There's no stats that support the idea that internet discourse impacts votes. The most predictive stats remain age, income and background. SJWs have the same impact on peoples votes as gamergaters, zero.Yep totally ignoring the issues within our own party is another issue, well highlighted.
Judging from my interactions with you on here you are potentially exactly the type of person I am referring to so your opinion on the matter will carry limited weight for me. If you don't believe the inane effect the very vocal minority has had on the American left didn't play a big part in Trump winning for example then I place even less weight on your opinion of the matter.
Hard to tell such things over a football forum but we all form opinions on whatever exposure we have.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Is there any data to support this?Yep totally ignoring the issues within our own party is another issue, well highlighted.
Judging from my interactions with you on here you are potentially exactly the type of person I am referring to so your opinion on the matter will carry limited weight for me. If you don't believe the inane effect the very vocal minority has had on the American left didn't play a big part in Trump winning for example then I place even less weight on your opinion of the matter.
Hard to tell such things over a football forum but we all form opinions on whatever exposure we have.
I am not sure where Internet specifically came into it. Of course things like political climate, world events, atmosphere in educational and professional institutions, the current deficit and a myriad of other factors play no part in the result of elections. You are literally saying the most vocal section of the party has zero effect on the election, how am I supposed to respond to that?
I think there was a few Pew surveys that saw something like 65% of white college age voters saying that "rapidly changing cultural expectations" or something similar was a key reason they voted for Trump. I will have a look later. Honestly though you just had to be listening to them at the time, countless young voters saying things along the lines of "Trump will put an end to this SJW culture" talking about him "saving" them from it and such. Most of them probably understand two wrongs don't make a right by now but I saw that more than anything at the time.
By proving some data or statistical measurement to prove your point.
The most vocal section of the party had more than 0.00% effect on the election?
Grass is purple, go and find some statistics to prove me wrong.
To be honest with you mate I am talking to someone who pulled a random article about birth certificates from nearly a decade ago to show someone was racist. Then I went and found a video of that person literally saying what you had said people would say if they weren't racist. Only for you to just disregard it and tell me that is what racism looks like in a suit. I have very little interest in wasting my time with you.
P.S. Any past statistics like those specifically completely ignore the face that it was the worst and least qualified Republican candidate in decades.
P.S. Any past statistics like those specifically completely ignore the face that it was the worst and least qualified Republican candidate in decades.
I agree it could be a factor. I just don't have any idea if it was that significant, compared to the wealth of complex factors at play.
Wealth/Income, age, education, background etc. are the most predictive measurements of how someone will vote. The vast majority of people don't really pay attention to political discourse. Those that do already know who they will vote for.
It depends what you mean by "that significant". I don't believe it would have been a strong enough factor had we seen a strong Dem candidate. As things were every vote counted, almost literally.
Just the bit I quoted previously, where you said you put less weight into someone's opinion if they didn't believe this played a big part in Trump's win.
What a big mess of a thread 
Well my personal opinion is that if the attention that has been placed on the far left had been placed on the moderate left and if rather than the focus being on "the basket of deplorables" it had been placed on Trump's inability to maintain international relations and his lack of practical planning then Hilary would be president right now. So I suppose I would define it as pretty big with the caveat that it would not have been had this been a communicator like Obama running against Trump.
I agree on the lack of content in the opposition of Trump being a significant factor. I personally put most of the blame for that on the shoulders of the DNC and Hillary, though. Rather than the left/right mud-slinging we saw from both ends of the spectrum. It just feels like as a society we've collectively lost the ability to debate constructively, and I don't think it's specifically a left or right problem.
Wait... so is this guy meant to be impressive?
Intelligent, coherent, able to recite research/studies off the top of his head - sure.
But reading this thread I thought I was going to be impressed by him. Jeeze.
Intelligent, coherent, able to recite research/studies off the top of his head - sure.
But reading this thread I thought I was going to be impressed by him. Jeeze.
Lack of content and framing of what was offered both. It is an important distinction that it isn't one sided but the right (especially below 35) are almost annoyingly consistent with their focus on talking points, the majority of them are just quoting their chosen figurehead but they often choose moderately well.
The "able to recite research/studies off the top of his head" part has always struck me as rather impressive but no as a thinker he is not particularly impressive or original.
I believe his USP was originally a very concise presentation of his viewpoint at a time when issues were often being drowned in subtle complexities. Right place, right time.
I guess you could say he impressively attempts to argue consistently stupid positions
Or maybe not. Still, I enjoy his debates, even if I disagree with most of what he says.
Is it really?
I mean at university level, you're *meant* to be able to to recall large amounts of information, case study, research, opinion pieces plus form your own original thought - and be ready to regurgitate all this from a large curriculum.
Someone like him, I'm sure it's easy to remember 3-5 studies that form the foundation of his opinion per topic, then introduce a few extra in order to mix it up and not be repetitive, especially if he knows what he's going to debate ahead of time - that's not impressive at all, to me at least.
The only thing that stands out is that he maintains his emotional composure, but considering he's debating topics which don't have an emotional impact on him (race, lgbt, religion etc) that should be expected, no?
