Why do people still bother with Shapiro? He's a twat who never argues in good faith and who's ultimate tactic in every debate he has been in was drowning their opponent in so much bullshit that...
Why do people still bother with Shapiro? He's a twat who never argues in good faith and who's ultimate tactic in every debate he has been in was drowning their opponent in so much bullshit that they can't refute it in time and he looks like the winner by the end of it. If you actually ask him hard-hitting questions, he avoids them or makes another ridicolous point. A quote from the recent BBC interview with him (please watch, the ending especially is highly entertaining):
EDIT: This isn't a quote, but an example of a non-sequitur, a rhetoric Shapiro loves to use.
Interviewer: How do you feel about the fact that Donald Trump's campaign shared polling data with Russian operatives in the Ukraine.
Shapiro: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country, and that's a fact.
Interviewer: What? That's not the subject we're currently on.
Shapiro: You didn't dispute my point.
Neil had Shapiro by the balls here, and instead of showing an actual spine and maybe some brain, Shapiro wiggled out of it by making a statement that (at least in the US) would require some sort of rebuttal. I'd love it if Neil had just repeated his question over and over again, but that would've mean that Shapiro would've just stormed out earlier.
Surprisingly enough, a man that made a living by "debating" (i.e. screaming into their faces) college kids on the road and editing it together in a way that made him look good) can't actually debate for shit. Except the thing is, the college kids have stayed the same age and Shapiro is steadily walking towards 40. He's soon going to be a middle-aged dude known primarily for yelling at college kids. And this shows, because he ends the BBC interview by storming out and accusing Andrew fucking Neil of being a nobody and bragging about how popular he is. He's an actual man-child.
"Of course that’s true. But let me tell you why it isn't." My favorite paragraph: He actually spun science into a Judeo-Christian creation. Wow.
"Of course that’s true. But let me tell you why it isn't."
My favorite paragraph:
For example, science effectively makes the principle of “sufficient reason” argument, which says there’s a cause for every effect and that we can investigate those causes and we’re capable of reaching an objective truth. There’s nothing in evolutionary biology that suggests that objective truth is even a thing.
He actually spun science into a Judeo-Christian creation. Wow.
Aw man, I really get annoyed when faux smart people stop learning about science at positivism and think they know what science is.
For example, science effectively makes the principle of “sufficient reason” argument, which says there’s a cause for every effect and that we can investigate those causes and we’re capable of reaching an objective truth.
Aw man, I really get annoyed when faux smart people stop learning about science at positivism and think they know what science is.
incidentally, ben shapiro literally just got dismantled yesterday in a BBC interview on pretty much the exact same thing he got dismantled on in this vox interview. pretty embarrassing, honestly.
incidentally, ben shapiro literally just got dismantled yesterday in a BBC interview on pretty much the exact same thing he got dismantled on in this vox interview. pretty embarrassing, honestly.
His interviewer, Andrew Neil, is the chairman of the conservative UK magazine The Spectator and a vocal member of the Conservative Party. Shapiro has no idea who or what he's talking about.
His interviewer, Andrew Neil, is the chairman of the conservative UK magazine The Spectator and a vocal member of the Conservative Party. Shapiro has no idea who or what he's talking about.
Are there any leading/notable US conservatives at all who engage political discourse in good faith and don't just default to ad hominems? I've been asking for the better part of two years and...
Are there any leading/notable US conservatives at all who engage political discourse in good faith and don't just default to ad hominems? I've been asking for the better part of two years and Shapiro is who I was recommended as the right's "intelligentsia," smh.
I think one of the Republican party's greater recent PR wins has been steering the discourse in a way that conservative and Republican are considered synonymous. If you ask for Trump-era...
I think one of the Republican party's greater recent PR wins has been steering the discourse in a way that conservative and Republican are considered synonymous.
If you ask for Trump-era Republican supporters who act and debate in good faith, I'm drawing a blank. If, however, you ask for people who uphold the principles of conservatism (principles I personally disagree with, but can understand and respect as a different value system) then you need to look to people who are now called independents, centrists or sometimes even moderate Democrats.
The people who argue in good faith for a slow, measured, careful approach to politics and social change, which emphasises stability over all else - the political conservatives - have already either capitulated to or been squeezed out of an increasingly radicalised Republican party.
LOL! That explains the remark at 5:54 "If only you knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it." after Shapiro demanded he admit to being on the left. Such an idiot.
LOL! That explains the remark at 5:54 "If only you knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it." after Shapiro demanded he admit to being on the left.
