Douglas Murray Tried to BLOCK Dave Smith From Rogan | Dave Smith
New clip from my podcast with Dave Smith addressing Douglas Murray & Sam Harris.
In this clip, I talk with Dave Smith about the striking lack of civility and substance in Douglas Murray’s ongoing commentary about him. What stands out to me—after spending hours watching Douglas on multiple podcasts after his Rogan debate disaster—is that nearly all of his criticism reduces Dave to “a comic,” “a Wikipedia reader,” or someone unqualified to speak, while almost none of it engages the actual arguments Dave made in the Rogan debate. I tell Dave openly that Douglas speaks about him with a condescension that’s completely at odds with the free-speech, open-debate principles he claims to defend. For someone asking for “civil discourse,” Douglas spends a remarkable amount of time attacking Dave’s character and profession rather than a single factual point he raised.
Dave expands on this dynamic, revealing that Douglas’s only precondition to Rogan was a “civil exchange”—a standard Dave agreed with. And yet in the debate and the aftermath, Douglas focused almost entirely on personal attacks while avoiding substantive rebuttals. Dave points out that if Douglas truly believes he’s the vastly more knowledgeable “expert,” then he should have been thrilled for the chance to dismantle Dave’s arguments publicly. Instead, he leaned on credentialism and grievance—complaining about the format, the moderator, and the fact that he couldn’t speak unchallenged—rather than demonstrating superior reasoning.
As I argue to Dave, the fact that Douglas didn’t simply steamroll him is itself revealing: even people who disagree with Dave can see that the debate was evenly matched. In the end, what Douglas and others seem most upset about is not misinformation—it’s that independent voices they disagree with like Dave are finally being heard on equal footing, and they’re expected to actually debate rather than dismiss.
Support The Illusion of Consensus!
The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the high-quality science and Big Pharma journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation.
Weird how you keep running defense for Dave. I'm not saying Douglas Murray comported himself well, but Dave's arguments are pretty terrible and don't really need a "substantive" rebuttal, as you'd know if you watched Coleman Hughes 3.5 hour debate with Dave where he showed how weak Dave's talking points are.
If you're going to continue cheerleading Dave's bad argumentation, I'm going to take a break from your content until you move on to a more interesting topic with a more "substantive" guest.
Your buddy Dave Smith relies on lies and antisemitic tropes on which to hang his opinions. It's entirely legitimate to downgrade the opinions of people who have done zero independent research on a topic, have never visited the locations and seem to take in information that supports their preconceived conclusions. I don't know whether Dave is taking cash from anyone or is just playing on audiences who hate Jews but he consistently ignore any facts or evidence that contradicts his predetermined conclusions. He is not just an asshole, his opinions are no more worthwhile than anyone else's (not sure why he keeps getting platformed..), in that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. His opinions aren't supported with a ponderous of evidence, just bias.