Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
38
-
31
-
25
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
18
-
15
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@greyguy.960 Just not true. Ofcom found that the BBC is actually very good at staying non-biased, but the audience perception of bias is the problem, which makes sense when you think about it. People on the left thing the BBC is right wing, and people on the right think it is left wing. The truth is, quite literally, somewhere in the middle. The issue is also compounded by the idea that the "middle" is a moving target, as general views of the whole country shift over time. regardless, calling the BBC left wing is a joke, especially when it comes to Andrew Neil. In fact, your use of Naga Munchetty as an example, when her case has been put in direct contrast to Neil, who has publicly not just expressed political stances, but also personal attacks on social media, only to be defended by the Beeb.
The stats show they have been in the centre for years, so stop making things up.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@joeoreilly3039
"Maybe logical fallacy is not the correct term but asking loaded questions for the sake of getting a ratings boosting response certainly violates something in terms of having a logical political conversation."
It's not a loaded question. Loaded questions rely on something being assumed. When you ask "why is this not a return to the Dark Ages" you are no assuming anything, it's a question. The question may seem lopsided or bias, but it's not loaded. The classic example is "when did you stop beating your wife" the assumption being that at some point you did in fact beat your wife, a very loaded question if you have never done so.
As for ratings, the BBC doesn't require ratings and is therefore free to make what they want, which is funny because it actually ends up in better TV.
"Both of these heavily imply if not outright declare that this is his viewpoint."
Correct, heavily imply, but they are not in fact his actual views.
"Who else’s would it be? If it is another individual or group’s statement and not his, it keeps the questions objective to specify."
It is his statement, but not his viewpoint. Andrew Neil conducts his interviews using a Devil's advocate approach. He directly counters his interviewees position when asking a question, giving them both a tough question, and also an opportunity to respond to such tough criticism. This approach gives him great results, as he is able to push people to dodge, recant, or answer truthfully. This very interview displays a good smattering of all 3. The questions however are still objective because they are all still implied and assumed positions, designed to create a dialogue.
"Also I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean in your second point with an “other” position. Could you point me to the source you’re referring to?"
The definist fallacy is "defining a term in such a way that makes one's position much easier to defend." In other words, you define something, then launch a defense off that faulty point. If you are to argue that "return to the dark ages" is the fault in the argument, and Andrew never argued anything around that topic, then how on earth is he using his definition to form an argument?
What's worse, Ben has been guilty of this exact fallacy multiple times, especially any time he gets into the abortion argument. He just says "science" when defending his position, then goes on a rant about murder, but that murder argument is all built on his claim of "science" something he never defines, explains or supports in any fashion. He simply states that science supports him and if you disagree then you are both anti-science and pro-murder.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Ben admitted that he got destroyed in this interview, specifically because he both broke down and attacked the interviewer multiple times, and also because he quit after being pushed on his beliefs.
There are multiple times that Ben either lied or was very economical with the truth in this interview, including his comments on YouTube videos that were posted from his own channel, and his weak claims that after explicitly mentioning Palestinians, that he totally didn't mean all Palestinians, just the majority of them, which makes it okay.
As for Andrew Neil being on the left, he isn't. Andrew is famously right-wing, and even left the BBC to go to an ultra-right news channel called GB News. Andrew also wasn't the one to use the word "barbaric" that was Ben's addition. Andrew's entire interview style has always been a Devil's Advocate approach, using difficult questions that directly counter the beliefs of whomever he is interviewing. He has done this for years to political figures on the left and the right.
There is nothing "Got ya!" about pointing out direct inconsistencies between Ben's book and his personal rhetoric. He wrote a book about how we should all be less angry and should try to approach political discussions with a more level head, then was surprised when comments he made about Palestinians being uncivilised terrorists get mentioned. Even in this very interview he made claims about how only Zionists are the true Jewish people, and non-Zionists are Jews in name only. He talks about how they are largely irreligious, but that is in fact not true. They are largely non-Zionist, but the majority of Jews in America are religiously Jewish.
