Making Sense - Sam Harris - #24 — Ask Me Anything 2

00:00:00.000 Welcome to the Making Sense Podcast.

00:00:08.820 This is Sam Harris.

00:00:10.880 Just a note to say that if you're hearing this, you are not currently on our subscriber

00:00:14.680 feed and will only be hearing the first part of this conversation.

00:00:18.420 In order to access full episodes of the Making Sense Podcast, you'll need to subscribe at

00:00:22.720 samharris.org.

00:00:24.060 There you'll find our private RSS feed to add to your favorite podcatcher, along with

00:00:28.360 other subscriber-only content.

00:00:30.240 We don't run ads on the podcast, and therefore it's made possible entirely through the support

00:00:34.640 of our subscribers.

00:00:35.880 So if you enjoy what we're doing here, please consider becoming one.

00:00:46.860 Okay, well I'm going to do a Ask Me Anything podcast this time around.

00:00:52.140 Now, as some of you know, I often set out to do these and then answer one question for

00:00:58.940 20 minutes or more and don't get very far.

00:01:02.800 And I'm afraid that's what's going to happen this time around.

00:01:07.040 I'll answer a few questions in a rather long-winded way and then hopefully do some rapid-fire answers

00:01:14.740 and get through many of your questions.

00:01:16.200 I must say, I really appreciate the response I get whenever I go out for questions.

00:01:21.720 I get hundreds.

00:01:24.040 Honestly, I can't even read all of your questions.

00:01:27.380 But I've read many of them and I just, you know, it's very hard to choose.

00:01:32.560 I'll just work through them.

00:01:34.360 But I also have to do a little housekeeping in this podcast, so I will start with that.

00:01:39.320 First, I'm recording this podcast on New Year's Day.

00:01:42.400 So, Happy New Year, everyone.

00:01:44.260 And I ended the year in contentious fashion on Twitter.

00:01:50.080 I don't know why I use Twitter.

00:01:52.160 If I treated Twitter the way I treat Facebook, I would never have any of these entanglements

00:01:58.200 that I so often discuss with you.

00:02:00.340 I would never notice what was being said about me or what sort of skirmishes I was being dragged

00:02:07.100 into.

00:02:08.060 And therefore, I'd never be tempted to respond.

00:02:10.120 So, it's a, perhaps deserves some rethinking whether it's worth my paying attention.

00:02:16.860 But as I'll tell you in a moment, at least two of my upcoming guests are coming on the

00:02:22.360 podcast simply because of some Twitter incident.

00:02:25.760 And so, that's, it's certainly interesting.

00:02:28.180 It keeps me forever uncertain whether I should be using this technology.

00:02:32.480 But in any case, as for my upcoming guests, I have, actually three of the guests coming

00:02:37.980 up are coming up entirely as a result of Twitter.

00:02:43.060 So, you could figure out whether it's a blessing or a curse at this point.

00:02:47.740 I'll soon be speaking with Jocko Willink, the Navy SEAL who was recently interviewed on Tim

00:02:53.200 Ferris' podcast first and then Joe Rogan's.

00:02:56.040 And I encourage you to listen to both those interviews.

00:02:58.180 That's literally five hours of interview with Jocko.

00:03:02.260 He is just a fascinating guy.

00:03:04.580 And I certainly would have always loved to have him on my podcast.

00:03:08.800 And it occurred to me to reach out to him except, you know, I just heard literally five

00:03:14.040 hours of him on two of my friends' podcasts.

00:03:17.480 And it just seemed, I wasn't quite sure what there would be to add to that conversation.

00:03:23.960 And Jocko now has his own podcast.

00:03:26.280 At Joe Rogan's insistence, he started a podcast immediately and is banging those out.

00:03:31.260 And the guy is great.

00:03:32.700 But, you know, on Twitter, we got thrown together and people were encouraging him to come on

00:03:36.940 my podcast.

00:03:37.760 And he said he'd be happy to do it.

00:03:39.440 And so, here we are.

00:03:41.020 So, I'll be speaking to him in the coming weeks.

00:03:43.420 And I look forward to that.

00:03:44.480 And I'll try to find a fundamentally new line through the conversation so that we can get

00:03:49.060 to some of his insight and experience that he didn't have a chance to share with Tim and

00:03:54.300 Joe.

00:03:54.940 And that should be fun.

00:03:56.280 I'll also be speaking with Scotty Reitz, who's a former SWAT operator.

00:04:03.480 He was the lead weapons and tactics instructor for LAPD SWAT and now trains people in the use

00:04:10.560 of firearms.

00:04:11.120 And I'm going to talk to Scotty about violence and self-defense and firearms and gun control

00:04:17.380 and also what it's like to be a cop and the misuses of force that we've all seen of late

00:04:24.660 from cops and just to get into all of those politically sensitive but interesting areas.

00:04:32.580 And Scotty, I think, will be a great person to do it with.

00:04:36.060 Jocko and Scotty will come close together and that will be, we can call that violence week.

00:04:41.120 On the Waking Up podcast.

00:04:43.260 I'll also be speaking with Mariam Namazi, the ex-Muslim reformer based in the UK who many

00:04:51.340 of you probably know.

00:04:52.540 You've probably seen video of her.

00:04:54.560 I've circulated video of her before.

00:04:56.820 And this was also Twitter born.

00:04:59.060 There was an incident of what I considered friendly fire where she went after me for what I think

00:05:06.020 is a misunderstanding of my views on profiling.

00:05:08.920 And I've always thought Mariam was great, but she more or less slammed me as a bigot as

00:05:15.280 far as I could tell on Twitter.

00:05:16.360 And so I reached out to her and she's agreed to come on the podcast and we'll try to rectify

00:05:22.160 that situation.

00:05:23.160 Whether or not we succeed, Mariam's is a voice you all should hear and I will bring her to

00:05:28.920 you.

00:05:29.180 Uh, there was also another Twitter born collision, not so friendly fire, uh, with someone who

00:05:35.980 I'd never heard of, a young Muslim, probably soon to be lawyer.

00:05:39.900 He's a, um, getting his JD at Yale.

00:05:42.620 He's a writer who wrote a truly withering book review, uh, in Salon about my book with

00:05:49.360 Majid and, uh, he hated the book, um, seems to hate Majid, but especially hates me.

00:05:58.400 And, um, hatred really isn't too strong a word.

00:06:01.880 People were hurling this review at me on Twitter.

00:06:04.700 As you know, I don't tend to read Salon.

00:06:07.440 So, um, anyway, I read it.

00:06:10.260 Needless to say, I don't agree with it.

00:06:12.200 Uh, but I, um, reached out to, I don't know if his name is pronounced, Omer Omar.

00:06:17.340 I will find out from him.

00:06:18.800 Let's call him Omer. 0.86

00:06:20.240 That's how it's spelled.

00:06:21.500 I reached out to him on Twitter and he agreed to come on the podcast.

00:06:24.620 And so I anticipate that being a difficult conversation.

00:06:29.480 And my interest is, as I've said before, in trying to figure out how to have hard conversations,

00:06:36.020 how to start very far apart in a conversation and figure out how to converge, or at the very

00:06:42.200 least, agree to disagree on specific points in a way that is not entangled with personal

00:06:50.400 hostility and misunderstanding.

00:06:53.920 And that, admittedly, is a challenge that not everyone is up to.

00:06:57.900 And so it's, you know, I tried it with Noam Chomsky and I'll be trying it with other people.

00:07:04.060 My conversation with Majid was also an example of that.

00:07:06.640 And I didn't know how it was going to turn out and it became hugely productive.

00:07:10.660 So, um, I'm going to be running similar psychological and conversational experiments on my podcast.

00:07:18.000 And, um, Omer will be one. 0.92

00:07:20.400 Also, I'll be speaking with Jonathan Haidt, who many of you know.

00:07:22.900 He's a very influential psychologist with whom I've disagreed in the past and in a none

00:07:28.500 too friendly way, I might add.

00:07:30.040 And so that is a, another instance of my reaching out to somebody who has taken some very hard

00:07:36.020 shots at me in the past and I've returned fire and we're going to see if we can have

00:07:41.560 a civil and useful conversation on important topics.

00:07:45.680 That'll be coming sometime in February, I think.

00:07:48.720 And also I'll, I will have, uh, Steve Pinker on at some point and I have a few other guests

00:07:53.640 lined up so that there will be interesting conversations coming your way.

00:07:56.360 I feel the need to apologize once again for the level of congestion I'm bringing to the

00:08:01.540 mic now.

00:08:02.420 I have, uh, two young girls, each of whom seems to be, um, striving to win the patient zero award

00:08:09.580 for bringing new colds into the world.

00:08:12.820 I don't know if they're out there, uh, playing with ducks in a pond or where they're getting

00:08:17.860 these viruses, but they're bringing them to daddy.

00:08:21.360 Uh, so I bring them to you in a substandard audio performance.

00:08:26.360 So bear with me there.

00:08:28.200 So many of you noticed various Twitter controversies and wanted me to address them.

00:08:34.080 Here's the first with Fareed Zakaria, the CNN and Washington Post journalist.

00:08:39.120 He sent out a tweet about a week ago endorsing a truly terrible piece of Islamist propaganda.

00:08:47.480 And so the tweet read, my book of the week, who speaks for Islam?

00:08:52.580 What a billion Muslims really think. 1.00

00:08:54.400 That's, that's the title of the book.

00:08:56.340 And then he calls it an essential voice of reason.

00:08:59.180 Now this book was written by John Esposito and Dahlia Mogahed.

00:09:04.200 And, uh, apologies again.

00:09:06.080 I don't know exactly how to pronounce Dahlia's last name.

00:09:08.940 I will say Mogahed. 1.00

00:09:10.120 Uh, it's probably not right.

00:09:12.580 Esposito runs a Middle East studies center at Georgetown.

00:09:15.540 And Mogahed works for Gallup, the famous polling organization that published this book that Zakaria was recommending.

00:09:23.720 So I tweeted in response, witness the capture of academia, Esposito, polling, Gallup, and journalism, Zakaria, by rank Islamism. 0.95

00:09:34.680 Now, many people took this tweet to be a sign that I had gone off the deep end by alleging some kind of stealth Islamist takeover of our institutions.

00:09:43.280 Uh, well, there is an attempted Islamist takeover of our institutions. 0.74

00:09:47.600 And it's not especially stealthy.

00:09:50.340 But to be clear, I wasn't claiming that Zakaria is an Islamist.

00:09:54.080 Rather, I think he's probably been deceived by Islamist misinformation, of which there's an endless supply. 0.98

00:10:00.020 And there is no question he's spreading such misinformation by pushing this book.

00:10:06.160 And nor do I think Esposito is an Islamist, because to my knowledge, he's not even a Muslim. 0.71

00:10:10.840 But everything I've seen him publish about Islam has been, if not a lie, a half-truth.

00:10:17.260 He's someone who I've called a Muslim apologist in the past.

00:10:19.720 And his center at Georgetown is funded with tens of millions of dollars by the Saudi government.

00:10:25.260 It's the Prince Al-Walid bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding.

00:10:29.660 And his function appears to be to whitewash Islam in general, and the obscenity of Saudi Wahhabi Islam in particular. 0.99

00:10:36.500 Now, I was frankly unfamiliar with Mogahed. 1.00

00:10:38.520 She's the executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.

00:10:42.600 I just happened to have seen her on Meet the Press a few days before, sitting beside my friend Azrin Omani,

00:10:48.040 the eminently rational journalist and Muslim reformer.

00:10:51.020 And more or less every word out of Mogahed's mouth was, again, a lie or a half-truth 0.89

00:10:56.720 that seemed calculated to deceive a secular audience.

00:11:00.840 She was saying things like the members of ISIS aren't religious,

00:11:03.620 and that they have no theological or popular support,

00:11:06.620 and that there's no correlation between being a religious Muslim and being a jihadist.

00:11:11.180 In fact, the correlation is negative, according to Mogahed.

00:11:14.080 You're more likely to be a jihadist if you're not a devout Muslim. 0.82

00:11:17.900 These statements are completely dishonest. 0.56

00:11:21.060 I did a little digging on Mogahed, and from what I can tell,

00:11:24.000 it seems that she has some affinity for, if not direct connection, to the Muslim Brotherhood,

00:11:28.940 as do many people who claim to be Muslim moderates in our society.

00:11:32.120 And it's very annoying that only people on the political right,

00:11:36.220 and many of whom are dogmatic Christians or Jews,

00:11:39.860 seem to have the time or the temperament to point this out.

00:11:43.180 A group like the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CARE,

00:11:46.740 which seems to be the most influential Muslim civil rights organization,

00:11:50.500 was a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood,

00:11:53.380 and has been supportive of terrorist organizations like Hamas.

00:11:56.860 Is it connected with these organizations now? I don't know.

00:11:59.740 Do its members even know? It could be like Scientology,

00:12:03.160 where you don't know how crazy the organization is until you're deep in it.

00:12:06.600 But I can tell you one thing for certain. 0.84

00:12:08.660 This is an organization that systematically lies about Islam and demonizes its critics,

00:12:14.660 and tries to make life as difficult as possible for people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

00:12:19.360 And again, this group is treated like the Muslim ACLU by the press.

00:12:23.180 It's insane.

00:12:24.760 Both Esposito and Mogahed are darlings of this organization, 0.98

00:12:28.320 as is Glenn Greenwald, as you know.

00:12:31.480 So whatever her connections,

00:12:33.980 Mogahed practices some of the worst forms of Islamist obscurantism and identity politics. 1.00

00:12:40.600 She describes jihadism as a purely political phenomenon

00:12:43.740 that has no connection to religious doctrine or belief.

00:12:47.000 And needless to say, it's always arising out of that vast reservoir

00:12:50.040 of, quote, legitimate grievances that Muslims have against the West.

00:12:54.040 And she's also an Obama appointee.

00:12:56.640 She sits on the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

00:13:01.380 And she's one of the people who had a hand in writing President Obama's famous Cairo speech.

00:13:06.260 Again, I'm painfully aware that despairing over facts like these

00:13:11.020 makes one sound like a right-wing crackpot.

00:13:13.940 So to be clear, I am an Obama supporter.

00:13:17.100 I've voted for him both times.

00:13:19.540 I will almost certainly vote for Hillary Clinton in the fall,

00:13:22.240 because I don't see any other conceivable choice,

00:13:25.620 though I have to hold my nose over her obscurantism on this issue in particular.

00:13:29.540 But it isn't crazy to worry that Islamists are gaming our system, 1.00

00:13:33.980 because they quite obviously are.

00:13:36.060 Now, again, I don't know for sure whether Mogahed is an Islamist.

00:13:41.520 She wears the hijab and says some very dishonest things about Islam in general

00:13:45.920 and Sharia law in particular. 1.00

00:13:47.780 Still, she may just be a useful idiot like her colleague John Esposito. 1.00

00:13:51.560 The line here can be difficult to find. 1.00

00:13:54.460 And it may not even be important to find it.

00:13:56.980 It's the ideas and their influence,

00:13:59.060 rather than the people conveying the ideas that I'm worried about.

00:14:02.120 But this is also not to say that ideologically motivated people,

00:14:08.420 even Islamists, couldn't produce an honest poll, 0.99

00:14:11.920 or a book based on such a poll.

00:14:14.380 And I certainly wasn't discounting the contents of the book,

00:14:18.280 because its authors strike me as nefarious and dishonest people.

00:14:22.220 For instance, let's just flip this around.

00:14:24.400 If I were to produce a poll of religious public opinion,

00:14:27.440 perhaps hiring an organization like Gallup or Pew to run it,

00:14:30.660 here are two things about which I am certain.

00:14:34.080 I'm certain I could do this honestly and make every effort to produce a poll

00:14:37.440 that was well-designed and scientifically valid.

00:14:40.400 I'm also certain that religious people and their apologists 0.99

00:14:43.840 would reject its findings, whatever they happen to be,

00:14:47.440 because of my history as a critic of religion.

00:14:50.000 I have made no secret of my views on religious faith.

00:14:53.460 I think religion, I think faith-based religion, 1.00

00:14:56.180 is dangerous and divisive bullshit. 1.00

00:14:58.620 And I think Islam is the worst of the lot. 1.00

00:15:01.400 So it would be totally understandable and also wrong 0.94

00:15:04.720 for a religious person to reject a Gallup poll of religious opinion

00:15:08.740 that I was associated with.

00:15:10.800 So to be clear, I am not doing that in reverse.

00:15:14.380 When Esposito and Mogahed's book came out in 2007,

00:15:17.780 I bought it and I read it.

00:15:20.160 And I found it so obviously misleading

00:15:22.800 as to not even be worth discussing.

00:15:25.080 But now Fareed Zakaria is pushing it eight years later

00:15:28.220 at his pick of the week and as a, quote,

00:15:30.440 essential voice of reason.

00:15:32.540 And it should be disturbing that Zakaria can't see the flaws in this book

00:15:37.200 because, again, they are so obvious.

00:15:39.540 So what's wrong with the book?

00:15:41.440 Well, first it purports to be an unprecedented

00:15:43.700 and thoroughly scientific poll of Muslim public opinion.

00:15:47.460 But the authors don't show any data.

00:15:49.500 And the ways they discuss their data,

00:15:52.560 along with the kinds of questions they thought to ask in their poll,

00:15:56.120 and the questions they declined to ask,

00:15:58.560 prove that they were after a certain result,

00:16:01.660 which was to make Muslim opinion look totally benign.

00:16:05.080 They want you to believe that Islam is just like any other religion 1.00

00:16:08.660 and that Muslims worldwide are just like any other group of religious people.

00:16:13.540 Now, the book isn't entirely filled with lies.

00:16:16.080 The authors admit, for instance,

00:16:18.560 that the imagined link between poverty and lack of education

00:16:21.720 and terrorism, or support for terrorism, is a myth.

00:16:26.240 They admit that the most radicalized people in the Muslim world

00:16:29.420 tend to be middle class and educated.

00:16:32.500 In fact, according to Esposito and Mogahed,

00:16:34.240 the politically radicalized tend to be more satisfied

00:16:36.820 with their financial situations

00:16:38.340 and believe their standard of living is improving

00:16:41.140 and are more optimistic about their futures in general

00:16:44.580 than the so-called moderates are.

00:16:46.940 Which proves that the remedies

00:16:48.300 that many secular liberals imagine exist

00:16:50.740 for extremism in the Muslim world,

00:16:52.780 that is, more education and economic opportunity,

00:16:55.600 are not remedies at all.

00:16:57.280 As I've been saying for years,

00:16:58.600 I don't know how many more engineers

00:16:59.920 have to fly planes into buildings

00:17:01.740 or devote their lives to waging jihad in other ways

00:17:05.040 for us to get it through our heads

00:17:06.540 that the lack of education and economic opportunity

00:17:09.180 isn't the cause of Muslim extremism.

00:17:11.680 But even in making this concession,

00:17:14.920 Esposito and Mogahed reveal

00:17:16.220 that getting Islam off the hook is their goal. 0.99

00:17:19.240 Their point is to say that the backgrounds of terrorists

00:17:21.920 are so diverse as to fully exonerate religion.

00:17:26.300 There's the usual tendentious nonsense

00:17:27.840 about how the 9-11 hijackers went to strip clubs,

00:17:30.540 for instance,

00:17:31.380 which, according to Esposito and Mogahed,

00:17:33.320 proves that they weren't really religious.

00:17:35.700 Majid and I dealt with this lie in our book.

00:17:37.520 They also point out that most jihadists

00:17:39.780 aren't graduates from madrasas.

00:17:41.860 This is a point that Scott Atran makes all the time.

00:17:44.600 As though this suggests a lack of connection

00:17:46.760 between sincere religious belief in Islamic doctrine

00:17:49.700 and jihadism.

00:17:51.360 They even go so far as to intimate

00:17:52.500 that the academic backgrounds of prominent jihadists

00:17:55.520 suggest that almost anything could make one a jihadist.

00:17:59.840 So bin Laden, for instance,

00:18:01.300 was, quote,

00:18:01.720 trained in management, economics, and engineering.

00:18:04.180 It's like, who knows which of these streams of information

00:18:07.300 could have radicalized him.

00:18:09.620 This is pure obscurantism.

00:18:12.240 But this isn't the worst part of the book.

00:18:14.680 The worst part comes down to the questions that were asked,

00:18:18.080 as well as those that weren't asked,

00:18:20.060 and the way the results are discussed.

00:18:22.800 So one of the most egregious examples

00:18:24.580 can be found in the question that Esposito and Mogahed

00:18:27.680 used to differentiate what they call radicals

00:18:30.700 from, quote, moderates.

00:18:32.700 They report that only 7% of Muslims worldwide

00:18:36.300 consider the 9-11 attacks to be, quote,

00:18:38.880 completely justified.

00:18:40.700 And then they go on to say, therefore,

00:18:42.600 that 9 in 10, 93%,

00:18:45.660 quote, believe the attacks were not justified.

00:18:48.560 And they call these people moderates.

00:18:50.620 Incidentally, the press ran with this,

00:18:52.180 reporting that 93% of Muslims, or 9 in 10,

00:18:55.120 the world over, are, quote, moderate.

00:18:57.880 Well, if you know anything about anything,

00:19:00.200 you should be feeling a little queasy at this point.

00:19:03.480 I took one look at this line,

00:19:05.960 that only 7% of Muslims consider the 9-11 attacks

00:19:08.860 to be, quote, completely justified.

00:19:11.080 So 9 in 10 are moderates.

00:19:13.160 And I knew I was being lied to by sinister people, 1.00

00:19:16.520 or being misled by useful idiots. 1.00

00:19:18.900 Again, I can't claim to know which of these categories 1.00

00:19:20.900 Esposito and Mogahed fall into.

00:19:23.100 Okay, so the first thing to point out

00:19:24.420 is that even if true,

00:19:25.940 even if this most sanguine of interpretations

00:19:28.700 of this pseudo-data is true,

00:19:31.280 7% of Muslims believing that the atrocities of 9-11

00:19:34.740 were completely justified

00:19:36.080 is a problem that should not be minimized.

00:19:39.780 The authors equate this with 91 million people.

00:19:42.980 Okay, their book came out in 2007.

00:19:45.000 Today it's more like 112 million people.

00:19:47.700 Recall what we're talking about here.

00:19:49.540 We're talking about the intentional murder

00:19:51.960 of 3,000 innocent non-combatants

00:19:55.080 at a time that preceded our involvement

00:19:57.940 in Afghanistan and Iraq.

00:20:00.420 We're talking about 112 million people

00:20:02.800 who think that burning thousands of people alive

00:20:06.120 in the Twin Towers was completely justified.

00:20:09.420 That's already a huge reservoir of murderous lunacy.

00:20:14.160 Okay, but of course the real problem

00:20:15.400 is that the 7% figure is totally misleading,

00:20:17.880 and intentionally so.

00:20:20.100 We can tell from the wording,

00:20:21.300 quote, completely justified,

00:20:22.780 that Gallup used a scale in its poll

00:20:25.100 from 1 to 5 or 1 to 7,

00:20:27.780 where completely justified

00:20:28.960 and completely unjustified were at the tail ends.

00:20:32.060 There was almost certainly a choice

00:20:33.240 of somewhat justified or mostly justified

00:20:35.680 or both that many people picked.

00:20:38.160 And there was certainly a choice

00:20:39.420 of don't know or no opinion.

00:20:41.760 Think of all those people who couldn't say

00:20:43.920 that the attacks of 9-11

00:20:45.280 were completely unjustified.

00:20:48.600 But said, rather, they were mostly justified

00:20:50.740 or somewhat justified

00:20:52.060 or said they didn't know.

00:20:54.560 Okay, these people are being described

00:20:56.640 as moderates.

00:20:58.220 And there's another problem

00:20:59.340 with using this particular question

00:21:00.860 as the dividing line

00:21:02.320 between moderates and extremists.

00:21:04.560 As many of you know,

00:21:05.900 and as Esposito and Mogahed surely know,

00:21:08.900 vast numbers of Muslims

00:21:10.380 think that Muslims had nothing to do 1.00

00:21:13.140 with the attacks of 9-11

00:21:14.480 because there were 4,000 Jews

00:21:16.840 who didn't show up to work that day.

00:21:19.240 Millions of Muslims believe

00:21:20.640 that the Mossad and the CIA

00:21:22.280 conspired to bring down

00:21:23.720 the World Trade Center

00:21:24.600 as a pretext to invade Muslim lands.

00:21:28.440 In fact, one poll indicated

00:21:29.580 that 16% of Americans

00:21:31.280 believe something like this.

00:21:33.280 This is the whole 9-11 truth movement.

00:21:35.560 So, using this question

00:21:38.160 in this way

00:21:39.880 rigged the game.

00:21:41.980 And again, Esposito and Mogahed 0.99

00:21:43.640 almost certainly know this.

00:21:45.880 And they know that

00:21:46.820 if they had asked questions

00:21:47.860 about apostasy

00:21:48.860 or blasphemy

00:21:49.860 or the rights of women

00:21:51.000 and homosexuals 1.00

00:21:52.000 and polytheists 0.97

00:21:52.980 or whether infidels 0.87

00:21:54.580 deserve to spend 0.92

00:21:55.340 eternity in hellfire, 0.99

00:21:56.980 the results of their polling

00:21:58.480 would have been appalling.

00:22:00.460 And every poll

00:22:01.860 of Muslim public opinion

00:22:03.120 that has been run

00:22:03.820 on these questions

00:22:04.720 produces appalling results.

00:22:08.660 And again,

00:22:09.120 it literally took me

00:22:10.280 five seconds

00:22:11.200 to see the problem here.

00:22:12.800 Why didn't Fareed Zakaria

00:22:14.300 see it?

00:22:15.460 He is a journalist

00:22:16.520 who covers these issues.

00:22:18.500 He doesn't want to see it.

00:22:20.080 Even this fictional 7% 0.95

00:22:22.100 is talked about

00:22:23.260 in the book

00:22:23.660 in a way that is

00:22:24.380 obviously tendentious

00:22:25.780 and misleading.

00:22:27.320 They say, for instance,

00:22:28.160 that, quote,

00:22:28.920 if the 7%, 0.82

00:22:29.920 91 million

00:22:30.820 of the politically radicalized

00:22:32.180 continue to feel

00:22:32.980 politically dominated,

00:22:34.360 occupied,

00:22:34.960 and disrespected,

00:22:36.240 the West will have 0.98

00:22:36.860 little if any chance

00:22:37.840 of changing their minds.

00:22:39.200 End quote.

00:22:40.040 Again, the burden

00:22:40.860 is upon the West

00:22:41.780 to behave better

00:22:42.760 and show respect

00:22:44.080 to people

00:22:44.620 who think the attacks

00:22:45.800 of September 11th

00:22:46.760 were, quote,

00:22:47.240 completely justified.

00:22:49.500 And again,

00:22:50.340 remember,

00:22:51.000 these attacks

00:22:51.620 came before

00:22:52.620 we invaded

00:22:53.680 Afghanistan

00:22:54.320 and Iraq.

00:22:56.100 Justified for what?

00:22:57.820 Ask yourself that.

00:22:59.480 I should say,

00:23:00.180 I invited

00:23:00.840 Dahlia Mogahed

00:23:01.760 on the podcast

00:23:02.660 after a little sniping

00:23:04.180 on Twitter

00:23:04.980 and she declined.

00:23:07.480 But I would have been

00:23:08.180 happy to speak with her.

00:23:10.620 I've seen her promulgate

00:23:11.900 what I now call

00:23:12.600 the narrative narrative.

00:23:14.340 And basically,

00:23:14.860 everyone is doing this now

00:23:16.120 from President Obama

00:23:17.020 on down.

00:23:18.180 And it's understandable

00:23:19.200 in some ways,

00:23:20.660 but it's also scary.

00:23:22.660 So pay attention here.

