Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive1

I regret making this article
Because it meant I had to watch video of Ben Shapiro. Jesus Christ he makes Jonah Goldberg seem more than bearable by comparison. Anyway if someone is brave enough could they add some more information and detail on his conspiracy theory filled books? ClothCoat (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The section about Shapiro calling Tur "Sir" was my first entry on a website that i've been reading for a long time, and finally had to contribute to. Shapiro is probably the most odious of the current, nationally known right-wing commentator class. Literally all, 100%, of his arguments are either strawmen or spotlight fallacies. And as ClothCoat stated above, i'd be interested in some more detail of the content of his books. Godspeed to whoever attempts that, and i sympathize with the property damage caused by thrown books/tablets that may result. Petey Plane(talk)


 * Can the above commenter please give an example of where he uses such fallacies? I see very little in term of him being a sharp shooter or a strawman-maker. This is a rejection of your claim, not a new one and therefore I do not need to cite it or back it up with anything. You however, have made assertions about his argumentation which need to be supported. If you see concrete examples of this, please show us. However, making an uncited claim is useless and irrational. If you feel like his arguments are straw-men, you are just appealing to emotion. If you say his arguments are fallacy because your prof said the opposite, then that is just an appeal to authority.

"Bad Source"
I'm assuming it means "The Blaze", Glenn Beck's personal webshite (and rival of Breitbart.com to be the wingnut Huffpost). True, it is a bad source, but it's one of the few articles i could find that preserves Breitbart.com's original article mocking Benny's resignation. Just wondering, no big deal.Petey Plane (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, i think i interpreted that wrong, as HE himself is the bad source. Petey Plane (talk) 02:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Atheist Wiki
This article doesn't like ad hominems but it's loaded with fallacy. The bias is quite clear.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 204.126.173.136 / talk / contribs
 * "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What fallacies have you noticed? Christopher (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Most Muslims Are Radicals Claim
I think we should add Ben Strawman Shapiro's ridiculous claim about 800 million Muslims being radicals. He apparently thinks that supporting sharia means that you are a radical. Politifact even rated his claim as false, and Shapiro responded by labeling Politifact as "fake news" and "liberal bias". I'm a former-Muslim atheist but man did this bullshit claim irritate me. I can't believe people actually take this guy seriously. Apparently talking fast, having a Harvard degree, and saying "facts don't care about your feelings" automatically means he knows what he's talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg&t=13s http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/05/ben-shapiro/shapiro-says-majority-muslims-are-radicals/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4ZUcV0gMk

Should we add it? Amrator (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sharia Law is, by definition, a theocracy. Given that Post-Enlightenment thinking is diametrically opposed to theocratic governments, Sharia-Muslims are absolutely radicals.
 * Tell me, would you call Christians who sought to eschew democracy in favor of a Christian theocracy radical? Of course you would. So don't move the goalposts here.
 * As a rational adults (hopefully) we have to call a spade a spade and call out dangerous, reactionary bullshit wherever we see it. Even if it's politically inconvenient.


 * To answer your question, feel free to add Ben's claim if you think it would improve the article. But go easy on the snark, because Ben is absolutely correct that Sharia is a
 * radical ideology. --DeusKek1987 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * True. Sharia is perhaps a radical ideology, at least in its implementation in many countries. However, as the Politifact article points out, Sharia is a catch-all term for general Islamic codes of conduct, the majority of which are analogous to Western ethical codes. Similarly, while many Muslims do indeed support Sharia law, most only want it to be applied to fellow Muslims. A Christian fundamentalist who demands Christians live by a strict, Old Testament-inspired way of life but said it should not apply to those who were not Christian (meaning people can opt out of the system) is radical, perhaps, but not dangerous, which is what Shapiro claims most Muslims are. Shapiro's analysis of the data is inherently flawed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree with Politifact on that point. Every definition of Sharia I can find describes it as a set of religious laws, to be implemented as the legal code of the society. It follows that those who support Sharia support theocratic rule. But I don't want to drag this down to the level of semantics, the point is that while most Muslim people are benign and sensible individuals, Islamic-Sharia as an ideology is barbaric by Enlightenment standards. Is Ben fear-mongering? Almost certainly. But I think he's technically correct. --DeusKek1987 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

wikipedia es neutral ..hasta donde se pueda serlo .. hasta donde se logre serlo .. rational wiki no lo es
donde quedo la neutralidad ? no importa si crees que alguien es un imbécil ..pero dilo con respeto y con neutralidad. lastima leer este tipo de cosas

Where was the neutrality? It does not matter if you think someone is an idiot ... but say it with respect and neutrality. It hurts to read this kind of thing

nunca llegaran a ser como wikipedia si siguen asi. metiendose la neutralidad por el culo.


 * We are not Wikipedia, we do not use Neutral Point of View. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And yet another individual walks away, unaware of the difference between Neutrality and Objectivity... 17:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

We should add some stuff from this thread
https://twitter.com/_Almaqah/status/1019756028093784067 LuodiWang (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And this thread as well: https://mobile.twitter.com/danielsieradski/status/989364997095641088 LuodiWang (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this article (and many others on "RationalWiki") is terrible and here's why
I won't address the ad homs because those are part and parcel for this site and it would be hypocritical of me to bemoan them and in the same breath lampoon the cretinous neck-beards who write these articles. :) There are, however, a number of other fallacies made here. For example, There's a quote, stripped of any context, wherein Sharpiro describes the "militant homosexual agenda." A quick skim through of the article this quote was pulled from reveals that Sharpiro actually has, brace yourselves, here comes a word you might not have seen before, evidence for this claim, namely the fact that there is/was an actual class at the University of Michigan called, "How to be Gay". You may disagree with the conclusion Ben draws from that fact. That's perfectly fine. But surely we can all agree that it would be far more productive and, dare I say, rational to explain and support that disagreement with reasoned argument instead of deceitful editing. Another example, this article mentions that Sharpiro has accused Sesame Street of being Liberal propaganda. In the interview cited, he substantiates that claim with evidence such as the progressive parenting advice given on the Sesame Street website. Again, you are free to disagree with Sharpiro's assessment of the children's show, but if you do so in an intellectually dishonest way then all you're doing is, if you'll pardon the expression, jerking each other off. I could go on, and perhaps I will when I have more time on my hands. In truth, though, nearly every article on this website is, shall we say, economical with the truth. I doubt anyone here will actually listen to what I have to say, but if talk page tirades such as this one can cause even a single person to brush those cobwebs out and start thinking critically again, I will consider this time well spent. Or perhaps I'm way off base and some kind soul will come along and show me the way. (Knuckles, anyone?)

