International Douglas Murray goes off on Joe Rogan and Dave Smith for platforming holocaust revisionists

[evergreenrider]

I have no idea who Darryl Cooper is or anything he said.

But I don't like this style of argumentation Murray tried to use. "Oh you had so and so person on your podcast. So your arguments on x subject are not valid..."

Uhmm why doesn't Murray just address the arguments put forth to him head on? Seems like a diversionary deflection tactic to bring in this Cooper guy into a debate about Israel.

It's like trying to smear someone's character instead of addressing the argument.



Not talking about the drug companies. Talking about the institutions like the FDA that is supposed to regulate them.

I'm bringing them up because you're saying we should trust our scientific institutions. I'm saying hell no they aren't to be trusted without a healthy dose of skepticism because they are often corrupt.



I'm talking about the media and government officials, including Biden, claiming if you get the vaccine, that you wouldn't get Covid at all. That you won't get it and you won't transmit it to others and thus everyone had a moral duty to get it. He said this on national TV.

That is obviously false and an exaggeration.



No one is claiming never believe experts.

Check out the Martyr Made podcast. That's Darrell's. You'll quickly find out those talking negative about him have never actually listened to him. Here he is on Duncan Trussells pod. I don't know what the uproar is about.

 

[Samjj]

The disagreement Smith and Murray had about having expertise to talk was not pertaining to Cooper though, so I don't know why you keep bringing him up.

Again it seems like you listened to a different podcast or just like the debate tactic of gaslighting. No wonder you like Dave.

Murray's criticism was directed two fold 1) at the misinformation and shitty takes given by non experts on the Rogan podcast in general and 2) at Dave for being an example of being a non expert presenting half baked takes yet wanting to be perceived as an expert (non expert) without accountability.

 

[Hog-train]

Again it seems like you listened to a different podcast or just like the debate tactic of gaslighting. No wonder you like Dave.

Murray's criticism was directed two fold 1) at the misinformation and shitty takes given by non experts on the Rogan podcast in general and 2) at Dave for being an example of being a non expert presenting half baked takes yet wanting to be perceived as an expert (non expert) without accountability.

#1 and #2 are two different things. You keep conflating them. One is about who to platform based on their "controversial" views. Two is about who gets to talk about subjects based on their level of "expertise."

I don't agree with either of your points on these two, but they're still two different topics.

And you still didn't answer why Douglas Murray is an "expert" that gets to talk yet Dave Smith is not one and doesn't get to have an opinion. What makes Douglas Murray an "expert"?

 

[Samjj]

#1 and #2 are two different things. You keep conflating them. One is about who to platform based on their "controversial" views. Two is about who gets to talk about subjects based on their level of "expertise."

I don't agree with either of your points on these two, but they're still two different topics.

And you still didn't answer why Douglas Murray is an "expert" that gets to talk yet Dave Smith is not one and doesn't get to have an opinion. What makes Douglas Murray an "expert"?

Maybe you have a comprehension issue.

The points of argument followed and was a clear segue into personal criticism of Dave by Murray based on the same premise. `

 

[Mr Holmes]

Desperate for attention?

You mean you and your butt buddies like @nhbbear who are literally unblocking me just to see what I have to say? Have you been drinking again? Do you understand how ass backwards you sound?

I never blocked you. Did you just assume that because I often ignore your sad and pathetic attempts begging for attention, fat ass?

 

[Hog-train]

Maybe you have a comprehension issue.

The points of argument followed and was a clear segue into personal criticism of Dave by Murray based on the same premise. `

What makes Douglas Murray an "expert" that gets to speak, but Dave Smith shouldn't speak? That's ultimately what Murray is saying.

 

[Blastbeat]

i got thrown out of this Jewish bakery yesterday. i dunno what their problem was.

all i did was ask how much the Challah costs.

 

[Samjj]

What makes Douglas Murray an "expert" that gets to speak, but Dave Smith shouldn't speak? That's ultimately what Murray is saying.

Real world experience, travel to the region, strong academic background, history of scholarship, etc.

I don't think Dave should be silenced personally, I think he should engage with more "experts" and certainly not propped up as an "expert".

(same goes for Cooper, Carroll, Malone, Kory.. etc.)

 

[Islam Imamate]

But Murray himself only has an English degree. So who the fuck is he to demand only "experts" are allowed to speak?

So you need a PHD in a particular subject to be able to speak about it? Well then he should be quiet himself. Not to mention, a lot of "experts" or historians are ideologically captured and are not operating on good faith. They often have a political agenda too and give slanted takes.

It seems Murray's tactic to win arguments is through sheer condescension and insults and relies on his English accent to give him an air of credibility.

I'm personally not a fan of trying to gatekeep who can and cannot talk about a certain subject based on their "credentials." Instead argue a position based on the merits of the arguments put forward.

Well at the end of the day we all have the right to broadcast our opinions(except advocates for Palestine on visas and green cards it seems) but that also means that others have the right to critique our takes. I don't think Murray is saying Smith and Cooper don't have the right to speak on these matters but that someone with a platform as big as Rogan's should have some responsibility in terms of who they platform and what kinds of views get peddled on his show. And further that if you want to espouse heterodox views you should at least try to meaningfully engage with the orthodox position.

Think of it this way, imagine Rogan was platforming a bunch of fake martial arts gurus. Its impossible for us to imagine because he's so passionate about martial arts but that's basically what Rogan does for a lot of these topics. When the issue is martial arts Rogan takes expertise very seriously, if you haven't fought or trained or even if you have but you're inexperienced you won't be able to get away with lazy takes in front of Rogan and its the same with comedy. But with everything else Rogan is way more tolerant of BS takes.

It does highlight again though that whilst the right maybe more openly focused on Islamophobia and use claims of anti-semtiism to attack opponents they are really the main source of anti-Semitism, Murray is just seeing the true nature of his "allies".

Yeah I agree. There's a kind of weird dynamic where the mainstream right is overtly Zionist and anti-Muslim while at the same time the underbelly of the rights wider coalition openly winks and nods to some of the most antisemitic voices out there.

People like Murray are partly responsible as they've provided a respectable face for some of the uglier populist undercurrents and now they're reaping what they sow. Its fairly predictable that he draws the line at criticizing Churchill. Funny enough I'm definitely a critic of Churchill but unlike Murray, who'd never stand up for someone like myself, I would stand with someone like him in saying that Churchill was not, in fact, the chief villain of WWII despite whatever criticisms I might have of Churchill in regards to things like the Bengal Famine. Because despite my disagreements with Murray I do think that when compared to Nazi sympathizers and their naive enablers he is the less objectionable party even though he wouldn't feel the same about myself as a Muslim relative to those same Nazi sympathizers/enablers.

 

[Hog-train]

Real world experience, travel to the region, strong academic background, history of scholarship, etc.

But he speaks just as authoritatively (and condescendingly) on a whole bunch of other topics he has zero history of scholarship of. He has talked about Covid, ethics, philosophy, politics, and literally a shitload of other subjects. This is literally what he does. Just goes around and talks abut shit.

As for academic background, he graduated with an English degree.

I don't think Dave should be silenced personally, I think he should engage with more "experts" and certainly not propped up as an "expert".

That's not what Douglas Murray's primary problem with Smith was though. It was obvious through the debate.

He was just trying to attack Smith's qualification to speak because he disagreed with him on Israel. Instead of debating the actual points he was making.

This is what Murray does when he doesn't have a valid counter point. He attacks the character of the person or insults them. I've seen him do this condescending tactic in other debates.

 

[moreorless87]

Yeah I agree. There's a kind of weird dynamic where the mainstream right is overtly Zionist and anti-Muslim while at the same time the underbelly of the rights wider coalition openly winks and nods to some of the most antisemitic voices out there.

People like Murray are partly responsible as they've provided a respectable face for some of the uglier populist undercurrents and now they're reaping what they sow. Its fairly predictable that he draws the line at criticizing Churchill. Funny enough I'm definitely a critic of Churchill but unlike Murray, who'd never stand up for someone like myself, I would stand with someone like him in saying that Churchill was not, in fact, the chief villain of WWII despite whatever criticisms I might have of Churchill in regards to things like the Bengal Famine. Because despite my disagreements with Murray I do think that when compared to Nazi sympathizers and their naive enablers he is the less objectionable party even though he wouldn't feel the same about myself as a Muslim relative to those same Nazi sympathizers/enablers.

Pretty much, I think you can be critical of Churchill and indeed the way WW2 and his lionisation has effectively been used to whitewash the UK's questionable actions before and since but still when you call him the "chief villian" I think we know there your sympathies really are.

Again whilst I think the modern far right tends to focus more publicly on islamophobia you can see there is still plenty of anti-Semitism there as well which I think Israel and many supporters are willing to look past provided they give some degree of support. As a result I think your starting to get such views given more credibility in the west than probably any time since WW2.

 

[Andy Capp]

No one is claiming never believe experts.

Honest/serious question: are you sure of that?

I don't disbelieve them - I just don't wholesale believe them either without corroboration. It's a judgment call we all make. If a preponderance of evidence and critical mass of people all corroborate something, it is obviously much more likely to be true.

Plenty of "experts" have been caught lying.

Isn't this the same as saying, "Don't believe experts because they lie sometimes"?

It's silly either way. Some tool running his mouth on a podcast is not the same as a person appearing in a forum where journalistic standards are in place. The issue is this: when young people these days get pretty much all their "news" from social media and podcasts and so on, they lend stuff that non-experts say on the Joe Rogan podcast or the like the same or more weight as older folk like me give to the 6 o'clock news and that's extremely harmful. They're not held to common journalistic standards but their audience may not even have a clue what those are in the first place (not saying it's the listener's fault, necessarily). The hosts of these people are as responsible for those harms as the guests. They are trying to drive clicks and views, not alert viewers that what they hear may be or is likely to be complete bullshit.

Having some other guest on two months later who contradicts what was said earlier is too late, too, before you try to claim again that makes it ok. The damage is already done by then. It's been amplified a million times through clip sharing and social media posts and so on.


Full disclosure: I didn't listen to the podcast or other videos because I refuse to give clicks to any of those motherfuckers. And so should you.

 

[Mack Yancy]

I never blocked you. Did you just assume that because I often ignore your sad and pathetic attempts begging for attention, fat ass?

I was talking about @nhbbear shrimpo. He blocked me, then ublocked me out of the blue 'to see if I was banned' but I think that was horseshit because he knows I'm not banned now, but he won't re-block me. The people who keep saying I'm obssessed can't seem to keep me out of their heads.

Now how much do you weight and what's your height? It's easy to call someone 218 and 6'ft 'fat' when you keep your own physicality a secret.

 

[Scott Stapp]

Murray's financial backer, pal and PM of Israel Netanyahu is a holocaust revisionist.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/middleeast/netanyahu-hitler-grand-mufti-holocaust/index.html

Exclusive: UK regulator not investigating British charity patronised by Netanyahu

The Jewish National Fund's UK arm, which has Netanyahu and Tony Blair as honorary patrons, previously donated £1m to 'Israel's largest militia'

www.middleeasteye.net

 

[Hog-train]

Honest/serious question: are you sure of that?


Isn't this the same as saying, "Don't believe experts because they lie sometimes"?

Not at all. I just don't ascribe to appeal to authority arguments. If something doesn't make logical sense, it just doesn't make sense. Saying the "experts" or "authorities" are saying something different doesn't change that.

For example, all the current American "experts" are saying it's appropriate to give gender affirming drugs to kids. I completely disagree and feel they're completely wrong. You should be 18.

It's silly either way. Some tool running his mouth on a podcast is not the same as a person appearing in a forum where journalistic standards are in place.

There are plenty of tools on mainstream media outlets where journalistic standards are supposedly in place.

Do you believe anything on Fox News? I doubt it.

So in your eyes, what media outlets are objective and ethical?

The issue is this: when young people these days get pretty much all their "news" from social media and podcasts and so on, they lend stuff that non-experts say on the Joe Rogan podcast or the like the same or more weight as older folk like me give to the 6 o'clock news and that's extremely harmful. They're not held to common journalistic standards but their audience may not even have a clue what those are in the first place (not saying it's the listener's fault, necessarily). The hosts of these people are as responsible for those harms as the guests. They are trying to drive clicks and views, not alert viewers that what they hear may be or is likely to be complete bullshit.

1. Mainstream media outlets do not adhere to journalistic standards anymore. They're selling clickbait too.
2. Yes young people get all their news from social media, but all the media outlets are also on social media. That's the new media and news landscape. Hardly anyone that's not a senior citizen actually pays for cable TV.

Having some other guest on two months later who contradicts what was said earlier is too late, too, before you try to claim again that makes it ok. The damage is already done by then. It's been amplified a million times through clip sharing and social media posts and so on.

Mainstream media literally does similar shit every single day.

Full disclosure: I didn't not listen to the podcast or other videos because I refuse to give clicks to any of those motherfuckers. And so should you.

So you have no leg to stand on TBH. You don't even know what they said.

Well at the end of the day we all have the right to broadcast our opinions(except advocates for Palestine on visas and green cards it seems) but that also means that others have the right to critique our takes. I don't think Murray is saying Smith and Cooper don't have the right to speak on these matters but that someone with a platform as big as Rogan's should have some responsibility in terms of who they platform and what kinds of views get peddled on his show. And further that if you want to espouse heterodox views you should at least try to meaningfully engage with the orthodox position.

Think of it this way, imagine Rogan was platforming a bunch of fake martial arts gurus. Its impossible for us to imagine because he's so passionate about martial arts but that's basically what Rogan does for a lot of these topics. When the issue is martial arts Rogan takes expertise very seriously, if you haven't fought or trained or even if you have but you're inexperienced you won't be able to get away with lazy takes in front of Rogan and its the same with comedy. But with everything else Rogan is way more tolerant of BS takes.

I don't think he has the team or ability to distinguish what is heterodox or orthodox in a lot of these guests. He has like 3-4 episodes per week. I think he just picks guests where he has a surface level interest in their content. The variety of guests he has on almost guarantees a lot of these topics he would be clueless about.

Hard to compare that to martial arts because he knows that subject intimately and a fake martial arts guru is not interesting to him.

Not a fan of gatekeeping what guests are on a podcast based on other people's perception that they're peddling misinformation. Because that is subjective.

Not to mention a lot of "orthodox" or traditional media types have gone on his show.

 

[Andy Capp]

So you have no leg to stand on TBH. You don't even know what they said.

My argument doesn't in any way depend upon what they said. It's not even about them. It's about Rogan and his ilk giving these people a platform. It's like you didn't even read my post, FFS.

So in your eyes, what media outlets are objective and ethical?

The ones who post their journalistic standards so people can hold them to account when they don't adhere to them. E.g. the CBC, Reuters,

Do you believe anything on Fox News? I doubt it.

You've just completely given up on a sincere discussion of this issue, haven't you? OK.

I note that TS has also noped out of the thread. Probably a good idea.

 

[KaNesDeath]

Joe Rogan isnt producing long form documentaries on subject matters he's interested learning. Yet his listener base consumes the product like he is.

Has anyone even asked Rogan his opinion on the UFC anti-trust settlement?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Not at all. I just don't ascribe to appeal to authority arguments. If something doesn't make logical sense, it just doesn't make sense. Saying the "experts" or "authorities" are saying something different doesn't change that.

For example, all the current American "experts" are saying it's appropriate to give gender affirming drugs to kids. I completely disagree and feel they're completely wrong. You should be 18.

The appeal to authority fallacy is a lot different then the appeal to scientific consensus. While it still may be wrong, the appeal to scientific consensus is grounded in the collective validation of evidence, whereas appeal to authority relies on the credibility of a single expert. Quantum Mechanics doesn't make logical sense a lot of times, but I tentatively believe the current conclusions of the scientific consensus because of what they've produced.

 

[Romulas]

I didn't know much about either guest before listening.

Smith definitely came off as the person seeking the truth regardless of the topic discussed. He did his research and was citing articles and quoting the CIA director and other world politicians.

Murray came off like someone with a large knowlegde base that thinks he's smarter than he is. He's not dumb but he had to play a bunch of word games, go off on tangents and focus on the unimportant granular details on several occasions to avoid giving direct answers or actually durectly debating Smith.

The podcast left me with the impression that Smith came to debate the topics discussed against an arrogant and unprepared Murray who spent most of the podcast trying to save face.

Murray lost because he was so unprepared. He reminded me of that smart kid in college that half pays attention and skates by because he speaks well and knows a little bit about many topics.

 

[Romulas]

I like Douglas Murray, pity more gays don't act like him in that he doesn't make it his whole identity.

Very cool, I didn't realize he was gay.