“I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” - Sam Harris
@Neila Pasa he is not religious so also not following Judaism. Him being "jewish" is merely from birth and he will openly reject any religious claims from Judaism.
Every time Sam makes his point. The host cuts him off and changes the subject. This is the problem. Contantly moving the goalposts to suit their narrative.
The host had his question written before the show and was not flexible. I hate this kind of interview because they appear like a host is not really carrying about the answers and just fulfills the goal of asking a question and having a guest yap-yap.
Sam Harris knew what he was walking in to. Look at the tone of previous Hard Talk interviews with other guests. Exactly the same. The difference is, Sam's fanbase are always up in arms when the views of their prophet is remotely scrutinised.
@@jackriver1999 You are missing a point. I'm judging this particular interview, not the entire series as I have not watched them. I don't care if the view of Sam is matched or not, I care about a quality of the interview in which the host does not really engage in the discussion.
@@tjparkour It's called adversarial journalism. If you're familiar with UK broadcast news culture, famous broadcasters like Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Neil and Mehdi Hasan also interview guests in this style. Yes, sometimes, it can descend into parody but usually the interviewers are very professional. Sam is being asked to defend his controversial views. What's wrong with that?
@@jackriver1999 I've seen it and it comes off especially poorly no matter who is interviewed. Due to a level of biased by either the producers or the interviewer when in some interviews the questions are lob pitches for home runs and in others the pitch is a fastball to the head with no thought that the two are even playing the same game anymore. It comes of a little better with a two person panel where two people are having small pop shots taken at their views but I'm still not overly impressed.
I like how the interviewer stops Sam Harris accusing him of being a white man telling back people how to feel. And then as a white man he himself goes on and speaks for all black people.
Isn't it a racist thing to try to prevent people of a certain color to talk about certain issues? I don't know, because I don't even know what "racism" means these days.
Mohammed Zakaria he does, all the time. Listen to his podcast, read his books. He backs up what he says. He's a good faith actor trying to have a conversation about controversial issues.
I'm pretty sure he is just trying his best to be the 'other side' of Sam's arguments. Not reallt expressing his own thoughts or anything. Andre Neil and Ben Shapiro is a famous example: th-cam.com/video/6VixqvOcK8E/w-d-xo.html
@@doncuomo This is what the BBC would argue, of course, and Sam demolished him! Whereas Shapiro was poorly prepared and somewhat misunderstood the format, which he freely admits. However, one could argue the BBC are pushing a dangerous narrative/ideology. They are very rarely impartial - are they?
@@jakeharrison6603 To be fair it's the format of the show and guests are aware of that. The whole point is to challenge. There are examples of awful "gotcha" journalism but I don't think this is one
@@42Mrgreenman All the world is a stage and God/Deterministic super mechanism is the director of *universal* studios. I didn't even write this comment I swear it.
That's typical BBC cant for you. It can't last much longer - it is already pulling itself down in its' own whirlpool of biased navel gazing. The BBC licence fee is under review in Parliament, people are watching it less and less in part because they are sick of BBC holier-than-thou woke lecturing position.
“Hard talk” indeed. It’d be better if they were hard questions to answer or intelligent criticisms that made it hard for Sam to defend his position. Instead, it’s as you said, mischaracterisations. Of course it’s hard to talk to someone who constantly mischaracterises your ideas.
IMO there's more nuance to this. Say there is racism everywhere, the majority of which is undoubtedly less severe than the fringe, are we wrong to be battling with the 'insignificant' majority in fear of desensitisation against the more severe forms?
Except nobody is finding racism "everywhere." Sam just twisting himself in knots to avoid showing any empathy for the suffering of underprivileged people. Just like his attitude towards Palestine. This is his baseline, and it's shit.
"May I stop you.." "Yeah, please". I love Harris' welcoming attitude towards potentially being presented with new information that may change his view. We need more of this kind of thing!
So because he said "yeah please" you conclude that this isn't just performative and he is the most honest of the honest? What kind of weird logic is this. Everything is optics these days.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 What happened to good faith in discussion? There's nothing productive about taking the worst possible interpretation of the opposition. And I didn't say he was being honest. I simply inferred a positive attitude from his language. Humans do that sort of thing all the time.
@@slutbunwallah1 So true, his style is combative. He seems to be just smart enough to recognize the brilliance of the people he interviews but not quite bright enough to move the ball forward himself. I guess it's easier to sit on the sideline and critique. His interview with Jordan Peterson was even worse.
British interviewers (generally) take an adversarial approach, a fact that seems to be lost on a lot of people in this comment section who apparently would prefer the interviewers to take the partisan, buddy-buddy approach of Fox News, CNBC etc... Ben Shapiro thought the same, which is why he accused the notoriously right-leaning Andrew Niel of being a leftist because he asked him a few questions he didn't like.
You're spot on. I saw the Shapiro interview, too. Americans are not used to see interviews like these and don't realise that Sackur would grill any opponent of Sam Harris just as hard. I would advice them to scroll back to the top of this page and check the title of the programme again.
Lee D It seems Ben Shapiro had never heard of playing devil's advocate and took everything on that interview as a personal attack which resulted in a hilarious tantrum.
The interviewer bemoans that we’re not doing a very good job at progressing, having rational conversations, etc. Yet the whole structure of the interview was essentially preferencing emotions/anecdotes over evidence, assessing ideas based on the identity of the speaker rather than an idea’s merit, changing the topic when facts arise which contradict our political dogma, and trying to catch someone with gotcha nonsequiturs (“so you were cheering on Trump’s travel ban then?”). Then he congratulates himself at the end for having a rational conversation. “Hard talk” is fine but don’t forget to bring reason.
I think Stephen probably agreed with some of the statements that Sam was making but the aim/theme of Hardtalk isn't to end on agreement it's to push the person and to be evocative. I think in a private conversation there would have been more statements like "oh well, I guess that's a good point". Still a good talk though!
The only people who call Christopher Hitchens 'Chris', are people who don't know him and invariably people who want to ingratiate themselves with him or his legacy. Christopher Hitchens would have corrected both of those types quite swiftly, and would have set the record straight immediately as to what his name was and what name he wanted to be called by.
I loved his disdain for the name "Chris." His acknowledgement of it being some kind of alter ego of his was also entertaining. A sorely missed thinker and writer... I wonder what he'd make of the nonsense of now. A lot has changed since his untimely passing in 2011.
Hitch might have objected to being called Chris but, more significantly, he would have lauded something like this on mainstream TV - a longer form intelligent discussion, the likes of which is largely absent on US TV for instance. Kudos to the BBC for providing this. Great to hear Sam's thoughts largely uninterrupted. There's a huge difference, easily empirically-validated, between this and virtually any mainstream discussion on US TV for instance. Of course, I'd have preferred an hour instead of 30 mins or 4 hours instead of an hour, but this was pretty-focused, engaging debate. More please.
@@righteousshift482 Although I largely agree with your point about US TV networks and the quality of 'debate' and 'commentary' there, I think the standard of this 'debate' was pretty low. I don't think that the point of this was to debate anything; it was rather a faux confrontational exchange type of format with the intention of getting out information from the person being 'interviewed', dressed as 'hard talk'. Had it been a debate, the other side would have put forward some kind of argument and presented evidence for it. I think it's good that Sam Harris engaged even with this style of confrontational interview, as it's better to engage rather than to ignore in these cases. Harris's phlegmatic demeanour and style has probably helped him here too.
Because you are in the same kind of bubble that they are refering to in this interview. You are partial because you like Sam Harris and you got recommended this video by your personal youtube feed. This does not mean, mind you, that I disagree with Sam Harris, nor that I agree with him.
I completely disagree. The interviewer was doing his job. This is a television show, in which Stephen Sackur is trying to cover as many topics as possible within a short period of time, and particularly has to keep the guest from continuing on indefinitely on a particular topic. Such is the format of this medium, similar to Larry King, or any network television interview. This is not a freeform podcast or panel discussion. Further, this interview is highly edited, and if you paid closer attention, you would notice that he hardly interrupts Harris at all. The editor cut out any pauses between when Harris finishes and Sackur asks the next question. This is apparent given the camera shift.
Sam and his other friends, but not all, would call him "Hitch" or Christopher but no one called him Chris. Yes that rubbed me the wrong way. Must be some 4 horseman fans for that level of knowledge about how Hitch liked to be referred to.
Hard talk is kind of easy talk for the host: he didn’t have to think much, just asked some prepared questions and assumed he was right. He wasn’t even listening.
True. But you can tell the host wasn’t listening cuz after he asked a question he would look down at his notes to prep his next question. More over, he didn’t have follow up questions to what Sam would say cuz he wasn’t listening.
Came here expecting a nuanced discussion. Instead get the usual binary zero-sum BBC bullcrap from a terrible interviewer, who’s little better than Cathy Newman.
It was not intended to be a "discussion", it's called HARDtalk where the interviewer tries to challenge the host and ask him difficult questions, the type of questions he himself might not necessarily even agree with. I see tons of comments like this here, apparently Sam's fans are not really that smart.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 They were not smears, he does that to everyone. It's the same thing that happened to Ben Shapiro, he thought the VERY rightwing interviewer was a leftist because he challenged him and pushed back...apparently if you don't lick someone's ass in an interview you're smearing.
Kavian - Nothing wrong with playing the devil’s advocate. It used to be part of every journos training. (Been thru it myself.) But this guy’s attempts at doing a Jeremy Paxman didn’t hit the mark. You have to know the subject well to ask the difficult questions. These all seemed like poorly researched cheap shots, in typical BBC style.
I think the interviewers questions were geared towards common criticisms of Sam Harris , which then allowed him to address those criticisms. For those of us more familiar with him it might come across as old news but this is really to get Sam out to a wider audience.
I completely disagree. The interviewer was doing his job. This is a television show, in which Stephen Sackur is trying to cover as many topics as possible within a short period of time, and particularly has to keep the guest from continuing on indefinitely on a particular topic. Such is the format of this medium, similar to Larry King, or any network television interview. This is not a freeform podcast or panel discussion. Further, this interview is highly edited, and if you paid closer attention, you would notice that he hardly interrupts Harris at all. The editor cut out any pauses between when Harris finishes and Sackur asks the next question. This is apparent given the camera shift.
@@petros_adamopoulos You are free to do whatever you want, philistine. You are even free to write an inapposite comment anywhere on this site. You just look foolish doing so. Thus is the price of such inanity, young Petros.
@@holadonkey haha amazing that anyone could watch this and come out with that conclusion. Sam took this guy into deep waters and left him to drown. Can you give a single example of how Sam was dunked on? Be honest.
holadonkey nooo must have watched a different interview the supremely arrogant self opinionated Stephen Sackur is so passé and lame 😒 as usual . Who’d want to be mauled by this snob
Such theatre though, and it makes for a fruitful .. i want to say conversation but no it was Sam who brought that aspect to the show. It makes for a fruitful.. interrogation. 😂
@@hansfrankfurter2903 I think you probably don’t understand what Sam believes. And, I’ll perhaps extend that to an unwillingness to understand what he means. Am I incorrect?
@@ixiolirion8781 I disagree with you here...and with the "style" of Stephen in this case. Instead of continuing the dialog on any specific point, Stephen Gish Gallops and carpet bombs with a multitude of (obvious) accusations that Sam does a good job of defending. Why not ask questions that are neutral? Instead, he quotes things said by others and seems to have done ZERO homework...frankly like most of Sam's critics. It's truly a Dunning Kruger problem of substantial magnitude and the dummies (most people) will never get it....Sorry dummies, we owe you no quarter.
@@ixiolirion8781 Ok. I generally agree with you here. He did seem to ease up towards the end...making your point seem more valid. BTW, I HATE the American media...it's a joke these days.
That's not out of his charactor, this wasn't even that annoying to watch given how misrepresented sam's been in some of the other intervews and held his cool. The guy is a true saint.
In fairness the show is called HardTalk, not necessarily wrong to challenge guests. You can get right to the bottom of the guests integrity and intelligence that way...
@@greeny_119 Most of these people here are Yanks and none of their media give anyone a hard time. Especially the elite and pseudo intellectuals. So when they see someone else in media from other countries giving their "heroes" a hard time, they think they're being rude. Just take a look at the Australian reporter Jonathan Swan giving Trumplethinskin fair questions to answer. Trumpy couldn't answer them so the Swan took him to task. Then you read and watch how triggered they were thinking Swan was being a rude prick, when in reality he was doing his job and what every journalist, especially in America should damn well be doing themselves. It's called holding politicians and leaders accountable That's how brainwashed they are and have been from the start. No-one should be taking them seriously
I love that Sam, someone who I agree with on most things, was really grilled and put on the spot. Exactly what an interviewer should do - if there's holes in Sam's position, I want to know that!
Steven Nicholson Agreed! I’m a huge fan of Sam but have been put off by his latest take on racial injustice (or lack thereof). I was getting tired of Sam constantly spouting off that “white people are (slightly) more likely to get killed by police than black people” when in fact blacks are actually 3 times more likely to be killed by cops. I now see he’s pulling this statistic based on police encounters. However with this added bit of normalization that doesn’t take into account that there is a systemic issue with cops are also more likely to encounter blacks than whites. For example, while living in NYC during the “stop and frisk policy” it was brought to my attention that minorities where much more likely to be stopped by cops than whites even though the vast majority were found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. So you could also argue than while black and whites may die at the hands of cops at roughly the same rate per encounter, cops statistically are much more likely to “encounter” minorities.