Ben has a list of lies as his talking points, and they never stand up to real scrutiny. That's why he has always made a career out of being a reactionary. That's why he likes people to come ask questions while he's on stage, because he can cut their mic and get the last word, blatantly misrepresenting their viewpoint in the process.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually it brings up quotes from years before as they are direct contrasts to Ben's book. Ben used his book to preach civility, all the while he had literal years of tweets showing he's not just part of the problem, he was practically spearheading it. The questions were designed to give Ben an opportunity to respond and explain his position, but instead he either lied about the content of the old tweets, or dodged the questions by waving it off as a dumb thing he did. At no point does he actually take responsibility for his own actions. Imagine if instead he had come out and said "yes, I said some horrible things in the past that allowed me to come to the turning point that is my book" but he would never do that, because that would mean he could never act like that on Twitter again, which would be a shame since he still posts crap like that regularly. In the last week his entire feed is filled with open-ended and factless claims that Democrats are corrupt, exploitative, hacks and more, and that was just this week. He has gone full bore in the events of the Texas shooting, and is throwing insults out daily to cover.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@danielberry4765 Sure, lets break it down then:
Ben doesn't know what Devil's Advocate is, even when it's explained to his face, and thinks that a critique of his views is akin to an attack.
Ben thinks the Conservative movement has thought leaders.
Ben thinks life begins at conception.
Ben doesn't know what an interview is.
Ben is perfectly willing to put words into someone's mouth to make them look bad, like adding the word "brutal" to a question.
Ben assumes everyone critiquing him is on the left.
Ben wrote a book about improving public discourse, then was offended when examples of him coarsening public discourse are brought up.
Ben will lie about his own YouTube channel to try and "win" the interview.
Ben thinks that talking to people on the other side is the same as improving public discourse, when we can see from this very interview that the way he talks to people on the other side is reprehensible, so why would that improve anything.
Ben thinks Obama was a fascist.
Ben thinks that the majority of Jews in America are irreligious, which is false.
Ben hates Palestinians, and will lie and twist his own statements to stop from sounding like he hates Palestinians.
Ben doesn't know how the BBC is funded.
Ben gets very salty when he perceives an attack, continuing to bring up his own mischaracterisation of a question as a reason for him to act like a child.
Ben is deeply offended at the idea that people have never heard of him.
Ben doesn't recognise quotes from his own book.
Maybe if you had watched the interview and not mindlessly supported Ben at every turn you would have learnt something too.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deathifight7408 Not really no. Again, Ben's issue is one of beliefs, not communication. He believes these things wholeheartedly, but retracts things when people call him out. Take his comments on Jewish people in this very interview, claiming they are largely irreligious. That is false. Jews in America largely consider themselves religious Jews, however Ben is a Zionist, and does not believe that any non-Zionist Jewish person could every be called a religiously Jewish person. He is gatekeeping religion, meaning even his explanations in this interview are faulty lies. His exact wording in his tweets openly attacks the Palestinian people, then when he gets backlash he immediately walks it back in the next tweets, even though his attempts to walk it back completely contradict when he just stated.
So no, Ben is not misunderstood, he instead strives to make people think he was misunderstood every time he tests the fascist waters.
Oh, and nobody cares how Andrew Neil presents himself. This is not a debate, and questions don't suddenly change their meaning when asked by someone from the left or the right side of the political aisle. The only thing that changes is Ben's ability and method of dodging the questions.
but sure, keep saying that these are bad interviews, when in reality we learnt a lot about Ben that you would never see in a US interview. Maybe your interviewers should start asking harder questions.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@deborahwyndham-lewis5188 It's definitely not true. For starters, we have records of the number of cases of myocarditis that the vaccines have caused. Current estimates, even in kids and teens, put the risk in the rare range, less than 1 in 10,000. What's more, you can mitigate this by avoiding exercise for 2 weeks after vaccination. The risk is substantially lower than the risk of myocarditis if you catch covid, which is at least 1%, with 70% of deaths having confirmed myocarditis, and 7% of surviving covid patients having some form of organ damage, usually around the heart and lungs.
This bizarre claim of 150K vax deaths is completely unfounded.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@randysmith1723
Because, again, Andrew Neil is playing Devil's advocate, he does all of his interviews this way. They are not his own opinions, they are designed to give Ben something to respond to, which is, again, explained in the interview.
So the fact that he not only holds Conservative positions, but also that he heads up a right-wing magazine and that he is openly a member of the Conservative party isn't relevant to how these are not his own views?
Andrew Neil always asks questions this way, this is nothing new.
A good journalist is able to get to the heart of the issue, and Ben openly admitting to holding views that he tried to skirt around is great journalism. You can call them old tweets all day long, but when they match Ben's current opinions it doesn't actually matter how old they are. They are also relevant because they directly contradict his book, which was the main topic of the interview. If he had changed his opinions then he was free to state that in the interview, but instead he lied about context or tried to dismiss them without addressing them.
It wasn't an anonymous YouTuber though, it was Ben's OWN YOUTUBE CHANNEL and was discussing a video that's STILL THERE! This was nothing to do with his followers, this was the official YouTube channel of Ben Shapiro using language to attack and insult. Again, Ben lied, and you swallowed it like a good boy.
Maybe go actually watch his other interviews and stop moving the goalposts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelsanders7484 He's well known for doing all of his interview this way for years. Anyone could just see him interview a dozen different people and throw all sorts of questions from a spectrum of views at them. I would also say that the personal views of interviewers, especially on the BBC, are generally to be considered as neutral as possible when doing their work. Lastly, I suppose it doesn't actually matter if they are his views or not, this isn't a debate so his personal bias, or lack there of, doesn't change the weight or veracity of the questions.
In short, he's both well known for doing this, and even if he wasn't it doesn't suddenly change the questions. There is also a cultural element here, where in the UK reports are...reporters, not personalities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The questions can be annoying, but that doesn't make them hard to answer. For example, you own question:
"I don't dislike Jodie as the 13th Doctor due to her gender, but simply because I believe there are other people, men or women, who would be better for the job. I wasn't a big fan of Patrick Troughton or Paul McGann either, but that's nothing to do with anything other than what I believed the character was capable of, and how it was handled by them, and by extension is currently being played out by Jodie. I mean I'm not saying it's possible, but could you imagine Tilda Swinton as the Doctor."
You get the point. In this same way Ben could answer these questions, however he can't because his answers would either reveal him to be a horrific hypocrite, or would make huge segments of his own audience hate him.
The tweets are valid because they are a direct example of Ben coarsening the public discourse...which was exactly what he wrote a book about. It's also not other people's YouTube video titles. The titles came from both his own channel, and the Daily Wire channel, which he owns and is chief-editor of.
The BBC are said to be bias by both the left and right wing. This is usually a good sign that they are neither. In fact you would struggle to find any actual significant political leanings in either direction, Ofcom have found time and time again.
1
-
@picamike It's not the questioning that has given me conclusions about Ben in this interview. Answering the questions is actually very easy, as I showed you, but Ben likes to weasel out of them or give wildly insufficient answers. Just look at his answers on Trump and imagine if he put this much effort into every question rather than attacking the interviewer.
It's not to push a narrative, it's to create an opposing stance for Ben to answer questions to.
Ben is a political figure who wrote a political book, a book specifically on the downfall of Judeo-Christian values and reason, and the demise of modern society via hedonism and materials, while also laying quite heavily into political discourse. In that context all of the questions asked actually hit very close to the topics in the book. Comparing this to a fantasy novelist is juvenile.
They are on Ben's channel though, which is why he stated it that way, Ben lied. They are also on his news network, the Daily Wire.
Question Time chooses their panel based on representatives from major political parties. Almost all of the political parties were against Brexit. Meanwhile Andrew Neil has been used as an example of the BBC being too far to the right. Their coverage of Jeremy Corbyn was seen as an attack and a series of hit pieces by many. There are plenty of examples of people on the left being upset with the BBC. Objectively, you are wrong. But I'm not shocked that someone who still thinks Brexit was a good idea would also think the BBC is too left-wing.
Then you end on a sweeping generalisation, as if right-wingers have never tried to silence people they disagree with. Ben was literally trying to belittle the interviewer in this video, and you've overlooked it.
1
-
@picamike
Andrew wasn't the one being questioned, and Ben avoided questions so hard he left the interview.
I'm not doing anything remotely close to what Andrew did. Your stance on Brexit is bad and you should feel bad. I could also go into the numerous reasons, such as the $350M for the NHS lie, and more.
That's just not the format of Questiontime. They give equal representation to political parties. Neither the Conservative or Labour parties were in favour of it.
The comparison to JK is juvenile, not her comments. Again, Ben was asked questions that related to his book.
Sweeping statements about free speech, when in reality the sort of speech they mean is usually hate speech. You also play into the US narrative of free speech not being guaranteed, which is just silly.
I also pointed out Ben flat out lied about some things, which he did. He lied both about the videos on his own and the Daily Wire YouTube channels, and about his tweets, which were very quickly corrected.
It took him 3 times to answer a question on new abortion laws, an answer which was "science, life begins at conception" which is the laziest answer he could have given, all so he could squeeze in more time to attack the interviewer.
He refused to answer as to his opinion on how people describe him in their YouTube video titles, instead just saying that "people can describe me however they please" which says nothing of his actual feeling on the matter.
Skipped questions on his comments on Obama's state of the union which he called fascist, calling it "bad and wrong" and failed to explain his comments at all.
He tried to deflect on the idea that some Jews are not real Jews religiously when asked about his comments on Jews voting for Obama. This would only make sense if he believes that the only real Jews are Zionists, meaning even actual religious Jews should be ignored if they support Obama or are not Zionists, which btw is a fascist stance to hold.
Attacks the interviewer again, saying he is trying to make a quick buck (which as a Brit you know is utterly ridiculous).
When asked about the contradictions between Judeo-Christian culture and his actions he attacks the interviewer again, not even feigning an answer.
I'm really not sure where you conclusion even comes from, other than the idea that you agree wholeheartedly with every word out of his mouth. It's the only thing that would make sense.
1
-
@picamike
1. The lie was that we would have more money, and the insinuation was that said money would go to the NHS. Neither of those things turned out to be true. That is not an opinion, that is objectively true. The money going to the EU was more than made up for in trade agreements, which we now don't have. But sure, pick on the vaccines, and not the rising poverty rates, high inflation stats or general lack of investment in an economy literally built around people investing in it.
2. That's why courts exist. The examples you gave went to court who weighed in on the definition. The police horse remarks for example were 15 years ago. Freedom of hate speech discourages discussion as it marginalises and threatens people. And no, limiting hate speech is not the wrong side of history, and never will be. Germany limited Nazi speech after WWII, do you think that was on the wrong side of history? Or do you think Nazis are the way forwards? Maybe your friends issue is that they're racists and sexists.
3. The questions aren't leading, they are counterpoints to Ben's stances. This is not bias, this is creating a 2-sided discussion out of an interview format. If Ben isn't challenged on his views how can we actually see the full breadth of them? And no, my criticism was more about Ben openly lying or evading questions because telling the truth would make him look bad.
And no, I don't want to speak to a racist Brexiteer that believes any fascist nonsense shoved in his face, despite all facts and logic to the contrary. Having you write our your nonsense is far more useful.
1
-
@picamike
So we're just not talking about Brexit losing money for Britain, courts being the deciding factors in hate speech laws and Ben being a lying fascist and going straight to you being a snowflake. Alright then, I'm game. Not really me not debating further and more you creating red herrings, but here we are.
"Yup, I'm a fascist despite wanting freedom of speech and openly inviting discussion whilst you wish to limit it."
It depends on the speech. Do I think that open debate is a good thing? Absolutely. Do I think that people should be allowed to say that immigrants are all terrorists and rapists, or that we should turn Afghanistan into a glass wasteland, or that people should be allowed to make up racist chants about there being "no black on the Union Jack" or any of the other racist nonsense I've seen growing up in the UK? No. I even had a friends who lived and grew up in the UK, but because his parents were from a brown country when he tried to open a takeaway in Manchester he was verbally berated and ended up with a brick through his window. I personally think that isn't protected, yet I'm sure you have a take on that. There is a very clear line here, and you are perfectly willing to cross it and claim it's a debate about free speech.
"I'm clearly racist for wanting to limit illegal immigration, despite it being you know... illegal."
The debate isn't about limiting illegal immigration, it's about limiting employment, family and asylum immigration, which are all legal. Trying to shift the narrative in an obvious attempt to make yourself palatable to the general public doesn't change much. Your whole legal/illegal argument is also infantile. Hate speech is illegal, so why are you supporting illegal speech? It's illegal don't you know, yet you support it anyway. See how quickly that line of reasoning falls apart?
"I must also be racist for believing in my own country and supporting a Australian style immigration system where people would apply to enter the country and we could choose who to accept based on their skill, or would that just make me a Brexiteer?"
The UK and Australia accept similar numbers of immigrants per year. In fact Australia accepts almost double as many as us per capita. So sure, lets use an Australian model to get immigrants. Oh look, nobody wants to come here because Australia has a wealth of resources that require skills to obtain and exceptionally high wages, and we have an investment economy that doesn't need physical people to manage the vast majority of it. Whoops.
"As much as you hated Ben for "attacking Andrew", you've done quite a bit of name calling yourself."
Yeah, I don't care. I'm not here for some top tier debate. If I were I certainly wouldn't be having it with someone that doesn't know the difference between facts and fiction. Even then, debates like that only serve a third part. Ben is a debate-phile, he really gets off on debating people to prove how right he is...to an audience. In a closed system he doesn't debate people because he needs an audience to think he's making sense, even when he isn't. Idolising the debate styles of people like Ben is to your own detriment.
Thanks for the quote though, because being able to see you when you think you've really got something is actually precious. Like, did you really think signing off on that would be some kind of slam dunk? It's actually ridiculous to see.
1
-
1. It's an interview, not a debate.
2. The statements Andrew Neil makes in this interview are not his own opinions. They are devil's advocate critiques to given Ben the opportunity to respond to the hardest opinions against him.
3. If you think Trump had good ideas then great, why didn't Ben just say that? He was trying to carefully politically distance himself from Trump in many ways without being too specific as that would hurt his following. Andrew Neil can target weaknesses like that directly, forcing dullards like you to answer on his behalf.
4. The BBC doesn't make money off ads. While they try to keep their viewer numbers up, they are not out to make a quick buck. This video isn't even monitised.
5. Andrew Neil is, and always has been, a Conservative in the UK. Sure, he's not an extremist, but again, the questions being asked here are not his opinions, they are critical questions designed to push Ben into corners.
The funny part is you saying he did no research after he:
Read Ben's book and quoted it multiple times.
Used comments from his book in contrast to the rest of his comments and social media presence to draw a contrast between what Ben says and his actual actions.
Showed that said contrasts were so strong that Ben was forced to ignore the questions and attack Andrew Neil instead.
Ben even apoligised for this interview.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Luis_GonzaIez
Talking fast isn't the issue, it's being able to actually understand the underlying issues in Ben's rhetoric.
I think you need to understand the distinction between speaking a certain way and having certain beliefs. Sure, Ben said these things a while ago, but he admits in this very interview that he still holds many of these beliefs, making them still very relevant. If your entire point is that Ben learned to stop showing how much of an extremist he is, then congratulations you managed it, but apologising for saying something offensive doesn't really matter when you still hold those beliefs.
This was a solid political interview that showed Ben to be a massive hypocrite who can't handle his own words being thrown back at him. Talks about his book, then gets annoyed when his book is looked at critically. This is not about past mistakes, as the RDJ interview was, this is about current beliefs.
And yes, Andrew Neil is know for critical political interviews with difficult questions. Something you would definitely struggle to find in the US. That's probably why you are unfamiliar with this sort of critical interview style. You would rather Ben gets thrown a softball question or two so he can stand on a podium and talk about how great he is, all while stoking extremism.
Even in the case of Krishnan Guru-Murthy, he is also known for strong political interviews, and celebrities going in and expecting TMZ style interviews with him are obviously sorely mistaken. They don't do their research and start talking to a guy known for interviewing heads of political parties, created a foreign affairs documentary, and was even on Newsnight. Honestly, watching the likes of RDJ and Tarantino walk into an interview about a movie and walk out because they get asked something difficult is pretty funny.
But I suppose that's just the problem isn't it. You're so used to softball baby questions that anything critical looks like an attack to you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Alamandorious
Since you've decided to display your complete ignorance yet again I suppose I'll give you my full undivided attention so that we can really nail down your exact issues.
So let's start at the beginning shall we:
"So, right off the get go, hostile questions with clear bias in favor of one side of the political spectrum."
It doesn't matter the whole point of doing this is to present a point to be responded to. Who the point "belongs" to is irrelevant, as is your claims of hostility. All that matters is the content of the question.
"That's not playing devils advocate, that's not being neutral, that's not being a journalist...that's being an activist."
It actually is playing Devil's Advocate. Andrew presented an opposing opinion to Ben's in an effort to give him something to contend with. Balancing out the opinion is the essence of neutrality. And getting someone to answer hard questions absolutely IS journalism. Would you rather he rolled over and let Ben talk about his book with absolutely zero challenge to his points? What point would there be? They may as well just shove a poster of his book on the screen and call it a day, would be much cheaper. Also, the idea that Andrew is an activist even though he does not share the sentiment of the vast majority of the questions he poses is pretty hilarious.
"You don't get a sense of hostility from someone playing devil's advocate...you wouldn't have sentences directly accusing Conservatives of wanting to adopt policies that come straight out of the dark ages."
Why not? Political points that challenge your side of the aisle will always come off as hostile. All Ben had to do was explain that his side is not in the Dark Ages, and in fact his opponents are. That's it. Disagreeing with the way something is said doesn't change that the response is very easy to present, and that the question prompts a solid answer. Ben misunderstands this, as you do as well.
"When one plays devil advocate, one clearly identifies that they are playing devil's advocate."
Wrong. This is simply categorically false, and the main source of your misunderstanding. Literally all you are doing is expressing opinions that you do not hold yourself, and that contrast the opinions of others. That's it. There is no requirement to announce that you are playing Devil's Advocate, especially not from Andrew Neil, who does this in literally every interview.
"He presented his question very nearly as a chastisement, making the implication that no good ideas come from the Conservative side of things."
"Very near" and "implication" are the two phrases you should focus on here. You openly admit that he did not in fact chastise or state anything, he merely implied it.
"It would be like me asking you,"Leftists don't read the full response before forming a counter argument, which Conservatives seem to always seem to, so why should I engage with you?""
This is you being obtuse. You are also making an absolute statement here. Andrew is very careful to use terms like "seem like" when putting questions to people, while you went all out with a claim. That's the difference between a tough questions and a loaded one. This also obvious shot was the childishness I was referring to.
Which is why when you say:
"Funny how when it's happening to you, you can see it for what it is"
It's because you failed to grasp the concept.
"In every example of someone playing devil's advocate, the fact that they are is made obvious. What the interviewer was doing was not playing devil's advocate, but attempting to catch Mr. Shapiro in a 'Gotcha' moment, which in turned laid the biases of the interviewer bare."
Wrong, wrong and wrong, as explained above.
So there you go. Enjoy going back to watching softball interviews on Fox.
1
-
1
-
@Alamandorious Actually in my replies I posted pretty much the exact definition of Devil's Advocate:
"If you play devil's advocate in a discussion or debate, you express an opinion which you may not agree with but which is very different from what other people have been saying, in order to make the argument more interesting."
"someone who pretends, in an argument or discussion, to be against an idea or plan that a lot of people support, in order to make people discuss and consider it in more detail"
"To argue against or attack an idea, argument, or proposition—even if one is in favor of it—for the sake of debate or to further examine its strength, validity, or details. Refers to the "Advocatus Diaboli," a person employed by the Catholic Church to argue against the canonization of a saint (and therefore help determine if that person is truly worthy of sainthood)."
See how none of these definitions require you to announce it? In fact most people who do this announce it after the fact, if at all.
But sure, post me the exact definition that shows that it's only valid if you let people know first, because that changes the arguments being presented doesn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@cobaltblue5523 Jesus dude, punctuation.
To sum up:
Andrew Neil is the interviewer.
Ben's entire page of dumb things he has said would be great, if he didn't still believe those things. He regrets being so blatant, not his beliefs. He openly states he still believes several of them in this very interview.
An objective interview is one that poses opposition to the viewpoint being presented by the interviewee. Allowing Ben to go unchallenged would be the opposite of objective. Andrew does a great job, and has done in numerous interviews, when he challenges interviewees.
Ben lied when he said that he did not post the videos that use combative language, specifically the word "destroys". Those videos are on both his personal YouTube channel, and the Daily Wire channel, which he owns. When he said "are those videos posted by me" the answer was yes, yes they are.
The reason the Twitter posts were so valid is they show perfect examples of the coarse political discourse that Ben claims he is so heavily against. Instead of denouncing this, Ben doubles down quite heavily, defending his old tweets, while also claiming they were just dumb.
The points made by Andrew Neil are not his own political agenda. He is presenting a position for the sake of conversation. This is explained in the interview. Andrew commonly plays Devil's Advocate when interviewing.
Not only did they do plenty of research, Andrew Neil read Ben's book and openly quoted it multiple times. The best part is that Ben didn't notice he was being quoted because he wasn't prepared to answer anything about his book, and instead wanted to proselytize on a podium.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KingDom2020
Okay, then lets get into this, as you seem completely clueless:
"He said science backs him up on what he said in his book."
Right, he played the "life begins at conception" card, which is not a point of science, it's a point of law and personal feelings. Medicine shows that said fetus cannot survive if born that prematurely, so why are we considering it life? They aren't even conscious for 6 months. Especially when technically people who are brain dead are still alive, but legally they are dead. What's worse, he skirted around a question about the legal ramification of miscarriages and abortions, and mischaracterised said question with a question about the moral implications of it. One is not the other. What's worse, he avoided a question about abortions at 6 weeks, so early that many expecting mothers don't even know, and threw in a response question on late term abortions, after 6 months. The obvious shift to a question that has nothing to do with anything being discussed is classic Ben.
"If I was Ben I would been pissed to if someone tells me they wanted to talk about a book I wrote, probably even told him that he liked his book, but then when I get on their show the person attacks me with tweets that are 7 years old."
Because his whole point was about how angry American political discourse is, and his own tweets show that he is playing into that anger, not stopping it. He even lied about his Youtube channel, which had at the time a 2 year old video that was indeed titled (and still is btw), "Ben Shapiro DESTROYS Transgenderism". He also "destroyed" Piers Morgan, Megan Rapinoe, Seth Rogan, Black Lives Matter and Karl Marx for good measure. Ben is part of the problem with political discourse in America, and his claims to the contrary are marred by numerous examples of him doing the very thing he claims his political opponents are guilty of.
Ben ran from an interview because they asked questions that showed how much of a hypocrite and a liar he is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@papaaddy9269
"Take for example Andrews refusal to understand the irreligious-ness of Jews in America/ or who voted for Obama. Ben had to explain that to Andrew to try and dodge Andrews "anti-Semitic" gotcha attempt."
Except Ben only views Zionists as true Jews, even though many religious Jews are not Zionists. His ideas on what does and does not constitute a Jewish person are clouded by his own bias. Someone can follow the Torah and the 613 commandments without being a Zionist. Of the 7.6 million Jews in the US, 64% identify as religiously Jewish, a stark contrast to Ben's claim where he said they were "largely irreligious".
"haven't you coarsened public discussion"
then Andrew snakes around with the titles of random videos not uploaded by ben"
Then ignores bens answer
Except Ben DID upload those videos, they are in fact still there. He also didn't ignore the answer, he got an answer and moved on. He also uploaded them to his news network, The Daily Wire.
more "gotcha tactics"
"arent you part of the problem, not part of the solution?"
"arent you part of that anger"
Those are just questions. He tried to answer these questions by stating that he is open to debate, but when shown blatant examples of him NOT being part of the solution, and very much being part of the problem, he throws a fit and leaves the interview. This isn't gotcha questions, this is good journalism showing that Ben likes to throw stones from his glass house.
But sure, keep calling Andrew Neil, the climate change denying conservative that left the BBC to join the new right-wing news network GB News, a bias left-winger. See where that gets you. Meanwhile Ben apologised for this interview and openly stated that Andrew won.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nealamesbury1480 Then you need to try opening your ears. Ben went on to talk about his book. Andrew Neil was well prepared, having both read the book and researched Ben's history to find either supporting statements or contradictory ones to Ben's book. He went in prepared with numerous examples of Ben contradicting himself, and Ben's inability to respond effectively, instead deciding to attack a conservative interviewer by calling him left-wing, was him getting slowly choked out throughout the 15 minute exchange. You can see how Ben should have responded when he answers questions on Trump, which makes sense as supporting fascists is his home territory. Imagine if he answered all the other questions as effectively. He of course could never do that as it would reveal too much about how extreme his actual viewpoints are. For example:
On the questions about abortion Ben changed the question from "6 weeks" to "6 months", changing the relative context of his answer as a result. Roe v Wade doesn't even allow 6 months (cutting at 23 weeks), yet he felt content to argue the point this way.
Lying about his own Youtube channel, claiming he has no control over his own titles.
Attacking other Jews as not real Jews, when in reality he means Zionists.
Tries to dismiss all of the terrible horrible things he has said on Twitter, even lying about the context of those "old dumb" Tweets such as attacking the Palestinian people while claiming he was attacking Hamas. Even better is when he gets called out on the context, then doubles down on the lie.
Attacking the interviewer while not understanding what Devil's advocate is or that the positions being proposed are not Andrew Neil's own position, and are literally there to be argued against.
Attacking the BBC as trying to make money off of him, even though they have no advertising and no sponsors, and do not earn money from viewer numbers.
Ben got absolutely torn to shreds here. To say otherwise is to be completely blind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@roquesanta9769
Ben doesn't like Trump, but he is in favour of him over Democrats. He would rather have a different Republican, but has also warmed to his policies. He also thinks that the social damage done by him is finite, and electing his for a second term would not hurt our global standing.
He believes in life at conception, and likes to avoid questions on how strong a punishment should be for abortion.
He is both a Zionist and a gatekeeper of Judaism, believing that other non-Zionist Jews are not real Jews at all.
He thinks climate change may not be a threat and is open to debate.
He thinks Republicans can have a discussion about nationalism vs patriotism with a straight face.
He thinks all the Dem ideas are from FDR, while also praising a bunch of Republican ideas that are even older.
He lies when backed into a corner, such as the questions about his own YouTube channel.
He writes about political discourse, and thinks that talking to people is grounds for good discourse, when in reality his personal rhetoric shows that talking to people doesn't stop you being divisive or having "charged language". Ben likes to act like he is an arbiter of good discourse, when in reality he is a good debater with bad intentions.
He both openly stated that Arabs like to blow things up, while also backing away from his statement, showing his distinct lack of backbone when supporting his own horrific comments.
Oh, and he doesn't know what an interview is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deborahwyndham-lewis5188
"he said that 99% of people hospitalised were unvaccinated"
Well Paul didn't say that, nor the comments below, but you're right this is likely an exaggeration.
According to the study published under this name:
"New COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations Among Adults, by Vaccination Status — New York, May 3–July 25, 2021"
The vax is able to reduce the number of people needing to be admitted by 90% among those vaxed. They found that a the unvaxed population in NY, which is half the sizes of their counterparts, were responsible for 4 times the number of infections, leading to 8 times the risk of infection. They put the hospitalisation numbers as 12 times likely in the unvaxed, so as a rate you're looking at 12:1. As a percentage difference of total population the actual number is around 83% unvaxed, bearing in mind they make up half the population. Deaths however are a different story. I need to do more digging, but deaths are far less common in the vaxed.
"Our government have been requesting statistics for the double vaccinated dying within 2 months of the vaccine for months!! Why is this not a priority when we are pushing the vaccine?"
We have those numbers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1