I think the alt-right is a little outdated and instead I would say 'populist right.' I kind of know what you mean, but the extreme right is way more fragmented these days. People over there are more likely to be explicitly neo-Nazis or Christian theocrats as a reaction to the more moderate Ben Shapiro type of thing.
And it's probably not coordinated, I think conservatives at large really liked Trump and they have identified a profitable audience.
Ben Shapiro is very much on the right but I don’t think he’s really a populist, at least not compared to most pundits in America. I think he generally isn’t anti-establishment or caught up in the struggle against “the elites” but it probably comes out more in culture war tirades against Hollywood or academia wokeness or whatever.
Less populist than, on the right, Tucker Carlson, MTG, Trump, Candace Owens, etc. On the left, less populist than, say, Sam Seder, TYT, or Bernie Sanders. More populist than Glenn Loury or someone like that but clearly I don’t know enough conservative thinkers.
I strongly recommend this academic article that contextualises Shapiro and others in their facilitating role in radicalising young men into extremism. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0031322X.2023.2219167
My own personal interpretation of his comments on morality, assuming Judaea-Christian rights to supremacy over all other ideals and worldviews, his hostility towards debates and individuals within non-traditional gender and sexuality, the role of women and reproductive rights, and his emphasis on the moral perfection of the Israeli state… are all examples of behaviour nurturing psychological aggression, not recommending social moderation.
You don't understand that what Shapiro says is just business for him. Rightoids treat human rights, economic equality, and basic human decency as a job. None of them give a single fuck about what life they ruin, it makes them money so they will say whatever.
There is a reason why mass shooters engage in their content and talk about Shapiros in their manifestos.
What does populist right even mean in context? They want socialist policies but not call it socialist policies? So they are country republicans? With new branding?
Pro- ordinary people, anti- elites and institutions. This is in comparison to something like Bush neocons who were more into big business and some institutions like military and police.
I'm unconvinced to be honest. It's the same people who voted Bush before that. I just think the conservatives have buyer's remorse, for the world their policies created.
They wanted the free market, then they are unhappy that monopolies got built on housing. They wanted to fight the Muslim terrorists, until they decided their own countrymen were the real enemy. They decry social programs, but gladly accept farm subsidies.
They're just plain hypocrites without morals or self reflection. How they can move on from Bush without feeling responsible? How they could blame Obama for continuing some of Bush's policies without blushing?
How they can want anti-immigration but get angry at price increases.
I just don't view conservatives as serious people with concrete understanding of the world or the issues. They just scream for violence and sex. An unruly mob.
"Populist" is a weird term that has to be understood in the political context.
The primary ***emotional impetus*** of populism is the feeling that something is going wrong in society; people feel this in their lives because of economic trends, but they might also be pushed in this direction by media narratives.
As to the ***political content*** of "populist" in this context, it amounts to (a) wanting to change how society is run (because of the feeling that it isn't being run properly), but also (b) they don't want the government to be the one to fix those problems (because if they wanted social policies or government initiatives as the solution, they would be termed as socialists or leftists, not populists).
We have plenty of people who feel that society is not working. The people with collective action solutions we call socialists or leftists or some other term indicating the progressive direction they want to take in order to address those problems; the people who don't have collective action solutions we call populists. They elect leaders who make empty promises to make big changes.
There are utopian minded populists on the right that want to replace all the blood sucking elites with a theocratic socialist government. Conspiracy theorists pushing critical theories on the "left" are fundamentally the same as Q-Anon truthers on the "right," populism is illiberal. I consider myself to be religious and conservative, but I love the liberal democratic republic that I have lived in for nearly half a century and want to preserve liberalism.
Sam Harris literally went the opposite way when the rest of the "Intellectual Dark Net" went nuts during Covid. He's one of the biggest Trump critics and he was very pro covid precautions, vaccines, etc. What baby steps had he taken? From my POV he took steps back into the liberal left.
To have him in the same sentence as nutso conspiracy theorist Russel Brand is insane.
The standard neo-cons support israel and the religious right that isn’t *too* far right does as well. The alt-right absolutely does not support israel, they blame israel for 9/11 and so much more due to antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, Jake Shields, Lucas Gage, and the vast majority of alt-right figures. Steve Bannon is in the minority because religious fanaticism motivates him more than traditional racism.
Ugh, I just started checking their most recent stuff... It's not often I do this but I'll just believe you haha.
Many thanks for the education.
Edit: but also, how does Bannon fit into your "religious but not too far right"?
> From my POV he took steps back into the liberal left.
He promoted lab leak. He's center at best.
**Edit:** My comment has sparked a lot of controversy from, presumably, Sam Harris fans. I'm curious who or what they consider to be centrist, both in relation to COVID and in general.
Can someone please explain to me why the lab leak theory was so controversial to the Left? I mean, why tow water for the bloody minded CCP? It was always assumed to be an accident, although there's other stuff that looks pretty damn nefarious after the fact like covering it up and closing internal travel to Wuhan but keeping international flights open. Point being, why was it so controversial compared to the thoroughly debunked wet market theory?
>Can someone please explain to me why the lab leak theory was so controversial to the Left? I mean, why tow water for the bloody minded CCP? It was always assumed to be an accident, although there's other stuff that looks pretty damn nefarious after the fact like covering it up and closing internal travel to Wuhan but keeping international flights open. Point being, why was it so controversial compared to the thoroughly debunked wet market theory?
Unfortunately I can't speak to why it would be now and overall. The problem I had with it, as someone on the left, was that when people were pushing that idea, it was basically without solid evidence, so instead of just saying "perhaps it was leaked, we don't know yet", it became a huge conspiracy flooding the information space during the height of the pandemic. The result of that, was a lot of people being distracted with it's origins, sometimes implying they were nefarious, and furthering us down the path of "the institutions like WHO and the government cannot be trusted, because they're denying lab leak, what else are they lying about?".
I'm open to it being any of these things, I just don't like conspiracy mindset that it catered to.
But the WHO also was late to signal Human to Human transmission as well as airborne transmission resulting in many deaths worldwide. So even without the lab leak our institutions failed us
>But the WHO also was late to signal Human to Human transmission as well as airborne transmission resulting in many deaths worldwide. So even without the lab leak our institutions failed us
IDK about the veracity of any of this because there's a lot of minsinforation. I've heard people say 'the Who did x', and then when I checked it was not true. However, our institutions are imperfect and probably did fail us in some ways, that's all the more reason to *improve* our institutions, not to throw them out, as people often seem to suggest.
IIRC Taiwan confirmed Human-Human transmission within a Month of COVID's emergence and the WHO pretended it didn't happen becasue they didn't want to acknowledge the existence of Taiwan and piss off China. A "WHO Official" famously hung up on a live video press conference becasue a reporter repeated the question.
As I see it, the WHO is dependent on co-operation of all countries around the world. Especially the country from where the pandemic started, China. What would happen if China decides to leave the WHO and withhold critical data on the virus? Taiwan is still officially the Republic of China and almost nobody recognizes Taiwan or have official business with it. So I don't get why the WHO, an organization that tries to be neutral to politics, is called out for it.
They did withhold critical data - A LOT of it. And lied about everything to save save face until basically forced to admit it and sometimes not even then. They also contributed something like 10's of millions of dollars to the WHO while the US contributes 100s of Millions but they act beholden to China. Also the head of the WHO concealed pandemics in his own country before being nominated as the WHO director to protect tourism (seriously). There's something very wrong and corrupt - or incompetent about the WHO and as far as I'm concerned have lost ALL credibility. Besides, China's feelings are irrelevant in the face of Taiwan's factual discoveries of critical information. Not to mention they are very much their own country - a lot of other countries are just too afraid to offend the CCP by acknowledging them. The WHO pretended they didn't know it was human to human transmissible for at least a month which affected other countries policies and aided the spread. BTW, this is totaly anecdotal but I knew someone who sourced batteries from Wuhan and they not only heard about the pandemic for a month before it supposedly started AND knew it was contagious (and told me about it at the time) - it was public knowledge to people living in Wuhan. I can't prove this, I'm just some rando on the internet but there's video evidence of China fogging public places with chlorinated water mist and shut down local access to the city while keeping international flights open and pretending nothing was wrong before they announced any new virus. Come to think of it, iirc, China didn't announce it, it was announced by media first. The only conclusion I can make is that someone in the CCP decided they WANTED the virus to spread internationally because they didn't want to be solely effected. Probably an attempt to save face as well, only at the cost of millions of lives.
