4 ms·

The argument of the commenter you're replying to is not that "Shapiro is (or could be) far-right because [...]". Rather, the argument is "The argument that a Je

The argument of the commenter you're replying to is not that "Shapiro is (or could be) far-right because [...]". Rather, the argument is "The argument that a Jewish person cannot be far-right is invalid because [...]". The difference is subtle, and of course the person you're answering may well consider Shapiro as being far-right, or even a literal fascist. And you both may disagree on the strict definitions of both terms but, either way, accurately representing other people's arguments is a key point of intellectually honest debate and assuming the best intentions. Case in point: 1. The article mentions Shapiro as being "right-wing". 2. Top-level comment first implies the article says Shapiro is "far-right", and then confounds the general concept of "far-right" with maybe Nazism or antisemitism in general to make their argument that him being Jewish makes it impossible that he is far-right. 3. A reply states that Jewish political figure Stephen Miller identified with white supremacy and fits the(ir) definition of a fascist, as a counterpoint to the previous argument. 4. You disagree with the argument that Shapiro is (or could be) far-right, because you disagree that Stephen Miller fits the strict definition of Fascism. ...and all this was originally triggered because the linked article said: «Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others.»

growup12345 5y ago
The really funny thing is that no one reads the article: >> Facebook’s reach statistics show that mainstream news content is far more common on Facebook than the far-right content Roose was featuring. And this reference to the content Roose is featuring is indeed: >> Journalist Kevin Roose began publishing a Twitter feed in July 2020 that showcased the 10 “top performing” links on Facebook as determined by Facebook’s Crowdtangle analytics tool. Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others. So everyone’s carefully constructed contrived debate schematics topple.
- s5300 5y ago
  >The really funny thing is that no one reads the article Not sure if you meant to reply to somebody else, but that has nothing to do with the discussion being had.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
    No it was an on point reply based on your previous response, we can explain if you want to, what don't you understand?
s5300 5y ago
Thank you for writing this out. It is correct & much better than the reply I was giving to him. As for the difference being subtle, I do not so much agree - but >accurately representing other people's arguments is a key point of intellectually honest debate and assuming the best intentions. Is most definitely key. It's too bad that people rarely care about this in any level of discussion or debate anymore. It may very well be one of the most major factors to collapse of modern civilization in the coming decades. For what it's worth - my opinion of Shapiro is that he is simply an opportunistic grifter, as are the vast majority of current U.S. "conservative think tanks/talking points creators/right wing/far-right wing" social media commentators. This is the reason they are all also trying to sell you one or more of their books that is most definitely not ghost written because these people are also so obviously such talented writers (hahaha I know /s on HN is frowned upon but I must have slight fun) Miller, on the other hand, is a fascist, and he's honestly never tried to hide it/is quite proud of it. Which, I guess you may be able to say, is at least somewhat commendable. Though, he too does engage in some opportunistic grifting, as do many on all vectors of politics.
- BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
  You're pretending that you're brave and opposing fascists in a world with pretend-fascists, which is so absolutely pathetic and dangerous that I can't even express it. The answer you replied to was "much better than" your reply... The future doesn't look good, I just have to try to think about other things, or I don't know what I'd do.
BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
1) Yes, the article mentions Shapiro as being far-right as it mentions him and a few others then refers back to them as far-right. 2) Yes, the article say that Shapiro is right-wing. And the reply to OP claims that Jews can be "fascists" - which is true if you make the point that there is at least one such person in the world. 3) Completely nonsensical since I could think of many reasons for this that weren't in any way fascist or close to fascist. And it's not even the point I'm making but since it's not even making your point. let's go with it. 4) No. The person I'm replying to is defining his own "Fascist", then treating them as if they really were fascists. It is really really dangerous when people like you and him are fascist-larping. I mean is this an intellectual argument on the left? What an absolut joke and how incredibly sad for the future of political discourse.

growup12345 5y ago

The really funny thing is that no one reads the article: >> Facebook’s reach statistics show that mainstream news content is far more common on Facebook than the far-right content Roose was featuring. And this reference to the content Roose is featuring is indeed: >> Journalist Kevin Roose began publishing a Twitter feed in July 2020 that showcased the 10 “top performing” links on Facebook as determined by Facebook’s Crowdtangle analytics tool. Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others. So everyone’s carefully constructed contrived debate schematics topple.

s5300 5y ago
>The really funny thing is that no one reads the article Not sure if you meant to reply to somebody else, but that has nothing to do with the discussion being had.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
  No it was an on point reply based on your previous response, we can explain if you want to, what don't you understand?

s5300 5y ago

Thank you for writing this out. It is correct & much better than the reply I was giving to him. As for the difference being subtle, I do not so much agree - but >accurately representing other people's arguments is a key point of intellectually honest debate and assuming the best intentions. Is most definitely key. It's too bad that people rarely care about this in any level of discussion or debate anymore. It may very well be one of the most major factors to collapse of modern civilization in the coming decades. For what it's worth - my opinion of Shapiro is that he is simply an opportunistic grifter, as are the vast majority of current U.S. "conservative think tanks/talking points creators/right wing/far-right wing" social media commentators. This is the reason they are all also trying to sell you one or more of their books that is most definitely not ghost written because these people are also so obviously such talented writers (hahaha I know /s on HN is frowned upon but I must have slight fun) Miller, on the other hand, is a fascist, and he's honestly never tried to hide it/is quite proud of it. Which, I guess you may be able to say, is at least somewhat commendable. Though, he too does engage in some opportunistic grifting, as do many on all vectors of politics.

BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
You're pretending that you're brave and opposing fascists in a world with pretend-fascists, which is so absolutely pathetic and dangerous that I can't even express it. The answer you replied to was "much better than" your reply... The future doesn't look good, I just have to try to think about other things, or I don't know what I'd do.

BoardsOfCanada 5y ago

1) Yes, the article mentions Shapiro as being far-right as it mentions him and a few others then refers back to them as far-right. 2) Yes, the article say that Shapiro is right-wing. And the reply to OP claims that Jews can be "fascists" - which is true if you make the point that there is at least one such person in the world. 3) Completely nonsensical since I could think of many reasons for this that weren't in any way fascist or close to fascist. And it's not even the point I'm making but since it's not even making your point. let's go with it. 4) No. The person I'm replying to is defining his own "Fascist", then treating them as if they really were fascists. It is really really dangerous when people like you and him are fascist-larping. I mean is this an intellectual argument on the left? What an absolut joke and how incredibly sad for the future of political discourse.