I Used To Be A Fan But I Am Now Shocked, Disgusted And Appalled With Sam Harris
May 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm
I used to be a fan but now I am shocked, disgusted and appalled with Sam Harris.
After I was listening to one of his podcast and I heard this shit:
He not only lets this neoconservative bigoted transphobic moron on his show but he laughs along at his unfunny biggoted, narrow-minded transphobic so-called "jokes".
The amount of ignorance in this clip is disgusting.
I am shocked, appaled and highly surprised at the myopic views Sam Harris has on gender.
It doesn't make him any less right about a lot of other things... not everything I'm certainly not right-wing like he is and although I agree Islam is a threat I do think his stance on imigration with regards to Muslims is extreme (In fact personally my own stance on imigration is so extremely pro-immigration that it's basically "Let everyone in who isn't an obvious criminal or terrorist.") I think people are wrong when they say he is bigoted against Muslims though because I think they are misunderstanding the key difference between someone who genuinely thinks Islam is that much of a threat and is so anti-terroism to a paranoid degree that he thinks it's rational to be so absurdly strict on immigration... and someone who is actually a bigot against muslims. I'd say he was anti-Islam rather than anti-muslim as individuals. As he has explained many times before... the biggest victims to Islam are often other Muslims themselves. But that doesn't make his stance on immigration any less rational if we assume Islam is as much as a threat as he thinks it is (he thinks letting in too many Muslims could basically start world war 3, lol). Which it isn't of course. I just mean that if his perspective were true then his stance would make sense. His stance is driven by logic, not bigotry. Although he gets the logic wrong because he thinks you can aggregte the sufferings and lives of different people together... so he thinks that the mere possible threat of Islam could be so bad as to make everything else toweringly unimportant by comparison. Because he's living in his fantasy world of aggregating together all the people he could imagine suffering from a possible world war 3 started by Islamic terror, however distant int he future. Even though it makes no sense to do that because people are persons, not one giant person who suffers extra when you group them together.
Now, I don't think Islam is as much of a threat as he thinks it is. I think it's a big threat but I think he blows it out of proportion due to his stance on utilitarianism.
Personally my stance on immigration is very open and I am very against his profiling thing. It's not because I think he is "racist" (after all race and religion are two different things) or a "bigot"... nor do I think the fact he understands the high correlations between certain races living in areas where certain religions are more popular is not the same thing as saying all people of a particular religion are of a particular race. When he speaks of people "looking muslim" he's addressing correlations, not being racist or a bigot.
I also am strongly anti-war unlike Sam Harris who is very pro-war. From his perspective it's rational to go to war and kill people if it prevents even more people dying.... and it's rational to torture people if and only if that can ever be an effective method of interrogation that allowed bombs to be found and disarmed which lead to much less suffering in the long run... therby making the torture of one terrorist (or a few) morally justifiable from his viewpoint.
Of course, all evidence indicates that torture is not an effective method of interrogation. But his point is if it were an effective method then the torture of a few terroists is worth it if it saves millions of people from dying.
I personally strongly disagree with him there too, even if it were completely 100% guaranteed that toruring a terroist would help us know where the bomb is to save many people from dying... it still wouldn't be worth it in my eyes if and only if the suffering from torturing that terrorist (this is torture we're talking about) outweighs the suffering of any of the individuals who explode to death quickly in a bomb blast.
I believe every person is their own little world. You can't cross the consciouss barrier. It makes no sense to aggregate suffering between indivduals. If a billon people experience the exact same level of suffering then every single one of those individuals feels the same pain, no one feels any more and no one feels any less. So one single person feeling slightly more pain would be worse for that person than for a billion feeling slightly less, than it is for any of those billion people.
And since I don't believe in free will and I believe needless suffering is bad... I think that like a severely physically or mentally ill person is unlucky to become severely or mentally ill, and a psychopath is unlucky to be destined to become a psychopath, a terrorist is unlucky to be destined to become a terrorist.
