all 39 comments

[–]Turlockdog09 27 points28 points  (13 children)

This actually shows that Sam has a good moral compass. To willingly remove statements that slander someone he disagrees with shows that he values truth. I mean it wasn’t Christian’s ‘perception’ of Stefan, it was calling him a holocaust denier. That is a factual claim.

[–]Amida0616 36 points37 points  (13 children)

LOL. Christian Picciolini is a piece of shit and a fraud.

He lied on the Waking up podcast and sam edited out one of his lies, and then explained fully on the next podcast what was edited, why he did it etc.

Chrisitan has since doubled and tripled down on his dishonesty and stupidity. Fuck him.

[–][deleted]  (12 children)


    [–]Amida0616 16 points17 points  (6 children)

    Supporting free speech is not akin to letting someone slander someone on your podcast.

    Calling someone a Holocaust denier, when they don't deny the Holocaust is not "the marketplace of ideas". Its just fake news.

    You don't seem to have a firm grasp on what sam harris actually "preaches"

    [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (5 children)

    For it to be 'slander', I'm pretty sure it would have to be provable that CP actually doesn't believe it.

    [–]Thread_water 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    How can you prove someone doesn't believe something?

    He said he believed it, no one else can see into his mind, he's unlikely to admit he didn't believe it. Slander seems impossible to ever exist if this is its requirement.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

    Haha, I don't make the laws buddy. Afaik that's why slander is pretty hard to prove.

    [–]Thread_water 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    Nah I’m fairly sure you got it wrong. You’d have to prove that Stephan definitely isn’t a holocaust denier. Which is still quite difficult.

    I might be wrong, but your definition seems impossible to ever prove.

    [–]Laughing_in_the_road 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Stefan Molyneux interviewed a Holocaust denier a few years back..... I’m leaving the whole video. Of you listen between 12.00 and 18.00 it’s overwhelmingly obvious Molyneux is no denier

    He argues with him and the comments section is littered with deniers pouring vitriol on Stefan


    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)


    I may be wrong about definitively proving he doesn't believe it, but it's a lot more than just proving it's definitely false (which with holocaust denial is weird, wiggy territory to start)

    He'd also have to prove that there was intent to harm and actual harm done. For the first part, I would guess that they 'knowingly' made false statements (as opposed to merely believing them to be true) would be a part of that.

    Ah! here we are:


    People who aren't elected but who are still public figures because they are influential or famous -- like movie stars -- also have to prove that defamatory statements were made with actual malice, in most cases.

    "Actual malice" means that the person who made the statement knew it wasn't true, or didn't care whether it was true or not and was reckless with the truth -- for example, when someone has doubts about the truth of a statement but does not bother to check further before publishing it.

    So you could maaaybe say that he was "reckless" or didn't care if they were true bu it's all pretty messy territory. It definitely wouldn't be a slam dunk case

    [–]Griffonian 6 points7 points  (4 children)

    This is absolute bullshit. Having somebody on his platform lying about someone else, saying very disparaging things about them without being able to back it up with evidence, is the antithesis of what Harris stands for. He doesn't want people to use his platform to misrepresent other people in order to destroy their character, even if its someone Harris doesn't like himself. This is exactly what Harris has been preaching for years whenever people misrepresent his own ideas.

    [–][deleted]  (3 children)


      [–]Amida0616 9 points10 points  (2 children)

      Surviving cancer does not make you an oncologist.

      Christian Picciolini is like the former alcoholic who wants to throw shade on everyone else having a glass of wine with dinner.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)


        [–]Amida0616 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        “Escape” is a dramatic word for not being a racist violent cunt anymore. It’s not like they are in a North Korean prison camp.

        [–]Sinidir 7 points8 points  (0 children)

        Why do you feel the need to post this garbage on this subreddit? What is your drive behind that?

        [–]FedRCivP11 4 points5 points  (4 children)

        Wait a second... Let me see if I understand you.

        Sam is supposed to continue to publish material that SM, through his attorneys, claimed was defamatory? He’s supposed to do this in the face of a legal threat from SM’s attorneys that almost certainly promised that legal action was imminent? And he was supposed to do this after his own review of the evidence (likely with the benefit of counsel) indicated to him that SM’s lawsuit was likely meritorious (based in fact and winnable)?

        That’s horseshit. Continuing to publish information you know to be false and injurious to another, or that you should reasonably know is false and injurious to another, not only opens you up to civil liability for ACTUAL damages, it opens you up to PUNITIVE damages in an amount that a jury feels is sufficient to communicate the importance of complying with the law, depending on the jurisdiction.

        Harris, if he’s smart, hired an attorney to review the letter and evidence. Then, his attorney would have explained the foregoing to him and perhaps quoted him a rough figure of her own fees in defending harris (non-reimburseable if Harris won). All told, this could possibly have cost Harris hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. AND, leaving false information that injures another person in a podcast is morally wrong.

        Harris did the only thing he could do, and, further, if you wouldn’t do it in his shoes you deserve what comes next.

        Source: am an American trial attorney who sues people for defamation.

        edit: spelling

        [–]HitchensAkbar[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

        So you want Sam Harris to bow to pressure every single time and to play it safe and never put on anyone who criticizes the cult of Stefan Molyneux or his fellow white supremacists? You're going to get an echo chamber. I hope you're fine with listening to Waking up with Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson [in your bed]--for the 9th time. (Sam Harris himself looks like he'll be too afraid to ever criticize Stefan Molyneux from now on.)

        Fact is he already published it into the world, and "defamation" is often just someone's opinion. You certainly can't watch Stefan Molyneux's videos and come away thinking anything other than that he is very much a white supremacist.

        Here's some evidence of his white supremacist views. At 13:00 he goes ranting about how certain countries are messed up mainly because they have low [genetic] IQ; at 22:00 he talks about how if a black kid is spanked unlike with an asian kid, it triggers their "warrior gene" and causes them to misbehave. That's racist pseudoscience.


        It doesn't surprise me that Christian goes further than what I can see and as a former NeoNazi Christian thinks he's speaking in coded language to get around the censors. He thinks his racism is worse than it appears, and may really think he is privately a holocaust denier.)

        Someone compiled most of the clips Sam Harris removed from the podcast (it's 6 minutes):


        There's only one sentence where Christian says Stefan peddles in holocaust denial. It's possible he innocently slipped and misspoke, since most of the internet is careful to say he's holocaust adjunct.

        Sam really shouldn't have removed all the parts that talk about Stefan which is very cowardly. Having done removed so much it's understandable Christian would think Sam is providing cover for a disgusting individual.

        I'm not rich, but Sam is and should be able to fight bullies. If he had to delete a part, I wish he would be more honest about the monetary reasons rather than continuing to pretend it was the moral thing to do.

        [–]FedRCivP11 4 points5 points  (2 children)

        You say defamation is often just someone’s opinion. That’s not what defamation is. Defamation is the (1) publication of (2) untrue (3) injurious (4) factual claims about another with (5) the requisite intent. And from my understanding of the facts SM would succeed in proving those elements against Sam in Court. You can’t succeed in a defamation claim by attacking statements of opinion. Defamation is for factual claims.

        Yes, Sam should have folded, as should everyone who is caught lying about another. It’s been the law for centuries, and it’s a good law, as far as they go. When you intentionally, negligently, or recklessly harm someone else by spreading falsehoods about them, you SHOULD be forced to make them whole for your wrongdoing. And you should have to do this even if the person actually is repulsive.

        The world would be a better place if rich people didn’t try to cover up their illegality by hiring expensive lawyers to defend the indefensible and turning every legal dispute into an arms race. If you hurt another you should make them whole even if they are horrible. It’s about being a good person, even when it’s hard.

        And SM being a white supremacist or not is beside the point. Court clerks will accept his filing fee. Judges will consider his claim on the merits. The courthouse is open to him, as it is you. Besides, if he’s so horrible, there’ll be no need to accuse him of untrue things. Just focus on the horrible true things. Nothing wrong with spreading those.

        [–]HitchensAkbar[S] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

        Alright, I can understand that point of view, but don't you think cutting out nearly 8 minutes is cutting out way too much? Most of those parts had nothing to do with the specific claim of holocaust denial and are verifiable; he should have given more benefit of the doubt to Christian, and waited for SM to complain before removing more.

        [–]FedRCivP11 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I don’t know. Maybe. But we’d probably need to get inside the letter sent to Harris and any exhibits attached, to really know. I can appreciate, however, Sam realizing he’d published a single specific falsehood from Picciolini’s mouth and deciding he just didn’t feel he could trust other similar claims. But who knows.

        [–]SheCutOffHerToe 2 points3 points  (1 child)

        Both the live audience and this sub's listeners found it obvious at the time of the podcast that Picciolini was a dodgy dunce at best. All of his behavior since then is compatible with that observation.

        You have a racial axe to grind with Sam, great. Picciolini is about the worst person you could choose to use in service of that point.

        [–]HitchensAkbar[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        I'm actually a fan of Sam Harris, though I don't like how Sam has handled the situation. It's Stefan who is an opportunist and his ideas are dangerous. I don't believe in censorship, and I also didn't have a problem with what I heard Picciolini say when he made the original podcast. His reaction to Sam Harris's deleting his short critiques of Stefan is understandable.

        [–]DrAIRrr 2 points3 points  (2 children)

        Stefan molyneux isn’t a holocaust denier. Sam was quite right to edit out the false insinuations. Should we go around claiming picciolini is a paedophile or something with no evidence?

        [–]HitchensAkbar[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Sam Harris edited out about 8 minutes--much more than a couple parts about the holocaust, he removed basically every part that talked about Stefan.

        [–]DrAIRrr 2 points3 points  (0 children)

        I’m sure he had his reasons to cut it all out. I don’t see what the big deal is.

        [–]SheCutOffHerToe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        Sam Harris was most likely threatened by Stefan Molyneux with a lawsuit for defamation. Then he reacted by editing a podcast a month after he uploaded it to delete some of what his guest said about Stefan. His guest understandably was mad and said Sam was providing cover for racists.

        What an outrageously shitty "summary".

        [–]iamMore 1 point2 points  (0 children)


        [–]chartbuster -1 points0 points  (0 children)

        This is illustrative of failures we make publicly.

        Consider this: Had Molyneaux not threatened legal action, we would probably not have opened this can of worms.

        Had Picciolini simply made a retraction and not doubled and tripled down, it would not have escalated.

        Targeting the host Sam Harris as the reason this is happening would be at around six or seven causes down on the list of possible reasons.

        The proximity of a very virtuous and culturally sensitive issue combined with the “if they’re calling someone a racist, they must be in the right.” public shaming aspect of this is really what Picciolini is taking advantage of. This is more egregious in my opinion because he’s using his now, recently converted anti-racism to get away with false attributions and generally, poor tact, and righteous bullying.


        It’s not dissimilar to many of the “toothpaste back in the tube” situations that occur when people unfairly and inaccurately accuse others of racism/crimes in the public square without evidence or due process.

        It actually degrades and distracts the severity of issues of racial injustice that occur, for example in our criminal justice system.