_"The good die young, but Assholes(ie Pat Roberts of the world) live forever"_ Thinking of Michael makes me remember just how true the old adage is sometimes.... & just how much of a good dude he was. RIP, you are, very sorely missed Michael
Then you didn’t get what Harris was saying. Harris criticizes all religions. Islamic ideology is one of the most destructive and dangerous of all and Harris is courageous enough to expose it.
@@fkeyvan it seems you are the one who hasn’t listened to enough of Michael Brooks breaking down Harris to have much to say. There’s nothing you can quickly comment here that MB didn’t address and dismantle.
The use of torture in movies influences peoples' attitudes. Hollywood provides a constant narrative of torture both as righteous, justified, and effective when used against "the bad guy".
I was a fan of Sam Harris for quite some time. For me, the breaking point was when he continued to minimize the threat of white nationalist terrorism despite the FBI very specifically providing data to the contrary. His persistence that Muslims abroad posed a larger threat than right wing extremists here at home was the last straw for me. You cannot claim a logical and data-driven point of view and make that claim. I was done with him then.
I've always hated Sam Harris. You just get a gut feeling about someone sometimes. The guy has always rubbed me the wrong way and seems like a true sociopath. But not just him,People who are part of this "new atheist" movement are just as violent as religious beliefs can be. "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." - Sam Harris, 2006 Hmm... Kind of seems like an older version of Onision if I'm being honest. What a gross dude.
Same here, I still see a sliver of something good, or at least valuable or useful in some of what Sam has talked about. His talks on free will are honestly thought provoking and brilliant, likewise his commentary on drugs, mediation, very non political and interesting. Then there is Sam Harris political views, and it's frankly embarrassing and shameful. I think Christopher Hitchens was more respectable in that avenue as much as I disagreed with him, he at least had principled and interesting things to say. Harris just repeats far right taking points and dumb fallacies, which is pretty pathetic for someone who is a supposed intellectual heavyweight.
I liked his comedic timing, and was I guess a fan, until I saw a clip where he was arguing there could be an objective morality. Then I realized he wasn't so bright. Later he confirmed it with his dumb views on Muslims and terrorism, and preemptive strikes.
Yeah, that's why he backed out of the intellectual dark intellects bullshit. Once he saw the seige of the capital he suddenly realized he was being used as pawn in the right wings grift, which must had Really pissed him off bad knowing Sam, however he NEVERED supported Trump and always said he was dangerous. Unlike a dave rubin.
I used to really like Sam Harris but his BLM takes were so difficult for me. It's like he didn't take any historical context for these protests into consideration with his analysis. That was a turning point and I quit listening to his podcast.
the worst of that was in his debate with ezra klein. Ezra is essentially exasperated by trying to explain basic historical context to sam, who wants to pretend its irrelevant.
@@rebirthoflegend4797 yeah I watched that one it was sad I dont like what sam haris does tbh makes history look very very one sided just very unhelpfull to understanding why these things in middle eastern countries happens and happened
he does not have any historical context.When i heard that jordan gave lgbt rights in 1950 IT changed my thinking of the whole sam haris understaning of the history it happend last year and It is amazing
Sam Harris is wrong about BLM but I think he made some good points during that debate that Ezra dodged. Specifically about how easy and uncontroversial it is to talk about how Europeans almost exclusively have Neatherthal DNA in their genetic code and how that same discussion would be almost impossible in the current political climate if they found it exclusively in African DNA. The scientists wouldn't even dare publish it. Which is sad.
I discovered him through the atheist stuff and bought his book about free will but then I found out about his demonizing Muslims, his support for torture, preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran, Zionism... and I was immediately turned off
you’d think a neuroscientist would find something like ‘advanced interrogation techniques’ fundamentally abhorrent, but I guess his mind is way more advanced than us mere plebes
I didn't know education had anything to do with being moral. I think he just lacks any emotional intelligence to understand scripture which a theology scholar pointed out in a twitter fight in which Sam Harris lost and to communicate with normal people without looking like an a hole
"but I guess his mind is way more advanced than us mere plebes" Apparently it is. This is something that kills me with more neo-liberal people. They always want to hold up science and academia but if someone says something they disagree with or they simply don't like (often political ideologies will be applied to do this and to rant against), they stop functioning in science and academia, ignore what academics do and then responding these utterly ridiculous ways. As we see with TMR here. This whole "that scenario does not exist"... yah no shit Sam.... these are thought experiments that are designed to demonstrate processes of the mind, sometimes extreme's. Especially when it comes to studies of the mind and brain, what exactly do you guys think academics do? Are all of you in high school? Have none of you attended college? Or i guess i should say, attended college with one of the sciences being a focus of study or degree? These are daily conversations with staff, professors, other students... they are every day conversations between professors over coffee... they are the conversations had when peer reviewing and writing potential peer review. Its a shame that this understanding and respect for academia has just vanished with many of yall. Stop being completely narcissistic and strive to understand more and do better, how about that?
@@undergrounddojokeyboardcag701 It also happens fairly regularly in the academy that ideas are challenged and most grown ups don't have hissy fits when they are critiqued. They don't automatically assume that people who are challenging them are bad, dishonest people. This is Sam Harris' problem in a nutshell. He does this every single time, and it is annoying.
I read Sam Harris's the end of faith back in my youth and I was agreeing with it until he singled out Islam and advocated for a possible preemptive nuclear strike. I noticed that something is wrong with his "logic" as it didn't sound illogical but intentionally and consciously ill-informed. Michael did a great job of pointing out what the problem with that guy was and I will always miss him like an older brother I never met.
All the abrahamic religions are pretty useless. I think the only issue is that a lot of leftist still want to call it a religion of peace. Islam goes hand and hand with far right ideology. Muslims are probably more conservative than a lot of Christians in the west. Not saying that it is the number one threat, but Islam does contradict leftist social values.
@@AthenaGate sure.also many people think not subscribing to all Sam Harris' ideas means that you are defending islam or calling it a religion of peace. Coming from a muslim country and being subject to a lot of islamic indoctrination I can tell you It's far from the religion of peace. But I still see how Sam Harris is ill informed about muslim culture as a whole. He loves to claim he is taken out of context when in fact it's him who fails to think through the further implications of the policies he so logically advocates. No, Islam is not the religion of peace and no, nuking them out of existence is not the only logical way to deal with extremists.
@@behshadmohebali6234 Yeah, Sam Harris also has a supremacist type outlook on a lot of the world. Everyone deserves to criticized for their bad ideas. I do not marry myself to any one ideology for that reason. Just pointing out out relationship between the left and Muslims is a fragile one. I think of the Iranian revolution when I think of not getting to comfortable around conservative Muslims.
Michael really bought to the forefront, a lot of red flags I had about Harris in the back of my head. A lot of stuff was just not adding up for me and then one example Michael mentioned The Golden Girls thing and everything about Harris started making sense to me.
@@lenn452 Sam Harris' mother is the creator of The Golden Girls. Harris is very well connected, so the narrative of him of being this outsider and getting his first degree late in life is total bullshit.
@@lenn452 His mother created that show, and Sam is a trust fund baby. He also got some of his credentials by his parents paying for expensive brain scanning machines so that he could be present for a bullshit study that he could get his name on at Stanford if I remember correctly. He’s a mediocre well connected trust fund baby who has no actual credentials in any field which is why he’s a total idiot in so many areas he speaks on.
Between a scholar like Sam Harris and "the oppressed unbelieved plebs"... I'd chose a doctor. Instead of character assassinations honest people should be discussing ideas and not letting their back-biting gossiping run the show.
@@letsomethingshine Sam Harris is not a scholar. When mommy buys your way in to a university for you to play scientist it doesn’t amount to much. Harris is a well spoken idiot. He’s not renowned in any field except in the minds of podcast rubes.
I always thank Sam Harris. He was the one who woke me up from the path I was going (a group of people who ended up as the 'IDW' before they were) just by being a shit propagandist with less charisma. Made me see the cracks in it all.
The biggest problem with people like Harris and to a lesser extent Peterson ( I don't really like Peterson at all) Is they may be genuinely experts and have interesting things to say in a narrow field. Yet human hubris and arrogance get's in the way of actual knowledge or rationality. Sam had some valuable things to say about religion, about free will, meditation and drugs. However it's almost like he convinced himself that he is some genius god level intellect and that translates into knowledge and valuable input on every subject. *It absolutely doesn't.* As smart as Einstein was I wouldn't ask him to translate Chinese or fix the gears in a pocket watch. It's frankly embarrassing and sad to see Sam's poorly informed, emotional ignorant takes on politics and other issues he has no more expertise in, than you or I, Just allot more self importance. A genuine intellect would have the Socratic sense of being overwhelmingly ignorant, and speaking only on narrow subjects they are adept in, humility isn't just polite it is wise. I think social media and pop culture fame has poisoned people like Harris and Peterson.
@@mikejohnson555 Yeah. That was a large part of it. I found him interesting talking about neurochemistry. But in some ways his expertise in it just showed him up in other areas.
@@mrwaltermathews that's a terrible argument What i am saying is harris has some interesting things to say about free will and spirituality that is free from religious dogma, but his political ideas are whacky, although the one thing I agree with him and peterson on in that regard is that there are things we liberals do that drive certain ppl to be more radicalized on the right, but I'm not certain that it has any workable solution, i think we just have to accept that some ppl are dumb and cannot see through grifters like trump and rudy
I’m in the UK and discovered Michael recently, he was a breadth of fresh air with the truth. His critical thinking and historical context to arguments and conversation was incredible to listen to and really understand the topic being discussed. RIP ❤️
I had a lot of friends who fell victim to the IDW. And, that's how I found Michael's work. I've become part of a larger community of activists and organizers because of it. Thank you!
@@joshboston2323 Well, there's his nonsensical morality argument, that includes him using completely garbage "analogies". One being using chess as an "analogy" to morality, and calls it a game of pure objectivity. But, chess has rules, which is an analogy to having laws, not to morality. And, those rules were created by the subjective decisions of its creator, people make the subjective decision to play or not, people make the subjective decision whether they actually want to win or not (might want to let their kid win), people make the subjective decision whether they want to use alternative rules or not, ... He also argues against himself, first claiming all variations of morality are about "well being". If true, that would mean everyone has a different idea of what "well being" entails, everyone has a different subjective concept of "well being". But then he makes out like his version of "well being" is objective and uses it to judge other versions of "well being" as worse. He doesn't ever actually get beyond his initial statement about the consensus being that science/objectivity, can't tell you what main goal to set, but once you subjectively decide on a main goal, science/objectivity can tell you, objectively, whether a course of action will bring you closer to, or further from, reaching that goal. All he did was stick in his own subjective version of "well being", as the main goal. It was complete nonsense, by a dimwit who thinks he's smarter than Hume. There's also his fearmongering about AI, as if an AI having more knowledge (objectivity), giving an example of an AI that's more intelligent to us than we are to ants, will somehow lead to it turning against us (subjectivity). There's zero indication we can even create an AI with its own subjectivity, its own ability for primary goal setting. You have to worry about the programmers who are programming in the primary goals, not an AI suddenly up and deciding it wants to organize paperclips, one day. An AI has no personal desires.
1. You didn't understand the Moral Landscape, and you certainly don't understand what the chess analogy is trying to convey. 2. You can't make claims about AI such as them having personal desires, when you have no idea if they would or wouldn't.
@@Lashkor Yes, I did. It was garbage. Even in one of his own responses to criticisms, he touched on the possibility that morality could simply be very strong likes/dislikes, but then dropped it quickly. Chess is an analogy to laws, dumb dumb, not morality. It has rules to follow, but the rules were created based on the rulemaker's subjective wishes. Once you've created a law, it's pretty easy to tell, objectively, if you're breaking it, or not. No new insight, there. Morality is above lawmaking. Laws can be considered immoral. Rofl! Yeah, it's pretty simple to tell, since they don't do anything they aren't programmed to do, and there's zero indication they ever will.
