As a trans male, i would like to point out that most sane members of the community do agree that placing a trans term in a child is extremely hurtful. Raise a child as their born gender, allow them open borders within it but don't overly talk or push the discussion with a child.
I think the majority of reasonable people in any era would find it difficult to consider Rosa Parks undignified for merely continuing to sit down. Contrast this to the trans activsts who were intimidating a group of women by banging on the doors and windows of their meeting place, just because the women dared to call for female safe spaces; if the majority of society ever sees this as dignified then it could only mean civilisation is lost.
@Laurence D I completely disagree. Most (not all) handsome men are even more hot with a beard. And some guys who aren't all that attractive suddenly morph into a hottie because of a beard. I, for one, am so sick of the clean-cut look, so glad that has taken the back seat for a while. I hope the beard trend lasts a good long time. And when I say beard, I mean a nice, well-kept beard, not some ghastly, untamed, frightening rats nest.
David... My sentiments exactly, I don't know your location but here in America, our media is one big ugly dumpster fire. You lose IQ points for every minute wasted watching this trivial gossip click-bait and propaganda utterly useless.
Dems/MSM & our schools are a complete an utter disgrace for the opinions, speculations & outright lies they spew daily (unchallenged) as fact! I want to hear ALL sides of ant & all issues, then make up my own mind. The MSM & schools in particular, are hurting our youth especially because they (sadly) lack critical thinking skills & they believe whatever nonsense they're taught/told....
When i read something like this all i hear is "my propaganda sources are great and the other sides is horrible". My point of view is that nearly all media is biased and poor these days. Of course I could be taking the comment completely wrong and you hate fox news oan etc just as bad and neglected to call them out equally for the same horrible excuse for journalism.
This is why I love Alex. He always makes the effort to represent the opposite view as charitable as possible. That’s the intellectual honest way, and that’s what’s make the discussion worthwhile.
I agree, but it frustrates me when he would reframe an argument as it is more likely be advanced by the people who make it, and Douglas would just dodge it and maneuver back to his framing. Like, when Alex pointed out that “our ancestors had hard lives too” doesn’t defeat the argument for reparations, because the argument is you are benefiting from that legacy NOW, and they are still suffering from that legacy NOW… I would’ve been very interested to hear Douglas response to that, but instead he took it back to “should we transfer money to Jewish people too?”
Yes he does, but I think he is too committed to it, especially when the opposite view had evidence bearing upon it. Being open-minded admirable but be careful that your brain doesn’t fall out.
Wow. This interviewer is brilliant. I’ve never heard someone debate with Douglas quite this way, I’m a big fan of Doug Murray. I’m a big fan of you both now! Good work.
Totally agree. He presses Murray well. For instance 54:40 Appealing to scientific consensus when convenient, after dismissing the most tested science in the history of mankind?
I agree. However I think Douglas pushes back rather effectively. Jordan Peterson has laid this groundwork much more effectively however; right up from the binary nature of sex up through the accumulation of sex specific psychological characteristics to the sex dependent occupational preferences exhibited in the most egalitarian societies, which is the best that current research has to offer
No gotcha questions, no so-what-your-saying, no rage outburst, no 60 min interview conveniently frankensteined into a twitter compliant 20secs sound bite. Much better that way.
@@asdg199 I think it was still a debate. It's just that Alex wasn't disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement. When a solid argument was made or a decent response was given, he was able to accept the claim and move on, even if he didn't necessarily agree. Douglas did this as well, but to a lesser degree I think but I guess that's the aspect of the conversation that was more of an interview. I think it's also a given that Douglas was more informed on his position and therefore better able to stick to it than Alex was equipped to counter. So that's likely why it wasn't a back and forth kind of debate but more of a probing of the more certain side kind of debate.
@@chrisv384 He is equable and civil during this entire discussion. It seems far more clear that Murray is indoctrinated into believing his own hype, not adequately countering the criticisms levied or unsubstantiated claims.
@@chrisv384 if someone has applied critical thinking and studies various perspectives and still come to a different perspective from you it doesn’t actually mean they are indoctrinated. It is possible they just disagree with you.
Alex is anything but indoctrinated. He questions himself and everyone as a rule, so... yeah, you just disagree with him. Alex is much more brilliant than that boomer. Hes so set in his ways. Its sad
Novak Ingood a man can overpower you and wants to violate your orifices which can hurt badly, this is an attack, how could you not be afraid of gays, that's not too say there's any hatred, just fear
This is the first time in a long time that I listen to an interview and am unable to tell which side of any issue the interviewer falls on. In most interviews (especially with controversial characters like Douglas Murray) it becomes very clear in the first 5-7 minutes which side of any debate the interviewer is on, this was really refreshing! I'm black and female and liberal but I'm sick of seeing the politically correct mob try insisting that black people and women be treated like sensitive babies who can't handle critical intellectual engagement with some of our characteristics in a way that it's perfectly accepted for things about "straight white men" to be so interrogated (e.g the hysteria over charles murray and his research). It's annoying to even have to make those qualifications about my "identity", but when I'm expressing these views online I'm often accused of being an angry straight white man just based off my holding them lol. Anyways, subscribed here and on Spotify, keep up the good work :)
Although I am not on the receiving end like you are of this undermining of black people and women I think it is just terrible and can't stand it. it is entirely counter productive to empowering the black women who could actually do with empowerment. What you describe is what Sargon of Akkad refers to as "the bigotry of low expectations'' where assumptions about black people are made as though they are innately more emotionally vulnerable, innately lacking in power, unable as individuals to perform better than white people so white people must have a handicap. we can see this bigotry in the lack of criticism for hip hops views on women where the same people would criticise that culture if white people were involved, we see this with calls to hire black people not for their expertise but for their skin colour which devalues their ability to hold expertise and increases the considerations placed on their skin colour alone, we see this when people make excuses for foreign religious cultures disrespect of women claiming that those cultural element should be respected because they are "others''. this bigotry of low expectation is an exclusion of black people into white social networks as social networks require an understanding of the behaviour that is expected.
The interviewer is not on Murray's side of the issues. If you look at his content he gave a speech about how veganism is a moral imperative which gives you some idea of his politics. He is an astute and engaged listener and questioner which gives him an agreeable affect but he is disagreeing with Murray and trying to pull the other way on every issue. And particularly on the reparations issue they felt very far apart and unable to meet.
@@nozemsagogo868 I agree that alex seems to disagree to some extent. However, the fact that he invited Douglas Murray on his podcast at all is telling. In a lot of instances it almost appeared as if Alex was playing dumb rather than expressing vigorous opposition. Alex is too smart to not comprehend the arguments, which makes it suspicious that he appeared not to in a couple instances. It makes me wonder if he is soft-pedaling to avoid problems.
This is my first time watching this channel. mainly because of Douglas Murray. I absolutely appreciate the way this discussion unravelled. I wouldn't describe this as an actual debate, definitely not an interview, But a very critical discussion.
I agree with Douglas Murray. My daughter ask me what is the point of history? I told her the point of history is to learn and remember not to repeat all the bad stuff that has happened in the world. I’ve never thought retrospective blame is a useful or justified action to punish future generations for something they had no control over. Remember history don’t escalate it. There’s far to many people using blame to make themselves feel better. Instead of protest and blame we should have question and solution.
Jim Laslett Psychology, Economics, Political Science, and Philosophy can pickup principles from history to come up with why some event is bad, how some things are prone to setting up that bad event, and if taken seriously, stop the event from repeating. Historians should do their thing, but screw history classes in k-8. I believe K-8, should setup history classes as detective games, where people are given evidence and people come up with arguments on what happened. The rest of the time that would be used for social studies, is used to study simplified concepts in the fields mentioned above.
Jim Laslett - Your idea on the purpose of history is far too narrow. History is the warp and weft of the tapestry of life. It provides texture and a background commentary to everything we do. It gives purpose to the past and a direction for the future. Without history, our short lives would be so shallow and two-dimensional.
John Eskins yep there is a lot more to history, I thought I’d keep the reason for history lessons short and positive as thirteen year old kids tend to have a short concentration span. I’m mean you could easily go into DNA, space and evolution the possibilities are endless! The question from the child was in the context of war
I love how Cosmic Sceptic doesn't deny the guest's reality while still trying to challenge his views in such a polite, honest and good-faith way. Respect!
There is only one reality, so it's not wrong to try to actually deny and challenge someone's views. Understanding that there are different vantage points from which to view reality.
DUDE!!!! First time that picture(seen many times) manifested its full brain bending patterned almost musical complexity to my eyes!! Fuck me I almost passed out
I'm Irish and at 29:00 when Douglas makes the point that Irish nationalism was greatly harmed by the terrorist tactics of the IRA I had to completely agree. I love my country and it's independence is and was a worthy cause, but precisely for that reason the amount of violence in the last 100 years of my country's history pains me greatly. The moment it all spirals out of control is 1916 when, in the middle of WW1 when the Home Rule process was put on hiatus, the IRB staged the violent Easter Rising. Most Irish people condemned the violence, but when the British reacted to this as an act of treason and had most of the participants shot, the country erupted in outrage. This culminated in the War of Independence, when just 3 years earlier the country had been working steadily towards a diplomatic peaceful advancement in the cause of self-governance. And the settlement of that war then gave way to senseless Civil War within the newly independent Republic of Ireland. And the outstanding issue of the 6 Northern counties was exacerbated by the threat northern Protestants felt from the IRA across the border in the Republic. Though it is undeniable that Catholics were oppressed in the North by a slim Protestant majority, the prevalence of paramilitary violence against one another and the terroristic bombing of innocent civilians and assassination of politicians was just an unmitigated disgrace and disaster on both sides. Yet in Ireland today we have a horrible proclivity to declare moments like 1916 to be days of national celebration, as part of the larger heroic mythology of our struggle for independence, even though I see it as the forerunner of the Troubles in legitimising in people's minds that form of violent "political" struggle. Can't get what you want? Just break out the guns lads. People are way too good at excusing bad behaviour when they're the ones benefiting from it.
It's difficult to beat a military regime without guns. Sure, perhaps if Irish people waited long enough then Britain would generously allow them to have their country back. However I think military action was more than justified in 1916. And you can't deny that the 1916 Rising was the inciting moment that directly caused independence. You seem to be portraying Britain as some totally non-violent steward of Ireland, which I think goes beyond charitable into delusional.
@@sayso2135 Well I completely disagree that 1916’s was justified at the time. It is only justifiable in retrospect with reference to nationalist sentiment, because we know “it all worked out it the end”. Had it failed it would’ve been a complete bloody catastrophe that may have even set Irish independence back 100 years. History gives people the delusion that they can apply consequentialist ethics to large events, when this is of course as wrong in the past as it is now, because our ancestors couldn’t see the future any more than we can now. I did not claim at all that Britain, over the course of its rule of Ireland, was just a “benign steward”. After all, the Great Famine occurred in the same century as the Home Rule movement, and that after Daniel O’Connel had only just achieved political representation for Ireland’s Catholic majority in Parliament. But that doesn’t mean that the peaceful route to independence wasn’t preferable to the chaotic and violent route. The Home Rule movement was making progress, just as Daniel O’Connell had made progress. Britain was civilised enough to permit such progress, which is reason enough not to get violent as anything other than a last resort. 1916 was not a last resort, it was the romantic and overzealous project of men like Pádraig Pearse, who couldn’t wait to be martyred and be the man to turn history’s wheels. Out of all the Empires on earth at the time, the British Empire was the most humane and civilised, and that’s a fact. Nowadays we think of all Empires as being equally illegitimate, but this is an ahistorical and privileged notion permitted only by our current remarkable circumstances in the free west (and even that is only permitted by American global power, which is just an effort at a global hegemony that is more hands off and humane than even the British empire, which, I get the impression, walked so America could run). Ireland was in a uniquely subjugated position within that vast British polity, but as such had a uniquely long relationship with Britain which has affected our culture profoundly in ways we seem to take for granted. Such as our system of common law, our attitude towards policing, our parliamentarianism, our great tradition of writers (almost all of whom are experts in the English language), our architecture, our manners, our ethics, etc. In my opinion the delusional thing is to deny these things, portray Britain as a brute hunched over our virgin land, justify violence in the past, and then shrink from it in the present when it might actually affect us and our children more obviously. I contend that you should think about the outbreak of violence in the past as seriously as you would think about it’s outbreak today. My parents and grandparents lived through the Troubles, most of which didn’t directly affect them in the South, yet they still remember it with horror. Stands to reason that people were against 1916 in its day for similar reasons, except it was worse because they’d be right in the thick of it. Looking back, 1916 set Ireland on a path to war with Britain, a Civil War afterwards, and even the Troubles in Northern Ireland. That alone should make it the object of intense scrutiny. It brought the gun into Irish politics, which was a notoriously difficult to get out. I’m very skeptical about Revolutionary traditions in places like France and Russia, not to mention the various military juntas of Africa and the Middle East, so I’d be a hypocrite not to scrutinise the revolutionary tradition right under my own nose. The Irish are very fond of telling larger nations to take responsibility for their actions. That should cut both ways.
@@patrickkilroy6512You clearly have been watching too many David Starkey lectures with an unhealthy dollop of self-hating Ruth Dudley Edwards for good measure.
@@patrickkilroy6512 Empires are built on belligerence; they engender violence - it's endemic to their functioning. The British Empire claimed the sole right to exercise violence in Ireland - others pointedly denied them that right. You can configure an arbitrary moral universe and orientate yourself in relation to others' past expressions of aggression but that's simply you performing your personal pantomime - a fanciful imagining and enactment of an identity you find flattering.
I’ve never seen as formidable an interlocutor as Douglas Murray so rigorously engaged with . He really had to step up his game with this quick witted young men . Whose clarity of thought and lucidity of expression is impressive way beyond his years .
None of these popular contrarians, like Murray, Harris, Peterson, Shapiro, etc. have ever had their views legitimately challenged. They do everything they can to avoid any real or serious conversations by only talking to under-educated young people or by "debating" with random people on the street who aren't prepared for any type of arguing.
Whitney for real . If they stumble into a fight with a monster intellect , in this age of nano second mass circulation , that’s a carefully cultivated career of narrow rationalist proselytism up in smoke . So they curate ( carefully )
James Gillings ; “a poor man’s C Hitchens” . Hilarious , if he keeps at It . Say about 5 - 10 years voracious reading and unstinting skepticism , I’m sure he will have done a lot more to earn to your respect .
James Gillings how about we test Jordan’s dismissive reading of postmodernism by him being pitted against a a true Rottweiler of the school , not Zizek who , lovely man though he might be is as incoherent as they come . But I’ll definitely check out the Maajid / Murray debate . 👍🏽
@@Scoring57 What a weird statement and curious assumption to make. I took the OP as that the questions asked and the setup of the interaction wasn't a debate, i.e. antagonistic, but a normal conversation.
Alex, this was honestly the best interview I've seen with Douglas. You two had a certain chemistry and it was obvious that you challenging him was to his great pleasure. It is in conversations like this one that I - as a non-native speaker from Germany - perceive the epitome of Anglo-Saxon, especially English culture of parlance. Our culture has always had a dire lack of such grace and I feel grateful for being able to listen and watching talks like this one. Best from Berlin, Alex
Am English but just wanted to convey my admiration at your eloquence. You write especially well for a non-native and I'm inclined to agree with what you've said sir.
Likewise RP you have a lovely style and I was grateful for the insight you shared about a view of English culture from the perspective of someone from the Continent. Thank you.
I'm late getting here, but Douglas is right about the university system in the US. Since you have to pay regardless of the type of school you attend, and the costs are rising so much, "the college experience" has become a product. Students are able to make incredible demands of the staff and establishments because they're paying so much to be there. It's become an absurd setup.
I went to a community college, which is like the cheapest options you can get in the US, and it was around $7000 for 2 years tuition, not including books. Granted, I had assistance due to my father being in the military so I didn’t have to pay that. However, most of peers still had to take out student loans
@@heatherclark8668 I went to university in the US around that era. It was about $200 per semester. Later, when I went to graduate school, I was paid enough for room and board, as well as tuition (and I worked as a teaching assistant, which was fantastic). As someone else writes below, in effect: 'it cost a zillion dollars, but I was the one person of many who didn't pay that, because I had assistance.' Yep. Can't believe everything you read.
We have allowed the same corrupt mess to establish itself in Britain - to the direct effect of a dumbing down in both debate, conduct and reasoning. The epistemologically unsound and ignorantly reductive state of many erstwhile cutting edge courses is depressing and deadly to the state of the British research base and dare I say, democratic process. The formally rigorous subjects, the humanities in general are being decimated cut by cut. This begins in the state schools where grammar schools, the cradle of British intellectual life are cutting subjects as diverse and essential as ancient history, music, the classics and drama/theatre studies. The idea for those in charge is to delimit the critical/analytical abilities in most of the population - reserving these skills and praxis for the fee paying students at 'public' school where the aforementioned subjects are not only available but encouraged in order to produce an intellectually trained, if not always intellectually gifted, elite.
1) Uk universities are also very expensive 2) French universities are subsidized by the government and (luckily) radical leftist ideologies are more widespread in my country
just found your podcast. you play devil's advocate better than anyone else i've ever heard. most people do it half-heartedly or incompletely. thank you for always finding the lever points in the arguments on both sides
Wow! Is this some kind of British approach to interviewing? The interviewer seems to have no agenda, and there is no sensationalism to the questions. His only agenda is to get the interviewee to give clear and detailed answers. I dare say that there has never been an interview like this conducted by a US interviewer!
Whenever I see Douglas's interviews I always feel there's a lack of proper questions that could have been asked. But you asked such important questions and in such a great way.
I totally agree, although I should admit that not only is this the first interview I've seen with Douglas Murray, it's the first I'd heard of him. And though I'm a big fan of Alex, this is the first of his interview segments I've seen. [I'm sorry CS! I'm very busy!] I was worried that CS would perhaps be in over his head, or would go too far in one direction or the other with respect to his interview style - too combative, or agreeable etc. I see I needn't have worried. Well done Alex. I can't say the same for Mr. Murray. If he doesn't understand drag and the use of props being used from the Era of 1st-Wave Feminism, Trans issues, and the differences between them, then he's not in on the joke. [Nobody tell him]. Protests are bad, unless it's the American Civil Rights protests because they were so dignified and didn't inconvenience others? Had he heard of Rosa Parks prior to this interview? Had he never wikied "Selma Bus Boycott? " Black people shouldn't even be considered for reparations because, 'What about the Jews?' and "Where does it stop?" I don't know, Mr. Murray, but I know with whom it does not start. [And when it comes to Jews, that should perhaps be a question for Germany, no? Get your white genociders straight, sir, and good day!] And we shouldn't be devoting a quarter of our minds to the Trans movement? It would appear that you, Mr. Murray are the only one devoting so much to them, and making a few bucks in the process. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jordan Peterson, minus all that charm!
@Daniel C. Harkins Jr. What lol? Murray is a class act from everything I have seen of him. He is also a gay man. So he does have up close and personal experience with that issue. The point he makes about the trans movement hurting gays by erasing them is brilliant and one I have never thought of. More and more detranstion stories are coming out and they actually share that very same point. They wish they had just been a gay male.. Brison Bpyce has a RU-vid channel that has alot of interviews with detrans people as well as some interviews of endocrinologist which are really eye opening on the point on what is happening with children. You are simply wrong.
Wow. This was a GREAT interview brother. You even made me hold up my own views to scrutiny. This is the type of conversation that is missing in the US.
Probably because a lot of the "intellectual" thought leaders on the right like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder refuse to engage with qualified people that seriously push back against their ideas and instead "own the libs" by making gotcha youtube videos where they 'debate' non-media trained undergraduate students instead of actual qualified left wing intellectuals that have the debate/media training to call them out for the intellectually dishonest political agitators that they are. But yeah, I agree, US political discourse and their Overton window being so accepting of open white supremacy are a shit show that is socially 20 years behind many more civilized European countries and probably always will be.
No it’s not…we just got the interweb a few weekends ago, and are watching Jerry Springer…we ain’t hicks, as far as we can figure. Good thing you’re helping
I have been intently following the two of your careers for awhile now. I love both of your minds and am glad that you are recording your conversations.
I'm an Indian(in India) and absolutely agree with him on the point of retribution. It's silly and outrageous that people want Brits to pay to the people of the former colonies for what the former's ancestors did to the latter's! Most Brits today are not racists! Why do you want to harm them?!
@@W67w The people who want Britain to pay retributions to India for ¨Muh colonialial oppression" are the same people who defend Israel? Are you absolutely sure about that?
Britain owes nothing to it's former Colonies many places where shitholes before Britain got there we pulled them up by their Boot Straps in fact they should be Paying us
You clearly do not understand reparations. It is not about asking ordinary Brits to pay or harming them. They aren't living fat off the cow off slave money, genocide money, or ecocide money. There are Fortune 500 companies, huge mega-corporations and aristocratic families whose wealth can be DIRECTLY TRACED to profiting off enslaving and oppressing people and human rights abuses of the worst possible kind. These crimes are not HUNDREDS OF YEARS away. The traumas are one or two generations away. Jews were paid reparations. Indigenous peoples were paid reparations. Falsely incarcerated Japanese Americans were paid reparations. It is not some NOVEL idea. Nor do reparations have to take the form of $$$$$$. Why should exploited, raped, and abused countries still recovering from colonialism and constant destabilization still have to be paying DEBT to Europe? Just FORGIVE IT. Wipe the slate clean. That is reparations. Prosecuting and stopping any further ecocide in such countries and mandating fair trade. That is reparations. Scholarships and opportunities for gifted youth in those countries. That is reparations.
@@gekkobear1650 I get that. Would just be interesting to see how Alex would respond to a capable sociologist for example, as Douglas says here that our society is not racist/sexist etc. However, this is completely overlooking the work of Kehinde Andrews/Akala/Paul Gilroy etc. But, if Alex is as interested in the truth as he says he is, then surely that would surpass the wants of some right wingers...
Hahah you can't be taken serious when you mention Ash. A far left self professed communist. Would you give the same time and ground to a far right? You also mention akala.....again....can't be taken serious.
@@Olyfrun I agree with you. Do you think maybe its just the idea of categorising them as "wrong" in advance? Anyway as you allude to, if you don't examine the most problematic issues, how are we ever going to learn from history? Which seems to be every historians fav refrain.
@@call4sorrow1 Look this guy (Cosmic Skeptic) has some respect in the Catholic community because he at least was Catholic. However he is unable to understand basic Philosophy which is really infuriating. Also his ethics are @~?£!
@@crap867 Basing Political systems on Identity. It is not all bad but it can lead to people voting to satisfy their ethnic or religious background (which is not always good unless you are Catholic).
Dougence K I wish it were better push back. This guy seems nice and smart but he isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. “ you have to have proof if you’re going to say that the non-binaries are off base.” Well, no you don’t. Show them a biology book and leave it with them. It’s their job to prove such a radical claim in the face of biological facts. Most of the other times when he tries to disagree he just winds up agreeing with him in the first two sentences of his explanation. 🤣 as somebody said up thread he’s got a real case of having to be the smartest guy in the room even when he sitting next to someone like Murray. Maybe he was nervous I don’t know this guys content.
@@brockmeeks1695 'biology book' lmao, to determine what is and what's not 'off base' you'd have to look into philosophy of gender LITERATURE, philosophy of language LITERATURE, genetics literature, psychology literature, psychiatry literature, sociology literature and more, not a 'biology book' whatever that means. Edit: biology LITERATURE too
Brock Meeks Why do there appear to be so many people like you nowadays that can’t seem to be able to deal with someone probing the logic of your intellectual hero. What makes this interviewer ‘want to be the smartest guy in the room’ just because he challenges the interviewee on their logic? His ‘proof...non-binaries’ statement firstly says: “give me some of the facts to back up your opinion”, an honest challenge to an interviewee who (rightly) states that all the LGBTQRSUVWXYZ fanatics need to come up with some more solid evidence of their opinions before going as drastic as operating on children etc. Secondly, that statement builds up to a challenge of Murray’s earlier argumentation against the extinction rebellion protesters. All this interviewer does is calmly probe Murray’s logic (which he appears to agree with most of the time, although he’s very professional in keeping his own opinion out of it) and pointing out where Murray may be taking some short-cuts that lead him to set a bit of a double standard (in limited occasions)
@@milton7763 You're overstating the reaction to what has happened here. I can do the same: "Why do there appear to be so many people like you nowadays that seem to project their own insecurities, emotional attachment and sometimes anger unto the person on the other side of the argument- and in the process not making one themselves?"
As a Grandmother of 75 with a 30 year old Grandson who is travelling down the LBGTQ+++ road, I found this discussion incredibly informative. I consider myself pretty liberal having participated in women’s & gay rights and anti-apartheid movements during the 60s, 70s and 80s in New Zealand. Now I find myself at odds with my Grandsons rhetoric on this ‘new wave’. I found your points of discussion logical, fascinating and (surprisingly) calming. Thank You.
Perhaps you might agree as I did with Douglas at 16:14 that there was a time when gay people had achieved acceptance and lived quiet lives meeting with people in their own world. I am an old geezer in my 70s and I remember during the 1970s and 1980s there were many clubs etc. where straight and gay rubbed shoulders and that was OK. I cannot comprehend this LGBT++++ view.
Yeah you're right. There's barely any debate going on, and most of the feedback seems to imply that the interviewer is merely playing the devil's advocate. It's like it's another one of those faux debates where two pundits from the same side having a talk, and almost nothing is contributed to the discourse; where the goal isn't to make the listeners rethink any preconceived knowledge.
Alex, I don't know if you've a warped 'modern' logic, or if you are just a contrarian. Douglas took it easy on you. The premise that 'You punched me in the face, so now I get to punch you equally' does not hold for the race thing in America. The wronged people, as the people who committed the wrong, are all long dead. How far back do you want to go? Do we as indigenous Britons claim reparations from Italy, Denmark Sweden and Norway for being conquered and enslaved? The blacks descended from former slaves should really be pursuing the tribal leaders of the black tribes in Africa who were the ones who captured them and sold them into slavery.
Shouldn’t it be take into consideration that in Rosa Parks’ era, there were no outlets for her to take advantage of and create change. She was forced to “disrupt everyone’s day” because there was no equal opportunity for her to petition her gvt. effectively. We now have Countless outlets and resources to make changes legislatively. Violence and anarchy are no longer needed to elicit change
Exactly. Violence can be justified when it is against authoritarian tyranny. But we should avoid using it when there are more civilized means like voting and strike.
Ò ʌ Ó „voting“ yeah, just vote green parties, this will totally do the change as fast as we need it to be to save the climate. between those 4 years of legislation, i stare at my self in the mirror, smiling, because i know how civilized i am :-)
@@odb1612 I support Bernie Sanders and Justice Democrats. I'm saying destroying the system with physical violence will almost certainly backfire when so many people are not ready.
@@odb1612 save the climate from watch? Us or a tiny bit of warming over more than 200years thats will make the world less warm than it was at the end of the last ice age? The green will love us to live like 15th centry peasants
I watch a lot of political and intellectual things on RU-vid. This was one of the best and most thought provoking conversations I’ve seen in a long time. Awesome content and interviewing here sir.
Alex O'Connor, excellent job! What a great interviewer. Kept Douglas on his toes in some parts which is no mean feat!! Great job for both parties. I got sucked in. Very enjoyable
I always find it curious when people are more concerned about the over-reach or arguably sub-optimal solutions that they are about the actual problem itself.
douglas seems to be saying the kind of racism, transphobia etc claimed by activists doesn't exist. and he's also saying their solutions don't work, rather than that they are sub-optimal
@@urbangorilla33 y'all misrepresented him. he said that they do exist, but are not endemic enough to warrant the actions taken and beliefs held of many people who fall under those groups. his solution is to calm down and think historically and facilitate public discourse in a way that can garner wider support instead of blaming and name-calling endlessly. not that I agree with everything he says, but I do like this levelheaded view on things.
@@georget.5048 That may be and I generally do agree with a sober and deliberate approach, and I'm not in favor of name-calling and vilifying. Still, he seems disingenuous to me.
Usually I stumble across videos and wonder 'How in the world does he have that many subscribers?' But with you, I can see why so many sub to you. You've really earned it being good at what you do. Well done!
I've got to hand it to you, your steel man devil's advocacy game is on point. I've seen tons of interviews with Douglas Murray and the rest of the IDW crowd. It's very rare that they seriously grill each other though. You really kept him on his toes. I really wasn't expecting this to be as challenging as it was, not just for Douglas, but for me too. @53:27 - This bit made me smile. A bit of old skool athiest logic thrown in for good measure.
tbh, I thought some of the questions were kind of petty and a waste of time really. for example, "what is it that makes it a thing that exists within a culture (about racism, sexism etc.) rather than a cultural phenomena?" obviously A LOT! scale/proportion is the obvious answer here.
"if you think that it's false then you have your own proving to do" Time for Alex to prove that God doesn't exist. Also, I agree with L M. Alex presented himself as either ignorant or purposely obtuse. There is no other way around it.
I never thought I would see a smart leftist try to have a conversation again with someone on the right and I enjoyed it. The left is currently going throught kind of what the right went through around 2003. Paranoid war mongering, trying to silence opponents because of the insecure opinions they have.
Fantastic interview. I couldn't encourage this type of dialog and conversation enough. It's so refreshing to listen to two people respectfully discuss ideas together.
Douglas Murray. Brilliant, respectful and patient. I hope your audience reads his book and opens up to exploring thoughts other than what they've been taught for so long. I like his gentle way of saying he wants you not to waste your lifetime unweaving the fluid rainbow and working out exactly which colours go where. It's a damn shame and a horrible waste of time.
