What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Thoughts on Ben Shapiro? (1 Viewer)

Last edited by a moderator:
This 2017 clip of Shapiro on climate change is making the rounds today. See if you can spot the flaw in his logic!

Also, reminder that the AOC thread here started because Shapiro wanted to debate her, which led to hundreds of posts from conservatives mocking AOC's intelligence. I wonder why conservatives embrace Shapiro as a leading intellectual while insulting AOC's intelligence? It is a mystery that we may never solve.

 
I started following him on twitter not too long ago to expand my horizons. One thing that really annoys me about him - he thinks he's really, really funny.

And he's really, really not.

 
whoknew said:
I started following him on twitter not too long ago to expand my horizons. One thing that really annoys me about him - he thinks he's really, really funny.

And he's really, really not.
Click to expand...
Matt Walsh is the funniest of the Daily Wire podcast guys.  The Daily Wire is the media outlet that Shapiro founded and owns (governs or general manages).

 
Saw this today and thought it was interesting. I have an interest in Daily Wire as while obviously a completely different topic, they are a similar business model to Footballguys selling subscriptions in a world where tons of information on the topic is free.  Except they're a zillion times more successful than we are at business. 

Kind of a summary for where he sees things as he promotes his book.

https://www.outkick.com/ben-shapiro-left/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea, always a good place to find factual news when half way down the page they are pitching Get our iconic Leftist Tears tumbler.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Saw this today and thought it was interesting. I have an interest in Daily Wire as while obviously a completely different topic, they are a similar business model to Footballguys selling subscriptions in a world where tons of information on the topic is free.  Except they're a zillion times more successful than we are at business. 

Kind of a summary for where he sees things as he promotes his book.

https://www.outkick.com/ben-shapiro-left/
Click to expand...
Difference between you and "them" (I say "them" b/c its not just daily wire, it many "news" sources centered around politics) is that the subscribers are paying to be part of their own ideological "good guys". They are paying to NOT hear news and ideas that they dont want to hear. Its a sad club of people who (literally) buy into this type of content (on either side). 

That said, I actually think Ben is a pretty smart guy and deep down I agree with many of his topics. But I can do that from a far and don't need to give him my CC number b/c I'm not that invested in overall politics running my life. 

When it comes to the actually paying customers, in this space, he (and others like him on either side) need to pander to the real fringe people who are willing to fork over money for the content and that generally leads to the source having to create content that panders to that fringe element. 

 

 
dawgtrails said:
Yea, always a good place to find factual news when half way down the page they are pitching Get our iconic Leftist Tears tumbler.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree that seems like a negative. From a pure business angle, I wonder if they did the real calculations on it they wouldn't find that kind of thing didn't hurt their business more than it helped.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is factual news?  I don't go to Ben Shapiro / Daily wire to find out how many people died in the Miami building collapse.

Unrelated, THIS seems like a pretty reasonable take on the gymnast silliness

Simone Biles isn't a cowardly villain for pulling out of the Olympics. She isn't a brave heroine for pulling out of the Olympics. We live in such an insanely polarized society that we can't just let people be people.

 
djmich said:
What is factual news?  I don't go to Ben Shapiro / Daily wire to find out how many people died in the Miami building collapse.

Unrelated, THIS seems like a pretty reasonable take on the gymnast silliness

Simone Biles isn't a cowardly villain for pulling out of the Olympics. She isn't a brave heroine for pulling out of the Olympics. We live in such an insanely polarized society that we can't just let people be people.
Click to expand...
I can't get over the number of people who have extremely strong opinions about women's gymnastics that they had been keeping to themselves up until 24 hours ago.  I don't honestly think I even knew that Simone Biles even existed until the build-up to the olympics began.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I don't disagree that seems like a negative. From a pure business angle, I wonder if they did the real calculations on it they wouldn't find that kind of thing didn't hurt their business more than it helped.  
Click to expand...
Read the article, thought it was pretty good.

I'd rolleyes on the lib tears mug advertising but if the content is good I'd keep coming back.  Honestly for me in terms of adware its less the product and more how obtrusive the advertising is.

If Shapiro was trying to attract a liberal audience I think he'd need to be more selective...but I think he knows that's a negative return effort...it's not the advertising that stops them from coming.

 
djmich said:
What is factual news?  I don't go to Ben Shapiro / Daily wire to find out how many people died in the Miami building collapse.

Unrelated, THIS seems like a pretty reasonable take on the gymnast silliness

Simone Biles isn't a cowardly villain for pulling out of the Olympics. She isn't a brave heroine for pulling out of the Olympics. We live in such an insanely polarized society that we can't just let people be people.
Click to expand...
Seems a bit hypocritical to complain of living in an insanely polarized society when one makes one's living by knowingly contributing to that polarization, no?

 
djmich said:
Read the article, thought it was pretty good.

I'd rolleyes on the lib tears mug advertising but if the content is good I'd keep coming back.  Honestly for me in terms of adware its less the product and more how obtrusive the advertising is.

If Shapiro was trying to attract a liberal audience I think he'd need to be more selective...but I think he knows that's a negative return effort...it's not the advertising that stops them from coming.
Click to expand...


I don't disagree. 

He's obviously smart at the business side of things. 

I have noticed his latest stuff seems to be less aggressive. I've just listened to 1 episode, but the Morning Wire podcast was very well done and sounded more like BBC from a bias angle than FOX or NPR. That seems smart to me. 

 
Rich Conway said:
Seems a bit hypocritical to complain of living in an insanely polarized society when one makes one's living by knowingly contributing to that polarization, no?
Click to expand...
I dunno, I think we all here think society is too polarized...yet we argue on these forums about things we believe in.  Are we hypocritical?

Can you have an opinion and not be hypocritical?  Again, it seems that Shapiro resists auto-polarization.  Stance on Trump, vaccines, dumb #### like the gymnast.  But that doesn't prevent him from also have strong beliefs.

 
djmich said:
I dunno, I think we all here think society is too polarized...yet we argue on these forums about things we believe in.  Are we hypocritical?

Can you have an opinion and not be hypocritical?  Again, it seems that Shapiro resists auto-polarization.  Stance on Trump, vaccines, dumb #### like the gymnast.  But that doesn't prevent him from also have strong beliefs.
Click to expand...
None of us here (as far as I know) make their living by actively trying to make society more polarized.  We debate and share opinions, which is a different matter entirely.

 
Rich Conway said:
None of us here (as far as I know) make their living by actively trying to make society more polarized.  We debate and share opinions, which is a different matter entirely.
Click to expand...
Is this your view on "media" in general or just Shapiro.  What MSM is not actively trying to make society more polarized?  How do you delineate the difference...is actively trying to make society more polarized part of Dailywire's mission statement? 

 
FairWarning said:
You’ve never seen them?  Entitled college kids need a good berbal beat down from time to time.
Click to expand...
one of my least favorite things about him is that while I agree with him a fair amount,  he does too much of the theatrics of "destroying" others and goes after easy targets to belittle.  

 
This is a good article that mostly summarizes my feelings on him, and how he conducts business. I’m not really a fan, as I think we have way too much opinion entertainment masquerading as news and/or legitimate discussion. IMO, of course. 
 

NPR article on Shapiro

ETA: I understand this is an editorial style article. I chose it since we are talking about feelings on a controversial opinion influencer. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
djmich said:
Is this your view on "media" in general or just Shapiro.  What MSM is not actively trying to make society more polarized?  How do you delineate the difference...is actively trying to make society more polarized part of Dailywire's mission statement? 
Click to expand...
It's not my view on media in general, nor is it my view on "just" Shapiro.  I think there are lots of people, including many on the left, within the media who are actively trying to increase the polarization of society.  It's the act of lamenting about living in a polarized society that I find so galling, given he is a significant contributor to that polarization in return for money.

The title of his book is "The Authoritarian Moment: How the Left Weaponized America’s Institutions Against Dissent".  In the interview, he stated that he really does think "the Left’s takeover of our structural institutions is the most significant problem that our country faces".  There can't really be any debate that he's actively trying to polarize society.

Edit: I'm sure the Daily Wire wouldn't advertise that it actively tries to polarize society in its mission statement.  I doubt Joy Reid or Tucker Carlson would admit they engage in it either.  But all of them do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Football Freak said:
This is a good article that mostly summarizes my feelings on him, and how he conducts business. I’m not really a fan, as I think we have way too much opinion entertainment masquerading as news and/or legitimate discussion. IMO, of course. 
 

NPR article on Shapiro

ETA: I understand this is an editorial style article. I chose it since we are talking about feelings on a controversial opinion influencer. 
Click to expand...


Side tangent we talked about earlier. I'd prefer my tax dollars for NPR fund content that is less opinion based than this piece. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Side tangent we talked about earlier. I'd prefer my tax dollars for NPR fund content that is less opinion based than this piece. 
Click to expand...
As noted previously on that, though, we've gotten to the point where "COVID is dangerous" and "Jan 6 was violent" and "Joe Biden won the 2020 election" are seen by many as opinion rather than fact.  By that standard, all content is opinion, so aren't you essentially saying we shouldn't have publicly funded content at all?

 
Rich Conway said:
As noted previously on that, though, we've gotten to the point where "COVID is dangerous" and "Jan 6 was violent" and "Joe Biden won the 2020 election" are seen by many as opinion rather than fact.  By that standard, all content is opinion, so aren't you essentially saying we shouldn't have publicly funded content at all?
Click to expand...


I think you can make the argument we don't need a publicly funded news organization. I'd always thought it was interesting we use "state run media" as a negative but are cool with NPR. But never really put too much thought into it.

The Shapiro piece though clearly seemed an Op/Ed as @The Football Freak noted. I definitely think we can do without publicly funding that. 

And FWIW, it may be hypocritical but I don't mind some funding for arts and that kind of thing. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I think you can make the argument we don't need a publicly funded news organization. I'd always thought it was interesting we use "state run media" as a negative but are cool with NPR. But never really put too much thought into it.

The Shapiro piece though clearly seemed an Op/Ed as @The Football Freak noted. I definitely think we can do without publicly funding that. 

And FWIW, it may be hypocritical but I don't mind some funding for arts and that kind of thing. 
Click to expand...
Yes, I should have written "publicly funded news" rather than "publicly funded content".  My bad there.

My point was more that people on here, including you, have argued that we shouldn't have public funded "opinion news", whereas I'm saying we've more or less reached the point where, to many, all news is opinion.  Given that which news qualifies as opinion is itself an opinion, the argument seems to me to be tantamount to an argument that we shouldn't have public funded news.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Side tangent we talked about earlier. I'd prefer my tax dollars for NPR fund content that is less opinion based than this piece. 
Click to expand...
Right, I was just trying to tie my response to the OP, too. I agree that I didn’t like the editorial slant so much, but I’m not sure I’d like the government to censor through editorial restrictions, so I’m not sure how I’d want them to address that issue. It’s a tightrope, to be sure.

My message was the content, though. My feeling pretty closely match the examples, supporting facts, and conclusions of the article. I don’t take Shapiro seriously, and he’s said some pretty awful things in the past. I always try to allow for growth, but some of his opinions he’s aired on different ethnic/religious groups don’t fit what I’d ever consider acceptable. I believe that his business model is division. 

 
Rich Conway said:
Yes, I should have written "publicly funded news" rather than "publicly funded content".  My bad there.

My point was more that people on here, including you, have argued that we shouldn't have public funded "opinion news", whereas I'm saying we've more or less reached the point where, to many, all news is opinion.  Given that which news qualifies as opinion is itself an opinion, the argument seems to me to be tantamount to an argument that we shouldn't have public funded news.
Click to expand...


I don't think we're to the point of all news is opinion. 

But even if we are, that doesn't change my opinion I think we can do without publicly funding opinion content. 

And to add, if people want to take that to the next step of "we shouldn't publicly fund news outlets like NPR", I don't think I'd argue against it.

There are some super talented people on NPR. I'm a capitalist and I'd say let them compete on their own like everyone else against the competition like Gimlet and others they're already competing against. I bet they'll do fine. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
The title of his book is "The Authoritarian Moment: How the Left Weaponized America’s Institutions Against Dissent".  In the interview, he stated that he really does think "the Left’s takeover of our structural institutions is the most significant problem that our country faces".  There can't really be any debate that he's actively trying to polarize society.
Click to expand...
Actively trying to polarize?

He thinks the lefts take-over of our institutions  is the most significant problem.  Is there any argument that, for example, the left has taken over universities?

How does one argue against this if any argument is “polarizing?

Wouldn’t truly polarizing to be to propose the polar opposite…that conservatives should take over our institutions.

I think he is guilty of “shock” marketing.  But it seems anything you disagree with might be seen as polarizing?

 
djmich said:
Actively trying to polarize?

He thinks the lefts take-over of our institutions  is the most significant problem.  Is there any argument that, for example, the left has taken over universities?

How does one argue against this if any argument is “polarizing?

Wouldn’t truly polarizing to be to propose the polar opposite…that conservatives should take over our institutions.

I think he is guilty of “shock” marketing.  But it seems anything you disagree with might be seen as polarizing?
Click to expand...
"We should try to balance ideas in universities" might not be polarizing.  "How the Left Weaponized America’s Institutions Against Dissent" is polarizing.  It's shock marketing, sure, but it's also polarizing.

 
Joe Bryant said:
I don't think we're to the point of all news is opinion. 

But even if we are, that doesn't change my opinion I think we can do without publicly funding opinion content. 

And to add, if people want to take that to the next step of "we shouldn't publicly fund news outlets like NPR", I don't think I'd argue against it.

There are some super talented people on NPR. I'm a capitalist and I'd say let them compete on their own like everyone else against the competition like Gimlet and others they're already competing against. I bet they'll do fine. 
Click to expand...
I really hope we haven’t reached the news is opinion point.  

 
Rich Conway said:
"We should try to balance ideas in universities" might not be polarizing.  "How the Left Weaponized America’s Institutions Against Dissent" is polarizing.  It's shock marketing, sure, but it's also polarizing.
Click to expand...
At least with regard to higher education, he's obviously right.  As recently as 20 years ago -- maybe 10, but that's stretching it IMO -- you could plausibly argue that higher education skewed left but was just in need of a little balancing.  University faculties were left-leaning, but it's not as if anybody was actively excluding right-of-center types.  Whatever screening process was in place at the time was way more subtle than that and probably a confluence of several different things.

That isn't the case today.  Most academic jobs these days require applicants to submit DEI statements, the express purpose of which is screen out wrongthink.  Some religious colleges have always required job candidates to sign a profession of faith as a precondition of employment, so it isn't as if this sort of thing was ever completely without precedent.  That said, it's one thing to see this type of thing at Wheaton.  It's another thing to see it become ubiquitous at public universities.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
At least with regard to higher education, he's obviously right.  As recently as 20 years ago -- maybe 10, but that's stretching it IMO -- you could plausibly argue that higher education skewed left but was just in need of a little balancing.  University faculties were left-leaning, but it's not as if anybody was actively excluding right-of-center types.  Whatever screening process was in place at the time was way more subtle than that and probably a confluence of several different things.

That isn't the case today.  Most academic jobs these days require applicants to submit DEI statements, the express purpose of which is screen out wrongthink.  Some religious colleges have always required job candidates to sign a profession of faith as a precondition of employment, so it isn't as if this sort of thing was ever completely without precedent.  That said, it's one thing to see this type of thing at Wheaton.  It's another thing to see it become ubiquitous at public universities.
Click to expand...
1. He hasn't limited it to higher education.

2. Whether he's right or not isn't really relevant, IMO.  The phrasing he uses is specifically intended to polarize.  More to the point, it's specifically intended to polarize in order to enrich himself by selling more books.  That's fine, I guess, although I consider it to be kind of sleazy (and yeah, it's sleazy when Joy Reid or whoever on the left does it, too).  To then turn around and lament the polarization of society is more than sleazy; it's expressly hypocritical.

 
Rich Conway said:
1. He hasn't limited it to higher education.

2. Whether he's right or not isn't really relevant, IMO.  The phrasing he uses is specifically intended to polarize.  More to the point, it's specifically intended to polarize in order to enrich himself by selling more books.  That's fine, I guess, although I consider it to be kind of sleazy (and yeah, it's sleazy when Joy Reid or whoever on the left does it, too).  To then turn around and lament the polarization of society is more than sleazy; it's expressly hypocritical.
Click to expand...
Well, this is definitely true.  

 
FairWarning said:
The theatrics can be toned down, agree.  It reminds me of a factual Jerry Springer show at times.
Click to expand...
Exactly.   I was surprised when I listened to his show how much different he was on there vs. when he was on the Rogan pod I heard.   His pod, while not as bad, gets into that Limbaugh territory for me.   On the flip side people like Krystal/Saagar are pretty much the same as other places.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
I don't disagree that seems like a negative. From a pure business angle, I wonder if they did the real calculations on it they wouldn't find that kind of thing didn't hurt their business more than it helped.  
Click to expand...


I reckon you are familiar with Clay Travis and Outkick, right? Sure seems like he follows the troll and inflame the masses to make money model. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
At least with regard to higher education, he's obviously right.  As recently as 20 years ago -- maybe 10, but that's stretching it IMO -- you could plausibly argue that higher education skewed left but was just in need of a little balancing.  University faculties were left-leaning, but it's not as if anybody was actively excluding right-of-center types.  Whatever screening process was in place at the time was way more subtle than that and probably a confluence of several different things.

That isn't the case today.  Most academic jobs these days require applicants to submit DEI statements, the express purpose of which is screen out wrongthink.  Some religious colleges have always required job candidates to sign a profession of faith as a precondition of employment, so it isn't as if this sort of thing was ever completely without precedent.  That said, it's one thing to see this type of thing at Wheaton.  It's another thing to see it become ubiquitous at public universities.
Click to expand...
This may all be true, but even if so, I think we know that you wouldn't agree with this

the Left’s takeover of our structural institutions is the most significant problem that our country faces

 
dawgtrails said:
This may all be true, but even if so, I think we know that you wouldn't agree with this

the Left’s takeover of our structural institutions is the most significant problem that our country faces
Click to expand...
My recollection was we had a thread here somewhere about this and I think I voted for Wealth Inequality.  I’d like to change my answer to hyper-partisanship - we have reached a point where basically the color of the sky and water being wet are debatable by to the two political parties.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Ben Shapiro Debates Piers Morgan On Gun Control & "Assault Rifles" (5/26/22 7:59 PST)
Replies
3
Views
446
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Max Power
You can boot 3! people from your party. Who are they?
2
Replies
94
Views
2K
Coach Beard
C
Memphis Foundry
  • Locked
  • Sticky
The Politics Forum Is CLOSED.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Memphis Foundry
Memphis Foundry

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top