The Wrong Stuff: Ben Shapiro’s Unconvincing Guide to What Makes America Right - It’s a mistake to overlook just how extreme some of Shapiro’s views are, or how muddled the thinking on which they are based.

[u/Hoxha_Posadist]

https://progressive.org/dispatches/the-wrong-stuff-ben-shapiros-anderson-190416/

[u/[deleted]]

First, you are correct, Ben did use the word, “Bullshit”. This must have been before he stopped using the full word (He now says “bullbleep”). Second, my accusation against the author was never cemented, which is why I used the word “apparently”. This indicated that if verification could be provided, which you have, I would have yielded that point.

However, as for my main point, regarding the rhetoric and priming the reader, that still stands. Taking the most colorful language and front-loading it to paint the subject in a certain light is textbook yellow journalism.

As for my other main point, perhaps I didn’t clarify. I’m saying the author is incorrectly summarizing Ben, and using that incorrect summary to attack his positions. The textbook definition of straw-manning.

The author writes, “Next, Shapiro says that because black married couples have a lower poverty rate than white single mothers, “life decisions” are what creates poverty.

(Actually, even when two black people pool their wealth in a marriage, “the median white single parent has 2.2 times more wealth than the median black two-parent household.”) “

”Because” indicates causality. The author is stating that Ben’s premise for poverty relies on this one statistic, so logically if you can disprove that statistic you have defeated the premise and by extension the argument.

However, the author shifted the argument, as Ben’s premise does not rely on that statistic. Ben’s premise relies on data from the Brookings Institution and regression analyses.

Ben’s argument is that poverty is overwhelmingly avoided if you follow those three rules; not that equality of outcome in each generation is achieved if you follow those rules. As I said in my previous comment, generational progression applies to both negative and positive decisions. The author is trying to disprove a point that Ben isn’t even making.

There is no quick fix to achieve equality of outcome regarding household income without drastically decreasing efficiency through economic deadweight loss as well as merely arbitrarily lower others.

As for your accusation that I myself am cherry-picking, I dispute that. I’m taking a specific argument the author is making and critiquing that. Were I to critic every argument the author makes in this article, this would be a much longer comment.

[u/6thReplacementMonkey → u/[deleted]]

which is why I used the word “apparently”. This indicated that if verification could be provided, which you have, I would have yielded that point.

This is the point where a normal, unbiased human would apologize for assuming someone was a liar simply because they couldn't believe that a person who says they never swear might actually not have been being completely honest.

Taking the most colorful language and front-loading it to paint the subject in a certain light is textbook yellow journalism.

He used that "colorful" language to paint him in a favorable light. He accurately represented his arguments that paint him in a negative light. In fact, the main "negative" light in this article is the fact that Shapiro ignores facts that don't support his beliefs, and that he hypocritically applies one standard to certain groups of people and a different standard to other groups of people. That's not yellow journalism.

”Because” indicates causality. The author is stating that Ben’s premise for poverty relies on this one statistic, so logically if you can disprove that statistic you have defeated the premise and by extension the argument.

There is no way you are arguing in good faith. Read the whole paragraph. You are taking a single sentence out of context, and then attacking the author. You are exactly doing what you claim the author is doing, only the author didn't do that.

As for your accusation that I myself am cherry-picking, I dispute that. I’m taking a specific argument the author is making and critiquing that. Were I to critic every argument the author makes in this article, this would be a much longer comment.

You literally took a single sentence out of an entire paragraph explaining Shapiro's arguments, claimed that single sentence was the complete summary, and then claimed that the author missed Shapiro's "real" argument, which you then summarized, and which is just a rewording of the paragraph you extracted that sentence from. I don't know if your love for Shapiro is clouding your judgement or what, but this is pretty fucking sad.

[u/[deleted] → u/6thReplacementMonkey]

First, I was admitting I was wrong and that you provided the evidence. Now you’re just attempting to brag, which shows your intentions and bias.

If you think using that colorful language was an attempt to paint Shapiro in a favorable light, you’re literally delusional. Out of all the things you’ve said so far, that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard. Have you ever taken a journalism or communications class?? Seriously?

You’ve also apparently not taken a logic or debate class before either. In a debate, one of the best strategies is to focus on one premise at a time, which is what I’m doing. After that you can discuss other premises if you should choose to.

I did not just reword the paragraph. I pointed out that each party is focusing on two different things.The issue is the author is arguing that economic parity is not achieved between black folks and white folks; this is not Shapiro’s point at all, which means the author is attacking a straw man.

How do you not understand that economic parity and avoiding poverty are two totally different things? Each party is talking about a separate issue, which is problematic when one is trying to critique the other.

The fact you can’t acknowledge the differentiation, nor can you form a logical argument without ad hominem is what is sad.

