My wife and I have spent the past few years unsuccessfully having fertility treatment here in London. Some of the clinics give you the opportunity to watch pornography while producing sperm samples. One of the films on offer was "Best of British Big Tits Vol 2". If that really was the best of British Big Tits, then I'm not surprised that the British porn industry hasn't overtaken the American one yet.
The porn I was provided with at the IVF clinic reminded me of that scene in the movie “Up!”, where they show the man handling a bunch of balloons, and a woman fiddling with a tripod.
First time I did it I was shown to the rooms where you give the sample and the nurse opened one door to show me in and then quickly shut it; poor guy on the other side had obviously forgotten to lock the door.
In a moment of weakness, I once ordered "Tits of Essex" from a mail-order catalogue. The book that arrived detailed the bearded tits, long-tailed tits, and other tit-birds native to the Essex region. And that's how I got into bird watching.
I don't know if it still exists, but at least in Southern small towns when I was a teen there was a publication entitled Juggs: The Dirtiest Tit Mag in America I once got my hands on....it seemed to provoke more laughter than desire!
re: Murray's desire for a term for deliberately inserting inflammatory ideas into the discourse and refusing to defend them. May I suggest "intellectual arson"?
“Discursive” has two meanings: the first pertains to participation in the discourse. I think that’s more appropriate than “intellectual”, as that wildly inflates the level these arsonists are working on.
The second meaning is to digress from subject to subject. This is, I think, characteristic of these sort of arsonists. Internet rage moves on to a new target in a matter of days or weeks. Few scandals retain interest for long, and many of the primary antagonists are suddenly on to something new.
It should be noted that when Boris Johnson had ‘people over for drinks’ he was pleading for the public to observe rules that essentially kept them from visiting dying, lonely relatives and a host of other restrictions. There was a human event to this story; namely hypocrisy. Nicely finessed by Moynihan there.
Agree that what Boris did is much worse than simply not following rules, but also you have to admit that it's funny that the UK government fell essentially for something every major blue state governor did.
Jan 15, 2023·edited Jan 16, 2023Liked by Matt Welch
Further to Moynihan’s point about the end of the smoking ban revealing just how awful the bars smelled without noxious cigarette smoke to mask the foul odor - MM’s comments sparked this distant memory: one of the unintended consequences of the smoking ban was that the newly fresh air allowed patrons to smell ........ the body of the missing person hidden between the walls.
‘“Police were summoned to the popular nightclub after neighbors in the trendy downtown neighborhood began complaining of a foul smell, the National Post said.” If not for a recent citywide ban on smoking in bars, they might never have found the body, police said.’
I enjoyed this episode and thought it was quite good. But I have one fairly major gripe...
They commit the same error I see a lot of conservatives and libertarians commit and I can't help but think it's some sort of motivated reasoning. If I were to spell out the hidden assumptions it would be:
1. Both parties are in a good state and being nice and copacetic.
2. The left does or believes something crazy.
3. The only error in the right is that they take the bait and become reactionary and do something crazy in response.
In reality I think the truth is more along the lines of one of the following two notions (or a combination)
1. Both parties have been doing stupid things and it's impossible to tell where along this war of escalation which one was more at fault than the other. But we are escalating our mutual stupidity.
2. Republicans have done plenty of stupid things that were stupid on their own and not just responses to the left's stupidity.
(I'm taking it as a given that the left has been doing stupid things, we all agree on that.)
There is no point in attacking the impotent. Conservativism is in schism if not crisis. What is not deranged is dejected. If you want to see someone taking the piss out of the soap opera with Sesame Street characters which the Republican party was devolved into you can look literally anywhere else.
The political landscape is a shitshow with lots to see. It's okay to look around.
Of course it's okay to look around but I don't think it's doing anyone any favors to have double standards. Murray seems just as unscrupulous as many of the people they rail against on the pod but isn't held to the same standard. I think it does a disservice to the points raised by Murray that are valid
Murray seems just as unscrupulous as many of the people railed against by our hosts. I would love to hear you expound upon this point because I have followed him with some interest for just over two decades and frankly I don't see it. Like phases of the moon I have seen his views alter in shape but never consistency and while he has largely lost the hope and optimism which effused his world view as a younger man he did not abandon them lightly or without cause. Things we can view from a safe distance through a prism of detachment and idle abstraction he had to experience within discomforting propinquity. He was an idealist who has been forced to contend with difficult realities and the struggle has taken an incredible toll on him. He has been steadfast in standing by his friends and colleagues without any second thought to cost or ramification and always endeavored to do all which was within his power to help them. Like Sir Roger Scruton, one of the last, great minds of the 20th century who refused to play hind to the hounds of an unappreciative public and would have likely spent his final years in frustrated isolation without the support Douglas offered through his position at the Spectator. . .But lets set all that aside. I am intensely curious to hear about your grievances against him, and the double standards you see in treating an invited guest with a measure indulgence.
