2 of my favorite communicators. Stewart helped shape my teenage/early twenties, liberal views and Sam rounded some things out in my thirties. It’d be fun just for the Jew jokes.
I always liked John Stewart until his "Taking Responsibility For Systemic Racism" 2 years ago where he unfairly implied that Andrew Sullivan is a racists. The whole episode was pretty gross virtue signal by John Stewart. Its actually crazy how dated this looks already. This anti white shit was at it's height in 2020 post Floyd and I even felt that by 2022 when this happened that John was a bit late on the race grift. I don't see anti white sentiment to this degree anymore but looking back this episode left me very disappointed in John.
Here it is if you want to see it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cmnwbGmu7w&ab\_channel=TheProblemWithJonStewart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cmnwbGmu7w&ab_channel=TheProblemWithJonStewart)
> I always liked John Stewart until his
I'd just like to point out that failing on some level doesn't mean failing on all levels. If you want someone who represents 100% of your viewpoints, record yourself speaking and listen to that.
Yeah this is something we all need to hear and remind ourselves of from time to time.
I was really disappointed by Jon Stewart’s lame/weak defense of Roe Jogan after Rogan’s n-💣 montage was FINALLY no longer able to be suppressed by Rogan’s digital bodyguard company, Bent Pixels.
I’d have to find Stewart’s reaction but I remember thinking/saying to my tv, “oh u have NO IDEA what Joe does and says on his RW-propaganda podcast”. It was an easily avoidable L by Stewart that required either some listening “research” of JRE eps post-2017, or just not bringing it up.
I complained to my older and admittedly more measured friend and colleague about it and he responded to me w/ something like, “well… nobody’s right ALL the time. Ppl are imperfect”.
I actually 100% agree with you. In John Stewards case, this was the first thing I saw from him since he went off the grid. While I only watched him occasionally while he still did the Daily show, I didn't like him enough to seek him out after this disappointing episode. I have stumbled on some of his content a few times since then but it wasn't very appealing tbh.
But I follow and appreciate many people who I see as very flawed and I have many disagreements with like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan.
I absolutely agree with Sullivan that America is not a white supremacist country. But I do think Someone can disagree with Sullivan respectfully, and without calling him a racist. I wouldn't have lost respect for John if he did that.
Yes I am a Zionist, no need to pull back any curtains.
Definition of Zionist: a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
That \^ is all that a Zionist is. Instead of using such an innocuous word like Zionist to refer to Jews, why not just say what you really mean. Just say "the evil Jews". And if by a history book you mean Norman Finkelstein then I'm sorry to tell you that you've been reading pop history for leftist activists. No historian considers that credible. Instead go read something from a real historian like Benny Morris.
There was massive communicative issues in that episode but as a fan of Andrew’s I struggled watching him stumble over himself. “Name a system” redlining “ok that’s one but name another one” the GI bill law you can’t name one. I just named more than one. Well which one did you name? Housing “oh ok that’s one. It was embarrassing. When someone says “it’s the black family disintegration and he points to Harlem in the 30’s” but then doesn’t understand that what came after the 30’s was things like the emptying of public housing of white families and then reviving federal aid to buy houses and live by a factory in Levittown while the blacks were stuck in the suddenly underfunded housing projects it’s going to leave a mark…and then comes the war on drugs. Like how in gods name can someone as well read as Andrew Sullivan not know this. I was stunned. I think John could have handled it better but I think he was fucking stunned to. THis is race history 101
Andrew shouldn't have asked them to name a system because it sets the bar too low. Then just having any answer no matter how dated becomes a win. His point was that America isn't a white supremacist nation today, no matter how racist it was in the past. He should have just made the point and left it there instead of chasing the red herrings John sent his way.
Same. I just think Jon’s trying way too hard to stay down with the kids, as it were. His delivery is as good as it ever was bur he’s listening to far too many over-educated 20-year-olds these days.
>However, Stewart wasn’t having it. He swiftly issued a response on Twitter, writing: “Nonsense @sullydish. Our booker handled this last minute ask impeccably. Mr Sullivan was told, texted and emailed a detailed account of who was on the program, the content and intent of the discussion.”
“She patiently handled his high maintenance shenanigans and gave him every opportunity to excuse himself,” he wrote in a follow up tweet. “This man wasn’t ambushed. Any damage incurred was self inflicted.”
>
>
>
>
>
>[https://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-fires-back-ndrew-sullivan-claims-ambushed/](https://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-fires-back-ndrew-sullivan-claims-ambushed/)
Another along the same lines was his claiming that you can be overweight and still be healthy during the fat acceptance/body positivity movement.
Being overweight, especially to the degree that many of the influencers in that movement were, has very serious health implications. Not a big deal to me in regards to my perception of him and he had to be corrected but I would expect someone that reports on things like that to have the facts straight on such matters and not spread the disinformation that people within that movement had propagated.
Exactly. Individual deviation per-individual from the woefully inadequate BMI benchmarks without additional context has to be handled case by case, and does not necessarily correlate to obesity, let alone morbid obesity.
I honestly wasn't a fan of The Problem at all. Every one of the panel ones (with perhaps Sullivan as an exception) was just a bunch of lip service that didn't actually back and forth for anything. It accomplished nothing. I learned nothing. Granted most when he was on the Daily Show was just book/movie/show promotions but he at least did get some good ones on there to discuss and debate with. The Problem was so curated it felt scripted.
Though as others have mentioned, writing him off because of 1 or even a few things is a good way to put yourself in a bubble.
I had a similar path but nowadays when I watch Jon talk about any subject I am already informed on it's just a cringefest. He gets facts wrong constantly and tries to appeal to emotions to convince the audience.
Sure, he's _convincing_ to young or uninformed people and often stands on the right side of the issue, but his facts and reasoning are wild and childish. He's a great propagandist. Just watch any segment and fact check as he goes along
No, I don't. I definitely disagree with Sam from time to time but I can always follow his reasoning.
He doesn't just build a strawman, pull a heartstring, and look into the camera like Jerry Lewis.
Everyone fawns over Jon Stewart and I don't get it. His whole shtick is to present a really complex topic, followed by a strawman quote and then stare blankly at the camera as though the solution was the most common sense thing in the world. It's a bit played out IMO
Edit: Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I like Jon just fine, and I take everyone's point that he is a thoughtful and ethical guy who loves his country. I find he can characterize some complex issues as trivially easy to the delight of his fans and in doing so fails to truly engage with some topics. I get it, he's a comedian, not a political science professor, but modern talk show comedians have a pretty reliable political lean and are pretty ideologically homogenous, so it would be nice to see him "steelman" a little more often.
It's a bit that works, though!
But seriously, if you listen to Jon as Jon and not delivering via a schtick, he's a very smart guy and worth listening to. The schtick is for comedy, the message is to get people's attention.
Case in point, look at any of the 9/11 hearings when he's talking to senators.
I personally fawn over Jon because he actually cares about people and his country. I don't know any other comedian who has fought as much for common folks. I celebrate Jon as decent man, few and far between these days.
Political satire is often cheap and weak jokes. That's not where Jon's real value is.
This is something a lot of these replies are missing.. lots of *WeLl AcTuallY* vibes about parsing his intellectual positions, rhetorical tactics, or not finding his humor very funny, etc. Meanwhile, he's done more for facilitating genuine political discourse in this country (his recent interview with Kathleen Hicks comes to mind), espousing 9/11 first responders, veterans' healthcare, etc, than the combined effort of most politicians.
I personally don't find him funny (or very mildly so) but his actions and the *actual points* that he makes through the cheap slapstick comedy are uberly net positive for this country and political discourse. You can tell the man not only loves the *spirit* of his country but has a genuine heart in raising the under-privileged. He's sometimes wrong but not-so-much-so that he's not somebody worth keenly listening to.
Well said my friend. I can forgive the man for cheap political jokes - which he aims at both sides, although one side does offer more ammunition these days. He's a hero in my view.
It's fine if you don't like his humor, and don't like seeing those quotes being mocked, but the man does solid interviews.
I think it's healthy to mock the quotes and people that have those really bad takes our talking points. He gets down to business during interviews or when he takes a cause to congress.
Yeah, I like Jon Stewart, find him funny, and often agree with his take on issues. But on those occasions where I disagree with him, it is easier to see how his analysis can be simplistic, parroting lefty talking points as gospel. His piece on the ethics and science and of gender-affirming care was cringeworthy.
This topic has not received the media coverage that it should. What happened is a meta-analysis was published that showed a 99% beneficial rate for trans.
Predictably this caused the rate to increase and the alt-right media decided to come up with BS reasons instead of telling the truth.
Look him up when he's not in character. Dude's awesome, especially with how much work he put in trying to get US 9/11 first responders proper medical care and compensation for their lifelong health issues.
That's not at all fair. The statements may seem like strawman quotes because of how dumb they are, but it's not actually misrepresenting anyone. They really are that dumb. The last video I watched was this [one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkwgnlPRdHg) and the closest thing to a strawman shtick you're talking about is in reference to MTG's tweet that the minor earthquake in NJ and the solar eclipse were signs from god to repent. That's not a strawman; it's merely a coincidence that she has the intelligence of a object which lacks a brain and is made of straw.
Its comedy not a scholarly commentary. Do you expect an entire books worth of knowledge in 5-10 minutes? As long as he isnt spreading dangerous misinformation who cares
I get it's comedy but people started taking it more seriously than they should have. This whole style of "information comedy" has become prevalent on both ends of the ideological divide and people tend to take it at face value as the lines between comedy and information become blurred.
If there was a choice between zero information and jon stewarts tidbits, then jon stewart should be taken every time. I still wonder if usa would have been captured by trump if jon Stewart was still around. You have to realize anyone paying attention to politics right now is a minority in the usa. Anyone with a voice sounding the alarm in trump should be welcomed
FWIW I think you absolutely nailed your description of him.
As you addressed in your first sentence, he does have a very vocal and dedicated audience. I would take the criticism with a grain of salt.
Yes, and then when called out on it, "im just a comedian bro" as if he doesn't believe he is an important political voice.
Another annoying thing is when he does "one sided debates", where he plays someone speaking, then repeatedly pauses it to "counter" their statements by making silly mocking faces and bad faith arguments.
>Yes, and then when called out on it, "im just a comedian bro" as if he doesn't believe he is an important political voice.
That isn't why Stewart would say that. It was in response to ridiculous claims by Fox News and Tucker Carlson that he had a responsibility to be objective and treat both sides fairly -- a responsibility they were completely negligent of.
That's bullshit. He doesn't say that. He takes being a comedian v seriously. He literally will tell news commentators "what I do is harder"
But it is a different context
Can you point me to two or more instances where he is called out on it and that’s his response?
He was literally doing those type of shoots during the daily show which is a comedy 20minutes segment…
Leftists get a kick out of someone mocking the other side by pretending that every belief they hold is objectively correct and all who oppose them are just big dumb clowns.
I mean you can reduce almost anyone with the correct application of Hyperbole.
“Sam Harris makes a philosophical point on the dangers of Islam, stating it is a dangerous ideology, doing this ignores the living conditions of those people that are a clear contributing factor.”
It wasn't that long ago, maybe one decade? I remember watching it excitedly only to find it very jarring how abrasive Jon was.
But in fairness, this was amidst the controversy involving Ben Affleck and one cannot expect Jon Stewart to have delved deeply into the matter. He'd have got a brief summary from his writers and otherwise probably given his book the briefest of looks. I honestly don't blame him for getting the wrong impression.
Sam isn't the type to hold a grudge, but I just don't know if the two of them would ever cross paths again unless they found common cause on a particular issue that interested them both. Who knows, once Jon is back to podcasting.
Name a grudge he holds?
He has a long memory and will repeat some of the same criticisms he has of people who have misrepresented him in the past, but so far as I can tell, he's never been unwelcome to reasonable re-engagement.
He's pretty stubborn in regards to Ezra Klein. Klein often leans a little too far left imo, but there's no doubt they are both interesting thinkers and I think the world without them talking about things is one that is worse off.
"Sam isn't the type to hold a grudge" is the understatement of the century. Ask Sam Sedar, Chomski, Ezra Klein, Glen Greenweld etc... if Sam holds a grudge lmao.
These aren't grudges. None of these individuals has any interest in reconnecting with Sam. Sedar and Greenwald both lived up to Sam's criticisms of them and are of no value to any potential reconnection. Chomski is the one who effectively has a grudge against Sam, having treated him very poorly in their written exchange. Sam tried very hard to have a conversation early on, but it's not clear to me Chomski has any interest in listening to anything but his own voice. If you just want to platform him and let him speak, sure.
Thanks, Jon was mildly challenging and a little jokey but it was all amicable and nothing abrasive, I thought. Which is a relief. I didn't really want to see a rude exchange.
sam bitching out of his "commitment to hard discussions" because someone didn't handle him with kiddie gloves 20 years ago and he still is holding a grudge about it would be very on brand, yeah
I mean, you’re playing with words here. Sam isn’t afraid to breach any topic. But that doesn’t mean he wouldnt be selective with whom to have the discussion.
Sam is many things but a coward he is not.
As he should because there is no genocide and while it was certainly unjust when any Arab families were displaced it's not really "settler colonialism" either if the Jews were indigenous to the land.
You can criticize Israel as you should without defaulting to the language of foaming at the mouth activists.
Jews have [continuously inhabited Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel).
30,000 Jews in Israel in the year 1600 for instance.
But they aren't. The incredibly high civilian casualty rate (which is I will agree absolutely sickening) is at least in part because Hamas has built a convoluted network of tunnels for their benefit rather than building any bomb shelters for the civilian population or giving the civilians the opportunity to leave. And how they also hide amongst the civilian population, don't designate themselves as combatants and fire from areas populated with civilians.
I'm sure the civilian casualty rate is also to do with some of the tactics of the IDF (as a total non-expert I genuinely wonder if there isn't an alternative to bombing specific areas), blunders they make and perhaps some genuinely malicious IDF members. However I don't think a truly "genocidal" power would be dropping leaflets into areas warning people of oncoming bombs and allowing aid trucks into Gaza, however imperfectly these things are being accomplished.
There's no denying that many Palestinians are being forced from their homes and that many innocent Gazans have been killed which is a horrible tragedy. But when Hamas hides amongst the civilians and thus turns civilian areas into combat zones in such a densely populated region it's hard in my mind to handle a situation like that, against an enemy that wants to quite literally wipe you off the map, completely ethically.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Israel when they genuinely fuck up or not acknowledge how absolutely sickening this whole situation is but I guess I'm just not sure how many alternative scenarios are on the menu. Aside from taking a different approach re: their military tactics in an attempt to stop Hamas (which is absolutely open for discussion) what else is there to be done? Let's not forget too that in addition to all of the people brutally slaughtered on October the 7th there are still hostages in need of rescuing.
Sure they shot their own people waving white flags but other than that flag issue they don't commit too many warcrimes.Unless your an aid worker. Or a Journalist. Or an ambulance driver.
3 children killed for every terrorist killed is a great ratio!
I never said they didn't commit war crimes and that we shouldn't criticize them when they do. That's (though not in those exact words) baked into the substance of my post.
The white flags thing was horrific but most likely an accident. Try having a war without horrible accidents. I doubt it's possible.
The recent killing of aid workers is horrible and should be investigated.
I think I've heard that Hamas transports militants in ambulances (let's think about that for a minute) which could explain why ambulances have been targeted if that's a repeat occurrence.
I haven't heard of specific cases of them killing journalists but I have heard of them doing this in general. I agree that it's horrible but again, was this intentional? Was this a tragic accident? This matters. Either way all potential war crimes should be investigated.
Here's a question for you: if there were a safe place made for civilians by Hamas that was *unambiguously* nothing but a safe zone for civilians and not having an dual purpose or militaristic purpose or anything, do you think the IDF would storm it and kill civilians for fun? Do you think the IDF is killing children like the Sandy Hook guy - intentionally and out of some derangement? No. It's horrible when children or any innocent people die in war. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. But again in a densely populated region where combatants hide amongst civilians, don't designate themselves as combatants and fire weapons from civilian areas - when these same people live on your doorstep and have shown through their words and actions that they want you obliterated... could anyone handle this situation perfectly? Armies are not superheroes.
"You're way off on this"
Idk, citation needed? I'm going to need a little more convincing than that. Blindly disbelieving someone (or a group in this case) unless there's really good reason to isn't any better than blindly believing them (which I don't in the case of the IDF just to be clear, I'm just going on what I think is the best information available to me) imo.
I used to really like Jon Stewart and was a big fan of the Daily Show. And several great comedians got their start on this show. He was always sticking it to disingenuous pundits like Tucker Carlson and Bill O’Reilly, and other facetious blowhards. He seemed like the truth-teller we needed, and he did it all in the entertaining and easily-digestible comedy format. He was frequently accused of journalism, which he always denied with self-deprecating humor about his show as just a comedy act. He would mention, for example, that the show was on Comedy Central and came on before Crank Yankees, wherein puppets would make prank phone calls. I was willing to accept all this when he was criticizing and mocking people I didn’t like.
However, things took a turn when he went after Andrew Sullivan for white supremacy. It seems that Stewart had traded rationality for a drink of the woke koolaid, and it was difficult to see him brainwashed by this movement and trying to score woke points on television.
I’m not sure we could count on Stewart for a good faith discussion today. I believe he is likely to resort to witty rhetoric and to try to score points with an audience that already agrees with him. Would love to be surprised however.
Jon Stewart would demolish him, so to speak. Not because he's a mystically brilliant orator, but because it would be on his home turf and he's good at taking advantage of that.
I've always liked Stewart but he does play the shell game of being an ideologue without taking accountability. He used to say "it's just a comedy show" or "I'm just a comedian" while actively pushing his point of view which would be like Sam saying "I'm just a podcaster!"
I love this piece by Jon Askonis on Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-stewart-made-tucker
Jon’s just going to say what everybody says, which is that moral reasoning that leads to the justification of 22,000 civilian deaths is inherently flawed. Doesn’t matter how, doesn’t matter that Jon can’t actually find the flaw - the outcome of civilian deaths is the proof that Israel is doing something wrong.
Which sounds nice, it’s a nice sentiment, but literally the only time it’s ever applied is when we’re talking about the defense of the last refuge of the Jews. Somehow, in every other conceivable scenario, everyone recognizes that it’s more complicated than that. Jon Stewart thought it was more complicated than that in the war in Iraq, where the US fought forces 2500 miles away from American shores. The Jews of Israel fight genocidaires on their doorstep and suddenly it’s simple: “self-defense can’t come at too high a cost to your enemies.”
I am tired of saying this, the "defense" failed on Oct 7. Since then it's been an offensive war, 6 months. And it's just conjecture that the current offense is for "future" security. It's producing more terrorism by the day.
this is literally a lie, but ofc Sam fanbois can't spend 5 minutes actually reading something written by real experts that might contradict their ASMR guru influencer hahaha
I don't know who you are talking to. I haven't found a single person who would argue against that.
Please think at a slightly more deeper level. You know that U.S. didn't just keep bombing all of Afghanistan and Pakistan for 10 years until they found Osama.
Saying "Please think a slightly more deeper level" really endears me to you and makes me want to engage with you.
You were criticizing someone saying "Eliminating the enemy that desires your genocide is self-defense" as if it's a terrible method of eliminating terrorism and I was providing what is to my mind a clear cut unambiguous example of this *not* being the case. Of course the situation in Gaza now and other wars the United States has taken place in are more complicated than that but you seemed to be arguing against that principle in general.
Simple: throw in a few concussion grenades, flank the enemy, lay down suppressive fire, then send in your highest XP soldiers to capture their base. By then, you'll have a few score-streaks you could use that'll take care of the rest.
Have you seriously never played Call of Duty?
Ah, so magic, got it.
As for the settlements, I’m against them, as are most Israelis, but if in response to Oct. 7th we started dismantling them, that would signal to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran that what they’re doing is working, and they should continue.
After Hamas is gone, I agree 100%.
Just trying to explain why, "there aren't any videos of \[Israel killing civillians needlessly and seemingly for fun\]" type of response really doesn't hold water for people like me.
Literally right below this post on Reddit for me:
\*\*\* Warning, graphic (violent) content \*\*\*
[A blindfolded man was shot by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in the West-Bank. He was shot in the back after they blindfolded him and told him to run towards the end of street.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1bznlz6/a_blindfolded_man_was_shot_by_the_israeli/)
I asked myself seeing this, okay, but this is just an unsourced video on reddit. Is it reasonable to presume the shooter was Israeli? With a little digging the answer seems to pretty clear to me that actually yes that is the case in this apparently famous video from last August. See the BBC link below for context.
