Me too, and he wasn't absolutely insanely leftist, perhaps there was a coming calm with the election on the horizon at that time, who knows? He seemed to actually listen to what Douglas was saying, I was pretty surprised.
I do not align with David ideologically, but I watch multiple viewpoints to stay out of my echo chamber. I am so impressed that he interviewed Murray. Good job.
David hardly interviewees Douglas Murray. And I’m not that impressed there are many many conservative hosts that welcome liberals. Maybe that counts as impressive on the left these days ??
Yeah, I always find he has really constructive people like Douglas. I like Douglas as a good opposing voice to a lot of my views but he always has the same convo with Sam Harris or the other dark web guys(damn college kids!). I’d love to hear a long form interview and I think these 2 would really have great conversations.
"an uncomfortable alliance with republicans" trump has always enjoyed above 90% approval rating in his party "Hes not part of any broader right wing movement or tendency" except his immigration stance which you agree with, his anti Muslim rhetoric@actions which you agree with, his anti leftist rhetoric which you agree with, his capitalistic stance which you agree with&on&on&on, you would have to be completely delusional to say this what Douglas Murray claim "i see your brand as antithetical to what Donald Trumps policy is" WTF!!!!!!!!!!!! "Borders have not been traditionally seen as a right wing aspect" "Dondald Trump is a person who is difficult to take clear lessons from" HMmmmmmm i wonder why he wont answer whether or not he would vote for Trump "Who are you voting for?" " I dont tell people who to vote for out of principle" he never asked you who you are telling other people to vote for. "why are people of our time finding it so difficult to listen to a contrary opinion? Family cant come together anymore" give me a fucking break dude "quite easily beat Bernie Sanders" there was a nationally coordinated strategy to narrow the field to Biden within one weekend but ok. dont really think thats the full story i cant go on.. if you enjoyed this interview you are dense. THIS IS WHY DONALD TRUMP IS GOOD, BECAUSE IT REVEALS HOW DISGUSTING PEOPLE LIKE DOUGLAS MURRAY ARE.
@@tylerwatrouse8602 well having just read your confused post it's obvious you have no idea or any capability to even understand Mr Murray, you're too wrapped up in TDS
Douglass Murray, once again taking the fool to school. I also find it ironic that david is so closeted about his sexuality, but finds it strange that douglass Murray doesn't want to talk about who he would vote for.
David i appreciate that you actually talked to a real conservative. great conversation, Douglas is always clear and polite the way politics should be and i appreciate you doing the same.
@@fredwinslow744 you people who incessantly whine about PC culture will always be 10 times more annoying than any pc culture. Get off the internet and go outside. Bet you never met a real SJW. Stop pretending the internet is real life.
I'm glad you had this interview. Wish it would have been more of a conversation; it felt like both of you were too guarded to truly discuss differences
Murray was open. Pakman won't budge from his position that SJWs are either meaningless, a right-wing conspiracy or actually correct. David can't anger his patrons.
I’ve only recently discovered Douglas Murray, but I find him to be a breath of fresh air compared to the usual pundits. Extremely knowledgeable with an impressive insight that allows him to get to heart of the matter and express it eloquently and concisely.
Yep. I was like, GODDAMIT I finally found a conservative whom I can respect and possibly admire, I gotta tread carefully before I get sucked into the dark side
@@PutinsMommyNeverHuggedHim What Murray represents is that there is no dark side and bright side, there are issues to solve and brainwashed people who do not even want to talk about them let alone solve them.
He may get a lot of his points across eloquently but when those points describe far right movements as having a point and use the "western civilisation" line when suggesting life for Muslims needs to be made more difficult in Europe to dissuade them from immigrating there, well, you know what you're up against there surly.
Ciarán De Burca I’m not sure the Jewish people who were killed last night in Austria would agree with you. That fact that you are able to delude yourself doesn’t mean we are all deluded. As far as the far right issue is concerned, from what I see, it’s the far left who are burning America and they are by far the biggest threat to world stability.
I have been following both of David and Douglas for a while. I think they have both provided a positive contribute to popular debate. It was good to see them both in discussion, nice one both of you.Politically I am left leaning but can appreciate someone else's points even if I don't agree fully. Same with with some one being on the left. This should be happening more often.
Absolutely and these two can have a longer discussion, like the one with Sam Harris. David is a an excellent interviewer and he pushes back in a way that challenges the interviewee to expand, which is refreshing...
@@7EiamJ7 lol it was longer than 2 hours friend, but great suggestion. No offense to David, but Eric is much better at diving deeper into the psyche of his interviewees. ( Eric Weinstein’s The Portal)
Murray has been on a tour of the West coast. This is one of his shortest interviews, just do a search. The one on the Dark horse podcast with Bret Weinstein is great.
I do not share Douglas Murray's political views as such, but he presents a level of conservative thinking absent in many conservatives on both sides of the Pond. I am happy to hear his arguments and even be challenged by them. Sometimes he has a damned good point which we need to address. The same can be said about David Pakman who, whether one agrees with him or not, always come across as a decent and informed commentator.
Sorry disagree with David using analogy of books to be a better salesman. That is a stupid analogy. As an IT person I’ve been recommended lots of books to be a better programmer or analyst. But that isn’t remotely the case of what’s happening with cancel culture. What is happening is mind control and character and thought control of even things that are TOTALLY PERSONAL And private, like political preferences, like moral values, etc. NO boss or company should be in the business of punishing people on those basis. That’s ISNT different than discriminating people based on race, gender, religion, etc.
He did explain though that the books he got where entering that area of forming your character, moral values and how to behave with other people. Depending on what books he actually got it's still not the best example of what Douglas was talking about.
yes, that was extremely disingenuous sure on some level a worldview is built into every book, but I find it impossible to believe he can't see the major qualitative difference between critical race theory propaganda and How to Win Friends and Influence People
Actually, discriminating based on ideas and actions isn't discriminating. Its just fairly judging people based on what they do. If I owned a small business, I would have a major preference in hiring non-racist employees for the benefit of my customers and therefore profit. That's not discriminatory, thats an employer demanding basic moral decency from his associates. The only thing one must not tolerate is intolerance itself.
@@DMoneyTaz15 Person A: Someone who's not crazy about homosexuality but they're never mean about it, they would never want a gay person to be fired and it never affects their work life. Person B: Someone who wants person A to get fired because they didn't like their answer in a screening questionnaire that they had to fill out. Who is the most intolerant here? If you think it's B that's fine but it tells me that you are an intolerant person.
Douglas Murray is absolutely right in identifying the root cause of America's social and political decline. It has become a generally accepted meme in 'polite society' that no one should discuss politics or religion. Things that are not discussed cannot improve.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn your conflating so many terms that it undermines your rhetoric. Crying wolf is a serious problem on the left because terms have lost their moral power
Murray's been on so many shows recently - Rogan, Weinstein, Harris, etc. - where he generally agrees with the host. They've all been great, but it's really enjoyable to see a respectful and intelligent conversation with someone like David who pushes back a bit. Would love to see a full hour (or more!) of this.
I thought Douglass Murray made the best points and I agree with him, but I do think David did his job very well and asked questions and then shut up allowing Murray to talk instead of interrupting him. Interviews should all be conducted in this manner.
@david stephany I hear you, but I've found that while Pakman's monetization strategy certainly reduces the quality of the content he churns out, it hasn't reduced his ability to think critically and engage in thoughtful discussions when the opportunities come along.
@david stephany I think David is a very clear and thorough observer of politics. I don't like his monetisation Strats either, but I suppose a man's got to eat! Douglas and I would probably disagree on a lot of politics but I admire his acerbic stand against the excesses of 'woke' activism.
david, one thing that happens, even if the cancel culture stuff is not statistically very high, is that it creates a culture of fear. there is a region in india where there are terrorist attacks every few years. so statistically, you won't be killed. but people fear going there,despite it being beautiful,due to that. same thing with cancel culture. a few colleges, a few companies, a few assholes, its creates a whole culture of fear across the usa.
I usually think David isn't tough enough on these interviews, that he comes off as a slightly diminished version of himself. But he's much better on this one and I'm happy to see it because when he's operating on all cylinders he's superb.
@@timothyamaraobrien Well. Its a delicate balance. You want to be able to draw the interviewee out and not dominate so much that you begin to inhibit the person you're interviewing. I did think David allowed his own disagreements to be felt far more here than he did in, say, his interview with Coleman Hughes. He seemed more alert here. I wish it had gone on longer because just as it was ending I thought they were about to get into some risky territory.
Good, intelligent discussion, refreshingly free from dogma. It is a pity that too many on both sides of the political divide wish to "no platform" those of opposing views.
@tubetardism 20/20 Trump is a narcissist. He's on his own side. He was a Democrat b4 he was a Republican. He will start his own party next year a dump the Republicans. Left and Right mean nothing to him.
@tubetardism 20/20 I don't believe that at all !! Get a grip pleeeze !! I also think the 2 party system is a joke, but that is another story. I would choose Biden over Trump in a NY minute. Don't tell me what I believe.
More long form with quality conservatives like Douglas. Always glad to see their ideas unravel under your scrutiny. But also I like the challenges they present. Good conversation all round.
I used to watch David Pakman and Rachel Maddow everyday. I still like David and enjoy his point of view. Now I watch Douglas Murray, Coleman Hughes, James Lindsay, Peter Boghoosian, Helen Pluckrose, Bret and Eric Weinstein, and Andrew Doyle. All of which I consider left of center. It's good to see Pakman can still have a Murray as a guest.
@@randomname3109 He posed with a picture of Andy Ngo. In Portland thats enough to call him an alt right nazi Fascist. So if you use a reality correction model, just put him where he belongs. A erudite, liberal, barley left of center gay man.
@@oceania2385 Left of center? Murray is routinely labeled as conservative. With Bret Weinstein not long ago Murray somewhat guardedly identified as a conservative, in the sense he is cautious of change. Doesn't object to change, but definitely doesn't welcome change for the hell of it. Weinstein did observe that Murray had the heart of a liberal, meaning, as I understood it, that he has compassion. Perhaps him being a Brit skews Americans' perception of him on our left/right scale?
Murray ended very strongly. Even though David may say his points are statistically negligible, you'd have to be blind to not see destroyed city centers around this country and the cultural rift that has now become a chasm
"[Tyrants] injure and oppress the people under their administration, provoking them to cry out and complain, and then make that very outcry the foundation for new oppressions and persecutions."~Andrew Hamilton, 1735 (NOT Alexander Hamilton) The Trial of John Peter Zenger for Libeling the Colonial Government in 1735 is why we have free speech and free press on this continent. A transcript of the trial, which was a popular little book at the time, was in possession of Thomas Jefferson when drafting the Declaration of Independence and inspired the First Amendment to the Constitution. This is a short section of the full transcript: www.dialogue2.ca/EG-alexander-hamilton-1735.html
@@JavierRamirez-lx4ev" ...Andrew Hamilton, 1735 (NOT Alexander Hamilton)" The name presented in the link URL is incorrect but the content, there, is correct.
Excellent interview, well done. I used to love Douglas (I still do), he is as eloquent as you are, David. But in these past few years, Politically, I’ve gone more to your side, not that I was ever conservative but I used to like his logic but you see right through it 👍 and can dissect precisely. 👏
@@skyblazeeterno anyone that is eloquent and challenges my thoughts gets my respect. I don’t like his politics but let’s not forget, British conservatives are much closer to US Democrats that Republicans.
Nah, that's just European influx here raising the level. And the guest was so long talking and boring - even for Europeans - no wonder most of Davids subscribers fled the comments.
The point the guy made madly, but non the less is a good point, is that politics is getting replaced with tribalism and hence the increased tension between the right and left
Really great interview David. This reminds me of why I used to subscribe to you. You were excellent in debating your point against a very accomplished debater. Really very impressed with how you approached this. I'm almost hovering over that "sign up for membership" again! I think you were incredibly fair to Murray, I don't think you went for gotcha moments, it seemed like you genuinely were probing and interested. I do agree with Murray that internationally conservatism cannot be easily compared. In the UK, as much as I despise Boris Johnson and disagree with Tory Policy, the UK Conservative party is probably slightly to the left of US Democrats. You can probably guess, I'm much further to the left than that.
Pac-Man does NOT wish that. Dave will be seen as uniargumenattive and Douglas as Far his intellectual and knowledge superior. Pac-Man knows Most of his viewers have even seen this long of a normal conservative speak. And he ABSOLUTELY wants to keep it that way Pac-Man doesn’t keep his bread buttered by considering objective tolerance to considering the other views as important.
This is great, Douglas Murray is one of view conservative intellectual I take serious. Even though I do not agree with much of his beliefs, he is an interesting character, and sometimes really gets me thinking.
Much respect to you David for having this conversation - I know you'll get some backlash for it. I do wish it would have been 3-4x the length, but kudos regardless.
Him saying that such stories are purely anecdotal and have no statistical relevance is like a newspaper editor saying about a rape, 'that's the only rape today, think about all the nice interactions between people. It's statistically irrelevant, no point reporting on it.' What a dullard! If you can't argue against something, just deny it's even worth talking about, the MO of authoritarians the world over.
Same here!!!! My boss is freaking nutso holy moly. Same thing at home, my dad watches the news every day and then comes to dinner upset and yells through the entire meal.
Although I disagree with many, but not all, of Douglas Murray's positions, I think he is one of the best speakers and debaters of his age. His only true intelectual nemesis to date, Mehdi Hassan. However, I agree with the previous comment that he rarely gets challenged in his RUclips interviews, and he is even more rarely pinned down to express his true opinions on the current American political environment. His views on Trump and BLM have been quite changeable depending on context. Perhaps he's conscious of his American fan's reactions. You asked good questions that challenged him without any of the nasty hostility of our times. You held your ground and had great follow up questions. My only negative was that the discussion was not long enough and so didn't cover enough ground. Good job to you both.
adding my voice to the comments here, I would like to see you arrange very long 1+ hour long debates with people who you find you have good conversations with. Obviously Justin Lee Peterson would not be a good long form, but Douglas Murray would be. I think a lot of benefits could come out of that.
@@hybridh9702 He's challenging but not always thought out. He's fine, but not rigorous. As with anything I think the importance of his position is in-between where he and David seem to think it is... I'm not sure he thinks it's more important than other issues in the US right now but I agree with David that the "culture war" issues are back-seat to the economy and pandemic handling. He'll is put climate change issues above culture issues as well
I use to think Murray was a beast that I didn't necessarily agree with, this interview shows what a difference it makes when someone dissects his answers and is equally intelligent. He looks quite fed up, he isn't used to dealing with an "unemotional" equal. This was fun.
David. I think you are out of touch here. I work at a University and I can tell you that EVERYONE feels the burden of wokeness here, even though we’re still in a super conservative state. Let me give you just one personal experience out of many. We had a Christmas party, which was deemed a holiday party (totally fine) and I was selected to be in charge of the music. Since I was already paying for Pandora I thought, “Easy peasy! I’ll just type in Christmas music and bam! My contribution is done.” BUT NO. It was made abundantly clear that a random playlist would be too risky! God forbid we’d offend someone if a song about Christ started to stream. So what happened? Well, I had to find 2 hours worth of “Christmas” music that didn’t mention anything religious. Jiggle bell only type songs. Fun times! I promise you, stories like this are abundant everywhere and they aggravate a whole hell of a lot of people, including myself.
2001-2009...he was registered Democrat. He wanted to be accepted by the Democratic elite in NY, so he aligned that way. They never did, nor will they ever, like or accept him. He was delighted he could stick it to them for a few years. He does not have any principles nor overarching ideology. The only thing he cares about is himself and maybe one of his daughters.
@@abstractdaddy1384 And yet has achieved more conservative goals as president than any president in the last 60 years. That is the point. Argue against the point. Your ad hominem fallacy is not convincing.
I’m not an American citizen either but I am quite happy to say to all US citizens to please vote Trump out. Why does it matter to me? Because it doesn’t just affect the US .... it affects the stability of the rest of the world if the US continues to cozy up to dictators and authoritarian countries and shuns alliances that have held strong since WW2. I am terrified about the future if Trump gets in again.
Hasn't it always been common in America for people to refrain form telling others who they'll vote for? Also, if you ask me, it's perfectly legitimate to tell someone what is wrong to think if that thought is that women are incompetent or something along those lines. And I live in England and I can say first hand that nobody is more afraid of these discussions than white English people. From high school all the way through to university I've witnessed meltdown after meltdown resulting from just the mention of the words 'race' or 'white'. Its actually crazy. England hides from its past by burying it's history of race relations and pretending like the British empire never existed.
Trump endorsing Farage and Johnson in last decembers election was way out of line. Noone would do this diplomatical faux pas besides an imbecile. The only ones not having a problem with it are the ones doing it themselves or profiting from it like Trump does - I mean foreign interference.
What utter nonsense. We are well aware of the Empire and the good and very bad aspects of it, have been since school and during university; and are reminded of it at least twice a year by The Guardian and endless TV shows. Finally, an Oxford academic lost his job for suggesting that the British Empire hadn’t been wholly bad. So please don’t post about things you clearly know nothing about.
@@johnricercato740 Have you sat in a classroom lately? People out here are super sensitive about race. Funny because just today I was watching a video Akinfenwa talking about his experience with racism in Lithuania and he alluded to the exact same thing about how it is in England, of course I don’t know him and I’ve heard other “ethnic” British people say this as well so I’m obviously not pulling it out of thin air. I’ve felt it multiple time’s. People always say stuff like “we ended slavery” in response to anything about race in England. Of course this isn’t everyone, most people just keep their mouths shut and some are actually aware/informed, but it is common. I’m not from here and I’ve had friends (black and white) tell me that they’ve only had 3 classes about black history or black people in British history in their entire lives. If that’s not ignoring history then I don’t know what is.
@@justlooking1087 For someone who doesn’t live here you rely on a good deal of hearsay from a few individuals, and that really isn’t good enough. I won’t repeat what I wrote earlier, so will add that compared to the US or even France, Germany, Spain and Italy our record on race relations is not perfect but pretty good, and I am not even including the abolition of slavery. As to the number of black history lectures: which ethnic group are you talking about? Not everyone elects to learn history and if they do the will tend to get mainstream UK history but can elect to do specialist courses. No educational system can cater for every minority.
This was great but too short. Douglas (like most political commentators) tends to only have discussions with like-minded people. It's really valuable for those of us who aren't either way inclined to see his ideas challenged. Please have another, longer discussion! Your calm and measured approach is much needed in the online political debate world.
You've not seen much of Douglas then. He cut his teeth in the Oxford Union debate circuit where you only go up against people who disagree. You don't have to go far to find plenty of his debates where his views are robustly challenged.
Douglas is conservative so he would likely vote Trump if he could, however he probably didn’t want to get David emotional about that so he kept his silence. Respect
Love Murray but he was a tiny bit snobbish at times and David made interesting counterpoints. Only thing I'd say to David is, yes, right wing media and certain public intellectuals make much of the 'cancel culture', and maybe they're pressing harder than the badness calls for, and thus you're right to point out the unnecessary emphasis, but we need public intellectuals pushing for open inquiry and free speech at all costs and to stamp out revisionist history and refuse the attempt to transform human nature by edicts from superintendents at all costs.
I think the general issue is, if you allow the small and seemingly insignificant instances to multiply, eventually you find yourself with a large scale phenomenon on your hands, which if problematic is a lot harder to sort out. It's crucial to get the meaning of small events right. David used to belittle the criticisms of SJW culture on college campuses by saying "it's just a bunch of kids with pink hair shouting, no one takes them seriously and they are not the left"; well, now the kids have poured into society and we clearly have a problem, and not a word has come out from David about this.
@@yourfriendlyneighbourhoodr9390 "now the kids have poured into society and clearly we have a problem" did they? do we? It's still a tiny minority of people engaging in this, overwhelmingly online. As John Smith in the comment below says, it is the hard right that engage in identity politics more than any other group; to most people, issues of race are issues of values that need to be discussed and thought about, to white supremacists they (wrongly) see it as an existential threat and therefore won't shut up about it. They're also fantastic at propagandising these issues.
