TDS is epidemic. The thing is, I agree with a lot of what Sam Harris said. The importance of facts, the rampant relativization of truth, the dangers of social media, etc. But I also can't help noticing his characteristic blindness when any topic touches on Trump. Harris becomes unreasonably hateful, almost religious in his fervor to denounce Trump as an "orange abomination".
Did you listen to what he said in the video? Can you point to a moment or moments (min:sec) where, in your opinion, he "becomes unreasonably hateful, almost religious in his fervor to denounce Trump as an "orange abomination"?
Ok, you are trying to be cute here. Please point to a moment or moments (min:sec) where, in your opinion, he "becomes unreasonably hateful, almost religious in his fervor to denounce Trump as an "orange abomination"?
You were being impolite towards me, as you have implied by your questions that 1) I didn't watch the video before commenting on it, and that 2) I don't know what parts of the video I'm discussing.
If you were arguing in good faith, you would have seen right away which parts of the video I'm talking about - the passages where he mentions Trump, there are only two such passages, - and you might then have some arguments to show why Harris either was not hateful towards Trump, or that Harris was not emotion-driven and over the top in maligning Trump.
For the record, here's what Harris said about Trump (emphasis mine):
"...the most harmful aspect of his presidency is a complete ruination of any standard of honesty... I have not yet accepted that this is even possible... he [Trump] lies more than any person has ever lied in human history... his supporters delight over his [destroying] any expectation that a public figure would be honest..."
(speaking about the backlash towards political correctness) "...hence the rise of the orange monster we call Trump..."
He basically describes Trump as Satan incarnate ("the father of lies"), accompanied by a coterie of lesser demons.
Actually, I was not arguing at all. Rather, I was surprised that you could come up with your conclusions if you possibly watched the video. Therefore, I asked clarifying questions.
Now, let's get back to the contents and the context of Sam Harris' interview/discussion. He states the obvious fact that Donald Trump has a well-documented track record of lying and cheating: in his private life, in his public statements, and his business deals.
You interpret Harris' words in religious context: fervor, abomination, Satan incarnate, demons, etc. This is not reasonable because Harris is not a religious man. Moreover, as a scientist he's interested in secular truths and it's natural for him to call our powerful secular liars, such as DJT.
That's the point; Harris is not religious, and that's why he "cannot believe" this is really happening. It's akin to the disbelief of the Soviet writers in "The Master and Margarita" when they meet Satan.
Harris did not say "Trump has a well-documented record of cheating in business and in personal life". Harris did not say "Trump lied about X and Y, which allowed him to discredit his opponent NN when they were discussing ZZ". Harris did not say "I disagree with Trump on policies X and Y and I think they are bad for our country because of reasons A, B, C". All that would have been normal, non-TDS discussion. Instead, Harris literally describes Trump as an inhuman abomination.
So, a TDS-free Sam Harris would have said something like "I agree with Trump that we should not allow Sharia law to rule over any part of our country, and we need to revise our immigration policy in view of the social dangers of Islamic fundamentalism. But Trump also enacted other policies X, Y, Z and they are very bad, for reasons A, B, C." Had he talked like this, he would have demonstrated the absence of TDS.
Then, how do you know the difference between the regular Sam Harris and the TDS-free Sam Harris? I have a feeling you are neither his personal therapist, nor a mind reader. Although, I could be mistaken and would gladly accept a reasonable proof of your professional or personal familiarity with his mental processes. For example, feel free to invite him to comment on this thread.
It's very easy to know the difference: it suffices to hear Sam Harris discuss non-Trump related topics with people who have opposite opinions on those topics. He is perfectly reasonable, he does not dehumanize his opponents and does not say absurd things like "NN is worse than any person in human history".
Donald Trump is a human with a well-documented track record of lying and cheating: in his private life, in his public statements, and his business deals. His lying and cheating is now amplified by the authority of the office of the President of the United States, the most powerful country in history. If you care about truth, like Sam Harris does, you can easily see that the damage Trump is inflicting to the fabric of truth in democratic society is unprecedented.
This is just a sample; each item represents a pattern of repeated lies, misleading statements and cheating: 1. "Trade wars are good and easy to win." 2. "Attorney-client privilege is dead!" 3. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1036681588573130752
1. ... if you have a huge trade deficit in trading with your opponent. Indeed, so far our economy does not seem to suffer too much. 2. ... if FBI can raid attorney's office and take all documents from there. 3. This is a statement of fact: both indictments were made so close to the election that there was no time to challenge them in court.
