• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Freedom of speech and living among diverse sets of people

TheEconomist

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
229
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I have found myself going too deep into a critique of some radicalized group on a different thread, so I decided to start one here.

Before I start, I just wanted to point out that even though my critiques are aimed at some groups on what really is the far left, I'm not being critical of everyone on the left. Moreover, this is not a debate over the value of identity-based policies these more radical people propose. I want to focus on this wrongheaded attack of open discussions.


I have a problem with the kind of people that cost Berkeley $600 000 in security costs when Ben Shapiro showed up a few years. The reason I pick this example is that it is a perfect demonstration that at least some of those people are selling snake oil. For those who don't know, Ben Shapiro has a rule: if you disagree, you skip the line in the question segment. Michael Knowles and Denis Prager also use that rule when they talk on campus. Hell, Denis Prager once invited someone who called him a rape apologist on his radio show, giving him airtime and an audience of a few million people. If I am not mistaken, Dave Rubin also used it when he was touring with Jordan Peterson.

This means that if you have an objection of any sort, or want to offer a counterargument, you don't have to get colleges to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in security. If you are a group of students who disagree with any of these people, you have a guaranteed platform to challenge them. Prepare your argument, gather the facts and have many of your people sit in the room so you are sure that your group will monopolize the microphones during the question segment. If they're so wrong and so evil, it shouldn't be hard to stump them. Why even give Shapiro and the likes an escape hatch by using force? I know why. It's because they are selling snake oil. It's all smokes and mirrors. A lot of the defense between the ideas put forward by these radical groups of students and increasingly by some members of the media grew out of politically motivated research in academia. It tends to revolve around attacking the concepts of truth, facts, science, and logic as somehow "racist" which is an ironically racist thing to say. It's quite pathetic to be so unable to defend your own views that you have to mount an attack on the idea of verifying any claim. They plagiarized Marx's conscience of class, couched it in a broader context of group conflicts and didn't seem to realize the epistemic leap underlying Marxism extends here -- we're all blind to our race, gender, sexual, etc. struggles, except those who agree with the far left. Like the communists of Marx, those people see right through the veil of their position in society. That sort of "heads you win and tail I loose" game is just sad.

If you want an example, think about a new editor that was added to the New York Times team back in 2018. She wrote comments about killing and hating "white men" on her Twitter feed and, as predictably as the sun rises in the morning, radicals swoop in to explain that phrases involving explicit imagery of "white" genocide aren't really calling for violence. The same people will take completely innocuous phrases made by other people and call them "dog whistles," effectively putting words people never said in their mouth and attributing to them intentions they never contemplated. If you wanted names, Ezra Klein is guilty of engaging in that kind of pathetic display of intellectual ineptitude.

(to be continued).
 
I have found myself going too deep into a critique of some radicalized group on a different thread, so I decided to start one here.

Before I start, I just wanted to point out that even though my critiques are aimed at some groups on what really is the far left, I'm not being critical of everyone on the left. Moreover, this is not a debate over the value of identity-based policies these more radical people propose. I want to focus on this wrongheaded attack of open discussions.


I have a problem with the kind of people that cost Berkeley $600 000 in security costs when Ben Shapiro showed up a few years. The reason I pick this example is that it is a perfect demonstration that at least some of those people are selling snake oil. For those who don't know, Ben Shapiro has a rule: if you disagree, you skip the line in the question segment. Michael Knowles and Denis Prager also use that rule when they talk on campus. Hell, Denis Prager once invited someone who called him a rape apologist on his radio show, giving him airtime and an audience of a few million people. If I am not mistaken, Dave Rubin also used it when he was touring with Jordan Peterson.

