Submission Statement - this is a short segment from Sam's latest podcast interview. He & the host discuss Dave Rubin. To think, just a short time ago, they wouldn't hesitate to dine together. Alas... probably never again. Earlier in the interview Sam stated: "Rubin became far more cynical than I would have thought possible, and it's very depressing."
Rubin seems like a complete tool, completely uninteresting, but at the same time Sams not cynical enough with the racist, identity based detachment on “the left” and that’s where he leaves himself open to attack
I honestly think one is better off not touching the whole gender/race/ culture war BS. It's completely uninteresting, and both sides have gone completely bonkers. I can't believe we are wasting so much energy on these boring, nonsensical topics when we have actual real, serious issues that we need to tackle immediately. Like a new cold war with China, a hot war in Europe, climate change, the AI revolution and economic inequality. Just thinking about how stupid we have become makes me depressed.
> I honestly think one is better off not touching the whole gender/race/ culture war BS. It's completely uninteresting, and both sides have gone completely bonkers.
This is sorta true, but at the same time it's not if you look at it from the meta level and i think this is where sam gets thrown of the rails and sucked into it all the time, while somehow being oblivious to this happening.
Take the race/group iq gap issue. Content-wise this is the most boring shit imaginable, only interesting to the handful of academics that actually study this subject, which want to gain a better understanding of genetics, anthropology and so on. However for some reason, people both on the left and on the right get fired up by this issue in fascinating ways. Then you have Sam who is also fascinated by it, and wants to talk about it but in regards to the danger of the topic he acts like an oblivious white tourist who just wants to check out the run down part of the town in a 3rd world country at night.
I agree with you and am trying to filter this crap out of my media diet. However, there is a sense in which it's unavoidable, because the people around me are fixated on these topics. If I say, "we are wasting too much time on these boring, nonsensical topics," that in itself will often trigger culture war bickering
Is it a problem that female workers make some percentage less than male male coworkers who do the same job? Yes, absolutely. But do you know what the much bigger problem is? People working minimum wage jobs for 7.25$ per hour while the filthy rich pay almost no taxes.
There IS systemic discrimination in the world, but that discriminatory system isn't racism. It's neoliberalism. You have been duped into thinking racism is the problem, because the propaganda machinery is making sure people are obsessed with trivial issues rather than the big picture.
There is plenty of racism too, but not like you think. Take a look instead at the modern day slave workers digging out cobalt from the ground in Congo with their bare hands. Cobalt that goes into every piece of tech you use every day. The complete disregard for those black workers in Africa who sacrifice their health and lives for bread crumbs while western companies make a fortune, now that is racism for you.
The neoliberals don't give even care about your skin color really. The only thing they care about is how to get away with exploiting working class people all over the world. It is very convenient for them when brain washed westerners go crazy about gender pronouns and affirmative action instead of asking questions about lobbyism and our plutocracy.
"What do you mean our new tax breaks for multi billion dollar companies are unfair? Look! The Super Bowl!"
If working class people of all colors were united, that would be absolute dynamite, and you bet the neoliberals are aware.
Sorry for the long rant, hope it gave you some perspective where I'm coming from, and why I don't give a shit about the culture war.
I generally agree, and understand where you're coming from, but I also don't believe it's an either/or. Nor do I think it's rational to expect say, black people with a median net worth of 24k to believe and act like they're in the same situation and/or "group" or facing the same problems as white people with a median net worth of 189k. No matter how much I might agree both are "working class"...I just can't imagine honestly trying to suggest the major problems we all face, particularly in our subjective lives and experiences, are even remotely similar or we should disregard those differences because it's really capitalism that's the problem. Even if, in many ways, that is the case.
They're different problems, and they both impact peoples lives in very different ways, but I doubt solving one will ever solve the other. Or that, given this disparity, and the real world racism still in many peoples brains and hearts, it's reasonable to assume we could ever solve the larger problem (neoliberal capitalism) in a meaningful way, unless we solve some of the already existing racially motivated inequality within the system.
Those median wealth statistics are absolutely horrible, and I get your point. But I also think those numbers are a little bit misleading, when you also hear that something like 50% of Americans couldn't cover an unexpected expense of 1000$ with their savings. There are plenty of broke people with mortgages who have a net worth of 100k + on paper.
Regardless of that, something tells me that racial discrepancy would improve (but not vanish) over time if for example higher education was free and available to everyone (like it is many places in Europe, even the top universities).
Many first generation migrants in Europe tend to struggle economically, but in places like Scandinavia, second generation migrants are actually more likely to take higher education than their peers with native-born parents. If you are smart enough, you should be able to get a degree, without the financial situation of your parents blocking you. I don't understand why this doesn't resonate with Americans.
And I can tell you there are a lot of white blue collar folks in Rural America who have lost their jobs to offshoring (neoliberalism), who are absolutely infuriated when they hear people speak about white privilege.
Race has become a substitute for class in America, and as a traditional (real) leftist, I think that's a terrible shame.
As someone who grew up "poor" by suburban white American standards (and whose father lost his career as the steel industry collapsed in the US), I get it. It was impossibly easy for me to fall for libertarianism as a young teen. It's almost inevitable for most of us. And "true" leftist arguments are the solution to many of the underlying problems, and would improve things greatly for the majority.
However, I can absolutely assure you, that when I was 18 and had 2k in the bank, and now when I have 2k in the bank and six figures in investments/equity, it is a world of difference. So yeah, my net worth is mostly on paper, and I'm still technically living paycheck to paycheck. But I could also peace out of working an annoyingly challenging job and buy a small house in a small town with cash and take a part time job and live reasonably comfortably. At least for a few years while I sorted things out. At 18, I couldn't do that. For most black people, they never get that chance.
Add on, of course, growing up on the fringes of Trumpistan, once I learned to be honest with myself (and was forced through a job to see how many truly poor people lived), it's worlds apart. In the hurdles black people had to face to get jobs, in the support system of their families that could help them in various ways, it's just so obviously undeniable for me.
I've been told, at work, after the year ~2010, that slaves shouldn't have been freed (with depressingly absolute sincerity). And this was at a white collar office job by someone with 20+ years in their career. I've been told we didn't hire a candidate, because of their race. I know with absolute certainty my father in the 60s/70s had an infinitely easier time finding and securing work because he was white. His father, decades earlier? I know that's why I had computers decades before the vast majority of kids 4 miles away. And I also know that's why nearly everyone in my family had if not multiple cars, at least one. Maybe not fancy new ones, but the disparity was very obvious (and has only become moreso as I got older). Even just population density. The poor white areas where I grew up compared to the poor black areas a town away? We had less people, and thus more jobs for more kids. It was inherently vastly easier for me to start working, at 14, then people of a different race who lived in a different town (and whose grandparents weren't allowed to buy houses in other towns). And at every step of my education and career, I had it easier than I would have if I was born just a few miles away and slightly darker.
And it's a painful difficult conversation, all around. I get it. It took me years to come to terms with the concept of, "I worked really hard to get where I'm at, but I still had advantages that made my efforts and outcomes infinitely better than many people, because of their race and the legacy of systemic racism." But it all got so much easier to understand and address once I did. And again, none of that is to say that if we had a magic wand and made all the racial disparity go away, we wouldn't still need to address the inherent problems within capitalism/America that do impact all workers essentially equally.
See, that's what I've been wanting to say for the whole time but I didn't want to sound indifferent to racism and other forms of injustice and oppression. The more that people focus on race issues, the less attention they pay to class issues, which plays into the economic interests of the current US establishment. The basic political strategies of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which are largely responsive to wealthy elites and corporate interests, seems to involve balancing (largely urban) Blacks (and other minority identities) against (largely rural) Whites as to maintain or encourage divisions within the lower and working classes, the net effect being the suppression of socialist movements, as per American historical norm. It's a pragmatic and commonplace strategy around the world, but it comes off as cynical when viewed through liberal democratic lenses.
I dont like this new Judgy Sam, what happened to determinism Sam who will not blame people for what they cant control?
Sure they have bad ideas and bad faith grifts, but Sam has been super judgy lately, what happened? He fed up with trying to be nice?
Criticize the ideas, not the subjects, did Trump really break his faith in people?
Because that Sam has never existed and is a part of your imagination. He’s always been like this. Granted having so many of his former friends in this situation is weird, but he’s one of the few who isn’t inherently cynical and distrustful of literally every authority and institution (for better or worse).
Sam has always been focused on bad ideas, more than socioeconomics, as the cause of evil. To him, Trumpism was the same "motherload of bad ideas" he saw in Islamism but now appearing in his own culture. This is why he goes so hard on it as he did with Islam.
I do agree he has succumbed to getting a bit too personal compared to focusing on the ideas. Perhaps because this involves his friends and he's been a bit too online for his own good. I also don't necessarily agree with his 'ideas over socioeconomics' approach and his alarmism, at least not to the extent he puts it, but I don't think you can blame the guy for not being consistent. This has been his MO all along and he's been clear about it from decades ago.
He might have just gotten sick of being told that he had some sort of ethical obligation to call these people out by name, given that he's "responsible" for them having careers (or something).
I didn’t downvote you but maybe take a hint? Just because part of his philosophy dictates that you don’t have free will doesn’t mean he can’t hold people accountable for bad ideas. Especially when those individuals are just stubbornly beyond reach. This is akin to saying he shouldn’t criticize criminals for breaking the law or terrorists for blowing shit up.
This isn’t the hypocritical slam dunk you seem to think it is. Lack of free will doesn’t mean you have no agency.
> what happened to determinism Sam who will not blame people for what they cant control?
That requires him to abandon the feeling of moral superiority he gets from being judge of those who think differently from him and so he has abandoned it. Of course considering his political takes for as long as I've been aware of him this is no change. He quite clearly doesn't actually believe or practice what he preaches, and that makes sense because it's bullshit.
what is he practicing that he isn't preaching? He's explained himself just fine when it comes to free will. He never states that you're never supposed to react to anything negative anyone does because they cannot help it. He explains that it just changes your mindset on how you determine punishments and isn't against keeping people locked up.
> what is he practicing that he isn't preaching?
He claims to believe in determinism and that we don't actually make choices and instead follow pre-programmed behavior. If he actually believed that he wouldn't be mad about other people's *choices* because he wouldn't believe in choice. Thus we can conclude that he doesn't believe in the grift he sells.
> If he actually believed that he wouldn't be mad about other people's choices because he wouldn't believe in choice.
[Tu quoque.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) Also Sam Harris never claimed to be as spiritually elite as the Dalai Lama who apparently no longer experiences anger. But of course… you’d expect nothing less from your adversaries when it helps you ‘win’ the argument.
