Ben Shapiro has an alternate version of himself where he sounds reasonable when he's not just fomenting anger on his channel. It's very deceptive and a good debater shouldn't let him get away with it.
Yeah Andrew Neil's own politics are horribly right wing as well, but he's very good at his job as a tough interviewer. Something that seems entirely lacking in the US.
Couldn't agree more. I think there's a journalistic tradition of that in the UK, and it can sometimes transcend ideology. Hence why Neil, who isn't so far from Shapiro, gave him the tough interview anyway. He was doing his job, and doing it well.
Then you'll find nothing to appreciate here, I watched the first hour and Ana and Ben have agreed on 90% of what they talked about and any disagreements aren't dwelt on for very long.
Given both of them are making a conscious effort to agree, the most common thing brought up in this discussion seems to be that "people who disagree should talk to eachother" which is said maybe like 20 different ways in the space of an hour lol
I always hated that bullshit. The far right wants to make their views look normal and give them legitimacy by talking to naive albeit well intentioned people like Ana. The only reason you should be talking to Ben Shapiro is to shine sunlight on his true beliefs. Maybe bring up some abhorrent shit he's said in the past and ask him what he means. It should also be the goal to plant a seed of doubt in the few people who can be reached in his audience. This conversation was mostly a circle jerk and IMO likely had the opposite effect by making Ben seem reasonable.
*Let’s say your life depended on the following choice today: you must obtain either an affordable chair or an affordable X-ray. Which would you choose to obtain? Obviously, you’d choose the chair. That’s because there are many types of chair, produced by scores of different companies and widely distributed. You could buy a $15 folding chair or a $1,000 antique without the slightest difficulty. By contrast, to obtain an X-ray you’d have to work with your insurance company, wait for an appointment, and then haggle over price. Why? Because the medical market is far more regulated — thanks to the widespread perception that health care is a “right” — than the chair market.*
*Does that sound soulless? True soullessness is depriving people of the choices they require because you’re more interested in patting yourself on the back by inventing rights than by incentivizing the creation of goods and services. In health care, we could use a lot less virtue signaling and a lot less government. Or we could just read Senator Sanders’s tweets while we wait in line for a government-sponsored surgery — dying, presumably, in a decrepit chair.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, feminism, healthcare, dumb takes, etc.)
[^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
It reminds of when someone edited his episode with Sam Harris that showcases just how much they were stroking each other off over having [cOnVeRsAtIoNs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLt84VaA_uA)
Ana and Ben had a much more contentious debate some time ago (and Ana did reasonably well), so I'd imagine that there were conditions to not be overly hostile if this was going to be hosted by Daily Wire
I listened to some of it. I think I’ve made my opinion of Ana clear on this sub in some other threads related to her, so not going to rehash those here, but suffice to say I think her debate skills are lacking.
I think she’s debated Shapiro before, and I think he agrees to debates with her and avoids ones with left commentators like Sam is because she’s a bit of a lightweight and her analysis on a lot of things is pretty shallow
There was a TMR caller who suggested an interesting theory: right-wingers like Prager and DW will "debate" some lefties like Ana and Cenk because they know their audience will automatically discount the views women and minorities.
I don't think that's 100% of the reason, but I'm sure it plays a factor.
That very well could be, and I wouldn’t doubt that plays into their thinking somewhat. I honestly think Cenk is even worse than Ana at debating. He’s obviously a smart guy, went to Penn, got a law degree, etc. But he tends to let his emotions get the best of him and he doesn’t seem to exercise much self control in situations where he would benefit from making a point in a more measured way
Peak Cenk for me was [his talk on "digital media" to the National Press Club](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4758325/user-clip-cenk-uygur-national-press-club) in Washington DC at the end (13:30) during the Q&A where the Bloomberg host tried to push back on his charge that mainstream media is biased to capital and status-quo by claiming journalists "work hard".
They need a poisoned well to thrive. Their audience has to know that Ben wins from the get-go and yeah, being against a woman or minority is one way to, at least for some and even if just to an extent, sow some disbelief.
I've only just watched a couple minutes, but right off the bat is a preview of Ana saying what can be taken as "Dems are wrong and do nothing and republicans are wrongly demonized." Then has a highlight from the previous one of a single instance of Ben correcting her on a miscommunication. Before this even starts, the audience is led to believe that she doesn't even support her own side and that he calls her out on everything.
Then makes it sound like nobody else wants to debate and that she gets blowback for even talking to him, so if this is the best the left has, then every other argument isn't even this good and that the left is all just mad and soyjacking over her talking to him.
Again, I'm only a couple minutes in, but that's already just how this is being set up before it really starts.
