Ben Shapiro

[RedRocket1647545505]

Anyone else follow this guy? I've been caught up watching his vids the past couple days and while I don't agree with everything he says, this guy's ability to debate and articulate a thought is on another level.

 

And damn he's a savage with his shit talking. He doesn't pull any punches and it's glorious.

 

[aussiek2000]

I enjoy most of his videos, but I disagree with some of his arguments.

 

 

 

In for Geeto's comments.

[BStowers023]

I wanna see a showdown between him and Kerry

[Not Brian]

Saw a bunch of his vids months back. He's awesome.

[RedRocket1647545505]

I wanna see a showdown between him and Kerry

 

Harvard Law vs. CSCC School of Internet Arguing. :dumb:

[LS_Sonoma]

I agree with him 99% & enjoy his rhetoric. We are not in the same boat on the topic of free will, unless I misunderstood his stance.

[EssFo]

Watching him smash the leftist college (kids) is very amusing.

[RedRocket1647545505]

Watching him smash the leftist college (kids) is very amusing.

 

Theres a vid of him beating up on some high schoolers as well. Lol.

[Not Brian]

I loved when those idiots kept chanting "shame" and he asked them to have a discussion about their issues. Instead, like the retards they are, they'd rather just sit in the corner chanting. Lefties are like spoiled 10 year old brats.

[BStowers023]

I loved when those idiots kept chanting "shame" and he asked them to have a discussion about their issues. Instead, like the retards they are, they'd rather just sit in the corner chanting. Lefties are like spoiled 10 year old brats.

 

 

If you're given the same treatment as me, you're going to get attacked by the socialists on here shortly

[oh8sti]

Shapiro is a beast

[Geeto67]

The thing you have to keep in mind about Ben Shapiro is that he is an entertainer. He's not an expert on anything in particular, and almost all of what he says is literally just his opinion on things - not fact. He is extremely articulate, but his technique is one used by comedians and radio personalities not by any formal debate. He basically discovered that if you say controversial things in a funny way with a lot of confidence people will watch. Honestly I would put him in the same camp as other entertainers/comedians whose sets are politically based - like Colbert, Greg Proops, Jon Stewart, john Oliver, Bill Marr, etc... his comic timing is stellar. You could also think of him as a slightly more entertaining rush limbaugh or a conservative Bill Marr.

 

As to the substance of his rhetoric...well none of his overall ideas are novel or original. He isn't proposing any solutions, nor is he brining any novel insight to any particular issue. He knows what his audience wants to hear and he just finds a funny and entertaining way to confirm their bias. If you look at these three clips posted above his technique is obvious, he sets up a straw man enemy of liberalism mostly made from stereotypes of extremists, he establishes they are doing something malicious and then proceeds to tear the straw man down by doing the same thing he claims they are doing. Everything the says is built on the sands of mocking a fictional group of people. Don't get me wrong, comedy and entertainment writing is hard and he is very good at it, and he is certainly intelligent and quick witted, but politically his message is as vacouous as any of the others pandering to a political audience in the entertainment business (Rachel Madow, Bill O'Riely, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, etc...). I'm not saying you shouldn't watch, heck I watch because like I said his word craft is really good, his comedy timing really good, and his public speaking technique is good (and he rarely says um or ah), it's just his actual message that blows.

[xlr8tn]

I can only listen to so much of that from either side but I agree with a lot of what he's saying.....particularly on the transgender issue. I've always wondered why my opinion is "wrong" because I don't agree with it. At the end of the day I don't care what someone does in their own house.....just don't pipe it into my house and tell me it's ok.

[zeitgeist57]

I can only listen to so much of that from either side but I agree with a lot of what he's saying.....particularly on the transgender issue. I've always wondered why my opinion is "wrong" because I don't agree with it. At the end of the day I don't care what someone does in their own house.....just don't pipe it into my house and tell me it's ok.

 

^^^Then the SJW's will criticize you for being closed-minded and not wanting to understand the plight of the protected class. The next step after identification is education(indoctrination?)...you need to learn the way they want you to think.

 

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here, but it's becoming difficult to interact with others especially in a professional/educational/political setting without HAVING to take a side.

[greg1647545532]

I can only listen to so much of that from either side but I agree with a lot of what he's saying.....particularly on the transgender issue.

 

I don't want to listen to all of this but I popped open the 2nd video and listened for a bit.

 

Help me out here. There are dozens of known developmental disorders that can result in intersex individuals. Does Ben Shapiro deny that those medical conditions exist? Or does he just not think that people with ambiguous gender indicators should be allowed to choose an identity different from what their parents/doctors picked as a child? And if so, isn't that kind of a "dick move?"

 

Pun in ten did.

[Geeto67]

Does Ben Shapiro deny that those medical conditions exist? Or does he just not think that people with ambiguous gender indicators should be allowed to choose an identity different from what their parents/doctors picked as a child? And if so, isn't that kind of a "dick move?"

 

If you listen to his spiel on it, it's a very simple one: he doesn't recognize gender identity as a social concern. Actually I think you could go further and say he doesn't recognize gender identity, to him it is a scientific label for categorization not an "identity". From that you could extrapolate that intersex would be recognized from the scientific perspective only - you are only what science deems you to be.

 

If one were to invest more than a minute critical of thought into it one would realize that his entire argument is "just don't recognize the existence of that thing and it's not a problem". It's an argument that appeals to people who want a simple answer to something they don't want to think too hard about.

 

The danger in refusing to recognize that gender identity has an impact to society is that it stifles conversation regarding the societal impact to all genders. Which if you are a conservative looking to maintain the status quo is politically advantageous.

 

Like I said, there is really nothing compelling, novel, or unifying in any argument he makes. It's just a lot of confirmation bias for people who want to keep thinking of trans people as an invisible part of society that shouldn't be recognized.

 

 

^^^Then the SJW's will criticize you for being closed-minded and not wanting to understand the plight of the protected class.

To be fair clay, ignoring something because you don't agree with it is kind of the textbook definition of closed mindedness.

 

 

The next step after identification is education(indoctrination?)...you need to learn the way they want you to think.

As opposed to Shapiro's rhetoric which is you are only allowed to think about it this way and fuck you if you think otherwise.

 

I'm being a little tongue-in-cheek here, but it's becoming difficult to interact with others especially in a professional/educational/political setting without HAVING to take a side.

 

Is it? Or rather is it getting more difficult to have a strong opinion on something without reasonable justification or foundation because someone is going to challenge you on it? I mean, there is a reason rules of etiquette forbid politics, sex, and religion in polite conversation - Maybe the problem isn't having to take a side but rather people have forgotten how to interact with each other.

[zeitgeist57]

Is it? Or rather is it getting more difficult to have a strong opinion on something without reasonable justification or foundation because someone is going to challenge you on it? I mean, there is a reason rules of etiquette forbid politics, sex, and religion in polite conversation - Maybe the problem isn't having to take a side but rather people have forgotten how to interact with each other.

 

I would certainly agree that the majority of Americans would rather not be challenged by someone about their beliefs - because they are comfortable with their lives and want to focus positive thoughts and energy into building a better tomorrow for themselves - or at least to make themselves happy on a daily basis. SJW's force conversations to open minds, but at a sacrifice of decency and respect for others that haven't felt the need for intellectual discovery to open their minds for themselves.

 

The problem with multiple societal identifications for gender, sexual preference, race, religion, etc is that it becomes difficult for certain people to understand - and respect - the differences. With that lack of comfort around common understanding, friction is created.

 

No one HAS to take a side, but in any discussion, labels are created for us to still associate people into categories in our minds. It's human nature. For many, it's easier to not engage in dialogue around this topic in the first place to avoid unintentionally offending someone.

[greg1647545532]

If you listen to his spiel on it, it's a very simple one: he doesn't recognize gender identity as a social concern. Actually I think you could go further and say he doesn't recognize gender identity, to him it is a scientific label for categorization not an "identity". From that you could extrapolate that intersex would be recognized from the scientific perspective only - you are only what science deems you to be.

 

No, I still don't get it.

 

Being trans is not a choice. And unlike the question of whether or not being gay is a choice, the science that allows us to (sometimes) understand intersex people and people with sexual development disorders is older, better, and like, way more obvious. It should be pretty easy to explain to people that there are people born with vaginas who are raised as girls, but later testing reveals that they have a Y chromosome, non-functional ovaries, male-ish genes, and a hormone balance that's much more in-line with men. This is an actual, observable, documented medical condition, and it seems patently obvious to me that people like that should be allowed to "switch" their gender to the one that more closely matches their internal biology, rather than being the stuck with one they were assigned at birth. Because that's waaaay cheaper than subjecting every newborn infant to a battery of genetic testing, right?

 

And since it's so obvious to me that rights for transgendered people should follow naturally from a basic understanding of medical science, I don't understand people who can't see it my way. It's not enough to say that Ben Shapiro doesn't think gender identity is a thing. Why doesn't he see it?

[Geeto67]

No, I still don't get it.

 

Being trans is not a choice. And unlike the question of whether or not being gay is a choice, the science that allows us to (sometimes) understand intersex people and people with sexual development disorders is older, better, and like, way more obvious. It should be pretty easy to explain to people that there are people born with vaginas who are raised as girls, but later testing reveals that they have a Y chromosome, non-functional ovaries, male-ish genes, and a hormone balance that's much more in-line with men. This is an actual, observable, documented medical condition, and it seems patently obvious to me that people like that should be allowed to "switch" their gender to the one that more closely matches their internal biology, rather than being the stuck with one they were assigned at birth. Because that's waaaay cheaper than subjecting every newborn infant to a battery of genetic testing, right?

 

And since it's so obvious to me that rights for transgendered people should follow naturally from a basic understanding of medical science, I don't understand people who can't see it my way. It's not enough to say that Ben Shapiro doesn't think gender identity is a thing. Why doesn't he see it?

 

I think you get it more than you know. His argument is based on ignoring that the other side exists. If you think being gay or being trans is a choice, then his argument makes sense, if you don't think it's a choice it falls apart.

 

We can further extrapolate from his position that he might make an exception for people who actually suffer from a medical disorder, but it would have to be a medical diagnosis and not a person deciding to have surgery to cut off captain winkie. Starting to see the rub? It's a moral argument masquerading as a scientific one.

 

What his position infers is that we need a "standard" in society to determine gender and we can default to the scientific standard because it appears to be clear, verifiable, and generally uncontroversial - and therefore we can ignore this other social aspect of it (which is controversial). Therefore if you "choose" to be a woman through elective surgery, society doesn't need to recognize you as a woman because you were born a man (subtext: and they don't agree with that choice) so they are going to disincentive you by regarding you as a man).

 

get it now?

 

Here is something else to think about: if all people have equal rights, then why do we need a standard to determine gender? at all? the answer is we do because we don't have equal rights, and in some cases we need special protection for individuals that society has placed at a disadvantage because of gender (like laws that protect pregnant women from being fired because of maternity leave). He is willing to recognize the Boy Scouts of America can discriminate and allow only males in the organization but conveniently he doesn't want to have the conversation about the social impact of this decision.

 

What Shapiro is really saying is "I don't want to recognize this group because I morally disagree with it" but he is framing the argument so that on it's face it appears like a simple solution. And that's how you know he went to Harvard and is an atty - because he understands and knows how to exploit the difference between disparate impact and disparate treatment that most Americans do not.

 

(cue some CR jackass to make fart noises and tell me my post is too long).

[zeitgeist57]

And since it's so obvious to me that rights for transgendered people should follow naturally from a basic understanding of medical science, I don't understand people who can't see it my way. It's not enough to say that Ben Shapiro doesn't think gender identity is a thing. Why doesn't he see it?

 

Because the majority of suburban dwellers in America that subscribe to a Judeo-Christian upbringing and world/life view don't see enough evidence that being transgender is anything else than a choice, unless you're watching some really interesting vids on the internet.

[zeitgeist57]

I think you get it more than you know. His argument is based on ignoring that the other side exists. If you think being gay or being trans is a choice, then his argument makes sense, if you don't think it's a choice it falls apart.

 

We can further extrapolate from his position that he might make an exception for people who actually suffer from a medical disorder, but it would have to be a medical diagnosis and not a person deciding to have surgery to cut off captain winkie. Starting to see the rub? It's a moral argument masquerading as a scientific one.

 

What his position infers is that we need a "standard" in society to determine gender and we can default to the scientific standard because it appears to be clear, verifiable, and generally uncontroversial - and therefore we can ignore this other social aspect of it. Therefore if you "choose" to be a woman through elective surgery, society doesn't need to recognize you as a woman because you were born a man.

 

get it now?

 

Here is something else to think about: if all people have equal rights, then why do we need a standard to determine gender? at all? the answer is we don't because we don't have equal rights, and in some cases we need special protection for individuals that society has placed at a disadvantage because of gender (like laws that protect pregnant women from being fired because of maternity leave).

 

What Shapiro is really saying is "I don't want to recognize this group because I morally disagree with it" but he is framing the argument so that on it's face it appears like a simple solution. And that's how you know he went to Harvard and is an atty - because he understands and knows how to exploit the difference between disparate impact and disparate treatment that most Americans do not.

 

This is actually a very well-written way of looking at the situation. Well done, Kerry.

 

I'm curious what yours and greg's thoughts are around isolated stories of transgender females (born male, with predominantly male physique) dominating certain female sports. As a theory, could I indoctrinate my son into thinking that he really should identify as a girl, then have him try out for the girl's basketball team? What social constructs are being violated that shouldn't be in this situation?

[Geeto67]

SJW's force conversations to open minds, but at a sacrifice of decency and respect for others that haven't felt the need for intellectual discovery to open their minds for themselves.

 

How many SJW's do you really know? I mean in real life people. SWJ has become a convenient scapegoat term for people who disagree with conservative positions and actually want to discuss them. It's a lot easier to call someone you disagree with an SJW than it is to evaluate your own position.

 

You can't really force someone to have a conversation with you, and if they are you have a bigger problem than political position...probably because you are about to get into a fist fight.

 

The problem with multiple societal identifications for gender, sexual preference, race, religion, etc is that it becomes difficult for certain people to understand - and respect - the differences. With that lack of comfort around common understanding, friction is created.

 

I don't know that I follow this logic. If you are compressing the different societal identifications aren't you just suppressing the differences instead of making them visible? understanding comes from interaction, but if you are suppressing there isn't going to be recognition in the first place. Maybe there would be initial confusion but that's temporary - the more you see something and have to interact with it the more comfortable you get.

 

No one HAS to take a side, but in any discussion, labels are created for us to still associate people into categories in our minds. It's human nature. For many, it's easier to not engage in dialogue around this topic in the first place to avoid unintentionally offending someone.

 

you are right no one HAS to have a discussion. Again if you feel someone is trying to push you into a discussion you don't want to have to push you into a side, maybe you are being too accommodating. Truth is people want conflict, it is also part of human nature, and you are always going to run into that A-hole that wants to argue with you. I should know, I am one.

[Geeto67]

This is actually a very well-written way of looking at the situation. Well done, Kerry.

 

now I feel bad about my follow up posts about SJWs

 

I'm curious what yours and greg's thoughts are around isolated stories of transgender females (born male, with predominantly male physique) dominating certain female sports. As a theory, could I indoctrinate my son into thinking that he really should identify as a girl, then have him try out for the girl's basketball team? What social constructs are being violated that shouldn't be in this situation?

 

Why do we have "gender" based sports at all? because we are tied to this notion that women are athletically inferior to men? why not just tier it on athletic ability like we do with age groups in junior league sports?

 

There are some sports where gender integration would make more sense (baseball, basketball) than others (wrestling, football), and gender integration would bring it's own problems (disparate impact of women getting less recognition in athletics) so who knows how good an idea it is. And then there is the thousands of years of holding the genders to different athletic standards which may have influenced the disparity in gender athleticism, how do you accommodate for that? When you solve one problem in this area another comes up...and that's the nature of life - figuring out which problem you are willing to live with.

[greg1647545532]

unless you're watching some really interesting vids on the internet.

 

http://i.imgur.com/5ChWA.jpg

 

I'm curious what yours and greg's thoughts are around isolated stories of transgender females (born male, with predominantly male physique) dominating certain female sports.

 

I'm not familiar with any such cases.

 

There are cases, however, of women born with vaginas and raised as women who are later discovered to have male genes as I've described above. I don't know what trangender rights have to do with this though. If someone was assigned "female" at birth, raised female, and identifies as female, then Ben Shapiro should have no problem letting them crush the female competition...

 

As the wiki article should cover, top minds are working the issue, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. If we can't give people equal rights because we're worried about sports, then what kind of a pathetic country are we? This is America goddamn it, we're better than that.

 

As a theory, could I indoctrinate my son into thinking that he really should identify as a girl, then have him try out for the girl's basketball team? What social constructs are being violated that shouldn't be in this situation?

 

In theory you can do that right now. I've got 2 girls in soccer right now, nobody's checked to see if they have vaginas.

 

Seriously though, we'll be fine.

[xlr8tn]

I don't want to listen to all of this but I popped open the 2nd video and listened for a bit.

 

Help me out here. There are dozens of known developmental disorders that can result in intersex individuals. Does Ben Shapiro deny that those medical conditions exist? Or does he just not think that people with ambiguous gender indicators should be allowed to choose an identity different from what their parents/doctors picked as a child? And if so, isn't that kind of a "dick move?"

 

Pun in ten did.

 

I can't speak for him so his opinion is his own. I will say that for me if you're born with a twig and berries you're a guy. I don't even have a problem with people that can't identify except if you use the medical condition and genetic reasoning then we need to also admit that they're not normal so don't expect everyone else to act like it's normal because it's not. I don't go out of my way to push my beliefs on anyone else so I don't appreciate them pushing theirs onto me. If being trans is fine with you then have at it.....just don't keep telling me I should accept it because I never will and I won't keep telling you how abnormal you are.