I Used To Be A Fan But I Am Now Shocked, Disgusted And Appalled With Sam Harris

[Anon2381]

I'd say that the people who vote for Donald Trumps are what's allowing Donald Trumps to happen. Blaming the left is ridiculous. You may as well say that the west is responsible for Islamic terrorism for angering the Islamists.

I don't easily write people off as bigots. I call people bigots when they say bigoted things or seem to condone other people saying bigoted things. I.e. I call people bigots when they behave bigotedly. And I have no desire to associate myself with bigots. No hatred or "punishment" required. Far from it.

I am simply honest about what I see. Calling a spade a spade rather than lying from omission or sugarcoating things is exactly what intellectual honesty is all about.

Sam Harris is all about calling a spade a spade. And I'll be damned if I'm not going to apply the same to him when in this case he is at best gives the appearance of condoning bigoted expressions. Which in itself is being complict and harmful. You don't sit there and laugh and say something is hilarious in situations like that.

Imagine someone coming on his show calling gay people faggots or black people N words and him just sitting there laughing and saying it's hilarious and then go on to continue politely agreeing with the person, completely complicit in all those bigoted expressions. For me to not call out such a response as obviously bigoted would just be intellectually dishonest of me.

If someone came on his show saying that that would be exactly as bad as what Murray said about transgender people. Hence my reaction.

I'd say if anything I undereacted. If I was transgender myself I think I'd take, understandably, even more offence and it would be justifiable too. Ask yourself this "Would it be an overreaction on Hammy's part if Murray had started calling black people N-words and gay people faggots and Sam Harris had sat there laughing and saying it was hilarious and then going on to politely agreeing as if that was all acceptable?". Underreaction, I think. I think a lot of people would get more upset than I am. But not everyone compares bigotry against transgenders to bigotry against other groups... but they should. And in fact there seems to be much more bigotry against transgenders than any other group in the LGBT community. Many people who accept homosexuals and lesbians are still bigoted against bisexuals and say stupid shit like they're "greedy", and an even greater number of people are perfectly accepting towards gays, lesbians and bisexuals but are still bigoted against transgender people.

I absolutely did not overreact to such vile bigotry and such vile condoning of vile bigotry. Opinions like this being brushed off as not a big deal and taking offence against it being brushed off as an overreaction is harmful to the transgender community. It needs to be taken more seriously, not less.

Hammy
I completely agree with what you've said. If I was interviewing that moron I wouldn't have laughed at his jokes about peoples sexuality. I would have asked him about sexual fluidity, and perhaps he might have some enlightenment on what he knows nothing about, apparently. Its shocking that he's gay and making these kind of jokes. I would have hoped having dealt with prejudice himself he might be more sympathetic. 
Neil degrease Tyson had a great response to Larry king asking him about his hero's. He said he has a hero a la cart. He admires a sports hero for his achievements, but doesn't care about his personal choices. He said that if you chose a hero when your a kid the likelihood that hero will let you down is great. 
In this same train of thought I admire Sam Harris for his strengths, but would ask for an explanation if he was my buddy.

[Edwardo Piet]

No, the people who vote for Donald Trump are what makes the election of Donald Trump possible. The people who outnumber those people who voted for Donald Trump by a pretty solid margin, yet protested by voting for candidates who actually were worse representatives of the issues they cared about because the other viable candidate was flawed allowed that smaller number of Trump voters to win in more areas.

You fail to realize that that's only one necessary condition or cause for the loss. Another necessary condition or cause is everyone who voted for Donald Trump. Because guess how else Donald Trump could have lost the election? If simply less voted for him than voted for Hilary (or indeed if less had voted for him than anyone else!).

The fact that your position is to say that the onus is on the liberal voters who voted for someone other than Hilary rather than on the Trump voters who voted for Trump betrays that your position is being bolstered by your own confirmation bias.

And even if it were true that it is those who those who didn't vote for Hilary who are responsible and not at all those who voted for Trump (which is absurd of course)... my whole point is there's nothing 'extreme left' about specific people who identifed as liberal who simply failed to get their priorities right and focus on voting for the lesser evil of two candidates that actually have a chance of winning, instead of picking someone they think is better who may not actually be better than Hilary at all. (Lesser evil from their own perspective. I wouldn't personally consider Hilary an evil).

Being a purist to such an extent that you have absurdly high standards about your own liberalism and are unwilling to vote for anyone lower than those purist standards... that's not 'extreme left'. That's people who identify as liberal who have outrageously unrealistic and absurdly idealistic liberal standards. 'Extreme left' would be 'extremely liberal' and there's nothing 'extreme' about being very very very liberal about things. Being as liberal as possible about political issues is perfectly compatible with nevertheless having the common sense to vote for the better candidate of two candidates that actually have a chance of winning. Being extremely liberal does not equate to being extremely irrational.

---

It's one thing to let bigots explain themselves and expose their beliefs for discussion. It is another thing entirely to egg it on by showing disingenuous approval. From what you and Ham have stated, a most charitable read would be that - he egged it on by presenting a disingenuous approving facade.

That's one thing that gets lost by the whole "we must listen" bullshit that I keep seeing put forth - you should ask why but it doesn't mean you should be jovially laughing about depriving people of their rights (I submit Maher's conduct with Yiannopolous falls more into that category - but then again Maher has a habit of making provacative statements for shits and giggles. I detest him.).

I don't think one should have much humor about that at all. Inquisitiveness, sure. Socratic questioning? Wonderful. Acting like what they're advocating is as mundane as planning a mail route? Jesus Christ.

^This guy gets it^.

And Steel, I consider referring to transgender people as "weirdos" to be a slur.

