Sam Harris is actually intelligent enough to really get into a topic with his guests, though, and you get interesting information out of it. He can talk in a sophisticated way about complex topics, from genetics to epistemology. Rogan's just some guy. He operates at a superficial level.
I think Rogan operates more subtly. When he disagrees with a guest, he doesn't confront them. Instead he eggs them on and encourages them to dig their own grave. It's a kind of social intelligence he uses. I do agree though, he's definitely not a classic intellectual and in many ways is still a meathead. Howard Stern often uses the same tactic.
We're so accustomed to media echo-chambers that people can't get their heads around the idea of genuinely diverse guests and topics. You aren't tainted with sin just because you have a right-leaning guest or provocateur on your show.
And pretty much all of the 'intellectual dark web' people are pro-evolution, pro-recreational drug use, pro-gun control, etc. I honestly don't get why the label conservative gets slapped on them. Are we really so far gone that whether you subscribe to identity politics is the one true barometer of whether someone is left or right?
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Unfortunately the Western political system defines what is right/left by what the parties, often arbitrarily, support. So where you stand on random issues like political correctness, the middle eastern debate, feminism, white privilege, etc.. Will often define you as either left or right. The definition of what is liberal also seems to constantly fluctuate between taking away and giving individual rights. I agree it's a ridiculous system.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
I don't think Rogan is that nefarious, he's good at challenging someone's opinion in a way that encourages them to really flesh out their ideas and fill in any gaps in logic, that can result in someone digging their own grave, but I think he's simply driven by exploring the idea.
Essentially, Harris seems to choose people that agree with him on some topics he finds most important, and disagrees on a few others, to round out a debate amongst friendlies. If he was as concerned with addressing the left head-on, he’d put in a bigger effort to have more left-leaning guests, but he doesn’t because “it’s harder”?
How can we confront this scary version of the left, if it makes even the most intelligent podcasters to uncomfortable to do so? Why can’t Harris control a debate with progressives he disagrees with?
Can you give examples of the people you'd like to see interviewed?
Serious question, I'd like to dig into some of their lectures/interviews to round out my understanding of the this discussion.
I like Rogan’s style. I miss most of his podcasts due to the length and an attempt to focus in on the guests I’m interested in, but he seems to approach the conversations honestly. Not everything has to be some strenuous, horizon-expanding intellectual exercise, and I find the “shoot the ####” aspect of his show is what makes it enjoyable listening/watching, particularly while you’re doing something else.
It’s that informal vibe that allows guests to open up a bit and show you aspects of their personality that you usually don’t see. It’s the sort of podcast where you’ll hear Sam Harris or Neil degrasse Tyson drop an F-bomb.
Can you give examples of the people you'd like to see interviewed?
Serious question, I'd like to dig into some of their lectures/interviews to round out my understanding of the this discussion.
Ta-Nehisi Coates would be a huge mark of respect for Harris, in my opinion. He disparaged Coates pretty regularly and yet has thus far avoided sitting down with him. Coates, on the other hand, has proven to be a very intellectual, interesting, and respectful part of a debate, even with people on the right who he doesn’t see eye to eye with.
Even if you disagree with Coates, he’s very intelligent and well spoken. It’s a pretty big highlight of the problem I have with Harris sitting down in his own safe space, and avoiding prominent leftists under the guise that they’re a little too frightful for him.
I’ve grown to like Harris though, he’s just got a few glaring holes in who he gives (and more importantly, doesn’t give) a platform to, and how he handles certain issues. That’s why I find it to be a red herring when Cliff asks “where the libs at,” I mean, they’re everywhere, speaking in public and debates all the time, but of course you don’t get to see many if you’re just checking out who Harris and Rogan have on their latest show.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I mean, if he has Coates on, I'd listen, but I suspect that what Loury described in this clip is more or less what you'd get from him, and as a result I'd doubt it'd be a terribly productive discussion.
Still, okay, let's say you're right, and that's an example of a worthwhile voice to have on from the left. Any others? I'd actually like to see a list of intellectually honest, rigorous far-left intellectuals.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Still, okay, let's say you're right, and that's an example of a worthwhile voice to have on from the left. Any others? I'd actually like to see a list of intellectually honest, rigorous far-left intellectuals.
I’m not sure what you’d describe as “far-left” but I’m with you, I’d like to see a list of intellectually honest, rigorous far-right intellectuals in addition.
I’m not sure being “far” anything lends itself to that.
