Ben Shapiro

[VP89]

I'm saying it in the sense that someone shouldn't be judged negatively for having a mental illness. If someone is Anorexic or bi-polar, we say they need to get help and don't judge them as if it's a choice or their fault, in the same way we don't judge people with physical illnesses negatively. So if someone thinks being transgender is a mental illness and says as such, it's simply not vile. You could argue that it's wrong, but not vile. Vile would be to suggest that there is something sinister or unpleasant about another persons choice to identify as a different gender. But that doesn't seem to be what Shapiro is saying.


A lot of people will assume Shapiro is some kind of far right hate speaker because of how he's nefariously labeled by his opponents. I don't think that is an exaggeration as we see from the security and protests when he speaks.

To show I'm not getting carried away, here is a guy interviewing people protesting Shapiro as if he's some kind of hate preacher:


Now here is the talk that he gave which they were protesting:


I really recommend people take the time to watch those videos and read some of the comments in Shapiro threads here. It's worth your time as it's important to understand what is going on here. As you can see there is a massive difference between how Shapiro is labelled by his opponents and how he is in reality. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with Shapiro, but about the importance of recognizing the use of identity politics to silence people and understanding how sinister that can be.

Be careful, you might be called dumb, or a fanboy around here for bringing his views into debate.

 

[entropy]

Be careful, you might be called dumb, or a fanboy around here for bringing his views into debate.

Be careful, it might all be true.

 

[Raulduke]

Be careful, you might be called dumb, or a fanboy around here for bringing his views into debate.

To be fair the crux of the defense of Shapiro so far seems to be that if you ignore all the vile racist or homophobic stuff he's said in the past on twitter or in soundbites and only focus on his talks and interviews that don't include vile racist or homophobic stuff then he's a totally super decent guy. I'm not overly familiar with his work so his supporters in this thread really aren't doing a great job of selling him as someone worth listening to.

 

[Ødegaard]

I'm a fan boy because I watched his debates, saw his logic and wanted to hear other people's opinion?

I'm confused as to how that makes me a fanboy.

I'm not making that claim. Was just joking with the guy with a similar username as yours.

 

[Ødegaard]

I'm saying it in the sense that someone shouldn't be judged negatively for having a mental illness. If someone is Anorexic or bi-polar, we say they need to get help and don't judge them as if it's a choice or their fault, in the same way we don't judge people with physical illnesses negatively. So if someone thinks being transgender is a mental illness and says as such, it's simply not vile. You could argue that it's wrong, but not vile. Vile would be to suggest that there is something sinister or unpleasant about another persons choice to identify as a different gender. But that doesn't seem to be what Shapiro is saying.


A lot of people will assume Shapiro is some kind of far right hate speaker because of how he's nefariously labeled by his opponents. I don't think that is an exaggeration as we see from the security and protests when he speaks.

To show I'm not getting carried away, here is a guy interviewing people protesting Shapiro as if he's some kind of hate preacher:


Now here is the talk that he gave which they were protesting:


I really recommend people take the time to watch those videos and read some of the comments in Shapiro threads here. It's worth your time as it's important to understand what is going on here. As you can see there is a massive difference between how Shapiro is labelled by his opponents and how he is in reality. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with Shapiro, but about the importance of recognizing the use of identity politics to silence people and understanding how sinister that can be.

I watch a fair bit of him. The reason I'm saying it's bordering or at the vile point is because I'm sure someone has explained the difference between sex and gender to him, yet he ignores it in order to stick to his point.

 

[VP89]

To be fair the crux of the defense of Shapiro so far seems to be that if you ignore all the vile racist or homophobic stuff he's said in the past on twitter or in soundbites and only focus on his talks and interviews that don't include vile racist or homophobic stuff then he's a totally super decent guy. I'm not overly familiar with his work so his supporters in this thread really aren't doing a great job of selling him as someone worth listening to.

I've only seen his YouTube debates. I don't have twitter.

