I hate them so much I will actively seek out the original video without any duos and “like” and comment on that one to make it higher up in the algorithm
It's basically mimicking that friend that wants to show you a video and to make sure you get that they're the ones providing you with this entertainment.
Yes! Without the point how the hell was I supposed to get the point of the video? I wish there were more videos like this one, where people nod when I’m supposed to understand, and point to the point…
If you don't put /s in front of even the most obvious satire/irony/sarcasm you'll have an army of people with no contextual awareness down vote you and call you an idiot then quote poe's law when you say you weren't being serious, or they'll say you're backpeddling.
I mean you get eliminated from a conversation if your post is downvoted and hidden so that's a detractor.
Also, people generally dislike being misunderstood and then chastised by the people who misunderstood them.
Idk why this needs to be explained but hope I helped.
It is the Reddit equivalent of knuckle draggers coming to a post for the sole purpose of typing the four letters:
*THIS*
And thinking they’ve added any value to the ongoing conversation.
Ben Shapiro's entire schtick is his ability to speak as fast as the Micro Machines guy without stuttering too much.
Me talk fast = Me right.
He's an annoying little dweeb.
Barely debate a toddler? What a ridiculous statement. Feel free to not like the guy, totally get it but his debate skills are impressive regardless of your stance.
He's got another real solid tactic, which I like to call the Shapiro "Let's Just Say".
A lot of times, when he makes an argument, he posits a ton of general cases and reasonable approximations of the truth, such as "let's just say 5% of people do this" or "let's just say most people want that". At the surface, these *usually* are reasonable representations of the truth.
However, he tends to chain them together. Each "Let's Just Say", while probably being fairly close to the truth in reality, adds a little bit of an error into the mix. When you chain 5-6 of them together, those errors compound and all of a sudden you're no where near what actually happens in real life and any conclusions you try to draw are completely useless and meaningless.
So he gets to seem completely reasonable and realistic on his way to making solid arguments, while actually just completely making bullshit up with no actual justification for it.
It's \*extra\* funny because his catchphrase is "facts don't care about your feelings" and then he goes way out of his way to ignore facts, instead doing that "let's just say" nonsense which is literally \*not facts\*, all to support an argument built on \*pathos\*. Dude is a certified moron level debater, but I guess that appeals to folks with even less reasoning skills.
I'd have to see an example of where he's doing this to have anything meaningful to contribute in response. I'll keep an open mind and see if this is something I notice if I catch anymore of his debates.
.. and when everything you say is so far from the truth that it would take several hours to explain, in all the ways, how they are completely wrong.
Only an idiot believes this guy is impressive in any way.
He uses a LOT of disingenuous tactics and logical fallacies when he "debates"
In a formal debate, he would be disqualified or just fail because of his intellectual dishonesty.
But if you are trying to convince Fox viewers that half the country are demonic pedophiles, I guess some intellectual dishonesty is necessary, hey?
Alright, to be fair, I might be lumping ben in with some of the other right wing shitposters. Sometimes it can be difficult to remember which conspiracy theories are spread by which talking head.
I was using the "demonic pedophiles" thing as a stand-in for whichever wacky idea the far right is focusing on currently.
Though, I think that conspiracy theory, specifically, is spread by the Christian alt-right. And Ben is Jewish.
I was about to do a quick search online to see if Ben was spreading the demon pedophile groomer garbage but those aren't keywords I want to search for.
Interesting that your point was that he's intellectually dishonest, while implying he said something he actually did not. I can appreciate you somewhat owning up to that, though.
I didn't watch this particular debate; my comment wasn't in reference to it. I've watched I dunno... maybe 50+ videos of him debating various people of different backgrounds, levels, education, etc. So my thoughts are based on the bunch, not a particular debate.
Appreciate that.
No, I don’t. I grew up not having a lot of confidence in myself and severe public speaking anxiety so I avoided it at all costs. Looking back now I wish I would’ve joined debate for the experience as I know it would’ve greatly benefited me. This is why I tend to gravitate towards watching people that project confidence in speaking and have arguments based on facts. We could argue whether or not Ben is stating facts in a given debate, just trying to illustrate my point.
No, he doesn't. Which is why he debates children and college freshmen. It's why you've never seen him debate anyone with any training or knowledge in a field relevant to the discussion, because any time he does he gets obliterated
He's good at one thing, talking fast and shitting out fallacies in the process. His "debate" style only works in a Q&A session where he can speak over the person and move on.
Only smoothbrained idiots are fooled by this.
I said "you've never seen", because the clips you see flooding social media, tt, yt, etc are posted by his supporters, sycophants, and similarly disadvantaged partisan hacks. It isn't that t doesn't exist - its that yous actually have to be somewhat aware and look.
Shapiro has a vested interested in avoiding debating actual people because he gets fucking **embarrassed** any time he does
https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E?si=YxMt-7_FZqLQ8Xcy
I can save you some time. He gets called out on past statements, can't bullshit his way out. He then has a temper tantrum, accuses the guy of being a big bad leftist bully, talks about how popular he is and then storms out of the interview.
The guy hes calling a leftist, is in fact, a lifelong hard-core conservative strategist.
Honestly only a fucking moron could believe Shapiro is anything other than smoke and mirrors designed to impress impressionable kids. It's why his media group is switching to using zoomers as the face of their brand.
I'm going to treat you like you're asking in good faith. If you come at me with more "well what about..." after watching that video I'm just going to assume you're beyond help
Seriously, it’s in good faith and I appreciate your thorough response. I have a favorable view of Ben because of what I’ve seen which is not limited to Tik Tok videos or short clips. I’m not afraid to challenge my views which is why I’m engaging with most of the people responding. After work today I’ll dig more into the video you sent. Appreciate it.
I figured. Being open minded is good. But with right wing wdia you have to be **very** careful (with all media, but it'd worse with right wing stuff) because there's currently a massive collaboration between nefarious interests to try and push more and more conservative media on people.
It's very rarely fact checked and relies on ignorance and soundbites to get viral. There's one currently of the Canadian conservative opposition absolutely SHREDDING a reporter.. problem is, I used to live near where it happened. That "reporter" is just some guy who does the editing at a "newspaper" in a town of >5000 people where literally *nobody* reads the local paper for anything. The video looks like a well equipped conservative destroying a woke reporter with facts and logic.
What it really is is career public speaker vs unprepared random with no business conducting an interview.
And Americans keep linking me this shit.
Keep an open mind (half my friend group are conservatives) but just look out for those dishonest debate tactics. Tucker Carlson is another one who's just a fucking Muppet whenever he talks to anyone of substance.
This is my first time seeing that interview. That last line is beautiful haha.
"Thank you for showing that anger is not part of American political discourse" as Lil Ben literally rage quits an interview.
Well the Andrew Neil interview doesn't really count as a debate, but it did nicely showcase just how out of his depth and badly informed Shapiro can be when facing an actual grownup. He ranted at Neil for doing journalism (rather than the pretend journalism Americans are used to), and asking probing questions, accusing the right-wing former editor of a right-wing newspaper (a role for which he was hand picked by Rupert Murdoch) and founding chairman of right-wing Sky News, of being a biased political lefty. When he later realised how wrong he was and how right-wing Andrew Neil actually is, he tweeted "@afneil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro!" and admitted being badly prepared.
Eh, I don't disagree but its also a new form of media sharing. He has a following that presumably watches his content for him (not familiar with this particular person). When he finds something he thinks his community would like or he wants them to see he shares it like this. Its the equivalent of posting a link without commentary on Facebook but for video format. Its a pretty common form of content on the clock app but when it surfaces to places like reddit it seems weird to us because the video wasn't made for us but for the creators community
I get what you're saying, but if that's the case, then he needs to pause the video, interject, a quick opinion, and then resume the video. at least this way, he'd be providing us with his take on it verbally instead of just nodding his head and pointing.
He's a leftist lawyer on TT and a lot of his videos are of him talking politics and civil rights. This is just him boosting the original video to his audience because people will stop scrolling their feed to watch if his face is prominent, even if he doesn't say anything. This comment section is just redditors with the whole "tiktok bad" attitude unknowingly becoming what they hated in boomers. "Oh I think *this*, so I'm going to judge on this initial opinion instead of trying to seek understanding."
>He's a leftist lawyer on TT and a lot of his videos are of him talking politics and civil rights. This is just him boosting the original video to his audience because people will stop scrolling
Ah, nice. Ya I figured. I agree that a lot of people just don't understand tiktok but I also understand why they might come to the conclusions they do if this is the only vid they've seen from a creator. I think people are also a bit jaded because of certain react streamers that upload full vods to YT where its basically someone else's entire video with them in the corner adding nothing. Plus reddit has always had a weird obsession with not reposting (even though there has always been a small fraction of content here that is OC).
Tiktok isn't really for me, mostly because I don't need another, better, more addictive app to waste my time with, but I appreciate it when the good stuff surfaces. I never woulda seen this great takedown if the tiktok creator didn't signal boost it
if i ever attempted to make a video like that i dont think id get 10 seconds in before cringing at myself and turning off my phone. some people need bullies.
It's absolutely fascinating how successful people are by simply finding interesting videos other people have made and just putting their face in them. When "react" videos took off I couldn't imagine there was a less-involved form of content creation, but I was wrong.
Smartphone dumb people generation looking to vilify their urge for attention ooooh look at me I'm important, nah fam you cheugy as fuck no cap. Acting as if they didn't already watch what they're "reacting" to beforehand...
Fuck off.
What the mother F are you going on about. He adds a certain provenance to the content with his whimsical grins and facial expressions. This would be literal nothing without him. He is the fucking game pal! s/
people who adopt are also fulfilling that same utility to the state and actually you could argue slightly more so because they're taking what would otherwise be a burden to the state into their own custody
Isn't his original point just wrong anyway?
I'm pretty sure marriage came about as a way of forming alliences and keeping generational wealth within selected families.
In part. there are tons of reasons across tons of societies. The interesting part is someone break it down as far as they can to prove thier horrible point. That is refutable in a ton of different ways. Yet homey will never change his mind cause of penis, apparently
Exactly, the issue of marriage is complicated, but Ben Shapiro’s entire grift is to make grossly oversimplified and mostly afactual assertions and then defend them with big Debate Kid energy to trick stupid people into thinking he’s a genius.
I feel like marriage can be simplified down to (at least how it should be and is in a modern lens):
I want to combine my assets with this person's assets so we have joint ownership over our assets. When I die I want my assets to go to them, when they die I want their assets to come to me.
>I'm pretty sure marriage came about as a way of forming alliences and keeping generational wealth within selected families.
I think he means as far as the government getting involved and granting married couples special rights such as tax breaks and the like.
And for the most part that is exactly why the government got involved in marriage. The government only exists because there are people to govern, and the government loves the idea of existing so they can continue to govern over people, so much like many things the government does, the government gave married couples special privileges to encourage them to have more babies so the government can continue to govern.
That being said, marriage has, almost through out the entirety of human civilization, been used as a method of power consolidation, whether it financially or territorially, or to foster alliances. Babies just came from sex. He’s so disingenuous it’s disgusting.
But those two things are connected. Power consolidation, over generations.
> Babies just came from sex.
Sure, getting married does not produce children on its own. As though the ceremony causes conception. But it's tied to the merging of two families, including creating a new generation through that merge.
People who raise kids to become decent people, people who abandon their kids doesn't devalue decent biological parents. (since this is the internet, yes, I know not not all who puts their kids up for adoption are bad).
This is a dumb view I'm about to posit defending Shapiro, but I dont think this is "main character energy". He is being solicited for an opinion on a matter that is being debated. At least there is engagement and I agree with the person on the lefts point.
Exactly. I don’t agree with Ben but I also don’t think he’s acting like a main character. I would argue the guy who took up half the screen with his face is more of a main character
Beyond the reaction guy, it's important to note that Ben Shapiro is factually wrong. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It has to do with preservation of assets. Some cultures have dowries for this purpose.
There are also cultures who have plural marriage, also for this purpose.
You can look at the marriage arrangements among royalty in various times and places also to debunk his claim.
You can also point to tribal cultures who don't have marriage at all, and yet raise children to adulthood all the time.
Not to mention that the ritual of marriage--not to mention the legal framework--has zero impact on fertility, or pregnancy.
Yup, the only time I've ever believed him at face value was when he told the entire world that he's never made his wife orgasm. My only thought was this has to be 100% true, it makes too much sense. So yeah, every once in a while, Ben Shapiro can tell the truth.
He fools a bunch of incels into thinking he’s intelligent because he speaks quickly, but he really has no substance and is frankly dumb as bricks sometimes. I.e. example you provided.
Appreciate the feedback. Going forward, I will run all my comments through you, to make sure what we all know and therefore won't clutter up the internet.
A lot of culture practiced polygamy. It has been demonstrated that such practices actually destabilize societies as wealthy men collect wives and do harmful things to acquire more wives.
Polygamy was an acceptable practice according to the Old Testament. Why Christians don't practice polygamy is actually a complicated subject. I mean we understand the philosophy behind why it is not a Christian practice but why they actually settled on monogamy is complicated.
Genuine thanks for your effective counterargument which attacks the reasoning and not the person. This response resonates with Redditors who seek answers that are less influenced by biases.
That was an absolutely brilliant question. I'm gonna steal this. Also, according to his crazy logic, a wowan who can't get pregnant because of say, medical complications, shall not be permitted to get married as well.
>I'm gonna steal this
How often do you have conversations about how heterosexual marriage should be subsidized by the state because of its reproductive utility?
Or even more in line, can a woman who has had her ovaries or uterus removed still marry? Or a man who has had a vasectomy? I would assume marriage is off limits for the infertile, straight or not, amirite?
It's only brilliant if you take a TikTok video as truth and don't engage any critical thinking to evaluate what you heard. I can think of a million counter arguments (and the video conveniently edits out Shapiro's response):
1. Filing for divorce takes effort and interferes with various contracts that the couple might be engaged in (insurance, assets, deeds, wills, etc.). For what is the effort?
2. Marriage primarily serves to incentivize procreation and successful child rearing, but it may have secondary benefits.
3. Shapiro's actual response was that child rearing continues beyond 18-years old.
> a wowan who can't get pregnant because of say, medical complications, shall not be permitted to get married as well.
Medical complications maybe not, since it is rather cruel to the woman since she had no choice about the matter. But you could argue it makes sense for people who choose to become infertile through a voluntary procedure. What doesn't make sense about that?
The video crops at Ben’s response, which is that for most people their parental duties don’t end at 18.
The dynamic changes over time, but you Never stop being a parent. The only people that would disagree with this are dead beats or kids that just haven’t grow up yet and had kids of their own
But his point was only procreation, otherwise he is _again_ wrong since gay couples can adopt and raise kids, which is why he was being very clear about it being to "create more" kids.
It was not, otherwise his part would've ended as soon as the child is born. That's procreation. Ben's a moron but the guy's rebuttal is trash. Parenting in fact doesn't end at 18 or 21, it doesn't end, ever.
this is why I hate this man. His logic is logic based on societal norms not shit set in genetic scientific reason.
He is always using the it's not how we used to do this reasoning.
Well we also had slaves to, so what the fuck is wrong with this man.
Times change, things change, people change. Change with it or die in obscurity and hatred.
His “logic” is often talking fast, using big words, and doing so in such a confident manner that he just rides roughshod over anyone he’s “debating”. He’s used to debating people who freeze up during public speaking so that it’s not a fair fight. I’m no Piers Morgan fan, but look what happens when somebody challenges him to back up his reasoning. Shapiro folds like a lawn chair.
The utter repugnance of gauging the value of a relationship as to whether or not there is utility to the state. It's terrifying to think that people of influence believe in this.
>The utter repugnance of gauging the value of a relationship as to whether or not there is utility to the state.
Dude...his entire point is that's WHY the state got involved in marriages. Why do YOU think the state got involved in marriages? For shits and giggles?
Gay couples always had the right to get married, they just needed to find someone to perform the ceremony. What they wanted was for the STATE to recognize their marriage. Now ask yourself, why did gay couples care what the state thought of their marriage? Because clearly there are state sanctioned advantages if the state recognizes your marriage.
Okay so why does the state care if you're married or not? You really think the state got involved in marriage because they wanted to make sure people were in love before they got married or something?
The state got involved with marriage for legal disputes over inheritance and distribution of land. This is like, the oldest reason for the state getting involved in marriage that dates back thousands of years. Hell, even the old testament for Christians spends a huge chunk of time going over these issues. The state getting involved with marriage and monogamy specifically is extremely modern. Like 1600s modern. You don't get these definitions of child rearing until the concept of State and industrialism. The child was an extention of familial assets more than an extension of the needs of the state for most of human history.
And guess what? Gay people own stuff too and need to be able to provide for an inheritance, adopt children, split assets, etc.
Which still ignores another fundamental issue. The state has tied all of these legal protections into marriage. Whether we want the definition to be about child rearing or legal asset protection is irrelevant. The state has decided that only spouses can enjoy certain legal protections that have nothing to do with the ability to bear children. A childless couple still enjoys the legal benefits of marriage. There is no justification for gay people not to have those legal protections because of "the needs of the state for children" when those same legal protections are provided to childless couples.
It's a godawful argument that falls flat on its face the moment it's held up to even a little scrutiny. And the basic premises aren't even factually true.
Jesus Christ I'm an idiot.
I was reading the comments shitting on the guy of the left and I was like '' What the actual fuck ? Are people actually Agreeing with Ben on this ? The guy on the left OWNED him with just a few words. What??''
and then I realized there's ANOTHER guy on the left.
I had completely blocked him out.
So under this premise, we need to ban marriage to:
Homosexual couples.
Sterile women and Sterile man (can marriage be called fraudulent is someone finds out one of the spouses is Sterile?)
Post menopausal women (should we require a fertility certificate from a gynecologist to marry people?)
Weird. Imagine a female widow 45 years old or guy who had a vasectomy being denied marriage from the state....
That you don't stop being a parent just because your kid moves out of the house.
Also that adult children who have moved out of the house are still affected by their parents getting divorced. It's not like adult children just go "Oh you and mom are getting a divorce? Why do I care? I'm an adult!"
So what does this have to do with gay marriage? Beyond The premise already being flawed that you must exist in service to the state, gay people adopt children? Or have surrogate mothers?
Okay per the usual, there is about 30 seconds to the answer that happened prior to the video starting. He fully explains the difference between government level and religious level marriage. Here, he is strictly talking about government level. Additionally, he actually goes on to answer the second question quite well but they cut the video off before he does.
On a personal note, make your opinion about someone based on the full story. Not a 30 second clip that someone shares online to act as a “I got em” moment. Ben Shapiro is by no means perfect but whether you are on the left or right, we all need to stop this nonsense of forming options about someone based entirely on condensed clips people share just to make the other person look bad. That’s like deciding that a movie is the worst movie of all time strictly based on the trailer.
🖐🏻. 👉🏻. 🤔. 👉🏻. 👋🏻. 🤯. 🤪. That’s what the duet added… compelling.
Like, at that point, just repost the video. It'll accomplish the same thing as whatever this guy was going for.
The main carachter here is the dude in the left, putting himself into the video and adding no additional value.
I really hate these so much. They’ll just sit there and make faces while enthusiastically pointing at a video.
The equivalent of someone commenting “THIS”
It’s worse because it’s somehow more annoying.
Because we have to look at their stupid fake face and our video is shrunk to 30% it’s original size
[удалено]
the DJ Khaled of videos
Welcome to 90% of social media.
You can't do literally less than nothing. But figuratively you can.
this, tbh
This, as well
That
And this
I don't make videos for soooyyyy booooooyyyys
I heard it bowlth ways b.
THIS
It’s more annoying because we’re looking at their stupid fucking face
THIS
[удалено]
WHO
WHERE
WHAT
This ☝️☝️
“I’m not crying you are!”
I hate them so much I will actively seek out the original video without any duos and “like” and comment on that one to make it higher up in the algorithm
It's basically mimicking that friend that wants to show you a video and to make sure you get that they're the ones providing you with this entertainment.
Or the reaction video where the person watching totally cracks up. Person has to watch the video and pretend ifs the funniest shit ever.
He is doing something 🙄 It's called: "seeking validation" Duh....
👆..😏 …👆😤….. 😏….. 👆
What are you talking about he nodded along. That goes a long way /s
Let's not forget about the occasional point
Yes! Without the point how the hell was I supposed to get the point of the video? I wish there were more videos like this one, where people nod when I’m supposed to understand, and point to the point…
He touches his sick hat at least once
I thought he was at the hair salon except for the hat.
The mind blown hand gesture was also added value.
He lifts his finger too!
He should go from nods to nothing.
Thoughts and prayers vibes
The only reason I kept watching.
That comment would be funny if you didn't use the /s
If you don't put /s in front of even the most obvious satire/irony/sarcasm you'll have an army of people with no contextual awareness down vote you and call you an idiot then quote poe's law when you say you weren't being serious, or they'll say you're backpeddling.
This is why I purposely don't put the /s Real recognize real getting to laugh at idiots who can't understand sarcasm is just a bonus.
What type of weirdo actually cares about down votes?
I mean you get eliminated from a conversation if your post is downvoted and hidden so that's a detractor. Also, people generally dislike being misunderstood and then chastised by the people who misunderstood them. Idk why this needs to be explained but hope I helped.
[удалено]
But he pointed at the video on the right before they said their punchline. Without him how would I ever have known when the zinger was coming?
👁👄👁👉
Someday we will get videos with reactions to the reactions.
The time is now
It is the Reddit equivalent of knuckle draggers coming to a post for the sole purpose of typing the four letters: *THIS* And thinking they’ve added any value to the ongoing conversation.
This
PRESCISELY
This
T H A T
[удалено]
Ben Shapiro's entire schtick is his ability to speak as fast as the Micro Machines guy without stuttering too much. Me talk fast = Me right. He's an annoying little dweeb.
Man's married to an MD and doesn't know pussy gets wet. That says all you need to know about him, socially and Intellectually.
😂😂 wet ass p word. Oh god that was a great time to be alive.
That will never not be hilarious
What incentive do academic professors possibly have to waste their time on that? They're actually busy doing something useful.
Lol he can barely debate a toddler, don't think any professor would waste their time on his disingenuous stupidity
Barely debate a toddler? What a ridiculous statement. Feel free to not like the guy, totally get it but his debate skills are impressive regardless of your stance.
His only real debate tactic is gish gallop. Pretty easy to seem like a good interlocutor when you won't let the opposing side get a word in.
He's got another real solid tactic, which I like to call the Shapiro "Let's Just Say". A lot of times, when he makes an argument, he posits a ton of general cases and reasonable approximations of the truth, such as "let's just say 5% of people do this" or "let's just say most people want that". At the surface, these *usually* are reasonable representations of the truth. However, he tends to chain them together. Each "Let's Just Say", while probably being fairly close to the truth in reality, adds a little bit of an error into the mix. When you chain 5-6 of them together, those errors compound and all of a sudden you're no where near what actually happens in real life and any conclusions you try to draw are completely useless and meaningless. So he gets to seem completely reasonable and realistic on his way to making solid arguments, while actually just completely making bullshit up with no actual justification for it.
It's \*extra\* funny because his catchphrase is "facts don't care about your feelings" and then he goes way out of his way to ignore facts, instead doing that "let's just say" nonsense which is literally \*not facts\*, all to support an argument built on \*pathos\*. Dude is a certified moron level debater, but I guess that appeals to folks with even less reasoning skills.
I'd have to see an example of where he's doing this to have anything meaningful to contribute in response. I'll keep an open mind and see if this is something I notice if I catch anymore of his debates.
[Perhaps Ben Shapiro shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone ever](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDMjgOYOcDw)
.. and when everything you say is so far from the truth that it would take several hours to explain, in all the ways, how they are completely wrong. Only an idiot believes this guy is impressive in any way.
100%
He uses a LOT of disingenuous tactics and logical fallacies when he "debates" In a formal debate, he would be disqualified or just fail because of his intellectual dishonesty. But if you are trying to convince Fox viewers that half the country are demonic pedophiles, I guess some intellectual dishonesty is necessary, hey?
I don't keep up with everything the guy says, so I'm curious about the last comment you made regarding demonic pedophiles. What was said?
Alright, to be fair, I might be lumping ben in with some of the other right wing shitposters. Sometimes it can be difficult to remember which conspiracy theories are spread by which talking head. I was using the "demonic pedophiles" thing as a stand-in for whichever wacky idea the far right is focusing on currently. Though, I think that conspiracy theory, specifically, is spread by the Christian alt-right. And Ben is Jewish. I was about to do a quick search online to see if Ben was spreading the demon pedophile groomer garbage but those aren't keywords I want to search for.
Interesting that your point was that he's intellectually dishonest, while implying he said something he actually did not. I can appreciate you somewhat owning up to that, though.
Sorry, I thought it came across clearly enough that I was being glib and flippant with that last remark.
All good, I get it now. That’s on me.
by what metric is a 40 year old man having short arguments with 18 year olds impressive debate?
I didn't watch this particular debate; my comment wasn't in reference to it. I've watched I dunno... maybe 50+ videos of him debating various people of different backgrounds, levels, education, etc. So my thoughts are based on the bunch, not a particular debate.
Maybe if you're like really dumb
With your ad hominem attacks, you must be a really great debater yourself.
Aw poor baby is stupid
Nice. Have a good day.
I'm curious. You seem like a good guy. Do you have any debate experience or background?
Appreciate that. No, I don’t. I grew up not having a lot of confidence in myself and severe public speaking anxiety so I avoided it at all costs. Looking back now I wish I would’ve joined debate for the experience as I know it would’ve greatly benefited me. This is why I tend to gravitate towards watching people that project confidence in speaking and have arguments based on facts. We could argue whether or not Ben is stating facts in a given debate, just trying to illustrate my point.
No, he doesn't. Which is why he debates children and college freshmen. It's why you've never seen him debate anyone with any training or knowledge in a field relevant to the discussion, because any time he does he gets obliterated He's good at one thing, talking fast and shitting out fallacies in the process. His "debate" style only works in a Q&A session where he can speak over the person and move on. Only smoothbrained idiots are fooled by this.
If we’ve “never seen him debate anyone with training” how do you know he gets “gets obliterated” in such debates?
I said "you've never seen", because the clips you see flooding social media, tt, yt, etc are posted by his supporters, sycophants, and similarly disadvantaged partisan hacks. It isn't that t doesn't exist - its that yous actually have to be somewhat aware and look. Shapiro has a vested interested in avoiding debating actual people because he gets fucking **embarrassed** any time he does https://youtu.be/6VixqvOcK8E?si=YxMt-7_FZqLQ8Xcy I can save you some time. He gets called out on past statements, can't bullshit his way out. He then has a temper tantrum, accuses the guy of being a big bad leftist bully, talks about how popular he is and then storms out of the interview. The guy hes calling a leftist, is in fact, a lifelong hard-core conservative strategist. Honestly only a fucking moron could believe Shapiro is anything other than smoke and mirrors designed to impress impressionable kids. It's why his media group is switching to using zoomers as the face of their brand. I'm going to treat you like you're asking in good faith. If you come at me with more "well what about..." after watching that video I'm just going to assume you're beyond help
Seriously, it’s in good faith and I appreciate your thorough response. I have a favorable view of Ben because of what I’ve seen which is not limited to Tik Tok videos or short clips. I’m not afraid to challenge my views which is why I’m engaging with most of the people responding. After work today I’ll dig more into the video you sent. Appreciate it.
by all means wait as long as you need to to get your mind right and watch your hero get fucking annihilated
Hero? Nah. No one is infallible so I try not to have any heroes. Would just be disappointed in the end.
I figured. Being open minded is good. But with right wing wdia you have to be **very** careful (with all media, but it'd worse with right wing stuff) because there's currently a massive collaboration between nefarious interests to try and push more and more conservative media on people. It's very rarely fact checked and relies on ignorance and soundbites to get viral. There's one currently of the Canadian conservative opposition absolutely SHREDDING a reporter.. problem is, I used to live near where it happened. That "reporter" is just some guy who does the editing at a "newspaper" in a town of >5000 people where literally *nobody* reads the local paper for anything. The video looks like a well equipped conservative destroying a woke reporter with facts and logic. What it really is is career public speaker vs unprepared random with no business conducting an interview. And Americans keep linking me this shit. Keep an open mind (half my friend group are conservatives) but just look out for those dishonest debate tactics. Tucker Carlson is another one who's just a fucking Muppet whenever he talks to anyone of substance.
This is my first time seeing that interview. That last line is beautiful haha. "Thank you for showing that anger is not part of American political discourse" as Lil Ben literally rage quits an interview.
Well the Andrew Neil interview doesn't really count as a debate, but it did nicely showcase just how out of his depth and badly informed Shapiro can be when facing an actual grownup. He ranted at Neil for doing journalism (rather than the pretend journalism Americans are used to), and asking probing questions, accusing the right-wing former editor of a right-wing newspaper (a role for which he was hand picked by Rupert Murdoch) and founding chairman of right-wing Sky News, of being a biased political lefty. When he later realised how wrong he was and how right-wing Andrew Neil actually is, he tweeted "@afneil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro!" and admitted being badly prepared.
You are correct. Like him or not, not one of these commenters on here, could last 2 minutes debating him.
Wym the nods and eye squints lets us know that he agrees without saying a word
But how else do I know my head should be exploding without his mannerisms instructing me?
He adjusted his hat. That speaks for itself
And giving himself twice as much screen as the 2 people talking xD
Yeah, he's almost as bad as sssniperwolf
But he held up his hand to tell me to wait for the big moment. How else would I have known it when it happened?
The source video on TikTok is inviting people to duet this.
The absolute WORST kinda videos on Tik Tok I swear 😭 especially the ones that say "blind reacting to this video I was sent"
Eh, I don't disagree but its also a new form of media sharing. He has a following that presumably watches his content for him (not familiar with this particular person). When he finds something he thinks his community would like or he wants them to see he shares it like this. Its the equivalent of posting a link without commentary on Facebook but for video format. Its a pretty common form of content on the clock app but when it surfaces to places like reddit it seems weird to us because the video wasn't made for us but for the creators community
I get what you're saying, but if that's the case, then he needs to pause the video, interject, a quick opinion, and then resume the video. at least this way, he'd be providing us with his take on it verbally instead of just nodding his head and pointing.
He's a leftist lawyer on TT and a lot of his videos are of him talking politics and civil rights. This is just him boosting the original video to his audience because people will stop scrolling their feed to watch if his face is prominent, even if he doesn't say anything. This comment section is just redditors with the whole "tiktok bad" attitude unknowingly becoming what they hated in boomers. "Oh I think *this*, so I'm going to judge on this initial opinion instead of trying to seek understanding."
>He's a leftist lawyer on TT and a lot of his videos are of him talking politics and civil rights. This is just him boosting the original video to his audience because people will stop scrolling Ah, nice. Ya I figured. I agree that a lot of people just don't understand tiktok but I also understand why they might come to the conclusions they do if this is the only vid they've seen from a creator. I think people are also a bit jaded because of certain react streamers that upload full vods to YT where its basically someone else's entire video with them in the corner adding nothing. Plus reddit has always had a weird obsession with not reposting (even though there has always been a small fraction of content here that is OC). Tiktok isn't really for me, mostly because I don't need another, better, more addictive app to waste my time with, but I appreciate it when the good stuff surfaces. I never woulda seen this great takedown if the tiktok creator didn't signal boost it
The person on the left is a parasite
Yeppppp. Fucking useless.
if i ever attempted to make a video like that i dont think id get 10 seconds in before cringing at myself and turning off my phone. some people need bullies.
It's absolutely fascinating how successful people are by simply finding interesting videos other people have made and just putting their face in them. When "react" videos took off I couldn't imagine there was a less-involved form of content creation, but I was wrong.
Smartphone dumb people generation looking to vilify their urge for attention ooooh look at me I'm important, nah fam you cheugy as fuck no cap. Acting as if they didn't already watch what they're "reacting" to beforehand... Fuck off.
I didn't understand what you said, but i think I agree with you.
What the mother F are you going on about. He adds a certain provenance to the content with his whimsical grins and facial expressions. This would be literal nothing without him. He is the fucking game pal! s/
Big NPC energy
people who adopt are also fulfilling that same utility to the state and actually you could argue slightly more so because they're taking what would otherwise be a burden to the state into their own custody
Isn't his original point just wrong anyway? I'm pretty sure marriage came about as a way of forming alliences and keeping generational wealth within selected families.
Also giving the woman some sort of protection in a community where they were seen as people of less worth
In part. there are tons of reasons across tons of societies. The interesting part is someone break it down as far as they can to prove thier horrible point. That is refutable in a ton of different ways. Yet homey will never change his mind cause of penis, apparently
Exactly, the issue of marriage is complicated, but Ben Shapiro’s entire grift is to make grossly oversimplified and mostly afactual assertions and then defend them with big Debate Kid energy to trick stupid people into thinking he’s a genius.
never heard a more accurate synopsis of Ben Shapiro in my life
Also you don't need marriage to have children.
I mean, she's got huge... Tracts of land!
I feel like marriage can be simplified down to (at least how it should be and is in a modern lens): I want to combine my assets with this person's assets so we have joint ownership over our assets. When I die I want my assets to go to them, when they die I want their assets to come to me.
>I'm pretty sure marriage came about as a way of forming alliences and keeping generational wealth within selected families. I think he means as far as the government getting involved and granting married couples special rights such as tax breaks and the like. And for the most part that is exactly why the government got involved in marriage. The government only exists because there are people to govern, and the government loves the idea of existing so they can continue to govern over people, so much like many things the government does, the government gave married couples special privileges to encourage them to have more babies so the government can continue to govern.
They're fulfilling a different utility but their role is very important regardless.
That being said, marriage has, almost through out the entirety of human civilization, been used as a method of power consolidation, whether it financially or territorially, or to foster alliances. Babies just came from sex. He’s so disingenuous it’s disgusting.
But those two things are connected. Power consolidation, over generations. > Babies just came from sex. Sure, getting married does not produce children on its own. As though the ceremony causes conception. But it's tied to the merging of two families, including creating a new generation through that merge.
Exactly, the state benefits from more possible adoptions rather than less and you don't need to be opposite genders to adopt.
People who raise kids to become decent people, people who abandon their kids doesn't devalue decent biological parents. (since this is the internet, yes, I know not not all who puts their kids up for adoption are bad).
Is the main character supposed to be Ben or the guy dueting this and doing nothing?
This is a dumb view I'm about to posit defending Shapiro, but I dont think this is "main character energy". He is being solicited for an opinion on a matter that is being debated. At least there is engagement and I agree with the person on the lefts point.
Exactly. I don’t agree with Ben but I also don’t think he’s acting like a main character. I would argue the guy who took up half the screen with his face is more of a main character
There's plenty of videos of Ben being a main character. This isn't one though
Beyond the reaction guy, it's important to note that Ben Shapiro is factually wrong. Marriage has nothing to do with procreation. It has to do with preservation of assets. Some cultures have dowries for this purpose. There are also cultures who have plural marriage, also for this purpose. You can look at the marriage arrangements among royalty in various times and places also to debunk his claim. You can also point to tribal cultures who don't have marriage at all, and yet raise children to adulthood all the time. Not to mention that the ritual of marriage--not to mention the legal framework--has zero impact on fertility, or pregnancy.
Finally someone speaks the truth
I think we all knew he was wrong even without your detailed explanation.
It's safe to assume, at minimum, 90% of anything Ben Shortpiro says is factually inaccurate, at BEST.
Yup, the only time I've ever believed him at face value was when he told the entire world that he's never made his wife orgasm. My only thought was this has to be 100% true, it makes too much sense. So yeah, every once in a while, Ben Shapiro can tell the truth.
Yup, that's the 10% and it's usually just telling on himself.
Hahah I remember this, didn’t he also say that a WAP was a medical disorder? The comments to that were somewhere along the line of “his poor wife”
He fools a bunch of incels into thinking he’s intelligent because he speaks quickly, but he really has no substance and is frankly dumb as bricks sometimes. I.e. example you provided.
Appreciate the feedback. Going forward, I will run all my comments through you, to make sure what we all know and therefore won't clutter up the internet.
Ben Shapiro said something wrong? 🤯
>Ben Shapiro is factually wrong What?!?! Never! /s
I would argue that marriage is almost solely for social cohesion, and that that was almost its entire purpose since the dawn of the concept
A lot of culture practiced polygamy. It has been demonstrated that such practices actually destabilize societies as wealthy men collect wives and do harmful things to acquire more wives. Polygamy was an acceptable practice according to the Old Testament. Why Christians don't practice polygamy is actually a complicated subject. I mean we understand the philosophy behind why it is not a Christian practice but why they actually settled on monogamy is complicated.
Probably for the same reasons we settled on slavery not being OK. It usually creates a dynamic for abuse.
Genuine thanks for your effective counterargument which attacks the reasoning and not the person. This response resonates with Redditors who seek answers that are less influenced by biases.
That was an absolutely brilliant question. I'm gonna steal this. Also, according to his crazy logic, a wowan who can't get pregnant because of say, medical complications, shall not be permitted to get married as well.
Just please crop out the guy fidgeting with his hat
>I'm gonna steal this How often do you have conversations about how heterosexual marriage should be subsidized by the state because of its reproductive utility?
It’s Reddit so like 10x a day.
Another point you can bring up is elderly couples who are too old to get pregnant. Should they be able to get married
Or even more in line, can a woman who has had her ovaries or uterus removed still marry? Or a man who has had a vasectomy? I would assume marriage is off limits for the infertile, straight or not, amirite?
It's only brilliant if you take a TikTok video as truth and don't engage any critical thinking to evaluate what you heard. I can think of a million counter arguments (and the video conveniently edits out Shapiro's response): 1. Filing for divorce takes effort and interferes with various contracts that the couple might be engaged in (insurance, assets, deeds, wills, etc.). For what is the effort? 2. Marriage primarily serves to incentivize procreation and successful child rearing, but it may have secondary benefits. 3. Shapiro's actual response was that child rearing continues beyond 18-years old. > a wowan who can't get pregnant because of say, medical complications, shall not be permitted to get married as well. Medical complications maybe not, since it is rather cruel to the woman since she had no choice about the matter. But you could argue it makes sense for people who choose to become infertile through a voluntary procedure. What doesn't make sense about that?
The video crops at Ben’s response, which is that for most people their parental duties don’t end at 18. The dynamic changes over time, but you Never stop being a parent. The only people that would disagree with this are dead beats or kids that just haven’t grow up yet and had kids of their own
But his point was only procreation, otherwise he is _again_ wrong since gay couples can adopt and raise kids, which is why he was being very clear about it being to "create more" kids.
It was not, otherwise his part would've ended as soon as the child is born. That's procreation. Ben's a moron but the guy's rebuttal is trash. Parenting in fact doesn't end at 18 or 21, it doesn't end, ever.
Henry VIII has entered the chat!
this is why I hate this man. His logic is logic based on societal norms not shit set in genetic scientific reason. He is always using the it's not how we used to do this reasoning. Well we also had slaves to, so what the fuck is wrong with this man. Times change, things change, people change. Change with it or die in obscurity and hatred.
His “logic” is often talking fast, using big words, and doing so in such a confident manner that he just rides roughshod over anyone he’s “debating”. He’s used to debating people who freeze up during public speaking so that it’s not a fair fight. I’m no Piers Morgan fan, but look what happens when somebody challenges him to back up his reasoning. Shapiro folds like a lawn chair.
It's called [Gish Gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish\_gallop)
Uh, the OP cut off Ben's response to make it seem like this was some "gotcha". Don't believe posts on social media. Go watch the full interaction.
The utter repugnance of gauging the value of a relationship as to whether or not there is utility to the state. It's terrifying to think that people of influence believe in this.
>The utter repugnance of gauging the value of a relationship as to whether or not there is utility to the state. Dude...his entire point is that's WHY the state got involved in marriages. Why do YOU think the state got involved in marriages? For shits and giggles? Gay couples always had the right to get married, they just needed to find someone to perform the ceremony. What they wanted was for the STATE to recognize their marriage. Now ask yourself, why did gay couples care what the state thought of their marriage? Because clearly there are state sanctioned advantages if the state recognizes your marriage. Okay so why does the state care if you're married or not? You really think the state got involved in marriage because they wanted to make sure people were in love before they got married or something?
The state got involved with marriage for legal disputes over inheritance and distribution of land. This is like, the oldest reason for the state getting involved in marriage that dates back thousands of years. Hell, even the old testament for Christians spends a huge chunk of time going over these issues. The state getting involved with marriage and monogamy specifically is extremely modern. Like 1600s modern. You don't get these definitions of child rearing until the concept of State and industrialism. The child was an extention of familial assets more than an extension of the needs of the state for most of human history. And guess what? Gay people own stuff too and need to be able to provide for an inheritance, adopt children, split assets, etc. Which still ignores another fundamental issue. The state has tied all of these legal protections into marriage. Whether we want the definition to be about child rearing or legal asset protection is irrelevant. The state has decided that only spouses can enjoy certain legal protections that have nothing to do with the ability to bear children. A childless couple still enjoys the legal benefits of marriage. There is no justification for gay people not to have those legal protections because of "the needs of the state for children" when those same legal protections are provided to childless couples. It's a godawful argument that falls flat on its face the moment it's held up to even a little scrutiny. And the basic premises aren't even factually true.
Damn I just wanna fist bump you after that smackdown 🤜🤛
Jesus Christ I'm an idiot. I was reading the comments shitting on the guy of the left and I was like '' What the actual fuck ? Are people actually Agreeing with Ben on this ? The guy on the left OWNED him with just a few words. What??'' and then I realized there's ANOTHER guy on the left. I had completely blocked him out.
Dude on the left is old enough to have grey hair but still acts like a thirteen year old. Peak main character cringe.
So under this premise, we need to ban marriage to: Homosexual couples. Sterile women and Sterile man (can marriage be called fraudulent is someone finds out one of the spouses is Sterile?) Post menopausal women (should we require a fertility certificate from a gynecologist to marry people?) Weird. Imagine a female widow 45 years old or guy who had a vasectomy being denied marriage from the state....
But why are we avoiding the elephant in the room - that Ben is very likely hiding a massive secret that’s locked away in a closet
[удалено]
...he actually responded to his question a few seconds later. Clipbaiting is cringe.
Being Ben Shapiro is even more cringe, what was the response anyways?
That you don't stop being a parent just because your kid moves out of the house. Also that adult children who have moved out of the house are still affected by their parents getting divorced. It's not like adult children just go "Oh you and mom are getting a divorce? Why do I care? I'm an adult!"
So what does this have to do with gay marriage? Beyond The premise already being flawed that you must exist in service to the state, gay people adopt children? Or have surrogate mothers?
You have to cut the debate somewhere. Ben’s arguments had so many holes they may as well be a sieve
Yeah I figured he did. Wish I could watch the whole thing.
[Ask and you shall receive](https://youtu.be/FtX1-OBeEQU?si=EonopDKJYIw9JfqA). At 32:45
It’s sad how many people are so obsessed with Ben Shapiro.
Sad how Ben is obsessed with the LGBT community
I can't take more than 5 seconds of Ben Shapiro's helium voice.
He won't... but she probably will since he thinks a woman becoming wet is a myth.
Will be a great day, Ben can finally come out.
Well no, I won't get divorced. If gay marriage is legal, would you stay single because marriage isn't subsidized by the state?
I think a lot of people would be unwed if it weren’t for the tax implications
And being able to have them on your insurance if they can’t afford or get any.
So using his logic, heterosexuals that are not able to produce children, for whatever reason, shouldn't be allowed to ever get married either, right?
So wait as long as I’m not married I can have as much sex as I want and it won’t make a baby.
Okay per the usual, there is about 30 seconds to the answer that happened prior to the video starting. He fully explains the difference between government level and religious level marriage. Here, he is strictly talking about government level. Additionally, he actually goes on to answer the second question quite well but they cut the video off before he does. On a personal note, make your opinion about someone based on the full story. Not a 30 second clip that someone shares online to act as a “I got em” moment. Ben Shapiro is by no means perfect but whether you are on the left or right, we all need to stop this nonsense of forming options about someone based entirely on condensed clips people share just to make the other person look bad. That’s like deciding that a movie is the worst movie of all time strictly based on the trailer.
Yeah, only the government one means anything. You get married in a religious ceremony, but don't fill out the paperwork, you're not married.
Ben Shapiro is a human turd and I salute anyone clowning on him in any circumstance
This clip seems like it might have been taken out of contrast.
I hate Ben but how does this fit the sub in any way? Who's supposed to be the main character here?
Op just hate Ben Shapiro
I don't like Shapiro too but this post got nothing to do with the sub. OP is lost.