@@Josephiah24 I would be pissed off too if that guy wanted to interview me on a book and just brought up tweets from a decade ago whilst taking one sided stances the whole time.
A Shill like Andrew isn’t Worth your time, and any explanation you give, He’ll interrupt, misrepresent, misquote, Strawman, change subject, All the cliche argument tactics, that his and the cognitively socially stunted journalistic base will fall for! What did he refer to as ‘barbarism’ again, Haha. He Just disingenuously Projects his Progressive leftist rhetoric on to everyone, Like all journalists
Mate it was hilarious, especially when Shapiro thought Neill was left wing. If he'd done even the most rudimentary Google search he would have found out just how wrong that statement was 🤣🤣🤣
there’s a Big difference with British and American news/media… Bens used to big bias from both the right & left and over here we are fairly neutral on it (for the most part - before you throw Piers Morgan’s name my way 😂) and we just tend to go devils advocate on it all 😂 Andrew Neil probably had zero personal thoughts on Ben here till he started talking, even then it’s basically his job, which he does amazing to be fair, to just go opposite to WHATEVER Ben says … like Ben is used to dealing with people who are going to get emotional about it, going to get personally invested in debating him where they often then slip up and he can access his encyclopedia brain and destroy them!😂 Andrew doesn’t do that, he’s gonna listen, hear what Ben says and basically go - Nar fuck you how about this ? In a posh non cussing emotional way of course … threw him off completely i think Depends on how Ben prepped for it too, you could find just as many interviews with Andrew giving people who are liberal or ‘left’ a hard time as you would him giving the right … probably didn’t see him coming It would be epic to see both of them talk now Especially as Neil’s fucked off the BBC and doing his own shit now
@@4thzone697 I never said they did. I said that was one way that money could be made. With that said, a quick Google for "BBC pushing fear" comes up with plenty of articles to sift through if you wish. Just don't come crying to me if you happen to realize nearly any corporate media these days isn't on your side.
As someone from the UK who is on the left, I can't stand Niel as a person (cause of a couple of his positions), but to be fair to him, he is a good journalist.
@@nathankirwan2565 Not political per say, but more social if anything, like I said, I think he's a good journalist, he holds every politician across the spectrum's feet to the fire, it's just for example, you have the nut job trans activists taking it way too far on the left, Niel is just the right's version on the opposite end.
I guess as what would today be considered a classical democrat.. i feel this really was a great case of what CLASSICAL journalism is meant to entail.. truth. No political agenda. Its clear hed done his hw on Bens most aggressive repeating talking points, and instead.. backhanded him with questions, such as just his abortion stances that I’ve ALWAYS felt were way too both emotionally driven and religious. In his “prime” clipped gotchas on the topic.. i never felt he deserved those “rekt” memes bc the questions were just designed poorly. But for an honest journalist... Ben Drowned (pun intended to my Zelda gamers).
I remember hearing him talking about this interview, how he didn’t realise the differences between American and British news and various other things. He definitely let his emotions get the best of him as Heartache 3 says. And you can also tell he’s super used to having people always be against him. He’s also younger, I think he’s learned a great deal since then.
@@Spinju he now just avoids proper interviews, if he accidentally does one he does exactly what he did in this interview and trys to turn things against the other party,. He hasn't learnt anything other than don't go near well prepared questions. As the questions were about the acidity of American politics - the topic of the book he was pushing- and he's been drip feeding it himself, then anything he's ever said in the political arena was fair game. As the book sold very badly outside the US he's pretty much given up on anything but friendly or weak TV spots since
Yeah spot on there’s a Big difference with British and American news/media… Bens used to big bias from both the right & left and over here we are fairly neutral on it (for the most part - before you throw Piers Morgan’s name my way 😂) and we just tend to go devils advocate on it all 😂 Andrew Neil probably had zero personal thoughts on Ben here till he started talking, even then it’s basically his job, which he does amazing to be fair, to just go opposite to WHATEVER Ben says … like Ben is used to dealing with people who are going to get emotional about it, going to get personally invested in debating him where they often then slip up and he can access his encyclopedia brain and destroy them!😂 Andrew doesn’t do that, he’s gonna listen, hear what Ben says and basically go - Nar fuck you how about this ? In a posh non cussing emotional way of course … threw him off completely i think Depends on how Ben prepped for it too, you could find just as many interviews with Andrew giving people who are liberal or ‘left’ a hard time as you would him giving the right … probably didn’t see him coming It would be epic to see both of them talk now Especially as Neil’s fucked off the BBC and doing his own shit now
@@MT-UK Ben's level of research was obviously zip, he did it all on assumption, someone told him the BBC is left wing - many but they shout a lot louder say it is right wing, he fell for his own confirmation bias and showed exactly what his character is, cock sure, uses Gish Gallop and other techniques to try and be dominant, he wants a reaction and we all know they fail when confronted properly. He's a big fish in a big but catastrophically divided pond and plays on it, put him in even a deep puddle and he'd be out of his depth, he's not used to people actually thinking and more just blurting out stuff. Deferential interviews are pointless and the more you watch US TV you realise the right interviews the right and the left the left most of the time, it is the most efficient means of selling advertising and political ideology gets spread without confrontation, however it never allows one view to influence the other, US politics all revolves around money when you break it down to the very basics, influence is used by talking heads and partisan media to generate it for themselves and the idea that it is anything else is very thinly decorated as 'news'
@@TheGojodfrey "Ben doesn't do interviews anymore. He does them sometimes and is actually prepared when he does them now" So...he learned? You literally just proved his point.
Please remember that Andrew Neil is a journalist from the right of politics. When Shapiro claims that Neil is from the left that is hilarious. He is just as tough on people of the left and right. He owns a magazine called The Spectator, which is very right wing.
Would it not have been more productive for Neil to disclose that to Ben at some point instead of just expecting him to know that this guy, who no American has ever heard of, is also on the political right? Why continue this "debate" when there is very clearly a misunderstanding that could easily be absolved and lead to a more productive outcome? Otherwise, it absolutely comes off as a "gotcha" style, left wing hit job that Shapiro went into thinking it was going to be a debate. It truly was a total waste of time, and the fault there lies on Neil's shoulders, not Shapiro's.
@@STSGuitar16 No, that would defeat the point Andrew made by not. If you’re going to be interviewed, rule 101 says you should inform yourself of who that person is. Ben didn’t, and Andrew exploited that. See, when Andrew replies to Ben and says: “if only you knew how ridiculous that sounded, you wouldn’t have said it…”, he’s exposing Ben for the fact he’s failed to conduct the proper research on his interviewer. Ben has admitted this himself, many times since. The irony in Ben’s accusation calling Andrew Neil quote, “on the left”, is that Andrew is in fact one of the most conservative (right wing) journalists in Britain. He’s also an _objective_ journalist; nobody gets a free pass, irrelevant of your political alignment-left or right. Andrew will always leave his own views aside and play devils’ advocate, challenging the interviewee to force them to qualify their beliefs and justify their claims. He does this to allow the audience to formulate their own opinion. It’s how journalism should be. In this interview, Andrew merely asked Ben a simple question, together with highlighting contradictions between what Ben says “now” and what he has previously written. He then raises these contradictions as questions. Ben definitely went out of his comfort zone in this, and it all started because he let his ego get the better of him. He blindly accepted an interview from one of the most intelligent journalists in the world; and a highly respected one. He is old school and a master in political journalism. Few politicians accept interviews from Andrew because he is known to be ruthless; employing a combination of facts, statistics and his ability to read and learn absolutely everything about the person he’s interviewing. Don’t get me wrong, I like Ben, he’s a smart guy. But don’t kid yourself, he’s nowhere near Andrew Neil’s level of intelligence-very few are. The man is an OG of British political journalism, and former editor of the times.
Enjoying these more than the music reactions lately. You’re one of the few genuinely intelligent reactors and I appreciate how tough this could be for you. America is soooooo divided with very little middle ground from what I see here in Australia.
It's called propaganda for a reason. The reality is that 95% of America is middle class AND middle ground on most things because our culture emphasizes fixing specific issues with finesse not overreaching and sweeping reforms that mess up everything else to fix one issue. This is why you see this. They don't want to admit they are the 5% and pretend like they are loud when in reality is the same small percentage of people who took power and are now scared of losing it. For every story about a RINO we see four about a DINO because whichever institution has the power is the one that gets infiltrated by extremists and foreign meddlers.
I wouldn’t say it’s tough on him. Lol. Everyone has their opinion and he chooses to put his online. If it’s tough then it’s by his own hand and he brings it upon himself.
Shapiro admits his reaction here was a rare mistake he probably won't repeat.he takes it with good humour and I think he patched things up with Niel once he took time to research the man after the interview.that shows strong character
Shapiro has no character and he's not an honest actor. All he cares about is driving traffic to his website and grifting. He's not intellectually consistent.
Shapiro was told it be an interview but he tried to turn the book on Andrew Neil. Thing is he did nit know that Neil is a master at sticking to his guns. many reasons British politicians fear having interviews with him. Another one is Jeremy Paxman. He can be pretty brutal interviewer too.
Breitbart’s reporter incident was a big deal at the time. Glad you’re adding these important issues along with your great music reactions. Spot on too about Shapiro glazing your eyes and the analogy of reading a paragraph.👍🏻🤣 Keep it up sir!
when people like ben go into interviews, they have to be aware of people in the argument realm, this man isn't asking questions in a bias way and ben should have known this prior to the interview.
Starting a line of questioning with “The policies your side of the aisle are advocating for are going to take us back to the dark ages” and then framing women being held accountable for what some consider killing a baby as “barbaric” IS injecting bias though. The very framing of the questioning is dishonest, rather than approaching it in a proper way. This kind of presentation of viewpoints is done purposely to automatically demonize the person with the opposing viewpoint. While the legislation portion may be true (and I’m not even saying I agree with it) the “why” is misdirected and seeks to apply negative motives to those who disagree with you.
@Jotham1 Almost like this was an INTERVIEW not a DEBATE ;) Ben got smashed, he's used to debating emotionally charged kids not someone who takes none of this weird rebuttles.
@Jotham1lol if that's an interrigation then the FBI and CIA need Andrew for their black sites because that was tame. Ben is out of his depth and also a raging idiot who seem to have some sort of superiority complex because he got some faint clout after debating collage kids using his entire demeanor of speaking fast to try and gish gallop around questions and/or overwhelm his interlocutor and has been well known fpr doing so he's no as smart as people think he is and clearly got shown outside of the US his antics are useless and proceeded to get pissy when he wasn't getting the bait hook he wanted. He got shutdown hard by someone with more experience and debating tenure than he did hence his bad rebuttle of 'you are left wing' clearly showing he's got zero game outside of the US political agenda.
Ben Shapiro wasn't prepared for the interview, he was lead on & trapped, he was there just for a normal short interview about promoting his book, if he knew what he was getting into, he DEFINITELY would be prepared... I don't see anyone other than people other Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris competing with his level of logic, in EVERY interview he's been in from the past few years, he has had a concrete stance on EVERY topic he spoke about, you think this ONE SINGLE interview defeats his entire lifelong argument? He even agreed & accepted that he took the loss later on, so it's not even that big a "haha got 'em" moment as people are hyping it up to be And fun fact, this guy is the UK counterpart of US fox news, Ben Shapiro had NO IDEA what he was getting himself into
peterson is very knowledgeable about psychological topics but his stance on other topics, like religion, are logically flawed in many ways. if you enjoy learning about logic and how to formulate sound stances, check out matt dillahunty
@@An0nymous_L0gic Anything involving religion is inherently flawed in my opinion. I appreciate his perspective though in that he uses biblical stories to exemplify archetypal problems that have been around ever since people have been around. He always ties it back in to the psychology sphere and how it can be useful for your own everyday life to learn and understand some of those stories. So while I dont agree with him about god and religion, that doesn’t “nullify” Jordan Peterson. There’s still merit to what he says. That’s a common left wing thing from my experience, they use ONE bad thing or something they don’t agree with or like about a person to write the whole person off completely. That’s foolish and ignorant behavior to do that, plus you’ll never learn anything if you just give up on everyone and everything at the first sign of potential conflict.
@@djjazzyjeff1232 As Someone who subscribes to the idea of a God and a creator, I whole heartedly approve this notion. Good Ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from or who comes up with them.
