality on a debate stage.
Playing chess with a pigeon.
Debating creationists is like debating evolution with Bret Weinstein, nothing good comes of it and everybody leaves embarrassed.
@@Grassisgreenism so you think that Bret Weinstein has a creationist level understanding of evolution? Why do you think that?
For real.
@@ATH-camCommentator It was a joke. But, yes, I think his ideas on evolution are completely wrongheaded and I base that on the idiotic things he said during his debate with Dawkins (for instance, not understanding the difference between memes and extended phenotypes and dismissing mathematical modeling on the basis of terrible reasoning).
Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying remind me of the old SNL skit the Culps with Will Farrell and Ana Gasteyer.
Lol true, only incredibly dangerous with misinformation.
They should bring them back next season and do a vax/anti-vax skit. If they do, I hope it's so funny they all break character! 🤣
They make those two look hip and well read
Homosexual
Holy shit….. you’re right lol
Don’t do your own research. Trust your government, CDC and the World Health Organization. They know what is best for you.
Bloop
This didn't age well for any of you.... 🤡🤡🤡🤣
Zachery!
This reminds me of Michael Brooks on the Dark Web. I just ferreted around for his book *Against The Web*. How prescient he was. Always missed. Am starting my re-read tomorrow morning. 😢✊🏼
MR's coverage of Sam Harris is one of the only issues on which I consistently disagree with them. Harris was 100% right here, and there was still a good deal of time spent criticizing him. I think it was a year or so ago there was a MR video titled something to the effect of "Sam Harris distances himself from Trump" even though Harris hasn't ever discussed Trump with anything but visceral disgust. I also disagreed with Harris' take on Seder's very appropriate and entertaining takedowns of Rubin.
I hate when two people I respect a lot don't get along, and I especially hate when they aren't honest in their criticisms of each other.
This is essentially what has kept me from becoming a fully fledged MR viewer. I’ll watch here and there but I often find a common thread of Sam misrepresenting people’s ideas and I find myself turned off to watching his stuff for a while. Emma in particular always seems to seek out the worst possible takes on any given subject. It’s painful every time she chimes in.
That’s not to say my relationship with Sam Harris’ content has remained unscathed. I think his pre Trump focus on the evil left and how we should be allowed to have any stupid conversation with him really lost him a lot of his fans. I think four years of Trump woke him up, so it is funny to see the two Sams agree here. All the other “members” of the IDW were morons. Harris is the only one I could halfway respect.
It’s a problem with most of the internet in general. This content creator had a bad take once? Suddenly everything else they’ve ever done is thrown out the window for some reason. I guess people have to be 100% good or 100% bad, there is no grey area here.
Sam Harris is an ultra zionist anti muslim bigot and Sam Seder was always right about him.
@@CJBetcherMolandfreak Sam Harris has had more than one bad take. Sam's criticism of him has been well justified. What we're seeing here is that the rightwing has gotten so out of control that Harris has become significantly more benign in comparison.
Also you get the MR acolytes to screech nonsense as you can see, so there’s also that.
This aged well ......lol
i know huh
Yep. This did an excellent job of burying Sham Harris.
@@WithBACON Not even close
To be fair, Sam Harris was on the Glenn Greenwald being a sociopath thing many years ago
Yea, but that was a response to Glenn “ miss characterizing” his positions. Harris is a bit to sensitive.
But … Sam is just not. I don’t get progressives dunking on him - I have a feeling most have only heard cherry picked excerpts from him and usually out of context. I’m as progressive as you get and Sam is pretty fucking left. He just voices his concerns over campus craziness. Over zealous new converts who say dumb shit and just give the right wing ammo. I think he gives them too much oxygen since they don’t represent most progressives.
@@mostlyharmless88 his biggest problem is he down plays U.S foreign policies role in the rise of radical Islam.
@@chriscueva1866 that I agree with. I think his most radical positions are that he doesn't seem to have any issue with the things the US did in the Middle East, which I think is pretty incorrect.
@@mostlyharmless88 He's a Zionist and is anti Islam but I have a soft spot for him from my internet skeptic atheist days. I didn't listen much to him during his IDW days
Bro Jogan is so far gone he doesn't even listen to sam anymore, his former go to guy on everything
The Weinsteins are just upper middle class Americans that is why they think they can talk of anything, while middle class Americans are scared of anything controversial.
Harris knows Americans think religiously, that is why he is scared and reading between the lines what is not there.
The conversation of Ivermectin or vaccines is not controversial in other countries, because people do not question the vaccines and nobody cares about Ivermectin being effective or not, because that is seen as a clinician's decision.
In USA is controversial because people self medicate because there is no universal healthcare system. That is why the conversation has to be suppressed, because general vaccination is seen as a greater good.
But Weinstein's opinions are not remotely controversial. It is concerning the effect of the spike proteins in the general population because of some types of toxicity,
and Ivermectin seems to have mixed results, which means that works for some people and not for others, that is why macro studies are conducted almost every week. And that is why it it prescribed as part of a cocktail, even in the US.
I read an article about it in Spain and they didn't mention being a "dewormer" but that treated Rosacea. In USA it is a clear intention to demonize it, because the American anti-intellectualism makes everyone a physician with a PhD.
The Left and Right position about Ivermectin is pure result of anti-intellectualism, because non can interpret the studies, nor can explain why the research is so active today (which it shouldn't if it didn't work at all).
@@cristianproust Thank you
Thank you so much for an actual intelligent and objective reply and response much greater man than myself thank you so much.
@@cristianproust Ivermectin doesn't work against covid-19. The studies that show it has some benefit are of low quality. There are three large RCTs that show no effect--the TOGETHER trial, the EPIC trial and the IVERCORCOVID-19 trial. A large study (Elegazzar 2020) showing a positive effect for ivermectin has been shown to be fraudulent. A decent meta analyses shows no evidence for its effect. Unfortunately, certain advocates for the drug are highlighted on 'anti-Establishment' websites, podcasts and youtube videos and they find a naive and gullible audience.
The research is 'active' today in the sense that we are seeing the results of trials that were started months and months ago.
The 'spike proteins' produced by the vaccine are not toxic. That is more anti-vaxx nonsense.
@@anonymoususer6037 That is blatantly false, and you can see it in Google scholar. If what you say was remotely true, Oxford wouldn't have started a macro trial in the UK this very summer.
That ridiculous tendency of regular people of repeating what you don't understand is dangerous. Clinicians are the ones qualified to interpret the information, not you.
The only reason why it is relevant to you and you are not talking about Remdesivir e.g it is actually because it works in some people and you are scared that they will abandon vaccination.
There is no other reason, because people self medicate with hydroxychloroquine and Remdesivir well.
"The research is 'active' today in the sense that we are seeing the results of trials that were started months and months ago" why would it be?- Why would they do any study if your scientific opinion is that it was shown ineffective in 2020?.
Why would they do studies in a proven non-effective drug?
What I think is that non of you understand anything and you are in a cult. It is obvious, because you spread false information for a suppressing purpose.
Ivermectin is not a treatment for COVID, why would it matter?.
It matters because you think it is a treatment for COVID that has to be "debunked" while some ignorant Republicans think it is a treatment for COVID.
You both are in an anti-science cult when you validate what confirms your opinions
The term that Sam was looking for is "Thought-terminating cliche".
You just don't get it.
Thought-terminating and conversation-terminating are not the same.
Thought-terminating is moreso attributed to cults or religion. "Have faith", "don't question the creator's mysterious plan".
Conversation-terminating is moreso a debate tactic to make one person seem smart while making the other look dumb, typically using an irrelevant piece of leverage that the supposed dumb person wouldn't have read/seen before.
@@jacobunderwood4957 "Good to know!"
@@orionred2489 I had to read that twice to clue in.
I'm trying this one now: "what makes your research better than mine?"
It's not that Sam Harris has changed over the last 5 years, it's that you've had a weird, misguided understanding of who Sam Harris is.
And it's unfair to compare Brett's ruminations on medical vaccines to Harris' opinions and thoughts on religious ideologies. Sam Harris' career is largely built on criticizing and discussing all religious ideologies; he is certainly very informed on the topic. Bret has no career or knowledge of virtually anything medical. Huge difference.
Their point is that even if Sam has understanding, people like you may not and then use his arguments out of context. I'm saying you, because you are clearly biased enough to have missed that point.
@@GrahamNickerson how morons interpret Sam Harris is not his problem.
No one should be expected to dumb down their arguments so the lowest common denominator can't misuse it.
What an idiotic point.
@@Michigntiger08
And also how they say the consequences of what Sam was saying about Islam is that the common person would widdle it down to just, "Muslims are bad/dangerous people."
Like, how obtuse do you have to be to make such a vapid statement. Harris was attacking the ideology, not the individual. The dude literally partnered up with an ex-islamist (Majeed Nawaz) to break common ground and attack the ideologies being peddled around the world.
To compare his very valid critique of Islam and its various brands of jihad-driven sects to Weinstein's anti-vaxx pseudoscience is extremely disingenuous.
I stumbled upon this video and I'm not familiar with the personas here, but their little quips to jab at Harris was distasteful and they came across as very ignorant.
This is what happens when people talk out of their ass to try and sound smart. Ironic, because that's the same charge they pointed at Harris of doing.
The woman in this video is so out of her league here.
@@John-vm2sq Nawaz is "ex-Islamist"? Wish Harris would ask him about his views on vaccines
No, lambasting Sam Harris for defending torture and racist pseudoscience is not weird or misguided in the slightest.
There’s no public debate because this narrative would be so completely obliterated
Uh hunh. How do you figure that?
I have always been 50/50 on Harris. I often agree with a lot of his positions and then find others baffling but I think Brett Weinstein is truly despicable, Brett is literally just Dave Rubin with an IQ above 10.
I always want to agree with Sam Harris caus of how influential to me he was a decade ago.
I just wish that could happen more often caus he has some yikes takes.
I did enjoy Sam’s philosophical conversation with the viewer and he had some great guests early on his podcast. Once the 2016 election started things started going a little off the ropes. The podcast with Ezra Klein really seals it for me because as much as I generally dislike Klein, he absolutely nails Sam in the this very topic this MR video is about. Platforming bad ideas/actors and the value of context when holding discussions. The Charles Murray podcast was about it for me.
I'm atheist in large part because of Sam Harris, but the good news is I don't have to treat him like some prophet. I think he has some research to do when it comes to race topics, but besides that he's pretty level-headed.
Bret has fallen into--or has allowed himself to fall into--a very bad niche. He's now essentially part of the funnel for right-wing propaganda. I do feel bad for what happened to him at Evergreen College, but what he is doing now with all the "vaccine skepticism" stuff is unacceptable.
