Whatever your thoughts are about Shapiro, he paying for his wife's medical school free and clear (12 years of school) clearly succeeded financially and a listening base larger than anyone here.
So many people hate others success. Whether you take him seriously or not he has been able to navigate himself from a public perspective with influence.
I'd pay anything to see AOC debate him on any topic of her choosing. The destruction would be legendary.
It’s funny to see the right just admit that debates aren’t for arguing policy and changing peoples opinions but for some kind of theatrical domination of the side they don’t like. It’s also why debates are dumb in the first place.
There's no point in even trying to change people like you and Hondo's minds. What's left is outright mockery and ridicule. Works for me.
Whatever your thoughts are about Shapiro, he paying for his wife's medical school free and clear (12 years of school) clearly succeeded financially and a listening base larger than anyone here.
So many people hate others success. Whether you take him seriously or not he has been able to navigate himself from a public perspective with influence.
There are many successful snake-oil salesmen out there. He is one of them. A former follower of his summed him up pretty well: he's more interested in winning an argument than he is in actually being right
I'd pay anything to see AOC debate him on any topic of her choosing. The destruction would be legendary.
It’s funny to see the right just admit that debates aren’t for arguing policy and changing peoples opinions but for some kind of theatrical domination of the side they don’t like. It’s also why debates are dumb in the first place.
The destruction would be legendary because he would deconstruct every point she makes with actual figures and logic, Mr. Bear's quote notwithstanding.
I cannot understand what has happened to my lone liberal cool bro APAG. Ah well, things change and I can handle the ups and downs of AOC the bartenders cult of personality I suppose.
Point of order though - Ben Shapiro, whether he hates Jews or not, is not some small time guy. He is actually becoming a pretty big player in the ultra conservative uber intelligent great policy debater circles of the world. It is known Jon Snow.
Impressed Yang would do this - Shaprio routinely destroys everyone with his grasp of policy and keen intellect, so even going on there takes balls of steel and true belief. Of course I don't agree with most of his policies, but I automatically like him more than all the rest of the field because he is likeable, rational and has a strong command of the issues - unlike most of the retards the Dems have shit out to run this cycle.
I'm a liberal cool bro @Swaye compared to our ideologically pure right wingers at HH.
Having surveyed Shapiro’s work, and pointed out the various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well-informed (in addition to being not terribly humane), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a “principled” and “brilliant” dismantler of arguments. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Shapiro is a very confident person who speaks quickly. If he weren’t either of these things, he wouldn’t seem nearly as intelligent. Because he doesn’t care about whether he’s right, but about whether he destroys you, he uses a few effective lawyerly tricks: insist that there’s “no evidence whatsoever” something is true, demand the other side produce such evidence, and when they stammer “Buh-buh-buh” for two seconds, quickly interrupt with “See? What did I tell you? No evidence.” Or, just pluck some random numbers from a study, even if they’re totally false or misleading, e.g. “40% of transgender people commit suicide and the risk doesn’t go down if they are treated better,” which was nonsense but sounded good. Cross-examine people with aggressive questions that confuse them: Are you a moose? I said: are you a moose? No? I didn’t think so. I rest my case. Use shifting burdens of proof: demand a wealth of statistical evidence before you will admit that black people face any unique hardships, but respond to every criticism of the Israeli government by calling the speaker a “proven” and “undeniable” anti-Semite. Disregard all facts that contradict your case, but insist constantly that the other side despises facts and can’t handle the truth. Call your opponents “nasty,” “evil,” “brainless” “jackasses.” All of these techniques work very well, and with them, you, too, can soon be Owning and Destroying your political opponents on camera. (I would probably lose a debate with Ben Shapiro quite badly, as my instinct in public conversations is to try to listen to people.)
He's an aggressive fast-talking bullshit artist
Is this a joke?
Current Affairs is an American bimonthly magazine that discusses political and cultural topics from a left-wing political standpoint.[1] It is published in print and online, and supplemented by a podcast.[2][3] Nathan J. Robinson, a PhD student in sociology and social policy at Harvard University, founded the magazine in 2015 and is its editor-in-chief.[4][5]
Look I can link stuff as well. His most recent Youtube interview is Noam Chomsky. So you are telling me a fiercely liberal guy doesn't like Ben Shapiro?????? Holy fuck call the NYT! This has legs.
