let me google that for you, since apparently you've never heard of them? sam harris, bigot https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-mus

let me google that for you, since apparently you've never heard of them? sam harris, bigot https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-harris-muslim-animus https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/03/sam-ha... people can listen to respect and adore all the things that hitler said - whether about his bigotry or his artistic vision. i don't do that kind of stuff because it risks raising up the worst of humanity, and providing cover for unspeakable crimes, and it just grosses me out. i would defend hitler's right to _say_ all kinds of crazy horrific things, the same way i would for harris/maher/dawkins, defend their human rights, etc., but not take too much interest in them otherwise. so my question about sam harris was do people believe he is _not_ a bigot, and that's why they think it's cool/ok/good/valuable to listen to his other stuff? or do they completely separate the two -- like, 'yes, he is a bigot, and it's irrelevant to his take on liberals, which i agree with'? people make both those arguments and others -- i was curious what people here thought. the weird part to me is that, let's say for harris, i've never actually heard him saying anything that i considered to be interesting or smart or insightful or just anything useful at all. and all these guys are so over the top with their bigotry. like Dawkins and the clock kid. :-D how bleeped up do you have to be in the head? with Maher you could say yeah he was funny and used to make fun of nazis until he started to resemble one himself. Dawkins was a scientist who allegedly wrote some good books before he went nazi. you ever read anything as cringey as the harris 'debate' with chomsky? blech.