If you’re something of a expert in debate, then I cede to your understanding of the matter because I am not. A more appropriate term would be “discussion”, I think.
I’m not sure I agree, because a discussion involves back-and-forth, not tit-for-tat.
But semantics aside, what is it you glean from Shapiro? I’m genuinely curious.
6 Likes
I don’t think my comments confirm anything, they are just the opinions of a single person and are subject to change. I do disagree with your characterization of Shapiro as a sort of intellectual con man though. I believe he usually engages in honest debate, and I believe he’s more knowledgeable than most give him credit for.
He’s open about the fact that he moves his positions, which was actually touched on in this interview when he mentions the list he keeps of dumb/wrong things he says or no longer believes. That’s one of the reasons I respect him. There aren’t many in the professional punditsphere that will do that.
They help support – however inadvertently – what others here have said.
Unless he’s preaching to the choir, Shapiro sees everything as a high-school debate. It’s a condition co-morbid with being the kind of person who never outgrew Ayn Rand.
There are many examples of others like him in American politics, but I always find Ted Cruz’s performance during the 2016 primary debates illustrative: instead of playing to the audience, he was treating the moderators as if they were judges at the regionals and kept looking to them with a needy smirk any time he thought he scored a “zinger”.
I didn’t say “intellectual con man”, I said “intellectual lightweight”. As a situation like this demonstrates. When he was a young prodigy he might have been impressive to those with low standards, but he’s in his 30s now.
Jordaddy, on the other hand, is more accurately described as an intellectual con man. He wouldn’t have had as much trouble with this BBC interview.
Things that someone who wasn’t an intellectual lightweight (or a willful enabler of bad ideas) would have recognised as obvious years ago. For example, what intelligent and educated Jewish person (except perhaps a kapo) would ever think that gentile right-wing populists are his allies?
17 Likes
There’s not a lot that he presents that is a revelation, but I do enjoy watching intelligent people with differing ideologies have a civil discussion. His conversations with Eric Weinstein are particularly interesting to me.
I think it’s because they demonstrate that most of what we perceive as the untenable and intractable gulf between political ideologies is actually more trivial than we think, and in the end most of us want the same things.
I move positions with his mom all night long, but you don’t hear me going on about how bright I am now, hm?
Shen Bapiro is an ethnofascist who:
- presently advocates in favour of apartheid state and dispossesing people of their land
- supports building a hard border wall
- opposes legal recognition and protection for trans folk
- opposes arts and literature studies
- argues against affirmative action
- wants to control women
- supports criminalizing abortion
- hangs out with Bordan “postmodern neomarxism plot” J Beterson - a simpering simpleton and fascist icon
11 Likes
Oh hey, a momma joke. That’s. Yep.
To your points:
As do all orthodox Jews, as far as I know. As I stated previously, that’s a position we disagree on.
This is true, and not something I really agree with. However he’s not wrong when he says that many of the democrats clutching at their pearls over Trump’s border wall now advocated for walls/fencing in the past.
I think his objections over legal protections for trans people is in step with his libertarian ideals. He has no problem with trans people existing or living their truth, but he prefers to keep the government out of it. He feels the same about straight marriage as well.
I’m honestly not aware of his specific stance on arts and literature studies.
Is there more to this than him just being pro-life?
If so, I’m curious. If not, redundant because of
Yep. He’s very pro-life. We disagree on this topic. And that’s okay.
He often sits on panels with people he doesn’t fully agree with. Peterson is one of those people.
No mainstream Democrats have argued there should be no barriers of any kind along any part of the border.
When Shapiro likens support for some amount of fencing in some areas to Trump’s plan for a giant wall extending from sea to shining sea, he’s making an intellectually dishonest argument.
12 Likes
You’re incorrect. There are sects of ultra-Orthodox Jews that are opposed to the existence of the State of Israel on the basis that the Messiah hasn’t yet returned. They’re also a lot more devout than Shapiro.
That didn’t stop him from getting married himself and enjoying the benefits accruing from a government-recognised marriage. No, his is an objection based in religious sexism.
Is there anything more that’s needed in that regard? If there is, see the religious sexism which partially informs his whole “loss of traditional Judeo-Christian values” lament.
Not if you’re characterising him as an actual libertarian.
As long as no-one on the panel or the host challenges his own statement too intensely. When they do … well, see this BBC interview. And that’s a conservative interviewer.
14 Likes
And there is the fundamental disconnect. An interview isn’t a debate, Ben was there for an interview in which his positions and arguments would be subject to review and question so that he can give an account for them.
When he couldn’t control the subject he would deflect and then lose his temper rather than address the question at hand. British political interviews have been forged in the white heat of getting a politician to answer a question when they do their level best to spew word salad without even addressing the question itself. This can be best exemplified by the infamous Michael Howard interview by Jeremy Paxman where he just kept on repeating the question something like 10 or 12 times trying to get a simple yes or no.
Ben isn’t used to real interview formats and thinks they are debates, as evidenced by his demanding Andrew answers his questions when the interviewer isn’t there for that.
12 Likes
Presumably his brain is unable to process the concept of a pro-choice Conservative.
7 Likes
The whole IDW group is a little slippery; like Ayn Rand for adults, the way they wrap plausibility around bad faith can trap people into a hideous set of beliefs. However, we aren’t immune from that on the left either, so need to be really careful, especially when turning to people like Chomsky or Zizek for ideological support.
Sometimes there is unexpected crossover, eg BB occasionally gives a platform to massive tool James Altucher (who currently has a piece running in Quillette, aka 8chan in tweed.)
2 Likes
I don’t buy this argument.
You never see conservatives of any stripe protesting against government recognition of straight marriage, and you never see them raise a stink when a cisgender person uses a public restroom or fills out a form stating their gender. But when LGBT people do these things it’s suddenly “not the government’s job” to recognize their rights to do so.
21 Likes
Which is terribly strange, since that was basically most of the Non-Catholic conservatives before the 70’s.
7 Likes
I don’t think he makes a case that it’s an apples to apples comparison, it’s just one of many points he brings up when discussing Trump’s border wall. His argument is more nuanced than that, from what I’ve read / heard.
And to be clear, I don’t want a “giant wall extending from sea to shining sea” either. And I personally loathe President Trump.
I’m not in lock step with Shapiro, we diverge on many issues, I just think he’s too often unfairly mischaracterized. I think we’ve made it taboo to even discuss some topics, like “do trans people have a mental illness that should be treated rather than encouraged”. It’s fine if you don’t agree with that, but to treat certain issues like sacred cows that cannot be questioned breaks down our ability to discourse honestly. You know, like the issue of gun control on the right.
I’m not talking about conservatives as a monolithic entity. I’m talking about Ben Shapiro, specifically what he’s said on the subject. I can’t read his mind to know the “truth”, but I’ve never been comfortable with policing people’s thoughts.
People are free to take that position, and the rest of us are free to decide they are bigoted dinosaurs for doing so.
Until relatively recently homosexuality was widely considered a “mental illness” to be treated rather than accepted. A few generations ago left-handedness was too. Should we rehash those debates too or can we move on now that we know better?
20 Likes
As they say, the past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.
2 Likes
Debate, discussion, argument, parlay, whatever is was it appeared to me that the audio delay helped to fuel the rising irritation that led to his temper tantrum. Shapiro did a poor job and lost his cool, I was disappointed.
Just Asking Questions, right?
17 Likes
