Opinions on Ben Shapiro?

[The Grand Nudger]

Broken clocks are right twice a day, you don't have to be a rightwing nutjob to notice that, but not being a rightwing nutjob won't make the clock any less broken.  Ben Shapiro is a usual mouthpeice for the usual suspects and their usual banter.

A person who says to me "Hey, I really like Ben Shapiro, I think he makes good points" has outed themselves, boohoo if they feel slighted for being judged based upon volunteered information.

Those cucks should go cry into their safespaces, no?

[Jeanne]

If that is the case, then why the nasty bullying of any atheist who disagrees with the Progressive Agenda?  Are you asserting that we are less intelligent than you are?  Are you claiming that we are less informed than you are or less educated? Are you afraid that anyone who disagrees with you might be making sense to someone else?  

-Jeanne

Yes, I have no problem asserting that conservatives are less intelligent, less educated, and less informed.  

Just like I have no problem asserting that Christians and Muslims have ass-backwards beliefs.

All you have to do is fucking look at how they form their opinion.

Striking Syria?
During the Obama Administration:
Democratic Support: 38%
Republican Support: 22%

During the Trump Administration:
Democratic Support: 36%
Republican Support: 86%

Obama?  Golfer in chief!  Vacationer in Chief! Wasting Tax Payer Dollars.

Trump?  He's working while golfing.  Sure, he goes to Mar-A-Lago just about every fucking week!  Sure it's costing the taxpayers more than two of Obama's years, but there's a difference...  Trump's a Republican!

Experts agree on Global Warming?  THEY'RE ALL LIARS!
There's a GAY CONSPIRACY!
We need to cut Medicare because we spend too much.  We need to spend more on the military though, even though we spend more than the next fucking 9 countries combined.
Corporate Welfare is just taking advantage of the system.
People who need Welfare to eat are just moochers!

The whole "Fuck the poor" mentality is going to get people told to fuck off too.

People can believe or think whatever the fuck they want.  But they don't get their own set of facts, and they don't automatically get the respect of others.

Hello Divinity.

You are speaking about generalities and using leftist talking points, which may give a smattering of insight into ideological Democrats and Republicans, but not much into people who consider more than ideology.   The major difference in the poll you mentioned is the change in the Commander In Chief.  Even die-hard military families were reluctant to sign onto much that Obama was pushing in the last few years as they were unwilling to risk more children in empty sacrifices at his request.

But...none of the items you mentioned speaks to why some atheists here do a direct reversal of opinion about their fellow atheists when they discover that we are of a more conservative political viewpoint...or more importantly to you and others, it seems when they find that we are not standing directly in line with a total progressive political viewpoint.

If you and I had never discussed anything except my materialist atheism, you might have assumed that I was educated, informed and able to communicate lucidly.  But...now, because I write that I am have conservative viewpoints, you feel free to insult my education and my intelligence.  

That is the question; why do atheists have to toe the Statist line in order to be thought intelligent?  Why do Statist Atheists feel that they must insult and bully atheists who do not agree with them politically? 

You know only two things important things about me; I am an atheist and I am not a Progressive/Statist/Leftist/Marxist.  

What should I assume about you, Divinity?  Your set of facts is incomplete.  You rely on talking points provided by the Statists.  You tar all atheists who are not of your exact political point of view as ignorant and uneducated and uninformed.  You assume way too much for a person that does not know me at all and that bias is soooo not part of the Progressive's dearly held belief that only they are tolerant and seek diversity of thought.  

If I were a minority...Oh, wait...I am.  Well, then you are racist, my dear Divinity!  That is with the new "racist" definition to mean prejudice and hatred of a minority.

Why do you hate?  Why do you assume to know that which you do not know?  Why do you use insults to bully people into "sitting down and shutting up?"  

An atheist should know better.  We are both atheists.  Don't you think that what I did to find myself an atheist lends some credence to my other life considerations and viewpoints?

A shallow insult in reply here will reveal much more about the person you are, then ever your insult could about me.

Seems like it shouldn't be this way among atheists, who think we are above average in intelligence.  Seems like we should be able to handle the fact that atheism is only a non-belief in deities that does not automatically designate any other opinion or viewpoint...and it seems that we should be able to discuss topics without feeling threatened by our differences.

Maybe not, though.

-Jeanne

[Jeanne]

It is  perfectly fair and reasonable to realize that both Republicans and Democrats in the 20th century moved into Progressivism, with some exceptions.  

Lol, only in the United States of Your Imagination.

There's a reason why we are much further to the right on the political spectrum relative to the rest of the world.

What I hope is  for both parties to adhere to our Constitution.  

I've heard lots of conservatives say this before, but I have yet to find one that made a peep when the Patriot Act was signed.  Are you the exception?

As long as there are Constitutionalists and Statists both elected, at least Congress will continue to function as it should by not agreeing to everything that is proposed.  And maybe that is all that can be hoped.  

Constitutionalists and Statists?  What country do you live in again?

Sorry FNM, I just saw your post.

Yes, both parties have moved into Progressivism....so there are Progressive Republicans as well as Progressive Democrats and even Progressive Libertarians.  Anytime a politician prefers larger and larger governments that take on more responsibilities and chooses to do it with other peoples money and removes more and more individual and state rights, they are Progressives.  

You didn't read or listen to those who were railing against the Patriot Act or even those who rapidly altered their stance that it may have been needed in that emergency situation to condemn it as a power grab?  Apparently you didn't pay attention to all sources of information.

What country do YOU live in?  You do realize that the only difference between Communists and Progressives is that Communists felt a violent revolution was always necessary to bring about their Marxist Utopia, while Progressives decided to bring about the same Marxist Utopia slowly by "progressively" removing individual rights and monies until...viola! Communism.  A lot depends on the apathy of a poorly educated citizenry that is happy if the toilets flush and the kids get picked up for school/meals/recreation everyday.

Progressives have been very patient over the past century or so and were ready to reap what they had been sowing in all the places that touch citizens' lives.  

You might want to read up on the differences of Constitutionalists and Statists.  

-Jeanne

[The Grand Nudger]

Sorry FNM, I just saw your post.

Yes, both parties have moved into Progressivism....so there are Progressive Republicans as well as Progressive Democrats and even Progressive Libertarians.  Anytime a politician prefers larger and larger governments that take on more responsibilities and chooses to do it with other peoples money and removes more and more individual and state rights, they are Progressives.  

That's not what progressivism is or means, and in that light, it becomes easy to see why "progressivism" as described above (and elsewhere in your post) can find itself at home in so many places while simultaneously baring no resemblance to progressivism.

That is, however, a laundry list of accusations that right wing nuts have levied at progressivism ( I particularly enjoy the commie touch) ..which has been very successful at subverting the narrative, lol.

[Crunchy]

Meh. I think his style of right wing are just taking advantage of the authoritarian left (social justice warriors or whatever) to push an agenda. Because he's right about those dipshits doesn't mean he's right about anything else.

That's pretty much how I see it as well, but I would add that his main problem is not just being right about SJW's or being wrong about Global warming or Tran-sexuality etc.., his biggest problem is dividing everyone into to us/them. If your not a conservative as identified by him, you're a leftist enemy hell bent on destroying freedom. 
But, he's not the only one making this mistake...

I haven't seen anyone here say that he is right about everything. All I've seen is some say that they like some of what he says. It's a few liberals who are behaving just like him with the us/them dividing line by saying that if you like anything he says, your surely are "one of them" and can be safely identified as an eternal enemy and insulted freely EVEN if you admit to having some views that are clearly liberal.

[Jeanne]

Sorry FNM, I just saw your post.

Yes, both parties have moved into Progressivism....so there are Progressive Republicans as well as Progressive Democrats and even Progressive Libertarians.  Anytime a politician prefers larger and larger governments that take on more responsibilities and chooses to do it with other peoples money and removes more and more individual and state rights, they are Progressives.  

That's not what progressivism is or means, and in that light, it becomes easy to see why "progressivism" as described above (and elsewhere in your post) can find itself at home in so many places while simultaneously baring no resemblance to progressivism.

That is, however, a laundry list of accusations that right wing nuts have levied at progressivism ( I particularly enjoy the commie touch) ..which has been very successful at subverting the narrative, lol.

Hello Khemikal.

You are correct to be questioning a definition, but as we all know, they change a bit when placed contextually.  They especially change when the defining party chooses the definition that appeals to its followers.  Just as the two of us might give our own experiences and sensibilities to the word "faith" so do we give our own experiences and sensibilities to the word "progressivism."

When Clinton told us that she defines herself as a 20th Century Progressive, it was so it would sound better than the Liberal label she had previously given herself, which was getting linked with Socialism and with non-traditional values.  Then, she used it to distance herself from Sanders who declared that indeed, he was a Socialist and we should all be Socialists, but not the way "Newsweek" meant it; he meant Marxists.  And...yet it was Sanders who was telling us the truth.  Clinton was actually a Marxist, just like Obama was.  Examine their histories, read their own words and listen to what they actually say.

A rose by any other name...  or whatever.

You and I most likely define Constitutionalism and Conservatism and Classical Liberalism and Statism from our individual points of reference.

I can only suggest that you read some more history and pay attention to the parts that you absolutely disagree with and/or deny.

But my point still remains; why can't atheists be informed, educated, intelligent and Conservative?  And...why do the self-defined informed, educated and intelligent Progressive atheists declare that we can't be?  

And...worse; how can they be so nasty and bullying to fellow atheists when it is they who believe themselves to be tolerant?

They are not tolerant.  They demand submission to their viewpoints.  They are haters and bullies.  They want us to shut up and sit down.  They cannot endure a civil discussion with anyone with whom they disagree and instead choose to fling insults and vulgar language.  

Hmmm....very childish and bigoted behavior hardly seems to be intelligent.

They are entitled to their statistics and their facts and their opinions, but deny the other side that about which they know nothing or very little.  I would suggest that each side has its blind spots and intelligent people could discuss such with civility.

Most adults know that there are facts and there are facts...and the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

-Jeanne

[The Grand Nudger]

I have serious doubts as to what it means to be an "informed" conservative.  Your continued comments about progressivism, socialism, marxism, and american politicans is part of the reason -why- I have those doubts.  

Educated?  Yeah..sure, np.  It's not like colleges turn away conservatives holding their tuition fees out for the taking.  

Intelligent.  Sure, again, why not?  Smart people are more than capable of holding less than smart opinions.  

[The Industrial Atheist]

LOL Sanders is a Democratic Socialist not a Marxist AKA Communist and Hillary and Obama weren't even that liberal. They were Centrists.

[AceBoogie]

Eh, I've heard him make a few good points, but in general dude seems like a douche nozzle.

[The Industrial Atheist]

On abortion he asks if the vagina magically confers personhood, He's apparently unaware that most abortions don't take place right before birth. Almost all abortions are before 20 weeks. There's not even a functioning nervous system to feel any pain. Many liberals myself included don't agree with abortion after the fetus reaches viability.

And his ignorant comments about trans people....he asks the 22 year old trans girl why she isn't 60 as if that's "gotcha" um being mentally and emotionally 60 when you are 22 just isn't a thing that exists. If it were we'd have documented cases of it. Transgenderism obviously is. False Equivalency.

And he quotes the 300 some thousand abortions done at Planned Parenthood, but there were other services that were done, millions of times apiece that thad nothing to do with abortion

He kind of reminds me of that guy Jefferey Lord that winds up on CNN quite a lot.