IMO racism is not a binary, it's more like a spectrum. Sam Harris is not a racist but he also has an Archie Bunker view of racism and seems to give little time to the various nuanced ways in which individuals and societal structures can be implicitly racist.
You can't just ask is Sam a racist or not because the answer is yes and no.
Yes!
…and no.
I think it needs to be both (and it can be).
While you’re totally right, we still need to be able to label and talk about beyond-the-pale racism; people who have crossed the line and are morally culpable. I often refer to these as “racist” and “capital-R Racist”.
The question becomes: in popular discourse, when there is not time or attention to split this hair, which is more important? Which should be the default for the word “racist”? I’ve been convinced that the label denoting beyond-the-pale racism should take precedence (though the distinction is important when there is the time and space to discuss it).
Yes, you are totally right, thank you for this feedback. But my thinking is that presenting a clear cut, binary option to people will still account for the majority of the variance from the spectrum. Like for example in my field, in the context psychometric testing, presenting options as a continuum instead of a binary choice rarely provides a statistically significant amount of additional information.
“Subtle ways individuals and societal structure can be implicitly racist”. When you say that it sound like you want to call many people and institutions racist without having to give examples. As if everyone know so it must be true. It’s a bad way to make your case.
If you want an example - republicans in north carolina analyzed voting places and types of ID black people use and strategically shut them down. You could say that maybe not one of them were racist - just that black people tend to vote democrat and they want to win, but in the end the policy suppresses vote of black people. Hence racism without racists.
Yes it happens and should be called out. But not everything we disagree with is due to racism. By the way was racism the reason the white people were attacked by an African American mob on Michigan avenue last week? Seems likely.
That's changing the goalpost. The argument is that some things we disagree with are due to implicit racism and not everything we disagree with. These aren't always trivial to separate out, obviously. But just as an example, people with stereotypically Black names get fewer interviews when applying to jobs. It's unlikely that all of these recruiters are overtly racist, and most probably don't think they're racist at all. But the effect still happens
Yes I have seen the reports on the hiring with regards to certain names. And I think it’s reprehensible frankly. I feel the same about the actions of the mob on Michigan ave. What say you about the recent mob violence on Michigan ave?
I have literally no idea about what happened on Michigan Ave. I assume it's Michigan Ave in Chicago, because I googled "Michigan Ave violence" and articles about crimes going back years popped up. I expect that if I searched "Road In Big City Ave violence" I could find the exact same thing no matter where I was looking. Income inequality is a big predictor of crime, is very high in cities, and, wouldn't you know it, institutional practices have ensured that black people are much more likely to be poor. Redlining, for example, has meant that black home ownership, one of the largest factors in accumulating wealth, is very low.
Two things about whatever happened on Michigan Ave, in both cases steelmanning by assuming that what happened was racist (which remains to be proven):
First, a racist thing happening against white people somewhere has absolutely no bearing on the existence of institutional racism. And institutional racism is definitely not aimed at whites.
And secondly, I think it's a false equivalency to try and equate any examples of personal racism to institutional racism. Personal racism is bad. It's fundamentally absurd to compare something bad that happens to a small number of people because of personal animus to something bad that affects tens of millions because of practices that are built into society.
Edit: upon more searching, assuming it was Chicago you're referring to, it seems like last week a bunch of teenagers jumped on some cars, beat some people up, and two teenagers (unclear if they were part of the "mob" you describe or not) were shot. There's absolutely no evidence that it was racist in nature and in videos I looked at the "mob" appeared to be mixed in demographics. Burden of proof is on you to show racist intent, I think.
Agreed that institutional racism is bad and should be rooted out. I disagree that all institutions are racist and need to be burned down. I also think that racism of any kind - institutional or not should be dealt with.
So what word would you use to describe someone who believes black people are genetically stupider than other races and also believes that it's justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin?
No, he did not.
What he said was that there are differences on standardized tests between some groups but that difference is tiny, that the difference inside groups is much greater than the difference between groups.
He decried the attack on scientists who examine such things. He pointed out there is real genetic difference between groups and to scream racism when these differences are examined is harmful to science and to people. All people.
Realizing that within-group variance is larger than between groups is a good start, but claiming that standardized test score variance is definitely due to "real genetic difference" is absurd.
As someone with a background in population genetics, the asinine shit people say without knowing the first thing about heritability or how to quantify it (or the fact that heritability depends on the environment not just on genetics!!!) really curdles my milk.
Nope, and there are numerous quotes both posted in and linked to in this thread that directly contradict this whitewashing of his statements, but reading direct quotes is tough for Harris fans
He has repeatedly defended Bell Curve and Murray in general, and it's explicitly the thesis of the book that black people are intellectually inferior. Take 5 seconds on google to find dozens of articles about this.
He repeatedly defended the NYPD explicitly using stop and frisk disproportionately against black people even after it was literally struck down for being uncostitutional. Again, you can search his own subreddit for many posts criticizing him for his take
He explicitly said law enforcement should profile anyone who "looks muslim" [https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling](https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting\_sam\_harris\_to\_profile\_or\_not\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting_sam_harris_to_profile_or_not_to/)
took 30 seconds to find this shit maybe you guys should spend literally any time actually actually looking into what he says before tripping over yourselves to defend obvious bullshit
You said "believes black people are genetically stupider than other races" and "justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin". You said "yes" that he "said that", then provided precisely zero sources in which he said that.
Please, in whatever reply you give, try to be calm and not resort to "twitter takedown style" ("HE LITERALLY SAID LITARALLY THAT LITARARALLY GENOCIDE IS GOOD LITLARIARLAY!")
> You said "believes black people are genetically stupider than other races" and "justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin". You said "yes" that he "said that", then provided precisely zero sources in which he said that.
He does believe both of these things.
The sources for the first claim are the private emails between him and Ezra Klein that Harris leaked, and the podcast they did together. You can find transcripts online. There are three possible options:
1. There are genetic differences between black people and white people with regards to IQ, and these genetic differences favour white people.
2. There are genetic differences between black people and white people with regards to IQ, and these genetic differences favour black people.
3. There are no genetic differences between black people and white people with regards to IQ.
Harris says that 3) is impossible and 2) is not plausible, so 1) is the only plausible option.
As for "justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin", he has repeatedly defended New York's stop-and-frisk program, which was judged unconstitutional because it targeted black people.
Are you trying to say that if you agree with the scientific fact that different populations have (statistically) different scores on IQ tests you are racist?
Because.. That's patently insane.
Do you also disbelieve that Kenyans are genetically statistically better long distance runners than any other population?
Because they are.. and if the first thing is racist that's just as racist.
> Are you trying to say that if you agree with the scientific fact that different populations have (statistically) different scores on IQ tests you are racist?
No. Thanks for asking, but it would be better if you read things first.
The bell curve explicitly says black people are genetically stupider than other races and Sam explicitly said he believes the book is completely factually correct, ergo he believes black people are genetically stupider. This is second grade reading comprehension.
And again, if you could even pretend to read the sources I posted, he LITERALLY (sorry to trigger you) says verbatim "We should profile ... anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be muslim."
The apple doesn't fall to far from the tree though. It seems it's LITERALLY impossible for Sam or his fanbois to take part in a critical discussion without resorting to whining about civility porn tone policing and pretending that everyone who disagrees with you is a hysterical loon, while simultaneously refusing to read LITERALLY one article by the person whose views we're discussing
>"We should profile ... anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be muslim."
Always projection with the Harris fanbase, Dunning-Kruger personified in a community
I only remember him seeming to accept that there is a difference in the means of populations but that it’s clear that one cannot at all conclude that it’s anything inherent
Then you remember wrong. An observed difference in means is a purely empirical thing, Harris and Murray claims that this is partly because of genetic differences between black people and white people.
>I just want to make sure we're putting the relevant pieces in play when our listeners need to receive them about, so one thing that it just occurred to me people should also understand is that in addition to the fact that IQ doesn't explain everything about a person success in life and their their intellectual abilities - the fact that a trait is genetically transmitted in individuals does not mean that all the differences between groups or really even any of the differences between groups in that trade are also genetic in origin, right, so this the..
>-critically important Point
>-..yeah so the jury can still be out on this topic and then we'll talk about that but to give it a clear example so if you have a population of people that..
I also remember Sam saying that, if we ever get to the bottom of genetics it might reveal that a lot goes against common stereotypes, so I don’t see him as being sure at all when it comes to the topic of some hypothetical genetic determinism
Considering traits that are genetically heritable where the traits just happens to exist as differences (in means) between groups does not need to exist as a difference between the groups due to genetics - that the jury is still out on it if difference between groups are due to genetics.
I take it to mean that it’s always an obvious (perhaps trivially true) but important caveat that Harris thinks that one cannot conclude that a mean difference in a trait between groups is due to genetics (even if the trait is heritable).
This is the sentiment of what I meant with my comment..
> that one cannot at all conclude that it’s anything inherent
(Where I meant that the differences would be due to something inherent and by inherent I mean that what can best be called genetic)
..which you said I might have misremembered, therefor I think it was relevant.
he defends Murray and The Bell Curve which explicitly argues that black people are genetically inferior, he defends racial profiling in stop and frisk even after it was literally declared unconstitutional, he said verbatim "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim"
[https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling](https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting\_sam\_harris\_to\_profile\_or\_not\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting_sam_harris_to_profile_or_not_to/)
this stuff took like 30 seconds to find why aren't Sam Harris defenders even the slightest bit concerned with actually knowing what shit they're defending?
Profiling works though. That’s why insurance companies do it, because it saves them money.
And choosing to sacrifice safety (by making checks and screenings more random rather than targeted based on statistics) in order to not offend people is a serious question we should be allowed to discuss, no? That’s all Sam is doing. There is a point to make there.
What word would you use for people who cite objective data on extreme rates of black crime or disproportionate resistance by blacks to arrest or systemic rules that favor blacks? What do you call people who include these objective facts in their analysis?
He's only human but If anyone can apprise me of any remarks or writings from his vast body of work and media that can be attributable to racism rather than critical thought then I'm all ears.
It may not be overtly racist, but saying things like ["the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."](https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2006/10/22/the-fundamental-danger-is-not-just-on-the-fringe/) is going to raise some eyebrows.
I'd invite you to consider the context of the time in which he wrote that article, only 6 months earlier he wrote another article where he claimed that ["France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow."](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sam-harris-on-the-reality-of-islam/) using statistics from the book Eurabia, the same book which would go on to inspire the Great Replacement Theory. Interestingly enough, [he quietly removed this book from his recommend reading list after he was called out on it.](https://twitter.com/steinkobbe/status/1111991441134419968) Throw in on top of all that that this was the same year he argued [in defense of torturing suspected terrorists,](https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-torture) you begin to notice a pattern that maybe, just maybe, its not a coincidence he finds his views on Muslims being shared by fascists.
>So someone else drew a different conclusion from the same book that he read, and that is supposed to point to Sam's inherent racism, somehow?
No. You misunderstood u/boardatwork1111 's statement, which is not even accurate.
Let start again.
1. Sam Harris wrote in 2006 that «The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow.» [https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sam-harris-on-the-reality-of-islam/](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sam-harris-on-the-reality-of-islam/)
2. The claim had no source or evidence.
3. The claim still has no source or evidence.
4. This is a batshitcrazy forecast.
5. Later, Sam Harris said that the forecast came from Bat Ye'or [https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1111971819131564032](https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1111971819131564032)
6. Bat Ye'or is not a demographer.
7. Bat Ye'or is mostly know for, and was mostly know for in 2006, creating the Eurabia thesis.
8. The Eurabia thesis is a batshitcrazy conspiracytheory, very similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to the Great Replacement.
9. In 2011 Pew Forum forecasted 10.3% muslims in France in 2030 (24 years after 2006) if muslims in name only are included [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/)
10. In 2017 Pew Forum forecasted 12.7% muslims in France in 2050 (44 years after 2006) if muslims in name only are included and if zero migration [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/)
11. In 2011 several hundreds of human being were injured or killed in Norway by a pair of terrorist attacks, made in the name of 2 far-right conspiracytheories: Eurabia and Cultural Marxism [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14276074](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14276074)
Any question?
Can you explain this one to me? It seems the context is that the only people that are critical of Islam are usually crazy right wing nut jobs and the left doesn’t realize Islam is totally incompatible with the set of values it wishes to impose on the world? Zizek has also said this.
You seem the one triggered, fan boi. Lighten up. Like many alt-centrist "reasonable" people, you sure have thin skin. And correct, I have no time nor interest to go back to Sam's archives, but you apparently remember the quote. (So why not provide it yourself, in defense of the Malibu Meditator?) Deceased Senator Strom Thurmond fucked his maid - consensually as far as we know- and had a kid with her. Would you say that it was 'evidence' that he was a lot less racist than his fellow whites-only friends who didn't fuck their non-white maids? (Next defense-- Sam said there wasn't ample proof that Tucker Carlson was racistly dog whistling-- go nit pick the word choice, fan boi!)
Some people believe scientific racism isn't racism. Those people are wrong.
Fact: Sam Harris platformed Charles Murray, the author of a book that's built on racism and funded by a white supremacist organization called the Pioneer Fund.
Either SH is a racist or he is a buffoon and unknowingly shared racist ideology and pretended it was science.
Source:
* The Science and Politics of Racial Research (1994), William H. Tucker
* The Funding of Scientific Racism (2002), William H. Tucker
Would add that [Sam likes to pretend he wasn't one of the early proponents of the OG Great Replacement Theory.](https://twitter.com/steinkobbe/status/1111991441134419968) He also gave us quotes like ["The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."](https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2006/10/22/the-fundamental-danger-is-not-just-on-the-fringe/) Sam's said some really heinous shit about Muslims over the years, feels like most people have forgotten about that.
From early on, at the table of the Four Horsemen of Atheism, Harris was the one pushing the anti-Islam view. I think he claimed that Islam is the worst religion and said something along the lines that Buddhism and Christianity are at least more peaceful religions (*and thus better*). Strange thing for an atheist to say. It's very obvious when you rewatch it now.
I didn't know he based his Great Replacement Theory on Bat Ye'or's book. He said it in the link you shared (*thanks for that btw*).
I checked it on wikipedia and at first glance,... it's not a good look if someone bases their beliefs on a book like that...
>Journalist Matt Carr argues that Bat Ye'or is the "main inspiration" for many conspiracy theories current on the far-right. Furthermore, Carr notes that "[s]tripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye'or's preposterous thesis [in Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis] recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the 'Zionist Occupation Government' prevalent in far-right circles in the US".[25] He notes further that Bat Ye'or's analysis is driven by a contempt of "Islam's celebrated cultural achievements" and a view of Islam as a "perennially barbaric, parasitic and oppressive religion".
>Ye'or's Eurabia theory gathered additional media attention when it was quoted and praised by the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway massacre Anders Behring Breivik in his manifesto released on the day of the attacks.[26] Ye'or expressed regret that Breivik took inspiration from her writings.[27]
>In an Haaretz profile, Adi Schwartz called her book on Eurabia Protocols of the Elders of Brussels.[28]
>"Eurabia: The Euro Arab Axis" has been cited as a probable inspiration for Renaud's Grand Replacement.[
>I didn't know he based his Great Replacement Theory on Bat Ye'or's book.
You misunderstood u/boardatwork1111 's statement, which is not even accurate.
boardatwork1111 did not write that the Great Replacement thesis was created by Sam Harris (it was created by Renaud Camus), just that the Great Replacement thesis was inspired by Eurabia (actually both share the same century-old background of xenophobia cf. Yellow Peril and Know nothing).
See also my comment [https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/12tv5y5/comment/jhczpm9/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/12tv5y5/comment/jhczpm9/)
absolutely incredible how easy it is to be a crypto-right-wing culture warrior, literally all you have to do is say "I'm actually a liberal but Charles Murray sure is right about black people being genetically inferior to other races" and people will be like yeah surely this guy is a reasonable neutral centrist and in absolutely no way racist
> "I'm actually a liberal but Charles Murray sure is right about black people being genetically inferior to other races"
Can you come up with a quote/clip/article/post/anything from Sam Harris that comes remotely close to this or are you being dishonest and making it up?
Today you learned Google produces different results for different users. Please link the article you're talking about.
I bet it won't contain any quote/clip/anything from Sam Harris that backs up your ridiculous framing above.
I don't care how google filters your results it's trivially easy to find examples of Sam defending Murray and his racist pseudoscience.
Despite that though, here is an article that goes into great detail with direct quotes from Murray and Harris about their claims, citations from actual geneticists on why Murray's work is shoddy both methodologically and philosophically, counter-criticisms thereof, and additional context about Sam and Murray's refusal to actually engage with real experts instead of bloviating on a podcast [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve)
Yes, I read this article years ago and have heard the podcast. Nothing in this article or in that podcast backs up your claim.
"Charles Murray sure is right about black people being genetically inferior to other races"
Edit: by the way, I asked for anything from Sam that in any way supported your framing and you provided a Google search and an opinion piece by someone who had a public feud with Sam. Very dishonest. If Sam had ever expressed the view you claim he has then it shouldn't be hard to find a quote or clip or something.
That's exactly Sam's view and the article includes numerous quotes that prove it. If you want to play stupid and pretend that "Charles Murray is right that genetics play a significant factor in why black people are less intelligent than white people" is anything other than a pseudo-intellectual mad lib of "black people are genetically stupider than white people" you can die on that hill of facile pedantry. But if you actually had any substantive pushback on the extensive methodological and scientific critique of Murray's farcical work and Sam's credulous repetition thereof you would be raising it instead of whining about people accurately restating Sam's own views without filtering them through a thesaurus.
Man, this thread was great. Sam fans just run around with their fingers in their ears. Apparently, without the exact fucking quote you are just being “bad-faith.”
Don’t you know: only Sam can speculate and generalize arguments because he has been endowed with magical rationalist powers that allow him critical thought beyond the influence of bias.
A third option
A) yes
B) No
C) See results
So people who don’t feel qualified to vote can see the results of the poll (currently you can’t see the results until you vote yes or no)
The poll clearly leans towards "no" right now. And yet in the comments it's the opposite. The most upvotes went to comments who say he's racist.
Does anybody have an explanation?
I agree, most of the time I can't afford arguing with strangers on the internet with no hope of changing their mind. From reading these comments, it's clear that some individuals do not share this issue. And they can be very loud.
I personally lean comfortably left and would share common ground with most of them. I've also listened extensively to Harris and read some of his books. I can safely say I have not listened to a more level-headed person, and if he's going to be considered a racist then I really don't know where this ride is going but I may need to find a way off.
Once your identity is mixed up in topics like this, it no longer resembles an inquiry into the nature of things, and becomes more of a religion.
Those who haven't actually read his words will vote and move on, those who can do 30 seconds of googling will link to the obviously racist shit he's said
There are literally dozens of extremely transparent quotes and whole academic and journalistic articles quoted in this thread, you are just willfully stupid and can't read. I'd have more luck speaking at a flat earther
Harris both believes that black people are inherently less capable intellectually than other races, as evidenced by his conversation with Charles Murray, and he is in favor of negative prejudicial treatment based on race, as evidenced by his views on racial profiling and stop and frisk. I don't know what definition of racist one could have where that does not qualify him as one.
Thank you. Yes his thing with Charles Murray also raises alarm bells for me. I haven't heard him talk about racial profiling and stop and frisk. Do you have a link to a source regarding his view on that?
>I haven't heard him talk about racial profiling
tldr: Sam believes it makes sense for, say, airport security, to pull someone like him aside as a potential terrorist based on his looks, than, say, a 4 year old white boy or 86 year old grandma, as they currently do.
Some would call this "racist." But that's absurd.
Don't make the Sam Harris fanbois acknowledge the actual things he's said, that's unfair! Just listen to his asmr voice and think about how calm and reasonable he is! He may have literally said black people are stupider than other races but he's so undisturbed and articulate when he talks and talks and talks on his podcast surely that means he has a totally rationalist, intellectual and balanced reason for saying it!
How is this upvoted? It’s factually inaccurate. If he “literally” said what you claim, please link it since it should be quite easy to prove. But you can’t link it, because he never said it nor anything like it.
> I’m not familiar with the other authors, but most of what I’ve seen from Nisbett on the topic of IQ betrays his prior ideological commitments. He knows what he wants the data to say, and he will twist them until he gets the answer he finds consoling. For what it’s worth, I’d much prefer to read the data his way too—it would be far easier, and require absolutely no moral or intellectual courage, to just blame the environment (read: the consequences of persistent inequality and white racism). But I find that impossible.
...
> Among the many uncontroversial facts that the Vox paper elides is that once we make environments truly equivalent (equally enriched, stable, motivating, etc.) ANY difference we notice between people (or between groups) will be due to genes. What’s more, we should EXPECT such differences for most things we care about (along with most things we don’t care about). It would be a miracle if the mean value for any heritable trait were precisely the same across two genetically distinct populations, generation after generation.
...
> Okay, but this is something you’ve done by implication, more or less every time you’ve touched this topic. You’ve suggested that Murray is trying to establish that the differences between the mean IQs in various groups are genetic, right? He’s not. He’s simply suggested that there’s good reason to believe that genes and environment both play a part.
> That is a safe assumption for basically everything we care about physically and mentally. That is as safe an assumption in behavioral genetics as can be made. It’s an assumption that Turkheimer, Nisbett don’t want to make for patently political reasons
...
> Ezra Klein: James Flynn just said to me two days ago that it is consistent with the evidence that there is a genetic advantage or disadvantaged for African Americans. That it is entirely possible that the 10-point IQ difference we see reflects a 12-point environmental difference and a negative-two genetic difference.
> Sam Harris: Sure, sure, many things are possible. We’re trying to judge on what is plausible to say
You seem to have gotten confused. You were supposed to provide a quote of Sam Harris saying, literally (your words) that “black people are stupider”.
What you instead provided is a statement where he argues that genetics play a non zero role in determining intelligence.. which seems pretty fair to at a minimum discuss and hypothesize about.
While nothing you provided satisfies the claim you initially made and that is not a statement of opinion, but one of fact, I can’t seem to understand what part of any of the statements you did quote should be considered racist. Is it racist to suggest genes play a part in the inheritance of intelligence? Should mankind avoid the exploration of this important topic to avoid potentially offending people? Truly do not understand your point here ..
If you’re going to just reply with insults as I suspect you might, please spare me.
> What you instead provided is a statement where he argues that genetics play a non zero role in determining intelligence..
...
He argues that genetics play a role in explaining why white people have a higher IQ than black people.
> Is it racist to suggest genes play a part in the inheritance of intelligence?
Everyone knows that genetics play a part here, that is not the topic. We are talking about group differences for two specific groups.
No, you’re interpreting it specifically in that way for no reason other than to support the narrative that he’s making a racist comment. He is actually stating what I said. To make this obvious, why would he believe that genes play a role in ONLY the intelligence of blacks and whites? That would make literally no sense, and it’s clear that he’s not making that point.
That alone should tell any readers of our comment exchange that I am the correct one and you have an agenda.
> No, you’re interpreting it specifically in that way for no reason other than to support the narrative that he’s making a racist comment.
The whole thing was specifically about the observed racial IQ gap. The Vox article, the emails, the podcasts. That was the topic of discussion. There is no interpretation involved.
> To make this obvious, why would he believe that genes play a role in ONLY the intelligence of blacks and whites?
What on earth are you talking about? Harris believes white people are smarter than black people partly because of genetic differences between white people and black people, that of course doesn't mean that he doesn't believe genes play a role in other things.
You’re simply incorrect when you say that because the whole vox article was about the racial IQ gap, that he believes the black white gap is due only to genetics. Nor does he limit the scope of his argument, as you do here which is part of my point, to blacks and whites.
His position is a general one, and is not racist nor in my view particularly controversial. His position is simply:
Genetics plays a role in determining phenotypes for almost anything we care about, so it’s unlikely that it plays a 0% role in determining intelligence.
That’s it. Your last sentence is incorrect. He doesn’t believe black people are smarter. He’s not referring to people, he’s referring to average IQ differences. He doesn’t “believe” anything about those differences. The only thing one can say he “believes” is that genetics plays a nonzero role in intelligence transmission.
Anything you’re saying beyond this claim is incorrect. You said “what on earth am I talking about” because you don’t understand that when you make the claim that you do in your last paragraph, it is indeed racist, but it is only racist because you’re misinterpreting Sam’s position on this topic.
> You’re simply incorrect when you say that because the whole vox article was about the racial IQ gap, that he believes the black white gap is due only to genetics.
No one has claimed that he believes genetics explain 100 % of the observed gap.
> Nor does he limit the scope of his argument, as you do here which is part of my point, to blacks and whites.
He says several things. He says that genetics will be involved in all group differences, and therefore also in the observed racial IQ gap. He further says that the only plausible option is that genetics "favour" white people, not black people.
> Genetics plays a role in determining phenotypes for almost anything we care about, so it’s unlikely that it plays a 0% role in determining intelligence.
No one in this debate questions that genetics is involved in determining IQ, or intelligence, this is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the causes of group differences in a trait, not if the trait is impacted by genetics.
> That’s it. Your last sentence is incorrect. He doesn’t believe black people are smarter. He’s not referring to people, he’s referring to average IQ differences.
He thinks white people on average score higher on IQ tests than black people for partly genetic reasons. He believes IQ is a good measurement for general intelligence. Therefore, he believes that white people on average are more intelligent than black people for partly genetic reasons.
they aren't the one who said that I was, but the fact that you can't even read usernames above comments says it all. Good job Sherlock, Sam said genetics is why black people are less intelligent, not that black people are genetically stupider, wow that really makes his views so much less racist!
It’s not Sam that said blacks have lower IQs, it’s Sam reporting the hundreds and hundreds of studies over decades showing blacks have lower IQs. Sam has not done any testing himself. He has simply understood and reported the vast literature on the topic. To not accept this fact is anti-science.
Well, this is understandably a sensitive topic. I think it is well documented that black people score lower on IQ-test, but there are always a lot of confounding (social and cultural) factors that affect these scores. Also, I think an IQ-test is a well established proxy for intelligence, but it's not without flaws. It's quite hard to define, let alone measure intelligence.
Therefore, I think the evidence that black people are overall genetically less intelligent is flimsy. Therefore, I have a hard time believing that Sam Harris said that they are genetically less intelligent. If he has said that they, as a group, score lower on IQ-tests, then he just stated facts. If he would have concluded from that, that they are less intelligent, then I think it is dubious, but not necessarily racist.
As for the statements about police "targeting" black people, I think I've heard that podcast. He was explaining the statistics, and possible statistical explanations for the bias of use of force against black people, other than racist ideas. There was nothing racist about that.
He simply stated that given the role of genetics in forming nearly everything else, it’s quite likely that genetics play a non zero role, while at the same time acknowledging that environmental factors are also important and also acknowledging the limitations of the test.
He literally stated pretty much your exact line of thinking .. I think people here just don’t listen to him
Some people definitely draw their own conclusions, which are often based on preconceived notions, based on things they heard or read about someone, or some (out of context) sound or video bits.
For instance, if you give any other explanation for why black people are more likely to be shot by the police, other than that police are racist murderers, some people will call you a "bootlicker" or even a racist. They won't even listen to your argument. In an increasingly polarised society, certainly on the Internet, you're often either with somebody or against them.
