Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. Ben is a lying child who commonly relies on having to podium over his opponents and gish galloping arguments, no matter how many are lies. While usually someone's previous comments would not be too relevant, but Ben wrote a book on political discourse, and was having his own political discourse compared to his rhetoric. If he had denounced his previous actions and explained that he learned from his previous comments and that's why he wrote his book then this wouldn't be a problem, but instead he doubled down and openly agreed with multiple ideas that are dredged up from his comments. He switches to defending the very comments that are being used to show the coarseness of Ben's own political discourse.
    1
  2. He's an interviewer, of course he didn't answer a question. He's also a famous conservative.
    1
  3. The interviewer is famously on the right. Ben actually used the word barbaric, not Andrew Andrew is asking questions that are from an opposing viewpoint to challenge Ben, he does not however hold these viewpoints himself. Ben couldn't handle the heat and fell apart.
    1
  4. Oh the irony.
    1
  5. Was it the part where he couldn't explain the constant contradictions between what his book says and his own actions, the part where he straight up lied about his own videos, or the part where he gave up and insulted the interviewer? How about the part where he regretted his actions and openly stated that he just got wrecked: ".@afneil DESTROYS Ben Shapiro! So that's what that feels like ;) Broke my own rule, and wasn't properly prepared. I've addressed every single issue he raised before; see below. Still, it's Neil 1, Shapiro 0. "
    1
  6.  @maximilianpere4814  Ben's main reason why he debates quite well, especially against people with no prep, is that he lies. He lied in this very interview about his own Youtube channel to save face. He does stuff like this all the time, and gish gallops it into the argument so that responding to each point is impossible in the time given. He also likes to throw suppositions into arguments he's making. Imagine arguing with someone who starts by saying "I'm right, so obviously you're a horrible person." Welcome to arguing with Ben about abortion 101. In short, he uses a variety of techniques to underhandedly "win" debates and arguments.
    1
  7.  @deathifight7408  And yet...
    1
  8.  @deathifight7408  Fame? You've got to be joking. He was provoking a response by submitting viewpoints that disagree with Ben's own. This is called playing Devil's Advocate and it's actually pretty brilliant when used effectively as it is here. Ben ended up showing far more of his true thoughts, feelings and beliefs than if Andrew had just let him prattle on. This is also the only fair way to present both sides to someone being interviewed. You should probably look up Frost vs Nixon for a solid interview that uses difficult and antagonistic questions. Politicians get grilled like this constantly here in the UK. Maybe since Nixon you've all lost your touch. And no, he called the law barbaric, not Ben's ideas. Ben is more fascist than barbaric.
    1
  9.  @deathifight7408  He apologised for the way he said it, not the ideas themselves. He still believes all that crap.
    1
  10. All the inflation and shipping issues are due to a global backlog. The egotistical and ethnocentric idea that the US are arbiters of all shipping everywhere is laughable. Taxes are the same. Afghanistan was planned and agreed upon by Trump. Biden even extended the deadline because of the poor plan. Even then, we had no way to really predict that the security forces would crumble so fast. I'm also not sure how ending wars is supporting the military industrial complex... We also don't have a president and his family that breaks laws and steals taxes, which is nice.
    1
  11.  @TheFAFOHouse  I didn't delete anything. Google has a habit of not showing all the comments, and you'll see that the number of comments doesn't match what you can see. If you go back to your notification you can see the comment directly, but not indirectly in a list. But sure, keep spouting off your obviously attempts to justify that which you don't understand.
    1
  12. How dare they...ask hard questions.
    1
  13.  @bear4353  You mean he doesn't think we should try to overthrow democracy? Wow, what a hot take.
    1
  14.  @bear4353  Right, which is why I told you, he's a Conservative. Not hard to attack Ben with his won words though. The only things being dismissed were things not relevant to the questions being asked.
    1
  15. Why, so Ben can ignore the point and steer the argument? The interviewers job is to direct Ben to staying on topic. Andrew read out the important snippet and Ben whined that in context it totally doesn't make him look like a fascist. And for reference, Andrew Neil does a great job here, and Ben both admitted defeat and apologised.
    1
  16.  @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
  17. Nothing bootlicker about being able to see that Ben somehow lost an interview.
    1
  18.  @jont39  Not an attack, just hard questions. If you can't practice what you preach then don't get stroppy when someone points it out.
    1
  19.  @jont39  Nothing unjustified about it lol
    1
  20. No.
    1
  21. Soundly beaten? Next time look up Ben's own opinion of how this interview went, because he outright admitted defeat after it.
    1
  22. Ben Tweeted literally the opposite to this right after this interview.
    1
  23. Next time the BBC should just build a podium and let Ben spout nonsense for an hour. Would that satisfy your pathetic need to go completely unchallenged by even the most right-wing journalist at the Beeb?
    1
  24. Not according to Ben.
    1
  25. It's not a debate. The whole point is to present Ben with opposing opinions. How good or bad the faith behind them is irrelevant, as the questions stand for themselves. Ben needs to respond to the questions, not the intent. This kind of pathetic attack of character rather than attacking the argument is why Ben failed. It's not that being antagonistic is journalism, it's more that gathering years of information from an interviewee's books and social media, and being able to use it in a way that forces them to respond, is good journalism. Allowing people to weasel out of answering questions is BAD journalism.
    1
  26.  @AllBeefWeinerThief  Your entire point has been an endless repetition of you claiming that Andrew Neil is trying to start an argument, followed by you continuing to not understand what an interview is or how playing Devil's advocate works. Get a grip.
    1
  27. Lol
    1
  28.  @cannonporterfield2143  He literally explains this IN THE INTERVIEW! Are you just Benny boy shill?
    1
  29. An intellect so massive that he failed to respond to something he has addressed multiple times before. Imagine prepping for something this much, then completely collapsing when asked to actually answer something on it.
    1
  30.  @emacstac  This interview lol. He got absolutely wiped. So bad he openly said he got "DESTROYED" after.
    1
  31.  @emacstac  You really need to watch the interview, such as: Lying about his Youtube channel. Changing questions as he answers them such as the 6 week abortion question, changing to 6 months. Being shown to be blatantly hypocritical, most prominently when he says that anger needs to stop being part of American discourse, then is shown multiple examples of him being the problem. Ben is a contradiction, a hypocrite and a lying fraudster.
    1
  32.  @emacstac  Sure, aside from everything I just said, I have no answer. Maybe try reading.
    1
  33. And which policy would that be?
    1
  34. If he's so solid on where he stands why do so many of his comments and actions contradict each other?
    1
  35. If he's so solid on where he stands why do so many of his comments and actions contradict each other?
    1
  36. let the hate flow through you.
    1
  37. Lol. Ben has a ragequit after having his own comments read to him, and the BBC is the issue...
    1
  38. Not really. Ben absolutely said all those things and failed to defend himself at all. Nice strawman though.
    1
  39.  @lamoe4175  He's not on the left. He is playing devil's advocate to give Ben an opportunity to respond to his strongest critiques. Instead he shifted the narrative and ran from questions while attacking the interviewer.
    1
  40.  @lamoe4175  He said neither. He pointed out inconsistencies.
    1
  41.  @lamoe4175  Not really, no. He presented an opposing opinion in a way that flustered Ben.
    1
  42. By asking Ben detailed questions about his views? Wow, what an idiot. What kind of interview even is this?
    1
  43. No it's not. Fascism is about control of the country, it has nothing to do with crony capitalism.
    1
  44. He's a right-wing Conservative. His political views are much more aligned with Ben's that the questions he asks here.
    1
  45.  @KingDom2020  He took quotes from his own book and contrasted it with his own comments. What's worse, you think Ben failing to answer questions with reasonable answers and then attacking the interviewer is some sort of a win. Of course the interviewer wasn't answering questions, he isn't the one being interviewed.
    1
  46.  @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
  47. Ben wrote a book about the coarse public discourse in the US, then has his own course public discourse reviewed. How is this a "gotcha" moment? His own actions directly contrast his supposed viewpoint. Ben is the exact problem he pointed out in his book.
    1
  48. "Mr. Andrew Woke Neil" Tell me you aren't really this out of touch. The fact that Ben had to lie several times just to stop himself from sounding like a completely radical is proof enough that he couldn't cope. Him admitting defeat on Twitter shortly after this conversation was the final nail for any dimwits like you who think Ben did well here. Ben has been asked questions that cause responses that reveal his true beliefs and character. The Trump question for example leads to him explaining his exact stance on Trump. Imagine if he answered all the questions that honestly.
    1
  49. They aren't loaded questions, they are counterpoints to Ben's own beliefs.
    1
  50. Ben is the one lying. These videos are on HIS YouTube channel, and are still there.
    1