Über Ben Shapiro und seine Sophisterei [ehem. split]
Gerade einen langen und sehr unterhaltsamen Artikel über Ben Shapiro und seine Sophisterei gefunden.
TL;DR: Seine sogenannte "Brillianz" besteht hauptsächlich aus logischen Kniffen und Fehlschlüssen gepaart mit aggressiver Gesprächsführung. Anwalt halt.
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/1...hilosopher
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/t...we-deserve
Beide Artikel sind ziemlich lang, aber verständlich und scharfsinnig geschrieben.
TL;DR: Seine sogenannte "Brillianz" besteht hauptsächlich aus logischen Kniffen und Fehlschlüssen gepaart mit aggressiver Gesprächsführung. Anwalt halt.
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/1...hilosopher
Zitat:Having surveyed Shapiro’s work, and pointed out the various ways in which he is not terribly logical, not terribly consistent, and not terribly well-informed (in addition to being not terribly humane), it is worth asking why so many people think of him as a “principled” and “brilliant” dismantler of arguments. The answer, it seems to me, is largely that Shapiro is a very confident person who speaks quickly. If he weren’t either of these things, he wouldn’t seem nearly as intelligent. Because he doesn’t care about whether he’s right, but about whether he destroys you, he uses a few effective lawyerly tricks: insist that there’s “no evidence whatsoever” something is true, demand the other side produce such evidence, and when they stammer “Buh-buh-buh” for two seconds, quickly interrupt with “See? What did I tell you? No evidence.” Or, just pluck some random numbers from a study, even if they’re totally false or misleading, e.g. “40% of transgender people commit suicide and the risk doesn’t go down if they are treated better,” which was nonsense but sounded good. Cross-examine people with aggressive questions that confuse them: Are you a moose? I said: are you a moose? No? I didn’t think so. I rest my case. Use shifting burdens of proof: demand a wealth of statistical evidence before you will admit that black people face any unique hardships, but respond to every criticism of the Israeli government by calling the speaker a “proven” and “undeniable” anti-Semite. Disregard all facts that contradict your case, but insist constantly that the other side despises facts and can’t handle the truth. Call your opponents “nasty,” “evil,” “brainless” “jackasses.” All of these techniques work very well, and with them, you, too, can soon be Owning and Destroying your political opponents on camera. (I would probably lose a debate with Ben Shapiro quite badly, as my instinct in public conversations is to try to listen to people.)Der gleiche Autor hat noch einen Artikel über Jordan B. Peterson, finde ich auch lesenswert:
Zitat:But, having examined Peterson’s work closely, I think the “misinterpretation” of Peterson is only partially a result of leftists reading him through an ideological prism. A more important reason why Peterson is “misinterpreted” is that he is so consistently vague and vacillating that it’s impossible to tell what he is “actually saying.” People can have such angry arguments about Peterson, seeing him as everything from a fascist apologist to an Enlightenment liberal, because his vacuous words are a kind of Rorschach test onto which countless interpretations can be projected
Zitat:Peterson first came to international prominence when he publicly opposed Canada’s Bill C-16, which added gender expression and identity to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Peterson claimed that under the bill, he could be compelled to use a student’s preferred gender pronoun or face criminal prosecution, and suggested that social justice activists were promoting a totalitarian ideology. In fact, there was nothing in the bill that criminalized the failure to use people’s preferred gender pronouns (full text), and I share the belief that government legislation requiring people to use particular pronouns would be an infringement on civil liberties. But since that’s a position shared by Noam Chomsky and the ACLU, it’s not a particularly devastating criticism of the left.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/03/t...we-deserve
Beide Artikel sind ziemlich lang, aber verständlich und scharfsinnig geschrieben.