Also, I find it really weird that you’re using word of mouth from someone else to set your expectations of Coates in a interesting discussion setting. That seems pretty lazy when you could just set your expectations of Coates by... you know... listening to Coates:
why is this an issue? If he were popular with white men and his teachings happen to help white men out, so what? Don't we want pinpoint some problems white men might be having and help them become better people in general?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
I’m not sure what you’d describe as “far-left” but I’m with you, I’d like to see a list of intellectually honest, rigorous far-right intellectuals in addition.
I’m not sure being “far” anything lends itself to that.
I'm distinguishing because technically, guys like Harris and Nawaz are on the left. Pro-gay, pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-drug, vociferously anti-trump, pro-universal health care intellectual elites. But in the context of this discussion you're asking for him to talk to people to his left that he also disagrees with, so if the spectrum's calibrated that way, they'd have to be far-left. And frankly, that is simply an accurate description of public intellectuals who promote identity politics.
So, let's just put it that way - the people on the left who Harris has a problem with are the proponents of identity politics. People like Abby Martin, CJ Werleman, Glenn Greenwald, Cenk and so forth. These are the left wing analogues of someone like Ben Shapiro on the right, someone who is obviously, unapologetically right-wing conservative on just about every issue.
Actually, David Pizarro is a name that he has talked to (though usually on Pizarro's podcast) who fits that category who is wholly intellectually honest, so there's one. Why aren't there more like him? I'd guess there are, but that they don't really put themselves out there as public intellectuals, partly because of the purity tests many of the people listed above insist on. Hell, Alice Dreger is absolutely fantastic and is squarely, entirely on the left, but was excommunicated for not speaking shibboleths on trans issues despite being a trans activist with actual expertise on the topic. I've little doubt that Harris would have a perfectly agreeable conversation with her, too.
Quote:
Also, I find it really weird that you’re using word of mouth from someone else to set your expectations of Coates in a interesting discussion setting. That seems pretty lazy when you could just set your expectations of Coates by... you know... listening to Coates
The event being described there by Loury is actually available in full on Youtube, so I have in fact watched it, but people always complain that I'm posting 1 hour videos instead of short ones, so I posted the 5 minute summary. I can't win, apparently.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
So, let's just put it that way - the people on the left who Harris has a problem with are the proponents of identity politics. People like Abby Martin, CJ Werleman, Glenn Greenwald, Cenk and so forth. These are the left wing analogues of someone like Ben Shapiro on the right, someone who is obviously, unapologetically right-wing conservative on just about every issue.
And how many of those “left wing analogues” of Shapiro has Harris sat down with? Crank? Anyone else? We know he’s sat with Shapiro and numerous others like him, so again, why?
Isn’t the most effective way to kill bad ideas is to confront them head on with logic and debate? So why is Harris happy to let the “far left” run around unchecked, while focusing his primary efforts on the right?
I never considered Sam Harris to be a left winger. More middle of the road imo.
He takes a logical and scientific approach to most things. This also puts him at odds with sociologists, who believe most behaviour is socialized, not genetically pre-determined. Harris also takes a very opposing position on religion, including Islam. Since the right wing is historically pro-war against Muslim nations, that makes many on the left automatically pro-Islam, no matter how conservative the form of Islam.
Harris is more a-political if anything. He doesn't prescribe to any political party or belief system. That automatically puts him at odds with liberals who prescribe to a political package of beliefs, who will then label him right wing. Harris also a vocal critic of Chomsky, which once again puts him at odds with many liberals.
Last edited by blankall; 07-06-2018 at 01:44 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
What I like about Rogan is that he seems willing to bring a lot of these so-called fringe topics into the spotlight.
It is off-topic to this discussion, but intermittent fasting is a good one. Rogan has had 'experts' on the show to discuss it, and I think because of that it helps people figure out what is has some basis behind it, and what doesn't. It doesn't necessarily mean that just because Rogan interviewed someone who promotes intermittent fasting or anything else than those things are credible, but it helps the common person understand a bit more about topics that are not necessarily mainstream.
And how many of those “left wing analogues” of Shapiro has Harris sat down with? Crank? Anyone else? We know he’s sat with Shapiro and numerous others like him, so again, why?
Isn’t the most effective way to kill bad ideas is to confront them head on with logic and debate? So why is Harris happy to let the “far left” run around unchecked, while focusing his primary efforts on the right?
People with bad ideas don't usually sit down and talk. Two sides of the coin here. Just because he hasn't talk to Person A could just mean Person A doesn't want to talk. Unless you are narcissist like Ezra Klein (who he talked to not too long ago (Harris)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
