LOGIC
https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/k3d6rb/youtube_suppresses_video_criticizing_the_cia/ge2fmxq/?context=3
This person doesn't understand that their beloved rationality and empiricism is a trap, a bastardization of actual rationality. What their complaint about sources essentially boils down to is that if there isn't an article about it in WaPo or a section on wikipedia for it, then it's not supported by evidence. Therefore it can't be a valid claim. If they don't recognize how insane that kind of epistemology is, then idk what to say. But it's just yet another side effect of capitalism. Your facts must be a commodity in order to be real facts.
And "where are the sources" is academic nitpicking, anyway. Reality doesn't change just because your video or paper or whatever doesn't have an extensive bibliography. A lack of sources means you're doing spotty academic work, but it doesn't make your claims untrue.
Peak reddit argument is just > quoting every paragraph of someone's post and responding "Source?"
These people think they're all still in school. They need to grow the fuck up.
I disagree. Sources are not solely there so that you "prove" what is presented is factual(although it is nice to see where the information comes from), they are there so that someone can use your video as an entrypoint to read about the subject itself more throughly. They aren't obligatory of course but it would be way better if they were a standart for this type of video essay.
In the video in question he states in the intro that he's going over the subject in brief and has links to other videos that more thoroughly detail the subjects. I do agree with you that sources are nice, and pointing people in the right direction for their own edification is important.
They never care about sources when they make claims. It's only when they're challenged themselves. This is extremely common on reddit. Someone will post several times saying crazy shit then when you're like "no, actually CIA bad" they want a MLA bibliography. They don't understand that reddit isn't an academic thesis, it's at best a casual conversation. Demanding sources from everyone but yourself is sloppy and stupid. So much for the intellectual right.
build an iron man, or play the devil's advocate
The bias understander has logged on
*snort* Ah my ignorant young friend, it seems you have *high pitched nervous chuckle* fallen into the common intellectual tarpit of the in posterioris receptandus fallacy. Your whole argument simply does not maintain. Really my dear, surely this is something you learned in primary school?
It's also blatantly ignoring the declassified CIA docs the video did cite.
that's par for the course for Sam Harris, so probably extends to his fanbois
I've gotten Reddit DMs replying to comments I made 2 years ago making fun of Sam Harris from his fans trying to debate me about how he won his argument with Ben Affleck. They are insane.
His username being Get On My Level in l33t-speak is a cherry on top.
He honed his philosophical mind in the erudite salons of Call of Duty and CS:GO lobbies.
Since his name has been posted here again, I have a good excuse to share this link as to why Sam Harris is a fraud.
That's the Dave Rubin sub. It could be both tho idk, I just know the Dave Rubin sub also does that.
Private business should be banned of course :stalin-shining: , but YT censorship IS a free speech issue even if you allow private platforms to limit speech. YouTube is owned by Google and Google is a federal contractor. Allowing YouTube to censor is indirectly allowing the government to censor. (Argument stolen from Second Thought themselves.)
Nah. This is pretty much entirely incorrect, there is no requirement for federal contractors to have to platform anyone. It's just not a 1st amendment issue, but that shouldn't be the point because the constitution sucks ass anyways.