@@EricJensenMusic Sam only comes to conclusions that have hard data to support them. As he states, your intuitions seem to be misguided as the statistics don't seem to reflect that perception. For instance, your 3x more likely example isn't an aggregated national source, it was an independent study conducted by Harvard where they looked at 5,700 some odd cases of deaths resulting from the hands of police from the years 2013-2017. It's just sloppy statistics that don't account for variables such as geographical location, amount of crime in any given area, police presence, funding, the race of the officer, suspects condition/behavior etc.. stop and frisk is hard to defend bc it is just wrong in my opinion, but, it's been happening in one form or another since the 80's in Chicago, so I would be skeptical of any data since not all stop and frisks are recorded. So saying "it was brought to my attention" they are disproportionately stopped, what does that really mean? I haven't seen much hard data on this, but historically terry laws were created primarily to target POC, but i think that's more related to the proportion of violent crimes committed. Totally prejudice, certainly not a prejudice that is unsupported by evidence. Stop and frisk is prejudicial at it's root and I don't agree w it. For the sake of argument though I'll use fake statistics for a point bc i'm lazy. Say in chicago, 90% of violent crimes are committed by black males between the ages of 16-28, if you werent stopping 90% of black males that fit that demographic, say only 60% were stopped and frisked in that demograph, wouldnt that mean they are under represented in stop and frisk compared to the proportion of crimes committed? I mean, would it be fair (again, in essence it isn't at all fair) to only stop say, 13% of black males bc that is proportional to population? I would say if the focus is law enforcement the interest would be in the demograph of likely to be in the commission of a crime, ie: unlawful possession of a firearm. Same reasoned argument he made about racial profiling, if you're looking for potential terrorists and youre stopping 90yr old jewish women, youre probably wasting your time. Again, not to defend racial profiling or stop and frisk (neither of which i agree w personally) just to point out that this is what Sam means when he says your intuitions are wrong. It may seem one way but taking a more sophisticated approach, or perhaps analyzing data at different resolutions may give you a different (arguably more accurate) perspective.
Dropcity Excellent take. I often feel that the instances of racial injustice that people try to cite are often reflections of the person not thinking critically about the role or rates of crime, geographical location, etc. that make practical application of law enforcement actually effective. It’s understandable to assume that America would have a significant undercurrent of racial injustice inflicted upon inner city, often Black-majority areas, but reality shows different. Every sophisticated person I know who analyzes this objectively comes to the same conclusion. The long-term goal should be to reduce crime in these areas (and across the board), not to erect phantom issues and deconstruct the only institution that is actually productive in reducing or preventing instances of crime (That often affect Black people at an overwhelming rate). I’ve spoken to many people from these areas and literally all that I’ve asked have disagreed with the standard Leftist take on reducing law enforcement. Seems like the ones directly affected by flagrant crime are inclined to desire reduction of said crime, a fact that is only counter intuitive to a certain constituency...
He's not trying to discredit him, it's not even a debate, just an interview...Sam's fans are such snowflakes. Even if he was, why does it matter how long ago he said it?
Kavian Things change. People grow. Taking something he said out of context decades ago to challenge him without looking into abundant evidence of recent works is just a dumb act. Do you even know what snowflake means? I’m not a fan of Sam. In fact I disagree with him on many topics but I know he’s an intellectual based on his works so I give him the benefit of the doubt that there’s something he knows that I don’t, so I keep listening to him to open my mind. We feel sorry this host and the likes in mainstream media. Their mission is no longer seeking the truth. They are now mostly politically motivated to take people that have different opinions down. That kind of journalism disgusts me.
@@KD-oz8ci It's an interview, he just brought up something he had said and gave him the chance to explain and defend himself, that's how it works, grow up.
@@kavian9620 No that isn't how it works, this new wave of neo-liberalist style journalism is complete Cancer to political discourse and reasonable debate, there is a difference between being a journalist asking reasonable questions on certain topics to create a necessary and encouraging dialogue and resorting to childish tactics such as; "You said this 15 years ago, therefore that means you don't have the ability to change your mind." How is that a positive thing? you're a moron if you think that is journalism with integrity.
Interviwer: "who are you as a white person, to talk about how black people feel?" - Literally, in his next breath, starts talking about how black people feel God they are so blind they cannot see their own GLARING double-standards
It's called HARDtalk, the whole point is to be adversarial and ask challenging questions. Stephen is challenging Sam on baseline questions and giving him an opportunity to address them. He's not an idiot; he's a good interviewer.
Honestly I think this interview is great. It shows an aggressive interviewer bombarding Sam with questions which he can answer in a cool, collected way. Interviewer moves into the next question without an actual reply to anything Sam has said. At that point I’m basically thinking “well, that answers that. Next question?”
@@darmokgillette7046 Ah ok, thanks for clarifying the intention of the anchor. Because it is not clear from the show itself (as the comments predominantly show). I must admit, in this case this exercice may have been a really hard one indeed (for the interviewer...) Personally, I would not like to be tasked with the job of confronting Sam Harris....
He comes back with clear thinking in response to woolly statements by others and he's the insane insane one. One might not always agree with him (although I tend to) but it's hard to argue against him because his points are always so solid.
I appreciate the interviewer trying to challenge Sam's ideas, but, unfortunately, I don't think he did a very good job. He threw the same old talking points and strawmen at Sam that he's already heard 1000 times before.
The trouble is, he Needs to throw those same points at Sam, because they're not trying to reach the smart people, here. Smart people already know the answers. They're trying to reach the poorly informed people, who - unfortunately - seem to make up the vast majority.
Sam is honestly one of the most rational, logical and well intentioned people I have discovered. He is so good at covering all the angles and being able to step outside of himself, assess his own position and reformulate a point to attack from a different angle. He is spot on with nearly everything I have heard him talk about. His breadth of knowledge is also incredible, he can converse at multiple levels on multiple topics. Brilliant mind.
I'm usually impressed with Sam and this interview showed Sam to be even more impressive than I'm used to. He's certainly one of the greatest thinkers I've ever heard. However, he does have a genetic connection to 40-50% of the greatest intellectuals(scientists, philosophers, etc) on the planet. I don't share those genetics but still admire their contributions to society.
@@drmojo5439 Yet he lost his temper at a reasonable criticism of his podcast with Charles Murray and ruined his family holiday as a result. Mindfulness in action 🤣🤣🤣🤣
What a detestable interviewer. This is a great ad for Sam's meditation app, he kept his cool all the way through. I would have lost my temper with this guy.
Nah. It would be like losing your temper with a mud puddle. If you step in a puddle your feet are going to get wet. If you talk to a UK journo you are going to get this kind of turbid gooey non thought.
Sam's ability to clarify and express his understanding is magnificent. He is extremely persuasive and admirably able to handle confrontation and challenges to his point of view.
I "think" although im not sure; that he is playing the role of devils advocate, finding all the points of tension that people have with any of sams views and just seeing what the response is. Although he could just be a prat as you say; he did seem a bit too into it.
@Logic I'm glad you know him so well to be cock sure of your position. As for me I only saw him for a few minutes doing his job, so I'm not able to come to such concrete conclusions. Must be nice.
A few random thoughts: 1) It’s an interviewer’s responsibility to ask questions that their audience might ask, and to counter arguments, which is what British shows of this sort do and was done here. 2) It’s easy to crush Sam Harris if you take his arguments and points out of context because he’s not arguing in black and white; there is nuance as well as a give and take he’s willing to advance in a dialog. 3) Rationality and logic win in the end, but they get crushed in the moment as emotion is always much louder and easier to jump onto.
When first reading the comments, I expected this to be a blood bath interview. This just seemed like a run-of-the-mill conversation to me. The interviewer asked questions as someone who is loosely familiar with Sam's work with a slight negative bias, and Sam answered the questions as needed to clarify his thoughts.
The interviewer was a jerk, NOT for asking tough questions but for the approach and nasty accusations/insinuations. I’m *all* for pushing back, for counter arguments, for in depth dialogue. So that’s not the problem.
Sam: Religions are different. Interviewer: So were you cheering on Trump’s Muslim travel ban then?! I don’t mind it when interviewers press people on their positions, but it should scale with intelligence. Intensity: 8.5/10 Intelligence: 4/10
you must be joking .Sam Harris might be good in his specialized field . but he runs into trouble with his biased views . he likes to poster himself as an intelligent analyst on his take of politics that are no more than a reflection of his upbringing .
@@holadonkey I'm not joking. He takes a very balanced approach to topics he speaks on. His analysis of BLM is great. He includes both perspectives which is what is supposed to happen in journalism and the media has consistently ran a psyops on liberals who are now in opposition to what they report they want. BLM can only hurt Black Americans and this angers me because it's fanning the flames of what little racism we have which needs to end.
Looking at the comments, it seems that most people are annoyed that the interviewer took to task Sam Harris. I am a big Sam Harris fan (which means that Sam is a guy who agrees with me on most of the serious human issues), and I am glad the interviewer basically mirrored what I will describe as "current social ignorance". That ignorance put into better focus the wisdom of my, errr... Sam's views.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +5
Jason Myers sackur just makes statements as fact... he seems ignorant of the subtleties of the debate in the US and seems to comment straight out of the Al Sharpton playbook.
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 100% Sam does NOT engage with people who would challenge him substantially. If he had Cornel West or Angela Davis on his podcast, I'd stand somewhat corrected. But he has people like Coleman Hughes instead. Complete softball shit.
@JoshKerr right, a anti-rationalist Marxist is going to go sit with Sam for two hours for conversation. Uh huh. Sure. Coleman Hughes while agreeing with Sam on many points (your version of softball shit) is a courageous young man of high intellect doing his best to enlighten the indoctrinated youth of America. Sam SHOULD NOT be in the business of providing air time to sheep who can speak to millions every day via main stream media and nationally circulated papers as well as most magazines...Sam has created a forum from the ground up to spread rational discourse and wise thought provoking observations. I can find run of the mill race baiters most places as they have cornered the market on the public square.
@@danielchmiel7787 I would agree with Maximillian and say in general. Wife is Chinese and she is always annoyed that CCP loves using CNN for "news", as if it reflects what is actually happening.
He's brilliant but sometimes spreads himself a bit thin as he tackles dozens of complex topics that individually, take most experts a lifetime just to fully explore and understand.
Harris was afforded plenty of time to flesh out his thoughts, instead he mumbles and goes off on tangents which makes it look like the host is cutting him off. The host even agreed with him in the end so I don't see how he was biased?
Jesse Klein i actually got offended by that comment when she said it, and i really never get offended by much. Sam had JUST SAID that he had passed away recently and her next comment is "I'll call him Chrissy." Like, sure. Great place to start a conversation, insulting someone's just-dead colleague. Yuck.
To Err is Huma I listened to %99 of JBP lectures. Haha he is great though but i do not see Sam and JBP in a same league ;) Have u seen JBP & Slavoj Zizek ?
"What I'm most worried about in our style of discourse around these charged issues like race is that it is causing even fairly scrupulous and honest people and well-intentioned people to be dishonest and sloppy and actually practice a kind of politics of personal destruction, effectively to behave like psychopaths, on social media and in print and in various journalistic encounters.. " Burned.
nice spot. notice the interviewers hand twitching as sam gets into it followed by a convenient cut to a close up of sam (and away from Stephen's twitching hands) as he says "various journalistic encounters"
This show is called Hardtalk. The entire theme is based around giving the guest a constant, difficult grilling. Every episode is like this. People go on to show their fortitude and if it takes you by surprise you should really do your homework before you appear on it.
Every episode is like this? Perhaps they could build into the 'difficult grilling' the chance for the guest to make their point to an interviewer who can exhibit some kind of listening skill and ability to not interrupt and repeat themselves. Terrible interview. .
Fair comment, Sam was prepared and as far as these kind of interviews go. I enjoyed this one, both the way the interviewer looked to challenge and Sam's response. All good
@@Biggummysmile the BBCs approach is to always take the opposing views of their interviewee to play Devil's advocate and ask questions that someone who believes the opposite would ask.
Americans are accustomed to having their propaganda served concentrated. They believe people like Same Harris should be shown a certain amount of deference and groveling. The interviewer should have complimented Mr. Harris and smiled more.
Very interesting discussion. Sam Harris approaches topics with a sort of considered reason that only a professional philosopher can, honestly. Further, there is a serious issue in western society, right now, in that it is taboo to ask probing questions. If people cannot defend their positions and opinions, then I don't feel the need to respect their opinions or positions. Here Sam forthrightly owns the fact that his position of Islam has moved over the years and that the national fervor created by 9/11 colored his viewpoints. Learning and growing isn't a vice or something to be afraid of!
So Harris believes that his reactionary positions against 1 Billion Muslims and the need to nuke them as a preventative measure was not just wrong but wholly immoral? Actually I don't think he does take that position at all. I despise Harris, he is a reactionary piece of shit whose views are only lauded by reactionary right wing white men.
@@eyeq7730 why say it if you are fully aware of history philosophy etc. Truth is he does not understand how the world functioned or people. To him.911 was the worst thing that happend...and he viewed Muslims through that lens of 911. pathetic
As a Briton I feel abject shame watching this BBC 'reporter.' When I was a boy (1970s) the BBC could absolutely be relied upon to (at least try to) be objective. Now, they do not even pretend. I cannot believe this BBC employee will be thought, by some minority, to be a 'journalist' of any kind. I know 12-year-olds whose first language is not English who would be embarrassed to listen to this 'man.' I apologize to the world. The BBC does not represent Britons. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for tolerating the idiocy of this 'professional.' He is obviously not acting an idiot out of coincidence.
Absolutely. He was desperately trying to "controversialise" the perfectly reasonable and rational beliefs being expressed. SH showed admirable patience.
I dunno...I think the interviewer helped Sam Harris make his point even more clear by means of pressing him on them. Sam did such a great job of articulating his stance in a calm clear rational and well thought out manner. Sometimes the tough opposing questions are helpful. I do understand what you mean and thank you for making that point.
Droo Bastard I think that much of the western world is watching what’s happening in the states with empathy and compassion for the majority of Americans who are helplessly watching what’s happening to your country. Stay strong! 💕
@@micchristi8533 Can confirm as a non-American, but I don't know how many of us there are. We have our own kinds of irrationality very similar to the kind in the US, though thankfully not exactly the same.
I bet Sam Harris loved this interview, finally someone that is challenging me and my position with good questions, sensible rebuttles and a chance for me to explain my self even better. Rather than someone not listening to what I'm saying and accusing me of things.
I actually disagree with everything you've said there. Was that sarcasm? Rapid fire, loaded questions whilst appearing not even remotely interested in the answer; gotta look down and shuffle my papers since that's much more interesting. Not so much an interview as an ill-prepared hatchet job. Judging by the frequent frowning, I doubt Sam found this meaningful.
@Logic I believe it. I remember vicious attacks by conservatives against Sam... Then these days I'm seeing vicious attacks by leftists of far-left identity-politics journalists and others... It's incredible how he can make so many enemies. He is TAKING FLAK because he's right over the target.
Sam is a treasure. Forever an inspiration to me and I'm so glad he's being interviewed so people get exposed to him. Because he so eloquently dismantles the webs the interviewers always try to lay for him, meanwhile he's actually trying to TALK ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES.
@@lobobaltazar1322 "The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. *This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth* " Sam Harris--The End of Faith
@@lobobaltazar1322 You have reading comprehension issues? "makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth"" Do you understand what it means to have brought something upon oneself ?
@@hansfrankfurter2903 English is not my native language so maybe I do. So just to be clear You stated that Sam blamed jews to brought it upon themselves in the first post. In this later one You are giving us His quote from which I read is a bit more complex way of saying - It is impossible to conclude they brought it upon themselves ?
@@pm71241 I understand Sam wants to become a Saint. He really thinks he's some sort of genius. I don't think anyone is really like this when they are born, it's not easy. It's not easy to defile the part inside us( I mean Soul!). He worked hard to become less human like, trying to control his feelings, thoughts and normal sensibility( bring out that remark that he is a "Robot", or "appears Cold", or like an "Alien" or this is sometimes even mistaken to sign of being a Genius itself. Why would someone go to such lengths? By such lengths, I mean meditation, drugs( general manipulation of body and mind). He often says things like the normal human mind is "always telling you how bad you are", which is interesting supposition. But because that isn't assuring enough to seek to control, really manipulate oneself. Whatever makes him want to manipulate himself, seems to want to manipulate others too, which we see in his public activities. This comes across when he touches on "sensitive" issues. He has such confidence man, is somehow inadequately created by nature. It's easy to see why he's preoccupied with Technology as it appears to break the human limitations. His new interests if I'm not mistaken appear to be genetic engineering, AI or whatever else. Saying he's that he lacks "emotional intelligence" is really not doing this phenomena due, I'd say he's completely lost touch with everything, and is going further into the darkness.
@@jackdarby2168 You are so far up your own ass, it's absolutely amazing. When you grow up, you learn to control yourself and not throw a tantrum at every occasion. If you think that's so horrible then go ahaid and stay a child.
@@paxonearth Yup I'm sure there are. It's been a long running series and have had some very important guests on in the past. Not always the same interviewer though. I seem to remember this show being longer like 45 mins or so.
Also, to note, almost no one in the UK watches HardTalk. I often watch it a 4 in the morning, but I'm in a minority of one in my peer group. The style is often tediously and obnoxiously aggressive (e.g. loaded multiple baseless assertion questions and not allowing for actual answers), but it can very occasionally be interesting.
@@Silica_UK I see Hardtalk all the time. I'm made to pay for it. Sackoff is this thick, it's the BBC's standard groupthink. Got Sam down as "Islamophobe" and just giving him the standard sub-Cathy Newman level rubbish reserved for "baddies". When it's a liberal on HARDtalk is Softtalk, he's just a nodding dog.
Good interview, but could do with a bit less of the ad hominem suggestions against Sam (saying he's insensitive on race, accusing him of agreeing with Trump on Islam)
@@tryptamigo Yes, that's exactly right. Most Americans are simply not accustomed to the British interview style, and mistake it for genuine disagreement or even hostility.
@@shawn6669 It's kind of depressing to see how simple and sycophantic so many of the followers of Sam Harris can be. I'm a big fan of his, but it seems that anything that can be perceived as even the vaguest criticism of him or any questioning of his views sets many of his fan base into apoplectic rage. It's exactly the opposite sort of thing that Sam himself practices.
The look of incredulity and disgust the presenter gives at 14:53 is very telling. He apparently has no interest in discussing Harris's point, and is simply trying to push a specific narrative. This is the BBC though of course.
The programme is called 'hard talk' since the host is tasked with playing 'devil's advocate' in order to pressure test the ideas of the guests, so that the audience can make more of an informed oppinion about the guest.
Sam makes completely rational and true statements and people just refuse to listen. He explains it so well and I don’t know why people just can’t get it.
Before you comment with outrage at the interviewer's questions - One of the first things Sam says is that debate is the ONLY way of getting to a solution to a difficult problem. You can't have a good debate in an echo chamber of the same ideas. The interviewer's adversarial questions gave Sam the opportunity to be eloquent and logical in his responses that he would not have had the opportunity to deliver otherwise. This is a very British style of interview but it's a productive style. For the record I think this actually is a good interview even though I do not support the BBC personally.
Each topic could be talked about for hours (and has been, often by Harris himself). This was twenty minutes. I think they did the best they could with the breadth they had to cover in a short time.
Guys, this isn’t American journalism where they ask soft-ball questions to people they like. British journalists, generally, are rough on the interviewees no matter their viewpoints. You know, they way journalism should be... And of course there are exceptions. Kathy Newman comes to mind....😜
I guess maybe that’s the case regarding British journalism. Nevertheless, the man is still asking questions which smuggle in his own bias and partisanship on major issues such as the Jacob Blake video. Nobody has the full video that I know of nor all the details and we’re being asked to rate a movie based on the trailer. Is this really good journalism? He has fallen prey to indicting officers off a trailer and the conviction in the court of public opinion. And the way I see it is Jacob Blake sexually assaulted a woman, resisted arrest, the taser failed, and he went to his vehicle in defiance of police commands and reached in his vehicle and was shot because he posed a fatal threat or potentially fatal threat to police. Where is the racism? If you do this as a white person the outcome will be the same provided all circumstances are the same.
James Poulton you think the way he framed the question and circumstance regarding “police brutality and racism” was free of his bias and forgone conclusion about the Jacob Blake situation?
Wow, it really is stunning to see how many people struggle to understand the concept of the adversarial interview. Stephen Sackur is a veteran pro. He's an accomplished journalist who's been doing this for decades, and he's one of the most professional in the game. And like most British journalists, he would ask the same questions in the same way, whether he was the biggest Sam Harris fan in the world or hated Sam Harris's guts. British journalists generally leave their personal views at home when they go to work, it's strictly business. The show isn't called "Easytalk".
I sympathize with Black lives Matter. But more for the history of Race in America than for police brutality. I was brutalized by the police once and I'm white and not a criminal. Having said that. Sam is correct, white people get killed by police just as often if not more often than black people. Google {Drew Edwards - Macocida Iowa police.} The problem blacks have had for the last 50 years are now the same issues and in some cases have been the same issues that everyone is experiencing today, poverty,racism, discrimination,health care, violence,income inequality,homophobia, we are all dealing with it. I think the broader point Sam is trying to make is we need to be honest about what is actually real about our lives and address issues together without {dear i say} demonizing one race or the other. By the way unfortunately there are racists in almost every race of people, We have to move past it, teach your children not to judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Peace.
The term racist concludes we are different races and not all one. It is a primitive term that we still use. We are all 99.9 biologically the same. We are one race, the human race. Racism that we see today is systemic. Some more primitive terms we still use are sunrise and sunset as if the sun is moving.
Sam: "I'm fully aware that racism is a real problem that still exists and must be addressed, but we must make sure we address racism and not everyone." Interviewer: "But but but... There's racism."
In fairness, Sam is strawmaning BLM. It isn't pretending that this is the worst time in history... It is saying we are sick of this shit. Enough is enough. He isn't wrong about moral panic though... Both he and BLM are correct, but he pretends otherwise. Also, the stat he pulls out about police killing is highly likely to mislead people to an false conclusion.
Sam "the issue of racism is being addressed. We are addressing them." Later in the interview when "systemic racism" comes up, with the emphasis on "system" rather than intention, Sam also said "if indeed there are policies that are racist, we should find out what they are." It is not an open question if there are policies that unfairly discriminate minorities. It's also not an open question what can be done to fix them. Take the electoral laws for example, if the US can standardise the registration process and ID requirements across states, and have elections on a Saturday or make the day a public holiday (like most other democratic countries), minorities might be able to participate in the voting process at the same rate as white Americans do. It's just a thought 🤔. I'm sure someone as knowledgeable as Mr Harris have encountered such suggestions.
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe His conversation with Ezra Klein led to the same kinds of comments from SH's fans. As for JP, for all of Sam Harris' weaknesses he's still way better at arguing than JP so there was no issue of Sam being properly critiqued by JP.
@@Solidude4 Well roughly speaking I don't buy that one bucko mainly because I am not an atheist. JP does at least refuse to accept the argument proposed by SH along the lines of the inherent subjectivity of morality, which is a rather wild thing to do in our era. How dare you say there is a definitive right and definitive wrong!! lol As for Ezra Klein, what *kind* of SH fanboy comments invalidate SH? SH allowed EK to go on his podcast and tell SH to his own face what he thinks - not many do that, SH is a model of the democratic spirit. Perfect by no means, but it is quite remarkable he is reasonable enough to listen to the *other side* given how well hounded he is by the mainstream press for having the audacity to be unapologetically contemptous of Islam in its current state.
@i smell it Nah, he is refusing to give ground. His opponents are demanding that the conversation BE framed in a racial/Iden Pol lens - SH veiws this as trickery/political ploy and a deviation from seeing the big picture of the human condition on a social scale and how is that managed in the modern era. But the hard talk host, holds him to account pretty well, it is not unreasonable for SH to essentially state *BLM has lost any merit it once had and is a wreckless body based on political dogma*
I’m a fan of sam Harris and I had no problem with this interview. Reading some of the comments beforehand I expected the interview to be overly combative and irrational, but I didn’t perceive that at all. It was fine.
The only problem I noticed was how the interviewer pushed back against Sam’s personal views on the issues rather than building off of the facts that were presented
Yeah if you think cutting someone off before they finish their point and creating straw man arguments and misrepresenting their beliefs is a good way to interview then this was one of the best.
Hardwater Gaming I wasn’t suggesting that it was a great interview, I just expected a lot worse based on the comments. I have certainly seen much worse than this.
Skiba Covers fair enough, I can agree there is far worse, but this was still a garbage interview by a garbage interviewer paid by a garbage propaganda machine.
@Logic I was just honouring someone I miss a lot.It was a whole long running 'thing', he really hated 'Chris'. Sam Harris has pointed this out mid interview before now, keeping his friend nearer. So he cares as well as me I guess.Affording Hitch the courtesy of his preferred name in life wasn't meant to nit pick, it was meant as a loving act for him . If you didn;t know about it it's no big deal, you do now! Have a good day, kind regards.
I'd love to see Sam grilled on the irrationality of his TDS... He likely would never appear alongside someone like Victor Davis Hanson, because he would be forced to agree too much for comfort...
Sam Harris’s intellect pool contains mother loads of good ideas, patience, facts and sanity. The interviewer was quite good too. He raised what needed to be raised. Sam, on the other hand, was Bruce Lee in the interview flowing like water.
No it wouldn't You can't blame the interviewer for putting up counterpoints to the interviewee's positions. Otherwise you get something like Hannity interviewing Trump. Not very interesting at all. This wasn't a bad interview, and I think Sam got his points across pretty effectively.
