Sam harris is a liberal

Sam harris is a liberal.

Why arent you?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris
youtube.com/watch?v=W77iAQyioM8
youtube.com/watch?v=gq_q44pJ9m8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

He's also a cuck

I don't give a shit want ben stiller wants me to do

Because he is.

tired of seeing this faggot on Sup Forums

just another asshole with a set of opinions

How is he on race realism, BLM and Muslims?

Why should I care about the political opinions of Hollywoood celebrities?

>current year
>atheism

kek

He's not really liberal,
today liberals are crazed gimme dats that just want free shit and safe zones
just cause he's more left than most right wingers doesn't mean he's actually liberal

Sam Harris is also one of the few people who manage to get a BA in philosophy without ever understanding the naturalistic fallacy and writes a whole book (moral landscapes) that relies on this philosophy 101 logical fallacy.

He is obviously stupid and a obvious symptom of grade inflation at American Colleges and Universities.

For someone so book smart he really swallowed the hook when it comes to "trump is so racist omg"

>He is obviously stupid and a obvious symptom of grade inflation at American Colleges and Universities.
Also his mom is a rich Hollywood producer

Because you should be the opposite of what jew is

>grade inflation
That's a problem but it's not why people take this guy seriously. He would be a total nobody even with the degree if he wasn't the son of an elite celebrity Jew.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris
>Fellow religion critic Christopher Hitchens once referred to Harris as a "Jewish warrior against theocracy and bigotry of all stripes".[12]

Because Sam Harris is.

He notes the significant problems with Islam, but thinks race realism and it's study isn't something we would benefit from, and we should just ignore the data and violent tendencies of certain races.
Bit of a cuck 2bh

He's a bit too numale for my taste. But i think he's generally correct on a lot of things

He's anti-Islam at least, not enough to actually want to do anything about Muslims but enough to argue with Ben Affleck about it.

Sounds like he is sacred to talk about it then. I get that, since he already has to fight allegation of racism from Muslim bullshit, from what I gather.

He's got such a smug face. I've actually got no problem with him when I hear him talk, but I don't think he's quite as clever as he thinks he is.

why the hell is everyone calling him a cuck
explain what the hell he does to make you think that
Sam Harris usually destroys people in intellectual debates without needing to raise his voice, resort to name calling or other shitty debate tactics

No, sounds like he's a typical non-SJW Atheist and a neocon Jew with mostly leftist social views. That definitely doesn't mean he's a race realist.

So what's his excuse for BLM and their bullshit? Or does he actually support them?

It is a very pragmatic viewpoint to ignore IQ differences in race.


Black average IQ = 85
White average IQ = 100


What happens now? No black vote? Blacks shouldn't be employed? What about white people with IQ's sub 85?

No, this will happen :

"The eductaion system favours whites!"
"This is a systemic racist issue!"
"The study demonstrates a white racial bias in law enforcement, education, and the job system! Leading to the impoverishment of racial minorities!"
"White people must be stopped!"

This is not a good thing.

What realistic measures can anybody take that wouldn't result in this? Or worse, a legitimate race war.

With the CRISPR genetic revolution, being tied to a static genetic IQ won't even be a thing in 20 years.

>Rich jewish parasite is also an anti-white, anti-male far left extremist

Wow, what a shock.

I have no idea but it probably doesn't involve IQ, genetics, crime stats, or anything of the sort.

>anti-white, anti-male far left extremist

What the fuck is your retarded beaner ass talking about?

Because Im not Sam Harris?

I saw a recent podcast recently with him and some black mathematician. Black guy was going for apologetics, and while Sam was challenging him and there, it seemed like he was scared to fully engaged.

I'm under the impression that he fears for his reputation more than anything else if he starts talking about blacks.

yeah people call him a cuck because he's actually realistic about his approach to blacks and islam instead of being full retard and talk about exterminating them
he knows the facts, he isn't afraid to acknowledge them and he knows you can't just fucking alienate an entire race and religion

>being this stupid

Actually Sam reliably destroys the naturalistic fallacy as being a fallacy itself.

He is fully aware of it, and opens the book by dismantling it piece by piece.

Also, the moral landscape is an incredibly useful and logical idea that even if based on a fallacy, would serve to improve every aspect of life.

Really? He's so monotone in his speeches it drives me crazy.

*points head at a 15 degree angle to the floor and cocks left eyebrow down and right eyebrow up, proceed to lecture about why my unprovable assertions are acceptable while another guys unprovable assertions are not.

Sam is gay.

Hes also a trust fund baby who never worked a day in his life or ever had too live outside a community. He spent his teens and early adulthood taking psychedelics, going to meditation retreats and travelling India. Then went back to the states to study neuroscience.

He is a smart guy and perhaps its not right to dismiss someones views because they have had a sheltered life, but its hard for me not to remember that when hearing his views on race, dealing with the problem of Islam (he has named the problem, so deserves credit there), given Clinton a pass while deriding Trump as a loon and he benefits of drugs.

>He is fully aware of it, and opens the book by dismantling it piece by piece.

He does not dismantle shit, he basically says "Yes, it's not logical... But I don't want to be logical... It FEELS right"

>is an incredibly useful and logical idea that even if based on a fallacy

It can't be logical while at the same time being based on a logical fallacy. That is a logical contradiction, your statement is logically false.

Should be *gated community

Because reading his books helped push me away from being a young, dumb liberal. Hell, Hitch was a Commie at one point, doesn't mean I ever felt the need to be.

You know he is jewish, right? He does support the neocon foreign policies and defends Israel to the hilt.

Based on muslim

Either in denial about race, or lying to protect his image

Probably bad on BLM, generally silent on it.

But it isn't a fallacy itself.
He just explains why in his case it isn't really a fallacy.
He basically pulls a special pleading and expects no one to notice, luckily most people he debates aren't smart enough to find the fallacy in his fallacy. He uses a trap fallacy as an insulator against his real fallacy of special pleading and presupposing he is the gatekeeper to objective values.

>just be a liberal and I'll call you smart and inflate your ego
The dude seriously isn't even an intellectual. I listened to 5 minutes of his anti-Trump video and actually laughed at loud. The fact that one person could be so deficient in philosophical and intellectual thought and be considered and intellectual is simply mind-numbing. The world is truly crumbling and everything is backwards.

Hitch? I presume you mean the dead one?
What credentials did he have? It seemed he just went and talked about things and basically was a professional opinion giver.

Explain why a sheltered life makes you worse at decision making?

Imagine the opposite.

He is black, poor, brought up in a fatherless house hold. Forced into a gang in order to keep safe. Never attends school. Commits petty crimes and ends up in jail.

This is a non-sheltered life.

Is that person better able to make decisions in the world? No he is not.

A sheltered life is much better.

You are able to observe from a distance and without bias.

You can form conclusions based on research and evidence, and you have lots of time on your hands to really think things through.

Checked

Hadn't heard of that. But at best he's Pinker level on such things and he's certainly not redpilled. People need to stop projecting their views on people who say one or two based things. There's a pretty wide spectrum of views between 1488 and SJW.

well a lot of his income comes from his talks/debates and books.
if some dindus started calling him a racist he's done
so understandable

>liberal
>FULLY supported the invasion of Iraq
>supports racial profiling of Muslims
>condemns the Koran

not a liberal by today's standards

Because I'm not an ugly gay Jew in denial of reality.

Hello Harris, why do you post these threads on a weekly basis on a Qatari mule-riding board?

Fair enough.

Here's the podcast if anyone cares. It's pretty long though.

youtube.com/watch?v=W77iAQyioM8

Yeah it's a little bit annoying, but at least it's not unbearably smug. I just look at his face and think that's how he looks, so it's just a relief that he's not completely awful really.

No he's not realistic in the slightest. He is willing to ignore plenty of inductive evidence of race realism to make himself feel good while he talks about Christianity 24/7. This is why a true philosopher in this day and age never majors in philosophy and they never let anyone know their thoughts either. He's possibly competing in the intellectuals (the people I like to refer to as the dumbest in the world it's so ironic). You will find literal babby tier arguments. The intellectual debates are so boring and wrong I chuckle at them and can barely even stand to watch them. A true intellectual would never reveal his thoughts or feelings and would play an act to accomplish his goals.

Also, here's a nice video where he BTFO the Islam Golden Age.

youtube.com/watch?v=gq_q44pJ9m8

Posting it because I get fucking triggered when Muslims try to claim they invented Algebra (they didn't, fuck off goatfuckers).

SEMITE FIGHT

Harris comes in strong but is no match for Taleb's Black Swan. You never see it coming.

> "Yes, it's not logical... But I don't want to be logical... It FEELS right"

Your reduction of Sams point shows you are a bit confused.

Human "feelings" are part of the logical process. They are not magical. They happen based on certain inputs. Living in a war zone is an input, feeling like shit is the output.

You need to shed the idea that feelings are not part of logical argument. They are actually all that we have. And all we will ever have.

> That is a logical contradiction, your statement is logically false.

You can be logical despite your statement being based on a false premise. It's logical to kill all dogs if you think they are secretly aliens plotting to kill everybody.

Anyway that's beside the point, you derailed the conversation with semantics as you had no actual argument to make.

I don't know who he is and I don't see why I should be imitating someone like some tool.

I sometimes agree with what Taleb has to say and he has some very valid criticisms of academia, but the guy is quite clearly a fucking idiot. He's just a contrarian who wants everyone to tell him how clever he is. I had to put down Black Swan because he was just so smug on every page. And his shit with deadlifts is pretty embarrassing too desu.

If he based his opinions on nothing but research and evidence, his views on race relations would be drastically different. I think its reasonable to believe that the guy who only see's blacks and Hispanics when hes lawn is being cut or he collects his fast food, will be less inclined to accept the harsh truth about minorities than someone who lives around them, has to employ them, serve them etc on a daily basis. I think we just have different meanings for the word sheltered.

I don't know Taleb beyond this remark. I just find it be pretty durrr to call yourself a scientist with 2 publication when I've seen people who've had people with 20 times the publications simply calling themselves assistent professors. And it's not like he did anything really boundary-breaking beyond the publications (as far as I am aware), so yeah.

>Your reduction of Sams point shows you are a bit confused.
>Human "feelings" are part of the logical process. They are not magical. They happen based on certain inputs. Living in a war zone is an input, feeling like shit is the output.
>You need to shed the idea that feelings are not part of logical argument. They are actually all that we have. And all we will ever have.

Human feelings are not part of the logical process they are part of the rhetorical process. Only few humans who have ever lived are capable of thinking rationally for long periods of time. Take for instance a fallacy. There is an emotional and ethical appeal to the word. Nobody wants to be known as irrational or use a fallacy in a debate. As such it is borderline fallacious to even call out a fallacy. Explaining the meaning behind it has far less (almost infinitely less) rhetorical pull. There are hundreds of fallacies and just right now someone used something fallaciously. There is no way to police logical thought as such only logical simulation exists and simulation is never perfect. 99% of all those "intellectual" debates you hear are just full of rhetoric. Sam Harris constantly appeals to his own constructed authority constantly when he was making an argument. Just the other day he said it was "ridiculous to say Hillary Clinton is unqualified for the presidency even laughable". That is a rhetorical statement devoid of any logic or reason, but it certainly works. Who wants to get called a lightweight by the leading """""intellectual"""". The best part of this all of course is that Sam isn't even remotely decent at this.

>"ridiculous to say Hillary Clinton is unqualified for the presidency even laughable"
Wow I forgot he said this. Someone could have shut down the thread already with it.

Typical yid.

>Human "feelings" are part of the logical process
Feelings are what makes things irrational.

>You need to shed the idea that feelings are not part of logical argument.

No, for example if feelings is part of logical argument can you use feelings to determine other logical questions like 4+4? No, feelings have nothing to do with logic.

>You can be logical despite your statement being based on a false premise.

Yes, but that is not what you claimed.

The point is he is irrational, he does not understand the is/ought distinction and he is obviously less intelligent than most people. He is likely the dumbest jew who writes books in the US. it's easier to find a better jew.

At least pick someone who is able to argue using logic and who don't think that he can magically find truths by "feeling that something is true enough" maybe someone else is able to feel even harder than he does and feels a completely different conclusion. Then he is wrong... You can't base a argument that you feel it so strong that it must be true. There are people who feel that the world is flat and they feel it strongly, does that make it true for you? You are an idiot.

The YouTuber AIU is also liberal, yet I agree with him on nearly everything else.

Who?

That guy seems to have a weird crusade with pseudo doxxing and fighting against anonymity though. I agree a lot with him too, but I find that a bit disturbing.

He has a degree in brains.

Go outside dude. Not everything is a "meme" you fucking mongoloid.

because (((Sam Harris)))

Are you saying that's not Ben Stiller?

I agree with essentially everything you said, apart from where you said it contradicted me.

We are basically on the same page, I think you're just missing a part.

I'll try and explain, but I'm not great at this.


When talking about morals specifically, you have a concept that is based on "feelings". The foundation of morals, relies on conscious creatures that have feelings. Without feelings, you have no morals.

The same is true for the concept of health. Without consciousness or feelings, you have no real concept of health ( other than ability to reproduce i guess)

So lets talk about health, to make it a bit easier to grasp.

A man that is constantly bleeding and throwing up, could say "I'm healthy, no scientist could derive what i OUGHT to do, from the facts of my internal bleeding and pain".

But actually, a doctor can logically say the this man is not "healthy".

In the same way a moral doctor could state "this man is not moral".


So to sum up, science can help us increase "health", and can also help us increase "morals". They are both concepts reliant on consciousness, so you can't throw away the "feeling" part. If you do the concepts themselves break down.

Health + morals are emergent concepts, reliant on brains to exist. Science can understand brains and increase "health" + "morals" completely logically.

Yeah, like I said I agree with him on nearly everything else. Not that kind of stuff though.

He has great opinions on religion in general, blacks, muslims, SJW's, feminists, TYT, etc. though.

He's a milquetoast cuck that only talks about fucking Islam.

>Feelings are what makes things irrational.

Yes I understand that, but we're talking about a universe in which feelings logically exist. They are the basis of our concept of "health","morals", "well being" etc.

Science can tell us what more healthy, why cant it tell us what is more moral?

Yep, agreed.

>With the CRISPR genetic revolution, being tied to a static genetic IQ won't even be a thing in 20 years.

So this is the new narrative they push to make us ignore the dysgenic policies wrecking us?

It's a scam. Improving intelligence through gene editing is out there with strong AI.

I don't mind classic Liberals like him because they will at least debate you and your ideas instead of the new lib who can only shout "racist" "bigot" and "islamophobe"

He has defended nuking the middle east btw

>So this is the new narrative they push to make us ignore the dysgenic policies wrecking us?

Actually i just said that cos I watched a vid about CRISPR recently

It's not part of any (((agenda)))

Who?

Right, but I've noticed that particular argument pop up lately. It wasn't a stab at you.

There is an attempt at planting the idea that CRISPR will improve intelligence. You might've picked it up subconsciously.

>It's not part of any (((agenda)))
The agenda is to give the best gene editing to the rich elites and use it to design more obedient workers and consumers.

This, but there is more to it. They always want some utopian solution hovering just out of reach, to make us ignore our current problems.

Your entire argument is based on a false equivalency of feelings as in emotions and feelings as in a physical sense. Then you falsely equated a doctor and a moral person. The doctor's diagnosis is based on what he learned in medical school and what he learned in medical school based on real-world occurrences and plenty of cases and scientific research (which is generally the only time which human thought can be rational, but not all the time). There is no clear cut definition of morality. Many claim it's what's best for society other say it's what it's best for the individual. There has been no such doctor which capable of fully discerning what is moral and what is not. If such a being were ever to exist it would certainly look like an all-powerful cosmological force almost akin to the notion of god. Human morality all comes down to emotional feelings and that's why it will never be absolute or even in the slightest sense consistent. Morality as a concept basically exists as to what the majority feel and believe is right.

