Is this man misrepresented?

entry level LARPer, that all the edgy kids think is somehow cool.

just look at the childish exchange he has with chomsky, speaks volumes

chomsky bodies him and iirc sam harris weasels out eventually and tells him he's gonna post it on his blog

Greenwald took him to pieces years ago

agreed tbh

DUDE WE HAD GOOD INTENTIONS SO THE CONSEQUENCES ARE ANCILLARY LMAO
DUDE AMERICA IS THE GREATEST FORCE FOR GOOD IN THE WORLD LMAO

...

...

Misrepresented how? He's a bad philosopher who is mostly an insufferable liberal, but with some disturbing authoritarian tendencies. He generally attacks the left much more than the right, and has an internet hype squad of fedora-tier atheists. In some ways he seems to be a gateway drug to the alt-right, as he raves on about the danger of the Muslim hordes and the leftists who supposedly enable them while remaining mostly silent about fascists. I don't see much reason to like him at all.

youtu.be/FWwYtJye1Cg?t=11

Complete fucking idiot. He's the laughing stock of pretty much every religious studies program, and for good reason

Pretty unoriginal thinker, and the nigger cannot write. No fire in the belly, total liberal.
Would like to take the throne of pic related, but lacks about 32 levels of awesome.
Nigger also cannot fucking write.

The Hitchens are the biggest pair of charlatans in the public eye.

Agree about Petey.
But Christopher was a writer and polemecist. Agree with his views or not, you can't deny he was one hell of a writer, and was an extremely skilled troll.

F

Yes

I guess that settles it. Bennie Stillers 2020.

Yeah but if you read him writing on a subject you were actually informed about you could tell he was full of shit. He was relying on you being uninformed and him blustering his way through.

such as?
I thought The Missionary Position (mother theresa) was very well researched.

What does this poster even mean?

I have my disagreements with Hitchens, but that motherfucker will not go down easily in a debate. He was a beast.

By contrast Harris is a fuckwit.

...

I was thinking of the short articles he used to do for some magazine or something 20 years ago, I happened to read one about medicine and I quickly realised he was just making most of it up and twisting facts to suit the pre existing argument he wanted to make, rather than analysing the facts impartially and then making a new argument.

Wow really shown your true colors!

I'm not saying he was perfect, but at least the motherfucker was entertaining.
Reading Harris, or watching him debate, is about as fun as filling out a tax form.

maybe this will make you feel at home, senpai

Emotionally and mentally unfit to to live.

says the ancom

W E W
E
W

What do you mean, fellow American? I love freedom and liberty. How do you like those cheeseburgers and apple pies?

I can't figure out what this poster is saying

say "Ollie Ollie Oxen Free" then, "true american"

Says the state apologist half measure using only-as-good-as-a-socdem boring ass unspecific socialist faggot.

better?

Oh, my ideology is boring. You fucking milennials kill me.

Oh okay, well I agree with the last point.

Well it must be boring to only want a component of what everyone else wants.

Orrie orrie ogzen flee…

TRUE AMERICAN!

my fucking sides

I'm talking about the books retard. It must be boring not agreeing with marx or any anarchists. How does he get through reading it?
You don't bother answering I know you don't like books.

Yes, of course…now let's go for a train ride, friend.

this

Trying to abolish the state and radically change the economic system at the same time….yeah, that should work.
Ancoms - keepin it real

Seriously. Instead of just agreeing with the nazi who made things up and is playing pretend with reality. Why stop at just state socialism?

Well you're not posting with a marxist flag. So I'm going to ahead and assume your end goal is state socialism.
disgusting.

I don't agree with marx? Who said that?

You identify as a mere socialist and opt not to use any of the possible marxist flags, it's fair to assume you are not a marxist.

The next step in the whole process is socialism.
That's what we have to do first.
While theory is nice to keep us in mind of any ultimate goal, the economic system has to change first.
Without change in the material conditions, no ultimate change in the state can occur.
We should thus focus on what is most necessary immediately, and choose the most inclusive terms, adopting "mere socialism" in order to attract enough people to actually fucking do something.