Actually he did. He is as lot tougher than this normally. I could tell from Stephens facial expressions and body language that he basically agreed with everything Sam said. It is his job to ask difficult questions. I think Sam picked up on that.
I actually thought the opposite. He seemed pretty tuned in. Remember also that this is cut and edited some so it isn't a straight conversation as portrayed.
The complaint I have with the interviewer isn't at all about how adversarial he is, in fact that's awesome. The problem is they cut all of Sam's answers short.
I've been listening to Sam Harris for years, I put him up there with Christopher Hitchins and Steven Fry. On a lighter note, does anyone else think he looks like Parker from Thunderbirds?
@Snappy Ape that's very interesting! I expected more from Fry. It's unbelievable how extreme some of these people are. no wonder people are so intimidated into voting for collectivist causes; they are scared of the mob... I am becoming less a democrat and more republican by the day. I with the UK had a constitution with free speech written in stone for example!
Sam did an excellent job in this interview. The design of this show is to play a hostile Devils advocate but Sam remained calm and had a reasonable answer for everything.
Its not the hard questions that "us people" are pushing back on, its the unnecessarily condescending and obnoxious attitude that they are being delivered with. Nonetheless it was a worthwhile discussion.
@@eddyf4426 There was nothing obnoxious or condescending about his questions though. He was exactly what I'd expect from an interviewer asking to the point questions.
@@Solidude4 Perhaps its a UK/North American thing (I'm a Canuck, we are more sensitive ;), but clearly there are many others in this thread that feel the interviewer was unnecessarily salty in his presentation. If this was a buddy of mine that I was discussing with, I would tell him to stop being such a jerk as the conversation wouldn't be as enjoyable if he adopted a more measured and respectful tone as I try to employ when I often have these candid and frank types of discussions with my peers. Maybe they are trying to get more ratings but this is not the kind of style that I would personally support.. just my preference as others do it better in my opinion.
@@eddyf4426 Yes many of you feel that way, and I feel the same is true of all of you. Your issue is that you're not used to seeing Sam Harris get directly critiqued without having his feelings coddled.
I like this Stephen Sackur. He asks hard questions without there being any impression of journalistic bias. If they're leading questions, or gotchya questions, it's only because they're oft repeated public criticisms of Harris. What good journalism.
I think Harris might have a tendency to conflate 'colonialism' and 'racism' in an equal and opposite way to his detractors. The issues are surely ideological ones, and solutions are surely being overlooked due to a bias toward Western European traditions. Ironically, this includes the tendency of many on the left to overvalue thinkers like Marx, Engels, Hegel, et al.
Bru Swain That’s quite alright, I’m glad I resisted the urge to write something sarcastic in reply 😂 I wouldn’t of meant anything by it but the perils of getting across tone and intent on the internet made me think better of it! Have a good day sir :)
I used to love BBC's HardTalk but am now seeing how very shallow it is. It is much better to listen to podcasts directly rather than bother with these interviews...
OK, I take that back... it is OK as far as BBC interviews go these days...and at least he still interviews interesting people and doesn't heed to who has and hasn't been "cancelled".
This is a great interview. This programme is literally called “hardtalk”. It is the job of the interviewer to challenge Sam, and he did this very well. Sam kept making good points, but the interviewer thought on his feet and was able to really engage and ask insightful, relevant questions. Journalism like this should be applauded.
Nope, he cut him off before he’d finished his point countless times, created strawman arguments and mischaracterised the guest countless times. The BBC is a farce.
@D D lmao you need to chill brah. I have zeeeeero criticism I merely stated Sam should release the unedited version if he can. I assume, like most pretaped tv interviews, it was edited. I could be wrong. Jesus people need to chill and give others the benefit of the doubt before jumping down their throats
“I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” - Sam Harris
is that sarcasm?
@@nathan6807 Sam was serious most probably.
Why do you want to know if the comment was sarcastic?
@Neila Pasa he is not religious so also not following Judaism. Him being "jewish" is merely from birth and he will openly reject any religious claims from Judaism.
@Neila Pasa He doesn’t believe in judaism though
Top class quote.
Every time Sam makes his point. The host cuts him off and changes the subject. This is the problem. Contantly moving the goalposts to suit their narrative.
The host had his question written before the show and was not flexible. I hate this kind of interview because they appear like a host is not really carrying about the answers and just fulfills the goal of asking a question and having a guest yap-yap.
Sam Harris knew what he was walking in to. Look at the tone of previous Hard Talk interviews with other guests. Exactly the same. The difference is, Sam's fanbase are always up in arms when the views of their prophet is remotely scrutinised.
@@jackriver1999 You are missing a point. I'm judging this particular interview, not the entire series as I have not watched them. I don't care if the view of Sam is matched or not, I care about a quality of the interview in which the host does not really engage in the discussion.
@@tjparkour It's called adversarial journalism. If you're familiar with UK broadcast news culture, famous broadcasters like Jeremy Paxman, Andrew Neil and Mehdi Hasan also interview guests in this style. Yes, sometimes, it can descend into parody but usually the interviewers are very professional. Sam is being asked to defend his controversial views. What's wrong with that?
@@jackriver1999 I've seen it and it comes off especially poorly no matter who is interviewed. Due to a level of biased by either the producers or the interviewer when in some interviews the questions are lob pitches for home runs and in others the pitch is a fastball to the head with no thought that the two are even playing the same game anymore. It comes of a little better with a two person panel where two people are having small pop shots taken at their views but I'm still not overly impressed.
This interviewer shows why traditional media is so inferior compared to podcasts like Making Sense
This is the most snowflake comment. You do get this show is called hardtalk?
Reee questions reeee
@@rollando2000 It's the quality of the questions, not that questions are being asked. All the REEEE is coming from you, i'm afraid
@@stiltz86 bro you're asking for a safe space. Stop being a snowflake
I thought he did a good job of asking tough questions.
@@rollando2000 "you're" - such an intellectual
Sam's signature eyebrow raise was in full effect here. Good branding Sam...
The People's Eyebrow for The Rock of Reason.
It's a hallmark of a charlatan , I agree good branding
I like how the interviewer stops Sam Harris accusing him of being a white man telling back people how to feel. And then as a white man he himself goes on and speaks for all black people.
Black not back people :D
Isn't it a racist thing to try to prevent people of a certain color to talk about certain issues?
I don't know, because I don't even know what "racism" means these days.
@Fortunado999 Yeah, I have no idea what anti-semitic means either. But either way I'm against trying to censor people.
Sam Harris couldn't provide statistics
Mohammed Zakaria he does, all the time. Listen to his podcast, read his books. He backs up what he says. He's a good faith actor trying to have a conversation about controversial issues.
that guy is not listening; he's just trying to stir up controversy
But it's hard talk. It's the point.
I'm pretty sure he is just trying his best to be the 'other side' of Sam's arguments. Not reallt expressing his own thoughts or anything. Andre Neil and Ben Shapiro is a famous example: th-cam.com/video/6VixqvOcK8E/w-d-xo.html
@@doncuomo This is what the BBC would argue, of course, and Sam demolished him! Whereas Shapiro was poorly prepared and somewhat misunderstood the format, which he freely admits.
However, one could argue the BBC are pushing a dangerous narrative/ideology. They are very rarely impartial - are they?
This guy made a living out antagonising minorities
@@jakeharrison6603 To be fair it's the format of the show and guests are aware of that. The whole point is to challenge. There are examples of awful "gotcha" journalism but I don't think this is one
Ben Stiller is a superb actor, he really gets Sam's voice tone down.
Wait I thought Sam was a brilliant actor, acting as Ben Stiller. WTF
@@philovon
Well to be fair he is *really really good looking*
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe *weally weally
and that's how you know free-will is an illusion...
@@42Mrgreenman
All the world is a stage and God/Deterministic super mechanism is the director of *universal* studios. I didn't even write this comment I swear it.
I can see why they call this show "hard talk." 90% of the time, Sam is trying to repair the mischaracterizations imposed by the interviewer.
I give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is playing devil's advocate; giving Harris the opportunity to address criticisms of himself
That's typical BBC cant for you. It can't last much longer - it is already pulling itself down in its' own whirlpool of biased navel gazing. The BBC licence fee is under review in Parliament, people are watching it less and less in part because they are sick of BBC holier-than-thou woke lecturing position.
Another..."so what youre saying is..."
“Hard talk” indeed.
It’d be better if they were hard questions to answer or intelligent criticisms that made it hard for Sam to defend his position. Instead, it’s as you said, mischaracterisations. Of course it’s hard to talk to someone who constantly mischaracterises your ideas.
Straight talking let’s fund Fox News!
"If you're going to find racists everywhere, you will find the real racists nowhere"
_-- I'm going to sew that onto a cushion
This is the first time I've heard this. Lol. I'm sorry if you came up with this. Because I'm going to steal it.
Comment of the month. Thank you.
Please let me know if you'll be selling one.
@@slutbunwallah1 you're literally here on the video where Sam said this. If you didn't watch it that's fine, just kind of funny.
@Billy Barry "He has unscientific view on race and IQ" - please can you expand on the evidence for that?
“If you are going to find racism everywhere, then you are going to find the real racists nowhere.”
Sam dunk!
IMO there's more nuance to this. Say there is racism everywhere, the majority of which is undoubtedly less severe than the fringe, are we wrong to be battling with the 'insignificant' majority in fear of desensitisation against the more severe forms?
@@mattw2396 yea 1% of the pop will be everything , so lets riot over everything! dumbn!
Except nobody is finding racism "everywhere." Sam just twisting himself in knots to avoid showing any empathy for the suffering of underprivileged people. Just like his attitude towards Palestine. This is his baseline, and it's shit.
Sam dunk had me laughing out loud 😊
@Benji Doodleburg You have won the internet today for your “Sam dunk” comment. That’s surely on a par with a “Hitch slap”.
Brilliant!
"May I stop you.." "Yeah, please". I love Harris' welcoming attitude towards potentially being presented with new information that may change his view. We need more of this kind of thing!
Dick Strangler sure makes a great point here
Only to be offered something stupid to yet again have to clarify and correct.
So because he said "yeah please" you conclude that this isn't just performative and he is the most honest of the honest? What kind of weird logic is this. Everything is optics these days.
@@hansfrankfurter2903 What happened to good faith in discussion? There's nothing productive about taking the worst possible interpretation of the opposition. And I didn't say he was being honest. I simply inferred a positive attitude from his language. Humans do that sort of thing all the time.
unfortunately SH manipulates data
th-cam.com/video/xqwb54cWAPA/w-d-xo.html
Stephen Sackur is channeling his inner Kathy Newman. Garbage journalism. Good on Sam for setting him straight.
BBC Hardtalk interview everyone the same way
Right. Sackur is appallingly performative here.
went to school with his [Stephen's] son, as nice a kid as you could hope to meet :)
@@slutbunwallah1 So true, his style is combative. He seems to be just smart enough to recognize the brilliance of the people he interviews but not quite bright enough to move the ball forward himself. I guess it's easier to sit on the sideline and critique. His interview with Jordan Peterson was even worse.
What's garbage with letting Harris answer questions to which he is most commonly criticized? Do you think he shouldn't be let to defend his beliefs?
British interviewers (generally) take an adversarial approach, a fact that seems to be lost on a lot of people in this comment section who apparently would prefer the interviewers to take the partisan, buddy-buddy approach of Fox News, CNBC etc... Ben Shapiro thought the same, which is why he accused the notoriously right-leaning Andrew Niel of being a leftist because he asked him a few questions he didn't like.
You're spot on. I saw the Shapiro interview, too. Americans are not used to see interviews like these and don't realise that Sackur would grill any opponent of Sam Harris just as hard. I would advice them to scroll back to the top of this page and check the title of the programme again.
The Shapiro interview was one of the funniest things I've seen
Used to be that an interview was to extract information not be adversarial. I'm old.
@@njits789 There's a reason the show is called HARDtalk, I suppose
Lee D It seems Ben Shapiro had never heard of playing devil's advocate and took everything on that interview as a personal attack which resulted in a hilarious tantrum.
The interviewer bemoans that we’re not doing a very good job at progressing, having rational conversations, etc. Yet the whole structure of the interview was essentially preferencing emotions/anecdotes over evidence, assessing ideas based on the identity of the speaker rather than an idea’s merit, changing the topic when facts arise which contradict our political dogma, and trying to catch someone with gotcha nonsequiturs (“so you were cheering on Trump’s travel ban then?”). Then he congratulates himself at the end for having a rational conversation. “Hard talk” is fine but don’t forget to bring reason.
Yeah. It’s the BBC, dude. They’re scum.
Well said imo. I'm left with the impression of this aswell.
Me too.
I think Stephen probably agreed with some of the statements that Sam was making but the aim/theme of Hardtalk isn't to end on agreement it's to push the person and to be evocative. I think in a private conversation there would have been more statements like "oh well, I guess that's a good point". Still a good talk though!
Christopher McEvoy Basically telling him to “shut up” because of his race and gender, isn’t a way to further the conversation. Funnily enough.
