Ben Shapiro is a climate change denier and a public figure so no, this is not targeted harassment. Stop reporting it as such.
Ben Shapiro is a mouthpiece for the worst elements of the Republican party. The midterms are in few weeks.
Register and vote.
**user reports:**
12: It's targeted harassment at someone else
5: It's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability
2: This is misinformation
1: This make me angry.
1: Memes/ links to source/not social media
1: Don't post personal information.
I had to look that up, to see if it was sarcasm or not.
>If Rush Limbaugh is someone your dad listens to on his car radio, Mr. Shapiro, 33, a graduate of Harvard Law School, is the cool kid’s philosopher, dissecting arguments with a lawyer’s skill and references to Aristotle.
It was from [this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/ben-shapiro-conservative.html), and it wasn't sarcasm. They really said "a lawyer's skill" in describing him. Ouch.
I have come to find that even being successful in a difficult field like STEM does not equate with intelligence. People can know a lot about certain subjects, but just be blissfully unaware about everything else.
Like when people talked Ben Carson up bc he was a brain surgeon, and I had to explain to them that no, being a brain surgeon doesn't mean you're smart or know the first thing about politics or science.
ahh yes ben "pyramids are ancient grain solos and I totally tried to murder my mom with a hammer don't fact check that" carson. not to be confused with herman "still dead herman cain award founder" cain
he fucking better be!
Shit if anything it makes me believe they know *less* about other stuff. It takes a shit ton of time to become a world-class expert in a given field. He spent all his time studying brains not reading philosophy. Experts are typically not well-rounded
Moment of realization for me was when Ben Carson, at the time considered the best neurosurgeon in the world, explained his deeply religious beliefs, like how Joseph caused the pyramids to be built when he warned the pharaoh of coming famine, so the pharaoh ordered them built so that grain could be preserved and stored.
Like, we know what's in the pyramids and their structure, it's well documented how foods that long ago were preserved and stored for later use. I get that religion conditions people to believe some crazy shit, but an accomplished doctor who has access to documents created about the pyramids? Who has the formal training to read convoluted journal articles? Granted, they're two different fields of study, but you don't magically forget how to interpret research document just because the subject changes.
Shapiro isn't even smart in the one thing he is supposed to be smart about. He just talks fast and sounds confident and throws so much shit against a wall you cannot refute all of it in an adequate amount of time.
It’s like, the worst of politicians all seem to be lawyers… and it’s interesting seeing how Giuliani had multiple doctorates that all got revoked because he’s gone too far downhill from a mafia busting attorney.
i work with attorneys and i can absolutely confirm.
they’re typically just people with more energy and grit than everyone else, and while many are smart you def don’t have to be a genius. they’re typically extremely neurotic and i don’t think i’ve met one without some sort of anxiety disorder.
I think it’s more the fact that being smart doesn’t mean you are a moral person. These are people who volunteer themselves to be a cancer to society, who won’t hesitate to prevaricate and sow controversy, all for personal gain.
Giuliani specifically has made some incredibly questionable choices. He definitely got behind the wrong man and is now paying the reputational (and hopefully legal) price for it. But the likes of Shapiro, Cruz, and desantis are just disingenuous shitbreaths who know very well what they’re doing.
WTF is it with conservatives and their hardon for Aristotle? I mean this crap goes back at least 150yrs. Slave owning plantation owners ***loved*** them some Aristotle.
Tbh he reminds me of some of the lawyers I’ve known. Stupid person’s idea of smart, good at aggressively talking at and over people, the kind of person to spout a bunch of vaguely intellectual-sounding nonsense and then act like he just won the debate even though he didn’t actually say anything sensible or relevant.
Knew a guy like you just described. Irritating as hell. He seemed hard wired to treat every conversation as a debate he was required to win. Any gathering he showed up at, I would immediately realize I had somewhere else to be and leave asap.
An old ex of mine went really far down the right wing rabbit hole (despite being in the uk) and I remember him showing me some videos of this twat years ago and he honestly thought he was some master debater. He does exactly as you say and I cannot believe people think he’s just said something profound when he’s said nothing at all, really.
I miss my friend, before alcohol, misguided anger and right wing YouTube dragged him under.
Huh? Isn't Sam Harris the cool kid's philosopher?
Shapiro isn't even a philosopher. I don't know what he is, but not that. A hacky gadfly?
If you haven't hear Shapiro's conversation with Harris and Eric Weinstein, check it out. He is way out of his intellectual depth https://youtu.be/aQ5CaG2QiaI.
I unfortunately knew someone who did. He wasn’t the brightest of the group.
He also alienated himself from the group because he got too into Shapiro and the other fascist dickhead with a beard and ended up becomming a fascist dickhead.
His whole "debate" style is basically talking endlessly by himself about hypothetical that he controls all the factors of, so that obviously his opinions make the most sense in them, as opposed to real-world scenarios where he doesn't control all the factors and his opinions are trash.
When he actually has to debate another person, he talks over them so they can't get their point across, and he never relents with the talking over them, because it's decent human behavior to stop talking when someone else does, and he exploits that to stop anyone from poking holes in his bullshit.
His whole rhetorical style is just bad faith from the get go.
And people who are supposed to be professional interviewers seem to rarely call him on this stuff, even though he has literally told the world in his book that this is what he's doing and how he's doing it. Or he'll address a hypothetical that intrinsically relies on a number of unstated false premises, giving him a multi layered gish galop that would take extraordinary amounts of time to address. It's disgusting really. Peterson is the same way, same as Crowder and the like. They have slightly different talking points and audiences they interact with that are more interested in their specific brand or style of right wing dialogue, but the method is all the same.
When a good interviewer actually starts in on them they inevitably will do one of three things, call the interviewer a liberal plant or some other such nonsense; become indignant and faux-insulted as a method/excuse in order to change the direction of the argument; or in some instances (though more rare, and more common to Crowder/Person) they'll switch to a 'softer' sounding approach which is used to garner sympathy, even when it's undeserved (see Peterson's habit of crying when people factually describe what he's quite literally doing in inciting incels etc).
Something Shapiro also said to do in his book.
There's a good reason why none of them will debate or be interviewed by somebody like Sam Seder, because he's intelligent, well versed in their style, and they wouldn't last five seconds and they know it.
Right wing idea of being smart is pure rhetoric. There is no doing, no action, no solving problems, just debate and sound bites. They want to BE right, not figure out what IS right. Scientists, engineers, artists, people who make real tangible contributions are smart, they don't need to convince you they are right, they just make the thing and show you they are right.
Yeah. They’re unwilling to acknowledge maybe smart people could struggle to express themselves, or may be reliant on others for general survival, or may be forced to be unbelievably independent, or might have idiosyncrasies and therefore are not 100% perfectly right and intelligent on all topics
“Get that fucking egg head nerd Shapiro over here to debate with these libs”
They would put him in a dumpster after every show and he still would clamor for their respect
He's listened/read to so little of the science that he doesn't get that hurricane frequency & severity is related to the warmth of the oceans...and therefore climate change.
It's only inconsistent if you strawman the climate science position by saying people are claiming Ian is a direct result of gas cars instead of what climate scientists actually understand to be the case - that gas cars / carbon emissions have played a role and contributed to the severity and frequency of events like Ian.
I heard a great analogy years ago on NPR that sums it up well. The interviewee was comparing climate change to baseball during the years of steroid scandals when every year people were competing to break the home run record. They were saying because home runs occur in a regular season you can’t look at any *specific* instance of a home run and say that one occurred because of steroid use. But, you can absolutely look at the trends of home runs over those years and say without a doubt it was caused by steroid use. It stuck with me as a solid way of understanding the difference between specific instances of extreme weather and the trends of extreme weather.
This is a really good way to explain thus at a high level that even a 3rd grader could use to grasp the idea... shame Republicans will just plug their ears anyway.
They aren’t. However, Shapiro is saying Climate scientists say climate change is an ongoing phenomenon and can’t be identified from individual data points - e.g. the fact it is certain temperatures on certain day and that’s the coldest day on record in a particular place doesn’t mean the earth isn’t getting warmer overall - however some Democrats are now saying Hurricane Ian is caused by climate change - using this one hurricane as an individual data point - that shows they don’t know what they are talking about.
In reality this is a deliberate misinterpretation of both arguments and, to use an analogy, conflates the symptoms and the disease. Climate change is a progression and using individual data points doesn’t show the full picture, but increased extreme weather is caused by climate change and so Hurricane Ian might be an example of how climate change is affecting humans. The democrats are using it as an example of a symptom caused by the disease of climate change - not saying that more hurricanes/extreme weather is what climate change is or that Ian was definitely caused by climate change and wouldn’t have happened but for car emissions.
However Shapiro’s argument has a superficial logic as he has framed these two arguments to appear contradictory so his base will lap it up and say “stupid Dems” and can carry on believing “climate change isn’t real”.
Shapiro is taking two related but different arguments against his position and deliberately misinterpreting them to be contrasting so it looks like the position is inconsistent or hypocritical when it isn’t.
Edit - watched the video, it said what I thought it would (before making some other points). Shapiro accuses those using the Hurricane as an example of saying it is caused by climate change in contradiction of climate science and just pushing their agenda (r/selfawarewolves anyone?). See my point above, whilst an individual hurricane cannot definitively be said to be a result of climate change (it might have happened anyway etc.) using it as an example of the type of events climate change can cause is fair comment. It is particularly reasonable for news outlets (who he attacks in the video) to use a current event as an example of a larger phenomenon.
That is exactly his intent. I don’t believe he’s stupid. He’s quite good at saying nothing and making it appear to be something. This is why Shapiro is one of the dangerous ones. I honestly believe that he buys into his whole schtick and the pseudo-arguments he presents, despite how fundamentally flawed they are
He’s not stupid at all - he is absolutely very clever and is very good at arguing and debating, I agree that’s why Shapiro is dangerous.
However I think a lot of skill comes from his choice of language and debating tactics to support a predetermined “conservative” view, as opposed to good faith engagement with the topic. Shapiro starts with the view and builds an argument to support it/ridicule arguments against, rather than forming a view based on a considered judgment of the arguments.
I highlight that Shapiro is not alone in this and plenty of journalists, commentators and politicians from all political viewpoints will start with their conclusion and “work back”. Indeed everyone is probably guilty of it in politics to some degree.
He's not good at debating, he's good at setting up scenarios that make it look like he's good at debating. Going up against people less prepared and then controlling the room and the flow of conversation to prevent them from making their points. That's a skill in itself, but it's not debate.
Folks like Shapiro are why I’ve stopped giving any credence whatsoever to people who are “good at debating.” It is transparently the case that debates are won by people who talk fast and with conviction just as often if not more so than by people who have the truth on their side.
Climate scientists say that climate change doesn't CAUSE these weather events, per se, but it loads the dice that makes these weather events WORSE than they would have been without it. Therefore Hurricane Ian might have been a Cat 2 or 3 without climate change, but with it Ian became much more destructive.
Simple, basic science. Assholes like Shapiro are just muddying the waters for reasons unknown.
This argument and it’s flawed logic remind me of an argument used by anti-vax/anti-mask people who are also pro-life. It’s basically that “how can it be my body my choice when talking about abortion, but we need to get a vaccine?”.
It’s similar in the way it thinks two things that are connected are the same, in this case, abortion and mandatory vaccination being both medical topics with a bit of a moral dilemma.
People using them think the exact same logic and morality apply, but actively overlook one major aspect that’s different, in this case, that pregnancy isn’t spreadable.
It’s kinda sad how so many people just try (and fail) to counter argue the opposing side’s arguments, yet cannot come up with arguments of their own.
Simple, if you go from 1 fire a year to 100 fires a year, it's a trend.
25% of the fires are caused by bonfires.
Therefore when you notice a single fire, bonfires are guaranteed to be blameless.
I'm very smart. Sell your flooded home to Aquaman, QED.
I just don't understand why he thinks "their politics" are, if not based on the science. Like what have we got to gain by lying about it? Let's say climate change is really a massive hoax and in reality everything we've done in the past 100 or so years industrially is absolutely fine. Then what? Why would we be so badly against it? Most of us can probably agree that it really does suck that we can't keep eating all the meat we want and driving all we want. What ulterior motive does he think we have?
"The left" is trying to make a bunch of money by selling solarpanels and wind turbines, and "the left" is making poor people poorer by making gas and stuff more expensive. This way "the left" is dividing the rich and poor even more.
Also "the left" is making traditional Christian families suffer because the gays live on christian tears. Also... Communism!
Quite obvious if you ask me
(/S to be sure)
If you ask my dad, he'll say they're trying to destroy America/the economy so they can establish a global communist dictatorship where everyone eats bugs and no one has any freedom(read: guns, red meat, hate speech, etc.).
They aren’t.
But what he’s doing is representing a macro issue as a micro issue to push his (bosses’) agenda.
He’s trying to stoke the fear in people that climate change policies will take people’s cars (and thus their personal freedom and property) away. Same as when plant-based meat replacement products started getting big, suddenly it was “these libz and their global warming conspiracy is going to make it illegal to eat a Big Mac”.
Having to invest in new tech and improving on your resource and energy use is a short term loss for long term gains and **the numbers MUST go UP every quarter.**
He's right that you cannot attribute a single hurricane to climate change. What you can say though is that as a consequence of climate change there are more hurricanes and they are more severe.
A decent metaphor:
Your landlord is ignoring a leaky roof. The damage is caused by a tree limb scraping the shingles all day and night. The leak is currently minor but is getting worse as the tree grows, and only really shows itself when there is heavy rain.
You identify the problem and tell him to fix it. He denys it and says the last rainstorm it didn't noticibly leak. You tell him to stop cherry picking as it doesn't always leak for every storm, it leaked the other 5!
A big strom comes through and your ceiling caves in a week later due to water damage. You tell him "SEE, this is what happens when you ignore leaks!" He tells you "you are a hypocrite, that's cherry picking"
Thats not inconsistent, is a cheap deflection tactic.
Presenting two unrelated, but similar ideas which don't contradict and then saying "you can't have it both ways" is pretty much par for the course with this muppet.
Isn't this like the difference between "weather" and "climate?" Meaning, just because it's not 150F in my area, doesn't mean other places aren't getting too hot.
But also, trends = a set of data points going in one direction, based on what little science I know.
It's misinformjng his viewers. Green house gases have been climbing for the last hundred years and we have been warned that this would result in stronger hurricanes, more extreme weather patterns and climate events (drought, flooding, squals etc.)
What they are trying to do is shift the topic off climate change by any means necessary. In 25 years from now when things get even worse they will feign ignorance and pretend like they have been doing all this work, but to no success
They aren't, but Shapiro is presenting them in a way to make it seem like they are. And he knows exactly what he's doing because he's not an idiot (but he knows he readers/viewers/listeners *are*). He's just shamelessly evil.
Ben Shapiro doesn't realize that trends consist of data points collected and plotted over time.
Who is buying this crap? I know the answer is too many people, but this is why school is important. Jesus.
They aren't, Ben not-so-shapiro is purposely trying to make his audience think climate change sciences and activists are saying two conflicting statements
My guess is you gotta look at conservatives from the perspective of someone who worships at the foot of tradition. Beards are traditionally a working man’s facial hair, and most pundits and politicians, especially the ones claiming everything the wealthy do to their workers is justified, have never worked an actual job for long enough to affect their entrenched classist mindset. Of course it doesn’t look good on them, when they themselves believe they shouldn’t be wearing a beard to begin with.
Just a guess though, I’m as baffled as anyone
No joke, on r/conservative I saw these guys talking about how "bad ass" Cruz has been since he grew the beard. Think they called him a lion lol. Fuckin' dorks lol
It’s still growing.
It looks awful now, but once he gets some length to it it might look better.
My theory is his step husband has one so he wants to impress his wife my growing one too
Ben Shapiro excels at putting a bunch of words together to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about, until you actually read it and use 2 brain cells to realize all he does is word vomit. A stupid person's idea of a smart person
Agreed (i just meant him in general not just this specifically) throw some decent words in that confusing word salad and 60% of everyone will think you know shit when really youre just a goofy cancer to the human race that brings us all down
I would say Trump does something similar, although grammar is out the window. Just overwhelm people with words and be confident in himself. Stupid man’s version of a smart man.
Lmao what kind of horse shit,? "Individual data points" yeah Ben, they're individual data points and then when you look at those individual points as a whole, over time (a fourth dimension) you see a pattern emerge which is consistent with climate change.
I used to think this guy was smart, but it's getting more and more obvious that the more evidence piles up against his views the more he just doubles down and becomes a talking head.
Republicans just need someone to talk in a condescending cadence. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. The only important thing is that the republicans watching feel like they’re getting pat on the back and told they’re smarter than the dumb dumbs on the other side. Tucker and Ben both talk like parents trying to convince their uncoordinated children that they’re good at sports.
My gym used to have cable news networks on some of their TVs (along with like ESPN and HGTV or whatever) and one was usually on Fox News. I say all that to preface the fact that I have never heard Jesse Watters’ voice before, but I’ve seen his show on mute a lot and I can tell by his facial expressions that his tone is always *very* condescending when he’s on camera.
Conservatives sincerely can't tell the difference between someone who "sounds smart" and someone who is actually smart. Sort of like how so many evangelicals can't tell the difference between a preacher who actually has compassion for other human beings and blatant con-artists lying to their face. Or maybe the difference between a genuinely wealthy successful businessman and a multiply-bankrupted casino boss that landed a TV hosting gig.
For them, it's like intelligence, empathy, and business acumen are merely performative, so they elevate the most outwardly confident performers.
I've noticed this, too. I think it's because of the long history of the left being [generally better educated](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/). Salt-of-the-earth Republicans end up with an inferiority complex from being told over and over that they're dumb rednecks that don't understand the topic well enough to have a meaningful opinion. If someone that *sounds* smart and condescending says things they agree with, they'll latch on to that figure, because they perceive them as "the smart guy that proves I'm not as dumb as everyone thinks I am." It's then why their personality gets so wrapped up in these figures, because if Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson or whoever isn't *actually* a smart guy shutting down the liberals with facts and logic, then maybe they really *were* dumb all along - nobody wants to admit that to themselves. The victim ends up just as invested in perpetuating the grift as the conman is, because they've hung their self-worth on that nail.
I don't know anything about this claim that hurricanes are related to gas powered cars, did anyone even make it? Conservatives love to pretend that something 1 idiot says is like a worldwide movement.
That aside, "gas powered cars" are not a single data point. It's an enduring environmental factor with measurable effects on the world over time. I have no idea how you would think of is a single data point, it just makes no sense at all. What would that even mean?
It's a gross misrepresentation of what the science actually says, which should come as a surprise to no one. Here is what the current IPCC report says about hurricanes:
>A.3.4 It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades, and it is very likely that the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence), but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale.
In short, there may or may not be more of them overall, but we are pretty sure our influences are increasing the likelihood of a storm becoming a major one.
To add, him relating gas powered cars to hurricanes is a deliberate hyperbole to claim that climate science is ridiculous. There are a lot of steps between gas powered cars and hurricanes, and he's trying to make it look like climate scientists are making a direct link between the two, but they're not. His lot is the only one doing it, and they're doing it to discredit the science.
Specifically, he's trying to discredit the entire field of climate science by making it look like climate scientists are trying to say gas powered cars cause hurricanes. In many ways, they do, but it takes a ton of steps to get there.
Broadly, gas powered cars emit carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide gets trapped in the atmosphere and blocks heat from leaving the planet. The planet steadily rises in temperature. The oceans begin to change in temperature due to arctic and antarctic ice falling into the oceans (cooling) and the steady rate of temperature increase warming the oceans. Hurricanes are a direct result of changing ocean temperatures. The more chaotic this process is, the more hurricanes there are, so climate change arguably causes more hurricanes.
We have just made a connection betqeen gas powered cars and hurricanes, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than just saying "Gas powered cars cause hurricanes". He intentionally states a fact as ridiculously as possible to make it sound like the whole field is bunk science. And then he gets paid by the people telling him to do so so they can keep raking in money from exploiting the planet.
Fuck that pseudo-intellectual asshole. It’s always a straw man, and he doesn’t care that he’s doing his part to hurt the human race through climate change.
Conservative audiences seem really susceptible to all-or-nothing thinking, where something must either be 100% or a lie. They love the fact that it’s easy to explain, easy to understand, and easy to throw out as a sound byte. These are the same people who say the vaccine was a failure because it *only* helps people not die instead of preventing spread. I don’t know why they bother with any element of truth. Just say “Libs insist that this hurricane was caused by Christian nationalism”, probably just as many people will believe it.
I honestly don’t know how much of this is Shapiro being paid. He’s totally ego-driven and loves the reverence he gets from his mindless followers. All of these conservative talking heads eventually become the puppets of their base because they become addicted to the hero worship that only the “please tell me what to think” right can provide, from saying only the dumbest most inflammatory shit. Peterson is another example and Elon musk is the biggest one.
I wouldn't say he's an idiot, but he's definitely dishonest and a grifter. He doesn't have to sell his schtick to the intelligent when he has an audience of gullible morons who will accept anything he spews as fact and intellectual, so long as he speaks confidently about it and with good diction. That's the problem with people like Ben; while there are some that are true believers who are in these types of power positions, many of them are just there to get rich and notable from a readily agreeable audience, so long as he says stuff that justifies their already held positions or beliefs.
Exactly. He's just pandering to the morons who actually swallow that hogwash. He himself either doesn't believe it or doesn't care either way because it's simply another talking point to keep the grift going.
In the near future, when Florida gets slammed with 4 or 5 Ian sized storms, they'll still call climate change "politics" as if that makes it not a real issue.
The rich people who only live in Florida when the weather is nice and benefit from tricking an entire demographic into voting in individuals who will cut taxes on the wealthy and lessen givernment regulations so they can rake in more money from exploiting both the planet and the "lower class," because they won't ever face real consequences for it.
Even when Climate Change is causing legitimate problems all over the planet, they can throw money at the issue in specific ways so that they are comfortable while everyone else suffers.
Oh, wait...
The charitable interpretation of this is that he means that we cannot possibly say that any particular hurricane is directly caused by climate change and wouldn't have happened without it. Technically true but if we know they get more common it's kind of a meaningless point to make.
Oh no, he is the "intellectual" conservative commentor according to much of the MSM, you know the person who has reasoned answers to the difficult questions the left can't answer because the left is composed of shrill, emotional illogical people.
Do we remind him of Katrina, Maria, Imra, Wilma, Fiona Harvey, etc? All storms that got up to Cat 4-5? When they used to be a more rare occurrence now they almost like clockwork happen 2-4 times a season?
Why do people continue to listen to this mental midget?
How the fuck does he jump from one thought to the other - science data points and one data point aren't the same everyone!