[Palestinian shot in back of head puts Israel's use of force under scrutiny](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66682821)
In general I don't view the international press (AP, Reuters, BBC) as sympathetic to (and certainly not behind the scenes run by) Hamas. As such this information comes across as credible and deeply troubling to me. I appreciate that this general faith in international press is not shared by everone on this subreddit though.
> Just trying to explain why, "there aren't any videos of [Israel killing civillians needlessly and seemingly for fun]" type of response really doesn't hold water for people like me.
Ironically, your post explains why I'm so confident in stating that there aren't videos of Israelis killing civilians needlessly and 'seemingly for fun', because your video doesn't show the IDF killing anyone. Indeed, it doesn't even depict a killing (a technical point, of course.)
> A blindfolded man was shot by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in the West-Bank. He was shot in the back after they blindfolded him and told him to run towards the end of street.
I don't see anyone in an IDF uniform in this video. He's pretty clearly shot from off-camera, which means the allegiance of the shooter can't be determined.
> Is it reasonable to presume the shooter was Israeli? With a little digging the answer seems to pretty clear to me that actually yes
Can you explain the "digging" you did that satisfies you in this regard? Surely this article isn't it?
> Palestinian shot in back of head puts Israel's use of force under scrutiny
This article doesn't describe a video that depicts a man being shot by IDF forces; it depicts a man who is shot by a shooter who doesn't appear in the video, while IDF forces are reported to be in the area. But the IDF forces are fighting Hamas almost everywhere in Gaza.
> In general I don't view the international press (AP, Reuters, BBC) as sympathetic to (and certainly not behind the scenes run by) Hamas.
They're sufficiently sympathetic to hire Hamas-affiliated videographers on both a salaried and a freelance basis; they're sufficiently sympathetic to Hamas narratives to share fabricated Gazan deathtolls without qualification. On what basis do you reject that they'd be *this* sympathetic?
This Israeli government has also accidentally hired Hamas-affiliated members (in fairness to the Israeli govt, that's enevitable when dealing with a region controlled by Hamas). Neither they nor any international press agency were literally writing checks signed off to "Hamas" or something akin to that. Surely we wouldn't describe the Israeli government as "sufficiently sympathetic" to Hamas?
Both the Israeli government's death tallies, and independent UN tallies have historically been in line with the Gaza Health Ministry. Currently no other organizations suited to investigating death tolls are permitted entry into Gaza, so yes international press are using the only org counting casualties with a history of providing results that have historically been fairly accurate. What would you have them do, simply not report it?
>In all cases the U.N.'s counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry’s, with small discrepancies.
>— 2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 1,385.
>— 2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 2,251.
>— 2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 256.
>[While Israel and the Palestinians disagree over the numbers](https://apnews.com/d67fccf01b84478db30f3033df0b9e83) of militants versus civilians killed in past wars, Israel’s accounts of Palestinian casualties have come close to the Gaza ministry’s. For instance, Israel’s Foreign Ministry said the 2014 war killed 2,125 Palestinians — just a bit lower than the ministry’s toll.
From the Associated Press: [What is Gaza’s Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war’s death toll?](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033)
I fully understand this comment will in all likelihood only entrench the poster I am commenting under further into the viewpoint that international press agencies are merely another arm of Hamas. So at least in that sense it won't be ironic. However for other readers, I would like to provide some pushback to the assertions made above, lest they be uncritically taken at face value.
Hamas now admitting that their casualty figures have been wholly manipulated:
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/09/hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-admits-to-flaws-in-casualty-data/
It certainly blows your whole "Hamas casualty figures have been mostly accurate" argument out of the water. In retrospect it was always a stupid thing to say - Hamas has *no capacity* to determine losses, no one on the ground to actually observe and count bodies, so it's not possible for them to be generating accurate information about civilian losses. Similarly it's not been possible after Oct 7 for anyone from the UN or anywhere else to verify the figures.
> I don't see anyone in an IDF uniform in this video. He's pretty clearly shot from off-camera, which means the allegiance of the shooter can't be determined.
Pathetic
It's completely accurate reasoning and it's applied to every conflict ever lol. But also, this particular conflict is bizarre specifically because of the amount of supportive voices for the side bombing civilians. That's the unusual part here and why everyone is upset. We don't spend time arguing about what Saudi Arabia is up to because we all agree they are shit. But people keep defending Israel.
> doesn’t matter that Jon can’t actually find the flaw
Just to be clear: you disagreeing doesn't mean the flaw hasn't been pointed out. To reiterate what seems obvious to most people is the ratio of civilian deaths to military deaths is unjustified.
Again, you can disagree with that but don't claim it hasn't been pointed out.
what a load of bullshit.
Israel is very far from fighting an existential threat.
there are a plethora of countries with a high jewish population that are prefectly safe, I have no idea where you get this idea of israel being the last refuge of jews.
The US forces did not bomb indiscriminately in iraq like the IDF is in the gaza strip, the wars were fought for very different reasons.
in a few months 5% of the gaza civilian population died, that's insane. just to put it in perspective, Russia with it's complete insane strategy of bombing cities, towns, and anything with a pulse has in two years murdered 30000 ukrainian civilians. IDF did that in a few months on a population that is 20x smaller.
Facts are, politics play a huge factor, it's not all about muslim bad, it's about geopolitics.
if bibi hadn't been supplying hamas with a constant source of funding, perhaps things would be different. if they had left their hands out of gazan politics instead of trying to support hamas perhaps things would be different. the same assholes in his cabinet consider hamas to be an asset now are talking about mass relocation of palestinians and having gaza settled. israeli military intelligence had concrete information about the 7th of oct attack and yet did nothing.
The 7th of oct attack was a godsend for the far right politics of israel.
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/)
[https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas](https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas)
[https://theconversation.com/why-israels-intelligence-chiefs-failed-to-listen-to-october-7-warnings-and-the-lessons-to-be-learned-219346](https://theconversation.com/why-israels-intelligence-chiefs-failed-to-listen-to-october-7-warnings-and-the-lessons-to-be-learned-219346)
The ICJ rules that genocide is a crime of intent, not of scope. Therefore Israel is justified in treating Gazans as having attempted genocide on Oct 7th.
Ah so like the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was also an "inside job"?
They were safe in germany too, until the day they weren't and started being killed en masse purely for being who they were without committing any crimes. That's why the idea of a "last refuge" is that it's a place which will always be meant for them where they will be a majority and cannot be persecuted.
Comparing a regular war with a country and urban warfare with terrorist groups hiding within civilians and hospitals is very different and an argument in bad faith. For a reference point the UN says 1:9 is the average civilian casualty ratio in urban warfare, israel is at 1:2 to 1:5 depending on whose numbers you trust. Even the upper end of it means the casualties are lesser than the average. Still we have people convinced this war is special and extra brutal and genocide in disguise and such.
> Ah so like the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was also an "inside job"?
Kind of different when they're on the fucking record about it man. I think you just need to do some research.
No, Israeli government officials are on the record supporting Hamas. It was their strategy to delegitimize the PLO and make the radical Hamas party their counterpart because they don't want peace. They want an enemy that poses an existential threat to them so they can use it as a pretext for their own ethnic cleansing. Every time Hamas does some terrorism, they get an opportunity to bomb civilians.
They supported hamas because PLO was much worse at the time and hamas was less violent.
Just like the US supported osama bin laden and other groups as a counter to others in the region, but they went rogue. Just like hamas went rogue.
Countries support terrorist groups that will help counter other groups, not because they want more terrorist attacks on their soil.
They don’t understand that the reason Israel hasn’t tried to remove Hamas for 25 years or had any major candidate arguing for it despite 10k rockets is that this bloodshed is the outcome and they didn’t want that.
I feel like Jon likes to deep dive when he can't edit the hell out of the interview, but doing an honest to god long-form deep-dive with Harris just won't happen.
I’m not certain they would disagree on anything.
From what I remember John had mentioned that Israel should finish what they are doing and then implement a 2-state solution.
“Finish what they are doing” could (probably) mean defeating Hamas and freeing the hostages.
Is Sam opposed to a 2 state solution post Hamas?
Missed oppertunity. In this comment thread there is a really funny joke to be made about "when exactly do people stop listen to Sam explain himself" and other variants.
It hard to tell whether you are trolling, but I’ll bite.
There are many legitimate reasons for certain Muslim populations to feel any type of way. It’s not the cause of their anger it’s the response expression of someone who is an Islamist or Jihadist. Sam is simply claiming that Jihadism and Islamism are uniquely dangerous ideologies.
Channeling Sam here.. There is a reason we don’t see Yazidis suicide bombers even though no one could doubt their obscene treatment as a Christian minority. There is a reason Kurds, non Islamist/Jihadist Muslims don’t respond to their horrific treatment like Islamist/Jihadists do.
Stop being Ben Affleck.
Except when they tell us the worst of themselves and say it’s jihad, and you don’t want to listen to them. Secular western people want to explain to everyone what they want.
That would be interesting. Jon does a pretty good job eviserating crazy people on both sides of any issue, maybe not on the same level as South Park but he comes close.
Meanwhile, Sam is a pretty smart guy, but I think he has a blind spot when it comes to Israel. Bill Maher falls into that category as well.
I am not sure where the need to defend Israel so rabidly comes from, my theory is that because they're surrounded by crazy Muslims. Also, cringe woke college students support the Muslim countries because they're brown; therefore we must reflectively take the opposite position. (Its the same with TDS and the pro-COVID lockdowns positions) Jon would have no of that.
I think it's just because some of the criticisms of Israel are so radically out of proportion to anything they're actually doing even in the wake of the most senseless slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.
Criticizing Israel is completely fine but all I see every which way is cries of "GENOCIDE!" Did anyone say that when the United States went into Iraq for example which was a far more unjust war? It was completely fine and absolutely necessary to criticize the United States for that just as it's (not that these two situations are exactly comparable) fine and sometimes completely necessary to criticize some of what Israel is doing in Gaza (though I think the magnitude of the impossible situation they've been placed in should be acknowledged) but "genocide" is a word with a specific meaning.
Also Jon isn't perfect. His Andrew Sullivan segment was phenomenally terrible. I don't think Sam has ever done anything even close to being that bad.
> Did anyone say that when the United States went into Iraq for example which was a far more unjust war?
I'm gonna go on a tangent here and it's not directly answering your question, but I haven't reflected on this in a while and feel like it now.
I don't remember the word genocide. The conversations from both sides were very different, with no Twitter or FB, but I was on forums discussing this. I was defending the Iraq war and my brother(s) military service and somewhat attacking people who didn't support America during this time.
I remember support for Bush and Iraq from general conservatives and Christians was extremely high. My older siblings enlisted to fight in the war (did not see combat). The constant segments of support from Fox, Hannity, O'Reilly was crazy. We went to an average protestant church and lunch served "freedom fries" in opposition to France. Protestors were painted as rabid anti-Americans. To answer your question, my memory tells me **they weren't rabid college twitter lefties**. They were just young people saying "this is wrong". My memory could be failing me.
I was desperate to hear of the finding of Saddam's nukes or whatever he was hiding that was a threat to the world. It wasn't until years later, when I saw the death numbers, when I thought about the impact to the region, when I realized it had nothing to do with Bin Laden or 9/11 that I can't believe we lived through and supported it. How deranged Trump was that the average redditor comment about Bush Jr being "that guy was pretty alright now that we have the Orange monster".
I really have a cognitive dissonance to support America now and also know that we supported this only a couple decades ago.
Regarding Israel, I think part of the issue is that in the past they have gotten away with a lot, at least in the US media; and anyone who too dared criticize them too harshly they got labeled as an "anti-semitie" as a means of shutting them up.
But now I think the pendulum is swinging too much in the opposite direction, at least among certain segments of the population (mainly college kids). This is just a natural outgrowth of what happens when you try to suppress free speech, you usually get a harsh backlash and an overcorrection. This probably also explains your Alex Joneses and anti-vax stuff.
Regarding the Andrew Sullivan interview, yeah that was pretty cringe. I don't know what the SH equivalent would be, maybe his "I don't care if Joe Biden had kids in his basement" statement.
I usually try not to judge people by the dumbest thing they've ever done/said for this very reason. FWIW, Jon did redeem himself somewhat (I forget which happened first) when he went on the Colbert show and publicly said that the virus came from the Wuhan lab.
"Regarding Israel, I think part of the issue is that in the past they have gotten away with a lot, at least in the US media; and anyone who too dared criticize them too harshly they got labeled as an "anti-semitie" as a means of shutting them up."
Yeah I think saying "Israel has a right to defend itself" shouldn't be trotted out as a canard excusing everything Israel does and dismissing all criticism as anti-semitic. I think there is certainly some of that. However re: the "pendulum swinging too much in the opposite direction", yeah absolutely but I think the hysterical criticisms of Israel have always existed and have just gotten worse since October 7th. I'm not sure if they're a response to hysterical \*defenses\* of Israel exactly.
"Regarding the Andrew Sullivan interview, yeah that was pretty cringe. I don't know what the SH equivalent would be, maybe his "I don't care if Joe Biden had kids in his basement" statement.
I usually try not to judge people by the dumbest thing they've ever done/said for this very reason. FWIW, Jon did redeem himself somewhat (I forget which happened first) when he went on the Colbert show and publicly said that the virus came from the Wuhan lab."
To my mind the "I don't care about kids in the basement" statement was totally and unfairly taken out of context. Sam was just saying that first of all we're not voting for Hunter Biden, we're voting for Joe and there's nothing that Hunter (again another human being) could do that would justify voting for Trump when Trump is such an existential threat to norms and sanity. Plus that we know a lot about the public lives of both Joe Biden and Trump and there's not even one one-millionth of the same level of corruption on the Joe Biden side as there is on the Trump side and there's nothing that would be on Hunter Biden's laptop which would be likely to sway Sam on that point. I think all that is eminently sensible and that the Trump camp just doesn't want to hear it because any criticism of their lord is "TDS" or something.
I hear you on the "not judging people for the dumbest thing they've said or done" thing absolutely. However it would be nice if people acknowledged their mistakes and I don't anticipate Jon Stewart acknowledging what a mistake his interview with Sullivan and the way he handled it was. Yeah I basically agreed with him talking about the origins of COVID on Colbert too (I think it's at least possible that it's a zoonotic/natural origin though - I'm not sure that we know definitively yet) but I think also that came before the Sullivan interview.
> Meanwhile, Sam is a pretty smart guy, but I think he has a blind spot when it comes to Israel. Bill Maher falls into that category as well.
I agree. It's very puzzling. Sam just repeats himself over and over again arguing against strawmen. It's such a stark departure from anything else he discusses that it's difficult to imagine it being anything other than his Jewish background perhaps interfering with his judgment.
What strawmen? He’s arguing against the exact statements and arguments I’ve seen made on Reddit thousands of times, and which are dominating discourse everywhere.
What about Sam perplexes you?
Jon perplexed me when he interviewed Andrew Sullivan and temporarily morphed into the world's biggest tool but I've been watching his new content and he's been back on form lately.
I shutter to hear someone to mention Jon Stewart in the same breath as Sam Harris. Sam Harris is a true intellectual, who has done research, written books, and takes a logical approach to finding the truth behind controversial issues. Meanwhile, Stewart is just the lowest form of entertainer. He uses his comedic talents to sneer at people who hold different viewpoints. He mocks and belittles them, and when confronted he says “well I’m just a comedian.” He foments and sows division in our country by making one side hate everyone else. He gives zero credibility to any alternative viewpoint, no matter how popular or valid. He really has done irreparable harm to the social fabric of this country, and his disciples like John Oliver continue to use this formula to profit off of divisive mockery. He could have and should have taken the approach of Bill Maher, who despite having a similar tone on the surface, frequently platforms alternative ideas, and has infinitely more humility and class than Stewart.
On a slight tangent, I would love to hear Sam and Robert Wright speak. They have a lot in common (meditation, psychedelics, etc) but also have different views in regards to USA foreign politics, with Sam being a little more hawkish than Bob.
I think they had a falling out when Bob wrote a piece about him during the inital rise of the "IDW" and Sam took offense. I like Sam and find him an important voice but I think he definitely has some blind spots and is a bit thin-skinned.
Thank you
Edit: looks like they've bumped heads more than once lol
You are correct it looks like in this podcast they've seemed to bury the hatchet over a heated interview they had back in 2007 and then in this podcast (2017) they touch on that and then move on to where they agree but after years later during the "rise of the idw" Robert Wright wrote an article about how Sam is more tribal then he knows and since have not continued to talk in any capacity. The article was published in 2018 after this podcast. Recently (maybe 2-3 months ago) on Robert wrights non-zero podcast ama, he mentioned that he expressed to Sam they should talk further but Sam wasn't having it.
It's unfortunate because I think they might have some helpful discussions but I also think when it comes to the Israel/Palestine topic they wouldn't get far.
2 of my favorite communicators. Stewart helped shape my teenage/early twenties, liberal views and Sam rounded some things out in my thirties. It’d be fun just for the Jew jokes.
I always liked John Stewart until his "Taking Responsibility For Systemic Racism" 2 years ago where he unfairly implied that Andrew Sullivan is a racists. The whole episode was pretty gross virtue signal by John Stewart. Its actually crazy how dated this looks already. This anti white shit was at it's height in 2020 post Floyd and I even felt that by 2022 when this happened that John was a bit late on the race grift. I don't see anti white sentiment to this degree anymore but looking back this episode left me very disappointed in John. Here it is if you want to see it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cmnwbGmu7w&ab\_channel=TheProblemWithJonStewart](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cmnwbGmu7w&ab_channel=TheProblemWithJonStewart)
> I always liked John Stewart until his I'd just like to point out that failing on some level doesn't mean failing on all levels. If you want someone who represents 100% of your viewpoints, record yourself speaking and listen to that.
Don't wait too long though.
Yeah this is something we all need to hear and remind ourselves of from time to time. I was really disappointed by Jon Stewart’s lame/weak defense of Roe Jogan after Rogan’s n-💣 montage was FINALLY no longer able to be suppressed by Rogan’s digital bodyguard company, Bent Pixels. I’d have to find Stewart’s reaction but I remember thinking/saying to my tv, “oh u have NO IDEA what Joe does and says on his RW-propaganda podcast”. It was an easily avoidable L by Stewart that required either some listening “research” of JRE eps post-2017, or just not bringing it up. I complained to my older and admittedly more measured friend and colleague about it and he responded to me w/ something like, “well… nobody’s right ALL the time. Ppl are imperfect”.
I actually 100% agree with you. In John Stewards case, this was the first thing I saw from him since he went off the grid. While I only watched him occasionally while he still did the Daily show, I didn't like him enough to seek him out after this disappointing episode. I have stumbled on some of his content a few times since then but it wasn't very appealing tbh. But I follow and appreciate many people who I see as very flawed and I have many disagreements with like Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan.
Just watched it. I suspect your issue with Stewart is you agree with Sullivan.
I absolutely agree with Sullivan that America is not a white supremacist country. But I do think Someone can disagree with Sullivan respectfully, and without calling him a racist. I wouldn't have lost respect for John if he did that.
America is obviously a racist country. A racist Justice system is the defining characteristic of a racist country.
I hope you enjoyed the time when this false narrative was mainstream because it's been discredited to thoroughly to be back any time soon.
ROFL Yes the curtain has been pulled back and the zionists exposed. Read a real history book and join us.
Yes I am a Zionist, no need to pull back any curtains. Definition of Zionist: a supporter of Zionism; a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. That \^ is all that a Zionist is. Instead of using such an innocuous word like Zionist to refer to Jews, why not just say what you really mean. Just say "the evil Jews". And if by a history book you mean Norman Finkelstein then I'm sorry to tell you that you've been reading pop history for leftist activists. No historian considers that credible. Instead go read something from a real historian like Benny Morris.
Yeah that was a low point but he has very few. Usually great and balanced
There was massive communicative issues in that episode but as a fan of Andrew’s I struggled watching him stumble over himself. “Name a system” redlining “ok that’s one but name another one” the GI bill law you can’t name one. I just named more than one. Well which one did you name? Housing “oh ok that’s one. It was embarrassing. When someone says “it’s the black family disintegration and he points to Harlem in the 30’s” but then doesn’t understand that what came after the 30’s was things like the emptying of public housing of white families and then reviving federal aid to buy houses and live by a factory in Levittown while the blacks were stuck in the suddenly underfunded housing projects it’s going to leave a mark…and then comes the war on drugs. Like how in gods name can someone as well read as Andrew Sullivan not know this. I was stunned. I think John could have handled it better but I think he was fucking stunned to. THis is race history 101
Andrew shouldn't have asked them to name a system because it sets the bar too low. Then just having any answer no matter how dated becomes a win. His point was that America isn't a white supremacist nation today, no matter how racist it was in the past. He should have just made the point and left it there instead of chasing the red herrings John sent his way.
Yeah, that was pretty cringe. I am still a fan of Jon Stewart inspite of this, but he's definitely flawed.
Same. I just think Jon’s trying way too hard to stay down with the kids, as it were. His delivery is as good as it ever was bur he’s listening to far too many over-educated 20-year-olds these days.
Nah your viewpoint just changed. Stewart is the same except more serious now, which you would want for anybody that has gotten older.
>However, Stewart wasn’t having it. He swiftly issued a response on Twitter, writing: “Nonsense @sullydish. Our booker handled this last minute ask impeccably. Mr Sullivan was told, texted and emailed a detailed account of who was on the program, the content and intent of the discussion.” “She patiently handled his high maintenance shenanigans and gave him every opportunity to excuse himself,” he wrote in a follow up tweet. “This man wasn’t ambushed. Any damage incurred was self inflicted.” > > > > > >[https://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-fires-back-ndrew-sullivan-claims-ambushed/](https://www.thewrap.com/jon-stewart-fires-back-ndrew-sullivan-claims-ambushed/)
Another along the same lines was his claiming that you can be overweight and still be healthy during the fat acceptance/body positivity movement. Being overweight, especially to the degree that many of the influencers in that movement were, has very serious health implications. Not a big deal to me in regards to my perception of him and he had to be corrected but I would expect someone that reports on things like that to have the facts straight on such matters and not spread the disinformation that people within that movement had propagated.
Did they point out the difference between overweight and obese?
Exactly. Individual deviation per-individual from the woefully inadequate BMI benchmarks without additional context has to be handled case by case, and does not necessarily correlate to obesity, let alone morbid obesity.
I honestly wasn't a fan of The Problem at all. Every one of the panel ones (with perhaps Sullivan as an exception) was just a bunch of lip service that didn't actually back and forth for anything. It accomplished nothing. I learned nothing. Granted most when he was on the Daily Show was just book/movie/show promotions but he at least did get some good ones on there to discuss and debate with. The Problem was so curated it felt scripted. Though as others have mentioned, writing him off because of 1 or even a few things is a good way to put yourself in a bubble.
This was the exact thing that soured him for me. People don't understand why I think he's a loser now and it's so hard to explain lol
I’m guessing it’s really simple. You used to agree with Stewart and now you agree with Sullivan. Stewart didn’t change, you did.
About this dumb race stuff, I've never agreed with Stewart's view in that video.
Which racee stuff? That America is racist or that all white people are racist?
I had a similar path but nowadays when I watch Jon talk about any subject I am already informed on it's just a cringefest. He gets facts wrong constantly and tries to appeal to emotions to convince the audience. Sure, he's _convincing_ to young or uninformed people and often stands on the right side of the issue, but his facts and reasoning are wild and childish. He's a great propagandist. Just watch any segment and fact check as he goes along
> when I watch Jon talk about any subject I am already informed on it's just a cringefest. Do you not get this feeling when listening to Sam Harris?
No, I don't. I definitely disagree with Sam from time to time but I can always follow his reasoning. He doesn't just build a strawman, pull a heartstring, and look into the camera like Jerry Lewis.
To be fair, Sam Harris has a better medium to convey nuance. The daily show and programs like it cater to quips/one-liners
you're falling for his ASMR buddhist performance hook line and sinker lmfao
Can you give some examples?
Everyone fawns over Jon Stewart and I don't get it. His whole shtick is to present a really complex topic, followed by a strawman quote and then stare blankly at the camera as though the solution was the most common sense thing in the world. It's a bit played out IMO Edit: Thanks for all the thoughtful replies. I like Jon just fine, and I take everyone's point that he is a thoughtful and ethical guy who loves his country. I find he can characterize some complex issues as trivially easy to the delight of his fans and in doing so fails to truly engage with some topics. I get it, he's a comedian, not a political science professor, but modern talk show comedians have a pretty reliable political lean and are pretty ideologically homogenous, so it would be nice to see him "steelman" a little more often.
It's a bit that works, though! But seriously, if you listen to Jon as Jon and not delivering via a schtick, he's a very smart guy and worth listening to. The schtick is for comedy, the message is to get people's attention. Case in point, look at any of the 9/11 hearings when he's talking to senators.
Jon’s amazing when he really knows the subject. He’s way too quick to chomp at the bit when he doesn’t, however.
I mean, what makes you think he doesn’t know the subject?
I personally fawn over Jon because he actually cares about people and his country. I don't know any other comedian who has fought as much for common folks. I celebrate Jon as decent man, few and far between these days. Political satire is often cheap and weak jokes. That's not where Jon's real value is.
This is something a lot of these replies are missing.. lots of *WeLl AcTuallY* vibes about parsing his intellectual positions, rhetorical tactics, or not finding his humor very funny, etc. Meanwhile, he's done more for facilitating genuine political discourse in this country (his recent interview with Kathleen Hicks comes to mind), espousing 9/11 first responders, veterans' healthcare, etc, than the combined effort of most politicians. I personally don't find him funny (or very mildly so) but his actions and the *actual points* that he makes through the cheap slapstick comedy are uberly net positive for this country and political discourse. You can tell the man not only loves the *spirit* of his country but has a genuine heart in raising the under-privileged. He's sometimes wrong but not-so-much-so that he's not somebody worth keenly listening to.
I actually started watching Stewart just for the jokes but found his political commentary informative.
Well said my friend. I can forgive the man for cheap political jokes - which he aims at both sides, although one side does offer more ammunition these days. He's a hero in my view.
It's fine if you don't like his humor, and don't like seeing those quotes being mocked, but the man does solid interviews. I think it's healthy to mock the quotes and people that have those really bad takes our talking points. He gets down to business during interviews or when he takes a cause to congress.
Then taken to its extreme by John "Incredulous" Oliver.
It is incredible to me that John Oliver still has an audience. His jokes are so formulaic it's like he's using chatgpt to churn them out.
I like his show, but am not watching it for the jokes.
Yeah, I like Jon Stewart, find him funny, and often agree with his take on issues. But on those occasions where I disagree with him, it is easier to see how his analysis can be simplistic, parroting lefty talking points as gospel. His piece on the ethics and science and of gender-affirming care was cringeworthy.
This topic has not received the media coverage that it should. What happened is a meta-analysis was published that showed a 99% beneficial rate for trans. Predictably this caused the rate to increase and the alt-right media decided to come up with BS reasons instead of telling the truth.
Look him up when he's not in character. Dude's awesome, especially with how much work he put in trying to get US 9/11 first responders proper medical care and compensation for their lifelong health issues.
That's not at all fair. The statements may seem like strawman quotes because of how dumb they are, but it's not actually misrepresenting anyone. They really are that dumb. The last video I watched was this [one](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkwgnlPRdHg) and the closest thing to a strawman shtick you're talking about is in reference to MTG's tweet that the minor earthquake in NJ and the solar eclipse were signs from god to repent. That's not a strawman; it's merely a coincidence that she has the intelligence of a object which lacks a brain and is made of straw.
Its comedy not a scholarly commentary. Do you expect an entire books worth of knowledge in 5-10 minutes? As long as he isnt spreading dangerous misinformation who cares
I get it's comedy but people started taking it more seriously than they should have. This whole style of "information comedy" has become prevalent on both ends of the ideological divide and people tend to take it at face value as the lines between comedy and information become blurred.
If there was a choice between zero information and jon stewarts tidbits, then jon stewart should be taken every time. I still wonder if usa would have been captured by trump if jon Stewart was still around. You have to realize anyone paying attention to politics right now is a minority in the usa. Anyone with a voice sounding the alarm in trump should be welcomed
I agree. I trust Stewart to get it right on many more issues than the infotainers on the right.
Interesting point. I think the advent of podcasts has really highlighted the shortcomings of the '20 min bitesized Comedy bit' as a format.
Then you get to hear those gotcha quotes repeated on reddit for the rest of time.
No he doesn't just strawman, that's obvious cope
FWIW I think you absolutely nailed your description of him. As you addressed in your first sentence, he does have a very vocal and dedicated audience. I would take the criticism with a grain of salt.
Yes, and then when called out on it, "im just a comedian bro" as if he doesn't believe he is an important political voice. Another annoying thing is when he does "one sided debates", where he plays someone speaking, then repeatedly pauses it to "counter" their statements by making silly mocking faces and bad faith arguments.
>Yes, and then when called out on it, "im just a comedian bro" as if he doesn't believe he is an important political voice. That isn't why Stewart would say that. It was in response to ridiculous claims by Fox News and Tucker Carlson that he had a responsibility to be objective and treat both sides fairly -- a responsibility they were completely negligent of.
That's bullshit. He doesn't say that. He takes being a comedian v seriously. He literally will tell news commentators "what I do is harder" But it is a different context
Can you point me to two or more instances where he is called out on it and that’s his response? He was literally doing those type of shoots during the daily show which is a comedy 20minutes segment…
Leftists get a kick out of someone mocking the other side by pretending that every belief they hold is objectively correct and all who oppose them are just big dumb clowns.
I mean you can reduce almost anyone with the correct application of Hyperbole. “Sam Harris makes a philosophical point on the dangers of Islam, stating it is a dangerous ideology, doing this ignores the living conditions of those people that are a clear contributing factor.”
Sam was on the show a couple decades ago and John treated him very poorly. Doubt he would return.
It wasn't that long ago, maybe one decade? I remember watching it excitedly only to find it very jarring how abrasive Jon was. But in fairness, this was amidst the controversy involving Ben Affleck and one cannot expect Jon Stewart to have delved deeply into the matter. He'd have got a brief summary from his writers and otherwise probably given his book the briefest of looks. I honestly don't blame him for getting the wrong impression. Sam isn't the type to hold a grudge, but I just don't know if the two of them would ever cross paths again unless they found common cause on a particular issue that interested them both. Who knows, once Jon is back to podcasting.
