Waking Up with Sam Harris #70 – Beauty and Terror (with Lawrence Krauss)

The Waking Up Podcat #70 – Beauty and Terror:

A Conversation with Lawrence Krauss

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with physicist Lawrence Krauss about the utility of public debates, the progress of science, confusion about the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, the present danger of nuclear war, the Trump administration, the relative threats of Christian theocracy and Islamism, and realistic fears about terrorism.

Lawrence Krauss is a theoretical physicist and the director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He is the author of more than 300 scientific publications and nine books, including the international bestsellers, A Universe from Nothing and The Physics of Star Trek. The recipient of numerous awards, Krauss is a regular columnist for newspapers and magazines, including The New Yorker, and he appears frequently on radio, television, and in feature films. His most recent book is The Greatest Story Ever Told—So Far: Why Are We Here?

https://youtu.be/K3rHF3KgqLI

Want to support the Waking Up podcast?

Please visit: samharris.org

Subscribe to the Waking Up Podcast on YouTube.

Get Sam’s email newsletter

Follow Sam on Twitter

Follow Sam on Facebook

For more information about Sam Harris: Sam Harris

Waking Up With Sam Harris #62 – What is True? (with Jordan B. Peterson)

https://youtu.be/1gdpyzwOOYY

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with psychologist Jordan B. Peterson about freedom of speech and the nature of truth.

Jordan B. Peterson is a clinical psychologist and Professor at the University of Toronto. He formerly taught at Harvard University and has published numerous articles on drug abuse, alcoholism, and aggression. He is the author of Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief.

Waking Up With Sam Harris #57 – An Evening with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris (1)

https://youtu.be/SYhtW-K90zY

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Richard Dawkins at a live event in Los Angeles (first of two). They cover religion, Jurassic Park, artificial intelligence, elitism, continuing human evolution, and other topics.

Waking Up with Sam Harris #61 – The Power of Belief (with Lawrence Wright)

https://youtu.be/_-OGgAArIBk

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with author Lawrence Wright about al-Qaeda & ISIS, Arab culture, 9/11 conspiracy theories, the migrant crisis in Europe, Scientology, parallels between L. Ron Hubbard and Donald Trump, the Satanic cult panic, and other topics.

Lawrence Wright is an author, screenwriter, playwright, and a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine. His works of nonfiction include In the New World, Remembering Satan, The Looming Tower, Going Clear, and Thirteen Days in September. He has also written a novel, God’s Favorite. His books have received many prizes and honors, including a Pulitzer Prize for The Looming Tower. His most recent book is The Terror Years: From al-Qaeda to the Islamic State.

Want to support the Waking Up podcast?

Please visit: http://www.samharris.org/support

Subscribe to the podcast: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNAxrHudMfdzNi6NxruKPLw?sub_confirmation=1

Get the email newsletter: https://www.samharris.org/email_signup

Follow Sam Harris on Twitter: https://twitter.com/samharrisorg

Follow Sam Harris on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Sam-Harris-22457171014/?fref=ts

For more information about Sam Harris: https://www.samharris.org


For more interesting articles, visit: Kemk

Waking Up With Sam Harris #59 – Friend & Foe (with Maajid Nawaz)

https://youtu.be/9EB908NRdCc

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Maajid Nawaz about the Southern Poverty Law Center, Robert Spencer, Keith Ellison, moderate Muslims, Shadi Hamid’s notion of “Islamic exceptionalism,” the migrant crisis in Europe, foreign interventions, Trump, Putin, Obama’s legacy, and other topics.

Maajid Nawaz is a counter-extremist, author, columnist, broadcaster and Founding Chairman of Quilliam – a globally active organization focusing on matters of integration, citizenship & identity, religious freedom, immigration, extremism, and terrorism. Maajid’s work is informed by years spent in his youth as a leadership member of a global Islamist group, and his gradual transformation towards liberal democratic values. Having served four years as an Amnesty International adopted “prisoner of conscience” in Egypt, Maajid is now a leading critic of Islamism, while remaining a secular liberal Muslim.

Maajid is an Honorary Associate of the UK’s National Secular Society, a weekly columnist for the Daily Beast, a monthly columnist for the liberal UK paper the ‘Jewish News’ and LBC radio’s weekend afternoon radio host. He also provides occasional columns for the London Times, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, among others. Maajid was the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary candidate in London’s Hampstead & Kilburn for the May 2015 British General Election.

A British-Pakistani born in Essex, Maajid speaks English, Arabic, and Urdu, holds a BA (Hons) from SOAS in Arabic and Law and an MSc in Political Theory from the London School of Economics (LSE).

Maajid relates his life story in his first book, Radical. He co-authored his second book, Islam and the Future of Tolerance, with Sam Harris.

Waking Up With Sam Harris #58 – The Putin Question (with Garry Kasparov)

https://youtu.be/fiyBJeNBIIA

In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Garry Kasparov about the problem of waning American power, the rise of Putin, the coming presidency of Donald Trump, computer chess, the future of artificial intelligence, and other topics.

Garry Kasparov spent twenty years as the world’s number one ranked chess player. In 2005, he retired from professional chess to lead the pro-democracy opposition against Vladimir Putin, from street protests to coalition building. In 2012, he was named chairman of the Human Rights Foundation, succeeding Václav Havel. He has been a contributing editor to the Wall Street Journal since 1991, and he is a senior visiting fellow at the Oxford Martin School. His 2007 book, How Life Imitates Chess, has been published in twenty-six languages. He lives in self-imposed exile in New York with his wife Dasha and their children. His most recent book is Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped.

Sam Harris Vs Noam Chomsky


1
00:00:00,000 –> 00:00:05,016
Recently Sam Harris was answering some
questions from his fans and he spoke a

2
00:00:05,016 –> 00:00:10,020
bit about his disagreements with noam
chomsky can you comment on your spat

3
00:00:10,002 –> 00:00:13,068
with noam chomsky your initial critique
of him in the end of faith you stand by

4
00:00:13,086 –> 00:00:15,275
it i’m a big fan but I just don’t get
this

5
00:00:16,049 –> 00:00:20,880
well i’m not aware of having a spat with
him I he’s actually taking a few shots

6
00:00:20,088 –> 00:00:25,143
at me online and but I we’ve never met
and i’m not aware of him having read the

7
00:00:26,043 –> 00:00:29,130
end of faith or having notice what I’ve
said about his politics so to some

8
00:00:30,003 –> 00:00:34,352
degree we could just be talking on
parallel channels here but i just think

9
00:00:34,649 –> 00:00:38,820
there is a kind of moral confusion
expressed in his political writing which

10
00:00:38,082 –> 00:00:44,157
ignores intention as a basis upon which
to evaluate certain human behavior at

11
00:00:45,057 –> 00:00:49,128
the end of the day he’s he simply wants
to use body count as the only metric to

12
00:00:50,028 –> 00:00:53,028
discuss the moral stature of two sides
in a conflict

13
00:00:53,789 –> 00:00:57,960
so if we kill a dozen children
unintentionally well that’s every bit as

14
00:00:57,096 –> 00:01:01,104
bad as doing it intentionally to that i
think is a bad way to look at human

15
00:01:02,076 –> 00:01:02,175
conflict

16
00:01:03,075 –> 00:01:07,080
I think the people who are intending to
kill children are different than the

17
00:01:08,025 –> 00:01:12,464
people who are intending to kill the
people who are killing children and our

18
00:01:12,689 –> 00:01:15,330
accidentally killing children in the
process

19
00:01:15,033 –> 00:01:20,046
it’s a huge difference you have to ask
yourself what kind of world is any group

20
00:01:20,046 –> 00:01:24,095
or society want to create how do they
want the world to be what would they do

21
00:01:24,509 –> 00:01:28,538
if they had all the power and when you
ask that question you get very different

22
00:01:28,799 –> 00:01:31,020
answers for specific groups

23
00:01:31,002 –> 00:01:34,017
no matter how much misery and death is
happening on both sides of a conflict

24
00:01:34,017 –> 00:01:36,536
when you look at World War two

25
00:01:36,689 –> 00:01:40,680
he was just a horrific wastage of human
life but the difference between the

26
00:01:40,068 –> 00:01:45,096
Allies and the Nazis was absolutely
categorical what sort of world that the

27
00:01:45,096 –> 00:01:47,285
Third Reich want to create ok

28
00:01:48,149 –> 00:01:51,630
and what did we want to create on our
side we did horrible things the

29
00:01:51,063 –> 00:01:55,092
firebombing of dressed in the atomic
bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

30
00:01:55,092 –> 00:02:00,821
absolutely grotesque acts of violence
where hundreds of thousands of people

31
00:02:01,649 –> 00:02:06,840
millions of people over the course of
the war died but what sort of world are

32
00:02:06,084 –> 00:02:07,119
we trying to build what

33
00:02:08,019 –> 00:02:11,052
and what were your intentions with
respect to the Germans and the Japanese

34
00:02:11,052 –> 00:02:12,137
really well you

35
00:02:13,037 –> 00:02:16,079
our intentions because after the war we
did not murder everyone

36
00:02:16,079 –> 00:02:21,388
we helped rebuild their societies so it
were not perfect but we were different

37
00:02:22,099 –> 00:02:23,120
from the Nazis

38
00:02:23,012 –> 00:02:26,075
so you can’t just look the body count
merely to judge the rightness or

39
00:02:26,075 –> 00:02:30,904
wrongness of human behavior and and
Chomsky seems to discount intentions

40
00:02:31,579 –> 00:02:33,670
across the board and only look at body
count

41
00:02:34,489 –> 00:02:38,810
and if you do that in any given instance
you come away with a perverse

42
00:02:38,081 –> 00:02:41,159
description of what’s happening in the
world and you come away believing the

43
00:02:42,059 –> 00:02:45,137
kinds of things that people influenced
by Chomsky tend to believe that your

44
00:02:46,037 –> 00:02:49,094
whether it’s glenn greenwald ER and the
other person who’s drunk this kool-aid

45
00:02:49,094 –> 00:02:53,173
and you can end up saying things like
the United States is the greatest

46
00:02:54,019 –> 00:02:57,260
terrorist state in human history right
or some other such nonsense

47
00:02:58,129 –> 00:03:01,177
there’s a difference between the dick
cheney’s of the world and the AL

48
00:03:01,609 –> 00:03:05,780
Baghdadi’s of the world and it is
crucial that people on the Left

49
00:03:05,078 –> 00:03:06,397
understand that

50
00:03:07,099 –> 00:03:12,170
and as far as i can tell Chomsky has
been a source of pure moral confusion on

51
00:03:12,017 –> 00:03:12,946
this point

52
00:03:13,099 –> 00:03:16,147
alright so as often happens when we
discuss these issues

53
00:03:17,009 –> 00:03:21,718
I’m in the unfortunate position of being
a fan of harris and Dawkins and the new

54
00:03:21,799 –> 00:03:27,560
atheists as well as a fan of Chomsky and
Greenwald and Scahill and people like

55
00:03:27,056 –> 00:03:27,125
that

56
00:03:28,025 –> 00:03:33,094
so inevitably when I talk about these
issues are yet people lash lashing out

57
00:03:33,319 –> 00:03:39,530
at me from both camps where they say I’m
too much of an apologist for Harrison

58
00:03:39,053 –> 00:03:42,101
the new atheists are people say I’m too
much of an apologist for Greenwald

59
00:03:43,001 –> 00:03:44,018
Chomsky

60
00:03:44,018 –> 00:03:47,047
so that’s definitely going to happen
I’ve accepted that at this point it is

61
00:03:47,209 –> 00:03:50,150
what it is no matter what I can’t please
everybody when I talk about these things

62
00:03:50,015 –> 00:03:52,564
I’m just breaking it down as i see it

63
00:03:52,699 –> 00:03:57,742
so first of all let’s go directly to his
main criticism is that a legitimate

64
00:03:58,129 –> 00:04:06,500
criticism of Noam Chomsky that noam
chomsky of focuses more on quantitative

65
00:04:06,005 –> 00:04:08,084
issues than qualitative issues

66
00:04:09,029 –> 00:04:13,438
I’d say yes I think that’s a fair
criticism of Noam Chomsky

67
00:04:13,699 –> 00:04:16,762
I mean I also have other disagreements
with Chomsky I think he’s way to the

68
00:04:17,329 –> 00:04:23,210
left of me on domestic and economic
policy but on the idea that he focuses

69
00:04:23,021 –> 00:04:26,030
too much on the quantitative and not
enough on the qualitative

70
00:04:26,081 –> 00:04:32,102
I think that’s a fair point but the
thing that frustrates me about Paris is

71
00:04:33,002 –> 00:04:38,093
that he seems unaware that the criticism
of him is the polar opposite

