Why do you think Shapiro & Peterson have not only an extensive following, but also a constantly growing popularity amongst a variety of people?

[Anonymous]

I believe in this time that we are living in, extremely divided and lost in many respects, Ben Shapiro & Jordan Peterson offer a whole slew of answers & guidance amidst all of this.

What I think they offer or provide to millions upon millions of people all over the world that I do not think many others offer are the following:

•Common sense viewpoints or takes on a variety of issues
•Reasonable and peaceful talks and debates
•Tolerance and hosting of other differing viewpoints
•Provides meaningful direction or orientation to those who are looking for such in their life, using a multiplicity of instruments such as morality, purpose, spirituality, and even religiosity.

They’ve interviewed, hosted, and had talks with a very wide array of guests from Navy SEAL Jocko Willink to comedian & political commentator Bill Maher.

Updates

+1 y

Shapiro & Peterson have a following that includes people of different cultures, races, sexual orientation, religions, politics, etc.

[jhl_x]

I'm not American but I met those due to my extensive use of the English language online. Also, statistically, I'm quite aligned politically with them, or just against the same people that hate them, and I'm in the demographic that composes most of their audience.

Shapiro is a smart guy and we share some common opinions, but I believe he gets himself advertised quite badly in the political debate with his "liberal bashing with facts and logic" content that's often spread around intentionally or not. Kinda makes him closed off to speak to his own audience and to generate this content with whoever tries to pop the bubble. The American left in its current state keeps falling for it and acts even worse, therefore proving his points.

Peterson is a lot more moderate and even more pleasant to listen to, with very rich content not restricted to politics. Even so, it's undeniable that his rise to fame and the impact that fame had in his personal life and later content made him a political icon similar to Ben, even though he's not American, and had different upbringing and education. Because of this, I've seen him comment on several subjects that his areas of expertise don't have contact, even though those were from cut excerpts from lectures and usually replying to the audience. I don't watch his more recent content so frequently, because I prefer stuff from his older lectures.

Now why I still like them and am glad that they're working together, it's quite simple: I just look at whoever hates them. I'm not American, but the same people who bash them and whoever likes them there have similar variants around here. They don't debate, they just act like troglodytes resorting to namecalling, censorship and even aggression. They make it so easy to pick a side that I don't even need to look further into their content to decide with whom I side with. They speak mostly to young men, more often than not facing problems in life and already bashed by society as a whole, including these guys' haters, so it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, making them even more popular.

[Chazmatazz269]

First of all, neither Shapiro nor Peterson derive conclusions from “common sense”, and their conclusions only seem like common sense to people who already share their sensibilities. They are both well educated, well read, and well spoken. They are popular BECAUSE they’re well spoken and their opinions are fairly concrete. For some reason not wavering in our thoughts and opinions is more valuable to people these days than the thoughts and opinions themselves. A great speaker might change many minds in his or her lifetime, but a great thinker isn’t afraid to change their own mind. That’s far and away more powerful. Which is why i believe Peterson is more influential. He studies philosophy. It’s nearly impossible to study philosophy without practicing it and practicing philosophy gives us the ability and opportunities to examine our own thoughts and beliefs and change them as we receive new information or our own values change. Too few people are doing that these days.

[jennifer_bloom]

Jordan Peterson is rarely wrong but he is rude and confrontational, there are socially popular ways to get your point across without making people hate you, by using considerate and sweet language to show disagreements.

[LilyoftheLake]

Shapiro sometimes feels a bit... Aggravated? Attacking personally instead of arguing with his oh so favored logic?

But Peterson - oh, he's a REAL thinker. I like him.

[OlderAndWiser]

There is always a feeling of reassurance that comes with a calm, reasonable voice.

[England4eva]

It’s because society is enforcing a “one size fits all” opinion on the public.

Noone likes being made to think and feel a certain way against their will.

Having said all that, I don’t agree with everything these figures say, just some of it. But I respect their platform, cause it’s not been an easy one to stand on.

[Khronuskeeper]

Shapiro has had some interesting points that have helped me develop my opinions, but almost always fails to change them, because of his combative and assumptive reasoninings.
Peterson however simply leaves me thinking more deeply about issues and about their different perspectives. From some interviews he has led me to question some of my previously held beliefs.

[Khronuskeeper]

Both are largely well spoken and thought provoking people and certain types of people like that. These people will naturally follow them to further learn from their opinions.

[normalice]

Tim Miller just came out with a book "Why We Did It" that encapsulates it pretty well. Shapiro is a studied scam artist, basically. He sells hate and vitriol that he himself make a up. And it's addictive by design. The left has nothing addictive to offer so it can't do as well in a nation of addicts..

[exitseven]

I don't know that much about Ben Shapiro except that when he tried to speak at college campuses the students did not let him speak. If that is the case I suspect I would probably agree with his ideas.

[Whatever2929292]

I kind of personally think that they are controlled opposition. Both sound very fake and disingenuous to me personally at least. I am not accusing them but never been a fan,

As well as some of the stuff they say.

[ArtemisSilver]

Because they're interesting speakers who conservatives and moderates can stand listening to.

[SaoirseS]

People seek what they want to hear.

[Asker]

What if they want to hear some common sense, tolerance, objectiveness, reasonableness, and intelligence?

[SaoirseS]

Then I find someone other than a talking head.

[Asker]

What makes someone a “talking head” to you?

[SaoirseS]

Pundits, those who claim expertise, often in politics. You find them usually taking one side of politics or an issue and advancing it.

[Asker]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

As long as their claim is correct or substantiated. Also, everyone has their own personal viewpoints so why wouldn’t you expect them to advance theirs? I try to advance mine and same to you as well.

Specifically when we vote.

You can be and do all of this while still standing for and supporting all of the above in my description underneath my main question.

[SaoirseS]

I don’t need pundits to reassure me or define anything for me. I read more than I ever watch, so in this day of broadcast yourself I’d rather read. That way I can see through the oratory devices and consider substance. Shapiro, from what little I’ve seen of him, makes me want to clutch my purse tighter. Don’t recall much about Peterson.

[Asker]

Why exactly does Shapiro make you want to clutch your purse tighter?

[SaoirseS]

He comes across as a used car salesman.

[Asker]

Why can’t you just explain simply what he’s specifically doing or what he says that you don’t like?

You write “He comes across as a used car salesman” and then I have to ask “How does he come across as a used car salesman”

[SaoirseS]

Gees, do you not grasp the idea? Used car salesmen get the reputation because they control the conversation. They’re leading, often talking fast like Shapiro, and leading you to their conclusions. They pretty well know what you want to hear, and feed it to you like comfort food. Are there transcripts available of his radio and web talks? Not that I ever found. Orators often play to emotions and you know that.

[Asker]

Have you listened to the actual body of what he says? Specifically, the points he makes when he debates or argues with someone?

Yes, there’s probably different facial and body language maneuvers that are done by popular figures to retrieve a certain reaction or effect but what you need to do is to listen to the specific points made by Shapiro.

For example, when he talks about the Roe v. Wade overturning listen to the specific points being made about it.

Rather than the other stylistic stuff like his tone of voice, facial expressions, hand gestures, etc.

[SaoirseS]

I don’t care about his opinion or talking points on Roe, I’ve read carefully the entire thing and have discussed it with two attorneys who know far more about Constitutional law than he does. By now I’ve heard or read every point and counterpoint there is. by the way, have you read the entire Dobbs decision.

[Asker]

Ben Shapiro is a legal professional, lawyer, who graduated from Harvard Law School.

No, I have not read the entire Dobbs decision.

[SaoirseS]

Shapiro was a litigation attorney. The problem I’m finding with those talking about Roe is that very few have read it. They rely on Cliff Notes, fast food media pieces, and explainers. I’m educated and so are you. You don’t have to be a lawyer to grasp the problem with the decision if you read through it. Dobbs decision advocates are too busy cheering to see what this does for the future of the Supreme Court.

[Asker]

•The overturning does not ban abortion.

•The overturning will give more autonomy to all the states to create laws around abortion specific to the wants of the citizens of that respective state.

This is what I’ve been hearing from nearly everyone.

Is there anything factually wrong with this?

I do not think I need to read 200+ pages to understand these two points.

[SaoirseS]

If that is all you take from it, then you are seeing only that what you want to understand. There’s a complex set of faults with it, with a lot of faulty reasoning that gets lost in knowing just the “bottom line.” Until you read it there’s absolutely no reason to even get into the weeds with you.

[Asker]

I’m not saying to get into the weeds with me.

I’m asking if any of those two points are factually wrong.

[SaoirseS]

That’s a qualified no. It’s the basis of the majority opinion that is of major concern.

[Asker]

Why is it of major concern?

[SaoirseS]

The Majority opinion is mired in process over purpose for starters. They disregard the Stare Decis doctrine for another. A fundamental human right such as equal protection under the law gets thrown under the bus, and punted to the states rather than decide based on higher purpose. It creates an open door to do the same with Griswold, Obergefell, and using the same legal arguments Brown v Board of education. It unreasonably puts government in the position of making health care decisions that are private matters.

[Asker]

I think I kind of understand.

[SaoirseS]

Seriously, take the time to read the entire decision. It puts every right up for either overrule or deflection, creating a complex patchwork of fifty interpretations. Majority rules is not always a good idea. If it was, we would have had four years of Clinton, who won the popular vote. Or put it in terms you’ve studied - criminology. If you’re the police officer who processed a mass murder scene and there’s irrefutable evidence against the accused, say the defense wants to quash the gun you took in as evidence. In processing and starting the chain of custody, you were either tired or just a bad speller and wrote Rugger instead of Ruger. Even though the nomenclature and serial number is correct and assuming no errors in the custody chain, the defense wants it thrown out because the spelling of the gun maker is wrong. Should the judge throw it out because of a clerical error on your part, or rule on the higher purpose of the law by ruling it a harmless error since the unique identifier (serial number) is correct and it was properly handled?

[SaoirseS]

That is where process matters less than purpose. The court ruled on process.

[Guy13]

No idea who they are...

[HighValue]

Because of telling the truth and doing research.

[joeldalton]

Because they speak truth to this clown world.

[OddBeMe]

No, just angry white boys.

[888theGreat]

Jewish people are tight