I'm not making that claim. Was just joking with the guy with a similar username as yours.

Joking by asking my user to be called fanboy89. Id take that as making the claim.

I watch a fair bit of him. The reason I'm saying it's bordering or at the vile point is because I'm sure someone has explained the difference between sex and gender to him, yet he ignores it in order to stick to his point.

Why don't you educate me then? I've said in a few posts im no expert and I watch his debates against others and I don't know where he goes wrong.

Whats the difference between sex and gender, and do you normally call people by their sex or by their gender?

Not a trap question at all. I just want to learn where he's gone wrong so I can understand properly what the right view should be.

 

[Ødegaard]

Joking by asking my user to be called fanboy89. Id take that as making the claim.



Why don't you educate me then? I've said in a few posts im no expert and I watch his debates against others and I don't know where he goes wrong.

Whats the difference between sex and gender, and do you normally call people by their sex or by their gender?

Not a trap question at all. I just want to learn where he's gone wrong so I can understand properly what the right view should be.

FFS, hope I don't get categorized as a Shapiro fanboy by user name association.

He mentioned the fanboy part by name-association to you starting this thread. I merely made a jest about Damien acting on what I assume to be a jest by him. It wasn't meant as more than light-hearted banter based on his comment.

I'll just comment on the thing i bold out since it's where I have some experience (being mentally ill myself).
There is a lot of things wrong with having a mental illness. It's a illness for a reason.

Although you probably mean to say "what is wrong with thinking someone has a mental illness?", well, it in itself can be meant in a non-offensive way, but the receiver can and likely will see it as offensive since they don't necessarily agree that it is a mental illness.
A mental illness also often has diagnosis within the field of mental health or will eventually get there; being LGBTQ has been there but been moved out of that and has still had to deal with being taken as a mental issue by people with views like Shapiros. Shock therapy and I'm sure worse has been historically used as a way to treat such "mental illnesses".

If someone is misdiagnosed with a mental illness, it's a horrible from lots of points of view, like self-reflection, being branded by society or mistreatment that can lead to more/actual issues.

Mind, I'm not trying to say that people of mental illness should have to diagnose themselves as that would be a weird way to solve it on, but surely stuff that we as a society can agree to be a view of the past and have as a society moved on from we can make the effort to better even if we don't necessarily understand it ourselves.

I'm one of the people who genuinely struggled to understand that people used gender and sex as different-meaning words.
I've had chats with folks like @DiseaseOfTheAge and tried to clear up my misunderstandings on the topic and try my best to not use them wrong in the future. I very much doubt that no one has ever told Shapiro that the view is that sex is what you are born with and gender is how your identity is viewed by yourself and society(or something to that effect, sorry DoA if i missed the last one), which would make his refusal to accept the splitting of those terms only really hurtful.
Him calling it a sin from the perspective as a religious person i can accept, not that I'd accept it as a sin but I can accept him thinking of it that way from his belief as long as he doesn't act upon it and negatively alter someone elses life. After all it's whoever was by the pearly gates or god himself who was supposed to do the judging from what I can remember from my lessons in youth about most of the large religions.

Bolded out the part that is most relevant to your topic.

 

[Stactix]

Nick these from the other thread.

or not..


Edit: Bah forget it. Eboue posted lots of good info on Shapiro in the general thread.

I think that Arab tweet is enough to show what sort of person he is, regardless of if this was 7 years ago..

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Whats the difference between sex and gender, and do you normally call people by their sex or by their gender?

.

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

So while your sex as male or female is a biological fact that is the same in any culture, what that sex means in terms of your gender role as a 'man' or a 'woman' in society can be quite different cross culturally. These 'gender roles' have an impact on the health of the individual.

In sociological terms 'gender role' refers to the characteristics and behaviours that different cultures attribute to the sexes. What it means to be a 'real man' in any culture requires male sex plus what our various cultures define as masculine characteristics and behaviours, likewise a 'real woman' needs female sex and feminine characteristics

In the broadest, crudest of explanation.

To expand on gender:

Unlike “sex”, gender does not have a basis in science, although it is affected by the biological and physiological characteristics we display as “males” and “females”. Instead, gender is based on the societal constructions and belief systems put in place that deal with masculinity and femininity. The gender identity that most people adhere to is usually unconscious, or forced upon us at an early age. We see the concepts of gender in the colors assigned to children (blue for boys, pink for girls), the common length of our hair (men-short, women-long), the toys we play with, the jobs we aspire to, and the behaviors and interests we are “supposed” to embrace.

Throughout history, gender roles have been put in place based on social constructs, and the strength of these traditions is shocking at times. Even today, in the modern world, shifting gender roles and identity is met with great opposition. Some countries still firmly adhere to ancient gender assignations, such as women being subservient to men, unequal rights between the sexes, and the illegality of those who wish to embrace alternative gender identities.

However, if we look back at history, we can easily identify how certain gender identification markers have shifted or even completely reversed, which is evidence that gender is completely fluid, and should remain so in order to highlight individuality and personal choice. A short list of these include high heels, makeup, wigs, and the color pink – all of which were originally or primarily associated with masculinity and the “male” gender, while now they are largely embraced by the “female” gender.

Around the world, an incredibly diverse range of gender “norms” and societal influences change this idea, so proposing that gender is a rigid or permanent classification for a dynamic individual, nation or species is foolish.

The idea of being a “real man” creates a cult of masculinity, which is not a healthy standard to force upon those who feel or believe differently. Similarly, being a “good woman” (particularly in the past) is associated with rules of femininity, and have resulted in practical and psychological oppression for millennia. Many people do not firmly fit within one gender, and instead embrace the concept of gender fluidity.

To summarize, many people believe that “Sex” is determined by nature, whereas “Gender” is determined by nurture, but even that is too binary a classification. Sex does impact gender, but neither of these qualities in a person is a definition. These concepts help us understand who a person is, not what they are, which allows the opportunity for personal choice and change. Neither of these words is a definition, but rather a description, and should be treated accordingly.

You call people by the gender they assume themselves.

 

[Eboue]

Be careful, it might all be true.

 

[Javi]

I really recommend people take the time to watch those videos and read some of the comments in Shapiro threads here. It's worth your time as it's important to understand what is going on here. As you can see there is a massive difference between how Shapiro is labelled by his opponents and how he is in reality. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with Shapiro, but about the importance of recognizing the use of identity politics to silence people and understanding how sinister that can be.

I don't think anybody is going to watch a 2 hours and 18 minutes video just like that. Could you maybe note some time stamps where you think he is making a good point?

 

[Minimalist]

I'm saying it in the sense that someone shouldn't be judged negatively for having a mental illness. If someone is Anorexic or bi-polar, we say they need to get help and don't judge them as if it's a choice or their fault, in the same way we don't judge people with physical illnesses negatively. So if someone thinks being transgender is a mental illness and says as such, it's simply not vile. You could argue that it's wrong, but not vile. Vile would be to suggest that there is something sinister or unpleasant about another persons choice to identify as a different gender. But that doesn't seem to be what Shapiro is saying.


A lot of people will assume Shapiro is some kind of far right hate speaker because of how he's nefariously labeled by his opponents. I don't think that is an exaggeration as we see from the security and protests when he speaks.

To show I'm not getting carried away, here is a guy interviewing people protesting Shapiro as if he's some kind of hate preacher:


Now here is the talk that he gave which they were protesting:


I really recommend people take the time to watch those videos and read some of the comments in Shapiro threads here. It's worth your time as it's important to understand what is going on here. As you can see there is a massive difference between how Shapiro is labelled by his opponents and how he is in reality. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with Shapiro, but about the importance of recognizing the use of identity politics to silence people and understanding how sinister that can be.

Why is this important? What are we missing here?

I'll be really blunt because I couldn't be annoyed wasting energy on this. You (and people like you) are naive as hell, that's all. We're not missing any nuanced arguments here that our little liberal minds cannot comprehend. A lot of us have watched Shapiro's stuff and we're just not impressed by his arguments (to put it politely). He's intellectually lazy but (and it's an important but) he's a qualified lawyer - so he knows how to bullshit his way through an argument and conversation. It's his profession, it's a skill and I'm sure he's convincing if you don't bother to fact check him.

He never debates anyone worth a damn - this can't be emphasised enough. Go and fecking look at who he "CRUSHES" in these silly youtube clips. Even fecking Cenk from TYT, who is a hack in a lot of peoples minds, held his own against Shapiro which should tell you something.

People can reference him all they want. His arguments are almost always on the side of bullshit and they regularly get taken down when someone (qualified on the subject) can be bothered to address him (or his argument indirectly). Though it's usually in an article rather than wading through his cult-like followers to share a stage with him.

 

[Ødegaard]

I'm saying it in the sense that someone shouldn't be judged negatively for having a mental illness. If someone is Anorexic or bi-polar, we say they need to get help and don't judge them as if it's a choice or their fault, in the same way we don't judge people with physical illnesses negatively. So if someone thinks being transgender is a mental illness and says as such, it's simply not vile. You could argue that it's wrong, but not vile. Vile would be to suggest that there is something sinister or unpleasant about another persons choice to identify as a different gender. But that doesn't seem to be what Shapiro is saying.


A lot of people will assume Shapiro is some kind of far right hate speaker because of how he's nefariously labeled by his opponents. I don't think that is an exaggeration as we see from the security and protests when he speaks.

To show I'm not getting carried away, here is a guy interviewing people protesting Shapiro as if he's some kind of hate preacher:


Now here is the talk that he gave which they were protesting:


I really recommend people take the time to watch those videos and read some of the comments in Shapiro threads here. It's worth your time as it's important to understand what is going on here. As you can see there is a massive difference between how Shapiro is labelled by his opponents and how he is in reality. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing with Shapiro, but about the importance of recognizing the use of identity politics to silence people and understanding how sinister that can be.

We agree that people with mental illness shouldn't be looked down upon for having a mental illness, but fact of the matter is that it happens. A lot.
Also, by definition vile comes under being extremely unpleasant. If he does avoid using gender and sex as different-meaning words by choice (due to likely sometime during his many debates being told about the difference of biology of sex and how gender is more seen as a identity) and keep arguing knowing that people talk about gender while he talks about the biology of sex, then it is extremely unpleasant by choice, meaning he is being vile by choice.

If he is like I've been for large parts of my life, unknowing to those differences, he during his many debates needs to change something in order to be able to grasp those differences or open up for hearing about them. Brushing them aside because he is thinking about the word sex and attributing that to overlap the word gender can only be one of vile or a fault in the way you discuss or fundamentally understand things.

I don't see him as a far right speaker for what it's worth. Again, I try to view as much of him, Rubin and others I've found as possible in order to both challenge my own views (because as we both have stated in the case of Shapiro, he is at least able to take you through why he believes what he does). I see him as a individual who is good at portraying his views, who wants minimum interference from the state in matters that surrounds what could be a free market self-regulation who has his faith that he tries to adhere to. If anything i see him as a right-sided liberal (if I'm right in my assumption that a liberal is a centrist, we use slightly different terms where I'm from).

I'm not coming from the point where i try to claim him to be a far/alt-right hate-speech bigoted racist.
I haven't gotten far enough into his persona or have the knowledge of the topics to even get near that sort of judgement myself. I'm pointing out the difference between gender and sex and why it can be viewed as vile if he has been told that they are talking about different things but refuses to acknowledge that they are and continues to harp on about mental illness.

