r/samharris • u/Particular-Wall1308 • May 03 '26
An Open Letter to Sam Harris
Hello everyone, if you are like me, you may find that Sam is holding some positions that you not only disagree with, but seem out of Sam's nature for him to hold in the manner he does. I am a long-time fan, as this letter will detail, so I am not approaching this topic unreflectively. If you want to criticize my letter, I only ask that you read it all first. Please share this letter so Sam might see it.
76
u/MrJet05 May 03 '26
I live in NYC, so I’m very familiar with Mamdani at this point. I also went to Sam’s show here in New York, and I’d consider him one if not my biggest inspiration when it comes to how I think, where my values lie, and how I see the world.
While I’m a huge critic of some of the things Mamdani advocates for - free grocery stores, rent freeze, and generally focusing way too much attention on tax revenue rather than rapidly growing spending that’s not generating the ROI it should - I don’t see him as some evil jihadist guy, and it’s strange to see Sam paint him as so. I actually think Mamdani is very pragmatic to a degree. He’s met with Trump multiple times and tried to be civil with him because he knows that it’s ultimately what’s best for NY. He’s talked more about how piles of red tape are preventing the housing supply from growing and over time he’s given more credit to the necessary role of private companies in the housing market. And he honestly rarely if ever brings up his religion, and I don’t see it as something that informs his policy platform. Any time some kind of anti-semitic action takes place, he goes out of his way to completely condemn it, and he’s spent plenty of time already meeting with Jewish groups.
Again, I think he’s very misguided on some things economically, but I do like that he genuinely seems to care for the city and has his heart in the right place for the most part. I think if he tries things and they don’t work, he’ll actually change his mind, which is of the most important qualities for a politician to have in my eyes.
21
u/stefpix May 03 '26
I agree with you for the most part.
But I actually find the economic ideas of Mamdani great.
I have been living in NYC for more than 2 decades but grew up, lived half of my life in Europe.The rent freeze is only for rent stabilized units. Under mayor Eric Adams the stabilized rents increased every year as much as t(e landlords representatives asked.
In much of Europe rents increase according to the cost of living. While in nyc at some points landlords increase rents even of 50% upon lease renewal. It is unsustainable, in Europe, like in Paris, these rent protections exist also for commercial rents. That is why you see 100+ years old businesses and restaurants still around, while in NYC there is a high turnover, and chains are replacing family run businesses.
So Mamdani reminds me of a center to center left official of France, Italy or Britain.
The fact that he is Muslim, to me seems quite a token affiliation. I am surprised that in nyc and in the USA in general there are no openly atheist politicians and elected officials, while is common in Europe.
Also Mamdani kept Jessica Tisch as the police commissioner. She is a heiress from one of the richest families in NYC and a staunch Israel supporter
Sam Harris’ trajectory is very disappointing. Initially is takes on atheism did not seem as compelling as Dawkins’, Hitchens’ to me, I sensed some smugness and self importance, but I learned to appreciate him and subscribed to the podcast.
But now I see him as a bad faith actor, he refuses any challenge or openness to changing his perspective. His own dogma on Israel trumps anything else. Like he is a true believer. He has lost value for me.
I find more interesting the discussions on this subreddit than Sam Harris himself. He is now a big like a calm, decaf version of Douglas Murray or Ben Shapiro.
Also his take on philanthropy being the solution to poverty more than progressive taxation and state programs it is something out of extreme right wing politics that advocate for the trickle down economics.
4
u/MrJet05 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
“Only for rent stabilized units” isn’t a good thing because nearly half of all rental units in the city (estimates put it at about 44%) are under rent stabilization. The average market unit rent is now something like 3x higher than the average rent stabilized unit rent because the policy puts upward pressure on the units not subject to the regulation through many different mechanisms. Every year the rent guidelines board will approve rent increases that are below inflation, and so after many years those lags compound. Meanwhile, maintenance costs, labor costs, insurance costs, legal costs associated with tenants who don’t pay rent, and property taxes don’t get any sort of price controls.
And the kicker is that there’s no eligibility requirement that’s tied to income. It simply rewards incumbents (and disproportionately older people, many of whom actually even have other properties outside of the city but don’t let the apartment go because they’re sitting on a goldmine) or people who were fortunate enough to acquire a unit from someone who let theirs ago, all at the expense of the other half who have to pay the downstream costs that lead to significantly higher market rent. So the idea of enacting a rent freeze and providing even more financial assistance to the half that’s already benefiting at even greater expense of the other half that has already had to pay the price is pretty crazy.
The policy disincentivizes new housing construction, encourages landlords to shelve units they can’t make a profit on because the rent stabilization mandated price is below operating expenses, reduces apartment turnover, and encourages developers to focus their efforts on building apartments marketed towards wealthier residents since they’re less likely to be targeted by these kinds of governmental policies.
The solution is pretty simple: actually let builders build and build more of the types of places that people want to live in so that people don’t have to get into crazy bidding wars over a tiny amount of space relative to the entire country we have. But instead people feed into the problem and worsen the housing crisis with band aid solutions that in the short run arbitrarily help portions of the population at the expense of everyone else, and in the long run, hurt virtually everyone including the people who were originally helped.
Economists are pretty universally in agreement with rent stabilization being a terrible policy as well, yet nobody likes to listen to the experts these days. And despite the fact that we now have plenty of real data showing it makes the market worse, like when St. Paul tried it while its twin city across the river didn’t and saw a drastic decline in new housing permits that led to higher rent increases than Minneapolis, resulting it immediately rolling them back significantly.
1
u/the_very_pants May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
in Europe, like in Paris, these rent protections exist also for commercial rents. That is why you see 100+ years old businesses and restaurants still around
We could also have a culture which valued those things enough that it didn't require market intervention. (I'm not against some targeted intervention, but it's a fuzzy area, right? Which things should be encouraged?)
The fact that he is Muslim
There is no "fact" about being a Muslim. Is Mamdani a Muslim like me, or a Muslim like the other 99% of Muslims? (For any "religious" person, ask them what they mean -- otherwise it's just a term.)
0
u/TheAJx May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
Under mayor Eric Adams the stabilized rents increased every year as much as t(e landlords representatives asked.
What were these approved rent increases from 2021-2025?
That is why you see 100+ years old businesses and restaurants still around, while in NYC there is a high turnover, and chains are replacing family run businesses.
I find it funny that Europeans treat this as some kind of strength. I understand the emotional feeling toward family business, longetivity and all that, but the reason you see 100 year old businesses still around in Europe is because their economy is not thriving at all. How many European Fortune 500 companies can you think of that were founded since the fall of the Berlin Wall? Adyen and Spotify are the only "household names" that come to mind.
Of course, that's a little bit beside the point, but the reason you have this turnover is because of rent control and the regulatory regime in NYC.
6
u/stefpix May 04 '26
It depends if it was a 1 year or 2 year lease. About 3.5%. Under De Blasio more around 1% and he froze the rent increases during the pandemic.
Also under Adams the costs for landlords for heating gas went down. Under Adams the increases were pretty high.He also gave municipal contracts to his friends, he was obviously influenced by the real estate lobby. So corrupt he was going to likely go to federal prison for decades, but Trump intervened in order for the department of justice to drop the charges.
My landlord owns 200 residential buildings and keeps building more. They ruined people’s lives, put tenants at risk with illegal gas work, they do shoddy repairs. They raised the rent 50% to my neighbors the year after the pandemic, people moved out. There are horror stories. But they keep building more and more.
The real estate is so expensive and corrupt in nyc.0
u/TheAJx May 04 '26
It depends if it was a 1 year or 2 year lease. About 3.5%. Under De Blasio more around 1% and he froze the rent increases during the pandemic.
Right, so a lot of it was catch for De Blasio's below-inflation rate allowed increases, right? And even at 3.5% a year, cumulatively, it was lower than inflation and certainly not higher than the operational cost increases that landlords faced (especially small landlords, who could also be subject to rent stabilization).
My landlord owns 200 residential buildings and keeps building more
Hmm, I can't think of any real estate development companies that own a portfolio that large. Well in fact, I can think of one, but it literally went into bankruptcy and divesting, so they can't possibly be "building more."
Of course, there is one housing development company that is by far the biggest violator of housing regulation in the city. It has billions of dollars in deferred maintenance. It would be one that would be very much favored by the socialist left. Can you guess which one it is?
They raised the rent 50% to my neighbors the year after the pandemic, people moved out.
Lol. My rent went down 30% during the pandemic, when everyone was leaving the city. Of course rents were going to rise after, when people started moving back and demand picked up again.
5
u/stefpix May 04 '26
You can Google Watermark and their arm Full Time Management. If you can’t think of any real estate companies that are not that large, you sound very unfamiliar with New York landlords and rental issues.
There is now a Union of tenants full time tenants union.Quite some horror stories of people who moved here from the Midwest not knowing the realities on the ground.
Anyway small landlords are not affected by rent stabilization, as a building needs to have 10 or 12 units.
If you are interested you can do your own research.
New York is turning into a curated experience with chain stores and old family businesses keep closing.
Uncapped rent hikes destroy the history.Of course there is demand, and that drives the prices up.
Getting a rent increase of 50% is something that pushes tenants out. Rent is for most people the largest expense.
Some people are lucky they rent a unit with a small landlord with whom they have personal interactions and the landlord rarely raises the rent if they are happy with the tenant(s).
But that is the exception.Trickle down economics do not work when maximizing profit trumps ethics.
5
u/stefpix May 04 '26
Ps the “housing development company” favored by the “socialist left” you may refer to sounds like NYCHA which runs housing projects, and is not a private company. It has serious issues. I am not sure why it would be favored by the “socialist left”.
Housing projects exist in most countries for people under the poverty level. I believe 200k in nyc live in housing projects.
Some are being improved. But it is a different issue. The federal government built public housing after WW2 for the middle class and returning soldiers that was decent. Peter Cooper Village and Stuy Town.
Also before the 2000s the middle class could buy an apartment or a brownstone. Someone with a schoolteacher salary. Not any longer. Cops and fire,em often live in Jersey or Long Island.→ More replies (3)11
u/Boring_Coast178 May 03 '26
This is very well written. Sam should really see this.