00:23:24.220 The idea

00:23:25.300 I'm about to describe

00:23:26.700 is almost

00:23:28.520 unrivaled

00:23:29.820 in its strangeness.

00:23:31.800 And yet,

00:23:32.300 those hearing it

00:23:33.260 for the first time,

00:23:34.580 to say nothing

00:23:35.140 of those who espouse it,

00:23:36.940 never seem to notice

00:23:38.380 that something

00:23:39.080 out of the ordinary

00:23:40.140 is being said.

00:23:41.660 Now,

00:23:42.060 you've heard this idea

00:23:42.880 before,

00:23:43.300 and I will venture

00:23:44.200 to guess that you

00:23:44.920 did not notice

00:23:46.020 how strange

00:23:47.800 and indeed terrifying

00:23:50.220 a claim

00:23:51.580 was being made.

00:23:53.240 The idea is this.

00:23:55.040 In fighting ISIS

00:23:56.080 or in resisting

00:23:57.720 the spread

00:23:58.220 of Islamic theocracy 0.74

00:23:59.200 generally,

00:24:00.480 we must at all costs

00:24:02.120 avoid, quote,

00:24:03.300 confirming the narrative

00:24:04.640 of Islamic extremists.

00:24:07.020 The fear is that

00:24:08.000 any focus

00:24:08.800 on the religion

00:24:09.620 of Islam

00:24:10.180 or its adherents,

00:24:12.000 profiling at TSA,

00:24:13.400 intelligence gathering

00:24:14.560 at mosques,

00:24:15.660 or merely acknowledging

00:24:16.840 that we are at war

00:24:17.780 not with generic terrorism

00:24:19.520 but with Islamic terrorism 0.93

00:24:21.200 will drive many more Muslims 1.00

00:24:23.440 to support the jihadists.

00:24:25.820 Now,

00:24:26.380 think about what is actually

00:24:27.680 being alleged here.

00:24:29.620 Think about the underlying

00:24:31.020 pessimism,

00:24:32.680 if not paranoia,

00:24:34.260 of this claim.

00:24:35.620 Let's use an analogy.

00:24:36.740 Let's say you're a 0.69

00:24:37.740 bald white man 1.00

00:24:38.880 and unluckily for you, 0.99

00:24:41.800 there happens to be

00:24:42.560 a global insurgency 0.77

00:24:43.920 of neo-Nazi skinheads 0.78

00:24:45.620 terrorizing a hundred countries. 0.99

00:24:48.980 Most white men 0.54

00:24:49.860 are perfectly peaceful,

00:24:51.220 of course,

00:24:51.900 but this insurgency

00:24:53.620 has grown so captivating

00:24:55.360 to a minority of them

00:24:56.580 that no city on earth

00:24:59.100 is truly safe. 0.96

00:25:00.760 Bald white men 1.00

00:25:01.940 have blown up 0.99

00:25:02.780 planes and buses

00:25:03.880 and burned embassies

00:25:05.300 and even murdered

00:25:06.220 innocent children

00:25:07.100 by the hundreds.

00:25:08.780 And we have spent

00:25:09.540 trillions of dollars

00:25:10.880 trying to contain

00:25:11.780 the damage.

00:25:13.000 Many of these

00:25:13.660 bald white men

00:25:14.660 are seeking to acquire

00:25:16.180 nuclear materials

00:25:17.240 so that they can detonate

00:25:18.820 dirty bombs

00:25:19.600 or even atomic ones

00:25:20.900 in the capitals of Europe

00:25:22.320 and the United States.

00:25:23.640 And to make matters worse,

00:25:25.540 many of these men

00:25:26.340 are avowedly suicidal

00:25:27.860 and therefore

00:25:28.740 cannot be deterred.

00:25:31.060 Now,

00:25:31.320 imagine hearing

00:25:32.360 presidents

00:25:33.500 and prime ministers

00:25:34.640 and newspaper columnists

00:25:36.200 and even your fellow 0.83

00:25:37.300 bald white men 0.80

00:25:38.480 express the fear

00:25:40.100 that merely acknowledging

00:25:41.980 the whiteness 0.74

00:25:42.820 and baldness

00:25:43.640 of neo-Nazi skinheads 0.96

00:25:45.020 would so oppress 0.97

00:25:46.720 and alienate 0.98

00:25:47.920 other bald white men

00:25:49.220 that they too

00:25:50.860 would begin

00:25:51.840 murdering innocent people.

00:25:53.980 Imagine being told 0.95

00:25:54.920 that at all costs

00:25:55.980 we must not confirm

00:25:57.320 the narrative

00:25:57.960 of the neo-Nazis

00:25:59.540 by acknowledging

00:26:00.860 that white bald men 0.93

00:26:02.460 emblazoned with swastikas 0.98

00:26:04.180 are of greater interest

00:26:05.780 from a security point of view

00:26:07.180 than elderly Hawaiian women. 0.65

00:26:09.000 This is the situation

00:26:11.040 we're in.

00:26:12.000 You might be somewhat

00:26:12.980 confused by the

00:26:14.300 racial characteristics

00:26:15.920 of this analogy.

00:26:17.320 Obviously, Islam 1.00

00:26:18.100 is not a race.

00:26:19.480 But most people

00:26:20.480 appear to believe

00:26:21.420 that by honestly

00:26:22.920 describing the link

00:26:24.120 between the doctrine

00:26:24.980 of Islam and jihadism

00:26:26.300 and therefore admitting

00:26:27.320 that Islam 0.98

00:26:27.900 is of special concern

00:26:29.240 in a way that

00:26:29.820 Anglicanism and Mormonism

00:26:31.360 aren't,

00:26:32.160 that we will provoke

00:26:33.140 otherwise peaceful Muslims 1.00

00:26:34.960 to such a degree

00:26:36.080 that they will become

00:26:37.280 jihadists or support them.

00:26:40.280 Now, this is either

00:26:41.360 one of the most pessimistic

00:26:42.820 and uncharitable things

00:26:44.180 ever said about a community

00:26:45.540 or it's true.

00:26:48.500 And if it's the former,

00:26:49.700 we should stop saying it.

00:26:51.480 And if it's the latter,

00:26:52.920 we should be talking

00:26:53.680 about nothing else

00:26:54.900 and obliging Muslims

00:26:56.520 to talk about nothing else.

00:26:59.460 Where are these Muslims 1.00

00:27:00.920 who are just like you and me

00:27:02.560 in valuing freedom of speech

00:27:04.220 and secular tolerance

00:27:05.400 and scientific rationality,

00:27:07.220 who want their daughters 1.00

00:27:08.100 to grow up to be fully

00:27:09.260 self-actualized members

00:27:10.480 of society,

00:27:11.740 who aren't afraid of cartoons,

00:27:13.840 who think gays 0.98

00:27:14.620 should be free to marry,

00:27:16.100 but who,

00:27:17.320 if subjected to an extra glance

00:27:19.280 at the airport

00:27:19.980 or a visit from the FBI

00:27:22.380 at their mosque,

00:27:23.940 will be, quote,

00:27:24.700 radicalized

00:27:25.680 and helplessly driven

00:27:27.200 to support ISIS.

00:27:28.940 They're just like you

00:27:29.640 and me now,

00:27:30.400 but say the wrong thing

00:27:31.920 about Islam on television.

00:27:34.280 And they'll start supporting 0.93

00:27:35.240 a group that decapitates 0.96

00:27:36.500 journalists and aid workers, 1.00

00:27:38.440 rapes women 1.00

00:27:39.080 by the tens of thousands, 0.99

00:27:40.860 and throws gays 1.00

00:27:41.880 from rooftops. 0.99

00:27:43.480 That is what is being claimed.

00:27:45.840 And it is absolutely shocking.

00:27:49.420 Doubly so,

00:27:50.200 because no one is admitting

00:27:51.580 or seeming to even notice

00:27:53.680 what a shocking claim it is.

00:27:56.080 And again,

00:27:56.740 I don't know what is true here.

00:27:57.920 It could be a totally

00:27:59.160 reasonable fear.

00:28:00.160 Or it could be pure paranoia.

00:28:03.320 But I'm pretty sure

00:28:04.600 the difference matters.

00:28:06.860 So that's all I have to say

00:28:08.280 about that particular book

00:28:09.960 and Contratompe on Twitter.

00:28:12.560 Again,

00:28:13.340 it is highly inconvenient

00:28:14.780 that worrying

00:28:16.380 about the spread

00:28:18.820 of Islamist ideology

00:28:20.140 and the deception

00:28:21.480 that covers its spread

00:28:23.220 immediately puts people

00:28:25.100 in mind of the Red Scare

00:28:26.740 and Joseph McCarthy

00:28:28.240 and right-wing conspiracy theories.

00:28:31.660 You have to follow

00:28:32.960 the plot here.

00:28:34.400 I am always talking

00:28:35.620 about the necessity

00:28:37.000 that freedom of speech

00:28:38.860 and freedom of thought

00:28:40.120 be safeguarded.

00:28:41.800 You should be free

00:28:42.700 to think and say

00:28:44.060 whatever you want to say.

00:28:46.040 And the people

00:28:46.780 who are trying

00:28:47.980 to write blasphemy laws,

00:28:50.080 whether actually

00:28:50.900 or effectively,

00:28:52.520 in the way they're

00:28:53.200 stigmatizing

00:28:54.100 the criticism of Islam

00:28:55.740 as tantamount to bigotry

00:28:57.580 and xenophobia

00:28:58.240 and even racism,

00:28:59.160 these people

00:29:00.640 are undermining

00:29:02.200 the freedom of speech

00:29:03.820 and the freedom of thought.

