Recoding Sam Harris with Eiynah (Part 2)
Added 2022-03-22 07:15:55 +0000 UTCHere is the second part of the conversation with Eiynah on her podcast 'Polite Conversations'. As Eiynah describes:
"This episode covers the second part of our chat. Here, we get into the nitty gritty of our differences. I think it's important because to casual listeners all IDW criticism may appear to be similar but actually there are some pretty fundamental differences even within the critical space."
I agree with her and I think we still probably do disagree on the best approach and how to best categorise Sam & similar thinkers but I do think she makes good arguments for her side. Interested in what others think.
But again a warning... this is a very inside baseball discussion and I'm not sure how I (or Eiynah) classify people on our political spectrums really matters in the grand scheme. Some interesting points made nonetheless and I enjoyed the chat so maybe you will too.
Comments
Just listened. Notwithstanding Matt not being as tough on Gad as Chris, I found Eiynah’s notion that DTG could push people into taking Gad or Williams seriously a stretch. I’d never heard of Gad before listening to the DTG episode (lucky me) and, while it may not have left me with the visceral disgust I felt towards Scott Adams after that episode, I certainly came away with the impression that he is a buffoon channeling some far right tropes. So I think your listeners are in safer hands than Eiynah fears
Sean Carmody
2022-04-15 12:22:00 +0000 UTCIf I remember right (which I may not, and I don’t have the DTG work ethic to go back and listen again) it felt like Eiynah focussed on the specific word “wholesome” even when you tried to explain that it was in comparison to others (and even though you didn’t explain it, obviously humorous). That’s it. I was having a bad day too and didn’t like Eiynah much tbh
Allan Hutton
2022-03-30 09:14:51 +0000 UTCCheers for the feedback. Yeah I think there is something to us appealing to people that Eiynah & the IDSG are not that interested in speaking to. That's fine though. Horses for courses and all that.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-30 05:26:55 +0000 UTCWhat did I say about Matt? That he was too nice to Gad? If so, he was! As I told him at the time too ;)
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-30 05:25:54 +0000 UTCI enjoyed it too! I don't think in general I'm hugely interested in discussing my politics but happy to do crossovers with interesting people when relevant.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-30 05:24:17 +0000 UTCYeah I basically agree with all of this and would be fine with covering Glenn. Outbursts and all.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-30 05:17:16 +0000 UTCI am not saying that the left/right framework is entirely irrelevant, but it is most useful as a starting point — as I think your disagreements with Eiynah over Sam's politics highlight (to the "right on race/immigration, and more "centrist left" on issues relating to a social safety net). Aside from Democrat/Republican, the left/right spectrum has stood in for progressive/reactionary, conservative/liberal, communist/fascist, socialist/capitalist. But taken alone it can be conceptually confused and historically contingent. (Conservatism for example, in its original sense, has no specific ideological content at all, since everything depends on what one is trying to conserve.) Any position anywhere along a simple left/right spectrum is filled with contradictions because there really are no coherent groups of either the left or the right. The “left” tends to stand for promoting equality over traditional hierarchies — a crude shorthand I know — and that takes in a lot. The so-called right can range from free-market libertarians to extreme nationalists, isolationists like Pat Buchanan or Tucker Carlson, war hawks, and advocates of authoritarianism, theocracy, or military dictatorship for example. Or these days, simply “anti-woke.” There’s no common vision. Still, I agree there’s some utility in the left/right designation. The case of Glenn Greenwald is particularly confounding — and disturbing. He’s been a pugnacious contrarian for a long time, going after the hypocrisy of Democratic Party, many in the “liberal media,” and a host of nefarious establishment policies and practices. In the past he’s done this in a manner not unlike other on the left , e.g. Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Jeremy Scahill, Krystal Ball, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Aaron Mate, Amy Goodman, Nathan Robinson, Max Blumenthal, and Matt Taibbi (Matt is also “complicated”). They all also criticize the right, “corporate capitalism,” the military-industrial complex, and censorship. But Glenn now has tapped into the reactionary rage machine for what appears to be both psychological and (obviously) monetary reasons, which I’d say makes him an excellent subject for Decoding the Gurus — if you’re willing to confront the heat of his vindictiveness.