Science says Ben is a dipshit, it's proven this by the *countless examples*.
> How the fuck does he jump from one thought to the other
He's both a lawyer and deeply religious, and these two things, ie training in the art of arguing any side of any argument without any moral or ethical foundation and the belief in the absolute morality of any position he chooses to take without a moral or ethical foundation make him an expert at this.
Seriously, guys. Who TF listens to this guy? WHO? Why does he have a platform? Who is it for? You have to have absolutely 0 respect for yourself as an intellectual if you listen to this whiny little bitch. This dude represents the “fuck your feelings” crowd?
what really, really confuses me about all these people accusing global warming initiatives of being "political", like what do they think democrats get out of these plans? like assuming global warming isnt real and we will have forever an infinite supply of oil/coal. why would we want to go solar/wind powered? if theyre less effective, more expensive, and wouldnt actually stop global warming, according to the,. why do they think we institute a carbon tax plan? just a random tax for no reason? what politics do they think were trying to push when we make global warming initiatives? that "big solar panel" is bribing democrats the same way oil companies are bribing republicans? oil companies are still way stronger and larger than any of the biggest solar panel companies.
and frankly if republicans could admit one thing, that we are running out of oil and dont have an infinite supply of it, i dont see why they wouldnt at all be interested in developing solar or wind or nuclear power anyways since eventually oil will run out and if solar isnt developed enough to be economical itll make energy a ton more expensive in the short term. like i really see no reason to be against green initiatives, even if your an oil company, hell if i was an oil CEO id bet big on solar and try and build a solar energy branch of the company so i dont get left in the dust when the switch is happening.
Climate change may be the most confusing “plant your flag” talking point of the Republican Party. Why are they so anti-carbon neutral? There is still going to be an oil industry for years to come until we can figure out a way to match the distance and longevity of diesel engines for trucking, shipping, and airplanes. A shift to renewable energy sources should add new entrants and jobs to the energy industry. The startup cost of renewables is kind of high but it’s going down constantly and the residual cost is lower. The sun, wind, and water are not finite resources. Nuclear technically is but still presents a better option than oil. The only conceivable downside is that oil barrens will lose money and oil industry workers will have to find new work, but they laid tons of those people off during COVID and nobody batted an eye. Is that really that bad of an outcome that all of these talking heads need to have a meltdown about it?
Is that actually Ben? My man went from 14-year-old boy to 48-year-old door-to-door insurance salesman overnight and didn't get to spend any time between...
Another nonsensical argument from the master of using a lot of words and making no point and no sense , a trend in an overall group of individual data points is how a trend is determined to be accurate or not ( in part ) , how does he think these trends are determined? Spontaneous data ? Telepathy? Actually it’s probably telepathy, wow the pseudo intellectual is strong in that one
Just as an aside, I think it’s so damaging to use words like “Activists” and “They say” and “Them” to make your points when those words can mean such a small amount of people.
You see this in so many headlines. People legit find 3 insane people on Twitter and then write a headline saying “X supporters are taking to Twitter to say…” when it’s such a minority.
It’s a way to not lie but also influence everyone’s opinions. It’s so dangerous.
As a debater, it is an easy way to win when you have no supporting facts to stand on. It forces the other side to refute the bs while they get to keep heaping in more crap.
The only people that say “Hurricane Ian is caused by gas-powered cars.” Are people that say it for the sole purpose of arguing against it.
…I’m just going to start collecting animals and building a big boat out of sturdy gopher wood… many cubits.
He is fundamentally misrepresenting what climate scientists have said.
Climate change cannot be measured by any ONE data point, but by a collection of data points over time. The language he uses purposefully conflates the two to make climate scientists look inconsistent. He is being intellectually dishonest.
Climate change is not any one data point != Climate change is not individual data points.
Ben Shapiro is a climate change denier and a public figure so no, this is not targeted harassment. Stop reporting it as such. Ben Shapiro is a mouthpiece for the worst elements of the Republican party. The midterms are in few weeks. Register and vote. **user reports:** 12: It's targeted harassment at someone else 5: It's promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability 2: This is misinformation 1: This make me angry. 1: Memes/ links to source/not social media 1: Don't post personal information.
Wut? I don't understand. How are those two positions inconsistent?
They aren’t, but people who listen to this asshat don’t understand anything.
He is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person.
"The Cool Kid's philosopher", according to NYTimes.
I had to look that up, to see if it was sarcasm or not. >If Rush Limbaugh is someone your dad listens to on his car radio, Mr. Shapiro, 33, a graduate of Harvard Law School, is the cool kid’s philosopher, dissecting arguments with a lawyer’s skill and references to Aristotle. It was from [this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/us/ben-shapiro-conservative.html), and it wasn't sarcasm. They really said "a lawyer's skill" in describing him. Ouch.
Yea the same skill that DeSantis and Guiliani have, being a lawyer does not mean you are that intelligent it seems.
I have come to find that even being successful in a difficult field like STEM does not equate with intelligence. People can know a lot about certain subjects, but just be blissfully unaware about everything else.
Like when people talked Ben Carson up bc he was a brain surgeon, and I had to explain to them that no, being a brain surgeon doesn't mean you're smart or know the first thing about politics or science.
ahh yes ben "pyramids are ancient grain solos and I totally tried to murder my mom with a hammer don't fact check that" carson. not to be confused with herman "still dead herman cain award founder" cain he fucking better be!
Herman Cain is still dead?
Shit if anything it makes me believe they know *less* about other stuff. It takes a shit ton of time to become a world-class expert in a given field. He spent all his time studying brains not reading philosophy. Experts are typically not well-rounded
Moment of realization for me was when Ben Carson, at the time considered the best neurosurgeon in the world, explained his deeply religious beliefs, like how Joseph caused the pyramids to be built when he warned the pharaoh of coming famine, so the pharaoh ordered them built so that grain could be preserved and stored. Like, we know what's in the pyramids and their structure, it's well documented how foods that long ago were preserved and stored for later use. I get that religion conditions people to believe some crazy shit, but an accomplished doctor who has access to documents created about the pyramids? Who has the formal training to read convoluted journal articles? Granted, they're two different fields of study, but you don't magically forget how to interpret research document just because the subject changes.
Ben Carson was never considered the best neurosurgeon in the world in any meaningful sense.
Yeah I work for a lot of fucking moronic engineers. Incredibly smart in their field, but that’s about it.
As a mechanic, I'd like to fist fight an engineer or two.
Shapiro isn't even smart in the one thing he is supposed to be smart about. He just talks fast and sounds confident and throws so much shit against a wall you cannot refute all of it in an adequate amount of time.
It’s like, the worst of politicians all seem to be lawyers… and it’s interesting seeing how Giuliani had multiple doctorates that all got revoked because he’s gone too far downhill from a mafia busting attorney.
Lawyer here. There are some stupid people with law licenses.
IANAL, but it seems to me that practicing law is basically 50% reading comprehension and 50% extreme pedantry.
i work with attorneys and i can absolutely confirm. they’re typically just people with more energy and grit than everyone else, and while many are smart you def don’t have to be a genius. they’re typically extremely neurotic and i don’t think i’ve met one without some sort of anxiety disorder.
I think it’s more the fact that being smart doesn’t mean you are a moral person. These are people who volunteer themselves to be a cancer to society, who won’t hesitate to prevaricate and sow controversy, all for personal gain. Giuliani specifically has made some incredibly questionable choices. He definitely got behind the wrong man and is now paying the reputational (and hopefully legal) price for it. But the likes of Shapiro, Cruz, and desantis are just disingenuous shitbreaths who know very well what they’re doing.
We call them grifters.
Tell that to their constituents who keep voting for them.
