|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On May 11 2019 15:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro. Show nested quote +Isn't it the party of Trump?
Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left?
Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws? Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks. Show nested quote +Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now?
You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions?
Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse?
Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution?
Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much. Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing.
What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview.
It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well.
|
On May 11 2019 15:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 15:09 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro. Isn't it the party of Trump?
Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left?
Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws? Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks. Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now?
You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions?
Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse?
Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution?
Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much. Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing. What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview. It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well.
It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it.
Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view?
|
|
|
On May 11 2019 16:03 JimmiC wrote:
Could you explain what about stratos comments were barbaric?
I do think your post was very telling about you and some honesty. You ask questions not to understand someones views but for gotcha moments so you think this is what others do and should do. It would be nice for a change if your tried the former and answered as if the other was doing the former.
I gather the interviewer doesn't really need to justify the question, so he can fill in whatever abortion policy or religious freedom policy he actually holds.
If he's uncomfortable with gotcha questions, he can show that himself. I rather think he's ready to make a defense given the post. Don't you?
|
On May 11 2019 14:26 Tal wrote:
Shapiro already conceded he didn't prepare and got destroyed:
You know, the really sad part about this when you think about it is, that, regardless of if you like him or not (i don't, though i found the "Boy Scout" bit/meme funny), one has to praise people nowadays for admitting defeat.
Which is funny, because usually the people that argue in that spectrum don't. Even if they're demonstrably wrong, they either move the goalposts or cry "foul play" or fake news, rather than admitting that they're wrong.
So, while i think Shapiro isn't better than any other populist, offering nothing of substance for actual policies, at least he has some form of dignity. Again, something becoming increasingly rare nowadays.
|
It wasn't a competition, he was given a branch for self-reflection by being shown that he fuels the very problem that he cares so much about. Instead, like for most new media wannabe philosophers, it's all a binary who won for him.
Being 'properly prepared' would have meant nothing more than having more personalized attacks on Andrew Neil than 'leftist' and 'i'm more popular than you' to deflect with.
|
Preparing for a debate apparently means something very different to me than it does to you.
To me, preparing means getting facts straight, and more of them. Then preparing for rebuttals on expected answers. Not trying to prepare a "hit job" on whoever i'm arguing with.
|
On May 11 2019 18:29 m4ini wrote:You know, the really sad part about this when you think about it is, that, regardless of if you like him or not (i don't, though i found the "Boy Scout" bit/meme funny), one has to praise people nowadays for admitting defeat. Which is funny, because usually the people that argue in that spectrum don't. Even if they're demonstrably wrong, they either move the goalposts or cry "foul play" or fake news, rather than admitting that they're wrong. So, while i think Shapiro isn't better than any other populist, offering nothing of substance for actual policies, at least he has some form of dignity. Again, something becoming increasingly rare nowadays.
Reportedly (I haven't read the book obviously), that's actually something that he talks about in his book on how to DESTROY the leftists. In situations where the stakes are small, admit defeat sometimes: you have nothing to lose, and it makes the normies more likely to think you're invested in finding the truth.
|
On May 11 2019 21:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 18:29 m4ini wrote:You know, the really sad part about this when you think about it is, that, regardless of if you like him or not (i don't, though i found the "Boy Scout" bit/meme funny), one has to praise people nowadays for admitting defeat. Which is funny, because usually the people that argue in that spectrum don't. Even if they're demonstrably wrong, they either move the goalposts or cry "foul play" or fake news, rather than admitting that they're wrong. So, while i think Shapiro isn't better than any other populist, offering nothing of substance for actual policies, at least he has some form of dignity. Again, something becoming increasingly rare nowadays. Reportedly (I haven't read the book obviously), that's actually something that he talks about in his book on how to DESTROY the leftists. In situations where the stakes are small, admit defeat sometimes: you have nothing to lose, and it makes the normies more likely to think you're invested in finding the truth.
In this case the stakes are relatively high though. I think it's worth assuming good intentions, and saying he genuinely admitted he performed badly. Which is a point in his favour. Unlike the interview.
|
On May 11 2019 20:11 m4ini wrote:
Preparing for a debate apparently means something very different to me than it does to you.
To me, preparing means getting facts straight, and more of them. Then preparing for rebuttals on expected answers. Not trying to prepare a "hit job" on whoever i'm arguing with.
Which just shows how out of his depth this was because it wasn't a debate, it was an interview. The only thing "preparing" would have done is have him understand how the BBC works and that he can't just cry leftist wolf.
|
On May 11 2019 22:12 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 21:06 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 18:29 m4ini wrote:You know, the really sad part about this when you think about it is, that, regardless of if you like him or not (i don't, though i found the "Boy Scout" bit/meme funny), one has to praise people nowadays for admitting defeat. Which is funny, because usually the people that argue in that spectrum don't. Even if they're demonstrably wrong, they either move the goalposts or cry "foul play" or fake news, rather than admitting that they're wrong. So, while i think Shapiro isn't better than any other populist, offering nothing of substance for actual policies, at least he has some form of dignity. Again, something becoming increasingly rare nowadays. Reportedly (I haven't read the book obviously), that's actually something that he talks about in his book on how to DESTROY the leftists. In situations where the stakes are small, admit defeat sometimes: you have nothing to lose, and it makes the normies more likely to think you're invested in finding the truth. In this case the stakes are relatively high though. I think it's worth assuming good intentions, and saying he genuinely admitted he performed badly. Which is a point in his favour. Unlike the interview.
