Religion, Politics, Free Speech | Sam Harris | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report 

+btsororos who are the others?

:D FreeManWalking

+btsororos nah huuhh... Neil DeGrasse could totally kick his ass... besides, Sam Harris is so tiny, Daniel Dennet or Dawkins The Mighty could squish him... My intellectual could totally beat yours....

xvjau At least he has a better grasp on foreign policy than the self hating Jew, Noah Chomsky.

+Daishi001 Are you CERTAIN you want to assert Sam Harris of all people...is Jewish?

Thank you. I really wanted to help clean up the mess that this is become.

+Karunjit Singh Sam Harris supported the waterboarding of Khaled Sheik Mohammad. He's not really good on foreign policy.

+Anthony Serocco I thought Sam was against torture? Can you show me where he said this?

He said, to paraphrase, "If it helps save American lives, some enhanced interrogation on KSM is necessary." I will look for the full quote once you reply. He also supported Gitmo.

+Anthony Serocco No what he said was there is a point we might imagine where we could conceivably engage in torturing someone if the stakes were high enough. He basically said what if there really was a ticking bomb, what if you really did have an hour to find the bomb, find the girl trapped slowly running out of oxygen, etc. He is challenging you to defend your personal assertion that torture is always bad or always evil, that might there not be a situation where choosing not to torture someone is in fact evil. He also pointed out the argument against it that he finds credible and basically quasi endorses which is "torture is so bad and the idea of semi regulating even for specific events so prone to misuse we just auto outlaw on the idea that in the long run any single event in which we should have tortured is overcome by all those we shouldn't have but did if we'd said ok" He also seemed to suggest there be this kind of wink wink nudge nudge system where were like, look torture is evil, but in the event theres a ticking time bomb, the guy in charge needs to know he should torture and nothing will be done. It's not that it won't be illegal it's that we as a society agree we will simply find him innocent in spite of his having broken the law. There's precedent for this, people who helped escaped slaves would be tried in the north and found innocent by juries who knew they broke the law. This is called jury nullification and is a totally legal thing. It's frowned apon (in fact it's legal for juries to do it but it's ILLEGAL to let juries know they can, informing a jury of its right to nullify is punishable)

+Ferand Peek Thank Ferand. There is so much more I wanted to get to but we had to wrap because of time restraints. Sam will come back in the future and Maajid is coming on next time he's in LA.

+The Rubin Report please bash cenk uygur on your show

+Ferand Peek I couldn't agree more. I really liked TYT...until I witnessed that interview. I was just astonished by Cenk's behaviour and how he conducted himself throughout said interview. I'm with you on the Thanks to Dave for honestly talking about the whole shabackle. Looking forward to more of this :D.

+The Rubin Report Nice cant wait until Dr Harris is back on. Would be cool to have a joint discussion with him and Prof Gad Saad on your show

+Ferand Peek Indeed, I think his views and research on spirituality could actually prove incredible useful in the future... detatching the religios dogmas from Buddhism bolstered by further scientific findings about the brain and mind could improve to be a HUGE gamechanger if ever imported well into Western Culture. Speaking from only a few years experience, I can honestly say that you can actually change your perception of the world, especially if you previously tendered to wander in thought, and quite miserable most of the time.

franciso7​ Cenk did a 2 hour interview with Sam Harris around a year or so ago. It was sputtering nonsense from Cenk. Misrepresentation after misrepresentation, not understanding the intricacies of what Sam was saying. It was horrific.

I could not finish it. Sam is so calm and respectful and he was basically shouted down for having the wrong opinions.

actually the interview was 3 hours.

Indie Media Eastcoast to the TYT interview? no, no you don't but I do find value into it as it finally opened my eyes to just how bad TYT got, and I was finally able to cut any ties with them. I fully support their push to get money out of politics but beyond that their hard line regressive left views is just too much to stomach anymore.

Cenks interview with Harris was fine, he sounded dumb at some points but it was alright. It was his TYT follow ups which were disgraceful.

+Troy Kadikoff I can't take him seriously as Batman....Batman is supposed to be a genius, and Affleck just isn't.

***** They're not liberals, they're progressives. Two different things. Rubin is a liberal, not an SJW progressive.

never said he was a sjw. my comment was limited to the bennifer segment

+TheDr3amMachine Progressives are not SJWs. Look at Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

+TheDr3amMachine Only idiot virgins on the internet use terms like "SJW"

+Alex Sitaras So it was enough for you to stop supporting TYT (Wolf-Pac, U.S. politics, other commentators, etc) because of an ego dispute between Sam Harris and Cenk Uygur (they agree 99% and yet their camps hate each other..which I agree Cenk has had a much bigger part in)? Apparently you watched TYT solely for criticisms of religion?

