Malcolm Goes to Debate School | Revisionist History | Malcolm Gladwell
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 кві 2023
- What do you do after you've been humiliated at the Munk Debates? You call in the A-Team.
#malcolmgladwell #munkdebates #debate #revisionisthistory #podcast
ABOUT REVISIONIST HISTORY
Revisionist History is Malcolm Gladwell’s journey through the overlooked and the misunderstood. Every podcast episode re-examines something from the past - an event, a person, an idea, even a song - and asks whether we got it right the first time. Because sometimes the past deserves a second chance.
ABOUT MALCOLM GLADWELL
Malcolm Gladwell is president and co-founder of Pushkin Industries. He is a journalist, a speaker, and the author of six New York Times bestsellers including The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, David and Goliath, and Talking to Strangers. He has been a staff writer for the New Yorker since 1996. He is a trustee of the Surgo Foundation and currently serves on the board of the RAND Corporation.
ABOUT PUSHKIN INDUSTRIES
Pushkin Industries is an audio production company dedicated to creating premium content in a collaborative environment. Co-founded by Malcolm Gladwell and Jacob Weisberg in 2018, Pushkin has launched seven new shows into the top 10 on Apple Podcasts (Against the Rules, The Happiness Lab, Solvable, Cautionary Tales, Deep Cover, The Last Archive, and Lost Hills), in addition to producing the hugely successful Revisionist History. Pushkin’s growing audiobook catalogue includes includes the bestselling biography “Fauci,” by Michael Specter, “Hasta La Vista, America,” Kurt Andersen’s parody Trump farewell speech performed by Alec Baldwin, "Takeover" by Noah Feldman, and “Talking to Strangers,” from Pushkin co-founder Malcolm Gladwell. Pushkin is dedicated to producing audio in any format that challenges listeners and inspires curiosity and joy.
STAY CONNECTED
Web: www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revis...
Twitter: / gladwell
Facebook: / malcolmgladwellbooks
Instagram: / malcolmgladwell
Newsletter: www.pushkin.fm/newsletter - Розваги
What upsetted me the most was bullying Matt Taibbi, and hearing that baseless accusation over and over again was outrageous.
Absolutely. All Gladwell says in this episode is that Taibbi's reference to Walter Cronkite was "a provocation." Gladwell behaved abominably.
@@NOlsen8 Malcolm Gladwell is so self-righteous that he considers everything that he disagrees with as a deliberate provocation.
@@amfifvc3707 The provocation allegedly is “Mention a straight, cis, white man approvingly and OF COURSE Malcolm will become so angry he will lose the thread of the conversation and start accusing mild, earnest, likable - and leftist - Matt Taibbi of being a white supremacist.”
That really rubbed me the wrong way too. It was clear "Malc" was mispronouncing it on purpose as a way of dismissing Matt whom he likely hates for publishing the Twitter files.
im a little confused here, is this the debate or Gladwell commenting over the debate to try and salvage/defends his points?
So, you entered a debate you were ill-prepared for, didn't listen to your opponent's arguments, didn't read the audience and had your ass wiped and handed back to you on a plate. How do you fight back? Paint your main rival, Douglas Murray, as a racist xenophobia. By debasing your opponent, you lose focus of your own blunders.
And in attempting to paint Murray as a superior debater but a racist xenophobic, he conveniently ignores his own attempts to bully Taibbi, paint him in the same racist light, and assign opinions to him that he's never expressed himself. I'm not a huge Gladwell fan but I did read 'Tipping Point.' It's astonishing how badly he comes off, both in that debate and in this reflection.
@@TooSeriously This is the flaw with white liberals. They cannot understand how anyone could think differently and when that happens they become petulant children
Gladwell came off as an affirmative action hire.
Malc is the smartest person in the room, but only when he is alone.
That's a Wokist for you!
This podcast is evidence that Malcolm has learned nothing from this experience
Malcolm thinks the problem was his style. The problem is he was wrong from start to finish. This ruined his reputation as a free thinker.
I got about ten minutes in and just moved on. No insight into his own ego. Probably some narsisism involved.
Malc’s a classic Bubble Boy. He raced off stage and literally went home to cry to mommy. He’s become so accustomed to his bubble that he cannot understand why his sophistry fails outside the bubble.
All ego in his retrospective. No insight.
He’s so GD pompous too. Don’t like him at all
This is my favorite comment section ever, everybody gets it but Gladwell, what a beauty
Bars!
Total lack of integrity, that's why he doesn't get it and time after time he will make it worse.
yes. i really think this is an award winning comment section. i wonder what gladwell thinks.
@@maddydrea I'm sure he's convinced himself that this is just an army of trolls paid for by the ghost of Cronkite.
Wow if you think the debate destroyed your reputation then you are not aware that this podcast is putting the nails in the coffin.
Epic.
He literally brought his mom in to tell him he did a good job! 😂😂😂
Gladwell's self-important, hubristic pontification is on full display. And it's exactly what turned me off to him years ago, despite the fact that I wanted explore more deeply some of the topics he delved into.
Am I going to be the only person here to say something positive? Let me start out by saying I probably would have agreed more with Matt Taibbi's anti censorship position from the git go. BUT: I thought " Talking to Strangers" was maybe the most thought-provoking book I've ever read. A bad performance in a bad debate cannot change the fact that Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book that has forever softened me to the thought processes of people I disagree with. "Woke" snobbery can be irritating at times, but gloating about crushing being "woke" is equally unproductive for intelligent conversation.
Haaaaa perfect
I was a HUGE Gladwell fan before that debate. I read all the books, subscribed to the podcast, and really tried to apply some of the concepts he talks about in my own life. After the debate, I couldn’t listen to the podcast anymore. The whole idea of “Revisionist History” became perverse to me. After watching him struggle to paint his opponents as racists and xenophobes in real-time, it became clear to me that he’s been doing that with every episode of his podcast - Twisting narratives to fit the one he wants.
I was so excited to hear him talk about the debate and admit his faults, maybe even apologize for treating his opponents so disrespectfully…but I’m disappointed yet again. Malcolm, I’m saddened to say: you’ve lost a fan.
Same here. I think his debate performance showed a real character flaw, not just a failure to listen.
Perfectly stated. You just saved me the trouble of saying precisely that
@@NOlsen8 I don’t know if it rises to the level of a character flaw but woke-derangement poisoned his ability to debate effectively. It still does: notice how he cites Murray’s opposition to immigration is unassailable proof that Murray is a terrible person. No, Murray disagrees with Gladwell on a policy issue, but Gladwell thinks that that is enough, not only to condemn Murray, but to have him seen as condemned by a neutral audience. Well, no, it isn’t.
