Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah DarthSkywalker0 just kinda shits on literally anyone else here kekI'm just waiting for his opponents to go "TLDR"... even though they were willing to read the lengthier article on Ben Shapiro and circle jerk to it.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
So, you're just going to ignore how he calls for the mass eviction of palestianians, considers their entire population evil and murderous, and thinks jews have a dive duty to kill those who would kill them(Which Shapiro has already stated he believes all Arabs want to do)?
Are you going to read my post where I basically explain how none of that is true?
Originally posted by Surtur
This one is 14 years old. He was 19 at the time of its publication.
And this item stands out the most, to me. This is a real issue. The writer is using the musings of a teenager to try and character assassinate.
My opinions and ideas have vastly improved since I was 19.
This is just the problem of growing up in a digital, hypersocial age: your teenaged thoughts are virtually immortalized.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And this item stands out the most, to me. This is a real issue. The writer is using the musings of a teenager to try and character assassinate.My opinions and ideas have vastly improved since I was 19.
This is just the problem of growing up in a digital, hypersocial age: your teenaged thoughts are virtually immortalized.
Yea. He doesn't even believe half of that anymore lol.
Originally posted by Ursumeles
Wait Rocky, are you saying that people are racist for shit they said a decade ago?
No, see his quote, below:
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
It's pretty intellectually dishonest to not preface the quotes shapiro made about arabs with the context that his views have changed and that he was spewing this bs whenhe was 19.
That's fair. 👆
Alright, we are hitting the home stretch. Again, I find myself in opposition to Shapiro's position on transgenderism. As a result of that disagreement, I will merely criticize Robinson's conduct and vast overstatements. Let's begin. So Robinson starts the section, by asserting that Shapiro's argumentation is weak. He intends to debunk Shapiro's nonsense.
Here is the actual argument that is made: the traditional conception held by people like Shapiro has treated “sex” and “gender” as synonymous. You’re either a man or a woman. Which one you are is defined by your chromosomes. And because chromosomes are part of biology, and can’t be altered, you can—as Shapiro says—no more change your sex/gender through your state of mind than you could change your age. There are men and there are women: The argument made by the left is that this simple story doesn’t account for something important: in the real world, we don’t form our understanding of whether someone is a man or a woman by their chromosomes. Instead, we form it by how they look and act. What people mean when they say that “gender is a social construct” is not that “chromosomes are a social construct” but that in practice, gender isn’t reducible to chromosomes. In the two pictures above, the person on the left is actually a transgender man and the person on the right is actually a transgender woman. It would seem strange to call the person on the left a “woman” and the person on the right a “man,” because the fact that we associate gender with “masculinity” and “femininity” rather than just “chromosomes” means those words don’t seem to fit those people very well.
Unlike Robinson, I believe in the philosophical Principle of Charity. The Principle of Charity is the belief that we should not disregard an opponent's argument due to poor rhetoric or presentation. Shapiro understands how the left bifurcates sex and gender; he merely disagrees with this choice. He views gender as something which is inherently tied to your sex and cannot be changed based on your personal views. When Shapiro says, "you can't change your age" he means regardless of the way you can't change your gender title based on the way you act. Shapiro may treat a transgendered person like a girl, but he will not use her pronoun as he does not believe in bifurcating sex and gender. Robinson is not trying to display Shapiro's argument in the best light. Now Robinson attempts to explain why the left bifurcates sex and gender but still misses the entire point of Shapiro's argument.
This is the reason why people started to draw a distinction between “sex” and “gender,” with sex referring to the biological component and gender referring to those qualities that seem much more fluid. Transgender people do not “think they are a different sex.” Instead, they realize that their “gender” doesn’t match their sex.
Shapiro understands that transgendered people feel different, but he views it as similar to a child feeling like an adult. Shapiro may treat him as an adult, but he will not change the age he refers to him as. The article continues talking about how "male and female" are malleable. Robinson still misses the point. The next point Robinson makes is pure slander.
I can’t find a study from the Anderson School about transgender suicide. The one UCLA study I can find on the subject, the one I think he must be referring to, directly contradicts Shapiro’s contention, concluding that “a higher than average prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts was consistently found among NTDS respondents who reported that they had been harassed, bullied, or assaulted in school by other students and/ or teachers due to anti-transgender bias” and “the prevalence of suicide attempts was elevated among respondents who reported experiencing rejection, disruption, or abuse by family members or close friends because of antitransgender bias.” (Another study found that “social support, reduced transphobia, and having any personal identification documents changed to an appropriate sex designation were associated with large relative and absolute reductions in suicide risk.”) So when Shapiro says that there’s “no evidence whatsoever” and it’s “not backed by any science,” it’s actually backed by the exact study he has just cited. (That study also demonstrates why another Shapiro talking point, that transgender suicides can’t be caused by prejudice because black people have low suicide rates, is false: a crucial determinant of suicide likelihood is people’s level of family support, and if black people have strong support networks, similar levels of discrimination could lead to differing levels of suicide.)
As Robinson notes, there is no Anderson School study only one conducted by the Williams Institute. We can assume it was a slipup as both studies come from UCLA. Where Robinson fails is assuming the study does not corroborate Shapiro's view. It does in the context of his statement. There was little to no change in suicide after transgender surgery. To quote the study,
Table 5, respondents who said they had received transition-related health care or wanted to have it someday were more likely to report having attempted suicide than those who said they did not want it.
So Robinson is essentially slandering Ben here. Shapiro has never denied that bullying contributes to high suicide rates he just questions the number of people committing suicide.
For a man who cares about Facts rather than Feelings, Shapiro doesn’t seem to care very much about facts.
Because Robinson has slipped up at every turn in this article, I find this criticism hilarious. The next few criticisms are entirely personal and do not hold any real scholarly weight. Before I jump to the conclusion, I want to say my thoughts and counters to Shapiro's views on transgenderism.
Shapiro's major gripe with transgenderism is his perceived view that there is no biological component to it. This is untrue. There are multiple biological studies which indicate that being transgender is based on the anatomy of your brain: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/gender-lines-science-transgender-identity/, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230954-600-transgender-people-have-different-brain-activity-when-touched/. Regardless of this, I do not think Robinson debunked Shapiro fairly, nor did accurately represent his caase.
Having surveyed Shapiro’s work, and pointed out the various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well-informed (in addition to being not terribly humane), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a “principled” and “brilliant” dismantler of arguments. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Shapiro is a very confident person who speaks quickly. If he weren’t either of these things, he wouldn’t seem nearly as intelligent. .
Having surveyed Robinsons's work, and pointed out various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well informed (in addition to being a lier), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a great writer and sharp columnist. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Robinson is the very confident person who writes long essays with authoritativeness. If he weren't either of these things, he wouldn't seem nearly as intelligent. (sorry I could not resist). In all seriousness, this is not a master debunk as many have portrayed it to be. Robinson either makes up lies or espouses some weak argument. Please stop parading this around like Ben Shapiro is debunked. Even if all of these accusations, were true, it would not deflate his entire body of work.
Originally posted by dadudemon
And this item stands out the most, to me. This is a real issue. The writer is using the musings of a teenager to try and character assassinate.My opinions and ideas have vastly improved since I was 19.
This is just the problem of growing up in a digital, hypersocial age: your teenaged thoughts are virtually immortalized.
It figures. The depths they will go to in order to go after Ben. He was #1(by FAR) on a list of journalists targeted for anti semitism too.
Go to page 6. Look at that graph of journalists and tweets lol.