I see Harris's problem now, he is smart and has to deal with idiots all the time looking to be offended who automatically want to misread his stuff. We live in a very un-curious age
+L Mc I mean, what do his opponents want to say? "He tries to approach criticism and come on to shows where he might be criticized but he has his boogy man agenda right behind his back" Harris obviously cares about accuracy and nuance. I can see why he would be frustrated by Greenwald's statement that he conciously lies about his statements so that he can correct them afterwards.
brilliantly said...sounds like youve gone thru the same predicament...i too can relate..SH is a pure intellect who's work will be recited 200 years now..guys like GG are flavor of the moment journalists who landed on a giant story...SH versus GG is literally like Mozart v Bieber...
+L Mc +hommy tilfiger i also bought into alot of stuff greenwald said because i was indeed to blinded by his involvement with snowden and therefore i somehow never questioned him. Yet i also wouldn´t doubt Harris on anything so his rant at the beginning was quite eyeopening. Greenwald (rightfully called an asshole by Harris here) seemingly uses his influence to throw shit at Haris over things he probably doesn´t fully understand. Many porgressives like Greenwald, Kyle (& the rest of the TyT´s numnuts) lack a lot of reality when it comes to armed conflicts which always makes me "meh" when they bring up their related opinions which is something where Harris on the other hand has refreshing .
This fiasco celebrated its one year and i still fear not many understand who Sam Harris is standing for. Hint: He stands with the liberals. True liberals.
I know why i am with Sam Harris. I am an atheist in Saudi Arabia, which spawns an idea: bring those "liberals" to the heart of theocracy and let them exercise the freedom of speech and expression ;-)
+Jammy De I am not sure whether Sam Harris is a liberal, however Glenny Boy definitely *isn't* one. Glenny Boy is an apologist for the worst kind of fascism imaginable, fascism under the auspices of a divine fiat and at that the most ghastly strain existing in the 21st century (contemporary Islam which, for all practical purposes, is no different than Islam a millennia ago).
+Jammy De Non-authoritarian Liberals. There are authoritarian liberals too...those who wish for a less violent Mao Zedong..or what China with individuality being focused.
I will take Sam Harris' side over his 'adverseries' any day and I actually unsubbed from TYT because of the interview with Cenk. It was fine as long as the interview went on but Cenk can't stop himself from misrepresenting Sam Harris. I lost a lot of respect for that man. Sam's other adverseries I hate individually anyway.
+Anthony Serocco dude you are really not gonna respect a man with flawless logic and knowledge and who has stood up against all religion and the problems they represent. Sam has no respect for the Saudis and calls them out constantly and harps on how we must be energy independent to rid ourselves of Saudi dependency. He also talks about their medieval Sharia law practices. If you criticize someone for acquiescing to Saudi Arabia, then do so against our corrupt, oil loving government.
+John Smith What did Sam say that you found "outrageous"? Give us an example. And remember, when I ask that question, I'm not just asking for the words Sam used, I'm asking for how you interpreted it, interpreted his meaning, his intent, as well, when saying what he said.
+Matt White Wolf That simply isn't true. He spends a lot of time on Christianity. He has a whole book on it. Half (Probably more) of The End of Faith is focused on Christianity. It really does seem like you don't know a lot about his views. He's stated multiple times that he wants to empower Muslim reformers and that he doesn't think all Muslims are a certain way. He has stated over and over that the main victims of Islamic theocracy are other Muslims. You are being completely uncharitable and dialectically dishonest.
Sam Harris completely destroys Greenwald here. Greenwald makes criticisms that are completely lacking understanding in Harris' argument. Sam Harris proceeds to talk slowly for idiots to understand his original argument.
+Eliza Miller None of it happened. It was exactly the kind of misrepresentations Harris likes to make against critics. He did the intellectually cowardly things Greenwald had mentioned.
+Eliza Miller Examples of Harris destroying Greenwald, Greenwald deliberately misrepresenting Sam, or examples of Sam talking slowly? I'm saddened that Harris has to stoop down to defend himself and that this is the first exposure to Sam many people are having. He's at his best when on stage with Hitchens, Dawkins or Hirsi Ali. Or debating Christian fundamentalists like Craig. I'm glad he's no longer taking this sitting down, the dishonest vitriol on RU-vid is exhausting.
***** Where did Greenwald address an actual argument of Harris'? Nowhere. What if I just called you a bigot, how would you address that? Harris addresses it everywhere by deploring real anti-Muslim bigotry. You could say the section of this video where he expresses his concerns for the Muslim victims of Islamism addresses it. Like the girl who wrote him that she is afraid to express her feelings for fear of being killed by her neighbours.
This is so tough. Harris tries to make a case for the importance of open philosophical discourse in a political climate in which players feel no compunction distorting the views of others in order to advance their own agenda because they are convinced they are right and that the end justices the means.... He stomps his foot that people aren't intellectually honest and truly interested in inquiry, rational thought and changing your views to fit new evidence in a kind of truly scientific spirit. I wish they were too, but this level of integrity is rare and may well be a function of both really engaging in practices like meditation, being committed to science and rational philosophy. These are skills and virtues that are not implicit in being either a political commentator or a celebrity troll and someone who has found a way to make a living off righteous posturing...... What is frustrating here is that Kyle doesn't seem to be able to hear the central distinction Harris is making...
Namely: that actors like greenwald fight unfairly with zero remorse, they care not at all if they are slandering him by distorting and misrepresenting his views willfully, and confuse the discourse on really important issues!
+Julian Walker Have you read the article "on the mechanics of defamation"? It's on Harris's blog. The sentence in discussion is "Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them." Harris writes this article about how it's disgusting that he's misrepresented all the time, and his example of that is the criticism on this quote, which we should view in context and stop distorting. He then presents an argument as to why the sentence is correct. This is not how fighting a misrepresentation works. This is a common mechanism for Harris, and it can't be described as honest, it is at best rhetorical. As rational people, we should have a problem with that.
OsefKincaid hey there, will have a look and consider your point... again though, part of the problem is that harris thinks like a philosopher and creates thought experiments to test out ideas and tease out the nuances of ethical dilemmas..... most people don't know how to interact with that very interesting and actually open-minded type of critical thinking.
+OsefKincaid "This isn't what I said, and you should feel bad for misrepresenting what I said - but even if we take the quote at face value, you're *still* wrong". I have no problem with that defense, as long as the reasoning is sound.
Emanuel Hoogeveen That didn't happen though. At no point is there an explanation of what he was saying instead, which would be needed for a misrepresentation to have occured. It's just a (debatable) explanation of why he was right to say it. The closest thing to a misrepresentation in this piece is actually his description of the critics he received: they suddenly say he wants to kill "harmless people for thought crimes", when the quote that sparks it all clearly displays that the people aren't harmless.
I have watched and read Sam Harris' work for 10 years and I have never come across a calmer person who is so much in balance with himself and never fazed no matter the circumstance. Within 5 minutes he just called Aslan, Greenwald, Werleman etc total assholes and compared them to psychopaths. This might be a cry for help. But I am fucking loving it. Gloves are coming off. Get 'em Sam!
+Eliza Miller Why? Because Harris verbally eviscerates the worst ideology of our time? Look at it this way, Eliza: if we don't stop Islamism now, it will become what Nazism/Fascism/Communism was in the 20th century. He is anything but a child. He states the hard facts, and the Islamic apologists intentionally misread and misconstrue his argument in order to paint him as a racist.
+Cake Hebenstreit You think Islam is inherently non-violent? You'd be dead wrong. Just like the bible, there are many violent passages, *but* unlike Christianity we have caliphates that base their law off the absurd and violent passages found in both the Q'ran & Hadith. thereligionofpeace.com/ skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
+Eliza Miller Perhaps you are intellectually incapable of understanding him? I don't mean to be rude about it but that seems to be the most common reason why people just don't get what he is saying. Can you think of another reason? I'm struggling with this because he make sense to me and he comes across as a deep thinker and someone who is very intelligent and he is well credentialed.
I love how the only criticisms that some of you brain dead morons have against Sam are things he didn’t say or just ad hominem. You might as well have written “Sam Harris is a poopy face Hitler!”
@@douglasritchey485 Harris's whole career now is pitching extreme martial violence against a population he hates using weapons of mass destruction. These weapons include fighter jets. I've listened to this fucking idiot and he enrages me because he's such a fucking sucktit while being wrong. He works his fascist ass off emoting empathy towards him as a victim while wholeheartedly invoking the use of violence against people who are powerless. He's just so incoherent and useless. But at least he keeps getting attention and keeps getting richer without ever putting his ass on the line the way Snowden and Greenwald have. The guy is a fucking puke.
+dayewneekness I believe that he believes most of what he says to be facts or accurate. Have you read his exchange with Chomsky? I think it showed how he argues dishonestly sometimes, tbh I have not read that much of his work so I do not really have an oppinion on him personally.
god, i absolutely love this guy. kyle, you definitely try to find middle ground. but sam just hits the nail on the head on every subject. he's just flat out right. and the other side is trying to ridicule and destroy.
