Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On May 12 2019 02:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I don't get it. Do interviews work differently for political advocates in the USA or something?
because everything is so polarised and tribal its not about changing someones opinion, because that is practically impossible. So its entirely about scoring points for your side by beating the other person in a verbal fight.
It's like going to a session with your therapist, and 5 minutes in you start trying to debate the therapist's questions and suggestions, and attack their inherent biases. That. Is. Not. Why. You're. There.
No like in an interview, it's pretty normal to ask challenging questions. It's got nothing to do with changing opinions, but everything to do with exploring the interviewee's political opinions. It's a platform for your political advocacy. You can approach it like a fight or a performance or in the case of parliament, a big joke, but Danglars is acting like it's somewhat unusual to be asked questions in an open interview.
It wasn't an interview in his eyes, but an attack. Shapiro was attacked for his beliefs in a benign manner and couldn't offer a rebuttal. Some people can't accept that so they feel attacked. That Shapiro came out and said he was beat in that effort, it makes little sense for danglars to defend the medium in which it occurred. It was a loss for his side, but he won't accept it. So he'll find ways to argue around it, even though we have resident UK members explaining that this is how it goes over there, and Shapiro should have been prepared for that style of interviewing.
In other news:
Tens of thousands of poor children — all of them American citizens or legal residents — could lose their housing under a new rule proposed Friday by the Trump administration.
The rule is intended to prevent people who are in the country illegally from receiving federal housing aid, which the administration argues should go to help only legal residents or citizens.
But the proposal targets 25,000 families that now receive such aid because they are of "mixed" status, which means that at least one member of the family is undocumented while the others are citizens or legal residents. These families now pay higher rents to account for their mixed status.
Seems the trump admin is going about business as usual. Source
On May 12 2019 03:03 Dangermousecatdog wrote: No like in an interview, it's pretty normal to ask challenging questions. It's got nothing to do with changing opinions, but everything to do with exploring the interviewee's political opinions. It's a platform for your political advocacy. You can approach it like a fight or a performance or in the case of parliament, a big joke, but Danglars is acting like it's somewhat unusual to be asked questions in an open interview.
And rightwing people really hate that. Journalists asking questions they cannot control in an interview is bad for people who try to disseminate propaganda. Which is why they try to create their own, parallel media where they get to decide what questions they are asked, and then they only appear on that media. They do it in the US with Fox News (And Trump with his "FAKE NEWS"), they do the same thing in Austria with FPÖ TV. It is what they do. Attack all the normal media as biased leftists, and only deal with your own propaganda outlet where "journalists" ask you only exactly the questions that you want to be asked.
On May 11 2019 10:16 KwarK wrote: Andrew Neil was the editor of the Sunday Times, a Murdoch mouthpiece, and is the chairman of a right wing media company. But he's also an intelligent human being who will call you out on bullshit even if he's ideologically sympathetic to you because it's really frustrating when a dumbfuck on "your side" makes all of you look like morons by association. Shapiro's accusations of Neil being part of the left wing conspiracy is pretty fucking funny. As were his claims that the BBC was just courting controversy to make a quick buck (the BBC is a publicly funded service that provides its programming for free and has no advertisers or sponsors).
Arguably more importantly, journalists in the UK can legitimately make their careers from a bit of proper journalism where they skewer political figures; the Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview, and those like them, looms large over any journalist on TV in the UK.
Not so long ago Neil absolutely shredded a Tory mouthpiece over several back benchers and security ministers accusing Jeremy Corbyn of literally betraying the country. Not the slightest hint of mercy.
Being right wing and a journalist in the UK doesn't necessarily mean you're a naked partisan hack. If you say something fucking stupid in UK politics, the TV journalists don't rally to justify it, they get their sharpest knives out, make like Hannibal and start prepping for dinner.
So yeah, it's not a surprise Ben Shapiro got bodied. UK journalists are used to people trying to rile/mock/distract them and they tend to just be calm, stoic and dogged, because they know it gives very little to work off. It's partly why Piers Morgan is a) trash and b) the one who (sort of) got over in the US.
This example is AMAZING.
I honestly didn't know journalism could be like this because I can't remember really any example of a politician (Liberal or conservative) being held to account in an interview for what they've said. In America all someone has to do in front of even congress, is just act like they are slightly stupid for 5 minutes and the time for each members questioning passes.
Note that he was trying to sidestep a direct question with a roundabout answer, and he tried many times. The interviewer just brought him back to the question and asked for an actual/direct answer. When he diverted, the interviewer immediately brought him back, even when interrupted, he stopped the interruption and brought him back to the question.
Nothing like this happens in America, and we suffer so much BS and lies because all you have to do is be able to start talking about something else and you ghost every single legitimate conversation or line of questioning.
American interviews, are nothing more than a politician being asked a hard question, then shifting his response to something loosely related, then being confronted about not answering the question, and then the politician bulldozes the interviewer by either pretending to be the victim or just relentlessly going to another topic.*In America you just have to do one of those things a couple times and the question shifts.
It's fucking BS and nobody is held to account for what they say.
Which it makes total sense Shapiro had trouble, because the tactics that work in the US to dodge questions don't work in the UK apparently.
I love he relentlessly holds him to answering the question. I cannot emphasize enough how that doesn't happen in America.
On May 12 2019 03:13 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It wasn't an interview in his eyes, but an attack. Shapiro was attacked for his beliefs in a benign manner and couldn't offer a rebuttal. Some people can't accept that so they feel attacked
But...he wasn't attacked for his beliefs in a benign manner, he was offered a question that he could had answered in any way he wanted, but instead he went on a crazy rant about Andrew Neil calling policies barbaric and ignorant (he didn't btw), and accusing the interviewer and the BBC as a biased left wing organisation. (The BBC gets accused of a lot of things but Andrew Neil as left is rather unusual.) This Ben Shapiro guy was doing quite well up answering the first few question up till 4 mins when he went off the rails. Perhaps it's a cultural difference. Maybe in USA you aren't meant to be asked questions, and if you are, you aren't expected to answer honestly.
Edit: So I guess all this time when I see Trump ramble on about something gobsmackingly insane and doesn't get asked questions, or ignores questions entirely, which I thought was the extraordinary, is actually the norm in USA.
On May 11 2019 10:16 KwarK wrote: Andrew Neil was the editor of the Sunday Times, a Murdoch mouthpiece, and is the chairman of a right wing media company. But he's also an intelligent human being who will call you out on bullshit even if he's ideologically sympathetic to you because it's really frustrating when a dumbfuck on "your side" makes all of you look like morons by association. Shapiro's accusations of Neil being part of the left wing conspiracy is pretty fucking funny. As were his claims that the BBC was just courting controversy to make a quick buck (the BBC is a publicly funded service that provides its programming for free and has no advertisers or sponsors).
Arguably more importantly, journalists in the UK can legitimately make their careers from a bit of proper journalism where they skewer political figures; the Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview, and those like them, looms large over any journalist on TV in the UK.
Not so long ago Neil absolutely shredded a Tory mouthpiece over several back benchers and security ministers accusing Jeremy Corbyn of literally betraying the country. Not the slightest hint of mercy.
Being right wing and a journalist in the UK doesn't necessarily mean you're a naked partisan hack. If you say something fucking stupid in UK politics, the TV journalists don't rally to justify it, they get their sharpest knives out, make like Hannibal and start prepping for dinner.
So yeah, it's not a surprise Ben Shapiro got bodied. UK journalists are used to people trying to rile/mock/distract them and they tend to just be calm, stoic and dogged, because they know it gives very little to work off. It's partly why Piers Morgan is a) trash and b) the one who (sort of) got over in the US.
I honestly didn't know journalism could be like this because I can't remember really any example of a politician (Liberal or conservative) being held to account in an interview for what they've said. In America all someone has to do in front of even congress, is just act like they are slightly stupid for 5 minutes and the time for each members questioning passes.
Note that he was trying to sidestep a direct question with a roundabout answer, and he tried many times. The interviewer just brought him back to the question and asked for an actual/direct answer. When he diverted, the interviewer immediately brought him back, even when interrupted, he stopped the interruption and brought him back to the question.
Nothing like this happens in America, and we suffer so much BS and lies because all you have to do is be able to start talking about something else and you ghost every single legitimate conversation or line of questioning.
American interviews, are nothing more than a politician being asked a hard question, then shifting his response to something loosely related, then being confronted about not answering the question, and then the politician bulldozes the interviewer by either pretending to be the victim or just relentlessly going to another topic.*In America you just have to do one of those things a couple times and the question shifts.
It's fucking BS and nobody is held to account for what they say.
Which it makes total sense Shapiro had trouble, because the tactics that work in the US to dodge questions don't work in the UK apparently.
I love he relentlessly holds him to answering the question. I cannot emphasize enough how that doesn't happen in America.
I loved it when the Labour politician tried to join in and gang up only to be summarily dismissed. If you enjoyed that video here is the iconic (to any Brits here) Paxman interview of the former leader of the Conservative Party.
Every time he answered a different question or tried to change the subject the question was simply asked again. And although no answer was ever given the British public tore into Howard over that refusal to answer.
When you subject yourself to that kind of interview the credibility you get from surviving is proportionate to how good the interviewer is. You could find someone who just asks helpful leading questions but nobody would watch it. And that means the job of the interviewer is to challenge, what they’re selling is their credibility and that interviewer only gets that credibility by being tough on everyone. Their job is to give nobody anywhere a free pass because that’s why what they’re selling has value.
There was an amusing Tarantino interview when Tarantino said he wouldn’t answer questions about violence in his movies and the interviewer told him that his job was to get answers on whatever Tarantino didn’t want to address and therefore he was going to just keep asking. They’re not there to be publicists for the guest and anyone thinking they’ll get that kind of reception will be as shocked as Shapiro was.
On May 11 2019 10:16 KwarK wrote: Andrew Neil was the editor of the Sunday Times, a Murdoch mouthpiece, and is the chairman of a right wing media company. But he's also an intelligent human being who will call you out on bullshit even if he's ideologically sympathetic to you because it's really frustrating when a dumbfuck on "your side" makes all of you look like morons by association. Shapiro's accusations of Neil being part of the left wing conspiracy is pretty fucking funny. As were his claims that the BBC was just courting controversy to make a quick buck (the BBC is a publicly funded service that provides its programming for free and has no advertisers or sponsors).
Arguably more importantly, journalists in the UK can legitimately make their careers from a bit of proper journalism where they skewer political figures; the Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview, and those like them, looms large over any journalist on TV in the UK.
Not so long ago Neil absolutely shredded a Tory mouthpiece over several back benchers and security ministers accusing Jeremy Corbyn of literally betraying the country. Not the slightest hint of mercy.
Being right wing and a journalist in the UK doesn't necessarily mean you're a naked partisan hack. If you say something fucking stupid in UK politics, the TV journalists don't rally to justify it, they get their sharpest knives out, make like Hannibal and start prepping for dinner.
So yeah, it's not a surprise Ben Shapiro got bodied. UK journalists are used to people trying to rile/mock/distract them and they tend to just be calm, stoic and dogged, because they know it gives very little to work off. It's partly why Piers Morgan is a) trash and b) the one who (sort of) got over in the US.
I honestly didn't know journalism could be like this because I can't remember really any example of a politician (Liberal or conservative) being held to account in an interview for what they've said. In America all someone has to do in front of even congress, is just act like they are slightly stupid for 5 minutes and the time for each members questioning passes.
Note that he was trying to sidestep a direct question with a roundabout answer, and he tried many times. The interviewer just brought him back to the question and asked for an actual/direct answer. When he diverted, the interviewer immediately brought him back, even when interrupted, he stopped the interruption and brought him back to the question.
Nothing like this happens in America, and we suffer so much BS and lies because all you have to do is be able to start talking about something else and you ghost every single legitimate conversation or line of questioning.
American interviews, are nothing more than a politician being asked a hard question, then shifting his response to something loosely related, then being confronted about not answering the question, and then the politician bulldozes the interviewer by either pretending to be the victim or just relentlessly going to another topic.*In America you just have to do one of those things a couple times and the question shifts.
It's fucking BS and nobody is held to account for what they say.
Which it makes total sense Shapiro had trouble, because the tactics that work in the US to dodge questions don't work in the UK apparently.
I love he relentlessly holds him to answering the question. I cannot emphasize enough how that doesn't happen in America.
I loved it when the Labour politician tried to join in and gang up only to be summarily dismissed. If you enjoyed that video here is the iconic (to any Brits here) Paxman interview of the former leader of the Conservative Party.
Every time he answered a different question or tried to change the subject the question was simply asked again. And although no answer was ever given the British public tore into Howard over that refusal to answer.
You're gonna make me cry over here, man. We weren't supposed to know politicians could be held accountable for the things they say.
I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism"
He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro.
Isn't it the party of Trump? Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left? Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws?
Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks.
Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now? You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions? Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse? Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution? Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much.
Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing.
What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview.
It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well.
It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it.
Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view?
Except that 99% of the time when someone labels it a "gotcha moment", it's actually a legitimate question and they're just trying to deflect and run from responsibility.
I'm assuming your snide 2nd paragraph was trying to hit me with prior posts of mine. Assuming those are comments of mine that you dug up, I have nothing to defend because you are 1) mind-numbingly arrogant and 2) obscenely hypocritical. I don't recall calling you "anti-scientific"; you come across as insidiously apathetic to science in favor or your political views, so I guess I'll correct myself there. I guess I wouldn't call you a nutjob either, moreso an extremely selfish and disingenuous pseudo-intellectual, much akin to Shapiro.
The difference you fail to realize is that you're not interviewing me. We're on a forum. Shapiro agreed to an interview and looked like a fool for acting in such a childish manner and refusing to take responsibility for past comments.
I used them as an exercise to see if you're universally in favor of gotchas ... I mean legitimate questions over your former posting ... and I find your logic faulty. Well, it really matters who's doing the characterization. If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
Your post history has plenty of ad hominem attacks, extreme arrogance and condescension, strawmanning to the point of being insulting, or otherwise agreeing with or condoning posters that practice the same. I would suggest not trying to take the moral high ground here. It makes you look bad.
Your post history and that of your fellow conservative posters indicates that this isn't a "debate" forum. This is just a forum for anonymous people to talk past each other about politics (for the most part). It stopped being a genuine debate probably 3 or so years ago.
I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism"
He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro.
Isn't it the party of Trump? Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left? Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws?
Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks.
Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now? You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions? Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse? Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution? Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much.
Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing.
What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview.
It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well.
It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it.
Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view?
Except that 99% of the time when someone labels it a "gotcha moment", it's actually a legitimate question and they're just trying to deflect and run from responsibility.
I'm assuming your snide 2nd paragraph was trying to hit me with prior posts of mine. Assuming those are comments of mine that you dug up, I have nothing to defend because you are 1) mind-numbingly arrogant and 2) obscenely hypocritical. I don't recall calling you "anti-scientific"; you come across as insidiously apathetic to science in favor or your political views, so I guess I'll correct myself there. I guess I wouldn't call you a nutjob either, moreso an extremely selfish and disingenuous pseudo-intellectual, much akin to Shapiro.
The difference you fail to realize is that you're not interviewing me. We're on a forum. Shapiro agreed to an interview and looked like a fool for acting in such a childish manner and refusing to take responsibility for past comments.
I used them as an exercise to see if you're universally in favor of gotchas ... I mean legitimate questions over your former posting ... and I find your logic faulty. Well, it really matters who's doing the characterization. If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
Your post history has plenty of ad hominem attacks, extreme arrogance and condescension, strawmanning to the point of being insulting, or otherwise agreeing with or condoning posters that practice the same. I would suggest not trying to take the moral high ground here. It makes you look bad.
Your post history and that of your fellow conservative posters indicates that this isn't a "debate" forum. This is just a forum for anonymous people to talk past each other about politics (for the most part). It stopped being a genuine debate probably 3 or so years ago.
I really think you should turn towards the mirror. It’s no use arguing that these other people are blackguards (it’s politics, there’s nothing new or original doing so) and defending your own conduct as “they really are just that!”
Similarly, while defending gotcha questions in an interview, you treat the same gotcha questions I put out there by throwing back the slurs and insults. As if that’s how you imagine a forum to operate, much less an interview! These are the grounds for thinking you don’t know the difference between gotcha questions and “hold someone accountable,” as your post response alleged.
If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism"
He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro.
Isn't it the party of Trump? Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left? Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws?
Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks.
Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now? You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions? Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse? Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution? Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much.
Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing.
What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview.
It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well.
It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it.
Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view?
Except that 99% of the time when someone labels it a "gotcha moment", it's actually a legitimate question and they're just trying to deflect and run from responsibility.
I'm assuming your snide 2nd paragraph was trying to hit me with prior posts of mine. Assuming those are comments of mine that you dug up, I have nothing to defend because you are 1) mind-numbingly arrogant and 2) obscenely hypocritical. I don't recall calling you "anti-scientific"; you come across as insidiously apathetic to science in favor or your political views, so I guess I'll correct myself there. I guess I wouldn't call you a nutjob either, moreso an extremely selfish and disingenuous pseudo-intellectual, much akin to Shapiro.
The difference you fail to realize is that you're not interviewing me. We're on a forum. Shapiro agreed to an interview and looked like a fool for acting in such a childish manner and refusing to take responsibility for past comments.
I used them as an exercise to see if you're universally in favor of gotchas ... I mean legitimate questions over your former posting ... and I find your logic faulty. Well, it really matters who's doing the characterization. If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
Your post history has plenty of ad hominem attacks, extreme arrogance and condescension, strawmanning to the point of being insulting, or otherwise agreeing with or condoning posters that practice the same. I would suggest not trying to take the moral high ground here. It makes you look bad.
Your post history and that of your fellow conservative posters indicates that this isn't a "debate" forum. This is just a forum for anonymous people to talk past each other about politics (for the most part). It stopped being a genuine debate probably 3 or so years ago.
I really think you should turn towards the mirror. It’s no use arguing that these other people are blackguards (it’s politics, there’s nothing new or original doing so) and defending your own conduct as “they really are just that!”
Similarly, while defending gotcha questions in an interview, you treat the same gotcha questions I put out there by throwing back the slurs and insults. As if that’s how you imagine a forum to operate, much less an interview! These are the grounds for thinking you don’t know the difference between gotcha questions and “hold someone accountable,” as your post response alleged.
If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
You're sidestepping the conversation just as you always do.
You tried to put me into a corner by essentially trying to either "hold me accountable" for my prior posts or try to avoid them, which would make me look hypocritical. I took responsibility for those posts by reaffirming that I meant what I said when I posted them and correcting myself where it was needed.