00:29:05.120 There is no analogy

00:29:06.600 to the Red Scare here.

00:29:08.620 But it is,

00:29:10.260 I just confess,

00:29:11.940 highly inconvenient

00:29:13.200 that the New York Times

00:29:15.980 doesn't do a proper analysis

00:29:18.080 of where the sympathies

00:29:19.520 of people like

00:29:20.180 Mogahed and Esposito are.

00:29:22.200 And they don't talk

00:29:23.620 about the corrupting influence

00:29:25.040 of Saudi money,

00:29:26.860 money from a regime

00:29:27.980 that is theologically

00:29:29.580 indistinguishable

00:29:30.780 from ISIS,

00:29:32.080 flooding our academic institutions

00:29:34.060 and funding mosques

00:29:36.420 worldwide

00:29:37.640 and supplying them

00:29:38.840 with literature

00:29:39.460 that demonizes infidels 1.00

00:29:41.580 and polytheists

00:29:42.880 and needless to say,

00:29:44.040 Jews.

00:29:45.260 So,

00:29:45.980 this is not

00:29:47.240 conspiracy theory time.

00:29:48.660 This is just

00:29:49.220 the nefarious work 0.93

00:29:51.080 of Islamists 0.91

00:29:52.880 that is in plain view

00:29:54.100 for anyone

00:29:54.820 who wants to see it.

00:29:57.140 But,

00:29:57.980 unfortunately,

00:29:59.540 most of the people

00:30:00.400 who want to see it

00:30:01.280 are on the right wing.

00:30:03.300 So,

00:30:03.640 you do a Google search

00:30:04.620 on someone like

00:30:05.800 Dahlia Mogahed

00:30:06.580 and you're immediately

00:30:07.640 dumped onto

00:30:08.480 Front Page magazine

00:30:10.060 and the Weekly Standard

00:30:11.520 and other conservative

00:30:12.880 publications.

00:30:14.620 That's because

00:30:15.260 the liberal publications

00:30:16.180 are not doing their job

00:30:17.320 and many of them

00:30:18.380 are doing the other job

00:30:19.440 of obscurantism.

00:30:21.080 And you have a place

00:30:21.900 like Salon

00:30:22.680 that gets this wrong

00:30:25.300 almost as a matter

00:30:26.120 of principle.

00:30:27.420 Okay,

00:30:27.820 so on to

00:30:28.600 more of your

00:30:29.760 actual questions.

00:30:32.480 What progress

00:30:33.100 have you made

00:30:33.660 toward becoming

00:30:34.260 vegetarian or vegan?

00:30:35.940 So,

00:30:36.500 this question

00:30:36.960 arises

00:30:37.620 from my podcast,

00:30:40.120 I think it was

00:30:40.540 the second podcast

00:30:41.420 I did with Paul Bloom

00:30:42.620 where we sort of

00:30:44.000 just stumbled

00:30:44.680 into an intervention

00:30:46.620 I performed

00:30:47.460 on both of us

00:30:48.820 around the topic

00:30:49.520 of the ethics

00:30:50.680 of eating meat.

00:30:52.880 One of us

00:30:53.540 asked the other

00:30:54.180 what would be

00:30:55.020 on your short list

00:30:55.860 for things

00:30:56.420 that will just

00:30:57.040 mortify our descendants 0.99

00:30:58.720 on our behalf.

00:30:59.900 You know,

00:31:00.140 the way we look back

00:31:01.260 on Thomas Jefferson

00:31:03.100 and we're just aghast

00:31:04.640 that he couldn't see

00:31:05.640 the wrongness

00:31:06.380 of slavery.

00:31:07.780 We have this

00:31:08.400 supremely ethical

00:31:09.360 and intelligent

00:31:10.100 person

00:31:10.560 who still

00:31:11.600 couldn't see

00:31:12.620 what an abomination

00:31:13.860 slavery was.

00:31:16.380 So,

00:31:16.860 what analogous

00:31:17.600 blind spots

00:31:18.260 do we have

00:31:18.900 and what will

00:31:19.980 our descendants

00:31:20.560 be scandalized

00:31:22.040 by when they

00:31:22.960 look back on us?

00:31:24.180 And,

00:31:24.720 on both of our

00:31:26.220 short lists

00:31:27.380 was the horror show

00:31:29.140 of factory farming

00:31:30.360 and neither of us

00:31:31.900 could defend it.

00:31:32.920 Both of us

00:31:33.480 participated in this

00:31:35.100 machinery of death

00:31:36.400 and we both

00:31:37.980 admitted that it's

00:31:38.560 only because it's

00:31:39.140 out of sight

00:31:39.640 and out of mind

00:31:40.360 that we were able

00:31:41.240 to do so

00:31:41.880 and neither of us

00:31:43.020 could defend

00:31:43.600 eating meat

00:31:44.420 under these

00:31:45.400 circumstances

00:31:45.980 and nor could

00:31:47.840 we defend

00:31:48.280 delegating

00:31:48.940 the acquisition

00:31:50.040 of meat

00:31:50.600 to others

00:31:51.560 in this way.

00:31:53.140 So,

00:31:53.560 we did kind of

00:31:54.580 stumble into

00:31:55.280 an intervention

00:31:57.120 of sorts.

00:31:57.740 Then I threw

00:31:58.340 Paul into the bus

00:31:59.200 by saying,

00:31:59.780 well,

00:31:59.860 I'm willing to

00:32:00.500 make a change

00:32:01.140 in my diet

00:32:01.780 and I don't know

00:32:02.800 what kind of 1.00

00:32:03.240 moral monster you are 1.00

00:32:04.440 that you aren't 0.99

00:32:05.940 but in any case

00:32:06.940 that was a fun

00:32:08.140 conversation

00:32:08.720 and at that

00:32:10.540 point I asked

00:32:11.440 vegetarian and

00:32:13.140 vegan listeners

00:32:14.180 to send me

00:32:15.460 resources

00:32:16.000 and help me 0.99

00:32:18.460 idiot-proof the 0.99

00:32:19.420 process of 1.00

00:32:20.080 getting off

00:32:20.720 of meat

00:32:21.100 and I made

00:32:22.080 that appeal

00:32:22.480 because I had

00:32:23.080 been a vegetarian

00:32:23.760 for six years

00:32:24.980 at one point

00:32:25.640 and became

00:32:26.380 anemic

00:32:26.740 and just

00:32:27.620 decided it was

00:32:28.980 not a healthy

00:32:30.380 diet for me.

00:32:31.700 So yes,

00:32:32.100 I have a little

00:32:33.060 to report

00:32:33.560 but not enough

00:32:35.300 that I want to

00:32:36.180 go into it

00:32:36.760 in any depth

00:32:37.320 but I can say

00:32:37.840 that since

00:32:38.240 that conversation

00:32:38.840 I have been

00:32:39.440 a vegetarian

00:32:40.140 and now

00:32:40.620 that's

00:32:41.040 I think

00:32:41.780 that's about

00:32:42.080 four months

00:32:42.760 ago

00:32:43.360 and I did

00:32:45.680 some blood work

00:32:46.640 recently

00:32:47.360 and strangely

00:32:48.900 or perhaps

00:32:49.760 not so strangely

00:32:50.500 my lipid profile

00:32:52.320 my cholesterol

00:32:52.980 and triglycerides

00:32:54.020 have gotten worse

00:32:55.240 on a vegetarian

00:32:56.900 diet

00:32:57.320 and I think

00:32:57.800 that's largely

00:32:59.120 because not

00:32:59.600 not because

00:33:00.000 I'm eating

00:33:00.480 more dairy

00:33:01.720 and eggs

00:33:02.380 and yes

00:33:03.440 I'm aware

00:33:04.300 of the ethical

00:33:04.980 concerns

00:33:05.460 around dairy

00:33:06.020 and eggs

00:33:06.400 but because

00:33:07.520 I'm probably

00:33:08.760 eating more

00:33:09.360 carbohydrates

00:33:10.420 and so

00:33:11.380 you know

00:33:11.780 there's the bread

00:33:12.500 and the pasta

00:33:13.100 and the rice

00:33:14.420 and all the rest

00:33:15.040 that's tweaking

00:33:16.040 my blood sugar

00:33:16.720 and that has

00:33:18.240 a unhappy

00:33:19.340 effect on

00:33:20.040 on lipids

00:33:21.260 I'm still working

00:33:22.280 with this

00:33:22.640 I'm still a vegetarian

00:33:23.660 I am an

00:33:25.460 aspiring vegan

00:33:26.820 I'll keep trying

00:33:27.860 to to find

00:33:28.880 my way

00:33:29.440 through this

00:33:30.260 science experiment

00:33:31.120 without making

00:33:32.560 food preparation

00:33:33.980 and eating

00:33:35.680 a new religion

00:33:37.080 for myself

00:33:38.160 or the center

00:33:39.100 of my life

00:33:39.700 I have to be

00:33:40.740 realistic about

00:33:41.380 what I can do here

00:33:42.460 and I don't want

00:33:43.320 the perfect to be

00:33:44.060 the enemy of the good

00:33:44.980 so at the very least

00:33:47.020 I'm convinced

00:33:48.440 about the ethical

00:33:49.080 problem of eating meat

00:33:50.160 the eggs I buy

00:33:51.500 claim to be

00:33:52.760 impeccable

00:33:53.720 ethically

00:33:54.340 every chicken

00:33:55.360 has something

00:33:56.640 like 108 square feet

00:33:58.260 of pasture

00:33:59.360 to run on

00:34:01.480 and I am aware

00:34:02.420 that that doesn't

00:34:03.620 answer the concern

00:34:04.280 of what happens

00:34:04.840 to the male chicks 0.96

00:34:05.780 born in their

00:34:07.000 hatcheries

00:34:07.460 but I'm still

00:34:08.840 not convinced

00:34:09.540 that I can be

00:34:10.660 a healthy vegan

00:34:11.680 at this point

00:34:12.260 but I'm going

00:34:13.380 to try

00:34:13.940 to be convinced

00:34:14.860 so again

00:34:15.860 this is a slow

00:34:17.060 unwinding of my

00:34:18.380 carnivore lifestyle

00:34:19.620 but in any case

00:34:20.640 I've made the

00:34:21.440 big change

00:34:22.400 which is

00:34:23.240 I no longer eat

00:34:24.380 meat, chicken, or fish

00:34:25.500 I suppose you could

00:34:26.620 even make the case

00:34:28.180 that eating fish

00:34:29.200 given our current

00:34:30.340 system

00:34:30.840 is more ethical

00:34:31.980 than continuing

00:34:33.600 to eat dairy

00:34:34.440 and eggs

00:34:35.560 I would be interested

00:34:36.640 to know

00:34:37.180 how you vegans

00:34:39.160 and vegetarians

00:34:40.300 view that

00:34:40.960 I did have one idea

00:34:42.280 for a short book

00:34:43.460 or a long blog article

00:34:45.100 where I could go

00:34:46.340 through the

00:34:47.300 comparative

00:34:48.020 neuroanatomy

00:34:48.900 of various species

00:34:50.120 as well as what

00:34:51.280 we know about

00:34:52.080 the likely basis

00:34:53.540 of consciousness

00:34:54.220 and pain

00:34:55.200 and suffering

00:34:55.760 in various

00:34:57.600 animal brains

00:34:58.500 and try to make

00:35:00.280 some intelligent

00:35:01.200 ranking

00:35:02.300 of the likely harm

00:35:03.500 done at each stage

00:35:04.920 so is it

00:35:05.480 you know

00:35:05.880 is it worse

00:35:06.640 to kill a cow

00:35:08.080 than a fish

00:35:08.980 is it worse 0.95

00:35:09.560 to kill a pig 0.98

00:35:10.200 than a cow 0.98

00:35:10.840 can you really

00:35:11.820 eat oysters

00:35:12.600 and other bivalves

00:35:14.580 without any concern

00:35:15.820 that they may be

00:35:16.600 suffering

00:35:16.960 this might be

00:35:17.920 interesting to look

00:35:18.640 at at some point

00:35:19.460 take a fair amount

00:35:20.500 of time to do it

00:35:21.340 right

00:35:21.680 but in any case

00:35:23.380 that's at the back

00:35:23.980 of my mind

00:35:25.100 to look at

00:35:25.900 next question

00:35:27.040 this one's from

00:35:28.400 Faisal Saeed Al-Muttar

00:35:29.780 who many of you know

00:35:30.600 is the ex-Muslim 1.00

00:35:32.180 Iraqi reformer

00:35:34.280 and voice of reason

00:35:36.160 he was recently

00:35:37.420 on Dave Rubin's show

00:35:38.740 and gave a great

00:35:40.000 interview there

00:35:40.560 and he was

00:35:41.880 one of the people

00:35:42.680 I consulted

00:35:43.260 on my book

00:35:43.980 with Majid

00:35:44.600 and he gave some

00:35:45.180 very helpful notes

00:35:45.960 he's great

00:35:46.620 anyway he asks

00:35:47.500 if the Islamic

00:35:48.680 reformation

00:35:49.520 slash modernization

00:35:50.760 movement

00:35:51.180 doesn't succeed

00:35:52.080 what do you think

00:35:53.140 should be the

00:35:53.560 alternative

00:35:54.020 and that's a

00:35:55.240 extraordinarily

00:35:56.180 difficult question

00:35:57.000 I think

00:35:57.560 I can't answer it

00:36:00.020 I don't think

00:36:00.560 there is an

00:36:00.880 alternative

00:36:01.300 if Islamic

00:36:02.440 reform

00:36:03.480 slash modernization

00:36:05.200 doesn't succeed

00:36:06.580 we will have

00:36:07.780 a continuous

00:36:08.440 source of conflict

00:36:09.820 with

00:36:10.920 free speech

00:36:12.480 and

00:36:13.020 tolerance of

00:36:14.180 diversity

00:36:14.680 and gender

00:36:15.960 equality

00:36:16.560 and a respect

00:36:17.780 for science

00:36:18.600 I think

00:36:19.420 it will work

00:36:20.360 at some point

00:36:21.420 because it will

00:36:21.840 become so painful

00:36:23.580 and untenable

00:36:24.420 that it will just

00:36:25.740 have to work

00:36:26.580 I don't know

00:36:27.880 how much blood

00:36:28.420 will be spilled

00:36:29.100 or how many

00:36:30.220 pendulum swings

00:36:31.340 toward reactionary

00:36:33.000 governments

00:36:33.500 we'll see

00:36:34.540 in Europe

00:36:35.460 and even in the

00:36:36.100 United States

00:36:36.760 I don't know

00:36:37.620 how many

00:36:37.860 Donald Trump

00:36:38.560 campaigns

00:36:39.140 will have to

00:36:39.920 endure

00:36:40.220 again I'm not

00:36:41.360 especially worried

00:36:42.080 that there's going

00:36:42.760 to be a Trump

00:36:43.320 presidency

00:36:43.800 but it's conceivable

00:36:45.420 and it's conceivable

00:36:46.180 because of this

00:36:47.120 but it has to succeed

00:36:49.000 or at the very least

00:36:50.620 Islam has to become 1.00

00:36:52.220 like Christianity 1.00

00:36:53.700 in the United States

00:36:55.140 that's a problem

00:36:56.320 that's big enough

00:36:57.020 for me to have

00:36:57.540 written a short

00:36:58.460 book about it

00:36:59.240 Letter to a Christian

00:37:00.380 Nation

00:37:00.700 but it's comparatively

00:37:02.320 a tolerable

00:37:03.660 problem

00:37:04.360 once we get there

00:37:05.440 once the Middle East 0.98

00:37:06.860 is like the Bible Belt 0.93

00:37:08.520 then we'll have the luxury

00:37:09.500 of trying to

00:37:10.680 fine-tune things

00:37:11.500 and wondering

00:37:12.500 what the far future

00:37:13.380 might look like

00:37:14.000 okay another question

00:37:15.560 this is a longish

00:37:17.880 question

00:37:18.580 that I got by email

00:37:19.740 and it contains

00:37:22.060 a criticism

00:37:23.340 but I thought

00:37:24.220 it was good

00:37:25.080 so I'll read

00:37:25.820 the whole thing

00:37:26.280 here's my question

00:37:27.520 with some context

00:37:28.340 and setup

00:37:29.080 do you think

00:37:30.260 your reliance

00:37:30.940 on hypotheticals

00:37:32.080 and thought experiments

00:37:33.000 has become a hindrance