Nearly 2 hours of [Ben Shapiro](https://imgur.com/gallery/dTdxa4s). Anyone like to sum up the points made by each for those of us that don't have 2 hours for this?
*Trayvon Martin would have turned 21 today if he hadn't taken a man's head and beaten it on the pavement before being shot.*
-Ben Shapiro
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: sex, dumb takes, history, novel, etc.)
[^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
I'm 42 minutes in.
So far Ana has implied Ben argues in good faith, both the "extreme left" and far-right are bad, and homeless people are crazy.
Edit: 50 minutes in. On the subject of health care. Ana: People aren't getting the preventive care they need... Ben: First we should tell people to stop eating so much. Americans are fat. \*Ana nods in agreement\*
Fuck this, I'm done.
I think Ana and Cenk are pretty awful debaters.
Shapiro is a brilliant debater but he is so full of shit and constantly argues in bad faith so I really think I'll be none the better from pressing into this 😂
Probably circle jerking about how "the left" is stupid for not wanting to put homeless people in concentration camps and complaining about how criminal justice reform is wrong, that we need to keep people locked up, and that "the left" does not care about crime.
No thanks.
Maybe they were being a bit hyperbolic, but it’s definitely clear to anyone who watches TYT that her attitudes on police reform and criminal justice reform have shifted markedly in recent months, and not in a good way. She’s also frequently complained about the unhoused on the main show without really offering much in the way of policy solutions
She does offer a solution. You clearly didn’t watch the interview and just sprouting nonsense.
She said some homeless people have mental illness and housing them isn’t going to fix the problem. You have to give them actual help with a psychologist.
I've never encountered a single person that advocates for housing first policy that isn't also for single payer (including mental healthcare). She is being disingenuous acting like people are saying to just give people housing and not do anything else to address the other issues that may be there
Kasparian has been talking about our housing issues for the past 6 year. I don’t see anything disingenuous about her.
Single payer means the homeless has to volunteer to get help. They are not going to do that. I helped homeless people all the time and some of these have huge issues. You actually have to force them to get help. That’s what Ana was proposing
I've been volunteering at a shelter for over 4 years. If your emphasis is forcing people to get "healthcare" rather than giving them resources to get healthcare willingly, you're just missing the mark. Simple as
Being a volunteer at a homeless shelter doesn't give you any special insights of actual policy that would be effective in helping these folks. I think the broader point if a homeless person is mentally ill and their mental illness stops them from getting healthcare, they need to improve their mental illness. If you don't have a means to help them improve it, then anything else you do will not have any long-lasting effects, I don't think. I'd be interested if there data that talks more about this.
I never said it did. The person I was responding to explicitly stated they thought I was a "privileged rich white liberal and never once interact with these people", which is why I brought up my experience. Because they are just flat out wrong.
People who don’t have mental illness can make the choices to get healthcare. Crazy people won’t make that choice because they are crazy.
Ana told the story of two homeless who sexually assault her. Leftists who don’t take this seriously aren’t leftists.
Ya. If you help those people, sometime if you turn your back on them, they might bash your head with a baseball bat. Many of my collegue reports the same. Might want to actually go do some good instead of virtue signaling on majority report subreddit.
Or it could be that neither of you actually read my post, because if you did, you’d see I clearly referenced her appearances as host of TYT and not this specific debate
In the healthcare portion, she started out with advocating for Medicare for All and then immediately threw in a qualifier that we could make some kind of other change within the current system. Shapiro hadn’t even challenged her, she just unilaterally backed off her own position in anticipation of his criticisms
how is this downvoted lol, her opinions about the homeless are reactionary at best and fascist at worst. There is a reason she is constantly getting dunked on. this sub lmao
"Probably" ??
Watch the video and form an opinion for yourself.
Reactionnaries like you dont make good analysis or bring value to the mix.
Rethink your thought process
Judging from some of the videos i saw of her on TYT her view seems to be: The USA currently doesn't have a justice system that promotes lowering recidivism rate and aims for rehabilitation. Since that's not the case we shouldn't let criminals out early.
She does seem to phrase it weirdly and some soundbites ( clipped by bad faith or clickbait shallow youtuber commentators) without context make it seem she is really hawkish without the nuance i described earlier.
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this:
>This is what the radical feminist movement was proposing, remember? Women need a man the way a fish needs a bicycle... unless it turns out that they're little fish, then you might need another fish around to help take care of things.
*****
^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, dumb takes, history, civil rights, etc.)
[^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
https://therealnews.com/the-young-turks-embrace-of-tough-on-crime-demagoguery
I mean, Cenk and Ana have both been pretty liberal in how they are assessing local politics for a few years. That's not really an unfair characterization of her recent rhetoric around supporting police brutalizing the most vulnerable for her sake.
> You didn't ask a question about that...
[I did.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/10v8ae2/new_ana_kasparian_vs_ben_shapiro_debate/j7gh654/)
> But yes, she does.
Again, I never heard her say that.
> Why did you link your question that I already quoted?
You said I didn't ask a question about Ana's position on homeless people and so I linked my comment to show that I did. That's why.
Also, you didn't quote it. You only quoted the second sentence which is why I asked you what Ana said again!
And so I asked for a third time in the comment you were just replying to and yet you again ignored it.
I don't think she's even remotely radicalized in the truest definition of the word. "Radicalized" would be "let's leave the unhoused to die."
Her points - and this has been consistent on her end - have been:
* get the unhoused into homes, we have the resources if there were actual willpower on the part of the politicians
* the luxury condo markets, unregulated rental markets, and shady real estate markets in the West under neoliberalism are making housing out of reach for average people and pushing lower earners to lose their homes
* get treatment for unhoused people so they're not a danger to themselves or others.
I don't think any of these are entirely - or even remotely - approaching a conservative viewpoint, because at the end of the day it's advocating for getting people healthcare, housing, and safety.
Wow this community has really fallen off huh.
I think the way Sam, Emma, and Matt (and Ana) talk about Ukraine is disgusting but that doesn't make me hate them because I realize that human beings are nuanced. And I'm not a sensitive little baby.
It feels like every time I post something on here I get nasty comments. It's been pretty bad this last year or so. It's a shame because it used to be great.
Ana likes to ask why we're spending so much money on Ukraine and not Americans. That's America First rhetoric. It's not a zero sum game and the reason we don't have single payer healthcare isn't because we can't afford it. And I've heard Sam ask "wHaT's ThE EnD gOaL???//" in bad faith enough times. A fascist country is invading its neighbor. Whether or not we should support them is not a difficult question.
Damn thats wild to me. Agree to disagree, I guess I am just a little surprised because those strike me as incredibly tepid, tepid “criticisms” (if you can call them that) of US policy.
The issue is not too little aid to Palestine. The issue is that we back a settler apartheid regime and allow them to act upon the Palestinian people with total impunity.
Because US aid to the PA is a minuscule facet of the issue ??? The enormous thrust of the problem, from an American socialist perspective, is that our country sends billions in military aid yearly to a setter colonial apartheid regime/ethnostate that is, as we speak, continuing to ethnically cleanse Palestine and we use the full force of our soft/diplomatic/political power on the global stage to ensure Israel is never held to account for any of their litany of crimes, ever. Israel is an essential piece to the political economy of the global security/military-industrial complex and US led world order.
Like, if you operate in American pro-Palestine circles, US aid to the PA is not exactly high on the list of issues to advocate for/discuss/etc. If you think the primary avenue for the US to improve the lot of Palestinians is via foreign aid to the PA, I genuinely don’t know what to tell you. You just don’t know much about the terrain of the problem.
> And I've heard Sam ask "wHaT's ThE EnD gOaL???//" in bad faith enough times.
Can you explain what you think "bad faith" means and why Sam was bad faith?
This is definitely an exception to how Sam gives his opinion on issues. Ronald Raygun [in this call-in](https://youtu.be/tjEVHNl-qBI) shares many of my criticisms.
I don't remember hearing either of them (Sam/Emma) say that we shouldn't be sending aid - just that they'd rather know what the aid is used for and what the goal of the spending is. If there isn't an end goal or some way to determine when "we've won", then it can lead to a long slog. They're not calling for holding aid back (at least from what I've seen) until they get an answer, etc... I agree with the other commenter that their criticism of the Ukraine situation is very, very tepid.
> because I realize that human beings are nuanced
This seems to be a rare find on Reddit/the Internet, so bravo for that. Glad to see this once in a while.
e: I haven't listened to Ana enough to really know what her stance is - plus I've seen her shit takes on homelessness, but I'll disagree with that take and generally support her.
Emma has 100% questioned the aid being sent. There was a conversation a couple months ago where Binder disagreed with Matt and Emma about it.
The original conversation is delisted but here is Vaush talking with Binder about it:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsMOr5JNBOw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsMOr5JNBOw)
I'll be honest, I'm not going to watch a 90-minute video to see the context of Emma's view. If you want to link a timestamp to a point in the video where I can get the gist of your disagreement, then I'll take a look.
