DUDE PERSUASION LMAO destroys the Jew

Did the video at least end with Harris getting visibly asshurt, OP?

I had previously taken Harris as one of these pragmatists who could get on board with certain positions that most liberals are against, and who always spoke in this eerily calm, monotonous, accentless voice. But here he was highly agitated, raising his voice, repeating with exasperation mostly basic CNN talking points about Donald Trump, nothing terribly original, only in more academic language than the sheboons at CNN would use.

Yeah he's 100% on board with the MSM Russia narrative, which surprised me, but I guess shouldn't have surprised me. He said that when Trump made the off-hand joke about "maybe Russia could find those 33,000 e-mails" it was a real incitement to Trump.

Adams even hit him with the somewhat Jewish "I think we're past the days when the President needs to be some kind of moral exemplar" (paraphrasing) (essentially using the argument liberals often use against anybody concerned about the disappearance traditional values, saying that Sam was behind the times).

Because sometimes he talks critically of Islam and one time he gave Charles Murray a fair shake, so some people ignore all the other ways in which Harris is a shit cuck.

I think Jordan Peterson really paved the way for showing how much of middle brow Sam Harris really is. Another classic case of Jews relying on their high verbal iq and propensity for arguing with anybody about anything, rather than spending all of five minutes thinking about something, and maybe trying to see if your ideas and arguments have any holes in them.

Also Vox Day completely destroyed Sam Harris in his book The Irrational Atheist

Can you give me a summary of his encounter with Peterson? I can't bear sitting through Sam Harris's shit.

- correction

He was also really concerned about fake news and of course climate change. After he kept bringing up climate change as settled science, etc., Scott Adams hit him with a lethal unpacking where he broke down "climate science" to three different subfields, where no one can show that two out of the three are accurate.

To be honest though I'd never heard Sam show any emotional involvement in anything before. He shouldn't have tried to become a Mall-Inn-Yoo-esque jack-of-all-fields-of-knowledge. He was telling Adams, smugly, "I'm going to have some climate scientists on this show in a few weeks who are going to talk about just how wrong Trump is about everything."

Didn't know about that one.

Scott Adam's really is the man.

The only thing frustrating me is how much Sam's fans are sucking up to him in the comments. Did Sam manage to create his own little safe-space on Youtube?

Sam Harris is just another Bill Nye, barely exceeding him academically by actually getting a PhD. It's all cameras, and books, and press events, and podcasts. The guy is not an intellectual heavyweight in the actual academic circles, hell, he's not even in the ring. He's a media prettyboy who tries to leverage his relatively meaningless scientific credentials to give an intellectual mask to his poorly thought out leftist politics. You see, leftists can only be smart by association, so they latch on to leftists who are pitched as smart (Harris, Nye, etc.), as a way of feeling validated.
Of course, anyone who is engaged with academic neuroscience and philosophy and isn't trying to feel smart by approximation probably doesn't even know about him, or is only peripherlaly familiar with him via his media appearances.

Do e-celebs ever not?

Also he hates treatment of muh women in the middle east yet cucks for said muslim shitskins.

Inconceivable to those afflicted with it.

It's been a while since I listened, but it was basically two hours of Jordan and Sam disagreeing about something. Jordan basically kept insisting to agree to disagree and move on to another topic, but Sam, being a Jew, had to constantly try to get Jordan to agree with him on some little semantic detail. It was this podcast that pretty much demonstrated that Sam Harris is at best intellectually deficient, at worst completely intellectually dishonest, which wouldn't be surprising to anybody. What it also proved, and Peterson himself has spoken about this before, is that Sam is afraid of acknowledging that he, and by extension atheism, is wrong. If you have the time I would encourage you and everyone else on this board to read Vox Day's Irrational Atheist, he does an even more thorough job of dismissing Harris as someone to pay attention to.

And of course I accidentally saged this

Sam was insisting that Jordan subscribe to his narrow scientific definition of the word truth. (correct fact)
Jordan was merely saying that the word has a complex history and has been used in wider spheres.

Harris, you retards. I don't listen to Semites for two hours and expect I'll extract anything useful, by default.

Thank you. I currently am unable to watch anything on youtube

It's so fucking weird to listen to a grown man talk about morality like it's black and white to another adult, and about fucking POLITICS no less.

