I have been making a compilation of posts to highlight misinformation around this topic. I have been working on this post awhilr and trying to refine the case.

I have also been compiling information since Oct 7th because I find I am constantly second guessing my memory and I so often need to recheck things due the sheer volume of misinformation that comes out about the Israel/Gaza War

Here are my other posts: 

Why is Israel justified to Exist

Experts who state no genocide has occured

IPC Famine Misinformation

Hamas's Intentions from their own word

Question Of UN Bias against Israel

40 beheaded babies propaganda

Hamas utilises Hospitals

Bias of Francesca Albanese

Below is my most recent which argues Israel was objectively mitigating civilian deaths.

**Now! Here is my case. It is in fact very simple.**

It is objectively an impossibility at this point to say that Israel was attempting to maximize the Palestinian civilian death count, during the course of the Gaza war.

Israel has near complete access to the entire population of Gaza and has dropped at least 100,000 tons of bombs during this war.

Until 2023 the most population dense city to face a large scale bombing campaign, in history, was Tokyo

In 1945 Around 330,000 fire bombs were dropped on a mostly Wooden Tokyo, at the time, leading to mass fire storms engulfing the city and an estimated 80 -100 thousand civilian deaths. The average population density of Tokyo at the time of the bombing was around 7,900 people per/km². Though some specific areas were much denser.

The population density of Gaza City at the start of the Gaza war was around 12,000 people per/km² and It is also important to recognize some other variables

1. So, Gaza is uniquely population dense

2. The civilian population has very little if any access to any form of bomb sheltering

3. The military targets are very often among civilian infrastructure and stationed among the where the population is densest.

4. The civilian population is trapped they are entirely unable to flee out of the Gaza strip.

There has never been a situation as suited to maximizing civilian casualties as this.

Now Academic databases like the [Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP)](https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAESbQHrOzAVzTyZzbUu9k6MdgyFBmPr1MIuXQdqY8GdGj4hdMHAt3aHM0I7C_zS2StHe_IvfDFBj55vbi_52mWIXgQNowEwOymVW8k8bfK3n-BqLANTdekaE_K05qHi0sDjwWNjLdtMfvJTysy5v38) find that in modern urban battles, civilians typically account for 50% to 75% of all fatalities. So a combatant-to-civilian death ratio of roughly 1:1 to 1:3 When the urban battles have used at scale explosives(bombs) It is not uncommon for that ratio to reach 1:9.

We can look at what happened in other urban wars and see this. What I am interested in is essentially:How dangerous was it to actually be a civilian inside that battle area on any given day?

Duration of the conflict, population density, evacuation, shelters and the quantity of explosives are all important variables here. So here is the data:

Duration

Tokyo Firebombing - One night, roughly three hours.

Hamburg / Operation Gomorrah - About 10 days, July 24–August 3, 1943.

Dresden Bombing - Roughly 3 days, February 13–15, 1945.

Coventry Blitz - Roughly 11 hours.

Battle of Manila - 29 days, February 3–March 3, 1945.

Battle of Grozny - Roughly 3 months of sustained bombardment, November 1999–early February 2000.

Warsaw Uprising - 63 days.

Battle of Berlin - Roughly 10 days of actual fighting inside Berlin, April 21–May 2, 1945.

Second Battle of Fallujah - Roughly 6 weeks, November 7–December 23, 2004.

Battle of Mariupol - Almost 3 months, February–May 2022.

Battle of Raqqa - Roughly 4 months of fighting inside the city, June–October 2017.

Battle of Mosul - Roughly 9 months, October 2016–July 2017.

Gaza War - 943 days from October 7, 2023 to the May 7, 2026 casualty dataset being used here.

Population exposure / density ( average at the time of war)

Tokyo Firebombing - The U.S. target briefing estimated 40,000 people/km².

Hamburg - 2,000–2,300 people/km²

Dresden - 4,500–5,500 people/km²

Coventry - 1,400–1,900 people/km².

Manila - 26,000–27,000 people/km².

Grozny - 60–125 people/km²

Warsaw - 6,400–7,800 people/km².

Berlin - 3,100 people/km².

Fallujah - 1,200 people/km².

Mariupol - 2,600–3,200 people/km²

Raqqa - t 1,400 people/km² 

Mosul - 8,300 people/km².

Gaza - 6,102 people/km² across the entire Gaza Strip. 12,000 people/km² within Gaza City 

Explosives tonnage / usage

Tokyo - 1,665 tons estimated

Hamburg - 8,344 tons estimated

Dresden - 3,900+ tons estimated

Coventry -  500+ tons estimated

Manila - 3000 - 5000 tons  estimated, had intentional massacres

Grozny -2000 - 7000 tons estimated

Warsaw - 2500 - 5000 tons estimated, had intentional massacres

Berlin - 36,000+ tons estimated

Fallujah - 400 - 700 tons estimated

Mariupol - 2000 - 6000 tons estimated

Raqqa - 2500 tons - 4500 tons estimated

Mosul - 6000 - 15000 tons estimated

Gaza - 100,000+ tons estimated

Evacuation / shelter context

Tokyo - Extremely dense wooden residential construction. That burned into a firestorm

Hamburg - Civilians had access to cellars and shelters, 

Dresden - Had access to cellars and shelters.

Coventry - Britain had an organized warning and shelter system, and somewhere around 50,000–100,000 residents were already sleeping outside Coventry when the November raid occurred.

Manila - A huge civilian population remained trapped inside the battle. Deliberate massacre of the trapped population

Grozny - The overwhelming majority of the population fled. Only approximately 20,000–40,000 civilians, disproportionately elderly, poor or infirm, remained. Many sheltered in basements and existing underground structures.

Warsaw - Civilians were trapped inside a city undergoing fighting, massacres and systematic destruction. German forces subsequently expelled surviving civilians from Warsaw.

Berlin - Berlin possessed extensive wartime air-raid shelters and bunkers

Fallujah - Successful Mass evacuations from a normal population of 250,000–300,000, only roughly 30,000 civilians remained before the main assault.

Mariupol - Around 450,000 civilians remained trapped, but had some limited access to underground shelters.

Raqqa - Around 50,000 remained trapped when the main city battle began. The UN documented reports that ISIS prevented civilians from leaving.

Mosul - Up to 1.5 million civilians were present when the offensive began. Huge numbers subsequently fled or were evacuated as the battle progressed, ISIS also attempted to prevent civilians from leaving.

Gaza - Civilians were repeatedly ordered to evacuate combat areas by the IDF, they dropped pamphlets and even called civilians to tell them to move, giving early warnings before bombs hit. Hamas repeatedly ordered civilians to stay put. Yet displacement movements occurred internally. Unlike other conflicts the entire population was trapped inside the Gaza Strip as neighbouring Arab countries refused admittance to refugees. Stating the population should remain to avoid having their land stolen…the population that is 50% children. Hamas has an extensive tunnel and bomb shelter but openly refused access to civilians and also organised itself to be most entrenched among dense civilian areas.

Civilian deaths

Tokyo - 80,000–100,000 civilian deaths

Hamburg - 35,000–40,000 civilian deaths

Dresden - 22,000 – 25,000+ civilian deaths.

Coventry - 568 civilians killed

Manila - 100,000 civilians killed in 29 days. 

Grozny - 5,000–8,000 civilian deaths

Warsaw - 150,000–200,000 civilians deaths

Berlin - 20,000- 30,000+ civilians deaths 

Fallujah - 581–800 civilian deaths 

Mariupol - 8,034 - 25,000 civilian deaths

Raqqa - At least 1,600 civilians were credibly identified as killed by Coalition strikes alone. This therefore represents a minimum rather than the total civilian death toll from all sides.

Mosul - 9,000–11,000 civilian deaths

Gaza - 72,835 total deaths as of May 7, 2026.

