Recently, this video was age-restricted. Yesterday, it was unsuccessfully appealed. As you can see beneath the video, the Notice reads, 'Age-restricted video (based on Community Guidelines).' But after the appeal, The UA-cam Team responded with the following; "After further review, we've determined that while your video does not violate our Community Guidelines, it may not be appropriate for a general audience. We have therefore age-restricted your video." In other words, a video that has not violated the Guidelines has been age-restricted based on the Guidelines. Follow this channel on Twitter @CounterArguing to keep up with any further updates. -C.A.
I had an argument for this video but the video went on so long I forgot it. I did not want to pause and type because you may have covered it later in the video ( in which case I think you did not ) Anywho what my question for you now is if you have a counter argument in any argument when is the proper time to bring it up? To early and you may be butting into what they say and they may take offense and to late it may be irrelevant which will just make them look like they won the argument or you may have forgetten your whole counter due to how long they spoke or how many questions they asked in one question. Cool idea for a video for you or maybe just ramblings of a crazed man on the internet.
I saw that video and laughed so hard I punched myself in the head until I bled from my toenails. I need to put that in a playlist to watch when I'm in a bad mood. Peace. P.S. However, the full interview is actually interesting in a serious way. A very important milestone for that country to even have that on any of their programs most likely.
Primo Antonius I don’t know anything about you or what you believe, but I know you’re supporting Ben Shapiro and probably watch him and others like him. I used to be like you too. Please, just think about your beliefs really hard and ask yourself if you want to live with your beliefs. Ben Shapiro spreads dangerous views, I hope you get out of it while you still can.
Krishnan Guru Murphy was right to ask those questions. The agent should have briefed him that is essentially a 60 minutes style programme. Channel 4 News are not there to promote movies like Downey Jr seemed to think.
@@Lennon6412 Fair point... Though the reason Downey took the interview in the first place was because he was on a promotional tour for the movie (doubtless part of his contract). I suspect Channel 4 wasn't entirely forthcoming in their motives, otherwise there wouldn't have been an interview in the first place. If the agent was doing his job better, as soon as Channel 4 said they were sending Murphy, the interview would have been canceled.
@@travcollier Completely agree. I think Murthy is a good interviewer and if they had him doing a 60 minutes style show in the UK it would be really good, infact his podcast is pretty interesting but his promotional interviews with Downey Jr and Tarantino have both fallen through for similar reasons. If you haven't already seen it, I would recommend checking out the interview with Richard Ayoade, who really sets out the different motives of interviewees who want to promote a product of some sort, and the interviewer who wants to talk about something a lot deeper. It's pretty funny as well as informative.
I think the questions would've made sense if the interviewer was trying to make the comparison between Stark's comic/movie history & RDJ's real life, but the interviewer didn't tie them together with the question of did RDJ's life help him to be a better Tony Stark? The fact that he didn't ask that question and kept acting in a disingenuous manner is... disappointing.
@@danielseelye6005 Not sure if it was his intention, but this dude sounded like he was trying to get some exclusive comment from RDJ about his past and was dragging up old shit in said attempt.
@@ilikeboom100 Don't group all journalists into one generalization. There are plenty of ethical journalists which get slandered along with the bad eggs.
An aspect of RDJ's exit was that it was corroborated by other people in the room. He stated his displeasure with the interview, noticed that other people recognized that his treatment warranted an exit, and followed their directions. An aspect of Joy's exit was that it followed a loud, unproductive argument. People can be very sensitive to continuous noise. Whoopi has less of an excuse, as she was part of the shouting.
I have in this comment not gone into the reasons why islam creates extremists, since it would make the comment even more bloated. Admittedly, this is the premise of my argument, so if that is your main objection to my argument, just tell me, ill type out a few reasons
Setting aside whether they're right or not. Both Goldberg and Behar were at the point in the interview where it was clear nothing productive was going to happen. If they were the sole hosts this would be the point where they shut down the guest and moved onto the next topic of their show, I believe O'Reily's preferred method is to say "cut their mike" before having a one sided rant in their direction. But the view has 5 hosts and it wouldn't have been right for those two to make that decision for the other 3. Walking out seemed like the right call.
@@LancesArmorStriking No ideology has ever killed more people than communism. Not christianity, not islam, not Nazi-ism, not the american civil war fought over slavery, not WW2, not WW1, not the hundreds year war, not even the death of millions (aprox 13 million) american natives during the conquest of the Americas. USSR -- 20 million China -- 65 million Vietnam -- 1 million North Korea -- 2 million Cambodia -- 2 million Eastern Europe -- 1 million Latin America -- 150,000 Africa -- 1.7 million Afghanistan -- 1.5 million Communist movements, parties not in power -- 10,000
@@LancesArmorStriking there are videos on it already from research by pew search center. 56% of Muslims worldwide and 30% of 18-25 Muslim men in America believe suicide bombings are justified. Over half of Muslims believe terrorism is okay. Ask Christians and Jews if suicide bombings are okay and you'll probably have less than 5% of each group worldwide saying it's okay. Plus you're forgetting Christians have the new testament, a bible 2.0. Islam doesn't have that, they still believe anything written is valid. Don't argue with atheists because we know more about religion than you
It’s like starting a conversation with someone from Germany, who wants to talk about their weekend but you start with: So yeah, your country was the one that killed 8 million Jews, right?
@@kstormgeistgem461 There are plenty of videos on interviews although those honestly aren't rocket science. I'll do you one right now. If you are asked a personal question that isn't related to what you need to do on the job you can end the interview early or politely request the person to talk about your skills and talents (I'm pretty sure you can also report to HR if the topic discussed was illegal or highly inappropriate). You don't want to walk out because that shows an unwillingness to cooperate in a tense scenario and an interview above all things is a test of character. Dress like you are going to a traditional Judaeo christian church. Even if on the job you'll be wearing polo shirts and khakis. Bring a copy of your resume as well as a copy of the hire notice. Additionally bring paper and pencil so you can write notes down. Turn off or leave behind all electronic devices prior to the interview. Gather Intel on the position and the business itself and be prepared to ask about it. They will ask some generic interview question, be prepared to lie if necessary but make sure it's consistent so you don't contradict yourself later on. If you are asked about what animal you will be give an answer with substance. This is another test of character. If asked about a disability, don't be afraid to tell them about it. Most businesses do have quotas and you can be hired because of it. Just make sure you make it sounds like your disability is actually a strength of some kind. If you are anywhere on the spectrum, deliver yourself like you're an autistic savant. Make eye contact, shave your face, do not look at your watch, speak from the diaphragm and not from the throat, look for a chance to connect emotionally or personally to the one doing the interview. Only have the interviewer repeat themselves a maximum of two times. Bring a copy of your credentials and if that's not possible be sure to mention it. No one is really going to penalize you for not going to an esteemed college if your resume shows you have the experience anyways. Be sure to detail what was said on your resume. And last but not least, always match the grip of the person shaking your hand.
@@kstormgeistgem461 Find that fun? Here's the thing about the difference between a public broadcast interview and a job interview. One is centered around you obtaining a job and the other is about the job you currently have. That's it. Everything I just said earlier basically still applies, the questions will be more focused and if it's about politics you'll have to stand your ground and be as fair as possible (everybody loves an underdog so keeping cool and just taking the answers as they come works really well in ones favor). Lastly, any advice on how to handle a cross examination (which is what an interview is) is good as it's all basically relevant across the board. Make a note of it next time so you can actually be in the mindset to learn something.