 

[redmeister]

We agree that people with mental illness shouldn't be looked down upon for having a mental illness, but fact of the matter is that it happens. A lot.
Also, by definition vile comes under being extremely unpleasant. If he does avoid using gender and sex as different-meaning words by choice (due to likely sometime during his many debates being told about the difference of biology of sex and how gender is more seen as a identity) and keep arguing knowing that people talk about gender while he talks about the biology of sex, then it is extremely unpleasant by choice, meaning he is being vile by choice.

. I'm pointing out the difference between gender and sex and why it can be viewed as vile if he has been told that they are talking about different things but refuses to acknowledge that they are and continues to harp on about mental illness.

But he's not doing it to be vile, he's doing it because he simply disagrees.

It's like this video by Steven Crowder, well worth a watch. Crowder is arguing that there are only 2 genders (posted below.) But he's not being being vile. If anything some of those who oppose him sitting down with people to discuss the issue are being vile and that is the point I'm trying to raise regarding how many dismiss Shapiro. I have no issue with people disagreeing with Shapiro, where I have an issue is when people try and discredit him so people wont listen to him, by using hyperbole and identity politics. It's apparent in this thread and the other thread on him and is a real issue. I posted the video above of the guy interviewing people before a Shapiro talk to demonstrate the effect it has and why it needs to stop.

Let's be honest, do you seriously believe most of the people accusing Shapiro of being a racist, bigot or homophobic did anything more than google those terms to find soundbite comments, with little or no context, in order to discredit him? Anyone who has followed him for a reasonable period of time would see he's very decent man. After a decade of articles, talks and TV interviews, they have to resort to old twitter spats, to even get remotely close to being able to give him a disparaging label, yet that's all it takes for people to believe he's some kind of extremist and leads to things such as protests outside his events calling him a "Nazi."

 

[Ødegaard]

But he's not doing it to be vile, he's doing it because he simply disagrees.

It's like this video by Steven Crowder, well worth a watch. Crowder is arguing that there are only 2 genders (posted below.) But he's not being being vile. If anything some of those who oppose him sitting down with people to discuss the issue are being vile and that is the point I'm trying to raise regarding how many dismiss Shapiro. I have no issue with people disagreeing with Shapiro, where I have an issue is when people try and discredit him so people wont listen to him, by using hyperbole and identity politics. It's apparent in this thread and the other thread on him and is a real issue. I posted the video above of the guy interviewing people before a Shapiro talk to demonstrate the effect it has and why it needs to stop.

Let's be honest, do you seriously believe most of the people accusing Shapiro of being a racist, bigot or homophobic did anything more than google those terms to find soundbite comments, with little or no context, in order to discredit him? Anyone who has followed him for a reasonable period of time would see he's very decent man. After a decade of articles, talks and TV interviews, they have to resort to old twitter spats, to even get remotely close to being able to give him a disparaging label, yet that's all it takes for people to believe he's some kind of extremist and leads to things such as protests outside his events calling him a "Nazi."

What does he disagree with?
He is arguing for the case of "you can't say you have the sex of a woman if you are born with the sex of a man".
But that is not the point he is trying to argue against, he is trying to argue against people who talk about gender, which makes it vile if he knowingly ignores what they are actually arguing.
If he simply disagreed he shouldn't state anything about sex because that's not what the arguments are about, he should simply say he disagrees with gender, as people know it, being a thing.
What do you put into the word vile?

Spoiler: Definition of vile

wretchedly bad:
a vile humor.
2.
highly offensive, unpleasant, or objectionable:
vile slander.
3.
repulsive or disgusting, as to the senses or feelings:
a vile odor.
4.
morally debased, depraved, or despicable:
vile deeds.
5.
foul; filthy:
vile language.
6.
poor; wretched:
vile workmanship.
7.
of mean or low condition:
a vile beggar.

Being offensive isn't down to intention, being offensive is about taking offense. Clearly people are taking his arguments as highly offensive, therefor he is being vile.