TheRick
2022-03-29 13:53:40 +0000 UTCI understand the argument but I kinda disagree. There are lots of different axes you can add in to better breakdown political divides but I also think the left-right spectrum is actually much more informative than people like to admit. Take Glenn Greenwald... your implication is that it would be difficult to map his positions on to some traditional right wing category. I don't think so. A big part of right wing discourse, maybe the major part, is the culture war and Glenn is a very happy contributor to Fox. His takes are all extremely predictable and highly partisan. His charity is extended in ways that are entirely telegraphed. That he was once hawkish, then become a darling of the far left, before ending up where he is now is neither here nor there.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-29 01:09:01 +0000 UTCI found this conversation very interesting. Though I know Decoding the Gurus is not primarily a political podcast, the gross categorization of political positions along the left-right axis continues to be a stumbling block and source of confusion in the characterization of the people you discuss, particularly in this conversation with Eiynah. I think most will agree that Democrats insist that government makes many positive contributions to our lives, while Republicans argue that it is a barrier to the prosperity created by free markets, but as usual, the devil is in the details. Confounding that simple dichotomy are issues like immigration, abortion, judicial philosophy, the unitary state vs federalism, gun rights, foreign policy (think about security-state neocons, e.g.) equality vs liberty (or communitarianism vs individualism), church/state issues, etc. etc For example, to say Glenn Greenwald or Matt Taibbi are of the “right” is unhelpful because it’s far too simplistic. (I don’t say this in defense of all their positions). Or to characterize Bernie Sanders is emblematic of the far left, when as you know Ireland, Australia, Japan and pretty much the rest of the industrialized world enjoys universal healthcare — Bernie’s signature policy position — makes me wonder what you mean when you call yourself a “moderate liberal.” (In most other contexts Bernie would simply be what Europe calls a Social Democrat.) I don’t want to go too much further down the political science rabbit hole here, and I know you don’t want to do that in your interviews or podcasts either. But if you are going to characterize peoples’ politics — and you probably need to sometimes, based upon what you do in your podcast — I would suggest you examine (offline) and treat these characterizations with the nuance it demands. It’s commonplace these days to say that this is a time of intense political and social polarization. And I think we can agree that many of the IDW types make their livings off of that. I think that if we want to get past some of the social and political gridlock we find ourselves enmeshed in, we are going to have to be much more nuanced in how we define people’s politics.
TheRick
2022-03-28 13:17:25 +0000 UTCAs one of your farthest left patrons and listeners, I think this was really great. Eiynah raises credible points, but Chris’s responses were well reasoned. I think it would be interesting for DTG to continue to engage with more left-wing public intellectuals, figures and content creators to explore disagreements in the way Chris and Eiynah did here, which I found really productive. Would love to see more content in this vein, as I think it’s incredibly important that leftists be equipped to critique the left from within the left itself without ceding that ground to the political right or IDW gurus.
Sean Doody
2022-03-24 01:13:01 +0000 UTCYup, the last 30 mins had me squirming in sympathy for you lad. And poor old Matt getting thrown under the wholesome bus😂😂😂 DTG has actually given me insight into people I trusted and let me see the conspiratorial nature of them. Eiynah has her own agenda, fine, go to it. Trying to police other critics is a bit much for me
Allan Hutton
2022-03-23 20:11:49 +0000 UTCGood points!
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-23 19:46:54 +0000 UTCYeah I don’t think Effective Altruism is creepy though I do think there have been good criticisms levelled at some of the more hyperbolic elements of the community.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-23 19:45:50 +0000 UTCOh and just another aside. Regarding you potentially 'laundering' bad people by giving them an inch of air time and how that might move people towards the right rather than away... DEFINITELY NOT. I've heard all the podcast that are on the left or anti IDW types and although I have enjoyed them at times (especially when they're going after people I had already decided I didn't like) they were rarely able to move me away from people I had soft spot for because I always had this feeling they were not critiziing them fairly but rather coming at it from an ideological angle. But DTG is good natured and doesn't seem to have a chip on its shoulder and just invites us to take a second look at what they are actually *saying* and because of that it MASSIVELY and QUICKLY moved me more towards the center from the right. If that's what Eiynah wants from people she should know that it's almost certainly the case that DTG does more good in that regard than something like I don't Speak German and that's because the latter show and others like it end up preaching to the converted. Also people come to DTG I'm sure mostly because they are either A) Already on left and want to watch the gurus dunked on. In which case they are hardly going to go "oooh they said Gad Saad makes wholesome tweets I think I'm antiwoke now" or B) fans of the people being dunked on and if they are fans DTG is way more likely to move them than a podcast that is likely to end up calling them a fascist in the first 5 minutes and put the listener on the defensive... "I just like Jordan Peterson saying people are like Lobsters and now I'm being told I'm Hitler. Fuck this podcast."
Tasty3141
2022-03-23 16:39:07 +0000 UTCI really enjoyed this. Your podcast has made me really reconsider the level of credence I give the likes of Sam Harris and I'm sure there are many more like me. I've heard plenty of criticism of him before yours but the reason yours stuck is that you were willing to give him credit where it was due. I wonder how many people have ended up being pushed in the opposite direction by your podcast as Eiynah suggested. I have to say that her characterisation of effictive altruism as creepy was a little bit too much for me. It's stuff like that that would probably make it difficult for me to listen to her regularly.
Jeremy Stewart
2022-03-23 10:13:35 +0000 UTCWill be listening to her more after, good introduction
bron stoll-engelsen
2022-03-23 03:30:31 +0000 UTCReally enjoyed the convo with Eiynah,
bron stoll-engelsen
2022-03-23 03:30:07 +0000 UTCThat makes sense, thanks for expanding on it. I think on the first 2 points I would agree if Sam was just some dude or small political podcast then sure he is leftwing, but I think when you are Sam Harris, with a massive platform what is said and focused on has more weight. An aesthetic point I count in favour of him being right wing is his obsession with woke being the greatest threat is something else I weigh. Just seems like a very right wing way to categorize things you dislike (as a leftist would categroise those things as fascist and a moderate would categorize things they hate as radical or not pragmatic). As this is aesthetic it does not push the needle a large amount but it does have some force. I think where I diverge from Eiynah is I don't view right-wing as a dirty word. And I don't think someone being left-wing as automatically having good political takes (cough marxist-leninists cough). But I just don't think Sam is worth my time either, so I don't hold my views on him too strongly as not watched much of his stuff.
Shannon
2022-03-23 03:21:39 +0000 UTCFair enough. You’re not an explicitly political podcast and I could understand how debating how you see Sam’s place politically could be seen as as “debating your politics” which I would be inclined to agree is outside the purview of your expertise. It seems to me though that at least Eiynah saw this as at least partly the goal since her description of the podcast says “Here, we get into the nitty gritty of our differences,” and she seemed to be confused why you were constantly conceding and yet not adopting her worldview which makes sense if your purpose for the interaction was just to understand her POV and criticisms but less sense of you are trying to figure out who is “right” as seems to be the perception (and was also my perception for whatever that’s worth). Just my 2 cents. Enjoyed the interaction though in either case. I also agree with the comment below that if Sam Harris is left it seems odd to me to place Destiny on the right when he’s pretty clearly left of Sam Harris. Unless you place him on the political spectrum based solely on his provocative tweets. But I also understand you’ve not really delved into that species of Internet guru yet so you probably didn’t have a whole lot of background there.
Andy
2022-03-23 00:58:33 +0000 UTCMy argument is that: 1. I think Sam would vote for and support left wing political parties. 2. That he endorses center left liberal positions on most relevant policy issues: tax, healthcare, wealth distribution, environmental issues, gay rights, abortion. 3. That the left side of the political spectrum is a broad church and includes neoliberals with some right wing views. I acknowledge the validity of the counter arguments that: 1. He has endorsed/signalled strong agreement with some extreme right wing figures, including on their questionable political/immigration claims and demographic projections. 2. That he is sympathetic and overly credulous to overt right wing partisans because of their anti-woke/critical of Islam stance. 3. That he spends a lot of his time fixated on the problems of the woke and strategically ignores content on the right. So I think where you put him on a political spectrum will depend on a) your own political compass, & b) how heavily you weigh different things. Eiynah weighs the second set of stuff more strongly. I disagree but I don’t begrudge someone having their own assessment.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-23 00:07:14 +0000 UTCI feel like I still don't understand Chris's argument for Sam Harris not being right wing. Beyond some pragmatic point that we shouldn't call him right wing because that might make people decide they are right wing too. That seems like Chris is conceding the point but just disagrees as a strategy? This is not a critique, I like that Chris is not trying to "win" and concedes where he actually agrees or feels unsure or feels some force in the argument. It seems like he might be changing his mind on it? Not sure. Edit: If you think Sam Harris is left, Destiny is definitely left. Being left doesn't make him less of an performative edgy boy. He throws out the spicy tweets to generate the content.
Shannon
2022-03-22 23:35:44 +0000 UTCNo? We weren’t there to debate our political views but obviously they come up. Eiynah was primarily interested in discussing the Sam Harris episode and then some of her criticisms of our approach. I don’t think I’ve been in any interview where the focus is to debate my politics.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-22 23:29:06 +0000 UTCBut wasn’t that the point of this podcast, to have out those disagreements? Seems odd to hold them back when as far as I can tell much of the reason you’re being interviewed IS to hash out those differences.
Andy
2022-03-22 20:15:33 +0000 UTCOh I can articulate it but what’s the point? I’m not aiming to convert progressive podcast hosts nor do I think my politics are particularly surprising or fascinating. That’s much more the reason than fear of being labelled right wing. I know my politics so I don’t really mind where other people want to place me.
Christopher Kavanagh
2022-03-22 15:21:54 +0000 UTCVery good second part. She is as deeply embedded into guru minutiate as Chris so can go toe to toe with him all night. She did well pushing on on Sam Harris. It's a shame Chris is rarely able to articulate what he disagrees with about the more leftist positions. There is a lot of talk of 'we may disagree' but I'd like to hear some push back. It's almost like it's not possible to argue with a leftist without risking being tagged as right wing or something?
Tasty3141
2022-03-22 14:22:45 +0000 UTCI really enjoyed both parts! I’ve been a fan of both your approaches so i was stoked when i saw her tweet about these episodes. Perhaps sometime you can have her on DTG too, to pick up on topics you never got to, though with hopefully not too much relitigation of points of difference 😄.
Daniel Reed Miller
2022-03-22 08:10:41 +0000 UTC