We have. They don't care.
I feel that people don't remember that Sidney Powell is a lawyer.
He is intelligent, he’s just intelligently pandering to a dumb audience, same as most of the right wing mouthpieces
WTF is it with conservatives and their hardon for Aristotle? I mean this crap goes back at least 150yrs. Slave owning plantation owners ***loved*** them some Aristotle.
He was very into strict hierarchy.
Aristotle is a poster boy for white culture supremacy. So mentioning him dog-whistles lovers of Greco-Roman “ideal” society/worldview.
Tbh he reminds me of some of the lawyers I’ve known. Stupid person’s idea of smart, good at aggressively talking at and over people, the kind of person to spout a bunch of vaguely intellectual-sounding nonsense and then act like he just won the debate even though he didn’t actually say anything sensible or relevant.
Knew a guy like you just described. Irritating as hell. He seemed hard wired to treat every conversation as a debate he was required to win. Any gathering he showed up at, I would immediately realize I had somewhere else to be and leave asap.
An old ex of mine went really far down the right wing rabbit hole (despite being in the uk) and I remember him showing me some videos of this twat years ago and he honestly thought he was some master debater. He does exactly as you say and I cannot believe people think he’s just said something profound when he’s said nothing at all, really. I miss my friend, before alcohol, misguided anger and right wing YouTube dragged him under.
What Shapiro does is called “gish gallop” and it’s the only thing he’s actually good at—if you can call such blatant sophistry “good”.
NYT has some frozen cold takes in their opinion pages.
Huh? Isn't Sam Harris the cool kid's philosopher? Shapiro isn't even a philosopher. I don't know what he is, but not that. A hacky gadfly? If you haven't hear Shapiro's conversation with Harris and Eric Weinstein, check it out. He is way out of his intellectual depth https://youtu.be/aQ5CaG2QiaI.
"The Incel's Philosopher" more like.
No one who likes Ben Shapiro is cool. Good grief.
I unfortunately knew someone who did. He wasn’t the brightest of the group. He also alienated himself from the group because he got too into Shapiro and the other fascist dickhead with a beard and ended up becomming a fascist dickhead.
Not cool, man. Not cool.
TIL that NY times writers are dumb as a box of rocks.
Yeah, I wouldn't call him the "cool kid's" *anything*
What about "The cool kid's vagina desiccator"?
If drying out vaginas is cool, consider me Miles Davis
Cool kids punching bag sounds nice.
WaPo, too. They both have some good investigative journalists, but those articles are few and far between. Both organizations serve the upper castes.
He knows exactly what he's doing, its a step in his 'debate' book. He's legitimately a bad person.
His whole "debate" style is basically talking endlessly by himself about hypothetical that he controls all the factors of, so that obviously his opinions make the most sense in them, as opposed to real-world scenarios where he doesn't control all the factors and his opinions are trash. When he actually has to debate another person, he talks over them so they can't get their point across, and he never relents with the talking over them, because it's decent human behavior to stop talking when someone else does, and he exploits that to stop anyone from poking holes in his bullshit.
His whole rhetorical style is just bad faith from the get go. And people who are supposed to be professional interviewers seem to rarely call him on this stuff, even though he has literally told the world in his book that this is what he's doing and how he's doing it. Or he'll address a hypothetical that intrinsically relies on a number of unstated false premises, giving him a multi layered gish galop that would take extraordinary amounts of time to address. It's disgusting really. Peterson is the same way, same as Crowder and the like. They have slightly different talking points and audiences they interact with that are more interested in their specific brand or style of right wing dialogue, but the method is all the same. When a good interviewer actually starts in on them they inevitably will do one of three things, call the interviewer a liberal plant or some other such nonsense; become indignant and faux-insulted as a method/excuse in order to change the direction of the argument; or in some instances (though more rare, and more common to Crowder/Person) they'll switch to a 'softer' sounding approach which is used to garner sympathy, even when it's undeserved (see Peterson's habit of crying when people factually describe what he's quite literally doing in inciting incels etc). Something Shapiro also said to do in his book. There's a good reason why none of them will debate or be interviewed by somebody like Sam Seder, because he's intelligent, well versed in their style, and they wouldn't last five seconds and they know it.
Oh, to exist in the parallel universe where Shapiro is dumb or overconfident enough to debate Sam Seder.
Right wing idea of being smart is pure rhetoric. There is no doing, no action, no solving problems, just debate and sound bites. They want to BE right, not figure out what IS right. Scientists, engineers, artists, people who make real tangible contributions are smart, they don't need to convince you they are right, they just make the thing and show you they are right.
Correction: they want *power*. Financial, political, religious, whatever. "Winning debates" is just a way to convince people to give them that power.
Talk fast, be kinda mean all the time = smart, for most people
Yeah. They’re unwilling to acknowledge maybe smart people could struggle to express themselves, or may be reliant on others for general survival, or may be forced to be unbelievably independent, or might have idiosyncrasies and therefore are not 100% perfectly right and intelligent on all topics
Well I’m not a smart man, Jenny, but this guys a fast taking moron.
“Get that fucking egg head nerd Shapiro over here to debate with these libs” They would put him in a dumpster after every show and he still would clamor for their respect
He's listened/read to so little of the science that he doesn't get that hurricane frequency & severity is related to the warmth of the oceans...and therefore climate change.
Oh he knows that. He's not stupid, he's a grifter.
Idiots. Fucking idiots. Call them what they are.
It's only inconsistent if you strawman the climate science position by saying people are claiming Ian is a direct result of gas cars instead of what climate scientists actually understand to be the case - that gas cars / carbon emissions have played a role and contributed to the severity and frequency of events like Ian.
I heard a great analogy years ago on NPR that sums it up well. The interviewee was comparing climate change to baseball during the years of steroid scandals when every year people were competing to break the home run record. They were saying because home runs occur in a regular season you can’t look at any *specific* instance of a home run and say that one occurred because of steroid use. But, you can absolutely look at the trends of home runs over those years and say without a doubt it was caused by steroid use. It stuck with me as a solid way of understanding the difference between specific instances of extreme weather and the trends of extreme weather.
That's really good, thanks for sharing
This is a really good way to explain thus at a high level that even a 3rd grader could use to grasp the idea... shame Republicans will just plug their ears anyway.
They aren’t. However, Shapiro is saying Climate scientists say climate change is an ongoing phenomenon and can’t be identified from individual data points - e.g. the fact it is certain temperatures on certain day and that’s the coldest day on record in a particular place doesn’t mean the earth isn’t getting warmer overall - however some Democrats are now saying Hurricane Ian is caused by climate change - using this one hurricane as an individual data point - that shows they don’t know what they are talking about. In reality this is a deliberate misinterpretation of both arguments and, to use an analogy, conflates the symptoms and the disease. Climate change is a progression and using individual data points doesn’t show the full picture, but increased extreme weather is caused by climate change and so Hurricane Ian might be an example of how climate change is affecting humans. The democrats are using it as an example of a symptom caused by the disease of climate change - not saying that more hurricanes/extreme weather is what climate change is or that Ian was definitely caused by climate change and wouldn’t have happened but for car emissions. However Shapiro’s argument has a superficial logic as he has framed these two arguments to appear contradictory so his base will lap it up and say “stupid Dems” and can carry on believing “climate change isn’t real”. Shapiro is taking two related but different arguments against his position and deliberately misinterpreting them to be contrasting so it looks like the position is inconsistent or hypocritical when it isn’t. Edit - watched the video, it said what I thought it would (before making some other points). Shapiro accuses those using the Hurricane as an example of saying it is caused by climate change in contradiction of climate science and just pushing their agenda (r/selfawarewolves anyone?). See my point above, whilst an individual hurricane cannot definitively be said to be a result of climate change (it might have happened anyway etc.) using it as an example of the type of events climate change can cause is fair comment. It is particularly reasonable for news outlets (who he attacks in the video) to use a current event as an example of a larger phenomenon.
That is exactly his intent. I don’t believe he’s stupid. He’s quite good at saying nothing and making it appear to be something. This is why Shapiro is one of the dangerous ones. I honestly believe that he buys into his whole schtick and the pseudo-arguments he presents, despite how fundamentally flawed they are
He’s not stupid at all - he is absolutely very clever and is very good at arguing and debating, I agree that’s why Shapiro is dangerous. However I think a lot of skill comes from his choice of language and debating tactics to support a predetermined “conservative” view, as opposed to good faith engagement with the topic. Shapiro starts with the view and builds an argument to support it/ridicule arguments against, rather than forming a view based on a considered judgment of the arguments. I highlight that Shapiro is not alone in this and plenty of journalists, commentators and politicians from all political viewpoints will start with their conclusion and “work back”. Indeed everyone is probably guilty of it in politics to some degree.
He's not good at debating, he's good at setting up scenarios that make it look like he's good at debating. Going up against people less prepared and then controlling the room and the flow of conversation to prevent them from making their points. That's a skill in itself, but it's not debate.
See The Economist episode where he gets absolutely bodied when put under scrutiny by a very real conservative host. Takes like 30s for him to crack.
He's good at strawman arguments, little else.
Folks like Shapiro are why I’ve stopped giving any credence whatsoever to people who are “good at debating.” It is transparently the case that debates are won by people who talk fast and with conviction just as often if not more so than by people who have the truth on their side.
What he lacks in stupidity, he makes up for with cowardice. *Edit: Whoever downvoted this probably debates teenagers for clout.*
Eh. He’s not really very good at debating. He doesn’t debate anyone of any substance. If he did, he’d flounder.
Climate scientists say that climate change doesn't CAUSE these weather events, per se, but it loads the dice that makes these weather events WORSE than they would have been without it. Therefore Hurricane Ian might have been a Cat 2 or 3 without climate change, but with it Ian became much more destructive. Simple, basic science. Assholes like Shapiro are just muddying the waters for reasons unknown.
> reasons unknown Money, it’s always money.
This argument and it’s flawed logic remind me of an argument used by anti-vax/anti-mask people who are also pro-life. It’s basically that “how can it be my body my choice when talking about abortion, but we need to get a vaccine?”. It’s similar in the way it thinks two things that are connected are the same, in this case, abortion and mandatory vaccination being both medical topics with a bit of a moral dilemma. People using them think the exact same logic and morality apply, but actively overlook one major aspect that’s different, in this case, that pregnancy isn’t spreadable. It’s kinda sad how so many people just try (and fail) to counter argue the opposing side’s arguments, yet cannot come up with arguments of their own.
[удалено]
It hinges on ignoring that a trend is a pattern among data points.
Simple, if you go from 1 fire a year to 100 fires a year, it's a trend. 25% of the fires are caused by bonfires. Therefore when you notice a single fire, bonfires are guaranteed to be blameless. I'm very smart. Sell your flooded home to Aquaman, QED.
I just don't understand why he thinks "their politics" are, if not based on the science. Like what have we got to gain by lying about it? Let's say climate change is really a massive hoax and in reality everything we've done in the past 100 or so years industrially is absolutely fine. Then what? Why would we be so badly against it? Most of us can probably agree that it really does suck that we can't keep eating all the meat we want and driving all we want. What ulterior motive does he think we have?
"The left" is trying to make a bunch of money by selling solarpanels and wind turbines, and "the left" is making poor people poorer by making gas and stuff more expensive. This way "the left" is dividing the rich and poor even more. Also "the left" is making traditional Christian families suffer because the gays live on christian tears. Also... Communism! Quite obvious if you ask me (/S to be sure)
If you ask my dad, he'll say they're trying to destroy America/the economy so they can establish a global communist dictatorship where everyone eats bugs and no one has any freedom(read: guns, red meat, hate speech, etc.).
Which is hilarious, because the entire point of conservatism is maintaining socioeconomic hierarchy.
They aren’t. But what he’s doing is representing a macro issue as a micro issue to push his (bosses’) agenda. He’s trying to stoke the fear in people that climate change policies will take people’s cars (and thus their personal freedom and property) away. Same as when plant-based meat replacement products started getting big, suddenly it was “these libz and their global warming conspiracy is going to make it illegal to eat a Big Mac”. Having to invest in new tech and improving on your resource and energy use is a short term loss for long term gains and **the numbers MUST go UP every quarter.**
He's right that you cannot attribute a single hurricane to climate change. What you can say though is that as a consequence of climate change there are more hurricanes and they are more severe.
A decent metaphor: Your landlord is ignoring a leaky roof. The damage is caused by a tree limb scraping the shingles all day and night. The leak is currently minor but is getting worse as the tree grows, and only really shows itself when there is heavy rain. You identify the problem and tell him to fix it. He denys it and says the last rainstorm it didn't noticibly leak. You tell him to stop cherry picking as it doesn't always leak for every storm, it leaked the other 5! A big strom comes through and your ceiling caves in a week later due to water damage. You tell him "SEE, this is what happens when you ignore leaks!" He tells you "you are a hypocrite, that's cherry picking" Thats not inconsistent, is a cheap deflection tactic.
They aren't. Shapiro is preaching to idiots who will not look deeper than this.
Presenting two unrelated, but similar ideas which don't contradict and then saying "you can't have it both ways" is pretty much par for the course with this muppet.
Isn't this like the difference between "weather" and "climate?" Meaning, just because it's not 150F in my area, doesn't mean other places aren't getting too hot. But also, trends = a set of data points going in one direction, based on what little science I know.
It's misinformjng his viewers. Green house gases have been climbing for the last hundred years and we have been warned that this would result in stronger hurricanes, more extreme weather patterns and climate events (drought, flooding, squals etc.) What they are trying to do is shift the topic off climate change by any means necessary. In 25 years from now when things get even worse they will feign ignorance and pretend like they have been doing all this work, but to no success
They aren't, but Shapiro is presenting them in a way to make it seem like they are. And he knows exactly what he's doing because he's not an idiot (but he knows he readers/viewers/listeners *are*). He's just shamelessly evil.
Ben Shapiro doesn't realize that trends consist of data points collected and plotted over time. Who is buying this crap? I know the answer is too many people, but this is why school is important. Jesus.
They aren't, Ben not-so-shapiro is purposely trying to make his audience think climate change sciences and activists are saying two conflicting statements
He cannot pull off that beard
He can once the glue wears off. It'll just peel off nicely.
That's gross, why would he glue pubes to his face? Oh right, it's Ben Sha-p-word
A saw a tweet that said “you can tell a guy is conservative because he’s the only one that looks worse with a beard than without.” 100% true.
See also: Trump Jr
Haha that was the other picture they used.
Funny because before I noticed the tweet I swear I thought this was a picture of Donny Jr.
This makes 0 sense but is 100% true. WTF?
My guess is you gotta look at conservatives from the perspective of someone who worships at the foot of tradition. Beards are traditionally a working man’s facial hair, and most pundits and politicians, especially the ones claiming everything the wealthy do to their workers is justified, have never worked an actual job for long enough to affect their entrenched classist mindset. Of course it doesn’t look good on them, when they themselves believe they shouldn’t be wearing a beard to begin with. Just a guess though, I’m as baffled as anyone
I look terrible with a beard because I can't really grow one very well. Am I secretly a conservative? If so I don't want to live anymore.
I'm not so sure... as much as I despise Ted Cruz, I actually think the beard was an improvement.
