Social The daily "AOC says something stupid on Twitter" thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not A Theist said:
The problem is that public debates really aren't about having the better argument for the most part but about scoring points. I take anyone who says "I could beat Ben Shapiro in a debate, easy" with a grain of salt because while I don't doubt there are a lot of people who could field better arguments, but the guy's strength isn't having the best arguments - it's controlling the field of the discussion. He's good at quickly and slightly restaging the opponents argumentative strands into similar, but ujnfavourable ones, while dropping in the occasional one liner that gets the crowd riled up and on his side. Most people who can pick up on how his argument is weak have a heck of a time keeping pace with his rhetorical style, so it doesn't matter.

I've seen the guy argue some really silly stuff and still "win" in the eyes of the crowd because even if his arguments aren't good, in an informal debate he is damned good at it. Considering that the last presidential debates had "Because you'd be in jail" as possibly the most memorable line of the whole period and it was utter hogwash on so many levels I could see Shapiro cleaning up at those types of debates.

He's wrong about a lot of stuff, but he's a very able spokesperson for the Right. Don't underestimate him just because he's wrong a lot.
Click to expand...

Your avatar is Trudeau and Merkel.

Of COURSE from your point of view, you would disagree with most everything a conservative podcast has to say.
 
Mcountry said:
Your avatar is Trudeau and Merkel.

Of COURSE from your point of view, you would disagree with most everything a conservative podcast has to say.
Click to expand...

True. I'm based in a major university and consider myself quite progressive. I consider it a bit of an olive branch that I listen to him just to hear his perspective though, rather than just dismissing him outright. On top of that, a fair bit of his assessment of the political landscape is quite insightful so, even if we disagree, I think he isn't a totally empty talking shirt. I also don't think I could beat him in a debate - even if I was right and he was wrong.

His current push to equate ant-zionism with anti-seminism is getting a bit tough to swallow though. I'm considering ignoring him for a few weeks and sticking to Democracy Now! a fair bit more.
 
ferrisjso said:
Most of the differences make it more likely it would succeed here than in Japan. Such as the fact their population is declining they don't have the largest military on earth, don't have the reserve currency etc etc. Everything about MMT favors us over them which is why Japan is such a good example because it's not a country you'd think could borrow eternally off of the inherent value of it's economy cause it's economy is going to get smaller and smaller and smaller. Ours won't.

I graduated cum laude at a private 40k/yr college too what are you trying to say? What's wrong with cum laude's who went to private colleges? What have we ever done to you?

Bartenders get people wasted. In our economy people get trashed for not participating at economic gunpoint and now you are trashing someone for doing the work that supposedly has dignity and builds character in the conservative world view? Hmm, interesting.
Click to expand...

Not the major difference and not the reason that it's more likely to succeed here. We have twice the external debt to GDP ratio - ie Japan owns most of their own debt.

No offense, but where you not smart enough to go to a state school or did you just have too much money laying around? My point is that most people aren't spending that kind of money to go to a private school unless it's an Ivy; and again no offense, but graduating in the top 3rd or your class at a middling tier1 school isn't that spectacular in the grand scheme of academic accomplishments.

I'm not trashing her for her job choice (all work is worthy), I'm pointing out that a $160k education landed/prepared her for a job as a bartender for 7 years and well you know how the rest of that sentence goes.
 
MikeMcMann said:
You challenge them for the actual quote and nadda.
Click to expand...

"the world will end in 12 years..."

It seems like it's the left that always want to add some context to what she says and tell us what she meant.
 
Not A Theist said:
True. I'm based in a major university and consider myself quite progressive. I consider it a bit of an olive branch that I listen to him just to hear his perspective though, rather than just dismissing him outright. On top of that, a fair bit of his assessment of the political landscape is quite insightful so, even if we disagree, I think he isn't a totally empty talking shirt. I also don't think I could beat him in a debate - even if I was right and he was wrong.

His current push to equate ant-zionism with anti-seminism is getting a bit tough to swallow though. I'm considering ignoring him for a few weeks and sticking to Democracy Now! a fair bit more.
Click to expand...

You are "right" from your point of view.

That doesn't mean you are right.

Not shocked that you are progressive and still in school. As you age. As you ground yourself with a job, wife, family...you may just find yourself slowly becoming more and more conservative on major talking points that differentiate the two parties.

Prepare yourself for that.
 
Not A Theist said:
The problem is that public debates really aren't about having the better argument for the most part but about scoring points. I take anyone who says "I could beat Ben Shapiro in a debate, easy" with a grain of salt because while I don't doubt there are a lot of people who could field better arguments, but the guy's strength isn't having the best arguments - it's controlling the field of the discussion. He's good at quickly and slightly restaging the opponents argumentative strands into similar, but ujnfavourable ones, while dropping in the occasional one liner that gets the crowd riled up and on his side. Most people who can pick up on how his argument is weak have a heck of a time keeping pace with his rhetorical style, so it doesn't matter.

I've seen the guy argue some really silly stuff and still "win" in the eyes of the crowd because even if his arguments aren't good, in an informal debate he is damned good at it. Considering that the last presidential debates had "Because you'd be in jail" as possibly the most memorable line of the whole period and it was utter hogwash on so many levels I could see Shapiro cleaning up at those types of debates.
Click to expand...

I mean I understand this. His weakness is he hasn't heard a lot of progressive arguments before nor have the people he's argued with been the best debaters(Cenk's arguing skills have seriously eroded from having a platform where he gets the final say on everything and is best known for screaming "of course". His normal debating "sparring partner" is Ana Kasparian). He needs to have heard arguments to come up with those retorts for them and most arguments in the establishment bubble are recycled back and forth. He also abandons his usual approach on the Israel issue and on health care where he uses the sort of arguments that he would laugh at in any other context.

It's because he was emotional connections to these issues that make him abandon his usual patterns. The Cenk argument went as well for Ben as it did for specifically the opposite reason, it focused on Cenk's pet issue and Cenk got all fiery and abandoned his normal logic. You'll also notice that with Cenk's convo with Sam Harris he was talking about Islam and Cenk is just not willing to concede any facts that say Islam is negative in any light because he grew up as a Muslim and has a Muslim family. Conceding part of the argument but not the whole thing is super important in debates and if you can't do that you come across like a child and in both those conversations Cenk was in a position where he was never going to give an inch regardless of how unreasonable he looked. Giving an inch is the easiest way to branch off into your own arguments in debating. So much so when you disagree with 100% it's actually harder IMO to get started on your point. For example xxxx because xxxx but this is different cause xxxx. There's also making him say something he doesn't have a prepared argument for or by saying yes to one of his strawmen(which require the person's denial to work and they are crafted so the person will not do this) you make the person disrupt their flow and go backwards and that solves the fast pace issue. Ben makes his strawmen so that the people he's arguing can't answer yes to them, because they are tailor made for the people he's used to arguing with. The fast pace is because when most well read people hear a question they more or less have heard all the answers to it. So their response is sort of autopiloted and when that gets disrupted they have to at least slow down. For me my strength is my positions on most major issues are not common talking points I expect Ben to have heard especially often.

Watch the Tucker argument with Ben or the Yang one. Not that Tucker is a progressive but in this argument he was arguing a progressive point. Both "won" the discussions. In Tucker's, Ben was losing and closed with"that's why private charity exists" and he's used to that being a stop gag because no one EVER critiques private charity. But I would and many on the left would, he would not have a response to someone with well reasoned critiques of chartiy because he quite frankly doesn't have to go there often and expects that to be a "winner". But yeah in those public events maybe there is a difference. But those were still debates. The Tucker discussion specifically happened because they disagreed on an issue.

Shapiro being able to clean up Trump and Hillary isn't really a compliment, many people in the audience likely could as well. Hillary was one of the worst public speakers to ever run for office(if you disagree why didn't she have press confrences?) in the past front porch era. This is why she started with such high favorables and went down every time she opened her mouth. Trump won on NYC charisma and aggression which tends to unsettle rural and suburban people especially those involved in politics.
 
Last edited:
Mcountry said:
You are "right" from your point of view.

That doesn't mean you are right.

Not shocked that you are progressive and still in school. As you age. As you ground yourself with a job, wife, family...you may just find yourself slowly becoming more and more conservative on major talking points that differentiate the two parties.

Prepare yourself for that.
Click to expand...

I'm actually closer to 40 than 30, worked construction for years before going back to school to complete my PhD (grad student at the moment), married, own several rental properties, and oftentimes when I talk about students I'm talking about my students, that I am teaching.

I'm going to venture a guess and say that you're someone who tends to express your dislike for identity politics. If I'm not off the mark here, I'd suggest taking a look in the mirror, because the move you just tried to pull is precisely the type I see complained about so often here - that of trying to define what a person's views must be by the identity markers they have. Seeing as you started by pre-judging me based on my avatar, I can't help but think that your approach to identity politics isn't much different than the Democrats who are shocked when they find a black person who leans Republican.

Lastly, for the whole thing about "right from your point of view"... Duh. That's kind of how it works everywhere, all the time.
 