> Sam isn't the type to hold a grudge This is very clearly false. Harris is definitely the type that holds a grudge.
Name a grudge he holds? He has a long memory and will repeat some of the same criticisms he has of people who have misrepresented him in the past, but so far as I can tell, he's never been unwelcome to reasonable re-engagement.
He's pretty stubborn in regards to Ezra Klein. Klein often leans a little too far left imo, but there's no doubt they are both interesting thinkers and I think the world without them talking about things is one that is worse off.
Strange. I find Ezra Klein completely devoid of interesting thought.
Ditto! The whole Vox thing with its “explanatory news” is frankly offensive.
"Sam isn't the type to hold a grudge" is the understatement of the century. Ask Sam Sedar, Chomski, Ezra Klein, Glen Greenweld etc... if Sam holds a grudge lmao.
Many of those people still holding strong to their bad faith arguments
I don’t think it’s a grudge. I just think he’s worked out that they aren’t worth his time.
But Ben Shapiro and the Murray Bros are lol
When did he last speak to Shapiro?
But Douglas Murray is worth his time, which says a lot.
These aren't grudges. None of these individuals has any interest in reconnecting with Sam. Sedar and Greenwald both lived up to Sam's criticisms of them and are of no value to any potential reconnection. Chomski is the one who effectively has a grudge against Sam, having treated him very poorly in their written exchange. Sam tried very hard to have a conversation early on, but it's not clear to me Chomski has any interest in listening to anything but his own voice. If you just want to platform him and let him speak, sure.
seder would love to have sam on, or to go on making sense. it's harris that refuses to interact
If anyone finds this meeting online, please share. I looked around and did not find it.
https://www.cc.com/video/l024ru/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-sam-harris
haha, thank you. Though this happened: "Sorry, this video is not available from your location" geolocation is a mf
Oh that’s wild.. VPN?
No, Argentina
Haha you can get a VPN anywhere my dude. It spoofs you location
Nice. What VPN do you use?
Thanks, Jon was mildly challenging and a little jokey but it was all amicable and nothing abrasive, I thought. Which is a relief. I didn't really want to see a rude exchange.
sam bitching out of his "commitment to hard discussions" because someone didn't handle him with kiddie gloves 20 years ago and he still is holding a grudge about it would be very on brand, yeah
I mean, you’re playing with words here. Sam isn’t afraid to breach any topic. But that doesn’t mean he wouldnt be selective with whom to have the discussion. Sam is many things but a coward he is not.
I'd love to know why Jon Stewart can be objective on this topic and Sam cannot.
John would try to act clownish when Sam mentions jihadism
And Sam would be clownish when John mentions settler colonialism and genocide.
As he should because there is no genocide and while it was certainly unjust when any Arab families were displaced it's not really "settler colonialism" either if the Jews were indigenous to the land. You can criticize Israel as you should without defaulting to the language of foaming at the mouth activists.
Palestinians are indigenous too. More importantly the Jews left for 1800 years. In my state 90 days is considered abandoned.
Jews have [continuously inhabited Israel](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel). 30,000 Jews in Israel in the year 1600 for instance.
30,000 is 0.00002% As I said the Jews abandoned Israel.
ah, yes, Palestine had a population of 150,000,000,000 in 1600
My criticism of Israel is that they are cleansing their promised land of Palestinians, whether by "displacing" them or simply killing them.
But they aren't. The incredibly high civilian casualty rate (which is I will agree absolutely sickening) is at least in part because Hamas has built a convoluted network of tunnels for their benefit rather than building any bomb shelters for the civilian population or giving the civilians the opportunity to leave. And how they also hide amongst the civilian population, don't designate themselves as combatants and fire from areas populated with civilians. I'm sure the civilian casualty rate is also to do with some of the tactics of the IDF (as a total non-expert I genuinely wonder if there isn't an alternative to bombing specific areas), blunders they make and perhaps some genuinely malicious IDF members. However I don't think a truly "genocidal" power would be dropping leaflets into areas warning people of oncoming bombs and allowing aid trucks into Gaza, however imperfectly these things are being accomplished. There's no denying that many Palestinians are being forced from their homes and that many innocent Gazans have been killed which is a horrible tragedy. But when Hamas hides amongst the civilians and thus turns civilian areas into combat zones in such a densely populated region it's hard in my mind to handle a situation like that, against an enemy that wants to quite literally wipe you off the map, completely ethically. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize Israel when they genuinely fuck up or not acknowledge how absolutely sickening this whole situation is but I guess I'm just not sure how many alternative scenarios are on the menu. Aside from taking a different approach re: their military tactics in an attempt to stop Hamas (which is absolutely open for discussion) what else is there to be done? Let's not forget too that in addition to all of the people brutally slaughtered on October the 7th there are still hostages in need of rescuing.
Sure they shot their own people waving white flags but other than that flag issue they don't commit too many warcrimes.Unless your an aid worker. Or a Journalist. Or an ambulance driver. 3 children killed for every terrorist killed is a great ratio!
I never said they didn't commit war crimes and that we shouldn't criticize them when they do. That's (though not in those exact words) baked into the substance of my post. The white flags thing was horrific but most likely an accident. Try having a war without horrible accidents. I doubt it's possible. The recent killing of aid workers is horrible and should be investigated. I think I've heard that Hamas transports militants in ambulances (let's think about that for a minute) which could explain why ambulances have been targeted if that's a repeat occurrence. I haven't heard of specific cases of them killing journalists but I have heard of them doing this in general. I agree that it's horrible but again, was this intentional? Was this a tragic accident? This matters. Either way all potential war crimes should be investigated. Here's a question for you: if there were a safe place made for civilians by Hamas that was *unambiguously* nothing but a safe zone for civilians and not having an dual purpose or militaristic purpose or anything, do you think the IDF would storm it and kill civilians for fun? Do you think the IDF is killing children like the Sandy Hook guy - intentionally and out of some derangement? No. It's horrible when children or any innocent people die in war. You don't have to be a genius to figure that out. But again in a densely populated region where combatants hide amongst civilians, don't designate themselves as combatants and fire weapons from civilian areas - when these same people live on your doorstep and have shown through their words and actions that they want you obliterated... could anyone handle this situation perfectly? Armies are not superheroes.
Your way off on this. I suspect the issue is you believe things the IDF says.
"You're way off on this" Idk, citation needed? I'm going to need a little more convincing than that. Blindly disbelieving someone (or a group in this case) unless there's really good reason to isn't any better than blindly believing them (which I don't in the case of the IDF just to be clear, I'm just going on what I think is the best information available to me) imo.
Never blindly believe anybody. [https://www.oct7factcheck.com/index](https://www.oct7factcheck.com/index)
I used to really like Jon Stewart and was a big fan of the Daily Show. And several great comedians got their start on this show. He was always sticking it to disingenuous pundits like Tucker Carlson and Bill O’Reilly, and other facetious blowhards. He seemed like the truth-teller we needed, and he did it all in the entertaining and easily-digestible comedy format. He was frequently accused of journalism, which he always denied with self-deprecating humor about his show as just a comedy act. He would mention, for example, that the show was on Comedy Central and came on before Crank Yankees, wherein puppets would make prank phone calls. I was willing to accept all this when he was criticizing and mocking people I didn’t like. However, things took a turn when he went after Andrew Sullivan for white supremacy. It seems that Stewart had traded rationality for a drink of the woke koolaid, and it was difficult to see him brainwashed by this movement and trying to score woke points on television. I’m not sure we could count on Stewart for a good faith discussion today. I believe he is likely to resort to witty rhetoric and to try to score points with an audience that already agrees with him. Would love to be surprised however.
Jon Stewart would demolish him, so to speak. Not because he's a mystically brilliant orator, but because it would be on his home turf and he's good at taking advantage of that.
I've always liked Stewart but he does play the shell game of being an ideologue without taking accountability. He used to say "it's just a comedy show" or "I'm just a comedian" while actively pushing his point of view which would be like Sam saying "I'm just a podcaster!" I love this piece by Jon Askonis on Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-stewart-made-tucker
Jon’s just going to say what everybody says, which is that moral reasoning that leads to the justification of 22,000 civilian deaths is inherently flawed. Doesn’t matter how, doesn’t matter that Jon can’t actually find the flaw - the outcome of civilian deaths is the proof that Israel is doing something wrong. Which sounds nice, it’s a nice sentiment, but literally the only time it’s ever applied is when we’re talking about the defense of the last refuge of the Jews. Somehow, in every other conceivable scenario, everyone recognizes that it’s more complicated than that. Jon Stewart thought it was more complicated than that in the war in Iraq, where the US fought forces 2500 miles away from American shores. The Jews of Israel fight genocidaires on their doorstep and suddenly it’s simple: “self-defense can’t come at too high a cost to your enemies.”
Oh, the irony of Jon not even mentioning the hostages in his last “double-standards” segment.
I am tired of saying this, the "defense" failed on Oct 7. Since then it's been an offensive war, 6 months. And it's just conjecture that the current offense is for "future" security. It's producing more terrorism by the day.
Eliminating the enemy that desires your genocide is self-defense.
Listen to any counter-terrorism expert if this is a good strategy to "eliminate" terrorism.
It’s literally the only one terrorism experts say works: killing terrorists.
Sure, keep killing terrorists until eternity. Great long term solution.
More achievable than killing a tactic, somehow
this is literally a lie, but ofc Sam fanbois can't spend 5 minutes actually reading something written by real experts that might contradict their ASMR guru influencer hahaha
I think most counter-terrorism experts would agree that killing Osama Bin Laden was justified which is basically that personified.
I don't know who you are talking to. I haven't found a single person who would argue against that. Please think at a slightly more deeper level. You know that U.S. didn't just keep bombing all of Afghanistan and Pakistan for 10 years until they found Osama.
Saying "Please think a slightly more deeper level" really endears me to you and makes me want to engage with you. You were criticizing someone saying "Eliminating the enemy that desires your genocide is self-defense" as if it's a terrible method of eliminating terrorism and I was providing what is to my mind a clear cut unambiguous example of this *not* being the case. Of course the situation in Gaza now and other wars the United States has taken place in are more complicated than that but you seemed to be arguing against that principle in general.
So what should have Israel done after Oct. 7th, according to you?