+William Faulkner it was enough for Cenk to start acting like they were enemies and when you're divisive like that you lose people. So, yea a lack of belief in the integrity and rational of a leader can lead to lost followers and/or allies.

William Faulkner i like wolf-pac but tyt's ideas and arguments in regards to politics are so shallow

+codecatx5 Bingo. Well said. Cenk is a massive hypocrite who is afraid to admit he is wrong.

papersplease BUT THAT'S WHAT WE NEED (A strong unapologetic, even-stubborn voice) IN "THE LEFT" OR WE WILL LOSE THE PUBLIC DEBATE. I honestly believe the Cenk Uygur is doing more good in the world than Sam Harris...and I agree that Cenk was 100% at fault at misrepresenting Sam.

+avedic Cenk's problem is that he cannot admit when he is wrong, unless the issue is trivial. The way he twisted everything around about Sam Harris's views was disgusting and the way he doubled down on the during his interview with Sam was unforgivable. TYT now is almost entirely a money making machine with all the original passion and intellectual honesty gone.

+avedic I agree, I have legitimate disagreements with Harris, but Cenk did such a bad job at voicing them that I cringed. I also unsubbed from Cenk et al. after the Harris debacle. It's like Cenk forgot how to add 2+2 because he wanted to be right. It wasn't just a case of me disagreeing fervently with Cenk... it was just such a bumbling, intellectually dishonest (or stupid?) case of blindness to the facts (and what was actually being said) that I couldn't bring myself to give TYT the benefit of the doubt anymore. This, coming from someone like yourself, who was a TYT fan for several years. I always defended them, even though I didn't always agree with them, because they had generally good intentions and were fighting the good fight. But I don't want to be associated with people who have strayed so far from integrity.

+avedic - While I agree, it was a good interview, it was made easy by the fact that Dave seemed to agree with Sam on pretty much everything. That's great for someone like me, because I also agree with most things Sam says. I'd be interested to see how he handles someone such as the aforementioned Cenk or Reza Aslan.

Sam Harris fanboy...

Captain Crunch- What's wrong with that?

Ben Affleck is blindingly stupid. He is INCAPABLE of having a measured, intelligent thoughtful conversation about ANYTHING. This is a guy who screwed his BABYSITTER IN HIS WIFE'S BED. His whole attack on SAM was a brilliant PR stunt to get the left wing media and SJW NUT JOBS to IGNORE his disgusting betrayal of his wife and children and the fact they were planning on FIRING HIM off of his failed Batman disaster. It's pathetic how easy it is to manipulate the public if a "movie star" is the focus. He is a DOUCHEBAG, even KEVIN SMITH CAN'T STAND HIM ANYMORE.

+Jason Palacios Cenk wasn't so much rude as ignorant and bigoted and displayed his Islamic upbringing in his stupid rants. .

FreeManWalking right wing lol

+Jason Palacios The problem with hosts usually interviewing intellectuals is, that the intellectual many times gets nearly not enough time. You very rarely will get a direct yes or no answer from intellectual or scientist. Not unless you ask for a very simple fact based question, that can be answered as "the answer is 234323,4564 in unit x with error margins y, the agreed upon limit value has been passed, so answer is yes". Like "Is sea level rising? Yes, since our newest measurements are higher than older measurements." This is due to simply, because the issues discussed are often complex. So the real answer is not yes or no, but usually "it depends", "maybe" or "we don't exactly know". So intellectual want to give long comprehensive answers to avoid confusion and to be accurate, since scientists are paid to be accurate. Usually people like Sam have pretty long, pre-established, thought out positions on many matters, since their whole job is to come up with thought out positions on different matters. So they launch to their complete argument and start going through it systematically. However usually the interviewer cuts a guy like Sam of after hearing the first trigger word or phrase due to it allowing the interviewer an active rule. Action also usually leads to better ratings, compared to scientist giving a 2 minute monologue on their position. Then host launch to a new question or comment about the trigger part, while all the guest is trying to do is to say "let me finish my answer, everything will be explained in it eventually." Since guys like Sam often use logical arguments, which can sometimes be complicated and long, the construction and order of the answer is important and interdependent. So when someone cut off their answer in the middle, they often need to start again, so that the audience (the people the guest is actually talking to) can understand the argument. This again frustrates the host and they say the guest is repeating answers (Doh sherlock, it's part of the argument construct). In the end this will end in either shouting match (if the intellect is a pissed off or temperament type) or the guest just goes silent, since they see the inevitable shouting match as pointless. Dave is a good interviewer since he lets his guest talk. It should newer be the interviewer ending the answer, but the guest. If interviewer stops the guests answer, they are doing something wrong. Either the questions are too generic or they are asking them in wrong order. If broadcast doesn't have enough time to cover the topic, don't bring in the quest or choose a simpler topic. Good interviewer knows to either a) ask good questions in right order and let the guest answer. Then ask new more challenging questions based on the base answer given b) ask the guest how they think the subject should approached, since the guest is usually the expert in these cases. The classic of this is the good old "where should we start on this" question, which leaves it up to the guest to choose the order of answers. Sadly many times the interviewers ego interferes by forcing them to be active. The saddest case is the interviewer who knows almost nothing, but still tries to actually directly challenge the expert position. It comes clear in under minute that expert is winning and then the host starts screaming to literally cover up the rest of the answer. Even if you are critical you should let the opposite side answer fully. Then you can go: "You said the problem is solved, but according to the latest reports there has been new occurrences of this problem within the last month based watch dog agency reports. Could you please explain how this is possible? This is supposed to be solved according to you." Shouting on top of anyone's answer is rude and rather anti free speech. If you need to drown out your oppositions voice, your argument is not very good.

FreeManWalking lol

+Jason Palacios on the other hand I think Dave(the interviewer) could have twisted the arm a little bit for the sake of real journalism where you don't go on agreeing everything that's being said and put urself in someone else's shoes. I liked most the interview between Fareed Zakaria and Sam on CNN. A sign of true journalistic interview. Oh! by the way, Cenk is also a douche just like Azlan who also distorts sam's view by not paying attention to what Sam's really implying.

lol, Priceless !

That's exactly what folks back 50 years ago said.

Rubin is not a racist. He's an idiot.

+AlwaysReason Cenk Yuger is an idiot Rubin is not whether you like to agree with me or not

Hurr Durr The entire "separate but equal" era is the epitome of exactly that: what do you want? You're free now, so fuck off and live in your America, with your toilets and your fountains and your own schools and nowhere near power structures. That's not racist, because slave owners were racist, not us. The inability to judge yourself the way you judge others is fucking staggering.

And now hes a conservative with many conservative friends

+Andre Godsk You thought that you were the 'only one' who acknowledged that there is a violent and intolerant streak within Islam? Did you just emerge from a 50 year sleep in a coffin or some shit?

+Mr Ezkerrera I think the problem is that the people who voice those issues tend to be bigots, and people with moderate views don't talk about it, so it seems like no one "sensible" thinks this way.

So was I, and now every time I have this discussion with friends or family they usually seem to think I'm a bigot aswell

@@ralphdawg5743 You're obviously not from Europe then. It is very clear that their mentality is very different from the homogenous society of Denmark which I live in.

The greatest tip you've ever gotten right here: Watch everything Christopher Hitchens. Logic and reason at it's peak of intellectualism and he is in line with Sam. I'm willing to bet Sam's stand on Islam and the war in iraq is partially inspired by him.

After me...lol

hahaha

+Yourinquirer LOL! You sir, are a master of connections.

+Yourinquirer That was impressive.

***** I +1nd this but I can't think of why.

Sam said, in the passage liberals love to quote against him, that Islamists could get us into a nuclear war over ideas with the same level as "Batman, the philosopher's stone and unicorns." (pg. 129).

+Yourinquirer Me and Sam are pals, I wouldn't go after him

Cenk got what Sam was saying. He's just an Islamist apologist!

+orchoose no.... there are lots of people that do what you claim, but to be fair I think Cenk understands Sam's position is nuanced

+amy glass Cenk is an atheist.

Anthony Serocco yeah, I am aware of the fact that he claims to be an atheist. But he shows preferential treatment for Islam above all other religions. He has no problem bashing Christians when they do anything wrong but he is usually either mum or makes excuses for Islam and Muslims whenever they commit egregious acts of terror or other human rights abuses.

Remember Charee Stanley, the Muslim flight attendant who refused to serve alcohol? Cenk equated her with Kim Davis and said she should've been fired. "Preferential treatment?" Hardly.

+carver3419 He would have been stripped down and embarrassed to the point where Mos Def would look like Cornell West.

Hitch would have made him appear two inches tall not just by making him appears 100 times more stupid and uninformed than he actually is (the word bright and the name Affleck have always felt mutually exclusive to me anyway) but with a dismissive and derisive tone of voice.....the intellectual chasm that would exist in that room would dwarf the grand canyon lol

God, how I wish this was an encounter that would happen

Haha it would’ve ended before it started, “are you done, Ben? Bill and I are talking”

Sam Harris is a lunatic

+Metroidvania1981 Mate, I liked the show until about two years ago. They had some good topics on politics and its corruption, but now one shit clickbait/racebait story after another. The "studies" they pull from worthless websites like the story abotu the "one in three man are rapists" study. They have zero integrety left and I can't trust them anymore than I can trust Fox "News", probably even less.

+Edward Elric was it one in three men are rapists, or one in three woman have experienced unsolicited sexual advances? I don't remember any stories on the former, but I vaguely recall the latter.

***** If Fox News can be called dangerous so can TYT. The main channel does a lot of islamophilic propaganda, don't try underplay it. Just a few weeks ago they had the story about the abortion clinic "bombing" where they tried to equate christian "terrorism" to islamist terrorism and create a false equivalence. Turned out the guy was homeless and had a pillbox with firecrackers with him as he was trying to get a job at the clinic. TYT's constant islam apologetics and attempts to steer up racial disputes are just as dangerous as Fox News. The anti-corruption movement is a good thing and was one of the reasons I started watching TYT back but it doesn't redeem the other bullshit they started spewing on the main channel. Jeremy S It was a story where they presented a complete bullshit study as true. The study did conclude that one in three men were willing to rape a woman based on their answer to dumbass questions like "Would you make/force a woman do something she doesn't want to?" The sample size was aroun 90 colledge guys who were purposely selected by the "researchers" (so not even random guys).

Cenk Uygur once showed credibility and promise. I thought he was a breath of fresh air during his stint at MSNBC. But being a RU-vid star went to his head and he spoiled. I believe him when he says he's an Atheist who thinks all religions are equally false, but he just can't shake his Muslim heritage for the benefit of being impartial and reasonable, and irrationally defends all sorts of radical thinking and behavior. His dishonest methods and even his mannerisms (animated, self-righteous harrumphing, *_of coouuurse, etcetera, etcetera!_*), make him almost indistinguishable from Rush Limbaugh. He is *_Cenk Limbaugh_*. You can even tell his co-hosts roll their eyes at his buffoonery (yet they play along because Cenk signs their checks, making them little more than whores, Ana being the biggest one due to the Armenian Holocaust thing). Cenk Limbaugh is a joke.

+Metroidvania1981 by equating the abortion clinic 'bombing' and Islamis terrorism, he is in fact apologizing Islamic terrorism.

+Shangori It is worrying that these days people seem to think "celebrities" opinions are worth more than most. Especially on a subject as serious as this.

+Shangori "...One actor says something and everyone instantly accepts it at face value...." That is the role of actors, throughout history and today. Their job (whether they know it or not) is to instil the 'correct' values and opinions into the public. Actors are just service providers. There is no reason why an actor (skilled or not, good looking or not) should be automatically given a platform to air philosophical or political views any more than a train driver, an architect or a business man should. Yet actors are all over the media giving their views on this and that and being treated as some kind of legitimate authority by the media. The views of actors, politicians, and media hosts themselves should really be the purview of philosophers. Yet philosophers are mostly bought off by the university system and installed in comfortable little oak panelled offices for life on condition they never say anything to upset the status quo (much like priests really). Media and entertainment industry (hollywood) are all part of the same propaganda vehicle. The propaganda of Hollywood movies spills over into media interviews and features and combine to give us our 'CULTure'. Even the 'controversy' that we see being stirred up is mostly contrived and used to create false oppositions, distraction, emotion, confusion, apathy, demoralisation, the illusion of debate and free thought/ free speech, and the Hegelian Dialectic method of social engineering etc. Imagine a world where there was no formal discipline of mathematics, and instead all equations and sums were argued in little televised 'tiffs' like this one where each side gave their 'opinions' and 'feelings' while sitting at a table. Then we all got to weigh in with our own opinions and feelings on the matter. _Well I believe 2+2=5 because it just IS!_ Well I think it isn't! _Well, you are so wrong. It is!_ And so on. This is basically the world we have today when it comes to philosophy (rational debate). There are no formally recognised standards or practices for determining truth from falsehood, at least not in mainstream culture. When Affleck makes fallacy after fallacy, the majority of public cannot recognise them as fallacies... because the education system does not teach philosophy (rational debate) as a skill. If it did the ruling class would be exposed every time they opened their mouths to speak in public. You cannot have a society controlled by a violent and coercive ruling class AND have the general population capable of philosophical debate at the same time. You can only have one or the other. This is something even Sam Harris would probably dispute or evade ....... which is why he is allowed on TV , I guess. He takes up a contrary position which is presented as the more rational one.... but like other critics of religion, (Hitchens etc) he never applies philosophy fully to reach the inescapable conclusion that all his criticisms of Islam (or Catholicism or whatever) also apply to the western secular religion of statism too. (although I am not that familiar with his work, so I could be wrong..... perhaps he does reject statism, but I know that Hitchen's didn't and I know they were buddies).