But whether it's a slur or ignorant expressions of bigotry while his friend laughs along at it my point still remains the same: This kind of behavior is still harmful and bigoted. And no I will not remain a fan of such people or personally like such people and no that isn't "punishment", it's personal taste. I don't have to like such behavior from a person.

Moros's explanations above explain my position quite well. (One of my greatest weaknesses in life is explaining myself. I'm very good at understanding things and putting them into words... I'm just not very good at putting them into the right amount of words in the right order in a way that doesn't bewilder most people ).

[Anon2381]

No, the people who vote for Donald Trump are what makes the election of Donald Trump possible. The people who outnumber those people who voted for Donald Trump by a pretty solid margin, yet protested by voting for candidates who actually were worse representatives of the issues they cared about because the other viable candidate was flawed allowed that smaller number of Trump voters to win in more areas.

You fail to realize that that's only one necessary condition or cause for the loss. Another necessary condition or cause is everyone who voted for Donald Trump. Because guess how else Donald Trump could have lost the election? If simply less voted for him than voted for Hilary (or indeed if less had voted for him than anyone else!).

The fact that your position is to say that the onus is on the liberal voters who voted for someone other than Hilary rather than on the Trump voters who voted for Trump betrays that your position is being bolstered by your own confirmation bias.

And even if it were true that it is those who those who didn't vote for Hilary who are responsible and not at all those who voted for Trump (which is absurd of course)... my whole point is there's nothing 'extreme left' about specific people who identifed as liberal who simply failed to get their priorities right and focus on voting for the lesser evil of two candidates that actually have a chance of winning, instead of picking someone they think is better who may not actually be better than Hilary at all. (Lesser evil from their own perspective. I wouldn't personally consider Hilary an evil).

Being a purist to such an extent that you have absurdly high standards about your own liberalism and are unwilling to vote for anyone lower than those purist standards... that's not 'extreme left'. That's people who identify as liberal who have outrageously unrealistic and absurdly idealistic liberal standards. 'Extreme left' would be 'extremely liberal' and there's nothing 'extreme' about being very very very liberal about things. Being as liberal as possible about political issues is perfectly compatible with nevertheless having the common sense to vote for the better candidate of two candidates that actually have a chance of winning. Being extremely liberal does not equate to being extremely irrational.

---

It's one thing to let bigots explain themselves and expose their beliefs for discussion. It is another thing entirely to egg it on by showing disingenuous approval. From what you and Ham have stated, a most charitable read would be that - he egged it on by presenting a disingenuous approving facade.

That's one thing that gets lost by the whole "we must listen" bullshit that I keep seeing put forth - you should ask why but it doesn't mean you should be jovially laughing about depriving people of their rights (I submit Maher's conduct with Yiannopolous falls more into that category - but then again Maher has a habit of making provacative statements for shits and giggles. I detest him.).

I don't think one should have much humor about that at all. Inquisitiveness, sure. Socratic questioning? Wonderful. Acting like what they're advocating is as mundane as planning a mail route? Jesus Christ.

^This guy gets it^.

And Steel, I consider referring to transgender people as "weirdos" to be a slur.

But whether it's a slur or ignorant expressions of bigotry while his friend laughs along at it my point still remains the same: This kind of behavior is still harmful and bigoted. And no I will not remain a fan of such people  or personally like such people and no that isn't "punishment", it's personal taste. I don't have to like such behavior from a person.

Moros's explanations above explain my position quite well. (One of my greatest weaknesses in life is explaining myself. I'm very good at understanding things and putting them into words... I'm just not very good at putting them into the right amount of words in the right order in a way that doesn't bewilder most people ).

Didn't Billy Bush get fired for just laughing with our perve president on a bus? 
Although I still love Bill Maher, I was pissed he allowed Milo such a platform. His interview was weak and I think he lost his balls or brains (too much Weed possibly?)
Not bashing weed though. I just know from experience it can make you laugh at shit you shouldn't

[Edwardo Piet]

And yet Sam Harris takes (or took) Ecstasy so he has no excuse! It was originally called Empathy for a reason! And yet in this clip he displays a great lack of it

[Crunchy]

So a friend of mine was walking into his house after a long day at work only to find his girlfriend packing up her things.
"What's up?" he says, not knowing what was happening.
"I'm leaving you" she replies.
"Why?, what's wrong" he says confused.
"I heard you were a pedophile" she says
"Well" he replies "That's a pretty big word for an eight year old"

Disclaimer:
That was a joke and not meant to encourage or excuse pedophilia in any way. This applies to anyone who may have laughed at the joke as well.

[Edwardo Piet]

Offensive jokes are not the same things as offensive jokes combined with passionate opinions expressing genuine bigotry. Murray endorses the shit he says. I.e. false analogy.

[Crunchy]

Offensive jokes are not the same things as offensive jokes combined with passionate opinions expressing genuine bigotry. Murray endorses the shit he says. I.e. false analogy.

We're talking about Harris, not Murray.

[Edwardo Piet]

Your analogy doesn't work at all then because you told a joke and the one telling the joke is Murray.

[Crunchy]

So if I'm Murray in the analogy, then anyone laughing would be Harris. The analogy works well.

[Edwardo Piet]

But why the equivocation? Surely you must see the difference between Stop and Frisk (which absolutely is a removal of rights) and saying that maybe the progressive movement is doing more harm by insisting that everyone who doesn't recognize a pangender asexual heteromorphic person by sight or---even worse---doesn't recognize that as an actual thing, is a bigoted, transphobic asshole.

When Murray says they're all "weirdos" and Sam Harris laughs along and agrees with him... that certainly makes them bigoted transphobic assholes, though.