TV: Real Time With Bill Maher has fallen off a cliff

[tacogeoff]

Agree. Ben Shapiro's appearance has been one of the most viewed.
o.

.

That was a fun one to watch. Maher went out of his league with that one and looked a bit foolish but it was a highly entertaining episode that highlights his smugness while being crushed in an intellectual debate.

 

[Stylizer1]

In these times headlines have become more ridiculous. His show relies on them now. That turns people off. He gets all huffy far too often when people makes country points that go against his target audience. He's not impartial or effective in moderating good discussion.

 

[Beau Knows]

Maher is obnoxious.

Shapiro is completely uninteresting in finding or telling the truth, all he cares about is "debating".

He'll manipulate quotes or numbers, purposeful ignore any evidence that goes against what he already believes and always find a way to justify why he's right. He'll claim that facts don't care about your feelings, but then he'll openly base his views on what his religion tells him instead of what the facts say, since "god doesn't make stupid laws" and not see the irony in any of that.

 

[Jussi]

he sure did with bill lol. bill is a nice guy and all but not a very good at talking politics.

No he didn't LOL.

 

[tacogeoff]

No he didn't LOL.

uh huh...… sure...….

 

[Shareefruck]

It's painfully obvious that Shapiro starts from his preconceived conclusion and disingenuously reverse engineers the closest thing he can find to a logical argument for it (using typical debate tactics whenever that isn't possible), rather than being genuinely interested in any sort of truth.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Imagine reading Shapiro's comments in this very thread and going with 'standard run of the mill conservative' and 'different world view'. Woof.

He's taken back at least some of the stuff you included. And sure, different world view, like his take on homosexuality that I view as very silly. It's genuine view though, he didn't reverse engineer to make a political point. I'd show you the JRE clips about his views and how Rogan called him out, but we shouldn't be posting those clips.

And like I said, I disagree with plenty on him, so not sure what your point with all this is.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

He's taken back at least some of the stuff you included. And sure, different world view, like his take on homosexuality that I view as very silly. It's genuine view though, he didn't reverse engineer to make a political point.

And like I said, I disagree with plenty on him, so not sure what your point with all this is.

Yeah, no shit, it's a different world view. But I'm getting the impression that you're talking about this guy like his views areas equally valid to hold as the opposite, which I just find laughable and offensive. AFAIK, the only thing he clearly walked back on was not caring about civilian casulties (lol) in 2002 but forgive me for not really buying it considering his views and comments in the subsequent years.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, no shit, it's a different world view. But I'm getting the impression that you're talking about this guy like his views areas equally valid to hold as the opposite, which I just find laughable and offensive. AFAIK, the only thing he clearly walked back on was not caring about civilian casulties (lol) in 2002 but forgive me for not really buying it considering his views and comments in the subsequent years.

You and others make bad assumptions trying to assign beliefs to posters. I've said I disagree with him plenty, given a specific example, and have said I don't care to go deep on it because it'll all get nuked anyway. We both know how all these discussions always end up, you especially should know.

Apparently it's paywalled now, but he had a list of all the dumb things he's done in the past. Like I said, I disagree with him on a lot, so I'm not going to get in a debate with you about him. That would just be a waste of time since it's not even someone that I overwhelmingly agree with.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

You and others make bad assumptions trying to assign beliefs to posters. I've said I disagree with him plenty, given a specific example, and have said I don't care to go deep on it because it'll all get nuked anyway. We both know how all these discussions always end up, you especially should know.

Apparently it's paywalled now, but he had a list of all the dumb things he's done in the past. Like I said, I disagree with him on a lot, so I'm not going to get in a debate with you about him. That would just be a waste of time since it's not even someone that I overwhelmingly agree with.

Forgive me if that was the case but surely you can see how one would get that impression when the formula looks like: List of incredibly racist and inflammatory remarks --- 'He really triggers you guys huh? I don't agree with him, but he's just a run of the mill conservative with a different world view.' Like, it's that weird that I think even if you disagree with him, you going with the 'Both sides' treatment is not you giving validity to the way he thinks?

 

[Shareefruck]

He's just your standard run of the mill conservative that talks fast and tends to be prepared. It's less confirmation bias, and more just different world view. Now that world view might be wrong, depends on the issue.

I can accept that difference about conservatives in general, but I don't buy the authenticity/good faith arguing of Ben Shapiro for a second, personally. He kind of wears his biases on his sleeve, but does so under the guise of logical robot-fact-man.

I could buy that argument for someone like Peterson, though (even though he doesn't consider himself conservative).

 

[bleedblue1223]

I can accept that difference about conservatives in general, but I don't buy the authenticity/good faith arguing of Ben Shapiro for a second, personally.

I could buy that argument for someone like Peterson, though.

Fair enough. To me what you were describing is more of a Dave Rubin type. Rubin is grifter to me, but Shapiro is more genuine as a religious conservative.

 

[Shareefruck]

Fair enough. To me what you were describing is more of a Dave Rubin type. Rubin is grifter to me, but Shapiro is more genuine as a religious conservative.

Few people in this world are more gutless and unprincipled than Dave Rubin, I will grant you that.

And I will also say that part of what makes Shapiro worse is that his reputation conflicts so hard with what he actually is. The robot-logic man schtick heightens how bad his disingenuousness comes across, IMO.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Few people in this world are more gutless and unprincipled than Dave Rubin, I will grant you that.

And I will also say that part of what makes Shapiro worse is that his reputation conflicts so hard with what he actually is. The robot-logic man schtick heightens how bad his disingenuousness comes across, IMO.