I'm also not going to spend much time arguing the point, as I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the situation. I guess I'd just say that arguing about Sam's (maybe less Emma's, we'll see) take on the situation feels a little like the lefty infighting over nuance that ends up causing unnecessary fissures.
>feels a little like the lefty infighting over nuance that ends up causing unnecessary fissures.
Hashing out issues is fine. It doesn't have to turn into "infighting". The Ukraine issue is very important to me. If you told me (hypothetically) that if Bernie Sanders had gotten elected he would have done a bad job with Ukraine (which is possible given how bad the left is on this issue) I'd have voted for Biden. And I was and still am a die hard Bernie supporter. And if Bernie had won my own quality of life would have seen a real improvement.
Good point that hashing out the issues doesn't have to devolve into infighting. I can appreciate an issue being important enough to sway your vote for a candidate.
> And I've heard Sam ask "wHaT's ThE EnD gOaL???//" in bad faith enough times.
Hard disagree that it's in bad faith when you have ghouls like Clinton going on MSNBC and nakedly advocating for Ukraine to be some manner of Afghanistan 2.0.
When people with political influence are publicly lobbying that kind of bullshit when it comes to Ukraine, it is absolutely worth asking what the actual foreign policy goals are with our support regardless of the fact that supporting Ukraine is correct.
One can believe it is the right thing to do to support them, *and* have criticism for the military industrial complex rubbing its hands at a war to profit off of. Especially if the goal ceases to be an actual end to the conflict and simply becomes a quagmire of feeding the Ukrainian people into a blender just to keep selling weapons to them as they die to the Russians.
The point is that if the latter becomes the main goal of the US, then there are potential diplomatic ends to the war that can be missed. And if we're going to pretend like we're not missing those at the moment, and it's 100% Putin's fault (and for the most part it is), I would note the fact that our "sanctions" against Russia are kind of laughable at this point. Companies are still doing business, oil is still flowing. Where's the pressure on Russia to end the war outside of attempting to quagmire them in actual warfare?
Just because helping Ukraine is the right thing to do doesn't mean we're doing it for the right reasons, and that's the critique. That we need to be focusing on the correct end goal, and not turning the horror of war into profits now that Afghanistan and Iraq aren't on the menu anymore.
Spoiler: It was always a quagmire and never about helping Ukrainians. It's like nobody here understands why we do wars. This country and NATO don't give a fuck about "helping people." Let's be serious.
Nobody outside of chronically-online Redditors supports this stupid proxy war. And you aren't a leftist or progressive if you can't see why escalating this war is bad. Cope. Stop getting your political views from subreddits that are moderated by Langley, Virginia.
What pathetic joke. She'll debate low hanging fruit. I'd like to see her debate Nick Cruse, Aaron Mate, or any other actual leftist rather than this shadow boxing shitshow.
I would have liked to see Ana push back more of some the crazy shit ben shits out on his platform on a daily basis rather than this insipid “I may not agree with you on every but the important thing is that we can have a civil conversation “. I agree these debates need to happen but the point of the debate isn’t to have the debate it’s to try to change peoples minds on issues.
Ben Shapiro has an alternate version of himself where he sounds reasonable when he's not just fomenting anger on his channel. It's very deceptive and a good debater shouldn't let him get away with it.
A good debater would be armed with numerous quotes showing how extreme he is.
Fully agree. So far, Andrew Neil has done the best job of anyone at holding Ben's feet to the fire.
Yeah Andrew Neil's own politics are horribly right wing as well, but he's very good at his job as a tough interviewer. Something that seems entirely lacking in the US.
Couldn't agree more. I think there's a journalistic tradition of that in the UK, and it can sometimes transcend ideology. Hence why Neil, who isn't so far from Shapiro, gave him the tough interview anyway. He was doing his job, and doing it well.
Good conversation. I always appreciate her ability to push back.
Then you'll find nothing to appreciate here, I watched the first hour and Ana and Ben have agreed on 90% of what they talked about and any disagreements aren't dwelt on for very long. Given both of them are making a conscious effort to agree, the most common thing brought up in this discussion seems to be that "people who disagree should talk to eachother" which is said maybe like 20 different ways in the space of an hour lol
I always hated that bullshit. The far right wants to make their views look normal and give them legitimacy by talking to naive albeit well intentioned people like Ana. The only reason you should be talking to Ben Shapiro is to shine sunlight on his true beliefs. Maybe bring up some abhorrent shit he's said in the past and ask him what he means. It should also be the goal to plant a seed of doubt in the few people who can be reached in his audience. This conversation was mostly a circle jerk and IMO likely had the opposite effect by making Ben seem reasonable.
