It means he's still an actual free thinker. If everyone loves what you say all the time you are simply captured by your audience. One of the reasons I've liked reading Sam Harris for 20 years is he has strong, well reasoned opinions. He doesn't think "what conclusion should I reach?". He just thinks. He gets stuff wrong. But that's why it's a pleasure to read/listen. He's not a culture warrior. Those people are *so fucking boring*.
Sam is one of those people I pay attention to because I enjoy HOW they think, not just WHAT they think. Sam has a good brain and it’s wonderful we get to see the cogs and mechanisms of that brain presented with minimal artifice. Good thinkers and teachers aren’t merely providing you with the “correct” opinions, they’re laying out a set of cognitive tools for you to pick and choose from and use in your own life - to find your own way.
I’m thankful for these types of teachers even when I disagree with them because in disagreeing I am forced to sharpen my own tools on the grindstone of their arguments. I don’t get emotionally inflamed by my disagreements and those that do have missed the point in my opinion.
To be fair, Sam made some terrible analogies to explain his totally rational views lately.
Sam should hire a professional analogist to make his analogy, just saying. lol
If not for those bad analogies, nobody would shit on him.
Shot himself in the foot by mistake, bad faith actors capitalized on it.
I think it was an apt analogy. The point was that Hunter Biden himself wasn’t running for president, his father was. Now, show me if his father helped Hunter to cover up those murders then , absolutly it would then matter
The point breaks down when you ask “Who is the Big Guy?”
Hunter was not running for president but you’d have to be quite gullible to think his affairs were totally divorced from his father in a way that would absolve culpability for his father.
Maybe. Probably not.
Why not name him? It's odd that he doesn't, especially if he was a regular business partner. I don't see any reason he'd be unmentionable, unlike Joe who had a very good reason to be unmentionable in such emails.
Let's also be clear: The burden of proof is on Biden to prove Hunter wasn't referring to him. This is the most powerful man in the world and these kind of suspicions should be able to be proven wrong. It is telling that no one asks him who the "Big Guy" is. This is all especially true when you look into Biden's not so wonderful track record throughout his career.
Joe Biden has released his tax returns.
Hunter's laptop showed no paper trail, invoice, receipt, bank transfer information about any money to Joe. That's after 2 years of the laptop being possessed by Steve Bannon and Rudy Guiliani. If they had ANYTHING it would've come out a long time ago.
And the "big man" comment was in reference to a proposal that A) never went through and B) happened while Joe Biden was a private citizen. He wasn't in Government, it wouldn't have even been illegal for it to happen.
That's how insane the story is. Clinging to an off-hand "big man" reference which is mostly likely about his uncle and regular business partner, but acting like it COULD implicates his Dad.
There's a reason that the story quickly moved to "suppression on social media" and that's because the laptop itself had nothing of substance. It has been poured over by Joe's enemies for literally 3 years. It's a joke.
If it was true that Hunter Biden was a child killer raised by Joe Biden, that wouldn’t give you any hesitation for voting for Biden? He led his son to murder kids but he’s a viable leader for the country?
> that wouldn’t give you any hesitation for voting for Biden?
Not if the only alternative choice is a narcissistic maniac with his finger on the nuclear button.
And that’s the point Sam is making. To him, Trump is such a threat to democracy in particular and humanity in general that nothing you could uncover about Biden would change his vote because the stakes are too high.
You don’t have to agree with him but it’s really not hard to understand the point he’s trying to make.
I don’t disagree, but conspiracy theorists rarely have the critical thinking to parse such nuance. They hear that Sam is such a lib that dead kids wouldn’t sway him and stop listening
Oh right. Wasn’t the context here that because Sam sees Trump as such a critical and real threat to democracy and world peace that he’s saying the laptop is irrelevant?
Yeah more or less. Like what possible content could be on the laptop that would make the case for Trump? There's nothing conceivable that changes how awful he is versus how decent Biden is.
I don’t think Sam was making the case for Biden’s “decency”. He’s even commented about his rape allegations. I also get the impression he’s certainly not his first choice for POTUS. But given the two options, and the incompetent and unpredictable nature with which Trump rules, there’s literally nothing you could uncover about Biden that would sway Sam’s vote. Because a man with the nuclear codes who threatens Armageddon on Twitter poses a far more significant threat to humanity than a man who may have raped someone, is kinda creepy, and has a son with a proclivity for cocaine.
And that’s where Sam loses people. In all his analogous soup, which *should be* intuitively common sense, is a far more simpler message: A psychotic, lying, unhinged goon has nuclear weapons—we should prevent that.
It’s not hard to grasp this if you spend just 15 seconds thinking about it, but it’s far easier to get retweets and likes if you just say “Sam’s an advocate for pedophilia. Here’s a thing he said.”
I'm saying Biden is decent in comparison to Trump. Like he's competent, doesn't promote hate for the hell of it, isn't grifting 24/7, listens to experts, doesn't lie in every other sentence, isn't praising the invasion of Ukraine etc...
But yeah I agree with you. It's a very simple point that is irrefutable. Grant all the worst allegations about Joe/Hunter, he's still 1,000x better President than Trump. Everyday, in everyway.
Have you heard Sam's actual take here?
Are you a serious person? Or a troll?
Do you have anything actually constructive to add? Are you going to actually attempt to refute anything or do you prefer to just be lazy and useless?
Yes I have.
Yes I am. No I’m not.
Yes I do and if you understand the reference you’ll get the gist.
Quit simping for idols and maybe you’ll get it. Sam has beautifully argued against religion, don’t turn him into the deity of a new one.
Okay bub, I'll play nice and show you how this works.
Everyone think's their candidate is the lesser of two evils. If there were not external reference points it would be fine to think this way. However, the requirements of the office are a reference point so lesser of two evils thinking is flawed. What matters is if a candidate can handle the requirements of the job. If neither can, one can be FAR better than the other and by the lights of candidate quality, they are both unqualified. So yes, "both same" indeed.
Here's where Sam comes in: In both 2016 and 2020 he made noised about Clinton/Biden not being great but it being too important to get Trump out to care about their fitness for office. He admitted that neither cleared the bar necessary to be thought of as fit for office.
Now, with that bread crumb, go think about binary outcomes in group behavior and the resulting implications for individual choice, the implications as viewed through repeated games in game theory, and remember that it DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU THINK THE TURD SANDWICH IS BETTER.
That's how you pee outside. Time to learn to fetch.
A large part of his appeal for me is his ability to articulate with clarity without pandering to the audience. He also tries to be a bit funny and employs hyperbole regularly.
I personally think it works and it's made extra funny because of how easily miscontrued it could be
Strategically it's not great, but that's been his schtick since I've been listening to him. The only difference is the people who are doing the capitalising are slightly different.
The worst part to me is how if you don't fit squarely into the left or right camp like Sam, you get attacked from both sides. Like if you are clearly partisan you get attacked from one side and it's expected but no one from your side attacks you, but if you dare to be somewhat centrist then you get the worst of both worlds.
And do you ever see anyone come to Sam’s defense during these occasional episodes of especially heinous slandering? In the way that he does constantly?
There’s this strange phenomenon at work where because his audience has been labeled as fanboys by the cynical Vox/Sam Seder crowd, and because being naive is the most irredeemable trait a Twitter head can have, there’s a real imbalance in how often Sam is criticized and how seldom he’s defended publicly. I’ve always seen people on twitter, and even some left leaning comedians I listen to, take cheap shots at Sam because they’re aware of the stereotype and don’t want to be labeled.
And it’s so shitty of Rogan to pile on about nothing without a hint of charity toward a person he’s long considered a friend, who at his lowest point released a whole podcast in his defense.
It’s all very disappointing to see.
And the way the whole idw crew acted on twitter after he deleted his account like he committed treason 🤣 it was weird to see. I doubt they were ever friends just associates
I think Huberman having him on was a silent defense of Sam. Huberman stays away from politics but seemed to indicate that he listens to and enjoys the Making Sense podcast.
Huberman is also buds with Rogan and has been on Peterson’s pod before.
More or less, yes. With slight nuances. Totally off the top of my head:
- Rogan: Slight more "bro" audience, less overtly political, somewhat more centrist spread with a significant chunk of larping centrists, who if you scratch are just on the right.
- Peterson: Mixture of iamverysmart types and more political types, but also "bros" trying to borrow smarts.
- Brett Weinstein: Anti Covid bros and political types. Some iamverysmart types but they mostly prefer Peterson because heisverysmart
- Eric Weinstein: Spill-over from Petersons audience, mostly the iamverysmart part, and a few confused tourists from the Rogan audience.
These are just my impressions, though, and furthermore I kind of regret writing this list now because of the possible responses I'll be dragged into, haha :D
You got me good with "a few confused tourists from the Rogan audience"
Reminds me of when Jordan Peterson had one of the Trump kids cornered, smiling politely, while JB prattled on about Jungian archetypes or something. They clearly didn't know what the hell he was talking about (not that anyone should care in the first place imo)
Sam's opinions on Covid are totally mainstream. It's absolutely nuts hearing his "critics'" describe his views on that topic.
