yeah that was my initial reaction too. When you made that Suarez comment. Seemed lazy and daft.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
yeah that was my initial reaction too. When you made that Suarez comment. Seemed lazy and daft.
It's almost like Ben Shapiro has no damn clue what he's talking about.
The first bit is correct. The second bit is every bit as much nonsense as what Shapiro said.
I like Ben.
I like Sam Harris as well. Why is he apparently now part of the Klan?
Was the post above yours not a turn off at all?
Harris actually wasn't saying that Muslims should be specifically profiled, simply that since we already have overbearing security checks at airports that 'low risk' passengers should be reverse profiled. He actually included himself in the group of people who wouldn't be in the low risk category.
His point on 'killing muslims' was a philosophical and highly hypothetical question that if ISIS controlled nukes, given that they cannot be categorised as 'rational actors' if intelligence was stating that they were going to use it, would it be an action that would lead to the least overall harm to preemptively strike them.
Harris wrote a book on whether morality can be determined by rationalism (as that is a common criticism of Atheism in the US) and his world view is very much that morality is taking the action that causes the least overall harm- and he tries to apply this to some of the most troubling issues we face today. You can agree or disagree but it doesn't make him a clan member.
Did you watch the panel or just taking the tweet at face value?
This thread looks worse and worse by the day. Literally everything I see of this guy now is something horribly twatish. And not even charismatically twatish like a Hitchens or Galloway or God forbid a Clarkson! The wet snivelly twatishness of the least popular member of the Slytherin debate team, who told the teacher on you for smoking at break and probably kept a scrapbook of Cheerleader’s hair.
There are few popular (supposed) intellectuals who are so unappealing and slimy in both their views and persona to genuinely make me think less of a person for liking them, but he’s definitely one. Horrible little dead eyed twerp. Treating serious political discourse like some Harvard fraternity mock trial. The political philosophy version of thinking the first rock record you hear with swearing is cool.
If you agree with the odd ad hom argument, fine, whatever, but if you consider him an impressive or even admirable person, I genuinely worry for you, and your continued interactions with human kind. Guy’s a villain. Obviously.
There are few popular (supposed) intellectuals who are so unappealing and slimy in both their views and persona to genuinely make me think less of a person for liking them, but he’s definitely one. Horrible little dead eyed twerp. Treating serious political discourse like some Harvard fraternity mock trial. The political philosophy version of thinking the first rock record you hear with swearing is cool.
If you agree with the odd ad hom argument, fine, whatever, but if you consider him an impressive or even admirable person, I genuinely worry for you, and your continued interactions with human kind. Guy’s a villain. Obviously.
Last edited:
Shapiro is a bigoted scumbag. A pseudo intellectual narcissist who relies on strawman arguments to feign any sort of substance in his debates.
The fact he's a Breitbart champion is enough to label him for what he truly is.
The fact he's a Breitbart champion is enough to label him for what he truly is.
He resigned from Breitbart last year I think and is now a vocal critic. Obviously doesn't necessarily make him any better.
He has said that in the past though.
I haven't watched the panel, but Shapiro has tweeted before about Arabs living in open sewage. I was lazy in referring to the post above rather than his actual tweet for which I apologise but my actual point still stands.
The tweet, for reference:
I've not seen it. If he has then fair enough but when I've seen Harris in his own words he believes that 70 year old couples in shorts should have lighter security checks because the risk that they are terrorists are so low.
I've seen him say it plenty of times. And saying people who don't look like muslims shouldn't be profiled is tantamount to the same thing anyway. Even if he's managed to censor himself enough to not use the word anymore - we all know what he's talking about.
I just find it quite ridiculous to focus so much on muslims in the States when the vast majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by locals with a gun fetish.
Even Harris has more charisma and tangible humanity than Shapiro, and Harris has the persona of an alien trying to approximate human form and behaviour with only Ben Stiller films and a Sat Nav for reference.
When I saw him talking about it he included himself in the 'profile'.
Basically the risk group for attacks are men aged 15-40 - I actually don't agree that there should be varying standards, we're all individuals and I think that we should be treated neutrally. However, the resources that spent doing security checks on everyone is mainly focused on that group of people and to someone who is viewing it from a lens of hyper-rationality could argue that it would be more efficient and effective to be more scrupulous towards risk groups. Everyone should be checked, but depending on the historic risk factor would determine how thoroughly- not just age and sex, but behaviour - looking nervous or travelling alone etc . I can see the argument for it - and as long as it isn't based on racial lines I don't think it would be unethical.
Possibly one of the most racist things you’ll ever read.
Him and Katie Hopkins should have dinner.
At least Hopkins is unapologetic about being a cnut, this Shapiro leper and his fans genuinely believe him to be some intellectual powerhouse using the objective power of sheer reason and debate to destroy the 'leftists', which makes him all the more insufferable.
Shapiro is like a rogue AI project that went horribly wrong
I don't know how the Shapiro train didn't die here. If you can barely argue well against fecking Cenk, you're not doing too good.
The comments are full of people saying he destroyed Cenk so I dont the Ben Shapiro train will die any time soon.
Did you just use YouTube comments as an argument?
Although to be fair, you're right. He has an audience - half of them are anti-semitic bizarrely enough but still, he's got them.
Thought it was a pretty even debate. Cenk's yelling offset Shapiro's annoying android-like delivery. I think I now know how top chess players feel when they're up against IBM big blue.
Probably not the best example of how awful Shapiro is, given how much worst Cenk is.
The worst thing about Shapiro is that he appears smart, at least initially (he's well spoken)
. But how smart can a man be whose incapable of challenging his own religious and political dogma?
No its more like his followers are brainwashed and always think he will win thanks to his manipulative debate tactics.Did you just use YouTube comments as an argument?
Well, that's what I'm getting at. Shapiro fans thought he would DESTROY Cenk. The fact he didn't (Cenk's truly awful at getting his points across), sums up how naive his followers are.
Ah sorry my bad!
I think Shapiro generally comes out ahead in many debates because he spews out stream of consciousness talking points in machine gun fashion, which puts whoever he is debating on the back foot immediately. Only person who I've seen do well against him is Harris.
I hate that this works and it makes a lot of people think hes a good debater.
I'm intrigued how many of the early thread Shapiro/Peterson fans are still flying the flag. Both have been pretty comprehensively exposed as vacuous blow hards as far as I'm concerned, but I was admittedly already in the anti-camp.
What one tended to find, was that Shapiro fans, exposed to his ideologically empty "cartoon villain from a 90s college set indie film" nature, would defer to Peterson as the "better, more intellectual" version. Which is amusing considering the juvenile breakdowns he has on twitter whenever anyone criticises his work (or his hilarious attempts to start fights with a Noam Chomsky quotes account)
All of which lead me to actually read some of his work for the first time, and feck me, is it hilarious. If intelligence is the ability to understand and communicate complex ideas in a simple fashion, then Peterson's ridiculously overwritten, overwrought pontifications on the vague nature of everything and nothing, accompanied by BATSHIT CRAZY DRAGON THEMED DIAGRAMS!! is surely an example of the polar opposite?
Who actually digs this shit?
What one tended to find, was that Shapiro fans, exposed to his ideologically empty "cartoon villain from a 90s college set indie film" nature, would defer to Peterson as the "better, more intellectual" version. Which is amusing considering the juvenile breakdowns he has on twitter whenever anyone criticises his work (or his hilarious attempts to start fights with a Noam Chomsky quotes account)
All of which lead me to actually read some of his work for the first time, and feck me, is it hilarious. If intelligence is the ability to understand and communicate complex ideas in a simple fashion, then Peterson's ridiculously overwritten, overwrought pontifications on the vague nature of everything and nothing, accompanied by BATSHIT CRAZY DRAGON THEMED DIAGRAMS!! is surely an example of the polar opposite?
Who actually digs this shit?
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/the-intellectual-we-deserve
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-***********
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-***********
I like Peterson a lot, not ashamed of that.
That last bit is key. He seems to do well at having an end state (such as his religious views) then proceeds to go selective fact shopping to reinforce and validate his end state, and in the process throw out a few strawmen to keep people from questioning the validity of his own logic.