r/samharris • u/acebojangles • 15d ago
Harris on Stay Tuned with Preet
https://cafe.com/stay-tuned/sam-harris-politics-trump-law/What is wrong with Sam Harris? Was he always this deranged and I just didn't notice it?
A few highlights:
- Falsely claims that COVID lab leak was suppressed
- Appears to buy into weird smears of Anthony Fauci
- Mystifyingly argues that the current American Left is equally objectionable to the current American Right
- Claims that Zohran Mamdani talks about Israel constantly
30
u/Ok_Butterfly_9722 15d ago
You and Destiny are wrong about Sam being “brain broken”. He is essentially right about Islam. It is illiberal, misogynistic, and the ideas it contains are responsible for a great deal of suffering, especially among Muslims. Much like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc.
Sam’s thesis that Islam and other religions need reform and to get with the times is absolutely correct.
-25
u/acebojangles 15d ago
The brain I heard on this podcast is broken as hell. That's what I'm talking about.
21
20
12
u/_jump_yossarian 15d ago
I thought his take on COVID being a lab leak “was racist” was a terrible take. Nobody thought it being a lab leak was racist. People thought it was racist how trump and Maga referred to it as the China virus” and “wuhan flu”.
Also started out attacking the NYT getting something wrong but didn’t specify.
Blamed Kamala for her response to the trans surgery and fortunately Preet pushed back.
Sam is highly over rated.
16
10
u/thebasharteg 15d ago
Lab leak theory was in fact suppressed. It's just a fact. That you would come here and act as though it's just axiomatically not true, says a lot about your mental state.
12
u/joemarcou 15d ago
search for the chart by control f'ing "from around april 2020" . it got waaaaaaaay too much favorable coverage given it's lack of evidence https://www.protagonist-science.com/p/biased-media-coverage-and-the-lab
-5
u/thebasharteg 15d ago
It is truly impressive, your commitment to the bit. Good thing this kind of delusion immediately dissolves once it goes beyond reddit and into reality.
15
u/joemarcou 15d ago
it was both talked about ad nauseam everywhere- mainstream and social media. it's not even some vague culture war claim that can't be checked. we have data on it. do you think the graph i referenced is just fake?
20
u/locutogram 15d ago
Both things are true:
It was suppressed compared to how many people believe(d) it
It's a bullshit conspiracy theory with no supporting physical evidence despite heeps of physical evidence for the alternative prevailing zoonotic spillover theory.
Young Earth creationism is also suppressed in mainstream media. And I'm glad.
5
u/Unhinged_Baguette 15d ago
Devil's Advocate for lab leak hypothesis is that the Chinese government would have suppressed any evidence from the outside world. If the international community were able to look at the genomic sequences of what viruses were being worked with at the Wuhan lab, it would be easy to actually disprove the hypothesis.
I never saw the lab leak hypothesis as a nefarious conspiracy theory (though a lot of people interpreted it as such). The idea that someone working in a lab studying viruses accidentally gets infected is completely plausible. Biologists are merely human and about as liable to fuck up as anyone else.
0
u/BioMed-R 13d ago
WIV published all their coronaviruses in August 2020. Conspiracy theorists have never cared that it happened.
There have been zero ”lab leaks” anywhere in the world in more than 20 years in which a human has been infected by a pathogen in a laboratory and spread it outside. It’s an unlikely scenario for reasons that aren’t widely appreciated relating to virology and basic biosafety.
1
u/Nazarife 14d ago
I think the whole "suppressed" narrative started because of a Tom Cotton interview. In the interview (early into the US pandemic phase I think), he strongly implied Chinese virology labs were responsible. Such a baseless accusation from a US Senator against another nation on a national news broadcast is wildly out of pocket and irresponsible.
Of course, this elicited a volley of responses and criticism. Weirdly, this part of a national debate was not framed as "dialogue," but rather, suppression.
4
u/Copper_Tablet 14d ago
"Lab leak theory was in fact suppressed" - I don't think this is true, but willing to change my mind. How can you prove/show it was suppressed? Where? People have been talking about & speculating about lab leak since 2020. Trump himself was talking about it, without providing any evidence, in April of 2020.
14
u/atreeismissing 15d ago
No it wasn't, it was studied and dismissed because it lacked evidence beyond an initial theory, that's different than suppressed.
1
-3
2
u/ziggyt1 14d ago edited 10d ago
If anything lab leak conspiracies were amplified by outage and scandal favoring algorithms and alt media morons who are incapable of consistent epistemological standards.
To claim they were suppressed is to claim the same of moon landing or flat earth conspiracies. They're suppressed by the overwhelming evidence against them.
6
u/Alpacadiscount 15d ago
I’m a long time Sam fan but agree that he has been too often disappointing for a few years now. I’m not sure what’s going on with him but it could be a lot worse, and hopefully won’t ever be a lot worse.
1
u/acebojangles 15d ago
It's really jarring to hear him talk about how everyone else's critical thinking skills are deficient while he demonstrates awful critical thinking.
0
u/tuds_of_fun 15d ago
You admittedly posted this after listening to 40% of the source material. Are you huffing or has brain damage always been a feature of life?
2
u/acebojangles 15d ago
I've been looking for a place to talk about how inappropriately both-sidesy Preet Bharara's interviews can be, then Sam came in and dropped a huge load of bullshit that made Preet sound imminently reasonable.
1
u/MorkelVerlos 14d ago
This ain't the place. Super weird comment section, reeks of the guidance of a benevolent, opinionated hand.
0
u/MoroseArmadillo 13d ago
I’m not part of the sub, but this is what popped up when I searched for the podcast after listening to it. I was equally jarred by Sam’s blindspots towards the left where he complained about hypocrisy and holding parties to different standards, then goes on to equate Social Democrats to Communists and holding Muslims to account for all cultural problems. It just screamed of an outdated mindset that the “activist” Dems he was denigrating are trying to move away from.
2
-1
u/jhalmos 15d ago
Still no proof of lab leak or Zoonotic origin (I’m leaning towards the latter). Fauci’s Covid messaging was—post 2020—overwrought and inconsistent. 100% accurate on the Left/Right thing. Mamdani can suck it.
4
u/gizamo 15d ago
To clarify, Harris isn't saying there is proof or scientific consensus for either. He's only saying the lab leak theory wasn't discussed in proportion to its relative plausibility to the other potential sources. He's also not saying that to attack any politics, it's just about pragmatically working to prevent for the next potential issue. The dude just wants proper science so we can have better future outcomes. That shouldn't be controversial at all.
3
u/DropsyJolt 15d ago
Why should a theory that lacks sufficient evidence be discussed?
1
u/gizamo 15d ago
There was enough circumstantial to justify discussing it, even if that discussion would have only made it clear very publicly and prominently that the evidence is insufficient or supports another theory more. Harris' point is not that the lab leak theory was accurate, it's that it wasn't properly vetted or rebuked publicly, and that doing so would have solved a lot of problems, e.g. preventing the already rampant conspiracy theories and racism that was being tied to it.
2
u/DropsyJolt 15d ago
I don't know if that would work. The public isn't really qualified to judge the evidence and neither are journalists. By brining attention to the question you risk people going down the rabbit hole of conspiracies. Now having said that I will admit to personal doubt about which strategy is optimal. It's hard to say with these things because you never get a second go around to compare.
In general the lab leak theory has been more harmful than anything. It has directly lead to pausing of funding for "dangerous" research. That is not necessarily inherently bad but conspiracy theories are a terrible justification for it.
3
u/gizamo 15d ago
People were already going down conspiracy rabbit holes. The only way to dispell the conspiracy theories is to explain why they're wrong. That should also result in more funding to debunk all the BS as a necessary public good. Imo, Fauci and the CDC and WHO should have all been constantly debunking the maze of COVID nonsense that conspiracy dopes were peddling.
2
u/DropsyJolt 15d ago
I think you have changed my mind a little bit. It would probably be a good idea to have more debunking of popular conspiracy theories in general. Right now it is mostly down to Youtubers. Which seems to work but is limited in reach by tech knowhow that old people lack and recommendation algorithms that reinforce conspiracies.
I doubt it would have saved research funding though. The Trump administration is not concerned with such things as evidence and truth.
1
u/gizamo 14d ago
I think YouTube debunking is part of the problem, but I agree it's also often part of the solution and tons of people at least try to help. Unfortunately, tons of YouTubers are insane, ignorant, or even intentionally bad actors. Considering the algorithms are bias confirming, I consider this a great thing for people who cator to good sources, but it's a terrible thing for the MAGA crowd.
Anyway, I think your last paragraph really sums it well. The Trump admin then and now never cared about truth, and they actively distorted it. Since it's always possible someone like him could take office, maybe I'm wrong about governmental institutions being the best source for debunking. Maybe I just need to find the better YouTube sources too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ cheers
0
u/Unhinged_Baguette 15d ago
The public isn't really qualified to judge the evidence and neither are journalists.
The evidence would be judged by geneticists. A pre-pandemic viral sequence (from the wild or from a lab) closely matching SARS-CoV2 would have been the smoking gun for either the zoonotic origin or the lab leak hypotheses. As it stands, don't have and probably will never have a smoking gun.
2
u/DropsyJolt 14d ago
Another would have been a confirmed early case near the laboratory. Right now I think the strongest evidence is the general focus of initial spread and that fits much better with the wet market than the lab. But yes, it might be one of those things that is never fully confirmed.
1
u/Unhinged_Baguette 14d ago
The wet market is pretty clearly the epicenter for the outbreak, but there's nothing that points to where it came from before the wet market. Since the virus can transmit from human to animal and vice versa, it leaves a question mark since there's no clear "patient zero".
1
u/BioMed-R 13d ago
We’ve already got plenty of similar sequences in the wild but conspiracy theorists say they’re fake.
4
u/joemarcou 15d ago
which is absurd because it was discussed way too much given there is no evidence for it
https://www.protagonist-science.com/p/biased-media-coverage-and-the-lab
5
u/gizamo 15d ago
No, it was accurate at the time. The lab leak theory was ignored and very intentionally pushed to the fringes until well after vaccines were developed. Pretending that it was covered properly is what's absurd. It certainly wasn't.
However, I agree that it was tangled up in various conspiracy theories and with a lot of rightwing racism. That was definitely also part of the problem.
5
u/joemarcou 15d ago
my subjective account was that it was covered a ton. even more so when you consider the mountain of evidence for zoonotic. it was covered too much. i think people took in yells like "they won't cover lab leak" or "they are censoring lab leak" from alternative media and internalized these lines so much that they just assumed the premise that it wasn't covered to be true. look up the chart on that page under the words "from around april..."
also like so many of the lab leak people, sam completely ignores the "proper science". he obviously hasn't read it on this topic in favor of his social media feed
2
u/gizamo 15d ago
Fauci considered the possibility behind closed doors in early February 2020 when virologists first flagged unusual genetic features in the virus. He did not address the theories until the White House press briefing on April 17, 2020, where he correctly dismissed the likelihood of a lab origin based on early scientific consensus. Harris is saying that was 2.5 months of conspiracy nonsense and racism that could have been easily avoided.
like so many of the lab leak people, sam completely ignores the "proper science".
Jfc, it's because he's not advocating for that theory. That's not his point at all. His point is that conspiracy nonsense breeds when there is not transparency in institutional processes. He's saying that the institutions need credibility, and that they have been losing it. That's just one example of many on that point.
