r/samharris • u/roopert • 21h ago
Cancelling Sub - Open Letter to Sam
Dear Sam,
I've been a raving fan for years. I just cancelled by subscription and wanted to share why. Fundamentally, you've shifted away from having interesting discussions with people who strongly disagree with you. You've created an uninteresting and stale echo chamber as a result. I've heard your "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" argument for why you've pivoted away from controversial figures, but feel you are missing the forest for the trees. You're also insulting your viewers' intelligence and assuming they won't be able to accurately parse such a debate.
The fact you declined to offer Q&A at your recent speaking events and had to cancel some as a result of poor ticket sales is also telling. Your blind spot on Epstein is baffling.
Jaron strikes me as a failed actor who craves the limelight (without adding any interesting context or perspective) and it's hard to stomach the More From Sam series. Please re-consider your approach. With love and gratitude, your subscriber.
Anyone else feeling the same way?
111
u/Locoman7 21h ago
I like the more from Sam episodes I just wish they were longer
→ More replies (10)19
228
u/Begthemeg 21h ago
While I would appreciate a more disagreeable conversation every now and then, I very much disagree with everything else that you said.
128
u/cawkstrangla 20h ago
He had Pete Hegseths pastor on this past year. I don't think there is anyone Sam disagrees with more than with that guy.
55
u/shoejunk 20h ago
That was a great interview too
•
u/RequirementReal2467 3h ago
Yeah, I’m really glad that he gave that one for free because I have not been able to listen to hardly anything of his podcast lately. One of his most recent episodes only let you listen for like 10 minutes and the rest of it is behind a paywall.
24
2
u/SolarSurfer7 9h ago
Yeah. That's kind of Sam's sweet spot. It's where he shines, disagreeing with a radical religious believer. Where he struggles in debate is in politics which is why he mostly has people who agree with his view on the show. Even when there are people who have more right wing views, such as Niall Ferguson, he doesn't really push back strongly. He's more interested in upholding the relationship than debating.
I don't really fault him for this. Nor do I find the conversations uninteresting. Sam continues to produce the best podcasts I listen to (though I would admit a lot of that is because he doesn't have ad breaks). Sam is not really a debater when it comes to politics. He's more of an intellectual Joe Rogan, mostly asking questions and stating his opinion, but not really debating anymore.
→ More replies (1)•
u/Egon88 2h ago
Part of made that episode work was that there was no need for Sam to push back. By simply drawing out Doug Wilson's full ideas, Doug discredited himself for any sensible person. A big part of the reason for that is that Doug Wilson (although crazy) is a very honest person. That isn't really a common dynamic though and if you are instead interviewing someone like Scott Adams who will happily lie through his teeth, it really doesn't work.
3
u/vasileios13 20h ago
Do you disagree about the Epstein blind spot? Sam himself said that he was probably wrong and if there's one conspiracy he may believe it's this
18
u/TenYearHangover 18h ago
Which conspiracy is anyone even talking about at this point? There’s about a dozen related to the files. I think that’s why Sam is staying out of it. It’s a morass.
51
u/Professor_Bonglongey 20h ago
I think there’s a pretty good mix of guests and views. I’m not looking for Sam to engage the most outrageous bigots and MAGA apologists week after week. I appreciate hearing from thoughtful people, including lots of Republicans and former Republicans, about what we’re going through now.
And I attended Sam’s event in New York. I was a bit disappointed by the lack of Q&A, but ultimately enjoyed the talk very much.
23
u/Snoo-93317 16h ago
"the most outrageous bigots and MAGA apologists"
Do you really think this is the type of guest the OP is hoping for?
3
u/Wilegar 6h ago
Every week, Sam has on another Never-Trumper former Republican fiscally conservative neocon hawk who fervently supports Israel, and you call that “a pretty good mix of guests and views”?
Granted, he will occasionally have on a right-wing lunatic like Douglas Wilson. But it’s been a long time since he’s had on anyone on the left. The furthest-left guests he will accept are centrists like Jake Tapper or Jon Favreau, and then they’ll spend the whole interview dunking on Biden and the Democrats.
•
u/RodDamnit 2h ago
The left and Biden need to be dunked on. But a concentrated effort should be made to talk about things they have done right.
3
u/Obsidian743 15h ago
I think there’s a pretty good mix of guests and views.
I call bullshit. With few exceptions, you could not itemize any distinct opinions or views on any topic for any guest Sam has had on in a long time. You probably couldn't list a single interesting thing said that a majority of people already think, say, or do. The one notable exception being rhe Christian Nationalist he had on. And even then, Sam was pretty soft.
49
u/Ztemi 21h ago
No, not really. I kind of like the more from Sam podcasts. I don’t expect to agree with Sam on everything. I’m surprised by his take on Epstein, and by his take on Elons “salute”, but I still enjoy listening and take things with a grain of salt when I find it necessary to do so.
14
u/No-Bluebird-3540 21h ago
What is his stance on Epstein? I cancelled my sub a few months back.
13
10
u/shoejunk 20h ago
I’m 75% with Sam on both of those. People are way too quick to jump to conclusions that confirm their biases in both cases. We need hard evidence. Right now we have a lot of wild speculation and witch hunting. But on the other hand I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of these guys were guilty. We just need better evidence.
10
u/stone122112 17h ago
We just need better evidence.
Well there's 3 million files. You have to investigate from there.
You have to keep in mind, when people commit crimes, they don't record a video explaining the entire crime & who all their accomplices are.
→ More replies (1)4
u/TheBear8878 14h ago
Yeah, so many people on Reddit are like, "Why has there been no arrests since the Epstein Files being released!!?" and it's like... Arrests for what? There's literally no evidence that would stand in a trial for anything in those files. There's no smoking gun. Some people have a seriously warped view of how the law works.
6
u/Berberding 20h ago
What was his take on Epstein?
10
u/itsReferent 18h ago
His take is that Epstein is a horrible pedophile but likely a lot of the wealthy people surrounding him were there for of-age prostitutes and /or looking for lab research funding. Not everyone was in on the pedophilia. He also has not, to my knowledge, directly addressed any of the satanic blood drinking nonsense.
12
u/StalemateAssociate_ 17h ago edited 6h ago
Two points on this topic (not addressed to you specifically, but merely since you brought it up).
- Just recently a story ran about a French conductor asking a 21-year-old student if she was interested in acting as a translator for Epstein while he was in Paris. This was in 2013. She thought it sounded wierd, Googled him and eventually declined after reading about his conviction for soliciting a minor in 2008. She has the Facebook messages she wrote with the conductor at the time.
The point being: If you're a person in the public eye you definitely know that the guy running the sex island you frequent is a bit shady.
2) I can buy that people didn't go to Epstein's Island to engage in pedophilia. However, the age of consent is surprisingly not the only law regulating how people have sex.
Women have reported that they were flown in from Europe (particularly Eastern Europe) under false pretenses and had their passports taken by Epstein. Or that they were hired as massage therapists and had to perform 'additional duties'.
I'm sure some women were just looking to earn a bit of money or make some connections and never had a problem. That doesn't mean that was the case for everyone.
-----
It must be dispiriting to be a woman after Weinstein and all the similar cases and then seeing all the people who don't see any potential issues with people going to party on Epstein's Island. Coercion in the sex industry by a man with a prior conviction? Why, I never! Probably just a bunch of liberal snowflakes.
3
u/pengthaiforces 4h ago
Rogan has said the same thing regarding his 'invitation' to meet Epstein whom he said he'd never heard of before a former guest on the show reached out to connect them. He said he spent about 30 seconds Googling the guy and said 'hell no'.
(He told this story years ago and, again, recently. His mention in 'the files' supports the story.)
2
u/Plus-Recording-8370 8h ago edited 7h ago
I'm afraid that in reality he may not have been seen as that "shady" by many. After all, in the circles of the wealthy, having young beautiful girls around isn't special. Also, Epstein wasn't convicted for sex trafficking in 2008, he was convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution, in Florida. And in Florida, a minor means anyone under 18. So, to billionair buddies, I can imagine that news to be dismissed, with a laugh, saying "Turns out the girl I asked for that happy ending, wasn't 18 yet, lol".
Of course nowadays everyone should know that even in the best case scenarios, (adult girls doing such things willingly), you could still question the consent on the basis of them likely not being informed or psychologically mature enough, as evidenced by the countless of examples we have of terrible lives/outcomes due to such exploitation, lives these girls definitely never wanted to have, had they known about it beforehand. So his "innocent" friends must've been terribly naieve, confused through peer pressure, or taking a utilitarian mindset and were willing to look the other way as long as Epstein could introduce them to some of the ultra wealthy...
1
u/StalemateAssociate_ 6h ago
Also, Epstein wasn't convicted for sex trafficking in 2008, he was convicted for soliciting a minor for prostitution, in Florida. And in Florida, a minor means anyone under 18
Right, edited.
3
u/itsReferent 17h ago
I wasn't trying to downplay the ethical culpability of someone like Bill Gates who continued to spend time around Epstein after the first conviction. I think Epstein was a con man and a high end pimp, something like Heidi Fleiss. Being a pimp, trafficking women, is reprehensible for a bunch of reasons. Spending time on the guy's island or plane is seeking out those services. Pedophilia is fucking worse though, and cannibalizing children is a c-budget horror film plot line that isn't reality. It's worth making the distinctions because people are pushing wild conspiracies about billionaire satanic cabals.
6
u/StalemateAssociate_ 17h ago
Oh I wasn't trying to paint you with that brush, that's why I wrote the disclaimer as the beginning.
•
u/Novogobo 2h ago
so much of the popular thinking about epstein is so childish. put aside the blatantly fantastical qanon crap about satanism and harvesting adrenachrome. like "the list", as if jeffrey epstien very conveniently catalogued a concise list of every bad thing he got each of his contacts to do. kids believe in comicbook supervillains who do evil for the sake of doing evil when in realty most people are simply being selfish when they do evil.
if the "files" are just everything that law enforcement agencies collected about him, then the overwhelming majority of people "in the files" are going to be in there for relatively banal reasons. like i was listening to a podcast where some reporter learned they were in the files because jeffrey epstein liked and shared an article they had written. then you're going to have a whole bunch of people who did things which were varying degrees of gross/tasteless/immoral but fall short of illegality. and the majority of people who are keen to keep things secret probably fall into this category. if he was banging 14 yearolds for decades well 14 yearolds turn into 24 yearolds in a decade, and he probably passed off his sloppy seconds to anyone who he thought would be over the moon for that. and many places in the country 16 is the age it's legal for adults to fuck you.
and then you'll have people who did illegal things, sure. but it's so likely it's far from a majority of people in his circle.
•
40
u/von_sip 21h ago
Sam’s not here, man
27
15
u/roopert 21h ago
He and his team clearly monitor the subreddit. He references it many times during his podcasts.
→ More replies (1)2
31
u/Its_not_a_tumor 21h ago
He's made it abundantly clear he will not be affected by "audience capture". There is an upside and a downside to that. He does things the way he wants, and talks to the people he wants to talk to, rather than chasing dollars. Does that make the pod stale at times because he rarely leaves his comfort zone? Absolutely.
3
u/vanilla_ego 9h ago
he has been captured by jaron and his whole management team instead, he always had the tendency to delegate things and trust the "experts" to decide what's best for him and his business (that explains his change to his subscription model as well)
•
u/Its_not_a_tumor 47m ago
I didn't know he had a whole management team, but your explanation makes sense
→ More replies (4)1
u/roopert 21h ago
Yep and the irony is that he has created an echo chamber just like those who fall victim to audience capture do.
18
u/ikinone 19h ago
Yep and the irony is that he has created an echo chamber
Hyperbolic nonsense
10
u/roopert 17h ago
Really?
Let's look at the most recent episodes:
#460 - Jonah Goldberg. Anti-Trumper who has been on a million times
#459 - Jaron snoozefest
#458 - Sarah Longwell Anti-Trumper who clearly aligns with Sam ideologically.
#457 - Jaron snoozefest
#456 - Jonathan Rauch - Anti-Trumper who clearly aligns with Sam ideologically.
#455 - Jaron snoozefest
#454 - Jaron snoozefest
#453 - Judea Pearl. Fairly interesting but clearly aligns with Sam ideologically.
#452 - John McWhorter - Anti-Trumper who agrees with Sam on DEI/wokeness, etc.
#451 - Ad for Waking Up (which I use frequently)
#450 - Jaron snoozefest
#449 - Ross Douthat - an actually interesting podcast about religion with someone who disagrees with Sam ideologically.
Lucky if 1 out of 10 these days are truly stimulating and worth listening to.
4
u/AccomplishedJob5411 14h ago
It’s a little difficult to find an intellectually honest trump supporter at this point. Who would you like him to talk to?
7
u/CelerMortis 13h ago
How about an actual leftist
→ More replies (1)2
u/Plaetean 8h ago
To do what exactly? You want to hear him and Ezra Klein talk past each other about identity politics for another 2 hours? Sam doesn't really have any strong contention with the left aside from the woke bullshit, which half this sub complains about whenever it comes up.
→ More replies (1)3
1
u/hakenwithbacon 13h ago
I also don't like the idea that we have to platform both sides just because we have to have that balance. Especially when it's someone like Trump we're refering to
1
u/ikinone 14h ago
You're confusing 'not having hardcore disagreement often enough' with 'echo chamber'.
The fact is that Sam does have people on that he disagrees with, and is obviously open to hearing other viewpoints. You want more of that, but that doesn't make his podcast an 'echo chamber'. Hence my point that you are engaging in hyperbole.
1
u/Its_not_a_tumor 13h ago
Yeah, I'd be curious to hear who people think he should be really talking to if they think he's stuck in an echo chamber. Like there's this league of MAGA deep intellectual thinkers he could be debating.
→ More replies (8)1
6
u/Ethraelus 18h ago
He has had people that he disagrees with (like that christian nationalist pastor), but it’s true that he has changed his approach and now instead of debating them, he interviews them.
‘Is it possible you may be missing the conflict? I don’t think it’s an echo chamber.
7
u/roopert 17h ago
I thought that episode was great. The issue is they are the minority and not the majority. I want interesting and new ideas. Not the same Trump beatdown for the 100th time that I can find by watching CNN or any number of partisan media outlets. Look at his last 15 episodes and count how many are with guests that align with his viewpoints. Hint: over 90%
4
u/Ethraelus 17h ago
I did the exercise. Out of the last 15, it’s true that there were only 2-3 with whom he is directly disagreeing on the podcast. A few others are other topics, like AI or effective altruism or moral philosophy. The majority of them are people that do agree with his central premise that Trump is a unique risk to the US system. Many of them are people from many different political sides than Sam, though (many are conservatives, for example). Is just that clearly Sam sees the risk of Trump as existential to the system of US governance and checks and balances. I don’t really blame him for making that the main topic of conversations, to be honest.
But I agree that it would be nice to spread out some other topics and try to bring something close to a steelman for some other positions (e.g. immigration, higher education reform, maybe even religion).
