This morning, I watched a debate featuring Douglas Murray (link: https://youtu.be/y0_JtKOZbKo?si=3jZOQyFbrb9Je1ru). More than once, Murray has left me feeling disgusted—not out of spite, but because his remarks often seem to revel in the suffering of others, particularly when discussing sensitive issues like the victims in Gaza. It's disturbing to watch someone appear to take pleasure in saying the most horrible things.
I do admire his intelligence and knowledge of global conflicts. However, when someone combines eloquence, intelligence, and what comes across as sadism, it becomes unsettling.
To better understand the world, I always try to see the "other" perspective. I’m not a black-and-white thinker, though sometimes I wish I could be. That’s why it’s hard for me to label someone as purely evil. I’m currently watching the Netflix documentary *"Hitler and the Nazis,"* where you see Hitler’s close associates during the Nuremberg trials. It’s difficult to comprehend how someone can be so pathologically evil—just as it’s hard for me to believe Hamas committed the atrocities on October 7th last year. But when I see Murray, who is respected by people I respect, like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, I feel a physical sense of disgust. How can a clinical psychologist like Peterson not address Murray’s inappropriate comments?
I had to turn off the debate because my hands were shaking with shock, and later I found myself snapping at my son because I was still angry. I know I’m sensitive, but this was extreme, even for me. That’s why I’m writing this.
I strongly support freedom of speech. In debates, however, I often see insults used as a tactic when someone lacks substance or debating skills. With limited time to make a point, saying something shocking forces the opponent to respond before they can present their argument. Murray is particularly skilled at this, delivering cutting insults that make him appear strong. We humans gravitate toward strong leaders, but harshness often seems to win out over compassion in the short term. It’s easier to mock someone than to explain why they’re valuable, or to label Palestinians as terrorists than to discuss the complex issues of Israeli settlements and decades of Palestinian suffering.
Good and bad people exist everywhere, including in Israel and Palestine. It’s much easier to talk about good and bad people than to address the complexities of good and bad behavior.
I’m very reluctant to label someone as evil; their actions have to be consistently and egregiously wrong. A wise person would use a debate to help the world move forward. That’s certainly not what Murray does. He silences anyone who disagrees with him by calling them anti-Semitic. By his definition, I would be labeled as such, and that is far from how I see myself. Quite the opposite.