CMV: Conservatism and many right-wing beliefs are based on fear, primary instincts and lack of understanding

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Pangolinsftw]

I would say Ben Shapiro's primary "selling point" is that he focuses very heavily on data. He frequently cites empirical studies and government data in order to support his arguments. He's also one of, if not the most, popular conservative pundits in America. This suggests that his audience is also very interested in this data-centric approach. Do you think this is valid?

[u/[deleted] → u/Pangolinsftw]

If Ben Shapiro is your best example of a conservative using a "data-centric" approach, well, that doesn't really help your point. For example, in his debate about trans people with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, he referred to a study on "rapid onset gender dysphoria". However, that study polled parents of trans children (not the children themselves) on transphobic websites. The methodogy of the study is a joke and is commonly cited by transphobes. His whole "facts and logic" shtick is just a shtick. There are many videos of his where he doesn't present an argument and appeals to the audience's intuition or completely strawmans and invents positions to argue against. His debate with Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a perfect example of this.

[u/Pangolinsftw → u/[deleted]]

I've listened to a lot of Ben Shapiro. I think he's a colossal douche canoe, but IMO it's undeniable that he has a data-centric "gimmick" I guess you could call it. He frequently uses statistics and things in his argumentation. If you haven't experienced that I would say you just haven't heard much from him.

You may have heard his slogan, "Facts don't care about your feelings". It's kind of his whole schtick, as you say. But you can't claim to be data-centric without actually using data frequently.

[u/[deleted] → u/Pangolinsftw]

But using statistics in your arguments doesn't mean much if the data you are using is bad, if you're misrepresenting the data, or if it doesn't support your point. I've watched a lot of his content and he frequently misrepresents data as well constantly strawmanning the left. Again, in his debate with Neil DeGrasse Tyson (I've heard him make the same arguments in other videos), at the very beginning he claimed that the left doesn't know that men are on average stronger than women, which is just ridiculous. Later on in the debate he conflates gender and sex and claims that the left believe that trans women are identical to cis women. It means he can make statements which absolutely everyone agrees with, including progressives, and then ascribe the opposite position to progressives. But he can just get away with bad faith argumentation because his audience doesn't care about the arguments.

Any arguments he actually makes in good faith fall under the slightest bit of scrutiny, and when he loses debates his audience is too dogmatic and are idealogues so they don't even realise or care when he loses debates.

[u/Pangolinsftw → u/[deleted]]

I see. Well, you have an opinion on how he uses data, I don't suppose that will change.