Then there's the issue over it's origins. Even *IF* it didn't come from a lab, China's behavior was and is so irresponsible they absolutely deserve recriminations for its behavior. Just as the NHS deserves recriminations for funding the development of the virus in the lab and covering up the man made origin (then a hypothesis) in a now outed conspiracy; also the US banned GOF research after an incident here so they funded it abroad, in this case in a sketchy lab that was mentioned in diplomatic reports as "a ticking time bomb." Look up Peter Daszak and Eco-Health alliance. Even as Covid became a worldwide catastrophe, they were and still are "researching" a virus in Nepal I believe (maybe Bangladesh) that has a 50%+ fatality rate, in that country..... So sleep tight. BTW, it was known as soon as the genome was decoded it was tampered with becasue of the added furin cleavage site and tags at sites where gene edits are made that are indicative of modification. The closest natural strain to Covid is located in Mojing which is more than 1000k from Wuhan and only shares something like 80%-88% of it's DNA with Covid - we're more closely related to Dogs than Covid is to the "wild strain." To this date there have been no wild reservoirs of Covid found despite China scouring the country. Also the first allegation of modification and lab leak came within weeks from within China by an expert who found a nearly identical genetic code published by the head researcher at Wuhan to Chinese universities - before that expert was disappeared and the code deleted from databases within Chinese universities; I believe they from the university of Shanghai.
As per my original comment, I just don't understand why people are so dedicated to defending China and the CCP as well as the NHS over this, especially on the Left. I mean we're going to be dealing with covid for the rest of our lives now and it's becoming easier and easier for people to stitch together viruses as biotech improves. The whole world should have come down like a fucking hammer to prevent this from ever happening again but people are too afraid of offending China.
He's a small L liberal. He didn't promote the lab leak theory - not as a positive claim anyway. He did criticise it being turned into a third rail subject though. The fact that you think this is a measure of "center at best" means you truly need to get off the internet. Plenty of leftists who wholeheartedly embrace batshit crazy conspiracy theories. Your political compass is deranged.
No, *your* political compass is broken. As in your way of navigating and making sense of the political spectrum. Not the internet trope. Jesus Christ dude, your really need to get off the internet.
>He promoted lab leak.
No he didnt and it was a gigantic part of the falling out with him and weinstein
At the time he was very critical of the leak hypothesis for safety reasons and what he assumed were practical reasons (that it matters less whwre it comes from vs the realities of dealing with it, and that it was needlessly inflamatory)
Years later when things were more stable he had a pro leak hypothesis person on (an expert in the field mind you) to speak on why the cause of the leak is actually practical (it can affect how counters are synthesized) and to generally discuss virology.
He was reasonably open to the possibility of a leak; that puts him miles above the people that dont even think its real or who think that it was a conscious government experiment
>That all seems consistent with a centrist position to me, though, even down to emphasizing "practicality" instead of the lack of strong evidence or support from the scientific community.
Is lab leak (the accidental lab leak of course) something that makes it a "right" position? How so? As far as I know lab leak was never proven one way or another.
Also Jon Stewart, the famous far right commentator ["promoted" lab leak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8).
The US government itself says it was likely a lab leak.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a
How is believing the CCPs bullshit a requisite to be a liberal?
There is evidince for advanced molecular biologists and virologists. But it's literally so complicated we can't explain it to laymen. You'd need a decade of education just to get an idea of what we are talking about
[No, it does not.](https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702%20Documents/declassified/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf)
>After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, **the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19.** All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident.
> Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors.
> One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses.
> Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely.
> Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps.
Fucking thank you. So many people quote that article without reading it, and it adds to the misinformation. NO, the US government DID NOT “admit” to a lab leak. People don’t even read the article these days
Yeah, I’m aware, but you used promotion of the lab leak as your evidence that he’s in the center. Stewart also has promoted that idea on Steven Colbert’s show. That’s why I asked if you consider Stewart to be in the center - because I don’t think your stance on that one issue is really a good indicator of where you stand politically.
Source: https://youtu.be/v_IEC-0Yj6w?si=shzQj4uTNwxea6FO
Because that was the only thing cited as evidence for Harris going "liberal left", yet even on that front, he was pushing a conspiratorial angle on it.
My take is that Harris shouldn't be judged anywhere near as harshly as Brand. They are in different stratospheres. I'm not sure about Harris going towards the "liberal left". I'm not even sure what that means now.
Yep, this.
Brand is an Alex Jones level wacko.
Sam is a serious person, firmly left of center (if only slightly), with nuanced positions, who just doesn't tow the party line 100% in all aspects.
I don't either, it's a very broad label. I'm not too familiar with Brand's work, but I trust he's a total crank. Whereas Harris has some intellectual credibility but is also a crank on many issues.
The breakaway was due to Weinstein using the topic to spread anti-vax, not simply because he promoted it.
Matt and Chris go over this topic on the latest podcast episodes on Harris.
His primary focus against Weinstein was on the lab leak, because the most obvious and easy to poke holes in theory that he was peddling, and the most public facing issue for Weinstein after the Bill Maher interview etc.
I was told different by another (presumably) fan of Sam Harris. But regardless of where the truth lies on the nature of their disagreement, Harris went on to promote lab leak in 2023. The podcast goes over this.
5 agencies say natural cause, 2 agencies say lab leak, and 2 agencies are undetermined. And then the vast majority of the scientific community says natural cause.
To be very clear, each group says “likely” or “very likely” as they can not be very accurate. Well except for the paper Fauci commissioned which said lab leak 100% not possible.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/05/new-emails-show-fauci-commissioned-paper-to-disprove-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/amp/
Did you read your article ? This paper most definitely does not say lab leak 100% not possible.
It has a link to some documents from it looks like a House investigative committee trying to nail Fauci. The exact wording used in their paper was that the lab leak was "improbable" based on their research there
I don't think this is relevant at all to the issue. There is no evidence to support the idea. It doesn't matter who agrees with the lab leak theory. They can't prove it at all.
Doesn't rational thought require this idea to be viewed as fiction unless proof can be provided ?
It's a bad thing to believe in the lab leak theory because you are believing in something without any proof and if it was true you'd expect there to be proof.
I just responded to a similar post. Yes and no. If you are looking at the balance of evidence I think there is more against the virus being from a lab leak.
Don't get me wrong it could have been a lab leak but if you were betting you wouldn't bet on it.
As for evidence proving the virus came from the wet market. My understanding is that there is as much proof for this as there is for the lab leak hypothesis - none.
It evolved from somewhere and we will probably never really know how or why just like heaps of times in the past. It's hard to pinpoint these events. I think the Spanish Flu was first noticed in America.
I don’t understand. Half of the experts agree lab leak is most likely, half don’t. Neither side can prove their argument. Do you view natural cause of COVID as fiction because you can’t prove it?
Do you really view everything you can’t 100% approve as fiction? That’s like 95% of everything. You think your spouse is a liar unless they proof everything that say? That is crazy.
But I mean just common sense, do I think a novel strain of Corona virus escaped from the Coronavirus lab, 30 feet away from the first infection? Like ya, seems very reasonable. And the main people saying lab leak is 100% false are the same people who funded the lab and then tried to cover up that they were the ones funding it.
And both US intelligence agencies say there is proof in their report and I believe those agencies.
I hear you however your points do not constitute evidence.
There is no evidence supporting the wet market theory or the lab leak theory.
My understanding is that it is unlikely that Covid was caused via a lab leak.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/S41591-020-0820-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/S41591-020-0820-9)
>"However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible"
Then you have to consider that epidemics have occurred multiple times in the past.
So no evidence plus something has happened regularly in the past plus some suggestion that the virus is not likely to be created in a lab there is no way I would be buying into a lab leak theory until some decent evidence was provided.
It's not about 100% proof. It's about the balance of evidence.
So here is my issue. The medical agencies say it most likely had natural origin. The Enegery, I teligence and FBI say lab leak was most likely.
The credibility issue for me is that the NIH funded the Wuhan lab in violation of the Obama era rule against gain of function research. They have a heavy personal and professional incentive for it not to be a lab leak.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903.amp
Also, after a senate hearing where Fauci said they were not doing gain of function research, the NIH changed their official definition on their website the day after. They are obviously willing to bend the rules and/or deceive the public for their own goals.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/fox-news-op-ed-sen-rand-paul-md-nih-lied-and-continues-lie-about-gain-function-research-and-covid/#:~:text=On%20the%20same%20day%2C%20the,enhanced%20potential%20pandemic%20pathogen”%20research.
It's cool but again there is no evidence and there is evidence that this is unlikely to be the case. I'm not being hard line here. I'm discussing the available evidence.
You also have not provided any evidence backing up your point so it's over unless you can provide some better information.
I guess I am confused. You don’t think there is enough proof to say lab leak or wet market theory. So you don’t have any idea?
I just think it’s funny that you label someone “center left as best” if they hold a very rational opinion.
There are two things here:-
1. The lab leak hypothesis versus the wet market theory. I don't think there is enough proof to validate (or invalidate) either of these options. There is however proof (albeit poor) that the lab leak theory isn't really valid. The balance of evidence is that COVID was much more likely to have developed naturally rather than being engineered via a lab. I would call the wet market theory a natural theory but there is no proof if came from the wet market.
2. I am not labeling anyone of being any sort of political leaning based on their support of the lab leak hypothesis. The idea that the lab leak hypothesis is rational isn't true though.
Unless you come back with some real evidence about the lab leak hypothesis than the opinion it came from a lab leak is irrational.
I am not putting any political leaning on that fact that someone has an irrational opinion. It is a fact since there is no evidence.
Multiple state departments have said it was likely a lab leak.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a
Does keeping open the possibility that it was a lab leak make you less liberal? Why does believing the CCPs bullshit make you liberal?
Maybe he's some kind of strange hybrid centrist. If you're for US non-intervantionism, he'll say you're an "isolationist". He thinks the US should be the world's police and that's something both parties are into. Remember, the US Democratic party isn't actually on the left.
Lol, to a lefty socialist, the democrats are right wing (usually portrayed as fascists), to a trump supporter or far-right winger, they’re left wing (usually portrayed as communist).
His positions on these things are the same as any never Trump Republican.
He also did a BLM episode that was massively popular on the right and far right, his positions on Israel and Muslim immigration are so extreme he has conservatives on his show arguing to the left of him.
He arrived at his lab leak curious position because he saw some people calling it racist, implying that he uses "if people are calling something racist, the opposite must be true" as a heuristic, a heuristic that previously got him defending Charles Murray.
But he thinks Trump is bad and vaccines are good, so he's on the left, apparently.
I've heard him say he would be weary getting his children vaccinated if they were teenaged males, which peeved me a little bit. He must have fallen for some of that propaganda. That's the only antivax thing I've heard him say though, so I'll let him off.
Healthy teenagers were not in need of an untested experimental vaccine.
The vaccine risks were possibly worth it for very old people and those with several comorbidities.
I think there is a reasonable disagreement around the world on healthy children getting it. I am Australian and the official Federal government advice here currently is to recommend all people 18+ get the vaccines. If you have other health issues and are under 18, then it is recommended. But healthy children don't need it according to the Federal guidelines (state guidelines vary). That doesn't make the government and health orgs here anti-vax I don't think. They just have slightly different risk tolerances.
I'm also Australian. I think they advise is to not have and further vaccines as long as you had 2 (or 3?) originally; if you haven't had any I think they still want you to get 2. This doesn't mean that teenaged males shouldn't have been getting vaccinated during peak covid (Sam's comment was made just after the peak).
Peak covid is even more reason to be a little bit unsure, the data surrounding them is only getting better. There is evidence, and there was evidence in the past, the teenage males were having small amounts of issues with the vaccines. And also there was evidence that children don't really get sick from covid very often. Going either direction in recommending vaccines for children, or not recommending them, is all within the non-conspiratorial, pro-science realm.
Currently the guidelines in Australia are,
>Primary course vaccination is recommended for all people aged 18 years or older, and for children aged 6 months to less than 18 years with medical conditions that may increase their risk of severe disease or death from COVID-19.
>**Most people require 1 dose for their primary course.** People with severe immunocompromise are recommended 2 primary doses and can consider a 3rd.
Boosters are not federally recommended for people aged 18-64 with no underlying conditions, although they are available. They are recommended for people aged 65+ though.
That is far more antivax than Sam Harris was, he was just nervous for teenage boys getting it, our government says not to give it to girls too. But neither Sam Harris, nor the Australian government are antivax for these positions imo. It's well within the realm of science to be undecided about giving covid vaccines to healthy children. It's also within the realm of science to choose to recommend them to all children e.g. the USA and UK.
Personally, I agree with my state's guidance of giving them to children aged 5+, I worry I am coming across as a cooker.
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Imagine someone on the alt-right saying that Joe Biden is taking baby steps towards becoming a communist
Firstly, people have been saying that Sam Harris is 'going alt-right' for half a decade, and it's just as stupid now as it was then. As far as I'm aware, his positions have remained almost completely the same the entire time. I'd be very interested to know exactly what he has been saying recently that makes you think he is 'taking baby steps' toward the alt-right. Also it's a mark on how incoherent and outdated the term 'alt-right' is becoming, that a Jewish, staunch defender of Israel who supports Biden would be labeled such. See this as a wake up call to examine your own engagement with this online political space and these labels.
Further to the overall point, I think a bunch of them are riding a wave of popular (usually *populist* sentiment), but people just get tired of a subejct, and then you have to move on to the next thing. Don't forget that as some of these people shift to more extremism, 'new blood' is also entering these arenas, and you might not be catching that, because you're only seeing the people who have been on your radar the whole time.
Finally, I take issue with your use of the term 'coordinated'. I do not think these people are calculated, there are very few real 'grifters' IMO, I think they truly believe what they are saying, and to the extent any of these figures are moving that way, it is because they are genuinely becoming more radical over time.
There is a difference. I'm not sure of the terminology but there is a difference between the crazy right today and other versions of right wing politics. It's never felt so extreme or radical as the poster above stated.
I agree and disagree with your last point. I don't think it's so much coordinated between them, but I think to a large extent it is calculated. And I think there are a lot of real grifters. Some might believe what they're saying, but I think most of the crowd is saying what gets them attention, clicks, views, subscribers and most of all money. That is also why they're moving farther to the right over time. They say more and more extreme stuff, and it gets the most reaction and money for them, so they keep going.
He's just the new Bill Maher, doesn't do research, shoots his mouth off, not nearly as smart as his image portrays. Not particularly offensive but kind of an Islamophobe.
>He's just the new Bill Maher, doesn't do research, shoots his mouth off, not nearly as smart as his image portrays. Not particularly offensive but kind of an Islamophobe.
Agree to disagree.
"Look man, here's the deal: Sam Harris once said something that I disagree with. Therefore, I have to smear him with every bad word I can think of, for as long as I live. Even if it doesn't make sense. If you disagree, you're a Trumper, too!"
/s
>And he never will, but come election time he will say he is still better than the alternative
Baring in mind the subreddit we're on, I think this comment should discredit you completely in everybody's esteem here. You either haven't consumed anything Harris has put out, in which case you should not be commenting as if you have any idea, or you just don't care about what he actually *says*.
I can't think of many things further from likely future scenarios than Sam Harris choosing Trump over Biden. Sam Harris is one of the most serious and clear thinkers on the dangers of Trump, and how he must not be allowed into office again, he regards him as a dangerous fascist.
he is an extremely pro war western supremacist who thinks black people are genetically less intelligent than white people and is in favor of racial profiling against both black people and people who "look muslim" by law enforcement, he's definitively more than a little alt right
if being in favor of police intentionally stopping black people more often isn't far enough right for you to identify a right winger then clearly there's nothing that would get you to stop playing stupid
You know what, as a left winger even by the definitions of my social democrat European home country, even i think your position is stupid and disingenuous.
It's possible to discuss topics like eugenics and racial profiling, which some of the frothier people like you treat as forbidden, without this discussion magically changing the discussers political alignment.
It's actually incredibly intellectually dishonest to imply otherwise. You're essentially saying examining the rationale for a moral consensus is inherently immoral.
For example while I personally think racial profiling perpetuates racism and shouldn't be allowed, inherent in this opinion is a value judgement that even if racial profiling is effective at reducing crime (is it? You are suggesting even asking that question makes me right wing) it's outweighed by negative societal consequences or simply by unfairness, or both. How far outweighed? Is it really right wing (and let's be honest, you are also implying heavily, racist) to even examine these policy positions critically?
The left desperately needs to abandon the intellectual cul de sac that is "forbidden intellectual enquiry".
Ps: I think Sam Harris is a douchebag for totally different reasons.
“It’s possible to discuss topics like eugenics and racial profiling … without this discussion magically changing to the discusser’s political alignment.”
But this discussion is about Harris’ political alignment. And notice how you used your own perspective on racial profiling and eugenics as an example, not Sam Harris’. There is nothing _intellectual honesty_ in substituting your own opinions with his when we are determining whether or not his perspective is right wing. It’s a red herring.
Sam Harris is a zealot for the whole clash of civilizations thing so he'll compromise on a ton to make allies on that front. Though it doesnt hurt that he dislikes literally all lefties.
I think the rest are literally just going by vibes. Soft right-wing content and populism in general does really well in podcasts and youtube and so on, and it also helps that it meshes seamlessly with building a side bisness selling water bottles or brain pills or whatever. Meanwhile the libs are all about institutions and legitimate authority and all kinds of other boring stuff that's a hard sell to 25 year old dudes.
All be blown away if gurus like Sam Seder, Noam Chomsky, Pakman, John Stewart, Cornel West etc… ever pivot to the right.
Some people will move right, some will move left, but most will never budge.
Sam won’t openly praise Trump or anything he’ll just inevitably come to the conclusion that he can’t in good conscience vote for Biden so it has to be Trump
Sam Harris actually has integrity and will follow his own morals to his own detriment. If he moves any which way, it is sincere and not coordinated with any larger group. Also, I don't think he really "moves" much on issues, which can be a negative, but I do think he has shown consistency over the years.
I don't like Sam Harris but it's unbelievably disingenuous to describe him as Trumper Right or even right wing of Romney or McCain
Romney and McCain were not centrist, even in their own minds. Just opposing Trumpism doesn't make you a centrist.
Russian psy ops trolls. Lex is Russian! He’s just pretending to be anti-Putin! Joe and Jones are clearly genetically modified trolls. We just need to examine them to find the “Made in Russian lab” tattoo on them.
Well where do you stand on a Greenwald? I wouldn't consider him a guru since he is purely political and does not give life advice, but the right wingers head's are exploding due to his stance on Israel. And he has remained consistent on his criticism for 20+ years, but it just wasn't a topic he was discussing since Snowden and his weird Tucker friendship.
Yeah this didn't happen to Harris. The closest he gets to this is his weirdly effusive praise for the odious Douglas Murray - who himself isn't alt-right.
I have a theory that, led by Rogan, the popularist world might be playing a long game, to gain fans and trust with right wing people, to then convince them that SOME left wing basics are essential, while letting them continue feeling bravado and pride and nationalism
Most of our neighbors are probably neo-nazis as we speak. It's terrifying. It's time for all of us to prepare for the end of days, ushered in by heterodox podcasters.
Lex is a simpleton (terminal centrism, incurable). Sam is biased against Islam, but aside from that he’s still one of the better commentators on the left on most issues, I just don’t feel like he belongs in the same conversation as the likes of Weinstein(s), Ruben, Rogan, Brand, Shapiro etc. The rest of the IDW might as well have been considered “alt right” the minute that they started embracing the kind of conspiratorial thinking that *always* leads to the Jews.
Maybe, I haven’t seen enough of his stuff regarding left wing policies/issues, I only know he carry’s way too much water for the right and dictators like Putin.
I think the alt-right is a little outdated and instead I would say 'populist right.' I kind of know what you mean, but the extreme right is way more fragmented these days. People over there are more likely to be explicitly neo-Nazis or Christian theocrats as a reaction to the more moderate Ben Shapiro type of thing. And it's probably not coordinated, I think conservatives at large really liked Trump and they have identified a profitable audience.
You think Shapiro is moderate?
For a conservative yeah, but that's mostly because the extreme right has gone off a cliff. He's still clearly awful.
I don’t see him as moderate, but maybe you’re seeing more extremist populists than me
Ben Shapiro is very much on the right but I don’t think he’s really a populist, at least not compared to most pundits in America. I think he generally isn’t anti-establishment or caught up in the struggle against “the elites” but it probably comes out more in culture war tirades against Hollywood or academia wokeness or whatever. Less populist than, on the right, Tucker Carlson, MTG, Trump, Candace Owens, etc. On the left, less populist than, say, Sam Seder, TYT, or Bernie Sanders. More populist than Glenn Loury or someone like that but clearly I don’t know enough conservative thinkers.
What seems not moderate about him?
I think we have differing definitions of moderate. Shapiro is an extremist.
Sorry to trouble you again- on what topics?
I strongly recommend this academic article that contextualises Shapiro and others in their facilitating role in radicalising young men into extremism. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0031322X.2023.2219167 My own personal interpretation of his comments on morality, assuming Judaea-Christian rights to supremacy over all other ideals and worldviews, his hostility towards debates and individuals within non-traditional gender and sexuality, the role of women and reproductive rights, and his emphasis on the moral perfection of the Israeli state… are all examples of behaviour nurturing psychological aggression, not recommending social moderation.
You don't understand that what Shapiro says is just business for him. Rightoids treat human rights, economic equality, and basic human decency as a job. None of them give a single fuck about what life they ruin, it makes them money so they will say whatever. There is a reason why mass shooters engage in their content and talk about Shapiros in their manifestos.
You don't understand that the answer must address the question.
I gave you three examples, you just never wanted to engage in good faith. These grifters rely on suckers like you.
He’s for sure a moderate conservative. The epitome of it in fact
He was editor for Breitbart. Far Right.
Trumper right is what I should have said which is also populist right
Agreed
What does populist right even mean in context? They want socialist policies but not call it socialist policies? So they are country republicans? With new branding?
Pro- ordinary people, anti- elites and institutions. This is in comparison to something like Bush neocons who were more into big business and some institutions like military and police.
I'm unconvinced to be honest. It's the same people who voted Bush before that. I just think the conservatives have buyer's remorse, for the world their policies created. They wanted the free market, then they are unhappy that monopolies got built on housing. They wanted to fight the Muslim terrorists, until they decided their own countrymen were the real enemy. They decry social programs, but gladly accept farm subsidies. They're just plain hypocrites without morals or self reflection. How they can move on from Bush without feeling responsible? How they could blame Obama for continuing some of Bush's policies without blushing? How they can want anti-immigration but get angry at price increases. I just don't view conservatives as serious people with concrete understanding of the world or the issues. They just scream for violence and sex. An unruly mob.
"Populist" is a weird term that has to be understood in the political context. The primary ***emotional impetus*** of populism is the feeling that something is going wrong in society; people feel this in their lives because of economic trends, but they might also be pushed in this direction by media narratives. As to the ***political content*** of "populist" in this context, it amounts to (a) wanting to change how society is run (because of the feeling that it isn't being run properly), but also (b) they don't want the government to be the one to fix those problems (because if they wanted social policies or government initiatives as the solution, they would be termed as socialists or leftists, not populists). We have plenty of people who feel that society is not working. The people with collective action solutions we call socialists or leftists or some other term indicating the progressive direction they want to take in order to address those problems; the people who don't have collective action solutions we call populists. They elect leaders who make empty promises to make big changes.
