Ben Shapiro Zoey TurAn interesting thing happened Thursday night on HLN’s broadcast of Dr. Drew On Call — a transgender reporter decided that the best response to Ben Shapiro’s questions about the mental stability of transgender individuals was to grab him by the neck and threaten to send him home “in an ambulance.” Mr. Shapiro — who has a law degree — didn’t flinch, and then proceeded to win what was essentially a 5-on-1 debate. If one considers Dr. Drew biased against Mr. Shapiro, then an argument can be made that the Breitbart News editor fended off six detractors in one sitting.

Here is what Mr. Shapiro said about Caityn Jenner:

“It turns out that every chromosome, every cell in Caitlyn Jenner’s body, is male, with the exception of some of his sperm cells. … It turns out that he still has all of his male appendages. How he feels on the inside is irrelevant to the question of his biological self.”

Inside Edition reporter Zoey Tur was none too pleased with Mr. Shapiro’s statement. After condescendingly putting her hand on the lawyer’s shoulder and saying “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” the conservative pundit shot back “What are your genetics, sir?” It was then that the threat of physical violence occurred. Ms. Tur said with her hand cradled around Mr. Shapiro’s neck:

“You cut that out now, or you’ll go home in an ambulance.”

Ben Shapiro’s response was classic: “That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion.”

Ben Shapiro wins 5 on 1The panel then found a way to brush off Ms. Tur’s boorish behavior by saying that Ben Shapiro was being “rude,” “egregiously insulting,” and “not being polite to the pronouns.” (Oddly enough, no-one called Ms. Tur out later on in the segment for being “egregiously insulting” when she went on to call Mr. Shapiro “little boy.”)

Here is the problem for intelligent conservatives: In a world where feelings rule, the man of logic becomes “rude” and his utilization of reason becomes “egregiously insulting.”

Consider this response by Mr. Shapiro when Dr. Drew asked what the “goal of treatment” would be if one believes that transgender individuals suffer from an incurable mental illness:

“The goal would be to allow people to live with it in an appropriate way — to flourish without imposing on the rest of society a necessity for fictionalized thinking. Okay, because that actually is a cost to society. I’m sorry. My grandfather was bipolar, okay? And he thought the radio was talking to him. They put him in a mental hospital. They did not tell him the radio was talking to him to allow him to live a better life — they put him in a hospital and then they gave him lithium, which allowed him to live a better life. Looking for better solutions than transgender surgery [since suicide rates essentially remain static with gender reassignment] would be a better solution than pretending that transgender surgery is the cure for people.”

This sort of reasoning — present throughout the entire discussion — was what the other panelists deemed “insulting.”

Ben Shapiro’s problem is that he is smart, he knows that he is smart, he refuses to allow feelings to trump facts, and he isn’t deterred when his critics raise their voices or threaten to send him home “in an ambulance.” This can come off as smug or uncaring, but that is only further evidence of just how far we have drifted as a culture away from a reverence for logic and reason.

When society has reached a point where “not being polite to the pronouns” brings a television panel to the brink of an all-out brawl, then something has gone seriously wrong. The fact that Ben Shapiro had to be countered with five dissenting voices indicates that it isn’t he or his “insulting” pronoun etiquette that is the problem, but those who are slaves to their emotions.

A man can “feel” like he is in love, but then use logic and reason to deduce that his heart is in fact just filled with lust.

A man can “feel” like he is doing right by his neighbor, but then use logic and reason to rightfully conclude that his actions are a recipe for long-term turmoil.

Ben Shapiro’s fears of what it would mean to live in a world governed by “fictionalized thinking” are not irrational. Americans would be wise to listen to a man who hurts their feelings with sound logic over one who soothes egos with falsehoods.

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

12 comments

  1. The fact that they grew so upset with him, so as to impulsively threaten physical harm, demonstrates that what he was saying was able to ring true in their own minds. They would have been far more comfortable (if not overjoyed) if he had gone on their show and spilled hateful/bigoted language. But because he used logic and reason, to argue for a more caring future rather than for a supposedly caring present, he forced a mirror of truth upon them, in light of which they could only react as though someone had rubbed salt in their wounds rather than acknowledge that their ideas and arguments are not just flawed, but wrong at their very core.

    Honestly, the profession of psychology has been ruined for quite some time, as emotions and tolerance have pushed aside any wish to help people. How can you hope to help someone if you are not willing to state the fact that they have a problem that they need help with, out of fear of sounding intolerant? Today, rather than people making sure someone with bipolar disorder gets help, you will see 30 different people say they might need help, and than claim it came out of nowhere when the bipolar person does something drastic and irreversible.

    1. How can you hope to help someone if you are not willing to state the fact that they have a problem that they need help with, out of fear of sounding intolerant?

      That’s an excellent question, Issaac. This whole interview was strange because every time Mr. Shapiro brought the conversation to science (I thought conservatives were somehow anti-science?), they tried to steer it back to feelings.

      I personally don’t care if Bruce Jenner wants to be called Caitlyn or be referred to as “Ms.” Jenner. I think she should legally changer her name, but if I was on a talk show I wouldn’t fight a pronoun battle. With that said, I don’t think it’s “rude” for Mr. Shapiro to call someone “sir” who is biologically a man. Ms. Tur may not like it, but she shouldn’t act surprised when someone doesn’t want to play the pronoun ballgame. And putting her hands on someone else in a threatening manner is simply unacceptable. I thought Ben Shapiro handled that extremely well.

  2. You bring up a really interesting gender difference in regards to feelings, which is yet another bit of evidence that suggests gender may be far more complex and innate then we know.

    Men often perceive feelings in a negative context, they way you yourself have just portrayed them, the way this transgender person allowed their feelings to lead them to reach out and grab someone by the neck. Women are generally the precise opposite, a mirror reflection of that, so our feelings are more likely to cause us NOT to flip someone off in traffic. Women’s feelings are often where our empathy and morality live. When women do bad things it is often because we are disconnected from our feelings, numb to them, or ignoring them completely. Not true for men at all, their morality lies more in their ability to reason and rationalize. When men allow their emotions to dictate to them, it is usually not such a good thing.

    All in good humor here, but when women decide to ignore their feeling and allow reason to rule them instead, look out, because we can become very cold and methodical, cruel even. Rational, logical, and reason based, I suppose, but a bit like a sociopath might be 😉

    Transgenderism is clearly a disorder, a really rather sad and tragic disorder. The people who are so busy celebrating it never seem to see the little boy inside that is so despised, he is being rejected and cast off in favor of a new persona. It is like watching someone try to murder their own soul and rather then meeting them with some compassion and understanding, we cheer them on. It is totally insane. Does it stop when someone imagines their genuine identity is to be a paraplegic or an amputee? That is a real thing in the world already and we do people no favors by embracing their desires and delusions, when their desires have such devastating consequences.

    1. Men often perceive feelings in a negative context, they way you yourself have just portrayed them…

      I can see where you would come to that conclusion, but I think the thrust of my argument is that it isn’t feelings that are bad — it’s being ruled by those feelings that is dangerous. As a regular reader, you may recall that it was only a couple weeks ago that I said conservatives need to be able to show more empathy on issues like immigration: “Sadly, too many people who are right on the issue seem to have little to zero empathy for the millions who are trying to flee dysfunctional and oppressive hell holes.”

      I think there is a proper balance that needs to be found when it comes to using emotions and logic to navigate these issues, but America long ago seems to have dismissed the idea of “balance.” The 5-to-1 ratio is incredibly telling. Mr. Shapiro’s intellect is so towering that not even the combined mental efforts of five critics could dent his arguments. I agree that he can come across as smug, but like I said … I think that has more to do with our own cultural degradation than any ill-will or haughtiness on Mr. Shapiro’s part.

      We tend to take the easy way out, and the easy way in this case is to dismiss him as a “mean” person.

    2. I think you presented a very sound argument, as you always do. The issue of being “ruled by feelings” however, has come up in so many different places and I understand what is being said, but I think what is meant by “feelings” is actually “irrational knee jerk emotionalism having no relationship to the discussion that is currently happening.” It is the strangest thing I have ever seen and a fairly recent phenomenon, in public discourse, anyway.

    3. I think you presented a very sound argument, as you always do.

      Thanks!

      The issue of being “ruled by feelings” however, has come up in so many different places and I understand what is being said, but I think what is meant by “feelings” is actually “irrational knee jerk emotionalism having no relationship to the discussion that is currently happening.”

      That’s another interesting set of ideas to explore. I think when it comes to political activists, you have the worst of both worlds. They are not only governed primarily by their “foundational feelings,” but they are also ruled by knee-jerk emotions that take place during the heat of an argument. In the former case we can use Jimmy Carter saying that Jesus would approve of gay marriage — based solely on his feelings and not one passage from scripture — as an example. In the latter case we might use the Twitter/Tumblr mob as an example. Let’s use the time they after a highly successful scientist because a joke offended them.

  3. Breitbart.com wrote an article today about Zoey wanting to curb stomp Ben Shapiro. Zoey agreed with someone on Twitter for the suggestion. I guess the threat of violence didn’t end after the interview.

    I agree with the above commenter on how Psychology has been destroyed by the “tolerance” mindset. I’m starting grad school in a counseling program next month because I want to work with children, but I’ve been so inundated with progressive politics on campus that I’ve really been wondering if I need to pick a different career path. I guess I’ll find out soon.

    1. I just read about the “curb stomp” tweet (and like) in the comments section over at Mediaite. Telling… Ms. Tur has not represented the transgender community well over the last 24 hours.

      I’m starting grad school in a counseling program next month because I want to work with children, but I’ve been so inundated with progressive politics on campus that I’ve really been wondering if I need to pick a different career path.

      That’s a tough one. You are right in that your politics are likely to be an extreme outlier in your field. Did you hear about the judge who ordered Dinesh D’Souza to get additional counseling because he refuses to believe that the conservative author is of sound mental health? It’s an Orwellian-level brain-washing attempt. He’s essentially like, “I want you to see doctors until someone says you have mental problems.” The judge says he feels as though something isn’t right because he studied psychology in college… These people think that straight conservative men have mental problems but men who think they are women are somehow perfectly normal.

    2. I did hear about what happened with Dinesh D’Souza, and it’s outrageous. Orwellian is the perfect word for it. I think counseling can be a great profession, but based on the way it’s going, it can bring more harm than good. A counselor can’t constantly walk on eggshells with a client for fear of being labeled a bigot. Sometimes what needs to be said can be difficult to hear, but it will ultimately be helpful. For example, a teenager with behavior problems may not want to be told he has to be personally responsible for his actions, but it is what he needs to hear.

    3. Regardless of what you decide, I’m sure that if your calling is to help people then you will find a way to do that — and do it well. Keep me updated on your progress and any war stories from graduate school that you think are worth sharing. 🙂

      Sometimes what needs to be said can be difficult to hear, but it will ultimately be helpful. For example, a teenager with behavior problems may not want to be told he has to be personally responsible for his actions, but it is what he needs to hear.

      Agreed.

  4. Ben Shapiro comes across as incredibly blunt cold in his response. So, while I applaud his boldness and agree with his rational argument, there’s no way he’s going to appeal to touchy-feely people that way. I also like the comparison to his bi-polar uncle at the end.

    The most ironic part about all of this is that many of these Liberals are likely atheist or agnostic. Some of them may believe talking to God is akin to having an imaginary friend or having a mental illness.

    Yet, in their eyes, it’s OK for a person to be transgender, mutilate their body, marry the same sex–all because it makes them feel good.

    So, if a person burns themselves with cigarette butts or cuts themselves because it makes them “feel good”, or simply because they want to, is that also OK?

    The answer is clear as day. But, darkness is the absence of light. Just as sin is the absence of God.

    1. Ben Shapiro has an incredibly sharp mind, but sometimes I wish he would alter his delivery just a bit so that he a.) still shreds emotional arguments, but b.) also appeals to those who are less politically knowledgeable.

      Even if he is right, he’s going to needlessly lose a lot of people if he seems cold and uncaring. It’s frustrating to think individuals will side with the woman who frets about “being polite to the pronouns” because Ben didn’t make a little more effort to appear compassionate.

      Thanks for the comment, as always, Ken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s