All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2016 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin
47:16
Michael Brooks vs. Sargon of Akkad (Uncensored) #RegressiveLeft
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We'll just add a picture for you and put it in the frame.
Sure.
And yeah, I mean, you know, I think you have a sense of it.
I'll sort of set the conversation up and then we'll just take it from there.
Yeah, sounds good.
Sounds good.
What time is it over there?
9.30 at night.
Okay, great.
So not too.
Are you in London?
No, I've been near it.
Okay, cool.
I almost was in London a couple years ago, but I was going to go to LSE, but ended up deciding not to go.
All right.
Are we all set?
We set, Kelly?
All right.
So we'll be live in about a couple of live whenever.
All right.
Yeah.
Welcome to a Majority X debate between Michael Brooks and Sargon.
You're not like Sargon of Akkad.
Forgive me.
I actually confuse you with Sargon of Iberias.
But this is Sargon of Akkad.
And we are going to be debating the progressive left meme, terrorism, Islam, the Middle East, and figuring it all out together.
I know people are watching on the live stream.
We'll obviously post this again later after it's all over.
And before I go further, I want to welcome Mr. Sargon himself.
Sargon, how are you?
Hi, man.
Very well.
How are you?
I'm doing great.
Glad to have an opportunity to have this confrontation with you, this friendly confrontation.
So I guess we'll sort of start this conversation off.
This is how it went.
Because I do a segment for Majority X, which is the Majority Ports YouTube channel called Debunked, where I take ideas like Barack Obama's a secret Black Panther or something equally as ludicrous as that, and I'll do a debunk.
And I went after this meme that I see a lot on social media of this quote-unquote regressive left.
And you had a response to that, to my video, where you attempted to take it down.
But let me first frame the argument so everyone remembers what I basically am arguing in that video and beyond.
There's sort of three core areas here to this debate.
Number one is that a lot of people who, and look, first, before we go any further, I want to concede right out of the gate that if we're doing sort of hunting on social media for people writing stupid things, we can find examples of anything.
So I'm sure that there are some people who have justified, you know, even terrorism in some instances.
There's people who've justified human rights abuses because of a kind of delusional cultural relativism.
Right.
So we agree for the gate that there is such a thing as the regressive left.
Well, not.
You just said it exists.
Hang on a minute.
You just said conclusion of your video was the progressive left doesn't exist.
So I'm going to explain that.
So it exists as in the same way Bernie bros exist.
In the sense that, yes, you can find maybe one or two examples of people writing dumb things, but as a large, organized, politically effective force, no, it does not.
And I'm going to explain the three briefings.
Wait, hold up, hold up.
I'm going to explain the three variables and then you can go ahead.
Okay, go on.
Okay.
So number one, it doesn't exist for that the sort of prime people driving it are people who seem to be like yourself, unfortunately, that are people who want to claim the term liberal, but also engage in lazy ahistorical generalizations about Islam.
So that's why this term floats around a lot.
Number two, it seems to appeal to people who do not want to do the actual homework and take on the intellectual challenge of, as an example, studying history, studying policy, understanding why we are where we are with an issue like Islamic terrorism or Islamic extremism.
These are people who don't want to engage in a conversation on, as an example, who funded Wahhabism and the role of Saudi foreign policy in developing that and the role of Western policy in developing Saudi foreign policy.
These are much more complicated discussions than just internet memes.
And people who use the term regressive left almost always want to avoid them.
Number three, the reason it's a problem to talk in a reductionist and dumb way about Islam is not because it's PC or it hurts people's feelings or all this other mishigas that's Hebrew, excuse me, Yiddish, by the way.
The reason is, is because we need to be very smart and very precise and very strategic in understanding these issues, precisely because terrorism is an important issue, as is multiculturalism, as is the quest for human rights and reform within not just Islamic countries, but in fact globally.
So when we make dumb, generic, over-generalizations about Islam, we undermine the work of people like Fatima Mernisi, as an example.
I don't know if you're familiar with her.
She was a prominent Moroccan Islamic feminist.
Asma Jahangir, who's a Pakistani human rights attorney who's worked in Pakistan for several decades.
Khatami, Ahmed Mousali, who are both Islam and democracy theorists, working on theories of reconciling Islam with democracy.
Now, these projects may or may not be successful.
But if you're saying that you are compassionate and concerned about the human rights dimensions of what is happening inside Islamic societies, and then you turn around and you say that Islam is one monolithic thing or the motherload of bad ideas, which you co-signed on in your video attempt to take me down, then you absolutely did.
Okay, so great.
When you co-sign on that, and then you say you want to support reformists within the Muslim world, you're engaging in a performative contradiction and again, avoiding doing the actual legwork of the real historical, real policy investigation that is required to forward what you claim you want.
So the conclusion is that it's a thing that exists in tiny pockets.
It's vastly inflated in terms of its importance.
People who inflate it in terms of its importance don't want to do policy or history or geography or economics.
And as a result of not wanting to do policy, history, geography, or economics, it leads to dumb ideas, bad policy, simplistic and delusional understandings about very important things.
Look, I don't play video games, so I don't make YouTube videos about them.
It's important to have a grasp and the ground of what you're talking about.
