Young Turks having ball dissecting the interview.
I didn’t care about the TYT victory lap, but it did get me to watch the full interview which is just… so good. So very, very good. How much things change when someone doesn’t always respond and sticks to an actual interview with prepared materials instead of letting low-brow rhetorical devices control the pace.
As others have mentioned, cruelty is often the point with these religious fundies when it comes to imposing their will via the law: punish the slut, punish the “undeserving”, punish those who dare to be content and happy in their lives on Earth, etc. – even if it means punishing oneself in the process. All in the name of a supposedly loving Invisible Bearded Sky Man™ (obligatory link to George Carlin set).
Many of us know (or in some cases are) that person whose stern authoritarian father “did a number” on them to the point where they’re in constant therapy. If American society was that person, then Calvinism would be his father (pre-Vatican 2 Catholicism would be the enabling mother).
While I understand why some people take comfort in the bad they know, it would be nice if American society as a whole could get beyond this self-sabotaging superstitious nonsense, or at least try harder to contain it with the Establishment Clause.
I’ll just leave this here.
The last line of that really exhibits just how poorly huge swathes of American “journalism” do at some of the most basic aspects of actual journalism:
–
To a commentator who suggested he was “rude” to Shapiro, Neil replied: “I tend to take the opposite position from those I interview. It’s a useful way to test their positions. It tells you nothing of my own views. What do American interviewers do?”
I’m not sure I understand your point. It’s okay for people to believe something different from you. Unless you believe you’re infallible, you have to come to terms with the that fact.
Ask yourself, how many times have you changed your stance on a position because you conceded to a better argument? For most that number might as well be zero.
So what are you wrong about right now? How would you ever find out without engaging in debate with people who hold different ideas? Unless you’re perfect. Unless your philosophy is pure. If not…where are the cracks? Would you ever find them?
Being “pro-life” with regards to abortion means you believe that women are not fully human, but instead only exist to bring more men into the world. Women are human beings and no one else gets to decide what happens inside our bodies. If you believe otherwise, you don’t believe in human rights for women.
Nazis believe things different from me and they most fucking definitely are not okay.
Funny how a Venn diagram of people opposing government-run healthcare because the government shouldn’t be making medical decisions and people fighting for restrictive abortion (and anti-contraception) laws would be almost a single circle.
Well, yes, they believe menfolk should make decision for us fragile and nutty womenfolk… not the government… duh! /s
That really isn’t true, that’s your opinion stated as fact. I could apply that logic just as easily to an unborn fetus. When does it become a person, become “fully human” with “human rights”? That’s a topic that’s worthy of discussion IMO.
I don’t know why people always go to the extreme when making a point, as if that completely shuts down the argument. And I would say that it’s still worthwhile to debate a ‘Nazi’, you never know what you might learn about the kinds of people that think that way. It costs you nothing.
Anti-choicers aren’t just making this a theoretical discussion, though. They’re trying to make their position the basis of law that affects all Americans, and however much they try to tart it up with philosophy or sophistry their position is ultimately grounded in religion and superstition rather than science and empirical evidence. Perhaps you’re not American, but doing that is against the law (specifically the first clause of the First Amendment). One hopes as the lawsuits against these various attempts to criminalise all abortions make their way through the courts that judges hold to this core value.
He made that point (if he hadn’t, I would have) because you made an absolute statement that allowed for no exceptions in an attempt to shut down the arguments of others.
You must be very young. The older we get, the less time we have to waste on debating Nazis (no scare quotes required – they’re back!), flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, MLM “entrepreneurs”, people who have a literal belief in the Bible or any other ancient book of fairytales authored by bigoted and sexist killjoys, etc… They’re all suckers, and the most ethical thing one can do when one determines that they are such is to ignore their views and prevent them from imposing them on others.
Lest you accuse me of being close-minded, I’ll be clear: I save extended debate and rational inquiry for people who are worthy of engagement, who have the courage of their convictions and the ability to back them up. As awful and clownish as Shapiro is, at least he’s clear about his anti-choice positions, thus signalling to me that he’s not worth taking seriously. As much contempt as I have for him, I reserve more still for the cowardly weasels who JAQ off about their positions or represent them as opinions held by others that deserve a “fair hearing” rather than state them outright as their own.
I actually agree with you, I’m pro-choice because under that law you can still choose to NOT have an abortion. However, I think it’s unfair and unwise to say that everyone who argues that life begins at conception has ulterior motives. As a pro-choice person I understand that my argument is flawed, at some point that fetus becomes a person who theoretically has the same protections as the rest of us.
But at what point? I don’t pretend to know.
Fair enough, though I’m not sure the Nazi response is in good faith with the point I’m trying to make.
So what is that point, you might be wondering?
No, I’m not. I’m almost 40. I’ve been around these discussions, on both sides, many times. Ultimately what I try to stress is this: we do too much assuming when discussing, arguing, and debating. Too often we are entirely too self-assured in our beliefs to the detriment of ourselves and others.
So you can start with the premise that there is no reason to debate Nazis, flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, religious fundamentalists of any stripe, bigoted and sexist killjoys…and for you personally, that’s fine. But when you start to speak for others in your tribe (The older WE get, the less time WE have to waste…) it becomes a question of who dictates what’s worthy of debate. Who is the ultimate moral compass? Who are these unfailing thought police that know what someone REALLY means when they say something else? Is it just crowdsourced by people who…all believe the same thing? All exist in the same bubble? It seems like having real perspective would be difficult in that scenario.
So you say “DUH unmeaty, obviously we’re not wasting our time debating Nazis! We already know what they think, what motivates them, etc. as a monolithic entity, no need to delve any further!”
So what about white nationalists? Surely not, f’ing bigots.
What about nationalists? Well, probably not worth OUR time…
What about the extremely patriotic? Any room for them at the table?
Well unmeaty, that depends, are they racists and hateful ‘patriots’ that use their patriotism as a cover for their bigotry?
What’s considered racist and hateful? At what point does one go from irredeemable xenophobe to sensible policy advocate? Who decides where that line is? And how can you know how someone actually feels?
I don’t think shutting down discussion is ever good, that’s just my opinion. No thank you to thought police, I’ll pass on insular crowdsourced morality, I’ll listen to you even if I think you’re wrong, because the alternative is much more dangerous.
Not in the context of the debate in America. For anti-choice activists and politicians, it’s all about changing the law to make all abortion illegal.
@TobinL’s response certainly was made in good faith. He didn’t call you a Nazi. He didn’t say you were asking us to hear out Nazis and consider their positions. He refuted an extreme statement by highlighting it with an extreme example.
Perhaps I should have said “immature” – chronological age is a different but related concept. When I was in my 30s I admit I might still have wasted time trying to change the mind of someone who believed in utter and demonstrable BS. Now I know better and that it costs me more time than it’s worth. If you want to debate Nazis and flat earthers and such, be my guest, but don’t insist that we all should and don’t imply that not doing so is a major failing.
Now you’re the one attributing views to others. You have no idea where I and others draw our own lines about what’s worthy of debate and what’s not. For example, I’ve had plenty of productive and fruitful debates with other liberals and progressives here about the value and validity of generic nationalism and patriotism. But when someone grounds their nationalism and patriotism in genetic purity then they’ve shown what they really are and I move from debating them to exposing them for what they are.
Racist? Stereotyping and engaging in deterministic declarations on the basis of immutable characteristics like skin colour or ethnic heritage. Hateful? Basing discriminatory, exclusionary, or violent and coercive personal or government actions in the above.
When one renounces one’s racism, for a start. That isn’t an instant transformation, but it’s a move in the right direction.
I thought it was clear that I was making an example, not specifically saying that you personally believe these things. Also you were speaking for the theoretical ‘we’, so clearly you believe there is some collective hive-mind deciding what’s okay and what’s not. You never addressed that point. Who makes the rules?
And futhermore…
So that’s basically the dictionary definition of racism, but how is it applied? How do you actually know when someone is being sincere about, say, border security and terrorism or just using it as a cover for their bigotry? Who makes that call?
It was clear. I was responding with myself as a personal example to show how your line of reasoning was flawed in regard to myself and others.
When it comes to deciding who’s worthy of debate and receiving a fair hearing, individuals and institutions. No-one except the government is obliged to listen to or debate or give a platform to Nazis and flat earthers and other people who hold long-discredited or obviously destructive views.
I suppose it’s time once again for these:
You asked for the definition of racism and hatefulness. If you’d like to move your goalpost by another inch, though, it’s applied when they slip up and reveal their true position so that one can point it out and make the call that on this topic they’re intolerant arseholes who can be shown the door.
Hateful bigots can’t help exposing themselves in that regard, even if it’s nodding along when Il Douche characterises immigrants from Mexico as mainly “drug dealers, criminals and rapists” before approving of his decision to separate small children from their parents at the border. Once someone who bases his position in racist nonsense shows himself, I’m not going to waste my time engaging them in serious debate them on valid points like generic border security or if borders are a defining characteristic of nation-states.