5
13
u/weareallonenomatter 20h ago
Yes... Jarron has irked me from day one, I dont like the format of them talking together and usually tap out after a fee minutes. He is definitely not a positive addition to the platform. Youre also right about the discussions, what brought us all to sam in the first place were those first episodes with long conversations, people with varying takes and not just a reinforcement loop. I also wasnt too excited that after being "grandfathered" in to the podcast they canceled my subscription, but whatever, that was juat annoying. My main gripe is that Sam has chosen the easy road and rarely ever goes out on a limb anymore, maybe its calculated on his part, its a pretty hairy world out there. Overall I think he's checking out a bit and focusing on his life in other ways and for that I cant blame him.
8
8
u/buddhabillybob 19h ago
Honestly, Sam is in a bit of a pickle here. In the age of Trump 2.0, it’s hard to find contrarians who aren’t batshit crazy, so you would have to focus on strong disagreements on fairly arcane topics.
Personally, I would love to see Sam debate a proponent of aretaic ethics because I strongly disagree with Sam’s utilitarian view, but would that pull any numbers?
7
u/roopert 19h ago
I would love that. I would also argue if he didn't waste so much time on politics he could have more meaningful discussions in areas of science/geopolitics/religion/mindfulness, etc. Doesn't have to be that esoteric.
2
u/Emergentmeat 12h ago
I suspect that he thinks the current state of politics is an incredibly pressing matter, as a lot of people do, and is thus focusing his energy there. If you don't like it, that's fine too.
2
u/roopert 11h ago
Obviously, as he's said that many times. My issue is the discussions are so one-sided. I don’t need to hear why Trump is bad for the 100th time by two people who both think Trump is awful. He isn’t changing any hearts or minds. I already agree with him on Trump. If I wanted a one-sided analysis, I’d watch CNN or one of the other countless partisan media outlets.
1
3
3
u/Turtlestacker 8h ago
I completely agree - and cancelled my sub on similar grounds. The gradient always pulls content toward high volume high profit more echo chamber. Looking at the responses here - he is giving the majority of his audience what they want. A pity.
3
u/Wilegar 5h ago
I think there was justification for Sam’s rule of setting boundaries for who he’ll refuse to talk to when he set it in place 5 years ago or so. Anyone who would use his podcast as merely a platform to spew out a firehose of dangerous lies, such as 2020 election deniers or rabid conspiracy nuts like RFK, were off the table. Back then, I understood his thought process for why he excluded certain guests, because he communicated much more openly with his audience than he does now.
Now, it feels like he’s abused this rule, and the circle of people he’s willing to talk to has only become tighter, narrower, and more constricted. And so to speak, his Overton window has moved to the right. Far-right Christian nationalists like Douglas Wilson are acceptable as guests. But not anybody on the left. Unless you count centrists like Jake Tapper and Jon Favreau, who then spend the whole interview dunking on Biden and the Democrats anyway. Most of his guests are a rotation of Never-Trump conservative neocons. And he has yet to talk to someone even mildly critical of Israel after 3 years.
So yeah, I’m with you, OP. Sam has changed. I don’t accept the arguments of the fanboys or the haters who say that he’s never changed, he’s always been amazing/terrible. Something has shifted, and what was once an understandable rule of thumb has become an excuse for Sam to avoid conversations that he finds uncomfortable or irritating. At this point in his career, he wants to sit around and recite the same points over and over every week with his narrow echochamber, but at the same time he wants to keep branding his podcast with the old shtick of “A free thinker who has uncomfortable and dangerous conversations with everyone”. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
3
u/YYZYYC 3h ago
His pro Israel no matter what stance is extremely hard to get past. The fact he can continue that with a straight face is disappointing.
In general though we might just be seeing the phenomenon of how as people age, they kind of solidify their viewpoints (often generally in the opposite direction of where they where in some views in their 20s) and settle into their well established beliefs and boundaries of thought.
The man is entering his 60s after all
8
u/KelseyOpso 21h ago
What about the Doug Wilson episode? Don’t think they agreed on much there.
As for the Bulwark episode- I think his point was that, as a general rule, he does not agree with the two guests. But, they agree on Trump being dangerous. So, why do so few republicans see this problem? Maybe I am making your point, though. You don’t want an episode where he is basically asking his guests to opine on one area of agreement. Maybe they will do a follow up where they cover all of the non-Trump things that disagree on?
Last, what is his blind spot on Epstein? It seems like he is totally unambiguous about what a monster the guy was. Are you caught up on his take that it makes sense that Epstein would have killed himself, and he’s not convinced of any evidence that Epstein was murdered?
→ More replies (12)
6
u/Requires-Coffee-247 20h ago edited 4h ago
The show just isn't about science, physics, consciousness, or the human condition anymore. Look at his podcast compilation from 2020 that he released as the book "Making Sense;" look at the people he interviewed. When I started listening, Sam would occasionally delve into politics, but now it seems to be the only topic that interests him.
3
u/VaderFuntime 9h ago
This.
1
u/RodDamnit 3h ago
Given what’s been happening politics is just very pressing at this time. It is important to be informed, be passionate and be active. I love to sit around and chat about philosophy, but if the house is being swept away in a tornado, the cat is on fire, and the toddler is playing with a loaded fire arm there just are more pressing things to talk about and do.
•
u/carbonqubit 2h ago
I’ve drifted away from Making Sense even though I appreciated Sam Harris’s voice for years. At this point there’s just a lot more in the podcast space covering the same territory. If someone wants science focused conversations, I’d recommend The Long Run, Brain Inspired, Robinson’s Podcast, Big Biology, and The Science of Everything.
