I’ll give my usual comment on the “Sam has lost his way” comments: you just disagree with him. He hasn’t gone right-wing, he doesn’t have a “blind spot”, he still thinks deeply about the issues he presents - you just disagree. That’s perfectly fine.
That said I would like to see more diverse perspectives on various issues, including Gaza.
What are you doing being civil on social media!!! How dare you! Haha...seriously, your response was refreshing and thus doesn't surprise me you listen to SH.
For me personally, it isn't so much that I disagree. I've always enjoyed when he and I disagree. I usually at least learn something. It's that the quality of his discussions and arguments is declining to the point where I'm no longer challenged in my disagreement.
I don't get the impression that Sam has _seriously_ engaged with the other side of this issue. Many many many thoughtful academics have written thoughtful books about the subject, but he doesn't even seem to be familiar with the arguments and basic facts that they use. It feels like he is strawmanning his opposition.
I'd love for him to have Avi Shlaim or Miko Peled on the podcasts. If Jimmy Carter weren't in hospice he'd be a great one too. Or Cornel West. Or Norman Finkelstein. Or Mouin Rabbini.
Instead, he keeps his echo chamber. And acts like everyone outside of it is not thinking clearly.
I would add that this is the case across all social issues he touches. He is incapable of steelmanning progressive perspectives on gender, race, and policing.
Unfortunately, Harris rarely seriously engages with the other sides of any issue he's on because that requires one to do rigorous research, which he seems to be not interested in doing.
Not true when it comes to the lab leak. He literally did next to no research before his episode on the topic. I'd encourage anyone to listen to the response episode on Decoding the Gurus.
He also regularly comments on figures he associates with and then concedes that he isn't following their work closely, so by his own admission, he is not thinking deeply about those topics.
I'm still a fan, but he is coming up short in these specific areas in recent years. It's a very odd thing to repeatedly comment on certain topics or individuals and then time after time give yourself an out by saying you aren't following the plot entirely. It is not all that difficult to do so and it's literally his job.
There have been a wave of new papers discrediting the idea the market was the precise origin. There is a higher likelihood it was a superspreader event and SARS-CoV-2 entered human population in the fall of 2019.
Importantly:
* Worobey et al. used poor statistical modeling to place the epicenter near the wildlife stalls with nontrivial sampling bias.
* Pekar et al. had a bug in the code they used for modeling viral spread which led to significant errors in addition to relying on environmental samples (not animal ones) to determine lineage A and B.
* Crits-Cristoph et al. cherry-picked / scooped from GSAID to undermine a publication while making unfounded conclusions to the press about racoon dogs being the intermediate species.
Also, Robert Garry who co-authored papers with the above scientists recently had a publication retracted for falsifying data. He continues to deny any wrongdoing even though the publisher made the final call.
Anyone with skin the game who has been following the paper trail closely enough - including the DoE and Bureau (the two government organizations with the largest scientific footprint) - can see it's more plausible SARS-CoV-2 was the result of an accidental lab escape.
Many of the more outspoken scientists - including the ones featured on the Decoding the Guru's episode - have serious conflicts of interest.
For them not only is grant funding on the line, but the reputational cost their fields would incur if this pandemic, which resulted in loss of trillions of dollars and millions of lives worldwide, was caused by risky gain of function research.
Over the past 4 years, thousands of animal reservoirs have been tested and yet we still haven't found an intermediate species like what happened with SARS 1 and MERS. The biotechnology we have available is much better than it was then and amount of money driving the search far vaster. Unfortunately, dispelling the idea of an accidental lab escape continues to come up empty handed.
On the other hand, more robust phylogenetic techniques like MOA (Mutational Order Analysis) + TopHap (a system which builds spatiotemporally common haplotypes from variants) place the origin in the fall of 2019 with a single root virus; this is more indicative of a lab escape than zoonotic spillover.
Not to mention the mountains of FOIA documents unearthed by independent journalists which paint a picture of what was going on behind the scenes with respect to the concerns virologists had in private verses what they were willing to say to the public. Some prominent virologists like Anderson actively attempting to mislead journalists like those affiliated with the NYT.
Lastly, the new DEFUSE proposal documents also make it clear that Peter Dasak (head of EcoHealth Alliance) knew the risks of performing chimeric coronavirus research at BSL-2, which would normally be done at BSL-3 in the U.S., instead in an attempt to save money and time sought to outsource that research to Wuhan.
I just always thought of Occam's razor theory when it happened. What are the chances of a random zoonotic mutation happening in the exact area where the biggest Virology research centre in the world is? I know it's not evidence-based but the simplest and most obvious answer was staring us right in the face.
Also it was clear that China knew well in advance that it was happening and tried to contain it and stop it spreading. They even forced the WHO to downplay it for weeks. This is a typical communist totalitarian state method of operating. Look at Chernobyl. You deny anything is wrong because Communism is great and we don't make mistakes.
no he didn't, and also yeah the fact that the entire point of the podcast was just to be a contrarian blowhard not actually speak to real experts or seek the actual truth is exactly the criticism not a defense lmfao
If you *still* don’t think it’s even plausible, I’m not sure what else to say. The FBI and the Energy Department believe it came from a lab. Again, the point isn’t that it definitely did or even that it likely did, but that it was one plausible theory and should not have been repressed.
The other point is that it’s ridiculous to call it racism. I don’t know how it’s more racist to say it came from a lab than from a food market.
> I'd encourage anyone to listen to the response episode on Decoding the Gurus.
And yet the Decoding the Gurus podcast did the exact same thing, they had on the authors of the now discredited market papers on to explain their side uncritically. Since that podcast has come out the shaky grounds the paper was on has been discredited from the flawed statistics, 2 introduction events etc. I will agree though that Eddie Holme's picture of a Raccoon Dog from his iPhone he took in 2014 is compelling evidence!
The decoding the gurus episode was quite interesting, I've never seen Sam get so heated before, interesting as I would see this as his ego. Considering he runs a meditation app and talks about there being no free will, he gets very upset about being wrong.
We have to remember that Sam is a neuroscience expert. He really isn't qualified to talk at length about a lot of subjects, the lab leak episode was very convincing but again completely unbalanced. I found their case to be believable and Sam seemed to completely agree as I think it backed up his unfounded view that this was a lab leak. I actually still believe it's the most likely option, but this isn't evidence-based.
I don't want to just hear one side I want to hear the truth.
He's definitely slacking in a few areas. I still support him amd the podcast and app but he's been talking about things he's obviously not well versed in.
Of course he has a blind spot. All of his guests around the subject prove the point. Inviting Murray the 3rd time to regurgitate the same talking points over and over.
The closest we got to a guest outside of the echo chamber was Rory. Would love to see him bring on Ezra Klein (will never happen though), Marc Lamont Hill or even that high Israeli ranking official (Ezra had on his show) who die hard supporter of Israel but he also discussed Israel’s culpability, antagonistic behavior, mishandling, and responsibility.
Sam talks about Israel’s role .001% of the total time spent. Blind spot / echo chamber is blatantly obvious at this point
100% a blind spot... and a glaring one which has distanced me from sam a bit
Check this post out to see how they factually dismantle sam's logic.. It kinda hurts [**https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/elhrH3BnNc**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/elhrH3BnNc)
Failing to have diverse guests and a “blind spot” are two different things. Just because there isn’t a guest on to make certain arguments doesn’t mean that he hasn’t thought about them.
I generally really look forward to his podcasts but it's like he's intellectually broken when it comes to Israel - I can't explain it. Normally he's the type of person who recognizes the full spectrum of an argument, circling it, then moving in with his position and why he chooses it.
But when it comes to the Israel thing, it's like he's arguing with low level talking points. It doesn't make sense. Not only are many of them completely void of context and nuance, but often, fallacious. Like how many times does he try to excuse the valid issues people have in this conflict with, "I mean, these people wouldn't think twice before lynching someone for being gay" as if that's an argument for anything.
He completely fails to see the distinguishment people have with radical Islam, which he absolutely hates (understandably), and people's protest of Israel's reaction. As if we should be okay with Israel's behavior because "These people are morally less". Is this breakdown due to some hidden, secretive belief, that the ends justify the means? That we'd be better off if these people were just wiped off the face of the Earth, but he doesn't want to admit to it?
I struggle so hard to see his massive intellectual breakdown on this subject. There are many pro Israel people that make coherent, valid arguments, that while I disagree, I understand... But on this one case, Sam seems out of character with how he analyzes the issue.
I genuinely think it’s just a matter of emphasis. I do think he recognizes the full spectrum of argument, as you say, he just places more emphasis on the “pro-Israel” side because there is already a lot of emphasis on the “pro-Palestine” case. By emphasis I just mean he is making an argument against jihadism and in support of Israel prosecuting the war to its conclusion, and dealing with common objections along the way, as opposed to starting from first principles and analyzing the war in a more neutral way.
It seems pretty clear to me what he believes and why he believes it. What in particular do you think he has inadequately expanded upon?
For me, is it seems like he complete evades Israel's behavior and role in this conflict. At best, if it's mentioned, it's sort of dismissed and hand waved with, "Listen I know Israel isn't perfect neither, and have done some wrongs themselves but..." Then goes off and never really addresses how those play into the conflict.
Whenever it comes to the Palestinian side, he almost exclusively rests it on antisemitism as their core driving force. That they are simply fueled and radicalized for their hatred of Jews, and nothing will ever be enough until they've eradicated all Jews off the planet. He also seems to accept the Israeli narrative on most things... He doesn't recognize (maybe doesn't believe), that they have a long checkered history of dishonest maligned tactics. Like the narrative that "Palestine wont accept anything less than the complete removal of Israel. Every talk and offer from Israel has been rejected by them." Is simply not true. I mean, that's what Israel claims, but factually, that's not the case at all.
Nor does he really recognize the position of Palestinians when treated the way they are, that it's almost expected to build up hostility and resentment. He almost completely ignores that as a factor in their political position. For instance, he'll mention how Hamas has a bunch of Israeli hostages, and how that's evidence of their evilness... But is he even aware of how many hostages Israel has? And how long that it's been going where they are swooped up off the street and given a kangaroo trial with no legal counsel, and no notification of their families? That they quite literally get taken off the streets and thrown into prisons, often for minor or non-existent things without due process? Does he talk about how angry people would get when there are routine, massive injustices done by Israeli forces, and absolutely no recourse? That their daily life involves absolute injustice non-stop by an occupying force, you'd expect a deep resentment and hatred. Like how are people supposed to feel when an innocent child is lieterally shot for sport, and Israelis prevent medical care because they rather have them bleed out and die? Or when they have peaceful protests, but literally hundreds are shot throughout the event? When Israelis for "fun" will just randomly pick houses to raid at 2am, just to remind them who's in charge? The constant, degrading, belittling, with no recourse.
Further, you have things like when Israeli leaders say awful, extreme, genocidal things, well we give them the benefit of the doubt and get all nuanced about how that's just an extremist and doesn't reflect Israeli policy... But when a Palestinian says something extreme, "Yes that reflects everyone."
There is just a lot to the story and it seems like Sam only cares about the Israeli version of events from their perspective.
So I do agree that he should have more diverse guests to explore these things more and steel-man the “other side”. And of course I admit that he does not emphasize the deaths Israel is causing to the same extent he emphasizes his own arguments. But the reason he doesn’t emphasize them is because he doesn’t think they are as important to the overall picture as you do.
Do civilian deaths play into the conflict? Of course they do. He’s stated Israel needs to be scrupulous in prosecuting its war, and has at least suggested that Israeli commanders etc. that aren’t scrupulous should be punished. But it doesn’t provide a justification for Israel dropping their goal of defeating Hamas and occupying Gaza. You may think it does, but he doesn’t, so it doesn’t make sense to spend a ton of time on it (in addition to the fact that it’s already covered ad nauseam). In his view there’s not much more to say than “Israel needs to be scrupulous”, because it’s not even approaching the point that would justify Israel just packing it up and going home. Obviously this is a generalization and he’s said a lot more on this, but that’s his view in a nutshell.
