I've listened to Sam Harris for years. We share many similar interests and ethical concerns. But I cringe listening to his Trump-related podcasts. He's never had a single, credible Trump-supporter come on, at least not to talk about Trump. Why is Harris such a cringemeister when it comes to Trump?
>inb4 (((Sam Harris)))
Yeah, yeah, take it to /natsoc/ general.
Because it's hard to find an intelligent, credible Trump supporter. I'm sure they exist, but one must admit that a broad portion of his base probably listens to Alex Jones unironically.
Cos he is a beta.
Pretty much this
And ive listened to sam harris talk about trump before and i understand his reason to dislike trump.
He said he voted for clinton and he said he did, paraphrasing, because hillary is a conman and that makes her the perfect for a position of a conman.
He said something closer to "she knows the game."
>"she knows the game"
Yeah he's said things along those lines, but he always made clear that his number 1 reason for voting Hillary was because he disliked Trump so much:
>If you gave me a choice between random citizen, and Trump, I would roll the dice.
Well it seems that sam is not a big fan of inconsistency. And trump is nothing but inconsistency.
Yeah no, because he is a Jew. And a liberal atheist on top of it.
>not sure which to gas first.jpg
Trump never played a consistency game, he played a political game. Sam Harris seems either not to notice that Trump wanted to win the election, or he doesn't care.
he trusts the left (((news media)))
> MUH natsoc
How about you take yourself and your provocateur Jew podcast back to /ptg/, and then from there you can all go back to r/Le_Donald.
Sam Harris isn't that bright.
He just has a soothing cadence.
Good for low I.Q. people who want to feel smart.
I guess he's good for self-esteem.
In that case, how can you hate on a person who dislikes a deceitful lying human being who doesnt even deceit the enemy, but his own people.
First kill the traitor then kill the enemy.
This.
AMSR faggots
>PhD in neuroscience
>isn't that bright
Sorry, don't buy it. Even the smartest people make intellectual mistakes literally all the time.
he said he never deemed anyone claiming to be a trump supporter to be a viable person to talk to since they always come back to 1 or 2 talking points or something.
also his podcast about trump's impeachment with anne applebaum was cringy af. couldn't watch past 30 minutes.
Either way, if you were to refuse to people that are less intelligent than whatever your standard may be youd either leave Sup Forums or youd lower your standards.
I hate people that diss on sam harris or jordan b peterson or whoever has a degree in anything and talks publicly, like as if they have any accomplishments themselves or degrees at all.
You do not have to have a PhD and 50 inventions and 30 verified scientific theories to be able to say something intelligent.
>He's never had a single, credible Trump-supporter come on
Putin has a very busy schedule.
Yeah, that particular podcast was too painful. His most recent one with the Yale professor also sucked hard, it was pure fearmongering. He's really gambling with his credibility.
What credible Trump supporters are there? I'm not even joking, literally who?
Scott Adams. He's said he'd go on Sam's show.
>credible Trump-supporter
>PHD in neuroscience
>enough to mean he is remarkably smart
Topkek brainlet, of course his IQ is well above average but that's really not enough. He is calm, quite reasonable by today's standards, and is very articulate in debates. Those are his strengths, not his intelligence.
If you want intelligence, go to the math department of a top university and anyone there will be smarter than him, but mostly autistic.
Ok?
Lol, there is no such thing as an American political supporter who has creditability. They all have dirt on each other and tale kick backs to gain more wealth and power. So, you're question is erroneous.
ONE GIANT GLASS, KRUMPHFFFFF!!??
>this cognitive dissonance
Stay in debt, spainfriend.
Usually too busy doing math to do public speaking as well.
But whats your point?
Sup Forums users are still far under both sam harris and the mathematicians you speak of and that doesnt mean you shouldnt listen to them ever.
Hell most people here listen to trump when hes saying "vote for me" but hes a literal imbecile compared to both.