I really, really miss Michael. He was truly brilliant. His knowledge was beyond what most people could dream of and his articulation of said knowledge was second to none
That a 'philosopher' or public 'intellectual' failed to ever consider historical context or subjective influences, is what lead to his ridiculous takes. That's what makes you fascinated with Islam as some singular mythical thing that only you have discovered to be barbaric. As if no other codified religion has potentially disturbing stuff in it; and as if Muslims have this special cultish commitment to carry out the worst possible interpretation of it at all times. Political, colonial, historical influences be damned.
I don't think Sam is focused on just Islam. He did write "Letter to a Christian Nation" and mentions other religions. I think he just has a blind spot for State Terrorism from the US. See his dialog with Chomsky
@@keitha4768 he does have a fixation with islam. maybe subconsciously he feels the need to support US foreign policy in middle east for israel's security. or maybe it's some other reason. but his fixation is apparent.
@@keitha4768 Muslims and Christians have fixations with pagans. It's not a big deal. Blind spot? Sam has never felt like he NEEDED to study State Terrorism from the US. Sam Harris is a rich capitalist after all, so "no need, nothing to see here." State Terrorism is incorrectly filled as "a different subject" from both neurology-at-large and religion (his favorite topics, I think)
Sam Harris's failure is more complex than that. He holds different religions to different standards. He treats Islam and all of its believers as a monolithic religion that can be understood completely by reading [an English translation of] its holy book. When it comes to Christianity, he has less trouble recognising that it is an assemblage of thousands of different interpretations and sects, all of which ignore different parts of the holy book and have unique interpretations of certain passages, have a truckload of traditions _not_ based in the holy book, and use religious language in a lot of situations when the real motivation is political. The same is true about Islam. Even the most rabid, supposedly back-to-the-roots Wahhabi movements incorporate some very modern ideas taken from elsewhere that could only be reconciled with the Quran using massive mental gymnastics. One prime example is suicide bombing: this was pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, it was first adopted by Shi'a Muslims for practical reasons (military inferiority in the Iraq-Iran war and the Lebanon civil war), using a re-interpretation of the Shi'a central theme of self-sacrifice; then by Sunni Muslims with a complete over-riding of earlier stances on suicide & attack on the defenceless, when Hamas was in competition with the Shi'a Islamic Jihad and the secular nationalist Fatah among Palestinians and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre provided a tit-for-tat justification. Another example is the use of pictures for propaganda, especially the use of the face of leaders. The biggest problem with Harris's approach is, of course, the dismissal of current politics & recent history as relevant context for political conflicts in Muslim countries. Such a short-sightedness may be understandable for a younger person, who may be prone to the mistake of taking the religious justifications of al-Qaida & co at face value. But Harris is old enough to remember that Middle East conflicts and the use of terrorism pre-date the rise of Islamic extremists, back in a time when the violent forces for change were secular (nationalist or left-extremist). Had he studied up the history like a serious intellectual, he would also be aware of _non-violent_ forces for change which were crushed violently (like the government of Mohammad Mossadeq in Iran). Basically, Islamic extremism is the current provider of a _language_ to voice political grievances, after the elimination and faltering of other such frameworks. (For a parallel, think of peasant revolts in Europe between say 1300 & 1800: if you look up quotes, they don't speak about class struggle or freedom, they tend to use a Christian framing, and the revolts themselves often originated in some religious movement or event.) The dismissal of the political angle a la Sam Harris also leads to complete blindness about key motivations of both foot soldiers and leaders among Islamic extremists. At foot soldier level, Islamophobes make way too much about the promise of 72 virgins in Heaven and such, which ignores actual research with would-be suicide bombers and the whole conundrum of female suicide bombers. In reality, these people are very much similar to school shooters in the US: they tend to be alienated and desperate people who wish to go out with a bang, and use the opportunity provided to them to go fully nuts and fulfil their desire of self-destruction with effect on others; the main difference is the source of that desperation, and Harris's whole project is to explain away that source. At leader level, Islamophobes take rhetoric at face value and don't notice that in their reactions, they actually play right into the hands of the leaders. People like Harris act as if Islamic terrorism were a genuine existential threat to the West and the wows to destroy & take over the West was the true goal of their actions. But the leaders of al-Qaida & co are fully aware that even 9/11-level attacks are, for the big picture, only spectacle that don't get anywhere near a serious threat to the West, and you have to understand their actions in the context of a goal of taking over in their home countries. Attacks in and against the West serve two connected purposes: recruitment with spectacle, and stopping secularisation and Westernization among Muslims (something going on among immigrants from Muslim countries and their descendants in Europe and spreading its effects back into the ancestral countries) by provoking a racist backlash. None of the above is meant to imply that religion is irrelevant. I think (and my view is more negative than Michael Brooks's) that religion is very much part of the problem, as a potent think-stopper and provider of moral justification for horrible acts. But it's not the defining issue and dismissing the politics & history (not just US state terrorism) is a crime.
You have no clue what you're talking about. As was already pointed out he spent massive amounts of time attempting to combat religion as a whole and focused on Christianity. "As if Muslims have this special cultish commitment to carry out the worst possible interpretation of it at all times" really highlights how insanely dishonest you are. He wrote a book with a Muslim about how a moderate form could prevail.
michael was extremely good at dissecting not only the rhetoric sam harris would use but also dissecting the faux “logical” arguments for racism, xenophobia, and imperialism that people like bill maher and christopher hitchens would advocate for that still is the basis of the liberal ideology in america.
You completely misunderstood Sam Harris. Sam was criticizing islam and its effects on the islamic countries. He was not bashing Muslims. Go back and view what Sam said in the debate with Reza Aslan and also on Bill Maher.
I enjoy listening to takes from the Majority Report and Sam Harris podcasts. I probably disagree with both equally as well. Sam Harris does get into the hypothetical weeds but I do believe he is being honest in his opinion. No disrespect to Michael Brooks but I heard him talk about religion in a clip once and saying something along the lines of “people don’t really believe these things”. As someone who lives in the south and understands just how powerful religion is (along all income classes) that quote was really disappointing to hear but I still enjoy his other content. It’s also kind of hard to label Sam Harris as the grifter type that is pandering to his select audience when Sam has done everything possible to keep from “getting cancelled” and has probably left a lot of money on the table in the process. On the other hand the Majority report is constantly putting out click bait titles hear on you tube. The clickbait titles have always annoyed me and comes across as a type of “selling out” even thought the content is usually decent here. Basically if I want philosophy or ideas I’ll listen to Sam Harris and if I want to listen about in depth policy/current events I’ll listen to the Majority report. But I’ll admit I listen to the majority report a lot more these days.
Personally I think it is telling that one show can regularly have 40 minute interviews with people about real world problems with a real world historical context and the other show relies so much on hypotheticals. If the 1 billion Muslims were all as bad as ISIS (as Harris seems to at least imply) then he would have no shortage of real world examples.
@@Badartist888 I do enjoy the real world ideas and issues that get discussed on this show. I’ll never stop enjoying the libertarian call in debates lol. I guess I never took Sam Harris’s arguments as implying 1billion Muslims being as bad as ISIS. Sam is usually very clear when talking about the radical fringes of any religion, especially Islam. I listened to a lot of Sam Harris during my transition out of my religion (Catholicism) so I have a pretty good idea where Sam sits in regards to Islam and i understand his frustration when outlets like the Majority Report take his arguments out of context. His issue is that he lingers too much on people taking him out of context and non constructive criticism which kind of creates a negative feedback loop for him.
@@quesotaco5103 His hypothetical of, torture is ok in my silly stupid hypothetical while Bush was actively torturing people is inexcusable. He's horrible on anything foreign policy TBH.
this channel endlessly misrepresents sam, attacks the misrepresentation, then pats selves on back while their audience cheers them on. really holds the show back
The more I learn about politics, the more I realize how wrong Sam Harris was. When I was in high school I thought he made sense. His hypotheticals are highly effective against young idiots who are unable to think past the ultra unrealistic variables he puts forward in his through experiments.
It’s like Sam is trying to prove to everyone that he has no emotion at all in any direction and is only statistics based. Statistics don’t always paint the clearest picture and can even be mis-used to support opposing interpretations at times. I think Sam particularly enjoyed when he could use statistics to go against public opinion. In trying to come from a place of complete reason, he was more focused on building an image for himself and that only served to warp what was obvious to interpret.
He doesn't have emotion, he's a sociopath. He really likes saying inflammatory things like claiming that he's more pro-rape than he is pro-religion. The guy is just an edgy 13 year old who never grew out of the phase of "be and say anything that will make my parents angry and upset with me for attention."
@@rabiespuddings1735 I think wanting to look smart to others might be a specific type of personality disorder. Being an atheist use to mean being open-minded enough to question the existence of God. But there are few that take atheism in a direction that leads them to being as close-minded as they claim proponents of religion to be. Just in the opposite way. Questioning the existence of God and what life is all about is something we each go through and I think most of Sam Harris’s following were in that kind of phase when they discovered him. The realms of philosophy and reality meet at a border of compromise and compassion. This is something I feel Sam has yet to realize.
I'm so sick of people defending religion. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have no place in today's world. Why must we tiptoe around peoples belief when they should be ridden from society?
People who completely stop listening to Sam because of his thoughts about Muslims and religions, particularly Islam - because they aren't the same shared view points - are part of the problem. You can't just cut out that which you don't agree with or dont want to hear. I agree with a lot of what he says about mindfulness and meditation and being present and to that point I think he is on the right track with some of those ideas. I do not however really agree with much of the politics that he talks about or about Islam. It is however still important to see his viewpoint and understand where he is coming from. Hardly anyone is ever 100% wrong, and while his takes of politics might not always take everything, even some very basic notions into account - he nevertheless still picks up on universals that need to change. As far as how he talks about religion - I find myself agree with Dawkins on that subject. Religion - that may have once helped human beings invent civilization - has become a cancer to the human race, especially the indoctrination of children.
His views about Muslims ans Islam don't just stop with that, it continues with blm, protests,... It's not just one topic, but what's behind, what it leads to. Most people who stopped listening to him saw the pattern, that many so called anti sjw have. His politics, where he's coming from have been discussed, analyzed etc... He's not been censured, he's still has his platforms, those who wants to listen to him can. He's a huge public figure, his words and actions (based on his politics) have an impact on thousands of people and have real life consequences. So you can go past his political views because you like to listen to him talking about mediation, what between you and you, others just cannot and would find someone else to listen to about mediation...
I don't agree with some of Sam's political takes (and imo, it's his least interesting topic of inquiry), but the disingenuous way this channel goes after him (rarely his actual points) is far from useful. Even clickbait titles like this one does nothing but invite circle jerk sessions to take cheap shots at Sam. People aren't the enemy here, it's dangerous ideas, and if we can't effectively criticize those ideas and come together to some common understanding, we're not gonna get anything done and move our humanity/civilization forward
Best comment. Sam has some bad takes but hes okay overall. Definitely not idw material. I just think hes ignorant in some of the areas he speak on. He should definitely do more studying on some stuff before he talks about it
Thank you, I despised Michael for his I guess trying to become mainstream by shitting on Harris routine. It was to the point of how MTG talks about AOC. If TMR posted a video and you saw Michael in the seat, there was inevitably some Sam Harris grifting going on.
@catmanyo Totally spot-on. This channel is such a horrible representation of the left, and I say this as a SocDem myself! I agree that Sam’s political takes aren’t great (I mean, he supported friggin’ Hillary over Bernie Sanders… yikes), but he’s completely right when he says that there’s absolutely no nuance on the left when talking about things like BLM, and just race in general. The people on this channel all have a massive amount of white guilt, though, so of course they would never admit that he has a point there.
