Peterson, Harris, etc....

InfiniteBoredom said:
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.
Click to expand...
Taking them serious or not as for a discussion with them and only them as individual i can understand. But the people of a country will be divided and stay divided if there aren't public debates about the different political stances. The only way to convince someone on the right to move to the left is through debate or a unfortunate event that changes their core values or views.
Debates are the cornerstone of a civilized society regardless of how uncivil some of it seem.
We can of course disagree on this if you and others just want to have the last word or make a half-joke/half-serious comment on it.
 
Eboue said:
racism is bad. debate me.
Click to expand...
Think it'll be hard to find people on here that will take that debate considering most on here are left-leaning in the first place and racism is against the rules of conduct (I believe).

But we could have a debate on specific cases as to if we think it is racism or not. Although I'm sure that too runs huge risks of infuriating and hurt people who have actual experience with racism, so as per my last few comments, I wouldn't like to participate in that, especially in a public forum, despite likely being very harsh once I judge something to be racism.
 
prath92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is wrong, at least to one side when the other side's raison d'etre is to impose their will on them.

You are much better off educating yourself by reading studies that pertain to your fields of interest rather than listening to the likes of Ben Shapiro. Bias of the source can always be deduced if you are arsed enough. The age of internet's wonder, and I say this as someone who have prowled r/T_D, Stormfront, Breitbart etc...


Ødegaard said:
Taking them serious or not as for a discussion with them and only them as individual i can understand. But the people of a country will be divided and stay divided if there aren't public debates about the different political stances. The only way to convince someone on the right to move to the left is through debate or a unfortunate event that changes their core values or views.
Debates are the cornerstone of a civilized society regardless of how uncivil some of it seem.
We can of course disagree on this if you and others just want to have the last word or make a half-joke/half-serious comment on it.
Click to expand...

It's one of the bigger myths out there. For the sake of cordiality people would often pretend to agree with you in a debate than change their mind. If anything, the act of finding external information to validate your own views make you more entrenched. Societal changes come from economic or physical struggles. You think the men of today wouldn't be as sexist as they were in the 50s if women are still primarily house-confined?

And speaking from experience, I tried. Lived with a nice enough bloke with drinking issue that turned him into a prick occasionally, found out he is a UKIP voter and had long talks detailing the socio-economic plights of the working class that his chosen political leaning has feck all solution for. 3 weeks ago the guy re-posted a Tommy Robinson FB crap with thumbs up, there you go.
 
Randall Flagg said:
You should listen to him. You might change your mind

You don’t have to agree with him, doesn’t make him a smug twat though, it’s a fairly typical response you see nowadays for anyone who dares not be a leftie
Click to expand...

This, he talks some sense and talks some shit, but it seems the left would just prefer everyone think the same way about everything like a bunch of robots and block their ears and scream 'racist, homphobe, bigot' whenever there's a differing view from their group think including here in the caf. He too takes the left Vs right thing too far as well( he thinks advocating gun control is a left thing) which is rubbish, doesn't mean I can't listen to him or agree with some of his other views.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
It is wrong, at least to one side when the other side's raison d'etre is to impose their will on them.

You are much better off educating yourself by reading studies that pertain to your fields of interest rather than listening to the likes of Ben Shapiro. Bias of the source can always be deduced if you are arsed enough. The age of internet's wonder, and I say this as someone who have prowled r/T_D, Stormfront, Breitbart etc...




It's one of the bigger myths out there. For the sake of cordiality people would often pretend to agree with you in a debate than change their mind. If anything, the act of finding external information to validate your own views make you more entrenched. Societal changes come from economic or physical struggles. You think the men of today wouldn't be as sexist as they were in the 50s if women are still primarily house-confined?

And speaking from experience, I tried. Lived with a nice enough bloke with drinking issue that turned him into a prick occasionally, found out he is a UKIP voter and had long talks detailing the socio-economic plights of the working class that his chosen political leaning has feck all solution for. 3 weeks ago the guy re-posted a Tommy Robinson FB crap with thumbs up, there you go.
Click to expand...
I never stated having a discussion would always change people's mind. So not to be rude, but the experience is anecdotal in the bigger scheme for me. Doesn't mean its meaningless of course, but it's not enough weight in it for me to drop the value of a debate, especially seeing as I've changed opinions and had my opinions changed because of debates.