I'm mostly familiar with Murray's work through speaking appearances and so haven't kept tabs on all the times I noticed him exaggerating or misrepresenting in order to make a point but I've come across excerpts from his books that seem beyond the pale as well. Maybe in context they make more sense or maybe you can offer a defense of these points? These are not my articles but someone has compiled some misrepresentations in The Strange Death of Europe across two separate articles, starting with this one: https://medium.com/@Reg_Left_Media/douglas-murray-and-the-strange-death-of-an-honest-argument-part-1-124fa92e565c
Beyond that, much of his approach seems contradictory. It strikes me that the portion of his most recent book where he describes the possible answers to Marc Lamont Hill's question to Chris Rufo about what he likes about being white follows the contour of what you're describing about Murray's trajectory. I'm not so familiar with his earlier work but what he seems to be flirting with here, if not outright embracing, is a jettisoning of the principles that keep us away from engaging in the base identity politics and zero sum thinking that others traffic in. I don't find his response cute or witty. It's fairly stomach turning to me and while I'm sure his rhetoric leaves enough room for all sorts of defenses, it strikes me as the sort of thing that Kmele and the rest of the boys would rightfully call out in others
Sorry for belated response, my day got away from me.
First, I appreciate the trouble you made finding links to at least moor your objections to something tangible as well as the admission that you don't know anything first hand about him. Whatever the motivation I think that acquits you well. I am not the least inclined to address your ideological dissatisfaction with what you imagine are his perspectives and beliefs. He's written books on these topics, if you were really interested in knowing what he thought on anything you needn't bother with intermediaries like strangers on the internet or partisan news outlets -unless you imagine Medium is content neutral. I am not going to bother defending him or his views since I don't share many of them and he has published works which represent his thoughts ably on their own.
Dispensing with that bullshit, I want to return to the original point of this exchange. You called Murray unscrupulous, which goes to character and not ideology, and when pressed the only thing you seem to have to offer which reflects character rather than conviction is that he exaggerates. Sort of like you did when you suggested his views were "stomach turning." Exaggeration is a useful tool in discourse. An exaggerated claim can draw out the absurdity of a thought which might otherwise lie couched in precise language. It can also add emphasis or approximate personal investment, such as with your example. It can also be used to depict a worst case scenario or an unanticipated consequence of a poorly conceived idea. Unless it is being used to deceive, which exaggeration is certainly capable of, it is hardly unscrupulous in and of itself.
I don't think you have an argument to back up your statement. I think that is why you leaning on other people's opinion and errant comparisons because you don't have anything born of your own insight and understanding to offer. . .And that is fine. It really is. I would just suggest if your understanding is superficial don't be so swift to judgement. You can oppose things without enmity. You can dismiss ideas without derision. I would also suggest that if you have confidence in our hosts and they act in ways which you find contradictory, rather than give in to reflexive criticism, suspicion, and accusations of hypocrisy perhaps you should check your assumptions because either you are wrong about them or, perhaps, errant in your judgment.
I don't think they are particularly invested in many of Murray's views. I think he was guest because he is an individual who participates actively in public discourse which is something of immense importance to our hosts in these days where discussion is on the wane. I think the kindness they showed him was out of consideration of those in their audience who find value in Murray for myriad reasons and I think you likely mean well but are somewhat misguided.
Give people a chance. Every once in awhile they will surprise you.
I think a key difference is the right has more diffuse idiocy that can be difficult to isolate, outside of the old John Stewart circa-2011 “look at this dumb Republican saying dumb Republican things” patten that seems to have thankfully become déclassé. Look at the House Speaker hullabaloo: say what you will about the parties involved and their motives, but there was at least some diversity in viewpoints and ideas.
On the left I see nothing more than herd animals that can tweet at each other.
In fact, at least from where I’m sitting, they seem to prize little more than adherence to orthodoxy and reverence for authoritative revealed truth. Because there’s such a paucity of idiosyncratic ideas - but plenty of uniform idiocy - I think it’s much easier to summarize the left’s missteps now.
I don't need to do a perfect accounting of which side gets what degree of criticism but I do expect a little consistency and pushback against the kind of herd mentality you're describing in equal measure. With the Megyn Kelly appearances and some other instances like this Murray interview it's seemed like they aren't as willing to ruffle feathers on that side. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's not a conscious maneuver but it's becoming a more noticeable trend
There’s also an entire cottage industry of media folks who hold right-wingers to account - large, visible publications and pundits cover this stuff in great detail.