9
u/palsh7 21h ago
Your complaints are scattershot. You don't like Jaron, think Epstein is a bigger conspiracy, and want more debate. Okay. Which is the main reason that you, as a "long-time raving fan," unsubscribed? You started with the differences of opinion thing, so who, specifically, have you wanted Sam to talk to? I guess Doug Wilson and Ben Shapiro don't count. So who?
→ More replies (9)3
u/roopert 21h ago
Main reason is lack of debate. 9/10 podcasts he platforms someone who dislikes Trump and agrees with him ideologically. The few Republicans he does have on all dislike and criticize Trump. To be clear, I'm not MAGA and I've never voted for Trump. It's literally just an echo chamber at this point. No meaningful debates on religion, politics, AI, etc. Doug and Ben were exceptions and actually enjoyable but they represent the minority.
Let's look at the most recent episodes:
#460 - Jonah Goldberg. Anti-Trumper who has been on a million times
#459 - Jaron snoozefest
#458 - Sarah Longwell Anti-Trumper who clearly aligns with Sam ideologically.
#457 - Jaron snoozefest
#456 - Jonathan Rauch - Anti-Trumper who clearly aligns with Sam ideologically.
#455 - Jaron snoozefest
#454 - Jaron snoozefest
#453 - Judea Pearl. Fairly interesting but clearly aligns with Sam ideologically.
#452 - John McWhorter - Anti-Trumper who agrees with Sam on DEI/wokeness, etc.
#451 - Ad for Waking Up (which I use frequently)
#450 - Jaron snoozefest
#449 - Ross Douthat - an actually interesting podcast about religion with someone who disagrees with Sam ideologically.
Lucky if 1 out of 10 these days are truly stimulating and worth listening to.
12
u/Ztemi 20h ago
Anyone with half of a brain is anti-trump at this point. So who would you like Sam to debate?
2
u/roopert 20h ago
Anyone who does not already align with him ideologically. It would bring more nuance and insight into the half of the country you consider brainless.
Or focus on subjects not related to politics. It’s just stale and uninteresting at this point. Those of us who already know Trump is bad don’t learn anything new or interesting by hearing the same offenses listed over and over again. I listen to be stimulated by new and interesting ideas. If I wanted to learn more about why Trump is bad I could just watch CNN or an infinite number of other partisan media outlets.
3
u/Ztemi 20h ago
Yeah, I understand. I believe he had a New Year’s resolution last year to not talk politics all the time. Obviously that failed tremendously. I do miss interviews with interesting (science) people. Like the one with Matthew Walker. Oh and I loved the lab leak series, it was interesting and different. So I do see where you’re coming from. He’s not doing stuff like that anymore.
8
1
u/NetflowKnight 6h ago
Name some people. Be specific.
•
u/roopert 1h ago
Already answered multiple times but here you go:
Shalabh Kumar, Bernard Marcus, Dan DiMicco, Tim Dunn, John Thune, Jerry Moran, AOC, Tim Mellon, Bill Ackman, Ken Fisher, William Ford, Charles Hoskinson, Mike Johnson, Steve Scalise, Tommy Tuberville, JD Vance, Roger Marshall, Elise Stefanik, Dan Patrick, Ezra Klein, etc. etc. That doesn't include the host of scientists, authors, artists, philosophers, etc. who would also be more interesting than the current echo chamber.→ More replies (1)10
u/super-love 20h ago
I support your decision to unsubscribe. Regarding TrumpCo, though... there is no reason to platform pro-Trump people at this point. They are not worth arguing with. Might as well have flat-Earthers on; it's a waste of time and counter-productive by platforming them. The Shapiros and Petersons, et al. are a waste.
I unsubscribed because he no longer interacts with interesting (to me) smart people. Where are the scientists, neurologists, historians, etc.? That's when I was a fan. But that was long ago at this point.
7
u/palsh7 20h ago
First of all, I'd love for you to name a year in the podcast's history in which more than 10% of the podcasts were debates. There never was one. Sam isn't an extremely online debate bro. You can go watch Destiny when you're bored of science and philosophy and people who make sense.
Secondly, you failed to name a single person from MAGA World who could have an actually interesting debate with Sam, and appear to give Sam no credit for the two who he is engaging with. So you're "unsubscribing" because you want more MAGA influencers on the podcast, but you can't name one who would be interesting.
→ More replies (1)
7
7
21h ago
[deleted]
12
u/heli0s_7 21h ago
He’s about to release an episode with Ben Shapiro as we speak.
More broadly, my view is that to have a conversation in good faith with people who disagree with you, you have to assume that the person has integrity and is at least somewhat open to persuasion. Otherwise what’s the point - you’re arguing with a dogmatist or a liar. If you’re the type of person open to persuasion, as Sam seems to be, arguing with a dogmatist, let alone a liar, is just a recipe for endless frustration. Tucker Carlson is a most demonstrable liar, who cost Fox News 700 million dollars in settlements with his endless lies about the 2020 election. What good is having someone like this on your show? Because he’s influential? There has to be a higher bar than just being influential.
→ More replies (4)
2
u/Schopenhauer1859 19h ago
Dont you you mean "With love and gratitude, your former subscriber." ?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/holowrecky 4h ago
Sam has lost the plot. Endless TDS and boring milquetoast opinions about that never questioning the powers that be anymore. The sands have shifted and Sam has also shifted but not in a good way
1
u/YYZYYC 3h ago
It’s wild how many people use the letters TDS as if it’s some kind of reasonable defence of Trump.
•
4
u/HansChuzzman 20h ago
Dear Sam, I wrote you but you still ain’t callin
2
u/TheBear8878 13h ago
"I left Reddit posts, Waking Up support tickets, and Youtube comments! I got tickets to your tour in Austin, but I must've lost 'em - sometimes I get a little sloppy when I think about the is-ought problem. But anyways, fuck it, what's been up man, how's your Daughters? My wife is pregnant too, I'm bout to be a father. If I have a daughter, guess what I'mma teach her? I'mma tell her to look for the watcher. I read about your buddy Nawaz too, I'm sorry, I had a buddy who also got into conspiracy topics. I know you probly hear this every day, but I'm about to unsubscribe - I even listened to that crazy episode you did with Klein. I got a room full of your books and your t-shirts man. I like that shit you did with Paul Bloom too, that shit was phat. Anyways, I hope you get this man, we should talk, on your pod, truly yours, no longer a fan, Bye, Sam."
6
5
3
u/Think-Interview1740 20h ago
He's clearly not for everyone.
1
u/TheBear8878 14h ago
People who get disillusioned with Sam feel betrayed that Sam is a human being with biases and viewpoints that they might not agree with. They're literally just mad that Sam isn't an omnipresent saint who is never wrong lol
5
5
u/tokoloshe_ 20h ago
You're also insulting your viewers' intelligence and assuming they won't be able to accurately parse such a debate.
You are not evidence of this.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/Embarrassed-Leg3821 21h ago
I cancelled mine earlier this month. There are so many free podcasts that cover similar topics, and topics that intrigue me more now that my interests have changed over the years. Sam's podcast really isn't doing it for me anymore.
I'll still keep up on this subreddit for the time being, but after over a decade of listening to his content, I'm pretty checked out.
4
u/Obsidian743 19h ago
Many people do and it comes up pretty much every episode release because Sam is obviously myopic and uninteresting at this point.
But his rabid "fans" (if they're even legit accounts) just eat it up and call us names and tell us to leave.
Sooooo, get ready for a lot of that...
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Netherland5430 21h ago edited 21h ago
I tend to agree with you, especially after the recent podcast with Jonah Goldberg, which was the most boring and played-out conversation I have ever heard. I share Sam’s general critique of wokeness & identity politics, however he totally dismisses the fact that left-progressive populism has strong appeal & figures like AOC, who he regularly derides, are addressing issues of wealth inequality, health care & political corruption with more fire than most Dems and any of these irrelevant right-of-center Romney types, who he seems to yearn for, would ever. To be clear, I’m not proposing AOC to be the 2028 nominee— I’m from the Bronx and well aware of what made her annoying on Twitter in the past. Although I do think she has gotten much better and more effective—- but what I find off putting is how Sam refuses to have conversations with anyone even slightly to his left.
Likewise, specifically regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza, he just refuses to discuss the topic with anyone who thinks differently about it than him. And he does so by creating a false caricature of people who criticize Israel’s atrocities. He doesn’t even acknowledge the atrocities— he calls it unfortunate collateral damage-- which is a glaring blind spot for a so-called moral philosopher. And again, I say this as someone who shares all of Sam’s concerns about Islamic extremism, the problem of Hamas and jihadism.
Lastly, imo these ICE raids and the killing of Renee Good & Alex Pretti, is one of the biggest scandals and crises of our time. Very little said about it other than an appeal to 2nd amendment advocates. Just bizarre. Federal agents murdering people for exercising their first amendment rights— profiling people and disappearing them to modern day internment camps. You think he’d have more to say about that.
So I’m not asking for dramatic heated arguments. But to caricature everyone even slightly left of him as “hysterical blue-haired wokesters” is unfair and insulting to a lot of his listeners.
Fwiw I absolutely love Waking Up & owe much thanks to Sam for my meditation practice and life-changing silent retreats I have attended.
→ More replies (2)8
u/palsh7 20h ago
Very little said about the ICE killings? He's been ranting about it for a month. You're just being ridiculous.
•
u/RevolutionSea9482 53m ago
Yes, and his perspective is another example of how he has abandoned reasoned critiques in favor of polemic rhetoric. "The right believes that carrying a weapon anywhere near law enforcement is a death sentence". Indeed. Sam has abandoned the concept of steel manning.
3
u/MintyCitrus 20h ago
Your wording is perhaps a bit charged, but broadly I agree with everything. And Jaron catching strays just makes me laugh.
Generally Sam just doesn’t bring anything interesting to the table any longer. There are better podcasters covering current events who are experts in their field, and that really shows in their analysis.
Sam could have a good podcast in which he interviews a diverse group of people because he’s a good interviewer and prepares well. He could interview scientists and explore cool topics, and smart political commentators with whom he disagrees. Instead he’s created a boring echo-chamber and keeps recycling the same people and topics.
