TRANSCRIPT OF BEGINNING OF TRAVIS PANGBURN & GAD SAAD PODCAST #27
GAD SAAD (GS): it seems to me incredible that you can have an exact repeat of the Salem Witch Hunt in the 21st century. i don't know if Brett Kavanaugh is guilty or not; no one knows except perhaps him and the accuser. what we do know is that someone came at the last second, 36 years after the fact, and said that "i think that something happened, somewhere, at some point, at some place; and i need to be believed."
now, that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be heard, and i think that some people have granted her all the courtesy to be heard. but the incredible response that i've heard from my quote progressive liberal friends literally should cause people to have goosebumps running up and down their bodies because today it's Brett Kavanaugh; tomorrow, it's Travis Pangburn or his son or his uncle or his grandfather.
i left the Middle East, thankfully. i came to a country where there are certain indelible freedoms that most of the rest of the world has not necessarily had. what makes the United States, Canada, and the West in general wonderful, among many attributes, is that we do have due process; we do have the presumption of innocence. and to see sophisticated thinkers, many of whom you've interacted with, many of whom you've organized events for, completely lose their minds because, you know, he must be guilty because he is somehow associated with the Republicans, is insane.
and i think people ultimately listen to my position, other than because it's very rational — i think it's because i'm Canadian, and so i come across to people as not having a dog in the fight. which is exactly true, right? i mean, i don't care one way or the other. i'm looking at it as an impartial observer north of the border. and it makes my skin crawl because it seems astounding that this process can be happening.
TRAVIS PANGBURN (TP): remark re: Sam Harris re: surveying people and catching something disturbing in their background, and just skipping to the next guy.
GS: i mean, so what that you've done a scorched-earth policy on this guy and, you know, ruined his reputation, ruined -- you know, probably destroyed the emotional stability of his children and his wife. hey, let's just move on to another guy. if he had to be, you know, the casualty of this great cultural war, so be it. it's insane, right?
i mean, i satirized many things about this case, one of which was -- hey, why don't we, from now on, whenever someone applies for a professorship, we send out a press release stating that he or she is a serial sadistic pedophile rapist. and then we will watch how this candidate responds. if the candidate responds in an indignant and angry manner, well, clearly, bruh, he must not have or she must not have the emotional stability to be a professor.
i mean, it's insane. it's the Salem Witch Hunt.
TP: (question about how sitting up and defending your character is the natural response.)
GS: i mean, it's the most natural response. i mean, many of us were amazed that he was this restrained. right? i mean, this speaks to — by the way, let's incorporate some psychological analysis here — there is a phenomenon in psychology known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. the Fundamental Attribution Error is the notion that we often attribute — say we see a phenomenon taking place. we attribute it dispositionally to the person rather than to the situation at hand, right? and that's a big problem, because —
so let me give you an example. the way that i respond when i'm tucking my children to bed — in a warm, affectionate, loving manner — is very different than the way that i respond if i am accosted, about to be mugged, by three young guys in an alley. in the latter case, i might act very violently in defending myself. no one would come to me, if they are not naturally lobotomized, and say, "but, hey, Professor, you exhibited great violence in that alley. that must mean somehow that you are emotionally unstable."
that would be an example of succumbing to the Fundamental Attribution Error, attributing something to me dispositionally when it was only the situation at hand that was forcing me to be violent.
so here is a guy who has been accused — and, again, i'm not suggesting that he is guilty or not guilty, but we do have the presumption of innocence for a reason. and the evidence that has been offered in support of the accuser — nearly every single lawyer that i've heard speak on the matter said that it wouldn't pass the door of their office. right?
TP: right.
GS: so he responds in an indignant manner. you presume that's because dispositionally he's a violent, aggressive guy? you don't understand that he's fighting for his life? for his reputation? i mean, it's insane.
TP: (commenting on Brett Kavanaugh's outbursts of emotion being triggers to liberals refusing to acknowledge his righteous anger, etc.)
GS: well, what amazes me is that many of the folks that you and i know, the supposed intelligentsia, will be the first to, you know, criticize the dogmatism of religion. so many of the folks that you can probably list right now — you mentioned one a few minutes ago [Sam Harris] — has become very famous around the world for critiquing religion. because, in having a religious mindset, you are ultimately being dogmatic. you are not adhering to rules of logic and reason and science and evidence-based thinking.
so the exact same people who've made their career and reputation on defending these ideals of reason, these paragons of rationality, suddenly become the most fundamental quote quasi-religious extremists when it's their pet ideology that's being attacked. right?
so, for example, the Trump hysteria is absolutely insane. now, again, i say this as a Canadian.
i appeared on Sam Harris's show two years ago, where i offered a very sober, very clear explanation of the types of decision rules that perfectly rational people might have used in choosing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. and none of those rules required that the people who chose Trump be maniacs and Nazis and tooth [unintelligible] members who sleep with their sisters. right?
TP: yeah.
GS: and yet these supposed rational people are simply incapable of conceding the fact that there might be very clear reasons why people could have preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Trump is full of flaws. i know.
TP: yes.
GS: no, they can't concede that. "there's gonna be a nuclear holocaust, we're gonna lose democracy, Trump is gonna outlaw sex, and we're all doomed in the next 20 minutes." it's insane, it's embarrassing.
TP: (you go on about embarrassing, etc.)
GS: "well, democracy's gonna end, he's gonna declare martial law, this is the incoming of a new dictatorship ... well, we had democracy; it was a good run." i mean, really? do you truly believe that this little bleep called Donald Trump, in the great history of the United States, is going to marshall all of these unbelievably dark consequences?
i mean, what kind of hysteric must you be, to actually believe these things? but this is what happens when Ostrich [unintelligible] Syndrome — as i will explain in my next book — infects even otherwise-brilliant minds.
and then y'all both move on to other subjects.
the accuser (never named by Prof. Saad), was precise in her accusation. it was a report, not a story. she set out all relevant evidence, and even cited a direct eyewitness, Mark Judge, an alleged participant in the event in question. Mr. Judge was never subpoenaed or interviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Dr. Ford also included testimony from years subsequent to the alleged sexual assault but prior to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, such as her 2012 therapist notes from couples' counseling sessions wherein she related her experience with both Kavanaugh and Judge to her husband. this resulted because of a strange request that she made, upon the construction of their home, for a second front door. there was a direct correlation — of the second front door — to the assault, explained in Dr. Ford's testimony, which she stated happened in July 1982.
Prof. Saad, instead of using her terminology — which had the precision of the professional psychologist that Dr. Ford, in fact, is — used terminology employed by President Trump, nobody's idea of an expert at anything but lying, characterizing Dr. Ford's testimony as nebulous and uncertain by his use of words such as "somewhere," "at some place," "at some time," and then lampooning her as making some kind of pusillanimous demand that she "needed to be believed."
none of that language was factual; it was all emotional victim-trashing courtesy of our president, a vindictive narcissistic sociopath of the worst order. the fact that Prof. Saad CHOSE to use Trump's language rather than Dr. Ford's more expert terminology leads me to believe that Prof. Saad did, indeed, have a dog in that fight. that dog was his masculinity.
interwoven throughout Prof. Saad's entire conversation with Mr. Pangburn on this subject matter was an implicit disdain for Dr. Ford. he never referred to her by name and never cited any of the commentaries by professional therapists in the field of sexual assault who asserted that her memories were exactly what would be expected of a victim of an attempted rape. no, instead Prof. Saad chose to quote nameless lawyers who dismissed her assertions out-of-hand as not being of a level that could "pass their doors" and be accepted for representation. statements made by attorneys that indicated a more receptive approach to Dr. Ford's testimony were completely ignored.
Prof. Saad further intimated that Dr. Ford expressed, either explicitly or, somehow, impliedly, a "need" to be believed. why is it that, when a woman has an emotional reaction, it is interpreted as a "need," but when a man, such as Judge Kavanaugh, makes a remark like "what goes around, comes around," it is interpreted as a justifiably righteous reaction of anger?
that last question was, of course, rhetorical, but if anyone can answer it, i'd be interested in what you have to say in defense of both Mr. Pangburn's and Prof. Saad's hostile — or at the very least unsympathetic — reactions to Dr. Ford's testimony.
now, that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be heard, and i think that some people have granted her all the courtesy to be heard. but the incredible response that i've heard from my quote progressive liberal friends literally should cause people to have goosebumps running up and down their bodies because today it's Brett Kavanaugh; tomorrow, it's Travis Pangburn or his son or his uncle or his grandfather.
i left the Middle East, thankfully. i came to a country where there are certain indelible freedoms that most of the rest of the world has not necessarily had. what makes the United States, Canada, and the West in general wonderful, among many attributes, is that we do have due process; we do have the presumption of innocence.
and to see sophisticated thinkers, many of whom you've interacted with, many of whom you've organized events for, completely lose their minds because, you know, "he must be guilty because he is somehow associated with the Republicans," is insane. and i think people ultimately listen to my position — other than because it's very rational — i think it's because i'm Canadian, and so i come across to people as not having a dog in the fight. which is exactly true, right? i mean, i don't care one way or the other. i'm looking at it as an impartial observer north of the border. and it makes my skin crawl because it seems astounding that this process can be happening.
i'll tell you what makes MY skin crawl. that sentence of Prof. Saad's: "today it's Brett Kavanaugh; tomorrow, it's Travis Pangburn or his son or his uncle or his grandfather." who's REALLY the victim, NOW? have we managed to transfer the sympathy from Dr. Ford to Judge Kavanaugh? to ALL men, in fact? it sure sounds like it.
is it really that hard NOT to assault another human being? i believe the fact-based statistics that have been cited (numerous times throughout this ordeal) indicate that 63% of all sexual assaults are not reported to police, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. go ahead, click on that link and read the statistics. out of those incidents that ARE reported, in the end, only about 3 in 100 of all assailants spend any time in prison or jail at all. and if they're as fortunate as Brock Turner, it's only a three-month sentence. FOR A RAPE.
on the other hand, only about 3% of sexual assault reports are estimated as false. i'll make that easy for you — 97% of the time, the "victims" ARE victims.
why don't we report? especially since, in this great country, we have that "presumption of innocence?" well, it's not OUR innocence that's presumed. au contraire, mon ami. the victim "wanted it," "was drunk," "dressed like a slut," or other similar crap. spend some time on Twitter and read the threads posted by women (and i'd assume some men as well, but they really only account for about 9% of victims; nevertheless, they're STILL victims) — you'll read how women may not have been actually raped but have been terrorized by random guys coming to buy an appliance or coming to do repair work or the like, why we women don't even feel safe IN OUR OWN HOMES.
the dam has broken, and we are writing all of this pent-up anguish and rage down, and posting it on social media for the men of the world to SEE, to ACKNOWLEDGE, to UNDERSTAND. Mr. Pangburn's entire conversation with Prof. Saad demonstrated that the need is there, but the audience doesn't think there's a need at all. not for the women, anyway.
TP: (remark re: Sam Harris surveying people and hearing shady past histories, so just skipping to the next guy.)
GS: i mean, so what that you've done a scorched-earth policy on this guy and, you know, ruined his reputation, ruined — you know, probably destroyed the emotional stability of his children and his wife? hey, let's just move on to another guy. if he had to be, you know, the casualty of this great cultural war, so be it. it's insane, right?
i mean, i satirized many things about this case, one of which was — hey, why don't we, from now on, whenever someone applies for a professorship. we send out a press release stating that he or she is a serial sadistic pedophile rapist. and then we will watch how this candidate responds. if the candidate responds in an indignant and angry manner, well, clearly, bruh, he must not have or she must not have the emotional stability to be a professor.
i mean, it's insane. it's the Salem Witch Hunt!
Kavanaugh is the one who ruined his reputation, not Dr. Ford. it was Kavanaugh's past that was dredged up. Dr. Ford was merely two things: the victim and the messenger. in today's climate, in what Prof. Saad called "this great cultural war," women get condemned and executed for being both victim and messenger. you know it's true.
Kavanaugh knew what was in his past, yet he chose to expose it — or to risk its being exposed — to the fragile "emotional stability" of his wife and daughters. i worry for them — the wife and daughters. HE doesn't. that became glaringly apparent. he's as much of a narcissist as our POTUS, and you know what the saying is about birds of a feather ...
what about that "serial sadistic pedophile rapist" press release suggestion Prof. Saad made, upon the awarding of a professorship? what was truly accurate about that supposed "comparison?" not the "serial," surely? nor the "sadistic?" not even the "rapist?" well, perhaps, if the FBI had been allowed by their handler (i.e., Trump) to do a proper and thorough investigation, the flotsam and jetsam of current rumor might have solidified into firmer evidence? the professor conflated the testimony of the two other known accusers here, confusing his argument and i suppose his audience as well.
he then followed up with that malarkey about "let's see how the candidate responds" to absurd over-the-top allegations, which was certainly not the case here. my jaw dropped as i heard Prof. Saad actually attempt to justify Kavanaugh's *performance* -- his belligerent, petulant "act" — in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. especially coming on the heels of Dr. Ford's testimony, so quietly and politely given. she tried to answer every question as best she could, even through seemingly painful, disturbing flashback memory experiences.
SHE was doing her duty as a citizen; HE was fighting for his right aka privilege to be the Supreme Law of the Land. SHE did not want to be there; HE did. let's have some real balance injected into the situation at hand. the unwilling witness was as helpful as she could possibly be; the willing subject was as self-righteously outraged as he had NO RIGHT to be, guilty or not. he was facing a wounded woman, whether by him or by another. yet he showed not a whit of pity for her broken wing ... however it was broken; whoever broke it.
he wasn't merely "indignant or angry"; he was apoplectic, he was cruel, he was vengeful. he was the very spit and image of Roger Chillingworth, the Leech of Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter. just ask Sen. Klobuchar, daughter of an alcoholic — and that's a whole 'nother biographical tale. yes, sir, "what goes around, comes around," Kavanaugh famously warned. i very much hope he's right.
TP: (question about how sitting up and defending your character is the natural response.)
GS: i mean, it's the most natural response. i mean, many of us were amazed that he was this restrained. right? i mean, this speaks to — by the way, let's incorporate some psychological analysis here. there is a phenomenon in psychology known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. the Fundamental Attribution Error is the notion that we often attribute — say we see a phenomenon taking place. we attribute it dispositionally to the person rather than to the situation at hand, right? and that's a big problem because —
so let me give you an example. the way that i respond when i'm tucking my children to bed — in a warm, affectionate, loving manner — is very different than the way that i respond if i am accosted, about to be mugged, by three young guys in an alley. in the latter case, i might act very violently in defending myself. no one would come to me, if they are not naturally lobotomized, and say, "but, hey, Professor, you exhibited great violence in that alley. that must mean somehow that you are emotionally unstable."
that would be an example of succumbing to the Fundamental Attribution Error, attributing something to me dispositionally when it was only the situation at hand that was forcing me to be violent.
"the most natural response," "this restrained," "defending myself," "forcing me to be violent." these were Prof. Saad's descriptors of his hypothetical alleyway attack vis-à-vis Kavanaugh's incoherent rage. i have two things to say about this.
firstly, Kavanaugh's anger was excessive to the point of absurdity. it seemed to me that he was playing to an audience of one, and that one was Trump. Trump likes antagonism; he is known for his admiration of tyrants. for Trump, the ideal Santa Claus would be Josef Stalin. so Kavanaugh took it to the limit and then some. he stressed his fondness for "beer" to a ridiculous degree, and then turned the tables on his female inquisitors, when, e.g., he pressed Sen. Klobuchar on whether she had ever blacked out. that was pure effrontery. how dare he? ah, but he was emboldened, and by we-know-who, don't we?
his assertion that he's never blacked out was and remains disingenuous to me. i HAVE blacked out — twice in my life, both in my college days. i remember clearly the events leading up to the black-outs and those upon coming-to after them. but the black-outs themselves i do not recall at all.
the first time involved a whole lot of grain alcohol, a lot of Exorcist-like vomiting, a truly disgusting morning-after scene, but ... it was funny. at the same time, it was funny. i still remember what i said, to my friend Judy's roommate, Beth, whose bed i was in: "hullo, Beth ... we'll clean it up." i know, but it seemed funny at the time. she had the funniest, most horrified look on her face!
the second (and last) time, i came out of a rant, an unintelligible tirade. i have no memory of what i'd been saying, only that it was truly manic and possibly raving. hard as i've tried, i've never been able to recall what i'd been saying. maybe i never will. but i had (and still have) the distinct feeling that it wasn't very nice.
so when Brett Kavanaugh, known far and wide for his extensive drinking and falling-down drunkenness, categorically denies ever having blacked out during a drinking event, i do not believe him, because there would always be some doubt. i seriously question his ability to remember EVERYTHING. seriously.
secondly, when Prof. Saad stated that it was "the situation at hand that was forcing [him] to be violent," he was using himself as the example in the Fundamental Attribution Event. that perspective shifts significantly when the violent or threatening event is experienced by a woman and AS a woman. i refer you to a recent Twitter thread by SaraSuze. please read her story before you continue with my response. it's only 25 tweets (not really that long), but she describes, perfectly, what happens when a woman — who likes to think of herself as brave and heroic and able to fend for herself — finds out that she isn't those things. IN HER OWN HOME. it's all the proof any person — male or female — needs to know, to know how scary it is to be a woman in today's world.
GS: so here is a guy who has been accused — and, again, i'm not suggesting that he is guilty or not guilty, but right?
TP: right.
GS: so he responds in an indignant manner. you presume that's because dispositionally he's a violent, aggressive guy? you don't understand that he's fighting for his life? for his reputation? i mean, it's insane.
TP: (commenting on Brett Kavanaugh's outbursts of emotion being triggers to liberals refusing to acknowledge his righteous anger, etc.)
GS: well, what amazes me is that many of the folks that you and i know, the supposed intelligentsia, will be the first to, you know, criticize the dogmatism of religion. so many of the folks that you can probably list right now — you mentioned one a few minutes ago — [Sam Harris] has become very famous around the world for critiquing religion. because, in having a religious mindset, you are ultimately being dogmatic. you are not adhering to rules of logic and reason and science and evidence-based thinking.
so the exact same people who've made their career and reputation on defending these ideals of reason, these paragons of rationality, suddenly become the most fundamental quote quasi-religious extremists when it's their pet ideology that's being attacked. right?
so, for example, the Trump hysteria is absolutely insane. now, again, i say this as a Canadian. i appeared on Sam Harris's show two years ago, where i offered a very sober, very clear explanation of the types of decision rules that perfectly rational people might have used in choosing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. and none of those rules required that the people who chose Trump be maniacs and Nazis and tooth [unintelligible] members who sleep with their sisters. right?
TP: yeah.
GS: and yet these supposed rational people are simply incapable of conceding the fact that there might be very clear reasons why people could have preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Trump is full of flaws. i know.
TP: yes.
GS: no, they can't concede that. "there's gonna be a nuclear holocaust, we're gonna lose democracy, Trump is gonna outlaw sex, and we're all doomed in the next 20 minutes." it's insane, it's embarrassing.
TP: (you go on about embarrassing, etc.)
GS: "well, democracy's gonna end, he's gonna declare martial law, this is the incoming of a new dictatorship ... well, we had democracy; it was a good run." i mean, really? do you truly believe that this little bleep called Donald Trump, in the great history of the United States, is going to marshall all of these unbelievably dark consequences?
i mean, what kind of hysteric must you be, to actually believe these things? but this is what happens when Ostrich [unintelligible] Syndrome — as i will explain in my next book — infects even otherwise-brilliant minds.
i lumped all the rest of the pertinent conversation into this last response, so let's start with this summarization of Dr. Ford's credibility by Prof. Saad:
GS: we do have the presumption of innocence for a reason. and the evidence that has been offered in support of the accuser — nearly every single lawyer that i've heard speak on the matter said that it "wouldn't pass the door of their office" — in other words, it wouldn't pass the smell test. that's another reason we don't report sexual assaults. we are immediately, inherently, disbelieved.
various persons agreed that she may well have been assaulted, but that it just wasn't Brett Kavanaugh. after all, she didn't remember the date, or where the house is, or how she got there or how she got home ... BUT the body of Brett Kavanaugh (who was hysterically laughing, in tandem with his buddy, Mark) was on top of hers, on a strange bed in a strange house, grinding into her body, while he was trying to remove her clothing. when she tried to scream for help, he put a hand over her mouth; she was afraid she might accidentally suffocate — hence, the need, so many years later, for that second front door: in case she needed to make a fast "Exit, Stage Left."
undoubtedly, she felt his erection. it was not stated; i would have asked. so, for that matter, would Kavanaugh, judging by his decades-old, drafted Clinton questions. it's not the kind of thing a 15-year-old virgin would forget. remember, he was a 17-year-old senior, a high-school athlete, and VERY drunk. his face was probably mere inches from hers. do you think she would forget THAT? she could smell the alcohol on his breath, feel the boner in his pants and the heavy weight of his entire body trapping her underneath him.
she tried to look pleadingly into his friend's eyes but found no sympathy there. only a moronic drunken lunge onto the bed by his partner in crime freed her from Brett's grip, and she took instant advantage of the opportunity to run for her life to the first open door, slam it shut, and lock it behind her. can you possibly imagine the extent of her fright? no? try.
all her senses were focused on the activity outside her panic room — a bathroom. when Prof. Saad described Kavanaugh as fighting for his life, did he mean ANYTHING even close to what Christine had experienced during that assault? i doubt it. when Prof. Saad talked about Kavanaugh fighting for his reputation, did he even consider the fact that Dr. Ford -- to this day -- cannot return to her home because of unending death threats? she is mocked by pundits and by the president of the United States, on all broadcast and social media. she is cursed, threatened, shamed, verbally violated and more, because she is the victim and the messenger. did THAT ever occur to you, in this great country of the presumption of innocence? these are many of the other reasons women don't report sexual assaults, especially when committed by the "right" sort of people.
finally, we get to Prof. Saad's pet peeve, as i see it: Sam Harris. the professor mentioned that he had appeared on Sam's podcast two years ago, offering "a very sober, very clear explanation of the types of decision rules that perfectly rational people might have used in choosing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton." i guess Sam didn't respond the way the professor wanted, because Prof. Saad didn't appear all that happy with "the exact same people who've made their career and reputation on defending these ideals of reason, these paragons of rationality," who "suddenly become the most fundamental quote quasi-religious extremists when it's their pet ideology that's being attacked." no, i don't think Prof. Saad cares much for Dr. Harris or any of those other "supposed rational people."
i am a fervent Bernie Sanders supporter, a really progressive liberal who used to be an Ayn Rand Objectivist Libertarian in my younger days. i absolutely loathe Hillary Clinton and have written reams about my disgust for her and her husband all over social media. my nickname for them is HillBilly. (i call Rudy Giuliani Poor Yorick, and Trump is Patient Zero in the Dunning-Kruger Pandemic; i love nicknaming.)
yet i voted in 2016 for the Democratic candidate for the presidency, because it was the only rational choice. Trump is an honest-to-goodness mentally ill person, suffering from NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder); he is sociopathic, egocentric, shameless, and oh-so-many other things — i've provided a link so that you can count the ways in which our POTUS loves himself. Hillary shares quite a few of those displeasing traits with him, sad to say, but she is at least mentally able to function at a socially rational level.
no, Mr. Pangburn. "perfectly rational people* could never have voted for Trump, so Prof. Saad is wrong on that count, too. but that's another argument. i have really come to appreciate Canada in these days of America's Dark Ages, and i'm glad y'all are there. i claim Canada; i don't blame Canada (but i love the song).
by the way, i thought it worth mentioning that Prof. Saad used the word "insane" in a passionately stressed manner six times in this short dialogue. i'd also like to point out that the word "hysteria" (as in "hysterical" and "hysterectomy") comes from the Greek word for "uterus." chew on that for a while, in this "insane cultural war."
GAD SAAD (GS): it seems to me incredible that you can have an exact repeat of the Salem Witch Hunt in the 21st century. i don't know if Brett Kavanaugh is guilty or not; no one knows except perhaps him and the accuser. what we do know is that someone came at the last second, 36 years after the fact, and said that "i think that something happened, somewhere, at some point, at some place; and i need to be believed."
now, that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be heard, and i think that some people have granted her all the courtesy to be heard. but the incredible response that i've heard from my quote progressive liberal friends literally should cause people to have goosebumps running up and down their bodies because today it's Brett Kavanaugh; tomorrow, it's Travis Pangburn or his son or his uncle or his grandfather.
i left the Middle East, thankfully. i came to a country where there are certain indelible freedoms that most of the rest of the world has not necessarily had. what makes the United States, Canada, and the West in general wonderful, among many attributes, is that we do have due process; we do have the presumption of innocence. and to see sophisticated thinkers, many of whom you've interacted with, many of whom you've organized events for, completely lose their minds because, you know, he must be guilty because he is somehow associated with the Republicans, is insane.
and i think people ultimately listen to my position, other than because it's very rational — i think it's because i'm Canadian, and so i come across to people as not having a dog in the fight. which is exactly true, right? i mean, i don't care one way or the other. i'm looking at it as an impartial observer north of the border. and it makes my skin crawl because it seems astounding that this process can be happening.
TRAVIS PANGBURN (TP): remark re: Sam Harris re: surveying people and catching something disturbing in their background, and just skipping to the next guy.
GS: i mean, so what that you've done a scorched-earth policy on this guy and, you know, ruined his reputation, ruined -- you know, probably destroyed the emotional stability of his children and his wife. hey, let's just move on to another guy. if he had to be, you know, the casualty of this great cultural war, so be it. it's insane, right?
i mean, i satirized many things about this case, one of which was -- hey, why don't we, from now on, whenever someone applies for a professorship, we send out a press release stating that he or she is a serial sadistic pedophile rapist. and then we will watch how this candidate responds. if the candidate responds in an indignant and angry manner, well, clearly, bruh, he must not have or she must not have the emotional stability to be a professor.
i mean, it's insane. it's the Salem Witch Hunt.
TP: (question about how sitting up and defending your character is the natural response.)
GS: i mean, it's the most natural response. i mean, many of us were amazed that he was this restrained. right? i mean, this speaks to — by the way, let's incorporate some psychological analysis here — there is a phenomenon in psychology known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. the Fundamental Attribution Error is the notion that we often attribute — say we see a phenomenon taking place. we attribute it dispositionally to the person rather than to the situation at hand, right? and that's a big problem, because —
so let me give you an example. the way that i respond when i'm tucking my children to bed — in a warm, affectionate, loving manner — is very different than the way that i respond if i am accosted, about to be mugged, by three young guys in an alley. in the latter case, i might act very violently in defending myself. no one would come to me, if they are not naturally lobotomized, and say, "but, hey, Professor, you exhibited great violence in that alley. that must mean somehow that you are emotionally unstable."
that would be an example of succumbing to the Fundamental Attribution Error, attributing something to me dispositionally when it was only the situation at hand that was forcing me to be violent.
so here is a guy who has been accused — and, again, i'm not suggesting that he is guilty or not guilty, but we do have the presumption of innocence for a reason. and the evidence that has been offered in support of the accuser — nearly every single lawyer that i've heard speak on the matter said that it wouldn't pass the door of their office. right?
TP: right.
GS: so he responds in an indignant manner. you presume that's because dispositionally he's a violent, aggressive guy? you don't understand that he's fighting for his life? for his reputation? i mean, it's insane.
TP: (commenting on Brett Kavanaugh's outbursts of emotion being triggers to liberals refusing to acknowledge his righteous anger, etc.)
GS: well, what amazes me is that many of the folks that you and i know, the supposed intelligentsia, will be the first to, you know, criticize the dogmatism of religion. so many of the folks that you can probably list right now — you mentioned one a few minutes ago [Sam Harris] — has become very famous around the world for critiquing religion. because, in having a religious mindset, you are ultimately being dogmatic. you are not adhering to rules of logic and reason and science and evidence-based thinking.
so the exact same people who've made their career and reputation on defending these ideals of reason, these paragons of rationality, suddenly become the most fundamental quote quasi-religious extremists when it's their pet ideology that's being attacked. right?
so, for example, the Trump hysteria is absolutely insane. now, again, i say this as a Canadian.
i appeared on Sam Harris's show two years ago, where i offered a very sober, very clear explanation of the types of decision rules that perfectly rational people might have used in choosing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. and none of those rules required that the people who chose Trump be maniacs and Nazis and tooth [unintelligible] members who sleep with their sisters. right?
TP: yeah.
GS: and yet these supposed rational people are simply incapable of conceding the fact that there might be very clear reasons why people could have preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Trump is full of flaws. i know.
TP: yes.
GS: no, they can't concede that. "there's gonna be a nuclear holocaust, we're gonna lose democracy, Trump is gonna outlaw sex, and we're all doomed in the next 20 minutes." it's insane, it's embarrassing.
TP: (you go on about embarrassing, etc.)
GS: "well, democracy's gonna end, he's gonna declare martial law, this is the incoming of a new dictatorship ... well, we had democracy; it was a good run." i mean, really? do you truly believe that this little bleep called Donald Trump, in the great history of the United States, is going to marshall all of these unbelievably dark consequences?
i mean, what kind of hysteric must you be, to actually believe these things? but this is what happens when Ostrich [unintelligible] Syndrome — as i will explain in my next book — infects even otherwise-brilliant minds.
and then y'all both move on to other subjects.
that's the entire relevant discussion, transcribed. i've separated my responses into five sections.
TRANSCRIPT, SECTION 1:
GAD SAAD [GS]: it seems to me incredible that you can have an exact repeat of the Salem Witch Hunt in the 21st century. i don't know if Brett Kavanaugh is guilty or not; no one knows except perhaps him and the accuser. what we do know is that someone came at the last second, 36 years after the fact, and said that "i think that something happened, somewhere, at some point, at some place; and i need to be believed."
RESPONSE #1 by HOLLIS RAMSEY:
Dr. Ford also included testimony from years subsequent to the alleged sexual assault but prior to Judge Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court, such as her 2012 therapist notes from couples' counseling sessions wherein she related her experience with both Kavanaugh and Judge to her husband. this resulted because of a strange request that she made, upon the construction of their home, for a second front door. there was a direct correlation — of the second front door — to the assault, explained in Dr. Ford's testimony, which she stated happened in July 1982.
Prof. Saad, instead of using her terminology — which had the precision of the professional psychologist that Dr. Ford, in fact, is — used terminology employed by President Trump, nobody's idea of an expert at anything but lying, characterizing Dr. Ford's testimony as nebulous and uncertain by his use of words such as "somewhere," "at some place," "at some time," and then lampooning her as making some kind of pusillanimous demand that she "needed to be believed."
none of that language was factual; it was all emotional victim-trashing courtesy of our president, a vindictive narcissistic sociopath of the worst order. the fact that Prof. Saad CHOSE to use Trump's language rather than Dr. Ford's more expert terminology leads me to believe that Prof. Saad did, indeed, have a dog in that fight. that dog was his masculinity.
interwoven throughout Prof. Saad's entire conversation with Mr. Pangburn on this subject matter was an implicit disdain for Dr. Ford. he never referred to her by name and never cited any of the commentaries by professional therapists in the field of sexual assault who asserted that her memories were exactly what would be expected of a victim of an attempted rape. no, instead Prof. Saad chose to quote nameless lawyers who dismissed her assertions out-of-hand as not being of a level that could "pass their doors" and be accepted for representation. statements made by attorneys that indicated a more receptive approach to Dr. Ford's testimony were completely ignored.
Prof. Saad further intimated that Dr. Ford expressed, either explicitly or, somehow, impliedly, a "need" to be believed. why is it that, when a woman has an emotional reaction, it is interpreted as a "need," but when a man, such as Judge Kavanaugh, makes a remark like "what goes around, comes around," it is interpreted as a justifiably righteous reaction of anger?
that last question was, of course, rhetorical, but if anyone can answer it, i'd be interested in what you have to say in defense of both Mr. Pangburn's and Prof. Saad's hostile — or at the very least unsympathetic — reactions to Dr. Ford's testimony.
TRANSCRIPT, SECTION 2:
i left the Middle East, thankfully. i came to a country where there are certain indelible freedoms that most of the rest of the world has not necessarily had. what makes the United States, Canada, and the West in general wonderful, among many attributes, is that we do have due process; we do have the presumption of innocence.
and to see sophisticated thinkers, many of whom you've interacted with, many of whom you've organized events for, completely lose their minds because, you know, "he must be guilty because he is somehow associated with the Republicans," is insane. and i think people ultimately listen to my position — other than because it's very rational — i think it's because i'm Canadian, and so i come across to people as not having a dog in the fight. which is exactly true, right? i mean, i don't care one way or the other. i'm looking at it as an impartial observer north of the border. and it makes my skin crawl because it seems astounding that this process can be happening.
RESPONSE #2 by HOLLIS RAMSEY:
is it really that hard NOT to assault another human being? i believe the fact-based statistics that have been cited (numerous times throughout this ordeal) indicate that 63% of all sexual assaults are not reported to police, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. go ahead, click on that link and read the statistics. out of those incidents that ARE reported, in the end, only about 3 in 100 of all assailants spend any time in prison or jail at all. and if they're as fortunate as Brock Turner, it's only a three-month sentence. FOR A RAPE.
on the other hand, only about 3% of sexual assault reports are estimated as false. i'll make that easy for you — 97% of the time, the "victims" ARE victims.
why don't we report? especially since, in this great country, we have that "presumption of innocence?" well, it's not OUR innocence that's presumed. au contraire, mon ami. the victim "wanted it," "was drunk," "dressed like a slut," or other similar crap. spend some time on Twitter and read the threads posted by women (and i'd assume some men as well, but they really only account for about 9% of victims; nevertheless, they're STILL victims) — you'll read how women may not have been actually raped but have been terrorized by random guys coming to buy an appliance or coming to do repair work or the like, why we women don't even feel safe IN OUR OWN HOMES.
the dam has broken, and we are writing all of this pent-up anguish and rage down, and posting it on social media for the men of the world to SEE, to ACKNOWLEDGE, to UNDERSTAND. Mr. Pangburn's entire conversation with Prof. Saad demonstrated that the need is there, but the audience doesn't think there's a need at all. not for the women, anyway.
TRANSCRIPT, SECTION 3:
GS: i mean, so what that you've done a scorched-earth policy on this guy and, you know, ruined his reputation, ruined — you know, probably destroyed the emotional stability of his children and his wife? hey, let's just move on to another guy. if he had to be, you know, the casualty of this great cultural war, so be it. it's insane, right?
i mean, i satirized many things about this case, one of which was — hey, why don't we, from now on, whenever someone applies for a professorship. we send out a press release stating that he or she is a serial sadistic pedophile rapist. and then we will watch how this candidate responds. if the candidate responds in an indignant and angry manner, well, clearly, bruh, he must not have or she must not have the emotional stability to be a professor.
i mean, it's insane. it's the Salem Witch Hunt!
RESPONSE #3 by HOLLIS RAMSEY:
Kavanaugh knew what was in his past, yet he chose to expose it — or to risk its being exposed — to the fragile "emotional stability" of his wife and daughters. i worry for them — the wife and daughters. HE doesn't. that became glaringly apparent. he's as much of a narcissist as our POTUS, and you know what the saying is about birds of a feather ...
what about that "serial sadistic pedophile rapist" press release suggestion Prof. Saad made, upon the awarding of a professorship? what was truly accurate about that supposed "comparison?" not the "serial," surely? nor the "sadistic?" not even the "rapist?" well, perhaps, if the FBI had been allowed by their handler (i.e., Trump) to do a proper and thorough investigation, the flotsam and jetsam of current rumor might have solidified into firmer evidence? the professor conflated the testimony of the two other known accusers here, confusing his argument and i suppose his audience as well.
he then followed up with that malarkey about "let's see how the candidate responds" to absurd over-the-top allegations, which was certainly not the case here. my jaw dropped as i heard Prof. Saad actually attempt to justify Kavanaugh's *performance* -- his belligerent, petulant "act" — in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. especially coming on the heels of Dr. Ford's testimony, so quietly and politely given. she tried to answer every question as best she could, even through seemingly painful, disturbing flashback memory experiences.
SHE was doing her duty as a citizen; HE was fighting for his right aka privilege to be the Supreme Law of the Land. SHE did not want to be there; HE did. let's have some real balance injected into the situation at hand. the unwilling witness was as helpful as she could possibly be; the willing subject was as self-righteously outraged as he had NO RIGHT to be, guilty or not. he was facing a wounded woman, whether by him or by another. yet he showed not a whit of pity for her broken wing ... however it was broken; whoever broke it.
he wasn't merely "indignant or angry"; he was apoplectic, he was cruel, he was vengeful. he was the very spit and image of Roger Chillingworth, the Leech of Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter. just ask Sen. Klobuchar, daughter of an alcoholic — and that's a whole 'nother biographical tale. yes, sir, "what goes around, comes around," Kavanaugh famously warned. i very much hope he's right.
TRANSCRIPT, SECTION 4:
GS: i mean, it's the most natural response. i mean, many of us were amazed that he was this restrained. right? i mean, this speaks to — by the way, let's incorporate some psychological analysis here. there is a phenomenon in psychology known as the Fundamental Attribution Error. the Fundamental Attribution Error is the notion that we often attribute — say we see a phenomenon taking place. we attribute it dispositionally to the person rather than to the situation at hand, right? and that's a big problem because —
so let me give you an example. the way that i respond when i'm tucking my children to bed — in a warm, affectionate, loving manner — is very different than the way that i respond if i am accosted, about to be mugged, by three young guys in an alley. in the latter case, i might act very violently in defending myself. no one would come to me, if they are not naturally lobotomized, and say, "but, hey, Professor, you exhibited great violence in that alley. that must mean somehow that you are emotionally unstable."
that would be an example of succumbing to the Fundamental Attribution Error, attributing something to me dispositionally when it was only the situation at hand that was forcing me to be violent.
RESPONSE #4 by HOLLIS RAMSEY:
firstly, Kavanaugh's anger was excessive to the point of absurdity. it seemed to me that he was playing to an audience of one, and that one was Trump. Trump likes antagonism; he is known for his admiration of tyrants. for Trump, the ideal Santa Claus would be Josef Stalin. so Kavanaugh took it to the limit and then some. he stressed his fondness for "beer" to a ridiculous degree, and then turned the tables on his female inquisitors, when, e.g., he pressed Sen. Klobuchar on whether she had ever blacked out. that was pure effrontery. how dare he? ah, but he was emboldened, and by we-know-who, don't we?
his assertion that he's never blacked out was and remains disingenuous to me. i HAVE blacked out — twice in my life, both in my college days. i remember clearly the events leading up to the black-outs and those upon coming-to after them. but the black-outs themselves i do not recall at all.
the first time involved a whole lot of grain alcohol, a lot of Exorcist-like vomiting, a truly disgusting morning-after scene, but ... it was funny. at the same time, it was funny. i still remember what i said, to my friend Judy's roommate, Beth, whose bed i was in: "hullo, Beth ... we'll clean it up." i know, but it seemed funny at the time. she had the funniest, most horrified look on her face!
the second (and last) time, i came out of a rant, an unintelligible tirade. i have no memory of what i'd been saying, only that it was truly manic and possibly raving. hard as i've tried, i've never been able to recall what i'd been saying. maybe i never will. but i had (and still have) the distinct feeling that it wasn't very nice.
so when Brett Kavanaugh, known far and wide for his extensive drinking and falling-down drunkenness, categorically denies ever having blacked out during a drinking event, i do not believe him, because there would always be some doubt. i seriously question his ability to remember EVERYTHING. seriously.
secondly, when Prof. Saad stated that it was "the situation at hand that was forcing [him] to be violent," he was using himself as the example in the Fundamental Attribution Event. that perspective shifts significantly when the violent or threatening event is experienced by a woman and AS a woman. i refer you to a recent Twitter thread by SaraSuze. please read her story before you continue with my response. it's only 25 tweets (not really that long), but she describes, perfectly, what happens when a woman — who likes to think of herself as brave and heroic and able to fend for herself — finds out that she isn't those things. IN HER OWN HOME. it's all the proof any person — male or female — needs to know, to know how scary it is to be a woman in today's world.
TRANSCRIPT, SECTION 5:
TP: right.
GS: so he responds in an indignant manner. you presume that's because dispositionally he's a violent, aggressive guy? you don't understand that he's fighting for his life? for his reputation? i mean, it's insane.
TP: (commenting on Brett Kavanaugh's outbursts of emotion being triggers to liberals refusing to acknowledge his righteous anger, etc.)
GS: well, what amazes me is that many of the folks that you and i know, the supposed intelligentsia, will be the first to, you know, criticize the dogmatism of religion. so many of the folks that you can probably list right now — you mentioned one a few minutes ago — [Sam Harris] has become very famous around the world for critiquing religion. because, in having a religious mindset, you are ultimately being dogmatic. you are not adhering to rules of logic and reason and science and evidence-based thinking.
so the exact same people who've made their career and reputation on defending these ideals of reason, these paragons of rationality, suddenly become the most fundamental quote quasi-religious extremists when it's their pet ideology that's being attacked. right?
so, for example, the Trump hysteria is absolutely insane. now, again, i say this as a Canadian. i appeared on Sam Harris's show two years ago, where i offered a very sober, very clear explanation of the types of decision rules that perfectly rational people might have used in choosing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. and none of those rules required that the people who chose Trump be maniacs and Nazis and tooth [unintelligible] members who sleep with their sisters. right?
TP: yeah.
GS: and yet these supposed rational people are simply incapable of conceding the fact that there might be very clear reasons why people could have preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Trump is full of flaws. i know.
TP: yes.
GS: no, they can't concede that. "there's gonna be a nuclear holocaust, we're gonna lose democracy, Trump is gonna outlaw sex, and we're all doomed in the next 20 minutes." it's insane, it's embarrassing.
TP: (you go on about embarrassing, etc.)
GS: "well, democracy's gonna end, he's gonna declare martial law, this is the incoming of a new dictatorship ... well, we had democracy; it was a good run." i mean, really? do you truly believe that this little bleep called Donald Trump, in the great history of the United States, is going to marshall all of these unbelievably dark consequences?
i mean, what kind of hysteric must you be, to actually believe these things? but this is what happens when Ostrich [unintelligible] Syndrome — as i will explain in my next book — infects even otherwise-brilliant minds.
RESPONSE #5 by HOLLIS RAMSEY:
GS: we do have the presumption of innocence for a reason. and the evidence that has been offered in support of the accuser — nearly every single lawyer that i've heard speak on the matter said that it "wouldn't pass the door of their office" — in other words, it wouldn't pass the smell test. that's another reason we don't report sexual assaults. we are immediately, inherently, disbelieved.
various persons agreed that she may well have been assaulted, but that it just wasn't Brett Kavanaugh. after all, she didn't remember the date, or where the house is, or how she got there or how she got home ... BUT the body of Brett Kavanaugh (who was hysterically laughing, in tandem with his buddy, Mark) was on top of hers, on a strange bed in a strange house, grinding into her body, while he was trying to remove her clothing. when she tried to scream for help, he put a hand over her mouth; she was afraid she might accidentally suffocate — hence, the need, so many years later, for that second front door: in case she needed to make a fast "Exit, Stage Left."
undoubtedly, she felt his erection. it was not stated; i would have asked. so, for that matter, would Kavanaugh, judging by his decades-old, drafted Clinton questions. it's not the kind of thing a 15-year-old virgin would forget. remember, he was a 17-year-old senior, a high-school athlete, and VERY drunk. his face was probably mere inches from hers. do you think she would forget THAT? she could smell the alcohol on his breath, feel the boner in his pants and the heavy weight of his entire body trapping her underneath him.
she tried to look pleadingly into his friend's eyes but found no sympathy there. only a moronic drunken lunge onto the bed by his partner in crime freed her from Brett's grip, and she took instant advantage of the opportunity to run for her life to the first open door, slam it shut, and lock it behind her. can you possibly imagine the extent of her fright? no? try.
all her senses were focused on the activity outside her panic room — a bathroom. when Prof. Saad described Kavanaugh as fighting for his life, did he mean ANYTHING even close to what Christine had experienced during that assault? i doubt it. when Prof. Saad talked about Kavanaugh fighting for his reputation, did he even consider the fact that Dr. Ford -- to this day -- cannot return to her home because of unending death threats? she is mocked by pundits and by the president of the United States, on all broadcast and social media. she is cursed, threatened, shamed, verbally violated and more, because she is the victim and the messenger. did THAT ever occur to you, in this great country of the presumption of innocence? these are many of the other reasons women don't report sexual assaults, especially when committed by the "right" sort of people.
finally, we get to Prof. Saad's pet peeve, as i see it: Sam Harris. the professor mentioned that he had appeared on Sam's podcast two years ago, offering "a very sober, very clear explanation of the types of decision rules that perfectly rational people might have used in choosing Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton." i guess Sam didn't respond the way the professor wanted, because Prof. Saad didn't appear all that happy with "the exact same people who've made their career and reputation on defending these ideals of reason, these paragons of rationality," who "suddenly become the most fundamental quote quasi-religious extremists when it's their pet ideology that's being attacked." no, i don't think Prof. Saad cares much for Dr. Harris or any of those other "supposed rational people."
i am a fervent Bernie Sanders supporter, a really progressive liberal who used to be an Ayn Rand Objectivist Libertarian in my younger days. i absolutely loathe Hillary Clinton and have written reams about my disgust for her and her husband all over social media. my nickname for them is HillBilly. (i call Rudy Giuliani Poor Yorick, and Trump is Patient Zero in the Dunning-Kruger Pandemic; i love nicknaming.)
yet i voted in 2016 for the Democratic candidate for the presidency, because it was the only rational choice. Trump is an honest-to-goodness mentally ill person, suffering from NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder); he is sociopathic, egocentric, shameless, and oh-so-many other things — i've provided a link so that you can count the ways in which our POTUS loves himself. Hillary shares quite a few of those displeasing traits with him, sad to say, but she is at least mentally able to function at a socially rational level.
no, Mr. Pangburn. "perfectly rational people* could never have voted for Trump, so Prof. Saad is wrong on that count, too. but that's another argument. i have really come to appreciate Canada in these days of America's Dark Ages, and i'm glad y'all are there. i claim Canada; i don't blame Canada (but i love the song).
by the way, i thought it worth mentioning that Prof. Saad used the word "insane" in a passionately stressed manner six times in this short dialogue. i'd also like to point out that the word "hysteria" (as in "hysterical" and "hysterectomy") comes from the Greek word for "uterus." chew on that for a while, in this "insane cultural war."
Comments
Post a Comment