Sam Harris Refuses to Debate Stefan

[jroseland]

Finally after 2 years of Trump bashing Sam Harris has done a conversation with the (not quiet committed to actually being a...) Trump supporter Scott Adams.

It's a pretty good debate actually, recommend you give it a listen, Scott Adams is a great mind (if a bit docile).

Sam has disabled comments on his website so I added The Untruth About Donald Trump to Sam's Tweet thread. 

 

Please retweet, heart or share it if you're a Twitter user. Tweet threads can be a surprisingly effective way to get a message in front of a lot of eyeballs.

[Wuzzums]

Ha! I was gonna start a thread about this exact topic.

Listening to the podcast right now, halfway in and I'm completely triggered by Sam. Was he always this much of an idiot?

I have read everything he has ever written and watched all of his debates and considered him one of my heroes a few years back. Now he's just a petulant loser in my eyes. Was he always like this? If so what does it say about me that I used to admire such a person?

I watched a couple of minutes of his most recent Joe Rogan appearance and he literally looked like a homeless person (see pic). Did he also get a stroke or something? At this point it would be his only saving grace.

Scott: Trump is a master persuader.

Sam: No he's not! He didn't persuade me!

Scott: But he's the president against all odds.

Sam: Doesn't matter! He's a liar and morally bankrupt!

Scott: How do you know he has no morals?

Sam: Because of the things he says!

Scott: How can you trust the things he says if he's a liar?

Sam: [autistic screeching]

 

Sam's level of debate is abysmal. WTF.

[RamynKing]

haha! I'm excited about all of this.

I was mad at Sam during the election because of his sophistry about Trump. And I remember perceiving that for all his tough talk on Islam, he became a coward when he wasn't willing to prescribe actionable solutions.

I'll have to look at where he is on Islam these days, but I will say that his interview with Charles Murray really redeemed him for me. His debate with Jordan Peterson was really weird! It was like trying to plug a micro usb into an iphone jack. 

[BaylorPRSer]

How do we know that Stefan has requested a debate with Sam Harris?

[BaylorPRSer]

They talk about how Trump says lots of things that don't pass fact checking.  Does he actually do that more than other politicians? Looking into this.  It's tough when bullshit Politifact dominates this kind of shit.

[Wuzzums]

59 minutes ago, RamynKing said:

haha! I'm excited about all of this.

I was mad at Sam during the election because of his sophistry about Trump. And I remember perceiving that for all his tough talk on Islam, he became a coward when he wasn't willing to prescribe actionable solutions.

I'll have to look at where he is on Islam these days, but I will say that his interview with Charles Murray really redeemed him for me. His debate with Jordan Peterson was really weird! It was like trying to plug a micro usb into an iphone jack. 

Did you listen to the Scott Adams one? For me it was the final nail in the coffin for Sam.

At this point I don't want Stefan to debate him on anything or ever have to listen to that mouthbreather ever again on any podcasts I follow.

I'm SHOOK AF.

[DaVinci]

3 hours ago, Wuzzums said:

Scott: Trump is a master persuader.

Sam: No he's not! He didn't persuade me!

Scott: But he's the president against all odds.

Sam: Doesn't matter! He's a liar and morally bankrupt!

Scott: How do you know he has no morals?

Sam: Because of the things he says!

Scott: How can you trust the things he says if he's a liar?

Sam: [autistic screeching]

 

Sam's level of debate is abysmal. WTF.

This kind of conversation is actually what we need less of. Saying Trump is a master persuader, ignores how irate people already were about Obama, ignores PC/victim culture, ignores all the people making meme's, etc. It wasn't just that Trump was a "master persuader". An opportunist? Maybe. A gambler? Perhaps. If this is verbatim what they said then I have to wonder if Adams is intentionally being kind of trolly. 

 

Sam Harris might be some shell of his former self as you are saying, (I don't know that cause I don't watch his stuff) but this is not what I would consider a productive conversation, or even a great way to have a debate. I think people need to stop having these chess game style interactions. 

[Wuzzums]

8 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

This kind of conversation is actually what we need less of. Saying Trump is a master persuader, ignores how irate people already were about Obama, ignores PC/victim culture, ignores all the people making meme's, etc. It wasn't just that Trump was a "master persuader". An opportunist? Maybe. A gambler? Perhaps. If this is verbatim what they said then I have to wonder if Adams is intentionally being kind of trolly. 

 

Sam Harris might be some shell of his former self as you are saying, (I don't know that cause I don't watch his stuff) but this is not what I would consider a productive conversation, or even a great way to have a debate. I think people need to stop having these chess game style interactions. 

Sam looses his cool early on in the conversation and constantly goes on tangents and talks over Scott a lot of the time. Basically Sam bitches about how A, B, and C makes Trump look like literally Hitler (he goes for that argument btw early on) and Scott calmly reframes A, B, and C in a manner that makes Trump look like a master persuader. At which point Sam starts saying "but also D, E, and F" and Scott does the same thing with D, E, and F. And so on. At no point does Sam ever give any ground to Scott, he just moves on to something else.

Scott said that it's a tell for cognitive dissonance when people start claiming knowledge of other people's inner lives and Sam retorted by saying that the Trump University scandal was proof enough for him. That that tells Sam everything he needs to know of how morally bankrupt DRUMPF is (he literally is screaming at Scott at this point). Scott asks him how Trump should have handled the situation in that regard so as to redeem himself in Sam's eyes. Sam says he should've given recompense to the affected parties at which point Scott points out Trump did exactly that even though Trump wasn't at fault. This is when Sam starts complaining that it's not about the recompense per se, it's about how the whole matter was settled, that it shouldn't have been settled in a court.

The guy is as typical of an SJW as you can imagine. I am in shock.

[ofd]

If Adam says that Trump is a master persuader does that mean that the people who voted for him are dupes?

[Tyler H]

Just now, ofd said:

If Adam says that Trump is a master persuader does that mean that the people who voted for him are dupes?

I was curious why it is that when Trump hires someone to collect information on what issues the republican base is concerned about he's interested in solving the problems and when Macron does it he is just collecting information to tell people what they want to hear...

[Wuzzums]

34 minutes ago, Tyler H said:

I was curious why it is that when Trump hires someone to collect information on what issues the republican base is concerned about he's interested in solving the problems and when Macron does it he is just collecting information to tell people what they want to hear...

A lot of people are doing an 180 on Macron recently. I myself will go full 180 if we find out he was actually sleeping with one (or both) of his stepdaughters. Never trust a woman or cuck in power.

[Tyler H]

1 minute ago, Wuzzums said:

A lot of people are doing an 180 on Macron recently. I myself will go full 180 if we find out he was actually sleeping with one (or both) of his stepdaughters. Never trust a woman or cuck in power.

Anyone who thinks a young guy is romantically interested in some old bag-o-bones... I have some land to sell them.

 

[DaVinci]

29 minutes ago, Wuzzums said:

Sam looses his cool early on in the conversation and constantly goes on tangents and talks over Scott a lot of the time. Basically Sam bitches about how A, B, and C makes Trump look like literally Hitler (he goes for that argument btw early on) and Scott calmly reframes A, B, and C in a manner that makes Trump look like a master persuader. At which point Sam starts saying "but also D, E, and F" and Scott does the same thing with D, E, and F. And so on. At no point does Sam ever give any ground to Scott, he just moves on to something else.

Scott said that it's a tell for cognitive dissonance when people start claiming knowledge of other people's inner lives and Sam retorted by saying that the Trump University scandal was proof enough for him. That that tells Sam everything he needs to know of how morally bankrupt DRUMPF is (he literally is screaming at Scott at this point). Scott asks him how Trump should have handled the situation in that regard so as to redeem himself in Sam's eyes. Sam says he should've given recompense to the affected parties at which point Scott points out Trump did exactly that even though Trump wasn't at fault. This is when Sam starts complaining that it's not about the recompense per se, it's about how the whole matter was settled, that it shouldn't have been settled in a court.

The guy is as typical of an SJW as you can imagine. I am in shock.

I think the way Harris is talking is very similar to the way people on the left in general tend to talk about Trump (pointing out perceived flaws, comparisons to Hitler, etc) but I personally don't see the value in trying to reframe what Harris sees as problems with Trump as good things.

liberal: "Trump did A. A is bad." 

conservative: "No, A was good for this reason." 

I think it actually complicates having a productive conversation. If Trump rescued a box full of kittens from in front of a speeding truck, liberals would more than likely still think he was pure evil, and if Trump shoved a box of kittens away from him conservatives would more than likely still think he was pure good. If someone in a debate can't ever concede any point (liberals think Trump is good in this way, conservatives think Trump is bad in that way) then you just have a verbal chess game motivated by desire, (including the desire to win) and not a conversation with the goal of listening and trying to understand why the other person thinks the way that they do. 

I haven't seen a single instance where someone says "trump is Hitler cause of this thing he did" and someone goes "No, that thing he did was good cause of this" and the first person responds "Holy crap you're right. I've changed my mind" and if they did respond that way that quickly it would either be because they were 1.) being snarky, or 2.) have genuinely changed their mind in the moment and are thus the exception to the rule. Most people don't arrive at life changing conclusions about themselves, their thoughts, their opinions until they put in a lot of work. I think it's difficult for anyone to get to that place when almost every conversation is unproductive. 

 

 

[Wuzzums]

5 minutes ago, DaVinci said:

I think the way Harris is talking is very similar to the way people on the left in general tend to talk about Trump (pointing out perceived flaws, comparisons to Hitler, etc) but I personally don't see the value in trying to reframe what Harris sees as problems with Trump as good things.

liberal: "Trump did A. A is bad." 

conservative: "No, A was good for this reason." 

I think it actually complicates having a productive conversation. If Trump rescued a box full of kittens from in front of a speeding truck, liberals would more than likely still think he was pure evil, and if Trump shoved a box of kittens away from him conservatives would more than likely still think he was pure good. If someone in a debate can't ever concede any point (liberals think Trump is good in this way, conservatives think Trump is bad in that way) then you just have a verbal chess game motivated by desire, (including the desire to win) and not a conversation with the goal of listening and trying to understand why the other person thinks the way that they do. 

I haven't seen a single instance where someone says "trump is Hitler cause of this thing he did" and someone goes "No, that thing he did was good cause of this" and the first person responds "Holy crap you're right. I've changed my mind" and if they did respond that way that quickly it would either be because they were 1.) being snarky, or 2.) have genuinely changed their mind in the moment and are thus the exception to the rule. Most people don't arrive at life changing conclusions about themselves, their thoughts, their opinions until they put in a lot of work. I think it's difficult for anyone to get to that place when almost every conversation is unproductive. 

 

 

Yeah...

Scott Adams talks constantly about this, that facts, reason, and evidence don't change minds no matter how much we wished they did. Scott says persuasion wins arguments, I agree. However this was something I have learned from Stefan prior though he didn't put it in the same words. He said it's far more effective to live by example that to just give out facts and logic. It's the whole fat guy selling a diet book analogy, yes the diet book might be good but in our minds we're better off not taking that risk.

Another thing I have learned from FDR is to think like an economist, always look at the hidden costs and benefits in any situation. Scott Adams made a huge bet that Trump is a master persuader and he won. Now he's basically doing a huge victory lap cashing in on the bet. He says it himself. Sam Harris made his career with the left, he was on liberal shows, TED, his books explained how right he is about everything and so on and so forth. He basically made the polar opposite bet Scott Adams made and lost. So now he's forced to do one of two things: either accept the loss and start your "I'm always right" career from zero, or pretend he didn't lose any bet or the game is rigged. He chose the latter. He made an active choice of still thinking he's in the "i'm always right" universe and everything Trump does is bad but his high IQ recognizes how some of the things Trump does are good, hence the massive cognitive dissonance. It's funny to see because we're witnessing in real time a massive decline in physical appearance and mental ability. The cognitive dissonance is literally killing him slowly.

[RamynKing]

Listening now.

It doesn't seem to me like Sam is losing his cool even as much as he himself admits at the intro.

Sam's ethics seem to be centered around "No suffering is acceptable." I'm not set on that, but he's dropped enough signals in that direction. Anyone have thoughts on that?

I'm always curious about people's moral systems. For instance, at the outset of a debate, I can clearly state that my morals are based around the NAP. But you never hear non-libertarian types do that. Yet they talk of morals as if it's as objective as the sky is blue. I would think that you have to define morals up front the same way you define anything else in a debate. Otherwise the usual problems of undefined terms would surely crop up.

EDIT:

I'm really surprised with how much leftist narrative Sam buys into. It's like, he's smart, he takes a stand on some issues, but the rest of him is just huge swaths of Leftist programming. I guess that's how you get the funding, though.

[DaVinci]

6 hours ago, RamynKing said:

Listening now.

It doesn't seem to me like Sam is losing his cool even as much as he himself admits at the intro.

Sam's ethics seem to be centered around "No suffering is acceptable." I'm not set on that, but he's dropped enough signals in that direction. Anyone have thoughts on that?

I'm always curious about people's moral systems. For instance, at the outset of a debate, I can clearly state that my morals are based around the NAP. But you never hear non-libertarian types do that. Yet they talk of morals as if it's as objective as the sky is blue. I would think that you have to define morals up front the same way you define anything else in a debate. Otherwise the usual problems of undefined terms would surely crop up.

EDIT:

I'm really surprised with how much leftist narrative Sam buys into. It's like, he's smart, he takes a stand on some issues, but the rest of him is just huge swaths of Leftist programming. I guess that's how you get the funding, though.

A world where no suffering is acceptable sounds ideal, as who wants to suffer? Masochists I guess? I think the problem is how do you achieve that without it becoming so strict to the point of suffocation? Any system meant to protect people, and boundary can become a cage. Parents can be too strict with children. Schools sorting kids by age can hold back kids who are already ahead. A job ladder can be a tool of oppression. To achieve a world of no suffering you would still need a world built on rules, but the rules would have to be much more fluid and malleable than they are today, or at least be much more thorough in a way where they account for human behavior to a much greater degree. Because any tiny thing could cause suffering proportional to that tiny thing, and if no suffering is acceptable than even that tiny thing isn't okay. 

Would there be penalties for causing suffering? How would you enforce that? Wouldn't the person enforcing the person who caused the first suffering cause suffering on the part of that person as they find suffering in being enforced? Maybe it would also cause suffering on the part of the people who are enforcing the "no suffering" rule because it brings them suffering to be the enforcer? 

When you take "no suffering" out to the extreme it's almost like an argument to just eradicate humanity, literally through genocide, as that would permanently end all suffering as no one would be left to suffer and there would indeed be zero suffering after the act. Or, if you take it out to the extreme literally in terms of some kind of alive but super controlled society, (with rule generation and judgments coming from advanced computer systems) or you "plug them into the matrix" and have a pseudo-dream state existence, then that would be putting people into a cage. Do people want to be in a cage? Even a really nice cage? Again, rules for society are one thing. A cage is something different. 

I think we also need to look at the idea of suffering versus unnecessary suffering, because that's where the most important difference is. A workout could easily be seen as "suffering" but it's also necessary to build muscle. Chopping down a tree with an ax could be seen as suffering, but it's also necessary to build a shelter. On the other hand a bully shoving a kid down on a consistent basis (daily/at school) when that kid has done nothing wrong and is being bullied for the sake of it, well, that's unnecessary suffering. Trying to curb unnecessary suffering down to almost nothing is in my opinion a much more realistic if not a more admirable goal to strive toward. I think eliminating all suffering is the goal of someone who sees no end to suffering and wants a way out. That's why the "Trump is bad because he did A." "No, Trump doing A is good" is such an unproductive conversation because in our unconscious the person who says "Trump is bad because he did A" will translate the rebuttal of "No, Trump doing A is good" into "I'm in favor of continued suffering". Because saying "Trump is bad because he did A" is them actually saying "I want to reduce suffering". It's just that by the time "I want to reduce suffering cause I see no end and I think humanity is doomed" gets to the conscious mind, filters through other parts of the personality, bounces into emotions, and then exits the mouth in words it comes out as something that doesn't quite represent the totality of what that person actually thinks. In a sense I think we minimize ourselves by not giving ourselves the time to really think about what we want to say before we say it. It's why I think the move away from long form conversation to Twitter, Facebook, and other super short chunks is going to be the sword that the west dies on. 

Take note, even some people here don't want to have long conversations anymore. That's a sign things are about to crumble. We had better change it soon or it's all going to disappear. 

 

[shirgall]

Looking for citations for all of Sam's unsupported assertions. He made a ton.

[Anuojat]

I am 28 now and i am still supriced as i was when i was 5 how much (adults then) people seem to regard admititng mistakes as some sort of ego death.

And curiousity as some flaw or weakness...

[ofd]

Quote

I am 28 now and i am still supriced as i was when i was 5 how much (adults then) people seem to regard admititng mistakes as some sort of ego death.

According to Scott Adams that is the main attribute a master persuader has. Never admit to mistakes and double down on stupid stuff you said.

[MRAllen440]

I saw the debate hosted on Scott Adams' site. And, I can't wait to hear it - later tonight. I really think Sam Harris would be outmatched by Stefan. Harris has trouble even understanding truth as heard in his debate with Psych' Prof' Jordan B. Peterson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdpyzwOOYY The debate starts going wrong pretty quick, for Sam, at the 40 minute mark.

 

[Tyler H]

22 hours ago, MRAllen440 said:

The debate starts going wrong pretty quick, for Sam, at the 40 minute mark.

 

In what way?

[Jsbrads]

On 7/19/2017 at 3:19 PM, DaVinci said:

I think the way Harris is talking is very similar to the way people on the left in general tend to talk about Trump (pointing out perceived flaws, comparisons to Hitler, etc) but I personally don't see the value in trying to reframe what Harris sees as problems with Trump as good things.

liberal: "Trump did A. A is bad." 

conservative: "No, A was good for this reason." 

I think it actually complicates having a productive conversation. If Trump rescued a box full of kittens from in front of a speeding truck, liberals would more than likely still think he was pure evil, and if Trump shoved a box of kittens away from him conservatives would more than likely still think he was pure good. If someone in a debate can't ever concede any point (liberals think Trump is good in this way, conservatives think Trump is bad in that way) then you just have a verbal chess game motivated by desire, (including the desire to win) and not a conversation with the goal of listening and trying to understand why the other person thinks the way that they do. 

I haven't seen a single instance where someone says "trump is Hitler cause of this thing he did" and someone goes "No, that thing he did was good cause of this" and the first person responds "Holy crap you're right. I've changed my mind" and if they did respond that way that quickly it would either be because they were 1.) being snarky, or 2.) have genuinely changed their mind in the moment and are thus the exception to the rule. Most people don't arrive at life changing conclusions about themselves, their thoughts, their opinions until they put in a lot of work. I think it's difficult for anyone to get to that place when almost every conversation is unproductive. 

 

 

Conservatives don't support Trump, Center Right does. 

[lorry]

If I was Sam, inconsistent as I am, I would never debate Stefan.

 

 

 

[kenstauffer]

Sam Harris & Douglas Murray: Stefan Molyneux & Guilt by Association

 

------

those of you interested in this thread may like this brand new sam harris talk.

[ShindouHikaru]

“But Scott, the emphasis on him successfully persuading doesn’t deal with the fact that what he would be persuading someone towards or the country toward may not be a good thing. Ok, so for instance I think he is someone who is so morbidly selfish, then again this is not me with a crystal ball, this is me just looking at how he’s lived his life, the kinds of things he’s done, the kinds of things he says about himself, he’s put himself first to such a pathological degree that I think he’s capable of committing treason or something like treason without even noticing it. Because there is no sense at all that he has the public good in mind when he’s acting, so the fact that he’s a good persuader even if I were to grant you that, and there’s one thing that I want to flag here that you just said that I think is manifestly not true which is that none of his lies have harmed our society. I think that all of his lies have harmed our society. I think the fact that we have a president who lies and everyone knows it and no one can really trust what he has said until the facts come out, I think that has done immense harm to the world frankly”.

-Sam Harris

 

He says this at around the 43-45 minute mark and like, none of it is an argument. I know very little about Sam Harris but isn’t he supposed to be an intellectual? Like, a smart person? This is pure sophistry, wtf is this?? He claims that Trump is morbidly selfish, and yet Trump put his reputation on the line, wore bullet proof vests, received thousands of death threats when he didn’t have to. He hired tens of thousands of people, helping them put food on their tables. How is any of this selfish?

 

“this is me just looking at how he’s lived his life, the kinds of things he’s done, the kinds of things he says about himself, he’s put himself first to such a pathological degree that I think he’s capable of committing treason or something like treason without even noticing it”.

 

Like, none of this is a fucking argument!  “The kinds of things he says about himself” isn’t a fucking argument.

 

And at the 45 min mark his metric as to how the end times are upon us, brought on by Trump is that lots of people are politically engaged and talking about politics! In other words, he believes that if the masses were ignorant and hated political engagement, then the world would be a wonderful place.

 

Can anyone tell me what his views on Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are? What is his political affiliation? Has he been paid off? Why is he popular? He’s a filthy fucking sophist.

[robert1986]

Refusal to debate? Hmm I could be wrong but if you believe you are correct you would want to debate to see if you are in fact correct. Avoiding a debate to me, is sort of like you know you're wrong about something but you don't want others to find out . Could be just me. It is also possible that Sam Harris isn't confident in any of his positions but rather conflicted with them. 

If you are confident that you are correct then a public forum would be most illuminating to find out. 

Avoidance to me, is a kind of hypocrisy within the self and he isn't ( I don't think) keen on criticism. For if he liked criticism he would debate. 

 

Just my thoughts . What do you think? 

[ShindouHikaru]

Yup, 100% this guy is paid off. 1:16:00 He just propagated that debunked 17 intelligence agencies that suggest that Russia hacked the election. He also stated that the Russians hacked Podesta’s email. Even though it’s been confirmed that his emails were leaked through a standard email phishing scheme. This podcast was published in July 18, and the NYT retracted the 17 intelligence agencies fake news story on June 30^th. And the John Podesta Phishing scam has been well known since 2016. And at 1:17:00 he states that Russia hacked into the democrat’s database. Even though Wikileaks already confirmed that Seth Rich was the leaker and that there was no Russia DNC hack. 100% he is paid off. Or suffering heavily from Trump derangement syndrome.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

People like Sam Harris should understand that the debate will be had whether they show up or not. Stefan has proven, especially in thew latest mock debates that he can argue staist positions even better than Sam.