Ben Shapiro v Andrew Neil

Shapiro is on the left to a lot of Americans. It's all relative. He's basically a neocon, and the neocons actually come out of the democrats.

I don't like him he's one of those people that think of politics as a sport or business.
 
Living in the US for quite a long time I can say you are spot on.

You should watch this if you havent already, goes in to a really interesting history of the neocons:



h4rm0ny said:
Didn't know about this. Thanks for sharing. I don't like Ben Shapiro much. I agree with him on some things, but his schtick is to try and say enough populist right wing things to get followers and interest and then to try and turn it into favourable neocon positions such as zionism, military spending and foreign adventurism. The Right in the USA is (very broadly) divided into two groups - populist, nationalist individuals (Trump's main support base) and the Zionist / Neocon ones (more of a group within a group). Shapiro is very much the latter. So for your typical nationalist populist Right Winger in the USA, they're not in favour of more US soldiers going abroad to die in somebody else's war and are sort of isolationist. Part of their support for Trump was the idea he'd stop doing what Obama did and sending troops into Syria etc. and instead bring them home. Whereas the Neocon lot are desperate to have US troops all over the place, want to park missiles all around Russia, etc. Ben Shapiro actually said he'd prefer Hillary to win over Trump but has since played down that sort of rhetoric in order to curry favour with the populist, nationalist Right. You always find he's suspiciously quiet about certain topics on immigration or foreign invasions unless he thinks he can get away with it. Saw a nice little table someone had compiled once.
Click to expand...
 
Andrew Neil is a great interviewer but I think the basic point Ben Shapiro was trying to make is by and large what happened to Nigel Farage in an interview with Andrew Marr earlier and is absolutely rife in the mainstream media today, we're 11 days away from the EU elections and all Andrew Marr asked Nigel Farage about was a bunch of unrelated and random questions about comments he has said in years gone by and the way they are asked is designed to simply character assassinate people and put them on the defensive. It'd be like any of you going on the BBC to be interviewed by me and me asking questions like "Why do you publicly promote primitive behaviour such as putting poo through peoples letterboxes?" and "How many letterboxes have you put poo through in your lifetime?", anyone watching will think you're disgusting based on my questioning alone and the following 1-2mins of you defending yourself as it just being a joke will go largely ignored/unbelieved because the BBC are believed to be such a bastion of truth. You basically spend the whole of the interview defending your character against unrelated comments that may even have been intentionally taken out of context by me rather than discussing the topic at hand, in Ben Shapiro's case his new book but it's far more obvious in the Andrew Marr interview with Nigel Farage.

Ben Shapiro lost the plot though by calling Andrew Neil a lefty, bringing fame into it and storming out. He keep across as a bit of a diva.
 
Last edited:
mmj_uk said:
we're 11 days away from the EU elections and all Andrew Marr asked Nigel Farage about was a bunch of unrelated and random questions about comments he has said in years gone by
Click to expand...

Farage is leader of a new political party and so his past views are very relevant, especially as some of those views are directly related to the question at hand. Also "years gone by" weren't some of the questions only from 3 years ago? That is hardly the dim and distant past. If they were comments from when he was at Dulwich college you may have had a point, but not views expressed reasonably recently.
 
RDM said:
Farage is leader of a new political party and so his past views are very relevant, especially as some of those views are directly related to the question at hand. Also "years gone by" weren't some of the questions only from 3 years ago? That is hardly the dim and distant past. If they were comments from when he was at Dulwich college you may have had a point, but not views expressed reasonably recently.
Click to expand...

Politicians change their "plans" weekly. They need to ask questions about current stuff.
 
I don't get the destroys part of this

Journalist with 60 years (I guess) experience with time to prep an interigration hold his own debating someone 30 years his junior, while expression no opinions of his own.

Andrew only asks question he states no opinions... Its like the interview was designed to try and trap shapiro.. All Andrew does is read a set of scripted questions he does not debate shapiro at all..
 
StriderX said:
What current stuff? He literally has one policy, a policy he is powerless to provide btw lololol, pretty pointless interview if he doesn’t get asked context.
Click to expand...

His previous policy was to get us a vote to leave the EU. He wasn't powerless providing that one "lololol"

They joked around and didn't take him seriously last time and then look what happened.
 
Nasher said:
His previous policy was to get us a vote to leave the EU. He wasn't powerless providing that one "lololol"

They joked around and didn't take him seriously last time and then look what happened.
Click to expand...

And all polls point toward him cannibalising Tory seats while labour surges ahead, if they can’t be government in the next parliament, they are ultimately powerless.

I can’t believe I have to defend fptp, but oh well, what a shame.
 
Diddums said:
Sigh. I can't believe I'm still responding. Here, I wrote it out a few posts ago, I've highlighted it here in red so you can see it easier:

tj2bc3S.png



Are you drunk or something? You seem to be asking the same questions over and over until you get an answer you want,
Click to expand...

Well you didn't actually answer the question, you returned different words. If I asked you what the difference between a goat and a sheep was, and you replied "one is a goat, one is a sheep" it would be the same thing - you've not replied what the difference is, you simply repeated terms. A difference would be something like "goats have more chromosomes" or "sheep have a fleece". Caracus is asking you for the difference, not the names. You must know this but are pretending not to. That makes you look worse.
 
I'm not taking a position on abortion but your logic is terrible:

Diddums said:
Because a few moments of suffering outweighs a life of suffering.
Click to expand...

Where do we even begin with this? I find you irritating. There doesn't appear to be any end in sight to that. So if someone executed you that would be a few moments of your suffering compared to a life time of mine. So justifiable according to your logic - yes, really. To argue a difference you have to bring in notions that the baby's suffering is less than yours or that a parent has some special right to end one life but not yours but which doesn't depend on the parent being the one that suffers because you need an argument that doesn't depend on causing suffering. It also shows a complete rejection of the idea of adoption.


Diddums said:
And I suggest you're an idiot, but what benefit does my opinion have to this discussion?
Click to expand...

Well it shows us your level of honesty.

Diddums said:
Again, a child living a life of neglect, poverty, depression, orphaned by parents who didn't want it, sounds grand no?
Click to expand...

Well here's a simple test: Find people who were adopted and ask them if they'd rather you killed them. You'll find the answer near universally no because any of those people could kill themselves at any time if that's what they truly wished. Your willingness to make decisions on the behalf of other people is only not shocking because I hear this absolutist argument so often. This notion that it is somehow merciful to kill someone to spare them a less than perfect life. The mindset of such an attitude is incomprehensible to me. You can't make that decision on the part of others, and therefore you cannot use it as an argument for late-term abortion.

Diddums said:
You've already demonstrated rather vividly in this thread that you have no idea what you're talking about, you have also made it pretty obvious that you are not a parent, have never dealt with anyone having an abortion and also don't know what true suffering is like, yet you sit here on your little throne judging others and trying to take the moral high ground, why?
Click to expand...

I don't think they've demonstrated any of these things. Whereas I can point to several logical fallacies on your part.
 
kwerk said:
Living in the US for quite a long time I can say you are spot on.

You should watch this if you havent already, goes in to a really interesting history of the neocons:

Click to expand...

Thanks. I haven't seen that. And I'm curious about your comment that "Neocons come from the Democrats". The video is quite long so I'll watch it later.
 
mmj_uk said:
Andrew Neil is a great interviewer but I think the basic point Ben Shapiro was trying to make is by and large what happened to Nigel Farage in an interview with Andrew Marr earlier and is absolutely rife in the mainstream media today, we're 11 days away from the EU elections and all Andrew Marr asked Nigel Farage about was a bunch of unrelated and random questions about comments he has said in years gone by and the way they are asked is designed to simply character assassinate people and put them on the defensive.
Click to expand...

 
In my experience quite a lot of right-wing Americans immediately call right-wing British people left-wing when they don't go along with them.
 
I can see why Shapiro was getting irritated, Neils interview style is quite aggressive, whether or not he was representing his or the BBC's agenda here is questionable, either way, he should have just answered the questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom