The slicing and dicing continues.
Dr RollerGator Phd- Sam Harris and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
So in an exceptionally short time Sam has demonstrated his quest to figure out what’s true and to be consistent with what he said to be true “five minutes ago,” by the following sequence of claims
1. There was absolutely a left-wing conspiracy to withhold information from the American public to deny the presidency to Donald Trump
2. It’s not a left-wing conspiracy because Liz Cheney supported it
3. Conspiracies out in the open aren’t conspiracies
4. It doesn’t matter how much or how little is out in the open because is it really a conspiracy just because people are conspiring?
Sam’s resorting to the asteroid analogy was of necessity. If Sam had spent more time trying “figure out what’s true and what’s consistent to what I claimed was true five minutes ago or five years ago,” he may have been able to spot where he went wrong.
He wants people to take him seriously, but not literally.
[…]… 1. There was absolutely a left-wing conspiracy to withhold information from the American public to deny the presidency to Donald Trump…[…]
That was done mainly by the Main Stream Media, Big Tech and the FBI…it has little to nothing to do with Liz Cheney
when confronted with this, Sam Harris said Liz Cheney was not left wing…he avoided the gigantic obvious fact that the MSM, BigTech and the FBI all bend over backwards to help Democrats.
When 51 ex CIA experts signed a letter saying Hunter laptop was only Russian disinformation, it had nothing to do with Liz Cheney
Saying that Liz Cheney is not left wing was the equivalent of saying ; the dog ate my homework
Sam Harris is considered by the left to be a brilliant man…he is not, he is in fact a low IQ imbecile.
on top of all this, Liz Cheney is a RINO ; republican in name only, she works hand in hand with democrats, thus works for the left
no matter how you slice it, Sam Harris is an imbecile.
I’d suggest that his behaviour is consistent with his beliefs.
That is, that there is no external, objective standard for moral values.
Every argument that he uses for evolutionarily-derived moral values, boils down to an appeal to utility at some level. It’s a claim that the need for good outcomes drives the need for good morals, but in each case the definition of “good” depends on how he feels on the matter.
Result? Honesty is “good” when it enables him to position himself as the honest and therefore the “good” person in a debate…… but not so necessary when the “good” outcome is keeping Trump out of office.
This guy is just another in a long line of narcissist celebrities. He has now completely cashed in any credibility he might have had. No matter how desperately he tries to spin it this point forward, he won’t be able to shake the reality that he’s just a silly twat.
There is of course no reason to believe that the Hunter Biden laptop scandal thing would have had any impact on the electoral outcome. It wasn’t close. And it’s still not clear what scandal there is in the laptop beyond Biden’s failson getting positions and prestige he never earned by merit of family. Standard sleaze.
The voting fraud had an effect 20 times bigger than the laptop could have had.
Thanks for agreeing with us !
20 x 0 = 0
You need to post 5 times in a row Unme?
Trump was railroaded.. What followed was a special intertest feeding frenzy.. I also strongly believe that covid (all of it) was completely overblown as a way to hurt Trumps reelection chances.. Him and his Warp Speed delusions had no idea that almost every trusted institution went rogue at the drop of a hat to help remove him.. Yes, some were doing what they were told BUT if I were able to figure it out they knew for sure..
Our politicians and professional class betrayed us for political gain.. I will never forgive them..
It is priceless to see the expressions on the faces of the Triggernometry hosts when Harris meltsdown.
This very well could be the greatest crash and burn since the Hindenburg. Jimmy Dore does the best analysis on his walkback.
Bye Sam.
One of the downsides for sufferers TDS, is that it overshadows whatever good points the speaker is trying to get across. Harris torpedoed his own credibility, like Cheney did. She could have demanded a fair and impartial hearing, condemned the leaks and dirty tricks, provided opportunity for the presentation of exculpatory evidence and material, but she didn’t, so she came off as a tool.
I have no sympathy, though, because they (the TDSers) are to blame for Trump being at the top of the news cycle. Their obsession or monomania over Trump is what enables him to suck all the air out of the room.
I have no issue with calm, objective, reality based criticisms of Trump, I’m just not interested in the made up stuff. I suppose that doesn’t get any traction or clicks($$$$$).
The only way for Sam Harris to step out of his self-destructive comments is to say he was being ironic. But as time goes by he’s stuck wearing the egg he hatched.
Lefty journo turns out to be morally bankrupt and full of shite. Shoka!
Another dumb atheist praised by idols looking for a God finds feet of clay.
St. Michael has twisted in his latest spear.
Well stated.
The real problem that I saw was that Sam wasn’t trying to engage at a reasonably high level (or thoughtful level, if you prefer) at all. Rather, he was shootin’ the shit, doing the same kind of casual, sloppy, roam-around-the-back-of-your-skull “discourse” that we’ve all been guilty of (sometimes after a few drinks); in this sense, he radically misjudged his audience(s).
Could he have done better? I have no idea. (I actually know nothing ’bout this guy, and was surprised to find out that he’s some sort of “public intellectual” in certain circles in the U.S.) But his flailing had all the hallmarks of a bull session that suddenly found itself in a Masters’ thesis defense and went seriously off the rails in a very short time, while his interviewers were watching the train wreck with vaguely stunned expressions on their faces.
Yikes. I’ve been job interviews like that (both giving and receiving), and lemme tell you, when things start going south, it’s like Hemingway’s description of how he went bankrupt: “gradually, then suddenly.”
If you care about honesty, you check your own assumptions and make very sure that your audience understands the rules of the conversation.
In a genuine bull-session, all parties concerned know that it’s not meant to be taken seriously and that they need to be alert for the irony, sarcasm, wishful-thinking and outright lies. It’s a form of entertaining verbal jousting.
If they don’t know this and have not “agreed” to it, then you are lying, misleading and misrepresenting.
Excusing Harris in this sense is like excusing a major media organisation for broadcasting outright dishonesty, on the grounds that the Babylon Bee broadcasts satire.
The same applies to Trump. As a businessman and negotiator, he is very used to making ambit claims. Arguing for his preferred outcome knowing that the other parties will argue for theirs and that the bargaining process will result in agreement somewhere between the two. It’s also appropriate in some forms of debate….. but not when your audience includes far too many people who will take you literally.
Oh, I’m not “excusing” this guy at all. He’s gonna wear the damage from this miscalculation probably for the remainder of his career, however long that is. Triggernometry’s format may be casual, but he made a huge mistake assuming that it wasn’t serious.
This is by far the best take I’ve seen here. You’ve nailed it as hard as you can nail it.
Could he have done better? I have no idea.
I do.
If you have ever heard Sam in one of his debates (he is a well known atheist often advocating for atheist claims) you will know that Sam is not at all a logically consistent thinker. From time to time, he can present a logical argument, but at other times it is quite clear that logic is not very important to him.
I would classify Sam as a moral relativist – whatever Sam decides is a moral good at the time is worth pursuing above all else. Above all else includes logic and truth.
Truth: Sam has decided morally that nothing could be worse than Trump being President a second time so lying is permissible and even encouraged. Truth is not really as important as not only 1) denying Trump the Presidency but also 2) denying the choice of a truthfully informed vote to millions of people if that denial of choice ends up denying the Presidency to Trump.
Logic: After failing the truth test, Sam could at least pass the logic test by stating that he is a moral relativist and that moral relativists use truth if it supports their moral pursuits, but also use lying if that also supports their moral pursuits and that truth itself is not really a moral pursuit – merely a sometimes utilitarian pursuit and sometimes a hindrance.
Sam failed on both points.
I have seen this behaviour before from Sam.