About Douglas Murray, “Experts” and War

I've often enjoyed listening to Douglas Murray, but he seems to have gone off the rails for two reasons: A) His enthusiasm for war as a solution to complex disputes and B) His wish to control the free flow of information between other people based on his claim that we need to shut up and rely on "experts," by which I assume he means credentialed experts.

In this segment, Joe Rogan and Dave Smith dismantle Murray with simple questions. Watch him dart to a new topic whenever he is challenged.

I would agree with Saagar Enjeti's description:

And here's a glaring irony pointed out by Enjeti:

As Dave Smith points out, during the pandemic, the "experts" got almost everything wrong. Murray has no response. The COVID error would include many of the following:

Here's a bigger irony. If only "experts" should weigh in on complex and important topics of the day, what does that say about democracy? Most of us voters are unwashed masses, uncredentialed in most things, yet we are asked to cast votes that will determine the fate of our country. Murray's attitude can be seen playing out in the EU (and elsewhere, including the US), where people are increasingly being denied the chance to vote for the candidates they support.

I'll end with this post by Mike Benz:

Continue ReadingAbout Douglas Murray, “Experts” and War

Maine Legislature Censures Member for Commenting on Male Participation in Female Sports.

Among other things, this situation raises First Amendment issues:

From FIRE:

Three weeks ago, Representative Laurel Libby of Maine’s 64th District posted on Facebook that a high school athlete won first place in girls’ pole vaulting at the Class B state championship after having competed the year before in the boys’ event and finishing in a tie for fifth place.

Libby’s post is constitutionally protected. She was speaking out about the policy in her state, set by the Maine High School Principals Association, that a high school athlete may participate in competitions for the gender with which they identify. Her post was also part of a nationwide debate. Maine Governor Janet Mills and President Trump have publicly sparred over the president’s executive order proposing to cut off education funding if states do not ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports.

But just days after Libby’s post, the Maine House speaker and majority leader demanded she take it down. When she refused, the majority leader introduced a censure resolution — to be heard in the House the next day — because Libby’s post had included photos and the first name of the student, who is a minor. Libby sought to defend herself in the hastily called House vote, but was repeatedly cut off. The censure resolution passed 75-70 on a party-line vote.

If all the censure did was express disapproval of Libby’s actions, that would be one thing.

A state legislative body is entitled to express displeasure with a member’s actions, which by itself does not violate the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court recently ruled.

But in Libby’s case, the Maine House went further, much further. When Libby refused to apologize for her protected speech, the House speaker declared she would be barred from speaking on the House floor or voting on any legislation until she capitulated. Thus, the House majority party has precluded Libby from doing her job and effectively disenfranchised her constituents, end-running Maine constitutional provisions that say a representative cannot be expelled absent a two-thirds vote or recall election.

Continue ReadingMaine Legislature Censures Member for Commenting on Male Participation in Female Sports.

Silence Versus Belief

Can you assume that people believe you merely because they stop debating you? Rob Henderson explains:

Clever activists know how exploit the weakness of professors. Most of the people who become professors just love their field—they don't want to wade into activism or political disputes. A lot of them are introverts, or at the very least, they just want to be left alone to do their work. So if activists flood a professor’s inbox with emails, call their department nonstop, pressure the department, and demand to know why they haven’t signed a petition or denounced a colleague, eventually, a lot of them will just give in.

At some point, the professor just wants the noise to stop. They’ll sign whatever, release whatever statement, do whatever it takes to be left alone. It’s not that they believe in the cause—it’s just easier to give in. They don’t want to get dragged into a political or cultural fight; they just want to keep their head down and focus on their work. A lot of it, frankly, comes down to cowardice—figuring out the fastest way to make the problem go away.

Continue ReadingSilence Versus Belief

Shutting You Up – Being Canceled by the Political Left’s Perfect Rhetorical Fortress

Over at Facebook I often post news items (from X) that people won't see if they get their "news" from legacy outlets. In response, many people have tried to belittle me with many flavors of ad hominem attacks. It's amazing to see grown adults resort to such tactics. They also use many other tactics, most of which are described in an excellent book by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott: The Canceling of the American Mind.

I asked Grok 3 to summarize the tactics often used by people on the political far Left against anyone who disagrees, including people like me who had for many years voted for Democrats. No longer. I don't recognize the current Democratic Party and I abhor many of their positions, such as pro-war, pro-censorship, race-essentialism and advocating for confused teenagers to undergo permanent life-changing surgeries and sterilization through cross-sex hormones and so-called "puberty blockers."

When I criticize these positions on social media it doesn't take long for the attacks to start. Many of these attacks have been described in Chapter 6 of The Canceling, "The Perfect Rhetorical Fortress." These are not attempts to communicate. Rather, they are attempts to shut people up, to cancel them. I asked Grok to summarize these "barricades." Here's Grok's response (which I reviewed for accuracy):

These tactics are described as "barricades" that form an impregnable fortress, protecting the user from having to address arguments on their merits. Below is a summary of the 11 barricades as presented in the chapter, based on the book’s framework:

Fasco-Casting This barricade involves labeling someone as "conservative," "right-wing," "far-right," "fascist," or even "neo-confederate," regardless of their actual beliefs. By associating the speaker with a negatively perceived ideology, their arguments can be dismissed outright as inherently bad or unworthy of consideration.

Are You a Man or a Woman? This tactic questions whether the speaker’s gender disqualifies them from speaking on certain issues. For example, men might be told they can’t discuss women’s issues, creating a barrier based on identity rather than the argument’s validity.

Continue ReadingShutting You Up – Being Canceled by the Political Left’s Perfect Rhetorical Fortress

Nadine Strossen: Strongly Enforced Hate-Speech Laws Existed in Post-WWI Germany

Nadine Strossen discusses the "Weimar Fallacy." Strong hate speech laws prior to WWII in Germany shoved hate speech underground, out of sight, where it festered and grew. The better alternative would be to let the people say their hateful things out in the open market where their ignorance will be forced to engage with ideas that are better than hate. Strossen explains:

For more on this topic, see Greg Lukianoff's article, "Would censorship have stopped the rise of the Nazis."

Continue ReadingNadine Strossen: Strongly Enforced Hate-Speech Laws Existed in Post-WWI Germany