General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Roope Reimi
Charisma on Command
comments

Comments by "Roope Reimi" (@Yurikon3) on "Charisma on Command" channel.

@moist faucet I'd dare to say everyone has something they dont like everyone to see. Someone jumping in to very specific question in situation is not necessarily decisive, because the intention of the questioner might just be to tear person down to avoid an issue. Asking question back is simply a way to either return to subject by revealing that the goal of the question is not very sincere. People have their secrets but revealing them to people who want to use it against you is not necessarily the best option. Manipulation is a term too casually thrown around in issues like this.
40
Uuuh... Then what it is? If it is some abstract system without any clear cut lead or system with protocol, should it be called communal racism then? "What institution?" is good call back, because it gives a chance to actually define what systems they are talking about and do the questioner even themselves know what they mean with "institutionalized".
29
These are not tactics. They are basic principles of proper debating. If they really are 3rd grade ways, then most of the folks haven't bothered even study those principles. Which means that argumenting from some people is even worse than 3rd grader.
20
@moist faucet It is simply hierarching the worth of relationships and giving them approxiamate uphold. The reality rarely follows our assumptions. You merely assume that when people dont answer all questions, they are untrustworthy, but maybe they just dont trust you. Maybe they assume that if youre ready to reveal the most hurtful things about yourself, you're less prone to keep a secret. Long story short, we usually assume the worst of other people, and it in order affects how others view us. What one considers dishonesty, others make a call to trust them. In the question of pre-nuptial contract we can also make it show honesty. It tells that while person might be ready to commit, they dont go in without realizations that it is not merely cotton road and things might go wrong. It also gives sense of security knowing that these people are not hostages to each other and thus gives room to be loyal, not merely because of principle but outta respect and self-will. Trusting someone is not merely about answering questions. But same time you are not forced to trust anyone you dont want. Still, what one considers trustworthy behaviour might not always be the same.
16
@billium99 or maybe you debates have bit different goal. In debates it is already clear that two viewpoints oppose each other, so one who can argument their case better gains heavier presence. Consider it as a sparring practice. It might help participants to see holes in their arguments and thus make them better. Iron tempers the iron and if arguments do not hold better than their opponents, it can be considered win. Just cause there is an element of "winning" it does not negate the importance of debate. Not even these "respective" dialects are without competition element, cause dialecters to prove their cause to be better than another. And for the sake of argument it is better to stand behind one's stances and change them after dialect.
13
Sigh... So making money is true and only measure of one's intelligence? Heck, I think if he truly made money people would accuse him being scammer then. People are never satisfied.
11
Steven Soco propably Ben understood, but do people making assumptions really understand the statements they make, or do they just parrot statements made by peers. Never actually studying the issues themselves or thinking other possible explanations.
11
@moist faucet or one can misread it. We dont have time and patience for every personnel, but sometimes screwing the theories of psychology and give some time and patience might form strangest of friendships.
9
bob taylor sigh. It was simple question, not complicated one. Asking the question, even the stupid one, is not bully tactic. Even intellectuals ask simple questions. If one thinks it is bullying, it just menos their case is weak and should prepare more. Most of the folks spout things about institutional racism just because others do as well, not because they really have any substantical argument for it. Those were college students, if they couldnt answer even that, the fault is upon them, not Shapiro.
9
@moist faucet either give it time and treat it as buddy-level relationship rather than friendship or just disengage. The thing is that there are differing things which people consider trustworthy. And when it comes down to "sensing" I'd take it with grain of salt. Usually our preconceived ideas murky that sense.
8
@billium99 and if folks haven't learnt even these 3rd grade principles, it is laughable to expect these highschoolers give any honest dialect to reach the truth. The fact that people do not even try to counter Shapiro's arguments with their own and use mere taunts or assumptions of intentions, they really are not interesting truth, but ego.
8
@sanchitoboc9224 debate room, court room. Two different stages, two different doctrines.
7
@conexos2007 the thing is that people show emotion differently and emotion usually is primal reaction (one cannot really force emotions). Logical thinking usually is something which requires some work and training so emotions do not absolutely take control. I doubt Shapiro outrightly disregards emotions, but one really does not have to train emotions, just their control. It easily goes like that when emotions are let out it takes time to rein them again. Thus being too controlled in public sphere is better than being too loose. I doubt Ben has any less emotion than other average people. He just has trained to keep them in control. Of course calm demeanour can be taken as way to manipulate, but so can passionate speech cause hearers to let pleasure of unyielded emotions block calm thinking.
7
Even fool comes out as wise when he knows to be silent. Nowadays folks expect everyone to talk even if their knowledge about the matter is nigh, ending up to situation where someone is not prepared to answer and they cant even be silent cause he would be shamed for it, or it is considered victory for other argumentor. It kinda becomes a problem when the goal of the argument is to win it, rather than actually come to conclusion of the matter.
7
@Kpower what if these institutions do not run by racism, but the problems are primarily caused by several factors where both parties feed the problems? Accussations are merely presuppositions that there is some intentional or unintentional racism, while there actually is other social conditions feeding it. Assumptions are merely assumptions, and institutional racism might merely be boogeyman which exists more in person's imagination. Racism exists, but it is unlikely the primary cause for all these problems.
7
bob taylor if it did, then these kids really hadn't studied their case. That question was necessary to reveal that.
7
@bee4377 or Ben is actually right in some cases. It really is not that convincing to consider him misguided one when opponent's arguments for their own stances are shallow.
6
@billium99 I think the basic mistake here is to expect in first place that the goal of discussions which Ben applies to, at least in these contexes, are really to reach any conslusions. There is not denying that arguments and argumenters which he faces are really bad. The true beef Ben or JP bring is to bring students opinions they dont like and challenge them to argue their positions down with good arguments. Just doing "fallacy fallacy" where one's argument is shot down by speaking about fallacies without bringing something own on the table does not bring solutions to anything. In the world of speech it is impossible to not sometimes fall into the trap of fallacy, the solution is to just learn brush it off and move on. If students cannot even do that they really aren't good argumenters. Giving these people some "deep" debate is like throwing pearls to the swine. Long story short, one levels their arguments on level what their opponents are. And the the opponents Ben have are simply not good, it is college, they should have enough resistance to not shot arguments down merely based on what opinions their opponent have. If those arguments they make are truly fallacious, they should be argued back with proper arguments, not by emotional outrage. Maybe that is not proper in some scenes, but that is college, they should know better. "We aren't debating in this format in the adult world." College is already an adult world, but their argumenting is not really something which one can expect from adult. Having someone like Ben to shoot it down is first step to realize it. College is the training ground and if someone with general knowledge like Ben can shut them down, their argumenting is not good and should not be taken to Sam Harris levels. Ben as far as I know is professional in law and overall communication. It is clear that someone who is pro at something is not pro at something else. Ben's true beef is skill and knowledge in basic argumentation. If people in college cannot match it, they cannot bring anything worth on the Sam Harris' table. If someone with bad argumenting skills enters to same table with Sam, the result is not quality debate, just luke-warm discussion where most likely another just nods head smiling stupidly while Sam speaks. That is not argument, not even "adult" argument. If someone is a noob and childish in argumentation, you don't at first bring them to some juggernauts like Sam Harris to coddle them. You first let them know that their sucky argumenting is sucky cause if even someone with some quick pre-study before debate can destroy your arguments like Ben, then you really do not have the knowledge to engage someone like Harris (to be honest, I don't know Harris myself, but I expect him to be some great sensei as you evaluate.). They must humble themselves first and grow strong enough to not falter in front of differing opinions and learn to base their arguments on something more than emotional passion, buzz-words or simplimistic approaches to stats, research and science. Ben and JP stay as long as these students do not up their game. If they cannot fend Ben or JP with proper argumenting, they have no place to debate with someone like Harris.
6
@quidproquo82 , what I have heard, Ben actually does not use that much jargon and he is pretty stiff to be considered theatric.
6
Hooboy... People throwing these medical terms around whenever something not common comes around.
5
Answering back to one's view with their own is not bullying.
5
bob taylor that sounds more like just dodging the question with long-winded rationalization about bullying. Those kids hardly were kids any longer, and by attending college they enter the arena where they must argue their point. If they truly have concise point, they can answer. But if their view is merely parrotted opinion copied from their peers, one does not need much to deny it. Shapiro's approach might not have been the most constructive one, but considering it bullying is just dodging the question.
5
bob taylor they are adults. Young adults. They can no longer be treated as softly. And they learn by experience. The ultimate crux here is merely that we seem to disagree what constitutes as "bullying". When one is studying, let's say martial arts and there is novice who must learn proper form by being "practice" target to experienced fighter. Of course novice gets wrecked, but this experience gives chance to learn proper form. It can hardly be considered bullying if this novice has agreed to enter to dojo. If one truly wishes to get better to enter proper arena, mock battles are way to go, and I consider that questionnaire mock battle, not proper arena.
5
@kingoftheorient I don't even think that JP or Ben are primarily there for argumented cases but more as a mirror to current debating climate which shots down people solely for what opinions they have. Or people having worldviews which cannot be properly argumented, just proclaimed.
4
@LeoTakacs his point being that being fellow atheist does not make him have same values as you.
3
Steven Soco specify actual lie. Otherwise it will be taken as outrage over opinion one does not like.
3
Steven Soco i am not American and do not even have opinions about Trump. Your point?
