Ocasio Cortez compares debating to catcalling, refuses to debate Ben Shapiro.

[bobgeese]

I’d pay to watch that freak show.

 

[kpt018]

Has he ever debated a sitting Congress person at all?

I don't think he has.

 

[Not A Theist]

I've only read his articles. It's bad enough reading someone like Sowell, let alone Shapiro.
I notice his more recent books have taken a turn for the apocalyptic.

Yeah, sorry. I deleted that because it was half formed and didn't intend to follow through with it. I've only heard the guy speak about four times, and one of those times he was yammering on about some stuff concerning Aristotle that had me marginally intrigued, and I was going to ask if anyone had ever read THAT book. Then I looked up what he had actually published and it was some stuff about evil leftists, winning debates versus leftists and... Yeah. I think I'll go back to not paying attention to Ben Shapiro.

 

[method115]

Honestly, I'm not sure she's actually off base with this. Do you think Ben has good intentions? Did she in any way solicit a debate with him? Nope. He's some middlingly popular right wing media pundit who wants to debate an aspiring elected official, which she is in no way obligated to do, and apparently has no interest in. He's not even remotely entitled to debate her.

Personally, I'd prefer a response of "no thanks, not interested," but she's not responding in a way that doesn't capture the situation with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Let Ben go find another knothole to hump.

She's actually very wrong.

1. She has no ideas what his intentions are so lets just drop all that right now. No one knows his intentions so that argument is already killed.
2. Catcalling is not a challenge to women it's a man trying to hit on a girl to get her number to fuck whatever it's not a challenge.

 

[Rygu]

There are lots of lawyers and I didn't read any of his books but that's only an achievement if they're good.

Also, I'm not claiming he's a dummy, obviously he is intelligent and he's very well educated. I just don't think we should be praising his accomplishments like he's some great thinker. He even posted about all the stuff he's gotten wrong and the stuff that he thinks is flat out immoral. The guy has had some real stinkers and flat out detestable views.

Oh he has his flaws and I don't agree with all of his views such as his ultra strong stance on abortion. One of his greatest weapons is his outstanding memory which is what makes him as good as he is at debating as he's able to remember statistics the way he does. I've never really considered him a great thinker per se, he's more of a guy who memorizes facts and can recall them way better than most people can.

 

[scoopj]

Honestly, I'm not sure she's actually off base with this. Do you think Ben has good intentions? Did she in any way solicit a debate with him? Nope. He's some middlingly popular right wing media pundit who wants to debate an aspiring elected official, which she is in no way obligated to do, and apparently has no interest in. He's not even remotely entitled to debate her.

Personally, I'd prefer.

“Miss Ocasio-Cortez, I’m really excited that you’ve been elevated to that position and I would love to have a real conversation with you about the issues. You’ve noted that you think Republicans are afraid to debate you or talk to you or discuss the issues with you,” Shapiro said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ate-her-democratic-socialist-beliefs.amp.html

 

[BangersAndSmash]

You guys know nothing (or pretend to know nothing) about politics. You don't "debate" someone who's not running against you. There is literally nothing to gain from such a debate. You stumble once and there are a hundred right-wing attack ads made during the debate. Ben Shapiro can stumble, fall, or say any ridiculous thing he wants and no one will care. He's risking nothing because even if you hired neutral judges to judge the debate and determine a winner, his fans will always believe he won. If he was judged to have lost the debate, his audience would just cling to the notion he won even harder.

In summary, it serves no purpose other than to get Ben's audience excited (and probably make him some money).

 

[kpt018]

Oh he has his flaws and I don't agree with all of his views such as his ultra strong stance on abortion. One of his greatest weapons is his outstanding memory which is what makes him as good as he is at debating as he's able to remember statistics the way he does. I've never really considered him a great thinker per se, he's more of a guy who memorizes facts and can recall them way better than most people can.

Gotcha.

Success can be determined by different ways. You're referring to commercial and academic success as well as speaking to his popularity. No problem there. But by many definitions we can say Hannity is successful. He is very rich and has a large audience. But I would argue his content is about as shit as you can get and he's just absolutely toxic to society. I just can't bring myself to praise the guy, you know?

But I hear ya. Yes, Shapiro is definitely successful in the way you're measuring him. I just think his content sucks (I'm not comparing him to Hannity).

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not sure I follow. The free press she's getting is very bad press and it doesn't appear to me they're cheering her on. I totally agree with you that was the strategy with Bernie as the right was openly complementing him and cheering for him. It feels different to me with Cortez but maybe I'm missing something.

This is definitely good press (and I'm not talking about the Shapiro thing, he's just a self-interested twat here). We're all talking about her when rightfully she should be some footnote. The right is building her up into a very large symbol, and I don't believe that's an accident.

The conversations that the right wing political machine are having are about how to use her popularity. I would bet anything that the prevailing thought at the moment is that she can be used as a wedge, to stir up the left to damage the Dem establishment. They didn't like running against somebody like Hillary. That's a nightmare for political strategists, they didn't expect to win. They want to beat a socialist, and this treatment of Cortez increases the chances that the Democrats will field a socialist.

