While I agree with you here, I want to reiterate that I think you should leave the audio in the podcast and add commentary before or after the claims. Please don't begin deciding what your audience should and shouldn't hear. It's not just a bad idea but it's terrible optics too.
-
-
-
I think the idea was to prevent, in any way, his podcast from accidentally distributing slander. So by removing these asides, he kept the ostensible focus of the conversation on the main thing.
-
Adding commentary to the parts in question has the same effect while being transparent. If dishonest people want to redistribute the claims by themselves, they'll always be available bc it's The Internet so completely removing them here does nothing except reduce transparency imo
-
Can Sam be held accountable for something someone else said on his podcast? I genuinely don't know how the law works in this case.
-
I'm not sure, but if that's the sole reason for the retraction, I think Sam should be transparent about that too. Christian did claim Sam is responding to legal pressure from Molyneux but I don't really put much stock in his claims.
-
Seriously man, just move on. You have a great story with a wonderful message, but your credibility collapses when you accuse people of having done things that they clearly haven’t. Just admit that you were wrong on this specific thing – it really shouldn’t matter.
-
Sorry, but I'm not wrong on this.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
1) Waking Up podcast supporter here. You are losing it Sam, this is a blindspot it's starting to really worry me.
@cpicciolini made a claim, he gave his reasons. Let it stand, it is a reasonable opinion. You have to draw the line somewhere. -
2) It would be like editing out Picciolini saying Monyneux was a racist because we have no video of him admitting it and no convictions of hate crime. And you could speak with Molyneux, and he would tell you that of course he is not racist. You have to find a balance here.
-
3) Also, you keep labeling people like Ezra Klein as "extreme left" or "far left" over and over again. And apparently you don't see a problem with that, and no evidence needed (being regressive is not the same as communist far left).
-
4) Two years ago you were astounded that a big part of your audience were Trump supporters. And you learned nothing. You have a DUTY to keep your audience very clear on where you stand regarding these issues, you can't be rock hard to the left and softy soft to the right.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sam, I did not misrepresent anything. I feel no need to apologize for calling an admitted ethnonationalist a racist. You can deflect all you want, but you are now complicit in covering for white supremacists. And not just once, might I add.
-
I’m sorry to see this falling out. The event you two did together made an excellent podcast. It’s one of my favorite episodes.
-
I agree. I really wish you guys can find a way to talk this through.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have insane amounts of admiration for you,
@SamHarrisOrg, but you should call out people who are now fraudulently attacking@cpicciolini. He is by virtually all accounts (regardless of your disagreement with him on this particular point) a man of stellar moral character. -
A man of good moral character, but still wrong.
-
Not wrong on this. I posted proof.
-
My man, I love both of your work. Please handle this offline on a phone call instead of going back and forth on social media. Please save your valuable ammo for the real enemies.
-
Hell no. Put it out there for all to see.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.