3
@moist faucet interview, detective or other information extraction are pretty different contexes. Humans might have their shameful pasts but try to move forward and refine themselves. It however does not become easier if every unrelated personnel knows some bad details about you and might use it against you, hindering progress. Their motives for not revealing all information to you is just that they dont trust you enough. And positivity. Sigh, that is one of the most deceiving facades to be. Smiling face might hide sorrow and insecurity and unlike sadness and angery, they can hide the problem. Social pressure to always be happy is one of the most abstract sources of stress and expectation of being lively and joyous around folks might be more depressing than accept things how they are.
3
@moist faucet and true sociopathic and psychopathic people are that big rarity that I think you overestimate the danger. Secondly I think people use these terms too casually in common talk, making sociopath out of person they dont like or understand by subjective base. If you think emotion or brains are not scientific then I dont think you should use terms like socio or psychopath that casually. Actually it might be the normal people exactly who avoid to answer all questions. That means they know shame, that means they also acknowledge other people which in sense makes person trustworthy in beginning sense.
3
@quidproquo82 those students he met didnt seem to like him that much.
3
I have started to think that both JP and Ben aren't really there for argumented cases themselves but rather out there to reveal poor state of argumenting and debating in current system. I think JP and Ben have some more deep stuff in their arsenal, but they don't use them for sole reason that the argumentation of their opponents is laughable. Fast talking shouldn't be a problem if you really know your stances and have arguments to back them, but if mere simple strike back can shut one down, you really dont have stance, just opinion copied from consensus. Ben is not there to learn himself, but rather to teach. Not teach any particular subject but to teach actual debating. To teach by challenging students in their echo chambers and show that their argumentation for now has been of shallow ground and emotional outrage. If one wants to build society, their views should be backed by something more concrete than emotional appeals and handwavy arguments. Ben might not be right in some of his views, but if his opponents aren't even trying to argument their own cases without emotinal outrage, Ben's case stays stronger till then.
3
@nonegiven2830 practically you lost by deciding to not play it to the end. I dont know if that allegory works.
3
bob taylor then tell me why my theory exactly is wrong and fill me in with your facts and evidence for the matter. I have said my cause as an option for the theory of institutional racism. Because that what I see IR currently being, a theory. To give an evidence for inner motives of thousands of people who also live on gun point sounds pretty hard task to do for mortal human. Can you really give an evidence about inner motives of every possible personnel living in this "institution"? If not, I treat your stance as a theory, not as a fact. Secondly I dont really know what type of evidence youre looking for. Give me an example of evidence benefitting your cause and I ponder its quality.
3
@jirkazalabak1514 I take it with grain of salt when people assume person they disagree with "lies". I think usually people just tell insufficient data from their viewpoints but not actively lying. I agree that using stats as a base for argument is shallow, because there are so many causalities and details left off that some charts hardly tell whole story. This however applies both sides, and I think their actual crime is merely favouring their stance rather than lying.
2
Isn't it actually a point that younging goes to college to debate people generally more experienced than themselves so they can learn to argument their case properly? One does not have to agree with their professor but they usually have to build their disagreeing argument upon solid cases. What I have seen Jordan and co. in their debates around these issues at colleges are targeting certain phenomenom where youngsters are unable to listen opposing arguments without giving in to simplimistic outraging or the worst possible interpretations of their opponents by default. Sure, these folks like to use words "marxists" and stuff as well, which might be American-centric thing, but how these college folks answer to these guys is not really the way someone studying in college should answer.
2
People who dont agree your opinions arent necessarily unmorale. It is also preposterous to consider one's own opinion the highest moral without solid reasons. Because with more solid cross-examination one's own morals might be the ones built on sand.
2
@moist faucet everyone is not criminal and the one who has served their time might want to turn back right way. The fact that this criminal feels shame is a mark that they arent totally rotten. If in your mind someone not answering all your questions is criminal, it affects how they perceive you. Actually person who might have darkness within but acknowledges it and does not try to live according it and do what is right is propably the most honorable one cause they know evil and refrain from it, no matter if they like it or not. And forming trust. You honestly think people become the best of friends after just one answer or one day? It usually takes more than that. Besides, even honest answers can be a facade to fool even more. Arent we already having kinda deep conversation? Even without changing deeper information? And what is this talk about whites and PC? Starts to sound pretty shallow generalisations. Actually it is "shallow" talk like this which can give hints is it worth to reveal deepest of secrets to another. Besides, your last paragraph. If you use that rule to yourself, it might reveal why people are not willing to answer all questions. Because they cant be sure if people are always that good to keep secret.
2
@johndane3504 having control over one's emotions is not psychopathy. If one casually uses terms like "sociopath", "psychopath" or whatever, their understanding of humanity might not be that complex. Rather clinical.
2
@chrisyates4431 there is also another aspect to it. Debaters in sense are the farm and watchers are ones enjoying the fruit of the farm. The competetive nature of debate forces to develop better arguments, which in clash produce things for audience to chew. If we go back to ancient time when most folk were illiterate, they had to search advice from sages who as their profession studied ideas for macro scale. However some ideas are not good if they go into practice and a way to prevent these ideas to spread is to shame the shallow philosopher with sound argumenting. It was important that people saw the "duel" happening cause it allowed them to see bad ideas exposed and negated. This was what philosophers did with each other. It was also what Jesus did with pharisees. Of course sometimes both sides had good input whence there was not clear victor but in this case by-standers were exposed some good ideas to chew. So it is not necessarily bad to strive for victory in debate if the idea debated against is so weak that it shouldnt have entered the ring in the first place.
2
@krymsix574 that is what many people say, but honestly that sounds more like prevaricating around the bush. Trying to poison the well when there is not any case to be made. What strawman, what diversions, what misleading? If anything, Shapiro is pretty simple in his speech, he is not that hard to understand and his opinions arent totally outta there to be understood. People just dont like those opinions. There is not any solid rule that one must always give optional case cause they know they dont have any absolute option. One does not have to know right answer to see when some answers are poor and wrong.
2
These aren't even "tactics" they are ammunition, munition and manpower. Without them one does not do anything with tactics.
2
The mistake of the video is to call these 7 articles "tactics" when they actually are principles. Without these principles one shall always deliver weak base which crumbles under pressure.
2
bob taylor Yes. It is oversimplified perception of reality where complex problems are tried to fit under one sole source, in this case, institutional racism. It is shaky because it digs under assumptions of inner motivations of hundreds of thousands of people, making it thing which cant be absolutely proven. This does not mean that actions motivated by racism do not exists. But to make it institutional requires already some hard presuppositions. I see the outrage over institutional racism more like social outburst where social media feeds one-sided and simplified narration about cases feeding the outrage where people feed their own assumptions to each other proclaiming it as "truth".
2
Steven Soco o boy...
1
@conexos2007 Dont take offence if I doubt your ability to discern "sociopaths" and overall emotions. It is overhauling trend to make emotions equal goodness. And I hardly doubt "kitchen table" knowledge about brain chemistry gives much. The reality is that some people just dont SHOW emotions. They have them, but do not show them. It is not malice or lack of care. To care about goodness or hate evil does not require emotions, it is modern expectation where shown emotions are made absolute judge of one's character. Nowadays everyone is expected to show emotions wide open while some people just do not want or cant show them. They still want to do good. It is the unability of people to accept differences between expression of people and label them with terms like sociopath or psychopath. You might not like Ben's opinions, but that does not justify hammy judgements about his character. And as footnote... isn't overabundant emotional mumbo jumbo a way for politicians to manipulate people to not see the actions they do? To detain emotional speech from points is a way to make sure that people do not get hanged on emotional part and focus on the message.
1
@conexos2007 like I said... lack of emotions does not equal lack of care. It is the expectations of modern society that people must show genuine emotions all the time. Maybe people learn to fake emotions cause they "care" the emotions of the others. Respecting someone does not always require genuine emotion, it just requires acknowledgement. And I doubt those "7 steps" can give any clear indignation especially when judging one's public persona. What is mark of unhealthy society is unability to see differences between expressions of people and refusal to see past the existence or the lack of emotions and focus on essentials. What is more important than showing emotion is showing respect.
1
I don't even know could these be considered tactics. More like principles? If one stays calmer than their raging opponent they most likely are gonna debate better and if not win, at least retract from debate with more dignity.
1
@MrMcavoy80 It is a mistaken take that "passion" establishes the truthfulness of anything. Actually one who is very passionate might be able to commit unintended manipulation where people do not actually hear the words but look up the show. Passion does not either dictate righteousness. Someone who is right is right even if he is robotic or detached and more likely to be right because emotions do not cloud the thinking.
1
@Counter-Intuitive Church, or religious circles pretty much were risk cause they offered different loyalities to people. If we take atheism just mean ultimate will to not have churches or divine authorities to have the last word in matters, then their ultimate goal was atheistic system without religious powers hassling politic goals. It is just simplimistic view of reality to simply place religion or atheism as ultimate source for whatever works people have done.
1
Actually in debate, if one lets their emotions dictate the flow, they should be called out to can them. Honestly. Everyone here generalizes. Either folks shut themselves by those same standards or learn to accept that everyone generalizes and see past it.
1
@Mohammad Nachawati Mathematics are not equal to more humanistic degrees or thinking of people. To be honest only in mathematical arena and things sprouting from it there can exists pretty universal laws. However, in the laws of humanistics and debates one law is more like generationalization at best.
1
@DemothHymside Then what prevents other party to do something for these unfortunate? Pretty talks do not equal empathy. What one considers "lack of empathy" by conservatives might simply be other way how people show empathy. Conservatives might not be as eager toward general or faceless welfare systems which are too tied to faceless bureaucracy but are more eager to help when they see someone close to them suffer and give out of charity.
1
@DemothHymside The thing is that if person can't take care even their own family, how the heck can he take care of someone far away on the other side of the globe. Id dare to say that person who looks the world but neglects the family is seen unempathic and dishonorable by most of the world. The thing is that it is basic nature for people to primarily watch out for their close kin. Repsecting that for others is a form of empathy. Talking pretty about world-hugging is not really proof about empathy. Conservatives tend to not give as much hoot for emotional empathy because it can be mere pretentiousness. They still appreciate people who ACTUALLY WORK for these people and develop actual practical solutions to their situation. They acknowledge empathy, but in their viewpoint someone putting the responsibility of charity to bureaucratic system is merely putting responsibility outside of oneself and thus they dont consider it as a mark of empathy. I live in Finland with pretty solid welfare system, and I appreaciate it, but I can understand conservative notions that willingness to more or less put responsibility outside of person to system is not really proof about empathy. It is merely seen as moral laziness, where everyone ELSE should work for benefits while they themselves merely pat their backs without actually helping much. Welfare system itself is good, but rallying for or against it is not a proof about personal empathy. It is merely seen as responsibility question and it is tied to how well economy lets it keep it up. In the world of limited goods, there is really a point where one must ask how far personal responisbility should be expected. For conservatives it is merely on different metric than for others.
1
@DemothHymside I doubt conservatives actively are making sure that they suffer, it is merely projecting ones own prejudices about certain group upon people to make oneself seem better than they actually are. Conservatives simply have different perception how the helping should happen, be their attitudes however they are not necessarily any less emphatetic than the ones mocking them for whatever reasons.
1
These "tactics" aren't really tactics but proper principles for doing effective debating. If you can't argument back to it, it might be that you don't really know your cause that well.
1
@deanwinchester3356 It must be also considered that maybe the question of "true self" is actually just fabrication of imagination or just trend which is taken for granted cause... well... everyone else does it as well. Individualism is weird. It promotes the self, but still is practically trend where folks just do it cause they think everyone else does it.
1
I guess in certain cultures saying other person's name presupposes deeper familiarity. Like in Japan uncommoners refer each other by family name, individual name is given to those who are closer to you.
1
Actually, aren't debates supposed to give some insight to by-standers, so having debate where both know what they are talking about is preferable. Entering to debate about topics which are not one's area is just foolish. The arguments he attends seem to roll around modern strange phenomenoms which strike their aim to some very old social codes. The mistake of the proponents of these phenomenoms is to think that things should change without opposition, and that really is not very wise. Socratic method bases the premise that one stance brings out more questions which keep refining the stance. Ben is acknowledged cause he is on opposite spectrum on academic side. And the topics are very basic and close-knitted to humanity that having at least some debate around it might actually help to refine things.
1
The unablity or unwillingness to show emotions outwardly is not mark of evil or mean person does not have emotions. This constant plead for emotionalism is merely modern fad where emotion is equaled with honesty. Yes, emotional person might be honest, honest to their feelings, but it still does not validate their stance in spectrum of reality.
1
More likely it is switching of role on public sphere. Some people leave expressing emotion to private sphere. Just cause someone is not continously showing emotion is not necessarily sociopath.
1
@jirkazalabak1514 wrong side? I suppose the thing is more like those against him have prematurely decided that he is wrong and thus that automatically shuts him down, no matter how well he has argumented his case.
1
@vjhicks8533 to be honest I find using stats as an arguments in quick debates questionable. There usually are so many different aspects and causalities and details left off that using them as a base for argument is kinda weak. They might serve as good starting point for debate, but true steak must come from other places.
1
@crishdavies650 emotional intelligence helps more in personal relations, but in some things more cold headed approach is better.
1
@weldin if they are unable to answer, it likely means they either haven't studied opponents views and have debated against people who just agree with them.
1
@jirkazalabak1514 is it wrong that he takes certain position and arguments from it? Just cause someone is from wrong camp does not discredit his points. Fellow might not be right in all things, but folks seem to shoot his points down from wrong reasons.
1
Steven Hunt essentially that is Platonic method and indeed one does not have to be doctor to know it. The thing is that people do not use it enough. Asking questions and going for deeper clarifications actually help one being questioned to realize what they really are debating for and also reveal if person has embraced some stances merely parroting them from others without thinking.
1
@chingching664 what are the reasons to believe that driving forces are greed and selfishness? How can we be sure that your judgement is legit, rather than just prefixed opinion presented as a fact?
1
Rawr5649 sometimes simple approach works. If someone has presented proclamation, he must be able to follow with reasons or else proclamation is not on very good base.
