Rav, Dave was demolished by Coleman. Dave's intentional failure to either read and/or absorb history (e.g., what happened in 1922 in the Middle East? What was the Mufti's relationship with the Third Reich?) makes him a rolling punchline. At least he's good for comic relief I suppose.
People like myself get tired of listening to any jerk with a microphone spouting off about matters that require reading and investigation and some knowledge of history and even the intricacies of law if they are going to talk about matters involving law. I believe that is what Douglas Murray was getting at. In the short comment of substance shown in the clip above Dave Smith dismisses out of hand the argument that Israel did not want reporters in Gaza because it could not protect their safety. The Israeli explanation is a perfect valid argument because if any reporters were shot and killed, their colleagues would immediately jump on Israel and blame it for their deaths as they have done countless times in the past, ignoring the FACT that many journalists are simply Hamas spokespeople or stringers in their pay. This has been shown to be true time and time again, not to mention that in a war zone the risks taken by reporters are their responsibility but they do not assume that. The war in Gaza with Israeli hostages held God knows where was difficult enough without Israel's having to worry about journalists roaming around. And unlike the Palestinians, Israel does value human life, even that of their enemies who deserve nothing but the destruction they sow everywhere they can.
"...one where independent commentators rise purely through strong argumentation, not institutional backing or elite credential"
I don't think Dave's argumentation is particularly strong. For starters he holds contradicting evidence to a very high standard that seems to cause him to dismiss nearly all of it, while holding confirming evidence to no such standard.
When he starts talking about military matters he is egregiously deep into dunning-kruger territory.
Finally, as can be seen in his conversations with Konstatin Kisin, he has a maddeningly common habit of not answering direct questions. Example, "If you disagree so much with Israel's response to Oct 7, what do you think would've been a more appropriate response" ...followed by talking about anything else than what he would consider a proper response before hand waving to some vague special forces response.
I suspect Murray feels that Dave is committed to motivated reasoning to support his biases, and so has stopped trying to take him seriously.
Murray is right but using poor tactics. Smith is wrong but has been given open goals to shoot at because Murray is using logical fallacies. I think Murray has been excellent morally and Smith is despicable, but I have been dismayed at how poorly Murray has performed whenever he talks to or about Smith. It’s the snob in Murray. He doesn’t take Smith seriously as an opponent which is understandable given that Smith knows very little, but you can’t turn up with just smugness and condescension. That hands the win to Smith. Murray needs to deal with such people better by laying out the actual history.
Good grief - Dave Smith is the biggest uneducated fake clown. To call him a clown is to insult actual clowns...
Thanks for this comment.
Rav, Dave was demolished by Coleman. Dave's intentional failure to either read and/or absorb history (e.g., what happened in 1922 in the Middle East? What was the Mufti's relationship with the Third Reich?) makes him a rolling punchline. At least he's good for comic relief I suppose.
Douglas Murray is the moral compass of our time. Surprised that you took Dave Smith’s side.
People like myself get tired of listening to any jerk with a microphone spouting off about matters that require reading and investigation and some knowledge of history and even the intricacies of law if they are going to talk about matters involving law. I believe that is what Douglas Murray was getting at. In the short comment of substance shown in the clip above Dave Smith dismisses out of hand the argument that Israel did not want reporters in Gaza because it could not protect their safety. The Israeli explanation is a perfect valid argument because if any reporters were shot and killed, their colleagues would immediately jump on Israel and blame it for their deaths as they have done countless times in the past, ignoring the FACT that many journalists are simply Hamas spokespeople or stringers in their pay. This has been shown to be true time and time again, not to mention that in a war zone the risks taken by reporters are their responsibility but they do not assume that. The war in Gaza with Israeli hostages held God knows where was difficult enough without Israel's having to worry about journalists roaming around. And unlike the Palestinians, Israel does value human life, even that of their enemies who deserve nothing but the destruction they sow everywhere they can.
"...one where independent commentators rise purely through strong argumentation, not institutional backing or elite credential"
I don't think Dave's argumentation is particularly strong. For starters he holds contradicting evidence to a very high standard that seems to cause him to dismiss nearly all of it, while holding confirming evidence to no such standard.
When he starts talking about military matters he is egregiously deep into dunning-kruger territory.
Finally, as can be seen in his conversations with Konstatin Kisin, he has a maddeningly common habit of not answering direct questions. Example, "If you disagree so much with Israel's response to Oct 7, what do you think would've been a more appropriate response" ...followed by talking about anything else than what he would consider a proper response before hand waving to some vague special forces response.
I suspect Murray feels that Dave is committed to motivated reasoning to support his biases, and so has stopped trying to take him seriously.
Murray is right but using poor tactics. Smith is wrong but has been given open goals to shoot at because Murray is using logical fallacies. I think Murray has been excellent morally and Smith is despicable, but I have been dismayed at how poorly Murray has performed whenever he talks to or about Smith. It’s the snob in Murray. He doesn’t take Smith seriously as an opponent which is understandable given that Smith knows very little, but you can’t turn up with just smugness and condescension. That hands the win to Smith. Murray needs to deal with such people better by laying out the actual history.