The problem with Ben Shapiro

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 9:07pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

Doesn’t religion, Judaism in particular, go through the mother? I don’t believe she converted until after Marx was born. Still, more of a “technicality”.

Ethnicity goes through the female according to Judaic law. Anyone can convert to any religion though.

A Jew can be both an ethnic circumstance and a religious one. You can be born a Jew and be religiously Protestant.

gozunda · 28-01-2021 10:03pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Karl Marx was an ethnic Jew. There's noting "not quite" about it. That he viewed all religions sceptically, including Judaism, is another matter.

Not 'quite' because he did not observe Jewish religious practice or worship.

But you wish to talk about ethnicity? Ok

Marx was ethnically but not religiously Jewish. . He was baptised into the Lutheran Church at a young age and as an adult was a lapsed Christian and an atheist

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/was-karl-marx-jewish/

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/karl-marx

Dyr · 28-01-2021 10:13pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Hitchens would have had him as an hors d'oeuvre. Shapiro wouldn’t even go there.

Hitchens was a lot like Shapiro, he was very careful about who he picked his battles with because his mile a minute bull**** was weak as f***k

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 10:29pm

gozunda wrote: »

Not 'quite' because he did not observe Jewish religious practice or worship.

But you wish to talk about ethnicity? Ok

Marx was ethnically but not religiously Jewish. . He was baptised into the Lutheran Church at a young age and as an adult was a lapsed Christian and an atheist

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/was-karl-marx-jewish/

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/karl-marx

Look, you can go round with this all week. But Karl Marx was a Jew. He came from a LONG line of Jews. The fact that he didn't practice any religion doesn't mean that he wasn't a Jew.

gozunda · 28-01-2021 10:36pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Look, you can go round with this all week. But Karl Marx was a Jew. He came from a LONG line of Jews. The fact that he didn't practice any religion doesn't mean that he wasn't a Jew.

If you say so

However the author of the piece on Karl Marx in the Jewish Standard as linked above might disagree with you about being jewish where a person converts to another religion etc

https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/was-karl-marx-jewish/

But no not referring to his ethnicity. Hence the not 'quite' above.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-01-2021 10:47pm

Bambi wrote: »

Hitchens was a lot like Shapiro, he was very careful about who he picked his battles with because his mile a minute bull**** was weak as f***k

I don’t worship Hitchens but I don’t agree. Shapiro has nothing on Hitchens. We all saw how easily Shapiro crumbled when he received pretty mild pushback from a British right-wing commentator. Hitchens would have done better in the same scenario.

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 10:48pm

gozunda wrote: »

If you say so

It isn't me who says so. That's Hebrew law. You are Jewish if your mother was and Marx's mother, Henriette, was, and so was her mother. Marx's religion, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to his ethnicity. That's something you can choose to drop if one wishes, or return to, or switch.

There are Jews all over the world who identify as Jews, but don't practice any religion. You can be born a Jew and never observe a single Shabbat or step inside a temple for your entire life.

gozunda · 28-01-2021 10:52pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It isn't me who says so. That's Hebrew law. You are Jewish if your mother was and Marx's mother, Henriette, was, and so was her mother. Marx's religion, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to his ethnicity. That's something you can choose to drop if one wishes, or return to, or switch.

There are Jews all over the world who identify as Jews, but don't practice any religion. You can be born a Jew and never observe a single Shabbat or step inside a temple for your entire life.

Again read the previous comment fully and the linked article. It was not referring to his ethnicity.

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 10:57pm

gozunda wrote: »

Again read the previous comment fully. No one was referring to his ethnicity.

You originally said "not quite" to my "Karl Marx was a Jew". There is no "not quite" about it. His religious practice, or lack thereof, and even his criticism of Jews, makes no difference to him being a Jew.

28-01-2021 11:01pm

He's hardly omnipotent like..

Every time he's brought up it's always that one interview and that tweet about Israel in 2004 or something..

In relation to that interview, I've heard him address it..he realised he fncked up.. I'm actually watching it now..Tbh a lot of the questions are fairly borderline.. yeah, Shapiro's overreacting a bit, but yer man is being a bit of a dickhead..

Yeah.. it's a 50/50.. Neil was winding him up.. Shapiro probably gets wound up easily..

gozunda · 28-01-2021 11:04pm

Tony EH wrote: »

You originally said "not quite" to my "Karl Marx was a Jew". There is no "not quite" about it. His religious practice, or lack thereof, and even his criticism of Jews, makes no difference to him being a Jew.

Tbh not sure what you are actually arguing about other than digging a deep hole
In context and my original comment the 'not quite' clarified that he was not a practicing jew. Its really not that hard to understand.

I'll leave it with you.

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 11:09pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t worship Hitchens but I don’t agree. Shapiro has nothing on Hitchens. We all saw how easily Shapiro crumbled when he received pretty mild pushback from a British right-wing commentator. Hitchens would have done better in the same scenario.

Hitchens did, very carefully, pick his arguments and could offer a robust debate to most. He would have had Shapiro on the ropes in the first round and then poor old Benny would probably end up just calling him a Socialist, when his points were shown to be null and void.

But Hitchens was pigheaded too. His getting into bed with the Neocons and their war in Iraq was pretty much a disaster and, likewise, his refusal to just admit that he backed the wrong horse on that showed a very dislikable side to the man.

But "classic" Hitchens, back in the 80's and 90's, is still a joy to watch. The 2000's Hitchens, not so much.

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 11:11pm

gozunda wrote: »

Tbh not sure what you are actually arguing about other than digging a deep hole
In context and my original comment the 'not quite' clarified that he was not a practicing jew. Its really not that hard to understand.

I'll leave it with you.

I know several Jews in New York that have never once seen the inside of a temple. If I was to say to any of them that they were "not quite" Jewish, I soon get a dig in the gob.

Or, at least, a very long argument.

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 11:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Neil was winding him up.. Shapiro probably gets wound up easily..

I'm not too sure if he was on a wind up. He simply showed Shaprio's argument to be fallacious, by pointing it out. And Shapiro went down the "you're one of them" route and made an absolute fool of himself.

The reason for this is simple. Shapiro was used to preaching to his audience and only his audience. But when he came upon a few questions about his own opinions, that weren't just about massaging them, he fell apart instantly.

IIRC, the Andrew Neil interview didn't even get beyond one or two questions, because Shapiro lost the run of himself, simply because Neil pointed out that Shapiro had been contributing to the very thing that he was being critical of.

It was almost like he never even considered that point himself.

28-01-2021 11:31pm

Tony EH wrote: »

. He simply showed Shaprio's argument to be fallacious, by pointing it out. And Shapiro went down the "you're one of them" route and made an absolute fool of himself.

I don't know..He was just trying to rile him up I think..He wasn't really accepting Shapiro's counter points..

Shapiro did resort to that though alright..He is probably more used to preaching to the converted, but his attempts to explain himself were ignored too..
Like, he tried to explain his position on abortion..Neil referring to it like he did hardly inductive to a reasonable debate..

I'd hardly call it falling apart.. It was probably a case of him not being used to Neil's style I think, and he just said '**** it' then..

Saying that he's guilty of what he accuses others of isn't quite right either..He acknowledges he's taking part in a 'culture war' all the time..

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 11:46pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know..He was just trying to rile him up I think..He wasn't really accepting Shapiro's counter points..

Shapiro did resort to that though alright..He is probably more used to preaching to the converted, but his attempts to explain himself were ignored too..
Like, he tried to explain his position on abortion..Neil referring to it like he did hardly inductive to a reasonable debate..

I'd hardly call it falling apart.. It was probably a case of him not being used to Neil's style I think, and he just said '**** it' then..

Saying that he's guilty of what he accuses others of isn't quite right either..He acknowledges he's taking part in a 'culture war' all the time..

I'll have to watch the interview again, but if I remember Neil simply said that Shapiro's views on abortion were from the dark ages. Which they are. Locking up a woman for having an abortion doesn't belong in the 21st century. Shapiro then started ranting about "bias". So, yes, that is falling apart because he can't respond to the question or the position that was put to him.

By the end of the interview, Shapiro looked ridiculous and he knew it himself.

Shapiro was simply caught out by having his own words shown to him and he couldn't take it. But I don't think Neil was having a go at him or winding him up. I've seen a lot of Andrew Neil interviews and he can be much, much, harder on his interviewees.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-01-2021 11:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He's hardly omnipotent like..

Every time he's brought up it's always that one interview and that tweet about Israel in 2004 or something..

In relation to that interview, I've heard him address it..he realised he fncked up.. I'm actually watching it now..Tbh a lot of the questions are fairly borderline.. yeah, Shapiro's overreacting a bit, but yer man is being a bit of a dickhead..

Yeah.. it's a 50/50.. Neil was winding him up.. Shapiro probably gets wound up easily..

The thing is, “that one interview” showed him up badly and directly contradicted his stance on how to conduct yourself. “Facts don’t care about your feelings”, he has said before - he was clearly upset. He walked out. He also resorted to insults - “I don’t even know who you are” - which is the refuge of a person out of anything to say. Mild pushback and he crumbled. And crucially, this was a right wing interviewer. Ben had not done that research he supposedly is so enamoured of. He proved Neil’s point, that American political discourse is coarse and cartoonish. He was completely out of his depth when faced with a seasoned interviewer.

I don’t think the questions were borderline. Neil questions Shapiro on things he has said and done. Even the part where he brings up the crude “Ben destroys” video titles, Ben asked him if any of them had to do with him. Neil had so much to work with that he moved on but had he wanted to, he could have pointed out that, yes, some of those video titles come from the site Shapiro founded, The Daily Wire.

There’s a reason that one interview is brought up and it’s because it’s a thing of beauty. Smug twerp gets hoisted by his own petard. Cry me a river.

Tony EH · 29-01-2021 12:14am

Had a gander at the interview again. It's even more disastrous than I remembered. Shapiro's I have more followers than you at the end is like something a 5 year old would say. The whole thing just ends up as an embarrassment for him.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 29-01-2021 12:18am

Tony EH wrote: »

Had a gander at the interview again. It's even more disastrous than I remembered. Shapiro's I have more followers than you at the end is like something a 5 year old would say. The whole thing just ends up as an embarrassment for him.

Absolutely. That is desperate, barrel-scraping stuff. It’s the kind of thing pre-teen me said and even then, I knew it was cringeworthy.

gozunda · 29-01-2021 12:45am

Meh. Its clear Shapiro knew he had fuked up in that interview. And despite acting like a twat - at least he had the decency to later apologise to Andrew Neil and admit with some humour that he had been "destroyed" with the score being " Neil 1, Shapiro 0.” :pac:

Watching some of his interviews Neil's style of interview often involves taking a strong oppositional position with his guests. Possibly why Shapiro thought Neil was a left wing Pundit

I've also seen Neils style of interview pay off before. Shapiro ain't the first to fall under the wheels tbf. Though Neil's thank you for 'demonstrating that anger was not part of American political discourse' was possibly a bit of a miaow moment which Neil doesn't usually engage in. .

Deemed as Normal · 30-01-2021 12:05am

gozunda wrote: »

Meh. Its clear Shapiro knew he had fuked up in that interview. And despite acting like a twat - at least he had the decency to later apologise to Andrew Neil and admit with some humour that he had been "destroyed" with the score being

He said that he didn't prepare. Are we really to believe that if he prepared that he'd have 'won'??!!

gozunda wrote: »

" Neil 1, Shapiro 0.” :pac: .

The fact that he views it as a game, and has no problem showing it, is half his problem. It seems to suggest that he's no interest in turning people. I suppose it's no surprise he would view it as a game seeing as the guy does always seem as if he's just come off his Xbox.

Deemed as Normal · 30-01-2021 12:09am

DrPhilG wrote: »

How the buck was all 400k Trump's fault? That number wound have been the same or very close had Biden been in charge earlier.

Well you're forgetting one thing. The president sets an example for the rest of the country. His repeated refusal to wear a mask was most likely half the reason why so many of his supporters didn't bother wear any.

Not to mention the rallies!

DrPhilG · 30-01-2021 8:03am

Deemed as Normal wrote: »

Well you're forgetting one thing. The president sets an example for the rest of the country. His repeated refusal to wear a mask was most likely half the reason why so many of his supporters didn't bother wear any.

Not to mention the rallies!

Haven't forgotten anything.

The small minority who refused to wear masks would have don't the exact same if Biden was in charge. They're the standard conspiracy theorists.

You're making the same mistake that many do, assuming that the ranting raving gun toting hillbillies that you see paraded on TV as the typical Trump supporter make up all 77m of his voters.

I agree that Trump set a bad example, and that the rallies were a bad idea, but I'd pretty much guarantee that those (stupid) rallies had a significantly smaller impact on the spread of Covid than the BLM protests which although they did have a higher percentage of mask wearers, also bad a much higher frequency and size.

Deemed as Normal · 30-01-2021 1:47pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Haven't forgotten anything.

The small minority who refused to wear masks would have don't the exact same if Biden was in charge. They're the standard conspiracy theorists.

You're making the same mistake that many do, assuming that the ranting raving gun toting hillbillies that you see paraded on TV as the typical Trump supporter make up all 77m of his voters.

I agree that Trump set a bad example, and that the rallies were a bad idea, but I'd pretty much guarantee that those (stupid) rallies had a significantly smaller impact on the spread of Covid than the BLM protests which although they did have a higher percentage of mask wearers, also bad a much higher frequency and size.

I'm not talking about hillbillies. I'm talking about his supporters... he does have supporters. The mistake you seem to be making, is that anyone who doesn't wear a mask is a conspiracy theorist. There's a lot of people out there who are indifferent, or just lazy, when it comes to mask wearing. If someone who is indifferent hears something that sounds good they'll probably use that as a justification.

I don't know much about the BLM protests, but they were not as easy to prevent. I do think it's fair to say that Trump did more damage to the country with Covid19; and if he didn't succeed in doing so, he certainly tried his best! So Shapiro saying "he's done all the damage that he can do" didn't really hold up.

For all we know, Shapiro might have just pretended he wanted to vote for Trump to appear more controversial and get more views. It's the sort of angle he'd go for.

Junkyard Tom · 09-02-2021 4:56pm

Poor Ben has been making a holy show of himself again.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1358937668940402693?s=20

'I would like my money back and I haven't even purchased the book'

WrenBoy · 09-02-2021 5:02pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Poor Ben has been making a holy show of himself again.

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/1358937668940402693?s=20

'I would like my money back and I haven't even purchased the book'

Pretty common trope in storytelling tbh, a weak character becoming powerful is easier to root for because he knows what its like to be the little guy or the underdog..

Junkyard Tom · 09-02-2021 5:12pm

WrenBoy wrote: »

Pretty common trope in storytelling tbh, a weak character becoming powerful is easier to root for because he knows what its like to be the little guy or the underdog..

Ben doesn't need to big and strong because he DESTROYS people with his amazing intellect.

WrenBoy · 09-02-2021 5:20pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ben doesn't need to big and strong because he DESTROYS people with his amazing intellect.

If you say so, book doesn't sound too good anyway, think I'll pass.

ancapailldorcha · 09-02-2021 5:23pm

He wrote a fictional novel? Really? Why? Who is this for?

WrenBoy · 09-02-2021 5:39pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He wrote a fictional novel? Really? Why? Who is this for?

Why wouldn't he? Plenty of money in books, even movie deals if they are good enough

The problem with Ben Shapiro

Comments