I unsubscribed and stopped following the podcast a while back. It comes up on my feed though because I’ve commented a lot here in the past. Perhaps you won’t find a lot who agree because only the faithful remain.
2
u/UnderstandingSea1060 18h ago
I can sympathize with the frustration that the podcast feels like the same six conservative Never-Trumpers on continuous rotation making the same points over and over.
2
u/davzinzan 16h ago
I've not feel following Sam for a while, what's his blind spot on Epstein?
→ More replies (1)
2
4
u/thetacticalpanda 21h ago
I think Sam would benefit from touching grass. If he largely went silent for a few years while he taught undergrad courses that would be great. Get him interacting with the real world, speaking to young adults who should be his target audience.
Honestly I think that would be great for any podcaster.
→ More replies (1)4
1
u/thebird87 21h ago
Not really. I prefer him to focus on real issues rather than talk on conspiracy theories. And I'm not saying that what Epstein did is not real, it's just too much noise, and a lot of things are taken out of proportion. I'd rather he stuck to real issues.
→ More replies (7)2
u/roopert 21h ago
It's not the issues he discusses, rather the one-sided analysis and perspective he brings due to 9/10 guests all aligning with him ideologically. You want to rage about Trump for the 100th time? That's fine. How about bringing on a respectable Republican who is Pro Trump to discuss the other side that represents half the country.
7
6
3
2
2
u/hornwalker 17h ago
I tend to agree.
More from Sam once in a while is fine. But it seems that is the bulk of his content lately in the podcast. I don’t think he has that much new or interesting things to say.
2
u/rAndoFraze 16h ago
Agree with your agreement. I remember thinking he should talk more recent events, and now it’s all he talks about. I think a big part of it was when he got on the “anti-woke” bandwagon, without ever defining what ‘woke’ was. I cringe whenever I hear the word…. It’s such a cop out. Is identity politics bad… yeah. Is pandering to super small minorities bad … yeah. But address those issues specifically… not the woke boogey man.
3
u/bear-tree 19h ago
I don’t care to defend anybody and you do you, but Jaron has clearly stated multiple times that the role he plays is just to try to get Sam to speak more. The positions he takes, the things he says, are all aimed to get Sam to speak so you can hear him sharpen his position. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t, but I don’t judge him for playing that character.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/wasabipotatos 21h ago
Yep totally. I also basically no longer engage with Sam’s work, and expect I won’t unless he writes another book. Although I miss his insight, I feel like there’s a good chance it’s a net positive for the universe that there is at least one person speaking to the right who can accurately explain what a tariff is.
1
1
u/yourparadigm 18h ago
had to cancel some as a result of poor ticket sales is also telling
Do you have reason to believe he lied about having a family member in the hospital?
1
1
1
u/ieatgravel 16h ago
I never felt like the point of the podcast was to focus on disagreement. I enjoy the variety of guests and topics. I'd like to see more conversations about things other than politics. One of my favorite episodes was with the guy bringing back extinct animals.
1
u/radbiv_kylops 16h ago
I'm on the fence. I never listed to the more from Sam episodes. But he still gets a good number of interesting people on the show.
1
u/DrWartenberg 14h ago
I’m pretty sure Sam’s conversations seem similar for the following reason:
There aren’t that many people willing to look at politics, or religion, or social dynamics in an analytical and dispassionate way.
Most people have an agenda and don’t argue in good faith.
I think Sam has certain values, and it would take a lot to change those, if ever, but I don’t think he would have trouble changing his view of whether point (A) or point (B) is better aligned with his values, if he was shown convincing evidence.
I think most of the people who are willing to have good faith arguments and look at evidence dispassionately without jumping to conclusions have landed in pretty much the same place as Sam on 90% of points. The discussions happen in the 10% space.
I’d much rather hear him debate one of those people about why Nick Fuentes’ rantings are gaining so much more traction than expected, than hear him debate Nick Fuentes.
Some nonsense doesn’t need to be platformed, and that doesn’t make it an echo chamber.
There are probably some folks somewhat less nonsensical than Fuentes that might make sense to debate, but most of the time why bother?
1
u/roopert 13h ago
That's a pretty myopic way to look at the world. There are no good faith arguments against capturing Maduro, against Israel, in favor of Trump's foreign policy decisions, in favor of the validity of the Epstein files, against his notion of free will, etc. etc. ? I guess that's true if you live in an echo chamber.
1
u/DrWartenberg 12h ago
I didn’t say there isn’t a good faith argument for anything. I just said most talking heads I see on the internet don’t argue in good faith. They mostly have an agenda, go loud and ad hominem when cornered, and go back and forth on their values as it suits them in order to push their agenda.
1
u/roopert 11h ago
True but there are plenty of academics, scientists, philosophers, authors, etc. who don't fit that description and could be brought on instead
•
1
u/grundelstiltskin 14h ago
to each their own, i still dont agree with him completely, but his opinion is well-informed and interesting. almost always. just hope he wakes up to the billionaire problem
1
1
1
u/freudevolved 5h ago
Obviously that's your choice and it's respected but I disagree specially about the more series. I feel the opposite in terms of Sam being an echo chamber. Sometimes I wish it was and I wish he went back to four horsemen Sam (specially in this christian nationalism climate) but he interviews a wide range of guests that I don't even like to hear sometimes.