And these are the most glaring lies you could find? How about anything on the scale of "If you like your insurance or doctor then you can keep it"?
I see "TDS" as a jokingly chosen name for the phenomenon that we observe, namely that perfectly reasonable and intelligent people start getting overly emotional and lose their ability to use reason and assess facts when they discuss a topic related to Trump. People suffering from "TDS" dismiss all rational arguments and respond with emotionally charged vitriol and name-calling instead of engaging in discussion; but they do this only when discussing Trump-related events.
As for Sam Harris, I think he takes a serious stance and is fully capable of reasonable debate. Here is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ35AATHGTI where Harris talks to Ben Shapiro without resorting to any personal attacks or emotional vitriol, even though Shapiro is right-wing and Harris is left-wing politically. But they did not discuss anything related to Trump in that debate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-21 05:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-21 08:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-21 11:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 06:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 08:53 am (UTC)If you were arguing in good faith, you would have seen right away which parts of the video I'm talking about - the passages where he mentions Trump, there are only two such passages, - and you might then have some arguments to show why Harris either was not hateful towards Trump, or that Harris was not emotion-driven and over the top in maligning Trump.
For the record, here's what Harris said about Trump (emphasis mine):
"...the most harmful aspect of his presidency is a complete ruination of any standard of honesty... I have not yet accepted that this is even possible... he [Trump] lies more than any person has ever lied in human history... his supporters delight over his [destroying] any expectation that a public figure would be honest..."
(speaking about the backlash towards political correctness) "...hence the rise of the orange monster we call Trump..."
He basically describes Trump as Satan incarnate ("the father of lies"), accompanied by a coterie of lesser demons.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 02:06 pm (UTC)Now, let's get back to the contents and the context of Sam Harris' interview/discussion. He states the obvious fact that Donald Trump has a well-documented track record of lying and cheating: in his private life, in his public statements, and his business deals.
You interpret Harris' words in religious context: fervor, abomination, Satan incarnate, demons, etc. This is not reasonable because Harris is not a religious man. Moreover, as a scientist he's interested in secular truths and it's natural for him to call our powerful secular liars, such as DJT.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 06:08 pm (UTC)Harris did not say "Trump has a well-documented record of cheating in business and in personal life". Harris did not say "Trump lied about X and Y, which allowed him to discredit his opponent NN when they were discussing ZZ". Harris did not say "I disagree with Trump on policies X and Y and I think they are bad for our country because of reasons A, B, C". All that would have been normal, non-TDS discussion. Instead, Harris literally describes Trump as an inhuman abomination.
Actually, it would appear that a TDS-free Sam Harris should have agreed with Trump about resisting the Islamic ideology, because Harris has quite negative views about the political Islam. Here is a discussion about Harris's views on immigration,
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/6rah3j/what_exactly_are_sams_views_on_immigration/
So, a TDS-free Sam Harris would have said something like "I agree with Trump that we should not allow Sharia law to rule over any part of our country, and we need to revise our immigration policy in view of the social dangers of Islamic fundamentalism. But Trump also enacted other policies X, Y, Z and they are very bad, for reasons A, B, C." Had he talked like this, he would have demonstrated the absence of TDS.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 06:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 06:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 07:04 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-23 07:29 am (UTC)Trump's lies?
Date: 2018-09-23 07:07 pm (UTC)Re: Trump's lies?
Date: 2018-09-23 07:52 pm (UTC)1. "Trade wars are good and easy to win."
2. "Attorney-client privilege is dead!"
3. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1036681588573130752
Is this it?
Date: 2018-09-23 08:59 pm (UTC)2. ... if FBI can raid attorney's office and take all documents from there.
3. This is a statement of fact: both indictments were made so close to the election that there was no time to challenge them in court.
And these are the most glaring lies you could find? How about anything on the scale of "If you like your insurance or doctor then you can keep it"?
Re: Is this it?
Date: 2018-09-23 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 02:07 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 02:46 am (UTC)As for Sam Harris, I think he takes a serious stance and is fully capable of reasonable debate. Here is an example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ35AATHGTI where Harris talks to Ben Shapiro without resorting to any personal attacks or emotional vitriol, even though Shapiro is right-wing and Harris is left-wing politically. But they did not discuss anything related to Trump in that debate.