00:37:34.460 to making headway

00:37:35.340 in discourse

00:37:35.860 on important issues

00:37:36.860 in particular

00:37:37.540 the threat

00:37:38.080 of Islamic terrorism

00:37:39.060 generally speaking

00:37:39.980 how big a role

00:37:40.780 should thought experiments

00:37:41.760 and hypotheticals

00:37:42.660 play in discussing

00:37:43.400 key issues

00:37:44.140 it seems that lately

00:37:45.500 you've given several

00:37:46.340 gifts to your detractors

00:37:47.660 namely the statement

00:37:48.540 about Ben Carson

00:37:49.420 while I understand

00:37:50.420 your position

00:37:50.980 in stating that

00:37:51.620 you'd support him

00:37:52.260 over Chomsky

00:37:52.900 on the point

00:37:53.360 of terrorism only

00:37:54.320 I still think

00:37:55.160 this was a disastrous

00:37:56.180 tactical error

00:37:57.180 that didn't need

00:37:57.860 to be made

00:37:58.440 your point could

00:37:59.500 have been made

00:37:59.880 in any number

00:38:00.500 of ways

00:38:00.900 that didn't involve

00:38:01.780 taking an absurd

00:38:02.740 position

00:38:03.320 voting for Carson

00:38:04.660 under any metric

00:38:05.600 on a situation

00:38:06.860 that will never

00:38:07.400 actually happen

00:38:08.340 Chomsky running

00:38:09.480 for president

00:38:10.020 imagine a person

00:38:11.080 that had not heard

00:38:11.980 of your work

00:38:12.520 until seeing

00:38:13.060 that statement

00:38:13.740 do you think

00:38:14.400 they'd be more

00:38:14.960 or less likely

00:38:15.740 to dig deeper

00:38:16.520 and fully explore

00:38:17.420 the nuance

00:38:17.980 of your views

00:38:18.600 or write you off

00:38:19.360 as a crackpot

00:38:19.980 if the goal

00:38:20.800 is to win

00:38:21.340 the war of ideas

00:38:22.220 it seems like

00:38:22.840 tactics like this

00:38:23.760 might be doing

00:38:24.340 you more harm

00:38:24.980 than good

00:38:25.440 the non-starter

00:38:26.540 with Chomsky

00:38:27.280 and the defense

00:38:27.880 of torture

00:38:28.380 in certain circumstances

00:38:29.440 are other areas

00:38:30.500 where relying

00:38:31.060 on thought experiments

00:38:32.020 and hypotheticals

00:38:33.280 did not seem

00:38:33.980 to win many supporters

00:38:35.200 the name is

00:38:36.500 Jason Teufel

00:38:37.980 thank you Jason

00:38:39.660 well I agree

00:38:41.400 I think it's probably

00:38:42.880 in the specific instances

00:38:44.880 you cite

00:38:45.600 counterproductive

00:38:46.680 and perhaps I should be

00:38:49.760 more disciplined

00:38:50.880 in how I screen

00:38:52.540 for those statements

00:38:53.340 which wind up being

00:38:55.440 counterproductive

00:38:56.600 or easily used

00:38:57.920 to mislead people

00:38:59.680 about my views

00:39:00.400 the Ben Carson thing

00:39:02.000 is very obvious

00:39:03.480 though I couched it

00:39:05.280 with so many caveats

00:39:07.260 and so much context

00:39:08.580 that one really

00:39:10.340 had to be

00:39:11.120 totally malicious

00:39:12.460 to spread the meme

00:39:14.320 that I support

00:39:15.520 Ben Carson

00:39:16.200 for president

00:39:16.820 but of course

00:39:17.900 I have critics

00:39:19.100 who are just

00:39:20.160 that malicious

00:39:20.940 you know someone

00:39:22.040 like Max Blumenthal

00:39:23.180 did just that

00:39:24.580 the issue is

00:39:25.660 when people are

00:39:26.140 that malicious

00:39:26.940 in their use

00:39:27.880 of ellipses

00:39:28.620 they can defame

00:39:30.760 you with any statement

00:39:32.000 but I take your point

00:39:33.520 they may not notice

00:39:34.640 that you were

00:39:35.380 talking about anything

00:39:36.260 until you make

00:39:37.440 a statement

00:39:37.860 of the sort

00:39:38.480 I made about Carson

00:39:39.280 and the net result

00:39:41.320 of that one

00:39:41.940 certainly was not helpful

00:39:43.840 on the question

00:39:45.600 of thought experiments

00:39:46.500 I notice now

00:39:47.820 I offered one

00:39:48.920 at the top

00:39:49.980 and talking about

00:39:50.580 the narrative narrative

00:39:51.440 they do serve

00:39:53.920 the purpose

00:39:54.600 if the analogy

00:39:55.740 one is drawing

00:39:56.500 is correct

00:39:57.240 of clarifying

00:39:58.840 people's thinking

00:39:59.680 and getting down

00:40:00.780 to first principles

00:40:01.620 using a thought experiment

00:40:03.120 or an analogy

00:40:04.280 however surprising

00:40:05.680 can break the spell

00:40:07.240 for people

00:40:08.040 in a way

00:40:08.540 that just talking

00:40:09.800 more and more

00:40:10.700 about the complex details

00:40:12.740 of events

00:40:14.560 in the world

00:40:15.120 can't

00:40:15.980 so yeah

00:40:17.040 I would be reluctant

00:40:17.740 to say that

00:40:18.320 thought experiments

00:40:19.100 and hypotheticals

00:40:20.840 shouldn't be used

00:40:22.420 but I think

00:40:23.560 more care is needed

00:40:24.920 in resorting

00:40:26.740 to them

00:40:27.080 perhaps

00:40:27.860 or at least

00:40:28.460 justifying

00:40:29.200 their use

00:40:29.900 and you know

00:40:30.400 I didn't think

00:40:31.420 that kind of care

00:40:32.160 was needed

00:40:32.740 in the case

00:40:34.360 of talking

00:40:35.140 with someone

00:40:35.460 like Chomsky

00:40:36.120 because obviously

00:40:36.980 he's a celebrated

00:40:37.860 academic

00:40:38.300 who understands

00:40:39.640 what is going on

00:40:41.140 when someone resorts

00:40:41.900 to a hypothetical

00:40:43.020 in order to get

00:40:44.100 at first principles

00:40:44.840 he's also someone

00:40:45.940 who seems inclined

00:40:47.060 to deliberately

00:40:47.640 miss the point

00:40:48.420 when he thinks

00:40:48.980 it will serve

00:40:49.480 his side

00:40:50.080 of the argument

00:40:50.560 I have to factor

00:40:52.020 in the price

00:40:53.580 I pay

00:40:54.180 for being

00:40:55.920 so on my guard

00:40:57.320 in conversations

00:40:58.440 like the one

00:40:58.980 I was having

00:40:59.460 with Douglas Murray

00:41:00.560 that I wind up

00:41:02.240 just not having

00:41:03.280 useful conversations

00:41:04.800 and not branching

00:41:06.220 out into areas

00:41:07.060 that are ethically

00:41:07.800 interesting

00:41:08.320 and consequential

00:41:09.200 where my views

00:41:11.000 may prompt

00:41:12.380 someone to think

00:41:13.220 differently

00:41:13.920 in important ways

00:41:15.200 than they thought

00:41:15.780 before

00:41:16.220 you know

00:41:16.940 I find it thrilling

00:41:18.220 when someone

00:41:19.320 raises a point

00:41:20.640 that I find

00:41:21.480 I'm uncomfortable

00:41:22.380 with

00:41:22.920 and I'm being led

00:41:24.280 helplessly

00:41:25.480 in the direction

00:41:26.240 of something

00:41:26.860 that I find

00:41:28.240 destabilizing

00:41:29.960 to my cherished

00:41:31.140 opinions

00:41:31.540 and I can't

00:41:33.080 see any errors

00:41:34.140 that being made

00:41:35.040 and yet I don't

00:41:36.160 like where I'm

00:41:36.960 being taken

00:41:37.880 I find that

00:41:39.120 absolutely thrilling

00:41:40.200 I find those moments

00:41:41.280 some of the best

00:41:42.020 moments in intellectual

00:41:43.200 life

00:41:43.660 and I've been told

00:41:44.960 by many of you

00:41:46.000 that I managed

00:41:47.220 to do that

00:41:47.800 for you

00:41:48.300 so I would be

00:41:49.100 reluctant to stop

00:41:50.060 doing that

00:41:50.780 I'd be reluctant

00:41:51.980 to speak

00:41:53.060 more like a politician

00:41:54.680 than I do

00:41:55.740 but I would be

00:41:56.920 the first to admit

00:41:57.560 that I may have

00:41:58.380 caused myself

00:41:59.220 more headaches

00:42:00.300 than I should have

00:42:01.740 by not being

00:42:02.540 more careful

00:42:03.100 than I've been

00:42:04.080 so

00:42:05.680 I don't do a lot

00:42:07.060 of censoring

00:42:07.640 of what I think

00:42:08.900 or how I say things

00:42:10.400 but

00:42:10.760 increasingly I find

00:42:12.660 that I do some

00:42:13.360 because again

00:42:13.980 it's yeah

00:42:14.480 if I didn't care

00:42:15.920 whether I was

00:42:16.860 misrepresented

00:42:17.500 it would be a lot easier

00:42:18.940 and

00:42:19.680 getting off of Twitter

00:42:21.200 would be one way

00:42:22.200 not to care

00:42:23.340 because

00:42:23.840 I seem to only

00:42:24.880 see these things

00:42:25.720 on Twitter

00:42:26.560 but

00:42:27.620 as I said

00:42:28.780 as well

00:42:29.500 I also see

00:42:30.480 some useful

00:42:30.920 things on Twitter