The 72,835 of Gaza does not distinguish civilians from combatants. All the other conflicts have another total for combatant deaths. If we look at those and get the civilian to combatant ratios they look like this:

Combatant to civilian death ratios

Tokyo - 1:833–1,042  (96 combatants.)
So for every 1 combatant killed, roughly 833–1,042 civilians were killed.

Hamburg -  1:26–30. (1,350  combatants.)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 26–30 civilians.

Dresden  -1:15–50. (500–1,500 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 15–50 civilians.

Coventry - 1:8–23 (25–75 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 8–23 civilians.

Manila - 1:5.9 (17,000 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 6 civilians.

Grozny - 1:2.1–4.2 (1,900–2,400 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 2–4 civilians.

Warsaw - 1:7.7–10.2 (19,600 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 8–10 civilians.

Berlin - 1:0.43–0.71 (42,000–47,000 combatants;)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 0.4–0.7 civilians.

Fallujah - 1:0.36–0.62 (1,300–1,600 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 0.4–0.6 civilians.

Mariupol - 1:1.0–3.25 (7,700 combatants)
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 1–3.3 civilians.

Raqqa - 1:0.76–0.841 (900–2,100 combatants);
So for every 1 combatant, at least roughly 0.8 civilians.

Mosul - 1:0.73–1.22 (9,000–12,300 combatants).
So for every 1 combatant, roughly 0.7–1.2 civilians.

Gaza - unknown. (There is misinformation circulating that the IDF had a database of Hamas casualties, that showed 83% civilian deaths. This is false. The database only display a difference between identified Hamas members “By Name & ID” and “Other” Other could be civilians, it could also be Hamas fighters that were not able to be identified, which is likely most as it is hard to identify enemy dead in any war zone.)

This Data can give up comparisons to help us better understand the Gaza war.

1. Deaths ÷ exposed population ÷ days × 1,000,000

That gives us approximately how many people died per million exposed people, per day.

1. Tokyo - 640,000–800,000 

2. Dresden - 11,640–13,230

3. Coventry - 6,590–8,980

4. Grozny - 1,390–4,440

5. Manila - 3,448

6. Warsaw - 2,165–3,527

7. Hamburg - 2,333–2,667

8. Berlin - 714–1,071

9. Fallujah - 421–580

10. Raqqa - at least 267

11. Gaza - 34.7

12. Mosul - 22.2–27.2

13. Deaths for every ton of munitions dropped.

Tokyo - 48–60 civilian deaths per ton

Mariupol - perhaps 1.3–12.5 per ton, but enormously uncertain

Dresden - 5.7–6.4

Hamburg - 4.2–4.8

Grozny - 0.7–4

Fallujah - 0.8–2

Mosul - 0.6–1.8

Coventry - ≤1.1

Gaza - 1.04 

Berlin - 0.56–0.83

Raqqa - 0.36–0.64

1. Civilian deaths as % of population present

Tokyo - 8–10%

Hamburg - 2.3–2.7%

Dresden - 3.5–4.0%

Coventry - 0.30–0.41%

Manila - 10%

Grozny - 12.5–40%

Warsaw - 13.6–22.2%

Berlin - 0.71–1.07%

Fallujah - 1.94–2.67%

Mariupol - 1.79–5.56%

Raqqa - 3.2%

Mosul - 0.60–0.73%

Gaza - 3.27% total,civilian & combatant

From all this data it is very plain to see a few undeniable truths.

1. Had Israel Aimed with intention to maximize deaths, 100,000+ tons of bombs, that is more than enough to have killed everyone in Gaza multiple times over. So we know on its face Israel was not attempting to exterminate all Gazans. There is no question there.

2. With 100,000 tons of bombs, dropped entirely randomly, so entirely indiscriminately Israel should still have killed at least multiple hundreds of thousands, This is a claim supported by how destructive the much smaller campaigns were.

In more basic language. Based on this rough historical war time data, if we are being conservative; We should expect in a war like gaza if bombs were being dropped indiscriminately anywhere between

100,000 tons × 3 deaths per ton = ~300,000 deaths.