When he said Chris Hitchens, I could just hear Hitch saying Christopher, I promised mama lol
I would only ever call him C-Hitch. If he complained, it'd become C-Hitch the Bitch.
The only people who call Christopher Hitchens 'Chris', are people who don't know him and invariably people who want to ingratiate themselves with him or his legacy. Christopher Hitchens would have corrected both of those types quite swiftly, and would have set the record straight immediately as to what his name was and what name he wanted to be called by.
I loved his disdain for the name "Chris." His acknowledgement of it being some kind of alter ego of his was also entertaining. A sorely missed thinker and writer... I wonder what he'd make of the nonsense of now. A lot has changed since his untimely passing in 2011.
Hitch might have objected to being called Chris but, more significantly, he would have lauded something like this on mainstream TV - a longer form intelligent discussion, the likes of which is largely absent on US TV for instance. Kudos to the BBC for providing this. Great to hear Sam's thoughts largely uninterrupted.
There's a huge difference, easily empirically-validated, between this and virtually any mainstream discussion on US TV for instance. Of course, I'd have preferred an hour instead of 30 mins or 4 hours instead of an hour, but this was pretty-focused, engaging debate. More please.
@@righteousshift482 Although I largely agree with your point about US TV networks and the quality of 'debate' and 'commentary' there, I think the standard of this 'debate' was pretty low. I don't think that the point of this was to debate anything; it was rather a faux confrontational exchange type of format with the intention of getting out information from the person being 'interviewed', dressed as 'hard talk'. Had it been a debate, the other side would have put forward some kind of argument and presented evidence for it. I think it's good that Sam Harris engaged even with this style of confrontational interview, as it's better to engage rather than to ignore in these cases. Harris's phlegmatic demeanour and style has probably helped him here too.
I liked this video but only for Sam Harris. the host was intolerable .
Because you are in the same kind of bubble that they are refering to in this interview. You are partial because you like Sam Harris and you got recommended this video by your personal youtube feed. This does not mean, mind you, that I disagree with Sam Harris, nor that I agree with him.
@@z0uLess no because i don't like it when host use straw manning as a tactic to try to discredit their host.
@michael how exactly would he do that, with his intellect?
I completely disagree. The interviewer was doing his job. This is a television show, in which Stephen Sackur is trying to cover as many topics as possible within a short period of time, and particularly has to keep the guest from continuing on indefinitely on a particular topic. Such is the format of this medium, similar to Larry King, or any network television interview. This is not a freeform podcast or panel discussion.
Further, this interview is highly edited, and if you paid closer attention, you would notice that he hardly interrupts Harris at all. The editor cut out any pauses between when Harris finishes and Sackur asks the next question. This is apparent given the camera shift.
@@maynard04 for the long nose crypto? Of course you would incel
20:09 like if you immediately thought "*Christopher."
"If only because that is my name"
I was surpriced Sam didnt call him out on that
Wished Sam had said something 😂😂
Sam and his other friends, but not all, would call him "Hitch" or Christopher but no one called him Chris. Yes that rubbed me the wrong way. Must be some 4 horseman fans for that level of knowledge about how Hitch liked to be referred to.
I noticed that. He isn't here to complain after all, but that won't stop me
Hard talk is kind of easy talk for the host: he didn’t have to think much, just asked some prepared questions and assumed he was right. He wasn’t even listening.
Err dude, it is quite a good idea to be well-prepared when you're doing an interview.
True. But you can tell the host wasn’t listening cuz after he asked a question he would look down at his notes to prep his next question. More over, he didn’t have follow up questions to what Sam would say cuz he wasn’t listening.
And SH getting cut off from his entire conversations
Nah, he's a good interviewer. You're supposed to ask polemical questions, whether you agree with the subject or not.
It's difficult to convince someone when his business model is to not being convinced.
I love Sam. He's so calm and in my opinion he's usually correct. Quite brave too, to say the unsayable.
Actually brave
I love sam because he's calm while he's platforming racists like charles murray lending them a smug veneer of pseudo-intellectualism
Justin The Fixer “racists” hey which definition are you using asshole?
@@Wingedmagician take your pick uhh genius ?
You're just into bigot ASMR. Admit it.
Came here expecting a nuanced discussion. Instead get the usual binary zero-sum BBC bullcrap from a terrible interviewer, who’s little better than Cathy Newman.
It was not intended to be a "discussion", it's called HARDtalk where the interviewer tries to challenge the host and ask him difficult questions, the type of questions he himself might not necessarily even agree with. I see tons of comments like this here, apparently Sam's fans are not really that smart.
They weren’t difficult points of contention, they were smears and long discredited lines of argument. Plus the odd bit of grievance archeology.
@@sirrathersplendid4825 They were not smears, he does that to everyone. It's the same thing that happened to Ben Shapiro, he thought the VERY rightwing interviewer was a leftist because he challenged him and pushed back...apparently if you don't lick someone's ass in an interview you're smearing.
Kavian - Nothing wrong with playing the devil’s advocate. It used to be part of every journos training. (Been thru it myself.) But this guy’s attempts at doing a Jeremy Paxman didn’t hit the mark. You have to know the subject well to ask the difficult questions. These all seemed like poorly researched cheap shots, in typical BBC style.
I think the interviewers questions were geared towards common criticisms of Sam Harris , which then allowed him to address those criticisms. For those of us more familiar with him it might come across as old news but this is really to get Sam out to a wider audience.
The reason its called Hard Talk is because its hard to talk when you keep being interrupted by a hack like Sackur.
😂 ah man
I completely disagree. The interviewer was doing his job. This is a television show, in which Stephen Sackur is trying to cover as many topics as possible within a short period of time, and particularly has to keep the guest from continuing on indefinitely on a particular topic. Such is the format of this medium, similar to Larry King, or any network television interview. This is not a freeform podcast or panel discussion.
Further, this interview is highly edited, and if you paid closer attention, you would notice that he hardly interrupts Harris at all. The editor cut out any pauses between when Harris finishes and Sackur asks the next question. This is apparent given the camera shift.
@@randolphperkins6584 You are free to disagree, we are free to not read your comment past your "disagree" point.
@@petros_adamopoulos You are free to do whatever you want, philistine. You are even free to write an inapposite comment anywhere on this site. You just look foolish doing so. Thus is the price of such inanity, young Petros.
He also must have read it in order to reply in that manor which makes his comment funnier cause he had to read it. 😀 and I read it too 😢
Rare occasion where a Brit is made to sound ineloquent by an American.
you're joking ? a lot of British clowns but this fellow dunked on Sam . and Sam tried to BS is way out of it .
As a British citizen I felt the American held the moral higher ground
@@holadonkey haha amazing that anyone could watch this and come out with that conclusion. Sam took this guy into deep waters and left him to drown. Can you give a single example of how Sam was dunked on? Be honest.
holadonkey nooo must have watched a different interview the supremely arrogant self opinionated Stephen Sackur is so passé and lame 😒 as usual . Who’d want to be mauled by this snob
@@holadonkey Conversations are not about "Dunking" on or "Destroying" other people. This view fucks up communication.
Host: "Conversation today is toxic."
Also the Host: "Poison, anyone?"
Such theatre though, and it makes for a fruitful .. i want to say conversation but no it was Sam who brought that aspect to the show. It makes for a fruitful.. interrogation. 😂
Stephen is quite obiously trying to make Sam a villain, but realizes that it is impossible.
Sam Harris does that for himself anyways
@@hansfrankfurter2903 I think you probably don’t understand what Sam believes. And, I’ll perhaps extend that to an unwillingness to understand what he means. Am I incorrect?
@@ryanrobin12 You sound like you're in a cult, you okay buddy?
@@ixiolirion8781 I disagree with you here...and with the "style" of Stephen in this case. Instead of continuing the dialog on any specific point, Stephen Gish Gallops and carpet bombs with a multitude of (obvious) accusations that Sam does a good job of defending. Why not ask questions that are neutral? Instead, he quotes things said by others and seems to have done ZERO homework...frankly like most of Sam's critics. It's truly a Dunning Kruger problem of substantial magnitude and the dummies (most people) will never get it....Sorry dummies, we owe you no quarter.
@@ixiolirion8781 Ok. I generally agree with you here. He did seem to ease up towards the end...making your point seem more valid. BTW, I HATE the American media...it's a joke these days.
Clearly, Stephen Sackur was gunning for Sam Harris, yet Harris held his ground with dignity in every instance of attack.
That's not out of his charactor, this wasn't even that annoying to watch given how misrepresented sam's been in some of the other intervews and held his cool.
The guy is a true saint.
In fairness the show is called HardTalk, not necessarily wrong to challenge guests. You can get right to the bottom of the guests integrity and intelligence that way...
^i was thinking the same thing watching this but the cuts and editing seams to go in the face this
sam harris is great at maintaining a veneer of dignity while platforming racists
@@greeny_119 Most of these people here are Yanks and none of their media give anyone a hard time. Especially the elite and pseudo intellectuals. So when they see someone else in media from other countries giving their "heroes" a hard time, they think they're being rude. Just take a look at the Australian reporter Jonathan Swan giving Trumplethinskin fair questions to answer. Trumpy couldn't answer them so the Swan took him to task. Then you read and watch how triggered they were thinking Swan was being a rude prick, when in reality he was doing his job and what every journalist, especially in America should damn well be doing themselves. It's called holding politicians and leaders accountable That's how brainwashed they are and have been from the start. No-one should be taking them seriously
I love that Sam, someone who I agree with on most things, was really grilled and put on the spot. Exactly what an interviewer should do - if there's holes in Sam's position, I want to know that!
Steven Nicholson Agreed! I’m a huge fan of Sam but have been put off by his latest take on racial injustice (or lack thereof). I was getting tired of Sam constantly spouting off that “white people are (slightly) more likely to get killed by police than black people” when in fact blacks are actually 3 times more likely to be killed by cops. I now see he’s pulling this statistic based on police encounters. However with this added bit of normalization that doesn’t take into account that there is a systemic issue with cops are also more likely to encounter blacks than whites. For example, while living in NYC during the “stop and frisk policy” it was brought to my attention that minorities where much more likely to be stopped by cops than whites even though the vast majority were found to be innocent of any wrongdoing. So you could also argue than while black and whites may die at the hands of cops at roughly the same rate per encounter, cops statistically are much more likely to “encounter” minorities.
@@EricJensenMusic Sam only comes to conclusions that have hard data to support them. As he states, your intuitions seem to be misguided as the statistics don't seem to reflect that perception. For instance, your 3x more likely example isn't an aggregated national source, it was an independent study conducted by Harvard where they looked at 5,700 some odd cases of deaths resulting from the hands of police from the years 2013-2017. It's just sloppy statistics that don't account for variables such as geographical location, amount of crime in any given area, police presence, funding, the race of the officer, suspects condition/behavior etc.. stop and frisk is hard to defend bc it is just wrong in my opinion, but, it's been happening in one form or another since the 80's in Chicago, so I would be skeptical of any data since not all stop and frisks are recorded. So saying "it was brought to my attention" they are disproportionately stopped, what does that really mean? I haven't seen much hard data on this, but historically terry laws were created primarily to target POC, but i think that's more related to the proportion of violent crimes committed. Totally prejudice, certainly not a prejudice that is unsupported by evidence. Stop and frisk is prejudicial at it's root and I don't agree w it. For the sake of argument though I'll use fake statistics for a point bc i'm lazy. Say in chicago, 90% of violent crimes are committed by black males between the ages of 16-28, if you werent stopping 90% of black males that fit that demographic, say only 60% were stopped and frisked in that demograph, wouldnt that mean they are under represented in stop and frisk compared to the proportion of crimes committed? I mean, would it be fair (again, in essence it isn't at all fair) to only stop say, 13% of black males bc that is proportional to population? I would say if the focus is law enforcement the interest would be in the demograph of likely to be in the commission of a crime, ie: unlawful possession of a firearm. Same reasoned argument he made about racial profiling, if you're looking for potential terrorists and youre stopping 90yr old jewish women, youre probably wasting your time. Again, not to defend racial profiling or stop and frisk (neither of which i agree w personally) just to point out that this is what Sam means when he says your intuitions are wrong. It may seem one way but taking a more sophisticated approach, or perhaps analyzing data at different resolutions may give you a different (arguably more accurate) perspective.
Nota Troll haha fair comment. But I’ve got a lot of time for journalism “Journalism is the first rough draft of history” ✌️
Dropcity Excellent take. I often feel that the instances of racial injustice that people try to cite are often reflections of the person not thinking critically about the role or rates of crime, geographical location, etc. that make practical application of law enforcement actually effective. It’s understandable to assume that America would have a significant undercurrent of racial injustice inflicted upon inner city, often Black-majority areas, but reality shows different. Every sophisticated person I know who analyzes this objectively comes to the same conclusion. The long-term goal should be to reduce crime in these areas (and across the board), not to erect phantom issues and deconstruct the only institution that is actually productive in reducing or preventing instances of crime (That often affect Black people at an overwhelming rate). I’ve spoken to many people from these areas and literally all that I’ve asked have disagreed with the standard Leftist take on reducing law enforcement. Seems like the ones directly affected by flagrant crime are inclined to desire reduction of said crime, a fact that is only counter intuitive to a certain constituency...
