Ben Shapiro OWNING the libs again with FACTS and LOGIC or How a snowflake melts live on air.

[Moonbeam]

There is little point in getting involved with this thread, I guess, but I am sufficiently familiar now with this person that I am interested in listening carefully to what he has to say. I think he is refreshingly intellectually honest and morally dedicated and in him I can see the good in what it means to be an honest orthodox Jew. Because I see an honest attempt to arrive at truth as he sees it he does not frighten or threaten me. I think he could listen to me as well as I can listen to him though I doubt I could ever reach his level of articulation or have his skill at making my case.

In this thread, for example, the idea is introduced that Shapiro, anticipating looking the fool for his interview reaction, apologized quickly to blunt criticism. The assumption was that it was done to save face, not because of genuine regret he made a mistake. Why the need to make that assumption. I think it's because people and no less so on the left, are terrified of having their beliefs and world views challenged. We feel worthless and fear loss of face, isn't that what that is? I see in Shapiro a person who values truth above face, but that doesn't mean he has or knows what the truth really is. But he has a list of stupid stuff he's said. How many people do that?

 

[hal2kilo]

I've noticed that there's a recurrent trend among modern 'hip' conservatives -- they love worshipping personalities like Shapiro (and Jordan Peterson, and...), but they're in love with the myth, not the real person. Shapiro only looks good in his bubble where he can control his discussion... when he's forced to face actual criticism, he folds like a house of cards.

Listening to your own echo is fun.

 

[hal2kilo]

Not surprising conservative gets his feels hurt......................again.

See, we need to stop this. It caused them to have to vote for Trump.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think he is refreshingly intellectually honest and morally dedicated and in him I can see the good in what it means to be an honest orthodox Jew.

He is absolutely not intellectually honest and that's why he jumped straight to the "OMG! ITS BECAUSE LEFTIST!" defence when his view was challenged.
Not sure where the Jewish bit is going tbh.

In this thread, for example, the idea is introduced that Shapiro, anticipating looking the fool for his interview reaction, apologized quickly to blunt criticism. The assumption was that it was done to save face, not because of genuine regret he made a mistake. Why the need to make that assumption.

Why? Because that's his go to defense that doesn't address the point being made. It's not a one off thing. And his apology doesn't address any actual points. It's just him saying "Oh sorry I didn't realise that you were on my team".

EDIT; Apologies if I've missed the implied sarcasm tags in your post!

 

[dank69]

There is little point in getting involved with this thread, I guess, but I am sufficiently familiar now with this person that I am interested in listening carefully to what he has to say. I think he is refreshingly intellectually honest and morally dedicated and in him I can see the good in what it means to be an honest orthodox Jew. Because I see an honest attempt to arrive at truth as he sees it he does not frighten or threaten me. I think he could listen to me as well as I can listen to him though I doubt I could ever reach his level of articulation or have his skill at making my case.

In this thread, for example, the idea is introduced that Shapiro, anticipating looking the fool for his interview reaction, apologized quickly to blunt criticism. The assumption was that it was done to save face, not because of genuine regret he made a mistake. Why the need to make that assumption. I think it's because people and no less so on the left, are terrified of having their beliefs and world views challenged. We feel worthless and fear loss of face, isn't that what that is? I see in Shapiro a person who values truth above face, but that doesn't mean he has or knows what the truth really is. But he has a list of stupid stuff he's said. How many people do that?

He flew off the rails the second he interpreted "these laws are barbaric" as "pro-lifers are barbaric." He knows how to conflate arguments to make it seem like his opponent is saying something outrageous.

 

[Moonbeam]

He is absolutely not intellectually honest and that's why he jumped straight to the "OMG! ITS BECAUSE LEFTIST!" defence when his view was challenged.
Not sure where the Jewish bit is going tbh.




Why? Because that's his go to defense that doesn't address the point being made. It's not a one off thing. And his apology doesn't address any actual points. It's just him saying "Oh sorry I didn't realise that you were on my team".

EDIT; Apologies if I've missed the implied sarcasm tags in your post!

I started by saying there was little point to me bothering to express my opinion on this thread. I think I might as well just leave it with what I've said. In lieu of sarcasm, I will just say this:

You are wrong about what you have said but I don't need you to agree. If I did I'd probably say that when you say "He is absolutely not intellectually honest and that's why he jumped straight to the "OMG! ITS BECAUSE LEFTIST!" defence when his view was challenged.", it's because we are all progrqammed by past experience to anticipate certain things and you just did what he did, react as if those experiences are universal, illogically, since not everything is a repeat of the past. He expected something based on his reading of how liberals act and you reacted to him as if he could never admit to that since conservatives never admit to anything. If I am wrong, good.

 

[WelshBloke]

You are wrong about what you have said but I don't need you to agree. If I did I'd probably say that when you say "He is absolutely not intellectually honest and that's why he jumped straight to the "OMG! ITS BECAUSE LEFTIST!" defence when his view was challenged.", it's because we are all progrqammed by past experience to anticipate certain things and you just did what he did, react as if those experiences are universal, illogically, since not everything is a repeat of the past. He expected something based on his reading of how liberals act and you reacted to him as if he could never admit to that since conservatives never admit to anything. If I am wrong, good.

Eh? My reacion to him is irrelevent to his actions. He absolutley did not react in a rational, logical or honest way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Shapiro does not think on his feet very well and appears to believe that winning a debate means speaking very fast and without substance. He strikes me as very insecure.

 

[WelshBloke]

Shapiro does not think on his feet very well and appears to believe that winning a debate means speaking very fast

and squeekily

and without substance. He strikes me as very insecure.

 

[Vic]

There is little point in getting involved with this thread, I guess, but I am sufficiently familiar now with this person that I am interested in listening carefully to what he has to say. I think he is refreshingly intellectually honest and morally dedicated and in him I can see the good in what it means to be an honest orthodox Jew. Because I see an honest attempt to arrive at truth as he sees it he does not frighten or threaten me. I think he could listen to me as well as I can listen to him though I doubt I could ever reach his level of articulation or have his skill at making my case.

In this thread, for example, the idea is introduced that Shapiro, anticipating looking the fool for his interview reaction, apologized quickly to blunt criticism. The assumption was that it was done to save face, not because of genuine regret he made a mistake. Why the need to make that assumption. I think it's because people and no less so on the left, are terrified of having their beliefs and world views challenged. We feel worthless and fear loss of face, isn't that what that is? I see in Shapiro a person who values truth above face, but that doesn't mean he has or knows what the truth really is. But he has a list of stupid stuff he's said. How many people do that?

Not going to disagree with you entirely, except to say that Shapiro just did what everyone on the new American right does these days (or so it seems). Which is talk a big talk about being open to fairness and new ideas (usually with the implication that those who might disagree with them aren't) but then, when faced with any criticism of their own ideas, attack and denounce the critic as a 'leftist' who (presumably) is an evil danger that must be suppressed.
So while, like most things, there is some truth in it, the rest is just fear, anger, and denial. The truth itself (as an objective thing) is only tolerated when it is self-serving. And when it isn't self-serving, it is to be labeled as a threat and treated accordingly.
And I hate to say it, but this is what the new American right has become. It's what they've learned from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. It's what they've embraced with Trump.
And IMO you could see this in stark contrast up against the traditional conservativism of Andrew Neil, which is intellectual, unemotional, and self-critical. You might disagree with him, but you can have an honest and open discussion while doing so.
This new right OTOH is emotional and angry, and avoids self-criticism at all costs. If you're not with them, you're against them. They'll talk all day about their love of free speech but if you say something they disagree with, then you're a leftist traitor. The slightest criticism, not just of their ideas, but of their 'conservative' identity, and they'll heap straw man after straw man, lie after lie, in order to avoid a critical and honest discussion of ideas.

And quite frankly, I don't see how you could watch that video and, for all of Shapiro's claims to the contrary, not see what I'm talking about.

 

[Moonbeam]

He flew off the rails the second he interpreted "these laws are barbaric" as "pro-lifers are barbaric." He knows how to conflate arguments to make it seem like his opponent is saying something outrageous.

This, of course, means that nothing he's ever said could possibly have any validity nor should I ever try to come to any understanding of where he is coming from. I can't help myself. I have this desire to understand how people think, what drives their opinions, what moral principles drive them. Why do people see reality differently? Is there one reality and lots of opinions? How does that work? How is it that we can think we want to have a dialog on truth yet not in our actions?

 

[Moonbeam]

Not going to disagree with you entirely, except to say that Shapiro just did what everyone on the new American right does these days (or so it seems). Which is talk a big talk about being open to fairness and new ideas (usually with the implication that those who might disagree with them aren't) but then, when faced with any criticism of their own ideas, attack and denounce the critic as a 'leftist' who (presumably) is an evil danger that must be suppressed.
So while, like most things, there is some truth in it, the rest is just fear, anger, and denial. The truth itself (as an objective thing) is only tolerated when it is self-serving. And when it isn't self-serving, it is to be labeled as a threat and treated accordingly.
And I hate to say it, but this is what the new American right has become. It's what they've learned from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. It's what they've embraced with Trump.
And IMO you could see this in stark contrast up against the traditional conservativism of Andrew Neil, which is intellectual, unemotional, and self-critical. You might disagree with him, but you can have an honest and open discussion while doing so.
This new right OTOH is emotional and angry, and avoids self-criticism at all costs. If you're not with them, you're against them. They'll talk all day about their love of free speech but if you say something they disagree with, then you're a leftist traitor. The slightest criticism, not just of their ideas, but of their 'conservative' identity, and they'll heap straw man after straw man, lie after lie, in order to avoid a critical and honest discussion of ideas.

And quite frankly, I don't see how you could watch that video and, for all of Shapiro's claims to the contrary, not see what I'm talking about.

I see all this and I see it as moral outrage. What I want to understand is the nature of the morality that drives the outrage. I have mentioned before that conservatives have a wider range of moral concerns than liberals do and if one acquires a moral position out of conformation pressure in childhood, one can potentially have a wider range of bigoted thinking. In order to understand a conservative as a liberal one has to consider their moral framework and what about it represents real value and what is twisted and sick. You won't get far with that without listening carefully to what they say or how they deal with feedback etc. I saw him fail a test and realize his mistake. My opinion, I know.

For example: I see value in the notion that a fetus is a human being. But I also see where that can lead to conflict when an animal achieves conscious awareness of our biological nature and it's down side implications. Thus a religious belief provides profound support both for good and bad as the result of being absolute. he clearly saw the barbarity of one point of view as a threat to the other, not as a polarization of opposites he can't resolve within his moral framework. For him any deviation from the absolute represents a slippery slide to some utilitarian nightmare, and we have seen plenty of them.

 

[dank69]

This, of course, means that nothing he's ever said could possibly have any validity nor should I ever try to come to any understanding of where he is coming from. I can't help myself. I have this desire to understand how people think, what drives their opinions, what moral principles drive them. Why do people see reality differently? Is there one reality and lots of opinions? How does that work? How is it that we can think we want to have a dialog on truth yet not in our actions?

It's simply the difference between deciding what you think about an issue and then searching for evidence to support your decision, and having no opinion until there is sufficient evidence to support it.

 

[theeedude]

Remember when the conservative movement was still taken by some people as intellectual?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Shapiro does not think on his feet very well and appears to believe that winning a debate means speaking very fast and without substance. He strikes me as very insecure.

Seems to be the typical state of mind for modern 'conservatives'.

 

[WelshBloke]

Remember when the conservative movement was still taken by some people as intellectual?

Well the other guy in the interview (who I have a long standing like/dislike thing going on with) is a conservative and somewhat of an intellectual. Thats probably why he dislikes the little scrote so much.

 

[Moonbeam]

It's simply the difference between deciding what you think about an issue and then searching for evidence to support your decision, and having no opinion until there is sufficient evidence to support it.

Seems to be the typical state of mind for modern 'conservatives'.

While that may be the difference, why does one person operate in one of those ways and another in the other? How do we deal with the difference. How do we know which is better? How do we prove which is better? Is that possible? If not what then?

 

[dank69]

While that may be the difference, why does one person operate in one of those ways and another in the other? How do we deal with the difference. How do we know which is better? How do we prove which is better? Is that possible? If not what then?

Every person operates in the first way from time to time. The extent to which someone operates that way determines how much their reality diverges from observable reality. The extent to which someone is aware they operate that way contributes to how well they are able to curb those tendencies. The extent to which someone is educated as to why operating that way goes against the most fundamental foundation of science will affect how well a person will be able to recognize why that tendency is dangerous.

 

[UberNeuman]

You leave my Benny alone!

Lol. Shut up.



"My name is Ben. I have a show. It's on the internet. My mom. She says. I'm smart."

 

[Moonbeam]

dank69: Every person operates in the first way from time to time.

M: You are about to argue that:

"The extent to which someone is educated as to why operating that way goes against the most fundamental foundation of science will affect how well a person will be able to recognize why that tendency is dangerous."

Which would imply that you know that the degree to which people can realize the value of science is somehow limited. This, in turn, would imply that you know how far everyone else has progressed and incompletely in that regard, which I would claim is a state of knowledge you just can't have. How do we know there aren't people who are fully realized, who do not see reality as it really is and not through a glass darkly?

d: The extent to which someone operates that way determines how much their reality diverges from observable reality.

M: But that presupposes there is such an observer who sees and can measure.

d: The extent to which someone is aware they operate that way contributes to how well they are able to curb those tendencies. The extent to which someone is educated as to why operating that way goes against the most fundamental foundation of science will affect how well a person will be able to recognize why that tendency is dangerous.

M: The extent to which we are aware determines everything them, but how do we facilitate awareness if people are unaware because they want to be? One answer to this is to let them stew in their own shit till they change their minds. I think the awakening of love would work better, but how do we do that? We know with children it's a good idea to mirror the behaviors we want to see expressed. But then who's up for that?

 

[darkswordsman17]

Not going to disagree with you entirely, except to say that Shapiro just did what everyone on the new American right does these days (or so it seems). Which is talk a big talk about being open to fairness and new ideas (usually with the implication that those who might disagree with them aren't) but then, when faced with any criticism of their own ideas, attack and denounce the critic as a 'leftist' who (presumably) is an evil danger that must be suppressed.
So while, like most things, there is some truth in it, the rest is just fear, anger, and denial. The truth itself (as an objective thing) is only tolerated when it is self-serving. And when it isn't self-serving, it is to be labeled as a threat and treated accordingly.
And I hate to say it, but this is what the new American right has become. It's what they've learned from Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. It's what they've embraced with Trump.
And IMO you could see this in stark contrast up against the traditional conservativism of Andrew Neil, which is intellectual, unemotional, and self-critical. You might disagree with him, but you can have an honest and open discussion while doing so.
This new right OTOH is emotional and angry, and avoids self-criticism at all costs. If you're not with them, you're against them. They'll talk all day about their love of free speech but if you say something they disagree with, then you're a leftist traitor. The slightest criticism, not just of their ideas, but of their 'conservative' identity, and they'll heap straw man after straw man, lie after lie, in order to avoid a critical and honest discussion of ideas.

And quite frankly, I don't see how you could watch that video and, for all of Shapiro's claims to the contrary, not see what I'm talking about.

I strongly disagree that this is new behavior from conservatives, it seems to happen in cycles, like so much of their other behavior. A couple of easy historic examples are Nixon and McCarthy for not being able to handle criticism and the "you're with us or against us" mentality (and I think there's plenty of similar mentality apparent in other eras). I do think its more apparent and worse now, but I think that's mostly due to the inherent changes in society where people are more visible. I also think the reason it looks like this, and that the champions for the alt-right are like this clown, is because he's speaking to the arrested development youth that is struggling to find their voice (while society is pushing that type of mentality more than ever, due to social media and the like; some of it I think is just old school teen angst contrarianism where they hate certain people and if those people are for something they're against it, even though that's a stupid mentality; its why his behavior here won't change anything as the people that already were buying into him will likely see analogues to themselves and they'll view it as stuff like their "character assassination/smear campaign by old media" like they tried to claim was happening to PewDiePie for being called out for his racist antics and some of the other behavior).