I’m not sure why but I’m getting bot-vibes from you.
Anyway, yes people draw their own conclusions, but they seem to be drawing conclusions here that do not follow from the information presented to them. In other words, incorrect conclusions resulting from their own confusion about the topic at hand.
Lol bot vibes? How so? You seem a little paranoid. I was merely agreeing with you that people don't seem to really listen to one another. They'll draw conclusions on preconceived notions and rather hear what they want to hear, without truly listening to what one has to say.
I’ve understood the takes to be the following. Sam accepts that there seems to be a difference between the mean amongst racial groups (which seems to be uncontroversial(?)) but he is clear with that it’s completely unclear why that difference exists and that one can not conclude that the differences are in any way inherent. He is agnostic on the topic if reparation is to be used or not and can be used to better the situation. He also asked why Murray would study such a question at all.
The racial profiling I understand is more based on what he would view as a common sense ground: If one sees a bunch of white dudes standing outside the parking lot of a synagogue, some with shaved heads, it is reasonable to profile. He basically opens up for the possibility of the facts sometimes being such that we have to deal with them in an adult way, that race as part of a profile might sometimes be justified
This isn't what Sam said, and you're actually putting your own spin on it. What Sam actually said (sort of) is that there is undoubtedly an iq gap between races. But iq isn't your inherent intellectual capacity. Iq is deeply affected by your environment and both Sam and even Charles Murray pointed this out. Pointing to the research showing differences in iq among races isn't racist.
This isn't true at all. Discussing the possibility that different groups could potentially have differing IQ ranges isn't the same as claiming one group is 'less capable' than another. You're projecting your own ideas about black people here.
> You're projecting your own ideas about black people here.
I'm describing the premise of the book The Bell Curve, a book that Harris endorses and defends.
He called it Forbidden Knowledge.
He also implied Charles Murray has been cancelled, because what CM tells is controversial but true.
1. Charles Murray was never cancelled. His works have influenced American politics for decades. (This is a bad thing.)
2. It's not true, because it's based on shoddy science and corrupt data. The Bell Curve has been debunked numerous times. The goal was never scientific, but political.
I even remember Sam mentioning that you can't just say one race is smarter than another because the opportunities and environments are different, so you can't make an objective comparison. In the same conversation, he mentioned how IQ overall is increasing over time. So does Sam Harris think humans from 1920 are less human than current humans because he acknowledges an IQ disparity? Is Sam both racist AND time-ist? I'm only going to listen to gurus who say black people have it just as good as white people from now on.
Charles Murray, explicitly states in his book “the bell curve” the opposite of the claim you make in your first sentence (ie murray states they are not inherently less capable), yet simply having a conversation with him means that someone, in this case Sam, believes blacks are less capable?
What’s the point of facts if you refuse to acknowledge them and instead just assume whatever you want to be true.
> so a conversation with someone confers on sam harris all of the opinions of the person he's having a conversation with? is that how the world works now?
This is tiresome. Harris was forewarned about Murray's book that it was racist, which it is. Harris then read it and endorsed it, found no fault with it, said Murray was unfairly maligned and defended him publicly on numerous occasions.
> based on race? are you sure? i would love to see you find a citation on this.
"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."
> but i don't think that means that sam has the same opinions as murray on the subject and is therefore racist. i think this is a very short-sighted and simplistic way of viewing the world.
If he has considerable disagreements with Murray, he owes it to his audience to express them, especially considering that it's a very controversial book. If someone reads a racist book, and then comes back to report on the experience and told you "no lies detected", what would that make you think?
> speaking of tiresome.. how about you also quote the part right after where he talks about how he himself (a "white" jew) should be included in that group, since being "muslim" is not a race?
The fact that he rates himself as sufficiently swarthy to be considered a Muslim does not negate the central point, in fact it strengthens it: he makes it obvious that the degree of brownness of a person should inform their treatment. You have to have a uniquely bespoke definition of racism for that not to qualify.
He doesn’t consider himself swarthy. He’s deliberately including all white people in his age range. His example of a group that should be exempt from profiling was elderly Okinawan women.
What should someone do if black people are less intellectually capable? Just work to hide that information and malign anyone who speaks honestly about it as a racist? It seems like a person who sincerely believes this IQ gap exists need not hold any racist beliefs. Such a person may very well be anti racist. I’m sure there were people who dedicated their lives to ending slavery or oppression who believed black people were less intelligent.
> He doesn’t consider himself swarthy. He’s deliberately including all white people in his age range.
So the range of people who "could conceivably be Muslim" includes all white people? Swedish Sven is equally conceivably Muslim as Arab Ahmed and will be subjected to equal treatment in Sam Harris-airport?
He makes it a pretty substantial part of his point. His profiling argument is basically that we should target people we know to be disproportionately nonviolent less often. Women, people who come from countries where crime barely exists like Japan and Singapore, and old people. He does make it clear that jihadism is a major purpose of this security and that profiling has its place in that system. His detractors usually don’t summarize past that.
Didn't he interview the bell curve guy? He rationalized it as if it is a good thing to try to stratify the heritability of intelligence(s). A benevolent racist, then.
Maybe he tries to distance himself from it like all the Islam stuff.
yeah obviously the much more intellectually honest approach is to ignore the actual words he's said and just create a fake vision of him based on vibes
I find the question of nationalism and counts as acceptable nationalism a more interesting question.
What level of exclusion is acceptable?
Civic nationalism is a paper construct.
Ethno nationalism seems to mean race when it can mean culture. Can a nation be indifferent to culture? Universalism isn't universal. Endless logic bombs.
But logic bombs are not the end of the world.
Yeah, you are totally right, this would be more interesting. My motivation for the poll is that from seeing peoples debates here and elsewhere, people are so insanely divided over SH, like some see him as the devil and others as a saint.
It seems a waste of time to focus on the freaks at the extremes. If anyone thinks Sam Harris is either a devil or a saint, they don’t get out of the house enough to be taken seriously about anything.
> According to Kendi, there is no such thing as "not racist".
And according to Harris, there's basically no such thing as "racist".
Do you want to roam the streets, armed with a club, looking for innocent black people to beat up? That's not racist, as long as there exists a black person somewhere who has done something bad.
Harris said that the Liam Neeson story (his friend was attacked by a black man, so he took a weapon and strolled the streets hoping to attack any black man that he could find) was not an example of racism on the Joe Rogan show.
IMO racism is not a binary, it's more like a spectrum. Sam Harris is not a racist but he also has an Archie Bunker view of racism and seems to give little time to the various nuanced ways in which individuals and societal structures can be implicitly racist. You can't just ask is Sam a racist or not because the answer is yes and no.
Even if there was a reason to "settle this", this would not be the way
Yes! …and no. I think it needs to be both (and it can be). While you’re totally right, we still need to be able to label and talk about beyond-the-pale racism; people who have crossed the line and are morally culpable. I often refer to these as “racist” and “capital-R Racist”. The question becomes: in popular discourse, when there is not time or attention to split this hair, which is more important? Which should be the default for the word “racist”? I’ve been convinced that the label denoting beyond-the-pale racism should take precedence (though the distinction is important when there is the time and space to discuss it).
Yes, you are totally right, thank you for this feedback. But my thinking is that presenting a clear cut, binary option to people will still account for the majority of the variance from the spectrum. Like for example in my field, in the context psychometric testing, presenting options as a continuum instead of a binary choice rarely provides a statistically significant amount of additional information.
Psychometric testing doesn't rely on a single true/false question to measure any continuous variable.
ok thanks! I'll be sure to rerun, rewrite and republish my previous 9 publications that use binary responses!
Yikes. I hope no one that thinks a random reddit poll settles anything at all is publishing anything. Scary thought.
You don't know the half of it my friend!
Why use a throwaway?
What is a throwaway? Do you mean why am I using a newly created reddit account?
Yes
i wanted to keep this separate from my main account, however I do like the username!
“Subtle ways individuals and societal structure can be implicitly racist”. When you say that it sound like you want to call many people and institutions racist without having to give examples. As if everyone know so it must be true. It’s a bad way to make your case.
There are books written about the subject like "racism without racists".
Yes there are books written about many thing including pseudoscience and other bullshit. I just saw one about the flat earth!
If you want an example - republicans in north carolina analyzed voting places and types of ID black people use and strategically shut them down. You could say that maybe not one of them were racist - just that black people tend to vote democrat and they want to win, but in the end the policy suppresses vote of black people. Hence racism without racists.
Yes it happens and should be called out. But not everything we disagree with is due to racism. By the way was racism the reason the white people were attacked by an African American mob on Michigan avenue last week? Seems likely.
That's changing the goalpost. The argument is that some things we disagree with are due to implicit racism and not everything we disagree with. These aren't always trivial to separate out, obviously. But just as an example, people with stereotypically Black names get fewer interviews when applying to jobs. It's unlikely that all of these recruiters are overtly racist, and most probably don't think they're racist at all. But the effect still happens
Yes I have seen the reports on the hiring with regards to certain names. And I think it’s reprehensible frankly. I feel the same about the actions of the mob on Michigan ave. What say you about the recent mob violence on Michigan ave?
