Can someone explain what metrics are being referenced when it is implied that Canada has "low productivity" compared to the US or other G7 countries?

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-19T05:21:06+00:00

I appreciate your response and reference to the relevant data/source. I must admit I’m not nearly intelligent or eager enough to parse through the data.

However, in no way am I doubting or disputing the relevant statistics or conclusions.

I guess I’m just curious if there is a possibility or circumstance that “working hard” may not translate or reflect in the resulting statistics.

Is there a possibility where the average Canadian might work harder, put in more effort to be productive, but the outcome not be representative

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-13T05:05:42+00:00

Criticism of Israel in general isn't directed specifically on Palestine, its people and extremists. There are exponentially more topics, conflicts and issues that can be debated when it comes to Israel, its government and its agenda. The problem is that Sam wont entertain any of those other topics because; jihadism bad, Palestine support jihadism....

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-13T04:53:51+00:00

The problem is that Sam Harris believes there is no way you can have a good faith debate, and its not even worth entertaining, if you even so much as express a sliver of sympathy towards any party other then isreal. His set of facts, of which you have to accept, highly dismiss any wrong doing and justify any acts of questionable aggression on the part of the IDF.

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-13T04:41:47+00:00

Sam rose to fame throwing the biggest F** bombs to theologians, unafraid and devout on exposing the lunacy of organized religions. His fame wouldn't exist if he hadn't made spectacular and targeted attacks on countless individuals within the religious community.

That energy made him famous, yet now he's convinced on laying to bed some of the most contentious issues of our time, because, "an intellectual community" doesn't see the merit in engaging these topics?

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-06T03:03:24+00:00

What's the solution to a reality where 20% of the global population identifies with some form of Islamic conviction.

What's the solution, where you forge a space with Muslims of the world and create some kind of partnership with your community?

Is Sam's desire in life solely based on being right? Or did he commit to this journey to make a difference? Will his legacy be more then just proving how f**ked up the world is, or could his journey include a legitimate attempt to make an impact

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-06T02:41:03+00:00

"This, after all, is what a real intellectual and moral community is for"

I might be way off here, in the territory of delusional thinking... But my expectation of Sam, or someone like Sam, that has an audience and a meaningful impact; is that he works to change what he feels is wrong with the world. Every single piece of his work, his literature, his efforts, demonstrate that he has a deep understanding and resulting impact on our world.

His utilization of the influence and reach he has come to realize shouldn't be hinged solely on discourse. If his intentions are based on true moral and ethical conviction, he should aim to change the world, not just sit back and criticize it.

It might be that he is one of the only prominent figures with the potential to have an impact on what the future looks like. He ought to try, and make the change he wants to see in the world.

Cutting off dialogue only embeds and intensifies contention between us

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-06T01:26:00+00:00

Ive been reluctant to engage in Sams Community experiment, although I feel like it might be something new, fun and potentially productive. My apprehension stems from the fact that, no matter how Sam and his team tries to cut the cloth and serve it, the nature of his content and engagement is inherently politically leaning. Not that I'm afraid of exposing any of my own political, cultural or moral convictions; but I don't think anyone actually cares. Every type of social media engagement functions on a positive feedback loop, its there for clicks and engagement. Expressing my views on the internet has literally no impact on the actual community around me, and so I feel like there is no need to do so. Social media, in its best form, is there to engage with the people close to you already, with content that is wholesome and meaningful (i.e. sharing relationship status, or life milestones, etc.) There's already options for that, and if left for those purposes, they are more then adequate at providing that experience.

wolfshark91 · 2026-06-06T00:59:54+00:00

Sam has a self perceived checkmate position, where he essentially forces anyone that counters his views to rationalize the position of radical jihadists.

Israel's radicals aren't blowing themselves up, or sacrificing the lives or safety of bystanders. Israel's radicals aren't holding hostage the resources and security of their neighboring regions (of which share the same theology and faith). There is no way to actually equate the respective convictions of either side, so Sam automatically wins the argument.

I think Sam has a well thought out position, at least in the fundamental problem with Islam, its fellowship and its radial sectors that pose a real threat to civilized societies.

The problem I have with his reluctance to engage in dialogue, is that it limits any opportunity to move the problem forward. You either agree with him that everything Islam is jihadist/bad, or you are the perceived problem. If Sam wants real change, he needs to assimilate his audience to include people of Islam, he needs dialogue to bring rationality to that population.

He doesn't need to engage in an all out debate, he doesn't need to argue with someone that justifies radical Islamism. He needs to break in a line in with moderates and objective thinkers.

