I didn't get anything out of Klein's arguments. I was a democrat 95% of my life. Klein, " what you see in politics is identies converge while ideas seperate, and thoughts spin downwards while the winds of change create an undeniable updraft of positive repression."
Getting his ass handed to him by his much more well informed contemporaries isn’t a profitable business model. “Owning” and “destroying” well meaning, but inexperienced and non-media trained 19-20 year old college students is.
@Inner Descent Well it wasn’t as bad as when that _far leftist, marxist, communist_ Andrew Neil (you know, the Bolshevik that the creator of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, selected as an editor for the conservative publication ‘The Sunday Times’) made him look like a petulant, little bitch. But yes, this was pretty bad. Conservative debate tactics, like with Ben Shapiro’s shitty brand, often rely on quick and meaningless little snips. You can’t weasel your way out of long form discussions. Which is why the entire comment section is filled with “oh well Ezra does make sense, it’s good to have discussions” blah blah blah. Ezra said nothing that was ground breaking or redefining. He said the standard, ordinary, even banal but still important, historically accurate things that the overwhelming majority of people who’ve taken just a little bit of time to do the leg work and learn about this, will tell you. So in in these types of discussions, the conservative is 9.5/10 going to look uninformed, uneducated, incredulous, or all of the above. Because they usually are at least 1 or more of those things. To many conservatives it’s not about being accurate, it’s about justifying your conservative positions, no matter how silly they may be, even in the face of simple truths. Ben Shapiro studied Political Science at UCLA. He especially knows better. Or at least better than he’s letting on. But he takes the positions he does, and is insistent on playing dumb, most likely because it’s advantageous to him. To people like you, you probably are just somewhat stupid. So it’s easier to appeal to such low-brow individuals such as yourself. Some percentage of you guys are salvageable, most of you aren’t. You strike me as the latter category. So go ahead, stay in your little conservative, ahistorical, circle jerk. Call anybody who gives you the most basic facts a “dishonest clown”. As a conservative, the stupidity is in your nature (inb4 “I’m a classical liberal, libertarian”).
@@reflect. Lol you resort to downright name-calling and presumptions of my intelligence. The fact of the matter is that Ezra cannot have an honest discussion with anyone, on the left or the right. Just look at how he tried to frame Sam Harris and was completely disingenuous. Don't worry though I won't insult your intelligence, you already did that yourself by trying to insult mine and speak from some authority. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Btw I'm not a conservative there smart one.
Love how when Ben Shapiro talks to smart liberals he agrees with all of their analysis but then his counter argument boils down to "but I don't want government to do anything about it"
@@Jtgagemac But when he debates 18 -year-old undergrads he rejects the arguments outright. He says slavery and Jim Crow were ages ago and have no effect on the present day. In fact, he even said this to Joe Rogan until Joe pushed back and Ben was forced to shift the goalposts to "yeah, but government can't do anything about this"... And no. Ben doesn't want the same end. He sees the outcomes as the natuaral and just result of poor personal choices within a free market with the remedy being "just make better decisions".
@@tcritt 🙌🙌 well said. I was thinking of the Joe Rogan interview as well. When Rogan got Shapiro to basically admit that white privilege exists all Shapiro could muster was "well I don't see what we can do unless the black community decide to be better". How extreme do you have to be to think that government can't even play a minor role in investing in underprivileged areas.
@@jackward6726 Exactly. Ben admits in this interview that his idea of government has nothing to do with what We The People actual want for ourselves. He claims that a government trying to enact the will of the people would be "illegitimate" if it's something that he personally doesn't like. This is a major flaw in the "conservative" attitude towards government... they both (1) prevent it from being an effective tool of the people, while also (2) complaining that it's not an effective tool of the people.
I’m 20 minutes in and think that this is a really important conversation. I get that most people in the comment section are part of Ben’s audience, but Ezra’s point of view likely represents millions of people and he did a great job of defending it. He makes you think about the things that you say you believe, which is the point of conversations like this.
racism is good if you arnt white...that what Ezra said. Which is against Martin Luther King's hopes for the future and will certainly breed more division within the country. So...great...more division and turbulent political discord...sounds like a great philosophical ideology
@@Arthagnou At what point did he say "racism is good if you are not white"??????? please give me a timestamp, because i sure as hell cannot find it....
@E Let's bring some specifics, then. Ezra said to the effect of you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette concerning peoples' property rights based solely on race, since Hitler only did 1 thing which was kill people of another race and we don't have equal application of the laws.
i hate how we even have to identify on a "side". I like having a collection of arguments in my head and then maybe I vote for the side that supports the most important ones for a given year. We have to get away from this sports rivalry stuff. It cheapens political discussion. I get the feeling people in the USA choose their side very early and then just adopt all the views as they develop based on a kind of "faith" in their side. It's just an awful way to go especially when stuff gets more polarised.
@@halfalligator6518 I mean, if that's what you are interested in you shouldn't be crediting Ezra for coming on this show to talk to Ben... You should be critiquing Ben Shapiro for seeking out young, ill-prepared college kids with the sole intent of featuring them in some "BEN OBLITERATELY DESTROYS _____." Ben is cordial here because he is woefully out of his depth and the only argument he can appeal to is his foundational assumption that government should be limited.
@@dfish4567 That's a pretty low bar. We should expect civility. I cringe when PC culture stifles what could have been a more honest and interesting conversation. Saying anything remotely critical will always elicit outrage, and people are constantly dancing around what they really mean. We must be willing to offend those who deserve offense if we are to speak truthfully. The internet used to be a place for free speech.
I really enjoyed listening to this conversation. Stop point scoring here, people! There's no winner or loser, just two people who disagree having a civil conversation. We need more of this in politics.
I wasn’t scoring points...but I can’t say I enjoyed this conversation. I’m glad the two guys from completely opposite ends of the American political spectrum can sit down without ad hominem comments, but ever time Ben tried to get any specifics or dig a bit into Ezra’s statements, he would take the floor back from Ben. This wasn’t a debate. Ben was the host and he did what a host should...let the guest pontificate. Ben would not have let him pivot out of certain subjects as artlessly as Ezra did during a few exchanges. I see Ezra and hear his name and all I can think of is how many UA-camrs his company put out of business with their vociferous complaining to YT’s CEO Susan Wikiwiki (Or however you spell her name). The irony is Vox means vocals or voice...he and his employees are personally responsible for silencing so many voices with whom he and his employees disagreed.
So this conversation was completely useless? We can't say that one person had a good point when he said this and the other person had a good point when they said that? We can't aggregate these and say therefore one person said more reasonable points than the other? We will all just sit back and not debate ideas in our own mind but absorb them and make no judgement of the ideas. I bet you are one of the people that does not believe in keeping scores in kids games and everybody gets a trophy. How the hell are we supposed to figure out which ideas are better if we are not allowed to keep score of the ideas? You must be an anarchist.
Weebrahim enemy 😂 what world do you live in? To me, it seems like they’re having a discussion, which you can’t have if you don’t listen to the other participants perspective and understand it
@@OTPpride I'm not sure what you mean... how does Weebrahim's comment preclude what you're suggesting? Or am I off the mark of what you meant? I.e., one can listen to the other participant, while recognizing he's about to make a mistake, no?
Ezra: Identity is a tool and we should use it to create a more equal society. Ben: Identity puts the group above the individual and shouldn't be used as a tool for sweeping change. Ezra: Identity has always been a part of politics. Ben: It has overwhelmingly produced bad results. Ezra: I agree, but we can't ignore it so we might as well use it. Ben: Not only should we not use it, you're idea of the government to be used as a hand of God to right Cosmic Injustices is flawed. Ezra: The government should definitely be used for the quest for Cosmic Justice. Ben: The government should step off and let the individual be free as possible. Ezra: That's important but we should strive to fix problems as much as we can and the government can do that. Overall a good discussion I think. I'm glad Ben had him on! This is an hour long representation of Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions which is pretty interesting.
Thank you for this. This comment should be pinned. I'll admit, a lot of this went over my head, but you provided a well and concise brief summary. Again, thanks.
All these comments are so negative. I thought it was a nice interview/debate. Ben made sure to get his two cents in when he wanted, but he also gave Ezra ample time to talk. Respect for Ezra from me.
After Klein says that he spells out his thesis again which is that polarization has been much wider in previous eras but because it now it breaks down by political party the divide has made governing next to impossible.
I was feeling the same for the first half. Not just ambiguous but also kind of dodging Ben's points, but I think that by the end he's view gets quite clear. And being biased in favour of Shapiro, I must say I agree with quite a lot of Klein's points.
It's ok to admit you don't understand what Klein is saying, but I would recommend trying again or reading the book he is wrote. His point is that political parties unifying around ideology is a real block to any political progress.
@@CoppermindK I don't have time right now to read the book so I'll ask you if you don't mind: what's the point of a political party if it doesn't align itself with a particular ideology? What is uniting a liberal and a conservative to be in the same party?
I’m sick of hearing about “historical injustices”, we had a black president, lawyers, mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, school superintendents, Muslims in Congress, small business owners, CEOs of major corporations, everywhere I see it as a level playing field nowadays. Hard work , morals , priorities, culture and personal characteristics is what defines the outcomes for everyone today. We can’t keep trying to help every group in America without imposing injustices on another group, whether you define a group by race, color, religion or economics. The world is not perfect, but America is the absolute best country to live in in today’s world. You get out of life what you put into it. Don’t expect free handouts because they’re not free, somebody is ultimately paying for them, and it shouldn’t be me!
PA WOODS N WATER - the ceo of lowes is a black man who started as a lot attendant at the lowes in his home town. you can't tell me that success isn't about work ethic and values.
Dono Imdono the game is up most young blacks know what, how, when and who you have to be in order to rise into power in a predominately white business or institution.
The thing is, often the 'help' given hurts the intended group, and the 'disadvantages' help the other group, because it turns out responsibility and adversity make people stronger, and reliance on external solutions makes people weaker.
Historical injustice doesn’t mean it’s impossible for black people (or other minorities) to become successful. It means it’s harder for the average black person to become financially successful than it would be for the average white person. The average white child has parents who can afford a great education for their kids, and send them to college. The average black child doesn’t have these advantages. These advantages and disadvantages stem from slavery. When slavery ended, black people were free yes, but they had basically nothing. Hence, historical injustice.
We can in no way make up for numbers difference in the “average” racial person in America, but a poor white person vs. a poor minority person, or middle class people of all races have the same opportunities in front of them now, or ever since affirmative action, the minorities may have some unfair odds in their favor. Yes there are more white people here but there’s no way we can even out the numbers or make life more fair without it being unfair to another. So I believe in presenting the same opportunities to everyone and what each person does with their choices will pave their way in life, some it may take longer or shorter, some it might be harder or easier, but no where on earth are you going to get the opportunities everyone has here in the USA! People need to stop complaining and get to work! There are plenty of jobs available.
@@macdietz you are correct. Equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. Equity is the equality of outcome. Affirmative action is based on equity not equality.
@lalicatal That's exactly why he brought it up. Regardless of it being a joke, Ben is building up a straw man of an identity he wants you to hate, while at the same time lamenting the state of our politics.
@@pooperscoop Ben needed a term for the crew that astroturfs his sponsors, forced Crowder into demonetization, and has used violence to get speakers canceled, and he chose "leftists." You can quibble on his use of the term, but there's no doubt that this crew exists and that it poses an existential threat to the platform the tumblers were designed to promote.
This man skips over questions like he’s playing duck duck goose. He just chooses whatever topic he wants and ignores the question after 10 seconds of speaking about it.
Same old crap, of simply ignoring key points of logic and key flaws in logic. They SIMPLY IGNORE IT over and over and over and over until you stop asking about it. The usual defense is gaslighting of course...accuse the questioner of bias and poison the well, but that tactic doesn't work in this supposedly civil setting at conciliation, a conciliatory conversation with a very bright conservative. The ignorant tactics are laid bare when you play by traditional western rules of civility, hence why very few Leftists talk to conservatives like Ben.
I think what really just astonished me was his ability to rationalize his arguments by simply rejecting any definition that does not agree with his own. The whole conversation about the leftist tears for example. He knows and expresses to Ben that he understood his definition of Leftist and why he uses it, and yet as he is giving his opinion on the matter you see him make his judgement based on his own definition of what a leftist is. Which if you analyze what he’s saying, his definition clearly conflates leftist and liberal. Which made it seem as though Ben is trying to ostracize liberals or people that he simply disagrees with rather than the obvious, which is to make light of leftists, those who regularly try to shut him and other conservatives down. It’s so dishonest.
Well.... watch this again, and watch how many questionable points Ben concedes to him and how often he is intentionally trying to bend Shapiro's arguments into something he can cudgel him with under the guise of trying to "understand what he is saying". That imbecile Cathy Newman on the BBC tried to do the same thing to Jordan Peterson and he rightly didn't go along with it. Ben is being far too conciliatory on a lot of the exchanges and giving too much away to this obviously intellectually dishonest statist.
johnvannewhouse I noticed his pregnant assumptions from Klein based on flat concessions by Shapiro. It’s as though he’s read a book on how to do it, too, because it’s extremely transparent.
johnvannewhouse I think it’s the format. Ben would have been far more aggressive in a debate platform. He doesn’t want to scare away guests. Also, I feel like sometimes it’s good to just give ppl as much rope as they want...
The definition of terms is incredibly important. Have you ever seen Jordan Peterson debate? Peterson is constantly doubling back to clarify, and many times, conversation moves to a new topic before the completion of a previous one. When the new topic meets an injunction, it is often because of the need to explore a previous topic. This is actually a very good conversation. For me, I really tried to understand them both as humans who have some different points of view, and despite that, were able and willing to read each other’s work, be familiar with it, and sit down for 90 minutes and discuss some of their ideological differences. Now, being on camera to audiences, they may feel the entanglement of pride for their own point of view, but I think in genuinity they want to expand what they know so that they are incorrect less of the time moving forward.
@@OTPpride I agree, this one of the best Sunday Specials I've listened to, and iirc, what Ben actually envisioned for the Sunday Special, a conversation between him and someone else he disagrees with
I made it 17 minutes in before I just had to take a break. Ezra is just too much of an effing idiot for me to continue watching. Going to go cleanse my mind of this garbage... maybe I’ll finish this interview later, or maybe I’ll never finish it. Lol. Ben is a Saint for putting up with this guy. Ha ha ha 🤪
I'd like to credit both parties here for a great discussion. This is the type of level headed, informative discourse we need to make progress in our current political divide. Although Ben and Ezra disagree on a rudimentary level, they both made references in their arguments that viewers can weigh and look into themselves to form their own opinion. Bravo. Having said that, I think Ben's disposition is outmatched by Ezra, there is a natural advantage at play because Ezra's argument is more grounded. As someone who listens a lot to Ben, and to echo other comments and Ezra's criticism from the video, I believe he does lack empathy, enjoys making provocative statements, and monetizes the abrasiveness of his persona. I think When countered with an empathetic, well researched counter argument, his disposition collapses and he deflects with boilerplate conservative / libertarian arguments, that appear to be an automated response and less a formative counterpoint. I hope for his opinion to continue to evolve as it has over time, for instance in regards to governments role on social issues.
To be fair Ben is a bit more honest and direct in terms of communication throughout a conversation/ debate. Perfect example is when they talk about equality of outcome or reparations if tried today. Ezra consciously skips over that certain sets of people would HAVE to face oppression to get there. Ben makes sure to bring that up and they go to another point about ideology or polarization.
Brian Rodriguez agreed on this point, this is one of Ezra’s weaker arguments and one I disagree with. There are more productive ways to level the playing field other than reparations and I believe we can do more than we are already doing. Where I disagree with Ben is that I do not believe increased police presence and funding is the clear / only solution. I think when Ben talks about fixing black / inner city issues, he over simplifies it. His lack of empathy and true understanding for the situation, in relation to systematically racist policies, shows.
Jonathan Van Ostenbridge agreed. Had the same conversation with another person about Ben. I think the increase in police would help IF police officers were vetted better. That is a whole other conversation as there are many good cops and many bad ones. We get to a place where there are almost no bad ones, we get to a place where more police may work.
Thanks for engaging in civil and mature discourse in the YT section, gents. Hard to come by these days. One point I would Add is that the goal should be to require less policing altogether. Yes we need to vet better from the outset but we should be aspiring towards a society where police aren’t dealing with the deep criminal elements. In order to do so we necessarily need to think long term and focus resources on education, healthcare, arts, culture and other vectors that take longer to impact communities but when they do, resolve a lot of the issues we are dealing with in the first place. This funding can easily come out of wasteful military and police budgets (and yes both are EXTREMELY wasteful). I feel like more people need to take a look at what folks are doing in other countries and realize what’s possible.
I think Ben was also being a proper host to Ezra. Ezra did a lot of interrupting and did the majority of the talking, as he should since he's there to sell a book and get his views on the table. And Ben did a great job at giving him "conversational right-of-way" throughout the podcast. Its easy to be convinced more by the person who talks the most, especially when they're both as eloquent as persuasive as Ben and Ezra. That being said, I pretty much agree with you across the board. I also think Ezra's arguments were much more grounded, but he often didn't have to defend his premise. You could argue that Ezra and Vox fan the flames of division very similar to Ben and The Daily Wire, just not as overtly. I think if pushed far enough, you'll hit some circular logic of pointing out the problem with identity politics while also playing that game constantly. All in all, it's made me reflect on my own beliefs and I wish they'd do this again, maybe a few more times.
9:15 things are more polarized cause of people like you Ezra. You shifted the narrative and now you’re complaining about it??? Smh 🤦🏻♂️ hell, Ezra made up a new definition for liberal, at the start of this convo.
@@gamergeek8933 Right? But the vox-ite social justice warriors are the acutal transgressing against people and looting themselves their property. In their minds they fight dragons, but outside their minds they are the dragons.
@@Avenus112 oh I agree, but when I ready your comment I though oh that's exactly what it is. Then the more I read it the more it looked like it could be just as easily turned around. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and they are paving as fast as they can.
There's a similar thing going on here. "You are a....? ". "Why do you...?" "Why did you...?" Piles of personal accusations, then not accepting any answer other than the one that matches his preconceptions.
@Beau Peep There were actually two. One of them was so bad that Sam tried again. I challenge you to get to the end of either of them. Listening to two whining gits trying everything to obfuscate the original issue rather than aiming for clarity is unlistenable. Here's one of them. samharris.org/podcasts/123-identity-honesty/
MC3 News MCOC Concierge I’m so pissed at the left, just reading the comments is enough to see EZRA KLEIN IS AN UNREPENTANT BIGOT and probably a Chinese Communist Agent. If the left isn’t apologizing and repenting of its racist ways I’m okay with using THEIR standards ON them: Deplatform Ezra Forever. USA 🇺🇸 > communist elites Hats off to Ben for being willing to talk with him.
Atsef Divad first of all what the fuck is a communist elite. Second, how is he racist, and third how is he a chines agent, he’s talked so much about how the CCP is a horrible organization and how their human rights record is bad and how they should be no longer be in the G7
I'll start by saying that I like Ben, and many of his positions on things. With that said, Ben's fundamental failing in his logic (which I think is blinded by anti-empathy) is that he claims that he is for equality of opportunity, but neglects to recognise that the vast majority of economic opportunities in the United States are available to people with starting capital. Can your family afford a top private school, or can your family afford to move to a neighbourhood with a good public school, can you afford to focus on your school work in high school, or do you have to work two jobs to try and help your single mother pay the bills, take grades out of the equation - not everyone can win that scholarship - can you pay for college without a crippling loan, or can you get one of the very few jobs in America (banking, tech, law, etc) that will let you pay down your loans in a realistic time frame that doesn't determine your economic future, can your family help you with a down payment on a home, or are you paying rent (and building someone else's net worth) while you try to pay down your loans. Do you have enough starting capital to start that new business. Or are you working for a salary because you are stuck paying your rent and loans, and can't see a way out. And all of that starts again when you have kids, and they go to school, and this is now their reality. If you're a supporter of equality of opportunity, forget reparations, government has to set a fundamentally even playing field. Free and universally high-quality public schools, free merit-based university and vocational training, free health care, and a universal basic income floor to take fear and anxiety out of the performance equation for children trying to get educated. Let kids focus on growing up, applying themselves, getting educated or trained up, and then the free market can figure out what jobs they can be competitive in. It's good for the kids. It's good for the economy. End.
@@innerdescent8210 Yeah. Taxes. VAT on transactions (revenue taxation, not profit) on the biggest revenue companies in the country. Many currently pay no tax at all. If there isn't an investment in helping people who are falling behind, all that's going to happen is that they'll become an electoral majority, and they'll vote for politicians that promise to take money from the rich. The longer the country waits to do this, the harsher the backlash will be. Currently 50% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Wait until that's 60%. 60% is a majority in the senate, and change can be forced through. Then you'll have a populist movement (similar to what Donald Trump was elected on), but with someone at the helm who will really go after everyone who is doing well, because that's what the 60% will be demanding by that point. That has happened countless times over the course of history, and history always repeats itself. If there isn't a political consensus soon that the country needs to invest in its people then it's not going to end well. And beyond just narrowing the income inequality gap for political stability, investing in the population's education and health is just that, an investment. A better educated workforce will reduce reliance on social programs in later life, while providing more skilled workers in areas of growth, and in turn improving the country's competitiveness on the international stage. I'm very open to exploring any counter arguments to the above?
@@nickstirling1449 I understand why you want to improve the lives of those in poverty I truly do, I wish all Americans (all humans for that matter) were prosperous and had the lives they wanted. That being said, taxing the rich will just cause them to move out of the country. The top earners pay the majority of taxes already so making them pay even more is just breaking backs at that point. I get where you would want a majority vote to change things, but with the electoral college we currently have that's not going to happen. Oftentimes when the populous votes one way, their electoral representatives vote another. I'm not against you in this, I just think taking from one group of people and giving to another will create disparities and is immoral. I look forward to your response though, I like civil discussions.
@@innerdescent8210 thanks for continuing the civil discourse! We appear to have found a little pocket of civility on the internet, who would have thought! So I hear you about the idea of taxing the rich, and them departing the country as taxpayers. My counter to that is that if you tax companies (not individuals) for benefiting from the US economy, and you do so on revenue, not profit, (eg a VAT, not a corporate profits tax), then if a company wants to benefit from selling to the massive US consumer market, they will have to accept that there has to be a contribution to to the country through taxation. They can't reap the benefits for free - that just doesn't make any sense. If they choose to leave to avoid the tax, then they simply miss out the world's largest market, which would be insane. That's like refusing the most amazing, unforgettable, and free, all you can eat gourmet buffet, because you're asked to pay a couple bucks as a tip to the waiter. And to be clear. From a completely selfish point of view, and in complete isolation of society at large, my wife and I benefit from low taxation and status quo. But what do I think is the right course for the country, and a utilitarian future, eg what is best for the most people, and for the benefit of the country as a whole? It's reinvesting in people, for a stable future, a healthy, happy and skilled workforce, and a competitive economy on the world stage. If the states doesn't get serious about lifting people up, the country will fall light-years behind China, which has no respect for human rights or freedom, but has lifted more people up into the middle class than any country in history. Bottom line is, through authoritarianism, China has found a recipe for economic growth that the western world is struggling to keep up with. We've got to find a way to out-compete, and that will not be by just claiming that rich people, who have benefited from the economic landscape that has been paved by the working class, will just refuse to foot the bill, if we ask them to give back to investing in the future of the US work force. I'd add, I'm also not a big proponent for welfare state. I think that if adult incentives are too good, we disincentivise productivity. Said another way, lots of people will choose not to work if there is no relative financial incentive to do so. But the same doesn't apply to the children of people who would sit back and give up... If parents can't or won't encourage and support their own children to achieve in life (which is sadly far too much the norm in many low income communities) it is self destructive for the country legislatively to accept mediocrity and give up on these kids. We already accept that the country provides welfare - we don't just accept that millions of people should starve to death. So what is a better investment - find the money to invest in our youth and their future productive value in the economy, or wait for them to fail and have to bail them out on welfare for most of their lives anyway. Door number three is cut welfare entirely, and watch society unravel, and violent crime destroy our way of life. I don't even think I'm being an especially benevolent person by taking this position. It's just logic, both from the perspective of 'love thy neighbour' as much as from that of 'I want to make sure my family has a bright future'. Just seems common sense to me. Anyway - hope we're still on good terms, and looking forward to any further thoughts or comments, as we try to solve the world's problems! :)
Marie Neff I don’t think the interview was awful. Ben was respectful and asked good questions to challenge Ezra. But you’re right about Ezra himself. He’s definitely got that NPR “I’m so much smarter and more cultured than you peasants” vibe.
Especially after his interview with Harris. Ezra said that it was incumbent on Sam Harris to explain why he was in the same boat as racist. That is ONE hell of a way to frame your opponent.
I think more conservatives should have conversations like this with lefties (assuming the conservative is as patient as Ben). Ezra can't back down because his status and finances are tied to his ideology. The common lefty has only their pride at stake and when their pride is faced against overwhelming truth, some will actually change their minds.
Crimea River we try my friend. We try. All of my liberal friends refuse to have a conversation about anything that matters because they know the gospel and I need to get in line or shut up. There is not talking sense to leftists.
Conversations are so important. I want to know what moves people to argue certain things and let us common folk understand how and why certain people think the way they do and the other way around.
A few minutes in, Klein says that the liberal ethos has always been one that sees people's life path defined by luck and chance, and thus is intrinsically unfair and must be corrected... and THAT is basically all you need to know about the ideology of him and his ilk. In the past, that was presumably not the liberal message (it used to be one of freedom/liberty I think? Forgive me I'm fairly young), and now it is a message of envy and jealousy which breeds all manner of other toxic sentiment: resentment, anger, hate, authoritarianism, divisive tribalism, and ingratitude among many others. That is the wickedness of leftism, not liberalism, and it has rebirthed socialism. From what I can tell, the right wing (particularly the libertarian branch) are now the keepers of true liberalism.
The main ingredient that is broadly missing in left-wing politics is the concept of the individual. Without this concept there is no sense of personal (individual) responsibility, without the protection of individual freedoms society will inevitably become authoritarian.
Their ideology is centered on the idea that one's lack of success can never be their fault. Everyone is a entirely victim of circumstances, therefore there is no meritocracy possible. Suggesting that one has any control over their own fate is inherently judgemental which is a notion that repulses them.
My thoughts exactly. Historical liberalism is the exact opposite of what Ezra describes just on the 2nd minute of the interview, instead of equality and high trust in the government it once stood for freedom, individualism and distrust of government and any accumulation of power. American conservatism and most libertarians are all that remain in the world that stands for these principles that made the first world in the prosperous countries that are they are today.
@@daniellamunoz8894 This is correct. What Ezra describes is pretty much the textbook definition of Leftism. Liberalism should be for freedom and for letting everyone have more access to freedom. The definition of liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. That used to be what liberals were fighting for. When fighting for blacks (in the US or SA) or women (throughout the world), they were fighting for those people to have the same freedoms as everyone else. Now they're fighting for those people to have more freedom than everyone else, which of course restricts the access to liberty of the "everyone else".
I think you're right that the left things see things more as a matter of circumstances than personal decision. However, I don't think that automatically translates into things like tribalism or authoritarianism.
A republic is a form of democracy you dumbass! Literally every scholar left or right agrees that a republic is a form of democracy. By that logic there are no "democracies" in the world. Just other republics.
@@drew3953 ok. but it's a better form of democracy because it doesn't come down to mob rule. it's a representative democracy which is also called a republic. when people say its a republic, it's because that's the proper name for our government. to just assume it's a straight democracy is a silly. and we also have different parameters for our democratic system.
@@dubiousprime2021 I'd agree with that to an extent. But again there are no straight democracies in the world. Should we just never use the word democracy? 😂 Because again, but that logic there are no democracies.
@@drew3953 i have no particular problem with democracies, but just using the term "democracy" fails to acknowledge the different types. to say we are a republic does in fact differentiate the term. i could go even higher and say we are an "American republic" to further differentiate between other republics. this is really a semantics game at this point, but vocabulary gets muddled. so through that long drawn out statement i just made; no we should never use the word democracy. it certainly has a place, but differentiating the type of democracy and it's purpose for governance is entirely different. again, sorry if my dialogue was too long.
@@dubiousprime2021 but there are many different types of Republics, that is not any more descriptive lol. If there are no true "democracies" and there are only Republics, then that actually weakens your point. Because there are massive differences between our Republic and every other Republic in the world.
I think the lesson is that these conversations are a lot more difficult and a lot more productive for the audience when you have them with intelligent well informed people on the other side rather than useful idiots on school campuses
Identity politics is quite literally meant to divide and polarize people by separating citizens into hierarchical groups based on their Race, gender, and sexual orientation, with the group deemed the most historically oppressed being given the moral high ground, regardless of any other circumstances
It's funny that Ben actually tries to help Ezra understand this. Peterson -who is clearly miles ahead of Ben in terms of his ability to explain burdensome concepts - has already tried to help him see the light on this topic, and he couldn't get through to him. But hey, Ben has to do his job so...
I applaud his efforts, but the man doesn't know the difference between shared experiences and identity. Has no clue on political beliefs, or how people actually reach them.
By the way, if you buy newspapers I hear on good authority that the Guardian, Daily Mail, New York Times, Vox, etc, make good toilet paper. I respectfully disagree because I've never wiped my ass with other peoples shit.
Ben: "Dailywire we're openly conservative, Vox is a left wing publication." Ezra: "You can't read Vox and not know we're left of center. But I wouldn't call us a liberal publication. " People with IQs above 70: "What the f***k???" 🤯 And now Ezra has no credibility. Thank you.
@@Zingy16 Oh. So you're his interpreter?? LOL...see I don't have to interpret anything Ben Shapiro says, because he says what he thinks. Ben will clarify himself, if he feels he needs to. But the fact that Ezra needs little fanboys like you to explain what HE said, just proves my point. Thanks! 👍
@@Zingy16 You aren't picking up on the broader deception in his words. He's trying to lead you into a false perspective based on speculative intent rather than the stuff they actually publish. Vox is a left wing publication by their deeds; it doesn't matter how Ezra Klein fancies it.
yeah, it seems at best unnecessary. Like Ben Shapiro runs a conservative publication, but if the overton window shifted significantly to the right the daily wire might not longer be considered conservative. I think that's an obvious thing.
Dont be dumb. Klein literally said that he doesn't want to box his publication with an ideology as labels change and vary from people to people. Did you mute him and only listen to Shapiro?
Ben: "I agree with every single argument that purports that systemic racism is real." Ben immediately after: "Ahhhh, but it still wouldn't be possible to help black people anyway."
I started with nothing. I didn't get money, i didn't get a car, i didn't get shit. I got a happy 18th birthday and i went from working a highschool job to digging ditches full time. Made enough to take care of myself and get what i need to live, often times less than comfortably. I starved more than once, but I'm good now. It's not supposed to be easy. You're supposed to have to sacrifice. You're supposed to be uncomfortable at times. If you think anyone got what they have easily, you aren't watching close enough. What do people need help with?
@@NUCJESUS its not a fallacy. Nobody in this world is better or worse than you. The only difference is how hard they work and how smart they move, and that they aren't a giant weeping pussy talking about how they started with such a "disadvantage" yeah fuck off losers. Starting with nothing isn't a disadvantage, it's the baseline.
bushbeard_ the_great_and_terrible_hermit Yes it fucking is. You are a fucking outlier and you know it. In the US if you are born poor you are more likely to stay poor for wealthy people it is the same.
@Buttercup I'm Jewish and oppose those concepts, most Israelis are right leaning as well. Liberal Jews are just that, liberal Jews. But we don't group think and are very divided on political issues. I hope to see a mass migration to the Republican party of Jews come the election, alongside a mass migration of black voters. God bless.
I dunno guys in the comments LOL this seems like a pretty damn good conversation for two very high standing pundits operating on COMPLETELY different political poles. They were civilized, they both made some jabs for sure, but I expected WAY WORSE from Ezra Klein and thought this conversation was going to be WAY more inflammatory. But it wasn’t. This may be a new bridge across the aisle. Thoughts? Edit: I mean come on he said he was happy to take a Leftist tears tumblr and that it is actually funny. That sounds pretty good to me hahahahah
Titanic The Greatest Ice Bucket Challenge how about no? White supremacists nationalists on the right and anti-fa social justice warrior types on left are the cry Bavaria. The rest of the Bell Curve, an overwhelming majority of people, just want to have reasonable dialogue and figure all this stuff out. The people in the comments section here seem to make up the vocal minority but I don’t think it’s representative. I’m always trying to find common ground and even with people who I think are REALLY far out there, if I dig deep enough and usually endure a TON of character attacks and abuse (for me, it comes exclusively from anti-Trumpers), I fond common ground. It’s a little painful but worth it. :)
Let us all appreciate the fact that these two intellectuals who have different ideologies had a meaningful and a civilized debate despite having disagreements
Ezra makes a great point about Ben, that when he's 1:1 like this, he's very respectful and articulate about trying to find common ground. Whereas on his more regular monologue shows he goes as far as possible to be inflammatory to the opposing side and then uses that combustion back against the target of that inflammation. It's because inflammation sells. More people are more likely to click on contact that shows conflict and in turn sows more division. The left does it too. This isn't a solely Ben Shipiro thing or solely a conversative thing. This is a tactic of online commentators because its works in bringing in a huge audience. Nothing groups people together more than conflict. The irony is that judging by this comment section, lots of people from both sides actually enjoy this sort of intellectual jousting. I wish Ben did much more of this. I enjoy his analysis and I find it much more helpful to understand his opposing arguments and consequently is much more helpful in progress. It's a shame that the inflammatory tactics of both sides prevail.
17:00 BAM... That is a perfect example of How identity politics is flawed. They are both Jewish and share the Jewish experience but it does not align them politically. They both face anti-semitism but that doesn't align them politically.
@@kg356 Not even because of their identity, but rather because of their morals. For example, I'm not Jewish, yet I still support combating anti-Semitism.
@@aiRCoft yes, but if you were Jewish, you may feel more inclined to stop anti-semitism, since you may have experienced it directly. What the right calls "identity-politics" is, really, just politics. One's identity is integral to the perspective one has on the world, and the perspective one has on the world is integral to one's political views. Therefore, identity is link directly to politics. It's not 'liberals' or 'leftists' who have created or invented this link, it's just there, we simply have to acknowledge it.
@@vvvsss796 If that were true, how would two Jews have such opposing views and political stances? Wouldn't each group be on the same page, if their race/religion/culture/whatever determined their "identity", and their identity determined their political views? The fact that two people can be the same race, religion, culture, etc., and still have vastly differing political opinions, invalidates your argument, and suggests _personal_ experiences and _personal_ identity play a far more important role in one's political views than whatever other 'similar' people believe. Under 'identity politics', if someone who fits the same 'identity' (race, religion, culture, etc.) as someone else doesn't agree with their political views, how is that even possible, given that type of "identity" correlates to political views? Or would you simply deny those with differing views of their identities?
@@aiRCoft because there's more to politics than anti-semitism, and there's more to people's identity than whether they're a jew or not. That, combined with the fact that identity, either personal or collective, is not *all* that matters when deciding one's political perspectives, is the reason why they are able to be ideologically opposite. Nobody's suggesting that identity is the only, or even the deciding factor in what someone believes politically; we're just recognizing that it's bound to have some impact.
@@vvvsss796 Of course there are many different groups you can classify people to be part of, Judaism is just the main one we're discussing. Nevertheless, my statements remain true when in the context of any group, not only for Jews, they're just the example we were using, as it pertains to the video and original comment I replied to. People absolutely do argue that identity determines political stances. Are you familiar with Sleepy Joe Biden's statement about not being black if you vote for Trump? That's not just some guy saying that, that's THE left's presidential candidate, he's the one they chose to represent them... If you want to generalize, start with him. Have you seen the videos or heard the accounts of black people disparaging other black people for their political differences, even spitting on them and calling them "Uncle Tom"s, and that sort of thing? That's the direct outcome of "identity politics", solely, which divides people into groups rather than seeing them as individuals, and if you don't perfectly fit into their group, based on their form of classification, then they reject your identity all together.
Exactly what I said after listening to this guy, he kept telling Ben to let him finish his point, then continuously interrupts Ben...pretty obvious he's not interested in the least to hearing the other side, that would be ok, but he pretends he is interested when he's not!!
That's okay, that was the point of having Ezra come on here in the first place. Now the world knows Ezra's views on the power of identity politics match that of Adolf Hitler.
What’s interesting about this comment section is so much of it is about who won or lost or how people hate Ezra. Those comments are literally reinforcing Ezra’s point--that party has become an identity. Rather than debate ideas on their merits it is how my guy or your guy won. I think we have to get away from that stuff. Anyway kudos to Ben for hosting Ezra. Please don’t kill me for posting.
lol Ezra couldn’t go 5 minutes without being condescending. Immediately took serious issue with the “Leftist Tears” mug and started virtue signaling. It’s good fun dude. Have a laugh.
Their LITERAL tears after the election, with even dry-eyed leftists saying that others tears were justified in politics, is what caused it. Their entire tone is juvenile, and the Leftist Tears mug is a perfect response.
It's even more hilarious when you realize the reverse would NEVER happen on Vox. This clown would never allow Shapiro a fair interview on his platform.
I’m 20 mins in. Ezra is the only one who’s provided any evidence for his arguments, and Shapiro’s retort appears to be “but actually trying to achieve equality of opportunity would require genocide!” He’s actually trying to frame attempts to correct an injustice committed on a racial basis is itself racist just for acknowledging the racial nature of the problem. Restate any of Shapiro’s arguments in plain language and they’re obviously insane. He’s getting absolutely steamrolled here.
You completed misquoted Shapiro. The reason Ezra had more evidence is because he's literally referencing his own book which is the subject of the entire conversation...
Freddy Bell I’m not quoting him, I’m paraphrasing his argument. And they weren’t talking about the subject of his book, they were talking about affirmative action.
Yeah I also disagree w affirmative action but for the reasons that it would be counterproductive in achieving the equality of opportunity we’re looking for. Ben should have engaged on that level, not on an argument that considering race in policy is racist.
He's very good at saying 4 things that I agree with. And then sneaking in that argument one thing that I don't. and that one thing is what is supporting his whole argument.
@@lukebeaulieu3794 Yeah he never actually get's to the point. There is no proof of the next line of reasoning. He basically says a bunch of things I agree with. And then I go "yeah....so what's your point". And then he'll sneak in his stance, and I'll be sitting there like how the hell did you arrive at that conclusion. he's a good arguer. But his stance isn't based on reason.
I actually liked his answer. As he explained, political definitions can shift, but he would like to be consistent with his values. He doesn't disagree (or even hide) that Vox's politics are left in the current moment. I see no issue.
I didn’t want to give Klein a chance as the only time I had seen him was debating Sam Harris, and I thought Klein was way off-kilter. But here he seemed much more logical and could stand toe to toe with Shapiro
@@mattsimnitt1420 don't think you can link on this channel, but here's an excerpt from a column: "Household income statistics can be very misleading in other ways. The number of people per household is different among different racial or ethnic groups, as well as from one income level to another, and it is different from one time period to another." In this case you'd have to ask yourself why Ezra is referencing head of household income rather than individual income. Without having access to the stats he's referencing I'd guess that in Black families the head of household is much more likely to be younger and also more likely to be a single mom - both groups statistically make less due to reasons other than discrimination.
@@mattsimnitt1420He has written articles for decades. I'd check out his books. On this subject in particular you can read "economic facts and fallacies". He has spoken to Congress a few times over years, as well. You can find one on UA-cam where he is, in my opinion, treated very badly by Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy about 30 years ago.
@@mattsimnitt1420 Honestly, just think about it. If rates of single parenthood are way higher among black households, then that means they have half as many adults to make money in the household. If a 67 year old white married couple who have worked for 40 years each retire and own their house, they'll own more than a 67 year old single mother who still has some house notes to make.
@@mattsimnitt1420 UA-cam is notoriously bad with links sticking around in the comments so I'll point you in the right direction. Google search for this: "Misleading Statistics by Dr. Thomas Sowell." That will get you to the article in question as well as a search page loaded with Sowell's thoughts. Enjoy!
To me, this shows that there are smart, actual liberals such as Ezra willing to take on conservatives in the public sphere (we need more of that). Sorry, Rubin agreeing with all the conservatives is not enough. You can see that Ben is challenged on a lot of points. It’s better than people worshipping him for “DESTROYING” a 22 yr old first year gender studies student, then claiming Ben is the best debater ever.
Liberals and leftist don't consider Dave Rubin a liberal and haven't considered him one for probably well over a year if not two years. Dave Rubin is a grifter. he completely changed his views in matter of months. He went from saying he's a Bernie Sanders supporters who will hold President Trump accountable to openly criticising Liberals and leftist and having dinner with Trump at Mar la go. Him claiming himself to be a liberal and yet agreeing constantly with conservatives is why guys like Sam Seder just tore into him constantly. And Tim Pool is heading in the same direction. If you go to Dave Rubin Subreddit they have a pinned post about his grift to the far right.
@@kumar01234 so if you had a cogent argument that convinced me of something counter to what I thought before, I should hesitate to suddenly change my mindset because people will call me a grifter or weak mind person. Or is it okay if I agree with you?
Pass, sorry I can't watch the guy who somehow got me to sympathize with Sam Harris talk about how he needs to "deradicalize" me. He is clearly just a bad actor on the political stage and anything done legally that hurts him or his organization is fair game so far as I am concerned.
A lot of inherent animosity for Klein the comments. I have that for Shapiro. I appreciated that Klein refused to be talked over or bullied out of the conversation. This was a good conversation.
You know what, the fact Ezra came on this show really does give me respect. Like many are pointing out, he isn’t very open and has weird ideas, but come on what did we expect. He came on the show, good on him
He has those black, glazed over beady shark eyes too. Alex Jones talked about it on the Joe Rogan podcast, it's the drugs they take and the activities they partake in. Pure evil.
@@johnathanreyes118 lol not at all. Ben tries to have a real debate on the core issues (i.e. why is it good to discriminate against whites via affirmative action) where Ben can really win, and this dude just pivots with word vomit back to his main, and pointless, definitional claim
E “If the question’s framework is incorrect”... ??? The question is the question. What you are describing is called “spin” or “deception”. And if you really think that spinning questions to avoid answering is acceptable then either you are a politician or gullible. If you are not a politician do me a favor and stay away from Kool Aid. It’s poison... the Kool Aid is poison
@E You're just smashing words together in the attempt to justify Ezra not answering the question or responding topically. "Framework"? What you really mean is "babble about my general opinions without answering the question". It's a very common technique that is factually not debate since it doesn't address the point, it steps around the point so the speaker, Ezra, can spew his opinions free from interrogation
@E it wasnt long winded, I was explaining why. As for your "dont get upset bro" attitude you've got going on, just shove it dude. And to the point - yes, this was more of an "let ezra preach his sermon" setting, unfortunately, but since Ben is sitting there, there must naturally be some debate due to the disagreement.
I got up very early this morning so that I could watch and listen to the Ben Sharpiro and Ezra Klein Debate because I am so determined to be able to understand both sides. Ezra makes the continuous, constant and emphatically clear argument about "fairness". Actually, I think, Conservatives agree with much about the morality of fairness. The book that has helped me the most is THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt . Haidt (who is a liberal but also a scientist) states that we are predisposed and driven by personality to disagree on six areas of moral foundation. Fairness is only one of the six. Haidt states that research indicates that there are those who can make an argument on all six or at least see all six tend to be conservative. Research shows that the majority of conservatives who are asked to "just pretend they are liberal or leftist and argue issues" can actually do pretty good. Haidt (who is liberal) states that research indicates that a leftist is unable to "just pretend they are conservative and argue an issue" During the debate, when Ben would bring up any of the other five moral arguments, Ezra shifted the conversation back to "fairness" -- which Ben (and most conservatives) actually can see and agree with. Ezra was unable or unwilling to debate (for example) the "Sanctity/Degradation" or "Authority/Subversion" moral arguments or the fear of an over-reaching government. THE RIGHTEOUS MIND has done the most for me to be able to "think from both sides" Thanks for this very interesting debate.. Here is a liberal youtuber reviewing Haidt's book. She does a pretty good job. ua-cam.com/video/6UDY0FWvUtA/v-deo.html
Thanks for sharing Marble Jar Channel & the Haidt's book. Your observation is an interesting one. Taking your example of wanting to see a discussion on 'over-reaching government', I think this is something that Klein didn't want to rehash - he mentioned this debate is centuries old. This ideological difference isn't where the political science is moving forward rather his observations is that the sorting of political parties is new and that's where he's advancing the 'literature'. Also, I saw this as it never 'leaving' the fairness axis because Shapiro & Klein never resolved the ingoing question of the debate on identity politics, the gradations / existence of it or its fairness when applied (e.g. reparations).
@@humanchannel7825 Obama was a disaster, he droned more folks than bush, foreign policy was a disaster, made race relations way worse in the US, blm rose under him, ISIS rampant, Obamacare is a disaster, very slow economic recovery, unfortunately my friend the Biden administration is just a continuation of the Obama regime.
Alvaro Neto He explains his research to give further detail on how he got to his analysis of specific political topics. Likewise, having a conversation is all about talking about what you know from your studies, so how else is he supposed to speak?
@@ryanspivey1136 but when you listen to him speak, it's a lot of straw men (i.e. white people's fears of no longer being the dominant race) or non-sequiturs (because we have always had identity politics, we should continue practicing identity politics). Aside from his remark that polarization in the US is more starkly along political parties than in the past, most of his points weren't particularly insightful.
Alvaro Neto I see what you’re saying yet I understand it in a different light. Klein is presenting an argument clearly based on insightful and knowledgeable information, because he had to be able to gather a range of different data/political analysis that make up the idea of “Why were polarized” in order to write this book. I have not read the book yet, however, if he keeps on circulating behind the two points that you mentioned, that must be the central point of the book. I understand that you feel as if the whole thing wasn’t particularly insightful, but I thought it was a great conversation about identity politics and I was able to learn from both perspectives as well.
Bless his heart, Ezra spends an Hour criticizing polarization without discussing the recent history of Primary elections in the Supreme Court, the odd affair of the tea Party which is a political party for the purpose of primary elections, but not a political party for the purpose of party affiliation. Good luck Ezra finding your way out of a paper bag: hint look up.
So how can Asian immigrants arrive in the country poor and uneducated, facing all of the same racial obstacles and within a couple of generations are thriving? It comes down to work ethic and culture which comes from strong family and community.
Chase6398 is that what you think he did? You think he did that just to tell Ben shapiro so he doesn’t look partisan? If so, that’s unbelievably dumb. If this is some dumb reactionary joke you’re making, then I would say the memes really died since the last time I was on this part of UA-cam.
Chase6398 I really hope you aren’t saying all this ironically. The idea of some dude calling me all that stuff in seriousness as a response to my comment is legit funny as fuck.
Interesting. I’m independent. I was listening, not watching, so i can’t comment on the visuals but from an audible perspective, i thought Ben seemed very curious and open but I heard Ezra interrupting and talking over Ben rather than listening. Overall a very good convo, though.
A couple things: - I was pleasantly surprised by Shapiro’s rhetorical style and management of the conversation - I thought he made some good points - I thought he did a good job about engaging with Klein’s points Love, A socialist who is only here because of Ezra
You have to if you want to get a word in with Shapiro. These are both individuals who know where they want to take a conversation. If you don't cut Shapiro off, he will walk all over you by taking the conversation somewhere else. Ezra is very good about shaping the conversation in his show to benefit his questioning too. Honestly, a pretty good match up between a centrist and far-right.
unpopular opinion: Klein actually did make sense at some points and I was interested in what he had to say
Name one good point
You've come to the daily wire channel itself. Of course it'll be an unpopular opinion here
@@udbhavseth799 it is okay to have unpopular opinions
I didn't get anything out of Klein's arguments. I was a democrat 95% of my life. Klein, " what you see in politics is identies converge while ideas seperate, and thoughts spin downwards while the winds of change create an undeniable updraft of positive repression."
Wrong
This was much better than talking to college students. You should do this again.
Tell Steven “Cold Feet” Crowder that
Getting his ass handed to him by his much more well informed contemporaries isn’t a profitable business model. “Owning” and “destroying” well meaning, but inexperienced and non-media trained 19-20 year old college students is.
@@reflect. Are you trying to say Shapiro got his ass handed to him by this dishonest clown? Seriously? 🤣
@Inner Descent
Well it wasn’t as bad as when that _far leftist, marxist, communist_ Andrew Neil (you know, the Bolshevik that the creator of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, selected as an editor for the conservative publication ‘The Sunday Times’) made him look like a petulant, little bitch. But yes, this was pretty bad.
Conservative debate tactics, like with Ben Shapiro’s shitty brand, often rely on quick and meaningless little snips. You can’t weasel your way out of long form discussions. Which is why the entire comment section is filled with “oh well Ezra does make sense, it’s good to have discussions” blah blah blah.
Ezra said nothing that was ground breaking or redefining. He said the standard, ordinary, even banal but still important, historically accurate things that the overwhelming majority of people who’ve taken just a little bit of time to do the leg work and learn about this, will tell you. So in in these types of discussions, the conservative is 9.5/10 going to look uninformed, uneducated, incredulous, or all of the above. Because they usually are at least 1 or more of those things.
To many conservatives it’s not about being accurate, it’s about justifying your conservative positions, no matter how silly they may be, even in the face of simple truths. Ben Shapiro studied Political Science at UCLA. He especially knows better. Or at least better than he’s letting on. But he takes the positions he does, and is insistent on playing dumb, most likely because it’s advantageous to him.
To people like you, you probably are just somewhat stupid. So it’s easier to appeal to such low-brow individuals such as yourself. Some percentage of you guys are salvageable, most of you aren’t. You strike me as the latter category. So go ahead, stay in your little conservative, ahistorical, circle jerk. Call anybody who gives you the most basic facts a “dishonest clown”. As a conservative, the stupidity is in your nature (inb4 “I’m a classical liberal, libertarian”).
@@reflect. Lol you resort to downright name-calling and presumptions of my intelligence. The fact of the matter is that Ezra cannot have an honest discussion with anyone, on the left or the right. Just look at how he tried to frame Sam Harris and was completely disingenuous. Don't worry though I won't insult your intelligence, you already did that yourself by trying to insult mine and speak from some authority. 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Btw I'm not a conservative there smart one.
Love how when Ben Shapiro talks to smart liberals he agrees with all of their analysis but then his counter argument boils down to "but I don't want government to do anything about it"
Glad someone else noticed.
Literally the difference between conservatives and progressives no?
They both want the same end, just different ideas on how to get there.
@@Jtgagemac But when he debates 18 -year-old undergrads he rejects the arguments outright. He says slavery and Jim Crow were ages ago and have no effect on the present day. In fact, he even said this to Joe Rogan until Joe pushed back and Ben was forced to shift the goalposts to "yeah, but government can't do anything about this"... And no. Ben doesn't want the same end. He sees the outcomes as the natuaral and just result of poor personal choices within a free market with the remedy being "just make better decisions".
@@tcritt 🙌🙌 well said. I was thinking of the Joe Rogan interview as well. When Rogan got Shapiro to basically admit that white privilege exists all Shapiro could muster was "well I don't see what we can do unless the black community decide to be better". How extreme do you have to be to think that government can't even play a minor role in investing in underprivileged areas.
@@jackward6726 Exactly. Ben admits in this interview that his idea of government has nothing to do with what We The People actual want for ourselves. He claims that a government trying to enact the will of the people would be "illegitimate" if it's something that he personally doesn't like. This is a major flaw in the "conservative" attitude towards government... they both (1) prevent it from being an effective tool of the people, while also (2) complaining that it's not an effective tool of the people.
I’m 20 minutes in and think that this is a really important conversation. I get that most people in the comment section are part of Ben’s audience, but Ezra’s point of view likely represents millions of people and he did a great job of defending it. He makes you think about the things that you say you believe, which is the point of conversations like this.
racism is good if you arnt white...that what Ezra said. Which is against Martin Luther King's hopes for the future and will certainly breed more division within the country. So...great...more division and turbulent political discord...sounds like a great philosophical ideology
this is a problem on both sides. you have these extremes and no one wants to hear the other side or even engage them
@@Arthagnou At what point did he say "racism is good if you are not white"??????? please give me a timestamp, because i sure as hell cannot find it....
It is amazing how the UA-cam comments section under this video is the perfect encapsulation of Ezra's arguments on rhetorical escalation.
@E Let's bring some specifics, then. Ezra said to the effect of you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette concerning peoples' property rights based solely on race, since Hitler only did 1 thing which was kill people of another race and we don't have equal application of the laws.
Major respect to Ezra for coming on the show. It's nice to see some dialogue between both sides without screaming at each other.
i hate how we even have to identify on a "side". I like having a collection of arguments in my head and then maybe I vote for the side that supports the most important ones for a given year. We have to get away from this sports rivalry stuff. It cheapens political discussion. I get the feeling people in the USA choose their side very early and then just adopt all the views as they develop based on a kind of "faith" in their side. It's just an awful way to go especially when stuff gets more polarised.
@@halfalligator6518 I mean, if that's what you are interested in you shouldn't be crediting Ezra for coming on this show to talk to Ben... You should be critiquing Ben Shapiro for seeking out young, ill-prepared college kids with the sole intent of featuring them in some "BEN OBLITERATELY DESTROYS _____." Ben is cordial here because he is woefully out of his depth and the only argument he can appeal to is his foundational assumption that government should be limited.
@@jacobjohansen6007 he also did it to cenk sam Harris , and entire blm panel, and numerous others.
@@jacobjohansen6007 I mean that is that foundation of the conservative belief…..you spelled it out…still don’t get it….
@@dfish4567 That's a pretty low bar. We should expect civility. I cringe when PC culture stifles what could have been a more honest and interesting conversation. Saying anything remotely critical will always elicit outrage, and people are constantly dancing around what they really mean. We must be willing to offend those who deserve offense if we are to speak truthfully. The internet used to be a place for free speech.
I really enjoyed listening to this conversation. Stop point scoring here, people! There's no winner or loser, just two people who disagree having a civil conversation. We need more of this in politics.
I wasn’t scoring points...but I can’t say I enjoyed this conversation. I’m glad the two guys from completely opposite ends of the American political spectrum can sit down without ad hominem comments, but ever time Ben tried to get any specifics or dig a bit into Ezra’s statements, he would take the floor back from Ben.
This wasn’t a debate. Ben was the host and he did what a host should...let the guest pontificate. Ben would not have let him pivot out of certain subjects as artlessly as Ezra did during a few exchanges.
I see Ezra and hear his name and all I can think of is how many UA-camrs his company put out of business with their vociferous complaining to YT’s CEO Susan Wikiwiki (Or however you spell her name). The irony is Vox means vocals or voice...he and his employees are personally responsible for silencing so many voices with whom he and his employees disagreed.
So this conversation was completely useless? We can't say that one person had a good point when he said this and the other person had a good point when they said that? We can't aggregate these and say therefore one person said more reasonable points than the other? We will all just sit back and not debate ideas in our own mind but absorb them and make no judgement of the ideas. I bet you are one of the people that does not believe in keeping scores in kids games and everybody gets a trophy. How the hell are we supposed to figure out which ideas are better if we are not allowed to keep score of the ideas? You must be an anarchist.