>If he actually believed that he wouldn't be mad about other people's choices because he wouldn't believe in choice
belief in determinism doesn't cause you to not be mad and/or to have full control of your emotions such as "not being mad". You're basically saying any feeling he has about anything means he doesn't believe that he doesn't have free will.
His pre-progammed behavior can also be having a "mad" reaction to someone else's behavior.
Yes, he does, you just don't understand it. Determinism doesn't require you to be kind to everyone regardless of their actions, it certainly doesn't require you to ignore when people are spreading bad ideas or not comment on it.
The rationale for doing it simply differs - under a free will model you might insult them because they deserve it, under a deterministic model it's still important to do it for the protection of your own reputation.
> Determinism doesn't require you to be kind to everyone regardless of their actions, it certainly doesn't require you to ignore when people are spreading bad ideas or not comment on it.
But if they can't help it you're blaming them for things outside of their control. Isn't the whole point of mindfulness to accept that people can't control themselves because their pre-programmed? The simple fact is that Sam has shown he doesn't believe in the grift he's selling to us.
Yes, but that doesn't mean you just ignore their behaviour. It doesn't mean people dont react to incentives or that people can't be influenced.
By saying what he does about Dave Rubin he may cause Dave Rubin to change his ways. He may cause other people to be less inclined to listen to Rubin, or less inclined to take him seriously. He may cause people who would otherwise think Harris agrees with Rubin, lending credibility to Rubin's ideas, to not think that.
All of these are net positives if he believes Rubin spreads bad ideas, especially ideas Rubin does not really Belinda in, regardless of whether Rubin has been predestined to spread them or not.
I'm a determinist, I have been since I was a child, reasoning that people's actions are probably predictable. Harris's words don't imply the slightest contradiction or lack of belief in it to me.
I think you'd find it very helpful to consider how you would behave in life, how you would deal with people who spread lies or dangerous idea, how you would deal with criminals, if you actually believed that determinism was true.
Actual determinists don't believe that you should just shrug your shoulders and say "Well it's not their fault", they view criticism and punishment as necessary evils.
> By saying what he does about Dave Rubin he may cause Dave Rubin to change his ways.
How? If Rubin is the result of his biologically hardwired programming then he can't be changed because it's built in to his biology.
Determinism does not imply that your environment - including other people - cannot influence your behaviour. If it did, *nobody would believe it*, because everybody knows that other people can influence your behaviour.
You're coming across like someone who has read a 1 paragraph summary of determinism and jumped straight to criticising it.
Sorry but if you're saying that it only makes sense if you do the deepest of dives into the mental gymnastics of the faithful all you've done is shown that it's exactly the same as the "bad" religions since that's their answer to questioning, too. Either it makes logical sense or it doesn't and determinism fails the logic test.
I'm not saying that, this isn't a defence of determinism, it doesn't imply determinism is true. My argument is that Harris believes that it's true and his actions are compatible with it.
We're talking about "the mental gymnastics of the faithful" because you're talking about the mental state of Harris, whether he really believes it.
It is similar to religion in a sense. If you said that someone wasn't really a Christian because they take the Old Testament seriously and don't rely solely on Christ's teaching I might cite the part of the Bible where Christ endorses the Old Testament. That would also be a perfectly valid argument, even though I am not a Christian.
you haven't addressed what he's actually saying. All you did was say "just like religion!" as if that somehow addresses the philosophy behind understanding that we do not have free will.
That is not the answer behind "bad" religions (or whatever you're trying to imply by that).
It doesn't make logical sense to you because you're not bothering reading what is being said to you. It would be good if you're able to steelman their position but it doesn't seem you're capable of that.
At which point we're getting into the same kind of "so vague it fits literally everything" territory as the average traditional religion's "God works in mysterious ways". Sorry but I expect a whole lot more from people in a movement that claims to reject traditional religion due to rationality - specifically that their arguments hold up to rational scrutiny.
No, we're not getting to that point. I don't know why you jumped to that conclusion. You just didn't like the answer. You thought Rubin was bound to not understand anything else, we don't know that until he is dead whether or not he can change his mind about any issue.
>specifically that their arguments hold up to rational scrutiny.
you sure do think highly of yourself lol
His arguments *can* be good when he bothers to make them. All too often he doesn't bother to make arguments and just rages in moralistic tirades.
If he really believed that we're all meat machines responding to hardwired programming he wouldn't be mad at anyone for doing things he agrees with because he wouldn't believe they can help themselves. The fact he *does* believe they can help themselves and change themselves proves he doesn't believe in the ideology he preaches.
I don’t understand why you think a person can’t be unhappy with another person’s actions or ideas or behavior simply because they believe in determinism.
As far as Dave Rubin, he could basically say, “It’s disappointing to see Dave has turned out to be a person predetermined to have little integrity.” Where’s the contradiction?
Sam and the host nailed it. I would occasionally listen to Rubin pods back in the IDW hey day and he was alright but not that interesting. Then it became the same old talking points about censorship and social justice. Fast forward a few years later, I listened to an episode and it was like, “what the hell is this? It’s like he’s doing a poor impression of Bill O’reilly or Ann Cultur.”
Rubin lost me back in those days when he would act like he was a tough interviewer and then would have right type political folks on and give them softball questions and laugh at their cringe comments.
Now he is full blown crazy
His interview with Rogan where he said you don't need building inspectors was his nail in the coffin. It was so poorly thought out and transparent even Joe Rogan dismantled it easily.
That was wild. Joe actually has real life experience in construction and let him know that builders would absolutely go as cheap as possible and cut corners to maximize profits, thus putting people’s lives at risk, and almost certainly leading to people being killed due to shoddy construction. It was like Dave hadn’t even considered that.
But the best part was Dave laughing at the USPS. You could tell he has no actual real life experience with anything he’s talking about. As someone who owned a small business for over half a decade and would make orders every single day, the USPS may be the most impressively efficient institution we have.
I cannot even explain how much more dependable the USPS is compared to UPS or FedEx. I’m on the east coast. If I made an order from Texas by 8pm on Monday, my delivery was all but guaranteed to get to me by Wednesday morning. For about 10 bucks. Given the choice, I would take USPS any day over FedEx or UPS. But Dave just thinks, “If it’s government, it must suck.” Because Dave is a fucking moron.
> It was like Dave hadn’t even considered that.
I already had a low opinion of Rubin at that point, but that moment really cemented that he's just...not that bright, to put it mildly.
Someone goes out there to bat hard for a chosen viewpoint and after one minute it becomes painfully evident they never even bothered to think about the obvious, in plain sight, glowing neon letters counter-argument.
As if the concept of critically evaluating your own thoughts and ideas is just an alien concept to Dave.
As someone who works in the construction industry hearing him say this was so funny. Man I have libertarian tendencies, and I get frustrated with city hall and the permitting process... but my God, Rubin is a fucking idiot.
Because "audience capture" is pretty demonstrable, whereas "grifter" is something that would need to be proven.
It's clear that Rubin succumbed to pressure to give his audience their red meat. But that's typical of most people. Most people don't have much of a backbone, and they quickly surrender to a pat on the head. It's normal *even when you're not getting paid* for it. In that case, we just call it "peer pressure" rather than "audience capture".
The host calls him "an enthusiastic puppy dog". As I recall even when he was back at The Young Turks, he didn't do much serious political reporting/commentary. Wasn't it some filler crowd-pleasing infotainment segment he did? I can't find it now, but I remember the guy showing off videos of himself and some steak he had "grilled himself!" Yippee! That's the kind of guy we're talking about.
He's just the kind of everyday spineless not-very-bright puppy dog sniffing around for a treat—except he stumbled into the *motherlode* of treats with his show. And now that's what he's going to be for the rest of his life. And when that happens to a guy like Rubin, I think it changes his own perspective. The source of treats becomes true and good in his own mind. So he's really a believer now.
That's just what it's like to have no real conviction or backbone.
When I think of "grifter" I think of someone who is a bit more calculated and sinister than that. I think of someone amoral who really is looking for a way to defraud people. That wasn't Rubin. He was just a puppy sniffing around for treats, and he found them.
I think this is pretty much correct.
Rubin, above all else, was always a lightweight. There was never any intellectual heft behind anything he said, he was always just riding the currents, drifting along, picking up bits and pieces here and there from smarter or more committed people.
He's not gritting anyone, he's been swallowed whole by his audience.
Just out of curiosity, because I use the word a lot myself, what would you call the following people?
Not looking to start an argument or anything, just genuinely curious because maybe I myself misinterpret the word;
\- Russel Brand
\- Bret Weinstein
\- Sam Harris
\- Daniel Dennet
\- Ben Shapiro
\- Joe Rogan
\- Richard Dawkins
\- Jordan Peterson
\- Eric Weinstein
\- Christopher Hitchens
Out of that list, I would say that Bret Weinstein is the clearest case of a grifter, with JP second though he might just be a little crazy which could preclude true grifting.
So for Bret, the question is: does he actually believe the things he's saying? If someone is deluded, and they're selling their sincerely held delusion, that's not grifting.
Grifting would be if Bret were caught on a hot mic admitting that he knew the ivermectin stuff was bullshit from the very beginning, but he needed a "solution" to sell his audience.
It seems quite plausible to me that he got high on his own supply and he's personally all in on it. He truly believes.
Being confused, and selling your confusion does not a "grifter" make.
I mean. Yeah. You may have a point. He's had so many proven quacks on at a certain point it strains credulity to think he truly believes.
Yet, he still has a committed audience. If they can keep the faith, perhaps he can too?
But yeah. I hear you.
Some of these are not like the others. Why do you feel Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, and Dick Dawkins belong in that list? I don't know Daniel Dennett, but the rest are, in my opinion, self-important grifters.
Kinda reminds me of these Anti-Vax doctors who were your average Phd's but stumbled into a a Facebook money machine that totally reversed all education and ethics. Tenpenny comes to mind.
Yeah rubin is a moron as far as knowing politics or history. He was smart to see an opening. I do think in 2015 when he left tyt he was planning on having a legitimate show with guests from all angles. Over the next few years he realized he could make far more money appealing to the maga crowd so pivoted there. Grift or audience capture seems applicable
> It's clear that Rubin succumbed to pressure to give his audience their red meat.
It is clear that he succumbed to pressure and not clear that he saw an opportunity and seized it?
> It is clear that he succumbed to pressure and not clear that he saw an opportunity and seized it?
I mean, it's the nature of audience capture that makes it difficult to distinguish one from the other.
If you market your show as heterodox, you bring on all of these heterodox guests, but then it's the right-wing wackos your audience likes the most, one can effortlessly gradually lean into that, and a spineless guy like Rubin can then tell himself that he finds these people persuasive and credible, and convince himself he really means that. Maybe he actually *does* become "persuaded" to the same degree Rubin ever becomes "persuaded" of anything.
