[Rushtalk] Ben Shapiro At His Best
john.nebel at csdco.com
Sun Feb 4 18:01:17 MST 2018
Right, well worth watching, both Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. It's
especially interesting that each respects and listens to the other.
On 2/4/2018 9:38 AM, John Quayle wrote:
> *E-NEWS from Endeavour Forum Inc**.** **http://www.endeavourforum.org.au/*
> * *
> *A free email news service distributing authentic information from a variety
> of reliable sources*.
> * *
> * *
> *What right not to be offended?*
> *by Ben Shapiro January 24, 2018 National Review***
> A Canadian professor questions a key tenet of current Leftist thinking.
> Earlier this week, Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto
> burst into the international headlines again, this time thanks to a
> shockingly polite interview with British interviewer Cathy Newman. The entire
> interview was an insipid exercise in Newman attempting to cram her own words
> into Peterson’s mouth; as Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic points out,
> Newman’s technique was to “restate what [Peterson] said so as to make it seem
> as if [his] view is offensive, hostile, or absurd.” Peterson, with the
> patience and mildness of a saint, doggedly refused to be boxed in that way.
> But the segment of the interview that grabbed the public’s imagination
> wasn’t Peterson’s discussion of the wage gap or the biology of hierarchical
> relationships. It was a very simple exchange over the value of truth. Newman
> questioned Peterson on why he refused to go along with the trendy leftist
> cause du jour: using pronouns chosen by individuals rather than pronouns that
> describe their biology. “Why should your freedom of speech trump a trans
> person’s right not to be offended?” Newman asked. Peterson, ever the
> gentleman, answered the question without guffawing: “Because in order to be
> able to think, you have to risk being offensive. I mean, look at the
> conversation we’re having right now. You’re certainly willing to risk
> offending me in the pursuit of truth. Why should you have the right to do
> that? It’s been rather uncomfortable.” Newman misdirected: “Well, I’m very
> glad I’ve put you on the spot.” But Peterson pursued: “Well, you get my
> point. You’re doing what you should do, which is digging a bit to see what
> the hell is going on. And that is what you should do. But you’re exercising
> your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine. More
> power to you, as far as I’m concerned.” Newman had no answer.
> Point to Peterson. But despite Peterson’s obvious logic, the Left refuses to
> concede this particular point. Any statement — any statement — must be
> gauged not only on the basis of its truth-value, according to the Left, but
> on the basis of whether such truth is likely to offend — or, at least,
> whether such truth is likely to offend groups the Left perceives as
> victimized. According to the Left, any and all truth must take a back seat to
> “your truth,” so long as you claim minority status in any way.
> There’s heavy irony to the fact that Victorian prudishness of manners
> suddenly abounds on the same Left that champions wearing pussyhats and
> shouting its abortions. But it’s that Victorian prudishness that tends to win
> the day — or at least has, for the past several decades. Perhaps that’s
> because many on the right tend to value manners; good religious men and women
> studiously avoid causing offense if they have the capacity to do so. It’s
> worked, too. The Left has wielded the Right’s preference for manners as a
> club against the Right, claiming offense in order to cow them into silence.
> The Left has wielded the Right’s preference for manners as a club against the
> Right, claiming offense in order to cow them into silence.
> Of late, however, the Left has simply gone too far. No longer do they ask
> whether objectively offensive statements ought to be made; they now take
> each statement and ask whether it is subjectively offensive to anyone. First
> person to claim offense wins. Which is precisely why Peterson’s logic trips
> up Newman: He plays her own card against her. By demonstrating that anyone
> can be offended by anything, he returns the conversation from the vague
> recesses of subjective reaction to the hard and fast ground of objective
> This is the ground on which conservatives should fight, of course:
> acknowledgement that while manners matter, truth matters more.
> Unfortunately, too many conservatives have responded to leftist censorship
> not with truth-above-manners politeness, but with theatrical displays of
> unconcern with manners themselves. Rudeness is now seen as a substitute for
> facts. If the Left uses manners as a weapon, the logic goes, let’s just
> discard manners altogether. But there’s no reason to do that. We all ought to
> behave with decency and truth. Those are the twin pillars of conservatism,
> after all: virtue and reason. Discarding reason undermines virtue by
> replacing virtue with emotion-based reactivity; discarding virtue undermines
> the social fabric necessary to undergird the effectiveness of reason. Yes,
> let’s behave with manners. But let’s recognize that only a society that
> values truth can afford manners.
> / Ben Shapiro is the editor in chief of the Daily Wire./
> Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro: Leftist chaos is forcing people to ‘wake
> up’ Dorothy Cummings McLean LifeSiteNews
> LOS ANGELES, February 1, 2018 (LifeSiteNews <https://www.lifesitenews.com/>)
> – Dr. Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro agreed with Dave Rubin of the Rubin
> Report during a live interview yesterday that left-wing "Social Justice
> Warriors" were largely responsible for their surprising rise to fame.
> Rubin of the Rubin Report was hosting Peterson of the University of Toronto
> and Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the /Daily Wire/. Both are internationally
> recognized intellectual mega-stars who champion free speech, reason, and
> common sense. Rubin said that all three of them should be grateful that their
> opponents had sharpened them intellectually, given them influence in the
> public square, and brought them together.
> The live show, streamed over YouTube, was upbeat, with Rubin gleefully
> predicting a huge audience.
> “We are going to crack the internet today,” he said, “because I am sitting
> between two people who I think are really at the forefront of what I think is
> an ideas revolution on Planet Earth.”
> It was an accurate prophecy, for the live feed cut out 6 minutes 40 seconds
> into the show, and was restored only after a long pause. The show had over
> 245,000 views within 20 hours.
> Rubin indicated that people are turning to both of his guests for answers in
> the intellectual chaos that has ensued “post-Trump.” Rubin said that
> Peterson's profile had “exploded” in recent weeks. Shapiro agreed that
> Peterson is “the man of the hour.”
> The theme of the show was the growing fellowship, or “crew” of intellectuals
> coming together in an “ideas revolution” against the "identity politics"
> offered by postmodern philosophy. Reason-based thinkers like Peterson and
> Shapiro are advocating for "meaning" based on "purpose" and "personal
> responsibility" over grievance politics.
> “What I‘m hoping is happening,” said Peterson, “is that we’re beginning to
> elucidate the fundamental problems of identity politics. Like the real errors
> in it... Because I think [postmodernists] are wrong…. That the path they are
> choosing is improper.”
> He continued, “I think we know enough now to subvert the fundamental
> postmodern claims.”
> Among these claims is that objective truth does not exist: there are only
> “narratives” that advance the power and well-being of one group over another.
> After the guests reflected on the “flashpoints” that had made them famous —
> Shapiro’s televised “shellacking
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHIQtxLCgrM>” of Piers Morgan, Peterson’s
with Cathy Newman, and Rubin’s discussions with Sam Harris about Islam — they
> examined how left-wing media tries, but ultimately fails, to misrepresent
> its ideological opponents as villains.
> Among other newsmakers the media get wrong is Google ex-staffer James Damore
He was fired from Google in 2017 for circulating an internal memo he wrote
> suggesting that there were benign reasons why gender parity does not exist
> in technological fields. His employers were horrified by his assertion that
> there were biological and psychological differences between women and men.
> Nevertheless, Rubin asked if they all didn’t owe Social Justice Warriors
> thanks for forcing their opponents to come out and become part of the ideas
> Peterson, a Canadian, is both a professor and a clinical psychologist. He is
> the author of the current bestseller /12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to
> Chaos/ and an internet sensation. Peterson’s YouTube channel, “Jordan
> Peterson Videos,” carries over 300 of his lectures, has 702,000 subscribers,
> and has had over 30 million views.
> A fierce opponent of totalitarianism of any kind, the 55-year-old professor
> rose to fame last year after refusing to follow laws enforcing the use of
> genderless pronoun preferred by transgender activists. The psychologist
> argued that policing language is the first step towards totalitarianism.
> Peterson was a leading critic of a Canadian bill (C-16
which added “gender expression” and “gender identity” to Canada’s Human Rights
> Code and to the hate crimes section of the Criminal Code.
> Shapiro, an American, is a lawyer, conservative journalist and author of
> various bestselling books, including /Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear
> and Intimidation Silences America/ (2012) and /Brainwashed: How Universities
> Indoctrinate America’s Youth/ (2004). At age 17, he became the youngest
> nationally syndicated columnist in the USA. He is also the host of the
> top-ranked podcast “The Ben Shapiro Show.” Shapiro is a noted defender of
> preborn children. Numerous videos of him out-arguing abortion activists in
> front of college audiences have gone viral on YouTube and Facebook.
> Like Peterson, a critic of the far-left stranglehold on the academy,
> Shapiro, 34, has worked to loosen its grip through cross-country speeches and
> debates. He is a frequent guest on college campuses throughout the USA. He
> has been frequently targeted for protests by the far-left, including violent
> Antifa activists.
> The two men also have Harvard University in common: Shapiro graduated from
> Harvard Law School in 2007, whereas Peterson did research and taught in
> Harvard’s psychology department as an assistant professor and then an
> associate professor from 1993 to 1998.
> *Endeavour Forum Inc. does not send unsolicited emails. If you wish to be
> removed from the email list, please reply with UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject
> line. If you find it difficult to cope with daily email and would like to
> join the Weekly List, please reply with WEEKLY LIST in the subject line. *
> *You are encouraged to forward these emails to your own contact lists.
> Please use the BCC field to hide personal email addresses, and delete any
> personal address that may appear in an email.*
> *If you change your email address, please let us know.*
> * If you would like to receive by mail the quarterly issue of the Endeavour
> Forum Inc. Newsletter, please email **babette at endeavourforum.org.au*
> <mailto:babette at endeavourforum.org.au>
> *Donations to Endeavour Forum Inc. may be made to the Commonwealth Bank BSB
> 063 144 Account No. 1012 1106. Readers can also donate via a cheque sent to
> The Editor, Endeavour Forum Inc., 79 Church St., Beaumaris, Vic. 3193. Please
> fill in the payee slip so we can thank you!*
> _______________________________________________ Rushtalk mailing list
> Rushtalk at csdco.com http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
More information about the Rushtalk