X’s Take on David Smalley’s “Screeching Left” Screed 2


Well fuck, David Smalley has done it again, in his attempt to become a lot more mainstream when it comes to political discussions which let’s face it, none of us are perfect orators, but for some reason he’s even worse than most. It seems that David isn’t merely content with being on the Podcast One network as the “atheist dude” that has on Christians that he disagrees with and sighs loudly towards, but now he’s completed another tick of the shitlord clock into becoming the next Dave Rubin in so far that he’s ready to attack the left, call himself a classic liberal, and start having on more folks like Dennis Prager.

His newest hit piece revolves around how the so-called “left” is killing language.

How does the rest of the world look from that tall ivory tower that you’re perched upon? How can us lowly plebs possibly strive to know what to do without your guidance on tone policing and how WE are the ones fucking everything up. Let’s see what he’s got for us, this is the deep end dive into Mr. Smalley’s cringeworthy festival of bad arguments. Anything in BOLD ITALICS is yours truly commenting on his thoughts.

 

First off he starts the article with a statement that attempts to discredit anyone who might disagree with his basic premise:

I know, you saw the title and then started your “response blog.” You’ll come back here and pull quotes, but you won’t actually read the whole thing.

Perhaps you’re too far gone for dialectics. But I hope not. And that hope is why I write more than a title.

Your first line is “David Smalley is categorizing everyone he disagrees with as “The Left!”

And you’re already wrong.

Yes David, we will pull quotes, that’s how we discuss things, this is how we use your OWN WORDS to further our argument. You remember how you LOVE to pick apart the Bible when you have guests on? This is the same thing, I’m just pulling verses from the book of David.

I have read this entire article multiple times, and NOW I’m going to create a response, how “far gone for dialectics” I am doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with the premises that you bring up soon. As for the argument that your click bait title is the big problem we’ll have with this article, you must have not actually went back and re-read your entire article before hitting publish.

As a guy with well over 2 thousand articles published online in one form or another, I know that you don’t simply put whatever random thought hits your brain, that’s best left to podcasts, something I won’t deny that you have talent in, but you are quite the shit writer.

In fact, I think most people who are left of center (like myself), will agree with the majority of what I’ll say here. They’re just silent. Because they don’t want to be the focus of the next mob attack.

I need to see the evidence of you being left of center David. You’ve been snapping to the grid so hard lately in your attempts to be a centrist that you might be more center right than you’d like to admit. When you were in Texas, it’s easy to consider yourself “left of center” especially when you spend a good chunk of your time attempting to explain how much you like Bernie, and how you voted for Clinton. Guess what, a LOT of us did as well but I don’t dare say people are left of center when they still have problems with BLM, their manner of protesting, and your love of firearms.

Now that you’re in California, you see true examples of highly liberal people and it’s scaring the shit out of you. You’re like Brian Griffin in your attempt to be just a contrarian. Easy to do while in Texas, easy to claim, but once someone is better at it than you, the need to snap to the opposite side is just too hard to resist. I don’t know if you even see it…and that’s the painful part. You got a modicum of success and it’s twisted you into a caricature of your old self.

I don’t want to discount your contributions to the atheist and humanist movement, but the warning signs were there early on when I was still in my toddler-atheist days and your show was a great way to assuage my swirling emotions of fear tempered with anger that most people coming out of religion feel.

Back to the topic at hand, your thoughts that people will agree with a majority of what you’re going to say but stay quiet…followed by a whole list of ‘member berry questions that try to play to your subject’s emotions while not actually doing anything for YOUR ARGUMENT.

Remember when we didn’t mind that?

I still don’t mind when people want to stay quiet when they might have bad ideas, in fact it falls into the old adage that “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

Remember when we would rise up together to fight against religious privilege and demand equality for everyone, even though it was the unpopular opinion?

We have been rising up and fighting religious privilege and demanding equality for everyone, but sometimes OUR tactics differ from yours. Instead of bringing people on your platform who might teach you something about social justice, we’ve been subject to a list of people who you can easily do your sighing thing and not actually challenge them that hard on what they bring up. Being the unpopular opinion has FUCK ALL to do with this David. What matters is that we have the RIGHT opinion. Some of us are doing this podcast thing, this writing thing to actually reach people and convince them that we’re in the right not that we’re contrary. You’ve lost sight of that.

Remember when we were the voice of tolerance?

We are the voice of tolerance, that doesn’t mean that ALL opinions deserve to be tolerated. It’s not hard to figure out here sir…racism, sexism, jingoism, white nationalism, and so on and so forth don’t deserve tolerance…like at all.

Remember when we welcomed discussions with people we disagreed with?

I welcome discussions with people I disagree with, but there is also the fact that some ideas, some people are so ill informed that giving them a platform only increases their notoriety and makes them more famous instead of letting them and their talking point wither on the vine of ideas instead of adding fertilizer and encouraging it to grow. Again, not all ideas deserve to be discussed on shows. In person great, in an actual setting for vigorous debate even better, but the way you’ve resorted to lobbing softball questions has made it a home run derby for people you would at one time have hung up on, or come out against.

What happened to you? Why do you now sit, watching the injustice unfold and scroll past it?

You’re starting off with the premise that something must have HAPPENED to folks like me/us. What’s happened David, is that with your show you’ve grown accustomed to a certain level of comfort, you’ve become a bit of a name dropping starfucker, you’re not HUNGRY anymore for the vigorous debate, you’re not in the game to grow as a person anymore, you’ve learned how to game the system and have grown intellectually lazy in how you approach debating dogma.

Nazi, Rapist, Sexual Predator, Token, Racist, Fascist, Bigot, White Supremacist… at one time, these were major insults. But thanks to the Screeching Left, they’re becoming meaningless.

It’s like we’ve learned nothing from The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

I find it hilarious that you bring up these names in particular without ANY context. If someone actually promotes nazi-ism, defends nazis, or displays white supremacy, then they are nazis. If someone condones rape, doesn’t care about consent then rapist might apply. If this hypothetical person doesn’t think that women are constantly being sexualized and, then yes sexual predator fits. Token means different things to different people…racist, c’mon David, you lived in the south and were around a lot of white religious folks, I know you’ve seen/participated in racism (and by participated I mean NOT chiming in every time someone says some casual/diet racism).  Jesus I can keep on going but let me cut to a point that you ignore:

All of these labels mean things when used appropriately, but what you don’t see David, is that you called your straw man opponent “the Screeching Left” as if it were a proper noun that deserves a registered trademark symbol.

YOU ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE EXACT THING YOU ARE WRITING AGAINST!!!

Bringing up the boy who cried wolf in this instance seems to suggest that there is some sort of upward limit to calling things by their proper descriptor. In the case of defending the marginalized from shitty people, I can tell you there is no such thing. The ONLY people who tire of hearing these words that we use to describe malicious behavior are the ones who might be involved in such activities. I’m not saying you are, but there’s nothing wrong with calling a toad a toad when it’s a fucking toad.

But the issue runs much deeper. You’re actually diminishing the plight of true victims by doing this, thereby alienating the very people you’re pretending to protect.

By not actually calling the problem by its most descriptive term, you’re not fighting as hard a you should. I don’t know why you think that it diminishes the plight of the true victim here, it’s calling attention to problematic behavior by using the most apt terminology that exists.

I think that honestly you’re worried about alienating the people in your audience that might display some of these traits, while dog whistling that you won’t challenge them if they do use certain terms. If I call someone a fucking nazi, you’d better believe they’re acting quite like a nazi, not calling things out by the word that best describes it does more disservice. We don’t need to play nice because to be honest, we have the upper hand in that our thought processes aren’t those of a nazi. Pretty easy to win the battle of wits against someone who’s starting off a mile behind.

Here’s what is unfolding:

Ben Carson, Stacey Dash, and Sheriff Clark: all three of whom are black, were labeled as “White Supremacists” for supporting Trump.