I also never said that I don't use personal attacks here. I have basically no respect for you or xDaunt as decent human beings based on what you post here, and that should be easily evident. The conservatives in this thread deride, insult, and otherwise belittle everyone else in this thread on a regular basis. Your side of the political aisle has done that for nearly a decade now, and you guys always whine when the shade is thrown back at you. It's pathetic.
Finally, as I mentioned before, this isn't a "debate" forum. A debate has certain expectations of civility and conduct. This thread has not had those for several years now, and you and your peers fully endorse the lower standards of this thread by actively engaging in conduct that lowers those very standards. The fact is that almost everyone in this thread (on both sides) participates in that, but you're weak attempt at playing the moral high ground falls flat on its face when we look at the reality; you're no better than anyone else here. You're just probably more arrogant than any of us.
On May 12 2019 05:17 Stratos_speAr wrote: I also never said that I don't use personal attacks here. I have basically no respect for you or xDaunt as decent human beings based on what you post here, and that should be easily evident. The conservatives in this thread deride, insult, and otherwise belittle everyone else in this thread on a regular basis. Your side of the political aisle has done that for nearly a decade now, and you guys always whine when the shade is thrown back at you. It's pathetic.
This is one of my conditions for interaction in the forum. You have to presume the other person is mistaken even in the throes of political passion. The second you use personal attacks and erase human dignity or respect is the time I think you need to find others to have that conversation with.
It's less important to know the difference between deciding what a gotcha question is and how that differs from holding someone accountable, than to know that political discussion should have limits in presuming someone's a "decent human being."
The moderation standards is a discussion for the website feedback forums, and I think the best response to someone who personally attacks is to ignore their posts and hope they find other people with whom they can practice a different sort of discussion.
I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism"
I find it hilarious that Shapiro openly moves the goal posts at 7:45. He’s openly asking for an even worse president or a president equal to Trump. Today my wife noticed that her period pads went up in price, and they did it subtly. They used to charge $14 for a pack of 36, now its $14 for a pack 26. No more packs of 36 available which helped last her bi weekly flow. Let’s force women to spend more on something that should already be given for free.
I feel even worse for those women that can’t afford it, slowly having to watch women be attacked because they bleed monthly. The fact that people still choose to try and govern what others can do with their body is not just.
I don’t know if any of you have seen Handmaids Tale, but when my wife watched that, her eyes were opened much more to the current situation in the US.
I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism"
I find it hilarious that Shapiro openly moves the goal posts at 7:45. He’s openly asking for an even worse president or a president equal to Trump. Today my wife noticed that her period pads went up in price, and they did it subtly. They used to charge $14 for a pack of 36, now its $14 for a pack 26. No more packs of 36 available which helped last her bi weekly flow. Let’s force women to spend more on something that should already be given for free.
I feel even worse for those women that can’t afford it, slowly having to watch women be attacked because they bleed monthly. The fact that people still choose to try and govern what others can do with their body is not just.
I don’t know if any of you have seen Handmaids Tale, but when my wife watched that, her eyes were opened much more to the current situation in the US.
I find it hilarious that at the beginning of the interview he almost literally embodies the meme. "I've got all these cool new ideas like christian conservatism"
He performed pretty poorly for a debate performance. Maybe he was expecting an interview? I dunno. Too quick and monotonous throughout, but I guess that's Shapiro.
Isn't it the party of Trump? Isn't there no thought movement, run out of ideas, compared to new ideas on left? Aren't some of your ideas taking us back to the dark ages, like Georgia's abortion laws?
Lol this guy. Shapiro fumbles for the right track (Would you suggest that a late term abortion is brutal, if the supporter "I'm not taking a view on this" is some straight dodge. The next attempt, repeating the question, is even worse. Either say you give everyone you interview a hard time on the takes of the topic, or admit your ideological biases.) But Shapiro does a poor job of stating the point simply and rambles. You have to be able to assume the questioner gives everybody a hard time and uses the same biting remarks.
Aren't you a hypocrite on support of Trump, never voting for him, and maybe now? You're supposed tellers of hard truths, as a group of youtube stars, but haven't you coarsened public discourse in America and exacerbated it's divisions? Aren't these titles on youtube videos of you coarse? Aren't you part of the problem in the discourse, instead of the solution? Aren't you part of that anger, encouraging it [Gish gallop on Obama's state of union, jewish supporters of Obama, palestinian columns]
You'd think someone that calls for less anger in politics would have a defense for his conclusions stated forcefully and not holding back on the language used to denounce them. He fumbles for the retractions, fumbles back towards the unfair statement of interview questions, in a generally poor performance. He's not expected to defend little snippets from articles going back a decade, but man you have to do a better job pointing that out. If you're really committed to defense from judeo-christian values, it shouldn't be that hard to go through the big ones. Andrew Neil, to his credit pointing out that he had never heard of Shapiro, had been primarily briefed on gotchas. Shapiro ... uhh not so much.