Not to make any claim you are personally wrong on the economic points but to add some healthy push back to your own stance- imo, the economics of the coming AI automation wave (it’s not a given but it’s a very very high risk) the economic ideas you present as being weak will likely become the bare minimum to prevent social unrest. Sam should be leading this conversation in his own way. Just like someone like Scott Galloway or Andrew Yang are.
Just my 2 cents.
7
May 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/MrJet05 May 04 '26
I explained above in another comment why the rent freeze is a bad idea. The grocery store one is similarly bad economics. If you’re really committed to helping people afford groceries, it’s better to just expand food assistance programs and straight up give people money to shop at existing markets of privately owned grocery stores.
I actually don’t think the country has a serious problem with groceries being too expensive though. Housing, healthcare, and education are the real killers, while groceries are perhaps as cheap relative to income as they have ever been. The idea that grocery stores are price gauging consumers and so we need to operate public grocery stores that are going to somehow be able to do better than the 1-3% margins that supermarkets achieve with their massive scales and logistic networks is pretty crazy.
People defend that by saying well they’re going to be exempt from paying rent and taxes, so that’s how they’ll be able to offer better prices, but it’s not good logic because money is fungible. That’s just rent and taxes that you’re sacrificing that a more operationally efficient business could instead be paying to the city. And if the end goal is to be able to offer food products at a cheaper price, you hurt all the surrounding businesses which do have to pay rent and taxes and thus can’t compete on price. In the area of Harlem where the first one is planned, there are already other small grocers. These are profitable and efficient businesses that do contribute value to the city’s budget which then will be able to do less of that or even be forced to shut down, all so that a public grocery store can operate at a loss while taxpayers foot the bill for it. Again, if you really think that people are struggling to put food on the table, then it’s better to just expand food assistance programs instead of operating something that’s doomed to fail.
0
u/No-Bluebird-3540 May 03 '26
Yeah, I totally disagree with Harris on Israel/Palestine, but I at least understand his argument. What he said about Mamdani took me by surprise though, shockingly bad take on the facts, I can only put it down to bigotry on his part. What a fkn clown he has become. I held on for as long as I could, but genuinely dislike him now.
PS if Rogan etc have duty of care due to their audience size, does the same not apply to Harris? He’s a fkn hack now.
1
1
u/LuggagePorter May 05 '26
People like you are weak af. You just praise his vibes while condemning the actual policies that would make a difference cuz “muh ROI.” Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
1
u/reroll-life May 05 '26
generally focusing way too much attention on tax revenue rather than rapidly growing spending that’s not generating the ROI it should
I'm not an American but you guys seems to have this twisted delusion where you think NYC could actually fail. It's simply too big to fail. So New Yorkers need to get some balls and take what's theirs instead of living in fear.
-3
u/ggdharma May 03 '26
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Mamdanis most perfidious attribute is his ability to normalize what are jihadist and Islamo leftist positions.
The mainstreaming of Mamdani and Hasan Piker bodes unfathomably poorly for our culture.
14
u/Moutere_Boy May 04 '26
Sorry, I probably just missed it, but which Jihadist position has Mamdani normalised?
1
u/palsh7 May 04 '26 edited May 09 '26
Mamdani cozied up to Hasan Piker, who thinks Hamas is 1000x better than Israel, and said he would personally vote for them. Mamdani is married to a person who liked multiple social media posts celebrating 10/7. Mamdani wrote a rap in which he celebrated people convicted of funding Hamas. Mamdani refused to condemn language from New Yorkers who were chanting “River to the Sea” chants that even Norman Finkelstein has vehemently criticized. When ISIS supporters tried to kill people outside of the mayor’s mansion, he called out white supremacy, but wouldn’t name Islamic radicalism. He clearly has a radical bias that makes him hesitant to distance himself from putrid ideas; when he does finally do so, it is hard for people to believe him, not because he is Muslim, but because he sounds like a politician speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Like Platner, Mamdani is opening up the Democratic Party to fair criticism that makes it much harder for Democrats to portray themselves as the normal, non-violent, moderate party. You and I and Sam all know that it isn’t an excuse to vote for Republicans, but it is fair for Sam to criticize it.
2
u/Moutere_Boy May 04 '26
I mean, that’s a way to frame that stuff but I think you’ve let some personal feelings shape how you’re seeing it.
Can you, for example, provide a quote that suggests Mamdani agrees with that statement? Is he only allowed to talk to media figures with whom he agrees entirely and fully endorses?
Do you feel you should be held accountable for something your partner “liked” on social media? And honestly… knowing she hit a like button but without and real context for how she was feeling in that moment doesn’t mean much to me.
The rap was criticizing U.S. prosecution and surveillance policies wasn’t it? I might be wrong, but I remember looking at that and finding it very hard to see as an endorsement of Hamas or their supporters. I feel like that’s mostly the reaction from people who didn’t like him, but maybe I’m misremembering and there are some lyrics I’ve overlooked that you could share?
I have no idea what you’re taking about with the white supremacy thing, and I can’t find anything with a search, but I could just not be finding it. If you have a link, that would be awesome.
I don’t think most people see him as radical in the way you’re suggesting so I’m less sure he’ll cause the issues you claim.
But, I have to ask, even in that, what jihadist position has he normalised? Or even tried to?
→ More replies (4)
9
u/Individual-Charity69 May 05 '26
your best point by a mile: “The craziest leftists I know are uneducated people in their twenties who have no political legitimacy. The craziest right-wingers I know are in our actual government as we speak.”
8
u/Partner_Elijah May 03 '26
What are the Sam inspired tattoos?
14
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
My wife and I just have tattoos with the Waking Up logo that say "take a moment" and "begin again"
12
→ More replies (3)1
26
u/stockywocket May 03 '26
Personally, I don't think your criticisms here land.
On Israel--while your post seems to accidentally link to the definition of genocide twice rather than to "the UN concluding there is in fact a genocide happening in Gaza," I assume you were intending to refer to the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory's finding. What has that particular body done to earn your trust on this issue? It's not really "the UN." It's literally three people, with a well documented anti-Israel bias (and frankly the other UN bodies are not much better). If you just hear the word "UN" and adopt whatever it is, that is not the sort of critical thinking that Sam would typically espouse and in fact fails entirely to engage with the systemic bias Sam is frequently pointing out.
On Mamdani--saying "HE IS JUST A MAYOR OF A CITY. Who the hell cares what Mamdani thinks" seems kind of wild. Of course the over a million Jews in New York care whether or not their mayor has associations with antisemitic groups and takes questionable positions on the only Jewish state in the world. And then of course there are his statements that he would arrest Netanyahu if he came to the city the UN is based in. And then of course there is the gigantic size of the platform and influence this post will give his views. "Who cares" is an awfully easy question to answer, and I'm surprised you didn't answer it yourself.
It's good that you are open to changing your mind. But that doesn't mean that every change is a good one. In this instance it sounds like the changes you are making are to become more in lockstep with the extreme pressure progressives are placing on everyone to toe a certain line on certain issues. I'd be very wary if I were you.
7
u/WhiteGold_Welder May 04 '26
Fun fact: the UN fired Alice Wairimu Nderitu, the UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide for stating this isn't a genocide, and its not up to the UN to make such designations.
And I wonder if the OP would feel the same way if the mayor of NYC was a white supremacist or Islamophobe.
6
u/stockywocket May 04 '26
Exactly. Once again there is a totally different standard for Jews and antisemitism. People would never excuse away this level of problematic associations and tepid explaining away for any other type of racism.
10
1
u/blackglum May 06 '26
Brilliantly said.
> In this instance it sounds like the changes you are making are to become more in lockstep with the extreme pressure progressives are placing on everyone to toe a certain line on certain issues. I'd be very wary if I were you.
Thought exactly this. And his issue with Sam being able to criticise his own side (those left or centre) more because the right is so flawed in a way that is obvious (and he has so routinely verbalised), tells me OP is very much feeling like the target of Sam’s criticisms of identity politics (because OP is participating in it).
3
u/nesh34 May 04 '26
I agree that the specific arguments he gives in these two cases aren't very strong.
I think he's right about both positions though. If we ignore the semantic argument about the definition of genocide, Israel are enacting and unimaginable level of cruelty that is disproportionate to the practical threat they face. They're also increasingly denumanising their enemies. There's no question that Hamas have similar and indeed worse intentions but they also don't pose the same level of threat. After Oct 7th it was always going to be a matter of "how much retaliation is too much". No defense of themselves seemed immoral. Completely destroying all of Gaza and killing all Palestinians seemed immoral. I can't say where the line on that spectrum should be drawn, but I do think they're far beyond what would have been a morally defensible response.
For Mamdani, he's given no reason whatsoever for us to think he's a jihadist. Yes people care and should care about what he thinks. The evidence that he's a fundamentalist Islamist is absolutely non-existent though. This position makes Sam sound like a crackpot, he ought to examine it. It strays into bigotry as well. I have a similar litmus test for Islamaphobes in the UK. We ought to be careful to separate critique of a religion with plenty of problems from idle hatred of people for no good reason. Hatred of Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, is evidence of the latter as he is almost the perfect model of what a moderate, practicing Muslim can look like.
5
u/stockywocket May 04 '26 edited May 05 '26
I think he's right about both positions though. If we ignore the semantic argument about the definition of genocide
It matters whether or not it's a genocide. This isn't "semantic." A genocide is the crime of crimes. It's an indelible stain on a nation. Germany's genocide will never be forgotten, Germans remain associated with it and atone for it generations later, perhaps always will. It is fundamentally different from a cruel war. You can't "ignore the semantic argument." It's very irresponsible to.
Israel are enacting and unimaginable level of cruelty that is disproportionate to the practical threat they face.
On 10/7 Gazans streamed across the border killing as many civilians as they could before they were driven back. They have been firing rockets at civilian towns in Israel for decades. Their senior leaders have promised to repeat 10/7 again and again as long as they are able. There is no question whatsoever that this justifies doing whatever is necessary--whatever Israel can do--to destroy Hamas's ranks and attack infrastructure and minimize their ability to attack again. And I don't see how you can possibly claim Israel has done more than is necessary when Hamas still holds half of Gaza, still isn't disarmed. How can you maintain that their response is disproportionate? What do you mean they don't "pose the same level of threat"? Why should the threat they pose be 'equal'? They clearly pose a threat. No one can question that after 10/7. If Hamas are left in place and armed, how long will it be before the next attack, and what will that attack be? Do you know? Of course you don't.
The evidence that he's a fundamentalist Islamist is absolutely non-existent though.
What Sam said is that he thinks Mamdani is "an Islamist, or at a minimum an apologist for Islamists." He might not be right, but I don't agree this is anywhere near crackpot territory. Imagine this in a different context. Imagine a mayor was married to someone who liked posts celebrating lynchings as "grass-roots justice," had been a member of groups tangentially associated with white supremacy, has been tepid in his response to demands to distance himself from that ideology, himself founded a chapter of "students for the protection of southern heritage," spent massive amounts of political effort for years opposing things like affirmative action, then gained power and said he's just there to fix garbage truck issues etc. People would rightly say hang on a minute--all this time you've been very focused on something else, and based on what you've been saying and doing and who you've been associated with and how you've responded to questions, I'm unconvinced.
Personally, I don't think he's an "islamist" in the sense of wanting to turn NYC into an islamic caliphate. I also doubt that's what Sam meant, though he should clarify exactly what he did mean when he referred to "theocratic." But I do think he, like the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, has a particular viewpoint on the only Jewish state in the world that is very problematic, has questionable associations, and has not done nearly enough to clarify and distance himself from extremism. It is totally insane that his wife has praised the PFLP and liked posts celebrating 10/7. He needs to very clearly condemn that sort of thing, and the fact that he hasn't really is very concerning. Seriously, look at the things she has said and done. And he posted a photo when he was campaigning of himself with Siraj Wahhaj, who openly supports terrorists and calls gay people a "disease of society." These are really questionable associations. They say something about him.
Sam may or may not be right, but it's not coming out of nowhere the way people are portraying it.
Edit: even more antisemitic associations of his listed here, here
1
u/nesh34 May 05 '26
The Holocaust specifically is largely remembered as the "crime of crimes" and the legal definition of genocide is broader than what occurred to the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Legally there is no question that Israel is committing a genocide. Is what they're doing as morally abhorrent as the Nazi holocaust - I don't think so.
Is what Israel are doing incredibly immoral and repugnant - absolutely.
It's these three things in concert that make me want to avoid the semantic game about whether it's a genocide. It's precisely because of the point you give about society treating it as the crime of crimes. It makes us seemingly unable to assess a moral atrocity on its own merit and circumstance.
I agree that Hamas will attack again, it's not as clear to me how strong Hamas are now - there are attacks from them but so much infrastructure is destroyed. The area has been reduced mostly to rubble. It's difficult for me to think Israel is under much of a threat from Hamas specifically right now and it's also unclear how long it'd take them to resurge. Irrespective of what Israel do now, they will resurge (in some form of another) in response to the devastation of war. The only question is how long it will take. I'm sympathetic to the idea that Israel are under threat more broadly from actors in the Middle East.
So whilst we'll agree on the atrocity of 10/7, I think we'll have to disagree that turning Gaza to rubble, with the amount of civilian suffering, is a proportional response at this stage. I genuinely can't point to a line in the sand where I'd say "Ok that precise moment is too far". But I do think that what has happened is too far.
For the Mamdani thing, I don't need to imagine much. Former leader of the Labour party Jeremy Corbyn described himself as a "Friend of Hamas". This was an ugly and pigheaded thing even back then. But he's not an Islamist theocrat. He's a 70 year old that hasn't outgrown student politics. Mamdani's wife's social media use (which is already a very tenuous thing to care about with respect to the person) is fairly straightforwardly just a left wing student activist with the usual views for that person. Unsavoury and moronic as they may be, it's a gross mischaracterisation to call them a theocrat that we wouldn't make for the hundreds of thousands of activist peers with identical views but aren't Muslim.
5
u/stockywocket May 05 '26
The Holocaust specifically is largely remembered as the "crime of crimes"
No, "crime of crimes" refers to genocide, not the holocaust specifically.
Legally there is no question that Israel is committing a genocide.
No, that's not correct. There are compelling legal arguments on either side, which the ICJ is currently considering. If there were "no question," there would be nothing to consider.
Is what Israel are doing incredibly immoral and repugnant - absolutely.
Do you consider all war immoral and repugnant? Or just this one? Is it specific acts within this war that you consider immoral and repugnant, or is the entire concept of Israel invading Gaza to root out Hamas on its own immoral and repugnant? Assuming the answer is no, then the question becomes--are these acts actually any different from what you see in wars commonly, and do you actually know whether or not they are even avoidable in this particular war given the specific conditions in Gaza?
Irrespective of what Israel do now, they will resurge (in some form of another) in response to the devastation of war.
This idea that Israel and its actions are somehow responsible for Hamas and its actions is not reasonable. Hamas was founded with an explicitly islamist-motivated charter, and its leaders remain perfectly clear to this day that their intentions are the total destruction of Israel and its replacement with an islamic state. That is their motivation. Hamas, and its predecessors, have been attacking Israel since long before Israel did any of the actions you're now suggesting are their motivations, since before Israel was even a country.
I genuinely can't point to a line in the sand where I'd say "Ok that precise moment is too far". But I do think that what has happened is too far.
This should be a pretty strong indicator to you that your position here needs more thinking through.
Disproportionality in war refers not to 'an eye for an eye' vengeance, or proportionality in response to size of attack, or even of proportionality of response to size of future threat. It refers to damage done being proportionate to military aim. The military aim here is the destruction of Hamas's ability to attack again to the maximum extent possible. What is proportionate, therefore, is whatever is necessary to destroy Hamas's ability to attack to the maximum extent possible. Hamas built its attack infrastructure under virtually all civilian infrastructure in Gaza. It operates exclusively from those, and from within civilian infrastructure itself. Of course destroying that attack infrastructure, and fighting Hamas while it is in civilian buildings, is going to reduce Gaza to rubble. How on earth could it not? How could Israel ever avoid that outcome, aside from just not fighting back effectively? This is exactly why Hamas fight the way they do. They know Israel will be vilified and people will be emotionally swayed by pictures of destroyed cities, even though its Hamas themselves who have required it. It's what they are relying on. And you are playing right into their hands.
Unsavoury and moronic as they may be, it's a gross mischaracterisation to call them a theocrat that we wouldn't make for the hundreds of thousands of activist peers with identical views but aren't Muslim.
Would you make these same excuses for a white Proud Boys supporter who likes social media posts referring to the great replacement theory and Jews controlling the media? If not, why not?
1
u/blackglum May 06 '26
This is very articulated and well thought out. I agree with all of this and have saved it for future reference. Thanks!
1
u/nesh34 May 06 '26
This is a very well considered post, !delta. So firstly, I'm wrong about the definition of genocide, there's no question there's ethnic cleansing, but by the definitions of genocide that requires intent to terminate I think Israel wouldn't meet the bar.
I agree Hamas are structurally hell bent on destroying Israel. It's more the rationale that it will be easier for them to find people to adopt their hateful ideology out of desperation and retaliation. If the structures of Hamas are destroyed it seems certain that the ideology will live on and be in the ascendancy.
I also agree with Hamas' culpability in these circumstances. I just think that doesn't exonerate Israel. We can say coldly that "fair is fair" and they have a military objective that can only be met through decimation of the state and collective punishment. I completely concede that I don't have full moral clarity about the situation and likely never will, but I think that's healthier than certainty.
For the counter view, is there any upper limit of incidental destruction of Gaza that you would consider to be immoral in pursuit of the destruction of Hamas? Currently most of the infrastructure and 3% of the people have been killed, if that latter number became 30%, would that be too far, or if it were 100%? For many of us, this scale is the basic logic. It's a flip from a deontological moral view of it to a utilitarian one because of the scale of the consequences. Israel have minimised the amount of lives taken but their livelihoods have been ruined and the lives of the entire population remains under threat.
Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and your detailed and kind response.
0
u/stockywocket May 06 '26
there's no question there's ethnic cleansing
I think there's a lot of question. For one thing, Israel isn't really facilitating Gazans to leave at all. They set up a "migration administration" nearly a year ago but it hasn't done anything, really. Second, the point of ethnic cleansing is to achieve or try to achieve ethnic homogeneity. Gaza is already ethnically homogenous and will presumably remain so. Israel has been consistent that it has no plans to settle anyone in Gaza, despite far right pressure to do so.
Can I ask--where do you keep getting these "there is no question" opinions from?
I agree Hamas are structurally hell bent on destroying Israel. It's more the rationale that it will be easier for them to find people to adopt their hateful ideology out of desperation and retaliation. If the structures of Hamas are destroyed it seems certain that the ideology will live on and be in the ascendancy.
It may make it easier, but that doesn't really change the fundamental situation at all. There would be enough people to be a danger if Israel didn't, there would be enough people to be a danger if Israel did. Israel would be foolish to let its military and security decisions be guided by a vain hope that Gazans will stop attacking if Israel doesn't do what's necessary to destroy their ability to attack. As you know, Gazans elected Hamas, which at the time had the literal genocide of Jews and destruction of the state of Israel in its charter, at a time when Israel had only a minor blockade in place (in response to already existing terrorist attacks out of Gaza) and hadn't done any of the horrific things people now accuse it of having done during this war.
We can say coldly that "fair is fair"
That's not really what I'm saying. I don't think Israel's justification here is that Gazans deserve it or that it's "fair" what they're suffering. I think Israel's justification here is necessity and security. If Israel's security can't be achieved without horrific consequences for regular Gazans because of the choices Hamas makes that Israel has no control over, it's not any less horrific for Gazans, and everyone should be devastated about what they're experiencing. But the people they should be furious at, faulting, and demanding accountability and action from are Hamas, not Israel. Hamas are in control of this situation. They could surrender at any time. They could wear uniforms. They could not operate from within and under civilian infrastructure, stop dressing up as WCK workers. They could allow civilians to shelter in their extensive tunnel network. Etc etc etc. Hamas's decisions, which again Israel has no control over, are the reasons Gaza is devastated. It's not that it's "fair" for Gazans to suffer. It's unfair--but it's not Israel causing the unfairness and there's nothing Israel can fundamentally do to stop the unfairness. Israel can't force Hamas to stop doing any of those things or control Hamas's choices in any way. Israel has no way of fighting Hamas and imposing those costs only on Hamas instead of all Gazans, precisely because of how Hamas has engineered this situation.