This is a major pet peeve I have with society at large nowadays. If someone loses an argument, they get mocked, character assassinated, and made out like everything else they’ve done is irrelevant and they’re “done” - let’s boot them and erase them from existence. The truth is noone is perfect and no one wins every argument. It’s completely unrealistic. And i don’t think anyone would like themselves to be held to that standard; it’s futile - you will lose at some point. Rant over.
Calm down dude. Jesus tittie fukkin christ. No one is saying Ben Shapiro is now irrelevant, or whatever the hell you said. Everyone is laughing at this particular loss. People can laugh at a loss no? Now, on a different note, he doesn't have a logical stance on any of his points. No one does. They're philosophical stances. And they're only logical to people who share the same philosophy. But that's not logic. Logic has no existence in philosophical arguments. Because you cannot definitively prove someone's philosophy as correct. Now, that's not me saying the other side is more logical. I am the exact opposite of Ben Shapiro. Hell, we are polar opposites. But my views aren't any more logical than his. Because neither are based in logic, they're based in philosophy, which provides the illusion of logic. He lost a debate, it's not the end of the world and it's not the end of him. Chill out. He will win others down the road, he will lose others down the road. Doesn't make him wrong, doesn't make him right. Just makes him a person.
"answer the question respectfully" to be honest the interviewer didn't exactly ask the question repsectfully with the whole "going back to the dark ages" but I do agree that an interviewer should be asking tough questions regardless
I don't care about the personality of the president, all I care about is how his policies effect my life. The price of food and gas are messing up my life now.
Unprepared is an understatement, hate to say but in the US with the hyper partisanship , it is rare to have journalists ask tough questions. In the UK and here in Australia journalists are not afraid to put these people on the spot.
I just said idk what it says exactly but the only time ben “lost” an interaction was from a conservative asking questions from a liberal’s perspective rather, than an actual liberal. Pretty ironic. Maybe he’s just playing 4d chess lol
@@Petestanton He made Cenk look like the big stupid oaf that he is at politicon though. But it’s all about preparedness. This interview he was not ready for what kind of interview this was. It seemed like he went on-air totally cold. Bad move.
@@Petestanton If we’re looking more broadly, it struck me as Ben having a bad day, this happened probably very late in the day, due to the time difference between US and UK, and like he was just over it, unprepared, not engaged at all. And much more easily agitated than usual. He didn’t seem like himself to me in this. Like something was off. But I’ve had days like that, so, idk what I’m getting at here exactly. Lol
listening to Ben it makes you glaze over what he's saying because he talks fast over and over again - alot of it have to do with using a lot of big words which in that conversation seem very intelligent
Uncharacteristically, Ben went into this not having done his homework on the host. It's understandable that he makes this assumption, however; most opinion journalists in America will claim to be neutral, and Ben has dealt with that situation ad nauseam.
I have to agree, he should have done his homework. You could tell this was out of his range, especially how fast Ben started speaking. I know he talks fast but I had to slow it down. Like I said, I definitely agree, this comment needs to be pinned.
I've seen multiple evaluations of Ben's debate style and tactics; usually fairly and accurately describing him as aggressive. What I'd like to point out - that I haven't heard - is that in debate, his objective is to comprehensively dismantle his opponent; in discussion, he is interested in exchange of ideas. In debate, his audience is the public; in conversation, his audience is a high quantity of individuals.
This was the first interview ben shapiro was in... Every other was a debate.. And he was only used to debates... The old man didn't interrupt him, debate with him, didn't go against him... Just asked him questions...
The incident with the reported did happen and that was when Ben left them. In debate, and you say you like debate, it is often semantics, not just what you say, but how you say it. The BBC guy did suggest that Ben's abortion policy would be a return to the dark ages. Remember it's not just what you say but how you say it. Yes, Ben got angry and kept revisiting the question when the correct thing for him to do was to just ignore it unless the BBC guy clarified his question more. Often when Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson go to interviews to promote a book, the interviewer will go off on a tangent rather than discuss the book. There is a famous clip of Robert Downey Jr. walking out of an interview that was supposed to be to promote a new movie but the first question the interviewer asked was about politics, he just unclipped his mike and walked out.
Ben basically says “who cares if they’re new, as long as they’re good” while you’re saying you don’t care if they’re new, only if they’re good. He said what you were saying, but you didn’t hear him because you spoke over him.
I mean if you are Ben Shapiro and go at this Interview or Debate thinking it's a debate, I would understand his reaction. And even if he didn't handle the situation as well as he could have, I think it's unfair to say that he was acting out of anger when he clearly didn't insult anyone or something.. It was more of a misunderstanding I guess. Love those videos, keep it up!
I think that some people have a problem with "political content" because they come to your channel or youtube in general for an escape from politics and all the BS and depression that comes with it. EDIT: To those that have and are going to tell me to just not watch the videos with political content if that's not what I want to watch. Firstly, thanks. I hadn't thought of that. I can't believe that I've been torturing myself by watching every video featuring political content that Alex has posted. Secondly, I was just giving an alternate reason as to why some people may be disliking Alex posting this type of content. I don't care if he posts political content. I don't watch it if it's dealing with a political subject/person that I have no interest in or dislike. Just like I haven't watched every metal reaction Alex has done. If it's a band I have heard before and don't like, I don't watch the reaction. But if it's a band I like or a band I've never heard before but want to give a chance, I do watch it.
True and I accept that! I just wanted to continue doing what made the channel do well in the first place which was branching out to different content! Did it with metal and it was the best decision I’ve made in a long time! Had to keep it going! Nonetheless metal will always be a huge part of our channel ❤️ thank you so much for stopping by and watching it and leaving a comment too! Means the world 🌎
@@snoox27 biased politics is just politics though. To ignore that fact is to be willfully ignorant or deceptive. That’s what I hate so much about the CNNs of the world. They pretend to be objective journalists while voting in lock-stop and pushing whatever agenda the DNC is working toward at the time. I have more respect for people who are open about their political proclivities while still trying to observe and see all sides. It IS possible to acknowledge both, and do both.
This video is from 2019 and he even admitted be got "destroyed." Being able to admit when you lost something speaks volumes about a person's character.
fair enough. But just to push back with a couple thoughts: it speaks more when you stay and take your lumps, he knew he lost that's why he quit. But I can't say I blame him I probably would have too. Another point i'd make is: I don't think he would retain much credibility if he said he "destroyed" this interview. I think it's obvious this didn't go all that well for him and to say otherwise would make him look like he was in denial or just plain dumb. He kind of had to acknowledge this L if he wants to be taken serious as a debate partner moving forward.
@@thedoctorroth Shapiro is still better than you, Bert. Stay in your lane. You are a man amongst titans. Know your role, and please be quiet. Love you.
Framing of the question as 'your side is barbaric and from the dark ages' ABSOLUTLEY matters. Sure, in terms of high logic is the idea good or bad, it may not be relevant, but that is not the level at which real political and cultural discourse takes place because real people are subject to biases and fallacies and emotion. Ben was absolutely right to call this reporter out on the absurdly partisan framing of that question, which was wholly inappropriate. That is the only appropriate way in which you can respond to a heavily framed question. Any other answer buys into the false premise of the frame. It isn't Ben getting "triggered," it's Ben appropriately pointing out that it's a leading, framed question that isn't appropriate from a self-titled unbiased reporter. Maybe he could have held his emotions better in check and reacted better, but I have never really seen this as a loss for Ben, I thought both sides came out looking pretty ridiculous.
Best reaction person on you tube !!!! Love your channel You totally remind me of someone, I just can’t figure it out. Not so much your look but your vibe. It’s all good. Peace😎✌️
Completely agree with Ben. This wasn't an interview and the other guy wasn't being objective he was trying to get that gotcha moment just bringing up stuff from Ben's past. His questions were meant to box Ben into a corner. The guy saying it's barbaric for protecting babies from being killed is barbaric itself.
So you wanted him to pitch Ben softball questions? He challenged him about his view points and Shapiro couldn't live up to it. You're also mincing words, he never said it protecting babies was barbaric. But you decided to interpret it that way in order to to twist a subject matter in your favor with colourful wording.
This is “barbaric” or this is “going back to Middle Ages” isn’t an argument. I don’t want interviewers to just throw softball questions, but Ben needed to be asked an actual, valid and at least somewhat sound argument. Just calling something “barbaric” or “going back to Middle Ages” is almost like just calling names. I get that Ben lost his emotions but this was not a great interviewer either. At least play a good devils advocate. But the American woke left does sound exactly like this - just name calling so
@@TheCounterpointer dude, you're no different than original poster here, you chose to tune out everything the interviewer was saying once he began talking about something you didn't agree with. If you bothered to even listen, he said throwing a woman in prison for 30 years is a return to the dark ages. And did you seriously just ask him to be a good devils advocate? Did you want him to toss him easy questions or something? My god
@JJ Rod god.. all the disrespect and trolling, I assume you’re 12 years old. Look, are you really saying that “throwing women into jail for 30 years is going back to dark ages” is a good argument? What’s the difference between this and “willingly killing babies is going back to dark ages”? The two are same to me, to be honest. Also where is the evidence that Ben actually agrees with 30 years? Not sure where the 30 years even came from, is that from an actual case (can you name an actual case with 30 years?) or just a high end of sentencing guideline? If you bother to at least explain how “throwing women in jail for 30 years is going back to dark ages”, and what is the difference between this and “willingly killing babies is going back to dark ages”, at least try that? And without throwing insults or name calling?
12:17 but that is bens point. the interviewer is saying that ben is responsible for the harshening of political discourse while failing to understand that his own description of the opposition harshens discourse. there are tons of ways to ask the question about abortions without calling the right barbaric. a simple "why do you support policies against abortion?" would have sufficed. the interviewer chose to frame the question in a manner that demonizes the other sides opinion. between two opposing debaters this is common as both are in fact opposite. the issue us the interviewer is claiming to be objective. if you are left wing than present as left wing. guising yourself as central when your leftist gives the false impression you are asking questions from a neutral position. this guy claims to "play devils advocate" but i guarantee if he had a pro choice guest on his show he would not ask "why do you support the murder of babies?". if you wish to be centrist you must play devils advocate equally aggressively to both sides
Problem is, leftists are rife with double standards and these are the losers who always claim to be centrist when their moronic world-views allign perfectly with the idiotic policies of the left. And then they go 'REEE! WE ARE CENTRISTS! But communism/socialism! Baby Murder for all! Teach children all about LGBTQABCDEFG! More Government! More Taxes!' At that point, no, you aren't a centrist, you are a leftist posing as a centrist so that people won't call you out for it.
Except you’re wrong. Neill is a very conservative pundit. Perhaps he’s just disgusted by Shapiro’s brand of conservatism, which is, in fact, disgusting.
@@johnboy32064 You mean ACTUAL conservatism, not the RINO's that have been plaguing the republican party for a while now? The dude is a loser. All he did was act like a typical leftist: Strawmen and misrepresenation by taking old tweets out of context. The dude can claim he is conservative until he is blue in the face, if his views are as we saw in this interview, he is a democrat. If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck.
I think in the preparations between Ben and Andrew, Andrew should say I'm going to ask questions the way the left will ask to serve as a devil's advocate. If Ben knew Andrew would be throwing knifes in any and all arguments, I'm sure Ben would have acted differently. I definitely have a differing approach to an argument when someone is playing devil's advocate vs someone intentionally asking irritating questions to make me look bad.
I loved the ending to that interview hahah. "Thank you for your time and for showing that anger is not part of American political discourse." He says as the person he is talking to is quitting the interview due to his own anger.
That’s because he started lying about a tweet he said and quoted a book he wrote 6 years after the tweets. He learned from his mistakes but the journalist keeps implying that he didn’t even tho he has a list of dumb shit he’s ever said on his website. It seems like the interview was pointless.
Ben Shapiro handled it the way he handles it when he's disagreed with and things aren't going his way. "I've never heard of you" to a legend of British broadcasting is the attitude of a 15 year old kid. To the point he wouldn't let go. I feel that taking the legal right to abortion away from a woman with threats of prison time is completely barbaric. If a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry a baby to term? Absolutely not and that's a point that BS danced past because he was too wound up about being disagreed with.
If I was the interviewer the question on abortion would've been more gruesome and not intended for BBC. "So mister Shapiro, your beloved wife is kidnapped and gangraped by the entirety of Hamas. Would you keep and raise their baby as your own?"
Yeah I'm later in the video now and it is well deserved that Ben keeps hitting him on the dark ages shit. That was a lousy thing for Andrew to say as a man who supposedly wants to have a productive conversation. Then he keeps dredging up old tweets trying to go for character destruction rather than engage with his arguments.
@@tblickle I think it looked that way but I don't think that's what Neil set out to do. Around that time in America, cancel culture ran rampant with the most popular form of cancelling someone was to dredge old tweets and get them on that. I think Ben assumed that's what was happening but I think the situation was more mirrored than clear. In the context of the interview, Neil pulling old tweets was to procure if Ben either still believed in what he said or how and why he changed his mind and to provide context on the greater topic which was his book and the motivations behind writing it by delving into the author's philosophies. So the way it looked to me was a case of correlation not being causation.
Who is Shapiro to make decisions about abortion or not. Is not according to Shapiro's opinion not the man's job to bring children up, then why would men shave any opinion on abortion?
I came to your channel for the metal, but I'm definitely sticking around for you. I find your comments and reactions to (well most things I've seen so far) to be thoughtful and interesting. Keep doing what you're doing, bro!
Here's what I see in this whole thing. If I denounced something I've said in my past which I've done so many many times throughout my history, we should leave it at that and let people grow from who they were. Digging up old graves does nothing but stinking up the whole joint.
@@eddhardy1054 that's not really true. Like him or not he has a pretty stat driven and fact driven argument. I challenge you to find a single instance where he goes after a individual in the manner this BBC guy goes after him. He even tried to say he has an article on his website of stupid things he's said and the guy kept attacking and trying to de-legitimize the book.
@@RgTripleC then I must have watched a different bloke called Ben Shapiro who did all those things. Imagine that two people with the same name who look identical 🤯
Personal I think Shapiro lost this interview before it even started by virtue of the fact that he didn't even bother to put Andrew Neil's name into Google. It also would have helped ih he had bothered to find out how current affairs interviews are done in the UK. To put it simply Shapiro set himself up up look like an arrogant ass and its safe to say he succeeded.
Perhaps you don’t know the backstory. He was set up. They were supposed to be talking about his new book and have a simple conversation about it. The reporter threw smug opinions at him, and it threw him off. I’ll always call Ben out when I disagree with him on something. But, this was a complete and total curveball.
@@Jesus_is-Lord77 that's just it is was about the views Ben put forward in his book versus the views he previously put forward on twitter and in tv/radio appearances. I think that is what caught Ben off guard the most, having his current views challenged by views he previously put forward.
6:46 It’s called playing devil’s advocate so the person you are questioning can more thoroughly explain their stance. (Also it strengthens their stance and helps them to understand their own perspective better). I do it all the time, and people almost always take it as an attack, like Ben Shapiro did. It’s so frustrating!!! I wish the interviewer had explained this to him! I know he somewhat tried, but he didn’t do it very well.
This was my critique of Ben Shapiro for a long time. His shows are all about how we need to fight back against the left, but then his book is the complete opposite message: that we need to come together again and be nice to each other. And this interviewer expertly probed that inconsistency.
Well although it is hypocritical, I think that everyone has their own ideologies of what is the best step forward. The problem is enforcing that ideology. It's human nature, we believe that our views are right and the opposition is wrong. Even though we know what is the right thing to do, we can't avoid our human nature to fight opposition. Hope that made sense.
Except the fact is that the only way to ever come together again is to fight the toxic marxists who have taken over the entirity of our universities, media, government, and left wing party of our nation. THEY are the ones who refuse to give an inch on ANY sibject and call anyone they disagree with an unforgivable nazi, racist, etc.. It sure as hell isnt the RIGHT that shouts down and burns entire cities to the ground the second someone they dislike gets a platform to speak lol. Its like Bush's comment of not negotiating with terrorists. Despite the hostage on the line our nation has become, negotiating with these terrorists will get is NOWHERE. Fighting fire with fire is the only path, as you cant beat someone who has indoctrinated the entire nation to be violently pro-socialist as bezmenov of the KGB said was actively being done to us by the soviets 40+ years ago.
You missed the point of how Andrew Neil asked the question. He used brutal and barbaric to describe the law instead of just asking a straight question. The sensationalism is what can sway opinions of people that don't know the specifics. As a lawyer I figured you'd understand that. I also call out sensationalism when I see thumbnail video descriptions. "Jen Psaki explodes on reporter for asking question". *Jen gives slightly snarky response*
@@ranwolf1240 You know what else is barbaric, Margaret sanger = a racist and a eugenic so yea keep supporting barbaric ideas (Abortion) that the KKK and Hitler have praised in the past, after all there is more black babies being aborted than being given birth, so you get what you wanted and it worked, explain this bacteria is life on Mars but a beating heart on Earth is not? you love to deny science and ethic don't you. BTW medical conditions and pregnancy are not the same.
The irony, calling someone idea fachist is ok language but calling it dark age is not acceptable. It feels like as long as its not pointed at his ideas is freedom of speech and acceptable . Lol
You should react to Thomas Sowell. He’s a brilliant economist that grew up in Harlem, and has written many books with interesting takes on various issues. Like Jordan Peterson, he’s more interested in evidence than what’s politically correct.
Neil helped to form a right wing TV news station here in the UK, similar to Fox News and is well known to be a right leaning journalist. If only Shapiro knew.
As you're probably familiar, Neil's use to GB News quickly came to an end. Although I'm grateful to him for getting it launched, the inconsistency in his words when the channel first went on the air and the nature of him leaving is something I found suspicious. I need to watch more GB News to be honestly. Do you watch it often?
@@RobertT1999 no, I think it's hot garbage. Out of the presenters on the channel he was the one with the most credibility and from what I saw there were that many problems with the channel's launch and unkept promises he had to leave before it took the journalistic credibility he had left
@@Chris_Elliot84 Haha, I love your honesty. I'm not familiar with the unkept promises, but I'm definitely familiar with the technical difficulties. It really was embarrassing to watch, so I can absolutely understand it being a driving force for him leaving. Although I would argue if the existence of the channel was as important as it was made out to be, it would've been worth staying longer. That being said, maybe the unkept promises aspect was bigger than I could ever imagine. I was pretty devastated when he did leave though because I've always been interested in his programmes.
Shapiro does what americans think debating is, talking fast, interrupting the other person, not answering questions, getting offended, being rude, bravado instead of brains.
I liked your music reactions. I really like your political reactions. Way to help to bring important issues and ideologies to some that would never click on them. The more well rounded each of us is the better society as a whole is.
In all fairness, Ben Shapiro immediately admitted on Twitter that he made a mess of this and publically apologised to Andrew Neil. His mistake, in his words, was lack of preparation, and I've noticed in general that he isn't particularly clued up on things outside the USA or Israel, so presumably that includes the British media landscape. Anyone who's seen Andrew Neil before would be in no doubt that they'd get a challenging interview and heaven help them if they wern't ready for it. On the flip side, I do think Andrew Neil went a bit far in repeatedly talking over Ben trying to point out that he has, on his website, a long list of things that he's said in the past that he's since retracted/apologised for (he's been doing this since college, so there was a fair bit of young-and-dumb in his early years). I think that if he'd been allowed to make that point, it would have been better and given the viewers a better understanding of his character.
This is why Ben Shapiro usually debates clueless college students. When Ben debates somebody who doesn't get fooled by his fast talking he gets destroyed.
hey...... please do explain an example to me. which his logical explainations are false. the reason people like him have to be assertive and fast in giving their opinion is cause the people who live with the rule "my feeling matter more than your facts" start getting aggressive and try to shut you up when you try to say something after. are feelings totally irrelevant. no. they are relevant on an individual level. your feeling matter. but it matters only to you. it doesnt matter to other people what you feel. they need the truth. the fact that the truth is being considered irrelevant than feelings is concerning.
I totally agree with your opinion and summary of the video. Andrew Neil is one of my favourite interviewers but I am also a fan of Ben. I hope they get a chance to complete some kind of chat/discussion on politics in the future we can listen in on even if it’s not an interview.
The problem with Neil is he wasn’t playing devil’s advocate, he was pulling quotes out of context as Shapiro stated and trying to act more like a trash mag journalist than a real journalist.
@Logan Etter To me, he is no better then Kathy with her 'So you are saying...' Both take their people's views and misrepresent them and then act all offended when someone gets mad. Jordan simply remained cool and collected and basically educated that dumb broad like the child she was. Ben lost his composure and though I can understand why, being accused of such shit by some washed up hasbeen like Andrew is definetly gonna grate on anyone'S nerves, he should have remained calm and used his usual style to put that loser in his place.
Ben has grown so much even from this point in time. He himself talked about this interview and mistakes he made. Incredible character to own up to that. I fully believe Ben was more arrogant and quick on the trigger when he was younger and now you can see patience and maturity in his stuff. He’s also found an amazing sounding board at the daily wire.
@@avenuePad that sentence was speaking on this time and also before this. But yes when he was younger lol. A person can change drastically and have incredible growth in less than a year. They also get older, obviously. 🙄😂
In Ben's defense, it would be extremely difficult (maybe even impossible) to be totally prepared and emotionally controlled in every interview year after year lol.
Also, hard to remain calm when a washed up loser keeps trying to demonize you by misrepresenting old tweets instead of talking about the book which he was invited for.
@@imaran1303 Exactly. The way the questions were presented was reason enough for him to point out the bias from the interviewer. Also I do not believe he was "put in his place" but rather let his irritation get the better of him. Alex does not like him the way he presents his arguments and has stated as such, but he may be reaching on his title regarding what happened,.... if you approach a discussion with loaded questions dripping with a condescending delivery, you are not looking for a discussion IMO and should be called out.
@@Chinchillapetclips I don't think this is relevant to my point (if you responding to my comment and not someone else's). All I was saying is that it has to be extremely difficult to never get upset and be completely controlled every interview. Sometimes you're just off, and you probably cant predict when that will happen. It's like even LeBron James is gonna drop a few games every season. I wasn't even making a political point; just saying I don't blame him for getting upset when he does so many interviews which are by nature highly charged situations.
If you actually dig into Ben Shapiro you find out pretty quickly like many people in politics - he's a grifter. He tries to come off as intelligent but he's really not as smart as his fanboys would have you believe.
Shapiro has such a high opinion of himself it's shocking. Nice to see him squirm and show his shitty side instead of showing off in front of college students
Yea Ben didn't get "destroyed". He got rightly mad when he was told he was going on a puffy interview just to have the guy LITERALLY accuse his religion as being "barbaric" and rapid fire twist things he'd said on twitter and in his books to try and make him out to be some racist bigot. When Ben DIDN'T KNOW, was that this guy has a long history of doing this style of show. But don't try and bash a Jew's religion as barbaric to his face while practically accusing him of being a Nazi supporting fascist without expecting them to get mad.
Remember this. Bens great but this was not his best moment. He definitely screwed up big time. He himself admitted to being owned later though so props to him for taking the L.
He's not great at all. He couldn't defend a barbaric anti-public health policy that the rest of the civilized world allows. He defends legal apartheid in Israel, and defends the greed of the wealthiest corporations in the world. He's a shit stain.
@@sullen2420 First if all. I like Ben but I surely don't have to agree with everything he says. Unlike you, who I bet feels the need to be against anyone who doesn't share your every political viewpoint. 1. What anti public health policy are you speaking of? Specify because otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about and therefore cant have an opinion on it. 2. I really have no opinion on Ben's beliefs on Israel as I have not researched it enough to have a real viewpoint, though I do believe that Ben may be too emotionally involved in the situation in Israel as he is Jewish, which may blind his beliefs. You'll also need to tell me what apartheid is as I dont know the word. 3. He doesn't defend corporate greed, he has denounced it repeatedly. Dont strawman his viewpoints just because you dont agree with him on capitalism or whatever the hell. Keep your argument civil. The proper thing is to say you disagree with him. Calling him or anyone a shit stain is really rude and comes off as disingenuous or emotionally charged.
@@uthergoodman401 If you support a literal apartheid (look up the word please), cutting off food, medicine, regulating the amount of electricity in Palestine, regulating the LITERAL CALORIC INTAKE of Gazans, you would realize what a horrible person he actually is. PLEASE watch some Abby Martin, she will open your eyes.
@@uthergoodman401 Check Abby out, and check Ben's Israel videos out. You will see what he supports, he is VERY strongly in support of the Israeli state and its actions.
I am a Georgia resident. You should know, neither of the parts about penalties for traveling out of state or miscarriages are true. Ben was obviously unprepared to talk about the law.
I found that a bit hard to believe when the Brit said it. What does the law say in Georgia? If Ben didn't know about that he just should have said so. The best decision I ever made in my career was to stop being afraid of asking questions. As long as they are the right questions nobody will think you're stupid. Ben should have asked: "I am unfamiliar with the laws you quoted, could you read them back to me please?"
I feel that Ben Shapiro is very intelligent but like all of us he does have his own opinions. I do not always agree with them but I do give him the respect of listening to his views and try to understand why he sees things the way he does. The one thing I do not like about him is the fact that he thinks he is always right and it forces him to come back and make statements about what he was wrong about. This is both good and bad because for someone as intelligent as him he has made some blunders that he could have avoided if he kept a more calm and slower conversation rather than just blurting out answers. Sometimes it is better to stop and think before you speak no matter how intelligent you are. I may be a little weird or just like punishment but I do listen to his videos even if I know I will not agree with him. It allows me to get a point of view from someone I know is intelligent and has usually thought through a topic before he makes his opinion. One never knows when they will learn something new from someone they don't agree with. It is how we grow and understand different people.
Too many people treat politics like sports teams. And if you criticize the party they've chosen then they take it like you are criticizing them. Too many people can't have a debate without taking things personally. This is why most people can't have productive discussions around the topic.
Alex, I understand your position on the interviewer doing his job, but allow me to offer some different perspectives. 1) And this is Ben's major failure here, the interview was supposed to be about his book that came out at the time- Ben likely walked into this thinking it'd be a cushy book interview, and any intense discussion would be focused on the book. He should've known better, especially from the BBC. 2) You say just focus on answering the question, but that would be a mistake. The interviewer purposefully framed Ben's position as bad and barbaric through the question phrasing. If you let that slide your argument essentially starts with the assumption (in the viewers mind) that your position is bad and you allow the onus to fall on you to explain how it's not bad before even getting to why your position is right. If you start with explaining why your position is right you create cognitive dissonance in the viewers mind about how something so bad could be right. A good, objective interviewer invites the interviewee to explain their position without coloring the question. This clown, as evident by the rest of his questions, walked in with an agenda to attack, and that turns the scenario into a debate, not an interview. Counterattacking is fair game. Ben simply wasn't prepared for this level of attack. See Jordan Peterson with Cathy Newman for a great example of proper preparation and response. 3) Again, this was supposed to be a book interview, and he proceeds to pull quote after quote out of context. This is the lowest of the low in the world of journalism. This is essentially “debating for dummies.” When you have nothing to offer in a debate, bring up lots of unrelated ideas out of context. This makes the other person waste time and energy dismantling your points before even getting to anything of their own. The really key is to just bring up something else before they can even discuss something of their own. Masters do this quickly and relentlessly enough that the other person is just always defensive, and then it’s called a Gish Gallop. I get why Ben quit. This wasn't an interview, it was a pseudo-debate with someone that just wanted to attack and not actually discuss, engage, or contextualize. He had nothing to gain by staying there, certainly not publicity for his book. That being said, he should've known this was the woke BBC and been better prepared. When he is prepared for this kind of scenario it can lead to hilarity. See his Piers Morgan interview on guns for example.
That's exactly what journalistic interviews are. A good journalist can interview everyone from progressive to libertarian by taking the opposing positions and therefore challenging the guest. Shapiro is used to only get interviewed by "journalists" friendly to him or whenever he knows the other person is bad at defending his or her position. He just didn't see actual journalism coming at him.
@@Jutsch80HD “Actual journalism” is not just pulling a bunch of out of context quotes from his past and making him defend them. A major component of “actual journalism” is contextualizing in a neutral way, and a major component of a good interviewer is to let the interviewee speak to the topic at hand. A good journalistic interviewer would then press or follow up with questions on any issues or inconsistencies in their response. This guy starts in with a question calling his position on abortion barbaric and harkening back to the dark ages. He, without any context, brings up a false partisan corner case of getting prosecuted for a miscarriage. Now, these are all perspectives a good journalist can have Ben address by bringing them up in a neutral way, but this guy is openly hostile. That does not make for good journalism or a productive interview. To be fair, it's also not good journalism if the interviewer is too friendly and doesn't offer any meaningful challenges. Ben gets interviewed by plenty of openly hostile “journalists,” but I don't think he was as well prepared for this one.
@@metalheadisme8389 I agree that journalism should be neutral, but interviews can't be. In an interview, the interviewer has to take an opposing position. And no offense, but the fight of the religious extreme in the US against female freedoms is objectively "barbaric and harkening back to the dark ages". What these people are doing out of their believes in a fantasy book is embarrassing for a civilized country. And Shapiro knows that, that's why he's afraid to defend it in a setting where the other side doesn't fall for his cheap mind tricks
@@Jutsch80HD I will have to disagree slightly in that the interviewer can present and contextualize the opposing view without adopting it and becoming hostile. In my opinion that crosses the line from interview to debate. If you want to talk about barbaric, talk about why doctors don't use imaging when performing third term abortions- it’s because then they'd have to watch the fetus squirm away in agony as they dismember it. The problem over here is that extremists on one side says partial birth abortions should be ok, and extremists on the other say condoms and the morning after pill are bad. Those extremists get all the airtime. Most real folks over here are in the middle, much like most European countries where they do not allow late term abortions. The tricky question is when does life begin, and many over here would prefer to err on the side of not taking life as opposed to the alternative.
@@metalheadisme8389 Who wants third term abortions? That's such a strawman argument. The debate is between women having access to abortions until weeks 12 or 20 at max on one side and crazy christians (and jews because its partly the same fantasy book) who want to ban women from having reproductive rights on the other side. If most Americans are pro choice in a reasonable fashion, why do crazy religious extremists win all the time? Banning abortions completely leads to suffering and death caused by back alley "doctors" performing procedures unregulated on one hand and thousands of unwanted kids ending up in poverty or in the cps system on the other.
And he still did better then Andrew, considering that all that washed up loser did was misrepresent tweets instead of interviewing him about the book like he was supposed to. I would have gotten mad at this loser as well. Though Ben is used to holding himself at a higher standard, so it makes sense why he considers it a failure.
@@glyngasson8450 Explain, cause last I saw, he answered the questions, his 'failure' is getting irritated by this hasbeen constantly propping up strawmen and misrepresenting old tweets and taking them out of context. Which is entirely fair, to get angry at some moron who claims himself a conservative and then using leftist talking points to try and get cheap gottcha's when it was meant to be a interview about his book. Ben sees it as a failure cause he lost his cool and didn't prepare, he went in thinking it would be like any other interview, he was expecting veiled attacks at his morality, not openly being called 'barbaric' for believing that babies shouldn't be murdered.
@@imaran1303 firstly, because Andrew Neil is old does not mean he is a has been. All UK politicians are frightened of him because he is equally hard on both the left and the right. He owns a political magazine, The Spectator, which is absolutely right wing. I don't know if it was ego or stupidity which led Shapiro to not research his interviewer, then to claim Neil is from the left is just ludicrous. Neil did not misrepresent the tweets, he read them out. The BBC is constantly slated for being biased to both the left and the right, which probably means it's doing a good job. It's not like the ridiculous situation in the US where you have republican news channels and democrat news channels. News channels should be unbiased, they should just tell the news.
@@glyngasson8450 You are not the first to say this and as such, show me a link where he goes out of his way to demonize a left-wing interviewee, and I mean, full on slander, calling them barbaric, claiming other horrible things that a left-wing would call a right-winger. I said so before, the dude can claim he is right-wing all he wants, I want evidence of this. Because the only evidence I saw in that interview was him taking posts out of context and misrepresenting Ben and insulting him while he was at it. Ben assumed he would be like any other news guy he had to deal with, which is a pretty fair assumption to make. Considering your UK reporters are absolute hacks like Kathy Newman or Piers Morgan, who got owned by Ben already. So excuse me for thinking that this Andrew is no better then Mr. Piers who also was all like 'Dur! Why is this about left and right? That isn't a thing in the UK!' Yeah, cause you don't sound like a absolute leftist and because your country is a haven for whiny babies where one can be imprisoned for a joke. As we saw with Count Dankula.
I don't envy Ben Shapiro. The man seems so tightly wound up, so stressed, so bitter, so angry, that I would put money on him having a stroke before the age of 40.
I can appreciate that Shapiro said on his show that this was a well deserved loss. He let his emotions get the better of him.
he was not used to andrews interviewing style
but he answered everything Neil has asked him up until the end
@@Josephiah24 I would be pissed off too if that guy wanted to interview me on a book and just brought up tweets from a decade ago whilst taking one sided stances the whole time.
A Shill like Andrew isn’t Worth your time, and any explanation you give, He’ll interrupt, misrepresent, misquote, Strawman, change subject, All the cliche argument tactics, that his and the cognitively socially stunted journalistic base will fall for!
What did he refer to as ‘barbarism’ again, Haha. He Just disingenuously Projects his Progressive leftist rhetoric on to everyone, Like all journalists
facts don't care about feelings.
LOL.....that was crazy. I think it was hard for Shapiro because the old guy was just sooooo calm about EVERYTHING. It was quite entertaining
Mate it was hilarious, especially when Shapiro thought Neill was left wing. If he'd done even the most rudimentary Google search he would have found out just how wrong that statement was 🤣🤣🤣
there’s a Big difference with British and American news/media… Bens used to big bias from both the right & left and over here we are fairly neutral on it (for the most part - before you throw Piers Morgan’s name my way 😂) and we just tend to go devils advocate on it all 😂 Andrew Neil probably had zero personal thoughts on Ben here till he started talking, even then it’s basically his job, which he does amazing to be fair, to just go opposite to WHATEVER Ben says … like Ben is used to dealing with people who are going to get emotional about it, going to get personally invested in debating him where they often then slip up and he can access his encyclopedia brain and destroy them!😂
Andrew doesn’t do that, he’s gonna listen, hear what Ben says and basically go - Nar fuck you how about this ? In a posh non cussing emotional way of course … threw him off completely i think
Depends on how Ben prepped for it too, you could find just as many interviews with Andrew giving people who are liberal or ‘left’ a hard time as you would him giving the right … probably didn’t see him coming
It would be epic to see both of them talk now
Especially as Neil’s fucked off the BBC and doing his own shit now
British people are kinda known for staying calm. It's pretty hard to get a British person to lash out.
As a Brit, the line 'there's not many bucks to be made in the BBC I assure you' was so fast and hillarious
but untrue...
@@elingrome5853 prove it.
@@carlmclemore6104 They have a lot of influence to push fear. Fear sells things. That's one way off the top of my head.
@@caddyguy5369 and what does the BBC use fear to sell? ‘Muh fear sells things🤓’ isn’t a counter to Mr Niels statement
@@4thzone697 I never said they did. I said that was one way that money could be made.
With that said, a quick Google for "BBC pushing fear" comes up with plenty of articles to sift through if you wish. Just don't come crying to me if you happen to realize nearly any corporate media these days isn't on your side.
As someone from the UK who is on the left, I can't stand Niel as a person (cause of a couple of his positions), but to be fair to him, he is a good journalist.
@@nathankirwan2565 Not political per say, but more social if anything, like I said, I think he's a good journalist, he holds every politician across the spectrum's feet to the fire, it's just for example, you have the nut job trans activists taking it way too far on the left, Niel is just the right's version on the opposite end.
@@nathankirwan2565 Depending on the views in question, that can be kind of important and a valid reason to not like someone, don't you think?
It's a mark of maturity to admit when you're wrong.
well I am quite sure i never heard anyone characterizing Niel as a leftist. That was a new one .. and funny in itself.
I guess as what would today be considered a classical democrat.. i feel this really was a great case of what CLASSICAL journalism is meant to entail.. truth. No political agenda. Its clear hed done his hw on Bens most aggressive repeating talking points, and instead.. backhanded him with questions, such as just his abortion stances that I’ve ALWAYS felt were way too both emotionally driven and religious. In his “prime” clipped gotchas on the topic.. i never felt he deserved those “rekt” memes bc the questions were just designed poorly. But for an honest journalist... Ben Drowned (pun intended to my Zelda gamers).
I remember hearing him talking about this interview, how he didn’t realise the differences between American and British news and various other things. He definitely let his emotions get the best of him as Heartache 3 says. And you can also tell he’s super used to having people always be against him. He’s also younger, I think he’s learned a great deal since then.
@SpaceBoy I looked up the video and it seems to be 3 years ago so definitely not recent.
@@Spinju he now just avoids proper interviews, if he accidentally does one he does exactly what he did in this interview and trys to turn things against the other party,.
He hasn't learnt anything other than don't go near well prepared questions.
As the questions were about the acidity of American politics - the topic of the book he was pushing- and he's been drip feeding it himself, then anything he's ever said in the political arena was fair game.
As the book sold very badly outside the US he's pretty much given up on anything but friendly or weak TV spots since
Yeah spot on there’s a Big difference with British and American news/media… Bens used to big bias from both the right & left and over here we are fairly neutral on it (for the most part - before you throw Piers Morgan’s name my way 😂) and we just tend to go devils advocate on it all 😂 Andrew Neil probably had zero personal thoughts on Ben here till he started talking, even then it’s basically his job, which he does amazing to be fair, to just go opposite to WHATEVER Ben says … like Ben is used to dealing with people who are going to get emotional about it, going to get personally invested in debating him where they often then slip up and he can access his encyclopedia brain and destroy them!😂
Andrew doesn’t do that, he’s gonna listen, hear what Ben says and basically go - Nar fuck you how about this ? In a posh non cussing emotional way of course … threw him off completely i think
Depends on how Ben prepped for it too, you could find just as many interviews with Andrew giving people who are liberal or ‘left’ a hard time as you would him giving the right … probably didn’t see him coming
It would be epic to see both of them talk now
Especially as Neil’s fucked off the BBC and doing his own shit now
@@MT-UK Ben's level of research was obviously zip, he did it all on assumption, someone told him the BBC is left wing - many but they shout a lot louder say it is right wing, he fell for his own confirmation bias and showed exactly what his character is, cock sure, uses Gish Gallop and other techniques to try and be dominant, he wants a reaction and we all know they fail when confronted properly.
He's a big fish in a big but catastrophically divided pond and plays on it, put him in even a deep puddle and he'd be out of his depth, he's not used to people actually thinking and more just blurting out stuff.
Deferential interviews are pointless and the more you watch US TV you realise the right interviews the right and the left the left most of the time, it is the most efficient means of selling advertising and political ideology gets spread without confrontation, however it never allows one view to influence the other, US politics all revolves around money when you break it down to the very basics, influence is used by talking heads and partisan media to generate it for themselves and the idea that it is anything else is very thinly decorated as 'news'
@@TheGojodfrey "Ben doesn't do interviews anymore. He does them sometimes and is actually prepared when he does them now"
So...he learned? You literally just proved his point.
Please remember that Andrew Neil is a journalist from the right of politics. When Shapiro claims that Neil is from the left that is hilarious. He is just as tough on people of the left and right. He owns a magazine called The Spectator, which is very right wing.
Would it not have been more productive for Neil to disclose that to Ben at some point instead of just expecting him to know that this guy, who no American has ever heard of, is also on the political right? Why continue this "debate" when there is very clearly a misunderstanding that could easily be absolved and lead to a more productive outcome? Otherwise, it absolutely comes off as a "gotcha" style, left wing hit job that Shapiro went into thinking it was going to be a debate. It truly was a total waste of time, and the fault there lies on Neil's shoulders, not Shapiro's.
@@STSGuitar16 No, that would defeat the point Andrew made by not. If you’re going to be interviewed, rule 101 says you should inform yourself of who that person is. Ben didn’t, and Andrew exploited that. See, when Andrew replies to Ben and says: “if only you knew how ridiculous that sounded, you wouldn’t have said it…”, he’s exposing Ben for the fact he’s failed to conduct the proper research on his interviewer. Ben has admitted this himself, many times since. The irony in Ben’s accusation calling Andrew Neil quote, “on the left”, is that Andrew is in fact one of the most conservative (right wing) journalists in Britain. He’s also an _objective_ journalist; nobody gets a free pass, irrelevant of your political alignment-left or right. Andrew will always leave his own views aside and play devils’ advocate, challenging the interviewee to force them to qualify their beliefs and justify their claims. He does this to allow the audience to formulate their own opinion. It’s how journalism should be. In this interview, Andrew merely asked Ben a simple question, together with highlighting contradictions between what Ben says “now” and what he has previously written. He then raises these contradictions as questions. Ben definitely went out of his comfort zone in this, and it all started because he let his ego get the better of him. He blindly accepted an interview from one of the most intelligent journalists in the world; and a highly respected one. He is old school and a master in political journalism. Few politicians accept interviews from Andrew because he is known to be ruthless; employing a combination of facts, statistics and his ability to read and learn absolutely everything about the person he’s interviewing.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Ben, he’s a smart guy. But don’t kid yourself, he’s nowhere near Andrew Neil’s level of intelligence-very few are. The man is an OG of British political journalism, and former editor of the times.
Enjoying these more than the music reactions lately. You’re one of the few genuinely intelligent reactors and I appreciate how tough this could be for you. America is soooooo divided with very little middle ground from what I see here in Australia.
It's called propaganda for a reason. The reality is that 95% of America is middle class AND middle ground on most things because our culture emphasizes fixing specific issues with finesse not overreaching and sweeping reforms that mess up everything else to fix one issue. This is why you see this. They don't want to admit they are the 5% and pretend like they are loud when in reality is the same small percentage of people who took power and are now scared of losing it. For every story about a RINO we see four about a DINO because whichever institution has the power is the one that gets infiltrated by extremists and foreign meddlers.
In all actuality most of us fall in the middle somewhere but the media and politicians highlight the extremists. Radicals tend to speak the loudest.
Same. Love the Peterson reaction
I wouldn’t say it’s tough on him. Lol.
Everyone has their opinion and he chooses to put his online.
If it’s tough then it’s by his own hand and he brings it upon himself.
Don’t get me wrong it’s enjoyable and I like this man Alex but ehh, there’s ups and downs to anyone’s content.
Shapiro admits his reaction here was a rare mistake he probably won't repeat.he takes it with good humour and I think he patched things up with Niel once he took time to research the man after the interview.that shows strong character
@@cato7778 who mentioned dems ?
#whataboutisme
@@Joho1208 replyd to some guy who probably deleted him comment
Shapiro has no character and he's not an honest actor.
All he cares about is driving traffic to his website and grifting. He's not intellectually consistent.
@@Joho1208 you people can't get through a political conversation without bringing up Trump at least 10 times. #whataboutism
It wasn't even a debate it was an interview😂😂😂😂
It's probably really rare for Ben Shapiro to get an actual interview.
Shapiro was told it be an interview but he tried to turn the book on Andrew Neil. Thing is he did nit know that Neil is a master at sticking to his guns. many reasons British politicians fear having interviews with him. Another one is Jeremy Paxman. He can be pretty brutal interviewer too.
Breitbart’s reporter incident was a big deal at the time. Glad you’re adding these important issues along with your great music reactions. Spot on too about Shapiro glazing your eyes and the analogy of reading a paragraph.👍🏻🤣 Keep it up sir!
I genuinely love these kinds of reaction videos! Keep it up!
when people like ben go into interviews, they have to be aware of people in the argument realm, this man isn't asking questions in a bias way and ben should have known this prior to the interview.
If you listen closely you can hear Andrews criticism after asking his questions
Starting a line of questioning with “The policies your side of the aisle are advocating for are going to take us back to the dark ages” and then framing women being held accountable for what some consider killing a baby as “barbaric” IS injecting bias though. The very framing of the questioning is dishonest, rather than approaching it in a proper way. This kind of presentation of viewpoints is done purposely to automatically demonize the person with the opposing viewpoint. While the legislation portion may be true (and I’m not even saying I agree with it) the “why” is misdirected and seeks to apply negative motives to those who disagree with you.
@Jotham1 Almost like this was an INTERVIEW not a DEBATE ;)
Ben got smashed, he's used to debating emotionally charged kids not someone who takes none of this weird rebuttles.
@Jotham1lol if that's an interrigation then the FBI and CIA need Andrew for their black sites because that was tame. Ben is out of his depth and also a raging idiot who seem to have some sort of superiority complex because he got some faint clout after debating collage kids using his entire demeanor of speaking fast to try and gish gallop around questions and/or overwhelm his interlocutor and has been well known fpr doing so he's no as smart as people think he is and clearly got shown outside of the US his antics are useless and proceeded to get pissy when he wasn't getting the bait hook he wanted.
He got shutdown hard by someone with more experience and debating tenure than he did hence his bad rebuttle of 'you are left wing' clearly showing he's got zero game outside of the US political agenda.
I love your reactions.I enjoy watching you because your reactions are genuine.
That means so much to me! Thank you 🙂
It's only the truth and I always look forward to see all your reactions.Stay safe in this crazy world.
@@terrieyarbrough8284 you too my friend!
Ben Shapiro wasn't prepared for the interview, he was lead on & trapped, he was there just for a normal short interview about promoting his book, if he knew what he was getting into, he DEFINITELY would be prepared...
I don't see anyone other than people other Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris competing with his level of logic, in EVERY interview he's been in from the past few years, he has had a concrete stance on EVERY topic he spoke about, you think this ONE SINGLE interview defeats his entire lifelong argument? He even agreed & accepted that he took the loss later on, so it's not even that big a "haha got 'em" moment as people are hyping it up to be
And fun fact, this guy is the UK counterpart of US fox news, Ben Shapiro had NO IDEA what he was getting himself into
peterson is very knowledgeable about psychological topics but his stance on other topics, like religion, are logically flawed in many ways.
if you enjoy learning about logic and how to formulate sound stances, check out matt dillahunty
@@An0nymous_L0gic Anything involving religion is inherently flawed in my opinion. I appreciate his perspective though in that he uses biblical stories to exemplify archetypal problems that have been around ever since people have been around. He always ties it back in to the psychology sphere and how it can be useful for your own everyday life to learn and understand some of those stories. So while I dont agree with him about god and religion, that doesn’t “nullify” Jordan Peterson. There’s still merit to what he says. That’s a common left wing thing from my experience, they use ONE bad thing or something they don’t agree with or like about a person to write the whole person off completely. That’s foolish and ignorant behavior to do that, plus you’ll never learn anything if you just give up on everyone and everything at the first sign of potential conflict.
@@djjazzyjeff1232 As Someone who subscribes to the idea of a God and a creator, I whole heartedly approve this notion. Good Ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from or who comes up with them.
This is a major pet peeve I have with society at large nowadays. If someone loses an argument, they get mocked, character assassinated, and made out like everything else they’ve done is irrelevant and they’re “done” - let’s boot them and erase them from existence. The truth is noone is perfect and no one wins every argument. It’s completely unrealistic. And i don’t think anyone would like themselves to be held to that standard; it’s futile - you will lose at some point. Rant over.
Calm down dude. Jesus tittie fukkin christ. No one is saying Ben Shapiro is now irrelevant, or whatever the hell you said. Everyone is laughing at this particular loss. People can laugh at a loss no?
Now, on a different note, he doesn't have a logical stance on any of his points. No one does. They're philosophical stances. And they're only logical to people who share the same philosophy. But that's not logic. Logic has no existence in philosophical arguments. Because you cannot definitively prove someone's philosophy as correct.
Now, that's not me saying the other side is more logical. I am the exact opposite of Ben Shapiro. Hell, we are polar opposites. But my views aren't any more logical than his. Because neither are based in logic, they're based in philosophy, which provides the illusion of logic. He lost a debate, it's not the end of the world and it's not the end of him. Chill out. He will win others down the road, he will lose others down the road. Doesn't make him wrong, doesn't make him right. Just makes him a person.
Can someone please tell me the INTRO/OUTRO song?
"answer the question respectfully" to be honest the interviewer didn't exactly ask the question repsectfully with the whole "going back to the dark ages" but I do agree that an interviewer should be asking tough questions regardless
I don't care about the personality of the president, all I care about is how his policies effect my life. The price of food and gas are messing up my life now.
True, but some things are out of the power of the president, or you would want the president to have the power to dictate retail prices?
@@doomdrake123 I'm sure printing trillions of dollars and making us energy dependant on foreign countries is not helping.
Fuckin A man. My outlook as well
@@sl3966 Trump started the stimulus checks. Did you forget? Its both parties.
@@sl3966 we are a net energy exporter..... we aren't reliant on foreign energy
Unprepared is an understatement, hate to say but in the US with the hyper partisanship , it is rare to have journalists ask tough questions.
In the UK and here in Australia journalists are not afraid to put these people on the spot.
I just said idk what it says exactly but the only time ben “lost” an interaction was from a conservative asking questions from a liberal’s perspective rather, than an actual liberal. Pretty ironic. Maybe he’s just playing 4d chess lol
@@djjazzyjeff1232 that's mostly because Ben spends his time debating college students.
@@Petestanton He made Cenk look like the big stupid oaf that he is at politicon though. But it’s all about preparedness. This interview he was not ready for what kind of interview this was. It seemed like he went on-air totally cold. Bad move.
@@djjazzyjeff1232 true tbh i agree with Alex, it was his emotional attatchments to his position that made him look silly
@@Petestanton If we’re looking more broadly, it struck me as Ben having a bad day, this happened probably very late in the day, due to the time difference between US and UK, and like he was just over it, unprepared, not engaged at all. And much more easily agitated than usual. He didn’t seem like himself to me in this. Like something was off. But I’ve had days like that, so, idk what I’m getting at here exactly. Lol
listening to Ben it makes you glaze over what he's saying because he talks fast over and over again - alot of it have to do with using a lot of big words which in that conversation seem very intelligent
I'm glad that I stumbled across your channel, I enjoy watching an intelligent and open minded person analyze the videos in much the same way I do.
Thank you! Some of us love to argue and debate. I love seeing Ben dunk on people and I love watching him get dunked on! Lets go!
I've seen this before. Ben Shapiro seriously got owned in this interview.
Uncharacteristically, Ben went into this not having done his homework on the host. It's understandable that he makes this assumption, however; most opinion journalists in America will claim to be neutral, and Ben has dealt with that situation ad nauseam.
I have to agree, he should have done his homework. You could tell this was out of his range, especially how fast Ben started speaking. I know he talks fast but I had to slow it down. Like I said, I definitely agree, this comment needs to be pinned.
He never does homework. He just has a stock of bad faith responses he uncans for every strawman argument he has with himself
I've seen multiple evaluations of Ben's debate style and tactics; usually fairly and accurately describing him as aggressive. What I'd like to point out - that I haven't heard - is that in debate, his objective is to comprehensively dismantle his opponent; in discussion, he is interested in exchange of ideas. In debate, his audience is the public; in conversation, his audience is a high quantity of individuals.
Yes, Ben admitted he basically lost and he admitted he didn't do his homework.
@@ryan1840 You mean like the strawmen that Neil was putting up? Leftist projections at their finest!
This was the first interview ben shapiro was in... Every other was a debate.. And he was only used to debates...
The old man didn't interrupt him, debate with him, didn't go against him... Just asked him questions...
The incident with the reported did happen and that was when Ben left them. In debate, and you say you like debate, it is often semantics, not just what you say, but how you say it. The BBC guy did suggest that Ben's abortion policy would be a return to the dark ages. Remember it's not just what you say but how you say it. Yes, Ben got angry and kept revisiting the question when the correct thing for him to do was to just ignore it unless the BBC guy clarified his question more. Often when Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson go to interviews to promote a book, the interviewer will go off on a tangent rather than discuss the book. There is a famous clip of Robert Downey Jr. walking out of an interview that was supposed to be to promote a new movie but the first question the interviewer asked was about politics, he just unclipped his mike and walked out.
Not what i was looking for when i looked up “ben shapiro destroyed by bbc”
Ben basically says “who cares if they’re new, as long as they’re good” while you’re saying you don’t care if they’re new, only if they’re good.
He said what you were saying, but you didn’t hear him because you spoke over him.
Interesting.. I wonder where we've seen that before with Ben Shapiro. Cough.
I mean if you are Ben Shapiro and go at this Interview or Debate thinking it's a debate, I would understand his reaction. And even if he didn't handle the situation as well as he could have, I think it's unfair to say that he was acting out of anger when he clearly didn't insult anyone or something.. It was more of a misunderstanding I guess. Love those videos, keep it up!
I think that some people have a problem with "political content" because they come to your channel or youtube in general for an escape from politics and all the BS and depression that comes with it.
EDIT:
To those that have and are going to tell me to just not watch the videos with political content if that's not what I want to watch. Firstly, thanks. I hadn't thought of that. I can't believe that I've been torturing myself by watching every video featuring political content that Alex has posted.
Secondly, I was just giving an alternate reason as to why some people may be disliking Alex posting this type of content. I don't care if he posts political content. I don't watch it if it's dealing with a political subject/person that I have no interest in or dislike. Just like I haven't watched every metal reaction Alex has done. If it's a band I have heard before and don't like, I don't watch the reaction. But if it's a band I like or a band I've never heard before but want to give a chance, I do watch it.
Same here however i hate biased politics, alex doesnt have a horse in the race.
True and I accept that! I just wanted to continue doing what made the channel do well in the first place which was branching out to different content! Did it with metal and it was the best decision I’ve made in a long time!
Had to keep it going! Nonetheless metal will always be a huge part of our channel ❤️ thank you so much for stopping by and watching it and leaving a comment too! Means the world 🌎
It's also extremely easy to read the description/title, and just not watch any of the political videos.
Politics affects your wages, rent, product prices, energy prices, legal rights, working rights, healthcare and every other aspect of your life...
@@snoox27 biased politics is just politics though. To ignore that fact is to be willfully ignorant or deceptive. That’s what I hate so much about the CNNs of the world. They pretend to be objective journalists while voting in lock-stop and pushing whatever agenda the DNC is working toward at the time. I have more respect for people who are open about their political proclivities while still trying to observe and see all sides. It IS possible to acknowledge both, and do both.
This video is from 2019 and he even admitted be got "destroyed." Being able to admit when you lost something speaks volumes about a person's character.
fair enough. But just to push back with a couple thoughts: it speaks more when you stay and take your lumps, he knew he lost that's why he quit. But I can't say I blame him I probably would have too. Another point i'd make is: I don't think he would retain much credibility if he said he "destroyed" this interview. I think it's obvious this didn't go all that well for him and to say otherwise would make him look like he was in denial or just plain dumb. He kind of had to acknowledge this L if he wants to be taken serious as a debate partner moving forward.
@@thedoctorroth Shapiro is still better than you, Bert. Stay in your lane. You are a man amongst titans. Know your role, and please be quiet. Love you.
@@tycom9328 you cannot be older than 12
Ben Shapiro is a twat, and his wife has a dry p word.
@@tycom9328 Titans? LOL!
Framing of the question as 'your side is barbaric and from the dark ages' ABSOLUTLEY matters. Sure, in terms of high logic is the idea good or bad, it may not be relevant, but that is not the level at which real political and cultural discourse takes place because real people are subject to biases and fallacies and emotion. Ben was absolutely right to call this reporter out on the absurdly partisan framing of that question, which was wholly inappropriate. That is the only appropriate way in which you can respond to a heavily framed question. Any other answer buys into the false premise of the frame. It isn't Ben getting "triggered," it's Ben appropriately pointing out that it's a leading, framed question that isn't appropriate from a self-titled unbiased reporter. Maybe he could have held his emotions better in check and reacted better, but I have never really seen this as a loss for Ben, I thought both sides came out looking pretty ridiculous.
Best reaction person on you tube !!!!
Love your channel
You totally remind me of someone, I just can’t figure it out.
Not so much your look but your vibe. It’s all good.
Peace😎✌️
Completely agree with Ben. This wasn't an interview and the other guy wasn't being objective he was trying to get that gotcha moment just bringing up stuff from Ben's past. His questions were meant to box Ben into a corner. The guy saying it's barbaric for protecting babies from being killed is barbaric itself.
So you wanted him to pitch Ben softball questions? He challenged him about his view points and Shapiro couldn't live up to it. You're also mincing words, he never said it protecting babies was barbaric. But you decided to interpret it that way in order to to twist a subject matter in your favor with colourful wording.
@@jjrod2988 Good job, you figured out the puzzle.
This is “barbaric” or this is “going back to Middle Ages” isn’t an argument. I don’t want interviewers to just throw softball questions, but Ben needed to be asked an actual, valid and at least somewhat sound argument. Just calling something “barbaric” or “going back to Middle Ages” is almost like just calling names. I get that Ben lost his emotions but this was not a great interviewer either. At least play a good devils advocate. But the American woke left does sound exactly like this - just name calling so
@@TheCounterpointer dude, you're no different than original poster here, you chose to tune out everything the interviewer was saying once he began talking about something you didn't agree with. If you bothered to even listen, he said throwing a woman in prison for 30 years is a return to the dark ages. And did you seriously just ask him to be a good devils advocate? Did you want him to toss him easy questions or something? My god
@JJ Rod god.. all the disrespect and trolling, I assume you’re 12 years old. Look, are you really saying that “throwing women into jail for 30 years is going back to dark ages” is a good argument? What’s the difference between this and “willingly killing babies is going back to dark ages”? The two are same to me, to be honest. Also where is the evidence that Ben actually agrees with 30 years? Not sure where the 30 years even came from, is that from an actual case (can you name an actual case with 30 years?) or just a high end of sentencing guideline? If you bother to at least explain how “throwing women in jail for 30 years is going back to dark ages”, and what is the difference between this and “willingly killing babies is going back to dark ages”, at least try that? And without throwing insults or name calling?
This interview is one of the best case studies to understand the sign of Capricorn.
12:17 but that is bens point. the interviewer is saying that ben is responsible for the harshening of political discourse while failing to understand that his own description of the opposition harshens discourse. there are tons of ways to ask the question about abortions without calling the right barbaric. a simple "why do you support policies against abortion?" would have sufficed. the interviewer chose to frame the question in a manner that demonizes the other sides opinion. between two opposing debaters this is common as both are in fact opposite. the issue us the interviewer is claiming to be objective. if you are left wing than present as left wing. guising yourself as central when your leftist gives the false impression you are asking questions from a neutral position. this guy claims to "play devils advocate" but i guarantee if he had a pro choice guest on his show he would not ask "why do you support the murder of babies?". if you wish to be centrist you must play devils advocate equally aggressively to both sides
Problem is, leftists are rife with double standards and these are the losers who always claim to be centrist when their moronic world-views allign perfectly with the idiotic policies of the left. And then they go 'REEE! WE ARE CENTRISTS! But communism/socialism! Baby Murder for all! Teach children all about LGBTQABCDEFG! More Government! More Taxes!' At that point, no, you aren't a centrist, you are a leftist posing as a centrist so that people won't call you out for it.
Except you’re wrong. Neill is a very conservative pundit. Perhaps he’s just disgusted by Shapiro’s brand of conservatism, which is, in fact, disgusting.
@@johnboy32064 You mean ACTUAL conservatism, not the RINO's that have been plaguing the republican party for a while now? The dude is a loser. All he did was act like a typical leftist: Strawmen and misrepresenation by taking old tweets out of context.
The dude can claim he is conservative until he is blue in the face, if his views are as we saw in this interview, he is a democrat. If it talks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck.
@@johnboy32064 and you're entitled to your opinion. But as long as it is YOU are harshening the discourse
I think in the preparations between Ben and Andrew, Andrew should say I'm going to ask questions the way the left will ask to serve as a devil's advocate. If Ben knew Andrew would be throwing knifes in any and all arguments, I'm sure Ben would have acted differently. I definitely have a differing approach to an argument when someone is playing devil's advocate vs someone intentionally asking irritating questions to make me look bad.
I been and fan of and following Alex for YEARS. I ain't going NO WHERE!!
Much love man from Ohio!!!!!
🤘🤘🤘🤘
I loved the ending to that interview hahah. "Thank you for your time and for showing that anger is not part of American political discourse." He says as the person he is talking to is quitting the interview due to his own anger.
It was a great payoff by a top notch political journalist 😊
Neil is an arrogant ass!
That’s because he started lying about a tweet he said and quoted a book he wrote 6 years after the tweets. He learned from his mistakes but the journalist keeps implying that he didn’t even tho he has a list of dumb shit he’s ever said on his website. It seems like the interview was pointless.
Not at all. The point was to show what an arrogant unpleasant man Shapiro is...and it worked magnificently 😉😊
Ed… it’s Ed not edd…. Wtf spells their name edd…. That limey is an arrogant moron
Ayyyy you passed the bar. Good job man!!!!
Ben Shapiro handled it the way he handles it when he's disagreed with and things aren't going his way. "I've never heard of you" to a legend of British broadcasting is the attitude of a 15 year old kid. To the point he wouldn't let go. I feel that taking the legal right to abortion away from a woman with threats of prison time is completely barbaric. If a woman is raped, should she be forced to carry a baby to term? Absolutely not and that's a point that BS danced past because he was too wound up about being disagreed with.
If I was the interviewer the question on abortion would've been more gruesome and not intended for BBC. "So mister Shapiro, your beloved wife is kidnapped and gangraped by the entirety of Hamas. Would you keep and raise their baby as your own?"
Andrew Neil was asking some pretty damn slanted questions though. Calling policies he supports a return to the dark ages.
Also the UK right is definitely left of our republican party.
Yeah I'm later in the video now and it is well deserved that Ben keeps hitting him on the dark ages shit. That was a lousy thing for Andrew to say as a man who supposedly wants to have a productive conversation. Then he keeps dredging up old tweets trying to go for character destruction rather than engage with his arguments.
@@tblickle I think it looked that way but I don't think that's what Neil set out to do. Around that time in America, cancel culture ran rampant with the most popular form of cancelling someone was to dredge old tweets and get them on that. I think Ben assumed that's what was happening but I think the situation was more mirrored than clear. In the context of the interview, Neil pulling old tweets was to procure if Ben either still believed in what he said or how and why he changed his mind and to provide context on the greater topic which was his book and the motivations behind writing it by delving into the author's philosophies. So the way it looked to me was a case of correlation not being causation.
Fucking hell, cope harder lol.
It should be an easy question to answer. He supports the anti abortion laws so why can't he give a straight answer? Instead he melted like a snowflake
ben sounds like if daffy duck had a stimulant problem
Who is Shapiro to make decisions about abortion or not. Is not according to Shapiro's opinion not the man's job to bring children up, then why would men shave any opinion on abortion?
I came to your channel for the metal, but I'm definitely sticking around for you. I find your comments and reactions to (well most things I've seen so far) to be thoughtful and interesting. Keep doing what you're doing, bro!
What song is that in your intro?
Here's what I see in this whole thing. If I denounced something I've said in my past which I've done so many many times throughout my history, we should leave it at that and let people grow from who they were. Digging up old graves does nothing but stinking up the whole joint.
But Shapiro's not like that is he. If you do or say something stupid he will use it against you time after time and at every opportunity he gets.
@@eddhardy1054 that's not really true. Like him or not he has a pretty stat driven and fact driven argument. I challenge you to find a single instance where he goes after a individual in the manner this BBC guy goes after him. He even tried to say he has an article on his website of stupid things he's said and the guy kept attacking and trying to de-legitimize the book.
@@RgTripleC then I must have watched a different bloke called Ben Shapiro who did all those things. Imagine that two people with the same name who look identical 🤯
Personal I think Shapiro lost this interview before it even started by virtue of the fact that he didn't even bother to put Andrew Neil's name into Google. It also would have helped ih he had bothered to find out how current affairs interviews are done in the UK.
To put it simply Shapiro set himself up up look like an arrogant ass and its safe to say he succeeded.
Perhaps you don’t know the backstory. He was set up. They were supposed to be talking about his new book and have a simple conversation about it. The reporter threw smug opinions at him, and it threw him off. I’ll always call Ben out when I disagree with him on something. But, this was a complete and total curveball.
@@Jesus_is-Lord77 that's just it is was about the views Ben put forward in his book versus the views he previously put forward on twitter and in tv/radio appearances. I think that is what caught Ben off guard the most, having his current views challenged by views he previously put forward.
6:46 It’s called playing devil’s advocate so the person you are questioning can more thoroughly explain their stance. (Also it strengthens their stance and helps them to understand their own perspective better). I do it all the time, and people almost always take it as an attack, like Ben Shapiro did. It’s so frustrating!!!
I wish the interviewer had explained this to him! I know he somewhat tried, but he didn’t do it very well.
This was my critique of Ben Shapiro for a long time. His shows are all about how we need to fight back against the left, but then his book is the complete opposite message: that we need to come together again and be nice to each other. And this interviewer expertly probed that inconsistency.
It’s always fascinating just to observe and people watch. I watch these videos through that lens: observing behavior. It’s so interesting. 🤣🤷🏻♂️
Well although it is hypocritical, I think that everyone has their own ideologies of what is the best step forward. The problem is enforcing that ideology. It's human nature, we believe that our views are right and the opposition is wrong. Even though we know what is the right thing to do, we can't avoid our human nature to fight opposition. Hope that made sense.
Except the fact is that the only way to ever come together again is to fight the toxic marxists who have taken over the entirity of our universities, media, government, and left wing party of our nation. THEY are the ones who refuse to give an inch on ANY sibject and call anyone they disagree with an unforgivable nazi, racist, etc..
It sure as hell isnt the RIGHT that shouts down and burns entire cities to the ground the second someone they dislike gets a platform to speak lol. Its like Bush's comment of not negotiating with terrorists. Despite the hostage on the line our nation has become, negotiating with these terrorists will get is NOWHERE. Fighting fire with fire is the only path, as you cant beat someone who has indoctrinated the entire nation to be violently pro-socialist as bezmenov of the KGB said was actively being done to us by the soviets 40+ years ago.
@@xXDarkxIdealsXx you're right, the Right burn books instead, next up: schools.
@@amitsunoko7270 I believe Dr. Suess was too much for lefties lol.
You missed the point of how Andrew Neil asked the question. He used brutal and barbaric to describe the law instead of just asking a straight question. The sensationalism is what can sway opinions of people that don't know the specifics. As a lawyer I figured you'd understand that.
I also call out sensationalism when I see thumbnail video descriptions. "Jen Psaki explodes on reporter for asking question".
*Jen gives slightly snarky response*
Pretty sure putting a woman in prison for essentially having a medical condition falls under barbaric
@@ranwolf1240 You know what else is barbaric, Margaret sanger = a racist and a eugenic so yea keep supporting barbaric ideas (Abortion) that the KKK and Hitler have praised in the past, after all there is more black babies being aborted than being given birth, so you get what you wanted and it worked, explain this bacteria is life on Mars but a beating heart on Earth is not? you love to deny science and ethic don't you. BTW medical conditions and pregnancy are not the same.
Hey I'm first! Love Ben Shapiro
me too.
@@jonkenyon4876 he's basically never wrong.
@@adamhenton6221 that’s very true!
The irony, calling someone idea fachist is ok language but calling it dark age is not acceptable. It feels like as long as its not pointed at his ideas is freedom of speech and acceptable . Lol
You should react to Thomas Sowell.
He’s a brilliant economist that grew up in Harlem, and has written many books with interesting takes on various issues.
Like Jordan Peterson, he’s more interested in evidence than what’s politically correct.
What song is that for your intro?
Neil helped to form a right wing TV news station here in the UK, similar to Fox News and is well known to be a right leaning journalist. If only Shapiro knew.
As you're probably familiar, Neil's use to GB News quickly came to an end. Although I'm grateful to him for getting it launched, the inconsistency in his words when the channel first went on the air and the nature of him leaving is something I found suspicious.
I need to watch more GB News to be honestly. Do you watch it often?
@@RobertT1999 no, I think it's hot garbage. Out of the presenters on the channel he was the one with the most credibility and from what I saw there were that many problems with the channel's launch and unkept promises he had to leave before it took the journalistic credibility he had left
@@Chris_Elliot84 Haha, I love your honesty. I'm not familiar with the unkept promises, but I'm definitely familiar with the technical difficulties. It really was embarrassing to watch, so I can absolutely understand it being a driving force for him leaving. Although I would argue if the existence of the channel was as important as it was made out to be, it would've been worth staying longer.
That being said, maybe the unkept promises aspect was bigger than I could ever imagine.
I was pretty devastated when he did leave though because I've always been interested in his programmes.
Then why does Neil spew socialist veiws
@@edwardcurl3856 are you talking about the video or just in general?
Shapiro does what americans think debating is, talking fast, interrupting the other person, not answering questions, getting offended, being rude, bravado instead of brains.
Well what a surprise... Ben Shapiro whining because someone tries to hold him accountable from the things he have said.
This is a perfect example of why I subscribed
"I am a lawyer ... I love debate"
Honest review from a 3rd perspective is nice to see thanks
I liked your music reactions. I really like your political reactions. Way to help to bring important issues and ideologies to some that would never click on them. The more well rounded each of us is the better society as a whole is.
Why are you holding the drumsticks at 21:24???
In all fairness, Ben Shapiro immediately admitted on Twitter that he made a mess of this and publically apologised to Andrew Neil. His mistake, in his words, was lack of preparation, and I've noticed in general that he isn't particularly clued up on things outside the USA or Israel, so presumably that includes the British media landscape. Anyone who's seen Andrew Neil before would be in no doubt that they'd get a challenging interview and heaven help them if they wern't ready for it. On the flip side, I do think Andrew Neil went a bit far in repeatedly talking over Ben trying to point out that he has, on his website, a long list of things that he's said in the past that he's since retracted/apologised for (he's been doing this since college, so there was a fair bit of young-and-dumb in his early years). I think that if he'd been allowed to make that point, it would have been better and given the viewers a better understanding of his character.
His character came out loud and clear.. he can apologize all he wants, but the fact is he always acts like a belligerent lousmouth
Does anyone know what song his intro/outro is?
This is why Ben Shapiro usually debates clueless college students. When Ben debates somebody who doesn't get fooled by his fast talking he gets destroyed.
To be fair, not only are they the most common ones who end up debating him, but they usually challenge him to it
hey...... please do explain an example to me. which his logical explainations are false. the reason people like him have to be assertive and fast in giving their opinion is cause the people who live with the rule "my feeling matter more than your facts" start getting aggressive and try to shut you up when you try to say something after. are feelings totally irrelevant. no. they are relevant on an individual level. your feeling matter. but it matters only to you. it doesnt matter to other people what you feel. they need the truth. the fact that the truth is being considered irrelevant than feelings is concerning.
I totally agree with your opinion and summary of the video. Andrew Neil is one of my favourite interviewers but I am also a fan of Ben. I hope they get a chance to complete some kind of chat/discussion on politics in the future we can listen in on even if it’s not an interview.
The problem with Neil is he wasn’t playing devil’s advocate, he was pulling quotes out of context as Shapiro stated and trying to act more like a trash mag journalist than a real journalist.
@Logan Etter To me, he is no better then Kathy with her 'So you are saying...' Both take their people's views and misrepresent them and then act all offended when someone gets mad. Jordan simply remained cool and collected and basically educated that dumb broad like the child she was. Ben lost his composure and though I can understand why, being accused of such shit by some washed up hasbeen like Andrew is definetly gonna grate on anyone'S nerves, he should have remained calm and used his usual style to put that loser in his place.
Well…he’s interviewing a piece of trash so…
I’m so happy to see you and others here bringing these different reviews
Ben has grown so much even from this point in time. He himself talked about this interview and mistakes he made. Incredible character to own up to that. I fully believe Ben was more arrogant and quick on the trigger when he was younger and now you can see patience and maturity in his stuff. He’s also found an amazing sounding board at the daily wire.
When he was younger? This was a year or two ago. 😂
@@avenuePad that sentence was speaking on this time and also before this. But yes when he was younger lol. A person can change drastically and have incredible growth in less than a year. They also get older, obviously. 🙄😂
This was awesome!
This never stops being hilarious
I think this perfectly displays that Ben can't actually handle an intelligent, articulate interviewer. He was owned! Hahaha
In Ben's defense, it would be extremely difficult (maybe even impossible) to be totally prepared and emotionally controlled in every interview year after year lol.
exactly
Also, hard to remain calm when a washed up loser keeps trying to demonize you by misrepresenting old tweets instead of talking about the book which he was invited for.
@@imaran1303 Exactly. The way the questions were presented was reason enough for him to point out the bias from the interviewer. Also I do not believe he was "put in his place" but rather let his irritation get the better of him. Alex does not like him the way he presents his arguments and has stated as such, but he may be reaching on his title regarding what happened,.... if you approach a discussion with loaded questions dripping with a condescending delivery, you are not looking for a discussion IMO and should be called out.
@@Chinchillapetclips Yes, you are right, no one was forcing him, doesn't change the fact that Neil was acting like a flaming hypocritical leftist.
@@Chinchillapetclips I don't think this is relevant to my point (if you responding to my comment and not someone else's). All I was saying is that it has to be extremely difficult to never get upset and be completely controlled every interview. Sometimes you're just off, and you probably cant predict when that will happen. It's like even LeBron James is gonna drop a few games every season. I wasn't even making a political point; just saying I don't blame him for getting upset when he does so many interviews which are by nature highly charged situations.
If you actually dig into Ben Shapiro you find out pretty quickly like many people in politics - he's a grifter. He tries to come off as intelligent but he's really not as smart as his fanboys would have you believe.