1
Tommy De Sadi by what standards it says exactly, that believer must argument that there is The God but unbeliever does not have to argument that there is not The God? Who wrote that rule? Is the writer of that rule legit authority?
1
Maybe racial imbalance exists because there is relatively higher crime-rate in certain areas. Theory about institutionalized racism is kinda like with studies linking autism to vaccines. It requires presupposed conclusion while the data they provide can be explained away with other more concrete options.
1
@DjGrimmace "troll"? If there is area where there casually happens more crimes, it will eventually gain more attention. Accusing police about these crimes is like one normally would drive reasonable speeds but when there appears official speed-limit with exact same speed, and then they start going higher speeds. When questioned about it he blames speed limit. It does not make sense. It is merely childish rebelling and finding excuses to their own foolishness. And how many officers really have said this and does it really have substantical causality?
1
@DjGrimmace even if you believe that, it does not make it truth. People go to prison after they commt crime and it doesn't tell about any abstract entity is trying to profit from it. It is sloppy argument to take mere statistics, skip all possible reasons between and that with some abstract villains after your hide. That is really not something anyone doing serious research should take seriously. Any personnel spending time in confined area instead of being active citizen does not benefit economy. I dont know is that Basic economy or rather cartoon economy.
1
@DjGrimmace Are minorities really products or is it merely your own perception of reality where you take existing system and make it suit into your perceptions. Once again you make it sound like it really has any big benefit to anyone have prison beds filled. If anything if those beds stay empty, those prisons could be used for something more profitable matters. Unnecessary filling just costs more. I suspect you just pulled those theories from nothing. And even if something sounds logical, it does not make it reality. If premise A is true, it fulfills premise B. However, people can make their own premises outta their imaginations and make it sound logical, while it has nothing todo with reality. Besides. When it comes to profiling, is it the profiling which causes minorities' actions or rather is it the acts of minorities which cause profilization. If certain group in certain area cause relatively more crimes, it shall eventually affect profiling. It does not necessarily have to have anything to do with racism. Back then in 50s when true institutional racism existed, black communities had very tight familiar culture. Even if the laws were unfair it was seen dishonorable to commit actual crimes like robbery or murder. While institutions were not on their side, family culture was stronger and provided stabler room for minority childs to grow. Now that culture is broken while institutions would be more open to accept minorities, but minorities no longer have as stable local culture ensuring safer environment to grow and not choose wrong paths in life. Institutions aren't needed to cause problems to minorities, they can cause them themselves. Police merely answers to situation. Most officers want to just get out from day alive and having aggressive neighborhood does not help them. College kids painting imaginary horns on their heads does not help anyone.
1
@DjGrimmace saying it is reality does not make it reality either. It is kinda cartoony way to expect profit-prisons to perceive things that way. Sometimes some things just are the way they are without any actual ill intent being there, and that might actually be the way how many things have escalated in history. I think most of folks fighting the system are more in it with childish zeal dealing more damage than actually fixing anything. And fighting the system is pretty much result of blaming it. If one doe snot blame the system, there really is not need to fight it. Besides, the "system" is so abstract construct that they propably don't even know what or what for they even are fighting for. So promoting "fight the system" mentality with cartoony villain-protagonist theme without solid plan just ensures that problems stay.
1
@DjGrimmace Indeed. But even then the theory you provide sounds childish enough to not be taken that seriously. There might be a problem, but there does not necessarily exist some entity with intentional malice behind it. Most likely it is mixture of problems which have clustered to one big mess.
1
I think it falls to some 2deep4me spectrum, but I suppose preference to feel pain rather than nothing is that in pain things still matter. There are consequences. If one is hurt they can recognize danger, existence and acknowledgement of pain might hinder willingness to cause pain to other. If one causes pain, it can return to him in form or another. In hollow numbness there is no stimuli to do anything or motivate quenching of suffering cause people do not want or cannot feel pain. The Golden Rule lies upon reflecting ones own acts like they were done to themselves. If one cannot feel pain they might have less restraint to bring that pain upon others.
1
@martinstevens6955 The thing is that things rarely exist in vacuum. Sometimes some things one didnt consider part of the question actually are important to articulate why they are connected. Sure, it can rabbit trail off the road, but if these new things are part of it, they are. One must later return to study more. Sure, of course it would be nice to have 50/50 debate but sometimes that simply is not possible if other argument is so bad it cant stand.
1
@Shadowreeper213 No wonder the most basic principle of philosophy is to acknowledge to oneself how little one knows. At least then one can avoid being led astray by themselves.
1
@MoonfeatherWildkin That however can countered: "how exactly are they oppressing". The problem is that "these forces oppress" is not an argument, but a declaration. Declaration might be wrong or not but it still does not make proper point. The thing is that those accusations are so vivid and far-reaching that it is hard to either say they are true or not. What one considers oppression, might not actually be it in one context or situation.
1
Uh... if you have several arguments which are solid by their own but not water tight but with other alike arguments they form a strong web which carries the clause well. Let's call it cross-examination arguments where separate arguments fill the holes in the other arguments. If the web they form is solid one, it can't be brush off with accusation of Gish gallop. It is mere fallacy fallacy. It can also be questioned what exactly consists "strong" argument in person's mind. Reality is complicated some times and expectation of single one argument does not work.
1
Isn't the point of college to let these youngings to get disciplined by their betters so they learn to be better debaters and actually argument their stance. Not merely make proclamations and assumptions that their proclamations are true.
1
@nebulanigrimleonis3883 So having someone with basic debate skills to challenge current systems and eased student pool might help to restore it. I don't see what is the problem. You think it becomes better for having him not engage these college folks?
1
@Greyareas27 I think the mistake people make here in general is that they assume Shapiro's intentions to negative in such a degree that it is already ridiculous. We cannot have absolute certainty of other personnel's intentions that their actions are the most credible source of judgement. And even with actions benefit of doubt might help to not be blindsided by one's own presuppositions. One mistake also is, when person is annoyed by another, is to raise their expectations for the quality of evidence to ridiculous heights, which are not reasonable to time-frame. If that expectation is not met, person is automatically assumed to be insincere lying devil. Census bureau example being one. Just cause it does not necessarily picture the all details and give the whole truth it is still simple starting place and if it really shows that people with high income divorce less, then so what? The thing with statistics is that they just give us some numbers indicating some fixed factors, which might hold some merit, but not whole truth. It is not lying, just presenting a start in limited time frame. There are millions of people and trying to find any definitive reason why some of them do this or that is almost impossible task for human.
1
I dont know if most of these could be considered "tactics". I think there are differences between "strategy" and basic "doctrine". On military campaign there are some basic doctrines and issues like manpower, munities, weapons and ammo. You need these basic things to get things roll. Strategy and tactic is more about how to use the stuff you have and use it effectively. Most of the stuff listed here is the basic stuff to handle proper debate. The problem is that most people have thrown these basics to thrash and consider them gimmicks or manipulation. Sure they can be used for manipulation, but that is more akin to tactic, not the doctrine itself. Numbers 6 and 7 by themselves are not tactics, they are principles. Good ones. How they are used, is about tactic. Ben seems to handle these situations because he knows the basics while others don't and letting him speak to these younglings, even if it is wrecking, is a good thing. The point of learning is that you get wrecked by those who know their stuff and get better or drop the game. If one does not even bother to better oneself with these 7 principles, they really do not have much reason to be taken seriously. These are not young kids, they are young adults, they can no longer be handled delicately, they must learn to swim, because that is what college is. If it takes Shapiro to fix it, then so be it. Maybe if all people had these 7 principles mastered, Jordan B. and Shapiro could be just footnotes, but as standard is lowered, even humble average can be master. The choice is that do you pull averages to your level or up your own game. Sure they still can speak, but the truth is that some opinions are better backed than others. Also. One knows these principles is more likely able to learn more from the debates and have better grasp about the things they say.
1
@zachariahmarrero9358 It works because their opponents themselves make out arguments out of outrage. Left/liberal side should be thankful of Trump cause they now have fattened sacrificial calf which can take eyes off from their own debatical misdeeds.
1
@zachariahmarrero9358 how exactly "righties" suck?
1
The thing is that just like in sports, you should try to win and lose only when the opponents game simply is better. That means both deal with best cards they have and the best argument gains food hold. Of course some well argumented cases might be wrong, but it is kinda reasonable to not accept statements with lousy premises.
1
@miketomlin6040 Specialist in one thing does not make one specialist in everything. Ben, at least in what I have seen is generalist. He gather information and uses it, but it does not make him specialist. Having education does not necessarily mean knowledge in all possible things. And philosophy is really very bendable subject that it can be used to train ones thinking or just be used as intellectual smokescreen for BS.
1
@JustinSeizure What would be good enough?
1
@JustinSeizure Yeh, I don't consider Shapiro being any great juggernaut of debating, but if he can even somewhat bring synthesis where people start build their arguments better, that's all good. Either Shapiro is just average debater among fools or he is hiding his guns for future. Of course witholding best arguments is not the best course for dialects, but in debates it might be good idea to make opponent see one stupider than they actually are. Anyway, if people want to "win" him they must be less reactic to him.
1
Could the overfocus ne because those areas generally have higher crime-rate?
1
@Michael Enquist and it is "nope" because...?
1
From tall grass. On all days of the week, except on Sabbaths. Catchrate is pretty ridiculous though.
