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.
How though? If they're normies, it means they buy normie narratives, like BLM.
How does it make them worse by being exposed to the fact that the BLM narrative if completely phony?
Changing an individual's stance on BLM is not the criteria that should be used to gauge net value.
He co-opts people from partaking in meaningful action that would bring forth real change to the power dynamic.
Someone can be against BLM and still foolishly believe that society needs to defer to the whims of technocrats. This is what he fosters in his audience. This attitude prevents them from being open to listen to any real dissident thought.
This is what is so corrosive about his influence.
It's a regime cornerstone at the moment. And it would help that individual wonder: if the media is lying to me about this, what else is it lying about?
Are you sure? Are there really that many people who would be doing that, but don't because of Sam Harris? Does he even have many such listeners? I think it's mostly left to ultraleft.
People who disagree with you on some things may still be useful.
My argument is that the kind of people who listen to SH would probably not be open to any real dissident thought to begin with.
"the kind of people who listen to SH would probably not be open to any real dissident thought to begin with."
This supports the argument I was making that Sam Harris is not a net positive but rather a net negative.
He pushes normies to turn more authoritarian and more inclined to trust in technocracy.
He is a net negative on society.