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

  1. @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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. @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
  5.  @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
  6. 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
  7.  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
  8. @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
  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
  10. @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @sanchitoboc9224  debate room, court room. Two different stages, two different doctrines.
    7
  13.  @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
  14. 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
  15.  @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
  16.  bob taylor  if it did, then these kids really hadn't studied their case. That question was necessary to reveal that.
    7
  17.  @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
  18.  @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
  19.  @quidproquo82 , what I have heard, Ben actually does not use that much jargon and he is pretty stiff to be considered theatric.
    6
  20. Hooboy... People throwing these medical terms around whenever something not common comes around.
    5
  21. Answering back to one's view with their own is not bullying.
    5
  22.  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
  23.  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
  24.  @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
  25.  @LeoTakacs  his point being that being fellow atheist does not make him have same values as you.
    3
  26.  Steven Soco  specify actual lie. Otherwise it will be taken as outrage over opinion one does not like.
    3
  27.  Steven Soco  i am not American and do not even have opinions about Trump. Your point?
    3
  28. @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
  29. @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
  30.  @quidproquo82  those students he met didnt seem to like him that much.
    3
  31. 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
  32.  @nonegiven2830  practically you lost by deciding to not play it to the end. I dont know if that allegory works.
    3
  33.  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
  34.  @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
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. @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
  38.  @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
  39.  @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
  40.  @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
  41. These aren't even "tactics" they are ammunition, munition and manpower. Without them one does not do anything with tactics.
    2
  42. 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
  43.  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
  44.  Steven Soco  o boy...
    1
  45.  @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
  46.  @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
  47. 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
  48.  @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
  49.  @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
  50. 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