This means that if you have an objection of any sort, or want to offer a counterargument, you don't have to get colleges to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars in security. If you are a group of students who disagree with any of these people, you have a guaranteed platform to challenge them. Prepare your argument, gather the facts and have many of your people sit in the room so you are sure that your group will monopolize the microphones during the question segment. If they're so wrong and so evil, it shouldn't be hard to stump them. Why even give Shapiro and the likes an escape hatch by using force? I know why. It's because they are selling snake oil. It's all smokes and mirrors. A lot of the defense between the ideas put forward by these radical groups of students and increasingly by some members of the media grew out of politically motivated research in academia. It tends to revolve around attacking the concepts of truth, facts, science, and logic as somehow "racist" which is an ironically racist thing to say. It's quite pathetic to be so unable to defend your own views that you have to mount an attack on the idea of verifying any claim. They plagiarized Marx's conscience of class, couched it in a broader context of group conflicts and didn't seem to realize the epistemic leap underlying Marxism extends here -- we're all blind to our race, gender, sexual, etc. struggles, except those who agree with the far left. Like the communists of Marx, those people see right through the veil of their position in society. That sort of "heads you win and tail I loose" game is just sad.

If you want an example, think about a new editor that was added to the New York Times team back in 2018. She wrote comments about killing and hating "white men" on her Twitter feed and, as predictably as the sun rises in the morning, radicals swoop in to explain that phrases involving explicit imagery of "white" genocide aren't really calling for violence. The same people will take completely innocuous phrases made by other people and call them "dog whistles," effectively putting words people never said in their mouth and attributing to them intentions they never contemplated. If you wanted names, Ezra Klein is guilty of engaging in that kind of pathetic display of intellectual ineptitude.

(to be continued).

Ben Shapiro, like Ann Coulter and a few others, are not and never have been interested in rational debate of a subject. Shapiro is a professional troll and should be treated as such. If a college wants to invite a speaker they will invite someone with a rational point of view instead of someone who just throws verbal bombs and seeks to ignite and inflame tensions. A college has no requirement to invite people of his ilk because they add nothing to the culture, intellectual record or the educational process any mpore than inviting a member of the Klan or the Neo-Nazis. If they want to invite a rational conservative who seeks to have a rational discussion and educate people about their conservative points of views then they are welcome.

Shapiro tends to storm out when held to the facts such as what happened when he was interviewed by the BBC, so if you invite him then they also have to invite someone to counter his fast-talking lies. I doubt he would accept that invitation because he knows that he will lose. I would force him to pay for the added cost of security because of his antics, and I doubt he would be willing to do so.
 
(Cont.)
I think that the left in America today is making a huge mistake.

There are legitimate concerns to be had over race, gender, religion, and sexuality, among other things. Although the United States and most of the West has become far more tolerant in recent decades, it is beyond doubt that discrimination can still take place. However, when you leap from observing discrimination in some places to theorizing social interactions in a way that makes differences across groups incommensurable, you're not going to eliminate the problem. Obsessing over race increases tensions by drawing sharp lines between people, by constantly reminding them to look at the color of their skin and that of others around them. It makes differences salient and commonalities disappear in the background. You won't create a world where people get along. You'll create many worlds with people who can't exist with each other. Do you want to wake up one day and live in a world so divided that Google Map's new updates include blue and red tags so you can tell when a business is conservative or liberal?

You're not going to get people you don't like to shut up and you won't get everyone to agree with you. That won't happen. What will happen is that you'll create isolated cultural silos of people who can't stand being with each other. You'll create a world where sometimes even fathers and sons cannot talk, or brothers and sisters plan ways to hurt each other and mothers who refuse to see their kid because they voted for different parties. Utopia, right?


I remember back in 2009 or 2010, Bill Maher made a joke about conservatives. He said that conservatives cannot make political jokes because it's just cruel when a fat cat laughs at the misery of Joe Average. Of course, he's got his point of view and that shows, but the broader point is that today, I think the opposite is true. The only ones laughing are conservatives. You cannot make a joke about anything on the left without risking to enrage someone over "insensitive" comments.
 
(Cont.)
I think that the left in America today is making a huge mistake.

There are legitimate concerns to be had over race, gender, religion, and sexuality, among other things. Although the United States and most of the West has become far more tolerant in recent decades, it is beyond doubt that discrimination can still take place. However, when you leap from observing discrimination in some places to theorizing social interactions in a way that makes differences across groups incommensurable, you're not going to eliminate the problem. Obsessing over race increases tensions by drawing sharp lines between people, by constantly reminding them to look at the color of their skin and that of others around them. It makes differences salient and commonalities disappear in the background. You won't create a world where people get along. You'll create many worlds with people who can't exist with each other. Do you want to wake up one day and live in a world so divided that Google Map's new updates include blue and red tags so you can tell when a business is conservative or liberal?

You're not going to get people you don't like to shut up and you won't get everyone to agree with you. That won't happen. What will happen is that you'll create isolated cultural silos of people who can't stand being with each other. You'll create a world where sometimes even fathers and sons cannot talk, or brothers and sisters plan ways to hurt each other and mothers who refuse to see their kid because they voted for different parties. Utopia, right?


I remember back in 2009 or 2010, Bill Maher made a joke about conservatives. He said that conservatives cannot make political jokes because it's just cruel when a fat cat laughs at the misery of Joe Average. Of course, he's got his point of view and that shows, but the broader point is that today, I think the opposite is true. The only ones laughing are conservatives. You cannot make a joke about anything on the left without risking to enrage someone over "insensitive" comments.

I can make a lot of jokes about liberals. I just don't target their racial, gender or sexual ordination when doing so. Its how you write the joke and what you think is funny. You want to be funny and make people think. Don't try to be mean or demeaning.
 
Ben Shapiro, like Ann Coulter and a few others, are not and never have been interested in rational debate of a subject. Shapiro is a professional troll and should be treated as such. If a college wants to invite a speaker they will invite someone with a rational point of view instead of someone who just throws verbal bombs and seeks to ignite and inflame tensions. A college has no requirement to invite people of his ilk because they add nothing to the culture, intellectual record or the educational process any mpore than inviting a member of the Klan or the Neo-Nazis. If they want to invite a rational conservative who seeks to have a rational discussion and educate people about their conservative points of views then they are welcome.

Shapiro tends to storm out when held to the facts such as what happened when he was interviewed by the BBC, so if you invite him then they also have to invite someone to counter his fast-talking lies. I doubt he would accept that invitation because he knows that he will lose. I would force him to pay for the added cost of security because of his antics, and I doubt he would be willing to do so.

What antics that he should be responsible for the added cost of security? The security isn't there because he is any kind of danger no matter how imposing his 5 foot nothing frame is.
 
What antics that he should be responsible for the added cost of security? The security isn't there because he is any kind of danger no matter how imposing his 5 foot nothing frame is.

The added security is because of his followers feel emboldened by his trolling and the antics of his that willfully inflame emotions between groups of people in the same way that public Klan rallies do.
 
Ben Shapiro, like Ann Coulter and a few others, are not and never have been interested in the rational debate of a subject. Shapiro is a professional troll and should be treated as such.

The hallmark of rational debate is not that no one involved ever makes a mistake. It's that the debate centers around facts and logic. You can quibble with Ben Shapiro about how he interprets a set of facts, but you cannot fault him on not taking stock of facts. Moreover, if you dispute how he lays out an argument (i.e., if you spot a fallacy), anyone is welcome to explain the error in the question segment. And if students are ill-equipped to deal with this issue, it reflects very badly on their professors -- who, by the way, are welcome to see the lectures and are invited to voice objections during question segments.

Another note: your position requires someone to censor Shapiro and Coulter. You don't need to censor someone who is wrong, as long as you can respond to them.

A college has no requirement to invite people of his ilk because they add nothing to the culture, intellectual record or the educational process any more than inviting a member of the Klan or the Neo-Nazis.

