How The Namazie-Harris Interview Disappointed Me

Maryam Namazie Sam HarrisI made the mistake the other night of popping my headphones in and listening to Sam Harris interview Maryam Namazie while I lay in bed. It wasn’t too long before I was suppressing frustrated groans in fear of waking Godless Dad up. At some point in the podcast, I had to pause and tell myself I’d pick it up again in the morning, because I was on the verge of flying into an upright sitting position and yelling, “just answer the damned question!”.

I put it away. I fell asleep with my blood boiling, and I woke up the next day and finished it. This time I was alone and I wasn’t holding back.

I think I yelled, “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me!” and “that’s not what he said at all!” far too many times to count, as I mentally trudged my way to the finish line.

Do you remember that movie, Kids? It was Chloe Sevigny’s break out role, if I recall correctly. About the spread of HIV and how easy it’s passed from one person to the next. There’s that scene (spoiler alert) where Casper has his way with Jennie as she sleeps, passed out on a couch. When she wakes up to realize what he’s done, she leans in and tells him (we assume) that she is HIV positive. His reaction? Exactly the fucking same as my reaction to Sam’s interview with Maryam:

What the fuck just happened?

Let me back up just a little bit, before we dive head first into a whole new shitstorm. Maryam is someone I have admired since I first became aware of her. I appreciated the nerve it took to stand up to Islam and extremism. I loved how she used her platform, and I agreed with almost everything I heard her say. When she was no-platformed by the Goldsmiths Islamic Society, I was horrified and shared that distaste with my followers on Twitter. I am a supporter. I am a fan.

Then, the Tommynado struck. Oodles of people were labeled bigot when they shared Dave Rubin’s interview of Tommy Robinson on Twitter, including Dave himself, Sam Harris and of course, yours truly.

While Maryam never said a word to me during this cat-5 twister, I did see her backing up the people throwing out “bigot” with ease. My heart sunk a little. How could someone I had admired so much be treating others this way? I wanted to say something then but decided to let it go, as Maryam had said nothing to me personally, and I didn’t know what sort of rapport she had with the other people she was labeling, if any.

Cut-to: Sam’s interview with Maryam. After witnessing what went down in the aftermath of the Tommy Robinson fiasco, I had to understand where she was coming from. I needed to know why she thought that people like me were bigots. I figured I would get some sort of clarification during the podcast with Sam, so I listened.

I wanted clarity, but I got nothing. No explanation. No understanding. No closure for having been called a bigot myself, which I continue to take exception to as someone who has fought for human rights for a long time. I got nothing. She explained nothing.

What she did instead is avoid questions. Straight up, clear questions that were communicated clearly. Questions that no one could misunderstand. Questions that, had she answered them, would have harvested some answers I was looking for. She didn’t just shy away from these questions, she avoided them like she had practised it. Yes or no questions were met with, “Look, Sam…” and then a 5 minute departure into a totally unrelated topic. The questions that sought long-form answers were talked over and missed altogether.

What she did instead of answer questions was continue to label people. Of course, conversing one-on-one with Sam herself, the language was softened; the word bigot changed to “far right” or “promoting the far right narrative”.

What she did instead of answer questions was refuse to hear Sam. Sadly, had she heard just some of what he was saying, she might have recognized that they agreed on a few things.

This all fits perfectly into the regressive modus operandi I’ve become so intimately familiar with as of late. It goes something this:

Starting with a person – let’s call him Mr. A – who is emotionally connected to Issue C through personal experience or the illusion of personal experience, or perhaps even just having a friend whose cousin was married to someone who experienced Issue C. Mr. A appears not to have ever really found closure for his experience, either personal or by proxy, of Issue C.

Mr. A is confronted by Miss B with an opinion on Issue C that is just slightly off from Mr. A’s own opinion by about a degree or two. No hostility is present. Instead, perhaps Miss B has just posed to Mr. A an honest question in passing during the course of an otherwise amicable conversation over the internet. This is when Mr. A’s emotional attachment to the subject takes over and kicks reason out to the sidewalk. Mr. A has experienced or known of someone at some point who experienced Issue C, and so Mr. A, and Mr. A alone, is the authority on how to deal with Issue C. Because reason has been set aside in favour of emotion, Mr. A finds it difficult to articulate the reasoning for his opinion on Issue C and this causes him to become more and more frustrated until finally, Mr. A becomes so flustered he pulls out the nastiest, most discrediting insult he can think of. It’s the only way Mr. A can defeat this opposing opinion – not with well-reasoned arguments, but rather with low-blows. This is precisely the moment in the conversation-turned-argument when the word, bigot comes out. Or perhaps misogynist. Maybe far right or neo nazi.

It matters not that perhaps Miss B has been an activist for the rights of certain minorities or maybe she herself is a member of a minority. It is of no consequence if she is married to someone who has experienced Issue C or that she herself has experienced Issue C. None of this matters, for the simple act of having a slightly differing opinion make Miss B a bigot and there is no redemption. Period.

At this point, Miss B has a choice: she can either cut her losses and take off, citing the inability to get through to someone as emotional as Mr. A, or she can stand her ground and try to defend herself. The latter option, of course, just makes the situation worse. The more Miss B says, the deeper she gets sucked in. Now, it’s not just Mr. A calling her a bigot, it’s also Mr. D, Mrs. E, Miss F, Mr. G, and so on. Each of these people seem to pull more emotional individuals in on it, and they draw more people in, until Miss B finds herself unable to even follow the conversation anymore. Muting no longer helps, and blocking is being circumvented by Mr. A sending fresh new people after Miss B. She’s being bombarded from every angle by people calling her a bigot and she can’t escape it. It’s even seeped away from the internet and into her real life. What’s worse, it seems her name has become synonymous with bigot. Newcomers to the dogpile seem not to require hard evidence that she’s a real bigot, they’re just there for the ride. She’s become toxic… tainted. Even the people who agree with her have chosen to stay out of it for fear of being painted with the same bigot brush as Miss B already has been. They’re terrified now of even discussing Issue C or so much as mentioning Miss B’s name because that simple act alone has now become the sole qualifier for being labeled a bigot themselves.

Mr. A, along with his gang of emotional bullies, have effectively shut out any dissenting opinion. The conversation, essentially, is closed to all those whose opinions differ in any minute way from the opinions of Mr. A and his fellow Issue C victims.

You can replace Issue C with fleeing your wartorn country of birth in search of asylum.

You can replace Issue C with rape.

You can replace Issue C with being racially profiled.

You can replace Issue C with Islam.

These are all important issues that need desperately to be discussed. These are conversations that are crucial to humanity’s collective progress. Being able to speak freely about them is the only way we will be able to find new solutions; new ideas and new paths to answers.

Instead, the conversations on these crucial topics are being shut down by the Mr. As of the world, through the mass discrediting of any and all who dare to disagree.

In order to keep these conversations going, anyone with a slightly differing opinion must first accept the fact that they will be labeled a bigot, not just once by one person, but relentlessly and incessantly by countless people who seem never to stop materializing no matter what efforts are taken to avoid said people. It will be to the extent that it becomes the norm; it becomes so commonplace for you to be labeled a bigot that no one even remembers why you’ve been labeled one in the first place. From this point forward, it won’t matter if you find the solution to world hunger, or the cure for cancer. You will forever be a bigot to a large number of people whose tireless voices are always with you, lurking in every corner of your life chanting their mantra… bigot, bigot, bigot.

Let’s be clear about this: this is professional victimhood; emotional warfare; childish dogpiling. It’s not harmless. It’s not something we can ignore. Not only is it shutting down crucial contemporary conversations, but it is effectively silencing voices like that of our cherished Mr. Stephen Fry. This is a sort of censorship that hurts, especially for those who have spent their adult lives devoted to the fair and equal treatment of all people. To be called a bigot or a racist or a misogynist when you’ve worked hard against those very things… well, it hurts. It hurts a lot.

I never pegged Maryam for a regressive. In fact, I had always suspected she’d be a prime target for regressive smear campaigns. I still don’t really know if “regressive” applies here. This was one interview that she handled poorly and it could have been for any number of reasons. The thing is though, that after the interview ended, the tweets started up all over again; tweets targeted at Sam and Sam’s supporters. While Sam tweeted nothing save for a polite request to be respectful of Namazie, Maryam continued to cut him down to her own followers and seemed to revel in the downpour of tweets that joined her in that. One-on-one, Maryam told Sam she wouldn’t call him a bigot, but once the interview was over, she had no qualms about retweeting a tweet that called him prejudiced. You can’t really deny that her behaviour seems to fit the regressive M.O. like a glove.

I’m disappointed. I feel let down. Namazie’s work is important. She has many common goals with Sam Harris. She has common goals with most atheists and many of the people who’ve been labeled bigots in the wake of the Rubin/Robinson interview. But she is actively undermining these goals as her behaviour and the behaviour of those like her, is polarizing the one group that could be strong enough to one day put a dent in the spread of Islamism, if only we were unified.

In this interview with Sam, she was dismissive and monopolizing. She wouldn’t answer questions, she wouldn’t listen and when anything was said that was contrary to her own precise opinions on the matter, she was quick to jump to “far right” or “promoting the far right narrative”. How do you communicate with someone like that?

The answer is disappointingly simple. You can’t.

I do hope this is the temporary state of things, though, because we need Maryam. Her voice, her nerve, her style would all be difficult to replace.

If you enjoy my blog and videos, consider becoming my Patron. All Patron donations go towards hosting, domain names, and more time creating. Click here.
Category: Current Events, Debate | Tags:

  • thompjs

    Interesting, I turned off because I got tired of Sam interrupting her. I don’t really have all of the backstory on this. Recently Sam has had some really odious people on and seems to find common ground with them..
    Perhaps I’ll try again after reading this.

    • Avi Burstein

      Despite her claims that Sam was interrupting her, he let her speak for more than double the amount of time he did. Someone tallied up the talk time and she had 78 minutes and Sam had 38. If he hadn’t interrupted her meandering diatribes, she would have gone on without stopping.

      • Dirk

        thompjs’s feelings and lived experience contradict your silly fact.

      • thompjs

        I stopped listening maybe 20 minutes into it — a number of interruptions in quick succession.
        Also I guess I was not interested in the subject. I thought it would be conversation about Sharia courts in England, etc.

    • david nouis

      Who was odious?

    • Edward Skrod

      Imagine you are listening to someone make a case against evolution. Within the first minute, they claim that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. You could, 1) allow them to continue and make their argument, but then have to go back and correct them on their fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works or 2) interrupt them as quickly as possible to squash this claim, then let them reframe their argument accordingly.
      2 is much more efficient. This way, the person arguing doesn’t build their case on false premises. It is also interpreted as rude.

      In Sam’s case, the false premise was a fundamental misunderstanding of Sam’s argument. There is no reason to allow Maryam to continue to build her case if it is based upon a misunderstanding. In the interest of time, it’s important to clarify things as quickly as possible.

      The way in which Sam can improve is to state up front, “I may have to interrupt you from time to time if there is a misunderstanding of one of my claims. I’m not doing this to be rude. I’m doing this to make sure that we maximize our time together and really try to get to the bottom of our agreement or disagreement.”

      • thompjs

        Sorry, that is not easy to listen to. BTW, there are technical definitions of micro and macro evolution, maybe you should hear them out? They might be wrong, but how do you know if you don’t listen.

        • Edward Skrod

          I don’t think you understand my point. I was trying to explain why Sam interrupted Maryam. He interrupted her in order to clarify her premises as soon as possible.

          I tried to create an analogy between what Sam did and what someone might do if they were debating a creationist. Creationists typically claim that they accept micro evolution, but don’t accept macro evolution. Someone debating a creationist should press them to clarify what they mean by these terms as soon as possible in the argument so that they don’t build an argument on false premises.

          • thompjs

            Bottom line, the way Sam was doing it sounded rude. At least up to the point where I turned it off. I agree you can’t let someone talk forever, but he never looks for a break or pause to come in.

            I never had any idea what either of them were talking about other than Sam felt offended by some letter.

          • Edward Skrod

            I completely agree which is why I wrote:
            “The way in which Sam can improve is to state up front, “I may have to interrupt you from time to time if there is a misunderstanding of one of my claims. I’m not doing this to be rude. I’m doing this to make sure that we maximize our time together and really try to get to the bottom of our agreement or disagreement.”

          • Secul8r

            I’m not sure what else Sam could have done to strike a balance between respecting his guest and delivering quality content to his audience. He has a responsibility to both.

          • Nikki Rouse

            There has to be a break or a pause in order to do that. Maryam didn’t allow it. You can’t objectively judge the outcome of a 2-hour podcast by listening only to the first 20 minutes. It appears that you agree with Maryam’s style of one-sided conversations and don’t want to be proven wrong. Don’t listen; just stick to your preconceived opinions and assume the other person is not only wrong, but evil. You are correct that it wasn’t easy to listen to, but many others were able to listen to the entirety in order to form a more qualified, objective viewpoint. You have no idea what either of them were talking about, yet feel qualified to judge the outcome?

  • Chris Barham

    I got blocked on Twitter by Maryam for posing some genuine question in the no platform aftermath having clearly been outraged at the treatment she’d endured. I forget what it was, and she owes me nothing, but I did think that it was rather telling. Ho hum.

  • SimonNorwich

    I broadly agree with everything you say. However, I think Sam could have constructed the discussion a bit better – he admitted as much himself in his preamble. I don’t know how much, if at all, they may have set out beforehand the nature of the discussion, but it seemed like Sam honed straight in on wanting to confront Maryam on her accusations of bigotry against certain people, including himself, whereas she seemed to be under the impression he was going to conduct a more general interview about her work.
    Given that it was the first time they’d had any discussion, I think it would have been more courteous and appropriate to talk to Maryam more about her general life and work, to ease into the subjects, and then later on focus on her arguments about profiling and immigration. Sam’s method seemed a little blunt in this case. If Sam wanted the whole discussion to be about those specific topics, I think we may all have gotten more out of the discussion if Maryam had been better prepped for this in advance.
    However, it’s clear that they have such entirely different mindsets and ways of looking at the world, I don’t think it was ever going to be an easy discussion. Frustrating as it was, though, I did feel I learnt a little bit more about both their views!

  • Secul8r

    Great analysis mom.

    I was really looking forward to a podcast that I hoped (and expected) to resolve differences, build bridges and unite two important figures in the fight against the far-right and regressive-left.

    I’d stop short of labelling Maryam as regressive. To do so, in my opinion, would be to mirror her mistake of labelling Sam as bigoted/prejudiced. That said, she certainly seemed to wearing a regressive hat for the duration of that podcast.

    The most disappointing thing for me is that anybody who knows what Sam is about, knows he is all about the pursuit of reason. He isn’t afraid to be wrong or unwilling to be corrected in that pursuit. Maryam spent the interview claiming to disagree with Sam without *actually* addressing and disagreeing with his points. And she has since taken to Twitter to denigrate Sam’s followers as if our disappointment is simply because she disagrees with him. This an insult to those who share Sam’s pursuit of reason; to those who would have welcomed her reasoned disagreement if only she had cared to articulate it.

    I started to have doubts about Maryam after her inappropriate harassment of Quilliam’s Adam Deen. And I’m sorry to see her travel further down this unreasonable path. I support her cause and until now, I considered myself an ally of hers. But after this podcast, the next time somebody switches off her projector, I’ll wonder if they are trying to de-platform her or just trying to do the room a favour.

    • SimonNorwich

      You raise a very good point about how how they both approached the argument. Of course, neither was going to relinquish their position easily, but Sam’s reasoned approach suggest he could change his mind if he hears a better argument. Maryam often seems to act as if she thinks that everyone has made up their minds and will never change, which makes me wonder what she thinks the point of her campaigning is. This is very apparent with her attitude towards Tommy Robinson. When he left the EDL and worked with Quilliam, you’d have thought she’d see that as a positive move. Instead she jumped in straight away with the comment that he’s still a bigot, and she has carried on saying that to this day. What is that meant to achieve? Surely she would want him and anyone like him to at least start moving towards a more considered and moderate position. By all means point out his faults, but show him some encouragement.

      • Secul8r

        I actually think Sam and Maryam’s positions on some subjects are compatible. For example, it seems to me a matter of fact that screening obvious non-Jihadists is a waste of resources. But it is possible to agree with this argument and still make a case against profiling on the grounds of collective blame. As a value judgment, perhaps wasting resources is a necessary evil? Rather than seek common ground through amicable discourse, I suspect Maryam interpreted the interview as a nil-sum competition.

        As for Tommy Robinson, I often wonder if I’ve missed something. Whenever he speaks, he never comes across as expected. He’s much more likeable than his image would suggest yet his detractors (including Maryam) are determined to smear him. If there is a good reason why, I haven’t yet seen it. Perhaps he’s a devious machiavelli who speaks with a forked tongue but I’m more inclined to think he’s just a straight-talking, working-class Lutonian who perhaps does deserve more credit than he gets.

        • SimonNorwich

          Believe it or not I’ve just listened to the podcast a 2nd time! Knowing in advance it was a fraught conversation, I actually found it quite useful in forming a clearer picture of their arguments.

          There were a couple of things in Maryam’s arguments that made no sense and seemed to be self-contradictory. Near the start of their conversation, Sam raised a point about how the likes of Douglas Murray, Tommy Robinson and even himself were often pre-stigmatised with terms like “bigot” by people like Maryam and he found this to be unhelpful. Maryam’s response was along the lines, “oh that’s life, that happens to me too, get used to it”. But she then spent the entire rest of the conversation saying how wrong it was to stigmatise people!

          With regard to profiling, I think there’s a huge misunderstanding as to what it means in practice; and it is practised in every area of law enforcement every day without anyone thinking anything is wrong with it. Profiling someone doesn’t mean that you are assuming every individual you look at is guilty or that you are targeting them (which is how Maryam kept describing it). You are trying to eliminate the innocent to zoom in on the guilty. Take the case of a football match in England last week where someone in the crowd threw a coin at the goalkeeper and cut him an inch below the eye. Obviously that could have caused serious injury and the club and the police launched an investigation to find the culprit. Now, where do they start? Do they investigate the whole UK population, or all football fans from all clubs, or all football fans that were at the match that day, or do they look at the fans that were at the one particular end of the pitch from which the coin was obviously thrown. I hope you agree they don’t waste their time and they focus on the latter. But when they look at the names on the ticket allocations for people in that part of the stadium, or examine them all on CCTV recordings, that doesn’t mean they consider everyone in that group is guilty. They are trying to further eliminate all the innocents in order to zoom in on the guilty. If we decide it’s wrong to look exclusively among Muslims for Jihadist terrorists, we must decide by the same logic it’s wrong to look among football fans for hooligans. Or among drivers for speeders.

          Maryam asked why are we waiting until people are at the airport to check them; why haven’t we already identified them. Well, great! How do you do that without in some way profiling in the wider community?

          With regard to Tommy Robinson, I agree with your impression of him from all the interviews I’ve heard. However, he does sometimes let himself down on Twitter. For example, he posts a lot of videos of alleged violence and bullying by Muslims which cannot be validated, and even if they are Muslims there’s no way of knowing if they are all acts of violence motivated by their religion rather than acts of random violence that occur in all societies. He also links to some dodgy groups and articles. For example, he has recommended articles by “The Muslim Issue” which call for all illegal immigrants to be killed and for public executions of European politicians. Nice. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s just not careful enough with some of his links, but he needs to sort that out in order to have any chance of more mainstream support.

  • Durinn McFurren

    I admire Mariam a lot. I too was appalled by her treatment at Goldsmith’s. I was even more appalled when various regressives, like the Goldsmith Feminist Society, defended her attackers. I would not call her a full-on regressive. Yet, I often disagree with her, and I can’t say I’ve ever seen her give any sort of reasoned defense to my disagreements. Which can be summarized on 3 points:

    1. Mariam claims anyone fleeing Assad is ‘an ally for secularism.’ But couldn’t a muslim support Sharia while being targeted by Assad?

    2. I recognize that Mariam’s family are muslim, and that they are not terrorists, murderers, rapists, ‘bad people.’ But I feel like I could equally say ‘My white family is not racist, so racism is not a problem in the United States.’ No – if I went to a foreign country, and they screened me for potential racism, I would understand. But Mariam seems to think that even suggesting that radical muslims could try to sneak into the EU or the US (which I find especially likely, given Taqiyya or whatever it is called, the muslim deception), is bigoted.

    3. On a more long-term issue, granting that many would-be muslim migrants are secular, there is still the question of ‘how secular?’ That is, maybe they don’t favour sharia. But in the US, we have a lot of muslims who vote Republican (ironically, the party which is against muslim immigration) because they are against LGBT rights, or against abortion. So, what about long-term social effects of letting in arbitrary numbers of migrants? Especially if they are granted the vote.

    I don’t believe Mariam has ever adequately addressed these questions (though if I am wrong, I welcome the information). Instead, even raising these questions seems to indicate being ‘bigoted,’ according to her. I don’t pretend to have the answers, but she acts like even asking the questions makes me an horrible person.

  • david nouis

    She is a Communist, enough said. The woman is hopeless

  • Edward Skrod

    I really wish you would have taken screen shots of this claim.

    “While Sam tweeted nothing save for a polite request to be respectful of Namazie, Maryam continued to cut him down to her own followers and seemed to revel in the downpour of tweets that joined her in that. ”

    I find myself having to wade through three days worth of her tweets which isn’t the best use of my time.

  • Dan Youngman

    I couldn’t agree more.

    I’ve always been a fan of both Sam and Maryam and have always admired Maryam’s courage in speaking out and directly challenging the ineuqities of our world. Also,being English I’m aware of Tommy Robinson, his politics and his past in the EDL.

    That having been said, I at least opened my ears and listened to Sam when he said that what he knew of Tommy and his politics stemmed entirely from ONE INTERVIEW. It seems that Maryam completely ignored that and instead of taking the opportuniny to educate Sam, completely glossed over his lack of familiarity.

    Sam, I think was absolutely right when he said that Maryam was not fully understanding his position, because she didn’t even try. I was, in the end terribly disappointed with the whole frustrating piece; neither has come out of it smelling of roses and I’ve lost a little respect for someone that I held in very high regard.

    Keep up the good work.

  • Beeman15

    Most people wanted to sympathise with Maryam as an ex-Muslim campaigning against Islamism, but she disgraced herself on that interview. She was irritating, rambled incoherently, and was rude towards Sam (labelling him far-right after he had patiently and calmly tried to reason with her on that interview) and now has lot of respect with a lot of people. I’m surprised she works as spokeswoman for anyone when she isn’t that articulate and has child like debating skills. I genuinely feel sorry for Sam for this interview.

  • TheGodless

    That was one of the most frustrating discussions I’ve ever heard. It reminded me of a meme that pointed out how some people only listen to respond and not to hear. If only Maryam would have been wiling to drop her previously arrived at conclusions, unwarranted defensiveness, she might have realized that the only real disagreement she and Sam had was over semantics. Maryam repeatedly ignored Sam’s actual arguments and seemed to only be willing to argue against her own twisted interpretation of his arguments.

  • ronmurp

    Maryam is clearly courageous in her dealings with Islamism. But she seems to be overly sensitive. I think Sam lost her by trying to interrupt too often early in the interview – justifiably in many cases. Otherwise it might have been more productive. Sometimes you just have to let the guest have their say fully, and then pick up the points later. It seems Maryam saw it as an interview, not a conversation.

    What I took from it, trying to filter out the noise, was two clear differences.

    Profiling. If a white young male robs a store, the police will profile young white males. What does profiling mean here? It means white males are the search space in which to look for the culprit. Clearly, the police would not ‘blame’ all young white males. This is how I see Sam’s thoughts on profiling – where to look. But Maryam sees profiling as already blaming ALL Muslims, which is ridiculous. It’s not as if Maryam is anti-profiling herself. She seemed happy to target Islamists. But where do you first find Islamists if not among Muslims. Maryam seems to be feeding off the very victimhood narrative that many Muslims engage in when they are not being accused of anything.

    Immigration. Maryam stated clearly: let everyone in. Sam didn’t say, and has never said, all refugees should be kept out. All his points have really been about the obvious: that Islamists and Jihadists will be among the immigrants, that many are economic migrants. On the latter one wonders if Maryam thinks all borders everywhere should be open to anyone – she seems to say so. I’m not sure even most leftists regressives would go along with that.

  • Maria_Maclachlan

    Well, I’ve listened to the first 55 minutes of the podcast and can’t say that I recognise your characterisation of it so far. I’m grateful to you for inspiring me to want to go and listen but I disagree with your impressions of it. It seems to me that Maryam has answered the questions asked (so far) and, as someone who knows a lot more about Tommy Robinson that whatever he said in the Rubin intervew – which I have yet to listen to – I kind of understand the overreaction against anyone perceived of having the slightest sympathy for him. I’m certainly not condoning calling you a bigot!

  • dwolfcoach

    My thoughts were similar, but she clearly isn’t interested in building alliances with other like minded people that critique poorly constructed, arcane and archaic ideas. She does show tremendous courage, but she dominated the discussion and repeatedly asked Sam not to interrupt her. When he asked for clarification, there was none. Intolerance was something I saw in HER.

    I will still like and retweet her, but I’m going to push her to explain her “differences”, that I concur, she still hasn’t properly explained.