Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Jordan Peterson

Here; reproduced below.

Jordan B. Peterson is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. He has announced his bold decision to publicly martyr himself—like all good cult leaders—by choosing death over retracting a recent tweet that got him suspended by Twitter. “The suspension will not be lifted unless I delete the hateful tweet in question,” he announced. “And I would rather die than do that.” Death wasn’t one of the options in Twitters’ terms of service agreement, but Peterson is nothing if not self-importantly melodramatic. He sees himself as a cultural lightning rod absorbing the charged bolts of wokism that is setting ablaze traditional values. In reality, he’s just an embittered crank.

I’ll return to the silly reason for all his pearl-clutching theatrics in a moment. (There will be a big surprise when I do.)

First, we need to understand why when Jordan Peterson says something—even something as juvenile as the tweet that got him suspended—it’s important. Pied Piper Peterson has a large following of cultish devotees that are deeply influenced by his words. He has 4 million followers on Instagram, 2.1 million on Twitter, 1.5 million on Facebook, 5 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, and his books have sold millions of copies. He is guru to many disaffected young white men who feel under attack just for being born male and white. He articulates their self-doubt, anger, and frustration. If only Uncle Jordan’s hearty bro advice wasn’t so lazy and superficial.

Now his infectious influence has spread even wider, becoming a pandemic of bad ideas and limp thinking. He recently joined fellow conservative gadfly Ben Shapiro’s (see my article about Ben Shapiro here) Daily Wire+ where their ads describe Peterson as “The smartest mind in western civilization” and “one of the most important minds in history.” That’s taking hype to a dizzying new level, a little like proclaiming Fifty Shades of Gray as the greatest work of literature ever written.

As to why I refer to his followers as cultish: the essence of a cult member is to embrace someone’s teachings and opinions without rigorous critical analysis. To be fair, cultish loyalty is common among all religions, political parties, and sports teams. We’re all guilty of it sometimes. People want to belong to something that makes them feel free, moral, smart, and safe among like-minded. Often they are willing to trade away actual freedom, morality, intelligence, and safety in order to feel that way. Your basic blue pill versus red pill scenario from The Matrix: the red pill shows you reality and the blue pill allows you to live in blissful ignorance.

Jordan B. Peterson is the blue pill.

Why Peterson Was Suspended from Twitter

The target of Peterson’s ire that got him suspended is actor Elliot Page (The Umbrella Academy), who has so rattled Peterson’s noggin that he’s unable to remember Page’s name. Apparently, it’s pretty easy to confuse a Ph.D., bestselling author, and “smartest mind in western civilization” when you give him two choices: Elliot or Ellen. Okay, I know he’s just playing his cranky old grandpa on the porch griping about new-fangled ideas that are sending this culture “to hell in a handbasket.” (Yes, he really used that phrase.) Still, his faux confusion is so lame.

Here’s what he tweeted: “Remember when pride was a sin? And Ellen Page just had her breasts removed by a criminal physician.” Twitter suspended him for hate speech, which he responded to by posting a rambling, huffy video ending with Peterson saying “up yours, woke moralists—we’ll see who cancels who!”

His anger still not sated, he posted another pseudo-academic video warning of the dangers of Twitter, citing arguments and studies that had been presented years ago—all widely known during the time he was using Twitter to promote himself and screw the dangers. He’s like someone who just got dumped by his girlfriend and immediately posts how she was a lousy girlfriend the whole time and he’s lucky to be rid of her. It’s a tamer version of revenge porn.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around “Remember when pride was a sin?” That’s a pretty moralizing statement for him to later berate “woke moralists.” That’s so Peterson: to endlessly complain about others moralizing while he’s moralizing. As if only he has the right to proclaim which morals are proper (talk about pride being a sin!). Then he warns Twitter that he’s going to cancel them (which sounds pretty godlike prideful). And, of course, his insistence on deadnaming Elliot Page (calling him by his former name) because, to him, people don’t have the right to choose their names or gender roles.

Why? Because to Peterson, transgender kids are being groomed to deny their true gender identity and Elliot Page, with his washboard abs and confusing new name, is leading the children astray. Peterson offers no credible proof of this grooming (studies he’s cited have been easily refuted by many experts). But he knows that in a climate where 40% of Americans believe President Biden didn’t win the election despite no proof to the contrary, he can “win” the argument just by saying it often enough to his uncritical followers.

Fifty years ago, when I chose to convert to Islam, I heard a lot of the same complaints that Page faces. People thought I was influencing Black children away from Christianity, that I was ungrateful to the country, that I was insulting my Catholic upbringing. In fact, I chose a religion that took me back to my African roots rather than the religion that the slaveholder who owned my ancestors followed. I felt more like Me. Some people then—and still today—refuse to call me by my legal name, as if they should have the power to determine my identity. That’s just another form of slavery.

Why Peterson Shouldn’t Have Been Suspended

Here’s the surprise I promised: I agree with Peterson. Not about what he wrote, which is offensive, ill-informed, and childish—akin to scribbling obscenities on the bathroom stall in middle school—but we must draw a clear line between hate speech and hateful speech. Hate speech promotes violence and biased actions against groups. Hateful speech spews irrational anger that is hurtful. Granted that line can get fuzzy because hateful can quickly become hate, but it’s important that we are vigilant in making that distinction so as not to quash free speech. His comments were more buffoonish than hate and he should have the right to be a buffoon.

I also agree that Twitter was too quick to pass judgement. And the complete autonomy with which judgement is passed without specifics is like being judged by Russell Crowe’s ditsy Zeus in Thor: Love and Thunder. Social media giants are omnipotent beings who feel no responsibility to justify their decisions. They need to have the process be more transparent to the public.

Why Peterson Should Be Abandoned by All Good People

Much of Peterson’s fame and infamy is the result of YouTube debates he does with other YouTubers, mostly with people that agree with him. On those occasions when he debates people who don’t agree with him, his tactic is similar to Ben Shapiro’s: name-drop famous writers and thinkers, keep changing the subject so he never has to fully defend his position, throw out irrelevant facts and studies so he sounds smart. You would be hard-pressed to know what Peterson’s thesis is during a debate.

In his debate with secularist Matt Dillahunty, Peterson kept straying from the question at hand so much that Dillahunty’s frustration as he kept trying to bring him back to the point was evident. Peterson knew he couldn’t logically win so he just talked about whatever popped into his mind.

I don’t care for debates—whether on YouTube or presidential. They are designed purely for entertainment value and to get more subscribers who already agree with them, not to clarify complex issues. Someone mentions a fact or statistic but there’s no time to look it up to see if it’s a legit study or fact. So the process has the veneer of reason when it’s mostly emotion.

I have seen some debates in which Peterson was so outmatched that I was embarrassed for him, especially those with Dillahunty and neuroscientist and philosopher Sam Harris. He would ramble pointlessly only to have his fans comment how he “destroyed” the opponent, which is a testament to the inability of his followers to distinguish logic. They think because they can’t understand what he’s saying, he must be really smart. The reason they can’t understand him is because there are so many logical fallacies he uses: slippery slope, false dilemma, name-calling, poisoning the well, and so forth that they should be used in critical thinking classes as examples of what not to do. That’s why one columnist referred to him as “the stupid man’s smart person.”

Peterson Doesn’t Like Women

I know. Bold accusation. But you only need to watch this video to see his open hostility to interviewer Helen Lewis, who is polite and respectful. Just watch the first ten minutes and every time he interrupts her take a shot (no, don’t, because you’ll be drunk in five minutes). During this interview, he repeats his claim that there is no patriarchy in Western culture, which is refuted by most sociologists and anthropologists. When pushed by Lewis to support this claim, his reasoning is “Cuz I said so.” (By the way, studies show that men consistently interrupt women.)

Peterson quit Twitter in May 2022 after the backlash from his tweet about Sports Illustrated’s plus-size swimsuit model Yumi Nu. His opinion: “Sorry. Not beautiful. And no amount of authoritarian tolerance is going to change that.” That sounds less like “The smartest mind in western civilization” and more like frat dudes cackling about her photo over beers. If you can read that tweet and still choose to follow him, then congratulations, your grooming is complete and you now have no critical thinking abilities left.

Two points need to be addressed. First, even if he wanted to make a larger point about beauty standards in Western culture, why do it in such a cruel and insulting way? Ridiculing a woman for her looks doesn’t lead to insight—nor is it the behavior of anyone most people would want to associate with. Starting his vitriol with an insincere “Sorry” is what middle schoolers do. Second, he’s making an unsupportable claim that there is only one unchanging standard of beauty—and he’s the guy in charge of deciding what that is. Pretty damn authoritarian, Jordy. Not to mention historically inaccurate.

