Evil people do not believe they are evil. They justify everything they do as necessary for good.

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

He argues that Trump doesn't judge people on the basis of their morality. 

I don't think anybody would ever state that Trump does not judge people. He clearly does. More than most people he does. He just doesn't consider your morality when determining your value to him.

Sure he does.  He just tries to leave out the categories he is woefully deficient in.

He said John Dingel was in hell.  If that's not a moral judgement, I don't know what is.

6 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The judgement that Sam is speaking of is "moral" judgement.

Sam isn't a conservative.  From what I've read, watched, etc. he aligns much closer with the progressives.  However, he does hold some strong views that progressive don't share and because of that many like to try to label him as anti-progressive.

Sam is what we call a free thinker and doesn't follow party lines. 

My favorite clip is him and Ben Affleck. Sam has strong views on religion especially Islam. 

 

 

5 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said:

Sam is what we call a free thinker and doesn't follow party lines.

Yes, agreed.  If he leans in any direction though I'd mark him as more progressive than conservative for sure.

3 minutes ago, Toty said:

You're right, he's not. With him it all started when he (along with Christopher Hitchens) were scratching their heads about how the left can claim to be against fascism while consistently tiptoeing around radical islam because most of them are somewhat brownish in hue. Basically pointing out that how women and homosexuals are treated under sharia (et. al.) isn't the fault of european colonialism. That got him branded a racist neocon.

That is something I can't get my head around with the left. The left is very pro LGBT+CAT, whatever it is now, but Islam is still very stone ages when it comes to womans and gays right.  It is baffling that aspect just gets swept under the rug. Hell, beheading that French teacher for showing a cartoon of Allah a few months ago. 

After 5 years of this insanity, is watching that video gonna tell me anything we don't already know? Trump is deeply irrational. Stop trying to rationalize his thought process from a rational person's perspective. Only deeply irrational people can begin to understand the inner workings of that dude's mind. Trump is also thoroughly incompetent and illogical. Stop trying to apply logic to his thought process from a competent logical person's perspective. Only illogical and incompetent people can truly make sense of it.

People that are that stupid and that crazy are really dangerous. Especially when they are foolishly elected to the highest office on the planet. Here's to hoping we never forget something so painfully obvious.

18 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

The judgement that Sam is speaking of is "moral" judgement.

Sam isn't a conservative.  From what I've read, watched, etc. he aligns much closer with the progressives.  However, he does hold some strong views that progressive don't share and because of that many like to try to label him as anti-progressive.

Cool.  I have no problem with Sam Harris.  I like what he said in the Maher video.  I didn't know who he was, but if he's a liberal, then cool I guess.  But he's coming at the Trump point from a very conservative POV.  Again, Trump doesn't judge the morality of conservatives.  He doesn't judge the morality of middle America.  He judges the sheet out of the morality of the coasts and liberals in general.

It was a nice way of saying, yeah he's a piece of sheet.  

 

This 3 minute clip was taken from an 8 minute podcast on his site:  https://samharris.org/podcasts/224-key-trumps-appeal/

Sam says he's trying to sort out Trump's appeal..I tend to like Sam but he's 5 years late on this topic.  He posted this the day before the election in November.  Everyone knows a lot of his followers got excited about someone anti-establishment, anti-PC and "tells it like it is."  

I think the "moral" aspect that he's "solved" so he says in the podcast is that Trump isn't interested in claiming to be holier than thou.  He spits in the face of those morals.  Everyone knows that as well.

Trump makes judgements but more about his "greatness" in non-religious things.  His ego, money, name/brand recognition, size of crowds at rallies.  His judgement is based on thinking he's a winner and others are losers.  Not that he's holy and pure.  

He says things aimed at his base like Mexico is sending bad people, calling Hillary a nasty woman, etc.  He has made comments about moral judgements like saying he doesn't think he needs to ask God for forgiveness.  But I take that as someone who actually is not religious so in his mind, he doesn't concern himself with religious morality.

I think Sam also missed an opportunity to point out that Trump contrasts not only with the left, but the traditional right in this regard.  The left claims moral superiority with regard to diversity, civil rights, being woke, etc.  The right claims moral superiority about being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, traditional family values, etc.  Trump didn't care about any of those things.

3 minutes ago, NOTW said:

This 3 minute clip was taken from an 8 minute podcast on his site:  https://samharris.org/podcasts/224-key-trumps-appeal/

Sam says he's trying to sort out Trump's appeal..I tend to like Sam but he's 5 years late on this topic.  He posted this the day before the election in November.  Everyone knows a lot of his followers got excited about someone anti-establishment, anti-PC and "tells it like it is."  

I think the "moral" aspect that he's "solved" so he says in the podcast is that Trump isn't interested in claiming to be holier than thou.  He spits in the face of those morals.  

Trump makes judgements but more about his "greatness" in non-religious things.  His ego, money, name/brand recognition, size of crowds at rallies.  His judgement is based on thinking he's a winner and others are losers.  Not that he's holy and pure.  

I think Sam also missed an opportunity to point out that Trump contrasts not only with the left, but the traditional right in this regard.  The left claims moral superiority with regard to diversity, civil rights, being woke, etc.  The right claims moral superiority about being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, traditional family values, etc.  Trump didn't care about any of those things.

Yeah Sam says at some point that this line of thinking clicked for him. It would have been much more useful years back. 
 

Agree on the fact that he left out the classic Repubs. I think he’d say they sold out and talk about their hypocrisy. 

15 minutes ago, NOTW said:

This 3 minute clip was taken from an 8 minute podcast on his site:  https://samharris.org/podcasts/224-key-trumps-appeal/

Sam says he's trying to sort out Trump's appeal..I tend to like Sam but he's 5 years late on this topic.  He posted this the day before the election in November.  Everyone knows a lot of his followers got excited about someone anti-establishment, anti-PC and "tells it like it is."  

I think the "moral" aspect that he's "solved" so he says in the podcast is that Trump isn't interested in claiming to be holier than thou.  He spits in the face of those morals.  Everyone knows that as well.

Trump makes judgements but more about his "greatness" in non-religious things.  His ego, money, name/brand recognition, size of crowds at rallies.  His judgement is based on thinking he's a winner and others are losers.  Not that he's holy and pure.  

He says things aimed at his base like Mexico is sending bad people, calling Hillary a nasty woman, etc.  He has made comments about moral judgements like saying he doesn't think he needs to ask God for forgiveness.  But I take that as someone who actually is not religious so in his mind, he doesn't concern himself with religious morality.

I think Sam also missed an opportunity to point out that Trump contrasts not only with the left, but the traditional right in this regard.  The left claims moral superiority with regard to diversity, civil rights, being woke, etc.  The right claims moral superiority about being pro-life, anti-gay marriage, traditional family values, etc.  Trump didn't care about any of those things.

You're sort of reading between the lines here, but only applying that reading to Trump.  I mean, he's not judging the morality of the "others" (liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, etc.) for religious reasons, he's doing it for political reasons, but that's the same reason the left is utilizing the PC sword.  For the most part, it's because they know it plays to their audience, just like Trump's moral judgements play to his.

43 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

You're sort of reading between the lines here, but only applying that reading to Trump.  I mean, he's not judging the morality of the "others" (liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, etc.) for religious reasons, he's doing it for political reasons, but that's the same reason the left is utilizing the PC sword.  For the most part, it's because they know it plays to their audience, just like Trump's moral judgements play to his.

My takeaway from it - and again Sam is several years later to this "discovery" - is just that Trump doesn't let accusations of immorality bother him.  He cares about the size of his crowds at rallies, his Twitter followers, his bank account, name brand, etc.  He doesn't care about being accused of racism, mocking a disabled reporter, rape allegations, etc.  Those criticisms don't matter to him.  Whereas other politicians or public figures would apologize for them or worry how they would harm them politically, he just says so what.  And the portion of his base that eats that up loves that he "tells it like it is" and "triggers the libs" and all that.

 

 

Someone else who's actually thinking

He’s right about Elizabeth Warren being the politician who could have helped Ashlii Babbit with her financial problems I guess...

Babbit was also losing customers with her insane pro-Trump rants though.

 

On 1/13/2021 at 8:44 PM, Eaglesfandan said:

Ok the second part was a total reach....

How so?

1 hour ago, Toty said:

Nobody would ever confuse Maher for a right wing hack, but it seems like every time he says something that's just really common sense but goes against the woke grain he gets this weak, tepid, smattering of applause from his audience. I can almost see them looking around at each other making sure it was ok to clap or that there weren't any muslims around.

That's not his audience, it's his crew. Due to the restrictions in CA, they haven't been allowed a live audience this season.

1 minute ago, Toty said:

ahhhh

got it. thanks.

confirmation bias: 1, toty: 0

Historically, you're not that far off though. He's been known to call out his audience for being too woke or not laughing at jokes that might "cross the liberal line". It's also that sometimes, or maybe most times, the jokes just aren't funny, which he never seems to understand. On occasion he does, and he'll throw in a jab at the writers (which actually is funny.) In terms of material and delivery, John Oliver is way funnier, imo.

I find Maher quite funny.  Not Oliver level but still very funny.  Maher is also more on point with the actual difficult topics while Oliver is fantastic at pointing out ridiculous stuff in a super funny way.  Both provide plenty of value.

3 minutes ago, Toty said:

agree

and I think Oliver has a bit more of an outsider/deTocqueville-ian perspective on US culture 

I think Oliver's supporting cast is much better too. In that his pieces tend to be very well researched whereas Maher is more witticism than substance IMO (which is fine, just different). The round table portion of Maher's show with people from either side of an issue can be a good watch sometimes though. 

55 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I think Oliver's supporting cast is much better too. In that his pieces tend to be very well researched whereas Maher is more witticism than substance IMO (which is fine, just different). The round table portion of Maher's show with people from either side of an issue can be a good watch sometimes though. 

Yes but I find Oliver to be more the comedian and Maher more the thinker.  In my mind, the substance that Oliver delivers is in researching the details behind whatever his is poking fun at and exposing.  The substance Maher brings to the table is more abstract and strategic in nature.  Two different angles on much the same material and both offering their own type of substance, imho.  I like them both and rate them equally.

2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yes but I find Oliver to be more the comedian and Maher more the thinker.  In my mind, the substance that Oliver delivers is in researching the details behind whatever his is poking fun at and exposing.  The substance Maher brings to the table is more abstract and strategic in nature.  Two different angles on much the same material and both offering their own type of substance, imho.  I like them both and rate them equally.

I think that's fair.  Put another way I'd say Oliver's show is closer to a traditional comedy news program ala Teh Daily Show whereas Maher is closer to an opinion program ala Tucker Carlson (just a much smarter less sheety opinion).  Both have their value, as long as you trust the research and value the opinion respectively.  I definitely like Oliver more but I recognize a lot of that is just personal preference rather than a critique of Maher.  

25 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Yes but I find Oliver to be more the comedian and Maher more the thinker.  In my mind, the substance that Oliver delivers is in researching the details behind whatever his is poking fun at and exposing.  The substance Maher brings to the table is more abstract and strategic in nature.  Two different angles on much the same material and both offering their own type of substance, imho.  I like them both and rate them equally.

Oliver seems more researched, but I always get the impression that it's been really twisted to suit the narrative for peak effect - both comedic and commentary. 

18 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I think that's fair.  Put another way I'd say Oliver's show is closer to a traditional comedy news program ala Teh Daily Show whereas Maher is closer to an opinion program ala Tucker Carlson (just a much smarter less sheety opinion).  Both have their value, as long as you trust the research and value the opinion respectively.  I definitely like Oliver more but I recognize a lot of that is just personal preference rather than a critique of Maher.  

I still prefer Jon Stewart's style. Oliver goes right at stuff non-stop, so you feel wrenched by the agenda he has. Stewart let stuff breathe and led you to a conclusion, but let you take that last leap with a well timed pause and expression.

4 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I still prefer Jon Stewart's style. Oliver goes right at stuff non-stop, so you feel wrenched by the agenda he has. Stewart let stuff breathe and led you to a conclusion, but let you take that last leap with a well timed pause and expression.

That's fair.  IMO Stewart was the GOAT though so that's a tough comparison for anyone. I also think the HBO's budget and format also gives Oliver an unfair advantage for a direct comparison (MUCH harder to do a show every day than weekly).