First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Ben Shapiro News
16063 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 12/3/17 , edited 12/4/17

uncletim wrote:


ronin99 wrote:


uncletim wrote:

Ah Trumps Alfred Rosenberg

hmm I guess he is more like Julius Streicher


Didn't know jews could be nazies.You learn something new everyday.


He is as about as Jewish as trump is christen lip service only and onlu when it suits their needs





Ben Shapiro is ethnically and religiously Jewish. He wears a kippah/yarmulke pretty much all the time (which makes sense, because he's an Orthodox Jew). He is featured in Jewish media (here, look: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/political-violence-is-not-okay/2017/08/24/). Some of his views that people find so problematic, such as his refusal to say he thinks gay marriage is morally right, would be supported by the Torah (it says some harsh things about homosexuality). Calling him a Nazi when he's in favor of small government makes no sense, because actual Nazis supported totalitarian government. Furthermore, despite his personal views on gay marriage, he's against the idea of his religion being forced on people who do not share his views, which contrasts with the Nazis' habit of throwing people they didn't like/agree with in concentration camps.

It's questionable to label someone a Nazi without giving examples of how this is the case, since it's an ugly label and because people use it as an excuse to opt out of reasoned debate all too often.
159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

Shipwright wrote:

Always impressed at how well he speaks and responds to people who try to argue with him. We should have a Sargon of Akkad thread too.


Yes, we should. Make it!
159 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

uncletim wrote:

Sorry all xenophobic idiots look alike to me.

Oh and as far as not supporting trump he does a damn good impression of it

Now excuse me but after reading anything by that byproduct of a bad quaf I have to go shower

You honestly know nothing about Ben Shapiro.

1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

auroraloose wrote:
Hum. I get my news from Vox and National Review, so I read a very small amount of Ben Shapiro. I think he's inferior as an intellectual - he has the conservative version of the rationalist anti-philosophy streak. Take that slogan - facts don't care about your feelings; it's very misleading, for there can be no facts without feelings.


My sibling is a bandwagon Shapiro follower and decided that it was best to "challenge" me on some of the things that he's said over the last year or two.
Which, of course, prompted me to nose-dive right into the bulk of his articles and podcasts.
The bolded part of the above quote summarizes Shapiro quite nicely.
He isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, nor does he approach things in the "pure factual mindset" that he pitches himself to do so, either.

While Shapiro is fairly educated, his balance between "anti-political correctness" and libertarian-driven diatribe gives off the one-dimensional impression to many that he's a "man of facts".
His efficacious method of displaying a box labeled with "logic", when the contents are anything but, allows for those who have been wrapped up into the pseudo-intellectual movement to find common ground with him.
Playing on the same mentality that many younger conservatives try to house their statements on, Shapiro cleverly controls the narratives when he's in debates because he only engages with those who have been known to leave wide gaps in their rebuttals or counterarguments (like Cenk Uygur from "The Young Turks").

In terms of intellect, he seems to be rather acute in his assessments and analysis of data in front of him.
As you said, he focuses strongly on his mantra/slogan of "Facts don't care about your feelings" without realizing that it's a statement that is nullified by logic and facts alone.
Seeing as you've presented a perfectly sensible response to cover it, there is not much for me to contribute in terms as to the "why" it's nullified/moot.


uncletim wrote:

I just call them as I see them I can't help it if a certain persons pantie got bunched.

Perhaps someone shouldn't get so emotional when she is posting

Just saying


"Calling them how you see them" doesn't necessarily make what you see true.
Shapiro, no matter how much one may dislike him, is as Jewish as Jewish can be.
The association made with Rosenberg was a far stretch, even though I understood the point you were trying to drive.
He isn't a Trump supporter, either.
If anything, he leverages the fact that he isn't a supporter of Trump to empower his voice against liberal college students to convince them that "he's only looking at the facts".

He is, however, a conservative ideologue that easily pulls the wool over his followers' eyes.
But a Nazi? Not quite.
The reason why people responded to you in such a way was because you doubled-down on making claims that lack any evidence to support them, then people wonder why the "lulmuhlibstearssogewd" crowd dismiss a genuine discussion.
It isn't always because their ingenuous view of the political board or their inability to formulate a counterargument; sometimes it's just that they've been exposed to those who instantly dismiss all things sensible and jump right to unsubstantiated nonsense (e.g., like your responses about Ben Shapiro).
28332 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17
I haven't read much on him, but I do find his opinion piece concerning the alternative right to be generally agreeable in the very least.

Essentially, I currently hold the view that trolling isn't a form of political participation, it is simply one being an asshat, while patting themselves on the back for doing nothing, or rather, contributing nothing of value. Being inflammatory kills discussion to create echo chambers, and given the rise of Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter type pundits, this is a very successful strategy to gather followers, but not inspire thinkers.

His books are what I often criticized other book of views on being; uninspired and unopposed manifestos. It is hard to have a discussion when there is an indirect and unbalance communication. Which is what annoys me about most people in general, including myself. We say we want discussions, but what we often desire to do is give lectures.

You could say such books inherently serve this function, which is an idea worth considering. Perhaps what I am truly criticizing is the duplicitous mindset that supersedes the desire of actual discussion in lieu for conceited monologues


auroraloose wrote:

Hum. I get my news from Vox and National Review, so I read a very small amount of Ben Shapiro. I think he's inferior as an intellectual - he has the conservative version of the rationalist anti-philosophy streak. Take that slogan - facts don't care about your feelings; it's very misleading, for there can be no facts without feelings. A "fact" can't exist without an interpretive framework within which it's generated, and after it's generated it can be interpreted in multiple ways. In other words, the interpretation that the fact depends on isn't itself a fact. Further, the world contains so many facts that we must choose to ignore an infinity of other facts to talk about a particular fact. Who decides which facts are important, and how do we make such decisions?

I happen to agree that the universe is indifferent to our opinions on it, but that's a rather bland statement: the universe is huge, and it doesn't care about the difference between a neutron star and a toilet. But facts aren't the same as the universe; they're pieces of information gleaned from the universe by people. And that process of translating and interpreting makes facts themselves contingent. In a way, facts are subjective too. And understand that this doesn't undermine any of our frameworks of knowledge: science reinterprets and discards facts all the time. For example, it's a fact that physical objects have positions. But "position" is an unusual thing for an elementary particle, as such particles often don't have "exact" positions, in the sense that you can say that it's "in" one place and not another. And this isn't just a question of science adding to our understanding; position is still a thing that makes sense - do we say that elementary particles don't have it, or that they do, but position now means something else? But the scientific examples are more complicated and harder to understand (and even many scientists are reluctant to admit such things); here's an easier one:

Bill Clinton has sexually assaulted multiple women. He is a Democrat and former President.

Here's another:

Donald Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women. He is a Republican and the current President.

Now, those facts read quite differently from each other, don't they? It's almost like they care about your feelings. Note especially how the arrangement of facts affects what they convey; one could play around with the order of those four sentences and see how different orders read differently. This happens because facts are constructed by people, even though they're true. Shapiro is too rationalist to consider such nuances; he'd likely call them relativist hogwash (or something, since I don't know his style of insult) - like everyone else who doesn't understand 20th-century philosophy.

I read a piece by the Daily Wire once; it was painfully simplistic. Perhaps it wasn't representative, but it was exactly what I'd expect from a news organization shaped by Shapiro. And thus, I shall attempt to hijack your thread to talk about Jonah Goldberg, one of the editors of the National Review. He is smart, and unlike Shapiro, he can write, and he's hilarious. Shapiro's writing style is sterile and simplistic, like he's a computer conveying information that you must insert into your heads; Goldberg's writing sings lustily. But more importantly, he pays attention to the deeper, subjective levels Shapiro misses. I think in one of his recent columns, Goldberg said something about how he wasn't going to write this or that opinion, because it'd be the easiest column in the world to write. In other words, everyone else was saying one thing, and Goldberg wanted to point out the thing that everyone was missing. Situational awareness like that is rare. I disagree with him the majority of the time, but his methods of analysis are spot-on. If you want to be a conservative, be like him.


I regretted coming to this thread initially, then I remembered you still are posting.
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

Do you believe Ben Shapiro is using your definition of "feelings" when he employs it?

Do you believe the world would be better or worse without Ben Shapiro?

Who would you suggest the average American listen to in place of Ben Shapiro?

Edit: So in further reading, I assume Jonah Goldberg would be your replacement but do you think the average American would be able to understand his writing in a similar fashion to you?
1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:
Do you believe Ben Shapiro is using your definition of "feelings" when he employs it?
Yes.
He utilizes his subjective narrative (based on feelings) to display what he considers "facts without feelings".


Do you believe the world would be better or worse without Ben Shapiro?
Indifferent.
He is no more or less important than anyone here.
His impact would have been replaced by someone of like-mind.
Rather an odd question, if I must say.


Who would you suggest the average American listen to in place of Ben Shapiro?
I don't necessarily think her point was to say "you should not listen to Shapiro".
Rather, that it requires further information to understand that he's doing the same as those he criticizes in regard to "invoking feelings in a place of logic" (a discussion/debate).
Learning this and taking the initiative to explore others that are vocal about their political views (both for and against your own views) allow for a more comprehensive understanding.
Shapiro, himself, isn't as logical as he claims to be and that is what the strongest of his base rest their laurels on.


My responses are in the above quote, in blue and italics.
I know you didn't ask me but I share her view on Shapiro so figured more insight is better than less.
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

Cydoemus wrote:

Yes.
He utilizes his subjective narrative (based on feelings) to display what he considers "facts without feelings".


When he uses the word "feeling" he isn't describing the physiological process of "feeling" but rather he is talking about (his of course) subjective perception of people's emotions affecting their reasoning. You can take that with a grain of salt as its just what I personally believe to be his use of the word feeling. I've had similar arguments with people about the phrase "I don't believe it, I know it", I would argue against this thinking the person was using belief to mean their conscious thought accepting something as true when really they were using it as a word to describe something that they didn't know for sure.



Indifferent.
He is no more or less important than anyone here.
His impact would have been replaced by someone of like-mind.
Rather an odd question, if I must say.



Are all humans equal?

I asked these questions because I was curious in all honesty.




I don't necessarily think her point was to say "you should not listen to Shapiro".
Rather, that it requires further information to understand that he's doing the same as those he criticizes in regard to "invoking feelings in a place of logic" (a discussion/debate).
Learning this and taking the initiative to explore others that are vocal about their political views (both for and against your own views) allow for a more comprehensive understanding.
Shapiro, himself, isn't as logical as he claims to be and that is what the strongest of his base rest their laurels on.


If you believe someone is wrong you probably hold an opinion that people ought to listen to someone else that isn't wrong. My questions aren't based off points I think she has made. Well at least not all of them. The first question was directed at a point she made.

Also, how is that deadline?
28332 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Prison
Online
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

Yes.
He utilizes his subjective narrative (based on feelings) to display what he considers "facts without feelings".


When he uses the word "feeling" he isn't describing the physiological process of "feeling" but rather he is talking about (his of course) subjective perception of people's emotions affecting their reasoning. You can take that with a grain of salt as its just what I personally believe to be his use of the word feeling. I've had similar arguments with people about the phrase "I don't believe it, I know it", I would argue against this thinking the person was using belief to mean their conscious thought accepting something as true when really they were using it as a word to describe something that they didn't know for sure.



Indifferent.
He is no more or less important than anyone here.
His impact would have been replaced by someone of like-mind.
Rather an odd question, if I must say.



Are all humans equal?

I asked these questions because I was curious in all honesty.




I don't necessarily think her point was to say "you should not listen to Shapiro".
Rather, that it requires further information to understand that he's doing the same as those he criticizes in regard to "invoking feelings in a place of logic" (a discussion/debate).
Learning this and taking the initiative to explore others that are vocal about their political views (both for and against your own views) allow for a more comprehensive understanding.
Shapiro, himself, isn't as logical as he claims to be and that is what the strongest of his base rest their laurels on.


If you believe someone is wrong you probably hold an opinion that people ought to listen to someone else that isn't wrong. My questions aren't based off points I think she has made. Well at least not all of them. The first question was directed at a point she made.

Also, how is that deadline?


I think you two are both referring to the same process and how it affects "reasoning", with the original criticism being that one cannot view, consider, and therefore relay "factual" information without an interpretation to its relevance. With the idea that reasoning depends on what is considered truth in the first place.

In any case, I think calling someone's opinion "biased" is repetitive (And incredibly dumb), to be reminded of a previous argument. I use to consider calling factual claims that I happen to agree with "biased" to be a separate scenario, and perhaps still do, but I am currently reconsidering it, in a way.

1453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

GrandMasterTime wrote:
When he uses the word "feeling" he isn't describing the physiological process of "feeling" but rather he is talking about (his of course) subjective perception of people's emotions affecting their reasoning. You can take that with a grain of salt as its just what I personally believe to be his use of the word feeling. I've had similar arguments with people about the phrase "I don't believe it, I know it", I would argue against this thinking the person was using belief to mean their conscious thought accepting something as true when really they were using it as a word to describe something that they didn't know for sure.


I agree on most of your points.
The only exception would be that sometimes reasoning dictates emotion just as much as emotion dictates reasoning.
Ben Shapiro's motto of "Facts Don't Care About Your Feelings" was further explained in his PragerU video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hok2PiRnDfw.
It's ultimately within the context of college culture (white privilege, victimization, etc).

With that, it goes back to what auroraloose was trying to explain:
Your feelings determine which facts you use.
When nitpicking a specific fact, it's easier to find correlating evidence for or against that one fact.
In discussions online, it goes back and forth as neither the "Social Justice Warrior Liberal" (sic) or the "Nazi-Fascist Conservative" (sic) are going to have the expertise to understand facts from opinion.
So many "research papers" are published through various means now that haven't been peer-reviewed or even challenged by authorative figures on the subjects they cover.
Which means if you and I got into a disagreement on a hot topic (i.e., "police brutality/racism" or "there is no such thing as white privilege"), each of us could find "published papers" that prove our point (or at least a subset of data from any of those we have found).
Using specific words or phrases will show what one may consider a "bias" for or against (like auroraloose's example, using "Donald Trump/Bill Clinton" and "Republican/Democrat" objects to show how it's taken based on personal feelings on the matter).
Ben Shapiro does the same thing, as we all do (it's natural).
The "feeling" element can be seen on a macro-sized level (like explained) or a micro-sized one, where rationality appears distorted because the facts that one chooses to look at are in line with their own feelings (which is what I'm accusing Shapiro of doing).



GrandMasterTime wrote:
Are all humans equal?

I asked these questions because I was curious in all honesty.


In my personal opinion: yes, they are.
It isn't the case that we always treat one another like equals but that's aside from my point.
If Shapiro were not in the equation at all (let's humor the idea that he never became the editor of Brietbart or started the Daily Wire), I think someone else would have stepped up to the plate to cover the same demographic that he does.
I don't really see anyone more or less important/special as anyone else, we all can easily be replaced by someone else of like-mind (and, if anything, this political atmosphere has shown me that we all have someone that's similar "enough" to pull off the impact we have on our surroundings).



GrandMasterTime wrote:
If you believe someone is wrong you probably hold an opinion that people ought to listen to someone else that isn't wrong. My questions aren't based off points I think she has made. Well at least not all of them. The first question was directed at a point she made.


I think Shapiro is wrong on a fair number of things he speaks/writes about.
Even in that light, I think it isn't a terrible idea to read one (or more) of his books and listen to a handful of podcasts to understand where he's coming from.
Turning an eye away from someone just because you disagree with them will only blind it.


GrandMasterTime wrote:
Also, how is that deadline?


I mean..
I'm done.
I think.


25806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Online
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

uncletim wrote:
He is as about as Jewish as trump is christen lip service only and onlu when it suits their needs


Here's just some random clip I found that seems relevant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErCW5bMRJ-8

He apparently does this a lot. He seems to be discussing his religion with enough depth, so...

I mean, some of you guys are making attacks on people's character without any evidence backing it up. And you wonder why Richard B Spencer can grow such a massive following, despite having absurd ideas about how our black Americans, who have lived with us for hundreds of years and fought for us in many wars, should not be considered full partners in this country. It's because you can't fight for any principles, you just unfairly lash out at people like spooked beasts.

What, we've gone from like an estimated 0.5% White Nationalists to 8-10% of America's population according to polls? That's many millions of people, if true, with a significant stake in the world's most powerful military, and a uniquely strong influence over the world's beliefs. Gee, thank you everyone who is an asshole to people like Ben Shapiro, who has said time and time again that race doesn't matter, ideology does. Doing a great job of convincing whites that they don't need to unite as a race against you.

There is a reason why Christians often profess that peace & love is the only way to be convincing.

All of that is somewhat off topic, though. As far as Ben Shapiro goes, he does strike me as someone from my own generation, a Millennial, so I think he has that connection going for him when he speaks to a lot of people who might just now be getting politically engaged on some level. I mean, this has always been the case, that people our own age are often more our speed.
mxdan 
12308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

Cydoemus wrote:

In terms of intellect, he seems to be rather acute in his assessments and analysis of data in front of him.
As you said, he focuses strongly on his mantra/slogan of "Facts don't care about your feelings" without realizing that it's a statement that is nullified by logic and facts alone.
Seeing as you've presented a perfectly sensible response to cover it, there is not much for me to contribute in terms as to the "why" it's nullified/moot.


Just as a general rule I'd be weary of a traveling intellect who is so popularized. Making assertions that are so easily digested and saying it is 'truth' isn't a common thing if you actually understand a subject in depth from a myriad of angles other than a singular one. There are a reason why some of the smartest philosophers of our time don't usually find a main stream success. It's because things that are actually broken down in the correct way are complicated, honest, and taking a look at things from a perspective other then one narrative driven party policy one.

I'd hold off on calling him an inferior intellectual though it could be that he is very much aware of what he is doing and doing it because he is driven by other motives such as success, admiration, etc.
17 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17
He's an Israel supporting rat and traitor to the American people. Ben Shapiro is a Zionist who belongs in Israel.
3919 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / F / The lowest stratum
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17

runec wrote:

There is no context in which it is "misleading" as the point of the reference is an observation on a normal/calm situation suddenly flying off the rails. And for the record I was referring to how fast tim Godwin'd the thread and stirred shit up. So I don't know why you're coming after me all of a sudden. As for the passive aggressive "liberal allies" comment; Both tim calling you "sweetie" and referencing a ban occurred after my comment.

Just because I made an observation of how fast the whole thread flew apart doesn't mean I am in any way siding with tim's assholish behaviour nor am I in any way criticizing your responses to him. I am, as my original comment indicated, observing how fast this all went to shit.


Words take up argumentative and mental space. You could've said something more directly calling uncletim out; you instead said something of the popcorn-munching variety that could easily be seen as referring to what I said as well. What you said was indeed misleading in that respect, because it redirected the focus. This is similar to why people argue that they have to respond to certain comments, so that they aren't "left unchallenged". I think it important to point out how communication is much more than how it appears on the surface, and I really hate popcorn-munching. Though I should say I wasn't trying to imply that you commented after uncletim called me names, as I was aware that wasn't the case. But I should have made that more clear. It's true that I dislike your argumentative approach as well (though by "allies" I mostly had Harvey Weinstein in mind), but there is obviously a huge difference in that, unlike uncletim, you are honorable and know what you're talking about.
24651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
54 / M / In
Offline
Posted 12/4/17 , edited 12/4/17
"sweetie" is a bad name? I need to get that waitress fired she has been calling me that for years
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.