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

[Pickle Rick]

I'm a big fan of Shapiro, but as I stated earlier, his position on transgenderism is too extreme and simplified for me...

I know many of my conservative brethren will disagree on this, but the transgender issue requires further examination rather than dismissing it as gender dysmorphia

i agree ... but some of his points are valid such as the 40% suicide rate and how many need deep psychiatric counseling prior to any sort of gender reassignment (it might lower the suicide rates) i mean 40% is really high (national avg is like 4-5%) 40% needs attention to prevent the loss of life happening at that alarming rate..

im not trying to equate transgenderism and mental illness

but

the topic has to be looked at with certain parallels

 

[Bendo MMA Hero]

i guess i find much of the current college stuff being done (occupy wall st ...blm etc) and much of the insane protesting and predatory attacks on speakers to show how far in a downward spiral college is atm
while i found the video amusing i agree ben could have used more tact... but that girl needed a wake up call

many of them do... we need people calling people out on their bullshit or we will be overrun with people like smugglypuff and company

No one gives a shit when a 19 year old with identity issues gets checked. The problem is this is Ben Shapiro's game, his brand. This is why his followers like him. Don't believe me? check this thread, check his FB posts, or whatever. I bet if you scroll up you will find at least two mentions of "giving it to those snowflakes!" on this page alone.

I don't really understand your point about college/university being in a downward spiral. Seems like another talking point without any real substance. Maybe that is just me though.

EDIT: I realized you initially made a post pointing out how great it is when he takes down SJW college students. Cool, you proved my point. Your man crush is a little fascist virgin.

 

[FIMN]

i agree ... but some of his points are valid such as the 40% suicide rate and how many need deep psychiatric counseling prior to any sort of gender reassignment (it might lower the suicide rates) i mean 40% is really high (national avg is like 4-5%) 40% needs attention to prevent the loss of life happening at that alarming rate..

im not trying to equate transgenderism and mental illness

but

the topic has to be looked at with certain parallels

Do you really think Shapiro has a genuine desire to actually understand transgenderism?

He's an ideologue and troll.

 

[SurferH2O]

Ben Shapiro is without a doubt one of the smartest and most entertaining political voices alive today.

He is proof that CNN is not about ratings, but about ideology. He is an instant hire, that would give great ratings, and put huge pressure on Fox News.

 

[Vicky]

He brings up his wife when commenting on healthcare and immigration. I think he uses his as an example or to help explain his position. Also in reference to the family which comes up in topics that touch on the importance of having a family unit including a father.
His wife is from Morocco (immigrant to the USA) and is a physician. He is proud of his wife and I respect that.

 

[Vicky]

I also like how his speaks to his audience and brings it down to their level (dumbs it down for the average college student) so that they can understand his points. I don't agree with him on some issues but it is easy to follow his logic behind his arguments.

 

[MilesAbove]

Ben Shapiro is without a doubt one of the smartest and most entertaining political voices alive today.

 

[Pickle Rick]

Do you really think Shapiro has a genuine desire to actually understand transgenderism?

He's an ideologue and troll.

which is why (if you read the post before this one)

which is why i find ben shapiro amusing to watch a video here and there but do not share his opinion on many subject and or follow or support him in any meaningful way etc...

i would digress the shapiro is selling a product (himself) and videos like that one help him sell said "product"

 

[Bob Gray]

Honestly, thats about what I thought when I saw you playing up Sam Harris' debating skills. Its probably less to do with anything either Harris or Shapiro have to say or how they say it so much as how often what they say aligns with our preconceived positions.

But in fairness Harris' debate with William Lane Craig was one of the most painfully cringeworthy things Ive ever seen. He was so completely out of his element it was unreal, and I dont even like WLC. But Harris was just a deer in the headlights.

Also, his inability to move on from Jordan Peterson disagreeing with him about the nature of truth in their "debate" also soured me on him. Since I thought that could be a really cool conversation, but it was like 90 minutes of Harris being unable to move to a different subject.

It's weird. You give him a mic and say "Islam, what do you think?" and Ill listen to him and nod my head all day long. As soon as I seem him conversing with someone with a differing opinion it takes a heartbeat of time for me to wonder why anyone would listen to anything he says.

