Debating Douglas Murray on Gender, Reparations, and Extinction Rebellion 

Nice to hear from a reasonable person on the trans side

@@RedWolfVids it's unintentionagent and harmful can be more harmful n8tbto

@@RedWolfVids Welcome to the concept of the silent majority.

Need more trans people like you, and have your voice heard.

@@stevenwu235 yeah, show me that definition.

Murray features in msm daily. I agree he’s rarely challenged. The interviewer here does well.

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....

@@maria49236 Dems< Oh please you right-wing FOX twat!

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.

Yes, I got her via the same route. Also very impressed by this host.

That question works both ways.

Because he is physically attracted to men. Duh.

​@@shortscenes9338how so?

@@shortscenes9338so does your mum.

Who says I am geh?

So true !!!! A neutral background would be better.

I am buying some

it’s like that white dot illusion where you only see the dots when you’re not looking directly at them

😂 It's very loud. It's nice though.

Me too . Mad crazy wallpaper,totally distracting

It was supposed to a debate not a interview...

@@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.

I am flabbergasted. Absolutely love these talks. This level of intellect.

Agreed. Bright guy.

Just starting now. If you're right then I'm totally on board. We need more discussions like the one you described.

The thing is there is a difference between the right view and the opposite view. They are light and dark. Truth and absence of truth.

@@ShareAMeal77🎯🎯🎯

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?”

​@@keithmackenzie7680Reparations = Systemic racism

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.

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.

It is maybe not your turn to understand it. Maybe you should just accept it. What do you have to lose, except asking for someone's pronouns?

​@@4984christianit is problematic! Because those pronouns don't make any sense. Just accept it means just be stupid.

Unfortunately, certain people lack any properties that would facilitate learning anything of worth.

@fynes leigh It [Well] serves to directly quote Douglas Murray's statement in its totality. Something you may find doesn't happen to often on Twitter. Now Twitter, if you aren't aware, is a "social media utility" quite comparable to a sound bite in form in that it requires all posts or replies to be 280 characters or less. It's a cesspool of vermin all seething in this orgy of outrage and virtue signaling. Lovely place really. If you haven't acquainted yourself with its majesty, I advise you to create an account immediately. You'll come to love yourself and fellow man more fully. This I guarantee to you. Would a guy with the number of the beast as a profile picture ever lie to a stranger on RU-vid? I dont think so.

@fynes leigh I can't tell if you're being ironic or if you're genuinely confused.

I'm surprised he admitted it, Elliot

Really? Here in the US Twitter feeds are national news and drive public policy creation

‘I agree with that’

@White Brad Bad damn straight! (I love saying that all a gay man)

I came for the dialogue, but I stayed for the eye candy. :-)

the Jordan Peterson effect.

And suddenly he is like 1000 times more attractive... ... Strange !

I'd smash

I too was completely hypnotised by that back drop, I want it in my room now.

It is merkaba...sparkle of life

³³³Cube³³³

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.

Abzurd indeed 🐸

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

Yes

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

@@gazlives Well, he's wrong on the first point, and if he has better suggestion on the latter, then let's hear it. With these types we rarely do.

@@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.

Its incredible that this kid Is only 20 years old

@@estefaniaboujon6830 nah you can tell he is 20. Educated? yes. Indoctrinated? surely.

@@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

I was thinking the same. And looking for a comment like this. And then it would turn around. Giving the decendat of the punched person the right to do the same.

I don't think that's the right way to frame reparations, however. If, for example, people were proposing a "white people tax" which would be used to actively take stuff from white people and give it to black people, with the goal of making white people suffer and lose quality of life, then you might have a point. But that's not what anyone is proposing. Money is already taxed under the status quo, and is taxed from everyone no matter what their skin colour happens to be. Pro-reparations people simply think that some of that money-pot should be dedicated to helping out historically marginalised groups. There's no punching and no vengeance.

@@SuperSupermanX1999 There is absolutely punching and vengeance. A small group of wealthy elites both owned and benefitted from slavery. Yet, those who had nothing to do with it, in particular, the Irish, are forced to pay for the sins they themselves endured. 800 years of British oppression and slavery and now they have to pay for British slavery because they are presently considered white. How absolutely predictable, the elite forcing the plebs to pay the price for their greed and power-mongering while accumulating all the virtue creds to themselves.

@@zeddez1005 Yes, If things were very well documented there could of course be more concrete discussion (even that is a discussion if we should be punished for our ancestors deeds. In what way and in what crimes? Do we issue a special court and system for this? How can we build it to not spiral out of control and divide the citizens even more and thus damage countries future?). Because if it were well documented who did what, who owned what and how the money transfered. But I doubt this being the case. It will be many dark areas I believe. And what happens to people who fall into this dark area unjustily so? I realldy do have concerns this creates a rift more than we have today in the western world. I think western world needs to become more proud of what they are and a bit more nationalistic. But still owning up to past events. We need to move forward as well. Germany lost two world wars and twice they recovered (no they didnt get to keep all they took. Germany got cut up between the countries who went agaisnt Germany). Japan got bombed twice by the atom bomb and is doing great despite that

I'm surprised how often people gloss over this point. Fundamentally our experience is individual. We can have a look at the hangovers of group oppression but it is not the main form of experience yet people seem very quick to presume a collective "you" and "us" is most appropriate when speaking about experience. The Irish suffered oppression on multiple fronts, however I did not, and I'm glad my parents didn't try to pass any grievances to me from our family history, I'd consider that stunting and borderline child abuse if they did.

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.

America 2 dum

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

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

Did you recognize that you can build stars with that pattern and a part of the star is also part of the star next to it?

@@Duconi I didn't notice that, but I actually was trying to fold the shapes and the patterns onto themselves in my head, like folding a cardboard box.

You wankers. I wish hadn't read this as now I'm folding stars in to stars in to stars in to fucking more stars

After reading five comments it's official: This is the realest talk on this entire comment section

I agree. Scruffy Douglas is beautiful.

Definitely seductive. Cosmic drank some water so early in the interview. He was THIRSTY.

@@FoxyFAsh Actually, to the list of accolades now bestowed upon our beautiful Douglas and his new look, I would add HOT AS FUCK!

@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.

@Laurence D dude, you see enemies where there are none.

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

They’re both master debaters.

Right? He makes me proud to be a Brit. And I'm a Christian black woman

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.

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.

@@johnnysturgis6904 Well, I speak much worse than I write! - but thank you, Sir, very gracious of you!

Our cultrue does not and has never lacked that.

Oh they have chemistry alright... who is the top do you think?

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.

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 )

You are blowing so much smoke up his rectum when he’s just a poor mans C Hitchens.

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 . 👍🏽

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!

@@heydannypark cringe

​@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.

​@@dontworryaboutit5490 wow what a great point, excellent rebuttal

​@@briangueringer3673 being gay doesn't absolve him from anti lgbtq bigotry. Jewish nazis also exist.

RWSB1000 Ha, you don't seem to like the idea of him being debated and challenged by someone like CosmicSkeptic

RWSB1000 Indeed! More of a genuine, probing interview. And very well executed

RWSB1000 fuckin SNOWFLAKE

I think he wants to distance himself from Murray's views

@@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.

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.

That's because Alex agrees with Douglas, he is just playing Devil's Advocate

Yes! Exactly, I like how Alex will sometimes play devils advocate with his guests

​@@GeroG3N what gives you the impression he is playing Devil's Advocate?

I just wish he’d move a step further. He exposed Murray a few times without Murray realising it. It would have been good if he’d let him know.

Can I agree, even though I am a homophobe?

They are both quite handsome 🤷🏻‍♂️

No

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

@@sneesus98 wqw Www

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!

WELL SAID, good sir!!!

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.

This is exactly why I believe history is important and too often ignored.

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

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.

Haha! Well done, and well said.

that's because often times it truly is white guys pretending to be black just to attempt to lessen the perception of bigotry inherent in their views

Same.

He's not always that good, if he's improved. I'll have a look

The purpose is to dig down, play devils advocate.

@@larjkok1184 nope. Alex actually believes these things and the only reason he played friendly is to not embarrass Dougie any further. At one point around 40:30 Alex nervously laughs because Dougie is having trouble even stringing up a sentence. Doug is a pathetic excuse for a person

"I liked it because i didn't have to think about whether i was wrong or not"

@@Jozaaaa Lmao you could play a movie on the side of a skyscraper in 4K ultra HD with projection that powerful

@@Jozaaaa Out of the few hundred comments I read during this interview yours was the most uncharitable, rude, confident and wrong, in a way that only a true ignoramus could muster. Congrats!

I'm a big leftie. Douglas Murray would be a lot more likeable if he did interviews like this more often than the usual right wing nut jobs

@@kratos.8151 How u like ripping Hercules apart?

exceptional interviewer

You haven't seen it much because the RU-vid algorithm doesn't like it.

@@asimhussain8716 Dayum broooo

Haha yeh he's hench

I am sure he fancies Alex too cos he's objectively pretty cute

He literally doesn't even look like the same person. Just shows that a tan and some scruff can make a person go from geek to hot.

I bet Douglas picks up a rock every time someone calls him a name... he's done a lot of lifting.

from twink to bear

He conceded the point because we live in a democracy, but it has absolutely no utility when inarticulate people have no idea what they are talking about are protesting things that they have no real personal connection to.

@@jaimearviso4642 You either missed the point or have to apply your idea of 'no utility' to Douglas Murray also. He said Extinction Rebellion protesters should be well versed in what they're protesting before they act on it, but was willing to dismiss the gender question on the biology of chromosomes; a science he couldn't demonstrate his own understanding in. It's not democracy that made him cede the point, the interviewer walked him into a position where he could understand and admit that a person doesn't need to fully grasp the science to protest. If he doesn't concede that point, then he can't say the science of chromosomes is 'understood' and that the onus is on others to prove there's more to the conversation than the biology. And, while personal connection really doesn't have any bearing in my opinion, Douglas Murray doesn't have a personal connection with transvestism, or Extinction Rebellion; beyond blocking his traffic route I guess. So either the point was conceded because it was a good point made honestly, or Murray must also be one of the 'inarticulate people who have no idea what they're talking about and are protesting things that they have no real personal connection with.'

@@rawr70101 1) Yes, I agree. The kids are ignorant. 2) No. The gender thing Douglas is showing how the LEFT has drifted far from science and into madness. It will not serve Alex's generation to go down that road. 3) Douglas is only conceding a theoretical point only. But in no way does he see what is really happening as being useful. If you noticed his tone, he is talking down to Alex as being of a younger generation...like a nephew or grandson. 4) No, he does have a personal connection. He is gay man who admits that the LG and T are not allies in the LGBT movement. It's only gonna muddy the waters and destroy any gains that the 2nd wave feminists have made. 5) NOTE: Douglas Murray is a hypocrite in my opinion because homosexuality is a feeling based thing no different than a person who identifies as the opposite gender. But this is besides the point.

@@jaimearviso4642 Homosexuality is a "feeling based thing" what? You do realise gay people are born that way right?

@@brownie43212 Any rational person would be agnostic on whether homosexuals are born that way, become that way after birth, or some combination on the continuum in between. Scientists have spent a nontrivial amount of time exploring biological correlates to homosexuality to no avail.

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.

*your Xxx

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.

Lomax did he tho...?

I sure like it when people are polite to white supremacists! Had we done that in the 1930s, WW2 would never have happened! Idiot.

He's a very traditional Englishman.

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

@@pn2124 Born in London and went to Eton. He's definitely English

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.

​@@Spiritof_76Don't feed this troll, future people

I only responded on this message because it’s older and maybe easier to spot

In essence, because it takes a long 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.

@Deferential Introspector I never said it was

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.

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.

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.

​@@patrickkilroy6512West Brit. Go suckle from London's teet. 😂

​@@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.

Yes, what he said

I think this fanbase leans kinda right and he's def worried about pissing them off

@@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.

@@gekkobear1650 Isn't Alex a leftist?

@@jacksonbrown4112 So you don't believe in free examination of ideas. Quite sad really.

Any expert in debate could challenge Douglas Murray. Look at who he debates. It's never anyone who can in any way challenge him. He will not debate Finkelstein for example.

@@aidanchapman8548you’re kidding? Fink can’t hold up against Dershowitz. He’s a useful idiot for Sheik Nabil Kaouk and his other Hezbollah backers. He should just go back to Lebanon and live with them permanently

If I was gay, let me tell ya... Rock that world.

@@austinlittle6154 stop objectifying this man's beard...

I support his ideas and his beard.

Is this the circle jerk? Been looking for you guys

I don't support his ideas, but I DO support the beard.

"So far"

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

@@brockmeeks1695 true, non - binary identity is not credible and provable by any science whatsoever, the onus is on them to prove this bizarre notion.

@TheWhiteWhale i am making the argument that the issue is much more broad and complex than the guy suggests.

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)

I think only 1.6% of whites owned slaves in America

Was considering buying, will now make sure if I do it's him narrating. That's a big plus in my book.

I haven't ever listened to an audiobook. Would you recommend it for my first? I do love Douglas's perspective

Saud Mujahid Absolutely recommend it. You won’t regret it.

I hated the book. It was shallow and desperate.

@Lars Jensen like Peterson with 12 Rules.