+Charlie Everton Wow. The first 10 minutes are pure rage, then he challenges Kyle, who says something like, "I um...well, you know, I ummm..." and at that point I have a mix of sympathy for Kyle, and a feeling that Kyle maybe just got a hard dose of reality. I wonder how much time he thought about it before posting this.
+Treo Zucic No kidding? 12:05. I did summarize his response from memory, but OK, here it is verbatim: "So...first of all when you talk about...I'm...I'm not...convinced like you're convinced...well...you have to go person to..." Maybe that changes everything? Calling me a liar is pretty harsh, especially when I preceded the quote with "he says something like" Can we also keep in mind how this video ends, with Harris making it clear his anger isn't directed at Kyle, but I did think Kyle wasn't so sure of that at the 12 minute mark...
+Charlie Everton Sam seems to lay everything to do with Islam into the religion. For intense, Islamist militancy is first and foremost anti-colonial, just as secular, communist movements of the cold war were predominantly anti-colonial rather than ideological. I think that it is silly to assume that people are fully entranced in dogmatism, especially the elites of movements will have political calculations and considerations in mind and use ideology or religion as a cover and legitimisation of these acts carried out for political or pragmatic reasons.
+Alex Spec To begin with, Sam is an arrogant prick who makes clear that he's only on the show because he's been "slandered" (as you're not allowed to think differently than Sam apparently). So it's not because he admires Kyle or want to do him a solid, as he did his best to point out. Nope! He's only there to "educate" Kyle, which he does extremely poorly. Sam can't handle a two way conversation it seems. If you want any sort of argument or coherent line of reasoning of him you must wade through minutes of whining only matched by Fox and Friends. "Buhuu, people dislike me because I worship jews and Israel and loves wars and drone strikes!". It's pathetic and I feel sorry for him and his delusional mind. The rest of the time he defends neo-conservatism, war and biggotry. Sam isn't "wiping the floor", he's just a conservative who's not as stupid as Donald trump.
Kyle did this alot better than Cenk. Sam has to come on and defend himself on unfounded accusations, the best thing kyle could do is let Sam speak and he does this very well, speaking mostly just to keep the thoughts coming. Well done.
@@rodsz1784 Any personal critique amongst any of the people in these conversations is beyond petty in comparison to the problems brought on by the fundamentalist extremism being discussed. Simply even mentioning personal critique at such a time and place ought to make one feel unwell.
Thank you, Sam, for putting your neck on the line against these self-hating assholes in their comfortable lives, whose worst nightmares would be realized if only they got their way.
+DarkMatter2525 Your clips are nice your reasoning is abysmal. Using the self-hating tags is always a sure sign of sloppy thinking. Just like Sam you should keep to critiquing the stupidity of religion and keep out of geopolitics.
At least Sam took about 10 minutes to verbally hand these jackals (and in a much, much larger context dishonest and horrible journalism) their bowels. I totally agree with Sam, and I'll go a bit further. It's beyond time these terrible practices stop being rewarded as much as they are.
+Cy5208 The irony of your statement is that it's sloppy thinking to think someone has abysmal reasoning just because you saw a "tag". It's surely sloppy thinking to use such hyperbolic/absolute language as "always a sure sign" in your rhetoric. It would certainly be sloppy thinking to stay out of geopolitics because a completely anonymous random person on the internet posted a three sentence reply with poor grammar, asserting what Sam Harris and I should do, whilst both of us have found some success and popularity doing what we damn well chose to do of our own volition. Thanks for your concern, though. I wish you well, Cy5208.
+DarkMatter2525 As I said your work is great, credit where credit is due. & point taken my grammar is often poor and I often only see it after I've gone back and re-read it a few times. Which I didn't do for the above. But I'd rather have poor grammar any day, as compared to poor and uniformed reasoning. & I've yet to come across anyone of substance who has used the self-hating tag for those that they oppose e.g. self-hating whites, self-hating jews etc. Always seems to be used by those apologizing for this or that humans rights abuse or prejudice.Go figure. So I'm not sure its always about rhetoric. & you do such a good job of venting your spleen yourself. & if you want to waste my time sure go head and feel free to enlighten me with your geopolitical knowledge. But since you are obviously a Harris fan boy that won't amount to much. Be an apologist for US and Israeli human rights abuses and war crimes. Rationalize how the US can use signature drone strikes and faulty intelligence and kill civilians 90% of the time -leaked internal report-or how the IDF can indiscriminately shoot up neighborhoods in Gaza and still be the good guys. Oh btw that's from testimony by ex and serving IDF members.But they must be self-hating Jews. & thanks for your concern and continue the good work on your channel. At least there you have a clue and some talent. Sincerely yours, Just another 'self-hating asshole'' ;)
+DarkMatter2525 You are a guy who makes awesome videos (I am very fond of them) critiquing religion, So you can imagine my surprise when you fail to recognizes the same William Lang Craig style apologetic coming from Sam. The subject matter is very different but the flawed reasoning is the same.
***** watch the interview with Harris, I was able (barely) to overlook the "muslim apologist" aspect to Cenk but watching him smear Sam Harris the way he does is too much for me, I'm sure most people don't like him just because he's outspoken, I don't like him because I can see him for what he is.
+Tommy Latham Do you even know what an apologist is? Apologist is a word that comes from Christian theology the same way fundamentalism does. If you know anything about apologetic literature with the realm of Christianity, it is a worldview that shows why Christianity is superior to other religions. Can you please find the equivalent were Cenk says Islam is superior to other religions or world views?
+albatros12 Despite the fact that they were friends, worked and even debated together? Face it if you go back a few years they stood for the same things.
+Boris lo "You so wacist" but seriously, Sam is as smart as the Hitch, he just hasn't taken his gloves off up to this point. This is the most glorious thing I have ever heard. "Cushion"
+Hubble Delete Well he isn't selling greatly 'waking up' by behaving like this. Note, I didn't say that his behavior wasn't justified, I feel more sad then entertained when I see him angry like this.
kinda of annoying seeing every other comment say Harris is a cry baby. He has been saying nearly the same things for a While. And if you watched his interview with Cenk, its pretty clear why he is frustrated. It appears everyone goes Full Cenk Mode and forgets how to piece arguments together, completely confusing Extremely simply points from sam, then coming up with the Exact Wrong conclusions about what he actually said. Its like Selective Hearing. So when someone says "torture is wrong, but i can imagine a situation where you'd be wrong not to." If you have an imaginations, USE IT, its not difficult. These two positions can be held at the exact same time. I can believe torture is wrong, but in the off chance that an alien race with kinky fetishes shows up and holds 6 billion people hostage and says "shock his nipples til they bleed" am i just going to stand their being self righteous "torture is wrong mister aliens"? No im gonna fry some nipples and save 6 billion people at the cost of causing 1 person slight discomfort for a minute. But instead people run Non Stop with, "Huh what a pretentious asshole supporting torture." Multiply that a few thousand times of nonstop stupidity and likely a fuck ton of trolling and yeah who wouldnt be annoyed. So instead of saying how much of a cry baby you think he is, maybe address his arguments/opinions, see if they are good, and if the shit he has been getting is justified.
+William Alexander You just made up a scenario and agreed with yourself. I hope you recognize that. Aliens? Nipples? save 6 billion people? What the fuck? These are Sam Harris fans, everybody.
William Alexander William, did you not understand what i was saying? hahaha That you can Disagree with Torture, But Think of Think of think of Think of Think of, Produce out of thin air, from your imagination a Scenario that likely will never happen or maybe one that could easily happen, depending on how creative and realistic you are willing to think, a situation where it might be the best option. (can you imagine a situation where that wasnt a random run on sentence?) but maybe thats asking to much. Im sorry if i made you use your imagination. :3
it's a shame that Harris went into this conversation with this frame of mind. I would of like Harris and Kyle to have a conversation without bringing up Greenwald all the time.
+Matthew Tersigni I thought he could of get it all out in the first 5 mins but he brought it up the whole interview. his attitude came off a little rude which is a real shame since I know he is inspirational to Kyle.
Thing is real time is already huge, and sanders has already been on. If he spoke with Kyle it'd be two of my favourite people in America joining forces
+BountyFlamor It sort of has a cascading effect. If you give Glenn Greenwald or Reza Aslan a platform to attack Sam Harris it becomes a whole lot easier to get Sam on your show to defend himself.
+A Scam Involving Corndogs I'm quite aware of Kyle's views. The first 10 minutes is a little criticism about Kyle, but mostly criticism of regressives like Greenwald, Aslan, Uyger, Werleman, etc.