He talked about how a bunch of people always ask him to get Stefan Moly on his podcast and he said something like "I don't have the time to figure out if he's a white supremicist or not." So hes afraid to have a conversation.
No
fuck you
harris is a jew whose muslim and christian bashing is wrapped in a ontrived, cool, smug air of objectivity, but really he's very much a Zionist a d apologist for israel
shove your muh nazis shit back up your ass faggot.
harris is a zionist. jews were wildly against Trump because unlike Hillary his top donors werent mostly Zios
also this takedown of Harris is god tier:
Please archive. Thank you.
>counterpunch org/2014/07/31/why-i-criticize-israel
--> archive.is
Sam Harris’s Quantum Universe (or, How to Say One Thing While Meaning Another)
ot some but not totally.....
Remember to archive.
>counterpunch org/2015/12/09/sam-harriss-quantum-universe-or-how-to-say-one-thing-while-meaning-another
--> archive.is
>le they're all shit meme
I bet you also think that Witcher line about 'Evil is evil, lesser, greater, middling - makes no difference' is deep philosophy.
Just give me someone with knowledge of the subject and who can actually argue consistently. I am sure there is someone like that out there.
> holds a PHD in neuroscience
> not impressive enough for "spain"
I would wager that someone who has a background in fucking neuroscience is more well rounded then someone who's background is in math.
But you weren't exactly specific..
doubt Molymeme would be up for it
I just wanted to point it out because lot's of people have this feeling that Sam is super-intelligent muh neuroscientist, but what really impresses them is his verbal ability.
He is bright, like tons of people are. Intelligence alone doesn't make his or anyone's opinion worth listening.
>Listening to an atheist Jew
Go back to the_donald
>Intelligence alone ...
Which no one was suggesting
Just get
Cute article:
>cite number of Palestinians killed by Israel
>no citation of number of Israelis kill by Palestine
>oh, another argument from Harris? call it a strawman
>where there is smoke there must be fire
>but Sam Harris is biased
>founder of StopImperialism.org
Not even gonna bother with your second article.
Sorry, my friend, but you can't have Sam's verbal IQ without a high general IQ.
are you the same archiving norwegian i see in every thread? or are all norwegians chroniclers like that?
molymeme said he will only debate people on his own show because he doesn't need to go 'outside'
Back to plebbit with you, proxycancer
Looking forward to this.
>credible Trump-supporter
I have yet to find one of those
All norwegians are forced into archive camp two weeks every year. This is a dark side of Norway the government doesn't want you to know about.
>le everyone born a jew is a zionist maymay
Ive read both articles and in the why i dont discussi israel stuff this occurs:
Sam says he dislikes the idea of a state based on religion and jews claiming land based on the bible
Sam says that in the grand scale jews killed the least people
This is somehow an issue? Can anyone explain?
Numbers dont lie, jews have to do alot of killing to catch up. That is if you dont buy into the "jews control everything so every death is by jews"
The better you know something the better youll explain it. I assure you that you couldnt match a UFC fighter in a commentary of an UFC match. And on top of that being able to express yourself properly and eloquently is as clear sign of intelligence as an IQ test.
It's the same guy running a script, report and improve.
Yeah, it's a shame, molymeme would be good. He knows persuasion, debate, and logic. Molymeme and Adams are 2 solid contenders for this job.
He said he WOULD go, but I don't think Harris has invited him. I'd literally pay a few bucks to hear that conversation.
>take it to /natsoc/ general.
You're in natsoc general!
Harris is a smart person but his insight into politics just seems really shallow. His entire Tyranny podcast could have been applied towards actions taken during the Obama administration and they made almost no reference to it at all. They then greatly exaggerated Trump's actions and stood behind accusations like muh Russia as being proof although nothing has come about at all.
He reads into politics like an autist who has never read The Art of War and therefore doesn't understand nuance or misdirection. It's never as literal as the Washington Post says it is.