Trump is a white supremacist, he’s proven as much with Charlottesville, Joe Arpaio, his responses to hurricanes, among other things. He has a long history of being a racist, and that’s something that’s been in the family for at least 2 generations of trumps.

If those three people of color don’t see that supporting Don as detrimental to the plight of their own people, there’s not much I can do, they’re endorsing a white supremacists and in this case the splash damage comes across in full view. There are such things as self hating people of color you know.

Gad Saad: a Jew, was labeled as “a Nazi” for standing up for free speech, even for those with whom he disagrees.

There’s a difference to free speech and hate speech, one can exist without the other. Gad Saad as I recall is very much a transphobe for being worried he’d get in trouble in Canada for misgendering someone or having to call someone by a pronoun that’s so hard to remember. I don’t know where the “nazi” thing comes from David, a few footnotes would be really handy to research your claims, but as you’ve not done any, I’ll try to best frame it here.

The roots of nazi-ism is fascism and one of the first steps into the depths of fascism is the “othering” of communities. That’s about all I’m willing to go towards here, Gad Saad isn’t a peach, he’s deplorable, let’s just leave it at that.

Candace Owens: (AKA Red Pill Black) a black woman, was charged with “perpetuating rape culture” for saying that a judge in a rape case shouldn’t receive death threats, and she was labeled a “Coon” for supporting Trump.

Never heard of her, but I HIGHLY doubt that she was told she was perpetuating rape culture for the reason you suggested. And I’d never defend the word ‘coon’ you used against anyone if uttered by a white guy, if it was someone from their own community, I’m not going to correct them. They know how to best to use their insults, not me. However I will remind you that I referenced people of color voting Trump. How anyone could vote for him is beyond me, I’ll step out on a limb and say that Trump voters don’t exist in the same reality as the rest of us.

David Webb: a black conservative talk show host, was called “a token, self-hating Uncle Tom,” for being a Fox News contributor.

Lindsay Kirkman: a woman, was labeled as a “sociopathic misogynist” for saying that men shouldn’t be forced to stand for a pregnant woman who wants his seat on public transportation.

These insults didn’t come from conservatives. But from intolerant people on the left who throw ad-hominem attacks around instead of having conversations.

OK not going to even touch the other two here because you’re bringing up only the people the big bad “screeching left” have attacked…and again, I remind you that some of the things they say/do aren’t defensible…but what I do notice here David is that there is no example of the right-wing political machine ruining words and language at the same level as the left, I know that’s tu quoque but you have to have a reality distorting view of the world we live in if you can’t see people profiting off of hate, racism, sexism, and all of the bad legislation that is coming out of that party that seeks to only do harm, not actually help or protect anyone.

Now, I don’t necessarily agree with every one of their statements or positions, and I’m certainly not a Trump supporter. But labeling these people as Nazis, misogynists, tokens, and Uncle Toms, for having different opinions on basic social or political issues, is just absurd.

Name-calling shuts down conversations.

You’re sucking the power out of those words. And we still need them for actual people who fit the descriptions.

If you don’t necessarily agree with every one of their statements or positions, please let us know which ones so we can know exactly what kind of ‘ally’ you might be…because it seems to most of us on the left, oh wait I’m sorry, the SCREECHING LEFT, that your ability to cut through dogma has been waning as of late. One needs only look at the people you listed above’s patreon accounts to see how well off they’re doing by being the repository of right wing thinking. This is something that I’m sure you’ve coveted for a bit and I don’t blame you, making money using words is great, but some of us have higher standards than courting the conservative assholes, or alt-right sycophants that seem to be the base for some of these folks.

Name calling shuts down conversations? Really? People don’t like being called what they are? Maybe we need to be nice to people who think that other folks don’t deserve to exist? Maybe we need to actually consider that trans people are mentally deficient? Maybe the pogrom against the Jews wasn’t such a bad thing?

