@@person10 that documents ridiculous.

@@person10 Ok, belief in a god is irrational there is no justification for it. That's mostly why it's ridiculous.

@@person10 Nope, im not assuming there isnt. And unlike you im not assuming there is. Just like fairies or bigfoot I don't assume therre aren't and I don't assume there is.

@@person10 people write douments and books about many different gods, religions and supernatural things, of which I have read a lot, because they have been-indoctrinated from a young age or deluded themselves.

@@person10 You can't be %100 percent certain of anything accept the fact that "you are having an experience right now" if in fact you are.

+mike o indeed yes that is true in the Quran it says kill the infidels but that's not the primary reason for fighting and carrying out attacks against the west.

+mike o that is certainly true I'm not dening it islamist influence is considerable and the reason is that people have no alternative cause all the governments of the region are oppressive and corrupt and remember these dictatorships are strongly supported in the west

The primary reason are Gulf States and salafism/wahhabism. Please, don't tell me opression is the primary reason, because there are and were so many oppressed nations that it's incalculable. Vietnamese don't do terrorist acts, Cubans don't, North Koreans don't Germans don't, Japanese don't, Native Americans don't, Black Americans don't, Italians don't, Nicaraguans don't and so it goes. Although it needs to be stressed that US is an ally of these Gulf States and basically doesn't do anything about their terrorism promotion.

So even when people say that they want to kill you BECAUSE their religion says so. Who are we, even if you are muslim yourself, to argue that it's not true? You can't project a disney image over the entire world. Some people, some ideas and some places are really messed up and you need to be able to adress that.

@@Peace_Guard You're lying have you ever heard of Nat Turner who killed white children or the BLA (Black Liberation Army) and the Jews did several attacks on Nazis.

What's wrong with sam?

@Jerf Hankell incase you didnt notice, it's a drawing. Lay aff the drugs, bampot.

@watson returns What's a psuedo intellectual?

It's a shame but more embarrassingly he is actively ignored. My parents for example saw my Chomsky learnings as detached from reality hippie nonsense. Whilst I love my parents all the same irrespectively, and because I never needed their agreement with my own realisations in other to love and appreciate them and especially for all they've done for me, I am rightfully disappointed of their contributing example of poor self realisation among the ever emerging generations. The most popular "truth" is to self serve! The least one is to be transcendental. When I'm at my most selfish my self achievements makes someone somewhere proud of me. My most selfless acts unnoticed or worse still an embarrassment. How nieve I must still be I guess.

@@brianmcguire5175 I would say your assessment is accurate of the world’s current situation. People are more likely to support a selfish, self serving politician over one who is actively looking for the best interest of the people. Parents are more likely to raise their children in a manner that encourages these self serving tendencies (I.e. studying in school to have a good career). For instance, parents generally raise their children to be doctors to hold a prestigious job rather than to actually save people. They do it with our best interests in mind but ultimately it’s for our own good and not for others.

@@swnerd-2320 that's a very good point I must admit. I guess reflecting on my above comment there are signs of my projection in that I feel the world is this way when though carefully considered there are other motives which, as you convincingly pointed out to me in your comment, are on display too ie the earnest interest in the other party and not just one's own stake in the enterprise. I would though still like to say, that while you have ammended my position as originally stated, I still feel there are enough real world examples for me to preserve at least some of my retheoric as for example the pressure some offspring feel from over baring parents rather than support of said offsprings original ambitions. To offer the question, to what extent is parental guidance an earnest vested interest in that one's child or is it external societal norm peer pressure informing the parents ambition for that child?

@@swnerd-2320 to reiterate my response though, I overall agree with your correction of my former comment. And thank you for your illuminating point, I clearly over looked that aspect prior

@@brianmcguire5175 I did not know nor intended to amend your original position. I apologize if that is what you interpreted it as. I was merely reinforcing what you said with the career ambitions example and how that tends to promote the self interest you were alluding to in your previous comment. Regarding your question, I would say some of it is due to societal pressure and the rest is genuine concern on the parent’s part for their children’s wellbeing. Personally speaking, my own parents said that they would not want to depart from this world without knowing that their child is self-sufficient and financially successful.

Roberto Mercado I love Naom but I think Sam is the best :-)

Liberal and Progressive Atheism Nah! Sam Harris is mediocre, pro-establishment shill.

@@liberalandprogressiveathei9881 sam is an idiot

It isn't. But not condemning it like you'd condemn any other horrible form of extremism is also wrong and sets a very bad precedent. Why do you people keep creating this false dichotomy of "you can either criticize and disparage against Islam or try to help them up"?? You can do both.

He is also an atheist mate

@@ballerstalin5346 There is a difference between fanatic atheist and atheist

@@testiculartorsion3489 fundamentalism should be treated with Iron hand....

@@ballerstalin5346 People can have faults and still be admirable.

Scott Atran, William Polk

im pretty sure that people would rather spread hatred and bigotry and kill us muslims rather than talk to us , question us or critique us . you will only understand the pain of a victim when you put yourself in his/hers shoes . im all for freedom of speech but if ppl had rather spread hatred against us in monologues instead of talking to us and understanding us , then we would feel threatened . you can call it whatever you want islamophobia , anti-muslim etc etc. but for me its simply the spreading of unjustified hate and cruel stereotypes of muslims .

@@syedumar1292 I am from Balkans. Hate speech was first warming, then flaming and in the end blew up to death 150 000 people i in the nineties. There are so many examples of it threw history and how the fuck is it still underestimated?

I dislike mehdi hasan, he's a dishonest journalist who sugarcoats everything bad islam does

Nothing in ur reply makes sense or is true tell me what kind of “societies” exits? Also no except the countries the west destroyed most ppl wouldn’t want to live in the west, that y u said the Middle East and not saudia Arabia. Keep coping

@@thechannelthatdoesnotexistwhat is everything bad Islam does

zuperduperboi Chomsky is mad that they misrepresent him. Both Zizek and Harris are sophists.

Since when has Harris become an intellectual? hahaha

Anyone who thinks that violence is the right response to the satire of religion should not only be discriminated against; they should be positively monitored by security services.

What Chomsky is saying here is, first of all, to dismiss the idea of sophistry and obsessive public debate over the scrutiny of belief systems as childish and self-centered; he’s making the point that these are actions done from the perspective of self-serving ideologues who would rather condemn and confront than reason and empathize. The so-called debates are really identical to their political counterparts, or perhaps to football. Your team versus their team, who’s gonna win? My team is on the side of Truth and Justice, your team has terrorists and a book full of superstitions. That’s an incredible deduction, superb reasoning skills are required to discern what has been perfectly obvious to the western cultural gestalt for decades. It’s remarkable that people out so much effort into condemning things which the vast majority of people around them already condemn. Is slavery wrong? Is taxing people who believe different things than you wrong? Is centralizing power in autocratic regimes with Theocrstic sympathies wrong? These are non questions to anyone taking the situation seriously, especially from a western perspective. The issue is, and always was and will be, why these things are happening. What is leading to this being the case, and how can we help? Not, “how can we crush or stamp out”, or any other such delusion of self-righteousness, but instead, “why are things this way, and how can I change myself to meet the situations needs better?” In this case, Chomsky is saying, “just read history and ask questions instead of screaming about people you don’t like.” I tend to agree. I apologize if this comes off as rude, I just think it’s extremely obvious that the people preoccupied with fanatical behavior are usually found congregating around issues regarding other fanatical people, and this incessant conflict cannot reasonably be expected to resolve itself without bloodshed unless we consider the possibility of deescalation and cooperative dialogue.

Prog Rock Anarchy Literally none of the new atheists said all Muslims are crazy.

FDR a REAL LEFTIST forced ALL JAPANESE in America into concentration camps. Let that sink in.

He doesn’t think Islam is a dangerous religion

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Polk

What dhimmis you fucking moron

Where are there dhimmis? Please get an education before leaving comments

technician666 Did he say that ?! Send a link please

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n8ygfNpkqrGbXXU.html

Only the good die young. Look at Henry Kissinger.

It is proper to have contempt for contemptible people

Because Sam Harris does and say contemptible things.

“The four horsemen”... don’t laugh

@@sanitorz232 they gave that name to themselves lol

Chomsky is also an atheist

@@navneetyadav7139 new athiest is typically used to refer dawkins, dennet, hitchens and sam harris 😊

@@kichu912 Ohh understood. Its true that I have never heard them mentioning the role of politics in un-scienftific and religious propaganda run by the elites so that people don't revolt. Chomsky articulate this really well. USA literally removed secular leaders from the middle east and the extremism is because of the US economic gains in the region, something Sam Harris totally neglects.

There is not error in hating religion, and you conflate practitioners of relgion to the ideology itself.

What ideas he has no good ideas he’s just a Zionist

+Aboody Stoned 4 ever again:)

+Mike Lice once again, your making claims about many people. The very same is true of Catholicism. If you were in the Middle East you would read the bible and say, how is it that Americans are honorable people when their religion is x

+Mike Lice I see what your saying, but if not homosexuality then something else. The bible condemns a lot and to the eye Christianity may have progressed more than other religions, yet in your own response you seemed to have disproven your own words

+Mike Lice oh perhaps not. You said the average Muslim. I guess you would have to know for sure if the average Muslim believes this. Where can I find out that information?

+Mike Lice because legitimately - to dislike a large body of people without meeting them is racist. And also because I'm not up to responding to everything. I love you, but I don't feel up to it

If you know what xenophobia means, you know what islamophobia means. No need to make a mountain out of a molehill. As for how the word is used, that's not up to anybody to police. Ultimately it's not terms that matter but arguments. And making a valid argument requires more than a term.

+viborrr People end up using this term to shut any discussion down that puts Islamic ideology under scrutiny. It's not even an irrational fear to oppose an ideology that degrades non believers (or non muslim under sharia) as second class citizens. Term does create social construction on topic at hand. When many muslims and so called progressives use this term loosely to anyone who dare to challenge Islamic doctrines it becomes problematic and shuts down the entire discussion that needs to be had. I agree when you say that it is not terms that matter but arguments. Which is the reason I say people need to stop using such regressive term like Islamophobia. It has become a pathetic popularized meme that is used by anyone who does not want Islam to be challenged. It would be a shame if a man as intelligent as Chomsky contributed in shutting down the discourse concerning Islam and its ideology.

+Mirushka M No doubt it happens, but in the same way tons of other words and terms are used to invalidly shut down discussions. You can't stop people from resorting to logical fallacies except by pointing out the falsity of an argument. One can shut down a discussion on Islamic ideology using "anti-muslim bigotry" or "racism" or whatever word they can come up with just as well as with "islamophobia", wouldn't you say? I think it's never about the tool but the manner of handling.

viborrr The term racism or anti-muslim bigotry is a biased belief against an individual or group of individuals. The usage of the term Islamophobia on the other hand, is not restricted to biased belief against muslims, but also against Islamic ideology, which is a set of ideas. When the media no longer cares to make this specific distinction, it creates the “Affleck” reaction. A statement such as “Islam is motherload of bad ideas” is translated to “all muslims are horrible people”. People are parroting the media thinking that anyone who talks shit about Islam must be racist and bigoted, therefore does not deserve any platform. Stating the distinction alone between these terms could make a lot of difference in our future discourse regarding Islam and the future of muslim community.

+Ed Abbas I am not even a Hindu. I was a muslim.

Tell me one leftist who says this. You new atheist like to lie about real leftist.

How is Islam dangerous?

It is rational to fear Islam because...? More people die from choking on burgers than from Islam in America, is it rational to fear burgers? What is irrational is not the fear of terrorism but the misplaced emphasis on the scale of the risk and the complete over-generalisation of threat to all, most, or many Muslims. For example, polls show that white people fear for their lives when seeing Muslim people board the same plane. This fits neatly into the definition of an irrational fear, a phobia of Islam.

He didn’t say Sam Harris said that, he was referring to Ben Carson.

Joshua H dam right

He is. Chomsky is an idiot.

What about in the past

Stop worshipping cows

You are misunderstanding his point. The words people use and their actions are often very different, and unless you look at the facts by means of careful study, you will conclude irrational beliefs based off of information appealing to your confirmation bias. The “hammer” is not the thing that people use to justify violence, this isn’t a marvel movie. People who are very intelligent and powerful co-opt whatever tools they need to convince other people to sacrifice themselves for their own ambition. Propaganda and manipulation are exceptionally effective in a traumatized and psychologically wounded society. If you bomb people long enough, you will induce hysterics and residual anger just as easily as if someone did that to our nation. These people are also human beings, just like us. They are not subhuman or worthy of scorn simply because they sacrificed their autonomy and free will to demagogues. Even if you don’t believe that, then you must understand that further violence and condemnation only inflame the tensions. Muslims are not inherently violent or worthy of contempt. You know, the majority of classical scripts written by philosophers like Aristotle and Plato are with us today because of Muslim scholars during the “Islamic golden age”. Thinkers like Avicenna and others pioneered systems of understanding which continue to shape the world today, but they are rarely discussed or spoken of. I can tell you are very interested in the idea of exterminating religions, but consider if you will how effective extermination campaigns have gone in human history. Do you know why the Roman Empire was able to co-opt so many kingdoms and societies? I could list historical figures, but the point is: syncretism. They adopted and let their native people continue whatever cultural traditions they had, but forced the nobility and aristocracy to swear fealty to the throne. We don’t live in a domination based world anymore (at least explicitly), so we should surrender the bad and keep the good. Reading propaganda and exclaiming how terrible and awful it is doesn’t provide any insightful commentary or revelatory ideas. Yes, it’s pretty awful to condemn and murder people because of their government’s actions. Instead, we should endeavor to prevent schism and violence by cooperation and mutual aid. It’s going to be hard; the rift between us is immense, and is only growing stronger because of reactionary idealogues who profit from outrage.

​@@owfan4134radical Islamists are sub-humans and they don't deserve to live. Stop defending them. If you still defend them, then you're one of them

You need to reread Noam's arguments on the matter. You're oversimplifying his very detailed and critical analysis. Not only is Noam *not* ignoring the problem of Islamic extremism, he actually provides a better solution to handling it than Sam Harris does.

+kristaps bleive It was a paraphrase. Very similar to what he actually said. But this is standard: the minute someone criticizes Harris, it's always "out of context" and "misrepresentations".

+kristaps bleive Harris spouts so much bullshit, it's amazing any educated person takes him seriously. Yet we have Donald Trump doing so well. We had similar individuals in Yugoslavia, guess where it led.

That's how we call it now, paraphrasing? And I surely can see that Chomsky has had some valid criticism of Harris but, regardless of what people have said in the past, in all fairness to Sam Harris you have to admit that those aren't he's words exactly.

+Chomsky's Philosophy It's ironic really, the Harrisites are all starting to sound like the theists they criticize. Usually whenever you recite biblical verses about slavery, prostitution, death, destruction, disease, war. They usually respond with "out of context" or that you're "misinterpreting" it. Sam Harris' disciples have now regressed to Christian objections lol.

+kristaps bleive No he did not. He makes it very clear that he thinks that Carson not only understands the jihadis to be the enemy, but also that Carson understands better happening in the world right now. He never suggested either that he would still pick Chomsky over Carson: “Given a choice between Noam Chomsky and Ben Carson, in terms of the totality of their understanding of what’s happening now in the world, I’d vote for Ben Carson every time. Ben Carson is a dangerously deluded religious imbecile, Ben Carson does not…the fact that he is a candidate for president is a scandal…but at the very least he can be counted on to sort of get this one right. He understands that jihadists are the enemy.”

He's putting blame and stop seeing the world from lens of political compass. He's trying to analyse the situation and find out what the US did.

What stop talking about things uk nothing about

@@Bell_plejdo568p Was that English?

Yea fucking guy is dummer than my dog. One brain cell

Sentiment's the same.

The West has empowered them. For example, the British had a lot to do with the relatively secular Ottoman Empire, which fought against Wahhabism and helping form Saudia Arabia. Winston Churchill said the Saud Family, that rules Saudia Arabia, they are blood thirsty and intolerant, but their loyalty to Great Britain goes unquestioned. We funded and supported the Mujahadin, while knowing they were radical Muslims. You sir have know understanding of History or geopolitical context to understand these complex issues, so please learn these things before you speak.

Did you read their email exchange? I really like Sam Harris but he made a fool of himself when he debated Chomsky on american foreign policy.

The old man would chew you up and have you spit out in an instant. He already did so with Sam Harris regarding his BS opinions regarding “good intentions”.

Well, a closer look upon the present crisis in Europe tells exactly the same thing about us: there can’t be peace until everyone on planet Earth has been converted to the ‘US way of life’… Except that very way of life has already led us all to Global Warming and possible (if not probable) massive extinction. So, at this point, the existential dilemma is actually between ‘Freedom’ and environmental ‘apcalypse’ … That’s why unipolarity is sheer madness anyhow. Homo ‘sapiens’?!? No, rather Homo DEMENS! The most doomed species ever.

Nothing u said is true

…Ever lived in Europe?!?

​@@fabiengerard8142Muslims are terrorizing europe and europeans are too cowards to do anything about it

Then we will rely on the wisdom of right-wing dolts on message threads?

@@bluecrueful Yea 1 guy disappears and we are only left with right wingers on message boards. That makes a lot of sense. I can tell you thought deeply about that.

Correct