>Sam says he dislikes the idea of a state based on religion and jews claiming land based on the bible
This was a propaganda tactic for sure, but the Jews had other reasons and other leverage. Remember that Britain granted occupied Palestine to Israel, Jews didn't conquer it (in the traditional sense). Not saying Israel is good or bad, by the way, just that the article you linked was trash.
w.r.t your other reply, I agree, and I would advise that you should aim for more brevity than you've shown in this thread. Just trying to help.
These. And especially that last one where anybody who supports Trump is some kind of blind faith fanatic instead of somebody that is simply skeptical of the way the media has covered him. They both needed to unironically watch Tim Pool's video on "what is fake news" and then reevaluate which side lacks the ability to have cognitive dissonance or agree on what facts are.
It's pretty pathetic. And I used to like Sam Harris.
Yeah exactly, this is why I want Harris to confront Adams.
>criticize Trump for his speech patterns
>Trump's speech patterns win U.S. presidency
>continue to criticize Trump for his speech patterns
>because.... Trump's speech isn't effective?
I imagine Harris' thinking goes along those lines, somehow. At any rate, he doesn't base his views on policy, at least he never mentions policy. He jumps on things like Trump "threatening" war with North Korea, though. I wonder if Harris is really blind to strategy, or if he is deliberately being disingenuous.
Well sure i definitely agree that jews like to lie and deceit their way into everything and out of everything. But you have to admit that youd choose for a person to lie to you if that means that they wouldnt kill you. People get more upset about killing than lying and for a good reason, which is why i agree with the fact that saying jews didnt kill that many, yet anyway, is an okay argument.
I definitely should but talking on Sup Forums most off the time is turn off the brain and just repeat the same thing over and over and hope that one in a thousand gets it.
Phrasing yourself properly wont do anything on this board.
Its not that theyre ineffective, its that theyre effective because of wrong reasons.
Beating someone into submission is effective if theyre weaker, not so much if theyre stronger, for example. Nothing is set in stone when it comes to something like this.
I didn't mean propaganda to mean lying, exactly. The rulers of any democratically inclined country need a reason to explain themselves to the masses, whether Jew-related policy or otherwise.
Okay, I see your point: Trump's use of language, while effective, presents moral problems. My counter: Those moral problems exist whether or not any particular politician employed the methods Trump used, because all politicians want to win votes, at the end of the day. Trump wanted to win the election, Clinton wanted to win the election, Kasich, Cruz, etc. etc. None of these people were above using Trump's tricks, they just didn't have
1. The appetite for risk
2. The knowledge/intuition
that Trump had. So I don't buy it. Unfortunately, Sam talks up a big storm about Russians, so I wonder how much he's tuned into the strategy/persuasion angle of Trump's administration thus far.
He's smart but that doesn't mean that he can't have his head up his ass on certain topics, NDT could be a good astrophysicist but i haven't heard anything smart come out of his mouth on other topics.
Of course, they all wanted to. But id like to believe that at least one of them would keep at least 50% of their promises.
And you have to understand, about the topic of risk, that the demographic of the voter is fairly different. Trump could claim any preposterous thing and people would still vote for him, even today he keeps making absolutely ridiculous claims, his twitter feed is a shit fest and instead of cirticisng anything even slightly, each one of his supporters has their dicks hard ready to defend him. It really doesnt matter.
I know we laugh at alot of things here on Sup Forums but outside of it, american politics are a laughing stock for the most part. And it is not without reason.
What a retard.
>makes ridiculous claims
Because it works
>makes outrageous tweets
Because it works
>millions of people defend everything he does
Yeah, but that's always true with partisan politics.
Well as ive said before, it works for wrong reasons.
In reality best form of advancement in a society, is not doing tests and enforcing those that are "good" to breed and those that help the society, its killing ones that dont. But people consider that a "bad" form of doing so.
It works because the supporters are too blinded to change their minds and they all have this "Well theyre all gonna vote x or y whats the point in voting for z then" mentality.
Either tell me how im wrong and teach me or dont waste your energy. Im willing to learn.