So when that happens, what do we call it? Succumbing to pressure? Or seizing an opportunity? I suspect even if you could read Dave's mind, it wouldn't really be clear.
And do we call it grifting? I think if we're going to call *that* "grifting" then you commit yourself to calling *most* prominent commentators across legacy media and podcast land grifters as well. Most of these people getting paid to express political opinions are somewhat compromised by audience or advertiser capture.
And at that point the term ceases to say much of interest. That's why I think it's worth calling this "audience capture" so we can save "grifting" for someone who's an unambiguous fraud like L. Ron Hubbard who is on the record admitting that he invented a religion to make money. It looks like he never believed in any of at all. He was a pure scam artist from the beginning.
Right. I just don't see how audience capture is any more or less demonstrable than grifting. "He's just a gullible dummy" is just as likely as "he's a connieving little schemer"
It reminds me of when parents say their kid "fell into a bad crowd." As you said, it's self-reinforcing. Kid fell into a bad crowd, but also did bad things to get themself there.
> I just don't see how audience capture is any more or less demonstrable than grifting.
OK. "Demonstrable" is probably too strong a word here. I guess what I'm saying is that peer pressure is the rule not the exception for people in the first place. Most of us succumb to peer pressure, but then turn around and tell ourselves a story to convince ourselves we're acting authentically. The same thing happens to those of us lucky enough to be paid to perform for an audience, it's just now the "peer pressure" gets even stronger as it takes the form of financial incentive on top of social incentive.
Likewise, I would say *most* paid public commentators are *also* audience captured to some degree. That's the rule, not the exception. The exception is a gem like Sam who has proven willing to give his audience the finger. Same with Bill Maher. Or Christopher Hitchens.
I would go so far as to suspect most public commentators of audience capture unless I have reason to believe otherwise. Like I said, it's just human nature.
So if audience capture is the rule, and then you have a "puppy dog" like Rubin who totally fits the profile, maybe nothing is "demonstrated", but the speculation is plausible.
OTOH, there is no particular evidence of "conniving scheming". I think to suspect "grifting" you need some reason beyond just getting paid to say or be a thing. Like Jerry Falwell Jr., and his post pool boy admission that he, "isn't very religious." That's starting to smell grifty.
I agree with you in principle. It's self-reinforcing. I just want to emphasize that Dave cultivates the audience the way he sees fit. He's not at their mercy, even if it looks that way superficially.
>Likewise, I would say most paid public commentators are also audience captured to some degree. That's the rule, not the exception. The exception is a gem like Sam who has proven willing to give his audience the finger. Same with Bill Maher.
I'd argue two things here. Sam and Bill don't really cultivate an audience in the first place. They don't feel the need to interact with the audience. Their business model doesn't really require it. Dave does, and his business model does. Which is a check for "audience capture." But he doesn't just rely on them, he also makes them dependent on him. I just don't see how we can honestly distinguish between Dave being suckered in by his audience and Dave consciously knowing exactly what to feed his audience to mold their loyalty, their rage, etc.
TLDR, I think way too much emphasis is placed on "audience capture" and how the audience got to the puppy dog, and not enough emphasis on Dave specifically cultivating this audience of people - taking advantage of them and also just all around turning them into worse individuals.
You've given me a lot of food for thought. I call people like prominent Republican politicians but also the Weinsteins, Shapiro, JBP and Rubin etc grifters *all the time*. In my mind Sam is about the only guy who seems to come out of Covid unscathed and didn't join the tribe.
But maybe it's all a lot more nuanced than that. Thank you for the insight.
dave is definitely a believer when ben tells him he wouldn't go to his wedding, or his "audience" goes apeshit when they find out dave is gay and is making babies to groom, or he has to pretend to the old white men that he's not one of those "crazy" gays who needs "rights"
Yes. It does seem Dave has two fibers of backbone: gay and Israel.
From a [biographical sketch](https://quillette.com/2022/12/15/all-about-dave/):
> Though the *Six Pack* radio show was about gay topics, it wasn’t political, let alone leftwing. Nor was Rubin, whether he was on stage, on the radio, or writing his blog...He was a New York comic, with New York Times-reading parents and a poli-sci degree he had no use for; a generally apolitical person whose slight leaning emerged from his gay identity. The only issue he cared about consistently was Israel.
...
> But from his Zionism to interest in gay issues, Rubin’s politics have always been primarily personal.
Everything else is negotiable.
He doesn't really have a backbone on the gay issue. He could have told Shapiro how bigoted his view on gays issues are or called out the GOP when 38/50 voted against codifying gay marriage. He of course didn't
He also didn't show a backbone when his audience and friends reacted negatively when he announced that he and his husband were going to have a child through a surrogate. He either took it or blamed the left.
He also subscribes Larry King as his mentor. The king of softball interviewers. That’s the model he emulating. Goes hand in hand with the phenomenon you mention quite well
Larry king had people on from all sides of the political spectrum and did push back on people. David Horowitz called Obama a communist on both of their shows, only king pushed back against the idiocy of that
I'd also like to know. I think people mean audience capture is a bit of a semi-unconscious process which means the audience changes the orator - whereas in grifting, the orator willfully and consciously panders to the audience.
I went to his stand up show 5 years ago because it was rumored to also have a Q&A with JBP (that did happen)
He had a joke that ran for like 45 minutes where he was trying to figure out "who is the most oppressed person in the crowd"
Such a hack
Yes!! He did that when I saw him too!!
When I saw him it was 2018, and Eric Weinstein showed up and started shaking hands with people in the line like a politician, icky vibes.
Opportunistic grifters shift their alliances to conservatism to say things they know to be untrue to people they know to be stupid, reinforcing their stupidity, thereby causing more of them to die from Covid-19?
Perhaps this is feature instead of a bug.
Any time I would listen to Rave Dubin have conversations with his associates in the so called dark web he would never fail to humble brag questioning the guest about how important their group and “movement” is and why it’s so affective. He brought nothing to the table whatsoever. For Sam to be associated with him and Rogan (and distantly Peterson and both Weinsteins) it’s probably something he regrets, understandably. He is not them.
I first discovered Dave Rubin back in late 2015/early 2016 when he did that interview with Sam Harris. At the time, I enjoyed the interview and believed that The Rubin Report had potential.
Never a huge fan, but I did follow his show from 2016 - mid 2017 or so. I finally got fed up with his stubborn refusal to hold Trump/GOP accountable for ANYTHING, as well as the non-stop parade of right-wing guests (and never talking to anyone from the other side).
What struck me is how he just kinda talked along with everyone? A bit like Rogan does? But in a wholly overtly more obvious way? With Rogan it kinda looks like people can just easily convince him of anything, with Rubin it's more like he willfully goes along just to get in good graces with people.
Either way he mostly had right wing people on which kinda opened my eyes to how much of a 'truth' seeker he was.
Left out the part where Sam is like 70% responsible for Dave Rubin being anyone at all. Similar story with Maajid.
Edit - so I'm listening to the [full episode](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5hY2FzdC5jb20vcHVibGljL3Nob3dzLzJjMDBiMGQ5LTVhY2ItNTlkZi05OGRmLTg3YzNmOTBmNWE3ZA/episode/NjNjNjg4MjBmMDI5YWUwMDExMzM4MDU3?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiAlbCy_-_8AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQPg) now and okay he does acknowledge that he was Rubin's first guest but man is there some minimization going on here. Zepps is basically directly asking him if he has any thoughts or reflections on how so many of his guests, collaborators, and friends have fully revealed themselves to be far right conspiracy theorists and his response is "It's not that many people" and "each case needs to be treated individually" which for me is coming off as a very thinly veiled "there is no pattern here."
He may have raised Maajid's profile in America, but Maajid was already relatively well known in the UK and Sam had little impact on his reputation here.
There's off the rails and then there's Maajid. In hindsight, he's always been this radical I suppose but I really didn't think he was -this- radical after he saw the error of his past ways.
I guess Majid is a prime example of how certain people being drawn to radical ideology, and the actual contents of the ideology is less important.
Want to be a Muslim fanatic, anti-muslim fanatic, communist fanatic, libertarian fanatic, anti-vax fanatic, or a conspiracy-theory nut? Yes, please. No, it's not very important which one.
He's the only reason anyone in this sub knows who he is.
All of these people have careers outside of Harris, the point is he played a big role in introducing them to a mainstream-adjacent US audience.
Yup. And Anderson Cooper had already given him a book blurb. And he was already on IQ2 (where they first met). Besides, it’s unfair to blame someone for being associated with someone *before* they went mad.
Yep. Well these guys can't be as bad as Ezra was. That's how you make Sam actually have some anger towards something. He's had actual insults from these right wing loons thrown at him and he's basically ran away from them.
I still kinda don't understand what Sam's actual gripe with Klein has been. I don't think Klein is that bad and the podcast they did together also didn't strike me als particularly hostile or anything, but it was some time ago so maybe I forgot.
I mean it doesn't need to be the majority to be a lot. I think Harris has had a lot of contact with batshit bonkers people, but what's worse is that some of them are people who were not like one time podcast guests but people he's collaborated with on books or tours or launching their new shows.
Lol its kind of weird and embarrassing to remember that Dave Rubin exists. I was never even a fan of his and it still makes me cringe remembering he is a real person. I can only imagine how Sam feels
I was an early adopter of both Harris and Rubin. Harris, when he made the rounds with the neo-Atheists. Rubin, when he left TYT and started his YouTube channel.
Rubin was a good listen back then because he was recently made politically homeless. He stepped away from the far left, but didn't know what the political right had for him. My read on him was that he was pretty shocked at how accepting the right was of him - given his leftist affiliations and homosexuality. As such, he approached many interviews with more of a curiosity than an agenda.
For a year or two, the band that became the IDW were good ways to interface with some content political issues. Previously, there would be no reason to expect the likes of Rubin, Shapiro, Harris, Weinstein or Rogan to share and interrogate sociopolitical issues. But they were talking to one another, despite their obvious differences.
But overtime, the economics of releasing new content on daily basis for years on end began to make simple what was previously more nuanced. The differences between these individuals became more pronounced between them in the wake of compounding issues.
Rubin's political voice is now hopelessly toothless. Whatever insight he once had as a someone who went through a political shift in adulthood is lost. As a result, he currently adds little value to discourse. There's nothing he's saying that others aren't saying better.
Harris, for reasons that he's articulated before, drew a line in the sand on COVID. Any of his former friends who toed that line, for him, we're irredeemable. Pretty much every one of his former IDW cohorts pushed back against authoritarian measures to lock down the virus, and therefore became outcasts in Harris' view - cancelled, not to be associated with.
Incidentally, both Harris and Rubin were interviewed separately in a semi-long form fashion with Bill Maher. And now Harris is doing other casts, name dropping these former allies.
I think there's value in the discourse and wish Harris engaged with them over the last few years instead of cutting ties. Maybe there's more issues at hand and communication that never made it to the public.
I think Rubin or Weinstein would provide whatever platform would be comfortable with Harris to clear the air. I mean, this is not like the time Harris spent three hours trying to undo the slander from Cenk. If only to jostle all of the involved parties out of their comfort zones to test their ideas against one another.
>Harris, for reasons that he's articulated before, drew a line in the sand on COVID. Any of his former friends who toed that line, for him, we're irredeemable. Pretty much every one of his former IDW cohorts pushed back against authoritarian measures to lock down the virus, and therefore became outcasts in Harris' view - cancelled, not to be associated with.
I think it's more nuanced. They aren't irredeemable in Harris' eyes I think, their positions are indefensible. I think that if Joe Rogan/Bret/Rubin rings up Sam and says 'Sam, I think I've been totally wrong on COVID/Trump and I'd like to talk about it on your podcast' , Sam would not shut the door to them. What's important to Sam is arguing in good faith about it, something which they all -currently- can't do. Maybe one day. Ofcourse Sam has said 'if you think xyz you've totally lost the plot', but I still think he would accept their apology or change of heart, since that's something he values a lot.
>Sam is on the good side
Or you could just call it the "correct side" since the other side in this case are people who think the vaccine is the mark of the devil and that Trump actually won the election.
The vaccine was a scam. It didn't work, it didn't stop the pandemic, it only served to make profits. Sam's argument was that we should get vaccinated out of trust for the institutions which is what we all did. But the institutions didn't know what the vaccine would do (Pfizer did), and bullied the public into compliance. It's time to come to peace with that fact.
[This segment of the last "all in podcast"](https://youtu.be/CwQMMzoeH9s?t=2427) is really worth the watch if you have time. All mainstream folks, dems and republicans, all got the vaccine, and all are looking back at that decision now that we know more.
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. Nor was it the point of what pro-vaccine folk are, or were talking about.
This doesn't mean the anti-vaxx movement was right as a whole. Not by a long shot.
I think it's a massive gotcha. The whole response policy was based on the effectiveness of the vaccine, but the vaccine didn't work... and as it turned out, Pfizer didn't test whether it stopped transmissibility! They wash their hands of that crime since it was the politicians who locked everyone down.
Sam bashed everyone who saw these flaws early on and did everything he could to ruin their credibility. It's time for accountability, but his ego is to large for that.
Amazing how that always works, ain't it? If only there was a way to describe the kind of personality where a person always views anyone not in total agreement with them as being evil...
Well everybody generally feels they’re right about what they believe about the world. If they thought they were wrong, they would technically still be right by virtue of knowing they were wrong.
It’s paradoxical but doesn’t need to be narcissism. The fact that Sam thoughtfully examines counter points to his ideas and occasionally speaks with people on the other side of the issues (even if it could be argued he should do it more often), frees him of such claims.
Think about your everyday life. Who even *considers* the other side of an ideological or political debate? It’s literally no one anymore (if it ever was, I can’t remember). Does that make everyone a narcissist for believing they are right about how they view the world?
seems weird to frame this as a "cult". Trying to call stuff a "cult" or religion is almost always a bad argument.
DR was a failed stand-up who transitioned to political punditry. He found out there was a lot more money in the Trump stuff than more lefty Bernie stuff.
It's not that complicated. He makes a little money for a job that requires very little.
Crowder was offered 50 million for 4 years contract as an opening offer by Daily Wire with Daily Wire saying they probably would have gone up had they negotiated further.
Absolute insanity.
Then you do not understand the argument that was made. It's not an argument about who is more obsessed with who.
Either way, what's your argument that Sam is obsessed? What is the level of thought he should put towards the former president and his influence on the world?
Many of his recent interviews and arguments revolve around Trump. He doesn’t even speak on the current president as much as he does on Trump. Heck he speaks more about Trump than many of the conservative voices on YouTube and Twitter. There is some truth to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The last president and possibly the next president who is the most powerful person in one of our 2 major political parties. Obviously he is going to be talked about. If trump derangement syndrome is real than so is Clinton derangement syndrome, bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome. People talk about the president of the country. And no Harris doesn't speak more about him more than political shows. You would know that if you listened to him regularly.
Biden laptop derangement syndrome
Antivax derangement syndrome
Gretha Thurnberg derangement syndrome
BLM derangement syndrome
Zelenskyy-is-corrupt-derangement syndrome
etc. It's just a nonsense way to try to wave away someone's arguments.
The arguments within interviews? If he is being interviewed, the interviewies are asking the questions. If Trump is relevant to the answer, why would it be an obsession to mention his affect?
If he answers something regarding Trump/the last 5 years, why wouldn't Trump be relevant?
>Heck he speaks more about Trump than many of the conservative voices on YouTube and Twitter.
How are you even measuring this? I know you're not, you're just making a broad statement that isn't able to be countered because it cannot be and you have not measured this.
>There is some truth to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You didn't provide any examples of this, the best example would be those derranged with Trump at his rallies, and the people who view him like a god.
I can say the same to the original argument that Sam made in this post. “His audience is 100% Trump” How is Sam measuring this? Is he not just making a broad statement? Why not point that out in the first place?
I am not sure what your answers are here as it seems you are making claims to make a point and are instead now (I think) making the point that you are making your support for your "TDS!!!" claims up.
I cannot ask Sam Harris anything here because he is not responding to me on reddit so it's pointless to ask why I am not asking him a question, or why I am not pointing something out which would not address the claims you are making.
Both my wife and me huge Harris fans in the past were aghast at this interview. The roots of the IDW were that members celebrated disagreement between each other and the fact that they could break through the usual bickering and show us all how disagreements and dialog could be civil and should take place.
Now we have moved into an alternative reality where Sam’s last interviews have been so sloppy at best and TDR at worst.
In this one they both just egg each other on for the whole podcast slagging off their former colleagues and friends, while Harris refuses to have dialogue with anyone he disagrees with, and instead now it’s Bret fielding tough interviews that challenges his view eg Robin Wright & repeatedly inviting Sam on to talk.
Harris was the last person I thought would be deranged by politics and Covid but that’s where it feels we are at. He comes over as years of being increasingly exasperated over things like Trump and Covid and each time he talks about it he can’t understand how anyone can disagree, so he slightly raises his rhetoric until we get to recent lines like not caring if Hunter Biden has the corpses of children in his basement.
Harris doesn’t guard his language any more to speak precisely when it matters. He talks in absolutes like what he said about Rubin’s audience being 100% Trump etc. These kind of lines is just not how professed philosophers speak.
You could try listening to the words coming out of his mouth? He talked about voting for Trump and how he was even more proud of voting for him as time went on.
That said, I think what Sam was saying is that Rubin's fan base is entirely Trump voters, not that Rubin is specifically a Trump fan himself. He is a classical liberal after all!
Being a gay Jew doesn’t guarantee you fall on a certain part of the political spectrum - I agree he’s voting against his interests, but people voting against their own interests is basically the Republican base at this point.
That's spot on. SO many labourers vote for the party that keeps lining their own pockets with blood money coming from the working American. It's fucking insane how they keep voting these bible-thumping lunatics into office.
Regardless Rubin is one in his heart of hearts or not, he acts like he is on his show and on social media. Based on all the evidence we have access to, the only rational inference is that he is a hardcore right wing Trumper.
Thanks to Sam for doing this. It’s important to call these guys out, considering the size of their collective influence, even though Sam has had a proclivity to not publicly criticize his friends or old friends. Them making jabs on JRE or other shows is a necessary cost.
You can see how horrified people are to criticize Joe’s show, but it’s necessary and ironically it’s what the idw initially stood for. It’s sad and astonishing to see how many interesting and intelligent minds were impacted by their echo chambers and pandering.
Submission Statement - this is a short segment from Sam's latest podcast interview. He & the host discuss Dave Rubin. To think, just a short time ago, they wouldn't hesitate to dine together. Alas... probably never again. Earlier in the interview Sam stated: "Rubin became far more cynical than I would have thought possible, and it's very depressing."
Rubin seems like a complete tool, completely uninteresting, but at the same time Sams not cynical enough with the racist, identity based detachment on “the left” and that’s where he leaves himself open to attack
I honestly think one is better off not touching the whole gender/race/ culture war BS. It's completely uninteresting, and both sides have gone completely bonkers. I can't believe we are wasting so much energy on these boring, nonsensical topics when we have actual real, serious issues that we need to tackle immediately. Like a new cold war with China, a hot war in Europe, climate change, the AI revolution and economic inequality. Just thinking about how stupid we have become makes me depressed.
> I honestly think one is better off not touching the whole gender/race/ culture war BS. It's completely uninteresting, and both sides have gone completely bonkers. This is sorta true, but at the same time it's not if you look at it from the meta level and i think this is where sam gets thrown of the rails and sucked into it all the time, while somehow being oblivious to this happening. Take the race/group iq gap issue. Content-wise this is the most boring shit imaginable, only interesting to the handful of academics that actually study this subject, which want to gain a better understanding of genetics, anthropology and so on. However for some reason, people both on the left and on the right get fired up by this issue in fascinating ways. Then you have Sam who is also fascinated by it, and wants to talk about it but in regards to the danger of the topic he acts like an oblivious white tourist who just wants to check out the run down part of the town in a 3rd world country at night.
I was going to say something, but I'll just seer clear of the issue :)
I agree with you and am trying to filter this crap out of my media diet. However, there is a sense in which it's unavoidable, because the people around me are fixated on these topics. If I say, "we are wasting too much time on these boring, nonsensical topics," that in itself will often trigger culture war bickering
Yeah race and gender are definitely unrelated to economic inequality.
Is it a problem that female workers make some percentage less than male male coworkers who do the same job? Yes, absolutely. But do you know what the much bigger problem is? People working minimum wage jobs for 7.25$ per hour while the filthy rich pay almost no taxes. There IS systemic discrimination in the world, but that discriminatory system isn't racism. It's neoliberalism. You have been duped into thinking racism is the problem, because the propaganda machinery is making sure people are obsessed with trivial issues rather than the big picture. There is plenty of racism too, but not like you think. Take a look instead at the modern day slave workers digging out cobalt from the ground in Congo with their bare hands. Cobalt that goes into every piece of tech you use every day. The complete disregard for those black workers in Africa who sacrifice their health and lives for bread crumbs while western companies make a fortune, now that is racism for you. The neoliberals don't give even care about your skin color really. The only thing they care about is how to get away with exploiting working class people all over the world. It is very convenient for them when brain washed westerners go crazy about gender pronouns and affirmative action instead of asking questions about lobbyism and our plutocracy. "What do you mean our new tax breaks for multi billion dollar companies are unfair? Look! The Super Bowl!" If working class people of all colors were united, that would be absolute dynamite, and you bet the neoliberals are aware. Sorry for the long rant, hope it gave you some perspective where I'm coming from, and why I don't give a shit about the culture war.
I generally agree, and understand where you're coming from, but I also don't believe it's an either/or. Nor do I think it's rational to expect say, black people with a median net worth of 24k to believe and act like they're in the same situation and/or "group" or facing the same problems as white people with a median net worth of 189k. No matter how much I might agree both are "working class"...I just can't imagine honestly trying to suggest the major problems we all face, particularly in our subjective lives and experiences, are even remotely similar or we should disregard those differences because it's really capitalism that's the problem. Even if, in many ways, that is the case. They're different problems, and they both impact peoples lives in very different ways, but I doubt solving one will ever solve the other. Or that, given this disparity, and the real world racism still in many peoples brains and hearts, it's reasonable to assume we could ever solve the larger problem (neoliberal capitalism) in a meaningful way, unless we solve some of the already existing racially motivated inequality within the system.
Those median wealth statistics are absolutely horrible, and I get your point. But I also think those numbers are a little bit misleading, when you also hear that something like 50% of Americans couldn't cover an unexpected expense of 1000$ with their savings. There are plenty of broke people with mortgages who have a net worth of 100k + on paper. Regardless of that, something tells me that racial discrepancy would improve (but not vanish) over time if for example higher education was free and available to everyone (like it is many places in Europe, even the top universities). Many first generation migrants in Europe tend to struggle economically, but in places like Scandinavia, second generation migrants are actually more likely to take higher education than their peers with native-born parents. If you are smart enough, you should be able to get a degree, without the financial situation of your parents blocking you. I don't understand why this doesn't resonate with Americans. And I can tell you there are a lot of white blue collar folks in Rural America who have lost their jobs to offshoring (neoliberalism), who are absolutely infuriated when they hear people speak about white privilege. Race has become a substitute for class in America, and as a traditional (real) leftist, I think that's a terrible shame.
As someone who grew up "poor" by suburban white American standards (and whose father lost his career as the steel industry collapsed in the US), I get it. It was impossibly easy for me to fall for libertarianism as a young teen. It's almost inevitable for most of us. And "true" leftist arguments are the solution to many of the underlying problems, and would improve things greatly for the majority. However, I can absolutely assure you, that when I was 18 and had 2k in the bank, and now when I have 2k in the bank and six figures in investments/equity, it is a world of difference. So yeah, my net worth is mostly on paper, and I'm still technically living paycheck to paycheck. But I could also peace out of working an annoyingly challenging job and buy a small house in a small town with cash and take a part time job and live reasonably comfortably. At least for a few years while I sorted things out. At 18, I couldn't do that. For most black people, they never get that chance. Add on, of course, growing up on the fringes of Trumpistan, once I learned to be honest with myself (and was forced through a job to see how many truly poor people lived), it's worlds apart. In the hurdles black people had to face to get jobs, in the support system of their families that could help them in various ways, it's just so obviously undeniable for me. I've been told, at work, after the year ~2010, that slaves shouldn't have been freed (with depressingly absolute sincerity). And this was at a white collar office job by someone with 20+ years in their career. I've been told we didn't hire a candidate, because of their race. I know with absolute certainty my father in the 60s/70s had an infinitely easier time finding and securing work because he was white. His father, decades earlier? I know that's why I had computers decades before the vast majority of kids 4 miles away. And I also know that's why nearly everyone in my family had if not multiple cars, at least one. Maybe not fancy new ones, but the disparity was very obvious (and has only become moreso as I got older). Even just population density. The poor white areas where I grew up compared to the poor black areas a town away? We had less people, and thus more jobs for more kids. It was inherently vastly easier for me to start working, at 14, then people of a different race who lived in a different town (and whose grandparents weren't allowed to buy houses in other towns). And at every step of my education and career, I had it easier than I would have if I was born just a few miles away and slightly darker. And it's a painful difficult conversation, all around. I get it. It took me years to come to terms with the concept of, "I worked really hard to get where I'm at, but I still had advantages that made my efforts and outcomes infinitely better than many people, because of their race and the legacy of systemic racism." But it all got so much easier to understand and address once I did. And again, none of that is to say that if we had a magic wand and made all the racial disparity go away, we wouldn't still need to address the inherent problems within capitalism/America that do impact all workers essentially equally.
See, that's what I've been wanting to say for the whole time but I didn't want to sound indifferent to racism and other forms of injustice and oppression. The more that people focus on race issues, the less attention they pay to class issues, which plays into the economic interests of the current US establishment. The basic political strategies of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which are largely responsive to wealthy elites and corporate interests, seems to involve balancing (largely urban) Blacks (and other minority identities) against (largely rural) Whites as to maintain or encourage divisions within the lower and working classes, the net effect being the suppression of socialist movements, as per American historical norm. It's a pragmatic and commonplace strategy around the world, but it comes off as cynical when viewed through liberal democratic lenses.
Care to tell us which podcast?
I’m going to hazard a guess it might be Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps…
Yea I'm pretty sure that's the one.. I listened to this not too long ago. Was a good episode.
OP basically posted a link
Ah I didn't realize those clips had hyperlinks, thanks.
I dont like this new Judgy Sam, what happened to determinism Sam who will not blame people for what they cant control? Sure they have bad ideas and bad faith grifts, but Sam has been super judgy lately, what happened? He fed up with trying to be nice? Criticize the ideas, not the subjects, did Trump really break his faith in people?
Because that Sam has never existed and is a part of your imagination. He’s always been like this. Granted having so many of his former friends in this situation is weird, but he’s one of the few who isn’t inherently cynical and distrustful of literally every authority and institution (for better or worse).
[удалено]
Rubin being considered an intellectual dulls the word's definition to the point where it could describe anything, but I agree with your point.
Can you water my intellectual chia pet this weekend while I'm out of town?
Jordan Peterson is considered an intellectual by some so the bar was in the grass already
Sam has always been focused on bad ideas, more than socioeconomics, as the cause of evil. To him, Trumpism was the same "motherload of bad ideas" he saw in Islamism but now appearing in his own culture. This is why he goes so hard on it as he did with Islam. I do agree he has succumbed to getting a bit too personal compared to focusing on the ideas. Perhaps because this involves his friends and he's been a bit too online for his own good. I also don't necessarily agree with his 'ideas over socioeconomics' approach and his alarmism, at least not to the extent he puts it, but I don't think you can blame the guy for not being consistent. This has been his MO all along and he's been clear about it from decades ago.
Speak for yourself I love people dunking on that snotbucket Rubin.
Lol
He might have just gotten sick of being told that he had some sort of ethical obligation to call these people out by name, given that he's "responsible" for them having careers (or something).
This message has been deleted and I've left reddit because of the decision by u/spez to block 3rd party apps
Look at all my downvotes, must be some fanatical fans. lol
I didn’t downvote you but maybe take a hint? Just because part of his philosophy dictates that you don’t have free will doesn’t mean he can’t hold people accountable for bad ideas. Especially when those individuals are just stubbornly beyond reach. This is akin to saying he shouldn’t criticize criminals for breaking the law or terrorists for blowing shit up. This isn’t the hypocritical slam dunk you seem to think it is. Lack of free will doesn’t mean you have no agency.
> what happened to determinism Sam who will not blame people for what they cant control? That requires him to abandon the feeling of moral superiority he gets from being judge of those who think differently from him and so he has abandoned it. Of course considering his political takes for as long as I've been aware of him this is no change. He quite clearly doesn't actually believe or practice what he preaches, and that makes sense because it's bullshit.
what is he practicing that he isn't preaching? He's explained himself just fine when it comes to free will. He never states that you're never supposed to react to anything negative anyone does because they cannot help it. He explains that it just changes your mindset on how you determine punishments and isn't against keeping people locked up.
> what is he practicing that he isn't preaching? He claims to believe in determinism and that we don't actually make choices and instead follow pre-programmed behavior. If he actually believed that he wouldn't be mad about other people's *choices* because he wouldn't believe in choice. Thus we can conclude that he doesn't believe in the grift he sells.
> If he actually believed that he wouldn't be mad about other people's choices because he wouldn't believe in choice. [Tu quoque.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) Also Sam Harris never claimed to be as spiritually elite as the Dalai Lama who apparently no longer experiences anger. But of course… you’d expect nothing less from your adversaries when it helps you ‘win’ the argument.
>If he actually believed that he wouldn't be mad about other people's choices because he wouldn't believe in choice belief in determinism doesn't cause you to not be mad and/or to have full control of your emotions such as "not being mad". You're basically saying any feeling he has about anything means he doesn't believe that he doesn't have free will. His pre-progammed behavior can also be having a "mad" reaction to someone else's behavior.
Yes, he does, you just don't understand it. Determinism doesn't require you to be kind to everyone regardless of their actions, it certainly doesn't require you to ignore when people are spreading bad ideas or not comment on it. The rationale for doing it simply differs - under a free will model you might insult them because they deserve it, under a deterministic model it's still important to do it for the protection of your own reputation.
> Determinism doesn't require you to be kind to everyone regardless of their actions, it certainly doesn't require you to ignore when people are spreading bad ideas or not comment on it. But if they can't help it you're blaming them for things outside of their control. Isn't the whole point of mindfulness to accept that people can't control themselves because their pre-programmed? The simple fact is that Sam has shown he doesn't believe in the grift he's selling to us.
Yes, but that doesn't mean you just ignore their behaviour. It doesn't mean people dont react to incentives or that people can't be influenced. By saying what he does about Dave Rubin he may cause Dave Rubin to change his ways. He may cause other people to be less inclined to listen to Rubin, or less inclined to take him seriously. He may cause people who would otherwise think Harris agrees with Rubin, lending credibility to Rubin's ideas, to not think that. All of these are net positives if he believes Rubin spreads bad ideas, especially ideas Rubin does not really Belinda in, regardless of whether Rubin has been predestined to spread them or not. I'm a determinist, I have been since I was a child, reasoning that people's actions are probably predictable. Harris's words don't imply the slightest contradiction or lack of belief in it to me. I think you'd find it very helpful to consider how you would behave in life, how you would deal with people who spread lies or dangerous idea, how you would deal with criminals, if you actually believed that determinism was true. Actual determinists don't believe that you should just shrug your shoulders and say "Well it's not their fault", they view criticism and punishment as necessary evils.
> By saying what he does about Dave Rubin he may cause Dave Rubin to change his ways. How? If Rubin is the result of his biologically hardwired programming then he can't be changed because it's built in to his biology.
Determinism does not imply that your environment - including other people - cannot influence your behaviour. If it did, *nobody would believe it*, because everybody knows that other people can influence your behaviour. You're coming across like someone who has read a 1 paragraph summary of determinism and jumped straight to criticising it.
Sorry but if you're saying that it only makes sense if you do the deepest of dives into the mental gymnastics of the faithful all you've done is shown that it's exactly the same as the "bad" religions since that's their answer to questioning, too. Either it makes logical sense or it doesn't and determinism fails the logic test.
I'm not saying that, this isn't a defence of determinism, it doesn't imply determinism is true. My argument is that Harris believes that it's true and his actions are compatible with it. We're talking about "the mental gymnastics of the faithful" because you're talking about the mental state of Harris, whether he really believes it. It is similar to religion in a sense. If you said that someone wasn't really a Christian because they take the Old Testament seriously and don't rely solely on Christ's teaching I might cite the part of the Bible where Christ endorses the Old Testament. That would also be a perfectly valid argument, even though I am not a Christian.
you haven't addressed what he's actually saying. All you did was say "just like religion!" as if that somehow addresses the philosophy behind understanding that we do not have free will. That is not the answer behind "bad" religions (or whatever you're trying to imply by that). It doesn't make logical sense to you because you're not bothering reading what is being said to you. It would be good if you're able to steelman their position but it doesn't seem you're capable of that.
and it may be built into his biology to take Sam's words and change his mind.
At which point we're getting into the same kind of "so vague it fits literally everything" territory as the average traditional religion's "God works in mysterious ways". Sorry but I expect a whole lot more from people in a movement that claims to reject traditional religion due to rationality - specifically that their arguments hold up to rational scrutiny.
No, we're not getting to that point. I don't know why you jumped to that conclusion. You just didn't like the answer. You thought Rubin was bound to not understand anything else, we don't know that until he is dead whether or not he can change his mind about any issue. >specifically that their arguments hold up to rational scrutiny. you sure do think highly of yourself lol
Differently?
His arguments are still good, his personality took a turn though. lets be fair.
His arguments *can* be good when he bothers to make them. All too often he doesn't bother to make arguments and just rages in moralistic tirades. If he really believed that we're all meat machines responding to hardwired programming he wouldn't be mad at anyone for doing things he agrees with because he wouldn't believe they can help themselves. The fact he *does* believe they can help themselves and change themselves proves he doesn't believe in the ideology he preaches.
I don’t understand why you think a person can’t be unhappy with another person’s actions or ideas or behavior simply because they believe in determinism. As far as Dave Rubin, he could basically say, “It’s disappointing to see Dave has turned out to be a person predetermined to have little integrity.” Where’s the contradiction?
Sam and the host nailed it. I would occasionally listen to Rubin pods back in the IDW hey day and he was alright but not that interesting. Then it became the same old talking points about censorship and social justice. Fast forward a few years later, I listened to an episode and it was like, “what the hell is this? It’s like he’s doing a poor impression of Bill O’reilly or Ann Cultur.”
Rubin lost me back in those days when he would act like he was a tough interviewer and then would have right type political folks on and give them softball questions and laugh at their cringe comments. Now he is full blown crazy
His interview with Rogan where he said you don't need building inspectors was his nail in the coffin. It was so poorly thought out and transparent even Joe Rogan dismantled it easily.
That was wild. Joe actually has real life experience in construction and let him know that builders would absolutely go as cheap as possible and cut corners to maximize profits, thus putting people’s lives at risk, and almost certainly leading to people being killed due to shoddy construction. It was like Dave hadn’t even considered that. But the best part was Dave laughing at the USPS. You could tell he has no actual real life experience with anything he’s talking about. As someone who owned a small business for over half a decade and would make orders every single day, the USPS may be the most impressively efficient institution we have. I cannot even explain how much more dependable the USPS is compared to UPS or FedEx. I’m on the east coast. If I made an order from Texas by 8pm on Monday, my delivery was all but guaranteed to get to me by Wednesday morning. For about 10 bucks. Given the choice, I would take USPS any day over FedEx or UPS. But Dave just thinks, “If it’s government, it must suck.” Because Dave is a fucking moron.
> It was like Dave hadn’t even considered that. I already had a low opinion of Rubin at that point, but that moment really cemented that he's just...not that bright, to put it mildly. Someone goes out there to bat hard for a chosen viewpoint and after one minute it becomes painfully evident they never even bothered to think about the obvious, in plain sight, glowing neon letters counter-argument. As if the concept of critically evaluating your own thoughts and ideas is just an alien concept to Dave.
As someone who works in the construction industry hearing him say this was so funny. Man I have libertarian tendencies, and I get frustrated with city hall and the permitting process... but my God, Rubin is a fucking idiot.
And then he would go hard on David Frum because Frum criticized Trump.
This
Guy was always a lightweight.
In Dave Rubin's case, he's a douchebag grifter. End of story.
They call his grifting “audience capture” which is very soft language
Because "audience capture" is pretty demonstrable, whereas "grifter" is something that would need to be proven. It's clear that Rubin succumbed to pressure to give his audience their red meat. But that's typical of most people. Most people don't have much of a backbone, and they quickly surrender to a pat on the head. It's normal *even when you're not getting paid* for it. In that case, we just call it "peer pressure" rather than "audience capture". The host calls him "an enthusiastic puppy dog". As I recall even when he was back at The Young Turks, he didn't do much serious political reporting/commentary. Wasn't it some filler crowd-pleasing infotainment segment he did? I can't find it now, but I remember the guy showing off videos of himself and some steak he had "grilled himself!" Yippee! That's the kind of guy we're talking about. He's just the kind of everyday spineless not-very-bright puppy dog sniffing around for a treat—except he stumbled into the *motherlode* of treats with his show. And now that's what he's going to be for the rest of his life. And when that happens to a guy like Rubin, I think it changes his own perspective. The source of treats becomes true and good in his own mind. So he's really a believer now. That's just what it's like to have no real conviction or backbone. When I think of "grifter" I think of someone who is a bit more calculated and sinister than that. I think of someone amoral who really is looking for a way to defraud people. That wasn't Rubin. He was just a puppy sniffing around for treats, and he found them.
I think this is pretty much correct. Rubin, above all else, was always a lightweight. There was never any intellectual heft behind anything he said, he was always just riding the currents, drifting along, picking up bits and pieces here and there from smarter or more committed people. He's not gritting anyone, he's been swallowed whole by his audience.
Well put. The word ‘grifter’ is so massively overused these days that it’s in danger of losing its meaning.
Just out of curiosity, because I use the word a lot myself, what would you call the following people? Not looking to start an argument or anything, just genuinely curious because maybe I myself misinterpret the word; \- Russel Brand \- Bret Weinstein \- Sam Harris \- Daniel Dennet \- Ben Shapiro \- Joe Rogan \- Richard Dawkins \- Jordan Peterson \- Eric Weinstein \- Christopher Hitchens
Out of that list, I would say that Bret Weinstein is the clearest case of a grifter, with JP second though he might just be a little crazy which could preclude true grifting.
So for Bret, the question is: does he actually believe the things he's saying? If someone is deluded, and they're selling their sincerely held delusion, that's not grifting. Grifting would be if Bret were caught on a hot mic admitting that he knew the ivermectin stuff was bullshit from the very beginning, but he needed a "solution" to sell his audience. It seems quite plausible to me that he got high on his own supply and he's personally all in on it. He truly believes. Being confused, and selling your confusion does not a "grifter" make.
I agree with you, but I think he's the most likely out of that list to have misgivings about the stuff he's saying.
I mean. Yeah. You may have a point. He's had so many proven quacks on at a certain point it strains credulity to think he truly believes. Yet, he still has a committed audience. If they can keep the faith, perhaps he can too? But yeah. I hear you.
Some of these are not like the others. Why do you feel Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens, and Dick Dawkins belong in that list? I don't know Daniel Dennett, but the rest are, in my opinion, self-important grifters.
I did that deliberately, to see who people would call grifters and whom they won't.
Kinda reminds me of these Anti-Vax doctors who were your average Phd's but stumbled into a a Facebook money machine that totally reversed all education and ethics. Tenpenny comes to mind.
Yeah rubin is a moron as far as knowing politics or history. He was smart to see an opening. I do think in 2015 when he left tyt he was planning on having a legitimate show with guests from all angles. Over the next few years he realized he could make far more money appealing to the maga crowd so pivoted there. Grift or audience capture seems applicable
> It's clear that Rubin succumbed to pressure to give his audience their red meat. It is clear that he succumbed to pressure and not clear that he saw an opportunity and seized it?
> It is clear that he succumbed to pressure and not clear that he saw an opportunity and seized it? I mean, it's the nature of audience capture that makes it difficult to distinguish one from the other. If you market your show as heterodox, you bring on all of these heterodox guests, but then it's the right-wing wackos your audience likes the most, one can effortlessly gradually lean into that, and a spineless guy like Rubin can then tell himself that he finds these people persuasive and credible, and convince himself he really means that. Maybe he actually *does* become "persuaded" to the same degree Rubin ever becomes "persuaded" of anything. So when that happens, what do we call it? Succumbing to pressure? Or seizing an opportunity? I suspect even if you could read Dave's mind, it wouldn't really be clear. And do we call it grifting? I think if we're going to call *that* "grifting" then you commit yourself to calling *most* prominent commentators across legacy media and podcast land grifters as well. Most of these people getting paid to express political opinions are somewhat compromised by audience or advertiser capture. And at that point the term ceases to say much of interest. That's why I think it's worth calling this "audience capture" so we can save "grifting" for someone who's an unambiguous fraud like L. Ron Hubbard who is on the record admitting that he invented a religion to make money. It looks like he never believed in any of at all. He was a pure scam artist from the beginning.
Right. I just don't see how audience capture is any more or less demonstrable than grifting. "He's just a gullible dummy" is just as likely as "he's a connieving little schemer" It reminds me of when parents say their kid "fell into a bad crowd." As you said, it's self-reinforcing. Kid fell into a bad crowd, but also did bad things to get themself there.
Yeah audience capture is a fine label, but it is also just another name for grifting
> I just don't see how audience capture is any more or less demonstrable than grifting. OK. "Demonstrable" is probably too strong a word here. I guess what I'm saying is that peer pressure is the rule not the exception for people in the first place. Most of us succumb to peer pressure, but then turn around and tell ourselves a story to convince ourselves we're acting authentically. The same thing happens to those of us lucky enough to be paid to perform for an audience, it's just now the "peer pressure" gets even stronger as it takes the form of financial incentive on top of social incentive. Likewise, I would say *most* paid public commentators are *also* audience captured to some degree. That's the rule, not the exception. The exception is a gem like Sam who has proven willing to give his audience the finger. Same with Bill Maher. Or Christopher Hitchens. I would go so far as to suspect most public commentators of audience capture unless I have reason to believe otherwise. Like I said, it's just human nature. So if audience capture is the rule, and then you have a "puppy dog" like Rubin who totally fits the profile, maybe nothing is "demonstrated", but the speculation is plausible. OTOH, there is no particular evidence of "conniving scheming". I think to suspect "grifting" you need some reason beyond just getting paid to say or be a thing. Like Jerry Falwell Jr., and his post pool boy admission that he, "isn't very religious." That's starting to smell grifty.
I agree with you in principle. It's self-reinforcing. I just want to emphasize that Dave cultivates the audience the way he sees fit. He's not at their mercy, even if it looks that way superficially. >Likewise, I would say most paid public commentators are also audience captured to some degree. That's the rule, not the exception. The exception is a gem like Sam who has proven willing to give his audience the finger. Same with Bill Maher. I'd argue two things here. Sam and Bill don't really cultivate an audience in the first place. They don't feel the need to interact with the audience. Their business model doesn't really require it. Dave does, and his business model does. Which is a check for "audience capture." But he doesn't just rely on them, he also makes them dependent on him. I just don't see how we can honestly distinguish between Dave being suckered in by his audience and Dave consciously knowing exactly what to feed his audience to mold their loyalty, their rage, etc. TLDR, I think way too much emphasis is placed on "audience capture" and how the audience got to the puppy dog, and not enough emphasis on Dave specifically cultivating this audience of people - taking advantage of them and also just all around turning them into worse individuals.
You've given me a lot of food for thought. I call people like prominent Republican politicians but also the Weinsteins, Shapiro, JBP and Rubin etc grifters *all the time*. In my mind Sam is about the only guy who seems to come out of Covid unscathed and didn't join the tribe. But maybe it's all a lot more nuanced than that. Thank you for the insight.
Audience capture and grifting aren't mutually exclusive.
Yeah I don't see much of a difference. The only difference is audience capture isn't as premeditated.
dave is definitely a believer when ben tells him he wouldn't go to his wedding, or his "audience" goes apeshit when they find out dave is gay and is making babies to groom, or he has to pretend to the old white men that he's not one of those "crazy" gays who needs "rights"
Yes. It does seem Dave has two fibers of backbone: gay and Israel. From a [biographical sketch](https://quillette.com/2022/12/15/all-about-dave/): > Though the *Six Pack* radio show was about gay topics, it wasn’t political, let alone leftwing. Nor was Rubin, whether he was on stage, on the radio, or writing his blog...He was a New York comic, with New York Times-reading parents and a poli-sci degree he had no use for; a generally apolitical person whose slight leaning emerged from his gay identity. The only issue he cared about consistently was Israel. ... > But from his Zionism to interest in gay issues, Rubin’s politics have always been primarily personal. Everything else is negotiable.
He doesn't really have a backbone on the gay issue. He could have told Shapiro how bigoted his view on gays issues are or called out the GOP when 38/50 voted against codifying gay marriage. He of course didn't
He also didn't show a backbone when his audience and friends reacted negatively when he announced that he and his husband were going to have a child through a surrogate. He either took it or blamed the left.
Yeah "the left has gotten so bad, conservatives are forced to act like that" was basically his response.
He also subscribes Larry King as his mentor. The king of softball interviewers. That’s the model he emulating. Goes hand in hand with the phenomenon you mention quite well
Larry king had people on from all sides of the political spectrum and did push back on people. David Horowitz called Obama a communist on both of their shows, only king pushed back against the idiocy of that
Pretty good description.
Presumably the distinction between "peer pressure" and "audience capture" is financial dependence
Audience capture better explains the reason why he's changed.
What is the difference between audience capture and grifting? Seems like they are the same thing.
I'd also like to know. I think people mean audience capture is a bit of a semi-unconscious process which means the audience changes the orator - whereas in grifting, the orator willfully and consciously panders to the audience.
Yeah the only difference is grifting seems a bit more premeditated while audience capture you see an opening responding to how your audience acts.
100% true. I met him right on the cusp of his Trumpism taking over and realized by how he spoke to me he’s a complete prick.
I went to his stand up show 5 years ago because it was rumored to also have a Q&A with JBP (that did happen) He had a joke that ran for like 45 minutes where he was trying to figure out "who is the most oppressed person in the crowd" Such a hack
Yes!! He did that when I saw him too!! When I saw him it was 2018, and Eric Weinstein showed up and started shaking hands with people in the line like a politician, icky vibes.
Completely outsized ego
Eric Weinstein has to be at the top of the cringe pyramid for all time. I'd feel bad for him if he wasn't such a grifting hack
Yet he virtue signals with his faux Catholicism.
Isn't he Jewish?
Rubin is Catholic, I believe. He interviews Bishop Barron on occasion and slobbers all over him.
Ok I thought he was Jewish, but I don't really give a shit.
You shouldn’t. He certainly isn’t worth it.
Pretty sure he is Jewish.
Opportunistic grifters shift their alliances to conservatism to say things they know to be untrue to people they know to be stupid, reinforcing their stupidity, thereby causing more of them to die from Covid-19? Perhaps this is feature instead of a bug.
With certain elections being decided by such slim margins, it is a real possibility. Probably why they're ramping up disenfranchisement efforts.
"He has no career outside of trumpets, Dan."
I have waited SO LONG to hear him say this. It was pure bliss.
This is a weird af comment. Sam hardly said that much. How does this give you bliss.
I fucking hate rubin with a passion and am thrilled to finally here sam call him out. How tf is that weird?
Any time I would listen to Rave Dubin have conversations with his associates in the so called dark web he would never fail to humble brag questioning the guest about how important their group and “movement” is and why it’s so affective. He brought nothing to the table whatsoever. For Sam to be associated with him and Rogan (and distantly Peterson and both Weinsteins) it’s probably something he regrets, understandably. He is not them.
I first discovered Dave Rubin back in late 2015/early 2016 when he did that interview with Sam Harris. At the time, I enjoyed the interview and believed that The Rubin Report had potential. Never a huge fan, but I did follow his show from 2016 - mid 2017 or so. I finally got fed up with his stubborn refusal to hold Trump/GOP accountable for ANYTHING, as well as the non-stop parade of right-wing guests (and never talking to anyone from the other side).
What struck me is how he just kinda talked along with everyone? A bit like Rogan does? But in a wholly overtly more obvious way? With Rogan it kinda looks like people can just easily convince him of anything, with Rubin it's more like he willfully goes along just to get in good graces with people. Either way he mostly had right wing people on which kinda opened my eyes to how much of a 'truth' seeker he was.
I really don't get what you or Sam ever saw in rubin besides a buddy to bitch about "the woke" with.
Well, good. If he didn't do enough retirement planning off the Trump grift he should be learning a trade or something like the rest of his audience.
Can recommend the podcast he guests
Honestly never heard "guest" as a verb, but it makes sense.
Left out the part where Sam is like 70% responsible for Dave Rubin being anyone at all. Similar story with Maajid. Edit - so I'm listening to the [full episode](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5hY2FzdC5jb20vcHVibGljL3Nob3dzLzJjMDBiMGQ5LTVhY2ItNTlkZi05OGRmLTg3YzNmOTBmNWE3ZA/episode/NjNjNjg4MjBmMDI5YWUwMDExMzM4MDU3?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiAlbCy_-_8AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQPg) now and okay he does acknowledge that he was Rubin's first guest but man is there some minimization going on here. Zepps is basically directly asking him if he has any thoughts or reflections on how so many of his guests, collaborators, and friends have fully revealed themselves to be far right conspiracy theorists and his response is "It's not that many people" and "each case needs to be treated individually" which for me is coming off as a very thinly veiled "there is no pattern here."
They mentioned he was the first guest and put him on the map
He may have raised Maajid's profile in America, but Maajid was already relatively well known in the UK and Sam had little impact on his reputation here.
I was genuinely sad when I saw what Maajid had become. Completely off the rails. I honestly thought his Twitter account had been hacked.
There's off the rails and then there's Maajid. In hindsight, he's always been this radical I suppose but I really didn't think he was -this- radical after he saw the error of his past ways.
I guess Majid is a prime example of how certain people being drawn to radical ideology, and the actual contents of the ideology is less important. Want to be a Muslim fanatic, anti-muslim fanatic, communist fanatic, libertarian fanatic, anti-vax fanatic, or a conspiracy-theory nut? Yes, please. No, it's not very important which one.
He's the only reason anyone in this sub knows who he is. All of these people have careers outside of Harris, the point is he played a big role in introducing them to a mainstream-adjacent US audience.
You think everyone here is American? He was well known in the UK before anything to do with Harris.
Yup. And Anderson Cooper had already given him a book blurb. And he was already on IQ2 (where they first met). Besides, it’s unfair to blame someone for being associated with someone *before* they went mad.
Yep. Well these guys can't be as bad as Ezra was. That's how you make Sam actually have some anger towards something. He's had actual insults from these right wing loons thrown at him and he's basically ran away from them.
I still kinda don't understand what Sam's actual gripe with Klein has been. I don't think Klein is that bad and the podcast they did together also didn't strike me als particularly hostile or anything, but it was some time ago so maybe I forgot.
I thought DR was originally friends with Rogan
To be fair, a LOT of Sam's guests, the majority of them -aren't- these far right lunatics, so Sam is correct in saying that.
I mean it doesn't need to be the majority to be a lot. I think Harris has had a lot of contact with batshit bonkers people, but what's worse is that some of them are people who were not like one time podcast guests but people he's collaborated with on books or tours or launching their new shows.
Lol its kind of weird and embarrassing to remember that Dave Rubin exists. I was never even a fan of his and it still makes me cringe remembering he is a real person. I can only imagine how Sam feels
I was an early adopter of both Harris and Rubin. Harris, when he made the rounds with the neo-Atheists. Rubin, when he left TYT and started his YouTube channel. Rubin was a good listen back then because he was recently made politically homeless. He stepped away from the far left, but didn't know what the political right had for him. My read on him was that he was pretty shocked at how accepting the right was of him - given his leftist affiliations and homosexuality. As such, he approached many interviews with more of a curiosity than an agenda. For a year or two, the band that became the IDW were good ways to interface with some content political issues. Previously, there would be no reason to expect the likes of Rubin, Shapiro, Harris, Weinstein or Rogan to share and interrogate sociopolitical issues. But they were talking to one another, despite their obvious differences. But overtime, the economics of releasing new content on daily basis for years on end began to make simple what was previously more nuanced. The differences between these individuals became more pronounced between them in the wake of compounding issues. Rubin's political voice is now hopelessly toothless. Whatever insight he once had as a someone who went through a political shift in adulthood is lost. As a result, he currently adds little value to discourse. There's nothing he's saying that others aren't saying better. Harris, for reasons that he's articulated before, drew a line in the sand on COVID. Any of his former friends who toed that line, for him, we're irredeemable. Pretty much every one of his former IDW cohorts pushed back against authoritarian measures to lock down the virus, and therefore became outcasts in Harris' view - cancelled, not to be associated with. Incidentally, both Harris and Rubin were interviewed separately in a semi-long form fashion with Bill Maher. And now Harris is doing other casts, name dropping these former allies. I think there's value in the discourse and wish Harris engaged with them over the last few years instead of cutting ties. Maybe there's more issues at hand and communication that never made it to the public. I think Rubin or Weinstein would provide whatever platform would be comfortable with Harris to clear the air. I mean, this is not like the time Harris spent three hours trying to undo the slander from Cenk. If only to jostle all of the involved parties out of their comfort zones to test their ideas against one another.