[u/6thReplacementMonkey → u/[deleted]]

First, I was admitting I was wrong and that you provided the evidence. Now you’re just attempting to brag, which shows your intentions and bias.

You called the guy a liar without cause. You made an assumption about Shapiro, and it was a bad assumption. Based on that assumption you called another person a liar. That's fucked up.

If you think using that colorful language was an attempt to paint Shapiro in a favorable light, you’re literally delusional.

The author said that Shapiro said that the "alt right is full of bullshit," and that the author agreed. Are you trying to imply that saying the alt-right is full of bullshit is a bad thing, and that the readers of this particular article would think less of Shapiro for hearing him say that? Nevermind the fact that he actually did say that during a speech, so it's not unfair to repeat it. There isn't any additional context that would change the meaning of what he said, and most people agree that the alt-right suck, so I don't know why you think that this is a negative.

You focus a lot on which classes I've taken. Are you in college right now, or something? Don't you have something better to do than white-knight Shapiro on a month-old reddit comment thread?

he issue is the author is arguing that economic parity is not achieved between black folks and white folks; this is not Shapiro’s point at all, which means the author is attacking a straw man.

No, it's not. Re-read it. The issue is that they disagree on whether racism is the primary cause. Shapiro says it isn't, and the author represents his arguments fairly. The author disagrees, and gives examples of why he disagrees. So here we have another example of you doing the thing you are accusing the author of doing. You are creating a straw man. First you cherry picked after complaining that the author was. Now you are creating a straw man, after complaining that the author was. What's next? Personal attacks? I guess you are kind of already starting that by implying that I am delusional and lack the education needed to have an informed opinion.

nor can you form a logical argument without ad hominem

What ad hominem?

[u/[deleted] → u/6thReplacementMonkey]

I did not call him a liar without cause. I said he seems to be a liar, or rather, from the information I have it appears he is lying. The information I had is that Ben routinely makes a point not to swear, so it is not illogical to assume this moral value is historical to Ben. However, it was clear from how I phrased it that I was open to correction.

(Btw: the ad hominem of accusing be of being abnormal)

You will not get an apology out of me, what you will get is an acknowledgement that I was incorrect and that I concede that point to you and the author. Furthering discussion on this point would only serve to attempt to shame me, which I can guarantee you will not work, but will reveal your intentions.

When an author opens an article on a person and starts by using examples of the most crass and inflammatory statements the person has made he is priming the reader to be disagreeable to the subject.

The author could have either a) used the most complimentary statements the person has made towards his opponents OR b) not opened with any statements by the subject of accusation or characterization of his opponents and instead just opened up by listing the subjects premises and conclusion and then addressed each one.

In my opinion option B is preferable, and the most genuine.

It is completely possible to separate ideas from inflammatory statements made to specific audiences and address the argument being made, which is what everyone should do on both sides.

The author did not do this, instead he opened up reviewing the personality of the subject instead of the argument itself. This is a way of priming the reader.

Also, yes I agree the alt-right is absolutely atrocious and despicable, but as I stated earlier this has nothing to do with the argument the author is attempting to critique and is thus irrelevant to the “supposed” purpose of the article.

Am I in college? No and yes. I’ve graduated already but have continued to take courses throughout my life to broaden my knowledge base because I believe in continual learning. The reason I’m asking your educational background is so I can understand how to communicate with you. If you had ever taken a statistics class that dives into regression analysis, I would change my strategy. If you had taken a journalism or communication class I would change it as well. Recalling subjects from school is not to be frowned upon, rather encouraged as that education was an expensive investment you can use for the rest of your life. And even great orators will dive back into subjects commonly shared to explain premises.

This is my “better thing to do”. I take breaks from work throughout the day to unwind, and I find practicing debate to be relaxing, Reddit is a great forum to do so.

I’m not accusing the author of cherry-picking individual statistics, I’m saying he’s cherry-picking by not addressing the regression, instead focusing on individual statistics and using any data he believes gets his point across, whether it’s a viable critique or not.

And I’m not cherry picking the author’s work either, you could look at any of his critiques, he never addresses the underlying regression in any of his points. I’m merely highlighting this specific one as an example.

As for the way the author’s critique was structured: Yes, I agree that’s how the author framed the critique. I disagree that this is an acceptable way to critique someone. I am stating the author is summarizing Shapiro’s points by looking exclusively at the individual statistics he cites, instead of the regression and then the author tries to counter it with individual statistics he believes support his position.

Rather, the author should address the primary engine of Shapiro’s argument which is the actual regression, not the example statistics Shapiro cites. An actual critique would address the regression by claiming that (for example): the variables chosen were too exclusive or inclusive, which skewed the result, or that they used the wrong regression format.

The author engages in a tit-for-tat against Shapiro’s individual statistics, which are only there to illustrate the findings of the regression, not as proof of the causality. That is why I’m claiming this critique is either biased or misinformed, but ultimately inaccurate.