I'm aware of that. All of that. I understand at least the basics of marxism. It's just you're not using a marxist flag and state socialism as an end goal is also a thing that some people want.

I find that a lot of people actually agree with marxist views, as long as you don't use the code words.
It takes a lot of the bullshit out of the argument, I say things like "the bosses" or "the fat cats" instead of bourgie.
We also cannot be too beholden to Marx, he was obviously wrong about a few things, and could not have predicted some others.

Galloway destroyed that neocon.

I can't argue that. Harris is positively painful, particularly when he's whining about how he is so misunderstood.

OP, best article I've found on Sam Harris: mondoweiss.net/2012/06/sam-harris-uncovered/

I couldn't watch that debate objectively, I fucking hate Galloway's stupid face so much.
So you could be right on that one.
His face is literally stupid.

Here you go sir

It was a great debate. They are both eloquent, but Galloway is the superior orator. Galloway won because he was right on virtually everything, and approached the issue more honorably. Hitchens was particularly petty regarding things that Galloway was alleged to have said years ago, which nobody gave a shit about when they wanted to hear the issues discussed.

...

...

It was hard to watch because Harris spent the first half hour whining about being so misunderstood, then Harris talked shit for another couple of hours, dictating the direction of the conversation. Cenk made some very good points, but he lost control of the discussion. Plus, he really doesn't know enough about some of the subject matter to point out Harris's poor arguments.

A real debate would be Harris and Norman Finkelstein. Well, more like a turkey shoot than a debate. :-)

Any moderately well versed philosopher of any discipline would destroy Harris it's honestly pretty sad

In the field of philosophy, without a doubt, but I would love to see him get destroyed on a few specific areas, like the history of the Middle East and the Abrahamic religions, and the maliciousness of Israeli and America actions in the region.

The problem is his "knowledge" on all those topics is just on a really badly argued of idea of how things "should be" which is in turn based on some really dumb ideology. I feel like it would take someone with some background in philosophy to fully dig through the garbage heap that are his moral axioms

Cenk isn't even a socialist, he's one of the 'I SUPPORT CAPITALISM, THAT'S WHY CRONY CAPITALISM IS BAD!' retards.

yeah I know, but this isn't actually that bad of a strawman it's actually extremely close to something he literally said on the air

this is what he ACTUALLY believes

youtube.com/watch?v=BRM9PdDf3zA

wat?

I agree, that would be intriguing, but Harris talks very much like an academic, qualifying his statements constantly, and I think he would not be as embarrassed there as you might think.

Where I feel he would get most destroyed would be in response to stuff like this:

samharris.org/podcast/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel

In Sam Harris's world, the United States and Israel only perform military actions with the greatest of care and respect for human life, whereas Muslims wish only to kill, kill, kill….

Tbh, I think Chomsky partly missed the ball in debating Harris because he gave up too much ground there. He let Harris dictate the exchange on the basis that the West cares so much about avoiding unnecessary loss of life, whereas the rest of the world does not.

Wait I found the one that's actually almost word for word from that pic

prepare to rage

youtube.com/watch?v=CgCXrv7Hwpk

To be fair I also thought like Cenk once, when I was 14

but it's largely devoid of substance and only sounds good to those not well versed in the literature. an experienced philosopher would identify his badly argued assertions way more readily than the average scientist, for instance, since he's ostensibly speaking about things outside their (and more importantly his) area of expertise.

And yeah, I've seen that as well as the Chomsky debate. He was absolutely right to say him and Hitchens are fanatics that worship the state. How embarrassingly brainwashed do you have to be to actually believe Iraq war propaganda as an adult? I was 13 and didn't fall for that shit.

To be fair, Chomsky seemed rightfully annoyed because Harris' arguments are quite stupid.