Yeah, "if" there are holes in Sam's positions...
Pulling something Sam said 15 years ago trying to discredit him and failed. Pathetic!!
"Sam, is it true that you called someone a "doo doo head" 50 years ago? How can you now say that you champion mature conversation?"
He's not trying to discredit him, it's not even a debate, just an interview...Sam's fans are such snowflakes.
Even if he was, why does it matter how long ago he said it?
Kavian Things change. People grow. Taking something he said out of context decades ago to challenge him without looking into abundant evidence of recent works is just a dumb act. Do you even know what snowflake means? I’m not a fan of Sam. In fact I disagree with him on many topics but I know he’s an intellectual based on his works so I give him the benefit of the doubt that there’s something he knows that I don’t, so I keep listening to him to open my mind. We feel sorry this host and the likes in mainstream media. Their mission is no longer seeking the truth. They are now mostly politically motivated to take people that have different opinions down. That kind of journalism disgusts me.
@@KD-oz8ci It's an interview, he just brought up something he had said and gave him the chance to explain and defend himself, that's how it works, grow up.
@@kavian9620 No that isn't how it works, this new wave of neo-liberalist style journalism is complete Cancer to political discourse and reasonable debate, there is a difference between being a journalist asking reasonable questions on certain topics to create a necessary and encouraging dialogue and resorting to childish tactics such as; "You said this 15 years ago, therefore that means you don't have the ability to change your mind." How is that a positive thing? you're a moron if you think that is journalism with integrity.
What? Cathy Newman wasn't available to conduct the interview?
So what you're saying is.
When Sam says, “it is simply not the case that ___,” it’s about to be dropped like it’s hot
Admire Sam's non-reactivity, calmness, & intellect. They're speaking on 2 disparate levels here.
Interviwer: "who are you as a white person, to talk about how black people feel?"
- Literally, in his next breath, starts talking about how black people feel
God they are so blind they cannot see their own GLARING double-standards
That's what decades of mindfulness meditation can do for you
The title of this video should read: "Sam Harris displays incredible patience while confronted by idiot interviewer"
It's all that meditation and BJJ that allows him to be like that.
It's called HARDtalk, the whole point is to be adversarial and ask challenging questions. Stephen is challenging Sam on baseline questions and giving him an opportunity to address them. He's not an idiot; he's a good interviewer.
@@darmokgillette7046 Is it also part of the whole point to look like an idiot, though.
Honestly I think this interview is great. It shows an aggressive interviewer bombarding Sam with questions which he can answer in a cool, collected way. Interviewer moves into the next question without an actual reply to anything Sam has said. At that point I’m basically thinking “well, that answers that. Next question?”
@@darmokgillette7046 Ah ok, thanks for clarifying the intention of the anchor. Because it is not clear from the show itself (as the comments predominantly show). I must admit, in this case this exercice may have been a really hard one indeed (for the interviewer...) Personally, I would not like to be tasked with the job of confronting Sam Harris....
Sam is the voice of sanity in an increasingly insane world.
Or it's the other way around. Sam is the voice of insanity in an indeed insane world.
Yes and he’s labeled a bigot or racist for it . It’s a shame
unfortunately SH manipulates data
th-cam.com/video/xqwb54cWAPA/w-d-xo.html
He comes back with clear thinking in response to woolly statements by others and he's the insane insane one. One might not always agree with him (although I tend to) but it's hard to argue against him because his points are always so solid.
Sanity guy an idiot
Sam Harris is the one person with a platform we all benefit from listening to.
Completely disagree.
Completely agree😞
He’s pretty overrated
@@Talleyhoooo extremely underrated.
I appreciate the interviewer trying to challenge Sam's ideas, but, unfortunately, I don't think he did a very good job. He threw the same old talking points and strawmen at Sam that he's already heard 1000 times before.
The best he could do was bring up a quote from 14 years ago about 9/11
The trouble is, he Needs to throw those same points at Sam, because they're not trying to reach the smart people, here. Smart people already know the answers. They're trying to reach the poorly informed people, who - unfortunately - seem to make up the vast majority.
Actually the whole point of this program is to ask questions that are difficult and make the guest possibly appear in a bad light.
Sam is honestly one of the most rational, logical and well intentioned people I have discovered.
He is so good at covering all the angles and being able to step outside of himself, assess his own position and reformulate a point to attack from a different angle.
He is spot on with nearly everything I have heard him talk about. His breadth of knowledge is also incredible, he can converse at multiple levels on multiple topics. Brilliant mind.
I'm usually impressed with Sam and this interview showed Sam to be even more impressive than I'm used to. He's certainly one of the greatest thinkers I've ever heard. However, he does have a genetic connection to 40-50% of the greatest intellectuals(scientists, philosophers, etc) on the planet. I don't share those genetics but still admire their contributions to society.
That's what decades of mindfulness meditation will do for you
@@drmojo5439 Yet he lost his temper at a reasonable criticism of his podcast with Charles Murray and ruined his family holiday as a result. Mindfulness in action 🤣🤣🤣🤣
What a detestable interviewer. This is a great ad for Sam's meditation app, he kept his cool all the way through. I would have lost my temper with this guy.
Keep meditating, and don't wake up
Nah. It would be like losing your temper with a mud puddle. If you step in a puddle your feet are going to get wet. If you talk to a UK journo you are going to get this kind of turbid gooey non thought.
This is the style used by the interviewer during all of his interviews, so no bias towards Sam.
Sam's ability to clarify and express his understanding is magnificent. He is extremely persuasive and admirably able to handle confrontation and challenges to his point of view.
unfortunately SH manipulates data
th-cam.com/video/xqwb54cWAPA/w-d-xo.html
Sam looks so tired of answering the same old questions about Islam lol
"Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas"- Sam Harris. Batman is a feckin'eedjut.
Search Bill Maher, Sam Harris, Ben Affleck
Still paying dividends for Ben Affleck’s tarnishment
Paul Maguire
It was when he appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher
He cant set the fire and expect people to not ask him to justify his beliefs.
Paul Maguire
Apologies, i misread. I thought you were asking where he made the comment about motherlode of bad ideas
The interviewer is embarrassingly simple minded.
I "think" although im not sure; that he is playing the role of devils advocate, finding all the points of tension that people have with any of sams views and just seeing what the response is. Although he could just be a prat as you say; he did seem a bit too into it.
@Logic I'm glad you know him so well to be cock sure of your position. As for me I only saw him for a few minutes doing his job, so I'm not able to come to such concrete conclusions. Must be nice.
@Logic slanderous ? he only studied Sam Harris past comments .
The interviewer exposed Scam Harris
Its his job to argue the opposing view, thats the hard talk format.
A few random thoughts: 1) It’s an interviewer’s responsibility to ask questions that their audience might ask, and to counter arguments, which is what British shows of this sort do and was done here. 2) It’s easy to crush Sam Harris if you take his arguments and points out of context because he’s not arguing in black and white; there is nuance as well as a give and take he’s willing to advance in a dialog. 3) Rationality and logic win in the end, but they get crushed in the moment as emotion is always much louder and easier to jump onto.
Remember the famous Ben Shapiro interview? This is how it should be done...
Perfect.
number 3 is spot on. Loved the way you put it.
When first reading the comments, I expected this to be a blood bath interview. This just seemed like a run-of-the-mill conversation to me. The interviewer asked questions as someone who is loosely familiar with Sam's work with a slight negative bias, and Sam answered the questions as needed to clarify his thoughts.
The interviewer was a jerk, NOT for asking tough questions but for the approach and nasty accusations/insinuations.
I’m *all* for pushing back, for counter arguments, for in depth dialogue. So that’s not the problem.
Sam: Religions are different.
Interviewer: So were you cheering on Trump’s Muslim travel ban then?!
I don’t mind it when interviewers press people on their positions, but it should scale with intelligence.
Intensity: 8.5/10
Intelligence: 4/10
This is the correct comment.
Sam Harris has been very vocal in making Muslims the main target of his rants. Why should anyone interviewing him allow him to avoid the topic?
@@papanino4415 do you see criticising Islam as a set of ideas as synonymous with criticising Muslims as people?
@@papanino4415 Islam =/= Muslims
There fixed that for you.
he actually was sharing the opinions as trump-about Muslims .
This is what an interview looks like when the guest is 30 IQ points above the host.
30? And the rest 😆
50*
Lord Ball-sac the 2nd what??
you must be joking .Sam Harris might be good in his specialized field . but he runs into trouble with his biased views . he likes to poster himself as an intelligent analyst on his take of politics that are no more than a reflection of his upbringing .
@@holadonkey I'm not joking. He takes a very balanced approach to topics he speaks on. His analysis of BLM is great. He includes both perspectives which is what is supposed to happen in journalism and the media has consistently ran a psyops on liberals who are now in opposition to what they report they want. BLM can only hurt Black Americans and this angers me because it's fanning the flames of what little racism we have which needs to end.
Looking at the comments, it seems that most people are annoyed that the interviewer took to task Sam Harris. I am a big Sam Harris fan (which means that Sam is a guy who agrees with me on most of the serious human issues), and I am glad the interviewer basically mirrored what I will describe as "current social ignorance". That ignorance put into better focus the wisdom of my, errr... Sam's views.
Jason Myers sackur just makes statements as fact... he seems ignorant of the subtleties of the debate in the US and seems to comment straight out of the Al Sharpton playbook.
because they're dumb kids who are used to seeing sam coddled in his own safe space
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 100% Sam does NOT engage with people who would challenge him substantially. If he had Cornel West or Angela Davis on his podcast, I'd stand somewhat corrected. But he has people like Coleman Hughes instead. Complete softball shit.
"..which means that Sam is a guy who agrees with me on most serious human issues" lmao I'm sure he consults you for his views 😂
@JoshKerr right, a anti-rationalist Marxist is going to go sit with Sam for two hours for conversation. Uh huh. Sure. Coleman Hughes while agreeing with Sam on many points (your version of softball shit) is a courageous young man of high intellect doing his best to enlighten the indoctrinated youth of America. Sam SHOULD NOT be in the business of providing air time to sheep who can speak to millions every day via main stream media and nationally circulated papers as well as most magazines...Sam has created a forum from the ground up to spread rational discourse and wise thought provoking observations. I can find run of the mill race baiters most places as they have cornered the market on the public square.
kudos to Sam for saying "in America" when talking about America
@Maximillian Sonnen you mean Sam or in general?
@@danielchmiel7787 I would agree with Maximillian and say in general. Wife is Chinese and she is always annoyed that CCP loves using CNN for "news", as if it reflects what is actually happening.
The US?
@@fearlessjoebanzai yes
I normally don't agree with everything Harris says, but he handled himself very well here.
He's brilliant but sometimes spreads himself a bit thin as he tackles dozens of complex topics that individually, take most experts a lifetime just to fully explore and understand.
Especially with out rudely he was treated. He was interrupted by the host a half dozen times with the typical hysterical talking points about race.
He wasn't rudely treated.
The host had a pretty transparent agenda, and whenever Harris started to make a cogent point it was suspiciously time to move on.
Harris was afforded plenty of time to flesh out his thoughts, instead he mumbles and goes off on tangents which makes it look like the host is cutting him off. The host even agreed with him in the end so I don't see how he was biased?
He said “Chris Hitchens” that’s sacrilegious!
I'm just gonna call him "chrissy"
Christopher Hitchens would have verbally slapped him down for that.
Yes indeed, he only does that bullshit cause he can't get smacked up for it anymore, fucking waited years for the opportunity.
@@audience2
Yeah but he can't because he drank and smoked himself into a grave. Like a bum.
Jesse Klein i actually got offended by that comment when she said it, and i really never get offended by much. Sam had JUST SAID that he had passed away recently and her next comment is "I'll call him Chrissy." Like, sure. Great place to start a conversation, insulting someone's just-dead colleague. Yuck.
Never have regretted listing to Sam's talks, podcasts or interviews!
To Err is Huma Of course I did.
To Err is Huma I listened to %99 of JBP lectures. Haha he is great though but i do not see Sam and JBP in a same league ;)
Have u seen JBP & Slavoj Zizek ?
unfortunately SH manipulates data
th-cam.com/video/xqwb54cWAPA/w-d-xo.html
@@mzuwt I highly doubt.
"What I'm most worried about in our style of discourse around these charged issues like race is that it is causing even fairly scrupulous and honest people and well-intentioned people to be dishonest and sloppy and actually practice a kind of politics of personal destruction, effectively to behave like psychopaths, on social media and in print and in various journalistic encounters..
"
Burned.
nice spot. notice the interviewers hand twitching as sam gets into it followed by a convenient cut to a close up of sam (and away from Stephen's twitching hands) as he says "various journalistic encounters"
This show is called Hardtalk. The entire theme is based around giving the guest a constant, difficult grilling. Every episode is like this. People go on to show their fortitude and if it takes you by surprise you should really do your homework before you appear on it.
Every episode is like this? Perhaps they could build into the 'difficult grilling' the chance for the guest to make their point to an interviewer who can exhibit some kind of listening skill and ability to not interrupt and repeat themselves. Terrible interview.
