Current Events > You guys read that article about Shapiro? "The Cool Kids Philosopher"

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

Quite interesting
---

Bump
---

Hmm
---

Pity post
---

This gets posted every week by some emotional liberal who can't counter Shapiro's argument.

For laughs, this is the guy who wrote the "cool kid" article.


---

he's an orthodox jew with a nasally voice and a jerky attitude

this is what passes for "cool kids" philosopher apparently

and he's not even a philosopher, just a political commentator / theorist.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXb4h6cXvX4
---

The Admiral posted...

"This is pretty much just ad hominen"
*posts actual ad hominen*
---

The Admiral posted...

This gets posted every week by some emotional liberal who can't counter Shapiro's argument.

For laughs, this is the guy who wrote the "cool kid" article.

Admiral is just salty because he didnt find a golden ticket to this guys chocolate factory
---

"Cool kids' philosopher," was a term originally used by the New York Times.
---

Romulox28 posted...

Admiral is just salty because he didnt find a golden ticket to this guys chocolate factory

He'd get kicked out anyway.

Wonka won't even know there are racial slurs for Oompa Loompas.
---

Yes, I've read the whole thing. And it's all pretty accurate. It's a good read for normal people and the worst article ever for Shapiro fans.
---

The Admiral posted...

This gets posted every week by some emotional liberal who can't counter Shapiro's argument.

For laughs, this is the guy who wrote the "cool kid" article.

What did you think of the article?
---

The authors article about Charles Murray is good as well
---

emblem boy posted...

What did you think of the article?

Cherry-picked a handful of times Shapiro was hyperbolic or incorrect and ignored the 95% of the time his arguments were spot on. You can do this type of piece with literally anyone who has thousands of hours of content to dissect.
---

The Admiral posted...

emblem boy posted...

What did you think of the article?

Cherry-picked a handful of times Shapiro was hyperbolic or incorrect and ignored the 95% of the time his arguments were spot on. You can do this type of piece with literally anyone who has thousands of hours of content to dissect.

That wasn't really the main point of his article
His article wasn't about combatting Shapiro arguments. It was about showing that claims saying Shapiro is some intellectual that's different than others is not true. He's not as rational and fact driven as he claims and specifically talks about the tactics.
---

emblem boy posted...

The Admiral posted...

emblem boy posted...

What did you think of the article?

Cherry-picked a handful of times Shapiro was hyperbolic or incorrect and ignored the 95% of the time his arguments were spot on. You can do this type of piece with literally anyone who has thousands of hours of content to dissect.

That wasn't really the main point of his article
His article wasn't about combatting Shapiro arguments. It was about showing that claims saying Shapiro is some intellectual that's different than others is not true. He's not as rational and fact driven as he claims and specifically talks about the tactics.

You mean in the handful of points mentioned out of the literal tens of thousands that Shapiro has made.

The article doesn't even pretend it's being an objective criticism; it's an emotional hit piece written by a guy who's just as smug as Shapiro. This is literally the first line:

Its easy to laugh, as some of us do, at the phrase conservative intellectual.

---

I mean, he brings up Shapiro's actual stances on several contemporary topics. Does Shapiro not hold those stances?
---

I'm not a hug Shapiro fan. I don't hate him like a lot of CE does. I think he makes good points some times, but I don't think he's some genius. That being said this article was pretty cringe
---

The article had some issues, but largely encapsulates why I don't care for Shapiro. The man's entire argumentative style hinges on juvenile "gotcha" traps that don't represent his opposition fairly or accurately. (This is the exact same reason I can't stand the pundits on Fox, actually).

On a tangent, he's an advocate for the "socialized medicine is literally slavery" argument. I feel that, better than the article, embodies the weaknesses of Shapiro. His tendency to reduce ideas he doesnt like into irrelevant, ill-fitting, yet highly sensationalized analogies.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Yeah, I don't regard someone a genius or even a 'destroyer of weak arguments' when they more often insult people instead of attacking the actual argument.

he addressed Antifa protesters, whom he called communist pieces of garbage: You guys are so stupid you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses.

What was the argument there? That was in response to Antifa shitheads destroying property.
---

COVxy posted...

The Admiral posted...

"This is pretty much just ad hominen"
*posts actual ad hominen*

Lmao
---

I have read it, but i didn't need to to tell you that Shapiro is full of shit.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Yeah, I don't regard someone a genius or even a 'destroyer of weak arguments' when they more often insult people instead of attacking the actual argument.

he addressed Antifa protesters, whom he called communist pieces of garbage: You guys are so stupid you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses.

What was the argument there? That was in response to Antifa shitheads destroying property.

It doesn't matter what their actions are, but someone that goes around simply insulting people is not some revered philosopher.

He never said he was a philosopher, that was the title given to him by the condescending liberal writer. Shapiro is a political pundit.
---

If you are a public figure on the right and there aren't any leftist hit pieces written about you, you aren't doing anything useful.
---

The Admiral posted...

He never said he was a philosopher, that was the title given to him by the condescending liberal writer

The NYT article was not condescending, it was just openly praising Shapiro
---

The Admiral posted...

He never said he was a philosopher, that was the title given to him by the condescending liberal writer. Shapiro is a political pundit.

So did you actually read the piece or no
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I'm addressing that he is not some revered philosopher nor do I think he has some higher level intelligence than anyone else, especially when he runs around insulting people most of the time.

But he doesn't insult people "most of the time." That's the problem with this article cherry-picking a handful of examples out of the thousands of hours of air time Shapiro has. Most of his show is based on factual discussion, but some of it will obviously be emotional or hyperbolic. It's impossible to fill hours of air time every single day with your opinions and not come across that way at times.
---

The Admiral posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

I'm addressing that he is not some revered philosopher nor do I think he has some higher level intelligence than anyone else, especially when he runs around insulting people most of the time.

But he doesn't insult people "most of the time." That's the problem with this article cherry-picking a handful of examples out of the thousands of hours of air time Shapiro has. Most of his show is based on factual discussion, but some of it will obviously be emotional or hyperbolic. It's impossible to fill hours of air time every single day with your opinions and not come across that way at times.

So it's impossible to go an entire career without making a statement like

Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.

That statement is a perfectly reasonable one for a person to make? >_>
---

Asherlee10 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Yeah, I don't regard someone a genius or even a 'destroyer of weak arguments' when they more often insult people instead of attacking the actual argument.

he addressed Antifa protesters, whom he called communist pieces of garbage: You guys are so stupid you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses.

What was the argument there? That was in response to Antifa shitheads destroying property.

It doesn't matter what their actions are, but someone that goes around simply insulting people is not some revered philosopher.

He never said he was a philosopher, that was the title given to him by the condescending liberal writer. Shapiro is a political pundit.

He claims himself to be a 'destroyer of weak arguments' and suggests he is some amazing philosopher. Whether or not he labeled himself or he acts as though he is doesn't matter.

I'm addressing that he is not some revered philosopher nor do I think he has some higher level intelligence than anyone else, especially when he runs around insulting people most of the time.

He became famous by winning debates. He also does not "insult people most of the time". If you argue with him and keep it civil, he does the same. He never insulted Cenk during their debate, but said in interviews that he was ready to go into the mud if Cenk decided to get dirty.

It's pretty obvious that his brain goes a million miles per hour. I disagree with him on a few big topics like foreign policy and whether or not free will exist without God, but I would do a ton of homework ahead of time if I had to debate him.
---

tote_all posted...

@The_Admiral

Again I ask, why do you defend a caricature created to make money? Shapiro himself wouldn't defend a lot of things you do in a honest context. He's pretty entertaining and he gets a lot of things right, but you seem to believe he's without fault for some reason.

I never said any of that. I said Shapiro is more intelligent and better at debating than 95% of political pundits out there, which is true. When it comes to smacking down the kind of lazy left-wing bullshit you see posted on places like Facebook and CE, Shapiro excels.

I never said he was an intellectual or philosopher like these liberals strawmen try to claim so they can find an excuse to condescend and dismiss him.
---

myzz7 posted...

he's an orthodox jew with a nasally voice and a jerky attitude

this is what passes for "cool kids" philosopher apparently

and he's not even a philosopher, just a political commentator / theorist.

Wow the left is racist.

The Admiral posted...

emblem boy posted...

What did you think of the article?

Cherry-picked a handful of times Shapiro was hyperbolic or incorrect and ignored the 95% of the time his arguments were spot on. You can do this type of piece with literally anyone who has thousands of hours of content to dissect.

You do the same thing to every pundit you disagree with
---

this topic

tote_all posted...

Insults can add to humor and humor is often a good tool to use in public debates.

yeah if you're a dishonest person.

tote_all posted...

Insults can add to humor and humor is often a good tool to use in public debates.

it helps to win over the dumber, more impressionable audience members. But the point of debate is to sway people with your arguments.
---

tote_all posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

tote_all posted...

Insults can add to humor and humor is often a good tool to use in public debates.

I don't agree.

You don't have to. The general opinion of viewers on a public debate does not depend on your opinion.

the general opinion means that when you do that, you're admitting that your argument doesn't appeal necessarily to authorities on the subject or anything but rather your argument is a test to see how many morons you can get on your side to flood out the opposition, you're literally the problem with political discourse today.