Is he going to persuade someone who does not have TDS to get it? No way. He's way too over the top for that.
But may he persuade some other people with TDS to oppose wokery? And does the fact that he has severe TDS give him more credibility to do that? Yes.
So on net balance, he's a force for the good.
He is a net evil.
The man is a open globalist who pushes the idea that technocrats should completely rule and re-shape society.
His opinions on wokeness are irrelevant when he is part of the Cathedral and is part of the push to help ensure people don't question mainstream narratives.
The so called IDWers like Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein are a huge problem to opposing globalism as they solely exist to ensure certain people will never oppose this system.
Don't you think he may be a gateway drug for better stuff?
If someone is a complete BLM/Current Thing NPC, there's no hope of any improvement. The jump from that to anything reasonable is just too big.
Let Harris introduce them to the fact that BLM is a completely phony narrative. That's at least one Cathedral lie they'll recognize. Perhaps they will wonder what else is being lied about. They may wonder why all the 'experts' and 'technocrats' espouse something that is not only a lie, but a blatant, transparent and contemptible lie.
I don't see him persuading anyone who recognizes today's evils into becoming a lackey of the establishment.
He is the definition of a limited hangout.
He is a pressure valve that exists to relieve some of the cognitive dissonance that an average person faces in society but he still restricts the discussion in terms that are very favorable for the establishment.
If you were to instead suggest that someone like James Lindsay or Christopher Rufo are net good I would then agree with you.
These two men are still classical liberals and are a bit naive on a few topics but they will atleast openly acknowledge that the right needs to use political power against the establishment to stop the evils of CRT, wokeness, ESG.
James was even banned off Twitter for calling out groomers and he also talked about the WEF extensively.
There is no place to defend scum like Sam Harris when you have so many other options who can serve as a gateway into being actually realistic about the world.
Sam Harris is not the answer to any problem. People like him are the problem!
Especially Rufo is off the charts good. But those are not 'hard cases'. Harris is complicated.
They're not going to appeal to the kind of normies that Harris can appeal to. That is why he is good. Hence 'gateway drug'.
This is dogma, not a reasonable look at what's going on.
There is nothing complicated about the fact that Sam Harris exists to keep normies enmeshed in the overall globalist framework.
He is not a gateway into anything but rather a pressure valve that offers a false sense of relief.
It is not even remotely close to dogma to condemn one of the most authoritarian individuals that still sadly has a sizeable platform