Douglas Murray letting rip about Starbucks is an absolute joy

[LiterallyProblematic]

He starts at 44 minutes in. It’s bloody brilliantly!

Part of my willingness to rethink how I approach sources not on "my side" stems from realising that I completely failed to understand why some people who I usually agree with voted pro Brexit when I thought it was a terrible idea. I'd still have voted to stay, but I understand better now why some people went the other way and have learned something about just assuming people will broadly agree on most issues.

I generally think some healthy doubt about one's core beliefs can be healthy.

I remember having a major major penny drop one day over what was a typical conservative talking point with regard to social support. It was something I had utterly disagreed with, I didn't think it made any sense, and so it was probably disingenuous or an artefact of a sort of character problem.

And then I was looking at a situation where there was a particular problem within a real community I knew and had lived in, trying to figure out what had caused it, and I saw it in a way I hadn't before. In a clear and material way what the conservative talking point had said could happen had happened in that situation. And that this was actually something to be wary of in developing public policy, that would require very careful balancing and awareness.

Which also suddenly meant that maybe people who said such things weren't stupid or didn't have an agenda.

It’s very recent, but the David Webb/Areva Martin radio exchange was a big penny dropping moment for me.
She’s a civil rights lawyer and cnn commentator and tried to accuse him, a radio host, of having ‘white privilege’ because he said his qualifications were more important than his skin colour...

but he’s black 🤷‍♀️

(And then she tried to blame her staff for not prepping her properly, rather than accepting that she had jumped to a conclusion based on her own beliefs and prejudices)

I’ve since heard David Webb describe this as ‘The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations’ and when you start looking for it, you can see it all over the left.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/15/cnn-analyst-called-out-fox-news-contributor-his-white-privilege-hes-black/%3foutputType=amp

m.youtube.com/watch?v=juQLifY4l_0

Prodigal I completely failed to realise why some people voted for Trump. Knowing more about self ID has been a window into a lot of things.

Realising how I'd completely misunderstood what the Brexit referendum was about, ie for a decisive number of people it wasn't about the EU, shook up my complacency enough that meant I didn't take in self-ID unthinkingly and as a result, here I am.

I struggle with Delingpole though.

I noticed that Murray refused Delingpole’s free badge! I like to think that wasn’t a purely sartorial decision

Agree about Murray's views on women AutumnRose1. I get the impression he just hasn't bothered to exercise his formidable critical thinking skills to full extent on the subject, only insofar as it fits his overall thesis for the book.

I feel like there are a lot of men out there who who almost dismiss the injustices and systematic oppression of women by men because they subconsciously dismiss it as: yeah but it's just the natural order of things innit.

If I recall the book correctly he was of the mind that we should have been piping down a bit about ongoing injustices because we in the West were 90% of the way to equality.

What that view fails to take into account is that the other 10% (or whatever) is still important and that, like a tightly stretched elastic band rather than a permanent engraving in stone, our rights could ping back to oblivion should we fail to guard them vigilantly - as we are seeing with the trans issue right now or increasingly violent porn and its effect on us.

Murray thinks feminists should acknowledge the natural differences between the sexes (we do actually, Douglas!). The potential ping back of our rights is precisely because of one of those innate differences between male and female: the apparent biological imperative of men as a class throughout the ages to control women.

Murray thinks feminists should acknowledge the natural differences between the sexes (we do actually, Douglas!). The potential ping back of our rights is precisely because of one of those innate differences between male and female: the apparent biological imperative of men as a class throughout the ages to control women.

I think it's arguable that many feminists (it's obviously not a block with only one opinion but I mean a fair number of "serious" feminists) only partially acknowledge this - they draw a very definite line around what is allowed to be seen as biologically rooted differences across the male/female classes, and that line is more ideological than empirical.

@Llyn I work on the basis that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Douglas Murray is superb on this issue. His scathing assessment of cookies to promote draconian medical intervention is absolutely on target. He also analyses possible motivations for corporate 'wokeness.' It's a cheap way of getting millennial points despite advantageous tax arrangements. Douglas Murray is an antidote to the trite woke memes which have colonised public discourse.

I think this idea that you have to agree with every statement that anyone has ever made and that unless you do, their opinion is 'tainted' is not only absurd, but another way of controlling who is allowed to debate and whose opinions are deemed 'acceptable ' to be heard. The no platforming paradigm is deeply damaging.

I think the worry about not agreeing with “everything” (or rather strongly disagreeing with them in another area, eg women’s rights) isn’t so much about a puritanical need for thought control but more along the lines of “if can be so wrong about that thing, maybe he’s wrong about this”.

I remember when the Munich sexual assaults happened and Douglas Murray complained that feminists were hypocrites for keeping quiet about the assaults because the perps were brown.

It was literally at the same time that Mumsnetters were launching a petition to get the government to examine this problem of immigrants not respecting women’s rights. He clearly hadn’t done his research and was dismissive of issues in modern day feminism that he had no idea about.

I love Douglas Murray and I'm a left leaning feminist. He is an incredible thinker and writer.

If you are concerned about that quotation re the EDL I recommend you read his book The strange death of Europe. He actually writes very compassionately about migrants he met whilst researching the book. To reduce his thoroughly researched tomr to "the edl had a point" is deeply reductive and lazy.

He clearly hadn’t done his research

Until recently, most people had absolutely no idea about the existential threat to freedom of speech as demonstrated by Harry Miller's case. Or about the draconian medical treatment of girls, as demonstrated by Keira Bell's case. Until recently, the insidious advance of this authoritarian agenda was shrouded by a veil of deliberate secrecy. Douglas Murray has played a role in escalating this to front page news. And that is a positive thing.

"It was literally at the same time that Mumsnetters were launching a petition to get the government to examine this problem of immigrants not respecting women’s rights. He clearly hadn’t done his research"

Well what exactly did he say and what percentage of feminists were willing to speak out?

Even if you are correct and Murray didn't know of, and failed to properly appreciate the various feminists that were speaking out on the issue; of course he can still have a fair point that some of them may be staying silent for reason of political identity.

I love Douglas Murray and I'm a left leaning feminist. He is an incredible thinker and writer

Me too.

And let's not forget that the version of 'feminism' that is rampant at the moment puts men at the heart of the movement and I am massively critical of that brand of feminism. But it has a loud voice and some people think that this is what feminism is sadly. It SHOULD be criticsed imo.

I love Douglas Murray. I don’t agree with everything he says, but he is part of that rare breed of writer/journalist who is prepared to say what he believes to be the truth regardless of how unpopular that opinion is.

If you want to know about his opinions on Islam and, in particular, his criticisms of how the media and Western governments react to incidents involving Islamists, this video is a good start.

The interview precedes the publication of The Madness of Crowds by at least a year, but the seeds of the book are obviously there...

I think this idea that you have to agree with every statement that anyone has ever made and that unless you do, their opinion is 'tainted' is not only absurd, but another way of controlling who is allowed to debate and whose opinions are deemed 'acceptable ' to be heard.

this x10000

And look, this thread has become about defending the right to listen to a range of voices and has been derailed away from discussing what Murray said.

Personally I feel a responsibility to understand why someone who has such different views to me on pretty much everything else agrees with me on one specific issue. The motivations are rarely the same, and I think this does matter.

There are plenty of dangerous MRA types, homophobes, religious fanatics and bigots opposed to self-ID and I have absolutely no interest in promoting their POV, not least because it really does harm to the GC cause which is not and should not be a fringe extremist viewpoint. The vast majority of people would agree if they had all the information.

(Not saying these men are those things, but I certainly won’t be celebrating anyone associated with Breitbart under any circumstances).

The only reason that a lot of the outspoken stuff comes from the far right / alt right is because there is currency for them in being the controversial voice and / or hate figure. They don’t give any kind of a shit about women’s rights.

"Yes- I think that’s part of what makes me feel uncomfortable; knowing that if I were to be open about my views at work, that is how some of my colleagues would see me."

I think that's an understandable normal human way to feel.

However, when forming viewpoints, obviously, you should do it on the basis of logical argument. It doesn't matter if you share an alleged "bigoted" viewpoint with someone else that really is a bigot on various issues. The only thing that matters is if in the particular case of the belief you hold, is it genuine bigotry or a reasonable position? That you share beliefs with bad people doesn't show much.

You also shouldn't form beliefs because of social pressure to fit in. "The Emperor's New Clothes" and all that.

They don’t give any kind of a shit about women’s rights

And this applies to the left too - what is their excuse?

I’d really love to know what ‘alt right’ means and who is part of it. I’ve seen so many people described as ‘alt right’ recently who are quite clearly the opposite (Andrew Doyle being a perfect example) that I think it’s become a meaningless term.

The only reason that a lot of the outspoken stuff comes from the far right / alt right is because

It is because significant chunks of the left wing have signed up to authoritarian, incoherent identity politics orthodoxy. We have the grim spectacle of Labour's laughable candidates for opposition leader wittering about babies born without sex and signing Stalinist purges while denying their own signature. The control left and the attempt of those who dominate it to demonize dissent? It's not working. Anymore.

@Deathgrip Douglas Murray isn’t far right.

And look, this thread has become about defending the right to listen to a range of voices and has been derailed away from discussing what Murray said

Great point. Douglas Murray's anger about a megacorp funding the treatment which is currently under judicial review thanks to the bravery of Keira Bell is visceral. The more publicity this gets, the better.