Because Alex doesn’t have a passionate conviction in the arguments he’s making. So there is a lack of emotion. Most debates are between two people who care deeply about their arguments, to the point where they define their characters.
@@FigmentHF That is actually an excellent point. Which is a good thing for the most part but I just wish Alex could have pushed back a bit more because so much of what Murray said was either incoherent or hypocritical...so so many strawmen and misrepresentations too. Alex seems like a good guy though.
Because people are too often motivated by wanting to win, as well as getting applause and approval, rather than being motivated by a wish to learn. Certainty is a foolish standpoint to take. This conversational method is far more effective.
And yet today's British taxpayers, who had no personal involvement with slavery, were on the hook until recently for paying off British public debt incurred when the government compensated slaveowners in order to abolish and set slaves free. Murray knows this but such historical facts would get in the way of his grifting.
I am impressed that the interviewer listened to his guest and challenged him on what he said rather then ignoring his answer saying "right" and then jumping to the next question on his script.
Thank you, CosmicSkeptic, for being willing to have a civil dialogue on such controversial topics, even if you are in disagreement with Murray's point of view. We need more of this. My hat is off to you for demonstrating genuine courtesy and willingness to at least listen to the other side. So little of this seems to happen these days. For this reason you have my respect.
Alex is not remotely adversarial here, but he is making Murray work uncommonly hard for his supper, something one doesn't see too often in those settings you normally find the man. It's not Murray's fault that he tends to thrive when his opponents are clutching at their pearls and it does no good to fasten onto his haughtier tendencies when he is saying a great deal that's worthy of our deeper attention. Alex threads that needle.
@@ayebee6523 Person A: All apples are red Person B: Evidence? Person C: Evidence that they didn't provide evidence, person B? How on Earth do you expect them to provide evidence of something that doesn't exist. That's absurd.
@@Avenger222 Thank you for noticing that it's absurd, that's the point. Douglas Murray can provide evidence and has done so Mleew was being absurd and I was pointing that out but I guess that flew over your head. Your analogy is wrong by the way, Person A would be saying all men, white etc are evil, Douglas would be saying woah slow down there champ Mleew is person C screeching show me evidence but I guess that went over your head as well.
The claim that intersectionality (which he entirely mischaracterizes in every way) can't be "true" because sometimes there's a clash between different groups makes no sense in any way. The whole point of intersectionality is to show how complex each person is and to inspire solidarity among discriminated against groups. Taking the fact that some women are threatened by trans people, despite there being empirically no threat by the way, holds no bearing on the claim that women and trans women are fighting a very similar battle that dovetails perfectly. Take an historical example. When the New Deal and the labor movement won advances for the working class, there were a ton of people that felt threatened by racial minorities and demanded that they be excluded. And they usually were. Does that change the fact that they were all workers being exploited by industrialists? Does that make their struggles less in alignment? Does that demonstrably disprove intersectionality? No, that would be an absurd claim to make then and it's no more reasonable now.
I mean, he's literally saying that different groups being treated better simultaneously isn't possible because of very fringe concerns. This is not a serious argument. Gay people are being supplanted because of trans people? Trans people existing goes against everything feminism has stood for over 100 years? This is a transparently unserious person, his only critique of intersectionality (which is an analytical frame, not a set of prescriptions as he claims) is that 1% of the population doesn't conform to their presumed gender so therefore... what? He never actually says what the implication is, he just says that friction between groups, which has existed during every stage of social advancement through history, disproves that... all oppression should be "unlocked". It's incoherent reactionary garbage.
It's just so odd that neither of these guys know what intersectionality is. Why complain about it if you have no conception of it that makes any sense? To say intersectionality can't work because it would necessitate doing everything at once, and that's no way to address specific problems... that's not how anything works. Why would they just assume that people pointing out how different identities contain intersections that compound would have any bearing at all on how each problem affecting those people would be addressed? It's like saying we shouldn't have meteorologists to tell us about snow and flash flooding because that's no way to address snow removal and flash flooding respectively. It makes no sense.
Never anyone else fault, we don't actually find fault lines in the arguments put forth because they get distorted and redirected and obfuscated.So, even if they wrest gracious enough to say, let's call it all off, it's worth asking why someone who is NOT transexual would be willing to endure that kind of torment.
MichaelKingsfordGray the radical left will be on the wrong side of history, for their grotesque defence of Islam and sharia law - which literally sees women put on death row in Pakistan for blasphemy and gay people tortured in Chechnya.
@@JonJon-rz5el tHe RaDiCaL lEfT... don’t you think it’s rather all Western societies, regardless of their governments, who avoid to sanction these theocratic dictatorships, because they have to kiss their asses in order to be able to continue to pillage the said dictatorships of their primary resources?
Exactly, EA. And "the left" arent on the side of the Islamists. Some maybe but not the majority. But yeah, the status quo, America TM, has always backed the Islamists. Saudi Arabia are among the worst and we kiss their asses like nobodys business. So, we only vilify the ones we dont need, that's how history will be written
@@EA-js1me I totally agree with you on the western point. Still he's right, the radical left or some groups of the left are in a severe cognitive dissonance (like my sister who's muslim but with a lifestyle that would put her on a death row in some radical muslim country) Most of the time on the basis of a supposed islamophobia. Here's an exemple:ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-INZfPHFzFAI.html
1:19:27 you say you'll have somebody on who represents the other side, has that already happened? If yes where can I find the conversation and if no when should I expect it to be available?
I am sure it is not the case, but the interview makes Murray sound like his point of view is entirely informed by anecdote. He also seems to miss that the whole point of protests is to disrupt society in an inconvenient way to force people to reexamine their attitudes. Every supporter of the status quo says protest is fine so long as it does not disrupt anything, but If you can ignore it it is ineffective.
I agree 100%. Murray's arguments were often tangential and mischaracterized the movements to a great extent. Hes a boomer who's hasnt viewed himself or his positions critically. Hes so set in his ways
It seems clear to me that some protests are a facade to divert the attention from the real problem that truly oppress the people. We see many protest about climate or gender topics but when it come to distribute fairly ressources or to put down a corrupt governement in favor of the elite it is violently repressed and portrayed badly in the mainstream media and from most influential people that wont get advantage from it.
That's a straw man of his position. He never made a direct stand against protest, he was arguing for more effective methods than stopping random traffic for instance. He's arguing for humility and endeavoring to understand the historical context. Anecdotal evidence isn't without merit, especially when discussing the nuances of societal/cultural modalities. Empiral quantification is lacking. Even polling data is easily manipulated by the way questions are worded.
@@lukemcguire6363 What a simplistic, dismissive, and silly perspective on Murray. Murray isn't anywhere near being a boomer, btw. He's actually at the tail end of being a gen x'er. He's much closer to being a millennial than a boomer. Your generation will continue to dismiss its elders at its own peril. I say that as someone who's rooting for you. The crisis in sense making and meaning has the potential to be catastrophic.
Very good interview. That is the best questioning of Douglas Murry I have seen. Questions were very insightful especially the follow up questioning and made Murry work harder than I have ever seen. As always Murry was spot on with his answers but it was nice to see him have to work for it.
@Anti Cucho From what I remember when he did do that, the interviewer called him on it which is why i felt it was such a good interview. Murry had to work at giving his explanation for that exact reason. At the end of the day though there will be at least two sides to an argument and Murry is happy to defend his stance and the other supports cancel culture.
Douglas Murray is my favourite intellectual to listen to. I resonate with most of what he says, not just because it’s based around common sense but because he is learned in the subjects he discusses and makes you think. This interviewer is good and you can tell Douglas is enjoying the interaction. I listened to a debate Douglas had to arrive on screen because of covid - it was held in Amsterdam. His opponent in the debate was flavier from Switzerland who was muddled in liberalism, she proudly gave a 30 minutes list of what she wants and insulted Douglas openly, and when he asked her questions she couldn’t answer him. It was definitely a debate far beneath an intellectual mind like Douglas’s.
I love how Douglas Murray can be so inflamatory and lets Say politically incorrect, and at the same time be so collected and calm and remain unapologetic Such a delightful interview
Take it from an actual Brit: no he's not. His accent, manners, class and privilege are not typical of your average Englishman's. He's an Eton-educated, pantomime toff who fetishes illiberal right wing populist regimes like Orban's and provides cover for climate deniers (I say this as someone who agrees with him on lots of issues - immigration, the trans stuff, the woke stuff). He is a reactionary masquerading as a conservative, the right wing mirror image of the far-left woke types he despises - just as blinkered, just as prejudiced. @@misanthrophex
I don't love how he can be so unapologetic. He's voicing opinions, some of them derogatory and harmful, as if they are correct just because they're his.
If you notice his body language in parts of the interview, you can see that Douglas is not feeling especially comfortable with the counter arguments being put forward by Alex, which I think, among many other things, makes this interview stand out.
I think this is an amazing interview. Regardless of my disagreements (which I admit are quite strong), with Murray, I think that it's valuable to talk about things
@@jamesedwards366 well, I'd rather get too much into it on tur internet, it's hard to have a good conversation with someone in this venue. But I'm a gross socialist liberal, so I'm pretty partial to intersectionality, I'm not convinced that trans rights infringes on gay rights, and a few other things. But like I said, I'd rather not discuss it much through RU-vid comments. Anyways, hopes this gives ya a good idea of what I think.
@@jamesedwards366 I think I understand what you are saying, but if my response seems strange, please clarify. It's my personal belief that we should not try to convince children of any pre-conceived gender roles or constructs. I have no problem with educating them on what sexes are, and if people want to raise their children as "boys and girls", then I can't really tell you not to, it's their child. However, as I said, I would not do that with my own child. I am still undecided on weather I would use traditional pronouns for my child. There are pros and cons each way. If a child shows to be what I consider "feminine" behavioral traits, I would probably not do much of anything. I am not in a place to decided what it means to be "feminine", so, just because I think it, doesn't mean I should tell a child they should or shouldn't be a certain way because of that. I am currently against using hormones on children though. Does any of that answer your question?
Thats his whole point. Talking about issues yes, always good. Having same issues defining an entire generation and filling almost all talk space up, is not.
This was honestly one of the most thought provoking conversation around these subjects. It is my first time listening to the podcast. I really appreciated the way Alex responded to many of the statements offering an alternative point of view and the way you can look at these issues, which at the moment both sides seem incapable of doing. Really enjoyed the talk Alex and ill be sure to listen to more talks, thanks.
@@asimhussain8716 I am so sick and tired of seeing comments like this. I 100% agree, it really annoys me. Theres heaps of videos of people like Matt Walsh or Jordan Peterson talking to someone like Joe Rogan (2 quick examples i came up with on the top of my head) where they say some of the most stupid, uncontested bs ever. But since their followers cant even disagree with anything they say they just end up spouting this nonsense that theyre glad people can talk about this openly. Like ffs. People watch these videos and dont learn anything new or bother trying to.
I don’t find this intellectually honest at all. Funny. He seems to have a clear agenda and has it wrapped up in a very pseudo-intellectual oratory style. It really screams of an imposter, without knowing much about the guy.
Watching this in 2023. I wonder if either man here would've guessed how fast things have gone out of control with Trans. "Decadence of thought" to be sure. This sums up the West. We've been blessed with such wealth and freedom, we now sit and reinvent our reality...we're that spoiled and hollow.
I would have guessed it in 2008. That cancer was diagnosable a long time ago if you were paying attention. Hell, some people could predict it 50 years ago. The woke cult is not a new thing at all.
45:27 I think it was right to challenge Murray on this because it is quite a weasely tactic, an example I find useful is age of consent laws. Just because drawing a line is tricky doesn't mean we abandon the whole project.
Nah, rape is clearly defined as the need of consensual penetration, other wise it’s assault, and assault requires physical touch. These are all extremely cut and dry where they lay and where they start. I understand what he was saying, drawing lines is difficult but it’s got to be done (like arbitrary cash values for income tax brackets) but I don’t think this example was substantial.