Holy shit did he ever. They're all from the Church Of Reddit Fedora Tipping Skepticism. The one where they believe being a devote atheist adds 150 points to your IQ.

the best part is the buttmad ethicscucks in the comments.

Well that was pretty much a shitshow and the JIDF working hard in the comment section defending Sam's points and ignoring his deficiencies and usage of "Trumpkins" at the start, nor did they goddamn care if his arguments where point by point, "Le Resistance!" bullshit CNN fake news.

An article on the shitshow
archive.is/9d3Jf
Sam is a gigantic kike faggot who invites people so he can make an example out of them.

And Scott Adams replying.
blog.dilbert.com/post/163253041366/im-not-your-pope-but-thanks-for-asking
Tl:dr Scott saw what that fucking faggot was trying to do "Super Atheist Fedorafaggot versus Cartoonist"

I swear the people are propped up somehow because I see his name everywhere all of the sudden and I never knew who he was.

jews just attempting to impose rules on others they don't obey when interacting with goyim. You know they lie, cheat, steal, and worse when interacting with goyim.

Even before the actual interview begins, Sam Harris sounds even more like an insufferable cunt than I remember. Also lol at those comments, so angry about Adams not buying what (((Sam))) was selling.

I'll watch the whole vid when I get home, but what surprises me is that in a podcast before the debate, Scott thought Sam and him would agree on a pat everything.
Poor Scott isn't that aware of the Jew

Frequency illusion. He's been around for years. You probably saw his name on Holla Forums recently because of his interview with Peterson and with Charles Murray (whom interestingly enough he actually liked, despite Murray essentially saying that niggers have low IQ because of genetics).

He was an insufferable faggot before he fell from grace with his progressive liberal democrat friends and he was a gigantic fucking retard who hated Trump more than Hillary, but expected the cunt to win so he just "LOL vote third-party, it doesn't matter!"

He probably didn't actually think that, but said that he did in an attempt to influence Sam, to put Sam in a more agreeable mood.

Of course he liked him, they are from the same (((tribe)))

Sam Harris fell out of grace a few years ago when he said mean things about muslims. When Sam Harris heard Trump saying mean things about muslims too, Sam saw his chance to pay his penance and prove himself sufficiently progressive. He decided to atone for his past comments about muslims by freaking out when Trump said the same sort of things that he used to.

dude atheism lmao

Charles Murray is Scotch-Irish, if you have a source to the contrary then provide it.

And don't kid yourself, Charles Murray is despised by the (((left))) because he refutes their blank slate hypothesis and asserts that intelligence is hereditary. He asserts that blacks score lower on every conceivable IQ test and that this IQ gap persists even when all environmental factors are controlled. Nature, not nuture. That is heresy of the highest sort to a critical theory marxist who believes in the tabula rasa with religious fervor. Sam Harris finding Charles Murray agreeable is an aberration, Murray is otherwise universally despised for what he's published.

Incidentally Sam Harris admitted that he too hated Charles Murray before he read his book, but in reading his book became convinced that Charles Murray genuinely isn't racist, merely autistically but innocently dedicated to uncovering truths that shouldn't be uncovered.

Did Scott really dodge the whole unethical side of the argument? Or does it matter?
What do you guys think?

gr8 b8 m8

It should further be noted that Charles Murray's most vehement and prominent critic was Stephen Jay Gould. That should tell you a lot.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, fam.

My mistake, I always assumed he was (((one))), since aside from some of the genetic and racial facts he reports on, he's a cuck who apologizes to neo-marxists for not hating Trump enough and is a member of the (((American Enterprise Institute))).

Charles Murray is an egghead, not cut out for politics.

I'm ~24 minutes in
Even after Scott explains the technique of using hyperbole then walking back to get what you really want, Sam Harris continues making massive negative insinuations about anything Trump says, pretending the hyperbole is genuine or the act of making the hyperbole about X topic is thought crime in itself. He could get a job at CNN as the process he's engaged in is identical.

Scott made a big mistake in treating fact checks as anything valid when everyone is aware they are politicized to a degree that renders them useless as only those whose interests they serve treat them as legitimate.

I listened to the entire thing in one go last night while doing other things. It's really a fascinating listen as it allows you into the rhetorical mind of the kike. Sam pulls certain tricks that kikes pull so often that they seem to be genetic. Scott is too high IQ and easily sidestepped all of it of course. There were several things that stood out to me:

This is the obvious one. Sam creates a framework of morality thst he expects Trump to adhere to and literally nobody else. Kikes do this all the time when arguing with Christians. They always bring up "muh leviticus" or some other obscure old testament passage in a desperate attempt to herd the niggercattle

I lost my shit when I heard this. Kikes like Sam prefer it when the goyim are subservient and inundated with semetic media. When the white man begins asking questions the jew gets nervous. Nevein that there are very real systematic problems in our kikebank-controlled society, the growing discontent is all DRUMPHF'S fault.

I don't think I've seen this level or projection carried out so breathlessly for such an extended period of time. It was two hours of this shit. Again, this interview was an unintentionally fascinating look into semetic psychology. It needs to be picked apart and analyzed for our future.

People don't realize that he's exactly like his previous employers' The Young Turks. The only difference is that he peeked through the window and said "Guys, what if the sky is blue?", then got expleted for wrongthink.

More like blown out into the mud.

He used to work for that fat turkroach fuck Cenk's The Young Turds, his goddamn rhetoric and arguments are pretty much "It's okay when I do it!" and "Rules for thee not for me"

>almost treasonous level of fandom of Vladamir Putin
Here we are at "muh Russia" already. And again with the "thought crime" motif as entertaining the idea of working with Putin is characterized as treasonous in itself as well as characterized as some form of fandom/worship. From a guy who apparently dislikes Trump's hyperbole he's being very hyperbolic.

So far I'm noticing that Sam Harris seems to have a huge problem with though crime. Simply entertaining a thought he doesn't like send him into a fit. All his emotional appeals are grating as fuck as well.

...

I like how the logo for Sam's podcast is basically a giant bluepill with his face on it

What do you guys think of Harris' epic meme?

He doesn't even understand the symbolism and mythos he's invoking/10.

Can you cuckchanners at least give a summary of the things you post?
Not everyone follows the things you do and don't have the time.
Learn to make quality threads.

It's pretty cringe that he included a quote from himself in his own meme. Almost as cringe as the people on reddit making memes of themselves.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that he condemns the left while also being part of the problem himself?

This idiot is so detached from reality that a supposed "con man" is not persuasive, "cons" apparently do not need to persuade they just magically "con" people with no convincing. His own characterizations make no logical sense, it's empty-headed slander which is in worst cases in inconsistent with the previous fucking sentence. The cognitive dissonance is off the charts.

Is this nigger really quoting himself?

I get the feeling that Sam Harris has a massive ego and loves to eat his own farts.

He proved that on the election and kissing the ass of the very people who made him a pariah, so fuck him.

he thinks Jordan Peterson isn't the definition of middlebrow

top kek lad

I don't think you understand what middlebrow means.

Is Sam Harris mentally retarded? I might have to switch off after this. It's swiftly becoming Scott Adams VS a literal retard.

I'm good

It means that it purports (but fails) to offer the same things as highbrow art (etc.) but in an easily accesible way.

That's Jordan Peterson exactly

Scott's response to Sam Harris' cult of personality.
twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/888090470890430464
pscp.tv/w/1LyGBEvPkQWKN

That's the point, he's priming the listeners to see him as the poor naive well-meaning guy who gets treated unfairly by the Jew, even though he went there with the olive branch in hand.

1 hour and 40 minutes into it and I can't take anymore of this pretentious shitbag. Adams handles himself well enough, but christ this retard just can't see the forest through the trees. His whole position is dressed up as an attempt to understand the people supporting trump, but through all his blithering I only got how he's entirely incapable of understanding his opposition because he refuses to even remotely consider their viewpoints and motivations. Adams even leads him on with the food pyramid example as to why people might be skeptical of "scientific consensus" but the turbo faggot just won't have it. He's just too euphoric for that and his hugbox is on a whole other tier entirely.

I'm gettin' real sick and tired of this nigger speak.

Reported.

I remember when i was a fedora tipping atheist i thought Sam Harris was an unconvincing shit who made unrelatable arguments.

I literally can't remember anything Sam Harris has said that was worth reporting to other people.

You should listen to his podshit, it was great to hear the anger creeping into in his faggy speaking voice when his goy started jumping ship due to his baseless bitching about Trump.

Harris is fucking hilariously stupid and pseudo-intellectual. He worships "reason" as his god while ever argument he makes appeals to emotion and sensual satisfaction. His philosophy is pure hedonism to the point that listening to him talk about it with some other kike(all his podcast guests are other kikes for the most part) is like listening to a pair of fucking aliens(pre-fall Eldar?). Their entire moral spectrum is so alien to a traditional white society that it hammers home just how different and disgusting the kikes really are. Harris is too autistic to realize he should keep it on the down low, to the point that other kikes criticize him over it and he cannot understand why he shouldn't let the goyim know they want to create a society which is based on Brave New World.

His exchange with Murray was great in that you could hear the fearful intonation in his voice. All his talking points basically boiled down to, "Yes all your data is 100% correct thus far and you aren't racist but the truth basically proves every single thing that the racially aware whites have been saying for the last 300 years so we have to be very careful that the goyim don't find out and kill all the kikes along with the shitskins we've imported into their nations."

Kikes always argue in bad faith, which is why they freak out when their opponent states plainly that they are only interested in the well being of themselves and their side, because then the artificial constraints of "fairness" fly out the window and they are left defenseless to any philosophical, religious, or material argument their opponent makes. The kike only plays when the rules favor him, if he cannot dictate the terms of the exchange then he flips the board.

It's also hilarious that in the same breath he will such the dick of secularized kikery but the second it is religious kikery its ebil, not because of the corrosive effect it has on society but because…fuck if I know.

That's not what Dr. Petersen is attempting to say, but that's what he is actually saying, which is why Sam Harris is so confused. Based on his psychology lectures, its perfectly clear to me what Dr. Petersen is attempting to say, and he's doing a shit job of communicating it.

Dr. Petersen is asking about truth on this level: I would like to minimize my pain, to continue existing, and exist in a meaningful way where I am fulfilled. Through what method can I do those things? Well one possible answer is that we are constantly receiving a stream of sensory perceptions, and that it is possible to influence what those stream of perceptions are by what appears to be moving our body around within an external world. By creating a rational scientific framework for categorizing that stream of perceptions into actionable objects and then interacting with those objects in a way that changes our sensory perception stream into something that makes us fulfilled, we can achieved that desired mental state.

Sam Harris is stuck inside the one possible lower order framework of thinking of the external perceptions as a objective materialistic reality. Dr. Petersen's whole point is that this view that Sam Harris has comes directly from a Christian view of the world, and that this view evolved biologically for a specific reason that it was adaptive. He wants to move on to the argument that Sam Harris is being a hypocrite for condemning Christianity and simultaneously holding a christian view of the world that he holds; and that furthermore he is using a rational framework of analysis derived from the christian view of the world to criticize Christianity, which is a cyclical self defeating paradox. Dr. Petersen never gets to this argument however, since he does such a shit job of explaining his initial point about truth.

That you're a faggot, nigger.

He did defuse some of Sam's arguments about Trump's ethics without directly justifying Trump's modus operandi, for example, when they talked about Trump University, or when Adams tossed a "Let's unpack that, Ben" frag grenade (using a phrased that reached meme status when Sam was doing what Adams is doing here, but against Ben Affleck (Sam was of course winning the debate when placed against a brain-dead Hollywood liberal, in that case) ) into Sam's repeated assertion that Trump lies all the time. Adams also suggested that we're past the point where the President needs to be some ethical paragon, cleverly using the Jews' own technique of criticizing upholders of traditional or Christian values as being old fashioned and out of touch with reality, against a Jew.

But you don't really wanna walk into these people's framings of ethical questions. For all those supposed bad qualities about Vladimir Putin Sam talked about, immigration of peoples from Asia, the mid East, Africa, and central American into western countries will increase those things in western countries. The human rights violations against whites in our own countries should take priority, before we go around starting cold wars based on rights violations in other countries. Individuals and the media in western countries are targeted, sometimes by the government if not by brigades of Marxist foot soldiers, for their attitudes on immigration. If such principles were really important, then these so-called intellectuals like Sam would devote 100% of their efforts to stopping the decline of rights in western countries where they have some influence, instead of focusing on a country in a different cultural sphere where they have no influence. (Also, the picture Sam painted of Russia, highly overstates Putin's supposed human rights abuses. You have to remember Sam's idea of a human rights abuse is not allowing an 8-year-old to undergo gender reassignment surgery.)

I'd love to hear who you consider highbrow in this CY+2.

Probably the smuggest image I've ever seen.
Look how unmoved the subjects appear about the erasure of their deeply held views. Literal erasing of cultural identities/ melting pot. The Jew's not even trying to hide it anymore.

