I am struck by the era we are living in. We live in the information age. Information is literally in our hands via smartphone. We can access millions of bits of data within seconds. And yet, we have entered an era of post-facts. It is a postmodern era where on can cultivate their own reality. The same smart devices that allow us to access information, also allow the masses to create their own information. They can send out their own construction of reality into an echo chamber that amplifies their own notions of reality.
Three of the most successful pseudo-intellectuals at doing this are Ben Shapiro, Jacob Wohl, and Jordan Peterson. While each of these three have arrived on the public stage through different paths with different successes, all three pose a threat to reality and understanding the world. They deserve credit for being intelligent and excellent debaters. But that doesn't make them grounded in facts or reality. All of them use clever rhetoric and strawman arguments to make their case. However, they are not scientific or social scientists. But students don't realize this. It would be good for society and good for the student if teachers could successfully respond to students who ask about these deceptive individuals.
Obviously, in this era we have seen the erosion of science and facts as any kind of basis for understanding the world. If the person you are talking to has this position, then the conversation is useless; one can believe whatever he or she wants to and the consequences are real even if the science is not. Many of the students who ask about these arguments are enrolled in school seeking a degree but also believe that all schools are liberal-indoctrinating institutions. It is a harkening back to the dark ages of medieval Europe; not that different than trepanning, burning "witches", or bloodletting. Of course, arguments from people like Shapiro, Wohl and Peterson do not seem as crazy as medicinal practices of the pre-industrial age, but those practices didn't seem crazy then either. People believed in those practices and acted accordingly.
I am also cautious about addressing the arguments that these conservative idealogues create because I do not want to justify their arguments by acknowledging them through discourse. However, social scientists and rational thinkers are approached by students and acolytes of these "thinkers" and we need to be able to understand what is happening to make the appropriate judgement about whether and how to respond to their rhetoric.
Most often, they are using a
strawman argument. By recognizing what the strawman argument is,
one can counter it. Usually the arguer makes a claim then jumps to a conclusion that seems based on that claim without truly connecting the two or by glossing over assumptions. When done well, the argument is quick and seamless making it difficult to notice the leap. But if you slow down the argument and examine it, you will notice this and the assumptions will begin to break down. Be careful, often the strawman arguer will try to continue moving quickly and say things like, "Please don't interrupt me" because they do not want to clarify their views or explain their argument in detailed terms. In sociological research we talk about operationalizing terms. This is a way of explaining exactly what we are talking about in a specific and defined manner. Be sure to do that when encountering these strawman arguments.
Additionally, these debaters cleverly steer the argument through their rhetoric towards their point. It is a great debate tactic, but it is not scientific.
George Lakoff, a Berkley professor of linguistics writes about this technique extensively. When a student asks a question that is obviously from from a rhetorician like Shapiro or Wohl, I try to take a deep breathe, and clarify the student's question. Slowing down the query and clarifying helps to reframe and refocus the question.
Finally, these demagogues cherry pick facts and use anecdotal information to focus on their political aims rather discuss issues at large. They point to individual trees so that their listeners do not see the forest. At times however, they will seem to point to larger conclusions or examples but often through a stereotype or false category. For example, you will often hear the phrase, "the left" which seems to identify an enigmatic group that all believes in some ideology. This rhetorical device is casting a wide net to capture many disparate ideas and paint them all together. So, when you engage with the argument, Shapiro and his acolytes are able to say well you are a sociologist, part of the liberal educated elitist group, sometimes called "libs" so your argument is nullified because you have been painted as part of the problem. He is casting a net at the problem, but he is also catching anyone addressing the problem and tying them up together.
Here are some other sources to help address these individuals:
These facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s feelings.
The author of "Rap is Crap" can't stop contradicting himself. Shapiro
frequently repeats this simple mantra: “Facts don’t care about your feelings.” But despite presenting himself as a voice of reason who stands up to the “MAGA movement,” Shapiro has a habit of contradicting statements he made before (and even after) Trump took office, and a long history of failing to follow his own advice.
OPINION: TCU professor’s response to Ben ShapiroWhat I learned was that Mr. Shapiro was working under a flawed assumption: that his particular social conservative views were in and of themselves “facts.” Spoken rapidly and unequivocally, his strong convictions of what is totally true and absolutely wrong were not explicitly supported by facts at all.
What I Learned From Watching Ben Shapiro for a Week
It was painful. Ben Shapiro is really smart, but I believe that the data he presents in his arguments is meticulously picked to prove his point and that he has a very strong bias (expected).
Why Ben Shapiro Is A Total Fraud
I cannot even use the bulk of Shapiro’s comments to string together anything coherent on that front, and must dig into his articles and videos in order to elaborate on the scant piffle he does provide. Thus, what had started as a brief note on Shapiro’s disingenuousness has now turned into a point-by-point takedown of
modern, bastardized conservatism as a whole, highlighting not only Shapiro’s poor thinking skills, but his utter hypocrisy, as well.
The Hollow Bravery of Ben Shapiro
These publications and commentators aren’t embracing the kind of real debate that they pay lip service to on campuses; they are spoon-feeding screeds to their right-wing readers. They are telling them that their most deeply felt beliefs about the world and about their fellow Americans are not only factually correct, but also morally righteous. Often, that means reinforcing ideas about race and gender shaped by bias more than fact, while simultaneously claiming to be the last redoubt of objective journalism.
THE INTELLECTUAL WE DESERVE
Jordan Peterson’s popularity is the sign of a deeply impoverished political and intellectual landscape…
Peterson’s claims about morality, reality, and the meaning of life are dubious.
What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?
How did a once obscure academic become the Internet’s most revered—and reviled—intellectual?
The perfectly incoherent Trumpism of Charlie Kirk's Campus Battlefield
Does Charlie Kirk hate safe spaces or love them? Depends.
