97: Debating Sam Harris

I Don't Speak German

IDSG

Politics, News, Currentaffairs, Society & Culture

3.9 • 1.1K Ratings

🗓️ 10 November 2021

⏱️ 83 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

So Sam Harris went on Decoding the Gurus, and we decided we had to talk about it.

Content warnings.

Podcast Notes:

Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent. Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month.

Daniel's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper

Jack's Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618

IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod

Daniel's Twitter: @danieleharper

Jack's Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_

IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1

Show Notes:

Decoding the Gururs, Special Episode: Sam Harris and Meditation is all you need ( https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/special-episode-sam-harris-meditation-is-all-you-need )

Decoding the Gurus interview with Sam Harris ( https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/sam-harris )

Sam Harris in The Washington Times, December 1, 2004, Mired in a religious war ( https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/dec/1/20041201-090801-2582r/ )

"It is time we admitted that we are not at war with “terrorism.” We are at war with Islam. This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims, but we are absolutely at war with the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran. The only reason Muslim fundamentalism is a threat to us is because the fundamentals of Islam are a threat to us. Every American should read the Koran and discover the relentlessness with which non-Muslims are vilified in its pages. The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy — and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge.

"It should be of particular concern to us that the beliefs of devout Muslims pose a special problem for nuclear deterrence. There is, after all, little possibility of our having a cold war with an Islamist regime armed with long-range nuclear weapons. A cold war requires that the parties be mutually deterred by the threat of death. Notions of martyrdom and jihad run roughshod over the logic that allowed the United States and the Soviet Union to pass half a century perched, more or less stably, on the brink of Armageddon. We must come to terms with the possibility that men who are every bit as zealous to die as the September 11 hijackers may one day get their hands on long-range nuclear weaponry.

Polite Conversations 17 with Sam Harris ( https://soundcloud.com/politeconversations/episode-17-sam-harris )

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	This is I Don't Speak German.
0:14.9	I'm Jack Graham, he, him, and in this podcast I talk to my friend Daniel Harper, also he, him,
0:21.0	who spent years tracking the far right in their safe spaces. In this show we talk about them
0:27.2	and about the wider reactionary forces feeding them and feeding off them. Be warned, this is difficult
0:33.2	subject matter, content warnings always apply.
0:36.3	Here ye, here ye, the podcast is now back in session. And welcome back to part 97 of the
1:00.4	ongoing trial, Jack Graham's podcasting, presenting style versus the listener's ability to even
1:06.0	deal. And if you're, if you're listening to this, it would appear I'm winning.
1:10.5	Are we owing largely? I suspect my brilliant self-advocacy because the defendant who represents
1:16.3	himself has a super awesome lawyer, probably. And yeah, I call my first witness, Daniel Harper.
1:22.6	I am, I am definitely here and I am willing to be put under oath and you can impeach, you can
1:28.5	impeach every sentence I say with the things that I said on a deposition two years ago.
1:34.2	Oh, you're going to be impeached more often than President Trump, I tell you.
1:39.2	And I will be sure to, to say, well, look, I don't want to quibble over details, you know, that's
1:44.4	not what this trial is about. This quibble over details. Yes, we are referring to the science
1:50.1	professor trial and Richard Spencer's beautiful testimony in which the plaintiffs attorney literally
1:58.7	you know, says ask him a question. Spencer answers the question. And it says, well, that's not what
2:03.6	you said two years ago. In fact, in fact, we have tweets in which you say the opposite.
2:12.2	Not only tweets, but sworn statements from a previous deposition. Yeah, it's pretty
2:16.6	glorious. Yeah, so yeah, we are not going to be talking about a science professor today.
2:23.6	We have other things to talk about. Unfortunately, as much as it would be fun to laugh about how
2:28.5	terrible Richard Spencer was on the stand. Instead, we, I will include the next, you know, days six
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from IDSG, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of IDSG and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.