Talk:Ben Shapiro

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article requires attention for the following reason(s):
  • The article has grown organically and is now somewhat disorganized and very messy.
  • Too many unsourced, unarchived Twitter references from defunct and protected accounts.
  • Too many naked YouTube links with no context.
  • content of his interview on BBC
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

Political positions[edit]

We need a section on all his political beliefs.— Unsigned, by: FedoraEnthusiast1337 / talk / contribs

“Neoconservative” as a dogwhistle for “Jew”[edit]

In alt-right circles, which are influential throughout the internet, neoconservative is absolutely a dogwhistle for Jew. This video: [1] from libertarian-turned-apologist-for-Holocaust-denial-and-Richard-Spencer-interviewer Dave Smith articulates it perfectly from an alt-right perspective: the alt-right believes “the neo-cons are run by fucking Jews who only care about Israel.” The alt-right Twitter rabbithole, starting at Nick Fuentes and going down from there, leaves absolutely no further question that neo-con is synonymous with “Jew” in their spheres. Ignoring it, or calling it absurd outright as this article does, allows yet another alt-right dogwhistle to go undetected.

Also, sorry about my rusty MediaWiki syntax. Msdalr1 (talk)

Arab leadership on transfer of all Jews (or genocide) and racist hatred incitement by Palestinian mainstream[edit]

Unsubstantiated Defense Allegations[edit]

The references provided don't give any room for the claim that Ben: "defended Brett Kavanaugh against sexual assault allegations". The benard article is broken, and the Twitter video shows Ben actually saying that the guy should lose his seat if the allegations turn out to be true. For that reason, I am removing that section from this page. — Unsigned, by: Fanfreak247 / talk / contribs

Facts don't care about your feelings bucko[edit]

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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie 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)

@UncleKrampus 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 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. Do You Believe That? If Shapiro wants to fix this tribalism problem, he can start by fixing the Daily WireWikipedia 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 a silly hyper-sexual rap songWikipedia 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)