The Ben Shapiro Show

About 19 minutes in while Ben is covering the NYT story he reads the passage about Destiny and Lauren Southern debate. Are we one step closer to a Ben Shapiro vs Destiny debate?

These used to be on YouTube I had them bookmarked but they got scrubbed, found reuploads and also archived them in case they get scrubbed again:

Based-Stickman---Saul-Alinsky-Controlled-Chaos---Escalation:1

Also their first encounter in person at Berkeley

Proud boy stuff:

I need something to balance out the ben shapiro podcast.

Any list of who makes up the idw that includes Ben Shapiro (most seem to) really stand out to me. It is a pretty easy game of "one of these things is not like the other".

Can we agree that including Shapiro in this somewhat diminishes what the idw means?

In the New York Times article about Weinstein they defined the common thread between the intellectual dark web as people who believe "There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart."

Shapiro agrees on the points that happen to align with conservative values (biological differences, and identity politics) and he agrees with free speech... sometimes. As many of you well know, if you are truly an advocate of free speech you have to advocate for it all the time, especially when you disagree with what they are saying. Sam Harris does not have any sort of hostility or ill will toward transgender people and he actually seems to be in favor of affording them certain protections, and believes it is not a choice. Sam is definitely willing to stand up for anyone who says differently though. Really any conservative in America agrees with most of this, whether they have any integrity or not.

Ben Shapiro, above all else, is a Republican pundit. Part of his duty as a Republican pundit was to defend the NFL policy of fining players who refuse to stand for the national anthem (because Trump supported it). I listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast and it really struck me how he dealt with the idea of free speech in that episode. In a case where it wasn't liberal SJW snowflakes trying to silence people he sang a different tune.

From Episode 545: "College campuses are for the exchange of ideas, an NFL field is for playing football". He is trying to make a distinction between the arena where HIS free speech was curtailed, and an arena where the opinions of people he disagrees with are curtailed. Does the idw make that distinction? Free speech but only on college campuses and the internet"?

Beyond that, the other "members" of the idw approach politics from a non-partisan position. Harris and the Weinsteins, generally left, have just as much bad to say about the Democratic party. Not the issues they stand for, but their conduct and overall bad faith. Contrast that with really any given episode of Ben Shapiro's podcast and he is going out of his way to carry the water for the Republican party.

As for Identity politics, Ben Shapiro does reject them... in the case of liberal identity politics. When it comes to Jewish Identity

I know the idw doesn't have a specific definition or criteria for membership, so it is sort of "you'll know it when you see it" sort of thing. Whenever I listen to Ben Shapiro (which is most days in my case, I hear no difference between him and Neil Cavuto or Don Lemon or Sean Hannity. You can predict what his take is going to be on a specific issue simply by knowing what stance is more convenient for Republicans. Even in incontrovertibly bad news cycles for Trump, Shapiro will barely acknowledge and gloss of the misdeeds of Trump, then spend 5x more time thinking of an example of when a Democrat did a similar thing.

If a category becomes too big it starts to not mean anything. I think including him both cheapens the whole idea, and lends him far too much credibility.

Edit: fixed the link

DeSantis is visiting and investing in states like California, Texas, Illinois, and New York. All these states have lots of delegates, but it's risky: being there could let Trump take over in the early states like New Hampshire and Iowa, where DeSantis's charisma issues could already jeopardize him.

At least it shows he's thinking about it and this isn't a campaign driven by Ben Shapiro podcasts. He genuinely has a strategy, and honestly, it's not a bad one.

The indictment won't be in cycle forever. Let Teflon Don self destruct, and then pitch yourself as the more competent version of Trump in the early states. Ultimately, the firewall for DeSantis is Super Tuesday and the fact that Trump will probably bury him in the south and west. His plan, to gather momentum in the big-delegate states, hope he doesn't get blindsided in Iowa, and build up irresistable momentum, might be his best in my opinion.

So I've been thinking a lot about my dad's podcast listening habits lately. He listens to Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson -- and probably some other stuff I don't know about.

For context he's always been conservative, but he's been generally nice to people and pretty reasonable to talk to. He's not trumpy and he isn't into guns, etc. Added to that, I have a good relationship with him and he listens to me politely and doesn't denigrate me for not agreeing with him.

All this is to say, I care about him a lot but I cannot get inside this worldview of his. I know he's sincere in his beliefs, but I find them very difficult to empathize with. I'm thinking about doing a deep dive into listening to Ben Shapiro's podcast to try to really experience the rhetoric he's surrounded by, but I'm not sure if that will just drive me insane.

Anyone else dealing with something similar?

I've been listening to Ben Shapiro podcast lately and he swears by it. However I haven't heard him name some examples of it working. He was saying that healthcare can be taken care of via free market. Are there any examples of that working?

So I used to watch Ben Shapiro RELIGIOUSLY. I had no internet at house so I could only use the data on my phone. So when I finished college, I would come back to my apartment, heat up some food and listen to Ben Shapiro's podcast (because the youtube app would stop when the phone closed, but soundcloud wouldnt). So I listened to him every day. And I did this for about 2 years.

I used to like him and thought he made good points. It dont think it was because he talked fast (but maybe that subconsciously was a reason). And I used to watch a fuck ton of other channels too (like gavin mcinnes I subscribed to his TGMS show, steven crowder, etc).

But now when I listen to ben shapiro I cant help but cringe every time he speaks. It seems like I could dunk on any topic he puts forth, and Im completely ignorant of politics and he's a harvard law graduate. I followed these guys from 2015-2017. So just before and just after Trump's presidency.

Are right wingers getting dumber because they have to defend trump? Or are am I getting smarter due to me consuming pretty much entirely left wing media at this point (ie david pakman, majority report, destiny, etc)

Links *

• [Dailymail] () also UK/UN Treaty

• .

On the (42 min mark), Shapiro referenced CNN pushing "Fake News" in its apple/banana commercial. CNN ran an article is fake news. A female who takes drugs and surgery to look like a man, is still a biological woman.

Does transgender acceptance really need to change all laws and regulations to neutral gender language?

Are transgender issues exposing this social justice movement pushing political correct think speak?

Is Shapiro correct, saying "man gives birth" really just Fake news?

UPDATE

they had written to the UN urging it to make the change to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that the death penalty “shall not be carried out on pregnant women”. But stated there was no language to "expunge" the term "pregnant women"

So did the UK FO ask the UN to change the term or not? Have they ever brought up these Trans naming issues?

Seems to be lots of word play by the UK FO on the issue.

UPDATE

If anyone has the link to the submission that supposes to include the FCO request, this will stop the "did they or didn't they" disagreements.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) submission, Britain opposes the term "pregnant woman" because it may "exclude transgender people who have given birth".

For those who don’t know, WAP is an acronym for Wet Ass P*ssy. This song and music video is supposed to seduce guys and arouse them. Well, it fails to do that. The lyrics (go look them up) are enough to give someone PTSD. The background music and vocals already give me literal nightmares (or daymares).

The background is sampled from another song called “There’s some whores in this house.” However, the audio in this song has some kind of distortion that makes this song painful to listen to. I’m saying this as a guy (25M) around the same age as Cardi B (28F) and MTG (25F).

Overall, this is the worst song IMO that I’ve heard in a long time.

EDIT: I did not watch the Ben Shapiro podcast. I came to know this song because of the WAP TikTok dance and how that was a popular meme.

Since the success of the Joe Rogan podcast , I've been thinking about what other avenues would be effective for Yang to get his message and support.

• Ben Shapiro podcast (but it might be too much overlap with Joe Rogan's podcast)

• Marc Maron (to reach the liberals who refuse to listen to JRE)

What else do you think would be a great place to appear and explain ?

It was a gradual reconditioning for me that made me leave the conservative/alt-right movement.

Several years ago in 2016 I was a gung-ho Trump supporter. Every day on the way to college I listened to Ben Shapiro's podcast. I listened to Molyneux, Rogan, Dave Rubin, Peterson, you know who I am talking about. All of those guys. I bought Peterson's book 12 Rules for Life and Trump's Art of the Deal. I really don't know what happened because I can't say there was an exact watershed moment for me that I decided to leave. After Trump got elected all of the excitement was gone and the news media cycle got increasingly exhausting - so I just stopped paying attention for a good while. It was just sometime around 2018 to early 2019 that I noticed I wasn't listening to the "Daily Wire" anymore and Gavin McInnes wasn't popping up in my YouTube recommended every day.

Tonight I've gone incognito on Chrome and have just been looking at what all of these guys are doing now and reflecting on how heavily entrenched I was in that movement. For instance, I did not know that apparently Peterson is a . To me that just makes him a complete fucking fraudster sellout. Excuse my language, but I know someone as intelligent as Peterson cannot not reasonably deny climate change, yet he completely sold out to his base (or maybe he felt like this all along). I feel embarrassed and ashamed at times but I was also basically a kid when I got exposed to all of these things. Both of my parents are very conservative, I didn't really stand a chance- now I would consider myself a progressive.

Yet back to my original point, it's Sam Harris that is the last piece of that era in my life. Oddly enough he got the least of my attention in that YouTube sphere of conservative media during those times. Even more odd, when I actually started listening to his podcasts I realized he wasn't even a conservative at all (isn't that hilarious?) and has some remarkably progressive ideas. Now I listen to his podcast weekly. He just seems to be one of the last rational voices I have left to hold on to in media. Why do you guys think he's got lumped into that alt-right media sphere by some, was it his criticism of Islam?

Also, can anyone else here relate to my journey "out of the alt-right"? Looking forward to hearing from you guys.

Hoping to have an open discussion and looking for some intellectual insight from some of you. I think most conservatives are data driven, myself included, the data on police brutality on blacks clearly shows that's just not true in anyway compared to what the media suggests. So, I've been looking into other racial differences and one that's stuck out to me the most is homeownership. Before I decry racism I wanted your input on the matter. I'm gonna copy and paste some points from an article that I find most surprising:

"The current 30-percentage-point gap between black and white homeownership is larger than it was in 1968, when housing discrimination was legal"

"Homeownership is lower for black college graduates than for white high school dropouts"

"Even when accounting for individual factors such as marital status, income distribution, FICO scores, age, median household income, and city segregation, Choi found approximately 17 percent of the black-white homeownership gap remains unexplained."

I normally listen to Ben Shapiro podcast but his latest episode seemed too superficial to explain certain differences and most information i look for is all left leaning thus I opened up the discussion for people here that could educate me, thanks

Currently I'm thinking that his speech to the is good for open minded and anti-Trump people who don't have a lot of time. is the best for people who aren't that experienced with politics and want too here Yang talk like a regular person, and is great for more conservative people who would be more hesitant. What are your guys recommendation?

Realistically speaking, Yang's chance of winning the presidency is low. He's probably the most intelligent person to ever run, but anyone in the sideline (sadly almost everyone in the US) would think that he's just another candidate. Yang should do something different, yet substantive and catches people's eyes. I have an idea what Yang should do on the December Debates.

You know what's the biggest difference between Yang and any other candidate other than policies? He actually talks to people from all sides. Yang literally went on a Socialist podcast, ChapoTrapHouse. He also went to Ben Shapiro's podcast, and tons of other podcasts. Heck, he even debated a Harvard professor, Jeff Miron. You won't see any other candidate do what Yang is doing. On the next debate, Yang should bring this up on the debate stage. He should say something along the line of "What's exciting about my journey is that I have the chance to talk to a lot of people with different ideas, including those whom I disagree with. I met people all over the political spectrum and talked to them. One day I went to a socialist podcast, and the next day I went to Ben Shapiro's show. I also debated a Harvard professor at Libertycon a few months ago. This is what I find important about having an idea, is that you should be able to defend your idea infront of people who disagree with you and have different ideas. And sadly I don't see any other candidate doing what I'm doing, and this debate isn't helping either. As I said before, this debate acts like a reality tv show. Candidates are given little time to elaborate on their ideas, so they have to rely on soundbites and rehearsed attack lines. These soundbites will then be repeated on TV over and over and the American people will get no substantive idea about who to choose as the leader of this great nation. So right now I am proposing something that has never been proposed before on a US election. I'm proposing that the DNC should create a special kind of debate, where each candidate gets one day to debate intellectuals on the opposing side live on TV. For example, on day one you have Joe Biden debating a professor who disagrees with his policies. On day two you have Senator Sanders doing the same thing. This way the American people will know who is the best candidate based on a long form substantive discourse, instead of relying on small soundbites that have no meaning. [adds closing sentence]"

I know this is completely unorthodox, but this is how Yang can win. He excels in a one on one debate, other candidates would be instantly destroyed by intellectual professors. Even if the DNC completely ignores this, people will know how smart Yang is. Imagine what people would say. "Yang actually debated a socialist and Ben Shapiro?", "Wtf, Yang actually debated a Harvard professor? I have never seen any other candidate do that." "This guy has massive balls, even though he's Asian (oops, joking i'm asian too)." And more people will realize that the current "debates" are just reality tv shows.

I don't see any downside to this, as long as Yang says this in a polite manner. It will tell how intelligent and open minded Yang is to the American people. What do you guys think?

Sorry if I make tons of grammar mistakes, I'm from Indonesia so English is my second language. International YangGang baby.

Why does Ben Shapiro's podcast seem so popular in Canada? I live in rhe very Liberal GTA and the vast majority of my friends are apolitical, lately however, ive noticed this explosion of popularity for Conservative media in traditionally progressive S Ontario. Older ppl are following Breitbart, but the young ppl im more familiar with (who btw are surprisingly racially diverse) youth who really admire and take seriously, the views of Ben Shapiro specifically. Has anyone else noticed this? Particularly in Canada? Why does Shapiro resonate w youth, whats he doing right?

I've listened to and enjoyed Ben Shapiro's podcast but I get tired of him stating his point over and over.

Even with how fast politics moves I don't see the need to listen to an hour long update every day, most of the important news can be covered in a weekly update or in a 10-15 minute overview.

Any suggestions?