There is ALWAYS a winner and loser. Libtards are losers
I hate to say the deep discussion here went over the head of most of ben shapiro’s listeners. I personally like it as I love these type of discussion.
I totally agree. Lots of things that are helping me understand the way the other side views things.
Shapiro is being admirably tolerant of Klein’s talking over him.
Never interrupt your enemy if they are about to make a mistake
Weebrahim enemy 😂 what world do you live in? To me, it seems like they’re having a discussion, which you can’t have if you don’t listen to the other participants perspective and understand it
@@OTPpride I'm not sure what you mean... how does Weebrahim's comment preclude what you're suggesting? Or am I off the mark of what you meant? I.e., one can listen to the other participant, while recognizing he's about to make a mistake, no?
ben talked over him plenty as well
Let's be real, Ben does have a tendency to get overexcited and interrupt before people finish their thoughts.
Ezra: Identity is a tool and we should use it to create a more equal society.
Ben: Identity puts the group above the individual and shouldn't be used as a tool for sweeping change.
Ezra: Identity has always been a part of politics.
Ben: It has overwhelmingly produced bad results.
Ezra: I agree, but we can't ignore it so we might as well use it.
Ben: Not only should we not use it, you're idea of the government to be used as a hand of God to right Cosmic Injustices is flawed.
Ezra: The government should definitely be used for the quest for Cosmic Justice.
Ben: The government should step off and let the individual be free as possible.
Ezra: That's important but we should strive to fix problems as much as we can and the government can do that.
Overall a good discussion I think. I'm glad Ben had him on! This is an hour long representation of Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions which is pretty interesting.
The whole time Ezra didnt make any wildly left remarks. I was surprised, it was a great discussion
Thank you for this. This comment should be pinned. I'll admit, a lot of this went over my head, but you provided a well and concise brief summary. Again, thanks.
Ranger838 well said.
Ben: Muh Israel!
Ben: Equal treatment (except for Palestine because chosen people)
All these comments are so negative. I thought it was a nice interview/debate. Ben made sure to get his two cents in when he wanted, but he also gave Ezra ample time to talk. Respect for Ezra from me.
I want to be super clear about this...
***Proceeds to be as ambiguous as possible.***
I thought I was the only one who thought he literally blathered on about nothing
After Klein says that he spells out his thesis again which is that polarization has been much wider in previous eras but because it now it breaks down by political party the divide has made governing next to impossible.
I was feeling the same for the first half. Not just ambiguous but also kind of dodging Ben's points, but I think that by the end he's view gets quite clear. And being biased in favour of Shapiro, I must say I agree with quite a lot of Klein's points.
It's ok to admit you don't understand what Klein is saying, but I would recommend trying again or reading the book he is wrote. His point is that political parties unifying around ideology is a real block to any political progress.
@@CoppermindK I don't have time right now to read the book so I'll ask you if you don't mind: what's the point of a political party if it doesn't align itself with a particular ideology? What is uniting a liberal and a conservative to be in the same party?
I’m sick of hearing about “historical injustices”, we had a black president, lawyers, mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, school superintendents, Muslims in Congress, small business owners, CEOs of major corporations, everywhere I see it as a level playing field nowadays. Hard work , morals , priorities, culture and personal characteristics is what defines the outcomes for everyone today. We can’t keep trying to help every group in America without imposing injustices on another group, whether you define a group by race, color, religion or economics. The world is not perfect, but America is the absolute best country to live in in today’s world. You get out of life what you put into it. Don’t expect free handouts because they’re not free, somebody is ultimately paying for them, and it shouldn’t be me!
PA WOODS N WATER - the ceo of lowes is a black man who started as a lot attendant at the lowes in his home town. you can't tell me that success isn't about work ethic and values.
Dono Imdono the game is up most young blacks know what, how, when and who you have to be in order to rise into power in a predominately white business or institution.
The thing is, often the 'help' given hurts the intended group, and the 'disadvantages' help the other group, because it turns out responsibility and adversity make people stronger, and reliance on external solutions makes people weaker.
Historical injustice doesn’t mean it’s impossible for black people (or other minorities) to become successful. It means it’s harder for the average black person to become financially successful than it would be for the average white person. The average white child has parents who can afford a great education for their kids, and send them to college. The average black child doesn’t have these advantages. These advantages and disadvantages stem from slavery. When slavery ended, black people were free yes, but they had basically nothing. Hence, historical injustice.
We can in no way make up for numbers difference in the “average” racial person in America, but a poor white person vs. a poor minority person, or middle class people of all races have the same opportunities in front of them now, or ever since affirmative action, the minorities may have some unfair odds in their favor. Yes there are more white people here but there’s no way we can even out the numbers or make life more fair without it being unfair to another. So I believe in presenting the same opportunities to everyone and what each person does with their choices will pave their way in life, some it may take longer or shorter, some it might be harder or easier, but no where on earth are you going to get the opportunities everyone has here in the USA! People need to stop complaining and get to work! There are plenty of jobs available.
Me internally: "is the playback speed at 1.5x? ....no, Ezra's just talking as fast as Ben. Good Lord they're talking quickly."
Haha I had the exact same experience. I often listen to discussions sped up. This is the first time I considered slowing it down
I know. I gotta watch it on .75 speed
They’re so slow I watch it on x2 speed
@@mohammedhussain6749 Lol! Excellent!
Ben: Here's a question with an example for why I asked it
Ezra: Ok, so let me answer the question I wished you asked
Ben: ... ...
The whole damn interview
@@kevinj12345 😂
Jacob Donnelly 😂😂😂
Ben is looking like a saint there.
100%
Who ever decided equality is an American value? Liberty is an American value, a founding value, and is the antithesis of equality.
Antithesis of equity, root of equality *
John Knestis the only time the me founders mention equality is equality under the law.
In SSSR we had theoretical equal outcome, but in practice it was modern slavery. Comumunism in Europe was the most terrible social experiment :(...
@@macdietz you are correct. Equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome. Equity is the equality of outcome. Affirmative action is based on equity not equality.
Equality under the law is most definitely an American value.
Ben is outmatched
The ones with guests that disagree with Ben are the best
augustv123 who are the guests who disagree? Just curious to go back watch those episodes
@@bryceanderson1329 Andrew Yang, Larry Wilmore, Gloria Allred, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Bishop Barron (to some extent).
@@augustv123 Joe Rogan
Tucker Carlson
William Lane Craig
Klein: Let me ask you, why am i drinking out of a Leftist Tears mug?
Ben: Because it's funny. :)
omigodddd soooo trollzzzz hahahahhaha
Yes, I couldn't believe Ezra was seriously that offended over a mug that was is clearly meant as a joke. The man seriously needs to relax.
@@CarrieArt7 He seemed to re-group way in to the interview, and fessed up that it WAS funny, and wanted to keep it. ;)
@lalicatal That's exactly why he brought it up. Regardless of it being a joke, Ben is building up a straw man of an identity he wants you to hate, while at the same time lamenting the state of our politics.
@@pooperscoop Ben needed a term for the crew that astroturfs his sponsors, forced Crowder into demonetization, and has used violence to get speakers canceled, and he chose "leftists." You can quibble on his use of the term, but there's no doubt that this crew exists and that it poses an existential threat to the platform the tumblers were designed to promote.
Klein is smart. And Ben can't make a clear point against it.
This man skips over questions like he’s playing duck duck goose. He just chooses whatever topic he wants and ignores the question after 10 seconds of speaking about it.
Richy G that's pretty much Vox in a nutshell
Same old crap, of simply ignoring key points of logic and key flaws in logic. They SIMPLY IGNORE IT over and over and over and over until you stop asking about it. The usual defense is gaslighting of course...accuse the questioner of bias and poison the well, but that tactic doesn't work in this supposedly civil setting at conciliation, a conciliatory conversation with a very bright conservative. The ignorant tactics are laid bare when you play by traditional western rules of civility, hence why very few Leftists talk to conservatives like Ben.
Yes I have seen several interviews/podcasts with him and he is actually really good at it. It is a bit dishonest tho
I think what really just astonished me was his ability to rationalize his arguments by simply rejecting any definition that does not agree with his own. The whole conversation about the leftist tears for example. He knows and expresses to Ben that he understood his definition of Leftist and why he uses it, and yet as he is giving his opinion on the matter you see him make his judgement based on his own definition of what a leftist is. Which if you analyze what he’s saying, his definition clearly conflates leftist and liberal. Which made it seem as though Ben is trying to ostracize liberals or people that he simply disagrees with rather than the obvious, which is to make light of leftists, those who regularly try to shut him and other conservatives down. It’s so dishonest.
Liberals can’t debate facts so they talk in circles until the person questioning them just has to give up.
trying to give Ezra a shot here, but he comes across as such an unlikeable person. I will read his book though to hear his point of view.
Well.... watch this again, and watch how many questionable points Ben concedes to him and how often he is intentionally trying to bend Shapiro's arguments into something he can cudgel him with under the guise of trying to "understand what he is saying". That imbecile Cathy Newman on the BBC tried to do the same thing to Jordan Peterson and he rightly didn't go along with it. Ben is being far too conciliatory on a lot of the exchanges and giving too much away to this obviously intellectually dishonest statist.
Neither of these guys come across as particularly likable to me
johnvannewhouse I noticed his pregnant assumptions from Klein based on flat concessions by Shapiro.
It’s as though he’s read a book on how to do it, too, because it’s extremely transparent.
johnvannewhouse I think it’s the format. Ben would have been far more aggressive in a debate platform. He doesn’t want to scare away guests. Also, I feel like sometimes it’s good to just give ppl as much rope as they want...
Don’t waste money buying a book on what this guy thinks. Read plato or Aristotle
Ben def met his match with this one.
10 minutes in I already have a headache trying to digest Ezra's gymnastics. Political contortionist at its best...
Yes! Ben asks a question, he completely ignores it and explains what he wants about a passage in his book. Amazing.
The definition of terms is incredibly important. Have you ever seen Jordan Peterson debate? Peterson is constantly doubling back to clarify, and many times, conversation moves to a new topic before the completion of a previous one. When the new topic meets an injunction, it is often because of the need to explore a previous topic. This is actually a very good conversation. For me, I really tried to understand them both as humans who have some different points of view, and despite that, were able and willing to read each other’s work, be familiar with it, and sit down for 90 minutes and discuss some of their ideological differences. Now, being on camera to audiences, they may feel the entanglement of pride for their own point of view, but I think in genuinity they want to expand what they know so that they are incorrect less of the time moving forward.
@@OTPpride I agree, this one of the best Sunday Specials I've listened to, and iirc, what Ben actually envisioned for the Sunday Special, a conversation between him and someone else he disagrees with
Jaime Moreno jr I really do not know if I can make it through this garbage. 1 minute in and he already made me dislike him.
I made it 17 minutes in before I just had to take a break. Ezra is just too much of an effing idiot for me to continue watching. Going to go cleanse my mind of this garbage... maybe I’ll finish this interview later, or maybe I’ll never finish it. Lol. Ben is a Saint for putting up with this guy. Ha ha ha 🤪
Explanatory journalist = Propagandist
Explanatory journalist sounds like typical leftist double speak to me.
What journalism was he doing exactly? He didnt investigate jackshit, all he did was cherry pick available data and made bogus conclusions with it.
Dude.. this guy is so annoying
"I wanna go back to x because I think we aren't understanding" this is what the whole interview was
Fuuck
Nah. You just met left-wing Ben Shapiro.
Utopian Stone?
I'd like to credit both parties here for a great discussion. This is the type of level headed, informative discourse we need to make progress in our current political divide. Although Ben and Ezra disagree on a rudimentary level, they both made references in their arguments that viewers can weigh and look into themselves to form their own opinion. Bravo.
Having said that, I think Ben's disposition is outmatched by Ezra, there is a natural advantage at play because Ezra's argument is more grounded. As someone who listens a lot to Ben, and to echo other comments and Ezra's criticism from the video, I believe he does lack empathy, enjoys making provocative statements, and monetizes the abrasiveness of his persona. I think When countered with an empathetic, well researched counter argument, his disposition collapses and he deflects with boilerplate conservative / libertarian arguments, that appear to be an automated response and less a formative counterpoint. I hope for his opinion to continue to evolve as it has over time, for instance in regards to governments role on social issues.
To be fair Ben is a bit more honest and direct in terms of communication throughout a conversation/ debate. Perfect example is when they talk about equality of outcome or reparations if tried today. Ezra consciously skips over that certain sets of people would HAVE to face oppression to get there. Ben makes sure to bring that up and they go to another point about ideology or polarization.
Brian Rodriguez agreed on this point, this is one of Ezra’s weaker arguments and one I disagree with. There are more productive ways to level the playing field other than reparations and I believe we can do more than we are already doing. Where I disagree with Ben is that I do not believe increased police presence and funding is the clear / only solution. I think when Ben talks about fixing black / inner city issues, he over simplifies it. His lack of empathy and true understanding for the situation, in relation to systematically racist policies, shows.
Jonathan Van Ostenbridge agreed. Had the same conversation with another person about Ben. I think the increase in police would help IF police officers were vetted better. That is a whole other conversation as there are many good cops and many bad ones. We get to a place where there are almost no bad ones, we get to a place where more police may work.
Thanks for engaging in civil and mature discourse in the YT section, gents. Hard to come by these days. One point I would Add is that the goal should be to require less policing altogether. Yes we need to vet better from the outset but we should be aspiring towards a society where police aren’t dealing with the deep criminal elements. In order to do so we necessarily need to think long term and focus resources on education, healthcare, arts, culture and other vectors that take longer to impact communities but when they do, resolve a lot of the issues we are dealing with in the first place. This funding can easily come out of wasteful military and police budgets (and yes both are EXTREMELY wasteful). I feel like more people need to take a look at what folks are doing in other countries and realize what’s possible.
I think Ben was also being a proper host to Ezra. Ezra did a lot of interrupting and did the majority of the talking, as he should since he's there to sell a book and get his views on the table. And Ben did a great job at giving him "conversational right-of-way" throughout the podcast. Its easy to be convinced more by the person who talks the most, especially when they're both as eloquent as persuasive as Ben and Ezra.
That being said, I pretty much agree with you across the board. I also think Ezra's arguments were much more grounded, but he often didn't have to defend his premise. You could argue that Ezra and Vox fan the flames of division very similar to Ben and The Daily Wire, just not as overtly. I think if pushed far enough, you'll hit some circular logic of pointing out the problem with identity politics while also playing that game constantly.
All in all, it's made me reflect on my own beliefs and I wish they'd do this again, maybe a few more times.
9:15 things are more polarized cause of people like you Ezra. You shifted the narrative and now you’re complaining about it??? Smh 🤦🏻♂️ hell, Ezra made up a new definition for liberal, at the start of this convo.
EXACTLY.
Kudos to Ben for letting this pompous ass continue to ramble on and on...
Really? Maybe you should read the mug again.
One side wants to mind their own business and be ledt alone.
The other side hates them and their autonomy so they can't leave them alone.
Avenus112 ... wow. So true...
This is a funny comment because I’m sure both sides think their the first one.
@@gamergeek8933 Right? But the vox-ite social justice warriors are the acutal transgressing against people and looting themselves their property. In their minds they fight dragons, but outside their minds they are the dragons.
@@Avenus112 oh I agree, but when I ready your comment I though oh that's exactly what it is. Then the more I read it the more it looked like it could be just as easily turned around.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions and they are paving as fast as they can.
@@gamergeek8933 for sure it does invert well, especially for social and foreign policy.
Ezra has Patrick Deneen on his podcast to discuss “why liberalism failed” and treated him very well. Sharp guy
Listening to Ezra and Sam Harris argue was one of the most painful experiences.
Ethan Surland At least Sam Harris isn’t on the board of the DNC propaganda team
This was much more tolerable than Harris & Klein
There's a similar thing going on here.
"You are a....? ". "Why do you...?" "Why did you...?"
Piles of personal accusations, then not accepting any answer other than the one that matches his preconceptions.
I refuse i just came to read the comments.
@Beau Peep There were actually two.
One of them was so bad that Sam tried again.
I challenge you to get to the end of either of them.
Listening to two whining gits trying everything to obfuscate the original issue rather than aiming for clarity is unlistenable.
Here's one of them.
samharris.org/podcasts/123-identity-honesty/
I can’t stand what Ezra Klein has done to ignorant college youth.
So he is the Milo of the left?
@@smithfan22 What has Milo done? He has been banned from almost all platforms & has even been physically attacked,
when he spoke at universities.
MC3 News MCOC Concierge I’m so pissed at the left, just reading the comments is enough to see EZRA KLEIN IS AN UNREPENTANT BIGOT and probably a Chinese Communist Agent. If the left isn’t apologizing and repenting of its racist ways I’m okay with using THEIR standards ON them: Deplatform Ezra Forever. USA 🇺🇸 > communist elites
Hats off to Ben for being willing to talk with him.
whitexchina Even if I like Milo, he just tries to inflame discussions. Even if it’s fun to,look at, it’s not constructive.
Atsef Divad first of all what the fuck is a communist elite. Second, how is he racist, and third how is he a chines agent, he’s talked so much about how the CCP is a horrible organization and how their human rights record is bad and how they should be no longer be in the G7
I'll start by saying that I like Ben, and many of his positions on things.
With that said, Ben's fundamental failing in his logic (which I think is blinded by anti-empathy) is that he claims that he is for equality of opportunity, but neglects to recognise that the vast majority of economic opportunities in the United States are available to people with starting capital.
Can your family afford a top private school, or can your family afford to move to a neighbourhood with a good public school, can you afford to focus on your school work in high school, or do you have to work two jobs to try and help your single mother pay the bills, take grades out of the equation - not everyone can win that scholarship - can you pay for college without a crippling loan, or can you get one of the very few jobs in America (banking, tech, law, etc) that will let you pay down your loans in a realistic time frame that doesn't determine your economic future, can your family help you with a down payment on a home, or are you paying rent (and building someone else's net worth) while you try to pay down your loans. Do you have enough starting capital to start that new business. Or are you working for a salary because you are stuck paying your rent and loans, and can't see a way out.
And all of that starts again when you have kids, and they go to school, and this is now their reality.
If you're a supporter of equality of opportunity, forget reparations, government has to set a fundamentally even playing field. Free and universally high-quality public schools, free merit-based university and vocational training, free health care, and a universal basic income floor to take fear and anxiety out of the performance equation for children trying to get educated.
Let kids focus on growing up, applying themselves, getting educated or trained up, and then the free market can figure out what jobs they can be competitive in. It's good for the kids. It's good for the economy. End.
Okay so how do we go about accomplishing these "free" programs? More taxes or what?
@@innerdescent8210 Yeah. Taxes. VAT on transactions (revenue taxation, not profit) on the biggest revenue companies in the country. Many currently pay no tax at all.
If there isn't an investment in helping people who are falling behind, all that's going to happen is that they'll become an electoral majority, and they'll vote for politicians that promise to take money from the rich. The longer the country waits to do this, the harsher the backlash will be.
Currently 50% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Wait until that's 60%. 60% is a majority in the senate, and change can be forced through. Then you'll have a populist movement (similar to what Donald Trump was elected on), but with someone at the helm who will really go after everyone who is doing well, because that's what the 60% will be demanding by that point. That has happened countless times over the course of history, and history always repeats itself.
If there isn't a political consensus soon that the country needs to invest in its people then it's not going to end well.
And beyond just narrowing the income inequality gap for political stability, investing in the population's education and health is just that, an investment. A better educated workforce will reduce reliance on social programs in later life, while providing more skilled workers in areas of growth, and in turn improving the country's competitiveness on the international stage.
I'm very open to exploring any counter arguments to the above?
@@nickstirling1449 I understand why you want to improve the lives of those in poverty I truly do, I wish all Americans (all humans for that matter) were prosperous and had the lives they wanted. That being said, taxing the rich will just cause them to move out of the country. The top earners pay the majority of taxes already so making them pay even more is just breaking backs at that point. I get where you would want a majority vote to change things, but with the electoral college we currently have that's not going to happen. Oftentimes when the populous votes one way, their electoral representatives vote another. I'm not against you in this, I just think taking from one group of people and giving to another will create disparities and is immoral. I look forward to your response though, I like civil discussions.
@@innerdescent8210 thanks for continuing the civil discourse! We appear to have found a little pocket of civility on the internet, who would have thought!
So I hear you about the idea of taxing the rich, and them departing the country as taxpayers. My counter to that is that if you tax companies (not individuals) for benefiting from the US economy, and you do so on revenue, not profit, (eg a VAT, not a corporate profits tax), then if a company wants to benefit from selling to the massive US consumer market, they will have to accept that there has to be a contribution to to the country through taxation. They can't reap the benefits for free - that just doesn't make any sense.
If they choose to leave to avoid the tax, then they simply miss out the world's largest market, which would be insane. That's like refusing the most amazing, unforgettable, and free, all you can eat gourmet buffet, because you're asked to pay a couple bucks as a tip to the waiter.
And to be clear. From a completely selfish point of view, and in complete isolation of society at large, my wife and I benefit from low taxation and status quo. But what do I think is the right course for the country, and a utilitarian future, eg what is best for the most people, and for the benefit of the country as a whole? It's reinvesting in people, for a stable future, a healthy, happy and skilled workforce, and a competitive economy on the world stage.
If the states doesn't get serious about lifting people up, the country will fall light-years behind China, which has no respect for human rights or freedom, but has lifted more people up into the middle class than any country in history. Bottom line is, through authoritarianism, China has found a recipe for economic growth that the western world is struggling to keep up with. We've got to find a way to out-compete, and that will not be by just claiming that rich people, who have benefited from the economic landscape that has been paved by the working class, will just refuse to foot the bill, if we ask them to give back to investing in the future of the US work force.
I'd add, I'm also not a big proponent for welfare state. I think that if adult incentives are too good, we disincentivise productivity. Said another way, lots of people will choose not to work if there is no relative financial incentive to do so.
But the same doesn't apply to the children of people who would sit back and give up...
If parents can't or won't encourage and support their own children to achieve in life (which is sadly far too much the norm in many low income communities) it is self destructive for the country legislatively to accept mediocrity and give up on these kids.
We already accept that the country provides welfare - we don't just accept that millions of people should starve to death. So what is a better investment - find the money to invest in our youth and their future productive value in the economy, or wait for them to fail and have to bail them out on welfare for most of their lives anyway. Door number three is cut welfare entirely, and watch society unravel, and violent crime destroy our way of life.
I don't even think I'm being an especially benevolent person by taking this position. It's just logic, both from the perspective of 'love thy neighbour' as much as from that of 'I want to make sure my family has a bright future'. Just seems common sense to me.
Anyway - hope we're still on good terms, and looking forward to any further thoughts or comments, as we try to solve the world's problems! :)
Michael O’Neil thanks for commenting. Not sure I follow the point you are making though.
Oh man this might be a hard one to watch. Omfg he wrote a BOOK about our polarization?? He is entirely emblematic of our polarization.
It was an awful interview. I cringed. He's so arrogant
Marie Neff I don’t think the interview was awful. Ben was respectful and asked good questions to challenge Ezra. But you’re right about Ezra himself. He’s definitely got that NPR “I’m so much smarter and more cultured than you peasants” vibe.
Welcome to leftists always project.
Especially after his interview with Harris. Ezra said that it was incumbent on Sam Harris to explain why he was in the same boat as racist. That is ONE hell of a way to frame your opponent.
@@patrick_dy3r I get that vibe instantly from him.
I didn't hear him say he's depleting his wealth to help all the people wanting handouts instead of working
It's very easy to be charitable with other people's money
Well it's only fair, he must stand down and let a POC, trans woman, gay, little person run Vox.
I agree, Marie. With so many leftists, it is "Do as I say, not as I do."
@@mariussiderkevicius8112 because I have something very sinister to hide.
A typo
he donates 10% minimum of his annual income to charity. he said it on his podcast
This was such a great talk.
Big props to Ben for having anybody on his show, even this guy. Thanks Ben for having and showing us conversations like this.
Interviewing someone like this is a great way to expose the deficiencies in their worldview
I think more conservatives should have conversations like this with lefties (assuming the conservative is as patient as Ben).
Ezra can't back down because his status and finances are tied to his ideology. The common lefty has only their pride at stake and when their pride is faced against overwhelming truth, some will actually change their minds.
Crimea River we try my friend. We try. All of my liberal friends refuse to have a conversation about anything that matters because they know the gospel and I need to get in line or shut up. There is not talking sense to leftists.
Conversations are so important. I want to know what moves people to argue certain things and let us common folk understand how and why certain people think the way they do and the other way around.
Yeah, "anybody", what about Nick Fuentes ?
A few minutes in, Klein says that the liberal ethos has always been one that sees people's life path defined by luck and chance, and thus is intrinsically unfair and must be corrected... and THAT is basically all you need to know about the ideology of him and his ilk. In the past, that was presumably not the liberal message (it used to be one of freedom/liberty I think? Forgive me I'm fairly young), and now it is a message of envy and jealousy which breeds all manner of other toxic sentiment: resentment, anger, hate, authoritarianism, divisive tribalism, and ingratitude among many others. That is the wickedness of leftism, not liberalism, and it has rebirthed socialism. From what I can tell, the right wing (particularly the libertarian branch) are now the keepers of true liberalism.
The main ingredient that is broadly missing in left-wing politics is the concept of the individual. Without this concept there is no sense of personal (individual) responsibility, without the protection of individual freedoms society will inevitably become authoritarian.
Their ideology is centered on the idea that one's lack of success can never be their fault. Everyone is a entirely victim of circumstances, therefore there is no meritocracy possible. Suggesting that one has any control over their own fate is inherently judgemental which is a notion that repulses them.
My thoughts exactly. Historical liberalism is the exact opposite of what Ezra describes just on the 2nd minute of the interview, instead of equality and high trust in the government it once stood for freedom, individualism and distrust of government and any accumulation of power. American conservatism and most libertarians are all that remain in the world that stands for these principles that made the first world in the prosperous countries that are they are today.
@@daniellamunoz8894 This is correct. What Ezra describes is pretty much the textbook definition of Leftism.
Liberalism should be for freedom and for letting everyone have more access to freedom. The definition of liberty: the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.
That used to be what liberals were fighting for. When fighting for blacks (in the US or SA) or women (throughout the world), they were fighting for those people to have the same freedoms as everyone else.
Now they're fighting for those people to have more freedom than everyone else, which of course restricts the access to liberty of the "everyone else".
I think you're right that the left things see things more as a matter of circumstances than personal decision. However, I don't think that automatically translates into things like tribalism or authoritarianism.
Benny isn’t as smart when he ain’t debating stoned 20 year olds
Oh and another important thing, we are NOT a democracy! We are a Constitutional Republic.
A republic is a form of democracy you dumbass! Literally every scholar left or right agrees that a republic is a form of democracy. By that logic there are no "democracies" in the world. Just other republics.
@@drew3953 ok. but it's a better form of democracy because it doesn't come down to mob rule. it's a representative democracy which is also called a republic. when people say its a republic, it's because that's the proper name for our government. to just assume it's a straight democracy is a silly. and we also have different parameters for our democratic system.
@@dubiousprime2021 I'd agree with that to an extent. But again there are no straight democracies in the world. Should we just never use the word democracy? 😂 Because again, but that logic there are no democracies.
