Joe Rogan Experience #1107 – Sam Harris & Maajid Nawaz

26:52
say so he had made moves in this debate
that I considered intellectually
dishonest and and I mean he because he’s
playing a game and this is not a real
conversation
this is a formal academic
style debate where you know his job is
not to leave his view open to influence
by the other
discussions he’s making a
case and I didn’t know it at the time
but he felt unnaturally constrained by
the format of the debate he had to argue
that Islam is a religion of peace and
some of the moves he made there I
thought were dishonest and so I said ma
Jude I remember this more or less
verbatim because we talked about anyway
since transcribed it into a book but I
said ma j’tia you know everyone in this
room recognizes that you have the
hardest job in the world and we’re all
very glad that you’re doing it you have
to somehow convince the next generation
of Muslims that Islam really is a
religion of peace and the jihad is just
an inner spiritual struggle
and that the
martyrs don’t get 72 virgins in paradise
and all the rest and so my question for
you is is this do you really believe
that this is the case now or do you do
you think that pretending that is that
is the case is the method by which you
will make it the case that if you just
pretend long enough and hard enough
it’ll become so
and the extra line here
was and can you just be honest with us
but I find my final sentence was and you
know you know we’re not on we’re not
televised now can you just be honest
with us here and so there so I responded
immediately and said are you calling me
a liar and so now there’s like 70 we
have 70 people and I’m like into my
second gin and tonic and and and he’s
given me the the sort of you know
middle-eastern stare down across it so
he repeats it I said no no I’m asking
just here
that where there’s no cameras can you
just be honest with us and I said are
you calling me a liar and it didn’t go
too well at all the entire everyone on
the table kind of went quiet and and I
didn’t know who this guy was I never met
him and and I should have known who he
was and and then I think somebody very
tactfully changed the conversation and
just completely veered off this and I’d
never I never spoke to him again for
another what was it a couple of years a
couple years I’d never cross paths in
center the reason I bring this up is
that I was one of those guys that didn’t
want to entertain a conversation with
Sam based upon the defensiveness
when it
came to this topic and and I think that
actually it’s important to say that to
people that because you asked him a
question about the Charles Murray
situation a lot of people rather than
actually wanting to engage with someone
on the substance of their ideas
that I
think in the climate we’re in today that
they’re engaging with people based upon
their on their feelings
and those
feelings are valid of course everyone
has the right to their feelings but
we’ve got to try as hard as we can to
detach those feelings from because
that’s clearly not what you know if the
principle of charity means you lend the
person that you’re speaking to the best
possible interpretation of what they’re
saying and and allow them to clarify
what they mean as opposed to you putting
into their mouths
what what they mean
and telling them what they mean I learnt
that you know because then two years
later he reaches out to me and he says I
think we can try again you know are you
willing to have a conversation with me
and and I hadn’t originally remembered
it was the same guy so that’s fine I got
my foot in the door just because he
30:12
didn’t know who I was and then we had
30:14
this conversation which it’s a lesson
30:16
for me because we had this conversation
30:17
it’s it’s it’s called Islam in the
30:19
future of tolerance it’s it’s become a
30:21
book right published by Harvard
30:22
University Press we had this
30:24
conversation that became a book that’s
30:25
been made into a film which I think any
30:27
couple of weeks now we hear some news on
30:28
that yeah I don’t know one that it’s
30:30
coming out with that so we do days a
30:31
lecture tour of Australia and the people
30:34
who organized that made a documentary
30:36
that week but they realized this lesson
30:39
to your question and that is that I am
30:41
somebody that didn’t engage with him on
30:44
the substance of his question but
30:45
actually fired a misfire an emotional
30:49
misfire on on on what was really
30:51
questioning and his motives for asking
30:54
the question
30:55
rather than actually addressing
30:56
addressing the points he was making and
30:57
I think that when I because I didn’t
30:59
rember who he was I then started the
31:02
conversation anew without the memory of
31:05
my original judgment on him hmm and the
31:07
conversation went really well
31:08
so we’ve got some he’ll be able to
31:10
divorce ourselves on that background
31:11
that can’t happen I mean it can be done
31:13
it’s just it takes people of strong
31:15
character to try to like abandon all
31:19
preconceived notions from the past
31:21
conversation just start fresh
31:22
yeah unfortunately this example of a
31:25
kind of a signal success has has caused
31:29
me to in the end kind of miss spend a
31:33
lot of energy just assuming that’s it I
31:35
can’t keep thinking I keep walking into
31:37
another situation thinking this is
31:39
possible is that why you deleted Twitter
31:43
so you haven’t deleted your account
31:45
no I’m still on Twitter but I I will
31:47
based on this recent episode I is a damn
31:51
fascinated by people and their struggles
31:54
with social media with like detaching
31:57
from it reattaching from it getting
31:59
addicted to it I mean I know so many
32:01
people that will look at their Twitter
32:03
at like 1 o’clock in the morning before
32:05
they go to bed and something pisses them
32:07
off and then they can’t sleep yeah oh
32:08
yeah really common I was not I don’t
32:13
consider myself someone who had a a real
32:17
pathology with it I was you know I have
32:19
I don’t know
32:20
6,000 tweets or 7,000 tweets over the
32:23
course of many years so I’m not I was
32:26
not tweeting that much I was not even
32:28
looking that much I was I was fairly
32:31
disengaged and I’ve never used Facebook
32:33
as I’ve never I just used Facebook as
32:35
kind of a publishing channel I never
32:37
engaged with comments but I was looking
32:40
enough and it it was one was clearly
32:44
making me a worse person imagine it was
32:46
I was I was reacting to stuff that I
32:48
didn’t need to react to and it was
32:50
amplifying certain McCrystal isms and
32:52
and voices which need not have been
32:55
amplified and in this in this last case
32:57
it just turned a it just created a huge
33:02
kind of explosion in my life I was in
33:05
the middle of a vacation which I
33:06
basically torpedoed the
33:08
because of what I saw on Twitter and it
33:10
was just it was like the perfect
33:12
infomercial for why you don’t want to be
33:15
he told you our vacation how well so I’m
33:18
in the middle of it like the first
33:19
vacation taken with my family for in a
33:21
very long time was at least a year and
33:23
Wow and what you do so I you know we’re
33:26
on Hawaii and just like I’m supposed to
33:29
put everything down to be the best
33:30
father and husband I can be right and
33:32
that was my intention that’s what was
33:34
happening it happened for a good solid
33:37
24 hours and then I pick up my phone and
33:42
I see that that Reza Aslan and Glenn
33:45
Greenwald
33:46
and Ezra Klein had all attacked me in
33:48
the space of an hour oh no it goes out
33:51
to millions of people is this over that
33:53
what he was Austria was asking about the
33:54
charles murray thing yeah yeah well I
33:55
true that I can’t even see what I didn’t
33:58
look at what Greenwald had done he was
34:00
circulating somebody’s video about me
34:03
how I’m I think I’m a racist in that
34:05
video Reza Aslan blocks me so I can’t
34:08
even see what if he attacks me by name
34:10
but he blocks me so I can’t even see
34:12
what his but so I just saw the the
34:15
aftermath of that you know lots of stuff
34:17
you know lots of notifications coming to
34:19
me with both of us tagged and then Ezra
34:22
published this message I suppose I
34:25
should back up however painfully to
34:27
describe what happened here but so I had
34:29
charles murray on my podcast a year ago
34:31
and charles murray is this this social
34:33
scientist who published the bell curve
34:36
back in the 90s which it was a a book
34:39
about IQ and and success in in western
34:43
societies like our own and it’s a book
34:46
where he worries a lot about the
34:48
cognitive stratification of society we
34:50
have a society that is selecting more
34:52
and more for a narrow band of talents
34:54
that are very well fairly well captured
34:57
by what we call IQ and there is a kind
35:00
of winner-take-all situation where
35:02
people are really you know 500 years ago
35:04
if you had a a very high IQ and you’re
35:08
just pushing a plough next to your
35:09
neighbor you had no real advantage but
35:12
now you can start a hedge fund or you
35:14
can start a software company and we’re
35:15
seeing the this this real shocking
35:19
disparity and
35:20
in good fortune really so he wrote this
35:25
book it had a chapter on race which
35:28
talked about the disparities in in
35:30
racial groups I observe disparities
35:35
right and the claim about the source of
35:40
those disparities was by even the
35:42
standards of the time but certainly the
35:44
standards of today an incredibly tepid
35:48
mealy-mouthed just hand-waving it was
35:50
not this you know here comes the Third
35:53
Reich declaration of white supremacy it
35:56
was undoubtedly there are environmental
36:01
and genetic reasons for this and we
36:03
don’t understand them you know it was
36:05
like to think that is one or the other
36:08
we’re not in a position to know what the
36:10
mixes of influences now and that is
36:14
virtually any honest scientists take on
36:17
the matter and certainly today and it’s
36:22
only become more so but that went off
36:25
like a nuclear bomb I mean that was just
36:26
so that was such a I mean it’s it’s the
36:31
most I saw at the time I never read the
36:35
book I just thought this had to be just
36:36
racist cause Marie would be vilified for
36:39
films and he’s been vilified ever since
36:42
and ever since you know I’ve ignored him
36:44
there’s any deep platformed and was
36:46
assaulted recent yeah so that’s what
36:47
happened so he went to Middlebury to
36:49
give a talk you know 20-some odd years
36:52
25 years after he wrote this book oh by
36:55
the way he’s also listed by the Southern
36:56
Poverty Law Center oh and so that that
36:58
that’s what contributed to the D
37:00
platforming and the violent protests
37:02
against him at Middlebury what’s crazy
37:04
is the whole thing is a propaganda for
37:06
the superiority of the Asian race and
37:08
everyone’s talking about white supremacy
37:12
decisions are the ones far and above I
37:14
mean that’s basically what his book
37:16
proved and you know they’re suing
37:18
Harvard now there’s a group of Asian
37:20
students that are suing Harvard because
37:21
they’re discriminated against because
37:23
they’re required to have higher scores
37:24
because they’re assumed to be smarter so
37:27
their standards for Asian students
37:29
entering into Harvard is higher than
37:31
white people
37:32
Wow yes while Asian privilege has a big
37:34
problem yeah your grandfather was
37:37
working on the railroads in California
37:39
as an indentured servant and all that
37:42
privilege trickled down there’s
37:43
obviously a lot of factors that lead to
37:45
IQ to hierarchy but to ignore what those
37:48
are to ignore it completely to disinvite
37:51
all of you yes exactly only ideology and
37:54
this idea that you cannot look at
37:55
statistics you cannot look at facts and
37:58
in your conversation with ezra’s charles
38:00
that sort of as a recline rather that’s
38:01
what I got is that this is this is an
38:04
ideological issue and that you you it’s
38:08
almost like an impossible subject to
38:10
breach like you can’t even discuss the
38:12
fact that certain races demonstrate low
38:16
IQ and then let’s look at what could be
38:19
the cause of those even discussing that
38:21
somehow another is so inherently racist
38:23
that it must be ignored or must be
38:25
silenced and that you you must first
38:28
concentrate on all the various and
38:30
justices that have been done to those
38:31
people who have this lower IQ yeah well
38:34
let me just take a couple of minutes to
38:35
close the various doors to hell that are
38:37
now ajar based on what we’ve just said
38:40
on your holiday and you get it yeah so
38:43
we’ll just take a little more context so
38:45
yeah as you said Charles Murray went to
38:47
Middlebury College and was D platformed
38:48
and he was not only the platform so the
38:50
usual D platform and with the students
38:52
turning their back to the speaker and
38:53
shout in and not let anything happen but
38:56
the professor who invited him who was a
38:58
liberal professor who wanted to
39:00
essentially debate him she was attacked
39:01
when they’re leaving the hall they both
39:04
get physically attacked by a crowd of
39:07
students charles was was not hurt his
39:10
host this female professor got a
39:13
concussion and a neck injury that that
39:15
still persists and this is now more than
39:17
a year later so it’s like sure that she
39:18
was a registered devil arm by this no
39:21
doubt and and they’re driving out in an
39:23
SUV where that gets I mean someone pulls
39:25
a stop sign out of the the sidewalk and
39:28
I still got the concrete ball on the end
39:29
of it and that this SUV gets smashed
39:31
with this you know concrete Laden stop
39:33
sign I mean this was this is happening
39:35
at one of the most liberal privileged
39:38
colleges on earth it’s nuts so anyway
39:42
that was the thing that put Murray on my
39:44
radar after
39:45
all these many years of my ignoring him
39:46
and I had actually I felt guilty because
39:48
I had declined to be a part of at least
39:51
one project because his name was
39:53
attached right because I just thought
39:55
that this guy is radioactive he’s got
39:57
some white supremacist agenda I had
39:59
believed the the the the lies about him
40:02
and then I saw this I thought okay well
40:04
maybe he’s the canary in the coal mine
40:06
or certainly one of the Canaries in the
40:08
coal mine that I had ignored where the
40:09
as you say there’s a certain topics are
40:12
considered so politically fraught that
40:15
you cannot discuss them no matter what
40:17
is true like it’s just a you know there
40:20
has to be a firewall between your
40:23
conversation about reality and these
40:25
sorts of facts and so you know he so
40:30
he’s been you know suffering from having
40:32
transgressed that boundary and so I had
40:35
him on the on the podcast being fairly
40:39
agnostic about his his actual social
40:42
policy commitments and his political
40:44
concerns and just wanting to talk about
40:48
you know the facts and so far as we
40:51
touch them lightly may had zero interest
40:52
in intelligence as measured by IQ
40:57
although I mean it’s an interesting
40:58
subject but I hadn’t you know I hadn’t
41:00
spent much time focused on that and I
41:02
had truly zero interest in establishing
41:06
differences between populations with
41:08
respect to intelligence or anything else
41:10
but I see what’s coming I see the fact
41:13
that that the the more we understand
41:15
ourselves genetically and
41:17
environmentally the more we will if we
41:20
go looking or even if we’re not looking
41:21
we will discover differences between
41:23
groups and the endgame for us as a
41:27
species is not to deny that those
41:29
differences exist or could possibly
41:30
exist it’s to deny that they have real
41:35
political implication I mean with the
41:37
political implica lurk we need is a
41:40
commitment to to equality across the
41:44
board and a commitment to treating
41:46
individuals as individuals there’s
41:48
nobody who’s that the average of a
41:50
population is meaningless with respect
41:53
to you and that will always be so and
41:57
and whatever you know and whatever
42:00
diversity of talents there is
42:01
statistically in various populations we
42:04
want societies that simply don’t care
42:09
politically about that I mean that’s
42:12
just it’s just not what we its they are
42:17
our political tolerance of one another
42:19
in support of one another is not
42:21
predicated on denying individual
42:24
differences or even statistical
42:26
differences across groups it can’t be
42:28
because we know that there are people
42:29
walking around like you know Elon Musk
42:33
who gets out of bed in the every morning
42:35
does the work of like 4,000 people right
42:37
and people who just are struggling to
42:41
work at Starbucks and hold down a job
42:42
and our political system I mean we don’t
42:48
say one person is more valuable
42:50
politically and socially than another
42:52
even though one person is capable of
42:54
doing massive things that that many most
42:57
other people aren’t it’s you know when
43:00
it comes time to to write laws and
43:03
create institutions that protect you
43:05
that that support human flourishing we
43:08
we have to engineer times that raise all
43:11
the boats and so you know and and you
43:13
know they’re legitimate debates about
43:15
the social policies that will do that
43:17
but and they’re legitimate debates about
43:19
facts so we can debate scientific fact
43:21
and and you know the the results of you
43:25
know psychometric testing or or
43:27
behavioral genetics that are relevant to
43:29
this question of intelligence and we can
43:31
have a good faith debate about the data
43:33
and then we can have a good faith debate
43:35
about social policy that should follow
43:37
from the data but what’s happening on
43:39
the left now is on either at either of
43:42
those tiers of conversation there are
43:46
just straight-up allegations of racism
43:49
that hit you the moment you touch
43:51
certain a certain fact can I say that
43:53
that what he just summarized that when
43:55
I’ve heard it sounds to me as being more
43:59
humane than the implications of the
44:03
argument that the left who are opposing
44:05
what Sam has just said ah because if you
44:08
think about it the implications of their
44:10
argument would be
44:11
they’re what they want to deny the facts
44:12
because they’re scared that those facts
44:15
would from which there would be derived
44:19
a policy that would reflect those facts
44:21
and other words in their minds they are
44:24
marrying those two they are marrying the
44:26
notion that if in statistical observance
44:28
there are variances in IQs between
44:31
groups in their minds that means the
44:33
policy should follow from that so it’s
44:36
why they’re resisting what he’s saying
44:38
whereas what he’s saying is there is no
44:41
connection between what the policy
44:42
should be and what the facts may be
44:43
because of the kind of world we want to
44:45
live in should aspire to equality
44:48
regardless of what the science is saying
44:49
because one is policy and one is science
44:52
I freely agree with you on that but I
44:54
don’t think that’s necessarily exactly
44:55
what they’re saying well I think what
44:57
they’re saying is what they’re doing is
44:59
they almost feel so guilty that any
45:01
discussion whatsoever about race can’t
45:03
be held unless you repeatedly bring up
45:06
all the instances of racism and
45:08
suppression that in discrimination that
45:11
that group has suffered from it’s like
45:13
you can’t it doesn’t exist as a
45:15
statistic island you have to bring
45:18
everything in together if you don’t do
45:20
that
45:21
that’s where their protest comes from
45:22
and I think that was one of the things
45:24
that I got from your conversation with
45:25
Ezra Klein he wasn’t willing to just
45:27
discuss what’s the implication of these
45:29
issues and completely dismiss this this
45:32
fact that Asian people score far better
45:36
there it’s not there’s nothing but it’s
45:38
always fair that by conceding on the
45:41
data it’s almost as if they fear that
45:43
the implication must necessarily follow
45:45
that the policy will also be supremacist
45:47
in that way hmm I wonder I honestly
45:50
think that what we talked about before
45:51
is a big part of it this is ideological
45:53
an idea sport and that they’re just
45:55
volleying back I don’t think they’re
45:57
willing to take I think one of the real
45:59
strengths of character that you
46:01
demonstrate in a debate or any
46:03
discussion of faxes when uncomfortable
46:05
truths rear their ugly head that are
46:07
counter to your or your personal
46:09
position you have to be able to go you
46:11
got a really good point you’ve got a
46:13
good point there’s something to that I
46:14
see what you’re saying okay this is what
46:16
my concern would be and this would be a
46:17
rational real conversation this is what
46:20
I would worry about and then you would
46:21
I’m sure say absolutely I would worry
46:24
about that as well and then you would
46:25
have this sort of a discussion I didn’t
46:27
get that from that conversation you had
46:29
I got ping pong I got I got this
46:32
rallying back and forth of ideas rather
46:35
than two human beings not digging their
46:38
heels into the sand just trying to look
46:41
at the ideas and look at the statistics
46:43
and look at these studies for what they
46:44
are and look at charles murray and what
46:46
he’s gone through and should we be able
46:49
to examine these statistical anomalies
46:51
should be able to examine athletic
46:53
superiority should we be able to examine
46:56
superiority that asians show and
46:58
mathematics and a lot of the sciences
46:59
should we should we be able to or should
47:01
we just dig our heads in the city should
47:03
we just let things sort themselves out
47:04
and quietly ignore all the reality yeah
47:07
I don’t know what so I should say that I
47:10
am I certainly understand people’s fear
47:13
that if you could that anyone who would
47:16
go looking for racial difference is very
47:19
likely motivate and motivated by
47:20
something unethical or unsavory right so
47:22
like like you could imagine you know
47:24
white supremacists being being super
47:29
enamored of this the possibility that
47:31
these days is yes and they are yes and
47:33
so they look at the Asians too so so
47:38
that’s like I get that right and there
47:41
is there’s some things that and this was
47:43
the question I had for charles murray on
47:44
them on that podcast i said like why pay
47:47
attention to any of this what is the
47:48
upside in the in the infinity of
47:52
interesting problems we can tackle
47:54
scientifically why focus on population
47:56
differences and you know frankly i
47:58
didn’t get a great answer from him i
48:00
mean yesterday his answer his answer is
48:03
well I think the best version of his
48:06
answer which I agree with but still it
48:08
may not justify certain certain uses of
48:11
attention it’s just that if you there’s
48:15
this massive bias that basically we’re
48:19
all working with a blank slate you know
48:22
genetically and therefore any difference
48:25
you see among people is a matter of
48:28
environment and so so then you have
48:31
people who have privileged environments
48:34
and people who have environments that
48:36
that
48:37
where they’re massively under-resourced
48:40
and so therefore any different
48:44
representation at the you know the
48:46
higher echelons of success and
48:48
achievement and power in our society you
48:51
know if there’s 13% African Americans in
48:54
the u.s. if you look at the top doctors
48:56
in hospitals or the top academics or the
49:01
you know the Oscar winners or whatever
49:03
you know whatever you want to look for
49:04
for for achievement if there are less
49:07
than 13% African Americans in any one of
49:10
those bins that has to be the result of
49:13
racism or systemic racism that is the
49:18
left the leftward bias at this moment
49:20
and it and so it is with Jews for
49:22
anti-semitism so it is to women you know
49:25
there should be an equal representation
49:26
of women you know computer software
49:29
engineers at Google and any lack of any
49:34
disparity there must be the result of
49:36
either just inequitable resources for
49:42
you know kids in schools or somewhere
49:44
along the way or a pound of a selection
49:48
pressure from the top that you know we
49:50
do you know we don’t like women in at
49:51
Google or blacks at the Oscars and so
49:57
that’s the so Murray’s concern is if you
50:00
believe that and I’m you know this it’s
50:03
not exactly what he said but this is
50:04
this is what I believe he thinks but I
50:06
could be putting some words into his
50:07
mouth here but there’s certainly what
50:08
many other people on his side of the
50:10
debate thing if you believe that you
50:12
will can consistently find racial bias
50:16
and anti-semitism and misogyny where it
50:18
doesn’t exist right so like if you if
50:20
you go looking if you go to a hospital
50:22
and this is a real problem you that
50:24
they’re like like you know the academic
50:26
departments in the medical schools at
50:28
the best medical schools are under
50:29
massive pressure to find like real
50:33
diversity in representation at the
50:35
highest level you need to find a head of
50:38
Cardiology who’s black right and if you
50:42
and you end the fact that you haven’t
50:44
done that is a sign that there’s a
50:46
problem with you and your organization
50:48
and your process of hiring
50:50
now if it’s just the case for whatever
50:53
reason that there are not many
50:55
candidates likely of less than 13% for
50:58
that field or to take the you know the
51:00
James d’amore memo at Google right if it
51:03
just is the case that women forget about
51:05
this is this is beyond aptitude this
51:07
just goes to interest if it’s the case
51:09
that women for whatever reason genetic
51:12
and but or environmental are less
51:16
interested in being software engineers
51:17
on average than men are then you then
51:21
having you know twenty percent women
51:22
coding software at Google is not the
51:25
probably’s not Google’s problem it’s
51:27
just the fact that this is that the
51:28
popular what the population the
51:30
interests are now we should no doubt
51:33
racism still exists no doubt misogyny
51:36
and sexism still exist there there are I
51:39
mean that and there’s proof of this to
51:40
be found as well but if to assume an
51:44
absolute uniformity of humor of interest
51:48
and aptitude in every population you
51:50
could look at is just scientifically
51:54
irrational that would be a miracle if
51:56
that was it so at this stage allow me to
51:58
remind everybody that was Sam’s
51:59
summarizing what he thinks Charles Mari
52:01
was saying as opposed to Sam what no no
52:04
that final point it’s just a true point
52:07
there jeans almost everything we care
52:10
about are massively influenced by genes
52:13
not a hundred percent of what I’ve seen
52:15
happen to you though is that people have
52:16
taken your summaries of other people
52:19
Charles Murray’s position you it’s your
52:22
summary of his position in relationship
52:25
to this this fight against it the thing
52:28
that I would add and the thing were
52:30
there’s some daylight between the two of
52:32
me and him on my podcast is this is so
52:38
toxic to be trafficking in population
52:44
differences with respect to IQ that and
52:48
and it’s not it’s not absolutely clear
52:50
what Social Policy is turn on really
52:54
nailing down these differences I mean so
52:56
you could go I mean to take it even more
52:57
toxic as an example
52:58
it’s like you could decide you know the
53:02
Roma in Europe the gypsies like this is
53:04
like a very isolated beleaguered you
53:07
know community who knows how inbred it
53:10
is I mean I don’t know it’s just this is
53:12
a this is an outlier community like
53:15
anyone who’s gonna want to do you know
53:17
massive IQ testing on the Roma what’s
53:20
the what’s the point of doing that right
53:22
like you know it’s like your it seems
53:24
like a just a kind of political time
53:28
bomb to devote resources in that way
53:32
because we know that the policy you want
53:36
whatever any whatever this the mean IQ
53:39
is of any group the policy you want is
53:42
to give everyone whatever opportunities
53:45
they can avail themselves of so we want
53:47
we want people to have the best schools
53:49
they can use and then we’ll find people
53:51
who need to be in more remedial schools
53:54
for whatever reason or you know people
53:55
like you know they’ll be one population
53:57
that has ten times the amount of
53:59
dyslexia then another population say and
54:02
they’ll be undoubtedly genetic reasons
54:04
for that you know there may be
54:05
environmental reasons for that as well
54:07
but there’s we need to be able to cater
54:10
to all of those needs with just there’s
54:14
this fundamental commitment to goodwill
54:16
and equality without being panicked that
54:19
we’ll find stuff that just blows
54:21
everything up but on the left there
54:24
there’s the sense that the only way to
54:26
move forward toward equality is to lie
54:29
about what is scientifically pause
54:31
applause a bowl and demonize anyone who
54:34
won’t lie with you mmm that’s the
54:37
ideological point yeah this is a new
54:41
thing though right I mean relatively
54:43
speaking this this hard-nosed dance from
54:46
the left of the equality of outcome and
54:48
and the only reason why there wouldn’t
54:51
be 50% women or 50% black or 50% any you
54:54
just pick any marginalized group the
54:56
only reason why wouldn’t be even across
54:57
the board with all other races is
54:59
because of discrimination this is a
55:00
fairly new stance I mean there were
55:02
there were moments that were fairly well
55:04
publicized that I don’t forget when
55:06
Larry Summers got fired from Harvard so
55:08
Larry Summers was the president of
55:09
Harvard and he’s a famous economist
55:12
and he gave a speech for what she was
55:15
fired there might be a little more color
55:17
as to why he was fired I mean it was
55:19
more fired because he he wants the the
55:21
wheels started to come off he didn’t he
55:24
had alienated enough people that he
55:25
didn’t have friends to kind of prop him
55:26
up but but the thing that pulled the
55:28
wheels off was that he gave a speech and
55:30
he said we know there are our
55:34
differences in in the the bell curves
55:37
that describe you know mathematical
55:39
aptitude between men and women and this
55:42
explains why there are many more
55:44
top-flight male mathematicians and
55:47
engineers than women and it’s not that
55:49
they even it’s not that the the means of
55:53
the the of the bell curves are different
55:56
so the means could be the same but there
55:59
could be more variant so that the tails
56:00
are thicker in the case of the male bit
56:02
poker so at the absolute ends both of
56:05
the low end and the high end you have
56:07
many more people so you know if you’re
56:10
gonna ask you know what’s the in the
56:12
same size population how many people do
56:15
you have at the 99.999% aisle of
56:19
aptitude in math say it could be that
56:23
you have and there’s a fair amount of
56:24
data to show this many more men at the
56:27
tails than women
56:29
right and and that’s true for
56:31
grandmasters in chess right it’s just
56:33
the it’s just this is not a and it may
56:36
be true for something like you know
56:38
playing pool you know I mean they’re
56:39
they’re just differences and that may
56:41
not be entirely environmental almost
56:43
certainly or not entirely environmental
56:45
that is one right it’s a big issue in
56:49
the world of pool men and women play
56:51
separately and there’s no reason
56:52
physically why they should yeah it’s not
56:54
a strength game right but women are
56:56
allowed to play in men’s tournaments but
56:58
they never win right gene be Lucas was a
57:00
woman who’s she was like one of the only
57:03
women ever compete and beat men she’s
57:06
like an extreme outlier and this was
57:07
like I want to say was in the late
57:10
seventies in the 80s and and other than
57:12
that there’s been a few women that have
57:14
done well in tournaments but when they
57:15
come to major league professional pool
57:17
tournaments they’re almost always won by
57:20
men and I’m when I say almost I mean
57:22
like 99.9 percent so it was a cum
57:25
games have been happening as we it was
57:27
just over the last couple of weeks and
57:29
there was a male to female transgendered
57:32
athlete in the weightlifting category
57:35
that’s a whole nother boy participated
57:37
in the women’s competition yes and the
57:41
Commonwealth Games at the time of her
57:43
joining hadn’t yet put down a rule asked
57:46
the testosterone levels in the females
57:48
competing and so this male to female
57:51
transgendered person qualified in the
57:53
female games and was as you’d expect
57:57
winning in all of the games and was the
58:00
front-runner and destined to win the
58:02
competition as a male to female
58:04
transgendered person and the only reason
58:06
and it would have led to a huge crisis
58:08
in the Commonwealth Games because there
58:10
was some resistance to this notion and
58:13
of course the questions that arise is
58:15
this fair men are born naturally with
58:17
higher levels of testosterone for
58:18
example the only reason it didn’t lead
58:20
to the crunch time and that was the huge
58:22
scandal of of her winning is that she
58:25
injured herself in the competition and
58:27
by sheer accident yeah I saw that I can
58:30
expand on that a little bit because I’ve
58:31
actually gone through this extensively
58:33
because there was a woman who was used
58:36
to be a man was competing in mixed
58:37
martial arts against women and just
58:39
beating the shit out of them and I and I
58:41
was saying that this is this is a
58:42
mistake and that you’re you’re looking
58:45
at whether someone should be legally
58:47
able to identify as a woman portray
58:50
themselves as a woman absolutely do you
58:51
have the freedom to become a woman in
58:54
quotes in our society yes but you can’t
58:56
deny biological nature and there’s
58:58
physiological advantages to the male
59:00
frame there’s it’s specifically when it
59:03
comes to combat sports that’s my
59:05
wheelhouse I’m an expert I understand
59:07
there’s a giant difference between the
59:09
amount of power that a man and a woman
59:11
can generate and if you’re telling me
59:13
that a guy living thirty years of his
59:14
life as a man that’s that’s essentially
59:17
like a woman being on steroids for 30
59:19
years
59:20
then getting off and then having regular
59:23
women being forced to compete with her
59:25
and trying to pretend this a level
59:27
playing field
59:28
it is not there’s a difference in the
59:29
shape of the hips the size of the
59:31
shoulder the density of the bones the
59:33
size the fists wet that’s a giant factor
59:36
and your ability to generate power is
59:39
size of your fists it’s also an ethical
59:41
problem it’s not just a competition here
59:42
is he have girls getting beaten up by
59:45
someone who used to be a man yes but
59:47
people came down on me harder than
59:50
anything that I’ve ever stood up for in
59:52
my life never in my life – I think
59:53
there’s gonna be a situation when I said
59:55
hey I don’t think the guy should be able
59:56
to get his penis removed and beat the
59:57
shit out of women and then people like
59:59
you’re out of line but that’s what
60:04
happened this is a conversation that I
60:05
had with a woman online this one what
60:08
during this whole thing she said she
60:11
this person who had turned into a woman
60:13
has always been a woman and I said but
60:16
she was a man for 30 years she goes no
60:18
she’s always been a woman I go even when
60:20
she had sex with a woman and fathered a
60:23
kid and she says yes even then I go well
60:26
we’re done yeah because you’re just
60:27
talking nonsense that’s a neurology
60:30
cover exact the facts as they are that
60:32
she had a male physique this person
60:35
always arguing with me wants to claim
60:37
this moral high ground of being the most
60:39
progressive and they’re always looking
60:41
step on top of anybody who’s less
60:43
progressive than then and complained and
60:45
proclaimed superiority and this is the
60:47
ideological sport this is the idea sport
60:50
that that you see with what people are
60:52
playing just ping-pong with ideas
60:54
they’re not listening you you need to
60:56
listen to experts in in that when you
60:59
especially talk about martial arts
61:01
there’s a did the the difference is so
61:03
profound and the results are so critical
61:06
because you’re talking about a sport
61:08
where the objective goal the goal is
61:11
clear it’s very clear beat the fuck out
61:14
of the other person in front of you yeah
61:15
so anything that would give you an
61:17
advantage in beating the fuck out of
61:18
that person should be really looked at
61:20
very carefully and not to thrown through
61:23
the the lens of this progressive
61:25
ideological filter that we’re going
61:26
through right now because that’s that’s
61:28
what it is I mean that’s how people are
61:29
looking at it it’s with weightlifting as
61:31
well when transgendered athletes going
61:34
to weightlifting competitions the male
61:37
to female transgender athletes are
61:39
overwhelmingly dominant I mean is this
61:42
is this a coincidence or it’s no it’s
61:44
someone who had fucking testosterone
61:46
pumping through their system and a
61:48
y-chromosome their whole life and now
61:50
all of a sudden we’re supposed to say no
61:52
she’s a woman
61:52
she’s dainty she’s got size 14 feet
61:56
she’s got gorilla hands like the fuck’s
61:58
he doing sir so I think as you said
62:01
earlier it’s she is a woman but for the
62:03
purposes of competition yeah against
62:05
other women you know legally she’s a
62:07
woman at that stage right if she goes
62:08
through that identity transition but I
62:10
think we have to recognize and I think
62:12
even many traditional feminists are
62:14
making this point you match to the anger
62:17
of the trans community they’re saying
62:19
hold on your what you’re doing in this
62:20
way is actually we fought so hard and so
62:22
long for these female spaces where we
62:26
have a space of our own and now people
62:28
that used to be men are coming into
62:29
those spaces and actually quite
62:30
literally beating the crap out of us yes
62:33
yes you know whether it’s in boxing
62:35
whether it’s in weightlifting in martial
62:37
arts they are – by definition they’re
62:41
dominating all this of course they are
62:42
for the reasons you said experts that
62:44
they’re calling upon or almost all
62:46
transition doctors surgeons or people
62:50
that have transitioned themselves when
62:52
they speak to actual board-certified
62:54
endocrinologist some of the only do it
62:56
off record but one of them forget her
63:01
name she was in one of the big mixed
63:03
martial arts publications Ramona cross
63:05
sick I believe is her name she’s saying
63:08
no not only does it it it actually doing
63:11
this transition like from male to female
63:14
you’re forcing your you’re putting
63:17
estrogen into the system so the bone
63:19
density change that would ordinarily
63:20
take place if you remove someone’s
63:22
testicles and stop that just the
63:24
production of testosterone estrogen
63:26
preserves bone density so you’re
63:28
actually retaining the male bone density
63:31
there’s so many problems with this and
63:33
that and that one of the other things
63:35
they say well oh the Olympics the
63:37
Olympics allow it the Olympics are very
63:39
ideologically based there’s not a whole
63:41
lot of science to this to this
63:42
transition thing of allowing male to
63:45
female athletes to compete in the
63:47
Olympics and there’s a stream amount of
63:50
corruption in the Olympics as it is with
63:52
the IOC being in bed with wada the world
63:55
anti-doping agency and the way they
63:56
handle this Russian scandal I mean this
63:58
Russian scandal that was highlighted in
64:00
that fantastic documentary Icarus yeah I
64:03
was like they’re fucking crazy
64:04
the
64:05
Olympics are not to be trusted that is a
64:07
gigantic multi-billion dollar business
64:09
where the athletes get paid zero money
64:11
it is inherently corrupt from the top
64:13
down no doubt about it so to call upon
64:16
them is to see who should be competing
64:19
as a woman fuck off they’re not the
64:22
experts this is this is not something
64:23
that’s been examined and this is coming
64:25
from someone who one of my jobs is
64:27
examining and commentating on fights
64:30
that is a big part of what I do
64:32
I understand fights and I know what it
64:34
looks like when a man’s beating the shit
64:35
out of a woman and that’s what it looked
64:37
like when this person was fighting women
64:38
it was there was a massive physical
64:40
advantage massive and not a scintilla
64:42
advantage what was the way you mention
64:43
something about the reaction that you go
64:44
to that what was the trouble you gonna
64:46
tell people are so mad at me I mean it
64:47
was just so many not only that they took
64:49
my words out of context they quoted of
64:52
all these different gender transition
64:55
doctors at saying that there’s no
64:57
science behind this and the science
64:59
behind it being totally fair and totally
65:01
equal it’s just not and people know it
65:04
everyone knows it they could they
65:06
couldn’t put Chris cyborg against this
65:07
guy and give him a run for his money
65:09
wrong way classer that’s the other way
65:12
that’s the other thing and we’re dealing
65:13
with a similar situation like that in
65:15
Texas I don’t know about the girl who
65:17
was which was born a girl she’s
65:19
transitioning to a boy in high school
65:21
taking testosterone but in Texas they
65:24
only allow her to compete as a girl so
65:26
she’s dominated the Texas State
65:27
wrestling championship two years in a
65:29
row and it’s horrific because she’s on
65:31
steroids she’s on testosterone and it
65:35
doesn’t matter because they’re testing
65:37
chromosome yeah she’s a woman she was
65:39
born a woman right she’s born a girl
65:41
so because the fact that she’s
65:42
transitioning to be a boy they don’t
65:44
give a shit you’re a woman you’re not
65:45
gonna wrestle against men you’re a girl
65:47
you’re not gonna wrestle against boys so
65:49
they’ve allowed her under extreme
65:51
protest mitts terrible she wants to
65:53
compete or he I should say wants to
65:54
compete as a boy they won’t let him they
65:58
say no you were born a girl you have to
65:59
compete as a girl so when he competes
66:02
everybody boos it’s awesome it’s fucking
66:04
awful I mean it’s it’s it’s really that
66:07
question for you that way around if it’s
66:09
female to male transition somebody that
66:13
used to be a woman that transitions to a
66:16
man and wants to compete with the men
66:17
they don’t have it
66:18
zone you’re allowed to read of this
66:21
advance if they win in that context they
66:23
actually done really good yes right look
66:25
women can beat men yeah I mean it
66:27
happens all the time in jujitsu there’s
66:29
especially in jujitsu in particularly
66:30
because it’s such a technique based art
66:32
but it is possible there’s there’s also
66:35
a woman named Germaine jaronda me who’s
66:37
world-class mixed martial artist who’s
66:39
multiple time world Muay Thai champion
66:40
who fought a man and knocked him out
66:42
it’s a crazy video she was a real man ko
66:45
time with a straight right it’s it is
66:47
possible for them to win if their skill
66:49
level is so far superior that it
66:52
overcomes the inherent strength
66:53
advantages but a woman – male transition
66:57
would be at a severe disadvantage
66:58
against the natural man so would you be
67:00
so in that Texas case they clearly have
67:02
it wrong they should allow they should
67:04
allow him to compete with yes and would
67:07
you be whereas I can I think all three
67:09
of us probably instinctively would
67:10
resist the notion that a female that a
67:13
male to female athlete competes with
67:16
other females because they’d have enough
67:17
quad resist that yes but would you be
67:19
for a female to male athlete competing
