[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: epic.jpg (29 KB, 800x450)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
Right-wing commentator and “cool kid’s philosopher” Ben Shapiro stormed out of a contentious BBC interview on Thursday after accusing the conservative host of being a “leftist” and bragging about how popular he is.

During the pre-taped interview with BBC interviewer Andrew Neil promoting his new book, The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great, Shapiro quickly became perturbed when Neil—who is known for playing devil’s advocate in interviews—pressed him on recent attempts to roll back abortion rights, asking the editor-in-chief of clickbait rage factory The Daily Wire if those policies would take America back to the “Dark Ages.”

“You purport to be an objective journalist,” Shapiro sniped. “BBC purports to be an objective, down-the-middle network. It obviously is not, it never has been. And you as a journalist are proceeding to call one side of the political aisle ignorant, barbaric, and sending us back to the Dark Ages, why don’t you just say you’re on the left.”

This caused Neil, chairman of conservative magazine The Spectator, to chuckle and tell his guest: “If you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn’t have said it.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ben-shapiro-storms-out-of-bbc-interview-im-popular-and-no-ones-ever-heard-of-you
>>
>>395585

This is what happens when Internet reactionaries leave their Twitter safe-spaces and get away from their chud followers.
>>
>>395588
> This is what happens when Internet reactionaries leave their Twitter safe-spaces and get away from their chud followers.
Said the internet reactionary on his safe space /news/, who would shit himself and vomit semen when he leaves the board or sees a post he doesn't like.
Don't pretend you're any better.

What's been actually hilarious is watching the brainlets on twitter who go "OH MY GOD AN OPINION I HATE BLOOOOOCKED" every time someone replies to them suddenly thinking Shapiro is beneath them because he pussied out in an interview. Twitter is the epitome of safe spaces and guess who made it that way?
>>
Also Crowder is better than Shapiro in every way and doesn't try to pretend he's anything other than someone who makes shitty videos for people to laugh at.
Everyone on Youtube fucking sucks and there's a reason they're on Youtube and not television.
>>
>>395585
>>395588
>>395591
Oh and more importantly:
This isn't news, fuck off.
>>
Ben Shaprio is simply controlled opposition and this has been demonstrated by how he claims that "identity politics is bad" but then promotes his Jewish ethnicity's interests above all else in foreign policy regarding Israel.
>>
>>395592
>Everyone on Youtube fucking sucks and there's a reason they're on Youtube and not television
Right wingers and conservative cucks realized that they've been arguing the same policies for over 5 decades and needed another way to get voters so they decided to fund these dumbasses on YouTube where they don't have to follow the same rules or infrastructure of television
It pay
>>
>>395591
>This entire post
Is that an Epson Home Cinema?
>>
>>395601
Is this an argument?
>>
>>395601
So that is projecting but >>395588 isn't?
>"fucking chuds reeeeee"
I doubt you even know what 'chud' means aside from some shitty meme you got from another youtuber who is equally as brainless as Shapiro.
>>
>I believe this
>no you dont
>yyes i do
>no you dont
Honestly. Id do the same. That guy disagreed with everything he said, including his own morals and beliefs!
>>
>>395613
It largely is? You made an assumption about a anonymous shitposter on a tiberian illegal Mongolian basket weaving subforum with no evidence. Whereas we have all the evidence of Ben Shapiro getting BTFO'd in the European media circuit instead of coddled and appeased like the American Media does?

I don't understand why you're so mad and triggered by that either
>>
>>395618
Why did he ask him to quite his book when he was quoting the book the entire time and got mad when he was given a chance to elaborate? Its not Neil's fault Ben didn't even read his own book
>>
>>395591
>safe space /news/
pretty much everyone can come to /news/ and post pretty much whatever they want except maybe howling about niggers and even then you can probably get away with it for 48 hours
>>
>>395623
>48 hours
A week or two is more accurate
>>
>>395585
Ben Shapiro is a personality, not any kind of reporter or intellectual that could be taken seriously. The only people he "debates" are emotionally stunted 19 years olds about how they don't deserve their 28 pronouns or whatever. There is a particular reason he avoids settings like this. He knows that if he ever steps up to someone who actually knows what they're talking about he'll lose. This interview is a perfect example of how he is the exact same kind of sniveling reactionary that he so constantly complains about. The second anybody brings any legitimate challenge to him he accuses them of being leftists and hunkers down into his victim corner. Ben Shapiro is a cunt. Always has been always will be.
>>
>>395623
Not to mention if you do get BTFO, you can just spam the board with "SUPPORT 4CHAN," to completely clear the board and mods will eventually get around to fixing it a few days later.
>>
>>395620
>You made an assumption about a anonymous shitposter on a tiberian illegal Mongolian basket weaving subforum with no evidence.
>You
Ah, there's the actual projection.
>I don't understand why you're so mad and triggered by that either
Woh calm down there mister Epson Home Cinema, you might blind someone with that actual projection you just made.
>>
>>395623
That's kind of the problem, though. You and a couple of friends can basically lock the board down for a few weeks. So it swings wildly back and forth depending on who is brigading the board this week.

But that's neither here nor there, can we talk more about how Ben Shapiro is fucking retarded? He's not as bad as howlers on twitter, but that's a low bar.
>>
>>395622
The book part was a little weird but honestly I think Ben just got mad after he kept quoting old tweets when he already acknowledged that he has said many "dumb" things. I think interviews are supposed to ask about someone's point of view and opinions rather than simply impeach everyone. Sadly it seems many and most interviewers fail to recognize this and instead they take the opportunity to make themselves seem as powerful as possible.
>>
>>395618
That's kind of the thing, though. He has to push back. Not pushing back just let the interviewer get away with shittalking him and now every sees him as a spineless pussy

We all know he is, but the point of the interview was to come off strong and make it seem like he had real moral convictions. Not even taking time to put on the facade will cost him big-time.
>>
>>395632
He should have just said "Yeah, okay. I addressed that already" And kept going with the interview.
The point the interviewer was trying to do was make him quit.
>>
>>395634
He isn't pushing back, he's doing the same kind of emotional grandstanding he accuses other people of doing. Imagine the irony of the guy famous for coining "Facts don't care about your feelings" for melting down, storming out of interviews and screaming LEFTIST at anybody who dares to challenge him on the literal things that have come out of his mouth?
>>
>>395588
More accurately, this is what happens when fringe right wingers met with anyone who's not a far fight wing as them.

Calling The Spectator left wing is bad comedy and once again shows how right wing America has become in the past 30 years.
>>
>>395632
Except everybody gets their nickers in a twist if you show them something they said that contradicts them currently. How hard would it have been for Logic and Facts Man to simply go

>I did say but my stance on that has evolved...
Or
>Yeah I did say that but...
Or
>I want to come out and condemn that statement...
Etc etc. But that's too hard for some reason. Even though he was so euphoric to point out that dumbass list he made of dumb shit he said.