>Science can tell us what more healthy, why cant it tell us what is more moral?

Because what's moral has nothing to do with how people feel about it. Tons of people enjoy mindless violence, raping children, lust murder and that sort of thing. Sam Harris says that these people are expressing good moral behaviour by living out that freedom as long as they try to minimize pain or at least if the net enjoyment is measured to be higher.

That is the absurd conclusion of such a ideology and does not look like anything that anyone would call moral because that's not how morality is built.

>I support free speech but we should persecute people pursuing topics such as racial differences
What did he mean by this?

>we should persecute people pursuing topics such as racial differences

He never said that.

At most he said it's "questionable" why someone would focus on studying that, but he said they should be fully allowed to.

He doesn't offer any excuses for BLM. He thinks they are misguided and useless and says as much in his latest podcast. It's all about race and violence in the US.

What did you dislike about his Trump talk? It seems fairly on point to me.

>who
i don't even need to look it up, I know hes a kike just by the pic.

Well tipped, sir

If you want to talk about ethics, feelings have to be a large part of the logical foundation. Otherwise you will always arrive at nihilism.

He's right, though. It is ridiculous to say she is unqualified. It is reasonable to say that she is tremendously corrupt, but she's definitely fucking qualified.

You think I'm wrong. Why would a true intellectual ever reveal their thoughts, emotions, or goals? Secrecy is necessary. It's like you're playing a game of chess, but you decide to give your opponent 5 years of chess footage.

There is no logical way to go from observing feeling to concluding that they SHOULD be involved in morality.

It's a irrational statement completely devoid of rational thinking.

>Otherwise you will always arrive at nihilism.

That is the logical consequence of atheism. Trying to pretend otherwise and "feeling a new truth" does not actually make it true. It is not science, it is not logical and it is 100% irrational.

Even christians base their morality on something that is not 100% irrational. If you accept their premise as truth then they have some sort of objective foundation. While Sam Harris is completely devoid of it... When even christians have a better logical foundation then you are fucked.

Feelings and logic are at complete counterparts and who said nihilism is wrong? Inserting emotions and emotional appeals is quite literally no different than appealing to god for a moral compass. How does your arbitrary emotions play any part in the foundation of morals? As I've said from the beginning morals is appealing to your own self-inflated sense of worth or inherently about what 50%+ of the population feels is right.

He only defended nuking the middle east in a very specific context, though. He said that if somebody like ISIS, Boko Haram, or the Taliban gained access to nuclear weapons, we should very seriously consider a nuclear first strike.

this is my response
desu this is what his face looks like

>shilling this hard

No, it's complete and utter nonsense to suggest she is qualified. You would have to use a non-sequitur and making a very broad assumption that experience somehow equals qualifications. The fact she is corrupt is more proof that she is UNQUALIFIED. Is there a politician in the world who isn't corrupt? No, there isn't and never will be. She's known as the most corrupt wherever she has gone. Politics is all about rhetoric. If you can't convince people you're not corrupt (when literally every politician is) you're just unqualified to hold office. She has had a myriad of failures all from the Middle East to wherever. If I asked you to list 5 accomplishments she had you couldn't do it. Is there any politician who has been in the public spotlight that you cannot do that for? We only ever hear about Hillary's failures or how corrupt she is. There's also the fact that being a public servant is how the job is supposed to work and you cannot do that when you're the puppet of the elites. By that very definition she is completely unqualified for the job. She's literally the most unqualified person to ever run.

Sam then goes and uses reasons why Trump is qualified to show that he is unqualified. Being devoid or any logic or reason? It doesn't matter in politics the better the actor the better the politician. Being ignorant? He isn't ignorant, but again it doesn't matter. Trump speaking lik ea 4 year old and being a master manipulator of the media shows why he is qualified not that he isn't. It's very clear that Trump is intelligent if you trust any of the estimations of prior presidents.

That man is a fucking snake. He makes some of the most twisted, manipulative arguments on his podcast. Fucking caricature of a nefarious Jew.