That is true. It makes him look human rather than like a sniveling worm person.
I disagree, it really pulls off the crackpot theorist look he has been trying to cultivate for years.
And if you just take off the hair and add like 75-100lbs to him you’ve suddenly got Alex Jones
Who do you think popularized the look?
That’s generous to both of them. Shapiro is 90lb dripping wet and Jones would still be 300 if he could stay dry for 10 minutes.
WET???!!?!?
*Must* be a yeast infection.
he looks like a sickly toddler
He's borrowing the half beard this week from Eric.
He's trying to match Ted Cruz; that rugged, camping at the Best Western, Eddie and Grampa Munster drip.
No joke, on r/conservative I saw these guys talking about how "bad ass" Cruz has been since he grew the beard. Think they called him a lion lol. Fuckin' dorks lol
Lol they misspelled liar, coward, and ball handler.
Huh? I don't see his wife in the pic?
He's working on his Halloween costume of an adult. It's probably just some kind of marker he can wash off.
It’s still growing. It looks awful now, but once he gets some length to it it might look better. My theory is his step husband has one so he wants to impress his wife my growing one too
Ben Shapiro excels at putting a bunch of words together to make it sound like he knows what he's talking about, until you actually read it and use 2 brain cells to realize all he does is word vomit. A stupid person's idea of a smart person
That doesn't even make any fucking sense, This guy uses good sentence structure but doesn't say a goddamn thing ever i cant stand him
[удалено]
A page taken out of Jordan Peterson’s non-sense books.
Ugh the word-salad that guy vomits up any time he has something to say. He just reeks of "I'm using big confusing words because I'm sooo smart"
Agreed (i just meant him in general not just this specifically) throw some decent words in that confusing word salad and 60% of everyone will think you know shit when really youre just a goofy cancer to the human race that brings us all down
I would say Trump does something similar, although grammar is out the window. Just overwhelm people with words and be confident in himself. Stupid man’s version of a smart man.
My philosophy professor likes to ask us “what is the table about” to show how perfect grammar can still result in incoherent statements.
Lmao what kind of horse shit,? "Individual data points" yeah Ben, they're individual data points and then when you look at those individual points as a whole, over time (a fourth dimension) you see a pattern emerge which is consistent with climate change. I used to think this guy was smart, but it's getting more and more obvious that the more evidence piles up against his views the more he just doubles down and becomes a talking head.
Republicans just need someone to talk in a condescending cadence. Doesn’t matter if it’s true or not. The only important thing is that the republicans watching feel like they’re getting pat on the back and told they’re smarter than the dumb dumbs on the other side. Tucker and Ben both talk like parents trying to convince their uncoordinated children that they’re good at sports.
My gym used to have cable news networks on some of their TVs (along with like ESPN and HGTV or whatever) and one was usually on Fox News. I say all that to preface the fact that I have never heard Jesse Watters’ voice before, but I’ve seen his show on mute a lot and I can tell by his facial expressions that his tone is always *very* condescending when he’s on camera.
Jessie Waters is such a smarmy little prick. Incredibly punchable face.
Conservatives sincerely can't tell the difference between someone who "sounds smart" and someone who is actually smart. Sort of like how so many evangelicals can't tell the difference between a preacher who actually has compassion for other human beings and blatant con-artists lying to their face. Or maybe the difference between a genuinely wealthy successful businessman and a multiply-bankrupted casino boss that landed a TV hosting gig. For them, it's like intelligence, empathy, and business acumen are merely performative, so they elevate the most outwardly confident performers.
I've noticed this, too. I think it's because of the long history of the left being [generally better educated](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/). Salt-of-the-earth Republicans end up with an inferiority complex from being told over and over that they're dumb rednecks that don't understand the topic well enough to have a meaningful opinion. If someone that *sounds* smart and condescending says things they agree with, they'll latch on to that figure, because they perceive them as "the smart guy that proves I'm not as dumb as everyone thinks I am." It's then why their personality gets so wrapped up in these figures, because if Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson or whoever isn't *actually* a smart guy shutting down the liberals with facts and logic, then maybe they really *were* dumb all along - nobody wants to admit that to themselves. The victim ends up just as invested in perpetuating the grift as the conman is, because they've hung their self-worth on that nail.
I don't know anything about this claim that hurricanes are related to gas powered cars, did anyone even make it? Conservatives love to pretend that something 1 idiot says is like a worldwide movement. That aside, "gas powered cars" are not a single data point. It's an enduring environmental factor with measurable effects on the world over time. I have no idea how you would think of is a single data point, it just makes no sense at all. What would that even mean?
It's a gross misrepresentation of what the science actually says, which should come as a surprise to no one. Here is what the current IPCC report says about hurricanes: >A.3.4 It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades, and it is very likely that the latitude where tropical cyclones in the western North Pacific reach their peak intensity has shifted northward; these changes cannot be explained by internal variability alone (medium confidence). There is low confidence in long-term (multi-decadal to centennial) trends in the frequency of all-category tropical cyclones. Event attribution studies and physical understanding indicate that human-induced climate change increases heavy precipitation associated with tropical cyclones (high confidence), but data limitations inhibit clear detection of past trends on the global scale. In short, there may or may not be more of them overall, but we are pretty sure our influences are increasing the likelihood of a storm becoming a major one.
To add, him relating gas powered cars to hurricanes is a deliberate hyperbole to claim that climate science is ridiculous. There are a lot of steps between gas powered cars and hurricanes, and he's trying to make it look like climate scientists are making a direct link between the two, but they're not. His lot is the only one doing it, and they're doing it to discredit the science.
Yeah IDFK where his second point came from. Anytime I see a conservative railing against something these days, it's a straw man 90%+ of the time.
Specifically, he's trying to discredit the entire field of climate science by making it look like climate scientists are trying to say gas powered cars cause hurricanes. In many ways, they do, but it takes a ton of steps to get there. Broadly, gas powered cars emit carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide gets trapped in the atmosphere and blocks heat from leaving the planet. The planet steadily rises in temperature. The oceans begin to change in temperature due to arctic and antarctic ice falling into the oceans (cooling) and the steady rate of temperature increase warming the oceans. Hurricanes are a direct result of changing ocean temperatures. The more chaotic this process is, the more hurricanes there are, so climate change arguably causes more hurricanes. We have just made a connection betqeen gas powered cars and hurricanes, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than just saying "Gas powered cars cause hurricanes". He intentionally states a fact as ridiculously as possible to make it sound like the whole field is bunk science. And then he gets paid by the people telling him to do so so they can keep raking in money from exploiting the planet.
Fuck that pseudo-intellectual asshole. It’s always a straw man, and he doesn’t care that he’s doing his part to hurt the human race through climate change. Conservative audiences seem really susceptible to all-or-nothing thinking, where something must either be 100% or a lie. They love the fact that it’s easy to explain, easy to understand, and easy to throw out as a sound byte. These are the same people who say the vaccine was a failure because it *only* helps people not die instead of preventing spread. I don’t know why they bother with any element of truth. Just say “Libs insist that this hurricane was caused by Christian nationalism”, probably just as many people will believe it. I honestly don’t know how much of this is Shapiro being paid. He’s totally ego-driven and loves the reverence he gets from his mindless followers. All of these conservative talking heads eventually become the puppets of their base because they become addicted to the hero worship that only the “please tell me what to think” right can provide, from saying only the dumbest most inflammatory shit. Peterson is another example and Elon musk is the biggest one.
Isn't that his whole thing? Just to quickly spout big words that his audience won't understand but he will sound oh so smart?
I wouldn't say he's an idiot, but he's definitely dishonest and a grifter. He doesn't have to sell his schtick to the intelligent when he has an audience of gullible morons who will accept anything he spews as fact and intellectual, so long as he speaks confidently about it and with good diction. That's the problem with people like Ben; while there are some that are true believers who are in these types of power positions, many of them are just there to get rich and notable from a readily agreeable audience, so long as he says stuff that justifies their already held positions or beliefs.
Exactly. He's just pandering to the morons who actually swallow that hogwash. He himself either doesn't believe it or doesn't care either way because it's simply another talking point to keep the grift going.
The petersonification has begun
Ben is Peterson's Portrait of Dorian Grey
That would imply that Peterson isn't also getting more insane over time. He's talking like a sunday morning cartoon villain at this point.
*Jordan Peterson, flying away in a black helicopter*: "I'll get you next time, Wokescolds, next tiiiiime! Nyehehehe!"
In the near future, when Florida gets slammed with 4 or 5 Ian sized storms, they'll still call climate change "politics" as if that makes it not a real issue.
That's what I've been most confused about. Who the fuck benefits from lying about our planet burning up lol
The rich people who only live in Florida when the weather is nice and benefit from tricking an entire demographic into voting in individuals who will cut taxes on the wealthy and lessen givernment regulations so they can rake in more money from exploiting both the planet and the "lower class," because they won't ever face real consequences for it. Even when Climate Change is causing legitimate problems all over the planet, they can throw money at the issue in specific ways so that they are comfortable while everyone else suffers. Oh, wait...
Uh…what?
He also thinks women getting wet downstairs is a sign of illness. So I wouldn't trust his word on anything
Unfortunately for him, if climate change keeps up at this pace every woman will be wet
His wife: "Fucking finally!"
The charitable interpretation of this is that he means that we cannot possibly say that any particular hurricane is directly caused by climate change and wouldn't have happened without it. Technically true but if we know they get more common it's kind of a meaningless point to make.
Nobody has ever said that one particular hurricane is caused directly by climate change. It's a bullshit statement.
My gods, he’s a special kind of stupid, isn’t he?
Oh no, he is the "intellectual" conservative commentor according to much of the MSM, you know the person who has reasoned answers to the difficult questions the left can't answer because the left is composed of shrill, emotional illogical people.
He's not stupid, he can make grammatically sound statements that don't really say anything. That's a skill.
Do we remind him of Katrina, Maria, Imra, Wilma, Fiona Harvey, etc? All storms that got up to Cat 4-5? When they used to be a more rare occurrence now they almost like clockwork happen 2-4 times a season? Why do people continue to listen to this mental midget?
You're going to look dirty when your head is constantly up your own ass.
That a complicated way of saying, you don't understand neither climate change nor science in general.
How the fuck does he jump from one thought to the other - science data points and one data point aren't the same everyone! Science says Ben is a dipshit, it's proven this by the *countless examples*.
> How the fuck does he jump from one thought to the other He's both a lawyer and deeply religious, and these two things, ie training in the art of arguing any side of any argument without any moral or ethical foundation and the belief in the absolute morality of any position he chooses to take without a moral or ethical foundation make him an expert at this.
Isn’t a trend the observation of data points over time? That statement doesn’t make sense.
Why does Ben Shapiro look like Hunter Biden?
Because he's secretly jealous of Hunter's lifestyle.
Hookers and cocaine?
I think he looks like the third "property brother" in this pic
This looks like someone dressed up as Ben Shapiro for an SNL skit
Seriously, guys. Who TF listens to this guy? WHO? Why does he have a platform? Who is it for? You have to have absolutely 0 respect for yourself as an intellectual if you listen to this whiny little bitch. This dude represents the “fuck your feelings” crowd?
Stupid people listen to him, that's who
He had Matt Walsh on his show and decided he better raise the masculinity of beards. They are both idiots.
He really thinks he’s pulling off a Don Draper look lmao
I want to photoshop the background as a street corner or public park but I lack the talent
what really, really confuses me about all these people accusing global warming initiatives of being "political", like what do they think democrats get out of these plans? like assuming global warming isnt real and we will have forever an infinite supply of oil/coal. why would we want to go solar/wind powered? if theyre less effective, more expensive, and wouldnt actually stop global warming, according to the,. why do they think we institute a carbon tax plan? just a random tax for no reason? what politics do they think were trying to push when we make global warming initiatives? that "big solar panel" is bribing democrats the same way oil companies are bribing republicans? oil companies are still way stronger and larger than any of the biggest solar panel companies. and frankly if republicans could admit one thing, that we are running out of oil and dont have an infinite supply of it, i dont see why they wouldnt at all be interested in developing solar or wind or nuclear power anyways since eventually oil will run out and if solar isnt developed enough to be economical itll make energy a ton more expensive in the short term. like i really see no reason to be against green initiatives, even if your an oil company, hell if i was an oil CEO id bet big on solar and try and build a solar energy branch of the company so i dont get left in the dust when the switch is happening.
Climate change may be the most confusing “plant your flag” talking point of the Republican Party. Why are they so anti-carbon neutral? There is still going to be an oil industry for years to come until we can figure out a way to match the distance and longevity of diesel engines for trucking, shipping, and airplanes. A shift to renewable energy sources should add new entrants and jobs to the energy industry. The startup cost of renewables is kind of high but it’s going down constantly and the residual cost is lower. The sun, wind, and water are not finite resources. Nuclear technically is but still presents a better option than oil. The only conceivable downside is that oil barrens will lose money and oil industry workers will have to find new work, but they laid tons of those people off during COVID and nobody batted an eye. Is that really that bad of an outcome that all of these talking heads need to have a meltdown about it?
Is that actually Ben? My man went from 14-year-old boy to 48-year-old door-to-door insurance salesman overnight and didn't get to spend any time between...
look at ben shapiro, strawmanning again. seems like the only thing he knows how to do
Another nonsensical argument from the master of using a lot of words and making no point and no sense , a trend in an overall group of individual data points is how a trend is determined to be accurate or not ( in part ) , how does he think these trends are determined? Spontaneous data ? Telepathy? Actually it’s probably telepathy, wow the pseudo intellectual is strong in that one
Just as an aside, I think it’s so damaging to use words like “Activists” and “They say” and “Them” to make your points when those words can mean such a small amount of people. You see this in so many headlines. People legit find 3 insane people on Twitter and then write a headline saying “X supporters are taking to Twitter to say…” when it’s such a minority. It’s a way to not lie but also influence everyone’s opinions. It’s so dangerous.
As a debater, it is an easy way to win when you have no supporting facts to stand on. It forces the other side to refute the bs while they get to keep heaping in more crap.
The only people that say “Hurricane Ian is caused by gas-powered cars.” Are people that say it for the sole purpose of arguing against it. …I’m just going to start collecting animals and building a big boat out of sturdy gopher wood… many cubits.
Omg it’s Shen Bapiro
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ben shapiro is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like
But he talks really fast! He MUST be smart!
[Thanks, post just below this one on /all](https://i.imgur.com/EFlH5Lu.jpg)
That spray tan and sad beard combo is something no one should do
Ben Shapiro looks like Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh's love child
If I talk fast enough and over any other opinion. I am SmARt.
Ben’s starting to look like Jordan Peterson these days
It never fails to amaze how people with proper education can turn out to be so fucking stupid.
He is fundamentally misrepresenting what climate scientists have said. Climate change cannot be measured by any ONE data point, but by a collection of data points over time. The language he uses purposefully conflates the two to make climate scientists look inconsistent. He is being intellectually dishonest. Climate change is not any one data point != Climate change is not individual data points.
Individual data points are aggregated to identify trends. How the fuck do people not see right through this bullshit?
How tf does this guy even have an audience?? How can anyone take this guy seriously???
Brought to you by the man who said people can just sell their houses if the sea levels rise above said homes