Tracchofyre Well, thanks for not presenting any actual counter arguments :) Feel free to chew on these logical bones and see if you are still able to defend statism without sounding like a religious person... 1. Do you agree that 'governments' and 'churches' do not actually exist as moral agents, and that only people exist? (only people can act upon other people) 2. Do you agree that people do not have the moral right to violate other people's property or initiate force against them? (assault, kidnapping, torture, murder etc ... or the threat of these things) 3. Do you agree that YOU do not have the right to violate MY property or initiate force against ME? 4. Do you agree that people (such as yourself) cannot bestow rights which they do not have themselves onto a third party? For example, if you don't have the right to violate my property and aggress against me, you cannot bestow these rights (which you do not have) onto a third party and get them to treat me that way on your behalf? (as your 'elected representatives') 5. Do you agree that neither you, nor any third party acting on your behalf, has the right to violate my property or aggress against me.....and that this is true no matter how amazing their costumes are, how architecturally impressive their buildings are, what name they give themselves, and how many people they have cheering them on? If you agree with these statements then you accept that neither churches, street gangs, mafia, governments or the priesthood of golden unicorns have the right to violate other people's property or initiate force against them. They are all different names for the same basic paradigm.... a paradigm based on mob rule (might is right). The basic justifications for any religion violating property (taxation/ tithes) or initiating force (laws, persecution, torture, wars, invasions etc) were the same 500 years ago as the justifications used to justify modern governments today. These justifications essentially boil down to: 1. authority derived from costumes, badges, hats etc 2. authority derived from the support of a cheering mob Both are non-legitimate forms of authority. Priests and politicians (and their minions) are just people, after all. Naturally, as people, they do not have the right to violate property or aggress against other people. And neither do their supporters (churchgoers and voters) who are also just people. So their supporters cannot grant them those rights (which they do not have themselves)... and they cannot grant _themselves_ those rights either because under their costumes, they are also just people like you an me. So we are left with one final desperate attempt to justify their immoral actions.... _"When we violate your property and initiate force against you we are acting on behalf of a supreme entity which is invisible called 'god' / 'government'..... we are only doing 'god's will' / 'government's will'... Our invisible supreme entity DOES have the moral authority to violate your property and initiate force against you because we say so!"_ But this excuse doesn't wash either because neither 'government', nor 'god' actually exists. They are just made up entities, designed to justify immoral behaviour. The only thing which exists is impressive buildings (cathedrals, government buildings), costumes, bits of old manuscripts, flags, elaborate rituals, podiums, songs of praise (hymns, national anthems), portraits and so on. Sweep all of this paraphernalia away and you are left with a bunch of people going around stealing and coercing and generally acting like terrorists and claiming they somehow have the right to do so..... when logically and rationally they do not. This is why it is silly for Hitchens or Harris or any other modern day self proclaimed 'philosopher' or 'free thinker' to use reason and evidence to expose religion as irrational and immoral ...... and yet not apply the same intellectual rigour to their own 'religion' of statism. 2000 years ago these trendy free thinkers would be exposing the worshipping of Zeus and all the other Roman gods as irrational and silly...... while defending Christianity as the glue that holds the modern rational, civilised society together. Every religion or cult is perfectly capable of pointing out how immoral or silly their competitors are.... but very few people are willing to apply reason and evidence to _their own_ cult or religion ie the one they were indoctrinated into as children. Statists are no different in this respect. State schooling is religious/ cult indoctrination starting at age four, for 6 hours a day for at least the next 12 years. Very few religions can match that level of indoctrination. It is easier to de-woo a Catholic or a Muslim than to de-woo a statist. Religious people today might stubbornly cling to their irrational beliefs, and they might try to indoctrinate you into their religion or cult ....but most of them (at least in the developed world) won't actually force their religion onto you at gunpoint. They won't demand you fund their religion and obey is laws under threat of being caged, and shot if you try to escape the cage. It's really only statists who still behave this way.

Tracchofyre "...My counter argument was that this sentence is LOGICALLY FALSE. I did not demonstrate it ...." Right. You simply asserted it with no argument to back up your assertion. Asserting something is not the same as arguing something. I assumed (in the absence of any argument from you) that you were taking issue with my use of the word 'religion', yet I made a point of putting this word in 'quotes' many times, AND interchanging it with the word 'cult' AND demonstrating that statism has all the same characteristics and logical failings that religions do - thus it is *equivalent* to religion, if not strictly speaking the exact same thing as a religion. I was, in simple terms, _making a point_. Statism is a slightly modified and rebranded version of religion, to suit a more secular age due to advances in science and technology. Sky daddies just don't wash as much these days, so we have Big Brother instead. Statism has done little more that make 'god' even more abstract and etherial that it already was. The 'god' of 'government' has no beard, no face, no voice and it supposedly exists here on earth among us... yet it is _still_ completely invisible and undetectable. One could argue that this is an even more irrational position than that proposed by traditional religions. All you have done so far is NOT make an argument, and instead hide behind words (euphemisms) instead.... which is basically sophistry. You are no different to a religious person arguing that the church is defined as a moral institution, and 'therefore' any accusation of immorality directed at the church can be automatically dismissed because words. Again this is just throwing dictionary definitions around (see also: feminism), rather than arguing from first principles. ".... i wanted you to look it over and let you find the mistake yourself...." Or..... you were just evading the issue, and buying time. "....i have to find out if you know what you are talking about, especially if you know your logic. Look above on the sentence you wrote. What is wrong with it?..." Yes, yes.... whatever. I am arguing beyond the simplistic level of officially approved and enforced definitions of words. Guilty as charged. You have passed the test. By that I mean you have successfully evaded a rational debate, and instead derailed the discussion with your nitpicking and general sophistry... exactly like any religious person would do when confronted with the moral hypocrisy of their religion.

Tracchofyre "...Or do i need to explain it to you, like a four year old..." I think you need to present some sort of argument, or admit that you have none. I have made it abundantly clear what I am talking about, such that there can be no doubt. This is why I suspect your agenda is to derail the discussion. If you are experiencing any genuine difficulties understanding what I am talking bout, just answer the 5 questions in my previous comment and this will help you to understand why I equate statism to religion. If you can refute the logical of those questions/ propositions then by all means do so. So far you've managed to write a lot but without actually arguing or debating anything, which is something religious people do.

+Robert Brynin The difference is that people like Cenk are repeaters. They repeat shit they hear from other people. Thinkers come up with their own ideas and that is becoming increasingly rare.

+Robert Brynin Well said. I agree.

+Eternal Moderate He interviewed Republican Joe Walsh before. He wasn't at all like Bill O'Reilly.

Yeah, that was actually pretty good, I'm more thinking about his Sam Harris interview, or more importantly, his interview with Karen, which was rather poor

Cenk does have a temper problem, but Karen was.... well, not very good. The reason he lost his shit was because she claimed that men would've given the right to vote for women without feminism, which is a baseless assumption.

Perhaps, but Cenk still could have disagreed with her in a more civil man or, there was no need for him to get so filled up

He also said "Do you appreciate that you now have a choice on whether or not to vote?" Karen kept switching the topic away from universal suffrage and her own personal opinions on it. If it didn't make her uncomfortable, she would've answered directly.

2020

+Ron Jackson more like, exactly the same as every other Sam Harris interview ever.

+ItsameAlex LOL

he needs to find new things to talk about

ItsameAlex samealex true, but it's because he is constantly taken out of context. He is probably tired of it.

+ItsameAlex I think we're only scratching the surface of the spirituality (without religion) conversation.

+Diane Tai Thanks Diane!

Welcome to the logic and rhetoric of the progressive left.

+milehighxTMT 5280 Please use the correct term "REGRESSIVE left." Or as I like to call them the "DEGENERATIVE left."

Don't confuse the liberal media with 'the left'. There are many people on the left (like me) who feel an open and honest discussion about certain tenets of Islam doctrine should be had. The problem is people in the media flinch when it's brought up because they are afraid of being criticized for it. It's a simple case of political correctness within the media, where certain topics are just avoided. Most people I know on the left are dubious of most religions.

Because racism is a problem here. I think we have every right to question practices of religions, but I can totally understand people wanting to be protective of people that are being seen as attacked, whether warranted or not

+Mark Haus criticize Christians, Muslim, Jews, hell even atheists if you think they've gone too far. Just don't conflate that with racism.

+Aleem Baksh Thanks Aleem!

+infinityLTFS Glad you dig it!

+The Rubin Report Do you have an audio version of the podcast I can subscribe to on my phone's podcast player? Like an RSS feed?

+BaconNBeer Yes the most superior race of them all. If you disagree with this you are an Islamophobe and a racist.