If people are more likely to agree with you, it to me means you've done well in the debate and changed a mind. Changing a mind in one case and changing someone going from a place on the political spectrum to another takes more cases and usually tend to involve people's core values.

If someone was able to convince me that it was better socially to go the American way with a lot of privatization of health-care and stuff like that, I'd vote for the right side. For now though, it hasn't happened. I don't see it happening either, but it won't happen without a debate, that's for sure. I want good health-care for everyone living in Norway, and I want everyone to have a "free" education that makes it so everyone can make something out of themselves. I'd rather us not have the absolute top quality if it means we get good quality for all/most.
 
Ben Shapiro is not a great debater in any sense. He's good at maintaining his calm, which to be fair is a great quality to have in debates, but he spouts absolute horseshit. He's incredibly condescending and he loves making the people he's debating angry, to make himself seem like the calm and rational one, like the time he kept referring to the trans-woman as a man. It was completely unnecessary, incredibly mean-spirited and completely expected from that virulent homo- and transphobic cnut. As someone else pointed out, he's also intellectually dishonest, disregarding any fact that contradicts his view, and often resorts to outright lies in order to try and get the upper hand. Then there's the fact that he frequently resorts to the Gish Gallop*, which is something a "great debater" shouldn't have to do.

Oh, and he spends most of his time debating college students and similarly inexperienced opponents, which helps create the impression that he's a master debater.

So yeah, it can be impressive to watch him eviscerate an opponent, IF you ignore or are unaware of all the dirty and cheap tricks he relies on to make himself look as if he's on top and in control.

*For the uninitiated, The Gish Gallop is a debating technique that involves flooding your opponent in so many arguments, usually weak ones, that they will be unable to offer up a proper counter without great effort, resulting in them appearing stumped or flustered, which in turn makes it seem like you have the upper hand.

Saw a couple naming Jordan Peterson as a better debater. He's just as intellectually dishonest as Ben Shapiro, and spouts equal amounts of shit (and is an equally transphobic cnut). Like Shapiro, the only thing he's actually good at is staying calm and using cheap tricks to make it seem like he's winning. Managing to make your opponent angry, while staying calm yourself, or spouting so much horseshit that your opponent has no hope in hell of refuting even a portion of it, is not winning a debate.

My wish is for anyone debating them, when they start to try and control the discussion through their normal means, to go "Sorry, it's impossible to have a discussion with you if you're not going to stick to facts. I'm out." Instead, people try to take them on, get understandably provoked by the shit they pull, and thus play right into their hands, resulting in another YouTube clip of Jordan or Ben "destroying" someone.
 
prath92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Never listened to this guy at all, but according to Wikipedia he has changed his mind on this issue since 2003.
 
fellaini's barber said:
This, he talks some sense and talks some shit, but it seems the left would just prefer everyone think the same way about everything like a bunch of robots and block their ears and scream 'racist, homphobe, bigot' whenever there's a differing view from their group think including here in the caf. He too takes the left Vs right thing too far as well( he thinks advocating gun control is a left thing) which is rubbish, doesn't mean I can't listen to him or agree with some of his other views.
Click to expand...

Not really. The left shouts racist, homophobe and bigot whenever someone tends to be racist, homophobic, or bigoted. It's a bullshit cop out excuse to dress up disgusting views as just a 'differing view'. Differing views are welcome, and often go unchallenged. If people don't like being called racists, then they should stop saying racist things. If they don't like being called homophobic, then they should stop saying homophobic things. If they don't like being called bigoted... you get the idea.
 
prath92 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what it is...bullshit and nothing more.
 
Zarlak said:
Not really. The left shouts racist, homophobe and bigot whenever someone tends to be racist, homophobic, or bigoted. It's a bullshit cop out excuse to dress up disgusting views as just a 'differing view'. Differing views are welcome, and often go unchallenged. If people don't like being called racists, then they should stop saying racist things. If they don't like being called homophobic, then they should stop saying homophobic things. If they don't like being called bigoted... you get the idea.
Click to expand...

