• z3rOR0ne
    link
    fedilink
    53
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    Yeah, I watched that video in full. If you want to see the particular exchange in question, skip to 35:09.

    There were some half way decent arguments made throughout this…thing, but when that trans man got up and basically used Shapiro’s own shitty tactics against him, and then refused to play nice or give Ben any room to quickly change the subject or resort to his usual whataboutisms, I started to cry.

    In just a few short minutes this man said what so many have wanted to say to Ben for so long. That Ben’s truly dangerous and hateful rhetoric has real and profoundly harmful consequences for the people he demonizes.

    Ben pretends he’s the most reasonable of the right wing grifters, and maybe he is, but honestly, that means less than shit. I’ve seen liberals and democrats (even in this very video), acquiesce to Ben on certain issues because he puts on this false air of being some kind of reasonable conservative who simply has fundamentally different views than democrats and leftists, but he’s not.

    Ben Shapiro is not reasonable, he is not cordial, he is not even a remotely decent debater. He’s just a different flavor of right wing extremism that is just as dangerous and deplorable as Matt Walsh, Steven Crowder, Jeremy Boring, and the rest of the Daily Wire scum. The only thing that truly differentiates him from the others is that he’s Jewish, which honestly must keep him up late at night when he has to wrestle with the fact that once the republican party splinters in the upcoming years, will likely turn on him in ways that are reminiscent of the third reich.

    This awesome trans man spit some raw truth over that shithead’s face. I wish I could shake his hand. I could have watched two hours of him tearing Ben apart. Fuck Ben Shapiro.

    • Sunshine OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      815 hours ago

      Ben pretends he’s the most reasonable of the right wing grifters, and maybe he is, but honestly, that means less than shit.

      The only thing that truly differentiates him from the others is that he’s Jewish

      As much as I detest his terrible positions at-least he admits that he is a hypocrite for not being vegan. Its rare to see republicans have self reflection like that.

    • @chuckleslord
      link
      116 hours ago

      Please don’t link that video. That company makes videos to make people mad and thus engage. They don’t need or deserve anyone’s support.

      • z3rOR0ne
        link
        fedilink
        216 hours ago

        By that logic, we shouldn’t engage with the news as a whole, which does exactly as you describe.

        • @Nalivai
          link
          29 hours ago

          And I would say yes, we shouldn’t. At least with those news outlets that do that. They do that because we engage with it, what’s better way to make them change their ways?

          • z3rOR0ne
            link
            fedilink
            26 hours ago

            By changing human behavioral patterns that have been developed through evolutionary biases?

            Humans naturally gravitate towards and have a better recall memory for negative events and information because in the past that provided an advantage for survival. Modern media outlets are well aware of this and exploit this across the board.

            There is not a single source of news worth its salt that doesn’t exploit this except for maybe the Associated Press. So I guess only read that and stop engaging with all of social media and also media as a whole?

            I’m not going to say that I like this YT channel or the format they have created for this style of debate. The rest of their content seems pretty surface level to me, and seems to make way too many false equivalencies between two propped up viewpoints.

            That said, I don’t see any harm in sharing the specific video clip that the specific interaction referenced in the article. Asking to not share that information is akin to the early days of the internet where people ignorant of the nature of the medium simply shot their children’s computer screens with bullets, believing that was somehow a solution. It’s a naive argument that is so easily dismissed, it’s kind of laughable.

            And to pose the question of how to solve the problem comes off as disingenuous, as it is obvious to anyone that has spent any amount of time online that the only solution is to somehow make human beings not biologically inclined to focus on negatively impactful stimuli. This monumental task would likely take a few thousands of generations and a lot more understanding about evolutionary biology to rid human beings of this tendency. Sorry.

            • @Nalivai
              link
              12 hours ago

              We as a species got pretty good at not sucumbing to all the easiest natural behavior patterns, no reason not to learn to deal with this one. Evosoc isn’t a very rigorous field, and it’s not the first time they proposed something to be inevitable inate part of human nature, just to be proven wrong again and again. At this point the only inate part of human nature that tend to stick is an ability to change and adapt. So no need to be sorry

  • @Thteven
    link
    2319 hours ago

    That was beautiful. Ben Shapiro doesn’t deserve to be debated, he should be dressed down and disregarded at every opportunity.

  • @meathorse
    link
    1620 hours ago

    Brilliant! That dude might have a vagina but he’s also got some massive balls!

    This reminded me so much of the final rap battle in 8 mile!

  • @ChonkyOwlbear
    link
    -320 hours ago

    “Because there is no legislation in the history of America that legislates a man’s body, so why does mine have to be legislated?”

    I love what this man is saying except for this part. It drives me crazy every time I’ve heard it. Has nobody heard of the fucking draft? I would say forcing someone to go die in a war is the ultimate legislating of a person’s body.

    • @horse_battery_staple
      link
      11
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      That is a false equivalency and patently not valid. There were deferments, medical or educational. It was Federal, most posts were not direct combat with an 031* MOS. Many men went to Canada, or AWOL or were conscientious objectors. Also at the end of it all a large part of society considered them having completed their sevice and honored them as heroes and veterans if they finished their tour/rotation.

      I’m not going to get into how terrible the VA is, or how useless the GI bill was during 'nam. But no, the draft does not equate to the looooooooong history of legislation that was levied on women, everything from there not being marital rape to being required to carry a rapist’s insemination to term. Fuck that whole trail of logic there.

      Yes men can be sexually assaulted and yes the draft sucked, but it does not equate to female bodied or female presenting people’s plight under the patriarchy.

      • @ChonkyOwlbear
        link
        416 hours ago

        Why is a false equivalency? It is a law that controls men’s bodies. My uncle and father were forced to go to war against their wills. They survived but they both knew many people who didn’t. My uncle ended up dying from problems caused by his exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.

        Many men went to Canada

        Would you accept the excuse for banning abortion that women could just go to Canada to get one? Of course not. Fuck that.

        • @Dkarma
          link
          2
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Way to cherry pick one thing from the long list of exceptions op listed. You’re simply wrong here.

          Requiring military service is not the same thing as removing your right to bodily autonomy. Also stop pretending everyone drafted or registering for selective service goes into combat…

          Imagine thinking driving a jeep is the same as carrying a rapists baby.

    • @SquirtleHermit
      link
      1820 hours ago

      Legislating autonomy isn’t what’s being talked about when discussing legislating someone’s body. And while I’m sure there has been legislation on a mans body in American history, forced sterilization comes to mind, I think a pedantic linguistics debate isn’t really the pertinent issue in this conversation.

      • @ChonkyOwlbear
        link
        -2
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        The right here is literally called bodily autonomy…

        • @SquirtleHermit
          link
          5
          edit-2
          27 minutes ago

          a pedantic linguistics debate isn’t really the pertinent issue in this conversation.

          Just to reiterate my last point, a disagreement over these definitions is literally is just agreeing on words, which is a waste of energy in the face of the core conversation.

          But to waste that energy with you, yes it is referred to as bodily autonomy, so perhaps I had a poor choice of words when trying to highlight the difference. That however does not mean there is no difference, it just means we are having a linguistics debate on word choice.

          By “legislating autonomy”, I was referring to the freedoms to move about freely, choose a job, and engage in leisurely activities. The kinds of things the draft and being sent to prison prevent. The draft was a specific type of this that affect men specifically and directly.

          By “legislating someone’s body”, I was referring to legislating what they are allowed to do with regards to actions taken to their own body. This would include abortions, gender reassignment, and access to healthcare. These have of course included men, but none have been specific to only men. Abortion rights are a specific form of legislation on a person’s body that is gender specific, which men have never experienced.

          You can die on the hill of “these words have multiple meanings, and therefore someone must have intended all possible interpretations when using them”, or you can realize that women do have a unique form of legislation on their bodily autonomy (again, referring to what they can do in regards to their body, not with) that men by and large do not share, and that this is what is being talked about when this is being discussed. If you can’t recognize the difference, at least please consider that you are derailing a more important conversation when you bring your original point up.

    • cobysev
      link
      English
      10
      edit-2
      19 hours ago

      I would say forcing someone to go die in a war is the ultimate legislating of a person’s body.

      As someone who served in the US military for 20 years and got regularly mortared in Iraq, I can easily say that serving in the military, even during a time of war, is not an automatic death sentence. Sure, you could argue that forcing you to join up and travel to dangerous places is restricting your freedom of movement, maybe some civil liberties at times. But the ultimate goal is not to die.

      Plus, we’ve expanded the Reserves so that we don’t need to do a draft anymore. The draft is ancient history. There are so many people who voluntarily signed up for the Reserves that we would probably need 3/4 of America completely overrun by enemy forces before we’d need to enact a draft again. We’re a 100% voluntary force nowadays.

      Heck, during the Iraq War, most of my fellow active duty members didn’t really need to change their daily work routine because the Reserves were the first ones sent to war. We had so many people volunteer to serve that our active duty military didn’t need to do all that much. I didn’t go to Iraq until 4 years later, when things started to get a little heated and they needed more active support to hold our positions.

      • @ChonkyOwlbear
        link
        116 hours ago

        What you are talking about is the difference between choosing to carry a birth to term and someone being forced to do the same. It’s a big fucking difference. And the draft is still on the books. It can be reinstated at any time (just like all those anti-abortion laws on the books were reinstated after Dobbs).

        • cobysev
          link
          English
          415 hours ago

          Yes, and I’m saying that we’ve fixed the problem of being forced to send people to war against their will by providing an option for people to volunteer. And it was wildly successful; so much so, that we don’t need the draft anymore.

          We need to do the same for abortion. Provide the necessary tools to help those in crisis without forcing them to carry a birth to term. If we put the knowledge and power in the hands of those affected, they can make better and safer decisions. Then we’re not forcing women to hold onto a baby that might kill them, or raise an unwanted baby in a home that will only harm the baby mentally or physically, or put the mother and/or baby at risk with abusive partners, etc. Whatever the situation, it can be more directly and effectively managed by those involved instead of a faceless figure making an inflexible blanket law.

          Historically, abortions always go down under Democrat officials because they tend to provide better resources and education for abortion AND prevention. Republican officials just preach abstinence-only diatribe and restrict access to safe abortions and prevention resources. We end up with more unwanted pregnancies and more deaths due to childbirth.

          But because Republicans preach about banning abortion and Democrats allow it, most people won’t pay attention to the actual statistics and go straight for the emotional response: “killing babies is wrong, ban abortion!”