Alex, I do not always agree with you, and my comments reflect that, but I respect you're putting yourself on this platform and connecting with your readers. Tonight was a train wreck. Before this spat, I had no idea who Dave Smith was, and TBH, I still don't. His aggressive, mocking, hateful, and anti-gay rhetoric was so over the top it became unwatchable. I stopped after about fifteen minutes. I am as MAGA as I think anyone can be. With that said, I do not know how anyone on the right can tolerate someone like him. I do believe you still need to answer for your continuing belief in The NY Times and the international desire to somehow make Israel responsible for feeding those whom Hamas is starving.
100%. And it's a mistake for others to even characterize Smith as a man of the right. I'm not certain where he is on the political spectrum, but he's not a conservative.
I didn't watch it but I think Dave Smith has been on Gutfeld if I'm not mistaken and he calls himself a Libertarian. He also said Trump is a war criminal. Saw him several years ago but won't watch when he is on because he is so obnoxious. The lowlight reels on him with Rogan are also bad. Knew I could not stomach to watch the "debate".
That was a shitshow. Like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Whoever this Dave Smith guy is, he believes the only way to engage is with hostility. He wasn't there tonight to exchange ideas or to argue - his tactic tonight was to bully and harass and shout over both you and the moderator and his objective was to get you to lose your cool (which you nearly did once or twice) and deflect and turn your words around and just keep saying "Where's your argument, f**g*t?! Why don't you stop talking gay stuff and make an argument?" It was a parody of a debate. It was a parody of an argument. That was 2 hours of my life I will never get back. Alex - you are much, much better than to be dragged down into the mud WWE-style with the likes of Dave Smith, whoever he is.
Of course it was hostile. Alex accused him this week of a smear that is career threatening if not career ending, and then began the "debate" with an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of a joke Dave made years ago.
It's like, you poke a bear and then are surprised there's hostility? Give me a break!
You honestly cannot see that Dave was making fun of people who deny the Holocaust? He was mocking people in his own libertarian camp. Good grief.
Even Alex had to admit that he knew it was a joke and that was a very slippery slope because now he was confronted with the problem of accusing Dave of being a Holocaust denier knowing that he was joking about it.
Some people use Jokes to conceal their true feelings and opinions. If i make a joke to my son about not doing the dishes, am I just making a joke or am I using that to disguise my actual displeasure. This is where discernment is necessary.
Agreed. However Dave repeatedly stated that there WAS a Holocaust and agreed with Alex's strict definition of what that was. Even Alex had to eventually acknowledge that Dave was not a Holocaust denier.
To me (and I would suggest to most people as well) it was obvious that he was making fun of people who deny the Holocaust in the clip that Alex insisted be shown multiple times. Moreover Dave was (understandably) furious that such an accusation was leveled against him and Alex had nothing else to offer as evidence of Dave's "true feelings and opinions".
Discernment should lead us to conclude that Dave isn't nor ever was a Holocaust denier. Judging from the comments on the youtube recording viewers nearly unanimously came to the same conclusion.
Alex is playing with fire here. Insinuations and baseless accusations have very real repercussions. My wife and children are Jewish. I despise these kinds of attacks because they stoke anti-semitism everywhere. It's dangerous and disgusting.
No, I can see that interpretation just fine. I just don’t think it’s the only one.
Honestly, it feels like one of those weird audio illusions where some people hear “Yanny” and others hear “Laurel.” You and others (maybe the majority?) hear “mocking denialists.” I hear something closer to "downplaying genocide".
To me, it just didn’t land as a joke. No exaggeration, no punchline, no setup...just a deadpan line that felt like a wink. And the idea that he was mocking Holocaust deniers to that audience feels implausible.
Maybe I missed it, but in the debate I never heard Dave clearly explain what the joke was supposed to be. Instead of addressing it head-on, he pivoted and insulted.
Yes, Dave did go on to agree with Alex’s definition of the Holocaust, and I don’t question that he affirms it now. But when you pair that with an earlier comment that was historically provocative and his total unwillingness to engage on it meaningfully, it just didn’t come across as sincere. It felt more like damage control than conviction.
Given all this, I think Alex’s skepticism is completely fair. And even if others walk away with a different read, that’s fine too. But let’s not assume bad faith just because someone heard a different tone.
You "despise these kinds of attacks because they STOKE ANTISEMITISM?!" Diminishing and making jokes about the legitimacy and intent of the Holocaust is CAUSING antisemitism? Good grief. You want to tell Jews to "shhh. Just sit down and don't complain about unequal treatment or re-writing of your history otherwise we'll really hate you?" Wtf.
>> He mocked an absurd opinion either held by, or believed to be held by the people around him. In other words, he wasn't speaking with his own voice, there, but with the voice of the people he was making fun of. A combination of sarcasm and just saying uncomfortable things. Ricky Gervais at the Oscars.
Go watch Dave Chappelle's SNL monologue on Saturday Night Live in 2025.
Talking about the LA fires, he said he saw all these comments from people say "serves these liberals right". And Dave said, in response, he thought: "That's why I hate poor people". Do you think Dave actually hates poor people? Who was he making fun of there?
Later, on the same topic, he said that you can't ignore the possibility it happened because God hates the people in LA. Do you think Dave actually thinks that? Who was he making fun of?
Those might not be the best examples, but they're what I could come up with.
The bigger point is, attributing Dave's statement in such a literal way, as Alex did, was slimy and ridiculous and dangerous (I'll explain why below).
"Who was it meant to entertain?"
>> I don't know the mind of a comic, but I imagine first off Dave himself found it funny. FWIW I did, too -- I actually laughed when he played the clip. There Dave is, a Jew in a midst of actual or perceived neo-Nazis sarcastically denying the Holocaust to their faces.
"How was it supposed to land?"
>> Make people who actually think the Holocaust didn't happen a little uncomfortable for being called out and make others laugh at them.
"If it was aimed at mocking Richard Spencer or the alt-right, why did he laugh?"
>> I don't know Spenser's beliefs, but people laugh for all kinds of reasons: laughing because he doesn't actually deny the Holocaust, but others think he does, in which Dave's comment would have been something he's been falsely accused of 1 million times; or if he did believe it, laughing at Dave's audacity to mimic it/call him out on it. There could be other explanations.
"And if that wasn’t the point, why didn't Dave clarify it?"
>> This is an important point.
He was pissed because Alex's intention was so clearly in bad faith. It was such an absurd accusation, as with the rest of Alex's "debate", it had the tenor of a struggle session. Like, please apologize for saying this thing that a comic should never have to apologize for? No way. Absolutely no way.
I mean this 100% seriously: comics are a canary in the coal mine. It's a red line when people go after them for jokes. Jokes aren't always funny to everyone and they often offend, but we have to accept that because comedy, the Jester, is such an important part of free speech. What Alex tried to do here is disgusting to me and I imagine based on his reaction it was disgusting to Dave.
"If Alex’s read is so ridiculous, what’s the right one?"
>> It was a joke, see above.
"When Alex played that clip, it sure sounded damning to me. "
Dave would have to actually have a legitimate career. What he has is a following of low IQ bigots, who spend their time looking to blame others for why they live in mommy's basement. Smith panders to the worst of the worst and lowest of the low, but unlike those more intelligent, he does so with name calling and sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty. There will always be an audience for him on the bottom rung of intelligent life, but those who engage in intellectual debate based upon facts and not suspicion, bigotry and innuendo should not mix with him and those like him. Your piece based upon BS in mainstream media was beyond disappointing, and the focus the world has on this issue and the importance the world gives it should give you pause. Zero has been said about the massacre of Druze in Syria, the slaughter of Christians in African nations by Muslims and the Islamists are somehow painted as victims. Crickets are heard around the world. That is the real story - leave the Dave Smith's in the gutter where they're comfortable.
You are right on. Ignoring the Israeli protection of the Druze is on purpose. I can't help but observe that the complex Gaza war has done much to expose and activate the world's latent antisemitism. And that is the real story of all this that Hamas seems to understand.
"Zero has been said about the massacre of Druze..." are you actually serious? These paper thin bs tactics don't work anymore.
Dave himself spoke about the Druze on Piers Morgan a week or so ago, and rightly pointed out that he and many other non-interventionists like him correctly warned that a US-and-Israeli-backed installation of al-Qaeda as rulers of Syria would likely result in horrible massacres of non-Muslims there, at the same time the neocons and Netanyahu celebrated the "historic" ousting of Assad.
It was indeed a shitshow. I watched 10 minutes of it and decided that it was NOT the best use of time. "No good will come of this," I said out loud before turning it off.
In a related matter, Darryl Cooper? Gimme a break. I watched his first appearance on Tucker Carlson's show--I kept waiting for a punch line--I kept waiting for him to provide a disclaimer or something to negate his contrarian revisionist history.
And Candace Owens? She's an excellent self-promoter to boost her program's reach when she struck out on her own after tangling with Ben Shapiro. Now she's taken on Brigitte Macron? The French have always been odd--and WHO CARES?
I just don't get the holocaust denials. I don't get the antisemitism.
Candace has gone off the rails. She has cultivated a following of believers, who take every word she says as the absolute truth. She told a commenter that he should take a dishonorable discharge rather than fight on behalf of Israel. Her predictions of a never ending war with Iran did not materialize and she made no mention of that. I don't get the Macron obsession either. I think the publicity she garnered from her Brigitte series has gone to her head. Like you said, she is very good at self promotion. I was taken aback by how antisemitic she is.
I can't believe you go to that clip of him on Spenser as evidence of his "Holocaust Denial".
Dave's joke, there, is funny because it was an ABSURD statement. The fact he made it to a guy like Spenser, to me, IS the joke -- it was making fun of people who would deny the Holocaust or (ironically) accuse others of denying it. Do you not see that?
Your pinned "joke" about Dave wasn't a joke at all -- you were just smearing him as someone who downplays the Holocaust. There was nothing even remotely funny about it. You retreat, now, by saying *of course* you don't think Dave believes it was a "spa", but it not being a literal spa isn't the point -- the point is you genuinely believe he downplays it or he's friends with people who do, but you never demonstrated it (the Spenser video doesn't work).
Quoting the Holocaust museam's accusation against Cooper isn't an argument at all, either -- classic appeal to authority fallacy They're not infallible on this topic. If you had quoted an actual argument they made about Cooper and then defended that argument, that would be a different story entirely.
I don't know exactly what you're saying about Candace, but the fact she accussed "a" Jew of something horrible doesn't make her an anti-semite. That's a classic fallacy, too.
I don't blame Cooper for not jumping through the hoops you're holding up for him. His response, the podcast recording where he called what happened MURDER was enough for me. As Dave correctly pointed out, murder implies INTENT.
Overall, this was a super cringe "debate". I say this as a day 1 subscriber: you got what you deserved tonight because of how you came at both Dave and Darryl with such unprovoked nastiness.
Very well said. No one is perfect and Alex was a hero during COVID, but I’m not going to keep paying $300 a year (which I’ve been paying for ~5 years now) to watch him pick this bizarre fight with Smith and Cooper, simplifying their positions and misconstruing obvious jokes to the point of utter absurdity.
I was just commenting on the previous article when you wrote this.
Alex, you are single handedly my favorite person from the Covid era. I have literally read every single word you have ever written on Unreported Truths. I root for you to win your lawsuit like it's my own lawsuit. You were a sane and helpful voice during the worst period on Earth in my lifetime.
AND, Dave escalated the teenage, tough guy vibes. He went too far with it. Insulting your association with the NYT was a weak connection and he kept going back to it.
But I'd be pissed too if you were poking and prodding at me all week. And I was really embarrassed at how you started that debate. Were you trying to say jokes are jokes or were you actually accusing him of holocaust denial? In reading this piece, you "contradict" yourself (sorry, trigger word), so I am still not sure.
I am saving the last 30 minutes for tomorrow, but this whole week was not a good showing from you. I know you don't care what other people think, but I just hope it's taken as feedback from someone who holds you in extremely high regard. I have no other agenda, and really hate to see two people I like, suddenly become enemies.
Agree with all of this above: Alex, you are single handedly my favorite person from the Covid era. I have literally read every single word you have ever written on Unreported Truths. I root for you to win your lawsuit like it's my own lawsuit. You were a sane and helpful voice during the worst period on Earth in my lifetime.
But I’m also really disappointed as he’s the only person I see that’s been a victim of a bullshit hit piece (Pandemic’s Wrongest Man) and turn around a reference an (incoming) hit piece as proof of something.
You don't get it, Alex. I won't be renewing. Not because I disagree with your politics, but because you stunned me with your utterly tone deaf approach and inability, or unwillingness, to respond to basic questions in a rational manner. I feel embarrassed for your family and I don't trust your judgement. Dave was rude, but good Lord you were impossible and obnoxious. And from this latest post, you don't seem to realize that. What a sad state of affairs.
Alex, love you and you were there when it mattered, but I honestly don't understand the Cooper/holocaust denial thing. I've heard him choke up on his podcast talking about the treatment of the Jews during the war.
The ONLY focus Alex had was getting Cooper to say exactly what Alex "wanted him to say", and that to me is ODD considering what we all came thru with the Biden Admin, and the great intentional PLANdemic of 2020.
No, it's to acknowledge that the Holocaust was the first-degree murder of war crimes - planned aforethought and with the definite intention of murder.
Guys like Cooper call it murder - but murder can also be when the bank robber is surprised by a cop and shoots him.
The idea seems to be to deny the distinction we all make when discussing such crimes. (Planned killing is "worse" than one
taken on the spur of the moment, even in furtherance of another crime such as robbery.)
We make these distinctions all the time - so do judges and juries - and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
The idea seems simply to deny the "specialness" of the Holocaust - to make it easier for those who need it to maintain unsympathetic feelings for Jews, and to up the ante of contempt so as to demonstrate their tribal bona fides...
I 100% agree with what went down in the 30's and 40's of the last century, but it felt to me in listening to that debate last eve there was an overwhelming need to get another person to SAY something which just sat with me as ODD. Just sorta reminded me of the type of mental coercion during those tryrannical days of the plandemic. I mean the mindset you must affirm because "I am science" as with what Fauci was trying to insinuate for example. Or IF you don't accept the vaccine you are a vaccine denier etc. These labels just bother me in general. I've watched and listened to Cooper a few times, and he does not strike me in the least as that person who believes the intentional murder of Jewish people and other's deemed to be inferior human life in that era by the Nazi regime didn't happen. Not sure I made a point here, but so be it. My intention was what it was...
I also felt Alex's referencing Yad Vashem was overdone and counter-persuasive. (I would have stated my own position and added, ONCE, "...and this also conforms with the main repository of Holocaust research, Yad Vashem."
Presumably, Alex moves in a world where people realize the credibility of Yad Vashem (but this does not likely include many in Smith's audience.) Or, it might have been a mild mental tic.
