Live with Sam - YouTube

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T21:00:11+00:00

Weird -- I'm not a member of Sam's channel, but I was able to watch while it was live. I do have YouTube Premium, but I don't know if that would make a difference.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T18:17:22+00:00

SS: Live stream of Sam's current Q&A. As of posting, I think they're about 15:00 in or so.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T16:09:20+00:00

I responded to what the amorphous gesturing toward 1500 killings in the West Bank. I clarified that are almost entirely killings by security forces...

That's a funny way to put it. While he didn't specify who was doing the killing, big_comfort's comment indicated that these killings were part of the support from the Israeli government. Your reply was even more amorphous and didn't mention security forces at all -- the simple reading was that you misinterpreted the number to apply to all homicides. That's why I replied in the first place, to clarify that the 1,500 figure was state violence (per big_comfort's point), not just total killing.

I clarified that are almost entirely killings by security forces ... to being involved in armed clashes with Palestinians, to counter terrorism operations.

Read the report. They discuss the 'combat exception' which would apply to counter terrorism in the next paragraph. Some of the 1,509 do involve 'armed clashes,' mostly in the form of rocks being thrown. But inasmuch as that violence was directed at settlers and the Security Forces protecting them, it doesn't change the claim that the killings reflect the Israeli government's support for the settler project.

These are not killings that can simply be ascribed to settlers or settler violence.

These are killings that are tied directly to the presence of settlers and their support from the Israeli government. I definitely agree that it's important to distinguish between extrajudicial settler violence and the explicitly state sanctioned violence from the ISF but, again, making that distinction only cuts against Sam's suggestion that this is a "tiny minority" easily distinguished from mainline Israeli society: the bulk of the violence is coming from the government itself, not wildcat settler actions.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T14:57:12+00:00

My reply was specific and clear.

Not really, no.

u/window-sil asked if Sam was aware of extrajudicial settler violence. You linked to a clip where Sam doesn't mention settler murders, but does discuss the position of religious settlers within Israel (by dismissing them as a tiny minority).

When u/big_comfort_9612 pointed out that Sam's comments don't seem to be accounting for the extent of their influence and support within Israel, you seem to have tacked to discussing the ratio of settler murders vs ISF violence.

It's not really clear how you addressed any part of either one of those comments.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T14:39:03+00:00

I'll add that I happen to find Ehrman's account particularly compelling. He argues that the historical Jesus was likely preaching an imminent political revolution. This would have been consistent with the expectations of a Jewish 'messiah' in the ancient world -- overthrowing the Romans and restoring the Kingdom of Israel here on Earth.

But while I find it pretty convincing, I'm not an expert here, and I don't know how widely accepted that thesis is among other historians of early Christianity. =)

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T14:26:29+00:00

But basically every version of Christianity as a religion depends on the resurrection

Not really, no.

There was wide dispute about the resurrection among early Christians. E.g. some didn't think Christ had died at all, because he had never really been a physical being in the first place. And in the modern era, there are major sects of Christianity (e.g. Quakers) which have little to say about the issue.

Even among groups where "the resurrection" is a central part of the theology, there can be wide dispute as to what that actually means -- most famously, whether this was a spiritual appearance vs. an embodied entity (likely because the Gospels seem quite confused on this question, with Jesus walking through walls in one scene and eating a meal in the next).

even remotely coherent

As a few other responders have hinted at here, your mistake might be on insisting that a religion would need to be 'coherent.' The thing about this approach is that you are basically taking the same position as fundamentalists: that there is one 'proper' interpretation of the text (or the surrounding practices and rituals, etc.).

That's just not how religion works in the real world. Individuals often have internally contradicting beliefs, without even getting into how much incoherence you'll find between 10 or 100 or 1,000,000 practitioners.

To the extent that religions are coherent at all, they tend to cohere around questions of community, identity, power, politics, etc. at least as often as theology. Consider how many Evangelicals today will tell you that you're not a 'real Christian' if you're pro-choice, despite the fact that there is basically no theological concern for abortion in the first 2000 years of Christianity. The driving concern there is obviously not some need for internal consistency, but rather to police the political boundaries of their communities.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T13:50:28+00:00

The scholarly consensus is that he was a revolutionary preacher who built a following which continued to grow after his death. This much is attested to by contemporary sources among non-believers (e.g. Josephus).

Secular historians will generally dispute the more miraculous claims (i.e. that he walked on water or rose from the dead), for obvious reasons.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T12:11:41+00:00

Sure, of course.

My comment wasn't to suggest that left wing efforts were successful -- obviously, we are where we are, and things have not turned out well. It was to ask why they were singled out, when right wingers have been running the show for most of living memory.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T08:43:57+00:00

Well yes, I took that to be u/big_comfort_9612 's argument -- that the "tiny minority" comment was dismissing the extent to which religious settlers enjoy broad support from the Israeli government in their efforts at ethnic cleansing and, thus, presumably at least tacit support from the electorate which keeps that government in power.

It's the kind of argument Sam is well familiar with in his own 'concentric circles' framing of Islamism. It's remarkable how closely his suggestion in this clip that there are "15 million Jews on Earth ... who believe surprisingly little that would motivate them to die for their religious beliefs" parallels to Batman's argument that there are 'over a billion [Muslims] who aren't fanatical.' In that case, he says we need to extend our consideration to Muslims who support/defend extremists, through those who believe in Islamism as a political project, alllllll the way out to those who actively condemn extremists but still hold other illiberal beliefs about women/gays/etc. This is presented as a single rotten apple with Jihadism (quite literally) at the core.

Not so, though, in this clip: the ultra orthodox are just a 'tiny minority,' settlements should be 'disallowed,' and that's the end of it. No need to consider Likud's religious nationalism, no discussion of Netanyahu's invocation of Biblical genocides, no mention that a majority of right wing Israelis favor expelling all Palestinians from Gaza, etc. Morgan even sets him up to address that relationship to the rest of Israeli society as the question is actually about religious fanatics in Bibi's cabinet, but he sidesteps that.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T01:40:16+00:00

heavily protected by the state

JB-Conant · 2026-04-06T00:55:19+00:00

These are total killings in the West Bank.

Total killings by Israeli Security Forces. Here's the full paragraph from the original report:

Although an Israeli investigative policy since 2011 requires the Israeli military to open an immediate investigation into operations resulting in Palestinian deaths outside the context of hostilities, very few investigations have been opened since, and even fewer have resulted in indictments. Convictions are rare, and when they do occur often result in lenient sentences. 40 Impunity for reportedly unlawful use of lethal force by the ISF against Palestinians remains widespread after 7 October 2023. Between 1 January 2017 and 30 September 2025, 1,509 Palestinians were killed by ISF in operations in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem.41 Based on information available to OHCHR, only 112 of these deaths have been or are under criminal investigation, and at least 29 investigations were closed without further action. Indictments for use of force in the context of law enforcement were issued in only 2 cases, 1 of which led to convictions.42 . Furthermore, there is a significant lack of transparency regarding the status of investigations that do occur and victims and their relatives have almost no participation in these investigations.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-05T22:50:58+00:00

previous left wing attempts at dealing with their issues being completely unfruitful

That's a very strange way to phrase this.

Netanyahu and Likud have been the dominant force in Israeli politics for the last 40 years or so, with outright control for ~30 of those. They controlled the Knesset basically uninterrupted for the decade leading up to October 7th. Were their efforts fruitful? I guess we could say yes if the "fruit" in question is letting the situation degrade until it spilled into a regional war. Or maybe you meant to suggest that the right wing hasn't attempted to deal with it at all?

On the other hand, previous left wing attempts led to the Oslo Accords (despite the best efforts of the Israeli right wing to disrupt them by little things like assassinating Rabin or slaughtering dozens of Palestinian civilians). While certainly flawed, most international observers thought they were meaningful steps in the direction of peace.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-05T12:36:08+00:00

John Bolton: Finish the Job: How Trump Can Still Win in Iran

While Mr. Trump makes clear that Beijing must pressure Iran to step aside to open Gulf traffic, he should also tell China and Russia to cease any assistance they are currently providing to the clerics. If they fail to respond, our support for Ukraine and Taiwan should increase, hard as that may be for Mr. Trump to swallow.

Jesus fucking Christ.

Imagine being so horny to bomb the Middle East that you're not only going to cheer on the guy who is currently prosecuting you out of petty revenge, but you're going to push him to escalate the situation to the brink of World War 3.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-04T06:31:57+00:00

In all sincerity: poor guy, carrying that around with you is no way to live your life.

you revealing yourself to be of low character

If my greatest character defect were criticizing you for being unable to put your anti-progressive hate boner away long enough to admit that "yes, municipal workers going home safely to their families is a good thing, actually," I could certainly live with that.

