• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sam Harris is an unthoughtful hack on repeat mode

FieldTheorist

FieldTheorist

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
3,325
Reaction score
2,348
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Honestly, every time I turn around after not listening to Sam Harris for a few months, he comes onto my Facebook page or Youtube suggested videos, and it's become quite characteristic for my jaw to drop at what he said. Last time, it was when Sam Harris said that Sam Harris stated that "Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time." Which, despite how anyone feels about Chomsky, Ben Carson is the person who famously said that China was involved in Syria (Bare in mind, Carson said this before Harris made that proclamation) and also famously said that "Having me as a federal bureaucrat would be like a fish out of water, quite frankly."

So, it's come to my attention that Sam Harris, back again, has attempted to explain why he wasn't wrong to back Hillary Clinton: He's against identity politics, and he told you so; as he notes, the country has rejected identity politics and Islam, and then he, interestingly, asks, "Social Justice Warriors, is this the hill you wanted to die on?"

I'm going to let that sink in a moment. And while that's rolling around in your brain, permit me to add to your confusion:

1.) It's not like Sam Harris, a self-proclaimed liberal, bothered to address Hillary Clinton's campaign was entirely run on identity politics. I've looked all over YouTube and Google. If he ever discussed Clinton's campaign and identity politics, it doesn't appear to have been loud enough to have registered on the usual channels.

2.) Even worse, Sam Harris endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders (Listening to his reasons, literally all of which were deeply wrong so far as can be verified). The reason for this is simple --Bernie didn't support an increased military presence in the middle-east, and Sam Harris wants a lot more military action in the middle-east. The problem, of course, is that that meant supporting the candidate who was literally running a campaign that was very nearly exclusively centered around identity politics. Of course, intellectually honest people should be able to admit this, but usual rigors of intellectually honesty are clearly beneath Sam Harris.​

There's more than he talks about, like the issue of immigration, but I can't. His political analysis is so childishly one-dimensional (Unsurprisingly, it boils down to "Islam bad, economics didn't matter, SJW are evil."), but I've expended enough thought on his inability to collect all of the evidence, rather than just follow what his bias tells him is correct. Sam Harris is such a pseudointellectual hack who's overwhelming concern is that the West be really concerned with Islam and starting fighting it with whatever means necessary, and literally every other topic that lands on his lap --from the US securing oil interests in the 1950's to the 2016 election-- is colored this lens. How does anyone take him seriously?
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
Honestly, every time I turn around after not listening to Sam Harris for a few months, he comes onto my Facebook page or Youtube suggested videos, and it's become quite characteristic for my jaw to drop at what he said. Last time, it was when Sam Harris said that Sam Harris stated that "Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time." Which, despite how anyone feels about Chomsky, Ben Carson is the person who famously said that China was involved in Syria (Bare in mind, Carson said this before Harris made that proclamation) and also famously said that "Having me as a federal bureaucrat would be like a fish out of water, quite frankly."

So, it's come to my attention that Sam Harris, back again, has attempted to explain why he wasn't wrong to back Hillary Clinton: He's against identity politics, and he told you so; as he notes, the country has rejected identity politics and Islam, and then he, interestingly, asks, "Social Justice Warriors, is this the hill you wanted to die on?"

I'm going to let that sink in a moment. And while that's rolling around in your brain, permit me to add to your confusion:

1.) It's not like Sam Harris, a self-proclaimed liberal, bothered to address Hillary Clinton's campaign was entirely run on identity politics. I've looked all over YouTube and Google. If he ever discussed Clinton's campaign and identity politics, it doesn't appear to have been loud enough to have registered on the usual channels.

2.) Even worse, Sam Harris endorsed Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders (Listening to his reasons, literally all of which were deeply wrong so far as can be verified). The reason for this is simple --Bernie didn't support an increased military presence in the middle-east, and Sam Harris wants a lot more military action in the middle-east. The problem, of course, is that that meant supporting the candidate who was literally running a campaign that was very nearly exclusively centered around identity politics. Of course, intellectually honest people should be able to admit this, but usual rigors of intellectually honesty are clearly beneath Sam Harris.​

There's more than he talks about, like the issue of immigration, but I can't. His political analysis is so childishly one-dimensional (Unsurprisingly, it boils down to "Islam bad, economics didn't matter, SJW are evil."), but I've expended enough thought on his inability to collect all of the evidence, rather than just follow what his bias tells him is correct. Sam Harris is such a pseudointellectual hack who's overwhelming concern is that the West be really concerned with Islam and starting fighting it with whatever means necessary, and literally every other topic that lands on his lap --from the US securing oil interests in the 1950's to the 2016 election-- is colored this lens. How does anyone take him seriously?
Click to expand...

His point about Ben Carson vs Chomsky is that Chomsky ignores the threat of radicalized Islam and Carson doesn't. If stuck between the two as unlikely potential candidates, the totality of their positions at this moment weigh heavily toward Chomsky being the worse of the two in terms of his refusal to acknowledge the severity of what Harris considers a very serious problem.

Given an actual campaign between the two, I'm sure he wouldn't be saying the same thing since they would both be advertising other positions at that point.

Plus, Chomsky's a dick.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
His point about Ben Carson vs Chomsky is that Chomsky ignores the threat of radicalized Islam and Carson doesn't.
Click to expand...

