Talk:Sam Harris

Trump
Added a brief section to clearly explain that Harris is a very vocal Trump opponent. This is important context because there are certain sections of the article which, if read uncharitably, could imply that Harris supports Trump, or is at the very least ambivalent to his Presidency. This couldn't be further from the truth.

Everyone and their mother, and their mother's mother, knows Sam hates Trump. He bloviates about Trump for hours on his podcast...possibly even days &mdash; Unsigned, by: 135.23.63.79 / talk

Right, the refs on this thing
So I'm dressing up the bare URLs and whatnot, but I don't actually follow this guy so I'll post requests for a bit of help here. Maybe some of you are his regular listeners/readers? If so: I'll add to this thread later as I come across stuff. If you have better refs hidden up your sleeve, let us know!
 * 1) I presume the full episodes of his podcast used to be on SoundCloud for free in the past, but now you have to be a subscriber of his to get full episodes? This link is dead. I replaced it with this, which appears to be only a sample of the full thing? Are the relevant segments we are referencing present in this partial episode? The thing is an hour long, I'm a bit too busy to be listening to all of it, but maybe his more regular listeners would know if it's good enough?
 * 2) His long ass response to controversy... I see that the date is April 4, 2013, but it was last edited July 29, 2019? Is this thing like continually edited by him? If so, is the present version a suitable reference for our article, or is there some older revision available on the Wayback Machine which would be better? Like, is the present version drastically different from the old ones? I don't know which revision was the one being referenced when this article was being written.

Ciao. - Rairyu75  ( Talk ) 22:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sam's podcast used to be free and supported by donations until about a year ago when he paywalled half of them, and retroactively limited the episodes so you can only listen to the first half unless you help him pay for his mansion. Yes, he keeps updating the response to controversy (see Internet Archive) seemingly whenever it has been criticized by mainstream publications, probably to make them look dishonest, because he's that slimy. The older version is the one that was most criticized by secondary sources before he tried to sanitize it years later and call his critics dishonest after they had direct quoted him, and you should link to the original and more controversial version. He also has in the past edited his podcasts to remove clips of things he has said, and made no note of what he has changed like when he shared an Andy Ngo video and then called BLM violent psychopaths (at the start of episode ""#162 - Medical Intelligence."), but then removed the most inaccurate section from that episode without ever acknowledging that Andy Ngo was a lying propagandist for the Alt-right and his story had been wrong. It's hard to even share the original clip from the podcast because he controls the copyright, but I have compared the two clips side by side and heard what he removed. In another instance he also removed an extended clip when one of his guests, Christian Picciolini, which criticized the white supremacist Stefan Molyneux,) and then predictably called Picciolini dishonest, as opposed to the white supremacist who has been banned from Twitter and Youtube. (Who Sam still is officially agnostic about. )


 * This is the level of dishonesty you're dealing with so always save the receipts, because you never know when Sam Harris will delete his own record to protect himself from criticism or to make his racist allies look more reasonable. He always needs to "put himself in context" by changing the record so he can still win the debate game. -191.96.121.188 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The disputed section
It's poorly written, rambles, and is excessively hyperbolic. As most regulars of the site know, I'm not opposed to articles picking a side in a debate, but also prefer they be grounded in reality and utilize decent sourcing. Apparently some people find such a low bar too much bother. My opponent can respond if they want. 18:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The source is in the second sentence, "episode 207," have you even listened to it yet? It's an accurate reflection of Harris's views if you know anything about him and his aggression. It's easy to include a URL to the podcast instead of deleting an entire paragraph and simply claiming, "poor grammar," which anyone can say while not talking about the arguments. The sections that call out his support for military and police funding should also be reflected somewhere in the article and not omitted. I don't care about the exact words used. I do think its excessive how you reacted to a new edit that added a new sentence by removing the existing section. If you didn't like the sentence about how Fox News endorsed that episode then you should have just undone that, I admit it was tacked on at the end. 191.96.121.188 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course you don't care for the finer details of actually writing the damned article. As for the latest edit, that's what brought the section to my attention, whereupon I read entire section from start to finish, realized there was fuck all to salvage without a complete rewrite, and then acted accordingly. If you think the section had a point buried under that hyperbole (it did, I fully acknowledged that even as I deleted it), then rewrite the damned thing. But don't whine at me like a child and accuse me of wanting to delete the entire page (I don't) or accusing me of being upset by the section (only in the sense that the writing was poor). As for the accuracy of the section, it conflates Liberalism with leftism, had only one source, minus timestamps, before the latest round of hyperbole, includes the jaw-droppingly cartoonish lines "He is a master of dog-whistling and passing off his love of authoritarianism as just an impartial exploration of the ideas as long as he speaks in a calm voice and uses the right SAT words." and "Many liberals have been persuaded by his soft-spoken voice that resembles a Buddhist monk into thinking he is more enlightened than most" and was (again) overall rambling and hyperbolic.  18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m with GrammarCommie on this one. There could be a section written about his views on the police, but this isn’t it. Christopher (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * " it conflates Liberalism with leftism,"
 * The point is that Sam Harris calls himself a liberal (in the American sense where he is from,) but takes conservative/reactionary positions. Sure, you can easily argue a lot of liberals oppose BLM and want law and order, and aren't really left, but I think you can tell by looking at the evidence that Harris isn't even actually a liberal. "He is a master of dog-whistling and passing off his love of authoritarianism as just an impartial exploration of the ideas as long as he speaks in a calm voice and uses the right SAT words." But do you honestly think he doesn't do? Again, have you not listened to the episode which was praised on Fox News and heard how he spent most of it defending the cops and calling for more funding while calming attacking BLM, and the left, and denying that systemic racism still exists? Do you disagree with any of this? This man defends Charles Murray, but have you listened to his episode on BLM and not thought he made any dog-whistles to the far-right?


 * I don't mind rewriting some parts for brevity, but I don't think I should rewrite everything that you are pointing out, and don't think the lines you object to are hyperbole once you understand how the man operates. I'm not even sure if that's his natural voice, and not something he cultivated after being impressed by the hypnotic tones of the meditation gurus who use tricks to convince students they're holding the secrets of the universe. There should be a new section also on how meditation hasn't worked for him, and has seemingly only made him more conceded and incapable of changing his mind, which he is poor at doing even when he was offered $10,000 to change his mind on at least one thing. 191.96.121.188 (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at this section. Notice the phrasing, wikilinks, tone, sourcing for all assertions involving the article's focus, and the fact that you can clearly follow the writer's line of thinking. Notice also that it doesn't alternate between "this person is ignorant" and "this person is dishonest". Now, compare it to the disputed section as well as your own comments. Firstly, in the linked example multiple sources were used, and where possible, the subjects own words were used to prove they said what they said. Wikilinks are used to steer the reader towards subjects that would have required massive asides to explain. There's clear linearity, and the narrative is easily checked by using the sources provided. Personal attacks are avoided, and instead the best faith effort is made to steel man all parties. If the primary author had linked video sources, its likely said author would have included timestamps to make sure the reader can follow along, while also making sure said author can (again) be fact checked if needed. In short, The author tries to adhere to Rapoport's Rules and similar criteria as much as possible. The disputed section does none of these things. 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

PhD
I just want to comment that having a PhD (in neuroscience or anything else) doesn't absolve someone from making Alt-Right arguments or being as stupid as Ben Carson. So insisting on adding the sentence that Harris's arguments are better than Trump because he has a degree that Trump doesn't have doesn't carry any weight and is also a fallacy. The article as it stands shows that he is frequently very poor at logic or doing accurate research once you look past his rhetorical devices and even tone.47.145.117.203 (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. It's just that Trump is not really like anyone, much less Harris. Trump is a true stupid person, whose only talent is enslaving other stupid people. Unfortunately, the people who make such comparisons are really not all that smart. Comparing Harris to Trump just makes Trump look better than he is. Get it? This is all about Trump, not Harris. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, Ben Carson doesn't have a PhD. The guy who wrote the article making the oomparison, Phil Torres, doesn't have one either. Just another writer trying to make a buck. Also, calling out someone for not having credentials is not a fallacious argument. It is a statement of fact. Uncredentialled people have no authority, is the point. Ariel31459 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article you're referring to makes the case that the difference between Harris and Trump is that Trump says the silent part out loud. Harris often frames an argument in the words and language that you'd hear from the Alt-right, such emphasizing that black people, brown people, immigrants, (and especially Muslims) are violent, but he stops an inch short of saying the racist stuff after making sure to carefully lead the listener to the point that they'll reach the conclusion he wants. Those conclusions are invariably edgy, sadistic and illiberal. He often then publishes his violent or nativist conclusions in other mediums so they can fly under the radar of casual critics that don't know what he is doing, knowing full well that his listeners will hunt for and find out what his real conclusions are.


 * What conclusions has he drawn before that would align him with reactionary politics? If you had read the article you've edited you'd know, but I'll recap.


 * He concluded talking about the George Floyd protests by demanding more funding for more policing and training that would allow (bad) cops to be even deadlier in black neighborhoods, and that the protesters needed to just go home and trust the cops more. ("Can We Pull Back From the Brink?") He concluded through a decade that we should do everything possible to make it difficult for Muslims to immigrate to western countries while keeping them under constant surveillance and "ethnic profiling" up to the point of re-instituting segregation at airports. "In Defense of Profiling" & "To Profile or Not to Profile?") This would lead to taking away more rights elsewhere later), and would also make explicit racism officially part of policing and the legal system. He straight up wrote "In Defense of Torture," to steer the public conversation to be more accepting of torturing Muslims at Guantanamo Bay. (Which would set precedent to easily torture other scary and dangerous enemies of the state.) He concluded the US should tip its finger in religious favoritism by discriminating against Muslims and not other religious groups so that they wouldn't build a new mosque in Manhatten (even though that the government is not to prohibit religion under the 1st and 14th Amendments.) These are all hard-line positions he has advocated and they're the kind of fascistic positions that you wouldn't be surprised to hear garnering support from Trump, the John Birch society, or a neoconservative from the War on Terror era.