00:42:31.700 and some of

00:42:32.480 the upcoming

00:42:32.980 conversations

00:42:33.540 I will have

00:42:34.000 on this podcast

00:42:34.560 are a result

00:42:35.860 of what I've

00:42:36.880 seen there

00:42:37.240 so

00:42:37.480 there may

00:42:38.420 be no perfect

00:42:39.380 solution

00:42:39.780 I'll just keep

00:42:40.940 trying to find

00:42:41.460 my way

00:42:41.880 as I eat

00:42:43.540 nothing but

00:42:44.000 vegetables

00:42:44.480 next question

00:42:45.940 this is a

00:42:46.840 similar one

00:42:47.520 actually

00:42:47.820 obviously

00:42:48.620 it's your

00:42:49.060 quote

00:42:49.320 controversial

00:42:50.080 views

00:42:50.640 that gain

00:42:51.040 the most

00:42:51.380 notoriety

00:42:51.980 however

00:42:52.260 the importance

00:42:52.840 of an idea

00:42:53.420 and how much

00:42:53.880 attention it

00:42:54.380 receives

00:42:54.800 are only loosely

00:42:56.000 related

00:42:56.460 some ideas

00:42:57.160 arguably

00:42:57.620 such as

00:42:58.020 your stance

00:42:58.420 on profiling

00:42:59.120 may turn out

00:42:59.660 to be

00:42:59.860 relatively

00:43:00.240 unimportant

00:43:00.900 regardless

00:43:01.620 of how

00:43:01.980 reasonable

00:43:02.400 or well

00:43:02.840 reasoned

00:43:03.240 it is

00:43:03.560 worse

00:43:04.100 it could

00:43:04.400 be

00:43:04.540 actively

00:43:04.960 unhelpful

00:43:05.640 such

00:43:06.200 topics

00:43:06.580 can be

00:43:06.880 so

00:43:07.140 explosive

00:43:07.660 and

00:43:08.160 your

00:43:08.300 position

00:43:08.620 may

00:43:08.820 not

00:43:09.060 condense

00:43:09.500 to

00:43:09.680 tweet

00:43:09.960 length

00:43:10.320 that

00:43:10.780 it

00:43:10.860 can

00:43:10.980 easily

00:43:11.300 be

00:43:11.500 used

00:43:11.780 by

00:43:11.940 opponents

00:43:12.340 to

00:43:12.540 denigrate

00:43:12.960 you

00:43:13.220 in this

00:43:14.580 regard

00:43:14.900 sharing

00:43:15.360 such

00:43:15.660 ideas

00:43:15.980 could

00:43:16.280 detract

00:43:16.740 from

00:43:16.960 more

00:43:17.160 critical

00:43:17.460 points

00:43:17.940 in

00:43:18.600 what

00:43:18.800 way

00:43:19.060 should

00:43:19.260 the

00:43:19.400 imagined

00:43:19.860 repercussions

00:43:20.600 affect

00:43:21.120 what

00:43:21.320 you

00:43:21.440 decide

00:43:21.820 to

00:43:22.020 publicly

00:43:22.360 share

00:43:22.780 if

00:43:23.360 you

00:43:23.460 believe

00:43:23.740 something

00:43:23.960 to be

00:43:24.200 true

00:43:24.580 would

00:43:25.340 it

00:43:25.420 be

00:43:25.540 moral

00:43:25.860 to

00:43:26.060 withhold

00:43:26.380 it

00:43:26.580 in

00:43:27.220 this

00:43:27.360 respect

00:43:27.660 is there

00:43:27.960 such a

00:43:28.260 thing

00:43:28.440 as a

00:43:28.700 noble

00:43:29.000 lie

00:43:29.520 of

00:43:30.000 omission

00:43:30.380 are there

00:43:31.220 ideas

00:43:31.660 you've

00:43:31.900 decided

00:43:32.320 against

00:43:32.780 sharing

00:43:33.220 what

00:43:34.040 are

00:43:34.200 they

00:43:34.420 that's

00:43:34.960 interesting

00:43:35.280 share

00:43:36.720 them

00:43:36.920 now

00:43:37.260 and

00:43:37.820 are

00:43:37.940 there

00:43:38.040 views

00:43:38.360 of

00:43:38.500 yours

00:43:38.880 that

00:43:39.480 you

00:43:39.600 believe

00:43:39.960 don't

00:43:40.320 get

00:43:40.480 enough

00:43:40.700 attention

00:43:41.120 and

00:43:42.520 this

00:43:42.960 is

00:43:43.080 from

00:43:43.220 Jordan

00:43:43.600 thank

00:43:43.900 you

00:43:44.020 Jordan

00:43:44.280 again

00:43:45.820 yeah

00:43:46.060 I

00:43:46.280 think

00:43:46.480 there

00:43:50.600 why

00:43:50.800 I'd

00:43:50.940 rather

00:43:51.120 not

00:43:51.320 speak

00:43:51.620 about

00:43:51.880 torture

00:43:52.260 on

00:43:52.820 my

00:43:52.980 blog

00:43:53.380 and

00:43:53.860 I

00:43:54.280 said

00:43:54.520 there

00:43:54.880 or

00:43:55.860 somewhere

00:43:56.160 that

00:43:56.380 I

00:43:56.480 once

00:43:56.780 had

00:43:56.920 an

00:43:57.060 epiphany

00:43:57.360 that

00:43:57.560 not

00:43:58.100 everything

00:43:58.640 worth

00:43:59.140 saying

00:43:59.880 is worth

00:44:00.600 saying

00:44:01.060 oneself

00:44:01.680 and

00:44:02.460 that

00:44:02.700 is

00:44:02.960 still

00:44:03.160 true

00:44:03.500 I

00:44:03.980 still

00:44:04.140 think

00:44:04.320 that's

00:44:04.540 true

00:44:04.720 and

00:44:04.900 I

00:44:05.100 notice

00:44:05.560 certain

00:44:06.460 people

00:44:07.180 abide

00:44:07.860 by this

00:44:08.440 precept

00:44:09.200 much

00:44:09.560 better

00:44:09.800 than

00:44:09.960 I

00:44:10.120 do

00:44:10.320 and

00:44:11.040 have

00:44:11.340 commensurately

00:44:12.140 easy

00:44:12.940 lives

00:44:13.480 as a

00:44:13.840 result

00:44:14.160 I

00:44:14.600 would

00:44:14.740 put

00:44:14.860 someone

00:44:15.040 like

00:44:15.220 Steve

00:44:15.500 Pinker

00:44:15.880 in

00:44:16.320 this

00:44:16.480 category

00:44:20.600 gets

00:44:20.700 down

00:44:20.940 in

00:44:21.040 the

00:44:21.160 trenches

00:44:21.440 in

00:44:21.860 the

00:44:21.960 same

00:44:22.120 way

00:44:22.260 that

00:44:22.380 I

00:44:22.520 do

00:44:22.700 part

00:44:23.500 of

00:44:23.580 this

00:44:23.740 is

00:44:23.900 the

00:44:24.340 ideas

00:44:24.920 themselves

00:44:25.540 right

00:44:25.900 so

00:44:26.060 that

00:44:26.260 there

00:44:26.440 are

00:44:26.740 topics

00:44:27.760 like

00:44:28.140 profiling

00:44:28.900 for instance

00:44:29.520 where I

00:44:29.780 just

00:44:29.940 think

00:44:30.140 it's

00:44:30.420 ethically

00:44:31.260 both

00:44:31.960 interesting

00:44:32.560 and

00:44:33.240 important

00:44:33.780 to

00:44:34.600 figure

00:44:34.920 out

00:44:35.220 what

00:44:35.580 we

00:44:36.180 think

00:44:36.580 on

00:44:37.000 this

00:44:37.180 topic

00:44:37.520 I

00:44:38.420 mean

00:44:38.640 get

00:44:38.880 this

00:44:39.120 wrong

00:44:39.580 in

00:44:40.580 any

00:44:40.800 significant

00:44:41.240 way

00:44:41.640 and

00:44:41.940 people

00:44:42.340 will

00:44:42.600 die 1.00

00:44:43.000 people 0.99

00:44:43.500 by

00:44:43.740 what

00:44:44.020 the

00:44:44.220 hundreds

00:44:44.700 the

00:44:44.940 thousands

00:44:45.420 it's

00:44:46.580 truly

00:44:46.900 important

00:44:47.460 that

00:44:48.120 we

00:44:48.220 figure

00:44:50.600 reluctant

00:44:50.900 to

00:44:51.420 say

00:44:52.340 that

00:44:52.580 I

00:44:52.700 shouldn't

00:44:52.980 touch

00:44:53.220 those

00:44:53.480 topics

00:44:53.900 but

00:44:54.640 in

00:44:55.180 hindsight

00:44:55.520 I

00:44:55.820 can

00:44:55.940 say

00:44:56.140 that

00:44:56.360 yeah

00:44:56.640 some

00:44:56.920 of

00:44:57.060 them

00:44:57.180 have

00:44:57.340 been

00:44:57.640 just

00:44:58.340 more

00:44:58.660 trouble

00:44:59.020 than

00:44:59.200 they're

00:44:59.380 worth

00:44:59.680 and

00:45:00.720 as I

00:45:01.380 think

00:45:01.520 I've

00:45:01.640 said

00:45:01.760 on this

00:45:01.980 podcast

00:45:02.540 at least

00:45:03.300 once

00:45:03.640 that

00:45:03.820 I

00:45:04.260 tore up

00:45:05.060 the best

00:45:06.000 book

00:45:06.240 contract

00:45:06.720 if you'd

00:45:08.140 like to

00:45:08.380 continue

00:45:08.680 listening

00:45:08.980 to this

00:45:09.280 conversation

00:45:09.820 you'll

00:45:10.540 need

00:45:10.680 to

00:45:10.800 subscribe

00:45:11.280 at

00:45:11.500 samharris.org

00:45:12.440 once

00:45:13.340 you do

00:45:13.640 you'll

00:45:13.840 get access

00:45:14.220 to all

00:45:14.640 full-length

00:45:15.120 episodes

00:45:15.520 of the

00:45:15.760 making

00:45:15.920 sense

00:45:16.180 podcast

00:45:16.720 along

00:45:17.400 with

00:45:17.560 other

00:45:17.720 subscriber

00:45:18.240 only

00:45:18.500 content

00:45:18.960 including

00:45:19.820 bonus

00:45:20.200 episodes

00:45:20.800 and

00:45:21.280 AMAs

00:45:21.880 and the

00:45:22.440 conversations

00:45:22.900 I've been

00:45:23.240 having on

00:45:23.620 the waking

00:45:23.920 up app

00:45:24.380 the

00:45:25.140 making

00:45:25.340 sense

00:45:25.560 podcast

00:45:26.080 is

00:45:26.280 ad

00:45:26.520 free

00:45:26.840 and

00:45:27.420 relies

00:45:27.740 entirely

00:45:28.220 on

00:45:28.440 listener

00:45:28.680 support

00:45:29.100 and

00:45:29.860 you

00:45:29.960 can

00:45:30.080 subscribe

00:45:30.420 now

00:45:30.880 at

00:45:31.360 samharris.org

Making Sense - Sam Harris - January 04, 2016

#24 — Ask Me Anything 2

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript