My Chat with Sam Harris (THE SAAD TRUTH_262)

We cover political correctness, forbidden knowledge in academia, Islam (including immigration and reform), and the current US presidential election among other issues.

Our chat was originally posted on Sam’s podcast: www.samharris.org/podcast/item/the-frontiers-of-political-correctness

Sam’s website: www.samharris.org
_________________________________________________

Support this channel via Patreon: www.patreon.com/GadSaad

Support this channel via PayPal: www.paypal.me/GadSaad

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/Dr.Gad.Saad

Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/GadSaad (@GadSaad)

Psychology Today blog: www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus
_________________________________________________

Sources for Thumbnail/Clip Image: www.samharris.org/about and personal photo album (currently appears on my public Facebook page)
Video Rating: / 5

Connect with Atheist Adam:
Facebook
Facebook
Google+
Google+
http://www.AtheistAdam.com/my-chat-with-sam-harris-the-saad-truth_262/
Instagram
PINTEREST
PINTEREST
RSS
Follow by Email
SHARE
  • Kyle Spence

    Thing about gaad sad is that he is a very masculine guy, he hasn't performed the fete of attempting to destroy his masculine qualities like many in the west have done.

  • TorontoLarrivee

    I always love Sam's podcast but this was terrible. Saad is just not a great thinker — his analogy between picking your friends vs. admitting refugees is sub-moronic. His claims about 8/20 Montreal women donning Islamic garb is laughable.

  • Martin Rayner

    Regarding the point Gad is making towards the end of the video, this was similar to that being advanced by Geert Wilders when he claimed that the Qur'an and Islam's other "holy books" should be banned according to the "hate speech" provisions of European law. However, lacking any sense of the irony involved, most "liberals" simply took this as being representative of Wilders's hateful right-wing "intolerance". Yet another example of the amazingly hypocritical and bafflingly incoherent double-standard applied to Islam by so-called "progressives" in the West.

  • scarcesense

    re: engaging with 'bad' people

    You need to talk to everyone everywhere. When people are ostracised or unfairly criticised by the mainstream they only gain more power and become (or merely appear) more extreme, which in turn influences their fans and expands the divide.

    ie. Before I knew anything about Germaine Greer, I'd assumed by media reports, partial quotes and sound bites that she was a raving lunatic. Then I saw her on a panel discussing a wide variety of issues, and sure, she has a focus that she brings everything back to even if they're not connected, but at no point was she a borderline insane bigot. She's actually quite reasonable, and often far removed from the modern feminist dogma that is regressing society and damaging men women and children.

    We need that approach for everybody. Very few people are Hitler, regardless of their opponents' constant accusations.

  • Kryštof Peňás (Pan Kaifu)

    I have a story about christian immigrants from Middle East. Our country (Czech republic) accepted about 100 of them, as part of plan to help out other EU members, but Czechs made a demand that they will accept preferably christians and so we did. About 100 christians came from I believe Iraq after that – they were all looking for asylum in the EU and they got one in Czech rep.
    After about a month or two 80-90% of them left even though they had free housing (no camps but regular houses), food and other monetary support. They went back to Iraq, some of them tried to get illegaly to Germany (even though they got there illegaly and already applied for asylum elsewhere, Germany will most likely "keep" them anyways). After this experience, plans to accept more migrants into Czech rep were cancelled by czech government.
    I dont really know what to make of this episode except the impression that life there might not be that terrible and that no matter how you worship God, Germany wellfare is some sort of Holly Grail for these people.

  • rational being

    in Europe it is the same as for veils. I live in a big city in the Netherlands, and 10 years ago there was debate about if a woman could wear headscarf to work. Now, waiting at a bus stop in the city centre, sometimes I am minority as a woman without headscarf. In Antwerp which is a major city in Belgium, 46% of kids overall now in primary schools are muslim.

  • Polar Bear

    I remember Sam getting frustrated when Omer Aziz interpreted Sam's actions as maliciously as possible, yet it seems Sam is comfortable doing the same thing to Trump. If Trump gets something right, then it's accidental. If Hillary gets it wrong, then it's election year pandering or some other horseshit.

  • Larry Singleton

    One of my first stops in the morning is Jihad Watch. Along with FrontPage magazine. Here's Jihad Watch on this "interview:

    Sam Harris: Robert Spencer “so fully stigmatized…you just don’t actually know who you’re talking to”
    www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/sam-harris-robert-spencer-so-fully-stigmatized-you-just-dont-actually-know-who-youre-talking-to

    This exchange between Sam Harris and Gad Saad raises important issues regarding “Islamophobia” smear propaganda and its effectiveness even among people who are its subjects and should not be susceptible to it. This excerpt comes from the Harris/Saad conversation, “The Frontiers of Political Correctness,” which you can hear in its entirety here. This excerpt starts at the 35 minute mark. As will quickly become clear, the “someone” to whom he is referring in the first line is me:

    Sam Harris: What I’m picturing here is talking to someone who you really should challenge on specific points because they have said crazy, divisive, irrational things in the past, but they’re just not saying them on your show. So you get them there, and it turns out this person’s a Grand Dragon in the KKK, but you don’t know that, and you’re talking about racial differences in IQ or something in a good-natured, academic way, and you don’t realize that this person’s interest in this topic is just the tip of the iceberg, and the iceberg is horrendous.

    I think that’s a situation one could be in. Obviously I think that you could have an interesting, a potentially interesting conversation with anyone. You know, I would be willing to go into a prison and talk to a serial killer, because I think that would be a fascinating conversation. There are many questions I would want to ask someone who has killed many people. But at least in that situation, I would understand who I was talking to. And what I worry about with many of the people you name, someone like Robert Spencer, he comes so fully stigmatized that unless you’ve paid enough attention to the kinds of battles he’s fought to be confident that you know that all of that opprobrium is unwarranted, well then you just don’t actually know who you’re talking to.

    Gad Saad: Well, one of the ways that I handled specifically the Robert Spencer case is, as people started writing to me saying, “Hey, why are you speaking to this Nazi?” and so on, I said, “Look, the comments section on my YouTube channel is open, why don’t you share some manifestations of some nefariously racist, horrible things that he’s done, and then at least I could be educated?” Guess what: I didn’t see it.

    Read the rest at Jihad Watch.

    I run into this All The Time with slimy liberals online. They'll smear Robert Spencer and I'll reply "Find me on thing that Spencer has ever said that is either "racist" or "hate mongering". And I either get adolescent name calling or embarrassing silence in return.

    Usually what I do is post my "Letters" that I list the most important articles, books and essays that I've read and videos that I've watched and challenge all to read them and then dispute, refute or debunk them. Like Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel I like to throw at all the Jew haters who cheer for Palestinian terrorists.

    In the almost six years that I've been doing this, including posting my "Questions for Muslims" letter, where I write about my Introduction to and knowledge of Islam, I have, Not Once, received a response that in any way, shape or form addresses the ISSUES in my letters. Not One Single Time.

    And I can't count how many times I've typed these very words on just about every venue on the Internet.

    Liberals simply don't debate. And I'll give you the reason why: They're too lazy and too stupid to actually study the issues and READ anything.

    I'm lucky I had a gra'mom who passed on her love of books and reading to me. All my christmas and birthday gifts were books

    At one time I was a rabid racist who used to get jumped in junior high school by black kids. Talk about a "stigma". My story of how I overcame my racism could almost be used for one of those Hallmark Movie of the Weeks.

    The problem with liberals is they don't know how to "think". They can't debate inside their heads. They have no concept of arguing both sides of an issue. All they do is inhale the propaganda and mindlessly regurgitate it all over the Internet. And when they're challenged on their nonsense they go running…..or block you on their Fakebook pages and delete/censor your comments. As has happened to me more times than I can count.

    One of the areas this dumb-ass construction worker gets to gloat. When he sees some "academic" who puts this "university" or "college" or "graduated from" on his Fakebook page runs away screaming like a little girl when I post my facts that even the village idiot or town drunk can find for themselves if they only want to look for it.

  • Han Job

    What the Alt right doesn't understand is just because some of us liberals aren't PC it does not make us conservatives. And in general we disagree with the right on economics, abortion, workers rights, gun control, LGBT, education, healthcare, military spending, climate change change, drug laws, traditionalism, christian vales and a lot of other things. Yes I am very much against Islam and importing more of it but I disagree with about 95% percent of Trumps views.
    Some liberals are going to vote for Trump because they agree with on 10% of issues. That's ludicrous. Not mention Trump has never really given a clear answer on how to would implement these policies .

    At the end of the day I would not vote for either candidate because their both shit and I won't buy into this lesser of two evils bullshit.

  • Steveaux

    I've been waiting for these two great minds to finally share a discussion.

  • akshay rathore

    was this for waking up podcast?

  • Thanny

    Hate speech does not lead to violence. Incitement to violence leads to violence. All laws against "hate speech" are in direct opposition to free speech.

  • Ethan Gameren

    An important exchange between two highly regarded and pertinent intellectuals. I rarely find myself disagreeing with Harris and perceiving his assertions to be objectively shortsighted, but I find Gad to have outthought Harris on a number of variables during this dialogue.

  • Thanny

    The flaw in Sam's argument with regard to average differences between the races is that those differences are already obvious to everyone. We call them stereotypes, and though it's fashionable these days to consider that term entirely negative and not based on reality, that's simply not the case. Stereotypes exist for a reason, and are usually accurate to at least some degree about some population as a whole.

    The idea that Koreans (or orientals in general) are better at math already exists, based on collective general experience. People are already going to make tacit assumptions about the math skills of two people based solely on race.

    Why is the status quo better than having some better quality ideas about what those differences are? I don't think having better quality stereotypes (which is precisely what such results would actually be) would result in any kind of difference in laws and policies.

  • Kim Jong

    I think the thing about banning the Quran has more to do with equally applying already existing law. Europe already has these hate speech laws and they are applied to say holocaust deniers or nazis, but not to a book that billions of people follow that explicitly calls for ethnic cleansing slavery so on that is not just talk about iq and crime stats.

  • Ridley On Steroids

    Gad Saad – studies evolutionary psychology
    Sam Harris – does drugs…oh and, he's also a neuroscientist! I think…
    Jk. these are both upstanding guys (i hope)

  • ThinkingSk3ptically

    About Stefan Molyneux:–and, please, have him on your podcasts (both of you, Sam and Gad)–if he was indeed a racist he'd be on a Southern Poverty Law Center list (hint: he's not). SPLC has enlisted YouTubers (e.g. Paul R Ramsey) with 10 times less subscribers than Stefan (so yeah, they do have incentive to classify him as a racist), but Stefan is not on their lists – because they do not have evidence against him, hence not a racist. :-)

  • Austen Gee

    I believe increasing the speed limit actually decreases accidents. Also it is a choice to drive, demographics changes everything. You choose when to drive, and take that risk. You don't choose to be in a terrorist attack.

  • ThinkingSk3ptically

    I'd like share what Steven Pinker said about the research of Henry Harpending et al that that concluded that Jews are smarter – Pinker, of course, criticised them but had to admit 'the CH&H story meets the standards of a good scientific theory,'. Pinker says: 'But is it good for the Jews? More to the point, is it good for ideals of tolerance and ethnic amity? On one interpretation, perhaps it is. Jewish achievement is obvious; only the explanation is unclear. The idea of innate Jewish intelligence is certainly an improvement over the infamous alternative generalization, a worldwide Jewish conspiracy.' Pinker goes on 'Rather than legislating facts, could we adopt a policy of agnosticism, and recommend that we “don't go there”? Scientists routinely avoid research that may have harmful consequences, […]. The problem with this line of thought is that it would restrict research based on its intellectual content rather than on its physical conduct. Ideas are connected to other ideas, often in unanticipated ways, and restrictions on content could cripple freedom of inquiry and distort the intellectual landscape.' 'Also, there are positive reasons to study the genetics of groups. Until the day that every person is issued a CD containing his or her genome, medicine will need the statistical boost of data on group differences when targeting tests and treatments to those most likely to benefit from them.'

    newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes