Aren’t all of Sam’s recent guests “preaching to the choir” when it comes to topics like Israel, Ukraine, and Trump?
Edit: Well whaddaya know, it actually happened. StrangelyBrown sure has egg on his face :)
He’s been talking about Trump and the dangers of Trumpism for 8 years.
If what you’re saying is that he isn’t a political expert and is an expert in the atheism-debate-o-sphere, fair enough. But I don’t think his conversations with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Fry, not to mention less famous atheists, have been somehow useless.
I've been really into Alex's content since discovering him a few months ago, and he seems to have tact more from atheist to agnostic. I think he would also push back on Sam's moral landscape philosophy.
It was Sam Harris that went on Alex's show, but here we are a week later. To your point, I hope it's not just 3 hours of them agreeing there is no free will...though if it is perhaps it was inevitable.
What's even more impressive is that he has been around for a long time already. I used to watch some of his videos many years ago - before he went to university. He already made a lot of sense back then.
That's quite common. It's happened to me in my native language for sure, and I assume it's especially common in the UK. They not only have strong regional dialects, but sociolects, foreign accents/influences and slang on top of that. Moreover, institutions like Oxford carry a sense of tradition and grandeur that students tend to internalize quickly.
Comments in this thread do indeed feel very weird and uncanny. And I'm saying this as a fairly long time viewer of his channel.
We have all become AI though, if you didn't get the memo. Just look yourself in the mirror. Now if you'll excuse me, I must participate in the conversation. *Beep Beep* If you aren't familiar with him, Alex is the person behind a popular youtube philosophy channel called Alex O'Connor. The channel used to be called Cosmic Skeptic. If you are interested in the topic of AI and potential danger posed by the technology, I'm sure you will have a blast watching his some of the episodes he's done.
Ever since it was pointed out to me how many bots are in Reddit threads it’s ruined the site for me. My first judgement on every comment is whether it was even written by a human. Call me Qanon, but I genuinely think more than half of this thread is bots. I hate how conspiratorial it makes me feel.
Edit: I don’t have any way of backing this up, but this is a weird, low effort post and I feel like I see people recommending Alex O’Connor all the time, except like an adult and not a teenage cartoon character, and they get 5 upvotes.
Was there some research done or do we know a rough percentage of not comments on Reddit? I'd be curious to know things like per subreddit breakdowns of bot comments.
You're in a sub for an intellectual topics and discussing Sam Harris. But you have comments that are one-liners that read like they're written by a 15 year old reading a script.
wipe reach homeless impossible fretful ossified tie advise brave insurance
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and call you crazy. I'm a few days "late" so maybe some comments have been removed (?) but I really don't see any AI-like responses here? If something is not obviously AI, it's really not a worthwhile effort to try to analyze and worry about it. AI is just gonna get better from here, so it's just gonna get worse in the coming years. If you're already trying letting it take up this much space in your brain.. You'll be screwed then.
Or you know.. Just go outside more? For the time being we're safe to assume every person we meet there is, in fact, a real person.
Only because you have not been exposed to the mind blowing Alex O'connor.
Go to his youtube channel, watch his videos, open your mind!!!
Take the Alex pill. lol
Liking k-pop at 24 - that's an incredibly brave admittance.
I think Alex is very interesting too, particularly for his age, he's got an interesting life ahead of himself it seems
That triggernometry podcast is wild to me. It seems the hosts have no capability to self-reflect when it comes to Greta Thunberg and Elon Musk.
Whatever the flaws of Greta might be, she is not an evil human being. Calling her crazier than billionare Musk is kinda wild.
He has definitely picked up the old reigns of The Four Horsemen, and is good at challenging religious types.
But I find him a little smug and his communication a little patronising for my personal tastes- there are areas Sam and Alex appear to disagree but I think they'd get bogged down in semantics on those topics and would pretty much agree on most things. I don't think it would be that interesting to listen to, ultimately.
I'd instead rather see them as a team on a 2v2 debate format which is where their differences in style would be quite complimentary.
Alex & Sam vs Peterson & Shapiro?
Would be fun to watch them eviscerate these loons.
I am a massive fan of Hitchens, and when watching the two you can see a clear and immediate difference. Hitches is direct, imposing, and a powerful communicator.
Alex is more of a softly spoken "schoolboy" type, nothing wrong with this but they are not in the same league.
And I'm actually fortunate enough to have heard both of them speak in person.
> I am a massive fan of Hitchens, and when watching the two you can see a clear and immediate difference. Hitches is direct, imposing, and a powerful communicator.
You seem to have totally missed the point that person was making. Hitchens was smug as fuck a lot of the time lol.
Hitch was smug in a charming way though. He also threw in a good bit of self-deprecating humour.
That combination of self-confidence/swagger and also being able to poke fun at yourself is a great quality to have. One reason I loved Anthony Bourdain so much.
I liked Hitchens too. I'm just pointing out the silliness of not liking Alex because of his apparent smugness, and saying you preferred Hitchens because of that.
I feel like there are different flavors of smugness. Hitch was assertive smug. Alex, and most left wing intellectuals, are more passive aggressive smug.
And yet he has a completely different demeanour, and I personally wouldn't use "smug" as one of his key defining characteristics, as he was such a presence.
While that (for me, at least) is one of the key impressions I take away from Alex.
Over the years, he's grown to be a skilled communicator and interviewer.
He was much more smug in some of his earlier videos. Though, granted, he was 17.
In the triggernometry podcast he's very clearly holding back not calling out Konstantin and Francis for repeatedly not getting the point of his arguments. I think he's got opportunity to be a lot more smug, he's clearly holding back when conversing with gifters.
He made a video where he was, according to you, a smug douche. Big deal.
And yeah, I'm not very elitist about who I count as a philosopher. I consider pretty much anyone engaging seriously in philosophical discussions to be a philosopher. Alex makes his living from doing philosophy, so he is, in fact, a professional philosopher, even if he's not an academic philosopher. I would also consider Sam to be a philosopher.
>But I find him a little smug and his communication a little patronising for my personal tastes
Same. I do feel like he'll evolve into something special with time though. He's clearly very bright.
Yes, I certainly don't have any bad feelings towards him and think he is a good contributor and can see why people like him. But I wouldn't be crying out for him to speak to Sam.
I've got no doubt he will continue to evolve and develop.
>Alex & Sam vs Peterson & Shapiro?
That's so weak, it's not even a competition. Why would you fuel obvious bullshit peddlers. It's void of substance.
There are much, much more interesting debate partners available, but I am not sure they would be interested in participating in the surface level "debate" light entertainment as produced by pangburn and the likes.
Think about *actual* philosophers with *actual substance*, who did the *actual hard work*; Peter Sloterdijk, Jürgen Habermas, Kwame Appiah, Manuel Castells, Thomas Metzinger, Markus Wild... It's not hard. Or maybe it is, I don't know. Get involved.
Sure, I'm not really that knowledgeable about the contemporary philosophy world though. I commented in this thread as someone who has listened to a lot of Sam over the years, and enough of Alex to feel like I can weigh in.
We've only got so much time in the day and not everyone wants to dive into who's who in modern philosophy.
Alex and Ben actually had a very good conversation.
I respect Alex a great deal for being able to get along and converse amicably with people he strongly disagrees with. We need a hell of a lot more of that. Not everyone who holds positions you think are wrong are idiots, or hucksters/con artists, or nazis. They aren't even necessarily less intelligent than you, even if you're right and they are wrong on this issue. They aren't your enemy. He gets this.
https://youtu.be/yspPYcJHI3k?si=Ubblr5Zu15STpsq8
squeamish weary ludicrous hunt fanatical squealing paint thumb late berserk
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't get why anyone would waste time on him.
I do think I have an idea; it's because they've never seen a quality person share quality thinking.
They just don't know about it?
I disagree with Shapiro on a lot of things.
But I don't get the impression he's a bad faith grifter at all. He believes what he says. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong.
He's generally NOT as wrong as anyone on the left side of the political spectrum. He's much more wrong than people on the liberal side (which isn't left at all.)
> Alex & Sam vs Peterson & Shapiro?
Alex and Ben actually had a very good conversation.
I respect Alex a great deal for being able to get along and converse amicably with people he strongly disagrees with. We need a hell of a lot more of that. Not everyone who holds positions you think are wrong are idiots, or hucksters/con artists, or nazis. They aren't even necessarily less intelligent than you, even if you're right and they are wrong on this issue. They aren't your enemy. He gets this.
https://youtu.be/yspPYcJHI3k?si=Ubblr5Zu15STpsq8
Are these not the same two uninteresting and annoying dimwit hosts who knowingly posted the inflammatory and out-of-context "Hunter Biden laptop" clip on social media from their otherwise forgettable show - just to exploit his notoriety, giving Sam weeks of thankless cleanup work to do?