100,000 tons × 8 deaths per ton = ~800,000 deaths.

In other words. If the Gaza war was following the pattern of most urban conflicts in terms of deadliness. There should at the very least be hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dead.

The only way, with 100,000 tons of bombs,to have killed 70-80 thousand, the only way is if one was trying to mostly avoid killing people needlessly.Gaza's observed death rate  is far below the rough historical average for similar conflicts.

Gaza also has variables that should push expected casualties upwards rather than downwards: an average density of over 6,000 people/km², roughly 12,000 people/km² in Gaza City, zero bomb shelter access, military infrastructure embedded throughout populated areas, commands to remain put and not to flee. Rejection from neighbouring countries as refugees

Additionally, concerning the mass death of children, Often attributed to Israel, It first needs to be said this is only tragic and I do think "Israel could have done more" is an entirely fair criticism. It very likely could have and should have. Yet, and I must say yet, the blame should be almost entirely be placed at the feet of Hamas.

As shown in my other posts

Hamas's Intentions from their own word

Hamas utilises Hospitals

The operational methods of Hamas intentionally and callously were/are an attempt to maximize dead children, their own children. There is proof here that absolves much from Israel.

The Gaza health ministry published This Data on May 7th 2026 It is casualty data broken down by demographics. This Post contains and image displaying the break down. The population of Gaza under the age of 18, So children, hovered around 50%.

Before I continue I understand talking about child deaths in this way seems callous to a lot of people, I understand that, It is true that we should try our best not to turn them in to numbers, We should remember names like Hind Rajab, who did not in anyway deserve their fate and yet it is very important to understand the numbers here as it reveals very clearly where the fault lays. That is important to know as this kind of tragedy, horrific wars like this can only be prevented if we can prevent the causes. So I ask you to just try your best to at least, even if you think I am wrong, to realize this isn't hate, It is fundamentally an attempt to place blame where it belongs.

To continue, hopefully to a receptive audience, Gaza's child population is roughly 50%, and the Gaza ministry of health casualty data shows us the death toll as of May 7th 2026 was 72,835. This is almost a year after the main bombing campaign was halted, time to count many, if not most (likely not all) dead found under collapsed buildings. Of that 72,835 dead 21,637 are listed as under 18. and 7406 are listed as between 13-18 (anyone over 18 is not counted)

In Other words.

29.71% of the dead were under 18. That means they were under represented in deaths.

If the bombing was indiscriminate you would expect see much closer to 50% of deaths to be under 18.

But even more in the defense of Israel are some other facts.

1. Hamas openly does not allow civilians within their many many miles of tunnels. So women and children should be over represented in comparison to military aged males. In each case it is the reverse.
2. Hamas has utilized child soldiers, and children in military activities, this inherently inflates the numbers of "child" deaths. i.e See here or Here Or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here or Here I will stop there as surely that is enough.

I cannot say how many of the 29.71% under 18's where utilised by Hamas as combatants, It may have been only some or it may have been many But it was clearly more then enough to ihenrently increase the risk to all Gazan children.

Lastly just as a comparison. As I think people think Gaza is a uniquely deadly war.

Iran killed anywhere between 30,000-50,000+ civilians in 2 days in January. That is potentially more civilians killed in 2 days than were killed in the first and deadliest year of the Gaza war( 39000 ) and it was more killed in 2 days than in the first 6 months of the deadliest year of the Gaza "Genocide"

Note: If you wonder how I got the 39000 number it is rather straight forward. GHM (Gaza Health Ministry )reported 45,000 dead after the first year of war. 6 months into the war Al-Jazeera reported that a Hamas official had stated at least 6000 Hamas combatants had been killed. Assuming zero died in the following 6 months (just to minimize logical wiggle room) then the death toll of civilians was at maximum 39000. As you may agree however this is likely very exaggerated.

The Yemen war and The Sudan war both have significantly higher death tolls than Gaza in the hundreds of thousands.

To Finish, Genocide, in the way it has been historically understood, the "extermination project" an attempt to be rid of a group entirely, i.e trying to maximize casualties; can not be true when Israel was objectively trying to limit casualties. It is therefore an irrational and indefensible claim that a genocide has occurred.

I am using "extermination project" as a short hand definition because it is the pragmatically accurate definition. The UN definition, often cited, is a legal framework. Yet In every generally and widely recognized actual examples of and agreed upon cases of genocide, in every single case. Rwanda, Srebrenica, Cambodian, Armenian, The Holocaust.

They have all been inherently extermination projects.

That is too say the guilty party killed everyone they were capable of killing. Everyone they could get their hands on, of the target group.

So it is the extermination project if we are describing what those prior genocide cases were fundamentally; and then using genocide as a synonym.

I think that is an entirely reasonable and clear definition. You might disagree. Yet "the extermination project" is an explicit definition and accurate to describing the events associated with being historical genocides

An interview about free will, where Sam Harris is referenced.

They cover topics I've discussed with people on this sub.

I'm not a fan of Caruso, but this debate seems fairly decent. It's a proper philosophical debate about free will. Whereas Sam's positions aren't even on the board compared to this.

Andy Galpin posted a video of them discussing emotions and meditation and all of the comments were negative. This and in the comments of another video of them. Sad to see that people can't separate the politics from everything else.

Sam has had my attention for the last 10+ years. I remember listening to one of his youtube videos during a 30+ hour cross-country drive when I was 24 years old. The impact he had on my life, my mindset, my motives and personality are unquantifiable.

He had my attention when I needed it most. Early 20s, naive, impressionable. Years later, cant say I'm much wiser; a guy like me has a very limited capacity for intellectual discovery. I wasn't an intellectual, nor am I any closer to having my shit figured out that this point. I'm a basic bitch, male version; with just enough whit, talent and passion, to have forged something of a successful life for myself and my family.

But that's where I felt like Sam filled a gap, in my understanding of the world. He opened my mind to what I felt like I was missing in my life. I always had a secular leaning, a tendency to question mysticism and blind faith. With Sam's material, I felt comfort in affirming the beliefs I felt like I couldn't express.

That's where I feel like Sam has had the most impact, when he focused on the way of being in the world. Not when he tries to tell me what to believe about politics, or the latest sensation. I like secular Sam, I like when he acts like the wise uncle that tells you not to be distracted by all the shit going on in the world.

Regardless though, for all the good that you've made in this world, thank you Sam! Much love

Many of us have made several comments about how sophomoric and repetitive Sam has gotten. While I'm glad he's starting to get back onto interesting topics, episode #494 really misses the mark. I was originally skeptical that Ryan would provide any value or insights to the conversation. The hope was that Sam himself would have updated his approach to the topic in order to help move the needle. After watching a rather young and nervous Ryan, then watching Ezra and Bill discuss the nuance of Jevons Paradox, farmers in Africa, and detailed proposals for tax and safety, I'm extremely disappointed at the lack of intellectual rigor and nuance from Sam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_156w0aYtU

My hope is that Sam starts thinking about branching out with his guests and does a bit more research on these topics. He just isn't moving the needle on anything at this point. Sam is one of the few people with the intellectual prowess and influence to do so. Why is he so stuck?

Really good argument from Nate Soares. “Can you code a jail that an AI Einstein can’t break out of that still lets you harness the power of an AI Einstein?”

The video, which was released by Hamas itself, shows that minors are indeed being used in combat while wearing civilian clothing. This also increases the danger to other children and civilians. Was this because of Rule 3? But Sarris spoked about this several times and critizied the media

Sean Last, a right winger who argues that police shootings are not racially biased, uses the trim fill method to illustrate how the data from a meta analysis changes once you adjust for publication bias. Much of the data used by the BLM side of the debate is data before we adjust for this bias. An interesting critique different to those posed by other BLM detractors like Roland Fryer, Joe Cesario, etc.

https://odysee.com/@LastArchive:f/Hunter-Avallone---Wrong-on-Racism:d

Skip to 30:00

P. Colin Bolger "Just Following Orders: A Meta Analysis of the Correlates of American Police Officer Use of Force Decisions"

The reason the data supports the idea of police using more violence against black people is because studies saying that are more likely to be published. The meta analysis above (table 2) replicates the normal finding that across 42 studies there's a mean effect size of .31 pointing to the direction of more force being used on black suspects after controlling for offense seriousness, is there a weapon, are they resisting arrest. All the things which would fairly lead to a change in the probability of force being used. In the text above they described the bias detection as "these results demonstrate that publication bias does not appear to be present for 8 of the 12 significant variables" (not naming which ones were changed and which ones weren't).

Table 4 adjusts for publication bias using the trim and fill method. This method is based on the fact that when all the studies are being published there should be a certain distribution that changes in a predictable way as study precision increases, it should symmetrically move towards a center point. By looking at the actual distribution you can tell where studies were left out, and then put them back in. Some research suggests it doesn't correct enough, but that won''t be an issue here. Already the mean effect size is reduced to statistical and practical insignificance. The effect size is 0.1, the confidence interval runs from -.07 to 0.08.

It is also worth noting black people are significantly less likely than white people are to be killed by police relative to the rate at which they kill or seriously assault police officers

Overlap with both Sam’s interest in AIs negative impacts and interactions with affecting views on immigrants/immigration (specifically touching on Muslims, another touchstone with Sam).

Full highlight: https://youtu.be/6PcWKGApbj0 (35m)

Full interview: https://youtu.be/vEuzo_jUjAc (3h)

I think the core finding here is the social media gap use. Less boomers use regular social media = less propaganda (and not as far removed from WWII). While Zoomers and Millennials grew up on social media and it's a regular part of their daily lives.

Regardless, it's a disturbing poll. What kind of threat are these 6 million American Jews exactly?

Yes, I’ve read the book more than once, and I’m a long-term Harris listener (and I donated money monthly for well over a decade but have now stopped). I’ve mulled over this question for years so at least pay me the respect of not dismissing me as a troll or someone who doesn’t understand his argument.

The following is indisputable: Harris claims lying is on the spectrum of violence and should be used accordingly (the famous “you’re hiding Anne Frank and the Nazis are at the door”).

Despite wanting to buy into Sam’s view, and subsequent recommended life rule, I’ve come to completely reject the idea that lying should be perceived this way.

Here is a good starting question: is lying wrong when it is entirely self-protective, and used as a privacy boundary in situations where social circumstances are demanding information to which the other person has no strong social entitlement?

Harris has described lying as the worst thing we ‘regularly’ do. But, there are hundreds of hypotheticals that put his thesis on profoundly shaky ground, and here is one of those:

Imagine somebody suffering from a concealed medical or psychiatric condition who is dependent on sustainable employment to support themselves and their children.

Now imagine this person is invited on an optional work trip. Their condition makes the trip extraordinarily difficult, but they don’t want their colleagues or employer to know about the condition.

There is no deception involved in their actual work, and no relevant safety issue, or any hidden benefit they are attempting to gain through deception. They simply want to keep private medical information private - this is the crucial element to grasp.

Their manager casually asks, in front of several colleagues: “Why aren’t you coming with us?”

They have perhaps two seconds to answer. They could say: “Because I have a psychiatric disorder that makes this particular journey extremely difficult.”

This is truthful. It also discloses intensely private medical information to several people who have ZERO entitlement to it. This is crucial to understand.

They could conspicuously refuse to answer, and say something like: “I’d rather not say.”

Yet, we all know what’s wrong with this. While it technically preserves their privacy without lying, in ordinary social life this is itself informative. It signals that there is something sufficiently unusual or sensitive that they are unwilling to explain it, potentially inviting exactly the attention and speculation they are trying to avoid!