@@NOlsen8 innability to listen IS the character flaw. And it isn't merely a specific skill related only to debating aa Gladwel tries to paint it. Its a necessary skill to every form of learning and reasoning. If he lacks it, his thinking is fundamebtally broken, and his opinions and takes are as good as poisitive bias reinforcement mental gymanastics. Thats how sophists and pseudo-intelectuals are made.
That's what his books are. He is an utter charlatan and fraud. In selling his nonsense to make a quick buck he will be remembered as a fool.
It’s shocking how little you learned from this encounter. “Doug” was not the villain
Calling Douglas Doug was just rude and disrespectful, in particular when he corrected you, so he called you Malc and got the biggest laugh of the night. Michelle Goldberg who was on your side was also very rude and kept giggling like a 7 year old school girl.
@@taslimsadiq6892I'm not completely convinced that Gladwell said 'Doug' intentionally. It's boorish, insensitive, and it shows a bewildering lack of self awareness. I'd be willing to bet that he's that incompetent.
@@PrenticeBoy1688if you watch the whole thing you’ll notice he does it a few times and Douglas corrected him the first time.
The lack of integrity you, Malcolm, exhibited killed my soul that day. I too recommended you to everyone I knew. I'm embarrassed and sad, but I've learned a deep lesson.
23:16 he doubles down on inauthenticity.
Me too
Sam Harris was my moment. Then Jordanetics. I love the modern inquisition. Purge the hermeneutic ideologues by their own hubris.
Same I read all your books but I'm ashamed of your performance and
Malc, Malc, Malc. You showed us all you true colours. What an embarrassment to our country. You have no honour and no integrity. Thanks for showing us who you really are.
The worst part about this podcast is the fact that you think you lost the debate because you are a bad debater. You still aren't listening.
Precisely stating the essence of this issue with such concision! It seems that Malcolm Gladwell's acclaim and recognition may have inadvertently hindered his ability to engage in genuine self-reflection. The constant praise and validation could have created a mental barrier that prevents him from fully understanding or acknowledging his biases.
Well he is indeed a bad debater. But he's also just wrong so that doesn't help either.
Did. Not. Learn. Anything. Taibbi's reference to Cronkite was not a 'provocation', Malcolm; you were just provoked by it. Your inattention to your opponents' words does not equal a dirty trick on their part...and you really, really need to stop calling people racist. Douglas Murray, for one, has written about immigration with greater thoughtfulness and humanity than can be found in anything you've ever produced.
Seriously. Even in his post debate analysis he still strawmans his opponents
Yea, I already picked up on that... he's now trying to blame his own poor performance on the "superior sophistry" of his opponents... he really hasn't learned much
Wow... Just found out about this "response" to the debate. Malcolm if you read this comment. Please check my comment from the original debate video... As a fan, like almost every single person who has commented on both this and the Munk video, you really need to try and take the constructive criticism because most of the comments are spot on.
I was hoping for a response and got prompted today to look for this one when I was alerted to its existence. With ALL due respect and love, please go through the comments (again if need be), ignore the jabs and try to take in the substance from the critiques. You will be a much better version of yourself and gain an even wider audience, not because you will be feeding your readers and listeners with what they want but due to a wider and more varied perspective impacted by less bias and group think (which we all have). You have a great eye, a great mind, and an even sharper pen. You can only benefit from it.
You don't have to do it, this is just my two cents obviously, but I truly hope you will even if it doesn't change your mind even in the slightest.
I hope to enjoy your next book, I hope to enjoy future podcasts and I hope that in the future I want to add more of those books to my shelf along with your others.
With love and respect from the great white north.
@@White1148 I didn't know Malcolm Gladwell before the Munc debate, but I think you are giving him too much credit...
Malc's books are great.
But this is why Lefties don't debate. Because they're actually impetuous, petty children, drunk on how amazing they are.
And, they're positions are objectively wrong. Murray would have trounced just about anybody on this topic.
You singlehandedly proved every point, accusation and criticism that was aimed at he mainstream media in that debate, simply by being yourself. And the depressing part was, you didn't see the irony. Your glib arrogance was your undoing. It wasn't your presentation style that failed you, it was your attitude and arguments. Mainstream media has to change. Must change. And we need all journalists to up their game, or else everybody loses.
Ehhh.... yah. That line's been crossed. We all lost.
well said
All true. Well said
TAIBI: People miss the professionalism of the likes of Walter Cronkite.
GLADWELL: Walter Cronkite? He's a dead white male! Based on that, I'm now going to heavily imply that you’re racist for the rest of this debate.
GLADWELL (Five months later): Damn, I must have lost the debate because I didn't play the race card enough.
Especially ironic given that Matt Taibi is of multiracial ancestry (Euro, , Filipino, and Polynesian) and was expressing a fact (Cronkite's trustworthiness as measured in polls compared to media trustworthiness today) rather than an opinion.
I think Gladwell had a stroke and all his self awareness neurons died out.
@@vecernicek2 And was racist and Eurocentric by not pronouncing Matt's last name correctly- repeatedly.
@@cuivre2004 And also called Douglas Doug repeatedly despite him expressing clearly he didn't wish to be addressed that way. I thought that was totally preposterous.
@@vecernicek2 Yes- but at least Douglas called him out on that and made him look like a fool. Michelle Goldberg sat there wondering why everyone was laughing at Douglas calling Malcoln "Malc"- she wasn't paying attention to the participants and interplay whatsoever.
Hard to believe he didn't take this opportunity to apologize to Matt Taibbi. That was more than a straw man; it was a slander.
Hear, hear!
It’s not hard to believe at all.
7:50 in this moment you realized you had no facts.
Yeah, pretty poor show by Malcom in his attitude to Malcom and Matt, he also seems to be concentrating on semantics rather that the core issues of debabte
The Walter Cronkite point was a valid example of the problem. That Malcom doesn’t understand the nuance is quite shocking. Making It out to be a racist statement was very low and he should apologize to Matt.
This is the point that shows he really has a second rate mind. He just wasn’t capable of understanding the issue at hand. It’s interesting that, because he writes seamless prose, he is able to persuade people that the quality of his thoughts are also worthy. But, obviously, his grasp of things is crude and unsubtle, especially when he’s out of the reach of his fact checkers and editors.
Gladwell is unbelievable:
what an exemplary lack of introspection! Like a little kid teasing and punching a bigger kid and then screaming bloody murder when he gets slapped in response. Murray would never get personal towards you if you didn't start it, but it's so much easier to cry about a speck in his eye than a beam in your own, isn't it?
Exactly my thoughts…..zero introspection.
Right?! He skipped the part in the story where he took the first swing…
I love Malc. I've read all his books. Listend to many of his podcasts. After listening to the debate, and this podcast, I am astounded at how juvenile and petulant his thinking is. Here he attemts to paint Murray as a snake oil selling white supremacist, as he tried and failed to do with Taibbi.
The reason he lost the debate is because he was "being himself?" Vindictive and petty? A terrible listener?
How can this man write the things he does, yet be incapable of empathy?
Woke is a gnostic cult.
Malc must have a resolute and insightful editor.
Malcolm went to university and came out more stupid than when entered.
was with you all the way until the random strays fired at gnosticism out of nowhere
Yeah the being yourself thing was immature narcissistic stuff
Very well-made points, all of which occurred to me independently, although you articulate them more concisely than I ever could.
"Woke is a gnostic cult." How pithy, how true.
Nothing Malcom Gladwell has ever written can be trusted.
I've read Blink, David & Goliath, Outliers, The Bomber Mafia, and The Tipping Point. Believed what was in each of them. I now know that I allowed myself to be duped. Neither of the debate opponents are racists. To characterize them as such is slander.
To be honest, they've been deteriorating for 20+ years. They were all a bit shaky on the research front, but Tipping Point had some interesting points and was worth reading, Blink was a decent enough summary of part of behavioural economics, but there are better books on the subject, Outliers missed the main point pretty badly but had occasional high points, and by David and Goliath it was all pretty much nonsense.
At some point he seems to have decided that the actual truth doesn't really matter, and that anything counterintuitive is automatically interesting, even if it's held together with facts that are just made up.
David & Goliath is weak. Malcolm felt the need to write the story all over again and not pay attention to the one in the Bible reading that book made me know not to read any of his books.
Malcom is a member of the anointed. He genuinely believes he’s your moral and intellectual superior. His whole aim is to dismiss and demean us because if he didn’t, he wouldn’t be superior
That’s exactly how he treated Matt “Tiabi” and “Doug” during this debate. They are so far beneath him he didn’t even want to show them the respect of pronouncing their names correctly.
exactly you nailed it.
This isn't an apology, a mea culpa, or even a sincere attempt at introspection. This is the rationalisation of a shill.
This debate may be looked back upon as a kind of cultural turning point. Gladwell didn't merely lose badly; he confirmed the assertion that mainstream media cannot be trusted by unconsciously parroting its central flaw. It used to be you could read the New York Times to educate yourself on a debate topic but now doing so merely puts one in the Malcolm Gladwell position: fed on decent prose, but crippled by confirmation bias and an inability to rise above one's own echo chamber. That the audience was unswayed and in fact went in the opposite direction is hope for the future.
"Fed on decent prose, but crippled by confirmation bias" is a most eloquent description. Your comment deserves more likes.
@@jeanriquesnyman4545 Thank you. It will be on my epitaph: "Long Time Local Resident and Underappreciated UA-cam Commenter."
Malc showed his true colors as someone who plays at being a deep thinker but when forced to show his intelligence in real time simply resorts to ad hominem attacks and base tribalism. "The other side are just a bunch of racists!" Pretty disappointing. And now he's trying to cover his tracks.
“Malc”… 🤣 he was so disingenuous, especially intentionally getting Matt’s name wrong…
Malc jumped the shark in his munk debate appearance. Imho.
Don't miss the irony that one of the two representatives of mainstream media, selected to defend its trustworthiness, came to the debate with so little respect for the *work of persuading an audience* that he spends his next podcast trying to understand how high school debate works. Michelle Goldberg didn't seem to get it either.
The same practices that hone one's reportorial and debating abilities are in danger of atrophy when 'journalists' exist in an environment of one-sided narrative and opposing views being silenced and disallowed. Nobody has to 'work' for a story anymore; you simply parrot the prescribed narrative. That Gladwell and his partner were so ineffective in defending the mainstream media is in fact a product of their spending so much time in it.
I felt like Michelle was being persuaded to agree with Douglas and Matt. She put up a decent fight, but there just wasn't much she could use as evidence other than a few anecdotes.
I think so, too! Her argument became, "well we kind of get it right sometimes, so that should be enough for you to trust us..." And I don't think she even believed it. @@greenforce888
I'm 23 minutes into this podcast, and I do not yet hear Gladwell apologize to Matt Taibbi. His attempt to smear Taibbi as a white supremacist shocked me. I could not believe this was the same author of so many books I enjoyed.
30:12 - Talking about Taibbi. Waiting for an apology . . .
30:37 - It wasn't a "distraction." It was an outrageous slander.
Maybe his books are as accurate as the speaker?
The least he could do was apologize for mispronouncing his name.
Maybe he didnt write the books 😂
Hug fan of your earlier works. Was excited to see you as a fan on the debate. Extremely disappointing to see you pull the race card continually with weak not well thought out arguments. I feel embarrassed that I so highly recommended your books seeing how you conducted yourself. Thought of you again this week and happy for a response. Wish you well. Bought Douglas book that day. Phenomenal
Don’t be surprised. It’s the only card the American Left has when they’re wrong.
Douglas Murray's performance in the Munk Debate, which left Gladwell looking like a deer in the headlights peeing his pants [insert additional metaphors here] was one of the most thrilling displays of rhetorical panache I've ever seen.
He vaporized him.
Every time Douglas Murry speaks is a thrilling display of rhetorical panache. And Matt isn't a gifted speaker, but his writing is tremendous.
Panache? I'm offended. I don't know what that word is so you're evil for making me look and feel ignorant and apathetic.
Malc got his scrawny lying arse handed to him on a platter by a smarter man. Nothing to debate here, you got beat pure and simple didn’t you know that you tangle with Douglas Murray at your peril? The man is in a class of his own
@@JulesBartowIt's a provocation!!!
I admired Mr Gladwell for many years. I bought and read every book, and looked forward to every podcast. How can someone so brilliant be so blind? He didn't listen, he was disrespectful, he mischaracterised his opponents and their arguments, and he effectively constructed and debated a mutated version of his opponent that didn't exist. He was dishonest, childishly immature, unoriginal and ideologically-possessed. And the saddest part of all... in this autopsy he still doesn't get it. I take no pleasure in expressing any of this. It's all just so sad. Maybe this is a lesson to each of us to stay humble.
Well done, 'Malc.' You have a basic grasp of the necessary contrition here, but you can't help yourself and fall into the same traps. When you describe going to Crown Heights to discuss your debate failure and take it upon yourself to "describe who Douglas Murray is" to reframe your embarrassment, you go wildly off track. Who you think he is and who he thinks you are have nothing to do with the issue at hand. The audience wasn't persuaded simply because Murray is a better debater; they were persuaded because you were on the dead-wrong side of this issue. If you're going to make the 'Murray is a racist' argument again (as you did repeatedly with both opponents that night) then you're going to have to include the audience members who went to their side (in record numbers) as well. You'd have been wrong even if you hadn't been arrogant, used straw men, and pulled the race card repeatedly. You're doing the same arrogant posturing here. You lack any legitimate self reflection. You persist in calling him 'Doug' in your acknowledgement at the end of this podcast. Your unconscious arrogance runs deep.
Hear, hear, Malc!
Excellent analysis well done.
I think he did about as well a job of self reflection as it is possible to have while still being in a state of cognitive dissonance. He acknowledged several places where he failed and came up with plausible ways he could’ve done better.
However I agree with your comment as well. I totally missed that he called him Doug again at the end. Amazing 😂
@@HarryPainterHis reasoning was "Douglas Murray had more training" and "I was being myself" which is a bunch of garbage. He lost because he used strawmen and ad hominem attacks that ticked off everybody.
@@EGarrett01 he said he wasn’t listening because he was focused on taking notes. I’m sure that’s partly bullshit but like I said he’s probably in cognitive dissonance and he’s not gonna just say “I was a dishonest prick”
Gladwell spends 45 minutes contemplating the loss of the debate but never considered that he was wrong.
That's why the show is called revisionist history because Malc does a lot of revisionism just like what he did with his debate performance review.
Lesson 1:
Wildly accusing your opponents of being racist, sexist, and conspiracy theorists is a crutch and is terribly transparent to the audience.
Lesson 2:
Not earnestly engaging with your opponents points only strengthens your opponents argument by demonstrating that you do in fact live in an echo chamber and in turn alienates you from the audience.
Lesson 3:
Don't sit there all shriveled up with your head down doodling in your notebook like a petulant child. Again it alienates you from the audience by making you look uninterested, weak, and arrogant.
Lesson 4:
The reason you lost is not because you lack skills in debate its because as you admitted "I couldn't imagine anyone could disagree with the my view of the matter". This should cause to question all of your core assumptions about your world view not your debating skills. It is exactly the problem people have with the msm; the arrogance and the patronizing way they view the masses (just shut and listen to me cause I know better).
I acknowledge and appreciate his willingness to admit defeat and attempt a dissection of what went awry. However, it's disheartening to see him dismiss his defeat as a consequence of his lack of debating prowess and experience. The real issue at hand wasn't his debating skills, or lack thereof, but rather his defense of a position that lacked both tangible evidence and substantial grounding.
Looking at the difference in poignancy between Taibbi's and Murray's points I believe it could be attributed to a discrepancy in debating skills. However, the delta between Gladwell's argument and Murray's can only be attributed to the inherent merit found within each position. It appears that Gladwell has not even entertained the notion that his stance could, in fact, be wrong.
It's way worse than that. He's arrogant and a terrible listener. Pathological to say the least.
Did I seriously just hear you say Douglas Murray "objects to the number of 'non-white' people moving to England", to characterize Murray's statements about immigrants from Islamic theocracies??? So Islamic = "non-white" = Jamaican to you? That's the EXACT SAME strawman/borderline ad-hominem you used during the debate. You learned nothing from this experience. I'm skeptical that you will ever comprehend the error in your heuristics on geopolitical discussions.
I couldn't bear to listen to little Malcky talk for 44 minutes, but I am certainly enjoying the comments.
I listened to the whole thing, don’t worry you didn’t miss anything of note
Yes, so many nicely voiced views.
Agreed. The comments is the only thing that makes listening to this exercise in stupid possible.
It got ratioed so bad! If I’m him I would delete the whole episode.
Never heard of you before the debate but you proved a intellectual light weight
Another one who thinks too much of himself😂
Malcolm you will never win a Monk debate by playing the race card
I can't see him ever bring invited back anyway tbh
I've been a devoted follower for more than ten years. That recent Munk debate was incredibly difficult to endure. Instead of addressing the opposing arguments, you resorted to name-calling and questioning their sanity. You even fabricated arguments on their behalf and proceeded to attack your own arguments. I understand that debates can be challenging, and I wouldn't fault you for becoming defensive and resorting to personal attacks. However, what truly disappoints me is the complete absence of an apology or any acknowledgment of your appalling behavior during the Munk debate.
"Malcolm Goes to Debate School" appears to be your way of continuing to assail and undermine your opponents while attempting to spin the events in a more favorable light. Your podcast name is now pure irony. Regrettably, I can no longer place my trust in you, Malcolm. I can no longer rely on your ability to honestly and diligently pursue the truth. So sad.
Sad, indeed.
Yep... and he is representative of many, many far left folks, sadly.
"She had Murray & Taibbi on their heels." Gladwell - This Video. This statement is so divorced from the reality of the moment that it causes me to wonder if Gladwell is unintelligent.
Yes, I had the same exact thought. Michelle was….. unimpressive at best.
Douglas is referring to culture, not the immutable characteristics of race.
That you would attempt to paint him as some sort of ardent racist is just more of the same behavior from the monk debate where you were inventing straw men and then attacking those straw men.
It does not seem like you learned anything
Disappointing to hear Mr. Gladwell double down on his xenophobic attacks on Douglas Murray. You can hear Murray during the debate replays offer Malcolm advice to listen to the arguments he and Taibbi were making. He was trying to help him out in a sense. While Gladwell correctly identifies that he and his debate partner got "creamed", it doesn't sound like he really learned anything at all.
"Helping your opponent" is a killshot argument... if the audience agrees with it, you're sunk. It not only shows your case is so weak you are deserving of pity, it makes them look magnanimous in their offer of "help".
Here, Malcolm displays some amazing revisionist history!
This was even more embarrassing than the debate.
I totally agree. Can you imagine getting your ass handed to you, going on this Hero's Journey of introspection looking for redemption and still end up being as vile, hubristic and dense as he was when he first stepped on the stage? What a buffoon.
The worst part about all of this is not that you were unprepared (you were), or that you didn’t listen (you didn’t), or that you don’t have empathy or understand the art of persuasion (you don’t), or that you were condescending (you were), or even that the irony of this podcast shows that you still didn’t learn a single lesson and this is a farcical mea culpa (it is)…. No, none of that is the worst part. The worst part is that there’s absolutely no hope for mainstream journalism to ever improve because all those journalists have the same personality flaws that are reflected in their shoddy work, but they don’t benefit from the same egg-in-your-face, look-at-yourself-in-the-mirror moments that you had via the Munk debate. Oh, they’re out there if they want to see them (Russiagate, laptop-gate, etc), but journalists in such a group-think ecochamber that they don’t even realize those are huge L’s. And they certainly aren’t paying a team of pros to tell them how they suck, just so they can miss those points as well… Thats the worst part. Journalism is absolutely dead because the institution thinks no change is needed. Sad.
Well Said...bravo!!!!!!!💪🏻
Agreed, but i am just asking myself how far this is reflecting our whole western societies. Where are the genuine people who are interested to find a truth, even if they wont like it.
Malcolm, as a big fan of yours, I am heartbroken. I don't care much about the debate or the topic, but rather how you conducted yourself. Your use and abuse of the race card, as well as attacking the character of your opponents instead of their ideas, were not exemplary of the wholesome writer of 'David and Goliath.'
Do you now wonder if he actually wrote it????
Why are you surprised? The race card is the only card he can play! What’s he going to do, call Murray a homophobe? Are you REALLY that surprised that he had no substance and a shallow comeback?
@@donnapartowRight? Total Milli Vanilli. Maybe Boney M.
@@donnapartow That's what I am wondering now. Is he writing his own books??
Humiliation is perhaps the hardest wound to fully recover from. Malcolm to recover your lost dignity and re-enlist your lost fans - your mea culpa must be equal to the loss of face. You barely made it on the graph of recovery... " I blew it but if I had only done this or that and been better and that and this I would have trounced the arrogant racists." When you REALLY do your homework, you will tell your beloved mother you blew it and you have a lot to learn. Then you will say to Matt and Douglas - " I blew it. My opponents were more grounded in the subject, more attentive to what my side was saying, were more respectful of me in the face of my attempts to demean them (ie "Doug"), showed more nuance and intelligence than I, and were better at making their arguments than I was. I was being childish and antagonistic because I didn't know how to lose with grace, nor integrate information that was superior to my own. My ego and my dependence on approval crippled my communication skills. Only my mother could make me feel better and even that didn't work because afterwards I still resented Douglas Murray for exposing what a rude dick I can be when faced with a gentleman wise enough to be my teacher."
❤
Yeah, mostly this.
This is the way.
Nailed it!
And incessantly using the "race card" then and now. It doesn't work.
I’ve recommended your books to my friends, they all saw you debate Murray, now, they all think that I’m a prick.
Thanks soooo much
All that mustard must make for thin skin...you are looking for gods to worship not humans who are often spotty in their genius. The amount of documented nonsense produced by celebrity scientists alone, is huge, but it doesn't negate there best work.
Gladwell was a lamb led to slaughter for even trying to debate a trust issue and what was essentially an indefensible position. Unlike formal debating he did not get to argue the other side .
I wouldn't worry to much about your friends thinking your a prick, their opinions of you, hanging on such a thin thread as your book reviews.
If they think you’re a prick now..they already thought that 😂
Im sure you're not a bad person. 😅
People learn from their mistakes. Good people try hard to.
Your friends should admire Gladwell for that.
Well maybe you should have done more research about who Malcom Gladwell really is before you recommended anything from him.
I had it the other way with my mother-in-law. I gave her "The Madness of Crowds" to read and she was comparing the writing style to Malcolm Gladwell and she encouraged me to listen to his podcast, I never did but when this debate came up I was excited to finally see him in action. I was so utterly disappointed with Malcolm that I dared not bring it up to her. It wasn't till she brought it up that we had a discussion about it. She holds Malcolm Gladwell in such high reverence that it was hard for her to acknowledge that Malcolm was in the wrong, but she reluctantly did.
This was one of the most frustrating parts of the video. 17:08
"Why did you think you won the debate?"
"I just couldn't imagine how anyone could legitimately argue that the mainstream media was worse than the alternative".
Literally NOBODY was arguing this. Again and again Matt and Douglas explained that they don't see alternative media as a suitable replacement of legacy media. They clearly state that they want mainstream media to improve and focus on the facts instead of distorting the facts in order to cater to their target audiences. Nobody is trying to argue that alternative media is better or more reliable.
Agreed, and I'd also add that not being able to see how anyone could argue the opposing view from you is the problem in the first place. You should be able to argue your opponent's position if you needed to.
Agreed that he doesn't even understand the parameters of the debate, because it wasn't a comparison. It was simply about the reliability of corporate media. His debate tactics were middle school level nonsense, it was pathetic.
I didn't even want to watch it just from what I'd already heard about it and I used to be a fan.
Not anymore. I'll never buy another book. I was already kind of over him with his bootlicker bombs away crap.
However, I would ABSOLUTELY argue that independent media is better, just a matter of who you choose.
Open source journalism is far better than anything that's existed before. Mainstream media talks about a study in a 3 minute segment. Independent media can cover subjects much deeper AND give you the links to the documented evidence. Newspapers and TV NEVER do that.
You just have to do your due diligence to find credible sources
Malcom's lack of self-awareness and integrity is the problem. It's not that he lost, it's that he resorted to bullying and tried to excommunicate his opponents by aligning them with Racism the moment he realized he didn't have any bullets in the chamber. There's a moment of light in this podcast but right around minute 31-32 where she points out his flaw and he seems to accept that he was off the mark. Hope is not lost.
It's not about style but content. Your argument could have been better presented sure, but fundamentally the argument was the problem. Murray et al had the better argument and it was better *because it's true* .
It's that simple.
Douglas and Taibbi also worked as a cohesive tagteam complimenting each other's arguments whereas Gladwell and Goldberg's comments were flying in every direction with nothing sticking to the wall.
Gladwell swings and misses, again. The ‘spoil’ remains so.
The spoil really reeks!
Malc is hopeless… Did you guys see Douglas Murray’s short commentary clip with Peterson,”I still don’t feel pity.”? It was pretty good.
That's the only reason I'm here Bud. Malc is a Canadian icon just like our Blackface, pedophile Prime Minister.
I’m only listening to this because I just saw you get wiped out. It’s amazing how you can go on and on about what you learned while actually learning nothing.
I'm beginning to see two classes of leftwing spokeshole... There are the really sharp ones that act in bad faith, the ones that manipulate, the ones who are experts in spin. Then there are the ones with low verbal intelligence, the bubble dwellers, the useful idiots. I put Gladwell and Goldberg (and my two elderly great-aunts) in the latter category. The first group plays the second like a fiddle.
Dear Malcolm. What got me about the debate was that your basic argument would have been so easy to counter. You behaved so poorly that your opponents didn’t even have to address the substance of your arguments, they just had to point out your disingenuous participation.