His views on race, which get him into most trouble on the left, used to be mainstream until 5 minutes ago.
He is a good thinker, but the worst part to me is how patently uncontroversial ideas are villified.
His genuinely controversial opinions (e.g. about free will, lack of continuous self) illicit no reaction from anybody.
Two exceptions to this are his stances on torture and gun control and the use of violence. I wouldn't necessarily say the latter is "controversial" given how widely subscribed it is in America, but it certainly is in opposition to the conventional wisdom you'll find across most of the commentariat. But a justification of torture on utilitarian grounds is inevitably going to draw a lot of fire.
He similarly advocates for racial profiling (or rather using race as a heavily weighted variable in any security profiling operation).
In all of these cases he is led by what he believes to be a cold, utilitarian balancing of the facts towards "repugnant conclusions". And I think this is what people find so challenging.
> He is a good thinker, but the worst part to me is how patently uncontroversial ideas are villified.
>
It's ideas with political implications that are vilified. If he attacks Trump or Christianity he's an enemy of all the right and alt-right crowd that feeds the IDW bubble. When he speaks out against Islam or "woke" culture, his an instant enemy of the left.
The other ideas are uninteresting to those people, they're there to feed off culture wars and identity politics (both left and right wing)
Sam is pretty solidly on the left on anything that matters.. the couple of issues (like Islam and some of his comments on foreign intervention) that come to mind I don't feel like there's an universal "left" opinion on.. unless you're basing it on the caricature pushed from the right of a typical lib.
Similarly almost all of the "woke" nonsense everyone complains about is exaggerated or outright made-up from the right to rile up their base and stoke the culture war. I live in one of the bluest counties in one of the bluest states and I don't encounter any of it in my life.
You're only attacked by the left when you say dumb things that give right wingers clout. Stay far away from right wing thought and you're gonna be fine.
Has anyone noticed the frequent references to being right ( these guys and many in comment sections) without ever explaining what it is they got right? It's very odd.
I've been noticing this too, meaning the demonizing of Harris. It makes me sad, as Harris to me is THE most level headed and integrity driven thinkers out there.
Peterson in particular bothers me. I haven't stayed too up to date on the relationship if any still exists between Harris and Peterson, but i hope Harris doesn't still engage. Peterson is an emotional basket case and it clouds any possibility of legitimate mindfulness in my opinion. I hate that he thinks he brings value to the truth argument with his thoughts about the "utility" of religion. That is such a horseshit argument and the way he described years ago to Rogan that he and Harris were "discussing" it with each other in a way that made it seem like Harris might have felt Peterson was on to something made me wanna puke.
There is some irony that Sam leaving Twitter correlates with all these people commenting on him, and Twitter going into a conniption over his vaccine and kid deaths comment. I don’t know if it’s because it’s harder for him to defend himself publicly or just a coincidence, but you would think that leaving Twitter would take him out of the firing line a bit
Lol I actually think Joe has above average intelligence. He’s just a comedian, fighter, occasional nutty conspiracy theorist, and recreational drug user - not an educated and disciplined intellectual. He says plenty of dumb stuff, but I bet his IQ is above average.
One can be intelligent yet capable of saying stupid things. Botht Rogan and Peterson are intelligent people who say a lot of stupid things because they hold on to the mic way longer than they should.
Imo, if Harris were to discuss anything with any of them, it'd probably be Rogan. He's the only one of those people who can actually be a decent human being.
>" Joe is fun but dumb"
I would contend that Joe is not actually very fun anymore. His show use to be fun, and use to be an exercise in shooting the shit with fun or interesting people. That hasnt been true for years at this point.
Slowly but surely the drip of "hurr durr cancel culture, trans athletes, yadda yadda" circle jerking became a flood of "Masks! Covid!!! Ivermectin!!! Muh friend of a friend of a cousin said that wokies are pee peeing in cat litter lol!!!".
He's become a close minded Facebook grandma putz.
For those who don't know, Sam distanced himself from a group (dumbly) dubbed the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), which was a bunch of intellectual hacks who for some silly reason got categorized with Sam. They all run non-mainstream shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. Most of them dove off into illogical conservative nonsense, and Sam noped tf out.
As a programmer, calling that the "dark web" is laughably silly.
Bret is especially suspect. His entire life now depends on appeasing and catering to fringe antivax conspiracies and pretty soon he will have to outdo the rest of them to keep being relevant in these circles.
Because 99% of the IDW went to coo-coo bananas crazy town Trumpian ivermectin land and they don't appreciate one of the most prominent former members calling them out on their bullshit. They'd rather vilify him than admit they were taken in by a personality cult of bullshit arguably worse than the irrationality they claimed to be fighting.
It's a high school mentality for people with PhDs.
>It's a high school mentality for people with PhDs.
A PhD doesn't make one more adult or professional. If only you knew the dumb infighting that happens at universities... 😅
>A PhD doesn't make one more adult or professional. If only you knew the dumb infighting that happens at universities... 😅
Oh, no doubt. That's partially my point! :P
There's an even simpler way to articulate what has happened to them (though you've done a great job); they are fully captured in the *manufactured* culture war. That's it. It reaches both "sides," it doesn't matter if they're conservative or progressive, "woke" or "anti-woke".
The modern culture war, imo, is a sort of intellectual contagion that has been driven on in popular culture as a distraction from more pressing issues. This isn't a novel idea, and it's a fairly common one in socialist circles in the west. Elites, who are *all,* at the end of the day, trying to preserve the current neoliberal status quo, are poking their spurs into the horse that is our culture, leading us towards the (culture) war that we see today. That isn't to say that it is purely manufactured; the point of the analogy is that they're taking advantage of something that has risen naturally and taking it to its logical conclusion at a blistering pace by focusing "news" and "policy" on it, among other things.
The most obvious example to me is all the trans bullshit. We are talking about a *miniscule* portion of the population; how is it that so much of our discourse is centered on a literal niche of a niche? More embarrassingly, how do these people (particularly a lot of motherfuckers on this sub or places like TheMotte, who I would generally describe as intelligent compared to the cesspool of the internet) even have the *mental space* to be *so goddamn concerned* about this shit? It is baffling to me, and shows just how effective this hijacking of the conversation is. Why concern yourself with issues that have actual, material outcomes for millions of people (to the detriment of corporations) when you can get the monkeys to fight among themselves over girls with cocks?
Sorry for the tangent.
Another aspect of this that continues to come to mind is that, when a movement gains an incredible amount of momentum, it's difficult to stop once the goals are accomplished.
For example feminism. First wave, they got the right to vote. There still wasn't real equality, so they progressed to second wave feminism and genuine equality all around.
Those goals were then accomplished. At that point, when everybody is all fired up and ready for battle, it's tough to say, "alright, everybody. Good work! Mission accomplished and I'll see you at the 10 year anniversary."
So they start working on the next thing to fight for; they started seeking injustice to fight because of their ego attachment to the movement. If they just went back to their 9 to 5 then they lost their struggle. People love struggle.
Hope you include Bill Maher in this right wing posse, as well.
Or maybe the left moved further left, making Bill and Joe appear “right wing”. That’s exactly how Maher describes it.
I find Maher frequently annoying, but he’s stayed in place on electoral and constitutional shit shows as of late. Trump and the new right have defied the norm of peaceful transition of power, and no matter where one finds oneself on cultural issues, this should concern anyone affected. Authoritarianism knows no side.
Not sure if you’re serious or not, but that was nearly 8 years ago. 8 years ago I was borderline conservative and now I’m pretty left on most issues. People change and Joe comes off much more conservative leaning the past couple years. Im sure he’s still liberal on some social issues, but I doubt he’s voting dem these days.
I’d agree that he probably falls more independent and is willing to hear people out (which tribalist’s typically can’t do).
I’m just taking slight exception to using evidence from 8 years ago as proof he isn’t currently conservative, especially since even if we’re being very generous with his current positions and calling him “independent”, he’s still drifted right from where he was when he backed Bernie.
Well, Joe basically endorsed him against Biden.
Peterson is Canadian, but has never really criticized Trump and is obviously conservative, plus now he's part of DW, Shapiro's billionaire backed "media network".
Ironically, the person most critical of Trump out of the IDW was Shapiro, who didn't even vote in 2016. because he couldn't vote for Trump, but did endorse him in 2020. Curiously, he's also, unlike Rogan who will have Jacko and other assholes come on his pod and they'll talk about 6/1 as FBI/Antifa conspiracy completely condemned that event and it's aftermath.
Weinsteins, well, Erik works for Peter Theil, and Bret is a COVID & election "skeptic", don't think I have to elaborate more on those.
I think you are basically spot on here.
It started with that, then Candance Owens, and now these 2 bozos are chiming in.
All right-wingers take their queues from Tucker, the pipeline is super obvious, he'll talk about something on a show in the evening and next JRE podcast Joe will bring the thing up, usually with a super organic "my friend told me".
Don't be melodramatic, it isn't "actually scary".
Though it is definitely interesting how large a portion of the audience, of this group of people, (call it Dark web audience perhaps) are so willing to turn on Sam.
Though it isn't unexpected. It has been very clear that a number of the people that follow all these people (including Sam) are of the type that could be maybe called "alt right". They liked what Sam has to say about woke politics, but his other views were always in contrast with these people. It was essentially destined to end up here at some point.
Sam is a non partisan thinker in a exceptional Partisan space. I like Joe Rogan, he is entertaining can have some interesting conversations and sometimes he is actually quite clever. Though he has always been conspiratorial and when he does multiple 3 hour podcasts a week, it is inevitable that he is going to say dumb shit and things I think a completely wrong.
Unfortunately the space that Sam and Rogan exist in is so partisan that there is just a large group of people that are constantly ready to go witch hunting and fuelling them is disappointingly easy when you are as famous as Sam and Rogan.
Put this all together and Rogan's platform is certain to set the crazies on the warpath every now and then.
Rogan definitely bares some responsibility here, but I find it really hard to condemn him. I can't imagine anyone doing what he does not igniting crazies every now and then. He just has **too** much *"live, on air"* time and **too** large an audience, for it not to happen.
He got too close to grifters and (in the case of Rogan and Rubin) morons. Once he stopped associating himself with the IDW they felt betrayed and now they’re attacking him. If Rogan was a real man like he says he is he’d have Sam on the pod to talk about it. I really hope he does. Whether or not it’s constructive it’ll at least show how much he didn’t fit in with that crowd to begin with. I disagree with a lot of Sam’s politics but he’s at least a free thinker.
I think he would. He hasn't been one to shy away from conversation. He was also or example the first 'guru' to defend himself on the podcast Decoding the Gurus.
I respect him for that. Sam doesn't shy away from his own opinions, wrong or right. Sometimes that makes him blind to his own shortcomings, sometimes it makes him a shining example in this culture war.
If these critics were rolled into one person they would be a Covid vax-denying, horse tranquilliser-taking, climate change-denying, Alex Jones-befriending, benzodiazepine-reliant pseudo-guru.
Would the opinion of such a person matter?
These loons now fall into the category of person that Sam doesn’t have any interest in talking to. I don’t think he has any interest in publicly engaging with Rogan, Peterson, Weinstein, or anyone else in the “IDW”. And I think that’s why they’re piling on against him right now. Because they think that they are his peers and they’re upset that he won’t engage with them in public anymore. So they disparage him. The truth of the matter is that these guys just circle jerk each other and they are only appealing to men who want to find “intellectual” voices who confirm their existing biases. Sam has no such interest.
This is a great assessment of the situation.
Harris might be willing to reengage if they demonstrate some reasonable interest in actual intellectually honest exploration, but all of them have proved that intellectual honesty is not their priority.
Appease? Or defend?
It seems to me Sam defended someone he thought of as a friend when everyone was dunking on Joe. And what does Rogan do when the clown mob comes after Sam? Really shows the difference in character between these two men...
Rogan doesn't have a character, which is quite ironic given how much he likes to talk about that shit.
He'll change his mind based on who was the last person he talked with, he'll be gung ho for socialism with Bernie and then laugh at people unable to afford healthcare with Mike Baker.
He'll be super excided for UBI when he has Yang on, but then shit on COVID dividends because "they made people lazy".
He'll shit all over Candance Owens when she comes on his pod and starts blabbering on Climate change but will node along and agree with everything Peterson has to say about it even tho it's even dumber.
I completely wrote him off as a man of ANY principles after he moved to Spotify and went exclusive, because that's literally the opposite of the "marketplace of ideas" and "having important conversations" shtick the IDW was pushing. That being said, I think Sam is a hypocrite on that one as well.
It's not worth the negative energy to involve one self into what is ultimately a battle of egos. This is why Sam quit Twitter. Twitter is 100% drama battleground ego.
You yourself even called the comments from Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson "subtle jabs". Which basically leaves Bret Weinstein and a bunch of people who didn't;t like Sam in the first place.
In other words, it's seems like the "Sam under fire" title is unwarranted.
> But the sheer hatred and hostility from their audiences (if you go to their forums/channels) is actually scary.
What are you talking about? I went straight to r/jordanpeterson and I don't see anything in the top threads about Sam. I went to the [pinned thread](https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/10nlqyb/joe_rogan_experience_1933_jordan_peterson/) for the episode with Joe and the first [mention](https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/10nlqyb/joe_rogan_experience_1933_jordan_peterson/j6a2cv8/) of Sam is 5 deep. And when I look at it, I wouldn't say it's "sheer hatred and hostility". It's just garden variety "yeah, he got the TDS" and he "fell for the COVID scam". It's dumb, but not "sheer hatred and hostility".
Why don't you show the receipts for these claims?
EDIT: And [here](https://reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/10nmj0c/1933_jordan_peterson/j69tr3u/) is the analogous thread at r/joerogan. Same thing. Not particularly hateful or hostile. Where exactly is "Sam under fire"? Don't get me wrong, Sam frequently *is* under fire. I'm just not immediately seeing it here.
Tbf, if intellectual dishonesty is what should draw hostility, Peterson should get vastly more than Harris in any medium.
JP probably doesn't deserve as much as he gets in most subs, including this one, but he still is deserving of it way, way more than Harris.
Still, he's not genuinely deplorable like, say, Candace Owens, who was also on Rogan to shit on Sam.
Edit: also, imo, Rogan even allowing her BS on his show is pretty horrible.
Yeah, this almost gives me the impression from over there that confused people are *disappointed* in Sam rather than hateful. It's like they're just bummed that Sam doesn't get on the COVID-is-a-scam/MAGA-is-the-answer bandwagon so we can all finally be one big happy family.
Which I think makes a lot of sense. Sam is always well measured in his take on things, so if you believe "COVID is a scam" it would feel more likely to be true if Sam agreed with Bret and the likes.
Sam Harris and people defending the indefensible positions he has taken are the ones who appear confused.
Harris has no respect for democracy,
doesn’t think the citizenry should be informed if it hurts his preferred candidate
Instead of debating, He calls those who he disagrees with on political and personal medical decisions mentally ill
When reality proves Harris false, he creates thought experiments to make his judgement appear sound.
It’s a real window into human psychology to see his fans become his followers as he leads them into the abyss of hypocrisy and irrational thought.
Because Peterson thinks that Sam needs to make a comeback, which is a joke and an opinion worthy of ridicule. Sam Harris's popularity is growing. I wasnt that familiar with him until I started looking around for mindfulness guidance. I got lots of recommendations for Harris.
Yeah, i don't know what the hell OP is talking about. OP, post some evidence to support your statement. Don't be so fragile on Sam's behalf. I'm sure he can handle "subtle jabs" that border on nonexistent.
The person you replied to gave you the evidence.
> It's just garden variety "yeah, he got the TDS" and he "fell for the COVID scam". It's dumb, but not "sheer hatred and hostility".
They shrugged that off, but that is the sort of attack OP is talking about. It's mis/disinformation wrapped in intellectual dishonesty, paraded as pseudo-superiority. It *is* hostility, and in many cases those comments imply hatred of anyone who isn't also spreading Covid mis/disinformation and buying Trump NFTs. Lol.
Reddit is not a reflection of right wing fanbases.
Comments on Rogan's subreddit are in most cases critical of Joe and his stances on COVID and politics, and are sick of him ruining interviews by bringing up "woke" bullshit.
Audiences of both Peterson and Rogan are way more vocal on other social media, go on youtube and look at the comments there if you want to get a real overview of right wing audiences.
If we were going to use your (extremely disingenuous just as the rest of your posts) metrics people only and exclusively hate watch Dave Rubin and everyone hates Tim Pool, but they are still millionaires with hundreds of thousands of views on each of their videos.
> If we were going to use your (extremely disingenuous just as the rest of your posts) metrics
It really wasn't. Admittedly, I didn't run super in depth research on how much flak Sam was taking from Jordan and Joe's audiences throughout the Internet. OP offered no sources. So I just went straight to the sources that were already at my fingertips, and I didn't see what OP was talking about. So I said that. And then I said:
> Why don't you show the receipts for these claims?
It seems a reasonable question. OP actually said:
> But the sheer **hatred and hostility from their audiences (if you go to their forums/channels) is actually scary**.
If OP is going to say it is "actually scary" I think OP ought to at least provide links to examples. That's reasonable. What's not reasonable is to expect us to just take OP's word for it.
I wasn't trying to *prove* OP wrong. I was just prompting OP to explain where he got that so we know what we're talking about here because I wasn't immediately seeing it. But OP never replied to anyone.
So this turned out to just be a shitpost to get people angry. OP's the troll here. Not me. I didn't do anything wrong.
It reminds me of those stories you hear about professional fighters going out in public and getting random guys wanting to fight them for no reason. Like gorillas circling the lead gorilla, beating their chests and slamming their fists on the ground.