To each his own of course.I guess you could say he impressively attempts to argue consistently stupid positions
Or maybe not. Still, I enjoy his debates, even if I disagree with most of what he says.
Seems the standards have dropped severely to me.
Meh, I think to me as someone who isn't a public speaker it is pretty impressive to be able to do so under those circumstances. Considering there can be repercussions for getting statistics wrong given his profession. Doesn't leave me in awe but worth a slight nod of the head. His background in law probably helps a lot.
I am not a fan but that is a misguided view. Religion, race and certain other topics I have seen him touch on have a very strong effect on him personally.
So I take it that you don't think he has an OverratedOpinion?
Makes sense, I have a background in law, so I guess i'm used to seeing this kind of behaviour from 18 and up.
It's a different effect though.
As an example - I'm not going to feel the same way debating with someone who thinks transpeople are mentally ill, than if I was a transperson and having to hear that. His emotional response is much more likely to be rooted in his belief that he's right, and he might be exasperated that more don't agree with him.
A transpersons emotional response is to be rooted in the dehumanisation of them as a person and their experiences.
Therefore him keeping his composure in comparison isn't anywhere near as impressive - but again that's to me.
I would actually say overrated opinion would be very accurate. Good presentation often gets confused for solid views.
I am pretty sure he is in a minority from both a faith perspective and racially/ethnically. Don't quote me on it but I remember hearing something about him being the number one recipient of anti-antisemitism online in the US last year.
I mean maybe he becomes less composed when speaking about these subjects, I have not seen everything he has done so highly possible.
Sure, but does he debate anyone who holds abhorrent views on Jews?
I only briefly watched a video where he called Obama a Jew-hating president.
I am not sure, I believe I have seen him debate on Israel previously but when you see enough of this debate it is hard to pinpoint. I would feel confident it would be fairly easy to find and honestly I doubt he loses his composure.
This is all very small detail and I am not sure what the point is? He is clearly a decent debater.
Decent debater, I'll give him that.
Given the stigma attached with being known as a racist, have we not reached a point where people should be equally condemned for so casually accusing people of racism, just because they don't like their point of view on other issues?
I know it wont be a popular opinion on a forum like this with a huge leftist slant, but surely, given how we've seen to growth in identity politics and how the left use it as a weapon, even the most ardent leftist must realize it's not on and it's actually pretty vile.
When you see protests outside Ben Shapiro events and they are calling him a Nazi, racist or fascist, doesn't it make you feel like these people are using the suffering of others to push their own agenda? How can anyone call Ben Shapiro a Nazi? He's so clearly a million miles from being a Nazi. He's a Jew! Yet because he's a conservative these people want to vilify him and therefore throw these horrid terms at him. I don't see how they are much different from the actual Nazi'a at Charlottsville. They claim to be against hate speech and fascism, yet try and get his events closed down by behaving like fascists and using hate speech (well what I think should be deemed as hate speech.) I can't see how calling a Jewish conservative, a Nazi, isn't hate speech. I know Shapiro himself believes it's their right to do so, but I don't see why those on the left can't see how unacceptable their behavour is according to their own values.
I know it wont be a popular opinion on a forum like this with a huge leftist slant, but surely, given how we've seen to growth in identity politics and how the left use it as a weapon, even the most ardent leftist must realize it's not on and it's actually pretty vile.
When you see protests outside Ben Shapiro events and they are calling him a Nazi, racist or fascist, doesn't it make you feel like these people are using the suffering of others to push their own agenda? How can anyone call Ben Shapiro a Nazi? He's so clearly a million miles from being a Nazi. He's a Jew! Yet because he's a conservative these people want to vilify him and therefore throw these horrid terms at him. I don't see how they are much different from the actual Nazi'a at Charlottsville. They claim to be against hate speech and fascism, yet try and get his events closed down by behaving like fascists and using hate speech (well what I think should be deemed as hate speech.) I can't see how calling a Jewish conservative, a Nazi, isn't hate speech. I know Shapiro himself believes it's their right to do so, but I don't see why those on the left can't see how unacceptable their behavour is according to their own values.
I don't know if the SJW's are just a generally dense group or he keeps coming up against the really dense ones
You don't see much difference between thinking your ethnicity is superior, and calling someone a racist?
Last edited:
If the person clearly isn't a racist, you are dehumanizing by giving them such a vulgar tag. It's a really hideous thing that has become more and more prevalent over the last couple of years and needs to be stopped.
Also redmeister is the first person using nazi in this thread, yet he goes on for a paragraph whining about people calling Ben Shapiro a nazi. I googled it and found one recent article from The Blaze, which says it all.
Who cares if something is "as bad". My dad is bigger than your dad.
steven crowderIt's not "clear" that he's not racist though, this is the issue. There's about 4 pages arguing the fact. If someone isn't racist, then it's pretty clear that they're not. You either are, or you aren't.
I'm still not seeing how that is equivalent to groups of white people insisting that their race is superior, and blacks, jews, gays etc are inferior to them.
It's indicative of this new wave of anti-pc where people feel oppressed because 40 years ago, minorities didn't have a voice and weren't represented, and now in 2017 we do and we are more visible, therefore our opinions are also visible.