Dave Smith & Joe Rogan HUMILIATE Douglas Murray Over Israel! (Jimmy Dore)

American comedian Dave Smith and British cultural critic Douglas Murray recently joined Joe Rogan for a much-discussed episode of The Joe Rogan Experience.

Murray confronted Rogan and criticised him to his face for platforming non-experts to discuss historical and political subject matter. Murray also claimed criticizing such figures was like “punching jelly” because they would fall back on an “I’m no expert” or “I’m just a comedian” defense.

Yet when questioned about just who should be allowed to speak on which topics, Murray (who, by the way, has very limited credentials of "expertise") himself turned to jelly, arguing that he hadn’t said that only experts should be “platformed,” at which point he pivoted to arguing with Smith for referring to the United States as “we” when discussing the myriad wars the US has fought around the globe.

Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger discuss the series of semantic arguments Murray brought up throughout the show rather than debate the substance of even the subjects he brought up.



One of the key things about this discussion, regardless on your perspective on the conflict(s), is how it was disgracefully 'argued' by Murray using shifting (dumb) appeals to authority and semantic arguments.

The one thing that should matter in any discussion is current established fact (an exploration of what's actually happening) and broader historical (factual) context. The underlying issue they attempted to talk about was the War on Terror, the regime change campaigns/occupations that followed, and the present fighting in Gaza (the long term causes etc), where Murray was essentially saying that non-expert critics should not have a voice about any of this.

What he argued was a throwback to what happened during the pandemic, where certain 'pro official narrative' experts were given official sanction, where the dissenters, led by many experts, were censored, where the dissenting experts were also smeared, and where the dissenting side was almost entirely correct, and where the authorities were almost entirely wrong (or outright lying about everything). People watching from the sidelines, looking objectively at what was being argued during the pandemic, in terms of evidence and logic, could clearly see who was right and who was wrong the entire way through. This is why open discussion about any subject is essential. 

Note: This sort of discussion is part of what you find in classic 'debunker' arguments from establishment apologists going back to talking about the 911 attacks or about other fringe subjects. They often lace their (misleading) arguments with personal attacks, that is intended to put off more serious people, academics, or simply wear down their opponents. After a while a lot of people in the argument think, WTH with these trolls?!, and just leave. Some folks tho, stick it out, and by doing so, letting the trolls argue, expose them to outside observers as who they really are. You can read through long threads and the truth emerges - it is done so with reference to primary source material, historical context, and fundamental principles (of science). You can learn a lot, but it takes time and a level of fortitude.

[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, April 13, 2025.]