Jump to content

Ben Shapiro


Your friend

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Some guy said:

No, the term "gender binary", when interpreted literally, implies that there is a dichotomy between male and female. It doesn't mean there's nothing in between. If that's what the trans community says it means, then the trans community sucks at communicating ideas and should revise their lingo so it's more clear. A better term would be "discrete genders", because that would imply a finite set as opposed to a continuous spectrum.  "Binary" just means that there's a basis of two entities, which all other entities are constructed on top of. You know, like binary numbers, where there's 1 and 0 but there are infinite possible strings of 1's and 0's. When I say that there's a gender binary, I mean that there are two basic genders, and anything else you can come up with is a combination of those two. This is the most logical meaning of the term "gender binary", and it's the one I will continue using.

Okay, then we're arguing semantics.

I can accept that. 

 

I think your definition is... not wrong exactly, but limited in scope.

It's like when I argue feminism meaning "people who want equality for the genders" but someone else says it argues for the superiority of women. Or else that it's meaning has changed to mean such a thing.

Like when I say "white pride" means something very different than being proud of being white.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Kisa needs a coffee said:

If he's logical and flawless then I'm a potato.

Guess you're a potato then. 😆

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

But I love this. :(

Still try to cut the argument quickly and peacefully please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Some guy said:

Jesus, the passer-by treating a child differently based on perceived gender is exactly what I mean when I say "special pleading". You're arguing that your position would be impossible to prove or disprove because "people are treated differently no matter what", therefore it should be accepted as correct.

Then you apply the term too widely.  You have yet to explain what you meant by "gender-free environment" but shoot down every explanation I give to the contrary as fallacious. 

 

I am explaining exactly how society would create gender. By treating people differently. That's not special pleading, that's giving you a direct example of what you asked for.

 

Tell me what you would need to prove social construction, and I will do my best to provide it for you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Member114264 said:

Still try to cut the argument quickly and peacefully please.

I hope I'm being peaceful. If I get too emotional I'll start taking large breaks between posting. Right now I'm just bored at work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

I hope I'm being peaceful. If I get too emotional I'll start taking large breaks between posting. Right now I'm just bored at work. 

Well there are better ways to cure boredom you know.

Like crosswords or building a catapult made from pens, spoons, tape and rubber bands.

Or make an new philosophy thread about Boredom and its' complex orgins.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FindingTheta
4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Ok, thanks but doesn't answer the question.

Simple: I'm not going to be the enforcer of what he "should" do. If he wants to be an obstinate douche that's his problem. 🤷‍♀️

 

I'll let people who are interested in his antics (if any) have at him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Member114264 said:

Well there are better ways to cure boredom you know.

Like crosswords or building a catapult made from pens, spoons, tape and rubber bands.

Or make an new philosophy thread about Boredom and its' complex orgins.

Better ways for you, maybe. Personally, I'm the type of person who likes discussing controvercial topics with people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

Tell me what you would need to prove social construction, and I will do my best to provide it for you. 

Point to a society where gender isn't a thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Some guy said:

Point to a society where gender isn't a thing.

When I say society, I mean people as a whole. I don't mean "America" or "Europe." I mean people, interacting, everywhere. As in, if there are people on Earth, they're creating society. Together, they are society. We are all society.

 

And you are telling me to find a society that is isolated enough to not be considered part of our world's society, and one in which we know enough about it to determine whether or not it has gender?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Some guy said:

I think you're splitting hairs here. You're basically arguing that gender is a social construct because it can be seen as a spectrum. That doesn't mean it's a social construct at all. I've made my point about male and female genders being universal across cultures, and that should be enough to see that the gender binary (that is, the existence of male and female genders and the existence of certain secondary traits characteristic to each one) does exist, which is a fact that is easily observable and verifiable. It is possible to acknowledge the existence of people who are somewhere in the middle of the spectrum without invalidating the identities of all cis people. Because that's basically what you're doing when you deny the gender binary. You're denying the legitimacy of cis people and implying that they only act the way they do because they've been brainwashed to do so. It's just as bad as transphobia in my opinion.

yeah, you are a fan of mr. Shapiro, aren't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gisiebob said:

yeah, you are a fan of mr. Shapiro, aren't you?

I neither love him nor hate him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, sithgirlix said:

When I say society, I mean people as a whole. I don't mean "America" or "Europe." I mean people, interacting, everywhere. As in, if there are people on Earth, they're creating society. Together, they are society. We are all society.

 

And you are telling me to find a society that is isolated enough to not be considered part of our world's society, and one in which we know enough about it to determine whether or not it has gender?

Well, surely you can find something, somewhere in history. Some isolated culture that was discovered, maybe by anthropologists, or maybe an ancient enclave of a civilization that was documented by foreign conquerors. Because everything that's a social construct is vastly different between different cultures. Tongues from the Far East bear little or no resemblance to the Indo-European languages, for example, because they have none of the same roots; they developed entirely separately. Even the grammatical structures of the different languages are so different that Eastern languages contain words that simply have no analogue in English, and concepts expressed in one language often cannot be expressed in another. Ethical systems vary drastically as well and are often completely incompatible with one another. Upon entering the Americas, the Conquistadors were shocked to see the mass death and human sacrifice that was a normal part of Mayan culture - people eagerly lining up to be tortured and killed to honor the gods. It was a primary reason they decided the indigenous people needed to be Christianized. And yet, despite all these differences between societies, the concept of male and female genders is oddly consistent throughout all of them. Sure, the exact roles assigned to each gender vary considerably between cultures, but the basic gender dichotomy is constant and invariable. Now, I'm gonna apply Occam's razor here and say that gender is not a social construct, and is in fact inherent to human psychology, because it would take some serious mental gymnastics to come up with a societal explanation for such a consistency between all these different cultures, many of whom had no contact with each other for thousands of years. The ball is in your court now to point to a counterexample.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good time to please return to the original topic. Skycaptain moderator PPS 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Shapi-who?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SkyenAutowegCaptain said:

This is a good time to please return to the original topic. Skycaptain moderator PPS 

Sorry for derailing the conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sithgirlix said:

There are a few people on the internet I know who have gone over him. Hugo and Jake just started doing a series on him. Some More News did a long video about the problems with his style and claims about being logical. I could find more but I'm at work atm.

Since we're getting back to the topic, I figured I'd throw out links for these in case you're curious.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FindingTheta said:

If he wants to be an obstinate douche that's his problem. 🤷‍♀️

 

The world needs nice people who only say what people want to hear.

 

It also needs people who tell it like it is. I think there is a time and space for either. 

 

If I have food stuck in my teeth, I personally will appreciate the friend that tells me. 

 

Some hate Bill Maher. 

 

Same difference. He can be a bit of a jackass, but can formulate an incredibly intelligent and researched opinion.

 

I see people like Marilyn Manson in the same light.

 

I may not like some of the things that they do, but respect the balls they have in putting out their opinions even if they go against the grain. 

 

This isn't a person spewing nothing but uneducated nonsense which is why he has garnered as much attention that he has. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
FindingTheta
4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

This isn't a person spewing nothing but uneducated nonsense which is why he has garnered as much attention that he has.  

Except when it comes to anthropogenic climate change, settlements in Israel, socioeconomic theory, gender theory, political theory, language, and so on. He'll display the "truth when it suits him, his hypocrisy, and his beliefs, like any demagogue would.

 

It isn't his douchebaggery and "the truth" that is giving him flak, it's him peddling misinformation in a fatuous and smug way. On the left (from where I'm standing) he's more of a joke than anything, especially when he makes edited videos of him "owning the left with facts and logic".

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, FindingTheta said:

He'll display the "truth when it suits him

Its still the truth, no?

 

His opinion is often unpopular, but it is just that. An opinion.

 

To me, what causes so much outrage isn't that his opinions are jokes. Or he would be dismissed like a white nationalist or Donald Trump.

 

Is that some of his select facts are pin point accurate. Some people can't handle the raw truth, which to me is where the anger against him would come from. Maybe it's just me. If a person's opinion is a joke, I pay them zero mind. 

 

Why lower oneself to a person's inferior intelligence level?

 

Also, why dismiss someone because their opinion differs from your own if some of their points are very valid.

 

This is what bothers me in today's PC world. If one opinion strays, they can be silenced via being labeled as racist, bigoted even if their opinions aren't either.

 

Kind of how he got nervous silence pointing out to the highly taboo subject of pointing to the hypocrisy within the black community that will gladly riot at police brutality, yet state it's just the "way that it is" to the black on black crime that cripples many of their communities. 

 

The hypocritical part or irony, is guess who is the first to be called when someone gets murdered?

 

Anyone with the balls to point that out in public (and support it with actual statistics and facts) will automatically get my respect (even if I hate hearing it.)

 

If my significant other says something stupid (IE asking me what I want for supper, and listing options...only to tell me she already prepared something when I make my choice), I will poke fun of it.

 

She will do the same to me. Neither of us tolerate BS, so it's only fitting. That's why the respect is mutual.