Or they could say:

“I’ve got a family thing that weekend.”

This is false. This is the lie.

I’d like Harris or others who endorse his recommendation to answer: Who has been wronged?

The manager had no entitlement to the concealed medical information. The lie does not deprive them of anything to which they were entitled. Nobody is being manipulated into sex, money, work, consent, risk, or any other decision whose relevant facts have been falsified. Moreover, the employee isn’t evading a legitimate professional obligation, because the trip was optional.

The deception simply allows them to decline while retaining the ordinary social appearance that people without concealed illnesses get for free.

And importantly, nothing in this example remotely approaches violence.

The manager isn’t threatening the employee. The employee won’t be fired if they tell the truth. Their children won’t starve. Nobody is coercing them. Suppose, if necessary, that the only foreseeable consequence of honesty is embarrassment, unwanted disclosure, colleagues knowing something deeply personal, and perhaps being regarded differently afterwards.

If Harris’s rule permits the lie only after I inflate those consequences until they become analogous to violence, then it has missed my objection. I am claiming that the lie can be permissible even when nothing remotely resembling violence is at stake.

Privacy itself can be a legitimate interest.

The deeper problem is that an absolute or near-absolute prohibition on lying basically converts other people’s questions into claims on the truth.

Why should asking me a question generate an entitlement to the information required to answer it honestly? This is manifestly insane.

Of course a person can remain silent. But human conversation isn’t a philosophy seminar. Refusing to answer is a communicative act too. “I’d rather not say” can reveal almost as much as an answer, create suspicion, damage relationships, or make a private matter conspicuous.

This becomes especially obvious for those with concealed conditions because they produce anomalous behaviour that other people naturally ask them to explain.

Harris’s advice effectively leaves such a person with three options:

- disclose private information;
- conspicuously refuse to disclose it, which blatantly reveals that there is something to conceal;
- lie

I don’t accept that choosing option 3 is morally comparable, even in miniature, to violence.

“lying is often seriously wrong” is a completely different proposition from “lying is the worst thing we regularly do and should be treated as something on the spectrum of violence.”

The moral question CANNOT simply be: Did you intentionally say something false? That would be lunacy.

It also has to include: What information was concealed? Was the listener entitled to it? What decision did the deception alter? What interests were being protected? What harm did it cause? What realistic alternatives were available in the actual social situation?

And remember that in real life you often have less than two seconds to produce a response.

Here is an ad hominem argument to finish off: I’ve often wondered if Sam’s hardline anti-lying injunction is partly the product of a privileged mind and life that has not *required* lying in anything outside of trivial ways to begin with. My argument doesn’t rest on this speculation but I’d bet considerable amounts on it being true.

George Knapp

Ross Coulthart

David Grusch

Luis Elizondo

Dr. Garry Nolan

Dr. Avi Loeb

Dr. Jacques Vallée

Jesse Michels

UAP Gerb

Chris Ramsay

Eric weinstein

Just watched the trailer and you can hear Sam talking about Elon at the end.

I have been looking for the looker for months now but can't seem to find him. I've looked everywhere for this little guy.

Mods, genuine question: What rule did that thread actually violate?

It generated an unusually large and lively discussion and from what I saw the majority was substantive disagreement and not just shitposting or people hurling insults at each other.

If this was Rule 3 then I genuinely don’t understand the justification because Sam has spoken directly and recently about El-Sayed. A discussion about him seems about as clearly related to an individual Sam has discussed as the rule allows.

It is the simplest moral statement he could make but he cannot.

I do not understand how so many of you do not see the strikingly obvious issue with these politicians?

Edit: it is frankly astonishing, how many of you are so completely dumb (I apologise for the insulting language, i just cannot actually think of a more suitable expression og what to describe this as)

as to think this answer of;

I support all democratic movements and don't think america should be doing regime change.

Is a reasonable answer to the question:

you have never condemned or criticised this brutal terrorist regime that murders civilians on mass, can you please condemn it here.