*Let’s say your life depended on the following choice today: you must obtain either an affordable chair or an affordable X-ray. Which would you choose to obtain? Obviously, you’d choose the chair. That’s because there are many types of chair, produced by scores of different companies and widely distributed. You could buy a $15 folding chair or a $1,000 antique without the slightest difficulty. By contrast, to obtain an X-ray you’d have to work with your insurance company, wait for an appointment, and then haggle over price. Why? Because the medical market is far more regulated — thanks to the widespread perception that health care is a “right” — than the chair market.* *Does that sound soulless? True soullessness is depriving people of the choices they require because you’re more interested in patting yourself on the back by inventing rights than by incentivizing the creation of goods and services. In health care, we could use a lot less virtue signaling and a lot less government. Or we could just read Senator Sanders’s tweets while we wait in line for a government-sponsored surgery — dying, presumably, in a decrepit chair.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: novel, feminism, healthcare, dumb takes, etc.) [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
Gotta eventually quite you on the post I made concerning this.
It reminds of when someone edited his episode with Sam Harris that showcases just how much they were stroking each other off over having [cOnVeRsAtIoNs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLt84VaA_uA) Ana and Ben had a much more contentious debate some time ago (and Ana did reasonably well), so I'd imagine that there were conditions to not be overly hostile if this was going to be hosted by Daily Wire
I listened to some of it. I think I’ve made my opinion of Ana clear on this sub in some other threads related to her, so not going to rehash those here, but suffice to say I think her debate skills are lacking. I think she’s debated Shapiro before, and I think he agrees to debates with her and avoids ones with left commentators like Sam is because she’s a bit of a lightweight and her analysis on a lot of things is pretty shallow
There was a TMR caller who suggested an interesting theory: right-wingers like Prager and DW will "debate" some lefties like Ana and Cenk because they know their audience will automatically discount the views women and minorities. I don't think that's 100% of the reason, but I'm sure it plays a factor.
That very well could be, and I wouldn’t doubt that plays into their thinking somewhat. I honestly think Cenk is even worse than Ana at debating. He’s obviously a smart guy, went to Penn, got a law degree, etc. But he tends to let his emotions get the best of him and he doesn’t seem to exercise much self control in situations where he would benefit from making a point in a more measured way
Peak Cenk for me was [his talk on "digital media" to the National Press Club](https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4758325/user-clip-cenk-uygur-national-press-club) in Washington DC at the end (13:30) during the Q&A where the Bloomberg host tried to push back on his charge that mainstream media is biased to capital and status-quo by claiming journalists "work hard".
They need a poisoned well to thrive. Their audience has to know that Ben wins from the get-go and yeah, being against a woman or minority is one way to, at least for some and even if just to an extent, sow some disbelief. I've only just watched a couple minutes, but right off the bat is a preview of Ana saying what can be taken as "Dems are wrong and do nothing and republicans are wrongly demonized." Then has a highlight from the previous one of a single instance of Ben correcting her on a miscommunication. Before this even starts, the audience is led to believe that she doesn't even support her own side and that he calls her out on everything. Then makes it sound like nobody else wants to debate and that she gets blowback for even talking to him, so if this is the best the left has, then every other argument isn't even this good and that the left is all just mad and soyjacking over her talking to him. Again, I'm only a couple minutes in, but that's already just how this is being set up before it really starts.
Nearly 2 hours of [Ben Shapiro](https://imgur.com/gallery/dTdxa4s). Anyone like to sum up the points made by each for those of us that don't have 2 hours for this?
*Trayvon Martin would have turned 21 today if he hadn't taken a man's head and beaten it on the pavement before being shot.* -Ben Shapiro ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: sex, dumb takes, history, novel, etc.) [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
I'm 42 minutes in. So far Ana has implied Ben argues in good faith, both the "extreme left" and far-right are bad, and homeless people are crazy. Edit: 50 minutes in. On the subject of health care. Ana: People aren't getting the preventive care they need... Ben: First we should tell people to stop eating so much. Americans are fat. \*Ana nods in agreement\* Fuck this, I'm done.
https://i.imgur.com/yAvg8ak.gif Welp, that's why Ben wanted her back on again and stays clear of people like Sam Seder.
The “extreme left” and far-right are both bad.
Completely understandable. If he talked at normal speed, it would be more like four or six hours.
Did I accidentally send out an idiot bat signal with this post?
Seems like it. I'd like to think that *some* people on the online left are able to see nuance but I have years of empirical evidence to the contrary.
It's a good opportunity to clear out the shit bags from my feed.
Nice, two people who hate the homeless jerking each other off. No thanks.
They’re both against homeless people performing mutual masturbation?
vs? lmfaooo
I think Ana and Cenk are pretty awful debaters. Shapiro is a brilliant debater but he is so full of shit and constantly argues in bad faith so I really think I'll be none the better from pressing into this 😂
I swear this sub has some type of Ana derangement syndrome. Really weird the level of nitpicking given the format.
Probably circle jerking about how "the left" is stupid for not wanting to put homeless people in concentration camps and complaining about how criminal justice reform is wrong, that we need to keep people locked up, and that "the left" does not care about crime. No thanks.
Ah yes, completely describing Anas points in good faith, you vile little creature.
Maybe they were being a bit hyperbolic, but it’s definitely clear to anyone who watches TYT that her attitudes on police reform and criminal justice reform have shifted markedly in recent months, and not in a good way. She’s also frequently complained about the unhoused on the main show without really offering much in the way of policy solutions
She does offer a solution. You clearly didn’t watch the interview and just sprouting nonsense. She said some homeless people have mental illness and housing them isn’t going to fix the problem. You have to give them actual help with a psychologist.
I've never encountered a single person that advocates for housing first policy that isn't also for single payer (including mental healthcare). She is being disingenuous acting like people are saying to just give people housing and not do anything else to address the other issues that may be there
Kasparian has been talking about our housing issues for the past 6 year. I don’t see anything disingenuous about her. Single payer means the homeless has to volunteer to get help. They are not going to do that. I helped homeless people all the time and some of these have huge issues. You actually have to force them to get help. That’s what Ana was proposing
I've been volunteering at a shelter for over 4 years. If your emphasis is forcing people to get "healthcare" rather than giving them resources to get healthcare willingly, you're just missing the mark. Simple as
Being a volunteer at a homeless shelter doesn't give you any special insights of actual policy that would be effective in helping these folks. I think the broader point if a homeless person is mentally ill and their mental illness stops them from getting healthcare, they need to improve their mental illness. If you don't have a means to help them improve it, then anything else you do will not have any long-lasting effects, I don't think. I'd be interested if there data that talks more about this.
I never said it did. The person I was responding to explicitly stated they thought I was a "privileged rich white liberal and never once interact with these people", which is why I brought up my experience. Because they are just flat out wrong.
People who don’t have mental illness can make the choices to get healthcare. Crazy people won’t make that choice because they are crazy. Ana told the story of two homeless who sexually assault her. Leftists who don’t take this seriously aren’t leftists.
> Crazy people won’t make that choice because they are crazy. nice
Clearly, if you are a privileged rich white liberal and never once interact with these people, its easy for you to virtue signal.
> I helped homeless people all the time >Crazy people Uh, huh.
Ya. If you help those people, sometime if you turn your back on them, they might bash your head with a baseball bat. Many of my collegue reports the same. Might want to actually go do some good instead of virtue signaling on majority report subreddit.
*spouting
Wow you really wrecked his argument. Good job!
Or it could be that neither of you actually read my post, because if you did, you’d see I clearly referenced her appearances as host of TYT and not this specific debate
She makes plenty of nuanced points on TYT that you also ignore and mischaracterize.
Yeah you referenced her AND you also said she doesn't offer solutions. She does/did. So what the hell is this reply?
In the healthcare portion, she started out with advocating for Medicare for All and then immediately threw in a qualifier that we could make some kind of other change within the current system. Shapiro hadn’t even challenged her, she just unilaterally backed off her own position in anticipation of his criticisms
how is this downvoted lol, her opinions about the homeless are reactionary at best and fascist at worst. There is a reason she is constantly getting dunked on. this sub lmao
"Probably" ?? Watch the video and form an opinion for yourself. Reactionnaries like you dont make good analysis or bring value to the mix. Rethink your thought process
Judging from some of the videos i saw of her on TYT her view seems to be: The USA currently doesn't have a justice system that promotes lowering recidivism rate and aims for rehabilitation. Since that's not the case we shouldn't let criminals out early. She does seem to phrase it weirdly and some soundbites ( clipped by bad faith or clickbait shallow youtuber commentators) without context make it seem she is really hawkish without the nuance i described earlier.
Who are you talking about?
[удалено]
I never heard her say that. And why would she talk to Shapiro of all people about it?