Sam Harris is not a politician or a water bearer for the left even though he is to the left on many issues. I consider myself a lifelong progressive and I’m really ok with agreeing with Harris on quite a few things and disagreeing with him on others without having to choose between some all or nothing dichotomy.
he was right about trump but REALLY failed to identify WHY so much of his audience was a) trump supporters and b) convinced that sam harris would come around. its like all those anti sjws who i guess were right at weed should be legalized but were wrong about so many things that caused so much harm to people.
Exactly, nicky! Why the fucking hell must so much of the Left instantly demonize anyone they previously liked once they state a view they don't agree with. If you don't like this view of theirs but you do everything else, then one should merely press the issue with them. This insta-division is a large part of why much of the Left cannot unify and thus enact greater change.
@@rejectionrole1237 Depends what the opinion is. Lets say we agree on everything but I think slavery should be legal; if you dont demonize my disgusting opinion then to be honest you're a pretty shitty person (hope I dont have to break down why that is for you). Copy and paste with American imperialism (see Chomsky debate) and worse him holding water for Bushes war crimes.
@@BoogieDownProduction I disagree with a lot of things he says, that is, with his ideas. He has tunnel vision on some issues but I’d rather disagree on the position rather than demonize him personally. I don’t think of him as a right wing ideologue who argues in bad faith. No two people are likely to agree on everything and sometimes he deserves criticism and sometimes his positions are mischaracterized. One can argue honestly and still be wrong or just hold an opinion that I disagree with.
@@BoogieDownProduction We cannot agree on everything if you think slavery is legal. Slavery requires a good deal of other wicked viewpoints, many of them fundamental (such as believing a certain people is unworthy of freedom). And Harris' opinion is not being demonized so much as merely he is.
Sam Harris has had a few really good insights on Christianity, and one was the final nail in it's coffin that freed me. But his other stuff seems to be really bigoted or shallow the more I've heard of it. I stopped paying attention to his arguments some time ago.
Sam Harris really isn't even worth wasting time thinking about. His thoughts on Islam are completely shallow and ignorant, he may have other good points. But that take alone 'the motherload of bad ideas' made him lose all credibility in my mind. Everyone mocked Ben Affleck at the time but his reaction was pretty reasonable when faced with the utter ignorance and stupidity Harris and Maher where displaying.
Are you serious? First of all, Sam Harris already admitted that the motherload of bad ideas sentence was a mistake. Second, how come you viewed Ben affleck as more reasonable there? And what points did Sam and bill make that you thought were so unreasonable?
Did you even see the entire clip ? And if you didn't then stop passing judgements on Sam Harris and even Maher. And what do you know about Islam ? I bet nothing. It is because of idiots like you and Affleck that inhumane, regressive,anti gay ,anti women (the irony for leftists 😂😂😂) ideologies like Islam exist and prosper to this day that should have been wiped out long ago. If you wanna see the real face of Islam then get out of your safe bubble of West and travel around the world ,and if you too lazy to even do that then read books and articles on brutal Islamic history and it's impact on modern humanity in 21st century.
@@SameerSharma-gh8mg yeah this might be the most brain-dead thing I've ever read in my life. Let's just ignore historical context and modern day context and blame the religion itself. Why don't you get out of your bubble, maybe read up on how the middle East as it is today came to be it might help explain those oppressive regimes in an actually thoughtful way rather than 'islam bad'.
@@Nicholascagesmandolin So you are saying Iraq, Syria, Egypt,Saudi Arabia ,morrocco were heaven for women ,gays , atheists before the intervention of western governments. That's why I say get out of your bubble and read read history both medieval and modern.
Criticism of Islam, its more nefarious tenets, its establishment through war, capture of wealth and colonialism, its "fundamentalism" resulting in breaches to human rights, will always be necessary. But acting as if we can pretend to be the "good guy" by interring people in prisons and torturing them, is utterly ridiculous. Lest we not forget that Christopher Hitchens also criticized Islam frequently, yet underwent a personal trial of waterboarding to showcase that it IS torture. Edit: Additionally, what I started with above can also be attributed to Christianity. Of all the world's religions, two reign supreme, and their similarities aren't coincidental. Christianity and Islam got to where they are in the way all empires do: domination. And yet, if we can say that a British person, a German, or a Spaniard (all, at one time, regarded as Christian empires) can be spared torture despite belonging to nationality of intercontinental infamy, most past and some present, how can we hope to defend the inhumane treatment of others that already regard us as beasts and occupiers? It's only cements and validates such hate.
I don't think you know your history or Islam to be honest do your research. The largest Muslim country Indonesia became Muslim through trade and interactions not domination or colonialism like the west does it. Look Hamza Yusuf or Uthman in Farooq look up the real islam. Peace have a great day
The fact that you still take YOUR notion of Islamic history when it comes to Islamic empires, especially in the very beginning is a very weak foundation to your argument. You just take it as read that it was evil and very much like Christianity. Simply no.
@@beebee4172 You haven't provided a counterpoint, or provided support for how Islam can be shown in a brighter light than Christianity, despite achieving it's goals in a similar fashion to European empires: invading and capturing nodes of economic significance, occupying and coercing foreign lands, and engaging in warfare with the excuse that they were "bringing civilization".
Sam's problem though, was that he defined religions, especially Islam, as if there was one true interpretation, and then argued that those who didn't believe exactly what he claimed the one true Islam to be, were less religious, were "nominal" Muslims. He was, basically, making the same argument the likes of ISIS makes, that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe isn't a "true" Muslim. The actual fact is that people interpret things, cherry pick, give weight to, include additional writings and rulings, differently. Even people in the same church, temple, synagogue, or mosque, can have somewhat different beliefs. A pacifist Muslim isn't necessarily less religious, anymore than a Quaker is less religious than some hate filled Southern Baptist spewing that all gays should be stoned to death. If you portray Islam as a singular, horrible, "motherlode of bad ideas", and every single Muslim on the planet practices Islam, by definition, then you've said something about what every single Muslim on the planet believes and practices. Broad brushing, like that, generally makes you wrong, out of the gate.
@@sabbuofggh1629 That's not how a conversation works. You don't start and end it before the person speaking to you can respond. But while we're discussing the spread of Islam, just HOW did it spread to Indonesia by peaceful commerce, when armies had to capture trade hubs like Mecca, and later Constantinople, to secure economic domination? Conversion brought economic incentive to businessmen and merchants, and incentive to the enslaved as well, since Muslims couldn't enslave Muslims. So as Islam spread and bolstered a lucrative slave system, it explained that those that saw the "truth" could escape bondage. And thus Islam caught like wildfire. Obviously Indonesia isn't the whole world, so perhaps we ought to talk about the invasion of India, the enormous African slave trade under the Arabs, or the attempted conquest of Europe, all by Muslim forces?
Ugh, that movie has such a ridiculously fantastical premise it offended with its expectations to be taken seriously, before even getting to the vacuum of morality at its heart.
I miss him too Shea. It is so poignant that those three words you wrote carry so much emotion and heft. Anyone who loved Michael is most certainly a brother or sister of mine.
I agree with pretty much everything Sam Seder says on this show, but still the one thing that i still don’t really understand is his disdain for Sam Harris. I know Harris has some dumb takes on Islam, but if you listen to enough of him he says almost all the same things about every other religion too, I’ve never really gotten the impression that in his heart he is racist or bigoted against muslims as people. I disagreed with him vehemently on the Charles Murray thing but other than that he is right about most of what he talks about. I think he is an actual intellectual, he has a way of breaking things down and articulating topics that is super smart at times. His podcast he did about the January 6th insurrection was one of the best commentaries on that event that I’ve heard from anyone.
You are right on. Harris gets it wrong sometimes and is surprisingly ignorant in some areas but the way hes demonized by many on the left is very distasteful and those people are doing themselves a disservice. His takes on trumpism overall are some of the best, better than many I've heard from leftists. And I'm a staunch lifelong leftist
See what matters is your intention when you do the bad thing compared to the bad guys who also do it, but they're not trying to be nice. And also let me say that I never said that and you're misrepresenting me. Read all I've ever written three times over and apologize before you talk to me.
I think the ticking time bomb scenario could theoretically happen, but here’s the thing: how would torture be different from doing any other crime? If there was a situation where I would have to steal a car in order to quickly drive 20 miles to diffuse that ticking time bomb, then I guess I would have to do it. Similar to the psychological thought experiment of pulling a lever and killing one person or doing nothing and having 10 people die. Pulling the lever or stealing the car would be the right thing to do in this absurdly unlikely situation, but there’s no way to codify this into law. Same thing with torture.
I understand what you mean, but I think you're missing a big point. Stealing a car to get to a bomb is still a crime yes, but it also undeniably helped the person diffusing the bomb. Cars make people go faster, and if you need to get somewhere fast a car is a good way to do that, this is just demonstrably true. Torture is not proven to be a good way to extract information, therefore even in a ticking time bomb situation its efficacy in helping you get to the bomb is questionable at best. So you're doing a heinous crime for likely no results. That's the real flaw in Sam's hypothetical, it assumes that torture does work to some capacity when most of the evidence points to the opposite.
The comment section is full of "Brooks demolishes Harris" type stuff, but nothing about exactly how or what about. Maybe someone could share a link or two? I enjoy(ed) listening to Michael and Sam both. I never agreed with either on everything.
Okay, to gather information via experience in Turkey to bring together your view of Islam, you’re going to run into some problems. 1. Islam is not a state sponsored religion there, and Islam heavily values it’s states. 2. Turkey (and I say this lightly) is one of the more moderate majority muslim countries and they don’t take their religion as seriously as other countries. (Think of modern day Poland v UK when it comes to Christianity; while of course recognizing the human rights violations committed by Christianity are nothing in comparison to Islam) I can type for days about the intrinsic barbarianism in Islam. The list is massive ranging from treatment of women, to death for apostasy. To cover this up with the blanket of compassion, is too ignore all of these critical issues that are very important to human development in that region.
@hf0 Remind me, what rights are we talking about here that are being infringed? Labeling someone a grifter (even if it seems apparent that they are) has to be the most anti intellectual thing you do because it then enables you not to listen to that person; which leads to ad hominem attacks and no substance is levied. What are you talking about when you say he backed racial pseudoscience? I’ve never heard him say anything like that either 😂😂 My reason for commenting this was to bring light to the fact that Michael brooks being in Turkey and having a good time does not equal Islam good or tolerant. That’s one of the worst ways to use inductive reasoning there is because of reasons listed in my original comment. Even if he went to Iraq and had a good time, that still does not mean anything in the scope of whether or not Islam has terrible ideas.
@hf0 Did I ever convey my liking for Sam Harris? Ironically you just committed an ad hominem on me. You attacked my character and not the substance. You also provided no evidence to the two claims you made that I asked for evidence for. I also didn’t say “those are ad hominem attacks” I said calling someone a grifter can lead to pointless ad hominem attacks because it takes the conversation away from substance and focuses it on the character instead (I hope that wasn’t an attempt to Strawman me). If you actually cared about substance and discourse you would care about such a problem no matter what side of the isle you’re on.