@@crawdad this is so frustrating to me reading comments like yours...no one ever says how Murray is wrong. Klein certainly didn't...harris was concerned about villifying researchers if the masses simply don't like what the research uncovers.
Sam Harris' margarine-over-white-bread voice could whisper milky nothings into my ears until my brain curdled
evocative
He needs to read ebooks professionally. Like, some long epic fantasy.
fair enought if you prefer the dramatic voice of people like Alex Jones :-D
No Pandemic Amnesty for these vile human-like creatures
100%
They will be banished from society. They are liabilities and complicit in genocide
@@leerichmond1459 No, we will not be banished. In fact, nothing will happen to us. But it's cute that you think you have power. :)
@@davidmeadows5627 In case you havent noticed. The vaccinated are dying off at a 20% Increase in death rate. Obviously it was designed to cull the herd in a manageable and deniable manner. You chose big pharma over God. Thats moronic and idiotic so you shall perish.
@@davidmeadows5627 F A I L
Socialism
Yikes. This clip and the views expressed have not aged well.
In what sense?
@@therainman7777 Because the people that questioned the vaccine have been proven correct.
Aging better than Diamond.
Several comments saying this, nobody providing anything resembling a credible source.
@@BrianBrayMedia lol man... where do you even start? what was bret wrong about? becuase its clear two sams here are in a delusional cult. ironic coming from a "journalist" and even more ironic coming form someone screaming about questioning authority for his whole career lol. safe and effective isnt faith... its science. they told me so... how can anyone take harris seriously?
The description is wildly inaccurate. Harris became famous because of his atheist views
His political life began with Republicans and libertarians living his willingness to label Muslims as more barbaric hat Jews or Christians. Which may be true through a western lease, but it’s grossly over simplified. If all three religions were adhered to equally they would be equally horrifying.
@@JM1993951 absolutely wrong, you’re conflating people with ideology. He criticizes Islamic and other religious doctrine as barbaric and unnecessarily authoritarian. Has nothing to do with Muslims as people. You have to be able to criticize bad ideas
She was only 12 when he wrote those books. You can't expect her to know stuff happened before she began paying attention.
"became famous because of his atheist views"
And you call the description wildly inaccurate while making that claim?
@@adoredpariah - The Harris fanbase are very reactionary in the same sense as the Peterson fanbase. They spend all day namesearching social sites and copypastaing replies. When you're in a cult you do weird shit without ever knowing it.
Bill Mahr featured this couple on his show where he let them spew their garbage and told them they had valuable information
Yep, I was furious but not surprised
Bill Maher has always been somewhat of a diet anti-vaxxer.
Genuine question, does this channel have any videos that aren't just critiques of other people's thoughts and opinions? Any original ideas or thought pieces of their own?
Sophistry is alive and well on this program
Nailed it.
It's their brand. They're basically the Arthouse sophists to TYTs Hollywood sophistry.
Can you elaborate with some specific examples from this video?
Mocking Dave Rubin is the sign of a decent empathetic person. 😂😂😂
@Josiah Stirner No one cares about his orientation. He’s a grifter who has sold out. That’s why he deserves to be made fun of.
@Josiah Stirner It’s that he did a one eighty on many issues suddenly and that his arc is clear. I don’t have to convince you.
@@rini6 changing your mind when presented with new evidence is not grifting, its common sense.
Hes a grifter ... the end
He’s a grifter…. Rogan won’t even have him on his podcast cause he knows he’s a fraud. He’s trying so hard to align himself with people that will never really accept him as a gay man. Ben Shapiro said he is his friend but would never attend his anniversary party because Dave is living in sin.
Bret looks like a fake ai person when he doesn’t have the beard.
Lol like a skyrim npc
Yeah, his appearance is definitely uncanny valley.
Ah, looks, the ultimate definer of character.
@@socrattt Who said anything about anyone's character? There isn't even the slightest implication that that is what's being done from that comment.
@@socrattt It could be argued that, a person, who makes a living in the public eye, who could go through life being so ok with looking like they're wearing the freshly harvested scalp of a small child without even attempting to do anything to change that, could be lacking the character of one willing or able to make good and reasonable decisions. The fact is, sometimes, you CAN judge a book by its cover, and Wiensteins' cover says "I'll eat part of you, wear the other, and feel neither good or bad about it."
this doesn't age well. smugness all around is eww
This has not aged well.
What Sam Harris said at the beginning there, about how debating is only there to draw attention to something. By debating a person who's not credible, you help make them credible.
✅
And then the only way TO actually debate someone in such a fashion, to provide sources and evidence and facts beforehand, is something that they have no interest in doing in the first place. Fear-mongers rely on speaking to people less informed than they are to promote themselves, but they can make up or conflate anything they want to serve their point so it is literally impossible to speak above them on the spot. Debate is so easy to give the convincing guise of credibility. Nothing factual is learned through debate.
"Have you heard about X?" (X potentially being completely made up on the spot or beforehand)
"No."
"Well, you're just uninformed as to this topic. I win."
I mean that's true as far as it goes. It also directly brings your audience along to the other person, who you think is being irresponsible.
So true
That's only true if you do a poor job debating them.
I wonder if Sam has realized that everyone he has aligned himself with is bonkers and the implication that has. I used to love Sam, and a part of me really likes him, but Ive since been convinced of his nefarious effects....I just dont think he is.
