If you're going to post to youtube, why not post the whole thing? (And no, I'm not going to register at your website, even if you're giving out free memberships.) Your ideas won't spread as far, wide, or fast if you keep them behind a wall.
@@rasmus6818 He gets paid plenty via books and speaking engagements. (And he'd get more readers and speaking opportunities the more people know about him.)
Years ago I was playing in a weekly card game with a handful of friends. There was no money at stake, it was all just for fun. One of the guys did not win as often as he wanted and much to my surprise, he began to cheat. This was hardcore cheating and not done in fun. I caught him a couple of times, confronted him but it did no good. In private I told this cheater's best friend (who was also one of the players) that the cheater had to stop cheating. I explained that there is no point in getting together as friends, drinking beer, joking around and playing cards if all that is undermined by a cheat who seemingly does not respect any of us. The guy I was talking to would not confront his friend. He just would not do it. The good-natured weekly routine ended a week later due to one person's need to cheat in a meaningless game played among friends. Friendships ended and we never got together again.
Well, maybe an analyst will diagnose this as a psychoses, an addiction of sorts. Of course the party and friendship (with the cheater) should end, but the question of his , risky, cavalier, irrational behavior should not be totally dismissed.
@@claykemper7193 It may not have come out in my first comment, but I was really intending to focus on the person who would not confront his friend concerning the cheating. As for the actual cheater, we had been friends for years and he always pedaled himself as a laid-back, non competitive guy. Then we played cards without any money involved and his need to win even meaningless games made him almost maniacal.
There is this "allegiance" syndrome and then I think there is something slightly different and that is the person who is by nature a follower and has selected a dominant person to follow and hopefully befriend. Going against the dominant person is, for the follower, almost unimaginable.
It's ironic that a talk on ethics is presented in a manipulative way, to get people juuust hooked enough on the conversation to get them to register on your website in order to get the rest of it.
Apparently not everyone who applies for a free membership to Sams podcast site actually gets it first try. A week ago or so I applied for a free membership as I simply don't have any money. After 4 days of checking my inbox and spam, it became clear I wasn't getting the membership. So I wrote an email explaining what happened and that I can't afford a membership as I live in poverty. I received a reply that said sorry for the inconvenience and eventually got a membership. Now after listening to 2 episodes, none of them will play - just infinite loading. Sam says he doesn't want money to be the reason people can't listen, but I actually think that's all bullshit. I could almost guarantee that if I could afford a membership, my experience so far would have been completely different.
My understanding is Sam was making quite good money before he put up a paywall. He claims more money will allow him to improve his podcasts and other offerings. I don't have a problem with talented hard working people making good money but his justification doesn't seem very convincing to me.
Dowload podcast addict app (free) and add the premium rss feed link provided on the site. Everything autoloads there when new content is available and it's very user friendly once set up
I enjoyed this talk. They really get to the core of loyalty and what it means to be loyal. I also enjoyed hearing a little about the political opinions of these two
This posting if clips is really dumb. I'm not signing up for your website even if it's free. Why did you completely rearrange your content output? Senseless.
Sam and Paul Bloom really get to ethical bedrock in their discussions, make you re-examine all the foundations for beliefs you presupposed need no moral justification. Very abstract thinkers in an edifying way. People here melt down if they even criticize Trump once though
Yes, I find him disturbingly partisan on the issue and thus have a hard time listening to it. He's fine saying how we're all bored to tears about Islamism and immigration but he can talk Trump over and over. He adds a lot of good critizism, but he fails to admit when he's been in error and repeatedly fail to emply his usually detatched judgement. So, we "melt down" and continue coming back for the otherwise good content.
Oh yeah man totally. It's totally hitting ethical bedrock when you just utter out loud "we gotta find a way to get this guy out of office" with no other explanation or reasoning behind why. Really makes me question my beliefs! I'm definitely gonna vote Bernie now instead of Trump.
You're assuming Trump supporters care about ethics, or well thought through ideas, which is good for a good laugh at least. It's objectively a false premise considering all of the continuously mounting evidence to the contrary.
@@grabka1984 If we did not care about either, you'd not see us here - let alone a seeming majority. Then again, you seem to be projecting. I'm going to have a hearty laugh and enjoy a good drink when he wins the coming election.
@@grabka1984 It's objectively a false premise considering all of the continously mounting evidence to the contrary? Lmao, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your assertions are nothing more than that - assertions. In your mind, in the bubble you live in, it's perfectly acceptable to just say what you believe as though it is fact and provide no explanation or evidence for it. The irony is palpable! You don't know the first thing about what is in the minds of Trump supporters. And your unwillingness to have even the slightest bit of curiosity - just like everyone else who thinks like you - is why Trump is going to be reelected.
Your conversation with Willoughby Britton and Jared Lindahl on your Waking Up app was wonderfully thought provoking from a wide range of perspectives that it allowed me to see my journey a bit clearer. Thanks for being you and gathering the people who have given their lives to understanding what's happening here in our varied minds. I've been perfecting with your help an interesting floating meditation blindfolded in my public pool. Stretching, breathing, rising, twisting all the while mindful of all the characteristics sounds and tactile sensations of our magic original home and birth place the substance water. Keep up the good work my brother. Peace
Sam's decision to paywall most of his content is short sighted. It should also be pointed out that his subscription fee is high for people in poorer parts of the world.
@@Superphilipp Then what purpose does the paywall serve? I get it, it does make some bucks from those who don't ask for the free subscription; but on the other hand it also forces the rest to essentially beg for the free subscription. Sam Harris is now operating on a Pay Or Grovel system.
What the hell happened to this channel? 50,000 clips, horrible music, partial shows. It’s all been downhill since the name change. I’ve been a fan of Sam for over two decades... disappointing.
The terms I usually hear are "child sexual exploitation material" and "child sexual abuse material." Using the word "pornography" equates it with other materials with willing, consenting participants.
As someone who really likes that song and Sofi Tukker in general, I agree that it's jarring and not suited for the podcast intro. The old one was very calming.
Sam Harris isn't a white nationalist. Why would he interview Jared Taylor? The whole reason he interviewed Murray was that he felt he wrongfully being accused or racism. Why would he interview someone who actually belies the things Harris feels Murray was being falsely accused of?
This did not appear in my subscriptions but did appear in my notifications and i have "all" turned on, on the bell, perhaps more evidence of suppression.
Hi Sam! I have a question for you! What do you think about that book which claims to have figured out what are and how work black holes. According to it those might be very brightly shining objects that become invisible exactly because of the laws of physics. Also, this book suggests a new idea for the origins of the Universe. According to it, it is eternal and uncreated and that is the only way it could be. The book describes the philosophy behind that. It it logical though. Among questions about cosmology, the book covers questions about free will, astrology, influence of media on indecencies in our society, and even claims to have answered the question - what is Truth... Also, the book describes tides in a completely different way. Yes, it still is because of the Moon, but in completely different way from what we think today. Among other things the book looks at failures of flat eart theory and hollow earth theory... Anyway, what do you think about those theories? The book is titled as My Quest to Understand Everything: Everything is Mechanics of Reflection. Its author uses a funny pen name - george warehouseman... Possibly to trigger some unstable PhD's... ha ha ha In any case, the book will give you piles of topics to discuss, even some details and facts from texts of Abrahamic religions that explain how insane and illiterate they all are, and why they should be banned as blasphemous from scientific and moral points of view...
@Pure Love Well, the idea is explained in the book and is very simple. I am not sure people can understand it when that is explained in a short way. I can try. In essence, we all know and agree that the information from a star about its shape and brightness moves in all directions from it. But we only see the information that comes from it directly into our eyes. Just think about it. Identical information from star moves in absolutely all directions, but most of it we experience as black space... So, the only reason we see anything is the fact that the same information reaches our eyes. And that happens if the info from object moves in straight lines. So, imagine situation when the space around the black hole is moving close to the speed of light SIDEWAYS. The book explains how the black hole rotates in one direction while the space around it in opposite one... depending on the speed of these motions, the lines of information that are meant to to deliver information to our eyes are broken and sideshifted. And, we already discussed that we don't see information that doesn't come to our eyes in straight line and that we experience it as an empty and black void... The book suggests that the same is with black holes. The rotational speed of them is so great that it distorts these lines of information forcing everything to appear completely black from that distorted area. If you had that book you would know this all already. And not only that. There are many things that would blow your mind...
@Pure Love Well, it's good to hear the book is thought provoking. Light and any electromagnetic effect are nothing but charge (increased activity of smallest particles) that also increases the temperature of the substance it runs through. And that means, the light/ temperature must move sideways always, even if our eyes do not register it. After all, we see around 1% or less of the whole light spectrum... I don't remember now precisely. In that drawing in the book it isn't meant that the bystander can see the laser beam. The goal of the drawing is completely different. It is to explain that even laser beams expand over distance and for this reason anyone from earth can hit the eyes of pilots. That drawing is meant to help to understand why and how it is possible for light/information to move "around the corner" and yet still move in straight lines... This creates the phenomenon that led to the flat Earth movement as they rightly pointed out that according to existing science many things had to be hidden by curvature. For instance, one guy in Canada made a video on frozen lake. He used the distance of 9 miles. It is around 13 km. The Pythagorean theory says that the curvature there is around 13 meters (54 feet was it???). So, he put a source of light nearly in ice at one end of this distance, and the camera, also nearly on ice, at the other, zoomed in and saw his light across those 9 miles and 54 feet of curvature... Well, flat earth proved, right? No! As the book explains, in real life we experience curvature that is precisely 4 times smaller than Pythagorean number. And if we add to this the attributes of light, all that this guys experienced in his experiment becomes perfectly normal. Also, the ratio of the distance vs curvature in this case is around 4100:1. This means, the 'belly' of 1 mm over 4 meters. All of a sudden it seems a tiny curvature when all factors have been included into calculations.
@@seanmatthewking you're right, it is very useful. Useful in starting pointless arguments with strangers. Useful in helping you think less of humanity. Useful in spreading rumors and rumors disguised as news. Useful in helping bullies pick on people around the world. What would we do without it? Read a book? Take a hike and commune with nature? Put our phone down and spend time with our families? Oh, the horror....
You just chose to involve yourself in an argument, or a disagreement, anyway. And I like arguing. Nothing wrong with it. I do it much more on here. But it’s weird that you imply I’m against spending time in nature or with my family or reading, as if any suggestion that a technology has a potential benefit is to say all other activities are bad. You’re here on RU-vid, you must never go outside or stop starting at your phone... right?
If you think of eugenics as simply breeding humans for certain traits, then of course it could work, and there is nothing wrong with saying so. But the eugenicists were aiming to breed for racial traits they considered superior and against racial traits they considered inferior. So saying that eugenics can work could be interpreted to mean that it is possible to breed for racially superior traits. Being familiar with Dawkins' work, I know that he did not mean it that way, but someone unfamiliar with him could easily believe that he did. This is the reason for the confusion, and this is what he needs to clarify if he wants to put the issue to rest.
I guess Sam doesn't feel the Bern yet (edit: It's not the full episode? Where I am supposed to comment on the full episodes if the subscriber podcast RSS feed is private? 😐)
Matt Gorak Sam definitely does not feel the Bern. As much as he espouses progressive values in many cases, he clearly doesn’t think Bernie is the path, whether because Sam disagrees with the policy approach or he thinks the politics are too unpopular. He certainly gets triggered by the slightest amount of wokeness.
One of the boring things in the world is to listen to Harris and Bloom gibbering about Trump. No reason, no nothing, just simple hate. A good example of narrow minded academic view from a high morality ground while their moral compass has totally been broken.
Eugenics works. Jews eliminated Tay Sachs in the North American Jewish population in 2004. It was all done via voluntary screening of Jews considering having children together. Yes, breaking up sucks, but it was ultimately a voluntary choice. And I see nothing wrong with eugenics if it's voluntary.
Wow, I think Sam is going to be stunned on Nov 4 when Sanders becomes president. He is echoing the same centrist crap we get on MSNBC. Surprised he is in this trap.
03:00 I believe there's too much fetishization of "choice" which goes on in the left-leaning, egalitarian mind. I understand this tendency very well because it used to be a large part of my own thinking, only I would take it to its extreme. I would argue about how "blood is NOT thicker than water, or at least it shouldn't be", and how it was wrong to treat members of your family different to anyone else because, after all, you did not CHOOSE your family. To what degree I chose these viewpoints or they were subtly implanted in me from a young age by liberal dogma and propaganda, I cannot tell. I suspect it was a combination of both. I see them now for what they were - an attempt to break down any nepotism, nationalistic feelings and racial ingroup preferences within the majority population so as to reorient the values of White society to serve the interests of outsiders. This sort of rejection of things "not chosen" is typical among Whites, liberals in particular, and it's a problem. If you're the only one saying we should value only what we choose to associate with voluntarily, then you'll eventually be replaced by the most tribal groups in your society who have no problem believing blood is thicker than water. In ethnically homogeneous societies, liberal thinking such as Sam's is a luxury. In the multiracial societies we all live in today, it becomes a liability. Also, valuing only those things you can CHOOSE can easily lead to a form of nihilism since choice itself can be deconstructed. After all, doesn't Sam himself make very persuasive arguments debunking free will? If Schopenhauer was right when he said, "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills" then it would seem we do not fundamentally choose anything. And if that's the case, then what room is there left to value anything? Once the very concept of voluntary choice has been deconstructed altogether, and chased completely from the stage, then all that remains is the question of whether we should bother valuing anything at all. I say we should. Let's take racial identity, for example. There is something to be said for a race-blind allegiance to ideas, but I believe that race-blind propositional thinking must be subordinated to matters concerning the existence of one's own racial group (particularly when the cultural and political hegemony of said racial group is under threat in its ancestral homeland), even if that racial identity is not chosen as such, but rather a feature thrust upon one at birth. In the mind of the typical civic nationalist, who still nevertheless considers himself a good liberal, there appears to be a conflict between the pursuit of ultra-rationalism on one hand and ontological concerns on the other. The two may not be as mutually complementary as the civnat thinks. You can rail against "irrational" tribalism or racial kin preferences all you like, but if it's these multi-generational instincts which have helped bring about your own existence so that you can now look down upon them with a sort of aloof, rationalistic, self-congratulatory triumph or contempt, is it really wise to do so? After all, does the 90% or more of the rest of the planet who aren't White not get along perfectly well with their ethnonationalist, ingroup preferences? They're not killing each other for the most part, are they? Sure, positive ethnocentrism can lead to negative ethnocentrism, but it doesn't necessarily follow. And it could be that the absence of the former has far worse consequences in terms of the preservation of one's own extended kin-group - one's race or ethnicity - than does low-level xenophobia or outgroup hostility. Only Whites seem to have bought into the confidence trick that taking care of their own leads to Auschwitz. In fact, I find it far more likely that an attempt to socially engineer or foist radical egalitarianism on a population and thus deprive it of those patriotic feelings which come natural, may be far more likely to lead to Auschwitz, whatever "Auschwitz" was. It seems that many liberals are stuck in this way of thinking. They have credulously swallowed up the liberal, egalitarian narratives which were orchestrated predominately by an ethnic group which, while warning us about Auschwitz, also happens to be the same ethnic group which - according to Ron Unz - represented "the greatest killers, per capita, of the last 100 years." Oh, the irony.
jeffersonianideal Well, I think they would both have to be in the politics game. Does a shill need to be dishonestly promoting someone, or can they be so enamored with that person that their judgement is distorted? I think they got it right on this podcast. If my friend and I are both in the public, and my friend does something fucked up, I’m going silent on it (unless it’s so horrific I can’t recognize them anymore). I’m talking to them first so we can get on the same page. If their actions need to be criticized, I’m going to convince them that is the case. Far better that they accept responsibility and apologize in public than getting publicly scolded by a friend. If they refuse to agree, then I would consider making my opinion public. It depends on the situation and what feels right, and no matter what, I’d talk about it with them first.
@@seanmatthewking I would define a "shill" as someone who is unprincipled insofar as their advocacy or support for a cause, and/or individual. additionally, a shill could be someone who intentionally and categorically agrees with anything a friend, colleague, politico, or institution pronounces, despite an intentional or unintentional ethical flaw in the assertion or edict.
You are suffering from TDS yourself. A quote from you on this very video: "You're assuming Trump supporters care about ethics, or well thought through ideas, which is good for a good laugh at least. It's objectively a false premise considering all of the continuously mounting evidence to the contrary."
If most of the comments you make about any given topic somehow come back to Trump, you might have TDS. For example, a podcast in which the first and most notable topic is about child sexual assault....and you choose to comment about Trump
Let me guess...these two "geniuses" ramble on about different "thought experiments" and the paradox of hating Trump, the greatest President in all of US history even over Abraham Lincoln. Trump would intellectually bury them
Intellectually? Sam and Bloom would circles around him, the level of delusion here is unreal. In his own domain, Trump cites no data, doesn't make formulated arguments, barely touches actual policy analysis. Imagine him keeping up on existential risk or game theory or philosophy of science lol
lengray44 Or just a troll. I’ll defend Trump supporters here and say this is too dumb a comment to be real. It’s designed to trigger people out of absurdity. Don’t bite.
21:30 "we gotta find a way to get this guy out of office." Wow.... I decided to listen to this to see if Sam has moderated his views since the last time I gave him another chance. But no, he's still saying stuff like this like it's totally casual and normal. My God what a joke.
@@synthesizerneil ~ It has to do with people having a personal preference and opinion about a sitting president, so which part of that is confusing you?
@@d4mdcykey Dude the best way to unsit a sitting president is to convince your fellow americans to not vote for them. The democrats failed spectacularly at this in 2016 and are continuing to fail spectacularly. In face, they've openly admitted that the impeachment farce had to be done because he will get reelected if they don't. That's a HORRIBLE way to go about politics and Sam seems to be acquiescing to that. I don't think I'm alone or unreasonable in my thinking that such a notion is hyper partisan. The Republicans never tried to impeach Obama despite many of them wanting to - so I don't know what you're trying to prove by bringing up this point. It sounds like you have a really selective history book and think there is something legitimate about forwarding the "orange man bad and must be ousted at all costs" narrative.
@@synthesizerneil ~ Whoa, you are obviously confused on several points, that's alot to unpack. _"Dude the best way to unsit a sitting president is to convince your fellow americans to not vote for them."_ I'm not even sure what your attempted point here is. Sam expressing a personal opinion here (which by the way you time-stamped at the wrong point) is a condensed version of many, many episodes he has had going into explicit detail about convincing people why trump should be unseated. _"The democrats failed spectacularly at this in 2016 and are continuing to fail spectacularly."_ No, actually _in point of fact,_ the democrats won the 2016 presidential election by a _majority_ of votes at over 2.8 million, so I'm not sure how having MORE people vote for you is a spectacular fail. Also, in the 2018 midterm election, they _gained_ a net total of 41 seats from the total number of seats they had won in the 2016 elections. The 41-seat gain was the Democrats' _largest gain_ of House seats since the 1974 elections, and they won the popular vote by a margin of 8.6%, the _largest margin on record_ for a party that previously held a minority in the House; and all this with the highest turnout for a midterm election in more than a century. How anyone can try and retrofit these facts as "continuing to fail" is astounding and delusional. _"In face, they've openly admitted that the impeachment farce had to be done because he will get reelected if they don't."_ I'm assuming here you meant 'in fact', though that still does not clarify what it was you're trying to imply here. _"The Republicans never tried to impeach Obama despite many of them wanting to - so I don't know what you're trying to prove by bringing up this point."_ Again, you are wrong, unless you are somehow unaware of the THIRTEEN events in the public record: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Barack_Obama _"It sounds like you have a really selective history book and think there is something legitimate about forwarding the "orange man bad and must be ousted at all costs" narrative."_ I've just proven, with evidence, it is you that has a "selective history book", so how's that soundbite working out for you? And I've made no reference of any kind to "orange man bad" which is a stupid juvenile 4chan meme used by those who can't take ANY criticism of trump. And you were this triggered because I asked a simple 14-word question about voting for Obama? Yeah, that's totally proportional to go off on such an illogical rant. Wow.