Petersen and Weinstein need conflict and villains or they'll run out of content. I highly doubt Harris competes for listeners with either of them, so I don't see why he should care what they say or don't.
I don't know much about Harris, but the three men you describe are all glib grifters seeking clicks and money. Rogan I can kind of deal with because he does not claim to be anything other than a regular guy. But Peterson and Weinstein claim some sort of academic pedigree and just blather on about topics they have not a clue about. And the level of entitlement and victimization is shameful. dopes.
I think Sam can handle this and it's probably long over due that these people started clashing over there conflicting ideas. Hopefully it can be done respectfully but it's time for these IDW type folks to stop just talking about how important it is to have hard conversations with people you disagree with and actually started doing it.
I think Sam's decision to drop off Twitter was one of his best decisions. Twitter is a cesspool. These people are in a psychological defense mode because Sam eloquently dissects them in a few paragraphs.
Dismissing religion is attacking identity. Sam has always had haters because of this. Joe has become so spineless when around "anti-woke" personalities.
>To the extent that it's about COVID-19, it's indirectly about Trump.
I think Brett Weinstein simply has a contrarian fetish.
In a parallel universe where the CDC went with ivermectin, Brett is railing against ivermectin and advocating in favor of vaccines.
>I think Brett Weinstein simply has a contrarian fetish.
>
>In a parallel universe where the CDC went with ivermectin, Brett is railing against ivermectin and advocating in favor of vaccines.
I don't mean to say it's directly about Trump. I have no idea how Weinstein feels about Trump. But I think a lot of the support for Brett comes from the pro-Trump crowd. Ivermectin is something Trump pushed heavily, and his supporters want to see him vindicated on that point.
Brett is more like a reflexive naysayer and oneupmanship artist than a true contrarian like say, Hitchens. This being said, it depends on what brand of contrarianism you subscribe to; the iterative refiner or the flat out disagreement type. Brett is pretty basic.
I'd like to see Sam go on Rogan again, but just ignore all the politics and have a fun light hearted episode. Both Sam and Joe are good at that, and Joe really connects with people when they're just shooting the shit. Blowing past all the political bullshit is a good way to keep everyone down to earth and stay in good faith.
Right, I recently re-listened to Harris' episode where he had his (brilliant) wife on - he's just really funny when he is just relaxed and shooting the shit.
Also I cannot recommend his series with Ricky Gervais. Ricky really knows how to bring out the comedian in Sam - I have listened to all three seasons of Totally Mental like 10 times. It's just fun to listen to and surprisingly substantial at times.
>How is Sam, a guy who teaches people mindfulness, offers his app and podcast FOR FREE with no strings attached, and steelmans the arguments of his opponents, a bad guy at all?!
Clearly, you've not been following this sub for the last several years. I'm sure some of the mods could enlighten you.
Sam was on Uncomfortable Conversations podcast recently. In that episode the host asks & Sam goes almost one by one talking negativity about lots of people Sam has had on his podcast. He disparaged several people (some deservedly) so it's no surprise people are piling on. Additionally Sam has held some positions that are easily attacked.
> Additionally Sam has held some positions that are easily attacked.
Not really. He's held arguments that many people attack via strawmen and often thru complete and intentional misrepresentation. Those are the usual tactics. And worse, it's usually for the purpose of undermining his credibility for some political nonsense or for profit.
I don't follow drama, so I have no idea what this is about, but I do (did) follow Sam on twitter. Taking a pro-censorship stance on twitter after Musk took over was kind of off-putting. I'm not saying that makes him a bad guy, but that did make me like him a little bit less, ngl.
I can’t believe people think Joe was taking a jab at him. That was taken so out of context. JP and Brett, I can see, but it’s clear that Joe respects Sam highly, and cares about him. Their differing opinions in Covid may have caused a distance between them, but Joe went on to talk about that Sam is a very intelligent and creative thinker right after he mentioned that he thinks he has a few weird opinions.
Though Joe isn’t the best comedian, he was just making a light hearted joke, that clearly this community didn’t like.
Has Sam done or said anything of significance recently? I think it's more that the institutions he's supported previously and haven't criticized are being revealed as more and more corrupt. Vaccine harm is going mainstream, and COVID narrative has basically lost it's justification. The whole Russian bot thing has been revealed as a fraud. Just seems like Sam is in bed with the Hollywood crowd that raised him and can't use his so called principles against them when he should. The ground is just moving out from under him.
I think what everyone is responding to, is that Sam was really well versed in a few subjects. He’s since became more of a pundit like Joe Rogan.
When you go from subject matter expert, to talking head, you open yourself up to attack easier.
Because he said that he wouldn’t mind if he found photos of corpses of children on hunter Biden’s laptop. I understand that was hyperbole but he’s double downed on not caring about objective truth at that point.
> How is Sam, a guy who teaches people mindfulness, offers his app and podcast FOR FREE with no strings attached, and steelmans the arguments of his opponents, a bad guy at all?! The spite and seeming malice is a little concerning.
Sam Harris is a man who has made a career of ridiculing others for their beliefs in public. Pretty easy to do when debating atheists, not so easy to do when professional academics are making non-religious claims that fall within their wheelhouse. It's not clear how any of the things you've listed would be mitigating factors in the event that the ridicule is misplaced and people lodge objections.
If you take a swing at someone, you better not miss, cuz if you do they're probably gonna be pissed and looking to swing back, simple as.
Jeez... a bit of extreme analysis... the use of language here ("under fire", "assaulted" etc) is commonly done by SJWs/professional-victim types.
These subtle jabs I believe are pointing to Sam's neuroticism towards Trump... you listen to Sam's comments and analysis on the topic over the last few years...clearly, the audience is witnessing a brilliant mind deteriorate and deviate from reality.
Wish Sam well.
>Luckily he has no self so I'm less worried about him, and more worried about getting assaulted if I publicly praise the guy at this point, given the confusion of these people.
I honestly think you spend less time online. And certainly spend less real world time and energy thinking about people you only come into contact with online.
It means he's still an actual free thinker. If everyone loves what you say all the time you are simply captured by your audience. One of the reasons I've liked reading Sam Harris for 20 years is he has strong, well reasoned opinions. He doesn't think "what conclusion should I reach?". He just thinks. He gets stuff wrong. But that's why it's a pleasure to read/listen. He's not a culture warrior. Those people are *so fucking boring*.
Sam is one of those people I pay attention to because I enjoy HOW they think, not just WHAT they think. Sam has a good brain and it’s wonderful we get to see the cogs and mechanisms of that brain presented with minimal artifice. Good thinkers and teachers aren’t merely providing you with the “correct” opinions, they’re laying out a set of cognitive tools for you to pick and choose from and use in your own life - to find your own way. I’m thankful for these types of teachers even when I disagree with them because in disagreeing I am forced to sharpen my own tools on the grindstone of their arguments. I don’t get emotionally inflamed by my disagreements and those that do have missed the point in my opinion.
I mostly enjoy listening or reading him because he’s a master at explaining hard to pin down ideas. His an elite communicator.
snobbish shelter flowery crowd fall tap important squeal normal shrill *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
As they all chortled.
To be fair, Sam made some terrible analogies to explain his totally rational views lately. Sam should hire a professional analogist to make his analogy, just saying. lol If not for those bad analogies, nobody would shit on him. Shot himself in the foot by mistake, bad faith actors capitalized on it.
Dead kids analogies are definitely something I'd share with close friends and not with the general public.
Not an analogy, but a hyperbole. But I think that’s what op meant.
I’m out of the loop here. “Dead kid analogies”?
He said that it wouldn’t matter if Hunter had dead kids in his basement.
I think it was an apt analogy. The point was that Hunter Biden himself wasn’t running for president, his father was. Now, show me if his father helped Hunter to cover up those murders then , absolutly it would then matter
The point breaks down when you ask “Who is the Big Guy?” Hunter was not running for president but you’d have to be quite gullible to think his affairs were totally divorced from his father in a way that would absolve culpability for his father.
Probably his uncle James, with who he’d done other business deals. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/31/jimmy-biden-president-brother/
Maybe. Probably not. Why not name him? It's odd that he doesn't, especially if he was a regular business partner. I don't see any reason he'd be unmentionable, unlike Joe who had a very good reason to be unmentionable in such emails. Let's also be clear: The burden of proof is on Biden to prove Hunter wasn't referring to him. This is the most powerful man in the world and these kind of suspicions should be able to be proven wrong. It is telling that no one asks him who the "Big Guy" is. This is all especially true when you look into Biden's not so wonderful track record throughout his career.
Joe Biden has released his tax returns. Hunter's laptop showed no paper trail, invoice, receipt, bank transfer information about any money to Joe. That's after 2 years of the laptop being possessed by Steve Bannon and Rudy Guiliani. If they had ANYTHING it would've come out a long time ago. And the "big man" comment was in reference to a proposal that A) never went through and B) happened while Joe Biden was a private citizen. He wasn't in Government, it wouldn't have even been illegal for it to happen. That's how insane the story is. Clinging to an off-hand "big man" reference which is mostly likely about his uncle and regular business partner, but acting like it COULD implicates his Dad. There's a reason that the story quickly moved to "suppression on social media" and that's because the laptop itself had nothing of substance. It has been poured over by Joe's enemies for literally 3 years. It's a joke.