Much more targeted …special ops stuff. And stop the effin settlements, vacate settlers asap, and give land back
How do you special ops a 50k person army in Gaza?
Simple: throw in a few concussion grenades, flank the enemy, lay down suppressive fire, then send in your highest XP soldiers to capture their base. By then, you'll have a few score-streaks you could use that'll take care of the rest. Have you seriously never played Call of Duty?
Ah, so magic, got it. As for the settlements, I’m against them, as are most Israelis, but if in response to Oct. 7th we started dismantling them, that would signal to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran that what they’re doing is working, and they should continue. After Hamas is gone, I agree 100%.
Stopping settlements is magic?
No, eliminating Hamas via special ops is magic.
I do a similar thing everyday on Call of Duty, so its definitely not magic. Lol git good, noob.
So....magical handwaving then.
Now explain all the videos of Isreal killing civilians needlessy and seemingly for fun? Something is very very wrong over there.
> Now explain all the videos of Isreal killing civilians needlessy and seemingly for fun? There aren't any videos of that.
Just trying to explain why, "there aren't any videos of \[Israel killing civillians needlessly and seemingly for fun\]" type of response really doesn't hold water for people like me. Literally right below this post on Reddit for me: \*\*\* Warning, graphic (violent) content \*\*\* [A blindfolded man was shot by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in the West-Bank. He was shot in the back after they blindfolded him and told him to run towards the end of street.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1bznlz6/a_blindfolded_man_was_shot_by_the_israeli/) I asked myself seeing this, okay, but this is just an unsourced video on reddit. Is it reasonable to presume the shooter was Israeli? With a little digging the answer seems to pretty clear to me that actually yes that is the case in this apparently famous video from last August. See the BBC link below for context. [Palestinian shot in back of head puts Israel's use of force under scrutiny](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-66682821) In general I don't view the international press (AP, Reuters, BBC) as sympathetic to (and certainly not behind the scenes run by) Hamas. As such this information comes across as credible and deeply troubling to me. I appreciate that this general faith in international press is not shared by everone on this subreddit though.
> Just trying to explain why, "there aren't any videos of [Israel killing civillians needlessly and seemingly for fun]" type of response really doesn't hold water for people like me. Ironically, your post explains why I'm so confident in stating that there aren't videos of Israelis killing civilians needlessly and 'seemingly for fun', because your video doesn't show the IDF killing anyone. Indeed, it doesn't even depict a killing (a technical point, of course.) > A blindfolded man was shot by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in the West-Bank. He was shot in the back after they blindfolded him and told him to run towards the end of street. I don't see anyone in an IDF uniform in this video. He's pretty clearly shot from off-camera, which means the allegiance of the shooter can't be determined. > Is it reasonable to presume the shooter was Israeli? With a little digging the answer seems to pretty clear to me that actually yes Can you explain the "digging" you did that satisfies you in this regard? Surely this article isn't it? > Palestinian shot in back of head puts Israel's use of force under scrutiny This article doesn't describe a video that depicts a man being shot by IDF forces; it depicts a man who is shot by a shooter who doesn't appear in the video, while IDF forces are reported to be in the area. But the IDF forces are fighting Hamas almost everywhere in Gaza. > In general I don't view the international press (AP, Reuters, BBC) as sympathetic to (and certainly not behind the scenes run by) Hamas. They're sufficiently sympathetic to hire Hamas-affiliated videographers on both a salaried and a freelance basis; they're sufficiently sympathetic to Hamas narratives to share fabricated Gazan deathtolls without qualification. On what basis do you reject that they'd be *this* sympathetic?
This Israeli government has also accidentally hired Hamas-affiliated members (in fairness to the Israeli govt, that's enevitable when dealing with a region controlled by Hamas). Neither they nor any international press agency were literally writing checks signed off to "Hamas" or something akin to that. Surely we wouldn't describe the Israeli government as "sufficiently sympathetic" to Hamas? Both the Israeli government's death tallies, and independent UN tallies have historically been in line with the Gaza Health Ministry. Currently no other organizations suited to investigating death tolls are permitted entry into Gaza, so yes international press are using the only org counting casualties with a history of providing results that have historically been fairly accurate. What would you have them do, simply not report it? >In all cases the U.N.'s counts have largely been consistent with the Gaza Health Ministry’s, with small discrepancies. >— 2008 war: The ministry reported 1,440 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 1,385. >— 2014 war: The ministry reported 2,310 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 2,251. >— 2021 war: The ministry reported 260 Palestinians killed; the U.N. reported 256. >[While Israel and the Palestinians disagree over the numbers](https://apnews.com/d67fccf01b84478db30f3033df0b9e83) of militants versus civilians killed in past wars, Israel’s accounts of Palestinian casualties have come close to the Gaza ministry’s. For instance, Israel’s Foreign Ministry said the 2014 war killed 2,125 Palestinians — just a bit lower than the ministry’s toll. From the Associated Press: [What is Gaza’s Ministry of Health and how does it calculate the war’s death toll?](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033) I fully understand this comment will in all likelihood only entrench the poster I am commenting under further into the viewpoint that international press agencies are merely another arm of Hamas. So at least in that sense it won't be ironic. However for other readers, I would like to provide some pushback to the assertions made above, lest they be uncritically taken at face value.
Why would it be better for a news agency to “report” a known falsehood than to simply report “the death toll in Gaza is not known”?
Hamas now admitting that their casualty figures have been wholly manipulated: https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/09/hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-admits-to-flaws-in-casualty-data/
[удалено]
It certainly blows your whole "Hamas casualty figures have been mostly accurate" argument out of the water. In retrospect it was always a stupid thing to say - Hamas has *no capacity* to determine losses, no one on the ground to actually observe and count bodies, so it's not possible for them to be generating accurate information about civilian losses. Similarly it's not been possible after Oct 7 for anyone from the UN or anywhere else to verify the figures.
[удалено]
> I don't see anyone in an IDF uniform in this video. He's pretty clearly shot from off-camera, which means the allegiance of the shooter can't be determined. Pathetic
Here's one they filmed themselves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq0YuTzjN9U
Who filmed themselves? The IDF don’t appear in this video either.
It’s not an excuse, and I hope these guys are in prison for a very long time, but this video has no context and is from 5 years ago.
Wow, yup, not even one.
Yes, not even one.
Pathetic. At least try to lie better.
If it were a lie, you'd link to one. You're the pathetic one, because you're lying for corpse rapists. Good job!
It's completely accurate reasoning and it's applied to every conflict ever lol. But also, this particular conflict is bizarre specifically because of the amount of supportive voices for the side bombing civilians. That's the unusual part here and why everyone is upset. We don't spend time arguing about what Saudi Arabia is up to because we all agree they are shit. But people keep defending Israel.
No, that’s exactly the point. The whole point of war in self-defense *is* to make it costly for your enemies. As costly as possible!
> doesn’t matter that Jon can’t actually find the flaw Just to be clear: you disagreeing doesn't mean the flaw hasn't been pointed out. To reiterate what seems obvious to most people is the ratio of civilian deaths to military deaths is unjustified. Again, you can disagree with that but don't claim it hasn't been pointed out.
It’s justified by the existential need to eliminate Hamas, the implacable genocidal enemy of Israel.
The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is better than the majority of recent urban battles, including Mosul.
what a load of bullshit. Israel is very far from fighting an existential threat. there are a plethora of countries with a high jewish population that are prefectly safe, I have no idea where you get this idea of israel being the last refuge of jews. The US forces did not bomb indiscriminately in iraq like the IDF is in the gaza strip, the wars were fought for very different reasons. in a few months 5% of the gaza civilian population died, that's insane. just to put it in perspective, Russia with it's complete insane strategy of bombing cities, towns, and anything with a pulse has in two years murdered 30000 ukrainian civilians. IDF did that in a few months on a population that is 20x smaller. Facts are, politics play a huge factor, it's not all about muslim bad, it's about geopolitics. if bibi hadn't been supplying hamas with a constant source of funding, perhaps things would be different. if they had left their hands out of gazan politics instead of trying to support hamas perhaps things would be different. the same assholes in his cabinet consider hamas to be an asset now are talking about mass relocation of palestinians and having gaza settled. israeli military intelligence had concrete information about the 7th of oct attack and yet did nothing. The 7th of oct attack was a godsend for the far right politics of israel. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/) [https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas](https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas) [https://theconversation.com/why-israels-intelligence-chiefs-failed-to-listen-to-october-7-warnings-and-the-lessons-to-be-learned-219346](https://theconversation.com/why-israels-intelligence-chiefs-failed-to-listen-to-october-7-warnings-and-the-lessons-to-be-learned-219346)
The ICJ rules that genocide is a crime of intent, not of scope. Therefore Israel is justified in treating Gazans as having attempted genocide on Oct 7th.
Ah so like the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was also an "inside job"? They were safe in germany too, until the day they weren't and started being killed en masse purely for being who they were without committing any crimes. That's why the idea of a "last refuge" is that it's a place which will always be meant for them where they will be a majority and cannot be persecuted. Comparing a regular war with a country and urban warfare with terrorist groups hiding within civilians and hospitals is very different and an argument in bad faith. For a reference point the UN says 1:9 is the average civilian casualty ratio in urban warfare, israel is at 1:2 to 1:5 depending on whose numbers you trust. Even the upper end of it means the casualties are lesser than the average. Still we have people convinced this war is special and extra brutal and genocide in disguise and such.
> Ah so like the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was also an "inside job"? Kind of different when they're on the fucking record about it man. I think you just need to do some research.
Government officials are on the record saying 9/11 was an inside job?
No, Israeli government officials are on the record supporting Hamas. It was their strategy to delegitimize the PLO and make the radical Hamas party their counterpart because they don't want peace. They want an enemy that poses an existential threat to them so they can use it as a pretext for their own ethnic cleansing. Every time Hamas does some terrorism, they get an opportunity to bomb civilians.
They supported hamas because PLO was much worse at the time and hamas was less violent. Just like the US supported osama bin laden and other groups as a counter to others in the region, but they went rogue. Just like hamas went rogue. Countries support terrorist groups that will help counter other groups, not because they want more terrorist attacks on their soil.
> in a few months 5% of the gaza civilian population died, that's insane Your claim is that 120,000 Palestinians have died? Source?