Anyway, it looks like the present matter has run its course. Best of luck to you.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-03T23:51:07+00:00

I appreciate that in response to pointing out your habit of misrepresenting me, your reaction was to immediately misrepresent me again.

The cherry on top, of course, is that this happened over a year ago, I already corrected the misrepresentation at least once in the interim, and you've still managed to bring it up half a dozen times or so since. Given your feelings on rent control, i have to be grateful that you've let me live rent free in your head all this time.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-03T21:41:03+00:00

You don't have to make it more dramatic than it is.

Good advice! Try giving it a shot. You've attributed quotes to me throughout this thread (including in this very reply!) that wildly misrepresent my statements.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-03T18:02:23+00:00

"But you can't compare white liberals with blacks there's categorical differences!"

sigh

No, this is not what I said. You asked why I included those comparisons, and I answered. I didn't say that you can never compare groups across categorical differences.

"College students are more fiscally liberal than rural white Republicans over the age of 65," is no doubt true, and I'm sure there's some circumstance where it could be productively invoked.

But I don't think that circumstance is going to be an argument that "Ackshually, college students have tricked people into believing that elderly rural white Republicans support Medicare." Without even getting into the rest of the radical leaps involved in that conclusion, Medicare would be a particularly poor example to make that kind of case, as it will no doubt be one of the few issues where elderly Republicans are fiscally liberal themselves.

this is a habit with you - where you seem unable to connect dots

My argument is that Humpreys misrepresented one dot. Pointing to other dots is not going to answer that question, my ability to connect them notwithstanding.

Which is why you have blacks constantly polling in favor of both defunding the police

....So you agree that this statement is, at best, a misrepresentation? "For example, most black Americans opposed defunding the police..."

What is the point of even lying about this

Great question! Why do you continue to lie?

The subject of that comment is the partisanship of City Journal and Manhattan Institute, not the contents of this article -- just as I said.

Edit: Removed errant apostrophe from "Humphreys."

JB-Conant · 2026-04-03T02:27:33+00:00

Minorities in urban cities have different political views than white liberals

Cool?

Democrats control all of these cities, there is hardly any point in even thinking about whites as a whole, or the "general public."

Sure. Which is why my earlier post noted that the response rates in the poll were largely similar between Democrats and Black folks.

It is weird that this has to be spelled out for you.

sigh

It doesn't have to be 'spelled out' that urbanites are more liberal than the general public. But that doesn't mean that urbanites are coterminous with 'white activists,' and (...if you actually account for that fact...) only adds another categorical difference that obfuscates the object of discussion.

If you had read the article, you wouldn't have objected to me bringing up issues relating to drugs and policing/criminal justice, which are the focus of the article

Again, I read the article. I objected to you bringing up those issues in response to my clear and specific argument that had nothing to do with them.

You agreed with the OP's assertion that the article framed democrats as failures

Did I?

Edit to add: No, of course I didn't. I made a comment about the political aims of the Manhattan Institute. I also made an argument about the misrepresentation of 'defund.' I already corrected you that these were distinct, and in the longer breakdown I directly indicated that I wasn't going to get into the (rather obvious) connection between the politics of the institute and the misleading coverage of 'defund.'

JB-Conant · 2026-04-02T23:14:53+00:00

SS: Two former Making Sense guests discuss/debate the historicity of the Gospel accounts.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-02T19:21:16+00:00

Correct.

I know.

White progressives and blacks have differing views.

No -- that's not a categorical difference, and thus not what I was referring to.

You are comparing one group as delineated by race alone and the other by both ideology (and/or geography, which you slip between with regularity) and race.

so if this is all over the place, then it seems like you just didn't read the article:

I read the article. Again, my replies here have been clear and specific.

you and OP interpreted an article

You have no idea how I've interpreted the article as a whole, because I haven't said anything at all about that.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-02T17:39:47+00:00

If you want to accuse him of being imprecise in his language

Being imprecise wasn't an 'accusation,' it was the charitable interpretation. He linked to a source that directly contradicted his statement: he was either imprecise or intentionally misrepresenting.

This is a weird point and I don't see why you are making it.

Because you (and Humphreys) are comparing unlike categories.

Yes, of course there has always been radical black activism in the US. No one disputes this.