Well that's the point, nobody made you judge and jury over what's a 'disgusting' view or not. Your calling people racist, homophobe, bigot does not actually mean the person is all the things you call them based on a set of parameters you made up in your(or your group think's ) head. Some of the things I've seen people called racist, homophobe, and bigoted for border on plain stupidity...you get the idea
 
Last edited:
fellaini's barber said:
Well that's the point, nobody made you judge and jury over what's a 'disgusting' view or not. Your calling people racist, homophobe, bigot does not actually mean the person is all the things you call them based on a set of parameters you made up in your(or your group think's head) own head. Some of the things I've seen people called racist, homophobe, and bigoted for border on plain stupidity...you get the idea
Click to expand...

No you're right, not me personally, but society, in general, does that frequently and they have done so in recent years with sexism, homophobia, racism, bigotry etc. Society used to be bell ends decades ago to other people and they just saw it as normal. Now we've grown up and decided that being cocks to other people isn't a good thing to do but some people have trouble letting go of those notions and won't change their views that it's okay to persecute people that aren't like them.

Also I'm not sure why you think I made up the definition of racism in my head, it's very clearly defined, and has been for very many years. People don't like it when their 'different' views get called out for fitting perfectly into the definition of something because they know what they're saying is wrong and they don't like the negative connotations that go with somebody like that so they don't want to be called it, but at the same time don't want to stop being the definition of what they've been called. Without examples of the things you've seen, I can't really comment on that but I'd hazard a guess that what you've seen is fringe outliers of people being ridiculous which you see on both sides and not really an accurate representation of the crackdown on people being bell ends by persecuting other people or minorities and then claiming it's just a 'different view'.
 
Last edited:
I’ll agree that there seems to be a dogmatic stripe to the left these days, and as such the people on the right who keep a level head and make a few good arguments come across as a breath of fresh air. However, as has been pointed out, Shapiro and his ilk are prepared debaters, and they of course come out on top when prompted by college students on the fly.

When he starts talking about health care it becomes clear that he’s either dishonest, hasn’t thought things through, or that he’s just fine with quality of care being available only to the rich. Either way he comes across as a priveleged piss-ant who doesn’t really care about others.
 
I think the guy is a great speaker. Don’t always agree with him for sure. To me (mostly libertarian mind you) I thoroughly get disgusted by what seems to be either hyper lefties or righties that exist today who give no thought or consideration to anyone who might think differently than themselves. People lack a lot of common sense, decency, and the ability to disagree. Political discourse today just tends to turn in emotional namecalling and nonsense. I just sit back and scratch my head at all of the politically obsessed folk who claim to be open minded and accepting (as long as the accepted opinion is a shared one).
 
Is the Piers Morgan interview on gun-control supposed to be particularly impressive or something? Because there's some glaring holes in his case there which a competent interviewer would have picked apart.
 
2cents said:
Is the Piers Morgan interview on gun-control supposed to be particularly impressive or something? Because there's some glaring holes in his case there which a competent interviewer would have picked apart.
Click to expand...
Yeah I thought he had a bit of a mare there. Morgan being a bellend took away from it a bit, but Shapiro wasn't exactly great either. His reasons for wanting to keep guns are odd, tbh.
 
No idea who this guy is, but his name makes me think of Robert Shapiro :lol:
 
This guy is a weapon’s grade cretin. You must have a pretty tenuous grasp on your ideological positions to be pursuaded by his super-duper debating skills.
 
hobbers said:
Seems she's quite bitter about Peterson's psychology lectures going mainstream in a way that no gender/ethnic studies professor's lecture series ever could.

Delivered by Peterson or not, any psychology lecture series is always going to be 90% guff.
Click to expand...
In what way has it gone mainstream? The only people who care about what he has to say are the alt-right and their ilk.
 
hobbers said:
All 500k of them? :lol:

Maybe it's time to re-re-redefine the alt right.
Click to expand...
Alt-right might be a bit strong. Guy's a psychologist, so he probably has some interesting stuff to say on certain topics. His views on those topics aren't what brought him into prominence, though. His fierce resistance against trans- and non-binary becoming protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and his opposition to having to address those people by their preferred pronouns is. He's since managed to stay relevant by railing against the idea of white privilege, modern feminists and the damn Marxists who are everywhere and are looking to destroy society. The fact that his non-despicable views are more visible now is a result of the attention his despicable ones garnered him.
 
