Sharing Reality: A Conversation with Jonathan Rauch and Josh Szeps (Episode
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Sam Harris speaks with Jonathan Rauch and Josh Szeps about the foundations of knowledge and the fragmentation of society. They discuss the state of the mainstream media, diversity of viewpoints, the "reality-based" community, what Covid did to our information landscape, the Overton window and the news value of controversial stories, the unique challenge of Trump and Trumpism, the dangers of a second Trump term, the problem of immigration and controlling the southern border of the U.S., and other topics.
Jonathan Rauch, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, is the author of eight books and many articles on public policy, culture, and government. He is a contributing writer for The Atlantic and recipient of the 2005 National Magazine Award, the magazine industry’s equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. His latest book, published in 2021 by the Brookings Press, is The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth, a spirited and deep-diving account of how to push back against disinformation, canceling, and other new threats to our fact-based epistemic order.
Website: www.jonathanrauch.com
Twitter: @jon_rauch
Related Link: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/arc...
Josh Szeps is an independent journalist. In New York City he was a founding host of HuffPost Live, the multi-award-winning streaming talk network, where he hosted thousands of hours of live TV with the world’s biggest names. In his native Australia, he hosted a national morning television show and had a talk radio show on the public broadcaster, ABC Radio. Josh left legacy media to focus on having bullshit-free conversations about provocative issues on his own platform, Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps, a podcast, live events operation, and CZcams channel.
Website: bit.ly/UC_substack
Twitter: @joshzepps
January 23, 2024
SUBSCRIBE to gain access to all full-length episodes of the podcast at samharris.org/subscribe/ OR become a channel member to access episodes on CZcams. For those who can't afford the full subscription price, we offer full and partial scholarships www.samharris.org/subscribe/s...
Subscribe to the YT channel: czcams.com/users/subscription_c...
Follow Making Sense on Twitter: / makingsensehq
Follow Sam on Facebook: / samharrisorg
Follow Sam on Instagram: / samharrisorg
For more information about Sam Harris: www.samharris.org - Věda a technologie
A MUST READ QUOTE from Jonathan Rauch towards the end of the full episode which unfortunately did not make it here, but which I believe is one of the best formulated possible blueprints of a Trump presidency:
SH: What is signified by the phrase, the end of democracy as we know it, as we know it part? What are you actually imagining?
JR: Well, I can be very specific. There's lots of elements of that. There's, for example, the use of pardons to immunize people against wrongdoing. But what I mean by that specifically
is the open defiance of court orders and the ability to get away with that politically.
SH: Do you expect that he would leave after four years?
JR: Well, I don't know.
SH: You imagine our institutions are so weak that even that could unravel? That there wouldn't be a 2028 election?
JR: Yeah, sure. It could unravel. Robert Kagan had a widely read article in The Washington Post saying here's how we could get to Mussolini under Trump. But I don't think we go to Mussolini. I think the model is Victor Orbán in Hungary. And we know that because they're telling us, right? The right is having conferences over there celebrating the Victor Orbán model. So we don't have to guess. So I think the way it happens is this: first thing he does is sign an executive order implementing something he tried to do in his first term, which is schedule federal appointees. And that turns a lot of civil service jobs into jobs that serve at the pleasure of the president. And that allows him to replace 30,000 to 50,000 top civil servants with loyalists. That gets some foot-draggers out of the way. And it means a lot of people are indebted to him for their jobs.
