Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
IC FBGCav

Thoughts on Ben Shapiro?

Recommended Posts

Is is he the guy who said people whose homes were being destroyed by climate change could just move? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Is is he the guy who said people whose homes were being destroyed by climate change could just move? 

Not only move, but sell those houses.

Share this post


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

Not only move, but sell those houses.

He seems like a total blowhard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cody Johnston at Some More News had a great bit on Shapiro's garbage arguments.

Share this post


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

Gonna need to find some sponsors after his "baby Hitler" comments. 

Such a weird series of events. Goes on some tangent about how he wouldn’t abort baby Hitler, then starts reading an ad for a toothbrush brand (because this is both a speech and a live podcast episode), then the toothbrush brand drops him later that day. :lmao: 

In some other thread I remember Maurile describing Shapiro as “a dumb person’s idea of a smart person” and that remains one of the best descriptions of him I’ve seen.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Giving a speech to an anti-abortion rights crowd, he said he wouldn't kill baby hitler. Makes sense to me, he probably wouldn't kill adult hitler either.

Isn’t that a classical philosophical argument?  Would you kill baby Hitler?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

He seems like a total blowhard.

In fairness, it seems like you don’t know much about him at all.

Edited by Cjw_55106

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s okay for someone not to favor killing babies. I mean, someone may be wrong for not wanting to kill a specific baby in some particular situation, but if so, it seems like a pretty forgivable thing to be wrong about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cjw_55106 said:

In fairness, it seems like you don’t know much about him at all.

80s has it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cjw_55106 said:

In fairness, it seems like you don’t know much about him at all.

I was joking in my previous post, I know exactly who he is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2019 at 9:45 PM, Rove! said:

Isn’t that a classical philosophical argument?  Would you kill baby Hitler?  

Yes, it is.  It's a deontological/Kantian v. utilitarian ethics argument.  Oddly, Shapiro seems more in line with the latter than the former with most of his other positions. But, he certainly won't ever kill an unborn baby even if it's soon-to-be baby Hitler. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

AOC is afraid to debate him :)

I wouldn’t debate him either. I’ve seen his “debates.”  I don’t think he’s intellectually honest, and stay away from trying to argue with such people. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I wouldn’t debate him either. I’ve seen his “debates.”  I don’t think he’s intellectually honest, and stay away from trying to argue with such people. 

Not intelluctally honest?  Please explain.

Share this post


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

Not intelluctally honest?  Please explain.

I’ve seen him argue against “feminist” ideas by taking the worst quotes from so called feminists and attributing them to all feminists. It’s not a good look. 

Maybe he only did it hat once (I don’t follow him really), but I doubt it. The article posted at the top of the page gives other examples. Mainly, it appears, by cherry-picking statistics/studies he likes and pretending statistics/studies he doesn’t like don’t exist. He shouldn’t do that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I’ve seen him argue against “feminist” ideas by taking the worst quotes from so called feminists and attributing them to all feminists. It’s not a good look. 

Maybe he only did it hat once (I don’t follow him really), but I doubt it. The article posted at the top of the page gives other examples. Mainly, it appears, by cherry-picking statistics/studies he likes and pretending statistics/studies he doesn’t like don’t exist. He shouldn’t do that. 

Cherry picking is widespread when it comes to politics.  Shapiro hasn't cornered the market

Share this post


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

I wouldn’t debate him either. I’ve seen his “debates.”  I don’t think he’s intellectually honest, and stay away from trying to argue with such people. 

He's a slightly more political and slightly less smug version of Jordan Peterson., but he's not too far off.  Not worth engaging. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:

He's a slightly more political and slightly less smug version of Jordan Peterson., but he's not too far off.  Not worth engaging. 

That makes no sense.

Share this post


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

Cherry picking is widespread when it comes to politics.  Shapiro hasn't cornered the market

No but legit debates that type of stuff is left at home. If you are interested, intelligent squared has cool debate pods where it is often progressive/conservative types get together and debate respectfully. And if someone goes off the reservation, the audience, hosts and opponents call them out.

Share this post


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

AOC is afraid to debate him :)

Apparently "debates" are the new thing privileged white guys feel entitled to get from younger women.  Or maybe I missed all the times Shapiro sought to debate Bernie Sanders?

Don't get me wrong, it's a childish and stupid request anyway, a win-win for the requester and a lose-lose for the subject no matter what the parties' respective genders, races, political parties, etc. And I certainly see why it's such a popular tactic for the Fox News crowd, who sees politics as inconsequential sport where one side wins and the other loses instead of a multifaceted struggle over the implementation of real policies that affect real lives. But the Shaprio-AOC nonsense definitely had a gender dynamic to it too.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JohnnyU said:
5 hours ago, Sweet J said:

I’ve seen him argue against “feminist” ideas by taking the worst quotes from so called feminists and attributing them to all feminists. It’s not a good look. 

Maybe he only did it hat once (I don’t follow him really), but I doubt it. The article posted at the top of the page gives other examples. Mainly, it appears, by cherry-picking statistics/studies he likes and pretending statistics/studies he doesn’t like don’t exist. He shouldn’t do that. 

Cherry picking is widespread when it comes to politics.  Shapiro hasn't cornered the market

Um, yeah.

Cherry picking is widespread.

And that's exactly why AOC should not endorse or enable it.

 

Share this post


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

That makes no sense.

Yes it does. He needs the publicity, she doesn't, so why engage him? And it wouldn't advance her political career one iota even if she mopped the floor with him. The only debate or discussion I saw with him was on Dr. Phil on a panel with transgender Zoe Tur (Katy Tur's biological father) on transgender or LGBT rights. He was losing the argument, then addressed her as "Sir" was meant to antagonize her and was completely uncalled for on his part.

Edited by squistion
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Don't get me wrong, it's a childish and stupid request anyway, a win-win for the requester and a lose-lose for the subject no matter what the parties' respective genders, races, political parties, etc.

That's not what win-win or lose-lose mean. ;)

I'd personally like to see a debate between them, although "debate" seems overly formal and competitive. I'd like to see a discussion between them. But it's totally unnecessary. They both have their own platforms. There's no real need for them to intersect other than for our entertainment. And really, I'm happier watching AOC on The Colbert Show than I'd be listening to her on Shapiro's podcast.

But in no way do I think it's improper for Shapiro to invite her to a debate. Obviously she's free to say no, and once she says no, he should drop it. The "she's afraid to debate him" stuff is nonsense. But the initial invitation does not merit criticism, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben Shapiro Loses Third Advertiser Over ‘Baby Hitler’ Remarks

Saucey, a Los Angeles-based alcohol-delivery company, will no longer advertise on Ben Shapiro’s podcast after the conservative commentator recorded an episode at the anti-abortion March for Life event on Friday, where he said that “No pro-life person would kill baby Hitler. Baby Hitler was a baby.”

A spokesperson for the company told TheWrap that it will no longer advertise on Shapiro’s show.

Saucey is the third company to pull its ads from Shapiro’s podcast in recent days. Quip, a Brooklyn-based subscription toothbrush company, was the first to pull its advertising on Friday, followed by the meditation app Calm on Saturday.

“Our mission is to make good oral health more accessible to everyone, and podcast advertising is one way we’re able to realize this,” Quip said in a statement.

“However, following one of our ads being read in a venue we did not endorse, we have chosen to discontinue our advertising relationship with this show,” the company continued. “We are also taking steps to ensure all of our advertising partners are aligned with our oral health mission and values.”

Calm announced its move to drop Shapiro’s show on Twitter, stating simply the company does “not align with this message. We’re pulling our sponsorship.”

Shapiro, who is an Orthodox Jew, drew criticism during a speech at the March for Life Rally over the weekend, when he said that he was so pro-life he would not “kill baby Hitler.”

The Daily Wire founder read ads for Quip toothbrushes and ZipRecruiter at the rally, which led Quip and Calm to drop him.

Shapiro did not immediately respond to a request for comment through his site on Tuesday. ZipRecruiter also did not respond to TheWrap’s request for comment.

 

Share this post


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

Yes it does. He needs the publicity, she doesn't, so why engage him? And it wouldn't advance her political career one iota even if she mopped the floor with him. The only debate or discussion I saw with him was on Dr. Phil on a panel with transgender Zoe Tur (Katy Tur's biological father) on transgender or LGBT rights. He was losing the argument, then addressed her as "Sir" was meant to antagonize her and was completely uncalled for on his part.

He absolutely wasn't.

Share this post


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

He absolutely wasn't.

Proof that he was losing is shown by his deflecting the discussion by calling her "Sir" and that derailed the show right there. If indeed he was winning everyone forgot what he said before that and it is now all that remembered about that show. This is why is doing podcasts instead of being on Fox.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

That's not what win-win or lose-lose mean. ;)

I'd personally like to see a debate between them, although "debate" seems overly formal and competitive. I'd like to see a discussion between them. But it's totally unnecessary. They both have their own platforms. There's no real need for them to intersect other than for our entertainment. And really, I'm happier watching AOC on The Colbert Show than I'd be listening to her on Shapiro's podcast.

But in no way do I think it's improper for Shapiro to invite her to a debate. Obviously she's free to say no, and once she says no, he should drop it. The "she's afraid to debate him" stuff is nonsense. But the initial invitation does not merit criticism, IMO.

The win/win and lose/lose dynamic regards whether the debate actually happens or not.  If the members says no they’re a coward. And if they say yes they're set up to lose because it’s not their format and because pundits don’t have the added criticism and limitations that come w public service.  

And then obviously that flip/flops from the pundit standpoint, plus they get the PR either way if the public and other media treat it as a “thing” rather than a transparent ploy.

Share this post


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

Proof that he was losing is shown by his deflecting the discussion by calling her "Sir" and that derailed the show right there. If indeed he was winning everyone forgot what he said before that and it is now all that remembered about that show. This is why is doing podcasts instead of being on Fox.

I disagree.

Share this post


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

I disagree.

Then why did he intentionally  deflect and derail the discussion by calling her "Sir"?

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, squistion said:

Then why did he intentionally  deflect and derail the discussion by calling her "Sir"?

That has nothing to do with the sir reaction.  He was successfully defending his position on the subject.  At least to me he was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

The win/win and lose/lose dynamic regards whether the debate actually happens or not.  If the members says no they’re a coward. And if they say yes they're set up to lose because it’s not their format and because pundits don’t have the added criticism and limitations that come w public service.  

And then obviously that flip/flops from the pundit standpoint, plus they get the PR either way if the public and other media treat it as a “thing” rather than a transparent ploy.

Yes, but that's win-lose (Shapiro wins and AOC loses), not win-win or lose-lose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yes, but that's win-lose (Shapiro wins and AOC loses), not win-win or lose-lose.

I think we are getting too far down the semantic rabbit hole, but I think he’s saying that Shapiro “wins” even if he loses the debate, because he gets the free publicity (so he either “win” the debate or he “wins” the publicity - hence the win-win). 

Conversely, AOC “loses” even if she nominally wins the debate, (I guess because she has lowered herself to his level?), hence the lose-lose. 

So Shapiro wins regardless of the actual debate, and AOC loses.  

Edited by Sweet J
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think we are getting too far down the semantic rabbit hole, but I think he’s saying that Shapiro “wins” even if he loses the debate, because he gets the free publicity (so he either “win” the debate or he “wins” the publicity - hence the win-win). 

Conversely, AOC “loses” even if she nominally wins the debate, (I guess because she has lowered herself to his level?), hence the lose-lose. 

So Shapiro wins regardless of the actual debate, and AOC loses.  

Right, I know what he means and I’m just being pedantic, but that’s not how the payoff tables are structured. Win-win is a term from game theory meaning that Player 1 and Player 2 both receive positive outcomes.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Right, I know what he means and I’m just being pedantic, but that’s not how the payoff tables are structured. Win-win is a term from game theory meaning that Player 1 and Player 2 both receive positive outcomes.

Language evolves, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Shapiro is interesting to listen to.  I enjoy his in-person discussions with folks, but am not a fan of his twitter persona.  I followed him for a while and he took too many cheap shots for me to continue following him.

In person though, he's pretty engaging and has some interesting perspectives.

Share this post


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

I think Shapiro is interesting to listen to.  I enjoy his in-person discussions with folks, but am not a fan of his twitter persona.  I followed him for a while and he took too many cheap shots for me to continue following him.

In person though, he's pretty engaging and has some interesting perspectives.

I agree that he's annoying on Twitter. I follow him because I need some conservative voices in my feed who aren't never-Trumpers (Shapiro is a "sometimes-Trumper"), and Shapiro is way more consistent and principled than most of the alternatives. I think he genuinely tries to avoid hypocrisy. But he offers way more irksome snark than I'd prefer.

I've never listened to his podcast, but I've heard him a few times on other people's podcasts, and while I disagree with him about nearly everything interesting, I do admire his efforts to engage with difficult issues rather than evading them, and to remain cordial to his interlocutors. He doesn't interrupt or cut people off, and he makes an honest effort not to mischaracterize other people's positions. That goes a long way in my view.

(I'd describe Jordan Peterson in much the same way, except that I'm completely unaware of Peterson's Twitter presence if he has one.)

Share this post


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

I agree that he's annoying on Twitter. I follow him because I need some conservative voices in my feed who aren't never-Trumpers (Shapiro is a "sometimes-Trumper"), and Shapiro is way more consistent and principled than most of the alternatives. I think he genuinely tries to avoid hypocrisy. But he offers way more irksome snark than I'd prefer.

I've never listened to his podcast, but I've heard him a few times on other people's podcasts, and while I disagree with him about nearly everything interesting, I do admire his efforts to engage with difficult issues rather than evading them, and to remain cordial to his interlocutors. He doesn't interrupt or cut people off, and he makes an honest effort not to mischaracterize other people's positions. That goes a long way in my view.

(I'd describe Jordan Peterson in much the same way, except that I'm completely unaware of Peterson's Twitter presence if he has one.)

Agreed on Peterson.  His snark is less irksome, and more smug on twitter so I still follow him.

Both interesting conservative thinkers worth listening to.

Share this post


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

What are the thoughts against?

Twitter snark.  I follow him too because he RTs stuff of interest to me, but way too much of his own material involves him DESTROYING some random nimrod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 9:52 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

Twitter snark.  I follow him too because he RTs stuff of interest to me, but way too much of his own material involves him DESTROYING some random nimrod.

Oh he plays down no doubt. I kind of like the guy. He isnt far right and he can debate. He might be a better debater than a politician, but he seems worth exploring.

 

Edited by Max Power

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hes a very intelligent guy, conservative but not ultra right.  Definitely trolls or flames here and there but hes a media personality and is trying to increase viewership...One way to do that is to be controversial to get attention.

I'm not totally against this stance that those going through gender dysphoria could have underlying mental illnesses.  He pushes that really hard though and he does it knowing it will offend people.  However his basic argument is if you want to transition from a man to a woman, you are free to do so however that doesn't give you the right to force me to call you something i don't believe you are.

I don't think hes a racist though.   We use that term way too freely I think anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 10:24 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

Right, I know what he means and I’m just being pedantic, but that’s not how the payoff tables are structured. Win-win is a term from game theory meaning that Player 1 and Player 2 both receive positive outcomes.

So you're saying it's more of a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose kind of situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.