1
@somersetcace1 Actually it is wise for overall system. If the goal of the debate is to find proper solution and one is against someone he does not have any ammo to use, it is just better to not engage at all. Debate between generally equal candidates has a chance to produce some good ideas and insight and also give some good fruit for stand-byers. Why most of the internet debates are cancer? Because most of the folks talk about things which are not under their radar or have even researched them. If one enters to battle bare and other has panzer-knuckle, it becomes very one sided debate for entertainment than debate for actual purpose.
1
I have a hunch that for both JP and Ben Shapiro the core point is not making conclusions about anything, whether it is social studies, economics or anything in that matter. Their goal is not to reach any conclusion or deep insights per se. JP's book contains information which pretty much was common knowledge few years ago and which you didnt need ph'D to come up. These issues are just an excuse to engage true problem. The problem is the environment of lazy argumenting and lowered tolerance to opinions opposite to ones own views. Sure people have always been petty, but when such a culture reaches higher education, one is prone to fail. There simply put is not court jesters who were allowed to mock rulers opinions and reveal weaknesses of their arguments because any argumentation against the position is seen as personal attack. Ben might not use his best arsenal in his debates because his sole point is not reaching conclusions but rather reveal weak argumentation of his opponent. In example where he asks clarification to institutionalized racism is actually mere socratic method. It seems that many students or internet philosophers merely parrot certain things without giving any clear indication what are they even argumenting about. They just heard it and then follow after. It is merely emotional outrage without actual solid base. Simply asking more deeper and deeper questions is one basic way to reveal shallow ground of one's beliefs and thus make it safe to say that their opinion is not to be taken seriously. Considering how most of the comments here are vague outrages about lies, fallacies or whatever without clear examples. Rather than argument his points with better arguments they merely shut him down because he simply has "wrong" opinion. Yes, his case might be wrong but if you cannot prove your own clause with better one or clear answer without breaking down, there is less reason to expect that your opinion is on solid ground. Ben might not be as harsh in his personal relations, but it is to be expected that if you're college student studying social issues with no better base for arguments than just because others think so, you're really not taking studies seriously. And as better debater he gives his remarks. People can decide to get stronger and start to learn argument better or then just drop their studies and do something else.
1
@noitallmanaz uuuh... is there really any good reason to consider "richer equal higher divorce rate" any more real fact? I suspect it is a bad tendency of both sides to proclaim (not argument) their stances as the "real facts" while the base for them is as weak as for other.
1
@adamwomble5189 Strange... Someone before accused Shapiro of generalization and now people generalize about conservatives. Honestly... How seriously one can take some limited study about people which consists millions of different individuals. Hooboy...
1
@yin3229 There are many things part of the brain, but they still don't work as justifications. Sure, there is libido, but I can't just go and force any woman out there to sate me. Sure, it is wired to feel hunger, but I shouldnt eat over my portion cause it becomes unhealthy. Same with emotions. They might be good carriage, but not good horse. Basically emotions are part of decision making, but not likely primary necessity to make decisions.
1
@nonegiven2830 if you are losing and flip the board, aren't you just making it more apparent that you lost? And if you were winning why bother to flip the board? No one have to believe if ye were winning cause you didnt bother to play the game to the end.
1
@hydrochloricacid6731 The thing is that whole gender debate is pretty much a game where players define what words mean and do not mean. There is also spectrums of overall stability of society and honestly... Considering how little we know about human brain I wouldnt call it case closed situation that one can use wiring of the brain as a base for gender.
1
@johndane3504 Many people do not matter to society, and we should be grateful that someone somewhere hasn't decided to become "Repo man" of society. It could be one's own door where they come knocking.
1
@jillybean3688 during history every race has been on both side of the leash. If one wishes to get any conclusions for present, using history as bargain chip does not work.
1
bob taylor i can also say that not even your own arguments really get out from "speculative" ring. It is circular reasoning. If one has before hand decided that institutional racism is reality, then every action is perceived as such, even if that wouldn't be the case. They simply assume institutional racism because they THINK it is reality. However, if it is possible give dozens or even hundreds of different options which can be more likely, the base for taking institutional racism as a norm is not strongest one. Just because my speculation is wrong, it does not make your case right either.
1
bob taylor besides... facts which you consider crystal clear arent necessary that clear under deeper scrutiny.
1
bob taylor And I answer long, because I dont think reality is so simple that you can fault problems on simplimistic abstract entity being villain in backgrounds. Sad thing is that problems in reality rarely have simple cause and even worse... simple solution. I try to not use academic jargon, because, heck, Im not academic either. Im not even native English speaker so if some of my writing goes over your head, sorry for that.
1
@Kpower how strong are these proofs and can the causalities taken from statistics be counted water-proof. Besides, if these institutions are not in question, isn't it just proper to ask what institutions are in question so there won't be offshoots.
1