Notwithstanding, Alex articulated a dozen times exactly what he meant by "Holocaust denial"; so Smith's (and commentators here) jumping on this incidental maneuver of Alex is, in my opinion, it's own kind of naive or bad faith arguing.
The biggest problem with this comment and Alex’s “issues” with Daryl Cooper overall is that in actual Holocaust historiography, there is a “functionalism vs intentionalism” debate. Wikipedia has a page on it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism–intentionalism_debate
Alex seems blissfully unaware that serious academics even differ on how the Holocaust arose, was carried out, and accelerated over time. Was it from “bottom-up” forces and willful blind eyes at the top? Or a plan dreamed by young Adolph with all his evil ministers plotting this very thing with full knowledge and intent on “day one”?
Wikipedia, which still calls the lab leak a "conspiracy theory."
Alex seems aware enough of the scholarship and debate on the Holocaust, and has indicated Yad Vashem as a repository of such opinion.
More to the point, his reading and experience has brought him to his own conclusion on the meaning of the Holocaust - and if this is not *enough* to enter the debate - you are making the the same "appeal to authority" so many of Smith's defenders criticize Alex for.
Alex, I love and respect you, but this shit on X and the debate, which I had to stop watching, is insane. I like Dave Smith too, but the insults and name calling was ridiculous.
anyone who thinks Darryl Cooper is an anti-semite has obviously never sat through the opening of his riveting monologue Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem.
Dave Smith has one of the most interesting podcasts i listen to. i'll have to watch the debate for myself
"But guys like Darryl Cooper seem to want Jews to be thinking about the Holocaust and Nazi Germany and World War 2, to be obsessing about it. Not just because doing so can be difficult and depressing. Because *they* obsess about those events."
Right, right... Amateur historians like Cooper are the ones pathologically obsessed with German crimes four generations ago --- not our entire media culture, which plays 6-degrees-from-Hitler at the slightest provocation. Every time I witness otherwise reasonable people fly off the handle when this topic comes up, I'm further convinced Cooper is doing necessary work.
But don't take my word for it. You can read his. It's all public. What's the old saying? "You can tell a man's soul by his prose"? I defy you to read Cooper and conclude he's a Holocaust-denying anti-Semite:
I took you up on your reading suggestion, but was stopped part-way through by a subscribers-only paywall. The part I did read does not support your assertion about Cooper. Maybe the "pay-for" part turns things, but I have my doubts.
Tell ya what, since you seem like an honest guy: send me a message with your Substack e-mail and I'll gift you a $5 1-month subscription to Cooper's MartyrMade.
(Substack really needs a pay-$1-without subscription feature, but oh well. What's $4 in the grand scheme of arguing about the legacy of WWII?)
Indeed it's not possible to defend it, because that's not what he said. He did not claim the Holocaust was 'accidental.' His point was that, *even if it was,* as some neo-Nazis claim, the German regime is still responsible for those mass deaths.
(46:40): "When they [the Germans] went into the East in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners, and so forth, that they were gonna have to handle. They went in with no plan. They just threw these people into camps."
Two points:
1) You're conflating the Holocaust with Operation Barbarossa. Understandable given the historiography. But you do know the Nazis killed other people besides Jews, yes?
2) Cooper is correct. The 'Commissar Order' which you probably have in mind was not a general one. According to Wikipedia, "The final draft of the order was issued by the OKW on 6 June 1941 and was restricted only to the most senior commanders, who were instructed to inform their subordinates verbally."
I'm sorry, when he called me a "faggot" and started talking about my "vagina" because I played him a clip of him saying something he had forgotten saying, what do you think I should have done.
The part you’re all missing is that Dave takes being called a holocaust denier very seriously. As he referred to it, that’s going after someone’s career. You’re trying to deep-six them with that accusation. You (Alex) doubled down by pinning it to your page, and then trying to get him to prove to you that he wasn’t by showing you his ancestry…or something. He *told you* and the moderator that he was coming in with energy to go after you. Then, you inexplicably played a 10-year old clip of him making an obvious joke. But that was your argument to support your week-long claim that he was a holocaust denier. But you’re now saying you know it was a joke. But yet you played the clip multiple times as your “proof”. It was beyond odd. Then you talk about those he pals around with, so his reference to your NY Times days was to point out that your bedfellows were far worse than his. And your claims about his bedfellows are also based on thin evidence. Merely because someone didn’t agree to say what you wanted them to say after you attacked them publicly… no one is playing repeat-after-me with someone who’s trying to publicly accuse them of something so disgusting.
I told you the debate would go poorly. You lost it in the first 5 minutes. It got slightly more civil after all decided to chill, but I still think his logic was just so much more convincing. I hope you got what you wanted out of this. But IMO, it wasn’t a good look.
Huh? That’s called a joke. Why should he have to explain it 10 years later to someone who *knows* it was a joke, yet still used it as Exhibit A, B, and C to make a public case that he’s a holocaust denier. Also, to make the case Dave Smith is a holocaust denier means they now need to explain away all the many counterfactuals where he has discussed the holocaust in ways that obviously proves he doesn’t deny it.
The joke was about autistic people and the alt-right. The actual words were something about the genocide that actually happened. He didn't specifically mention Jews. But it was implicit that he was making fun of alt right (and often autistic) Holocaust deniers complaining about their own genocide via a cure for autism. It was pretty obvious, and not something that most people need explained to them. Especially when the speaker is obviously NOT a Holocaust denier (in the sense that he clearly believes that many millions of Jews were killed by Nazis).
Because comics shouldn't have to explain their jokes. Ever.
Comedy is very important -- comics say uncomfortable things, by design. That's often the point. They often don't even do it using their own "voice", so taking their words literally and asking them to "explain" themselves is disgusting.
You really need to sit this one out, Josh. The last person I suggested that to today was Alex. He didn’t take my advice, and look what happened to him. Please, don’t embarrass yourself.
Although, I do enjoy calling friends faggots. I don’t think you’re friends, though. Also, you needed a fucking hammer as a moderator. I would have muted both of you and yelled many slurs at both of you. Rav was too nice.
What Dave Smith does, in lieu of having any kind of real argument, is put on "threat displays"—as they are called in the animal kingdom, i.e. fan out his feathers, scream and yell, beat his chest, roar and make a whole lot of noise which is supposed to drive the opponent away.
I react to people doing that by staying totally impassive then saying, after a sigh, "Well, that's a very fine threat display but let's get back to actually discussing the topic, ok?
my female gaydar says Dave Smith doth protest too much, that actually he is latent....not that there's anything wrong with that! But that may be why he yells about "bitches," and "faggots" so much.
I agree. But my biggest concern is the audiences they speak to and tbe use of Dhimmies fulfilling the agenda of the Chinsse and the Muslim's taking control of world power. The useful idiots supply the coal needed to start the engine.
Dave Smith is a fool. He went up againt Douglas Murray and was totally decimated. HoweverJoe mocked Douglas and showing his distate for Jews.” Have you been there” questioned Douglas to Dave about the issues after the October 7th massacre, has been turned into a meme. .the end result is that the Caliphate starts to slowly invade us.
We need to expose the useful idiots and fight back. Thank you.
Smith is no fool. I was appalled at Murray’s performance. He is not a useful idiot or an idiot at all. I’m usually the one stirring the pot, but your comments are beyond the pale. This is an important question and deserves sober analysis.
I am sure you are a good human being and you have blindspots like the rest of us do. This wasn't a takedown of you, Alex. It was a demolition of your belief system and your way of constructing an argument. I don't want to see people get hurt or humiliated, but I am merciless when it comes to exposing flaws in arguments. We simply don't have time for bullsh*t anymore. It was refreshing to see it done, and I am sorry it happened to you.