First of all, putting these conservative figures in the same group as Klansmen and neo-Nazis is despicable. Klansmen and neo-Nazis have been involved in assaults, rape, and murders to name just a few things. If you don't fear to attend a neo-Nazi march considerably more than you fear to talk with Ben Shapiro, your sense of proportion is out of touch with reality. I'd go talk with Shapiro alone without a problem. But, a Nazi march? I don't know if I would feel safe, even if the army was there. The worst conservative pundits ever did was say things you don't like... That might be annoying, but it's fine.

Second of all, a college has no requirement to invite people over. However, if a group of students thinks that public figures like Shapiro, Knowles, Coulter, Prager or someone like that should be part of a discussion, they should be free to raise the funds and organize their events.

Third of all, conservatives students can make similar comments about faculty, no less than public speakers who are often invited. Imagine if things were reversed and they had the power to grant or deny access to college. Even if a group of conservatives thinks that Judith Butler is a presumptuous quack who uses indecipherable prose to hide the blatant idiocy of her identitarian claims, don't you think someone who wants to judge her work for themselves should be allowed to invite her?

Fourth of all, American campuses are all biased in the same political direction. If you had to let more people in of some kind, conservatives would probably be the best way to put a limit to the echo chamber effect, even if they're wrong in one way or another.

If they want to invite a rational conservative who seeks to have a rational discussion and educate people about their conservative points of views then they are welcome.

Here's the reasonable line: Shapiro never promoted violence of any sort, so he should be allowed to go anywhere he is invited in due form. He repeatedly condemned violence and repeatedly called people to not intimidate or insult each other over differences related to things like sexuality and religion.

Your criterion is problematic because campuses are staffed, populated and managed by mostly left-leaning people. You cannot trust that they will do this job properly, even if they tried. If you try to get rid of every "bigot" that could slip through, you'll end up giving some groups on campus too much discretion and they will use it to ban ideas they dislike.

Shapiro tends to storm out when held to the facts such as what happened when he was interviewed by the BBC, so if you invite him then they also have to invite someone to counter his fast-talking lies. I doubt he would accept that invitation because he knows that he will lose. I would force him to pay for the added cost of security because of his antics, and I doubt he would be willing to do so.

Actually, Ben Shapiro has often been challenged by professors during his presentation. Presumably, you would expect they could come up with good arguments, but I've never seen one. I could stump him on economics (because I am a trained economist currently studying for a Ph.D.), but I suspect it would just be a polite disagreement over how to interpret some results. Or I would point to a few studies, key results and he would just concede the point and thank me for references -- which I have seen him do on occasions, by the way.

Contrast this with protestors. He's polite, calm, and invite people to talk. They are loud, violent and want to prevent people to talk... But, in your head, Shapiro is the problem?
 
The added security is because of his followers feel emboldened by his trolling and the antics of his that willfully inflame emotions between groups of people in the same way that public Klan rallies do.

LOL, it only took 1 reply in this thread to liken an Orthodox Jew to a Nazi or Klan member by a virtue-bleeding Progressive. New record!
 
Ben Shapiro, like Ann Coulter and a few others, are not and never have been interested in rational debate of a subject. Shapiro is a professional troll and ...a member of the Klan or the Neo-Nazis. If they want to invite a rational conservative who seeks to have a rational discussion and educate people about their conservative points of views then they are welcome.

I don't suppose you'll be providing any evidence or substantiations for your absurd claims? What specifically do you think Shapiro has said that is inflammatory, racist, hateful, or untrue?

He has engaged in debates with people aside from college students. The desperate examples Lefties love to bring up is his angry outburst when interviewed on BBC, during which his facts or arguments were never addressed a single time, and instead he was constantly nailed with murky accusations and out-of-context quotes, which he politely requested multiple times to stop doing until he had enough of the childish mind games and walked off set. Ironically, this is what you would call a poorly-intentioned debate. When you need to resort to ad hominems, you've already lost the argument.

