YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Ben Shapiro Q&A: Transgenderism Debate, Kyle Rittenhouse, CRT in Schools

Ben Shapiro Q&A: Transgenderism Debate, Kyle Rittenhouse, CRT in Schools — Transcript

by Ben Shapiro · 7,316 words · 1,155 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00hi ben
0:01uh thanks for doing the tomahawk chop
0:03very epic thank you you bet you know
0:05when people say that that's like a
0:07racist thing i have to say if people
0:08just went to a stadium and started
0:09cheering for the jews you know how happy
0:11i would be
0:20um so my question is very quick um what
0:23is your favorite argument for god's
0:25existence and why
0:27okay so my favorite argument for god's
0:28existence is that i believe in free will
0:30okay the reason that i think this is an
0:32argument for god's existence is because
0:33if you believe that human beings are
0:35essentially just balls of meat wandering
0:37around aimlessly in the universe the
0:39kind of spinoza's stone that thinks that
0:41it was
0:42moving of its own accord but actually
0:43was thrown if you believe that and you
0:45don't believe in free will then there's
0:47an internal coherence and logic to it if
0:48you believe that you have the ability to
0:50make independent choices that you can
0:51actually supersede your own biologic
0:54your own biological drives and the
0:56environment around you to any extent
0:57even to the smallest extent this means
0:59that you believe in something that can't
1:00actually be proved by science but that
1:02you are living every single day and the
1:03notion that you have that will and not
1:07only that you have that will but that
1:08that will is capable of comprehending
1:09the universe around you that your will
1:10is sort of your ideas your ability to
1:12comprehend the universe is a reflection
1:14of a reality of an objective truth that
1:16is out there that says to me that there
1:18is a god that there's a common source
1:20that stands behind that objective truth
1:21and stands behind the mind that can
1:22comprehend that truth or sort of
1:24conscient argument for the existence of
1:25god
1:27[Applause]
1:48why do you believe you're right about
1:49trans people given the american
1:50psychological association american
1:52medical association american
1:54psychoanalytic association i can go on
1:56for about five more associations
1:58um that are very prominent and govern
2:01the um the existing like health uh
2:04health government or
2:05health industries within
2:08like the major western countries
2:12and all of these associations have
2:14multiple thousands of doctors
2:15sociologists psychologists and with phds
2:18in their respective fields backing the
2:20idea that sex and gender are different
2:22effectively gaining the medical
2:24consensus for sex and gender being two
2:26different concepts yet you have a
2:28different opinion okay so sex and gender
2:31are two different concepts but gender is
2:33tied to biology so one of the big
2:35problems that you see in sort of the the
2:37argument in favor of trans rights is
2:39this notion that gender and sex are
2:40completely separable they're not
2:42completely separable if they are
2:43completely separable then this means
2:45that identifying people by their
2:46subjective gender really has no
2:48relevance as to whether they are a male
2:49or female male and female are biological
2:51terms so using terminology like male and
2:54female to describe a self-described
2:56perception of of maleness or femaleness
2:59is sort of a bizarre way of arguing
3:01whether a thing is a man or a woman so
3:03here is my question it's an argument
3:04that my friend matt walsh likes to make
3:06what is a woman define what a woman is
3:08without reference to the word woman
3:09please
3:11um so this is actually a logical fallacy
3:14called a red herring you're asking me a
3:15question in
3:17or um in order to actually challenge my
3:20question without actually no it isn't
3:21i'm saying that it really is not i'm
3:23saying that biology i'm agreeing with
3:25you that the notion of gender which is
3:27effeminateness or masculinity can be
3:30different from biology in the sense that
3:32biology is just pure male or pure female
3:34but to suggest that there is such a
3:35thing as an effeminate male is not to
3:36suggest that an effeminate male is now a
3:38woman
3:39transgenderism makes the argument that
3:41if you believe that you are a woman you
3:43are there for a woman or if you believe
3:44that you are a man you are there for a
3:46man i disagree with this there are
3:48objective measures as to whether you're
3:49a man or a woman they're objective
3:50measures as to whether you're male or
3:51female you're there there's certainly a
3:53spectrum when with regards to
3:55effeminateness versus masculinity that's
3:57certainly true but that does not change
3:58the underlying sexual dichotomy that is
4:00the basis for all human reproduction
4:03yeah you can
4:04answer um right so this dichotomy is a
4:06false dichotomy that isn't supported by
4:08any of the medical associations that i
4:10just named then let me explain medical
4:12associations that i just named off would
4:14actually support the uh idea that um
4:18gender is biological this is something
4:19that's completely untrue within every
4:21single like medical consensus well then
4:24i will just say that anyone who suggests
4:25that gender has no reference whatsoever
4:27to biology it's not connected in any way
4:29to biology it's just full of
4:30because if they see and the reason i
4:34and
4:35and the re and the reason that i say
4:37then you then you class it then you
4:40actually just disagree with medical
4:41consensus yes