What surprises me the most is that you didn't even see this coming. What did you expect was going to happen after you level a truly repugnant accusation against someone publicly and all you have to base it on is a comment from Dave Smith that was CLEARLY a joke?
Seriously, didn't you even think it through? You were going to be called out for being too stupid to know it was a joke, or for being a complete jerk for knowing he was kidding but accusing him of being a Holocaust denier anyway. This isn't the first time you have had a serious lapse in judgement, btw. (I subscribe to your substack and you still are tragically wrong about early Covid treatment and this latest Danish Aluminum study). I don't hold it against you. I support you here because of your fight against censorship.
It was refreshing to see you get called out on so many things. Dave was right to push you on citing evidence that he was "contradicting" himself. He wasn't going to let you get away with anything. It was a sly move you tried to pull there Alex, but he wasn't going to concede your point because that would mean he was disavowing his friend Darryl Cooper. You should have seen that too.
Dave Smith was absolutely right to call you out on your association with the NYTimes during the Iraq war repeatedly. You know why? Because they have been doing to so many of us in the health freedom movement what you were trying to do to Dave during this debate. Smear his character with baseless accusations.
He was absolutely right about your ridiculous appeal to authority for the "correct" definition of the Holocaust. Do you know what happens when you make public accusations like this, nitpick words, demand that everyone use your definitions and vilify them when they veer of slightly from your standards of acceptability? Do you know what happens when you deem people guilty by association?
ANTI-SEMITISM.
Stop it. For the love of all that is sacred.
Just.
stop.
it.
I listened for over 90 minutes and heard no apology from you about your baseless public assault on Dave's character. Maybe you should take a breath and start there. Not because that will play better in the long run but because that's what a person with integrity would do.
You have a blindspot. The Holocaust, as it is classically presented, is part of your core identity as a Jew. You can no more leave it behind than a fish can leave water. Your belief in those events is religious, every bit as religious as the belief in a safe and effective Covid vaccine, or that Covid was a death sentence.
You will lose a lot of subscribers over this. You may not care. Religious fervor will do that to a person. But if you could approach the topic with the same skepticism you approach many other topics, I think you would at least be able to consider that people who lie about everything else might slip some falsehoods into the conventional narrative on this topic.
Seems to me a case of Alex saying something stupid on Twitter and keeps doubling down. How many times have you seen these stupid arguments go on and on because someone refuses to admit they were wrong?
I watched 30 seconds of the debate and had to leave because it was just childish. Alex could have deflated this long ago on twitter.
It bothers me more than it should that you STILL haven’t listened to Daryl Cooper on Tucker.
Of all the things I respect(ed) about you, journalistic integrity was near the top of the list. You went from DEAD WRONG on Covid to mostly right because you actually chose to do the research and see how obvious the truth was. Why, in this situation, do you just refuse to actually do the work? It’s beyond lazy at this point - you’re consciously choosing to ignore what was actually said on the show and I just can’t fathom why?
I would never tell anyone to “stay in their lane” as people yell at you on Twitter all the time, but I will say that you choosing to battle in spaces you refuse to actually analyze is costing you the respect of your readers who pay to be here specifically because of that respect. At this point I’m not sure what I’m paying for any longer - because it certainly doesn’t feel like top notch investigative journalism
I'll start with my ask so you can ignore the rest of this if you'd like - would you be open to dropping the topic all together (all topics, I'm asking this generically) and explaining how/where you define the line for what is acceptable questioning of a narrative and what makes someone a "denier?"
on Daryl Cooper, can you share? I read most everything you publish and have since I joined basically immediately upon you starting a substack - and the "c'mon tucker" article is the only once I remember and you said you hadn't listened to the entire episode. Has that changed since? Or was there another article I missed?
The MUCH more important question to me, is how you're now defining the line for who can be platformed and who can't? There were much better people during COVID (that's not a knock, you know that as well), but you had the distinction of being the one that was prominent enough to both get attacked/de-platformed AND be able to make noise about it. I thought I was following you because of a principle you stood for, and that principle was that the data matters, and, more importantly, the right to do any analysis you want for the sake of finding some form of truth REALLY matters - but now it feels like it may have been because of a belief you held, which I find borderline irrelevant.
So, now I'm not sure. I absolutely DESPISE the "denier" term, because it is exactly the definition of an ad hominem attack - it doesn't actually mean anything. If someone believes 5.9 million Jews were killed during WWII instead of 6M, are they a "denier?" Isn't this EXACTLY what happened to you during COVID? And how/why does there need to be a line? You can disagree with any/everyone but the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to ask questions and come to conclusions hence they be a "denier" is EXACTLY what you were supposed to be standing against... I thought?
The idea of defending someone you've never met and have had zero actual real life interactions with as a "good guy" is just as outlandish as calling someone a "denier." You know what's equally outlandish? Pretending he's a "bad guy" because you don't agree with some questions he asked.
Has Daryl interacted with your kids? You asked him for help during a crisis and had him say yes or no? Have you placed trust in him to help you get something done? This idea that people have "feelings" for podcast hosts is so stupid it's indescribable. I LOVE Kenny Griffey Jr.'s baseball swing. I think it's the most beautiful swing I've ever seen. From that, should I extrapolate that he's a "good guy?" Who the F*** cares? Daryl presents very interesting arguments on a bunch of topics and has done some fascinating research on stuff other people don't touch. It's interesting. Like reading a book. Did you used to "like" novelists - or did you read the book, learn something or not, and then move on? This idea that character needs to be examined now because they talk instead of write just makes me laugh.
On a related note, what, exactly, would I need to exonerate Cooper from? Did he hurt small animals I'm unaware of?
He's a podcast host with an opinion... it's embarrassing what we turn that into.
Alex, I do not always agree with you, and my comments reflect that, but I respect you're putting yourself on this platform and connecting with your readers. Tonight was a train wreck. Before this spat, I had no idea who Dave Smith was, and TBH, I still don't. His aggressive, mocking, hateful, and anti-gay rhetoric was so over the top it became unwatchable. I stopped after about fifteen minutes. I am as MAGA as I think anyone can be. With that said, I do not know how anyone on the right can tolerate someone like him. I do believe you still need to answer for your continuing belief in The NY Times and the international desire to somehow make Israel responsible for feeding those whom Hamas is starving.
100%. And it's a mistake for others to even characterize Smith as a man of the right. I'm not certain where he is on the political spectrum, but he's not a conservative.
I didn't watch it but I think Dave Smith has been on Gutfeld if I'm not mistaken and he calls himself a Libertarian. He also said Trump is a war criminal. Saw him several years ago but won't watch when he is on because he is so obnoxious. The lowlight reels on him with Rogan are also bad. Knew I could not stomach to watch the "debate".
That was a shitshow. Like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Whoever this Dave Smith guy is, he believes the only way to engage is with hostility. He wasn't there tonight to exchange ideas or to argue - his tactic tonight was to bully and harass and shout over both you and the moderator and his objective was to get you to lose your cool (which you nearly did once or twice) and deflect and turn your words around and just keep saying "Where's your argument, f**g*t?! Why don't you stop talking gay stuff and make an argument?" It was a parody of a debate. It was a parody of an argument. That was 2 hours of my life I will never get back. Alex - you are much, much better than to be dragged down into the mud WWE-style with the likes of Dave Smith, whoever he is.
Of course it was hostile. Alex accused him this week of a smear that is career threatening if not career ending, and then began the "debate" with an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of a joke Dave made years ago.
It's like, you poke a bear and then are surprised there's hostility? Give me a break!
Tommy, honest questions.
What exactly was funny about the joke?
Who was it meant to entertain?
How was it supposed to land?
If it was aimed at mocking Richard Spencer or the alt-right, why did he laugh?
And if that wasn’t the point, why didn't Dave clarify it?
If Alex’s read is so ridiculous, what’s the right one?
Because without any explanation from Dave, it’s all guesswork.
When Alex played that clip, it sure sounded damning to me. Genuinely curious to hear your take.
Ryan,
You honestly cannot see that Dave was making fun of people who deny the Holocaust? He was mocking people in his own libertarian camp. Good grief.
Even Alex had to admit that he knew it was a joke and that was a very slippery slope because now he was confronted with the problem of accusing Dave of being a Holocaust denier knowing that he was joking about it.
Some people use Jokes to conceal their true feelings and opinions. If i make a joke to my son about not doing the dishes, am I just making a joke or am I using that to disguise my actual displeasure. This is where discernment is necessary.
Agreed. However Dave repeatedly stated that there WAS a Holocaust and agreed with Alex's strict definition of what that was. Even Alex had to eventually acknowledge that Dave was not a Holocaust denier.
To me (and I would suggest to most people as well) it was obvious that he was making fun of people who deny the Holocaust in the clip that Alex insisted be shown multiple times. Moreover Dave was (understandably) furious that such an accusation was leveled against him and Alex had nothing else to offer as evidence of Dave's "true feelings and opinions".
Discernment should lead us to conclude that Dave isn't nor ever was a Holocaust denier. Judging from the comments on the youtube recording viewers nearly unanimously came to the same conclusion.
Alex is playing with fire here. Insinuations and baseless accusations have very real repercussions. My wife and children are Jewish. I despise these kinds of attacks because they stoke anti-semitism everywhere. It's dangerous and disgusting.
Madhava,
No, I can see that interpretation just fine. I just don’t think it’s the only one.
Honestly, it feels like one of those weird audio illusions where some people hear “Yanny” and others hear “Laurel.” You and others (maybe the majority?) hear “mocking denialists.” I hear something closer to "downplaying genocide".
To me, it just didn’t land as a joke. No exaggeration, no punchline, no setup...just a deadpan line that felt like a wink. And the idea that he was mocking Holocaust deniers to that audience feels implausible.
Maybe I missed it, but in the debate I never heard Dave clearly explain what the joke was supposed to be. Instead of addressing it head-on, he pivoted and insulted.
Yes, Dave did go on to agree with Alex’s definition of the Holocaust, and I don’t question that he affirms it now. But when you pair that with an earlier comment that was historically provocative and his total unwillingness to engage on it meaningfully, it just didn’t come across as sincere. It felt more like damage control than conviction.
Given all this, I think Alex’s skepticism is completely fair. And even if others walk away with a different read, that’s fine too. But let’s not assume bad faith just because someone heard a different tone.
Alex is correct on one thing. If you hang with deniers you get painted with the same brush, fair or not.
You "despise these kinds of attacks because they STOKE ANTISEMITISM?!" Diminishing and making jokes about the legitimacy and intent of the Holocaust is CAUSING antisemitism? Good grief. You want to tell Jews to "shhh. Just sit down and don't complain about unequal treatment or re-writing of your history otherwise we'll really hate you?" Wtf.
"What exactly was funny about the joke?"
>> He mocked an absurd opinion either held by, or believed to be held by the people around him. In other words, he wasn't speaking with his own voice, there, but with the voice of the people he was making fun of. A combination of sarcasm and just saying uncomfortable things. Ricky Gervais at the Oscars.
Go watch Dave Chappelle's SNL monologue on Saturday Night Live in 2025.
Talking about the LA fires, he said he saw all these comments from people say "serves these liberals right". And Dave said, in response, he thought: "That's why I hate poor people". Do you think Dave actually hates poor people? Who was he making fun of there?
Later, on the same topic, he said that you can't ignore the possibility it happened because God hates the people in LA. Do you think Dave actually thinks that? Who was he making fun of?
Those might not be the best examples, but they're what I could come up with.
The bigger point is, attributing Dave's statement in such a literal way, as Alex did, was slimy and ridiculous and dangerous (I'll explain why below).
"Who was it meant to entertain?"
>> I don't know the mind of a comic, but I imagine first off Dave himself found it funny. FWIW I did, too -- I actually laughed when he played the clip. There Dave is, a Jew in a midst of actual or perceived neo-Nazis sarcastically denying the Holocaust to their faces.
"How was it supposed to land?"
>> Make people who actually think the Holocaust didn't happen a little uncomfortable for being called out and make others laugh at them.
"If it was aimed at mocking Richard Spencer or the alt-right, why did he laugh?"
>> I don't know Spenser's beliefs, but people laugh for all kinds of reasons: laughing because he doesn't actually deny the Holocaust, but others think he does, in which Dave's comment would have been something he's been falsely accused of 1 million times; or if he did believe it, laughing at Dave's audacity to mimic it/call him out on it. There could be other explanations.
"And if that wasn’t the point, why didn't Dave clarify it?"
>> This is an important point.
He was pissed because Alex's intention was so clearly in bad faith. It was such an absurd accusation, as with the rest of Alex's "debate", it had the tenor of a struggle session. Like, please apologize for saying this thing that a comic should never have to apologize for? No way. Absolutely no way.
I mean this 100% seriously: comics are a canary in the coal mine. It's a red line when people go after them for jokes. Jokes aren't always funny to everyone and they often offend, but we have to accept that because comedy, the Jester, is such an important part of free speech. What Alex tried to do here is disgusting to me and I imagine based on his reaction it was disgusting to Dave.
"If Alex’s read is so ridiculous, what’s the right one?"
>> It was a joke, see above.
"When Alex played that clip, it sure sounded damning to me. "
>> I find that fascinating.
Well written
Consider the context. It’s live. You’re a comedian. You say something that seems funny in the moment. I don’t hold anyone to those moments.
Dave would have to actually have a legitimate career. What he has is a following of low IQ bigots, who spend their time looking to blame others for why they live in mommy's basement. Smith panders to the worst of the worst and lowest of the low, but unlike those more intelligent, he does so with name calling and sensationalism and intellectual dishonesty. There will always be an audience for him on the bottom rung of intelligent life, but those who engage in intellectual debate based upon facts and not suspicion, bigotry and innuendo should not mix with him and those like him. Your piece based upon BS in mainstream media was beyond disappointing, and the focus the world has on this issue and the importance the world gives it should give you pause. Zero has been said about the massacre of Druze in Syria, the slaughter of Christians in African nations by Muslims and the Islamists are somehow painted as victims. Crickets are heard around the world. That is the real story - leave the Dave Smith's in the gutter where they're comfortable.
You are right on. Ignoring the Israeli protection of the Druze is on purpose. I can't help but observe that the complex Gaza war has done much to expose and activate the world's latent antisemitism. And that is the real story of all this that Hamas seems to understand.
"Zero has been said about the massacre of Druze..." are you actually serious? These paper thin bs tactics don't work anymore.
Dave himself spoke about the Druze on Piers Morgan a week or so ago, and rightly pointed out that he and many other non-interventionists like him correctly warned that a US-and-Israeli-backed installation of al-Qaeda as rulers of Syria would likely result in horrible massacres of non-Muslims there, at the same time the neocons and Netanyahu celebrated the "historic" ousting of Assad.
Alex pulled a classic lawyer move, get the person you are questioning as emotional as possible to see what you get out of them.