I’m sure he has. He’s been having conflict with his cultivated audience for years over this very inconvenient fact, especially on the topic of Trump.
His TH-cam comments section is almost always a dumpster fire of reactionary malcontents debasing him for not being reactionary enough.
The « i used to be fan » trope is as old as the internet, and as tired and boring.
Not nearly as bonkers as people like Bret Weinstein.
@@NicodemusT sounds like you spend too much time online if youre getting upset at some innocuous statement meant to convey the perspective of a comment.
@@NicodemusT The "person's irrelevant words are a problem that I need to speak out against" trope is as old as the internet and as tired and boring (as you).
Sam Seder's continued irrational hatred of Sam Harris still baffles me. Also, Emma's feigned ignorance at the end about what Sam Harris talks about now is really cute. Like you guys don't know. The dude was one of your favorite punching bags for years.
TMR is now the equivalent of a bunch of rich kids in high school sneering at and mocking those not in their clique. *Sam Seedy* had a trust fund that got him through life and he resents it. And now he's brought on fellow rich kid Emma, who is another trust funder playing at being a "journalist." Mostly they just act superior and are very nasty people.
Seders knows how Harris always have the upper hand... and that kills him... he surely goes to sleep thinking about this...
Likely jealously either on an intellectual or success level
Any difficult topic should be discussed to great length, in the open with all available data taken into account.
Anything else will harm truth, and that is a bad thing no matter the angle.
In other words, if topics were debated head on instead of this constant shit pie throwing contest on who is in the right and who should shut up, we would probably be in a much better place.
Lots of egos involved though
It's called informed consent.
Sam's voice is super soothing.
GAY!!!
I am just joking with you man…
@@BrewskaySA Sorry I fell asleep listening to Sam.
Which Sam?
Lullabies in Aspergers
Matt’s interjections are amazing. “Who knows how many people that killed… from laughter.”
cant imagine what the show would be without them. they are both extremely apt in terms of analysis and hilarious in their subtle humour
Honestly there’s more comedic talent in that studio than on all the right wing shows.
Sam completely lost me after this. His he really unaware of what led to the opioid crisis? Those plotting to make billions have zero concern with who they hurt and how they hurt them in order to make it. Dismissively calling something a consistency theory doesn’t make it less plausible and calling someone a conspiracy theorist doesn’t invalidate their claims.
I like Sam Harris. It’s okay to have different stances so long as you still have compassion and care for the environment. Both of which he does.
Sam 💯. Hedges, Harris & Brand.
"It's okay to have different stances [As long as they are the exact same as my stances]." Lmao, okayyyy.
@@drealgrin what do you mean Josh?
Are you retsrded?
@@fgoindarkg yeah I’m retarsted lol
13:00 point of fact, myocarditis in teenage boys is still more prevalent after COVID, even asymptotic infection, than after the vaccine. It does happen rarely after vaccination, and boys should be told to get extra sleep and not engage in strenuous exercise or sport for up to 2 weeks after vaccination out of an abundance of caution, to further reduce he minuscule chance of developing myocarditis. The potentially lifelong consequences of it are worth reducing risk as much as possible.
@Josiah Stirner everyone is going to get COVID eventually. The short-term and long-term risks associated with getting COVID is greater than vaccine risks, even in teenage boys. Plus you can better plan for the vaccine (get zinc, vit D levels up, get more sleep, etc). But I agree, everyone should make the choice themselves.
@@wayward-saint i think the point was not about myocarditis, that was just an example, the point was that COVID doesn't affect all humans equally so at the lower end of risk it's not completely unimaginable to find a very niche group of people where COVID risk is so low that the vaccine risk might be slightly higher.
@@BattousaiHBr That's fair. I'm not convinced that small children manifest or transmit infection enough to risk vaccinating for example. Better data on that is still months out at least. I do think even with breakthrough cases, there is a value in herd immunity/resistance - and that it can be achieved through vaccination or infection.
Sam was wrong about myocarditis. It is pretty much consensus now that Myocardits in teenage boys is drastically higher in vaccine (especially Moderna, but also Pfizer) versus after Covid. The original data trying to show the opposite was sketchy and has not been borne out. Vinay Prasad has covered the relevant literature in detail and there is no longer any controversy (not that there ever was). Sam's "point of fact" was actually misinformation, possibly disinformation.
Downplaying the seriousness of myocarditis is also I believe a disingenuous take from Sam.
Funny how after all these years Sam Harris has presumably understood that platforming bad ideas can have bad consequences.
He has enough direct experience with it to have learned the lesson well.
Motivation to grift goes the opposite direction, though.
The nice thing about sam harris is, is that he is quite open to changing his mind AND that he is an honest person. Sure he is not perfect, but I believe him to be an ethical person.
I do believe that many of his controversial topics were important to talk about, when you put these issues out into the open, they can be better understood. Therefore, not necessarily “bad ideas” can have bad consequences, but they can also have very helpful consequences.
@@joshboston2323 when has he ever changed his mind? I like him but being pig headed I always thought was his biggest weakness.
@@mrwaltermathews --he changed his tone on islam (or at least became more nuanced) after his collision with Maajid nawaz and also became convinced that islamic reform is perhaps feasible within the religion itself.
he also turned vegetarian for a while after weighing the arguments against meat eating. . He did go back to eating meat (I bleieve) but still accepts that there is no way to defend meat eating. Also he eventually changed his mind over the utility of the assassination of al-Awlaki. He backed it in the past, now believes it was a mistake.
To pretend not to know Heather and Brett's last names and in the same breath claim they deny science is wild. I'm not three minutes in and already I'm struggling to listen to these two charlatens
The vaccine is now listed at 35% effectivness.
Remember when Sam Harris published his correspondence with Noam Chomsky? Yeah, he thought he owned. Sam Harris will only realize dangers that affect him. Not that smart.
"Yeah, he thought he owned"
I really doubt Harris thinks in terms of a TH-cam clickbait video title
If anything what i got from that exchange is Sam's frustration with himself
I like both Chomsky and Harris, i think they both have a lot of interesting things to say, and, as all humans, are wrong about a lot of things as well
@@iannonya5282 I'm literally on YT. Would you expect a dissertation? I meant Sam Harris was incapable of realizing that Chomsky wasn't interested in having a conversation unless they agreed on its purpose. They never did & Harris published it believing he showed Chomsky wasn't willing to "debate". He's blind to his faults but certain of others, which was the topic of the video.
@@iannonya5282 I thought Chomsky came off looking better, because I kept in mind the context. Namely, that Sam unfairly attacked Chomsky in his book, which demonstrated he didn't understand Chomsky's ideas at all. After Sam reached out for a civil conversation, he was surprised Chomsky wasn't nice to him in their correspondence. It only revealed Sam's ignorance.
Sam Harris is mischaracterizing Bret's arguments. Bret has never said, as far as I know, that the vaccines don't work or that Ivermectin does, he is saying the vaccine has not been through the rigorous investigation and we cannot know the long term effects of the vaccine, so some caution is appropriate. With Ivermectin, all he was saying is there was some early research that suggested some effectiveness that warranted further investigation, which was shut down.
This didn’t age well
How so?
@@ZER0-- I also would like 2 know.
15:50 Harris has been making this statement for a few years that he refuses to engage as broadly with topics that are easily twisted by bad actors... Just because you're still caught up in the stupid 3 hour "debate"/"discussion"/"meandering nightmare of talking past each other" with Cenk, doesn't mean the rest of us haven't moved on.
Ben Stiller is reinventing himself. He doesn't get cast in a leading role anymore, he needs more supporting roles.
Whether you like Sam or not you have to admit he is one of the only public intellectuals that doesn't pander to his audience.
I commend Seder for showing a good point from someone he disagrees with. We need more of this.
Agreed. But I am disappointed that Seder usually falls in to the “dismiss and scoff Harris the moment he is brought up” part of the internet Left. It’s really unfounded. Hopefully he won’t from here out. But I appreciate how they laid out their past problems with him here. I didn’t know what they were until now because they would just dismiss him outright without explanation. I’m glad I know I basically agree with their assessment, but to just blow him off in general is just purist Left gatekeepery bs. I am personally glad that I take neither Seder’s or Harris’ words as gospel 100% of the time, and can disagree with either occasionally.
@@rappinneallyp I couldn’t have said it better
The only reason Sam Seedy mentioned this is so he could abruptly pivot in the middle of the clip and try to put the boots to Harris. He isn't noble by any means.
Looks at his video views, he basically has to mention Alex Jones, Shapiro or someone from the "IDW" to get any views anymore.
@@rappinneallyp Oh, and Sam Harris dismissal of Bret Weinstein isn't globalist gatekeepery bs, riiiight...
I hate how the Majority Report constantly portrays Sam’s criticism of Islam as “peddling Islamaphobia and racist ideology” and they conveniently leave out the point that at the same time Sam was also criticizing Christianity and wrote a book called letter to a Christian Nation. The reason Sam Seder is surprised by Sam Harris’s response here is because the Majority Report only follows Sam Harris when it’s topics about Islam and other things they disagree on.
Well this aged terribly. Weinstein is owed a massive apology. Doubt Harris has the integrity
Whoever designed that thumbnail is awesome.
Matt 😏
I know, right? Harris looks like he got bit by a zombie but is telling you he's fine.
??
I do think some of the Left are a bit too uncharitable to Sam Harris sometimes. Yes he was associated with the " intellectual dark web" (cringe) but he also said from DAY 1 that Trump was extremely dangerous. He never simped for the guy as far as I know. And he also, together with Matt Dillahunty, did a great takedown of Jordan Peterson in debate with him .
One of Sam Harris's biggest detractors was Glenn Greenwald. Well....right now Sam Harris smells like freaking roses as compared to Greenwald. I mean.....Greenwald called, of all people, Tucker Carlson a " socialist" and is a total disgusting transphobe to boot. Totally disgusting behavior.
That said....Sam Harris should stop thinking woke scolds on Universities are a big threat and fully realize the right are the biggest threat right now. But that's not going to be easy as long as he is pretty much barred/feels unwelcome in left spaces. I feel like if you're only surrounded by right wingers you might be influenced by them.
Dismissal is the bane of our national discourse. If someone as educated as Brett or Heather has a strong opinion talk to them. There is zero crime in that.
Also, Sammy only comes out from under his rock to attack and pick a fight with someone he know he can beat or humiliate.
Case and point his discussion with Jordan Peterson. He saw a weakness with Jordan and decided to make a fool out of him
Every thing Sam says or does is carefully calculated before he opens his mouth.
Just finished reading Against the Web. The content is timely often, but feels esp. timely watching this.