He also debated fat Cenk the Turk and offered $10, 000 to AOC to debate her; which she took as a threat and ran away to her crowd of barbie supporters.

Your kind resorts to guerrilla tactics and violence to shut out any form of disagreement or discussion and relies on mob-mentality shouting instead of facts to make a point. But please; let the Progressive among us teach the fundamentals of debating and rational discussions.
 
Last edited:
There is a problem which can obtain in a debate/discussion of an issue. It is the question of the debating 'tool kit' which will be used.

If the debate is a rational exploration of facts and concepts, with logic as the main 'tool', there's usually little need for bouncers and band-aids(r). If, on the other hand, one or more of the debaters relies on emotional appeals, it can become a 'Nellie, bar the door!' event.
 
The added security is because of his followers feel emboldened by his trolling and the antics of his that willfully inflame emotions between groups of people in the same way that public Klan rallies do.

Here are a few facts:

1. The threat to security was the group of protestors. Police officers escorted Shapiro inside for his talk and, then, rows of police motorcycles followed him several blocks when he left. Police officers escorted students who wanted to watch his talk two by two inside. Does that sound like the police were trying to prevent conservatives and moderates from going berserk? No. The fear concerned people who protested his speech;

2. Ben Shapiro spoke out against a few things in a way you would dislike: homosexuality, abortion, and issues related to transgender people. However, every single time, he takes a minute to point out that none of what he thinks about the morality of these issues is a reason to assault other people or to treat them like any less than a human being. You have some nerve to call this inflammatory rhetoric. The guy is a LIBERTARIAN on these issues. His position literally is "I don't think what you do is a good thing, but it's none of my business."

3. Ben Shapiro has been the number 1 target of antisemitism on Twitter. The Alt-Right hates him with a passion. He received death threats from those people and, somehow, you have managed to convince yourself of 100% the opposite of reality.
 
The added security is because of his followers feel emboldened by his trolling and the antics of his that willfully inflame emotions between groups of people in the same way that public Klan rallies do.

Lol, it isn't "his" followers that the security is for.

You think the people that trashed Berkeley were "fans" of Milo Yiannopoulos when he spoke there?

If you believe what you are typing then you are truly delusional.
 
There is a problem which can obtain in a debate/discussion of an issue. It is the question of the debating 'tool kit' which will be used. If the debate is a rational exploration of facts and concepts, with logic as the main 'tool', there's usually little need for bouncers and band-aids(r). If, on the other hand, one or more of the debaters relies on emotional appeals, it can become a 'Nellie, bar the door!' event.

The people responsible for enforcing the rules of rational debate are those involved and those listening.

If one side appeals to emotions, the other can point it out and fault them. Here, as is usual, the limiting greyish cases will be the primary reason why it shouldn't be enforced from the top-down. For example, if we have a debate over the minimum wage, is one party engaged in an appeal to emotions if they say it's cruel to deny it? In a certain sense, it is an appeal to emotions. On the other hand, a relevant part of the issue here involves trying to figure out what should be the purview of governmental intervention. I am not condoning or objecting to this specific policy and I am not saying that the specific form that took the objection of "cruelty" is correct. What I want to point out is that a legitimate question is whether or not we should be concerned with less-skilled workers, for example.

Here, multiple responses are possible: (1) we might agree that caring about workers is important, but we disagree over the best way to do it and (2) perhaps other concerns overrule this one here such as concerns about the overreach of politicians. Moving in this direction is actually useful. Another possibility is that someone might take the Devil's advocate position -- even if they disagree over the involvement of government in this context, they could see if, conditional on this approbation, something can be done without bad consequences to be too bad. It's when we do these things that we learn.


The only way this can work without becoming a mess is when the people involved are really asking the question "what should we do." They have an answer, but they're willing to dig and see if they didn't miss something. It's when you don't think you can be wrong that things can go quickly wrong.
 