Emotion and Simplistic thinking(?) is what Dave Smith does.
It was indeed a shitshow. I watched 10 minutes of it and decided that it was NOT the best use of time. "No good will come of this," I said out loud before turning it off.
In a related matter, Darryl Cooper? Gimme a break. I watched his first appearance on Tucker Carlson's show--I kept waiting for a punch line--I kept waiting for him to provide a disclaimer or something to negate his contrarian revisionist history.
And Candace Owens? She's an excellent self-promoter to boost her program's reach when she struck out on her own after tangling with Ben Shapiro. Now she's taken on Brigitte Macron? The French have always been odd--and WHO CARES?
I just don't get the holocaust denials. I don't get the antisemitism.
Candace has gone off the rails. She has cultivated a following of believers, who take every word she says as the absolute truth. She told a commenter that he should take a dishonorable discharge rather than fight on behalf of Israel. Her predictions of a never ending war with Iran did not materialize and she made no mention of that. I don't get the Macron obsession either. I think the publicity she garnered from her Brigitte series has gone to her head. Like you said, she is very good at self promotion. I was taken aback by how antisemitic she is.
Yep.
And then Cooper was on Joe Rogan--and Rogan seemed to buy the silliness.
Sheesh!
I can't believe you go to that clip of him on Spenser as evidence of his "Holocaust Denial".
Dave's joke, there, is funny because it was an ABSURD statement. The fact he made it to a guy like Spenser, to me, IS the joke -- it was making fun of people who would deny the Holocaust or (ironically) accuse others of denying it. Do you not see that?
Your pinned "joke" about Dave wasn't a joke at all -- you were just smearing him as someone who downplays the Holocaust. There was nothing even remotely funny about it. You retreat, now, by saying *of course* you don't think Dave believes it was a "spa", but it not being a literal spa isn't the point -- the point is you genuinely believe he downplays it or he's friends with people who do, but you never demonstrated it (the Spenser video doesn't work).
Quoting the Holocaust museam's accusation against Cooper isn't an argument at all, either -- classic appeal to authority fallacy They're not infallible on this topic. If you had quoted an actual argument they made about Cooper and then defended that argument, that would be a different story entirely.
I don't know exactly what you're saying about Candace, but the fact she accussed "a" Jew of something horrible doesn't make her an anti-semite. That's a classic fallacy, too.
I don't blame Cooper for not jumping through the hoops you're holding up for him. His response, the podcast recording where he called what happened MURDER was enough for me. As Dave correctly pointed out, murder implies INTENT.
Overall, this was a super cringe "debate". I say this as a day 1 subscriber: you got what you deserved tonight because of how you came at both Dave and Darryl with such unprovoked nastiness.
Very well said. No one is perfect and Alex was a hero during COVID, but I’m not going to keep paying $300 a year (which I’ve been paying for ~5 years now) to watch him pick this bizarre fight with Smith and Cooper, simplifying their positions and misconstruing obvious jokes to the point of utter absurdity.
Best of luck, Alex.
Excellent summary!
I was just commenting on the previous article when you wrote this.
Alex, you are single handedly my favorite person from the Covid era. I have literally read every single word you have ever written on Unreported Truths. I root for you to win your lawsuit like it's my own lawsuit. You were a sane and helpful voice during the worst period on Earth in my lifetime.
AND, Dave escalated the teenage, tough guy vibes. He went too far with it. Insulting your association with the NYT was a weak connection and he kept going back to it.
But I'd be pissed too if you were poking and prodding at me all week. And I was really embarrassed at how you started that debate. Were you trying to say jokes are jokes or were you actually accusing him of holocaust denial? In reading this piece, you "contradict" yourself (sorry, trigger word), so I am still not sure.
I am saving the last 30 minutes for tomorrow, but this whole week was not a good showing from you. I know you don't care what other people think, but I just hope it's taken as feedback from someone who holds you in extremely high regard. I have no other agenda, and really hate to see two people I like, suddenly become enemies.
Spot-on.
Agree with all of this above: Alex, you are single handedly my favorite person from the Covid era. I have literally read every single word you have ever written on Unreported Truths. I root for you to win your lawsuit like it's my own lawsuit. You were a sane and helpful voice during the worst period on Earth in my lifetime.
But I’m also really disappointed as he’s the only person I see that’s been a victim of a bullshit hit piece (Pandemic’s Wrongest Man) and turn around a reference an (incoming) hit piece as proof of something.
You don't get it, Alex. I won't be renewing. Not because I disagree with your politics, but because you stunned me with your utterly tone deaf approach and inability, or unwillingness, to respond to basic questions in a rational manner. I feel embarrassed for your family and I don't trust your judgement. Dave was rude, but good Lord you were impossible and obnoxious. And from this latest post, you don't seem to realize that. What a sad state of affairs.
I stopped my renewal also. This substack went from great articles into middle school arguments that keep getting posted.
Me too. Alex has no editor and no lane to stay in, but there is a lane to say out of.
Alex, love you and you were there when it mattered, but I honestly don't understand the Cooper/holocaust denial thing. I've heard him choke up on his podcast talking about the treatment of the Jews during the war.
Maybe I've missed the obvious. :-/
The ONLY focus Alex had was getting Cooper to say exactly what Alex "wanted him to say", and that to me is ODD considering what we all came thru with the Biden Admin, and the great intentional PLANdemic of 2020.
The bullied and silenced becomes the bully and silencer.
No, it's to acknowledge that the Holocaust was the first-degree murder of war crimes - planned aforethought and with the definite intention of murder.
Guys like Cooper call it murder - but murder can also be when the bank robber is surprised by a cop and shoots him.
The idea seems to be to deny the distinction we all make when discussing such crimes. (Planned killing is "worse" than one
taken on the spur of the moment, even in furtherance of another crime such as robbery.)
We make these distinctions all the time - so do judges and juries - and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
The idea seems simply to deny the "specialness" of the Holocaust - to make it easier for those who need it to maintain unsympathetic feelings for Jews, and to up the ante of contempt so as to demonstrate their tribal bona fides...
I 100% agree with what went down in the 30's and 40's of the last century, but it felt to me in listening to that debate last eve there was an overwhelming need to get another person to SAY something which just sat with me as ODD. Just sorta reminded me of the type of mental coercion during those tryrannical days of the plandemic. I mean the mindset you must affirm because "I am science" as with what Fauci was trying to insinuate for example. Or IF you don't accept the vaccine you are a vaccine denier etc. These labels just bother me in general. I've watched and listened to Cooper a few times, and he does not strike me in the least as that person who believes the intentional murder of Jewish people and other's deemed to be inferior human life in that era by the Nazi regime didn't happen. Not sure I made a point here, but so be it. My intention was what it was...
I also felt Alex's referencing Yad Vashem was overdone and counter-persuasive. (I would have stated my own position and added, ONCE, "...and this also conforms with the main repository of Holocaust research, Yad Vashem."
Presumably, Alex moves in a world where people realize the credibility of Yad Vashem (but this does not likely include many in Smith's audience.) Or, it might have been a mild mental tic.
Notwithstanding, Alex articulated a dozen times exactly what he meant by "Holocaust denial"; so Smith's (and commentators here) jumping on this incidental maneuver of Alex is, in my opinion, it's own kind of naive or bad faith arguing.