In any event, I look forward to your flippant, smug, and irrational replies. <3 --DeusKek1987 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. Could you please format it to not be a wall of text next time? Thanks! :) 02:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Can we reintroduce the word "paragraph" back into the common vernacular?


 * It is good to see that DeusKek1987 was not incorrect about the style of replies. Not one single person has actually commented about the content of your comment, but just the structure of your comment. Means you make a good point. They however, just want to tone police you. I would agree with you that this is a seriously bias page. I want to look more into this and see where their main bias is directed towards as a site in general.


 * What exactly is there to comment on? DeusKek1987 mentioned a class and said that it was evidence. Is the mere existence of the class evidence? What about the content of the class(SHOCK ALERT!: The class is not about how to be gay)? How does the class lay out the "militant homosexual agenda"? If you believe in such an agenda, is being gay something you do after someone suggests that you do so? With these questions, why would you think it is anything more than a waste of time to respond to DeusKek1987's comment? --DezOnlyOne (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "Flippant, smug and irrational." Nope. Doing so would be emulating the head honcho of flippant, smug and irrational, Mr. Shapiro himself. Nice try though.Tomas Vilanch (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * What makes having a class on gay culture and experience evidence of a "militant" movement? For someone who rails against hyperbole and extremism in political discourse, Ben is very quick to use such language in his own commentaries.  Petey Plane (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Rationalwiki? More like leftist PC wiki to me. (162.206.28.243 (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2018 (UTC))


 * "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! TheEOE (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Random right-wing complaint #867
Its just my observation that the person who wrote this article is well versed in nonsense and completely brainwashed by the left. This person is likely anti constitutional and against freedom of speech except where they choose. They call Ben a pseudo-intellectual, yet they don't have the courage to debate him nor can they find a non-pseudo-intellectual that can debate him... not even from the many universities. Lets disregard that Ben passed the bar exam in his state. As far as Ben's statement about debating liberals, thats pretty much correct with the college brainwashed liberals. Its sad to see that all the left, including the author here, can do is insult people when what they preach is proven wrong.


 * Please stop. If you want to propose constructive changes, then edit here. Otherwise, get out. ―CCG Δ ∇ 00:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * "Otherwise, get out." Is this the anti-free speech you are talking about Posterelli? The irrationality on this page is so thick that it hurts. A wiki called "rational wiki", I would hope, would have a talk section where people don't just shout "get out" at a commenter (which is about as bad as "shut up and listen"), but engage and try to disprove. You are doing exactly what everyone dislikes leftists for. This is silencing behavior and an example of your double standard of who can and can not speak at any given time.


 * This conservative narrative of victimhood is really getting old. Don't you have any new hits to play? Tomas Vilanch (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * If your don't like the article, edit it. If your edits have any foundation, they will be taken into consideration.  Otherwise, kick rocks.  Petey Plane (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro vs. Ocasio Cortez debate exchange
Hi everyone,

I was wondering if we could perhaps edit the section of this article where it talks about Ocasio Cortez and Ben Shapiro becoming involved in a debate. I felt as if this section could've been a bit more even-handed. So I was wondering if I could make the following edit:

Recently, Ben has engaged in a mini-feud with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter. Ben asked for her to debate him and was willing to donate $10,000 to her campaign in exchange for a debate with her (which is actually a violation of federal law, but okay then). Upon hearing of Shapiro's offer, Ocasio-Cortez compared Shapiro's invitation to "unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions", which basically means she thought Ben Shapiro had bad intent in asking for a debate. She also compared his request to catcalling. Shapiro did not see things the same way, saying that "discussion and debate are not 'bad intentions'". Other people on both sides joined in and gave their opinions. Overall, the whole exchange was unnecessarily escalated into a flame war by Ocasio Cortez. She could be right that Ben Shapiro had no good intentions in debating her, and Shapiro can be a bit of an ass at times. However, steps could have been taken to ensure a fair debate. For one, a moderator could have been chosen that both Cortez and Shapiro could agree on. Secondly, they could have debated at a mutually agreed upon location, rather than at Ben Shapiro's news studio. Thirdly, they could ensure that the topics of discussion were mutually agreed upon as well. And finally, during the debate, Cortez or Shapiro could call each other out if either of them engaged in any ad hominem attacks against one another. If all of this is done, the ability of any one party to smear the other would be greatly diminished, Cortez could get some campaign money and/or charities could be benefited. In addition, both parties could have benefitted from the publicity whether they won or lost.

End

Anyways I was thinking the above section could replace the current section about Ocasio Cortez and Ben Shapiro debating. I feel as if this not only more accurately reflects the situation being discussed, but also sends the message that there could have been a better outcome where rational ideas were discussed in an open forum instead of a flame war erupting. Any thoughts?

Warrior foes (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)warrior foes
 * I do agree. I hate when the left shields their own from criticism and distorts things. It's a cultural appropriation of the right-winger standard of in-group loyalty above all else.
 * Live debates are intellectually completely worthless and prove jackshit. A skilled debater like William Lane Craig could, with his usual panoply of rhetorical parlor tricks and plain bullshitting, convince his audience that the Earth is flat. Winning a debate only proves you're better at being a con artist. --91.7.3.250 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

"I felt as if this section could've been a bit more even-handed." - More even-handed? You felt that *that* section of the article could've been more even-handed? Do you know where you are right now? Have you read the first paragraph of this article? I don't think "even-handed" is what they're going for, here. 76.119.41.74 (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Woo supplements
Ben Shapiro is now selling sawdust and caffeine based brain pills. https://twitter.com/willmenaker/status/1031585883236036613 https://twitter.com/ZJemptv/status/1031626193072795655 LuodiWang (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Equality
Can we all try to be a bit more even handed on this article?Doublethink (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Seriously, this reads like a drunken angry rant by some San Francisco hipster. I'm all for exposing how pseudo-intelectual and pretentious this guy is, lets at least ground it in provable facts, rather than cheap shots with nothing to back it up. It weakens the strength of the article, and makes it less usable as a reference to the person. Dudelike (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

So do many, if not most, of the articles on here. Some of them are annoyingly over-the-top but Shapiro is such a blatant hypocrite and intellectual lightweight it's pretty much impossible for someone who isn't a dedicated ideologue to take him seriously. Kind of like Rachel Maddow. People don't listen to Shapiro, or Maddow, because they want a sincere, thoughtful discussion - they tune in to have their tribal biases confirmed and to take part in ritual two-minute hate fests against their ideological opponents.