Bret Weinstein is such a clown. Look up the debate he had with Richard Dawkins. It was so embarrassing. Regardless of Richard Dawkins insufferable attitude and fall into culture war garbage, he's undoubtedly a brilliant biologist. And seeing Weinstein try to argue with him is actually painful at points. Dawkins had to work so hard to not be actively insulting.
The fact that people take Weinstein seriously is ridiculous.
Richard Dawkins is someone I truly appreciate and respect.
The fact that people take Weinstein seriously is reason enough to take him seriously.
Just call him Bwett Whinescheme.
I'm not talking about bret or anyone in particular but I tend to dismiss ideas not people.
If the guy has a track record of being dumb and having alterior motives with his position then I and others should be able to dismantle that perspective with ease.
The context of knowing their past can help you look for certain things but, I think it's important to have an open mind because some average people have a few great ideas in their life, and some of the smartest people have one or two of the worst takes ever. We're human and we have our good and bad days and our strengths and weaknesses.
I already had my suspicions, but that debate really exposed him as a fraud. He was unable to grasp basic concepts, like extended phenotype. It was funny to see Dawkins confused by the level of Bret’s arguments.
I stopped listening to Sam awhile ago but he always gets credit from me for helping me get past my hardcore evangelical family and the path eventually lead me to being progressive. The whole Charles Murray thing pissed me the fuck off. At least he didn't jump on the trump train or get into the covid conspiracy bullshit.
To stop listening to other MDs studies on the Va****ine is that what science is about? Call them "Conspiracy theorists" while the evidence for the toxicity piles up? Sudden adult death syndrome which came out of the blue just when the roll out started. To silence people with legit questions about a medication leads to tyranny.
You are obviously very gullible and have a very non-scientific mind.
Time to wake up guys! We've been had, we've been lied to!
You can tell that both Sam Seder and Sam Harris smell their own crap like they are sniffing a glass of wine during a tasting.
Not helpful.
Sam Seder said something nice about Sam Harris? Almost. Still, I'm glad to see it.
I always find this amazing. I'm guessing Harris and Seder agree on 99% of everything, yet they try to make Harris completely about the 1% with which they disagree.
@Ceol I see you know nothing about Harris except what other people say about him. That's really not a very good way to go through this world.
@Ceol Well, if you believe Harris is wrong 99% of the time, you're either an idiot or you don't actually listen to him. I was assuming you weren't an idiot and I'm sticking to that.
Harris isn't all bad. I mean beyond his rampant Islamophobia.
@Ceol What's the mainstream media?
Harris did nothing that he hasn't always done here. He is stating that you shouldn't platform people who are spreading misinformation. He has no issue with platforming people who are asking and showing some sort of evidence for difficult questions. These two aren't the same thing as MR seems to think. Harris specifically said he doesn't care about how iq may be different between races, he only cares that just because a question upsets people, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be asked. This is the same when people call him Islamophobic. He is. I am. Many atheists are the same as we have phobias of Christianity and other harmful ideologies. He is clear that most Muslims like most Christians are great people just living life. He says statistically that more Muslims are likely to act on their fundamental beliefs that can be very dangerous. This is a fact. At one point you could say the same about Christians and many still are dangerous. There's nothing wrong with starting facts. There's nothing wrong with calling dangerous ideologies, dangerous.
A phobia is an "irrational fear of something". Atheists are not Islamophobic, the fear is very rational. The same goes for Russophobia, especially in Eastern Europe.
Harris is a disinformation peddler. You like his flavor of koolade. That doesn't make it less toxic.
It's interesting to see that Sam Seder and Sam Harris, who probably have more in common with each other than anyone else (even their first names are the same), bicker over the few things they disagree on so much that it ruins the chances of any alliance let alone friendship. It's almost as if if two people are too much the same they'll focus on the few things that set them apart.
Going to sound like a fanboy for this, but it’s just unavoidable given how wrong Seder is in this particular instance. The problem is that Seder engages with Harris’s arguments in bad faith. He misrepresents Harris’ arguments and uses these misrepresentations to vilify him, and he must be doing it consciously because when his misrepresentations are corrected he continues to use them.
@@motorhead48067 comparing Seder with Harris in any way gives the former wayyyyyyyy too much credit. Seder is for the most part just too far into his ideology.
Sadly, Sam Seder's show is about dick display. How come you guys don't notice it.
Toe’s law
Unfair for Seder to try and understand Harris. Seder is not up to it. He has a blind spot about understanding Sam Harris. It’s bad for business to understand Harris.
Of course Seder is suprised to find he agrees with Harris considering his stance on Harris has been one of his most irrational positions.
Harris is far from perfect, but Seder has been obsessed with interpretating Harris' words in the least charitable way for years.
100%
Dude mocking Dave Rubin *saves* lives
Honestly- amazing. FREE RM BROWN
I just find it crazy that Sam can't respectfully disagree w Bret and Heather and vice versa. We the public really don't know what the vaccines long term effects are so if some are more hesitant, that's their right. Bret has said multiple times that the risks of COVID must be made against the risk of vaccine side effects. Each individual must decide for themselves...wow what a groundbreaking idea!
This aged poorly LOL
You're still anti-vaccine in 2023 LOL
The Sams 'Seder' and 'Harris.' Their takes ageing like fine, moldy cheese.
Helping Covid deniers to an early death is a bridge to far for some.
