1 2 > 
 
   
 

AMA #9 Discussion Thread

 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6294
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
29 October 2017 09:47
 

Ask Me Anything #9 is available to supporters. Look for a link in an email. Almost anything. Don’t ask for the link.

This thread is for supporting listeners’ comments.

 
 
dhave
 
Avatar
 
 
dhave
Total Posts:  284
Joined  25-09-2016
 
 
 
29 October 2017 14:37
 

This is a good one, people, and there’s even a surprise guest.

What!?  A surprise guest?

Yes.  So get your support on and check it out.

Regards,
Dave.

 
 
87BIT
 
Avatar
 
 
87BIT
Total Posts:  2
Joined  31-08-2017
 
 
 
29 October 2017 21:36
 

Sam’s comments on the media fall apart when you analyze the actual reach of these outlets and who they are marketed towards. Infowars or Rebel Media being of significantly lower journalistic quality than CNN or NYT does not mean it’s a “false equivalency” to compare the two. Infowars and similar outlets have a minuscule footprint on the flow of information in comparison to CNN and NYT. They are not influencing the most serious people in society in the same way the mainstream media is.

Two news outlets:
Outlet A has a reach of 10,000,000 people
Outlet B has a reach of 1,000,000 people
90% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet A
1% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet B

Sam has concluded that Outlet B is a bigger concern in this scenario merely because they have a lower journalistic standard than Outlet A. This is a delusional way to think about the media, and he ends up serving as a useful idiot for the media establishment by being consistently confused on this point.

Beyond that, for him to summarize CNN’s problems as merely “rough around the edges” shows how unclear his thinking is on this topic. It’s a bit disheartening to see the man himself not follow the plot on this.

 
PabloHoney
 
Avatar
 
 
PabloHoney
Total Posts:  3
Joined  13-07-2017
 
 
 
30 October 2017 04:59
 

Wow, Rubin’s stubborn and irrational apologizing for Trump is disappointing.  He lost me for good with this one.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  631
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
30 October 2017 06:08
 
87BIT - 29 October 2017 09:36 PM

Sam’s comments on the media fall apart when you analyze the actual reach of these outlets and who they are marketed towards. Infowars or Rebel Media being of significantly lower journalistic quality than CNN or NYT does not mean it’s a “false equivalency” to compare the two. Infowars and similar outlets have a minuscule footprint on the flow of information in comparison to CNN and NYT. They are not influencing the most serious people in society in the same way the mainstream media is.

Two news outlets:
Outlet A has a reach of 10,000,000 people
Outlet B has a reach of 1,000,000 people
90% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet A
1% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet B

Sam has concluded that Outlet B is a bigger concern in this scenario merely because they have a lower journalistic standard than Outlet A. This is a delusional way to think about the media, and he ends up serving as a useful idiot for the media establishment by being consistently confused on this point.

Beyond that, for him to summarize CNN’s problems as merely “rough around the edges” shows how unclear his thinking is on this topic. It’s a bit disheartening to see the man himself not follow the plot on this.

I’m not convinced that you can do the sort of easy impact calculus implied by this response.  I’d tend to think that there is a “degree of misrepresentation” factor that comes into play.  If Infowars presents completely bogus information (e.g. Sandy Hook was a false flag)  that can have an effect that is larger than you might infer from the actual listeners.  The fact that we, as part of the 90% of the serious people, or larger scale media outlets, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/12/alex-jones-infowars-founder-launches-new-website-n/,  know about and discuss this at all is a sign of how far a reach extreme/titilating/shocking “information” can have in today’s social and media climate.

 

 
gaudaost
 
Avatar
 
 
gaudaost
Total Posts:  6
Joined  11-10-2016
 
 
 
30 October 2017 07:31
 

To bring Dave Rubin on by surprise, was an amusing and very honorable thing of Sam Harris to bring him on so he can defend himself. I’ve used to watch his show, but I don’t anymore because I got tired by it, and increasingly noted that his show is not what it purports to be.