I dunno, the stakes with regards to a BBC interview aren't especially high and given that "admit defeat on small stuff to seem reasonable" is a stated strategy of Shapiro's, I don't see why anyone would give him the benefit of the doubt. In fact, this scenario, when viewed alongside his "strategy," is a good bit on why these performance pieces have nothing to do with legitimate public discussion. They are a component of the shock debate game that has luckily started to dwindle after some years of prominence.
|
Standard TV interviews in the UK are known to be pretty intense. The viewer doesn't get to see it but every single dirty trick is played to try and make the other guy look bad (not that Shapiro needed any help with that haha). Getting a viral vid like this with Shapiro would absolutely have been the objective beforehand.
Its not like going on the Dave Rubin show where you can tell him that his sexuality will send him to hell and he just keeps smiling blankly at you.
|
On May 11 2019 15:12 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I like Andrew Yang, he is very interesting in his ideas, and nobody else is talking about universal basic income as a leading issue. Eventually we will all have to get there as automation removes the ability for poeople to create meaningful income.
But I do think it's a little premature. Though... Universal basic income I think would seriously inject the economy and keep it strong for a long time.
Keeping all that in mind,l Bernie 2020.
I work with robotic arms in a factory all day, i talked with integrators and engineers it'd still be a long time before we could somehow eliminate the remaining industrial jobs. Making something even if one step uses a robot there are 10 steps before that step and 10 steps after that you either need to automate as well or just have a person do it. Automation frees up available man hours to expand productivity, there will still be a need for a minimum amount of people. Increased productivity will lead to jobs somewhere eventually at least for the foreseeable future. A progressive tax to reduce the concentrated wealth is far more relevant to today than worrying about automation "killing" jobs.
On May 11 2019 15:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 15:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 11 2019 15:09 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro. Isn't it the party of Trump?
Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left?
Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws? Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks. Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now?
You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions?
Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse?
Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution?
Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much. Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing. What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview. It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well. It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it. Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view?
It's not a debate it's an interview, they were never competing. You get asked about a perceived barbarity in your stance, you comment, "well i wouldn't agree with you that it's barbaric and here is why" The interviewer isn't being aggressive he's more than willing to take most answers with little follow up. Thinking that a question equates to a debate would mean the moderator of a debate is also a debater. Absurd.
Interviews ask probing questions, i know a lot of interviews here in the US tend to be how far can the interviewer jam themselves up the interviewee arse but not everyone around the world think that counts as an interview. You wouldn't go to a job interview then call them a leftist when challenged on your ideas, it was never a debate to begin with it's a get to know you moment.
|
On May 12 2019 00:01 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 15:12 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I like Andrew Yang, he is very interesting in his ideas, and nobody else is talking about universal basic income as a leading issue. Eventually we will all have to get there as automation removes the ability for poeople to create meaningful income.
But I do think it's a little premature. Though... Universal basic income I think would seriously inject the economy and keep it strong for a long time.
Keeping all that in mind,l Bernie 2020. I work with robotic arms in a factory all day, i talked with integrators and engineers it'd still be a long time before we could somehow eliminate the remaining industrial jobs. Making something even if one step uses a robot there are 10 steps before that step and 10 steps after that you either need to automate as well or just have a person do it. Automation frees up available man hours to expand productivity, there will still be a need for a minimum amount of people. Increased productivity will lead to jobs somewhere eventually at least for the foreseeable future. A progressive tax to reduce the concentrated wealth is far more relevant to today than worrying about automation "killing" jobs. Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 15:49 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 15:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 11 2019 15:09 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro. Isn't it the party of Trump?
Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left?
Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws? Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks. Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now?
You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions?
Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse?
Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution?
Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much. Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing. What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview. It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well. It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it. Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view? It's not a debate it's an interview, they were never competing. You get asked about a perceived barbarity in your stance, you comment, "well i wouldn't agree with you that it's barbaric and here is why" The interviewer isn't being aggressive he's more than willing to take most answers with little follow up. Thinking that a question equates to a debate would mean the moderator of a debate is also a debater. Absurd. Interviews ask probing questions, i know a lot of interviews here in the US tend to be how far can the interviewer jam themselves up the interviewee arse but not everyone around the world think that counts as an interview. You wouldn't go to a job interview then call them a leftist when challenged on your ideas, it was never a debate to begin with it's a get to know you moment.
The main post is my one prior, that was specifically answering stratos_spear’s concerns. The nuance of my full response and the questions that brought me there are more helpful to understand my position.
|
On May 11 2019 20:11 m4ini wrote:
Preparing for a debate apparently means something very different to me than it does to you.
To me, preparing means getting facts straight, and more of them. Then preparing for rebuttals on expected answers. Not trying to prepare a "hit job" on whoever i'm arguing with.
We're talking about a guy that said the point of a debate is humiliating your opponent. In this case it wasn't a debate and he didn't have an opponent and that's still what he went for because it's the only thing in his arsenal
|
On May 11 2019 15:49 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 15:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 11 2019 15:09 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro. Isn't it the party of Trump?
Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left?
Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws? Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks. Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now?
You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions?
Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse?
Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution?
Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much. Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing. What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview. It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well. It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it. Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view?
Except that 99% of the time when someone labels it a "gotcha moment", it's actually a legitimate question and they're just trying to deflect and run from responsibility.
I'm assuming your snide 2nd paragraph was trying to hit me with prior posts of mine. Assuming those are comments of mine that you dug up, I have nothing to defend because you are 1) mind-numbingly arrogant and 2) obscenely hypocritical. I don't recall calling you "anti-scientific"; you come across as insidiously apathetic to science in favor or your political views, so I guess I'll correct myself there. I guess I wouldn't call you a nutjob either, moreso extremely selfish and disingenuous when it comes to politics, much akin to Shapiro.
The difference you fail to realize is that you're not interviewing me. We're on a forum. Shapiro agreed to an interview and looked like a fool for acting in such a childish manner and refusing to take responsibility for past comments.
|
On May 12 2019 02:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2019 15:49 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 15:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 11 2019 15:09 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro. Isn't it the party of Trump?
Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left?
Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws? Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks. Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now?
You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions?
Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse?
Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution?
Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much. Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing. What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview. It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well. It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it. Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view? Except that 99% of the time when someone labels it a "gotcha moment", it's actually a legitimate question and they're just trying to deflect and run from responsibility. I'm assuming your snide 2nd paragraph was trying to hit me with prior posts of mine. Assuming those are comments of mine that you dug up, I have nothing to defend because you are 1) mind-numbingly arrogant and 2) obscenely hypocritical. I don't recall calling you "anti-scientific"; you come across as insidiously apathetic to science in favor or your political views, so I guess I'll correct myself there. I guess I wouldn't call you a nutjob either, moreso an extremely selfish and disingenuous pseudo-intellectual, much akin to Shapiro. The difference you fail to realize is that you're not interviewing me. We're on a forum. Shapiro agreed to an interview and looked like a fool for acting in such a childish manner and refusing to take responsibility for past comments.
I used them as an exercise to see if you're universally in favor of gotchas ... I mean legitimate questions over your former posting ... and I find your logic faulty. Well, it really matters who's doing the characterization. If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
|
On May 12 2019 02:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2019 02:05 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 11 2019 15:49 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 15:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 11 2019 15:09 Danglars wrote:On May 11 2019 09:35 Nebuchad wrote:On May 11 2019 09:25 Mohdoo wrote:
Ben Shapiro getting eviscerated on BBC is a life highlight for me. Oh man + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism" He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro. Isn't it the party of Trump?
Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left?
Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws? Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks. Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now?
You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions?
Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse?
Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution?
Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much. Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing. What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview. It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well. It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it. Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view? Except that 99% of the time when someone labels it a "gotcha moment", it's actually a legitimate question and they're just trying to deflect and run from responsibility. I'm assuming your snide 2nd paragraph was trying to hit me with prior posts of mine. Assuming those are comments of mine that you dug up, I have nothing to defend because you are 1) mind-numbingly arrogant and 2) obscenely hypocritical. I don't recall calling you "anti-scientific"; you come across as insidiously apathetic to science in favor or your political views, so I guess I'll correct myself there. I guess I wouldn't call you a nutjob either, moreso an extremely selfish and disingenuous pseudo-intellectual, much akin to Shapiro. The difference you fail to realize is that you're not interviewing me. We're on a forum. Shapiro agreed to an interview and looked like a fool for acting in such a childish manner and refusing to take responsibility for past comments. I used them as an exercise to see if you're universally in favor of gotchas ... I mean legitimate questions over your former posting ... and I find your logic faulty. Well, it really matters who's doing the characterization. If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
If this were an interview where Stratos were calling for more sensitive treatment of Danglars, I would totally understand bringing those comments up as an opportunity for the other person to be like "yeah, that stuff I used to say is at odds with what I think now, because I've come around in X fashion". Notice Shapiro completely whiffed that opportunity yesterday.
But you do your usual false equivalence thing.
|
I don't get it. Do interviews work differently for political advocates in the USA or something?
Do they not ask questions to see the interviewee's view or something?
Are you telling me that when I see Trump rambling on about something insane in a press conference and no-one interrupts him or he just ignores questions, my assumption that this behaviour was the exception not the norm for USA was wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