The biggest problem with this comment and Alex’s “issues” with Daryl Cooper overall is that in actual Holocaust historiography, there is a “functionalism vs intentionalism” debate. Wikipedia has a page on it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism–intentionalism_debate
Alex seems blissfully unaware that serious academics even differ on how the Holocaust arose, was carried out, and accelerated over time. Was it from “bottom-up” forces and willful blind eyes at the top? Or a plan dreamed by young Adolph with all his evil ministers plotting this very thing with full knowledge and intent on “day one”?
Wikipedia, which still calls the lab leak a "conspiracy theory."
Alex seems aware enough of the scholarship and debate on the Holocaust, and has indicated Yad Vashem as a repository of such opinion.
More to the point, his reading and experience has brought him to his own conclusion on the meaning of the Holocaust - and if this is not *enough* to enter the debate - you are making the the same "appeal to authority" so many of Smith's defenders criticize Alex for.
What GET's me is how so many actually believe it was a LEAK as in non intentional!
Well, I understand why you might say that but I'm not - if for following Alex and no other reason - quite prepared to go there yet..
That truly gets to the heart of the matter. Well said.
On this topic Alex demands recitation of his exact doctrine or you're a holocaust denier. It's absolutely bizarre.
I guess so. (Until something happens where YOU feel insulted or misunderstood.)
Alex, I love and respect you, but this shit on X and the debate, which I had to stop watching, is insane. I like Dave Smith too, but the insults and name calling was ridiculous.
That’s Dave smiths MO. He just name calls because he’s a rather dumb
person.
I think they are both intelligent men. I think their passions got the better of them. I get it.
Dave smith is not an intelligent person.
You’ve made that statement twice.
Says the guy who name-called.
anyone who thinks Darryl Cooper is an anti-semite has obviously never sat through the opening of his riveting monologue Fear and Loathing in the New Jerusalem.
Dave Smith has one of the most interesting podcasts i listen to. i'll have to watch the debate for myself
If that were all there was about Cooper's musings on the holocaust, you'd be right. But it's not.
unless you chose to limit his "career" to the one podcast you didn't like
"But guys like Darryl Cooper seem to want Jews to be thinking about the Holocaust and Nazi Germany and World War 2, to be obsessing about it. Not just because doing so can be difficult and depressing. Because *they* obsess about those events."
Right, right... Amateur historians like Cooper are the ones pathologically obsessed with German crimes four generations ago --- not our entire media culture, which plays 6-degrees-from-Hitler at the slightest provocation. Every time I witness otherwise reasonable people fly off the handle when this topic comes up, I'm further convinced Cooper is doing necessary work.
But don't take my word for it. You can read his. It's all public. What's the old saying? "You can tell a man's soul by his prose"? I defy you to read Cooper and conclude he's a Holocaust-denying anti-Semite:
https://subscribe.martyrmade.com/p/the-psychopathology-of-zionism
Well said!
I took you up on your reading suggestion, but was stopped part-way through by a subscribers-only paywall. The part I did read does not support your assertion about Cooper. Maybe the "pay-for" part turns things, but I have my doubts.
Whoops, sorry. Not as public as I thought.
Tell ya what, since you seem like an honest guy: send me a message with your Substack e-mail and I'll gift you a $5 1-month subscription to Cooper's MartyrMade.
(Substack really needs a pay-$1-without subscription feature, but oh well. What's $4 in the grand scheme of arguing about the legacy of WWII?)
Indeed it's not possible to defend it, because that's not what he said. He did not claim the Holocaust was 'accidental.' His point was that, *even if it was,* as some neo-Nazis claim, the German regime is still responsible for those mass deaths.
Next time use your ears.
He did say that. I went back and checked:
(46:40): "When they [the Germans] went into the East in 1941, they launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war, of local political prisoners, and so forth, that they were gonna have to handle. They went in with no plan. They just threw these people into camps."
Two points:
1) You're conflating the Holocaust with Operation Barbarossa. Understandable given the historiography. But you do know the Nazis killed other people besides Jews, yes?
2) Cooper is correct. The 'Commissar Order' which you probably have in mind was not a general one. According to Wikipedia, "The final draft of the order was issued by the OKW on 6 June 1941 and was restricted only to the most senior commanders, who were instructed to inform their subordinates verbally."
That's the part Luke has to ignore in his attempt to be Cooper apologist.
This could have been a great discussion. It obviously was not. He was a dick and, frankly, so were you. You both can do better.
I'm sorry, when he called me a "faggot" and started talking about my "vagina" because I played him a clip of him saying something he had forgotten saying, what do you think I should have done.
The part you’re all missing is that Dave takes being called a holocaust denier very seriously. As he referred to it, that’s going after someone’s career. You’re trying to deep-six them with that accusation. You (Alex) doubled down by pinning it to your page, and then trying to get him to prove to you that he wasn’t by showing you his ancestry…or something. He *told you* and the moderator that he was coming in with energy to go after you. Then, you inexplicably played a 10-year old clip of him making an obvious joke. But that was your argument to support your week-long claim that he was a holocaust denier. But you’re now saying you know it was a joke. But yet you played the clip multiple times as your “proof”. It was beyond odd. Then you talk about those he pals around with, so his reference to your NY Times days was to point out that your bedfellows were far worse than his. And your claims about his bedfellows are also based on thin evidence. Merely because someone didn’t agree to say what you wanted them to say after you attacked them publicly… no one is playing repeat-after-me with someone who’s trying to publicly accuse them of something so disgusting.
I told you the debate would go poorly. You lost it in the first 5 minutes. It got slightly more civil after all decided to chill, but I still think his logic was just so much more convincing. I hope you got what you wanted out of this. But IMO, it wasn’t a good look.
Help me understand how going on a show and making a joke that the Holocaust didn't happen is not something one has to answer for or explain?
Huh? That’s called a joke. Why should he have to explain it 10 years later to someone who *knows* it was a joke, yet still used it as Exhibit A, B, and C to make a public case that he’s a holocaust denier. Also, to make the case Dave Smith is a holocaust denier means they now need to explain away all the many counterfactuals where he has discussed the holocaust in ways that obviously proves he doesn’t deny it.
The joke was about autistic people and the alt-right. The actual words were something about the genocide that actually happened. He didn't specifically mention Jews. But it was implicit that he was making fun of alt right (and often autistic) Holocaust deniers complaining about their own genocide via a cure for autism. It was pretty obvious, and not something that most people need explained to them. Especially when the speaker is obviously NOT a Holocaust denier (in the sense that he clearly believes that many millions of Jews were killed by Nazis).
his own relatives
Because comics shouldn't have to explain their jokes. Ever.
Comedy is very important -- comics say uncomfortable things, by design. That's often the point. They often don't even do it using their own "voice", so taking their words literally and asking them to "explain" themselves is disgusting.
Well I mean. Maybe he should stop engaging in holocaust denial?
Dumb comment, Josh. Keep up.
Well thought out argument. You’re doing great.
You really need to sit this one out, Josh. The last person I suggested that to today was Alex. He didn’t take my advice, and look what happened to him. Please, don’t embarrass yourself.
Although, I do enjoy calling friends faggots. I don’t think you’re friends, though. Also, you needed a fucking hammer as a moderator. I would have muted both of you and yelled many slurs at both of you. Rav was too nice.
On that I think we all agree.
Well, I just want people I like to get along. I’m a fucking people person!
What Dave Smith does, in lieu of having any kind of real argument, is put on "threat displays"—as they are called in the animal kingdom, i.e. fan out his feathers, scream and yell, beat his chest, roar and make a whole lot of noise which is supposed to drive the opponent away.
I react to people doing that by staying totally impassive then saying, after a sigh, "Well, that's a very fine threat display but let's get back to actually discussing the topic, ok?