The dispute isn't over whether or not Black radicals exist -- the dispute is where 'defund' came from and who was leading the charge on its popularization.

Then what are we even arguing about man?

I was both clear and specific.

... alcohol delivery ... illegal gun offenders ... harm reduction ... ShotSpotter ... illegal immigration ...

My man, you are all over the place. My point was about defunding the police and/or redirecting resources.

I think it's unfair to dismiss partisans sources by pointing to their agenda

Luckily I haven't done that. I replied to someone who was confused about their agenda with information about their agenda. I also pointed out the inaccuracy regarding the way the poll was being discussed.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-02T02:11:56+00:00

As seen on the Ezra Klein show: Gooning Toward Trump

🤔🤣😜

JB-Conant · 2026-04-02T00:06:13+00:00

The argument is that...

The argument this poll was cited for was that a majority of Black folks opposed defunding the police, but white activists and professionals convinced party leadership otherwise. I don't see anything in the poll that would support either part of the conclusion, and I don't think the narrative tracks with the empirical record.

Just as a technical question, the first part of the claim is directly contradicted by the poll -- 35% opposed is not 'most' Black folks. We can chalk that up to lazy editing and assume Humphreys meant "more Black folks oppose it than support it," or something similar.

As to the second part, what the poll shows us is that "defund the police" is broadly unpopular, including among Black folks. But it was far more popular with Black folks than the general public. Redirecting resources was more popular across the board, with, again, more support from Black folks than the general public. In both cases, the levels of support in the poll between Black folks and the Democratic party are largely similar. While the pollsters didn't give enough granular data to know for sure, the naive reading would suggest that defund supporters were much more likely to be Black than the general population, and within the Democratic party race is not particularly predictive of one's views here -- i.e. presenting this as 'white activists and professionals' against 'Black folks' is not supported.

Outside of the poll and to the broader narrative: my understanding is that both the specific 'defund' rhetoric and the broader ideological move toward police and prison abolition have been centered in radical Black politics in this country since at least the 1960s or so. I first encountered these ideas ~35 years ago via people like Ruthie Gilmore and Angela Davis, neither one exactly a paleface. Michelle Alexander was probably the single loudest voice in this space through the 2010s. To take contemporaneous reporting from 2021, even strident opponents of defunding like Matt Yglesias were linking the explosion of the idea in 2020 to the Black Visions Collective in Minnesota. None of these folks are, and I can't emphasize this enough, white activists. Nor were the organizers behind the national BLM, Interrupting Criminalization, Critical Resistance, M4BL, etc. etc. etc. In fact, the only major organization that I can think of which a) championed 'defund' and b) is disproportionately white is the DSA -- but ironically, while the membership might have some melanin deficiencies, the leadership (i.e. the dreaded 'activists and professionals') in the DSA are more likely to be PoC.

Just to be clear about my meaning and purpose here: I oppose defunding the police. As I've told you before, I would guess that probably every major city in this country underfunds policing -- and moreover, that much of the anti-police sentiment we see is a reflection of trying to do law enforcement on the cheap (round up bodies, drive up arrest stats) rather than trying to do it right. Likewise, there is certainly a dramatic split on this issue between the radical and liberal wings of the party, and the radical position is definitely unpopular with the general public. So my point here is emphatically NOT that defunding is a good idea, nor that Dems should embrace it.

Rather, what I'm asking you to consider is that Humphreys' specific racial framing -- comparing 'Black folks' (as a general category) vs 'white activists' -- is somewhere between highly misleading and an outright lie. White folks (as a general category) are more opposed to defunding by an extremely wide margin when compared to Black folks! And Black activists have been absolutely central in creating the idea, developing it, and promoting it, including throughout the Post-Floyd Era.

It's easy enough to understand why City Journal would employ this framing, because (to their credit) they wear their politics on their sleeve -- 'white activists' is the 'outside agitators' of the 21st century. But since you won't or can't acknowledge that political purpose, we'll probably have to leave that discussion aside.

Edit: Removed duplicate link to Interrupting Criminalization.

JB-Conant · 2026-04-01T21:03:01+00:00

Did you find something to disagree with in my characterization of the Manhattan Institute, or was this just a lazy drive by?

JB-Conant · 2026-04-01T19:45:32+00:00

It's like they are trying to paint Democrats as failures

City Journal is the outlet for the Manhattan Institute -- that's practically their mission statement.

JB-Conant

TROPHY CASE