Yeah pretty much sums up my thoughts on him too
I’d say I disagree with him more than 50% of the time. But he brings some very good arguments to everything I’ve ever seen him talk about
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
I’d say I disagree with him more than 50% of the time. But he brings some very good arguments to everything I’ve ever seen him talk about
He's mostly right on sensitive topics such as gender-fluidity, people dont like him because his arguments arent grounded by emotions or the politically correctism.
Yeah, i think he nails the societal and cultural arguments, so long as the data he bases it on is actually legit its difficult to argue against, as you say, they aren't emotionally based or judged on political correctness other than his views on abortion and religion for example.
personally I don't like him because he is a racist but sure I guess you know better
Is he? That Columbia Day ad aside (which was apparently posted on the site when he wasn’t available and they took it down anyway), I don’t think he is racist, based solely on his debates (I don’t listen to his podcast). He only advocates that people using the race card as an excuse for their supposed failures shouldn’t be allowed, and as a non white, I can understand that point of view. People do have a tendency to take the easy route for their failures (as we are apparently seeing with Trevor Sinclair)
"If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper"
With all due respect, it is none of his fecking business how people decide to live their lives. Listening to his pov is akin to reading youtube comments. If you keep digging, you will find something that isn't overtly racist or disgusting.
Last edited:
Prick
How is it racist, instead of just a dumb standpoint?
Most, if not all who express that they like watching him debate in here mentions they don't agree with him most of the time.
You'll have to do more than call him racist and take a snippet out of a conversation to change that view.
(mind, I started reading your links, but got tired, will go through them properly when I get home from the hospital at fri/Saturday, so obviously you may already have provided it.)
From what I can gather, people don't admire his views, but the fact that he most often lets the opponent speak their case before addressing it, and he does so in a way that is effective in making you see why he thinks what he thinks. Obviously no one has every hole filled in their head, so they'll be wrong, but in a day and age where people are constantly shut down as racist homophobes instead of people who have a different logic than you it feels good to watch someone from 'the other side' you can try to understand as opposed to people like Trump, Ryan or aggressive people who actively tries to troll instead of having that debate over differing views.
The little i did read however about his view on climate change I think you were spot on about however, it does seem like it's a topic he is not comfortable with at all. His main issues are mostly, from what I can gather, about big governments and social issues though. Don't think I've ever seen a politician or debater have proper wisdom within every field of politics, and neither do I expect to.
Tldr: he doesn't get praised for his views, but for being open to let the opponent speak before addressing it from his point of view.
I mean, he's advocating for a race of people to be forcibly removed from their homeland. I think that's pretty straightforwardly racist. And it's not a snippet from a conversation. It's from his article supporting it, it is one of the links I posted.
Isn't he saying that if you believe x, then by that logic (from what he can understand) then you should believe y due to similar logic?
That's how I see it.
He's dressing up his racist views, but still nonetheless advocating for a race of people to be forcibly removed from their homeland.
That’s not how debates work. What you said could also be applied to the white supremacists who protested in Charlottesville as they are people who simply decide whites are supreme to all coloured people but obviously people are still going to talk and criticise it and rightly so.
As I mentioned, i don't agree with most of his views. And I don't know enough about this topic, but to me it seems like he's arguing the logic and inviting someone to tell him why believing x doesn't mean the same logic applies to y. And that's how he comes across in debates.
In his 'hit-pieces' I think he comes across as a smug individual, but I believe it's because he has to be firm in his pov so others have a place to start the debate.
I obviously can be wrong, but I don't think he's racist, but more someone who is intelligent but lacks wisdom within a lot of fields he is asked to talk about and he's putting out his current views in hopes of getting challenged.
I think the same about a lot of people on here who seem provocatice but still try to stick with a debate of sorts.
Then again, I could be naive due to my own admission of lack of knowledge, and willingness to listen to as many arguments for and against a case as I can before going to a side of a fence.
His grandfather was bipolar and thought the curtains spoke to him so he isn't actually a racist though.
AFAIK, he does believe X (Israel should exist), so, by his own logic, ...
That said, I haven't seen enough of him or the other guiding lights of our youtube age to properly comment
that's an insanely generous reading you are giving of his actions. here's a more likely one. ben shapiro is a racist, homophobic, right wing con man who either is stupid enough to believe the earth isn't warming or craven enough to profit off people stupid enough to believe it. oh, and he is 5'4
then there's this about the columbus day video.
Doesn't change the fact that both him and the people who marched in Charlottesville are racists. The former just does a good job dressing it up.
Yeah, I also believe he believes it, but his wording makes me think he is open for arguments why he is wrong and just needs to be convinced instead of being told he is a racist to change his views. Obviously anyone who sees themselves as intelligent are hard to get to change their views, but being open to it is a big thing these days in my opinion. That said:AFAIK, he does believe X (Israel should exist), so, by his own logic, ...