As an outsider, it seems that America has no debate. Only insult throwing matches and spamming out a bunch of crap in a contest where the person who says the most the fastest "wins"
As an outsider, it seems that America has no debate. Only insult throwing matches and spamming out a bunch of crap in a contest where the person who says the most the fastest "wins"
There is debate, of course. The problem is that there are people who reject basic foundations upon which our reasoning is based on. Take, for instance, if we talk to people about the problem of...
There is debate, of course. The problem is that there are people who reject basic foundations upon which our reasoning is based on.
Take, for instance, if we talk to people about the problem of homelessness. In this case, nearly everyone agrees it's a problem that we should address. But people's different foundations give them vastly different solutions. If you think policy should be based on research and science, you might want to do the most effective solution - give them stable housing. If you believe policy should be based on utilitarian value, you will probably agree. But if you believe that people can change entirely out of self-determination (a libertarian viewpoint), this solution will not only sound completely insane, you might actually find it personally insulting. They might have been expecting to go into this debate to discuss legislation that makes life harder for homeless people in hope that they leave the city.
Personally, I have been wondering if this is a fundamental problem with the way our government is formed. The more I learn about more modern democracies with their parliamentary systems that elect the governing body wholesale, the more I see how wise that decision is; at least the people in the coalition government will agree on the basics so they can take action. In the US, our congress is so divided they essentially can't do anything unless someone in industry bribes both sides.
I was thinking a while ago that maybe the problem is America is just too big. You have California, Texas and Hawaii all voting for one government and there is simply no way they can come to an...
I was thinking a while ago that maybe the problem is America is just too big. You have California, Texas and Hawaii all voting for one government and there is simply no way they can come to an agreement because they are all totally different places. I wonder if things would be better if they split the USA up in to 5 different countries
Giving these idiots more airtime makes the situation worse, even if it makes them look like fools in the process. It's funny to see 99% of the world not understand a core principle that most...
Giving these idiots more airtime makes the situation worse, even if it makes them look like fools in the process.
It's funny to see 99% of the world not understand a core principle that most people on the internet understood 10-15 years ago: don't feed the fucking troll.
I feel like there's an entire essay's worth of reasons not to give political trolls airtime, even if you personally like seeing them getting shut down.
I feel like the only approach that kind of works is the one employed by late-night shows, and even so not all of them, and not all the time. They've done their fair share of damage as well, putting idiocy in the spotlight and shadowing more important issues.
honestly, i don't think that'd be particularly interesting even if you assume shapiro argues in good faith and AOC bothers to take up the offer. shapiro's entire shtick is based on ideas he...
honestly, i don't think that'd be particularly interesting even if you assume shapiro argues in good faith and AOC bothers to take up the offer. shapiro's entire shtick is based on ideas he himself seems to not understand and which he seems to only be able to debate when it's done on his terms, and if even other conservatives can make his house of cards topple so badly that he starts screeching about how his interviewer is a leftist and just doesn't understand his ideas like andrew neil can, AOC would probably dismantle him like zizek did with peterson.
It's her particular way of dealing with Shapiro that I anticipate enjoying. She's sharp and creative with how she deals with ideas. I'd love to see that.
It's her particular way of dealing with Shapiro that I anticipate enjoying. She's sharp and creative with how she deals with ideas. I'd love to see that.
Why do people still bother with Shapiro? He's a twat who never argues in good faith and who's ultimate tactic in every debate he has been in was drowning their opponent in so much bullshit that they can't refute it in time and he looks like the winner by the end of it. If you actually ask him hard-hitting questions, he avoids them or makes another ridicolous point. A
quotefrom the recent BBC interview with him (please watch, the ending especially is highly entertaining):EDIT: This isn't a quote, but an example of a non-sequitur, a rhetoric Shapiro loves to use.
Interviewer: How do you feel about the fact that Donald Trump's campaign shared polling data with Russian operatives in the Ukraine.
Shapiro: Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in this country, and that's a fact.
Interviewer: What? That's not the subject we're currently on.
Shapiro: You didn't dispute my point.
Neil had Shapiro by the balls here, and instead of showing an actual spine and maybe some brain, Shapiro wiggled out of it by making a statement that (at least in the US) would require some sort of rebuttal. I'd love it if Neil had just repeated his question over and over again, but that would've mean that Shapiro would've just stormed out earlier.
Surprisingly enough, a man that made a living by "debating" (i.e. screaming into their faces) college kids on the road and editing it together in a way that made him look good) can't actually debate for shit. Except the thing is, the college kids have stayed the same age and Shapiro is steadily walking towards 40. He's soon going to be a middle-aged dude known primarily for yelling at college kids. And this shows, because he ends the BBC interview by storming out and accusing Andrew fucking Neil of being a nobody and bragging about how popular he is. He's an actual man-child.