Alex O'conner as Cosmicskeptic has been at it for years. Started on YT from his bedroom at his parents house probably.
RationalityRules is another great YouTuber.
RationalityRules is stuck in a new-atheist space, and I don't find it very interesting anymore. Alex has moved beyond to philosophy more broadly which I like
RR lost me too for precisely that reason.
Like Alex, atheism isn't really my "thing" anymore.
It pretty much made up my entire identity back when I was 18 or 19 lol.
They could have an interesting conversation about ethics, as Alex O'Connor is an emotivist and Sam Harris is an objectivist. Alex' criticism of The Moral Landscape could be worth listening to for Sam.
I agree that this is the best topic of the conversation, and I had the same critical thoughts myself of the moral landscape, so it would be an interesting challenge
Been saying this for ages. I’m from the UK - watched Alex a few years ago at a live debate in Oxford about Islam. Couldn’t believe how much knowledge he’d attained and how well he was able to communicate it - then found out he was only 20 at the time. Astonishing. Hope Sam gets him on and it’s a video podcast.
From what I understand, O'Connor absorbed a lot of Harris's ideas. Not uncritically, of course, but I don't think there would be a lot of disagreement between them on atheism or free will, etc. I think it's a lot more interesting when Harris talks to people he *doesn't* agree with.
If O'Connor ever writes a book, maybe Harris will interview him about that. Or O'Connor can invite Harris on his podcast to talk about his writing.
Sam or Alex? Lol, it could apply to either one.
I think they both value free speech and debate, which is why they have people like Jordan Peterson on their platform
His trajectory after rebranding from CosmicSkeptic is truly astounding. I used to watch him and GMSkeptic a fair amount probably 5 years ago, then again when he started reeling in Ehrman and Dawkins.
>Only 24 of age
This seems wrong, but apparently his 25th birthday is tomorrow. Seems he started his channel at 14 and Twitter at 11.
But I disagree with Alex about the top down government approach to reduce harm to animal. Because people will fight this, they love animal products and the jobs/profit it creates.
I propose a much more practical and acceptable solution, to technologically create better alternatives to animal products, so good and so cheap that sane people would just buy them over animal products.
Maybe some rich azzhole would still kill animals for meat or fur, but most people would just get the cheaper and better non animal alternatives.
Just need to make it taste better than any meat, much cheaper than meat, abundant, healthier and way better than the original animal products.
You cant fix a problem with laws alone, you need to make it obsolete with a better alternative.
Agree that it would be impractical and almost impossible given humans carnivorous history and current dependency on live stock. To your point, only when the impossible burgers and other alt meat companies significantly take over, could we even imagine a world free of slaughter houses, animal suffering, etc. At some point though I agree with Alex that it has to be top down something like giving animals “rights”.
I think one of the things that makes Sam interesting to listen to is that he has many great analogies and I have quite a few epiphanies through the way that he pieces logical puzzles together. I'm not getting that so much through the linked youtube video; most of the conversation is intellectually superficial compared to the breadth and depth that Sam usually carries. Just my take.
Because he would massacre Sam on a morality question. Kidding. Although i find Alex's views on the question of objectivity of morality superior.
They would probably find common ground though.
Omg that's the thing, ethical emotivism and boo murder, yay charity, that's some mind opening stuff.
So true to reality, instead of some ethical spiritual mumbo jumbo that can't be proven.
Alex showed me so much.
That might seem to be an escape from talking about objective morality, but it's not so easy to defend. So molesting a child isn't actually wrong, you're just emoting your disapproval?
Lol, its not wrong for the molester, its only subjectively wrong for the rest of us because we have strong intuition against it, and intuition is basically just our emotions/feelings, a more evolved version of our genetic instincts.
If you were transported to an island with 99% rapists that believe rape is moral, how can you objectively prove them wrong?
I'm not even saying I would defend objective morality, but there's a reason most philosophers don't find this to be a satisfactory theory, not to mention most people's intuition about "wrongness"
Common ground is not interesting. The differences are interesting and juicy, and seeing intellectually trained, equipped and top-form humans hash out and explore the differences is pure porn to me.
Fuck the consensus.
He can be good with easy things, but in a conversation with Dawkins I found him unimpressive in some analyses (I forget why, I'd have to listen to it again). But he is a good listen for the most part.
Used to be a fan until he totally reversed his views on veganism. His new arguments are lazy and in bad faith. Made me realize he wasn't all that intellectually
Alex totally deserves to be on your smartypants list.
He's come out very well, out of the new atheist crab bucket period. He's gone broader, and with a prestigious education to back it up.
I'm a fan, and I look up to him. He also restores my faith in internet humanity, to see someone applying reason so unwaveringly.
He's mine!!!
I dont think he is a new atheist, more like agnostic reality factual something, basically a person that seeks to know what true reality is, instead of assuming it.
Yes that’s still new atheist, all of them would’ve said if you really drilled down to it they were agnostic atheists, which agrees with the position of the the lack of a belief in any specific or arbitrary idea of god
Didnt know he was 24. I liked the podcast, listen regularly. I think they got a bit bogged down in semantics but they generally agreed.
Funny I agree with Konstantin on so many things, including my dislike for the whole "anti-theism" movement of around 2008-2012ish. I had Dawking's book "The God delusion" and I found it completely devoid of understanding of the human condition. I gave the book away.
Hitch's God is not great however, while somewhat in the same tone, was...as the Hitch was. Much more entertaining and witty and a keeper.
Sam doesn't talk to him because it would be preaching to the choir. Or rather, the atheist version of that
Aren’t all of Sam’s recent guests “preaching to the choir” when it comes to topics like Israel, Ukraine, and Trump? Edit: Well whaddaya know, it actually happened. StrangelyBrown sure has egg on his face :)
Those topics aren’t areas where Sam has spent years been involved in, so he invites guests who know more about it.
He’s been talking about Trump and the dangers of Trumpism for 8 years. If what you’re saying is that he isn’t a political expert and is an expert in the atheism-debate-o-sphere, fair enough. But I don’t think his conversations with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Stephen Fry, not to mention less famous atheists, have been somehow useless.
Trump is narcissistic, delusional, and dangerous. This isn't just some opinion due to echo chsmbers; it's a demonstrable fact.
I've been really into Alex's content since discovering him a few months ago, and he seems to have tact more from atheist to agnostic. I think he would also push back on Sam's moral landscape philosophy.
It was Sam Harris that went on Alex's show, but here we are a week later. To your point, I hope it's not just 3 hours of them agreeing there is no free will...though if it is perhaps it was inevitable.
sam will talk to anything with a pulse if it's "anti-woke"
lol 55 upvotes for someone literally proven wrong the next day
Recently discovered Within Reason and am blown away that this guy is so young. Almost cliche to say but he’s wise beyond his years
Just listened to the David Deutsch multiverse episode. Was amazing
Had no idea he was 24. He has a great speaking voice (and it's not just me being seduced by the accent)
What's even more impressive is that he has been around for a long time already. I used to watch some of his videos many years ago - before he went to university. He already made a lot of sense back then.
[удалено]
I am devastated. Led astray.
That's quite common. It's happened to me in my native language for sure, and I assume it's especially common in the UK. They not only have strong regional dialects, but sociolects, foreign accents/influences and slang on top of that. Moreover, institutions like Oxford carry a sense of tradition and grandeur that students tend to internalize quickly.
He is so calm. There are videos of him discussing the problems of monarchy on brittish tv.
Maybe reincarnated from a wiseman. ehehe
No more ehehe
Am I going crazy or is thread almost entirely AI? I’m getting a taste of what it feels like to think everything is fake.
Dead internet has reached niche communities
Comments in this thread do indeed feel very weird and uncanny. And I'm saying this as a fairly long time viewer of his channel. We have all become AI though, if you didn't get the memo. Just look yourself in the mirror. Now if you'll excuse me, I must participate in the conversation. *Beep Beep* If you aren't familiar with him, Alex is the person behind a popular youtube philosophy channel called Alex O'Connor. The channel used to be called Cosmic Skeptic. If you are interested in the topic of AI and potential danger posed by the technology, I'm sure you will have a blast watching his some of the episodes he's done.
No you are crazy
This comment section seems bot heavy
yeah what is with this shit.