It's funny because he criticized Trump for having no interior thought processes but acting based purely on instinct, but Sam's views on Trump supporters sound like those of somebody who never stopped to consider that Trump's supporters have valid concerns and motivations which are simply different from his; and that they are less concerned about things that concern him; or that they have valid reasons for doubting something like the supposed necessity of dealing with climate change or the claim that Putin is seen as a "dictator" inside his own country. As Sam kept accusing Trump of being self-absorbed, I guess the old saying still applies, that if you want to find out what motivates Jews, just look at what they're accusing you of.

An excellent point that should be memed.

Suppose for the sake of argument that is true… does that even necessarily imply that Putin is disliked by those people? There is an American bias towards assuming democracy is good and dictators are bad, therefore if you think somebody a dictator you must dislike them. But do Russians share this perspective? Do Russians thinking a leader is a dictator mean they dislike that leader?

I submit for consideration:
rbth.com/news/2017/02/17/stalins-rating-highest-poll-704083
nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/stalinist-nostalgia-in-vladimir-putins-russia.html
rt.com/politics/337183-sympathy-for-stalin-among-russians/
independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-big-question-why-is-stalin-still-popular-in-russia-despite-the-brutality-of-his-regime-827654.html

Stalin was of course a dictator, everybody knows that. But Russians like him.. More Russians like Stalin than dislike Stalin, by a wide margin. For a Russian, liking a leader and thinking that leader a dictator are not mutually exclusive.

It should be pointed out that Stalin had not ideologic love of Marxism but did all in the service of his own power, despicable perhaps at a personal level(he abandoned his family, nation, and race for personal gain) but the people he killed were the original government of the USSR, the 94% kike government who did crazy shit like try to annihilate the family as a social institution and legalize pedophilia(kike is as kike does). He allowed but did not encourage Christian worship. And the millions he sent to the work camps were expended as slave labor to build up the industrial capacity of the country into a vehicle to keep him safe. He made Russia strong enough to weather the storm of the second world war, whereas ironically the kikes would have made it so weak that Germany would have rolled over it in a year.

Stalin was a shitty person without the redeeming qualities of most fascists and nobles who hold ideals above and beyond themselves. But he wasn't a full blown marxist full blooded kike set upon the destruction of civilization like the kikes in Weimar, Lenin, or Trotsky. Compared to that anything was an improvement. Its not suprising that the Russians don't hate him.

I have no love for Stalin. As far as I'm concerned, he's lower than dirt just for what he did to Germany. My point was not to defend Stalin, but to make the point that Russians do not necessarily dislike those who they perceive as dictators, contrary to the assumptions of western progressives who hear that Putin is perceived as a dictator and assume that he must therefore be hated.

I'm not debater, but isn't is considered bad to dodge arguments and questions? Was it bad of Scott to deflect Sam's ethical arguments?

Not trying to defend a kike like Sam, just arguing for the sake of gaining a better understanding.

No.

According to autism highschool debate club, lel enlightened rationalists? Sure. Bad form. But from an arguing effectively to sway the audience standpoint? No. Brushing aside arguments and questions is very often the best choice in a "debate" with a hostile. The objective in such a debate is to establish dominance by making the other appear submissive. Ridicule and dismissiveness work better than rational argument.

Look up and read this book: Hammer of the Patriot, Charles Chapel. You can find the PDF freely available online. It will do a good job of explaining how this all works, with hundreds of real world examples of rhetoric and rebuttal.

Thanks, user. This gives me much to think about.

I think Jordan Peterson does tend to go on tangents often with his arguments, but in this case it really seems like Sam Harris was acting like a manipulative buffoon having a conversation with someone whose doctorate is real, unlike Sam's.

i'm not a huge fan of harris. sometimes he's right about stuff, other times he completely misses the mark and i can't tell if it's intentional (malevolent intent) or not (lack of intellect). but you guys are idiots if you think peterson came across as anything but an absolute lunatic in the interview they did.

also wtf is with harris and his jewishness? i've heard him claim to be white multiple times but there's no fucking way he's not jewish. just look at the guy, especially side profile pics. someone needs to find evidence of this and add him to the list of selective cryptic jews. either that or he is one unfortunate looking goy.

It's not even hidden.

cool. i've just heard him repeatedly refer to himself as a white guy over the years and i never looked into it. so he should be added to the SJC list.

Now here's an interesting thought.