Ben Shapiro Explains The Transgender Conundrum

[billsfan89]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

Do you believe that there are any active, partisan pundits or speakers  that aren't simply partisan hacks? If so, could you name any? 

 

There are some libertarian guys like John Stossell, Penn Gillette, or Peter Schiff who are actual libertarians that are pretty consistent in how they absolutely hate getting the government involved in anything. As far as more traditional right wing pundits I haven't seen many that aren't partisans. 

 

As far as people on the left I think aren't partisan hacks I think YouTube commentator Kyle Kulinski is a pretty principled progressive (Agree or disagree with his policies I think he stays mostly consistent and policy oriented) there are some other more out there progressives like Jimmy Dore on Youtube that I think like libertarians stay pretty consistent and policy driven even if they aren't very smart on policy ideas. 

 

I think there aren't many mainstream people who aren't partisans because attaching your commentary to a political party is both easily digestible and plays into humans need for tribalism (our side good their side bad.) I also understand that you can pull up examples of anybody being hypocritical but its the effort to try and be consistent and avoid being the prisoner of the moment that makes a big difference in my mind. 

[Azalin]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

There are some libertarian guys like John Stossell, Penn Gillette, or Peter Schiff who are actual libertarians that are pretty consistent in how they absolutely hate getting the government involved in anything. As far as more traditional right wing pundits I haven't seen many that aren't partisans. 

 

As far as people on the left I think aren't partisan hacks I think YouTube commentator Kyle Kulinski is a pretty principled progressive (Agree or disagree with his policies I think he stays mostly consistent and policy oriented) there are some other more out there progressives like Jimmy Dore on Youtube that I think like libertarians stay pretty consistent and policy driven even if they aren't very smart on policy ideas. 

 

I think there aren't many mainstream people who aren't partisans because attaching your commentary to a political party is both easily digestible and plays into humans need for tribalism (our side good their side bad.) I also understand that you can pull up examples of anybody being hypocritical but its the effort to try and be consistent and avoid being the prisoner of the moment that makes a big difference in my mind. 

 

Perhaps I could have been a bit more specific, because I was focusing more on the word "hacks" than I was "partisan". For what it's worth, Libertarians are by definition partisans, as are Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. Also, there's a lot of overlap in philosophy between Republicans and Libertarians, especially with regard to personal responsibility, individual liberty, and fiscal conservatism. Of course, those are generalizations, but they do exist.

 

I'm just trying to get a better read before I decide if you're simply dismissing all conservatives as "hacks", or if there are any heavy-hitters among conservative Americans who you actually respect. 

[billsfan89]

16 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Perhaps I could have been a bit more specific, because I was focusing more on the word "hacks" than I was "partisan". For what it's worth, Libertarians are by definition partisans, as are Democrats, Republicans, Greens, etc. Also, there's a lot of overlap in philosophy between Republicans and Libertarians, especially with regard to personal responsibility, individual liberty, and fiscal conservatism. Of course, those are generalizations, but they do exist.

 

I'm just trying to get a better read before I decide if you're simply dismissing all conservatives as "hacks", or if there are any heavy-hitters among conservative Americans who you actually respect. 

 

The context to which I am using the term "Partisan Hack" is referring to pundits that do not hold consistent principles they become more interested in making the party they support look good to their audience than actually focusing on policies and ideas that you genuinely support. For example a guy like Sean Hannity was railing on Obama for these huge deficits and claiming to be a pargon of virtue on fiscal responsibility but had no issue when George Bush was racking up debt to fund the wars and tax cuts he loved so much, now he has no issue with the debt when Trump is in charge. Hannity repeatedly attacked John Edwards for his extramarital affairs but defends Trump's affairs as not relevant. 

 

In my mind you become a Partisan Hack when you become more driven by how you can help the party you support look better than by actually supporting the policies and ideas. I think libertarian pundits actually tend to always want less government and more freedom so they actually push for those things consistently. Whereas conservative pundits tend to be more focused on Republican policy objectives (which aren't always in regard to responsibility, individual liberty, and fiscal conservatism.) 

 

I am sure you can point me to a few pundits on the conservative side that are more or less policy and principle based but I just am not familiar with any honestly. I can't name any mainstream liberal pundits who are honest and principle oriented (The closest I can come up with is Jon Stewart back on the Daily Show but he is no longer in the political sphere as much) but I do think there are a good amount on alternative media. 

Edited October 30, 2018 by billsfan89

[Azalin]

11 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The context to which I am using the term "Partisan Hack" is referring to pundits that do not hold consistent principles they become more interested in making the party they support look good to their audience than actually focusing on policies and ideas that you genuinely support. For example a guy like Sean Hannity was railing on Obama for these huge deficits and claiming to be a pargon of virtue on fiscal responsibility but had no issue when George Bush was racking up debt to fund the wars and tax cuts he loved so much, now he has no issue with the debt when Trump is in charge. Hannity repeatedly attacked John Edwards for his extramarital affairs but defends Trump's affairs as not relevant. 

 

In my mind you become a Partisan Hack when you become more driven by how you can help the party you support look better than by actually supporting the policies and ideas. I think libertarian pundits actually tend to always want less government and more freedom so they actually push for those things consistently. Whereas conservative pundits tend to be more focused on Republican policy objectives (which aren't always in regard to responsibility, individual liberty, and fiscal conservatism.) 

 

I am sure you can point me to a few pundits on the conservative side that are more or less policy and principle based but I just am not familiar with any honestly. I can't name any mainstream liberal pundits who are honest and principle oriented (The closest I can come up with is Jon Stewart back on the Daily Show but he is no longer in the political sphere as much) but I do think there are a good amount on alternative media. 

 

While I've never cared for Hannity, it's very telling to me that you would positively compare Stewart to the likes of Shapiro. Thanks for indulging me.

[billsfan89]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

While I've never cared for Hannity, it's very telling to me that you would positively compare Stewart to the likes of Shapiro. Thanks for indulging me.

 

Just for accuracy's sake the Stewart comparison wasn't on policy or ideas but more so on consistency of ideas and principles. 

[/dev/null]

11 hours ago, GG said:

Shapiro is not new to people who've known about him for years.

 

 

[GG]

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

 

 

That's why no one listens to him anymore.  He's become too popular.

[GG]

12 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Shapiro is not new to people who know alternative media the past 5-10 years. But in the past 2-3 years he has gotten much more mainstream exposure both due to being on cable and radio outlets and also more and more people tuning into alternative media. So to a lot of people who are more casual political observers are getting introduced to Shapiro. 

 

Where I take issue with Shapiro is that he isn't principled and he is far from his mantra "Facts over Feelings." I cited the example that he constantly wants his religious feelings put over secular law. Shapiro also doesn't have consistency in how he applies his principles. For example during the Obama years he had no qualms about calling the Obama administration fascists and making other extreme comparisons to Obama and his administration. Then under Trump he chastises the left for calling Trump a Nazi and a Facist saying that such comparisons are heinous and not in good taste. Then he called the organizers of the women's march Nazi's for something they did to Taylor Swift of all people. 

 

There are many examples of Shapiro being a partisan, now while I hate partisan hacks I think they are mostly harmless if people know what they are getting into when they tune into them. But Shapiro being new to a wider audience can often appear to be someone who isn't a partisan, so I think I am harder on a guy like Shaprio because he is mostly a partisan hack mascaraing as a principled intellectual. 

 

A bit of selective bias that couldn't be further from the truth. 

 

Shapiro's allegiance is to the Constitution and to conservative values.  He often talks about religion and Constitutional law.  Yet, I've never heard him place one over the other because he's the first one to admit that there's a distinct role for one vs the other.   It's actually the thing that he frequently rails about - that people do try to use feelings and personal values to subvert established law.   He keeps a strict separation between his Orthodox beliefs and his discussion of the law.   

 

(I can also speculate about why someone would point out that an Orthodox Jew would let his religious views supersede a rigorist interpretation of the Constitution)

 

I also don't buy the partisan claim, especially in comparison to a Jon Stuart, who is an overt partisan to the Democratic party.  I've never heard Shapiro act as a shill for the GOP, and he's held a very consistent view and does not shy away from criticizing either party or the individuals.  When was the last time you've heard anything but token critique of the left from a Jon Stuart?

 

Shapiro's criticism of the leftist activism is rightfully framed in fascist colors, because that's what the majority of the Resist tactics are.  It is not a peaceful resistance that was commonplace in American politics, but has taken on a greater confrontational/violent element of European opposition playbook that's steeped in anarchist/fascist roots.  There's very little in the latest incarnation of left-liberal dissent that is truly American.

[boyst]

12 minutes ago, GG said:

 

A bit of selective bias that couldn't be further from the truth. 

 

Shapiro's allegiance is to the Constitution and to conservative values.  He often talks about religion and Constitutional law.  Yet, I've never heard him place one over the other because he's the first one to admit that there's a distinct role for one vs the other.   It's actually the thing that he frequently rails about - that people do try to use feelings and personal values to subvert established law.   He keeps a strict separation between his Orthodox beliefs and his discussion of the law.   

 

(I can also speculate about why someone would point out that an Orthodox Jew would let his religious views supersede a rigorist interpretation of the Constitution)

 

I also don't buy the partisan claim, especially in comparison to a Jon Stuart, who is an overt partisan to the Democratic party.  I've never heard Shapiro act as a shill for the GOP, and he's held a very consistent view and does not shy away from criticizing either party or the individuals.  When was the last time you've heard anything but token critique of the left from a Jon Stuart?

 

Shapiro's criticism of the leftist activism is rightfully framed in fascist colors, because that's what the majority of the Resist tactics are.  It is not a peaceful resistance that was commonplace in American politics, but has taken on a greater confrontational/violent element of European opposition playbook that's steeped in anarchist/fascist roots.  There's very little in the latest incarnation of left-liberal dissent that is truly American.

Yet, another example anyone who comes to PPP needs to see of honesty and nonpartisan posting.

[billsfan89]

11 hours ago, GG said:

 

A bit of selective bias that couldn't be further from the truth. 

 

Shapiro's allegiance is to the Constitution and to conservative values.  He often talks about religion and Constitutional law.  Yet, I've never heard him place one over the other because he's the first one to admit that there's a distinct role for one vs the other.   It's actually the thing that he frequently rails about - that people do try to use feelings and personal values to subvert established law.   He keeps a strict separation between his Orthodox beliefs and his discussion of the law.   

 

(I can also speculate about why someone would point out that an Orthodox Jew would let his religious views supersede a rigorist interpretation of the Constitution)

 

I also don't buy the partisan claim, especially in comparison to a Jon Stuart, who is an overt partisan to the Democratic party.  I've never heard Shapiro act as a shill for the GOP, and he's held a very consistent view and does not shy away from criticizing either party or the individuals.  When was the last time you've heard anything but token critique of the left from a Jon Stuart?

 

Shapiro's criticism of the leftist activism is rightfully framed in fascist colors, because that's what the majority of the Resist tactics are.  It is not a peaceful resistance that was commonplace in American politics, but has taken on a greater confrontational/violent element of European opposition playbook that's steeped in anarchist/fascist roots.  There's very little in the latest incarnation of left-liberal dissent that is truly American.

 

I don't think my bias is selective. I have given several examples of Shapiro finding behavior from Democrats towards Republicans deplorable and then doing that same behavior towards Democrats which is engaging in hypocrisy on partisan grounds. 

 

I disagree that Shapiro keeps his religious feelings separate from how he wants policy enforced. He wants many exemptions from the civil rights act based off of what he claims is religious freedoms. Now I won't deny someones right to feel that gay people are sinful or that being gay is against their religion. However Shapiro's arguments against gay people having marriage equality were previously argued under the grounds of the bible (which under secular law isn't an argument since not everyone holds the bible or even religion to be true and there is a separation of church and state) and under the grounds of religious freedom going above the civil rights act. He continues to argue against California teaching gay history because such history is sinful according to his feelings. Once again the whole facts over feelings mantra is just silly when someone consistently wants their religious feelings implemented into secular policy based off of feelings. 

 

The context of my "praise" of Jon Stewart was simply stating a mainstream figure that I think wasn't a partisan hack. That's not to say that I think Stewart is smarter than Shaprio or has a better knowledge of the issues than Shaprio but rather that when I watched Stewart transition from the Bush to Obama presidencies I didn't see someone switching their belief systems to make one party look better. I didn't see Stewart saying calling Bush a Nazi was OK (He would repeatedly say Bush is an Idiot not a Nazi) and then turn around and say how dare someone call Obama a Nazi. In fact I saw Stewart go after the Obama administration hard for cowtowing to Republicans and not fighting for progressive values enough. One of the things I liked about Stewart was his consistency. 

 

Now I actually will agree with Shapiro's criticism of college activism and SJW's (for lack of a better word) but that's a soft target to say that authoritarian college kids are *****. That's about as edgy and intellectual as going after the alt right and Richard Spencer. Its a soft target for people on the right to try and discredit everything progressive by saying that college kids listening to their idiot gender studies professors might be wrong about the world. Once again that's not to excuse such actions on the left but college kids and the far left aren't "The Left" in the same way Richard Spencer and the Alt Right aren't "The Right." Shaprio conflates the two and uses that cover to basically fashion his soft targets as a real take down of the left. 

[boyst]

Never has so little been said in so many words.  Each and every time.

[3rdnlng]

19 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Never has so little been said in so many words.  Each and every time.

It's called verbose------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ and condescending.