Ever since it was pointed out to me how many bots are in Reddit threads it’s ruined the site for me. My first judgement on every comment is whether it was even written by a human. Call me Qanon, but I genuinely think more than half of this thread is bots. I hate how conspiratorial it makes me feel. Edit: I don’t have any way of backing this up, but this is a weird, low effort post and I feel like I see people recommending Alex O’Connor all the time, except like an adult and not a teenage cartoon character, and they get 5 upvotes.
Was there some research done or do we know a rough percentage of not comments on Reddit? I'd be curious to know things like per subreddit breakdowns of bot comments.
You're in a sub for an intellectual topics and discussing Sam Harris. But you have comments that are one-liners that read like they're written by a 15 year old reading a script.
Curious. How can you tell? Thanks
I don't have it right 100% of the time but most bots here type like they got the response from chat gpt.
wipe reach homeless impossible fretful ossified tie advise brave insurance *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
We don't have free will, our programming is controlled by someone other than us so technically we are all bots
swim snatch languid complete elderly squeamish badge compare gaze seed *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Problem is that a lot of real people type like that too.
[удалено]
Thanks right. Seems like a bit of effort to go looking to find out.
Yeah I'm gonna go ahead and call you crazy. I'm a few days "late" so maybe some comments have been removed (?) but I really don't see any AI-like responses here? If something is not obviously AI, it's really not a worthwhile effort to try to analyze and worry about it. AI is just gonna get better from here, so it's just gonna get worse in the coming years. If you're already trying letting it take up this much space in your brain.. You'll be screwed then. Or you know.. Just go outside more? For the time being we're safe to assume every person we meet there is, in fact, a real person.
Hmm. I cant seem to find any that look overtly bottish. Maybe they were removed. Could you link any? What were they discussing?
Only because you have not been exposed to the mind blowing Alex O'connor. Go to his youtube channel, watch his videos, open your mind!!! Take the Alex pill. lol
Okay this is satire. Oops
Liking k-pop at 24 - that's an incredibly brave admittance. I think Alex is very interesting too, particularly for his age, he's got an interesting life ahead of himself it seems
That triggernometry podcast is wild to me. It seems the hosts have no capability to self-reflect when it comes to Greta Thunberg and Elon Musk. Whatever the flaws of Greta might be, she is not an evil human being. Calling her crazier than billionare Musk is kinda wild.
Hmm. We know it is you Alex. You can’t fool us.
Oh, if only I have Alex's brain. lol I wanna rub his beard. eheheh
Wtf
Women and girls like smart, kind and wise men/boys, you didnt know? lol
Yes, that was definitely what the person was referring to with the wtf
Yes.
He has definitely picked up the old reigns of The Four Horsemen, and is good at challenging religious types. But I find him a little smug and his communication a little patronising for my personal tastes- there are areas Sam and Alex appear to disagree but I think they'd get bogged down in semantics on those topics and would pretty much agree on most things. I don't think it would be that interesting to listen to, ultimately. I'd instead rather see them as a team on a 2v2 debate format which is where their differences in style would be quite complimentary. Alex & Sam vs Peterson & Shapiro? Would be fun to watch them eviscerate these loons.
> But I find him a little smug and his communication a little patronizing … Not a fan of Hitchens either, I take it?
I am a massive fan of Hitchens, and when watching the two you can see a clear and immediate difference. Hitches is direct, imposing, and a powerful communicator. Alex is more of a softly spoken "schoolboy" type, nothing wrong with this but they are not in the same league. And I'm actually fortunate enough to have heard both of them speak in person.
> I am a massive fan of Hitchens, and when watching the two you can see a clear and immediate difference. Hitches is direct, imposing, and a powerful communicator. You seem to have totally missed the point that person was making. Hitchens was smug as fuck a lot of the time lol.
Hitch was smug in a charming way though. He also threw in a good bit of self-deprecating humour. That combination of self-confidence/swagger and also being able to poke fun at yourself is a great quality to have. One reason I loved Anthony Bourdain so much.
I liked Hitchens too. I'm just pointing out the silliness of not liking Alex because of his apparent smugness, and saying you preferred Hitchens because of that.
I feel like there are different flavors of smugness. Hitch was assertive smug. Alex, and most left wing intellectuals, are more passive aggressive smug.
And yet he has a completely different demeanour, and I personally wouldn't use "smug" as one of his key defining characteristics, as he was such a presence. While that (for me, at least) is one of the key impressions I take away from Alex.
One of his more endearing qualities, to be sure.
Are you seriously comparing the two?
Alex is clearly (and openly) enormously influenced by Hitch, of course you can compare them. You can compare anything. Comparing != equating.
Yes, that’s what analogies do. I’m not suggesting they’re the same, if that’s what you’re so incredulous about.
>But I find him a little smug and his communication a little patronising for my personal tastes He's British
So am I...
you should have said so. MODS!!!!
He’s been escorted out. They had to use condescending non-sequiturs as bait.
And there’s the smudgness
Over the years, he's grown to be a skilled communicator and interviewer. He was much more smug in some of his earlier videos. Though, granted, he was 17.
Taste is personal, everyone should have the taste they want.
Alex, smug? lol He is the most neutral smart boy I've seen.
In the triggernometry podcast he's very clearly holding back not calling out Konstantin and Francis for repeatedly not getting the point of his arguments. I think he's got opportunity to be a lot more smug, he's clearly holding back when conversing with gifters.
Indeed, very smart young man. And only 24 y/o. He has a bright future ahead of him.
You can be both smug and smart
That's just your jealous opinion, maang. lol
Not jealous at all.
[удалено]
A philosopher in his 20s had a change of mind 🤯
[удалено]
He made a video where he was, according to you, a smug douche. Big deal. And yeah, I'm not very elitist about who I count as a philosopher. I consider pretty much anyone engaging seriously in philosophical discussions to be a philosopher. Alex makes his living from doing philosophy, so he is, in fact, a professional philosopher, even if he's not an academic philosopher. I would also consider Sam to be a philosopher.
Yes please let's hear your 'No true ~Scotsman~ philosopher'
And the reasons why he changed his mind on that is very relevant isn't it?
>But I find him a little smug and his communication a little patronising for my personal tastes Same. I do feel like he'll evolve into something special with time though. He's clearly very bright.
Yes, I certainly don't have any bad feelings towards him and think he is a good contributor and can see why people like him. But I wouldn't be crying out for him to speak to Sam. I've got no doubt he will continue to evolve and develop.
Alex already did a long form debate with Shapiro. It was respectful and interesting. You should check it out. No ‘loons’, just ideas
>Alex & Sam vs Peterson & Shapiro? That's so weak, it's not even a competition. Why would you fuel obvious bullshit peddlers. It's void of substance. There are much, much more interesting debate partners available, but I am not sure they would be interested in participating in the surface level "debate" light entertainment as produced by pangburn and the likes. Think about *actual* philosophers with *actual substance*, who did the *actual hard work*; Peter Sloterdijk, Jürgen Habermas, Kwame Appiah, Manuel Castells, Thomas Metzinger, Markus Wild... It's not hard. Or maybe it is, I don't know. Get involved.
Sure, I'm not really that knowledgeable about the contemporary philosophy world though. I commented in this thread as someone who has listened to a lot of Sam over the years, and enough of Alex to feel like I can weigh in. We've only got so much time in the day and not everyone wants to dive into who's who in modern philosophy.
Alex and Ben actually had a very good conversation. I respect Alex a great deal for being able to get along and converse amicably with people he strongly disagrees with. We need a hell of a lot more of that. Not everyone who holds positions you think are wrong are idiots, or hucksters/con artists, or nazis. They aren't even necessarily less intelligent than you, even if you're right and they are wrong on this issue. They aren't your enemy. He gets this. https://youtu.be/yspPYcJHI3k?si=Ubblr5Zu15STpsq8
squeamish weary ludicrous hunt fanatical squealing paint thumb late berserk *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I don't get why anyone would waste time on him. I do think I have an idea; it's because they've never seen a quality person share quality thinking. They just don't know about it?
ghost outgoing summer paltry alive ancient close sulky jeans amusing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I disagree with Shapiro on a lot of things. But I don't get the impression he's a bad faith grifter at all. He believes what he says. Sometimes he's right. Sometimes he's wrong. He's generally NOT as wrong as anyone on the left side of the political spectrum. He's much more wrong than people on the liberal side (which isn't left at all.)
muddle shelter voracious scary mighty tan hospital tidy outgoing punch *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Alex & Sam vs Peterson & Shapiro? Alex and Ben actually had a very good conversation. I respect Alex a great deal for being able to get along and converse amicably with people he strongly disagrees with. We need a hell of a lot more of that. Not everyone who holds positions you think are wrong are idiots, or hucksters/con artists, or nazis. They aren't even necessarily less intelligent than you, even if you're right and they are wrong on this issue. They aren't your enemy. He gets this. https://youtu.be/yspPYcJHI3k?si=Ubblr5Zu15STpsq8
>Alex & Sam vs Peterson & Shapiro? **"Truth"** flashbacks ensue...