+uhuihi uihiuh Apparently

+BaconNBeer If Islam is a race then it is a race to the bottom!

+doc7474 I just want you to know that I appreciate how witty that was.

A race to the bottom of a young boy during a "sexual emergency"

+TheWeekinDoubt Thanks for watching!

+TheWeekinDoubt ... o.o

Gerythion Argarys ?

MikeVernon Productions when he's not disparaging Jesus, he can make some sense. Unfortunately, the God-hate is fundamental to who he is.

+codzomz And he has a deep respect for spirituality. Out of all the 'atheists' he understands the feeling one gets from religion.

+Fruck Offy exactly, he's one of the only atheists that believe in no god but at the same time believe there is something "else" for everyone to separately experience for their own sake of comfort and spirituality, it just doesn't have to be a god...

***** exactly mate took thoughts out of my brain.

Thanks I appreciate that.

+Robert Bermudez Thanks Robert!

Ana is incompetent and petulant. She's not going anywhere. Dave made the right move bailing on that sinking ship.

papersplease Im afraid youre right. Its a pity. I do agree with her on some of the stances she takes on feminism and other topics, but she consistently falls on the fascistic side of liberalism.

They still cover many stories well. But, sometimes Cenk is just completely off the mark and refuses to admit he's wrong.

Thank you John.

+TheFinnmacool Hey now, don't be like that. That's who *they* are. It feels right, it's intuitive to humans, to reject everything from someone we disagree with on a certain point. But it need not be that way, and it shouldn't, that's the bitter rejection most prominently displayed by rabid feminists and crazy far leftists. I can still enjoy Good Will Hunting the same as ever, and I can still enjoy Sherlock even though Cumberbatch is an equally crazy leftist. Let us be the bigger people in this area and reject ideas, not the people holding them!

ObservableFiction Alright, alright! You're right. Just don't throw me in with the femileftists!!

+TheFinnmacool I wouldn't dream of it :)

I think the movie would be a lot more amusing if all the main characters spoke in their native accents. Superman is a Limey, Wonder Woman is from Israeli and Batfleck is a Southie from The greater Boston area. Minds would be blown...

+Ryan Capper Moral rule #1: You are responsible for the predictable consequences of your own actions primarily. Hence, why Chomsky focuses on the role of the US in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism since the 1970s. This is also why actual intellectual moral philosophers laugh at Sam Harris. Also, Chomsky's 'contempt' for Sam Harris was due to something Harris feels constantly contemptuous about. Namely, misrepresentation of one's position.

+Mr Ezkerrera I consider myself a disciple of both brilliant men. But dismissing Sam Harris, I believe to be an extremely arrogant position, and muffles an important voice of our time. Both men are right on this issue; only differing on degrees of import on specific issues.

+Mr Ezkerrera The US funded Islamic fundamentalism. The fact that the US funded the rise (actually rebirth) of it, does not negate the fact that islam is related to islamic fundamentalism. Islam is the undeniably important tool to be able create the 'usefull idiots': muslims ("extremist").

Sisy Phos I wouldn't deny that, maybe some people do. But one inputs values into religion; one does not derive values from religion. Ergo, if you're a violent person you're going to input that value into religion and return with violent passages as justifications for your acts. Likewise, if you're a peaceful person you're going to do the same. Let's not pretend that religion is not a contradictory crock of shit that one can derive absolutely anything they please from.

+Mr Ezkerrera Jesus Christ Ezkerrera, you're a crock of shit. People do derive values from nonsensical, archaic, fictional garbage anytime it suits them... and especially with your Leftist Regressive permission. I don't mind Chomskyites but at least get your arguments in order. You're a fucken embarrassment to the left in general.

holy shit you're right

Ha ha. I see what you mean!

Thank you.

Left there about 9 months ago!

+The Rubin Report Glad you did. I like you, David. I absolutely despise your former coworkers for their ideological bias and demagoguery.

+The Polemic It's not TYT's ideological bias that bothers me as much as Cenk's dishonesty and smugness. He's turned into liberal Bill O'Reilly.

Absolutely. Two sides of the same abhorrent coin.

+The Rubin Report I used to watch TYT. I feel that I eventually became disenfranchised with them after they became increasingly biased and featured more rants instead of honest interviews.

Gian There's no need to make such accusations

+Samuel Kathungu She is an Armenian working for a news outlet named after a group responsible for the Armenian genocide. She doesn't have any credibility even if she would leave.

Anno Nymous I think you are missing the point and I don't think that is the usage of the word "turks" in TYT.

Samuel Kathungu The group responsible for the Armenian genocide was literally called ''the young turks''.