You seem to be basically arguing that the virtue of the journalistic process itself shields journalism from egregious bias, that there are enough checks and balances in the system to keep things on the rails. Here you are wrong, because the journalistic process is in fact a process, and every manmade process ever serves a manmade purpose. Process always serves purpose. If the purpose becomes twisted, the process will twist to accommodate. Institutions are all subject to values creep, whether they be western journalism or the Roman Catholic church. The goal of the journalistic process should be to present the truth as transparently as possible, not color it to “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.”
This podcast is a weak mea culpa, a beaten man admitting to having poor style during a public debate. What I think both the debate and this podcast expose is the substance of a man who is a whole lot less pleasant, curious, and sincere than the public image of himself he’s curated. Like many here, I’m no longer interested in listening to your podcast or reading your books. Do better man.
Can I suggest that you also try to debate against the best version of the opposing side, not a characature of the worse possible version? You have interpreted Douglas Murray in the most uncharitable way.
No nonono you can't suggest that!
"You can trust mainstream media"
Also Malcom, "What is listening?"
Love it. Succinct.
This debate made me lose all respect for Gladwell. Then this podcast shows he missed the point! It wasn't for lack of debate skills that he embarrassed himself. It was from disregard of the other position. It was from arrogance.
But you and your ilk, are all still here :D. Good on you for devoting enough time to listen and comment about someone you have lost all respect for.
@@nudenut1916and you are commenting about someone commenting?😂
It really seems that he has learnt nothing from this experience.
Spoiler alert? I really don’t want to listen to the entire thing..
I've also enjoyed your books. Primarily for an interesting framing of anectodal and factual information. Now they seem like artiface, in light of the pettiness of your performance in the debate. Your true character revealed.
Artifice. That’s the best description for Gladwell.
It really is amazing. I used to listen to his podcast and when I did I began to notice a pattern where he would draw a conclusion based on a tiny piece of evidence ignoring evidence that didn’t support his conclusion or just completely misconstrue the evidence presented and then try to gaslight the listener into thinking they’d arrived at the same conclusion. I generally ignored it because I still found the data interesting even if his conclusions were questionable. Then I saw that debate. He tried the same tricks he uses on his podcast while adding condescension to his repertoire and surprise it didn’t hold up to objective scrutiny because he wasn’t in an echo chamber. And now he does a podcast where he scrutinizes his performance to see where he went wrong and actually cranks up his habit of misinterpretation or distortion ( I honestly am not sure anymore if he’s trying to be intentionally misleading or just literally is incapable taking in a piece of information without already having a preconceived conclusion about it) Multiple times in this podcast he plays a clip and then tells the audience how they should interpret it, adding layers of meaning or complete fabrications to it. It’s textbook gaslighting. Anyone with ears can see that he’s putting words in Murray’s mouth which is exactly why he lost the debate but he refuses to learn the lesson. He’s not objective. He even says as much, that he was so certain of his position going into the debate that he didn’t really need to prepare because he was sure everyone would agree with him. He embodied the issue the debate was there to discuss and is so myopic he can’t even see it.
Revisionist History indeed, Malc.
What's remarkable is that you could write a book like "Talking to Strangers" and then so pervasively abandon every principle you advocated for in the book, beginning with your two-dimensional, caricature-ridden myopic hatred of your interlocutors and plowing right on through your manic frenzy to pulverize them with a barrage of word-bombs that bore no relation in the least to anything anybody was talking about. Very telling.
Gladwell doesn’t even consider the possibility that he lost not because of his debate skill or arrogance, but because he was wrong on the merits.
At no point in this debate did "she" have Taibbi and Murray on their heels - Malcolm, you still haven't learned.
The problem with Gladwell is not a lack of debating skills, it’s as with many academics nowadays, a dogmatic blindness which results in a decreased ability to accurately observe the world around them - as a consequence they fashion for themselves theories and opinions that reflect their defective perception and then, again a natural consequence of the original defect of inaccurate observation of reality, come to ridiculous and obviously wrong conclusions. At the heart of it all is a lack of humility and a overblown sense of self. It is no wonder therefore that his views are predictable, mediocre and boring.
Could not have said it better. I know some extremely intelligent people with serious credentials in tough sciences. But on many important matters their beliefs are derived from a juvenile “starter kit” of (typically leftist) ideas and do not change over time. In a certain sense, they construct their entire lives around protecting these ideas from challenge or accountability, though without realizing it. If confronted with evidence they do not like, they will employ absurd reasoning to dismiss it that they would never use in their own field, and lack any awareness of the inconsistency. That’s how someone like Gladwell can walk into a public debate completely unprepared, get absolutely crushed, and then fail to learn anything meaningful from the experience. The possibility of being wrong is not something he will ever entertain.
Very well stated.
Nail on the head. I parted ways with an old friend recently who is married to ideology like a puritan.
They'll never discover how off-the-mark their obsolete assumptions are, since they never give opposition a legitimate chance. Even in the occasional moment they venture out of their comfort-zone, they are incapable of honestly assessing counter-intuitive arguments, since they tend to mis-interpret anything as gross caricatures that more neatly fit their pre-constructed straw-men. They instead project an incredibly obsolete understanding of the culture of the time into those who they deem uninitiated, much as Don Quixote would project a medieval monster into a windmill.
The longer these once-fashionable systems of belief survive without much self-reflection from their subscribers, the more transparent and well-understood their fallacies and blind-spots become to outsiders. At the dying end of the cycle, even the uneducated common man has a better grasp and ability to describe the world-view of these out-dated intellectuals, than said intellectual can grasp the world-view of their contemporary common men. You can tell we are at this stage when the gester can perfectly encapsulate all the beliefs of the court and clerigy of the time in no more than a couple sarcastic rhymes, and while the peasants get the joke intantly, while the church and noblety are left scratching their heads.
He's a leftist academic. Are you really surprised?
TLDR: I wasn't skilled in the art of inauthentic debating, and that's why I lost. Not because my argument wasn't sound. I will continue to play the race card, victim card, strawman, and ad hominem until I have convinced my last supporter that my opinion is correct and I was just not able to express it due to a lack of support/expertise/victimhood/x. Lastly, F Douglas Murray, because he will always be Doug in my books #Tolerance.
Woke struggle sessions are unpopular because they baffle the uninitiated. His solution is to become crypto woke.
Woke are so solipsistic and obsessed with oppression olympics that even the initiated can’t find common ground.
Woke do not believe in objective truth. Read ”inauthentic” patriarchal and oppressive.
Everything is subjective and relative. Read authentic.
How could they allow a toddler like Malc meet a heavy weight champion like Douglas Murray. What a slaughter. Can Malc ever regain an ounce of credibility. The emporer stood naked. With no means of protection. Shame.
I’d love a podcast with Gladwell’s mum and Douglas Murray chatting. Malc could provide the tea and biscuits.
"Malc." Ha! Ha!
Don't know why but this is my favourite comment.
lol
This self-exoneration posing as self-reflection is more irritating than the simplistic accusations posing as debate. I'm one of many who was a genuine fan who came to a screeching halt due not to Murray's polish and superior skills but to Gladwell's race baiting ad homs. I've learned a lot from Gladwell's books and I appreciate it, but the smugness accusations are dead-on and the fact by his last labeling of Taiibi (who was a child when Cronkite retired and has no more European ancestry than Gladwell) as a white supremacist due to his "worship" of Cronkite (who he never expressed a personal opinion of but a fact- that he was voted the "most trusted" public figure in a Gallup poll, which was relevant in a debate about the declining trustworthiness in mainstream media) the audience was groaning should have been a thermometer. I also disagree with a lot of Douglas Murray's views, but they were irrelevant in this debate and imagining that he's a person shouting racial slurs at your mother is something that should be addressed in therapy or in an essay, not a debate.
My jaw dropped when he talked about imagining Murray shouting racial slurs at his mother. This is pathological stuff.
Absolutely love your books Malcom. Have read them all. But the reason you lost the debate wasn’t because the other guys were better debaters, it’s because they had the winning argument. They were right and you were wrong. That should be your lesson.
Agreed. Malcolm says in this episode that the point of a debate is to convince others - as if whoever is the better manipulator wins. What if the point of a debate is to present facts and data to better understand a topic so we can better address it together? Rather than learn how you could have manipulated the audience better, perhaps you could learn how to better address the topic of debate and explore why you lacked data to support your claim that mainstream media should be trusted.
he talked to his mommy and it turns out the bad mean man won the debate on a technicality.
Right and wrong are relative to the way the argument is framed. There are no absolutes. As the debaters point out, Murray does a very clever rhetorical move where he moved the argument to a place where his side was obviously the right one, but the fact weren't different.
no he debated like a fool. didn't listen to what his opponents said.
@@QuietmindYoga Comparing the ideas of "to convince someone" and "to manipulate someone" creates a false equivalency. For goodness sake we all constantly convince people through the provision of facts. That being said, psychology does come into play when we are talking about mass opinion. We all bring world frames to our lives, and if a person has a fundamentally flawed frame and cannot be convinced by facts (for example Nazis in Nazi Germany), I don't see an issue in manipulating them- I couldn't care less if that is through debate or by other means. Nazis should have been manipulated into being better humans.
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, mainstream media does have much higher standards of journalistic integrity than non-mainstream media. There are also more people watching mainstream media, which means that the opportunity for a random viewer with first-hand knowledge of a subject speaking up and correcting the record is much more likely to occur than in non-mainstream media circles. Also I think in general people who accessed mainstream media (because of its journalistic integrity and standards of professional practice) did a much better job of protecting themselves from Covid, for example, than people who accessed non-mainstream media. I mean conservatives were complaining all the time about Twitter, IG, UA-cam, FaceBook, etc etc censoring them (some of which is true despite the issue being VASTLY overblown). I ask you where other than Twitter, IG, UA-cam, FaceBook, etc etc can we find non-mainstream media -that then would not be able to be immediately censored if the owner of the company did not agree with a particular post/article/etc's content? If the answer is nowhere else, then I remain unconvinced that non-mainstream media is anywhere near as trustworthy as mainstream media.
People have to understand this (specially the ones who use the race-card): assuming and calling people racist just due their skin colour, in a situation you're being challenged or any other, is--racist. A response based on pure prejudice. You have no right whatsoever to assume anything based on race, and if you wouldn't like it if done to you, then don't fucking do it with others.
Unfortunately he will refuse to see this seemingly obvious observation.
Taibbi is half Filipino/Hawaiian. Not even full white!
This is just more proof that Malcolm is a bad actor and a dishonest and disingenuous “intellectual.” So many flaws within this episode. Flaws that Malcolm knows are inaccuracies. From using Michelle’s talking point about Ivermectin when referring to Matt, which Matt said was inaccurate to the essence of his piece. To his continued use of “Doug” even during his feigned attempt at praising his debating rivals. Naw, Malc, this was bad, just as was your debate. You’ve seemingly learned nothing.
Don't attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by to ignorance. That reinforces Gladwell's accusations of conspiratorial thinking. The mechanisms of mainstream-journalists are much simpler and more pathetic than that.
They don't converge on their low-resolution and off-the-mark narratives because they are making a conscious concerted and pre-arranged effort to establish their misconceptions (except for when sometimes they do with childish efforts like "war on misinformation", but then they are stupid enough proudly admit it).
He is not deliberately promoting known lies to forward a self-serving agenda. He honestly believes the stuff he peddles, and in his mind, he thinks he is uncovering novel thoughts and teaching the world useful knowledge, and by his own admission, whoever disagrees with him can only possibly (in his childish hollywoodian brain) be a backwards ignorant bigot or evil profiteer.
Like most mediocre journalists, commentators and writers of the time, he is an arrogant dork who subscribes to the same obsolete incorrect ideas that every other mediocre dork in journalism also does simply because those were the challenging and smart ideas 50 years ago when they were starting out, and through pride and lack of creativity, they've barely learned a thing since then.
That is, they've added more corroborating data to confirm their biases, and learned new ways to phrase the same fucking philosophy, but to actually challenge their original axioms in any courageous way, they have no patience or ability to do. Their opinions have become caricatures, and their (initially small) deviations have compounded through time into a now absurd misreadings of the landscape they now live in. They all make the same errors because those are the easiest errors to make.
Douglas Murray is so good at debating because everything he says is right.
He would not hold a candle to the late Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens would have exposed Murray for the dispicable racist and hater he is, currently on full display as he cheers on the genocide in Gaza.
Can you imagine a single person listening to this audio or watching the debate and thinking MORE of Gladwell? And what does it say that no one said "hey, Malcolm, listen, about your podcast thing, maybe that's not the best angle to go for, because it really doesn't shine you in the best light"?
Either an echo chamber where no one tells him. Or he doesn't listen. Or his close circle actually gaslit themselves to think it was amazing.
Let us debate, and then . . . wait for it . . . throw a fit and call your opponent "racist." LOL
Your only reaction to the debate should be to say. I now realised I’m actually an arrogant idiot and never realized it until I was in a room with a real intellectual
I'm astonished by MALC's resistance to using his brain an learning something.
Murray's arguments had the audience in the palm of his hand, that's the difference Malcolm.
Crazy it doesn't occur to him he lost the debate because he could be on the wrong side of the debate. Suggesting that douglas would shout the n word at his mother is outrageous
Speaking personally, if I watched news media that perfectly matched my own opinions, I'd be thinking '...Well, now hold on a minute. Why is this happening?'
I just heard you state "our culture tells us to be authentic and put our feelings first.... but in a debate, your focus needs to be on your opponents' feelings." Malcolm, a successful culture will tell you to put other people BEFORE your feelings. And in a debate you need to listen to your opponent. Respect what he says. Use facts, seek the truth. And leave your feelings at home.
Malcolm, I’ve read several of your books and I’m beginning to wonder if you actually wrote them.
What can be learned? LIsten to learn. Insults never win an argument. Keep your ego in check. Finally, never assume you are the smartest person in the room.
Unless you're Douglas Murray
It's not just empathy it's about winning people around with the quality of your argument. People's minds will be able to be changed.
How can somebody be so smart and yet so lacking in self-awareness? What a peculiar person you are, Malcolm.
He is not smart. It only seems like it because he lives in a bubble and speaks 3 words when 1 will suffice.
Sam Harris showed me the same in his interview with Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster of triggernometry
@@mzbarsk Yep. More intelligent people are those that can get their point across using the least amount of words.
He is hard working and ambitious, but not that smart.
You did a phenomenal job at the debate...
If your goal was to help prove the other sides point by being a characterization of the problem with current "main stream" journalists
And now he's doubling down. Every time I heard him or Goldberg intentionally misrepresent the argument on the other side, I thought, "wow, I wonder if this is how they think when they're writing articles for the mainstream news."
Malcolm, according to a close friend, wants to WIN. He's ruthless about winning. He is therefore making a fool of himself even more with this podcast after the MUNK debates exposed him.
You lost a listener and fan in me on that day. But you'll get me back if you debate Douglas Murray again, in a debate, podcast or whatever. And you don't even have to win, you just have to be respectful.
You didn’t just lose the debate because your opponents are better at it. That’s part of it for sure. But the reason the loss was such a heavy one is that they were also correct on the issue at hand.
This entire podcast was a rationalization allowing you to believe you were right to defend the mainstream media.
Gladwell is the perfect image of why people flee corporate media, it’s become a clown car of grifters and fools which is what you get when status and social capital are your goals.
My one rule about race is that only people who don’t have an argument will bring up race. It has made liberals extremely weak debaters.
Very interesting point. Liberals believe their opinions are sacrosanct and that anyone who dissents is a kind of heretic. So, as you suggest, they never actually learn how to defend their opinions.
Always!
That's a bad view to have as many times race can be relevant to a discussion. The issue is people using race as a weapon when it has no relevance to the discussion at hand like what happened in this debate.
@@garythefishable Race is almost never relevant to the discussion. It hasn't been in decades. It's only being pushed by the mainstream media now to avoid another event like Occupy Wallstreet Movement. If the plebians are all fighting amongst each other about race and "gender preference," then they won't have the energy to focus on the economic elites.
This was fascinating! Malcolm floundered in the debate, but this podcast, where he attempts to exonerate himself and digs himself into a deeper hole, makes him look much worse. He says the failure to listen is not a failure of will, motivation or character. That sometimes people don't listen because they haven't learned how to do it. Presumably, Malcolm includes himself in that group. It sounds like a cop out. To listen really well you have to be relaxed, set your judgements , ego and emotions aside and be open, truly open to what the other side has to say. Only then can a meaningful exchange take place. It's not always easy. So for this to happen, it takes a considerable amount of will, motivation, and yes, character. I also think that Malcolm should consider changing his team. A lot of people are involved in the production of this podcast, and none of them seem to have challenged its contents or Malcolm himself.
Having watched the original debate and now having listened to this podcast it would appear that Malcolm has learned nothing. He intentionally ignores all of his worst behaviours during the debate, taking no responsibility for his words and actions and actually trying to blame Taibbi and Murray for his performance rather than himself. Here, he makes exactly the same mistake he did with Taibbi when hinting he was a racist when celebrating Kronkite, except now he is much more direct in saying that he was triggered by Murray because Murray is a racist. He also appears to claim that Murray somehow cheated by being better at debating that he himself was. And in a quite bizarre twist, claims that Taibbi 'provoked' Malcolm to not listen by evoking Walter Kronkite. Malcolm actually self-pityingly complains that he 'had not been taught to listen' so by definition implying it is not the fault of the near-60 year old that he ignored his opponents arguments! And like a seven year old complaining that his Mum hasn't been fair to him when giving his sister one more spoonful at dinner, the correct response to is, shut up and eat your humble pie. And might I suggest, Malcolm that your first 'bite' should be a phone call to Matt taibbi, apologising for your appalling attempts to bully him during the debate. Your continuous and clearly planned mispronounciation of his name, even after being corrected three or four times, was childish and pathetic, reflecting incredibly badly on you. Open with this apology publicly and you'll get a modicom of sympathy from some of us. But this 40 minute self-pitying catastrophe is as bad as the debate.
After talking about the importance of listening, you say “Matt and Doug, I appreciate you! If you’d listened, you would have said Douglas.
Exactly.
Just getting around to this. I was hopeful that this would be a humble, heartfelt, episode of self reflection. Unfortunately, he can’t help himself. Potentially an Aaron Burr moment for Malc. Ironically, he demonstrates behavior and an attitude only a mother could love. What a fitting end to the show.
It’s clear he isn’t a humble man. He’s falsely humble. It’s an act of an incredibly shallow and arrogant man. And those people are the destroyers in this world. Because they gain fame and power through deception and graft. And then they keep that dishonesty going. Destroying innocents without a thought. And of course, the truth.
If you accept how badly you embarrassed yourself, this could be the best thing that ever happened to your career.
Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly sink any lower than what you presented in that debate, I hear this. You’ve managed to find depths previously unknown to man to sink to. Great job. I’d say I lost all respect for you, but I’ve lost it long time ago, when I read your first two books…
Debate school? Must be a different school than Douglas Murray.😂
At least we can all walk away knowing Malcom can properly pronounce taibbi ;) That being said I appreciate the approach of this episode though I still feel like Malcom constructs strawmen of his opponents.
Yet still insists on calling Douglas “Doug”
His problem is that in a live debate, you have to argue against the real guy, not the strawman version that you stomped on all those other times, LOL!
21:53 Malcolm is in the process of doing the EXACT same thing that lost him the debate. Strawmanning Murray (he said he didn't want MUSLIMS to be a majority, that's an ideological group and voting bloc, not people of a certain race), and personally attacking him, and not outright calling him a piece of ****. You lose again, Malc.
You should have used this opportunity to apologise to Matt and Doug-lass for the baseless accusations of racism.