3 ms·

I hear his name a lot but never actually saw anything he did. What type of stuff does he do?

booleandilemma 4y ago
He debates college kids, basically. He's in the same league as Jordan Peterson, another pseudo-intellectual. These are our thought leaders in 2022.
- simonh 4y ago
  If a (former) tenured and now emeritus professor doesn't count as an intellectual, I'm not sure who would. I have found he seems to have started falling for his own hype recently though. He was fascinating up until a few years ago, and even on the things I disagreed with him on he was worth listening to, but is turning into a parody of himself.
  - kemayo 4y ago
    My impression of him has always been that he's one of those people who would never use one word when one hundred words were available. If he has any good ideas (and I'm skeptical based on what little I've seen and also his dissolution), it's so buried under academic-sounding rambling that working them out is more trouble than it's worth.
impalallama 4y ago
Basically this generations Rush Limbaugh. Very popular Youngish conservative commentator that hosts a successfully podcast/radioshow.
csours 4y ago
He "debates" college students using every logical fallacy possible. Another name for a logical fallacy is "something that your brain prefers over strict logical constructions" or "a shortcut that the human brain is wired for".
harpersealtako 4y ago
A neutral answer: he's a popular young conservative Jewish-American political pundit who gained fame for debates at college campuses. He gained notoriety for his snappy rhetorical "takedowns" of (mostly left-leaning) university students during open-forum guest lectures he frequently hosts on college campuses. My personal take: his "takedowns" are pretty fun entertainment, but doesn't really have anything to do with which political position is correct or not. A lot of contemporary political ideas have a "nuanced, difficult to explain, strong" version, and a "flawed, weak, easy to explain" version. For most people, when asked to explain their political views, have trouble formulating the strongest version of their argument. Many people believe what they believe purely on emotional or tribal grounds rather than based on the facts of the matter. Ben's personal style is to find the weak version of an argument, and to (correctly) point out the obvious flaws in it. Of course, just because X argument for Y is fallacious, doesn't make Y false.

He debates college kids, basically. He's in the same league as Jordan Peterson, another pseudo-intellectual. These are our thought leaders in 2022.

simonh 4y ago
If a (former) tenured and now emeritus professor doesn't count as an intellectual, I'm not sure who would. I have found he seems to have started falling for his own hype recently though. He was fascinating up until a few years ago, and even on the things I disagreed with him on he was worth listening to, but is turning into a parody of himself.
- kemayo 4y ago
  My impression of him has always been that he's one of those people who would never use one word when one hundred words were available. If he has any good ideas (and I'm skeptical based on what little I've seen and also his dissolution), it's so buried under academic-sounding rambling that working them out is more trouble than it's worth.

impalallama 4y ago

Basically this generations Rush Limbaugh. Very popular Youngish conservative commentator that hosts a successfully podcast/radioshow.

csours 4y ago

He "debates" college students using every logical fallacy possible. Another name for a logical fallacy is "something that your brain prefers over strict logical constructions" or "a shortcut that the human brain is wired for".

harpersealtako 4y ago

A neutral answer: he's a popular young conservative Jewish-American political pundit who gained fame for debates at college campuses. He gained notoriety for his snappy rhetorical "takedowns" of (mostly left-leaning) university students during open-forum guest lectures he frequently hosts on college campuses. My personal take: his "takedowns" are pretty fun entertainment, but doesn't really have anything to do with which political position is correct or not. A lot of contemporary political ideas have a "nuanced, difficult to explain, strong" version, and a "flawed, weak, easy to explain" version. For most people, when asked to explain their political views, have trouble formulating the strongest version of their argument. Many people believe what they believe purely on emotional or tribal grounds rather than based on the facts of the matter. Ben's personal style is to find the weak version of an argument, and to (correctly) point out the obvious flaws in it. Of course, just because X argument for Y is fallacious, doesn't make Y false.