David, if anything, calling things what they are allows folks to cut through the cognitive dissonance and press a hard reset button on the conversation. If the very next question out of the poor racist/sexist/misogynist’s voice isn’t “How was that _______-ist?” Then they’re not concerned with intellectual honesty, they’re concerned with talking points and “owning” someone in a conversation. I’d sure as shit want to know how I was being wrong in a discussion so I could learn from it.

These people LITERALLY fit the descriptions David, we’ve gone over this already. Calling something what it is does not diminish the power of using that word later.

I was at a “skeptic conference” recently, where a Black Lives Matter activist gave a talk. She shouted from the stage “White people, you’re not welcome at our meetings! Stop asking to come to our meetings!” She went on to give specific instructions to white allies: “Get your own damn people, and tell them to stop being racists! But no, you cannot come to our meetings anymore, so stop asking!”

I thought to myself, “Giving me specific instructions, and not allowing me to join your meeting based on my skin color, seems to be everything I thought we were fighting against.”

Is this not prejudiced? Is this not discrimination? Is this not segregation?

It’d be nice to have more evidence of this story than your own recollection of this event. Call me crazy but your anecdote seems highly unlikely…and if it is true, that’s how that person felt, that doesn’t mean that they speak for ALL of the people in the Black Lives Matter movement. Did you bother asking why she said such things? Did you take anything away from that conversation other than how you felt so slighted that they generalized you as a white person? Did clutching your pearls hurt that much David?

I know that Eli Bosnick and Alix Jules spent hours and hours trying to explain the concept of a ‘safe space’ that you’ve still not learned the definition of. Was this “skeptic conference” talk supposed to be a safe space? Did you bother checking? You don’t know what life is like as a marginalized person, you can’t get mad at them expressing themselves, you could use that moment to realize that you might have a bit of bias that you might be offended at something they said. Instead of actually discussing it with them, you bring it up here, on your own post where they don’t get a chance to defend themselves in their own words.

Congrats, you’ve turned into the person they were angry about.

My concerns were about her ideas, not about her as a person.

Are you fighting for equality, or are you fighting to become the new oppressor, dictating who goes where, and who does what, based on race alone?

And even still, I didn’t make up my mind about the entire Black Lives Matter movement based on her discriminatory rants. I’ve seen other speakers representing BLM which I admire, make a ton of sense. I think she speaks for herself, and many within BLM likely disagree with her.

And that’s ok.

Black people make up 13% of the population, them becoming the oppressor isn’t going to happen any time soon. See my paragraphs above about anecdotes because it seems like you’re building quite the strawman based on this retelling of your side of a story that might be a bit biased…it’s OK David, we all have biases.

So even though it angered me, and screamed of contradiction, I didn’t call her names. I’m not labeling her as a racist, event though I think her views are toxic.

You did suggest that she is prejudiced, seemed to be afraid of being oppressed, and worried that she might judge you on the color of your skin.

David, if you’re worried about those three things, you might just be a bit racist yourself.

If I heard this lady speaking I’d try to use a thing called “empathy” to figure out how life felt in her skin, try to figure out how I could try to take something from their discussion, and most importantly have a discussion with them afterwards instead of letting these “toxic” views fester in my mind to where I’d feel the need to write a rambling screed against the “screeching left” (never letting this one go BTW).

And I’m not making general statements about the organization she claimed to represent. She’s one person, and she’s entitled to be wrong, and even hateful.

If that’s the case why reference the event as a BLM event unless you were trying to tie her “toxic” views to the organization.

I wouldn’t block an entrance to a talk she’s giving. I just wouldn’t go.

Her talk wasn’t inciting violence, it wasn’t doxxing someone, it wasn’t being given as a platform to ideas that have been proven as bad for the better part of 200 years, it was a person of color speaking about something that I’m sure you’ve misconstrued into some sort of slight.

In a recent interview with Dave Rubin, Candace Owens talked about her grandfather, who was branded in the face by the KKK. She adds “I know real racism.”

Yes because she has the patent on what’s REAL RACISM. Sure, her grandfather being branded by the KKK is real racism, but so is being denied college admission, so is being pulled over for no crime other than their skin tone. People are allowed to have their own problems, she doesn’t have exclusivity of something just due to the severity. I’m sure Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, and literally any other person murdered by law enforcement would like to say that they know what “real racism” is.

There are actually people who want to see women held back. There are men who hate the idea of women having power. Those are misogynists. Not pro-life women, or women who think men should be able to keep their seat. They just disagree with you. This doesn’t make them monsters.

You might be right to an extent, Pro life women aren’t misogynists, they just have internalised misogyny which is why they think that they need to arbitrate to others what their rights are to their own bodies. I’m sure you’ve heard the saying that if men were the ones to get pregnant, abortion would be completely legal…that’s because men quite enjoyed keeping women down for a long long time.

Men keeping their seats isn’t a misogyny thing, it has to do with toxic masculinity, there’s no rule that men have to give up their seats but if they feel compelled to to protect women or help women then they might be feeling the masculinity coursing through their veins, same with women expecting that seat. The only exception I make here is when we’re talking people who are pregnant, you should absolutely give a seat up for them. Pregnancy is hard as fuck on people, giving a seat is the least you can do. If you don’t that doesn’t mean you’re a misogynist, it just means you’re an asshole.

So when you call someone a “racist” for having a different interpretation on the Evergreen College issue with Brett Weinstein, or shut Jewish Professor Gad Saad down by calling him a Nazi, or saying that a black person is a “Token, White Supremacist” for supporting Trump, you’re just wasting the terms and making them meaningless.

For this paragraph I’m just going to do what you do best on your podcast. <SIGH>

With every Classical Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian that you call a Nazi, you’re diminishing the plight of every Jew who faced actual Nazis in the Holocaust.

If they espouse nazi-ism, then yes they deserve to be called a nazi, if it’s white supremacy and fascism they espouse then yes they’re nazis, nothing saying that you can’t be “classical liberal”, conservative, or libertarian and not be a fascist/racists. There are overlapping values there buddy.

When a man has too much to drink and says inappropriate things to a woman, and even tries to make a move—and then you label him a rapist, you’re diminishing the plight of actual victims of rape and sexual assault who were violently attacked, and have to live with that trauma every day.

Unless this man who has too much to drink is actually trying to rape the woman, then yes he’s not a rapist, but he might be exhibiting “rapist tendencies” like the pickup artists out there, the dudes who do negging, and all manner of shitlord behavior. There are folks who actually can be traumatized without being touched or physically attacked and you know it. It may not be rape in the sense that they were forcefully penetrated, but they can still be raped if the guy somehow stealths, or tries to bed the girl out of some sort of false pretense. The terminology for these types of attacks may be lacking in nuance that it might deserve, but it definitely comes from “rape culture” such as the so called ‘plight’ of the men stuck in the ‘friendzone’ and the ‘nice guys’. Rape culture definitely exists.

Shame on you thinking that calling other forms of assault, whether physical, emotional, or verbal can’t be just as bad as other attacks. There is no such thing as diminishing what a victim has gone through if they’ve gone through it.

Since you brought it up, the whole “too much to drink” item sincerely pisses me off as a drinker. Do you know the amount of alcohol that it would take for me to rape someone? NONE is the answer because no matter how much I’ve had to drink, that’s NOT A FUCKING OPTION. And while we’re talking about it, let’s bring up that word that people seem to hate and that’s consent, if your sobriety is in question or your partner’s is, then it very well COULD BE rape.

Consent is everything David. C’mon this is humanism 101 level shit here.

When a waiter calls you “beautiful” as they hand you a drink, you may be annoyed, but you weren’t a victim of sexual harassment, and that’s not evidence that this guy was a “sexual predator.”

Hmm being singled out for your looks, sounds a lot like sexual harassment to me, but what do I know. I just talk to people as equals, fuck me right?

When I do a blog post that has the line “Black Lives Matter and cops have really tough jobs” and the first response blog says “David Smalley is attacking BLM supporters” you’ve jumped the shark. No one can take you seriously.

I can’t even take you seriously that you’re still upset about that blog post. Holy crap, ok let’s go back to that shall we? A cop, if they think that their job is too damn hard, can quit said job, say goodbye to the fear of their life, and generally get another job doing something else. A person of color can’t quit being black/brown, can’t decide to become white all of a sudden. You’re trying to defend the indefensible again David, get over the bad writing you’re sometimes known for.

When you immediately discount a video inside an ANTIFA rally, because it came from an ANTIFA Spoof account, you’ve stopped thinking critically. The video can still be true, even though the account is a parody. Just saying “it’s doctored!” without evidence, doesn’t make it so.

Trying to take a biased ANTIFA parody account’s video seriously says that you’re gullible. It’s the same as the folks who made the doctored Planned Parenthood videos.

When someone says “I disagree with Nazis too, but maybe we shouldn’t punch people for talking,” and you label that person a Fascist, and then advocate for punching people, you’re actually displaying Fascism, which is the forcible suppression of opposition. Oh, the irony.

Being anti fascist can’t ever make you fascist. Being anti nazi doesn’t somehow make you more of a nazi. Also, don’t be a dick to Dan Arel, that’s obviously who you’re talking about here. Can we agree that nazi-ism is so bad that it should be shut down wherever it pops up, or are you a free speech absolutist who thinks that they might make a point even though the core of their beliefs is being a goddamned nazi?

I’m not the type of person to ever punch a nazi, but I won’t cry for the nazi that gets punched. The asshole in Seattle that got laid out got no sympathy for me.

Is this the new Left? Redefining terms to fit our desired claim? Again, I thought we were against that.

No we’re not redefining terms, we’re just noticing a lot more of the bad stuff than you do, calling out the bad behavior more than you’re comfortable than doing…and quite possibly making you feel a bit queasy that it’s cutting a little too close to the bone for your liking. We’re against bad ideas, we’re against the ideas that get people hurt, we’re FOR marginalized people, we’re FOR helping others, not giving people with bad ideas a platform.

It’s like this new idea of “Extreme Leftism” is becoming a reactionary, jump-to-conclusions ideology, that I just can’t get behind.

Not jumping to conclusions here David, we’re just not going to let shit slide anymore. If you can’t get behind it, then get out of the way. Your old way of “can’t we all just get along” is outdated and what’s lead to Trump becoming president, the rise of the alt-right, and the fact that our nation is further divided along class and race more than ever before.

I’m definitely not a conservative. So this leaves me wondering…

You’re a conservative, you won’t call yourself that, you might take up the mantle of libertarian, or you might make up a new term like how agnostics use that moniker to avoid calling themselves atheist even though you already know the two exist on different planes of existence.

We’re still here fighting the bad guys, you’re more interested in profiting off them.

Do I leave the Left, or can we take the Left back from those screeching us into absurdity?

Nothing to take back David, just go ahead and leave and make your transformation to the dark side complete. Palpatine has finally won you over, you’ve been in bed with the sith for far too long for us to have you back, please by all means just tear the band-aid off and join the community and new conservative money that you’re smacking your lips for.

Some of us have seen this coming for a long time. You don’t need to be a liberal or progressive to be an atheist, your flavor of atheism is the one tainted by guys like Carl Benjamin, Dave Rubin, Gad Saad, Stephen Molyneux, and so many others that you listed above but I don’t give two fucks to remember their names nor care if I spelled the others correctly. David, please leave the humanism to the people who can live by the rule of “don’t be an asshole” and who actually care for how other people feel. Considering you’ve already othered us as the Screeching Left, you can now gladly see yourself to the door and surround yourself in the conservative echo chamber you’re longing to embrace.


Leave a Reply

2 thoughts on “X’s Take on David Smalley’s “Screeching Left” Screed

    • X
      X Post author

      Thanks for reading and for the comment. It’s sad really I used to quite enjoy the show, but since he’s gone mainstream and doesn’t have the usual cavalcade of cohosts, it’s a shade of its former self.