Rav was giggling like a school girl at Dave's comments. He was hardly a moderator.
my female gaydar says Dave Smith doth protest too much, that actually he is latent....not that there's anything wrong with that! But that may be why he yells about "bitches," and "faggots" so much.
I agree. But my biggest concern is the audiences they speak to and tbe use of Dhimmies fulfilling the agenda of the Chinsse and the Muslim's taking control of world power. The useful idiots supply the coal needed to start the engine.
Dave Smith is a fool. He went up againt Douglas Murray and was totally decimated. HoweverJoe mocked Douglas and showing his distate for Jews.” Have you been there” questioned Douglas to Dave about the issues after the October 7th massacre, has been turned into a meme. .the end result is that the Caliphate starts to slowly invade us.
We need to expose the useful idiots and fight back. Thank you.
Smith is no fool. I was appalled at Murray’s performance. He is not a useful idiot or an idiot at all. I’m usually the one stirring the pot, but your comments are beyond the pale. This is an important question and deserves sober analysis.
You don't need to descend to his level. From what I've read (didn't see or hear the "debate") you lost your cool bigtime.
Alex,
I am sure you are a good human being and you have blindspots like the rest of us do. This wasn't a takedown of you, Alex. It was a demolition of your belief system and your way of constructing an argument. I don't want to see people get hurt or humiliated, but I am merciless when it comes to exposing flaws in arguments. We simply don't have time for bullsh*t anymore. It was refreshing to see it done, and I am sorry it happened to you.
What surprises me the most is that you didn't even see this coming. What did you expect was going to happen after you level a truly repugnant accusation against someone publicly and all you have to base it on is a comment from Dave Smith that was CLEARLY a joke?
Seriously, didn't you even think it through? You were going to be called out for being too stupid to know it was a joke, or for being a complete jerk for knowing he was kidding but accusing him of being a Holocaust denier anyway. This isn't the first time you have had a serious lapse in judgement, btw. (I subscribe to your substack and you still are tragically wrong about early Covid treatment and this latest Danish Aluminum study). I don't hold it against you. I support you here because of your fight against censorship.
It was refreshing to see you get called out on so many things. Dave was right to push you on citing evidence that he was "contradicting" himself. He wasn't going to let you get away with anything. It was a sly move you tried to pull there Alex, but he wasn't going to concede your point because that would mean he was disavowing his friend Darryl Cooper. You should have seen that too.
Dave Smith was absolutely right to call you out on your association with the NYTimes during the Iraq war repeatedly. You know why? Because they have been doing to so many of us in the health freedom movement what you were trying to do to Dave during this debate. Smear his character with baseless accusations.
He was absolutely right about your ridiculous appeal to authority for the "correct" definition of the Holocaust. Do you know what happens when you make public accusations like this, nitpick words, demand that everyone use your definitions and vilify them when they veer of slightly from your standards of acceptability? Do you know what happens when you deem people guilty by association?
ANTI-SEMITISM.
Stop it. For the love of all that is sacred.
Just.
stop.
it.
I listened for over 90 minutes and heard no apology from you about your baseless public assault on Dave's character. Maybe you should take a breath and start there. Not because that will play better in the long run but because that's what a person with integrity would do.
You have a blindspot. The Holocaust, as it is classically presented, is part of your core identity as a Jew. You can no more leave it behind than a fish can leave water. Your belief in those events is religious, every bit as religious as the belief in a safe and effective Covid vaccine, or that Covid was a death sentence.
You will lose a lot of subscribers over this. You may not care. Religious fervor will do that to a person. But if you could approach the topic with the same skepticism you approach many other topics, I think you would at least be able to consider that people who lie about everything else might slip some falsehoods into the conventional narrative on this topic.
well you managed to make Smith look like an asshole. but in terms of substance he handed you your lunch.
I think smith made himself look like an asshole but at least he had substance to his argument
Um, I guess I'm happy I missed it?
Seems to me a case of Alex saying something stupid on Twitter and keeps doubling down. How many times have you seen these stupid arguments go on and on because someone refuses to admit they were wrong?
I watched 30 seconds of the debate and had to leave because it was just childish. Alex could have deflated this long ago on twitter.
Perfectly said
It bothers me more than it should that you STILL haven’t listened to Daryl Cooper on Tucker.
Of all the things I respect(ed) about you, journalistic integrity was near the top of the list. You went from DEAD WRONG on Covid to mostly right because you actually chose to do the research and see how obvious the truth was. Why, in this situation, do you just refuse to actually do the work? It’s beyond lazy at this point - you’re consciously choosing to ignore what was actually said on the show and I just can’t fathom why?
I would never tell anyone to “stay in their lane” as people yell at you on Twitter all the time, but I will say that you choosing to battle in spaces you refuse to actually analyze is costing you the respect of your readers who pay to be here specifically because of that respect. At this point I’m not sure what I’m paying for any longer - because it certainly doesn’t feel like top notch investigative journalism
I did listen to Darryl on Tucker - I wrote about it in depth.
I'll start with my ask so you can ignore the rest of this if you'd like - would you be open to dropping the topic all together (all topics, I'm asking this generically) and explaining how/where you define the line for what is acceptable questioning of a narrative and what makes someone a "denier?"
on Daryl Cooper, can you share? I read most everything you publish and have since I joined basically immediately upon you starting a substack - and the "c'mon tucker" article is the only once I remember and you said you hadn't listened to the entire episode. Has that changed since? Or was there another article I missed?
The MUCH more important question to me, is how you're now defining the line for who can be platformed and who can't? There were much better people during COVID (that's not a knock, you know that as well), but you had the distinction of being the one that was prominent enough to both get attacked/de-platformed AND be able to make noise about it. I thought I was following you because of a principle you stood for, and that principle was that the data matters, and, more importantly, the right to do any analysis you want for the sake of finding some form of truth REALLY matters - but now it feels like it may have been because of a belief you held, which I find borderline irrelevant.
So, now I'm not sure. I absolutely DESPISE the "denier" term, because it is exactly the definition of an ad hominem attack - it doesn't actually mean anything. If someone believes 5.9 million Jews were killed during WWII instead of 6M, are they a "denier?" Isn't this EXACTLY what happened to you during COVID? And how/why does there need to be a line? You can disagree with any/everyone but the idea that people shouldn't be allowed to ask questions and come to conclusions hence they be a "denier" is EXACTLY what you were supposed to be standing against... I thought?
There's that, and how can anyone think Cooper's Interview with Tucker exonerates Cooper?
The idea of defending someone you've never met and have had zero actual real life interactions with as a "good guy" is just as outlandish as calling someone a "denier." You know what's equally outlandish? Pretending he's a "bad guy" because you don't agree with some questions he asked.
Has Daryl interacted with your kids? You asked him for help during a crisis and had him say yes or no? Have you placed trust in him to help you get something done? This idea that people have "feelings" for podcast hosts is so stupid it's indescribable. I LOVE Kenny Griffey Jr.'s baseball swing. I think it's the most beautiful swing I've ever seen. From that, should I extrapolate that he's a "good guy?" Who the F*** cares? Daryl presents very interesting arguments on a bunch of topics and has done some fascinating research on stuff other people don't touch. It's interesting. Like reading a book. Did you used to "like" novelists - or did you read the book, learn something or not, and then move on? This idea that character needs to be examined now because they talk instead of write just makes me laugh.
On a related note, what, exactly, would I need to exonerate Cooper from? Did he hurt small animals I'm unaware of?
He's a podcast host with an opinion... it's embarrassing what we turn that into.