Meh Sam has terminal TDS and he can’t seem to have any conversation without falling into an epileptic fit of it. He’s not worth DC’s time. He has no credibility anymore.
It’s not that I disagree with Sam Harris that makes him not worthwhile, it’s that he brings nothing to the table. His entire schtick was that we need to return to liberal enlightenment type values, that we don’t need religion or tradition and instead can rely on rational thought and education, on reason and logic, as the foundation of our societies. Then Harris proved that he himself cannot even live up to this standard because he is not rational in his dislike of Trump he’s an emotional lunatic. (It is entirely possible for someone to be rational in their dislike of Trump, I don’t like Trump, but Harris doesn’t fall into this category.) So Harris himself is proof that his worldview fails. How can a society be built upon enlightenment values of using reason and logic when even the most fervent apologists of the worldview can’t live up to it? If highly educated and well respected Sam Harris can fall into emotional mush and throw out those sacred enlightenment values the minute he gets mad about something then how are we supposed to believe that an entire society can be guided by them? If the best example and apostle of the worldview cannot live up to it the moment things get mildly difficult then what’s the likelihood that those with far less education and devotion to those values will live up to them? There’s simply nothing that Sam brings to the table that is worthwhile or unique.
I think Sam Harris has articulated his views on why he thinks Trump is an existential threat to the American democracy. He used a lot of logic and reasoning to get to his position. Whether you agree with that position or not is up to you. He’s also an atheist. His position on classic liberalism is guided by how that school of thought was fundamentally formed by western philosophy and modern democracy.
I have heard his so called articulations and disagree that it has anything to do with logic and reason. He’s turned into a hysterical fool and tries to use logic and reason to justify his hysteria. He’s the perfect picture of why liberal enlightenment values have failed, why they have actually brought us to our current predicament, and why such failures are inevitable. On one hand he will lament the fall of the MSM as failing in their duty to provide unbiased information to the people and then he turns around and falls for the propaganda when it’s about Trump. He was also a hysterical fool in his response to Covid. So he’s been worthless and emotionally driven for probably the two most important domestic issues in the last decade.
Sam Harris sort of cherry picked the areas of DC’sTucker interview and Twitter threads that went sideways, and labeled DC an amateur historian - which I guess DC technically is. I also think there was a Stanford historian on the Free Press Honestly podcast that was a little dismayed by some of DC’s takes on WWII, Sam Harris is also a Stanford guy. I think DC takes his work seriously enough that he shouldn’t just be dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theorist by academics. However, he does go down some paths that I and others seriously disagree with.
Seems fair, thanks for saving me a couple hours boss!
I also think the tone of the conversation matters. Daryl and Tucker were kind of playing devil's advocate / kind of having a hot take for fun. It doesn't mean anything he said were wrong but I don't think the mainstream is taking them in accordance with the tone they were spoken...if that makes sense
Skip Sam Harris, go chat with Brett Weinstein instead. He is a great guy, I listen to him every week. BUT, he did hear all of your OVER THE TOP negative publicity last week and he expressed concern with your message. I, on the other hand, had previously listened to your WHOLE TWO HOUR Tucker interview and I knew that the criticism against you was, ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’. I think Brett would resonate with your message, once he hears you.
Listened the whole thing. Nothing too controversial, a little surprised at the end DC leaned into stop the steal. But maybe that’s more the Twitter side of him coming out.
I actually think they’d agree on quite a lot of things. It’d be interesting, probably doable if DC wants to since Jocko knows Sam via the JRE connections.
yes they definitely do agree on a lot, i'm saying it would be more interesting to hear them debate topics they disagree on. I don't think there would be any point debating their views on religion, but I think it would be a good conversation on which side broadly is the lesser of two evils (Sam obviously hates Trump, while Darryl rants about scandals of the left). May need Jocko to mediate
DC is very well read in areas of history and philosophy he focuses on. However, Sam has more expertise in a broader swath of science and humanities - really a self-taught historian vs. a classically trained academic. Sam also takes hard principled stands on certain things. I think the largest area of disagreement would be Sam’s general trust in large global and national institutional reform vs DC’s somewhat libertarian approach which is inherently skeptical of the purpose large institutions and the impact of globalization. Sometimes I think DC assumes deconstruction of institutions is the lesser evil than reform of institutions. However, that approach could unleash a worse chaos than the current status quo. I think the US will be pulling back from its role in maintaining global security through its economic and military power. It will be up to the world what’s next, but no guarantee it will be better than what was before. I don’t think DC takes this into account enough.
DC - THANK YOU for your thoughtful analysis, both here, in this interview, and that analysis that resulted in the Tucker interview, which is how I found you.
I have listened closely to both. but I still am looking for an answer to a question that I am still trying to understand. “What is the motivation, or what are the motivations behind ‘this One Generation of Elites’ IMPORTING SO MANY ILLEGAL ALIENS in to fundamentally remove Western Nation States from the map??????? (WHY IS THIS BEING DONE??!)
Could you please prepare a discussion where you speculate as to their motives?
Hi Darryl! I have a question. In terms of your analysis of immigrants or refugees, I don’t hear a lot of the why they are refugies in the first place. What about the fact that the British colonized India or the US has blown up Iraq, Siria, Libya, and is still funding the genocide in Palestine. If the folks that are refugees had save homelands, they would not likely need refuge. And the western foreign policy has caused so much violence and destruction in order to rob the developing world of resources and wealth. What do you say to the that Brits should open their doors to their homeland because they destroyed other’s homelands. And the values of Christianity are valid, and if followed by the political class historically they would not have pillaged the original places of origin. Perhaps a culture so void of moral values as exemplified by its fire of policy could use some South Asian family values in its culture. And I would say the same if for example it was Saudi Arabia colonizing Britain or the west for 100s of yeas and Brits needed to move there. It’s their karma. Your thoughts?
This is great. Your rambling interviews are the best, and your depth of knowledge is astounding. I was one of those middle-of-the-road people in 2015: a normiecon or cringe Lolbertarian. The insanity of the Left over the last nine years has radicalized me.
Hitchens used to infuriate me, but it was such a damn pleasure to be infuriated by him. The man had enough wit, charm and eloquence that he almost was able to transcend himself (the neocon years notwithstanding).
Enjoyed that podcast and the fact your cat made an appearance made me laugh. Oh yeah I did give you a very loud shout out during a live Tucker show last week!
Looking forward to the episode. Sam Harris gave you a shout out in his Pod. Maybe a sit down with him the future would be good. Or not.
Meh Sam has terminal TDS and he can’t seem to have any conversation without falling into an epileptic fit of it. He’s not worth DC’s time. He has no credibility anymore.
I think it’d be interesting for DC, but up to him. Just because you disagreed with someone doesn’t they’re not with talking too.
It’s not that I disagree with Sam Harris that makes him not worthwhile, it’s that he brings nothing to the table. His entire schtick was that we need to return to liberal enlightenment type values, that we don’t need religion or tradition and instead can rely on rational thought and education, on reason and logic, as the foundation of our societies. Then Harris proved that he himself cannot even live up to this standard because he is not rational in his dislike of Trump he’s an emotional lunatic. (It is entirely possible for someone to be rational in their dislike of Trump, I don’t like Trump, but Harris doesn’t fall into this category.) So Harris himself is proof that his worldview fails. How can a society be built upon enlightenment values of using reason and logic when even the most fervent apologists of the worldview can’t live up to it? If highly educated and well respected Sam Harris can fall into emotional mush and throw out those sacred enlightenment values the minute he gets mad about something then how are we supposed to believe that an entire society can be guided by them? If the best example and apostle of the worldview cannot live up to it the moment things get mildly difficult then what’s the likelihood that those with far less education and devotion to those values will live up to them? There’s simply nothing that Sam brings to the table that is worthwhile or unique.
I think Sam Harris has articulated his views on why he thinks Trump is an existential threat to the American democracy. He used a lot of logic and reasoning to get to his position. Whether you agree with that position or not is up to you. He’s also an atheist. His position on classic liberalism is guided by how that school of thought was fundamentally formed by western philosophy and modern democracy.
I have heard his so called articulations and disagree that it has anything to do with logic and reason. He’s turned into a hysterical fool and tries to use logic and reason to justify his hysteria. He’s the perfect picture of why liberal enlightenment values have failed, why they have actually brought us to our current predicament, and why such failures are inevitable. On one hand he will lament the fall of the MSM as failing in their duty to provide unbiased information to the people and then he turns around and falls for the propaganda when it’s about Trump. He was also a hysterical fool in his response to Covid. So he’s been worthless and emotionally driven for probably the two most important domestic issues in the last decade.
I can't really listen to Sam anymore, but I'm still interested to hear, what did he say about dc?
Sam Harris sort of cherry picked the areas of DC’sTucker interview and Twitter threads that went sideways, and labeled DC an amateur historian - which I guess DC technically is. I also think there was a Stanford historian on the Free Press Honestly podcast that was a little dismayed by some of DC’s takes on WWII, Sam Harris is also a Stanford guy. I think DC takes his work seriously enough that he shouldn’t just be dismissed as a fringe conspiracy theorist by academics. However, he does go down some paths that I and others seriously disagree with.
Seems fair, thanks for saving me a couple hours boss!
I also think the tone of the conversation matters. Daryl and Tucker were kind of playing devil's advocate / kind of having a hot take for fun. It doesn't mean anything he said were wrong but I don't think the mainstream is taking them in accordance with the tone they were spoken...if that makes sense
Yea, I also think Tucker is in hot alert 🚨 for the other side to throw bombs at. DC probably should have been aware of that before free styling.
I agree, not a Sam fan.