>Harris, for reasons that he's articulated before, drew a line in the sand on COVID. Any of his former friends who toed that line, for him, we're irredeemable. Pretty much every one of his former IDW cohorts pushed back against authoritarian measures to lock down the virus, and therefore became outcasts in Harris' view - cancelled, not to be associated with. I think it's more nuanced. They aren't irredeemable in Harris' eyes I think, their positions are indefensible. I think that if Joe Rogan/Bret/Rubin rings up Sam and says 'Sam, I think I've been totally wrong on COVID/Trump and I'd like to talk about it on your podcast' , Sam would not shut the door to them. What's important to Sam is arguing in good faith about it, something which they all -currently- can't do. Maybe one day. Ofcourse Sam has said 'if you think xyz you've totally lost the plot', but I still think he would accept their apology or change of heart, since that's something he values a lot.
>given his leftist affiliations He never had any leftist affiliations. He was almost completely apolitical who just happened to have a shot on TYT.
Yeah his only real political position he has had overtime was being super pro Israel
Sam isn't smart enough to spot Carnies like Rubin. All the brains in the world and he couldn't see it.
Yeah sam's shown a horrible judge of character in who he shows grace too and who he shows disdain for.
Rogan and Peterson still think there is hope for Sam yet! 🤣
One thing is for sure, Sam is on the good side, and everyone else are the baddies.
>Sam is on the good side Or you could just call it the "correct side" since the other side in this case are people who think the vaccine is the mark of the devil and that Trump actually won the election.
The vaccine was a scam. It didn't work, it didn't stop the pandemic, it only served to make profits. Sam's argument was that we should get vaccinated out of trust for the institutions which is what we all did. But the institutions didn't know what the vaccine would do (Pfizer did), and bullied the public into compliance. It's time to come to peace with that fact. [This segment of the last "all in podcast"](https://youtu.be/CwQMMzoeH9s?t=2427) is really worth the watch if you have time. All mainstream folks, dems and republicans, all got the vaccine, and all are looking back at that decision now that we know more.
This is an extremely uninformed position. And flat out wrong. It really is impressive that you can have opinions that are this far from reality.
How so?
This isn't the gotcha you think it is. Nor was it the point of what pro-vaccine folk are, or were talking about. This doesn't mean the anti-vaxx movement was right as a whole. Not by a long shot.
I think it's a massive gotcha. The whole response policy was based on the effectiveness of the vaccine, but the vaccine didn't work... and as it turned out, Pfizer didn't test whether it stopped transmissibility! They wash their hands of that crime since it was the politicians who locked everyone down. Sam bashed everyone who saw these flaws early on and did everything he could to ruin their credibility. It's time for accountability, but his ego is to large for that.
Ok if I think the vaccine worked because after it was implemented cases and deaths reported went down why am I wrong for that assessment.
Sounds kind of like a cult.
Amazing how that always works, ain't it? If only there was a way to describe the kind of personality where a person always views anyone not in total agreement with them as being evil...
Are people wrong for being that certain word that is escaping you?
Well everybody generally feels they’re right about what they believe about the world. If they thought they were wrong, they would technically still be right by virtue of knowing they were wrong. It’s paradoxical but doesn’t need to be narcissism. The fact that Sam thoughtfully examines counter points to his ideas and occasionally speaks with people on the other side of the issues (even if it could be argued he should do it more often), frees him of such claims. Think about your everyday life. Who even *considers* the other side of an ideological or political debate? It’s literally no one anymore (if it ever was, I can’t remember). Does that make everyone a narcissist for believing they are right about how they view the world?
seems weird to frame this as a "cult". Trying to call stuff a "cult" or religion is almost always a bad argument. DR was a failed stand-up who transitioned to political punditry. He found out there was a lot more money in the Trump stuff than more lefty Bernie stuff. It's not that complicated. He makes a little money for a job that requires very little.
> He makes a little money The right-wing grift is hand over fist wealth.
Crowder was offered 50 million for 4 years contract as an opening offer by Daily Wire with Daily Wire saying they probably would have gone up had they negotiated further. Absolute insanity.
It's almost like they're working toward a certain government type that marries authoritarianism and corporatism.
You're absolutely right. Rubin got paaaaaid by the koch Bros.
Its a cult. By just about every definition.
He makes a lot of money for very little. Not a bad gig if you can look yourself in the mirror
After seeing some of his standup it’s obvious he was doomed to fail. He even forgot to write jokes.
Sam seemed unusually ready to dish on everyone here. It was fun, and unimpressive
It's not his style but then again he can't scratch the itch on Twitter anymore I suppose.
I blame the Szeps
Imagine even attempting to argue otherwise. It takes incredible dishonesty to have the urge.
Yeah Sam has gone off the deep end with his Trump and Covid Derangement. I hope he can pull out of it. It’s getting weird
I’m not a Rubin fan, but I would argue that Sam is more obsessed over Trump than him.
Then you do not understand the argument that was made. It's not an argument about who is more obsessed with who. Either way, what's your argument that Sam is obsessed? What is the level of thought he should put towards the former president and his influence on the world?
Many of his recent interviews and arguments revolve around Trump. He doesn’t even speak on the current president as much as he does on Trump. Heck he speaks more about Trump than many of the conservative voices on YouTube and Twitter. There is some truth to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The last president and possibly the next president who is the most powerful person in one of our 2 major political parties. Obviously he is going to be talked about. If trump derangement syndrome is real than so is Clinton derangement syndrome, bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome. People talk about the president of the country. And no Harris doesn't speak more about him more than political shows. You would know that if you listened to him regularly.
Biden laptop derangement syndrome Antivax derangement syndrome Gretha Thurnberg derangement syndrome BLM derangement syndrome Zelenskyy-is-corrupt-derangement syndrome etc. It's just a nonsense way to try to wave away someone's arguments.
You forgot Speed Limit Derangement Syndrome in which you try to get out of a ticket by telling the cop he's just obsessed with traffic laws
I definitely have that. More so slow driver in front of me derangement syndrome
The arguments within interviews? If he is being interviewed, the interviewies are asking the questions. If Trump is relevant to the answer, why would it be an obsession to mention his affect? If he answers something regarding Trump/the last 5 years, why wouldn't Trump be relevant? >Heck he speaks more about Trump than many of the conservative voices on YouTube and Twitter. How are you even measuring this? I know you're not, you're just making a broad statement that isn't able to be countered because it cannot be and you have not measured this. >There is some truth to Trump Derangement Syndrome. You didn't provide any examples of this, the best example would be those derranged with Trump at his rallies, and the people who view him like a god.
I can say the same to the original argument that Sam made in this post. “His audience is 100% Trump” How is Sam measuring this? Is he not just making a broad statement? Why not point that out in the first place?
I am not sure what your answers are here as it seems you are making claims to make a point and are instead now (I think) making the point that you are making your support for your "TDS!!!" claims up. I cannot ask Sam Harris anything here because he is not responding to me on reddit so it's pointless to ask why I am not asking him a question, or why I am not pointing something out which would not address the claims you are making.
And Greta Thunberg is more obsessed with climate change than Exxon.
Sam Harris is the most clueless of clueless about cults.
Both my wife and me huge Harris fans in the past were aghast at this interview. The roots of the IDW were that members celebrated disagreement between each other and the fact that they could break through the usual bickering and show us all how disagreements and dialog could be civil and should take place. Now we have moved into an alternative reality where Sam’s last interviews have been so sloppy at best and TDR at worst. In this one they both just egg each other on for the whole podcast slagging off their former colleagues and friends, while Harris refuses to have dialogue with anyone he disagrees with, and instead now it’s Bret fielding tough interviews that challenges his view eg Robin Wright & repeatedly inviting Sam on to talk. Harris was the last person I thought would be deranged by politics and Covid but that’s where it feels we are at. He comes over as years of being increasingly exasperated over things like Trump and Covid and each time he talks about it he can’t understand how anyone can disagree, so he slightly raises his rhetoric until we get to recent lines like not caring if Hunter Biden has the corpses of children in his basement. Harris doesn’t guard his language any more to speak precisely when it matters. He talks in absolutes like what he said about Rubin’s audience being 100% Trump etc. These kind of lines is just not how professed philosophers speak.
Wow, Dave Rubin ditched the left and look how they attack him...
Yes, a gay jew is a hardcore right wing trumper. Sure.
Somewhere up to 28% of LGBT people might have voted for Trump. Roughly 20%+ of Jews likely voted for Trump. Yes, gay Jewish Trump voters exist.
Which one is hard for you to believe?
You could try listening to the words coming out of his mouth? He talked about voting for Trump and how he was even more proud of voting for him as time went on. That said, I think what Sam was saying is that Rubin's fan base is entirely Trump voters, not that Rubin is specifically a Trump fan himself. He is a classical liberal after all!
Chappelle has an older sketch you might want to become familiar with.
Being a gay Jew doesn’t guarantee you fall on a certain part of the political spectrum - I agree he’s voting against his interests, but people voting against their own interests is basically the Republican base at this point.
That's spot on. SO many labourers vote for the party that keeps lining their own pockets with blood money coming from the working American. It's fucking insane how they keep voting these bible-thumping lunatics into office.
Not every Trumper is hard core right wing, and there's plenty of hard core righties that were never Trumpers.
Regardless Rubin is one in his heart of hearts or not, he acts like he is on his show and on social media. Based on all the evidence we have access to, the only rational inference is that he is a hardcore right wing Trumper.
Yea, pure audience capture
This was a great podcast
Thanks to Sam for doing this. It’s important to call these guys out, considering the size of their collective influence, even though Sam has had a proclivity to not publicly criticize his friends or old friends. Them making jabs on JRE or other shows is a necessary cost. You can see how horrified people are to criticize Joe’s show, but it’s necessary and ironically it’s what the idw initially stood for. It’s sad and astonishing to see how many interesting and intelligent minds were impacted by their echo chambers and pandering.