Short version: Interviewee: "I want more than I'm making now." Interviewer: "We can pay you half what you're currently making. *insert BS excuse*" Interviewee: "You have wasted my time." Walk away
Marty Hickman Channel 4 make a copyright claim on the video when it was first uploaded, so it looks like the claim was sorted out and the video is back online
But you can make $1000 a day even though this video is for "the producers" to see if they like you and you are not getting paid... Don't forget to sign the waiver!
I've never seen that Robert Downey Jr. interview. But that. That was so crigney. Like It hurts to watch. You just want to step in and say, "no please don't say that." Edit: It makes my *brian* hurt.
reminds me of and interview with Billy Bob Thornton he did about his band project he has and was under the impression it was purely about his music, but the interviewer kept asking about his movies and every time they would ask about a movie or acting he would avoid the question and talk about his music, and when they asked him why he was deflecting the questions he finally let loose and said he was brought there under the impression he was going to be asked about his music and not his acting and feels horribly disrespected and figured he would give that disrespect back, and they aologized and just asked about his music and the rest of the interview was horribly awkward lol.
Bro how the fuck is Hannibal names Hannibal... Like literally that's what his parents thought was a good idea(it is). And his last fucking name is BURRESS, BASSDSA NAME RIGHT THERE HELLO. Epicness ensues.
So you retweeted that Jeff Bezos was actually running Amazon from North Korea, why did you retweet that? I didn't... retweet that. Ok, well I'm just going off my notes.
@MoralSingularity It was not pro life that was being pointed out as dark age mentality, it was the criminalizing and punishing of abortion that people connect to the dark ages. There is a difference between pro life and anti abortion. You can be anti abortion without being pro life but you can't be pro life without being anti abortion. example 1: Anti abortion and pro capital punishment is not pro life. example 2: Anti abortion and anti capital punishment is pro life. (Taking a life to show that taking a life is wrong is not pro life).
@Andrea Mendenhall Ben did break one of his own rules and in a most embarrassing way. This is by his own admission. The question that was the straw that broke the camel's back, involved a bill that would convict a woman for having a miscarriage in which she would be sentenced to 30 years in prison. I don't understand why Ben did not answer the questions.
@Andrea Mendenhall The behaviour he shows those few times he's didn't have enough adderall or is either underprepared our outmatched is exactly the best measure of his character.I know people like him from work. We usually pick them up in their offices so they don't coke/med up before an impromptu meeting ... Mostly hilarity ensues.
@@DanielVargas-yx8ff attacking your just a total liar Jordan is world famous for demanding his interviewers use kid gloves then the most mild criticism of the guy that got fired for his love of historical revisionism instead blames the trans people typical IDW cowardice and did you see what happened when he finally had his first ever debate Zlavov of all people proved JP is a complete fraud
I think that public opinion is a factor in leaving an interview, but not the only factor. When Robert Downey jr Walked, I doubt he walked because he thought “this’ll look good to other people”, but rather, he walked because he thought “these are very personal questions that I’m not comfortable answering”.
Well, it undoubtably IS a factor but its not always super important, RDJ left because he felt the interviewer was being inapropriate and most people would agree with him because of what you mentioned.
I think there was a unspoken agreement that the interview was a movie promotion, so when it turned into a personal thing it was a breach of trust and a breach of contract. Kind of a bait and switch.
I realized after reading you replies that my point didn’t come across clearly, I think that public opinion isn’t that great a factor in most of the interviews he mentioned. And in Robert Downey jr’s cake, I don’t think it was a factor at all. In the view interview it almost certainly was a factor though, but not the only factor.
@@DobesVandermeer It's not really a breach of trust. It's poor research on RDJ and his people's part. In the UK it's illegal for a some one who presents the news to do promotions of movies like this. So Guru-Murthy has to ask some human interest questions to make it not just about the movie RDJ is promoting. All RDJ had to do was a give a boiler plate answer and that would have been that. This is why we see a lot of American Movie stars flip out on Channel 4 interviews, their people haven't done the research
Benny is an antagonist by nature, its a product of the environment he throws himself into. His actions were foolish and brazen regardless, but understandable in my eyes.
@@netherwalker1762 how so? he was confronted on nonsense he said and, when no possible defence could be made, he attacked the integrity of the interviewer and left. He's not used to discussions with intelligent people, why do you think barely-educated college students are his preferred targets?
Yeah I don't think walking out is ever a good look. It looks weak. At best in a kind of "well fair enough to him/her for losing patience" but even that's not as strong a look as making it to the end.
I don't think that leaving was the issue in Shapiro's case, he responded to the attacks with an appeal to popularity and a character attack and that's what nade him look bad.
Yeah, and even Ben himself said he shouldn't have done that. That being said, he should've stayed and defended himself like Jordan Peterson did in the video instead of go on the offensive. I like Ben, but this was a really bad interview.
All they had to do was ask, "You play Tony Stark so naturally. Do you see a bit of yourself in the character?" And then he can say whatever he is comfortable saying. It is relevant to the promotion of the movie and therefore the purpose of the interview. But they weren't happy with just getting that because what they wanted was a reaction. They wanted controversy; volatility.
@@theg-man4474 I understand what you are saying but I think it's not very helpful. I assume everyone isn't a hypocrite until they seem to be. Putting being a hypocrite as a "normal" thing isn't as good as totally railing someone for being a hypocrite.
I have found that the most effective way to leave an interview is to very obviously break wind while maintaining unbroken eye contact with the interviewer. It establishes dominance and an ability to be dynamic.
It's funny how Shapiro's excuse for calling Andrew Neil out on his supposed leftism was not knowing that he was in fact a conservative. How does that even matter? Even if he WAS left wing that wouldn't justify such a blatant ad hominem and it verges on hilarity that he fails to notice that.
He accused Andrew Neil of being a leftist during the interview, which is obviously incorrect. He was using his lack of information as an excuse for that, not for the other parts.
Exactly. Which means that if Ben Shapiro had known that Andrew Neil was conservative, then apparently he would have happily answered his questions. So much for intelligent debate and free market of ideas. To Ben, if you question how he thinks, then you must be on the wrong side. Ironically, if Ben had realized that you can't make assumptions out of people from their questions or statements alone, then he could have avoided this mess.
The thing about the Channel 4 interview with Robert Downey Jr is that he doesn't understand his place is to help promote a movie, he considers himself rightly or wrongly a proper journalist that must unearth important revelations, hence the same car crash with Quentin Tarantino. I think some of the blame should lie with Channel 4, they know what he's like, and thinks this movie promotion stuff is totally beneath him ...
In fairness to kgm he probably had a producer in his ear asking him to ask certain questions and pursue certain lines of enquiry for the sake of sensationalism. Ultimately kgm was just the messenger.
No, they just went back to their panel where he got laughed at. If he had stayed they would have had to move onto something else and not talk about on air, but he gave them that 5 mins.
The interviewer asked questions that would probably make a strong impression that he is on the left and is trying to badh him so obviously he was a bit disgruntled.
@@dyr_glpsn4209 yeah, for a second it sounded like he was owning his mistake, but ultimately he doubled down and tried to justify why he left as if his reasons were still justifiable.
To be fair, asking Tarantino about a possible connection between violence in movies and violence in real life was fair, given that Tarantino was there to promote a violent movie (although it's understandable that he was tired of facing those sorts of accusations). The RDJ one on the other hand was just plain weird.
@@jziffi Your argument ignores the purpose of the interview. Murthy was there to help promote a movie, and asking a question that gets the audience thinking that the movie might be harmful undermines the interview's purpose.
If Americans don't understand our British ways they shouldn't come over here. We aren't as into the whole capitalism thing, and we don't make a distinction between promotional and 'real' interviews.
Thank you for not being a political hack on the right or left and actually just analyzing relatively objectively the problem with all of these interviews
@@restlessfrager Depends how you define centrism tbh. If you mean that your political views fall in the center of the spectrum there's nothing wrong with that. If that's what you mean then in America you'd probably be a democrat, since the bulk of the democratic party is center-left. But if centrism to you means thinking that both sides are equally bad and that the superior position is to just split the difference between them then that is just intellectually lazy. It's letting others dictate your beliefs for you, since if either party moves either left or right you will just change your position to stay in between them. And in American politics splitting the difference between the modern democratic and republican party would put you on the right end of the political spectrum, not the center.
@@SikerScrapyard but those weren't good questions. When you use such silly hyperbolic language like "going back to the dark ages", I have difficulty taking you seriously
@@joecoolmccall , The States in question outlawed women who go to other states for abortions... outlawed abortion entirely... Outlawed miscarriages... That's a bit like the darkages where if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant she must carry the baby to term...
@@GameGod77 Doesn't matter because the interview only made him look bad to fascists and marxists. Most normal people don't think much of this interview, especially not normal conservatives.
@@betohax Dude calm your ass down. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan too, but that doesn't mean you have to overreact every time he has a bad day. He tried to win an argument that was started by him by boasting about his popularity, which is a douchey move regardless of what side of the political spectrum you land on. Your comments reek of someone who's doing damage control, but the truth is "normal people" are able to see Shapiro's ground crumble in that interview. Shapiro even admitted as such, which I'm glad he did. It makes me reassured that he can take his defeats like an adult.
It's hard to have any sympathy for Ben Shapiro when his whole discussion style is based on "owning" and taking down the other side, and not a genuine exploration of ideas and differences.
@@formeraxe117 disagree, at least he uses actual debate tactics in his Shapiro destroys x videos. Most of his radio shows are him just strawmanning the other side or using bad history to defend his point. Pretty much all his foreign policy videos are garbage neocon talking points as well.
@@demonicsushiz2515 "The left" is an abstraction, and usually an inaccurate one, when invoked the way you are doing it. Did you have someone specific in mind who you would compare to Ben Shapiro? I'm happy to tell you whether they seem better, the same, or worse than he is.
You always use a range of content that sometimes makes me uneasy, but always do a great job at presenting the arguments as they are and at speaking and showing only the logic in those arguments. For that, I love and appreciate this channel.
@@jayjay99989 lol neil is right wing in the UK and would be firmly in the GOP in the US, he's just a tough interviewer which is extremely rare in the US and he's not a protestant theocrat since that isn't a huge issue in UK conservatism.
Most people just share this interview as cheap clickbait. What is worse is leftist that post it seem to forget it happended against another conservative.
Whether you like or dislike ben shapiro, that interview was a bad look for him. This is coming from the guy who's known for saying "facts don't care about your feelings." Guess little benny shap's feelings overcame facts here.
If someone started asking me pointless irrelevant questions about my troubled past instead of asking relevant ones about the film that I was promoting I would also lose it in the first couple of seconds lol
7:45 ... interview you say? Sounds like six kids simultaneously throwing a tantrum to me, I can't even make out the hell they're trying to talk about lol
@@imlonelypleasehelp5443 O'Riley was saying that the 9/11 terror attacks were motivated by Islamic beliefs and everyone else seemed to be against that.
@360Ragequit that's a very sloppily worded way of saying that Islamic beliefs motivated the terror attacks. It's not like it's a good thing that the US sided with Israel, or that the US got involved at all, but nevertheless the terror attacks were ultimately Islamic in nature.
Apart of this debate is the cultural differences between the US and the UK. In the UK, our broadcast press is nowhere near as partisan as in the US, that tends to be the home of the printed press (obviously that is not always the case, such as the interview with Jordan Peterson). Andrew Neil is a very well known journalist in the UK, known for his no-nonsense approach and devil's advocate style, in order to put the interviewee, and their views, to the test. He does this to people on the right, left and centre of politics. I am not claiming him to be some bi-partisan god that looks on at mortals with absolutely no biases, but he is a good journalist. He does good journalism. But, his style can be easily misconstrued, such as Ben and some of the public have done, to fall into the same category of US dominated journalists (and political debating tactics in general) of shaming the opposition for their views. Now, on your point of intent, what I believe gives a stronger case for what Andrew Neil claims to be his intent, is his record as an interviewer. If anyone watched his other interviews, his political shows, or any other piece of media he hosts, it's clear that Andrew Neil was attempting to give Shapiro the oppurtunity to retort the general criticisms and accusations levied against him.
Shapiro's problem is that he can't really defend a lot of what he says. He's spent so long gleefully DESTROYING random half-interested college students and being a guest on hug box shows that won't challenge him like the Rubin Report that he's basically dulled his own brain. By all accounts, he was once a pretty capable debater, but he's not in the business of being questioned now that he's a big shot.
If this is true then it changes a lot. 9/10 times someone asks those kind of questions on tv they're doing a hit piece to make the interviewee look bad and smear them so its understandable that Ben would think he'd walked into a trap...unless the guy was playing devil's advocate and had a history of doing so.
@@tigerfestivals5137 - That's true with American media, TF. Not the same everywhere. Here's the thing, too: _Even if_ Neil was attempting "gotcha" journalism, Shapiro should have been ready. He advocates that style. Instead he snowflaked out.
In what universe were those questions "devil's advocate" questions? He literally accused Shapiro of supporting policies that were a "return to the Dark Ages" and turning his back on Judeo-Christian values. Those weren't questions. They were accusations with a question mark at the end. They are in the camp of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety of question. This interviewer is trash. If he truly was trying to ask "devil's advocate questions", then he should have immediately noted that Shapiro wasn't answering his "questions" but responding to perceived accusations; at that point, he can redirect Shapiro _to the first question_ while allaying his concerns about this being an attack piece by making the "devil's advocate" strategy clear. At this point the interview would have gotten back on the rails after an awkward start, instead of devolving into circustown. *That's not what happens even slightly.* Instead the interviewer takes what I refer to as the "Cathy Newman scattershot approach": never let the interviewee actually have a discussion about a single point, but instead respond to each statement with a new, different accusation; never let a single point develop to a point that the interviewee can defend themselves; bury the interviewee under endless volleys of new accusations, often before they can even fully finish processing the last accusation. If this is what passes for "good journalism" in the UK, well no wonder the last actual journalist in the goddamn country is in jail. PS, I'd never so much as heard of this interview before coming to this video, so I had exactly zero bias on how the interviewer acted or Shapiro's response. I watched a video (this video) edited to show how awful Shapiro's choices were, but the only answer a reasonable person can come to is that he is completely in the right to note that something is off.
I won't act like I know politics, but it was really hard to watch Ben Shapiro not give Andrew Neil the opportunity to speak in the first clip there. Even with the defense he gave, it's just difficult to look at. It's also funny that Ben Shapiro got so offended there, when he's the one that says _"Facts don't care about your feelings"_ and says to look at everything with only the facts.
What's funny about him being averse to the interviewer's obviously feelings-based statements? Please find literally one thing the interviewer said that could actually be quoted as a "fact" instead of just being hyperbole and poetry lol. IDK who this Ben dude is and I'm not really that invested, but wow, a lot of people sure hate him enough to be absolutely blatantly unobjective and irrational in the comments. It's like you were all plugging your ears and singing lalala when the interviewer talked so that you can all pretend he said anything that actually resembles something a journalist would say lol. Anyone with journalistic integrity would cringe at that
@@ItsAsparageese ye except any journalist that gives a question that's easy to answer and doesn't gain any new information is failing. A good interviewer will give an opposing view and an argument that someone who is watching would give if they didn't agree with the interviewee. Andrew Neil is actually pro-life and doesn't think its taking people back to the dark ages but obviously some people do and he was giving ben the opportunity to respond to the argument and make himself look better. however, he had nothing to respond with and started attacking him for no reason
@@bruh-sf4gwwell Andrew brought up old comments which Ben already retracted , this just shows malice . Although ben said he was at fault there , j think it was perfectly justified . And do u really think Ben doesn't have any arguments for being pro - life . Saying that ur stance is ancient is a very bad way of making an argument . Instead he should have tried to argue the points of abortion .
@@rishabhchauhan9059 ok so you're saying the argument Andrew presented was bad. why didn't ben defend it easily instead of crying and leaving? and he could've easily informed Andrew and said he had previously retracted the statements
It was. Ben just doesn't know how to handle anything but people trying to make him look good or acting like a complete charlatan to try to embarrass unprepared college students. What he found on the BBC was just plain journalism asking what outside the US echochambers are totally normal questions.
The difference between Downey Jr's interview being inappropriate was it was for Ultron, a movie that didn't consist of only him and he didn't create it so the personal questions were very inappropriate. The personal questions for Shapiro weren't inappropriate because they were interviewing him about his book.
He asked about his book. He asked specifically about Shapiro's claim - in the book - that America is being torn apart by divisive politics and bringing up Ben's direct role in that. And that's when his poor snowflake mind broke and had to go find a safe and sympathetic echo chamber that would tell him it was OK to get exposed so bad.
The question themselves were not inappropriate but you have to admit that Andrew Neil didn't exactly ask them in an appropriate way. If I were to talk to someone about a controversial matter like say abortion I would not say to a person who is pro-choice. "So tell me why do you support the murder of innocent babies?" or to a pro-life person. "So tell me why do you not support the right of a woman to control her body?" Those are very antagonistic questions that would probably annoy or infuriate anyone. So saying that a group that you are a part of doesn't seem to have any idea of what they are doing or that some beliefs or opinions that you have are akin to the Dark ages seem very counterproductive in any real discussion. Some better way to phrase these would be. "Does the Republican party have any new ideas?" as for the dark ages comment I don't know exactly how one could word it so that it isn't offensive.
@@JasperLane Im interested in how you would question the pro-life person then about abortion because the question about womens autonomy to her body IS the entire problem to the other side. If you choose to avoid talking of it because you fear setting off the oppising side then you already lose since that is the core their idea
@@MrAapasuo It is all a matter of phrasing you can ask these questions in ways that do not demonize the other side or at the very least do not antagonize who you are interviewing. An example of interviewing the pro-life member could be. "Now one of the main arguments of the pro-choice movement is that those who are pro-life do not respect a women's right to their body. What is your response to these claims?" You can phrase a similar question to any pro-choice people Phrasing it in this way paints the picture that you are simply just repeating what the opposition is saying and that you do not hold these opinions yourself making it less likely for the person you are interviewing to get defensive. On very touchy issues such as abortion though you never know what might set the other person off. One side believes they are fighting to stop children from being killed and the other side believes they are fighting for a women's right to do whatever they want with their body so when you simply question their cause even in a very polite matter it is possible that they will get offended but hopefully you are interviewing them on abortion and not the next movie they are staring in so they should be prepared for some of the more difficult questions.
No one gives a shit about the UK you literally prison people for wrong think and let a child die instead of getting treatment in another country, bens podcast is ranked 5th worldwide, his news site gets over a million clicks and his daily podcast gets over 6 million views daily and he just keeps growing.
That Jordan Peterson “interview” is a master class on proper interview (or interrogation) technique. I’ve watched it three times, and it always amazes me that he didn’t throw a shoe at her head! I think Ben Shapiro was far too conditioned by confrontational American interviewers to realize that he was being toyed with in a dry, sarcastic manner by the BBC host. Honestly, I had to watch a few other interviews with Andrew Neil to pick up on it. It just isn’t done much on straight US news programs. When it is, it’s far more obvious.
This is what people fail to understand about this interview. While I think Shapiro handled the situation incredibly poorly, people miss the fact that he deals with very confrontational people that try to smear him on a daily basis.
I think the BBC guy got pretty much what he was looking for. I was surprised one of the questions wasn't along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife?".
Zhong Ping Getting upset like that about forced-birth being from the Dark Ages made him look like he’s insecure about his beliefs. As if he suspects that his position might in fact be brutal and oppressive.
@MoralSingularity The fact that you don't realize that you yourself are hardly even left of mussolini at this point, makes this so much more hilarious. The BBC is neutral, the reporter is a famous british conservative. Being across the pond, makes him a lot more sane than the retards from the american right.
@@dillonblair6491 the british conservatives have always been for a United Kingdom on the isles, for a strong military and a free, less regulated market. But I see from the rest of your reply that politics is not your forte. Conservatives in the UK are formed from several parties, which include both eurosceptic beliefs as well as Pro-EU ones, free speech is not protected by law in the UK. The muslim issue is a complex social issue and it's impossible to be dealt with by one party. And what the fuck do you even mean? They elected boris johnson as the PM, the guy who put lies on busses and drove around in them to get Brexit support, they are trying to honor Brexit. Jesus Christ, imagine being Dillon, who knows so little, yet feels confident to pour garbage out of his mouth
@UCV15teE_NyP_AqBilGi05GA serbia did it so well they brought down NATO on themselves and bombed themselves into being a dirt poor shithole with so few prospects in it, it's population moves north to ruin Germany and Austria with it's vile diaspora. They eliminated the muslims so well they became Russia's pet, buying off their scraps and violating US sanctions. You almost had a point, but it turns out you know nothing. Genocide exasperates the issue. Germany genocided jews, now we have both Israel and AIPAC influencing the US, Serbia genocides muslims, Yugoslavia fell and serbia is now worse off than both Croatia, Slovenia and barely ahead of Bosnia. Like my guy, learn geopolitics before you spew that shit. Genociding muslims in UK would essentially kill Britain.
I actually read the title "Why you should leave an intervew" and I was expecting something like "we all need attention" but apparently my brain got it wrong again. But you know, the video is informative. I like it.
Aslan Hoskin ... what? You can’t be serious. You’re talking about a man who made a lucrative career off going to college campuses to interview unprepared laypeople on political issues in order to get “gotcha” moments to make his ideological opponents look stupid. I mean, he (a radio host with over 10 years experience with public speaking on political subjects) comes to the conversation with a binder prepared by a professional team days, maybe weeks in advance, and talks with random people off the street in the middle of the day - not to mention that the program is free to omit or frame footage to portray their host in a positive light, as they certainly do. There are some who use straw man arguments, and then there are those who literally go into the fields looking for straw men. That’s what Steven crowder is.
@@aslanhoskin1592 When he does his prove me wrong series, he does it in a crowd of his own supporters, uses lots of straw-man arguments and because HE is the one holding the microphone he can control the debate. This is especially important because his opposition cannot speak over him if interrupted, Crowder can interrupt the flow of his sentence at will and get the crowd riled up and his opposition is unable to call out his bad faith after a misleading statement is said.
@@jamesontaber5996 I completely disagree with you, and at some points you are just plain wrong or perhaps ignorant. I'll point out faults in your statements in order: First of all they aren't Laypeople they are students at a college (being one of the most politically charged environments in the USA) who hold strong opinions on what is often times niche beliefs. or do you think a common layperson even knows what White Privilege is? Next, the purpose isn't to get gotcha moments, its to get the other participant to rationalise their opinion. Lets flip it, if its all about getting a gotcha, why are there so many constructive discussions? As to being prepared or experienced i would say: uhhhhh duh? Next is when you demonstrate ignorance. They do not cut up the questions/answers the whole point is that they are long form. Watch an episode, its all there awkward pauses, and 'um let me think' resound. Lastly I don't think you know what a strawman is. How is it a strawman if the person that holds the view you are arguing against IS LITERALLY SITTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!!!
I would say that the first example of the girl walking out because of the transphobic dude is a totally appropriate response. He wasn't espousing his opinion, he was spewing factually incorrect statements in a manner designed to demean the subject matter, that being transgenderism. When Whoopi and the other chick walked off the View, they did it because the guy was espousing factually incorrect statements. If someone is cherry-picking information and deliberately not educating themselves, they nor the audience are not owed the rest of the interview.
Exactly. It is not the responsibility of the interviewer nor the interviewee to educate the other individual on social issues that aren’t even relevant to the interview. That guy going on about trans people was pushing his view onto that girl
What was factually inaccurate about the transgender part? Bruce Jenner WAS a man who underwent surgery to remove his penis. I have no idea what the actual interview was about or the context surrounding it but your comment is referring purely to the clip shown in this video right?
This is also a difference between European and American media. American media is on average very, very partisan, whereas European tends to be more impartial. Again, on average. Shapiro, being familiar with partisan American media mistook Neil's clarifying questions for partisanship. This is why he assumed Neil was on the left. But this is just how European interviews are held a lot of the time. I do however think Shapiro doesn't have good answers for the questions Neil posed. Whenever he is questioned he usually goes on the offensive by attacking a straw man.
Neil seemed to be doing a Stossel style interview. However European media isn't really non-partisan at all, they just only show one view point so it seems like it.
@@lukasg4807 What I see (British, Dutch, Belgian interviews) seem to be done in this way. Here (Netherlands) even left leaning talkshow hosts seem to be ok with having right wing guests explain their viewpoints. Neil does this a lot too.
@@joshuapenner2164 Look back at the interview, especially the start. The point Shapiro is trying to make seems contradictory with his own actions in the past. That is what Neil is trying to clarify, but pretty much all Shapiro does is dodge. So they get nowhere. He is perfectly happy to let Shapiro speak, but Shapiro doesn't have any good explanations. This sort of interview happens all the time in Europe. Just because you're not used to it doesn't mean it's dishonest.
@@StuntpilootStef Yeah now that im rewatching it, it seems to be a cultural difference. Compared to how things are run here in the States, Neil seemed to be a bit rude. But if that is how things are run in Europe, then nothing is amiss. :)
You can tell Ben is used to debates rather than interviews with people he disagrees with. He is so used to being on the offensive, "destroying" other peoples' arguments, that he doesn't seem to know how to defend his own stances and positions
Allison Bach is have to say he was ill prepared compared to all previous debates/interviews. He’s defended his stance on many occasions. I think he was expecting an interview but instead got a debate with someone who was playing devils advocate to get him to slip up which he did.
Shaprio came across badly because because throwing a hissy fit over over Neil's questioning (whatever you think of his motivation) pissed away the image he'd cultivated as an "intellectual master debater" whose confidence in the logical strength of his positions was unshakable. And all the people who've been saying "Shaprio is an above average sophist, but his ideas and arguments don't stand on their own" were able to simply point this interview and say "yeah, that". In other words, walking out of an interview is bad PR if it completely contradicts your whole public image.
@MoralSingularity So normally how it works is the interviewer asks a question or sets out a position that the interviewee can then respond to. By saying pro life is from the dark ages, Neil was setting up Shaprio to go off on why abortion is amoral. But Shaprio couldn't rise to the challenge, because Neil hurt his fee fees by not phrasing it like "Shapiro you're a smart boy, abortion is BAD yes? OwO". By walking out of the interview he looked like a dissolving snowflake. As for the idea that Shaprio has the facts on his side, that's not correct. He cherry picks and uses weasel words, which can be effective, but, as evidenced by this episode, even he has no confidence in his arguments when he detects that he's outside his echo chamber. I don't expect you to be able to detect this, since clearly if you think Neil or anyone in the conservative establishment of the UK is anything close to a Marxist then you're still in the process of educating yourself. But that's OK, because if you actually care about working out what's right (rather than just stimulating your own biases) then you'll realize this sooner or later.
Yes I despise the new tactic used by the right-wing, typified by Kelly Ann Conway, to Simply talk over the interviewer and ignore questions and filibuster. I was so glad when the interviewers started cutting Conway off their shows or ending her interviews as soon as she started doing this. It's so rude an unprecedented that it caught journalists off-guard for over a year though. If they won't engage in civil discussion then it's time to end the discussion and cut off their access to your forum.
@MoralSingularity whats the data that suggests women shouldnt be able to abort a 4 day old zygote. What about the fact that a lot of his opinions on issues are rooted in the fact hes jewish and because of that he thinks gay people shouldnt be allowed to get married.
@@weakboson7813 This is a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation of Ben's thoughts and feelings during that interview. As MoralSingularity said, it's likely that most Americans would have taken those questions as attempts to stump or fluster Ben. Ben wasn't upset that he was being asked hard questions; he was upset that he felt like the interviewer didn't really care about the answers but just wanted to "get" him. If he'd understood the "format," as it were, he'd have been ready with some heavy hitters.
@MoralSingularity Buddy... Pretending you have "data" when most relevant evidence contradicts you, or is to some degree reliant on shaky tangential links doesn't make you right.
this statement makes sense when the people you're arguing with bring up things you've said in the past that sound wrong to inflict low jabs on your character instead of actually staying on the relevant topic that's being debated. also don't act like you've never said or done anything stupid or "wrong", humans are not perfect and your mistakes not being recorded(unlike ben) don't make you a saint.
@@jeremiahfalck3496 Well, one is an actor and the other is a character played by that actor :-) I don't assume that actors have the same personality as the characters they are playing. ( For example, Jack Gleeson played King Jeoffrey from Game of Thrones, but while his character is an absolute asshole, he's actually a pretty decent guy) But in this case, it was exactly how I would have expected Tony Stark to respond. Now, it could be that that just happens to also be his personality, or it could be that he responded like Tony Stark's character just to make the point that this interview is about the movie, not about his personal life.
Thank you for explaining the differences between when it is a good time to leave an interview, or even better, how to leave a bad interview. Great examples.
Shapiro is extremely insecure. You can hear it in his voice and see it in his mannerism. How he has fans is beyond me. Possibly brainwashed children who can’t think for themselves
"You're criticising the Right, so you MUST be on the Left". That's everything wrong with politics in one sentence. Anyone with that mentality is not fit to make political statements
I agree that there's WAY too much us vs. them BS out there. Then again the interviewer was definitely not framing questions to understand the interviewee's thoughts. It came off as more of a debate and IF you're expecting a traditional interview I can understand the reactions.
I agree with you except on the Stevie Boebi interview @ 6:50. She sat through the first two anti-trans statements from the interviewer (the air quotes and saying they are just confused about their identity) then walks out on the third and the interview tries to continue with a fourth before she can leave. He either knew this would be very offensive to her, or he is an idiot and didn't know anything about his interviewee. Given they'd been talking twenty minutes, I'd expect 1) he did know, and 2) she sat through many other idiotic and offensive questions/statements from this person. Absolutely no one that would be a fan of hers would be at all offended at her for walking out, and would probably cheer it. Anyone that thinks his statement was at all acceptable, would never have liked Stevie Boebi in the first place.
It took her whole a minute to get triggered and storm out after the topic came up. He was trying to provoke her, get her to think about the meaning of all these words (given that she didn't even know what a man was prior to this interview). "What is a man?Identity? Can a little girl id as a man?Should everybody go along with it?Should it be law?_ etc. etc. She could have stayed and explained her position, but she gave up as soon as he stepped on the trigger point.
@@mattmattmatt131313 You can have a dialogue about identity issues without being wholly dismissive right away, and preferably without being dismissive at all. He corrected his own use of transgender by applying very deliberate air quotes to it, and it he made it very clear how he was going to frame the issue as he continued speaking. Whatever your stance on transgender issues, you have to admit that it exists at an intersection of body image, mental health, and personal identity, so it is *obviously* going to be more touchy for some people than others. Hence, if your goal is constructive dialogue as opposed to making a public example of somebody through their views, you are going do precisely not do what this interviewer did.
From what I've seen of this guy (only a few videos), this seems to be his style. She should have done her research and come prepared for that. He is not shy stating his position then letting others defend theirs. His views are pretty old and established, it is her views that are new and need defending. Her trigger was that he dared question them at all(which is to be expected from this interviewer) "We all know Bruce is a man..."-leaves immediately. So she either got such an emotional response, so offended that she had to leave or she realized the other side is not going to go easy on her and she got scared and left. Was he provocative?...Absolutely. Could she handle it better?...Sure. Oh and "Whatever your stance on t-issues..." you don't have to admit anything, you can start your position from wherever you please. You don't ever have to accept the other guys playing field. Sure it can be a touchy subject, same way I would imagine, this girl talking to her vast online audience about scissoring is pretty touchy to this conservative as well. He still had her on, he still called her back "Come and tell me why" after she left.
@Emily the Slayer of mgtow men That doesn't really negate his point. If she wants to make a stand she should stand and she should know and be ready to stand up against someone whose views are already well known. The inability to deal with difficult scenarios is a greater fault than someone just being themself. Trans people are indeed rare. So rare that including them in everything is unrealistic and yet that happens anyways. I'd love to hear your excuse for it, oh slayer of clinically depressed men.
sorry Shapiro, the questions weren't badly motivated. they were tough political questions about your political views (many of which you still hold) because you are a 'political commentator'. you didn't have answers to defend your positions, so accuse the interviewer of being on the left and just leave. classic. facts only care about Ben Shapiro's feelings
At the end of the day, Ben is a hardcore ideologue who worships paleoconservative values as the closest man-made thing to infallibility, and when challenged he falls back on ideology and just sounds like a broken record. His interview with Tucker Carlson is a great example of this.
@@jacilund2159 true, but the book is political in nature. and the title I believe is "The Right Side of History" which explicitly makes a claim about historical fact involving politics. from much of Shapiro's publicly shared political views, this title of his book is a gross, ironic fabrication of positions he holds being "the right side of history". he's demonstrably incorrect on nearly everything he advocates. the book also explicitly making a claim about 'history' calls into question and refers to historical events and historical fact surrounding politics, which Mr. Shapiro is consistently on the wrong side of, contrary to his books' title. I don't find the questions badly motivated even the one calling the new Georgia anti-choice law a Draconian position, as it literally would represent legislation that is inherently authoritarian, despite Mr. Shapiro misleading and lying that Neil claims "the entire pro-life position is barbaric" which he never once said.
Or at least, if he had answers, he didn't give them, which lets be real, the man usually has an answer, whether you agree with the answer or not. He's very quick when it comes to stuff like that. He just assumed that the man had bad intentions. Which that assumption could very well be wrong (in fact I'm leaning towards that assumption being wrong, especially since he didn't know the man and wrongly assumed his political stance). Also what about Ben Shapiro leaving an interview because of people he thinks are on the left is "classic"? Last I checked (though I don't super follow the man, so I could be wrong here), he usually sticks it through to tell those people that they're wrong, whether respectfully or not so. I fail to see how this is classic Ben at work here.
The Andrew Neal interview is beautiful. He was the perfect person to interview Ben Shapiro, who normally relies on talking over people. Instead of matching his speed, which many fall for when interviewed by him, Neal continues to just ask short, direct questions, making Shapiro look like a frightened little boy.
"When someone is intent in defaming your character you have no obligation to continue that conversation" - A man who wrote a book on how to attack the character of people instead of refuting their argument
The funny thing about the Ben Shapiro interview is that he was supposed to promote a book specifically about how the left coarsened the debate in America. All the questions he got mad about were hugely relevant and were exposing his hypocrisy in a very effective fashion. You can tell this was the interviewers' intention from his subtly british burn at the end
It wasn't subtle. He did bring up the tweets, going back 11 years, that would have the worst possible hot-takes. This after saying he didn't know who Shapiro was. Neil: "Oh but if you only knew I was right wing." Who would expect Ben to believe that?
Here is the issue I have with interviewers like Benny Shapiro: Although I am very entertained by his interviews sometimes, and even get what he is saying (gasp, did I really type that?) we have meshed serious informative and intelligent interviews into the realms of reality TV and entertainment. Interviews that are designed as gotcha moments are entertainment and not designed always to get to the bottom of the issue discussed. Hell, look at what CNN and Fox News are classified as...Entertainment. People would rather watch train wrecks instead of valuable information. I'd like a main meal of News, hold the "reality tv" please. Lol
BourbonChicken Those tweets reflect his opinions from 11 years ago, it wasn’t like he was a child or some sort of unaffiliated person in political affairs at the time. Ben Shapiro at this point had a degree and was actively engaging in political affairs and writing articles. The interviewer commenting on these 100% serious tweets, is a clarification question, and getting offended because he points out this possible contradiction, a softball question at best.
Well, our republicans are pretty on the deep end of right compared to a lot of the european countries, so technically, that old fellow probably could end a democrat over here v:
@@HyenaBlank I think america is just getting more extreme regardless of the spectrum. Europe is following the trend as well, but for the time being, left or right, Europe just seems neutral compared to American politics
Finn The Artist that definitely isn’t the case. Find me a large coalition of extreme leftists in American politics. Maybe you’ll find many individuals but that doesn’t sneak it’s way into Washington in almost any meaningful forum. Far right wingers are much more likely to be found at every level of government here in the US, even down to local and state governments.
Holy shit. I just realized. Andrew Neil was just playing devils advocate/asking strong questions. He used strong words "barbaric" and "dark ages" because, well, that's what the critics to the issue would be saying saying. But Shapiro, probably used to biased, tricky interviewers (lets be honest, the media is filled with them), heard those words and thought, "Oh shit, here it comes. A smear campaign". When really, if he just addressed the QUESTION rather than the INTERVIEWER, it would have been so much better for everyone involved. Amazing channel you have! I would have never seen it the other way.
If a "journalist"'s entire bag is using inflammatory and emotion-appeal language to troll people, then why the heck does anybody bother using a TV to access that when it's the same trash everyone does on social media? What a pathetic excuse for a job, honestly. I'm a little bit shoulder-chipped about journalistic integrity, sure, but I can handle a little editorializing ... However, what that BBC fossil was doing was just really lazy and honestly, even stupider than my most recent impression of daytime TV's usual crap-tier content. There is nothing journalistically or dialectically redeemable about the tack he took on the conversation. (That said, the meat of your comment is really about Shapiro reading into it, so let me bring it back around to the point by saying that, under the circumstances, I think it was a lot more reasonable for Ben to assume that the interviewer meant his words at face value, rather than assuming the interviewer was just a really pathetic excuse for someone deserving of a media position. And yes, having written that out, I do recognize now that I just defended someone attributing to malice that which is explained by stupidity ... but in a sense, the fact that some idiot has a media following does give one a reason to assume they're perhaps not 100% idiot.)
Now here's a good topic. "should businesses that serve as a public forum, be subject to follow the first amendment?" Like should UA-cam, Facebook, and so forth be allowed to say what you can say, If they are serving as public platforms for speech? Personally i think they should be, since they have in a sense replaced the public paper and town square. So extending things to the internet, only makes sense.
The first chick walking out in protest imo was a fine look. Him saying "Bruce... We ALL know he's a man" is killing any attempt at having a conversation by stating his view as fact, and shows he's unwilling to budge in the slightest. Not only disrespectful to interviewee who obviously is not part of this "all".
@@osmium3691 When reality is on your side, assuming that everyone agrees with you can be seen as a sign of respect. When talking to a stranger, you assume he's not a flat earther, a creationist or an anti-vaccination advocate out of courtesy.
Recently, this video was age-restricted. Yesterday, it was unsuccessfully appealed.
As you can see beneath the video, the Notice reads, 'Age-restricted video (based on Community Guidelines).' But after the appeal, The UA-cam Team responded with the following; "After further review, we've determined that while your video does not violate our Community Guidelines, it may not be appropriate for a general audience. We have therefore age-restricted your video."
In other words, a video that has not violated the Guidelines has been age-restricted based on the Guidelines.
Follow this channel on Twitter @CounterArguing to keep up with any further updates.
-C.A.
Only UA-cam deals in absolutes. You will do what you must.
I had an argument for this video but the video went on so long I forgot it. I did not want to pause and type because you may have covered it later in the video ( in which case I think you did not ) Anywho what my question for you now is if you have a counter argument in any argument when is the proper time to bring it up? To early and you may be butting into what they say and they may take offense and to late it may be irrelevant which will just make them look like they won the argument or you may have forgetten your whole counter due to how long they spoke or how many questions they asked in one question. Cool idea for a video for you or maybe just ramblings of a crazed man on the internet.
@@Obi-Wan_Kenobi Ah, yes the negotiator General Kenobi.
you have the right to not answer any question regardless
@@theserpent4495 UA-cam doing the usual thing just for 'hosting' Shapiro
- Welcome! Why are you gay?
- Who says I'm gay?
- You are gay!
Awesome Ugandan interview!
I saw that video and laughed so hard I punched myself in the head until I bled from my toenails. I need to put that in a playlist to watch when I'm in a bad mood.
Peace.
P.S.
However, the full interview is actually interesting in a serious way. A very important milestone for that country to even have that on any of their programs most likely.
- So you're saying that you are homophobic and want to burn all gays at the stake?
Firere No.
I am the first thing however.
@@donthappybeworry5348 so you're saying you're scared of homes?
Lol I thought this was for job interviews; "so why do you want to work for this company" *gets up and leaves*
Too personal
I hate that question. Just let me work and give me money
"Because I want money and I'm willing to work for it."
@@kairon156 Well then *unzips pants* are you willing to do anything else about it? ;)
"Damn, we gotta call that guy back. The way he just got up and walked out without a word was a total boss move."
I left an interview I had with Anakin when he started yelling "I HATE YOU!"
Anakin clearly didn't like that you had "the high ground".
dont forget to steal his stuff
You should have.
He is a spoiled brat.
you did the right thing and I know your mother is very proud
Ok Sammy
>Ben Shapiro interview comes up
*slowly rising classical music starts playing*
this channel is pure gold
classic british comedy.
I noticed that also!
They used jazz music for Robert Downey Jr, and Mozart for Ben Shapiro!
Ben Shapiro is a funni meme
Primo Antonius I don’t know anything about you or what you believe, but I know you’re supporting Ben Shapiro and probably watch him and others like him. I used to be like you too. Please, just think about your beliefs really hard and ask yourself if you want to live with your beliefs. Ben Shapiro spreads dangerous views, I hope you get out of it while you still can.
Ben Shapiro is such a pathetic excuse for a human being
I'd never seen that interview, but I have so much respect for the way Robert Downey, Jr. handled that
Gotta love how he non verbally made the interviewer look stupid by just standing up and excusing himself alone.
@@LightestNixl The interviewer did the heavy lifting on that one.
Krishnan Guru Murphy was right to ask those questions. The agent should have briefed him that is essentially a 60 minutes style programme. Channel 4 News are not there to promote movies like Downey Jr seemed to think.
@@Lennon6412 Fair point... Though the reason Downey took the interview in the first place was because he was on a promotional tour for the movie (doubtless part of his contract). I suspect Channel 4 wasn't entirely forthcoming in their motives, otherwise there wouldn't have been an interview in the first place.
If the agent was doing his job better, as soon as Channel 4 said they were sending Murphy, the interview would have been canceled.
@@travcollier Completely agree. I think Murthy is a good interviewer and if they had him doing a 60 minutes style show in the UK it would be really good, infact his podcast is pretty interesting but his promotional interviews with Downey Jr and Tarantino have both fallen through for similar reasons.
If you haven't already seen it, I would recommend checking out the interview with Richard Ayoade, who really sets out the different motives of interviewees who want to promote a product of some sort, and the interviewer who wants to talk about something a lot deeper. It's pretty funny as well as informative.
Watching that dude ask Robert those questions was so uncomfortable. Why the hell would someone think that's appropriate?
Because journalist are immoral hacks that have no problem abusing the good will previous ones have built.
I think the questions would've made sense if the interviewer was trying to make the comparison between Stark's comic/movie history & RDJ's real life, but the interviewer didn't tie them together with the question of did RDJ's life help him to be a better Tony Stark?
The fact that he didn't ask that question and kept acting in a disingenuous manner is... disappointing.
@@danielseelye6005 Not sure if it was his intention, but this dude sounded like he was trying to get some exclusive comment from RDJ about his past and was dragging up old shit in said attempt.
@@crazykingofspades5101
Seconded
@@ilikeboom100 Don't group all journalists into one generalization. There are plenty of ethical journalists which get slandered along with the bad eggs.
An aspect of RDJ's exit was that it was corroborated by other people in the room. He stated his displeasure with the interview, noticed that other people recognized that his treatment warranted an exit, and followed their directions.
An aspect of Joy's exit was that it followed a loud, unproductive argument. People can be very sensitive to continuous noise. Whoopi has less of an excuse, as she was part of the shouting.
I have in this comment not gone into the reasons why islam creates extremists, since it would make the comment even more bloated. Admittedly, this is the premise of my argument, so if that is your main objection to my argument, just tell me, ill type out a few reasons
Setting aside whether they're right or not. Both Goldberg and Behar were at the point in the interview where it was clear nothing productive was going to happen. If they were the sole hosts this would be the point where they shut down the guest and moved onto the next topic of their show, I believe O'Reily's preferred method is to say "cut their mike" before having a one sided rant in their direction.