 

[SurferH2O]

I am 100% serious. Only a left wing partisan would discount the intelligence and skills of Ben Shapiro.

 

[MilesAbove]

Honestly, thats about what I thought when I saw you playing up Sam Harris' debating skills. Its probably less to do with anything either Harris or Shapiro have to say or how they say it so much as how often what they say aligns with our preconceived positions.

But in fairness Harris' debate with William Lane Craig was one of the most painfully cringeworthy things Ive ever seen. He was so completely out of his element it was unreal, and I dont even like WLC. But Harris was just a deer in the headlights.

Also, his inability to move on from Jordan Peterson disagreeing with him about the nature of truth in their "debate" also soured me on him. Since I thought that could be a really cool conversation, but it was like 90 minutes of Harris being unable to move to a different subject.

It's weird. You give him a mic and say "Islam, what do you think?" and Ill listen to him and nod my head all day long. As soon as I seem him conversing with someone with a differing opinion it takes a heartbeat of time for me to wonder why anyone would listen to anything he says.

Wait, so your feeling is because Harris was (in your eyes) bested in a particular debate, he is thus not a skilled debater? Please take note that the argument he and Craig are having is the very positional problem I had with him. Even as an atheist I had a problem with his positions stated.

There are, for every philosopher, positions they hold that they find they cannot defend effectively. And philosophers will either double down with a stronger treatise or relent the position.

That, in and of itself, is not a foundation for noting a poor debate skill.

To the Peterson discussion, I agree he became fixated. This happens with people who are highly analytical at times. And no man is perfect when it comes to moving on in debate. But let's take a moment to consider that a flaw here and there in personality, or failing in debate, doesn't make you a poor debater. It's like saying because a batter has a bad month or quarterback has a tough season means they are "no longer any good". And to equate either the batter or quarterback with a lifetime one-trick pony in the minors is a poor equivalence.


Harris isn't perfect. I have my qualms with him, and in fact do with him more than many of his contemporaries. But there is a world of difference between Harris' skills and Shapiro's lack thereof.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I really don't want to play this game. If somehow it's biased to think there are consevative intellectuals, so be it.

It's biased to assume that anything exists without evidence of it. If you see conservative intellectuals, that's a different story. But your whole argument relies on assumption.

"I don't want to play this game" = "I don't want to play a clarification game if it means I have to relent on my emotive position"

He also dismissed the detailed examination of Shapiro without looking at it. Seems to be a pattern that the guy isn't really able to engage with ideas that he finds challenging.

 

[Bob Gray]

Wait, so your feeling is because Harris was (in your eyes) bested in a particular debate, he is thus not a skilled debater? Please take note that the argument he and Craig are having is the very positional problem I had with him. Even as an atheist I had a problem with his positions stated.

There are, for every philosopher, positions they hold that they find they cannot defend effectively. And philosophers will either double down with a stronger treatise or relent the position.

That, in and of itself, is not a foundation for noting a poor debate skill.

To the Peterson discussion, I agree he became fixated. This happens with people who are highly analytical at times. And no man is perfect when it comes to moving on in debate. But let's take a moment to consider that a flaw here and there in personality, or failing in debate, doesn't make you a poor debater. It's like saying because a batter has a bad month or quarterback has a tough season means they are "no longer any good". And to equate either the batter or quarterback with a lifetime one-trick pony in the minors is a poor equivalence.


Harris isn't perfect. I have my qualms with him, and in fact do with him more than many of his contemporaries. But there is a world of difference between Harris' skills and Shapiro's lack thereof.

That was one example. But my point was that it seems generally that peoples opinions of a debaters skill lies more with how much they agree with their positions as opposed to how effectively they argue them. Youre going pretty far out of your way to defend Harris even while admitting some notable faults in both his positions and how effectively he has actually debated against someone with a differing opinion. But somehow theres this "world of difference" that separates Harris and Shapiro, which I think you see more due to just generally agreeing with Harris philosophically as opposed to how efficiently he argues versus Shapiro.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's a sherdog-level take down. It's shocking to me that it's written by Harvard doctoral student.

How so? Sure, some of the language is maybe a bit juvenile but they quote his own words. Its not like anyone is putting words in his mouth when they accuse him of ethnic cleansing, he explicitly calls for it in an article he himself wrote for instance.