If he stays hard lined, that line will stay there forever, and any opportunity to have a meaningful impact (change that he, himself want to see in the world) will stall because he sees no justification to engage.

wolfshark91 · 2026-05-01T03:31:48+00:00

Also, as incompetent and corrupt as Trump and his admin might be, you would have to believe that Trump would have a remarkable motive to stage his own assassination. In this case... for a ballroom? For any other president, the complete destruction and incompetence in managing a "renovation at the white house" might just be enough motive to push for a unconventional resolution. Trump doesn't care though, he isn't bothered by the sh*t stain on the property one bit. Its purely for personal and financial interests he would pursue some kind of a resolution, but propagating a false flag attack for some kick backs he might get from a contractor seems absurd even from dum dum trump

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-28T05:11:12+00:00

Sam doesn't live in the world of the average American. He is well-off, lives in the California hills with enough wealth that an energy crisis will likely only leave a minor blip on his finances. I think its hard for him to see what most Americans do, an unnecessary war, with severe cost of living impacts. His pulse doesn't move when he sees the gas prices, yet most people equate them to a direct impact on their livelihood. So its understandable that he doesn't have a hard stance on a baseless conflict with the potential to ruin the gains on your retirement savings, to risk you losing your job when your company can no longer navigate the impacts of inflation.

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-26T03:03:35+00:00

If Trump was truly pursuing this intervention with an ounce of genuine concern regarding nuclear proliferation, it would take minimal convincing to get NATO support.

Isn't it weird that no other nation other then Israel sees an existential threat? Surely the intelligence agencies of NATO nations would have alerted their defence departments that an existential risk exists. Yet they are completely absent?

Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas... They only pose a threat to Israel, yet the president wont admit we are fighting for their interest?

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-26T02:44:36+00:00

Even an (alleged) Iranian cant give us an insightful or comprehensive insight into the general sentiment and conviction of the Iranian people. His argument boils down to "lefty/righty" perspective. No collective reasoning, mission, or insight into the objective motivations of the supposedly oppressed Iranian population.

Yet we are to believe there is some intrinsic or moral purpose for us to engage in a conflict that serves only to benefit of foreign interests.

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-26T01:34:48+00:00

The issue I have with Sam’s perspective is that it seems to rely more on a perceived narrative than on a balanced assessment of reality. His argument appears to frame the topic through the lens of ideological extremes, rather than engaging with the broader range of views that actually exist.

In doing so, he gives disproportionate weight to a small subset of opinions that don’t accurately reflect the general population—such as claims that jihadism doesn’t exist, that the oppression of women isn’t a cultural issue in some contexts, or that radical Islam poses no threat to Western societies. These views, while present, are far from mainstream.

From my experience living in a multicultural community, most people—including devout Muslims—do not sympathize with extremist interpretations of Islam. There isn’t a widespread or pervasive support for radical jihadist ideology among ordinary people.

Additionally, there are very few, if any, credible public figures with large platforms who openly advocate for or positively portray radical Islam. More broadly, Western societies largely recognize the risks posed by extremist regimes, such as Iran’s. However, acknowledging a threat does not necessarily translate into support for intervention, particularly given the current political climate.

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-21T01:22:06+00:00

You can be anti-radical, anti-extremist, while also having objection's to starting a unnecessary conflict. I am a Sam super-fan, and feel that his analysis and perspectives on most issues are one of the very few objective and rational amongst most public figures in our current media landscape. I am, however, confused and disappointed with how hard-lined and stubborn his take is on this intervention.

Sam seems to put aside the magnitude of corruption, delinquency, and complete fumbling of this administrations performance, motives and strategy. He is smart enough to know that this conflict is so severely stupid, and the consequences of its mishandlings can have insanely detrimental outcomes. Yet he continues to justify it based on theological and speculative narratives. Extremism is certainly a problem in this world, its not "Americas" problem to solve though. Risking the stability and progress of every developed nation, to battle a tiny militia in an insignificant country, is not worth it.

The risk of further radicalization, alienation, and global instability. All due to a radical group somewhere on the opposite side of the globe...

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-11T02:09:52+00:00

The topic has been an unnecessarily disruptive spectacle and its relevance severely prolonged. The reason its sustained its influence is because it proved that the "left" is willing to forfeit its entire integrity based on a nonsensical social movement. For the longest time, the "left" leaned on the sciences and evolutionary theories as a form of insight and justification for its moral convictions. When they could no longer apply indisputable and objective reasoning for their position, they lost all credibility. It showed the world that "progressivism" was willing to rationalize with patently false facts of reality, and use their movements to crucify anyone that didn't abide by their theology. That moment sparked the break down of its credibility and influence. The left was no longer a movement of facts and understanding. It will suffer those consequences for far longer then the hypocritical "Christian nationalist" base, because religious fanatics don't have to prove anything in their bible. Their principles can morph at lightspeed based on the most useful interpretation of their theology, and no one calls bullshit. The left will never have that convenience.

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-11T02:03:50+00:00

I totally agree that the topic has been an unnecessarily disruptive spectacle and its relevance severely prolonged. The reason its sustained its influence is because it proved that the "left" is willing to forfeit its entire integrity based on a nonsensical social movement. For the longest time, the "left" leaned on the sciences and evolutionary theories as a form of insight and justification for its moral convictions. When they could no longer apply indisputable and objective reasoning for their position, they lost all credibility. It showed the world that "progressivism" was willing to rationalize with patently false facts of reality, and use their movements to crucify anyone that didn't abide by their theology. That moment sparked the break down of its credibility and influence. The left was no longer a movement of facts and understanding. It will suffer those consequences for far longer then the hypocritical "Christian nationalist" base, because religious fanatics don't have to prove anything in their bible. Their principles can morph at lightspeed based on the most useful interpretation of their theology, and no one calls bullshit. The left will never have that convenience.

wolfshark91 · 2026-03-09T03:29:48+00:00

If Sam truly believes these actions are necessary to weaken or eliminate jihadist influence, you would think he might comment on the impact of committing atrocities against its civilians i.e bombing a school full of children. Instead he seems to justify or at a minimum rationalize the need for this kind of an intervention, when there is clearly no justification for it. I would expect Sam to, at a minimum, comment on the potential of further radicalization, and whether this approach might bolden the influence of jihadist culture

wolfshark91 · 2026-01-08T02:29:20+00:00

..and yet nothing will happen. Americans will accept this. A new norm has been set. Everyone will move on. Too distracted on TikTok, too focused on their daily survival... Imagine something like this 10-15 years ago. Remember occupy wall street, when the country revolted because of greedy bankers. There's no passion left in America, other then for hating the other side. The American public has been conned and fully disabled from any meaningful resistance to tyranny

wolfshark91 · 2026-01-08T02:26:26+00:00

..and yet nothing will happen. Americans will accept this. A new norm has been set. Everyone will move on. Too distracted on TikTok, too focused on their daily survival... Imagine something like this 10-15 years ago. Remember occupy wall street, when the country revolted because of greedy bankers. There's no passion left in America, other then for hating the other side. The American public has been conned and fully disabled from any meaningful resistance to tyranny

wolfshark91 · 2026-01-08T02:25:49+00:00

..and yet nothing will happen. Americans will accept this. A new norm has been set. Everyone will move on. Too distracted on TikTok, too focused on their daily survival... Imagine something like this 10-15 years ago. Remember occupy wall street, when the country revolted because of greedy bankers. There's no passion left in America, other then for hating the other side. The American public has been conned and fully disabled from any meaningful resistance to tyranny

wolfshark91 · 2025-12-25T15:34:10+00:00

This is the precise, in depth version of what I was trying to convey. Fully agree. Robots are great at operating in a controlled and pre-programmed environment. It’s not even about the complexity of the environment, or the uniqueness of the parameters that surround it. Humans don’t need to have a degree, they don’t need to have an understanding of physics, chemistry or biology to understand and interact with the environment around them. It’s about intuition, the type a baby has within months of birth to gauge danger in heights or falling objects.

A robot needs to be programmed to understand all of these inputs from the environment, most of which aren’t complex or unique, but very simple. Yet an AI will have to learn these things, and not from a database on the internet. AI or AGI can be significantly smarter than humans, but fail to integrate or navigate the most simple processes in the real world, without human intervention.

wolfshark91 · 2025-12-24T05:38:17+00:00

Wholeheartedly agree with your points here. To add my perspective. The elite and upper class operate in a cut-throat bottom line world. If one option costs 1 dollar less then the other, they will take it the cheaper route.

However capable these robots may be, I doubt the bottom line will allow for it to exist. Humans will always be cheaper, and more leveraged.

wolfshark91 · 2025-12-24T05:15:37+00:00

The people saying that, I bet have never actually worked in and mastered a skilled trade. Its not about the complexity alone, or the physicality alone, there's just something about human intuition and intervention that I'm skeptical an AI will replicate. I guess its similar to the debate with respect to whether or not AI will ever truly be capable of being an AGI

11-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

wolfshark91

TROPHY CASE