Opinion What's the consensus on Ben Shapiro around here?

Cuauhtemoc said:
He is also kind boring as you described. None of his positions are new. They're just the usual republican stuff we've been hearing since Nixon. Really.
"I'm not racist, but ghetto culture is bad"
"Israel is a democracy, we need to support it, see how the arabs flog people"
"guns don't kill people, people kill people"
"the democrats support identity politics, they're the real racists"

I find most debaters to be extremely boring. I understand the power of rhetoric, so they have their importance, but at least some come with original ideas. A guy like Noam Chomsky, I don't agree with his politics, but he brought new ideas to the table. On the right you have Pat Buchanan, also I don't care too much about his politics, but he was touting a very different line than the other conservatives at his time.

Listening to him feels a bit like listening to Richard Dawkins in the early 2000s, even if he was right, it was always the same stuff over and over. "we don't come from monkeys", "evolution is not random" etc. You only needed to listen to him once.
Although in his case it was because the other debaters were incredibly dumb.
Sam Harris is somewhat similar, but much more interesting than Shapiro.
Click to expand...
Sam Harris will make Ben look silly. Ben has agreed to be on Sam's pod cast but I have a feeling he will wiggle out of it. Ben doesn't debate with people of the level of Sam often if ever and it will show. If they do debate the abortion exchange will be interesting, and obviously the religious difference will be an easy win for Harris. Harris had Peterson on and it was not that interesting as they got caught up in semantics over truth. I don' think Ben will be able to hold his own though.
 
MMAViewer said:
Sam Harris will make Ben look silly. Ben has agreed to be on Sam's pod cast but I have a feeling he will wiggle out of it. Ben doesn't debate with people of the level of Sam often if ever and it will show. If they do debate the abortion exchange will be interesting, and obviously the religious difference will be an easy win for Harris. Harris had Peterson on and it was not that interesting as they got caught up in semantics over truth. I don' think Ben will be able to hold his own though.
Click to expand...
More important; Ben doesn't debate as much as he lobs rhetoric. He is very good at taking the weakest assumption of the opposing argument and scoffing it into obscurity. He is quite capable of painting a picture, as one does with rhetorical propaganda/smearing.

However, Harris is a ridged and calculated debater. He will not allow for misdirects, goal-post moves, or strawman fallacies. He is also well aware of Schopenhauer's rules for argumentation.

I am in a unique position for this discussion as I had the pleasure to sit and informally debate Harris when I was at University. It was during his tour of The Moral Landscape. I disagreed with axioms of assumption he made within the book, and we were able to discuss it at length. While we agreed to disagree, there was no doubt that he had thought through all of his process of reasoning as well as one can be expected to. He is not flashy or exciting, nor does he have an army of trolls to write "Harris destroys ___" in a series of youtube videos. But he is more tactical and capable in a formal or semi-formal debate.

Shapiro would look foolish against Harris, and there is really no doubt in that unless he sheds the persona and takes a less propagandist approach.
 
Overtures said:
People fap to him bc he sounds smart. That is literally all.
Click to expand...
This is correct. It's a unique type of echo chamber of "boy isn't he smart, and by extension we are also smart" without any dissection of his argument form.
 
MilesAbove said:
More important; Ben doesn't debate as much as he lobs rhetoric. He is very good at taking the weakest assumption of the opposing argument and scoffing it into obscurity. He is quite capable of painting a picture, as one does with rhetorical propaganda/smearing.

However, Harris is a ridged and calculated debater. He will not allow for misdirects, goal-post moves, or strawman fallacies. He is also well aware of Schopenhauer's rules for argumentation.

I am in a unique position for this discussion as I had the pleasure to sit and informally debate Harris when I was at University. It was during his tour of The Moral Landscape. I disagreed with axioms of assumption he made within the book, and we were able to discuss it at length. While we agreed to disagree, there was no doubt that he had thought through all of his process of reasoning as well as one can be expected to. He is not flashy or exciting, nor does he have an army of trolls to write "Harris destroys ___" in a series of youtube videos. But he is more tactical and capable in a formal or semi-formal debate.

Shapiro would look foolish against Harris, and there is really no doubt in that unless he sheds the persona and takes a less propagandist approach.
Click to expand...
I agree Shapiro would look foolish in a full debate with Harris and though Ben is intelligent it's interesting that the republicans here are so enamored they think he is on the level of people like Harris. Imho he is not really very close at all. I agree that Harris is calculated but I would add he is somewhat diplomatic. He doesn't sneak in irrelevant jabs in debate, but ridged is a fair description, certainly not overly ridged. I have not read The Moral Landscape yet but Waking up and Islam and the Future of Tolerance are incredibly well written and thought out.
Free will is next on my list actually but I will add The Moral Landscape, thanks for the mention of that one. I would love to sit down with Harris on a few things if not just to chat.
 
MMAViewer said:
I agree Shapiro would look foolish in a full debate with Harris and though Ben is intelligent it's interesting that the republicans here are so enamored they think he is on the level of people like Harris.
Click to expand...
I'd wager they'd never had anyone on their side of a debate that is anywhere near a level of Harris etc... and because they have not they assume Shapiro must be on that level.

Shapiro's skill is to sound very smart to marginally thoughtful people. Year-One debate students would think he's high-level. Those who spent more than a year learning rhetoric or debate/logic tactics would know how flawed he is. An expert debater like Harris isn't going to wow you with a knockout blow. He's going to drag you into deep water and drown you in your own faulty processes (there's a reason he became obsessed with Jiu-Jitsu).

But that is, in a way, Shapiro's strength. His fans likely wouldn't recognize if he lost a debate, because his jabs and barbs would be considered "killing blows" to his followers and those who agree with him.

Imho he is not really very close at all. I agree that Harris is calculated but I would add he is somewhat diplomatic. He doesn't sneak in irrelevant jabs in debate, but ridged is a fair description, certainly not overly ridged.
Click to expand...
Your assumption is correct as far as I have seen. And as stated in the paragraphs above, that's both a strength for Harris and a flaw if he ever faced Shapiro in a public forum.

I have not read The Moral Landscape yet but Waking up and Islam and the Future of Tolerance are incredibly well written and thought out.
Free will is next on my list actually but I will add The Moral Landscape, thanks for the mention of that one. I would love to sit down with Harris on a few things if not just to chat.
Click to expand...

The Moral Landscape is a good read for those who enjoy cerebral pinging, just as all of Harris' work is. I was very fortunate to be able to sit with him, as I was a student teacher at the time for an ethics class when he came to my University. He is highly intelligent and thoughtful. And though I disagree with him on a few things, I will always appreciate and respect a person who is truly thoughtful... and whose primary motive is to find truth and wisdom. Let's just say, if I was running an ethics thinktank on Islam, I'd never hesitate to put him in the thinktank despite my disagreements. He's an asset for any moral/ethical dissection.
 
He is a smart guy that is quick witted and well prepared. although i disagree with him on many things I enjoy him taking down sjws. If sjws and the left in general hadn't run amok as much as they have recently, he and Milo would probably be pretty uninteresting
 
I think he needs to work on his presentation. This thread itself proves that he is too polarizing of a character, to truly get the job done.

How people perceive you is often as important as the strength of your arguments. Sometimes more so, in today's environment.

If he grew a shaggy beard, wore a T-shirt and jeans, and talked more slowly and monotone with a relaxed disposition, he'd probably get a more positive response from the "other side", while the people on the right would still subscribe to his arguments. Throw a couple of jokes here and there to lower people's defenses, every once in a while.
 
Last edited:
esotamoc said:
He is a smart guy that is quick witted and well prepared. although i disagree with him on many things I enjoy him taking down sjws. If sjws and the left in general hadn't run amok as much as they have recently, he and Milo would probably be pretty uninteresting
Click to expand...

But see, that's the thing: You just like the porn that is his beating up dumb college kids or picking apart SJWs that are even worse prepared than he is.

Also, he spends most his time misrepresenting the Left by taking the more absurd positions and marking it as the end-all-be-all of the liberal position.

He and Milo is "interesting" like Ball v Trump is "interesting".... it's for the same people that love Reality TV but pretend they're above it.
 
TheGreatA said:
I think he needs to work on his presentation. This thread itself proves that he is too polarizing of a character, to truly get the job done.

How people perceive you is often as important as the strength of your arguments. Sometimes more so, in today's environment.

If he grew a shaggy beard, wore a T-shirt and jeans, and talked more slowly and monotone with a relaxed disposition, he'd probably get a more positive response from the "other side", while the people on the right would still subscribe to his arguments. Throw a couple of jokes here and there to lower people's defenses, every once in a while.
Click to expand...

It would go a long way if he slowed down a bit and was less of a dick, for sure.

I don't think he can help it though he seems pretty nervous most of the time.
 
MilesAbove said:
But see, that's the thing: You just like the porn that is his beating up dumb college kids or picking apart SJWs that are even worse prepared than he is.

Also, he spends most his time misrepresenting the Left by taking the more absurd positions and marking it as the end-all-be-all of the liberal position.

He and Milo is "interesting" like Ball v Trump is "interesting".... it's for the same people that love Reality TV but pretend they're above it.
Click to expand...
I dont disagree with this except the absurd positions are becoming more prevalent recently. Nothing wrong with reality tv- everything in moderation.
 
Rational Poster said:
It would go a long way if he slowed down a bit and was less of a dick, for sure.

I don't think he can help it though he seems pretty nervous most of the time.
Click to expand...

I think he's self-conscious about the fact that he's perceived as a younger and well, shorter guy, in almost all confrontations, so he's basically trying to establish himself as not being a push-over all the time.
 
esotamoc said:
I dont disagree with this except the absurd positions are becoming more prevalent recently. Nothing wrong with reality tv- everything in moderation.
Click to expand...

See, I don't think they are though. I think they're highlighted more. College-age people are always absurd. They're trying to figure things out and they're just learning to reason properly. The same happens the opposite direction with Red-State echo chambers at religious universities.

Young people are nutso bananas. Some people carry on with the madness past their mid-20s... but there's always been some who did that. It's just that now we highlight them to paint the opposing side as insane.
 
Rational Poster said:
You post in the OT and only have 3,000 likes.

That tells me all I need to know.

@pcptornado can you take care of this dork? Keep the trash in your bin.
Click to expand...

Likes are a recent thing and Im a previous ban... pcp will confirm you can fuck off lmao
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,283,049
Messages
58,478,402
Members
176,048
Latest member
gibberish

Share this page

Back
Top