@@drew3953 i have no particular problem with democracies, but just using the term "democracy" fails to acknowledge the different types. to say we are a republic does in fact differentiate the term. i could go even higher and say we are an "American republic" to further differentiate between other republics. this is really a semantics game at this point, but vocabulary gets muddled. so through that long drawn out statement i just made; no we should never use the word democracy. it certainly has a place, but differentiating the type of democracy and it's purpose for governance is entirely different. again, sorry if my dialogue was too long.
@@dubiousprime2021 but there are many different types of Republics, that is not any more descriptive lol. If there are no true "democracies" and there are only Republics, then that actually weakens your point. Because there are massive differences between our Republic and every other Republic in the world.
Hands down the greatest ziprecruiter ad of all time.
brandon hiles You Knowles it.
I think the lesson is that these conversations are a lot more difficult and a lot more productive for the audience when you have them with intelligent well informed people on the other side rather than useful idiots on school campuses
Identity politics is quite literally meant to divide and polarize people by separating citizens into hierarchical groups based on their Race, gender, and sexual orientation, with the group deemed the most historically oppressed being given the moral high ground, regardless of any other circumstances
Well said!
It's funny that Ben actually tries to help Ezra understand this. Peterson -who is clearly miles ahead of Ben in terms of his ability to explain burdensome concepts - has already tried to help him see the light on this topic, and he couldn't get through to him. But hey, Ben has to do his job so...
I applaud his efforts, but the man doesn't know the difference between shared experiences and identity. Has no clue on political beliefs, or how people actually reach them.
By the way, if you buy newspapers I hear on good authority that the Guardian, Daily Mail, New York Times, Vox, etc, make good toilet paper. I respectfully disagree because I've never wiped my ass with other peoples shit.
Ezra Steel-manning Shapiro's argument at 14:50 is so refreshing. Demonstrates his integrity. Ben could learn a lot from him
Ben: "Dailywire we're openly conservative, Vox is a left wing publication."
Ezra: "You can't read Vox and not know we're left of center. But I wouldn't call us a liberal publication. "
People with IQs above 70: "What the f***k???" 🤯 And now Ezra has no credibility. Thank you.
@@Zingy16 Oh. So you're his interpreter?? LOL...see I don't have to interpret anything Ben Shapiro says, because he says what he thinks. Ben will clarify himself, if he feels he needs to. But the fact that Ezra needs little fanboys like you to explain what HE said, just proves my point. Thanks! 👍
@@glenn6029 you sound like a fanboy
@@Zingy16 You aren't picking up on the broader deception in his words. He's trying to lead you into a false perspective based on speculative intent rather than the stuff they actually publish. Vox is a left wing publication by their deeds; it doesn't matter how Ezra Klein fancies it.
yeah, it seems at best unnecessary. Like Ben Shapiro runs a conservative publication, but if the overton window shifted significantly to the right the daily wire might not longer be considered conservative. I think that's an obvious thing.
Dont be dumb. Klein literally said that he doesn't want to box his publication with an ideology as labels change and vary from people to people. Did you mute him and only listen to Shapiro?
Best thing Ezra ever has done was allow for Crowders Mug Club to be built so strong thanks Vox !!!!
This guy was fairly reasonable in some aspects and more aggressive than some other leftists on the show, good interview. Thanks for coming on
Just started watching and no, “hey, hey” to start. This is an ominous sign for sure.
240guy and no piano outro after Klein’s clip about coming onto Ben’s show.
Like if Ben Shapiro is a legend
Ben: "I agree with every single argument that purports that systemic racism is real."
Ben immediately after: "Ahhhh, but it still wouldn't be possible to help black people anyway."
I started with nothing. I didn't get money, i didn't get a car, i didn't get shit. I got a happy 18th birthday and i went from working a highschool job to digging ditches full time. Made enough to take care of myself and get what i need to live, often times less than comfortably. I starved more than once, but I'm good now.
It's not supposed to be easy. You're supposed to have to sacrifice. You're supposed to be uncomfortable at times. If you think anyone got what they have easily, you aren't watching close enough. What do people need help with?
@@a_mustache_of_great_repute the winners fallacy, I won, you can too! The motto of all self help gurus.
@@NUCJESUS its not a fallacy. Nobody in this world is better or worse than you. The only difference is how hard they work and how smart they move, and that they aren't a giant weeping pussy talking about how they started with such a "disadvantage" yeah fuck off losers. Starting with nothing isn't a disadvantage, it's the baseline.
bushbeard_ the_great_and_terrible_hermit Yes it fucking is. You are a fucking outlier and you know it. In the US if you are born poor you are more likely to stay poor for wealthy people it is the same.
A Jew arguing the merits of race-based politics + big gov't and "righting historical wrongs"... lack of self-awareness to the max!
The man debating him is also a Jew mind you, and one who's actually a practicing Jew.
@Buttercup I'm Jewish and oppose those concepts, most Israelis are right leaning as well. Liberal Jews are just that, liberal Jews. But we don't group think and are very divided on political issues. I hope to see a mass migration to the Republican party of Jews come the election, alongside a mass migration of black voters. God bless.
I dunno guys in the comments LOL
this seems like a pretty damn good conversation for two very high standing pundits operating on COMPLETELY different political poles. They were civilized, they both made some jabs for sure, but I expected WAY WORSE from Ezra Klein and thought this conversation was going to be WAY more inflammatory.
But it wasn’t. This may be a new bridge across the aisle. Thoughts?
Edit: I mean come on he said he was happy to take a Leftist tears tumblr and that it is actually funny. That sounds pretty good to me hahahahah
Right wingers are the real snowflakes. Look how much everybody in bens comment section is crying. Lol
Titanic The Greatest Ice Bucket Challenge how about no? White supremacists nationalists on the right and anti-fa social justice warrior types on left are the cry Bavaria. The rest of the Bell Curve, an overwhelming majority of people, just want to have reasonable dialogue and figure all this stuff out. The people in the comments section here seem to make up the vocal minority but I don’t think it’s representative. I’m always trying to find common ground and even with people who I think are REALLY far out there, if I dig deep enough and usually endure a TON of character attacks and abuse (for me, it comes exclusively from anti-Trumpers), I fond common ground. It’s a little painful but worth it. :)
Titanic The Greatest Ice Bucket Challenge but I do love your username that’s fucking funny lol
@UCOT58r9dCMshGUGeJvkgXTA I agree. The only Sunday special I enjoyed more than this, was the one with Sam Harris.
Let us all appreciate the fact that these two intellectuals who have different ideologies had a meaningful and a civilized debate despite having disagreements
Ezra makes a great point about Ben, that when he's 1:1 like this, he's very respectful and articulate about trying to find common ground. Whereas on his more regular monologue shows he goes as far as possible to be inflammatory to the opposing side and then uses that combustion back against the target of that inflammation. It's because inflammation sells. More people are more likely to click on contact that shows conflict and in turn sows more division. The left does it too. This isn't a solely Ben Shipiro thing or solely a conversative thing. This is a tactic of online commentators because its works in bringing in a huge audience. Nothing groups people together more than conflict. The irony is that judging by this comment section, lots of people from both sides actually enjoy this sort of intellectual jousting. I wish Ben did much more of this. I enjoy his analysis and I find it much more helpful to understand his opposing arguments and consequently is much more helpful in progress. It's a shame that the inflammatory tactics of both sides prevail.
17:00 BAM... That is a perfect example of How identity politics is flawed. They are both Jewish and share the Jewish experience but it does not align them politically. They both face anti-semitism but that doesn't align them politically.
@@kg356 Not even because of their identity, but rather because of their morals. For example, I'm not Jewish, yet I still support combating anti-Semitism.
@@aiRCoft yes, but if you were Jewish, you may feel more inclined to stop anti-semitism, since you may have experienced it directly. What the right calls "identity-politics" is, really, just politics. One's identity is integral to the perspective one has on the world, and the perspective one has on the world is integral to one's political views. Therefore, identity is link directly to politics. It's not 'liberals' or 'leftists' who have created or invented this link, it's just there, we simply have to acknowledge it.
@@vvvsss796 If that were true, how would two Jews have such opposing views and political stances? Wouldn't each group be on the same page, if their race/religion/culture/whatever determined their "identity", and their identity determined their political views? The fact that two people can be the same race, religion, culture, etc., and still have vastly differing political opinions, invalidates your argument, and suggests _personal_ experiences and _personal_ identity play a far more important role in one's political views than whatever other 'similar' people believe. Under 'identity politics', if someone who fits the same 'identity' (race, religion, culture, etc.) as someone else doesn't agree with their political views, how is that even possible, given that type of "identity" correlates to political views? Or would you simply deny those with differing views of their identities?
@@aiRCoft because there's more to politics than anti-semitism, and there's more to people's identity than whether they're a jew or not. That, combined with the fact that identity, either personal or collective, is not *all* that matters when deciding one's political perspectives, is the reason why they are able to be ideologically opposite.
Nobody's suggesting that identity is the only, or even the deciding factor in what someone believes politically; we're just recognizing that it's bound to have some impact.
@@vvvsss796 Of course there are many different groups you can classify people to be part of, Judaism is just the main one we're discussing. Nevertheless, my statements remain true when in the context of any group, not only for Jews, they're just the example we were using, as it pertains to the video and original comment I replied to.
People absolutely do argue that identity determines political stances. Are you familiar with Sleepy Joe Biden's statement about not being black if you vote for Trump? That's not just some guy saying that, that's THE left's presidential candidate, he's the one they chose to represent them... If you want to generalize, start with him.
Have you seen the videos or heard the accounts of black people disparaging other black people for their political differences, even spitting on them and calling them "Uncle Tom"s, and that sort of thing? That's the direct outcome of "identity politics", solely, which divides people into groups rather than seeing them as individuals, and if you don't perfectly fit into their group, based on their form of classification, then they reject your identity all together.
The Sunday Special, now with Ezra's authoritarian finger wagging "This isn't a conversation, I'm talking."
Exactly what I said after listening to this guy, he kept telling Ben to let him finish his point, then continuously interrupts Ben...pretty obvious he's not interested in the least to hearing the other side, that would be ok, but he pretends he is interested when he's not!!
That's okay, that was the point of having Ezra come on here in the first place. Now the world knows Ezra's views on the power of identity politics match that of Adolf Hitler.
@@peggyharris3301 He thinks he's already worked out what the other side believes and where their arguments are rooted.
@@robbiemedica2652
Don't they all do that ?
Um Ezra is the guest who Ben invited to speak about his beliefs. If you want a Shapiro monologue watch his show
What’s interesting about this comment section is so much of it is about who won or lost or how people hate Ezra. Those comments are literally reinforcing Ezra’s point--that party has become an identity. Rather than debate ideas on their merits it is how my guy or your guy won. I think we have to get away from that stuff. Anyway kudos to Ben for hosting Ezra. Please don’t kill me for posting.
lol Ezra couldn’t go 5 minutes without being condescending. Immediately took serious issue with the “Leftist Tears” mug and started virtue signaling. It’s good fun dude. Have a laugh.
Their LITERAL tears after the election, with even dry-eyed leftists saying that others tears were justified in politics, is what caused it. Their entire tone is juvenile, and the Leftist Tears mug is a perfect response.
Your low self esteem is showing. He was extremely polite and soft spoken in this interview. Politeness is now considered virtual signaling 🤦🏾♀️
Never thought I'd see this guy on The Ben Shapiro Show.
He is really expanding horizons. He had a Liberal college professor on last week
@@jamesbraun9842 let's hope it continues. I'm sick and tired of Tribal Lines being prioritized even in the face of a Pandemic.
Apparently Shapiro invites a host of left wingers, but they usually decline to be on his show
It's even more hilarious when you realize the reverse would NEVER happen on Vox. This clown would never allow Shapiro a fair interview on his platform.
And now I wish I never have...🤬🤬
I’m 20 mins in. Ezra is the only one who’s provided any evidence for his arguments, and Shapiro’s retort appears to be “but actually trying to achieve equality of opportunity would require genocide!” He’s actually trying to frame attempts to correct an injustice committed on a racial basis is itself racist just for acknowledging the racial nature of the problem. Restate any of Shapiro’s arguments in plain language and they’re obviously insane.
He’s getting absolutely steamrolled here.
You completed misquoted Shapiro. The reason Ezra had more evidence is because he's literally referencing his own book which is the subject of the entire conversation...
Freddy Bell I’m not quoting him, I’m paraphrasing his argument. And they weren’t talking about the subject of his book, they were talking about affirmative action.
Yeah I also disagree w affirmative action but for the reasons that it would be counterproductive in achieving the equality of opportunity we’re looking for. Ben should have engaged on that level, not on an argument that considering race in policy is racist.
FRNKNSTNmusic White women are the biggest benefactors of Affirmative Action.
He's very good at saying 4 things that I agree with. And then sneaking in that argument one thing that I don't. and that one thing is what is supporting his whole argument.
Booni and when Ben calls him on it he changes the subject.
@@lukebeaulieu3794 Yeah he never actually get's to the point. There is no proof of the next line of reasoning.
He basically says a bunch of things I agree with. And then I go "yeah....so what's your point". And then he'll sneak in his stance, and I'll be sitting there like how the hell did you arrive at that conclusion.
he's a good arguer. But his stance isn't based on reason.
“I don’t want Vox in the position for what it has is an identity in liberal publication” 😂😂😂 ya already failed there pal
No he didn't. He isn't the owner of Vox, he can't call vox anything cause it's not his'
I actually liked his answer. As he explained, political definitions can shift, but he would like to be consistent with his values. He doesn't disagree (or even hide) that Vox's politics are left in the current moment. I see no issue.
I didn’t want to give Klein a chance as the only time I had seen him was debating Sam Harris, and I thought Klein was way off-kilter. But here he seemed much more logical and could stand toe to toe with Shapiro
Rico Belled foot to foot
Toe to toe. Lol. I’m not sure that’s a compliment. One uses facts and logic. The other is a right wing grifter.
This guy is very hard to listen to. It seems like he won't let Ben ask his questions
Exactly, he tells Ben to let him finish his points but interrupts Ben continuously and rambles on and on and on...disgusting...
It is deliberate
If he let Ben ask the questions for an entire hour, it would be too obvious he answered ZERO questions. Ezra is word vomit in skinny jeans.
@@sealevelbear Like a kid right out of liberal college indoctrination.
See Thomas Sowell for a very in depth look into the shady uses of household income vs median income in statistics.
Link to his specific argument you are referencing?
@@mattsimnitt1420 don't think you can link on this channel, but here's an excerpt from a column:
"Household income statistics can be very misleading in other ways. The number of people per household is different among different racial or ethnic groups, as well as from one income level to another, and it is different from one time period to another."
In this case you'd have to ask yourself why Ezra is referencing head of household income rather than individual income. Without having access to the stats he's referencing I'd guess that in Black families the head of household is much more likely to be younger and also more likely to be a single mom - both groups statistically make less due to reasons other than discrimination.
@@mattsimnitt1420He has written articles for decades. I'd check out his books. On this subject in particular you can read "economic facts and fallacies".
He has spoken to Congress a few times over years, as well. You can find one on UA-cam where he is, in my opinion, treated very badly by Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy about 30 years ago.
@@mattsimnitt1420 Honestly, just think about it.
If rates of single parenthood are way higher among black households, then that means they have half as many adults to make money in the household.
If a 67 year old white married couple who have worked for 40 years each retire and own their house, they'll own more than a 67 year old single mother who still has some house notes to make.
@@mattsimnitt1420 UA-cam is notoriously bad with links sticking around in the comments so I'll point you in the right direction. Google search for this: "Misleading Statistics by Dr. Thomas Sowell." That will get you to the article in question as well as a search page loaded with Sowell's thoughts. Enjoy!
To me, this shows that there are smart, actual liberals such as Ezra willing to take on conservatives in the public sphere (we need more of that). Sorry, Rubin agreeing with all the conservatives is not enough.
You can see that Ben is challenged on a lot of points. It’s better than people worshipping him for “DESTROYING” a 22 yr old first year gender studies student, then claiming Ben is the best debater ever.
Liberals and leftist don't consider Dave Rubin a liberal and haven't considered him one for probably well over a year if not two years.
Dave Rubin is a grifter. he completely changed his views in matter of months. He went from saying he's a Bernie Sanders supporters who will hold President Trump accountable to openly criticising Liberals and leftist and having dinner with Trump at Mar la go.
Him claiming himself to be a liberal and yet agreeing constantly with conservatives is why guys like Sam Seder just tore into him constantly.
And Tim Pool is heading in the same direction.
If you go to Dave Rubin Subreddit they have a pinned post about his grift to the far right.
There are a lot of lefties who are out there that have these convos.
kumar01234 Liberals are generally better educated then conservatives.
Ezra's points are weak , so was talking over Ben.
@@kumar01234 so if you had a cogent argument that convinced me of something counter to what I thought before, I should hesitate to suddenly change my mindset because people will call me a grifter or weak mind person. Or is it okay if I agree with you?
I looked up 'smarmy' in the dictionary and it was just a picture of Ezra Klein.
Ha!
It's listed under phony too.
Lol
Yes! Perfect word for him.
Jarful of Love I had to look up the word “smarmy” in the dictionary to get this joke. What do you know, indeed there was a picture of this guy there
On TDS awareness day this November wear an Orange ribbon and give a Red pill to anyone you know who suffers.
LOL! Very clever. May I use it?
I see a movement in the making
I am on the far left and am only here to follow my dear Ezra. Ezra here makes me proud as usual.
I would need a bottle of Xanex to get through a conversation with Ezra Klein
22:47 Uh oh! Michael Knowles in so much trouble, that he makes the Ziprecruiter ad! LMAO. 🤣
Xenina In California Jeremy always does him dirty haha it’s hilarious
What did Knowles do, doesnt he still work there
lpetar p of course. If you pay attention they always pick on him for fun it’s hilarious
I just want to say, to both of you, thank you for sitting down and talking.
Pass, sorry I can't watch the guy who somehow got me to sympathize with Sam Harris talk about how he needs to "deradicalize" me. He is clearly just a bad actor on the political stage and anything done legally that hurts him or his organization is fair game so far as I am concerned.
He says we're a "Democracy" ..... we are a "Constitutional Republic".. let's get the identity straight.....
I know. Omgggg.
Democracy and Republic are not mutually exclusive terms. We are both.
A lot of inherent animosity for Klein the comments. I have that for Shapiro. I appreciated that Klein refused to be talked over or bullied out of the conversation. This was a good conversation.
You know what, the fact Ezra came on this show really does give me respect. Like many are pointing out, he isn’t very open and has weird ideas, but come on what did we expect. He came on the show, good on him
How is Ben Shapiro open .I give him credit for bringing Ezra on but Ben is just as “unopen”
"he isn't very open and has weird ideas"
Translation: he disagrees with Ben
Ben Shapiro isn't the most open minded individual neither.
Why doesn’t Ezra blink? Was he produced In the same factory as Zuck-borg?
They cry so much in private that their eyes are always at peak moistness.
@@Nurgleoneshot omg 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
He has those black, glazed over beady shark eyes too. Alex Jones talked about it on the Joe Rogan podcast, it's the drugs they take and the activities they partake in. Pure evil.
Those concave rear surfaces of those glasses reflect water vapor leaving his eyes right back into them.
People call destiny the liberal Ben. This guy is a contender
Ben asks question, Ezra asks and answers different question...
More like Ben pivots to something else and Ezra tries to keep the subject on track
@@johnathanreyes118 lol not at all. Ben tries to have a real debate on the core issues (i.e. why is it good to discriminate against whites via affirmative action) where Ben can really win, and this dude just pivots with word vomit back to his main, and pointless, definitional claim
E “If the question’s framework is incorrect”... ??? The question is the question. What you are describing is called “spin” or “deception”. And if you really think that spinning questions to avoid answering is acceptable then either you are a politician or gullible. If you are not a politician do me a favor and stay away from Kool Aid. It’s poison... the Kool Aid is poison
@E You're just smashing words together in the attempt to justify Ezra not answering the question or responding topically. "Framework"? What you really mean is "babble about my general opinions without answering the question". It's a very common technique that is factually not debate since it doesn't address the point, it steps around the point so the speaker, Ezra, can spew his opinions free from interrogation
@E it wasnt long winded, I was explaining why. As for your "dont get upset bro" attitude you've got going on, just shove it dude. And to the point - yes, this was more of an "let ezra preach his sermon" setting, unfortunately, but since Ben is sitting there, there must naturally be some debate due to the disagreement.
I got up very early this morning so that I could watch and listen to the Ben Sharpiro and Ezra Klein Debate because I am so determined to be able to understand both sides.
Ezra makes the continuous, constant and emphatically clear argument about "fairness". Actually, I think, Conservatives agree with much about the morality of fairness. The book that has helped me the most is THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt
. Haidt (who is a liberal but also a scientist) states that we are predisposed and driven by personality to disagree on six areas of moral foundation. Fairness is only one of the six.
Haidt states that research indicates that there are those who can make an argument on all six or at least see all six tend to be conservative. Research shows that the majority of conservatives who are asked to "just pretend they are liberal or leftist and argue issues" can actually do pretty good. Haidt (who is liberal) states that research indicates that a leftist is unable to "just pretend they are conservative and argue an issue"
During the debate, when Ben would bring up any of the other five moral arguments, Ezra shifted the conversation back to "fairness" -- which Ben (and most conservatives) actually can see and agree with. Ezra was unable or unwilling to debate (for example) the "Sanctity/Degradation" or "Authority/Subversion" moral arguments or the fear of an over-reaching government.
THE RIGHTEOUS MIND has done the most for me to be able to "think from both sides"
Thanks for this very interesting debate..
Here is a liberal youtuber reviewing Haidt's book. She does a pretty good job.
ua-cam.com/video/6UDY0FWvUtA/v-deo.html
Dayum Bonnie!
Thanks for sharing Marble Jar Channel & the Haidt's book.
Your observation is an interesting one.
Taking your example of wanting to see a discussion on 'over-reaching government', I think this is something that Klein didn't want to rehash - he mentioned this debate is centuries old. This ideological difference isn't where the political science is moving forward rather his observations is that the sorting of political parties is new and that's where he's advancing the 'literature'.
Also, I saw this as it never 'leaving' the fairness axis because Shapiro & Klein never resolved the ingoing question of the debate on identity politics, the gradations / existence of it or its fairness when applied (e.g. reparations).
Hey Ben,
I'm more of a liberal than I am a conservative but I still watch you and your show all the time.
You still liberal after this Biden disaster ?
@@TrumpGirl8713 right but Biden isn’t even that liberal. Also Biden is the problem not liberalism, for example Obama was not this much of a disaster
@@humanchannel7825 Obama was a disaster, he droned more folks than bush, foreign policy was a disaster, made race relations way worse in the US, blm rose under him, ISIS rampant, Obamacare is a disaster, very slow economic recovery, unfortunately my friend the Biden administration is just a continuation of the Obama regime.
Sponsors of this show: Ben we'll give you a dollar for every time you can mention our name within one minute
Ben: Hold my beer
These comments are so petty. It was actually a good discussion.
This is good. They make each other’s arguments better and really showcase how deep each other’s knowledge goes.
His eyes...he never blinks when talking.
Yes, the shifty look of a man who has left his conscience in favor for a narrative that benefits him regardless of how untrue and damaging it is.
Sign of a liar
Ben you’re being too nice.
I like that Ben has conversations with people across the aisle, but I dislike that he does ad reads in the middle of them :-/
Im 90% sure that the ads are pre-recorded and aren’t actually recorded mid-interview. If you watch the ads closely
Right. Great intellectual debate....but wait!....do you need stamps with dogs on it?
Loved the Micheal knowles joke
ezra klein is one of my favorite interviewers. rly glad to see him talk to Ben
What an uninteresting guy Ezra is. Thankfully youtube put Thomas Sowell in the recomendations, i need to wash this off.
He's one of those guys that hide behind quantity of research to substantiate his manner of speech
Alvaro Neto He explains his research to give further detail on how he got to his analysis of specific political topics. Likewise, having a conversation is all about talking about what you know from your studies, so how else is he supposed to speak?
@@ryanspivey1136 but when you listen to him speak, it's a lot of straw men (i.e. white people's fears of no longer being the dominant race) or non-sequiturs (because we have always had identity politics, we should continue practicing identity politics). Aside from his remark that polarization in the US is more starkly along political parties than in the past, most of his points weren't particularly insightful.
Alvaro Neto I see what you’re saying yet I understand it in a different light. Klein is presenting an argument clearly based on insightful and knowledgeable information, because he had to be able to gather a range of different data/political analysis that make up the idea of “Why were polarized” in order to write this book. I have not read the book yet, however, if he keeps on circulating behind the two points that you mentioned, that must be the central point of the book. I understand that you feel as if the whole thing wasn’t particularly insightful, but I thought it was a great conversation about identity politics and I was able to learn from both perspectives as well.
Ben did a great job letting Ezra talk forever.
Anyone else just here for Ezra and find it hilarious how Ben does his commercials lol
I thought this was Jared Fogle at first😂😂
That's subway diet is really working out for him
CMN Ezra is probably in possession of child porn as well.
Bless his heart, Ezra spends an Hour criticizing polarization without discussing the recent history of Primary elections in the Supreme Court, the odd affair of the tea Party which is a political party for the purpose of primary elections, but not a political party for the purpose of party affiliation. Good luck Ezra finding your way out of a paper bag: hint look up.
Wow. This guy is unbelievable. He is his favorite person.
Those ad breaks are so cringe-worthy I had to take breaks to collect myself.
Ben: "my site isn't for leftists"
Ezra: "why?"
Ben: "because they're not interested in my site"
@Green Road Ben is a real p-word, you might say.
So how can Asian immigrants arrive in the country poor and uneducated, facing all of the same racial obstacles and within a couple of generations are thriving? It comes down to work ethic and culture which comes from strong family and community.
Some rich guy must have helped them. It can't possibly be culture. 😎
Ezra: "I tried hiring 5 or 6 conservatives"
Meaning, he offered them salaries well below market value so he can say he "tried" to hire conservatives.
Chase6398 is that what you think he did? You think he did that just to tell Ben shapiro so he doesn’t look partisan? If so, that’s unbelievably dumb. If this is some dumb reactionary joke you’re making, then I would say the memes really died since the last time I was on this part of UA-cam.
Derry Queen Bernie will never be President. He was beaten by a guy with Alzheimer’s who doesn’t know where he is half the time...
@@wakemanz1 LOL...you beta male, avocado toast eating, soyboy, super woke feminazi, snowflakes, are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
Seneca’s Adoptive Son so?
Chase6398 I really hope you aren’t saying all this ironically. The idea of some dude calling me all that stuff in seriousness as a response to my comment is legit funny as fuck.
Ben seems tight, angry, and determined to "get him." Ezra seems loose, brilliant, and at ease comfortably sharing his point of view.
Interesting. I’m independent. I was listening, not watching, so i can’t comment on the visuals but from an audible perspective, i thought Ben seemed very curious and open but I heard Ezra interrupting and talking over Ben rather than listening.
Overall a very good convo, though.
A couple things:
- I was pleasantly surprised by Shapiro’s rhetorical style and management of the conversation
- I thought he made some good points
- I thought he did a good job about engaging with Klein’s points
Love,
A socialist who is only here because of Ezra
Props to Ezra for coming on, I do wish he wouldn’t talk over Ben as much as he did
You have to if you want to get a word in with Shapiro. These are both individuals who know where they want to take a conversation. If you don't cut Shapiro off, he will walk all over you by taking the conversation somewhere else. Ezra is very good about shaping the conversation in his show to benefit his questioning too. Honestly, a pretty good match up between a centrist and far-right.
Bradley Davis I’m sorry but Ezra is not a centrist. He is clearly a progressive
I love this. This is what discourse in this country should look like.
Ezra says excuss me, so Ben won't interupt his train of thought while speaking. Ben nods apologetically, then Ezra constantly interupts Ben