Who listens to Ben Shapiro?

[Anonymous]

I never even heard of him until he was a guest on Joe Rogan and by his voice I thought he was 12.

[Anonymous]

Don't be confused. Ben Shapiro never spent his time advocating for the elimination of marriage from the legal code. He only got mad when the legal code extended it to gay people.

Intellectually honest conservatives who believe that marriage is a religious act would have pushed to remove it from the law in lieu of non-religious civil commitment. The fact that they never did shows their true colors. They enjoyed this Establishment of Religion, and SCOTUS rightly decided that this could not be denied to others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be confused. Ben Shapiro never spent his time advocating for the elimination of marriage from the legal code. He only got mad when the legal code extended it to gay people.

Intellectually honest conservatives who believe that marriage is a religious act would have pushed to remove it from the law in lieu of non-religious civil commitment. The fact that they never did shows their true colors. They enjoyed this Establishment of Religion, and SCOTUS rightly decided that this could not be denied to others.

I don't believe Ben Shapiro pushed to remove gay marriage from legal civil unions as sanctioned by federal/state/local governments. He may not have voted for it, but he's been pretty clear that things like this is generally up to a democratic vote, and the prevailing cultural preference wins. What he is against, is mandating religious recognition of gay marriage, which is exemplified by cases such as Masterpiece Cake, and the recent supreme court decisions regarding discrimination exemptions for employees of religious institutions. What Ben Shaprio has been vocal against, is using the power of the government to force religious people to participate in gay marriages.

Again, I've only heard that Ben Shairo praise certain religious values as being the anchor for western values and morals, therefore causing the west to be so much more successful. I have never heard Ben say that he is right on something because of his religion. That would be an asinine argument.

Ironically, I'm an atheist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never gone out of my way to listen to him but I watched him on a couple of YouTube videos and he seems smart but also just pretends that his opinions are facts. He does indeed speak very fast. I've never seen a single one of those videos where he doesn't mention religion or that he's Jewish. It's ridiculous. He seems to believe that gives him some sort of moral authority. I saw one video where he claimed he was fine with gay people but didn't think marriage was something they should get because it's a religious function. Evidently he speaks for all religions everywhere.

Well... I don't know if Ben is claiming that he personally is some sort of moral authority, but it's at least a debatable point that religions do in fact serve as a moral authority. While Ben does mention his religion, he almost use it as the basis for an argument - unless he is specifically talking about the founding principles of the US, and governing politics since then, which is historically accurate to say was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values. Even then, he merely states this as an observation rather than an argument that because these are Judeo-Christian values, therefore they are correct. It is also factually true that the US has two separate treatments of marriage: a religous/cultural ceremony, plus a legal civil union. If I understand Ben's position correctly, he supports government-recognized civil union for anyone, but leave religions alone and to their own decisions on whether or not they want to recognize certain types of marriages. Therefore Ben's position on religion and marriage is exactly opposite of what you are understanding - he does not want anyone to speak for all religions, not the government, and certainly not himself.

Actually, the country was mostly based on English common law and they looked to Greek and Roman republics. They didn't look to the bible when founding the country. Additionally, most of the founding fathers were actually Deists/Humanists, a notable exception being Adams who was pretty much a fundamentalist Christian. You've been brainwashed by right-wing media with lies.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/deism-the-founding-fathers-definition-beliefs-quiz.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/06/28/how-benjamin-franklin-a-deist-became-the-founding-father-of-a-unique-kind-of-american-faith/
https://www.mshumanists.org/blog/2018/12/31/a-christian-nation-not-so-according-to-these-founding-fathers

And of course there's the famous Jefferson Bible where he removed all the miracles and other pseudo-scientific supernatural non-sense.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-thomas-jefferson-created-his-own-bible-5659505/

I said Judeo-Christian values, not Judaism or Christianity. This is simply a reference to the ethics/values that is well recognized to being sourced from these religions, and not the dogmatic practice of these religions. You brought up English common law, but law is not ethics or values. Instead, law is a legal framework that runs alongside cultural ethics and values, which if you need a reminder, was/is Christianity in England. Christian ethics/morals, therefore, shaped English common law. Sure, our founding fathers did not reference the Christian bible when founding this nation, but they relied on the Englightenment ideals originating from John Locke, who was, gasp, an English Christian. Are you really prepared to argue that a philosopher on ethics and values does not reference his religious beliefs? Why was the Englightenment ideals so successful? One key aspect of it was the separation of church and state. You know what religion allows for separation of church and state? Christianity. This is why we reference Judeo-Christian values, and not more broadly Abrahamic values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a moderate republican. I was a Jeb Bush supporter who held my nose and voted for Trump. I appreciated his work on taxes and the economy (pre-pandemic).

I can not stand Ben Shapiro. He comes off as annoying and seems to just talk fast to make it seem like he is making a good point. He is obviously an intelligent guy (UCLA + Harvard Law and wrote an NYT best seller) but none of his points really resonate with me. My family members who are much further to the right than me can't stand him either. I am just confused as to who his target audience is?

The people that write the reeeeaally long repetitive posts on this site. Also the smarmy poster that shoots from thread to thread telling everyone how ignorant they are.

Oh - so any given liberal. That about covers it.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the ongoing attempt to keep my kids from turning into loony-tune leftists at the hands of their "education," I find people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager to be very helpful. They know how to present material to appeal to teens and are smart enough to shut down any liberal/ leftist position.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the ongoing attempt to keep my kids from turning into loony-tune leftists at the hands of their "education," I find people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager to be very helpful. They know how to present material to appeal to teens and are smart enough to shut down any liberal/ leftist position.

+1

Amazing that you think a pundit is a way to educate children. Do you think liberals have their kids watching Rachel Maddow? Hell no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've never gone out of my way to listen to him but I watched him on a couple of YouTube videos and he seems smart but also just pretends that his opinions are facts. He does indeed speak very fast. I've never seen a single one of those videos where he doesn't mention religion or that he's Jewish. It's ridiculous. He seems to believe that gives him some sort of moral authority. I saw one video where he claimed he was fine with gay people but didn't think marriage was something they should get because it's a religious function. Evidently he speaks for all religions everywhere.

Well... I don't know if Ben is claiming that he personally is some sort of moral authority, but it's at least a debatable point that religions do in fact serve as a moral authority. While Ben does mention his religion, he almost use it as the basis for an argument - unless he is specifically talking about the founding principles of the US, and governing politics since then, which is historically accurate to say was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values. Even then, he merely states this as an observation rather than an argument that because these are Judeo-Christian values, therefore they are correct. It is also factually true that the US has two separate treatments of marriage: a religous/cultural ceremony, plus a legal civil union. If I understand Ben's position correctly, he supports government-recognized civil union for anyone, but leave religions alone and to their own decisions on whether or not they want to recognize certain types of marriages. Therefore Ben's position on religion and marriage is exactly opposite of what you are understanding - he does not want anyone to speak for all religions, not the government, and certainly not himself.

Actually, the country was mostly based on English common law and they looked to Greek and Roman republics. They didn't look to the bible when founding the country. Additionally, most of the founding fathers were actually Deists/Humanists, a notable exception being Adams who was pretty much a fundamentalist Christian. You've been brainwashed by right-wing media with lies.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/deism-the-founding-fathers-definition-beliefs-quiz.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/06/28/how-benjamin-franklin-a-deist-became-the-founding-father-of-a-unique-kind-of-american-faith/
https://www.mshumanists.org/blog/2018/12/31/a-christian-nation-not-so-according-to-these-founding-fathers

And of course there's the famous Jefferson Bible where he removed all the miracles and other pseudo-scientific supernatural non-sense.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/how-thomas-jefferson-created-his-own-bible-5659505/

I said Judeo-Christian values, not Judaism or Christianity. This is simply a reference to the ethics/values that is well recognized to being sourced from these religions, and not the dogmatic practice of these religions. You brought up English common law, but law is not ethics or values. Instead, law is a legal framework that runs alongside cultural ethics and values, which if you need a reminder, was/is Christianity in England. Christian ethics/morals, therefore, shaped English common law. Sure, our founding fathers did not reference the Christian bible when founding this nation, but they relied on the Englightenment ideals originating from John Locke, who was, gasp, an English Christian. Are you really prepared to argue that a philosopher on ethics and values does not reference his religious beliefs? Why was the Englightenment ideals so successful? One key aspect of it was the separation of church and state. You know what religion allows for separation of church and state? Christianity. This is why we reference Judeo-Christian values, and not more broadly Abrahamic values.

Hmmm.. Locke didn't use divine law - ie christianity, as the basis for his philosophy. He used Natural Law -- the law that is the consequence of the universe as created by God, not his revealed words in the Bible. So this analysis falls pretty flat. His/England's form of Christianity rejected Aquinas' notions of natural law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a moderate republican. I was a Jeb Bush supporter who held my nose and voted for Trump. I appreciated his work on taxes and the economy (pre-pandemic).

I can not stand Ben Shapiro. He comes off as annoying and seems to just talk fast to make it seem like he is making a good point. He is obviously an intelligent guy (UCLA + Harvard Law and wrote an NYT best seller) but none of his points really resonate with me. My family members who are much further to the right than me can't stand him either. I am just confused as to who his target audience is?

The people that write the reeeeaally long repetitive posts on this site. Also the smarmy poster that shoots from thread to thread telling everyone how ignorant they are.

Oh - so any given liberal. That about covers it.

Nice try, but no, not by a long shot.
-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the ongoing attempt to keep my kids from turning into loony-tune leftists at the hands of their "education," I find people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager to be very helpful. They know how to present material to appeal to teens and are smart enough to shut down any liberal/ leftist position.

Wow, are there books in your world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the ongoing attempt to keep my kids from turning into loony-tune leftists at the hands of their "education," I find people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager to be very helpful. They know how to present material to appeal to teens and are smart enough to shut down any liberal/ leftist position.

Wow, are there books in your world?

+1 Parenting fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the ongoing attempt to keep my kids from turning into loony-tune leftists at the hands of their "education," I find people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager to be very helpful. They know how to present material to appeal to teens and are smart enough to shut down any liberal/ leftist position.

Wow, are there books in your world?

+1 Parenting fail.

Well, since you guys brought up books... Ben just published a new one:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48929883-how-to-destroy-america-in-three-easy-steps

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the ongoing attempt to keep my kids from turning into loony-tune leftists at the hands of their "education," I find people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager to be very helpful. They know how to present material to appeal to teens and are smart enough to shut down any liberal/ leftist position.

Wow, are there books in your world?

+1 Parenting fail.

Well, since you guys brought up books... Ben just published a new one:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48929883-how-to-destroy-america-in-three-easy-steps

"Traditional areas of civic agreement are vanishing. We can’t agree on what makes America special. We can’t even agree that America is special. We’re coming to the point that we can’t even agree what the word America itself means. “Disintegrationists” say we’re stronger together, but their assault on America’s history, philosophy, and culture will only tear us apart."

Here's a traditional area of civic agreement: doing your part to stop spreading germs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the ongoing attempt to keep my kids from turning into loony-tune leftists at the hands of their "education," I find people like Ben Shapiro, Matt Walsh and Dennis Prager to be very helpful. They know how to present material to appeal to teens and are smart enough to shut down any liberal/ leftist position.

Wow, are there books in your world?

+1 Parenting fail.

Well, since you guys brought up books... Ben just published a new one:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48929883-how-to-destroy-america-in-three-easy-steps

"Traditional areas of civic agreement are vanishing. We can’t agree on what makes America special. We can’t even agree that America is special. We’re coming to the point that we can’t even agree what the word America itself means. “Disintegrationists” say we’re stronger together, but their assault on America’s history, philosophy, and culture will only tear us apart."

Here's a traditional area of civic agreement: doing your part to stop spreading germs.

There is more than one way to do that, along with side effects of actions that must be considered. You are illustrating Ben's point that just because we don't agree on "the how", your take is that those that don't agree with you simply do not want to stop the spread of germs.

[Anonymous]

He's been caught rigging Facebook's clicking and sharing to seem exponentially more popular than he really is. Safe bet he does the same on iTunes.