Instead facts and logics man got his feelings hurt because Niel was giving him something he wasn't used to in an interview which is handholding and coddling. All American media cares about is being a platform for another person to say some shit because muh views and ratings and if they're "mean" or aggressive or anything that isn't the equivalent of a five dollar whore for ten minutes then said platform losses ratings and that's a no no. Every single time the majority of media outlets in that God forsaken hell hole gets the chance to go above and beyond American """""discourse""""" and be more than a soap box for whatever opinions they follow or whatever opinions money and ratings say they should they say fuck it and throw any form of accountability or journalism out the window
>>
>>395644
Shapiro consistently depends on sealioning to win debates. He talks in circles, asks repeated questions and uses his appearance of civility to declare himself the victor. Its not a coincidence that, to him, his idea of intellectual victory is being the only calm person in a town hall full of angry queer studies majors who he just spent the past 2 hours mocking and gaslighting. He has always been and always will be ill-equipped to deal with anyone who has the journalistic experience to wade through his cheap tactics.
>>
>>395640
Trump calls lifelong republicans like Mueller and Comey leftists all the time.
>>
>>395651
Calling someone a democrat or left leaning is the go to way to discredit someone if you can't engage them meaningfully, even the right's 'intellectual's can't resist using it as the OP proves again.
>>
>>395650
>>395644
So I went and watched the interview expecting some massive BTFO own and it's just
>>395618

>you said this four years ago
>but i believe this now
>no you don't
>yes you do
>can we move on?
>you said this ten years ago
>but I don't believe this now
etc. etc.

I thought maybe there was some part of this that I was missing, but I went on twitter and it's just the same socially retarded losers going "POST ROLLEYE GIFS SURELY THIS WILL MAKE THIS INTO SOMETHING IT'S NOT"

Yeah, nah. The interviewer was being annoying so he cut it off. What are you supposed to do when the interviewer starts pretending that he knows more about you than you do based on some tweets he dug up from years ago? That's kind of fucking insane.

>Except everybody gets their nickers in a twist if you show them something they said that contradicts them currently. How hard would it have been for Logic and Facts Man to simply go
I mean, that's pretty hard to do when you're already saying "No I don't believe that" and the interviewer is screeching "YES YOU DO DON'T LIE"
>>
>>395666
Also every single person involved in this will forget it in a week.
>>395652
>>395640
> even the right's 'intellectual's can't resist using it as the OP proves again.
So if I search 'alt-right' I won't find news outlets and left-leaning intellectuals groups hundreds of people in the left, center, and right into that camp?
Let's not even pretend this is a right-left phenomena and not a political phenomena in general.
>>
>>395666
You've posted a wildly oversimplified summary of the interview. The interviewer took several opportunities to play devil's advocate and confront Shapiro with the things about him that left leaning people are often critical about and confront him with and, while there was no major BTFO moment, Shapiro completely lost his composure. The interviewer confronted him with a few instances in which his current day philosophies and statements of the past directly contradict each other and Shapiro lost it. Imagine making a name for yourself as being the "Facts don't care about your feelings" guy and constantly maligning the left as over-emotional cry babies then storming out of an interview and accusing people of being lefties the moment you find yourself in an interview that isn't mindless fluff and gladhanding? It isn't a coincidence that Shapiro SHINES when he's speaking with fellow conservatives but the only time he's ever comfortable speaking to people from the left is when they're uneducated 19 year college students who are so poor at debating they make Shapiro look like a fucking genius.
>>
>>395588
This is what happens when someone who challenges high schoolers and liberal arts bachelors is faced with someone who isn't a Fox shill and will actually ask him real questions.
>>
>>395618
Because Shapiro said he believes it's time to stop stoking anger all the timer, and got pissy when the interviewer backed him into a corner where he'd either have to stay on message and renounce his former claims or renounce his alleged beliefs and stand up for what he said he believed in the past.

It's almost like shit you say doesn't exist in a vacuum.

That's literally all the fat fuck who interviewed him did - he pushed him on whether or not he was a hypocrite or if he'd genuinely grown out of his shit-flinging and Shapiro folded and did the; "You're a biased left-wing shill!"-routine.

Absolutely pathetic.
>>
>>395670
>The interviewer took several opportunities to play devil's advocate and confront Shapiro with the things about him that left leaning people are often critical about and confront him with and, while there was no major BTFO moment, Shapiro completely lost his composure.
True, but saying that he was playing 'devil's advocate' or even having any kind of intelligent discussion. This was a shit-flinging contest live on TV. When your interviewer asks a question you just answered by rephrasing it and saying 'No, I know this better than you.'; then that's not interviewing, that's fishing for reactions.

Yeah he's dumb for giving him that reaction that he was looking for, but what reaction should he have given him besides just broken record?
You're making it sound like this is him melting down and it's really him getting huffy and storming off. That's not really the 'massive own' or the 'over-emotional temper tantrum' people are trying to make it into.
>>
>>395585
"i’m popular and no one has ever heard of you" - the leading political light of our generation

>>395666
>I mean, that's pretty hard to do when you're already saying "No I don't believe that" and the interviewer is asking "THEN WHY DID YOU TWEET IT"
fixed
>>
>>395672
>That's literally all the fat fuck who interviewed him did - he pushed him on whether or not he was a hypocrite or if he'd genuinely grown out of his shit-flinging and Shapiro folded and did the; "You're a biased left-wing shill!"-routine.
Yeah but the catch is: He hasn't grown out of it. No one can understand that twitter is just twitter and was made for that kind of banter.
IMO I would have said "Yeah I said that as a joke", IE The Dankula approach.
>>
>>395675
>"i’m popular and no one has ever heard of you" - the leading political light of our generation
Hyperbolic as fuck. He's not even as popular or influential as Crowder or Joe Rogan, and Rogan is a dude with a sports podcast that believes in aliens.
>>
>>395676
>No one can understand that twitter is just twitter and was made for that kind of banter.
if your full-time job is throwing bantz on twitter, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere else.
>>
>>395675
>>I mean, that's pretty hard to do when you're already saying "No I don't believe that" and the interviewer is asking "THEN WHY DID YOU TWEET IT"
If he says "I don't believe it" then where else does the conversation go?
'No, fuck you, I don't believe that. That tweet is years old' apparently isn't an acceptable answer, and apologizing is stupid as fuck.

It's more like
>WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THIS
>But I don't
>WHAT IS TWITTER WHAT ARE JOKES
>I'm leaving
>FUCKING CRYBABY
>>
>>395678
>if your full-time job is throwing bantz on twitter, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere else.
But it's not, he has an internet radio show and was there to interview for a book.
Compared to that, who the fuck cares about twitter? It's not even a political platform because you can't have real discussion in 150 characters or less. It's made for shitposting.
>>
>>395679
>If he says "I don't believe it" then where else does the conversation go?
"so why did you tweet it"
A1: "i believed it at the time"
A2: "i tweet a lot of things i don't actually believe"
A3: "BBC is a left-wing shithole and you're a liberal shill"
>>
>>395680
>It's made for shitposting.
This has never been a good excuse for shitposting anywhere you go. If you say something, anywhere, you should be prepared to own that statement.
>>
>>395673
>This was a shit-flinging contest live on TV
That is your opinion but I don't find that accurate. Shapiro's entire career is being a shit-flinger. His entire notoriety is based around the several groups he flings shit at nearly every opportunity he gets. So finally when the shoe is on the other foot and it's Shapiro's turn to face his own hypocritical stances he wants to claim that he's being treated unfairly and being goaded into reacting. Its laughable. The point is if you tout yourself as an intellectual voice for your particular platform yet are unable to rectify the contradictions in your current day statements with your past statements then you don't need to be in the business of running a news site. It doesn't really matter if this is the massive BTFO that the OP claims it is. Shapiro was confronted with his own hypocritical and contradictory ideology and he couldn't take it. Shapiro even issues a tweet later on apologizing for his knee-jerk shit-fit. You're looking at this from an emotional point of view and not a logical one.
>>
>>395681
Yeah I'm not disagreeing with you, those two answers were better than what he gave, but all three of those are acceptable answers because really, who gives a fuck about twitter drama?
>>395682
>This has never been a good excuse for shitposting anywhere you go. If you say something, anywhere, you should be prepared to own that statement.
That's fucking insane and I bet if 4chan had post histories, you would take that back in a second.
The fact is: You say shit sometimes for a number of reasons that you either don't actually believe under every circumstance or because it's funny. This isn't a 4chan thing, this is what humans do. Furthermore the person several years ago isn't even the person you are right now.
If you say that you've never said something you came to regret or that you own up every statement you've ever said we're going to know you're full of shit.
>>
>>395686
>who gives a fuck about twitter drama?
The medium does not determine the message. It's 100% reasonable for people to read the things you say, under your real name, as part of your real life brand, and conclude that you believe or at least stand by those things.

>That's fucking insane and I bet if 4chan had post histories, you would take that back in a second.
If I were shitposting on 4chan under my real name (which I could do!) and somebody tried to make me own my statements, they would have the full right to do so. Hell if someone hacked 4chan's servers and exposed all the dumb shit that I've ever said on 4chan they'd also be right to make me try to own it. I certainly wouldn't like it. I'd probably be fired, really. But if I'm trying to be taken seriously as a human being who wants to be respected I owe it to the audience to explain why I said all that shit that I did.
>>
>>395684
> Shapiro's entire career is being a shit-flinger. His entire notoriety is based around the several groups he flings shit at nearly every opportunity he gets
You could say this about a number of people and also every comedian. That's why I disagree and think this was a shit flinging contest.
>So finally when the shoe is on the other foot and it's Shapiro's turn to face his own hypocritical stances he wants to claim that he's being treated unfairly and being goaded into reacting.
Well he was, but that doesn't actually change his reaction.
>You're looking at this from an emotional point of view and not a logical one.
Where is the emotion in noting that the interviewer wasn't acting like an interviewer and that, unless you play off twitter as being the massive joke that it is, there was no real way to have an actual conversation or even proceed to the intended topic of the interview if the interviewer was going to keep asking the same few questions?
Storming off was dumb but I think everyone is making this into something it's not. This isn't Shapiro being 'cornered' or having a 'knee-jerk shit-fit', this is the interviewer digging up stupid irrelevant internet shit that had nothing to do with the life he's leading now and trying to act like it's a gotcha moment.

It's really not.
It's really only an embarrassing moment at worst because his job involves twitter. It isn't actually relevant to his current beliefs or politics to anyone except thumb-warriors who live inside of their smartphones.
>>
>>395666
>I mean, that's pretty hard to do when you're already saying "No I don't believe that" and the interviewer is screeching "YES YOU DO DON'T LIE"
except he didn't even elaborate when given MULTIPLE chances to elaborate on ANY of his points. Hell Shapiro was so fucking triggered from hearing his own points that he thought Niel called abortion barbaric when he said that of being imprisoned for miscarriage.

No matter how you cut this facts or logic did not play a part in a single part of Shapiro's interaction. The fucker torpedoed himself even harder when he called that decrepit piece of shit a left winger
>>
>>395585
If that buffoon thinks rolling back abortion "rights" is going to take anyone into the dark ages, he is a leftist
>>
>>395693
>unless you play off twitter as being the massive joke that it is
You seem to believe that, somehow, "things said on Twitter don't count." This is nonsense. Political figures are made to own everything they've said starting from when they were mindless student activist retards even when they're in their fifties. There are many ways to deal with this in a fashion that doesn't involve storming out the of the debate.

>Where is the emotion in noting that the interviewer wasn't acting like an interviewer
What was he expecting? For the red carpet to be rolled out for him? Ben fuckin Shapiro, of all fucking people, should know that when a debate is going to be hold you're going to be confronted with questions you'd rather not answer.

Ben Shapiro could have said something like:
>I don't remember everything I've said on Twitter over the years. Especially when I was younger, some of my earlier tweets - they reflect "hot takes," Twitter's full of those, and there's a lot of things there that weren't fully thought out or that I wouldn't stand by earlier today. I'm happy to take questions about my book or any recent statements, but I won't be offering any further comments on old tweets of mine.

What he actually said:
>This whole thing is a waste of time. Frankly, I don’t care — I don’t frankly give a damn what you think of me since I’ve never heard of you. I think we’re done here.”

Again, if he were on Twitter, that would be fine. You throw a huge shitfit, score some bantz and go home. Score. He wasn't. He was on the BBC, a place where people expect other people to act like human beings.
>>
>>395689
>The medium does not determine the message.
Yeah, no, that's kind of crazy. You're posting on 4chan, the capital of harvesting (You)s, and trying to say that all messages are equal regardless of the medium?
Should I be digging up the dicks I drew in pictochat to my friend and presenting them to my boss as an actual representation of what I believe?

>If I were shitposting on 4chan under my real name (which I could do!) and somebody tried to make me own my statements, they would have the full right to do so. Hell if someone hacked 4chan's servers and exposed all the dumb shit that I've ever said on 4chan they'd also be right to make me try to own it. I certainly wouldn't like it. I'd probably be fired, really. But if I'm trying to be taken seriously as a human being who wants to be respected I owe it to the audience to explain why I said all that shit that I did.
I think anyone who has any posting experience on 4chan radically disagrees with you.
This is akin to what people used to do when they would write down what people were talking about in pubs and try to get them fired. Joking around with people and joking around with your m8s is just that. That's not your public face, and in fact trying to connect or draw dots to the things you say on 4chan (or twitter) to the things you believe in real life would draw two radically different people, and if that's the standard you wish to judge other people on; what would you classify jokes and joking?

The only reason I care about this particular topic so much is because I see more and more people who believe that all people are genuine 100% of the time and it's frightening, ten times worse than even the most dystopian novels. George Carlin had an entire skit about this and why it's not fair to judge every statement accurately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwMukKqx-Os
>>
>>395693
>You could say this about a number of people and also every comedian
Irrelevant. We're talking about one specific person in one specific context.

>Where is the emotion in noting that the interviewer wasn't acting like an interviewer
Because the interviewer was being an interviewer, he was just covering a subject that Shapiro and, obviously you, didn't like. Shapiro bases his entire career off of being smarter, more civil and more analytical than his political opponents. The interviewer brought some statements that threatened this image that Shapiro has built for himself and in response to that threat Shapiro acted like a child. Just because an interviewer is asking challenging questions doesn't mean they aren't being an interviewer. Shapiro was given several opportunities to either walk back or elaborate on his contradictions but instead he decided to do what he always does; fling shit and accuse people of bias.

>This isn't Shapiro being 'cornered' or having a 'knee-jerk shit-fit', this is the interviewer digging up stupid irrelevant internet shit that had nothing to do with the life he's leading now and trying to act like it's a gotcha moment.
This is a laughable sentiment. Shapiro making violent, degrading or racist statements while riding the platform that he is a non-racist, pacifistic and respectful intellectual who welcomes all viewpoints to engage with him is 100% relevant. It was only a "gotcha" moment because Shapiro didn't have the maturity or the patience to address his contradictions like the adult and expert orator he claims he is.
>>
>>395701
>This is akin to what people used to do when they would write down what people were talking about in pubs and try to get them fired.
If I'm caught talking about how niggers are subhuman in a pub, people are going to use that to drag me, and I'm going to have to own it, and there's literally nothing wrong with that.

>what would you classify jokes and joking?
Then I'd say, "it was a joke," and then people would get to decide for themselves whether 1. they believed that I was joking, and 2. if they believed I actually was joking, whether the joke was appropriate.

If you don't want to own something either 1. don't fucking say it, or 2. say it somewhere where it won't be traced back to you. I own and stand by every 4chan shtipost I've ever made.
>>
>>395700
Okay, so:
>You seem to believe that, somehow, "things said on Twitter don't count." This is nonsense. Political figures are made to own everything they've said starting from when they were mindless student activist retards even when they're in their fifties. There are many ways to deal with this in a fashion that doesn't involve storming out the of the debate.
>Again, if he were on Twitter, that would be fine.
I'm getting mixed messages here, so things on twitter don't really count and change the context of what they are said, but also things on twitter count and the context is irrelevant?
I think the problem here is that you somehow believe that twitter drama is important to anyone in real life. It's not. The medium is important because twitter is not a serious political platform. So when he's presented with a bunch of twitter shitposts the correct reaction is 'Yeah who cares'?
But then it was question after question of that. It's clear the interviewer was fishing after the third time.
I think the spergout was embarrassing, but I think you summed it up perfectly.
>This whole thing is a waste of time. Frankly, I don’t care — I don’t frankly give a damn what you think of me since I’ve never heard of you. I think we’re done here.”
I mean, yeah. That seems pretty cut and dry.
>What was he expecting?
I dunno, maybe talk about the book?

Maybe that's naive in the current 'own' culture, but if you're invited on to talk about a book and your interviewer starts throwing five year old tweets at your face, then what?
>>
>>395710
>but also things on twitter count and the context is irrelevant?
It's okay on Twitter because on Twitter you "win" by acting like the biggest victim and generally rolling around scoring points in retard league. If Ben Shapiro wants to stay in the retard league, he can do that. If he wants to leave the retard league he's going to have to act like a human being.

It's absolutely fucking reasonable to ask if somebody believes what he said. It doesn't fucking matter where he said it, whether it was in a pub or on AOL Instant Messenger or in a private email thread or on a bulletin board posted to his local grocery store or anywhere fucking else: it is a basic expectation of civic life that if you say something people are going to ask you what you meant by it. You can explain it away if you want. If you act like you're somehow fucking ENTITLED not to be asked about it you are a fundamentally unserious human being.

>Maybe that's naive in the current 'own' culture, but if you're invited on to talk about a book and your interviewer starts throwing five year old tweets at your face, then what?
If I thought I could defend my tweets, I would. If I couldn't or didn't want to, I'd say that I am not going to answer any questions that aren't directly about the content of the book and he can end the interview if he wants. Or, you know, some variation of what I told you in the post that I gave.
>>
>>395705
>Irrelevant. We're talking about one specific person in one specific context.
I disagree. What's the difference between him making jokes on twitter years ago and saying stupid shit and me doing it on 4chan? Other than the fact no one knows my real name.
>Because the interviewer was being an interviewer, he was just covering a subject that Shapiro and, obviously you
No need to project, anon. I'm merely having a conversation with no anger in this at all.
>Just because an interviewer is asking challenging questions doesn't mean they aren't being an interviewer.
If you ask the same question three times, you're not being much of an interviewer.
>This is a laughable sentiment. Shapiro making violent, degrading or racist statements
Stopped reading there. Statements are incapable of violence and; degrading? It's fucking twitter. Where do you think these posts were made? Oh no someone degraded me on the INTERNET (probably not even me specifically but I read waaay too much into things and make it about myself), what will I do?
I don't even like Shapiro; It sounds like you're someone who takes the internet waaay too seriously.

>>395707
Yes there is, and I'll explain why: You are not culpable for statements that you make while you are in private. Private you and public you aren't the same person and don't believe the same things. What if you said that as a joke?
Privacy is important to humans for a reason. That's why you're on the anonymous imageboard, after all.
Carlin was 100% right with this sentiment on that.

>Then I'd say, "it was a joke," and then people would get to decide for themselves whether 1. they believed that I was joking,
You're completely right here, that was the correct response and he didn't take it.
But let's step into his shoes. He says 'it was a joke, that was years ago' and he just presents another tweet. Then what? Do you sit for five more minutes saying 'It's a joke' over and over again?
>>
>>395719
>It's okay on Twitter because on Twitter you "win" by acting like the biggest victim and generally rolling around scoring points in retard league. If Ben Shapiro wants to stay in the retard league, he can do that. If he wants to leave the retard league he's going to have to act like a human being.
Yeah I agree.

>It's absolutely fucking reasonable to ask if somebody believes what he said. It doesn't fucking matter where he said it, whether it was in a pub or on AOL Instant Messenger or in a private email thread or on a bulletin board posted to his local grocery store or anywhere fucking else: it is a basic expectation of civic life that if you say something people are going to ask you what you meant by it. You can explain it away if you want. If you act like you're somehow fucking ENTITLED not to be asked about it you are a fundamentally unserious human being.
And this is where I disagree. Sure it's an element of public life, but it's still just a goofy platform in 150 characters. I don't hold it against him to make ridiculous statements on something that's clearly not meant to be a serious place.

I guess this boils down to your views on the seriousness of the platform involved.
>>
>>395722
>Private you and public you aren't the same person and don't believe the same things. What if you said that as a joke?
Then I will have to explain that it was a joke. There are no free passes in life. If you think it's important to have a "private you," then it's up to YOU to make sure that private you stays private you instead of crying about it when you're found out.

>Then what? Do you sit for five more minutes saying 'It's a joke' over and over again?
"I came here to talk about my book. I'm not going to answer any questions about tweets that are over four years old."

Then:
"I just said I wasn't going to take this question."

Repeat ad infinitum. He'll look like the obstructionist retard instead of you. Ben Shapiro isn't some fucking child. Everybody gets frustrated. Everybody gets angry. It's up to you to deal with your frustration and anger in a mature manner instead of making a tremendous ass of yourself on the television.
>>
>>395696
Imagine unironically being even stupider than Shapiro
>>
>>395722
>Yes there is, and I'll explain why: You are not culpable for statements that you make while you are in private. Private you and public you aren't the same person and don't believe the same things. What if you said that as a joke?
Nigger what kind of fictional world do you live in? What the fuck
You're constantly responsible for your own actions and speech it doesn't magically stop applying to you when you walk into your house or log into Twitter for fucks sake
>>
I didn't even know Shapiro was a fucking Uncle Fucking Tom until today what a fucking numpty lmao

"I take Judaism very seriously." Fuck off
>>
>>395727
>Then I will have to explain that it was a joke. There are no free passes in life. If you think it's important to have a "private you," then it's up to YOU to make sure that private you stays private you instead of crying about it when you're found out.
I don't really agree with this because it has lead to our current mob culture: people who think their shit doesn't stink trying to lead the charge against people's private lives, and that's not really anyone's fault if it gets exposed through enough digging. You cannot keep the two separate all of the time, and Shapiro is pretty squeaky clean if some twitter posts he made are the worst they can find on him.

Everything else I agree on though, there were better ways to handle that but it's still a rock and a hard place. I like the idea of just stonewalling the guy until the interview was over.

>>395734
>Nigger what kind of fictional world do you live in? What the fuck
What's funny is that you're so lacking in self-awareness that you probably don't even realize that you just proved my point.
No where would public-you ever go out and use the word 'nigger'. Ever. Even if you were forced to. You just proved that you, yourself, have a private you and a public you.

>You're constantly responsible for your own actions and speech it doesn't magically stop applying to you when you walk into your house or log into Twitter for fucks sake
Great, tomorrow go to the supermarket and film yourself yelling that last line as loud as you can. Be sure you do it in the most crowded part of the store.
Since you won't because you don't actually believe what you said to be true; then at least take the time to reflect why it would be unreasonable to judge people based on their private lives all of the time. Even if it's their private lives that are connected to their real names.
>>
Why do people think you shouldn't use their past statements or actions as a foundation point for a conversation or general attitude? Why did this become a thing in the past 3 years or so? Especially with how social and public society is I don't get it. Did technology outpace human function or something
>>
>>395745
He wears the little jew beanie during all of his interviews and streams. That black thing on his head isn't his hair.
I think he does it to hide a bald spot, IMO
>>
>>395747
>Why do people think you shouldn't use their past statements or actions as a foundation point for a conversation or general attitude?
Because past-you isn't current-you and not all statements are equal. If someone came to me claiming that they have proven that I'm a racist because of a joke I told on an internet forum five years ago, I would first think they're joking and then be pretty pissed, too.
>Why did this become a thing in the past 3 years or so?
Because people who weren't familiar with the internet and the concept of your statements staying around forever started using it and aren't familiar with their statements staying around forever. In short, they're newfags who think that they will be able to stand by every single thing they've said on social media in five years time.

I don't see what's so unreasonable about that when you post on 4chan.
>>
>>395747
Because this is 4chan. There are posts I make today that I wouldn't stand by right now. Because it's 4chan, and it's not meant to be taken seriously.
I guess a better question is: Why do you take the internet seriously?
>>
>>395750
>Because past-you isn't current-you and not all statements are equal. If someone came to me claiming that they have proven that I'm a racist because of a joke I told on an internet forum five years ago, I would first think they're joking and then be pretty pissed, too.
I think there's a difference between, say, a 12-year-old telling a racist joke and then having it brought up when they're 17, and a 65-year-old telling a racist joke and having it brought up when they're 70. The kid has likely matured and has the excuse of being young and dumb, the 65-year-old probably hasn't changed and can't claim youthful ignorance. If you're an adult you shouldn't be telling racist jokes on the internet, hopefully because you're not racist, but also because you should have enough sense to know that kind of thing can bite you in the ass down the road.
>>
>>395746
Anon I'm literally black you stupid fucking nigger and have unironically called a man a stupid fucking nigger irl
My private and public life is literally the same thing if I get asked about X thing that I don't talk about I answer truthfully and to the point because lying is a pain in the fucking ass. If I don't want to answer the question there are five million and one ways I can do it without storming off like that fucking sleezeball. Nor am I stupid enough to fashion some form of secret identity or be so juxtaposed to society that I need one in which case I say the most abhorrent shit and then backpedal on "muh privacy" or "reeeee stop asking questions!" especially if and when it comes to light

I am eternally grateful to father fucking Odin that I'm not a blackhole brainlet who signs up and agrees to an interview and don't even research the person I'm supposed to be dealing with (especially when I'm mister big brained logic and facts) or not expect a fucking baseline or familiarity to be established as this is a foreign fucking media outlet and only knows me for rumors or word of hand all of which includes me being a fucking racist or whatever else the boogeymen leftists say about me.

Imagine unironically being this stupid, unprepared, and immature. Jesus christ

>Great, tomorrow go to the supermarket and film yourself yelling that last line as loud as you can. Be sure you do it in the most crowded part of the store.
I also really appreciate your autism. It's quite cute how hard you have to push an analogy to get someone to agree with you.
>>
>>395748
>That black thing on his head isn't his hair.
You're fucking lying that can't be real
>>
>>395591
>Said the internet reactionary on his safe space /news/, who would shit himself and vomit semen when he leaves the board or sees a post he doesn't like.
Unless anon is promoting a book and created a facade of being some kind of a guru, I don't think this is applicable.
>>
>>395754
>Anon I'm literally black you stupid fucking nigger and have unironically called a man a stupid fucking nigger irl
Maybe if you were trying to start a fight with them. You might call your friends that, because your friends are part of your private life and you are expected to joke around with them because you're human. However, I doubt you call people 'stupid fucking nigger' in public.
You're proving my point with this post that you, yourself, have made a 4chan identity and you don't even realize you've done it. Like it or not, at some point between logging onto your phone/computer you've switched from the way of talking and thinking from one you have at your job or the supermarket, to a private one that you would only use on 4chan. The one that says 'stupid fucking nigger' and doesn't think a thing about it. The one that ironically thanks father Odin. This is a side of you that not even your friends or family are witness to, and it's because I don't know your name or have any way to connect this back to you.

Frankly, anon, I'm touched.
>>
>>395757
Nope.
It's a jew beanie
find a pic where he turns his head and you'll see it.
>>
>>395754
>I also really appreciate your autism. It's quite cute how hard you have to push an analogy to get someone to agree with you.
So go film yourself doing it.
not scared, are you?
>>
>>395752
>I guess a better question is: Why do you take the internet seriously?
Why should it be taken any less seriously than things said on real life? What makes Twitter any more or less serious than YouTube or Ben Shapiro's own website?

Yeah, 4chan itself isn't very serious, but mostly because it's anonymous, not because it's "on the internet." Bathroom stall graffiti is also anonymous and real. What makes things "serious" is not whether it's on the internet or not.
>>
>>395767
People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in some places, even on the street, but there is literally zero fucking expectation of privacy on your a fucking ~open-access internet blog~ and your attempt that Ben Shapiro's twitter is an off-limits zone is complete fucking nonsense.
>>
>>395770
>People have a reasonable expectation of privacy in some places, even on the street, but there is literally zero fucking expectation of privacy on your a fucking ~open-access internet blog~ and your attempt that Ben Shapiro's twitter is an off-limits zone is complete fucking nonsense.
I'm not saying it's an off-limits zone, i'm saying it's so irrelevant that it doesn't matter to anyone except people who live inside of their phones.
The initial reaction most people have to a 'gotcha' presented to them in internet tweet form is 'Wow, who cares?'. Then again, that's most people's reaction to Ben Shapiro in general.

This is all just dumb internet mental masturbation and everyone will forget about it in a week because that's how relevant it is. It won't affect sales of his book, the interviewer probably won't think about it past this point, and it will only remain a big deal to losers on twitter.

Frankly I'm shocked it's considered 'news' at all. If 'news' was about every blue checkmark that said something retarded, then it would be the biggest board on 4chan.
>>
>>395768
>Why should it be taken any less seriously than things said on real life?
Wow that's funny man, I hope you weren't being serious.
>What makes Twitter any more or less serious than YouTube or Ben Shapiro's own website?
Not much, but there is one difference: Youtube doesn't have a 150 character limit. Twitter was made with the mission statement of being the place you put dumb quips.

>Yeah, 4chan itself isn't very seriousbut mostly because it's anonymous, not because it's "on the internet." Bathroom stall graffiti is also anonymous and real. What makes things "serious" is not whether it's on the internet or not.
I'll turn the question around then, aside from the character limit; what's the difference between twitter and 4chan that makes twitter more serious? Bear in mind, you can post with your real name here, as well. Just like you can post with a pseudonym on twitter.
>>
>>395773
>i'm saying it's so irrelevant
You're saying that Twitter should be a consequences-free zone for speech because you don't take Twitter seriously. This is and remains a retarded argument. There are plenty of people who don't use Twitter as a free-vomit zone like Ben Shapiro does. Nature Biomedical Engineering (as a random example) uses its Twitter to post updates on cutting-edge research. The fact that Ben Shapiro happens to use it that way doesn't give him a free pass on the things he says there.

>it will only remain a big deal to losers on twitter
And yet, here we are, talking about it, because for whatever reason people have convinced themselves that the culture wars matter.
>>
>>395774
>Youtube doesn't have a 150 character limit.
YouTube is far more anathema to intellectual anything than Twitter is, and Twitter is a hole. It's not the 150 character limit that makes Twitter a hole. Twitter is a hole because the people on it are retarded. But this is also true of everywhere else on the internet.

>Bear in mind, you can post with your real name here, as well.
Anything you post here under your real name... will be ascribed to you. If you, a public political figure, decide do an AMA on 4chan because you have EXTRAORDINARILY POOR JUDGEMENT, then you will be forced to own all the things you say here. Which is more reasonable.
>>
>>395669
Richard Spencer coined the term 'alt-right'. He still uses it today.
>>
>>395765
Holy shit
>>
>>395763
Im almost impressed How could you say so many words but so much nothing
>>
>>395637
Sometimes walking away from pure idiocy is better than sitting through it. That said, I wouldve stayed
>>
>>395747
Because they are just now learning to all the dumb shit they've done in the past has been saved due to the wonders of the digital age and that saying things online isnt a free pass, so now they rally against it trying to downplay the meaning of what was said due to the medium instead of oh I don't know, just saying "I was a stupid fucking kid with no experience a d influenced by an overabundance of information I couldn't really process, no I'm older and a little wiser and have changed" which would be perfectly reasonable

Also holy shit is Ben in this thread, that anon defending him sounds just like him, right down to being stubbornly obtuse and even playing the "I'm not upset, why are you upset" card
>>
>>395801
>Sometimes walking away from pure idiocy is better than sitting through it.
Shapiro was cornered into taking responsibility for his own shit and instead of embodying the principals of calm, reasoned debate that he has based his entire career on he lost his temper and showed himself to be the exact same kind of sniveling reactionary that he complains about.
>>
Pretty standard for the right nowadays. Attack the source and don't take responsibility for your own words.
>>
>>395669
That's because anyone who's not right of center is branded as a socialist by the conservative and corperate biased media you numb nuts.
>>
>>395629
Pipe down I can’t hear the movie.
>>
>>395591
>shut up, I know you'd do the same in the imaginary scenario I invented.
>>
>>395722
fuck off Ben, you autist
>>
>>395585
hahaha how easily a jew is exposed
>>
I just want to add that, as one of /news/ best and most successful posters, watching old conservatism look on in comedy/horror at what it has become was truly glorious.

Shapiro is pol. Shapiro is white conservative America. And Shapiro is a clueless sack of uninformative autism.
>>
>>395591
Goddamn this faggot just rewrote the definition of /seeth/

This is some top fucking quality boomer rage.
>>
>>395896
>white
lol he doesn't even look white...he is a typical semite always relying on guile & deception
>>
>>395597
Retarded. Absolutely retarded. I’m just gonna go through all the comments here and rate them based off of intellectual score / 100. This is about 40
>>
>>395666
You get a 55/100 solely because you watched the video. Your brain is salvageable but still in dire need of sunlight.
>>
Oi Vey shapiros hypocrisy & lies have been exposed!!.. shut it down!! shut it down!!
>>
>>395899
Yep retarded 40/100
>>
dTeBsHu I’m proud of this comment chain. Most of you are based and blue pilled. There’s like one red pilled meth head ravaging about like a cornered raccoon but most of you are 100/100
>>
>>395903
It is heartening to see a real white conservative like Andrew Neil expose a pseudo conservative jew like shapiro. There are so many jews & their puppets that pretend to be conservatives in american media while promoting their zionist agenda.
>>
>>395750
>I would first think they're joking and then be pretty pissed, too.
You'd be pisssed off that they showed you something you said? Are you autistic?

>I don't see what's so unreasonable about that when you post on 4chan.
Because its 4chang and not Twitter, or YouTube, or Google+. They're inherently different sites and I sincerely hope people aren't stupid enough to use 4chan as an accurate measure of anything anywhere
And if somebody pulled my post history on 4chan I'm not going to get triggered about it either.
>>
>>395913
The envy the Retarded Right has of the Jew is quite hilarious. They've masterfully put themselves in a position conservatives are so green with envy of that its reignited antisemitism to pre great war levels.

Imagine hating a group of people for doing exactly what you want your "race" to do (in quotations because european ashkenazi jews are Italian in descent). And AFTER they were genocided in WW2.

So instead of teaching your children how to beat the jew (private schooling, piano lessons, private tutoring), you'd rather shitpost on 4chan about muh goyims and sheckles.

That surely will beat the Jew.
>>
>>395932
if ashkenazi jews are italian why not have the state of israel located in italy? you see the inherent hypocrisy & contradictions in being a jew. It is such a sham & made up cult that jews are always spinning lies to try to justify themselves.
>>
>>395805
This, the fact that he called Andrew Neil left wing was just pure comedy.
>>
>>395896
This.

>when you call one of the most pre-eminent conservative writers in western society a lefty
>laughingwhores.jpg
>>
>>395613
>>395591
There's literally no reason to assume >>395588 is reactionary. Given the fact that they're ragging on gnomeboy, they're more than likely not.
>>
>>395964
Replace jew with conservative
>>
>>395896
>Shapiro is pol.
Shapiro is a jew that is hated by /pol/. I doubt you can actually connect him to /pol/ any possibly way than the side of the political spectrum he's on.
I know he looks fucking ridiculous but /pol/ has nothing to do with this. This is old conservatism, the boomer kind, and not the alt-right shit that /pol/ has become.
>>
>>396033
never
>>
>>395925
>You'd be pisssed off that they showed you something you said? Are you autistic?
If they started showing me shit that I said five years ago like it was some gotcha moment, yes I would. You would too. Especially if you made it clear that you don't actually think that now and that's the only questions they were asking.


>Because its 4chang and not Twitter, or YouTube, or Google+.
What's the difference? They're social media sites, it's internet shit.
The fact that people on 4chan treat these social media sites like they're king is frightening. You don't actually use these sites any differently than you would 4chan, do you? At least tell me you're not dumb enough to have your real name attached to them.
>>
>>395900
>>395902
>>395905
>QUICK POST SCORES I CAN'T ARGUE WITH THE POINT OR POST ROLLEYE GIFS LIKE ON TWITTER BUT MAYBE SOME SCORES WILL HELP
3/10, made me reply.
>>
Wow lefties are like starved people in the desert finally finding water for the first time in three years ITT.
>>
>>395821
Weren't you the ones pissing and moaning over Assange and Wikileaks not too long ago?
>>
>>396039
WHAT ABOUT HER EMAILS
>>
>>396036
Then stay ignorant of your hypocrisy
>>
>>396046
Yeah what about them? You wouldn't discard actual evidence just because of the messenger, because according to >>395821 that's only reserved for the right now.
>>
>>396049
Says the radical leftist literally following a corporate cult.
Be sure to watch Captain Marvel for the 200th time today.
>>
>>396052
The worst you can come up with is enjoying a bad movie lmfao The absolute state of /pol/pets.
>>
>>396052
>all these buzzwords
Tale full of sound and fury told by an idiot
>>
>>396051
>if I downplay it that means that others haven't been shrieking about them for years and my blanket statement won't make me look like a hypocritical retard
Thanks for playing but you lose, you can collect a consolation prize on the way out
>>
>>396035
/pol/ hasn't been composed of Nazi holocaust deniers in years. Most of the board is now just edgy 14 year olds who think being reactionary makes them cool, and legitimately mentally ill people indoctrinated into the Trump cult.
>>
>>395964

>Despite widely differing interpretations of autosomal data, these results in fact fit well with genome-wide studies, which imply a significant European component, with particularly close relationships to Italians

They are western European and more specifically largely Italian. Italians are the goat of Europe and the success of jews is entirely based on their Roman blood.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543
>>
>>396072
lol italians are the niggers of europe
>>
>>396089
>Ceaser
>Every Roman

Italians-
>Napoleon (Corsica was Annexed just before birth)
>Columbus
>da Vinci
>Dante
>Galileo
>Machiavelli
>Montessori
>Marco polo
>Vespucci

Good luck coping.
>>
>>396064
>/pol/ hasn't been composed of Nazi holocaust deniers in years.
So it's made of jews now? That's insane.
>Most of the board is now just edgy 14 year olds who think being reactionary makes them cool, and legitimately mentally ill people indoctrinated into the Trump cult.
I don't visit /pol/ but I think it's pretty clear you don't, either. Just clicking on the catalog shows more anti-Trump and anti-Jew threads than not. I don't even see a pro-trump thread.

You're projecting, bro.
>>
>>396054
>The worst you can come up with is enjoying a bad movie lmfao The absolute state of /pol/pets.
>He doesn't think being in a corporate cult is a bad thing
Tell me again how great silicon valley is and how I'm a /pol/pet if I hate Google.
>>396055
>Don't make fun of my trash political ideology, that's a buzzword :(
>>
>>396056
>SHUT UUUP YOU LOOOOST QUIIIIT
I can see your assgeyser from here.
>>if I downplay it that means that others haven't been shrieking about them for years and my blanket statement won't make me look like a hypocritical retard
Probably because the large media corporations outright ignored and lied about them (you know, the same ones that were working with her campaign). I don't know what the emails have to do with anything other than the fact that you're still upset that they were found out and still think Wikileaks is the devil for revealing them.

Face facts, the only reason you care about this nothing celebrity losing his temper on TV is because the Mueller report caved your ass in so hard that you haven't been able to shit properly in weeks.
You've found this one well in the middle of the desert and you're drinking every last drop from it you can. Drink it in, some jew on twitter got his ass handed to him by another conservative. Great victory, amirite?
>>
>>396093
>>396098
>this desperate cope after picking the wrong side
>>
>>396093
I don't care about silicon valley or the new Marvel movies. I thought it was all downhill after the first Guardians. You're shadowboxing an imaginary opponent while confirming every strawman the left has ever made about you lmfao
>>
No IM the gayest poster

>trumpster baby when he finds out leftist is straight
>>
>>395640
America hasn't become generally more right wing. Politics have broadly become more polarized, and at times people fail to realize how polar they truly are because the center is hardly visible.
>>
Shapiro admits he was OWNED.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/11/ben-shapiro-walks-out-of-challenging-bbc-interview-admits-he-got-destroyed/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%29
>>
I hope journalists and mainstream news people are hurt or killed
>>
>>396091
yeah 2000 years ago they were good
now they are just niggers
>>
>>396230
first breitbart article i've liked in a long time
>>
>>395585

some rich and deperade fucks competing, who invents the most twisted fake history of humanity when the world already moved on.
>>
>>395585
I hate Shapiro but all you're doing is admitting he is human and sometimes makes mistakes?
>>
>>396260
>sometimes
He's an idot, mate. Idiots make mistakes and don't learn from their mistakes.
>>
>>396092
Whatever you say Solomon
>>
He literally sent out an apology saying that he was unprepared for the first time and that it wont happen again. Let it go.
>>
>>396092
>Just clicking on the catalog shows more anti-Trump and anti-Jew threads than no
There's always been more anti-jew threads on that board
As far as the anti-trump threads go I know the paid shills been out in force for the last 2 years
>>
>>395592

Crowder isn't good or funny at all.
>>
>>396326
Because it's so hard to prepare for an interview about a book you wrote and posts you made online. Fuck off he didn't apologize, he basically tried to claim as "politely" as possible that if the circumstances were completely different he wouldn't have looked like a huge dumbass. Just because you say "I apologize" doesn't mean it's an apology especially when you attach a bunch of qualifiers to it. Attaching qualifiers to an apology is something psychos do to lessen the blow to their ego.
>>
>>396326
Ben Shapiro's entire brand is built on his DESTRUCTION of others (usually mentally damaged internet trannies) for tribal shitposting glory. People who are charitable and non-obnoxious about debate receive charity in return. Shapiro gets exactly as much of that as he deserves: none.
>>
>>396506
>Just because you say "I apologize" doesn't mean it's an apology
This entire board is full of retards.
>>
This was not a debate it was an interview. Neil was trying to give Ben Shapiro a chance to promote *his* ideas and policies and explain why he supports them. Shapiro was apparently expecting that he'd be able to just talk about "owning the libs" the whole time. When the interviewer brought up his own abhorrent policy stances on issues he freaked out because his policies are complete shit and it's quite difficult to support the indefensible. Really shows how detached from reality American "conservative" policies are.
>>
>>396513
I'm sorry you're too retarded to understand how it works.
>>
>>396513
Bless your heart.
>>
>>396520
You should be sorry for acting like a catty redditor.
>>
>>396524
I apologise profusely for abusing you with repartee instead of treating you like an easily triggered special needs child.
>>
>>396520
>retarded
You should not use that word
>>
>>396218
Wrong. Look up Asymmetrical polization
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/yes-polarization-is-asymmetric-and-conservatives-are-worse/373044/

And the work of Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein. For years they blamed both sides for dysfunction in Washington before Republican obstruction to Obama started and then they wrote this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

All data shows that Republicans are becoming more and more extreme and refusing to do anything like compromise. Hence while democrats are seeing a modest shift to the left, Republicans have seen a hard shift to the right.
>>
>>396244
First Breitbart article that reported the truth, that could have something to do with it.
>>
>>395594
seething
>>
>>395585
I'm surprised he aborted this interview. He should have been forced to carry it to full term.
>>
>>400087
It's not hard to push any busy person's button when you literally waste their time. Good for Ben on walking out of a joke of an interview.
>>
>>400087
Underrated.
>>
>>400088
>It's not hard to push any busy person's button when you literally waste their time.
Pushing a person to defend their point of view, which they came to promote, is a waste of time?
>>
>>400088
>It's not hard to push any busy person's button when you literally waste their time
So exactly what Ben does when he goes to harass teenage college students rushing between classes?
>>
>>400088
The other thousand people Andrew Neil interviewed didn't feel the need to throw a tantrum and run out of the room but I guess Ben Shapiro is just smarter and more mature than all of them put together.
>>
>>400168
Correct
>>
>Meme philosopher gets btfo and runs away in tears
Nice, I guess.
>>
>>400168
>Ben Shapiro is just smarter
lol. He may sound smart to a brainlet. He's good at talking, I'l give you that. But that doesn't make him smart. That makes him a man who can con stupid people into believing he is smart.
>>
>>400159
you mean by forcing them to asking questions after his speeches?
>>400175
ben shapiro is smart, but he has a very narrow and construed world view, though, and that makes him kinda dumb. dont conflate those two.

>>395585
i watched it and dont see anything special. ben was cringy and the interviewer was annoying. thats it. its probably pushed by libshit media because they are desparate to "get him"
>>
haha
>>
Ben Shapiro is only mildly irritating in the memetic sense that he's practically untouchable.
this guy got close but Shapiro was jogging circles around him. if this interview was cut up like the VICE one with Jordan Peterson, I'm sure it could be damaging...
>>
>>400227
>but he has a very narrow and construed world view, though, and that makes him kinda dumb. dont conflate those two.
So not smart? That's exactly what I meant
If he has a very narrow construed and self-constructed, even hypothetical, world view, he is not smart. But when he talks well about things in his construed and self-constructed little worldview, people listening to him think that's how things actually work. Well, in the real world they probably don't. So he's a pseudosmart which was my point. Sounds intelligent but doesn't understand how things actually work. And people listening to him believe what he says because it SOUNDS intelligent.
>>
>>400227
>Smart
The problem is he creates conclusions and then finds whatever he can to fit the narrative he creates. In this case he desperately tried to jam a round peg into a square hole by declaring Andrew Neil was a liberal and Neil just laughed at him cause Shapiro to storm off.
And what crime did Neil commit according to Shapiro? He dared to hold Shapiro's previous comments against him to find out if he had 'evolved' or was a hypocrite.

The fact that Shaprio made a reputation for 'owning snowflakes' and came off as the very people he decries looked extremely bad and this video will be shoved in his face for a while. He was self aware though and it's why he ulitmated surrendered because he's not Trump who can just gaslight his way out of any bullshit he does.
>>
>>400038
Nobody cares about your manlet israel lover. This isn’t news.
>>
>>402046
The Reich Wing loves Shapero, him being exposed is news.
>>
>>402046
the fact that you resurrected from the memory hole means you care
>>
>>400361
Talk about "pseudosmart".
"Construed?" You don't even know what that word means. It makes NO SENSE in any context in which you use it.
Fucking moron.
>>
I just watched the interview, Sharipo just exposed himself. Especially on the question about the Republican party having no ideas.

>Republicans have plenty ideas, like we should do something about healthcare, and we shouldn't do something about global warming

Or how he creates a strawman regarding the abortion question and how Neil wouldn't have any of his garbage and he kept trying to go back again and again since it was only thing he could try and make an opening with.

Then Neil just dismantled him using his own record against him, although the best part was how highly Shapiro thinks of himself and he calls Niel a nobody to which Niel just says he's never heard of him. Watching Shaprio explode at that was great.
>>
>>395592
>and there's a reason they're on Youtube and not television.
Because they're not dinosaurs



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.