Halftrack said:
Alt-right might be a bit strong. Guy's a psychologist, so he probably has some interesting stuff to say on certain topics. His views on those topics aren't what brought him into prominence, though. His fierce resistance against trans- and non-binary becoming protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and his opposition to having to address those people by their preferred pronouns is. He's since managed to stay relevant by railing against the idea of white privilege, modern feminists and the damn Marxists who are everywhere and are looking to destroy society. The fact that his non-despicable views are more visible now is a result of the attention his despicable ones garnered him.
Click to expand...

What about his views do you find despicable?
 
Eboue said:
its not really mainstream though. its just alt-right / gamergate nerds
Click to expand...
Is gamergate people really a thing now?I feel so out of touch...I only learnt about gamergate a few months ago. But for whatever reason I keep seeeing it mentioned all over the place now.

Was this thing and the people invested in it actually relevant in real life now?

I have read loads and looked into what gamergate actually was...and I’m still not sure I understAnd it all.
 
Randall Flagg said:
Is gamergate people really a thing now?I feel so out of touch...I only learnt about gamergate a few months ago. But for whatever reason I keep seeeing it mentioned all over the place now.

Was this thing and the people invested in it actually relevant in real life now?

I have read loads and looked into what gamergate actually was...and I’m still not sure I understAnd it all.
Click to expand...

in real life? no. but jordan peterson isnt relevant in real life either.
 
I am surprised people think Jordan Peterson is a more effective debater than Shapiro. He (Peterson) often looks at his wits end and allows his obsession with Marxism to spill over into nearly every subject. Just from what I have seen.

As far as Shapiro he speaks a good amount of sense on certain subjects but I feel like he has allowed compliments of his intellect and ability to communicate go to his head. As such he feels he needs to have an in depth stance on every subject, meaning he occasionally ends up commenting on subjects where he is not as well thought out as you'd hope.

As far as him being a racist, bigot etc. I have seen it all now.
 
Vidic_In_Moscow said:
What about his views do you find despicable?
Click to expand...
His views on transgendered people in general. There's little about them that isn't. There's also his constant fixation on Cultural Marxism and trying to paint anything he doesn't like as a product of it, and people who he disagrees with are Marxists or SJWs (or both). He's lending credence to a conspiracy theory that actively paints the left as the enemy, looking to destroy western society from within.
 
OverratedOpinion said:
I am surprised people think Jordan Peterson is a more effective debater than Shapiro. He (Peterson) often looks at his wits end and allows his obsession with Marxism to spill over into nearly every subject. Just from what I have seen.

As far as Shapiro he speaks a good amount of sense on certain subjects but I feel like he has allowed compliments of his intellect and ability to communicate go to his head. As such he feels he needs to have an in depth stance on every subject, meaning he occasionally ends up commenting on subjects where he is not as well thought out as you'd hope.

As far as him being a racist, bigot etc. I have seen it all now.
Click to expand...

Are you saying he's not a racist/bigot? Or you've been saying he's a racist for a long time?
 
Halftrack said:
His views on transgendered people in general. There's little about them that isn't. There's also his constant fixation on Cultural Marxism and trying to paint anything he doesn't like as a product of it, and people who he disagrees with are Marxists or SJWs (or both). He's lending credence to a conspiracy theory that actively paints the left as the enemy, looking to destroy western society from within.
Click to expand...

I've watched a lot of content involving him and I can barely recall anything he's said about transgender people. His issue initially was choice of language being enforced by law and the path that may lead to, much less that someone wants to be referred to as a made up word, which he seemingly couldn't care less about.

I agree he often refers to this 'post neo Marxism' bogeyman often though but there is much sense in everything else he says I just give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.
 
I genuinely don't believe Shapiro is a racist. He's spoken out against it many times, but even so there's nothing in his arguments that makes me think he is. He's also bashed Trump on countless occasions.
 
No one who has called him a racist on this show has even remotely showed why. The only thing that might show that is that Columbus Day cartoon which they later deleted with an apology and Ben Shapiro himself didn’t post it (though yes he should be accountable for his medium’s posts)

@Eboue tried to prove his racism by some out of context lines from 2003, which turned out not to be a racist piece when you read his entire post.
 
He is a very mild mannered Jewish chap who has actively condemned racism a number of times. Calling him a racist is unfounded and silly. There is plenty to criticise about his views, it is strange to criticise something that isn't there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.