Pretty epic discussion. Good job handling yourself Kyle, Sam went pretty hard at the start. I swear I would've just started crying or something. Please go back to some of the things Greenwald said and check them with Sam's original writing though. Sam's absolutely right. This isn't a matter of just uncharitable interpretation in some cases. Greenwald is seriously just flat-out lying and I was really disappointed you just let him without challenging it (though I appreciate maybe you couldn't remember at a second's notice). Seriously, just go back and read Sam's original writing on the "killing people for their beliefs" thing. It's 100% crystal clear what he's saying. He clarifies in the sentence before that he's talking about the connection between beliefs and actions and in the sentence after he tries to take the heat off it by accepting that it could be interpreted badly (which they then went and did). He's right to be furious. These people are just scum and you seriously need to call them out of it in the future. There really is a complete asymmetry on this issue.
+gary wood Its amazing how people can watch the same thing and reach completely different opinion. I think Sam absolutely embarrasses himself here, And has extensively slandered murtaza Hussain and Glenn Greenwald. Most his arguments were terrible. If people actually read what Glenn Greenwald wrote about Sam Harris, they would see this quite clearly. Harris also has a child like vision of U.S foreign policy. While he is quick to condemn the motives of Muslim violence, He without any evidence automatically believes in the purity of the violence of his own society.
Well do exactly what I said. Go and see what Greenwald says about Sam's claims about "killing people for their beliefs" in Kyle's video. Then go back and read Sam's original writing. You quite literally have to ignore the sentence before it AND after it to come away with the interpretation Glenn did. That's not slander. It's just the plain truth of what's happening here.
+Russell Morgan No, he uses the fact that some muslims have radical and violent beliefs to justify violence against THEM. Not just vaguely violence in the middle east. That's just you trying to characterise his position vaguely and sloppily. Nowhere did he say "therefore violence in the middle east". And where on earth did he justify our violence because it was a response to their savagery? You really are a little Greenwald. Just completely restating what other people say in your own words and assuming that's good enough for serious debates. It's not. Try harder.
www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation I went to Sam Harris's website and read the article on the Mechanics of Defamation where he touches on this topic. Later in the article, Where it says (there is an endnote to the passage that reads) Sam Harris says this, in a quote of himself "Our subsequent actions in Afghanistan and elsewhere are justified because of what will happen to more innocent people if members of Al Qaeda are allowed to go on living by the light of their peculiar beliefs" That is a defense of violent U.S foreign policy actions, Which by any measurement, has done nothing but increase the threat of radical Islam while killing endless amounts of civilians in the process. So yeah, he did exactly what I said he did earlier.
Chris Woodson yes because its not fashionable to sway away a bit from the leftist doctrine. Like you can’t ever ever support any war US has been involved in. You do that and you are a neoliberal.
@@Chef-Soda He;'s very intelligent, but also a HUGE egomaniac, and condescending to anyone who criticises him. You can hear the outrage in his description of his critics.
@@chinmaypurohit3431 If you support a US war you need to have some good, honest, moral reasons. NOT "we're fighting a dictator" etc. The US supports 70% of the world's dictators, so we know any war with that justification is NOT honest!
+Lee Reynolds To douche or not to douche that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune Or to bitch about it rather than make arguments. - Sam Harris Act III Scene i
Sam Harris to me is in a league of his own. I almost cringe when I hear myself listening and agreeing with him on every point he makes here. Not because what he is saying is ethically or morally wrong, but because he is so damn good at what he does while making a ridiculous amount of sense, I can not even drum up a reasonable argument against him. For instance, when Kyle says that in the case of the stolen car with the baby in it, he still doesn't agree with "torture" because he feels it will open up a can of worms and it has to be wrong at all times, as in written in red ink or inscribed as the 11th commandment. This to me is fucking ridiculous, and if it is this frustrating to my blue collar brain, I can imagine the steam that builds up in Sam's cranial space. There are many examples where Kyle seems to say he agrees, but really he DOESN'T! If you are going to have a talk with someone of this level, there can not be the best of both worlds for you. Either you fucking agree, or you do not. Misrepresenting ones views at any level is a shitty way to go about anything. Misrepresenting someones views in subjects so important in the 21st century is flat out, nuclearly destructive. I am glad he invited Sam onto his show to clear the shit stain mess that Glenn Greenwald left behind in his smear campaign. Thanks for the video.
Admittedly, I am a layman but previous to me reading his books and listening to his debates, I had certain views towards the world which I received from my upbringing. Growing up with a far right family in the bible belt, one can only imagine the kinds of things pushed onto me. I have not found one single person, whether author, scientist, philosopher, who appears to make as much sense as Sam Harris. As far as my bias goes towards him, it is an intellectual understanding of the things I have learned by paying close attention. I am talking about close attention. Doing the research, hearing the other side, asking myself the same questions to see where in fact I do stand. I am simply defending his views which I also hold after receiving them. I can not "unhear" or forget the shit he has said and to me, he is very straight forward with his views and spells it out constantly, yet people still enjoy smearing him and twisting what he says. This shit is criminal and about as low as one can get. There are plenty of Greenwald fan boys out there as well and you just may be one of them. I am just calling it how I see it. There is a shit load of content on the internet revolving around the misrepresentation of Sam's views. I am beginning to think that people are basically not hearing him speak or do not understand when he does.
If you listen to the interview done with Harris four days ago, he says that if the USA had magical powers, what would we do in the middle east (as opposed to bombing them, which sadly comes with lots of collateral damage) he says we would turn it into Nebraska with a Starbucks on every corner. If they had the same powers and could do one thing with those powers, they would turn this into the 7th century! My problem is with all of the apologists, whether they are religious or atheist. The ones that say the Charlie Hebdo cartoonist should have been more sensitive towards islam. We are talking about people murdered for drawing a fucking cartoon and even though these apologists will say they are disgusted that someone could kill another for freedom of expression and drawing a cartoon, they also say in the same sentence it is not sensitive and we should really talk about the importance of cultural insensitivity. I have watched hundreds of hours of debates and have heard many sides and no one to me is even in the same playing field as Harris. On another note, I do like your last comment to me, how you toned it down with the stuck up Sam's ass talk. We can have a discussion if you have any points to make towards anything on these topics.
+David Venegas Kyle isn't a regressive. And Sam brought up some good points but his smug attitude towards why we invaded Iraq was cringeworthy. It's like he doesn't even wanna believe the US can be the bad guy
I agree. I have been thoroughly unimpressed by Sam and this interview worsened my impression. I don't care if Glenn Greenwald is a cannibal: make your case, man. Defend your actual views and what you actually want to see done. I couldn't get to the actual part of substance because it was so relentlessly non-issue oriented.
I don't follow your "logic". If I wanted to make a case as to why the sky is not actually blue, but my opponents couldn't stop commenting on how racist and clearly biased I am because I am green, then I can't properly address the argument now can I?
@daniel haggard There are definitely fair criticisms to make of him. At the same time, it's true he's massively misrepresented. And yet, I'm still partially inclined to call him a crybaby. But he's also just someone with high standards for discourse. He wants precision, especially when it comes to representing people's views. He doesn't want his ideas or himself being dismissed in broad strokes. At the very least, I've always felt that he overdoes the self-righteousness in his self-defense.
Dear Kyle, I appreciate your effort to close the widening gap of opinion between New Atheists and Progressives. However, to do this you need to avoid introducing personalities like Sam and Glen into discussions. Take this interview as a prime example. From the very start, Sam tried to make listeners believe that his is the only true and moral opinion, and that everyone on the opposing side, absolutely everyone, are malicious intellectual imbeciles. This is no basis for anything but character defamation and propaganda of one's own ideas, something, that Sam likes to accuse others of doing. Their ongoing feud and the religious adherence of the fan base to their respective idols only helps to radicalize people in opposite camps. I know that fanboys will jump at me for criticizing Sam, but I need to raise a few points. First of all, and as you noted yourself, Sam is incredibly condescending towards opposing ideas. And the internet community that backs up Sam is far too eager to copy this uncivil behavior under the guise of internet anonymity. This attitude already kills any attempt at reconciliation and exchange of ideas. On the point of torture, you rightly pointed out that Sam's original article is nothing but a thought experiment, which he then tried to refute with his historical example. But he is utterly wrong. First, when looking at this specific case, he was looking at it in hindsight with perfect knowledge of the perpetrators guilt, his knowledge of the kids location and his readiness to confess under torture. But in real life, perfect knowledge is unobtainable. Even if you knew that the person was guilty, you would have no way of knowing how far you would have to go in torturing that person in order for him to reveal the desired information. His whole argument is entirely hypothetical, and therefore nothing but a thought experiment. Later, he went on to accuse people who have a passionate response against torture of remaining silent when it comes to drone strikes and collateral damage, calling them hypocrites. Here, he is outright lying, because this is far from the truth. How many times have you yourself criticized drone strikes and civil casualties in our war efforts? One only needs to go and have a look at your archives. There are many more points I could raise in criticism of Sam, but I do not have the time for it. Instead, let me say that I do not care for Sam as a person. I care about his ideas, which are often plain silly, and his attitude, which is smug and condescending. The same goes for Greenwald. The best way to bring New Atheists and Progressives together is to do what you already are doing: covering stories and analyzing them in a nuanced way, highlighting religious, nationalistic and/or other political motivations. And continue to cover and criticize bad ideas that Sam Harris, Bill Maher, Dawkins, Greenwald and Arslan put forward. As I said before, their fan base has become more and more religious, and need to see that even their big idols can be wrong on some topics.
+Ufuk Borucu I just have one bone to pick with your post (since I don't really care about the way Sam says things) but it pretty much frames the entire outlook that you have on Sam's views. In fact I think it's basically the same critique of Sam's overall moral leanings (I think he's a kind of consequential utilitarian), because a lot of disagreements I've seen him have is basically boiled down to virtue ethics vs consequentialism. Perfect knowledge is not a requirement for Sam's defense and analysis into the ethical conundrums. In fact even early consequentialists recognized and addresses the problem of perfect prediction of outcomes. Refer to his example of someone dying out in front of the store, and you run in there to steal supplies to help. There is no requirement that you *absolutely* know that the dying person will recover as a result of your help. Heck, the person dying could just be faking it. You can have a variety of gaps in knowledge and yet what you did (steal from a store) may be viewed as ethical when considered through anything other than a strict legalist (sorry I'm tossing in deontology a bit late) view.
very well put. both sides are putting words into each other's mouth that are getting out of hand. Kyle would do well to stay out of this. the only reason Sam came on was to rebuke what glen had said which is a shame and Kyle had to be in the middle of this. it's felt a bit rude on Sam side of things.
+SuperQuackDuck When trying to justify torture in this interview, Sam is doing so in hindsight. If torturing the kidnapper in custody *hadn't* revealed the location of the boy and allowed his rescue, then its futility would have been the factor that made it morally reprehensible. However, because it *did* help rescue the boy, Sam argues that torture can be justified on a case by case basis. It is literally nothing but a "the result justifies the means" approach, which is, as you said, a utilitarian consequentialist approach. How can you justify torture without looking at it in hindsight? Only if you have perfect knowledge that the applied torture will have a positive result, could you be able to justify it in advance on a case by case basis. Wouldn't you agree? Finally, I think that your example at the end is very different from the torture example, mainly for two reasons: 1) Any harm done by stealing supplies to assist an apparently dying person can be compensated for, such as by paying for the cost of a broken window or the stolen supplies. Even if the decision was based on wrong information (not perfect knowledge), the harm can be reversed. In case of torture, this is different. 2) When weighing a person's life against the theft of some supplies, it is clear that the person's life is more important than the minor value of some objects. However, when weighing a person's life against torturing a person, the moral choice is much more difficult. That is why I think your analogy is not accurate. PS: Thanks for being civil :)
Ufuk Borucu No problem about civility. The lack of it in these comment sections makes it hard to have any discussions whatsoever... I think you're misunderstanding Sam's point (and by and large Sam's interlocutors have been misrepresenting him) is that he's not necessarily "justifying" torture in hindsight, per se. To argue in hindsight is requiring perfect prediction of outcomes. What he's doing is very typical of consequentialists when it comes to moral conundrums: Weigh the probabilities of two bad outcomes, and choose the one that minimizes harm. In the case of stealing to save someone's life, it's the probable outcome of breaking criminal law vs. probable outcome of someone dying. Excluding the most extreme case where your gap of knowledge counteract the favorable outcome (like a policeman happens to be in the store and shoots you, or that the person you're intending to save will become a mass murderer), stealing to save someone's life, I think we both agree, is ethical. When applied to a more extreme case when the probabilities are less clear is the difficult part, like the example of torturing the kidnapper to learn the location of the kid. What Sam would say (at least what I think he's saying) is that the probabilities and most importantly, the benefits of ultimately being right is something that the legal system should be cognizant of. There are instances in which the police undertake that risk of failure. The fact that they were proven right is not absolutely a vindication of their decision to torture (since Sam isn't an ye olde utilitarian), but that outcome should be a consideration when they're on trial for torture. Because if Sam is able to agree that the outcomes do not matter, he wouldn't be a consequentialist.
Words just roll off of Sam's tongue so easily. It's like he has well organized cabinet filled with words readily at his disposal. He is a very smooth speaker.
I watched how much I could stand of this then watched the Glenn Greenwald interview with Kyle and felt like I could breathe again lol. Sam Harris just sounds so fucking enraged and bitter. Like he is just seething the whole time. It's unsettling.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said, "Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked." That's apparently beyond Greenwald and the Regressive Left.
+David Bergin Tell that to the MSF doctors bombed by the US military. Pretty sure they could tell it was a kick. That's apparently "ludicrous" to Harris who said it was "ludicrous" to believe that the attack on the hospital was intentional. Of course military officials already admitted to that weeks ago.
+PseudoAccurate I have no idea what caused that bombing and neither do you. Maybe your presumption of guilt will prove to be correct, maybe it won't. Who gives a fuck what Sam Harris said about this, it doesn't give Greenwald or any other Regressive Liberal justification to call Harris a bigot. This has been a smear of the type Nixon Republicans were so good at.
+David Bergin There's no presumption on my part, the military admitted they did it on purpose, after changing their story multiple times. First they said they weren't sure who did it, then that they had done it, but it was an accident, then that there was a firefight going on in the area with militants possibly hiding in the hospital, then to explicitly admitting no American troops were under fire and that the Afghans called in the target. So the comment stands. The MSF doctors - who have always stated that there was no arms fire going on that night - can tell that they've been kicked (intentionally), not stumbled over (accidentally). It matters what Harris said, because this is precisely the disagreement that Greenwald and others have with Harris. That he turns a blind eye to to the intentions of US government actions in almost all of their military actions. He explicitly stated in this video that it would be "ludicrous" to believe that this bombing was done purposefully. He reveals his naivete when it comes to foreign policy. And so many people parrot his comments unthinkingly - not understanding that Harris isn't actually doing any of the investigative work that journalists are doing to uncover the truth behind the INTENT of the US government. Not that it would take work in this case - the US military announced it to the world!
+PseudoAccurate So the military confessed to multiple counts of premeditated murder? Was the target the Doctors Without Borders medical staff? Whether it was premeditated or negligent it was an enormous fuck up. And if Harris had ordered the air strike your obvious anger would be well placed. When the day comes that answers these questions, Harris will accept the truth. He is a scientist and is capable of changing his mind when new convincing evidence emerges. But the biggest problem is with Greenwald. His support of the Iraq Invasion is worse than anything Harris has done and his smear of Harris as a "bigot" is a flat out lie. When a journalist lies there is no point in believing anything he says. There was a time I liked Greenwald. I'm sorry he squandered my trust.
+David Bergin What seems to be the truth about why the hospital was bombed is that the hospital treats all combatants (including Taliban) equally. This is why the Afghans wanted the hospital removed. They called in the strike, and the US military - knowing it was a hospital - bombed it. Presumably because they wanted the same thing. Now, Harris would argue (and does about similar situations to this, such as the al-Shifa bombing in his letters with Chomsky) that the US believed exactly what it's been stating recently, that there was a Pakistani spy in the hospital - or some other similar bad person - at the time of the bombing, which justifies it. Even if this were true, it is still ILLEGAL. The staff would have to have been given warning. It's a non-profit on a humanitarian mission in a warzone. Currently, however - and this is important - there is no reason to believe that there actually was a Pakistani spy in the hospital. Like many strikes - as revealed by the drone documents leaked to wikileaks - there are tenuous justifications and far more innocent people die than guilty. Like 9 to 1. You say Harris will accept the truth like you know him personally. So far he doesn't seem to accept what has already been proven about US intentions during the Iraq war. It seems inconceivable (ludicrous) to him to believe that the US military machine went in for strictly economic, business reasons. That 500,000 Iraqi civilians were collateral damage for controlling oil resources in the Middle East. Harris believes we went in primarily for self-defense and to find WMDs. He ignores tantalizing facts like Halliburton receiving $17 billion in contracts as a result of that war. And guess which sitting vice-president at the time was its ex-CEO? In fact had just resigned the position of CEO in order to become VP? He doesn't appear to know anything about US geopolitical interests in the other that don't have anything to do with WMDs. Google the term "petrodollar", it's a fascinating explanation of how and why the US controls the oil supply in the Middle East. I don't believe Sam Harris is a bigot, but his "philosophy" is certainly used by bigots (as can be seen in the comments in this thread) to justify hatred of Muslims. Not his fault, I know, but his lack of understanding of geopolitical realities seems to guide his hypotheticals. Like Osama Bin Laden hypothetically having a perfect weapon. That's fine, we can talk about that. But let's then posit, for sake of argument, that the people with a vested business interest in making war, make the most powerful nation in the world attack a country that has zero weapons that could actually reach it - or even its allies. This is the reality, but he hasn't yet discussed this as a hypothetical. It smacks of intellectual dishonesty. You say Greenwald's support of the Iraq war is worse than anything Harris has done. I wasn't even aware of Greenwald's support of that war. Could you provide a link? I haven't heard Greenwald call him a bigot either, but that I have less problem with. It's not completely unjustified when you listen to Harris' comments, and it's a personal thing and can't be proven as a "lie". It's just silly to deny everything Greenwald says based on this comment. It's not logical and I doubt Harris would do it even. I'd like to see what other justification you have for hating on Greenwald so much.
I love how Sam clearly lays it all out there right at the beginning. That is an excellent way to argue. Clearly state your point(s) at the beginning. Even in informal discussions, have a thesis.
+Anthony Serocco What you have just replied is precisely not an argument. He compared to Neo-Nazis by Glenn Greenwald. So what? Harris was defending himself against slander, and he expounded upon many instances in which that occurred.
Hold on. If Harris complains about Greenwald slandering him, yet stoops down to his level and slanders Greenwald, how does that make him better? It does not. For example, saying Greenwald supported the Iraq War is false. He was forced to defend it because his bosses at a news site didn't want any criticism of the Iraq War.
+Anthony Serocco He voiced his support for the Iraq war in his first BOOK, not on a news site. Check Ben Cohen's article for a hilarious quote from Greenwald's first book, "How would a Patriot Act?" thedailybanter.com/2013/04/glenn-greenwalds-hilarious-denial-about-his-support-for-iraq-war/ Also, If a news organization is pressuring its writers to hold certain points of view, doesn't that test the integrity of the writer? A writer "at a news site" [sic] should have the integrity to express their own genuine intellectual conclusions.
+Anthony Serocco you clearly did not follow his ally fight analogy. If two people are fighting it doesn't necessarily mean both are equally wrong or right. Research what Greenwald, CJ warleman, murtaza and Reza aslan been saying about Harris, its only justified that Harris finally replies to them in the language they understand.
I wonder what happened at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="2413">40:13</a> Imagine the panic Kyle must have felt if he accidentally started playing audio in the middle of his tense interview with a very grouchy Sam.
Neil deGrease Tyson made really good points on Sam's podcast about how Sam should adapt his writing and his words more so people don't misunderstand him. In Sam's conversation with Kyle Sam called that "putting trainingwheels". You can call it that. But in very sensitive subjects like religion and especially Islam, they are needed. By "training wheels". He essentially means more caveats and hedges to avoid misunderstandings. I know that since i've in the past been a person shouting out racist, bigot and sexist way to early before i heard the entire argument being made.
+Cyrus the Virus an intelligent person understands Occam's razor. Putting on so called "training wheels" is the basics of public speaking. Anything more is masturbation. Even Hitchens, for his incredible intellect, knows how to speak so that he can reach an audience.
All though. It is understandable that people get upset over Sam in some instances. One example is his blog post "In Defense of Profiling". When you read "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it". I understand that Sam doesn't wan't to racially profile muslims and i agree completly on his view. But he could clearly have put more training wheels on that sentence to avoid misunderstanding. Maybe type something like this "There are some muslims that when you see them it's obvious that they are not jihadists, if you see 2 iranian women on the airport talking about traveling and they are not wearing any veils you should focus more on profling someone like me rather than wasting time scrutinizing them". If Sam would put a sentence like that in that blog post people wouldn't misunderstand him so easily. He needs to realize that the public are not smart,philosophers. Sam said something like this on his interview with Cenk that "discussing this things at a philosophy seminar is not something weird, and no one will think you are a weirdo for discussing this ideas". He needs to realize that the public are not thinking like philosophers. So more "training wheels" are needed.
come on guys lol dumb it down? I think everyone understands Sam. 10,000 comments and 95% are in support of Sam. Very refreshing to betold straight no bullshit. I love Neil Dgt but that podcast was like listening to a family member that has nothing to do with me or my Dad tell my Dad how to talk to me......... I'm a really dumb house painter from NZ keep giving us straight forward honest discussions Sammy baby. And JRE and Tim Ferris. Thanks for treating us like Adults
@<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1948">32:28</a> "Maybe this is a moral failing on my part" It absolutely is. It's unpleasant to cause someone pain. It doesn't fill the average person with a sense of pleasure. However, in that situation you are trading your comfort for the life of another individual. That's monumentally selfish.
+joenuevo It's based on perfect information though, which is impossible in a real life scenario. With hindsight it's easy to say that you'd torture someone to save another, but in the moment you'd have no idea if it would work or if it was worth sacrificing one moral principle for another.
+mel tran More like it's been proven that people will just make up shit about stuff being 'proven'. For better or worse, torture can work and has worked in the past in some cases. There are cases in which it gives you false information, but in some cases (passwords, locations of large materiel that can be spotted via satellite or spy plane, etc.) it's pretty damn easy to determine the accuracy of the info without risking anything. I'm anti-torture, probably somewhat moreso than Harris appears to be, but by lying about its effectiveness you are not helping the cause whatsoever.
Bambi .On Toast >>>...based on perfect information...With hindsight... Watch the video again. They KNEW the guy was guilty. They KNEW he had the information. To not use whatever means necessary to extract that information expediently would lead to the death of the child. You're letting your emotions trump your ability to think rationally.
***** You are missing the point of the story. Everyone knew that the guy in question knew the location of the child. To not do everything possible to extract that information would a situation similar to the Trolley Problem.
I think he held back so his views on torture weren't perverted by a stupid non empirical demagogic example proposed by Harris. But i think given that happens in real life, Kyle would more than slap that guy.
Another one of Sams intellectually dishonest thought experiments. Simple fact is, torture doesn't lead to reliable information and is not legal under international law. Grow a pair? I'll punch your fucking lights out before I let you unleash organised torture on the world. you fukn fake fuck.
+Q Bert The example he raised is an actual case when torture spared a toddler from dying a terribly painful death. In real life. Bad intel and bad ethics are why it should be illegal, which Harris agrees with. But to say that it's never once been effective or saved a life is absolutely false.
It's not unreasonable to say that you just don't do some things because there's a line in the sand you don't cross. Of course, the bigger point is that people like Dale, push comes to shove, will torture the grandma of a terrorist because, hey, in for a penny in for a pound, right?
Harris makes 100 different points/arguments in this 2 hour video. Harris critics respond with "what a whiner" It's the only thing left to do when you don't like what someone says but aren't smart enough to counter. It's like the Key and Peele video "Awkward Conversation"
+philpot kentucky Do you have any response to the argument that turbozed raised instead of calling him a fanboy? You remind me of those idiots who label anyone who criticizes Islam as a racist. The tactic here is to discredit your opponents by calling them "racist" or "fanboy" so you wouldn't have to respond to their arguments.
He didn't make any point in the first 10 minutes, he just went on and on about his criticizers being assholes without backing it up with anything. So I understand why people would call him a whiner.
"When we lose track of the differences between us and ISIS, of the different visions of reality we are trying to implement, however ineptly. The difference between Nebraska and the fucking 7th century. If you can't get that right you're just not part of a rational conversation"
+Julian Walker Really you obviously don't know US history. & tell me the difference between decapitating someone from a drone strike when you haven't taken care who you are killing -recent Wiki leaks- and using a knife? Intent? Schoolboy attempts at ethics don't cut it. I love it how a country can commit genocide, slavery, untold human rights abuses including torture both by themselves and its puppet autocratic dictators , illegally invading countries leading hundreds of thousands of deaths, set up death squads and so on and still think they hold the high moral ground. My guy is a CEO who goes to church on Sunday, sits on the board of a local charity and loves classical music but just happens to not care that the tainted products he sells kills thousands. Yours is a uneducated serial killer that also tortures puppies. OFC my killer is better and he is still a good person and anyone that disagrees is just being irrational. After all his goal is to just make money -he is a job creator- and he didn't intend to kill anyone.
Cy5208 this is a very impassioned comment. thanks for taking the time. seriously. i respect what you are saying, but i don't think harris is implying what you think. i understand the objections and sympathize with them, but i think it is useful to not conflate issues in a way that may obscure many important details. naturally though this is a huge topic and would take a long time to unpack. for me harris does a good job in this and many other interviews, debates and public talks. you likely disagree and that is fine. in terms of specifics: i would tease apart criminal corporate greed and irresponsibility from geopolitical imperialism, from realpolitik in an imperfect and complex world, from very real distinctions that can be made between differing intentions, belief systems and agendas. post enlightenment democracies may be imperfect, may still commit atrocities at times, may still be prone to corruption and subterfuge -and none of this should be denied or rationalized away, au contraire let's keep improving, cleaning up and punishing wrong doers on our side of the street. nonetheless this doesn't make an equivalency with groups like ISIS in any way reasonable or lucid. for me: american foreign policy is deeply problematic and has many mis-steps, many imperialist power grabs and violations of human rights and state sovereignty, as well as many attempts to support and save the oppressed and to make a stand for human rights and freedom from tyranny. i think our world is much more complex than america being cast as 100% good cop or 100% genocidal imperialist -but hey, this shit is really, really difficult and i am open to being wrong/misinformed and to continuing to learn all the time. the main thrust of harris' comment above is that a barbaric band of religious zealots on the rampage beheading civilians, throwing gays from rooftops, publicly flogging and crucifying people, rounding up women as rape slaves, enforcing strict sharia law, destroying historical artifacts and museums etc all for explicitly religious reasons that are part of an overarching project of taking over as much of the world as possible and returning it to the 7th century is something we should consider on it's own terms as incredibly dangerous and unique on the world stage right now, and not overlook in the name of well-meaning but misguided false equivalencies.
+Julian Walker Thank you for your considered reply. I will go over it in detail and give it the extra attention it deserves. And I apologize if I was short I don't tend to see as much effort in other posts.
Cy5208 yea no problem. i know you care about this stuff because it really matters and affects people's lives in real and often tragic ways. i am open to what you have to say.
+Julian Walker" i would tease apart criminal corporate greed and irresponsibility from geopolitical imperialism, from realpolitik in an imperfect and complex world, from very real distinctions that can be made between differing intentions, belief systems and agendas." I think General Smedley Butler & ''War is a Racket'' is pretty indicative of US foreign policy and a close look at US history and you will find that a more cynical view of the US is warranted. Realpolitik is fine when you are up against someone like China when you must make accommodations but the US is quite happy to topple or assassinate democratically elected leaders who oppose its corporate interests. It has a track record in supporting autocratic despots when it suits but then pay lip-servcie to moral causes when that despot crosses them. Saddam is a good example. So I think you are being far to generous & it is quite easy to pick apart Sam's narrative that the US is well intentioned but either make mistakes, or war is inevitably messy, arguments. Let alone the point his intentions argument is so amateurish. "nonetheless this doesn't make an equivalency with groups like ISIS in any way reasonable or lucid." First the 'well the US is better or not as bad' argument is a red herring IMO and has been used against Chomsky. BTW neither Kyle or Harris understand Chomsky's argument it wasn't just about the numbers. Both the US and ISIS are terrible in their own ways. In my example the you don't say well the CEO is technically a nicer guy than the thug therefor he gets a free pass. You apply rule of law and condemn both of them. Intention in these cases is irrelevant to the moral and legal culpability. There is no false equivalency. In the Harris is dumb thread I have a more nuanced post. The thing is the US can be a bad actor committing war crimes - see global polls on who consistently comes up as the greatest threat to world peace- still do good humanitarian missions; & have a sophisticated culture and human rights system yet still be racist and withhold rights to many of its owns citizens. Unlike Harris and the we are the good guys who make missteps but mean well, my stance is much closer to the reality of US present and historically. Even Kyle has recently done a clip about drone strikes missing militants 90% of the time and rather ending up killing civilians. 90% WTF if the Russians was doing that the US would go nuts. The thing is US often just doesn't care about the lives of others and when you claim to be acting morally in some ways that is in fact worse than a simple psychopath. That was one of the points Chomsky was making not that they were morally equivalent.
Sam finally takes the gloves off and pulverizes his opponents. go look on twitter you won't see any of the people he beat down defending themselves. Sam is fucking right. And if you're going to say he's not, please be specific. I won't hold my breath. It's not enough to name call and say he's a bigot or a zionist, you need to just be quiet and get out of the room and let the adults talk if you're going to respond that way. Kyle I think sam nailed you too, giving those guys a platform. He only took the time to talk to you because of your dishonest and rather chickenshit handling of his attackers. I hope you learned a little something.
+Lark Macallan Didn't Sam Harris claim in this video that it would be "ludicrous" to believe that the bombing of the MSF hospital was done purposely? The military claimed it knowingly bombed the hospital weeks ago. Ludicrous Harris says. This is his naive view of US intentions. I'm not saying this to denigrate him, but he honestly seemed pretty defensive during the parts of the conversation I listened to (definitely didn't listen to the whole thing). What does he believe about the justifications of the Iraq war? Does he really think we went in looking for WMDs? I find Greenwald to be much more knowledgeable about foreign policy than Harris, and his views take everything in context, including the details, which Harris never really goes into. He just starts talking about a perfect weapon. In his email exchange with Noam Chomsky, when asked specifically about the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant bombing, he responded: "Here is my assumption about the al-Shifa case. I assume that Clinton believed that it was, in fact, a chemical weapons factory-because I see no rational reason for him to have intentionally destroyed a pharmaceutical plant in retaliation for the embassy bombings. I take it that you consider this assumption terribly naive." Chomsky's point was that the US had INTENTIONALLY attacked the pharmaceutical manufacturer in retaliation for the US embassy bombing.
PseudoAccurate if you can get on board with greenwald, I have no idea how. sam lays it out here pretty well, and I can't find a place to disagree. if snowden didn't choose greenwald you'd have never heard of him. And no, I don't think the US is just a rampaging genocidal maniac looking to bomb as many hospitals as possible. I don't buy into the self hating chomsky BS. Our intentions are better. Done trying to convince greenwald and chomsky lovers of this.
+Lark Macallan "Our intentions are better." Have you ever heard the term "petrodollar"? From wikipedia: "In an effort to prop up the value of the dollar, Richard Nixon negotiated a deal with Saudi Arabia that in exchange for arms and protection they would denominate all future oil sales in U.S. dollars. Subsequently, the other OPEC countries agreed to similar deals thus ensuring a global demand for U.S. dollars and allowing the U.S. to export some of its inflation." This deal was negotiated by Henry Kissinger in the 1970s and recently became de-classified. This system allows the US to pretty much own the world's oil for free, since oil's value is denominated in a currency that America controls and prints. Please take the time to understand the implications. Any analysis of geopolitics has to take this very important fact into account. Go verify this information, because everything I say follows from it. Many people feel that the Iraq war was fought in large part to make sure that Iraqi oil is denominated in US dollars. The argument is that Saddam Hussein began trading oil for euros in its oil-for-food program - which is in direct conflict with US interests because Iraq has enormous oil reserves, and if oil is traded in other currencies, the value of the US dollar drops rapidly, leading to major problems for the US economy. So let's posit a hypothetical. Let's assume - just for the sake of argument - that the above reasons are the real reasons the US went into Iraq. That we attacked Iraq so that Iraqi oil continues to be sold exclusively in dollars, buoying the US economy. How would you rate our ethical intentions then? Keep in mind that 500,000 innocent Iraqi civilians died in that war. Now, if the US had a perfect weapon it might very well only kill the people influencing the decision to sell oil for dollars. But how ethical is it to force another country to use your currency to sell its own resources - and to murder the people trying to change that? The ethical facade of war falls apart and the truth becomes apparent: it's all about the money. Which we all know is true anyway, don't we? In business, it's all about the money. In politics, it's all about the money. In war, it's all about the money. There's no ethics there. The only ethics that we see, are the result of a public relations campaign to convince Americans it's okay. If we kill too many civilians, that upsets people and changes support for the war. So PR has to be a consideration. Do you think Walmart gives a damn about cheap (ie, slave) laborers in other countries? No? But read their corporate website page - it talks all about responsible sourcing and empowering workers. It's not because Walmart is ethical, it's because Walmart's customers care about those things. Just like American citizens who actually care about civilian deaths because "there but for the grace of God go I." Despite the fact that we evidently care about civilian deaths, somehow over 500,000 of them died in the war with Iraq. That's 1/12 of the holocaust. And we still have people like... you... that are arguing "our intentions are better."
PseudoAccurate blah blah blah you think we're as genocidal as the sunni are to the shia, or as palestine is to israel, you believe in the chomsky POV where everything in the middle east is our fault and a creation of US. as if that's the reason to continue to slaughter people. they are so mad at the USA they are going to bury children alive and blow up buses shouting 'god is great.' I can't convince people otherwise. I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but people in that region have been slaughtering one another on behalf of god since we first stumbled upon it. And if we left tomorrow, they would just keep doing it. Oh is that the latest number 500,000? where did you pluck that? Show me. I know I know, if we weren't there, these people would be all grown up and happy and educated and free, because the muslim world just cares so much about one another, and they value life so much, right? No I don't think walmart cares, but that issue is not even tanget to this one. I'm talking about truly suicidal holy jihad, you just dont get to that nihilistic, no matter what numbers you give me. This is the same harris chomsky argument. I'm talking about intention, and you're just giving me numbers. Imaginary numbers.