72
00:04:39,005 –> 00:04:43,013
and I think that’s also merited so I do
think it’s a legitimate criticism of

73
00:04:43,058 –> 00:04:47,096
Chomsky that he focuses too much on the
quantitative and qualitative but Harris

74
00:04:47,096 –> 00:04:53,102
focuses too much on the qualitative and
not the quantitative so up here – let’s

75
00:04:54,056 –> 00:04:59,725
back up Paris for a second so harris is
. is basically yes if you tally up the

76
00:05:00,229 –> 00:05:01,040
body count

77
00:05:01,004 –> 00:05:04,037
it’s true that America has killed more
people than Isis but does that mean that

78
00:05:04,037 –> 00:05:07,336
America is worse than Isis course not
that’s ridiculous

79
00:05:07,669 –> 00:05:11,990
so I agree with him in that respect is
making a good point in that respect but

80
00:05:11,099 –> 00:05:17,105
the deeper idea here the harris is
getting at is the idea that America is

81
00:05:18,005 –> 00:05:20,027
basically altruistic

82
00:05:20,027 –> 00:05:23,072
so in his mind when we kill civilians

83
00:05:23,072 –> 00:05:28,741
it’s always an accident but what people
like myself and i would guess no chance

84
00:05:29,389 –> 00:05:33,020
you’re trying to get across to harris
and other people is that that’s not true

85
00:05:33,074 –> 00:05:36,313
that’s empirically not true we know that
that’s not true i mean we’ve covered

86
00:05:36,979 –> 00:05:43,490
stories on this show just to give one
example where we did drone strikes of a

87
00:05:43,049 –> 00:05:48,113
funeral when we knew that women and
children were at the funeral but we also

88
00:05:49,013 –> 00:05:53,039
knew the Taliban operatives wrap the
funeral and they just decided that

89
00:05:53,039 –> 00:05:56,096
fucking I mean we’ll get the Taliban
guys so there’s some collateral damage

90
00:05:56,096 –> 00:05:58,151
we know we’re going to kill the
civilians fucking let’s do it

91
00:05:59,051 –> 00:06:03,460
so the idea that like it’s always an
accident when we kill civilians

92
00:06:03,919 –> 00:06:10,220
that’s just not correct and those are
issues that Chomsky uh focuses on and

93
00:06:10,022 –> 00:06:14,045
issues that unfortunately I think Karis
doesn’t discuss nearly enough and also

94
00:06:14,045 –> 00:06:20,141
to again to attack the idea that it’s
like well we mean well so therefore it’s

95
00:06:21,041 –> 00:06:22,043
totally different

96
00:06:22,061 –> 00:06:27,155
it is different for sure but it’s not
totally different so for example the US

97
00:06:28,055 –> 00:06:35,057
has openly supported dozens of fascist
dictators during the cold war and after

98
00:06:35,075 –> 00:06:39,096
the Cold War and we didn’t do it because
we’re

99
00:06:39,096 –> 00:06:42,105
benevolent and we want a better system
of government for the people in South

100
00:06:43,005 –> 00:06:47,058
America for example know what we did it
because we wanted more geopolitical

101
00:06:47,058 –> 00:06:50,097
power and control and we wanted natural
resources

102
00:06:50,097 –> 00:06:52,886
I mean the term banana republic comes
from the fact that we overthrew the

103
00:06:53,759 –> 00:06:56,340
government so that our banana
corporations can come in and take the

104
00:06:56,034 –> 00:06:57,143
fucking bananas

105
00:06:57,449 –> 00:07:02,468
so it’s not the case that were all were
altruistic and we mean well and then

106
00:07:02,639 –> 00:07:04,650
once we accidentally killed civilians

107
00:07:04,065 –> 00:07:08,088
no it’s more the case that our focus is
primarily on geo political power and

108
00:07:08,088 –> 00:07:13,217
control and maintaining a grasp on these
things and keeping the order as it is

109
00:07:14,009 –> 00:07:17,940
right now and it taking natural
resources for ourselves

110
00:07:18,063 –> 00:07:20,972
so when we support these fascist
dictators who did all these horrible

111
00:07:21,539 –> 00:07:24,990
things it wasn’t like we expected that
they were going to set up a better

112
00:07:24,099 –> 00:07:27,278
system in that all were helping the
people in these places because of that

113
00:07:28,169 –> 00:07:31,181
we knew that they were doing fucked up
shit and we often looked in the other

114
00:07:31,289 –> 00:07:39,690
direction because our main concern was
not humanitarian and also what Harris is

115
00:07:39,069 –> 00:07:42,078
getting at is the idea of murder vs
manslaughter and what he’s saying is

116
00:07:43,059 –> 00:07:48,060
Chomsky disregard the fact that there’s
a difference between murder and

117
00:07:48,069 –> 00:07:53,138
manslaughter he may Chomsky makes it
seem like America is the worst by far

118
00:07:53,759 –> 00:07:57,824
and away because we murder more people
that then you know regimes that were

119
00:07:58,409 –> 00:08:03,000
outwardly the terrible weather it’s the
Nazis or Isis Sergey other jihadist or

120
00:08:03,000 –> 00:08:06,087
whoever and like I get that Sam I
understand what you’re saying and there

121
00:08:06,087 –> 00:08:10,166
is a fair point there that sometimes
Chomsky might go too far in his

122
00:08:10,949 –> 00:08:14,045
criticism of america and he might not
make a distinction between intentions

123
00:08:14,909 –> 00:08:19,928
but my response to that is Sam both of
those things are crimes murder is a

124
00:08:20,099 –> 00:08:22,103
crime and manslaughter is a crime

125
00:08:22,139 –> 00:08:27,197
so when no charge he comes out and
speaks more about what we do in the

126
00:08:27,719 –> 00:08:28,590
world

127
00:08:28,059 –> 00:08:31,688
the reason he’s doing that he’s spoken
about this before he mentioned in his

128
00:08:32,219 –> 00:08:34,440
debate with William F Buckley a long
time ago

129
00:08:34,044 –> 00:08:38,052
the reason he’s doing that is because he
says we are responsible for our actions

130
00:08:40,026 –> 00:08:43,032
I’m paying for that i’m paying for it
when we do something fucked up

131
00:08:43,086 –> 00:08:46,685
that’s why I’m focusing on this because
i don’t want us to be involved in any

132
00:08:47,459 –> 00:08:50,550
way shape or form with anything like
that whether it’s murder manslaughter or

133
00:08:50,055 –> 00:08:52,146
anything else that might be negative and
affect people in

134
00:08:53,046 –> 00:08:57,081
in a in a bad way I just want Sam to
recognize that

135
00:08:58,047 –> 00:09:03,144
okay we’re good guys they’re bad guys is
not a sufficient explanation

136
00:09:05,028 –> 00:09:11,082
that’s not enough for an Iraqi mother
who lost his son her son or her daughter

137
00:09:11,082 –> 00:09:14,145
or some other family member that’s not
consoling you can’t just throw this

138
00:09:15,045 –> 00:09:20,088
giant blanket this generalization over
what the u.s. does as well we meant well

139
00:09:20,088 –> 00:09:21,114
so it’s okay

140
00:09:22,014 –> 00:09:27,051
no since its us doing it we are
responsible for those actions

141
00:09:27,051 –> 00:09:32,094
so we can at the same time as we slammed
the actions of Isis and al-qaeda and

142
00:09:32,094 –> 00:09:35,169
other jihadist and christian
fundamentalist in the KKK we could slam

143
00:09:36,069 –> 00:09:41,151
all those actions and then also at the
same time say hey the thing we did in

144
00:09:42,051 –> 00:09:45,060
Vietnam when we used Agent Orange and
napalm and killed civilians that was

145
00:09:46,041 –> 00:09:46,110
fucked up

146
00:09:47,001 –> 00:09:50,058
hey when we overthrew the Iranian
government that was fucked up hey when

147
00:09:50,067 –> 00:09:52,152
we support occupation israel-palestine
that’s fucked up

148
00:09:53,052 –> 00:09:56,091
hey what we did in South America that’s
fucked up were able to have this

149
00:09:56,091 –> 00:09:59,154
conversation in a more nuanced way where
it shouldn’t be just us versus them it

150
00:10:00,054 –> 00:10:00,060
should be

151
00:10:01,014 –> 00:10:05,040
these actions they did are fucked up and
these actions we did our fucked up and

152
00:10:05,004 –> 00:10:10,005
let’s just cut out all the areas where
we fucked out so i think what we need

153
00:10:10,005 –> 00:10:14,034
here is a more nuanced conversation and
not just a conversation about us versus

154
00:10:14,079 –> 00:10:19,086
them and intentions were good intentions
versus bad intentions and we shouldn’t

155
00:10:19,086 –> 00:10:23,154
boil it down to the most base-level
conversation because it doesn’t help

156
00:10:24,054 –> 00:10:24,093
anybody

Social justice warrior

Define: SJW

“Social justice warrior” (commonly abbreviated SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, and identity politics. The accusation of being an SJW carries implications of pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction and being engaged in disingenuous social justice arguments or activism to raise personal reputation, also known as virtue signaling.

The phrase originated in the late 20th century as a neutral or positive term for people engaged in social justice activism. In 2011 when the term first appeared on Twitter, it changed from a primarily positive term to an overwhelmingly negative one. During the Gamergate controversy, the negative connotation gained increased use and was particularly aimed at those espousing views adhering to social liberalism, cultural inclusiveness, or feminism, as well as views deemed to be politically correct.

The term has entered popular culture, including a parody role-playing video game released in 2014 titled Social Justice Warriors.


In Popular Culture

In May 2014, the concept was incorporated into a parody role-playing video game titled Social Justice Warriors. Developed by Nonadecimal Creative, Social Justice Warriors involved the concept of debating online against Internet trolls who make racist and other provocative comments by choosing from different responses such as “‘dismember their claims with your logic,’ rebroadcast their message to be attacked by others, or go for the personal attack.” Users were able to select a character class and gameplay involved changes to user meters of Sanity and Reputation. The game became available on the computer platform Steam in February 2015. Game creator Eric Ford explained that the game was designed to foster critical thinking and was not “intended to suggest that racist, sexist, or other offensive comments shouldn’t be confronted online. The goal is to encourage critical thinking on how it can be done more effectively, and at less cost to the real-world social justice warriors.” He commented: “Once you’ve embarked down the path of correcting every incorrect statement an anonymous stranger is making online, the only inevitable outcomes are that your patience is exhausted by frustration, your reputation is obliterated by the trolls’ defamation or your own actions, or you give up in disgust.”

Actress Caitlin Barlow described her character on the 2016 U.S. comedy television series Teachers as a social justice warrior. Barlow explained: “I play Cecilia Cannon, who is a super-crunchy hippie social justice warrior who is always trying to save the world, whether people care or not. And she’s always pushing her left-wing agenda on her students.”

The Hollywood Reporter journalists Lesley Goldberg and Kate Stanhope noted in March 2016 that actress Isabella Gomez was cast in the Netflix remake of One Day at a Time and portrayed Elena, a character content to self-identify as a social justice warrior. Goldberg and Stanhope wrote: “A proud nerd, idealist and social justice warrior, Elena is opinionated and not afraid to speak her mind.”

While promoting his film The Green Inferno, Eli Roth said “I wanted to write a movie that was about modern activism. I see that a lot of people want to care and want to help, but in general, I feel like people don’t really want to inconvenience their own lives. And I saw a lot of people just reacting to things on social media. These social justice warriors. ‘This is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong.’ And they’re just tweeting and retweeting. They’re not actually doing anything. Or you see people get involved in a cause that they don’t really know a lot about and they go crazy about it. I wanted to make a movie about kids like that.”


Examples of use in Youtube comments:

From YouTube comments


No. It’s because Sam Harris tries to explain social, economic, geopolitical issues by focusing on people’s beliefs and worldviews (their identity). He’s the ultimate “SJW”.


Harris comes across as more honest to me. Sam is always willing to put himself out there and be open to any environment of discussion. You’ll never see Chomsky do a four-hour podcast with Joe Rogan for example. Chomsky comes across as an arrogant SJW at times. Sam comes across as a guy you could have a beer with and enjoy the stimulating conversation of an honest thinker. Whereas Chomsky comes across as the guy who would snub you and any conversation you had with him would leave you with the impression that he was a biased thinker.


Despite what your average SJW or Black Matter Lives affiliate might argue, Muslim imperialism existed way before the birth of the US. They conquered half of the known world and ethnic cleansed it. They tried to push into Europe twice in the Middle Age and it’s for sheer luck that today Europe doesn’t speak Arabic. Had Islam conquered Europe, there wouldn’t be an America to speak of, and no ignorant arrogant assholes like the Chomskians to criticize it either.