[scooter]
Footballguy
This article was posted by @Ramsay Hunt Experience in another thread last year. It's long, but it's a good read and it provides some insights into Shapiro's techniques.
Not only move, but sell those houses.Is is he the guy who said people whose homes were being destroyed by climate change could just move?
He seems like a total blowhard.Not only move, but sell those houses.
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.Gonna need to find some sponsors after his "baby Hitler" comments.
Isn’t that a classical philosophical argument? Would you kill baby Hitler?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.
The Twitters had fun with this.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.
In fairness, it seems like you don’t know much about him at all.He seems like a total blowhard.
80s has it right.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.Cjw_55106 said:In fairness, it seems like you don’t know much about him at all.
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.Isn’t that a classical philosophical argument? Would you kill baby Hitler?
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.AOC is afraid to debate him
Not intelluctally honest? Please explain.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.
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.Not intelluctally honest? Please explain.
Cherry picking is widespread when it comes to politics. Shapiro hasn't cornered the marketI’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.
He's a slightly more political and slightly less smug version of Jordan Peterson., but he's not too far off. Not worth engaging.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.
That makes no sense.He's a slightly more political and slightly less smug version of Jordan Peterson., but he's not too far off. Not worth engaging.
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.Cherry picking is widespread when it comes to politics. Shapiro hasn't cornered the market
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?AOC is afraid to debate him
Um, yeah.Cherry picking is widespread when it comes to politics. Shapiro hasn't cornered the marketI’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.
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.That makes no sense.
That's not what win-win or lose-lose mean.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.
He absolutely wasn't.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.
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.He absolutely wasn't.
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.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.
I disagree.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.
Then why did he intentionally deflect and derail the discussion by calling her "Sir"?I disagree.
That has nothing to do with the sir reaction. He was successfully defending his position on the subject. At least to me he was.Then why did he intentionally deflect and derail the discussion by calling her "Sir"?
Yes, but that's win-lose (Shapiro wins and AOC loses), not win-win or lose-lose.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.
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).Yes, but that's win-lose (Shapiro wins and AOC loses), not win-win or lose-lose.
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.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.
Language evolves, dude.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.
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 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.
Agreed on Peterson. His snark is less irksome, and more smug on twitter so I still follow him.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.)
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.What are the thoughts against?
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.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.
So you're saying it's more of a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose kind of situation?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.
I wasn't prepared to answer questions about a book I wrote.