+Lark Macallan " blah blah blah you think we're as genocidal as the sunni are to the shia, or as palestine is to israel, you believe in the chomsky POV where everything in the middle east is our fault and a creation of US." I didn't say a single one of those things. I tried to explain my viewpoint as clearly as I could. "Oh is that the latest number 500,000? where did you pluck that? Show me." It doesn't even sound like you care... but here is the article explaining the death toll. www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html "I know I know, if we weren't there, these people would be all grown up and happy and educated and free, because the muslim world just cares so much about one another, and they value life so much, right?" I don't know if those people would still be alive today, but I do know that Americans wouldn't have been responsible for their deaths. Are you saying that it's okay to kill people if their life isn't that great and they might die anyway? "No I don't think walmart cares, but that issue is not even tanget to this one. I'm talking about truly suicidal holy jihad, you just dont get to that nihilistic, no matter what numbers you give me. This is the same harris chomsky argument. I'm talking about intention, and you're just giving me numbers. Imaginary numbers." I don't think you understand the point I'm making. In the explanation I gave above, I compare the US government to Walmart. Walmart sources products from companies that pay their workers the lowest wages - this is what makes Walmart competitive. However, they don't want their customers to know that. So on their webpage, they talk about social responsibility and empowering workers. Do you think Walmart actually cares? "No I don't think walmart cares" Good! So we agree on this point. Then why do they have that webpage that says they care? "Because people like me believe them if they say it it must be true." Okay, now we're getting somewhere. That's right. People like you believe them because if they put it on their website it must be true. It's because people like you trust Walmart. Now, imagine you trusted the US! And let's imagine that the US wants to control another countries resources, like oil. So they go to war and assassinate the leader of the country that's preventing them from getting oil. What do you think is the best thing to put on their website? Keep in mind that a lot of people - like you and Harris - will trust them and believe what they say. "That the leader is trying to kill us?" YES!!! Brilliant. You're a natural. You could also throw in a "truly suicidal holy jihad" for good measure. Good things Americans don't understand it's so difficult to kill someone without weapons from over 7 thousand miles away, eh? Hopefully you see what I'm doing here.
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="80">1:20</a>:30 Again Harris misrepresents Chomsky's position. Chomsky has always argued that the difference between the democrats and the republicans are overstated in the mainstream media; both are primarily parties subservient to corporate power. However, he explicitly has stated over and over again that "small differences lead to enormous consequences" especially in government federal policy that may affect over 300 million people. That's why Chomsky advocates voting to Clinton in the swing states (lesser of two evils), while saying that one should spend the minimum amount of time participating in the bought general elections, while devoting more time to running for local office, protests, and/or civic organisation. Harris says that Chomsky thinks there is NO difference between the two parties, which makes him guilty of the exact same thing he accuses Rezla Aslan and Greenwald of, which is intentionally misrepresenting his positions. I mean, Kyle really wasn't on the ball in this one... he let Harris get away with way too much.
Sam Harris seems overtly cheesy, massively self apologetic, preemptively accusatory and demonstrably dismissive of the wider audience being able to make their own mind about his views without dishing out a 10 minute long profanity laced self-imbellishing monologue.
I'm so tired of listening to this guy try to talk his way out of things he said in the past. I heard his little speach at the beginning and I shut it off. I just can't stand listening to him anymore!
There have been several posts about how horrible he is, but none directly addressing his opponent's lies (CJ) and false claims employed to discredit him (which Greenwald even had to apologize for). It's as he stated, liberals have lost the ability to question their own intentions and this makes them incredibly dangerous to deal with because they will conflate any argument towards the logical imperative with calls of racism and bigotry designed to obfuscate the discussion.
Yes, his views are being misrepresented, not by horrible mean people, but by people with next to no intellectual integrity and a great deal of self interest. It's a serious matter and I can understand why he's pissed off.
If you wanna see him tear a smug, pompous law student a newly renovated second and third asshole, check out "The Best Podcast Ever." I think it's over 3 hours, but my god. Sam usually has such a clam demeanor, but I think he gets genuinely pissed when conversing with people who refuse to do anything but peddle bullshit.
Kyle's show really is getting both large and awesome-er. I just hope someday that TYT logo in the corner disappears... It's petty but litteraly my only concern.
It's not petty. Kyle covers Bernie Sanders, the TPP, price gougers, regressive leftists, insane right wingers, and more. TYT, though they occasionally have good stories, spends WAY too much time covering absolutely worthless stories about "racism", "sexism", pop culture, and other asinine stories. On the upside, TYT has done a lot of good with Wolf-pac. But my praise for TYT ends there.
+Reshad Alavera It's how you make money. I don't know if you know this, but not a whole lot of people like politics. TYT's bussiness model is to do one hour with politics; for substance. And hour 2; for money. So yeah, some stories will be BS or Click-bait.
+bigdaddyfilmmaker Sam was doing a fair amount of interrupting too, plus it is Kyle's show............ Kyle was incredibly patient and generous with Sam, he allowed him to do nothing but bash Greenwald for a full 30 mins, which, whether you agree with him doing so (I do) or not, is pretty damn generous.
Captain Stack He did, even though his behavior was pretty justified. Sam made it clear that his frustration wasn't aimed at Kyle, and Kyle seemingly understood that, so no harm done there. Sam was probably doing damage control because of the regressive faction on Kyle's fanbase. Kyle is a one-off because he has fans from both the New Atheist and the SJW/Regressive camps.
Gregory Bannish Yeah I don't think Harris was out of line. This is the most worked up I've seen him. He's usually very polite and patient, but here he seemed like he was trying to get through a lot of stuff he had saved up. I'm only about halfway through. Kyle seems like a reasonable guy who understands Harris, but he seems too invested in getting everyone involved in this feud to make up, rather than doing the right thing in calling out these pseudo-journalists and pseudo-intellectuals for their coordinated and dishonest defamation of Harris.
Sam endorsed Hillary over Bernie... When it came to real world decisions Glenn actually got it right. I say this as a long time Sam Harris fan, but he has shitty politics.
Siba Burck I would agree there but unlike most public people that I lost respect for completely when they came out in support (even an anti-Trump support, to me it was just the same) of Hellary, Sam got a pass from me and its bc 97% of the time, Sam is just simply correct. I would also add that in your particular statement, saying his politics overall suck is a bit much. I mean, life is mostly politics but even in a more defined usage, I feel like it's just that simply Sam got THIS election wrong. And, his lack of Bernie support in the primaries was mainly due to his misreading of Bernie's electability. I'm sure that had NOTHING to do with the mainstream media coordinating with Hellary and creating that false narrative though.
D.J. C Cham I understand what you mean. We both know Sam is very intelligent. When I say his politics suck, I mean that. In my opinion they do. I have followed Sam for over 6 years now. He admits to being a moderate. He talks about how we need politicians in the center like Obama, Clinton. Biden. When he criticizes Hillary, he never mentions her politics, just how she seems untrustworthy. I fundamentally disagree with him. I believe we ne politicians on the left like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard.
Siba Burck my last part there was sarcasm. But I'm with you ad far as the your politics are concerned. Hell, I was a state delegate for Bernie and I STILL fight to expose all the fraud in the primaries. However, Sam DOES fall victim to the mainstream talking points and simply doesn't put as much research and thought into the far left. I am as far left as you can go but I am in agreement with Sam ' s primary tenants that he discusses.
Yeah, but only because he bought into the notion that Hilary was more electable than Bernie. iirc, Sam would've preferred Bernie over Hillary as a president by a landslide. But, while he knew the polls on this, he thought the socialism sear and constant negative and dishonest framing in adds etc would be Bernie's downfall, while Hillary could withstand it (since she's had that all her political life and was still there as one of the two main Democratic candidates). I think Bernie would've won. I think Sam Harris was just wrong in his estimates.
You might want to reread my comment. Sam Harris thought that during the general that could well flip once the propaganda against Bernie Sanders would really start from the GOP-side, only then would you see him fall. That was Sam Harris's fear, I don't think that would've happened, and neither do you - I think. I wonder if Sam Harris has changed his mind on this. But that was his fear.
Overall, I think Kyle did a fine job letting Sam talk and allowing him to defend his positions. The problem, I think is that the points Sam is trying to make about people deliberately misinterpreting his views is going right over Kyle's head and no offense to him but in my opinion he's too naive to notice that people are doing it.
I've listened to Sam Harris talk about meditation. He mentions taking control of every thought, analyzing it, and deciding what angers you about it. That way it you can let it go. He says he's practiced this for years and angers feels strange to him now. I wonder why he doesn't do that with Greenwald lol. I'm half joking, but it is weird to see him this pissed off.
+ImSoPeeved He said that he literally started writing on september 12th 2001, so it's been 14 years. If you consider the kind of shit he gets, I'd say he's a master at patience. Not only does he get a lot of shit, he is one of very very few people who's doing this. And he is doing it out of compassion. Not only is he fighting with words against people who are abusing other people, he is fighting the people who are simply lacking in compassion and instead choose to shit on Sam Harris. He is the last person I know that I would call impatient/whiny/unable to control emotions.
***** Then I guess it's a good thing I didn't call him impatient/whiny/unable to control his emotions. Most of what I was saying was tongue in cheek. I'm a huge Sam Harris fan and am well aware of how the pussified left (as I like to call them) regularly smear him.
I completely agree, I've listened to that audiobook many times, and his state of mind here seems very far removed from the states described there. Maybe that just shows how insanely represented he's been over the past year. That is probably the most frustrating shit in the universe.
Am I the only one thinking Sam went to far with some things like Cheney and co and actually hesitating when it comes to Snowden, etc. I understand he's pissed but in Kyles defense I don't think he was prepared for something like that in the beginning of the interview. I don't understand the hate for Kyle, obviously a bunch of people who haven't watched his show or listened in at all in the past. Don't get me wrong, Kyle kind of dropped the ball here but he's the last person to be rightfully viewed as part of the regressive left.