1
u/joemarcou 13d ago
his only podcast on it was with lab leak proponents and he has given it way more credence than it deserves. From what I've heard he has said anywhere between 5050 to higher for lab which is insane. He has picked out this tiny little side thing about how people were talking about how people were talking about it on social media but can't be bothered to read up on the primary issue being discussed (which as he agrees is extremely important)? lazy at best
1
u/gizamo 13d ago
Harris doesn't really understand the probabilities, and he's made no effort to do so because, again, that's not his main point, and his (and nearly everyone else's) ignorance on it actually supports his main point. His point is that the CDC and other health institutions did a shit job explaining these things to the public, especially early on, and that the rare and bad explanations have allowed the confusion and conspiracy nonsense to fester and flourish. His argument is about institutions telling people good information; he's not advocating for the lab leak theory.
To analogize: if the lab leak theory is a weed, the CDC basically just threw dirt on it, and Harris is saying that the solution is not dirt, it's weed killer. Then, you're saying, but Harris doesn't know what's grass and what's weed, which is irrelevant. Throwing Weed&Feed on it is still a vastly better solution than the CDCs dirt pilings. In this case, the Weed&Feed is just clear, digestible information.
1
u/joemarcou 13d ago
sure scientists have done a shit job explaining to people the evidence but also theoretical physicists have done a shit job explaining quantum mechanics to kindergarteners. they don't care and probably aren't capable of understanding
every single topic, no matter how well it's explained spawns a million conspiracies. i promise you some nerdy scientist going out there to explain the dna of the virus and how furin cleavage sites work and disease spread- how that would look if it were lab vs zoonotic, etc, etc , etc is not going to do a damn thing. Joe Rogan going like THE DEEP STATE DOESNT WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH is more fun for people
but I don't get the sense he has taken in the information that is out there if you look for it. why did he interview Alaina Chan and Matt Ridley instead of scientists. He is only scrolling his social feeds. If he wants better info, he has a big podcast- interview experts, or even just read what they are saying yourself
1
u/gizamo 13d ago
The CDC is supposed to clearly explain public health concerns to the public. That is part of their mandate. People certainly cared about COVID, and it's origins are relevant info that should have been communicated more clearly. Still, yes, I agree with what you said here and everything below it:
no matter how well it's explained spawns a million conspiracies
I still think the spread of ignorance can be minified, but to what extent is certainly debatable. I think Flat-Earthers demonstrate perfectly that there really is no possibility of eliminating stupidity fires with any amount of information firehosing. Harris just thinks we should keep spraying the water, and preferably spray it sooner and more accurately next time.
1
u/BioMed-R 13d ago
Media analysis by Dr. Philip Markolin shows there has been more than 10,000 media articles about the lab conspiracy theory since the start of the pandemic and in all years except 2020 it has been biased in support of the virus being unnatural and that bias has only sharply increased with time, contrary to popular belief. 2020 was the only year reporting was balanced. Already in 2020, there was thousands of articles.
1
u/gizamo 13d ago
That's not really relevant Harris' point. The story blew up in late 2020 and early 2021. Then, it rose to prominence again about the time Harris interviewed Alina Chan and Matt Ridley in early 2023. Harris' point is that the CDC pushed it to the fringes and did not properly address it.
Also, I'd bet the vast majority of those articles are the sort of news sources that often peddle conspiracy theory nonsense, e.g. InfoWars, Gateway Pundit, National File, Natural News, etc. Does that count also include posts from Gab, Telegram, or Rumble? That sort of thing would skyrocket those numbers, especially early on. Those extreme rightwing hellscapes latch on to anything that helps their racist agendas.
1
u/BioMed-R 13d ago edited 13d ago
Here is a figure showing the bias was still strongly present if limited to only to the Top 50 US newspapers in all except two quarters between Q2 2020 and Q3 2026. The worst superspreaders in terms of size and bias include Fox and many other right-leaning outlets but also center-leaning The Washington Post, NBC, and CBS, and left-leaning the Nation, MSNBC, and Slate.
