Joe Rogan Podcast Erupts in Divisive Debate: Douglas Murray and Dave Smith Clash!
The internet is still buzzing after the latest Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which featured a fiery debate between Douglas K. Murray and Dave Smith. It’s one of those episodes where everyone online seems to think their side emerged victorious, highlighting why, frankly, I’m not the biggest fan of debates in general. Often, they serve more as entertainment than genuine opportunities for understanding.
Yesterday’s clash saw neoconservative Douglas K. Murray lock horns with Dave Smith over a topic that, to be honest, I have little personal interest in: the Israel-Gaza conflict. So, I won’t delve into the specifics of who said what about Gaza. My main takeaway, and what seems to have ignited much of the controversy, was what appeared to be a real enthusiasm for war from Douglas K. Murray, coupled with instances of tone policing and a seemingly pro-censorship attitude.
We’ve all seen Doug Murray speak out in favor of certain individuals before, and he’s certainly had moments where he’s been right. Similarly, I don’t believe Dave Smith was flawless in his arguments either. But the point I want to emphasize, and something that really struck me, was Murray’s approach to who is even allowed to discuss such complex issues.
One of the initial flashpoints involved Murray questioning Joe Rogan about whether he’s had “enough people on who are supportive of either war”, specifically the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine. He then pressed further, asking if Rogan had enough guests “on the side of Israel instead of wild critics”. Rogan mentioned having guests like Gad Saad, Jordan Peterson, and Mike Baker Hughes who have expressed support for Israel. Murray’s follow-up, “yeah, but how many more? I mean, how many is enough?”, suggests a predetermined notion that Rogan’s platform is somehow skewed.
This line of questioning quickly devolved into a broader discussion about expertise and the right to comment on events. Murray seemed to suggest that Rogan shouldn’t interview individuals who aren’t “historians of the conflict or historians in general” when discussing such matters, questioning the inclusion of guests like Ian Carol, who Rogan clarified was brought on to discuss conspiracy theories, not the Israel-Gaza situation.
What I found particularly problematic was the implication that only “experts” should be allowed to discuss these topics. Who exactly gets to decide who an expert is? We’ve seen plenty of instances where so-called experts have offered conflicting or even incorrect information. The idea that you’re not allowed to talk about something unless you hold some official designation is, frankly, ridiculous. Were people in pubs during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars not allowed to discuss them because they weren’t military experts? This feels like a classic appeal to authority fallacy.
Murray even took issue with Rogan discussing these topics, pointing out the apparent contradiction of saying “I’m not an expert on a conflict and talking about it everywhere”. But as I see it, there’s nothing wrong with being interested in and discussing subjects even if you don’t have formal expertise. Does Murray believe that someone can’t be interested in or discuss serial killers unless they are a criminologist who has personally interviewed them?
The debate took another bizarre turn when the topic of visiting the region came up. When it was pointed out that Dave Smith had never been to the crossing points in Gaza or even the region, Murray seemed to imply this invalidated his ability to comment on the situation. The response, “Well, I’m not Am I not allowed to talk about it now? I’ve never been to Have you ever been to Nazi Germany? Are you allowed to have feelings about them?” perfectly encapsulates the absurdity of that argument. The suggestion that you need to physically visit a place to have an opinion on it is nonsensical. By that logic, people in the UK shouldn’t be allowed to comment on America.
Ultimately, while Douglas K. Murray may have valid points regarding the Israel-Gaza conflict – a subject I’m admittedly not deeply invested in – his apparent insistence on gatekeeping who is allowed to have an opinion is deeply concerning. In the internet age, where information, and yes, even live streams of events like October 7th, are readily available, this elitist stance feels outdated and out of touch. He may be right on the specifics, but his dismissive and arrogant attitude makes it difficult to even engage with his arguments.
Before we dive deeper into the divisive moments, a quick shoutout to our video sponsor, Fume. It’s a fantastic, nicotine-free flavored air device that can really help when you’re trying to ditch bad habits. Check them out at tryfume.com/quartering and use code quartering for a free fume topper with your journey pack.
Coming back to the podcast, it’s clear that this episode has touched a nerve. While Murray might have valid perspectives on the conflict itself, his apparent desire to dictate who can and cannot discuss it is a dangerous and, frankly, ridiculous position. It’s important to be able to discuss and critique events, even without being a self-proclaimed “expert.” Hopefully, Murray will reconsider this elitist viewpoint and recognize the value of open discussion in the internet age.