Interesting. Building one's brand, negating moral applications. How is it Christianity and Islam and religions of all types are consistently twisted away from their teachings of compassion, humility, generosity, love, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, service, community-- everything that is the Holy Spirit-- to teach instead spirituality's complete opposites-- insularity, hate, exceptionalism, militancy, pessimism and fear? Of all the things meant to do the opposite, be a reliable standard for our ethics and behavior, how is it religion keeps getting used to violate everything it's about? I really miss our MLKs and Kennedys, our Mother Teresas and Golda Meirs. I never knew Michael Brooks, never read him or saw his shows. But everything I hear about him now tells me we lost a really sensitive and important voice who fought for rationality, plurality and optimism. Wish I'd had the opportunity to tune in to him while he was alive. Just the things said about him by Jane Sanders and Cornel West and Marianne Williamson after his passing-- compassionate intelligence, soulfulness, a real light, a willingness to scrutinize himself, be deeply self-critical, how being curious and Socratic creates compassion, courage and humor-- are inspiring, are values we can emulate to make life more livable now. Think the Majority Report and Sam and Emma and Brendan, Nomi, Matt and Matt are championing this courage, humor and compassion incredibly well, a necessity we're not finding elsewhere all that frequently, save among comedians like Amber Ruffin, Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, Andrew Schultz, Tom Walker and Andrew Doyle-- the meta thinkers, the Mark Twains of our day. Think channeling Michael's attitude to answer questions like the one proposed above will serve us really well, much better than the sadism and contempt we so much enjoy employing today.
I have no real issues with Sam Harris. Not sure where all the hate comes from to be honest. I don't agree with some of his takes but I think people hear a few things from someone and they form an opinion without really delving into the person in an in depth manner.
That's completely correct. Tribalism is a major reason why Harris is being shit on so much. There is no reason for one to slaughter once liked figures for one view they disagree with. One can agree with some and disagree with others.
@@rejectionrole1237 I think slavery should be legal. We only disagree on one thing so its no big deal. If you critize me or as you put it "shit on" then you're just be tribal dude.
@@BoogieDownProduction A few things: What are your other views? Were you once a liked and representative figure with views that most would agree with? Would not slavery entail a list of other equally repugnant viewpoints? Do you mean to say what Sam Harris is being shit on for is equally abhorrent as slavery? Certainly, particularly despicable and abhorrent viewpoints are of course something that will have one sever ties for good reason. But political/philosophical idiocies in the context of it's time as such is not a deep enough evil to justify demonizing an otherwise useful and insightful figure, only pressuring and intense criticism. Often, when figures face such intense demonization as Harris did here, and it's for views around half of the population may agree with, it's usually largely due to bias/tribalism.
@@BoogieDownProduction and I should also add that I never said it's not a big deal if one has a differing opinion. I only said it is not enough to turn entirely against someone.
@@rejectionrole1237 "Would not slavery entail a host of equally repugnant viewpoints?". I don't know you tell me. Now tell me if that extends to targeting and torturing a group of people (because that's something we can apparently just shrug our arms and chalk it up as a difference of opinion)
Yeah, I dont get this at all. Sam Harris would have crushed Michael Brooks intellectually. I know people in this audience don't want to hear that. Sam Harris unequivocally denounces torture all the time.
@@oxman5571 There is a credible argument to be made that's the case. Also, when you tell someone to shut the fuck up and call them a clown, you have lost the argument.
@@bodombeastmode You have expressed two opinions and both of them are shit. Denounces torture all the time? - JFC dude use your brain, maybe rewatch this video. Thats just as slimy as saying Trump isnt racist because he says he isnt a racist. Wow.
"There is a credible argument to be made, but I won't make it here because you called me a name and made me cwwwwwwy WAHHHH WAHHH WAHHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHH DADDY HARRIS PWOTECT ME WAHHHHH." -- Zacharina Bottomfeeder.
Oh man! Sam's tripling.....TTRRRIIIIPPPPLLLLIIIINNNGGGG DOWN!!!! Whenever his viewership notably falls, he starts making regular videos "debunking" (more often than not, he's not actually doing this) or even just simply arguing against, Sam Harris or Jimmy Dore. Its a regular tactic by drama channels that has sadly been absorbed by questionable media outlets like TMR, TYT, DPS, etc. Now typically, he only did one of these videos once every... say 5 days and he never shot at two targets at once. But man, his viewership numbers now are so bad (and i remember before he went full bullshitty, with every new video he was getting 1-250k views in 24 hours.) he has to target 3 people at once. Actually, 2 targets and then use the name of a person who passed away who if he was still alive, would probably have a channel that was getting literally ten times as many views per video as Same is. I have no problems saying that i think Brooks would be getting well over 120K views in 24 hours, per video, if he was still alive. However i would also like to point out that we might also have seen a Kyle/Cenk situation with Brooks and Sam, since Brooks seemed to be way more ideologically consistent and driven. I could be wrong on that though. So in order to actually get views Sam has to invoke Sam Harris. Invoke Jimmy Dore. And then invoke Michael Brooks.... this is pretty pathetic dude. On a side note, i wish SS would have kept what's her face. She was good. But Emma..... the child of people functioning gin and corrupting the DNC, if you go over her twitter timeline of predictions, you'll find she will be accurate........... i dont know.......2% of the time? Maybe 3?
Cancel culture: you can't even be a racist torture advocate and neocon or a crypto-fascist who fawns over a genocidal dictator anymore without someone picking on you!
Sam Harris has never uttered a word that could be construed logically as anti Muslim bigotry. His criticisms are directed at the idea and concept of Islam. This is utter nonsense.
@Adam Anderson He dares to criticize Islam and BLM. To overly-sensitive retards on the left, that’s automatically considered to be “bigoted.” 🙄I’m on the left, for the record, but issues like race and Islam are where the left really loses me.
As someone who used to like Harris but pulled away mostly in recent years, could you do a longer segment where you address his overall worldview and point out the most problematic parts? Or would that be paid content, or just not really the kind of thing this channel does? Or is it not worth it to give him that much attention? I am receptive to the piecemeal, drive-by criticisms of his thinking, but I still agree with a lot of his positions and would love to consume a more in-depth criticism of him from this channel.
He had the whinny Sam Harris character that was funny but the GWB character bullying Sam Harris was absolutely hilarious. My personal favorite MB character was his alt-right MLK as a response to Dave Ruben's stupid assertion that MLK would be a conservative by today's standards.
Although I do like Sam Harris' work on determinism and the moral landscape, and although I think he has certain valid critiques of religion, I also think he has reprehensible views on race, torture, IQ, and he has made various stupid statements also about religion. It's very weird with Harris. I feel like some of his work is spot on and defensible but others are abhorrent. Obviously the good work doesn't remove the stain caused by his bad work. I could go into more explanation if pushed but this is how I feel.
How did Michael Brooks die? Brooks reminded me of a college roommate who spent most of his time doing heroin and reading books about the Middle East, communism, imperialism and the like. A really decent guy but he didn't make it. A sad day for all of his friends.
I am a Sam Harris fan, he is overly verbose in interviews (he's no Ezra Klein), and I have guffawed at his blind spots on some topics (history and policy regarding race). But Michael Brooks called it accurately. The dude will stay abstract until he's called out on it. Then the shell game has to end.
When people look up Sam Harris they inevitably come across Michael taking apart his fallacious arguments. I wouldn't say Michael alone he's responsible for that but Harris he's definitely not as relevant as he was just 4 years ago.
i like both Sam Harris and Chomsky. both have some great insights about various things, plus some blindspots i guess. Chomsky has less of them, obviously, being so incredibly well-read over so many decades.
Sam does treat Trump voters as the CNN caricature. Sam Harris was not defeated in this video, rather this is a video saying he's been defeated which is the lion share of the Sam Harris is defeated videos. Sam wanted Harriss torture hypothetical to have data was pretty funny lol. What does data on torture look like sedar? Are you gonna take polls/ do studies on torture-ies? What a dumb thing to counter anti torture with.
Let's pretend that Sam goes to bar mitzvahs because he thinks that 9/11 produced happy happy afterlives. Let's pretend that Michael went to a happyland in the sky, and never speak positively about not having any invisible friends, as if the skitzos do. Let's let politics remain infected by the church mafia, right Sam Sam green cashflow eggs you am?
_"The good die young, but Assholes(ie Pat Roberts of the world) live forever"_
Thinking of Michael makes me remember just how true the old adage is sometimes.... & just how much of a good dude he was. RIP, you are, very sorely missed Michael
Nah, i want pat to live more than 150 years. He needs to suffer
Michael Brooks ruined Sam Harris for me and I will be forever grateful.
REST IN POWER MR BROOKS
Then you didn’t get what Harris was saying. Harris criticizes all religions. Islamic ideology is one of the most destructive and dangerous of all and Harris is courageous enough to expose it.
@@fkeyvan it seems you are the one who hasn’t listened to enough of Michael Brooks breaking down Harris to have much to say. There’s nothing you can quickly comment here that MB didn’t address and dismantle.
And I listened to Sam Harris religiously for years. You definitely can’t tell me I didn’t get his message
@@TACOINSURANCE you didn't. It is about the ideas not the people. People have ideas (religious ideas), let's debate them freely.
@@rubenerazo7133Let's also debate them in the context that they appear, rather than without any reference to reality.
So, so, so miss Michael. What a force.
@Reactive Forever you seem like a lovely person 🥰☺️
@@bradleymauger917 Trolls love trolling. Im sure the OP has done a lot of good for humanity already and will be sorely missed one day soon.
The use of torture in movies influences peoples' attitudes. Hollywood provides a constant narrative of torture both as righteous, justified, and effective when used against "the bad guy".
Yep, same with "tough" cops in series.
And same with vigilantes … who always & only attack bad guys … never someone not guilty of the crime they’re justly murdered for.
24.
I was a fan of Sam Harris for quite some time. For me, the breaking point was when he continued to minimize the threat of white nationalist terrorism despite the FBI very specifically providing data to the contrary. His persistence that Muslims abroad posed a larger threat than right wing extremists here at home was the last straw for me. You cannot claim a logical and data-driven point of view and make that claim. I was done with him then.
I've always hated Sam Harris. You just get a gut feeling about someone sometimes. The guy has always rubbed me the wrong way and seems like a true sociopath. But not just him,People who are part of this "new atheist" movement are just as violent as religious beliefs can be. "If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion, I would not hesitate to get rid of religion." - Sam Harris, 2006 Hmm... Kind of seems like an older version of Onision if I'm being honest. What a gross dude.
Same here, I still see a sliver of something good, or at least valuable or useful in some of what Sam has talked about. His talks on free will are honestly thought provoking and brilliant, likewise his commentary on drugs, mediation, very non political and interesting. Then there is Sam Harris political views, and it's frankly embarrassing and shameful. I think Christopher Hitchens was more respectable in that avenue as much as I disagreed with him, he at least had principled and interesting things to say. Harris just repeats far right taking points and dumb fallacies, which is pretty pathetic for someone who is a supposed intellectual heavyweight.
@@rabiespuddings1735 im not to fond of sam myselfe, but you do know, that religion is the correct answer to that scenario?
I liked his comedic timing, and was I guess a fan, until I saw a clip where he was arguing there could be an objective morality. Then I realized he wasn't so bright. Later he confirmed it with his dumb views on Muslims and terrorism, and preemptive strikes.
Yeah, that's why he backed out of the intellectual dark intellects bullshit. Once he saw the seige of the capital he suddenly realized he was being used as pawn in the right wings grift, which must had Really pissed him off bad knowing Sam, however he NEVERED supported Trump and always said he was dangerous. Unlike a dave rubin.
RIP Michael, and thanks Emma, Sam and the crew, you guys have been and continue to be so valuable
I used to really like Sam Harris but his BLM takes were so difficult for me. It's like he didn't take any historical context for these protests into consideration with his analysis. That was a turning point and I quit listening to his podcast.
the worst of that was in his debate with ezra klein. Ezra is essentially exasperated by trying to explain basic historical context to sam, who wants to pretend its irrelevant.
