there's a really interesting segment from the weekend where conservative Superhero,
Ben Shapiro was interviewed by the bbcs, Andrew Neal and Ben Shapiro cut the interview short
over what he perceived to be the liberal bias of the interviewer.
And he's now ended up apologizing.
And the most interesting thing about all of this to me is that it happened because Ben
Shapiro abandoned some of his supposedly most important principles.
He's against identity politics and he's four facts over feelings.
And in short, Ben Shapiro made a call the wrong call about the identity of the interviewer
as a lefty, which Andrew Neil is not.
And that identity based decision that, uh, Ben Shapiro made was based not on the facts
but on Ben Shapiro's feelings about the interview or which is the opposite of Ben's facts over
feelings, mantra.
So let's get right to it.
This is Andrew O'Neil who was in the conservative club in college.
He worked for the British Conservative Party.
He was a correspondent for the conservative publication, the economists.
And the point is, there is no, uh, leftist progressive streak to Andrew Neal by any means.
And Andrew Neal Asks Ben Shapiro to defend things that Ben has said.
He asked simple questions and Ben can't handle it.
He was triggered that he wasn't given a safe space on BBC.
So he implodes ends the interview early.
Let's look at one clip first.
We're Ben's feelings sort of get the best of him and he attacks the journalist rather
than talking about ideas,
some of the ideas that are popular in your side of politics.
Uh, we'd seem to take us back to the dark ages.
Georgia knew abortion laws, uh, which you are much in favor of, uh, that, uh, a woman
who miscarries could get 30 years.
A Georgian woman who travels to another state for an abortion procedure could get 10 years.
These are extreme hard policies.
Well, okay, a couple of things.
One, I'm not sure.
I mean, frankly, I don't know whether you're, are you an objective journalists?
Are you an opinion journalist?
I'm undecided on this and ask questions.
Okay.
So you're going, you're a supposedly objective journalists calling policies with which you
disagree, barbaric and suggesting only one side of the political aisle, no ideas.
So I just want to point out that we should at least be honest in your own biases.
Are you?
Are you a member of being in America is not so pull their eyes the in one program you
only have the left and another one.
You just have the right.
My job is to question those who have strong views and put an alternative to them.
What'd you suggest that a late term abortion is?
Brutal.
I'm not taking it [inaudible] question
and eventually Ben has just had enough and can't handle it.
When his identity argument implodes, he does ad hominems that the interviewer is less than
Ben Because Ben hasn't even heard of the interviewer.
That's a form of personal attack and ad Hominem and it really gets ugly and more importantly,
very, very stupid.
Why is it that a bill banning abortions after a woman just being pregnant for six weeks
is not a return to the dark ages?
What's your answer?
My answer is something called science.
Human life exists at conception.
It ought to be protected.
Now, back to my question to you, you purport to be an objective journalist.
BBC purports to be an objective down the middle network.
It obviously is not.
It never has been and you as a journalist are proceeding to call one side of the political
aisle ignorant, barbaric and sending us back to the dark ages.
Why don't you just say that you're on the left.
It's so hard for you.
Why can't you just be honest?
This is serious.
It's a serious question.
This is your Pr.
If you only knew how ridiculous is that statement is, you wouldn't have said it.
I just tell you a question and I asked you a question.
You failed hands for a single one of mine.
Frankly, I find this whole thing a waste of time.
If you want to read the book and Critique the book, why don't you read and critique
the book you want to read?
If you want to critique me, you can think whatever you want to try and I don't care.
I don't, I don't frankly give a damn what you think of me since I've never heard of
you and I've never heard of you until I briefed myself for this.
But that's not the issue.
You have a few and it's an interesting book, but my point is you book claims will be cited,
quoted from time to time.
Your book is, well, the Ij had done so several times and I'm about to do so again, if you
would, let me just finish the question.
You Bet. [inaudible] honestly, sir, on Judeo Christian values, those values, what are the
values?
It's turning.
It's back on.
Yeah.
I, I,
you know, I, I'm not inclined to continue in.
Interview with a person is badly motivated as you, as an interviewer.
So I think we're done here.
I appreciate your time.
Thank you for your time and uh, for showing that anger is not part of American political
discourse.
No.
Mr Shapiro, we'll say goodbye.
So
this didn't go well.
Shapiro ended up apologizing to Andrew Neil and saying that he misinterpreted Neil's antagonism
as political leftism and this is a case study and why identity arguments and letting your
feelings override the fact are bad ideas, which normally Ben Shapiro tells us is what
we should be paying attention to.
Right.
There's an identity argument here.
Ben ended the interview over the perceived political identity of the interview or not.
The ideas, not the questions are the issues being brought up.
It's sort of identity politics and reverse.
Ben Shapiro is against the type of identity politics that says my opinion is more valid
or particularly valid because of my identity and I agree that when the identity is used
as a casual in that way it's very bad and I've spoken out against it, but in this case,
Ben's taking the identity politics position of Andrew Neil's opinion is invalid because
I perceive him to be a liberal.
Of course, Neil is not a liberal.
He also wasn't taking a position.
He was just interviewing Ben about things that he has said.
It was a decision that Ben made based on his feelings and not on the fact Ben felt that
hard questions about his positions were leftist.
They weren't.
Andrew Neil has a life of conservative political credentials.
Ben's being interviewed about the opinions that he has espoused and writes about in his
book.
So why does he start asking the interviewer for his opinions?
The interviewer is interviewing Ben asking what is Ben believe?
And it is a very beta move when you start telling the interviewer to give you their
opinion when you're unable to defend the things that you've said during your life.
But then the real missed point here is that Ben tweeted something about being destroyed
by Andrew Neil or something like that.
This wasn't a debate, right?
Neil was playing the role of a journalist.
Neil is personally conservative, but he identified problematic statements that Ben Shapiro has
made any asks questions about them.
And Ben lost what was not actually a debate because he just jumped in, assumed that the
interviewer had left wing bias.
And then, uh, yeah, I guess Ben's used to getting the kid gloves, safe space treatment
by American conservative media outlets.
And what Neil did was, yes, he quote destroyed Ben, but he destroyed him without really do
anything.
He just asked him, uh, to, to defend his claims and Ben was enabled to his feelings overrode
the fact identity.
Ended up with Ben Saying, I'm Outta here.
And it is an extraordinarily fascinating case study in how in many of these cases, the principles
that these right wingers claim to espouse and hold up as the most important thing, grow
out the window.
Forget thrown out the window, no identity politics.
Well, you ended the interview over the perceived identity of the interviewer.
Uh, feelings don't care about the facts.
Well, uh, it see facts don't care about the feelings rather in this particular case, Ben
ignoring the facts and letting his feelings dictate how he behaved during that interview,
which was by the way, extraordinarily embarrassing.
Very funny.
I wish they would just live up to the principles that they espoused.
That's all I'm asking for.
Let us know your thoughts about this.
We'll be posting about it on our Instagram page at David Tatango.
Quit great.
Back out to this particular