I think a lot of his critics get it wrong though, which makes it so easy for Dave Rubin to defend himself. The problem is not that he can’t concede any of the valid criticism of Trump except for the most glaring ones, that he interviews the “wrong” people, or even that he does not push back against any of the most extreme or controversial on the right. The problem is that he claims to be an “idea man”, that his show is just an open space where ideas can be discussed. First of all, they rarely do discuss any worthwhile ideas, and secondly the ideas that are given serious scrutiny is almost exclusively in the republican/liberterian nationalistic/free market section, with an occasional leftie thrown in to give the impression that the listeners are not in an echo chamber. The fact that his show is ideologically directed at that wing of the republican party shines through in all of his direct messages, of which there are many, and his listenership. He claims to be “just an interviewer” but he absolutely isn’t.

Dave Rubin seemed utterly perplexed that he gets flack for coming on Alex Jones show, while Joe Rogan doesn’t for inviting the very same guy on twice. But the reason is obvious, Joe Rogan is actually doing what Dave Rubin claims to be doing. His show IS truly a marketplace for ideas, and Joe Rogan, whose views fall all across the spectrum, largely does not have an interest in pushing a political agend, unlike Dave Rubin, who always seem to be want to push the idea that the left is illiberal, which he also did in this podcast.

If Dave Rubin actually ran his show like Joe Rogan does, or if he wore his ideological convictions on his sleeve (rather than endlessly babbling about him being a married gay man, which absolutely nobody cares about) like Ben Shapiro does, then I could respect him. But he doesn’t and to me he comes across as a charlatan and a snake, much in the same way that Stefan Molyneux does.

[ Edited: 30 October 2017 07:33 by gaudaost]
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
30 October 2017 13:09
 
87BIT - 29 October 2017 09:36 PM

Sam’s comments on the media fall apart when you analyze the actual reach of these outlets and who they are marketed towards. Infowars or Rebel Media being of significantly lower journalistic quality than CNN or NYT does not mean it’s a “false equivalency” to compare the two. Infowars and similar outlets have a minuscule footprint on the flow of information in comparison to CNN and NYT. They are not influencing the most serious people in society in the same way the mainstream media is.

Two news outlets:
Outlet A has a reach of 10,000,000 people
Outlet B has a reach of 1,000,000 people
90% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet A
1% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet B

Sam has concluded that Outlet B is a bigger concern in this scenario merely because they have a lower journalistic standard than Outlet A. This is a delusional way to think about the media, and he ends up serving as a useful idiot for the media establishment by being consistently confused on this point.

Beyond that, for him to summarize CNN’s problems as merely “rough around the edges” shows how unclear his thinking is on this topic. It’s a bit disheartening to see the man himself not follow the plot on this.

Listening to this “Ask Me Anything” felt something like Ivanka Trump struggling with the word ‘complicit’, then go on to say that she doesn’t know the meaning of the word. The phrase “identity politics” is used by those on the “right” side of the law in order to perpetuate systemic oppression. If nothing political affected how any of us identify, then precisely what interest could politics possibly hold for any of us?

If the goal of this “Ask Me Anything” was to demonstrate how easily one can cede their intellectual authority to a lesser mind, then fait accompli.

 
 
Balanza4
 
Avatar
 
 
Balanza4
Total Posts:  1
Joined  29-10-2017
 
 
 
30 October 2017 19:46
 

I’ve been a fan of Sam for years and seldom disagree with him, but I was extremely disappointed in his interview with Rubin. Sam, have you no sense of irony? You gave Rubin a softball interview in response to Rubin’s habit of doing the same thing. You didn’t push him when he filibustered about unrelated nonsense or when he dodged your questions. This guy is clearly uninteresting and not very bright; you are losing your credibility, Sam, by supporting Rubin.

 
SlotcarBob
 
Avatar
 
 
SlotcarBob
Total Posts:  10
Joined  01-03-2017
 
 
 
30 October 2017 22:27
 

A response to Dave Rubin’s idea that the Founders were for state’s rights. Wrong, and the right keeps saying it, and the left keeps nodding.

The first 2 elections for president were to elect a federalist, unopposed, and unanimously. Washington. The third was highly contested, but the winner was Adams, another federalist. Hamilton, the smartest guy in the room, and who set up the financial underpinnings of America, was a federalist (His first proposal to Washington was to help pay the war debts of the smaller states, by taxing the rich states). James Madison, who essentially wrote the Constitution, was a FEDERALIST.

We are great because of federalism, not in spite of it.

 
87BIT
 
Avatar
 
 
87BIT
Total Posts:  2
Joined  31-08-2017
 
 
 
30 October 2017 22:55
 
mapadofu - 30 October 2017 06:08 AM
87BIT - 29 October 2017 09:36 PM

Sam’s comments on the media fall apart when you analyze the actual reach of these outlets and who they are marketed towards. Infowars or Rebel Media being of significantly lower journalistic quality than CNN or NYT does not mean it’s a “false equivalency” to compare the two. Infowars and similar outlets have a minuscule footprint on the flow of information in comparison to CNN and NYT. They are not influencing the most serious people in society in the same way the mainstream media is.

Two news outlets:
Outlet A has a reach of 10,000,000 people
Outlet B has a reach of 1,000,000 people
90% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet A
1% of the most serious people in our society get their information from Outlet B

Sam has concluded that Outlet B is a bigger concern in this scenario merely because they have a lower journalistic standard than Outlet A. This is a delusional way to think about the media, and he ends up serving as a useful idiot for the media establishment by being consistently confused on this point.

Beyond that, for him to summarize CNN’s problems as merely “rough around the edges” shows how unclear his thinking is on this topic. It’s a bit disheartening to see the man himself not follow the plot on this.

I’m not convinced that you can do the sort of easy impact calculus implied by this response.  I’d tend to think that there is a “degree of misrepresentation” factor that comes into play.  If Infowars presents completely bogus information (e.g. Sandy Hook was a false flag)  that can have an effect that is larger than you might infer from the actual listeners.  The fact that we, as part of the 90% of the serious people, or larger scale media outlets, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/12/alex-jones-infowars-founder-launches-new-website-n/,  know about and discuss this at all is a sign of how far a reach extreme/titilating/shocking “information” can have in today’s social and media climate.

I’d argue the reason that we know about these stories and discuss these conspiracies is largely because of the way in which the mainstream media chooses to over-report on it, not that it actually has much spread of it’s own. The Sandy Hook stuff is a good example of this. 2 guys show up at a restaurant with a rifle and the media reports on it for months on end, to the point where now everyone remotely politically-inclined knows about it. Comparatively, a small army of BLM activists roam the streets of Milwaukee for the sole purpose of hunting down white people and it barely gets any coverage at all. Most people probably don’t even know that happened. This is precisely why the MSM is a bigger issue than Salon or Breitbart or Infowars. We rely on them for unbridled truth, but all we get is a manipulated, directed narrative.

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
31 October 2017 00:34
 
87BIT - 30 October 2017 10:55 PM

I’d argue the reason that we know about these stories and discuss these conspiracies is largely because of the way in which the mainstream media chooses to over-report on it, not that it actually has much spread of it’s own. The Sandy Hook stuff is a good example of this. 2 guys show up at a restaurant with a rifle and the media reports on it for months on end, to the point where now everyone remotely politically-inclined knows about it. Comparatively, a small army of BLM activists roam the streets of Milwaukee for the sole purpose of hunting down white people and it barely gets any coverage at all. Most people probably don’t even know that happened. This is precisely why the MSM is a bigger issue than Salon or Breitbart or Infowars. We rely on them for unbridled truth, but all we get is a manipulated, directed narrative.

Please elaborate on this. It seems as if you’ve made no sense whatsoever.

 
 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  631
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
31 October 2017 05:47
 
87BIT - 30 October 2017 10:55 PM

I’d argue the reason that we know about these stories and discuss these conspiracies is largely because of the way in which the mainstream media chooses to over-report on it, not that it actually has much spread of it’s own. The Sandy Hook stuff is a good example of this. 2 guys show up at a restaurant with a rifle and the media reports on it for months on end, to the point where now everyone remotely politically-inclined knows about it. Comparatively, a small army of BLM activists roam the streets of Milwaukee for the sole purpose of hunting down white people and it barely gets any coverage at all. Most people probably don’t even know that happened. This is precisely why the MSM is a bigger issue than Salon or Breitbart or Infowars. We rely on them for unbridled truth, but all we get is a manipulated, directed narrative.

