Lol! It did get a little long now that I look at it! Thanks for the heads up on Old School, It’s probably the one show on here I most look forward to besides the Friday Power Panel. I also read the book you suggested Cenk read, Islam and the Future of Tolerance. It’s a great book that really deals with a lot of what we were talking about. Its a wonderful conversation between a moderate Muslim and an atheist that you rarely see anywhere else. Unfortunately, Cenk is sour on anything relating to Sam Harris so I doubt he’ll read it.
If I can prove and show you that the pew poll maher and harris so deeply rely on is severly flawed, would you alter your perception on muslims? Not islam, i also hate islam and other religions, but about the character of people who are muslims and how (it turns out) they are not the barberic savages that harris & co try to make them out to be?
Of course, maher, harris, david ruben, mike packman etc… they are all jewish, and in order to prove that israel is in the right by treating the palestinians the way they do, harris & co need to prove that muslims are actually inhumane savages and they deserve everything they get. this is totally personal for them and others like them. they need to convince the world of this in order for israel’s image to improve and because they don’t want their homeland (their government) to look like they are war criminals.
Sam Harris’ and Bill Maher’s entire proof and evidence for their vial beliefs DESTROYED by fact and logic alone by a former actuarial student picking apart that flawed pew poll! awch!
Believe me I’m with you about Israel and the mistreatment of Palestinians. Just look at the situation in Gaza. Imagine living in a place where you’re occupied by Israel and aren’t allowed to leave or bring in any goods. Noam Chomsky once described it as the worlds largest open-air prison. Any decent person would be against that and you’re 100% correct about the names you mentioned. Their steadfast support for Israel is both infuriating and mind-boggling. If anything it proves how poisoning identity politics can be and why the right response shouldn’t be predetermined by your religion, sex or ethnicity. That’s why I don’t presuppose all Muslims are barbaric savages. I’m sure that Sam Harris and Dave Rubin are bias in their criticism of Palestinians because of their background but that doesn’t mean their position on religious violence and Islam is wrong. What I do believe, however, is that Islamism is a unique threat to our way of life and isn’t compatible with liberalism. The only thing I think you and I disagree about is a matter of degrees. You believe it’s a witch hunt against everyday Muslims and Sam Harris is leading the angry mob with a pitchfork. I believe we have to address the more sinister elements in Islam today. As for the poll numbers used by Sam Harris and Bill Maher, I’ll definitely take a look at the flaws in the pew poll when you post it.
I agree with everything you’ve said. I posted the flaws of the pew poll, because i responded to the first post in this threat, it’s at the very end of this thread, with white background under “eaxx” – remember this flaw in pew poll has never been published before, but if you scroll down now you’ll get to read it. Interested in what your thoughts are on it.
Actually just scroll down to end of page and scroll up a bit to find it, it’s at the end of the yamo87 thread which begins with “I would strongly suggest Cenk read…”
Thank you for that excellent post examining the Pew Poll! It lays out all the flaws in the poll and how the numbers used are inaccurate. I’m amazed that the 67% only represented Egypt as I was led to believe it was 67% of all Muslims. Still, that 67% is alarming and I think some of the other responses don’t leave me with a great sense of hope but I find your detailed analysis both informative and illuminating. I’ll certainly skew more towards Gallup than Pew moving forward!
Even that 67% is also wrong, there are two errors in that particular question. One that brings it down from 70 something to 67, and then the problem i mentioned which will bring it down more. the only way to know is to re-do the study wiht multiple answer options, or to look at the gallup poll results.
I would strongly suggest Cenk read Islam and the Future of tolerance to get a full picture of the actual debate within the muslim world. Muslim theocracies aren’t powerless and they don’t need defending.
Muslims Theocracies are powerless when compared to the might of the major Western nations (particularly the U.S.). Obviously these theocracies have lots of power within their respective countries, but not on a global scale,
Well that’s exactly the point I was making now isn’t it? Why should the West give cover to theocratic cruelty simply because they aren’t as powerful as the West? Sometimes the weaker countries, physically and morally, don’t need defending.
In fairness to Cenk I think he was talking about the way Muslims are being treated and portrayed in the media. Just this past week Donald Trump and others conservatives discussed closing Mosques in order to fight ISIS. We have a presidential candidate in Ben Carson who believes we shouldn’t elect a Muslim for president. Certainly Muslims are mistreating Christians and other minorities in their countries but that doesn’t mean we should support that level of bigotry in the US.
I never say Bigotry against muslims does not exist in the US and is not a problem, it is a problem.
Comparatively speaking Muslims in the US assimilate way more than in most countries (even in europe).
My problem is not with US muslims. My issue stems from liberals who pretend all Muslims everywhere are angels because they want to fight against Islamic bigotry at home.
Of course bigotry should be criticized but lets not go off the deep end and pretend there isn’t a problem with islamism which is a security concern for rational free thinking folks here and in muslim theocracies.
I think I better understand your point and I probably jumped the gun in thinking you were describing US Muslims. I completely agree with your point about liberals having a blind spot when it comes to radical Islam. Bill Maher always talks about the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to the way liberals react to atrocities committed in the name of Islam. One of the few times I was embarrassed by Cenk’s interviewing tactics where when he had Sam Harris on the show and he kept bringing up how Christianity was the most violent religion during the time of the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. He’s right but what now? That’s where he fails to comprehend the modern threat that is radical Islam. Holding Muslims to the standards of 12th-century Christians is rather insulting and demeaning if you ask me.
We are synchronizing quite harmoniously, I agree completely with what you said and I’m not sure I could have put it better myself. We liberals should stand up for 21st century liberal human rights values for all because we know the hard right wing reactionary authoritarian-minded aren’t going to do it. I would say islamism (actively spreading the faith in social and political worlds) would fall in the extreme right conservatism slot on the political spectrum anyway, so in that sense we can think of it as another right versus left debate. It does us no good to point at each other and say ‘well they did this, so they are allowed to that’.
I think we should stand up for universal liberal human rights values and not get stuck in this trap of giving cover to actually harmful ideologies that don’t promote human rights because we don’t want to look like conservative bigots. And Islam in the US is truly not a problem compared to the theocratic regimes I tend to focus on.
Generally the response to this type of argument someone will say ‘well just worry about your own country because that’s all that you can do anything about’ and I would respond saying ‘so I should care more about there not being enough women CEOs in silicon valley rather than women being enslaved in muslim theocracies?’ I think we can and should care about having a broad conversation with the global community about what is best for human beings everywhere and not get tied up with this just ignore every else attitude ‘its their culture’ attitude.
Now I said a lot there and we may disagree but I certainly hope we can continue to synchronize, I have been quite encouraged by our exchange.
I think you’re wrong here. I haven’t read a single thing you’ve written that I disagree with! I just wish our friends at TYT could read your piece, which is coming from a liberal in the truest sense of the word! What’s quite ironic is that many liberals, and I consider myself one, decry the slightest infraction of what’s viewed as politically correct but when it comes to abhorrent views on female genital mutilation, LGBT issues, women’s rights and religious pluralism in majority Muslim countries it comes down to “culture” as you so aptly put it. I would love if everyone, especially liberals, pushed for universal human rights but in many cases if you can’t even identify the problem because of the fear of being labeled a racist or a islamophobe, how can you find a solution?
I also wish more people besides the subscribers would read your piece on Islamism falling in the extreme right conservatism slot. I think that is lost on a lot of good people who only see a marginalized minority that is increasingly being segregated from the greater community. The call for a theocratic state with limited rights for minorities IS NOT what I would categorize as progressive yet that’s what’s called for in Islam. What’s even more ironic is that a lot of these so called liberals would be the first ones to be seen as infidels and spreading immoral propaganda in Muslim majority countries. Just ask Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger who’s been lashed in public and is currently in jail simply for exercising his right to free speech. The suffering and limiting of fundamental human rights of anyone should be outrageous to any decent person regardless of where they’re from. As MLK said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. What’s especially sad is that I expect this short sightedness from Conservatives but for Liberals to defend the indefensible really makes cringe.
Also, I know this doesn’t directly relate to what we were talking about but you mentioned people’s selective outrage when comparing the number of female CEO’s in Silicon Valley and female oppression in Muslim theocracies. What I want to know is how do you feel about third-wave feminists as a whole and how they seem to ignore the suffering of their Muslim sisters abroad? Clearly you, me and everyone on this site are feminists in the literal definition of the word in that we believe in and advocate for women’s rights. So why aren’t modern feminists doing the same everywhere? Do you think they fear being mislabeled as bigoted for discussing women’s issues in Islamic countries or is it just pure hypocrisy?
Thank you! You are quite the writer, I certainly wish TYT would pay more attention to these types of conversations so Cenk can finally understand why he has been so heavily criticized on the topic.
It is quite a catch 22 that it is part of liberal values to be tolerant of other people and to be a proponent for human rights except for when those two ideas intersect. Then suddenly you see many well intentioned liberals choosing to be tolerant of cultures with terrible human rights abuses. I am all for tolerance except when that toleration allows traumatic human suffering to flourish.
This quick emotional reaction, the ‘Ben Affleck Effect’, truly turns people off to understanding the real issues people face worldwide. I think Cenk fell into that category unfortunately, I still greatly respect his passion and thought on many issues but not on this. We just have to keep talking about it until people understand what is at stake and we can’t be afraid of criticizing totalitarian cultures out of fears of our reputations being tarred and feathered.
You are exactly right when you say ‘people only see a marginalized minority increasingly being segregated’, it’s very difficult for a lot of well intentioned liberals to have two thoughts at once. Again I am completely against conservative bigotry against muslims in the US, their hatred is and paranoia is completely over the top.
The main difference between liberals criticizing islam and conservatives is what we target. Liberal critics emphasize the dogmatic ideals that people blindly follow and how dangerous they can be, Conservative critics often emphasize the Muslim people specifically, calling them evil and calling to get rid of them.
There will always be good people being good, and evil people being evil, but in order to get a good person to do evil, you need religious dogmatism.
That’s a perfect MLK quote that I should start using more myself. I think that is truly at the core of what we are talking about. Closing our eyes to injustice out of fear of being labeled unjust by those committing the injustice is a true irony that allows injustice to flourish.
I am all for the values feminists strive for, absolutely women should have equal rights and equal pay as men and all that good stuff. But you bring up something very interesting, I think the selective outrage from feminists is wrong and you can definitely see the effects nationalism has on culture, these liberal women only seem to care about their own liberal women. If they were true feminists they would be calling attention to the lack of human rights for women worldwide. This would be an absolutely essential project for all of human flourishing because study after study shows that when women have more rights the economy does much better and growth is much more stable.
I think the feminists abandoning their muslim sisters (and Indian sisters and anywhere forced marriages still exist) must be both blatant hypocrisy mixed with a type of national tribalism combined with fear of being labeled a bigot for criticizing a culture many don’t have the time or desire to learn anything about.
I think many sects of feminism today are largely complete failures, they obsess over how women are dressed in video games and CEO pay more than the actual struggles of women around the world. I also think the term feminism is naturally divisive, I much prefer using the term humanism, treating all humans the same. Feminism in the minds of regular simple folk just sounds like a pro-women movement and they can’t wrap their head around the idea that is for equality for everyone.
Again my apologies for such a lengthy response but this is a good conversation that I am glad we are having, I’ll have to keep it noted to refer to it later. I think fortunately liberals who aren’t afraid to criticize their own views will come around to our positions, it’s all about being open to asking yourself what is truly the best for everyone and if you might be wrong. I don’t claim to be the source of all truth and wisdom, I use to hate Sam Harris before Cenk interviewed him based on what I heard him and other people say, but I changed my mind when I decided to listen to his and others views on the issues.
Being a good liberal is about being critical and not reactionary, I get that the issue is generally that liberals just want to fight conservative bigotry but they end up defending another type of conservative bigotry in the case of islamist apologists.
Baresi get a load of this eaxx guy commenting below, there couldn’t be a more perfect example of a regressive liberal and what we have been discussing.
Baresi
Reading your extensive conversation with eaxx confirms what you’ve been saying all along about well intentioned liberals who reject any criticism of loathsome practices that wouldn’t be tolerated under any other circumstances. Nowhere in your comments did you ever suggest you were in favor of drone strikes, military intervention or against a two-state solution. All I can say is that I hope you continue writing your terrific posts and look forward to seeing more from both you and eaxx who I also enjoy reading but just happen to disagree with on this topic.
Yamo87 and to some extent Baresi are deluded – Islam isn’t the problem, people in muslim countries think the US has declared war against muslims. This is what happens when people still have no idea what the IRAQ war was about, so of course they think these things.
Before 9/11 how much islamic violence was there? barely anything, perhaps some fringe group doing something once a decade in order to free the palestinians from the Israeli’s occupation of palestine but that’s about it. It wasn’t even after 9/11 that all this started, it was after America’s response to 9/11 that SOME muslims started going crazy. They see people they relate to by religion and appearance getting killed and they can’t understand why, they believe the US has declared a war against muslims, and out of the 1.7 billion people you’d expect _SOME_ of them to revolt and come over to seek revenge on the USA and its allies.
Remember, 95% of terrorist attacks are political, NOT RELIGIOUS – this was a comprehensive study that was performed by amnesty international i believe (feel free to look it up).. Oh and I know I know, but these muslims are monsters and they behead people, yeah but that’s nothing compared to when they see their children, brothers and sisters and grandparents splattered on the walls of destroyed homes after being incinerated by US bombs… it’s called REVENGE people, wake the hell up. This wasn’t a problem before, it became a problem after the US invasions. This isn’t to blame the US people, of course not, but the US government needs these enemies to keep it’s military industry alive. Similar to the reason they didn’t wanna capture bin laden, because it gives them more support for the war from the people and to continue the wars.
Remember, sam harris & bill maher need to vilify Muslims in order to argue that Israel is in the right and that the Palestinians are monsters (to dehumanize them) in order to make it acceptable to oppress and crush them and occupy them. Of course, this is because they are both Jewish, so it’s personal for them. wake the hell up.
also, look up the gallup poll on muslims, completely contradicts the flawed pew poll on muslims – which is the foundation for harris’ and maher’ hatred.
Disagreed, I refer you to our discussion above. Name calling is not necessary, I have enough of these conversations to know when people are interested in having a discussion and when people are interested to being social justice warriors.
Disagreed, I refer you to our discussion above. Name calling is not necessary, I have enough of these conversations to know when people are interested in having a discussion and when people are interested in being social justice warriors.
Go look at that amnesty international study, what part of the post do you want to refer me to ? I read almost all of it, i couldn’t read anymore when my eyes rolled into the back of my head.
We aren’t going to have a healthy conversation. You are way over generalizing, claiming there was no muslim violence before 9/11? Is that a joke? The crusades were a response to muslim conquests, All terrorist attacks are political and not religious? That is a very silly interpretation akin to Reza Aslan, most of these political grievances stem from theological grievances on who gets what holy land.
I don’t know who you think you are arguing but I am in favor of a two state solution and I think the current government of Israel is insane. And I have been very critical of israel when I was in graduate classes with Jews and we would have healthy debates where I was on the side of the Palestinians.
You clearly don’t know as much history as you think you do, even in Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shias had a civil war after we destabilized the region. How was that political? The extreme shias incited the war by killing their own and blaming it on the sunnis and then the sunnis hit back. All over religious grievances that you would say were political. You can spin it anyway you want.
You already introduced quite a few conspiracy theories in your analysis so I’m not sure how seriously to take you but I have said my piece.
Where on earth do you get that I am in favor of drone strikes? I have written endlessly on the topic (reading actual academic peer reviewed scholarship) and I am in no way in favor of the broken US foreign intervention policies. Of course that makes countries hate us and it makes the religious extremist groups jobs much easier when they are recruiting but don’t go off the deep end thinking religion has nothing to do with it. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on since the 30’s and they very much stem from religious grievances. You think if Israel was still palestine and the Jews simply lived there without being in charge there would be an issue? Be real here, I’m not in favor of Hamas or Hezbollah but you have to be delusional to think all atrocities stem from US intervention.
Tribalist conflicts have been going on forever, how can you say the US is responsible for the Pakistani Taliban killing 132 of their own schoolchildren? How is that political? How is that justified as a response to foreign intervention? You know how the Taliban justified this barbarism? By believing they were sending the children to paradise, all to get revenge on a tribal adversary.
Don’t give me this balogni about how the Middle East would be this peace loving world if only the US wasn’t around. The Sunni and Shia have been murdering each other and enslaving their own women and children since the 7th Century.
Dude, I said 95% (not all) included in that amnesty international study. Yes, historically many wars were religious, and it still is at the base of some conflicts, sure, but when you get on the ground and ask these terrorists and look at prosecutions etc… even if there is religion at the base, it’s for the purposes of politics or revenge. They are getting revenge for the last x attacks that had taken place against them. Get me?
Look at the study! It covers terrorists attacks since 2005 if I remember correctly. Not history.
Also, I never said you were in fav of drone strikes, why did you think that?
Also, I’m an atheist, never liked islam or religion, but you guys take it to another level. It ain’t up to a few jewish guys or some white guys to point fingers at muslims and tell them to reform themselves or to direct them to do so. It is up to them and their own people how they choose to carry their destiny.
If you don’t want radicals harassing your country, then stop creating them by killing their parents, brothers, sisters and children. When you do this, they devote their lives to revenge, it’s a human thing – when they’ve lost everything, they change the course of their lives for revenge. When they respond by being vengeful, don’t turn around and say oh it’s because they are monsters and because they have a 7th century religion that tells them to do this. The kuran is no different than many other western religions, they are all bullshit together with the kuran. the kuran isn’t the source of yoru problem.
Yamo87
you just keep arguing points I have not made in some random Sam Harris hate rage.
also, don’t forget to look up the gallup poll, why aren’t you looking it up? don’t wanna look at polls that totally contradict the pew poll, which is the foundation for your racism and bigotry, right? OF COURRRRRRRRSE!
lol where have I ever cited the Pew polls? If you cared about it so much and thought they were so devastating you would have had a link ready to post. This fits perfectly well with what me and Baresi were talking about. It’s unfortunate Cenk-bots like yourself get all crazy eyed and emotional when people don’t just blindly agree with you.
Calling people a racist and a bigot for pointing out injustice is not going to help anyone.
You seem like you really want to argue given this last post. I am also convinced you have not read anything we have said and simply want to be social justice warrior of the week.
I will no longer be replying to you in the future so feel free to rage and argue straw men till your heart is content.
Here’s a hypothetical thought experiment to leave you on, if only 2% of muslims around the world believed in radical jihad, spreading the faith by violent conquest, how many muslims would that be? Roughly 4o million muslims. Tens of millions, and the survey polls would have been even worse if radical theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan even allowed the polls but they don’t.
Well i replied to your padawin good day sir post, maybe read that if you like. Yeah it’s hard not to get emotional when you’re arguing for the vilification of other human beings using polls you haven’t even understood which have flaws that i’ve pointed to – but you don’t care to look into them.
Also, 2% having radical views isn’t the end – even if 2% have radical views, most of that was triggered by the invasions. secondly, majority of that 2% will not act on those views, they are just views held. very smaller portion will act on them. much much smaller. look at the numbers, isis is only 20k – 30k people. include other terrorists, what? 50k?
then think and remember how much of that this country created. and yes, before 9/11 and since 1776, there have been very few islamic terrorists, and even those that existed, including bin laden, were doing it for revenge and political reasons. they wanted to free palestine (like most others) and wanted the us soldiers out of their holly land in saudi arabia. those issues aren’t a holly war, they are politics.
I was going to give you a link about the PEW POLL on muslims, but I haven’t published it yet, so I’m going to have to give you the written version as I wrote it on a TYT Comments section earlier – you can confirm this by going to the page for confirmation:
tytnetwork.com/2015/07/21/the-young-turks-july-21-2015-hour-1/
Several ex-believers (like you) changed theri minds after reading what i have below and wrote these:
From Humes_Hefner
“Thanks for laying this all out, it’s great to see a detailed analysis of why Sam Harris is completely full of shit :P”
Also, from macberg (who used to be on harris’ side):
“Extremely good posts, eaxx. Thank you.”
Also, you have a habit of not logically contradicting my good points, and writing one liner sarcasm instead. I plead with you to at least listen and try to understand the points I’m making, knowledge is power and knowing more will only help you and help you look for the solution in appropriate places, not innocent people.
Here is my post:
The PEW POLL on Muslims is not scientific polling, remember they are only given “yes” and “no” options to answer the questions in that pew poll that everyone keeps quoting. Look at the gallop poll which has 7 possible answers, and you’ll realize how much lower the “Yes” answers are to the egregious questions. Please just look it up (more on this later).
Remember when someone says “Yes” to having people who leave the religion killed, instead of saying no, there are two types of people who answer yes.
Type 1:
Even if they feel their answer is closer to “Yes”, they answer “no” because it’s technically not true. This is the minority.
Type 2:
Their answer is closer to “Yes”, and they want to answer as accurately as possible, so they pick the answer that’s closest to their viewpoint, in which case they answer “Yes”. This is the majority of people.
So, there are a huge number of people who answer “Yes” because their answer is closer to “Yes” than it is to “No. This is why the Gallup poll is setup differently, with 7 answer options, and this is the exact reason why the gallop poll destroys the pew poll and shows it for what a fraud it is.
Also, that whole 67% figure for killing non-believers who leave the religion, that is only for one country (Egypt) and literally every other Muslim country in the poll score like 7%, 11% or 13%, and remember, these scores of 11%, 13% and 60% are all still INCLUDING the Type 2 answer bias that i described (still flawed to make Muslims look worst). Then bill maher takes this Egypt stat, calls it 76% and acts like it represents the entirety of islam – what a disgusting liar.
This bias occurs for the no answer as well, so the only way for this score to be accurate is to average out the answers of yes and no – but we don’t do that, we just shout out 60% said YES and 40% said no (but everyone focuses on the 60% part), there’s your talking point. Remember, because there are only two possible answers, everything to the left of center accumulates to the YES extreme and everything to the right of center accumulates to the NO extreme – it’s not only inaccurate, it is the most deceptive little trick a pollster can use in their arsenal of tactics so that they can bias a result without it appearing as though they did something to bias it.
Although I am a computer programmer, I was studying to become an Actuary some years ago (right out of high school). Does sam harris or bill maher talk about the bias in the poll? Say it with me… OF COOOOURSE NOT!! Why doesn’t sam harris or bill maher talk about the Gallup poll which totally contradicts the pew poll, and it has 7 answer options (not 2) which excludes my stated pew flaw and this is why it contradicts the pew poll!
In fact, you can compare the exact same questions asked on both polls in each country, and the results are significantly different, not explainable by error margins. CLEAR CONTRADICTION only explainable by this flaw!
Of course, there are situations where binary polls (two answer option polls) are legitimate. There are scenarios where they apply very well and no other option should be used, for example, in a presidential election poll question, since you can never vote for both George W Bush and Al Gore at the same time, to have more than a binary option (3 answer options or more) wouldn’t make sense (unless you are also polling for people who are undecided or people who willingly choose not to vote).
However, I have looked at the Pew Poll on Muslims up and down, every single question contains nuanced positions. The rule is, if it contains nuanced positions, you CANNOT go for a binary optioned poll. For instance, the question on do you believe in the death penalty for those were Muslims and have left the religion? This question has nuanced positions. The person may prefer the subject to go to prison for 1 week, 1 year, 5 years, 40 years or for an entire lifetime. Heck, they may prefer he get 40 lashes. Every time the poll sitter thinks he is closer to the “Yes” answer than he is to the “No” answer, he must make one of two choices. They are as follows:
Do I choose the answer that is strictly and technically correct (which would be “No”) since he doesn’t want the death penalty applied to them, but instead a prison term of n number of years. But herein lies the dilemma, if he chooses “No” then he is making a statement that is technically correct but further away from the truth. So, does he choose the answer which is closer to the truth, where he would pick “Yes” because it’s closer to the answer he has in his mind. Unfortunately for the Pew Poll, this second option is what human beings tend to go for most of the time in binary answer options where nuance exists.
Especially considering that poll sitters worldwide are told to answer as accurately, truthfully and as honestly as possible before they are seated to take a poll.
So you have to choose between being A). technically/strictly correct or being as B). honest, accurate and as closer to the truth as possible. These are both mutually exclusive in the position I’ve outlined, you can’t have them both together. In fact, you have to pick one or the other, and homo-sapiens being homo-sapiens, we tend to choose option B) – being as close to the truth, accurate and as honest as possible.
On my last point, why weren’t there anywhere near as many Muslim attacks on the west between 1776 and 9/11? If it was Islam that was the problem, wouldn’t there have been a continuous stream of attacks by Muslims in the last 100 years or so, after the ottoman empire fell?
It appears that there isn’t, which means factors such as country of origin and US foreign policy have much more of an effect. When radical Muslims see what they consider as their brothers and sisters dying for what they see as america’s strategic advance, and they see these deaths on TV and news papers (we don’t get to see them, thanks to media bias and rules subverting the dissemination of truth) they get even more radicalized, and they come out for revenge. Yes, revenge – unfortunate but it’s true. Out of 1.7 billion Muslims, you expect, just like in any other population, that there will be terrible human beings who are willing to kill others for the sake of revenge, including killing people who’ve had nothing to do with any of this, just like we do to them (but in greater numbers). We know we will kill many innocent people, but we still go ahead and drone and invade the hell out of their countries killing mostly innocent civilians who have had nothing to do with any of this.
Remember Type 2 answer bias and revenge, that explain a lot of our collective misunderstanding of everything. I don’t even blame you, I blame the media and the laws that are put together to deliberately misinform us and turn us into haters to get us to fight against each other instead of shaming the war mongers and the fascist pigs that take part in this collective delusion and propaganda peddling.
I’d like to remind us something that Cenk once said, when have we looked back into our past and thought, my god, that hate campaign that we had against these people turned out to be such a good idea – that made a lot of sense and we are better as a civilization for having engaged in that hatred nowadays.
When?
There is not a single instance in the past we could ever say that about, not one! This was really eye opening for me. There are very good reasons for why we can’t point to any example of this.
Just to be clear with this nuance, I never was on Harris’ side. I’ve been in the middle. I see good (and bad) points on both sides. However the more I hear from Harris on this subject the more I disagree with him, and especially his rhetoric. I’ve also said that I like listening to him speak on basically any other subject than Islam, like science, artificial intelligence etc, where he in fact is pretty good.
Still, that post of yours that you’re referring to was really good.
Yeah, it’s a nice little thing that we have to allow certain employers to pay less than the minimum wage and shift the pay burden to the consumer. Although certain tip jobs pay great sometimes; bartender, stripper, casino person. Wait, if you guys don’t tip yur bartenders, what do they get paid per hour?
about $17.50 per hour is the minimum wage here in australia, its equiv in purchasing power to the US dollar, although currency is about 1 AUD = $0.90 USD, purchasing power is different from currency exchange and from the purchasing power perspective it is closer to parity (AUD and USD).
Comments
Is this show dead?
Does anyone know when the next Old School will be posted?? Haven’t had a show in almost 3 weeks now.
It is alive! New episode, and by the way, our conversation below got so long it would not allow me to reply to it. lulz
Lol! It did get a little long now that I look at it! Thanks for the heads up on Old School, It’s probably the one show on here I most look forward to besides the Friday Power Panel. I also read the book you suggested Cenk read, Islam and the Future of Tolerance. It’s a great book that really deals with a lot of what we were talking about. Its a wonderful conversation between a moderate Muslim and an atheist that you rarely see anywhere else. Unfortunately, Cenk is sour on anything relating to Sam Harris so I doubt he’ll read it.
If I can prove and show you that the pew poll maher and harris so deeply rely on is severly flawed, would you alter your perception on muslims? Not islam, i also hate islam and other religions, but about the character of people who are muslims and how (it turns out) they are not the barberic savages that harris & co try to make them out to be?
Of course, maher, harris, david ruben, mike packman etc… they are all jewish, and in order to prove that israel is in the right by treating the palestinians the way they do, harris & co need to prove that muslims are actually inhumane savages and they deserve everything they get. this is totally personal for them and others like them. they need to convince the world of this in order for israel’s image to improve and because they don’t want their homeland (their government) to look like they are war criminals.
Baresi, I posted something to Yamo you might want to read, I call it the Sam Harris Killer!
Sam Harris’ and Bill Maher’s entire proof and evidence for their vial beliefs DESTROYED by fact and logic alone by a former actuarial student picking apart that flawed pew poll! awch!
Believe me I’m with you about Israel and the mistreatment of Palestinians. Just look at the situation in Gaza. Imagine living in a place where you’re occupied by Israel and aren’t allowed to leave or bring in any goods. Noam Chomsky once described it as the worlds largest open-air prison. Any decent person would be against that and you’re 100% correct about the names you mentioned. Their steadfast support for Israel is both infuriating and mind-boggling. If anything it proves how poisoning identity politics can be and why the right response shouldn’t be predetermined by your religion, sex or ethnicity. That’s why I don’t presuppose all Muslims are barbaric savages. I’m sure that Sam Harris and Dave Rubin are bias in their criticism of Palestinians because of their background but that doesn’t mean their position on religious violence and Islam is wrong. What I do believe, however, is that Islamism is a unique threat to our way of life and isn’t compatible with liberalism. The only thing I think you and I disagree about is a matter of degrees. You believe it’s a witch hunt against everyday Muslims and Sam Harris is leading the angry mob with a pitchfork. I believe we have to address the more sinister elements in Islam today. As for the poll numbers used by Sam Harris and Bill Maher, I’ll definitely take a look at the flaws in the pew poll when you post it.
I agree with everything you’ve said. I posted the flaws of the pew poll, because i responded to the first post in this threat, it’s at the very end of this thread, with white background under “eaxx” – remember this flaw in pew poll has never been published before, but if you scroll down now you’ll get to read it. Interested in what your thoughts are on it.
Actually just scroll down to end of page and scroll up a bit to find it, it’s at the end of the yamo87 thread which begins with “I would strongly suggest Cenk read…”
Cool?
Thank you for that excellent post examining the Pew Poll! It lays out all the flaws in the poll and how the numbers used are inaccurate. I’m amazed that the 67% only represented Egypt as I was led to believe it was 67% of all Muslims. Still, that 67% is alarming and I think some of the other responses don’t leave me with a great sense of hope but I find your detailed analysis both informative and illuminating. I’ll certainly skew more towards Gallup than Pew moving forward!
Even that 67% is also wrong, there are two errors in that particular question. One that brings it down from 70 something to 67, and then the problem i mentioned which will bring it down more. the only way to know is to re-do the study wiht multiple answer options, or to look at the gallup poll results.
I am a woman, I might be able to grab Cenk’s ass, but at my age any younger would start getting creepy.
I would strongly suggest Cenk read Islam and the Future of tolerance to get a full picture of the actual debate within the muslim world. Muslim theocracies aren’t powerless and they don’t need defending.
Muslims Theocracies are powerless when compared to the might of the major Western nations (particularly the U.S.). Obviously these theocracies have lots of power within their respective countries, but not on a global scale,
Well that’s exactly the point I was making now isn’t it? Why should the West give cover to theocratic cruelty simply because they aren’t as powerful as the West? Sometimes the weaker countries, physically and morally, don’t need defending.
In fairness to Cenk I think he was talking about the way Muslims are being treated and portrayed in the media. Just this past week Donald Trump and others conservatives discussed closing Mosques in order to fight ISIS. We have a presidential candidate in Ben Carson who believes we shouldn’t elect a Muslim for president. Certainly Muslims are mistreating Christians and other minorities in their countries but that doesn’t mean we should support that level of bigotry in the US.
I agree completely,
I never say Bigotry against muslims does not exist in the US and is not a problem, it is a problem.
Comparatively speaking Muslims in the US assimilate way more than in most countries (even in europe).
My problem is not with US muslims. My issue stems from liberals who pretend all Muslims everywhere are angels because they want to fight against Islamic bigotry at home.
Of course bigotry should be criticized but lets not go off the deep end and pretend there isn’t a problem with islamism which is a security concern for rational free thinking folks here and in muslim theocracies.
I think I better understand your point and I probably jumped the gun in thinking you were describing US Muslims. I completely agree with your point about liberals having a blind spot when it comes to radical Islam. Bill Maher always talks about the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to the way liberals react to atrocities committed in the name of Islam. One of the few times I was embarrassed by Cenk’s interviewing tactics where when he had Sam Harris on the show and he kept bringing up how Christianity was the most violent religion during the time of the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades. He’s right but what now? That’s where he fails to comprehend the modern threat that is radical Islam. Holding Muslims to the standards of 12th-century Christians is rather insulting and demeaning if you ask me.
We are synchronizing quite harmoniously, I agree completely with what you said and I’m not sure I could have put it better myself. We liberals should stand up for 21st century liberal human rights values for all because we know the hard right wing reactionary authoritarian-minded aren’t going to do it. I would say islamism (actively spreading the faith in social and political worlds) would fall in the extreme right conservatism slot on the political spectrum anyway, so in that sense we can think of it as another right versus left debate. It does us no good to point at each other and say ‘well they did this, so they are allowed to that’.
I think we should stand up for universal liberal human rights values and not get stuck in this trap of giving cover to actually harmful ideologies that don’t promote human rights because we don’t want to look like conservative bigots. And Islam in the US is truly not a problem compared to the theocratic regimes I tend to focus on.
Generally the response to this type of argument someone will say ‘well just worry about your own country because that’s all that you can do anything about’ and I would respond saying ‘so I should care more about there not being enough women CEOs in silicon valley rather than women being enslaved in muslim theocracies?’ I think we can and should care about having a broad conversation with the global community about what is best for human beings everywhere and not get tied up with this just ignore every else attitude ‘its their culture’ attitude.
Now I said a lot there and we may disagree but I certainly hope we can continue to synchronize, I have been quite encouraged by our exchange.
I think you’re wrong here. I haven’t read a single thing you’ve written that I disagree with! I just wish our friends at TYT could read your piece, which is coming from a liberal in the truest sense of the word! What’s quite ironic is that many liberals, and I consider myself one, decry the slightest infraction of what’s viewed as politically correct but when it comes to abhorrent views on female genital mutilation, LGBT issues, women’s rights and religious pluralism in majority Muslim countries it comes down to “culture” as you so aptly put it. I would love if everyone, especially liberals, pushed for universal human rights but in many cases if you can’t even identify the problem because of the fear of being labeled a racist or a islamophobe, how can you find a solution?
I also wish more people besides the subscribers would read your piece on Islamism falling in the extreme right conservatism slot. I think that is lost on a lot of good people who only see a marginalized minority that is increasingly being segregated from the greater community. The call for a theocratic state with limited rights for minorities IS NOT what I would categorize as progressive yet that’s what’s called for in Islam. What’s even more ironic is that a lot of these so called liberals would be the first ones to be seen as infidels and spreading immoral propaganda in Muslim majority countries. Just ask Raif Badawi, a Saudi blogger who’s been lashed in public and is currently in jail simply for exercising his right to free speech. The suffering and limiting of fundamental human rights of anyone should be outrageous to any decent person regardless of where they’re from. As MLK said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. What’s especially sad is that I expect this short sightedness from Conservatives but for Liberals to defend the indefensible really makes cringe.
Also, I know this doesn’t directly relate to what we were talking about but you mentioned people’s selective outrage when comparing the number of female CEO’s in Silicon Valley and female oppression in Muslim theocracies. What I want to know is how do you feel about third-wave feminists as a whole and how they seem to ignore the suffering of their Muslim sisters abroad? Clearly you, me and everyone on this site are feminists in the literal definition of the word in that we believe in and advocate for women’s rights. So why aren’t modern feminists doing the same everywhere? Do you think they fear being mislabeled as bigoted for discussing women’s issues in Islamic countries or is it just pure hypocrisy?
Thank you! You are quite the writer, I certainly wish TYT would pay more attention to these types of conversations so Cenk can finally understand why he has been so heavily criticized on the topic.
It is quite a catch 22 that it is part of liberal values to be tolerant of other people and to be a proponent for human rights except for when those two ideas intersect. Then suddenly you see many well intentioned liberals choosing to be tolerant of cultures with terrible human rights abuses. I am all for tolerance except when that toleration allows traumatic human suffering to flourish.
This quick emotional reaction, the ‘Ben Affleck Effect’, truly turns people off to understanding the real issues people face worldwide. I think Cenk fell into that category unfortunately, I still greatly respect his passion and thought on many issues but not on this. We just have to keep talking about it until people understand what is at stake and we can’t be afraid of criticizing totalitarian cultures out of fears of our reputations being tarred and feathered.
You are exactly right when you say ‘people only see a marginalized minority increasingly being segregated’, it’s very difficult for a lot of well intentioned liberals to have two thoughts at once. Again I am completely against conservative bigotry against muslims in the US, their hatred is and paranoia is completely over the top.
The main difference between liberals criticizing islam and conservatives is what we target. Liberal critics emphasize the dogmatic ideals that people blindly follow and how dangerous they can be, Conservative critics often emphasize the Muslim people specifically, calling them evil and calling to get rid of them.
There will always be good people being good, and evil people being evil, but in order to get a good person to do evil, you need religious dogmatism.
That’s a perfect MLK quote that I should start using more myself. I think that is truly at the core of what we are talking about. Closing our eyes to injustice out of fear of being labeled unjust by those committing the injustice is a true irony that allows injustice to flourish.
I am all for the values feminists strive for, absolutely women should have equal rights and equal pay as men and all that good stuff. But you bring up something very interesting, I think the selective outrage from feminists is wrong and you can definitely see the effects nationalism has on culture, these liberal women only seem to care about their own liberal women. If they were true feminists they would be calling attention to the lack of human rights for women worldwide. This would be an absolutely essential project for all of human flourishing because study after study shows that when women have more rights the economy does much better and growth is much more stable.
I think the feminists abandoning their muslim sisters (and Indian sisters and anywhere forced marriages still exist) must be both blatant hypocrisy mixed with a type of national tribalism combined with fear of being labeled a bigot for criticizing a culture many don’t have the time or desire to learn anything about.
I think many sects of feminism today are largely complete failures, they obsess over how women are dressed in video games and CEO pay more than the actual struggles of women around the world. I also think the term feminism is naturally divisive, I much prefer using the term humanism, treating all humans the same. Feminism in the minds of regular simple folk just sounds like a pro-women movement and they can’t wrap their head around the idea that is for equality for everyone.
Again my apologies for such a lengthy response but this is a good conversation that I am glad we are having, I’ll have to keep it noted to refer to it later. I think fortunately liberals who aren’t afraid to criticize their own views will come around to our positions, it’s all about being open to asking yourself what is truly the best for everyone and if you might be wrong. I don’t claim to be the source of all truth and wisdom, I use to hate Sam Harris before Cenk interviewed him based on what I heard him and other people say, but I changed my mind when I decided to listen to his and others views on the issues.
Being a good liberal is about being critical and not reactionary, I get that the issue is generally that liberals just want to fight conservative bigotry but they end up defending another type of conservative bigotry in the case of islamist apologists.
Baresi get a load of this eaxx guy commenting below, there couldn’t be a more perfect example of a regressive liberal and what we have been discussing.
Reading your extensive conversation with eaxx confirms what you’ve been saying all along about well intentioned liberals who reject any criticism of loathsome practices that wouldn’t be tolerated under any other circumstances. Nowhere in your comments did you ever suggest you were in favor of drone strikes, military intervention or against a two-state solution. All I can say is that I hope you continue writing your terrific posts and look forward to seeing more from both you and eaxx who I also enjoy reading but just happen to disagree with on this topic.
Yamo87 and to some extent Baresi are deluded – Islam isn’t the problem, people in muslim countries think the US has declared war against muslims. This is what happens when people still have no idea what the IRAQ war was about, so of course they think these things.
Before 9/11 how much islamic violence was there? barely anything, perhaps some fringe group doing something once a decade in order to free the palestinians from the Israeli’s occupation of palestine but that’s about it. It wasn’t even after 9/11 that all this started, it was after America’s response to 9/11 that SOME muslims started going crazy. They see people they relate to by religion and appearance getting killed and they can’t understand why, they believe the US has declared a war against muslims, and out of the 1.7 billion people you’d expect _SOME_ of them to revolt and come over to seek revenge on the USA and its allies.
Remember, 95% of terrorist attacks are political, NOT RELIGIOUS – this was a comprehensive study that was performed by amnesty international i believe (feel free to look it up).. Oh and I know I know, but these muslims are monsters and they behead people, yeah but that’s nothing compared to when they see their children, brothers and sisters and grandparents splattered on the walls of destroyed homes after being incinerated by US bombs… it’s called REVENGE people, wake the hell up. This wasn’t a problem before, it became a problem after the US invasions. This isn’t to blame the US people, of course not, but the US government needs these enemies to keep it’s military industry alive. Similar to the reason they didn’t wanna capture bin laden, because it gives them more support for the war from the people and to continue the wars.
Remember, sam harris & bill maher need to vilify Muslims in order to argue that Israel is in the right and that the Palestinians are monsters (to dehumanize them) in order to make it acceptable to oppress and crush them and occupy them. Of course, this is because they are both Jewish, so it’s personal for them. wake the hell up.
also, look up the gallup poll on muslims, completely contradicts the flawed pew poll on muslims – which is the foundation for harris’ and maher’ hatred.
Disagreed, I refer you to our discussion above. Name calling is not necessary, I have enough of these conversations to know when people are interested in having a discussion and when people are interested to being social justice warriors.
Disagreed, I refer you to our discussion above. Name calling is not necessary, I have enough of these conversations to know when people are interested in having a discussion and when people are interested in being social justice warriors.
Go look at that amnesty international study, what part of the post do you want to refer me to ? I read almost all of it, i couldn’t read anymore when my eyes rolled into the back of my head.
We aren’t going to have a healthy conversation. You are way over generalizing, claiming there was no muslim violence before 9/11? Is that a joke? The crusades were a response to muslim conquests, All terrorist attacks are political and not religious? That is a very silly interpretation akin to Reza Aslan, most of these political grievances stem from theological grievances on who gets what holy land.
I don’t know who you think you are arguing but I am in favor of a two state solution and I think the current government of Israel is insane. And I have been very critical of israel when I was in graduate classes with Jews and we would have healthy debates where I was on the side of the Palestinians.
You clearly don’t know as much history as you think you do, even in Iraq, the Sunnis and the Shias had a civil war after we destabilized the region. How was that political? The extreme shias incited the war by killing their own and blaming it on the sunnis and then the sunnis hit back. All over religious grievances that you would say were political. You can spin it anyway you want.
You already introduced quite a few conspiracy theories in your analysis so I’m not sure how seriously to take you but I have said my piece.
Where on earth do you get that I am in favor of drone strikes? I have written endlessly on the topic (reading actual academic peer reviewed scholarship) and I am in no way in favor of the broken US foreign intervention policies. Of course that makes countries hate us and it makes the religious extremist groups jobs much easier when they are recruiting but don’t go off the deep end thinking religion has nothing to do with it. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on since the 30’s and they very much stem from religious grievances. You think if Israel was still palestine and the Jews simply lived there without being in charge there would be an issue? Be real here, I’m not in favor of Hamas or Hezbollah but you have to be delusional to think all atrocities stem from US intervention.
Tribalist conflicts have been going on forever, how can you say the US is responsible for the Pakistani Taliban killing 132 of their own schoolchildren? How is that political? How is that justified as a response to foreign intervention? You know how the Taliban justified this barbarism? By believing they were sending the children to paradise, all to get revenge on a tribal adversary.
Don’t give me this balogni about how the Middle East would be this peace loving world if only the US wasn’t around. The Sunni and Shia have been murdering each other and enslaving their own women and children since the 7th Century.
Grow up young padawan. Good Day sir.
Dude, I said 95% (not all) included in that amnesty international study. Yes, historically many wars were religious, and it still is at the base of some conflicts, sure, but when you get on the ground and ask these terrorists and look at prosecutions etc… even if there is religion at the base, it’s for the purposes of politics or revenge. They are getting revenge for the last x attacks that had taken place against them. Get me?
Look at the study! It covers terrorists attacks since 2005 if I remember correctly. Not history.
Also, I never said you were in fav of drone strikes, why did you think that?
Also, I’m an atheist, never liked islam or religion, but you guys take it to another level. It ain’t up to a few jewish guys or some white guys to point fingers at muslims and tell them to reform themselves or to direct them to do so. It is up to them and their own people how they choose to carry their destiny.
If you don’t want radicals harassing your country, then stop creating them by killing their parents, brothers, sisters and children. When you do this, they devote their lives to revenge, it’s a human thing – when they’ve lost everything, they change the course of their lives for revenge. When they respond by being vengeful, don’t turn around and say oh it’s because they are monsters and because they have a 7th century religion that tells them to do this. The kuran is no different than many other western religions, they are all bullshit together with the kuran. the kuran isn’t the source of yoru problem.
you just keep arguing points I have not made in some random Sam Harris hate rage.
also, don’t forget to look up the gallup poll, why aren’t you looking it up? don’t wanna look at polls that totally contradict the pew poll, which is the foundation for your racism and bigotry, right? OF COURRRRRRRRSE!
lol where have I ever cited the Pew polls? If you cared about it so much and thought they were so devastating you would have had a link ready to post. This fits perfectly well with what me and Baresi were talking about. It’s unfortunate Cenk-bots like yourself get all crazy eyed and emotional when people don’t just blindly agree with you.
Calling people a racist and a bigot for pointing out injustice is not going to help anyone.
You seem like you really want to argue given this last post. I am also convinced you have not read anything we have said and simply want to be social justice warrior of the week.
I will no longer be replying to you in the future so feel free to rage and argue straw men till your heart is content.
Here’s a hypothetical thought experiment to leave you on, if only 2% of muslims around the world believed in radical jihad, spreading the faith by violent conquest, how many muslims would that be? Roughly 4o million muslims. Tens of millions, and the survey polls would have been even worse if radical theocracies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan even allowed the polls but they don’t.
Well i replied to your padawin good day sir post, maybe read that if you like. Yeah it’s hard not to get emotional when you’re arguing for the vilification of other human beings using polls you haven’t even understood which have flaws that i’ve pointed to – but you don’t care to look into them.
Also, 2% having radical views isn’t the end – even if 2% have radical views, most of that was triggered by the invasions. secondly, majority of that 2% will not act on those views, they are just views held. very smaller portion will act on them. much much smaller. look at the numbers, isis is only 20k – 30k people. include other terrorists, what? 50k?
then think and remember how much of that this country created. and yes, before 9/11 and since 1776, there have been very few islamic terrorists, and even those that existed, including bin laden, were doing it for revenge and political reasons. they wanted to free palestine (like most others) and wanted the us soldiers out of their holly land in saudi arabia. those issues aren’t a holly war, they are politics.
and here is your link, the study re-studies by a US edu
acmcu.georgetown.edu/the-policy-stupid
and here is your link, the gallup study analyzed by george town university
acmcu.georgetown.edu/the-policy-stupid
Your cordiality certainly won this debate #gapingsarcasm
I was going to give you a link about the PEW POLL on muslims, but I haven’t published it yet, so I’m going to have to give you the written version as I wrote it on a TYT Comments section earlier – you can confirm this by going to the page for confirmation:
tytnetwork.com/2015/07/21/the-young-turks-july-21-2015-hour-1/
Several ex-believers (like you) changed theri minds after reading what i have below and wrote these:
From Humes_Hefner
“Thanks for laying this all out, it’s great to see a detailed analysis of why Sam Harris is completely full of shit :P”
Also, from macberg (who used to be on harris’ side):
“Extremely good posts, eaxx. Thank you.”
Also, you have a habit of not logically contradicting my good points, and writing one liner sarcasm instead. I plead with you to at least listen and try to understand the points I’m making, knowledge is power and knowing more will only help you and help you look for the solution in appropriate places, not innocent people.
Here is my post:
The PEW POLL on Muslims is not scientific polling, remember they are only given “yes” and “no” options to answer the questions in that pew poll that everyone keeps quoting. Look at the gallop poll which has 7 possible answers, and you’ll realize how much lower the “Yes” answers are to the egregious questions. Please just look it up (more on this later).
Remember when someone says “Yes” to having people who leave the religion killed, instead of saying no, there are two types of people who answer yes.
Type 1:
Even if they feel their answer is closer to “Yes”, they answer “no” because it’s technically not true. This is the minority.
Type 2:
Their answer is closer to “Yes”, and they want to answer as accurately as possible, so they pick the answer that’s closest to their viewpoint, in which case they answer “Yes”. This is the majority of people.
So, there are a huge number of people who answer “Yes” because their answer is closer to “Yes” than it is to “No. This is why the Gallup poll is setup differently, with 7 answer options, and this is the exact reason why the gallop poll destroys the pew poll and shows it for what a fraud it is.
Also, that whole 67% figure for killing non-believers who leave the religion, that is only for one country (Egypt) and literally every other Muslim country in the poll score like 7%, 11% or 13%, and remember, these scores of 11%, 13% and 60% are all still INCLUDING the Type 2 answer bias that i described (still flawed to make Muslims look worst). Then bill maher takes this Egypt stat, calls it 76% and acts like it represents the entirety of islam – what a disgusting liar.
This bias occurs for the no answer as well, so the only way for this score to be accurate is to average out the answers of yes and no – but we don’t do that, we just shout out 60% said YES and 40% said no (but everyone focuses on the 60% part), there’s your talking point. Remember, because there are only two possible answers, everything to the left of center accumulates to the YES extreme and everything to the right of center accumulates to the NO extreme – it’s not only inaccurate, it is the most deceptive little trick a pollster can use in their arsenal of tactics so that they can bias a result without it appearing as though they did something to bias it.
Although I am a computer programmer, I was studying to become an Actuary some years ago (right out of high school). Does sam harris or bill maher talk about the bias in the poll? Say it with me… OF COOOOURSE NOT!! Why doesn’t sam harris or bill maher talk about the Gallup poll which totally contradicts the pew poll, and it has 7 answer options (not 2) which excludes my stated pew flaw and this is why it contradicts the pew poll!
In fact, you can compare the exact same questions asked on both polls in each country, and the results are significantly different, not explainable by error margins. CLEAR CONTRADICTION only explainable by this flaw!
Of course, there are situations where binary polls (two answer option polls) are legitimate. There are scenarios where they apply very well and no other option should be used, for example, in a presidential election poll question, since you can never vote for both George W Bush and Al Gore at the same time, to have more than a binary option (3 answer options or more) wouldn’t make sense (unless you are also polling for people who are undecided or people who willingly choose not to vote).
However, I have looked at the Pew Poll on Muslims up and down, every single question contains nuanced positions. The rule is, if it contains nuanced positions, you CANNOT go for a binary optioned poll. For instance, the question on do you believe in the death penalty for those were Muslims and have left the religion? This question has nuanced positions. The person may prefer the subject to go to prison for 1 week, 1 year, 5 years, 40 years or for an entire lifetime. Heck, they may prefer he get 40 lashes. Every time the poll sitter thinks he is closer to the “Yes” answer than he is to the “No” answer, he must make one of two choices. They are as follows:
Do I choose the answer that is strictly and technically correct (which would be “No”) since he doesn’t want the death penalty applied to them, but instead a prison term of n number of years. But herein lies the dilemma, if he chooses “No” then he is making a statement that is technically correct but further away from the truth. So, does he choose the answer which is closer to the truth, where he would pick “Yes” because it’s closer to the answer he has in his mind. Unfortunately for the Pew Poll, this second option is what human beings tend to go for most of the time in binary answer options where nuance exists.
Especially considering that poll sitters worldwide are told to answer as accurately, truthfully and as honestly as possible before they are seated to take a poll.
So you have to choose between being A). technically/strictly correct or being as B). honest, accurate and as closer to the truth as possible. These are both mutually exclusive in the position I’ve outlined, you can’t have them both together. In fact, you have to pick one or the other, and homo-sapiens being homo-sapiens, we tend to choose option B) – being as close to the truth, accurate and as honest as possible.
On my last point, why weren’t there anywhere near as many Muslim attacks on the west between 1776 and 9/11? If it was Islam that was the problem, wouldn’t there have been a continuous stream of attacks by Muslims in the last 100 years or so, after the ottoman empire fell?
It appears that there isn’t, which means factors such as country of origin and US foreign policy have much more of an effect. When radical Muslims see what they consider as their brothers and sisters dying for what they see as america’s strategic advance, and they see these deaths on TV and news papers (we don’t get to see them, thanks to media bias and rules subverting the dissemination of truth) they get even more radicalized, and they come out for revenge. Yes, revenge – unfortunate but it’s true. Out of 1.7 billion Muslims, you expect, just like in any other population, that there will be terrible human beings who are willing to kill others for the sake of revenge, including killing people who’ve had nothing to do with any of this, just like we do to them (but in greater numbers). We know we will kill many innocent people, but we still go ahead and drone and invade the hell out of their countries killing mostly innocent civilians who have had nothing to do with any of this.
Remember Type 2 answer bias and revenge, that explain a lot of our collective misunderstanding of everything. I don’t even blame you, I blame the media and the laws that are put together to deliberately misinform us and turn us into haters to get us to fight against each other instead of shaming the war mongers and the fascist pigs that take part in this collective delusion and propaganda peddling.
I’d like to remind us something that Cenk once said, when have we looked back into our past and thought, my god, that hate campaign that we had against these people turned out to be such a good idea – that made a lot of sense and we are better as a civilization for having engaged in that hatred nowadays.
When?
There is not a single instance in the past we could ever say that about, not one! This was really eye opening for me. There are very good reasons for why we can’t point to any example of this.
Just to be clear with this nuance, I never was on Harris’ side. I’ve been in the middle. I see good (and bad) points on both sides. However the more I hear from Harris on this subject the more I disagree with him, and especially his rhetoric. I’ve also said that I like listening to him speak on basically any other subject than Islam, like science, artificial intelligence etc, where he in fact is pretty good.
Still, that post of yours that you’re referring to was really good.
I love how each episode has its own ridiculous motif. Last week it was “Aaand you’re asleep.” This week it’s “I’m takin’ my shirt off.”
aaaaaand you’re asleep
Damn, that whole tipping thing is really complicated! I’m glad we don’t have that in Australia or NZ.
Yeah, it’s a nice little thing that we have to allow certain employers to pay less than the minimum wage and shift the pay burden to the consumer. Although certain tip jobs pay great sometimes; bartender, stripper, casino person. Wait, if you guys don’t tip yur bartenders, what do they get paid per hour?
about $17.50 per hour is the minimum wage here in australia, its equiv in purchasing power to the US dollar, although currency is about 1 AUD = $0.90 USD, purchasing power is different from currency exchange and from the purchasing power perspective it is closer to parity (AUD and USD).