That said, I haven't seen enough of him or the other guiding lights of our youtube age to properly comment
Eboue might be right on that I'm being way to generous with him. But that's something for me to be until I'm convinced otherwise.
At risk of becoming another bochan-like figure on here, but I feel my feet are so safely planted on the social-left that I most often seek out those with differing views to those i hold in order to help me either reaffirm my thoughts or understand what makes them different in their thinking from me. The easy solution in my head is to think people are dumb or intellectually dishonest, or as is stated by Eboue, racist etcetera. But if I call someone that and refuse to listen to their arguments, what will I do if I'm wrong on my views and never have my wrong views challenged? How can I know that my views are still the ones I truly hold if I get stuck in a echo chamber?
I'm sure I'll settle my views on Shapiro in due time, as I've only the last year or two started to pick up on some of his views, and im still mostly on the stuff he is comfortable with, where while I see where I think he is coming from I don't believe it's out of malice yet, and so far it's made it easier for me to communicate with friends who are right-leaning in politics because I understand better where they are coming from and why I don't agree with it.
I think shutting down people like Shapiro would be terrible in the long run (again, from the stuff I've seen from him so far) because having our views challenged is important in order to hold actual views.
Also, I'm sorry @Eboue, at the moment I don't remember that Columbus video. I'll see if I can note it down and check it out once I'm on wifi. Hardly capable of having a discussion on a topic where I know so little, but I still welcome the links and you and others sharing your views and sources to why. I'm sure others like myself are also happy to read up when they have time for it, although the views of a disabled Norwegian doesn't mean much for American politics.
man what a great debater
heres a good one.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18039/sanders-people-who-cant-afford-health-care-dont-ben-shapiro
that is absolutely not what the left believes, its insane that someone who traffics in such distortions is held up as a paragon of logic! and facts!
http://www.dailywire.com/news/18039/sanders-people-who-cant-afford-health-care-dont-ben-shapiro
that is absolutely not what the left believes, its insane that someone who traffics in such distortions is held up as a paragon of logic! and facts!
His biological reasoning is correct but he only uses it as a pretext for hatred. If he didn't care about equal rights for transexuals, he wouldn't speak on the topic. It clearly bothers him and I sincerely doubt it has anything to do with arbitrary biological classifications.
He's intellectually dishonest at best.
He's intellectually dishonest at best.
Before I opened the thread, I didn't know who this guy was. I still don't but I've just made the snap decision, based on what you've posted, that he is a complete and utter cretin.
Not based on your previous post no. It doesn’t make him a racist if he criticises people who use the race card to justify their actions/situations which otherwise may not be completely acceptable.
As to what @Eboue said, I hadn’t heard of this so I checked. This is from a 2003 article (https://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2003/08/27/transfer-is-not-a-dirty-word-n976781)
and this is what he said
Basically he is saying that it’s not ideal but it’s better than killing 100s of people from both sides which, whether you believe it to be sensible or not, doesn’t seem to be a racist opinion to me.
Did you not think the video was satirical?
It may have been satire from a sharper, possibly uglier place. But it was absolutely satirical.
@prath92 You clearly missed my point. Someone who hasn't spent a day of his life as a minority has no business lecturing them about how to play the "race card". Putting that aside, the tweets eboue just posted is enough proof.
Last edited:
Socialism, which is more or less the left of my side of the world (the Bernie-side in America), does come with the idea of taking care of others with problems through redistribution with help from taxes while helping as many people as possible back into the workforce. It does have the negative tendency to push rich people and big businesses to move their money out of the country, but it's more of a loophole than a fault in the intent of the system from my point of view.
I don't agree with Shapiro here, obviously, but he isn't saying he doesn't want health care for those not rich, he is saying that he believes the way to get it is to make it a open market and drive down prices through competition there instead of going the way we've done in Scandinavia.
What I get out of it is that we want the same thing but see very different ways to get there.
I never want to mix myself in gender politics, it's way beyond my comprehension and uttering stuff the wrong way can have serious consequences for someone reading it. Being a straight guy makes it too hard for me to properly understand the "issues" around it. I've decided that on my end, mental illness or no, if it doesn't hurt anyone but makes them happy it is something I shouldn't be against. But say I was completely blank on that field and read that part from Shapiro, I'd still come to the conclusion that I'm at now. For one because I'm not religious (not that I think religious people will automatically agree with his argument, but one of his arguments seemed based on religion), and secondly because I don't (as a person he isn't potentially discriminating against) see him saying they cannot live the way they want. He explains what he thinks is the issue (mental illness as opposed to people just being different), which I don't agree with at all based on my experiences with talking to gay and bisexual people. Mind I've only ever met and talked to one Trans person, so that's a very limited pool, and she was a bit wacky through personality so was very hard for me to get a read on and I wouldn't ever want to judge a whole group after meeting one or a few, especially since people are inherently so different as individuals. But again, he claims his stuff comes from reports, so while I think he is wrong, and while I certainly can believe it to be hurtful to read for a LGBT-person, I do believe he is basing his opinion on something rather than plucking it from air as hatred to spout. Especially since he always moderates himself in discussions to say that he doesn't mean them any ill, but from his point of view he thinks it's mental illness and wish them all the help he believes they need.
Again, to reiterate because I think it's important. I do not share his views, and I feel incredible discomfort with discussing gender politics because I have no intention or wish to hurt people's feelings when it comes to stuff like this and know the risks of doing so are always there. Bullying & health-care are my sensitive-areas so I've experienced for myself how it feels when discussing stuff that properly hurt or makes the blood boil. I don't wish that upon anyone, whether it's down to mental health or just being different from myself. Accepting that it's out of my ability to wrap my head around their feelings is the best thing I've been able to do on that topic I believe.
Last edited:
You've put a lot of thought and effort into making sure you don't offend anyone or inadvertantly say anything untoward and you've done a good job. Very respectful post.
However, they guy has basically claimed that transgenders are just mentally ill people, who deserve no respect for their life choices and as a consequence, their struggle to be accepted.
I'll go more over his views on LGBTQ issues again. I tend to look at these things at nights, full of painkillers. So I'm sure there is tons of stuff I read wrong or just plain don't understand. But as mentioned, from my views his words are likely hurtful but meant as him wanting people the best while thinking the issue is a mental one.
Once upon a time people wronged gay people with putting them in mental institutions for life, prison or mutilated them. I believe even that cruelty came out of a belief to help due to their faiths.
Mind, I don't think it's right at all, but I'm open to my individualistic views to be wrong, and I have to read people with differing beliefs arguments to make sure I can stand by mine. This however is as mentioned one of the things I feel horrible discussing because it's too hard for me to wrap my head around, and way too easy to hurt people over. So I read discussions but prefer to stay silent. I didn't want to leave Eboue completely hanging however as he's taken his time to provide me with sources to further my understanding on the topic at hand.
Last edited:
His tweets show that he has opinions that may be wrong. Which isn’t something anyone is arguing against. Everyone has opinions that are wrong. But in a debate, he can debate all these things and can maybe even convince people he is right. Which is the point of a debater. And no, from what I’ve seen as a neutral (I’m not right wing or left wing, im not white and have no political leanings), he doesn’t seem to be a racist, in that he doesn’t believe any one race to be superior to another. The pro Israel quote that was attributed to him being racist doesn’t really strike me as racist when read in context either.
Now obviously you can agree or disagree with this (I don’t necessarily agree with his idea that White privilege doesn’t exist but I agree with many of his points) but he debates pretty well.
Fixed it for you buddy. You can thank me later.
Which of those tweets were racist? The transgender criticism I can understand the hate for those as I’m against Shapiro’s views on that myself but none of the tweets are actually racist or about race at all.
What is the point of debating well if your points are absolute horse manure to begin with?
Ted Cruz was a Harvard debate champion, and any sane person would still despise him and think him wrong on most issues. It's the substance of the argument that matter, not how well he dresses it up.
Because debating well is something that helps people like me understand your point of view, and makes it easier to debate people of differing beliefs and rectify when our beliefs aren't grounded in something we can stand by.
Inviting to a debate and having people able to debate well despite having horseshit opinions help the best opinions float and the bad ones sink, I believe. If people have opinions but aren't debating them out in the public, they will never be spoken against and neither will their opposition. It's better to have a forum for all ideas instead of a forum for each side of the discussion and only end up seeing the other side as an enemy, or retort to calling them stupid, racist or other stuff instead of argumenting for why they are wrong.
The right and the left need each other to keep themselves so they don't end up becoming unable to communicate between views.
nah
Maybe not in the (in my eyes) weird political landscape of the US, but certainly in Norway we need both sides to an extent.
Nah, guillotine and the gallows for the parasites.
Politics is not a kindergarten playground where you exchange kisses and hugs and everything would be fine and dandy. The right is relentless in pushing their agenda because they understand it's a struggle for survival/dominion. We would be much better off if climate denying, gay hating, theocratic morons aren't taken seriously just because they can dress up their medieval povs with some statistics from studies sponsored by right wing think tanks.
Because what you or I think as horse manure may not actually be that in reality. I disagree with people but I’m not naive enough to think that my view point is what is right and others who don’t agree with it are wrong. Ideally a person should willing to listen to someone else who holds an opposing view in that maybe he or she can bring valid points which will improve my views on certain things.
For instance I knew nothing about pro life vs pro choice movements a couple of years back. I listened to both sides of the argument and feel that both sides have valid arguments for their view. That’s what a debate can do. Maybe a person believes pro choice is right and pro life is wrong or vice versa but that doesn’t mean it actually is wrong to believe the other side.
racism is bad. debate me.