I also strongly disagree that they're open to new ideas. I often see the total opposite, but they try to justify it by claiming that they're just being the most rational, wherein they mix their rampant ignorance with their woeful understanding of scientific logic to be as close minded and ignorant as possible. Where they basically lock into something and that almost permanently settles it for them in their minds, like climate change they see one thing disputing it and that's all they need to not believe in it, same with the way they've been talking about gender issues be it women wanting equal opportunity/compensation or the range of sexual and gender orientations; and we're seeing that same shit with anti-vaxxers; oh and of course race they were bastardizing science to justify their racism and that's not a new thing either.

And yes the opposite happens, where people believe some things just because that's what they learned (like that climate change is bad - they didn't really learn much about climate change, just that it is happening and it is bad). Where they can come to the right conclusions but in the wrong manner. And they cite stuff like that as rationale for justifying being the same type of idiot in the opposite direction. Its like stupid teen angst, where they learned something was bullshit and its opened up their eyes to how much of the world is built on bullshit, so they've decided to wholesale consider it all bullshit (which is just as stupid, but they, they get to feel like they're not "sheep" even though they're not actually partaking in any more original and rational thought) and trying to be a contrarian dickhead just because. And now they can put that on social media and have people become fans over it.

This is the type of discourse that people like Shapiro are really offering. They dress it up a bit more, but its every bit as mean spirited, ignorant, and stupid.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't have much to add but most of you guys are spot on on your assessment Ben. In my experience, people who are willing to debate or who want an honest discussion will typically take criticisms of their beliefs as an opportunity to explain themselves. They typically don't get defensive and are understanding of why someone may not feel the same way as them. Ben certainly didn't exhibit such behavior and in videos I've seen him in before, he doesn't exhibit that behavior and instead looks for agreement or will straw man the argument in order to get consensus.

 

[TheVrolok]

I've noticed that there's a recurrent trend among modern 'hip' conservatives -- they love worshipping personalities like Shapiro (and Jordan Peterson, and...), but they're in love with the myth, not the real person. Shapiro only looks good in his bubble where he can control his discussion... when he's forced to face actual criticism, he folds like a house of cards.

Absolutely this. Rinse and repeat.

 

[dank69]

dank69: Every person operates in the first way from time to time.

M: You are about to argue that:

"The extent to which someone is educated as to why operating that way goes against the most fundamental foundation of science will affect how well a person will be able to recognize why that tendency is dangerous."

Which would imply that you know that the degree to which people can realize the value of science is somehow limited. This, in turn, would imply that you know how far everyone else has progressed and incompletely in that regard, which I would claim is a state of knowledge you just can't have. How do we know there aren't people who are fully realized, who do not see reality as it really is and not through a glass darkly?

I do realize there are limitations, but you lost me when you inferred that I know how far everyone has progressed. That seems like a non sequitur to me so I'll need clarification.

d: The extent to which someone operates that way determines how much their reality diverges from observable reality.

M: But that presupposes there is such an observer who sees and can measure.

If we can't observe something and can't measure it then I would argue that we don't really "know" anything about it.

d: The extent to which someone is aware they operate that way contributes to how well they are able to curb those tendencies. The extent to which someone is educated as to why operating that way goes against the most fundamental foundation of science will affect how well a person will be able to recognize why that tendency is dangerous.

M: The extent to which we are aware determines everything them, but how do we facilitate awareness if people are unaware because they want to be? One answer to this is to let them stew in their own shit till they change their minds. I think the awakening of love would work better, but how do we do that? We know with children it's a good idea to mirror the behaviors we want to see expressed. But then who's up for that?

I don't have your answer for you. Venom and bile don't work. Sugar and spice doesn't work. You can't help someone that does not want to be helped. The best you can do is wait until they have their own epiphany, and understand that that epiphany may never come.

 

[Triloby]

Shapiro does not think on his feet very well and appears to believe that winning a debate means speaking very fast and without substance. He strikes me as very insecure.

Hell, he wasn't even in a debate to start with. It was just a regular interview where a journalist asks certain questions on clarifying his guests' positions and beliefs. Ben wasn't even under any kind of major scrutiny, and he still acted like an autistic shithead. The fact that he threw a bitchfit against Andrew Neil, an established conservative journalist (not even close to being a leftist), is even more telling.