 * Harris's PhD could be relevant to bring up if he were speaking in his field, but his podcast normally is about current events, politics, and the culture war. It's sad that many people take the political views of a neuroscience major (who is not even a neuroscientist) and elevate them over the opinions of historians, criminologists, and so forth that are much better informed than he is just because he has a PhD in something else. He also thinks he knows better than them because he mediates, is deeply in touch with his mind-body connection, and knows woo-woo. (I couldn't have made this up.) 47.145.117.203 (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it's pretty weak section anyway. It's further muddied by the fact that Harris' PhD isn't a real one - it was conferred by a University that's infamous for handing over PhDs to anyone with the money and the public profile (as happens too often, graduate students and post-docs so all the actual work, and someone attaches their name at the end). Using Harris an example of a credentialled individual in contrast to a know-nothing doesn't really work because what Harris holds is basically only one step above an honorary degree from a for-profit college. Queexchthonic murmurings 21:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * UCLA is a diploma mill? First I've heard of it. Let's just say that is a minority opinion. You can believe what you want to believe I suppose. I support eliminating the entire section.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a diploma mill as a whole, but apparently quite free with doctorates when the right people with the right money come asking. I don't doubt significant work was done by Harris, just that it approached the amount of work a PhD generally demands. Annoyingly I can't remember where I read about the problem so I can't link to a discussion. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The search for such is not made easier by the results being chock full of angry theists and angrier Harris fanboys spouting gibberish. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found a few sententious online items aimed at Harris. So far, they have been by persons with fewer real credentials than him. At the end of the day we all make judgements about the intelligence of the people we are want to critique. Harris seems smart enough to me, and educated to a fair degree. But I always want to learn more, when there is more to learn. It perplexes me that some are taken aback to learn educated people are often wrong, especially when they venture outside of their area of expertise. Some distinguished academics think Harris is quite capable for some reason.. I sometimes think Harris is autistic. That may be why I prefer accuracy to ridicule. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * One criticism I have found that I can't disagree with is that you can't call someone a neuroscientist when they don't do any neuroscience any more. Science is a process, after all. That seems like a bigger rewrite of what we have in the article than what's at issue, though. I confess I find it very hard to be charitable to Harris when so much of what he says is complete bollocks and he's never shown any inclination to admit when he's been wrong. Queexchthonic murmurings 00:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * With the PhD section removed is it safe to agree that Sam Harris promoting Charles Murray's arguments as scientifically true are an alt-right talking point, and that spreading this sort of disinformation is something Trump would do?47.145.117.203 (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Project Reason
Project Reason died without accomplishing anything of significance, and in hindsight it appears to have just been one of Harris's early brand-building hustles and possibly a money-laundering scheme. I remember when it was being hyped up as a sort of atheist encyclopedia meets the early Intellectual Dark Web, but it didn't materialize and didn't become relevant before Harris quietly closed it. I would suggest pruning the section to a sentence or two and keeping a hyperlink to the separate article on it for details because it already exists. 47.145.117.203 (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Solidarity versus apology.
I suggest replacing the term "solidarity" with the term "apology." The reasons are obvious enough. Harris clearly apologizes or, tries to point out possible ambiguities in the cases given in the article. While he is certainly not a lawyer, he appears to be an advocate for these mostly disreputable people. That is not the same as solidarity, meaning he is in full support of their points of view or agendas. I think that the fact that he would bother to apologize for those people is troubling and raises doubts as to what his motives may be. However, to be in solidarity with someone is usually over stating the case. "Solidarity" is almost always used in a political context, which is not really apparent here, except to suggest that Harris is a supporter of right wing people and illiberal ideas. Thus the section spins Harris' rhetoric as necessarily in support of extremists. One could likewise spin it as an effort to moderate the sense of panic with which leftists view those on the right acting as social advocates (sometimes as public intellectuals). I am not trying to spin it that way either. He sometimes is an apologist for people we regard as so inexplicably wrong-headed, we use our modern synonyms for "evil" to describe them. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with that word substitution.47.145.115.178 (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Other appropriate terms would also be "go to bat for" and "carrying water" etc. Granting unreasonable amounts of benefit of doubt, granting unwarranted weight etc. It's not a strongly committed position that "solidarity" suggests either. 01:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)