.
Fair comment, Sam was prepared and as far as these kind of interviews go. I enjoyed this one, both the way the interviewer looked to challenge and Sam's response. All good
@@Biggummysmile the BBCs approach is to always take the opposing views of their interviewee to play Devil's advocate and ask questions that someone who believes the opposite would ask.
@@Biggummysmile It's like watching Match of The Day and then complaining that there was too much Football.
Americans are accustomed to having their propaganda served concentrated. They believe people like Same Harris should be shown a certain amount of deference and groveling. The interviewer should have complimented Mr. Harris and smiled more.
Very interesting discussion. Sam Harris approaches topics with a sort of considered reason that only a professional philosopher can, honestly. Further, there is a serious issue in western society, right now, in that it is taboo to ask probing questions. If people cannot defend their positions and opinions, then I don't feel the need to respect their opinions or positions. Here Sam forthrightly owns the fact that his position of Islam has moved over the years and that the national fervor created by 9/11 colored his viewpoints. Learning and growing isn't a vice or something to be afraid of!
Exactly! When the Interviewer stated 'Fourteen years ago you said...' I thought to myself Ahh,here we go again!
Ya, but where's the salable controversy in that?
So Harris believes that his reactionary positions against 1 Billion Muslims and the need to nuke them as a preventative measure was not just wrong but wholly immoral? Actually I don't think he does take that position at all. I despise Harris, he is a reactionary piece of shit whose views are only lauded by reactionary right wing white men.
@@eyeq7730 why say it if you are fully aware of history philosophy etc. Truth is he does not understand how the world functioned or people. To him.911 was the worst thing that happend...and he viewed Muslims through that lens of 911. pathetic
Well said.
As a Briton I feel abject shame watching this BBC 'reporter.'
When I was a boy (1970s) the BBC could absolutely be relied upon to (at least try to) be objective.
Now, they do not even pretend.
I cannot believe this BBC employee will be thought, by some minority, to be a 'journalist' of any kind.
I know 12-year-olds whose first language is not English who would be embarrassed to listen to this 'man.'
I apologize to the world.
The BBC does not represent Britons.
Thank you, Mr. Harris, for tolerating the idiocy of this 'professional.' He is obviously not acting an idiot out of coincidence.
Absolutely. He was desperately trying to "controversialise" the perfectly reasonable and rational beliefs being expressed. SH showed admirable patience.
Agreed. I think Alan Partridge would've done a better job.
I dunno...I think the interviewer helped Sam Harris make his point even more clear by means of pressing him on them. Sam did such a great job of articulating his stance in a calm clear rational and well thought out manner. Sometimes the tough opposing questions are helpful. I do understand what you mean and thank you for making that point.
Droo Bastard I think that much of the western world is watching what’s happening in the states with empathy and compassion for the majority of Americans who are helplessly watching what’s happening to your country. Stay strong! 💕
@@micchristi8533 Can confirm as a non-American, but I don't know how many of us there are. We have our own kinds of irrationality very similar to the kind in the US, though thankfully not exactly the same.
I bet Sam Harris loved this interview, finally someone that is challenging me and my position with good questions, sensible rebuttles and a chance for me to explain my self even better.
Rather than someone not listening to what I'm saying and accusing me of things.
or he is just going to cry about how he was misrepresented like he always does ?
I doubt it he probably whines about how his character was assassinated by a “bad faith actor” afterwards on Twitter like he usually does.
@@sargonsblackgrandfather2072 Exactly
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 well the interviewer only asked queations, so i doubt it.
I actually disagree with everything you've said there. Was that sarcasm?
Rapid fire, loaded questions whilst appearing not even remotely interested in the answer; gotta look down and shuffle my papers since that's much more interesting. Not so much an interview as an ill-prepared hatchet job.
Judging by the frequent frowning, I doubt Sam found this meaningful.
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth" - Plato
Well everyone seems to hate blm
Is plato saying theyre speaking the truth?
@Logic I believe it. I remember vicious attacks by conservatives against Sam... Then these days I'm seeing vicious attacks by leftists of far-left identity-politics journalists and others... It's incredible how he can make so many enemies. He is TAKING FLAK because he's right over the target.
I think that the biggest problem is that the truth gives politicians less votes than the lies they want to hear.
My like is for Sam Harris, not the biased interviewer.
The interviewer is the kind of person who very frequently makes statements that make sense if you don't think about them.
He's Stephen Sackur, one of the best interviewers in the world. Of the best that the BBC has to offer. An intellect to match Sam Harris'.
How dare Sam bring facts into this emotional hate fest.
Sam is a treasure. Forever an inspiration to me and I'm so glad he's being interviewed so people get exposed to him. Because he so eloquently dismantles the webs the interviewers always try to lay for him, meanwhile he's actually trying to TALK ABOUT THE REAL ISSUES.
Sam have blamed Jews for the Holocaust. Do you want a quote?
@@hansfrankfurter2903 Please.
@@lobobaltazar1322 "The gravity of Jewish suffering over the ages, culminating in the Holocaust, makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. *This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth* "
Sam Harris--The End of Faith
@@lobobaltazar1322 You have reading comprehension issues?
"makes it almost impossible to entertain any suggestion that Jews might have brought their troubles upon themselves. This is, however, in a rather narrow sense, the truth""
Do you understand what it means to have brought something upon oneself ?
@@hansfrankfurter2903 English is not my native language so maybe I do. So just to be clear You stated that Sam blamed jews to brought it upon themselves in the first post. In this later one You are giving us His quote from which I read is a bit more complex way of saying - It is impossible to conclude they brought it upon themselves ?
Ok... when you accuse your guest of "lacking emotional intelligence" it seems no longer to be journalism to me.
Yes it's obvious that need not be stated
@@jackdarby2168 I think that comment revealed more about you than Sam Harris.
He's playing devils advocate.
@@pm71241 I understand Sam wants to become a Saint. He really thinks he's some sort of genius.
I don't think anyone is really like this when they are born, it's not easy. It's not easy to defile the part inside us( I mean Soul!). He worked hard to become less human like, trying to control his feelings, thoughts and normal sensibility( bring out that remark that he is a "Robot", or "appears Cold", or like an "Alien" or this is sometimes even mistaken to sign of being a Genius itself.
Why would someone go to such lengths?
By such lengths, I mean meditation, drugs( general manipulation of body and mind).
He often says things like the normal human mind is "always telling you how bad you are", which is interesting supposition.
But because that isn't assuring enough to seek to control, really manipulate oneself. Whatever makes him want to manipulate himself, seems to want to manipulate others too, which we see in his public activities. This comes across when he touches on "sensitive" issues.
He has such confidence man, is somehow inadequately created by nature. It's easy to see why he's preoccupied with Technology as it appears to break the human limitations. His new interests if I'm not mistaken appear to be genetic engineering, AI or whatever else.
Saying he's that he lacks "emotional intelligence" is really not doing this phenomena due, I'd say he's completely lost touch with everything, and is going further into the darkness.
@@jackdarby2168
You are so far up your own ass, it's absolutely amazing. When you grow up, you learn to control yourself and not throw a tantrum at every occasion. If you think that's so horrible then go ahaid and stay a child.
Have you guys never seen “Hard Talk” before? The whole idea of the show is the host challenges the guest, whatever their views are.
I'm American, and I haven't seen Hard Talk before. Are there also conservative hosts who will challenge guests' left-wing views?
@@paxonearth Yup I'm sure there are. It's been a long running series and have had some very important guests on in the past. Not always the same interviewer though. I seem to remember this show being longer like 45 mins or so.
Hence the name...
So if a BLM member was there the host would ask him to prove that blacks are not criminals? Really? I find this incredibly hard to believe.
Also, to note, almost no one in the UK watches HardTalk. I often watch it a 4 in the morning, but I'm in a minority of one in my peer group. The style is often tediously and obnoxiously aggressive (e.g. loaded multiple baseless assertion questions and not allowing for actual answers), but it can very occasionally be interesting.
I hope the interviewer was just playing devils advocate, not actually that dumb.
Yeah it’s literally his job on this show to be contrarian, it’s called HardTalk
lot's of people in the comments that don't understand this interviewing style, probably used to watching CNN or FOX
@@Silica_UK I see Hardtalk all the time. I'm made to pay for it. Sackoff is this thick, it's the BBC's standard groupthink. Got Sam down as "Islamophobe" and just giving him the standard sub-Cathy Newman level rubbish reserved for "baddies". When it's a liberal on HARDtalk is Softtalk, he's just a nodding dog.
Nope, the interviewer is being genuinely dumb. There are ways to formulate questions as if from a devil’s advocate; this guy is not employing them.
he was actually that dumb
Good interview, but could do with a bit less of the ad hominem suggestions against Sam (saying he's insensitive on race, accusing him of agreeing with Trump on Islam)
"Lacking emotional intelligence" smh. The BBC is a joke.
Dan Neumann Great response.
@@tryptamigo Yes, that's exactly right. Most Americans are simply not accustomed to the British interview style, and mistake it for genuine disagreement or even hostility.
@@ptolemyauletesxii8642 I would love for American politicians to have to go through British style "Question Time". FWIW.
@@shawn6669 It's kind of depressing to see how simple and sycophantic so many of the followers of Sam Harris can be. I'm a big fan of his, but it seems that anything that can be perceived as even the vaguest criticism of him or any questioning of his views sets many of his fan base into apoplectic rage. It's exactly the opposite sort of thing that Sam himself practices.
The look of incredulity and disgust the presenter gives at 14:53 is very telling. He apparently has no interest in discussing Harris's point, and is simply trying to push a specific narrative. This is the BBC though of course.
The programme is called 'hard talk' since the host is tasked with playing 'devil's advocate' in order to pressure test the ideas of the guests, so that the audience can make more of an informed oppinion about the guest.
@Logic Do you think this interview made Sam's views, in the number of different topics covered throughout the conversation, look unpersuasive?
Sam makes completely rational and true statements and people just refuse to listen. He explains it so well and I don’t know why people just can’t get it.
Probably because those people do not want to get it. They are fused to their ideology.
Because he's simply factually wrong. Just because he talks smooth and sounds calm doesn't make him right.
Interviewer: Well, you can prove anything with facts.
I hate to break it to you buddy, but if that's how you perceived the interviewer, you might have some cognition problems
@@mirrekhan1607 we all have them. How easy must be to be you if you don't know that..
The interviewer is the kind of person who says stuff that makes sense if you don't think about it
Nice Stewart Lee reference )
Tbf black statistics are a thing. The gender wage gap being one of them.
Before you comment with outrage at the interviewer's questions - One of the first things Sam says is that debate is the ONLY way of getting to a solution to a difficult problem. You can't have a good debate in an echo chamber of the same ideas. The interviewer's adversarial questions gave Sam the opportunity to be eloquent and logical in his responses that he would not have had the opportunity to deliver otherwise. This is a very British style of interview but it's a productive style. For the record I think this actually is a good interview even though I do not support the BBC personally.
You have to admire Sam’s courage participating in an interrogation intentionally framing his analysis and ethics immorally.
It is hardtalk after all
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
He's a F*KING IDIOT! He lost any respect I used to have for him with this interview. WTF is wrong with him? Looks like TDS broke his brain.
Being determined to disagree, even when sense is being spoken, just comes across as childish.
Wish this guy would let Sam finish. I’m hearing interruption and changing subjects.
It's just called 'editing' .. nothing sinister .. both viewpoints got pretty thoroughly aired ... good interview!
it's "Hard Talk", For monologue try "Ted Talk".
Yes! But it may be the editors fault!
He's got to keep moving through the topics to finish the segment on time. TV is very tightly scheduled.
Each topic could be talked about for hours (and has been, often by Harris himself). This was twenty minutes. I think they did the best they could with the breadth they had to cover in a short time.
Wow I am sooo surprised that they cut Sam’s statement short when discussing Jacob Blake (15:00) What a disgrace.
Guys, this isn’t American journalism where they ask soft-ball questions to people they like. British journalists, generally, are rough on the interviewees no matter their viewpoints. You know, they way journalism should be...
And of course there are exceptions. Kathy Newman comes to mind....😜
Yes, this was exactly the kind of interview I wanted to hear. Well, everything except calling Christopher Hitchens "Chris".
I guess maybe that’s the case regarding British journalism. Nevertheless, the man is still asking questions which smuggle in his own bias and partisanship on major issues such as the Jacob Blake video. Nobody has the full video that I know of nor all the details and we’re being asked to rate a movie based on the trailer. Is this really good journalism? He has fallen prey to indicting officers off a trailer and the conviction in the court of public opinion. And the way I see it is Jacob Blake sexually assaulted a woman, resisted arrest, the taser failed, and he went to his vehicle in defiance of police commands and reached in his vehicle and was shot because he posed a fatal threat or potentially fatal threat to police. Where is the racism? If you do this as a white person the outcome will be the same provided all circumstances are the same.
However when our journalists go "too hard" they run the risk of being accused of bias. It's a tough line to walk.
