In our conversation with Gad Saad, there were many things that I questioned in the reading and in the conversation. As a critique, I thought that while he is very smart his reading and answers to questions used condescending language. I personally did not agree with anything that he said and I found him very provocative in a way that was off-putting. In terms of his writing and the book itself, I could not read it without being confused or getting frustrated, I guess playing into the point he made about the social justice warrior student who is driven by emotion. I am driven by emotion and try to be politically correct but I won’t deny the truth of a fact. Something that I did not understand was how this reading related to the course topic and this is not just based on the fact that I did agree with him because there have been readings that I did not agree with but I felt that they related to our course. Saad touched on in his talk the thinking of an intellectual and how the ones in his realm are leftist ones he opposes because they are not looking at facts and are stuck in their ways but he did note that there are people on the right that he would also agree with and he does not have any stake in American politics. One part of the reading that I had the most difficulty understanding was in the section titled Death of the West by a Thousand Cuts. I found this section very childish in thought and explanation. This section was very problematic in terms of what he is arguing as the reasons the west is dying. I have found in my time in this course it is almost impossible to remain unbias in the delivery of opinions (or “facts”) and Saad’s biases are heavily shown in this section. The chart that is on 21 is something that I would want to discuss further as to why Saad thinks that these reasons are a part of the decline. But something else I would want to know is why does he use the language that he does such as language police and social justice worries and identity police. I think that his phrasing these “cuts” this way takes away from his argument because I can’t take it seriously that in order to prove a point he feels the need to talk down on people who do not have the same opinion as him. One part of the reading I wanted to highlight was at the end of chapter one when he says “Unless we win the battle of ideas, the enemies of reason, along with the mind viruses that they promulgate, will lead our free societies to lunatic self-destruction.” While I do not agree with most of what saad says this is a point I would want to speak more with him about. One question I would want to ask is, isn’t diversity of thought even if it is wrong beneficial for society? Why is it a virus if people do not believe what you say to be fact?
Categories