 

[RubberGuard5]

It's biased to assume that anything exists without evidence of it. If you see conservative intellectuals, that's a different story. But your whole argument relies on assumption.



He also dismissed the detailed examination of Shapiro without looking at it. Seems to be a pattern that the guy isn't really able to engage with ideas that he finds challenging.

I'm not assuming anything. There are conservative intellectuals.

And you don't seem to understand I don't mind criticism of Shapiro, I'm just saying this particular is a poor one. It's not on the level of what I would hope Harvard doctoral student should be. It's not insightful, and certainly not challenging.

 

[panamaican]

I'm not assuming anything. There are conservative intellectuals.

And you don't seem to understand I don't mind criticism of Shapiro, I'm just saying this particular is a poor one. It's not on the level of what I would hope Harvard doctoral student should be. It's not insightful, and certainly not challenging.

What's wrong with it? He appeared to quote the man's exact words and demonstrate how those words contradict the idea of a logic based position that decries emotional appeals. He demonstrated that Shapiro is often arguing from a position of emotion with little substantive support for his arguments. He also makes the argument that Shapiro's positions often disregard easily found information that contradict his conclusions. That as a "great" debater, Shapiro should face those facts and refute them rather than disregard them in their entirety.

Now, I don't listen to Shapiro so I'll concede that up front but as a critique of his arguments, in the limited vein put forth by the author, I didn't see a lack of insight and found it an effective challenge to the quality of Shapiro's arguments..

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not assuming anything. There are conservative intellectuals.

And you don't seem to understand I don't mind criticism of Shapiro, I'm just saying this particular is a poor one. It's not on the level of what I would hope Harvard doctoral student should be. It's not insightful, and certainly not challenging.

I understand that you've said that, but you've made no attempt to substantiate either of the points you're making in this post. I am skeptical that you would be able to if you did. If you were me, I'm sure you'd think that the guy claiming that something exists but he won't show it and that the critique is weak but he can't say why is bullshitting.

 

[RubberGuard5]

What's wrong with it? He appeared to quote the man's exact words and demonstrate how those words contradict the idea of a logic based position that decries emotional appeals. He demonstrated that Shapiro is often arguing from a position of emotion with little substantive support for his arguments. He also makes the argument that Shapiro's positions often disregard easily found information that contradict his conclusions. That as a "great" debater, Shapiro should face those facts and refute them rather than disregard them in their entirety.

Now, I don't listen to Shapiro so I'll concede that up front but as a critique of his arguments, in the limited vein put forth by the author, I didn't see a lack of insight and found it an effective challenge to the quality of Shapiro's arguments..

I made a post a few pages back with the couple of things I find silly in the article. I have a feeling if you were to refute Shapiro in those cases, you wouldn't go the same route as the author did. Because it's weak criticism, juvenile.

I think the problem is you guys fill the holes in the article with your preexisting knowledge and don't really catch the flaws of it.

 

[panamaican]

I made a post a few pages back with the couple of things I find silly in the article. I have a feeling if you were to refute Shapiro in those cases, you wouldn't go the same route as the author did. Because it's weak criticism, juvenile.

I think the problem is you guys fill the holes in the article with your preexisting knowledge and don't really catch the flaws of it.

I certainly don't. I've never listened to Shapiro or read any of his work. I'm not applying any preexisting knowledge to this conversation.

this isn't a good counter. It can be countered in other ways, but this is silly.

You don't say why it's not a good counter. Is it untrue? It is true, I've been citing that distinction myself for over 2 years. Why is it silly?

This is dishonest. Ofcourse Shapiro understands that some people are wrongfully convicted. To counter Shapiro, he needed to show that these cases are so prevalent that they explain black incarceration rate.

Actually, he was countering Shapiro's argument that racism has little to do with the plight of black Americans today. He listed a variety of statistics that Shapiro's argument overlooked. You're picked on small point and disregarded what is a multi-paragraph long critique of racism, not prison.

You didn't provide any defense of Shapiro's arguments or any actual critique of the author's points. In the first part, you don't explain anything, you just called it "silly". In the second one, you seem to have completely missed which Shapiro position that the author was critiquing.

 

[Luminaire]

I think I speak for everyone when I say... @panamaican this (and every?) message board would be better off without you.

Take your misery to a local coffee shop.