Peterson’s Utopia of Idiocracy

Peterson's homespun homilies mixed with dense academic jargon lures his unsuspecting followers into junk thinking. Like Trump and all other grifters exploiting their followers for the money, they portray themselves as outsiders (millionaire outsiders) and martyrs (though they sacrifice nothing), all while telling their audience exactly what they want to hear.

That's dangerous for them--and for the country.

The New Hotness: Jordan Peterson

So it seems like Jordan Peterson is everywhere now, from Fox News to Bill Maher to multiple events with Sam Harris.

I think it is worth remembering that the thing that made Jordan Peterson famous -- the issue for which he was willing to go to jail -- was his insistence on being disrespectful and rude to trans individuals.

I completely understand why the reactionary right loves Peterson. But I don't understand why anyone who claims to respect human rights would give him a platform. Why would you help advance the career of someone fundamentally dedicated to intolerance?

It is baffling. The only think I can come up with is tribalism -- Maher and Harris have been attacked by members on the left, so they see Peterson (and Charles Murray) as brothers-in-arms.

Tribalism is a very strong force, even among those who claim to be dedicated to reason and equality.

Regarding Jordan Peterson

"Arguably the most manipulative feature of 12 Rules for Life is the author’s repeated reference to procreation as the driving force of human behavior: time and again this or that proposition is supported by reference to the mating patterns of humans or animals. Given that so many of his readers appear to be young men struggling with masculinity issues, this is fiendishly clever in its appeal to their deepest insecurities: reinvent yourself as a brutal Nietzschean strongman and you’ll get some. (The patriarchal loathing for women implicit in this formulation — which presents them as markers of success or failure, rather than people to be connected with on a human level — hardly needs spelling out.)

"The world is full of snake oil salesmen; why should this one concern us particularly? Because male self-pity is a killer. There’s a white supremacist in the White House, and far-rightist violence — both Islamic and Anglo-Saxon — is a clear and present threat. In the wake of yet another mass shooting in the United States — the high school massacre in Parkland, Florida, where a teenage gunman has taken 17 innocent lives — it’s high time we gave up the complacent pretense that toxic machismo is merely an adolescent affectation or a symptom of some nebulous thing called “mental illness.” Yes, it’s a pathology; but it’s also an ideology, a system of thought in its own right, with its own intellectuals and proselytizers. In the current climate it behooves us to be extra vigilant about the creeping normalization of reactionary chauvinism, and call it out when we see it. What happens in the realm of discourse has consequences in the real world.

"Admittedly it’s not always easy to distinguish between a harmless retro eccentric and a peddler of poisonous and potentially murderous ideas. So let’s take stock: Masculinist persecution myth? Check. Repeated appeals to Darwinism to justify social hierarchies? Check. A left-wing conspiracy to take over the culture? Check. Romanticization of suffering? Check. Neurotic angst about “chaos”? Check. Like many of his sort, Peterson sees himself as a defender of the best traditions of Western civilization and the Enlightenment. But there is an old adage: if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it’s a duck."

See also: Jordan Peterson or Islamist Cleric?

Sexism part 1 (plus homophobia plus Jordan Peterson)

Over the Rhine - "Ohio"

When I was at the University of Cincinnati, I drove through Over the Rhine very often. 

Imagine if a dude in his 20s started a relationship with an 8th-grade boy, and then married as soon as the kid turned 18. It would be non-stop on the media as proof that "the gays" are "grooming" our children.

But this "pastor" can publicly celebrate his de facto pedophilia:

PS: How mentally ill is Jordan Peterson? Seriously - he needs help, not worshipful incels:

The Least Self-Aware Guru

Please check out Hannah Ritchie's latest about food production. (Don't read the comments.)

Also, the latest Freakonomics could literally save your life. tl;dr - wrongly thinking you are allergic to penicillin can lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering and death. Who knew?

We interrupt my attempts to be more positive for a bit of venting:

Our hero Sam Harris has a new, long Substack post (won't link to) bemoaning that fire hit his very rich neighborhood. He uses his platform to call on billionaires to give away their money to rebuild his wealthy neighborhood. 

Note: This multi-multi-millionaire did not and is not calling on billionaires to give away their money to the poor, nor to the disease-stricken, nor to those who have actually lost everything. No; only after his daughter's school partly burned did Sam call on billionaires to give away their money.