What a fucking legacy.
"Of course that’s true. But let me tell you why it isn't."
My favorite paragraph:
He actually spun science into a Judeo-Christian creation. Wow.
Aw man, I really get annoyed when faux smart people stop learning about science at positivism and think they know what science is.
Reminds me of someone...
"I debate Ben Shapiro" is a sentence packed with a surprising amount of inherent aggravation.
incidentally, ben shapiro literally just got dismantled yesterday in a BBC interview on pretty much the exact same thing he got dismantled on in this vox interview. pretty embarrassing, honestly.
His interviewer, Andrew Neil, is the chairman of the conservative UK magazine The Spectator and a vocal member of the Conservative Party. Shapiro has no idea who or what he's talking about.
Are there any leading/notable US conservatives at all who engage political discourse in good faith and don't just default to ad hominems? I've been asking for the better part of two years and Shapiro is who I was recommended as the right's "intelligentsia," smh.
I think one of the Republican party's greater recent PR wins has been steering the discourse in a way that conservative and Republican are considered synonymous.
If you ask for Trump-era Republican supporters who act and debate in good faith, I'm drawing a blank. If, however, you ask for people who uphold the principles of conservatism (principles I personally disagree with, but can understand and respect as a different value system) then you need to look to people who are now called independents, centrists or sometimes even moderate Democrats.
The people who argue in good faith for a slow, measured, careful approach to politics and social change, which emphasises stability over all else - the political conservatives - have already either capitulated to or been squeezed out of an increasingly radicalised Republican party.
LOL! That explains the remark at 5:54 "If only you knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it." after Shapiro demanded he admit to being on the left.
Such an idiot.
As an outsider, it seems that America has no debate. Only insult throwing matches and spamming out a bunch of crap in a contest where the person who says the most the fastest "wins"
There is debate, of course. The problem is that there are people who reject basic foundations upon which our reasoning is based on.
Take, for instance, if we talk to people about the problem of homelessness. In this case, nearly everyone agrees it's a problem that we should address. But people's different foundations give them vastly different solutions. If you think policy should be based on research and science, you might want to do the most effective solution - give them stable housing. If you believe policy should be based on utilitarian value, you will probably agree. But if you believe that people can change entirely out of self-determination (a libertarian viewpoint), this solution will not only sound completely insane, you might actually find it personally insulting. They might have been expecting to go into this debate to discuss legislation that makes life harder for homeless people in hope that they leave the city.
Personally, I have been wondering if this is a fundamental problem with the way our government is formed. The more I learn about more modern democracies with their parliamentary systems that elect the governing body wholesale, the more I see how wise that decision is; at least the people in the coalition government will agree on the basics so they can take action. In the US, our congress is so divided they essentially can't do anything unless someone in industry bribes both sides.
I was thinking a while ago that maybe the problem is America is just too big. You have California, Texas and Hawaii all voting for one government and there is simply no way they can come to an agreement because they are all totally different places. I wonder if things would be better if they split the USA up in to 5 different countries
Oh, I wish it were Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who debated him.
eh, I don't. AOC has a Real Job, and better things to do with her time. Shapiro is just a guy who makes a living saying stupid shit on the internet.
Giving these idiots more airtime makes the situation worse, even if it makes them look like fools in the process.
It's funny to see 99% of the world not understand a core principle that most people on the internet understood 10-15 years ago: don't feed the fucking troll.
I feel like there's an entire essay's worth of reasons not to give political trolls airtime, even if you personally like seeing them getting shut down.
I feel like the only approach that kind of works is the one employed by late-night shows, and even so not all of them, and not all the time. They've done their fair share of damage as well, putting idiocy in the spotlight and shadowing more important issues.
...huh?
I said I want the woman to brandish her sharp whip of a mind. What are you on about?
Giving Shapiro airtime in the process.
Put it this way, replace shapiro with "my racist uncle nobody has ever heard of". Still a good idea?
honestly, i don't think that'd be particularly interesting even if you assume shapiro argues in good faith and AOC bothers to take up the offer. shapiro's entire shtick is based on ideas he himself seems to not understand and which he seems to only be able to debate when it's done on his terms, and if even other conservatives can make his house of cards topple so badly that he starts screeching about how his interviewer is a leftist and just doesn't understand his ideas like andrew neil can, AOC would probably dismantle him like zizek did with peterson.
It's her particular way of dealing with Shapiro that I anticipate enjoying. She's sharp and creative with how she deals with ideas. I'd love to see that.
Let her do her actual job. Get a different leftist equivalent to Ben Shapiro to debate him.