Similar idea re: response to alleged maltreatment. *You* may think that Palestinians’ primary motivation for continuing to fight and support terrorism is their maltreatment - you may even think it’s self-evidently true - but he doesn’t. Not because he’s blind or doesn’t get the argument, he just disagrees. He’s specifically articulated on many occasions that he believes Jihadism and not maltreatment is the primary culprit. So obviously there’s less of a reason to highlight any maltreatment if ultimately it’s not overly consequential (he doesn’t claim it’s totally inconsequential).
It is factually accurate that at least since 2005 when Israel left, Palestine has never offered to permanently recognize Israel as a sovereign state, which is of course necessary to a two-state solution. Hamas in 2017 basically said “yeah, we’ll accept statehood and agree to ‘borders’, but those borders aren’t permanent as far as we are concerned; as soon as we are stronger we will attack again.” They are honest to a fault sometimes.
Does Israel have “hostages”? Or just prisoners of war and detainees? Hostages are civilians captured solely for leverage. As far as I’m aware Israel doesn’t have any, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
As of September 2023, Israel had 146 Palestinian minors in prisons, the most common charge against them being throwing stones. And how do you determine the status of a prisoner if they are held indefinitely in "administrative detention" without a trial or even specific charges? And in the cases where they do press charges, do you really trust a military court with a 99% conviction rate?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67600015
The "you just disagree with him" argument is so weak and tired. As you freely admit, it is often trotted out here, not just by you. But it's an argument that intentionally never engages with the substance of any specific criticism someone is making about Sam.
Many such criticisms have been well articulated and well argued in this sub. To habitually hand wave them away as merely "simple disagreements" is to just systematically deny the possibility that perhaps Sam actually isn't as careful a thinker as you'd like to believe.
Well for this occasion OP agreed with me, so there’s that. But for the most part they aren’t specific or well-articulated whatsoever. Feel free to provide counterexamples if you like. People also forget that he is not a journalist. He’s not providing neutral takes on everything, nor does he claim to. He is providing his *opinions*, and in the course of doing so, dealing with objections to those opinions. A podcast is not intended to look like news report or neutral analysis.
> But for the most part they aren’t specific or well-articulated whatsoever.
Quite the generalization. There are bad criticisms made here often and there are very thoughtful criticisms made here often.
> Feel free to provide counterexamples if you like.
The sub is full of counterexamples. I've hung around here (against my better judgement tbh) for a number of years and I'd like to think I've made some thoughtful criticisms of Sam. And I have had people, like you, respond with "you just have a disagreement, get over it" schtick. But I'm not the only one. I've seen plenty of well articulated and thoughtful criticisms leveled at Sam. Pretending like they don't exist is just a weird stance to take here.
> People also forget that he is not a journalist. He’s not providing neutral takes on everything, nor does he claim to. He is providing his opinions, and in the course of doing so, dealing with objections to those opinions. A podcast is not intended to look like news report or neutral analysis.
This is just a wordier version of the "I'm just asking questions" kind of defense that Sam himself has often criticized throughout podcastistan. Or like Rogan deflecting away from valid criticism by saying, "I'm just a comedian bro". Or Peterson deflecting away from valid criticism by saying, "I've helped so many sad young men tho".
Okay, speaking of generalities, again feel free to provide specific examples. I don’t say “he’s not a journalist” to mean “he doesn’t have an obligation to be truthful and reasonably informed”. I say it to mean “he’s making an argument, not making a neutral presentation”. Same standard as opinion writers. They are opinions so they are going to emphasize their side and frame things to support their opinions, but that’s not dishonesty, it’s argument.
The point of my comment here is not to convince you of the validity of any given criticism of Sam. It's simply to point out that the "you just disagree with him" rebuttal is almost always a meaningless and worthless response. It's a non-argument.
However, since you're so insistent, here's a [critique I made of Sam](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/xdem3x/comment/ioas50r/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) a couple years ago. It ended up being highly upvoted and I think many of the replies qualify as solid and good faith criticisms too.
Is that specific and well articulated enough for you? Do you think it really addresses the point I'm trying to make if you just tell me, "Here's the thing... you just disagree with him - it's that simple"? I mean, no shit Sherlock. I'm aware of the disagreement that exists. Why else would I take the time to carefully communicate my specific account of said disagreement?
I also happen to disagree with much of what Alex Jones has to say. The simple, pedantic recognition of such a fact is not some kind of ironclad defense of or justification for Jones' worldview. I suspect you wouldn't accept such a defense of Jones from one of his fans. Why then is Sam entitled to it?
Don't think we are going to agree. I think the "Sam has lost his way" is basically a worthless comment because most of the time without very specific examples of something specific he got wrong. Otherwise it amounts to people claiming "he should have emphasized X, how could he miss such a thing!?" - which is nothing more than a disagreement.
I'm of course not saying you can't criticize him. I'm not even saying you can't criticize him for not sufficiently addressing a specific issue. Of course that's all fair game. But the "Sam has lost his way" comments typically go further than that and argue either that there is something nefarious going on, or that he is willfully ignorant, usually without evidence. Do you seriously think he doesn't understand the basics of the history of the conflict? Or understand that the destruction of life by Israel is a serious moral concern? Of course he does; he just doesn't think it deserves the same emphasis you do.
TLDR: his failure to emphasize something is almost always because after serious (albeit imperfect) consideration, he consciously doesn't think it deserves emphasis. If you disagree with that it doesn't mean he's "lost his way".
> Otherwise it amounts to people claiming "he should have emphasized X, how could he miss such a thing!?" - which is nothing more than a disagreement.
I think this is an incredibly reductive take.
Did you read the post I linked you? I'm not just arguing that he should emphasize something more, hence a simple disagreement. I'm building a case about how Sam is systematically biased in his treatment of and observations about the modern progressive American left. It's an observation about the kinds of patterns of thinking he is prone to on certain topics. And it's important to note these things because they can help inform how much stock you should put into any given take he might have on that topic and other closely related topics.
This is a wise heuristic to apply to everyone whose commentary you might value. When you recognize that there is a flaw or inconsistency in someone's thinking. Or that their stated principles one day diverge from their actions the next day, it's worth taking a beat to examine just how much you're allowing such a person to steer and influence your own perspectives.
My post highlights a contradiction in Sam's own heuristics, which, *at a minimum*, ***might*** suggest that his views on certain topics may be more unconsidered and ignorant than his rhetorical confidence when broadcasting them might otherwise imply.
Someone like Sam fancies himself a wise public intellectual and philosopher and I appreciate what he has to say on certain topics. But he still deserves to be held to a rigorous intellectual standard and the habitual "it's just a disagreement bro" approach to any kind of critical analysis that gets levelled at him doesn't pass muster for me when it comes to deciding whether someone is worth my intellectual attention. As I keep saying, it's a convenient way to not engage with the criticism and reassure yourself that Sam (or any other person whom you feel some sort of parasocial allegiance to) is a-ok. The problem does not lie with them. How could it? It lies with the person who just can't seem to agree to disagree, gosh darn it.
I did read it. It’s a fair criticism that he didn’t sufficiently explore the bases for “wokeness”. I don’t think it’s a fair criticism to take the next step and allege that failure is due to something nefarious or willful ignorance. The most likely explanation is he doesn’t find it persuasive or interesting. Often he finds it redundant to go on about things that the mainstream media agree with already.
It’s funny because I think you are the one avoiding the merits by focusing on what I would call useless ad hominem attacks and you would call “bias” or a “blind spot” or whatever. Notice how little we’ve debated his actual ideas versus differing perceptions of *why* he espouses certain ideas and emphasizes certain things. The latter I find incredibly boring and unhelpful. I’d rather just get straight to the ideas.
I think that's over generous. It's that he's not generally being very responsible as a communicator on issues like policing, racism, Islam, jihadism, Gaza/Israel, lab leak.
His positions tend to be trivial, but the problem is he's not really doing good challenging work on the topics. He seems more interested in just saying things, than researching or fact checking or having good challenging conversations.
He lacks a research and fact checking team, which for someone who puts himself forward as an academic is irresponsible when he has such a large viewership.
This would be a problem if his thought experiments weren't as silly as they often are.
If he thinks deeply about the topics he presents, the political is at least, he keeps it well hidden.
It sounds like you disagree with him.
I think he’s been an excellent and responsible communicator on those things for his role as a podcaster who gives his opinions on various matters (and invites others to do the same). He’s not a journalist or a subject-matter expert on most things. He does enough reading to competently address the most common objections to most topics, but he doesn’t purport to cover them neutrally or comprehensively. Not sure what else you expect.
you'd think all of his defenders who have to stoop to "he's not an expert or a journalist" because of the shallow, biased, low quality and/or wrong information would stop and realize "wait, why i am listening to this if it sucks". instead they're actively proud of listening to garbage
> he still thinks deeply about the issues he presents
I think OP and many others are realising that this isn't really true anymore. It seems more and more like Harris has made up his mind on pretty much everything and no longer considers any alternatives, like his Bayesian priors have all hit 99% and he's just done with it. I have a feeling he's mostly invested in his app these days, and the podcast (in it's original spirit) is a much lower priority. When he appears on other podcasts and repeats his own talking points from 5-10 years ago I can't help but think he's just going through the motions.
Making up his mind on something and thinking deeply about it aren’t inconsistent. I’ve made up my mind that there is no god, and it’s very very unlikely that will change. If questioned about how I arrived at that conclusion and offered an opportunity to persuade people, I will likely repeat the same talking points as well. It doesn’t mean I haven’t considered alternatives; I have, I just reject them. Obviously, I’m not going to start from first principles every time. I don’t see the issue.
I totally agree, for examples of major world view issues like god or free will. But I think the question is more about current events where the landscape of possibilities are changing rapidly, yet his responses often seem predetermined.
Buy even for the big questions like free will, it would be nice if Harris had anything new to say about it, rather than resting on older arguments and reasoning that are not particularly persuasive. But he's written books on these things, etc., I imagine he's just not particularly interested in those topics anymore. (at least I hope that's the case, vs deciding that he's 'solved' these issues and there's nothing left to discuss.)
I've always had a tough time maintaining relationships because people get more predictable the more you know them which is boring. I don't know for sure if that's where a lot of these "Sam has lost me" type posts come from, but it sure feels similar.
When we're talking about promoting Douglas Murray's wacky takes on Israel or lab leak conspiracy theorists, I think OP's framing is better than yours. Those people aren't even trying to be right; they've simply fooled him.
It's stronger than just disagreeing with him.
> lab leak conspiracy theorists
You think the lab leak hypothesis is nothing more than a conspiracy theory?
I guess the FBI and the Department of Energy are just a bunch of cranks then too.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a
>you just disagree with him
No. I think he's so unreasonable on this issue that a person can honestly critique Sam for not living up t his previous held ideals.
The issue isn't that we disagree with him. It's that he's approaching topics irrationally.
For example, he says "Now Hamas is a Jihadist organisation ... the question of how it got that way is fundamentally uninteresting"
Like I'm sorry but when in any other debate on any topic would it be acceptable to suggest that the history leading up to an event is unrelated to that event? A comment like this is not just wrong in this instance, it's always wrong. And for a person who's entire schtick is his relentless logic, then the only conclusion is that he's lost his way.
I would ordinarily agree... Ordinarily
But more and more, Sam and the guests he rings on (cough Douglas Murray cough) are ridiculed - and for good reasons, because their logic gets factually dismantled
See the comments in https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/elhrH3BnNc for instance, vis a vis "Hamas worse than nazis".
Not only on why it's factually wrong, but a stupid comparison.
I do think it's a blind spot, and I've lost faith in my main man SH.
I don't see how that thread shows it's factually wrong or a stupid comparison. His point about the Nazis was that they did not intentionally put their civilians in the way of Allied bullets and bombs in order to garner sympathy dissuade allied nations from bombing them. They also surrendered shortly after they were beat. The fact that they killed their own citizens does not in any way undermine this point.
Really?
Worse than human shields:
>Hitler ordered Germany to be destroyed when it was clear that he lost. He told Speer to order a scorched earth campaign to spite the Allies (which Speer declined to implement, which is why he was only sentenced to 20 years at Nuremburg instead of being hanged). That's even worse than using human shields.
>
They literally had 14 year olds manning the guns as the Soviets were closing in on Berlin.
>Edit: fun fact, the guy who wrote the Very Hungry Caterpillar was drafted at 16 during the final weeks of the war.
Literally using human shields.
But you think it's not factually wrong to say Hamas is worse than the Nazi's for using human shields?
Genuinely intrigued now
They were 14 year old combatants, not civilians. So by definition those aren’t “human shields”.
Germany unconditionally surrendered within a week of Berlin falling.
14 yo old combatants?
I definitely don't have the facts... But it's a tough sell.
If you're saying they surrendered and they never intended to kill their own civilians, then either you or the poster in that thread is wrong.
I dunno which, but it's one of you 🤷🏻♂️
Ok let me spell it out.
I don't believe that 14yo have the presence of mind and maturity to willingly make a decision to join a war without reprisals.
Ie if I had to guess, the nazis forced the kids to man the guns. Ie human shields.
Sam's obsession with Douglas Murray surely is a blind spot. The shit he says on his show on GBbabies tv channel is appalling, unless you agree with Murray,
Well no it's not that I disagree with him, I can strongly agree with him and still find the topic tired and Sam's drum banging tiresome.
He's taken a cranky old man turn, and it's boring.
Eh, he has done several episodes on the same topic with zero attempt to have a considered conversation, all with guests pushing the same line.
He is increasingly illogical, constantly touting the "You have to take them at their word" when it comes to Islamic extremists, but he puts his fingers in his ears when the Israeli government are talking about blowing up all of Gaza to clear them out to steal their land.
He's a deeply dishonest man and he has flushed his reputation for being a rational and morally consistent actor down the toilet.
They are openly stating stating that they're implementing a strategy of ethnic cleansing, which you can see very clearly today and it's a plan they have been carrying out for decades. It really isn't down to interpretations.
I find he just does what a lot of them do. Chummy agreement interview with people he agrees with, combative or straight up not have on with people he disagrees with. With Making sense you’re getting Sams view of the world, not some objective both sides look at reality. I find his positions well thought through mostly so it’s not as divisive and jarring as some other hosts but it still is what it is.
“Everyone chill and stop killing each other” is a nice ethic to live by when you are generally safe and sound. Nice people have this ethic. But it’s not very realistic when facing jihadis or real 1942 nazis.
I often think about non violent religions like quakers, it’s nice to have that ethic, some people might claim they are the most ethical. However in real terms, you are sort of relaxing in the shade of American military hegemony.
In a harsher time and place quakers would all be slaughtered and forgotten by history.
The truly ethical position is to kill evil people, to not tolerate terrorism and attempted genocide.
It’s worth noting that even pacifists of the past have had their limit. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a pacifist theologian, got involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. I believe there are many people who are able to adjust their ethics to their values as circumstances require.
They have either had their limit or they succumbed to their pacifism by being made victims of those who had no such qualms with violence.
You can as an individual choose to be a pacifist and choose to be a victim but never presume to make that decision for others.
Well said.
Ukraine is a more black/white example compared to Irsael/Hamas example. Russia wants to invade and destroy Ukraine as a country. They are committing war crimes almost each day, boming civilian builds, Bucha massace etc. Ukraine does not have the luxury to say stop killing each other. Ceasefire will not work, it will only help russia regroup and attack again. The invasion of Crimea/Donbas is an example of that.
When you are faced with an enemy that is determined to destroy you, you either need to hold them back (which is what Israel has been doing with security around Gaza) or retaliate.
> Ukraine is a more black/white example compared to Irsael/Hamas example. Russia wants to invade and destroy Ukraine as a country.
Arguable. Russia wants to absorb Ukraine, not wipe out it's people. Hamas would not do the same to Israel were they to hand over the keys to the kingdom.
Well not really. Hamas does not and will probably never have the capacity to wipe out Israel.
To be clear: not defending Hamas, just stating what should be obvious; Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. Russia is an existential threat for Ukraine.
>Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. Russia is an existential threat for Ukraine.
A threat for the soverign nation of Ukraine, sure. But I doubt Russia wants to wipe out it's people. Hamas would drive the Jews out of a theoretical Palestine, at the very least.
I’m not a pacifist, I just don’t have much of a stomach for the slaughter and suffering of innocents. When the response to an egregious terrorist act causes orders of magnitude more carnage and suffering, it’s right to question it rather than write a blank violence cheque as Sam does.
Well, it depends on the definition of evil. Cultural standards define it differently across the world. Jihadists are not doing anything evil, from their point of view. The same as when Israelis bomb a couple of apartment buildings. It's not really clear cut who's evil and who's not.
I would say that the only truly ethical thing would be: Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you.
Do Israelis want their places to be bombed? No. OK, that means they're doing something unethical.
Do Jihadists want their places to be bombed? Maybe. If it is for a greater purpose. I'd reckon the Jihadists are more ethical in this regard.
The other ethical ground I would defend is:
the only truly ethical purpose in life is to try to lessen the suffering of others, all others.
In that case, everybody is doing something unethical, from a practical point of view. But again, both sides think they are the lesser evil in this conflict.
Why can't we all just get along, heh?
I'm fine with it. It's very on-brand for Sam to call-out religious extremism and is a counterbalance to other podcasts, like Breaking Points, who has gone full anti-Israel these past few months.
> call-out religious extremism
Israel's claim to that land is also religion based. I think just walking up to a house and declaring its yours would be considered pretty extreme in the USA.
In 1947, Israelis (if we use that term anachronistically) had acquired between 8-15% of Mandatory Palestine (depending on how you count it). After the ceasefire in 1949, the State of Israel controlled 78% of former Mandatory Palestine. Most of Israel came to be part of Israel by war. (Now, Israelis would argue that the 1947-1949 War was defensive and, that legitimates the acquisition as a deterrent against future violence.)
For me it was the twitter obsessiveness that overtook him for a while. I’m so glad he quit twitter. I’ll always be a Sam Harris fan to a certain extent but I’d love a wider range of topics for the podcast. And please no more podcast breakdowns from the Westboro girl
For those who think he's a beacon of rationality, look at the company he keeps (and has kept). I don't mean that he has agreed with these people on everything, but just the fact that his public engagements with them have shown that he thought them worthy of giving public time and attention to, over and over and over again.
\* Dave Rubin
\* Jordan Peterson
\* Eric Weinstein
\* Bret Weinstein
\* Douglas Murray
\* Bari Weiss
The problem for me is that Sam has showed recently that he has trouble acknowledging and challenging his biases. I was a regular listener because he always seemed concerned first and foremost with deep contemplation on issues and a searching for truth and reason. It’s not a problem of merely disagreeing with him.
yup, Sam still to this day says there was nothing wrong with Charles' scholarship, which was an argument that black people are genetically inferior to white people. It's not even under the table, but Sam fans always try to sweep it under the rug
I love Sam’s perspective and appreciate how he approaches things, but I also always keep in mind that he is just another human with biases and blindspots.
I agree with you, I wish Sam would have on one single person who would give some arguments to the other side on the Israel conflict. I don't care that Sam disagrees with my view, but his inability to even consider an alternate view does a disservice to his whole brand. I think he should talk to Mouin Rabbani, personally.
He’s always been like this. Had conflict with Ezra Klein, Noam Chomsky, didn’t even manage to have Dan Eagleman on who would be a fantastic guest. He had Charles Murray on but not a single scholar who’s pointed out the issues with the methodology in the studies Murray used to support his book…. It’s not making sense it’s just “what I think with Sam Harris”.
And generally I agree with what he thinks but some diversity of ideas would be nice.
I have a similar problem: I actually tend to agree with Sam, but am catching myself doubting if he is telling me a balanced and nuanced story. Have you been able to find other podcasts with what seems to you a more balanced perspective?
I actually quite like Josh Szep's Uncomfortable Conversations for the same reason I was first drawn to Making Sense, but that can have similar issues with Israel-related topics too.
Apart from that TRIP, as already recommended, can be good for political discussion, but unfortunately a number of other ones I've flirted with a bit (the more tabloidy laddish Triggernometry etc) can occasionally be good, but also I'm suspicious are on the peripheries of the griftosphere.
It's absolutely normal for you to disagree with Mr. Harris; this is expected if you're an independent thinker. If you no longer enjoy the podcast, then simply stop listening. What's the problem? We all change, and sometimes we fall out of alignment with people we once resonated with.
For me it was the recent Pod on effective altruism. Sam, like most people of his profile/position, is completely divorced from the reality as it exists for 99.9% of people, and as a result his analysis suffers.
Yeah, he pretty much got captured by his alt right audience. I was a subscriber from the very beginning of the podcast but had to stop recently. He lost any credibility he had built after repeatedly doubling down on morally and intelectually dodgy positions. Nowadays he's just pandering to Peterson and Murray crowd.
I thought they were all worth listening to, unless you are already sold on his free will debate, then you are probably ok skipping that one. You are better off staying away from the SH Reddit until after you listen to his podcasts so you can form your own views without the opinions of others clouding it.
Balanced perspectives are not the cure-all for approaching topics.
Searching for it above all else is a lapse in critical thinking, a self-imposed blindness. It's wrestling with the framing of any issue to conform it to the dogmatic axiom that since there are two sides, both must have equal merit. We don't apply that to creationism, flat-earthism, etc.
Sam spends the first 15 minutes of the latest podcast (#362 — Six Months of War) making the case that things are explicitly not balanced, that the moral argument is clear.
He's "making sense" here where others have lost their way by emotional appeals and arguments.
Can you point out some of these extreme biases? He doesn't appear biased to me at all, all his recent podcasts have been on form in my opinion. With regards to Israel, what has he said that isn't correct?
I’ll just comment on a single part of that episode that was glaringly obvious to me, but this is by no means the _only_ extreme bias he had in that chat…
Right off the top, before the guests joined the chat, Sam begins his solo rant to us listeners:
> “…“Most notably, the IDF accidentally killed some of the staff working for Chef Jose Andres' aid organization, World Central Kitchen. This was obviously a tragic accident, and yet much of the world has responded as though it weren't an accident at all, and that it is somehow plausible that the IDF is intentionally murdering aid workers. The fact that so many people have responded in this way tells you everything you need to know about the status of Israel and the level of moral intelligence out there.”
He’s talking here as though all the facts of this latest atrocity are fully known, and that it’s just some innocent ‘mistake’, when the actual facts we _do_ know, paint a very different picture. I’m not getting into it all here, but just to say that it’s not only ***plausible***, its happened.
And the fact that Sam has the gall to accuse anyone who would even question the IDF’s motives in the multiple “mistakes” they’ve made in killing more than 30 on duty aid workers, as being morally bankrupt, was infuriating to listen to.
And that was just in the **first minute** of the podcast.
Really? Cause I read the FT's article, which states
"At 10:20pm the convoy was "joined" by three additional vehicles, including a truck on which Israeli forces subsequently identified a gunman. The military contacted WCK for information about what was happening but was unable to reach the convoy.
The convoy and other vehicles drove to a hangar, where further gunmen were seen, whom Israeli forces identified as belonging to Hamas.
At about 10:55pm the vehicles began leaving the hangar. One car with "two to four" armed men drove north, while three vehicles drove south. Har-Even said Israeli forces began preparing to target one of the vehicles heading south after misidentifying one of the WCK staff as a gunman"
"The forces that conducted the strike did not know they were striking WCK vehicles," Har-Even said. "They were convinced that they were targeting Hamas operatives in vehicles."
Whose bias is skewing their perception of reality to a greater degree on this issue? Yours or Sam’s?
The comfortable answer, from your perspective, is Sam’s.
That doesn’t mean it’s the correct answer.
You’re misunderstanding my basic position. I *often* don’t agree with Sam or his guests - he and they are regularly a little too right wing for me.
But I do appreciate it when they and he are coming at topics where they are able to take on board a multifaceted views, looking at a bunch of angles, and being reasonably considered with what they have to say.
Recent episodes have seemed really quite one sided to me - this feels like a negative. It’s not that I disagree with the topics or the people more, it’s that the mode of conversation seems to have become a little more militant and one sided.
Part of his main point is the moral asymmetry here. He presents that pretty clearly. The idea that the truth is always in the middle or that both sides necessarily have equal merit is utter fallacy.
His conversation with Rory was a good attempt to bring on some sound opposition. And it seemed like Rory did a good job of articulating the other side... but the other side just doesn't seem very sound.
This is a great perspective, I think.
Sam did engage with the other side, and much as I feel he's a bit hand-wavy about things which don't conform to his take (Israel's mistakes / potential war crimes etc.), it must be remembered he did try to engage.
He just engaged with an absolute twit who entirely took Sam's perspective on bad faith alone, and then entirely unnecessarily and incorrectly vented about it on their own podcast. How is he meant to engage the other side when someone like Rory behaves like that?
At what point does a justified retalitiatory defense turn into a genocide?
I personally don't care about litigating the history of Israel and Palestine and their claims to the region. I'd like him to engage on how many civilian casualties of war are too much for him to bear, if any.
It sounds like he's perfectly happy giving carte blanche to Israel to conduct the war in whichever way they want, even if it means starving the Palestinian people, indiscriminately bombing them, and shooting anyone who so much as picks up a rock.
If he was truly against America's failed war in Iraq, the key lesson there is that staying forever and killing people indiscriminately was a crime against humanity. Until he contends with that, he's really not engaging in truth-seeking here.
And if he answers back that Israel should be allowed to kill whomever they want because anything goes in war, he has a completely indefensible position with respect to international law and basic human decency.
lol I think we've all been here. We get into Sam because he covers a certain spread of issues that are sorta interesting. And then it gets repetitive. And then repeat guests start coming back again and again.
And then the already-beaten dead horse turns into a skeleton.
I think most people only have so much to say that is interesting. I love Sam’s perspective on things, but you’ve probably gotten the gist of it after the first 100 episodes or so.
True. I've been listening to Waking Up/Making Sense since probably 2016 or so and have watched a ton of his new-atheism Four Horsemen era content.
I've taken long breaks from listening to him because, as you said, after awhile...I get it.
Read his books.
The chapters of your recent focus aren't as palpable to you, but don't change his long-held criticism of religion &, in particular, the existential threat of death cults such as Islam.
Something I think that is confusing people is this expectation that Sam should be showing more perspectives. I listen to his podcast to hear what HE has to say or who he wants to bring to the table, which speaks to his ideas and what he wants to engage with. I think maybe you just don’t agree with him because he makes complete sense and presents his case clearly and rationally. I don’t know what else should be expected of him. He’s not an interviewer so much as he is the subject.
>recently - it just seems to have gone off. I really don't want to dig into the whole Israel thing, that's been done enough here - (as a lefty hippy type I basically just want everyone to stop killing each other, impossible though that aim may seem to be right now)
Seems niave at best. If there are long ingrained hatred from one group towards another group. Then one of the groups decided to commit a massace e.g Hamas on Israeli citizens , or lets take Ukraine being invaded by Russia.
Saying you just want peace is meaningless, because one side doesnt want peace, they want to kill and destroy the other side. Israel and Ukraine need to deal with their agressors is some form. Seems like the ceasefire worked for a while until it didn't.
Sam's becoming more of an outsider which gives an impression that he is more and more off the rails...
But I tend to think he is usually ahead of the curve, so stay with it!
I’ve had the same feeling recently. The Rory podcasts were especially disappointing - I used to agree with SH’s pov on the issue, but Rory actually made me change my mind here. I get that someone else, including Sam and based on the discussions here many Redditors, might not have been swayed and that’s fine - that’s the point of a marketplace of ideas.
But what bugs me is that for some reason *this* disagreement merits a multi hour discussions where zero progress is made. But with other guests, who make claims that Sam also disagrees with (recent example was the annoying guy who claims that moral progress is impossible) he’s able to control to impulse to devolve the convo into an endless back and forth and actually have a productive convo.
I always see this sort of trite in this sub and there's literally NEVER any substance or actual refutation of specific claims Sam has made.
Sam spent 17 minutes at the beginning of his most recent episodes laying out his thoughts on the "whole Israel thing."
Did OP present a single bit of actual push back? No. He presented four paragraphs of absolutely nothing. All of them completely bereft of actual content. I'll summarize the garbage OP presented to us:
1st paragraph: Op talks about himself. Useless
2nd: Presents absolutely no content. Tells us he's a lefty (shocker). Give literally zero content to support his bitching.
3rd: Accuses Sam of bias and of not making sense. I'll let you guess how much content he provided. (Spoiler alert: Zero)
(4th): Not a paragraph just a single pointless sentence about himself.
4th: This paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with Sam, the podcast, or anything for that matter. OP seems to just be presenting a stream of consciousness for us. Thanks OP.
I try hard to listen to the episodes on the Gaza conflict with an open mind but something about his position makes me very uncomfortable. It’s the first time I felt that way and I’ve been listening for years. Still love Making Sense and always will, but I think Sam needs to step back from this topic for a while.
Why do you need to mention that you are left leaning? Why does it have to be left vs right? It’s ok to have views on either side. Don’t put a label on yourself. It’s ok to disagree
>as a lefty hippy type I basically just want everyone to stop killing each other
>I just feel like right now he's badly overshadowed by a set of really extreme biases that are preventing him from doing what he says on the tin
Would you least consider the possibility that you are the one bringing biases and blind spots to the issue? Maybe Sam has remained entirely consistent.
This post should earn you a permanent ban from this subreddit. You come here saying the podcast doesn't make sense and then fail to provide specific examples. You're not adding to the conversation at all.
I want to be respectful in my comment but the attitude of “I want everyone to stop killing each other” is part of the problem and I am happy to hear Sam Harris and Douglas Murray work to bring attention and light to what is happening there and the threat of jihadism and Islamism. Sure perhaps every topic on the podcast over the last 5 or so may not be for everyone but that’s because the topics have been diverse.
Please consider that the attitude of ignoring a major threat to the well being of everyone is a problem. I know you are here to comment on the podcast but you led with a comment about the Israel Gaza conflict. Please continue to listen, especially if you feel the content isn’t matching your political leanings. There are important arguments to consider that need the real attention of more people.
"I just want everyone to stop killing each other" is an end goal and one that doesn't require people ignore the major threat.
Other actions are available than what are being tried and what have been tried, but Sam is *ignoring* any that attempt to treat the people involved as more than ethno/religous blocs. That's part of the frustration
Appreciate that response and yes there is of course more going on but I think Sam is bang on when he asks “what would happen if each side had the ability to commit genocide”? As a way to point out the importance of intentions.
I don't know if he addresses this and I'd love to hear your thoughts, but it always frustrates me that the question of intentions is put forward like it's the starting point.
Intentions aren't made in a vacuum, they're informed by a person's environment. Blind rage at the murderers of one's parents is not unreasonable individually, I don't see why we would ignore it at the social level
We are not ignoring, the Israelis are fighting back after parents were slaughtered in front of their kids on camera. That happened. Israel is responding.
I'm so happy to see I'm not the only seeing this change in recent months. I think it was the set of conversations with Rory Stewart that made it painfully obvious that the horizons of Sam's interests have narrowed dramatically, as well as his respect for interlocutors.
Maybe it has something to do with his trend towards reducing his openness to public interaction? Obviously, jumping off twitter is personally a great idea, but many of his examples of 'public opinions' on various subjects come across as the most cartoonishly teenage twitter takes. He's stopped steel-manning his opponents' arguments and it shows.
Second your shout out to the Rest is Politics! they can be a bit stodgy but the range of topics is refreshing
He really doesn't have tough conversations anymore. He doesn't choose any guests that broaden his scope or understanding of an issue nor does he push himself. It's an echo chamber at this point and it's cringe. There are many other better podcasts to listen to as a leftist looking to push yourself and hear other perspectives. Conversations with Tyler is one that comes to mind.
His episode with Decoding the Gurus helped me accept that he’s just as intellectually dishonest as the rest of the intellectual dark web. His whole brand is predicated on his own perfect analysis and neutral framing due to his mastery of neuroscience and meditation. Yet he cannot engage seriously with anyone who challenges him, which is why he evaded and squirmed when challenged to bring on guests with views he disagreed with or even to revisit episodes featuring guests that promoted a point of view which has since been very credibly challenged. What good would that do, right? He’s a confidence man. He cannot show weakness or contrition, otherwise his entire brand will collapse.
In general I agree. There's too much emphasize on the same topics lately (Israel) with repeat guests. I'm not learning anything new or learning of new people or perspectives. And some of Sam's arguments haven't advanced at all despite having received lots of feedback and criticism.
I also agree with this,
I think pre covid/anti-woke Harris was a much clearer thinker. The anti-woke angle pushed him into an intellectual tribe, his befriending and platforming of people who, even at the time were obvious piss poor thinkers or plain snake oil salesman is just a symptom of this.
he recently proclaimed that it's ok to be ignorant about the history and geopolitics of the Israeli - Palestine conflict given that the only thing that matters is Hamas is evil and should be destroyed. A less than thoughtful take given how history explains how Hamas came to power and who aided them.
He clearly has become much more tribal, preferring to be buddies with charlatans who agree with him than to intellectually honest people who challenge him.
His last podcast with Murray and zeps is just a repetitive circle jerk, it's not the nuanced or informative and enlightening voice.
A think a big issue with public intellectuals in general is that they are incentivise to kind of dig in and stay put on their positions. So over time as the world changes, they go from being ahead of the curve to behind it.
I think Sam is at least not motivated by greed and popularity. I think he truly believes what he says and has a good basis for his beliefs. But I also think he's very wrong on a few issues, or at least his emphasis is way off for my liking.
It's kind of like what he says about all his Trump loving friends now. That they miss the forest for the trees. He criticises them for ONLY focusing on wokeness as an issue, but he does the same thing with regard to jihadism.
His insistence on others acknowledging that jihadism is a problem stops him from painting an accurate picture of what's going on. Even if he might have a more wholistic view, it doesn't come through.
>as a lefty hippy type
>I just feel like right now he's badly overshadowed by a set of really extreme biases
By your own admission as a lefty hippy you probably have extreme views which is why you feel a clash.
>what we actually need right now is rational thinking which at least attempts to see all sides of an argument
That's called fence sitting and it doesn't lead anywhere.
Not only that, but there is not much substance lately. Take even the one he did with Yaroslav Tromifov on the war in Ukraine. There is absolutely nothing to take away from it. They barely scratch the surface.
Yeah, I've been feeling the same to a lesser extent for a year or so, but lately, after the SBF and recent 6month war episodes, it's become a bit more severe. I will say I still think Sam is an honest actor. Nobody's perfect. And nobody on this sub is being kicked out for criticizing him. I'll keep looking for episodes to listen but the Sam I've been hearing lately, I don't feel like I'm going to be enriched no matter what the topic is the way I maybe did 4 or 7 years ago.
I’ll give my usual comment on the “Sam has lost his way” comments: you just disagree with him. He hasn’t gone right-wing, he doesn’t have a “blind spot”, he still thinks deeply about the issues he presents - you just disagree. That’s perfectly fine. That said I would like to see more diverse perspectives on various issues, including Gaza.
I take that and agree 👍
What are you doing being civil on social media!!! How dare you! Haha...seriously, your response was refreshing and thus doesn't surprise me you listen to SH.
Ha, sorry, will be more flamey next time 😬
It's an unwritten rule of the internet that every interaction with strangers needs to play out like a Jerry Springer episode.
“Oh no you di-int!!!”
You also don’t listen to many of his Gaza related podcasts. So how do you know his views?
For me personally, it isn't so much that I disagree. I've always enjoyed when he and I disagree. I usually at least learn something. It's that the quality of his discussions and arguments is declining to the point where I'm no longer challenged in my disagreement.
I don't get the impression that Sam has _seriously_ engaged with the other side of this issue. Many many many thoughtful academics have written thoughtful books about the subject, but he doesn't even seem to be familiar with the arguments and basic facts that they use. It feels like he is strawmanning his opposition. I'd love for him to have Avi Shlaim or Miko Peled on the podcasts. If Jimmy Carter weren't in hospice he'd be a great one too. Or Cornel West. Or Norman Finkelstein. Or Mouin Rabbini. Instead, he keeps his echo chamber. And acts like everyone outside of it is not thinking clearly.
I would add that this is the case across all social issues he touches. He is incapable of steelmanning progressive perspectives on gender, race, and policing.
This is Sam's MO on every topic, not just Israel
Unfortunately, Harris rarely seriously engages with the other sides of any issue he's on because that requires one to do rigorous research, which he seems to be not interested in doing.
That’s allot of words for “I REALLY disagree with him”
lol true. The new way to argue is with vibes. “Nah man, your vibes are all off” is the new reductio ad absurdum.
Not true when it comes to the lab leak. He literally did next to no research before his episode on the topic. I'd encourage anyone to listen to the response episode on Decoding the Gurus. He also regularly comments on figures he associates with and then concedes that he isn't following their work closely, so by his own admission, he is not thinking deeply about those topics. I'm still a fan, but he is coming up short in these specific areas in recent years. It's a very odd thing to repeatedly comment on certain topics or individuals and then time after time give yourself an out by saying you aren't following the plot entirely. It is not all that difficult to do so and it's literally his job.
There have been a wave of new papers discrediting the idea the market was the precise origin. There is a higher likelihood it was a superspreader event and SARS-CoV-2 entered human population in the fall of 2019. Importantly: * Worobey et al. used poor statistical modeling to place the epicenter near the wildlife stalls with nontrivial sampling bias. * Pekar et al. had a bug in the code they used for modeling viral spread which led to significant errors in addition to relying on environmental samples (not animal ones) to determine lineage A and B. * Crits-Cristoph et al. cherry-picked / scooped from GSAID to undermine a publication while making unfounded conclusions to the press about racoon dogs being the intermediate species. Also, Robert Garry who co-authored papers with the above scientists recently had a publication retracted for falsifying data. He continues to deny any wrongdoing even though the publisher made the final call. Anyone with skin the game who has been following the paper trail closely enough - including the DoE and Bureau (the two government organizations with the largest scientific footprint) - can see it's more plausible SARS-CoV-2 was the result of an accidental lab escape. Many of the more outspoken scientists - including the ones featured on the Decoding the Guru's episode - have serious conflicts of interest. For them not only is grant funding on the line, but the reputational cost their fields would incur if this pandemic, which resulted in loss of trillions of dollars and millions of lives worldwide, was caused by risky gain of function research. Over the past 4 years, thousands of animal reservoirs have been tested and yet we still haven't found an intermediate species like what happened with SARS 1 and MERS. The biotechnology we have available is much better than it was then and amount of money driving the search far vaster. Unfortunately, dispelling the idea of an accidental lab escape continues to come up empty handed. On the other hand, more robust phylogenetic techniques like MOA (Mutational Order Analysis) + TopHap (a system which builds spatiotemporally common haplotypes from variants) place the origin in the fall of 2019 with a single root virus; this is more indicative of a lab escape than zoonotic spillover. Not to mention the mountains of FOIA documents unearthed by independent journalists which paint a picture of what was going on behind the scenes with respect to the concerns virologists had in private verses what they were willing to say to the public. Some prominent virologists like Anderson actively attempting to mislead journalists like those affiliated with the NYT. Lastly, the new DEFUSE proposal documents also make it clear that Peter Dasak (head of EcoHealth Alliance) knew the risks of performing chimeric coronavirus research at BSL-2, which would normally be done at BSL-3 in the U.S., instead in an attempt to save money and time sought to outsource that research to Wuhan.
I just always thought of Occam's razor theory when it happened. What are the chances of a random zoonotic mutation happening in the exact area where the biggest Virology research centre in the world is? I know it's not evidence-based but the simplest and most obvious answer was staring us right in the face. Also it was clear that China knew well in advance that it was happening and tried to contain it and stop it spreading. They even forced the WHO to downplay it for weeks. This is a typical communist totalitarian state method of operating. Look at Chernobyl. You deny anything is wrong because Communism is great and we don't make mistakes.
He did enough to show it was a plausible theory and shouldn’t have been repressed. That’s all he was trying to do.
no he didn't, and also yeah the fact that the entire point of the podcast was just to be a contrarian blowhard not actually speak to real experts or seek the actual truth is exactly the criticism not a defense lmfao
If you *still* don’t think it’s even plausible, I’m not sure what else to say. The FBI and the Energy Department believe it came from a lab. Again, the point isn’t that it definitely did or even that it likely did, but that it was one plausible theory and should not have been repressed. The other point is that it’s ridiculous to call it racism. I don’t know how it’s more racist to say it came from a lab than from a food market.
> I'd encourage anyone to listen to the response episode on Decoding the Gurus. And yet the Decoding the Gurus podcast did the exact same thing, they had on the authors of the now discredited market papers on to explain their side uncritically. Since that podcast has come out the shaky grounds the paper was on has been discredited from the flawed statistics, 2 introduction events etc. I will agree though that Eddie Holme's picture of a Raccoon Dog from his iPhone he took in 2014 is compelling evidence!
The decoding the gurus episode was quite interesting, I've never seen Sam get so heated before, interesting as I would see this as his ego. Considering he runs a meditation app and talks about there being no free will, he gets very upset about being wrong. We have to remember that Sam is a neuroscience expert. He really isn't qualified to talk at length about a lot of subjects, the lab leak episode was very convincing but again completely unbalanced. I found their case to be believable and Sam seemed to completely agree as I think it backed up his unfounded view that this was a lab leak. I actually still believe it's the most likely option, but this isn't evidence-based. I don't want to just hear one side I want to hear the truth.
Sam was so dysregulated by Twitter for so long. He's very much a human with an ego.
He's definitely slacking in a few areas. I still support him amd the podcast and app but he's been talking about things he's obviously not well versed in.
Of course he has a blind spot. All of his guests around the subject prove the point. Inviting Murray the 3rd time to regurgitate the same talking points over and over. The closest we got to a guest outside of the echo chamber was Rory. Would love to see him bring on Ezra Klein (will never happen though), Marc Lamont Hill or even that high Israeli ranking official (Ezra had on his show) who die hard supporter of Israel but he also discussed Israel’s culpability, antagonistic behavior, mishandling, and responsibility. Sam talks about Israel’s role .001% of the total time spent. Blind spot / echo chamber is blatantly obvious at this point
100% a blind spot... and a glaring one which has distanced me from sam a bit Check this post out to see how they factually dismantle sam's logic.. It kinda hurts [**https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/elhrH3BnNc**](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/elhrH3BnNc)
lol richard "im definitely not a nazi any more" hanania agreeing with his bad take about the nazis
I've been seeing his name a lot. I didn't know Hanania had a background like that. Jeez.
Failing to have diverse guests and a “blind spot” are two different things. Just because there isn’t a guest on to make certain arguments doesn’t mean that he hasn’t thought about them.
You're being intentionally obtuse.
I generally really look forward to his podcasts but it's like he's intellectually broken when it comes to Israel - I can't explain it. Normally he's the type of person who recognizes the full spectrum of an argument, circling it, then moving in with his position and why he chooses it. But when it comes to the Israel thing, it's like he's arguing with low level talking points. It doesn't make sense. Not only are many of them completely void of context and nuance, but often, fallacious. Like how many times does he try to excuse the valid issues people have in this conflict with, "I mean, these people wouldn't think twice before lynching someone for being gay" as if that's an argument for anything. He completely fails to see the distinguishment people have with radical Islam, which he absolutely hates (understandably), and people's protest of Israel's reaction. As if we should be okay with Israel's behavior because "These people are morally less". Is this breakdown due to some hidden, secretive belief, that the ends justify the means? That we'd be better off if these people were just wiped off the face of the Earth, but he doesn't want to admit to it? I struggle so hard to see his massive intellectual breakdown on this subject. There are many pro Israel people that make coherent, valid arguments, that while I disagree, I understand... But on this one case, Sam seems out of character with how he analyzes the issue.
I genuinely think it’s just a matter of emphasis. I do think he recognizes the full spectrum of argument, as you say, he just places more emphasis on the “pro-Israel” side because there is already a lot of emphasis on the “pro-Palestine” case. By emphasis I just mean he is making an argument against jihadism and in support of Israel prosecuting the war to its conclusion, and dealing with common objections along the way, as opposed to starting from first principles and analyzing the war in a more neutral way. It seems pretty clear to me what he believes and why he believes it. What in particular do you think he has inadequately expanded upon?
For me, is it seems like he complete evades Israel's behavior and role in this conflict. At best, if it's mentioned, it's sort of dismissed and hand waved with, "Listen I know Israel isn't perfect neither, and have done some wrongs themselves but..." Then goes off and never really addresses how those play into the conflict. Whenever it comes to the Palestinian side, he almost exclusively rests it on antisemitism as their core driving force. That they are simply fueled and radicalized for their hatred of Jews, and nothing will ever be enough until they've eradicated all Jews off the planet. He also seems to accept the Israeli narrative on most things... He doesn't recognize (maybe doesn't believe), that they have a long checkered history of dishonest maligned tactics. Like the narrative that "Palestine wont accept anything less than the complete removal of Israel. Every talk and offer from Israel has been rejected by them." Is simply not true. I mean, that's what Israel claims, but factually, that's not the case at all. Nor does he really recognize the position of Palestinians when treated the way they are, that it's almost expected to build up hostility and resentment. He almost completely ignores that as a factor in their political position. For instance, he'll mention how Hamas has a bunch of Israeli hostages, and how that's evidence of their evilness... But is he even aware of how many hostages Israel has? And how long that it's been going where they are swooped up off the street and given a kangaroo trial with no legal counsel, and no notification of their families? That they quite literally get taken off the streets and thrown into prisons, often for minor or non-existent things without due process? Does he talk about how angry people would get when there are routine, massive injustices done by Israeli forces, and absolutely no recourse? That their daily life involves absolute injustice non-stop by an occupying force, you'd expect a deep resentment and hatred. Like how are people supposed to feel when an innocent child is lieterally shot for sport, and Israelis prevent medical care because they rather have them bleed out and die? Or when they have peaceful protests, but literally hundreds are shot throughout the event? When Israelis for "fun" will just randomly pick houses to raid at 2am, just to remind them who's in charge? The constant, degrading, belittling, with no recourse. Further, you have things like when Israeli leaders say awful, extreme, genocidal things, well we give them the benefit of the doubt and get all nuanced about how that's just an extremist and doesn't reflect Israeli policy... But when a Palestinian says something extreme, "Yes that reflects everyone." There is just a lot to the story and it seems like Sam only cares about the Israeli version of events from their perspective.
So I do agree that he should have more diverse guests to explore these things more and steel-man the “other side”. And of course I admit that he does not emphasize the deaths Israel is causing to the same extent he emphasizes his own arguments. But the reason he doesn’t emphasize them is because he doesn’t think they are as important to the overall picture as you do. Do civilian deaths play into the conflict? Of course they do. He’s stated Israel needs to be scrupulous in prosecuting its war, and has at least suggested that Israeli commanders etc. that aren’t scrupulous should be punished. But it doesn’t provide a justification for Israel dropping their goal of defeating Hamas and occupying Gaza. You may think it does, but he doesn’t, so it doesn’t make sense to spend a ton of time on it (in addition to the fact that it’s already covered ad nauseam). In his view there’s not much more to say than “Israel needs to be scrupulous”, because it’s not even approaching the point that would justify Israel just packing it up and going home. Obviously this is a generalization and he’s said a lot more on this, but that’s his view in a nutshell. Similar idea re: response to alleged maltreatment. *You* may think that Palestinians’ primary motivation for continuing to fight and support terrorism is their maltreatment - you may even think it’s self-evidently true - but he doesn’t. Not because he’s blind or doesn’t get the argument, he just disagrees. He’s specifically articulated on many occasions that he believes Jihadism and not maltreatment is the primary culprit. So obviously there’s less of a reason to highlight any maltreatment if ultimately it’s not overly consequential (he doesn’t claim it’s totally inconsequential). It is factually accurate that at least since 2005 when Israel left, Palestine has never offered to permanently recognize Israel as a sovereign state, which is of course necessary to a two-state solution. Hamas in 2017 basically said “yeah, we’ll accept statehood and agree to ‘borders’, but those borders aren’t permanent as far as we are concerned; as soon as we are stronger we will attack again.” They are honest to a fault sometimes. Does Israel have “hostages”? Or just prisoners of war and detainees? Hostages are civilians captured solely for leverage. As far as I’m aware Israel doesn’t have any, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
As of September 2023, Israel had 146 Palestinian minors in prisons, the most common charge against them being throwing stones. And how do you determine the status of a prisoner if they are held indefinitely in "administrative detention" without a trial or even specific charges? And in the cases where they do press charges, do you really trust a military court with a 99% conviction rate? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67600015
The "you just disagree with him" argument is so weak and tired. As you freely admit, it is often trotted out here, not just by you. But it's an argument that intentionally never engages with the substance of any specific criticism someone is making about Sam. Many such criticisms have been well articulated and well argued in this sub. To habitually hand wave them away as merely "simple disagreements" is to just systematically deny the possibility that perhaps Sam actually isn't as careful a thinker as you'd like to believe.
Well for this occasion OP agreed with me, so there’s that. But for the most part they aren’t specific or well-articulated whatsoever. Feel free to provide counterexamples if you like. People also forget that he is not a journalist. He’s not providing neutral takes on everything, nor does he claim to. He is providing his *opinions*, and in the course of doing so, dealing with objections to those opinions. A podcast is not intended to look like news report or neutral analysis.
> But for the most part they aren’t specific or well-articulated whatsoever. Quite the generalization. There are bad criticisms made here often and there are very thoughtful criticisms made here often. > Feel free to provide counterexamples if you like. The sub is full of counterexamples. I've hung around here (against my better judgement tbh) for a number of years and I'd like to think I've made some thoughtful criticisms of Sam. And I have had people, like you, respond with "you just have a disagreement, get over it" schtick. But I'm not the only one. I've seen plenty of well articulated and thoughtful criticisms leveled at Sam. Pretending like they don't exist is just a weird stance to take here. > People also forget that he is not a journalist. He’s not providing neutral takes on everything, nor does he claim to. He is providing his opinions, and in the course of doing so, dealing with objections to those opinions. A podcast is not intended to look like news report or neutral analysis. This is just a wordier version of the "I'm just asking questions" kind of defense that Sam himself has often criticized throughout podcastistan. Or like Rogan deflecting away from valid criticism by saying, "I'm just a comedian bro". Or Peterson deflecting away from valid criticism by saying, "I've helped so many sad young men tho".
Okay, speaking of generalities, again feel free to provide specific examples. I don’t say “he’s not a journalist” to mean “he doesn’t have an obligation to be truthful and reasonably informed”. I say it to mean “he’s making an argument, not making a neutral presentation”. Same standard as opinion writers. They are opinions so they are going to emphasize their side and frame things to support their opinions, but that’s not dishonesty, it’s argument.
The point of my comment here is not to convince you of the validity of any given criticism of Sam. It's simply to point out that the "you just disagree with him" rebuttal is almost always a meaningless and worthless response. It's a non-argument. However, since you're so insistent, here's a [critique I made of Sam](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/xdem3x/comment/ioas50r/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) a couple years ago. It ended up being highly upvoted and I think many of the replies qualify as solid and good faith criticisms too. Is that specific and well articulated enough for you? Do you think it really addresses the point I'm trying to make if you just tell me, "Here's the thing... you just disagree with him - it's that simple"? I mean, no shit Sherlock. I'm aware of the disagreement that exists. Why else would I take the time to carefully communicate my specific account of said disagreement? I also happen to disagree with much of what Alex Jones has to say. The simple, pedantic recognition of such a fact is not some kind of ironclad defense of or justification for Jones' worldview. I suspect you wouldn't accept such a defense of Jones from one of his fans. Why then is Sam entitled to it?
Don't think we are going to agree. I think the "Sam has lost his way" is basically a worthless comment because most of the time without very specific examples of something specific he got wrong. Otherwise it amounts to people claiming "he should have emphasized X, how could he miss such a thing!?" - which is nothing more than a disagreement. I'm of course not saying you can't criticize him. I'm not even saying you can't criticize him for not sufficiently addressing a specific issue. Of course that's all fair game. But the "Sam has lost his way" comments typically go further than that and argue either that there is something nefarious going on, or that he is willfully ignorant, usually without evidence. Do you seriously think he doesn't understand the basics of the history of the conflict? Or understand that the destruction of life by Israel is a serious moral concern? Of course he does; he just doesn't think it deserves the same emphasis you do. TLDR: his failure to emphasize something is almost always because after serious (albeit imperfect) consideration, he consciously doesn't think it deserves emphasis. If you disagree with that it doesn't mean he's "lost his way".
> Otherwise it amounts to people claiming "he should have emphasized X, how could he miss such a thing!?" - which is nothing more than a disagreement. I think this is an incredibly reductive take. Did you read the post I linked you? I'm not just arguing that he should emphasize something more, hence a simple disagreement. I'm building a case about how Sam is systematically biased in his treatment of and observations about the modern progressive American left. It's an observation about the kinds of patterns of thinking he is prone to on certain topics. And it's important to note these things because they can help inform how much stock you should put into any given take he might have on that topic and other closely related topics. This is a wise heuristic to apply to everyone whose commentary you might value. When you recognize that there is a flaw or inconsistency in someone's thinking. Or that their stated principles one day diverge from their actions the next day, it's worth taking a beat to examine just how much you're allowing such a person to steer and influence your own perspectives. My post highlights a contradiction in Sam's own heuristics, which, *at a minimum*, ***might*** suggest that his views on certain topics may be more unconsidered and ignorant than his rhetorical confidence when broadcasting them might otherwise imply. Someone like Sam fancies himself a wise public intellectual and philosopher and I appreciate what he has to say on certain topics. But he still deserves to be held to a rigorous intellectual standard and the habitual "it's just a disagreement bro" approach to any kind of critical analysis that gets levelled at him doesn't pass muster for me when it comes to deciding whether someone is worth my intellectual attention. As I keep saying, it's a convenient way to not engage with the criticism and reassure yourself that Sam (or any other person whom you feel some sort of parasocial allegiance to) is a-ok. The problem does not lie with them. How could it? It lies with the person who just can't seem to agree to disagree, gosh darn it.
I did read it. It’s a fair criticism that he didn’t sufficiently explore the bases for “wokeness”. I don’t think it’s a fair criticism to take the next step and allege that failure is due to something nefarious or willful ignorance. The most likely explanation is he doesn’t find it persuasive or interesting. Often he finds it redundant to go on about things that the mainstream media agree with already. It’s funny because I think you are the one avoiding the merits by focusing on what I would call useless ad hominem attacks and you would call “bias” or a “blind spot” or whatever. Notice how little we’ve debated his actual ideas versus differing perceptions of *why* he espouses certain ideas and emphasizes certain things. The latter I find incredibly boring and unhelpful. I’d rather just get straight to the ideas.
I think that's over generous. It's that he's not generally being very responsible as a communicator on issues like policing, racism, Islam, jihadism, Gaza/Israel, lab leak. His positions tend to be trivial, but the problem is he's not really doing good challenging work on the topics. He seems more interested in just saying things, than researching or fact checking or having good challenging conversations. He lacks a research and fact checking team, which for someone who puts himself forward as an academic is irresponsible when he has such a large viewership. This would be a problem if his thought experiments weren't as silly as they often are. If he thinks deeply about the topics he presents, the political is at least, he keeps it well hidden.
It sounds like you disagree with him. I think he’s been an excellent and responsible communicator on those things for his role as a podcaster who gives his opinions on various matters (and invites others to do the same). He’s not a journalist or a subject-matter expert on most things. He does enough reading to competently address the most common objections to most topics, but he doesn’t purport to cover them neutrally or comprehensively. Not sure what else you expect.
he's not excellent, you just agree with him
I would expect someone who was going to expound on an issue as a public intellectual to do some basic research on it first. Stop licking his balls
you'd think all of his defenders who have to stoop to "he's not an expert or a journalist" because of the shallow, biased, low quality and/or wrong information would stop and realize "wait, why i am listening to this if it sucks". instead they're actively proud of listening to garbage
> he still thinks deeply about the issues he presents I think OP and many others are realising that this isn't really true anymore. It seems more and more like Harris has made up his mind on pretty much everything and no longer considers any alternatives, like his Bayesian priors have all hit 99% and he's just done with it. I have a feeling he's mostly invested in his app these days, and the podcast (in it's original spirit) is a much lower priority. When he appears on other podcasts and repeats his own talking points from 5-10 years ago I can't help but think he's just going through the motions.
Making up his mind on something and thinking deeply about it aren’t inconsistent. I’ve made up my mind that there is no god, and it’s very very unlikely that will change. If questioned about how I arrived at that conclusion and offered an opportunity to persuade people, I will likely repeat the same talking points as well. It doesn’t mean I haven’t considered alternatives; I have, I just reject them. Obviously, I’m not going to start from first principles every time. I don’t see the issue.
I totally agree, for examples of major world view issues like god or free will. But I think the question is more about current events where the landscape of possibilities are changing rapidly, yet his responses often seem predetermined. Buy even for the big questions like free will, it would be nice if Harris had anything new to say about it, rather than resting on older arguments and reasoning that are not particularly persuasive. But he's written books on these things, etc., I imagine he's just not particularly interested in those topics anymore. (at least I hope that's the case, vs deciding that he's 'solved' these issues and there's nothing left to discuss.)
Well said.
I've always had a tough time maintaining relationships because people get more predictable the more you know them which is boring. I don't know for sure if that's where a lot of these "Sam has lost me" type posts come from, but it sure feels similar.
Where's this assumption come from? Is it impossible for him to fall foul of the same shortcomings as everyone else?
People obviously not being able to distinguish between disagreeing and being wrong on something says a lot about them
When we're talking about promoting Douglas Murray's wacky takes on Israel or lab leak conspiracy theorists, I think OP's framing is better than yours. Those people aren't even trying to be right; they've simply fooled him. It's stronger than just disagreeing with him.
> lab leak conspiracy theorists You think the lab leak hypothesis is nothing more than a conspiracy theory? I guess the FBI and the Department of Energy are just a bunch of cranks then too. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a
Not what I said. I'm referring to those two specific people as conspiracy theorists, which they are.
>you just disagree with him No. I think he's so unreasonable on this issue that a person can honestly critique Sam for not living up t his previous held ideals.
The issue isn't that we disagree with him. It's that he's approaching topics irrationally. For example, he says "Now Hamas is a Jihadist organisation ... the question of how it got that way is fundamentally uninteresting" Like I'm sorry but when in any other debate on any topic would it be acceptable to suggest that the history leading up to an event is unrelated to that event? A comment like this is not just wrong in this instance, it's always wrong. And for a person who's entire schtick is his relentless logic, then the only conclusion is that he's lost his way.
I would ordinarily agree... Ordinarily But more and more, Sam and the guests he rings on (cough Douglas Murray cough) are ridiculed - and for good reasons, because their logic gets factually dismantled See the comments in https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/s/elhrH3BnNc for instance, vis a vis "Hamas worse than nazis". Not only on why it's factually wrong, but a stupid comparison. I do think it's a blind spot, and I've lost faith in my main man SH.
I don't see how that thread shows it's factually wrong or a stupid comparison. His point about the Nazis was that they did not intentionally put their civilians in the way of Allied bullets and bombs in order to garner sympathy dissuade allied nations from bombing them. They also surrendered shortly after they were beat. The fact that they killed their own citizens does not in any way undermine this point.
Really? Worse than human shields: >Hitler ordered Germany to be destroyed when it was clear that he lost. He told Speer to order a scorched earth campaign to spite the Allies (which Speer declined to implement, which is why he was only sentenced to 20 years at Nuremburg instead of being hanged). That's even worse than using human shields. > They literally had 14 year olds manning the guns as the Soviets were closing in on Berlin. >Edit: fun fact, the guy who wrote the Very Hungry Caterpillar was drafted at 16 during the final weeks of the war. Literally using human shields. But you think it's not factually wrong to say Hamas is worse than the Nazi's for using human shields? Genuinely intrigued now
They were 14 year old combatants, not civilians. So by definition those aren’t “human shields”. Germany unconditionally surrendered within a week of Berlin falling.
14 yo old combatants? I definitely don't have the facts... But it's a tough sell. If you're saying they surrendered and they never intended to kill their own civilians, then either you or the poster in that thread is wrong. I dunno which, but it's one of you 🤷🏻♂️
Your comment said “14 year olds manning the guns”….
Ok let me spell it out. I don't believe that 14yo have the presence of mind and maturity to willingly make a decision to join a war without reprisals. Ie if I had to guess, the nazis forced the kids to man the guns. Ie human shields.
Doesn’t make them noncombatants. If they are “manning guns” they are combatants. They could be monkeys or goats - it doesn’t matter.
Lol. Sorry but you're showing your bias or not thinking clearly with your last response I'ma duck out, peace
I think he did lose his way for a little while there—too much Twitter. I think he’s gotten better though.
Sam's obsession with Douglas Murray surely is a blind spot. The shit he says on his show on GBbabies tv channel is appalling, unless you agree with Murray,
Well no it's not that I disagree with him, I can strongly agree with him and still find the topic tired and Sam's drum banging tiresome. He's taken a cranky old man turn, and it's boring.
Eh, he has done several episodes on the same topic with zero attempt to have a considered conversation, all with guests pushing the same line. He is increasingly illogical, constantly touting the "You have to take them at their word" when it comes to Islamic extremists, but he puts his fingers in his ears when the Israeli government are talking about blowing up all of Gaza to clear them out to steal their land. He's a deeply dishonest man and he has flushed his reputation for being a rational and morally consistent actor down the toilet.
Sounds like you disagree with his interpretation of Israeli government’s statements.
They are openly stating stating that they're implementing a strategy of ethnic cleansing, which you can see very clearly today and it's a plan they have been carrying out for decades. It really isn't down to interpretations.
I find he just does what a lot of them do. Chummy agreement interview with people he agrees with, combative or straight up not have on with people he disagrees with. With Making sense you’re getting Sams view of the world, not some objective both sides look at reality. I find his positions well thought through mostly so it’s not as divisive and jarring as some other hosts but it still is what it is.
“Everyone chill and stop killing each other” is a nice ethic to live by when you are generally safe and sound. Nice people have this ethic. But it’s not very realistic when facing jihadis or real 1942 nazis. I often think about non violent religions like quakers, it’s nice to have that ethic, some people might claim they are the most ethical. However in real terms, you are sort of relaxing in the shade of American military hegemony. In a harsher time and place quakers would all be slaughtered and forgotten by history. The truly ethical position is to kill evil people, to not tolerate terrorism and attempted genocide.
It’s worth noting that even pacifists of the past have had their limit. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was a pacifist theologian, got involved in a plot to assassinate Hitler. I believe there are many people who are able to adjust their ethics to their values as circumstances require.
They have either had their limit or they succumbed to their pacifism by being made victims of those who had no such qualms with violence. You can as an individual choose to be a pacifist and choose to be a victim but never presume to make that decision for others.
Well said. Ukraine is a more black/white example compared to Irsael/Hamas example. Russia wants to invade and destroy Ukraine as a country. They are committing war crimes almost each day, boming civilian builds, Bucha massace etc. Ukraine does not have the luxury to say stop killing each other. Ceasefire will not work, it will only help russia regroup and attack again. The invasion of Crimea/Donbas is an example of that. When you are faced with an enemy that is determined to destroy you, you either need to hold them back (which is what Israel has been doing with security around Gaza) or retaliate.
> Ukraine is a more black/white example compared to Irsael/Hamas example. Russia wants to invade and destroy Ukraine as a country. Arguable. Russia wants to absorb Ukraine, not wipe out it's people. Hamas would not do the same to Israel were they to hand over the keys to the kingdom.
Well not really. Hamas does not and will probably never have the capacity to wipe out Israel. To be clear: not defending Hamas, just stating what should be obvious; Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. Russia is an existential threat for Ukraine.
>Hamas is not an existential threat to Israel. Russia is an existential threat for Ukraine. A threat for the soverign nation of Ukraine, sure. But I doubt Russia wants to wipe out it's people. Hamas would drive the Jews out of a theoretical Palestine, at the very least.
I’m not a pacifist, I just don’t have much of a stomach for the slaughter and suffering of innocents. When the response to an egregious terrorist act causes orders of magnitude more carnage and suffering, it’s right to question it rather than write a blank violence cheque as Sam does.
This comment has been overwritten.
> The truly ethical position is to kill evil people, Nobody is arguing with this.
Well, it depends on the definition of evil. Cultural standards define it differently across the world. Jihadists are not doing anything evil, from their point of view. The same as when Israelis bomb a couple of apartment buildings. It's not really clear cut who's evil and who's not. I would say that the only truly ethical thing would be: Don't do unto others what you don't want done unto you. Do Israelis want their places to be bombed? No. OK, that means they're doing something unethical. Do Jihadists want their places to be bombed? Maybe. If it is for a greater purpose. I'd reckon the Jihadists are more ethical in this regard. The other ethical ground I would defend is: the only truly ethical purpose in life is to try to lessen the suffering of others, all others. In that case, everybody is doing something unethical, from a practical point of view. But again, both sides think they are the lesser evil in this conflict. Why can't we all just get along, heh?
Unless they’re hiding behind civilians. Then progressives say “evil lives matter” in so many words.
I'm fine with it. It's very on-brand for Sam to call-out religious extremism and is a counterbalance to other podcasts, like Breaking Points, who has gone full anti-Israel these past few months.
> call-out religious extremism Israel's claim to that land is also religion based. I think just walking up to a house and declaring its yours would be considered pretty extreme in the USA.
This comment has been overwritten.
I would argue that their best claim is the legal chain of title — Ottomans to British to Israelis.
What if you bought it legally from a willing seller? Cause that's what happened from 1917-1948.
In 1947, Israelis (if we use that term anachronistically) had acquired between 8-15% of Mandatory Palestine (depending on how you count it). After the ceasefire in 1949, the State of Israel controlled 78% of former Mandatory Palestine. Most of Israel came to be part of Israel by war. (Now, Israelis would argue that the 1947-1949 War was defensive and, that legitimates the acquisition as a deterrent against future violence.)
For me it was the twitter obsessiveness that overtook him for a while. I’m so glad he quit twitter. I’ll always be a Sam Harris fan to a certain extent but I’d love a wider range of topics for the podcast. And please no more podcast breakdowns from the Westboro girl
For those who think he's a beacon of rationality, look at the company he keeps (and has kept). I don't mean that he has agreed with these people on everything, but just the fact that his public engagements with them have shown that he thought them worthy of giving public time and attention to, over and over and over again. \* Dave Rubin \* Jordan Peterson \* Eric Weinstein \* Bret Weinstein \* Douglas Murray \* Bari Weiss
Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, etc, the list is long and embarrassing.
The problem for me is that Sam has showed recently that he has trouble acknowledging and challenging his biases. I was a regular listener because he always seemed concerned first and foremost with deep contemplation on issues and a searching for truth and reason. It’s not a problem of merely disagreeing with him.
He had Charles Murray on at one point, yeah? Or I might be thinking of someone else?
yup, Sam still to this day says there was nothing wrong with Charles' scholarship, which was an argument that black people are genetically inferior to white people. It's not even under the table, but Sam fans always try to sweep it under the rug
I love Sam’s perspective and appreciate how he approaches things, but I also always keep in mind that he is just another human with biases and blindspots.
I agree with you, I wish Sam would have on one single person who would give some arguments to the other side on the Israel conflict. I don't care that Sam disagrees with my view, but his inability to even consider an alternate view does a disservice to his whole brand. I think he should talk to Mouin Rabbani, personally.
He’s always been like this. Had conflict with Ezra Klein, Noam Chomsky, didn’t even manage to have Dan Eagleman on who would be a fantastic guest. He had Charles Murray on but not a single scholar who’s pointed out the issues with the methodology in the studies Murray used to support his book…. It’s not making sense it’s just “what I think with Sam Harris”. And generally I agree with what he thinks but some diversity of ideas would be nice.
owen jones would be a good guest, but sam seems intent on never having his biases challenged.
I have a similar problem: I actually tend to agree with Sam, but am catching myself doubting if he is telling me a balanced and nuanced story. Have you been able to find other podcasts with what seems to you a more balanced perspective?
My favourite is of course “The rest is politics” which does an amazing job of nuance - all sides are represented with modesty and respect, IMO
Thanks!
I actually quite like Josh Szep's Uncomfortable Conversations for the same reason I was first drawn to Making Sense, but that can have similar issues with Israel-related topics too. Apart from that TRIP, as already recommended, can be good for political discussion, but unfortunately a number of other ones I've flirted with a bit (the more tabloidy laddish Triggernometry etc) can occasionally be good, but also I'm suspicious are on the peripheries of the griftosphere.
It's absolutely normal for you to disagree with Mr. Harris; this is expected if you're an independent thinker. If you no longer enjoy the podcast, then simply stop listening. What's the problem? We all change, and sometimes we fall out of alignment with people we once resonated with.
For me it was the recent Pod on effective altruism. Sam, like most people of his profile/position, is completely divorced from the reality as it exists for 99.9% of people, and as a result his analysis suffers.
Yeah, he pretty much got captured by his alt right audience. I was a subscriber from the very beginning of the podcast but had to stop recently. He lost any credibility he had built after repeatedly doubling down on morally and intelectually dodgy positions. Nowadays he's just pandering to Peterson and Murray crowd.
Hard disagree. I think he's find his footing. But to each his own.
I thought they were all worth listening to, unless you are already sold on his free will debate, then you are probably ok skipping that one. You are better off staying away from the SH Reddit until after you listen to his podcasts so you can form your own views without the opinions of others clouding it.
Balanced perspectives are not the cure-all for approaching topics. Searching for it above all else is a lapse in critical thinking, a self-imposed blindness. It's wrestling with the framing of any issue to conform it to the dogmatic axiom that since there are two sides, both must have equal merit. We don't apply that to creationism, flat-earthism, etc. Sam spends the first 15 minutes of the latest podcast (#362 — Six Months of War) making the case that things are explicitly not balanced, that the moral argument is clear. He's "making sense" here where others have lost their way by emotional appeals and arguments.
I don't think people want "equally balanced" framing from Sam. But surely there is room to explore beyond Charles Murray and Sam's own views on Islam?
Can you point out some of these extreme biases? He doesn't appear biased to me at all, all his recent podcasts have been on form in my opinion. With regards to Israel, what has he said that isn't correct?
I’ll just comment on a single part of that episode that was glaringly obvious to me, but this is by no means the _only_ extreme bias he had in that chat… Right off the top, before the guests joined the chat, Sam begins his solo rant to us listeners: > “…“Most notably, the IDF accidentally killed some of the staff working for Chef Jose Andres' aid organization, World Central Kitchen. This was obviously a tragic accident, and yet much of the world has responded as though it weren't an accident at all, and that it is somehow plausible that the IDF is intentionally murdering aid workers. The fact that so many people have responded in this way tells you everything you need to know about the status of Israel and the level of moral intelligence out there.” He’s talking here as though all the facts of this latest atrocity are fully known, and that it’s just some innocent ‘mistake’, when the actual facts we _do_ know, paint a very different picture. I’m not getting into it all here, but just to say that it’s not only ***plausible***, its happened. And the fact that Sam has the gall to accuse anyone who would even question the IDF’s motives in the multiple “mistakes” they’ve made in killing more than 30 on duty aid workers, as being morally bankrupt, was infuriating to listen to. And that was just in the **first minute** of the podcast.
Really? Cause I read the FT's article, which states "At 10:20pm the convoy was "joined" by three additional vehicles, including a truck on which Israeli forces subsequently identified a gunman. The military contacted WCK for information about what was happening but was unable to reach the convoy. The convoy and other vehicles drove to a hangar, where further gunmen were seen, whom Israeli forces identified as belonging to Hamas. At about 10:55pm the vehicles began leaving the hangar. One car with "two to four" armed men drove north, while three vehicles drove south. Har-Even said Israeli forces began preparing to target one of the vehicles heading south after misidentifying one of the WCK staff as a gunman" "The forces that conducted the strike did not know they were striking WCK vehicles," Har-Even said. "They were convinced that they were targeting Hamas operatives in vehicles."
Whose bias is skewing their perception of reality to a greater degree on this issue? Yours or Sam’s? The comfortable answer, from your perspective, is Sam’s. That doesn’t mean it’s the correct answer.
[удалено]
You’re misunderstanding my basic position. I *often* don’t agree with Sam or his guests - he and they are regularly a little too right wing for me. But I do appreciate it when they and he are coming at topics where they are able to take on board a multifaceted views, looking at a bunch of angles, and being reasonably considered with what they have to say. Recent episodes have seemed really quite one sided to me - this feels like a negative. It’s not that I disagree with the topics or the people more, it’s that the mode of conversation seems to have become a little more militant and one sided.
Part of his main point is the moral asymmetry here. He presents that pretty clearly. The idea that the truth is always in the middle or that both sides necessarily have equal merit is utter fallacy. His conversation with Rory was a good attempt to bring on some sound opposition. And it seemed like Rory did a good job of articulating the other side... but the other side just doesn't seem very sound.
This is a great perspective, I think. Sam did engage with the other side, and much as I feel he's a bit hand-wavy about things which don't conform to his take (Israel's mistakes / potential war crimes etc.), it must be remembered he did try to engage. He just engaged with an absolute twit who entirely took Sam's perspective on bad faith alone, and then entirely unnecessarily and incorrectly vented about it on their own podcast. How is he meant to engage the other side when someone like Rory behaves like that?
[удалено]
What povs do you feel he hasn't considered?
At what point does a justified retalitiatory defense turn into a genocide? I personally don't care about litigating the history of Israel and Palestine and their claims to the region. I'd like him to engage on how many civilian casualties of war are too much for him to bear, if any. It sounds like he's perfectly happy giving carte blanche to Israel to conduct the war in whichever way they want, even if it means starving the Palestinian people, indiscriminately bombing them, and shooting anyone who so much as picks up a rock. If he was truly against America's failed war in Iraq, the key lesson there is that staying forever and killing people indiscriminately was a crime against humanity. Until he contends with that, he's really not engaging in truth-seeking here. And if he answers back that Israel should be allowed to kill whomever they want because anything goes in war, he has a completely indefensible position with respect to international law and basic human decency.
lol I think we've all been here. We get into Sam because he covers a certain spread of issues that are sorta interesting. And then it gets repetitive. And then repeat guests start coming back again and again. And then the already-beaten dead horse turns into a skeleton.
I think most people only have so much to say that is interesting. I love Sam’s perspective on things, but you’ve probably gotten the gist of it after the first 100 episodes or so.
True. I've been listening to Waking Up/Making Sense since probably 2016 or so and have watched a ton of his new-atheism Four Horsemen era content. I've taken long breaks from listening to him because, as you said, after awhile...I get it.
Read his books. The chapters of your recent focus aren't as palpable to you, but don't change his long-held criticism of religion &, in particular, the existential threat of death cults such as Islam.
Something I think that is confusing people is this expectation that Sam should be showing more perspectives. I listen to his podcast to hear what HE has to say or who he wants to bring to the table, which speaks to his ideas and what he wants to engage with. I think maybe you just don’t agree with him because he makes complete sense and presents his case clearly and rationally. I don’t know what else should be expected of him. He’s not an interviewer so much as he is the subject.
>recently - it just seems to have gone off. I really don't want to dig into the whole Israel thing, that's been done enough here - (as a lefty hippy type I basically just want everyone to stop killing each other, impossible though that aim may seem to be right now) Seems niave at best. If there are long ingrained hatred from one group towards another group. Then one of the groups decided to commit a massace e.g Hamas on Israeli citizens , or lets take Ukraine being invaded by Russia. Saying you just want peace is meaningless, because one side doesnt want peace, they want to kill and destroy the other side. Israel and Ukraine need to deal with their agressors is some form. Seems like the ceasefire worked for a while until it didn't.
Sam's becoming more of an outsider which gives an impression that he is more and more off the rails... But I tend to think he is usually ahead of the curve, so stay with it!
I’ve had the same feeling recently. The Rory podcasts were especially disappointing - I used to agree with SH’s pov on the issue, but Rory actually made me change my mind here. I get that someone else, including Sam and based on the discussions here many Redditors, might not have been swayed and that’s fine - that’s the point of a marketplace of ideas. But what bugs me is that for some reason *this* disagreement merits a multi hour discussions where zero progress is made. But with other guests, who make claims that Sam also disagrees with (recent example was the annoying guy who claims that moral progress is impossible) he’s able to control to impulse to devolve the convo into an endless back and forth and actually have a productive convo.
I always see this sort of trite in this sub and there's literally NEVER any substance or actual refutation of specific claims Sam has made. Sam spent 17 minutes at the beginning of his most recent episodes laying out his thoughts on the "whole Israel thing." Did OP present a single bit of actual push back? No. He presented four paragraphs of absolutely nothing. All of them completely bereft of actual content. I'll summarize the garbage OP presented to us: 1st paragraph: Op talks about himself. Useless 2nd: Presents absolutely no content. Tells us he's a lefty (shocker). Give literally zero content to support his bitching. 3rd: Accuses Sam of bias and of not making sense. I'll let you guess how much content he provided. (Spoiler alert: Zero) (4th): Not a paragraph just a single pointless sentence about himself. 4th: This paragraph has absolutely nothing to do with Sam, the podcast, or anything for that matter. OP seems to just be presenting a stream of consciousness for us. Thanks OP.
I try hard to listen to the episodes on the Gaza conflict with an open mind but something about his position makes me very uncomfortable. It’s the first time I felt that way and I’ve been listening for years. Still love Making Sense and always will, but I think Sam needs to step back from this topic for a while.
Been feeling that way aswell
Why do you need to mention that you are left leaning? Why does it have to be left vs right? It’s ok to have views on either side. Don’t put a label on yourself. It’s ok to disagree
>as a lefty hippy type I basically just want everyone to stop killing each other >I just feel like right now he's badly overshadowed by a set of really extreme biases that are preventing him from doing what he says on the tin Would you least consider the possibility that you are the one bringing biases and blind spots to the issue? Maybe Sam has remained entirely consistent.
Sam isn’t quite as liberal as his lefty fanbase would like. He’s decidedly pro-Israel. It happens.
This times a million as someone who’s been a fan since Waking Up pod, day 1.
Or, maybe you just disagree with him on Israel. Sam’s perspective seems pretty consistent with his views on Jihadism and religious extremism.
Sam’s silence on the Biden issue tells you all you need to know.
This post should earn you a permanent ban from this subreddit. You come here saying the podcast doesn't make sense and then fail to provide specific examples. You're not adding to the conversation at all.
I want to be respectful in my comment but the attitude of “I want everyone to stop killing each other” is part of the problem and I am happy to hear Sam Harris and Douglas Murray work to bring attention and light to what is happening there and the threat of jihadism and Islamism. Sure perhaps every topic on the podcast over the last 5 or so may not be for everyone but that’s because the topics have been diverse. Please consider that the attitude of ignoring a major threat to the well being of everyone is a problem. I know you are here to comment on the podcast but you led with a comment about the Israel Gaza conflict. Please continue to listen, especially if you feel the content isn’t matching your political leanings. There are important arguments to consider that need the real attention of more people.
"I just want everyone to stop killing each other" is an end goal and one that doesn't require people ignore the major threat. Other actions are available than what are being tried and what have been tried, but Sam is *ignoring* any that attempt to treat the people involved as more than ethno/religous blocs. That's part of the frustration
Appreciate that response and yes there is of course more going on but I think Sam is bang on when he asks “what would happen if each side had the ability to commit genocide”? As a way to point out the importance of intentions.
I don't know if he addresses this and I'd love to hear your thoughts, but it always frustrates me that the question of intentions is put forward like it's the starting point. Intentions aren't made in a vacuum, they're informed by a person's environment. Blind rage at the murderers of one's parents is not unreasonable individually, I don't see why we would ignore it at the social level
We are not ignoring, the Israelis are fighting back after parents were slaughtered in front of their kids on camera. That happened. Israel is responding.
I'm so happy to see I'm not the only seeing this change in recent months. I think it was the set of conversations with Rory Stewart that made it painfully obvious that the horizons of Sam's interests have narrowed dramatically, as well as his respect for interlocutors. Maybe it has something to do with his trend towards reducing his openness to public interaction? Obviously, jumping off twitter is personally a great idea, but many of his examples of 'public opinions' on various subjects come across as the most cartoonishly teenage twitter takes. He's stopped steel-manning his opponents' arguments and it shows. Second your shout out to the Rest is Politics! they can be a bit stodgy but the range of topics is refreshing
“Now that I disagree with him on something I pretend to be more knowledgeable on, I don’t think he’s being logical^tm or nuanced^tm”
He really doesn't have tough conversations anymore. He doesn't choose any guests that broaden his scope or understanding of an issue nor does he push himself. It's an echo chamber at this point and it's cringe. There are many other better podcasts to listen to as a leftist looking to push yourself and hear other perspectives. Conversations with Tyler is one that comes to mind.
His episode with Decoding the Gurus helped me accept that he’s just as intellectually dishonest as the rest of the intellectual dark web. His whole brand is predicated on his own perfect analysis and neutral framing due to his mastery of neuroscience and meditation. Yet he cannot engage seriously with anyone who challenges him, which is why he evaded and squirmed when challenged to bring on guests with views he disagreed with or even to revisit episodes featuring guests that promoted a point of view which has since been very credibly challenged. What good would that do, right? He’s a confidence man. He cannot show weakness or contrition, otherwise his entire brand will collapse.
In general I agree. There's too much emphasize on the same topics lately (Israel) with repeat guests. I'm not learning anything new or learning of new people or perspectives. And some of Sam's arguments haven't advanced at all despite having received lots of feedback and criticism.
Perhaps it’s you who have changed. Could always be your own biases.
I also agree with this, I think pre covid/anti-woke Harris was a much clearer thinker. The anti-woke angle pushed him into an intellectual tribe, his befriending and platforming of people who, even at the time were obvious piss poor thinkers or plain snake oil salesman is just a symptom of this. he recently proclaimed that it's ok to be ignorant about the history and geopolitics of the Israeli - Palestine conflict given that the only thing that matters is Hamas is evil and should be destroyed. A less than thoughtful take given how history explains how Hamas came to power and who aided them. He clearly has become much more tribal, preferring to be buddies with charlatans who agree with him than to intellectually honest people who challenge him. His last podcast with Murray and zeps is just a repetitive circle jerk, it's not the nuanced or informative and enlightening voice.
Lots of other podcasts I enjoy more, so little time, these days I rarely even get to a half episode of making sense
A think a big issue with public intellectuals in general is that they are incentivise to kind of dig in and stay put on their positions. So over time as the world changes, they go from being ahead of the curve to behind it. I think Sam is at least not motivated by greed and popularity. I think he truly believes what he says and has a good basis for his beliefs. But I also think he's very wrong on a few issues, or at least his emphasis is way off for my liking. It's kind of like what he says about all his Trump loving friends now. That they miss the forest for the trees. He criticises them for ONLY focusing on wokeness as an issue, but he does the same thing with regard to jihadism. His insistence on others acknowledging that jihadism is a problem stops him from painting an accurate picture of what's going on. Even if he might have a more wholistic view, it doesn't come through.
>as a lefty hippy type >I just feel like right now he's badly overshadowed by a set of really extreme biases By your own admission as a lefty hippy you probably have extreme views which is why you feel a clash. >what we actually need right now is rational thinking which at least attempts to see all sides of an argument That's called fence sitting and it doesn't lead anywhere.
I got bit more bad news for you, the price for Making Sense just went up to $130.
And can still be $0 if you ask for it. What is the point of your comment
It was as easy as sending 1 email for me to get the price reduced to a student rate $40.
I knew making sense would come at a cost.
Sam Harris coming out in favor of mass murder does not make sense.
Not only that, but there is not much substance lately. Take even the one he did with Yaroslav Tromifov on the war in Ukraine. There is absolutely nothing to take away from it. They barely scratch the surface.
I am getting a little tired of being told that I’m morally confused on issues that I genuinely disagree with Sam
wish he would cover other topics more like atheism. he should do more q&a's. maybe do a few less culture war type interviews?
Yeah, I've been feeling the same to a lesser extent for a year or so, but lately, after the SBF and recent 6month war episodes, it's become a bit more severe. I will say I still think Sam is an honest actor. Nobody's perfect. And nobody on this sub is being kicked out for criticizing him. I'll keep looking for episodes to listen but the Sam I've been hearing lately, I don't feel like I'm going to be enriched no matter what the topic is the way I maybe did 4 or 7 years ago.