Ben Shapiro vs. Candace Owens

[prisonchaplain]

Many LDS are conservative. I tend to be, as well. So are Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens. Lately, Shapiro, who is an orthodox Jew, and Owens, a Christian, have been at serious odds. Owens works for the Daily Wire (Shapiro owns a part of the outlet). She's been vaguely critical of Israel's response to the Hamas attack. When Shapiro publicly labeled her response disgusting, she responded by quoting the New Testament--saying that God blesses peacemakers and that she could not serve both God and money. Shapiro responded that if she felt that taking money from the Daily Wire was coming between her and God then she was welcome to quit. She responded to that by saying that she was quoting the Bible, and that the Bible was not about Shapiro. Some even suggested that Shapiro was persecuting her for citing the New Testament.

While I don't judge people's souls, I feel safe in guessing at their political intent. My sense is that Owen's quoting from the New Testament was an intentionally passive-aggressive slam at Shapiro. Further, her stated ignorance of any context Shapiro might have for context, as well as her surprise at learning Shapiro wasn't happy with her appear feigned. Owens is incredibly smart. I suspect that she is an America-first isolationist. It's her prerogative, but the fake confusion on her part doesn't engender any sympathy from me. 

[Grunt]

Politics is a weird battle arena.   People tend to be very black and white in many areas that I personally believe are better accepted as gray.  People also try to cram their personal beliefs into a politics package.   Sometimes it's just OK to acknowledge the facts as we know them, accept that we may not have them all, and feel empathy for all involved.

You can believe something is necessary while being sad that it is.  You can fall on one side of a gray line while someone with very similar beliefs falls on the other.

[Traveler]

The conflict of war and violence is an impossible labyrinth to navigate and not become spiritually wounded – let alone physically affected.  The worst part of being involved in such things is dealing with the problems conflict imposes on individuals affected.  The worst of these problems come from how we support those on the front lines of the conflict.   This applies not just to war but also to those that protect us as what we refer to as our first responders.

Perhaps one of the worst problems is not trusting those we send to or expect to defend the “front lines”.   If we make what is often called a red line (especially a red line that is known to our enemies) we will lose the battles being fought at the front lines.  If it was me – I would like to have the virtue of Candace, but I also realize that in Vietnam (while I was in the military) some of our soldiers were killed by children as young as 5 and women carrying babies.

I believe it inevitable in war or dealing with drug cartels and human traffickers (or any unscrupulous criminals) that any publicly known red line will result in the sacrifice of our best, most honorable and most obedient front-line defenders eventually leaving us to defend ourselves against those with no red line.  We know how things ended in the Book of Mormon.  Our defense is our faith in G-d but if we are losing – what does that mean about our faith?  If we are divided and our faith in G-d cannot unite us - we have already lost.  The one thing that will most likely divide anyone – is to not understand or believe the tactics of our enemy.  Those unwilling to engage the enemy and stop them have already lost.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

You can fall on one side of a gray line while someone with very similar beliefs falls on the other.

Politics really does make strange bedfellows. I remember reading that a gay rights pro 2A group filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the NRA during a court case. 
 

Generally speaking, I also think the most bitter fights are between those who generally agree on the issues. Shapiro and Owens agree 85% of the time but that 15% can lead to really nasty disputes. 
 

I’m on team Shaprio. Israel has every right to punch back, and I’m fairly confident the IDF is trying their best to limit the deaths of innocent civilians. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by LDSGator

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Politics really does make strange bedfellows. .......

Who would have thought that a faction within the democrat’s party and without white supremacy would otherwise gleefully fly the banner, intent and purpose of the Nazis? 

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

15 hours ago, Traveler said:

Who would have thought that a faction within the democrat’s party and without white supremacy would otherwise gleefully fly the banner, intent and purpose of the Nazis? 

 

The Traveler

What? 

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

What? 

What political party has factions that support the taking of Jews (especially targeting families – women, children and elderly) – not for any individual crime, that those taken specifically committed, other than being Jewish, gaslighting and blaming all Jews in general for the troubles and failures to accomplish totalitarian political objectives.   Granted there are divisions within the democrat party that do not support the Palestinian raids initiating the current conflict – but there is a faction that does.  For political purposes the rest of the party, in essence, allows things to happen that should not be occurring.

As a side note (having been to Israel) – the Jews tolerate other variant points of view much more in Israel than do the Palestinians in Gaza.   Generally political parties tend to object to variant points of view and blame a opposition political party especially with less power for problems they that are in power cannot solve – but it does appear to me the one party is better at attaching blame than accomplishing than the other - though not by much.

 

The Traveler

 

[LDSGator]

17 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Granted there are divisions within the democrat party that do not support the Palestinian raids initiating the current conflict – but there is a faction that does.

That, and the president is a democrat who supports Israel. I’m not a democrat and I also support Israel.

Edited November 21, 2023 by LDSGator

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, Traveler said:

What political party has factions that support the taking of Jews (especially targeting families – women, children and elderly) – not for any individual crime, that those taken specifically committed, other than being Jewish, gaslighting and blaming all Jews in general for the troubles and failures to accomplish totalitarian political objectives.   Granted there are divisions within the democrat party that do not support the Palestinian raids initiating the current conflict – but there is a faction that does.  For political purposes the rest of the party, in essence, allows things to happen that should not be occurring.

As a side note (having been to Israel) – the Jews tolerate other variant points of view much more in Israel than do the Palestinians in Gaza.   Generally political parties tend to object to variant points of view and blame a opposition political party especially with less power for problems they that are in power cannot solve – but it does appear to me the one party is better at attaching blame than accomplishing than the other - though not by much.

 

The Traveler

 

It's coming from both sides.

On the liberal side you have these kids that have no experience with the deception Hamas is doing (committing warcrimes by using human shields for starters) and sympathize with the propaganda Hamas is sending out. 

On the Conservative side you have those who wish to send no support to Israel (thus by default supporting their enemies).

Those of us who support Israel seem to be growing smaller each day. 

I can see the non-support/dislike of Israel growing (and it's predicted to in the Bible) among our nation and others along these types of lines unfortunately.  That said, sometimes you have to stand against evil groups, and Hamas is an evil group.

Ironically if you look at it from the areas I visit, as Hamas is supported by Iranian interests, that goes contrary to the Saudi/Sunni interests of the area. 

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It's coming from both sides.

On the liberal side you have these kids that have no experience with the deception Hamas is doing (committing warcrimes by using human shields for starters) and sympathize with the propaganda Hamas is sending out. 

On the Conservative side you have those who wish to send no support to Israel (thus by default supporting their enemies).

Those of us who support Israel seem to be growing smaller each day. 

I can see the non-support/dislike of Israel growing (and it's predicted to in the Bible) among our nation and others along these types of lines unfortunately.  That said, sometimes you have to stand against evil groups, and Hamas is an evil group.

Ironically if you look at it from the areas I visit, as Hamas is supported by Iranian interests, that goes contrary to the Saudi/Sunni interests of the area. 

Season’s Greetings and thanks for your input:

A couple of points.  I completely agree that both the major parties in the USA have connections to corrupt secret organizations (combinations).  But concerning the direct backing of Hamas – I am not aware of a single Republican elected at the federal level that openly supports Hamas and calls Israel terrorists.  If anyone can name such an elected official in the Republican party – I would be most interested.

I would rase question about the Hamas - Iranian connection since Hamas is hard core Sunni.  A fact I have not heard any conservatives in the media to make the connection or realize the ramifications.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Season’s Greetings and thanks for your input:

A couple of points.  I completely agree that both the major parties in the USA have connections to corrupt secret organizations (combinations).  But concerning the direct backing of Hamas – I am not aware of a single Republican elected at the federal level that openly supports Hamas and calls Israel terrorists.  If anyone can name such an elected official in the Republican party – I would be most interested.

I would rase question about the Hamas - Iranian connection since Hamas is hard core Sunni.  A fact I have not heard any conservatives in the media to make the connection or realize the ramifications.

 

The Traveler

It's the fact that they don't want to send funds over there (without putting conditions which they know probably won't be met) or help in any way.  That speaks VOLUMES.  It's something that they actually walk hand in hand with those who are openly supporting Hamas who also don't want to send funds or support for Israel.

[prisonchaplain]

On 11/22/2023 at 4:31 AM, JohnsonJones said:

On the Conservative side you have those who wish to send no support to Israel (thus by default supporting their enemies).

To define this perspective more precisely--it is the America First-Isolationist faction. They argue that any foreign aid (military or social) must directly and immediately benefit U.S. interests.  This faction is tepid about supporting Israel, mercenary about Taiwan, and opposed to helping Ukraine.

Another "conservative" faction is the overt antisemites--including those who are white supremist and those who just despise Jewish people.

Edited November 26, 2023 by prisonchaplain

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Another "conservative" faction is the overt antisemites--including those who are white supremist and those who just despise Jewish people.

The dirty little “secret” is that it’s the left who largely hate Jews.

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

The dirty little “secret” is that it’s the left who largely hate Jews.

That dirt is neither little nor secret. There's plenty of Jew-hatred on both sides. Since I lean conservative that's the side breaking my heart.

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

That dirt is neither little nor secret. There's plenty of Jew-hatred on both sides. Since I lean conservative that's the side breaking my heart.

I agree both sides are guilty of it. But there’s no doubt that the majority of pro Palestine demonstrators and activists aren’t wearing MAGA hats and listening to Fox News. 

[EH12NG]

Although I'm not familiar with the situation, I haven't taken an interest in Ben since he got slapped around by Andrew Neil a few years ago. Little Ben couldn't handle unbiased questions so took the huff. From the get go Ben has always stated he's a Zionist Jew born in America. '' Facts don't care about your feelings '' looks cute on a coffee mug but has little application in reality. He's a rather sensitive guy when it comes to certain subjects. 

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, EH12NG said:

Facts don't care about your feelings '' looks cute on a coffee mug but has little application in reality.

That, and the people who say this are usually the first ones to scream in rage when presented with facts that threaten their worldview. 

[EH12NG]

Just now, LDSGator said:

That, and the people who say this are usually the first ones to scream in rage when presented with facts that threaten their worldview. 

Crazy world in which we live my friend, crazy world. I do admit to a sardonic chuckle when I watched him last on his youtube channel. Rattling his pots n pans about the economy crashing and the end was nigh only to hand out a code to get a discount on a mattress. 

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, EH12NG said:

Crazy world in which we live my friend, crazy world. I do admit to a sardonic chuckle when I watched him last on his youtube channel. Rattling his pots n pans about the economy crashing and the end was nigh only to hand out a code to get a discount on a mattress. 

Couldn’t agree more! 

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, EH12NG said:

' Facts don't care about your feelings '' looks cute on a coffee mug but has little application in reality.

Really? So if you just feel strongly enough that you can fly like Superman then the facts of gravity have no application in reality?

[NeuroTypical]

6 hours ago, EH12NG said:

I haven't taken an interest in Ben since he got slapped around by Andrew Neil a few years ago. Little Ben couldn't handle unbiased questions so took the huff.

Are you talking about this interview?  I just watched the whole thing, and I'm failing to see the slapping around and being unable to handle "unbiased questions".  Could you point some of them out to me?   I'm not sure what "took the huff" means, I assume you're referring to Ben ending the interview early after (IMHO) accurately characterizing Andrew as a run of the mill gotcha journalist not interested in critiquing his book, but instead doing character assassination by dredging up 5 year old tweets out of context.

Hey everyone - if you've got 16 minutes, please watch this interview.  If there's another human out there with EH12NG's opinion that Ben got slapped around here, I'd like to hear about it.

 

Edited November 27, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Are you talking about this interview?  I just watched the whole thing, and I'm failing to see the slapping around and being unable to handle "unbiased questions".  Could you point some of them out to me?   I'm not sure what "took the huff" means, I assume you're referring to Ben ending the interview early after (IMHO) accurately characterizing Andrew as a run of the mill gotcha journalist not interested in critiquing his book, but instead doing character assassination by dredging up 5 year old tweets out of context.

Hey everyone - if you've got 16 minutes, please watch this interview.  If there's another human out there with EH12NG's opinion that Ben got slapped around here, I'd like to hear about it.

Ben didn't handle that as well as he could have.  In fact, I was surprised that he had the reaction he did.  Most of the time, he handles these types of questions quite reasonably and logically.  But I think I know why he reacted that way.

Neil is somewhere between Larry King and Tim Russert (with a bit of John Stossel).

• King specifically took the most provocative questions from the opposing view (whichever side that was) and poked at the interviewee to get a rise out of him.
• Russert put his own politics aside (a herculean feat alone).  Then he would find all the questions that had been asked in the ether and distilled them to the fair, but tough substance, and presented them to the guest of the day.  But he did so in a very professional way without any rhetoric.  And he wouldn't take political double-speak for an answer.
• Stossel clearly is mostly libertarian with a conservative tilt.  But when he interviews people, he makes it clear that he's presenting "other people's arguments" to give the guest a chance to answer them in a non-hostile environment.  Sometimes he'll use the rhetorical language.  But his tone is clear that he's just "mimicking."
• Neil does some combination of all three.  If you listened carefully to Neil, he was being somewhat sarcastic in his questions by throwing in the rhetorical language that the left uses to poke people with. But his tone was easily mistaken for sincerity with that rhetoric.

Ben heard the rhetorical words from Neil as a signal that "only someone on the other side of the aisle" would us such language.  And most of the time, he'd be correct.  It just wasn't correct this time.  He misread Neil.

Later, Ben admitted that he was unfair to Neil.  He said he should have researched Neil a bit more.  He didn't realize what Neil's M.O. was. 

That said, I'd point out that Neil's methods may mean that he, himself, is a fair and pretty unbiased individual.  But the questions he asked, and the way he asked them were, indeed, biased.  And he did that on purpose.  So, to call his questions "unbiased" would be incorrect.

I realize that this may be splitting a hair.  But I believe it is worth looking at.  Neil, himself, admitted his tactics to Ben.  He does ask biased questions (not his words, but accurate nonetheless).  But he did this out of a sincere effort to be an objective journalist.

The "slapping around" was not what I'd call it.  But Ben did lose his cool. Very unusual.  Those who think that this was a complete smackdown is clearly a biased assessment of the situation.

I've seen him in many other situations where he took far worse questions with grace.  And I've also heard him admit that there were many questions and points from the liberal side that are fair questions and positions.  But he happens to disagree with the overall argument for various reasons.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

On 11/26/2023 at 9:03 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Really? So if you just feel strongly enough that you can fly like Superman then the facts of gravity have no application in reality?

@EH12NGhas a point. Look at Tim Ballard. It’s getting very obvious that he’s hip deep in bad behavior. But the “Facts don’t care about your feelings, snowflake”  crowd refuse to believe any of it because their feelings about what he does and his mission. There are other examples as well. 
 

It’s just a saying people use to show how they think they are smarter/tougher than anyone who dares to disagree with them.  It’s also said when people can’t handle debating, or in a crowd with people who agree with them and they want a cheap reaction.
 

It’s a bit like a hack comedian saying “I love Detroit, I’m a Pistons fan!” to warm up the crowd and saying “Go Jazz! Utah rules!” The next night. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by LDSGator

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@EH12NGhas a point.

Not really. Facts don't care about your feelings is a fact.

15 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

But the “Facts don’t care about your feelings, snowflake”  crowd refuse to believe any of it because their feelings about what he does and his mission.

You're making the case that facts don't care about feelings.

18 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s just a saying people use to show how they think they are smarter/tougher than anyone who dares to disagree with them.  It’s also said when people can’t handle debating, or in a crowd with people who agree with them and they want a cheap reaction.

A true statement is true no matter how some people use it.

20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

It’s a bit like a hack comedian saying “I love Detroit, I’m a Pistons fan!” to warm up the crowd and saying “Go Jazz! Utah rules!” The next night. 

It strikes me that you have not considered the meaning of the saying with any level of seriousness.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It strikes me that you have not considered the meaning of the saying with any level of seriousness.

Sorry it came across that way, but I have. It’s a relatively useless saying that people  use to show off, score what they think are points, etc.

Maybe it’s just who I hang out but I’ve never heard anyone say it offline in discussion with friends. It’s very dismissive. That could be it. 

Edited November 28, 2023 by LDSGator