AS197: Goldsmiths Followup; Radicalizing Muslims

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:31 Thomas: Hello, and welcome to Atheistically Speaking. This is episode 197, and I'm your host, Thomas Smith. Wow, we're closing in on 200. I didn't even think about that. I'll have to do something to celebrate, or rather just release an episode. All right, well, today I've got a lot of topics I want to talk about. I also have a very interesting debate. I debated Tyler Vela. I don't know what to call it. I mean, it was a debate.

It essentially was we were arguing each of our sides on abortion, and there's some discussion involved. But I mean, it was pretty much a debate, but it wasn't official. It wasn't timed. It wasn't nothing. None of that. I didn't have a moderator, but I really think that's what it was. But anyway, that was fascinating because it took some turns for sure, but that will be Thursday and Monday. Day. So I think people really responded to getting the content early as a patron when I had the Eli part one and part two. And actually, I think I'm just going to do that again because I really liked being able to give patrons. It's important because they're, you know, patrons are amazing. My patrons are amazing, any patrons for anything are incredibly generous. I want to be able to give them something. So, I'm going to go ahead and do that. I'm not going to be doing that.

I think I'm going do that schedule again. I mean, I have part one on Thursday, release part two right away for the patrons so they can get it. And then it'll be for everybody else next Monday. And I can kind of do that schedule of part one, part two, reaction to whatever we just had, plus other commentary. And today is going to be a commentary on just miscellaneous stuff that I've been meaning to get to.

0:02:11 Thomas: Plus, I still need to try to respond to some of your comments. I've gotten a lot of comments. But I don't want to... I'm trying to get too much back into the Eli issues because we're going to have an episode with Eli and Cogdiss. I got massive response. I say that, not massive, but I got the overwhelming majority of response. Actually, I think every response I got was, we'd definitely like to hear an episode with all, what would it be, four of us on the Eli stuff. So that will happen. We'll get that going. And I want to encourage anyone who is a patron who hasn't gotten on to the bonus feed and stuff, I send an email when you sign up. So, if anyone isn't clear on that, feel free to contact me on patreon.com about that.

0:03:00 Thomas: But you can go to patreon.com to find out more about that. Okay, let's get to some commentary or Tommentary for today.

0:03:15 Thomas: Alright, I've been really debating with myself whether or not to address a comment I've received, a very long comment on atheisticallyspeaking.com by Mike Samsa, who, I mean, kudos to you, Mike Samsa, you comment a lot despite the fact that I'm not able to usually get to your comment or at least address it in full because they're always incredibly long. But I find it really difficult because it's nearly inconceivable how much you seem to disagree with every single thing I say and literally the way I say everything I say. It's almost too much. I don't even know where to start because it'll just be a gigantic Diatribe of how every single point I said was wrong to where I think, oh, I'll try to respond to this part and then it's like, well, no, that depends on this part, which depends on this part, et cetera, to the point where I'd have to dedicate like four or five shows to it, which is just not something I'm going to do. So it's, it's very difficult.

It's also hard to imagine why you're still a listener of the show, so I actually want to applaud you, Mike Samsa, for being still listening. I mean, it's kind of impressive that you could disagree with me so much and still listen. I mean that. I'm not trying to be facetious. I think that's pretty incredible that you are able to show that patience. I am going to try to address a specific thing on your comment, and I'll tell you guys why.

0:04:52 Thomas: I and I'm almost positive, I could be proven wrong, I'm almost positive that Eli will completely agree with me on the Maryam Namazie stuff. I'm pretty sure he will completely agree, I think Cogdiss completely agrees, and so it's something that we're not going to get to when we do the episode with Cogdiss and Eli on safe spaces, trigger warnings, all that. I don't think we'll even get to this because in my mind, it's such a slam-dunk issue. You. I'm amazed. But I'm really glad that Mike Samsa here with this long comment has found a way to somehow agree with the treatment of Maryam Namazie and to agree with that way of dealing with things in general. It's incredible. I wouldn't have thought... I think I even said that at the time. I really want to find if there's anyone who agrees with this policy and the way it's being enforced.

0:05:41 Thomas: But, I think we've got our case study here. So, I'm going to read a little bit of this and see what we can do with it. Part of the comment read, this is gonna be less than half of it, far less than halfway because it's incredibly long. On safe spaces, you're right that Eli was using a very specific definition, but he's still right in the fact that what most anti-SJWs mean by safe space isn't the kind being used in the way they think it is. So in the example you raise about Goldsmiths, if you read their policy, you'll see it's not the kind of safe space people have in mind when they criticize the comment, the concept. They aren't banning dissent or not allowing free discussion or whatever. They're banning discrimination, slurs, and threatening student safety.

0:06:28 Thomas: If you read the policy here, and he has the link that I've already read, and I thought I read it on the show, but I might have read some of it on Cogdiss, you'll see absolutely nothing that's controversial, and it's practically the unwritten standards that any academic scientific conference will abide by anyway. Anyway, that's one paragraph. Like I said, I mean, it's just it's such an onion, you know, to try to peel back the layers of disagreement here. So this is just an assertion. The first part of this is merely an assertition, and it's not true. And I mean we would have to poll people, I guess, to see what they think they mean by safe space, etc. But I can tell you that when I say I'm anti, I don't know, I guessed anti-safe space, I I mean exactly the way that Goldsmiths is using it because Goldsmith's policy may seem, so Mike is telling me, go read the policy and you'll see it's actually fine.

0:07:21 Thomas: I disagree. I think that the policy is so, the problem with these policies is that they're so broad that they can be applied any way they want. I mean, it's like, it's like writing a law that says everyone in this, you know, here it's such a such place needs to be comfortable. Like everybody's got to be comfortable all the time. It's like that's a shit law because what does that mean? Like how are you going to enforce that? What do you do when two people's comfort are mutually exclusive? It's just a terrible it's unenforceable I think. It's unenforceable in a good way. You can't enforce it in a way that's always going to be the right outcome. So I think it becomes kind of meaningless. But I I exactly knew what their safe space policy was because I read the entire thing And they're applying it to the Maryam Namazie thing.

0:08:16 Thomas: They're using that policy. So you're saying, oh, the policy is fine, and I'm saying it's not fine because they're using it to, essentially, what I think is discriminate against Maryam Namazie and against the secular and atheist group. But you're saying it is fine because the language seems fine when you read it. Well, that's the problem. It seems fine, but then you can apply it however you want. So I don't know if you're trying, where, like, feel free to clarify if you want, but that's that is what I mean. I can just speak for myself, I guess. I can't really speak for every other quote-unquote anti-SJW person, but I think that is what we have in mind, and that's what I have in mine. I also wouldn't classify myself as anti- SJW, of course. I'm not anti-social justice. I'm anti-safe spaces, particularly in how it's being applied here.

0:09:03 Thomas: I'm non-anti-safer space in the way that Eli said, and furthermore, I don't think anyone is. And that's why I disagreed with how Eli characterized the problem. Because as Eli described it, and maybe he would even agree with me on this point, I don't know. As he described it it seemed absolutely nonsensical to disagree with what he was saying. It seems absolutely clear that people should have a place to, like, you know, trans people should have the place to be themselves, etc. All that seemed absolutely clear. So I don't, I really, really don't think you're right and I don't think that's the majority of the disagreement. So, and this is what I mean by your comments in general, Mike, like there's so many little things like that. Like you're, it's not just that you're telling me I'm wrong about something. It's that you've just in the first two sentences, you're saying, not only am I wrong, I'm wrong about like how people are using it, the safe space.

0:09:55 Thomas: And I'm right. I'm not wrong about what they think it is. And I don't like you say I'm running like four different ways in one sentence. It's too much to handle. I really don't, I think we need to, maybe a way to have a dialogue is to let go of a few of these minor points, like how people are using it, how, whatever, and just engage in what I'm saying. And the reason I say this, and this is very specific of Mike Sampsa, this does not apply to criticism in general, is that every comment of his is just full of this stuff. I can't read two paragraphs of it without being disagreed with in 90 different ways, shapes, and forms. And it's like, it's unrealistic. I actually don't think it's possible for me to be that wrong. Just as a matter of probability.

0:10:41 Thomas: It's remarkable. So maybe if you could lose some of that, Mike, and just concentrate on the bigger points, maybe we could accomplish something. And merely as a tactic, like, even if you think I'm wrong on literally every single sentence I say, maybe focus on the big stuff so that we could have an argument about it or have a dialogue about it. But I want to read this. You're saying they aren't banning dissent or not allowing free discussion or whatever. They literally are doing that. That is actually what I think they're doing. And it's, this is why there's a difference in opinion. And this is what I keep saying. You can't just say, oh, I'm wrong because of the language of the website. No, it's how they're using it. The language seems happy. Like it seems good. It seems like a good policy in most ways.

0:11:27 Thomas: But the problem is it's too broad and it's unenforceable for the most part. Most part, yeah, there's going to be easy cases. You're not going to allow some racist who doesn't even go to the school to knife-wielding person to come and threaten the safety of the state. There's obvious cases that it's fine. Yeah. I agree with that. But the corner cases are what's difficult because, and let's look at it here.

Your next paragraph is, the specific example you raise is just a discussion over whether the safe space policy applies to that speaker or not, and admittedly, it is a fine line where the students and unions need to determine how they see it. Looking through this page, and he has a link, islamophobiawatch.co.uk, from 2011, by the way, that just, and it's, Mike, that is an incredibly unconvincing link, just so you know. Know, I read through most of it. It's really long. But it's funny because the link is about her writing a book saying, I'm not on the same side of these far-right people. Like, that's actually what the book's about. She's trying to differentiate between genuine Islamophobia and her and the author of the post that Mike Samsa linked merely disagrees with her. That's fine, I guess, but it doesn't, it's not, oh, here's proof positive that she's an Islamophobe.

No, that someone's, someone has an opinion that her opinion is wrong. It's not, I mean, it's really, read through that again. Like it's, it's not very convincing. I think there's definitely a reasonable claim that she's an Islamophobe. Okay. So based on that, you, you think it's reasonable. So I think discussion of how she affects the feeling of safety of students on campus is definitely one that needs to be had.

0:13:06 Thomas: She has a record of stirring up fear of Muslims and tying Islam as a whole to terrorist actions, and that's not something an intellectual institution should implicitly endorse. That's your opinion of what she's doing. I don't see that as what she is doing at all. I see that is people misunderstanding what she was doing. But who gets to have that discussion? Now, here's the thing. I did a little more research into it. It turns out the Student Union approved her as a speaker, and I guess they would have to. They would have had to. I just didn't explicitly explain that last time. So she was approved the first go around. And so that's the end of the story. She was approved by the student union, even keeping in mind this really gray area of safe space policy they have. They approved her. She was approved to speak.

0:13:51 Thomas: And then the people completely ruined, people intimidated her, were threatening. Someone made a gun motion with their hand at her. And it's interesting, thing, Mike, that you don't care about that at all. Like that, that portion of the safety of people, of the anti-discrimination, like that part seems to have no effect on you. But the part where you think maybe she's tying Islam as a whole to terrorism, like, that's the part you're more concerned about. And it's really interesting because, I mean, that we just have a fundamental disagreement. We really do. I mean even if I didn't agree with her on a lot of what she's saying, I still think the only way to solve this is to allow her to speak and then have people make up their minds. And if you want to protest outside the speech, feel free to.

0:14:37 Thomas: You could protest. The ISOC, that's the Islamic Association, they could have protested. They could have tried to talk to people going into it. That's fine. But their tactics of just bullying and disrupting, turning off her projector, being incredibly threatening, I don't know how you could be defending that. It's incredible. It really is. So just to try to recap, and it's hard because, again, there's such fundamental difference in reality, like our view of reality, it's really weird.

I'm trying to question things myself as much as I can. I encourage you to maybe question yourself. I don't know, it doesn't sound like you're going to. But but, just, just to, to, to summarize, you've provided a very, um, you know, bare bones link that I think is completely invalid from 2011 saying someone might be an Islamophobe, who, by the way, used to be a Muslim, suffered through the regime, and has opinions about how anti-feminist and anti-women's rights Islam is, and has some other opinions about it. But because there's a tenuous link with her to maybe saying things that tie Islam to terrorism, which, bytheway, is a debatable thing, just like the tying Christian identity and abortion, anti-abortion rhetoric to the shooters. I mean, that's, or to the guy who shot, shot a Planned Parenthood. Like that, that is something I am sure you would say is okay to debate. It is okay, debate it. We can talk about it. But yet, somehow, when it is the other way around, when maybe some of the ideas in Islam are motivating terrorists, then to you, that's a clear, open-shut case of racism threatening student safety.

0:16:22 Thomas: And because of that, it's okay that even though she was approved by the student union for the atheist and secular student group to have in a small classroom, and even though no one has to go there, no one has to attend it, even though all that, you still think that the ISOC was in the right. And I'll try to read the next paragraph here. On not being able to invite someone, this seems a little disingenuous. It doesn't matter how small the classroom is, how few people attended, or the fact that it's not mandatory or a commencement speech, etc. The fact is that students feel that the speaker promotes ideas that cause them to fear for their safety. Remember that the Muslim students face a lot of harassment for misrepresentations of Islam and stereotyping them as terrorists, so there's real concern there even if we want to ultimately conclude that the speech should be allowed to happen. No, I don't think there's that much of a concern there with Maryam Namazie.

0:17:21 Thomas: It's funny how you've completely ignored the part where the leader of the ISOC is an absolute LGBT bigot. It's funny how that has no, and it's funny, in my mind, that's tied to fundamentalism and religion. I mean, conservative religion tends to be the kind of thing that's anti-LGBT. That is something that I would think would threaten student safety. That opinion would threaten student security. But there's... your comment was very dismissive of that point, so... So it's interesting, how do you balance that? Do you just not care? Is it because the guy in the group is tweeting these things on social media, which if I remember, the safe space policy extends to any student, any Facebook, any Twitter, anything like that.

0:18:09 Thomas: Seems like you should have a problem with that too. And let's consider the fact that a lot of Muslims, a lot of Muslims think that punishment for apostasy is death. Now, how do you balance that with this safe space policy? What about ex-Muslims at the university? What if they have a group and they wanted to invite Maryam Namazie? Actually, I think some of the people in that group, based on the video, I think some of them were ex-Muslims. What about their comfort? What about their safety? Is that okay that, I mean, they can invite someone that they think speaks for them, whereas the official Islamic view is that they should be put to death for apostasy? What about that? I mean, isn't that a safe space violation? It's just these things are, they're mutually exclusive. Not everyone can have this perfect little tidy safe space.

0:18:55 Thomas: So where I think we need to draw the line, it's, I don't think it's that difficult. We need to draw the line at outward overt Calls to violent action. It seems to me that that's the best we can do. And even that on free speech grounds, there actually could be, I could anticipate free speech fundamentalists who would disagree with that, but I think that's where we'd have to draw the line. So someone who is overtly calling for violence or even maybe discrimination, there's a little bit of wiggle room there. If someone's calling for a group of people to be treated as second-class citizens, maybe, or to have violence against them or anything like that, that would be where you could draw the line. Not at someone who you found a link where maybe she said something you don't like, you know, it's just not even close. If you want to try to provide more evidence, I guess you could. I think you would have if you could have. There's also tons of evidence of her being an ardent feminist, supporting women's rights, fighting for, against, you know, terrible anti-women legislation in Iran.

0:20:01 Thomas: Like, she can't come talk about that stuff. It's really incredible to me that you have this position.

0:20:10 Thomas: That's my best attempt to try to deal with some of the disagreements we have, but it's really fundamental, and every point that you're arguing is like we're both arguing against each other's rep, you know, kind of charitable or uncharitable representation of the facts. You know, let me, I gotta read this paragraph, this is where Mike kind of talks about the LGBT thing I brought up, on the LGBT group supporting the Islamic group. "I don't understand why you think things are turned around just because one group defends the human rights of another." Human rights? Now you're saying it's human rights, which is weird, because I would have thought free speech, I mean, I'm not, we can debate human rights and all that, but I would've thought free speech is pretty fundamental, whereas right to not hear someone, right to, let's see, what would it be in this case?

0:20:59 Thomas: Right to not have another group invite a speaker you don't like, even though you don't have to go to that speech. So that to you is a human right, whereas the right of free speech is not, apparently. This is just, we just really disagree on this. So like, if you want to argue specifics of that bigger theme, Mike, that's fine. But you approach a lot of your disagreements with me as though we're on the same page, but I'm just dramatically, like, completely insane. Sane. You know, it's weird. You have to recognize that we're coming from a different point. I think you're coming From a different Point. I disagree with your view here on the human rights thing. You just said one group defends the human Rights.

0:21:45 Thomas: I just, we have a different conception of human rights. It's completely different the point with this. If it were true that the LGBT group was merely supporting the human rights of the Muslim group, I would completely agree with you. If that was, see, that's how, you know, you're not quite engaging me properly. And I don't mean to say that as like, you need to talk to me a certain way, but I just, that's How You Know You're Not, it's like Rappaport's rules with, with Dennett. If that Was Really, I would not represent the problem as the LGBT group supporting the human rights of the Islamic, I support the human rights of both of them. I just don't, you're not, we're not talking about human rights. We're talking about a privilege which is a safe space thing which is granted by the university. So it's just a complete misrepresentation of what I'm even saying there. So that's just to give you an example of why Sometimes I see your comments is just difficult to even engage with. Alright, well I've spent far too long on this one comment.

The reason I did, everyone, just for anyone who's not on the website and doesn't see these comments, is Mike comments a lot and I actually usually feel bad that I'm not able to address his comments because they're so long, they're detailed, there's a lot going on, there is effort put in, and I usually am not able address them because I don't even know where to start.

So So I had to kind of try to peel that onion a little bit, but it's already now 20 minutes have gone by because it is this incredible onion. There's just so much that we disagree with.

0:23:17 Thomas: So that's, I mean, that's some part of your comment, Mike. I understand. Maybe we'll see if we can engage directly. I think I'll wait until after the big episode with Cogdiss and Eli, which will be in a few weeks, probably. So after that, if there's anything you still think I'm getting wrong, Maybe I'll try to, maybe we can try to speak on Skype or something because it's just not fruitful to, you know, be responding past each other when there's so many just, I think, misrepresentations and maybe you think I'm doing the same thing. So it'll be, we'll have to actually engage one another on points. So we can look at that as an option.

0:24:08 Thomas: Well, while we're at it, looks like I've got another free speech topic, but this is kind of unrelated. Well, it's gonna be related in that it's free speech, but it's not university or anything like that. This is something I keep seeing celebrated, and thanks to Bangs Naughty Bits for sending me a link on this one, but I've seen it celebrated actually before that. Petition to ban Trump from UK passes 300k, could be debated in Parliament. And this is something people are celebrating, they're like, ah, haha, serves you right. And I really just think this is two wrongs don't make a right kind of scenario. I don't think we should be joyously calling for banning of someone to travel somewhere because of an opinion they've expressed. However much we disagree with the opinion.

0:24:54 Thomas: See, that's the thing. I mean, it's really simple. I would have thought more people would be able to do this math. And let me know if you think I'm missing something. But what we really need to do is separate the policies from the particulars. All you have to do is switch it around, pretend the other side is in control, the pretend the other side is anti-immigration, the other side is anti-Muslim, and pretend Donald Trump, or not, maybe it's too impossible, pretend a leader like Donald Trump, except not at all like, don't, pretend a leader voiced a strong pro-immigration policy, and then there was a, uh, you know, petition to ban Ban that person from entering the country because they had the different opinion. And people might think, well, that opinion is not harmful.

0:25:39 Thomas: Yeah, that's your view. That's Trump's view. And as much as I really dislike what Trump's saying, I think that's important to emphasize. That's where free speech, that's why it's even an issue. This is so obvious, I don't know why I even have to say it. The speech that even needs defending is the speech we don't agree with. Otherwise, it's pointless. I mean, it really is. And the only kind of lines I think that can be drawn, and I said this earlier, are directly encouraging violence. Not, oh, what he's saying could lead to something that could lead to something like that's, I don't, in my opinion, that's not good enough. Just because you, here's what he said. He said, we ought to stop allowing Muslim immigrants until Congress figures out what's going on.

0:26:29 Thomas: Is that an idiotic statement? Yes. Is that a direct call for violence against Muslims? No, it's not. He has the wrong idea about how to deal with this problem. So, banning him from entering a country because he's wrong about something, because he is wrong about how to deal, with ISIS is weird. Especially because, now here's the weird thing, there's a petition, petition, the same sort of thing, the same kind of petition to stop all immigration and close the UK borders. That petition has more signatures than the one banning Trump. So I think before we get too carried away, before people sharing that get too carried away with like, oh, take that Trump.

0:27:14 Thomas: Yeah, and I admit there's poetic justice of like, Oh, we're kind of turning the tables on him. You know, I see that and maybe that's why people are sharing it. But I just want I just hope that it's not because people actually think they should do this. I don't think people should be disqualified from traveling to certain countries because of what someone designates as hate speech. I really don't. I mean, that's, I think free speech is important. And I think the rule, and again, it's because of the rule versus the particulars. The The minute that's the precedent, just imagine the other side attains power. Just imagine the other side says, well, hate speech is saying you're going to let the Muslims into the country. That's hate speech. I mean, I know it's probably unrealistic, but it's important to look at that, because we're talking about policy, and we're taking about precedent, and all that kind of thing.

0:28:07 Thomas: And in the UK and in Europe, I think free speech is not as solid as it is here, and I think that that's a problem. I disagree with it. And I know I've heard from people in the UK who kind of think we have a little bit too much free speech over here. And that's an interesting debate. I think it's an interest thing. But for Americans to be sharing this as though it's some victory, especially when you look at this other petition that has more signatures, according to the source I'm looking at, who knows if that's been updated, but it has more signatures to close down the border. So it's like a lot of people apparently agree with that solution as a solution to the problem of ISIS.

0:28:52 Thomas: So now you're talking about banning someone from entering a country because he expresses a view that's not even, I mean, it seems like it could even be the majority view in Europe. That's how, I means, things are really bad right now for them. So I just think that it's worthless. It's not something we should be doing. It's not a way to solve problems. Banning people from traveling or banning them from countries because of opinions they have on how to solve a problem, I just don't think is wise. I don't think it's the right thing to do. I think free speech is more important. Item, I sort of, this is more covering someone else's view. I'm not, I don't know that I have a strong opinion on this, so I kind of want to talk about a brief post I saw by Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar and just see what you guys think of it and maybe express a few thoughts, but just know that this doesn't mean I'm 100% endorsing what he's saying per se. So this is Faisal Saeed Al-Mutar. Sorry if I'm pronouncing that not quite right.

I'm sick and tired of this. Oh, if you say this, you are radicalizing people to join ISIS. I am sick and tired of this, uh, oh, that's the same sentence again. Maybe the title, sorry, double printed. Anyway, I despise Trump's ideas, he writes, but if there is a medical doctor who makes 200,000 pounds a year, lives in London, and goes all the way to go join ISIS, maybe the problem is bigger than Mr.

0:30:33 Thomas: Mr. Scumbag Trump. Just an idea. You know why I did receive a death threat. I said women are human beings and they should be treated equally under the law. That's all I said. I wasn't even a vocal atheist back then. ISIS standards are very low. If you say you masturbate, you may radicalize someone. If there is any context in which someone feels the need to join ISIS, then we need to have a conversation because you're probably delusional. Which context do you think is good for gays to be thrown out of rooftops. I can't think of any context. So So this is interesting. I keep seeing this everywhere. The common wisdom seems to be, the conventional wisdom of the day seems to be, anything you direct toward Muslims in general is Or toward the religion as having partial culpability in terrorism.

0:31:23 Thomas: Anything to that effect feeds ISIS and it's what they want. And I think this is a complex problem that I don't have a solution for you right now. Sorry to disappoint, but I want to hear what you think. Because I think there could be some truth to that. I think if we start discriminating against Muslims, if we We start doing things that are really going to alienate Muslims, like all Muslims in our country and elsewhere. Yeah, I mean, that's going to feed sentiments that could maybe strengthen ISIS's, you know, attractiveness among Muslims. But I don't know. I mean... could, like, I also see what Faisal's saying.

0:32:08 Thomas: How could that, how could any climate like that, you know, make the ideas that ISIS is spreading seem attractive? You know, that's a pretty low expectation. I mean, is that an expectation that we'd have here? I mean would we say, okay, okay, the minute we treat Christians as though they're somewhat culpable, pro-life Christians as though there's somewhat culvable for the, I know there's an example I just used, for the Planned Parenthood shooting, the moment we talk about that link, are we going to radicalize them to just shoot us all up like it's some sort of insane Christian death cult? No, I mean, I don't think that's going to happen. It's up to you to decide if you think that that's a good example and let me know, but it seems kind of analogous because the stuff that ISIS believes in, like you said, throwing gays off of rooftops and just beheadings and all that, it's horrible.

0:33:06 Thomas: I mean, it is not just as though some perceived discriminatory action by the U.S. or by other countries could just make you believe that, could it? I mean, it's a pretty low bar to set for people, like the minute you're being discriminated against. You're going to turn to stuff that's really not even connected. Like, it's one thing if to lash out at your discriminator, you know, someone who's actively discriminating against you. I can understand that to a certain extent, of course. But to take on this insane ideology like that, and to, uh, want to stone people, and, and, you know, behead gay journalists and such, I mean, to say that that's going to happen because of these, you know, a stern anti-Muslim, or not even that, like a potentially discriminatory immigration policy?

0:33:56 Thomas: I don't know. So, maybe the truth is somewhere in between. I'm more curious, like I said, I'm trying to present two arguments here. I don't know which one is more powerful. I don't know which one is more the case in reality, like which one is actually inspiring more behavior in the world. So I'm more just calling for opinions on this one. I don't know what you guys think, but it gets trotted out a ton. Anything, basically anything the right wants, people say, well, now you're just giving people right to ISIS. You're just any, you know, even profiling at airports or something like that, you're just handing ISIS some recruits. And it's like, could that be an exaggeration? I don't know. That's the open question I'm asking now.

0:34:45 Thomas: So thanks, again, for listening to the show. Thank you so much to my patrons. And as another reward, like I said, there's a two-parter. There's a long debate I had about abortion with Tyler Vela, and both parts will be available to my Patrons on Thursday for regular folk. You You still get it, you still get the content, fair is fair, but it'll be on Monday for part two. But then I have a lot to say about that debate, because it was fascinating, and it went, like I said, it didn't go entirely smoothly. So I have lots of thoughts about why that is, and I'll be good to switch a topic, and maybe it'll be something that Mike Samsa will agree with me more on. I don't know, probably not. He'll find a way. I'm teasing you, Mike, but it's kind of true.

0:35:30 Thomas: So thanks so much for listening. Uh, like I said, if you want to get on that early content, you can go to patreon.com/atheist. Uh, but if, if not, I understand not everyone can, I just want to give a reward to, you know, those people who are so generous as to support the show. So thank you guys so much. And I will see you on Thursday.