What things do you view as disingenuous, just curious. Just ask, because when I hear him, I tend to take him as genuine and just either as right or wrong.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Forgive me if that was the case but surely you can see how one would get that impression when the formula looks like: List of incredibly racist and inflammatory remarks --- 'He really triggers you guys huh? I don't agree with him, but he's just a run of the mill conservative with a different world view.' Like, it's that weird that I think even if you disagree with him, you going with the 'Both sides' treatment is not you giving validity to the way he thinks?

Where did I say "both sides", that's in your head. There are plenty views that mainstream left and right hold that I don't really think are that valid. There are plenty of views that Shapiro holds that are not really that valid. What I see is many of his critics act like he has way more influence than he really does. You don't see the same type of response from his equivalent on the left, whether it's Cenk or someone else, so yes, he's triggering for some reason.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Where did I say "both sides", that's in your head. There are plenty views that mainstream left and right hold that I don't really think are that valid. There are plenty of views that Shapiro holds that are not really that valid. What I see is many of his critics act like he has way more influence than he really does. You don't see the same type of response from his equivalent on the left, whether it's Cenk or someone else, so yes, he's triggering for some reason.

Whatever, if you can't see it, you can't see it. I don't really care about the influence he has. He's also arrogant with a disingenous demeanor and that's not even my gripe either. I care that he holds hateful views. Cenk Uygur is a fool too but he's not as ill-spirited as Shapiro.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Whatever, if you can't see it, you can't see it. I don't really care about the influence he has. He's also arrogant with a disingenous demeanor and that's not even my gripe either. I care that he holds hateful views. Cenk Uygur is a fool too but he's not as ill-spirited as Shapiro.

Can't see what? Just say what you actually want to say instead of always doing this sort of talk.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Can't see what? Just say what you actually want to say instead of always doing this sort of talk.

?

I made my position clear from the start.

'But I'm getting the impression that you're talking about this guy like his views areas equally valid to hold as the opposite, which I just find laughable and offensive. '

 

[bleedblue1223]

?

I made my position clear from the start.

'But I'm getting the impression that you're talking about this guy like his views areas equally valid to hold as the opposite, which I just find laughable and offensive. '

And I never made that argument, it's only in your head. When I say I disagree with him on a lot, it doesn't mean, I disagree with him, but I think his views are actually equal to what I agree with.

 

[Shareefruck]

What things do you view as disingenuous, just curious. Just ask, because when I hear him, I tend to take him as genuine and just either as right or wrong.

I don't have any examples off hand-- the thing is, unlike guys like Rubin, he's smart enough that he doesn't make many huge gaping obvious mistakes, I can give some him credit for that-- but almost every time I've seen him talk about anything, I always notice wormy micro-deflections, selective arguments, and an unwillingness to explore areas earnestly-- his religious arguments in particular take huge reaches and detours to get to where he needs to go (in ways that his more agreeable arguments don't), and there's always that underlying smarminess and contempt/delight that he takes in calling things out that really betray the notion that he's really interested in getting to the bottom of something, rather than just pushing what he's selling by any means necessary and winning the narrative. Most people who are genuinely interested in the truth and good faith arguments would express frustration where he expresses contempt and vitriol, IMO.

Is it possible that he's authentic and each question-mark can be explained away in some way? Sure, I guess. But the whole package that he presents is a little too convenient to buy, IMO.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

And I never made that argument, it's only in your head. When I say I disagree with him on a lot, it doesn't mean, I disagree with him, but I think his views are actually equal to what I agree with.

And thus, if you can't see how I get that impression, it's fine and you just can't see it. I explained why I saw it that way. I wasn't being obscure - at all. It's funny that you insinuated that I was.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I don't have any examples off hand-- the thing is, unlike guys like Rubin, he's smart enough that he doesn't make many huge gaping obvious mistakes, I can give some him credit for that-- but almost every time I've seen him talk about anything, I always notice wormy micro-deflections, selective arguments, and an unwillingness to explore areas earnestly (that based on his talent/arguing ability, are clearly beneath his intellect)-- his religious arguments in particular take huge reaches and detours to get to where he needs to go, and there's always that underlying smarminess and contempt/delight that he takes in calling things out that really betray the notion that he's really interested in getting to the bottom of something, rather than just pushing what he's selling by any means necessary. Most people who are genuinely interested in the truth and good faith arguments would express frustration where he expresses contempt, IMO.

I see what you are saying on some of the arguments you makes based on religion. Rogan did a good job of showing his flaws there. I guess I take him as being genuine in believing what he believes, but it's just a bad or silly view. The others stuff I think is a fault of how he rose, through those college youtube clips, which is just a bad format, but it gets clicks.

 

[bleedblue1223]

And thus, if you can't see how I get that impression, it's fine and you just can't see it. I explained why I saw it that way. I wasn't being obscure - at all. It's funny that you insinuated that I was.

You just think that because I don't take Cody Johnston seriously or your few examples and say that Shapiro is 100% bad because of them, then I must be saying that his views are valid and just the other side.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Oh well, this was mostly a waste of time, back to Bill Maher stuff.

 

[Shareefruck]

I see what you are saying on some of the arguments you makes based on religion. Rogan did a good job of showing his flaws there. I guess I take him as being genuine in believing what he believes, but it's just a bad or silly view. The others stuff I think is a fault of how he rose, through those college youtube clips, which is just a bad format, but it gets clicks.

Even just on a base level, I don't think someone interested in organic exploration of a subject would suddenly wear a "u mad bro?" look on his face the moment he starts gaining the upper hand, which happens way too often with Shapiro to take his sincerity seriously (the demeanor he has beneath the arguments gives off borderline Crowder-esque vibes). Exacerbated frustration in the face of stupidity is one thing.

It's less his positions themselves that bother me, but the convenience that all the chips just happen to land that way for him, always, and the way he reacts and responds to dissent (and some of the deceptive ways he rationalizes those positions).