67:22
with men yes because I don’t think
67:24
there’s no there’s no better but here’s
67:26
the problem and again the consent is
67:28
sort of running in the other he is
67:30
continually putting herself or he’s
67:32
putting her right in my way knowingly
67:35
and I’m not opposed to a woman fighting
67:38
a man if she so chooses
67:39
like I’m not opposed to bull riding yeah
67:41
if you wanted I’m not you know lobbying
67:44
to get bull riding outlawed but if you
67:45
want to be so fucking stupid that you
67:47
climb on top of a 2,000 pound angry
67:49
animal go for it yeah you should be able
67:52
to do whatever you want I think you
67:53
should be able to jump out of fairly
67:54
good air on airplanes if you want to
67:56
parachute you should be able to risk
67:57
your life parachuting the difference
68:00
lies in just massive advantages and that
68:03
there’s a massive advantage in
68:04
transitioning from male to female female
68:07
to male here’s the other problem female
68:09
to male you have to take testosterone
68:10
you can’t legally take testosterone and
68:13
compete it’s been a giant issue in mixed
68:15
martial arts because for the longest
68:17
time there was a loophole and the
68:18
loophole was testosterone therapy and
68:20
they were allowing testosterone
68:22
replacement therapy for male athletes
68:24
that were either older or it’s it was a
68:27
it was a symptom of having pituitary
68:31
gland
68:32
which comes from head trauma which come
68:34
which means really essentially your
68:36
career should be over yeah your your
68:37
body’s not producing hormones correctly
68:40
and that’s a very common issue with
68:41
people that have been in war people that
68:44
have been blown up by IEDs people that
68:46
have been hit a lot even soccer players
68:48
a lot of times there’s show diminished
68:51
levels of testosterone and growth
68:52
hormone because of to eteri gland damage
68:54
so you wouldn’t even allow that so a
68:56
female to male would be in a whole
68:59
nother problem in combat sports because
69:01
it’s not legal for you to take
69:02
testosterone and compete to bring this
69:06
full circle back to me sitting at the
69:08
pool destroy about to destroy my
69:09
vacation on twitter how long did you
69:11
spend working on this article what
69:13
another thing it’s so again this was
69:14
your wife must hate to do that how much
69:17
does she matter well it was kind of the
69:20
perfect storm but there were there were
69:21
a few things that that relieve the
69:23
pressure one is there was another family
69:25
from our school so they’re like well
69:27
mark my daughter had a friend that said
69:30
that we that my wife could socialize
69:31
with and having another couple there
69:34
forced me to sort of put on my social
69:36
phase at dinner and and I mean it’s not
69:48
to say to describe it that way he’s
69:50
putting on your social phase it actually
69:52
changes your psychology I mean like if
69:53
you have if you if you have to drop your
69:55
problem in order to be a normal sane
69:57
person with people you don’t know all
69:58
that well you’re actually a happier more
70:00
normal person if it had just been me and
70:02
my wife at dinner while I’m dealing with
70:04
this blow up it just you know it’s just
70:05
never would’ve the cloud wouldn’t
70:06
wouldn’t have left so anyway I I was
70:12
trying so I was trying not to engage and
70:14
so I didn’t want to have to write
70:15
anything new to deal with this the this
70:17
what I viewed is just an egregious
70:20
attack on on my intellectual and moral
70:23
integrity and so when I saw this article
70:27
from Klein I realize I had this email
70:30
exchange with him at the end of which I
70:32
said listen if you if you continue to
70:35
slander me this is ahead for like a year
70:37
previously because there’s been released
70:39
I released so so I said but I said the
70:43
end of this exchange if you continue to
70:45
slander me
70:45
and if you misrepresent the reasons why
70:47
we didn’t do a podcast because we we had
70:49
had talked publicly about maybe sorting
70:52
this out on a podcast a year ago but I
70:54
found the exchange with him by emails so
70:57
in such bad faith I found him so evasive
70:59
and dishonest and again just plain
71:02
ideological ping-pong as you said and
71:04
not actually engaging my points that I
71:08
said listen if you if you lie about this
71:10
and you keep slandering me I’m just
71:11
gonna publish this email because because
71:13
I think the world should see how you
71:15
operate as a journalist and as an editor
71:17
like he he had declined to publish a far
71:20
more mainstream opinion defending me and
71:22
Marie an inbox I mean he it was just it
71:25
was truly you know slanderous and
71:27
misleading everything he’s published on
71:29
this topic and he has a huge platform I
71:31
wish to do it so which I enjoy I really
71:34
like what oh yeah no I mean if I I’ve
71:36
red fox with pleasure as well but it is
71:39
it it you know once you see how the
71:41
sausage gets made on many of these
71:43
things once you’re the news item you can
71:45
see that there’s very little
71:46
journalistic scruple in the in the
71:48
background there so I I was lit man I
71:53
didn’t want to have to spend my time on
71:55
vacation writing a retort to this thing
71:58
but I felt like I had to respond and
72:00
again this is an illusion there’s like a
72:01
sheer confection of looking at Twitter
72:05
if I hadn’t been looking at Twitter I
72:06
wouldn’t have felt I had to respond and
72:09
so I responded in the laziest possible
72:12
way which I just published the email
72:15
exchange because it’s already written I
72:16
don’t have to write anything you know I
72:17
just live those hits and essentially and
72:19
of course the rest of the world didn’t
72:20
know you’re actually meant to be on
72:21
vacation right now and so there’s no
72:24
context to them as to why you were still
72:28
III massively underestimated the amount
72:30
of work even my own fans would have to
72:33
do to understand why I was so angry in
72:36
that email exchange so I came off like
72:37
the angry bastard in the email exchange
72:39
and he came off as this you know just
72:43
open-minded ready to dialog guy whereas
72:46
if you follow the plot and you saw what
72:49
he had published about me and and Murray
72:51
previously this thing that has hit is
72:53
now on the hate watch page of SPLC
72:56
he was being totally disingenuous and
72:59
Ave
72:59
and just these responses you remember
73:01
they didn’t match to his article did
73:02
they not not at all and it was this
73:04
thing it was so yeah so I just kept
73:06
getting more tuned up and and so I
73:09
published this thing not realizing not I
73:13
mean I you know it was definitely
73:14
mistake to publish the email exchange
73:16
just just pragmatically not I don’t
73:18
think it was unethical because I told
73:21
him I was going to do it in advance if
73:23
he kept he kept it up it was just it was
73:27
totally counterproductive because it was
73:29
if he was far more reasonable emaddix
73:31
people in the original article what
73:33
seems like he that do a lot of work –
73:35
yeah yeah thing is he wasn’t it was
73:37
suited he was it was it was a an
73:40
appearance of reason but it was it was
73:42
not and then which so we finally did
73:44
this podcast a year hence you know this
73:48
is now my last podcast is now you know
73:50
two weeks ago and you know it was
73:53
basically as bad as I was expecting
73:56
and I basic I feel that I met the person
73:59
who I thought I was dealing with in the
74:01
email exchange and he was fundamentally
74:03
unresponsive to any of my points and you
74:07
know as you say Joe just trying to score
74:09
political points to his toward his
74:12
audience and the thing is he has a
74:14
what’s that mean there’s many there many
74:16
asymmetries here but one crucial one is
74:19
that he has an audience that doesn’t
74:22
care about whether or not he’s
74:25
responsive to the thing that his his
74:28
opponent or interlocutor just said right
74:30
it’s they’re not tracking it by that
74:33
metric they’re tracking it by are you
74:35
making the political points you win it
74:37
that are going that are massaging that
74:40
you know outrage part of our brains like
74:41
our ego
74:42
do you have your hands on our amygdala
74:44
you know and and are you pushing the
74:46
right buttons and so he’s talking about
74:49
racism and you know just the white
74:51
privilege and I’m granting him all of
74:53
that I’m said listen like let me tell
74:56
you why that’s not relevant to my
74:58
concerns and what happened here with
74:59
Murray I’m gonna I’m everything you’re
75:01
gonna say about the history of lynching
75:02
I’m gonna grant you right that’s not the
75:05
we don’t there’s no daylight between us
75:07
there and but the thing is I have an
75:09
audience that is that care is massively
75:12
about
75:13
following the logical conversation if
75:16
somebody makes a point in frustrating
75:17
that is even close to being a good in
75:21
response to me my audience is like you
75:24
know okay Sam what the fuck are you
75:25
gonna say to that yes right and if and
75:26
if I drop that ball I I lose massive
75:29
points right whereas I’m often finding
75:31
myself in conversation with people who
75:33
don’t have to care about those kinds of
75:35
audience that was the one I had one with
75:37
this Omar Aziz oh well that was title
75:40
the best podcast ever I mean he knows
75:42
his audience does not care about him
75:45
honestly representing in this case the
75:47
doctrine of Islam who was that guy even
75:49
I mean Ali says right fine you could say
75:50
okay editor of ox or whatever where did
75:52
you even find that Connie’s podcast
75:58
until this day I don’t even know who
76:00
this bloke is this guy is some crazy guy
76:03
me and auntie me it was because at one
76:07
point he was going on about me being
76:08
some form of enabler of your bigotry and
76:10
yeah well yeah be your own Uncle Tom
76:12
yeah I could see this is that this is
76:18
why it’s so frustrating because I have
76:19
pretty much memorized inside out back to
76:22
front these lannister ideological
76:23
narrative and I could sit here right now
76:25
and play that game with you the game of
76:28
ping pong yeah without conceding
76:29
anything and this is where you know I
76:31
feel our conversation went really well
76:33
because it was stripped away from all of
76:36
that bullshit and we had a genuine
76:38
conversation it still to this day very
76:40
easy for me to to play the tune of the
76:45
Islamist and score those points
76:47
especially because some of what I’ve
76:49
been through
76:49
yeah and score those points and just get
76:52
locked in a essentially it’s ego but
76:55
it’s it’s a it’s it’s it’s not an
76:56
intellectual conversation it’s a it’s
76:58
it’s a game of you know who’s who is
77:00
basically checking the right boxes in
77:03
their own little confirmation bias to
77:04
their own audience that doesn’t interest
77:07
me but it’s frustrating you’re also
77:09
you’re also the best person on the other
77:11
side of that conversation now so there’s
77:13
a series of videos on YouTube I think
77:15
it’s called Merry Christmas mr. Islamist
77:17
yeah that’s right and so on YouTube you
77:19
can look at him hit it against people
77:22
who are playing this game you know
77:23
Islamists and and jihadis of various
77:25
sorts you
77:26
and that he modest is meeting them on
77:29
your interview shows you mostly in the
77:31
UK where they’re pretending to be more
77:35
benign than they are and that it
77:36
monitors you know finding the question
77:38
that sort of pulls back the mask on the
77:41
theocrats hilarious it’s it’s very fun
77:43
well you’re that one video that you
77:45
publish on your blog I’ve sent to dozens
77:48
of my friends the one video where
77:50
there’s this guy and he’s addressing
77:51
this enormous group of people and he’s
77:53
talking about is this radical Islam or
77:55
is this Islam that was I think a
77:57
conference in Norway yeah that was just
77:59
I mean he’s not straight up in Islamist
78:02
jihadist addressing a crowd of seemingly
78:05
mainstream Muslims in Norway and but he
78:07
just by show of hands you know is it you
78:10
know are we extremists if we think
78:11
apostates or COPD it’s it’s pretty it’s
78:14
stunning it’s an amazing document in
78:16
yeah in respect to the way they want to
78:18
treat homosexuals apostates I mean the
78:21
whole thing is is this Islam or is this
78:23
radical Islam talking of ideology
78:26
blinking statistical data on the subject
78:29
of homosexuality so in the United
78:31
Kingdom a poll was done last year asking
78:34
so there have been two polls gauging
78:36
public Muslim attitudes towards gays the
78:40
first asked how many Muslims in the UK
78:42
find homosexuality morally acceptable
78:44
and zero percent this is by the way by a
78:48
professional polling company it’s not
78:50
just some student that’s devised a poll
78:52
on Twitter a professional polling
78:54
company found that zero percent of
78:55
British Muslims responded to a poll
78:58
saying that they found homosexuality
78:59
morally acceptable and then a year later
79:02
which now last year another poll was was
79:05
conducted and that was an ICM poll
79:08
asking whether British Mazda how many
79:11
British Muslims believed the
79:13
homosexuality should be criminalized or
79:15
remain legal and I think it was roughly
79:18
52% 52% if my memory serves incorrectly
79:21
said of British Muslims said that they
79:23
would wish for homosexuality to be
79:25
criminalized and of course what does
79:27
criminalization of homosexuality mean
79:29
under Sharia and traditional Islamic
79:32
jurisprudence we know that it’s
79:34
punished by death so these are these
79:38
this is scientific data from gauging you
79:40
know attitudes British Muslim attitudes
79:42
towards homosexuality but the
79:44
ideological blinkers will will kick in
79:47
and refuse to see that truth and these
79:49
aren’t Islamists unfortunately my
79:50
dialogue with Sam we talked about this
79:51
that there are the Islamists who want to
79:53
who actively want to take over a country
79:55
and enforce their version of Islam then
79:57
there’s underneath that there’s a softer
79:59
landing of very very conservative
80:01
stroked fundamentalist attitudes that
80:04
unfortunately have become widespread and
80:06
here is an example of it that is that is
80:08
being gauged by scientific polling
80:10
methodology that tells us there’s a
80:12
problem and unfortunately if one were to
80:14
speak in this way especially in in
80:18
Europe one is received by my own
80:21
political tribe and that’s liberals
80:23
center-left and further one is met with
80:27
denial and called a bigot simply for
80:30
relaying these facts a quarter of
80:32
British Muslims when asked about the
80:35
massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices in
80:37
Paris a quarter said that those attacks
80:41
are justifiable they sympathized with
80:42
the attackers as opposed to the victims
80:45
who were the staff at the Charlie Hebdo
80:46
offices so this is what led you to be
80:50
put on the southern sovereign speaking
80:53
in these terms and unfortunately it’s
80:55
reporting polling data and what it does
80:57
for me is to say this is why it’s so
80:59
important to address these issues to
81:00
have these conversations to try and
81:03
empower those Muslim voices that are
81:04
seeking to challenge this sort of these
81:06
sorts of attitudes and and carve out a
81:09
space and if you know if if one can do
81:12
that with Catholicism in Europe and go
81:14
through a Reformation and end up with an
81:16
Enlightenment and end up with secularism
81:17
in the West what I often say is American
81:21
liberals are very happy challenging
81:23
their own Bible Belt and yet we have a
81:25
Quran Belt within our communities and if
81:28
I’m attempting to replicate the
81:30
equivalent of challenging the Bible Belt
81:32
within Muslim communities it means
81:33
addressing these issues and yet they
81:35
grant to themselves the right to
81:37
challenge the Bible Belt within America
81:40
and yet if we were to challenge what I
81:41
call the Quran belt in Europe we
81:43
suddenly called bigots
81:45
you know and Islamophobes is this is
81:48
this static has this been moving has it
81:51
been adjusting and changing is there any
81:53
sort of a recognition that there’s an
81:55
issue with this so you know the
81:57
emergence of Isis really did bring it to
81:59
the fore and it really did quieten some
82:02
of the voices it also did increase the
82:04
hysteria from the far left because they
82:06
began panicking thinking actually we’re
82:08
gonna lose this debate and that’s where
82:09
I noticed their labeling became even
82:12
stronger but the emergence of Isis did
82:14
wake up a lot of people to to the
82:16
challenges we’re facing here because so
82:18
many European born and raised Muslims
82:20
went over to join Isis and of course
82:22
think about it in this sense the most
82:23
infamous and notorious execution cell
82:26
that I think were erroneously called the
82:29
the jihadi Beatles in the press because
82:31
actually it really does it’s an insult
82:34
to the Beatles but it was a diminishes
82:35
the true horror you have these guys you
82:37
know they called him jihadi John and but
82:39
the ISIS execution is basically that
82:40
entire cell of the the media face of
82:44
Isis execution cell were all British
82:46
Muslims and that should tell you
82:47
something that we’ve got the worst
82:49
terrorist group educator I mean the
82:50
thing is university graduate like every
82:52
variable that the the far left wants to
82:55
marshal to explain this phenomenon like
82:58
lack of educational opportunity lack of
82:59
Economic Opportunity lack of social
83:01
integration mental illness a you you can
83:04
all you can find people who had massive
83:07
opportunity I mean City were I mean you
83:09
weren’t a jihadist but you were an
83:10
Islamist but let me you’re a person who
83:12
that’s right and basically play any game
83:14
he want to mere you like it is he’s he’s
83:16
he’s somebody who back to the Superman
83:18
he can run he can run for political
83:19
office
83:20
he hasn’t been elected yet but he you
83:22
know he should be I mean this is the
83:25
quarterback of the football team in the
83:28
the this context he is a candidate for a
83:31
recruitment wealth I think a think of it
83:32
this way we’ve got the worst terrorist
83:34
group in our lifetime it one can
83:36
reasonably say is Isis right the worst
83:38
terrorist group at least in living
83:39
memory is Isis and the worst cell
83:42
analysis the execution cell came from a
83:45
fully developed for want of a better
83:49
term first world country and that was
83:50
Britain and mohammed emwazi the leader
83:53
of that execution cell graduated from
83:55
the University of Westminster was given
83:57
as a young child was given political
83:59
asylum by Britain because his family
84:00
were Kuwaiti and they fled the invasion
84:03
of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein the country
84:05
that the West liberated and he turned
84:08
against that country so he had every
84:10
reason to like Britain Britain gave my
84:12
home gave him a actually physically
84:14
bricks-and-mortar house gave his family
84:16
on social costs they gave him social
84:18
housing they educated he graduated from
84:20
University and they liberated his
84:21
father’s country from an aggressor and
84:23
this man turned against this country
84:26
that helped him and his family and his
84:27
nation was he captured or did he’s dead
84:31
what one of them has been captured but
84:32
he’s currently being held in Turkey
84:34
would it would be fascinating to listen
84:36
to his rationale it’s not so that the
84:39
other why I forgot his name but he was
84:41
just interviewed you know you don’t get
84:43
a lot out of him
84:44
he was interviewed by female Arab
84:45
journalists so on and dismissive
84:51
character he refused to talk about much
84:54
he said you know these are accurate
84:55
accusations and allegations you’re
84:57
making and I will wait to trial in the
85:01
end he kind of cut the interview short
85:02
he seemed a little put out that she was
85:04
a woman oh yeah he did so as I’m looking
85:06
at you now imagine she’s the interview
85:08
and and and and she’s asking me
85:10
questions and I’m looking in this
85:11
direction
85:12
she literally never laid eyes on her
85:18
[Laughter]
85:21
it’s so intense it’s such it like as you
85:24
say radioactive subject to just it’s
85:27
it’s just fascinating to watch white
85:29
liberal progressives just scamper away
85:32
from this well but the flip the flip
85:34
side of the ISIS thing has been the
85:36
refugee crisis which has made which has
85:39
really empowered both extremes frankly
85:42
that the far left and the far right so
85:44
you have the far right you obviously
85:47
with the wind in their sails worrying
85:50
about this influx of people from the
85:53
Middle East and and you know and beyond
85:55
North Africa and just the change of
85:58
culture in their societies and a lot of
86:01
these concerns are plausible but because
86:03
only the far right and a few other
86:05
decent people like Douglas Murray will
86:08
talk about the plausible concerns
86:11
the space has just been vacated so you
86:13
just have the far right but if our
86:15
far-right populist politics being and
86:17
enabled and then you have this
86:19
delusional open borders left that won’t
86:22
we’ve got to talk about the huge problem
86:25
I told Sam about this but it bears
86:27
repeating I was having a conversation
86:29
with someone as an executive at YouTube
86:30
and I asked them why someone got a
86:33
Community Guidelines strike on their
86:34
account because they posted up a video
86:36
on their playlist that they enjoyed of
86:38
Sam Harris and Douglas Murray engaged in
86:42
a conversation I go why would that get
86:45
you a Community Guidelines strike and
86:46
this woman said because it’s hate speech
86:48
I got a problem with the last you see
86:50
sorry apparently Douglas Murray caused
86:52
me problems somebody worked yes she was
86:55
a big executive equate YouTube
86:57
she said it’s hate speech and I told her
86:59
I go did you listen to it I go you
87:01
didn’t listen to it I go this is
87:02
stunning that you would just say it’s
87:03
hate speech then you just be so
87:06
dismissive of it so quickly and she
87:08
talked to me as if I was her employee
87:10
like I was not allowed to question her
87:12
and she was just gonna say what she said
87:13
and I was gonna shut up and it was a
87:15
fascinating conversation no no no why on
87:19
vacation no but it was I did a podcast
87:21
with Douglas and apparently it got
87:23
flagged someone else put it up on their
87:25
account and I got flagged as hate speech
87:27
and strikes you can get your account
87:30
removed so I’ve got a phrase for this
87:32
and I’ve been I’ve been rallying for it
87:33
on social media for a couple of months
87:35
now and I call it a digital blind spot
87:38
there’s a cultural bias on social media
87:41
where because of and it’s intellectually
87:44
lazy because because social media is
87:46
essentially a Californian invention
87:48
right and we’re in the home state of
87:50
where most of this came from
87:51
it’s got a very Californian based
87:54
worldview which cares a lot about white
87:56
supremacy and doesn’t care about many
87:59
other forms of bigotry that exist out
88:00
there in the rest of the world which by
88:02
the way is the majority of the world so
88:04
on Twitter right now of course there’s
88:06
Miley Annapolis has been banned
88:08
Tommy Robinson has been banned as in
88:11
taken off now Twitter’s a private camere
88:12
onsen he’s the former leader of the
88:14
British English Defence League which was
88:17
at one time Europe’s largest anti-muslim
88:19
street protest group
88:20
I helped him leave that organization is
88:22
still what many views I completely
88:24
agree with but nevertheless he doesn’t
88:26
support or nor advocate for terrorism
88:28
why was he removed well so Twitter is a
88:31
private company it can choose to remove
88:33
whoever it wants for whatever reason and
88:34
we will judge it for us inconsistencies
88:35
but he was ostensibly removed for hate
88:37
speech as was Milo unitless
88:39
now the point being that still till this
88:43
day and before people misquote me and
88:45
completely say that I’m now defending
88:47
hate speech and and it’s and their right
88:50
to speak with hateful views on Twitter
88:52
this is my actual point that till this
88:54
day did you know that Hezbollah which is
88:58
a known and recognized terrorist
89:00
organization
89:01
so forget hate speech for a moment a
89:03
terrorist organization that believes in
89:05
actually killing civilians and Hamas a
89:08
known and recognized terrorist
89:10
organization that believes in bombing
89:12
babies on buses as a form of resistance
89:14
they still have accounts on Twitter and
89:18
my point is is that this is the this is
89:20
the blind spot you know that and I’ve
89:22
flagged Twitter about this on many an
89:24
occasion this is the cultural blind spot
89:26
this is the digital blind spot that the
89:28
dude sitting in California in wherever
89:31
who is monitoring this stuff and it’s
89:33
probably more than one person they don’t
89:35
give a shit that there’s some Brown
89:37
person in the Gaza Strip that believes
89:40
it’s okay to kill Jewish babies they
89:42
don’t give a shit because it’s a brown
89:44
person saying it in the name of Islam
89:46
what they care about is a non-violent
89:49
yet says stupid things guy because he’s
89:52
white called Tommy Robinson in England
89:54
or Milo u Annapolis saying stuff that
89:56
they obviously that touches their
89:58
sensitivities and it’s so intellectually
90:00
lazy to flag that immediately and to bar
90:02
it from social media because you’re
90:04
comfortable with it you recognize white
90:06
supremacy it doesn’t take any effort to
90:08
recognize it you don’t have to invest in
90:09
studying this stuff to know what white
90:11
supremacy is it takes a bit of effort to
90:14
study brown people’s ideas that you’re
90:16
unfamiliar with and recognize here’s a
90:19
terrorist organization that’s freely
90:20
operating on social media I know
90:22
specifically on Twitter
90:23
I’ve actually pulled up their handles I
90:25
think one of the concerns that Twitter
90:27
has and I think this is a valid concern
90:29
is that when you have people there
90:30
saying hateful things and you have
90:32
people that are saying whether it’s
90:34
white supremacy or whatever even if it’s
90:35
stupid yeah
90:37
problem is there’s a rallying cry of
90:39
trolls that follow behind them and it
90:42
builds up momentum and it gets pretty
90:44
stunning and that was what was happening
90:45
with Milo and by silencing Milo off
90:49
Twitter they have essentially removed
90:51
him from the public discourse you don’t
90:53
hear about him what’s right because of
90:55
this because of these things but imagine
90:58
what that does in Arabic with the
90:59
terrorist groups yes but there’s there
91:00
everything you’ve just said by the way I
91:02
agree with and multiply that for groups
91:05
that have infrastructure in multiple
91:06
countries with actual organizational
91:09
hierarchies and planned means of
91:11
distributing their ideas across entire
91:14
populations physically fighting in Wars
91:16
right now such as Hezbollah in Syria
91:18
killing Sunni Muslim rebels you know and
91:20
so imagine that and the and the way
91:22
you’re able to rally a mob in Pakistan
91:24
on blasphemy as an example all it takes
91:27
for some person on social media to
91:28
accuse another person or blasphemy and
91:30
they’re probably gonna get killed the
91:31
very next day where and it happens all
91:32
the time but but because these
91:34
californian based social media companies
91:36
are unaware of of the of the cultural
91:39
implications of those sorts of
91:40
organizations and groups and listed
91:42
terrorist groups mind you they are
91:44
there’s completely no no barring on any
91:46
of their activity there’s also the same
91:48
thing that you have with YouTube and
91:50
with a lot of these other social media
91:52
organizations and companies is they
91:54
don’t have to respond or give you any
91:57
reasons they can say it violates our
92:00
Terms but what are those terms those
92:02
terms aren’t even listed it would be
92:03
vague like no hate speech okay well
92:05
what’s hate speech like what do you say
92:07
like what is what are you what is your
92:09
clear policy what are your guidelines
92:12
how does someone avoid violating your
92:14
guidelines they don’t say yeah and how
92:16
is the president the United States not
92:17
of not violating those yeah well the
92:20
monetization is another way that they do
92:22
it they’ll remove the ability to put
92:23
advertising on a conversation that they
92:26
don’t like and it doesn’t have to be
92:28
like my conversation with Douglas Murray
92:29
was Dumont’s not without any explanation
92:32
none zero then we have Douglas his he’s
92:37
yeah but if you’ve listened to our act
92:40
the actual context of our conversation
92:42
there’s nothing even remotely remotely
92:44
hateful about it yeah yeah I mean these
92:47
are private companies they’ve got the
92:48
right to to choose whatever policy the
92:50
only
92:50
thing I would expect from a private
92:52
company show a consistent policy towards
92:54
these things you know if you don’t like
92:56
hate speech then Brown Band Brown people
92:58
who are also advocating more than just
92:59
the hate speech but actually preaching
93:01
violent terrorism right yeah it’s a
93:03
strange time for this man because it’s
93:06
it’s also a time where it’s you can
93:09
communicate so instantaneously it’s
93:11
fantastic in that regard you can get
93:13
ideas out so quickly but these hubs of
93:17
information like where the information
93:19
gets distributed are they’re controlled
93:22
by people that I don’t think ever knew
93:24
that they were going to have this sort
93:26
of responsibility I don’t think I think
93:27
you’re seeing that with Zuckerberg and
93:29
these trials or the the the speeches
93:32
that he’s given in front of Congress
93:33
like when you see him on television
93:35
talking about it you get the sense that
93:37
this is a guy that never prepared for
93:39
this had no idea this was going to
93:40
happen and then all of a sudden from
93:42
this simple social media platform that
93:45
was supposed to be friends sharing
93:47
photos and just talking about girls yeah
93:50
no sense of yeah put women there’s a lot
93:53
of that you know but I mean – and what
93:55
was Twitter I mean Twitter was
93:56
essentially just you know I mean you
93:57
remember the old days of Twitter it
93:59
would be you would use your name it like
94:03
is doing this like Sam under Sam Harris
94:06
like Sam Harris is at the movies you
94:08
would say that almost if you were in a
94:10
third person that was the original form
94:12
that people would use Twitter come after
94:14
that it was weird it was a weird way of
94:16
talking and then people started just
94:18
writing what they thought yeah and it
94:21
just became and then became ideology and
94:24
then it became sharing links sharing
94:27
links and interesting articles is a big
94:28
part of it but to me that’s the only
94:31
good part of it now like I got like I’ve
94:34
just discovered that and that was as
94:37
most of my attachment to it I genuinely
94:40
use it to ask you as a curated news
94:43
because I follow interesting people they
94:45
say they tweet interesting stuff and I
94:47
and I consumed it that way but noticing
94:50
what’s coming back at me in the at
94:52
mansion so I put something out you know
94:54
with my podcast and then I look to see
94:56
how it’s being received on Twitter and I
94:58
don’t tend to do that in other forums I
95:01
don’t really look at facebook comments
95:03
much
95:03
I don’t look at YouTube on YouTube it’s
95:06
just a cesspool right I mean so so even
95:08
if therefore you that the comments are
95:09
horrible nastiness started on the
95:17
youtube comment friends it’s and then
95:18
spread everywhere else very strange but
95:20
so I but one thing I found that you you
95:22
can change that your settings in Twitter
95:24
where you you screen out people who
95:27
don’t have you know just have Twitter
95:30
egg photos they don’t have a real photo
95:31
you can screen out people who haven’t
95:33
had their email confirmed and I think I
95:36
just did those two things and like 90%
95:39
of the hate went away it was amazing
95:41
like it just just doing that thank you
95:45
for you should do that except I’m think
95:47
it’s better to not actually even look at
95:49
what’s coming back at you
95:51
well you’ve taken it off your phone no I
95:52
think so too I think looking looking at
95:55
it – virus my wife Rachel will be very
95:57
happy with that I think she’d probably
95:59
wish that I did the city you tweak on it
96:02
to do you think I don’t react sometimes
96:05
I like to think I don’t react in this
96:07
way but I mean I can’t I can’t say that
96:09
cuz actually probably I have sometimes
96:10
but but you know I get all that same
96:12
kind of I get it’s interesting because I
96:14
took I took a stance on the serious
96:16
strikes and that’s your stance well I
96:18
just think that um especially now in
96:21
hindsight we’re there now no casualties
96:23
involved at all there are only three
96:25
injuries I think we had to take a stance
96:27
that succeeded where Obama failed in in
96:31
making sure that redline was maintained
96:32
that the use of chemical weapons cannot
96:34
be tolerated even if it was symbolic
96:36
even it was highly symbolic I think
96:38
sometimes symbolism is important so I
96:40
took that stance and it wasn’t got a lot
96:43
of love on Twitter oh yeah of course
96:44
because it’s actually that’s against the
96:45
grain public opinion at the moment is is
96:47
it was against the strikes and I fully
96:48
acknowledge that when I took the stance
96:49
right but I argued a case and I set the
96:52
case out and both on my sky news show i
96:54
have a show a co-host on the pledge and
96:56
also on my radio show on LBC I
96:58
repeatedly argue for why I think is
97:00
important that we don’t allow for
97:02
chemical weapons and they used to become
97:03
normalized in our world and so it was
97:06
interesting because I posted the sky
97:07
news clip of me sort of talking to
97:09
camera about my reasons for this and and
97:12
I have this screen grab of the reaction
97:15
it’s just a puddle of blood so it is the
97:19
two extremes completely they actually
97:21
started fighting with each other about
97:23
who’s right about her so I’ve said look
97:25
there here’s a clip why we must
97:26
intervene is here after that come up
97:27
with that blah blah first one is a guy
97:29
with an actual swastika Nazi symbol on
97:31
his profile and it says you know that
97:34
Nordic Scot as his handle Thomas James
97:36
he says Majid wants Britain to intervene
97:38
in Syria because Putin and Assad are
97:40
kicking his Isis buddies arses end of
97:42
story right so there’s a guy is
97:43
basically saying what my real reason for
97:45
calling for that is because I’m
97:46
supporting Isis against the Assad regime
97:48
the guy immediately after responds to
97:51
him and it’s called at last oh right and
97:53
he says what are you on about you Nazi
97:55
dumbest Majid is funded by you’re not
97:57
he’s a far I Uncle Tom captures that but
98:05
they’re arguing with each other over
98:07
whether I’m in there cut his camp or his
98:09
camp basically you never have the worst
98:12
publicist in the world or the best one
98:14
so I should I think I should take myself
98:15
out of that equation let them find each
98:17
other it would be even better really
98:18
that’s the move just set something like
98:20
that up set the far right and the far
98:22
left against each other and you could
98:23
just like sneak away while they’re
98:25
fighting yeah that’s how nuts it is I
98:28
mean the the kind of horses you know the
98:31
extremes are I mean they’re equally
98:36
irrational and the fact that you could
98:38
be at the epicenter of each prompt of
98:42
both of their problems yeah you’re
98:43
Europe covert jihadist and you’re an
98:46
anti-muslim bigot it seems like there’s
98:48
more conspiracy theories in in terms of
98:51
like what someone’s actual motivation
98:53
for what they’re saying now than ever
98:54
before to because it’s so easy to
98:56
express them so someone could say no you
98:58
know he’s far-right or no you’re you’re
99:00
you’re just trying to support Isis yeah
99:03
like this this is this ability to like
99:05
find some nefarious reason for your
99:07
actions but again it’s reducing one’s
99:09
opinion to the lowest yes base you know
99:12
dodgy motive as opposed to applying the
99:14
principle of charity so if Joe says
99:16
something now I can either sit her and
99:18
actually think no I don’t trust this guy
99:20
I don’t respect him and therefore I’m
99:22
gonna reduce his opinion to the worst
99:24
possible interpretation that he could
99:25
possibly mean and then use that against
99:27
him
99:28
or I could continue to ask what you mean
99:30
by that because I’m assuming you’re a
99:32
good decent human being in origin and
99:34
perhaps you mean something that I
99:35
haven’t yet quite grasped and then I’ll
99:36
see to clarify your own opinion in your
99:38
own words and I think it’s unfortunate
99:40
that many of our conversations today and
99:43
the far left is as guilty of it as the
99:44
far right and they like to think they’re
99:46
not which is part of that righteousness
99:47
that blinds them from actually
99:49
committing this very same injustice they
99:51
accuse the far right of committing and
99:52
that is a it’s the same bigotry in in a
99:55
mirror image I call it the bigotry of
99:57
low expectations the low expectations
99:59
they have that Muslims are somehow
100:01
unable to adhere to a common decent
100:02
liberal secular democratic values and so
100:05
it’s actually plaguing our conversation
100:07
stay if only we were able to strip away
100:10
our ideological baggage in entering
100:12
conversations and and allow for you know
100:14
that honest honest conversation but of
100:16
course we say that and then you try to
100:18
replicate our success on a number of
100:20
occasions and found yourself incredibly
100:22
frustrated well you know unfortunately I
100:26
found the one reasonable person to have
100:28
a fight with well it just seems like
100:30
this is a side effect of this increased
100:33
ability to communicate and that just
100:34
there’s so much noise and there’s so
100:37
much going on I mean it is the most
100:39
fantastic time for the distribution of
100:41
information there’s never been time yeah
100:43
where it’s so easy to distribute
100:44
information in human history it’s really
100:46
crazy but I don’t think we know what to
100:47
do with it and I think that when you
100:49
deal with people who have such rigid
100:51
ideologies and they find this incredibly
100:54
easy ability to express these ideologies
100:56
there’s just so much clashing it’s just
100:59
so much so much noise and nonsense and
101:01
when someone says something that they
101:05
know that they don’t have to back up
101:06
with facts because they know that
101:07
they’re there people were on their
101:08
position will support it you say the
101:10
right keywords you know right and
101:12
privilege whatever you want to say and
101:13
then boom you’re gonna get a whole slew
101:17
of people like those two people in your
101:18
your mentions battling it out with each
101:20
other you’re just like kind of picking
101:22
fights and starting these little fires
101:23
and letting other people go to war you
101:26
know what I think we’ve done and it’s
101:27
again the advent of social media is that
101:28
we I was speaking with my friend Mark
101:31
about this and we’ve democratized truth
101:34
and when you democratize truth in that
101:36
way the earlier thing you mentioned
101:39
about sports
101:40
that sports and your expertise in their
101:42
field if I had come back at you and
101:44
spoke at you with as much authority as
101:47
you claim in your expertise with having
101:50
absolutely no history in that expertise
101:52
whatsoever and assumed that I have as
101:55
equal right to an unresearched claim to
101:59
truth in my opinion as you do and who
102:01
has a lifetime of experience in that
102:04
field therein lies a problem that I am
102:06
arrogating to myself this notion this
102:09
this this kind of belief that my opinion
102:12
though I’ve got of course I have an
102:13
equally legal right to express it but it
102:15
doesn’t mean it carries the same weight
102:16
as your opinion when it comes to combat
102:18
sports and it shouldn’t unfortunately I
102:20
think what’s happened with the and were
102:22
still you could add you’re expressing
102:24
that opinion as a person of color or as
102:30
therefore it Sun criticize about by you
102:32
because his truth otherwise you’re
102:34
racist and it’s my task the key word
102:36
that it’s my truth you know and so the
102:38
problem with that is when you relativize
102:39
truth in that way is it there now I can
102:41
speak to you on on an equal footing
102:42
about combat sports which only a mad
102:45
person who hasn’t had that history in
102:46
combats what would think would arrogate
102:48
to themselves a right to do so but
102:49
social media I think has allowed for
102:51
that to happen I gave a TED talking
102:54
about I think it was roughly 2011 about
102:55
the the dangers of this happening and
102:57
social media dividing us all but I’d say
103:00
now that that’s if I were to pitch that
103:02
TED talk today I did it that Ted global
103:04
if I were to pitch that TED talk today
103:06
it wouldn’t be accepted because it’s not
103:09
something new now it’s it’s now people
103:10
know that how social medias has divided
103:12
us but back then it was new and
103:15
innovative art in offer as an idea for
103:17
Ted global to say we want you to speak
103:18
about this on and it’s still up online
103:20
but if people watched it today they’d
103:21
think how on earth did that become a TED
103:22
talk um
103:23
because there was this heady day back in
103:27
you know five six seven years ago this
103:29
kind of hope filled moment where
103:31
everyone thought Google Facebook and
103:33
Twitter and generally social media and
103:35
also tech companies were like the good
103:37
guys that these companies weren’t
103:39
actually companies that they were on our
103:41
side against the corporate world and it
103:43
turns out I think we’ve just hit this
103:44
moment he mentioned Zuckerberg we I
103:46
think we’ve culturally come to this
103:47
moment now where you know I think
103:50
symbolized by his testimony of Congress
103:51
that those that honeymoon period is over
103:54
people now view him I think quite firmly
103:57
and squarely as a CEO of a very rich
104:00
company as opposed to a guy in my club
104:04
that I’m friends with who’s on my side
104:05
against the world you know and that’s
104:07
how Google used to have that slogan
104:09
don’t do evil they still have it I mean
104:14
the problem is the the incentives are
104:16
all wrong and I’m sorry I was just at
104:18
Ted and well they give you a sense of
104:20
how far the rot has spread here so I was
104:22
I found myself at a dinner sitting next
104:24
to a neuroscientist who thought that it
104:28
was and this Ezra Klein thing followed
104:32
me around to Ted and I saw because many
104:33
people have listened to the podcast and
104:35
he thought Charles Marie should have
104:38
been physically attacked at Middlebury
104:40
this is a nurse is a neuroscientist
104:42
academic you know what you’re like a
104:45
impeccable person otherwise I think he
104:48
was after we wound up having a fight at
104:50
dinner over it I think he was somewhat
104:52
chagrined by having expressed that
104:53
opinion but I mean that’s how how
104:55
emotionally hijacked people are by this
104:57
issue and but it’s a that’s incredible
105:03
it was the other thing that’s new this
105:05
is the other thing that’s no the left
105:07
advocating for violence this is very new
105:10
yeah yeah I mean I always felt like the
105:12
the left was nonviolent the the whole
105:16
idea behind being progressive like
105:18
non-violence was was a genuine aspect of
105:21
that and free speech yeah two things yes
105:24
those are two things that have been sort
105:25
of stopped that this free speech is fine
105:28
as long as you’re not saying speech that
105:30
I disagree with and non-violence sure
105:33
unless we need to use violence which is
105:35
like and the people that are saying it
105:37
like if you watch these nt4 people like
105:40
Jesus Christ the most incompetent
105:41
violent people you’ve ever seen in your
105:43
life these guys practicing there’s
105:53
videos of anti feh they had they got
105:56
together and decided to train and
105:58
prepare for violence and so they’re
106:00
doing these martial arts classes they
106:02
have people teach them like holy shit
106:03
like the average high school kid could
106:06
fuck you guys up like this is the most
106:08
ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen in my
106:09
life but it’s almost like they’re they
106:11
realize that there’s not that much
106:14
danger in what they’re doing and they
106:16
can kind of play with danger they can
106:18
play with violence they can put the
106:20
masks on there that you know they’re not
106:22
in Israel they’re check out the Gaza
106:24
Strip show they’re a bunch of cowards
106:26
he’s a guy there’s a guy he went to my
106:27
old Universe I graduated from so ask
106:29
before I did my masters at the LSE so s
106:31
has been embroiled in a strike at the
106:32
moment as the Students Union has been
106:34
supporting professors who are on strike
106:36
and it’s over pension and pension rights
106:38
in a refused government refusing to
106:40
raise their pension rights and whatever
106:41
and some of the students came out in
106:43
strike far-left students defending the
106:46
professors and they put up they put
106:47
forward a ring preventing students from
106:49
attending their classes and an a female
106:53
black lecturer wanted to cross the
106:56
strike lines to go in to teach her
106:57
students a white male public school
107:02
educated very very middle class
107:05
protester far left physically attacked
107:08
her he physically attacked a female
107:10
black professor so gone is suddenly gone
107:14
is the white privilege gone is the male
107:16
attacking a female you know gone is all
107:18
of that is non-violence all the above
107:20
the name of ideology he legitimized and
107:23
allowed himself to attack of black
107:25
female by the way oh and she was also
107:26
Muslim black female this white kid is
107:36
just attack for wanting to teach my
107:38
class this is crazy this is crazy crazy
107:41
world we’re in man this is do you are
107:43
you optimistic about the future yeah I
107:50
say that because it’s going to take a
107:52
lifetime’s work and I don’t think that
107:53
in our lifetime much is gonna change I
107:57
think you know maybe for the next
107:59
generation what is it the picture of how
108:04
do you conceive of your job at the
108:05
moment and what what is the status quo I
108:08
mean so say for instance Isis the
108:10
Islamic state is sort of fading from
108:12
most people’s memory now I mean there’s
108:14
you know the even mine I’m spending much
108:16
less time thinking about it because it
108:18
seems to fit so let me tell you story in
108:19
into submission
108:20
can answer this question with a story so
108:22
radical which is my autobiography has a
108:23
u.s. publication right in the UK it’s
108:26
Random House Penguin it’s published by
108:27
the biggest publishing house when I came
108:29
to publish in the US I approached
108:32
publishing houses but it was after bin
108:34
Laden was killed and so when we
108:37
approached ten twenty whatever
108:38
publishing houses the problem solved
108:40
they all said no they say the problem
108:42
solved they said we think you know we
108:44
wish you’d come to us five years earlier
108:45
but problem solved now there’s not a
108:47
problem anymore and and a bit like what
108:50
you mentioned is sort of your expertise
108:51
and and I I have been consumed by this
108:54
subject all my life and there are a few
108:56
people on this planet that I would take
108:58
seriously on this subject outside
109:01
especially of Quilliam and there are
109:02
other organizations they have some
109:04
really good people but I know them all
109:05
and we regularly speak so I would say to
109:08
all these publishing houses I can assure
109:11
you 100% this problem not only has not
109:13
been solved it’s gonna come back around
109:15
in a far worse way than you can ever
109:17
have imagined this is before Isis came
109:19
along none of them believed me of course
109:22
what then happened my cookbook
109:24
eventually got published by some very
109:26
small publishing house in the US and has
109:28
done quite well for them but the point
109:30
of the story was this Isis came around
109:32
and people were suddenly like oh my god
109:34
where did this come from of course those
109:36
of us who had been monitoring the
109:37
situation knew this was going to come
109:39
back around very very heavy now the ISIS
109:42
had been pushed back and and this is
109:44
where this story is sort of the point of
109:45
the story is we’ve got to resist the
109:47
temptation to believe the problem has
109:49
been solved because the the organization
109:51
known as Isis which is an a bureaucracy
109:54
has been fought back but the ideology
109:56
upon which that organization was built
109:59
is still very much alive and it’s still
110:02
strong um what al Qaeda did while the
110:05
whole world was focused on Isis was
110:07
exploit that opportunity to rebuild and
110:10
regroup and they’ve been rebuilding in
110:12
Syria now they are stronger than they
110:15
have ever been even under bin Laden
110:17
because for the first time in the
110:19
history of that organization they are
110:21
firmly embedded within the Syrian
110:23
population as they genuinely kind of
110:25
viewed by the people that they were
110:27
fighting on behalf of as a grassroots
110:29
resistance organization whereas up
110:31
before that they were seen as a a tear
110:33
group that was like a you know just like
110:34
a vanguard they’ve embedded themselves
110:36
in the Syrian population in the Yemeni
110:38
Civil War they’ve embedded themselves in
110:40
North Africa East Africa and in Pakistan
110:42
and they are resurgent and they are
110:45
grooming Hamza Bin Ladin who has been
110:48
add-in son and they’re grooming him for
110:50
leadership and and a time will come
110:51
maybe in a couple of months maybe in a
110:53
couple of years where they announce
110:54
Hamza bin Laden as a new leader of
110:56
al-qaeda currently it’s Ayman Zawahiri
110:58
when they do that once their grooming
111:01
has been complete and assuming hamza
111:03
isn’t killed up until then all of the
111:06
fragments of what remains of isis will
111:09
probably rejoin al qaeda under hamza bin
111:11
Laden and you’ll have a stronger than
111:13
ever before al-qaeda organization and
111:15
we’ve got to we’ve got to remember that
111:17
we never expected Isis to emerge alqaeda
111:19
will come back with a vengeance what is
111:23
the the politics between the remnants of
111:27
Isis and al Qaeda
111:29
well Hamza bin Laden’s succession to the
111:30
leadership solves that problem of the
111:32
biggest the Isis guys well originally
111:35
all al Qaeda Isis was al Qaeda in Syria
111:37
and they broke away after bin Laden died
111:39
because they didn’t they had pledged
111:41
allegiance to bin Laden and the new
111:43
leader of al Qaeda Ayman Zawahiri is by
111:45
all accounts a rather uncharismatic and
111:47
you know he’s a he’s a pediatrician he’s
111:49
not really a kind of bin Laden had the
111:51
Korea’s media Trish yeah he’s a kid he’s
111:53
Egyptian as an Egyptian pediatrician
111:54
from a very well-off Egyptian family by
111:56
the way
111:57
I think his grandfather ambassador bin
112:02
Laden clearly had the charisma the
112:04
wealth the presence the looks he had all
112:07
of it
112:07
that saguaro he doesn’t as worries you
112:10
know compared to bin Laden he just
112:11
doesn’t you know say if the guys that
112:13
broke away from Al Qaeda’s forum Isis
112:15
said to suwari the current leader we
112:17
pledged allegiance to bin Laden we are
112:19
you nothing you’re not our Emir our
112:21
leader
112:22
if humza bin Laden comes back into as
112:25
the leader of al Qaeda it solves that
112:26
problem because those remnants of Isis
112:29
have a loyalty to the bin Laden name and
112:31
their bin Laden family and they remember
112:33
what they consider their glory days
112:34
fighting under under bin Laden that’s
112:39
not nice to hear no no the problem has
112:41
not gone away I can tell you that the
112:43
problem and the problem is the ideology
112:45
and it will not
112:46
be dealt with until we deal with this
112:48
ideology and it’s why it’s so dangerous
112:50
too you know there was this awful term
112:52
that I railed against it was so
112:55
frustrating to see under Obama’s
112:57
presidency the US State Department
112:58
officially adopted as their name for
113:01
challenging this problem they adopted
113:03
the term al Qaeda inspired extremism of
113:07
course it isn’t it isn’t al Qaeda that
113:10
it inspired extremism its extremism that
113:12
inspired al Qaeda and it is for the
113:15
purposes of political correctness you’ve
113:16
got this term and the State Department
113:17
officially that we’re fighting across
113:19
the world we are fighting al Qaeda
113:21
inspired extremism my former
113:24
organization his but to hire a Caliphate
113:26
espousing organization that believes in
113:28
their ideal caliphate that gays should
113:30
be killed adulterous he should be stoned
113:32
to death
113:33
they were there before al Qaeda and this
113:36
ideology has been there before al Qaeda
113:37
al Qaeda was one of a long line of
113:39
groups that came as a result of the
113:41
Islamist ideology and we’ve got to start
113:43
focusing on the ideology itself not the
113:45
physical groups that spring up from it
113:47
because they can change their name as
113:49
you point out there’s a another layer to
113:52
the ideology that is also that is even
113:54
more well subscribed that presents
113:56
social and political problems so freely
113:58
so as you said there are conservative
114:01
Muslims who don’t support al Qaeda
114:03
they’re not jihadist they can they would
114:05
honestly say bin Laden doesn’t represent
114:07
my brand of Islam but these are still
114:10
people who will who will say that
114:12
homosexuals should be killed that’s nice
114:15
oh so it’s like there’s apparent allies
114:18
against quote extremism can still be
114:21
people so with with religiously mandated
114:24
social attitudes that just cannot be
114:26
assimilated in cosmopolitan societies so
114:30
people who are and it may be worse worse
114:34
than worse than al-qaeda inspired
114:36
extremism there’s just this notion that
114:38
on the left and and this was this came
114:40
out of Obama’s mouth and it came out of
114:42
Clinton’s mouth and largely why she
114:44
wasn’t president it’s not it’s just a
114:48
generic extremism right so that like in
114:51
the same sentence that you have to worry
114:53
about the caliphate you have to talk
114:56
about abortion doctors being killed in
114:59
the u.s. once every
115:00
fifteen years so you might cost you
115:01
remember because that President Obama
115:02
refused to use the word Islamist
115:04
extremism Trump has the other problem he
115:06
thinks that bite like Rumpelstiltskin by
115:08
repeating it enough you’ve solved the
115:09
problem you know but but actually one of
115:12
the elements in which he was correctly
115:13
critical of Obama was and I was at the
115:16
time vocally critical of Obama’s
115:17
reluctance to use the word Islamist
115:19
extremism and we’ve got no problem when
115:23
we talk about you know when we talk
115:26
about white supremacist ideology we
115:28
don’t mean that all white people are
115:30
supremacists you know what we’re doing
115:32
here is actually attributing precisely
115:35
specifically what the ideology is and
115:37
believes in white supremacy and likewise
115:40
Islamist you know it’s important so we
115:42
can identify that ideology still while
115:45
not calling it Islam right so we’re
115:48
still giving a bit of a leeway there for
115:49
everybody else all the other Muslims but
115:52
to call it Islamist extremism is to
115:53
recognize that it’s an offshoot of Islam
115:55
it’s a manifestation extreme or
115:56
otherwise of Islam and thereby we are
115:59
acknowledging that its justifications
116:01
are in Islamic Scripture as well as of
116:03
course a multiplicity of other causes
116:05
grievances and what-have-you but we
116:07
cannot ignore that it also rests on
116:09
justifications that are derived from the
116:11
Islamic Scripture I mean I can cite for
116:13
the Arabic that tells you in the Koran
116:15
itself to cut the hand of a thief or to
116:17
lash the adulterer you know these are
116:20
they all quote the hadith or the saying
116:22
of the Prophet that says kill the person
116:23
that changes their religion this is
116:25
scripture and so of course there are
116:27
other factors involved as well but one
116:29
of the factors that gives rise to this
116:31
is the unreformed scripture that these
116:34
extremists cite and so we have to
116:36
acknowledge that Islam has a role to
116:37
play I often say that you know because
116:40
again under the Obama presidency it was
116:42
frustrating that the common refrain was
116:44
to say that Islam this has nothing to do
116:46
with Islam this is absurd as arguing
116:49
that the Spanish Inquisition had nothing
116:50
to do with Catholicism he went even
116:52
further at one point didn’t he at one
116:53
point say that not only does this have
116:55
nothing to do with his mom this has less
116:57
to do with Islam than any other wouldn’t
116:59
tell him it was just he bent over
117:00
backwards it’s not saying the Crusades
117:02
have nothing dude Christianity yeah Oh
117:04
gentlemen unfortunately I have to wrap
117:06
this up but I really appreciate you guys
117:09
coming on it was
117:11
in your book the book is Islam in the
117:15
future of tolerance and actually we’re
117:17
the one thing we do have to announce is
117:19
we’re going to Sydney and Auckland yeah
117:23
two of us and Douglas Murray and both
117:25
Weinstein brothers we’re gonna we’re
117:27
gonna wreck those towns oh my goodness
117:30
we’re gonna have a podcast a day long
117:32
calm I think you want to use that first
117:33
name because I think okay
117:42
no but great to get both of them
117:43
together that room yeah those guys are
117:45
awesome
117:45
yeah I’m really grateful to meet both of
117:47
them and you as well thank you guys
117:49
thank you appreciate is
117:54
[Applause]
117:57
[Music]

Mean Tweets – Avengers Edition

Avengers: Infinity War just set the record for the biggest movie opening ever. But even Avengers have haters. And from time to time, we like to shine a white-hot light on the trolls. Here’s a new all Avengers edition of #MeanTweets featuring Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Mackie, Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Winston Duke, Elizabeth Olsen, Don Cheadle, Dave Bautista, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Holland, Samuel L. Jackson, Paul Rudd, Karen Gillan, Paul Bettany, Chadwick Boseman, Chris Pratt & Chris Evans.

Sacha Baron Cohen RIPS Facebook

Sacha Baron Cohen denounced tech giants Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google. Cenk Uygur, John Iadarola, and Mark Thompson, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. MORE TYT: https://tyt.com/trial

07:19
no no I understand that but guys what
I’m afraid of is if you take that
argument to its logical extreme all
you’re gonna do is go back to the
establishment media so you’re gonna put
in so many guardrails that we’re gonna
go back to the era of acceptable thought
07:33

 

The Silicon Six:

  1. Mark Zuckerberg: Facebook
  2. Larry Page: Alphabet
  3. Sergey Brin: Alphabel
  4. Sundar Pichai: Google
  5. Susan Wojcicki: YouTube
  6. Jack Dorsey: Twitter

08:06
Facebook Zuckerberg tried to portray
this whole issue as choices around free
expression that is ludicrous this is not
about limiting anyone’s free speech this
is about giving people including some of
the most reprehensible people on earth
the biggest platform in history to reach
a third of the planet freedom of speech
is not freedom of reach Mark Zuckerberg
seemed to equate regulation of companies
like his to the actions of the most
repressive societies incredible this
from one of the six people who decide
what information so much of the world
sees
Zuka burger t’set facebook sundar pichai
at google at its parent company alphabet
Larry Page and Sergey Brin Bryn’s
ex-sister-in-law Susan Wojcicki at
YouTube and Jack Dorsey at Twitter the
silicon six all billionaires all
Americans who care more about boosting
their share price than about protecting
democracy this this is ideological
imperialism six unelected individuals in
Silicon Valley imposing their vision on
the rest of the world unaccountable to
any government and acting like their
Abarth of the reach of law it’s like

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Fights for the Right to Block Some Critics on Twitter

New York congresswoman is the latest politician to face lawsuit over First Amendment issues on social media

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is set to testify in Brooklyn federal court on Tuesday in support of a cause of growing importance to politicians in the internet age:  .

One of Congress’s most influential voices on the progressive left, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has amassed a huge and ardent audience of fans and detractors on Twitter, with more than 5.7 million followers. Like President Trump, the freshman Democrat representing Queens and the Bronx has banned a few followers from her personal Twitter account—@AOC—and faces a First Amendment lawsuit as a result.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s case is the latest in a burgeoning number of lawsuits challenging the right of elected leaders to curate their social-media audience and censor their toughest critics. Already Mr. Trump, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, at least two governors and other local government figures face similar First Amendment lawsuits.

The Constitution restricts government regulation of private speech, protecting against the exclusion of voices in public spaces on the basis of viewpoint. Like other politicians, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez argues in court papers that her @AOC handle is essentially a private soapbox outside the control of government and fundamentally different from her official accounts, @repAOC.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is being sued by Dov Hikind, a former Democratic state assemblyman from New York City.

Mr. Hikind had repeatedly assailed Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for likening southern border detention centers to concentration camps. On July 5, replying to one of her tweets, he said: “You’re actually a liar. It’s been proven.”

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Should public officials be able to block other users on social media platforms? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

Three days later, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez blocked Mr. Hikind, who represented Brooklyn’s Borough Park before founding a nonprofit group that advocates against anti-Semitism. He sued her the next day.

“In an effort to suppress contrary views, [Ms. Ocasio-Cortez] has excluded Twitter users who have criticized AOC and her positions as a Congresswoman via ‘blocking,’” his lawsuit stated, using Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s nickname based on her initials. “This practice is unconstitutional and must end.”

Getting blocked

  • limited his ability to view her account,
  • reply to her posts and
  • engage in discussions with other users about her tweets.

On the internet, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez defended her social-media policy as justified self-protection.

Without referring to Mr. Hikind, she tweeted in August that she has blocked under 20 accounts “for ongoing harassment” and never censored one of her own constituents. Those users, she wrote, “do not have the right to force others to endure their harassment and abuse.”

Mr. Hikind says none of his tweets could be considered harassment.

Before making any ruling, U.S. District Judge Frederic Block scheduled a hearing Tuesday to hear directly from Ms. Ocasio-Cortez about her reasons for blocking Mr. Hikind.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s office declined to comment.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s court appearance plunges Twitter into another content controversy, on the heels of Twitter’s announcement last week that it will ban political ads.

Twitter rules point to the frequent difficulty of distinguishing between harassment and what it calls “consensual conversation.” Its user policies forbid harassment and other behavior that is intended to artificially amplify information or that “manipulates or disrupts people’s experience on Twitter.”

Twitter declined to comment. It is a member of the Internet Association, Silicon Valley’s policy and lobbying umbrella, which in a related case urged the courts against making any far-reaching ruling that could interfere with its control over customer accounts. The association didn’t take a position on the main question: whether a government official blocking Twitter users violates the First Amendment.

Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, a nonprofit that promotes free speech, disagrees with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, arguing that her @AOC account is an extension of her office, used to explain policy proposals, solicit public comment on government issues and advocate for legislation.

The most high-profile ruling came in July, when the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that Mr. Trump violated the First Amendment when he blocked Twitter users who criticized the president and his policies.

“The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees,” wrote Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker in the 3-0 ruling.

The Justice Department, which represented Mr. Trump, had argued that @realdonaldtrump was a private platform for his own personal speech.

The First Amendment law is the same whether the defendant is Mr. Trump or Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, said constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley.

“There may be an argument here that it was a private account and not used for government business,” he said. “But that is a factual question and not a First Amendment issue.”

Not all plaintiffs in these cases have prevailed. A federal judge last year refused to grant an injunction against Kentucky Republican Gov. Matt Bevin who blocked hundreds of people from his Twitter and Facebook sites.