Did you know that Maryam Namazie has a regular video series?

She does! It’s called Bread & Roses TV, and you can watch it on YouTube. I’ll start you out: here’s the episode in which she interviewed me at Oxford.

I haven’t watched it myself, because I’m viscerally incapable of viewing videos of me — I don’t know how you people do it. I’ll read your reviews, though.


  1. says

    Yeah, it’s too bad that Sommers has that non-confrontational uncritical ‘estrogen vibe’ going on. She’s almost as bland and rationally inspired as Ann Coulter or Sarah Palin. If they’d only be more controversial in the way they spoke, they could get more male viewers and readers – but then of course they’d lose the important ladybrain market LOL, amirite, bros? Important. Ha!

  2. Saad says

    I’ve only recently started reading her blog here. Had no idea she did a regular show.

    I love that her last name is Namazie (someone who adheres strictly to the Islamic five-times-a-day prayer routine). Further, it always brings with it the implication that the person is a virtuous and trustworthy member of society simply because they pray regularly. Among Urdu-speaking people, it has even become a synonym for a good, honest person.

  3. moarscienceplz says

    Good interview, PZ. Although, there is one thing I think you need to work on:
    Whenever you are attacking the idea that all speech is worthy of being heard (and attack it you should, absolutely), you give a little laugh. I’m guessing this is an expression of “Minnesota nice” that is trying to convey, “I may be disapproving of what someone said, but please don’t interpret it as a personal attack”. I understand the sentiment, but unfortunately it can also come off as, “Please don’t take what I just said too seriously”.
    When you are attacking stupid speech, don’t be apologetic. At those places in the interview where you are talking about biology and evolution, you don’t laugh. You speak calmly and kindly, but the little laugh disappears, because you obviously feel more confidence in asserting your views on those topics.

  4. says

    as to the free-speech component – people in the US have free speech rights to say most anything that pops into their heads (except yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater when there is no fire.) they do not have a right to be heard, necessarily. scientists work tirelessly to establish credibility based on verifiable facts and deserve a larger amount of hearing time over those who pretend to do science, such as creationists. its just that many people do not understand the difference, which is sad and frustrating.

  5. says

    You did fine, PZ. In fact, I thought your answers were much better than the questions. That’s not intended to insult the interviewer — the questions weren’t terrible — but they could have been better. For one, she should avoid asking leading questions. Don’t be afraid of staying neutral in the role of interviewer, or to ask more challenging questions.

    That doesn’t mean the interview needs to be a grilling, I just get a little turned off when it seems like an interviewer is lobbing softballs, even when I agree with everything the interviewee is saying.

  6. johnmoore says

    Yes, the free speech thing is a vulnerability. But we’re not trying to suppress speech in order to buttress some privileged position of power. We must always emphasize that those conversations are finished. We’ve already answered those questions a thousand times before. So we’re just trying to suppress speech that’s a waste of everyone’s time.

  7. jrfdeux, mode d'emploi says

    I do a fair amount of coaching, teaching business types public speaking and how to interact with the media. PZ, you come off pretty well and your thoughts seem quite organized! If you haven’t had any training, bravo! You’re a natural. Although even natural public speakers can benefit from training.

    tl;dr: You have nothing to be viscerally repulsed about with your own speaking in a video.