 

[Prokofievian]

I don't see the lefts problem wth having debates. It's never the right I see refusing them, always the left. You'd think if your ideals were that good, and the other side that bad, you'd have no problem promoting them and making the other side look bad in a debate.

That clearly isn't the case though.

The right has invested in debate because you don't actually need to be correct to win a debate, you just need to be the most persuasive, and perhaps the most forceful. Rather than being absolutely about the truth, debate is about a performance that happens at a specific time. For example, this is why Crowder insisted on a live debate instead of engaging with potholer54's edited content. Crowder is loud, he's confident, and not above shouting someone down. A live debate favours him. Going toe to toe in correspondence? Mmmm not so much.

 

[kpt018]

You guys know nothing (or pretend to know nothing) about politics. You don't "debate" someone who's not running against you. There is literally nothing to gain from such a debate. You stumble once and there are a hundred right-wing attack ads made during the debate. Ben Shapiro can stumble, fall, or say any ridiculous thing he wants and no one will care. He's risking nothing because even if you hired neutral judges to judge the debate and determine a winner, his fans will always believe he won. If he was judged to have lost the debate, his audience would just cling to the notion he won even harder.

In summary, it serves no purpose other than to get Ben's audience excited (and probably make him some money).

Exactly, I made this same point earlier. She should respond "sure, I'll debate you when you run for the Queens-Bronx district and we'll let our voters decide who won".

 

[Ruprecht]

Yeah, sorry. I deleted that because it was half formed and didn't intend to follow through with it. I've only heard the guy speak about four times, and one of those times he was yammering on about some stuff concerning Aristotle that had me marginally intrigued, and I was going to ask if anyone had ever read THAT book. Then I looked up what he had actually published and it was some stuff about evil leftists, winning debates versus leftists and... Yeah. I think I'll go back to not paying attention to Ben Shapiro.

He's pretty prolific, although a lot of his books are either collections of his published columns or expanding on the same material.
As for his content... yeah. At least he's consistent though.

 

[ShadowRun]

You want a shot at the title?

Anytime I’m a #neverHomer WR voter ... no , we clash on almost all views but I like you as a WR president since you are active and a regular in WR. What do you think about the Hulkster coming back to the wrestling world ?

 

[Kitafuji]

Except that I don't think he would've asked to debate a man in the same situation.
Like all rightwing media talking heads, he's a sexist pussy in addition to all his other shitty qualities.

Are you suggesting Ben had never debated a man before? You are stupid and a sexist racist.

 

[kpt018]

This is definitely good press (and I'm not talking about the Shapiro thing, he's just a self-interested twat here).

How so? The right as painting her as retarded and an extremist.

We're all talking about her when rightfully she should be some footnote. The right is building her up into a very large symbol, and I don't believe that's an accident.

100% agree there. But is the idea "any press is good press"?

The conversations that the right wing political machine are having are about how to use her popularity. I would bet anything that the prevailing thought at the moment is that she can be used as a wedge, to stir up the left to damage the Dem establishment. They didn't like running against somebody like Hillary. That's a nightmare for political strategists, they didn't expect to win. They want to beat a socialist, and this treatment of Cortez increases the chances that the Democrats will field a socialist.

Gotcha, totally agree here as well. I just didn't follow your "good press" classification.

 

[Not A Theist]

She's actually very wrong.

1. She has no ideas what his intentions are so lets just drop all that right now. No one knows his intentions so that argument is already killed.
2. Catcalling is not a challenge to women it's a man trying to hit on a girl to get her number to fuck whatever it's not a challenge.

Catcalling is a request of action/an expression of interest in a person. The comparison isn't perfect and does come with some unnecessary baggage (the sexual implications) but it is unsolicited attention. On that grounds, the comparison is fair.

You know, you're right. We can't know Ben's intent. Maybe he's picked her to debate because he just wants to find the truth of the socialist position she occupies. We can't be sure. I would not put money on Ben having "good intentions" rather than wanting a soundbyte to to tear down a rising Left leaning star while improving his own position. This, of course, brings up Panamacian's concern - does Ben go around challenging lots of Left leaning politicians? Or did he just pick one he thought he could destroy and look good while doing it?

“Miss Ocasio-Cortez, I’m really excited that you’ve been elevated to that position and I would love to have a real conversation with you about the issues. You’ve noted that you think Republicans are afraid to debate you or talk to you or discuss the issues with you,” Shapiro said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ate-her-democratic-socialist-beliefs.amp.html

Has she actually said that Republicans are afraid to debate her? If so, that does put a different spin on this and she had best clean up her rhetoric. Do you have a source on her saying that? Earnest question, as I'd like that clarified for my own stance on the matter.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not sure I follow. The free press she's getting is very bad press and it doesn't appear to me they're cheering her on. I totally agree with you that was the strategy with Bernie as the right was openly complementing him and cheering for him. It feels different to me with Cortez but maybe I'm missing something.

Yeah, there's a difference. The right was boosting Sanders as a "divide the left" strategy. While they want to raise AOC's profile as part of a "tar the opposition" strategy.

 

[Rational Poster]

Can we make the thread about Ben Shapiro's sister instead?

 

[Rygu]

Can we make the thread about Ben Shapiro's sister instead?

Milkman has arrived holy shit.

 

[Rational Poster]

Milkman has arrived holy shit.