A while ago I may have nodded in agreement of the points about gender, but when I find out that this is being seriously questioned scientifically in the fields such as genetics, neurobiology and endocrinology, I really have to sit up and listen. I now have to return to the default position of "I don't know" and go from there. I may find out I was right all along or maybe find out I was wrong. I quite like it when my strongly held beliefs are on shaky ground. It means that I may just learn something.
@@warbler1984 You won't get an answer. There is no metric for gender. The Neuro science angle was debunked by Gina Rippon who after studying thousands of brain scans found nothing. Most of the "science" is coming from the social sciences so don't hold your breath.
Gender is one of those things that feels very intuitively obvious, so attempts by scientists to communicate what's *actually* happening just aren't believed by conservatives. Which is pretty disappointing, since, like, what's the point in reading science, if you're only ever going to *believe* the science when it affirms the beliefs that you *already* have?
@@TheNoodleGod9001 In science what seems to be intuitively obvious usually turns out to be objectively incorrect. I would say in light of the lack of any quantitative way of defining gender skepticism is a healthy approach until proven otherwise.
“I think the attempt to claim suffering because a forebearer suffered, unbelievably unwise thing because I don’t see how you close it”. Israel…that’s Israel.
As I've been with Alex since a very early point in this youtube adventure, I am utterly fascinated by (and voraciously curious about) the process of getting high-profile voices such as Murray and Dawkins on his podcast. I smile with pride at his growing success and near-limitless potential going forward.
Degrees from oxford open a lot of doors. Hes actually deserving though, imo. He'll really go far. His ability to self reflect and critique his own views really puts him ahead of all these old reactionary types. According to Murray progressives are always wrong and destructive. Alex clearly sees the value in progressive reforms
First guns, then "assault silverware" and butter knives, next arms will be illegal in the UK. I mean, do you REALLY need arms, hands, and opposable thumbs? Those are the foundation of nearly violent act after all. Wish I could embed Dwight from the Office trying to drink coffee with his feet.
@@TexasWench There may also be the issue of letter openers on that list especially with wordy head cases like this two. It starts with a perfectly respectful conversation but ends in violence, rape and cannibalism every time.
Christ, what's up with all this "I'm not gay" shit? Any reasonable person knows you can acknowledge someone of the same sex is attractive without wanting to fuck them. Stuff like this actually makes me slightly dubious of how much progress has been made in the progression of sexual dialogue.
@@harryradley Chill out. Ever considered it's part of the joke? As in the added benefit of someone saying it who isn't sexually interested in the person, enhances the compliment as it now supposedly isn't mere flattery but a statement of fact. As such it adds comic release after an otherwise creepy comment --> it's a joke, stop projecting.
I strongly disagree, that Simplicity could not run a complex system. In fact in many cases simple rules can make something very complex running. The best example are computers. A transistor just lets electricity flow one way, if it flows also another way. It's as simple as that and you just put them together to an and gate and such things. The principles are very simple. But build together they run a very complex thing like a computer. If you break something down to what it is based on everything is simple. The only problem is to find the base of things.
@@Duconi social dynamics even if you factor in the number of inherently different people, their conditions, motivations, history etc etc. Simple solutions can not possibly broad stroke over all no matter how fundamental you get, unlike your computer example this stuff does not exist in a metaphorical vacuum and gives no credit to the incremental evolution of the status quo. Changes should be considered and careful rather than kicking over the system and starting again.
@@gavwan So going completely new ways after a revolutionary change don't happen often in western world. The only exception in the last years maybe is the Brexit. There you have an abrupt chance not knowing the outcome. The most other changes come more slowly. At least also because the people have to accept the changes, else they vote for another party the next time.
Oh bud, you couldn't be more wrong. Read/listen to the audiobook: "Chaos: Making a New Science" by James Gleick. You will understand that it is actually the other way around. Simple rules can generate the most complex systems in the universe.
Thanks for this installment of the podcast. It's very interesting to hear extended conversations with people who have views that conflict with your own. I don't understand why this style of friendly debate and exploration of ideas isn't accepted by everybody.
Because thanks to stupid Social Justice Warriors, everyone is extremely polarized to the Right or the Left and therefore, we are living in a time when this polarization of the political spectrum has played a huge part in dividing the population instead of encouraging both left-wingers and right-wingers to have a civil and culturally rich discussion. You'd better enjoy this interview because at this rate, interviews like this one might be less and less frequent due to social media, news and entertainment becoming too far-left for even moderate leftist people to handle the situation
Wow, I've listened to about four different interviews with Murray, but this one is the best one. Alex asks the correct questions the right way. Tough, tough interviewer without being antagonistic. He's just getting right down to the meat and potatoes.
2/3rds of the way through and I'm thoroughly enjoying this. Well done Alex, playing devils advocate, presenting the nuance of the counter arguments and asking for clarification. It makes for an infinitely more enjoyable and complex conversation. I don't know if I've seen a better interview of Douglas.
Douglas needs to reanalyze his stance because the moment alex counters him, he would go into a thought like a dyslexic child who cannot understand the book. I've seen jordan peterson also going into such a trance when countered with questions about income inequality and capitalism. They just sit confused and are like, "yeah...what are we gonna do, huh...".
@@ss_avsmtyes. Attack a gay man. Because you have no rebuttal and prove you're a petulant unintelligent child over and over and over before you end your comment that did nothing bit prove you have no argument
@@ss_avsmt strange, I feel like what I just read was written by a dyslexic child. What exactly do you propose to the problem that everyone doesn't have the exact same amount of everything? Tell us... When Douglas reanalyzes his stance, where are you hoping he lands? What ARE we going to do indeed?
Interesting that Douglas says that gender should not be determined based on an individual's feelings. As a gay man, my sexual orientation is based entirely on how I feel, and not the rigid genetic determination of the role of my genitals.
Most interviews I’ve seen just appear to give Douglas Murray a sympathetic platform unchallenged, A pleasant change to see him have to defend his views
I have noticed that Douglas Murray is a person that I almost always disagree with -in substance and in style- yet whom I still like to listen to. Especially when he is in conversation with a person that I almost always tend to align with, like the young giant Alex O'Connor. Great stuff!