This is the topic of another thread, perhaps, but this again showcases Sam Harris' absurdly unintelligent banter. Noam Chomsky does consider radicalized Islam a threat, this is trivially verifiable. Sam Harris doesn't like Chomsky because Chomsky believes that the major influence pushing forward radical Islam is geopolitics and bad-faith actors like Saudi Arabia. Sam Harris doesn't like that answer, because the only answer Sam Harris is willing to accept is "Radicalized Islam is bad, and it's bad because of the Qur'an and the Qur'an alone." And any attempt to state that terrorism and radicalized Islam may be due to other causes is axiomatically interpreted in Sam Harris' mind as "apologizing for the doctrine of Islam."

Again, Sam Harris' thoughts on this topic are wildly fanatical (not to mention poorly informed), and are wildly counterproductive if you actually view Islamism as a problem and you actually want to help stop it.
 
I always thought Sam Harris was very knowledgeable in what he talks about. I haven't listened to him much recently, but unless he has done a 180, a would agree with him.
 
FieldTheorist said:
This is the topic of another thread, perhaps, but this again showcases Sam Harris' absurdly unintelligent banter. Noam Chomsky does consider radicalized Islam a threat, this is trivially verifiable. Sam Harris doesn't like Chomsky because Chomsky believes that the major influence pushing forward radical Islam is geopolitics and bad-faith actors like Saudi Arabia. Sam Harris doesn't like that answer, because the only answer Sam Harris is willing to accept is "Radicalized Islam is bad, and it's bad because of the Qur'an and the Qur'an alone." And any attempt to state that terrorism and radicalized Islam may be due to other causes is axiomatically interpreted in Sam Harris' mind as "apologizing for the doctrine of Islam."

Again, Sam Harris' thoughts on this topic are wildly fanatical (not to mention poorly informed), and are wildly counterproductive if you actually view Islamism as a problem and you actually want to help stop it.
Click to expand...

That is the most uncharitable reading of any of Harris' arguments, which if you actually get them right from Harris himself, you would realize this is the biggest complaint he has in life (next to the daily death threats from Muslim extremists).

His entire field of study (which began in neuroscience and progressed to philosophy) is concerned with the link between behavior and belief and the significance of intention. Misunderstand these two key components and completely misunderstand any arguments he makes, not to mention ram headlong into the pitfall of moral equivalence.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
That is the most uncharitable reading of any of Harris' arguments, which if you actually get them right from Harris himself, you would realize this is the biggest complaint he has in life
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of Sam Harris' aversion to having his beliefs spelled out in a form that exposes their errors. He nearly can't shut up about it. I have listened to Harris. I've listened to a lot of Harris. It's why I can't stand listening to him anymore.

His entire field of study (which began in neuroscience and progressed to philosophy) is concerned with the link between behavior and belief and the significance of intention. Misunderstand these two key components and completely misunderstand any arguments he makes, not to mention ram headlong into the pitfall of moral equivalence.
Click to expand...

And much like Harris' responses, the statement here in no way deals with, let alone refutes, what I said.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I'm well aware of Sam Harris' aversion to having his beliefs spelled out in a form that exposes their errors. He nearly can't shut up about it. I have listened to Harris. I've listened to a lot of Harris. It's why I can't stand listening to him anymore.



And much like Harris' responses, the statement here in no way deals with, let alone refutes, what I said.
Click to expand...

What you said is that Harris is an unthoughtful hack on repeat mode. Thus is incorrect, and you can only come to this conclusion about Harris by ignoring what Harris's own intentions of what he attempts to convey with his argument... which is doubly ironic, since most of his greatest arguments address the unwillingness of people to measure and judge intention, even when loudly and repeatedly declared.

It's like how Islamist apologists say that militants Islamism is a socioeconomic problem of the poor and undereducated, while ignoring Muslim engineers and doctors who say their beliefs stem right from the Koran and nowhere else.

You are literally doing the very thing Harris accuses all of his detractors of: not listening to the arguments made.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
What you said is that Harris is an unthoughtful hack on repeat mode. Thus is incorrect, and you can only come to this conclusion about Harris by ignoring what Harris's own intentions of what he attempts to convey with his argument... which is doubly ironic, since most of his greatest arguments address the unwillingness of people to measure and judge intention, even when loudly and repeatedly declared.
Click to expand...

Wow, you'd make a really good mouth piece for Harris: A total unwillingness to address any argument on the table beyond the most superficial level, followed up by a good whine session about how people are misrepresenting his positions.

Needless to say, if you, like Harris, have nothing more to say than "You're misrepresenting him because I say so" in response to me demonstrating, with evidence, that Harris misrepresenting Chomsky, then we're done here. Re: An unthoughtful response on repeat mode.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Wow, you'd make a really good mouth piece for Harris: A total unwillingness to address any argument on the table beyond the most superficial level, followed up by a good whine session about how people are misrepresenting his positions.

Needless to say, if you, like Harris, have nothing more to say than "You're misrepresenting him because I say so" in response to me demonstrating, with evidence, that Harris misrepresenting Chomsky, then we're done here. Re: An unthoughtful response on repeat mode.
Click to expand...

If your analysis of Harris's arguments says, "it boils down to "Islam bad, economics didn't matter, SJW are evil," then you aren't really reading Harris. At this point I can't imagine you're going to read my reading of Harris any more honestly.

Good day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom