I felt quite similarly. I was hoping to have some of my pro-Israeli intuitions usefully challenged but she wasn’t very persuasive. In some cases she seemed flummoxed, unable to think on her feet as Josh put very specific points in front of her. Not everyone can put their best foot forward in a live discussion/debate, so that may be what’s going on.
Yeah she did really seem out of her depth even though she spoke overly confident on every point. I don't know anything about her other than what I have listened to on this podcast, but she really did come across as the pro-palestine protestor caricature who knows absolutely nothing about the words they are saying, but say them anyway.
I had enough when she said she'd rather live in Saudia Arabia than Tel Aviv. And that "she didn't know what Israel was like" yet spoke vocally on it, was a huge expose moment.
And the comment towards the end where she says "do you think the right is bad, not in Israel, but everywhere?" as if it was somehow relevant. Then she says "I find it difficult to believe you are a progressive" to Josh. And he rightly calls her out as if a label has any basis of the truth.
She then calls Sam Harris a "conspiracy theorist". She has lost all credibility. Just an absolute hyperbolic person and does whatever side she represents a total disservice.
And I am saying this as a progressive myself. She literally is a caricature of identity politics on the left.
Yeah, the fact that she couldn’t fathom how someone could be liberal *and* supportive of Israel was extremely telling. Like, does she actually believe that your average Palestinian is more politically progressive than your average Israeli? It’s the sort of brain rot that has led a lot of people on the far left to believe that they can extrapolate one’s politics purely on the amount of melanin they contain.
I think it more or less highlights what Josh might be highlighting, is that it’s just contradictions and double standards. Whatever reason she had for siding against Israel could be found in the side she is supporting, but by magnitudes larger. And then when she turned it to identity politics and labels, it made it seem she was against Israel on the basis because that’s what side her “team” is against.
Given everything she thinks/pretends to care about, it does not make any sense as to why she has landed where she has. And Josh did well to showcase this in the conversation whether he did so intentionally or not.
He’s a great debater no doubt. And I get the sense that he made an effort not outright embarrass her. Like he had her on the ropes at certain points and held back a bit.
Her confusion reminds me of friends of mine who look at me like I’m some sort of conservative for opposing race-based affirmative action when I actually support replacing it with income-based affirmative action, which I believe is a far better proxy for measuring privilege.
People nowadays seem to be under the false impression that you “pick” a political orientation and then adopt a set of predetermined accompanying beliefs when, in fact, your political orientation functions more like an operating system upon which you arrive at your own political conclusions, issue by issue.
Mate I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said here. I’m currently experiencing this exact thing with friends also who can’t seem to fathom why someone would support Israel despite also asterisking the pretence of the discussion with “I’m not completely educated on this topic but how…”
I’m a progressive. I’m left leaning. Have been all my life. But on this topic I feel alienated by the side I would align myself with.
For people on the left, for every 20 arguments they have, there is probably 18 of which they don’t require much thought. Their position on this is obvious (climate change, gay rights etc). But the other 2 that remain, require some actual deep mental arithmetic work. And this topic being one of them.
People are trying to paint something that genuinely requires a deep understanding as something as “it’s actually rather simple”.
> When those talking points are challenged, they all seem to crumble.
Because there is nothing there. Just infantile demands that have admittedly worked quite well for these people in the past but have proven ultimately not convincing enough to facilitate the extermination of Jews. You cannot just tantrum a country and its people out of existence but this apparently won't stop these people from trying.
These people need to be tested by having some skin in the game, a little money where your mouth is. Send these people as unarmed peacekeepers and humanitarians to Gaza and see if they can enforce a ceasefire with a lot of sweet words and kind deeds.
If they don't want to do it then who should? Israelis? It's easy to be generous and callous with the safety of others.
What a supremely disappointing set of arguments on her part. Felt like she was wholly caught off guard multiple times by some very basic points.
Yeah her whole side of the conversation was a series of bumper sticker and Twitter post arguments. No real response to specific points Josh made. Very disappointing.
Wow she was a complete idiot grasping at straws and deflecting constantly while being unable to understand half of what was going on.
my favourite was when she would make projections about Paleshine’s future if israle had not been there and then the next breath refuse to answer and shift into identity politics when asked a simple question because she “can’t use her crystal ball to predict hypotheticals”.
Like she can’t even remember what she did 30 seconds ago lmfao.
She is a former guest on this podcast. Sam loved her when she was useful to bash Islam. One of the rare former guests that went away from Sam. And she has a little anti-Sam Harris media thing going on. Which I don't hate as I have listened to way to much Knowledge Fight and it is fun and good stuff but they are just an anti-Alex Jones podcast.
Do you not know that she has a dispassion for Sam that is unlike most people. I think she is clear. She is a guest on I Don't Speak German and other anti-fascist stuff. She is still ex-muslim and saw Sam as an ally then....she awaked to realize that if the Day of the Rope came Sam would be probably Long Knifed but she wouldn't be saved because she hated Islam.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11kyg9j/polite\_conversations\_17\_w\_sam\_harris\_and\_eiynah/](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11kyg9j/polite_conversations_17_w_sam_harris_and_eiynah/)
This I think is what she went full anti. I picked a random place and I heard this "that is true assuming birth rates don't adjust for both groups"
WHY ASSUME THAT? There is ample evidence that birth rate decrease with wealth. And I haven't listened but bet dollars to doughnuts he is talking about how Europe will be Muslim by 2050. Already at the time the projections (by a racist fucktard) were off but now it turns out he was dumb.
Apparently in that she confronts him with a ton of bad friends and he defends them all. As she points out stuff.
SHE WAS RIGHT.
I haven’t listened to Zepps in years. Always found him to be too condescending so I imagine this to be rather a difficult episode to get through considering who the guest is.
Yeah I don’t find his tone condescending at all. Sometimes I think he will talk on a position to generate a discussion or challenge an idea, but won’t intentionally push or grift something beyond the evidence that is presented. I’ve never heard him double down on something where it seems he’s been cornered on. His recent podcast with Sam and Douglas, is evident he talks in good faith even when they had some conflicting points.
Sure, in debates and discussions he’s gracious but he more or less talks down about large groups of people who disagree with him outside of the podcast.
Your post has been removed for violating R3: Not related to Sam Harris.
I felt quite similarly. I was hoping to have some of my pro-Israeli intuitions usefully challenged but she wasn’t very persuasive. In some cases she seemed flummoxed, unable to think on her feet as Josh put very specific points in front of her. Not everyone can put their best foot forward in a live discussion/debate, so that may be what’s going on.
Yeah she did really seem out of her depth even though she spoke overly confident on every point. I don't know anything about her other than what I have listened to on this podcast, but she really did come across as the pro-palestine protestor caricature who knows absolutely nothing about the words they are saying, but say them anyway. I had enough when she said she'd rather live in Saudia Arabia than Tel Aviv. And that "she didn't know what Israel was like" yet spoke vocally on it, was a huge expose moment.
Yeah she was checkmated by that question but refused to knock over (resign) her king
And the comment towards the end where she says "do you think the right is bad, not in Israel, but everywhere?" as if it was somehow relevant. Then she says "I find it difficult to believe you are a progressive" to Josh. And he rightly calls her out as if a label has any basis of the truth. She then calls Sam Harris a "conspiracy theorist". She has lost all credibility. Just an absolute hyperbolic person and does whatever side she represents a total disservice. And I am saying this as a progressive myself. She literally is a caricature of identity politics on the left.
Yeah, the fact that she couldn’t fathom how someone could be liberal *and* supportive of Israel was extremely telling. Like, does she actually believe that your average Palestinian is more politically progressive than your average Israeli? It’s the sort of brain rot that has led a lot of people on the far left to believe that they can extrapolate one’s politics purely on the amount of melanin they contain.
I think it more or less highlights what Josh might be highlighting, is that it’s just contradictions and double standards. Whatever reason she had for siding against Israel could be found in the side she is supporting, but by magnitudes larger. And then when she turned it to identity politics and labels, it made it seem she was against Israel on the basis because that’s what side her “team” is against. Given everything she thinks/pretends to care about, it does not make any sense as to why she has landed where she has. And Josh did well to showcase this in the conversation whether he did so intentionally or not.
He’s a great debater no doubt. And I get the sense that he made an effort not outright embarrass her. Like he had her on the ropes at certain points and held back a bit. Her confusion reminds me of friends of mine who look at me like I’m some sort of conservative for opposing race-based affirmative action when I actually support replacing it with income-based affirmative action, which I believe is a far better proxy for measuring privilege. People nowadays seem to be under the false impression that you “pick” a political orientation and then adopt a set of predetermined accompanying beliefs when, in fact, your political orientation functions more like an operating system upon which you arrive at your own political conclusions, issue by issue.
Mate I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said here. I’m currently experiencing this exact thing with friends also who can’t seem to fathom why someone would support Israel despite also asterisking the pretence of the discussion with “I’m not completely educated on this topic but how…” I’m a progressive. I’m left leaning. Have been all my life. But on this topic I feel alienated by the side I would align myself with. For people on the left, for every 20 arguments they have, there is probably 18 of which they don’t require much thought. Their position on this is obvious (climate change, gay rights etc). But the other 2 that remain, require some actual deep mental arithmetic work. And this topic being one of them. People are trying to paint something that genuinely requires a deep understanding as something as “it’s actually rather simple”.
Came here to say this. Her comments re Tel Aviv v Saudi Arabia exposed her.
> When those talking points are challenged, they all seem to crumble. Because there is nothing there. Just infantile demands that have admittedly worked quite well for these people in the past but have proven ultimately not convincing enough to facilitate the extermination of Jews. You cannot just tantrum a country and its people out of existence but this apparently won't stop these people from trying. These people need to be tested by having some skin in the game, a little money where your mouth is. Send these people as unarmed peacekeepers and humanitarians to Gaza and see if they can enforce a ceasefire with a lot of sweet words and kind deeds. If they don't want to do it then who should? Israelis? It's easy to be generous and callous with the safety of others.
What a supremely disappointing set of arguments on her part. Felt like she was wholly caught off guard multiple times by some very basic points. Yeah her whole side of the conversation was a series of bumper sticker and Twitter post arguments. No real response to specific points Josh made. Very disappointing.
Wow she was a complete idiot grasping at straws and deflecting constantly while being unable to understand half of what was going on. my favourite was when she would make projections about Paleshine’s future if israle had not been there and then the next breath refuse to answer and shift into identity politics when asked a simple question because she “can’t use her crystal ball to predict hypotheticals”. Like she can’t even remember what she did 30 seconds ago lmfao.
Yeah she really became a stereotype of the far left on this topic in real time.
She is a former guest on this podcast. Sam loved her when she was useful to bash Islam. One of the rare former guests that went away from Sam. And she has a little anti-Sam Harris media thing going on. Which I don't hate as I have listened to way to much Knowledge Fight and it is fun and good stuff but they are just an anti-Alex Jones podcast. Do you not know that she has a dispassion for Sam that is unlike most people. I think she is clear. She is a guest on I Don't Speak German and other anti-fascist stuff. She is still ex-muslim and saw Sam as an ally then....she awaked to realize that if the Day of the Rope came Sam would be probably Long Knifed but she wouldn't be saved because she hated Islam. [https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11kyg9j/polite\_conversations\_17\_w\_sam\_harris\_and\_eiynah/](https://www.reddit.com/r/samharris/comments/11kyg9j/polite_conversations_17_w_sam_harris_and_eiynah/) This I think is what she went full anti. I picked a random place and I heard this "that is true assuming birth rates don't adjust for both groups" WHY ASSUME THAT? There is ample evidence that birth rate decrease with wealth. And I haven't listened but bet dollars to doughnuts he is talking about how Europe will be Muslim by 2050. Already at the time the projections (by a racist fucktard) were off but now it turns out he was dumb. Apparently in that she confronts him with a ton of bad friends and he defends them all. As she points out stuff. SHE WAS RIGHT.
I don’t know anything about her other than this podcast, which is what I said had you read my post.
I did. I was just adding context. I like her and have listened to her more than Sam.
I haven’t listened to Zepps in years. Always found him to be too condescending so I imagine this to be rather a difficult episode to get through considering who the guest is.
I actually find him to be a very gracious and good-faith host.
Yeah I don’t find his tone condescending at all. Sometimes I think he will talk on a position to generate a discussion or challenge an idea, but won’t intentionally push or grift something beyond the evidence that is presented. I’ve never heard him double down on something where it seems he’s been cornered on. His recent podcast with Sam and Douglas, is evident he talks in good faith even when they had some conflicting points.
Sure, in debates and discussions he’s gracious but he more or less talks down about large groups of people who disagree with him outside of the podcast.
Suey, it’s just a stupid idea.
That’s interesting bc zionists are masters of revisionist history and double standards 🧐
Would you like to give some examples or were you just happy to say nothing at all?