Then he goes through the military, and he makes a bunch of appointments to ensure that sympathizers won't do what Mark Milli did. He goes through the Justice Department and does the same thing. So Jeffrey Clark, or the equivalent, is acting attorney general. He doesn't care if they get Senate confirmation, because he'll simply put in acting appointees. He did that in his first term. He told us he liked it. The Senate proved it was toothless to stop that. So he's now suborned most of the government. He's turned the Justice Department, the FBI and so on into organs that can prosecute or persecute at will. People are afraid of them, even if they don't actually get targeted. He's done all that. And then along comes, you know, it's six months, seven, eight months, and along comes a court order that he doesn't agree with. Maybe it involves, I don't know, the border wall, or unappropriation, or maybe the Supreme Court says, look, you've had your temporary appointees in for too long. You have to send them up to the Hill for Senate confirmation or remove them, because that's what the law says. And he says, well, no, I don't feel like it, and tells his appointees to go to work as normal, and tells the civil service in the Justice Department, or wherever the appointee is, just do your job. This guy's in charge. What happens next? Well, if there's a large majority in Congress, they could try to cut off the appropriations for the Justice Department until he straightens this out. Do you think that's going to happen? Very unlikely. You could have thunderous denunciations by Democrats on Capitol Hill, and the members of mainstream media, Joe, Josh, and John, and Sam. Do you think he cares about thunderous denunciations? I think he doesn't. You could have repercussions like people worrying that if they help him in defying court orders, their law licenses, or worse, their actual criminal records, they could, well, that they could lose their licenses to practice law, for example, or in fact go to jail. That will slow him down a bit. There will be resignations, but he'll replace those people, and he will have the pardon. He'll be able to tell people,
if you do what I tell you to, you can't be prosecuted under federal law. He's already said he would pardon the so-called hostages. So now we're in a situation where he's telling the Supreme Court, I won't follow this order. Meanwhile, the Republican Party, the, for example, maybe I shouldn't single them out, but the Senator Lindsey Grahams of the world, who are very bright people, are spinning a lot of arguments on, well, why he's really not defying a court order, why he has the right to do what he's doing in this case, why it's constitutionally supported, why the Supreme Court is nine people in robes, who should not be governing this country, why the Unitary Executive Doctrine does not give him that authority, why this was a 6:3 or 5:4 court decision. So it's really just all politicized. You can, you guys can spin this stuff out by the yard, as well as I can. So you'll have this spin machine in the media and in the Republican Party, backing him up and saying, what he's doing is in fact fine, he's defending our democracy and so forth. He'll defy another court order on a different subject. After a while, when it's clear three or four times that he can do this, it begins to be normalized, right? We've seen this pattern again and again. Sam and John and Josh continue to be shocked by this. And we keep saying, how can this be happening in the country we love? But most of the country is realizing that life doesn't change all that much. Gas prices don't go up if the president defies the Supreme Court. And in fact, they don't even know who to believe about whether he is defying the Supreme Court. So after six months or eight months to a year of this, the party that backs down, I think, is the Supreme Court, because it realizes it loses its authority, its legitimacy, if it's issuing orders and no one is following them. So it begins to curtail its behavior in order to accommodate the president. And now we're in Hungary. Now we have a president who has figured out how to game the rule of law in order to subvert checks and balances and the rule of law. So you tell me, what is unrealistic about that scenario and if the chief executive can defy the Supreme Court, does that mean the end of our liberal democracy, our rule of law as we know it?
Frightening.
Thanks for transcribing dude. Honestly, I want to send this audio clip to everyone I know. To arm them to respond when they get asked ‘why are you being so hysterical? How can we lose our democracy?’
The problem with John's theory is that there was no reason why he couldn't have decided to flout Scotus in his first term, but he didn't. I don't think this will be convincing to anyone who doesn't already view Trump as an existential threat.
Also the idea that Lindsey Graham of all people would act as the primary legitimizing mouthpiece for trump is just comical
Thank you for transcribing this. I'm a libertarian/conservative (not republican), and someone who feels the liberal lunacy has gone completely off the rails. That said, this sounds truly frightening. I'm in my 60s and this is truly the worst set of presidential choices I've seen in my lifetime.
Josh Szeps is an Australian national treasure ❤
May everyone everywhere be free, happy, and safe. 💙🙏
Except Putin. He stole Russia’s future of being humanities gateway to the stars for his personal power.
Imagine if military funds had been loaded into dominating the space industry. Spacex might be a Russian company today.
yes, abolish the government.
Oh Jesus, I get so excited when I see a new Sam Harris video, I feel like I’m 16 again and waiting for Miami Vice to come on
The music is different but the same.
This is the Miami Virtue podcast.
A good analogy
This is so funny
@@daheikkinen ppp
Sam (or anybody close to him), if you see this, the second half of this episode is not only worthy of being a PSA, it would be negligent not to make it so. The domino-by-domino scenario Jonathan sketches is the best takedown of Trumpism I've heard come from this podcast. It's persuasive and doesn't have nearly the biased undertone that many a Trump supporter rightly or wrongly picks up.
Exactly how I felt when the podcast suddenly stopped after 40ish minutes. I must hear the rest!
@@saviormoney. It's very appropriate, seeing as how it is a cult.
I actually came here after listening to the whole podcast just to see if it was released in its entirety for everyone. More than worthy of a PSA!
@@saviormoney. If you think its not a cult, consider for a moment there is not a single critique one could make of Trump that wouldn't have you triggered to the rafters- in your mind anyone who doesn't support him is simply a CNN watching libtard. And your ilk are a dime a dozen. That makes it a cult, for all intents and purposes (in fairness, so are BLM supporters, etc. but two wrongs dont make a right)
You shold avoid sharp objects
Thanks Sam!
Great discussion!
I'm a subscriber and listened to the full podcast. Very informative and articulate as usual for Sam and his guests. However, I didn't like that the border crisis was given short shrift towards the end of the episode, with one of your guests (I forget if it was Josh or Jon) speaking to it a bit but admitting along with Sam that it was perplexing that Biden/dems wouldnt just take action there and shore up a gaping hole in their favorability which has broad public consensus. And then it's just sort left to dangle there. The border crisis is, at minimum, one of the two most pressing matters we need to tend to (the other being the geopolitical situation vis-a-vis Russia/Israel/Taiwan/NK). Many folks, including moderate dems, tend to chalk this up to fishing for future voters (provided that a path to legality/voting rights is subsequently provided in the short- to mid-term); I don't believe that holds water, however, for a number of reasons - not least of which that hundreds of thousands are being bused and flown into blue cities which were never in any danger of turning red to begin with. I believe that there is some other agenda at play here, possibly far more sinister (e.g. destablization of the country/economy, infiltration of military/cartel/terrorist elements etc.) that hasn't yet come into full focus. However, it is patently obvious that, were there not some overriding agenda, the dem establishment would have zero reason to not take decisive action here to garner a win simply for political expediency. That's how you know. Sometimes the answers are right in front of you, but they may be uncomfortable to confront. So to me the question is not why the President and dems haven't taken action - it is obvious that it's because there is an agenda here that is not strictly humanitarian in nature - but rather "what is the end game"? "Refugees" and "asylees" actually used to actually have strict legal definitions which were adhered to - these people are not fleeing Pol Pot or Saddam, nor do they appear malnourished. Do many/most of them come from more impoverished countries than America? Sure, but so does 70+% of the world - that doesnt mean we can or should absorb all those folks. This crisis presents enormous national security, personal security (due to the fact that a large percentage of these folks - at minimum 15-25% were criminals in their home countries), economic, and cultural risks, particularly given the speed at which we have been asked to absorb 9M+ illegals in less than 3 years, with basically ZERO vetting in place. It is high time this issue be front and center and not an afterthought.
Well said re the immigration issue. Josh and Sam seemed to have left the thoughts on it to Jonathan, and not surprisingly he gave the excuse that “it’s complicated” and it’s the republican’s fault.
@@rcrosby9 Jonathan did say that the Biden administration might be wary of the courts because they said Obama overstepped his authority when dealing with immigration issues. Josh said Biden and the Democrats can and should make the case that the US should know who is crossing the border and even if they succeed, it’s not a license to remain indefinitely. Other countries in Europe and his native Australia are considered liberal democracies but have strict immigration policies and enforcement. A more sensible argument would preclude far right moral ground with voters.
I went to Sam's site to hear the whole podcast, which later gets super deep/powerful/sad with Rauch painting the most realistic yet grim portrait of what could be expected in a second DJT White House. I've never heard anyone forecast any details or break it down domino by domino of how easily the elimination of a liberal western democracy could happen. Well worth the listen, but chilling and super sad.
It's wild how we're in 2024 and DJT haters still don't see how democrats and the media began this nonsense when they tried to overturn the 2016 election with a made up Russian collusion witch hunt. It's nonsense like this which makes sane people with functional pattern recognition ability move toward the right.
Thank you for this information and interesting discussion. 😊
@@PoetlaureateNFDLmy pleasure 😊.
Watch out for appealing stories.
Lol the melodrama on the left about Trump is legit so funny.
Hey babe, he was already president. It wasn’t that bad. He’ll have four more years, he’ll finish the wall, he’ll excise Wokeness in the military and that’s about it. Foreign powers will take the president seriously again. Jihadists will be less inclined to kill innocents.
And then he’ll leave after 4 years and talk a lot of shit.
So please relax. Because no sane normal person is buying the “dictator wah wah” crap anymore. You’ve been trying that for 8 years and it hasn’t worked.
Great episode
Amazing thank you
I have a bone to pick with the statement on the university presidents. Gay didn’t say that “context matters” with regard to court protected free speech. She said it in the context of calling for the genocide of Jews. Active calls to violence are not protected speech. Additionally, targeted harassment of a protected class must surely be part of Harvard’s student code of conduct. This isn’t a claim like, “Israel should not exist as a s state.” Though the logical conclusion of that speech would be genocide, it is not explicitly a call to violence. Again, her response wasn’t to that kind of nebulous language. Though one might uncharitably ascribe the phrase “dog whistle” to such language, and one might also use the same phrase to describe her response.
This full-length episode goes from really good to absolutely amazing. The conversational maturity makes listening to these guys so easy. I love how they're all incredibly well-read and intelligent, yet they all ask for each other's opinions once they're finished expressing their opinions. Incredible content and devastating analysis of a 2nd Trump term. We need at least a once-a-quarter episode with these guys.
I like Mr Sammy H but I was shocked at the lack of content or information in this podcast (even the full version).
It was basically an conversational agreement between three members of “the elite”/educated/academic class lamenting the changing of the times and the death of Mainstream media influence as if it were the last Buffalo that had been hunted and killed on the western plains, or a faithful but now obsessed typewriter.
While I agree with much of the sentiment expressed here the sheer inability to correctly label and diagnose the utter failure of Media, politics, Government and “official” sources to the give accurate responsible information and offer political change to the classes of economically stagnant people who feel they have little to no representation within the current power structures or anything to gain by maintaining them seems to be an oversight that’s indicative of the entire problem currently faced by western democracy.
In my humble observation the information landscape to which they almost could be said to reminisce about is well and truly GONE and no more can the genie be put back inside the bottle than can the dead tree continue to grow roots..
The catastrophic failure and betrayal of the last few years have not only lubricated the wheels of change and set them into motion, but well and truly stoked the engines of the dispossessed who are collectively deciding that they do not like the so called “reality” of the “reality based community” and are therefor seeking other arrangements.
Again I echo their concerns for the future but I find the lack of understanding and engagement with a zeitgeist that for me as an average individual is so palpable and viscerally observable in the day to day lives and opinions of many “ordinary people” I know a prompt to question the diversity of opinions Sam actually has access to within his own bubble or at least this conversation.
The Australian guy hit the mark a few times and yet the conversation was carried downstream with mere limp wristed sentiment, foreboding and nostalgia and I am personally of the opinion that in a world of ever manifesting chaos it is this exact kind of lacklustre response that is sending a significant amount of the population to find other more concrete, binary or adaptive solutions to the problems faced..
Anyway thank you for the podcast Sam.
I reckon we need to start going to community gatherings in some kind of secular version of religion. I'm sure there are plenty of ways to make it engaging for people so they actually value showing up, as well as enabling necessary engagement on sensemaking, consensus building, and like a bunch of other really important and seriously neglected areas. It seems tough because we all know people are complicated, but I really think this is the beginning of so many solutions for societal problems which are only going to continue to grow and disrupt a positive trajectory into the future
Wow secularists are halfway towards circling back to Christianity, amazing.
@@DB-sd3cw but not because of the Christian truth claims that many of us secularists think are totally unbelievable
We have secular religion, its called "Buddhism" i.e. the best, truest, and most advanced 'religion' (except aesthetically, where Christianity remains the undisputed champion). The issue with your idea is that for most, the most tempting aspect of religion is the promise of continuation of ego after death: the alleviation of death anxiety. In other words, its the delusion that gets people in the door, while non-deluded secular religion has always been niche as a matter of course
@@user-io6eq9gt6w All just needs some more pazzaz! I actually think there's a lot that could be offered in our modern context with a different vibe to Buddhism. I agree that ego and death anxiety are big parts of what draw people in, but I think there seriously neglected aspects of people's life which they would really appreciate having connection to again.
AA fits the bill?
Sam, please do another episode on Generic Subjective Continuity. It should be as or more popular than the free will controversy.
I second that motion😊
all in favor... yay!
He definitely should
Would love to see that also
When will you have Norman Finkelstein in your podcastistan?
Mr. Harris has learned to not have people on that make him look the fool in their area of expertise e.g. Noam Chomsky, Ezra Klein. Having Finkelstein on would weaken Harris' already weak reputation beyond recovery.
Hear hear. Harris only enjoys the company of his fellow apologists for the slaughter of children.
@@user-pj1cg5qy3n Ezra Klein doesn't really have an area of expertise besides health care, but he is incredibly well-spoken like Sam and quick on his feet.
@@kg356 Klein knew everything there was to know about Charles Murray including his background, writings, academic career, status, social impact etc while Harris knew only what he thought he needed to spin and impose his narrative on Klein when he had him on. He even admitted as much to Klein insisting that anything Klein brought up (beyond the one book of Murray's he had read part of) about Murray as being irrelevant.
The encounter with Chomsky (50 + years of geopolitical experience) was even more embarrassing.
Knowledge is knowing a lot of facts. Wisdom is knowing which are important.
refreshing & grounding perspectives provided here
Thank you Sam!
The full version on his website is quite sobering when they touch down on Trumps likely dismissal of the Supreme Court. I recommend checking it out.
@@saviormoney. What won’t happen? You don’t think Trump will dismiss the Supreme Court if he’s elected again? We’d be lucky if he did? I think it’d be a huge detriment if he’s elected and dismisses one of their rulings, thus normalizing ignoring them.
@@saviormoney. You’ve deleted your previous comments. This took a cynical turn- anyway, I enjoyed the full pod, good day.
@@saviormoney. So accurate you were embarrassed and deleted all your comments? 😂🤦🏻 Sure thing big guy. I would’ve deleted that nonsense too, seems like you’re growing a little. 👍
Muh "sobering." @jaggerlags, you live in Fantasyland.
@@press.agency6475 Woah, a real live “muh” guy! Are you like a “meh” guy but cooler? Could you please show me reality?! 🫣 I only live in Fantasyland so I’m lost and need your help!
Engineering, industrial, pharmaceutical, agricultural, medical, surgical, military. All vast professional areas of the "reality-based" community you might think might get a mention beyond lawyers, journalists, government civil servants and academics. Do they even know there are working environments where the need for "reality" is so high that mobile phones and social media are banned? No they are just the visible icing on the world's reality cake and perhaps not quite as important to it as they might imagine.
There can be a way to break bias in social media and reduce the power of people with large followers to influence opinion on social media platforms.
Similar to comments section, we can add a views (viewpoints or connections or context) section -
Where anyone can add any view related to the post and people can like and react to the view just like the post.
Context 1/ #keyword combo : specific context to the post in limited words like in twitter
Context 2 :
Most important part of the context section could be checking the balance b/w different context as a percentage or in a pie chart. This distribution could tell if the discussion is biased or balanced, majorititarian view or nuanced. Multiple inferences could be drawn from the distribution of context, views, sides or connections.
"Babe, wake up, a new Harris podcast just dropped"
Diversity of opinions and not skin color. This makes many people freak out .
David Brooks has been the reasonable conservative voice on PBS (Fridays) for decades. Excellent discussion, guys.
"Reasonable conservative" unfortunately often seems to mean someone that doesn't challenge the status quo or disagree with Democrats too much.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 It's important to challenge the staus quo when it's seriously messed up and has substantial room for improvement. But if it isn't done in a principled manner it tends to create at least as many problems as it solves. Regardless of the side that you're on. Also, I suggest doing a CZcams search for David Brooks, give him a listen, and then get back to me.
Jonathan Rauch lives in the olden days. Great talk, but he comes off as disconnected from 2024
My little brother is a journalist in meteorologist for a local news station He's trying to get into a bigger market and his literally been told four times even though he is gay he's still a white man that looks straight and they need a person of color to meet their diversity I mean it's literally right in there emails back to him. It's quite literally the case that probably the only way he'll get a job in a top market will to be trans. Not only that but two times one time we got fired and the other time he didn't but girls at the station accused him of misconduct even though he's gay and didn't want to touch the girl with a 10-ft pole and had lots of voicemails and text message from them flirting with him even after they made the claim. So yes I think these institutions are quite corrupted and extremely biased politically to the left.
Sounds like these institutions need more leftism to be honest
Only one company owns more tv stations in the united states than The Sinclair Broadcast Group, who might as well change their name to MAGA Broadcast Group. But it's the other guys spewing all that propaganda, amirite? czcams.com/video/_fHfgU8oMSo/video.htmlsi=O6_8O0uWKALsJ6aI
And the company that owns more stations than everyone else? The name escapes me but I do remember the name of the network they just launched a couple years ago (News Nation).
These two companies are the mainstream media in this country. But yeah, it's the democrats fault.
@@Milkmans_Son And the people who work for those companies? All Jews who hate white people. Hilarious you think legacy media is rightwing though. Literally delusional. For real, for real.
He stated the problem right off the bat. Trying to form a valuable story on such short deadlines! The incentive structure of traditional journalism is completely off. These long-form conversations should replace all the news.
'Separating sports by Sex Doesn't Make Sense' actual Atlantic article. Stuff like this undermines these 'expert' opinions 100%.
The Democratic system can only be 'True and Just' as the citizens are for 'stepping up' in being 'good for it.' Society is reflected by the values of the people.
See debate about trusting mainstream media with Michelle Goldberg, Douglas Murray Malcolm Gladwell
One of the guests on 27.7min of the podcast talks about lack of the diversity opinion in tribal information centers,, well - Sam has fallen in same trap, - very little daylight beetween him and his guests on most of his episodes, and that's the problem!!! While I am on opposite side of spectrum from PBD Valutainment guys - they bring guests who they vehemently disagree, and in that sense they give more value than this boring echo chamber where I agree with most of it, and therefore it would be not very wise to record myself and then listen to it, and then subscribe and pay for it,, imagine?
PBD doesn't provide value besides viral clips of them yelling at each other and the guest
2 journalists whining about how hard journalism is and therefore gatekeeping the truth from us plebs who dare to listen to podcasts.
We are in an "emotional reactions only" time in history
I dunno, these guys are fairly educated also.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers you think I'm criticizing the podcast? Sigh....
@@erinwilliams8797 You should be criticizing it.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers self awareness isn't your thing, is it?
Sounds exactly like Sam Harris and the majority of the anti-trump cult
Great conversation
Is it ironic that in a podcast that stresses diversity of viewpoint as one of the essential 3 pillars of the Constitution of knowledge, the three speakers are so ideologically similar? Why did Sam go through the trouble of bringing on a co-host just to choose his ideological twin? How often does Sam invite guests with whom he disagrees being that disagreement is essential to knowledge?
Yeah there's a paradox in their thinking on the issue where disagreement is necessary as you say, but at the same time it's nearly impossible to have productive conversations when you can't agree on the facts. Unfortunately we're in a situation where ideological differences tend to create intractable disagreements about facts.
We're also in a situation where popular political figures have such wildly differing ideologies that they may not have the same values (e.g., preserving democracy or free speech) which also makes conversation much more difficult.
Sam has proven over the years that he doesn't handle these ideological differences well and often resorts to insults and maligning the motives of his political opponents. He's best just sticking to guests who he largely agrees with politically.
Also i think the main reasons he wanted a co-host is that he really enjoys Josh Szeps and he's dealing with a respiratory illness as he mentioned at the start.
Yeah, as soon as I finished hearing the descriptions of the two guests, I was wondering why you would have two people on at the same time that I'm betting agree on most things.
18:24 - the NYT still has its values in tact?
Complete delusion.
"Two days of fact checking at the Atantic" ?
I like how he says the media MUST produce truth 😂😂😂😂😂
I'm a pretty big Curtis Yarvin fan, even though I don't actually agree with him. If Sam ever had Yarvin on this show, the planets would align, and I could retire from YT.
That would be a great episode, but I can't see Sam taking on that much risk, he's got it pretty much made in the shade, why rock the boat?
I get tired of the phrase legacy media. It’s meant to diminish it in some way, as if podcasters are the only ones who can be trusted now.
That’s clearly your interpretation. However most people think legacy is good and venerable.
it has diminished itself.
We don’t have to slander legacy media to diminish it, it diminishes itself by its own merits or lack thereof
I do not think it makes a difference how intelligent or how smart humans are, there are also strong disagreements among academics and there is also depraved, nefarious and criminal behaviour among the most intelligent among us. When it comes to competing for power status and money, kindness, fairness, honesty and morality are usually left behind and forgotten.
Criminality and low intelligence very reliably correlate and attitudes like fairness and honesty reliably correlate with high intelligence as well.
@@NoFeckingNamesLeft OK, I will accept that. I was pointing out that when it comes to competing for power, status and money, criminal, immoral and evil behavior is also common among the brightest and most intelligent among us.
@@Danny_6Handfordyeah, positions of power and fame will filter for a somewhat narrow combination of (relatively) intelligent and power-hungry / dark triad, in part simply because virtuous people wil be restricted by their principles and thus disadvantaged when up against machiavellians. We don't have accurate examples of typical very highly intelligent people because they are not famous.
@@NoFeckingNamesLeft
Would you consider any of these people highly intelligent?
Stalin
Hitler
Hirohito
Mussolini
Pol Pot
Mao Zedong
Al Capone
Pablo Escobar
El Chapo.
Ayatollah Khomeini
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden
Berni Madoff
Sam Bankman Fried
Jeffrey Epstien
Trump
Putin
Thanks very much for this truly frightening discussion. I wonder how the media (especially the media I love) will respond to a trump/Hungary-styled autocracy. What will I do? At 74 years old (son of a fascist fighter in the US Navy) I think of giving up listening to all news. If anyone reads this comment, please respond to this question. I think I need some advice!
Good Job Jonathan, Sam and Josh.
You are 74 and Trump makes you quake in your boots?
The fear is for the way of our country I was raised to believe in. Fear of what the angry and sadness would do to me. I am not sure where I said quake, but whatever.
What is your point? DO you have a question? @@user-gy1pu3gq3d
This conversation is surreal and I'm only 30 minutes in...how can these people believe these things, in 2024? 😮
How can you type that in 2024 without realizing that no one can tell what you're talking about?
@@Malt454 I am talking about the phenomenon where genuinely intelligent (on a relative scale) people can collectively fail at accurate discernment. It is especially mind boggling considering Sam's background in neuroscience, meditation, psychedelics, etc....you would think he'd learn that how things seem are not always how they are.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers - What I'm talking about is just that you make these claims about Harris without giving any examples/evidence, as if your POV is somehow self evident, when it certainly isn't to me. If you don't have the inclination to make your case, how can anyone judge your conclusions?
@@Malt454 I've made some more specific claims throughout the comments. The number one problem with these fellows, and most humans, is they do not distinguish between facts and opinions when speaking, and the majority of their claims here are opinions. NO WONDER so many people are confused!!
@@JohnnyTwoFingers- People are probably far more confused by your repeated claims about Harris without examples/evidence, which you consistently refuse to provide, and they're probably not going to search the comments to see if you can actually provide an argument instead of just a claim anywhere because you're just not that important. Certainly I have no interest in doing any such searches.
You provide opinions without anything to back them up, so you've seen the enemy and you are it... except that you don't see it. Just food for thought.
'There is only one reality based community" well demonstrates how in over his head Sam is here.
the irony is Johnathan even talked about the big problem of lack of diversity of opinions while having a conversation where they all agreed on everything and saw things from a single point of view.
@@loxtuf Can you please explicitly state what you believe to be the irony in my comment?
@@JohnnyTwoFingers no. Because i didn't mean to reply to your comment, was meant to be a reply to the video, the irony was meant to be in my own comment.. Oops.
The guy who can’t form a coherent sentence thinks Sam Harris is in over his head.
@@vvggg12 Note that coherence of a sentence has an important dependence on the skills of the reader.
The « reality-based » community has been captured by true believers
In the forty-two minutes I listened, consensus reality and how we arrive at it seems to be the issue. If we could agree that the natural world is all that exists, and that the supernatural world doesn't, we would be making the first and most important step. Religion has always been the obstacle but recently I am hearing claims that we don't really exist, that the universe itself doesn't exist, and that these ideas are being presented as scientific.
People will never agree that some sort of "super natural" world or existence isn't out there so you might as well give up that pipe dream. If you think that "disagreement" can actually be resolved, then hold onto your seat for when Sam and his ilk decide to try and convince everyone that we don't have free will, that it's an illusion.
You have a proof the supernatural doesn't exist do you?
Just fyi, In the full version at the end Jonathan says he thinks democracy won't work without christianity.
@@JohnnyTwoFingers He doesn't need proof in the same way that we don't need proof that dragons don't exist. Absent evidence that it DOES exist, disbelief should be the default position.
@@chrislejuez Can you link to an academic resource that explicitly agrees with this so we can feel confident that what you are describing is reality, as opposed to your heuristic based opinion of reality? I predict that you will not be able to do this.
Dear Sam, PLEASE do an episode expanding on that doomsday blueprint that JR had painted towards the end of the full episode. I think you don't focus enough on the specifics of how Trump could subvert US democracy. Simply saying he's a danger without proposing concrete steps isn't effective at changing hearts and minds of the undecided.
I couldn't have said (or asked) better. Yes!
See @sshenderr3773 's comment above for specifics. (Posted on or about 1/28/24) He/she laid out the remaining podcast in a transcript - I guess Sam and guests do answer your query in the extended portion of the podcast (for subscribers). Forget bunkers, we live in a world where only subscribers will be saved, lol.
I'm happy to see Josh Szeps has replaced Dave Rubin as Sam's new gay best friend 😂
So uhhhh Trump 2024?
Thx for the boot 🥾 💔
Can you invite Norman Finkelstein on? He called you a moron I think.
Norman has his own sacred cows... so I'd tap the brakes on that.
@@brucegregson621 Okay, so why don't they both debate?
Norman seems up for it, but Sam doesn't seem to want to have his mind possibly changed.
Oh, Sam would never have Norm on, it would be a disaster!!!
@@brucegregson621What are Norm's sacred cows?
Norman is a very serious intellectual and academic…..
How about the dangers of second Biden term?
The opportunity cost of having Biden instead of a good President are far, far less than the societal cost of the anti-democratic vitriol that flows so freely from Trump and those who mindlessly follow him.
We're not doing that now!
Kinda like the danger of me going to work or just staying home.
Which are those?
Present some compelling concerns and I bet he'd be willing to talk about it.
This silence is deafening. Does the Palestinian not deserve compassion from this world?
Unfortunately they can't receive much compassion until the civilized world ends the danger posed by their once-elected government.
No, they don’t deserve any compassion. As my Mother used to say, “you made your bed, now you have to lie in it.”
You must be under 30
@@Pod6168it’s not all of them
@@Pod6168you said it! You don’t have compassion. I pity you, seriously I hope you find love in your life and forgive yourself
Lol these dudes think they and their cohort are the paragons of virtue and truth and everyone else is a bad actors. That alone makes anything they say ridiculous. There is no self reflection and examination of their own failings and bias.
“We’re elites,” said three members of the same cultural tribe.
Sam Harris is surprisingly lacking in self-reflection given how much he calls it out in others.
@@press.agency6475Ah I didn't know Rauch was also a J-boy. Figures.
*Glory to God 🙏$47k weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD❤️I now have a house and can now afford anything for my family even with my Retirement.*
That sounds Good, I hope you won't mind telling me how to about making that much??
Access to good information is what people need to progress financially in life here's one and I'm grateful for Maria Luisa.
Wow...I know her too she is a licensed broker and a
FINRA agent she is popular in
US and Canada she is really amazing woman with good skills and experience.
Great to see you guys talking about Maria luisa abrams, This woman changed the game for me.
