Is Ben Shapiro really at Blue?

[How to be wise]

In a recent video which I found quite surprising, Ben Shapiro was criticising a billionaire for saying that he didn’t care about the uighers’ plight in China. Shapiro was arguing that the only reason the billionaire didn’t care about the uighers was because he was making a large profit from businesses in China, and that he should care more about the uighers than his money. 

It puzzles me because a Blue/Orange person would never talk about that. On top of that, he’s defending Muslims, whilst he himself is a Zionist Jew, who would have every reason to dislike Muslims. What is your opinion of this?

 

[SaWaSaurus]

I'm guessing it's because this CEO billionaire is an outspoken liberal or leftist and Ben is getting his shots in wherever he can

[How to be wise]

59 minutes ago, SaWaSaurus said:

I'm guessing it's because this CEO billionaire is an outspoken liberal or leftist and Ben is getting his shots in wherever he can

I doubt a liberal will say they don’t care about uighers. This argument is too lazy.

[Roy]

It's almost like Blue & Orange can have moral compass' as well, surprising?

He may be a little neurotic and misguided in some areas but it should be clear to anyone with an ounce of conscious that Ben Shapiro is a good person. It's obvious he doesn't want to hurt anyone.

There is a stark difference between him and let's say, a Conservative that was at the Capitol building on Jan 6th.

[SaWaSaurus]

20 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

I doubt a liberal will say they don’t care about uighers. This argument is too lazy.

I think there's nuance to what he's saying. He's doing to Jordan Peterson 'clean your room before you clean up the world', except on the scale of national government instead of the individual. How many people needlessly die each year because our health care system is corrupt to its core, where folks cut their insulin because the price is 1000% more than it should be? Uigher genocide sucks, but for most people it's just an easy virtue signal since everyone knows genocide bad - it's much harder for people to comprehend the abstract harm done by corrupt institutions, but genocide is pretty clear cut.

[How to be wise]

32 minutes ago, Roy said:

It's almost like Blue & Orange can have moral compass' as well, surprising?

It’s true that most people do feel bad for the uighers, but why would you dedicate an entire video to calling out billionaires who are taking advantage of the uighers. It goes against the traditional right wing narrative. He could’ve just not made that video, and instead go back to critiquing Green. But this video was critiquing Orange. And he was doing it from above, since Blue only cares about it’s own group, and Ben Shapiro doesn’t affiliate with the uighers at all.

[How to be wise]

22 minutes ago, SaWaSaurus said:

I think there's nuance to what he's saying. He's doing to Jordan Peterson 'clean your room before you clean up the world', except on the scale of national government instead of the individual.

Interesting that you’ve compared him to Jordan Peterson, who Leo ranked as Orange/Yellow.

It seems to me that Ben Shapiro is actually ORANGE/green, which is the exiting part of Orange, whilst progressives are orange/GREEN, the entering part of green. 

[SaWaSaurus]

Just now, How to be wise said:

Interesting that you’ve compared him to Jordan Peterson, who Leo ranked as Orange/Yellow.

It seems to me that Ben Shapiro is actually ORANGE/green, which is the exiting part of Orange, whilst progressives are orange/GREEN, the entering part of green. 

I'm only comparing him to JP in the sense that the argument is the same, just from a higher level. The CEO says we need to clean up our own mess  as a nation before focusing on the messes of other nations, and JP is saying me and you individually need to clean up our own messes personally before focusing on the messes of the country we live in.

[Opo]

1 hour ago, Roy said:

It's obvious he doesn't want to hurt anyone.

I wonder what are his private thoughts about Palestinians. 

[fortifyacacia3]

21 hours ago, Roy said:

It's almost like Blue & Orange can have moral compass' as well, surprising?

He may be a little neurotic and misguided in some areas but it should be clear to anyone with an ounce of conscious that Ben Shapiro is a good person. It's obvious he doesn't want to hurt anyone.

There is a stark difference between him and let's say, a Conservative that was at the Capitol building on Jan 6th.

I think most people are good by this metric. How are people who genuinely believe they are protecting an election worse? I'm not sure cordial Nazis in suits are so far off from those in arm bands, or that harm must always be explicit. But saying things like trayvon martin had it coming is pretty explicit enough. "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children" innocent sounding phrases can be a vessel for alot of hate. I just don't buy the sleight of hand that denying oppression is much better than being more directly complicit in it. 

To OP, it's "communist" China! Acknowledging the human rights abuses of nonaligned countries and abuses that aren't threatening to capital is right up his alley. Export our own abuse and distract!

[DocWatts]

Being horrified at genocide happening on the other side of the globe is 'easy', in the sense that one doesn't have to introspect about violations of human dignity close to home that one may be indirectly complicit in.

It brings to mind watching 'To Kill a Mockingbird' with an SD-Blue family member, seeing them emotionally moved by the story, but unable to comprehend how the story they're watching is still relevant to contemporary conditions (in thier mind racism was something that happened in 'the old days', not something they could possibly be complicit in).

Edited January 21, 2022 by DocWatts

[PurpleTree]

On 20.1.2022 at 11:57 PM, SaWaSaurus said:

I'm guessing it's because this CEO billionaire is an outspoken liberal or leftist and Ben is getting his shots in wherever he can

that's probably part of it

also he's very pro u.s. which probably means he's anti china so he'll get at them every chance he gets

but i'm sure a part of it is also "morals"

[Roy]

1 hour ago, fortifyacacia3 said:

I think most people are good by this metric. How are people who genuinely believe they are protecting an election worse?

I'm a firm believer that actions matter more than words, by a large margin actually. I don't take the things most people say seriously at all, because I guess #1 it's always easier to talk shit, and #2 I support Free Speech (generally) and don't find the utility in getting triggered by what people say, even if it's "dangerous".

We ought to let people (to a degree) speak their minds and say how they think and feel, so if their idea sucks it can be challenged then and there and they can be changed. When you stop listening to them or silence them too aggressively that's when they feel they have no choice but to act.

The difference is having your skin in the game. Actions define people, not words.

1 hour ago, fortifyacacia3 said:

I'm not sure cordial Nazis in suits are so far off from those in arm bands, or that harm must always be explicit. But saying things like trayvon martin had it coming is pretty explicit enough.

It's a bad take, yea. However I don't hold the positions people take, or their identity against them too much, even if I disagree. I like to believe people are more dynamic and have more potential than that. It's too cynical. I guess what I'm saying is I don't believe Ben would actually hurt anyone or physically act out on his worst beliefs, which matters more to me.

 

To expand on what I'm talking about it's like when you're searching for people to learn from for some topic, or maybe even looking for a guru of some sort. If you have any sense of reading people you can easily tell the difference between someone bullshitting (just talking), vs the real deal.

When you walk in a room and there is a truly wise person there you immediately feel it. They have a magnetic presence and just radiate.

It's not that I'm saying Ben Shapiro is that person lol. Just hope you understand my perspective a bit more.

[Roy]

23 hours ago, How to be wise said:

He could’ve just not made that video, and instead go back to critiquing Green. But this video was critiquing Orange. And he was doing it from above, since Blue only cares about it’s own group, and Ben Shapiro doesn’t affiliate with the uighers at all.

lol Ben is doing it not because he is appealing to Green humanism. It's because he resonates with them being an oppressed ethnic/religious group (Muslim Uyghurs), and his group being (Jewish).

Also because he hates China and fears them threatening American hegemony, also Nationalist/Group thinking.

[Thought Art]

Ben is definitely blue orange. It's easy to smell other's bullshit.

[Hardkill]

Well, I guess Ben does have some degree real compassion for others. However, his level of compassion probably isn't as great as someone else's who is at stage Orange/Green or above.

[Leo Gura]

Blue loves to moralize. Blue will even moralize to capitalism at times (where it doesn t personally affect his profits) if it bolsters his moral righteousness and owns some libs.

And of course even Ben will have some bits of Green. For example, he will consider gays human beings. Whereas solid Blue in the Middle East would treats gays closer to nonhumans. Green values have so soaked through Western culture that anyone living in the West will have some bits of Green memes infecting their mind.

[Hardkill]

9 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Blue loves to moralize. Blue will even moralize to capitalism at times (where it doesn t personally affect his profits) if it bolsters his moral righteousness and owns some libs.

If Blue does moralize capitalism, then why are American conservatives and Republicans, who have a lot more Blue in them than liberals and Democrats do, for smaller government including much less economic regulation, whereas libs and Dems have always been for bigger government including much more economic regulation?

Edited January 22, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

Blue is about defending dogma. Part of American dogma is capitalism, individualism, libertarianism.

Plus, most Americans are not solid Blue, they are more like 50% Blue 50% Orange.

People are not consistent. They will compartmentalize and criticize capitalism in bits when it personally serves them to do so. Tucker Carlson does this all the time. He will bash big corporations as part of his "I'm just fighting for the common man" shtick. When in fact his whole career hinges of gross corporate exploits of rubes.

[Hardkill]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

Blue is about defending dogma. Part of American dogma is capitalism, individualism, libertarianism.

Plus, most Americans are not solid Blue, they are more like 50% Blue 50% Orange.

People are not consistent. They will compartmentalize and criticize capitalism in bits when it personally serves them to do so. Tucker Carlson does this all the time. He will bash big corporations as part of his "I'm a just for the common man" shtick. When in fact his whole career hinges of gross corporate exploits.

I see. 

But are those who are about 50% Orange 50% Green much more consistent and much less hypocritical about capitalism than those who are 50% Blue 50% Orange?