@@reggiewilko2125 have you, like, not seen the US? Have you not noticed the increasing division and polarisation? You'd have to be living under a rock. What needs to happen for you and Pakman to acknowledge there is something seething just beneath the surface and it's very close to erupting? Maybe your house needs to be wrecked, or your business destroyed, or you need to lose your job, for you to realise. It's in collage campuses. It's in HR departments. It's in big tech. It's in the streets. The only reason I can think of for people not wanting to see this is because although you disagree with the idiots in the streets, you share their political goals, so the useful idiots act as foot soldiers essentially. None of this matters anyway because if you don't even think there is an issue to discuss then we'll never agree. Only time will tell I guess, and it will be too late by then
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn the left has made political discussions outside of identity politics impossible; although I do not agree with the way identity politics is strumentalised these days, you can't blame white people for reacting to ideas such as "whiteness"
Great interview. I really appreciate David having Douglas Murray on. I hope I’ve understood David’s position correctly, and if I misstate any part of it I’d be happy to correct myself. As I understand it, David’s point regarding lurid instances of political ideology influencing workplace politics is that such instances are in the minority of more mundane statistics, therefore they aren’t significant enough to warrant the concern of the majority. This essay is a (slightly longwinded) rebuttal to that position, predicated on certain ideas I’ve become familiar with through Nassim Taleb. I’d highly recommend all books in the Incerto and Principia Politica. 1) Under Fat Tails, statistically significant events occur exclusively in the tails (idea of the Black Swan). 2) The ‘Minority Rule’ often rules the dynamics of complex social systems: "it suffices for an intransigent minority - a certain type of intransigent minority - to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences.” Note: minority isn’t used pejoratively, nor does it refer to any particular political demographic. Taleb gives the example of peanuts being denied to all aeroplane passengers (or schoolchildren) on account of a few individuals sharing the space who have a peanut allergy. The idea is that the majority retains the option of eating peanuts or not, while the minority absolutely will not eat peanuts, so the majority have to comply with the minority’s preferences given a certain frequency of minority passengers (or schoolchildren). I’ll illustrate why I think David’s logic is fallacious in this case with an example. If a coalition of 50,000 hard-core Trump supporters and white supremacists formed and captured key state governance structures in New York, and the local police rallied to their side, it would be foolish to say, ‘Such an incident is extraordinarily rare and the majority of States aren’t experiencing a right wing insurrection, therefore there’s no reason (on this data alone) to be concerned about a national problem.’ It’s not a matter of whether a majority of the national population is currently engaged in (or publically claiming to favour) insurrection: the reason for a large amount of concern over a small number of statistics is the potential for the intolerant minority’s preferences to become forced on the majority (who, crucially, could see themselves acquiescing to the minority’s immoral preferences under some circumstances). But (the key point is that) people are rightly concerned about the potential for active extremism to metastasise from one state (or community) to another because, in spite of certain defences in the system, it’s possible for a particular minority to impose its preferences on the majority. Consequently, we can’t afford to discount its significance simply on account of the rarity of instances where such groups actually are successful, let alone the fact that they still only occupy the fringes of American politics. Look also at historical instances of intransigent religious minorities proselytising large numbers of majority members at the point of a sword, and thereby imposing its preferences. It would again be ludicrous to say, ‘yes but such groups (and instances of their hegemony) exist in a minority, so we shouldn’t worry about its ascendency over the majority so much.’ Note that the rises of Christianity and Islam (so I’m told) were both completely unexpected incidents by contemporaries living through them...
...You can even make a parallel to maladaptive static (as opposed to more appropriate dynamic) thinking with regards to the potential for a virus sweeping across the world. People said something to the effect of, ‘we should be more concerned about {insert less significant danger, e.g. your slippery bathtub or the common cold] than Covid-19 (or Ebola)’ using for justification the fact that (at the time) more people were dying yearly in the world from seasonal flu than Covid-19. It’s fallacious reasoning because what mattered was that the different properties of the two viruses implied completely different categories of epidemiological risk: Ebola has the potential to wipe out the global population by taking a much more likely evolutionary pathway than the common cold acquiring the same devastating capacity. Obviously you can see that this reasoning did us no favours in combatting the Coronavirus. It's the potential damage that matters more than damage at any given point in time in the forerun, because the vast majority of statistics in these (Fat-Tailed) cases are irrelevant to the nature of the distribution. Therefore, if you discounted the anecdotes with respect to the speed of spread of Covid in China and went instead on total number affected at any point in time, you would severely underestimate its destructive capacity. You have to use the anecdote to prepare appropriately in advance and not be caught out by the Black Swan. I'd argue that the spread of ideological movements follows a similar distribution to the spread of biological viruses. You’re rightly more concerned about Nazism than conservativism that blocks necessary progressive goals because of the relative significance of Nazis gaining control of the electorate to your values, and the potential for such an ideology to spread exponentially given the right set of conditions (the fact that the current number of hardcore Nazis in society is currently in a minority is irrelevant in itself). Same applies with respect to intolerant ideologies that claim affiliation with the Left (on false pretences). The concern is that they threaten to sweep to fixation, and (I don't think) it's in any way as clear as you're implying that they don't have the necessary frequency and societal influence (and absence of societal checks) that would allow them to start dictating the preferences of the majority. Disparate instances of people losing their jobs due to the actions of a strident political minority on social media (or in the workplace) are significant in that they show: a) the existence of extremely intolerant minorities that cross many judicial, geographical (including international) and economic boundaries, b) that their potential to impose themselves on the majority is amplified by their strategic use of social media, and (arguably) c) that there aren’t sufficient hedges in the system generally to protect employees of any given company, just to give one instance, if it suddenly became in its interest to comply with minority preferences and throw its own to the lions. I’d add to c) the frustrations of many people disaffected with most mainstream political parties and journalistic outlets is their cowardice in failing to come to the rescue of innocents threatened by the crazy mob when it’s inconvenient (see Bret Weinstein’s case and the associated failure of journalism). I think it’s c) that really concerns people united in the ‘movement’ you refer to (Left/Right political concerns are tangential). The apparent threat posed by authoritarian wings was one of the main things that drew me to this content to begin with. It’s also irrational to focus on whether the majority (who aren’t going to throw themselves on the sword for the sake of those being persecuted) on the Left (or the Right) are, in principle, sympathetic with the principles and tactics of such minorities. This is because the sympathy of a majority for freedom is not an unerring hedge against tyranny, because it’s not held as sacred; hence the debate should be whether the system is becoming more vulnerable to minority take-over (i.e. are the usual hedges against minority rule, such as free speech, being eroded in light of new technological developments?) not whether there is majority support (rather than indulgence) of immoral minority views and practices. For evidence of how insignificant the majority’s stated preferences can (in the blink of an eye) become in terms of hedging against minority positions sweeping to fixation, look at preference falsification in the Soviet Union right up to the moment it toppled: the majority privately hated what was happening, but from the outside it appeared as if the majority were in favour of Communism right up to the moment the Berlin Wall came down. Why? Because that’s the public presentation of their preferences that they projected (for self-preservation), but what they really preferred at any given moment was not being subjected (along with their families and friends) to torture and death as opposed to dying for their principles. The majority complies for an easy life in most historical cases: hence why intolerant minorities often determine the course of history, whether virtuous (martyrs who wouldn’t, under any circumstances, betray the principles of their forefathers) or diabolical (e.g. Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia). And, again, while the intolerant wing often referred to in these circles is not wielding threats of actual violence (in most cases) to cow its victims, it’s still remarkably effective using reputational threats. Given how much people rely on a clean reputational record to transfer from job to job these days (since employers can affect, not only current employment, but subsequent employment on the basis of staining their official track record/CV) it’s not surprising that this strategy is so effective. Therefore, the imputation that there shouldn’t be nearly as much concern as there is in society with regards to such issues concerning intransigent minorities has to be debated in terms of the potential influence of the minority in question, and whether there has been a recent erosion of systematic hedges against the incursion of Minority Rule in light of recent developments in society. Not simply hand-waved away because none of the groups represent a majority, and because their success (thus far) has not yet become the norm. I think Taleb's ideas provide a better way to approach the whole debate surrounding so-called Cancel Culture, whether the empirical claims advanced here regarding the increasing threat posed by intolerant minorities is valid or not. (Note also: I’m not deluded enough to think anyone will actually read all this, but it’s been helpful for me to formulate my thoughts more carefully, so, hey that’s something).
Murray’s point that we will inevitably underestimate the prevalence of this pattern given the fact that the courage required for rebellion will be rarely displayed, and that the strategy doesn’t need to make many flagrant examples of dissidents in order to cow the majority (fire one person for being ‘politically insensitive’ and everyone else in the office will comply to avoid the same fate). This is further reason not to be too confident in the impression that this issue is ‘extraordinarily rare.’
I thought the exchange about whether one should have an opinion about who you would vote for in other countries was very revealing- Murray's position is obviously more mature and recognises more appropriately the deep complexity in such decisions and the inappropriate/bordering on disrespectful nature of opining on such questions regarding other people's communities. Pakman's approach I think showed a lack of humility, an improper willingness to speak for others and an undue confidence in full understanding of complex issues- that in my mind is the hallmark of the kind of liberalism that is rooted in self-aggrandisement and naivety. I don't think Pakman neatly fits in that box because he can be sensible in many cases- but he definitely has an unfortunate streak of such thinking.
In Europe, where I come from, it’s bad manners in polite company to ask for one’s political leanings, if one is married or single, and the salary one makes. This whole demanding of personal answers is a very American approach. Rude
David is a smart guy but at times I feel that he (purposely?) misses the deeper issues some of his guests are pointing to and kind of hand waves them away. He did the same thing in his conversation with Sam Harris on political correctness and the "woke" left. But David himself has admitted to self censoring because of the blowback he knows he will receive from some of those on the left. If this is the case then the argument that these censorious individuals make up a statistically insignificant portion of the population is meaningless if they are having such an outsized effect on what people are willing to say.
I’m watching this and relishing when David puts Douglas against the ropes with regard to voting in the US. His excuse for not saying whether he’d vote for Trump boils down to “I don’t want to show my true colors and lose readers.”
I thought the same thing. I’d like to hear these two talk more. David is a great person to challenge some of his views as he presents a progressive liberal perspective and isn’t part of the ‘regressive left’ Douglas has become known for attacking. I think Douglas and that whole echo chamber needs to pay more attention to the David’s of the world. I did! It’s how I shifted back over to the left.
@@TheKFMProductions I think that if you are as informed about US politics as Douglas is, then stating whether you'd vote for Trump or not would be fairly straight forward (as David points out with the example of US & Argentina). However, I understand that perhaps it's a cultural thing that british people don't like to make pronouncements of this sort, as you point out.
Agreed. I like have David is not afraid to press in his interviews. However, some things he decided to press on, I ask why even bother? It is not remarkable information.
@@Themortgageguy530 Because David did this interview to pick a fight, not to learn anything. Notice how David ends the interview by stating "here's our biggest disagreement...". That was the only point, but I'm sure it only took Douglas Murray a few seconds to wipe this "interview" off the bottom of his shoe.
It's politics, not a music preference. It is all of our business how one votes. You ultimately have the right to vote however you want as well as to decline to answer the question, but to say it's a personal matter and not a political one is absolutely absurd.
My only other problem with this interview is that it was only just getting going. I wish Pakman really was able to really dissect Murray's slickly articulated but very dodgy analysis
I recommend checking out Current Affairs' article on Douglas Murray's book The Strange Death of Europe. The article is called "The Death of Europe Is Greatly Exaggerated".
Yes, one of the better interviews of Murray, so kudos to David, but I feel he could have pushed back more. But I also understand that if you push back on every single questionable statement, you run out of time and don't get to address the big issues.
Excellent push back on the cancel culture stuff, David. Great to see you engaging with the smarter parts of 'the bastards', it's the only way we'll beat their arguments.
The left never invented cancel culture, neither is it synonymous with the left. I mean, conservatives cancel football kneelers for not acquiescing to their piece of cloth.
I’m a new sub. Just found your channel last night. I binge watched some of your videos all night. Good stuff. My father in law is a Presbyterian pastor and HUGE trump supporter. He’s so political and is alienating some of his own congregation with his radical views. Him and I aren’t on talking terms right now as you can imagine why. I’m also at odds with A LOT of my own family members who are on the same dumb cult train. Never in history can I ever remember families being torn apart politically like this. It’s sad. Unfortunately, I don’t ever see my family getting past these “differences” of political opinion either, but I’m almost glad to see their true colors and not have these toxic people in my life anyway.
I also have conservative family and am finding it hard to be at peace with them. They say "i'm not being invlusive/tolerant" like i'm the problem. I just can't tolerate their constant defense of a man like donald trump. I try to stick to policy, but it's hard, and now all I can think is that they have been brainwashed into "taking the easy way out" bc trump is so simple-minded and offers simple solutions to their fearful brains. Its very hard tonreapect them. I want to be able to "agree to disagree" but it feels so disingenuous to not fight back against this administration
@@chriser555 This is not the time to be silent in a representative democracy. Being against a party who thinks it's okay to bring around a disease to family members is what any normal caring human being should do. Your attitude on the comparison of opinion to manipulative madness is frightening and deadly lazy.
Politics aside, Trump is so profoundly crude, dishonest and clearly unfit. I hate it that they actually talk about him like he is a functioning adult. He isn’t.
@@bethkop12 my response is that this isn’t about political views, it is about decency and morality. He is offensive, I don’t believe he believes in anything. He panders to the radical right.
@@chriser555 I don’t believe that. That is a cop out. Guess you didn’t notice when he abandoned our allies, the Kurds. He isn’t good for the economy for the majority. Manufacturing jobs have continued to leave. He is doing nothing to get us in the game of renewables, he is still pushing for coal and oil. The rest of the world is moving forward in energy, we are stagnant. Obama’s numbers for new jobs were better. And Obama pulled us out of a recession. The Trump team has no idea how to rebuild an economy, they can ride a good one, and explode a deficit with tax cuts that did nothing. Meanwhile we are still stagnant in the Middle East.
To take strickt stand, would be bad for his (Douglas) flourishing business, simple as that. You can see it in his face, little sad, but ultimate truth.
I would wish David would push back on his last point a little bit since it goes both ways. In democratic areas it’s difficult to say you’re voting Trump and in Republican areas its the same for voting Biden. I agree that it isn’t statistically insignificant though it is much more even.
To add to this my conservative dad gets pretty mad and has sometimes made some thinly veiled joking threats about monetary support and other things if Biden wins even though I tell him he’ll still be just fine under Biden.
But isn't this the unfortunate point that Douglas was making, that US politics has become too tribal and so discussion is breaking down, which leads to eruptions elsewhere? It's a pity your dad makes conversation difficult in this regard...
It is a very American "all or nothing" thing in politics. Which is weird because the end results in the US are largely the same as the US has checks on power so the role of the president is only a part of the equation of governance.
There wasn't really anything to push back on because he didn't say that it doesn't go both ways. His whole point was how polarised and hostile discussion is across the board. I'm sure he would agree that its an issue on both ends of the political spectrum.
I respect David for having Murray on.
Me too, and he wasn't absolutely insanely leftist, perhaps there was a coming calm with the election on the horizon at that time, who knows? He seemed to actually listen to what Douglas was saying, I was pretty surprised.
I do not align with David ideologically, but I watch multiple viewpoints to stay out of my echo chamber. I am so impressed that he interviewed Murray. Good job.
Ya I was surprised when this hit my feed. David almost seems to be that, this is fine meme. Murray got his point across really well.
David hardly interviewees Douglas Murray. And I’m not that impressed there are many many conservative hosts that welcome liberals. Maybe that counts as impressive on the left these days ??
@@fredwinslow744 so salty
He slapped him around and exposed Murray for who he is - a pathetic culture war profiteer, focusing on Twitter spats between 0.01% of population.
@@alenb9354 eh.. did he though?
This should have been 3 hours long. I would love to see more long-form interviews David.
Yeah, I always find he has really constructive people like Douglas.
I like Douglas as a good opposing voice to a lot of my views but he always has the same convo with Sam Harris or the other dark web guys(damn college kids!).
I’d love to hear a long form interview and I think these 2 would really have great conversations.
what tax fraud?
"an uncomfortable alliance with republicans"
trump has always enjoyed above 90% approval rating in his party
"Hes not part of any broader right wing movement or tendency"
except his immigration stance which you agree with, his anti Muslim rhetoric@actions which you agree with, his anti leftist rhetoric which you agree with, his capitalistic stance which you agree with&on&on&on, you would have to be completely delusional to say this what Douglas Murray claim
"i see your brand as antithetical to what Donald Trumps policy is" WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Borders have not been traditionally seen as a right wing aspect"
"Dondald Trump is a person who is difficult to take clear lessons from"
HMmmmmmm i wonder why he wont answer whether or not he would vote for Trump
"Who are you voting for?" " I dont tell people who to vote for out of principle" he never asked you who you are telling other people to vote for.
"why are people of our time finding it so difficult to listen to a contrary opinion? Family cant come together anymore" give me a fucking break dude
"quite easily beat Bernie Sanders" there was a nationally coordinated strategy to narrow the field to Biden within one weekend but ok. dont really think thats the full story
i cant go on..
if you enjoyed this interview you are dense. THIS IS WHY DONALD TRUMP IS GOOD, BECAUSE IT REVEALS HOW DISGUSTING PEOPLE LIKE DOUGLAS MURRAY ARE.
@@tylerwatrouse8602 Thanx to be on my side, Tyler 😉
@@tylerwatrouse8602 well having just read your confused post it's obvious you have no idea or any capability to even understand Mr Murray, you're too wrapped up in TDS
"if u cant even have the most basic discussions, ur never going to have the nuanced ones"
Douglass Murray, once again taking the fool to school. I also find it ironic that david is so closeted about his sexuality, but finds it strange that douglass Murray doesn't want to talk about who he would vote for.
The Build the Wall, Lock her up, stop the steal crowd need to work on their abilities to have basic conversations
Very refreshing two guys with different views having a decent debate. Far too many echo chambers!
David i appreciate that you actually talked to a real conservative. great conversation, Douglas is always clear and polite the way politics should be and i appreciate you doing the same.
Douglas Murray just articulated the changes I am seeing in my workplace. Great guest.
Can you be more specific?
@@adamz9835 no, because he would get in trouble
PC on PC on tribal PC on what is now ow racism. Under guise of wokeness.
@@fredwinslow744 you people who incessantly whine about PC culture will always be 10 times more annoying than any pc culture. Get off the internet and go outside. Bet you never met a real SJW. Stop pretending the internet is real life.
@@grayson0916 lots of assumptions there
More than half of my interactions are w them I’m quite comfortable whining and the lecture is consistent
I'm glad you had this interview. Wish it would have been more of a conversation; it felt like both of you were too guarded to truly discuss differences
Yup.
My take as well
yeah but the sentiment came from Pakman not from Murray
Murray was open. Pakman won't budge from his position that SJWs are either meaningless, a right-wing conspiracy or actually correct. David can't anger his patrons.
Ironically they disagreed about self inflicted suppression of ideas.
I’ve only recently discovered Douglas Murray, but I find him to be a breath of fresh air compared to the usual pundits. Extremely knowledgeable with an impressive insight that allows him to get to heart of the matter and express it eloquently and concisely.
Yep. I was like, GODDAMIT I finally found a conservative whom I can respect and possibly admire, I gotta tread carefully before I get sucked into the dark side
@@PutinsMommyNeverHuggedHim What Murray represents is that there is no dark side and bright side, there are issues to solve and brainwashed people who do not even want to talk about them let alone solve them.
@@1969fata that’s exactly the vibe I got from him. Too bad Pakman went all partisan and freaked out on him
He may get a lot of his points across eloquently but when those points describe far right movements as having a point and use the "western civilisation" line when suggesting life for Muslims needs to be made more difficult in Europe to dissuade them from immigrating there, well, you know what you're up against there surly.
Ciarán De Burca I’m not sure the Jewish people who were killed last night in Austria would agree with you. That fact that you are able to delude yourself doesn’t mean we are all deluded. As far as the far right issue is concerned, from what I see, it’s the far left who are burning America and they are by far the biggest threat to world stability.
