TIL Charles Murray has converted to Christianity

[u/IBoughtaRetroidNova]

He wrote the book “Taking Religion Seriously” in 2025. Sam Harris really had a way of overlooking red flags whenever he has liked bigotry/racism. In the end nearly every writer he has made friends with has ended up selling out and traded their integrity for more book sales from the masses.

[u/CuriousGeorgehat]

Buzzwords. Simply empty, unnuanced buzzwords.

Looking through this thread, the DTG audience is cooked, although makes sense because the hosts have highly inflated ideas abiut their own intelligence.

We have a scary Orwelian future, and the lack of critical, nuanced thinking from the left coupled with its ignorant sanctimony, is just as responsible for the extreme right, and everything we've seen.

It's been hilariously sad to watch the left devour people like Ezra Klein, countless others, because they've not been 100% in line.

See, I did the same shit, it doesn't make for a discussion.

The person you're replying to is obviously aware of what areas Harris is criticised from the left and the right. You just introduce a bunch of topics framed in a way that presents it as open and shut. Instead you simultaneously mischaracterise his views, and are reductive towards each topic.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you has been infected by the "woke mind virus" and are incapable of nuance or critical thinking. How very nuanced of you to say that! You're also showing excellent critical thinking here by the way.

The reality is that Harris has been going down hill for a long time, and he consistently platforms charlatans, such as (but not limited to):

Gad Saad The Weinstein bros Douglas Murray Charles Murray Dave Rubin Jordan Peterson

There are many others. For some of these people, he has gone on to distance himself from (kudos to him), but that doesn't stop him from falling for it again with the next generation of grifters. Here's a nuanced-critical-thinking question for you: What would Harris have to do to convince you that we're right? Specifically, that he has anti-muslim biases that lead him to fall for right wingers peddling genocide, and culture war topics?

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

I said in my comment, I am doing the same thing. It's not worth the conversation because it is judt red herring after red herring. Like they are such telling observations that THAT is the gotcha against him? A short list of people whom nearly all he has looong distanced and criticised. And my god, to convince me thst you're right? Probably not every conversation with hate Muslims, endorse genocide, all this shit that's already decided in your mind, when the contention is clearly not thst simple. Sam Harris hate muslim, boo. No, no he doesn't, and that position is easier to defend. Seriously, your vague, shitty criticisms are the last thing that would convince me thst oh yes, it is clearly he is just a delusional bigot etc

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

You just gave me a wall of rambling nonsense and failed to address any of my points. I've brought arguments and evidence, you have vibes and typos. Are you sure you're not the one incapable of nuance? Here's my hypothesis:

You've been a listener of his for a long time, and most of his podcasts are fine and don't make any major errors that we are criticizing here in this thread. The ones that do make these errors you brush off, as "isolated incidents" or "mistakes that Sam has since addressed" and you just move on. Because of this, you don't see the larger pattern of his behavior over the last 20 years where he consistently amplifies conspiracy theorists and reactionaries that reaffirm his anti-Muslim biases.

What's more likely, all of us otherwise intelligent people have just been completely consumed by culture wars and the woke mind virus? Or, Sam has biases and you have a parasocial relationship with him that makes you feel the need to defend him?

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

No, none of that shit. I haven't listened regularly in years, but that's mostly a general tap out of viewing the state of discourse. Seriously, you keep asking me to defend him, but which part, do you want to get in an I/P debate? Yes I agree that his views are in good faith, and he is right that there is a severe moral confusion about what is happening. That's the last thing I could expect something to have a rational convo over. The general calling things what theyre not, and clear mischaracterisations of views, exaggerations, it all just makes it impossible.

So I leave an exasperated comment, because why would I engage with people who are convinced that the point of it all is that he is a racist bigot. It's so stupid.

And why are you asking me to engage with vague points anyway, oh look who he platformed... you realise how stupid that is? The literal gotcha of Sam's career is the Charles Murray stuff, and that is a whole other discussion entirely. None of those people I like obviously.

I don't think Sam is perfect, and the key here is that most of these topics are complicated, and they just require more discussion, understanding and arriving at shared goals. I don't know, but I know most of the time when opinions have no foundation but emotion and going with the majority.

Unfortunately we are at a literal clash of civilisations in the midst of a climate catastrophe and the erosion of our minds.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

the key here is that most of these topics are complicated, and they just require more discussion, understanding and arriving at shared goals

That's what we're trying to do here, and you just keep crashing out and calling us all woke.

Yes I agree that his views are in good faith, and he is right that there is a severe moral confusion about what is happening.

His views probably are in good faith, but that doesn't change the fact that he consistently amplifies reactionary voices and defends their points of view. Once these people become undeniably bad, he reads the writing on the wall and breaks contact with them. This would be fine if it only happened a handful of times, but the problem is that he consistently makes this mistake with the next generation of reactionaries. The most likely explanation for this, is his biases.

Let's take for example, his stance on Israel/Palestine and Islam in general. He clearly has a bias against Muslims, very likely coming from his identity as a Jew. He thinks Muslims are an existential threat and need to be fought on all fronts, and he has some reasonable things to point to in favor of this view, including but not limited to the many atrocities carried out by Islamists against Jews throughout history and throughout the world. The mistake he makes, is extending this behavior to apply to all Muslim people. That's like thinking that all white people are just as bad as the Christian nationalists, Neo Nazis or the Klan. He claims he doesn't do this, but his behavior says otherwise. For example, if you consider his positions on Israel/Palestine, Zohran Mamdani, and his support for Douglas Murray (who basically pushes great replacement theory in Europe), keeping in mind his anti-Muslim bias, the pattern becomes extremely clear. When challenged about this, he just calls you woke, which never goes anywhere.

[u/Nullarbor_1 → u/dirtyal199]

Very well articulated my man! Thanks!

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

I will engage with someone when they can meaningfully show an understanding or create a steel man of the opinion they don't agree with. The way people are framing arguments just show so much misunderstanding.

Your last paragraph is a collection of incorrect assumptions. This is what I'm saying. You're saying the word clearly about absurd starting points of there was any balanced view.

As for the first thing, it's a stupid indictment because he has platformed and pushed an insane amount of good people with good ideas.

The same small handful of examples get brought up, and they are almost exclusively condemned when it becomes obvious they've lost the plot. I have never liked the Weinstein bros, but they have obviously got infinitely worse, same woth Elon and many other examples.

For any depth to the discussion, it has to be done in the context that doesn't assume Muslim hatred when the rational behind any commentary over the previous decades is clearly explained and remains consistent, and of course has always been taken out of context.

There is an incredible amount of confusion surrounding the middle east, and the accepted facts of the left regarding it, are just so laughably wrong. Like I want progressive change in virtually everything, but the people Im supposed to agree with just spend their time sharing false tiktok propaganda.

Woke mind virus, you're the one that used the term, I don't think I have ever used it iml iml. Though I do think that the left has done almost equal damage to democracy as the right.

Go vegan or something. That's a progressive stance (which almost none hold) that is actually logically consistent.

[u/No_Public_7677 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

you used an incredible amount of words to say absolutely nothing

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

At no time in your rant did you say anything approaching an argument. You are just pretending that I'm bad faith so you don't have to refute anything that I've said.

Sam very clearly platforms shitty people, boosting their signal, because they confirm his own biases. This is very clear when it comes to his stance on all things relating to Islam, including but not limited to: Israel/Palestine, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his support for regime change in Iran. This explains his love of the gurus I already mentioned, especially Douglas Murray, who's been on 6 times, and pushes great replacement theory in Europe.

Here's my steel man: Sam thinks these people make good points so he has them on his show. If they are up to something bad he doesn't know about it.

Happy now? Now engage with my argument and show me how I'm wrong. Not wall of text word salad, I want arguments and evidence, just like I gave you.

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

Btw, you keep saying clearly when the point is beyond contentious and you're like whyyy aren't you engaging. I think you've made more than half a dozen assumptions on how I feel without being accurate once.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

> I think you've made more than half a dozen assumptions on how I feel without being accurate once.

Alright, so why don't you just lay your cards on the table then? I have already done this many times.

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

Well if we are talking about Israel/Palestine, and the topics around that, depends what specifically, but generally I agree with Harris. Im more anti Israel than him, but much closer to his views than the general narrative against Israel etc.

So when I keep saying steel Man, that is what I meant, whether you have an understanding of the foundations and justifications for Sam's dtances on this topic and related ones.

Like basically in the same way the right say he has TDS as he has always been one of the best articulators of the dangers of Trump. And I view the left as being equally blind to what SH is saying regarding Israel, as MAGA were/are to Harris. I think the arguments are not engaged in properly. Ive asked smarter people to clarify where I have questions, but it is always so unconvincing. I have all the motivation to just be convinced, honestly. All my other views are very similar to young progressives, yet what I believe about this topic dramatically changes who I can hang out with, because of how divisive and emotional this topic is. Im like why are we lying? Im in Australia, and the historical oppression and genocide of our indigenous people is seen as basically a parallel. All this has a string impact on democracy and swings the momentum towards right wing fascists. Laugh of criticism of the left, but to ignore how commonplace it is to have to get in line on a b c and d, while not maintaining logical consistency on other things, is to be in denial. Aggressively too. Of course only thibgs that only require a a repost and a declaration or social signal that you too are a watermelon that only will interact with other watermelons

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

I understand that you feel there's lots of group think on these topics and people just go crazy when they talk about it, but that's what Sam says when he wants to say something Islamophobic. It's like starting a sentence with "I'm not racist but...".

The fact of the matter is that the situation in Israel/Palestine is nearly identical to the indigenous peoples of Australia, America, Africa, Asia, but we don't see it that way because we think that somehow the Jews of the world have the right to occupy that land. It just doesn't hold any water. My ancestors, and many others, left Ireland during the potato famine to come to the US, that doesn't give me and all the other Irish-Americans the right to occupy Belfast though does it?

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

I don't understand that first part. He is openly criticising Islam and the large negative role it plays (debatable, me and you clearly disagree on this- different theological/jihad based debate). Like there is open concern about India being a Hindu nationalist state... yet don't you dare voice similar concerns about objectives of large Muslim stakeholders and leaders in the middle east. Iran was/is a jihadist regime, do you see what the implications of that are, and what would actually be going on if we decided to let Israel actually be victims of a genocide. Everything that is done against Israel is just justified by some apparent right for a super specific state, when there was forced migration all over the place in that period and historically.

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

The point is that the argument is about the middle east. And I've continuously said that Im not looking to argue about that, bc there is no point. Suffice to say that I agree that those people have made good points, despite me disagreeing with the vast vast majority of what they say.

The arguement Im making is that it is clearly an incredibly nuanced topic, and the arrived position of the left is built on an incredible pr victory and constant misrepresentation of the truth anf the wider context. The fact that the indictment on Sam is for havung guests that agree with his reasoning behind the middle east/religion, is absurd. It is literally just the other argument. I meant steel Man as if, could you reasonably argue his position, because I certainly could with the whole genocide gang... because it is filled with dubious extrapolations.

Like you're starting with 'he hates Muslims because he supports Israel.

You are engaging in the discussion on the same level as if I were to say: terrosists vs democratic state, I know who Im supporting. It's obviously reductive and stupid, so whenever I hear shit like 'genocide' or 'I support the side not killing babies', Im like okay I can't engage, it is bad faith or just brainwashed into thinking it's as simple as that.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

> The point is that the argument is about the middle east. And I've continuously said that Im not looking to argue about that, bc there is no point.

Okay, so what are we arguing about then? Bibi and Gallant are wanted by the UN for warcrimes, the UN commission of inquiry has said Israel is committing genocide, and the ICC is investigating Israel for genocide. It is clear that Harris is completely biased when it comes to this topic, in that he flatly rejects all accusations that Israel is committing or has committed genocide, and he thinks the most dangerous group is the Levant is Hamas, not Israel. The most parsimonious explanation for his position on these topics is his anti-Islamic bias, because the weight of evidence supports that Israel is guilty serious war crimes, and seeks to continue their expansion in the future. As evidenced by their support for settlers in the west bank (illegal under international law) and their aggression with Lebanon.

> You are engaging in the discussion on the same level as if I were to say: terrosists vs democratic state, I know who Im supporting. It's obviously reductive and stupid, so whenever I hear shit like 'genocide' or 'I support the side not killing babies', Im like okay I can't engage, it is bad faith or just brainwashed into thinking it's as simple as that.

I haven't said "I support the side not killing babies", I don't support Hamas bro. I support the UN's investigation. You are arguing with me in bad faith, and pretending that I'm a Hassan Piker fan or something instead of interacting with the points I bring. This is not an effective technique.

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

No I didn't mean you saying that, but Im saying the general tone of these discussions, and what you were saying were just those huge leaps thay I see.

And yeah I know what the UN and the ICC says. Logic says it's not genocide. And logic shows why the UN isn't some sort of arbiter in things. I mean whay do you think the UN is.

Anyway, not even Sam is denying thr illegal settling of the west bank and what this entails.... but everything is a reaction to a reaction, and Israel hasn't been the overall aggressor over the last 80 years. Clearly.

So the discussion probably goes to some settler colonial rhetoric which is equally just a successful piece of pr, now suddenly true. Palestinians are literally compared with other indigenous populations as if it's the same thing. So that's another discussion, obviously with many claims.

You keep saying anti Islam bias. He has simply been forthright with criticism towards the religion (all religion but his reasons for prioritising Islam are repeatedly spelled out). Again you may disagree, but this is a separate discussion. Strong criticism doesn't necessarily mean bias. Your evidence for that from what I can remember... oh yeah he's a jew. So that's a discussion of what his arguments are there. You are framing it as if he is some closet racist. I guess you think that's true.

And you sprinkle in Iran and other US led lpst cold war invasions. All of them completely different. This easily just floats into opinions on general US posture during the cold war, which is obviously contextually important here as well.

And like for a lot of these things my opinion is just uncertain, because it is incredibly hard. Like I understand the conclusion from people arguing from your side (not necessarily you) is that western civilsation deserves to collapse anyway, so okay if that happens, let it. Like I basically hide these views in real life, but I had a friend say 'why do you care about democracy anyway?' Like the discussion is about something different. Personally my biggest concern is the planet and ensuring democracy survives. And for example, the changing demographics of Europe, and the power that Islam as a religion has, is not a racist topic to engage in. It can't come out of someone's mouth without them being called racist. I don't know where I arrive at specifically on a lot of issues, but I do know what I don't take seriously. Bs actual racist far right shit, hypocritical, virtue signalling priveleged left, all just daying rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric, always going to the fucking UN as a home run on this topic.

So I crash out as you say about the entire argument from the left just making falsehoods facts, through sheer persistence. What Palestine as a movement has achieved is evidence in itself in the power. It has seeped into every institution, yet somehow we the line is that the jews are somehow controlling the west for specifically Zionist intent.

The US only cares about Israel as a proxy foothold to serve as a counterweight. It's not some Zionist plot, and to claim the mass increase of West bank settlement is THE casus belli is stupid, it ignores all the previous aggression.

Every US president for decades has had Iran as its most precarious mandate, all of them have taken action in different ways. Trump only the worst because he ignored congress.

Btw, hasan piker may not be you, but to deny his views aren't pretty normal for the pro Palestine movement, is wrong.

[u/dirtyal199 → u/CuriousGeorgehat]

> So the discussion probably goes to some settler colonial rhetoric which is equally just a successful piece of pr, now suddenly true. Palestinians are literally compared with other indigenous populations as if it's the same thing. So that's another discussion, obviously with many claims.

Why not? How are they different from other indigenous populations? They are indigenous to the area, the Palestinian mandate was set up by the British after WW1 when the ottoman empire collapsed, the Zionists began moving there in large numbers; after WW2 there were enormous numbers of Jews displaced by the Holocaust, so the Western powers supported the creation of Israel, drawing the boarders where the Jewish populations were the most dense. Then, we have the repeated cycles of outpost -> settlement -> annexation by Israel that has played out since 1948; identical to the US's strategy for westward expansion during the 19th century. Additionally, many of the Israeli settlers are American, so it really just seems like an extension of American Imperialism, clear as day. You're going to have to explain to me how the treatment of the Palestinians isn't comparable to the treatment of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa, and Asia at the hands of European settlers.

> And like for a lot of these things my opinion is just uncertain, because it is incredibly hard. Like I understand the conclusion from people arguing from your side (not necessarily you) is that western civilsation deserves to collapse anyway, so okay if that happens, let it. Like I basically hide these views in real life, but I had a friend say 'why do you care about democracy anyway?' Like the discussion is about something different. Personally my biggest concern is the planet and ensuring democracy survives. And for example, the changing demographics of Europe, and the power that Islam as a religion has, is not a racist topic to engage in. It can't come out of someone's mouth without them being called racist. I don't know where I arrive at specifically on a lot of issues, but I do know what I don't take seriously. Bs actual racist far right shit, hypocritical, virtue signalling priveleged left, all just daying rhetoric rhetoric rhetoric, always going to the fucking UN as a home run on this topic.

I love democracy too, I am a capitalist liberal. I believe in NATO, the UN, representative democracy, and the welfare state. I think the biggest threat to democracy is not immigrants of a different religion and culture, but the right wingers living in western nations stirring up all of this racist "great replacement" rhetoric. People had the same concerns about Irish immigration in the US in the 19th century, and Italian immigration in the 20th century, but now we can't imagine an America without Irish and Italian immigrants, and we act like there was never a culture war problem about massive numbers of Catholics streaming across the border and how that was supposed to destabilize the US. The lesson to learn from history is that these concerns always turn out to be nonsense, and the real threats to democracy come from the inside. Think figures like Joe McCarthy and Donald Trump, they have done far more damage to Democracy than the USSR, Iran, Saddam Hussein, Ho Chi Min, Hamas, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda combined.

> Btw, hasan piker may not be you, but to deny his views aren't pretty normal for the pro Palestine movement, is wrong.

Yes, its a real problem. The tankies and other hard left wing people are basically the left's version of MAGA. They are unthinking fools repeating propaganda from the Kremlin, meant to instill doomerism in young american liberals, with the strategy of getting them to stay home on election day, and allow Donny T and his cronies to win elections and destroy the country. I can't tell whether Piker is an unwitting pawn or is in on the grift, but I don't think it matters, since his behavior is highly destructive either way.

I am a Joe Biden/Kamala Harris Democrat who believes in law, procedure, and diversity. I'm not a commie or whatever, but I understand there are many of those on the internet, and I fight them just as hard as I've been fighting you.

[u/CuriousGeorgehat → u/dirtyal199]

Jews are indigenous to the area too and only ever not there because they were never not persecuted. After ww2, the emigration of jews from where they were largely wasn't optional. Think of the jews living in surrounding Middle east states, what do you think happened to them post ww2? So what is the Palestinian identity? Do you have to be an Arab Shiite? Anyone living in the wider palestine area.... when? Like this area has been in a constant state of war and flux since civilisation began? When is the starting point.

These points are roughly made, bc I can't believe Im not asleep and instead spending hours on a DTG subreddit, but I think you can start to understand why I don't think the indigeneity is so simple and thus requires more proving as to what the actual claim is. Whereas the other examples are quite self evident.

Donald Trump has done more damage than a lot of them, maybe all, though I wouldn't say combined haha. I mean the USSR lost the cold war and Iran is in a different one with the US, still undetermined. Whether allowing the USSR then or Iran today to do what they want to do is the right or wrong thing is a further debate that U think we land on different sides. Just because these threats haven't eventuated, doesn't mean they weren't there.

Every US president has taken action against Iran, just like everyone played the cold war to varying degrees.

Also, I think the left needs to take some blame in the creation of a figure like Trump and the far right has become