@@rebirthoflegend4797 yeah I watched that one it was sad I dont like what sam haris does tbh makes history look very very one sided just very unhelpfull to understanding why these things in middle eastern countries happens and happened
he does not have any historical context.When i heard that jordan gave lgbt rights in 1950 IT changed my thinking of the whole sam haris understaning of the history it happend last year and It is amazing
Sam Harris is wrong about BLM but I think he made some good points during that debate that Ezra dodged. Specifically about how easy and uncontroversial it is to talk about how Europeans almost exclusively have Neatherthal DNA in their genetic code and how that same discussion would be almost impossible in the current political climate if they found it exclusively in African DNA. The scientists wouldn't even dare publish it. Which is sad.
I discovered him through the atheist stuff and bought his book about free will but then I found out about his demonizing Muslims, his support for torture, preemptive nuclear strikes on Iran, Zionism... and I was immediately turned off
Many of us went through a cringy phase of thinking Sam harris was a great thinker.
Lol I definitely did
Guilty🤦🏻♂️
Glad to say that I missed that part. By the time I found out who he was, Michael was constantly & relentlessly dunking on him.
Guilty 🤦♂️
@@cnferguson5 Guilty as charged, I’m embarrassed to admit. Glad to see I wasn’t the only one.
Sam Harris is what happens when someone from r/atheism watches too much of Jordan peterson videos.
Lobsters and dirty bedrooms! 😹
And pills!
Yep Jordan Peterson sucks anyways.
Sam Harris is what happens when a stoner with rich parents buys their way into academia and they rip off the work of other, actual, scientists.
Why would an atheist watch Jordan Peterson videos when he is not an atheist?
you’d think a neuroscientist would find something like ‘advanced interrogation techniques’ fundamentally abhorrent, but I guess his mind is way more advanced than us mere plebes
I didn't know education had anything to do with being moral. I think he just lacks any emotional intelligence to understand scripture which a theology scholar pointed out in a twitter fight in which Sam Harris lost and to communicate with normal people without looking like an a hole
@@ar2042 I’m just taking about how understanding the brain undermines retributive treatment of prisoners & such
@@simonmacconmidhe9489 neurology and psychology are full of quacks*
"but I guess his mind is way more advanced than us mere plebes"
Apparently it is.
This is something that kills me with more neo-liberal people. They always want to hold up science and academia but if someone says something they disagree with or they simply don't like (often political ideologies will be applied to do this and to rant against), they stop functioning in science and academia, ignore what academics do and then responding these utterly ridiculous ways. As we see with TMR here.
This whole "that scenario does not exist"... yah no shit Sam.... these are thought experiments that are designed to demonstrate processes of the mind, sometimes extreme's. Especially when it comes to studies of the mind and brain, what exactly do you guys think academics do? Are all of you in high school? Have none of you attended college? Or i guess i should say, attended college with one of the sciences being a focus of study or degree? These are daily conversations with staff, professors, other students... they are every day conversations between professors over coffee... they are the conversations had when peer reviewing and writing potential peer review.
Its a shame that this understanding and respect for academia has just vanished with many of yall.
Stop being completely narcissistic and strive to understand more and do better, how about that?
@@undergrounddojokeyboardcag701 It also happens fairly regularly in the academy that ideas are challenged and most grown ups don't have hissy fits when they are critiqued. They don't automatically assume that people who are challenging them are bad, dishonest people. This is Sam Harris' problem in a nutshell. He does this every single time, and it is annoying.
Harris has some takes I disagree with but the Majority Report is making him out to be far worse than he actually is.
He has no soul
I read Sam Harris's the end of faith back in my youth and I was agreeing with it until he singled out Islam and advocated for a possible preemptive nuclear strike. I noticed that something is wrong with his "logic" as it didn't sound illogical but intentionally and consciously ill-informed. Michael did a great job of pointing out what the problem with that guy was and I will always miss him like an older brother I never met.
From what I'm gathering, many people had the exact same journey as yours re: Sam Harris.
All the abrahamic religions are pretty useless. I think the only issue is that a lot of leftist still want to call it a religion of peace. Islam goes hand and hand with far right ideology. Muslims are probably more conservative than a lot of Christians in the west. Not saying that it is the number one threat, but Islam does contradict leftist social values.
@@AthenaGate sure.also many people think not subscribing to all Sam Harris' ideas means that you are defending islam or calling it a religion of peace. Coming from a muslim country and being subject to a lot of islamic indoctrination I can tell you It's far from the religion of peace. But I still see how Sam Harris is ill informed about muslim culture as a whole. He loves to claim he is taken out of context when in fact it's him who fails to think through the further implications of the policies he so logically advocates. No, Islam is not the religion of peace and no, nuking them out of existence is not the only logical way to deal with extremists.
@@AthenaGate There are many Christians outside of the West that you're not comparing Muslims to. Just throwing that out there.
@@behshadmohebali6234 Yeah, Sam Harris also has a supremacist type outlook on a lot of the world. Everyone deserves to criticized for their bad ideas. I do not marry myself to any one ideology for that reason. Just pointing out out relationship between the left and Muslims is a fragile one. I think of the Iranian revolution when I think of not getting to comfortable around conservative Muslims.
Michael really bought to the forefront, a lot of red flags I had about Harris in the back of my head.
A lot of stuff was just not adding up for me and then one example Michael mentioned The Golden Girls thing and everything about Harris started making sense to me.
could you tell me what is The Golden Girls you mentioned?
@@lenn452 Sam Harris' mother is the creator of The Golden Girls.
Harris is very well connected, so the narrative of him of being this outsider and getting his first degree late in life is total bullshit.
@@lenn452 His mother created that show, and Sam is a trust fund baby. He also got some of his credentials by his parents paying for expensive brain scanning machines so that he could be present for a bullshit study that he could get his name on at Stanford if I remember correctly. He’s a mediocre well connected trust fund baby who has no actual credentials in any field which is why he’s a total idiot in so many areas he speaks on.
Ad hominem.
Non sequitur.
Yep Michael’s critiques of Sam Harris were spot on.
Harris is a great example of Neil Degrasse Tyson's line: "Knowing enough to think you are right, but not knowing enough to know you are wrong."
Between a scholar like Sam Harris and "the oppressed unbelieved plebs"... I'd chose a doctor. Instead of character assassinations honest people should be discussing ideas and not letting their back-biting gossiping run the show.
@@letsomethingshine nah assasinations are more fun
@@letsomethingshine Sam Harris is not a scholar. When mommy buys your way in to a university for you to play scientist it doesn’t amount to much. Harris is a well spoken idiot. He’s not renowned in any field except in the minds of podcast rubes.
I swear everyone keeps quoting this.lately. im seeing it everywhere
NDT has a huge amount of respect for Sam Harris.
I always thank Sam Harris. He was the one who woke me up from the path I was going (a group of people who ended up as the 'IDW' before they were) just by being a shit propagandist with less charisma. Made me see the cracks in it all.
The biggest problem with people like Harris and to a lesser extent Peterson ( I don't really like Peterson at all) Is they may be genuinely experts and have interesting things to say in a narrow field. Yet human hubris and arrogance get's in the way of actual knowledge or rationality. Sam had some valuable things to say about religion, about free will, meditation and drugs. However it's almost like he convinced himself that he is some genius god level intellect and that translates into knowledge and valuable input on every subject. *It absolutely doesn't.* As smart as Einstein was I wouldn't ask him to translate Chinese or fix the gears in a pocket watch. It's frankly embarrassing and sad to see Sam's poorly informed, emotional ignorant takes on politics and other issues he has no more expertise in, than you or I, Just allot more self importance. A genuine intellect would have the Socratic sense of being overwhelmingly ignorant, and speaking only on narrow subjects they are adept in, humility isn't just polite it is wise. I think social media and pop culture fame has poisoned people like Harris and Peterson.
@@mikejohnson555 Yeah. That was a large part of it. I found him interesting talking about neurochemistry. But in some ways his expertise in it just showed him up in other areas.
If you listen to a neuroscientist for his ideas about foreign policy you're doing it wrong
@@iannonya5282 so are political scientists the only people to listen to on politics? Is Sam Sedar a political scientist?
@@mrwaltermathews that's a terrible argument
What i am saying is harris has some interesting things to say about free will and spirituality that is free from religious dogma, but his political ideas are whacky, although the one thing I agree with him and peterson on in that regard is that there are things we liberals do that drive certain ppl to be more radicalized on the right, but I'm not certain that it has any workable solution, i think we just have to accept that some ppl are dumb and cannot see through grifters like trump and rudy
I’m in the UK and discovered Michael recently, he was a breadth of fresh air with the truth. His critical thinking and historical context to arguments and conversation was incredible to listen to and really understand the topic being discussed. RIP ❤️
I had a lot of friends who fell victim to the IDW. And, that's how I found Michael's work. I've become part of a larger community of activists and organizers because of it. Thank you!
Sam Harris's nonsense was the first exposure to extreme right rhetoric many who fell down the MAGA whole got.
Sam Harris is just like Donald Trump, only younger.
Nobody "fell victim" to intelligent people having intelligent conversations. People that watch this podcast must be completely braindead.
Torture only works on elves
And when people point this out, they get banned from CNN!
Yeah. Try it on a dwarf and you’ll quickly find out how ineffective it is.
@@keirfarnum6811 wooosh
RIP to a legend
Absolutely, this was the major part of my waking up also. The analysis michael brooks, gave about idw, opened my eyes.
No clue how Harris got a philosophy degree, when he doesn't seem to grasp basics, like subjectivity and objectivity.
Could you elaborate?
I'd say that's subjective
@@joshboston2323 Well, there's his nonsensical morality argument, that includes him using completely garbage "analogies". One being using chess as an "analogy" to morality, and calls it a game of pure objectivity. But, chess has rules, which is an analogy to having laws, not to morality. And, those rules were created by the subjective decisions of its creator, people make the subjective decision to play or not, people make the subjective decision whether they actually want to win or not (might want to let their kid win), people make the subjective decision whether they want to use alternative rules or not, ... He also argues against himself, first claiming all variations of morality are about "well being". If true, that would mean everyone has a different idea of what "well being" entails, everyone has a different subjective concept of "well being". But then he makes out like his version of "well being" is objective and uses it to judge other versions of "well being" as worse. He doesn't ever actually get beyond his initial statement about the consensus being that science/objectivity, can't tell you what main goal to set, but once you subjectively decide on a main goal, science/objectivity can tell you, objectively, whether a course of action will bring you closer to, or further from, reaching that goal. All he did was stick in his own subjective version of "well being", as the main goal. It was complete nonsense, by a dimwit who thinks he's smarter than Hume.
There's also his fearmongering about AI, as if an AI having more knowledge (objectivity), giving an example of an AI that's more intelligent to us than we are to ants, will somehow lead to it turning against us (subjectivity). There's zero indication we can even create an AI with its own subjectivity, its own ability for primary goal setting. You have to worry about the programmers who are programming in the primary goals, not an AI suddenly up and deciding it wants to organize paperclips, one day. An AI has no personal desires.
1. You didn't understand the Moral Landscape, and you certainly don't understand what the chess analogy is trying to convey.
2. You can't make claims about AI such as them having personal desires, when you have no idea if they would or wouldn't.
@@Lashkor Yes, I did. It was garbage. Even in one of his own responses to criticisms, he touched on the possibility that morality could simply be very strong likes/dislikes, but then dropped it quickly. Chess is an analogy to laws, dumb dumb, not morality. It has rules to follow, but the rules were created based on the rulemaker's subjective wishes. Once you've created a law, it's pretty easy to tell, objectively, if you're breaking it, or not. No new insight, there. Morality is above lawmaking. Laws can be considered immoral.
Rofl! Yeah, it's pretty simple to tell, since they don't do anything they aren't programmed to do, and there's zero indication they ever will.
I really, really miss Michael. He was truly brilliant. His knowledge was beyond what most people could dream of and his articulation of said knowledge was second to none
100% !!
I was a Sam Harris Defender as later as 2015. Michael definitely played a huge role in steering me away.
sam harris isnt anti muslim, he's just against ignorance.