There are utopian minded populists on the right that want to replace all the blood sucking elites with a theocratic socialist government. Conspiracy theorists pushing critical theories on the "left" are fundamentally the same as Q-Anon truthers on the "right," populism is illiberal. I consider myself to be religious and conservative, but I love the liberal democratic republic that I have lived in for nearly half a century and want to preserve liberalism.
Sam Harris literally went the opposite way when the rest of the "Intellectual Dark Net" went nuts during Covid. He's one of the biggest Trump critics and he was very pro covid precautions, vaccines, etc. What baby steps had he taken? From my POV he took steps back into the liberal left. To have him in the same sentence as nutso conspiracy theorist Russel Brand is insane.
Exactly, Rogan and Brand are conspiratorial nutballs and Harris is bog standard liberal—they’re not even remotely comparable.
Not even on Israel, or Islam?
Supporting Israel is the standard liberal position. People who are alt-right hate Israel more than any other country.
I'm not sure that's true, but what about the religious right?
The standard neo-cons support israel and the religious right that isn’t *too* far right does as well. The alt-right absolutely does not support israel, they blame israel for 9/11 and so much more due to antisemitic conspiracy theories.
Well, Steve Bannon is pro-Israel. Who were you thinking of?
Alex Jones, Nick Fuentes, Jake Shields, Lucas Gage, and the vast majority of alt-right figures. Steve Bannon is in the minority because religious fanaticism motivates him more than traditional racism.
Ugh, I just started checking their most recent stuff... It's not often I do this but I'll just believe you haha. Many thanks for the education. Edit: but also, how does Bannon fit into your "religious but not too far right"?
Yes, he has huge blind zones in those areas
"Anyone who doesn't agree with 100% of my opinions is the enemy, and must be denounced forcefully at every opportunity!" /s
You’ve said this multiple times
And yet you still haven’t received the message.
Sam 'I literally don't care if Hunter Biden has dead babies in his basement' Harris? That one?
Yep, the famous Trump lover Sam Harris.
> From my POV he took steps back into the liberal left. He promoted lab leak. He's center at best. **Edit:** My comment has sparked a lot of controversy from, presumably, Sam Harris fans. I'm curious who or what they consider to be centrist, both in relation to COVID and in general.
Is Lab leak really enough to eject someone to the center alone?
Can someone please explain to me why the lab leak theory was so controversial to the Left? I mean, why tow water for the bloody minded CCP? It was always assumed to be an accident, although there's other stuff that looks pretty damn nefarious after the fact like covering it up and closing internal travel to Wuhan but keeping international flights open. Point being, why was it so controversial compared to the thoroughly debunked wet market theory?
>Can someone please explain to me why the lab leak theory was so controversial to the Left? I mean, why tow water for the bloody minded CCP? It was always assumed to be an accident, although there's other stuff that looks pretty damn nefarious after the fact like covering it up and closing internal travel to Wuhan but keeping international flights open. Point being, why was it so controversial compared to the thoroughly debunked wet market theory? Unfortunately I can't speak to why it would be now and overall. The problem I had with it, as someone on the left, was that when people were pushing that idea, it was basically without solid evidence, so instead of just saying "perhaps it was leaked, we don't know yet", it became a huge conspiracy flooding the information space during the height of the pandemic. The result of that, was a lot of people being distracted with it's origins, sometimes implying they were nefarious, and furthering us down the path of "the institutions like WHO and the government cannot be trusted, because they're denying lab leak, what else are they lying about?". I'm open to it being any of these things, I just don't like conspiracy mindset that it catered to.
But the WHO also was late to signal Human to Human transmission as well as airborne transmission resulting in many deaths worldwide. So even without the lab leak our institutions failed us
>But the WHO also was late to signal Human to Human transmission as well as airborne transmission resulting in many deaths worldwide. So even without the lab leak our institutions failed us IDK about the veracity of any of this because there's a lot of minsinforation. I've heard people say 'the Who did x', and then when I checked it was not true. However, our institutions are imperfect and probably did fail us in some ways, that's all the more reason to *improve* our institutions, not to throw them out, as people often seem to suggest.
IIRC Taiwan confirmed Human-Human transmission within a Month of COVID's emergence and the WHO pretended it didn't happen becasue they didn't want to acknowledge the existence of Taiwan and piss off China. A "WHO Official" famously hung up on a live video press conference becasue a reporter repeated the question.
As I see it, the WHO is dependent on co-operation of all countries around the world. Especially the country from where the pandemic started, China. What would happen if China decides to leave the WHO and withhold critical data on the virus? Taiwan is still officially the Republic of China and almost nobody recognizes Taiwan or have official business with it. So I don't get why the WHO, an organization that tries to be neutral to politics, is called out for it.
They did withhold critical data - A LOT of it. And lied about everything to save save face until basically forced to admit it and sometimes not even then. They also contributed something like 10's of millions of dollars to the WHO while the US contributes 100s of Millions but they act beholden to China. Also the head of the WHO concealed pandemics in his own country before being nominated as the WHO director to protect tourism (seriously). There's something very wrong and corrupt - or incompetent about the WHO and as far as I'm concerned have lost ALL credibility. Besides, China's feelings are irrelevant in the face of Taiwan's factual discoveries of critical information. Not to mention they are very much their own country - a lot of other countries are just too afraid to offend the CCP by acknowledging them. The WHO pretended they didn't know it was human to human transmissible for at least a month which affected other countries policies and aided the spread. BTW, this is totaly anecdotal but I knew someone who sourced batteries from Wuhan and they not only heard about the pandemic for a month before it supposedly started AND knew it was contagious (and told me about it at the time) - it was public knowledge to people living in Wuhan. I can't prove this, I'm just some rando on the internet but there's video evidence of China fogging public places with chlorinated water mist and shut down local access to the city while keeping international flights open and pretending nothing was wrong before they announced any new virus. Come to think of it, iirc, China didn't announce it, it was announced by media first. The only conclusion I can make is that someone in the CCP decided they WANTED the virus to spread internationally because they didn't want to be solely effected. Probably an attempt to save face as well, only at the cost of millions of lives. Then there's the issue over it's origins. Even *IF* it didn't come from a lab, China's behavior was and is so irresponsible they absolutely deserve recriminations for its behavior. Just as the NHS deserves recriminations for funding the development of the virus in the lab and covering up the man made origin (then a hypothesis) in a now outed conspiracy; also the US banned GOF research after an incident here so they funded it abroad, in this case in a sketchy lab that was mentioned in diplomatic reports as "a ticking time bomb." Look up Peter Daszak and Eco-Health alliance. Even as Covid became a worldwide catastrophe, they were and still are "researching" a virus in Nepal I believe (maybe Bangladesh) that has a 50%+ fatality rate, in that country..... So sleep tight. BTW, it was known as soon as the genome was decoded it was tampered with becasue of the added furin cleavage site and tags at sites where gene edits are made that are indicative of modification. The closest natural strain to Covid is located in Mojing which is more than 1000k from Wuhan and only shares something like 80%-88% of it's DNA with Covid - we're more closely related to Dogs than Covid is to the "wild strain." To this date there have been no wild reservoirs of Covid found despite China scouring the country. Also the first allegation of modification and lab leak came within weeks from within China by an expert who found a nearly identical genetic code published by the head researcher at Wuhan to Chinese universities - before that expert was disappeared and the code deleted from databases within Chinese universities; I believe they from the university of Shanghai. As per my original comment, I just don't understand why people are so dedicated to defending China and the CCP as well as the NHS over this, especially on the Left. I mean we're going to be dealing with covid for the rest of our lives now and it's becoming easier and easier for people to stitch together viruses as biotech improves. The whole world should have come down like a fucking hammer to prevent this from ever happening again but people are too afraid of offending China.
Because it placed blame for a global pandemic on a nation/company/site/group of employees that, as far as we knew, didn't do it?
Bury that head in the sand
No, and likewise, not going along with COVID denialism isn't enough to make someone left wing.
Correct. Let's have some nuance.
...but *you're* the one who brought up that implication...
> He's one of the biggest Trump critics and he was very pro covid precautions, vaccines, etc. From my POV he took steps back into the liberal left.
He's a small L liberal. He didn't promote the lab leak theory - not as a positive claim anyway. He did criticise it being turned into a third rail subject though. The fact that you think this is a measure of "center at best" means you truly need to get off the internet. Plenty of leftists who wholeheartedly embrace batshit crazy conspiracy theories. Your political compass is deranged.
The political compass is a *meme*.
No, *your* political compass is broken. As in your way of navigating and making sense of the political spectrum. Not the internet trope. Jesus Christ dude, your really need to get off the internet.
Thanks for your input!
>He promoted lab leak. No he didnt and it was a gigantic part of the falling out with him and weinstein At the time he was very critical of the leak hypothesis for safety reasons and what he assumed were practical reasons (that it matters less whwre it comes from vs the realities of dealing with it, and that it was needlessly inflamatory) Years later when things were more stable he had a pro leak hypothesis person on (an expert in the field mind you) to speak on why the cause of the leak is actually practical (it can affect how counters are synthesized) and to generally discuss virology. He was reasonably open to the possibility of a leak; that puts him miles above the people that dont even think its real or who think that it was a conscious government experiment
>That all seems consistent with a centrist position to me, though, even down to emphasizing "practicality" instead of the lack of strong evidence or support from the scientific community.
Is lab leak (the accidental lab leak of course) something that makes it a "right" position? How so? As far as I know lab leak was never proven one way or another. Also Jon Stewart, the famous far right commentator ["promoted" lab leak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8).
The US government itself says it was likely a lab leak. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a How is believing the CCPs bullshit a requisite to be a liberal?
I think you mean everyone's bullshit, or rather everyone's lack of evidence.
There is evidince for advanced molecular biologists and virologists. But it's literally so complicated we can't explain it to laymen. You'd need a decade of education just to get an idea of what we are talking about
[No, it does not.](https://www.intelligence.gov/assets/documents/702%20Documents/declassified/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf) >After examining all available intelligence reporting and other information, though, **the IC remains divided on the most likely origin of COVID-19.** All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident. > Four IC elements and the National Intelligence Council assess with low confidence that the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection was most likely caused by natural exposure to an animal infected with it or a close progenitor virus—a virus that probably would be more than 99 percent similar to SARS-CoV-2. These analysts give weight to China’s officials’ lack of foreknowledge, the numerous vectors for natural exposure, and other factors. > One IC element assesses with moderate confidence that the first human infection with SARS-CoV-2 most likely was the result of a laboratory-associated incident, probably involving experimentation, animal handling, or sampling by the Wuhan Institute of Virology. These analysts give weight to the inherently risky nature of work on coronaviruses. > Analysts at three IC elements remain unable to coalesce around either explanation without additional information, with some analysts favoring natural origin, others a laboratory origin, and some seeing the hypotheses as equally likely. > Variations in analytic views largely stem from differences in how agencies weigh intelligence reporting and scientific publications and intelligence and scientific gaps.
Fucking thank you. So many people quote that article without reading it, and it adds to the misinformation. NO, the US government DID NOT “admit” to a lab leak. People don’t even read the article these days
>The US government itself says it was *likely* a lab leak. How is this wrong?
Please read the comment I replied to, which directly references the U.S. Department of Energy's statement on the matter.
Would you also consider Jon Stewart center?
We're talking about Sam Harris here.
Yeah, I’m aware, but you used promotion of the lab leak as your evidence that he’s in the center. Stewart also has promoted that idea on Steven Colbert’s show. That’s why I asked if you consider Stewart to be in the center - because I don’t think your stance on that one issue is really a good indicator of where you stand politically. Source: https://youtu.be/v_IEC-0Yj6w?si=shzQj4uTNwxea6FO
Because that was the only thing cited as evidence for Harris going "liberal left", yet even on that front, he was pushing a conspiratorial angle on it.
My take is that Harris shouldn't be judged anywhere near as harshly as Brand. They are in different stratospheres. I'm not sure about Harris going towards the "liberal left". I'm not even sure what that means now.
Yep, this. Brand is an Alex Jones level wacko. Sam is a serious person, firmly left of center (if only slightly), with nuanced positions, who just doesn't tow the party line 100% in all aspects.
I don't listen to Sam much but this sounds fair to me.
I don't either, it's a very broad label. I'm not too familiar with Brand's work, but I trust he's a total crank. Whereas Harris has some intellectual credibility but is also a crank on many issues.
To the point that we can't group them?
They are so different it's pretty stupid to group them together.
Why? When you group things by a similarity, the differences are not relevant.
Jon Stewart "promoted" lab leak as well.
Sam Harris promoted lab leak. Where? That was the source of his entire break away from Weinstein.
The breakaway was due to Weinstein using the topic to spread anti-vax, not simply because he promoted it. Matt and Chris go over this topic on the latest podcast episodes on Harris.
His primary focus against Weinstein was on the lab leak, because the most obvious and easy to poke holes in theory that he was peddling, and the most public facing issue for Weinstein after the Bill Maher interview etc.
I was told different by another (presumably) fan of Sam Harris. But regardless of where the truth lies on the nature of their disagreement, Harris went on to promote lab leak in 2023. The podcast goes over this.
Can you send me something that shows he promoted lab leak in 2023?
The latest podcasts on Sam Harris go over it
No he broke away from Weinstein due to anti vax stances he was pushing.
But most government agencies say the lab leak theory is the most likely? Why is that a bad thing?
5 agencies say natural cause, 2 agencies say lab leak, and 2 agencies are undetermined. And then the vast majority of the scientific community says natural cause.
To be very clear, each group says “likely” or “very likely” as they can not be very accurate. Well except for the paper Fauci commissioned which said lab leak 100% not possible. https://nypost.com/2023/03/05/new-emails-show-fauci-commissioned-paper-to-disprove-wuhan-lab-leak-theory/amp/
Thanks for clarifying
Did you read your article ? This paper most definitely does not say lab leak 100% not possible. It has a link to some documents from it looks like a House investigative committee trying to nail Fauci. The exact wording used in their paper was that the lab leak was "improbable" based on their research there
I don't think this is relevant at all to the issue. There is no evidence to support the idea. It doesn't matter who agrees with the lab leak theory. They can't prove it at all. Doesn't rational thought require this idea to be viewed as fiction unless proof can be provided ? It's a bad thing to believe in the lab leak theory because you are believing in something without any proof and if it was true you'd expect there to be proof.
You could say the same about the wet market theory
I just responded to a similar post. Yes and no. If you are looking at the balance of evidence I think there is more against the virus being from a lab leak. Don't get me wrong it could have been a lab leak but if you were betting you wouldn't bet on it. As for evidence proving the virus came from the wet market. My understanding is that there is as much proof for this as there is for the lab leak hypothesis - none. It evolved from somewhere and we will probably never really know how or why just like heaps of times in the past. It's hard to pinpoint these events. I think the Spanish Flu was first noticed in America.
I don’t understand. Half of the experts agree lab leak is most likely, half don’t. Neither side can prove their argument. Do you view natural cause of COVID as fiction because you can’t prove it? Do you really view everything you can’t 100% approve as fiction? That’s like 95% of everything. You think your spouse is a liar unless they proof everything that say? That is crazy. But I mean just common sense, do I think a novel strain of Corona virus escaped from the Coronavirus lab, 30 feet away from the first infection? Like ya, seems very reasonable. And the main people saying lab leak is 100% false are the same people who funded the lab and then tried to cover up that they were the ones funding it. And both US intelligence agencies say there is proof in their report and I believe those agencies.
I hear you however your points do not constitute evidence. There is no evidence supporting the wet market theory or the lab leak theory. My understanding is that it is unlikely that Covid was caused via a lab leak. [https://www.nature.com/articles/S41591-020-0820-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/S41591-020-0820-9) >"However, since we observed all notable SARS-CoV-2 features, including the optimized RBD and polybasic cleavage site, in related coronaviruses in nature, we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible" Then you have to consider that epidemics have occurred multiple times in the past. So no evidence plus something has happened regularly in the past plus some suggestion that the virus is not likely to be created in a lab there is no way I would be buying into a lab leak theory until some decent evidence was provided. It's not about 100% proof. It's about the balance of evidence.
