Talk:Ben Shapiro/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 13 October 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.30.86.223 / talk}

"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.^{— 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. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mecmerfvn4norv4o / talk / contribs}

We are not Wikipedia, we do not use Neutral Point of View. RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth And yet another individual walks away, unaware of the difference between Neutrality and Objectivity... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 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! :) Spriggina (puhua) (maksut) @ 02:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we reintroduce the word "paragraph" back into the common vernacular? ^{— Unsigned, by: 115.70.149.30 / talk / contribs}

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.30.86.223 / talk}

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))

@162.206.28.243 "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. ^{— Unsigned, by: Posterelli / talk / contribs}

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.30.86.223 / talk}

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 45.234.133.124 / talk}

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. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 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.[1][2] Then he called for genocide (verbatim: "non of them will survive") in 1967.[3] PA "moderate" leader Mahmoud Abbas said in 2013 as reported by Reuters that he does not want a single Israeli on future Palestine state.[4] 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" [5] is rampant.

See also [6] for documented constant racial incitement in mainstream Arab Palestinians. ^{— 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.[7] Or in NYTimes[8]

On ADL.[9]

Even notorious biased U.N. could not hold itself back from criticism on Palestinian hate speech and incitement in 2019.[10] 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.[11][12][13]. 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[14][15]

__

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. [16] It is precisely because of incitement. Ditto. ^{— 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.

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —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. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 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

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. — 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭 ^{talk stalk} 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

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 Wire 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 song 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? Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 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, @IRonMan 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)

@Christopher@PlutocowI'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. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 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. Roman Sionis ^{tends to be inactive during summer} 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! CorruptUser 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.😉 ^{— Unsigned, by: Interstellar / talk / contribs}

Replying for archival. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Political positions

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

“Neoconservative” as a dogwhistle for “Jew”

In alt-right circles, which are influential throughout the internet, neoconservative is absolutely a dogwhistle for Jew. This video: [17] 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)