I imagine on some level the pod is just using Moneyball and attempting to uncover value in places that aren’t picked over yet.
Sure, and I know ruffling feathers in equal measure is not a good business strategy or a good strategy for holding onto any friends. But it will eventually deal a blow to their credibility and brand of equal opportunity criticism if they're not willing to do so. And tbh, I actually don't think there has been really smart, trustworthy critiques of people like Murray. They often come from people who are equally as untrustworthy and driven by partisan motivated reasoning. So it's not really a left/right thing for me; there's really just a gap in the market of smart, well-informed criticism that isn't aiming for a specific political outcome. I just want them to stay in that lane as much as possible because I value their work
Sweartagod, there’s a Masshole thing going on with Moynihan calling Murray “Doug”. When I moved to Massachusetts I would always introduce myself as Edward (just because, y’know, it’s my name), and people would immediately reply, “good to meet ya, Ed.” Every time. It seemed like a totally subconscious social norm or something. Luckily I’m not particularly neurotic about it, but yeah, kinda drove me a little bit nuts for awhile. Seems like such a weirdly specific regionalism, but I swear there’s something to it.
Made more inexplicable after Murray’s retort to Malcolm Gladwell at the Munk Debate, having had spent the entire time calling him “Doug”. I wondered if it would come to a war of words, but I reckon Douglas is made of stronger stuff.
As the democratically socialist-inclined member of this pod fam, I see both sides refusing to debate important issues. If you’re banking on debating with people like Diangelo or Kendi, look elsewhere. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge class struggle while only acknowledging the importance of identity. I don’t think you’ll find Murray on a mainstream lefty outlet, not out of fear of debate, but more that his views on immigration and whiteness are morally reprehensible for PC-culture. Im glad to have listened for where you all AGREE on this podcast, but I left this discussion hoping there would be more of a pushback on disagreements.
Murray’s views on immigration are abhorrent and insufficient. I didn’t really get the sense that he had a great read of Edward Said in his latest book and one kind of gets the sense that he’s wandering into Great Replacement theories adjacent with many White Nationalists. I think a lot of Brits get a pass for speaking the Queen’s English, but I don’t find Murray all that intellectual. I’d recommend this review on Murray’s latest book. Really makes you wonder who is the stupid person with stupid ideas and solutions. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/09/taking-white-supremacist-talking-points-mainstream
Apologies, but I didn’t find the Current Affairs piece convincing, and I read all 100,000 words of it (that may be a slight exaggeration…). It seemed less of a review and more of a repetitive, bad faith “look how smart I am” rant. I’ll give some examples.
To highlight Murray’s “gentrified xenophobia,” the authors cite him calling a 2020 San Francisco law (wherein criminal penalties are given for racially motivated 9-1-1 calls) an “explicit departure from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws’” designed to prevent “explicitly unequal treatment on the basis of race.” The authors fail, however, to mention the law is named the Caren Act. Murray was pointing out the hypocrisy of titling a racial discrimination law after a derogatory term for an entitled white lady—a key detail these authors omitted from their review, which is disingenuous.
I take the authors’ point about Edward Said; however, given Said’s name is mentioned a grand total of 20 times in the book (juxtaposed with Marx’s 46 mentions and Kendi’s 55 mentions, according to my Kindle version), I would argue Murray’s central thesis doesn’t hinge on his reading of Edward Said. The whole of the authors’ rambling analysis has a distinctive “And another thing…” tone, similar to the one I might use when yelling at my husband for “no good goddamn reason” (<—his words; he may have a point). These authors appear to have an ax to grind, which (in fairness) don’t we all? But rather than spend 27 pages painting Murray as a world leader among xenophobes, the authors could strengthen their arguments by acknowledging where Murray is accurate, or at the least making a coherent point. Whether or not they agree with them, he makes several. Ultimately reducing him to an ethnochauvinistic white supremacist is arrogant and unconvincing.
A lot of rhetoric I get from Murray seems more than just dog whistles. He seems polite enough in interviews. Strange Death’s argument is basically “brown people are immigrating to Europe and destroying white culture.” I just found it gross. He also very much plays into his own right wing identity / culture war politics that I think most of us are just sick of at this point. I would like to see some material politics and policies from the rightists rather than their beef social justice warriors. It all seems overdone at this point. I agreed with a few of your points on the McManus and Robinson piece I shared :)
Thank you—I appreciate that. I haven’t read Strange Death of Europe, so I appreciate your insights. Not falling into the trap of identity politics on either end of the spectrum takes vigilance, and while I may never see eye-to-eye with writers like Robinson and McManus, I’m never opposed to reading and considering his perspective. I value the discourse, so thanks for sharing it.
Absolutely agreed about needing material policies from the right. I’d love to see the GOP pressure Dems to up their policy-making game, but that doesn’t look likely in the near future. It’s too bad as some of the better policy discussions I’ve heard lately come from center-right-leaning writers, particularly re. offering the neediest access to greater economic mobility, as opposed to keeping them locked into a government-subsidized existence. Mind you, I say this as a unionized high school teacher and my government-subsidized existence isn’t so bad, so take it with a grain of salt. :)
I share your feelings about Murray and also think he exaggerates too much and plays fast and loose with data but I question... what is the appropriate response to this stuff in a podcast interview? Since writing my other comments I found this speech written by Murray which seals the deal for me. 17 years ago but the trend in his focus has not changed. He's just become less explicit with his feelings. https://web.archive.org/web/20080201133647/http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000809.php
Here he 1) calls for an end to immigration from all "Muslim countries", 2) complains about how European Muslim birth rates are higher than "native European" birth-rates, and 3) he says "Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition."
I'm quickly becoming persuaded he doesn't deserve the chumminess at all. I would go straight to a grilling if I was hosting
And like WHY would any mainstream center or left of center outlet wish to have a guest like this on? Is it really because they’re afraid to debate? I think a lot of these anti-woke types are more afraid of debate than anyone else. They exclusively talk with others in their own echo-chamber!Ill take a look at this speech today. Thanks Scott!
I don't find Nathan Robinson particularly persuasive either, although I think some of the criticisms here are legitimate. But that's all the more reason why I wish less politically motivated people like our dear hosts would highlight some of Murray's less professional and more questionable passages/moments
Definitely understandable! I’m sure it’s tricky to balance chatting up their guests (which I personally like) and challenging their guests’ viewpoints. I’m torn. I look to trusted sources for quality insight, yet believe it’s critical we build good will and remember we’re all humans just trying to sort thru life, ya know?
I think you mentioned earlier about Murray’s response to MM’s question (re what he got wrong) or Kmele asking what he’s optimistic about that took him awhile to answer. Sometimes it’s more telling to catch someone off-guard via a subtle, unexpected question than a direct hit type of question (the kind Murray can answer w/o missing a beat). Perhaps the lads are savvier in their line of questioning than we at times realize.
I'm genuinely not looking for a "take down" or them to go for the jugular but I think someone like Moynihan is uniquely qualified to seize on the more nuanced misrepresentations that can be found in Murray's books (mainly the Strange Death of Europe) and Kmele is uniquely capable of pushing back on some of what I consider to be Murray's cringeworthy identity politics on display in the recent book
I'm a little surprised with the uncritical response and I guess demand? for Murray on the pod. He strikes me as the other side of the coin to many of the people criticized on the pod.
yeah, and tbh this appearance was pretty benign for him. I've listened to many many hours of him speaking and have read some of his stuff so have cast a wide enough net to catch some of his more unseemly moments
One final point: I noticed that at the beginning of the show, Moynihan mentioned that they hadn't had him on before because of certain criteria that keep. I may have just missed this, but I don't remember them elaborating on what exactly those criteria were, which would have been nice.
I believe what MM was going to say was they don't tend to have on guests with a new book/podcast to promote as they tend to be on "the circuit". He's mentioned that before when teasing an appearance by DM and the reason why it had not happened yet.
The only Murray book I've managed to finish is his Bloody Sunday one. Had to give up The Strange Death of Europe when I read a passage early on that was a deliberate misreading of demographic stats.
Michael mentioned this interview with Andrew Callagahan (director of the HBO documentary "This Place Rules") and NPR's Robin Young. Worth watching IMHO.
My wife and I have spent the past few years unsuccessfully having fertility treatment here in London. Some of the clinics give you the opportunity to watch pornography while producing sperm samples. One of the films on offer was "Best of British Big Tits Vol 2". If that really was the best of British Big Tits, then I'm not surprised that the British porn industry hasn't overtaken the American one yet.
I do wish I could have been at the committee when they chose the video!
The porn I was provided with at the IVF clinic reminded me of that scene in the movie “Up!”, where they show the man handling a bunch of balloons, and a woman fiddling with a tripod.
First time I did it I was shown to the rooms where you give the sample and the nurse opened one door to show me in and then quickly shut it; poor guy on the other side had obviously forgotten to lock the door.
I have reread this like 5 times and have laughed each time.
Were all the tits of Essex extraction?
In a moment of weakness, I once ordered "Tits of Essex" from a mail-order catalogue. The book that arrived detailed the bearded tits, long-tailed tits, and other tit-birds native to the Essex region. And that's how I got into bird watching.
😂😂😂
Essex, with a handful of Northern thrown in.
I don't know if it still exists, but at least in Southern small towns when I was a teen there was a publication entitled Juggs: The Dirtiest Tit Mag in America I once got my hands on....it seemed to provoke more laughter than desire!
Fifth x Douglas Murray let’s goooooooooo
I was going to share Douglas’s latest podcast episode with Thomas Chatterton Williams in the Friday links post! https://nebulouspodcasts.com/shows/uncancelled-history/episodes/ep.-08-the-classics
Excited for this episode 🤘🏼
The TCW episode was so good!
It was! I had been meaning to check out DM’s new show and saw that pop up.
I binged the series when home sick last month--well-worth the time! 👍
It’s a great series, I’ve listened to most of them
re: Murray's desire for a term for deliberately inserting inflammatory ideas into the discourse and refusing to defend them. May I suggest "intellectual arson"?
Alternatively: discursive arsonists.
“Discursive” has two meanings: the first pertains to participation in the discourse. I think that’s more appropriate than “intellectual”, as that wildly inflates the level these arsonists are working on.
The second meaning is to digress from subject to subject. This is, I think, characteristic of these sort of arsonists. Internet rage moves on to a new target in a matter of days or weeks. Few scandals retain interest for long, and many of the primary antagonists are suddenly on to something new.
Much better. Sounds cooler, too.
I like that 🔥🔥🔥
It should be noted that when Boris Johnson had ‘people over for drinks’ he was pleading for the public to observe rules that essentially kept them from visiting dying, lonely relatives and a host of other restrictions. There was a human event to this story; namely hypocrisy. Nicely finessed by Moynihan there.
Agree that what Boris did is much worse than simply not following rules, but also you have to admit that it's funny that the UK government fell essentially for something every major blue state governor did.
Always slightly jarring to hear Moynihan defending Boris.
Can't wait to listen to this one.
Speaking of stupid, I was thinking about that Stanford list and came up with a new entry for them.
Instead of: "equity"
Consider using: "the opposite of merit-based"
Context: originally, "equity" referred to an ownership stake. Ownership evokes capitalism or even the scourge of slavery.
😂😂🔥🔥❤️❤️🙌
Further to Moynihan’s point about the end of the smoking ban revealing just how awful the bars smelled without noxious cigarette smoke to mask the foul odor - MM’s comments sparked this distant memory: one of the unintended consequences of the smoking ban was that the newly fresh air allowed patrons to smell ........ the body of the missing person hidden between the walls.
‘“Police were summoned to the popular nightclub after neighbors in the trendy downtown neighborhood began complaining of a foul smell, the National Post said.” If not for a recent citywide ban on smoking in bars, they might never have found the body, police said.’
https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2003/12/07/DJs-mummified-body-found-in-club-wall/72001070836281/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/foul-play-not-likely-in-mans-death-police-say/article18439596/
This was better than I'd hoped.
Well done fellas
I enjoyed this episode and thought it was quite good. But I have one fairly major gripe...
They commit the same error I see a lot of conservatives and libertarians commit and I can't help but think it's some sort of motivated reasoning. If I were to spell out the hidden assumptions it would be:
1. Both parties are in a good state and being nice and copacetic.
2. The left does or believes something crazy.
3. The only error in the right is that they take the bait and become reactionary and do something crazy in response.
In reality I think the truth is more along the lines of one of the following two notions (or a combination)
1. Both parties have been doing stupid things and it's impossible to tell where along this war of escalation which one was more at fault than the other. But we are escalating our mutual stupidity.
2. Republicans have done plenty of stupid things that were stupid on their own and not just responses to the left's stupidity.
(I'm taking it as a given that the left has been doing stupid things, we all agree on that.)
This is becoming a more common theme of the pod. Left bashing without equal to go around
There is no point in attacking the impotent. Conservativism is in schism if not crisis. What is not deranged is dejected. If you want to see someone taking the piss out of the soap opera with Sesame Street characters which the Republican party was devolved into you can look literally anywhere else.
The political landscape is a shitshow with lots to see. It's okay to look around.
Of course it's okay to look around but I don't think it's doing anyone any favors to have double standards. Murray seems just as unscrupulous as many of the people they rail against on the pod but isn't held to the same standard. I think it does a disservice to the points raised by Murray that are valid
Murray seems just as unscrupulous as many of the people railed against by our hosts. I would love to hear you expound upon this point because I have followed him with some interest for just over two decades and frankly I don't see it. Like phases of the moon I have seen his views alter in shape but never consistency and while he has largely lost the hope and optimism which effused his world view as a younger man he did not abandon them lightly or without cause. Things we can view from a safe distance through a prism of detachment and idle abstraction he had to experience within discomforting propinquity. He was an idealist who has been forced to contend with difficult realities and the struggle has taken an incredible toll on him. He has been steadfast in standing by his friends and colleagues without any second thought to cost or ramification and always endeavored to do all which was within his power to help them. Like Sir Roger Scruton, one of the last, great minds of the 20th century who refused to play hind to the hounds of an unappreciative public and would have likely spent his final years in frustrated isolation without the support Douglas offered through his position at the Spectator. . .But lets set all that aside. I am intensely curious to hear about your grievances against him, and the double standards you see in treating an invited guest with a measure indulgence.
Here's something else by Murray to read. This was from 2006 so hopefully his opinions have changed but given his recent work I would doubt it http://web.archive.org/web/20080201133647/http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000809.php
I'm mostly familiar with Murray's work through speaking appearances and so haven't kept tabs on all the times I noticed him exaggerating or misrepresenting in order to make a point but I've come across excerpts from his books that seem beyond the pale as well. Maybe in context they make more sense or maybe you can offer a defense of these points? These are not my articles but someone has compiled some misrepresentations in The Strange Death of Europe across two separate articles, starting with this one: https://medium.com/@Reg_Left_Media/douglas-murray-and-the-strange-death-of-an-honest-argument-part-1-124fa92e565c
Beyond that, much of his approach seems contradictory. It strikes me that the portion of his most recent book where he describes the possible answers to Marc Lamont Hill's question to Chris Rufo about what he likes about being white follows the contour of what you're describing about Murray's trajectory. I'm not so familiar with his earlier work but what he seems to be flirting with here, if not outright embracing, is a jettisoning of the principles that keep us away from engaging in the base identity politics and zero sum thinking that others traffic in. I don't find his response cute or witty. It's fairly stomach turning to me and while I'm sure his rhetoric leaves enough room for all sorts of defenses, it strikes me as the sort of thing that Kmele and the rest of the boys would rightfully call out in others
Sorry for belated response, my day got away from me.
First, I appreciate the trouble you made finding links to at least moor your objections to something tangible as well as the admission that you don't know anything first hand about him. Whatever the motivation I think that acquits you well. I am not the least inclined to address your ideological dissatisfaction with what you imagine are his perspectives and beliefs. He's written books on these topics, if you were really interested in knowing what he thought on anything you needn't bother with intermediaries like strangers on the internet or partisan news outlets -unless you imagine Medium is content neutral. I am not going to bother defending him or his views since I don't share many of them and he has published works which represent his thoughts ably on their own.
Dispensing with that bullshit, I want to return to the original point of this exchange. You called Murray unscrupulous, which goes to character and not ideology, and when pressed the only thing you seem to have to offer which reflects character rather than conviction is that he exaggerates. Sort of like you did when you suggested his views were "stomach turning." Exaggeration is a useful tool in discourse. An exaggerated claim can draw out the absurdity of a thought which might otherwise lie couched in precise language. It can also add emphasis or approximate personal investment, such as with your example. It can also be used to depict a worst case scenario or an unanticipated consequence of a poorly conceived idea. Unless it is being used to deceive, which exaggeration is certainly capable of, it is hardly unscrupulous in and of itself.
I don't think you have an argument to back up your statement. I think that is why you leaning on other people's opinion and errant comparisons because you don't have anything born of your own insight and understanding to offer. . .And that is fine. It really is. I would just suggest if your understanding is superficial don't be so swift to judgement. You can oppose things without enmity. You can dismiss ideas without derision. I would also suggest that if you have confidence in our hosts and they act in ways which you find contradictory, rather than give in to reflexive criticism, suspicion, and accusations of hypocrisy perhaps you should check your assumptions because either you are wrong about them or, perhaps, errant in your judgment.
I don't think they are particularly invested in many of Murray's views. I think he was guest because he is an individual who participates actively in public discourse which is something of immense importance to our hosts in these days where discussion is on the wane. I think the kindness they showed him was out of consideration of those in their audience who find value in Murray for myriad reasons and I think you likely mean well but are somewhat misguided.
Give people a chance. Every once in awhile they will surprise you.
I think a key difference is the right has more diffuse idiocy that can be difficult to isolate, outside of the old John Stewart circa-2011 “look at this dumb Republican saying dumb Republican things” patten that seems to have thankfully become déclassé. Look at the House Speaker hullabaloo: say what you will about the parties involved and their motives, but there was at least some diversity in viewpoints and ideas.
On the left I see nothing more than herd animals that can tweet at each other.
In fact, at least from where I’m sitting, they seem to prize little more than adherence to orthodoxy and reverence for authoritative revealed truth. Because there’s such a paucity of idiosyncratic ideas - but plenty of uniform idiocy - I think it’s much easier to summarize the left’s missteps now.
I don't need to do a perfect accounting of which side gets what degree of criticism but I do expect a little consistency and pushback against the kind of herd mentality you're describing in equal measure. With the Megyn Kelly appearances and some other instances like this Murray interview it's seemed like they aren't as willing to ruffle feathers on that side. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that it's not a conscious maneuver but it's becoming a more noticeable trend
There’s also an entire cottage industry of media folks who hold right-wingers to account - large, visible publications and pundits cover this stuff in great detail.
I imagine on some level the pod is just using Moneyball and attempting to uncover value in places that aren’t picked over yet.
Sure, and I know ruffling feathers in equal measure is not a good business strategy or a good strategy for holding onto any friends. But it will eventually deal a blow to their credibility and brand of equal opportunity criticism if they're not willing to do so. And tbh, I actually don't think there has been really smart, trustworthy critiques of people like Murray. They often come from people who are equally as untrustworthy and driven by partisan motivated reasoning. So it's not really a left/right thing for me; there's really just a gap in the market of smart, well-informed criticism that isn't aiming for a specific political outcome. I just want them to stay in that lane as much as possible because I value their work
Perfect forum for Douglas. Bringing out the big brain and the brilliant sense of humour ❤️
Vocal quality of this ep is gonna be 🔥
I love Douglas Murray because no matter what he says he always sounds so posh and dignified 😄
Sweartagod, there’s a Masshole thing going on with Moynihan calling Murray “Doug”. When I moved to Massachusetts I would always introduce myself as Edward (just because, y’know, it’s my name), and people would immediately reply, “good to meet ya, Ed.” Every time. It seemed like a totally subconscious social norm or something. Luckily I’m not particularly neurotic about it, but yeah, kinda drove me a little bit nuts for awhile. Seems like such a weirdly specific regionalism, but I swear there’s something to it.
Made more inexplicable after Murray’s retort to Malcolm Gladwell at the Munk Debate, having had spent the entire time calling him “Doug”. I wondered if it would come to a war of words, but I reckon Douglas is made of stronger stuff.
Ditto for me. Michael always became Mike.
Moynihan won’t be the only neocon 😉. I wholly approve.
As the democratically socialist-inclined member of this pod fam, I see both sides refusing to debate important issues. If you’re banking on debating with people like Diangelo or Kendi, look elsewhere. Liberalism refuses to acknowledge class struggle while only acknowledging the importance of identity. I don’t think you’ll find Murray on a mainstream lefty outlet, not out of fear of debate, but more that his views on immigration and whiteness are morally reprehensible for PC-culture. Im glad to have listened for where you all AGREE on this podcast, but I left this discussion hoping there would be more of a pushback on disagreements.
You’re not wrong. More pushback was warranted. Still enjoyed the chat though.
They are famous for not pushing back...
Like i’d be going tf off on Megyn Kelly. She’d never have me back. Lol
Like just want the anti-woke just asking questions crowd to JUST ASK SOME QUESTIONS when it’s relevant!! Girl..... lmao
Murray’s views on immigration are abhorrent and insufficient. I didn’t really get the sense that he had a great read of Edward Said in his latest book and one kind of gets the sense that he’s wandering into Great Replacement theories adjacent with many White Nationalists. I think a lot of Brits get a pass for speaking the Queen’s English, but I don’t find Murray all that intellectual. I’d recommend this review on Murray’s latest book. Really makes you wonder who is the stupid person with stupid ideas and solutions. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/09/taking-white-supremacist-talking-points-mainstream
Apologies, but I didn’t find the Current Affairs piece convincing, and I read all 100,000 words of it (that may be a slight exaggeration…). It seemed less of a review and more of a repetitive, bad faith “look how smart I am” rant. I’ll give some examples.
To highlight Murray’s “gentrified xenophobia,” the authors cite him calling a 2020 San Francisco law (wherein criminal penalties are given for racially motivated 9-1-1 calls) an “explicit departure from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of ‘equal protection of the laws’” designed to prevent “explicitly unequal treatment on the basis of race.” The authors fail, however, to mention the law is named the Caren Act. Murray was pointing out the hypocrisy of titling a racial discrimination law after a derogatory term for an entitled white lady—a key detail these authors omitted from their review, which is disingenuous.
I take the authors’ point about Edward Said; however, given Said’s name is mentioned a grand total of 20 times in the book (juxtaposed with Marx’s 46 mentions and Kendi’s 55 mentions, according to my Kindle version), I would argue Murray’s central thesis doesn’t hinge on his reading of Edward Said. The whole of the authors’ rambling analysis has a distinctive “And another thing…” tone, similar to the one I might use when yelling at my husband for “no good goddamn reason” (<—his words; he may have a point). These authors appear to have an ax to grind, which (in fairness) don’t we all? But rather than spend 27 pages painting Murray as a world leader among xenophobes, the authors could strengthen their arguments by acknowledging where Murray is accurate, or at the least making a coherent point. Whether or not they agree with them, he makes several. Ultimately reducing him to an ethnochauvinistic white supremacist is arrogant and unconvincing.
A lot of rhetoric I get from Murray seems more than just dog whistles. He seems polite enough in interviews. Strange Death’s argument is basically “brown people are immigrating to Europe and destroying white culture.” I just found it gross. He also very much plays into his own right wing identity / culture war politics that I think most of us are just sick of at this point. I would like to see some material politics and policies from the rightists rather than their beef social justice warriors. It all seems overdone at this point. I agreed with a few of your points on the McManus and Robinson piece I shared :)
Thank you—I appreciate that. I haven’t read Strange Death of Europe, so I appreciate your insights. Not falling into the trap of identity politics on either end of the spectrum takes vigilance, and while I may never see eye-to-eye with writers like Robinson and McManus, I’m never opposed to reading and considering his perspective. I value the discourse, so thanks for sharing it.
Absolutely agreed about needing material policies from the right. I’d love to see the GOP pressure Dems to up their policy-making game, but that doesn’t look likely in the near future. It’s too bad as some of the better policy discussions I’ve heard lately come from center-right-leaning writers, particularly re. offering the neediest access to greater economic mobility, as opposed to keeping them locked into a government-subsidized existence. Mind you, I say this as a unionized high school teacher and my government-subsidized existence isn’t so bad, so take it with a grain of salt. :)
I share your feelings about Murray and also think he exaggerates too much and plays fast and loose with data but I question... what is the appropriate response to this stuff in a podcast interview? Since writing my other comments I found this speech written by Murray which seals the deal for me. 17 years ago but the trend in his focus has not changed. He's just become less explicit with his feelings. https://web.archive.org/web/20080201133647/http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000809.php
Here he 1) calls for an end to immigration from all "Muslim countries", 2) complains about how European Muslim birth rates are higher than "native European" birth-rates, and 3) he says "Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition."
I'm quickly becoming persuaded he doesn't deserve the chumminess at all. I would go straight to a grilling if I was hosting
And like WHY would any mainstream center or left of center outlet wish to have a guest like this on? Is it really because they’re afraid to debate? I think a lot of these anti-woke types are more afraid of debate than anyone else. They exclusively talk with others in their own echo-chamber!Ill take a look at this speech today. Thanks Scott!
I don't find Nathan Robinson particularly persuasive either, although I think some of the criticisms here are legitimate. But that's all the more reason why I wish less politically motivated people like our dear hosts would highlight some of Murray's less professional and more questionable passages/moments
Definitely understandable! I’m sure it’s tricky to balance chatting up their guests (which I personally like) and challenging their guests’ viewpoints. I’m torn. I look to trusted sources for quality insight, yet believe it’s critical we build good will and remember we’re all humans just trying to sort thru life, ya know?
I think you mentioned earlier about Murray’s response to MM’s question (re what he got wrong) or Kmele asking what he’s optimistic about that took him awhile to answer. Sometimes it’s more telling to catch someone off-guard via a subtle, unexpected question than a direct hit type of question (the kind Murray can answer w/o missing a beat). Perhaps the lads are savvier in their line of questioning than we at times realize.
I'm genuinely not looking for a "take down" or them to go for the jugular but I think someone like Moynihan is uniquely qualified to seize on the more nuanced misrepresentations that can be found in Murray's books (mainly the Strange Death of Europe) and Kmele is uniquely capable of pushing back on some of what I consider to be Murray's cringeworthy identity politics on display in the recent book
^^ this!
I'm a little surprised with the uncritical response and I guess demand? for Murray on the pod. He strikes me as the other side of the coin to many of the people criticized on the pod.
yeah, and tbh this appearance was pretty benign for him. I've listened to many many hours of him speaking and have read some of his stuff so have cast a wide enough net to catch some of his more unseemly moments
I appreciate that.
One final point: I noticed that at the beginning of the show, Moynihan mentioned that they hadn't had him on before because of certain criteria that keep. I may have just missed this, but I don't remember them elaborating on what exactly those criteria were, which would have been nice.
I believe what MM was going to say was they don't tend to have on guests with a new book/podcast to promote as they tend to be on "the circuit". He's mentioned that before when teasing an appearance by DM and the reason why it had not happened yet.
I don't remember that comment. Must've missed it
The only Murray book I've managed to finish is his Bloody Sunday one. Had to give up The Strange Death of Europe when I read a passage early on that was a deliberate misreading of demographic stats.
Michael mentioned this interview with Andrew Callagahan (director of the HBO documentary "This Place Rules") and NPR's Robin Young. Worth watching IMHO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9fz2PYoV84