I have been following both of David and Douglas for a while. I think they have both provided a positive contribute to popular debate. It was good to see them both in discussion, nice one both of you.Politically I am left leaning but can appreciate someone else's points even if I don't agree fully. Same with with some one being on the left. This should be happening more often.
Absolutely and these two can have a longer discussion, like the one with Sam Harris. David is a an excellent interviewer and he pushes back in a way that challenges the interviewee to expand, which is refreshing...
Thanks Douglas for always helping to clear up the issues facing us today. Would love to see you on CNN or BBC
What makes you think that he hasn't been on those channels?
he b on Fox now
Excellent conversation. This is how discourse should take place. Thanks for being a voice of reason David.
David, this is a worthy discussion. Thank you! Douglas is such a worthy voice.
This was a good discussion. I wish it was longer.
Look up his discussion with Eric Weinstein, 2 hours worth of good discussion 👌
Someone posted time stamps in the comments for what discussed
@@7EiamJ7 lol it was longer than 2 hours friend, but great suggestion. No offense to David, but Eric is much better at diving deeper into the psyche of his interviewees. ( Eric Weinstein’s The Portal)
Murray has been on a tour of the West coast. This is one of his shortest interviews, just do a search. The one on the Dark horse podcast with Bret Weinstein is great.
@@oceania2385 I like his chat with Dennis Prager, but Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris was a good one, even if just the moderator.
David could not keep up his dishonesty for that long with the likes of Murray. He would be exposed and he knows it.
Great to see Douglas Murray here on David Pakman. A pleasant surprise. More please.
I do not share Douglas Murray's political views as such, but he presents a level of conservative thinking absent in many conservatives on both sides of the Pond. I am happy to hear his arguments and even be challenged by them. Sometimes he has a damned good point which we need to address. The same can be said about David Pakman who, whether one agrees with him or not, always come across as a decent and informed commentator.
Sorry disagree with David using analogy of books to be a better salesman. That is a stupid analogy. As an IT person I’ve been recommended lots of books to be a better programmer or analyst. But that isn’t remotely the case of what’s happening with cancel culture. What is happening is mind control and character and thought control of even things that are TOTALLY PERSONAL And private, like political preferences, like moral values, etc. NO boss or company should be in the business of punishing people on those basis. That’s ISNT different than discriminating people based on race, gender, religion, etc.
He did explain though that the books he got where entering that area of forming your character, moral values and how to behave with other people. Depending on what books he actually got it's still not the best example of what Douglas was talking about.
yes, that was extremely disingenuous
sure on some level a worldview is built into every book, but I find it impossible to believe he can't see the major qualitative difference between critical race theory propaganda and How to Win Friends and Influence People
Actually, discriminating based on ideas and actions isn't discriminating. Its just fairly judging people based on what they do. If I owned a small business, I would have a major preference in hiring non-racist employees for the benefit of my customers and therefore profit. That's not discriminatory, thats an employer demanding basic moral decency from his associates. The only thing one must not tolerate is intolerance itself.
@@DMoneyTaz15 Person A: Someone who's not crazy about homosexuality but they're never mean about it, they would never want a gay person to be fired and it never affects their work life. Person B: Someone who wants person A to get fired because they didn't like their answer in a screening questionnaire that they had to fill out. Who is the most intolerant here? If you think it's B that's fine but it tells me that you are an intolerant person.
@@fuckamericanidiot it easy to make up hypothetical situations to suit your own argument
Douglas Murray is absolutely right in identifying the root cause of America's social and political decline. It has become a generally accepted meme in 'polite society' that no one should discuss politics or religion. Things that are not discussed cannot improve.
Douglass is an Alt right white supremacist. He talks about identity politics, but literally himself is engaged in identity politics.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn your conflating so many terms that it undermines your rhetoric. Crying wolf is a serious problem on the left because terms have lost their moral power
Weird feeling, upvoting a pakman, but cudos where it's due.
Same here. Respect for you principles
Damn David, you cut the interview off just when it was getting interesting. That's too bad
Murray's been on so many shows recently - Rogan, Weinstein, Harris, etc. - where he generally agrees with the host. They've all been great, but it's really enjoyable to see a respectful and intelligent conversation with someone like David who pushes back a bit. Would love to see a full hour (or more!) of this.
I dont think it was respectful, it was a textbook case of pretend repect from Pakman.
He hasn't been on Sam Harris' show recently, has he?
you need to push back on white supremacists like murray.
@@invisiblespeedrc Except he’s not and you have not the slightest evidence that he is. You are part of the problem.
@@johnricercato740 Yes he is, and yes I do. If you are uncomfortable with the term, then maybe "western supremacist" will sit in your mind better.
I lean left but I usually find myself agreeing with Douglas
David, you’re the best
I thought Douglass Murray made the best points and I agree with him, but I do think David did his job very well and asked questions and then shut up allowing Murray to talk instead of interrupting him. Interviews should all be conducted in this manner.
Thanks for having him on the show.
Excellent questions from David.
Two of my favourite commentators. I could listen to you two talk for an hour every day.
@david stephany I hear you, but I've found that while Pakman's monetization strategy certainly reduces the quality of the content he churns out, it hasn't reduced his ability to think critically and engage in thoughtful discussions when the opportunities come along.
@david stephany I think David is a very clear and thorough observer of politics. I don't like his monetisation Strats either, but I suppose a man's got to eat! Douglas and I would probably disagree on a lot of politics but I admire his acerbic stand against the excesses of 'woke' activism.
@david stephany I wish it could have gone on longer too.
@@JaredCzaia well put!
Great to see an interviewer get to grips with challenging Murray, who I love to listen to.
david, one thing that happens, even if the cancel culture stuff is not statistically very high, is that it creates a culture of fear. there is a region in india where there are terrorist attacks every few years. so statistically, you won't be killed. but people fear going there,despite it being beautiful,due to that.
same thing with cancel culture. a few colleges, a few companies, a few assholes, its creates a whole culture of fear across the usa.
But the culture of fear is magnified but those supposedly against cancel culture.
What does more damage?
@@stevenp2309 what?
I usually think David isn't tough enough on these interviews, that he comes off as a slightly diminished version of himself. But he's much better on this one and I'm happy to see it because when he's operating on all cylinders he's superb.
Interesting ..I thought David came off as way too withholding.
@@timothyamaraobrien Well. Its a delicate balance. You want to be able to draw the interviewee out and not dominate so much that you begin to inhibit the person you're interviewing. I did think David allowed his own disagreements to be felt far more here than he did in, say, his interview with Coleman Hughes. He seemed more alert here. I wish it had gone on longer because just as it was ending I thought they were about to get into some risky territory.
David clearly had respect for his guest, but in my opinion he gave him too much credit and could have been a little more like himself.
@@AaronOkeanos Probably as an American DP is in awe of the posho Brit voice of Murray. Strip away the voice and Murray is pretty useless
Pakman should have destroyed this Conservative fraud
Good, intelligent discussion, refreshingly free from dogma. It is a pity that too many on both sides of the political divide wish to "no platform" those of opposing views.
Good, intelligent name.
@@mckittrickl I may be the only person who noticed this. But good eye 😂
Douglas Murray is one of my favorites. Great job David!
This was a very interesting chat, David is an excellent interviewer and I would love to have heard a long convo. Kudos to both.
Good on David for having Murray on. This is the David im here for.
Good on David for being willing hear out people from the right.
The left is so far left now that the center appears to be the right.
@tubetardism 20/20 I'm a centerist. Left of center on social issues, right of center on fiscal issues. I'm all snug and comfy here. Mwah xx
@tubetardism 20/20 Trump is a narcissist. He's on his own side. He was a Democrat b4 he was a Republican. He will start his own party next year a dump the Republicans. Left and Right mean nothing to him.
@tubetardism 20/20 I don't believe that at all !! Get a grip pleeeze !! I also think the 2 party system is a joke, but that is another story. I would choose Biden over Trump in a NY minute. Don't tell me what I believe.
@tubetardism 20/20 "We seem to agree on all but your opening statement about ‘the left." . . Oh dear, what a shame, never mind.
More of this please David and Douglas. Love it. Take my money
Murray talks so much sense, almost always. And he's never boring.
I think you must be taalking about a different Murray
Not much substance to him at all
More long form with quality conservatives like Douglas. Always glad to see their ideas unravel under your scrutiny. But also I like the challenges they present. Good conversation all round.
Great interview, I hope you bring him on back soon.
I used to watch David Pakman and Rachel Maddow everyday. I still like David and enjoy his point of view. Now I watch Douglas Murray, Coleman Hughes, James Lindsay, Peter Boghoosian, Helen Pluckrose, Bret and Eric Weinstein, and Andrew Doyle. All of which I consider left of center. It's good to see Pakman can still have a Murray as a guest.
Douglas Murray is in no way 'left of centre'
@@randomname3109 He posed with a picture of Andy Ngo. In Portland thats enough to call him an alt right nazi Fascist. So if you use a reality correction model, just put him where he belongs. A erudite, liberal, barley left of center gay man.
@@oceania2385 wut?
Look up Glenn Loury and John McWhorter, they are excellent on the wide topic of woke culture/race
@@oceania2385 Left of center? Murray is routinely labeled as conservative. With Bret Weinstein not long ago Murray somewhat guardedly identified as a conservative, in the sense he is cautious of change. Doesn't object to change, but definitely doesn't welcome change for the hell of it. Weinstein did observe that Murray had the heart of a liberal, meaning, as I understood it, that he has compassion. Perhaps him being a Brit skews Americans' perception of him on our left/right scale?
Murray ended very strongly. Even though David may say his points are statistically negligible, you'd have to be blind to not see destroyed city centers around this country and the cultural rift that has now become a chasm
Bravo David
"[Tyrants] injure and oppress the people under their administration, provoking them to cry out and complain, and then make that very outcry the foundation for new oppressions and persecutions."~Andrew Hamilton, 1735 (NOT Alexander Hamilton)
The Trial of John Peter Zenger for Libeling the Colonial Government in 1735 is why we have free speech and free press on this continent.
A transcript of the trial, which was a popular little book at the time, was in possession of Thomas Jefferson when drafting the Declaration of Independence and inspired the First Amendment to the Constitution.
This is a short section of the full transcript:
www.dialogue2.ca/EG-alexander-hamilton-1735.html
Thanks for the info. Very interesting.
Ummm...Alexander Hamilton never said, that.
@@JavierRamirez-lx4ev" ...Andrew Hamilton, 1735 (NOT Alexander Hamilton)"
The name presented in the link URL is incorrect but the content, there, is correct.
Excellent interview, well done. I used to love Douglas (I still do), he is as eloquent as you are, David. But in these past few years, Politically, I’ve gone more to your side, not that I was ever conservative but I used to like his logic but you see right through it 👍 and can dissect precisely. 👏
Surprised anyone can be remotely thinking Murray is good
I discovered Douglas Murray over six years ago from a debate about religion. He was just excellent
@@skyblazeeterno anyone that is eloquent and challenges my thoughts gets my respect. I don’t like his politics but let’s not forget, British conservatives are much closer to US Democrats that Republicans.
This is the most civil comments section I've seen in a long time. Is there hope?
Nah, that's just European influx here raising the level. And the guest was so long talking and boring - even for Europeans - no wonder most of Davids subscribers fled the comments.
Excellent interview David! Thank you!
If you learn anything from this, let it be the British pronunciation of "geyser."
took me a minute to figure out what the hell he was talking about.
I’m British and I pronounce it Guy-zer
Surely Gay-Sir Douglas?
And lasso. "Lassoooo" 😄
The fictional Hyacinth Bucket pronounces it as he does.
Love debate and discourse like this .
The point the guy made madly, but non the less is a good point, is that politics is getting replaced with tribalism and hence the increased tension between the right and left
fptp systems in both USA and GB MAKE it black and white and are based on confonrtation rather than cooperation
I think the issue behind that is social media and the death of classical journalism in favor of "hot takes" and buzz feed journalism
Which he is guilty of just as much as anyone else he claims to bitch about
Really great interview David. This reminds me of why I used to subscribe to you. You were excellent in debating your point against a very accomplished debater. Really very impressed with how you approached this. I'm almost hovering over that "sign up for membership" again! I think you were incredibly fair to Murray, I don't think you went for gotcha moments, it seemed like you genuinely were probing and interested. I do agree with Murray that internationally conservatism cannot be easily compared. In the UK, as much as I despise Boris Johnson and disagree with Tory Policy, the UK Conservative party is probably slightly to the left of US Democrats. You can probably guess, I'm much further to the left than that.
JUSTICE FOR MAH BOI CORBYN!!!
Did not expect to see David and Douglas together! Cool stuff, just wish it was longer.
Pac-Man does NOT wish that. Dave will be seen as uniargumenattive and Douglas as
Far his intellectual and knowledge superior. Pac-Man knows
Most of his viewers have even seen this long of a normal conservative speak. And he ABSOLUTELY wants to keep it that way
Pac-Man doesn’t keep his bread buttered by considering objective tolerance to considering the other views as important.
Was very happy to see these two talk.
This is great, Douglas Murray is one of view conservative intellectual I take serious. Even though I do not agree with much of his beliefs, he is an interesting character, and sometimes really gets me thinking.
LOL I think the posh accent has bamboozled you. There was nothing "intellectual" about this discussion - just hysteria with little evidence presented.
@@MrDnB89 No, I should have watched the whole thing. It is a shame, there wasn't a lot of deeper discussion on things, sadly.
Much respect to you David for having this conversation - I know you'll get some backlash for it. I do wish it would have been 3-4x the length, but kudos regardless.
I’m not able to have those discussions at work.
Him saying that such stories are purely anecdotal and have no statistical relevance is like a newspaper editor saying about a rape, 'that's the only rape today, think about all the nice interactions between people. It's statistically irrelevant, no point reporting on it.' What a dullard! If you can't argue against something, just deny it's even worth talking about, the MO of authoritarians the world over.
That’s bec no one at work speaks like a rationale conservative lone Douglas Murray
No, it would be like a newspaper editor refusing to publish a story decrying "a culture of rape" after a few rapes occur on a given day.
Same here!!!! My boss is freaking nutso holy moly. Same thing at home, my dad watches the news every day and then comes to dinner upset and yells through the entire meal.
More of this, please.
Good man Douglas, I think David was being stubborn especially on the last point
Although I disagree with many, but not all, of Douglas Murray's positions, I think he is one of the best speakers and debaters of his age. His only true intelectual nemesis to date, Mehdi Hassan. However, I agree with the previous comment that he rarely gets challenged in his RUclips interviews, and he is even more rarely pinned down to express his true opinions on the current American political environment. His views on Trump and BLM have been quite changeable depending on context. Perhaps he's conscious of his American fan's reactions. You asked good questions that challenged him without any of the nasty hostility of our times. You held your ground and had great follow up questions. My only negative was that the discussion was not long enough and so didn't cover enough ground. Good job to you both.
adding my voice to the comments here, I would like to see you arrange very long 1+ hour long debates with people who you find you have good conversations with. Obviously Justin Lee Peterson would not be a good long form, but Douglas Murray would be. I think a lot of benefits could come out of that.
Jesse?
Nice discussion. Precise and Clear...Well said Sir!
I’m looking forward to this. I like Douglas even though I am not on his side of the political spectrum.
Same
He comes with good intent and is smart and articulate. He's great to listen to.
he pushes some pretty bad things in a casual articulate manner people enjoy
@@hybridh9702 He's challenging but not always thought out. He's fine, but not rigorous. As with anything I think the importance of his position is in-between where he and David seem to think it is... I'm not sure he thinks it's more important than other issues in the US right now but I agree with David that the "culture war" issues are back-seat to the economy and pandemic handling. He'll is put climate change issues above culture issues as well
He's a fraud.
I use to think Murray was a beast that I didn't necessarily agree with, this interview shows what a difference it makes when someone dissects his answers and is equally intelligent. He looks quite fed up, he isn't used to dealing with an "unemotional" equal. This was fun.
DP is the man for that
Yeah DN got dismantled.
David. I think you are out of touch here. I work at a University and I can tell you that EVERYONE feels the burden of wokeness here, even though we’re still in a super conservative state. Let me give you just one personal experience out of many. We had a Christmas party, which was deemed a holiday party (totally fine) and I was selected to be in charge of the music. Since I was already paying for Pandora I thought, “Easy peasy! I’ll just type in Christmas music and bam! My contribution is done.” BUT NO. It was made abundantly clear that a random playlist would be too risky! God forbid we’d offend someone if a song about Christ started to stream. So what happened? Well, I had to find 2 hours worth of “Christmas” music that didn’t mention anything religious. Jiggle bell only type songs. Fun times! I promise you, stories like this are abundant everywhere and they aggravate a whole hell of a lot of people, including myself.
lol you should've put Handel's Messiah on there, all the woke kids start melting
Good job nailing this guy
Funny. For a non-conservative, Trump has accomplished more conservative goals than any conservative president in my memory.
2001-2009...he was registered Democrat. He wanted to be accepted by the Democratic elite in NY, so he aligned that way. They never did, nor will they ever, like or accept him. He was delighted he could stick it to them for a few years. He does not have any principles nor overarching ideology. The only thing he cares about is himself and maybe one of his daughters.
Trump has no ideology. He only acts out of self interest or vindictiveness.
@@abstractdaddy1384 And yet has achieved more conservative goals as president than any president in the last 60 years. That is the point. Argue against the point. Your ad hominem fallacy is not convincing.
What sort of conservative goals has he accomplished?
In spite of my personal disagreements with Douglas I do like him and I think this was a very good interview
Respect to Pakman for bringing on a guest who very intelligent and perhaps Center-right.
No, Douglas is not centre-right...he's mainstream conservative right.
@@Rhubba
Mainstream in the UK is center right in US
true conservative. well my kind i guess so i'm prejudiced.
Why is this so suprising? People on the right talk to leftists as much as possible. You lefties are so in your bubble.
Bill maher is the only lefty i can think that will do it. Otherwise, crickets
David you are a killing machine.
I'm not an American and I have no problem saying that Trump is bad for the world in general and that he has to go
so bad that he signed peace deals no one believed were possible.
@@mrfreeman2911 Hum, is it ? Which one do you have in mind ?
Glad you had Murray on.
Murray made a great point at the end. If you can’t have the broad discussions, how could you have the more nuanced questions in the future.
The problem is that his appearance here defeats his point. The discussions are happening.
Good on you
I’m not an American citizen either but I am quite happy to say to all US citizens to please vote Trump out. Why does it matter to me? Because it doesn’t just affect the US .... it affects the stability of the rest of the world if the US continues to cozy up to dictators and authoritarian countries and shuns alliances that have held strong since WW2. I am terrified about the future if Trump gets in again.
@Andrea Mendenhall. What on earth does that mean?
@Andrea Mendenhall The only things Trump is staving off are stimulant abstinence, and good judgement.
@Andrea Mendenhall sounds like you are tbh - you failed to answer the question
@Andrea Mendenhall America free? Compared to the rest of the western world? Good one that. Particularly with a president openly abusing power.
Brilliant interview David. More in-depth discussion please. On a variety of topics!
Murray owned him. David chikend out, u can see it it Davids eyes! murray would go all night!
Douglas Murray was right about everything. As per usual.
Don't agree with Pakman mostly, but great character shown from both parties to disagree so civilly. More conversations like this please
Hasn't it always been common in America for people to refrain form telling others who they'll vote for? Also, if you ask me, it's perfectly legitimate to tell someone what is wrong to think if that thought is that women are incompetent or something along those lines.
And I live in England and I can say first hand that nobody is more afraid of these discussions than white English people. From high school all the way through to university I've witnessed meltdown after meltdown resulting from just the mention of the words 'race' or 'white'. Its actually crazy. England hides from its past by burying it's history of race relations and pretending like the British empire never existed.
Trump endorsing Farage and Johnson in last decembers election was way out of line. Noone would do this diplomatical faux pas besides an imbecile. The only ones not having a problem with it are the ones doing it themselves or profiting from it like Trump does - I mean foreign interference.
You’re not living in the Britain I’m living in then
What utter nonsense. We are well aware of the Empire and the good and very bad aspects of it, have been since school and during university; and are reminded of it at least twice a year by The Guardian and endless TV shows. Finally, an Oxford academic lost his job for suggesting that the British Empire hadn’t been wholly bad. So please don’t post about things you clearly know nothing about.
@@johnricercato740 Have you sat in a classroom lately? People out here are super sensitive about race. Funny because just today I was watching a video Akinfenwa talking about his experience with racism in Lithuania and he alluded to the exact same thing about how it is in England, of course I don’t know him and I’ve heard other “ethnic” British people say this as well so I’m obviously not pulling it out of thin air. I’ve felt it multiple time’s. People always say stuff like “we ended slavery” in response to anything about race in England. Of course this isn’t everyone, most people just keep their mouths shut and some are actually aware/informed, but it is common. I’m not from here and I’ve had friends (black and white) tell me that they’ve only had 3 classes about black history or black people in British history in their entire lives. If that’s not ignoring history then I don’t know what is.
@@justlooking1087 For someone who doesn’t live here you rely on a good deal of hearsay from a few individuals, and that really isn’t good enough. I won’t repeat what I wrote earlier, so will add that compared to the US or even France, Germany, Spain and Italy our record on race relations is not perfect but pretty good, and I am not even including the abolition of slavery. As to the number of black history lectures: which ethnic group are you talking about? Not everyone elects to learn history and if they do the will tend to get mainstream UK history but can elect to do specialist courses. No educational system can cater for every minority.
This was great but too short. Douglas (like most political commentators) tends to only have discussions with like-minded people. It's really valuable for those of us who aren't either way inclined to see his ideas challenged. Please have another, longer discussion! Your calm and measured approach is much needed in the online political debate world.
You've not seen much of Douglas then. He cut his teeth in the Oxford Union debate circuit where you only go up against people who disagree.
You don't have to go far to find plenty of his debates where his views are robustly challenged.
If you want more Douglas check out his recent appearance on The Dark Horse Podcast or The Portal. Both are EXCELLENT!
Douglas is conservative so he would likely vote Trump if he could, however he probably didn’t want to get David emotional about that so he kept his silence. Respect
Love Murray but he was a tiny bit snobbish at times and David made interesting counterpoints. Only thing I'd say to David is, yes, right wing media and certain public intellectuals make much of the 'cancel culture', and maybe they're pressing harder than the badness calls for, and thus you're right to point out the unnecessary emphasis, but we need public intellectuals pushing for open inquiry and free speech at all costs and to stamp out revisionist history and refuse the attempt to transform human nature by edicts from superintendents at all costs.
I think the general issue is, if you allow the small and seemingly insignificant instances to multiply, eventually you find yourself with a large scale phenomenon on your hands, which if problematic is a lot harder to sort out. It's crucial to get the meaning of small events right. David used to belittle the criticisms of SJW culture on college campuses by saying "it's just a bunch of kids with pink hair shouting, no one takes them seriously and they are not the left"; well, now the kids have poured into society and we clearly have a problem, and not a word has come out from David about this.
Douglass is an Alt right white supremacist. He talks about identity politics, but literally himself is engaged in identity politics.
@@yourfriendlyneighbourhoodr9390 "now the kids have poured into society and clearly we have a problem" did they? do we? It's still a tiny minority of people engaging in this, overwhelmingly online. As John Smith in the comment below says, it is the hard right that engage in identity politics more than any other group; to most people, issues of race are issues of values that need to be discussed and thought about, to white supremacists they (wrongly) see it as an existential threat and therefore won't shut up about it. They're also fantastic at propagandising these issues.
@@reggiewilko2125 have you, like, not seen the US? Have you not noticed the increasing division and polarisation? You'd have to be living under a rock. What needs to happen for you and Pakman to acknowledge there is something seething just beneath the surface and it's very close to erupting? Maybe your house needs to be wrecked, or your business destroyed, or you need to lose your job, for you to realise.
It's in collage campuses. It's in HR departments. It's in big tech. It's in the streets.
The only reason I can think of for people not wanting to see this is because although you disagree with the idiots in the streets, you share their political goals, so the useful idiots act as foot soldiers essentially.
None of this matters anyway because if you don't even think there is an issue to discuss then we'll never agree. Only time will tell I guess, and it will be too late by then
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn the left has made political discussions outside of identity politics impossible; although I do not agree with the way identity politics is strumentalised these days, you can't blame white people for reacting to ideas such as "whiteness"
Great interview. I really appreciate David having Douglas Murray on.
I hope I’ve understood David’s position correctly, and if I misstate any part of it I’d be happy to correct myself. As I understand it, David’s point regarding lurid instances of political ideology influencing workplace politics is that such instances are in the minority of more mundane statistics, therefore they aren’t significant enough to warrant the concern of the majority.
This essay is a (slightly longwinded) rebuttal to that position, predicated on certain ideas I’ve become familiar with through Nassim Taleb. I’d highly recommend all books in the Incerto and Principia Politica.
1) Under Fat Tails, statistically significant events occur exclusively in the tails (idea of the Black Swan).
2) The ‘Minority Rule’ often rules the dynamics of complex social systems: "it suffices for an intransigent minority - a certain type of intransigent minority - to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences.”
Note: minority isn’t used pejoratively, nor does it refer to any particular political demographic.
Taleb gives the example of peanuts being denied to all aeroplane passengers (or schoolchildren) on account of a few individuals sharing the space who have a peanut allergy. The idea is that the majority retains the option of eating peanuts or not, while the minority absolutely will not eat peanuts, so the majority have to comply with the minority’s preferences given a certain frequency of minority passengers (or schoolchildren).
I’ll illustrate why I think David’s logic is fallacious in this case with an example.
If a coalition of 50,000 hard-core Trump supporters and white supremacists formed and captured key state governance structures in New York, and the local police rallied to their side, it would be foolish to say,
‘Such an incident is extraordinarily rare and the majority of States aren’t experiencing a right wing insurrection, therefore there’s no reason (on this data alone) to be concerned about a national problem.’
It’s not a matter of whether a majority of the national population is currently engaged in (or publically claiming to favour) insurrection: the reason for a large amount of concern over a small number of statistics is the potential for the intolerant minority’s preferences to become forced on the majority (who, crucially, could see themselves acquiescing to the minority’s immoral preferences under some circumstances).
But (the key point is that) people are rightly concerned about the potential for active extremism to metastasise from one state (or community) to another because, in spite of certain defences in the system, it’s possible for a particular minority to impose its preferences on the majority. Consequently, we can’t afford to discount its significance simply on account of the rarity of instances where such groups actually are successful, let alone the fact that they still only occupy the fringes of American politics.
Look also at historical instances of intransigent religious minorities proselytising large numbers of majority members at the point of a sword, and thereby imposing its preferences. It would again be ludicrous to say, ‘yes but such groups (and instances of their hegemony) exist in a minority, so we shouldn’t worry about its ascendency over the majority so much.’ Note that the rises of Christianity and Islam (so I’m told) were both completely unexpected incidents by contemporaries living through them...
...You can even make a parallel to maladaptive static (as opposed to more appropriate dynamic) thinking with regards to the potential for a virus sweeping across the world. People said something to the effect of, ‘we should be more concerned about {insert less significant danger, e.g. your slippery bathtub or the common cold] than Covid-19 (or Ebola)’ using for justification the fact that (at the time) more people were dying yearly in the world from seasonal flu than Covid-19. It’s fallacious reasoning because what mattered was that the different properties of the two viruses implied completely different categories of epidemiological risk: Ebola has the potential to wipe out the global population by taking a much more likely evolutionary pathway than the common cold acquiring the same devastating capacity. Obviously you can see that this reasoning did us no favours in combatting the Coronavirus. It's the potential damage that matters more than damage at any given point in time in the forerun, because the vast majority of statistics in these (Fat-Tailed) cases are irrelevant to the nature of the distribution. Therefore, if you discounted the anecdotes with respect to the speed of spread of Covid in China and went instead on total number affected at any point in time, you would severely underestimate its destructive capacity. You have to use the anecdote to prepare appropriately in advance and not be caught out by the Black Swan.
I'd argue that the spread of ideological movements follows a similar distribution to the spread of biological viruses. You’re rightly more concerned about Nazism than conservativism that blocks necessary progressive goals because of the relative significance of Nazis gaining control of the electorate to your values, and the potential for such an ideology to spread exponentially given the right set of conditions (the fact that the current number of hardcore Nazis in society is currently in a minority is irrelevant in itself). Same applies with respect to intolerant ideologies that claim affiliation with the Left (on false pretences). The concern is that they threaten to sweep to fixation, and (I don't think) it's in any way as clear as you're implying that they don't have the necessary frequency and societal influence (and absence of societal checks) that would allow them to start dictating the preferences of the majority.
Disparate instances of people losing their jobs due to the actions of a strident political minority on social media (or in the workplace) are significant in that they show: a) the existence of extremely intolerant minorities that cross many judicial, geographical (including international) and economic boundaries, b) that their potential to impose themselves on the majority is amplified by their strategic use of social media, and (arguably) c) that there aren’t sufficient hedges in the system generally to protect employees of any given company, just to give one instance, if it suddenly became in its interest to comply with minority preferences and throw its own to the lions.
I’d add to c) the frustrations of many people disaffected with most mainstream political parties and journalistic outlets is their cowardice in failing to come to the rescue of innocents threatened by the crazy mob when it’s inconvenient (see Bret Weinstein’s case and the associated failure of journalism).
I think it’s c) that really concerns people united in the ‘movement’ you refer to (Left/Right political concerns are tangential). The apparent threat posed by authoritarian wings was one of the main things that drew me to this content to begin with.
It’s also irrational to focus on whether the majority (who aren’t going to throw themselves on the sword for the sake of those being persecuted) on the Left (or the Right) are, in principle, sympathetic with the principles and tactics of such minorities. This is because the sympathy of a majority for freedom is not an unerring hedge against tyranny, because it’s not held as sacred; hence the debate should be whether the system is becoming more vulnerable to minority take-over (i.e. are the usual hedges against minority rule, such as free speech, being eroded in light of new technological developments?) not whether there is majority support (rather than indulgence) of immoral minority views and practices.
For evidence of how insignificant the majority’s stated preferences can (in the blink of an eye) become in terms of hedging against minority positions sweeping to fixation, look at preference falsification in the Soviet Union right up to the moment it toppled: the majority privately hated what was happening, but from the outside it appeared as if the majority were in favour of Communism right up to the moment the Berlin Wall came down. Why? Because that’s the public presentation of their preferences that they projected (for self-preservation), but what they really preferred at any given moment was not being subjected (along with their families and friends) to torture and death as opposed to dying for their principles. The majority complies for an easy life in most historical cases: hence why intolerant minorities often determine the course of history, whether virtuous (martyrs who wouldn’t, under any circumstances, betray the principles of their forefathers) or diabolical (e.g. Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia).
And, again, while the intolerant wing often referred to in these circles is not wielding threats of actual violence (in most cases) to cow its victims, it’s still remarkably effective using reputational threats. Given how much people rely on a clean reputational record to transfer from job to job these days (since employers can affect, not only current employment, but subsequent employment on the basis of staining their official track record/CV) it’s not surprising that this strategy is so effective.
Therefore, the imputation that there shouldn’t be nearly as much concern as there is in society with regards to such issues concerning intransigent minorities has to be debated in terms of the potential influence of the minority in question, and whether there has been a recent erosion of systematic hedges against the incursion of Minority Rule in light of recent developments in society. Not simply hand-waved away because none of the groups represent a majority, and because their success (thus far) has not yet become the norm.
I think Taleb's ideas provide a better way to approach the whole debate surrounding so-called Cancel Culture, whether the empirical claims advanced here regarding the increasing threat posed by intolerant minorities is valid or not.
(Note also: I’m not deluded enough to think anyone will actually read all this, but it’s been helpful for me to formulate my thoughts more carefully, so, hey that’s something).
Murray’s point that we will inevitably underestimate the prevalence of this pattern given the fact that the courage required for rebellion will be rarely displayed, and that the strategy doesn’t need to make many flagrant examples of dissidents in order to cow the majority (fire one person for being ‘politically insensitive’ and everyone else in the office will comply to avoid the same fate). This is further reason not to be too confident in the impression that this issue is ‘extraordinarily rare.’
Plus, an overestimation of small probabilities is a necessity for survival when the event has disproportionately negative consequences.
I thought the exchange about whether one should have an opinion about who you would vote for in other countries was very revealing- Murray's position is obviously more mature and recognises more appropriately the deep complexity in such decisions and the inappropriate/bordering on disrespectful nature of opining on such questions regarding other people's communities. Pakman's approach I think showed a lack of humility, an improper willingness to speak for others and an undue confidence in full understanding of complex issues- that in my mind is the hallmark of the kind of liberalism that is rooted in self-aggrandisement and naivety. I don't think Pakman neatly fits in that box because he can be sensible in many cases- but he definitely has an unfortunate streak of such thinking.
Nah. It just comes across that hes scare dto admit he would vote for Trump. Just a typical right winger with a posho Brit voice
In Europe, where I come from, it’s bad manners in polite company to ask for one’s political leanings, if one is married or single, and the salary one makes. This whole demanding of personal answers is a very American approach. Rude
David is a smart guy but at times I feel that he (purposely?) misses the deeper issues some of his guests are pointing to and kind of hand waves them away. He did the same thing in his conversation with Sam Harris on political correctness and the "woke" left. But David himself has admitted to self censoring because of the blowback he knows he will receive from some of those on the left. If this is the case then the argument that these censorious individuals make up a statistically insignificant portion of the population is meaningless if they are having such an outsized effect on what people are willing to say.
I sooo want to see a follow up on this conversation!
Douglas Murray got it! David Pakman, on the other hand, seems to be living in the parallel universe.
Interesting interview, thank you David.
I’m watching this and relishing when David puts Douglas against the ropes with regard to voting in the US. His excuse for not saying whether he’d vote for Trump boils down to “I don’t want to show my true colors and lose readers.”
Untrue - personally, as a Brit, I would try to be courteous in the US and not nail my colours to the mast
I thought the same thing. I’d like to hear these two talk more. David is a great person to challenge some of his views as he presents a progressive liberal perspective and isn’t part of the ‘regressive left’ Douglas has become known for attacking. I think Douglas and that whole echo chamber needs to pay more attention to the David’s of the world. I did! It’s how I shifted back over to the left.
Douglas has an easy 30 IQ points on David.
@@JL-wc7th totally agree!
@@TheKFMProductions I think that if you are as informed about US politics as Douglas is, then stating whether you'd vote for Trump or not would be fairly straight forward (as David points out with the example of US & Argentina).
However, I understand that perhaps it's a cultural thing that british people don't like to make pronouncements of this sort, as you point out.
I often see Murray on podcasts where he is not challenged. It was so refreshing to hear David's critiques.
I thought of “Old Geezer “ but I knew he meant Geyser 😗
In the UK its pronounced exactly the same, perhaps he didn't know it is pronounced differently in the US, hence the quip falling flat on its arse :D
I thought he was saying Giza at first
Trump is both a Geyser and a Geezer. Biden is only a Geezer.
Please VOTE, thank you ❗🙏😷
When someone tells you, "It's none of your business how I would vote," accept that he's correct and QUIT ASKING.
Agreed. I like have David is not afraid to press in his interviews. However, some things he decided to press on, I ask why even bother? It is not remarkable information.
@@Themortgageguy530 Because David did this interview to pick a fight, not to learn anything. Notice how David ends the interview by stating "here's our biggest disagreement...". That was the only point, but I'm sure it only took Douglas Murray a few seconds to wipe this "interview" off the bottom of his shoe.
@@Malignus68 have you watched a different interview?
Seemed like a pretty civil disagreement between two grown men with wildly differing opinions.
It's politics, not a music preference. It is all of our business how one votes. You ultimately have the right to vote however you want as well as to decline to answer the question, but to say it's a personal matter and not a political one is absolutely absurd.
@@Enthos2 i would have to disagree but this is an opinion matter so there is no right answer
Both of their voices make me feel warm and fuzzy
My only other problem with this interview is that it was only just getting going. I wish Pakman really was able to really dissect Murray's slickly articulated but very dodgy analysis
I recommend checking out Current Affairs' article on Douglas Murray's book The Strange Death of Europe. The article is called "The Death of Europe Is Greatly Exaggerated".
Yes, one of the better interviews of Murray, so kudos to David, but I feel he could have pushed back more. But I also understand that if you push back on every single questionable statement, you run out of time and don't get to address the big issues.
Douglass is an Alt right white supremacist. He talks about identity politics, but literally himself is engaged in identity politics.
@@JohnSmith-hs1hn you are totally missing the point dude..
@@paddylack no u
David is so self righteous
Excellent push back on the cancel culture stuff, David. Great to see you engaging with the smarter parts of 'the bastards', it's the only way we'll beat their arguments.
The left never invented cancel culture, neither is it synonymous with the left. I mean, conservatives cancel football kneelers for not acquiescing to their piece of cloth.
David lost this one.
Douglas 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I’m a new sub. Just found your channel last night. I binge watched some of your videos all night. Good stuff. My father in law is a Presbyterian pastor and HUGE trump supporter. He’s so political and is alienating some of his own congregation with his radical views. Him and I aren’t on talking terms right now as you can imagine why. I’m also at odds with A LOT of my own family members who are on the same dumb cult train. Never in history can I ever remember families being torn apart politically like this. It’s sad. Unfortunately, I don’t ever see my family getting past these “differences” of political opinion either, but I’m almost glad to see their true colors and not have these toxic people in my life anyway.
I also have conservative family and am finding it hard to be at peace with them. They say "i'm not being invlusive/tolerant" like i'm the problem. I just can't tolerate their constant defense of a man like donald trump. I try to stick to policy, but it's hard, and now all I can think is that they have been brainwashed into "taking the easy way out" bc trump is so simple-minded and offers simple solutions to their fearful brains. Its very hard tonreapect them. I want to be able to "agree to disagree" but it feels so disingenuous to not fight back against this administration
@@chriser555 This is not the time to be silent in a representative democracy. Being against a party who thinks it's okay to bring around a disease to family members is what any normal caring human being should do. Your attitude on the comparison of opinion to manipulative madness is frightening and deadly lazy.
Politics aside, Trump is so profoundly crude, dishonest and clearly unfit. I hate it that they actually talk about him like he is a functioning adult. He isn’t.
@@bethkop12 my response is that this isn’t about political views, it is about decency and morality. He is offensive, I don’t believe he believes in anything. He panders to the radical right.
@@chriser555 I don’t believe that. That is a cop out. Guess you didn’t notice when he abandoned our allies, the Kurds. He isn’t good for the economy for the majority. Manufacturing jobs have continued to leave. He is doing nothing to get us in the game of renewables, he is still pushing for coal and oil. The rest of the world is moving forward in energy, we are stagnant.
Obama’s numbers for new jobs were better. And Obama pulled us out of a recession. The Trump team has no idea how to rebuild an economy, they can ride a good one, and explode a deficit with tax cuts that did nothing. Meanwhile we are still stagnant in the Middle East.
To take strickt stand, would be bad for his (Douglas) flourishing business, simple as that. You can see it in his face, little sad, but ultimate truth.
True. That does not make him bad, evil, or complicit. He is merely being pragmatic.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Agreed.
I would wish David would push back on his last point a little bit since it goes both ways. In democratic areas it’s difficult to say you’re voting Trump and in Republican areas its the same for voting Biden. I agree that it isn’t statistically insignificant though it is much more even.
To add to this my conservative dad gets pretty mad and has sometimes made some thinly veiled joking threats about monetary support and other things if Biden wins even though I tell him he’ll still be just fine under Biden.
Yea, and British dude doesn't even live in America lol. Those conservatives he loves so much would cancel culture him for being gay.
But isn't this the unfortunate point that Douglas was making, that US politics has become too tribal and so discussion is breaking down, which leads to eruptions elsewhere? It's a pity your dad makes conversation difficult in this regard...
It is a very American "all or nothing" thing in politics. Which is weird because the end results in the US are largely the same as the US has checks on power so the role of the president is only a part of the equation of governance.
There wasn't really anything to push back on because he didn't say that it doesn't go both ways. His whole point was how polarised and hostile discussion is across the board. I'm sure he would agree that its an issue on both ends of the political spectrum.
I wish this was a 2 hour convo. Fascinating.