‏

Verifierat konto

@BBCPolitics

Följ Följ @BBCPolitics

Mer

“I am not inclined to continue an interview with someone as badly motivated as you”

US conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro ends spiky interview with @afneil

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1126832712868712448

I don't think they will ley him back into the UK after this br00tal ASS-RAPE using LINEAR ANALYSIS.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38215490)

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2019/05/just-say-that-youre-on-the-left-ben-shapiro-says-t.html

The hilarious part doesn't come from Shapiro's predictable views about abortion, but rather in his insistence that Andrew Neil is a liberal figure disguised as an objective journalist. In fact, Neil is a famous conservative in the U.K., and is chairman of The Spectator. Here are a few lines about that magazine, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Its principal subject areas are politics and culture. Its editorial outlook is generally supportive of the Conservative Party…Editorship of The Spectator has often been a step on the ladder to high office in the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom. Past editors include Boris Johnson (1999-2005) and other former cabinet members Iain Macleod, Ian Gilmour, and Nigel Lawson.

And again, Andrew Neil is the Chairman. He was also the editor of the Sunday Times for a decade, which is a conservative newspaper owned by none other than Fox News mastermind Rupert Murdoch. So as you see, Neil isn't just a conservative, but a very famous one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38215550)

During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS.[18][52][53][54] In 1990, The Sunday Times serialized a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.[53] Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug AZT as harmful, and characterized the WHO as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."

In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."[53] That same year, he wrote that the Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticized the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."

In 1992 Neil was criticised by anti-Nazi groups[19] and historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper[20] for employing the Holocaust denier David Irving to translate the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.[19]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38215696)

During Neil's time as editor, The Sunday Times backed a campaign to prove that HIV was not a cause of AIDS.[18][52][53][54] In 1990, The Sunday Times serialized a book by an American conservative who rejected the scientific consensus on the causes of AIDS and argued that AIDS could not spread to heterosexuals.[53] Articles and editorials in The Sunday Times cast doubt on the scientific consensus, described HIV as a "politically correct virus" about which there was a "conspiracy of silence," disputed that AIDS was spreading in Africa, claimed that tests for HIV were invalid, described the HIV/AIDS treatment drug AZT as harmful, and characterized the WHO as an "Empire-building AIDS [organisation]."

In his 1996 book, Full Disclosure, Neil wrote that the HIV/AIDS denialism "deserved publication to encourage debate."[53] That same year, he wrote that the Sunday Times had been vindicated in its coverage, "The Sunday Times was one of a handful of newspapers, perhaps the most prominent, which argued that heterosexual Aids was a myth. The figures are now in and this newspaper stands totally vindicated... The history of Aids is one of the great scandals of our time. I do not blame doctors and the Aids lobby for warning that everybody might be at risk in the early days, when ignorance was rife and reliable evidence scant." He criticized the "AIDS establishment" and said "Aids had become an industry, a job-creation scheme for the caring classes."

In 1992 Neil was criticised by anti-Nazi groups[19] and historians like Hugh Trevor-Roper[20] for employing the Holocaust denier David Irving to translate the diaries of Joseph Goebbels.[19]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38216030)

https://twitter.com/RobBurl/status/1126818709245505536

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38215704)

no wonder lil benny got mad as fuck by the end

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38215939)

https://www.quora.com/What-is-Ben-Shapiro%E2%80%99s-IQ

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38215980)

The interviewer wasn't being snide when he said that they always challenge whoever they are interviewing with the opposing view and giving them an opportunity to rebut it. That's what the BBC has done in every single BBC interview I've seen. The fact that he didn't realize that the interviewer was on the right doesn't change that - in the UK they consider that format "part of the job."

He basically looked dumb and angry.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38216754)

OTOH, he is a never Trumper Israel-firster.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38216512)

see: http://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4039363&mc=75&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38219549)

that's one of shapiro's regular arguments

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38230395)

they think they are on the side of progress, because trannie bathrooms and pride parades are progress!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38216765)

disclosure: me too

is that the interviewer presented shitlib opinions and characterizations of shapiro as seemingly his own or his channel's own opinions rather than those of shapiro's opposition

in the us, regardless of your personal opinion, if you are a "good" journalist you will frame questions in a more neutral manner, such as "your opposition claims..." or "those on the other side of the political aisle have a problem with your position on abortion, claiming it is..."

this guy would leave out the attribution part

shapiro has acknowledged he fucked up assuming incorrectly

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4258764&forum_id=2#38222358)