Comments by "Jack Spring" (@jackspring7709) on "Sam Harris" channel.

Ordinary people have always shown themselves to be wiser than elite academics: ordinary people have to make crucial decisions every day that effect their lives and the lives around them: they become adept and efficient at improving their surroundings and the surroundings of those around them: they have a wisdom and knowledge about them that gifted intellectuals do not have. the problem with gifted academics is that they also believe they know everything about everything else: censorship is never acceptable under any circumstances. Interfering with peoples' access to knowledge in order to nudge an election result is repulsive to any free society and that can lead to very bad places, very quickly. Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung were both intellectuals.
6
@christopherhamilton3621 Hello! I just got a chance to read your reply there, now. Time flies. I agree on all points there - and yes, its true, a little less vitriol & blame gaming is much needed. It's been nice chatting - I don't often come across people on here who will argue a point but not get nasty about it and reduce it to name calling or passive aggressive side swipes. Much appreciated.👍
2
@christopherhamilton3621 True; I would argue that Sam Harris' interview revealed that he engages in generalisations and divisiveness of the most repugnant, and probably, dangerous kind.
1
@christopherhamilton3621 I understand what you mean but I'm not talking about mobs - I'm talking about ordinary people in their every day lives and the decisions that they have to make in the world they have to live in: if I was to qualify it further I would just say that ordinary people are not the low intellect riff raff that many intellectuals seem to view them as. I don't use the words 'common man' or 'mob rule' as that suggests I'm endorsing some sort of overthrow: the point I was trying to make is that Sam Harris regards all Trump's supporters as dangerous fascists - he openly said that censorship is acceptable when it comes to them - there was no ambiguity: he also said that using dirty tricks and manipulation to prevent someone from being elected is acceptable because he, and people like him know better than anyone else: he was very specific - and was divisive and making generalisations - as well as endorsing censorship and a subversion of the democratic process.
1
I don't think he should hold onto his butt - all that sunlight could burn his fingers.
1