PainIsLIfe said:
Not the major difference and not the reason that it's more likely to succeed here. We have twice the external debt to GDP ratio - ie Japan owns most of their own debt.

No offense, but where you not smart enough to go to a state school or did you just have too much money laying around? My point is that most people aren't spending that kind of money to go to a private school unless it's an Ivy; and again no offense, but graduating in the top 3rd or your class at a middling tier1 school isn't that spectacular in the grand scheme of academic accomplishments.

I'm not trashing her for her job choice (all work is worthy), I'm pointing out that a $160k education landed/prepared her for a job as a bartender for 7 years and well you know how the rest of that sentence goes.
Click to expand...

I chose my private school over a state school because I had a scholarship and they came out to mostly the same price. I might have been wrong to make that decision, I don't know it was a split decision thing. I will give you that I was on the wait list at the public school and got accepted to the private outright. I will say the value of the accomplishment depends on a lot of things. Not something to diss someone over though. But I was surrounded by a lot of people who did spend that kind of money to go to a non Ivy and a lot of people do consider that to be worth breaking the bank over, non Ivy privates have very enthusiastic support among their communities. Is it deluded? Yup, but it's there and given how few people get into Ivy's, rich parents needing something to brag about are going to fuel that fire.

Not all states have wonderful public universities. It varies heavily af.
 
Not A Theist said:
I'm actually closer to 40 than 30, worked construction for years before going back to school to complete my PhD (grad student at the moment), married, own several rental properties, and oftentimes when I talk about students I'm talking about my students, that I am teaching.

I'm going to venture a guess and say that you're someone who tends to express your dislike for identity politics. If I'm not off the mark here, I'd suggest taking a look in the mirror, because the move you just tried to pull is precisely the type I see complained about so often here - that of trying to define what a person's views must be by the identity markers they have. Seeing as you started by pre-judging me based on my avatar, I can't help but think that your approach to identity politics isn't much different than the Democrats who are shocked when they find a black person who leans Republican.

Lastly, for the whole thing about "right from your point of view"... Duh. That's kind of how it works everywhere, all the time.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

2+2 = 4. That's not debatable.

Life begins at conception? Well that's a bit cloudy. And one that having gone through the process of having a baby and watching my son grow from a peanut to the child he currently is has changed my opinion.

Who's right on that one? personal opinion. I think you are an evil bastard for suggesting that the peanut has no rights or protections to live and grow into someone. You think I'm an evil bastard for suggesting that woman can't use abortion as birth control. That they should be allowed to murder the peanut because it's their body.

We would both agree that there are more severe circumstances that require abortion.

With every major talking point, it's right or wrong is based off of the morals of the individual.

But when Ben talks statistics, the numbers don't lie. There is no "point of view" to statistics. Only in how you want to interpret them. Of which is interpretations of the statistics makes sense. Where as the argument against his statistics are usually one of morality or some other fairy tale emotion.

My avatar is kate beckensale. i chose her because my pecker likes her. When people see my avatar, they should think "she's hot"

You chose trudeau and merkal. Two people I can't express how much I detest enough for different reasons. You chose them because you want the avatar to represent your politics. progressive.

I will judge you on your avatar choice. It's an expression of the poster. I don't feel guilt about that.
 
PainIsLIfe said:
"the world will end in 12 years..."

It seems like it's the left that always want to add some context to what she says and tell us what she meant.
Click to expand...

Because the context is obvious and important.
 
Mcountry said:
Not necessarily.

2+2 = 4. That's not debatable.

Life begins at conception? Well that's a bit cloudy. And one that having gone through the process of having a baby and watching my son grow from a peanut to the child he currently is has changed my opinion.

Who's right on that one? personal opinion. I think you are an evil bastard for suggesting that the peanut has no rights or protections to live and grow into someone. You think I'm an evil bastard for suggesting that woman can't use abortion as birth control. That they should be allowed to murder the peanut because it's their body.

We would both agree that there are more severe circumstances that require abortion.

With every major talking point, it's right or wrong is based off of the morals of the individual.

But when Ben talks statistics, the numbers don't lie. There is no "point of view" to statistics. Only in how you want to interpret them. Of which is interpretations of the statistics makes sense. Where as the argument against his statistics are usually one of morality or some other fairy tale emotion.
Click to expand...

There is cherry picking statistics and claiming that they support what you're saying they support though. And Ben does not use statistics for many of his core arguments. Where's the stat when he calls non right winger Jews, "self hating"? What about when he says that single payer would steal labor from doctors(who make the decision to go to med school and swear an ancient oath to treat everyone)? Much of what Ben argues is philsopophical. Of course when facts come that he can twist into something he agress with he'll use them.

Also I think people who oppose single payer should be barred commenting about murder. If you support the murder of people who are objectively alive, you lose license to care about those whose status is questionable.
 
Mcountry said:
Not necessarily.

2+2 = 4. That's not debatable.

Life begins at conception? Well that's a bit cloudy. And one that having gone through the process of having a baby and watching my son grow from a peanut to the child he currently is has changed my opinion.

Who's right on that one? personal opinion. I think you are an evil bastard for suggesting that the peanut has no rights or protections to live and grow into someone. You think I'm an evil bastard for suggesting that woman can't use abortion as birth control. That they should be allowed to murder the peanut because it's their body.

We would both agree that there are more severe circumstances that require abortion.

With every major talking point, it's right or wrong is based off of the morals of the individual.

But when Ben talks statistics, the numbers don't lie. There is no "point of view" to statistics. Only in how you want to interpret them. Of which is interpretations of the statistics makes sense. Where as the argument against his statistics are usually one of morality or some other fairy tale emotion.

My avatar is kate beckensale. i chose her because my pecker likes her. When people see my avatar, they should think "she's hot"

You chose trudeau and merkal. Two people I can't express how much I detest enough for different reasons. You chose them because you want the avatar to represent your politics. progressive.

I will judge you on your avatar choice. It's an expression of the poster. I don't feel guilt about that.
Click to expand...

Read post #33 here:

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/were-1-were-1-canadians-gthih-and-show-your-pride.3952525/page-2

And tell me how much I am a fan of Trudeau. That post was made before our exchange.

I'm of German heritage but born in Canada so I have a picture of the leaders of both countries. I actually have pretty big problems with both leaders. All in I didn't think about the avatar that much - unlike you who apparently looks at the avatar and then judges the person by them. Really, it's not different than the Democrat who walks down the street, sees a black person, and says "Oh look another Democrat" or the feminist who sees a white male and says "What a privileged shitlord!". You saw an identity marker and jumped to conclusions based on those markers, and now you're writing longwinded posts explaining how you were justified in doing so. Go figure, the Democrat and the Feminist in the above example will do exactly the same. Welcome to being a practitioner of identity politics fella!

As for the whole truth thing... What's your point? Seriously. What is it?

Wasted too much time here today already and if I were to spend my time responding to posts it would be to continue ongoing discussion I have with Caveat, Panamacian, and Jack V Savage, not this.
 
Not A Theist said:
Read post #33 here:

https://forums.sherdog.com/threads/were-1-were-1-canadians-gthih-and-show-your-pride.3952525/page-2

And tell me how much I am a fan of Trudeau. That post was made before our exchange.

I'm of German heritage but born in Canada so I have a picture of the leaders of both countries. I actually have pretty big problems with both leaders. All in I didn't think about the avatar that much - unlike you who apparently looks at the avatar and then judges the person by them. Really, it's not different than the Democrat who walks down the street, sees a black person, and says "Oh look another Democrat" or the feminist who sees a white male and says "What a privileged shitlord!". You saw an identity marker and jumped to conclusions based on those markers, and now you're writing longwinded posts explaining how you were justified in doing so. Go figure, the Democrat and the Feminist in the above example will do exactly the same. Welcome to being a practitioner of identity politics fella!

As for the whole truth thing... What's your point? Seriously. What is it?

Wasted too much time here today already and if I were to spend my time responding to posts it would be to continue ongoing discussion I have with Caveat, Panamacian, and Jack V Savage, not this.
Click to expand...

You could be German and have your avatar as a Nazi symbol technically...would that make me regret playing identity politics for your choosing the Nazi symbol?

Extreme but to the point.

Maybe using the flags of each country would better serve a more accurate representation of yourself? Or hey...you could play "gotcha! Identity politics" by sticking with your current choice.
 
Juventud said:
If you're ever in doubt AOC is living rent free inside the right wings (especially virgin males) heads a 30 page thread will suffice.
Click to expand...
How much of a noob are you ? 30 pages lol ... it’s her tweets and her words btw.
 
Mcountry said:
I just wouldn't expect someone as clever as yourself to use poor grammar? Surely you are clever enough to know the difference between ain't and isn't?
Click to expand...
Surely you are clever enough to see the meaning without playing dumb and derailing the point of the convo. Clever people like you don’t realize language is arbitrary, completely made up just to approximate the real meaning. This is a martial arts forum and you don’t even realize the basic components of Bruce Lee’s philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,283,068
Messages
58,480,133
Members
176,050
Latest member
Suredawg91

Share this page

Back
Top