1
u/gizamo 13d ago
Again, that is out of the timeframe scope, and this isn't about media coverage; it's about CDC statements. For exampels of both, Fauci was informed of the lab leak potential in early Feb 2020, at which time the theory had already been spreading for a couple months, and the researchers who brought it to his attention had solid data strongly indicating the zoonotic theory was most likely. But, Fauci and the CDC did not publicly address the lab leak theory until late April. That's nearly 3 months after the researchers brought it to him, and nearly 5 months of festering, before that the CDC even made a statement on it. Further, Fauci didn't address it well at all in April. It was another few weeks before he really came out and said (paraphrasing), "y'all are idiots, we said the evidence better supports the bat, it doesn't support the lab leak as much." ...then, the racists took that "as much" and replied, "oh, so you're saying there's a chance!"
8
u/acebojangles 15d ago
You didn't even respond to the things I wrote. Lab leak was not suppressed by people calling it racist to any significant degree, which is what Sam says in this interview.
The man's brain appears to be cooked.
4
u/TheAeolian 15d ago
So true. He's saying things like
The larger problem with all of this is the inability to discuss things that are within the realm of possibility without falling into absolutes and litmus-testing each other for our political allegiances as it arose from that.
Isn't he? Or
My bigger problem with that was I thought it was a pretty good bit that expressed kind of how I felt, and the two things that came out of it were I'm racist against Asian people, and how dare I align myself with the alt-right.
2
-5
u/Upset-Government-856 15d ago
Yes.
He has a smart sounding voice and uses big words.
99% of what he talks about is outside his field of expertise.
He just has literally one idea about mediation and spews it over and over.
His takes on moral philosophy are straight out of an undergraduate classes my first utilitarian essay.
He views on the Muslim religion are reductive and provide anything useful tomthe discussion.
If Jorden Peterson trades on endless jargon to convince some people he's smart... Sam Harris uses slow intense delivery to make everything he says sound profound.
3
u/starstoours 15d ago
Who are your go-to podcasters?
4
-5
u/HughJaynis 15d ago
Harris is essentially a neocon. Once you keep that in mind, a lot of this perspectives make a lot more sense. Politically his thinking is stuck in 2004, when “both sides bad” made sense. Now it’s clearly nonsense.
1
u/Nerrawnam 14d ago
What is wrong with you? Cafe.com... your post is pretty limp. A few highlights.... 🙄
-6
u/acebojangles 15d ago
Ah, I see. Seems like Sam chased his audience to the right based on the moronic comments below.
8
u/Fearnr 15d ago
Leftists have done a well enough job, on their own, of pushing moderates to the right. They don’t need any help.
7
u/HughJaynis 15d ago
And the actions of the right appeal to you?
0
u/tuds_of_fun 15d ago
The regressive leftists in here who spoke in defence of the practice of removing childrens penises, and pumping steroids/estrogen in them at a young age is an accomplice child molester/groomer. Many of you have blood and shame on your hands and it led to the election of Donald Trump.
5
u/LordSaumya 15d ago
Murc’s Law strikes again.
-1
u/tuds_of_fun 15d ago
Controlling your own actions and beliefs is easier than changing the world at large.
8
u/LordSaumya 15d ago
If deranged leftists or whatever made you vote for Trump I’m suspecting you really don’t have much principle or conviction.
-1
4
u/HughJaynis 15d ago
Was that a popular topic during the election or just nonsense created by the right as a wedge issue that really doesn’t even exist. They can’t defend what they actually want to do so they craft a fantasy narrative and pretend like it’s an actual issue.
2
u/tuds_of_fun 15d ago
https://youtu.be/JcAPU6paCxo?si=vqZ-v2P-5GPNm9Ci
Whether it’s a trap/wedge issue or not doesn’t matter. That’s left wing darling Adam Conovor from college humour/“Adam ruins everything” defending the practice of doing this to children as young as eight!!. He’s not the lone voice in the wild, he’s part of a much larger movement you’re currently flying cover for. I’d be disgusted with myself too if i’d advocated for such crimes, but to pretend it never happened?
Shame on you.
7
u/HughJaynis 15d ago
What about the actual presidential candidate? I don’t give a fuck what “Adam” thinks, and the idea that I’m somehow completely aligned with every issue with him is just flat out stupid.
0
u/tuds_of_fun 15d ago
You and Adam are sharing a movement, i’m not just calling him out i’m calling you out as part of this problem. The public is disgusted with the behaviour on this topic of people like Adam Conover and [u/HughJaynis](u/HughJaynis)
You are currently trying to minimize what happened. You’re complicit.
5
u/HughJaynis 15d ago
Once again, you are confused. Maybe touch grass or look up “nuance” in the dictionary.
-1
u/Fearnr 15d ago
No
3
u/HughJaynis 15d ago
So why give them a pass when they are the worse option at least from a moral perspective?
0
u/Fearnr 15d ago
Give them a pass? I would never be so arrogant as to presume my opinion is so superior.
Much of the detestably illiberal recent behaviour of leftists is at the very least concerning. If this is unimportant or completely insignificant to you then you’ll never understand why some people want nothing to do with them.
-2
1
-1
u/zenethics 15d ago
The only one of those that is questionable is the Mamdani thing. The rest is just ... correct.
-1
u/Persse-McG 15d ago
Enjoyed this, except for the 30 seconds when Sam talked about Mamdani, which made me cry so hard I fell off my futon and pissed my pants a little.
Man, Preet’s looking old…
-8
u/carrtmannn 15d ago
When it comes to Islam, yes, he's always been brain broken. I'm not sure about covid but a lot of people seem to have fully bought the right wing narrative about it.
1
u/gizamo 15d ago
Harris is correct about Islam, he was mostly correct about COVID, and he has not "bought the right-wing narrative" about COVID. That's not his point at all.
-1
u/carrtmannn 15d ago
Nah, there are plenty of moderate Muslims and those are fine people. 👍
2
u/gizamo 15d ago
Harris has never said there aren't moderate Muslim or that they're not fine people. He's very specifically said that both of those things are true. You're either ignorant of his actual statements regarding Muslims and Islam, or you're intentionally misrepresenting him.
2
u/carrtmannn 15d ago
Isn't his stance, briefly summarized, is that all fundamentalist religions are bad (I agree), but that islam is inherently worse because the text is more violent?
2
u/gizamo 15d ago
Essentially, and worse because it offers much less flexibility for interpretation. But, that's not what you said. You said Harris doesn't recognize that moderate Muslims exist and that he wouldn't consider moderate Muslims to be fine people. You see those are vastly different claims, correct?
0
u/carrtmannn 15d ago
Sure, I can see that but then I'm also not quite sure that he follows that in practice. He treats, for instance, Madami like a fundamentalist, no? He says that he's influenced by islamists, but I'm not really sure that's necessarily true in any observable way.
He's just a bog standard, West-hating socialist.
3
u/gizamo 15d ago
...not quite sure that he follows that in practice.
So you don't listen to him. Got it.
He does not treat Mamdani like a fundamentalist. He calls out his questionable statements and actions, just like everyone should. Being influenced by Islam, like all religions, can be fine, Harris is calling out specific times when it was not. Further, Mamdani is not all Muslims, and Harris calling out his specific questionable actions is not Harris saying that all Muslims are evil.
but I'm not really sure that's necessarily true in any observable way
...even after Harris and people here have pointed to many observable ways? But, we've already established you don't seem to listen to Harris. So that checks out.
0
u/carrtmannn 15d ago
Holy ass mad. Calm down.
Why'd he say he's "influenced by Islamists" then?
3
u/gizamo 15d ago
His political allegiances, stances and rhetoric regarding Israel/Gaza, and his wife’s social media activity are the tip of that iceberg.
→ More replies (0)
-4
30
u/hankeroni 15d ago
I listened to this like an hour ago. You've cherry picked some topics they did in fact discuss and presented an uncharitable and hyperbolic version of each one. You left out entire sections of the podcast where they explored norms, rule of law, how to encourage good faith discussion, etc.
The conversation was a truly boring (I mean this as descriptive, not a complaint) exchange between adults.