 

The world needs more people like that who aren't afraid to call out bullshit when they see it. 

 

This is twofold. He should be called out whenever his opinion is easily refuted with actual fact. Not PC garbage go avoid hurting peoples feelings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

This isn't a person spewing nothing but uneducated nonsense which is why he has garnered as much attention that he has.

I don't know if he is educated or just knows his arguments. I myself admit that I have debated all my classmates who disagreed with me to dust, but I had no real understanding of the concepts in question. I looked at it like a chess game: "If I make this move, they will make that move, then I can do this move and either they move here (which they won't because that would refute their other point) or else they step in my trap, and then I move and declare checkmate." 

 

I sometimes wonder if he actually knows the subject or if he just knows the arguments and how to play the game of debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Aebt said:

I don't know if he is educated or just knows his arguments. I myself admit that I have debated all my classmates who disagreed with me to dust, but I had no real understanding of the concepts in question. I looked at it like a chess game: "If I make this move, they will make that move, then I can do this move and either they move here (which they won't because that would refute their other point) or else they step in my trap, and then I move and declare checkmate." 

 

I sometimes wonder if he actually knows the subject or if he just knows the arguments and how to play the game of debate.

He is a very skilled person when it comes to debating. 

 

Some would say he is just a bully. 

 

He clearly does some research prior to debating, but also has tactics to disarm his adversaries. 

 

Many in the press use similar tactics, that allow them to make an otherwise prepared individual look like deer in headlights. 

 

I give credit where its due.

 

I never got the notion of dismissing a person just because you don't agree with them. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

He is a very skilled person when it comes to debating.

Definitely, he can dance circles around some of the people he debates. Again, I am not sure how much is actual knowledge plus being good at debating or just good at debating while winging the knowledge part with a few sources he conveniently found aligned with his position.

 

One of his strong points is he can stay unemotionally involved from the point at hand. Sometimes when you criticize people's ideas they think you are criticizing them as a person, whereas in reality one is merely attacking an idea. Some people get bogged down in this personal feelings of ownership of ideas, whereas one who can distance themselves from feelings of ownership generally at least seem to have a stronger argument. Whether or not you have the stronger argument then you can ensnare your opponent in a trap of emotional attachment, making yourself the victor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
FindingTheta

 

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:
7 hours ago, FindingTheta said:

He'll display the "truth when it suits him,

Its still the truth, no? 

No, that's called "lying by omission".

 

Political correctness depends on the politics -- by conservative standards I am very politically incorrect since I enjoy a good flag burning every now and then, cheer for abortions, and I think America is the greatest threat to world peace. I'm not sure who you're offending with your non-PC policy of "tell-it-like-it-is", But you or anyone will catch flak when you have an opinion on something that is outside one's expertise and experience, like Black Communities for example, and not because you're some sort of "Truth™ teller".

 

It isn't about "He makes some good points some of the time therefore he's someone we should listen to", because I can use some truth to make a lie more easily digestible to the target audience. I look at the overall message and context and whether or not it checks out with the larger body of information on a topic, this is how one does their homework.

 

I don't really care if someone really likes him, but again for my purposes behind trying to understand something I'm not going to turn to him in order to get more informed about it. If anything, I'll watch him with friends and make a drinking game out of it, like "take a drink when he says 'The Left', or whenever he's pedantic, or talks faster than 2.0x".

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

but also has tactics to disarm his adversaries

This is actually my biggest issue with him, in what little attention I pay. It's that he puts so much focus into disarming and throwing his opponent off track (with cheap but effective debate tactics) that he often doesn't address the actual arguments being made. He doesn't care about what's being said as long as he "wins" the debate, which unless you're in a debate class, shouldn't be the point. If his actual arguments were stronger than his opponents, I would give him more credit, but that's not why he wins. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FindingTheta said:

I'm not going to turn to him in order to get more informed about it.

I could agree with that. 

 

You go to him to be entertained. 

 

He delivers. 

 

He does just like Bill Maher, provide some info and food for thought. But you have to take it with a grain of salt. 

 

Overall, I don't think he is harmful, and I can't hate him as a person for what he does. 

 

Either I respect it or I don't. I respect him having the balls, but that's where it stops for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Overall, I don't think he is harmful

could you see him as harmful in perpetuating a misleading idea that the truth is what is irrefutable, something that I think leads critics connecting him to "alt-right"  giving credence to irrefutable beliefs being taken as truth

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gisiebob said:

could you see him as harmful in perpetuating a misleading idea that the truth is what is irrefutable

Based on the dozen or so speeches and debates I have seen him in, he is harmless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...