James Poulton you think the way he framed the question and circumstance regarding “police brutality and racism” was free of his bias and forgone conclusion about the Jacob Blake situation?
Wow, it really is stunning to see how many people struggle to understand the concept of the adversarial interview. Stephen Sackur is a veteran pro. He's an accomplished journalist who's been doing this for decades, and he's one of the most professional in the game. And like most British journalists, he would ask the same questions in the same way, whether he was the biggest Sam Harris fan in the world or hated Sam Harris's guts. British journalists generally leave their personal views at home when they go to work, it's strictly business. The show isn't called "Easytalk".
I sympathize with Black lives Matter. But more for the history of Race in America than for police brutality. I was brutalized by the police once and I'm white and not a criminal. Having said that. Sam is correct, white people get killed by police just as often if not more often than black people. Google {Drew Edwards - Macocida Iowa police.} The problem blacks have had for the last 50 years are now the same issues and in some cases have been the same issues that everyone is experiencing today, poverty,racism, discrimination,health care, violence,income inequality,homophobia, we are all dealing with it. I think the broader point Sam is trying to make is we need to be honest about what is actually real about our lives and address issues together without {dear i say} demonizing one race or the other. By the way unfortunately there are racists in almost every race of people, We have to move past it, teach your children not to judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Peace.
The term racist concludes we are different races and not all one. It is a primitive term that we still use. We are all 99.9 biologically the same. We are one race, the human race. Racism that we see today is systemic.
Some more primitive terms we still use are sunrise and sunset as if the sun is moving.
@@HowHighImHalfBaked if we want to distinguish one phenomenon from another, we must check their differences, not their similarities.
@@Overlord734 what biological difference? We all have 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 mouth, 1 nose... Get my point?
I don't sympathize with BLM at all, horrible people.
@k l
It’s because BLM is Marxist.
You hate them because you hate evil. It’s your conscious that’s speaking to you
Good on you 👍🏻
Sam: "I'm fully aware that racism is a real problem that still exists and must be addressed, but we must make sure we address racism and not everyone."
Interviewer: "But but but... There's racism."
underrated
In fairness, Sam is strawmaning BLM. It isn't pretending that this is the worst time in history... It is saying we are sick of this shit. Enough is enough.
He isn't wrong about moral panic though... Both he and BLM are correct, but he pretends otherwise.
Also, the stat he pulls out about police killing is highly likely to mislead people to an false conclusion.
Sam "the issue of racism is being addressed. We are addressing them."
Later in the interview when "systemic racism" comes up, with the emphasis on "system" rather than intention, Sam also said "if indeed there are policies that are racist, we should find out what they are."
It is not an open question if there are policies that unfairly discriminate minorities. It's also not an open question what can be done to fix them. Take the electoral laws for example, if the US can standardise the registration process and ID requirements across states, and have elections on a Saturday or make the day a public holiday (like most other democratic countries), minorities might be able to participate in the voting process at the same rate as white Americans do.
It's just a thought 🤔. I'm sure someone as knowledgeable as Mr Harris have encountered such suggestions.
That bbc guy didn't look at the data,
just saying what the media like to say, ''systemic this systemic that'' without any data.
"Systemic Structural Institutional Systems"
@@rossini55 Gotta watch out for those systemic systems of structural institutional systematised institutions (and other word salad)....
What do you think Sam means when he says there are reasons that the black community have more encounters with the police?
@@jmc5335 Is that a rhetorical question?
@@eastowest A question in good faith. Can you enlighten?
Program called Hard talk.
Comments: he is attacking him!
They're used to Sam talking to yes men and not bring critically interviewed so they can't deal with it.
@@Solidude4
I don't think Ezra Klein or Joradn Peterson could be noted as yes men.
@@NothingHumanisAlientoMe His conversation with Ezra Klein led to the same kinds of comments from SH's fans. As for JP, for all of Sam Harris' weaknesses he's still way better at arguing than JP so there was no issue of Sam being properly critiqued by JP.
@@Solidude4
Well roughly speaking I don't buy that one bucko mainly because I am not an atheist. JP does at least refuse to accept the argument proposed by SH along the lines of the inherent subjectivity of morality,
which is a rather wild thing to do in our era.
How dare you say there is a definitive right and definitive wrong!! lol
As for Ezra Klein, what *kind* of SH fanboy comments invalidate SH?
SH allowed EK to go on his podcast and tell SH to his own face what he thinks - not many do that, SH is a model of the democratic spirit.
Perfect by no means, but it is quite remarkable he is reasonable enough to listen to the *other side*
given how well hounded he is by the mainstream press for having the audacity to be unapologetically contemptous of Islam in its current state.
@i smell it
Nah, he is refusing to give ground. His opponents are demanding that the conversation BE framed in a racial/Iden Pol lens - SH veiws this as trickery/political ploy and a deviation from seeing the big picture of the human condition on a social scale and how is that managed in the modern era. But the hard talk host, holds him to account pretty well, it is not unreasonable for SH to essentially state *BLM has lost any merit it once had and is a wreckless body based on political dogma*
"Sam Harris: Author and Philosopher"
I believe they meant "Sam Harris: NEUROSCIENTIST, Author, and Philosopher"
I agree with almost everything Sam says. I also do appreciate this interviewer pressing his positions.
The interviewer just spouted the same old ridiculous basic bitch talking points...
I’m a fan of sam Harris and I had no problem with this interview. Reading some of the comments beforehand I expected the interview to be overly combative and irrational, but I didn’t perceive that at all. It was fine.
The only problem I noticed was how the interviewer pushed back against Sam’s personal views on the issues rather than building off of the facts that were presented
i think the British media learnt their lesson after the Cathy Newman incident.....
Yeah if you think cutting someone off before they finish their point and creating straw man arguments and misrepresenting their beliefs is a good way to interview then this was one of the best.
Hardwater Gaming I wasn’t suggesting that it was a great interview, I just expected a lot worse based on the comments. I have certainly seen much worse than this.
Skiba Covers fair enough, I can agree there is far worse, but this was still a garbage interview by a garbage interviewer paid by a garbage propaganda machine.
Christopher Hitchens really hated being referred to as 'Chris' .Just saying
beat me to it.
@Logic I was just honouring someone I miss a lot.It was a whole long running 'thing', he really hated 'Chris'. Sam Harris has pointed this out mid interview before now, keeping his friend nearer. So he cares as well as me I guess.Affording Hitch the courtesy of his preferred name in life wasn't meant to nit pick, it was meant as a loving act for him . If you didn;t know about it it's no big deal, you do now! Have a good day, kind regards.
The interviewer doesn't sound very smart. "cheering up Trump" really? Has he ever listen to Sam's position on Trump? He's one of his fiercest critics.
I'd love to see Sam grilled on the irrationality of his TDS...
He likely would never appear alongside someone like Victor Davis Hanson, because he would be forced to agree too much for comfort...
@@spiritualpolitics8205 Trump *is* an evil oompa loompa.
It's called Hard Talk.
he has some common views that he shares with the Trumpster .
@Brian which one Brian . is Spiritual Politics actually Stewie ?
This feels like Da Ali G Show. Is this a real person doing the interview?
Respek!
My name is Stephen Sackur, and I'm a condescending limousine liberal.
The interviewer asks questions and then interrupts the answer.
@Salt & Pepper Yawn
Just what I thought would be in the background of Sams home.
A chess board, a work of art and a pile of books.
I am guessing he took the photo himself
Sam Harris’s intellect pool contains mother loads of good ideas, patience, facts and sanity. The interviewer was quite good too. He raised what needed to be raised. Sam, on the other hand, was Bruce Lee in the interview flowing like water.
The interviewer is Stephen Sackur, and is one of the best in the world.
Every time Sam starts to make a good point he’s cut off 😂
It's not a monologue, it's hard talk
@@hansfrankfurter2903 if the definition of Hard Talk is to focus on rhetorics rather than content. Exactly the kind of media we don't need.
@@teckyify That describes Sam Harris very well.
Sam Harris out here looking like he's using kpop photo filters
he's not using filters. he's just that sexy.
He’s ben stiller
Lol, looking 10 years younger at least
This would be more interesting if it was an interview instead of a debate.
No it wouldn't You can't blame the interviewer for putting up counterpoints to the interviewee's positions. Otherwise you get something like Hannity interviewing Trump. Not very interesting at all. This wasn't a bad interview, and I think Sam got his points across pretty effectively.
It’s called hard talk lol. I thought it was a productive interaction of good and bad ideas
This interviewer didn’t listen to a word Sam said.
Actually he did. He is as lot tougher than this normally. I could tell from Stephens facial expressions and body language that he basically agreed with everything Sam said. It is his job to ask difficult questions. I think Sam picked up on that.
I actually thought the opposite. He seemed pretty tuned in. Remember also that this is cut and edited some so it isn't a straight conversation as portrayed.
He did a very good job by asking hard questions. It's what he's supposed to do.
The complaint I have with the interviewer isn't at all about how adversarial he is, in fact that's awesome. The problem is they cut all of Sam's answers short.
Sam is an intellectual juggernaut.
Perhaps Stephen should bring Sam more often so Sam can hear more of what Stephen has to say.
I've been listening to Sam Harris for years, I put him up there with Christopher Hitchins and Steven Fry. On a lighter note, does anyone else think he looks like Parker from Thunderbirds?
No, that's Peter Hitchens (Parker) you're thinking of. Christopher Hitchens brother
@Snappy Ape the murder of elected politicians? Such as who?
@Snappy Ape that's very interesting! I expected more from Fry. It's unbelievable how extreme some of these people are. no wonder people are so intimidated into voting for collectivist causes; they are scared of the mob... I am becoming less a democrat and more republican by the day. I with the UK had a constitution with free speech written in stone for example!
Sam did an excellent job in this interview. The design of this show is to play a hostile Devils advocate but Sam remained calm and had a reasonable answer for everything.
There was nothing hostile about the interviewer, you people just aren't used to seeing Sam get critically questioned.
Its not the hard questions that "us people" are pushing back on, its the unnecessarily condescending and obnoxious attitude that they are being delivered with. Nonetheless it was a worthwhile discussion.
@@eddyf4426 There was nothing obnoxious or condescending about his questions though. He was exactly what I'd expect from an interviewer asking to the point questions.
@@Solidude4 Perhaps its a UK/North American thing (I'm a Canuck, we are more sensitive ;), but clearly there are many others in this thread that feel the interviewer was unnecessarily salty in his presentation. If this was a buddy of mine that I was discussing with, I would tell him to stop being such a jerk as the conversation wouldn't be as enjoyable if he adopted a more measured and respectful tone as I try to employ when I often have these candid and frank types of discussions with my peers. Maybe they are trying to get more ratings but this is not the kind of style that I would personally support.. just my preference as others do it better in my opinion.
@@eddyf4426 Yes many of you feel that way, and I feel the same is true of all of you. Your issue is that you're not used to seeing Sam Harris get directly critiqued without having his feelings coddled.
I like this Stephen Sackur. He asks hard questions without there being any impression of journalistic bias. If they're leading questions, or gotchya questions, it's only because they're oft repeated public criticisms of Harris. What good journalism.
I think Harris might have a tendency to conflate 'colonialism' and 'racism' in an equal and opposite way to his detractors. The issues are surely ideological ones, and solutions are surely being overlooked due to a bias toward Western European traditions. Ironically, this includes the tendency of many on the left to overvalue thinkers like Marx, Engels, Hegel, et al.
I knew he was going to say baby in the bathwater 😂
Why are people throwing out bathwater. Don't we have plugholes these days?
It's baby with the bathwater
Bru Swain Ah so it is 🏳️
Sorry for being pedantic
Bru Swain That’s quite alright, I’m glad I resisted the urge to write something sarcastic in reply 😂 I wouldn’t of meant anything by it but the perils of getting across tone and intent on the internet made me think better of it! Have a good day sir :)
I can tell this has been heavily edited - Sam is being cut off before he finishes his points, is the full interview on youtube?
@@richardwillford2418 I do hope Sam took his own record.
Surely Sam didn't expect to get a fair hearing at the far left BBC.
I used to love BBC's HardTalk but am now seeing how very shallow it is. It is much better to listen to podcasts directly rather than bother with these interviews...
OK, I take that back... it is OK as far as BBC interviews go these days...and at least he still interviews interesting people and doesn't heed to who has and hasn't been "cancelled".
This is a great interview. This programme is literally called “hardtalk”. It is the job of the interviewer to challenge Sam, and he did this very well. Sam kept making good points, but the interviewer thought on his feet and was able to really engage and ask insightful, relevant questions. Journalism like this should be applauded.
You’re an imbecile.
Nope, he cut him off before he’d finished his point countless times, created strawman arguments and mischaracterised the guest countless times. The BBC is a farce.
I thought the interviewer done a great job . They covered a lot of ground in a short space of time. Sam's responses were incredibly intelligent.
Sam should release the full unedited version of this interview. If he can.
@D D lmao you need to chill brah. I have zeeeeero criticism I merely stated Sam should release the unedited version if he can. I assume, like most pretaped tv interviews, it was edited. I could be wrong.
Jesus people need to chill and give others the benefit of the doubt before jumping down their throats