Not a good defense nor debate performance at all. It's like Jeb Bush getting caught by an Iraq War question and being unprepared. If you're going to write a book about defending traditional values and discouraging anger, you better know which past comments were in anger, and which past argued conclusions didn't go to far/are defensible/whatever he's doing.
What Shapiro (and you) fail to understand is that it isn't the interviewer's job to answer questions. He is challenging Shapiro's view point by asking questions. The goal is to clearly outline what Shapiro believes and force him to defend it or otherwise clarify his views. That is the entire point of an interview.
It isn't "gotcha moments" to hold someone accountable for what they have said. Complaining about "gotcha moments" just exposes one's fear and lack of intellectual integrity. Shapiro has been like this for years. He'll constantly deflect and talk over people to browbeat them into submission, regardless of the actual quality of his arguments. If he is held firm and forced to take responsibility for the weakness of his arguments or his hypocrisy, then he doesn't take it well.
It's entirely appropriate for Shapiro to ask on the thrust given the general pattern of questioning. He does a bad job at it and doesn't have anything sure to fall back on (which I do mention in my post). However, you've given very little to support your blanket declaration. Can I ask you why you support such barbaric policies, and why all your ideas are old, and aren't you guilty of asking questioning instead of answering questions? Well, go for it.
Gotcha moments are said to differentiate them from serious inquiry. Like, why should I even respond to you, when you disgrace yourself by dipping to calling me "mind-numblingly arrogant" and like to use language like "anti-scientific conservative nutjob?" Now now, don't be mad, I'd just like to hold you "accountable for what [you've] said". Will you commit to debate, or just continue to mutter about my "obscene hypocrisy" and never defend the view?
Except that 99% of the time when someone labels it a "gotcha moment", it's actually a legitimate question and they're just trying to deflect and run from responsibility.
I'm assuming your snide 2nd paragraph was trying to hit me with prior posts of mine. Assuming those are comments of mine that you dug up, I have nothing to defend because you are 1) mind-numbingly arrogant and 2) obscenely hypocritical. I don't recall calling you "anti-scientific"; you come across as insidiously apathetic to science in favor or your political views, so I guess I'll correct myself there. I guess I wouldn't call you a nutjob either, moreso an extremely selfish and disingenuous pseudo-intellectual, much akin to Shapiro.
The difference you fail to realize is that you're not interviewing me. We're on a forum. Shapiro agreed to an interview and looked like a fool for acting in such a childish manner and refusing to take responsibility for past comments.
I used them as an exercise to see if you're universally in favor of gotchas ... I mean legitimate questions over your former posting ... and I find your logic faulty. Well, it really matters who's doing the characterization. If indeed we're on a debating forum, do you really think those kind of insults are appropriate for someone wanting to debate? Would you recommend others to ignore users that call you "mind-numbingly arrogant" "antiscientific" a "nutjob" an "obscene hypocrite?"
Your post history has plenty of ad hominem attacks, extreme arrogance and condescension, strawmanning to the point of being insulting, or otherwise agreeing with or condoning posters that practice the same. I would suggest not trying to take the moral high ground here. It makes you look bad.
Your post history and that of your fellow conservative posters indicates that this isn't a "debate" forum. This is just a forum for anonymous people to talk past each other about politics (for the most part). It stopped being a genuine debate probably 3 or so years ago.
It was actually quite nice when the people interested in insane bickering all gtfo’ed to GH megablog. We kind of had a real discussion here. But the blog was closed, they all came back here and it’s been a shitposter playground arguing about how Trump was totally exonerated by Mueller and so on since.
On May 11 2019 10:16 KwarK wrote: Andrew Neil was the editor of the Sunday Times, a Murdoch mouthpiece, and is the chairman of a right wing media company. But he's also an intelligent human being who will call you out on bullshit even if he's ideologically sympathetic to you because it's really frustrating when a dumbfuck on "your side" makes all of you look like morons by association. Shapiro's accusations of Neil being part of the left wing conspiracy is pretty fucking funny. As were his claims that the BBC was just courting controversy to make a quick buck (the BBC is a publicly funded service that provides its programming for free and has no advertisers or sponsors).
Arguably more importantly, journalists in the UK can legitimately make their careers from a bit of proper journalism where they skewer political figures; the Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview, and those like them, looms large over any journalist on TV in the UK.
Not so long ago Neil absolutely shredded a Tory mouthpiece over several back benchers and security ministers accusing Jeremy Corbyn of literally betraying the country. Not the slightest hint of mercy.
Being right wing and a journalist in the UK doesn't necessarily mean you're a naked partisan hack. If you say something fucking stupid in UK politics, the TV journalists don't rally to justify it, they get their sharpest knives out, make like Hannibal and start prepping for dinner.
