Read on Twitter
The most preposterous thing about this reply is it requires flattening conservatism into the person and work of Ben Shapiro.
"Oh, you have a problem with Ben? You must want to cancel all of conservatism!"
As if Shapiro is basically interchangeable with Ramesh Ponnuru or whoever https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1349811318551961600
"Oh, you have a problem with Ben? You must want to cancel all of conservatism!"
As if Shapiro is basically interchangeable with Ramesh Ponnuru or whoever https://twitter.com/michaeljknowles/status/1349811318551961600
As if a half decade of radioactive discourse chuddery can be suddenly whitewashed.
As if he's just a humble dude getting hated on by libs, rather than the embodiment of an infinitely toxic style of commentary a la “Ben Shapiro LASER GUIDES a NUCLEAR TESSERACT into a LIB'S EYE”
As if he's just a humble dude getting hated on by libs, rather than the embodiment of an infinitely toxic style of commentary a la “Ben Shapiro LASER GUIDES a NUCLEAR TESSERACT into a LIB'S EYE”
When you realize that Shapiro's style is the template that folks as irredeemably obnoxious as Charlie Kirk try to emulate, it's clear we're not dealing with a discourse participant that has just gotten a bad rap here. https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1287854251079761924?s=20
Here's an example of his style of engagement, which takes opportunities for an exchange of ideas and toxifies them past a point where dialogue remains possible. Obama says something perfectly innocuous, and Shapiro activates "OH SO WE'RE ALL BIGOTS?" mode.
Trump: "I'd rather be led by Kim Jong-un than by Sleepy Joe, who probably created COVID himself to attack patriots."
Shapiro: "Heh. A tad harsh but love libs getting owned."
Obama: "America is divided but I believe in us."
Shapiro: "Do you see the evil we have to put up with?"
Shapiro: "Heh. A tad harsh but love libs getting owned."
Obama: "America is divided but I believe in us."
Shapiro: "Do you see the evil we have to put up with?"
Remember this? This was the most emblematic Ben Shapiro moment ever. He made one good point earlier in the interview and spent the rest of it being limitlessly obnoxious and evasive. https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1126832712868712448?s=20
The interviewer, Andrew Neil, seized on exactly the criticism Shapiro deserves: Shapiro has called for the recovery of something—good-faith disagreement—that his entire career has been meticulously engineered to undermine.
As an example of his evasiveness, Shapiro was unable or unwilling to repudiate the absurdly aggressive descriptions produced for his videos (Shapiro EVISCERATES Vegan Cuckslime into LIB POWDER). He asserted that people have the right to say what they want about him.
Of course, the question wasn't whether these people have the constitutional right, or the political freedom, to describe his debate performances this way.
It was whether *he*—that is, Ben Shapiro—thinks it's an accurate, or helpful, or productive way to frame his performances.
It was whether *he*—that is, Ben Shapiro—thinks it's an accurate, or helpful, or productive way to frame his performances.
If I debate someone and a stan puts out a video saying "Belvedere REDUCES TO MUSH the Hopes and Dreams of Dumbass Lib," and then someone asks me whether I'm happy with that, my answer isn't, "Sir, SIR, this man has freedom of speech, sir. Let him describe me as he wishes, sir."
I am talking about a discourse culture that he has helped build—an approach to political commentary that not only permits this, but welcomes it.
Which means, Politico's editors aren't snowflakes for being upset that this person got to represent their publication this morning.
Which means, Politico's editors aren't snowflakes for being upset that this person got to represent their publication this morning.