Speaking of Maddow, RationalWiki's article on her is very sycophantic (and short) and there is no mention of her crazy paranoid RussiaRussiaRussia! act. TBH, I'm not really sure what the point of this site actually is. SpookMaster (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you think this site is pointless, why do you even have an account?
 * The point of this page is to give readers the straight dope on various topics related to its mission – obviously with the "liberal bias" that, as Stephen Colbert has pointed out, is characteristic of reality –, without the attempt at diplomacy and pleasing all sides, however fanatic, displayed by Wikipedia. When it comes to reactionary cranks, for example, Wikipedia tends to be tl;dr and lose the point, while RationalWiki cuts straight to the chase and doesn't mince words. As part of the reality-based community, it's very refreshing to have a source that makes it easy to place pundits and other figures; that informs me that this guy is an intellectually dishonest right-wing clown and there is no need to take anything he says seriously. (Or, at best, with a shipload of salt.) --91.7.3.250 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just fyi, we get the "this article is written as if it's left wing biased" a lot as criticism and we tend to ignore it, snark it, or make similar reply if the person is at least polite. 20:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of that! I just wanted to give my own 2 cents on this point for once. In the grand scheme of things, RationalWiki is pretty centrist (hell, it regularly denounces far left ideas and individuals!); it's just that the political landscape in the US is so absurdly right-wing these days that the wiki comes across as leftist to Americans. --91.7.3.250 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this was well proven in this recent viral interview of Ben Shapiro with Andrew Neil, who himself has a bit of conservative nuttery streak (climate change denial, HIV/AIDS connection denial). Ben Shapiro could not really answer some of the questions, to the point where it got to him -- he eventually accused Andrew Neil of being a leftist (LOL) and walking out. The BBC panel reaction is a good explanation why these guys have pages: these pundits are "fascist enablers" that prey on social media's fast moving speed, short attention span, and low intellectual weight to spread bullshit (something also a problem with American cable news). "Gish Gallops" styles like his work against debate opponents if, like too many people, you don't extensively prepare. But it's pretty clear that a good debater can (I'll say this in the Youtube clickbait video style) TOTALLY DESTROY a Gish Galloper with no real brainpower behind their opinions. (That the an article in the National Review has proclaimed him heir to William Buckley's throne says much about the intellectual decline of American conservatism...) Soundwave106 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Invention of written language
The article mentions that Shapiro touts written language as a European achievement. In fact, written language was invented entirely outside Europe, in Africa (Egypt) and Asia (Mesopotamia), places with thriving civilizations and written literature when Europe was still entirely illiterate. Moreover, written language was independently invented in Central America, at a time when most of Europe, especially north of the Alps, was still inhabited by illiterate barbarians. The article should correct him on this point, maybe in a footnote. --91.7.3.250 (talk) 05:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding us. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You may consider it obvious, but it's amazing how many racists act like all civilization came from the north of Europe and all dark-haired people were congenitally incapable of sophisticated culture. Like the Middle East and Africa was nothing but goat-herders and had been so for all of history. I often want to slap them with a history book. --91.7.3.250 (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Anything but spewing venom?
I'd like to draw a distinction between your Ben Shapiro and William Lane Craig articles.

I've watched quite a few Ben vids on YouTube, and he debates and generally crushes his opponents very well. What do we get on Ben's page?
 * "Well known for building so many strawmen" no rebuttal worth mentioning given.
 * "and almost entirely inaccurate criticisms" with nothing substantial to back that up except "OF COURSE since we don't like him."
 * "Shapiro has a habit of engaging in ad hominem attacks against non-conservatives" like the liberals he debates don't do the same thing (even on this site GASP).
 * "Ben Shapiro is also a virulent transphobe. Shapiro does not believe that trans women are women" because, well, basic biology doesn't back that up. According to you, all reality resides in the human mind, apparently, ala 1984 (sorry to bring that up, because it's cliche, but that's not even an unfair analogy, O'Brien said that 2 + 2 = 5 and The Party invented airplanes, and that the stars are balls of gas a few kilometers away from the (flat) earth, because The Party says so, and nothing existed before humans because it didn't exist in the human mind).
 * Basically, everything else you say.

Now, let's compare that to William Lane Craig:
 * An informed breakdown of his debate techniques.

So, I guess the response is "THEN YOU DO IT HATER." I guess I could, but I'd rather have help, without the probable "KYS HE'S A JEW NAZI." I do laugh how it says "Shapiro identifies as Jewish" as if "Jewish" in this instance is something he has no name or bloodright to, and the underlying implication is that he only "identifies" with being a Jew. I suppose when trans people are "men" or "women" they only "identify" as such, right? So.....they're not? Except when a wiki hates them?

In sum, this article sucks, and I'd like help to make this article better.

Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * ""Ben Shapiro is also a virulent transphobe. Shapiro does not believe that trans women are women" because, well, basic biology doesn't back that up."
 * ? Basic biology, maybe, but in reality, biologists that study sex, chromosones, gender identity, and so on will tell you that it's far more complicated. 04:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Not even close when talking about humans or any mammal for that matter. - Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear, do we have a source we can update the article with? -Notaliberalnosrs (talk) 04:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia? The short is when it comes to brain structure, transsexuals appear to have some characteristics closer to their biological opposite. Feel free to Google scholar transsexual research, it's pretty much the same conclusion. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

another fun one
https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1131973863535992832 SocialismDoneLeft (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Climate change section
So I'm trying to research on Shapiro's stance on climate change. But I've ran into a few issues of the section I'm editing. First, despite the references, and beyond the sources provided for the quote, there are exactly zero sources in the body text. While I don't think the article is lying or misrepresenting his views, the part where it says Shapiro "moderated his views" is a rather difficult hurdle for me to add information. I don't follow Shapiro. There is no date specified when he moderated his views; "since" is a useless timeframe. This makes it difficult for me to add more views on climate change as I don't know if an article from 2016 is outdated. The only timeframe I can work from is the text specifying a 2007 article. The lack of sources (seriously, I checked source 19 (as of this revision but all I ran into was some image of a guy with a cigar) compounds that problem as well as the rather vague wording. 18:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A pretty clear trend can be read from recent tweets. He's moved on to saying "Well how can you ask the US to do anything when other countries exist?" over and over.  Technically different, but clearly still just a thin facade on "Don't reduce emissions"  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tweets. I used some as examples to bolster some of the claims. I also have a better idea how he "moderated" his views, though he is still a denier. His followers who agree with him don't help shed my impressions of him either. 19:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleted Tweets
The reference currently labeled as #6 links to a wall of "unavailable" tweets. Is the policy on this to remove the reference, or leave it in place to at least link to the replies to the thread? Twentydragon (talk) 00:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Transfer of Jews
The idea to cleanse Israel of its Jews have been promoted by Arab leaders since the 1940s. Including by Ahmad Shukairy (In 1946, ShuKairy joined the “Arab Higher Committee which was also headed by the ex Mufti. Shukairy got his start in “politics" in the early 1930s when he belonged to a group of fanatical extremists led by the ex-Mufti. This gang cooperated with the Communists and prior to the HitlerStalin Pact sought in every possible way to sabotage the Allied war effort against the Nazis in the Middle East. However, when Soviet Russia joined the Allies, Shukairy's group split with the ommunists, and went all out for Hitler.), in the 1950s, before he was booted out of U.N. for saluting far right Neo Nazi storm-troopers gang. Then he called for genocide (verbatim: "non of them will survive") in 1967. PA "moderate" leader Mahmoud Abbas said in 2013 as reported by  Reuters that he does not want a single Israeli on future Palestine state. MariAnna (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of incitement by Arab Palestinian Street
The horrific racism of dehumanization of Jews as "apes and pigs" is rampant.

See also for documented constant racial incitement in mainstream Arab Palestinians. &mdash; Unsigned, by: MariAnna / talk / contribs

Anti Jewish racism incitement in Arab PA system
Palwatch isn't the only source for incitement in mainstream PA Arab system

Even far left anti-Israel media like Haaretz has reported on this. Or in NYTimes

On ADL.

Even notorious biased U.N. could not hold itself back from criticism on Palestinian hate speech and incitement in 2019. The United Nations’ Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva expressed rare criticism over the Palestinian Authority’s hate speech in school textbooks and in its media. Omari Nahmias Sep 1, 2019

PalWatch quoted, featured in mainstream Israeli media.. Hundreds attend funeral of 13-year-old Hallel Yaffa Ariel, who was murdered in a terrorist attack on Thursday morning; MK Yehuda Glick weeps at funeral: 'No one can look at the bedroom of a girl, her mattress soaked with blood, and not have his heart cry out.' Ynet reporters. Published: 06.30.16, 21:23

__

PS '''I object to any generalization of an entire people. Be it done by this person, or any other. Period.'''

Despite that 2010 poll showed such racism, as 90% of Arab, Muslim M.E. viewing Jews unfavorably. It is precisely because of incitement. Ditto. &mdash; Unsigned, by: MariAnna / talk / contribs


 * "anti-Israel media like Haaretz": Really? What planet are you from? Bongolian (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think she's a Shapiro Fangirl, judging by her edits. Gunther1987 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

'''Dear Gunther. I am not a "fan" of Ben.''' (Re anti-Israel Haaretz see the links provided). I do not support Ben Shapira's statements which were quoted here if he generalized. '''By the same token. Racializing when it isn't. Should not be done do.'''

Some of criticism of Haaretz
(Note. Jpost and Maariv are mainstream and Hamodia is non-Zionist. TabletMag is center-left. JewishPress and T.I. are zionists on the right.)

[https://www.jpost.com/opinion/op-ed-contributors/shame-on-haaretz JPost: Shame on 'Haaretz'. Many policies promoted by paper are supportive of Israel's adversaries. By I. Leibler. Nov.6.2007]

[https://www.jpost.com/opinion/media-comment-the-israeli-media-is-unpopular-because-it-is-biased-517244 Jpost: Media comment: The Israeli media is unpopular because it is biased... We do not have the space to review in depth all the Haaretz coverage of this year’s centenary of the Balfour Declaration, but some of it exuded utter contempt ... By I. Medad and E. Pollak. Dec.6.2017]

[https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15328 It's Jew-Hate, Stupid. Haaretz, where columnist Chemi Shalev just equated what was clearly an aberration, the alleged terrible... INN, 2014]

[https://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/roger-waters-aggressive-bds-advocate-at-haaretz-ny-conference/2015/12/14 JP. Dec. 14, 2015 · Roger Waters, Aggressive BDS Advocate, at Haaretz NY Conference Haaretz. writer and U.S. editor Chemi Shalev was apparently thrilled to be shown in a picture with Israel-hater Waters]

[https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://m.maariv.co.il/journalists/Article-581200 Haaretz newspaper: Tolerance of the enemy, hatred of his people. But "Ha'aretz" is becoming the marginalized newspaper by the day. K Liebskind. Maariv. April 13 2017]

[https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/is-haaretz-the-real-villain-between-the-israeli-news-outlets-i-think-so/ Haaretz the real villain between the Israeli news outlets? I think so. The headline of the latest anti-Semitic story in Haaretz is.. Moshe-Mordechai van Zuiden, Mar. 6.2019, ToI]

Haaretz's Textbook Case of Media Bias | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com Sep. 27, 2017

[https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&nv=1&pto=aue&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.hidabroot.org/article/1123660 The Ha'aretz newspaper, which boasts of being the "newspaper for people who think", is again raising wild incitement against the ultra-Orthodox public in Israel. In an editorial published by the newspaper over the weekend, it was claimed that the ultra-Orthodox are "parasites."] (2019)

[http://www.think-israel.org/plaut.wooinghamas.html WOOING THE HAMAS by Steven Plaut - Think-Israel. Jan.30.2006. The Israeli daily Haaretz, represented best by its anti-Israel leftist fanatic Gideon Levy, is celebrating the victory of Hamas as a great moral victory].

[http://www.think-israel.org/levin.haaretz.html HA'ARETZ, THE LIE OF THE LAND by Andrea Levin - Think-Israel. Oct 8, 2007]

[https://m.jpost.com/jewish-world/jewish-news/uk-jews-slam-haaretz-columnist-for-book-touUK, Jews slam 'Haaretz' columnist for book tour - The Jerusalem Post. Aug 18, 2010 · Gideon Levy has aligned himself with anti-Israel groups.]

[https://www.jpost.com/blogs/2nd-thoughts/an-open-letter-to-gideon-levy-365256 An open letter to Gideon Levy. The Jerusalem Post] By M. Ostroff. Oct. 17, 2012: ".. Don't you see the similarity between this type of baseless accusation and the defamation of your late father?..Don't you see the similarity between the Haaretz headline 'J.. are capable of acting like neo-Nazis' (Meron Rappaport Sep.16, 2007) and the allegation that your late Dad cooperated with Nazis? I refer to your November 12, 2006.."

[http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/haaretz-gideon-levy-and-the-israel-apartheid-canard/ Haaretz Gideon Levy and the Apartheid Canard ( Haaretz And Gideon Levy, their libel of Israel). Ben-Dror Yemini, October 20th, 2012]

Haaretz Proclaims Political Agenda | Hamodia.com: "May 13, 2014 · HR cited Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy for manipulating an opinion poll to “prove” that Israel was an apartheid state; and correspondent Amira Hass who “brazenly defended Palestinian stone .."

Haaretz Commentator Gideon Levy Arrested for ‘Spitting’ at Israeli Soldiers” by Dave Bender Dec.22.2014: Israeli police on Monday arrested Gideon Levy, the well-known columnist for the left-wing Haaretz newspaper,.. Gideon Levy, who is strongly pro-Palestinian and infamous for his scathing attacks on the IDF and the Israeli right, was attempting to enter Palestinian Authority area A, without a permit, along with photographer Alex Levac... . Earlier in the day, soldiers caught a Palestinian man in an attempted stabbing attack at the checkpoint

[https://www.algemeiner.com/2015/03/18/after-netanyahus-electoral-victory-haaretz-columnist-says-the-israeli-people-must-be-replaced/ Haaretz Columnist: The Israeli People Must be Replaced. Mar 18, 2015] : "Haaretz Columnist Gideon Levy: Replace the Israeli People. Are the Israeli people sick?"

[https://www.jewishpress.com/news/undeterred-by-facts-leftist-pundit-scorns-historic-owners-of-jewish-land-he-dubbed-palestinian/2016/03/06 Undeterred by Facts, Leftist Pundit Scorns Historic Owners of Jewish Land He Dubbed ‘Palestinian’. JP March 6, 2016] : The willingness to admit mistakes is almost a lost art in Israel’s media... ... Gideon Levy to Israeli dialogue is what Sweeney Todd is to haircuts.

[http://www.think-israel.org/sherman.israelinwonderland.html Israel in wonderland. ThinkIsrael, 2016]: Gideon Levy, "Shimon Peres' funeral proved that anti-Semitism is dead," Haaretz, October 2, 2016

Senior minister slams 'antisemitic' Haaretz over 'Israel Massacre Forces...JPost Apr 1, 2018

U.S. Ambassador Slams Haaretz Writer for 'Har Klalah' Comment Hamodia.com Feb 9, 2018: "U.S. Ambassador to Israel on Friday slammed far-left Ha'aretz columnist Gideon Levy for his comments on the terrorist attack in Samaria this week,"

[https://hamodia.com/2018/02/13/the-difference-is-heart/ The Difference Is Heart | Hamodia.com. Feb 13, 2018]: "Gideon Levy, the far-leftist columnist for Haaretz, took offense at the ambassador's donation of an ambulance to Har Brachah, which he blasphemously dubbed “Har Klalah.”"

[https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/israels-left-discovers-a-new-hero-jeremy-corbyn, Israel’s Left Discovers a New Hero: Jeremy Corbyn In ‘Haaretz’ and on campus, nothing but love for the embattled Labour leader. L. Leibovitz, Tablet Mag, Sep. 7, 2018]: ".. Also in Haaretz, the columnist Gideon Levy made his admiration for the dear leader known in stentorian terms..."

According to Israeli Writer (Gideon Levy), West Bank Jews Have It Coming | Dec 18, 2018

An Essential “Privilege” By Vic Rosenthal, JP, June 27, 2019: "Gideon Levy is an anti... misozionist* who is paid for his poison by an Israeli newspaper..., but sometimes he’s useful as an exemplar of the extremist Israeli please-cut-my-throat Left."

[https://www.jewishpress.com/blogs/abu-yehuda/season-of-plagues-and-freedom/2020/04/12/ Season of Plagues and Freedom. JP. Vic Rosenthal. Apr 12, 2020]: "But Israel also has (in Ha' aretz, naturally), Gideon Levy, the anti-Jewish Jewish journalist"


 * —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Cosmikdebris... I'm new on wiki. MariAnna (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC) MariAnna (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC) MariAnna (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * How is Haaretz “anti-Israel”? They’re literally from Israel. 22:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro reads Cardi B aloud
It went meme, so I'm sure everyone already knows about it. In the process of misinterpreting feminism, he emits quotes as memorable as "wet ass p-word" -- Ben Shapiro and "ride that d-word" -- Ben Shapiro. But I'm not sure where this would fit in the article. It appears there's no section on sexism. Tulpa001 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A prime example of why some children should not be allowed on the internet
This is from a 13 year old who HATES Ben Shapiro. Firstly you say that many know him as a pseudo intellectual your reference was someone asking a quora questions yeah that's a good one. However many people consider, Anita Sarkesian, Cenk Uygur, Bernie Sanders and Aoc to be pseudo intellectuals, however you won't put that in their articles because y'all are biased and agree with them. He believes in evolution though you try to make it seem like he doesn't. I find it so funny that you accuse him of using ad hominem attacks when you do the same and that is all you do for people who disagree with you, y'all need to add an adhominem attack. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:E5B5:75E:CAF3:168B (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's funny how you know i'm right so you don't rebut anything it's someone you don't like you put a quote of someone ad hominimly attacking them and insulting them but if it's someone you like you put a quote of someone agreeing with them it's really pathetic,also the reaosn people say it all the time is because it's true maybe listen to others criticms instead of making fun of them condescnedingly. It's funn y'all talk down to others when y'all all never graduated high school and have no degreees get a life fam go outside and find some friends --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:4566:CA18:1800:C1C4 (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. Oh, dear. Ah, allow me to explain this for you, my friend: No one here thinks you're right. You are, quite simply, viewed as a waste of time. You are a series of numbers spewing nonsense who, quite simply, doesn't matter. We can easily ignore you and revert anything you do, or simply ban you. I doubt we will do the latter, however, unless you start vandalizing. We aren't evil, after all.
 * 2. Nobody is going to bother rebutting you, because everything you've said thus far is so incoherent it'd be impossible.
 * 3. You may not have noticed this, but we're generally very snarky. We will (and, it seems, have) mock your beliefs. It isn't personal. Get over it and quit whining.
 * 4. Insulting someone in addition to refuting them is different from an ad hominem attack. You can be insulting and refute someone at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive.
 * 5. How the hell did you know I haven't graduated high school yet?!? Holy shit! Oh no! I've been exposed as a high school student! This ruins my argument and makes you right!
 * 6. Do you have a degree? Have you graduated high school?
 * And, finally, point 7: You're the one ranting mindlessly at a bunch of people who don't give a fuck about you or your opinions. I'd say you should probably try and find something else to do. Fuck off, and have a nice day! ^-^ Twodots (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * . the reason y'all dont answer is because you know you're wrong and i'm right so you ignore it because you're scared.
 * . y'all insult me because you are jealous that I actually have friends, am smart, know about politics and philosophy and that i'm almost always right.
 * . I thought high schoolers had friends well clearly you don't
 * . Everyone on this site calls me an idiot because they don't have an argument so they resort to insults
 * .I am destroying others with my FRIENDS (which you wouldn't know what that is) to others who are crying and angry because I am so smart and popular, and I've done plenty of things today you're the one who hasn't gone outside in 380542802389253084t80348034 years. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:F8A2:3354:CD22:515A (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * and lastly stop swearing and being rude just because i'm right, I actually have, i'm smarter and because I know more than you!
 * First of all, no. I'm ignoring you because, in addition to being an incoherent, childish idiot, you don't matter in the slightest.
 * 2. No, I'm insulting you because you're a pompous fool.
 * 3. I have several friends. The constant barrage of "yu hav no frenz" isn't working.
 * 4. Wow, someone's got a high opinion of themselves.
 * 5. Again, I have friends. We play games together on weekends and occasionally go bowling.
 * 6. Again, we don't really care about you. Why don't you get this?
 * 7. Congratulations on deXztroyzing people with your smortnez and poopurlaroty.
 * 8. I went outside literally four minutes ago.
 * 9. Um, fuck no. I think I'll fucking say whatever I fucking want, anytime I fucking want. Fuck.
 * 10. Again, you seem to have a very high opinion of yourself.
 * 11. Uh, didn't you say you were thirteen? If you've graduated from high school and gotten a college degree, than congratulations, you're definitely a genius. Regardless of whether or not you're a genius, however, you're acting like an annoying, arrogant piece of shit.
 * Please stop responding, you're embarrassing yourself.Twodots (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah no, that's not how any of that works. And we'll swear as much as any of us damn well fucking please. 19:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bro is so salty and mad that he's trying to tell himself that he won to save face, lolololol so sad man stop trolling and be kind and honest with yourself you gotta look in the mirror once and awhille and be self-aware, i know you'll nevber be as smart, popular or as right as i am but you may be if you are self aware and honest with yourself --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:F8A2:3354:CD22:515A (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no win state to honest discourse. 19:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you expect to accomplish by trying to troll a website that could easily erase all evidence that you were ever even here in a matter of minutes? Plus it's so obvious, saying things like "because I am so smart and popular" like you aren't even trying to hide that you're a troll 174.88.50.189 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not surprised that a proclaimed 13 year old troll who Gish Gallops a talk page with little to say other than "I am awesome" is doing it on a talk page about Ben Shapiro, a troll whose arguments are mostly Gish Gallops about how he is awesome (mixed with the usual white male identity political schlock of his ilk). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why GRammar commie is trolling I think he just sufferes form low self esteem you should probably be kind to him he's just sad about something so be kind please, he's kinda funny when he's doing it lol. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:F8A2:3354:CD22:515A (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please stop responding, you are embarrassing yourself and accomplishing nothing. Twodots (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For someone who claims to be smart, you sure seem to lack reading comprehension skills 174.88.50.189 (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've honestly embarrassed this site proved it's biased and IRRATIONAL, and destroyed some of its users in arguments, so lol stay made it's so sad to see people this jealous, remove the hatred in your heart --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:B594:FAAD:862B:EB08 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have destroyed nobody, all you have done is troll and make arguments that are so stupid they are not worth the time it would take to refute them 174.88.50.189 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Trolling" implies that they've done something funny or upset someone. I don't think anyone cares, tbh. Twodots (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if you are sincere. I am responding to your first post: you have written "many people consider, Anita Sarkesian, Cenk Uygur, Bernie Sanders and Aoc to be pseudo intellectuals.." Yes. That is true. But you do not have a point arguing that on this page. I, myself, have no problem designating Shapiro as a pseudointellectual, but it is a matter of opinion. If you told me that he is an intellectual, just a really really bad one, or, that he is not intelligent enough to be considered a serious intellectual, though he tries to be one, then I would probably also agree. I think he has shit for brains. Come to think of it, that should be a category here. Stop arguing here and go to one of those other talk pages to make your case that any of them are pseudointellectuals. In addition, we are ad hominem people here, can't be helped. Just remember, if you cause trouble by angering everyone who disagrees with you, that leads to being blocked. Play nice now.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was nice of you, Ariel. Unfortunately, they decided to be a little shit and start ranting on Cosmik's talkpage. Can't have that. Twodots (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * So firstly the guy who said "You have destroyed nobody, all you have done is troll and make arguments that are so stupid they are not worth the time it would take to refute them" nice try, firstly remember Danth's law, second the reason you don't refute is because you can't. Second everyone else is being mean to me calling me an idiot a pseudo intellectual when I haven't insulted or gone into ad hominem and all swore at me yet i'm being mean yeah ok buddy. Next, I hate Ben Shapiro's political takes but saying he is not smart is inaccurate he did dang well in school and clearly is academically gifted you're only calling him that because you disagree with me and Cosmik was bullying me, and the ones who are angering and insulting me aren't getting any punishment and I HIGHLY doubt they will be blocked.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:51EF:3B49:132:A6BD (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wah! I was the bullied! WAH —cosmikdebris talk stalk 22:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Again just because you're losing and getting DESTROYED in an agrument does't mean you gotta cry about it also he just called me an a**hole another mean thing to say I highly doubt he will get banned for bullied me tho--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:51EF:3B49:132:A6BD (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Danth's law at play here. IveBeenFrank (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You guys didn’t even try to refute what he said he DESTROYED your page and had many good points grow up he’s young and apologize and move on. --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:DC9E:31D5:88E9:86D1 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't give a fuck about you. How do you not get this yet? Twodots (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, dipshit troll who's pretending to be someone else. You do realize we can read your IPs right? You've been editing from the same IP range all day. And I'm betting you didn't think to use a proxy... 23:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That was not me but my friend (you guys wouldn't know what that is OHHH ROASTED),and he was right stop being rude and swearing with the ad hominem attacks--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:5159:B401:2562:F4B7 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, your friend who uses the same fucking IP. Sounds super legit. By the way, if you have to say "roasted" obnoxiously after you insult someone, it means your insult was shit. And again, no, I think we'll be as fucking rude as we fucking want. Sorry about the swearing though, I'll be really fucking sure not to fucking swear any fucking more, that shit fucking ok with you? Also, fuck. Twodots (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Again swearing isn't fun just make you look insecure and my friend was at my home, using his phone lol, and why do you have to be rude I'm just here to make more friends, and It wasn't obnoxiously I think you're just salty you got roasted.--2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:28CC:EA96:BB0:2415 (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and added a few more opinion pieces and blogs that give their own reasons to why Ben Shapiro is a pseudo-intellectual. 04:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Section on His Bigotry against Native Americans and His Stopped Clock Moment
In the Bigotry section of the article, it mentions that Shapiro posted an offensive video about Native Americans on the Daily Wire. However, the article that is cited does not mention him uploading the video; instead, the article reported that Shapiro said that the video was uploaded by other writers on his site (as much as I hate this guy, for lack of better evidence, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't upload it himself).

But then in the section titled "The few good moments", it mentions him removing and apologizing for the same video. And it also reports his staff making the video, rather than him.

Having this incident being referenced in two different sections is a bit confusing. And it even seems contradictory. In "Bigotry", the writing makes it sound like he was the mastermind; and in "The few good moments", the writing makes it sound like the video flew under his radar. It even makes the incident sound like it happened two different times, with different outcomes. I think it'd be better to consolidate the info in both sections into either one of the two sections.

Ourdearbenefactor (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds OK. Go ahead and consolidate.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've made the edits. I moved the Native American content from "Bigotry" to "The few good moments" and changed up some wording. I decided not to delete any content because I didn't want to invalidate someone's research; I was more concerned about the cosmetics and cohesion! I'm gonna leave further editing to someone more knowledgeable on the incident. Ourdearbenefactor (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Facts don't care about your feelings bucko
1. Having two quotes that are portraying him negatively and insulting him, if he was a leftist you would not do that. 2. Calling him old man yute 3. Calling him a catcaller and dog whistler. 4. Calling him an insufferable a**hole which is a better description of this website. 5. Calling him a pseudo-intellectual. 6. Calling him a Hack. 7. Calling him an author of really bad books at least he´s an author. 8.Saying he supports intelligent design when in those "sources" he literally says he accepts evolution. 9.Saying he walked out childishly. 10.Saying he whines about something he never did. 11. Calling him a bigot THIS IS JUST THE INTRODUCTION OH MY THE WEBSITE IS SO BIASED AND JEALOUS OF HIM AND I HATE HIM AND HATE DEFENDING HIM! --2607:FEA8:2BA0:1F6:CBF:AC05:869C:1572 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you a troll? 16:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1. Two quotes that portray him negatively are included because a negative portrayal is the appropriate way to portray an ass such as him. If you think there is a leftist ass with an article somewhere on this wiki that we don't have negative enough quotes on name that article so we can have an honest discussion about it.


 * 2. I don't really know what old man yute means but I assume it is some kind of insult, which is appropriate in regard to Ben Sharpno.


 * 3. The catcaller thing is explained by a note.


 * 4 - 7. He is all these things.


 * 8. I looked at the sources, he %100 supports ID. He thinks evolution is compatible with ID, thus he says the he "accepts" evolution while still supporting Intelligent Design.


 * 9. He did.


 * 10. Sounds like he probably does whine about that, but I added {cn}, (try that for yourself sometime).


 * 11. He is a bigot. I don't really even understand how you can look at the garbage that comes out of his face and not recognize his bigotry for what it is. What else does he have to do?


 * See also: Essay:I_thought_this_was_supposed_to_be_RATIONALWiki - SolPyre (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I finally have an opportunity to use this amazing template... and now...


 * JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 20:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I enjoy listening to the Daily Wire. I think the real problem with Ben is that he's so intelligent (he apparently has an IQ between 130-140) that he's created a intellectual bubble (would that be the proper term?) around himself. Then when he's actually put in proverbial check (as in chess), he pussies out. I think that my thoughts can be summed up by the renowned professor Charles F. Xavier: "Give someone wings, and they may fly too close to the sun. Give them the power of prophecy, and they may live in fear of the future. Give them the greatest gift of all, powers beyond imagination, and they may think that they are meant to rule the world." Thoughts anyone?

Gamer Against Weed (Sic Semper Cannabis!)

Oh shit, I forgot to add the tildes.

Gamers Against Weed (You are just mad because you are angry) 02:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Shapiro is pretty blatantly a grifter who flirts with some serious authoritarian tendencies. 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the bons complaints, some of them could be seen as reasonable. I want to point out two things: first, the heading on this talk page suggests the article is inadequate. Secondly, we had a bon who was dissatisfied with the article (albeit for divergent reasons), who might have been Tom-Sawyered into improving it. . It is obvious that nobody cares about this guy Shapiro, and that the only editors who comment here just think he is an asshole (which he is) but are too lazy to improve the article.
 * Some notes.

1. The bon thinks we should treat everyone alike. We don't. But, truth be told, the two quotes are lackluster and don't make the article any better: one by an actor (who cares?), and the other by a very minor journalist (ditto). If one supposes "This is the real shit!" No. No it's not. 2-4. Yute (oh to be young again), is funny. "cat-caller", "dog-whistler," "asshole," represent some of the very technical language used by our highly trained, professional staff. But, you know, in the rest of the world, people stop listening when they hear such talk. "Asshole" is ok. Most people understand that one and are intimidated by it. It is best used when most expected; e.g., at the end of the article after showing that, "...Shapiro being a real asshole, we recommend against buying his books (or at least paying for them). 5-7 & 11. Shapiro is a pseudo-intellectual and might well be called a hack. This is a consequence of following an orthodox religion. It is no mystery why Catholics, Muslims, Jews, and Evangelicals (for example) who are orthodox in their theology are almost by necessity anti-intellectual, bigoted, and confined to the bubble of their own theological schemas. Is Shapiro really different from your run of the mill orthodox dipshit? We may never know. 8. I.D. and evolution don't go together. Is bon right on this one? Does it matter? We hate the guy anyway. Oh well. 9. Saying Shapiro walks childishly means something to someone. Anybody? 10. Whining is whining. No one wants to hear it, or, for that matter, hear about it.UncleKrampus (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You made a far more compelling case than the BoN did. Personally, I didn't even know the "walks cildishly" part was there. I'll remove it, because even if it's true it um... doesn't matter. Well, as soon as I find it anyway. 04:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The closest I can find is the sentence where Shapiro "childishly stormed out from a BBC interview". This is not an entirely inaccurate (a bit embellished, but Shapiro definitely whined on his way out) description of that interview. I suppose, if you want to engage it in Ben Shaprio's language, you'd change that to "Andrew Neil DESTROYS hack American "conservative" Ben Shapiro using FACTS and LOGIC. It's a good contrast, because Andrew Neil is a legitimate British-style Tory pundit with some intellectual heft. Shapiro is more in the Ann Coulter / Rush Limbaugh vein where a lot his "arguments" involve setting up caricatures and straw-men of "liberals" and attacking them to "own the libs". Many of his other whines these days concern so-called "cancel culture" these days, as if monolithic, over-emotional, one-sided pontificating is only a liberal problem, something that Ben Shapiro absolutely does not do. 🇱🇮 If Shapiro wants to fix this tribalism problem, he can start by fixing the to be less of a hack job. (He won't. Angry clickbait is the best, most profitable kind of clickbait.)
 * When he's not whining about the left, some of his other "arguments" end up pretty shitty from other angles when you break down the word fluff (executive summary of this recent trite, for instance, is that racial disparities are (according to Ben) "more deeply rooted than random chance", therefore racial equity is "tyranny". Uh huh.)
 * Shapiro also displayed a curious ability to whine about tribalism while simultaneously contributing to it, as he did in the above link. Another place he did that is this Economist interview. He whined about tribalism, then provided a weak defense to the Economist about his silly "DESTROYED!" tribalistic Youtube shit when called out on it. He also made ignorant tribalism oriented statements like "civilisations that discard Judeo-Christian values end up in really dark places". It fits a pattern where if Shapiro is confronted by anyone that has any intellectual heft whatsoever, he ends up looking really pathetic and self-contradictory.
 * I think the quality of the article could improve, but Shapiro in general is not the most visible right-wing hack. A notable one (530K Twitter / 2.3M Youtube), yes, but even compared to a Ann Coulter (even in her declined state of late), he's not as important. I think his tone deaf shit on last year was the most news I saw on him in a while. So the motivation to actually improve this article is probably not high -- in this sense, UncleKrampus is right. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * {ping|UncleKrampus] Should I delete the quotes? 00:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Quote for his gish galloping?
I am unable to find one example because said examples are hidden behind a mountain of memes on Youtube, but it is true that he not only resorts to gish galloping, but also whataboutism. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Gina Carano
I'm not certain that the firing can be considered "dubious", considering that she was warned multiple times about her social media posting before she was fired (yes, I know, Mormon owned source, but considered reliable by Media Bias/Fact Check). I think it's a bit too early to list Shapiro's movie ventures as a good thing, considering they haven't made any movies yet ("Run Hide Fight" had no involvement from Shapiro, and was just picked up by the Daily Wire, and even that movie was criticized for behind the scenes sexual harassment. Plutocow (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The accusations of antisemitism are dubious. Comparing something trivial to the holocaust is offensive, but it doesn’t mean you hate Jews. Christopher (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's more due to how trivializing the Holocaust is within itself antisemitic. Anyway, I'll be nuking the section unless someone can give a reason as to why it should stay, since you're the one who added it I'll give you a chance to defend it. Plutocow (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just saw the diff and disagreed with the removal of the word, but now I see the paragraph in context I agree it shouldn’t be in a list of good things Ben has done. Feel free to nuke it unless IRonMan objects. Christopher (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be busy in the coming week, but I do kind of want the section to still be up, because the article itself is pretty shit, and I think that the section would add some much-needed nuance. Also, with regard to Gina's tweets, she said in the interview w/ Ben the the beep/bop/boop tweet was done on a whim to rile Twitter and she was unaware of the anti-Semitic roots of the Monopoly board image she tweeted. But I digress.  12:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how it adds nuance, considering the section is off-mission and without the films being made it is too early to tell if it's "good" or not. Furthermore, Carano was also posting COVID denialism and "Stop the steal" rhetoric for a while. Plutocow (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Even then, that really wouldn't merit a fireable offense... but whatever. Maybe I'll write an essay or something. 20:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Racism
I've listened to a bit of BS. To me, Ben isn't exactly racist, rather, he's extremely classist. He's still a bigot, obviously, but I am not convinced he's the type of bigot we seem to think he is. Likewise, he seems to mention the "three things that prevent poverty" spiel almost as often as he mentions that his wife was a doctor. Seriously Ben, stop mentioning your wife; at this point I'm convinced that Ben's mom is proud of her daughter marrying a doctor. Anyway, his 3 favorite things for getting out of poverty are "don't have kids out of wedlock, graduate high school, get a job", which would obviously be easier if he wasn't also so adamantly opposed to sex education and abortion.CorSock (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Classism can lead to promotion of negative stereotypes aimed at fashion / music / lifestyle etc. of lower classes of a different race. Which still is racism, honestly. It's not KKK-level hatred, granted, but what else are you going to call it? A lot of times in my experience, "friend argument" type racism comes from people who has no problem with the African-American neighbor in their middle to upper class neighborhood, but will be happy to babble on about negative lower-class African-American stereotypes (the type Fox News and Breitbart love to regurgitate). What you often notice as well is a corresponding lack of babbling about negative stereotypes of the lower class of the person's same race / identity. Googling around a tidbit I remembered, I noticed that Ben Shapiro has had plenty negative to say about hip-hop (a music form often associated with working-class African Americans). Google seems to suggest he has not had anything to say, though, about punk rock (a music form often associated with working-class whites). PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Three simple tricks to get ahead in life!
The only thing Ben mentions nearly as often as his wife being a doctor is that you need "three things" to guarantee ending poverty. Get a highschool diploma, a job, and don't get pregnant before marriage. He goes on and on about that. I feel like we should shove that into the article somewhere, but I don't know how.

Also, I go by the theory that Ben is actually a Jewish Mother, and Ben's wife is actually Ben's son, which is why Ben keeps talking about the wife being a doctor. This would make both of them transgender and incestuous to boot. I declare this to be the truth; facts don't care about your feelings, Ben, stop denying it! 17:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * he also says that it is the 'you problem' if you have to work more than one job to afford food, saying 'just get another job'. Apparently his parents were a Hollywood film composer and a television studio executive. According to an unsourced quora article, he graduated 'cum laude' (whatever that means) when grade inflation was high and cutoff was low. Besides the accuracy of the last point, it's clear that he is a child of great privilege. This could probably be incorporated in the article in the the usual positions section.

Cheap Joke
Benny: Facts don't care about your feelings but I do.😉 &mdash; Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs
 * Replying for archival. 15:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)