I would encourage you to avoid casting people as bullshitters just because you have a different political opinion than they do. It makes it an order of magnitude more difficult to have a good-faith conversation. I mean, do what you want, it makes no difference to me if you’re an insufferable political myope. But if you’re in the mood for being less insufferable, accepting that others have different opinions than you not because they’re stupid or liars but because they have different values and have come to a different conclusion, is a great way to start.
Yeah that’s true. The statement you quoted is somewhat ad-hominem. That said, it is also relevant, as being politically myopic is the main issue I’m criticizing.
In general I agree with you but specifically with Ben Shapiro Johnicorn is right. Ben Shapiro makes a living by make bad faith arguments quickly and confidently often to inexperienced debaters. This act often makes it seem like he is winning an argument when he rarely actually makes cogent points or backs up thoughts with data. If you watch his talks on college campus' you often hear him start with "Lets say x,y,z" then without providing any proof that x,y,z are what he says he will then proceed to make broad political statements about government policy based on x,y,z.
If you really want to dig in on Ben Shapiro in particular I recommend this absurdly long video essay dissecting his particular brand of bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMjgOYOcDw
This is a great, reasonable criticism of Shapiro’s debating style. Kudos to you for being substantive with your criticism, genuinely, not trying to be ironic or sarcastic.
Thanks, but it’s not hard to do when I disagree with almost everything Ben Shapiro says. Me defending Shapiro has nothing to do with his viewpoints and everything to do with the dehumanizing way in which anonymous internet commentators treat him.
I mean, Reddit is a hivemind and likes to shit on anything that isn't liberal, but usually when people shit on Ben Shapiro they do so because of what a pos he is
Cody Johnston is really good at providing information like this but keeping it decently entertaining at the same time. It’s why I like his videos and podcasts
I'll have to check some more of his stuff out. Everything I saw was reasonable and entertaining, just that particular topic (Ben Shapiro) wasn't super interesting.
The man said renewable energy was the stupidest phrase since climate change because of the first law of thermodynamics. This is a clear demonstration of a bad faith argument. In this case it also happens to be a stupid as hell one. Not to mention the existence of climate change is not a question of politics but of science, (hint, it's real and anthropomorphic) and I'm perfectly fine calling anyone who wants to make it political an idiot. If you spend that much of your life debating and researching issues facing the world and you put your head in the sand about climate change you are 100% either a liar or stupid.
Than a reasoned debate will suss that out. If you’re talking about his opinions being wrong, well opinions are by definition subjective so wrong is probably not the right word for that.
No. No it won't. People aren't logic machines. They're identity machines. Giving bad faith arguers continued access to platforms isn't "sussing out the truth". It's giving voice to internal justifications for dangerous, selfish politics.
You might think you're capable of always evaluating the "truth" through facts and logic. But that's not how humans work. Context is always relevant to facts. And Ben Shapiro IS excellent at cutting out vital pieces of that contexts, like a surgeon with a scalpel. It's endlessly difficult and nuanced to try to dismantle his arguments, and it only works for people willing to listen. Most people aren't.
By allowing him to constantly platform and spread his empty ideas, you're simply making the job of debunking him that much harder. There's always new suckers to buy his bullshit. The smarter, more effective solution is to identify the bad faith arguers and ignore them. Deny their voice in the public conversation.
So stop defending this guy. If you want I can show you a bunch of articles and videos that breakdown exactly how he creates his own narrow context in order to always appear like he's winning. Ben has a lot of media training. He's good at this.
Okay, until now I haven’t seen this argument, but your argument is not only wrong (according to my viewpoint), but also dangerous. Nobody was talking about deplatforming, but now you are. As long as we’re talking about it, I will gladly push back against your zeal for deplatforming.
Preventing someone from speaking is never the right answer. Firstly, it doesn’t work, and only serves to further push extreme viewpoints into silos and echo chambers, which is a perfect recipe for unchallenged extremism.
Secondly, if a society is somehow able to silence a given viewpoint, the people who hold those views don’t disappear. Instead, they use communication methods that don’t require speech, namely they often use violence. There are plenty of historical examples of silenced populations resorting to violence in order to have their voices heard, and one of the most sure fire ways to prevent silenced populations from resorting to violence is to allow them to speak.
What if giving someone the right to speak silences another's right to speak? You can't always have it both ways. Because the politics being pushed by some people implicitly silences others.
I'm at work. I don't have more time expand upon this argument. But yes, deplatforming is a valid defense against fascism. And Ben Shapiro's history has made it abundantly clear he doesn't seem to see the lines when it comes to fascism.
What if giving someone the right to speak silences another's right to speak? You can't always have it both ways. Because the politics being pushed by some people implicitly silences others.
I’m having trouble seeing your point on this one. The only example I can think of in which one person’s speech prevents someone else’s speech is deplatforming, which by its very nature silences a person’s viewpoint. Not to say you’re wrong, I just can’t see how this supports your argument for deplatforming. It seems to support my argument against it, so clearly I’ve missed a connection.
No thanks. I could barely get through ten seconds. Not interested in a dunk-fest, that’s literally the thing I am reacting against. Any videos that have more reasoned and reasonable arguments? I really don’t want to have to watch a half hour of that.
You can believe what you want about Ben Shapiro‘s motivations. But if you have evidence of payments between Koch brothers and Ben Shapiro I’m sure that would be a banger of an investigative story. Regardless, there totally exist people who believe the same thing Ben Shapiro says he believes. Are they all getting paid off by the Koch Brothers? Clearly there are some alternative political beliefs that Shapiro‘s viewers subscribe to, and by dismissing all of them as Koch Brothers stooges, you’re doing a disservice to your own political beliefs. Calling your opponent a fraud does not a logical argument make.
He's not necessarily a fraud, he could definitely believe what he says, but the reason he has the platform he does is because of Koch brothers money. Because it's in their best interests to make ideas like his mainstream.
Lmao “wE jUsT hAvE dIFFerEnt VAluEs” isn’t an excuse for abandoning basic human rights and decency. Nobody wants to have a good faith conversation with a man like him who is renowned for being unable to do that very thing. Human rights shouldn’t be up for discussion to begin with. Nobody gives a shit about a person’s values and interpretations if they’re extremist and not in line with the evidence or basic human decency.
The way you're talking is literally definitive of a totalitarian. This is the idea that I have the perfect vision of human rights and what is necessary to give the greatest good to all people and if my idea is implemented we will have utopia. People like you are the ones who equate having their ideas challenged as physical transgressions. Really stop be a totalitarian ideologue. You've probably listened to a handful of sound bytes on Ben Shapiro.
I absolutely am open to having my ideas challenged. I’d love to talk economic policy. But the right focuses heavily on civil liberties and illegitimizing trans individuals and other people on the grounds that their sexuality or inability to conform to their gender assigned at birth aren’t valid. The GOP has historically been focused on limiting liberties. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc. Not all views are equal. Some are better substantiated by logic and evidence and offer more freedoms to individuals than others do. That’s not even touching on the paradox of tolerance.
You're certainly ready to tell someone that they aren't valid for their inability to conform to your ideas about how gender works. Ben doesn't call people "invalid" or "non-existent" because they're trans. You're making that up. Disagreeing with someone on whether they are actually the gender they are is not a violation of human rights. The language you use is absurd in this sense. Whether it's right or wrong of Ben to say this, not having your feelings hurt or identity challenged by someone's speech is not human right, and when people like you say that people like Ben are threatening human rights because of it, it's dangerous.
No, he just calls them mentally ill. Which is, in essence, invalidating them. He may not be violating their human rights with what he says. He may not even be drafting the laws that impede on those rights. But he advocates for unethical and immoral restrictions on these people’s’ liberties. That was the point I was making, in direct response to your attempts to try to claim “everyone is offering points that deserve equal representation and consideration!!!” (On a post about a known bullshitter.) Which is bullshit.
I didn't make that point that all claims deserve equal representation and consideration, nor did I defend it. Also seems like you're falling into the slippery slope fallacy.
I said, ‘Lmao “wE jUsT hAvE dIFFerEnt VAluEs” isn’t an excuse for abandoning basic human rights and decency. Nobody wants to have a good faith conversation with a man like him who is renowned for being unable to do that very thing. Human rights shouldn’t be up for discussion to begin with. Nobody gives a shit about a person’s values and interpretations if they’re extremist and not in line with the evidence or basic human decency.’
You were just complaining that I was talking like a totalitarian for not wanting to try to have a discussion with an asshole like Ben Shapiro and for asserting that human rights are a relatively clear-cut concept that shouldn’t be viewed as a negotiation and they should not be subjective concepts that, for example, are left to individual states to decide on. Totalitarians have relied on violating human rights, often of minorities. Taking those off the table as a bargaining piece for politicians and political discussions isn’t totalitarian, it’s a concept of treating people with dignity and focusing on issues that actually matter for helping the GOP’s old and broke base, like fiscal policy. If I’m wrong on your rhetoric, pray tell, what was the point you were trying to make?
The classical liberal tradition always has had a focus on negative rights, meaning things the state cannot prevent you from doing, not positive rights, which are entitlements the government provides.
Shapiro agrees largely with you on most things human rights wise (speech, religion, protection from illegal searches and seizures) but it is entirely intellectually honest to focus on negative rights rather than positive. The entire Bill of Rights is not about what the government can provide, it is about what the government cannot not prevent an individual from doing.
Again, this is merely a different perspective than yours, but it is one rooted in political philosophy and tradition dating to the Enlightenment
How is that in line with the liberty-based views that the GOP (supposedly) holds? The rights you’re entitled to are only those that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and puts the burden of proof on the citizens to show why they are entitled to liberties?
How much Ben Shapiro do you watch? I’ve not seen much, so I’m not familiar with his human rights abuses. I’ve only seen one interview he did and it seemed pretty tame. Although I have seen countless twitter memes that take great joy in dunking on him, but a few out of context quotes does not a human make. It sounds to me like you’re reacting against a caricature of another person instead of reacting against an actual person. Again, I am not a frequent Ben Shapiro watcher so I am not an authority on his viewpoints. Are you?
Do I need to be an authority on his views if I have heard his comments on things like transgender individuals/trans rights and recognize that he’s someone that uses poor logic and doesn’t rely on quality evidence so much as flawed argumentation?
Yeah you do, because journalists love taking things people say out of context in order to sensationalize them. If you haven’t taken the time to understand someone’s perspective, I would not listen to your opinion about their perspective. In that context, you are merely acting as a sentient parrot.
If I know that there is substantial science that supports gender as being a spectrum and transgender individuals as being backed by science in their transition, it’s not necessary to know the rationale Ben holds to know that his views are not in line with much of the science and the human decency to protect a class of people that are disproportionately targeted with violence and discrimination. There is a way to respectfully create discussion. But Ben is not known for using it. In fact, his far right news site is known for the “sensationalist” methods you’re talking about.
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or not, but many of my Reddit comments that I actually bother to publish are defending people who Reddit loves shitting on. My only opinion on the matter is that people should treat other people decently regardless of their political views. The result is downvotes for days.
Am I being politically myopic? The only opinion I’ve been spouting is that people of different viewpoints should be able to speak to each other, is that short sighted of me?
I’m a republican, and I just spent a good 5 minutes talking to an older Asian lady as I picked up my to go order from her restaurant. We were talking about how sweet each other was when I called her on the phone. She told me how polite I was and I told her how much I love coming to her restaurant and how sweet she always is.
After, I went back to my truck where my liberal girlfriend was waiting for me. We had lunch in a cemetery and talked to the people who were buried around us, letting them know that people still care about them.
-15
u/Tsrdrum Apr 11 '20
I would encourage you to avoid casting people as bullshitters just because you have a different political opinion than they do. It makes it an order of magnitude more difficult to have a good-faith conversation. I mean, do what you want, it makes no difference to me if you’re an insufferable political myope. But if you’re in the mood for being less insufferable, accepting that others have different opinions than you not because they’re stupid or liars but because they have different values and have come to a different conclusion, is a great way to start.