Obviously they need to be held responsible for their actions and prevented and stopped and fought against... just like anyone else bad. Just like how we lock up criminals and we punish people (humanely) to deter their future negative actions...
But anyways... so I disagree with Sam Harris on the specifics of his objective morality too, and am therefore very anti-war rather than pro-war. I'm also very left wing. Sam Harris is rather left wing on many issues but rather right wing on a lot of these issues.
Although I still believe in the strength of his arguments for an objective science of morality in general, in principle if not in practice.
I'm not a fan of his mindfulness stuff because I struggle to see the benefitas an epiphenomenalist who believes consciousness is an effect that has no effects... I don't see how mindfulness makes much sense... attempting to train yourself to consciously be mindful when your consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon that doesn't do anything... its a side effect of unconscious brain processes that do do something (experiments have shown that when we think we are aware of making a decision unconscious parts of our brain has already decided for us sometimes as much as 7 seconds before we're even conscious of it)...
But I agree with him about a lot of things and I think a lot of his logical arguments are very well constructed and well presented. I agree with him strongly on free will for example
Anyways, I disagree with some and think that his aggregating of persons causes him to make ethical flaws and you add that in with his stance on Islam and it causes him to have some very politically right views that I most certainly do NOT REMOTELY agree with.
But regardless of all that, I agree with him a lot. And he's a smart guy.
BUT.... as smart as he is it's a pity that he's also an ignorant fuckface. Here his stance on transpeople and his ignorance of gender issues... it's insexcusable for any possible justifiable rationale whatsoever. The only way I can possibly make sense of it is just to realize that Sam Harris is extremely ignorant about gender identity issues here. And the fact he not only allows an utterly transphobic neoconservative cretin like Douglas on his show much also laughs along at his unfunny transphobic humor...
... I just... I feel utterly disgusted. Sick to the stomach. I absolutely can no longer consider myself a fan of Sam Harris. At this point he has strong arguments against free will and religion but this goes far beyond his extreme pro-war and profiling views which would make sense if his stance on the aggregation of suffering were true and his belief that Islam is such a threat that will cause so much aggregated suffering that the priority is to be insanely strict on muslim immigration, were true..... but this goes far beyond his non-sequitur's leading to his right wing stances that are often mistaken as bigotry... this *is* bigotry. This is.... this is bigotry due to ignorance that goes far beyond a commonly misunderstood belief that suffering can be aggregated + his objective morality + his belief that Islam is the greatest threat..... this is just... this is just him not fucking understanding the reality of gender issues and allowing a transphobic moron on his show and not realizing how completely real being transgender is (It isn't. It's a big threat but not so much of a threat that you have to curb muslim's civil liberties any more than anyone else's. Personally I think that would be wrong to do anyways... see below for more details of my own view on ethics).
Sam needs to do his research and realize that transgenderism is supporting by science... that there is more to gender than what genitals we are born with.
And then he needs to fucking apologize and never let that bigoted moron on his show again.
But I doubt that that will ever happen because he's too busy attacking Islam as the biggest threat in the world and adding up people's sufferings into one giant person to actually give a fuck about the very real threat to transgender people. There is so much bigotry and hatred and violence and rape against transgender people that is driven by transphobic bigotry.
And if he realized that suffering cannot be aggregated between persons because of the consciousness barrier... perhaps he would realize that every single one of those individual transpersons who have to suffer that kind of bigotry--is their own little world like everyone else is their own little world.. and every suffering person counts... and you can't dismiss the suffering of anyone with the attitude that a greater number of people are suffering due to something else so it's not important. It is important. Everyone is important. Every one is important. Every individual, every mind, every consciousness. Despite the fact that consciousnesses are effects that have no effects... suffering itself is a conscious state and Sam recognizes it's morally relevant... now all he needs to do is stop adding everyone up into a giant person and stop fucking being a transphobic cunt laughing at transphobic cunt jokes made by an even bigger transphobic cunt.
/rant
A video explaining my stance on how it makes no sense to aggregate people when it comes to ethics:
After I was listening to one of his podcast and I heard this shit:
He not only lets this neoconservative bigoted transphobic moron on his show but he laughs along at his unfunny biggoted, narrow-minded transphobic so-called "jokes".
The amount of ignorance in this clip is disgusting.
I am shocked, appaled and highly surprised at the myopic views Sam Harris has on gender.
It doesn't make him any less right about a lot of other things... not everything I'm certainly not right-wing like he is and although I agree Islam is a threat I do think his stance on imigration with regards to Muslims is extreme (In fact personally my own stance on imigration is so extremely pro-immigration that it's basically "Let everyone in who isn't an obvious criminal or terrorist.") I think people are wrong when they say he is bigoted against Muslims though because I think they are misunderstanding the key difference between someone who genuinely thinks Islam is that much of a threat and is so anti-terroism to a paranoid degree that he thinks it's rational to be so absurdly strict on immigration... and someone who is actually a bigot against muslims. I'd say he was anti-Islam rather than anti-muslim as individuals. As he has explained many times before... the biggest victims to Islam are often other Muslims themselves. But that doesn't make his stance on immigration any less rational if we assume Islam is as much as a threat as he thinks it is (he thinks letting in too many Muslims could basically start world war 3, lol). Which it isn't of course. I just mean that if his perspective were true then his stance would make sense. His stance is driven by logic, not bigotry. Although he gets the logic wrong because he thinks you can aggregte the sufferings and lives of different people together... so he thinks that the mere possible threat of Islam could be so bad as to make everything else toweringly unimportant by comparison. Because he's living in his fantasy world of aggregating together all the people he could imagine suffering from a possible world war 3 started by Islamic terror, however distant int he future. Even though it makes no sense to do that because people are persons, not one giant person who suffers extra when you group them together.
Now, I don't think Islam is as much of a threat as he thinks it is. I think it's a big threat but I think he blows it out of proportion due to his stance on utilitarianism.
Personally my stance on immigration is very open and I am very against his profiling thing. It's not because I think he is "racist" (after all race and religion are two different things) or a "bigot"... nor do I think the fact he understands the high correlations between certain races living in areas where certain religions are more popular is not the same thing as saying all people of a particular religion are of a particular race. When he speaks of people "looking muslim" he's addressing correlations, not being racist or a bigot.
I also am strongly anti-war unlike Sam Harris who is very pro-war. From his perspective it's rational to go to war and kill people if it prevents even more people dying.... and it's rational to torture people if and only if that can ever be an effective method of interrogation that allowed bombs to be found and disarmed which lead to much less suffering in the long run... therby making the torture of one terrorist (or a few) morally justifiable from his viewpoint.
Of course, all evidence indicates that torture is not an effective method of interrogation. But his point is if it were an effective method then the torture of a few terroists is worth it if it saves millions of people from dying.
I personally strongly disagree with him there too, even if it were completely 100% guaranteed that toruring a terroist would help us know where the bomb is to save many people from dying... it still wouldn't be worth it in my eyes if and only if the suffering from torturing that terrorist (this is torture we're talking about) outweighs the suffering of any of the individuals who explode to death quickly in a bomb blast.
I believe every person is their own little world. You can't cross the consciouss barrier. It makes no sense to aggregate suffering between indivduals. If a billon people experience the exact same level of suffering then every single one of those individuals feels the same pain, no one feels any more and no one feels any less. So one single person feeling slightly more pain would be worse for that person than for a billion feeling slightly less, than it is for any of those billion people.
And since I don't believe in free will and I believe needless suffering is bad... I think that like a severely physically or mentally ill person is unlucky to become severely or mentally ill, and a psychopath is unlucky to be destined to become a psychopath, a terrorist is unlucky to be destined to become a terrorist.
Obviously they need to be held responsible for their actions and prevented and stopped and fought against... just like anyone else bad. Just like how we lock up criminals and we punish people (humanely) to deter their future negative actions...
But anyways... so I disagree with Sam Harris on the specifics of his objective morality too, and am therefore very anti-war rather than pro-war. I'm also very left wing. Sam Harris is rather left wing on many issues but rather right wing on a lot of these issues.
Although I still believe in the strength of his arguments for an objective science of morality in general, in principle if not in practice.
I'm not a fan of his mindfulness stuff because I struggle to see the benefitas an epiphenomenalist who believes consciousness is an effect that has no effects... I don't see how mindfulness makes much sense... attempting to train yourself to consciously be mindful when your consciousness is a mere epiphenomenon that doesn't do anything... its a side effect of unconscious brain processes that do do something (experiments have shown that when we think we are aware of making a decision unconscious parts of our brain has already decided for us sometimes as much as 7 seconds before we're even conscious of it)...
But I agree with him about a lot of things and I think a lot of his logical arguments are very well constructed and well presented. I agree with him strongly on free will for example
Anyways, I disagree with some and think that his aggregating of persons causes him to make ethical flaws and you add that in with his stance on Islam and it causes him to have some very politically right views that I most certainly do NOT REMOTELY agree with.
But regardless of all that, I agree with him a lot. And he's a smart guy.
BUT.... as smart as he is it's a pity that he's also an ignorant fuckface. Here his stance on transpeople and his ignorance of gender issues... it's insexcusable for any possible justifiable rationale whatsoever. The only way I can possibly make sense of it is just to realize that Sam Harris is extremely ignorant about gender identity issues here. And the fact he not only allows an utterly transphobic neoconservative cretin like Douglas on his show much also laughs along at his unfunny transphobic humor...
... I just... I feel utterly disgusted. Sick to the stomach. I absolutely can no longer consider myself a fan of Sam Harris. At this point he has strong arguments against free will and religion but this goes far beyond his extreme pro-war and profiling views which would make sense if his stance on the aggregation of suffering were true and his belief that Islam is such a threat that will cause so much aggregated suffering that the priority is to be insanely strict on muslim immigration, were true..... but this goes far beyond his non-sequitur's leading to his right wing stances that are often mistaken as bigotry... this *is* bigotry. This is.... this is bigotry due to ignorance that goes far beyond a commonly misunderstood belief that suffering can be aggregated + his objective morality + his belief that Islam is the greatest threat..... this is just... this is just him not fucking understanding the reality of gender issues and allowing a transphobic moron on his show and not realizing how completely real being transgender is (It isn't. It's a big threat but not so much of a threat that you have to curb muslim's civil liberties any more than anyone else's. Personally I think that would be wrong to do anyways... see below for more details of my own view on ethics).
Sam needs to do his research and realize that transgenderism is supporting by science... that there is more to gender than what genitals we are born with.
And then he needs to fucking apologize and never let that bigoted moron on his show again.
But I doubt that that will ever happen because he's too busy attacking Islam as the biggest threat in the world and adding up people's sufferings into one giant person to actually give a fuck about the very real threat to transgender people. There is so much bigotry and hatred and violence and rape against transgender people that is driven by transphobic bigotry.
And if he realized that suffering cannot be aggregated between persons because of the consciousness barrier... perhaps he would realize that every single one of those individual transpersons who have to suffer that kind of bigotry--is their own little world like everyone else is their own little world.. and every suffering person counts... and you can't dismiss the suffering of anyone with the attitude that a greater number of people are suffering due to something else so it's not important. It is important. Everyone is important. Every one is important. Every individual, every mind, every consciousness. Despite the fact that consciousnesses are effects that have no effects... suffering itself is a conscious state and Sam recognizes it's morally relevant... now all he needs to do is stop adding everyone up into a giant person and stop fucking being a transphobic cunt laughing at transphobic cunt jokes made by an even bigger transphobic cunt.
/rant
A video explaining my stance on how it makes no sense to aggregate people when it comes to ethics:
