US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) are here to celebrate rare back-to-back victories for Manchester United! They analyse the late win in the Europa League vs. Rangers and then try and find things to analyse in a pretty dour game vs. Fulham. They also chat about the latest Marcus Rashford news, and look at the latest transfer news.
Can't deny the fact that some people might construe it as ever so slightly sexist though, surely?
In response to Ocasio-Cortez talking about the substantive issue of healthcare reform on CNN you came galloping in wailing about how she was just another identity politics idiot by evidencing a tweet. This tweet was made in response to someone calling her a dumb ass who's only taken seriously because she's a Latin woman - in itself a classic case of reducing her capacity for contribution to her identity. You then term this initial callout merely 'provocative' while calling Cortez's response "the lowest of the low."
I mean, my god, have you considered your own capacity for bias in any of this?
As I asked before:
Is there a name for this phenomenon where someone pretends to be outraged or disgusted by something hardly disgusting or offensive whilst also supporting instances of others which are infinitely more disgusting or offensive?
Like, I can't believe it's not snowflake?
Just popping in here to mention I also thought it was hilarious how the response to the tweet went from zero to lobster in seconds flat.
"lowest of the low"
In the Video Ekkie Thump linked to her, he is more or less calling her a stupid person by saying she is not the brightest light bulb out there and the in the other one posted by KirkDuyt, he is calling for civility while insulting her. He is contradicting him self and shows up him self up as a provocateur. This does not set the stage for a good debate between two people with different point of views that would be valuable to the political discourse in America. She actually did the right thing and declined his offer as it was not gonna be anything worthwhile for her to do.
Last edited:
Leave Ben Shapiro alone. He's a little princess and you're not allowed to say mean things to him.
This is genuinely infuriating.
In the elections that just passed, there was a Dem primary between a straight white guy and a LGBT Native woman. AOC endorsed the straight white guy. She was asked about why she didn't endorse a woman. Her response:
The focus is policy. Like it is with Bernie. On anti-left Democrat twitter, she was (and will forever be) attacked as a traitor to her race and gender, and now, for the right, she's a SJW.
Her response is 100% correct. *Absolutely nobody* running for Congress will debate a random person challenging them on twitter, if Shapiro wants to stop socialism he can get in the race for her seat and then he'll get his debate. The 10k offer is demeaning nonsense. He was quite obviously seeking to boost his profile against someone Fox and co have spent the last month scaremongering (and thus building up). She is correct in that she has zero obligation to respond (which, again is the focus of her tweet).
On conservative media her age and background have been overtly and covertly used as hits on her. As @Ekkie Thump pointed out - Ben does it openly. He says directly that the primary reason that she's the Dem future is that she's "intersectional." He then disgustingly insinuates that she talks nonsense which is only respected because of her identity. He is a troll and a bully, attacking her purely on her background. The "catcalling" line is perfectly apt given the shit he spouts.
There are other minority women in the party, young ones too. None of them I've seen touted as the future of the party. **Maybe** that tag has something to do with her clear policies?
He brings up her identity as central to her; she repeatedly brings up policy, in her own campaign and in her endorsements. She gets the "SJW" tag.
Ben Shapiro uses FACT and LOGIC to reject idpol by pointing out he's an Orthodox Jew
You are really trying to reason with some alt-right dude? Pointless exercise...
That would be both great and insane
Have you seen Cenk and Alex Jones go it before? I imagine it's gonna go just like that if Trump does one.Depends on the nature of the debate. Just because we have two opposing sides talking to each other doesn't necessarily mean that it's good for the public. I often see these debates and they're really just loud arguments, and pushes people to stay more strongly in their side of the spectrum. And some debaters, such as Shapiro, are just plain dicks. Surely, there are conservative minds who are very respectable and professional. I would like to see more of them in the discussion.
We should ban debating.
You're not comparing like for like there either though. Those two are actual politicians with experience of being part of the political system, whereas Shapiro is a reactionary, aggressive and antagonistic self-styled 'commentator' who is acting like a prize fighter in throwing down a challenge to someone who is under no obligation to debate with him or to take part in his self-aggrandizing roadshow.
finally some real talk
A debate between two actual Senators (i.e. politicians) is different from a debate between a prospective politician and a radio host.
Are you suggesting her career in politics, and in that particular political movement is somehow politically motivated? Well I never!
Last edited:
I just see this guy anytime Shapiro is mentioned.
I hate some of you for introducing me to the whiny cnut...
Nah, Sheldon is a saint. His fault is that he has such a low emotional intelligence, that he is simply unaware of how poorly he comes off. And he has a show called Fun With Flags, which speaks to me on a personal level.I just see this guy anytime Shapiro is mentioned.
I hate some of you for introducing me to the whiny cnut...
Don't let your big bang theory bias cloud your judgement.
But seriously, I don't know anything about him it's a fairly superficial comparison, similar looks and voice based off that one video Raul made me watch, that's it....
Since when have congressional candidates been obliged to debate twitter trolls to prove themselves ? The only mistake she made was responding to Shapiro, which prolonged the troll campaign late into the evening. Next time ignore them and focus on real life matters which is what she seems to excel at.
Wonder how well it would go down with Shapiro if Cortez claimed he only gets attention because he is jewish. Seeing as that's basically the same as him calling her out on the fact she only gets attention because she is latina AND a woman.
The right wingers are desperately attempting to turn her into a socialist meme that they can run against in November. She shouldn't fall for it.
Raoul's right and judging by the responses in this thread (my own included) it seems very easily done. Note how this started off with the posting of a video of Cortez focused on policy which Pagh Wraith successfully regressed almost immediately into a bloviated conversation about gender and identity. The power of her message - the issue of single payer health - suddenly disappeared under the combined weight of right wing concern trolling and a series of angry rebuttals. From what I've seen and @berbatrick noted Cortez has consistently tried to focus on policy and judging by the initial responses to that CNN video her message is at once forceful and clear. She's a threat, so if opponents can turn the agenda onto the fact she's young, pretty, female and Latin they can distract from the potential popularity of her message. Its a baiting tactic designed to belittle and bury her under all the usual lazy epithets trotted out in lieu of an actual argument.
Anyone who can't see the way this feckwit tried to misrepresented her words doesn't have a functioning brain.
The irony in screaming about identity politics for a living and when someone called you out, resorting to.... identity politics to rebut the argument. Snowflake.
Exactly. A candidate for Congress has absolutely nothing to gain from debating someone who is trying to make a living from being a professional social media personality and has no interest in finding mutually beneficial discourse.
@Pagh Wraith How about this. How about Ben Shapiro comes on RedCafe and debates us. If Ben Shapiro refuses to come on RedCafe and debate us then he is a coward who refuses to debate yes?
She shouldn't deal with Shaprio at all. She's a congressional candidate not an online troll. He would of course also destroy her in a debate which is another reason why she should continue to not engage.
Personally I think we would destroy Shapiro in a debate as well
But of course, no Congressional candidate should ever debate some twitter troll
Personally I think we would destroy Shapiro in a debate as well
But of course, no Congressional candidate should ever debate some twitter troll
There's a 0.0001 percent chance she would destroy anyone with Shapiro's debating skills. Also, her media engagement skills are embryonic at best. She will grow into it all in time though.
I don't think anyone is winning a 1 vs 20 debate on herePersonally I think we would destroy Shapiro in a debate as well
But of course, no Congressional candidate should ever debate some twitter troll
No one with any kind of self respect should debate notable train-wreck of a debater Ben Shapiro.
You literally have to be clueless about how proper, moderated debates work if you think what he does is debating, or that he's anything approaching good at it.
As he likes to point out, "facts don't care about your feeling", much like how Ben himself doesn't care about facts. He's an intellectually dishonest tool. His main strength is provoking others while remaining calm himself, thus giving the impression that he's in control and winning. I'm not sure if he's able to open his mouth and not have a fallacy fall out.
The sooner he fecks off and is forgotten about, the better.
Glad Ocasio-Cortez turned him down, and an actual lol at @Pagh Wraith 's reaction to her doing so.
You literally have to be clueless about how proper, moderated debates work if you think what he does is debating, or that he's anything approaching good at it.
As he likes to point out, "facts don't care about your feeling", much like how Ben himself doesn't care about facts. He's an intellectually dishonest tool. His main strength is provoking others while remaining calm himself, thus giving the impression that he's in control and winning. I'm not sure if he's able to open his mouth and not have a fallacy fall out.
The sooner he fecks off and is forgotten about, the better.
Glad Ocasio-Cortez turned him down, and an actual lol at @Pagh Wraith 's reaction to her doing so.
She was right to turn it down as serious congressional candidates shouldn't be spending their time debating twitter muppets like Shaprio. On the other hand, its hard to blame Shapiro for attempting to lay a trap to debate her as he knew he would wipe the floor with her if she was dumb enough to accept his offer.
That's not even relevant though. A Congressional candidate has nothing to gain and everything to lose from engaging in anyway with provocateurs who trying to profit from views and clicks. You are right that she shouldn't even have responded on Twitter. She could win the debate in the eyes of 99% of independent and neutral viewers and his fans would still just spam social media with selectively edited sound bites labeled "Ben Shapire DESTROYS FEMINIST Ocasio-Cortez".
Shapiro should go debate someone on the left at his level of social media. If he is so confident he should go debate Kyle Kuklinski
Despite Shapiro being a tool and a cnut in general it isnt a smart move from Cortez to state conservatives are afraid to debate her. Stuff like that will bite you in the arse sooner than later.
I also think Shapiro should debate @Cal? On the topic of Messi vs Ronaldo.
I also think Shapiro should debate @Cal? On the topic of Messi vs Ronaldo.
Because what he does barely qualifies as debating. His focus isn't on arguing his side better than his opponent argues their side, his focus is on making the other person look bad. He can throw out an argument with no basis in reality, and then start demanding sources from his opponents when they try to counter it. He'll go on a Gish-gallop, and then claim victory when his opponent can't immediately refute all of his bullshit. If he struggles to argue against their actual position, he'll just change their position to something he's better equipped to argue gainst and take it from there.
I guess that's what debating has devolved into (or what political debates have been like forever), but I struggle to call him a good debater. Don't get me wrong, he's very good at what he does, I just think what he does has very little to do with actual debating.
Then again, I fecking hate the man, so I may be biased.
I can't stand him either but I'm under no illusion that Ocasio wouldn't get humiliated by him if she was gullible enough to accept his offer. He's not a great debater in the classic sense, but he does know his stuff/data (however cherrypicked) and she has looked extremely shaky in some of her previous interviews. In either case, she made the right move here. If Shapiro wants to debate her platform then he should debate Cenk again.
Last edited: