Interesting piece by Sam Harris on Substack today. Not hidden behind a paywall this time, yet only paid subscribers can comment, a common approach on Substack which I find rather distasteful.

The essay is typical Sam Harris - beautifully written, and generally well argued, although pushing a barrow he has been pushing for years now. He has developed a style which suggests if you disagree with him, you are morally confused or morally corrupt. There are several examples in his piece where he commits logical fallacies, then proceeds to argue why he hasn’t.

I used to be a fan of Mr Harris in his earlier days, even if I didn’t always agree with him. Then, in 2020 when his was the ONLY podcast I subscribed to, he demonstrated how remarkably thin-skinned he is when it comes to criticism - a feature evident in this latest essay. I was banned from commenting on his articles for 100 yrs, for daring to suggest he displayed some confirmation bias in his views on Islam, a suggestion which I put respectfully in my view. Despite my protestations, no apology was ever forthcoming so I cancelled my subscription. I don’t regret that, since I note the quality of his Substack guests - and the way he fails to take them to task when needed - has deteriorated of late.

It’s also interesting that over 400 people left replies to his latest essay. All paid subscribers by definition. Most were obsequious congratulatory comments. At $150pa to be a paid subscriber, I can see now how wealthy his podcast and Substack have made him. I don’t begrudge his taking advantage of the gullibility of the masses - virtually all public intellectuals have worked out this get rich scheme, as have so many far less cognitively gifted content creators. I’m just saddened that the quality of his output is no longer value for money - and he remains hypocritically thin-skinned to criticism.