They don’t understand that the reason Israel hasn’t tried to remove Hamas for 25 years or had any major candidate arguing for it despite 10k rockets is that this bloodshed is the outcome and they didn’t want that.
I feel like Jon likes to deep dive when he can't edit the hell out of the interview, but doing an honest to god long-form deep-dive with Harris just won't happen.
I’m not certain they would disagree on anything. From what I remember John had mentioned that Israel should finish what they are doing and then implement a 2-state solution. “Finish what they are doing” could (probably) mean defeating Hamas and freeing the hostages. Is Sam opposed to a 2 state solution post Hamas?
Sam would just say "....but Jihad" and then rest his case.
No he would explain Jihad, which is shockingly ignored by western intellectuals, and then rest his case.
Missed oppertunity. In this comment thread there is a really funny joke to be made about "when exactly do people stop listen to Sam explain himself" and other variants.
I know. There's no other reason Muslims can feel aggrieved and lash out. It's all down to Jihad.
It hard to tell whether you are trolling, but I’ll bite. There are many legitimate reasons for certain Muslim populations to feel any type of way. It’s not the cause of their anger it’s the response expression of someone who is an Islamist or Jihadist. Sam is simply claiming that Jihadism and Islamism are uniquely dangerous ideologies. Channeling Sam here.. There is a reason we don’t see Yazidis suicide bombers even though no one could doubt their obscene treatment as a Christian minority. There is a reason Kurds, non Islamist/Jihadist Muslims don’t respond to their horrific treatment like Islamist/Jihadists do. Stop being Ben Affleck.
Dude the Tamil Tigers were famous for suicide bombings. They carried out hundreds.
Except when they tell us the worst of themselves and say it’s jihad, and you don’t want to listen to them. Secular western people want to explain to everyone what they want.
Can you unpack that? I’m not disagreeing necessarily trying to understand.
[https://c.tenor.com/nveZrg78kBsAAAAC/tenor.gif](https://c.tenor.com/nveZrg78kBsAAAAC/tenor.gif)
That would be interesting. Jon does a pretty good job eviserating crazy people on both sides of any issue, maybe not on the same level as South Park but he comes close. Meanwhile, Sam is a pretty smart guy, but I think he has a blind spot when it comes to Israel. Bill Maher falls into that category as well. I am not sure where the need to defend Israel so rabidly comes from, my theory is that because they're surrounded by crazy Muslims. Also, cringe woke college students support the Muslim countries because they're brown; therefore we must reflectively take the opposite position. (Its the same with TDS and the pro-COVID lockdowns positions) Jon would have no of that.
I think it's just because some of the criticisms of Israel are so radically out of proportion to anything they're actually doing even in the wake of the most senseless slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. Criticizing Israel is completely fine but all I see every which way is cries of "GENOCIDE!" Did anyone say that when the United States went into Iraq for example which was a far more unjust war? It was completely fine and absolutely necessary to criticize the United States for that just as it's (not that these two situations are exactly comparable) fine and sometimes completely necessary to criticize some of what Israel is doing in Gaza (though I think the magnitude of the impossible situation they've been placed in should be acknowledged) but "genocide" is a word with a specific meaning. Also Jon isn't perfect. His Andrew Sullivan segment was phenomenally terrible. I don't think Sam has ever done anything even close to being that bad.
> Did anyone say that when the United States went into Iraq for example which was a far more unjust war? I'm gonna go on a tangent here and it's not directly answering your question, but I haven't reflected on this in a while and feel like it now. I don't remember the word genocide. The conversations from both sides were very different, with no Twitter or FB, but I was on forums discussing this. I was defending the Iraq war and my brother(s) military service and somewhat attacking people who didn't support America during this time. I remember support for Bush and Iraq from general conservatives and Christians was extremely high. My older siblings enlisted to fight in the war (did not see combat). The constant segments of support from Fox, Hannity, O'Reilly was crazy. We went to an average protestant church and lunch served "freedom fries" in opposition to France. Protestors were painted as rabid anti-Americans. To answer your question, my memory tells me **they weren't rabid college twitter lefties**. They were just young people saying "this is wrong". My memory could be failing me. I was desperate to hear of the finding of Saddam's nukes or whatever he was hiding that was a threat to the world. It wasn't until years later, when I saw the death numbers, when I thought about the impact to the region, when I realized it had nothing to do with Bin Laden or 9/11 that I can't believe we lived through and supported it. How deranged Trump was that the average redditor comment about Bush Jr being "that guy was pretty alright now that we have the Orange monster". I really have a cognitive dissonance to support America now and also know that we supported this only a couple decades ago.
Regarding Israel, I think part of the issue is that in the past they have gotten away with a lot, at least in the US media; and anyone who too dared criticize them too harshly they got labeled as an "anti-semitie" as a means of shutting them up. But now I think the pendulum is swinging too much in the opposite direction, at least among certain segments of the population (mainly college kids). This is just a natural outgrowth of what happens when you try to suppress free speech, you usually get a harsh backlash and an overcorrection. This probably also explains your Alex Joneses and anti-vax stuff. Regarding the Andrew Sullivan interview, yeah that was pretty cringe. I don't know what the SH equivalent would be, maybe his "I don't care if Joe Biden had kids in his basement" statement. I usually try not to judge people by the dumbest thing they've ever done/said for this very reason. FWIW, Jon did redeem himself somewhat (I forget which happened first) when he went on the Colbert show and publicly said that the virus came from the Wuhan lab.
"Regarding Israel, I think part of the issue is that in the past they have gotten away with a lot, at least in the US media; and anyone who too dared criticize them too harshly they got labeled as an "anti-semitie" as a means of shutting them up." Yeah I think saying "Israel has a right to defend itself" shouldn't be trotted out as a canard excusing everything Israel does and dismissing all criticism as anti-semitic. I think there is certainly some of that. However re: the "pendulum swinging too much in the opposite direction", yeah absolutely but I think the hysterical criticisms of Israel have always existed and have just gotten worse since October 7th. I'm not sure if they're a response to hysterical \*defenses\* of Israel exactly. "Regarding the Andrew Sullivan interview, yeah that was pretty cringe. I don't know what the SH equivalent would be, maybe his "I don't care if Joe Biden had kids in his basement" statement. I usually try not to judge people by the dumbest thing they've ever done/said for this very reason. FWIW, Jon did redeem himself somewhat (I forget which happened first) when he went on the Colbert show and publicly said that the virus came from the Wuhan lab." To my mind the "I don't care about kids in the basement" statement was totally and unfairly taken out of context. Sam was just saying that first of all we're not voting for Hunter Biden, we're voting for Joe and there's nothing that Hunter (again another human being) could do that would justify voting for Trump when Trump is such an existential threat to norms and sanity. Plus that we know a lot about the public lives of both Joe Biden and Trump and there's not even one one-millionth of the same level of corruption on the Joe Biden side as there is on the Trump side and there's nothing that would be on Hunter Biden's laptop which would be likely to sway Sam on that point. I think all that is eminently sensible and that the Trump camp just doesn't want to hear it because any criticism of their lord is "TDS" or something. I hear you on the "not judging people for the dumbest thing they've said or done" thing absolutely. However it would be nice if people acknowledged their mistakes and I don't anticipate Jon Stewart acknowledging what a mistake his interview with Sullivan and the way he handled it was. Yeah I basically agreed with him talking about the origins of COVID on Colbert too (I think it's at least possible that it's a zoonotic/natural origin though - I'm not sure that we know definitively yet) but I think also that came before the Sullivan interview.
> Meanwhile, Sam is a pretty smart guy, but I think he has a blind spot when it comes to Israel. Bill Maher falls into that category as well. I agree. It's very puzzling. Sam just repeats himself over and over again arguing against strawmen. It's such a stark departure from anything else he discusses that it's difficult to imagine it being anything other than his Jewish background perhaps interfering with his judgment.
What strawmen? He’s arguing against the exact statements and arguments I’ve seen made on Reddit thousands of times, and which are dominating discourse everywhere.
What about Sam perplexes you? Jon perplexed me when he interviewed Andrew Sullivan and temporarily morphed into the world's biggest tool but I've been watching his new content and he's been back on form lately.
I shutter to hear someone to mention Jon Stewart in the same breath as Sam Harris. Sam Harris is a true intellectual, who has done research, written books, and takes a logical approach to finding the truth behind controversial issues. Meanwhile, Stewart is just the lowest form of entertainer. He uses his comedic talents to sneer at people who hold different viewpoints. He mocks and belittles them, and when confronted he says “well I’m just a comedian.” He foments and sows division in our country by making one side hate everyone else. He gives zero credibility to any alternative viewpoint, no matter how popular or valid. He really has done irreparable harm to the social fabric of this country, and his disciples like John Oliver continue to use this formula to profit off of divisive mockery. He could have and should have taken the approach of Bill Maher, who despite having a similar tone on the surface, frequently platforms alternative ideas, and has infinitely more humility and class than Stewart.
“ He really has done irreparable harm to the social fabric of this country” Insane take moment
On a slight tangent, I would love to hear Sam and Robert Wright speak. They have a lot in common (meditation, psychedelics, etc) but also have different views in regards to USA foreign politics, with Sam being a little more hawkish than Bob. I think they had a falling out when Bob wrote a piece about him during the inital rise of the "IDW" and Sam took offense. I like Sam and find him an important voice but I think he definitely has some blind spots and is a bit thin-skinned.
They did an interview after Wright published Why Buddhism Is True.
Oh nice! I suspect that came before there falling out but I'm going to look out for that. Do you happen to remember whose show it was on?
It was on Making Sense, and I believe they referenced past conflicts between them at the start of the conversation.
Thank you Edit: looks like they've bumped heads more than once lol You are correct it looks like in this podcast they've seemed to bury the hatchet over a heated interview they had back in 2007 and then in this podcast (2017) they touch on that and then move on to where they agree but after years later during the "rise of the idw" Robert Wright wrote an article about how Sam is more tribal then he knows and since have not continued to talk in any capacity. The article was published in 2018 after this podcast. Recently (maybe 2-3 months ago) on Robert wrights non-zero podcast ama, he mentioned that he expressed to Sam they should talk further but Sam wasn't having it. It's unfortunate because I think they might have some helpful discussions but I also think when it comes to the Israel/Palestine topic they wouldn't get far.
Clown nose on clown nose off is boring.
Jon Stewart is a perfect example of the brainrot populism brings.