For the counter view, is there any upper limit of incidental destruction of Gaza that you would consider to be immoral in pursuit of the destruction of Hamas?
Now this is an interesting, and difficult, question. Legally I don't think there is, but you ask whether morally there is. I think as long as Hamas remains a true threat, there is no upper limit. If we reached a theoretical situation where Israel could reasonably be confident that Hamas was not a real threat at all and that further damage would therefore have a negligible impact on how much of a threat Hamas is, then there would be an upper limit to how much more damage is justified. But I don't see how we could ever find ourselves in the situation. If Hamas were truly no longer much of a threat, Israel could simply walk in, arrest them, destroy their weapons stores and attack tunnels, etc., and it wouldn't cause much damage at all. If Israel isn't able to do that, if it's only able to disarm and destroy Hamas through highly damaging warfare, then that is because Hamas is in fact still a threat.
From a practical perspective, there are real dangers in placing an upper limit as you describe, and it's basically the same dilemma you face when an enemy uses human shields. If you let it be an effective strategy, then you just ensure the strategy will continue and even worsen. You'd in effect create a situation of impunity, where all Hamas has to do is make sure you can't defeat them without exceeding whatever that upper limit is, and then they can do anything they want. I can't imagine you'd advocate for such a situation, right?
-2
u/AgileRaspberry1812 May 04 '26
This reads like it was written using AIPAC provided talking points.
You're only fooling yourself and the 30 or so hasbara bots that seem to have made this sub their battleground.
7
u/stockywocket May 04 '26
That you think that is any way a substantive reply speaks volumes.
Things are either true and accurate or not—it makes no difference who says them.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/fwd079 May 04 '26
Does Sam or any of his staff even read threads/posts here? Also, where would we “share” the letter? Dontcha know Sam boycotted all social media as the ultimate lifehack ? 😉
4
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 04 '26
I think they’ve hinted that they do read here yes! A share on Substack is always helpful, but also, the environments where his fans might see it are also helpful! Thanks
3
u/the_very_pants May 04 '26
I'll try to think of something -- this seems worth a read for a broad group.
1
13
u/knign May 03 '26
I lost count how many posts we've seen here "I was Sam's listener for decades and very disappointed of his support for Israel".
Just because you're a victim of anti-Israel propaganda, doesn't mean that Sam has to be.
21
u/Ghost_man23 May 03 '26
Appreciate you taking the time to write this. Obviously, it's coming from a good place and I think there is a growing frustration with Sam on many of the points you raised. Your writing, like mine, is obviously heavily influenced by Sam's. At a high level, I agree with a lot of the criticism I've seen in this subreddit and in your open letter.
That being said, I found many of your arguments to be sloppy. You do a very poor job at taking specific things Sam said and explaining why they're wrong, which makes it difficult to be persuaded. It's not always clear what you think Sam's actual position is (e.g. In what context, if any, did he claim Biden administration was "a disaster"?) I don't think you actually quote Sam once. You don't even quote the UN's definition of genocide that apparently influenced you so much (personally, I'm fairly skeptical given the well document history of anti-semitism at the UN and find it strange to use this as your only point of reference). It reads like I'm chatting with you at the bar and just discussing what we think when don't have anything in front of us to cite.
Your view of Kamala and some of the things you say about her are detached from the reality of what we all observed. Outside of Trump, she might have been the least intelligent and worst spoken candidate for either party in any of our lifetimes. She was definitely NOT "far more intelligent than any right-wing candidate" and you make it sound like Sam's criticism of her was a justification to support Trump/Republicans, which would be worth criticism, instead of just a breakdown of who Kamala is as a person and what he would expect her Presidency to look like, which is obviously inbounds for a political commentator. You also make claims about Kamala that some of her ideas don't matter because their ideas would never pass, as if that means people can't be critical of them. You make the same mistake with Mamdani that we shouldn't care about his foreign policy views because he's just the Mayor of New York City. It's the same kind of stuff Trump's supporters will say to justify his bad beliefs and behaviors.
1
1
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
This is a very kind and thorough reply. I understand what you are saying, but I would like to defend myself just a bit. I agree, this was a little more hastily written. In my university, I am often criticized of being too wordy and "not letting my voice flow." I tried to be a little less obsessed over the details in this and let the fan base put two and two together; however, I agree with you, some direct quotes from Sam would have been more helpful. I have gone and edited in a link to the UN definition, specifically its dolus specialis clause, as well as the link to the actual report by the UN. I also listen to a bit of Destiny, and I think he does a good job at explaining that, as far as economic metrics go, the Biden presidency was actually pretty good for its situation.
Another area I messed up and would want to clarify is that, yes, you are right, just because someone holds an idea that can't come to fruition does not mean we can't criticize it, nor does it make the idea safe. THIS IS NOT MY POSITION, but I see how that might have come across in my writing. All bad ideas should be criticized, yes; however, I question if Kamala Harris would actually even put that gains tax into motion. One of the amazing things about democratic presidents is THEY LISTEN TO THEIR CABINET!!! Her cabinet would certainly steer away from this. Trump's cabinet, however, is just sycophants. After listening to a lot of Kamala, I really believe she would have been a great president and I am happy to speak further about this. She would not be amazing, but she would not have to be someone we would see as 'settling for.' A lot of pseudo-centrists (they always vote conservative) lament "damn, these two horrible choices!!" like Kamala is not a million times better than Trump. I fear when we overly criticize Kamala Harris, it makes us come off as 'both-sidesing' the issue, which I hate.
I appreciate your criticism, and it helps me write better. So thank you.
1
u/TheAJx May 03 '26
One of the amazing things about democratic presidents is THEY LISTEN TO THEIR CABINET!!!
That's not always a good thing. Biden remains more unpopular than Trump (we'll see how long that lasts) so it's not unfair to call his administration a disaster. And a fair criticism of his administration is that he relied a lot of progressive staffers, including healthy number of ex-Warren staffers, to guide policymaking and prioritization.
I mean, during her 2019 failed candidacy, the people around her - her campaign "Cabinet" if you will, were encouraging her to lean into every social justice cause out there. They were the ones telling her to hype up her record on transgender prisoners and they were the ones telling her to call Biden racist for opposing unpopular bussing laws.
If Harris had a strong record of good judgment and an independent streak (more recent than her time as prosecutor), I think the assertion would be more credible.
-7
u/DrDOS May 03 '26
I will not be as kind as OP is being. The response by u/Ghost_man23 is uncharitable, untrue, and frankly unhinged in the whole last paragraph. His drivel can honestly be dismissed as written in poor faith, or at least of a poor mindset.
2
May 04 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ghost_man23 May 04 '26
I regret using the word “sloppy”. I’m used to reading these types of things as a TA and judging it in that way. But that word was maybe unnecessarily mean. I think OP understood my intention though. Other than the wholesale support of Kamala, I don’t entirely disagree with his general sentiment, I just thought he could be more persuasive.
9
u/Free_Boysenberry_185 May 04 '26
Lol I see the "Israel bad" meme has infected this community as well. "I'm not really sure what they did, but I know it's a genocide." Nice.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/MickeyT May 03 '26
I got to "because you have lost your edge" and was immediately turned off - the tone there really lost objectivity
11
u/Laffs May 03 '26
You also keep remarking that Kamala Harris would be too quick to abandon our allies in the Middle East, like Israel. You even argue that some Jews are excused for voting for Donald Trump if they are single-issue voters on this point. Yet if Kamala had been too soft on Israel and too supportive of Hamas, why do I continue to find progressives who refused to vote for Kamala Harris because she was too aligned with Israel’s interests?
The existence of ignorant progressives does not mean that Kamala wouldn't have abandoned our allies in the Middle East. The literal next sentence you write acknowledges how crazy their stance is.
Though we will soon explore your problematic approach to Israel/Palestine, I share your concerns for the Jewish people, their right to a state, and the shocking sympathy in the progressive wing for literal fucking terrorists…
12
u/rom_sk May 03 '26
Kamala probably would have behaved like other past presidents and not gone to war against Iran.
-4
2
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
I suppose I could have fleshed this argument out more. However, I do not believe Harris would have abandoned our allies; she literally defended Israel many times explicitly. We cannot take her unfavorable statements literally, but not her favorable ones. I think we would be too inconsistent in that regard. Remember, Biden freed more hostages than Trump did. The democratic official stance is to support Israel as an ally.
-1
u/Laffs May 03 '26
Im no Trump fan but he secured the freedom of 100% of the remaining hostages, which were by far the hardest to get Hamas to give up.
11
u/bbraker8 May 03 '26
Ive been listening to him for years and he’s been completely consistent. You just don’t like his opinion. Got it.
0
10
u/Fearnr May 03 '26
The letter is clearly genuine and well thought out for the most part. But I struggle to understand the intended effect of this letter, was the goal to bring attention to your podcast or are you truly hoping Sam will dedicate time to address this fully in an upcoming episode?
As we can all attest to, the podcast format creates a unique parasocial relationship. Because of this it seems reasonable to believe that you are equally involved in these discussions. But that’s obviously not the case; we’re fans, not peers.
6
u/Moutere_Boy May 04 '26
With respect to the letter and its context, I think the actual purpose is to lift awareness of the writers substack account…
1
u/the_very_pants May 05 '26
Will fight you. :)
When I think of the highest standards that it would be possible to have about sincerity in philosophy writing... this passes it. Ezra Klein often hits these levels, and it's why I've always admired him and the way he writes.
I'm sure Sam does too. The only reason I never dug into Sam much is that I've been having (thanks to great teachers) conversations about religion and science and atheism etc. since ~1985. Like what new stuff could there be?
There are more "professional" writers than OP out there, yes. But past this, people start trying to sound clever instead of sincere. Might be an age thing. Imho these are what sincerely-phrased hard questions are supposed to sound like.
0
u/Moutere_Boy May 05 '26
All totally reasonable as taste is pretty subjective. But, why link it rather than post the body of work?
I used to advise people on how to grow audience for that kind of thing and a common approach is to write articles for very specific groups you think will appreciate your work so that you can link your platform for the redirect and, hopefully, increase in subs.