One thing is sell dubious ideas about theories IQ of non whites, or torture apologia, or fear and hate to Muslim ppl, or discuss mockery about trans ppl, but anti vaccines is too much, that is crossing the line...
@@RojirigoD do you listen to Sam Harris?
@@joevines3428 I was a fan, I listened to all his podcasts and I defended it when he justified the theories of IQ by Charles Murray, I defended him when he criticized Islamophobia mentioning that it did not exist, I defended him in his hypothetical experiments of torture or bombing Islamic countries, I defended him when he argued with Chomsky and similar cases... But little by little re thinking criticism of these defenses I realized the game I was falling into and how I was justifying bad ideas sounding reasonable. I kept listening to him, and how some times he was giving more space to some transphobic and even racist people, and trying to see the best interpretation on a defensive way, but it was increasingly difficult to defend it and then later I had to retract my defenses when I realized how I was also justifying some bad ideas. It still gives me some sadness, I identify a lot with the way of thinking of Sam Harris, and shared many of his reasoning, but rethinking them, I noticed how I fell into bubbles to justify some bad ideas
Sam Semen just has a bug up his ass about Harris, who is right on the money here about the Whineschemes.
@@666marquis ? He literally agreed with Sam Harris 100% fuck are you talking about?
Did Harris just make an argument for no-platforming? 🤔
It depends. If you think no-platforming means choosing not to talk with certain people who you think might spread harmful ideas - then yes. If you think it means extending that to no one should be allowed to do so - then I think no. His main problem from what I could gather was not that you choose not to talk to someone, but that there was a kind of authoritarian effort to prevent people from being allowed to speak. I don't think he was correct on that account - but that seemed to be his view imo.
Sam's still working on Islam dude, it'll be a few years before he figures out what 'irony' is.
@@TWFarr Not sure how this is relevant to what I said? Or was it a not aimed at me?
He is 100% for deplatforming. Listen to the Triggernometry podcast where he basically destroyed what was left of his credibility.
Bret and Heather are titans of truth and science.
I see you are as thick as Banbury Cheese rind.
👏
@@furtigan I see you didn't even check his Wikipedia page, which has link to a couple of peer-reviewed articles. People like you who spread BS on social media need to check b4 you reply ffs.
@@furtigan---Actually he did publish a very well cited paper that got published in Nature.
Those who step outside their fields, proclaiming expertise where they have none, are no "titans of truth and science."
This video is a great example if what it looks like when underinformed people are afraid to engage with actual ideas. The critical thinking the country needs does not look like this.
If I owned this content I'd have taken it down out of embarrassment by now.
My thought exactly!
I wonder if they still think they were and are right. There are many still pro-left government authoritarian, no matter what.
I love how Sam Harris' podcast used to be called "waking up with Sam Harris" but if you listen to it, his voice puts you to sleep.
WTF? How high where U when U typed this?
@@janthomassen4175 Simping for Seder.
When you listen to Sam Seedy it sounds like a bunch of rich high school kids sneering at people not in their clique.
What is the point of not speaking to people that don't agree with you? It's a chance to learn or to educate. A bubble is the worst place to be.
Why would you ever debate anyone then?
There's some legitimate animosity from these two towards sam harris lol. Even his use of the word spurious made her shake her head and roll her eyes. Lol, what is wrong with them, chill out.
yea it's kinda cringe how hard they're trying to separate themselves from Harris.
I was thinking this the whole time. Like.. "Oh jheez lol, listen to how smart he's trying to sound. Must just be an effort to to appear to be having original, substantive thought. Eyeroll." You could almost tell she was uncomfortable to be publicly giving any credit, to someone who's so close to *gasp* political center, as to threaten her hyper-partisan identity. Scoff, eyeroll, scoff, eyeroll. Silly.
The sad part is that Harris' conversations, and content in general, ARE extremely substantive, interesting, and if we're thinking about this in terms of volume of content - by and large, not usually political at all. It's just that the political commentary he does make, often attracts heated reactions from both sides.
Sam Harris is just a typical anti-muslim Zionist Israeli sympathizer and western propagandist. That's his main identity, you'll never see him condemning Israel even though all the rights organizations including amnesty international, human rights watch has declared Israel the only apartheid state. It's sickening how us media defends them and going against israel gets you fired. If he was a brave person, he would have condemned Israeli aparthied at least once.
@@aldenpadilla1773 I get the feeling you've never actually absorbed any of his work. Your view seems like its been formed through 5 minute critiques of him from far left pundits. Sam has criticized Israel numerous times, he just does it in proportion to their actual offenses. Palestine has done far worse, and would essentially erase Israel off the map if they had the ability to do so. The difference in ethics is clear when you observe the difference in their tactics. And Sam isn't anti Muslim, he's anti dogma, and he's anti religious fundamentalism, to the extent that the fundamentals cause human suffering. He has no issues with the fundamentals of Jainism because the more extreme you are in that religion the more peaceful you become. Sam is a center left democrat for the most part. Though I don't think he holds a firm political identity. His identity is that of a scientist, which explains his rationalist data driven view of the world.