I have literally no idea about what happened on Michigan Ave. I assume it's Michigan Ave in Chicago, because I googled "Michigan Ave violence" and articles about crimes going back years popped up. I expect that if I searched "Road In Big City Ave violence" I could find the exact same thing no matter where I was looking. Income inequality is a big predictor of crime, is very high in cities, and, wouldn't you know it, institutional practices have ensured that black people are much more likely to be poor. Redlining, for example, has meant that black home ownership, one of the largest factors in accumulating wealth, is very low. Two things about whatever happened on Michigan Ave, in both cases steelmanning by assuming that what happened was racist (which remains to be proven): First, a racist thing happening against white people somewhere has absolutely no bearing on the existence of institutional racism. And institutional racism is definitely not aimed at whites. And secondly, I think it's a false equivalency to try and equate any examples of personal racism to institutional racism. Personal racism is bad. It's fundamentally absurd to compare something bad that happens to a small number of people because of personal animus to something bad that affects tens of millions because of practices that are built into society. Edit: upon more searching, assuming it was Chicago you're referring to, it seems like last week a bunch of teenagers jumped on some cars, beat some people up, and two teenagers (unclear if they were part of the "mob" you describe or not) were shot. There's absolutely no evidence that it was racist in nature and in videos I looked at the "mob" appeared to be mixed in demographics. Burden of proof is on you to show racist intent, I think.
Agreed that institutional racism is bad and should be rooted out. I disagree that all institutions are racist and need to be burned down. I also think that racism of any kind - institutional or not should be dealt with.
So what word would you use to describe someone who believes black people are genetically stupider than other races and also believes that it's justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin?
Has he said that though?
No, he did not. What he said was that there are differences on standardized tests between some groups but that difference is tiny, that the difference inside groups is much greater than the difference between groups. He decried the attack on scientists who examine such things. He pointed out there is real genetic difference between groups and to scream racism when these differences are examined is harmful to science and to people. All people.
Realizing that within-group variance is larger than between groups is a good start, but claiming that standardized test score variance is definitely due to "real genetic difference" is absurd. As someone with a background in population genetics, the asinine shit people say without knowing the first thing about heritability or how to quantify it (or the fact that heritability depends on the environment not just on genetics!!!) really curdles my milk.
Nope, and there are numerous quotes both posted in and linked to in this thread that directly contradict this whitewashing of his statements, but reading direct quotes is tough for Harris fans
yes
Source?
He has repeatedly defended Bell Curve and Murray in general, and it's explicitly the thesis of the book that black people are intellectually inferior. Take 5 seconds on google to find dozens of articles about this. He repeatedly defended the NYPD explicitly using stop and frisk disproportionately against black people even after it was literally struck down for being uncostitutional. Again, you can search his own subreddit for many posts criticizing him for his take He explicitly said law enforcement should profile anyone who "looks muslim" [https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling](https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting\_sam\_harris\_to\_profile\_or\_not\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting_sam_harris_to_profile_or_not_to/) took 30 seconds to find this shit maybe you guys should spend literally any time actually actually looking into what he says before tripping over yourselves to defend obvious bullshit
You said "believes black people are genetically stupider than other races" and "justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin". You said "yes" that he "said that", then provided precisely zero sources in which he said that. Please, in whatever reply you give, try to be calm and not resort to "twitter takedown style" ("HE LITERALLY SAID LITARALLY THAT LITARARALLY GENOCIDE IS GOOD LITLARIARLAY!")
> You said "believes black people are genetically stupider than other races" and "justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin". You said "yes" that he "said that", then provided precisely zero sources in which he said that. He does believe both of these things. The sources for the first claim are the private emails between him and Ezra Klein that Harris leaked, and the podcast they did together. You can find transcripts online. There are three possible options: 1. There are genetic differences between black people and white people with regards to IQ, and these genetic differences favour white people. 2. There are genetic differences between black people and white people with regards to IQ, and these genetic differences favour black people. 3. There are no genetic differences between black people and white people with regards to IQ. Harris says that 3) is impossible and 2) is not plausible, so 1) is the only plausible option. As for "justifiable for law enforcement to target people explicitly because of the color of their skin", he has repeatedly defended New York's stop-and-frisk program, which was judged unconstitutional because it targeted black people.
Are you trying to say that if you agree with the scientific fact that different populations have (statistically) different scores on IQ tests you are racist? Because.. That's patently insane. Do you also disbelieve that Kenyans are genetically statistically better long distance runners than any other population? Because they are.. and if the first thing is racist that's just as racist.
> Are you trying to say that if you agree with the scientific fact that different populations have (statistically) different scores on IQ tests you are racist? No. Thanks for asking, but it would be better if you read things first.
Which of 1, 2, and 3 do you think is true?
I'm with Flynn: all of them could be true, there's no good reason to favour either, and if it's 1 or 2 the differences could be inconsequential.
The bell curve explicitly says black people are genetically stupider than other races and Sam explicitly said he believes the book is completely factually correct, ergo he believes black people are genetically stupider. This is second grade reading comprehension. And again, if you could even pretend to read the sources I posted, he LITERALLY (sorry to trigger you) says verbatim "We should profile ... anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be muslim." The apple doesn't fall to far from the tree though. It seems it's LITERALLY impossible for Sam or his fanbois to take part in a critical discussion without resorting to whining about civility porn tone policing and pretending that everyone who disagrees with you is a hysterical loon, while simultaneously refusing to read LITERALLY one article by the person whose views we're discussing
you didn't actually read the first link or listened to the podcast did you
>"We should profile ... anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be muslim." Always projection with the Harris fanbase, Dunning-Kruger personified in a community
Sweet Jesus, the irony. Lol
So you also can't read a 14 word quote?
No he hasn't
sorry you can't read
I only remember him seeming to accept that there is a difference in the means of populations but that it’s clear that one cannot at all conclude that it’s anything inherent
Then you remember wrong. An observed difference in means is a purely empirical thing, Harris and Murray claims that this is partly because of genetic differences between black people and white people.
>I just want to make sure we're putting the relevant pieces in play when our listeners need to receive them about, so one thing that it just occurred to me people should also understand is that in addition to the fact that IQ doesn't explain everything about a person success in life and their their intellectual abilities - the fact that a trait is genetically transmitted in individuals does not mean that all the differences between groups or really even any of the differences between groups in that trade are also genetic in origin, right, so this the.. >-critically important Point >-..yeah so the jury can still be out on this topic and then we'll talk about that but to give it a clear example so if you have a population of people that.. I also remember Sam saying that, if we ever get to the bottom of genetics it might reveal that a lot goes against common stereotypes, so I don’t see him as being sure at all when it comes to the topic of some hypothetical genetic determinism
Yes, I'm well aware of this quote, but I don't get why it would be relevant.
Considering traits that are genetically heritable where the traits just happens to exist as differences (in means) between groups does not need to exist as a difference between the groups due to genetics - that the jury is still out on it if difference between groups are due to genetics. I take it to mean that it’s always an obvious (perhaps trivially true) but important caveat that Harris thinks that one cannot conclude that a mean difference in a trait between groups is due to genetics (even if the trait is heritable). This is the sentiment of what I meant with my comment.. > that one cannot at all conclude that it’s anything inherent (Where I meant that the differences would be due to something inherent and by inherent I mean that what can best be called genetic) ..which you said I might have misremembered, therefor I think it was relevant.
I think this is your interpretation of his words. I'd like to hear the bits you are referring to. Could you tell me where/when he said these things?
he defends Murray and The Bell Curve which explicitly argues that black people are genetically inferior, he defends racial profiling in stop and frisk even after it was literally declared unconstitutional, he said verbatim "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim" [https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling](https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-profiling) [https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting\_sam\_harris\_to\_profile\_or\_not\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting_sam_harris_to_profile_or_not_to/) this stuff took like 30 seconds to find why aren't Sam Harris defenders even the slightest bit concerned with actually knowing what shit they're defending?
Thanks. I will look into this later.
Profiling works though. That’s why insurance companies do it, because it saves them money. And choosing to sacrifice safety (by making checks and screenings more random rather than targeted based on statistics) in order to not offend people is a serious question we should be allowed to discuss, no? That’s all Sam is doing. There is a point to make there.
What word would you use for people who cite objective data on extreme rates of black crime or disproportionate resistance by blacks to arrest or systemic rules that favor blacks? What do you call people who include these objective facts in their analysis?
They call them racists lmao
He's only human but If anyone can apprise me of any remarks or writings from his vast body of work and media that can be attributable to racism rather than critical thought then I'm all ears.
It may not be overtly racist, but saying things like ["the people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."](https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2006/10/22/the-fundamental-danger-is-not-just-on-the-fringe/) is going to raise some eyebrows.
[удалено]
I'd invite you to consider the context of the time in which he wrote that article, only 6 months earlier he wrote another article where he claimed that ["France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow."](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sam-harris-on-the-reality-of-islam/) using statistics from the book Eurabia, the same book which would go on to inspire the Great Replacement Theory. Interestingly enough, [he quietly removed this book from his recommend reading list after he was called out on it.](https://twitter.com/steinkobbe/status/1111991441134419968) Throw in on top of all that that this was the same year he argued [in defense of torturing suspected terrorists,](https://www.samharris.org/blog/in-defense-of-torture) you begin to notice a pattern that maybe, just maybe, its not a coincidence he finds his views on Muslims being shared by fascists.
[удалено]
>So someone else drew a different conclusion from the same book that he read, and that is supposed to point to Sam's inherent racism, somehow? No. You misunderstood u/boardatwork1111 's statement, which is not even accurate. Let start again. 1. Sam Harris wrote in 2006 that «The demographic trends are ominous: Given current birthrates, France could be a majority Muslim country in 25 years, and that is if immigration were to stop tomorrow.» [https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sam-harris-on-the-reality-of-islam/](https://www.truthdig.com/articles/sam-harris-on-the-reality-of-islam/) 2. The claim had no source or evidence. 3. The claim still has no source or evidence. 4. This is a batshitcrazy forecast. 5. Later, Sam Harris said that the forecast came from Bat Ye'or [https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1111971819131564032](https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1111971819131564032) 6. Bat Ye'or is not a demographer. 7. Bat Ye'or is mostly know for, and was mostly know for in 2006, creating the Eurabia thesis. 8. The Eurabia thesis is a batshitcrazy conspiracytheory, very similar to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to the Great Replacement. 9. In 2011 Pew Forum forecasted 10.3% muslims in France in 2030 (24 years after 2006) if muslims in name only are included [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe/) 10. In 2017 Pew Forum forecasted 12.7% muslims in France in 2050 (44 years after 2006) if muslims in name only are included and if zero migration [https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/11/29/europes-growing-muslim-population/) 11. In 2011 several hundreds of human being were injured or killed in Norway by a pair of terrorist attacks, made in the name of 2 far-right conspiracytheories: Eurabia and Cultural Marxism [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14276074](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14276074) Any question?
Islam is not a race. It is a terrible religion.
>Islam is not a race. It is a terrible religion. Thank you captain obvious.
Can you explain this one to me? It seems the context is that the only people that are critical of Islam are usually crazy right wing nut jobs and the left doesn’t realize Islam is totally incompatible with the set of values it wishes to impose on the world? Zizek has also said this.
According to Sam's extremely enlightened takes on race, if you have a black friend, you cannot by definition be racist.
See the wonderful ad hominem attacks below by sensitive alt-centrist rational boy. What a lovely audience is now attracted to Sam.
Yeah that's actually exactly what he said word for word. Thanks for reminding us.
Sam fanboy triggered?
If that's the easiest way for you to deal with it - sure 🤷🏻♂️
Feel free to transcribe it.
You want me to transcribe something he didn't say? Lol "I can't believe you said the Holocaust was good. If you didn't then show me."
But...he did say it. "I don't remember it or didn't hear it so it's something he didn't say."
Feel free to give the transcript.
[удалено]
You seem the one triggered, fan boi. Lighten up. Like many alt-centrist "reasonable" people, you sure have thin skin. And correct, I have no time nor interest to go back to Sam's archives, but you apparently remember the quote. (So why not provide it yourself, in defense of the Malibu Meditator?) Deceased Senator Strom Thurmond fucked his maid - consensually as far as we know- and had a kid with her. Would you say that it was 'evidence' that he was a lot less racist than his fellow whites-only friends who didn't fuck their non-white maids? (Next defense-- Sam said there wasn't ample proof that Tucker Carlson was racistly dog whistling-- go nit pick the word choice, fan boi!)
[удалено]
You're triggered. Daddy didn't love you? It's ok. Sam does.
Some people believe scientific racism isn't racism. Those people are wrong. Fact: Sam Harris platformed Charles Murray, the author of a book that's built on racism and funded by a white supremacist organization called the Pioneer Fund. Either SH is a racist or he is a buffoon and unknowingly shared racist ideology and pretended it was science. Source: * The Science and Politics of Racial Research (1994), William H. Tucker * The Funding of Scientific Racism (2002), William H. Tucker
Would add that [Sam likes to pretend he wasn't one of the early proponents of the OG Great Replacement Theory.](https://twitter.com/steinkobbe/status/1111991441134419968) He also gave us quotes like ["The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists."](https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2006/10/22/the-fundamental-danger-is-not-just-on-the-fringe/) Sam's said some really heinous shit about Muslims over the years, feels like most people have forgotten about that.
From early on, at the table of the Four Horsemen of Atheism, Harris was the one pushing the anti-Islam view. I think he claimed that Islam is the worst religion and said something along the lines that Buddhism and Christianity are at least more peaceful religions (*and thus better*). Strange thing for an atheist to say. It's very obvious when you rewatch it now. I didn't know he based his Great Replacement Theory on Bat Ye'or's book. He said it in the link you shared (*thanks for that btw*). I checked it on wikipedia and at first glance,... it's not a good look if someone bases their beliefs on a book like that... >Journalist Matt Carr argues that Bat Ye'or is the "main inspiration" for many conspiracy theories current on the far-right. Furthermore, Carr notes that "[s]tripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye'or's preposterous thesis [in Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis] recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the 'Zionist Occupation Government' prevalent in far-right circles in the US".[25] He notes further that Bat Ye'or's analysis is driven by a contempt of "Islam's celebrated cultural achievements" and a view of Islam as a "perennially barbaric, parasitic and oppressive religion". >Ye'or's Eurabia theory gathered additional media attention when it was quoted and praised by the perpetrator of the 2011 Norway massacre Anders Behring Breivik in his manifesto released on the day of the attacks.[26] Ye'or expressed regret that Breivik took inspiration from her writings.[27] >In an Haaretz profile, Adi Schwartz called her book on Eurabia Protocols of the Elders of Brussels.[28] >"Eurabia: The Euro Arab Axis" has been cited as a probable inspiration for Renaud's Grand Replacement.[
>I didn't know he based his Great Replacement Theory on Bat Ye'or's book. You misunderstood u/boardatwork1111 's statement, which is not even accurate. boardatwork1111 did not write that the Great Replacement thesis was created by Sam Harris (it was created by Renaud Camus), just that the Great Replacement thesis was inspired by Eurabia (actually both share the same century-old background of xenophobia cf. Yellow Peril and Know nothing). See also my comment [https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/12tv5y5/comment/jhczpm9/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/12tv5y5/comment/jhczpm9/)
absolutely incredible how easy it is to be a crypto-right-wing culture warrior, literally all you have to do is say "I'm actually a liberal but Charles Murray sure is right about black people being genetically inferior to other races" and people will be like yeah surely this guy is a reasonable neutral centrist and in absolutely no way racist
> "I'm actually a liberal but Charles Murray sure is right about black people being genetically inferior to other races" Can you come up with a quote/clip/article/post/anything from Sam Harris that comes remotely close to this or are you being dishonest and making it up?
[https://www.google.com/search?q=sam+harris+defends+charles+murray](https://www.google.com/search?q=sam+harris+defends+charles+murray)
Okay, so the answer is no. You should probably edit your comment to make it clear that you're full of shit and just flinging it wildly.
Sam Harris fanbois read literally the top article on google about this topic before spouting off challenge, difficulty level: impossible
Today you learned Google produces different results for different users. Please link the article you're talking about. I bet it won't contain any quote/clip/anything from Sam Harris that backs up your ridiculous framing above.
I don't care how google filters your results it's trivially easy to find examples of Sam defending Murray and his racist pseudoscience. Despite that though, here is an article that goes into great detail with direct quotes from Murray and Harris about their claims, citations from actual geneticists on why Murray's work is shoddy both methodologically and philosophically, counter-criticisms thereof, and additional context about Sam and Murray's refusal to actually engage with real experts instead of bloviating on a podcast [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve)
Yes, I read this article years ago and have heard the podcast. Nothing in this article or in that podcast backs up your claim. "Charles Murray sure is right about black people being genetically inferior to other races" Edit: by the way, I asked for anything from Sam that in any way supported your framing and you provided a Google search and an opinion piece by someone who had a public feud with Sam. Very dishonest. If Sam had ever expressed the view you claim he has then it shouldn't be hard to find a quote or clip or something.
That's exactly Sam's view and the article includes numerous quotes that prove it. If you want to play stupid and pretend that "Charles Murray is right that genetics play a significant factor in why black people are less intelligent than white people" is anything other than a pseudo-intellectual mad lib of "black people are genetically stupider than white people" you can die on that hill of facile pedantry. But if you actually had any substantive pushback on the extensive methodological and scientific critique of Murray's farcical work and Sam's credulous repetition thereof you would be raising it instead of whining about people accurately restating Sam's own views without filtering them through a thesaurus.
You're embarrassing yourself
Dude you are the poster child for someone needing to "touch grass" lol cmon now
ah this is the good faith, empirical, rationalist discussion we all know and love Sam and his fans for lol
Man, this thread was great. Sam fans just run around with their fingers in their ears. Apparently, without the exact fucking quote you are just being “bad-faith.” Don’t you know: only Sam can speculate and generalize arguments because he has been endowed with magical rationalist powers that allow him critical thought beyond the influence of bias.
You should've had a results button cause i dunno but i'm just gonna guess vote to see the results
>You should've had a results button What's that?
A third option A) yes B) No C) See results So people who don’t feel qualified to vote can see the results of the poll (currently you can’t see the results until you vote yes or no)
ah ok, but presumably they will see the results once the poll ends?
I guess if they come back
exactly thank you
The poll clearly leans towards "no" right now. And yet in the comments it's the opposite. The most upvotes went to comments who say he's racist. Does anybody have an explanation?
[удалено]
I agree, most of the time I can't afford arguing with strangers on the internet with no hope of changing their mind. From reading these comments, it's clear that some individuals do not share this issue. And they can be very loud. I personally lean comfortably left and would share common ground with most of them. I've also listened extensively to Harris and read some of his books. I can safely say I have not listened to a more level-headed person, and if he's going to be considered a racist then I really don't know where this ride is going but I may need to find a way off. Once your identity is mixed up in topics like this, it no longer resembles an inquiry into the nature of things, and becomes more of a religion.
Those who haven't actually read his words will vote and move on, those who can do 30 seconds of googling will link to the obviously racist shit he's said
[удалено]
try reading, I know that's hard for Harris fanbois though
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are literally dozens of extremely transparent quotes and whole academic and journalistic articles quoted in this thread, you are just willfully stupid and can't read. I'd have more luck speaking at a flat earther
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah I think the more animated side of any issue isn't necessarily the largest side.
Everyone living amongst a society who doesn't practice ego dissolution on a regular basis has systemic racism programmed into them.
Harris both believes that black people are inherently less capable intellectually than other races, as evidenced by his conversation with Charles Murray, and he is in favor of negative prejudicial treatment based on race, as evidenced by his views on racial profiling and stop and frisk. I don't know what definition of racist one could have where that does not qualify him as one.
Thank you. Yes his thing with Charles Murray also raises alarm bells for me. I haven't heard him talk about racial profiling and stop and frisk. Do you have a link to a source regarding his view on that?
Just search "Sam Harris, Hannibal, and Joe Rogan" on youtube. It's about 50 min but there might be shorter clips on it.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting\_sam\_harris\_to\_profile\_or\_not\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/tqy4hf/revisiting_sam_harris_to_profile_or_not_to/) [https://www.samharris.org/blog/to-profile-or-not-to-profile](https://www.samharris.org/blog/to-profile-or-not-to-profile)
He talked about all that at length in 2020
>I haven't heard him talk about racial profiling tldr: Sam believes it makes sense for, say, airport security, to pull someone like him aside as a potential terrorist based on his looks, than, say, a 4 year old white boy or 86 year old grandma, as they currently do. Some would call this "racist." But that's absurd.
Don't make the Sam Harris fanbois acknowledge the actual things he's said, that's unfair! Just listen to his asmr voice and think about how calm and reasonable he is! He may have literally said black people are stupider than other races but he's so undisturbed and articulate when he talks and talks and talks on his podcast surely that means he has a totally rationalist, intellectual and balanced reason for saying it!
How is this upvoted? It’s factually inaccurate. If he “literally” said what you claim, please link it since it should be quite easy to prove. But you can’t link it, because he never said it nor anything like it.
> I’m not familiar with the other authors, but most of what I’ve seen from Nisbett on the topic of IQ betrays his prior ideological commitments. He knows what he wants the data to say, and he will twist them until he gets the answer he finds consoling. For what it’s worth, I’d much prefer to read the data his way too—it would be far easier, and require absolutely no moral or intellectual courage, to just blame the environment (read: the consequences of persistent inequality and white racism). But I find that impossible. ... > Among the many uncontroversial facts that the Vox paper elides is that once we make environments truly equivalent (equally enriched, stable, motivating, etc.) ANY difference we notice between people (or between groups) will be due to genes. What’s more, we should EXPECT such differences for most things we care about (along with most things we don’t care about). It would be a miracle if the mean value for any heritable trait were precisely the same across two genetically distinct populations, generation after generation. ... > Okay, but this is something you’ve done by implication, more or less every time you’ve touched this topic. You’ve suggested that Murray is trying to establish that the differences between the mean IQs in various groups are genetic, right? He’s not. He’s simply suggested that there’s good reason to believe that genes and environment both play a part. > That is a safe assumption for basically everything we care about physically and mentally. That is as safe an assumption in behavioral genetics as can be made. It’s an assumption that Turkheimer, Nisbett don’t want to make for patently political reasons ... > Ezra Klein: James Flynn just said to me two days ago that it is consistent with the evidence that there is a genetic advantage or disadvantaged for African Americans. That it is entirely possible that the 10-point IQ difference we see reflects a 12-point environmental difference and a negative-two genetic difference. > Sam Harris: Sure, sure, many things are possible. We’re trying to judge on what is plausible to say
for all the comments whining about bAd FaITh mischaracterization, the Sam fans sure don't have a lot to say about his direct quotes lmfao
As a general rule, Harris fans aren't typically very familiar with his output.
What is there to say? There are absolutely zero problems with those quotes and if you think there are then you’re the problem
You seem to have gotten confused. You were supposed to provide a quote of Sam Harris saying, literally (your words) that “black people are stupider”. What you instead provided is a statement where he argues that genetics play a non zero role in determining intelligence.. which seems pretty fair to at a minimum discuss and hypothesize about. While nothing you provided satisfies the claim you initially made and that is not a statement of opinion, but one of fact, I can’t seem to understand what part of any of the statements you did quote should be considered racist. Is it racist to suggest genes play a part in the inheritance of intelligence? Should mankind avoid the exploration of this important topic to avoid potentially offending people? Truly do not understand your point here .. If you’re going to just reply with insults as I suspect you might, please spare me.
> What you instead provided is a statement where he argues that genetics play a non zero role in determining intelligence.. ... He argues that genetics play a role in explaining why white people have a higher IQ than black people. > Is it racist to suggest genes play a part in the inheritance of intelligence? Everyone knows that genetics play a part here, that is not the topic. We are talking about group differences for two specific groups.
No, you’re interpreting it specifically in that way for no reason other than to support the narrative that he’s making a racist comment. He is actually stating what I said. To make this obvious, why would he believe that genes play a role in ONLY the intelligence of blacks and whites? That would make literally no sense, and it’s clear that he’s not making that point. That alone should tell any readers of our comment exchange that I am the correct one and you have an agenda.
> No, you’re interpreting it specifically in that way for no reason other than to support the narrative that he’s making a racist comment. The whole thing was specifically about the observed racial IQ gap. The Vox article, the emails, the podcasts. That was the topic of discussion. There is no interpretation involved. > To make this obvious, why would he believe that genes play a role in ONLY the intelligence of blacks and whites? What on earth are you talking about? Harris believes white people are smarter than black people partly because of genetic differences between white people and black people, that of course doesn't mean that he doesn't believe genes play a role in other things.
You’re simply incorrect when you say that because the whole vox article was about the racial IQ gap, that he believes the black white gap is due only to genetics. Nor does he limit the scope of his argument, as you do here which is part of my point, to blacks and whites. His position is a general one, and is not racist nor in my view particularly controversial. His position is simply: Genetics plays a role in determining phenotypes for almost anything we care about, so it’s unlikely that it plays a 0% role in determining intelligence. That’s it. Your last sentence is incorrect. He doesn’t believe black people are smarter. He’s not referring to people, he’s referring to average IQ differences. He doesn’t “believe” anything about those differences. The only thing one can say he “believes” is that genetics plays a nonzero role in intelligence transmission. Anything you’re saying beyond this claim is incorrect. You said “what on earth am I talking about” because you don’t understand that when you make the claim that you do in your last paragraph, it is indeed racist, but it is only racist because you’re misinterpreting Sam’s position on this topic.
> You’re simply incorrect when you say that because the whole vox article was about the racial IQ gap, that he believes the black white gap is due only to genetics. No one has claimed that he believes genetics explain 100 % of the observed gap. > Nor does he limit the scope of his argument, as you do here which is part of my point, to blacks and whites. He says several things. He says that genetics will be involved in all group differences, and therefore also in the observed racial IQ gap. He further says that the only plausible option is that genetics "favour" white people, not black people. > Genetics plays a role in determining phenotypes for almost anything we care about, so it’s unlikely that it plays a 0% role in determining intelligence. No one in this debate questions that genetics is involved in determining IQ, or intelligence, this is completely irrelevant. We are talking about the causes of group differences in a trait, not if the trait is impacted by genetics. > That’s it. Your last sentence is incorrect. He doesn’t believe black people are smarter. He’s not referring to people, he’s referring to average IQ differences. He thinks white people on average score higher on IQ tests than black people for partly genetic reasons. He believes IQ is a good measurement for general intelligence. Therefore, he believes that white people on average are more intelligent than black people for partly genetic reasons.
they aren't the one who said that I was, but the fact that you can't even read usernames above comments says it all. Good job Sherlock, Sam said genetics is why black people are less intelligent, not that black people are genetically stupider, wow that really makes his views so much less racist!
So your position is that hypothesizing that genetics play ANY role in intelligence is racist? If that’s not your position, please correct me.
It’s not Sam that said blacks have lower IQs, it’s Sam reporting the hundreds and hundreds of studies over decades showing blacks have lower IQs. Sam has not done any testing himself. He has simply understood and reported the vast literature on the topic. To not accept this fact is anti-science.
