You followed up with a DIFFERENT person. How do you not see the difference? In both scenarios, different people.
He's got to sell outrage on his tv show/radio show whatever, every day, and there's a spot for the reincarnated Pat Buchanan for those willing to fight for it. It's the nature of having a political and social commentary show where you have to draw people in by getting their attention. There's a certain segment of conservatives who are going to be continually freaked out by natural social change and lament the withering status quo. They are ripe for the pickings by Shapiro and fellow travelers, who can simply scare the shit out of them for hours daily. Shapiro sees an opportunity and exploits it for profit. He's also probably somewhat of a true believer on a lot of these topics and has a weird sort of obsession on masculinity for kind of a weasely, impish dude.
There is a level of trust established between your fiance and yourself that makes this thing more allowable. Now, if you do something to [uck fay] up that trust, and as part of that, are pushing her, then yea, that makes you a [penis], and you shouldn't have done it. Like, pushing her to a social situation, where everyone pants her, laughs at her, and then sprays her with whip cream. Then, you're clearly a [penis], and have violated trust, and it shouldn't have been done.
Okay, cool. Now take it back to green eggs and ham. Is the situation in the book (1 character pushing another character towards green eggs and ham) more like me pushing my fiance to a situation that she will ultimately enjoy? Or is it more like me pushing my fiance to a situation where everyone pants her, laughs at her, and then sprays her with whip cream?
This whole idea that conservative commentators don't actually believe what they are saying is odd to me. People on this site said the exact same thing about Whitlock. As someone who listens to Ben Shapiro's show once or twice a week, I feel VERY confident that he is a true believer (not just somewhat) of the topics on which he comments. When was the last time you listened to a full episode of Ben Shapiro's show? When was the last time you listened to a full segment of his show? You come across as if intending to speak from a place of knowledge about his show, so I'm assuming you listen to it?
How much of a listener do I need to be in order to formulate an opinion? I've heard his show on various occasions and read a number of his articles. He's probably more of a true believer, yes, but he also is in the entertainment news business and can't simply show up saying it's a slow news day. The outrage machine always has to be feed.
I can say with the utmost confidence that I have never denied listening to Ben Shapiro's show. I've pointed to it a number of times, even as recently as yesterday. If you'd like to find the post where I say I don't listen to him or that I've never listened to him, I'll be happy to own up to it. I don't listen to him with any sort of true regularity, and my attention to his show ebbs and flows, like almost any show. I probably didn't listen to him once in the 2-3 months after the election. Within the last month, as I've gotten back on the road a bit more for work, I've listened to his show a couple times here and there. It varies. I've also stated that I listen to "The Daily" from the NYT, which is a blatantly left leaning podcast. I try to get some modicum of "news" from both sides of the aisle, but I don't have cable or watch TV, so I'm limited with where it can come from. I have stated, multiple times, that I'm not a Trump "supporter," as I've never voted for him. That's 100% true as well, and may be what you are thinking of.
I don't know man. The guy has done a daily show since like, 2015. That's a lot of shows. I would assume you have listened to a handful of them, in full, if you are going to comment on him and his opinions from a position of knowledge about him and his opinions. You suggested that he's only "somewhat" of a true believer on the topics he comments on, which leads me to believe you don't know much at all about him, his opinions, or what drives those opinions. You kind of sound like ssmiff trying to talk about LeBron and the Lakers, calling AD a 5 and pretending Dennis Schroder doesn't exist.
Wait, I have to listen to full episodes now to formulate an opinion? Is there a set number, too? I think I've listened to enough and read him enough to get the gist of his perspective. No, I do not think he a 100% true believer in everything, but the proportion of this is up for debate. I think the level of outrage is manufactured on some issues. He's clearly not as much of a charlatan as Candace Owens, more dickish and worried about silly issues of masculinity too much.
I really don't think it is. And it's funny that @cpninja mentions gay marriage a few posts after yours because Ben Shapiro actually does a pretty good job of pointing out how the same thing happened/is happening with gay marriage. I'll try to find a video or audio recording of him outlining it, as it would probably be better for it to come directly from the source, but he basically describes it as follows: Step 1: gay people just want to "be together" and be left alone. Most moral people agree there's nothing wrong with that. Step 2: gay people want gay marriage to be recognized as equal to heterosexual marriage under the law. Most moral people think that makes sense (Ben Shapiro doesn't think government should be in the marriage game at all). Step 3-whatever: a bunch of other shit happens Final Step - religious institutions are labeled as bigoted for not accepting gay marriage as part of their churches/religion, their tax exempt status is revoked*, and the law eventually shuts down churches because of their views on gay marriage. His whole point is that the conversation starts out in a very harmless place that doesn't really negatively impact anyone but then gradually moves further and further along until it does start directly impacting people who would have otherwise minded their own business (the bakery situation with not wanting to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding is a good example). Again, I'd reserve your judgement until I find an example of him explaining it himself, as he probably does a better job of it than I am doing here by what I remember of it. *I think there are DEFINITELY some churches who should have tax exempt status revoked because they are essentially profit machines. But there are a ton of churches that aren't profit machines and for whom the tax exempt status makes a lot of sense.
I think the dude is pretty intelligent and does a good job of explaining his stances. I also think he does a good job of explaining what he believes as a religious person but then separating that from how the government should operate. I don't agree with everything he says, but I do find myself agreeing with a lot of it. As I mentioned recently, my favorite thing about him is that he doesn't try to pretend that he's some unbiased source. He tells you he's going to give you the facts of a situation, which he does, and then he's going to tell you what he thinks about it. And he makes it clear that what he thinks about it will almost certainly be right-leaning. He comes across very transparent, which I like. I agree with quite a bit of stuff I hear in more left leaning media as well. The standard opinion on this site tends to be more left leaning though, which is why you hear more right leaning opinions from me than left. There's not as much right leaning stuff to push back on here, and when there is, you, Uni, and Float always have the push back covered pretty extensively.
There is no set number, Uni. Stop being dramatic. I don't think you have listened to him anywhere near enough to speak from a position of knowledge about his opinions or his approach to anything political. I think you could understand him a lot better than you currently do if you actually took the time to listen to him. You claim you're an open minded person. Try listening to him with some sort of consistency and see if your opinion on him changes or is reinforced. It won't take very much time or effort. Start with his episode from 5 days ago "Facts don't care about your pronouns." Write down some of the issues you have with his opinions, and I'd love to discuss it with you.
Those steps are about the classic definition of a slippery slope argument, though. I mean, theoretically, anyone can come up with a scenario which leads them into a certain direction. How realistic is it, though? In 90%+ of the country, merely not being a Christian would preclude you from being being elected to office and non-Christian officials certainly wouldn't want their religious institutions upended, either. Shutting down churches, legally, is such an absurd step to theorize it really shouldn't be taken seriously. We can't even shut down Westboro Baptist and Shapiro would come up with a doomsday scenario like that one? It's why I always find the grievance/outrage culture pretty ridiculous oftentimes.
I don't think the US has a mechanism for shutting down a church, really. look at scientology, it is a secure institution due to its status, no matter what.
That is the 3. ???? step in the ole meme about PROFIT! And it is a pretty important step that is just glossed over. 1) Allow prayer in school by the students for the students 2) Allow teachers to lead students in prayer in school. 3) ???? 4) Theocracy with forced religion See how that is stupid?
You mentioned listening to them in full, not me, and stated I haven't listened to him enough, ostensibly, it seems, because I didn't come to the same conclusions about him as you do. I just want to know what is an acceptable amount for me to have a valid opinion on the guy. Otherwise, of note, I found his commentary on Harry Styles cover shoot and masculinity as well as the "Wet Ass [ussies pay]" and feminism as recent examples of his absurdity.