Oh, sorry.
Yeah.
Well, I'm convinced I'm talking to someone from the regressive left now, if that's any help to you in identifying the exact help.
Well, you do seem to be under a few misapprehensions.
Okay, so...
Okay, but don't actually...
No, no, no, no, you've just had, like, a five-minute monologue.
So let me ask you a question.
Go into actual detail, though.
Don't do silly ad hoc.
I will go into detail, right?
So how big is big enough for you to regard someone as important?
That's the first question that comes up.
Because you think that the regressive left is made up of unimportant plebeians on the internet making ahistorical generalizations.
And not just...
the thing that you have to understand as well is the regressive left is not limited to opinions on Islam.
But that is one of the major issues that people are trying to talk about that the regressive left is getting in the way of.
But how big would these people need to be?
I mean, what kind of thing is that?
What makes me a member of the regressive left?
No, no, no.
Answer my question.
No, you just.
No, answer my question.
How big is it?
No, no, no, you answer mine first because you put it directly.
Ask my question first.
You put it directly.
I don't care.
I'll ask my question first.
How big?
I don't care that you care.
How big are people?
You don't care that I care.
What makes you a part of the regressive left?
Go ahead.
Literally your opening monologue.
And you signed.
You don't understand why.
So let's actually get into that, shall we?
Now, tell me why I'm in the regressive left.
You have made the assertion that the people in the regressive left who you agree are the regressive left are not big enough to be important.
How big is big enough to be important to you?
What makes me part of the regressive left was the question.
No.
The question is how big do you think these people have to be?
I mean, do they have to be in charge of a major news outlet?
I think that you can, this is a semantic game.
I think if you want to say, okay, so as an example, you guys wheel out Glenn Greenwald as an example of the quote-unquote regressive left.
Absolutely.
Which I don't, which is exactly, look, and I actually don't agree with everything that Glenn says about foreign policy.
I wouldn't expect you to.
But mainly, sorry?
I wouldn't expect you to.
But mainly, the reason seems to be, and again, explain what makes him regressive left.
If you don't want to explain what makes me regressive left, you're going to have to answer that question.
It seems to me that the main objection to him, again, is that Glenn Greenwald engages in policy analysis and history analysis, which you guys always go to as that's a justification.
That's an avoidance of the issue, even though those, of course, are the main drivers.
But what makes Glenn Greenwald of the regressive left and or what makes me of the regressive left?
We agree that Glenn Greenwald is agreed to be a part of the regressive left.
Well, I don't even agree to the term.
If someone explains to me why me or him are.
I will.
I will get to that.
But we have to establish what we're talking about first.
Do you understand?
So go ahead.
Okay, so Glenn Greenwald, right?
Ezra Klein, would you say that he's someone with a wide reach, with a loud voice on the internet?
Yes, sure.
So would I. He's also a part of the regressive left.
Okay, so great.
I'm excited now.
Explain what connects the three of us other than me.
Slow down, right?
We're not in any hurry, mate.
So, I mean, would you agree that, say... We do actually have a hard out.
Okay.
We have other things to do.
I think that's fine.
But you have to understand, we have to go through this.
So the less you interrupt me, the easier this will be, right?
And the easier to do it.
So the New York Times, they would also be a major outlet.
You'd agree with that.
And salon.com, would you agree that they are?
I've never heard of the New York Times.
You've never heard of the New York Times.
Bear with me.
I've never heard of them.
But what about salon.com?
Have you heard of them?
Is that a bar?
No, it's a newspaper.
Well, I say generously, it's a regressive outlet.
Okay, so the main issue is that you're trying to discuss events and people, and we need to discuss ideas.
Do you understand the difference between those two things?
Before I answer yet another one of your questions, and you're going to explain what makes Ezra Klein, Glenn Greenwald, and myself regressive.
Because insofar, all I can tell, the qualities that we share, is that we are interested in policy, history, and the apparatus of how things are actually done.
Right.
I'm not in any way interested in criticizing your analysis of these things.
In fact, I'm going to just assume that I agree with what your analysis is.
And we're Jewish.
Right.
I don't care.
Is that a factor?
No, why would you think that would be a factor?
This is exactly what I'm saying.
Because I thought it would trigger you.
I'm just playing.
Go ahead.
Go ahead, relax.
Okay.
It's all right.
I'm just joking.
You have to understand.
I probably agree with you on your analysis of U.S. foreign policy.
I am in no way a fan of U.S. foreign policy.
However, I am also not a fan of the policy of the regressive left.
It's interesting that you brought up racial issues before anything else, because this is something policy.
Well, bringing up racial issues.
In fact, this is exactly the policy of the regressive left, right?
I've got.
Seriously, right, okay.
I'm looking at an article from salon.com.
White people are more racist than they realize.
On what possible level do you think it's okay to generalize all white people or anyone based on their skin colour?
I mean, that is literally what you're arguing against when it comes to Islam.
And this is always a feature of the regressive left.
Okay, so I'm going to engage in apparently this bar or pub you were referencing published a thing about racism.
So I haven't read it.
I'm not familiar with the article, but I will go based off of the headline.
If you agree, and I just want it to be noted that it is very interesting that you have not engaged at all and are basically conceding the policy terrain, which is the whole point of my video and what you said was bullshit.
The whole point of your video was to deny this regressive left.
I am not contesting your policy analysis.
I'm sure that's accurate.
The whole point is the policy analysis.
But I'll go into the Salon thing.
This is the point.
This is the point everyone has to do.
What do you want me to answer?
Or go ahead.
Sorry.
Okay.
Go ahead.
Okay.
So what I presume is that the Salon article from this pub, which I have not read, and it's interesting, the pubs are publishing articles, that probably what they had done is looked at some research on unconscious racial attitudes and biases.
So as an example, you can take a study, and I actually participated in one in college to help somebody for their thesis, where you can rate when you see names on a screen, you can rate positive or negative reactions to them.
Now, you're not told whether or not these are quote-unquote black names or white names or Asian names or whatever, but you can see certain names like, well, apropos of this conversation, say Muhammad.
And if you rate it negatively, maybe that is a cue for biases that you might have that you're not consciously aware of.
So I would assume that the article is just saying that a fair amount of white people hold some biases that they're not necessarily aware of, which that's indisputably true and not terribly, terrifyingly controversial.
Great, okay, let's take that point.
So now if we have data that's very similar that shows us that, for example, the large number of Muslims hold a conscious bias, in fact, this is actually their opinion and attitude on a certain subject, and that subject is remarkably illiberal.
What should we do?
Oh, here's what we should do.
First of all, what you need to do when you talk about Muslims, obviously, is, first of all, disaggregate that polling data.
And any good polling data on quote-unquote white people is going to do that as well.
So I'll finish.
No, no, but that's an important point.
I'll finish.
No, no, no.
That is an important point.
That's going in doesn't mean I'm not going to answer it.
That wasn't your first response about the thing about white people.
You went on to justify it because it was about white people.
As soon as it becomes Muslim, I said that was probably the same.
You have to now put in a caveat at the beginning.
That was probably what the article was.
Well, I didn't say how I would write the article.
I've never read the article.
So I'm not going to get into these mental gymnastics with you.
If you think this is non-gymnastics, no, because you still have A regressive leftist.
You haven't answered any of my questions, and you're not responding to anything I'm saying.
I'm talking about an article that I haven't even read.
But the thing is, I'm trying to get you to understand.
If not, you can go ahead.
Look, right?
Do you want to answer?
Sorry, go ahead.
You answer.
Okay.
So, what I would say is you need to, first of all, disaggregate between a religion that includes over a billion people.
That's pretty obvious.
Attitudes are not the same.
They vary widely.
Absolutely.
The second point is that primarily, if you look at this historically and that is some static ahistorical idea, and you do the actual legwork and the homework, I know someone like you could do, because obviously you're a smart guy, and I'm not saying that in any way facetiously.
I mean this sincerely.
This is partially what frustrates me.
You can do the homework and look at and say, okay, so why is it that in different times in history, like in Spain, as an example, Islam was much more forward than Christianity at that time.
Okay, why was it the point?
I'm going to finish the point.
But let's talk about it.
Why was it modern Wahhabism, which is the core point of the problems you're identifying rightly, is a modern product of Saudi and Western foreign policy.
As soon as you engage in that conversation, you're talking about policy, you're talking about history, and those were the real issues are.
So if you think just quoting some polling data and telling people that their ideas are stupid is going to either help liberals in those societies or solve hard policy questions, it might make you feel better at night.
It might make you feel pleased with yourself, but it's delusional.
It's not going to do anything.
It's not going to be uncomfortable.
I've never advocated that attitude for white people or anybody else.
Are you uncomfortable talking about these ideas?
Because like with Ben Affleck and Sam Harris on the Bill Maher show, as soon as Sam was trying to explain that, look, we know who these people are that hold these ideas.
We know exactly how many people hold these ideas.
And we know exactly what they're doing.
And we know exactly what their ideas are.
We need to know what it is.
So why can we not talk about these ideas?
How many people hold these ideas?
Well, it depends which idea you're talking about.
Would you like me to?
Okay, well, Sharia law, for example.
I mean, sure, I presume you're not in favor of Sharia law, right?
Well, I am not in favor of any type of religious.
Okay, but the one we're talking about is that.
But just a note here, we're still going off and the wheels are coming off.
You have not defined in any serious way regressive left or explained what connects me, Ezra, and Glenn.
I probably want to talk about power.
I have to go through this discussion first.
Do you understand?
I'll get to Sharia later, but I've already asked four of your questions.
I have to explain.
It's the fact that you seem to have racial and ethnic hang-ups and cultural hang-ups regarding.
What do you do?
I'm not hearing anything.
I'm sure you do.
I'm sure you do think that, right?
But okay, so let's go.
Let's talk about Sharia law now, right?
Okay, I've explained why I think you're part of the regressive left.
So let's talk about Sharia.
No, you haven't.
No, you haven't.
You're assertive.
One of the reasons people call you the regressive left is because you will not allow the conversation to go any further forward.
And you're doing that right direction, which is the point of my video.
You're doing that right now.
Okay.
No, you really are, right?
Let's talk about Sharia.
Define it.
Let's talk about it.
All I'm asking.
Define what am I asking.
I can literally just do.
Just do it.
You seem to have a problem talking about people of different ethnicities.
I will talk about any ethnicity.
In this specific case, let's talk about Sharia law.
That's not asking me.
I'm not going to ask you a question.
I'll talk to you for the rest of the conversation about Sharia.
If you can answer the three questions that you've avoided the whole conversation.
This is going to define regressive left and what makes me, Glenn, and Ezra.
Yeah, you can keep repeating it all you want, but you haven't answered the question.
This is a literal.
What you are doing now is indicative of your position on the regressive left.
Not agreeing with you?
No, attempting to diffuse and deflect your terms.
Then we'll talk about Sharia the rest of the time.
Answer the questions, then we'll go.
I have answered your questions.
No, you haven't.
There is no answer good enough for you because you are using this as a stolen tactic.
I've answered your questions on Sharia.
Okay, well, let's ask any questions about Sharia.
Well, let's just say that.
The only question I've asked is, do you agree with it?
And you kind of went about that.
So do you agree with Shia?
Sharia already answered four questions when you've answered.
This is important for you to understand, right?
Do you agree with Sharia law?
Do you think it's a good collection rate?
I'm not going to answer those questions.
But do you think it's a movement?
Again, I just want this notated that you still, over 20 minutes in the debate, have not defined your terms and you've not answered any questions.
Absolutely.
I won't talk about Sharia.
Right.
Okay.
Do you agree with Sharia law?
Okay, in terms of reality, here's how Sharia works.
No, no, no, don't.
No, no, no, hang on, hang on, hang on.
Hang on, hang on.
I don't support it.
Let's talk about the actual policies and principles of Sharia law.
Let's not talk about how it really works because I don't think you live in an Islamic country under Sharia law.
And neither do I.
I don't think you do either.
No, that's what I just said.
And so let's talk about what they tell us about Sharia law.
Let's see their words repeated via this data, shall we?
Let's see what they actually think and see if you agree with it.
Should we do that?
If you would answer my initial questions, we can do that.
So you're uncomfortable with that.
And we'll all also do that and you're now deflecting again.
But yes.
I still would love to give you another example.
I'm sure you would, but we're talking about Sharia law like you agreed to.
So let's talk about Sharia law.
Any questions that you have?
Okay.
No.
Okay.
21 in, 22 in, no answers.
All right, go ahead.
And I'm trying to get the Sam Harris Sharia thing.
Go ahead.
Right.
So do you agree with Sharia law?
The answer was no, right?
Well, I was giving you a full answer, but you cut me off.
Okay, but you can just say yes or no.
It's not a trick question.
It's not.
It's not a question.
I don't agree with Sharia law.
I think Sharia law is abominable.
Good for you.
Okay, but do you agree with Sharia law?
I can explain what Sharia law is to you.
I could also point your game where I could say.
But I just want to know why you won't condemn us.
This seems very much like Donald Trump refusing to condemn the KKK.
Look, I'm tremendous like Donald Trump.
I agree.
I do a fantastic job.
But look, it's true.
It's true.
But look, here's the reality.
I do not support, personally, religious law of any kind.
That is not my normative preference.
Now, the second part of your question, and this is where, again, it's more complicated, unfortunately, than you wish to present it.
If you go to a legal scholar like Rafia Sakaria, are you familiar with her?
No.
She's a good person to look up.
It's a good idea to.
Come on, let's move this along.
No, no, I'm going to finish.
I'm going to finish.
So she'll explain, as an example, when you do specific polling on Sharia, it means very different things to different people.
So as an example, in Saudi Arabia, Sharia means, as implemented by the Saudi system, a vicious, Wahhabi, cruel, human rights abusing system, which I'm sure everybody would disagree with, and everybody would oppose a foreign policy that props that up.
Now, in Egypt, what Sharia has meant in the past, and it's getting complicated now in the present iteration, is it became a stand-in for people who oppose the secular dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak.
So in other words, the Muslim Brotherhood delivered health care services and they advocated Islamic finance, which doesn't charge an interest rate, and people perceive that as more just.
So when you're talking about, so when you're talking, and this is a grin, this is why it's so great to do the research and read.
Because when you're talking about Sharia law, you're never talking about just one thing.
And this is a great thing for us.
Okay, this is a great thing.
That's great.
What we can do is we can find the people that we support and want to align with in those societies and build bridges that way.
We absolutely do need to do that.
That's totally quoting Sam.
And you're absolutely right.
Sharia law is not consistent.
So why don't we talk about certain aspects of Sharia law that we can know that people are being consistent about?
That's a great idea, right?
I have no problem.
If you're willing to have an integrated conversation like I'm having and not just repeat poll stats and a couple of Quran quotes and Sam Harris, great.
We can talk about everything.
Everything's on the table.
Okay, everybody.
So now let's talk about the reaction to homosexuality under Sharia law.
Yeah?
You're not really getting the point here.
No, I think you're not really getting the point.
The fact that you're not allowing this conversation to happen.
I've just been having the conversation with you for 10 minutes and you still haven't answered anything.
I've literally said, should we talk about the finer points of Sharia law?
And you've denied, you've refused.
I actually obfuscated.
You've muddied the waters.
I will talk about that.
I can't answer them fully.
You can talk about very specific topics regarding this, but you seem to refuse to want to do so.
No, I'm actually getting more specific than you.
That's what's actually happening in reality.
Go ahead.
We can talk about gay rights in Islam now.
Okay, yeah, right.
Okay.
So let's.
But just again, I want to index.
25 minutes in, you haven't answered any questions and you don't want to talk about policy.
But go ahead.
No, no, look, you don't seem to understand.
I agree with you on policy.
Do you comprehend that?
That is not a point of debate here.
So then why are you running around doing all this nonsense about regressive leftists?
You don't understand why people call you the regressive left.
And I am really inexorably trying to explain this.
I'm still waiting.
I would love to learn.
I've been waiting for so long.
You know, normally learning, learning usually involves being quiet and listening.
And answering questions when asked.
Go ahead.
Do you understand?
Right, okay.
So let's talk about the Middle East and North Africa.
No answer to my question.
You just did it again.
I have to admit, it's hard.
Do you understand that?
You said that you were doing a question.
You understand that you said you were going to be quiet and listen and answer questions.
Okay, go ahead.
Do you understand that you said that and then said that I'm not answering questions?
Because you didn't do it.
But go ahead.
Go ahead.
Indexing every time you don't do it.
But go ahead.
Go to gay rights.
Okay.
So you understand that in the Middle East and North Africa, being gay is very illegal in most places.
And it has a very high popular support.
You don't say.
Right.
Now, is this something that you think U.S. foreign policy is responsible for?
It depends which aspect of it you're talking about.
So as an example, there is undoubtedly, in places like Saudi Arabia, an official homophobic policy.
Who props Saudi Arabia?
So it's all of the above question.
So do you think, do you think that's a good idea?
I think if we had aligned, as an example, in a place like Pakistan or Turkey, and I've spent time actually with gay rights activists in Turkey, I'm curious if you've ever spent time with gay rights activists or else back to the summit grounds.
So if we aligned with, as an example, in Pakistan, someone like Asma Jahangir, who we have ignored to support both corrupt, democratically elected governments as well as military dictatorships, yes, I think that we would have done a great deal more to facilitate the rise of moderate and progressive and genuinely religious Islam, as well as facilitate human rights activists working on gay rights issues.
Of course fanatical religions oppose gay rights.
Everybody knows that there's nothing breathtaking.
There's nothing exceptional there.
Okay, so you actually do think that U.S. foreign policy is responsible.
No, I think it's an aspect.
Okay, but how important?
On a standard.
Okay, but how much do you think that influenced it?
Denying it.
I'm going to try to put on my own.
This is where I agree with you.
I think that U.S. intervention in the Middle East in the 60s and 70s did cause the rise of Islamic fundamentalism.
Right.
Very good.
No, exactly.
We don't disagree on these facts, right?
Okay.
However, at this point, do you think U.S. foreign policy is continuing the trend in, say, Iran?
Well, actually, Iran just had amazing election results from moderates and reformers.
So actually, our diplomacy and engagement is facilitating a shift in political tiers there.
So actually, it is.
With regards to the political policy, it's still under Sharia law.
I'm going to finish.
You asked a question.
Yeah, but it is still under Sharia law.
Very good.
With regards to the rest of the region, are you serious?
What do you think?
Quite literally, this is not a PC justification.
ISIS would not exist if you did not invade Iraq and dissolve.
I didn't invade Iraq.
And I totally agree.
I totally agree with you.
We subcontract foreign policy to the Qataris and the Saudis.
Well, we subcontract to the Qataris and the Saudis.
It's hidden.
And they flood weapons to al-Nusra and ISIS.
We shouldn't do it.
We are supporting those groups.
It's terrible.
It's absolutely terrible.
But do you think that Muslims have no agency of their own?
No, I think that fundamentalist ideology exists in Islamic societies as it does in others, and it's a problem.
There's no doubt.
But you don't think that Muslims disagrees with you on that, my friend.
That's great.
But do you not think that Muslim agency plays any part in this at all?
I believe I just said it did.
And I don't think I've ever seen it.
Sorry, I do think you said you agree with that.
That's why I was reconfirming.
So you do agree there's nothing around you?
You haven't gotten a gotcha.
Everybody, you were listening to people genuinely.
Listen, I'm not trying to, look, okay, so you do agree that Muslims have agency, right?
Now, 93% of Muslims in the Middle East, most of them living under Sharia law, agree that homosexuality is something that should be illegal.
Right?
Is that not an idea we need to address?
That is an idea and a policy we need to address.
And this actually, and this leads to the next part of my argument, which you haven't addressed.
So what I said was that, indeed, there is far too much power, primarily which you seem to agree with, which is great.
Unlike someone like Sam Harris, who sees it as a static, non-geopolitical issue, that there is far too much power given to Wahhabism, Wahhabism is an example.
I talked to a Bangladeshi journalist last year, and it was really actually quite depressing and terrifying.
Okay, let's stay on the bottom.
No, no, I'm going to finish.
I'm going to finish.
She was a Bangladeshi Muslim, and she was horrified of the role that Saudi Arabia played in Bangladesh.
So to answer your question, the way we combat that homophobia and that idea is by, again, shifting policy to support activists and allies on the ground, which is contradicted by saying that Islam is one monolithic thing.
Those of you who said Islam is one monolithic thing.
You said it was the motherload of bad ideas.
It is a motherload of bad ideas.
All of these ideas are really, really widely held in Islam, and they're really bad.
How are you going to be an ally for someone who doesn't view Islam that way?
Who's on the ground fighting to reform it?
Why would they need to reform it if it wasn't like that?
It's like everything.
That's what we're saying.
No, it's rampantly homophobic.
We can agree on this, right?
At this particular history, yes, yes.
We're not talking about tomorrow or yesterday.
We're talking about right now.
No, no, right now.
We're talking about everything because I look at things like that.
No, no, but we, for this discussion, we're talking about right now.
No, we're not.
Yes, we are.
And we've just agreed.
Look, yesterday, before, in 10 years' time, it's probably still going to be rampantly homophobic.
I don't know.
Exactly.
We don't know.
So let's just talk about what we know now.
So Middle East, we know now, right now.
And for the last, say, 20 years, you know, however long, you know, it's rampantly homophobic.
We can agree on that, right?
This isn't a gotcha.
This is not a gotcha.
I've already said that.
This is literally homophobia is a big problem, just as it's a big problem in India, just as it's a big problem in the Middle East.
It is, it is, but we're talking about the Middle East.
So, don't worry about India.
No, actually, actually, actually, that's another problem.
I talked about Bangladesh and Indonesia.
We're talking about the Middle East.
No, we're not just talking about the Middle East.
I'm literally saying about the whole Islamic world.
No, we're not.
We're talking about the Middle East.
How narrow you guys want the conversation?
No, these aren't word games.
You're not talking about that.
This is the problem with the regressive left.
You are unwilling to actually have an issue.
No, you don't.
Homophobia in the Islamic world is a problem that needs to be addressed by allying with progressive Muslims and shifting U.S. foreign policy.
Great, done.
Bank it.
Right.
Okay.
The problem for you.
The problem for you is that you contradict yourself because, on one hand, you say you want to be an ally of those people while at the same time telling them that fundamentally their religion is shit and fundamentally a bad thing.
Okay, so you think that it's not a big thing.
Islam is Sufism.
Islam is the howling.
We're not talking about Islam.
We're not talking about Islam is Islamic feminists.
We're not talking about Islam as well as dangerous fundamentalists.
We're not talking about Islam.
Let's assign with the good people and move forward.
I'm really trying to do that.
But we're not talking about Islam.
I know you're trying to make us talk about Islam as a sort of overarching concept, but we're not doing that.
We're talking about Sharia law specifically and particular instances in Sharia law that we have to have a problem with as liberals.
No, I don't agree to all of your premises.
I mean, you can keep talking, but you haven't, you know, it's interesting because substantively we appear to agree.
Yes.
And then there's some type of just these odd evasions and word games that you're committed to having to make this a thing, which was the point of my video.
Okay, so we can't now discuss how these human rights issues are dealt with.
We actually just talked about it for 20 minutes while again clocking at 34 minutes.
You have still not answered any questions.
Why would we not support Majid Nawaz?
But go ahead.
Why would we not support Majid Nawaz?
Majid Nawaz.
Well, wait a second.
So now, just again, this is the pinball debate here.
You haven't answered any of my questions.
Now you want me to talk about someone specifically.
I actually have.
You have people in the comments explaining to you exactly what's going on here.
I just want to get through these points and really show people how you think.
That's fine.
I've explained how I think.
I don't have any strong opinion on Majid Nawaz.
I don't have any curiosity.
And I have no interest in demonizing him.
I have no interest in praising him.
He's fine.
I don't have any strong feeling about him.
Same here.
But my curiosity is that when Najeed says something like, homophobia is a rampant problem in the Muslim world, mostly under countries living under Sharia law.
In fact, we can give you the exact numbers of who is actually homophobic.
We need to start persuading these people that that's not the right thing to think.
Why does he get called a porch monkey by regressives?
Well, I never called him that.
I didn't say you did.
I'm just asking you.
I literally can't speak on that.
I'm not asking you to speak on behalf of garbage things other people said in your realm, so I can't talk to that.
I don't say that.
That's fine.
But you do understand that this did happen, don't you?
His attempt at actualism.
I just didn't know that.
Well, no, no, no, no, no, no, I don't condone that.
Absolutely.
I wouldn't expect you to.
But this is the problem that people are having with the regressive left.
People like Majid and Sam Harris are having.
When they go to talk about actual issues and try to persuade people in the Middle East that these things actually need to be changed.
And here are the reasons why someone calls him a porch monkey.
And it's always someone from the left.
And that's really, really perturbing, wouldn't you say?
Well, I would say the problem is, again, yes.
Okay, so first I'll give you a direct answer.
That's perturbing.
I don't condone that.
But the problem is, is again, I've said throughout the course of this debate, first of all, I asked you what to define Glenn Greenwald, Ezra Klein, and myself.
You still haven't.
And I've been trying to say, which was the point of my video, which is that you guys don't want to do the serious work of policy and calculation.
Maybe you shouldn't try and pass.
Maybe you shouldn't try and presume that.
See what happens.
And then you go all of a sudden we're off in a wild goose chase about someone calling Majid Nawaz something awful.
Great.
I don't think that's a good idea.
You're looking for reasons and you're looking for a definition of the regressive left, right?
And I'm trying to ease you into it in a way that you will understand why people find it objectionable that when Majid Nawaz tries to criticize homophobia in the Muslim world, he gets called a porch monkey by people who probably watch your show.
No?
Yeah.
Okay.
Well, I didn't realize I had ESP as well.
I've been dealing with.
In your video, you did mention cultural relativism.
You said that sometimes there is too much cultural relativism going on.
Sure.
Just as with when people justify halakhic law here in Brooklyn and Hasids who are tremendously homophobic and tremendously sexist, just as people justify Christian fanaticism and Christian law that can be homophobic, just as people justify Burmese Buddhist monks killing Rogan.
I agree.
Cultural relativism can be a problem.
Sure.
No, I agree with you.
I agree.
It's another truism, sure.
Yeah, yeah, it is.
And we can also agree that a lot of it does come from the left.
I mean, that's what you were saying in your video, right?
I don't know, actually, because I just noticed that in Missouri that Republican congress people, state legislators, just tried to put a ban on protests in that state.
That seems not an open society.
I just noticed that some students conservative students at Georgetown complained that Anton and Scalia was not being treated respectfully and hurt their feelings.
And actually, as a matter of fact, I know of no Democratic politicians who have ever attempted to implement actual legislation to ban right-wing protests.
So, yeah, I agree.
It's a problem on both sides.
No, no, that's not cultural relativism, and we're not talking about partisan politics.
Well, we're talking about not defined.
We're talking about the, I'm going to always go back to actual things and actual policy.
Yeah, okay, but that's why my ideas are.
I know, that's the problem.
We need to talk about ideas.
And you refuse to talk about all of the above.
We can sit around and have college freshman jerk-off fests all day, but we have an obligation at these platforms to talk about actual things.
So you think you should talk about things without talking about ideas?
No, I said all of the above, which is.
Okay, well, we've talked about the above.
You haven't talked about the policy.
Sure, we have.
I've agreed with you on everything.
I totally agree with your policy.
So let's co-sign and work on that.
Yeah, let's co-sign that and let's work on ideas now, because this is now the part we need to come to an agreement on, surely.
So if you can.
Absolutely.
Totally agree.
So now, you said there's a lot of cultural relativism coming from the left.
So you didn't say a lot.
You said there is some, and maybe some people go too far.
And I agree.
I think the problem is probably larger than you think it is.
But I mean, what do you think that stems from?
Why do you think there are so many people on the left who are actually tolerant of people, I don't know, stoning women to death for being raped?
I mean, what?
I personally find that really intolerable.
All right.
You just took an example that is so far out of the realm of the world.
Okay, well, let's just go back to the homophobia example then.
Let's just go back to the example.
We know that 93% of the people in the Middle East are homophobic, right?
So why do you think there are so many people in the left who are tolerant of that idea?
First of all, you know one stat that is actually not current and things have been changing to some degree.
How much have they changed?
Not radically.
Not as much as they need to.
Exactly.
But here's the 90%.
But don't let's not worship these stats.
Not worshiping stats.
The group of the change.
No, why do you think that you think so much cultural relativism?
Well, again, it's not my burden to explain why other people think what they think.
But I think that, look, I think that obviously where I'll give you an olive branch is I think that some people perceive from a positive place because they recognize things that you people don't seem to understand that, of course, that people with your political persuasion.
I hope you will individualists.
I hope maybe that won't bother you.
Okay.
No, no, I totally agree.
I know you would like that description.
I want to give some fair description.
No, no, that's not very accurate.
So, okay, good.
So, that people recognize rightly that, as an example, do you think America needs a white history month as importantly as a black history month?
Do you think that that's the equivalent thing?
No, of course not.
Right.
Right.
Because you recognize that in the context of American history, obviously, black people have historically and contemporarily have been repressed and abused.
And of course, we're always going to talk about history.
But I don't see that.
No, I'm not explaining.
I'm explaining.
Yeah, but this is a good topic, actually.
This is a good question.
Yeah, no, no, I'm not explaining.
Okay, so the reason is that some people take a right and correct and intelligent impulse to be more aware of cultural power and how it plays out, and they take it too far to positions where they trist themselves in the pretzels and they don't make obvious distinctions.
That's your answer.
Right, okay.
So you disagree with the amount of cultural relativism going on in the left, yeah?
Well, I disagree with the examples that you gave me.
I don't see this as a rampant problem in the left.
I see most people on the left working to elect Bernie Sanders to help deal with income inequality.
What about all those people voting for Hillary Clinton?
What people voting for Hillary Clinton?
I thought she was in the lead.
Yes, but what's your point?
She's the more conservative candidate, yes.
Or you think conservatives are voting for Hillary Clinton?
In the Democratic Party, yes.
If you go through lineups of how people ID politically, she draws many conservative.
Conservatives in the Democratic Party are voting for Hillary Clinton.
That's correct.
More center-right Democrats, yes.
Ones who, as an example, support more military interventions, ones who support more likely to support free trade agreements, actual policy things again.
Okay.
Can I ask you a question about Black History Month then?
I take it you're in support of the idea of a Black History Month.
I live and breathe Black History Month.
It was the most painful moment for me that it was over yesterday.
Is that a joke?
I'm actually in pain.
So it is a joke.
It's true.
So you're not in favor of Black History Month?
Well, I'm glad to hear it.
I think Black History Month is a pretty obvious thing.
And I'm actually curious now.
I am joking because it's not something I give much thought, but I think it's pretty obvious something that should be honored in American history.
What would be your problem with that?
No, no, I totally agree that black history should be honored in American history.
Okay, so what's your problem with Black History Month?
Well, why would you need a separate month for that?
Shouldn't every month be Black History Month and White History Month?
Shouldn't both histories be taught as an accurate representation of what happened in your country's history instead of singling out a specific month for black people?
Well, first of all, I don't know what your point is.
It's not like black history is not taught the rest of the months of the year.
Why do you need Black History Month then?
Because you have a group of people that have been historically radically repressed, have their contributions not acknowledged in American history books.
And it just says, look, you put a specific spotlight on something.
That's not that complicated.
Yes, I disagree with you.
I'm not a fanatical, pure individualist.
Yes.
No, no, no.
It's not a god.
It's not individualism.
I'm talking about the need to have a separate month for black history if, as you say, black history is being taught as part of the mainstream curriculum to give an accurate representation of the country's history.
There is no need to then have a separate black history month, right?
All of the above.
All of the above.
Again, all of the above.
These are not either or questions again.
Okay, but I'm framing it as if it is.
But I'm not accepting it.
Okay, but that doesn't mean that this doesn't need an answer.
That doesn't mean that it doesn't.
It's not a yes or no answer.
I actually want you to accept it.
But I can play loops with you, too.
I don't know.
It's not an either of us.
It's not an either of us.
I'm looking for your answer.
Why do we need a Black History Month?
And my reason for not needing a Black History Month is because Black History is being taught.
Okay, so you think historical oppression?
Historical oppression and a historical lack of understanding about black contribution and achievement.
Okay, why not have an Native American history month?
We certainly should.
Oh, right.
Okay, so we haven't gone far enough.
What about Women's History Month?
Throw it on the docket.
Yeah.
That will really upset a lot of your followers.
Why would it upset any of my followers?
I don't know if your followers are overly fond of the ladies.
I'm not going to be all heterosexuals, to be honest.
We actually have to wrap up pretty soon, Sargon.
So let's try to come to the center of the center.
Okay, I'll just explain exactly the problem then.
The problem is that you are making a distinction on people based on their race.
Do you not understand that that is a bad thing?
In terms of, again, historical and actual reality and the principle.
In American history, it is not a bad thing.
In terms of principles, we need to actually do like a big picture summary here.
I'm actually literally just doing that right now, right?
Okay, go ahead.
It's literally Martin Luther King's words to say he doesn't want his countrymen, his black countrymen, judged on the color of their skin but the content of the character.
Hang on, when you judge someone...
When you judge someone on the color of their skin, you are negating their character.
You're saying that no agency of that person can affect what you're going to judge them on.
This is why we don't do it.
This is a regressive policy.
This is why you are part of the regressive left.
You support the idea of discriminating for or against people based on their skin color or their gender or their religion.
Okay?
This is why you're the regressive left.
Okay, so it seems, again, this is the point that I made in the beginning.
You guys don't do history.
You don't do artists.
I do history very much.
Not really.
Yes, I do.
And I guess, and again, what you just delivered is, I mean, it's better because it's not a problem.
It's a list of principles you don't seem to understand.
Come out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth.
I mean, I don't even know if you're not something much limbo.
It's nothing arbitrary about that.
If you had been part of a historical press group.
You think people choose to be black?
Uh.
Obviously not.
Well, then it's something beyond their control, isn't it?
So why are you judging them on that characteristic?
Why are you making us?
I'm not judging them on that characteristic.
Of course you are.
Black people have been horribly oppressed.
It's nothing to do with black people are inherently nice or inherently this or inherently that.
It's a historical reality that they have been oppressed.
And this is the problem with you guys.
You're totally ahistorical.
But look, you have the last word.
We've got to be out in 30 seconds.
Sure.
You shouldn't judge people by characteristics that they have no control over.
Okay, and also Martin Luther King Jr., just so you know, he did call for affirmative action.
I love what you think I don't know.
I think that's a good idea distribution to deal with historical reality.
I'm sure he did.
So if we can get to a point where you guys can as equally aggressively tackle actual things that exist other than just these idea games, we'll be in a better place.
The problem is ideas.
The problem we're having is ideas.
We have bad ideas in the West.
There are bad ideas in the Middle East.
That's the problem.
I don't think bombs are going to solve the problem in the Middle East.
I think better ideas will.
And people like you and the regressive left are preventing better ideas from coming to the fore.
Just so you know.
You still haven't defined any of these terms.
I know.
You'll never.
You'll never.
I will never get it, but it was fun.
And maybe we will do it again, Mr. Sargon.
I would love to.
▲
Export Selection