I don’t see how you construct the difference between “media over-reporting on it” and “spread on it’s own” or how making such a distinction is meaningful.

The violence in Milwaukee made the national news:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/16/why-milwaukee-boiled-over-with-violence-after-police-shooting-death/?utm_term=.88db32095c7e
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/08/the-violent-protests-in-milwaukee-contd/495827/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-milwaukee-unrest-20160814-snap-story.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/cnn-edits-out-milwaukee-victims-sister-sherelle-sm/
etc.

 

 

[ Edited: 31 October 2017 06:15 by mapadofu]
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
31 October 2017 09:25
 
mapadofu - 31 October 2017 05:47 AM

I don’t see how you construct the difference between “media over-reporting on it” and “spread on it’s own” or how making such a distinction is meaningful.

There is no meaningful distinction, aside from what one chooses to believe, I suppose…

Noun
media
1. plural of medium

media (countable and uncountable, plural media or medias)
1. (often used as uncountable, though such use is proscribed) Means and institutions for publishing and broadcasting information.

2. (usually with a definite article; often used as uncountable, though such use is proscribed) The journalists and other professionals who comprise the mass communication industry.

Wiktionary: media

 
 
Tahiti67
 
Avatar
 
 
Tahiti67
Total Posts:  66
Joined  13-09-2017
 
 
 
31 October 2017 14:27
 

“Trump is so captivated with himself it’s pathological.” SH Couldn’t have said it better. I don’t know Rubin’s shows and have only read the outburst on social media about him. However, the guy’s constant laughing, and laughing off the narcissism of Trump, referring to the stock exchange in change, gives the impression he has verbal diahorrea and glosses over things far too easily. Plus having to use being homosexual and married to argue his case is a weak argument. “It has nothing to do with the price of cheese.” Just as the stock market has nothing to do with the quality of the current American leader.

 
Pumpingnylon
 
Avatar
 
 
Pumpingnylon
Total Posts:  2
Joined  08-08-2017
 
 
 
03 November 2017 11:43
 

I listen to and love Sam because his conversations are intellectually stimulating and help me examine my own ideas on difficult topics.

Rubin is the opposite. He trots out slogans and promotes ideas he doesn’t have a good grasp of, while dodging criticism in this interview under the assumption that critics are simply airing grudges, without bothering to understand the specific criticisms themselves. I caught myself screaming at my phone asking why Sam just let him talk and talk and… talk.

Overall, just rather shocked that such incoherence was allowed to go unchallenged.

 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  866
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
03 November 2017 12:15
 
Tahiti67 - 31 October 2017 02:27 PM

“Trump is so captivated with himself it’s pathological.” SH Couldn’t have said it better. I don’t know Rubin’s shows and have only read the outburst on social media about him. However, the guy’s constant laughing, and laughing off the narcissism of Trump, referring to the stock exchange in change, gives the impression he has verbal diahorrea and glosses over things far too easily. Plus having to use being homosexual and married to argue his case is a weak argument. “It has nothing to do with the price of cheese.” Just as the stock market has nothing to do with the quality of the current American leader.


Something about Rubin repeatedly evoking his being “gay married” as an excuse to be deliberately provocative/incendiary really did not sit well with me. His apparent inability to understand the fundamental nature of market valuations only served to reiterate how vacuous an individual that he seems to be. It was far more distressing, to my mind, to witness how readily Sam Harris chose to err on the side of deference and affability [to his friend, instead of the people who are patrons of his work]. It would have been a relatively simple thing for Sam to answer the question posed to him regarding his continuing relationship with Rubin, and such an answer would not have been likely to cause such a response.

The puzzled way that Rubin’s presence was brushed off (“much to the consternation of…”) was just fucking insulting. Respect is about as easily gained as truth. Most people will offer it to you once, and then never offer it again.

 
 
 1 2 >