The problem with Ben Shapiro

Snickers Man · 25-01-2021 6:28pm

Steyr 556 wrote: »

His sister is a ride.

Meh. You reckon?

DrPhilG · 25-01-2021 9:10pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

many of his arguments are against the universal straw man of "The Left"

In fairness I've seen him a few times make a clear distinction between Liberals and "Leftists", in other words liberals are people who he has a politician disagreement with but can have a perfectly civil discussion with, whereas Leftists are the mad wokey nutters that seem to shout the loudest online.

I can't disagree with that definition.

Its like separating conservatives with far right nut jobs invading the Capitol in viking hats or whatever the feck that was.

Tony EH · 25-01-2021 11:54pm

That's a stupid definition.

12gauge dave · 25-01-2021 11:59pm

He's a breath of fresh air in a world of political correctness and cancel culture.

CruelCoin · 26-01-2021 1:24am

Snickers Man wrote: »

Meh. You reckon?

Have you seen those knockers?

RWCNT · 26-01-2021 1:43am

Deleted User wrote: »

the andrew neil interview wasnt particularly difficult or ripping apart,any half decent politian or author here would have handled it as opposed to accusing interviewer of dishonesty

Imagine what likes of vincent brown would have done with him

From what I've seen of American news, the guests they invite are basically there to parrot whatever editorial the news channel in question are trying to push at the given time.

Ben would be far more accustomed to hopping onto Fox for a lovely chat with a host about the loony left destroying America than being asked questions about his own views and past statements. I think it's this culture shock that triggered the meltdown and accusing Andrew Neil of all people of being a leftist

robertpatterson · 26-01-2021 3:15am

I like listening to him , he makes some good points in between some of the white noise.
Its nice to have a counterpoint sometimes to all the blm justice for George Caitlin jenner stuff
Hes a man of his convictions and hes polite to people who don't agree with rather than the 'cancel culture' mob who are more likely to shout you out of it

Chris_Heilong · 26-01-2021 3:34am

He is grand, a bit too much of a conservative and follows all the Dogma that goes with that but we need more people calling out some of the BS when they see it and if he gets paid for that then he is just following his nature. The funniest part is when he might be talking about a tragedy and suddenly he turns to the camera and starts doing an advertisement, Some people see him as an enemy because he might be on the other side of "the culture war" to them but that is just childish as the guy seems harmless.

gozunda · 26-01-2021 3:48am

DrPhilG wrote: »

In fairness I've seen him a few times make a clear distinction between Liberals and "Leftists", in other words liberals are people who he has a politician disagreement with but can have a perfectly civil discussion with, whereas Leftists are the mad wokey nutters that seem to shout the loudest online.

I can't disagree with that definition.

Its like separating conservatives with far right nut jobs invading the Capitol in viking hats or whatever the feck that was.

12gauge dave wrote: »

He's a breath of fresh air in a world of political correctness and cancel culture.

If his only value is to provide a counter-point to the worst extremes of the looney woke left then he is useful.

One thing for sure the same hate him with a passion while generally applying character assassination techniques. The exchanges on Twitter and elsewhere are comedy gold.

26-01-2021 4:10am

He's very funny a lot of the time too..

randd1 · 26-01-2021 11:55am

Wasn't there a thing about his wife that he said there recently that had everyone posting funny sexual based memes?

Have to say I find he occasionally makes some very good points, mostly though talks utter shi*e, and has a very punchable face.

DrPhilG · 26-01-2021 4:02pm

Tony EH wrote: »

That's a stupid definition.

I kneel in the presence of such mind bending logical debate.

Tony EH · 26-01-2021 4:47pm

RWCNT wrote: »

From what I've seen of American news, the guests they invite are basically there to parrot whatever editorial the news channel in question are trying to push at the given time.

Ben would be far more accustomed to hopping onto Fox for a lovely chat with a host about the loony left destroying America than being asked questions about his own views and past statements. I think it's this culture shock that triggered the meltdown and accusing Andrew Neil of all people of being a leftist

This kind of thing just exposes these people for what they are. If you ask them any questions, even about their own POV, then your a "leftist", which basically just means everything they hate or can't deal with.

Shapiro made a fool of himself and got found out real bad. And Neil wasn't even going hard on him. It was pathetic. All these types can do is hold up an extremity, like some ridiculous woke Twitter statement, and then try to strawman "tHe lEft" with it. But if they're actually challenged, even lightly, they fall apart.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 26-01-2021 5:08pm

randd1 wrote: »

Wasn't there a thing about his wife that he said there recently that had everyone posting funny sexual based memes?

Have to say I find he occasionally makes some very good points, mostly though talks utter shi*e, and has a very punchable face.

Oh yeah, that was him being apparently oblivious that for sex to be a success, the woman needs to get wet. And he apparently admitted he has never done that to his wife.

Personally, I think he has probably done that to his wife. We know they’ve successfully had sex. They have kids. But he just made himself look clueless, prudish and crap in bed. LOL.

54762025-3-E0-B-4261-A772-77-FCF15-B1325.jpg?dl=1

54762025-3-E0-B-4261-A772-77-FCF15-B1325.jpg?dl=1

Snickers Man · 26-01-2021 5:17pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

In fairness I've seen him a few times make a clear distinction between Liberals and "Leftists", in other words liberals are people who he has a politician disagreement with but can have a perfectly civil discussion with, whereas Leftists are the mad wokey nutters that seem to shout the loudest online.

I can't disagree with that definition.

Its like separating conservatives with far right nut jobs invading the Capitol in viking hats or whatever the feck that was.

In the mad crazy bipolar world of the US (and to a slightly lesser extent UK) it doesn't matter. Because, there is no way practically to differentiate between a "leftist" or a "Liberal" at election time; they will each be represented by the same party. And the nutty selection process that endures in the US just makes that more divisive.

I saw on Bill Maher a few months ago an interview with a retired Republican Congressman (can't remember his name) who said something very illuminating. He said that the only way he would EVER lose an election was at the primary stage. Once he got the Republican nomination for wherever he represented, he was a shoe-in.

This of course means that there is an inbuilt reluctance to promote policies that might appeal to "the other side of the aisle" because you have to retain the support of your base. To take just one controversial issue (at least in the US) gun control. It is quite possible that a Republican candidate might favour some slightly more stringent regulation than is currently permitted. But if he or she said that out loud during campaigning, they would never get selected, because unfettered "Second Amendment Rights" are a sine qua non for Republicans.

So they shut up and nothing happens. On a position that a majority of Americans, if asked separately, would favour.

And I don't know in what instances you have seen Mr Shapiro differentiate between "Liberals" and "Leftists". In my mind he tends to lump them both together in his arguments. Like Fish and Chips, or Strawberries and Cream.

In other words, they seem in his mind to be, if not interchangeable terms, at least two points of view that are hard to be separated.

Snickers Man · 26-01-2021 5:23pm

12gauge dave wrote: »

He's a breath of fresh air in a world of political correctness and cancel culture.

In contrast to stale, flatulent statements like that?

DrPhilG · 26-01-2021 5:35pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh yeah, that was him being apparently oblivious that for sex to be a success, the woman needs to get wet. And he apparently admitted he has never done that to his wife.

Personally, I think he has probably done that to his wife. We know they’ve successfully had sex. They have kids. But he just made himself look clueless, prudish and crap in bed. LOL.

Stuff like this is just stupid. I actually saw the episode where he discussed the Cardi B song. My friend sent me a link and in fairness it was quite funny.

He did not say that his wife never got wet. He said that if you're gushing enough fluid from your loins "to require a mop and bucket", then you have a medical issue.

One thing that gets on my tits is deliberate misquoting of people who do a good enough job of saying daft things already.

Trump being the prime example. The man was a walking dose of verbal diarrhoea, but when the press twisted his words to make them sound even worse, it just fed into the "fake news" defence.

Snickers Man · 26-01-2021 5:42pm

CruelCoin wrote: »

Have you seen those knockers?

:eek: :eek:

26-01-2021 5:49pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh yeah, that was him being apparently oblivious that for sex to be a success, the woman needs to get wet. And he apparently admitted he has never done that to his wife.

Personally, I think he has probably done that to his wife. We know they’ve successfully had sex. They have kids. But he just made himself look clueless, prudish and crap in bed. LOL.

[]

He's taking the p1ss..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 26-01-2021 5:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He's taking the p1ss..

Sure he is.

I don’t think any man would make themselves look bad in bed for the sake of a joke. Maybe a comedian would but that ain’t Ben.

26-01-2021 5:58pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sure he is. I don’t think any man would make themselves look bad in bed for the sake of a joke. Maybe a comedian would but that ain’t Ben.

He's actually hilarious at times if you watch him..

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 26-01-2021 6:05pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Stuff like this is just stupid. I actually saw the episode where he discussed the Cardi B song. My friend sent me a link and in fairness it was quite funny.

He did not say that his wife never got wet. He said that if you're gushing enough fluid from your loins "to require a mop and bucket", then you have a medical issue.

One thing that gets on my tits is deliberate misquoting of people who do a good enough job of saying daft things already.

Trump being the prime example. The man was a walking dose of verbal diarrhoea, but when the press twisted his words to make them sound even worse, it just fed into the "fake news" defence.

Ah yeah, but it’s just funny.

Look, I don’t want to think about Ben Shapiro’s sex life very much. But I’m sure he and his wife have had plenty of the fun times. It’s just childish nonsense and 2020 needed childish nonsense. Lots of it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 26-01-2021 6:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

He's actually hilarious at times if you watch him..

I have watched him. He’s sometimes funny but it’s often unintentional. His deadpan demeanour can work for him like when Zoey Tur threatened him and he deadpanned “That seems mildly inappropriate for a political discussion.” That was funny stuff. But no man alive who isn’t a comedian is going to make themselves look bad in bed for the sake of a joke.

Deemed as Normal · 26-01-2021 8:56pm

gozunda wrote: »

Not implied. This is what what you did say.

The words of mine that you highlighted only proves that I made reference to the fact that you said that people should listen to all points of view. I did not say that you were wrong to say this. Perhaps you were too quick to assume that I was saying something else and therefore mightn't have read it properly. It happens to us all sometimes. That's why I didn't bother getting your exact quote... because I thought I remembered what you said accurately enough to not need to get the exact wording.

You should be able to admit when you make a mistake.

gozunda wrote: »

Odd - you now think there is some 'secret? That btw was in reply to your tone.

You're clearly shying away from giving your opinion on whether you think he polarises matters or not... hence why I "jokingly" referred to it as a secret. I have no problem saying that I think he is a prime example of someone who largely makes everything seem as a black or white issue. Off the top of my head, I've heard him say things like "black Americans earning less money than whites has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with culture" or "the gun problem is nothing to do with guns and everything to do with people". If you are not comfortable sharing your opinion on same, then that's fine.

gozunda wrote: »

My previous comment suggested that you read what was stated again - as you clearly went off on a tangent remote from what was said (and not as you misquoted me firstly saying - "the issue isn't with whether he polarises everything" or even "the issue is not whether he polarises stuff" above. You evidently have not done that. The point stands.

I did not have any malicious intent in mis-quoting you. Although I did, twice!

gozunda wrote: »

So let me simplify that. Whether he does or does not "polarise everything" (and I don't see any strong evidence he does tbh) is largely irrelevant to whether you believe he is of bad character.

If you think there isn't proof that Ben Shapiro polarises matters, would you be willing to name someone who you consider to polarise matters? It's hard to prove such things.

Deemed as Normal · 26-01-2021 9:03pm

CruelCoin wrote: »

He's made his position fairly clear, he dislikes Trump, but prefers his policies.
That's a perfectly rational position to have.
He's doesn't make any secret of the fact he thinks Trump is an idiot, he's never hidden that.

Well how can an idiot have good polices? I'm not saying it's never happened (a broken clock is right twice a day), but the problem is that at some point in time that idiot is going to get the chance to make new polices!!!

Shapiro said in May (Andrew Neil interview) of last year that Trump has "whatever damage Trump is going to do has already been done", and yet since then over 400,000 American's have died due to carona virus, and the Capitol has been stormed with Trump supporters murdering two guards. So no, he as not done all the damage that he can do! So if by some strange coincidence, an idiot has managed to come up with some good polices, then it's only a matter of time before idiotic behavior is actually applied in a harmful way!

gozunda · 26-01-2021 9:40pm

Deemed as Normal wrote: »

The words of mine that you highlighted only proves that I made reference to the fact that you said that people should listen to all points of view. I did not say that you were wrong to say this. Perhaps you were too quick to assume that I was saying something else and therefore mightn't have read it properly. It happens to us all sometimes. That's why I didn't bother getting your exact quote... because I thought I remembered what you said accurately enough to not need to get the exact wording.You should be able to admit when you make a mistake. You're clearly shying away from giving your opinion on whether you think he polarises matters or not... hence why I "jokingly" referred to it as a secret. I have no problem saying that I think he is a prime example of someone who largely makes everything seem as a black or white issue. Off the top of my head, I've heard him say things like "black Americans earning less money than whites has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with culture" or "the gun problem is nothing to do with guns and everything to do with people". If you are not comfortable sharing your opinion on same, then that's fine.I did not have any malicious intent in mis-quoting you. Although I did, twice! If you think there isn't proof that Ben Shapiro polarises matters, would you be willing to name someone who you consider to polarise matters? It's hard to prove such things.

Lol no there was no 'mistake'. I think you're ending up in knots there. I'll leave you at it.

Deemed as Normal · 26-01-2021 9:53pm

gozunda wrote: »

Lol no there was no 'mistake'.

You were just lying so! To proud to admit you were wrong.

gozunda · 26-01-2021 10:03pm

Deemed as Normal wrote: »

You were just lying so! To proud to admit you were wrong.

Let me clarify that for you. There being no "mistake means you are indeed 'wrong' in your presumption. And I see everything you disagree with is "lying". Getya. Bye.

Deemed as Normal · 26-01-2021 10:14pm

gozunda wrote: »

Let me clarify that for you. There being no "mistake means you are indeed 'wrong' in your presumption. And I see everything you disagree with is "lying". Getya. Bye.

Correct - you are a liar who tried to put words in my mouth. The point stands.

gozunda · 26-01-2021 10:19pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Stuff like this is just stupid. I actually saw the episode where he discussed the Cardi B song. My friend sent me a link and in fairness it was quite funny.

He did not say that his wife never got wet. He said that if you're gushing enough fluid from your loins "to require a mop and bucket", then you have a medical issue.

One thing that gets on my tits is deliberate misquoting of people who do a good enough job of saying daft things already.

Trump being the prime example. The man was a walking dose of verbal diarrhoea, but when the press twisted his words to make them sound even worse, it just fed into the "fake news" defence.

I think this type of stuff is fairly typical in US twitter commentary especially where it is often portrayed as a gotcha moment.

And as you say fake news.

DrPhilG · 26-01-2021 10:31pm

Deemed as Normal wrote: »

Trump has "whatever damage Trump is going to do has already been done", and yet since then over 400,000 American's have died due to carona virus

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.

I've yet to hear any sensible explanation of what Biden would/could have done much differently.

Not to mention the fact that the bulk of the impact of the virus was managed at State level. As much as Trump liked to claim credit when things went well, and deny all when it didn't, his only role was making ventilators and PPE available.

All other decisions (lockdowns etc) were made at State level and Trump couldn't overrule if he tried.

26-01-2021 11:05pm

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.

I've yet to hear any sensible explanation of what Biden would/could have done much differently.

Not to mention the fact that the bulk of the impact of the virus was managed at State level. As much as Trump liked to claim credit when things went well, and deny all when it didn't, his only role was making ventilators and PPE available.

All other decisions (lockdowns etc) were made at State level and Trump couldn't overrule if he tried.

No way..

Trump might as well have shot them all in the face..

gozunda · 27-01-2021 6:05pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No way..

Trump might as well have shot them all in the face..

Well to be fair - he himself was one of 400K ...

It will be interesting to see how numbers change with the new administration.

Apparently Biden is taking no chances and is double masking. Maybe he is showing his Irish roots so as to be sure to be sure...

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2020/10/16/USAT/4c2e84fc-eadb-42ce-b253-32800b6ebef6-Biden_double_mask.jpg

Pawwed Rig · 27-01-2021 8:06pm

An uncomfortable truth is that the US is doing better on covid than countries like UK and Belgium yet even though we are closer to both of them we hear more about the US.

Hangdogroad · 28-01-2021 7:55am

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.

I've yet to hear any sensible explanation of what Biden would/could have done much differently.

Not to mention the fact that the bulk of the impact of the virus was managed at State level. As much as Trump liked to claim credit when things went well, and deny all when it didn't, his only role was making ventilators and PPE available.

All other decisions (lockdowns etc) were made at State level and Trump couldn't overrule if he tried.

Trump tweeted support for anti lockdown protesters, what kind of leadership is that? He deliberately played down the dangers of the virus early on, holding mass rallies indoors etc.

Samsonsmasher · 28-01-2021 8:10am

Hangdogroad wrote: »

Trump tweeted support for anti lockdown protesters, what kind of leadership is that? He deliberately played down the dangers of the virus early on, holding mass rallies indoors etc.

The Democrats supported BLM rioting looting arson and murder all last summer. There wasn't much concern for the dangers of the virus among them was there?

Hangdogroad · 28-01-2021 8:32am

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

The Democrats supported BLM rioting looting arson and murder all last summer. There wasn't much concern for the dangers of the virus among them was there?

Can you provide a link to back up your claim that "the Democrats" supported routing arson and murder?

bradolf pittler · 28-01-2021 12:15pm

Can't take him seriously.I've tried to watch his stuff on youtube where he starts off big "Libs hate America,Biden will destroy America etc"but i usually just roll my eyes and switch off when he starts hocking waffle irons and wart removal cream or whatever.
Just another mouthpiece on the grift.
However i would have loved to have seen him go head to head with Christopher Hitchins in a debate over religion.

Hangdogroad · 28-01-2021 12:16pm

bradolf pittler wrote: »

Can't take him seriously.I've tried to watch his stuff on youtube where he starts off big "Libs hate America,Biden will destroy America etc"but i usually just roll my eyes and switch off when he starts hocking waffle irons and wart removal cream or whatever.
Just another mouthpiece on the grift.
However i would have loved to have seen him go head to head with Christopher Hitchins in a debate over religion.

Hitch would have destroyed him.

Samsonsmasher · 28-01-2021 12:28pm

Hangdogroad wrote: »

Can you provide a link to back up your claim that "the Democrats" supported routing arson and murder?

https://youtu.be/jw72Iiy6wqU

Have you been living under rock?

bradolf pittler · 28-01-2021 2:04pm

Hangdogroad wrote: »

Hitch would have destroyed him.

Absolutely

gozunda · 28-01-2021 3:48pm

bradolf pittler wrote: »

Absolutely

Well at present I'd probably bet on Shapiro winning purely because Christopher Hitchins is dead ...

Possibly why Sharpiro seems to be a bit more popular these days :pac:

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F04bdrz,%2Fm%2F01hb6v&hl=en-US&tz=420

That said they are chalk and cheese.

And for example - Christopher Hitchins described himself as a Marxist with Marxs being an important influence on his early political views. On the other hand Shapiro is on record as stating- that a meeting of himself and Karl Marx "would go very poorly. Number one because he was not fond of the Jews. And number two, he was wrong about pretty much everything"

Ben Shapiro is a religiously conservative American commentator whilst Christopher Hitchins was an British antitheist left leaning critic.

Hitchins apparently enjoyed debating issues he believed that were generally on the under represented side of arguments and was often seen as contrarian. Later in life - Hitchins was accused oddly enough of turning to both liberalism and conservatism.

That said. If there had been a debate and allowing for the considerable age difference - It could possibly have been interesting much in the way they represent two completely different species.

Came across this article which gives a bit better of an jnsight into Shapiro's mindset.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2019/03/28/inside-the-mind-of-ben-shapiro-a-radical-conservative

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 4:36pm

Marx was a Jew.

28-01-2021 4:40pm

Samsonsmasher wrote: »

https://youtu.be/jw72Iiy6wqU

Have you been living under rock?

100% and god love you if you but biden in a sat night live skit too!!

gozunda · 28-01-2021 5:23pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Marx was a Jew.

Not quite.

Karl Marx's father (and the children a few years later) converted to Christianity prior to his son's birth. His father also changed his name from Hirschel to Heinrich.

Marx's writings have frequently being questioned as to various apparent anti-Semitic views. In 1844, he published an essay titled "On the Jewish Question." He wrote that the worldly religion of Jews was "huckstering" and that the Jew's god was "money." Marx's view of Jews generally wasn't complimentary.

28-01-2021 5:44pm

Tony EH wrote: »

Marx was a Jew.

Your thinking of Richard Marx , the Jew who was a repeat offender!!!:D

Pawwed Rig · 28-01-2021 6:36pm

gozunda wrote: »

Marx's view of Jews generally wasn't complimentary.

Not an unusual opinion in that era

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-01-2021 6:58pm

bradolf pittler wrote: »

Can't take him seriously.I've tried to watch his stuff on youtube where he starts off big "Libs hate America,Biden will destroy America etc"but i usually just roll my eyes and switch off when he starts hocking waffle irons and wart removal cream or whatever.
Just another mouthpiece on the grift.
However i would have loved to have seen him go head to head with Christopher Hitchins in a debate over religion.

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

EmmetSpiceland · 28-01-2021 7:20pm

gozunda wrote: »

Not quite.

Karl Marx's father (and family) converted to Christianity prior to his son's birth. His father also changed his name from Hirschel to Heinrich..

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”.

Tony EH · 28-01-2021 9:00pm

gozunda wrote: »

Not quite.

Karl Marx's father (and the children a few years later) converted to Christianity prior to his son's birth. His father also changed his name from Hirschel to Heinrich.

Marx's writings have frequently being questioned as to various apparent anti-Semitic views. In 1844, he published an essay titled "On the Jewish Question." He wrote that the worldly religion of Jews was "huckstering" and that the Jew's god was "money." Marx's view of Jews generally wasn't complimentary.

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

The problem with Ben Shapiro

Comments