Skip Sam Harris, go chat with Brett Weinstein instead. He is a great guy, I listen to him every week. BUT, he did hear all of your OVER THE TOP negative publicity last week and he expressed concern with your message. I, on the other hand, had previously listened to your WHOLE TWO HOUR Tucker interview and I knew that the criticism against you was, ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’. I think Brett would resonate with your message, once he hears you.
Listened the whole thing. Nothing too controversial, a little surprised at the end DC leaned into stop the steal. But maybe that’s more the Twitter side of him coming out.
would love to see Sam & Darryl chat with each other, particularly debating ideas where they definitely disagree.
I actually think they’d agree on quite a lot of things. It’d be interesting, probably doable if DC wants to since Jocko knows Sam via the JRE connections.
yes they definitely do agree on a lot, i'm saying it would be more interesting to hear them debate topics they disagree on. I don't think there would be any point debating their views on religion, but I think it would be a good conversation on which side broadly is the lesser of two evils (Sam obviously hates Trump, while Darryl rants about scandals of the left). May need Jocko to mediate
DC is very well read in areas of history and philosophy he focuses on. However, Sam has more expertise in a broader swath of science and humanities - really a self-taught historian vs. a classically trained academic. Sam also takes hard principled stands on certain things. I think the largest area of disagreement would be Sam’s general trust in large global and national institutional reform vs DC’s somewhat libertarian approach which is inherently skeptical of the purpose large institutions and the impact of globalization. Sometimes I think DC assumes deconstruction of institutions is the lesser evil than reform of institutions. However, that approach could unleash a worse chaos than the current status quo. I think the US will be pulling back from its role in maintaining global security through its economic and military power. It will be up to the world what’s next, but no guarantee it will be better than what was before. I don’t think DC takes this into account enough.
Whoa, a 3hr interview? What a treat!
It was only 2 hours, but it was a damn good interview!!
My Bad - yes! This 3-hour interview was great. The Tucker interview was very good as well, only 2 hours.
We like Darryl, but we love the animated version.
DC - THANK YOU for your thoughtful analysis, both here, in this interview, and that analysis that resulted in the Tucker interview, which is how I found you.
I have listened closely to both. but I still am looking for an answer to a question that I am still trying to understand. “What is the motivation, or what are the motivations behind ‘this One Generation of Elites’ IMPORTING SO MANY ILLEGAL ALIENS in to fundamentally remove Western Nation States from the map??????? (WHY IS THIS BEING DONE??!)
Could you please prepare a discussion where you speculate as to their motives?
Thank you!!!!!!!!!
Ek
“not to get all libertarian and gay...” as I slowly put away my Rothbard book.
That line made me laugh. Great podcast Cooper
Hi Darryl! I have a question. In terms of your analysis of immigrants or refugees, I don’t hear a lot of the why they are refugies in the first place. What about the fact that the British colonized India or the US has blown up Iraq, Siria, Libya, and is still funding the genocide in Palestine. If the folks that are refugees had save homelands, they would not likely need refuge. And the western foreign policy has caused so much violence and destruction in order to rob the developing world of resources and wealth. What do you say to the that Brits should open their doors to their homeland because they destroyed other’s homelands. And the values of Christianity are valid, and if followed by the political class historically they would not have pillaged the original places of origin. Perhaps a culture so void of moral values as exemplified by its fire of policy could use some South Asian family values in its culture. And I would say the same if for example it was Saudi Arabia colonizing Britain or the west for 100s of yeas and Brits needed to move there. It’s their karma. Your thoughts?
I mostly agree! But a full answer requires more space, so I’ll make this question #1 in the upcoming Q&A.
Thank you! ✌🏽❤️
Based
Just getting started on this, but you are articulating thoughts that have been kicking around unformed in my head for a long time.
This is great. Your rambling interviews are the best, and your depth of knowledge is astounding. I was one of those middle-of-the-road people in 2015: a normiecon or cringe Lolbertarian. The insanity of the Left over the last nine years has radicalized me.
I would say almost everyone in the 1900's till now used, or have used at least part of Edward Bernays "Propaganda" from 1928
This interview was as if Matt Gaetz haircut got its one true wish
I enjoyed it
Just as I was looking for something to listen to before I spend the rest of the day shredding and mowing.
Yes, thank you, will listen
Sam Harris is the intellectual equivalent of RC Cola.
Hitchens used to infuriate me, but it was such a damn pleasure to be infuriated by him. The man had enough wit, charm and eloquence that he almost was able to transcend himself (the neocon years notwithstanding).
Zen Stiller has none of that. He's just a bore.
I'm in Necon anonymous Christopher.
Ha ha ha ha ha! I have never liked the man much.
Enjoyed that podcast and the fact your cat made an appearance made me laugh. Oh yeah I did give you a very loud shout out during a live Tucker show last week!
I would love a longer definition of “gay libertarian”
All of them.