He's anti-muslim
Ok but how did he "defeat" him?
That a 'philosopher' or public 'intellectual' failed to ever consider historical context or subjective influences, is what lead to his ridiculous takes. That's what makes you fascinated with Islam as some singular mythical thing that only you have discovered to be barbaric. As if no other codified religion has potentially disturbing stuff in it; and as if Muslims have this special cultish commitment to carry out the worst possible interpretation of it at all times. Political, colonial, historical influences be damned.
I don't think Sam is focused on just Islam. He did write "Letter to a Christian Nation" and mentions other religions. I think he just has a blind spot for State Terrorism from the US. See his dialog with Chomsky
@@keitha4768 he does have a fixation with islam. maybe subconsciously he feels the need to support US foreign policy in middle east for israel's security. or maybe it's some other reason. but his fixation is apparent.
@@keitha4768 Muslims and Christians have fixations with pagans. It's not a big deal. Blind spot? Sam has never felt like he NEEDED to study State Terrorism from the US. Sam Harris is a rich capitalist after all, so "no need, nothing to see here." State Terrorism is incorrectly filled as "a different subject" from both neurology-at-large and religion (his favorite topics, I think)
Sam Harris's failure is more complex than that. He holds different religions to different standards. He treats Islam and all of its believers as a monolithic religion that can be understood completely by reading [an English translation of] its holy book. When it comes to Christianity, he has less trouble recognising that it is an assemblage of thousands of different interpretations and sects, all of which ignore different parts of the holy book and have unique interpretations of certain passages, have a truckload of traditions _not_ based in the holy book, and use religious language in a lot of situations when the real motivation is political.
The same is true about Islam. Even the most rabid, supposedly back-to-the-roots Wahhabi movements incorporate some very modern ideas taken from elsewhere that could only be reconciled with the Quran using massive mental gymnastics. One prime example is suicide bombing: this was pioneered by the Tamil Tigers, it was first adopted by Shi'a Muslims for practical reasons (military inferiority in the Iraq-Iran war and the Lebanon civil war), using a re-interpretation of the Shi'a central theme of self-sacrifice; then by Sunni Muslims with a complete over-riding of earlier stances on suicide & attack on the defenceless, when Hamas was in competition with the Shi'a Islamic Jihad and the secular nationalist Fatah among Palestinians and the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre provided a tit-for-tat justification. Another example is the use of pictures for propaganda, especially the use of the face of leaders.
The biggest problem with Harris's approach is, of course, the dismissal of current politics & recent history as relevant context for political conflicts in Muslim countries. Such a short-sightedness may be understandable for a younger person, who may be prone to the mistake of taking the religious justifications of al-Qaida & co at face value. But Harris is old enough to remember that Middle East conflicts and the use of terrorism pre-date the rise of Islamic extremists, back in a time when the violent forces for change were secular (nationalist or left-extremist). Had he studied up the history like a serious intellectual, he would also be aware of _non-violent_ forces for change which were crushed violently (like the government of Mohammad Mossadeq in Iran). Basically, Islamic extremism is the current provider of a _language_ to voice political grievances, after the elimination and faltering of other such frameworks. (For a parallel, think of peasant revolts in Europe between say 1300 & 1800: if you look up quotes, they don't speak about class struggle or freedom, they tend to use a Christian framing, and the revolts themselves often originated in some religious movement or event.)
The dismissal of the political angle a la Sam Harris also leads to complete blindness about key motivations of both foot soldiers and leaders among Islamic extremists. At foot soldier level, Islamophobes make way too much about the promise of 72 virgins in Heaven and such, which ignores actual research with would-be suicide bombers and the whole conundrum of female suicide bombers. In reality, these people are very much similar to school shooters in the US: they tend to be alienated and desperate people who wish to go out with a bang, and use the opportunity provided to them to go fully nuts and fulfil their desire of self-destruction with effect on others; the main difference is the source of that desperation, and Harris's whole project is to explain away that source. At leader level, Islamophobes take rhetoric at face value and don't notice that in their reactions, they actually play right into the hands of the leaders. People like Harris act as if Islamic terrorism were a genuine existential threat to the West and the wows to destroy & take over the West was the true goal of their actions. But the leaders of al-Qaida & co are fully aware that even 9/11-level attacks are, for the big picture, only spectacle that don't get anywhere near a serious threat to the West, and you have to understand their actions in the context of a goal of taking over in their home countries. Attacks in and against the West serve two connected purposes: recruitment with spectacle, and stopping secularisation and Westernization among Muslims (something going on among immigrants from Muslim countries and their descendants in Europe and spreading its effects back into the ancestral countries) by provoking a racist backlash.
None of the above is meant to imply that religion is irrelevant. I think (and my view is more negative than Michael Brooks's) that religion is very much part of the problem, as a potent think-stopper and provider of moral justification for horrible acts. But it's not the defining issue and dismissing the politics & history (not just US state terrorism) is a crime.
You have no clue what you're talking about. As was already pointed out he spent massive amounts of time attempting to combat religion as a whole and focused on Christianity. "As if Muslims have this special cultish commitment to carry out the worst possible interpretation of it at all times" really highlights how insanely dishonest you are. He wrote a book with a Muslim about how a moderate form could prevail.
RIP the late great Michael Brooks !!!
"Anti-Muslim Bigory"....lol where? Where did Sam Harris do that? And Torture can be morally correct in certain scenarios
Sam Harris called for Muslims to be denied their human rights when he said they should be profiled
michael was extremely good at dissecting not only the rhetoric sam harris would use but also dissecting the faux “logical” arguments for racism, xenophobia, and imperialism that people like bill maher and christopher hitchens would advocate for that still is the basis of the liberal ideology in america.
Michael brooks will always be missed. Feeling nostalgic today and definitely miss him.
You completely misunderstood Sam Harris. Sam was criticizing islam and its effects on the islamic countries. He was not bashing Muslims. Go back and view what Sam said in the debate with Reza Aslan and also on Bill Maher.
I enjoy listening to takes from the Majority Report and Sam Harris podcasts. I probably disagree with both equally as well. Sam Harris does get into the hypothetical weeds but I do believe he is being honest in his opinion.
No disrespect to Michael Brooks but I heard him talk about religion in a clip once and saying something along the lines of “people don’t really believe these things”. As someone who lives in the south and understands just how powerful religion is (along all income classes) that quote was really disappointing to hear but I still enjoy his other content.
It’s also kind of hard to label Sam Harris as the grifter type that is pandering to his select audience when Sam has done everything possible to keep from “getting cancelled” and has probably left a lot of money on the table in the process. On the other hand the Majority report is constantly putting out click bait titles hear on you tube. The clickbait titles have always annoyed me and comes across as a type of “selling out” even thought the content is usually decent here.
Basically if I want philosophy or ideas I’ll listen to Sam Harris and if I want to listen about in depth policy/current events I’ll listen to the Majority report. But I’ll admit I listen to the majority report a lot more these days.
Personally I think it is telling that one show can regularly have 40 minute interviews with people about real world problems with a real world historical context and the other show relies so much on hypotheticals.
If the 1 billion Muslims were all as bad as ISIS (as Harris seems to at least imply) then he would have no shortage of real world examples.
@@Badartist888 I do enjoy the real world ideas and issues that get discussed on this show. I’ll never stop enjoying the libertarian call in debates lol.
I guess I never took Sam Harris’s arguments as implying 1billion Muslims being as bad as ISIS. Sam is usually very clear when talking about the radical fringes of any religion, especially Islam. I listened to a lot of Sam Harris during my transition out of my religion (Catholicism) so I have a pretty good idea where Sam sits in regards to Islam and i understand his frustration when outlets like the Majority Report take his arguments out of context. His issue is that he lingers too much on people taking him out of context and non constructive criticism which kind of creates a negative feedback loop for him.
@@quesotaco5103 His hypothetical of, torture is ok in my silly stupid hypothetical while Bush was actively torturing people is inexcusable. He's horrible on anything foreign policy TBH.
this channel endlessly misrepresents sam, attacks the misrepresentation, then pats selves on back while their audience cheers them on. really holds the show back
The more I learn about politics, the more I realize how wrong Sam Harris was. When I was in high school I thought he made sense. His hypotheticals are highly effective against young idiots who are unable to think past the ultra unrealistic variables he puts forward in his through experiments.
Thought experiments are meant to be unrealistic..
It’s like Sam is trying to prove to everyone that he has no emotion at all in any direction and is only statistics based. Statistics don’t always paint the clearest picture and can even be mis-used to support opposing interpretations at times.
I think Sam particularly enjoyed when he could use statistics to go against public opinion. In trying to come from a place of complete reason, he was more focused on building an image for himself and that only served to warp what was obvious to interpret.
He doesn't have emotion, he's a sociopath. He really likes saying inflammatory things like claiming that he's more pro-rape than he is pro-religion. The guy is just an edgy 13 year old who never grew out of the phase of "be and say anything that will make my parents angry and upset with me for attention."
@@rabiespuddings1735 I think wanting to look smart to others might be a specific type of personality disorder. Being an atheist use to mean being open-minded enough to question the existence of God. But there are few that take atheism in a direction that leads them to being as close-minded as they claim proponents of religion to be. Just in the opposite way.
Questioning the existence of God and what life is all about is something we each go through and I think most of Sam Harris’s following were in that kind of phase when they discovered him.
The realms of philosophy and reality meet at a border of compromise and compassion. This is something I feel Sam has yet to realize.
I'm so sick of people defending religion. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have no place in today's world. Why must we tiptoe around peoples belief when they should be ridden from society?
People who completely stop listening to Sam because of his thoughts about Muslims and religions, particularly Islam - because they aren't the same shared view points - are part of the problem. You can't just cut out that which you don't agree with or dont want to hear. I agree with a lot of what he says about mindfulness and meditation and being present and to that point I think he is on the right track with some of those ideas. I do not however really agree with much of the politics that he talks about or about Islam. It is however still important to see his viewpoint and understand where he is coming from. Hardly anyone is ever 100% wrong, and while his takes of politics might not always take everything, even some very basic notions into account - he nevertheless still picks up on universals that need to change. As far as how he talks about religion - I find myself agree with Dawkins on that subject. Religion - that may have once helped human beings invent civilization - has become a cancer to the human race, especially the indoctrination of children.
His views about Muslims ans Islam don't just stop with that, it continues with blm, protests,... It's not just one topic, but what's behind, what it leads to. Most people who stopped listening to him saw the pattern, that many so called anti sjw have. His politics, where he's coming from have been discussed, analyzed etc... He's not been censured, he's still has his platforms, those who wants to listen to him can. He's a huge public figure, his words and actions (based on his politics) have an impact on thousands of people and have real life consequences.
So you can go past his political views because you like to listen to him talking about mediation, what between you and you, others just cannot and would find someone else to listen to about mediation...
I don't agree with some of Sam's political takes (and imo, it's his least interesting topic of inquiry), but the disingenuous way this channel goes after him (rarely his actual points) is far from useful. Even clickbait titles like this one does nothing but invite circle jerk sessions to take cheap shots at Sam.
People aren't the enemy here, it's dangerous ideas, and if we can't effectively criticize those ideas and come together to some common understanding, we're not gonna get anything done and move our humanity/civilization forward
Best comment. Sam has some bad takes but hes okay overall. Definitely not idw material. I just think hes ignorant in some of the areas he speak on. He should definitely do more studying on some stuff before he talks about it
Thank you, I despised Michael for his I guess trying to become mainstream by shitting on Harris routine. It was to the point of how MTG talks about AOC. If TMR posted a video and you saw Michael in the seat, there was inevitably some Sam Harris grifting going on.
Scam Harris is the mother-load of bad ideas.
@catmanyo Totally spot-on. This channel is such a horrible representation of the left, and I say this as a SocDem myself!
I agree that Sam’s political takes aren’t great (I mean, he supported friggin’ Hillary over Bernie Sanders… yikes), but he’s completely right when he says that there’s absolutely no nuance on the left when talking about things like BLM, and just race in general. The people on this channel all have a massive amount of white guilt, though, so of course they would never admit that he has a point there.
Nice swipe at Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein in the last second, Sam.
Sam Harris is not a politician or a water bearer for the left even though he is to the left on many issues. I consider myself a lifelong progressive and I’m really ok with agreeing with Harris on quite a few things and disagreeing with him on others without having to choose between some all or nothing dichotomy.
he was right about trump but REALLY failed to identify WHY so much of his audience was a) trump supporters and b) convinced that sam harris would come around. its like all those anti sjws who i guess were right at weed should be legalized but were wrong about so many things that caused so much harm to people.
Exactly, nicky! Why the fucking hell must so much of the Left instantly demonize anyone they previously liked once they state a view they don't agree with. If you don't like this view of theirs but you do everything else, then one should merely press the issue with them.
This insta-division is a large part of why much of the Left cannot unify and thus enact greater change.
@@rejectionrole1237 Depends what the opinion is. Lets say we agree on everything but I think slavery should be legal; if you dont demonize my disgusting opinion then to be honest you're a pretty shitty person (hope I dont have to break down why that is for you). Copy and paste with American imperialism (see Chomsky debate) and worse him holding water for Bushes war crimes.
@@BoogieDownProduction I disagree with a lot of things he says, that is, with his ideas. He has tunnel vision on some issues but I’d rather disagree on the position rather than demonize him personally. I don’t think of him as a right wing ideologue who argues in bad faith. No two people are likely to agree on everything and sometimes he deserves criticism and sometimes his positions are mischaracterized. One can argue honestly and still be wrong or just hold an opinion that I disagree with.
@@BoogieDownProduction
We cannot agree on everything if you think slavery is legal. Slavery requires a good deal of other wicked viewpoints, many of them fundamental (such as believing a certain people is unworthy of freedom).
And Harris' opinion is not being demonized so much as merely he is.
Harris strikes me has someone who really loves the sound of his own voice.
smell of his own farts, too
Sam Harris is a narcissist who is good at making himself not appear like a narcissist. Many ways, he's just a younger Donald Trump.
Sam harris is a fool
No he isnt
RIP Michael. He will be missed always.
Michael was a treasure
Rip Michael. Miss you
Sam Harris has had a few really good insights on Christianity, and one was the final nail in it's coffin that freed me. But his other stuff seems to be really bigoted or shallow the more I've heard of it. I stopped paying attention to his arguments some time ago.
Sam Harris really isn't even worth wasting time thinking about. His thoughts on Islam are completely shallow and ignorant, he may have other good points. But that take alone 'the motherload of bad ideas' made him lose all credibility in my mind. Everyone mocked Ben Affleck at the time but his reaction was pretty reasonable when faced with the utter ignorance and stupidity Harris and Maher where displaying.
Are you serious? First of all, Sam Harris already admitted that the motherload of bad ideas sentence was a mistake. Second, how come you viewed Ben affleck as more reasonable there? And what points did Sam and bill make that you thought were so unreasonable?
Did you even see the entire clip ? And if you didn't then stop passing judgements on Sam Harris and even Maher. And what do you know about Islam ? I bet nothing.
It is because of idiots like you and Affleck that inhumane, regressive,anti gay ,anti women (the irony for leftists 😂😂😂) ideologies like Islam exist and prosper to this day that should have been wiped out long ago.
If you wanna see the real face of Islam then get out of your safe bubble of West and travel around the world ,and if you too lazy to even do that then read books and articles on brutal Islamic history and it's impact on modern humanity in 21st century.
@@SameerSharma-gh8mg yeah this might be the most brain-dead thing I've ever read in my life. Let's just ignore historical context and modern day context and blame the religion itself. Why don't you get out of your bubble, maybe read up on how the middle East as it is today came to be it might help explain those oppressive regimes in an actually thoughtful way rather than 'islam bad'.
@@Nicholascagesmandolin So you are saying Iraq, Syria, Egypt,Saudi Arabia ,morrocco were heaven for women ,gays , atheists before the intervention of western governments. That's why I say get out of your bubble and read read history both medieval and modern.
He didn't not even close. Michael was a funny guy and really smart but his attacks on sam harris were always horrible .
Criticism of Islam, its more nefarious tenets, its establishment through war, capture of wealth and colonialism, its "fundamentalism" resulting in breaches to human rights, will always be necessary.
But acting as if we can pretend to be the "good guy" by interring people in prisons and torturing them, is utterly ridiculous. Lest we not forget that Christopher Hitchens also criticized Islam frequently, yet underwent a personal trial of waterboarding to showcase that it IS torture.
Edit: Additionally, what I started with above can also be attributed to Christianity. Of all the world's religions, two reign supreme, and their similarities aren't coincidental. Christianity and Islam got to where they are in the way all empires do: domination.
And yet, if we can say that a British person, a German, or a Spaniard (all, at one time, regarded as Christian empires) can be spared torture despite belonging to nationality of intercontinental infamy, most past and some present, how can we hope to defend the inhumane treatment of others that already regard us as beasts and occupiers? It's only cements and validates such hate.
I don't think you know your history or Islam to be honest do your research. The largest Muslim country Indonesia became Muslim through trade and interactions not domination or colonialism like the west does it. Look Hamza Yusuf or Uthman in Farooq look up the real islam. Peace have a great day
The fact that you still take YOUR notion of Islamic history when it comes to Islamic empires, especially in the very beginning is a very weak foundation to your argument. You just take it as read that it was evil and very much like Christianity. Simply no.
@@beebee4172 You haven't provided a counterpoint, or provided support for how Islam can be shown in a brighter light than Christianity, despite achieving it's goals in a similar fashion to European empires: invading and capturing nodes of economic significance, occupying and coercing foreign lands, and engaging in warfare with the excuse that they were "bringing civilization".
Sam's problem though, was that he defined religions, especially Islam, as if there was one true interpretation, and then argued that those who didn't believe exactly what he claimed the one true Islam to be, were less religious, were "nominal" Muslims. He was, basically, making the same argument the likes of ISIS makes, that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe isn't a "true" Muslim.
The actual fact is that people interpret things, cherry pick, give weight to, include additional writings and rulings, differently. Even people in the same church, temple, synagogue, or mosque, can have somewhat different beliefs. A pacifist Muslim isn't necessarily less religious, anymore than a Quaker is less religious than some hate filled Southern Baptist spewing that all gays should be stoned to death.
If you portray Islam as a singular, horrible, "motherlode of bad ideas", and every single Muslim on the planet practices Islam, by definition, then you've said something about what every single Muslim on the planet believes and practices. Broad brushing, like that, generally makes you wrong, out of the gate.
@@sabbuofggh1629 That's not how a conversation works. You don't start and end it before the person speaking to you can respond.
But while we're discussing the spread of Islam, just HOW did it spread to Indonesia by peaceful commerce, when armies had to capture trade hubs like Mecca, and later Constantinople, to secure economic domination?
Conversion brought economic incentive to businessmen and merchants, and incentive to the enslaved as well, since Muslims couldn't enslave Muslims. So as Islam spread and bolstered a lucrative slave system, it explained that those that saw the "truth" could escape bondage. And thus Islam caught like wildfire.
Obviously Indonesia isn't the whole world, so perhaps we ought to talk about the invasion of India, the enormous African slave trade under the Arabs, or the attempted conquest of Europe, all by Muslim forces?
Not going to lie, still love Harris' meditation app lol.
the movie "Unthinkable" delivers that reprehensible hypothesis
Ugh, that movie has such a ridiculously fantastical premise it offended with its expectations to be taken seriously, before even getting to the vacuum of morality at its heart.
Why does Sam's outro always sound like a veiled threat?
@@anemicpeasantry7698 😂🤣😅😆
I miss Michael
I miss him too Shea. It is so poignant that those three words you wrote carry so much emotion and heft. Anyone who loved Michael is most certainly a brother or sister of mine.
I agree with pretty much everything Sam Seder says on this show, but still the one thing that i still don’t really understand is his disdain for Sam Harris. I know Harris has some dumb takes on Islam, but if you listen to enough of him he says almost all the same things about every other religion too, I’ve never really gotten the impression that in his heart he is racist or bigoted against muslims as people. I disagreed with him vehemently on the Charles Murray thing but other than that he is right about most of what he talks about. I think he is an actual intellectual, he has a way of breaking things down and articulating topics that is super smart at times. His podcast he did about the January 6th insurrection was one of the best commentaries on that event that I’ve heard from anyone.
You are right on. Harris gets it wrong sometimes and is surprisingly ignorant in some areas but the way hes demonized by many on the left is very distasteful and those people are doing themselves a disservice. His takes on trumpism overall are some of the best, better than many I've heard from leftists. And I'm a staunch lifelong leftist
See what matters is your intention when you do the bad thing compared to the bad guys who also do it, but they're not trying to be nice. And also let me say that I never said that and you're misrepresenting me. Read all I've ever written three times over and apologize before you talk to me.
I think the ticking time bomb scenario could theoretically happen, but here’s the thing: how would torture be different from doing any other crime? If there was a situation where I would have to steal a car in order to quickly drive 20 miles to diffuse that ticking time bomb, then I guess I would have to do it. Similar to the psychological thought experiment of pulling a lever and killing one person or doing nothing and having 10 people die. Pulling the lever or stealing the car would be the right thing to do in this absurdly unlikely situation, but there’s no way to codify this into law. Same thing with torture.
Why do you think it could happen? If someone wants to use a nuke why would they set a timer like a lame james bond villian?
@@BoogieDownProduction I agree with you, Sam Harris’s “thought experiment” is outlandishly unlikely though not completely impossible.
I understand what you mean, but I think you're missing a big point. Stealing a car to get to a bomb is still a crime yes, but it also undeniably helped the person diffusing the bomb. Cars make people go faster, and if you need to get somewhere fast a car is a good way to do that, this is just demonstrably true. Torture is not proven to be a good way to extract information, therefore even in a ticking time bomb situation its efficacy in helping you get to the bomb is questionable at best. So you're doing a heinous crime for likely no results. That's the real flaw in Sam's hypothetical, it assumes that torture does work to some capacity when most of the evidence points to the opposite.
Rest in power Micheal Brooks.
The comment section is full of "Brooks demolishes Harris" type stuff, but nothing about exactly how or what about. Maybe someone could share a link or two?
I enjoy(ed) listening to Michael and Sam both. I never agreed with either on everything.
Okay, to gather information via experience in Turkey to bring together your view of Islam, you’re going to run into some problems.
1. Islam is not a state sponsored religion there, and Islam heavily values it’s states.
2. Turkey (and I say this lightly) is one of the more moderate majority muslim countries and they don’t take their religion as seriously as other countries. (Think of modern day Poland v UK when it comes to Christianity; while of course recognizing the human rights violations committed by Christianity are nothing in comparison to Islam)
I can type for days about the intrinsic barbarianism in Islam. The list is massive ranging from treatment of women, to death for apostasy. To cover this up with the blanket of compassion, is too ignore all of these critical issues that are very important to human development in that region.
@hf0 Remind me, what rights are we talking about here that are being infringed? Labeling someone a grifter (even if it seems apparent that they are) has to be the most anti intellectual thing you do because it then enables you not to listen to that person; which leads to ad hominem attacks and no substance is levied. What are you talking about when you say he backed racial pseudoscience? I’ve never heard him say anything like that either 😂😂
My reason for commenting this was to bring light to the fact that Michael brooks being in Turkey and having a good time does not equal Islam good or tolerant. That’s one of the worst ways to use inductive reasoning there is because of reasons listed in my original comment. Even if he went to Iraq and had a good time, that still does not mean anything in the scope of whether or not Islam has terrible ideas.