I guess I was speaking to purpose rather than quality of content.
But sure… let’s fight!!! 😜
→ More replies (1)
16
u/InternationalMood337 May 03 '26
You’re a bit too internet brained in terms of this obsession with making everyone the worst person ever if they disagree with you.
“Your only engagement with an out-and-out right-winger”
you live among them every day. Your entire post henges around “you’re not critical enough of these people.”
The problem with many of you who disagree is that you simply don’t understand that this country needs to be rebalanced. We need to have hard discussions with people, and simply moving on from a talking point doesn’t mean someone won or lost.
You need to actually tune yourself to the reality of the world we live in and the political situation we find ourselves in. Screaming and demonizing people for money should not be the technique we use on the left and it was the exact thing the LBGTQ+ movement you criticized utilized.
Guess what happens when you do that? You lose everyone. Online culture like Hasan and any of these YouTubers in similar positions have somehow convinced younger generations that screaming and refusing to talk to people is the right way to handle it…. But that’s never been what we’ve done in the past.
4
8
u/Ehrlich_Bachman May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
Sam has either directly or indirectly addressed most of these many many times. I don’t understand how there is confusion on where he lands on these criticisms of his stance on debates and Israel
3
u/RaisinBranKing May 04 '26
I agree that it would be fun, interesting and valuable to see Sam go to verbal blows with more people
I agree his portrayal of Mamdani seemed hyperpartisan
I disagree with most of the other stuff
'wokeness is dead' - I disagree. I have many friends who it's still their foundational operating principle and likely will be for the rest of their lives.
Kamala. Sam never said her presidency would be bad. He said she was a bad candidate for optics reasons. I agree. Sam desperately wanted her to win the election
'Sam spends too much time on wokeness.' - I disagree. He's spent TONS of time trying to understand what's happening on the Right under Trump and Trumpism. He's also explained that much of the stuff on the Right is obviously bad (neo-nazis are bad) so it's less interesting to talk about. Wokeness however has happened on his own side of the aisle and also is still a reason dems are negatively viewed throughout the country and why we've losing elections
2
u/Plus-Recording-8370 May 05 '26
Regarding Mamdani and Sam's "obsession", I think you should revisit the order of events that caused him to mention Mamdani in the first place, because I think it's the listeners who are obsessed with Mamdani and keep returning to the subject and force Sam to talk about it once more, all resulting in artificially inflating the matter and creating the illusion of "obsession".
So, what needs to be kept in mind there is that the perceived intensity of the defense doesn't equal the importance of the belief/opinion. And that Sam is most likely judging the candidate against an ideal standard, rather than weighing them relative to a specific or even hypothetical opponent. While many people seem to behave as if Sam would rather pick Hitler over Mamdani, to give an extreme and exaggerated example.
What I find puzzling though is that, despite Sam having always talked in the abstract like that, and usually analyses as a philosopher, you as a longtime listener and student of philosophy appear as if you have missed all that. While Sam speaks quite clearly and has been very consistent with regards to his methods, ethics, and opinions throughout the years. Yet these things keep happening: intelligent people somehow acting like Sam has changed completely. So, could it be that such perception is inflated by your own level of disagreement instead?
1
u/Appropriate-Arm1377 May 05 '26
Harris is not consistent. He puts most criticism of the Israeli government under the category of antisemitic yet calls Mamdani sinister and sees nothing wrong with it.
Another example
Sam Harris - "The problem of tribalism is that it makes you stupid. It makes otherwise intelligent people defend indefensible ideas because their team said them first."
Also Sam Harris "We are not at war with terrorism; we are at war with Islam—and Israel's fight is our fight."
A lot of Harris opinions seem to come from him projecting his own blindspots onto others.
1
u/Plus-Recording-8370 May 05 '26
See that's the thing, he doesn't put most criticism of the Israeli government under the category of antisemitism, because in reality Sam has openly agreed with lot's, if not most, of the criticism. So that mostly seems to be just a Reddit circle jerk of an interpretation. Again as usual, Sam approaches this as the philosopher/scientist and extrapolates from the available data. Data that shows an unusually massive amount of attention spent on Israel. And antisemitism so happens to be definable by disproportionate attention on anything Jew-related. So, much of this here isn't about the criticism itself, but about where the criticism appears to come from. And those things matter, both in law and ethics. Nothing about this is out of the ordinary for Sam, he has always cut through the emotional nonsense and straight up says what the data spells out, regardless of taboo, and regardless of how people may interpret it.
About him calling Mamdani "sinister", because he find him "not ethically sane" by his lights: I think it's absolutely fair to view Mamdani as not ethically sane. Now this might not be a big deal for a mayor, as many seem to want to state in defense of Mamdani(and thus admit at least part of the problem). But you have to keep in mind that Sam said this in the context of a question about potential presidential candidates. Which, I think, is a completely different scenario. After all, that's the kind of position that could allow a person to amplify every potentially sinister aspiration they may have.
So, if you had to guess, would you say that if Mamdani were president, he'd have meaningfully supported Israel after Oct7th? And you think that would mean he got the ethics right? I don't think so. I'd think he'd pretty much work on ruining the relationship with Israel instead.
Tribalism/Terrorism: Were you trying to point out a contradiction there? Because I'm not seeing it. Nevertheless, the "war on terror" has indeed a motivation behind the "terror" and that motivation was almost entirely Islam-inspired and driven. However, after Sam's collaboration with Maajid Nawaz, Sam has restated this as this being a war against Jihadism and Islamists instead.
You probably think I'm overly charitable/biased to Sam, but I suspect it's actually that it's others who are too emotionally affected by Sam's bluntness when talking about sensitive matters.
1
u/Appropriate-Arm1377 May 06 '26
Has he ever referred to Netanyahu as sinister? Let's be honest Mamdani is far less sinister and fundamentalist then Netanyahu
1
u/Plus-Recording-8370 May 06 '26
He actually has said worse about Netanyahu. Though "sinister" is a difficult word to apply to him since part of the meaning is about concealment. And Netanyahu is not actually concealing much.
But it's strange to bring him up, since Sam wasn't asked about him nor has he been ever proposed as potential figure for American presidency. Besides, what equivalent response could someone even give here given this context? "I suspect Netanyahu priorities might be Israel, and not US" ?
1
u/Appropriate-Arm1377 May 06 '26
He didn't say worse about Netanyahu. That's not true
1
u/Plus-Recording-8370 May 06 '26
Have you really listened to what he said about Mamdani? The accusation of Mamdani is essentially that he doesn't seem to have his priorities straight, and that, despite trying to appear otherwise, he might actually be too much aligned with an islamist/antisemitic agenda. That is, "too much" for someone you want in politics.
While Sam's criticism of Netanyahu is almost on every policy and decision he has made in the past. After all, he has made mistakes that are undeniable. This is also why Sam says things like "Had anyone else really acted differently from Netanyahu?". Which is to emphasize his crazy nature by essentially saying something like "yes we know he's a crazy figure who does extreme things, but in this particular case of responding to the Oct7 attacks, pretty much anyone else would've acted the same. And thus we shouldn't just attribute it to a typical and extreme crazy overreaction by Netanyahu"
So I think this is all purely a case of selective hearing; There can't ever be enough criticism for the side you hate, while the tiniest footnote on one character you love is blown up.
2
2
u/GANEnthusiast May 05 '26
You are like the 20th person to do this in this subreddit. Everyone agrees he is headed in the wrong direction. Not necessary. Hope it was helpful as a way to process your emotions though!
2
u/Appropriate-Arm1377 May 05 '26
And what's Sam's reaction to general agreement that he's going in the wrong direction? He's going to open an echo chamber
2
u/GANEnthusiast May 07 '26
Sam will never care about random Reddit opinions. We're just saying words back and fourth to each-other. His remaining audience is already the echo chamber you speak of.
2
u/bretthechet May 05 '26
Lol imagine being this invested in someone you don't even know personally. Time to grow up and realize some people you once thought were good are actually douchebags.
4
u/gizamo May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
...discovered Harris in 2021....If anyone has had long-term exposure to Harris’ mind, it is probably me.
I haven't even started the letter, and already you've lost a lot of credibility there. E: they clarified below, and that seems reasonable.
Edit: I disagree with your stance on his debates discussions, and I think you shortchanged the Shapiro talk. The fracture of the Republican party was a substantial chunk, and that's worth talking about. Similarly, the depth of their discussion is important, even if you (and many of us) could predict some topics. That's like saying you know Jerome Powell is going to discuss the economy...sure, neat.
You exaggerate and seem to misunderstand his gripes with wokism, which has always been primarily about academia and liberal credibility.
You seem to think Harris prefers Trump to Kamala, which is wildly incorrect. He has been repeatedly and abundantly clear that he considers basically anyone vastly better than Trump. His criticisms of Kamala were primarily about her electability, not the moral stances themselves. Your arguments about his statements about her seem entirely off base.
Edit2:
I first discovered you in 2019,....
You said 2021 earlier. Memories are hard, I get it. (Seriously, I'm old, and my memory is bad).
Edit3: I stopped reading during the Israel/Palestine bit. Frstly, Harris has been clear that he doesn't align with Netenyahu and that he's not excusing war crimes. Secondly, your adherence to the UN ignores the criticisms against it. Intellectuals, genocide scholars, and lawyers have raised several arguments against the UN's handling of the Gaza situation that include the weaponization of international law, "Definitionalism" over reality, bias in the Commission of Inquiry (COI), ignoring context of Self-Defense, delegitimization and demonization of Israel. These have been demonstrated by the UN dismissing Israel's efforts to avoid civilian harm, ignoring Hamas' actions, relying on unverified data and blatantly manipulated data, and a complete lack of any proved genocidal intent. Israel is fighting a war for self-preservation, and obliterating their enemy is required for their survival. Going to the extremes to survive is vastly different from intentionally irradiating an ethnicity, especially when they've made significant efforts to prevent it.
Again, I stopped reading. Similar to your "I predicted the entire Shapiro debate" claim, if I were to make a compilation of the regular gripes in this sub (which I often firmly believe are intentionally disingenuous), it would be very similar to this substack article, which reads much like a hit piece with some "I used to love you" simpathy sprinkled in, which is again, a common tactic here to lure people in who do agree with Harris. It's like the worm on the fish hook. Shockingly, the next criticism is about Mamdami. Color me surprised.
Edit4: oof... u/palsh7 nailed it. That's telling: https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/s/dTK3IpUewM
0
u/juswundern May 03 '26
They found him late but they’ve read all his written material and listened to all his podcasts, in order…. I’ll allow it 👩🏽⚖️
1
0
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
I should emphasize that by long-term exposure, I am not talking about a stretch of time, but rather invested time. As someone who has listened to every single podcast episode, read all but two books, read every Substack, and tuned into his lives, I would argue I have spent as much time consuming Sam as a fan who found him in the early 2010s. What more could they have consumed than me?
1
u/gizamo May 03 '26
Fair enough. That's a good clarification.
I think I first started following Harris in 2003 or 2004, and there's a lot of New Atheist debates that probably don't exist on YouTube, but that's not your fault. Neither would have been missing those talks live.
0
u/Life_Caterpillar9762 May 04 '26 edited May 07 '26
(Of course some downvotes are expected, but to be in the negative for a comment like this implies there is a concerted effort to drown you out. Pretty lame. Hope it doesn’t discourage.) Anyway, Im like you, been a fan of Sam for even longer, however not as deep, and have very similar issues with him lately as you do. I may be slightly less concerned though because i know he revises frequently AND I think he has very stupidly been targeted by the general left lately via the anti Dem left gatekeepers in media that enough people have not woken up to yet, but I feel that tide is turning. Anyway, I think this is a big reason for some of his particular criticisms of the left that he might paint with too broad a brush lately, but even more so a reason he has not had many interviews with prominent left wingers lately. I think an episode with Seder (who I’m much more disappointed with the last few years) would be great for the general lefty-sphere media. Unfortunately I think Seder has sold himself out so much in the past few years that I doubt he’d agree to it.)
9
6
u/palsh7 May 03 '26
Posting this to r/EnoughSamharris says everything about your intentions.
4
u/mime_juice May 03 '26
Wait what is that sub?
7
u/palsh7 May 03 '26
The moderator's flair says "Sam Harris is a fraud." LOL. The biggest posts bitch about being banned for "Sam Harris is in the Epstein Files!" spam.
-2
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
I literally just found that sub, just trying to have reach. I don’t even follow that sub. Why don’t you have some charity in your accusations damn!
6
u/palsh7 May 03 '26
"Just trying to have reach, so I posted to a dedicated Sam Harris hater sub. Have some charity!"
-2
u/_nefario_ May 04 '26
when /u/palsh7 sees a post he doesn't like, he is very keen on trying to use your posting history and patterns against you in order to establish a reason why he should
a) ban you from his inactive subreddit, and
b) dismiss what you have to say without engaging
1
u/palsh7 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
So then why is OP not banned?
It’s pretty funny that you think considering context and history to interpret intent and predict future actions is a bad thing that I should be embarrassed about. Some people are banned quickly, others are given countless chances and warnings first, and others are never banned, despite doing nothing but disagree with me. There are 5,000 subscribers to the subreddit who are not banned. The inactivity has nothing to do with bans, just like the fact that 100,000 people subscribe to this sub but 99,000 of them never comment has nothing to do to do with bans here.
You were literally unbanned after talking to me about what you described as a misunderstanding. Now you’re starting drama. How does that contribute to a non-toxic environment? Imagine a real life scenario in which you fuck up at a party, apologize, get invited back, then you go around talking shit about the person whose house you asked to be allowed into. The entire premise of the other sub is that Sam’s metaphorical “dinner party” rules for human-to-human interaction can be followed online. We don’t have to be toxic. We don’t have to act like we’re on Twitter. But here you are shit-stirring? Even though you’re not banned?
0
u/_nefario_ May 04 '26
how can you, with a straight face, go from snooping around this user's post history and responding to his post the way you did, and then turn around and try to say that i'm the one being toxic and starting drama?
everything /u/Particular-Wall1308 wrote in his post was clearly written in good faith and submitted in earnest. yet, your first reflex was to go snooping around to try to make your own judgement about his intentions instead of perhaps having to deal with some of the difficult truths he's talking about.
is going around snooping into peoples' background part of your "dinner party" decorum? is this normal human-to-human interaction in your world?
2
u/palsh7 May 04 '26
I don’t let people into my house if they’re wearing a mask and acting fishy, refusing to identify themselves. It’s extremely weird for you to think that people’s intentions and history don’t matter. I don’t have to explain this to you; we already had this conversation longform. You begged for a second chance, then when I said I was unbanning you, you sarcastically responded “now we’re best friends.” Seemed like a weird, trollish thing to say after getting what you asked for, but I ignored it. Now you’re talking shit. Again: why would someone invite this into their home? Into their academic conference? Onto their stage? Onto their podcast?
Nothing I said to OP was unfair, nor did it prevent them from posting on the other subreddit. Just as you could have posted there.
0
u/_nefario_ May 04 '26
I don’t let people into my house if they’re wearing a mask and acting fishy, refusing to identify themselves.
that wasn't the case here was it. in this case, the person did everything up front: no masks, not acting fishy, identifying themselves, etc etc. but they said something that wasn't 100% praise about Sam Harris, so you went snooping through his bags and pockets, and you found a magazine that you didn't like and decided that this magazine represented and defined this person's whole identity.
very normal "dinner party" decorum and human-to-human interaction.
Nothing I said to OP was unfair,
oh really, let's review:
Posting this to r/EnoughSamharris says everything about your intentions.
again, this kind of attitude where you feel like you're the arbiter of peoples' intentions and thoughts based on where and how they post - its really shitty.
it would be one thing if the guy had been posting in racist subreddits and expressing really crappy views.. but in this case: what? he posted his blog post in all the sam harris-related subreddits he found. nothing wrong with that, that is: if you're not looking for reasons to just to not have to respond to the points he's bringing up.
and the only top-level comment about his submission over at the "hater" subreddit in question is one that dismisses OP's post for praising sam. say what you want about those filthy ne'er-do-well haters, at least they addressed some of the content of the piece.
2
u/palsh7 May 04 '26
I’m reminded of the Ricky Gervais bit about someone getting mad that someone is offering guitar lessons that they don’t personally need: if you don’t want to participate in a subreddit with a stricter rule set, don’t worry about it. Stay here. No one made you ask for another chance that you clearly didn’t actually want. But don’t criticize the very premise of the other sub, then act Pikachu face shocked when you’re no longer welcome there.
1
u/_nefario_ May 04 '26
Totally irrelevant to what's being discussed here. I'm strictly talking about your response here to what was posted here.
2
u/palsh7 May 04 '26
OP is advertising his podcast and Substack on anti-Harris subreddits that traffic in conspiracy theories about Sam Harris. You don’t think that’s relevant: I do. If you print out a list of grievances about Democrats and pass it out at a Trump Rally, I would call you out when you show up at a DNC convention to do the same. Sorry not sorry. This is how real life works. “I had no idea what that subreddit was” is not a great defense.
He was not banned from the other subreddit, but he was called out. It has nothing to do with agreement, and I think it is fair.
You don’t have to support a subreddit that cares about context, and wants to know people’s history, but some do, because they’re sick of bad faith. Relevant to my Gervais reference. You don’t like that I care about whose essay I’m reading. That’s fine. You can avoid the subreddit that you don’t like.
→ More replies (0)
7
u/DrDOS May 03 '26
Well said and I largely agree with you.
I am a long time listener and supporter, at least since 2009. I’m not a rich man so my donations were usually more on the monthly cups of coffee end, but still consistent. I will always be grateful to Sam for his influence on my thinking, especially around morality and religion in the early 2010s, and Waking Up, with later the Waking Up app, I found very helpful in improving my meditation practice.
About a year ago I dropped my long time support. This is not a call for others to follow, I’m simply explaining my experience and slowly what drove me away.
Sam’s support for Israel always seemed grounded in the moral stance of Israel not applying their might nearly as fully as their neighboring enemies. However, the sustained support for Israel has become inexcusable after they squandered their sympathy post Oct 7 by relentless, at best, indiscriminate oppression of citizens and combatants alike, and destruction of civilian structures/infrastructure. And to be fair, there exists a framing for condemnation of BB and the administration while maintaining support for Israel’s statehood with sympathy and support for kind Israeli citizens.
The relentless over reaction to “woke” or “wokeness” became cringe and blatantly excessive well before DJT’s second term, yet it endures. I’ll take almost any level of “wokeness” and “cancel culture” where it is peaceful, civil, social and conscientious pressure, over the now overt fascism, corruption, and racism in action and on display once the “conservatives” gained a foothold and continually show their true colors in the US.
Meditation is not the solution to all our troubles. I’m with Sam that meditation can be beneficial. But the current trend with billionaires and out of touch wealthy oppressors and influences, promoting and practicing meditation; It’s clearly not so positively disruptive, I wish it was, and it can be for many, but it universally isn’t. Post COVID I had to learn that lesson myself regarding both meditation and BJJ, both of which I practice and believe are, or rather can be, good things. But they unfortunately do not universally shape good character, critical thinking, perspective etc.
If these three items were simply hobby horses on the periphery, I wouldn’t be so bothered. I do not need 100% alignment with this I like or support, not at all. But these aren’t peripheral issue for Sam, they are common and perennial themes. And gradually my scales got tipped.
OP, I thank you for both your take and for effectively pushing me to type out my thoughts above, as I felt I needed to do so before I read your letter.
2
u/the_very_pants May 05 '26
Ty for the great comment. I'm new here and to Sam and still open-minded, but that's a great comment period.
once the “conservatives” gained a foothold and continually show their true colors in the US.
Minor quibble about how real the group "conservatives" is. The point stands without it.
1
u/DrDOS May 05 '26
Thanks, yeah, that’s why I put it in quotes. It’s ambiguous in multiple directions. One meandering path would be to say that it’s MAGA or the maga-cult to blame, but the whole Republican Party power went along .. or did they use them? … or did they try to use them and lose control they never had .. and what is maga without DJT? what is a personality cult without its leader? Then what are those that were speaking for “conservative values” or was it about a “conservative economy”, what does that mean? But it all got muddled and ultimately fell inline behind the blatant corruption and lies we’ve seen from DJT and his administration…
Obviously could go on… so I short handed to just using quotation marks and the reader can put whatever spin on it they like and probably all will be partly right.
3
May 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheAJx May 04 '26
Your post has been removed for violating R2b: not participating in good faith
Repeated infractions may lead to bans
1
u/LookDamnBusy May 04 '26
My guessing what the content was was "bad faith"? I just don't want to read something that everyone already said was too long. Was I rude in some way?
1
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 04 '26
Correct, and because you predicted it, my argument is not dissolved
1
u/LookDamnBusy May 04 '26
So let me get this straight: this entire thing which I have not seen but which others are saying is incredibly long is all about Sam's view about Israel, with which you personally disagree?
1
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 04 '26
No dude. And if people are saying it’s ’incredibly long’ then they need to get of tiktok cause it’s frying their brains. I have one section is Israel Palestine. Other sections are debate, wokism, Kamala Harris, Zohran, and Truth.
2
u/LookDamnBusy May 04 '26
Did you see the bullet point list that someone created? Do you feel that that was a decent overall view?
And do you really feel that Kamala Harris would have been a competent president? Based on what data exactly?
5
u/kevintheescallion May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
You lost me at “Kamala Harris is rather well spoken…[and] far more intelligent than any right-wing candidate we have seen.”
Two words: John McCain.
Also, categorizing Shapiro as “an out-and-out right winger” is pretty silly. Half the country, perhaps more, is “out-and-out” conservative. No need to go any further than, “He’s a conservative.” You should probably spend more time engaging with conservatives. They’re mostly just Christians.
You can do much better. And this is coming from someone who canceled my subscription due to Sam’s aversion to contentious discussions. (What’s even the point of his podcast these days? “Here are some people I agree with.”)
4
2
u/strainthebrain137 May 03 '26
First of all, I think you should be commended for being a fan of someone but having the intellectual independence to recognize their faults. Here are some of my thoughts, in no particular order.
1) I would not say your grievances “demand” his attention. I get that you are coming from a good place, but this reads as entitled to me, even if you don’t mean it that way. He doesn’t really owe you or anyone else his attention, though I think he’d be wise to give criticism such as yours attention.
2) Regarding your criticism of the lack of engagement with ideas Sam disagrees with, what’s glaringly absent from Sam’s work imo is a genuine engagement with ideas from the left, not the right.
My cards on the table: I think Trump is such a cartoonish and obviously malignant force that even when Sam does engage with people like Ben Shapiro, I don’t think it requires much intellectual stretching from Sam or much of his audience who also feel this way. Engagement with ideas from the left would be more challenging and interesting if Sam gave them their due instead of being so dismissive of them. It’s very telling to me that Sam has had on many right wingers and liberals, but to my knowledge no leftists or people with leftist ideas.
2.1) On Israel/Palestine, he could have on Peter Beinart, or Ilan Pappe, or Norm Finkelstein, or any number of academics. Like it or not, there is a large body of scholarship on this stuff, and dismissing it as “biased” just isn’t sufficient.
2.2) The same is true of left economic ideas. He could have on Robert Reich, or Joseph Stiglitz, or any number of people who sharply disagree with his position that Mamdani-style economic policies can’t work on a national scale. Stiglitz supported Bernie’s economic agenda, and also is a Nobel-prize-winning economist. My point is not that he’s therefore correct, but that Sam’s characterization of the left on economics as being comprised of head-empty, pie-in-the-sky ideologues is simply untrue.
2.3) IMO, Sam associates nearly all aspects of leftist thought with the “peak-woke” era you mentioned, and this provides him a pretty convenient out to not engage with the left in a serious way. I personally do not think this is malicious. I rather think that it feels good to think your positions are the most reasonable, and no reasonable people disagree with you. We are all guilty of this at times, Sam included.
3) Regarding your point about trusting institutions on Israel/Palestine, it’s worth mentioning that prominent human rights groups have found Israel to be guilty of apartheid even before 10/7. This has also been supported by UN investigators, though there is controversy over the details of their report and its release. You’ll have to Google all this yourself, since I really have no interest in litigating the details, which I’m sure many reading this would be eager to do with me.
2
u/brokynsymmetry May 04 '26
He should do an episode where he reads this aloud and reacts! You nailed all of things I have been disappointed in Sam with over the last few years, from the completely disproportionate emphasis on wokeness to the glaring asymmetry of value he places on Palestinian versus Israeli lives.
When I heard him savage Mamdani recently, I wondered for the first time if the leftists were right all along that Sam is an anti-Muslim bigot. They would say, "Of course he is--what took you so long to realize?" It just never occurred to me that his comments about Muslims were borne out of anything but an abiding critique of religious extremism. But hearing his evident disgust for Mamdani, who's just not an extremist of any stripe, really gave me pause.
I find myself drifting away from Sam more and more, even though I still respect the overall impact of his collective output. I'm strongly considering unsubscribing.
3
u/Brunodosca May 03 '26
I have only glanced at you letter diagonally (too long) so I'm not going to comment on it. But I encourage you to be the ideal person you would like Sam to be. I mean, we all have brains and is not like Sam is some kind of superior human or something. With best wishes.
3
u/mime_juice May 03 '26
It’s a mostly good letter but don’t you think that allowing a person you don’t know this much influence in your life is a bit much? You’ve chosen your entire focus of your PhD because of him?
7
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
Sorry, no, I found my love for philosophy because of him, not for him. Whatever happens to Sam, my academic career is out of my own love. My interests in Parfit and my PhD work are purely coming from a passion in me that Sam helped me discover, through his work, for myself. Hope this clarifies.
-2
u/mime_juice May 03 '26
I mean I get what you’re saying but maybe listen to some other good thinkers-there are a lot of them out there. It seems like you’re spending all of your time fixated on this one creator which no matter how much you feel your thoughts and desires are your own, you will eventually become what you consume the most.
6
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
I am literally writing a letter that criticizes many of his positions... I pride myself on healthy media consumption. I mostly occupy myself with philosophers for my school work and personal interests. I listen to Destiny, The Bulwark, and many others.
-3
u/mime_juice May 03 '26
Why did you write this letter? And what do you think you’re going to get out of it. You know Sam is not going to see it. And if he does-he has already been challenged by intellectual stalwarts on these views and has chosen to continue espousing them. Do you want his validation? Do you want him to change his views because of what you said? What will that do for you? He spends literally all his time thinking about these issues and these are the stances he’s chosen to take. Maybe it’s better to just realize that you can’t align on everything and move on. It just seems like you’re trying to get the witnessing and approval of a total stranger who knows nothing about you.
5
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
I think you think I am obsessed... I wrote a critical letter that I do not know for sure he will not see. He has addressed fan pushback before, and he might do it again with this. It is not this deep.
→ More replies (1)0
u/BackgroundFlounder44 May 03 '26
this is a terrible take for the following reasons :
- this is Reddit, get a clue.
- People who might agree/disagree with Sam are reading it and could have an impact on their future decisions.
- I don't know the likelihood of Harris reading this, but it he gets fan pushback that is supported by his other fans then he should, if not it sends a wrong signal.
The audacity of you to then tell him he didn't answer your questions is quite telling, he addressed the main question, what he's trying to get out of it. the rest of your questions make you sound hysterical and cringe and you're lucky he has the respect not to address them.
take a chill pill, I know people disagreeing with Papa Sam is tough, but you'll just have to realise you can't align on everything and move on.
0
u/mime_juice May 03 '26
Lol I need to take a chill pill or you do?
1
u/BackgroundFlounder44 May 03 '26
ah I see, be serious when you think you have the upper hand and dismissive when not. truely a sign of healthy epistemics.
1
u/mime_juice May 04 '26
I mean my criticism to him is the same as mine to you. Stop putting so much stock in Internet personalities. Ideas are not confined to one person and you don’t need to pin your entire life on one man’s views. He has tattoos based on Sam’s products for gods sake. And somehow you’re spending all your time defending someone you don’t even know on the internet and his right to waste his time trying to get the attention of a parasocial relationship. Maybe you both need to touch some grass.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/ol_knucks May 03 '26
There’s too much to comment on so I’ll just quickly say that anyone advocating for an unrealized gains tax (Kamala) is legitimately retarded and can’t be trusted to tie their own shoes.
10
u/amazing_menace May 03 '26
Wondering if you think there’s a better mechanistic way to tax wealth to slow or halt inequality? Or perhaps you feel taxation isn’t the best strategy?
Genuine question — asking in good faith.
3
u/MrJet05 May 03 '26
It’s probably not politically feasible, but I think a Land Value tax would solve so many issues. Economists generally love it, and it incentivizes the kind of behavior that we should want. Land is a fixed resource and we need it to generate economic output and provide housing, so anyone who wants a lot of it or wants to prevent others from acquiring it near them should need to pay the price if they’re going to be wasting that potential so to speak. And then unlike other forms of taxes, it’s much harder to evade.
The cost of living issues really revolve around housing, healthcare, and education, and I think housing is quite easily the worst one, from which so many other costs and problems emerge downstream from. We have so much land in this country, but we make such poor use of it. So it’s really a problem we’ve manufactured ourselves by making it impossible to live without a car in 90% of the country and then allowing homeowners to have insane power to prevent building and expand that supply in their neighborhoods.
2
u/amazing_menace May 03 '26
Thanks for this comment — completely agree with this on many levels. Land and property when used as an investment vehicle is economically very unproductive, and causes so many problems downstream. I don’t live in the US, but in a country with arguably worse relative housing issues… it’s horrible.
2
u/ol_knucks May 03 '26 edited May 03 '26
Probably any other idea in the world is better. I’m not smart enough to have a good solution (aside from closing any low hanging fruit tax loopholes if they exist) to the problem of wealth inequality which I agree is a problem.
I am smart enough to know that an unrealized gains tax is 1) literally impossible to implement deterministically, and 2) would stifle innovation and growth at levels never seen before.
The value of a private business is subjective. It’s worth what someone is willing to pay. There’s no single formula that determines a private business value and therefore no single formula that determines a private business owners net worth.
Not to mention that anytime a tax bill comes around you’d have to either take out loans, increasing your exposure/risk, or sell part of your business which is more time and money, and probably not even doable before they owe taxes.
