Opinion What's the consensus on Ben Shapiro around here?

[Islam Imamate]

Yeah, I don't like him. There is plenty to criticize, the article I quoted just did a poor job of it.

How so? They seemed to source their complaints though I didn't follow up all the sources. The major points seem to be true, including his virulent racism and advocacy for ethnic cleansing.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Ed: Nevermind, already posted.

Was actually shocked at some of Shapiro's quotes in the piece. He is far more brazenly and openly racist than I had understood him to be.

Now I have to think that the main reason he doesn't align with the alt right is due to their tendency to talk about Jews in the same way that Ben talks about Arabs.

 

[RubberGuard5]

I don't care about Shapiro enough to read the entire article or go through the sources, but the article feels really juvenile.

"First, Asian Americans are wealthier than white people, which would be impossible if racism determined economic outcomes. (Shapiro doesn’t mention that the vast majority of Asian American adults are immigrants, and they are disproportionately from the wealthier and more highly-educated segments of their own countries.)"

I mean, this isn't a good counter. It can be countered in other ways, but this is silly.

" Finally, Shapiro says that the disproportionately black population in America’s prisons say nothing about racism, because black people simply commit more crimes, and “if you don’t commit a crime, you’re not going to be arrested for it” because “the police are not going around arresting black people for the fun of it.” (I have some blackmeninLouisiana I’d like Shapiro to meet so that he can explain his theory that people do not get arrested for crimes they haven’t committed. But I’d also like to hear him explain why black men receive 20% longer sentences for the same crime as white men with similar backgrounds.)"

This is dishonest. Ofcourse Shapiro understands that some people are wrongfully convicted. To counter Shapiro, he needed to show that these cases are so prevalent that they explain black incarceration rate.

"Watch the video of his answer on the racial wealth gap: when his black co-panelists laugh at his answer about culture, he does not think to himself “Hm, perhaps they know something I don’t know about what it is like to be black,” he thinks “They must be irrational and in need of my wisdom.” He doesn’t listento anyone, he just confronts them."

This is cringy.

 

[BEER]

Can you elaborate on this? Which ones do you think were misrepresented and how?

How so? They seemed to source their complaints though I didn't follow up all the sources. The major points seem to be true, including his virulent racism and advocacy for ethnic cleansing.

The initial paragraph starts off the bullshit by boiling down conservative "intellectuals" (I certainly wouldn't include Milo as an intellectual, so at least the author and I could agree on that) to central themes that betray the actual points any of the names bring to the table.

The article's first criticism seems to be an objection that racism (used broadly by the author, but much more clearly defined by Shapiro himself) has little to do with poverty in black communities. The author doesn't actually rebut the claim, but simple scoffs at it. The author goes on to point out more Shapiro rhetoric; Again, instead of rebutting, the author again scoffs at Shapiro's notion that "black people commit more crime". This isn't a Shapiro-Tier Racist Revelation, it's just a factual truth.

When Shapiro had an open debate and responded to a question about race-income-gap, he replied "It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture", but that was hardly the entire story. The author links to a sub-2-minute clip from, IIRC, an hour long debate on the subject. For what it's worth, none of his "opponents" had an answer beyond themselves laughing at his responses. The author notes this, and deduces that because the black opponents laughed, Ben Shapiro should have shut up and listened instead of continuing to elaborate on his point. During a debate. Ben Shapiro shouldn't answer questions in a debate because black people know better, apparently. That's just silly.



All that said, that's as far as I initially got into the article because my eyes were rolling back in my head so far. Also I was really REALLY intoxicated. The author just doesn't seem to be doing any criticizing, just scoffing so the target of the audience gets it.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The article's first criticism seems to be an objection that racism (used broadly by the author, but much more clearly defined by Shapiro himself) has little to do with poverty in black communities. The author doesn't actually rebut the claim, but simple scoffs at it. The author goes on to point out more Shapiro rhetoric; Again, instead of rebutting, the author again scoffs at Shapiro's notion that "black people commit more crime". This isn't a Shapiro-Tier Racist Revelation, it's just a factual truth.

When Shapiro had an open debate and responded to a question about race-income-gap, he replied "It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture", but that was hardly the entire story. The author links to a sub-2-minute clip from, IIRC, an hour long debate on the subject. For what it's worth, none of his "opponents" had an answer beyond themselves laughing at his responses. The author notes this, and deduces that because the black opponents laughed, Ben Shapiro should have shut up and listened instead of continuing to elaborate on his point. During a debate. Ben Shapiro shouldn't answer questions in a debate because black people know better, apparently. That's just silly.

[]All that said, that's as far as I initially got into the article because my eyes were rolling back in my head so far. Also I was really REALLY intoxicated. The author just doesn't seem to be doing any criticizing, just scoffing so the target of the audience gets it.

You're not really getting the point then. The author's point there is that Shapiro defines racism very narrowly when it suits him and does the opposite when that suits him. He likes to go on about how he supports "facts" but isolates facts that support his views from other facts that contradict them. He complains that the left uses the words "bigot" and "racist" to brow beat people but he does the same with "anti-Semite". He claims to support free speech but actively calls for criminalizing dissenting political speech when it contradicts his views. He even twists his sources to imply they say the exact opposite of what they actually say to support his point. He holds his own views to a much less rigorous standard than that of his opponents.

He's essentially a hypocrite who uses slimy lawyer tactics and name calling to bully young people so that he looks "smart". He's also a racist and an advocate for ethnic cleansing. All around a terrible human being.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The article's first criticism seems to be an objection that racism (used broadly by the author, but much more clearly defined by Shapiro himself) has little to do with poverty in black communities. The author doesn't actually rebut the claim, but simple scoffs at it. The author goes on to point out more Shapiro rhetoric; Again, instead of rebutting, the author again scoffs at Shapiro's notion that "black people commit more crime". This isn't a Shapiro-Tier Racist Revelation, it's just a factual truth.

I'd say the first criticism was just pointing out his immature name-calling that he does but was supposed to not do. But second, the author has a pretty detailed rebuttal of the claims. Look at the parenthetical comments and the links. I don't see how any can contest the fact that racism has a lot to do with the black-white wealth gap anyway, but the author doesn't take it for granted that readers are aware of the relevant facts there (actually doesn't get into historical housing policy, which is the biggest factor, in that first paragraph--though it is mentioned later). But anyway, this isn't what I'd call misrepresenting Shapiro's arguments. It's presenting them accurately and then countering them.

When Shapiro had an open debate and responded to a question about race-income-gap, he replied "It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture", but that was hardly the entire story. The author links to a sub-2-minute clip from, IIRC, an hour long debate on the subject.

This is more in line with what I was asking about, but I'd still like to know how Shapiro's argument changes with more context.

All that said, that's as far as I initially got into the article because my eyes were rolling back in my head so far. Also I was really REALLY intoxicated. The author just doesn't seem to be doing any criticizing, just scoffing so the target of the audience gets it.

I'd recommend reading again.

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

This paragraph, in particular, really sums up the issue with Shapiro:

What dispirited me about Shapiro’s approach is that he’s clearly not actually very interested in Facts at all. The role that race plays in American life is a serious sociological question, one that isn’t answered easily. But Shapiro plucks only the statistics that suggest race doesn’t matter, and pretends the statistics that suggest it does matter don’t exist. Nobody can trust him, because if he comes across a finding showing that incarceration rates more closely follow crime rates than racial demographics, you can bet it will appear in his next speech. But if someone shows that a white man with a criminal record is far more likely to receive a job callback than a black man without a criminal record, you’ll never hear it mentioned. It would be perfectly reasonable for Shapiro to critique these findings; sociologists critique each other all the time. Instead, he selects only the parts of reality that please him. Just look at his reply when he was asked about the black-white wealth gap: “It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with culture.” That’s a strange thing to say, because the wealth gap has existed continuously since the time of slavery: average black net worth has always been lower than white net worth, and there were massive structural obstacles to the black accumulation of wealth well into the 20th century, as we can see in Ta-Nehisi Coates’ writings on the lasting impact of housing policy. Family wealth is passed down intergenerationally, and so it’s hard to conclude that the fact that the average white family has $13 of wealth for every $1 of wealth held by a black family is the sole result of spontaneous contemporary black cultural choices, with no historical component whatsoever. The impact of human decisions on outcomes, and the factors that shape the available range of choices, are difficult topics in social science with no easy answers.

Lots of political, economic, and sociological questions have difficult answers, and people can disagree in good faith, but that's not the game Shapiro is playing. He's not writing long pieces taking on theories; he's grandstanding in front of kids.

 

[Makani]

I think he is very bright, and a very good speaker/debater.

I agree that he doesn't seem to think with his emotions, but he does think with other people's. He'll find a position people want to feel right about and give them smart sounding explanations, and they won't bother to check the facts because they sound right. He's like a much smarter Ann Coulter.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I hear people talking about him here, but I know nothing about him irl. Nothing.

 

[Viva]

Great speaker but ultimately pretty cucked and uninformed on matters that are actually worthwhile. He's great a churning out content ripe with low hanging fruit, overall making him pretty basic.

 

[BEER]

I'd say the first criticism was just pointing out his immature name-calling that he does but was supposed to not do. But second, the author has a pretty detailed rebuttal of the claims. Look at the parenthetical comments and the links. I don't see how any can contest the fact that racism has a lot to do with the black-white wealth gap anyway, but the author doesn't take it for granted that readers are aware of the relevant facts there (actually doesn't get into historical housing policy, which is the biggest factor, in that first paragraph--though it is mentioned later). But anyway, this isn't what I'd call misrepresenting Shapiro's arguments. It's presenting them accurately and then countering them.

This is more in line with what I was asking about, but I'd still like to know how Shapiro's argument changes with more context.

I'll dig up the video. For what it's worth, I don't agree with Shapiro, but it's certainly more complex than simply saying "racism doesn't exist". He wants proof of racist acts instead of name calling. Which, as we know, is hypocritical when he tends to be quite the name-caller himself.

Lots of political, economic, and sociological questions have difficult answers, and people can disagree in good faith, but that's not the game Shapiro is playing. He's not writing long pieces taking on theories; he's grandstanding in front of kids.

I don't disagree with this at all. Like I said, there is a lot to criticize about Shapiro. But drunk me didn't think the article did a particularly great job. The guy gives talks to college kids who, for the most part, already agree with the shit that comes pouring out of his mouth. He only challenges college kids who came with "gotcha" questions that he's already arranged arguments for. He'll claim that he doesn't base his sociological beliefs in his religion, but his blatant transphobic, homophobic, and anti-abortion view (to name a few) come from a place of willful ignorance. I'd respect him more if his more moralistic views were explained as "this is what I believe due to my religious background", but he promises they're not while having no arguments in his favor.

I'll give the article another read and see if it clicks.

 

[method115]

He'll claim that he doesn't base his sociological beliefs in his religion, but his blatant transphobic, homophobic, and anti-abortion view (to name a few) come from a place of willful ignorance. I'd respect him more if his more moralistic views were explained as "this is what I believe due to my religious background", but he promises they're not while having no arguments in his favor.

Are you sure about this? I've heard him make the claim that he doesn't use religion to argue his points but not it doesn't affect his sociological views.

 

[Viva]

Are you sure about this? I've heard him make the claim that he doesn't use religion to argue his points but not it doesn't affect his sociological views.

C'mon, the guy can't expect anyone to believe that when he's wearing a fuggin yarmulke.

 

[BEER]

Are you sure about this? I've heard him make the claim that he doesn't use religion to argue his points but not it doesn't affect his sociological views.

He's said it verbatim in a video that's linked in the article. He was making a solid point (that you don't need a degree to be knowledgeable in a field or even to just read works from said field), but his point fails because it's so blatantly false.

 

[KantoTerror]

Not a big fan of his fast talk but owning Cenk the way he did.....and I don't think anybody wants to get into debate with this dude at all....

 

[MilesAbove]

Not a big fan of his fast talk but owning Cenk the way he did.....and I don't think anybody wants to get into debate with this dude at all....

I would endlessly and foreverly revel in an actual debate with this guy. He would be so quickly dismantled when he can't utilize rhetoric-lobbing, it would be fantastic to watch.

As intelligent as he is touted to be, his ego would ultimately leave half his "arguments" on the debate-room floor as disregarded and he would likely fail to keep pace with even myself. Now consider I'd probably fair in only the top 30% of debaters today and only if I put ALL my effort into my craft.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

@Workers United

Did you read the article? I know you're a staunch Shapiro fan!

 

[Chris Kyle is a liar]

Hes wrong a lot but is a great salesman because he convinces people that hes not full of shit.

 

[Byron Carter]

He's a hack, and not a real conservative.

No loyalty to the people. He was a never-trumper.

He's a poor man's Milo.

 

[Vicky]

I find him enjoyable to listen to (podcast and his debates & interviews). I started watching some of his videos after seeing this thread title about him. I agree with him on many issues and also disagree with him on other issues. I like his debating style and use of logics even on issues on which I disagree with him. I find him to fairly logical and given how one sided many debated topics are on colleges I think they need more speakers like him who express views not usually expressed on college campuses. People, especially students, should be exposed to a diversity of opinions and not just opinions they agree with. Conservatives should hear non-conservative speakers just like liberals (or leftists) should hear conservative speakers. These "kids" in colleges should be exposed to diversity of opinion/ideas.

I worry about the fate of free speech....however I am a bit hypocritical on this since I didn't like that article from Texas Waste University that called for a genocide of whites (genocides are bad, duh).

 

[hillelslovak87]

You're not really getting the point then. The author's point there is that Shapiro defines racism very narrowly when it suits him and does the opposite when that suits him. He likes to go on about how he supports "facts" but isolates facts that support his views from other facts that contradict them. He complains that the left uses the words "bigot" and "racist" to brow beat people but he does the same with "anti-Semite". He claims to support free speech but actively calls for criminalizing dissenting political speech when it contradicts his views. He even twists his sources to imply they say the exact opposite of what they actually say to support his point. He holds his own views to a much less rigorous standard than that of his opponents.

He's essentially a hypocrite who uses slimy lawyer tactics and name calling to bully young people so that he looks "smart". He's also a racist and an advocate for ethnic cleansing. All around a terrible human being.

I quite liked him until I saw

Upon seeing this, I started to see the same slimy tactics in most, if not all of the arguments I've seen him trot forth. Incredibly dishonest.

And I'm tired of him telling me the government is going to bust down his doors and take away his DOCTOR WIFE.