Ben Shapiro would probably cry if he ever debated AOC on TV. I really hope we will see that in 2028...
I would suggest you ignore other people's opinions and descriptions of him and make up your own mind by listening to him speaking his own words. See if you find him bullying and divisive.
None of this I would rank as very important to do and I have not made too much of that effort myself, but enough to find trying to get my own handle on him interesting.
I note also that my reaction to this thread generally is that I see some sort of emotional need people have to quickly put people in boxes they can label and put up on their 'categorized' shelf. I find that to be unhealthy. It's not that I don't do that too but I hope to be aware of it when I do and never glue the box shut.
So that would mean I can't support somebody like Obama because I approve of his general policies and the direction he is taking the country because he used drones a highly immoral act in my opinion???Emotional.
I've heard him many times and he uses rhetoric that he knows is fallible but will net him the "win" in the situation at hand. Thats a bad faith debater. I am not gonna dig those clips up, that would take too much time on my part. I will reference this one with Bill Maher though, this is the clip that made me put him in the defective box for good
"The damage is already done" .. so reward him with a second term.
At a point he actually says "yes he says a lot of amoral stuff".
Would still vote for him.
Nah, game over dude. Bad faith snake in the grass.
So that would mean I can't support somebody like Obama because I approve of his general policies and the direction he is taking the country because he used drones a highly immoral act in my opinion???
What is wrong logically about supporting a person who has done something that is evil if that act is over and done with and can’t be repeated and good is being done in the present?
So that would mean I can't support somebody like Obama because I approve of his general policies and the direction he is taking the country because he used drones a highly immoral act in my opinion???
What is wrong logically about supporting a person who has done something that is evil if that act is over and done with and can’t be repeated and good is being done in the present?
This is really just how I see it and what I would argue. But let me tell you what I don't like about that argument and how I would oppose it if I were Shapiro. I had to look up the thread to remember his name.What's illogical about it is that Trump isn't a person who did something evil. Trump is an evil person, and hence, we can assume he would continue to do evil things in a second term. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
The difference, obviously, is that Obama is not evil.
You can't have people like me running around acting out their own personal judgments or nobody would ever be safe. We have laws to protect us. We just allowed the enemy behind the lines and it turned out the only way out was by vote which has now happened. Let us hope the price was worth it.What woolfe9998 said.
But yea, if drone strikes turns you off to the tune of Obama being an evil mofo you obviously cant vote for an amoral person through and through.
By that logic you could rationalize voting for Adolf.(lets not forget about Stephen Miller just yet and kids in cages etc. there is only one ONE redeeming factor here and that is if you bought into the fake news narrative and you really didnt understand what was going on.. Trump is one long list of amoral actions with no real limitations... on a long list of amoral actions if kids in cages didnt break you.... man.... maybe you not a man)
This is really just how I see it and what I would argue. But let me tell you what I don't like about that argument and how I would oppose it if I were Shapiro. I had to look up the thread to remember his name.
If Obama bombed people from the sky in a way that is impossible to separate innocent from guilty or be sure you are actually about to kill only people better off dead, I would call that evil. If an American citizen is the target it is also illegal but in my opinion not necessarily evil. So if Obama has authorized an action that can't guarantee it won't result in innocent deaths, to me that is evil and to say Obama isn't therefore evil makes me question my integrity.
How do I get to say Obama isn't evil for an evil act but Trump is because he does evil things. Seems judgmentally hypocritical. All is very logical if you say Trump is evil and Obama isn't but those are in my opinion based on unexamined assumptions that I am qualified to judge. How do I actually know that I am or that I have the right to such an assumption? Am I not just a typical conservative sure I know what is good and what is evil?
Furthermore and to make matters muddier, the experience that freed me from a prison I was in and couldn't escape was broken open by the realization there is no such thing as good or evil.
I am full of opinions about things and one of them is that my opinions don't mean anything. They are just noise caused by thinking dualistically.
All social conservatism relies on the fact that humans are only a few generations away from a time when ostracism from the tribe meant being eaten by wolves. And that if it were up to them, it would still be like that.
Yes. It's also the reason why they repeat obvious lies and easily debunked conspiracy theories, and if you do nothing more than ask them for proof of such, that they attack you for not being a member of their political tribe, and act like you attacked them first.That's actually a perfect explanation for why they go from trying to do that to others to screaming when even the slightest bit of it blows back their way. I can't even keep track of how many threads they start name calling and then when they get it back they immediately start bawling their eyes out.
Denial is the result of the fear of knowing how much we hate ourselves and the most damaged feel like the biggest victims. It is self awareness we all fear. Who wants to know we are what we hate and are what we fear and all because we were put down as children.Yes. It's also the reason why they repeat obvious lies and easily debunked conspiracy theories, and if you do nothing more than ask them for proof of such, that they attack you for not being a member of their political tribe, and act like you attacked them first.
How do you define seriously? A very important conservative value is purity. I personally feel that a proper understanding of the survival value of purity to an individual and culture is something worth having.NSFW
Ben Shaprio reacts to WAP.. How can anyone take him serious
I would suggest you ignore other people's opinions and descriptions of him and make up your own mind by listening to him speaking his own words. See if you find him bullying and divisive.
None of this I would rank as very important to do and I have not made too much of that effort myself, but enough to find trying to get my own handle on him interesting.
I note also that my reaction to this thread generally is that I see some sort of emotional need people have to quickly put people in boxes they can label and put up on their 'categorized' shelf. I find that to be unhealthy. It's not that I don't do that too but I hope to be aware of it when I do and never glue the box shut.
I think you have not understood what I have tried to say. What I said or tried to say is that I am not a fan of Shapiro in any way such that I am deeply familiar with his material, but that as a known personality who the left loves to attack I have listened to him on numerous occasions and and have been puzzled by how dismissive people are of him. In pretty much all of the videos offered by people claiming all kinds of insanity about him, I simply don't see it and I have this odd habit, when hearing people tell me what I do not hear is there, I trust me and my intuition more than theirs. Also, I was speaking to @interface in particular because I have come to a personal opinion regarding his judgment which puts him for me in a special class. I find him to be, in my opinion, of course, rather non-judgmental, in short, that, were he to bother to make himself more familiar with Shapiro, he might also agree the claims about Shapiro are partisan stereotyping.You haven't made an effort yourself to "listen to him speaking his own words", but you are demanding others should do so? Do you not think that's a little hypocritical?
Also the need to 'categorize' people is not just an 'emotional' need, it's a practical one. When it comes to politics and questions of who one accords power to, it does rather matter what 'category' someone is in. Nothing 'unhealthy' about that. It's a survival trait.
Just from his own words, as written in his gung-ho neo-con (and slightly racist) novel I can make a good-enough judgement that Shapiro is not someone I share any common interests with. Not forgetting that he's the guy who denounced Andrew Neil of all people, as a 'leftist'! Anyone who considers Neil a 'leftist' is likely to be off-the-charts hard-right.