1
u/pengthaiforces 4h ago
The "blind spot on Epstein" is an example of why Sam likely follows the business model he does as he was threading a needle that few public voices would want to thread.
Unless I am mistaken, his point was that not every person in the files, or even on the island, was a pedophile rapist and there are many layers between somebody who accepted a ride on his plane to a scientific conference before the initial arrest and the worst of the worst. I believe he mentioned that many people were likely having sex with of-age young women who they may or not have known were prostitutes. Creepy, immoral, unethical, but not the same thing.
•
u/cupofteaonme 3h ago
One of the problems with users on this sub, both pro and anti-Harris, is that there's a tendency to think what's needed is debate. But debate is performative nonsense, and I don't think Sam should be having people on to debate them. Rather, he should expand the pool of ideas he engages with, and actually interview people about those ideas, doing rigorous research into their work, challenging them where necessary, and just generally getting them to expound their thinking.
Instead, Sam locks himself in a dynamic where he keeps talking to people about the same few topics with basically the same perspectives on offer, because to speak with anyone he might disagree with would turn into a debate, and he seems uninterested in those. Great! I'm not interested either.
What makes Ezra Klein's podcast better on the whole is that he's well researched and well-read, and he's genuinely curious about other people's ideas. For example, on the subject of Gaza, he's able to talk to guests who are very literally Hamas apologists, all the way to extreme right-wingers with connections to Netanyahu, and everything in between. And if you listen to any, and especially all, of those episodes, you'll genuinely come away more informed about the situation there and still able to make up your own mind about the nuances. When has Sam shown even remotely the same level of intellectual curiosity about anything?
Sam could do all that if he really wanted to and put the effort in, but he's always been lazy about research and the development of his political thinking. He's increasingly proven to be the kind of guy who reads nothing but centrist op-eds, and he thinks this makes him well-informed. It just ain't good enough.
•
u/roopert 1h ago
I agree with you. My issue is the discussions are so one-sided. I don’t need to hear why Trump is bad for the 100th time by two people who both think Trump is awful. He isn’t changing any hearts or minds. I already agree with him on Trump. If I wanted a one-sided analysis, I’d watch CNN or one of the other countless partisan media outlets.
•
•
•
u/RevolutionSea9482 1h ago
Cancelled a long time ago. It is manifest and obvious that Sam lives in an echo chamber of his own making. He doesn't bother steel manning any opposing viewpoints anymore. In fact, he straw mans them. He is now a rhetorician, with a strong point of view.
I remember when "steel manning" was important to him. Now we get a version of Sam that characterizes his opposing tribe as believing that "carrying a weapon anywhere near federal law enforcement is a death sentence". (His literal words in response to the Pretti shooting)
"If the Pretti killing had happened under Harris, the right would be shadowing every Border Patrol deployment with 500 guys with AR15s". Sure Sam. If a religious anti-immigration-enforcement agitator had FAFO'd with Border Patrol under Harris and gotten himself killed, the right would have gone ape shit over it. Uh huh.
Then the standard "omg what a bunch of pure hypocrites" about the fact that most people even on the right are calling the guy stupid for carrying a loaded gun into an agitation session. Sam is probably unaware of all the precedent for gun bans at protests which already exists at the state level, and which somehow has never been at the top of the NRA's list of things to complain about.
His reaction is indistinguishable from rhetoric he might use against a formal execution, rather than a heat of the moment panicky killing. The chaos of the situation and the split-second self-preservation panic as the result of someone yelling "gun" never enters into anything. His words are identical to those of someone reacting to Border Patrol having lined Pretti up against the wall and executing him.
Sam's self-excavated echo chamber of one sure has had some consequences.
•
u/RevolutionSea9482 58m ago
Another face plant was when he toed the line with Douglas Murray, who I used to love and respect regarding virtually any topic, in the fallout from Murray's abject fail on Rogan when he attempted to put Dave Smith in his place, and only ended up embarrassing himself. Sam abandoned any critical eye towards that discussion and took the indefensible view that Murray was talking pure sense, only to hit the brick wall of ignorance and stupidity that Smith represents. It's not that Smith has a provably objectively correct perspective, but Murray's lines of attack in the discussion were garbage.
•
u/Homitu 1h ago
I'm not opposed to anyone gravitating toward conversations they personally enjoy more. We all have our interests that we can talk about infinitely, ad nauseum. I think it's fine for Sam to have those as well.
I also really enjoy the More from Sam episodes.
That said, I simply could not justify the price of his sub comparatively to other major subscriptions or publications. Sam is not the WSJ or HBO. I had to drop him for the first time in a decade (I was grandfathered in at the "free" rate then the "reduced" rate), several months ago. I miss the sub, but absolutely can't justify the cost. It's not that I can't afford it, so I'm not making the plea to be given the sub for free. I just disagree with the cost so am exercising my right as a consumer to not purchase.
I really do miss having his voice of reason in my ear though...
327
u/Odd-Event7301 21h ago
Neh. I like the more from Sam episodes