I will be forever grateful to you, you changed my whole life and I will continue to preach on your behalf for the whole world to hear you saved me from huge financial debt with just a small investment, thank you. Jorgen Barkley
I started investing in may 2023, today I have 70k invested. I haven't changed anything about mine, I live as if I earned minimum wage. I invest 80% of everything I earn.
Towards 100k. I'm 39 years old and my only regret is not having started sooner.
Wow. I'm a bit perplexed seeing him
been mentioned here also Didn't know he has been good to so many people too this is wonderful, I'm in my fifth trade with him and it has been super.
I'm new at this, please how can I reach him?
I have seen many positive reviews about him.
Please how can I contact him?
He’s mostly on Telegrams, using the user name
Has he understood about the genocide yet?
There is nothing to understand. You're just wrong.
@TizBaz5 Precedence tells the OP they are correct
By the way he ignores it you can tell he has.
@@TizBaz5 How much longer are you going to be able to believe that? Are you still going to be saying it's not genocide or will you have moved on by this time next year?
None of these three think scientifically.
Sheep TV
As a decades long Sam fan I'm just astonished at how far he's lost touch with reality. This episode has to be the pinnacle of demonstrating that. And both his guests are equally lost. It depresses me to say as a long time Sam fan that even most MAGA hat wearing boomers have a clearer vision of the world than Mr. Reason.
How about giving us a small taste of how you see it? It might save some of us who read comments before deciding whether to watch a video. You may have saved me, in fact b/c many comment that they are now frightened and I really, really do not need that today. Thanks.
@@govindagovindaji4662it’s not a frightening podcast, but you gotta listen and make your own mind friend :)
At least you won't have to wait long to see how wrong you are.
@@govindagovindaji4662I'm guessing the concern is that Sam and his guests have a lot of respect for the accuracy of legacy/establishment media and believe they play a vital and noble role in shaping the information environment. Many of Sam's fans are much more distrusting or are even conspiratorial about the liberal media and its influence.
I've started reading your work in my teenage years well and continued to do so well into my late 20s. Now that I'm in my early 30s, any admiration and/or inspirations I've glimpsed from you was sniffedafter I've heard your take on the recent conflict in Gaza. As an ex-muslim American I wholeheartedly agreed with your position on Israel but then again I was a naive teenager, what's your excuse? I shared my skeptic open-minded attitude as it came naturally to me, until I realized you were deluding yourself with that. You can't advertise yourself having these attributes yet have this inexusable gigantic blindspot for the situation in Palestine. So yes, it took this one issue for me to view you the same way you view Bret Weinstein and I hope this comment finds its way to you. Perhaps you'd start doing some real thinking on your own and reevaluate your morally bankrupt and factually incorrect views on the Israel-Palestine conflict and start acting like an actual humanist again.
definitely no massively skewering bias detectable here
Sam Harris logic-
If everything was different right, I would not be wrong right, and since eveything could be different right, I am correct right.
Somone suffering from NPD is incapable of admitting when they are wrong.
You must be religious
So, you are either a hard leftist or a religious nutter, since they both share many similarities. How interesting.
You posted this comment a minute after this went up, clearly you're an obsessed and bitter lunatic, keep your incoherent ramblings to yourself
I don’t think that’s what he meant when he brought up a the hypotheticals. I think he meant that we can imagine a scenario that’s actually a real possibility where a certain response would be justified so if we don’t think that response is justified in a different scenario we have to outline what the meaningful difference is between the two instead of just saying the response is never justified.
-"We did the magic dance and it rained"
Sam: But it could easily have not rained, dancing is unlikely to influence weather
-"Stop using hypotheticals!!"
Sam is a World Champion Pseudo intellectual.
Sammy The Pseudo Harris.
So, what thing did he say that was pseudo intellectual? Surely you can think of a single thing, right?
I'm sorry you're struggling so hard to understand the clear and rational points he makes, keep trying and I'm sure you'll get it eventually
@troy3456789 don't argue with the monkies, they'll remain monkies and you just get covered in bananas and feces.
@@jj-mcgreezies I am pretty sure he is echoing pseudo intellectual leftists, Christian and Muslim apologists that hate Sam's guts. He subscribed to the channel to drop in and troll it, which actually helps its algorithm get more viewership. He will never watch or listen to what Harris says, because his icons don't like Harris.
They would not bother if Harris wasn't incredibly astute at identifying and unpacking the nonsense of the religious left, and the Abrahamic religious. Harris is well read, so he always seems enlightened on issues of today.
Right now, the antisemtics of the world cannot stand Harris at all, and genuinely wish they could silence his voice on all things Israel, and what he exposes about Islam.
@@troy3456789what he says is rational only if you accept his framework and premises which are not rooted in reality, read manufacturing consent by noam chomsky,
What you think is a product of how you think. Don’t be fooled. Be better at understanding how to understand.
If you believe something that isn’t true you are fooled. If you do it often you are a fool.