So yeah, it's not a surprise Ben Shapiro got bodied. UK journalists are used to people trying to rile/mock/distract them and they tend to just be calm, stoic and dogged, because they know it gives very little to work off. It's partly why Piers Morgan is a) trash and b) the one who (sort of) got over in the US.
I honestly didn't know journalism could be like this because I can't remember really any example of a politician (Liberal or conservative) being held to account in an interview for what they've said. In America all someone has to do in front of even congress, is just act like they are slightly stupid for 5 minutes and the time for each members questioning passes.
Note that he was trying to sidestep a direct question with a roundabout answer, and he tried many times. The interviewer just brought him back to the question and asked for an actual/direct answer. When he diverted, the interviewer immediately brought him back, even when interrupted, he stopped the interruption and brought him back to the question.
Nothing like this happens in America, and we suffer so much BS and lies because all you have to do is be able to start talking about something else and you ghost every single legitimate conversation or line of questioning.
American interviews, are nothing more than a politician being asked a hard question, then shifting his response to something loosely related, then being confronted about not answering the question, and then the politician bulldozes the interviewer by either pretending to be the victim or just relentlessly going to another topic.*In America you just have to do one of those things a couple times and the question shifts.
It's fucking BS and nobody is held to account for what they say.
Which it makes total sense Shapiro had trouble, because the tactics that work in the US to dodge questions don't work in the UK apparently.
I love he relentlessly holds him to answering the question. I cannot emphasize enough how that doesn't happen in America.
I loved it when the Labour politician tried to join in and gang up only to be summarily dismissed. If you enjoyed that video here is the iconic (to any Brits here) Paxman interview of the former leader of the Conservative Party.
Every time he answered a different question or tried to change the subject the question was simply asked again. And although no answer was ever given the British public tore into Howard over that refusal to answer.
You're gonna make me cry over here, man. We weren't supposed to know politicians could be held accountable for the things they say.
This is why privatisation of everything is dangerous. Because the BBC is publically owned - as Neil calmly pointed out to Shapiro - its journalists are mostly free to respond the way they want to, with little or no influence from above. There have been some celebrated occasions where that impartiality fractures - the BBC turned pretty hard on Corbyn at one point for example - but for the most part it does a good job.
On May 11 2019 10:16 KwarK wrote: Andrew Neil was the editor of the Sunday Times, a Murdoch mouthpiece, and is the chairman of a right wing media company. But he's also an intelligent human being who will call you out on bullshit even if he's ideologically sympathetic to you because it's really frustrating when a dumbfuck on "your side" makes all of you look like morons by association. Shapiro's accusations of Neil being part of the left wing conspiracy is pretty fucking funny. As were his claims that the BBC was just courting controversy to make a quick buck (the BBC is a publicly funded service that provides its programming for free and has no advertisers or sponsors).
Arguably more importantly, journalists in the UK can legitimately make their careers from a bit of proper journalism where they skewer political figures; the Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview, and those like them, looms large over any journalist on TV in the UK.
Not so long ago Neil absolutely shredded a Tory mouthpiece over several back benchers and security ministers accusing Jeremy Corbyn of literally betraying the country. Not the slightest hint of mercy.
Being right wing and a journalist in the UK doesn't necessarily mean you're a naked partisan hack. If you say something fucking stupid in UK politics, the TV journalists don't rally to justify it, they get their sharpest knives out, make like Hannibal and start prepping for dinner.
So yeah, it's not a surprise Ben Shapiro got bodied. UK journalists are used to people trying to rile/mock/distract them and they tend to just be calm, stoic and dogged, because they know it gives very little to work off. It's partly why Piers Morgan is a) trash and b) the one who (sort of) got over in the US.
I honestly didn't know journalism could be like this because I can't remember really any example of a politician (Liberal or conservative) being held to account in an interview for what they've said. In America all someone has to do in front of even congress, is just act like they are slightly stupid for 5 minutes and the time for each members questioning passes.
Note that he was trying to sidestep a direct question with a roundabout answer, and he tried many times. The interviewer just brought him back to the question and asked for an actual/direct answer. When he diverted, the interviewer immediately brought him back, even when interrupted, he stopped the interruption and brought him back to the question.
Nothing like this happens in America, and we suffer so much BS and lies because all you have to do is be able to start talking about something else and you ghost every single legitimate conversation or line of questioning.
American interviews, are nothing more than a politician being asked a hard question, then shifting his response to something loosely related, then being confronted about not answering the question, and then the politician bulldozes the interviewer by either pretending to be the victim or just relentlessly going to another topic.*In America you just have to do one of those things a couple times and the question shifts.
It's fucking BS and nobody is held to account for what they say.
Which it makes total sense Shapiro had trouble, because the tactics that work in the US to dodge questions don't work in the UK apparently.
I love he relentlessly holds him to answering the question. I cannot emphasize enough how that doesn't happen in America.
I loved it when the Labour politician tried to join in and gang up only to be summarily dismissed. If you enjoyed that video here is the iconic (to any Brits here) Paxman interview of the former leader of the Conservative Party.
Every time he answered a different question or tried to change the subject the question was simply asked again. And although no answer was ever given the British public tore into Howard over that refusal to answer.
You're gonna make me cry over here, man. We weren't supposed to know politicians could be held accountable for the things they say.
This is why privatisation of everything is dangerous. Because the BBC is publically owned - as Neil calmly pointed out to Shapiro - its journalists are mostly free to respond the way they want to, with little or no influence from above. There have been some celebrated occasions where that impartiality fractures - the BBC turned pretty hard on Corbyn at one point for example - but for the most part it does a good job.
A guy can dream that maybe, just maybe, we can make something like that come true on this side of the pond one day. Pro wrestling masked as news stations is novel, but it gets old.
On May 11 2019 10:16 KwarK wrote: Andrew Neil was the editor of the Sunday Times, a Murdoch mouthpiece, and is the chairman of a right wing media company. But he's also an intelligent human being who will call you out on bullshit even if he's ideologically sympathetic to you because it's really frustrating when a dumbfuck on "your side" makes all of you look like morons by association. Shapiro's accusations of Neil being part of the left wing conspiracy is pretty fucking funny. As were his claims that the BBC was just courting controversy to make a quick buck (the BBC is a publicly funded service that provides its programming for free and has no advertisers or sponsors).
Arguably more importantly, journalists in the UK can legitimately make their careers from a bit of proper journalism where they skewer political figures; the Michael Howard/Jeremy Paxman interview, and those like them, looms large over any journalist on TV in the UK.
Not so long ago Neil absolutely shredded a Tory mouthpiece over several back benchers and security ministers accusing Jeremy Corbyn of literally betraying the country. Not the slightest hint of mercy.
Being right wing and a journalist in the UK doesn't necessarily mean you're a naked partisan hack. If you say something fucking stupid in UK politics, the TV journalists don't rally to justify it, they get their sharpest knives out, make like Hannibal and start prepping for dinner.
So yeah, it's not a surprise Ben Shapiro got bodied. UK journalists are used to people trying to rile/mock/distract them and they tend to just be calm, stoic and dogged, because they know it gives very little to work off. It's partly why Piers Morgan is a) trash and b) the one who (sort of) got over in the US.
I honestly didn't know journalism could be like this because I can't remember really any example of a politician (Liberal or conservative) being held to account in an interview for what they've said. In America all someone has to do in front of even congress, is just act like they are slightly stupid for 5 minutes and the time for each members questioning passes.
Note that he was trying to sidestep a direct question with a roundabout answer, and he tried many times. The interviewer just brought him back to the question and asked for an actual/direct answer. When he diverted, the interviewer immediately brought him back, even when interrupted, he stopped the interruption and brought him back to the question.
Nothing like this happens in America, and we suffer so much BS and lies because all you have to do is be able to start talking about something else and you ghost every single legitimate conversation or line of questioning.
American interviews, are nothing more than a politician being asked a hard question, then shifting his response to something loosely related, then being confronted about not answering the question, and then the politician bulldozes the interviewer by either pretending to be the victim or just relentlessly going to another topic.*In America you just have to do one of those things a couple times and the question shifts.
It's fucking BS and nobody is held to account for what they say.
Which it makes total sense Shapiro had trouble, because the tactics that work in the US to dodge questions don't work in the UK apparently.
I love he relentlessly holds him to answering the question. I cannot emphasize enough how that doesn't happen in America.
I loved it when the Labour politician tried to join in and gang up only to be summarily dismissed. If you enjoyed that video here is the iconic (to any Brits here) Paxman interview of the former leader of the Conservative Party.
Every time he answered a different question or tried to change the subject the question was simply asked again. And although no answer was ever given the British public tore into Howard over that refusal to answer.
You're gonna make me cry over here, man. We weren't supposed to know politicians could be held accountable for the things they say.
This is why privatisation of everything is dangerous. Because the BBC is publically owned - as Neil calmly pointed out to Shapiro - its journalists are mostly free to respond the way they want to, with little or no influence from above. There have been some celebrated occasions where that impartiality fractures - the BBC turned pretty hard on Corbyn at one point for example - but for the most part it does a good job.
A guy can dream that maybe, just maybe, we can make something like that come true on this side of the pond one day. Pro wrestling masked as news stations is novel, but it gets old.
It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle once you let it out. I don't see how you get back into a truly independent news organisation that people actually want to watch without the next government change destroying it again.
EPT