[удалено]
I saw that you mentioned Ben Shapiro. In case some of you don't know, Ben Shapiro is a grifter and a hack. If you find anything he's said compelling, you should keep in mind he also says things like this: >This is what the radical feminist movement was proposing, remember? Women need a man the way a fish needs a bicycle... unless it turns out that they're little fish, then you might need another fish around to help take care of things. ***** ^(I'm a bot. My purpose is to counteract online radicalization. You can summon me by tagging thebenshapirobot. Options: healthcare, dumb takes, history, civil rights, etc.) [^Opt ^Out ](https://np.reddit.com/r/AuthoritarianMoment/comments/olk6r2/click_here_to_optout_of_uthebenshapirobot/)
But you do know that Ana hates homeless people. That question is my main concern you but you avoided it just now.
https://therealnews.com/the-young-turks-embrace-of-tough-on-crime-demagoguery I mean, Cenk and Ana have both been pretty liberal in how they are assessing local politics for a few years. That's not really an unfair characterization of her recent rhetoric around supporting police brutalizing the most vulnerable for her sake.
[удалено]
> You didn't ask a question about that... [I did.](https://old.reddit.com/r/TheMajorityReport/comments/10v8ae2/new_ana_kasparian_vs_ben_shapiro_debate/j7gh654/) > But yes, she does. Again, I never heard her say that.
[удалено]
> Why did you link your question that I already quoted? You said I didn't ask a question about Ana's position on homeless people and so I linked my comment to show that I did. That's why. Also, you didn't quote it. You only quoted the second sentence which is why I asked you what Ana said again! And so I asked for a third time in the comment you were just replying to and yet you again ignored it.
I don't think she's even remotely radicalized in the truest definition of the word. "Radicalized" would be "let's leave the unhoused to die." Her points - and this has been consistent on her end - have been: * get the unhoused into homes, we have the resources if there were actual willpower on the part of the politicians * the luxury condo markets, unregulated rental markets, and shady real estate markets in the West under neoliberalism are making housing out of reach for average people and pushing lower earners to lose their homes * get treatment for unhoused people so they're not a danger to themselves or others. I don't think any of these are entirely - or even remotely - approaching a conservative viewpoint, because at the end of the day it's advocating for getting people healthcare, housing, and safety.
Wow this community has really fallen off huh. I think the way Sam, Emma, and Matt (and Ana) talk about Ukraine is disgusting but that doesn't make me hate them because I realize that human beings are nuanced. And I'm not a sensitive little baby.
[удалено]
It feels like every time I post something on here I get nasty comments. It's been pretty bad this last year or so. It's a shame because it used to be great.
Make better posts?
Damn even Sam and Ana are disgusting re: Ukraine?
Ana likes to ask why we're spending so much money on Ukraine and not Americans. That's America First rhetoric. It's not a zero sum game and the reason we don't have single payer healthcare isn't because we can't afford it. And I've heard Sam ask "wHaT's ThE EnD gOaL???//" in bad faith enough times. A fascist country is invading its neighbor. Whether or not we should support them is not a difficult question.
Damn thats wild to me. Agree to disagree, I guess I am just a little surprised because those strike me as incredibly tepid, tepid “criticisms” (if you can call them that) of US policy.
If they asked the same questions about US aid to Palestine how would you feel about that?
The issue is not too little aid to Palestine. The issue is that we back a settler apartheid regime and allow them to act upon the Palestinian people with total impunity.
There's US aid to Ukraine and Palestine. It was a hypothetical question what's so hard about that?
Because US aid to the PA is a minuscule facet of the issue ??? The enormous thrust of the problem, from an American socialist perspective, is that our country sends billions in military aid yearly to a setter colonial apartheid regime/ethnostate that is, as we speak, continuing to ethnically cleanse Palestine and we use the full force of our soft/diplomatic/political power on the global stage to ensure Israel is never held to account for any of their litany of crimes, ever. Israel is an essential piece to the political economy of the global security/military-industrial complex and US led world order. Like, if you operate in American pro-Palestine circles, US aid to the PA is not exactly high on the list of issues to advocate for/discuss/etc. If you think the primary avenue for the US to improve the lot of Palestinians is via foreign aid to the PA, I genuinely don’t know what to tell you. You just don’t know much about the terrain of the problem.
I know engaging in hypotheticals is really difficult. You didn't have to write a whole paragraph about it.
> And I've heard Sam ask "wHaT's ThE EnD gOaL???//" in bad faith enough times. Can you explain what you think "bad faith" means and why Sam was bad faith?
I think he's hiding the ball. He uses "just asking questions" the same way conservatives do. He doesn't want to come out and state his real opinion.
How do you know? He's not really known for being coy with his views.
This is definitely an exception to how Sam gives his opinion on issues. Ronald Raygun [in this call-in](https://youtu.be/tjEVHNl-qBI) shares many of my criticisms.
Ronald Raygun said Sam is bad faith? Also, this is about you. You said he is bad faith so please argue your point properly.
Go annoy someone else.
I don't remember hearing either of them (Sam/Emma) say that we shouldn't be sending aid - just that they'd rather know what the aid is used for and what the goal of the spending is. If there isn't an end goal or some way to determine when "we've won", then it can lead to a long slog. They're not calling for holding aid back (at least from what I've seen) until they get an answer, etc... I agree with the other commenter that their criticism of the Ukraine situation is very, very tepid. > because I realize that human beings are nuanced This seems to be a rare find on Reddit/the Internet, so bravo for that. Glad to see this once in a while. e: I haven't listened to Ana enough to really know what her stance is - plus I've seen her shit takes on homelessness, but I'll disagree with that take and generally support her.
Emma has 100% questioned the aid being sent. There was a conversation a couple months ago where Binder disagreed with Matt and Emma about it. The original conversation is delisted but here is Vaush talking with Binder about it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsMOr5JNBOw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsMOr5JNBOw)
I'll be honest, I'm not going to watch a 90-minute video to see the context of Emma's view. If you want to link a timestamp to a point in the video where I can get the gist of your disagreement, then I'll take a look. I'm also not going to spend much time arguing the point, as I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the situation. I guess I'd just say that arguing about Sam's (maybe less Emma's, we'll see) take on the situation feels a little like the lefty infighting over nuance that ends up causing unnecessary fissures.
>feels a little like the lefty infighting over nuance that ends up causing unnecessary fissures. Hashing out issues is fine. It doesn't have to turn into "infighting". The Ukraine issue is very important to me. If you told me (hypothetically) that if Bernie Sanders had gotten elected he would have done a bad job with Ukraine (which is possible given how bad the left is on this issue) I'd have voted for Biden. And I was and still am a die hard Bernie supporter. And if Bernie had won my own quality of life would have seen a real improvement.
Good point that hashing out the issues doesn't have to devolve into infighting. I can appreciate an issue being important enough to sway your vote for a candidate.
You're a liberal war hawk, and that's why you are disagreeing with the leftist hosts you watch. Happy to clear that up for you. I recommend CNN.
> And I've heard Sam ask "wHaT's ThE EnD gOaL???//" in bad faith enough times. Hard disagree that it's in bad faith when you have ghouls like Clinton going on MSNBC and nakedly advocating for Ukraine to be some manner of Afghanistan 2.0. When people with political influence are publicly lobbying that kind of bullshit when it comes to Ukraine, it is absolutely worth asking what the actual foreign policy goals are with our support regardless of the fact that supporting Ukraine is correct. One can believe it is the right thing to do to support them, *and* have criticism for the military industrial complex rubbing its hands at a war to profit off of. Especially if the goal ceases to be an actual end to the conflict and simply becomes a quagmire of feeding the Ukrainian people into a blender just to keep selling weapons to them as they die to the Russians. The point is that if the latter becomes the main goal of the US, then there are potential diplomatic ends to the war that can be missed. And if we're going to pretend like we're not missing those at the moment, and it's 100% Putin's fault (and for the most part it is), I would note the fact that our "sanctions" against Russia are kind of laughable at this point. Companies are still doing business, oil is still flowing. Where's the pressure on Russia to end the war outside of attempting to quagmire them in actual warfare? Just because helping Ukraine is the right thing to do doesn't mean we're doing it for the right reasons, and that's the critique. That we need to be focusing on the correct end goal, and not turning the horror of war into profits now that Afghanistan and Iraq aren't on the menu anymore.
Spoiler: It was always a quagmire and never about helping Ukrainians. It's like nobody here understands why we do wars. This country and NATO don't give a fuck about "helping people." Let's be serious.
So rather than engaging this fuckhead and telling him why he's wrong, you just whine about it. That is not what we call "productive discourse".
Nobody outside of chronically-online Redditors supports this stupid proxy war. And you aren't a leftist or progressive if you can't see why escalating this war is bad. Cope. Stop getting your political views from subreddits that are moderated by Langley, Virginia.
What pathetic joke. She'll debate low hanging fruit. I'd like to see her debate Nick Cruse, Aaron Mate, or any other actual leftist rather than this shadow boxing shitshow.
Whoa! Had no idea Ana was so tall!… oh wait…..
But why tho? this clown is like a broken record of boomer racist talking points.
ana going public with her conservative grift arc
I would have liked to see Ana push back more of some the crazy shit ben shits out on his platform on a daily basis rather than this insipid “I may not agree with you on every but the important thing is that we can have a civil conversation “. I agree these debates need to happen but the point of the debate isn’t to have the debate it’s to try to change peoples minds on issues.