4:43yes i disagree with the false medical
4:44consensus driven by politically driven
4:47quote unquote doctors if any doctor
4:49denies to me that there is a dichotomy
4:51between male and female a sexual
4:52dichotomy between male and female they
4:54are ignorant and they're letting their
4:55politics get in the way of their science
4:57anybody who suggests to you that there
4:59is such a thing for example as a
5:00pregnant male is not a doctor they are
5:02an activist
5:04[Applause]
5:11i'm very glad that none of these
5:13opinions are actually accepted in
5:14academia and haven't been for over 70
5:16years synth is here on the wall okay so
5:18the notion that they haven't been
5:19accepted for over 70 years is a bizarre
5:21one considering they were accepted until
5:22about five minutes ago and the basic
5:24idea that male and female do not exist
5:26runs counter to all mammalian biology
5:29all of it not just human are we to
5:30suggest that gender and and sex are
5:32different in walruses how does this work
5:34exactly like
5:36are they different in bears any time you
5:37have a any time you have all mammalian
5:40reproduction is rooted in the idea that
5:42there's a sexual dichotomy between male
5:43and female to obscure that with all
5:45sorts of semantic word games about how
5:46you feel subjectively has no bearing on
5:49whether male and female are categories
5:50that exist and if you're trying to
5:52define male and female with reference to
5:54any subjective category that cannot be
5:56identified by any metric whatsoever
5:58other than how you feel today i
5:59challenge whether that is scientific or
6:01whether that is merely a self-perception
6:03that is being guided by a political
6:04agenda i'm sorry i spent more time on
6:06this but we have to get to the next
6:07question i appreciate it
6:08[Applause]
6:18hey benjamibo good to see you
6:21hey everybody here good to see you guys
6:22too i'm glad to be here i got in on the
6:24stand in line so i'm really happy to be
6:25here um do you know about the bill that
6:28republicans are trying to pass to stop
6:30critical race theory being taught in
6:31college um i'm aware that there isabelle
6:34i haven't read the text of it but go
6:35ahead
6:36okay so in florida i think it's going to
6:38go
6:39oh i look sick um
6:43so it's going to be
6:44decided i guess we're going to talk
6:46about it in like december um yeah in the
6:48new legislative session correct yes go
6:50ahead so as a republican being pro free
6:53speech
6:54do you have anything to say against this
6:56like we're really
6:57simply just outlawing certain words to
7:00be used
7:01in public spheres such as education
7:03um i feel like more republicans should
7:05kind of seem see this as concerning you
7:08know you guys always quote uh 18 1984 or
7:11whatever
7:12um you know this is like an orwellian
7:14move isn't it so so it depends on what
7:16level of education we're talking about
7:18if we're talking about the idea that
7:19critical race theory can be taught as
7:21one of many theories on college campuses
7:23i have no problem with it marxism is
7:24taught as one of many theories on
7:25college campuses if the idea is that
7:27we're going to be teaching critical race
7:29theory which is not
7:30taught as one of many theories it's
7:32taught as a framework for understanding
7:33the world and it is a lens through which
7:35we are to view history this is something
7:37that the founders of critical race
7:38theory openly acknowledge they suggest
7:40the critical race theory has a praxis
7:41component meaning it's a practice
7:42component that is designed in order to
7:44indoctrinate kids in a particular type
7:46of thinking about how america's
7:48institutions work do i think that the
7:50taxpayers of the state of florida have
7:51an obligation to subsidize the
7:53indoctrination of their children in that
7:54no and i think that public education as
7:56an institution is dedicated not merely
7:59to the idea that you send your kids to
8:00school then the teachers dump whatever
8:01they want on your kids i think the idea
8:04is that these the parents delegate their
8:06power to educate their children to the
8:07state
8:08via the public schools and then they
8:10have the authority and should have the
8:11authority to determine what framework is
8:13being taught and the anti-american
8:15framework of critical race theory which
8:16is unrooted in actual history ought not
8:18be taught in america's public schools
8:27um
8:28like critical race theory is literally a
8:29footnote in my sociology class and it's
8:32a framework if you want to take it in as
8:34a framework listen i learned critical
8:35race there when i was at harvard law
8:36school too right i mean i i
8:38facts whenever you talk about critical
8:40race theory you say the right things you
8:42know what you're talking about but
8:43because you're republican it's the
8:45talking point to go against no they are
8:48i'm a pro free speech american so this
8:51deeply concerns me when are
8:53words exact words that are being
8:55restricted
8:56in the public sphere well that's why i
8:58just ended up by saying marketplace of
9:00ideas so i'm a big marketer right so i i
9:02again i would distinguish between
9:04marketplace of ideas in the college
9:05realm and mark when presumably people
9:07are old enough to actually understand
9:09what they're talking about have open and
9:12interesting debates about these topics
9:14and when you're talking about 11 year
9:15olds or 10 year olds or when you're
9:17talking about reading ibramax candy
9:18which is a really dumbed down version of
9:19critical race theory for five-year-olds
9:21for colleges not for eleven-year-olds
9:23well then i'll have colleges i'd be
9:24happy to look at the text of the bill
9:26and determine what i think about the
9:27bill i do think that public schools i'm
9:30not sure that public schools have an
9:31obligation to teach as practical
9:34critical race theory again i think there
9:36are different ways that it's taught so
9:37if we're talking about just in your
9:38sociology class it's one of many
9:39theories about american history and now
9:41we're going to talk about how it applies
9:42i don't really have a problem with that
9:44being taught if we're talking about
9:45critical race theory being taught as a
9:47framework to view america's institutions
9:49to the exclusion of other frameworks i
9:51do have a problem with that
9:53thank you
10:07hello um so earlier on in your lecture
10:10you were saying that
10:11due process past the 14th amendment has
10:14been equally distributed to all groups
10:16across america no
10:18i said i said i i didn't say that in
10:20practice it has i said the concept of
10:21due process is dedicated to the
10:23proposition that people should be
10:24treated as individuals obviously
10:25segregation and and racism and criminal
10:28justice up until the civil rights act
10:29would suggest that on a practical level
10:31it was not equally distributed obviously
10:34okay so an idea but in practice it was
10:38you agree that it was um
10:41not equally distributed to all groups
10:43across america sure okay so then
10:46wouldn't that how is that in opposition
10:48to
10:49um critical race theory that teaches
10:51that these institutions have been used
10:53to um prosecute certain groups
10:56differently than others have been
10:58prosecuted because that's not what
10:59critical race theory teaches what
11:01critical race theory teaches is that
11:02supposedly colorblind institutions like
11:04due process of law or cover for racism
11:07as a as an institution due process of
11:09law is a problem because it is not
11:11because it is a good concept badly
11:13applied or
11:14improperly applied it's because it is in
11:16and of itself a discriminatory concept
11:18right this is what they said by
11:19capitalism also right free market
11:20economies are inherently discriminatory
11:22they are covers for institutions of
11:24power that's the critique the critique
11:26is that due process of law in and of
11:28itself the idea of treating people
11:30individually ignores key components
11:31about human beings namely how they are
11:33seen racially by other human beings and
11:35thus due process of law is not enough to
11:37guarantee that people are treated
11:39equally or can be treated equally i
11:41disagree i think due process of law is
11:42an excellent guarantee and straying away
11:44from that guarantee has been the problem
11:45with regard to process of law not the
11:47actual guarantee itself
11:50okay
11:51sorry my voice is a bit gone um
11:54so then would you agree not banning
11:57critical race theory in public inst um
12:00like in theory that in the theory that
12:02they are covers what would you be a
12:04proponent of having the education that
12:07these institutions have been used to
12:09attack other minority groups across
12:11america and that it has had historic um
12:14scars that are still um rep that um we
12:18still see today so i wouldn't say that
12:20the institutions have been used to abuse
12:22dupri i wouldn't say due process of law
12:24has been used to abuse minorities i
12:25would say that people have refused to
12:27implement due process of law because
12:28they wanted to abuse minorities of
12:30course and of course you'd have to teach
12:31about that i mean that's the entire
12:32history of segregation and the
12:33subjugation of black americans up to the
12:35civil rights act for sure of course and
12:39this is why it's such a lie when people
12:40say that if you don't want to teach
12:41critical race theory you don't want to
12:43teach history i'm fine with teaching
12:44every ugly part of american history what
12:46i'm not fine with is the idea that the
12:48foundational ideas of the united states
12:49of america the notion that we are
12:51created equal before god with certain
12:53inalienable rights and the government
12:54was instituted in order to protect these
12:56rights i disagree with the fundamental
12:57idea that these were a cover for power
12:59designed in order to subjugate black
13:01americans i think that's a lie and i
13:03think it's deleterious to teach that to
13:04kids
13:08[Applause]
13:19right here
13:20okay so um i don't want to misinterpret
13:23your position but it's your belief tell
13:26me if i'm right or wrong about this okay
13:28um it's your belief that america is
13:30fundamentally a skillsocracy as you call
13:33it as as opposed to a meritocracy
13:34correct
13:36yes
13:37okay
13:38then how because i don't connect moral
13:40merit with with intellect people are
13:41born yeah yeah okay
13:43nice um that's good uh the um my
13:47question is how do you explain the fact
13:50that the vast majority of american
13:51inequality is caused by the people who
13:54you know the neighborhoods you grew up
13:55in the amount of wealth your parents
13:57have and thousands and thousands and
13:59thousands of other whether you believe
14:00that race is involved or not but
14:02thousands of other non-skill based
14:04factors
14:05um that are integral to moving head in
14:08the american system so i don't think
14:10that that's true primarily what i think
14:12is that all of those things have an
14:13impact on the skills that manifest in
14:15the marketplace
14:16no question but what the market measures
14:18is is at the point of the skills it's
14:20not measure if there's a skilled person
14:21who's coming from an impoverished
14:22background where there's a lot of single
14:24motherhood and crime for example and
14:26that person has high skills that person
14:27is going to do fine
14:28okay but the problem is that all of
14:30those things can contribute to a lack of
14:31skills
14:32right this is part of my argument and
14:34the only way to to actually alleviate
14:36that problem is to change the cultural
14:37milieu that makes it very difficult for
14:39people to achieve a certain level of
14:40skills in particular communities
14:42single motherhood makes it very
14:43difficult for example for kids to grow
14:45up in an environment where they have a
14:47solid family home where they're studying
14:49a lot at home where education is is of
14:52primary value as opposed to just getting
14:54through the day crime free for example
14:56and without being victimized by
14:57neighbors high crime areas right all of
15:00these things are things that we can
15:01alleviate and i think that we should
15:02alleviate them these are real problems
15:04to people fully developing their skills
15:05the point that i'm making is that the
15:06system of economics is not punishing
15:08people for their upbringing it's
15:09punishing them for lack of skills which
15:11may in fact be an effect of their
15:13upbringing
15:14right but but that does not mean that
15:15primarily the skills occurrency is
15:17punishing people for their for for their
15:19environment or for their race it is
15:21punishing them for the fact that when it
15:22comes time for them to go to the job
15:24market they don't have the same skills
15:25as the person next to them so the
15:26question becomes not how do we get rid
15:28of the skillsocracy the question becomes
15:30how do we get rid of the obstacles to
15:32people who could be more skilled
15:34becoming more skilled
15:35and that means creating cultural
15:37institutions that matter it means
15:39creating communities it means trying to
15:41ensure that people have a father and a
15:43mother in the home trying to make sure
15:44that people can live in safe
15:45neighborhoods where there are thriving
15:46communities where there are jobs
15:48available
15:49right that would that would effectuate a
15:51better opportunity set to enter the
15:53skillsocracy but what i see is people
15:55attacking the distribution of reward at
15:57the skills level as opposed to attacking
15:59the underlying problem which creates a
16:01lot of the inequalities you're talking
16:02about
16:04[Applause]
16:14yeah so i was wondering you so you
16:17believe that um things like single
16:19motherhood things like growing up in
16:21high crime areas are inherently cultural
16:24rather than to do with any institutions
16:26or any inequalities uh that are part of
16:29american society institutionally no i
16:31think that history has a long tail but i
16:33think that the only way that you fix
16:34that is by changing the incentive
16:36structure for individuals right now
16:38so i think that you can blame the the
16:39the amount of crime in a particular
16:41community on a long history of
16:44disinvestments in that community 50 60
16:45years ago i don't think it's going to
16:47change a damn thing and i don't think
16:48pouring money into the community is
16:49necessarily the solution i think if
16:51you're looking at high crime levels i
16:52think the best solution is you need more
16:53cops on the ground to stop the crime
16:55this is what's going to allow people to
16:57invest in the area and provide more jobs
16:59and i think that trying to spend all of
17:00your time the question is are we trying
17:02to
17:03are we trying to diagnose a problem that
17:05is solvable or are we trying to just
17:07describe the history of the problem if
17:08we want to describe the history of the
17:09problem that's fine but using that as a
17:10substitute for a practical solutions
17:13based approach to problems is a
17:15political mistake one is the study of
17:16historians the other is the study of
17:18politicians and political actors that
17:20ought to actually be applied in real
17:21life
17:23so when you have a solution like
17:26affirmative action or you have a
17:27solution like
17:29benefiting people from lower income
17:31communities and i know obviously there's
17:33a difference between affirmative action
17:34on the racial level and affirmative
17:35reaction on the economic level you think
17:38that
17:39government policy should have no role in
17:43uh in alleviating those inequalities
17:45even though government policy
17:46purportedly in the past even though i
17:48would argue currently created those
17:49inequalities in the first place i think
17:51that any time the government attempts to
17:52remedy past discrimination by the use of
17:54current discrimination all they are
17:55doing is effectuating discrimination and
17:57undermining the skillsocracy that allows
17:59for positive externalities yes
18:02[Applause]
18:16hi ben how are you
18:18doing okay how are you great
18:20um how come you claim to be five nine
18:22even though you're like five five
18:25i don't know how tall are
18:26you you're five nine i'm actually fine
18:29okay come over here let's see
18:32[Applause]
18:51hmm
18:56[Music]
19:02i'll be honest i planned it i'm waiting
19:03years to do that
19:07hi how are you um my question is
19:09regarding two very high profile court
19:11cases going on right now the uh ahmed
19:13arbory trials and the kyle ridden house
19:15trials and my question is
19:17what do you believe would be the outcome
19:18of these trials and why okay so i think
19:21that there's what will happen what
19:23should happen i'm not going to try and
19:24predict what will happen because he
19:25cannot predict what juries are going to
19:26do what should happen right now should
19:28be acquitted
19:29he clearly acted in self-defense
19:35that doesn't mean that i would send my
19:3617 year old over to kenosha wisconsin in
19:39order to protect property and provide
19:41medical aid to people but it does mean
19:42that the shootings that he committed
19:43were in self-defense the evidence is
19:44pretty much as clear as day on that one
19:47uh and uh the prosecutor has no case and
19:49frankly he's making a fool of himself he
19:50looks like at his law degree for turning
19:52in the tops of cracker jack boxes um
19:56in the arbory case the the main question
19:58in the arbory case is going to come down
19:59to legally speaking whether the whether
20:02the mcdaniels who are the the defendants
20:04in this particular case whether they had
20:06the capacity under the citizens arrest
20:07law of georgia to arrest our birds there
20:09was some testimony last week that a
20:11couple of weeks before they went after
20:13arbory
20:14and they were they went to this house
20:16that arbory had been allegedly inside of
20:19this this construction site and tools
20:21had been stolen from there and all this
20:22they went there with a local cop
20:24apparently and the local cop was
20:26speaking to them about how there was
20:28somebody who looked exactly like arbor
20:29who'd been inside stealing things right
20:31and so what this does it provides the
20:33predicate for the notion they have to
20:35that if they get a call that somebody is
20:37stealing things and that person matches
20:39arbori's description
20:41and and the cop in the tape says it's
20:43possible he's stealing things it could
20:44be a misdemeanor it could be a felony
20:46once it's a felony you can effectuate a
20:47citizen's arrest so the question is
20:49going to be whether that citizen's
20:50arrest was lawful or not the attempted
20:51citizens arrest because once you get
20:53down to the the end of it right the end
20:55of it where they they're road blocking
20:57him and they're trying to keep him from
20:58running away and arbury runs between the
21:00cars now you essentially have a case of
21:02almost mutual self-defense right it's
21:03actually really a terrible case in which
21:05arberry sees these guys chasing him in
21:07trucks
21:08why is he going to pull over right and
21:09so he tries to run he goes for the gun
21:12they shoot him so from their perspective
21:14they're trying to give the citizens
21:14citizen's arrest they have to shoot him
21:16in self-defense from his perspective
21:17he's trying to run away and they're
21:18blocking him and trying to falsely
21:19imprison him and so he's acting in
21:21self-defense so the only way to solve
21:23that legal conundrum is whether they
21:25were in fact
21:26under the belief that they were
21:27attempting to arrest him a citizen's
21:28arrest and they had good cause like uh
21:30it has to be by the preponderance of the
21:32evidence like 51 49 standard if they had
21:35probably if they had um a 51 to 49
21:39probability of the evidence that he was
21:41committing a felony and that they could
21:43arrest him then they could be acquitted
21:45so that's the legal issue that's what
21:46it's going to come down to
21:48considering that citizen's arrest is a
21:50widely outdated law do you consider that
21:52it should be reformed
21:54um you know it's it's difficult to
21:57reform citizens arrest because again
21:58they're they're just so many areas where
22:00the cops are not available i mean what i
22:01would like is to make it so that
22:02citizen's arrest is not something that
22:04anybody really wants to do because the
22:05cops are so available that you just call
22:07them
22:08right and by the way this is what
22:09happens in
22:11in in low crime
22:13high income areas frankly there are a
22:15lot of cops available there's a lot of
22:16security you don't see a lot of people
22:17running around trying to effectuate
22:18citizens arrests in those areas you
22:20typically have somebody calling a police
22:21officer
22:23and uh sorry one last question is do you
22:25believe that rittenhouse traveled to
22:27kenosha with the intent of stirring
22:29trouble or not
22:30um i think that by the available
22:32evidence he went there with the intents
22:33of providing medical aid and brought the
22:34gun because he thought the trouble was
22:36might break out or could break out i
22:37don't think that he went there to shoot
22:38anybody if that's the question and i
22:40think the prosecution's case that he
22:41went there to shoot somebody is
22:42undermined by pretty much every single
22:44fact on the ground including his own
22:45behavior that night
22:48[Applause]
22:57hi ben how you doing okay how are you
22:59i'm good um so in our country we have a
23:02lot of billionaires we have a lot of
23:03companies that are worth billions of
23:04dollars it's a great country sure
23:07so so tesla uses lithium mines in africa
23:10where children are employed they're paid
23:13very little amounts of money they're
23:15starving
23:16nike uses children in asia where they're
23:20working with textiles and they are
23:22injured frequently these are all
23:23dangerous conditions uh all these
23:26companies all these billionaire
23:28billionaire companies
23:30have these similar like problems at the
23:32bottom ring
23:33do you think that
23:34that do you think that that's
23:36exploitation do you think that
23:37exploitation is a problem and do you
23:39think that your idea of free market
23:41capitalism has an answer for
23:43exploitation
23:45so
23:46so
23:48so i think that every economic system
23:50has a problem of exploitation if it's
23:51not bound by certain levels of morality
23:54right socialism has a level of
23:55exploitation too which you see in the
23:56soviet union for example you can treat
23:58workers as chattel and you can treat
23:59them as trash and you can force them
24:01into doing jobs they don't want to go
24:02log them so any system of economics that
24:04relies on on force is a form of
24:07exploitation i would say that the
24:08problem that you see with regard to
24:09china is not per se free markets it's
24:13the fact that the chinese government is
24:15willing to allow its own citizens to be
24:17used as child labor and the fact that
24:19there is no governance structure in
24:20africa at all to protect children if
24:22what you're saying about tesla is true
24:23i'm going to assume that it is i don't
24:24know enough about the issue
24:26so assuming that that is the case
24:27there's nothing in free market
24:28capitalism that
24:30prohibits people who are incapable of
24:33making decisions for themselves
24:36from being exploited that's true right i
24:38mean if you can find somebody who's this
24:40particularly true child labor children
24:42are not capable of consent if children
24:43are incapable of consent then free
24:44market conditions should not prevail and
24:46there should be laws on the books that
24:47prevent companies from actually using
24:49that sorts of labor we've had child
24:51labor laws in the united states for
24:52quite a while and i agree with those
24:55so but that's not to suggest that any
24:56other economic system wouldn't be
24:58similarly prone to exactly the same
25:00kinds of problem as long as you are
25:01saying that that exploitation is simply
25:04a function of economic growth
25:06or even economic distribution right
25:08they're almost two separate issues so
25:10one is an issue of morality immoral
25:11people can use any system in order to
25:13harm other people and particularly
25:15children and people who can't protect
25:16themselves
25:18the case that socialism makes is that
25:19people who are fully capable of consent
25:20are also exploited and that i think is a
25:22lie
25:25well do you do you think that
25:29um
25:30i apologize oh no worries i just tripped
25:32up but
25:33um
25:36yeah i'm sorry that's okay i mean i
25:38think the the broader point that i'm
25:40making is that when it comes to sorry
25:42did you remember so yeah so would you be
25:44in favor of legislation here in the
25:45united states that prevents billionaire
25:47companies and multi-billion dollar
25:49companies from using exploitation around
25:51the world
25:52uh depending on what we are defining as
25:54exploitation sure i mean if we're
25:55talking about like forcing small
25:57children to make nike shoes absolutely
25:59yes
26:00child labor yes okay
26:02yes okay well and by the way we're in
26:04agreement and by the way we're in
26:06agreement yeah and and by the way i
26:08would agree with with a united states
26:09policy of tariffing any company abroad
26:12that also uses similar levels of labor
26:13because the big problem is that the
26:14reason companies in the united states
26:16presumably do that sort of stuff is in
26:17order to compete with companies abroad
26:19that are using exactly that sort of
26:21labor so punishing those companies
26:22abroad from doing that would also be a
26:24way of preventing them from entering
26:25american markets and undercutting
26:26companies that are now undergoing the
26:28higher labor cost of having to not use
26:30small children to make shoes
26:33[Applause]
26:45all right uh hello i just wanted to ask
26:47so i want to bring up the fact that you
26:49talked about individuals and everything
26:51and
26:51i wanted to bring up a few examples like
26:53for example like covet and like say like
26:55the 2008 financial collapse and even
26:57like the 1994 crime bill and things like
26:59that those have definitely effects on
27:01big groups and especially like the black
27:03community and everything like after the
27:042008 financial collapse
27:07not many people got you know
27:09like i wouldn't say cues but convicted
27:11for example not many people on wall
27:12street the individuals who did profit a
27:15lot from those things
27:16but millions of people were kicked out
27:18of their homes and everything and you
27:20talk about like
27:21us things like these being or america
27:23being you know based on individuals and
27:26individuals wanting to achieve different
27:28things but in reality
27:30a lot of like people are affected by
27:32their societal factors you know their
27:34environment and everything so i want to
27:35get your answer on that and like how
27:38these negative effects
27:39you know
27:40affect the majority of people but a
27:42positive positives the money gains you
27:44know the wall street things
27:46not many of the working-class people in
27:48tallahassee for example feel that you
27:50know not many people in tallahassee felt
27:52the uh after covid or during covid you
27:55know the stock market jumps the average
27:57employer just saw a bunch of just empty
28:00you know
28:00employment you know options and low
28:03wages and everything still and the same
28:05old same also well i mean okay so i
28:07think that the fundamental idea with
28:09regard to it's almost two separate
28:10questions and so i'm going to take them
28:11one at a time the reason i'm separating
28:12the questions is because when it comes
28:14to corporate bailouts for example i'm
28:15sure you and i agree i don't think that
28:17any of those corporations should have
28:18been bailed out i think that if you
28:20engage in the moral hazard of wrecking
28:21your own company i don't see why i'm
28:23supposed to pay for that or you're
28:24supposed to pay for that
28:25in a free market system you're supposed
28:26to bear the consequences of the risks
28:28that you take i think that's true across
28:30the board and i think that whether
28:31you're a big rich guy on wall street and
28:33you lose your entire company or whether
28:35you're a guy who took out a loan that
28:36you couldn't afford on your house if you
28:38take out too much
28:40that is as i
28:41am constantly representing a you problem
28:43if you take a risk and then you bear the
28:45consequence of that risk that's no one's
28:47fault but your own and anybody who comes
28:48in to bail you out from that
28:50particularly if you're talking about
28:51like billions of dollars in order to
28:53prop up a particular lifestyle that's a
28:55huge mistake and it's a huge problem and
28:57i totally agree
28:58with that
28:59and um for example with that like
29:02you know we in america we do bail these
29:04people out you know our capitalist
29:05system does not it's not capitalism
29:07that's cronyism definitely yeah people
29:09say that but no but it's true it's it's
29:11nobody we do bail these people out right
29:14i'm just saying that that's not
29:14capitalism that's actually closer to
29:16corporatism which is the government
29:18being in control of the economy
29:19essentially i mean
29:20where is who's bailing them out i mean
29:22are they bailing them out the government
29:23is bailing definitely the government and
29:25for example we don't get these similar
29:26bailouts for regular people like for
29:29example joe biden was you know promoting
29:32just two thousand dollars you know we're
29:34fighting for scraps i want to understand
29:35like where does that come from like why
29:38are we so you know willing to get i mean
29:40the united states does spend
29:42literally trillions of dollars on social
29:44welfare programs the notion the united
29:46states has no social safety net at all
29:47is not true the united states spends
29:49per citizen
29:51tens of thousands of dollars on on
29:53social welfare benefits ranging from
29:56medicaid to food stamps to
29:59unemployment insurance to a wide variety
30:01of programs the notion that we're wildly
30:02out of line with europe is just not
30:03borne out by the statistical facts
30:05actually it's kind of an american myth
30:07that we tell ourselves that we don't
30:08spend any money on this sort of stuff
30:09it's not true since the beginning of the
30:10war on poverty we spent something like
30:1122 trillion dollars on various social
30:14programs and essentially the same number
30:16of people live underneath the poverty
30:17line okay and then last question so we
30:19have this uh infrastructure bill going
30:21through and you see people like joe
30:23manchin you know arguing over
30:25you know what is it five billion dollars
30:27in regards to it or just you know just a
30:29little price difference for example
30:32over the past 20 years we've been
30:33fighting wars in afghanistan and we
30:35spent trillions and billions of dollars
30:38and you have these politicians saying
30:40that these infrastructure bills that
30:41will help us
30:42on our domestic front
30:44these small price changes are going to
30:46have dramatic effects on you know our
30:48future and our children and that's why
30:50they you know the republican party they
30:53definitely you know go for austerity and
30:54those you know factors so the wars to
30:57take an example the wars in iraq and
30:59afghanistan were expensive they cost
31:02grand total somewhere between three and
31:03four trillion dollars last i checked the
31:05united states spends about four million
31:06dollars in budget every single year we
31:08spend about seven trillion dollars last
31:09year that's every year right yeah i just
31:11want to know what that what that means
31:12for the future of our children if we're
31:14willing to spend that much on war
31:15like what does that mean in regards to
31:18you know these infrastructure bills us
31:20fighting over these small amounts
31:22we're not really fighting over small
31:23amounts these are very large amounts of
31:25money the entire american budget 40
31:26years ago was not nearly as much as one
31:28of these infrastructure bills i mean 20
31:30years ago it wasn't and just go back and
31:32look at the budgeting so we're spending
31:34unsustainable amounts of money on nearly
31:35everything in american life to point out
31:38defense spending as opposed to what
31:40really constitutes the vast bulk of our
31:41budget which is everything else defense
31:43spending is a percentage of the american
31:44budget is something like 20 25 of the
31:46american budget i think it's even that
31:47high
31:48that that is not the chief driver of
31:50systemic spending problems in the united
31:52states it's these it's massive mandatory
31:55spending programs i have to ask you a
31:56question were you the guy before who i
31:58saw a picture of holding uh the very
32:00creative flag
32:02of us yes it was yeah dude i just i got
32:05to ask you like
32:07lennon and stalin really yeah definitely
32:09lennon and stalin it's just
32:11stalin stalin definitely due to world
32:13war ii you know i mean there's no
32:15exploitation of people i mean stalin i
32:17mean we do a lot of that in america too
32:21i live in tallahassee there's a lot of
32:23exploitation i used to work at a lot of
32:25places and there's a lot of poor people
32:27who logs though
32:30we have prisons in america too
32:32we have where you want to go like three
32:33particularly people murdered by style
32:35and like really really if you're gonna
32:36if you're gonna go marxist then please
32:38find a better marxist to emulate than
32:39than lenin or stalin mass murderers
32:43soviet union the soviet union during
32:45world war ii
32:46saved the world i would say that it had
32:49not been for stalin world war i never
32:50would have started because it was the
32:51molotov ribbon trop pack that allowed
32:53the nazi germans to believe that they
32:55could invade eastern europe
33:03this will be the last question that mr
33:04shapiro takes for the evening
33:09that's a lot of pressure um
33:11my name is andrew
33:13um and uh i used to i was introduced to
33:16you by the michael knowles book reasons
33:18to vote for democrats
33:20your quote that said thorough at the top
33:22and it was a blank book um and if anyone
33:24was
33:25familiar with that book um
33:27but um
33:29i uh
33:30my question is um about uh
33:33it's like
33:35in the in the way that like the
33:37the things that you're saying about
33:39um
33:40certain you know things being done with
33:42hard work seeing things being done with
33:44intellect um as kind of like a
33:47you know a slippery slope to two more
33:50right like you know
33:53racist things or like white supremacist
33:55things
33:56um the question is like a fsu specific
33:59question about
34:00um
34:01what your thoughts are about the
34:03difference between
34:04canceling someone for what they believe
34:06and accountability
34:08in a position where they should have
34:10accountability um specifically jack
34:12denton
34:13who is a was an fsu i believe senate
34:17person but he was basically he had um
34:20sorry
34:21i should be more knowledgeable about
34:22this but um
34:24and i really don't want to be the the
34:25college student destroyed by ben shapiro
34:29but um
34:31but the question is basically he was a
34:33he was an fsu student that um had
34:35anti-blm anti uh transgender uh comments
34:39in um
34:41uh catholic group that he had the
34:42facebook group or something if someone
34:44wants to correct me on that they can but
34:47a group me gotcha different application
34:49okay um but the question is basically uh
34:52what are your thoughts on that
34:55you know
34:56i mean so so my my basic view of council
34:58culture i won't comment on a specific
35:00case because i really don't know the
35:01facts of the case but my general
35:03thoughts on on cancel culture versus
35:05what they call accountability culture is
35:07you get to hold somebody accountable for
35:09a thing that they do in the space where
35:11they do it what i mean by that is i
35:13speak on politics if i say something bad
35:15about politics you cannot listen to my
35:17show you can say that that i'm a bad man
35:19and you should and you can come after me
35:21and you can tell people not to listen to
35:22me and all of that if you go after my
35:24advertisers who are advertising on a
35:26wide variety of programs then that is an
35:29attempt to cancel as opposed to an
35:31attempt to to hold accountable because
35:33the person that you're actually
35:33attempting to hold accountable is not me
35:35you're attempting to go after
35:36advertisers who have had nothing to say
35:38about any of that my advertisers i
35:40assume disagree with a lot of what i say
35:42just because they advertise on the
35:43program does not mean that they approve
35:44of everything i say any more than they
35:46agree with everything on msnbc if they
35:47advertise on both of us um this this
35:49holds true across
35:51i would say industries so you see you'll
35:52see a plumber and a plumber has some
35:54sort of bad thing on a facebook page and
35:56the idea is that you can no longer use
35:58this plumber because what was on their
35:59facebook page that they were talking
36:00about politics that seems very silly to
36:02me if you can unclog my toilet i'll use
36:04you as the plumber these two things have
36:06nothing whatsoever to do with each other
36:08if it impacts your job performance
36:09that's accountability culture if it
36:11impacts not your job performance you
36:13just impact sort of your public
36:14perception that seems a lot more like
36:15cancel culture to me
36:18as a member of student government do you
36:20think that he should be held accountable
36:23to those beliefs i mean it depends who's
36:24holding him accountable in other words
36:26was he you'll have to tell me the story
36:28did was he dumped by the school from his
36:29position in the student senate or did
36:31people just not elect him in the future
36:32it was a vote of no confidence from the
36:35um student government i mean i i can say
36:37whether i disagree or agree with that
36:39but i can also say that if a student
36:41government votes that they don't want
36:42somebody else in student government
36:44because of something that they've said
36:45politically then
36:47i i can think that they are are being
36:49censorious i'm not sure that that counts
36:51as formal cancer culture in the sense
36:53that they're being cancelled for
36:54something that that is outside the
36:56purview of which they're they're
36:57normally speaking uh but i can still
36:59think that the people are doing their
37:00jackasses i don't know what he said
37:02so both of those things can be true one
37:04sometimes accountability culture as it's
37:05called can also be misused it's not like
37:07a hard divide between accountability
37:08culture is good and canceled culture is
37:10universally bad right i could probably
37:12think of hypothetical scenarios where
37:14that's not true

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Ben Shapiro Q&A: Transgenderism Debate, Kyle Rittenhouse, CRT in Schools by Ben Shapiro, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,316 words across 1,155 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.