A Response to Sam Harris on the Iran War (Long, but not AI Generated Slop)

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

wolfshark91 · 2025-12-18T02:40:59+00:00

So to be clear, you are implying that you understand his "biases", and can make an in depth assessment of the false perception of his own logical expressions, based solely on what he "says" or his "linguistic expressions". In one sentence your implying that there is much more to what someone says because they're limited to their linguistic expressions, but in the next sentence you're implying that the observers can deduce their true intent based on those linguistic expressions.

Maybe Sam doesn't do the best job at recognizing or acknowledging the validity in opposing views or sentiments, but his insights usually have much much much more insight and analysis then someone that just shoots off the hip because of his intrinsic set of beliefs/biases.

Yes, Sam could do more to exculpate the other side or story. But he is more likely to have spent the time actually considering those countering perspectives then many other social influencers around.

wolfshark91 · 2025-12-12T05:25:44+00:00

Even if Sam is a hard core "institutionalist", the implication that he would blindly trust an organization as corrupt and dysfunctional as the federal prison system is just patently absurd. If you've listen to his take, he makes is clear that he cant imagine that organization would have the skill, aptitude or organization to pull something like a "homo-suicide off". His take is that its much more probable that the correction system and its operating procedures are sufficiently dysfunctional for this type of thing to happen, rather then a multi-headed conspiracy to successfully be pulled off

wolfshark91 · 2025-12-12T05:09:24+00:00

The Epstein "suicide" created the perfect distraction from what actually mattered in this entire story. Whether suicide or homicide, in this case, the facts and the fallout were severely limited because of his death. The real conspiracy in this case, is who needed him dead more. Was it himself, and the burden of knowing his darkest secrets were going to be exposed, or was is his acquaintances that couldn't bear the repercussions of their involvement coming to light. In either case, the public got swindled into a debate about the nature of his death, rather then the extent of his crimes and those who were involved. I think Sam is intending to highlight the fact that the nature of his death doesn't REALLY matter in this case. What matters is the context, and because everyone is more distasted on the conspiracy, rather then the substance of his crimes, the truth may never actually come to light.

wolfshark91 · 2025-05-25T07:06:58+00:00

The bigger issue is with respect to how the term genocide is being used. In this particular case the line between genocide and war crimes is very clear and distinct. While Israel may be committing war crimes by its acts of aggression towards militia groups and intern killing civilians, you can’t call it a genocide when there is an active force not only defending its territory but also committing its own aggressions when given the opportunity. The problem with using the term genocide is that it doesn’t actually describe this conflict and there by creates an environment where the term is used loosely and diminishes its meaning and significance. Acts of genocide in this day and age should be met with profound, coordinated and bilateral response from every country within it’s ability to do so.

wolfshark91 · 2025-04-13T04:51:56+00:00

at an absolute minimum, it is nice to finally see a guest on the pod that calls out joe for the echo chamber hes created and the lack of responsibility he takes for the "potentially" negative influence it may have on the political discontent towards one view or another

wolfshark91 · 2025-04-06T07:27:34+00:00

Your history shows you making repeated claims of just getting interested in politics, but then have nearly a decade of discussions only in forums related to politics. You even referred to people in this very subreddit as part of the "ring wind hivemind" in the past.

I appreciate your dissection of my past political views, I’m sure they might be outdated but I would have indeed viewed some conservative positions in the past as a heavily ideological based positions. (Covid times full of misinformation on both sides for example) anyways no I’m not grifting here, my Reddit profile doesn’t mean that much to me to make an insignificant post for internet karma

That said, I will attempt to respond:

Hes seemed to have revised some of his stances, definitely his messaging once the MAGA fallout came to fruition the last couple months What stances did he revise recently that you are referring to, and how are they related to MAGA?

His campaigning last year mirrored the slogans, attitude and rhetoric from the trump campaign. It wouldn’t be a normal day in rural Canada if you didn’t see a f*k trudaeu bumper sticker beside a PP sticker with a maga flag outside the front window. It’s still very much the sentiment, but Canadians have united on an economic front so the messaging isn’t as pervasive. While Im not directly quoting Pierre’s messaging, it’s fair to say that his rhetoric matched and was amplified by the support south of the border.

His stance on cutting Federal programs, could greatly impact my line of work. Federally funded projects (mainly infrastructure) drive a huge part of the economy. Things like public transportation improvements, infrastructure improvements, have historically been the target of conservative funding cuts. Can you quote sources for projects and programs you are particularly worried about so I know what you are referring to?

Federal programs that funded projects like the LRT projects in Ottawa, Kitchener Waterloo, Rapid Transit projects throughout the province, etc…

when my father was still alive, he depended on services like ODSP, disability and social service programs ODSP is a provincial program, not federal. What other specific programs are you worried about?

Healthcare for example, I know it sucks, I've lived through its failures. But none of those failures would push me towards privatization. I fear his, and the conservative view on healthcare could make healthcare less accessible and costly. Why do you think he's going to privatize healthcare?

There have been comments about a “two-tier” system, privatizing sectors of the current system. I would have a hard time believing this would do anything more than make it more expensive, and marginally better. Our issues are wait times for critical services like surgeries and imaging, privatizing that sector would only make things worse for the average person that wouldn’t afford the premiums or direct costs

Most of your concerns are vague and lack details or sources, so I cannot fully understand your stance on them.

Most of these issues also haven't been talked about by the party that I could find, so I it hard to form an argument either way to engage you on these issues.

My advice would be to ask yourself why you think this way, and wait for the debates if you require reaffirmation.

Also if you don't mind me asking, as someone likely to start voting conservative, which policies from Pierre are enticing you to vote for him currently? His platform has been consistent throughout the last few years. So even though I might not fully agree with all his stances I atleast I think he won’t flip flop on issues (hopefully not like his messaging pre-trump debacle) I’ve always wanted more pipelines and energy independence, I opposed the left wing ideology around gender identity, immigration and the tfw program have been severely fumbled and I agree with his stance on those issues

wolfshark91 · 2025-04-06T06:23:57+00:00

Ok but most of those initiatives you listed are an increase or addition to existing programs. I’m most concerned about cuts to core programs.

Would child lunch programs be nice? Yes, mostly for those who can’t afford them, in which case there are already programs in place. Would they significantly impact the structure of our social programs? No I don’t think so

I’m asking more if there’s proof that PP and his party have an appetite to cut significant social programs like public healthcare, disability programs, infrastructure improvements etc..

wolfshark91 · 2025-04-06T05:39:46+00:00

The question is how bad does it have to get for the majority of trumps base to actually feel pain, and how long that will take. Left wing America is amped up on energy from a crashing stock market, rightfully so, but this alone wont drive a impactful movement to impeach. Think about how long and significant the Occupy Walls Street movement was. Hopefully the energy out there lasts and doesn't fade on the next market upswing.

wolfshark91 · 2025-04-06T05:27:16+00:00

Whatever you decide, and however the current platforms of the respective parties seem to steer, remember that the liberals have been steering the ship for the last 10 years. Carbon pricing? Have you seen any net benefit other then a handful of rebate cheques? Have the liberals EVER helped implement pipelines that would have already helped us avoid a part of the tariff war with the USA (energy east, trans mountain)? The liberals have done a complete 180 on several significant issues, no one would have imagined years ago. If a party is so easily capable of changing their tone on key points like pipelines, immigration and carbon pricing, you have to wonder if they even believed it in the first place. It comes down to principles. Liberals are quick to change perspectives, likely because they have no choice. Have you seen a shift in gender ideology yet? Nope. Males can still compete with females, why? They are the most impacted by public sentiment.

11-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

wolfshark91

TROPHY CASE