Spoiler: Definition of offence

noun
1.
a violation or breaking of a social or moral rule; transgression; sin.
2.
a transgression of the law; misdemeanor.
3.
a cause of transgression or wrong.
4.
something that offends or displeases.
5.
the act of offending or displeasing.
6.
the feeling of resentful displeasure caused:
to give offense.
7.
the act of attacking; attack or assault:
weapons of offense.

 

[Eboue]

i cant believe we are having this shit thread only a few weeks after the last shit one

 

[Halftrack]

But he's not doing it to be vile, he's doing it because he simply disagrees.

Is he a qualified expert on the topic? No? Then how he feels is irrelevant, and he should shut the feck up about it.

 

[Ødegaard]

i cant believe we are having this shit thread only a few weeks after the last shit one

They should be merged, but having recurring discussions isn't a bad thing as it opens up eyes of more people.
I've changed my views slightly since the last time and know a bit more, which is why I'm more active this time around than the last time.
You thinking it was a horrible thread is subjective. Fine and all but not the be-all-end-all for if the thread has a merit or not.

 

[redmeister]

What does he disagree with?
He is arguing for the case of "you can't say you have the sex of a woman if you are born with the sex of a man".
But that is not the point he is trying to argue against, he is trying to argue against people who talk about gender, which makes it vile if he knowingly ignores what they are actually arguing.
If he simply disagreed he shouldn't state anything about sex because that's not what the arguments are about, he should simply say he disagrees with gender, as people know it, being a thing.
What do you put into the word vile?

Spoiler: Definition of vile

wretchedly bad:
a vile humor.
2.
highly offensive, unpleasant, or objectionable:
vile slander.
3.
repulsive or disgusting, as to the senses or feelings:
a vile odor.
4.
morally debased, depraved, or despicable:
vile deeds.
5.
foul; filthy:
vile language.
6.
poor; wretched:
vile workmanship.
7.
of mean or low condition:
a vile beggar.

Being offensive isn't down to intention, being offensive is about taking offense. Clearly people are taking his arguments as highly offensive, therefor he is being vile.

Spoiler: Definition of offence

noun
1.
a violation or breaking of a social or moral rule; transgression; sin.
2.
a transgression of the law; misdemeanor.
3.
a cause of transgression or wrong.
4.
something that offends or displeases.
5.
the act of offending or displeasing.
6.
the feeling of resentful displeasure caused:
to give offense.
7.
the act of attacking; attack or assault:
weapons of offense.

But people can be offended so easily and by anything these days as there is currency in taking offence, as is shown in this thread (I'm not talking bout you.) But if there is merit to a contention then surely it isn't the person making its fault if someone gets offended. If Shapiro doesn't feel the evidence is strong enough to distinguish between sex and gender, then I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss him as vile. It's not like he's just chosen a group of people to attack because he doesn't like them. There are ramifications to trans debate, such as prison, sports and even relatively trivial stuff such as same sex bathrooms. I'm not saying he's right or wrong on those issues, but saying it's wrong to dismiss his opinion as vile. Ultimately, as far as I understand, the only way for people to determine gender is through self identification and if someone is concerned by that, I don't see how that is vile.

 

[VP89]

i cant believe we are having this shit thread only a few weeks after the last shit one

Then don't post in either thread maybe?

 

[Eboue]

Then don't post in either thread maybe?

someone has to counter the reactionary pseudo intellectualism designed to mask hatred and bigotry

 

[fishfingers15]

Of course, you can admire his debating skills till you actually find a better debater. It happens all the time and you being impressed with Ben Shapiro is probably down to your exposure to debates of this kind.

I personally don't think he's that special.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

But people can be offended so easily and by anything these days as there is currency in taking offence, as is shown in this thread (I'm not talking bout you.) But if there is merit to a contention then surely it isn't the person making its fault if someone gets offended. If Shapiro doesn't feel the evidence is strong enough to distinguish between sex and gender, then I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss him as vile. It's not like he's just chosen a group of people to attack because he doesn't like them. There are ramifications to trans debate, such as prison, sports and even relatively trivial stuff such as same sex bathrooms. I'm not saying he's right or wrong on those issues, but saying it's wrong to dismiss his opinion as vile. Ultimately, as far as I understand, the only way for people to determine gender is through self identification and if someone is concerned by that, I don't see how that is vile.

Anyone who thinks they are the arbiter of truth on such a sensitive issue (because they can spout a few "facts") has got a vastly inflated opinion of himself. If this inflated self-opinion also leads to him repeatedly saying stuff - on public fora - that he he knows will be offensive/upsetting to vulnerable people (people that he himself, describes as mentally ill and acknowledges that they have a very high suicide rate) then I reckon the cap fits. He's a vile prick.

I have my own reservations about gender fluidity, especially with kids. But I certainly wouldn't use these reservations to tell people who suffer from gender dysphoria that they're wrong and I'm right and that "facts don't care about your feelings". Because I'm a reasonable human being, who doesn't want to make vulnerable people feel like shit to prove some kind of point. That's not a big ask, surely?

 

[Ødegaard]

But people can be offended so easily and by anything these days as there is currency in taking offence, as is shown in this thread (I'm not talking bout you.) But if there is merit to a contention then surely it isn't the person making its fault if someone gets offended. If Shapiro doesn't feel the evidence is strong enough to distinguish between sex and gender, then I don't think it's fair to simply dismiss him as vile. It's not like he's just chosen a group of people to attack because he doesn't like them. There are ramifications to trans debate, such as prison, sports and even relatively trivial stuff such as same sex bathrooms. I'm not saying he's right or wrong on those issues, but saying it's wrong to dismiss his opinion as vile. Ultimately, as far as I understand, the only way for people to determine gender is through self identification and if someone is concerned by that, I don't see how that is vile.

I didn't dismiss him as vile however. I'm merely arguing that what he does can fall under the definition of vile and in that sense you shouldn't be arguing against that but rather make comments about over-sensitivity instead. However, that should be taken on a case-by-case basis rather than a general sweep.
I think most can agree that not sticking to the discussion at hand and knowingly ignore the different arguments and insist on saying people have a mental illness when they are talking about gender and you are talking about sex is in and of itself vile if it's not for a lack of knowledge. He obviously have been told in discussions the difference between gender and sex so he surely cannot hide behind not knowing like many others can. Your argument that he doesn't think there is a difference there worth being talked about doesn't come into play because he hasn't addressed that difference or even acknowledged it. He is insisting on ignoring the gender-debate and talking about those having it as mentally ill because he sees it as a sex-debate. Either it's being uninformed or it's vile, that's just plain and simple.
There is no rebuttal to that. A new topic about over-sensitivity is perfectly fine, but by the book he is very likely being vile.

For the record, I myself think people tend to be overly sensitive, but I'm also someone who has lived a very secluded life, so where people from my point can seem overly sensitive they might not be due to how they have experienced their own life.
One incident can be viewed as that simple incident or it can be viewed from the eyes of the beholder who takes offense who has had that and many other incidents like it on different scales happen a ton of times building up frustration and making it easier to take offense.
I for example am a chronic-pain patient (on top of a lot of other things). A small thing for me will hurt a lot more than a healthy person because a lot of my focus and "pain-threshold" goes into my chronic pains. I'm sure that it works similarly on emotional scars and traumas where it builds up over time and makes you over-sensitive to individual issues, but that doesn't make your for calling people insensitive less valid if they are unwilling to keep that in mind when communicating to or about you. So again, calling Ben Shapiro vile is absolutely fine. Being vile doesn't mean that he is a horrible human being, but that he has offended someone a fair bit which he clearly has and most people have done a few times in their life.