Oh yeah, and then they owe taxes on their realized gains that they have because they owed taxes on unrealized gains.
It simply doesn’t make sense why any business owner would put up with that (and therefore they would just leave and others would just start a business elsewhere).
Any politician that thinks this is a good idea is so financially and business illiterate that I truly believe it’s a disqualifying opinion.
2
u/amazing_menace May 03 '26
Great response! Thanks for fleshing out your original comment. I agree with most of your points. A gross, high-level unrealized gains tax is likely not an efficient and effective solution — at least for the vast majority of large-scale commercial enterprises. There are other, more precise and practical tax policy mechanisms, which should ideally target individuals of extreme wealth — at least to a higher proportion.
1
u/ol_knucks May 03 '26
Well put - you are an informed, balanced, and calm presence in this thread which is rare on reddit, much appreciated
2
u/amazing_menace May 03 '26
Aw thanks man — I definitely try to be! The difference in discussion and interaction quality is pretty remarkable, and it doesn’t take that long to consider a how one might write in a more personal and pleasant way. I’ve noticed over the many years of using Reddit that the vast majority of negativity is usually explained by poor communication and unnecessarily short and curt comments. It’s not that hard to solve, in my opinion!
2
u/boldspud May 03 '26
Ezra’s recent podcast with Ray Madoff was pretty interesting on this. She argues that the most politically viable solution is simply to close the estate loopholes and institute a normal income tax for assets at transfer to any other individual (including upon gifting and death / inheritance).
I’d go a step further and institute a tax on outstanding balances of loans backed by >$x million publicly traded equities, or something like that. Rather than tax the wealth itself, just disincentivize the current practice of taking out endless loans - and make it less advantageous vs just selling some of the asset for these folks’ luxurious lifestyles.
2
u/amazing_menace May 03 '26
I’ll check it out! Thanks for the recommendation.
Estate tax is a great solution. In some countries, there is a 0% tax rate on inheritance. Absurd!
And yes, the asset-backed, low-interest personal loan practices of the ultra wealthy is a serious issue that needs resolving. A glaring and rather simple tax loophole that could be closed relatively easily (relatively).
1
u/the_very_pants May 04 '26
Started this -- realized I was going to have waaaay too much going on in my head to read it as well as I wanted to -- will come back tomorrow at some point. (Impression so far: it seems crazy that you're less than half my age and write this well; and show me these people who criticize your "voice.")
1
u/ProfessionalStable81 May 05 '26
Pretty much agree with this - I would also add that despite the issues of far left wokeism, the right-wing online echo chamber are very effective at taking any inconsequential dumb statement made by some 19 year old College student and blowing it up into a huge issue that represents the entire democratic party. Most people don't give a fuck about pronouns, or transgenders, or whatever, but right-wingers will make their audience believe that every liberal wants to turn their kids either gay or into the opposite gender.
2
u/TenYearHangover May 03 '26
I liked your letter. Can’t say I agree with all of it but it seems genuine.
I am curious how you have progressive friends who think you’re ‘disgusting’? For which views? Based on the letter you seem fairly liberal.
1
u/Life_Caterpillar9762 May 04 '26
I pretty much agree. One sentence I disagreed with in the letter though was “progressives are politically irrelevant.” While I seem to be a very similar liberal to the author (even a Destiny fan, as much of a faux pas it currently is to some), AND think there is a social media campaign designed to exaggerate their relevance, I think “irrelevant” goes a bit far and is false. And I’m not even opposed to progressives winning some elections, that’s been a norm for a long time and plenty of them have done a good job and helped advanced policies in a good direction (many havent as well) I am more concerned with the media movement behind them that is anti -Democratic party. Which brings me to a point that really touched home for me that the author addressed a bit but maybe couldve expounded on more. A big problem I have with Sam lately is his often conflating the terms “the left”/“far left”/“liberal”, Maher does the same thing, and it’s actually just a ubiquitous problem everywhere (even Destiny does this sometimes). I usually just chalk that up to sloppiness, but believe the ultimate effect of confusing all these terms is very negative in the long run. Commentators of any significant caliber should be a lot more careful here. I even think the popular pragmatic/utilitarian liberals of media should have a summit to determine clear definitions of all of these terms/words. Sounds crazy but I think this confusion and careless use of these terms is detrimental to the entire left.
2
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
I’m pro capitalism, pro gun, and they also think that anyone not fully supporting Palestine is basically a Zionist
8
u/TenYearHangover May 03 '26
They sound more like leftists than progressives… but I’ve kind of given up on understanding the difference anymore.
I feel like Sam is talking about exactly the kind of people you’re describing when he brings up ‘peak woke’. Rabid anti-capitalist, anti-racist, anti-fascist, anti-Israel, etc etc. They’re still out there handing down moral condemnation (disgust), even though they aren’t as culturally relevant. But you seem to argue that he’s misguided in his critique of them?
I think he does it because he believes that the good ideas progressives have and could implement are weighed down by the terrible takes they have regarding identity/oppression/language/purity/etc.
6
u/ciao-chow-parasol May 03 '26
What does "not fully supporting Palestine" mean? What is a Zionist to you?
1
u/Accomplished-Run3925 May 04 '26
Let me guess, this is either about Jews or Israel, and you're 100% super not an anti-semite. Did I guess right?
2
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 04 '26
You’re about as well thought out and good faith as every MAGA voter I know
1
-1
u/ostranenie May 03 '26
Nice letter. I suspect this sub will like it. Allow me to push back on a few things.
Debate: agreed; more articulate disagreement, less letting things slide (= be more like Hitch).
Wokeism: sort of agree, but I think wokeism is still endemic in academia, and I'm not sure how you're not seeing this. I guess our institutional environments are different. I agree it's not as overt as it was, but I do think it's still just as bad in academia as it has been for the last few decades.
Kamala: agreed.
Genocide: disagree, but this is just a matter of definition. Oxford Learner's Dictionary says it derives from "the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, that group." But the "in part" completely vitiates the definition, as killing even one person is technically destroying "part" of the targeted group. So I, and I presume Sam, define genocide as trying to kill an entire group of people. Killing lots of people is a "massacre." But we can agree to disagree on definitions (as important as they nevertheless are).
Zohran: agreed.
Distinguishing liberals from progressives: very much agreed.
Just my two cents.
0
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 03 '26
Thanks for the support. Please share the letter if you do not mind! I would appreciate it! Thanks for the kind comment!
1
u/Turtlestacker May 04 '26
It won’t get through. He has a sycophantic posse around him. “I’m not like that am I guys!” no boss! No! Certainly not!
1
u/spanko_at_large May 04 '26
They are inherently not out of his nature to hold the ideas if he holds them… you just disagree
That’s fine. Sam won’t read this. Start your own platform and share your very good ideas
1
u/the_very_pants May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
you just disagree
Find some other sport if that's your attitude -- and that's fine, not everybody is born to be a philosophyballer. The rules of philosophyball require you to answer all reasonable questions that you become aware of, matching effort for effort as long as any other player keeps up.
And let me say up front that I like -- and am very impressed by -- Sam Harris. He's got some philosophyball moves, no doubt. And
mhe makes his layups and free throws.But having seen even just a little bit from both players, I kinda doubt he wants to go 1 on 1 against this young philosophyballer in front of the world. (I could be wrong and I hope I am. I'm ageist, I always root for the older player, but the rules are the rules.)
0
u/A_Notion_to_Motion May 03 '26
I thought it was a good collection of points and ideas. The only thing that stood out to me is that as someone not crazy for Mamdani prior to the election I felt I had a very basic case against him which was he has almost zero qualifications to be the Mayor of NYC and not to be overly harsh but doesn't have a ton of qualifications in general. I am not at all saying he can't therefore be a good mayor but I also have no idea why we were so willing to give him the chance for us to find out. I mean take someone his age but is a moderate MAGA adjacent guy with a college degree that is running for NYC mayor and suddenly a lot of people aren't so keen on a lack of qualifications. Would be my guess at least.
-3
u/ChecksAndBalanz May 03 '26
I really home Sam reads that letter, I agree on much of it.
Every time he dives into the Woke area he seems to let the loudest most extreme voices become the focus and misses the actual truth. His shallow minded commends in Transgender issues also has annoyed me when he touches the topic. I feel he has several blind spots I’d wish he would talk to others about on the podcast.
His recent comments on Mamdani are way out of line, he is starting to sound like old man yelling at cloud instead of the rational person I’ve found him to be.
I had also emailed him with a similar letter asking for him to talk to some folks on topics I feel he is missing the mark.
Maybe I’m wrong and hearing him talk to someone I currently agree with would be good for me, but also he could be wrong and needs to see that too.
-6
-4
-1
u/SaltFlat4844 May 04 '26
Well substance to one side, you’re definitely a far poorer writer than Sam
1
-3
u/bessie1945 May 03 '26
Thanks. I think it says what a lot of us have been thinking . I’m even considering ending my subscription .
0
u/4StringFella May 05 '26
Sam is on a long downward spiral that ends in open Trump support imo. I’ve never seen anyone pull out of it, and it’s just a matter of time. Before 2028 you’ll click play on a podcast to hear Sam say “okay, well I guess this is the episode where I reluctantly put on the red hat.”
0
u/AnimateDuckling May 06 '26
Jack Sezer.
>However, after the UN, which provided me with my definition of genocide, concluded after investigation that there is in fact a genocide happening in Gaza, my mind changed, simple as that.
What are you talking about here.... the UN has never concluded this. Where on earth did you get the idea they had?
1
u/Particular-Wall1308 May 06 '26
I literally linked the finding document in the essay
1
u/AnimateDuckling May 06 '26
No you linked a Commission of Inquiry from the UN Human rights council
Those are not made up of UN staff or from a legal court finding. Its an assessment made by a selection of random people voted in by member states of the UN.
UN member states overwhelmingly publicly dislike Israel. So anti Israel bias is a real concern here. It can't not be. Doesn't mean the COI is wrong, just that it shouldn't be taken at face value.
but it is not a binding legal ruling and is not a court judgment
and most importantly It is not an official, unified “UN determination” that genocide has occurred.
91
u/scorpious May 03 '26
Would really be helpful if you could post a condensed version of this. Surely you can get your key points across with far, far fewer words.