@@chrisortiz8077
"Palestine has done far worse". "Sam is anti religious fundamentalism"
How more stupid could you be? He defends Israeli occupation and aparthied because he thinks Islamic fundamentalists are worse 😂. It's very easy to talk about islamic fundamentalists but you may lose your career if you dare point out Israel is an aparthied state..even woke media vice has to edit their videos to not make Israel look too bad, and leftists get fired for criticizing israel more than they're allowed to. At least stubborn Zionists can justify their crimes by using their God. They don't shy away from stealing lands and making illegal settlements because their ancestors might have lived there 2000 years ago; but hypocrite harris has to justify it by saying "Palestine has done far worse". Those days are gone when you get away with these logic because of mainstream media but now more and more people are standing up thanks to social media and all the rights organizations has declared Israel an aparthied state.
I question the ethics of people who wilfully misrepresent others' arguments. His point was simply that a significant portion of Muslims we may call islamists and/or Jihadists held dangerous 7th century beliefs. Not that ALL Muslims were. 10+ years later we still know this to be true simply by referring to pew and other polls that represent their beliefs--basically in their own words. If 10% of xtians were deemed radical and dangerous because of their 2nd century beliefs, there would be zero controversy. He wasn't making up a story but merely narrating from the data.
Which in facts suggests to me that this was always a phony controversy orchestrated by clowns and virtue performers who aren't interested in serious, adult conversation.
Thank you. Comparing Bret and Heather's anti vaxx stance to Sam Harris's critique of Islam is apples to oranges, and in bad faith. I'm Liberal in my politics, but this channel's unexamined and hyper Woke point of view is maddening. I agree more with Sam Harris than Sam Seder.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut no I didn't. I met and spoke to Sam Seder for an hour. Mutual friend. A congenial enough chap. But regarding Islam, he didn't know his ass from his elbow. Just typical apologetics and virtue performance.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut I'm combining first hand information to form a rational conclusion, fan boy.
@@Gary_oldmans_left_nut it should be obvious from my original comment. I think Seder operates and communicates in bad faith.
Well, this didn’t age well, did it?
😂👏
True, but most of the Branch Covidian cult are either too proud and cowardly to admit they were wrong, or still brainwashed in the cult.
How so?
Lots of people will be back pedalling the more time goes on. There has also been an explosion of cancer since the miracle jab was rolled out. Egg on face for people like Harris.
Got an ad to get a flu shot from Walmart while Sam was talking about the vaccine 🤣
falling asleep, are you sure he's not Colin the Energy Vampire from WWDITS?
Bring on Andy Kindler
Seder could learn a lot from Harris!
Agree
There still is matter of what happens if you had caught covid prior to vaccine and natural immunity?
Haha, Sam Harris is simply reaping what he's sown and realizes what crazies he's associated himself with.
Sam holds many views that are just as crazy as Weinstein. They are both bad, just on differing topics.
@@undisputedchamp4317 Yeah, I was kinda getting at that, and I also really do not like Sam Harris and his fancy-sounding Islamophobia.
@@MrGksarathy there is absolutely no such thing as Islamophobia. There are people who despise arabs or muslims as people and thats a problem. But criticizing Islam as a set of ideas is completely fair game and justified. If you cant make that distinction you’re perpetuating the proliferation of barbaric ideology
@@Opticillusion160 "there is absolutely no such thing as Islamophobia." /= "There are people who despise ... muslims as people"
"But criticizing Islam as a set of ideas is completely fair game and justified." - Fine, but politicizing it and reducing the flaws of social systems to that "set of ideas" is reductive and anti-empirical, and serves to devalue the well-being and lives of those who hold those ideas. Fails on both intellectual and ethical fronts.
Plus he doesn't have the theological education to do that job well. Do you know if he has ever even had a conversation with a scholar of Islam?
He disavowed Bret Weinstein on anti-vax from the beginning, and publicly stated he had nothing to do with IDW years ago
Sam Harris is very cautious to not specifically call out Rogan as his platform is still important to Sams success.
He did call out Joe, albeit in a more gentle way, a few episodes ago.
@@josefk5659 where what show?
@@dustinkfc6633 I looked quite hard for it. He does around 15:30 in the Ask me anything #18 (same clip referenced in the video above). He also retweeted some anti ivermectin post at both of them.
nope, Sam does not spare anyone. He has enemies on the left and right. There are people who agree with him on every side, and people that disagree with him on every side. You may fall into either category, but he is not a grifter at all.
So the general gist of Seder + Co's argument is that a dangerous or sensitive subject shouldn't be discussed? I.e. Don't discuss Islam during the "War of Terror", dont discuss vaccines during a pandemic, etc...
Seems like an odd take.
Right, both should be discussed and to hell with the idea that the speaker has to keep the public's inability to understand semi-complex issues aside. The difference between Harris' attack on Islam is that it isn't pseudoscience and it isn't directed at the individual Muslim; it is directed at the ideology. When the speakers in this video summarized Sam's take to "Muslims are dangerous people", I almost fell out of my chair at the ignorance. And for them to compare the "harm" he did by calling out jihadism and Islamism to Weinstein's antivaxx take... talk about disingenuous.
Sam attacked the ideology and called a spade a spade when no one else had the balls to do so (with others like Hitchens assisting). While Weinstein is peddling pseudoscience in the midst of the world's most dangerous pandemic in a century, that has already claimed the lives of multiple Vietnam wars in numerous states...EACH.
But yes, tell me more about how Sam attacking Islamic fundamentalism is somehow as harmful as pseudoscience in a pandemic that has claimed millions....
These people are so out of their league, especially the woman in the video. Has no clue.
The lack of self awareness towards the end of the video is striking. And telling.