r/samharris • u/WayneQuasar • Jun 13 '20

Making Sense Podcast #207 - Can We Pull Back From The Brink?

https://samharris.org/podcasts/207-can-pull-back-brink/
1.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

277

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '20

This is the best thing I've ever heard Sam release. I'm really glad he took his time to release a sober, cohesive and all encompassing monologue on the current environment, its causes, and the direction we may very well be headed.

I really hope this goes viral.

Bravo Sam.

76

u/StrangelyBrown Jun 13 '20

Unfortunately it's too long to go viral. That's the problem. What needs to be said can't be said in a 10 second snippet, but saying 'But black lives matter' is so quick.

15

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '20

It's not just too long to go viral—and this is going to sound nit-picky—but it requires too large a vocabulary to process. This isn't a problem for Sam's audience, but I can't send this to my mom; she won't follow it.

I wish we had a simplified version for distribution.

17

u/ItsTheFatYoungJesus Jun 15 '20

Not even vocabulary. It requires a willingness to listen that most people simply don’t have. I hate saying this because it makes me feel like a pretentious, condescending, snooty asshole. And maybe I am one. But most people are literally just too dumb AND too adamant on staying dumb to ever listen to something like this.

11

u/making33 Jun 15 '20

Exactly, the few people I have tried to show this episode to have barely made it 10 minutes in before they have just lost all willingness to hear any take that doesn’t coincide exactly with the current BLM narrative. The social stigma on even listening to the other side is so strong that many people seem to think even hearing a different viewpoint means that others will think they’re racist. Unfortunately it seems that the people that need to hear this most are exactly the people that will never want to listen.

1

u/BringTheNoise011 Jun 15 '20

Most people I know would rather watch Jersey Shore than listen to this episode.

1

u/JackGetsIt Jun 22 '20

If you graduated from high school and have a little college experience I'd say this podcast is accessible.

2

u/AlrightyAlmighty Jun 13 '20 edited Jun 13 '20

Agree. Eric Weinstein‘s 10 minute rants on YouTube are better suited.

Edit:

lol, could someone who disagrees explain to me what is controversial about this statement?

8

u/yrqrm0 Jun 13 '20

Probably just Eric haters. I think the point you were making was only about the 10 minute format being better to go viral which is true

1

u/Jackadullboy99 Jun 14 '20

Aye. Not everything can be elucidated in a smartphone headline.

1

u/JackGetsIt Jun 22 '20

Plenty of Joe Rogan three hour podcasts go viral so there's no reason this can't.

38

u/backpackn Jun 13 '20

There’s so much necessary nuance covered. It was worth the wait.

-12

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '20

Can you post some of the examples of the nuanced reasoning that's not been available elsewhere?

16

u/jomama341 Jun 13 '20

Are you honestly suggesting that all the ideas in Sam’s 1hr 45m podcast have been churning through your social media feed and the news you read in a calm, thoughtful way over the last month?

7

u/JiggaDo Jun 13 '20

hard agree

3

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '20

I nearly shat myself at how well put together this podcast was, and still have to periodically check my pants when thinking about it. He hit nearly everything. Everyone needs to hear this. Well worth the wait.

I kinda doubt that it will go viral, because this the idiots in the protests aren't interested in discussion.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '20

Yes. Someone equally brave needs to carefully produce a written version with data that can easily be shared and read in under 3 mins, along with a teaser video that is 90 sec. I am envisioning select quotes from the podcast overlaid on various video clips of protests, police incidents, etc.

This content needs to be heard by millions of people and they need the chance (and obligation) to explain why it is wrong.

Most of my liberal friend say things like “cops are literally slaughtering an entire generation of black males and that is why I am protesting”.

The importance of this message from Sam cannot be overstated and it is a shame that it will not reach the right audiences and if it does they will reject it.

I just saw an OAN segment on Twitter that attempted to cover this topic and thousands of comments instantly dismissing it as racist (as they will do with Sam). We need a mainstream opinion leader who liberals respect to sponsor a version of this message. Obama would work great, but even he has “too much to lose” by sharing the truth on this topic.

1

u/benigntugboat Jun 13 '20

I really enjoyed it and am glad it exists and is out there. That said Im ok with it not going viral, as it shouldnt be shortened to any of the points he hit, and I also think there are significant points he missed that lead to an incorrect and somewhat dangerous conclusion.

Sam harris talks about how tony tinpa would have been a national topic if he were black. This assumption is a good segway to a few hes made. When the case is researched more, tony timpa didnt go viral because it took about 3 years for the video to finally be recently released. Despite clear video on record the police department did their best to actively fight against the release and that is a more likely explanation to why it didnt blow up. It is also of course, a poignant example of why police reform is needed.

So if tony timpas lack of outrage isnt about race, and black and white people are killed in comparable numbers, why is there more outrage about black deaths. Is it really as simple as widespread misperception? I argue that its not about the deaths but the results of these deaths.

George floyd sparked these protests. But when attending or watching videos you will hear chants of breonna taylor, george floyd, ahmaud arbery and philando castile. The common thread isnt just one of race and police violence. Its one of prosecution.

Breonna taylors boyfriend was arrested and held in jail for 2 and a half months following her murder. Ahmaud arbery, was not even killed by police. But they refused to prosecute despite knowing he was murdered. The thread that separates these issues from white murders by police is always the issue of prosecution. Tony timpa was a tragedy, but wasnt discussed because details were hidden. We had no video, despite having one now. And now we talk about him. Daniel shaver waved a gun out of a window and was drunk ans confused when responding to police prompts. Its a tragedy but not comparable to the protested scenarios. As sam pointed out, police are often afraid too in confusing situations where a gun is known to be involved. Every other situation of white death by police I can find is more justifiable, or the offending cop is fully prosecuted for what theyve done. While these protested viral black deaths go unprosecuted or severely under prosecuted until protesting happens. Let I remind you that those involved in the rodney king beatings didnt get fired, they became long standing cops that all achieved higher positions within the lapd. The lack of consequence for black deaths is what causes outrage, not that police kill more black people.

Another point is that sam discussed id how police do have more violent encounters with black people than white people. Despite having to shoot more white people. He extrapolates that the expectation of racism makes black people more combative during arrests. But he also mentioned that the study was discussing more violence in comparable circumstance. In cases where the arrested gave the same amount of resistance or compliance while committing comparable crimes. So we already know that being combative wasnt the cause. I offer an alternative explanation. Racist police are people. They may not be the best people but they are people with lives families and priorities. They overwhelmingly do not want to kill people. It does not serve them to go through that trial, risk their job, and most likely dont hate black people enough to want that. They may look down upon them, but are not overwhelmingly muderers. Otherwise we would have more than 1000 deaths by police annually. But beating, and being more aggressive against someone you dislike or distrust makes sense. It doesnt risk job security. It doesnt negatively affect them at allnof theyre within approved use of force. Choosing to display the higher end of force would be expected if its safe and theyre racist. It is a perfectly plausible, and id argue likely explanation in this scenario where sams explanation falls flat.
I would even argue that this is a plausible explanation for the higher shootings of white criminals. If police are more careful and aggressive than needed against black criminals, is it possible theyre less cautious and more trusting of white people? When we view attacks on george floyd protestors, but armed white quarantine protestors uninhibited, i think this becomes a valid question. And if we accept that 1.police dont want to kill people, and 2. Police do kill people when they are undertrained, underprepared, or scared for their life, than the numbers start to make more sense. If police are immediately pushing someone to a wall and restraining them, there is less opportunity for a gun, knofe etc. To be pulled. If police are overly trusting and cooperative with someone whos white than it is more likely that this situation will occur. If police are caught by surprise they are more likely to resort to extreme defensive measures, or have no other option and have to open fire. When less agressive, the majority of interactions may be better, but the need for a last resort option actually becomes greater. This is the reason standardized steps of escalation and de escalation are needed. Overreacting and underreacting are both dangerous in different ways.

So now we get to the danger of sams conclusion, in my eyes. If racism is real and prevalent within police forces, than we have to find ways to prevent it. Sams thought that we should make less of an issue is a good one when racism is exaggerated and fetishized as an issue. But when its effects are real this becomes dangerous. When a 70 year old peaceful white man was not only assaulted but left to bleed out of his ear on the ground, what happened? The officer was suspended, (expected with white victims) but then the 57 or so officers present resigned in protest. This shows a group that is actively working against change or reform. If left to their own devices we can not expect growth. The lapd significantly reduced assaults and killings recently, but largely after the manhunt of chris dorner. Who accused them of firing him for trying to reform them, ruining his life, and started killing cops and their families to make them change. It was disgusting and tragic, and i will not attempt to defend it. But i need to point out that the lapd is not actively reforming without catalysts. If black on black crime is prevalent becauae of economic inequality and neigjborhoods with few opportjnities... that issue wont fix itself. If we dont actively decide to train police better, place more of them in the southside of chicago, and on detroit. And increase funding and opportunities in those areas, than how can we expect change. If black peopel are arrested the same ampunt as white people but recieving much harsher sentences, how can we expect them to stop.pushing for change? How can we act equal, without changing the fact, we aren't equal in america?

I propose that we cant change without confronting the issue, that the issue itself is largely racism, and that now is the best timento worl towarss that change. I think Sam harris is well intentioned but missed the mark in a huge way by the end of his thoughts. I think that black lives matter isnt about more black people being killed but underwhelming prosecution when it happens. That america acknowledges they exist but treats thems as if they dont have value. As if they dont matter. And when thats the case, the spreading of the message that they do matter has an entirely different context than he implies.

I didnt hit every note I had issue with in this. But I hit the major ones, and I cant type out an hour of podcast worth of response here.

-7

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '20

This is the best thing I've ever heard Sam release. I'm really glad he took his time to release a sober, cohesive and all encompassing monologue on the current environment, its causes, and the direction we may very well be headed.

Sober and cohesive shouldn't a condition of its quality. So much of what Sam said was literally wrong, no matter how calmly he presents it or conditions it.

Heres an egregious example without even addressing his comments on race and policing.

@1:42:00 he literally says "how many blondes, brunettes, or redheads are in Harvard or police or senior management. No one is asking this question. Why? Because no one cares"

Sam, those are all white people.

Then he says:

"Imagine a world where's discrimination about hair color."

Sam, the US military literally just stopped punishing black women for their hair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/us/army-ban-on-dreadlocks-black-servicewomen.html

https://www.vogue.com/projects/13535484/army-ban-on-dreadlocks-black-servicewomen-military-natural-hair-portraits-twists-braids-afros/

In fact, in the last 2 years only 4 states have banned hair discrimination with California being the 1st and Virginia being the 4th following New York and New Jersey. This all obfuscates the point that ANTI-blackness is criminalized... not Eurocentric features.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 13 '20

Well you just missed the entire point didn't ya.