Lol, it isn't "his" followers that the security is for.

You think the people that trashed Berkeley were "fans" of Milo Yiannopoulos when he spoke there?

If you believe what you are typing then you are truly delusional.

Yep, it's the racist supporters of Conservative speakers who need to be stopped! Not like there's any other reason to beef up security...





 
Last edited:
Lol, it isn't "his" followers that the security is for.

You think the people that trashed Berkeley were "fans" of Milo Yiannopoulos when he spoke there?

If you believe what you are typing then you are truly delusional.

He knew exactly what he was doing when he throws bombs, just as the Klan and the Neo-Nazis do. If the cops weren't there to protect him those people would have taken care of him and his followers if it were on equal terms, just as they would to the handful of Klan or Neo-nazis who show up and use racist rants on the courthouse steps. These twits know that the cops will prevent that from happening all the while allowing them to continue their partisan schtick.

Our free speech rights only cover the right not to be arrested or fined by the government for our speech. They don't protect us from others who disagree with them, but the cities have the cops there to prevent the riots from happening that trolls like Milo, Ben, and Ann Coulter seek to start. Maybe if the cops turn their backs while these trolls get what they have coming they would stop trying to claim that they are interested in debate and rational discussion and are outed as the troll that they really are when they insulted and attack people but claim that others can't reply in kind.
 
LOL, it only took 1 reply in this thread to liken an Orthodox Jew to a Nazi or Klan member by a virtue-bleeding Progressive. New record!

He uses the same verbal bomb tossing shtick as they do. I didn't criticize his religious beliefs.
 
@Lisa

Maybe the tone of the discussion is starting to derail a bit. We're losing the forest in the trees.


My core complaint is that some people take it upon themselves to decide what others should be allowed to say, watch or perhaps even read. Every single time, the attack is mounted against people who didn't encourage any violence -- please, let me explain.

What I mean is that in the hundreds of hours of videos you can dig up from conservative pundits like Shaprio, you will not find a single explicit call to things like attacking other people or terrorism and you will find calls to the exact opposite. To say that this little dude incites violence, you have to interpret everything he said in the worst possible light. He never cheered for violence and cheered for the opposite, so you have to put words in his mouths he not only never said, but which runs at 180 degrees from things he actually said.

He's not a dangerous sociopath trying to get radicals to beat trans people in parks. Did you ever watch him talk about that issue? He routinely says that whatever he thinks of their choices, that doesn't make them any less human and that doesn't grant anyone a right to decide on their behalf what they should do or not do. He also usually adds that he would never misgender someone in private because that's just rude and, every single time he expressed concerns that transitioning won't help most of those people, he also adds that he wishes them the best of luck and can't even begin to understand how horrible it must be to feel like you're in the wrong body... The only thing that little meager dude won't do is lie about his moral views. His basic premise is that, as much as possible, live and let live is a good rule.


You can disagree with Shapiro. You can consider that his arguments aren't solid. You can question the validity of his sources. You can think he overlooks important facts. And you can even think that some people might listen to his claims regarding trans people, for example, and use it in ways that Shapiro never would. All of this is perfectly fine.

What I'm saying is that it's not your place to have him shut up. If you want to shut him up, do your homework, own your debate skills and go challenge him in public. You won't need sticks, just words.
 
@Lisa

Maybe the tone of the discussion is starting to derail a bit. We're losing the forest in the trees.


My core complaint is that some people take it upon themselves to decide what others should be allowed to say, watch or perhaps even read. Every single time, the attack is mounted against people who didn't encourage any violence -- please, let me explain.

What I mean is that in the hundreds of hours of videos you can dig up from conservative pundits like Shaprio, you will not find a single explicit call to things like attacking other people or terrorism and you will find calls to the exact opposite. To say that this little dude incites violence, you have to interpret everything he said in the worst possible light. He never cheered for violence and cheered for the opposite, so you have to put words in his mouths he not only never said, but which runs at 180 degrees from things he actually said.

He's not a dangerous sociopath trying to get radicals to beat trans people in parks. Did you ever watch him talk about that issue? He routinely says that whatever he thinks of their choices, that doesn't make them any less human and that doesn't grant anyone a right to decide on their behalf what they should do or not do. He also usually adds that he would never misgender someone in private because that's just rude and, every single time he expressed concerns that transitioning won't help most of those people, he also adds that he wishes them the best of luck and can't even begin to understand how horrible it must be to feel like you're in the wrong body... The only thing that little meager dude won't do is lie about his moral views. His basic premise is that, as much as possible, live and let live is a good rule.


You can disagree with Shapiro. You can consider that his arguments aren't solid. You can question the validity of his sources. You can think he overlooks important facts. And you can even think that some people might listen to his claims regarding trans people, for example, and use it in ways that Shapiro never would. All of this is perfectly fine.

What I'm saying is that it's not your place to have him shut up. If you want to shut him up, do your homework, own your debate skills and go challenge him in public. You won't need sticks, just words.

He can say what he wants but he must be held intellectually accountable and others must be able to fact check him and reply to him. Ben and others of his ilk don't like this and either they won't appear when this is going to be the situation or they run away when ambushed with facts, as he did in the BBC interview. When it is even close to happening he whines that his free speech rights are being infringed when others pin him to the wall and force him to admit to his lies and half-truths. He wants to play the role of an insult comic but intellectually dishonestly requires people to respect him as a genuine speaker and intellectual. He is gaslighting those who disgree with him.

I can toss bombs in the same way but it isn't conducive to a discussion or debate. Asking someone loaded questions or setting them up with strawman and then attacking them when they try to debate as being evasive on my part is easy and fun.
 
@Lisa

Maybe the tone of the discussion is starting to derail a bit. We're losing the forest in the trees.


My core complaint is that some people take it upon themselves to decide what others should be allowed to say, watch or perhaps even read. Every single time, the attack is mounted against people who didn't encourage any violence -- please, let me explain.

What I mean is that in the hundreds of hours of videos you can dig up from conservative pundits like Shaprio, you will not find a single explicit call to things like attacking other people or terrorism and you will find calls to the exact opposite. To say that this little dude incites violence, you have to interpret everything he said in the worst possible light. He never cheered for violence and cheered for the opposite, so you have to put words in his mouths he not only never said, but which runs at 180 degrees from things he actually said.

He's not a dangerous sociopath trying to get radicals to beat trans people in parks. Did you ever watch him talk about that issue? He routinely says that whatever he thinks of their choices, that doesn't make them any less human and that doesn't grant anyone a right to decide on their behalf what they should do or not do. He also usually adds that he would never misgender someone in private because that's just rude and, every single time he expressed concerns that transitioning won't help most of those people, he also adds that he wishes them the best of luck and can't even begin to understand how horrible it must be to feel like you're in the wrong body... The only thing that little meager dude won't do is lie about his moral views. His basic premise is that, as much as possible, live and let live is a good rule.


You can disagree with Shapiro. You can consider that his arguments aren't solid. You can question the validity of his sources. You can think he overlooks important facts. And you can even think that some people might listen to his claims regarding trans people, for example, and use it in ways that Shapiro never would. All of this is perfectly fine.

What I'm saying is that it's not your place to have him shut up. If you want to shut him up, do your homework, own your debate skills and go challenge him in public. You won't need sticks, just words.

It takes far more time and effort to fact-check his nonsense and in that time he can create 5 more lies and half-truths and then claim that he won the debate when he does by staying 2 steps ahead of the fact-checkers. It's an old tactic. Philosophically it called sophism.
 
Last edited:
He knew exactly what he was doing when he throws bombs, just as the Klan and the Neo-Nazis do. If the cops weren't there to protect him those people would have taken care of him and his followers if it were on equal terms, just as they would to the handful of Klan or Neo-nazis who show up and use racist rants on the courthouse steps. These twits know that the cops will prevent that from happening all the while allowing them to continue their partisan schtick.

Our free speech rights only cover the right not to be arrested or fined by the government for our speech. They don't protect us from others who disagree with them, but the cities have the cops there to prevent the riots from happening that trolls like Milo, Ben, and Ann Coulter seek to start. Maybe if the cops turn their backs while these trolls get what they have coming they would stop trying to claim that they are interested in debate and rational discussion and are outed as the troll that they really are when they insulted and attack people but claim that others can't reply in kind.

So to sum up: you don't like diversity of ideas and will take any legal opportunity to discourage it, and you think speakers you don't like should be violently attacked and not be protected by the police.

You don't deserve America.
 
He can say what he wants but he must be held intellectually accountable and others must be able to fact check him and reply to him. Ben and others of his ilk don't like this and either they won't appear when this is going to be the situation or they run away when ambushed with facts, as he did in the BBC interview.

Here is a video of Ben Shapiro answering questions after his lecture and then letting the original person who asked them follow up, on multiple occasions.



I don't suppose you'll start posting anything truthful in this thread any time soon?
 
Can you provide examples?
Its a political/partisan variation on this idea.........

When was the last time that you had sex with goats and children?
At what age did your father teach you this skill?
How much is your mother paid for oral sex by the UPS guy?

They can also create a strawman and force them to debate the half-truth strawman instead of allowing them to discuss the actual facts behind the fallacious strawman. He does this in machine gun fashion and never gives the person time to reply with a rational response. There is always a sliver a of truth in his claims but 75% of it is either BS talking points or outright lies. He looks intelligent and decisive until you understand the tactic.
 
Here is a video of Ben Shapiro answering questions after his lecture and then letting the original person who asked them follow up, on multiple occasions.



I don't suppose you'll start posting anything truthful in this thread any time soon?


He is creating a strawman from their questions and they aren't fast enough to catch it.
 
He uses the same verbal bomb tossing shtick as they do. I didn't criticize his religious beliefs.

As it turns out, D'Souza interviewed a neo-Nazi -- Richard Spencer. Listen to what he says and then ask yourself if it sounds like what Ben Shapiro is saying.

If you want the resumé, neo-Nazis and white supremacists are identitarians. They think the color of your skin matters deeply. Some of them will add that your sexual orientation, your gender, etc. also matter, hence you will find some of them coming down pretty hard on marginalized groups such as transgender people and homosexuals.

Do you know what is the conservative position? Your race, what you have or not in between your legs, etc. doesn't matter for how I should treat you and for how the government treats you. They tend to criticize transgender people and homosexuality on religious grounds, but it's one thing to say "here is a list of things that I think make for a better life" and saying that if you don't conform, you must be persecuted. Mainstream conservatives don't support treating people differently depending on the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, etc.

The kind of things the Alt-Right wants are incompatible with freedom. It demands a degree of government intervention that would make life a nightmare for everyone all the time. And, frankly, if you want to compare them to someone, compare them to other identitarians. What is the difference between Spencer and people such as Ocasio-Cortez? They disagree on the status of white men relative to other people. Spencer just says "but, you celebrate being black, why can't I celebrate being white?" The problem is that if you agree with the identity politics on the left, you have no reason to encourage segregated group celebrations everywhere except for straight white men. Why don't we host a white pride, straight pride or male pride parade? Because it's racist, homophobic and sexist... Indeed. That's precisely my point. Dividing people up in groups and subgroups IS the essence of discrimination, no matter which group it is.


When people mention "white pride," I feel chills running in my spine. When I read about ideas to have "special" graduation ceremonies only attended by black students in certain colleges, the same thing happens. Chills down the spine.
 
Back
Top Bottom