Shapiro has such a high opinion of himself it's shocking. Nice to see him squirm and show his shitty side instead of showing off in front of college students
Yea Ben didn't get "destroyed". He got rightly mad when he was told he was going on a puffy interview just to have the guy LITERALLY accuse his religion as being "barbaric" and rapid fire twist things he'd said on twitter and in his books to try and make him out to be some racist bigot. When Ben DIDN'T KNOW, was that this guy has a long history of doing this style of show. But don't try and bash a Jew's religion as barbaric to his face while practically accusing him of being a Nazi supporting fascist without expecting them to get mad.
Really enjoying your political reactions. I love seeing your education show through
I love your look at 7:24. You are just so happy!! Love it!!
Remember this. Bens great but this was not his best moment. He definitely screwed up big time. He himself admitted to being owned later though so props to him for taking the L.
He's not great at all. He couldn't defend a barbaric anti-public health policy that the rest of the civilized world allows. He defends legal apartheid in Israel, and defends the greed of the wealthiest corporations in the world. He's a shit stain.
@@sullen2420 First if all. I like Ben but I surely don't have to agree with everything he says. Unlike you, who I bet feels the need to be against anyone who doesn't share your every political viewpoint. 1. What anti public health policy are you speaking of? Specify because otherwise I have no idea what you are talking about and therefore cant have an opinion on it. 2. I really have no opinion on Ben's beliefs on Israel as I have not researched it enough to have a real viewpoint, though I do believe that Ben may be too emotionally involved in the situation in Israel as he is Jewish, which may blind his beliefs. You'll also need to tell me what apartheid is as I dont know the word. 3. He doesn't defend corporate greed, he has denounced it repeatedly. Dont strawman his viewpoints just because you dont agree with him on capitalism or whatever the hell. Keep your argument civil. The proper thing is to say you disagree with him. Calling him or anyone a shit stain is really rude and comes off as disingenuous or emotionally charged.
@@uthergoodman401 If you support a literal apartheid (look up the word please), cutting off food, medicine, regulating the amount of electricity in Palestine, regulating the LITERAL CALORIC INTAKE of Gazans, you would realize what a horrible person he actually is. PLEASE watch some Abby Martin, she will open your eyes.
@@sullen2420 Sure. Ill check her out. Can you specify exactly where Ben supported such an awful thing? A source if you will?
@@uthergoodman401 Check Abby out, and check Ben's Israel videos out. You will see what he supports, he is VERY strongly in support of the Israeli state and its actions.
Dude I want that MIW shirt where did you get it
I am a Georgia resident. You should know, neither of the parts about penalties for traveling out of state or miscarriages are true. Ben was obviously unprepared to talk about the law.
I found that a bit hard to believe when the Brit said it. What does the law say in Georgia?
If Ben didn't know about that he just should have said so. The best decision I ever made in my career was to stop being afraid of asking questions. As long as they are the right questions nobody will think you're stupid. Ben should have asked: "I am unfamiliar with the laws you quoted, could you read them back to me please?"
What's the name of the song in the start
I feel that Ben Shapiro is very intelligent but like all of us he does have his own opinions. I do not always agree with them but I do give him the respect of listening to his views and try to understand why he sees things the way he does. The one thing I do not like about him is the fact that he thinks he is always right and it forces him to come back and make statements about what he was wrong about. This is both good and bad because for someone as intelligent as him he has made some blunders that he could have avoided if he kept a more calm and slower conversation rather than just blurting out answers. Sometimes it is better to stop and think before you speak no matter how intelligent you are. I may be a little weird or just like punishment but I do listen to his videos even if I know I will not agree with him. It allows me to get a point of view from someone I know is intelligent and has usually thought through a topic before he makes his opinion. One never knows when they will learn something new from someone they don't agree with. It is how we grow and understand different people.
Most reasonable comment here, thanks
Awesome content! I could watch one of these everyday please 🙏🏼
Too many people treat politics like sports teams.
And if you criticize the party they've chosen then they take it like you are criticizing them.
Too many people can't have a debate without taking things personally.
This is why most people can't have productive discussions around the topic.
Facts!!
no thats cuz conservitves are racist that want to kill anyone not white man. LGBTQ WE MUST FIGHT THE CONSERVITIZES
Love these videos Alex!
I like your political reactions precisely for your focus on argumentation. Keep on doing it!
Is that a motionless in white shirt there?
Alex, I understand your position on the interviewer doing his job, but allow me to offer some different perspectives.
1) And this is Ben's major failure here, the interview was supposed to be about his book that came out at the time- Ben likely walked into this thinking it'd be a cushy book interview, and any intense discussion would be focused on the book. He should've known better, especially from the BBC.
2) You say just focus on answering the question, but that would be a mistake. The interviewer purposefully framed Ben's position as bad and barbaric through the question phrasing. If you let that slide your argument essentially starts with the assumption (in the viewers mind) that your position is bad and you allow the onus to fall on you to explain how it's not bad before even getting to why your position is right. If you start with explaining why your position is right you create cognitive dissonance in the viewers mind about how something so bad could be right. A good, objective interviewer invites the interviewee to explain their position without coloring the question. This clown, as evident by the rest of his questions, walked in with an agenda to attack, and that turns the scenario into a debate, not an interview. Counterattacking is fair game. Ben simply wasn't prepared for this level of attack. See Jordan Peterson with Cathy Newman for a great example of proper preparation and response.
3) Again, this was supposed to be a book interview, and he proceeds to pull quote after quote out of context. This is the lowest of the low in the world of journalism. This is essentially “debating for dummies.” When you have nothing to offer in a debate, bring up lots of unrelated ideas out of context. This makes the other person waste time and energy dismantling your points before even getting to anything of their own. The really key is to just bring up something else before they can even discuss something of their own. Masters do this quickly and relentlessly enough that the other person is just always defensive, and then it’s called a Gish Gallop.
I get why Ben quit. This wasn't an interview, it was a pseudo-debate with someone that just wanted to attack and not actually discuss, engage, or contextualize. He had nothing to gain by staying there, certainly not publicity for his book. That being said, he should've known this was the woke BBC and been better prepared. When he is prepared for this kind of scenario it can lead to hilarity. See his Piers Morgan interview on guns for example.
That's exactly what journalistic interviews are. A good journalist can interview everyone from progressive to libertarian by taking the opposing positions and therefore challenging the guest. Shapiro is used to only get interviewed by "journalists" friendly to him or whenever he knows the other person is bad at defending his or her position. He just didn't see actual journalism coming at him.
@@Jutsch80HD “Actual journalism” is not just pulling a bunch of out of context quotes from his past and making him defend them. A major component of “actual journalism” is contextualizing in a neutral way, and a major component of a good interviewer is to let the interviewee speak to the topic at hand. A good journalistic interviewer would then press or follow up with questions on any issues or inconsistencies in their response. This guy starts in with a question calling his position on abortion barbaric and harkening back to the dark ages. He, without any context, brings up a false partisan corner case of getting prosecuted for a miscarriage. Now, these are all perspectives a good journalist can have Ben address by bringing them up in a neutral way, but this guy is openly hostile. That does not make for good journalism or a productive interview. To be fair, it's also not good journalism if the interviewer is too friendly and doesn't offer any meaningful challenges. Ben gets interviewed by plenty of openly hostile “journalists,” but I don't think he was as well prepared for this one.
@@metalheadisme8389 I agree that journalism should be neutral, but interviews can't be. In an interview, the interviewer has to take an opposing position. And no offense, but the fight of the religious extreme in the US against female freedoms is objectively "barbaric and harkening back to the dark ages". What these people are doing out of their believes in a fantasy book is embarrassing for a civilized country. And Shapiro knows that, that's why he's afraid to defend it in a setting where the other side doesn't fall for his cheap mind tricks
@@Jutsch80HD I will have to disagree slightly in that the interviewer can present and contextualize the opposing view without adopting it and becoming hostile. In my opinion that crosses the line from interview to debate. If you want to talk about barbaric, talk about why doctors don't use imaging when performing third term abortions- it’s because then they'd have to watch the fetus squirm away in agony as they dismember it. The problem over here is that extremists on one side says partial birth abortions should be ok, and extremists on the other say condoms and the morning after pill are bad. Those extremists get all the airtime. Most real folks over here are in the middle, much like most European countries where they do not allow late term abortions. The tricky question is when does life begin, and many over here would prefer to err on the side of not taking life as opposed to the alternative.
@@metalheadisme8389 Who wants third term abortions? That's such a strawman argument. The debate is between women having access to abortions until weeks 12 or 20 at max on one side and crazy christians (and jews because its partly the same fantasy book) who want to ban women from having reproductive rights on the other side. If most Americans are pro choice in a reasonable fashion, why do crazy religious extremists win all the time? Banning abortions completely leads to suffering and death caused by back alley "doctors" performing procedures unregulated on one hand and thousands of unwanted kids ending up in poverty or in the cps system on the other.
He totally lost his mind lol. I can't stand Shapiro for many different reasons. that last statement was amazing and really got him. 😂😂
Just subscribed. You have a balanced and intelligent perspective.
This was very entertaining, and I hope you continue these types of videos.
I could use a mean tweet from Trump right now, Biden cant even say one full sentence
Ah an American in front of a proper journalist is all I see.
Proves more about US journalism to me than anything else.
True
"same with jordan peterson" LMAO caught that.. LOLLLLLLL
The ridiculing/shaming is cool and all, but he wasn't put in his place.
This guys an attorney, good job you get paid to lie under oath. That's someone to take advice from.😂😂😂😉.
Ben Shapiro. The only person who ever lost an interview.
Uhhhh no
@@Yuurrrrrrrr I think you may have missed the joke in this comment
@@RobskiBobskiPower you're right.
What's the name of his opening song?
Kills me how this guy doesn't realize he's just as radical as the liberals he hates. Just amazing
Damn had to reach deep into the barrel to find this gem. Thing almost going on 4 years almost.
You gonna find a video of him in college next?
To be fair Ben Shapiro himself has openly admitted that this was not a good moment for him. He takes the criticism of this moment on the chin
And he still did better then Andrew, considering that all that washed up loser did was misrepresent tweets instead of interviewing him about the book like he was supposed to. I would have gotten mad at this loser as well. Though Ben is used to holding himself at a higher standard, so it makes sense why he considers it a failure.
He ran away like a spoilt child
@@glyngasson8450 Explain, cause last I saw, he answered the questions, his 'failure' is getting irritated by this hasbeen constantly propping up strawmen and misrepresenting old tweets and taking them out of context. Which is entirely fair, to get angry at some moron who claims himself a conservative and then using leftist talking points to try and get cheap gottcha's when it was meant to be a interview about his book. Ben sees it as a failure cause he lost his cool and didn't prepare, he went in thinking it would be like any other interview, he was expecting veiled attacks at his morality, not openly being called 'barbaric' for believing that babies shouldn't be murdered.
@@imaran1303 firstly, because Andrew Neil is old does not mean he is a has been. All UK politicians are frightened of him because he is equally hard on both the left and the right. He owns a political magazine, The Spectator, which is absolutely right wing. I don't know if it was ego or stupidity which led Shapiro to not research his interviewer, then to claim Neil is from the left is just ludicrous. Neil did not misrepresent the tweets, he read them out. The BBC is constantly slated for being biased to both the left and the right, which probably means it's doing a good job. It's not like the ridiculous situation in the US where you have republican news channels and democrat news channels. News channels should be unbiased, they should just tell the news.
@@glyngasson8450 You are not the first to say this and as such, show me a link where he goes out of his way to demonize a left-wing interviewee, and I mean, full on slander, calling them barbaric, claiming other horrible things that a left-wing would call a right-winger. I said so before, the dude can claim he is right-wing all he wants, I want evidence of this.
Because the only evidence I saw in that interview was him taking posts out of context and misrepresenting Ben and insulting him while he was at it.
Ben assumed he would be like any other news guy he had to deal with, which is a pretty fair assumption to make. Considering your UK reporters are absolute hacks like Kathy Newman or Piers Morgan, who got owned by Ben already. So excuse me for thinking that this Andrew is no better then Mr. Piers who also was all like 'Dur! Why is this about left and right? That isn't a thing in the UK!' Yeah, cause you don't sound like a absolute leftist and because your country is a haven for whiny babies where one can be imprisoned for a joke. As we saw with Count Dankula.
I don't envy Ben Shapiro. The man seems so tightly wound up, so stressed, so bitter, so angry, that I would put money on him having a stroke before the age of 40.