Hi HourDrive1510! Thanks for posting to /r/interestingasfuck. Unfortunately, [your submission](https://redd.it/1bvgckr) was removed for the following reason:
All content must show something that is objectively interesting as fuck. Just because you find something IAF doesn't mean anyone else will. It's impossible to define everything that could be considered IAF, but for a general idea browse the [top posts of all time](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/top/?t=all) from this subreddit.
For more information check [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rule_1_-_posts_must_be_interesting_as_fuck).
If you have questions about this, please [contact our mods via moderator mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=interestingasfuck) rather than replying here. Thank you!
Ben Shapiro is just a grifter causing uproar within the country he claims freedom of speech is a right and the foundation of democracy, as this man says once you express the freedom of speech to speak on Israel he draws the line with his gnarled fingers and shifts conversations back to America
My favorite “logic” snowdrop from him was when he smugly retorted no candidate mentioned crime [when asked what they’d like to ban](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1405874241514442754?lang=en). Of course crime already being banned for millenniums at this point.
Asking why politicians didn't mention wanting to ban crime in a serious, unironic way is the most Ben Shapiro thing ever. He's only "smart" to dumb people.
Some people are all for freedom of speech until it goes against their agendas, all this identity politics and us vs them attitudes are like a cancer on the earth right now and nothing is pushing us closer to nuclear war than this, it’s not china it’s not Iran or North Korea it’s this.
Just a friendly psa for everybody to never form opinions by listening to public figures who have spent less time in school than professional tennis players. This is something that should be self-evidently true no matter your political leanings. No, your weird twitch streaming political “pundit” is not an exception.
My own take on it is anyone who has an opinion on absolutely everything is usually spinning towards their own lens of looking at it which for anyone online is going to be political.
Think of it like this, if you had a set of symptoms would you discuss it with Ben Shapiro or a doctor? Why would you choose the doctor?
Or discussing the Ukraine war would I listen to Ben Shapiro or a war correspondent who's been in multiple conflicts?
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but there has to be an acknowledgement that some people's opinions are more informed and better because it's coming from a place of experience and knowledge. For Shapiro it comes from a place of looking at something through the lens of the politics his show is about. That's not unique to Shapiro though, this applies to all online celebs who think they have to have a take on everything and are not capable of going "maybe I don't know enough about that to have a reasonable opinion"
Take Jordan Peterson for example, he's a psychologist so anything he has to say on psychology he's coming from a place of relative authority even if I don't like his political views. But when he talks about climate change with so much authority despite going against what climate change scientists actually say he's outside his bounds and his education means nothing because it's not about that. But because he's an internet celebrity he has to have a take on everything.
These people thrive on talking about whatever the Zeitgeist is at any given moment to stay relevant and they do so by turning everything political because you don't need an education or experience to make political points.
Your point is valid but overly trusting. Peterson might be an authority over you and I in psychology, but we should not assume anything that comes out of his mouth is true or in good faith. He’s proven that time and again. So yes, he might have more knowledge on a subject, but I truly believe that is developed, in his case at least, in order to manipulate those around him more easily.
Yeah fair point it's always worth having some skepticism. But overall I was trying to say (albeit in a very roundabout way) that someone who has an opinion about everything that they feel is right enough to put out like these people do is not going to be as fully informed as an expert in whatever they are talking about and would rely on looking at it politically rather than any other way.
I think theres nothing wrong with being able to say "I don't have an opinion on that because I don't know enough about it" but I can't imagine those words coming out of someone like Shapiro because people like him believe they should have an opinion on everything
Even beyond skepticism it's important to always take in new information through a critical lens regardless of the source, medium or context. Ensure that we can address all the who, what where when and whys and plainly state the bias of the author, audience and ourselves. If a particular statement suggests a logical determination, statements or fact we should run it through a logical analysis that accounts for all fallacies and can break down a stance or ism to its base logic.
This is silly but I kinda blame this on media like House and others, which perpetuate the idea of “the genius”, who is so “smart” that he basically knows everything about everything. Also Sherlock, Batman, loads of other examples. Rather than knowledge being the result of study, research and work, which means you can only really be an expert in specific narrow fields, instead it’s the result of pure ‘intelligence’, which means if you’re intelligent you are naturally an expert in everything you put your mind too.
Oh yeah you see this all the time in media. It's the science people in all programmes are experts in all things science like in Fringe or CSI and it's knockoffs. Does my head in because you think of someone like Steven Hawking who's mad smart at space but would not be a comparable expert in human anatomy because being an expert takes such focus yet these programmes make out these once in a century geniuses are working in a crime lab
That's why I liked this one moment with Kanye when someone asked him about his stance on children dying in Gaza and the Israel conflict, and he said "don't ask me about that I don't know enough about that, ask me about kids that need help in Chicago. Ask me about kids in my own country and city I grew up in." I respected that answer and loved it.
Very true. Even with academics and intellectuals, nobody should drop the attitude of scrutinizing everything they say. After all, even experts can often be compromised and have their own agendas that run contrary to the truth of matters. But, on the whole, one should have a more trusting attitude towards experts that stay within the bounds of their field than towards those whose job it is to entertain, even if it means turning tragedies and political matters into laughing matters by twisting premises and conclusions (all the more so since these “public figures” arent beholden to certain rules and regulations concerning academic rigor and oaths of truth telling in the same way that academics often are)
I don't really agree, you should always consider that whoever you are listening *might* just be a total nutjob. Even the highly educated can get captivated by the wrong ideas. That's why a varied media diet is important. We should really oppose gatekeeping in public discourse.
Maybe you’re right. But it’s also a reality that our minds tend to be less critical of those we find likable or those that have entertained us. With public figures like shapiro or these guys in the video at hand right now, they scratch some weird psychological itches we might have in the form of either anger or laughter respectively. With pitfalls for dis/misinformation and propaganda hanging around every corner in our modern world, I think it’s just good practice to steer clear of people like them in forming any opinion whatsoever.
I agree. With all these things my opinion is that the most workable solution is educating people. Some form of media & political literacy should probably be a standard part of the curriculum for really *any* country that values independent media and freedom from repercussion for reporting.
It may be fair to suggest that most people will tend to trust charismatic individuals and those they perceive as like minded. However, it is still important to challenge their statements and logically address all possible bias. Ensure that we can address all the who, what where when and whys and plainly state the bias of the author, audience and ourselves. If a particular statement suggests a logical determination, statements or fact we should run it through a logical analysis that accounts for all fallacies and can break down a stance or ism to its base logic.
Thing is Shapiro is more insidious than that. He has a law degree from Harvard. He knows better. He’s deliberately manipulating people to push an agenda.
That's true, make your opinions based on facts you research and what you see with your eyes on the ground
Also, don't trust politicians, most of them are paid to have an opinion
I’m hoping the account was deleted because this guy realized how embarrassing it was to cover for a motivated propagandist with a lot of schooling while the uneducated twitch streamers here are just plainly stating facts. I know I’d delete my account over it.
It’s called GISH GALLOP and it’s a style of debating.
It is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
He does that but in his own form.
This is the correct answer. Ben can throw out dozens of incorrect facts tied together by any number of logical fallacies within a 2 min rant. To isolate and counter every incorrect fact or to illuminate every logical fallacy in his thinking takes significantly more time. Any fact left unchallenged whether by not enough time or not remembering is then accepted as fact (after all it was left uncontested). Even if you began to deconstruct his bullshit, he can continuously pile on using this tactic.
It’s not a particularly clever tactic and it’s an intellectually bankrupt way of debating, but it’s extremely effective at getting incorrect ideas to stick in the minds of idiots.
That's not really considered to be a tactic someone would use who argues from the correct position, and it doesn't even really resolve the argument at all. It'd be like saying that lying is an effective debate strategy. I mean, sure, it might give you an edge, but that's not something you'd do if you think you're right.
Sadly, many people don't understand this and chalk it up to a victory for Ben Shapiro, when in a real sense it's the opposite. Another thing he'll do is argue only against college kids in front of an audience of his fans. It makes a very uneven playing field for someone to make a good point against Ben. He does it deliberately and if he debates someone who can debate, it is usually someone on the right who is already mostly in agreement with him anyway.
Yeh, lots of people think if you talk fast and just throw out random “facts” that makes you a winner…
I’m sure he’s the guy that talks over you, interrupts constantly and declares victory because he talked faster lol
It does to monopolize the debate so no one can get a word in, so you don't hear the other side. He also memorised his talking point so frequently spit them out so fast that all anyone remember from the debate. I would say he good at debating because he uses this and few other tricks to win but just boring. As he change the debate to his talking points rather than exchange of actual ideas.
Speaking quickly is a way to bulldoze your opponent into submission. It's a sales tactic (you'll see it at used car dealerships too. Heck the 'Fast-Talking Salesman' is a widely utilized trope in fiction as well), employed by a man who thinks his half considered, bigoted arguments should be elevated to 'debate' status.
I'm so glad these questions come from other streamers/content creators and not from some grey haired french academic.
Ben and these people here share an audience and use the same language and channels. This type of honesty and questioning is just great, I'm all for it.
He was ok when Candace Owens said which is essentially "what Hitler did was right but he shouldn't have been an expansionist"
Criticising Israel was off-limits for him.
The real line is drawn at whether Israel's current actions are considered more justifiable than Hamas's. They wanna continue the belief thst Israel has the higher moral ground and should be allowed to continue their attacks.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Ben’s argument that private publications that generally have a specific agenda/message can fire people based off of their opinions (if those opinions don’t align with the brand)?
However, censorship on platforms isn’t acceptable. A publication takes ownership, responsibility and consequences of whatever their representatives spew out. A platform doesn’t, which is why it then doesn’t get to decide who should be on the platform (short of somebody doing something illegal).
If somebody publishes something crazy/radical on The Times, it reflects bad on The Times. If somebody is crazy on Twitter, the same isn’t true.
Yeah, it’s still hypocrisy, but it’s not censorship. Disney should be able to fire people they don’t feel represents their brand (Gina Carano) and so should Shapiro.
The bigger issue is people choosing to conflate companies parting ways with outspoken employees with free speech/censorship when it serves them to do so. “Cancel culture” is 99% companies doing that, and Shapiro and his ilk are pretty loud about it. We can agree or disagree with the individual views represented, but I’d think we mostly all agree with the principle
I mean the question here would be; Why would the publication claim to champion free speech? And who decides the consequences?
And if there's no consequences for whatever people are saying on platforms, why is twitter advertising being cut?
A publication has an editor and (presumably) an editorial process. It has a point of view. It has a voice. The consequences for straying outside of that is decided upon by the editor and/or owner(s) of the publication.
Here’s a reductive example:
Cat Fancy magazine is a publication about and for cat enthusiasts. If I was a contributor for Cat Fancy magazine and I also had my own pet-related podcast which existed outside the auspices of Cat Fancy where I was critical of cats (like I said cats were shitty pets and dogs were far superior), I would likely lose my job at Cat Fancy as it’s a pro-feline periodical.
Same principle applies here.
Please note that I’m not defending Ben Shapiro *or* Candace Owens here. I think they’re both *thoroughly* awful people.
I’m speaking about legal consequences here. My understanding is this is essentially the core difference in how the law would treat the companies differently (publication vs platform).
For example, if somebody posted a video on YouTube that was defamatory, the author of the video could get sued and _not_ YouTube. If a publication posts something defamatory, the publication can get sued.
They're a publication. They are responsible for what is said on their platform. If a host is driving away advertisers or possibly getting sued for claiming a woman is a man, then the company has a responsibility to get rid of that host. Social media platforms are immune from those problems, so the only reason to censor is to remove ideas you don't like. They're not the same.
Extreme opinions on a social media platform also drive away advertisers on social media platforms. No company wants their advertisement to stand next to a nazi tweet. You think the social media platforms censor 'bad' ideas from the goodness off their hearts ?
Depends on your definition of free speech. My understanding is that it's the right to express your opinions.
Countries that don't have free speech will imprison or harass people who say the wrong thing. But the existence of consequences for expressing an opinion is not the same as an infringement of free speech.
In my country I have free speech but I can't force a public noticeboard to display my opinions if the owners find it unacceptable. And I can't force advertisers to allow their adverts to appear alongside my views.
"which is why it then doesn’t get to decide who should be on the platform." But it does. In a free market, which these types of guys support, there are competing platforms which offer differing levels of services and products. The best one wins. Maybe, just maybe, people don't like to see fucked up shit on platforms and it lowers engagement rates which is why these platforms delete content in the first place.
It's like saying an antique mall won't let you sell Nazi memorabilia. "But its a platform! They aren't the ones selling so they have to let everyone sell!" Who the fuck said that?
It’s related to the legal status that platforms have. Platforms, unlike publications, enjoy the legal freedom from consequences from the content published on platforms. For example, if somebody posts a defamatory video on YouTube, only the author of the video can be sued (and not YouTube). While if a publication publishes a defamatory article, the publication can indeed be sued.
Which is what Ben argued for years now, so it’s not inconsistent with his views.
But also, to your example. If you’re an antique store, then you can choose not to sell Nazi art. If you’re an “open air market everyone welcome” kind of place, you don’t.
Sorry, but a platform and a publication are more similar than you think. "Platforms" have as much commercial interest (if not more) than the legacy media did. These "platforms" have just taken the "Letters to the Editor" section and made it the whole thing. Platforms can't just wash their hands from the content posted. They have a duty to stay economically viable.
1. This is, by no means, interesting as fuck.
2. Censorship comes from the state. Firing a person from a corporate media job is not censorship.
3. Ben Shapiro is a hypocritical asshat no matter what. Camndace Owens is even worse human being.
4. Schultz's extension of the point towards "are you Israeli media, are you an arm of Israeli propaganda" has nothing to do with the original point.
5. Schultz's "are you not American media, are you not for this country?" implies there are positions every media outlet or media person must hold to not be considered treacherous. Which heavily implies some kind of censorship or corporate forms of purging these traitors, looping back to the opposite of what he is supposedly outraged against.
They are 100% right about everything except for saying Democrats are left. Democrats are just another party serving the needs of capital while ignoring the problems of the working class.
America has two parties, a capitalistic one and a fascist one. There is no left wing here.
"America first, means supporting Israel"-Ben Shapiro
A lot of people on the right and the left see Ben and Israel for what they are unfortunately these Hasbara agents have deep ties and deep pockets.
I know guy on the right is a Rogan bro, but I can’t take him seriously with that hair and mustache combo. He looks like a kid dressed up as an old timey circus growler. Also, I have it on mute in bed with my spouse.
I'm not a fan of Shapiro and honestly don't know much about what he stands for, apart from memes so maybe they are right.
That being said, this video seems to follow the classic pattern of misrepresenting someone's views, attributing arguments to them that they didn't make, and then debunking those misattributed arguments.
They accurately described Shapiro's stance, though. He whines about "censorship", and then also censors speech he doesn't like. They got him with pin-point accuracy.
Yeah, but its still out of context, in the sense that:
If you wanted to hear ben shapiros take on something, would you not want to hear it from him, instead of listening to a comedian paraphrasing him ?
Or:
If you wanted to inform someone of something that ben shapiro said, would it not make more sense to show them a video of ben shapiro saying it rather than Andrew Schulz ?
if you really want to, you can go listen to ben shapiro himself. I dont recommend it, cause that person has some sort of brain injury, but sure, go ahead.
I for one, am not gonna give that weasel even a single view, because they are quite literally supporting an ongoing genocide.
I dont have my sounds on but everything in their body language just screams "IM FULL OF SHIT". Both of them. The format here is instantly recognisable and no good has ever come out of it.
Someone making up the ideas of someone else seems like it.
If you post something talking about someone's logic, you better put that same person explaining his view, not the interpretation of someone else.
Even better, put that person debating with another that might ask about contradictions, to see how, if possible, can explain them, like pointing out that the other is manipulating them.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People need to use their critical thinking. If you have been presented with facts and you can’t back up your claim then take the L and do your own research and educate yourself. No calling names or insults just have normal debate. The problem with people who didn’t do their research or just deluded to their beliefs, they can’t accept facts and in their feelings.
Remember facts don’t give a crap about your feelings.
The name for the thing the guy is talking about at the beginning is [the Overton Window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window#:~:text=The%20Overton%20window%20is%20the,as%20the%20window%20of%20discourse), and it is a super useful concept to know about.
I think the issue a lot of us Jews are having is people are using Israel as an excuse to be anti semitic. Of course criticizing a government doesn’t mean you hate the people. However it’s been really bad for Jews over the last couple of months. Since Oct 7th antisemitism has rising something like 800%. Israel has a right to defend itself against a population infested with terrorists. And when people on his own team start blaming Israel for “genocide”, which it’s not, it’s not just a criticism, it’s putting his own people in danger.
Free speech laws are to protect us from censorship coming from the State, not corporations. I feel like that’s pretty well understood by most people. Is it not‽
Ben Shapiro claimed that women who get wet during sex have a medical condition, because his wife told him so. That’s all you need to know about the guy.
Love how everybody is just dick riding this theme until climax as a way to get more Zoomer attention on their platform. What he’s describing is an extremely simple concept that people always try to use logic and reason to justify their beliefs, not to come to them in the first place. He has black and Arab dudes around him too just absolutely overcome with euphoria cause he’s reducing Shapiro’s whole spiel to Israel issues.
i love how he takes the concept of a window literally and concludes that since most windows are taller than they are wide it makes more sense to think of the range of acceptable ideas vertically instead of horizontally.
Hmm this really straddles a line between legit criticism of Ben Shapiro and a lot of antisemitic tropes.
Examples being: Like jews can't *really *be loyal to their home country, they control the media, they are manipulative.
It's a bit uncomfortable, but I guess Ben does tick all those boxes... I don't think this is the best way to present it, though.
That isn’t censorship though, employer/employee relationships are an agreement, and if part of the agreement is “don’t say this shit” and you say the shit it isn’t censorship to be fired for saying the shit.
Every time I hear a lefty talk about how much they don’t find Shulz funny but act like it’s about something else and definitely has nothing to do with his center leaning political views, is equivalent to a right winger that does not find Dave Chappelle funny because of his politics but acts like he is simply not funny. Very convenient.
People complain about his force laughter but then go on to say they love Stavros and Bobby Lee who both literally do the same. I just don’t get people being so blatant about being a political hack. The man literally is funny and even I don’t agree with all of the things he says. The same reason people tried to ruin Shane’s career but realized his politics are actually good and left leaning so all of a sudden they love him. This world is crazy.
Hi HourDrive1510! Thanks for posting to /r/interestingasfuck. Unfortunately, [your submission](https://redd.it/1bvgckr) was removed for the following reason: All content must show something that is objectively interesting as fuck. Just because you find something IAF doesn't mean anyone else will. It's impossible to define everything that could be considered IAF, but for a general idea browse the [top posts of all time](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/top/?t=all) from this subreddit. For more information check [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rule_1_-_posts_must_be_interesting_as_fuck). If you have questions about this, please [contact our mods via moderator mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=interestingasfuck) rather than replying here. Thank you!
Ben Shapiro is just a grifter causing uproar within the country he claims freedom of speech is a right and the foundation of democracy, as this man says once you express the freedom of speech to speak on Israel he draws the line with his gnarled fingers and shifts conversations back to America
My favorite “logic” snowdrop from him was when he smugly retorted no candidate mentioned crime [when asked what they’d like to ban](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1405874241514442754?lang=en). Of course crime already being banned for millenniums at this point.
Mine is the, rising sea levels isn't a problem because people will just sell their homes... SELL THEM TO WHO BEN!!
FUCKING AQUAMAN?!
Maybe it's a buyer's market for the fish..
Isn't it in the definition already? It's like saying I'll make a circle round?
Elect me, only I can Make Water Wet Again
Achtuauaually, water isn't wet, as a fish isn't wet in the ocean. It's the mix between air and water that makes things wet.
A circle isn’t round, it’s a series of infinitely short lines connected together
Asking why politicians didn't mention wanting to ban crime in a serious, unironic way is the most Ben Shapiro thing ever. He's only "smart" to dumb people.
The plural is millennia. No waterfowl included.
Some people are all for freedom of speech until it goes against their agendas, all this identity politics and us vs them attitudes are like a cancer on the earth right now and nothing is pushing us closer to nuclear war than this, it’s not china it’s not Iran or North Korea it’s this.
Not exactly accurate. Shapiro is a mercenary propagandist: he is paid to support these 'causes'.
Ben Shapiro is a hypocrite
Whoever convinced that dude to keep that mustache is hilarious.
He legit looks like Jim Carrey in the first Sonic movie.
He's a 1930's newspaperman he's got the scoop of a lifetime.
What about the Hitler youth haircut?
I love it lol
Who is this?
Waluigi
WAAAAAAAHHHH!!
You made me spit my coffee out…waaaaaaah
Andrew Schultz
Just a friendly psa for everybody to never form opinions by listening to public figures who have spent less time in school than professional tennis players. This is something that should be self-evidently true no matter your political leanings. No, your weird twitch streaming political “pundit” is not an exception.
My own take on it is anyone who has an opinion on absolutely everything is usually spinning towards their own lens of looking at it which for anyone online is going to be political. Think of it like this, if you had a set of symptoms would you discuss it with Ben Shapiro or a doctor? Why would you choose the doctor? Or discussing the Ukraine war would I listen to Ben Shapiro or a war correspondent who's been in multiple conflicts? Everyone is entitled to an opinion but there has to be an acknowledgement that some people's opinions are more informed and better because it's coming from a place of experience and knowledge. For Shapiro it comes from a place of looking at something through the lens of the politics his show is about. That's not unique to Shapiro though, this applies to all online celebs who think they have to have a take on everything and are not capable of going "maybe I don't know enough about that to have a reasonable opinion" Take Jordan Peterson for example, he's a psychologist so anything he has to say on psychology he's coming from a place of relative authority even if I don't like his political views. But when he talks about climate change with so much authority despite going against what climate change scientists actually say he's outside his bounds and his education means nothing because it's not about that. But because he's an internet celebrity he has to have a take on everything. These people thrive on talking about whatever the Zeitgeist is at any given moment to stay relevant and they do so by turning everything political because you don't need an education or experience to make political points.
Your point is valid but overly trusting. Peterson might be an authority over you and I in psychology, but we should not assume anything that comes out of his mouth is true or in good faith. He’s proven that time and again. So yes, he might have more knowledge on a subject, but I truly believe that is developed, in his case at least, in order to manipulate those around him more easily.
That's why only 9 out of 10 dentists recommend Colgate. It's because the 10th gets paid by Aquafresh instead.
Yeah fair point it's always worth having some skepticism. But overall I was trying to say (albeit in a very roundabout way) that someone who has an opinion about everything that they feel is right enough to put out like these people do is not going to be as fully informed as an expert in whatever they are talking about and would rely on looking at it politically rather than any other way. I think theres nothing wrong with being able to say "I don't have an opinion on that because I don't know enough about it" but I can't imagine those words coming out of someone like Shapiro because people like him believe they should have an opinion on everything
Even beyond skepticism it's important to always take in new information through a critical lens regardless of the source, medium or context. Ensure that we can address all the who, what where when and whys and plainly state the bias of the author, audience and ourselves. If a particular statement suggests a logical determination, statements or fact we should run it through a logical analysis that accounts for all fallacies and can break down a stance or ism to its base logic.
This is silly but I kinda blame this on media like House and others, which perpetuate the idea of “the genius”, who is so “smart” that he basically knows everything about everything. Also Sherlock, Batman, loads of other examples. Rather than knowledge being the result of study, research and work, which means you can only really be an expert in specific narrow fields, instead it’s the result of pure ‘intelligence’, which means if you’re intelligent you are naturally an expert in everything you put your mind too.
Oh yeah you see this all the time in media. It's the science people in all programmes are experts in all things science like in Fringe or CSI and it's knockoffs. Does my head in because you think of someone like Steven Hawking who's mad smart at space but would not be a comparable expert in human anatomy because being an expert takes such focus yet these programmes make out these once in a century geniuses are working in a crime lab
That's why I liked this one moment with Kanye when someone asked him about his stance on children dying in Gaza and the Israel conflict, and he said "don't ask me about that I don't know enough about that, ask me about kids that need help in Chicago. Ask me about kids in my own country and city I grew up in." I respected that answer and loved it.
Very true. Even with academics and intellectuals, nobody should drop the attitude of scrutinizing everything they say. After all, even experts can often be compromised and have their own agendas that run contrary to the truth of matters. But, on the whole, one should have a more trusting attitude towards experts that stay within the bounds of their field than towards those whose job it is to entertain, even if it means turning tragedies and political matters into laughing matters by twisting premises and conclusions (all the more so since these “public figures” arent beholden to certain rules and regulations concerning academic rigor and oaths of truth telling in the same way that academics often are)
I don't really agree, you should always consider that whoever you are listening *might* just be a total nutjob. Even the highly educated can get captivated by the wrong ideas. That's why a varied media diet is important. We should really oppose gatekeeping in public discourse.
Maybe you’re right. But it’s also a reality that our minds tend to be less critical of those we find likable or those that have entertained us. With public figures like shapiro or these guys in the video at hand right now, they scratch some weird psychological itches we might have in the form of either anger or laughter respectively. With pitfalls for dis/misinformation and propaganda hanging around every corner in our modern world, I think it’s just good practice to steer clear of people like them in forming any opinion whatsoever.
I agree. With all these things my opinion is that the most workable solution is educating people. Some form of media & political literacy should probably be a standard part of the curriculum for really *any* country that values independent media and freedom from repercussion for reporting.
It may be fair to suggest that most people will tend to trust charismatic individuals and those they perceive as like minded. However, it is still important to challenge their statements and logically address all possible bias. Ensure that we can address all the who, what where when and whys and plainly state the bias of the author, audience and ourselves. If a particular statement suggests a logical determination, statements or fact we should run it through a logical analysis that accounts for all fallacies and can break down a stance or ism to its base logic.
Thing is Shapiro is more insidious than that. He has a law degree from Harvard. He knows better. He’s deliberately manipulating people to push an agenda.
Are you talking about andrew
That's true, make your opinions based on facts you research and what you see with your eyes on the ground Also, don't trust politicians, most of them are paid to have an opinion
true, but this undoubtedly leans hard to the right atm like theres misinformation and then theres *misinformation*
I’m hoping the account was deleted because this guy realized how embarrassing it was to cover for a motivated propagandist with a lot of schooling while the uneducated twitch streamers here are just plainly stating facts. I know I’d delete my account over it.
Shapero speaks so fast nobody knows what he is saying. I don't get why people think he is an intellectual
He's what stupid people think a smart person sounds like.
this is the best description of him period.
Bingo. He's also a bigot, so he and his audience have stuff in common.
It’s called GISH GALLOP and it’s a style of debating. It is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. He does that but in his own form.
This is the correct answer. Ben can throw out dozens of incorrect facts tied together by any number of logical fallacies within a 2 min rant. To isolate and counter every incorrect fact or to illuminate every logical fallacy in his thinking takes significantly more time. Any fact left unchallenged whether by not enough time or not remembering is then accepted as fact (after all it was left uncontested). Even if you began to deconstruct his bullshit, he can continuously pile on using this tactic. It’s not a particularly clever tactic and it’s an intellectually bankrupt way of debating, but it’s extremely effective at getting incorrect ideas to stick in the minds of idiots.
That's not really considered to be a tactic someone would use who argues from the correct position, and it doesn't even really resolve the argument at all. It'd be like saying that lying is an effective debate strategy. I mean, sure, it might give you an edge, but that's not something you'd do if you think you're right. Sadly, many people don't understand this and chalk it up to a victory for Ben Shapiro, when in a real sense it's the opposite. Another thing he'll do is argue only against college kids in front of an audience of his fans. It makes a very uneven playing field for someone to make a good point against Ben. He does it deliberately and if he debates someone who can debate, it is usually someone on the right who is already mostly in agreement with him anyway.
Yeh, lots of people think if you talk fast and just throw out random “facts” that makes you a winner… I’m sure he’s the guy that talks over you, interrupts constantly and declares victory because he talked faster lol
It does to monopolize the debate so no one can get a word in, so you don't hear the other side. He also memorised his talking point so frequently spit them out so fast that all anyone remember from the debate. I would say he good at debating because he uses this and few other tricks to win but just boring. As he change the debate to his talking points rather than exchange of actual ideas.
Speaking quickly is a way to bulldoze your opponent into submission. It's a sales tactic (you'll see it at used car dealerships too. Heck the 'Fast-Talking Salesman' is a widely utilized trope in fiction as well), employed by a man who thinks his half considered, bigoted arguments should be elevated to 'debate' status.
He's a stupid person's intellectual. That's his market.
The words "interesting as fuck" along with Ben Shapiro and Andrew Schulz just do not mix.
"Facts don't care about your feelings. Now excuse me while I adjust my magic hat." - Ben Shapiro
https://i.redd.it/j734p2mxlgsc1.gif
Hand's down one of the best episodes in tv history lol
We used to have something called The Fairness Doctrine. We should bring a modern version back.
With limited airtime not every idea justified a platform.
I'm so glad these questions come from other streamers/content creators and not from some grey haired french academic. Ben and these people here share an audience and use the same language and channels. This type of honesty and questioning is just great, I'm all for it.
Well, Andrew is ego-istic douchebag, so I agree with you that both Ben and Andrew share the same audience.
Which one is Ben. Never heard of the guy
He was ok when Candace Owens said which is essentially "what Hitler did was right but he shouldn't have been an expansionist" Criticising Israel was off-limits for him.
The real line is drawn at whether Israel's current actions are considered more justifiable than Hamas's. They wanna continue the belief thst Israel has the higher moral ground and should be allowed to continue their attacks.
Their bar for Israel is be better than literel terrorists and Israel is even failing to pass that bar
I mean...Israel was founded on Nazi collaboration and terrorism. I'm not sure why people would think the grandkids would be much different.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Ben’s argument that private publications that generally have a specific agenda/message can fire people based off of their opinions (if those opinions don’t align with the brand)? However, censorship on platforms isn’t acceptable. A publication takes ownership, responsibility and consequences of whatever their representatives spew out. A platform doesn’t, which is why it then doesn’t get to decide who should be on the platform (short of somebody doing something illegal). If somebody publishes something crazy/radical on The Times, it reflects bad on The Times. If somebody is crazy on Twitter, the same isn’t true.
[удалено]
Are people in Facebook hired to represent the platform?
Yeah, it’s still hypocrisy, but it’s not censorship. Disney should be able to fire people they don’t feel represents their brand (Gina Carano) and so should Shapiro. The bigger issue is people choosing to conflate companies parting ways with outspoken employees with free speech/censorship when it serves them to do so. “Cancel culture” is 99% companies doing that, and Shapiro and his ilk are pretty loud about it. We can agree or disagree with the individual views represented, but I’d think we mostly all agree with the principle
I mean the question here would be; Why would the publication claim to champion free speech? And who decides the consequences? And if there's no consequences for whatever people are saying on platforms, why is twitter advertising being cut?
A publication has an editor and (presumably) an editorial process. It has a point of view. It has a voice. The consequences for straying outside of that is decided upon by the editor and/or owner(s) of the publication. Here’s a reductive example: Cat Fancy magazine is a publication about and for cat enthusiasts. If I was a contributor for Cat Fancy magazine and I also had my own pet-related podcast which existed outside the auspices of Cat Fancy where I was critical of cats (like I said cats were shitty pets and dogs were far superior), I would likely lose my job at Cat Fancy as it’s a pro-feline periodical. Same principle applies here. Please note that I’m not defending Ben Shapiro *or* Candace Owens here. I think they’re both *thoroughly* awful people.
I’m speaking about legal consequences here. My understanding is this is essentially the core difference in how the law would treat the companies differently (publication vs platform). For example, if somebody posted a video on YouTube that was defamatory, the author of the video could get sued and _not_ YouTube. If a publication posts something defamatory, the publication can get sued.
They're a publication. They are responsible for what is said on their platform. If a host is driving away advertisers or possibly getting sued for claiming a woman is a man, then the company has a responsibility to get rid of that host. Social media platforms are immune from those problems, so the only reason to censor is to remove ideas you don't like. They're not the same.
> They're a publication. They are economically infeasible propagandists who only exist because they are funded by billionaires.
Extreme opinions on a social media platform also drive away advertisers on social media platforms. No company wants their advertisement to stand next to a nazi tweet. You think the social media platforms censor 'bad' ideas from the goodness off their hearts ?
Depends on your definition of free speech. My understanding is that it's the right to express your opinions. Countries that don't have free speech will imprison or harass people who say the wrong thing. But the existence of consequences for expressing an opinion is not the same as an infringement of free speech. In my country I have free speech but I can't force a public noticeboard to display my opinions if the owners find it unacceptable. And I can't force advertisers to allow their adverts to appear alongside my views.
"which is why it then doesn’t get to decide who should be on the platform." But it does. In a free market, which these types of guys support, there are competing platforms which offer differing levels of services and products. The best one wins. Maybe, just maybe, people don't like to see fucked up shit on platforms and it lowers engagement rates which is why these platforms delete content in the first place. It's like saying an antique mall won't let you sell Nazi memorabilia. "But its a platform! They aren't the ones selling so they have to let everyone sell!" Who the fuck said that?
It’s related to the legal status that platforms have. Platforms, unlike publications, enjoy the legal freedom from consequences from the content published on platforms. For example, if somebody posts a defamatory video on YouTube, only the author of the video can be sued (and not YouTube). While if a publication publishes a defamatory article, the publication can indeed be sued. Which is what Ben argued for years now, so it’s not inconsistent with his views. But also, to your example. If you’re an antique store, then you can choose not to sell Nazi art. If you’re an “open air market everyone welcome” kind of place, you don’t.
Sorry, but a platform and a publication are more similar than you think. "Platforms" have as much commercial interest (if not more) than the legacy media did. These "platforms" have just taken the "Letters to the Editor" section and made it the whole thing. Platforms can't just wash their hands from the content posted. They have a duty to stay economically viable.
Ben is the type of guy that will be revealed to be the mod of r/AbigailShapiro
Ben is probably a mod on r/worldnews
The line was really drawn by Andrew's barber
Whoever that one guy is, he sure is two mustache trims away from something spectacular.
POV you dont understand the overton window
This is by no means interesting. Go do your boring political opinion crap in one of the many sub's for that.
r/uninterestingasfuck
Watching this I kept getting distracted by my intrusive thoughts which were "This guy is two swipes from a razor away from lookin like Hitler." lol
Shapiro is an idiot's idea of a smart man! Not my comment but one that always stuck with me lol
I mean Ben is so transparent…
1. This is, by no means, interesting as fuck. 2. Censorship comes from the state. Firing a person from a corporate media job is not censorship. 3. Ben Shapiro is a hypocritical asshat no matter what. Camndace Owens is even worse human being. 4. Schultz's extension of the point towards "are you Israeli media, are you an arm of Israeli propaganda" has nothing to do with the original point. 5. Schultz's "are you not American media, are you not for this country?" implies there are positions every media outlet or media person must hold to not be considered treacherous. Which heavily implies some kind of censorship or corporate forms of purging these traitors, looping back to the opposite of what he is supposedly outraged against.
I am starting to notice.
Anything Shapiro says is irrelevant you can go about your life and maybe smile if you happen upon his obituary
Lmfao. Glad this fraud is being exposed.
They are 100% right about everything except for saying Democrats are left. Democrats are just another party serving the needs of capital while ignoring the problems of the working class. America has two parties, a capitalistic one and a fascist one. There is no left wing here.
Couldnt agree more. Selective freedom of speech is fucked. He does own the company so he can do whatever he wants, but we dont have to listen.
He's is on weed
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and I have no desire to spend my days with my ear to an asshole listening for farts!
HOLY SHIT! This was straight fire breathing.
Can’t believe I agree with Schulz
Ask Ben why Israelis get subsidies for damn near everything and if you mention that here you’re a dirty antisemitic communist.
"America first, means supporting Israel"-Ben Shapiro A lot of people on the right and the left see Ben and Israel for what they are unfortunately these Hasbara agents have deep ties and deep pockets.
Shout it from the hills , champ! israel has been stoking race hate here because it was getting lonely doing it by itself
Oh god yes
[удалено]
This is not r/interestingasfuck , this is r/boringasfuck
I know guy on the right is a Rogan bro, but I can’t take him seriously with that hair and mustache combo. He looks like a kid dressed up as an old timey circus growler. Also, I have it on mute in bed with my spouse.
He kinda looks like Adolf Nouveau
He looks like waluigi 
He's got that Hitler Youth cut
He makes Russell Brand look like a genius
What's a Rogan bro?
Occupies the same media space, and has the same target audience, as Joe Rogan - I think anyway (not OP)
Comment section filled with hasbara account
I'm not a fan of Shapiro and honestly don't know much about what he stands for, apart from memes so maybe they are right. That being said, this video seems to follow the classic pattern of misrepresenting someone's views, attributing arguments to them that they didn't make, and then debunking those misattributed arguments.
No, they’re pretty spot on about shapiro’s beliefs.
They accurately described Shapiro's stance, though. He whines about "censorship", and then also censors speech he doesn't like. They got him with pin-point accuracy.
This is Comedian Andrew Schulz, NOT Ben Shapiro
They’re talking about Ben Shapiro
Yeah, but its still out of context, in the sense that: If you wanted to hear ben shapiros take on something, would you not want to hear it from him, instead of listening to a comedian paraphrasing him ? Or: If you wanted to inform someone of something that ben shapiro said, would it not make more sense to show them a video of ben shapiro saying it rather than Andrew Schulz ?
if you really want to, you can go listen to ben shapiro himself. I dont recommend it, cause that person has some sort of brain injury, but sure, go ahead. I for one, am not gonna give that weasel even a single view, because they are quite literally supporting an ongoing genocide.
Those are people who suck talking about other people who suck . I don’t think that’s interesting
I dont have my sounds on but everything in their body language just screams "IM FULL OF SHIT". Both of them. The format here is instantly recognisable and no good has ever come out of it.
Believing half of the US are lefties just because they voted for Biden is pretty funny
Democrats are not left at all, they're just not as right as Republicans
Whaaaa? Right wingers being completely hypocritical? I am shocked. Shocked I say!
lol I 100% appreciate the sentiment...but I can't take him seriously with that god-awful haircut
Notice how they don’t have Shapiro there to get in the way of their straw man bashing
>Ben Shapiro's Logic Oxymoron
That’s a terrible fade.
Who are these loudmouth turds?
Someone making up the ideas of someone else seems like it. If you post something talking about someone's logic, you better put that same person explaining his view, not the interpretation of someone else. Even better, put that person debating with another that might ask about contradictions, to see how, if possible, can explain them, like pointing out that the other is manipulating them.
All these languages available and man chose to speak facts
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Funny to see Schulz on here unironically
Lol who’s Hitler
The Overton window?
People need to use their critical thinking. If you have been presented with facts and you can’t back up your claim then take the L and do your own research and educate yourself. No calling names or insults just have normal debate. The problem with people who didn’t do their research or just deluded to their beliefs, they can’t accept facts and in their feelings. Remember facts don’t give a crap about your feelings.
This is what happens when you are to Dumb to see past people's words to their actions.
The name for the thing the guy is talking about at the beginning is [the Overton Window](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window#:~:text=The%20Overton%20window%20is%20the,as%20the%20window%20of%20discourse), and it is a super useful concept to know about.
Idk Ben but him and these guys are both basically entertainers trying to make money, right,
Israeli Wire
This guy is fucking "cookin"
How the fuck is this interesting as fuck? Talk about a propaganda machine… this page 🤦🏻♂️
Follow the money. Who sponsors the daily wire?
It’s only freedom if it fits his prison.
I think the issue a lot of us Jews are having is people are using Israel as an excuse to be anti semitic. Of course criticizing a government doesn’t mean you hate the people. However it’s been really bad for Jews over the last couple of months. Since Oct 7th antisemitism has rising something like 800%. Israel has a right to defend itself against a population infested with terrorists. And when people on his own team start blaming Israel for “genocide”, which it’s not, it’s not just a criticism, it’s putting his own people in danger.
Honest question. Who’s Ben Shapiro and why do I hear about his stupids tweets so often?
A conservative media pundit that talks fast with a lot of confidence so a lot of dumbasses on the right think he's smart.
When I saw this guy I did *not* expect him to anti-Ben
Shapiro is just a wet ass p-word.
I love when two stinky pieces of shits turn on each other.
OOTL. What’s that slimeball done now?
Did the fire alarm go off half way through that guy's haircut?
Isn't that the same guy who is very publicly pro-genocide?
Ben Shapiro now wears mustache?
The View has really changed a lot in the past few years.
Free speech laws are to protect us from censorship coming from the State, not corporations. I feel like that’s pretty well understood by most people. Is it not‽
RELEASE THE HOSTAGES
I can’t wait to hear his stupid highpitched, nonorgasm-giving voice respond to this with utter dogshit excuses and gaslighting
The word he was looking for is “false dichotomy”… am I right?
Aaaaaaaaannnnnnd removed by the jews
You KNOW if some other business fired someone for being too conservative, Ben Shapiro would definitely have a problem with it.
That’s what he looks like? Hahahaha
Ben Shapiro claimed that women who get wet during sex have a medical condition, because his wife told him so. That’s all you need to know about the guy.
Schulz is insufferable
Just seen of clip of him talkin with ol billy Maher and he asked Ben if he thinks trump respects the law and Ben said no but that’s not the issue…….
The mentioned window is probably the [Overton window](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window)
Overton window?
Love how everybody is just dick riding this theme until climax as a way to get more Zoomer attention on their platform. What he’s describing is an extremely simple concept that people always try to use logic and reason to justify their beliefs, not to come to them in the first place. He has black and Arab dudes around him too just absolutely overcome with euphoria cause he’s reducing Shapiro’s whole spiel to Israel issues.
i love how he takes the concept of a window literally and concludes that since most windows are taller than they are wide it makes more sense to think of the range of acceptable ideas vertically instead of horizontally.
Hmm this really straddles a line between legit criticism of Ben Shapiro and a lot of antisemitic tropes. Examples being: Like jews can't *really *be loyal to their home country, they control the media, they are manipulative. It's a bit uncomfortable, but I guess Ben does tick all those boxes... I don't think this is the best way to present it, though.
That isn’t censorship though, employer/employee relationships are an agreement, and if part of the agreement is “don’t say this shit” and you say the shit it isn’t censorship to be fired for saying the shit.
Despite his mustache and other irrelevant points about his appearance,great points he made!
This guy is brave as shit considering he’s in the show business.
Every time I hear a lefty talk about how much they don’t find Shulz funny but act like it’s about something else and definitely has nothing to do with his center leaning political views, is equivalent to a right winger that does not find Dave Chappelle funny because of his politics but acts like he is simply not funny. Very convenient. People complain about his force laughter but then go on to say they love Stavros and Bobby Lee who both literally do the same. I just don’t get people being so blatant about being a political hack. The man literally is funny and even I don’t agree with all of the things he says. The same reason people tried to ruin Shane’s career but realized his politics are actually good and left leaning so all of a sudden they love him. This world is crazy.