Also there are conditions where people can actually be over-sensitive as a health-issue. A friend of mine have a diagnosis about being over-sensitive. Calling her over-sensitive is just unneeded and serves no purpose other than to point out the obvious. As a human being who cares for others I try to within reason act appropriately in order to not shock her already fragile system. Mind, she is over-sensitive to all emotions, not just negative ones.
This is obviously anecdotal as I doubt most who are being called over-sensitive have a clinical condition, but it just goes to show that alongside the eye of the beholder stuff there are actual issues of people having to deal with being over-sensitive.

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rams]

Ben Shapiro is a nasty talentless self centered bigot who needs his face punched. Why on Earth do even we pay attention to these kin idiots? The guy is full of crap.

 

[Rado_N]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

looooool look at him CRUSH all the libtard snowflakes. Or something.

 

[fishfingers15]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Maybe his intelligence level is beyond me, but I'm not even sure who or what he's trolling.

 

[Scarecrow]

Maybe his intelligence level is beyond me, but I'm not even sure who or what he's trolling.

Because you're looking at a single tweet without context.

 

[fishfingers15]

Because you're looking at a single tweet without context.

Fair point, had a look at this timeline but I'm still struggling to be honest. Is he trying to say that no lives have been lost because the bill was passed so we should be happy about it? There is a point in there somewhere.

 

[Scarecrow]

Fair point, had a look at this timeline but I'm still struggling to be honest. Is he trying to say that no lives have been lost because the bill was passed so we should be happy about it? There is a point in there somewhere.

No, it's part of a joke he's been doing for a while about the media and the left overreacting to some things by using slogans and phrases like "kill the bill, don't kill americans" and the like. There was something similar about Net Neutrality and that's when he started sarcastically mocking it.

He's not very funny but nobody's perfect, in fairness.

 

[Eboue]

except people will die because of this bill. no one he knows, of course. but thousands of people will die.

 

[Rams]

Let me put a few home truths to you about this Ben Shitio imbecile or what ever his god damn name is.
First of all this whizz kid joins feckin Breitbart, only to realise that the organization is run by a bunch of white supremacists (duuuuuh) and, guess what, they’re not that fond of Jewish people..
So nowadays he goes around on his own spouting shit about homosexuals and the left wing. Well, somebody better tell him that the Nazi’s thought on the same lines as he does and they ended up murdering 6 million Jews in the Holocaust. I know for a fact there are a lot influential Jewish people who would like to wring the little cretins neck. He’d better watch his back.

 

[Rado_N]

No, it's part of a joke he's been doing for a while about the media and the left overreacting to some things by using slogans and phrases like "kill the bill, don't kill americans" and the like. There was something similar about Net Neutrality and that's when he started sarcastically mocking it.

He's not very funny but nobody's perfect, in fairness.

People will literally die because of the the tax bill.

I guess that's a great thing to joke about.

 

[Scarecrow]

People will literally die because of the the tax bill.

I guess that's a great thing to joke about.

He obviously doesn't think that, so he's not really joking about the thing you think he is.

 

[Rado_N]

He obviously doesn't think that, so he's not really joking about the thing you think he is.

He's not dumb, he does know that, he just doesn't give a feck. He's joking about exactly the thing I think he is.

 

[Scarecrow]

He's not dumb, he does know that, he just doesn't give a feck. He's joking about exactly the thing I think he is.

Do you think he's had a realization that the bill would kill people and was apathetic about it, then made a joke about that? If so, I disagree. I imagine millions of people don't agree at all that the bill would kill anyone, never even had that thought and a lot also believe the bill would actually benefit people, as a whole. I also think Ben Shapiro is likely one of them, knowing his ideological convinctions.

 

[Eboue]

Either he's too stupid to understand the consequences of the bill or he doesn't care. Not sure which one is better.

 

[Scarecrow]

I don't think those are the only two options.

 

[rotherham_red]

On my phone so it's a bugger to embed. Any mods available to do so, it would be very much appreciated.

EDIT - or it does it automatically... Witchcraft, I tells thee!