No exactly, even though Sam definitely usually knows his stuff and is not the pseudo-intellectual person to just spew quasi-knowledge without further reflection of what's being said, but I don't think Sam really looked into a lot of the grey areas of what he was saying and kind of painted it black and white in his anger, but I'm starting to look at Kyle as the more clear headed progressive than Sam Harris if you actually compare the two on a weekly basis.
Is that the bit where he accuses Greenwald of not understand the 'difference between Nebraska and the fucking 7th century? A straw man argument with a fuck in the middle is still a straw man argument.
+Luis Quinto What do you mean by saying you don't respect Sam? Where do you get off calling him a macho man? And why does it matter that you see things like this all the time? It would be rather annoying, would it not, if every time you made a statement someone misrepresented what you say, continued doing so after you corrected them, were called a coward if you tried to ignore it, and then called a crybaby when you respond?
+Luis Quinto What do you mean by saying you don't respect Sam? Where do you get off calling him a macho man? And why does it matter that you see things like this all the time? It would be rather annoying, would it not, if every time you made a statement someone misrepresented what you say, continued doing so after you corrected them, were called a coward if you tried to ignore it, and then called a crybaby when you respond?
+Luis Quinto Everything he said is true. If people are ruthlessly lying about you online and the entire world media is eating it up like the lapdogs they are, you would have a few complaints of your own.
Kyle is the only person on the TYT network ,that has the capacity to follow,understand and exchange ideas with Sam Harris without being overshadowed in the IQ department
Chris Perez what's your version of an intelligent person's idea of an intellectual then? I see this nonsensical claim thrown around quite a lot but rarely the comment holds any substance as to why
Great interview. I though Glenn Greenwald had done very well when you interviewed him, but here I feel Sam Harris really tore him a new one. It is important to remember that even when intelligent people argue, it is possible that exactly one of them are wrong, at least for the most part. I was a little surprised that the recent cow-motivated murders in India didn't get a mention by you or Sam.
+Kyle Middleton Harris said Greenwald defended the killers of Charlie Hebdo. No. He argued they were being insensitive and xenophobic, but he NEVER defended the killers of Charlie Hebdo. Harris was lying. Outright defaming Greenwald. Utterly unacceptable.
+Anthony Serocco They were NOT being insensitive or Xenophobic though, so Greenwald was wrong to say that. Additionally, to call them Xenophobic when talking about their murder IS in an indirect way providing justification for their murder. It's analogous to saying " That women shouldn't have been raped. But she also shouldn't have been walking around in mini skirt. Those kind of clothes lead some men to commit rape". It's called "blaming the victim". Sam is exactly right when he said Greenwald in a way defended the killers.
Anthony Serocco I think you could easily defend the statment that that violent Jihad, if not stopped, would be worse then American Imperialism has ever been, nukes and all.
I am not sure why, but Kyle isn't understanding what Sam Harris is saying. Let's take the torture example. Everything Kyle said was already acknowledged. Despite all of this torture was the only answer. And yes, slapping someone is torture and favorable to the kid dying. These difficult cases exist in reality and we need an answer. We cannot simply ignore these questions. Even if we pretend these things don't exist, these things will still happen, and since we don't know the right answer, we will do the wrong thing.
I really fail to understand why Sam Harris is not understood. It causes me much despair and is so very disturbing. I am pretty sure I have in one form or another listened or read most all Sam Harris's work. Thank you Sam for your efforts to teach the TRUTH. The world is a better place that Sam Harris is alive in this time.
+Brian Moore "The world is a better place that Sam Harris is alive in this time." Completely agree. It's such a shame that so many people are unwilling to open themselves up to what he is offering the world.
Plus. I still haven't changed my mind about his views. Yes Torture, Profiling, Using Nuclear weapons can have Pros, but the cons of using them, and the way it effects our image are way worst. Imagine that you have a brown skin, a beard, or wearing a Headscarf, or whatever. The fact that the security will always pick on you is gona make you feel that you can never be accepted as an equal citizen. And that my friend is the first door to extremism. And of course saying that profiling is a very normal and natural thing to do has the same ugliness.
+mat Janiec Nope... just a very clear and accurate thinker. You're just parroting the usual, old, stale BS... you realize that, do you not? It's getting so old. Enough already.
+mat Janiec Nope... just a joke and an expression of how much I admire his clear thinking. So just stop already. You're not saying anything insightful... just something tired, old and stupid. Same ol', same ol'... and not a gotcha... you just didn't get the humor.
Title should have been: Sam Harris On Defending Himself from Mis-characterizations... I stopped a bit after an hour but seems like the actual substance could have been covered in 5-10 minutes. I don't doubt he's been mis-characterized at times, but its like hes arguing purely against people who don't think radical Islam is a problem, or characterizing them as such. How many people actually think this?? He's also blowing it way out of proportion and trying to characterize the problem as Islam period. Radical Islam is not representative of Islam generally. Take ISIS who, if looking at it by religion are killing between 82%-97% Muslims according to the state department. Radical Islam is a problem for Islam more than anyone else. Meanwhile he thinks US foreign policy which allowed for the rise of ISIS, is based on "good intentions". No... It's based on self-serving economic dominance (imperialism) and always has been. That we (US) happened to have killed somewhere between 5-20 times more civilians than ISIS in the latest Iraq war alone, is just an unfortunate side-effect of this. But calling it 'good intentions' does not excuse ourselves from the criteria by which we judge everyone else.
And that's why I didn't listen past thirty minutes. No substance. I have finite time. Sam proved that he was more concerned with crapping on his opposition than actually discussing the issues. The moment I see that, I'm done giving someone credence. It means they don't actually care. It's about ego, not integrity.
I don't think you can blame him for this, especially looking at the smears that he has had to deal with. He has great discussions on a range different topics.
"Radical Islam is a problem for Islam more than anyone else. " Which is exactly what Sam says several times in this discussion. Some people just don't want to listen. Just let it sink in that Sam Harris, most likely, is a better lateral thinker than you on this topic.
Exclusifs An appeal to authority? Come on... All the points remain that he is blowing radical Islam way out of proportion. You are apparently 7 times more likely to be killed from right-wing (anti-government) terrorism than Islamic inspired terrorism. I'm an an atheist too, but that's another of his points out the window. What Harris either glosses over or completely ignores, that for instance, Chomsky covers meticulously, is the role of geo-politics and economic conditions, not just religion in creating and inspiring anti-US/western sentiment. Harris just doesn't have the background or knowledge there so his treatment of Islam is 1-dimensional to a naive extent. Islam doesn't inherently lead to terrorism, and Islamic radicalism is a symptom, not a cause. Many of these problems are created by instability from our own government's meddling.
Throughout this entire interview, it seems that Kyle was just trying to cover his ass and attempt to justify his association with people like Glenn and Cenk Uygur.
The problem is that Sam Harris is a moral philosopher that is forced to deal with people who believe everything is black and white and that there is a concrete, perfect answer for everything . Dealing with problems in a black and white fashion is the easy way out. Sam goes deeper than that.
This is a clear illustration of how Sam Harris' mind just works differently, in a more precise, accurate, and logically consistent way, as opposed to most other people who think averagely, like Kyle and so many others. Most of us included. Probably.
Sam harris, in Kyle’s shoes, would do what Kyle did. Sam’s ego is too large to understand that his credentials don’t automatically cancel out all others.
@@adamcoleman6541no Sam holds more conviction to his ideals with courage. He is known to speak openly about certain issues with courage, even in the face of death threats, with clear intention. You are just more of a common man . Like Kyle.
Once again Sam speaks with perfect clarity and honesty, explains the entire situation per opponent and why they are wrong. it seems everytime sam comes on to one of these shows the host has a problem admitting that they acted as a megaphone for assholes like Glen Greenwald in light of perfectly laid out evidence.
Sam's grasp of upper-end geopolitical going-ons seems to be woefully under-infromed, and every time Kyle brings it up, he dodges the topic and calls on ignorance to defend his point.
Owen Walsh I respond to guy saying Sam Harris only got called out once. I disagreed saying he is a hack. Because of his simple view of the east versus the western world
Krezz[skybound} Oh it just seemed abrupt going from: look at this place Sam Harris got confused while he was talking to he’s a fucking hack. But I do believe he probably seems to be a little too idealistic, a lot of his views simply aren’t grounded in what reality is like in those places.
@@patrickkilduff4355 no, but its 10 to 1 in time. Kyle, who Ive never heard of before, so far, has been an absolute gentlemen while this Sam guy filibusters the whole show. Rewatch and put a stop watch. 10 to 1 is prob close. But im only 45 min in
Torture is illegal, the ticking bomb argument can be used by any potential torturer however real the "bomb" is, the other main argument against torture is if you indulge in it your enemy is under no obligation to treat your captured troops any better. I think you turn the guy who would drop the bombs on a city into the guy who kills the kids with the shovel when you ask him to torture someone(to re-use Sams analogy)