[I also found this commentary on Sam's post to be spot-on:

His claim that "If what someone's done to accumulate wealth isn't illegal we shouldn't be mad about it" is so mind-numbingly stupid that I had to stop and make sure I hadn't misread it. ... "We shouldn't resent the uber wealthy for dodging taxes that pay for things like public infrastructure and disaster relief. However, they should be nice and donate their money for disaster relief and public infrastructure where I live." 

The Sam Harris of 1930: "Sure we know they built their fortunes off of child labor in factories in mines, but that's legal and everything that's legal is okay (and everything that's illegal is bad!) so we can't get mad at them for having money. Don't get mad at rich people, that makes me sad!"]

In Sam's honor, here are some relevant past posts:

From 2018:

In the latest "Ask Me Anything," Sam was asked about the person who wanted to change his age from 69 to 49. In his answer, Sam compared him to the white con-woman who posed as black, and then to trans people. He concluded that we don't allow people to change their age merely because not enough people are "clamoring to do so."

Once again, Sam's lack of empathy and insight is astounding. This person wants to change his age to benefit himself. No one comes out as trans to benefit themselves. 2018 has had the most murders of trans people in the United States ever, and a similar rise in the rate of violence against trans individuals. This is not to mention what many trans people go through with family and in the workplace.

Hey Sam -- how many people are beaten to death for turning a certain age?

That Sam could even consider for a second that there is some equivalence between "feeling younger" and being trans -- let alone go on the record saying so -- is, to my mind, extraordinarily damning of Sam as a "thinker."

...

And again, in the AMA Sam claimed it was important that we see how unfairly celebrities have been treated by #MeToo, because "They are the canary in the coal mine." But what was his example of the great injustice? That people were mean to Matt Damon on Twitter.

It would appear that Sam's algorithm is simple: How will issue X affect well-off straight white men? More and more, it seems to me that is Sam's only concern in the world. He's become a new Jordan Peterson, just telling straight white men what they want to hear. How else can you possibly explain his contention that cross-burning darling of the KKK Charles Murray is "the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there."

PS: Another white guy pines for a time when only white guys had power.

Also from 2018:

Excerpts from Ezra Klein's interview with Sam Harris:

Sam: I’m in the, once again, having the bewildering experience of agreeing with virtually everything you said there, and yet it has basically no relevance to what I view as our underlying disagreement.

Ezra: You have that bewildering experience because you don’t realize when you keep saying that everybody else is thinking tribally, but you’re not, that that is our disagreement.

Sam: Well, no, because I know I’m not thinking tribally ... It’s not tribalism. This is an experience of talking about ideas in public. ... That is not identity politics. That is my experience as a public intellectual trying to talk about ideas.

Ezra: That is what folks from the dominant group get to do. They get to say, my thing isn’t identity politics, only yours is. I will tell you, Sam, when people who do not look like you hear you telling them that this is just identity politics, they don’t think, “God he’s right. That is just identity politics.” They think this is my experience and you don’t understand it. You just said it’s your experience and they don’t understand it.

Shorter Sam Harris: The only people who are being honest are me -- a well-off white guy -- and those who agree with me. Everyone else who doesn't agree is lying about "the data" and just playing politically-correct identity politics.

And what is the tragedy here? What is the worst thing that deserves our attention and must be addressed? Hundreds of years of racial oppression and violence? Unarmed people being shot? Study after study showing continued racial discrimination?

No. It is a very rich, very famous, very influential white cross-burning guy being disliked by some people on the left. Again, Sam Harris:

I hadn’t paid attention to [Charles] Murray. When I did read the book and did some more research on him, I came to think that he was probably the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there.

Wow.

From 2019:

There are some people, like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, who I think very actively cause more suffering in the world (and, sadly, are enabled by lots of "reasonable" people who care more about congeniality than consequences).

However, Sam Harris just makes me sad. I still start [again: 2019] many of his podcasts because he has interesting people (for example Andrew McAfee). But I was dismayed to hear that not only does he add a preface to his interviews, Harris has now added a postscript to make it more about him -- and to attack his guests when they aren't able to reply. This continues to undermine his contention that "conversation" [sic] is the most important tool we have (a belief I don't share).

What is much worse, however, is Harris' incredible close-mindedness. He is utterly convinced that he has all truth. He contends that any other perspective isn't just wrong but also the root of everything bad (i.e., Hillary lost by refusing to condemn Islam as Sam does). His sneering and thoughtless denigrations of "The Left," "identity politics," and anyone who is "woke" are so childish that I am continually amazed that no one Sam respects will point that out to him. But it seems as though there are fewer and fewer people he respects. Anyone who has a different point of view is quickly dismissed out of hand. If you don't have Sam's well-off straight white male perspective, you need to "get over it." ...

I believe that Sam is right about free will -- that is, that everything that happens is just physics (chemistry, biology). I understand that Sam can't do any differently than his clueless arrogance. Worshipful echo chambers are powerful drugs. So I really should just "get over it" and not let it bother me. But at least as of today, it still does.

Is Sam Harris the Most Self-Centered Person in the World?

In the latest "Ask Me Anything," Sam was asked about the person who wanted to change his age from 69 to 49. In his answer, Sam compared it to the white con-woman who posed as black, and then to trans people. He concluded that we don't allow people to change their age merely because not enough people are "clamoring to do so."

Once again, Sam's lack of empathy and insight is astounding. This person wants to change his age to benefit himself. No one comes out as trans to benefit themselves. 2018 has had the most murders of trans people in the United States ever, and a similar rise in the rate of violence. This is not to mention what many trans people go through with family and in the workplace.

Hey Sam -- how many people are beaten to death for turning a certain age?

That Sam could even consider for a second that there is some equivalence between "feeling younger" and being trans -- let alone go on the record saying so -- is, to my mind, extraordinarily damning.

In the same AMA, Sam was asked about white privilege. His answer was mostly a long rant about "what about the privilege of a natural athlete??" He went on and on about how great it must be to be a natural athlete.

WTF?

Sam also revisited his interview with Rebecca Traister. Again, as he did in the intro to the podcast itself, he bemoaned the fact that he hadn't been able to interrupt Rebecca during the interview. Bizzare.

And again, in the AMA Sam claimed it was important that we see how unfairly celebrities have been treated by #MeToo, because "they are the canary in the coal mine." But what was his example of the great injustice? That people were mean to Matt Damon on Twitter.

It would appear that Sam's algorithm is simple: How will issue X affect well-off straight white men? More and more, it seems to me that is Sam's only concern in the world. He's become a new Jordan Peterson, just telling straight white men what they want to hear. How else can you possibly explain his contention that cross-burning darling of the KKK Charles Murray is "the most unfairly maligned person in my lifetime. That doesn’t really run the risk of being much of an exaggeration there."

PS: Another white guy pines for a time when only white guys had power.

The Path to Internet Fame

Green Day "Too Dumb to Die"

Takes ~30 seconds to get to actual song.
Dr. Who version. (We never got into Dr. Who - don't hate me!)

It is clear that a key way to become famous these days is to play to a sense of victimhood. The largest insatiable audience seems to be white males who lack success in some field (especially with women; please see this Atlantic article for more). 

Jordan Peterson is a vile example, but Bryan Caplan is the one I find more frustrating. He is clearly intelligent and only reacting to the fact that one of his pals was attacked by lunatics calling themselves feminists.

Obviously, I have great sympathy. As documented in Losing My Religions, crazed vegans have made my professional life miserable for decades. But that doesn't mean I write books saying "Don't be a vegan" or write endless columns about the persecution of non-vegans. Just because there are asshole vegans doesn't mean the cruelty of factory farms isn't a serious problem. 

It is simply sad the extent folks like Caplan will go to try to argue men have it worse off than women. Have they seen the world? What percentage of Presidents have been women? Vice Presidents? Senators? Justices? Legislators? Heads of Fortune 500 companies? (8.8%) Billionaires? (<10%) And women control less than 1% of global wealth. 

But yeah, the odds are stacked against men. 🙄

PS: Over on Substack, I came across a young blond philosopher named Matt. It appears that he has little to no luck with women, and he spends his time writing endless posts to prove he is smarter than anyone else. Like looking in a time-machine's mirror.  😬

The Enemy of My Enemy

My friends know I had been a Sam Harris fan.

I have appalled at how he and his views have been misrepresented by "the Left" regarding Islamism (e.g., saying he wants to nuke the Islamic world). But in my humble opinion, this dishonest vilification has left Mr. Harris with a soft spot -- even a blind spot -- for others who are vilified by "the Left."

This has led him to hitch his star to the loathsome Fox News commentator Jordan Peterson, who has claimed that feminists have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination.”

But nowhere has Sam's understandable hatred of the "politically correct" Left blinded him than his otherwise unimaginable determination to promote The Bell Curve author Charles Murray.

Ezra Klein at Vox has a new discussion of this bizarre bromance, which I learned about via an angry email from Sam Harris. Ezra's entire article is worth reading, especially the emphasis on history. But Ezra also gets at my main reaction to Sam Harris' podcast with Charles Murray: Why? Why write a book that, for all intents and purposes, claims blacks are simply dumber than whites? Why write a book for all the neo-Nazis and white supremacists?

Why?

Sam asked this of Charles three times in his podcast, and each time the answer was awful. Ezra quotes the transcript twice in the section "When questions about IQ become recommendations about social policy." I challenge anyone to read Murray's answers there and think he is an individual committed to human flourishing. To me, it reads of a white guy who doesn't like being taxed to try to address historical injustices and inequality.

If Murray isn't an actual overt racist, he's just another selfish white man who tries to "scientifically" argue that we should just let him keep all he's "earned" because trying to help disadvantaged groups is "futile."

And Sam: I think we should be careful about embracing and promoting someone so utterly beloved by avowed racists, even if that person happens to be attacked by the same people who attack you.

Not Only White Men (2/2)

A reader notes that I spend an inordinate amount of time going after white men (Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Bryan Caplan*) while specifically noting that they are white men. 

Obviously, not every white man is terrible; some of us are just egomaniacs. And not every terrible person is a white man, e.g., Tim Scott, Nikki Haley, Sarah Palin, Ben Carson, MTG, Boebert, Jill Stein, Amy Coney Handmaid's Tale, etc. etc. 

I don't know if a larger percentage of white men are terrible. Even though it seems like it, that could just be availability bias. But because of the patriarchy and centuries of institutional racism, the people who have a malicious impact on the course of human history are overwhelmingly white men.

Do I think my little rants will have any impact? I doubt it. But I do hope that readers will recognize that there is a large and impactful "white male victimhood" complex that is profitable and also normalizes hate and violence and murder. 

The party of law and order.

* More for Caplan's band of victims, via Tyler Cowen: Women around the world aren’t paid nearly enough

Sadness

There are some people, like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, who I think very actively cause more suffering in the world (and, sadly, are enabled by lots of "reasonable" people who care more about congeniality than consequences).

However, Sam Harris just makes me sad. I still start many of his podcasts because he has interesting people (for example Andrew McAfee). But I was dismayed to hear that not only does he do a preface to podcasts, Harris has now added a postscript to give more of his general thoughts -- and to attack his guests when they aren't able to reply. This continues to undermine his contention that "conversation" [sic] is the most important tool we have (a belief I don't share).

What is much worse, however, is Harris' incredible close-mindedness. He is utterly convinced he has all truth. He contends that any other perspective isn't just wrong but also the root of everything bad (i.e., Hillary lost by refusing to condemn Islam as Sam does). His sneering and thoughtless denigrations of "The Left," "identity politics," and anyone who is "woke" is so childish that I am continually amazed that no one Sam respects will point that out to him. But it seems as though there are fewer and fewer people he respects. Anyone who has a minority point of view is quickly dismissed out of hand. If you don't have Sam's well-off straight white male perspective, you need to "get over it."

Similarly, on the latest Real Time, Sam's pal and fellow egomaniac Bill Maher said that Bill and Howard Stern are the only two honest men in America. The arrogance of that statement is simply breathtaking.

I believe that Sam is right about free will -- that is, that everything that goes on is just, at its core, physics (chemistry, biology). I understand that he can't do any differently. Worshipful echo chambers are powerful influencers. So I really should just "get over it" and not let it bother me. But at least as of today, it still does.

So this is too far?

Sam Harris has given a platform to, and even celebrated, some of the worst people (e.g., Jordan Peterson, Charles Murray). But I hear now that Sam has "turned in" his "membership card" to the "Intellectual [sic] Dark Web" because some of his IDW pals have remained in the Trump camp even after the election. 

News flash to Sam: These folks were clearly dishonest and terrible even before now. I know it triggers you, but Ezra Klein was entirely right and reasonable regarding this. 

I know some of you ask why I care about Sam Harris. It is because he's been good on meditation and very good on the Catholic Church (1, 2) in a time when most people are cowed into silence about anything to do with Christianity. 

Sam Harris' Best Buddy

Sam hates on Black Lives Matters and continues to promote this guy:

Exposing Jordan Peterson’s Barrage of Revisionist Falsehoods About Hitler and Nazism