+Anno Nymous Yep. Its messed up that more people don't know this. In fact the word genocide came out of the Armenian genocide. I think calling your self The Young Turks is just as bad as naming your "news" program the National Socialist German Workers Party.

Nimeu 😂😂😂

+JohnEP223 That's a great comment and precisely how I feel. Do you have some recommendations as to guests?

+JohnEP223 Talk about hitting the nail on the head. I have felt fairly alienated from TYT because of Cenk's interview with Sam. I was so looking forward to that 3 hour interview. I have respect for Cenk and TYT, but your right John, it is undermined because of this. I think the situation with Chomsky is slightly different, but completely understand your feeling.

+The Rubin Report Rubin, as you know, there will be no easy answer as to why like-minded people often fail to find enough common ground to share with each other. You asked me for a guest to host on your show. I am I supporter your work. Therefore, I suggest you start by soliciting Eric Dodson. Check out his video on "Why I like humanistic psychology."

Lol Ben Stiller and gay atheist Stephen Colbert.

Thank you Ryan.

+The Rubin Report Thank you for responding Dave. I'm a huge fan and your fan base keeps increasing. If asked I'd say that it's mainly because you're nice as step 1, step 2 is challenging people _without_ being mean. Not an easy task. Keep it going man, a winning combination that you have working for yourself. =)

+Ryan Swanson Lmao that's the best way to describe Dave. He's like Marc Maron, just without the neuroticism and dickishness.

Dr. Jimes Tooper I know right? I loved your comment. You described Marc perfectly.

+Ryan Swanson "as if I'm anywhere close to his education level' Never let that discourage you...it's actually a logical fallacy called the appeal to authority (education-authority). Smartest thing a person can say is "I don't know" - William Faulkner (Boom your head exploded)

+TheIzay Thanks, really appreciate that.

its funny because it is doubtful isis members can read. the chinese have the resources, facilities, personnel and lack of a fuck to give about ethics to do whatever they want. if the party decides today that it would be beneficial to research human stem cells, then tomorrow they would begin their reserach.

+Johnny Bombardak I hate ISIS more than anyone but based on the fact that we know they have reprogrammed US drones, I'm willing to bet at least some of them can read.

ahpacific at least some of them can read obviously. dont know anything about them reprogramming us drones. even if that is true, using a code/hack to log into a military software to set flight parameters is not at stem-cell research level in the slightest.

+Johnny Bombardak I agree that any stem cell research worth a damn requires much more effort and incomparably more resources but it doesn't require anymore critical thinking than reprogramming. It's not theoretical physics or theoretical math.

ISIS is made up by different people, from all over the world, even those with engineering degrees in different STEM fields.

+Matthew Arthur It's a tough position for him. Much of his arguments are in defence of free speech. Suing someone for speech, legit or not, would just be more fuel for his detractors to use against him.

Markc9101 I guess. I wouldn't characterize defamation as free speech especially when it's coming from well connected people like Reza Aslan and Glen Greenwald though. I think it would be more symbolic of the fact that they are misleading people.

+Markc9101 Well, when your speech is aimed to destroy somebody's reputation on bad grounds ( for instance, false rape accusations ) it is a matter of screwing with someone else's money. And on a business standpoint, that is in principle the same as burning somebody's books in a bookstore. It's been a while since I read a lawbook on this

+Matthew Arthur You have to prove damages to sue for defamation/slander/libel (I believe) and that makes it difficult and even if done successfully, the damage is done since the goal in slandering people like Sam with the "racist/sexist" label IS NOT to state a truth but to fool many people who DON'T CARE what's true. +Mok See Noin - Freedom of speech is NOT the freedom to lie.

You gotta chase those clicks and subs or it's back to real work.

Appreciate that!

+SpamBot 22 B/c Sam's a baby, he spews ridiculous ideas, and the minute anyone questions them he starts screaming, "they're misinterpreting my ideas!" No Sam, you're ideas are just bat shit crazy. Rubin, i thought you did a great job blowing him for a solid 80 minutes, you really out did yourself. Its funny that you, as a jew, are an apologist for Israel. Must be a coincidence i guess.

He's coming on the next time he's in LA.

+The Rubin Report Fantastic! The sooner, the better. As far as I tell, Mr. Nawaz is the best antidote for radical Islam and misguided, "white guilt" liberalism. The man is _extremely_ intelligent and utterly rational in his arguments. Many of us try to chisel away at the levee of fanaticism, which is great. Maajid Nawaz brings a sledgehammer! Can't wait for that show!!!!!!!!!

+SicSeb good point