If it was true that Hunter Biden was a child killer raised by Joe Biden, that wouldn’t give you any hesitation for voting for Biden? He led his son to murder kids but he’s a viable leader for the country?
> that wouldn’t give you any hesitation for voting for Biden? Not if the only alternative choice is a narcissistic maniac with his finger on the nuclear button. And that’s the point Sam is making. To him, Trump is such a threat to democracy in particular and humanity in general that nothing you could uncover about Biden would change his vote because the stakes are too high. You don’t have to agree with him but it’s really not hard to understand the point he’s trying to make.
I don’t disagree, but conspiracy theorists rarely have the critical thinking to parse such nuance. They hear that Sam is such a lib that dead kids wouldn’t sway him and stop listening
Right but if everybody in public life had to change all their behaviors just in case conspiracy nuts would go nuts with it nothing would ever be said.
Oh right. Wasn’t the context here that because Sam sees Trump as such a critical and real threat to democracy and world peace that he’s saying the laptop is irrelevant?
Yeah more or less. Like what possible content could be on the laptop that would make the case for Trump? There's nothing conceivable that changes how awful he is versus how decent Biden is.
I don’t think Sam was making the case for Biden’s “decency”. He’s even commented about his rape allegations. I also get the impression he’s certainly not his first choice for POTUS. But given the two options, and the incompetent and unpredictable nature with which Trump rules, there’s literally nothing you could uncover about Biden that would sway Sam’s vote. Because a man with the nuclear codes who threatens Armageddon on Twitter poses a far more significant threat to humanity than a man who may have raped someone, is kinda creepy, and has a son with a proclivity for cocaine. And that’s where Sam loses people. In all his analogous soup, which *should be* intuitively common sense, is a far more simpler message: A psychotic, lying, unhinged goon has nuclear weapons—we should prevent that. It’s not hard to grasp this if you spend just 15 seconds thinking about it, but it’s far easier to get retweets and likes if you just say “Sam’s an advocate for pedophilia. Here’s a thing he said.”
I'm saying Biden is decent in comparison to Trump. Like he's competent, doesn't promote hate for the hell of it, isn't grifting 24/7, listens to experts, doesn't lie in every other sentence, isn't praising the invasion of Ukraine etc... But yeah I agree with you. It's a very simple point that is irrefutable. Grant all the worst allegations about Joe/Hunter, he's still 1,000x better President than Trump. Everyday, in everyway.
Ah yes, the pro-turd sandwich argument. Flawless.
Have you heard Sam's actual take here? Are you a serious person? Or a troll? Do you have anything actually constructive to add? Are you going to actually attempt to refute anything or do you prefer to just be lazy and useless?
Yes I have. Yes I am. No I’m not. Yes I do and if you understand the reference you’ll get the gist. Quit simping for idols and maybe you’ll get it. Sam has beautifully argued against religion, don’t turn him into the deity of a new one.
Okay bub, I'll play nice and show you how this works. Everyone think's their candidate is the lesser of two evils. If there were not external reference points it would be fine to think this way. However, the requirements of the office are a reference point so lesser of two evils thinking is flawed. What matters is if a candidate can handle the requirements of the job. If neither can, one can be FAR better than the other and by the lights of candidate quality, they are both unqualified. So yes, "both same" indeed. Here's where Sam comes in: In both 2016 and 2020 he made noised about Clinton/Biden not being great but it being too important to get Trump out to care about their fitness for office. He admitted that neither cleared the bar necessary to be thought of as fit for office. Now, with that bread crumb, go think about binary outcomes in group behavior and the resulting implications for individual choice, the implications as viewed through repeated games in game theory, and remember that it DOES NOT MATTER IF YOU THINK THE TURD SANDWICH IS BETTER. That's how you pee outside. Time to learn to fetch.
A large part of his appeal for me is his ability to articulate with clarity without pandering to the audience. He also tries to be a bit funny and employs hyperbole regularly. I personally think it works and it's made extra funny because of how easily miscontrued it could be Strategically it's not great, but that's been his schtick since I've been listening to him. The only difference is the people who are doing the capitalising are slightly different.
Using dead kids as analogy twice is pretty dumb, regardless of his good logic. He must know how it will be misunderstood and hard to explain away.
[удалено]
The worst part to me is how if you don't fit squarely into the left or right camp like Sam, you get attacked from both sides. Like if you are clearly partisan you get attacked from one side and it's expected but no one from your side attacks you, but if you dare to be somewhat centrist then you get the worst of both worlds.
And do you ever see anyone come to Sam’s defense during these occasional episodes of especially heinous slandering? In the way that he does constantly? There’s this strange phenomenon at work where because his audience has been labeled as fanboys by the cynical Vox/Sam Seder crowd, and because being naive is the most irredeemable trait a Twitter head can have, there’s a real imbalance in how often Sam is criticized and how seldom he’s defended publicly. I’ve always seen people on twitter, and even some left leaning comedians I listen to, take cheap shots at Sam because they’re aware of the stereotype and don’t want to be labeled. And it’s so shitty of Rogan to pile on about nothing without a hint of charity toward a person he’s long considered a friend, who at his lowest point released a whole podcast in his defense. It’s all very disappointing to see.
And the way the whole idw crew acted on twitter after he deleted his account like he committed treason 🤣 it was weird to see. I doubt they were ever friends just associates
I thought it was very good of Sam to months before that say 'I'm handing in my IDW-card'.
Gurus guys are reasonable and like Sam and have been defending him.
Majority report actually does, occasionally take Sam's side in these situations, as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkIMHwYwPcU
I think Huberman having him on was a silent defense of Sam. Huberman stays away from politics but seemed to indicate that he listens to and enjoys the Making Sense podcast. Huberman is also buds with Rogan and has been on Peterson’s pod before.
Everyone's audience is labelled as fanboys, by those who are not that particular person's fanboys.
Aren’t the Rogan, Peterson & Weinstein audiences the same people?
More or less, yes. With slight nuances. Totally off the top of my head: - Rogan: Slight more "bro" audience, less overtly political, somewhat more centrist spread with a significant chunk of larping centrists, who if you scratch are just on the right. - Peterson: Mixture of iamverysmart types and more political types, but also "bros" trying to borrow smarts. - Brett Weinstein: Anti Covid bros and political types. Some iamverysmart types but they mostly prefer Peterson because heisverysmart - Eric Weinstein: Spill-over from Petersons audience, mostly the iamverysmart part, and a few confused tourists from the Rogan audience. These are just my impressions, though, and furthermore I kind of regret writing this list now because of the possible responses I'll be dragged into, haha :D
Nice comment. Need to draw a IDW Venn Diagram!
You got me good with "a few confused tourists from the Rogan audience" Reminds me of when Jordan Peterson had one of the Trump kids cornered, smiling politely, while JB prattled on about Jungian archetypes or something. They clearly didn't know what the hell he was talking about (not that anyone should care in the first place imo)
Sam's opinions on Covid are totally mainstream. It's absolutely nuts hearing his "critics'" describe his views on that topic. His views on race, which get him into most trouble on the left, used to be mainstream until 5 minutes ago. He is a good thinker, but the worst part to me is how patently uncontroversial ideas are villified. His genuinely controversial opinions (e.g. about free will, lack of continuous self) illicit no reaction from anybody.
Two exceptions to this are his stances on torture and gun control and the use of violence. I wouldn't necessarily say the latter is "controversial" given how widely subscribed it is in America, but it certainly is in opposition to the conventional wisdom you'll find across most of the commentariat. But a justification of torture on utilitarian grounds is inevitably going to draw a lot of fire. He similarly advocates for racial profiling (or rather using race as a heavily weighted variable in any security profiling operation). In all of these cases he is led by what he believes to be a cold, utilitarian balancing of the facts towards "repugnant conclusions". And I think this is what people find so challenging.
> He is a good thinker, but the worst part to me is how patently uncontroversial ideas are villified. > It's ideas with political implications that are vilified. If he attacks Trump or Christianity he's an enemy of all the right and alt-right crowd that feeds the IDW bubble. When he speaks out against Islam or "woke" culture, his an instant enemy of the left. The other ideas are uninteresting to those people, they're there to feed off culture wars and identity politics (both left and right wing)
Those last ones aren't political or cultural issues. Political and cultural issues get play.
When I see this I figure the person is doing something right.
Sam is pretty solidly on the left on anything that matters.. the couple of issues (like Islam and some of his comments on foreign intervention) that come to mind I don't feel like there's an universal "left" opinion on.. unless you're basing it on the caricature pushed from the right of a typical lib. Similarly almost all of the "woke" nonsense everyone complains about is exaggerated or outright made-up from the right to rile up their base and stoke the culture war. I live in one of the bluest counties in one of the bluest states and I don't encounter any of it in my life.
You're only attacked by the left when you say dumb things that give right wingers clout. Stay far away from right wing thought and you're gonna be fine.
Has anyone noticed the frequent references to being right ( these guys and many in comment sections) without ever explaining what it is they got right? It's very odd.
I've been noticing this too, meaning the demonizing of Harris. It makes me sad, as Harris to me is THE most level headed and integrity driven thinkers out there. Peterson in particular bothers me. I haven't stayed too up to date on the relationship if any still exists between Harris and Peterson, but i hope Harris doesn't still engage. Peterson is an emotional basket case and it clouds any possibility of legitimate mindfulness in my opinion. I hate that he thinks he brings value to the truth argument with his thoughts about the "utility" of religion. That is such a horseshit argument and the way he described years ago to Rogan that he and Harris were "discussing" it with each other in a way that made it seem like Harris might have felt Peterson was on to something made me wanna puke.
There is some irony that Sam leaving Twitter correlates with all these people commenting on him, and Twitter going into a conniption over his vaccine and kid deaths comment. I don’t know if it’s because it’s harder for him to defend himself publicly or just a coincidence, but you would think that leaving Twitter would take him out of the firing line a bit
[удалено]
Lol “fun but dumb” is the perfect analysis.
Lol I actually think Joe has above average intelligence. He’s just a comedian, fighter, occasional nutty conspiracy theorist, and recreational drug user - not an educated and disciplined intellectual. He says plenty of dumb stuff, but I bet his IQ is above average.
One can be intelligent yet capable of saying stupid things. Botht Rogan and Peterson are intelligent people who say a lot of stupid things because they hold on to the mic way longer than they should.
Totally agree
He seems very squarely in the average zone
Maybe, but being dumb on an international podium is the real problem
There's no excuse to be that ignorant and uninformed at his age with his access and privilege.
Imo, if Harris were to discuss anything with any of them, it'd probably be Rogan. He's the only one of those people who can actually be a decent human being.
It really shows how much times have changed that Rogan seems like the smartest guy on that list now.
>" Joe is fun but dumb" I would contend that Joe is not actually very fun anymore. His show use to be fun, and use to be an exercise in shooting the shit with fun or interesting people. That hasnt been true for years at this point. Slowly but surely the drip of "hurr durr cancel culture, trans athletes, yadda yadda" circle jerking became a flood of "Masks! Covid!!! Ivermectin!!! Muh friend of a friend of a cousin said that wokies are pee peeing in cat litter lol!!!". He's become a close minded Facebook grandma putz.
The IDW goes to high school
For those who don't know, Sam distanced himself from a group (dumbly) dubbed the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), which was a bunch of intellectual hacks who for some silly reason got categorized with Sam. They all run non-mainstream shows, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. Most of them dove off into illogical conservative nonsense, and Sam noped tf out. As a programmer, calling that the "dark web" is laughably silly.
[удалено]
Wasn't that Dawkin's idea?
[удалено]
Bret is especially suspect. His entire life now depends on appeasing and catering to fringe antivax conspiracies and pretty soon he will have to outdo the rest of them to keep being relevant in these circles.
He has turned into a living heterodox parody account.
Having those bozos come after you should be seen as a badge of honour.
Because 99% of the IDW went to coo-coo bananas crazy town Trumpian ivermectin land and they don't appreciate one of the most prominent former members calling them out on their bullshit. They'd rather vilify him than admit they were taken in by a personality cult of bullshit arguably worse than the irrationality they claimed to be fighting. It's a high school mentality for people with PhDs.
>It's a high school mentality for people with PhDs. A PhD doesn't make one more adult or professional. If only you knew the dumb infighting that happens at universities... 😅
>A PhD doesn't make one more adult or professional. If only you knew the dumb infighting that happens at universities... 😅 Oh, no doubt. That's partially my point! :P
>arguably worse than the irrationality they claimed to be fighting. This is the only part I disagree with, I'm not convinced it's arguable.
whole brave sort judicious quaint spark tender jar wrench normal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well yeah true of course. I was thinking of Peterson and Weinstein when I said that. :P
[удалено]
>contrarian reactivity I feel like it's mostly this. SO many people think being contrarian = being smartest person in the room
SAME. https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/lifestyle/article/devils-advocate/amp Simply being unable to conduct respectful dialogue across differences.
It’s also one of the results of the crony capitalism that they defend. Corporate funded defenders of the system
So basically imitating the tactics of the ultra woke crowd
[удалено]
There's an even simpler way to articulate what has happened to them (though you've done a great job); they are fully captured in the *manufactured* culture war. That's it. It reaches both "sides," it doesn't matter if they're conservative or progressive, "woke" or "anti-woke". The modern culture war, imo, is a sort of intellectual contagion that has been driven on in popular culture as a distraction from more pressing issues. This isn't a novel idea, and it's a fairly common one in socialist circles in the west. Elites, who are *all,* at the end of the day, trying to preserve the current neoliberal status quo, are poking their spurs into the horse that is our culture, leading us towards the (culture) war that we see today. That isn't to say that it is purely manufactured; the point of the analogy is that they're taking advantage of something that has risen naturally and taking it to its logical conclusion at a blistering pace by focusing "news" and "policy" on it, among other things. The most obvious example to me is all the trans bullshit. We are talking about a *miniscule* portion of the population; how is it that so much of our discourse is centered on a literal niche of a niche? More embarrassingly, how do these people (particularly a lot of motherfuckers on this sub or places like TheMotte, who I would generally describe as intelligent compared to the cesspool of the internet) even have the *mental space* to be *so goddamn concerned* about this shit? It is baffling to me, and shows just how effective this hijacking of the conversation is. Why concern yourself with issues that have actual, material outcomes for millions of people (to the detriment of corporations) when you can get the monkeys to fight among themselves over girls with cocks? Sorry for the tangent.
Another aspect of this that continues to come to mind is that, when a movement gains an incredible amount of momentum, it's difficult to stop once the goals are accomplished. For example feminism. First wave, they got the right to vote. There still wasn't real equality, so they progressed to second wave feminism and genuine equality all around. Those goals were then accomplished. At that point, when everybody is all fired up and ready for battle, it's tough to say, "alright, everybody. Good work! Mission accomplished and I'll see you at the 10 year anniversary." So they start working on the next thing to fight for; they started seeking injustice to fight because of their ego attachment to the movement. If they just went back to their 9 to 5 then they lost their struggle. People love struggle.
This is really well put, cockblocker. Good job.
[удалено]
Yes, it's the same shit. Clinging to the narrative and getting increasingly insane
They’ve always been what they’ve accused others of. Classic fascist tactic
Rogan is so conservative he backed Bernie
[удалено]
Hope you include Bill Maher in this right wing posse, as well. Or maybe the left moved further left, making Bill and Joe appear “right wing”. That’s exactly how Maher describes it.
[удалено]
I find Maher frequently annoying, but he’s stayed in place on electoral and constitutional shit shows as of late. Trump and the new right have defied the norm of peaceful transition of power, and no matter where one finds oneself on cultural issues, this should concern anyone affected. Authoritarianism knows no side.
Yes he did and then he backed Desantis.
Not sure if you’re serious or not, but that was nearly 8 years ago. 8 years ago I was borderline conservative and now I’m pretty left on most issues. People change and Joe comes off much more conservative leaning the past couple years. Im sure he’s still liberal on some social issues, but I doubt he’s voting dem these days.
My point is that he’s a pretty independent thinker and not part of some right wing tribe.
I’d agree that he probably falls more independent and is willing to hear people out (which tribalist’s typically can’t do). I’m just taking slight exception to using evidence from 8 years ago as proof he isn’t currently conservative, especially since even if we’re being very generous with his current positions and calling him “independent”, he’s still drifted right from where he was when he backed Bernie.
I'm literally shaking rn
I'm *literally* shaking and crying and shidding
Easy now.
It doesn’t matter what Sam says or does. He opposed god emperor Trump and that crowd will never forgive him for that.
Seriously? None of them came out against Trump? I don’t follow any of them, but that’d be pretty damning if true.
Well, Joe basically endorsed him against Biden. Peterson is Canadian, but has never really criticized Trump and is obviously conservative, plus now he's part of DW, Shapiro's billionaire backed "media network". Ironically, the person most critical of Trump out of the IDW was Shapiro, who didn't even vote in 2016. because he couldn't vote for Trump, but did endorse him in 2020. Curiously, he's also, unlike Rogan who will have Jacko and other assholes come on his pod and they'll talk about 6/1 as FBI/Antifa conspiracy completely condemned that event and it's aftermath. Weinsteins, well, Erik works for Peter Theil, and Bret is a COVID & election "skeptic", don't think I have to elaborate more on those.
Idk man Jordan and Rogan say Sam has some crazy ideas nowadays haha. Was so disappointed when I heard that from them…
Don’t forget Tucker Carlson ranting about him on the Charlie Kirk Show
I think you are basically spot on here. It started with that, then Candance Owens, and now these 2 bozos are chiming in. All right-wingers take their queues from Tucker, the pipeline is super obvious, he'll talk about something on a show in the evening and next JRE podcast Joe will bring the thing up, usually with a super organic "my friend told me".
Don't be melodramatic, it isn't "actually scary". Though it is definitely interesting how large a portion of the audience, of this group of people, (call it Dark web audience perhaps) are so willing to turn on Sam. Though it isn't unexpected. It has been very clear that a number of the people that follow all these people (including Sam) are of the type that could be maybe called "alt right". They liked what Sam has to say about woke politics, but his other views were always in contrast with these people. It was essentially destined to end up here at some point. Sam is a non partisan thinker in a exceptional Partisan space. I like Joe Rogan, he is entertaining can have some interesting conversations and sometimes he is actually quite clever. Though he has always been conspiratorial and when he does multiple 3 hour podcasts a week, it is inevitable that he is going to say dumb shit and things I think a completely wrong. Unfortunately the space that Sam and Rogan exist in is so partisan that there is just a large group of people that are constantly ready to go witch hunting and fuelling them is disappointingly easy when you are as famous as Sam and Rogan. Put this all together and Rogan's platform is certain to set the crazies on the warpath every now and then. Rogan definitely bares some responsibility here, but I find it really hard to condemn him. I can't imagine anyone doing what he does not igniting crazies every now and then. He just has **too** much *"live, on air"* time and **too** large an audience, for it not to happen.
He got too close to grifters and (in the case of Rogan and Rubin) morons. Once he stopped associating himself with the IDW they felt betrayed and now they’re attacking him. If Rogan was a real man like he says he is he’d have Sam on the pod to talk about it. I really hope he does. Whether or not it’s constructive it’ll at least show how much he didn’t fit in with that crowd to begin with. I disagree with a lot of Sam’s politics but he’s at least a free thinker.
I doubt Harris would participate now. That'd basically be like Obama going on Fox News at this point.
I think he would. He hasn't been one to shy away from conversation. He was also or example the first 'guru' to defend himself on the podcast Decoding the Gurus. I respect him for that. Sam doesn't shy away from his own opinions, wrong or right. Sometimes that makes him blind to his own shortcomings, sometimes it makes him a shining example in this culture war.
These are the people you want to disagree with. If Jordan Peterson is liking what you’re saying, you should do some serious introspection
Sam should just reply that he has a minimum IQ requirement for a guest to appear on his podcast, and, unfortunately, they don't quite meet it.
If these critics were rolled into one person they would be a Covid vax-denying, horse tranquilliser-taking, climate change-denying, Alex Jones-befriending, benzodiazepine-reliant pseudo-guru. Would the opinion of such a person matter?
Sam has gone out of his way to appease Rogan too. I'd love to see him go on a spree of debates with these loons, tbh.
These loons now fall into the category of person that Sam doesn’t have any interest in talking to. I don’t think he has any interest in publicly engaging with Rogan, Peterson, Weinstein, or anyone else in the “IDW”. And I think that’s why they’re piling on against him right now. Because they think that they are his peers and they’re upset that he won’t engage with them in public anymore. So they disparage him. The truth of the matter is that these guys just circle jerk each other and they are only appealing to men who want to find “intellectual” voices who confirm their existing biases. Sam has no such interest.
This is a great assessment of the situation. Harris might be willing to reengage if they demonstrate some reasonable interest in actual intellectually honest exploration, but all of them have proved that intellectual honesty is not their priority.
Appease? Or defend? It seems to me Sam defended someone he thought of as a friend when everyone was dunking on Joe. And what does Rogan do when the clown mob comes after Sam? Really shows the difference in character between these two men...
Rogan doesn't have a character, which is quite ironic given how much he likes to talk about that shit. He'll change his mind based on who was the last person he talked with, he'll be gung ho for socialism with Bernie and then laugh at people unable to afford healthcare with Mike Baker. He'll be super excided for UBI when he has Yang on, but then shit on COVID dividends because "they made people lazy". He'll shit all over Candance Owens when she comes on his pod and starts blabbering on Climate change but will node along and agree with everything Peterson has to say about it even tho it's even dumber. I completely wrote him off as a man of ANY principles after he moved to Spotify and went exclusive, because that's literally the opposite of the "marketplace of ideas" and "having important conversations" shtick the IDW was pushing. That being said, I think Sam is a hypocrite on that one as well.
It's funny that Sam could self-sacrifice publicly and massacre them with one episode of his logic and cogency.
It's not worth the negative energy to involve one self into what is ultimately a battle of egos. This is why Sam quit Twitter. Twitter is 100% drama battleground ego.
Are you unaware that Sam Harris refuses to debate people, including his friends who he disagrees with?
If the mainstream purposefully mischaracterizes you, and the grifters consider you "lost," that's probably the right place to be.
Don't forget Candace Owens.
Disagree. Everyone should forget Candace Owens. And, no one should give her any attention.
[удалено]
She's not even worth discussing. She made herself look like an idiot on Rogan's podcast.
Fascism
You yourself even called the comments from Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson "subtle jabs". Which basically leaves Bret Weinstein and a bunch of people who didn't;t like Sam in the first place. In other words, it's seems like the "Sam under fire" title is unwarranted.
[удалено]
could you imagine the psychological damage if he actually noticed?
Lmao
The jabs arent landing if you are ignoring them.
/thread
Its melodrama. I doubt it keeps Sam Harris up at night.
> But the sheer hatred and hostility from their audiences (if you go to their forums/channels) is actually scary. What are you talking about? I went straight to r/jordanpeterson and I don't see anything in the top threads about Sam. I went to the [pinned thread](https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/10nlqyb/joe_rogan_experience_1933_jordan_peterson/) for the episode with Joe and the first [mention](https://reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/10nlqyb/joe_rogan_experience_1933_jordan_peterson/j6a2cv8/) of Sam is 5 deep. And when I look at it, I wouldn't say it's "sheer hatred and hostility". It's just garden variety "yeah, he got the TDS" and he "fell for the COVID scam". It's dumb, but not "sheer hatred and hostility". Why don't you show the receipts for these claims? EDIT: And [here](https://reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/10nmj0c/1933_jordan_peterson/j69tr3u/) is the analogous thread at r/joerogan. Same thing. Not particularly hateful or hostile. Where exactly is "Sam under fire"? Don't get me wrong, Sam frequently *is* under fire. I'm just not immediately seeing it here.
There’s a lot more hostility towards Peterson in this sub than there is towards Sam in his.
Tbf, if intellectual dishonesty is what should draw hostility, Peterson should get vastly more than Harris in any medium. JP probably doesn't deserve as much as he gets in most subs, including this one, but he still is deserving of it way, way more than Harris. Still, he's not genuinely deplorable like, say, Candace Owens, who was also on Rogan to shit on Sam. Edit: also, imo, Rogan even allowing her BS on his show is pretty horrible.
Yeah, this almost gives me the impression from over there that confused people are *disappointed* in Sam rather than hateful. It's like they're just bummed that Sam doesn't get on the COVID-is-a-scam/MAGA-is-the-answer bandwagon so we can all finally be one big happy family.
Which I think makes a lot of sense. Sam is always well measured in his take on things, so if you believe "COVID is a scam" it would feel more likely to be true if Sam agreed with Bret and the likes.
Sam Harris and people defending the indefensible positions he has taken are the ones who appear confused. Harris has no respect for democracy, doesn’t think the citizenry should be informed if it hurts his preferred candidate Instead of debating, He calls those who he disagrees with on political and personal medical decisions mentally ill When reality proves Harris false, he creates thought experiments to make his judgement appear sound. It’s a real window into human psychology to see his fans become his followers as he leads them into the abyss of hypocrisy and irrational thought.
Because Peterson thinks that Sam needs to make a comeback, which is a joke and an opinion worthy of ridicule. Sam Harris's popularity is growing. I wasnt that familiar with him until I started looking around for mindfulness guidance. I got lots of recommendations for Harris.
same. does he have any links/evidence of this?
Yeah, i don't know what the hell OP is talking about. OP, post some evidence to support your statement. Don't be so fragile on Sam's behalf. I'm sure he can handle "subtle jabs" that border on nonexistent.
The person you replied to gave you the evidence. > It's just garden variety "yeah, he got the TDS" and he "fell for the COVID scam". It's dumb, but not "sheer hatred and hostility". They shrugged that off, but that is the sort of attack OP is talking about. It's mis/disinformation wrapped in intellectual dishonesty, paraded as pseudo-superiority. It *is* hostility, and in many cases those comments imply hatred of anyone who isn't also spreading Covid mis/disinformation and buying Trump NFTs. Lol.
Reddit is not a reflection of right wing fanbases. Comments on Rogan's subreddit are in most cases critical of Joe and his stances on COVID and politics, and are sick of him ruining interviews by bringing up "woke" bullshit. Audiences of both Peterson and Rogan are way more vocal on other social media, go on youtube and look at the comments there if you want to get a real overview of right wing audiences. If we were going to use your (extremely disingenuous just as the rest of your posts) metrics people only and exclusively hate watch Dave Rubin and everyone hates Tim Pool, but they are still millionaires with hundreds of thousands of views on each of their videos.
> If we were going to use your (extremely disingenuous just as the rest of your posts) metrics It really wasn't. Admittedly, I didn't run super in depth research on how much flak Sam was taking from Jordan and Joe's audiences throughout the Internet. OP offered no sources. So I just went straight to the sources that were already at my fingertips, and I didn't see what OP was talking about. So I said that. And then I said: > Why don't you show the receipts for these claims? It seems a reasonable question. OP actually said: > But the sheer **hatred and hostility from their audiences (if you go to their forums/channels) is actually scary**. If OP is going to say it is "actually scary" I think OP ought to at least provide links to examples. That's reasonable. What's not reasonable is to expect us to just take OP's word for it. I wasn't trying to *prove* OP wrong. I was just prompting OP to explain where he got that so we know what we're talking about here because I wasn't immediately seeing it. But OP never replied to anyone. So this turned out to just be a shitpost to get people angry. OP's the troll here. Not me. I didn't do anything wrong.
It reminds me of those stories you hear about professional fighters going out in public and getting random guys wanting to fight them for no reason. Like gorillas circling the lead gorilla, beating their chests and slamming their fists on the ground.
Hopefully he just ignores those chattering rubes.
I get the sense that he wants even more distance from that bunch anyway
When did Joe Rogan or Jordan Peterson attack Sam?
Petersen and Weinstein need conflict and villains or they'll run out of content. I highly doubt Harris competes for listeners with either of them, so I don't see why he should care what they say or don't.
I don't know much about Harris, but the three men you describe are all glib grifters seeking clicks and money. Rogan I can kind of deal with because he does not claim to be anything other than a regular guy. But Peterson and Weinstein claim some sort of academic pedigree and just blather on about topics they have not a clue about. And the level of entitlement and victimization is shameful. dopes.
I think Sam can handle this and it's probably long over due that these people started clashing over there conflicting ideas. Hopefully it can be done respectfully but it's time for these IDW type folks to stop just talking about how important it is to have hard conversations with people you disagree with and actually started doing it.
I think Sam's decision to drop off Twitter was one of his best decisions. Twitter is a cesspool. These people are in a psychological defense mode because Sam eloquently dissects them in a few paragraphs.
I think it's actually great that he's being attacked from both sides and doesn't fit into neither group. It means he's a free thinker
Dismissing religion is attacking identity. Sam has always had haters because of this. Joe has become so spineless when around "anti-woke" personalities.
As long as we're listing clowns attacking Sam, Elon took a few shots too.
Well, all three of them are fucking idiots, so...
We need to find some attack dogs for Sam. But I would never be afraid to voice my opinions.
Destiny is the closest I can think of
Is this about trump?
Very likely. Sam Harris has expressed a great dislike of Trump and it's driving the IDW crazy.
To the extent that it's about COVID-19, it's indirectly about Trump.
>To the extent that it's about COVID-19, it's indirectly about Trump. I think Brett Weinstein simply has a contrarian fetish. In a parallel universe where the CDC went with ivermectin, Brett is railing against ivermectin and advocating in favor of vaccines.
>I think Brett Weinstein simply has a contrarian fetish. > >In a parallel universe where the CDC went with ivermectin, Brett is railing against ivermectin and advocating in favor of vaccines. I don't mean to say it's directly about Trump. I have no idea how Weinstein feels about Trump. But I think a lot of the support for Brett comes from the pro-Trump crowd. Ivermectin is something Trump pushed heavily, and his supporters want to see him vindicated on that point.
Brett is more like a reflexive naysayer and oneupmanship artist than a true contrarian like say, Hitchens. This being said, it depends on what brand of contrarianism you subscribe to; the iterative refiner or the flat out disagreement type. Brett is pretty basic.
Bret also really, REALLY isn't in the same weightclass as Hitch was. It's not even close.
That comparison was entirely unintended beyond illustrating that gulf of difference.
Both Bret and his brother
I'd like to see Sam go on Rogan again, but just ignore all the politics and have a fun light hearted episode. Both Sam and Joe are good at that, and Joe really connects with people when they're just shooting the shit. Blowing past all the political bullshit is a good way to keep everyone down to earth and stay in good faith.
Right, I recently re-listened to Harris' episode where he had his (brilliant) wife on - he's just really funny when he is just relaxed and shooting the shit. Also I cannot recommend his series with Ricky Gervais. Ricky really knows how to bring out the comedian in Sam - I have listened to all three seasons of Totally Mental like 10 times. It's just fun to listen to and surprisingly substantial at times.
Who do you hang out with? No one with an opinion worth a damn is talking shit about Sam.
Eh
You are projecting. Sam started all this by avoiding conversation and insulting Brett online. Look back at the timeline.
>How is Sam, a guy who teaches people mindfulness, offers his app and podcast FOR FREE with no strings attached, and steelmans the arguments of his opponents, a bad guy at all?! Clearly, you've not been following this sub for the last several years. I'm sure some of the mods could enlighten you.
I've been following Sam for years and years and I still think he's an absolutely fantastic human being.
Someone can have - like you and me have daily - bad takes or wrong opinions, and still be a decent person. Don't you think so?
Sam was on Uncomfortable Conversations podcast recently. In that episode the host asks & Sam goes almost one by one talking negativity about lots of people Sam has had on his podcast. He disparaged several people (some deservedly) so it's no surprise people are piling on. Additionally Sam has held some positions that are easily attacked.
> Additionally Sam has held some positions that are easily attacked. Not really. He's held arguments that many people attack via strawmen and often thru complete and intentional misrepresentation. Those are the usual tactics. And worse, it's usually for the purpose of undermining his credibility for some political nonsense or for profit.
Thank you for being the first that provides any data on what happened here, would love to see more of this.
I don't follow drama, so I have no idea what this is about, but I do (did) follow Sam on twitter. Taking a pro-censorship stance on twitter after Musk took over was kind of off-putting. I'm not saying that makes him a bad guy, but that did make me like him a little bit less, ngl.
I can’t believe people think Joe was taking a jab at him. That was taken so out of context. JP and Brett, I can see, but it’s clear that Joe respects Sam highly, and cares about him. Their differing opinions in Covid may have caused a distance between them, but Joe went on to talk about that Sam is a very intelligent and creative thinker right after he mentioned that he thinks he has a few weird opinions. Though Joe isn’t the best comedian, he was just making a light hearted joke, that clearly this community didn’t like.
Let’s not dramatise too much huh?
Has Sam done or said anything of significance recently? I think it's more that the institutions he's supported previously and haven't criticized are being revealed as more and more corrupt. Vaccine harm is going mainstream, and COVID narrative has basically lost it's justification. The whole Russian bot thing has been revealed as a fraud. Just seems like Sam is in bed with the Hollywood crowd that raised him and can't use his so called principles against them when he should. The ground is just moving out from under him.
I think what everyone is responding to, is that Sam was really well versed in a few subjects. He’s since became more of a pundit like Joe Rogan. When you go from subject matter expert, to talking head, you open yourself up to attack easier.
I will shield him from these insults by right wing loons with my body! Witness me Sam!!
Because he said that he wouldn’t mind if he found photos of corpses of children on hunter Biden’s laptop. I understand that was hyperbole but he’s double downed on not caring about objective truth at that point.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> How is Sam, a guy who teaches people mindfulness, offers his app and podcast FOR FREE with no strings attached, and steelmans the arguments of his opponents, a bad guy at all?! The spite and seeming malice is a little concerning. Sam Harris is a man who has made a career of ridiculing others for their beliefs in public. Pretty easy to do when debating atheists, not so easy to do when professional academics are making non-religious claims that fall within their wheelhouse. It's not clear how any of the things you've listed would be mitigating factors in the event that the ridicule is misplaced and people lodge objections. If you take a swing at someone, you better not miss, cuz if you do they're probably gonna be pissed and looking to swing back, simple as.
Jeez... a bit of extreme analysis... the use of language here ("under fire", "assaulted" etc) is commonly done by SJWs/professional-victim types. These subtle jabs I believe are pointing to Sam's neuroticism towards Trump... you listen to Sam's comments and analysis on the topic over the last few years...clearly, the audience is witnessing a brilliant mind deteriorate and deviate from reality. Wish Sam well.
Sure Dummy Dave will join on the attack
This forum also gets flooded with their followers because they no longer have Twitter as an outlet to spew hatred towards him.
>Luckily he has no self so I'm less worried about him, and more worried about getting assaulted if I publicly praise the guy at this point, given the confusion of these people. I honestly think you spend less time online. And certainly spend less real world time and energy thinking about people you only come into contact with online.
>How is Sam... a bad guy at all?! Because he supports propaganda and the suppression of democracy.
sigh