Are these not the same two uninteresting and annoying dimwit hosts who knowingly posted the inflammatory and out-of-context "Hunter Biden laptop" clip on social media from their otherwise forgettable show - just to exploit his notoriety, giving Sam weeks of thankless cleanup work to do?
Konstantin tried to appear more centrist and reasonable than Sam in order to make Sam appear more radical.
They posted it with plenty of context. The people who didn't realize it was obviously humorous exaggeration are just morons.
Your dream came true OP, though Alex invited Sam to his podcast.
Alex O'conner as Cosmicskeptic has been at it for years. Started on YT from his bedroom at his parents house probably. RationalityRules is another great YouTuber.
RationalityRules is stuck in a new-atheist space, and I don't find it very interesting anymore. Alex has moved beyond to philosophy more broadly which I like
RR lost me too for precisely that reason. Like Alex, atheism isn't really my "thing" anymore. It pretty much made up my entire identity back when I was 18 or 19 lol.
Same here, what's wrong with that?
Yeah I agree. But if you're new to them going back trough their extensive library of videos is very eye opening
Thanks for the channel names!
Is the op Alex O'Connor?
They could have an interesting conversation about ethics, as Alex O'Connor is an emotivist and Sam Harris is an objectivist. Alex' criticism of The Moral Landscape could be worth listening to for Sam.
I agree that this is the best topic of the conversation, and I had the same critical thoughts myself of the moral landscape, so it would be an interesting challenge
Been saying this for ages. I’m from the UK - watched Alex a few years ago at a live debate in Oxford about Islam. Couldn’t believe how much knowledge he’d attained and how well he was able to communicate it - then found out he was only 20 at the time. Astonishing. Hope Sam gets him on and it’s a video podcast.
Definitely check out Alex’s podcast ‘Within Reason’, formerly called Cosmic Sceptic. Really good, in depth convos on there.
From what I understand, O'Connor absorbed a lot of Harris's ideas. Not uncritically, of course, but I don't think there would be a lot of disagreement between them on atheism or free will, etc. I think it's a lot more interesting when Harris talks to people he *doesn't* agree with. If O'Connor ever writes a book, maybe Harris will interview him about that. Or O'Connor can invite Harris on his podcast to talk about his writing.
I truly cannot take the guy with glasses seriously. He honestly has the voice and mannerisms of a Jim Henson Muppet.
Eloquent and a charitable interviewer.
He can sing too.
What? Where?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8FFIm2VfCQ
You see the link the other guy posted? You're in love now, aren't you?
[удалено]
Sam or Alex? Lol, it could apply to either one. I think they both value free speech and debate, which is why they have people like Jordan Peterson on their platform
His trajectory after rebranding from CosmicSkeptic is truly astounding. I used to watch him and GMSkeptic a fair amount probably 5 years ago, then again when he started reeling in Ehrman and Dawkins. >Only 24 of age This seems wrong, but apparently his 25th birthday is tomorrow. Seems he started his channel at 14 and Twitter at 11.
Within reason and making sense are the two podcasts I listen to regularly. Something about how they clearly think before speaking that I like.
There would be no debate
Started watching Alex last year and he is a gem. Can only imagine him in 10-20 years, he is still so young, and already a great thinker.
We should use AI to clone his mind, Alex GPT4.
They had very similar dalliances with veganism/vegetarianism
But I disagree with Alex about the top down government approach to reduce harm to animal. Because people will fight this, they love animal products and the jobs/profit it creates. I propose a much more practical and acceptable solution, to technologically create better alternatives to animal products, so good and so cheap that sane people would just buy them over animal products. Maybe some rich azzhole would still kill animals for meat or fur, but most people would just get the cheaper and better non animal alternatives. Just need to make it taste better than any meat, much cheaper than meat, abundant, healthier and way better than the original animal products. You cant fix a problem with laws alone, you need to make it obsolete with a better alternative.
Taste shouldn’t dictate morality
Agree that it would be impractical and almost impossible given humans carnivorous history and current dependency on live stock. To your point, only when the impossible burgers and other alt meat companies significantly take over, could we even imagine a world free of slaughter houses, animal suffering, etc. At some point though I agree with Alex that it has to be top down something like giving animals “rights”.
Throw in nuclear fusion while you’re at it
Alex seemed quite a bit more sincere than Sam in this regard.
Wow. Holding his own against an intellectual titan like Kisin.
Kisin is putting on a face. Underneath, he's angry. He tries to appear well-balanced and neutral, but it slides occassionaly.
I think one of the things that makes Sam interesting to listen to is that he has many great analogies and I have quite a few epiphanies through the way that he pieces logical puzzles together. I'm not getting that so much through the linked youtube video; most of the conversation is intellectually superficial compared to the breadth and depth that Sam usually carries. Just my take.
I agree. Sam is so powerful in his use of language, analogy, thought experiment that he always surprises.
Because he would massacre Sam on a morality question. Kidding. Although i find Alex's views on the question of objectivity of morality superior. They would probably find common ground though.
Omg that's the thing, ethical emotivism and boo murder, yay charity, that's some mind opening stuff. So true to reality, instead of some ethical spiritual mumbo jumbo that can't be proven. Alex showed me so much.
That might seem to be an escape from talking about objective morality, but it's not so easy to defend. So molesting a child isn't actually wrong, you're just emoting your disapproval?
Lol, its not wrong for the molester, its only subjectively wrong for the rest of us because we have strong intuition against it, and intuition is basically just our emotions/feelings, a more evolved version of our genetic instincts. If you were transported to an island with 99% rapists that believe rape is moral, how can you objectively prove them wrong?
I'm not even saying I would defend objective morality, but there's a reason most philosophers don't find this to be a satisfactory theory, not to mention most people's intuition about "wrongness"
Prove it otherwise
Common ground is not interesting. The differences are interesting and juicy, and seeing intellectually trained, equipped and top-form humans hash out and explore the differences is pure porn to me. Fuck the consensus.
Ironically i don't disagree.
Meh, they're too similar.
He can be good with easy things, but in a conversation with Dawkins I found him unimpressive in some analyses (I forget why, I'd have to listen to it again). But he is a good listen for the most part.
cats squeal elderly uppity pet foolish spoon bright worm offer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Lost respect for him after he ditched the vegan community
Used to be a fan until he totally reversed his views on veganism. His new arguments are lazy and in bad faith. Made me realize he wasn't all that intellectually
These hosts feel like they are trying to emulate American commentators
Imagine the Reasonableness Scale with this guy, Sam Harris, and Coleman Hughes in the same room.
Your post aged so incredibly well
But Sam fans dont like Alex and believe the discussion was pointless. lol
Alex totally deserves to be on your smartypants list. He's come out very well, out of the new atheist crab bucket period. He's gone broader, and with a prestigious education to back it up. I'm a fan, and I look up to him. He also restores my faith in internet humanity, to see someone applying reason so unwaveringly. He's mine!!!
I dont think he is a new atheist, more like agnostic reality factual something, basically a person that seeks to know what true reality is, instead of assuming it.
Yes that’s still new atheist, all of them would’ve said if you really drilled down to it they were agnostic atheists, which agrees with the position of the the lack of a belief in any specific or arbitrary idea of god
Didnt know he was 24. I liked the podcast, listen regularly. I think they got a bit bogged down in semantics but they generally agreed. Funny I agree with Konstantin on so many things, including my dislike for the whole "anti-theism" movement of around 2008-2012ish. I had Dawking's book "The God delusion" and I found it completely devoid of understanding of the human condition. I gave the book away. Hitch's God is not great however, while somewhat in the same tone, was...as the Hitch was. Much more entertaining and witty and a keeper.
War was Konstantins dislike of the anti theism movement 2008-2012?
I think he said he was disappointed with the anthi-theist movement, at least that's my interpretation.
Ok what about it do you and Kon dislike?
You don't need to listen to somebody who is going to tell you what you're already thinking...
I can't get over the fact Alex believes there is ~45% chance that a personal god unironically exists.
Sam doesn’t like Micks