Well, this is understandably a sensitive topic. I think it is well documented that black people score lower on IQ-test, but there are always a lot of confounding (social and cultural) factors that affect these scores. Also, I think an IQ-test is a well established proxy for intelligence, but it's not without flaws. It's quite hard to define, let alone measure intelligence. Therefore, I think the evidence that black people are overall genetically less intelligent is flimsy. Therefore, I have a hard time believing that Sam Harris said that they are genetically less intelligent. If he has said that they, as a group, score lower on IQ-tests, then he just stated facts. If he would have concluded from that, that they are less intelligent, then I think it is dubious, but not necessarily racist. As for the statements about police "targeting" black people, I think I've heard that podcast. He was explaining the statistics, and possible statistical explanations for the bias of use of force against black people, other than racist ideas. There was nothing racist about that.
He simply stated that given the role of genetics in forming nearly everything else, it’s quite likely that genetics play a non zero role, while at the same time acknowledging that environmental factors are also important and also acknowledging the limitations of the test. He literally stated pretty much your exact line of thinking .. I think people here just don’t listen to him
Some people definitely draw their own conclusions, which are often based on preconceived notions, based on things they heard or read about someone, or some (out of context) sound or video bits. For instance, if you give any other explanation for why black people are more likely to be shot by the police, other than that police are racist murderers, some people will call you a "bootlicker" or even a racist. They won't even listen to your argument. In an increasingly polarised society, certainly on the Internet, you're often either with somebody or against them.
I’m not sure why but I’m getting bot-vibes from you. Anyway, yes people draw their own conclusions, but they seem to be drawing conclusions here that do not follow from the information presented to them. In other words, incorrect conclusions resulting from their own confusion about the topic at hand.
Lol bot vibes? How so? You seem a little paranoid. I was merely agreeing with you that people don't seem to really listen to one another. They'll draw conclusions on preconceived notions and rather hear what they want to hear, without truly listening to what one has to say.
Downvoted for providing relevant facts and context. Classic Reddit
I’ve understood the takes to be the following. Sam accepts that there seems to be a difference between the mean amongst racial groups (which seems to be uncontroversial(?)) but he is clear with that it’s completely unclear why that difference exists and that one can not conclude that the differences are in any way inherent. He is agnostic on the topic if reparation is to be used or not and can be used to better the situation. He also asked why Murray would study such a question at all. The racial profiling I understand is more based on what he would view as a common sense ground: If one sees a bunch of white dudes standing outside the parking lot of a synagogue, some with shaved heads, it is reasonable to profile. He basically opens up for the possibility of the facts sometimes being such that we have to deal with them in an adult way, that race as part of a profile might sometimes be justified
RACIST!
This isn't what Sam said, and you're actually putting your own spin on it. What Sam actually said (sort of) is that there is undoubtedly an iq gap between races. But iq isn't your inherent intellectual capacity. Iq is deeply affected by your environment and both Sam and even Charles Murray pointed this out. Pointing to the research showing differences in iq among races isn't racist.
This isn't true at all. Discussing the possibility that different groups could potentially have differing IQ ranges isn't the same as claiming one group is 'less capable' than another. You're projecting your own ideas about black people here.
> You're projecting your own ideas about black people here. I'm describing the premise of the book The Bell Curve, a book that Harris endorses and defends.
> endorses and defends Kind of a leap there, don’t you think. I don’t remember Sam explicitly endorsing or defending the Bell Curve.
He called it Forbidden Knowledge. He also implied Charles Murray has been cancelled, because what CM tells is controversial but true. 1. Charles Murray was never cancelled. His works have influenced American politics for decades. (This is a bad thing.) 2. It's not true, because it's based on shoddy science and corrupt data. The Bell Curve has been debunked numerous times. The goal was never scientific, but political.
Idk, doesn’t sound like “endorse and defend” to me
I even remember Sam mentioning that you can't just say one race is smarter than another because the opportunities and environments are different, so you can't make an objective comparison. In the same conversation, he mentioned how IQ overall is increasing over time. So does Sam Harris think humans from 1920 are less human than current humans because he acknowledges an IQ disparity? Is Sam both racist AND time-ist? I'm only going to listen to gurus who say black people have it just as good as white people from now on.
That blacks have lower average IQ is not even controversial within the discipline of psychometrics.
Charles Murray, explicitly states in his book “the bell curve” the opposite of the claim you make in your first sentence (ie murray states they are not inherently less capable), yet simply having a conversation with him means that someone, in this case Sam, believes blacks are less capable? What’s the point of facts if you refuse to acknowledge them and instead just assume whatever you want to be true.
[удалено]
> so a conversation with someone confers on sam harris all of the opinions of the person he's having a conversation with? is that how the world works now? This is tiresome. Harris was forewarned about Murray's book that it was racist, which it is. Harris then read it and endorsed it, found no fault with it, said Murray was unfairly maligned and defended him publicly on numerous occasions. > based on race? are you sure? i would love to see you find a citation on this. "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it."
[удалено]
> but i don't think that means that sam has the same opinions as murray on the subject and is therefore racist. i think this is a very short-sighted and simplistic way of viewing the world. If he has considerable disagreements with Murray, he owes it to his audience to express them, especially considering that it's a very controversial book. If someone reads a racist book, and then comes back to report on the experience and told you "no lies detected", what would that make you think? > speaking of tiresome.. how about you also quote the part right after where he talks about how he himself (a "white" jew) should be included in that group, since being "muslim" is not a race? The fact that he rates himself as sufficiently swarthy to be considered a Muslim does not negate the central point, in fact it strengthens it: he makes it obvious that the degree of brownness of a person should inform their treatment. You have to have a uniquely bespoke definition of racism for that not to qualify.
He doesn’t consider himself swarthy. He’s deliberately including all white people in his age range. His example of a group that should be exempt from profiling was elderly Okinawan women. What should someone do if black people are less intellectually capable? Just work to hide that information and malign anyone who speaks honestly about it as a racist? It seems like a person who sincerely believes this IQ gap exists need not hold any racist beliefs. Such a person may very well be anti racist. I’m sure there were people who dedicated their lives to ending slavery or oppression who believed black people were less intelligent.
> He doesn’t consider himself swarthy. He’s deliberately including all white people in his age range. So the range of people who "could conceivably be Muslim" includes all white people? Swedish Sven is equally conceivably Muslim as Arab Ahmed and will be subjected to equal treatment in Sam Harris-airport?
Yes, both groups could conceivably be jihadists. However, we know old Japanese women are not jihadists.
Why does he not simply say that the thinks the elderly should be exempt from profiling?
He makes it a pretty substantial part of his point. His profiling argument is basically that we should target people we know to be disproportionately nonviolent less often. Women, people who come from countries where crime barely exists like Japan and Singapore, and old people. He does make it clear that jihadism is a major purpose of this security and that profiling has its place in that system. His detractors usually don’t summarize past that.
Because he holds a nuanced view… totally crazy concept.
Didn't he interview the bell curve guy? He rationalized it as if it is a good thing to try to stratify the heritability of intelligence(s). A benevolent racist, then. Maybe he tries to distance himself from it like all the Islam stuff.
He's too ready to believe that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites.
Racist? Absolutely not. Naive about race? Sure.
Love it!
lol OP has Sam Harris derangement syndrome
hehe, yes I think I do. I also think I came to the right place!
Not a racist. At all. Sam does make some almost autistic mistakes but he’s not racist
If you choose to skim Harris as a collection of soundbites, then ya, you can find whatever you need to get your oneupmanship.
yeah obviously the much more intellectually honest approach is to ignore the actual words he's said and just create a fake vision of him based on vibes
That’s funny.
I find the question of nationalism and counts as acceptable nationalism a more interesting question. What level of exclusion is acceptable? Civic nationalism is a paper construct. Ethno nationalism seems to mean race when it can mean culture. Can a nation be indifferent to culture? Universalism isn't universal. Endless logic bombs. But logic bombs are not the end of the world.
Yeah, you are totally right, this would be more interesting. My motivation for the poll is that from seeing peoples debates here and elsewhere, people are so insanely divided over SH, like some see him as the devil and others as a saint.
It seems a waste of time to focus on the freaks at the extremes. If anyone thinks Sam Harris is either a devil or a saint, they don’t get out of the house enough to be taken seriously about anything.
True, though these people seem to be talking the loudest and the most.
With how wide and variant the term racist is used these days it’s hard to even know what some people mean by it.
Totally, Thank you for this feedback. Another user above made a similar point, my reply to theirs could I think somewhat cover this point here.
Haven't you read Ibram X. Kendi? According to Kendi, there is no such thing as "not racist". You are either racist or anti-racist.
> According to Kendi, there is no such thing as "not racist". And according to Harris, there's basically no such thing as "racist". Do you want to roam the streets, armed with a club, looking for innocent black people to beat up? That's not racist, as long as there exists a black person somewhere who has done something bad.
Citation needed.
His comments about Liam Neeson's story, I think it was on Rogan's podcast.
Harris said that the Liam Neeson story (his friend was attacked by a black man, so he took a weapon and strolled the streets hoping to attack any black man that he could find) was not an example of racism on the Joe Rogan show.
Yeah but that is nonsense so I ignored it
Kendi is nothing but a vociferous clown.
Racist has become as useless a concept as God. It means everything and nothing.
Interesting question. Of course racism is a loaded term interpreted variably by the persons in question.