@hf0 Did I ever convey my liking for Sam Harris? Ironically you just committed an ad hominem on me. You attacked my character and not the substance. You also provided no evidence to the two claims you made that I asked for evidence for. I also didn’t say “those are ad hominem attacks” I said calling someone a grifter can lead to pointless ad hominem attacks because it takes the conversation away from substance and focuses it on the character instead (I hope that wasn’t an attempt to Strawman me). If you actually cared about substance and discourse you would care about such a problem no matter what side of the isle you’re on.
Interesting. Building one's brand, negating moral applications.
How is it Christianity and Islam and religions of all types are consistently twisted away from their teachings of compassion, humility, generosity, love, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, service, community-- everything that is the Holy Spirit-- to teach instead spirituality's complete opposites-- insularity, hate, exceptionalism, militancy, pessimism and fear? Of all the things meant to do the opposite, be a reliable standard for our ethics and behavior, how is it religion keeps getting used to violate everything it's about? I really miss our MLKs and Kennedys, our Mother Teresas and Golda Meirs.
I never knew Michael Brooks, never read him or saw his shows. But everything I hear about him now tells me we lost a really sensitive and important voice who fought for rationality, plurality and optimism. Wish I'd had the opportunity to tune in to him while he was alive.
Just the things said about him by Jane Sanders and Cornel West and Marianne Williamson after his passing-- compassionate intelligence, soulfulness, a real light, a willingness to scrutinize himself, be deeply self-critical, how being curious and Socratic creates compassion, courage and humor-- are inspiring, are values we can emulate to make life more livable now.
Think the Majority Report and Sam and Emma and Brendan, Nomi, Matt and Matt are championing this courage, humor and compassion incredibly well, a necessity we're not finding elsewhere all that frequently, save among comedians like Amber Ruffin, Dave Chappelle, Ricky Gervais, Andrew Schultz, Tom Walker and Andrew Doyle-- the meta thinkers, the Mark Twains of our day.
Think channeling Michael's attitude to answer questions like the one proposed above will serve us really well, much better than the sadism and contempt we so much enjoy employing today.
Your obsession with bashing Harris is unnerving.
How many movies and TV shows have torture scenes? Think about that. So much entertainment promotes torture as a problem solver.
Does that make it okay?
Sam Harris has become reactionary over the years. He hates to admit it but just look at his fan base.
Is there a link to this podcast with Brooks and Aslan?
I have no real issues with Sam Harris. Not sure where all the hate comes from to be honest. I don't agree with some of his takes but I think people hear a few things from someone and they form an opinion without really delving into the person in an in depth manner.
That's completely correct. Tribalism is a major reason why Harris is being shit on so much. There is no reason for one to slaughter once liked figures for one view they disagree with. One can agree with some and disagree with others.
@@rejectionrole1237 I think slavery should be legal. We only disagree on one thing so its no big deal. If you critize me or as you put it "shit on" then you're just be tribal dude.
@@BoogieDownProduction
A few things:
What are your other views? Were you once a liked and representative figure with views that most would agree with?
Would not slavery entail a list of other equally repugnant viewpoints?
Do you mean to say what Sam Harris is being shit on for is equally abhorrent as slavery?
Certainly, particularly despicable and abhorrent viewpoints are of course something that will have one sever ties for good reason. But political/philosophical idiocies in the context of it's time as such is not a deep enough evil to justify demonizing an otherwise useful and insightful figure, only pressuring and intense criticism. Often, when figures face such intense demonization as Harris did here, and it's for views around half of the population may agree with, it's usually largely due to bias/tribalism.
@@BoogieDownProduction and I should also add that I never said it's not a big deal if one has a differing opinion. I only said it is not enough to turn entirely against someone.
@@rejectionrole1237 "Would not slavery entail a host of equally repugnant viewpoints?". I don't know you tell me. Now tell me if that extends to targeting and torturing a group of people (because that's something we can apparently just shrug our arms and chalk it up as a difference of opinion)
Sam Harris, never seen or never listened to that Sam.
First time I'm hearing of him.
Sam is a smart guy with really bad set of blinders on
Yeah, I dont get this at all. Sam Harris would have crushed Michael Brooks intellectually. I know people in this audience don't want to hear that. Sam Harris unequivocally denounces torture all the time.
Not even close lad.
Sam Harris is a lightweight.
The guy blamed Trump's election on "leftist identity politics." STFO, clown.
@@oxman5571 There is a credible argument to be made that's the case. Also, when you tell someone to shut the fuck up and call them a clown, you have lost the argument.
@@bodombeastmode You have expressed two opinions and both of them are shit. Denounces torture all the time? - JFC dude use your brain, maybe rewatch this video. Thats just as slimy as saying Trump isnt racist because he says he isnt a racist. Wow.
"There is a credible argument to be made, but I won't make it here because you called me a name and made me cwwwwwwy WAHHHH WAHHH WAHHHHHHHH WAHHHHHHH DADDY HARRIS PWOTECT ME WAHHHHH." -- Zacharina Bottomfeeder.
Dishonest, mischaracterization of Sams position.
Oh man!
Sam's tripling.....TTRRRIIIIPPPPLLLLIIIINNNGGGG DOWN!!!!
Whenever his viewership notably falls, he starts making regular videos "debunking" (more often than not, he's not actually doing this) or even just simply arguing against, Sam Harris or Jimmy Dore. Its a regular tactic by drama channels that has sadly been absorbed by questionable media outlets like TMR, TYT, DPS, etc.
Now typically, he only did one of these videos once every... say 5 days and he never shot at two targets at once.
But man, his viewership numbers now are so bad (and i remember before he went full bullshitty, with every new video he was getting 1-250k views in 24 hours.) he has to target 3 people at once. Actually, 2 targets and then use the name of a person who passed away who if he was still alive, would probably have a channel that was getting literally ten times as many views per video as Same is. I have no problems saying that i think Brooks would be getting well over 120K views in 24 hours, per video, if he was still alive.
However i would also like to point out that we might also have seen a Kyle/Cenk situation with Brooks and Sam, since Brooks seemed to be way more ideologically consistent and driven. I could be wrong on that though.
So in order to actually get views Sam has to invoke Sam Harris. Invoke Jimmy Dore. And then invoke Michael Brooks.... this is pretty pathetic dude.
On a side note, i wish SS would have kept what's her face. She was good.
But Emma..... the child of people functioning gin and corrupting the DNC, if you go over her twitter timeline of predictions, you'll find she will be accurate........... i dont know.......2% of the time? Maybe 3?
nah
@@richardclappingcheeks8551 Pah
@@robertcarlyle4946 I apologize.
My bad.
Cancel culture: you can't even be a racist torture advocate and neocon or a crypto-fascist who fawns over a genocidal dictator anymore without someone picking on you!
I believe the caller is a contributor to another good show (well it wasn't one, but now it is?). Shirt.
Not that it is that hard mind you
Clickbait
Ham sarris
Sam Harris has never uttered a word that could be construed logically as anti Muslim bigotry. His criticisms are directed at the idea and concept of Islam. This is utter nonsense.
Jimmy Dore.
I wanna know what everyone is so outraged about...what did Sam harris say that was bigoted?
He's in bed with those IDW ef ups. All u need to know.
@Adam Anderson
He dares to criticize Islam and BLM. To overly-sensitive retards on the left, that’s automatically considered to be “bigoted.” 🙄I’m on the left, for the record, but issues like race and Islam are where the left really loses me.
As someone who used to like Harris but pulled away mostly in recent years, could you do a longer segment where you address his overall worldview and point out the most problematic parts? Or would that be paid content, or just not really the kind of thing this channel does? Or is it not worth it to give him that much attention? I am receptive to the piecemeal, drive-by criticisms of his thinking, but I still agree with a lot of his positions and would love to consume a more in-depth criticism of him from this channel.
You should check out Michael Brooks' book "Against the Web."
Check out his conversation with Chomsky
George W. Bush bullying Sam Harris might be my all time favourite specific Michael Brooks character.
He had the whinny Sam Harris character that was funny but the GWB character bullying Sam Harris was absolutely hilarious.
My personal favorite MB character was his alt-right MLK as a response to Dave Ruben's stupid assertion that MLK would be a conservative by today's standards.
Although I do like Sam Harris' work on determinism and the moral landscape, and although I think he has certain valid critiques of religion, I also think he has reprehensible views on race, torture, IQ, and he has made various stupid statements also about religion.
It's very weird with Harris. I feel like some of his work is spot on and defensible but others are abhorrent. Obviously the good work doesn't remove the stain caused by his bad work. I could go into more explanation if pushed but this is how I feel.
out of all the topics this channel covers, the sam harris shit is by far the least convincing
Watch the Sargon of Akkad Michael Brooks debate
"I don't use the SHIFT key, so I am intellectually credible."
@@etienne2315 annoying listening to these guys dance around the fact that middle eastern muslim society has deplorable moral standards today
@@oxman5571 "must defend daddy"
By going to Heaven lol? Sorry Hitch...
Nice try lol
Does Sam Harris know who Michael Brooks was?
Should we give a fuck?
@@BoogieDownProduction Everything ok?
@@nathanjones5457 Do you like waffles? I can ask a stupid irrelevant question too.
@@BoogieDownProduction They're ok.
How did Michael Brooks die? Brooks reminded me of a college roommate who spent most of his time doing heroin and reading books about the Middle East, communism, imperialism and the like. A really decent guy but he didn't make it. A sad day for all of his friends.
A blood clot I think
Sam uses a lot of anti-philosophy rhetoric for someone who has a show about politics which is inherently linked to philosophy.
He didnt.
I am a Sam Harris fan, he is overly verbose in interviews (he's no Ezra Klein), and I have guffawed at his blind spots on some topics (history and policy regarding race). But Michael Brooks called it accurately. The dude will stay abstract until he's called out on it. Then the shell game has to end.
Remember Michael's amazing take that "most Christians don't really believe in the afterlife."?
I loved michael but in no way to he discredit, diminish, outargue, outthink sam
Yes he did
Uh, no he didnt
When people look up Sam Harris they inevitably come across Michael taking apart his fallacious arguments. I wouldn't say Michael alone he's responsible for that but Harris he's definitely not as relevant as he was just 4 years ago.
@@morenitomoreno1282 Except he didn't take apart anything.
@@hammill444 humps happy hoboes.
@John-PaulHunt-wy7lf Sorry, but typing in caps won’t make it come true. However much you try.
i like both Sam Harris and Chomsky. both have some great insights about various things, plus some blindspots i guess. Chomsky has less of them, obviously, being so incredibly well-read over so many decades.
Sam does treat Trump voters as the CNN caricature. Sam Harris was not defeated in this video, rather this is a video saying he's been defeated which is the lion share of the Sam Harris is defeated videos. Sam wanted Harriss torture hypothetical to have data was pretty funny lol. What does data on torture look like sedar? Are you gonna take polls/ do studies on torture-ies? What a dumb thing to counter anti torture with.
still waiting to hear how michael brooks defeated sam harris still waiting
Still waiting for women to not be repulsed by you.
Algorithm
Wawaweewa
Wewahitchtka
I hadn’t considered that. Good point.
Do people actually still listen to Sam Harris?
Let's pretend that Sam goes to bar mitzvahs because he thinks that 9/11 produced happy happy afterlives.
Let's pretend that Michael went to a happyland in the sky, and never speak positively about not having any invisible friends, as if the skitzos do.
Let's let politics remain infected by the church mafia, right Sam Sam green cashflow eggs you am?
Kind of hard to defeat somebody when you are as bitter as Michael was. Very unfortunate.
How was he bitter?