Liberals all hate Shapiro because he destroys them all in debates. The end.
I cannot understand what has happened to my lone liberal cool bro APAG. Ah well, things change and I can handle the ups and downs of AOC the bartenders cult of personality I suppose.
Point of order though - Ben Shapiro, whether he hates Jews or not, is not some small time guy. He is actually becoming a pretty big player in the ultra conservative uber intelligent great policy debater circles of the world. It is known Jon Snow.
Impressed Yang would do this - Shaprio routinely destroys everyone with his grasp of policy and keen intellect, so even going on there takes balls of steel and true belief. Of course I don't agree with most of his policies, but I automatically like him more than all the rest of the field because he is likeable, rational and has a strong command of the issues - unlike most of the retards the Dems have shit out to run this cycle.
I'm a liberal cool bro @Swaye compared to our ideologically pure right wingers at HH.
I'm not even remotely liberal, I just don't hate them all like some of the Tug denizens. I should amend that. I pretty much do hate them all now, but this is a very recent phenomena due to SJW and identity politics being the central pillar of current Democrat ideas.
Having surveyed Shapiro’s work, and pointed out the various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well-informed (in addition to being not terribly humane), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a “principled” and “brilliant” dismantler of arguments. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Shapiro is a very confident person who speaks quickly. If he weren’t either of these things, he wouldn’t seem nearly as intelligent. Because he doesn’t care about whether he’s right, but about whether he destroys you, he uses a few effective lawyerly tricks: insist that there’s “no evidence whatsoever” something is true, demand the other side produce such evidence, and when they stammer “Buh-buh-buh” for two seconds, quickly interrupt with “See? What did I tell you? No evidence.” Or, just pluck some random numbers from a study, even if they’re totally false or misleading, e.g. “40% of transgender people commit suicide and the risk doesn’t go down if they are treated better,” which was nonsense but sounded good. Cross-examine people with aggressive questions that confuse them: Are you a moose? I said: are you a moose? No? I didn’t think so. I rest my case. Use shifting burdens of proof: demand a wealth of statistical evidence before you will admit that black people face any unique hardships, but respond to every criticism of the Israeli government by calling the speaker a “proven” and “undeniable” anti-Semite. Disregard all facts that contradict your case, but insist constantly that the other side despises facts and can’t handle the truth. Call your opponents “nasty,” “evil,” “brainless” “jackasses.” All of these techniques work very well, and with them, you, too, can soon be Owning and Destroying your political opponents on camera. (I would probably lose a debate with Ben Shapiro quite badly, as my instinct in public conversations is to try to listen to people.)
He's an aggressive fast-talking bullshit artist
Is this a joke?
Current Affairs is an American bimonthly magazine that discusses political and cultural topics from a left-wing political standpoint.[1] It is published in print and online, and supplemented by a podcast.[2][3] Nathan J. Robinson, a PhD student in sociology and social policy at Harvard University, founded the magazine in 2015 and is its editor-in-chief.[4][5]
Look I can link stuff as well. His most recent Youtube interview is Noam Chomsky. So you are telling me a fiercely liberal guy doesn't like Ben Shapiro?????? Holy fuck call the NYT! This has legs.
Liberals all hate Shapiro because he destroys them all in debates. The end.
It’s not that he doesn’t like Ben Shapiro it’s that he’s exposing his fraudulent debating techniques.
But in any case nobody really cares about debates because no one goes in willing to change their initial views.
Whatever your thoughts are about Shapiro, he paying for his wife's medical school free and clear (12 years of school) clearly succeeded financially and a listening base larger than anyone here.
So many people hate others success. Whether you take him seriously or not he has been able to navigate himself from a public perspective with influence.
There are many successful snake-oil salesmen out there. He is one of them. A former follower of his summed him up pretty well: he's more interested in winning an argument than he is in actually being right
I don't follow Shapiro, I don't look to him for a diet of information. He is has put himself in positions of debate and people have gravitated to his positions. Yes, a downside of a chronic debater is only looking for the win. Shapiro has certainly put his time into learning to come up with his positions. You certainly have the choice not to listen to him. Though, you can't argue that he hasn't been successful and that he has some valid debates.