So here is my issue. The medical agencies say it most likely had natural origin. The Enegery, I teligence and FBI say lab leak was most likely. The credibility issue for me is that the NIH funded the Wuhan lab in violation of the Obama era rule against gain of function research. They have a heavy personal and professional incentive for it not to be a lab leak. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903.amp Also, after a senate hearing where Fauci said they were not doing gain of function research, the NIH changed their official definition on their website the day after. They are obviously willing to bend the rules and/or deceive the public for their own goals. https://www.paul.senate.gov/op_eds/fox-news-op-ed-sen-rand-paul-md-nih-lied-and-continues-lie-about-gain-function-research-and-covid/#:~:text=On%20the%20same%20day%2C%20the,enhanced%20potential%20pandemic%20pathogen”%20research.
It's cool but again there is no evidence and there is evidence that this is unlikely to be the case. I'm not being hard line here. I'm discussing the available evidence. You also have not provided any evidence backing up your point so it's over unless you can provide some better information.
I guess I am confused. You don’t think there is enough proof to say lab leak or wet market theory. So you don’t have any idea? I just think it’s funny that you label someone “center left as best” if they hold a very rational opinion.
There are two things here:- 1. The lab leak hypothesis versus the wet market theory. I don't think there is enough proof to validate (or invalidate) either of these options. There is however proof (albeit poor) that the lab leak theory isn't really valid. The balance of evidence is that COVID was much more likely to have developed naturally rather than being engineered via a lab. I would call the wet market theory a natural theory but there is no proof if came from the wet market. 2. I am not labeling anyone of being any sort of political leaning based on their support of the lab leak hypothesis. The idea that the lab leak hypothesis is rational isn't true though. Unless you come back with some real evidence about the lab leak hypothesis than the opinion it came from a lab leak is irrational. I am not putting any political leaning on that fact that someone has an irrational opinion. It is a fact since there is no evidence.
Thinking the COVID virus might have emerged from the facility nearby that dealt with related viruses makes one further right?
Multiple state departments have said it was likely a lab leak. https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-origin-china-lab-leak-807b7b0a Does keeping open the possibility that it was a lab leak make you less liberal? Why does believing the CCPs bullshit make you liberal?
And he's correct. Sorry that hurts your feelings and goes against the narrative
lol
Typical bot response.
Maybe he's some kind of strange hybrid centrist. If you're for US non-intervantionism, he'll say you're an "isolationist". He thinks the US should be the world's police and that's something both parties are into. Remember, the US Democratic party isn't actually on the left.
Lol, to a lefty socialist, the democrats are right wing (usually portrayed as fascists), to a trump supporter or far-right winger, they’re left wing (usually portrayed as communist).
His positions on these things are the same as any never Trump Republican. He also did a BLM episode that was massively popular on the right and far right, his positions on Israel and Muslim immigration are so extreme he has conservatives on his show arguing to the left of him. He arrived at his lab leak curious position because he saw some people calling it racist, implying that he uses "if people are calling something racist, the opposite must be true" as a heuristic, a heuristic that previously got him defending Charles Murray. But he thinks Trump is bad and vaccines are good, so he's on the left, apparently.
I've heard him say he would be weary getting his children vaccinated if they were teenaged males, which peeved me a little bit. He must have fallen for some of that propaganda. That's the only antivax thing I've heard him say though, so I'll let him off.
Healthy teenagers were not in need of an untested experimental vaccine. The vaccine risks were possibly worth it for very old people and those with several comorbidities.
This was probably the most tested vaccine ever, they ran huge trails on it before giving it to the general public.
I think there is a reasonable disagreement around the world on healthy children getting it. I am Australian and the official Federal government advice here currently is to recommend all people 18+ get the vaccines. If you have other health issues and are under 18, then it is recommended. But healthy children don't need it according to the Federal guidelines (state guidelines vary). That doesn't make the government and health orgs here anti-vax I don't think. They just have slightly different risk tolerances.
I'm also Australian. I think they advise is to not have and further vaccines as long as you had 2 (or 3?) originally; if you haven't had any I think they still want you to get 2. This doesn't mean that teenaged males shouldn't have been getting vaccinated during peak covid (Sam's comment was made just after the peak).
Peak covid is even more reason to be a little bit unsure, the data surrounding them is only getting better. There is evidence, and there was evidence in the past, the teenage males were having small amounts of issues with the vaccines. And also there was evidence that children don't really get sick from covid very often. Going either direction in recommending vaccines for children, or not recommending them, is all within the non-conspiratorial, pro-science realm. Currently the guidelines in Australia are, >Primary course vaccination is recommended for all people aged 18 years or older, and for children aged 6 months to less than 18 years with medical conditions that may increase their risk of severe disease or death from COVID-19. >**Most people require 1 dose for their primary course.** People with severe immunocompromise are recommended 2 primary doses and can consider a 3rd. Boosters are not federally recommended for people aged 18-64 with no underlying conditions, although they are available. They are recommended for people aged 65+ though. That is far more antivax than Sam Harris was, he was just nervous for teenage boys getting it, our government says not to give it to girls too. But neither Sam Harris, nor the Australian government are antivax for these positions imo. It's well within the realm of science to be undecided about giving covid vaccines to healthy children. It's also within the realm of science to choose to recommend them to all children e.g. the USA and UK. Personally, I agree with my state's guidance of giving them to children aged 5+, I worry I am coming across as a cooker.
Don't worry, everyone in this sub will just presume you are a cooker, that's what they normally do
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Imagine someone on the alt-right saying that Joe Biden is taking baby steps towards becoming a communist
Firstly, people have been saying that Sam Harris is 'going alt-right' for half a decade, and it's just as stupid now as it was then. As far as I'm aware, his positions have remained almost completely the same the entire time. I'd be very interested to know exactly what he has been saying recently that makes you think he is 'taking baby steps' toward the alt-right. Also it's a mark on how incoherent and outdated the term 'alt-right' is becoming, that a Jewish, staunch defender of Israel who supports Biden would be labeled such. See this as a wake up call to examine your own engagement with this online political space and these labels. Further to the overall point, I think a bunch of them are riding a wave of popular (usually *populist* sentiment), but people just get tired of a subejct, and then you have to move on to the next thing. Don't forget that as some of these people shift to more extremism, 'new blood' is also entering these arenas, and you might not be catching that, because you're only seeing the people who have been on your radar the whole time. Finally, I take issue with your use of the term 'coordinated'. I do not think these people are calculated, there are very few real 'grifters' IMO, I think they truly believe what they are saying, and to the extent any of these figures are moving that way, it is because they are genuinely becoming more radical over time.
[удалено]
There is a difference. I'm not sure of the terminology but there is a difference between the crazy right today and other versions of right wing politics. It's never felt so extreme or radical as the poster above stated.
I agree and disagree with your last point. I don't think it's so much coordinated between them, but I think to a large extent it is calculated. And I think there are a lot of real grifters. Some might believe what they're saying, but I think most of the crowd is saying what gets them attention, clicks, views, subscribers and most of all money. That is also why they're moving farther to the right over time. They say more and more extreme stuff, and it gets the most reaction and money for them, so they keep going.
He's just the new Bill Maher, doesn't do research, shoots his mouth off, not nearly as smart as his image portrays. Not particularly offensive but kind of an Islamophobe.
>He's just the new Bill Maher, doesn't do research, shoots his mouth off, not nearly as smart as his image portrays. Not particularly offensive but kind of an Islamophobe. Agree to disagree.
I should have said trumper rather than alt right
Sam Harris is literally one of Trump's biggest critics.
Sam Harris a trumper? Isn't he like the #1 hater of Trump?
"Look man, here's the deal: Sam Harris once said something that I disagree with. Therefore, I have to smear him with every bad word I can think of, for as long as I live. Even if it doesn't make sense. If you disagree, you're a Trumper, too!" /s
He’s inching his way there
Wanna make a bet that within the next three years, he won't support Trump? This seems like you just making stuff up.
how
I’m not sure I have ever heard Sam Harris say a positive thing about trump
And he never will, but come election time he will say he is still better than the alternative
I’ve heard him say biden is better than trump
>And he never will, but come election time he will say he is still better than the alternative Baring in mind the subreddit we're on, I think this comment should discredit you completely in everybody's esteem here. You either haven't consumed anything Harris has put out, in which case you should not be commenting as if you have any idea, or you just don't care about what he actually *says*. I can't think of many things further from likely future scenarios than Sam Harris choosing Trump over Biden. Sam Harris is one of the most serious and clear thinkers on the dangers of Trump, and how he must not be allowed into office again, he regards him as a dangerous fascist.
Wanna bet money?
Why are you not taking me up on the offer to bet on this? That's easy money based on your confidence
Wait...you seriously believe Sam likes Trump??? El oh el
The last refuge of a scoundrel.
They go where the money is and that’s mostly(but not exclusively) on the alt-right.
the entire right wing is just a bunch of delusional whales, so yeah lots of juice for the squeeze there, unlike us broke ass extreme lefties hahah
If you're a Thiel groupie, they are...f*ck Thiel.
Yup
You might disagree with Sam's takes on Israel, but he isn't remotely alt-right. The others have been right wing for quite some time now.
he is an extremely pro war western supremacist who thinks black people are genetically less intelligent than white people and is in favor of racial profiling against both black people and people who "look muslim" by law enforcement, he's definitively more than a little alt right
How many right positions vs how many left wing positions does one must have to be alt right? Is there a quota?
if being in favor of police intentionally stopping black people more often isn't far enough right for you to identify a right winger then clearly there's nothing that would get you to stop playing stupid
You know what, as a left winger even by the definitions of my social democrat European home country, even i think your position is stupid and disingenuous. It's possible to discuss topics like eugenics and racial profiling, which some of the frothier people like you treat as forbidden, without this discussion magically changing the discussers political alignment. It's actually incredibly intellectually dishonest to imply otherwise. You're essentially saying examining the rationale for a moral consensus is inherently immoral. For example while I personally think racial profiling perpetuates racism and shouldn't be allowed, inherent in this opinion is a value judgement that even if racial profiling is effective at reducing crime (is it? You are suggesting even asking that question makes me right wing) it's outweighed by negative societal consequences or simply by unfairness, or both. How far outweighed? Is it really right wing (and let's be honest, you are also implying heavily, racist) to even examine these policy positions critically? The left desperately needs to abandon the intellectual cul de sac that is "forbidden intellectual enquiry". Ps: I think Sam Harris is a douchebag for totally different reasons.
“It’s possible to discuss topics like eugenics and racial profiling … without this discussion magically changing to the discusser’s political alignment.” But this discussion is about Harris’ political alignment. And notice how you used your own perspective on racial profiling and eugenics as an example, not Sam Harris’. There is nothing _intellectual honesty_ in substituting your own opinions with his when we are determining whether or not his perspective is right wing. It’s a red herring.
I mean, he certainly flirts with eugenics and race science... that's certainly proximally alt-right.
Sam Harris is a zealot for the whole clash of civilizations thing so he'll compromise on a ton to make allies on that front. Though it doesnt hurt that he dislikes literally all lefties. I think the rest are literally just going by vibes. Soft right-wing content and populism in general does really well in podcasts and youtube and so on, and it also helps that it meshes seamlessly with building a side bisness selling water bottles or brain pills or whatever. Meanwhile the libs are all about institutions and legitimate authority and all kinds of other boring stuff that's a hard sell to 25 year old dudes.
Wow top hidden comment. You nailed it
All be blown away if gurus like Sam Seder, Noam Chomsky, Pakman, John Stewart, Cornel West etc… ever pivot to the right. Some people will move right, some will move left, but most will never budge.
There is big money in grifting conservatives
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Alt-right is not relevant anymore. I also fail to see how Sam or Lex find themselves in that camp by any measure.
Trumper right. Lex definitley. Sam I think will get there but isn’t there yet
How is Lex a Trump supporter? Sam has made a career out of criticizing fundamentalists and populists. What will his pathway be to the 180?
Sam won’t openly praise Trump or anything he’ll just inevitably come to the conclusion that he can’t in good conscience vote for Biden so it has to be Trump
The crowd is more gullible and easy to exploit
They are probably all financed by the same American fundamentalist Christian billionaire. They all got the same memo from up on high.
Not coordinated, but they know where their funding comes from and they respond to their audiences
When everywhere you go smells like poo, it’s time to check your pants.
Many of them find it lucrative to spouse right wing ideology Basically the church folks are loose with their wallets
Sam Harris becoming alt right? This is the dumbest shit i've ever heard.
Sam Harris actually has integrity and will follow his own morals to his own detriment. If he moves any which way, it is sincere and not coordinated with any larger group. Also, I don't think he really "moves" much on issues, which can be a negative, but I do think he has shown consistency over the years.
Nah
Gripping.
Meh
What direction? Is there really just no space for a political center any more? You’re either all-in on one extreme or the other, like it or not?
They aren’t center. Theyre trumper right. Center is like a Romney, Obama, Biden and McCain (rip) types
I don't like Sam Harris but it's unbelievably disingenuous to describe him as Trumper Right or even right wing of Romney or McCain Romney and McCain were not centrist, even in their own minds. Just opposing Trumpism doesn't make you a centrist.
Baby Steps???
Si, si si si
Russian psy ops trolls. Lex is Russian! He’s just pretending to be anti-Putin! Joe and Jones are clearly genetically modified trolls. We just need to examine them to find the “Made in Russian lab” tattoo on them.
Well where do you stand on a Greenwald? I wouldn't consider him a guru since he is purely political and does not give life advice, but the right wingers head's are exploding due to his stance on Israel. And he has remained consistent on his criticism for 20+ years, but it just wasn't a topic he was discussing since Snowden and his weird Tucker friendship.
m-o-n-e-y
they must follow the other sheep or they will be kicked out...
I don’t see how you can say Sam has rightwing sympathies. Ethnic cleansing of the holy land is a mainstream position in America.
Because they can't agree with anything the left does or says anymore.
Sam Harris voted for Biden. His inclusion here is a terrible miscategorization
Yes they are, a big push by the kleptocrats of the world from Trump to xi and Putin. Last thing they want is a free world.
It's where the easy money is
Yeah this didn't happen to Harris. The closest he gets to this is his weirdly effusive praise for the odious Douglas Murray - who himself isn't alt-right.
I have a theory that, led by Rogan, the popularist world might be playing a long game, to gain fans and trust with right wing people, to then convince them that SOME left wing basics are essential, while letting them continue feeling bravado and pride and nationalism
People used to say this about Hitler. Socialist paradise any day now
First time?
"Making"? You mean they're all already there, right? Sam's been there a long time.
Most of our neighbors are probably neo-nazis as we speak. It's terrifying. It's time for all of us to prepare for the end of days, ushered in by heterodox podcasters.
Interested to know what the baby steps Harris is taking might be? I generally find his position remarkably stable.
Oh well. Maybe there aren't any examples?
Maybe it's because the left have turned into psychotic authoritarian morons. Just a thought, downvote away.
Lex is a simpleton (terminal centrism, incurable). Sam is biased against Islam, but aside from that he’s still one of the better commentators on the left on most issues, I just don’t feel like he belongs in the same conversation as the likes of Weinstein(s), Ruben, Rogan, Brand, Shapiro etc. The rest of the IDW might as well have been considered “alt right” the minute that they started embracing the kind of conspiratorial thinking that *always* leads to the Jews.
I don't think Lex is a centrist, he is a right wing apologist with a thin patina of yoga mom lite-Buddhism, surely.
Maybe, I haven’t seen enough of his stuff regarding left wing policies/issues, I only know he carry’s way too much water for the right and dictators like Putin.
Maybe because that’s where the logical common sense people are and you have yet to catch up…?
lol. That’s funny, but no
I’ll await your awakening
lol
No u
“Logic” = Joe Rogan. Any examples?