I think Yang did a great job defusing much of his talking points. Yang was totally unphased in the conversation.
Having surveyed Shapiro’s work, and pointed out the various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well-informed (in addition to being not terribly humane), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a “principled” and “brilliant” dismantler of arguments. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Shapiro is a very confident person who speaks quickly. If he weren’t either of these things, he wouldn’t seem nearly as intelligent. Because he doesn’t care about whether he’s right, but about whether he destroys you, he uses a few effective lawyerly tricks: insist that there’s “no evidence whatsoever” something is true, demand the other side produce such evidence, and when they stammer “Buh-buh-buh” for two seconds, quickly interrupt with “See? What did I tell you? No evidence.” Or, just pluck some random numbers from a study, even if they’re totally false or misleading, e.g. “40% of transgender people commit suicide and the risk doesn’t go down if they are treated better,” which was nonsense but sounded good. Cross-examine people with aggressive questions that confuse them: Are you a moose? I said: are you a moose? No? I didn’t think so. I rest my case. Use shifting burdens of proof: demand a wealth of statistical evidence before you will admit that black people face any unique hardships, but respond to every criticism of the Israeli government by calling the speaker a “proven” and “undeniable” anti-Semite. Disregard all facts that contradict your case, but insist constantly that the other side despises facts and can’t handle the truth. Call your opponents “nasty,” “evil,” “brainless” “jackasses.” All of these techniques work very well, and with them, you, too, can soon be Owning and Destroying your political opponents on camera. (I would probably lose a debate with Ben Shapiro quite badly, as my instinct in public conversations is to try to listen to people.)
He's an aggressive fast-talking bullshit artist
Is this a joke?
Current Affairs is an American bimonthly magazine that discusses political and cultural topics from a left-wing political standpoint.[1] It is published in print and online, and supplemented by a podcast.[2][3] Nathan J. Robinson, a PhD student in sociology and social policy at Harvard University, founded the magazine in 2015 and is its editor-in-chief.[4][5]
Look I can link stuff as well. His most recent Youtube interview is Noam Chomsky. So you are telling me a fiercely liberal guy doesn't like Ben Shapiro?????? Holy fuck call the NYT! This has legs.
Liberals all hate Shapiro because he destroys them all in debates. The end.
It’s not that he doesn’t like Ben Shapiro it’s that he’s exposing his fraudulent debating techniques.
But in any case nobody really cares about debates because no one goes in willing to change their initial views.
On this you and I agree. So much so I threw you an upvote. That is the biggest issue out there now - total intellectual inflexibility (on both sides) and stupid bullshit litmus test politics. The Dem debates will be a complete echo chamber of FREE SHIT, and the next round of GOP debates will be a complete echo chamber of TAX CUTS...and everyone basically says the same thing, whatever party orthodoxy is, and all dissenters are roasted at the stake, and nobody can ever agree with anything the other side says. That's modern politics in the 24X7 news cycle land of Murica!
Whatever your thoughts are about Shapiro, he paying for his wife's medical school free and clear (12 years of school) clearly succeeded financially and a listening base larger than anyone here.
So many people hate others success. Whether you take him seriously or not he has been able to navigate himself from a public perspective with influence.
There are many successful snake-oil salesmen out there. He is one of them. A former follower of his summed him up pretty well: he's more interested in winning an argument than he is in actually being right
I don't follow Shapiro, I don't look to him for a diet of information. He is has put himself in positions of debate and people have gravitated to his positions. Yes, a downside of a chronic debater is only looking for the win. Shapiro has certainly put his time into learning to come up with his positions. You certainly have the choice not to listen to him. Though, you can't argue that he hasn't been successful and that he has some valid debates.
I think Yang did a great job defusing much of his talking points. Yang was totally unphased in the conversation.
You said that better than I would have. Shapiro usually has them looking in over their head within 5 minutes. Yang is a cool cucumber who has obviously THOUGHT THROUGH his positions and applied some intellectual rigor to them. I can appreciate that. It's the opposite of AOC.
Having surveyed Shapiro’s work, and pointed out the various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well-informed (in addition to being not terribly humane), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a “principled” and “brilliant” dismantler of arguments. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Shapiro is a very confident person who speaks quickly. If he weren’t either of these things, he wouldn’t seem nearly as intelligent. Because he doesn’t care about whether he’s right, but about whether he destroys you, he uses a few effective lawyerly tricks: insist that there’s “no evidence whatsoever” something is true, demand the other side produce such evidence, and when they stammer “Buh-buh-buh” for two seconds, quickly interrupt with “See? What did I tell you? No evidence.” Or, just pluck some random numbers from a study, even if they’re totally false or misleading, e.g. “40% of transgender people commit suicide and the risk doesn’t go down if they are treated better,” which was nonsense but sounded good. Cross-examine people with aggressive questions that confuse them: Are you a moose? I said: are you a moose? No? I didn’t think so. I rest my case. Use shifting burdens of proof: demand a wealth of statistical evidence before you will admit that black people face any unique hardships, but respond to every criticism of the Israeli government by calling the speaker a “proven” and “undeniable” anti-Semite. Disregard all facts that contradict your case, but insist constantly that the other side despises facts and can’t handle the truth. Call your opponents “nasty,” “evil,” “brainless” “jackasses.” All of these techniques work very well, and with them, you, too, can soon be Owning and Destroying your political opponents on camera. (I would probably lose a debate with Ben Shapiro quite badly, as my instinct in public conversations is to try to listen to people.)
He's an aggressive fast-talking bullshit artist
Is this a joke?
Current Affairs is an American bimonthly magazine that discusses political and cultural topics from a left-wing political standpoint.[1] It is published in print and online, and supplemented by a podcast.[2][3] Nathan J. Robinson, a PhD student in sociology and social policy at Harvard University, founded the magazine in 2015 and is its editor-in-chief.[4][5]
Look I can link stuff as well. His most recent Youtube interview is Noam Chomsky. So you are telling me a fiercely liberal guy doesn't like Ben Shapiro?????? Holy fuck call the NYT! This has legs.
Liberals all hate Shapiro because he destroys them all in debates. The end.
It’s not that he doesn’t like Ben Shapiro it’s that he’s exposing his fraudulent debating techniques.
But in any case nobody really cares about debates because no one goes in willing to change their initial views.
On this you and I agree. So much so I threw you an upvote. That is the biggest issue out there now - total intellectual inflexibility (on both sides) and stupid bullshit litmus test politics. The Dem debates will be a complete echo chamber of FREE SHIT, and the next round of GOP debates will be a complete echo chamber of TAX CUTS...and everyone basically says the same thing, whatever party orthodoxy is, and all dissenters are roasted at the stake, and nobody can ever agree with anything the other side says. That's modern politics in the 24X7 news cycle land of Murica!
Burn it all down. Start over.
This is a correct statement. There will also be the talking point from the left that they will be able to unite the nation. Though, if they lead with Bernie and AOC ideas there is zero chance of unification. Congress will also have to be willing to work with whoever is President. Congress is a total shit show.
I'd pay anything to see AOC debate him on any topic of her choosing. The destruction would be legendary.
It’s funny to see the right just admit that debates aren’t for arguing policy and changing peoples opinions but for some kind of theatrical domination of the side they don’t like. It’s also why debates are dumb in the first place.
Liberals hate debates because their policy is dumbfuckery.
Comments
Current Affairs is an American bimonthly magazine that discusses political and cultural topics from a left-wing political standpoint.[1] It is published in print and online, and supplemented by a podcast.[2][3] Nathan J. Robinson, a PhD student in sociology and social policy at Harvard University, founded the magazine in 2015 and is its editor-in-chief.[4][5]
Look I can link stuff as well. His most recent Youtube interview is Noam Chomsky. So you are telling me a fiercely liberal guy doesn't like Ben Shapiro?????? Holy fuck call the NYT! This has legs.
Liberals all hate Shapiro because he destroys them all in debates. The end.
But in any case nobody really cares about debates because no one goes in willing to change their initial views.
I think Yang did a great job defusing much of his talking points. Yang was totally unphased in the conversation.
Burn it all down. Start over.
HTH