But the view has 5 hosts and it wouldn't have been right for those two to make that decision for the other 3. Walking out seemed like the right call.
@@LancesArmorStriking No ideology has ever killed more people than communism. Not christianity, not islam, not Nazi-ism, not the american civil war fought over slavery, not WW2, not WW1, not the hundreds year war, not even the death of millions (aprox 13 million) american natives during the conquest of the Americas.
USSR -- 20 million
China -- 65 million
Vietnam -- 1 million
North Korea -- 2 million
Cambodia -- 2 million
Eastern Europe -- 1 million
Latin America -- 150,000
Africa -- 1.7 million
Afghanistan -- 1.5 million
Communist movements, parties not in power -- 10,000
@@hadenwilson7278
Even if that were true, what does that have to do with what I said?
Why are you avoiding the point?
@@LancesArmorStriking there are videos on it already from research by pew search center. 56% of Muslims worldwide and 30% of 18-25 Muslim men in America believe suicide bombings are justified. Over half of Muslims believe terrorism is okay. Ask Christians and Jews if suicide bombings are okay and you'll probably have less than 5% of each group worldwide saying it's okay. Plus you're forgetting Christians have the new testament, a bible 2.0. Islam doesn't have that, they still believe anything written is valid. Don't argue with atheists because we know more about religion than you
That guy interviewing Robert Downey was just out of line man
Horny nigga laundry basket
KGM is widely known as a complete dickhead of a journalist here in the UK.
It’s like starting a conversation with someone from Germany, who wants to talk about their weekend but you start with: So yeah, your country was the one that killed 8 million Jews, right?
Ironically, he behaved much like the interviewer played by Downey Jr. in Natural Born Killers.
Channel 4 are assholes
I thought this was about a job interviews before watching.
honestly, i wish it had been.
that was actually something i wanted to know about. not this sort of horse fertilizer.
Well most of the time, it ends when the interviewer says it’s over
@@kstormgeistgem461 There are plenty of videos on interviews although those honestly aren't rocket science. I'll do you one right now.
If you are asked a personal question that isn't related to what you need to do on the job you can end the interview early or politely request the person to talk about your skills and talents (I'm pretty sure you can also report to HR if the topic discussed was illegal or highly inappropriate).
You don't want to walk out because that shows an unwillingness to cooperate in a tense scenario and an interview above all things is a test of character.
Dress like you are going to a traditional Judaeo christian church. Even if on the job you'll be wearing polo shirts and khakis.
Bring a copy of your resume as well as a copy of the hire notice. Additionally bring paper and pencil so you can write notes down.
Turn off or leave behind all electronic devices prior to the interview.
Gather Intel on the position and the business itself and be prepared to ask about it.
They will ask some generic interview question, be prepared to lie if necessary but make sure it's consistent so you don't contradict yourself later on.
If you are asked about what animal you will be give an answer with substance. This is another test of character.
If asked about a disability, don't be afraid to tell them about it. Most businesses do have quotas and you can be hired because of it. Just make sure you make it sounds like your disability is actually a strength of some kind. If you are anywhere on the spectrum, deliver yourself like you're an autistic savant.
Make eye contact, shave your face, do not look at your watch, speak from the diaphragm and not from the throat, look for a chance to connect emotionally or personally to the one doing the interview. Only have the interviewer repeat themselves a maximum of two times.
Bring a copy of your credentials and if that's not possible be sure to mention it. No one is really going to penalize you for not going to an esteemed college if your resume shows you have the experience anyways.
Be sure to detail what was said on your resume. And last but not least, always match the grip of the person shaking your hand.
@@kstormgeistgem461 Find that fun? Here's the thing about the difference between a public broadcast interview and a job interview.
One is centered around you obtaining a job and the other is about the job you currently have.
That's it. Everything I just said earlier basically still applies, the questions will be more focused and if it's about politics you'll have to stand your ground and be as fair as possible (everybody loves an underdog so keeping cool and just taking the answers as they come works really well in ones favor).
Lastly, any advice on how to handle a cross examination (which is what an interview is) is good as it's all basically relevant across the board.
Make a note of it next time so you can actually be in the mindset to learn something.
Short version:
Interviewee: "I want more than I'm making now."
Interviewer: "We can pay you half what you're currently making. *insert BS excuse*"
Interviewee: "You have wasted my time." Walk away
How does the Eric Andre Show play into all this?
yeah good question ayo shout-out to Christina Applegate
jesus this is an underrated comment
Is it justified to leave an interview when the interviewer pukes and starts to eat his ow n puke?
@@insanezombieman753 no that's rude you as a guest should ask if interviewer is going to share.
Oh man, I wish that would have been a part of the vid. WOuld have been comedy gold.
Glad to see the copyright claims got dealt with, great video :D
How did he deal with it?
John Turner oh, I thought there was more to it
What claims?
Marty Hickman Channel 4 make a copyright claim on the video when it was first uploaded, so it looks like the claim was sorted out and the video is back online
when you walk in and theres a leather couch with a camera pointed at it.
Pryxtel 😂😂😂😓
But you can make $1000 a day even though this video is for "the producers" to see if they like you and you are not getting paid... Don't forget to sign the waiver!
Porkchop Sandwiches
Nobody should degrade themselves for money.
Bomchickawow-wow! 🤭
Thanks. NOW you tell me.....
That interview with Downey was very uncomfortable to watch, it had to be incredibly uncomfortable for Robert to deal with...
But he handled it like the professional he is.
draco5991rep yeah I agree it was so cringe
That guy fucking sucks. He has at least 3 interview that goes extremely sour. Such a really shitty interviewer.
That’s the same dude that made Tarantino really pissed off at him. He’s just a bad interviewer.
Here's Richard Ayoade fucking with that guy during an interview on Tarantino's behalf.
ua-cam.com/video/jjC3ycS_2js/v-deo.html
I've never seen that Robert Downey Jr. interview. But that. That was so crigney. Like It hurts to watch. You just want to step in and say, "no please don't say that."
Edit: It makes my *brian* hurt.
If you check out Charisma on Command's channel they break it down in a video called How To Stand Up For Yourself Without Being A Jerk
"so crigney", "makes my brian hurt". Reading this was a blast.
Brian hurts so much
reminds me of and interview with Billy Bob Thornton he did about his band project he has and was under the impression it was purely about his music, but the interviewer kept asking about his movies and every time they would ask about a movie or acting he would avoid the question and talk about his music, and when they asked him why he was deflecting the questions he finally let loose and said he was brought there under the impression he was going to be asked about his music and not his acting and feels horribly disrespected and figured he would give that disrespect back, and they aologized and just asked about his music and the rest of the interview was horribly awkward lol.
He did another one with Quentin Tarantino and it's equally bad
Only one who does a proper interview is Eric Andre
Bro how the fuck is Hannibal names Hannibal... Like literally that's what his parents thought was a good idea(it is). And his last fucking name is BURRESS, BASSDSA NAME RIGHT THERE HELLO. Epicness ensues.
So you retweeted that Jeff Bezos was actually running Amazon from North Korea, why did you retweet that? I didn't... retweet that. Ok, well I'm just going off my notes.
Buzz me brotendo
@Samuel L. Hydeson This bait was so large, I mistook it for an anchor.
Samuel L. Hydeson You, me, the local playground, NOW.
Ben Shapiro DESTROYES Ben Shapiro by walking out of interview
Now i may not entirely agree, but this is to good not to acknowledge.
Andrea Mendenhall It's a joke about all the clickbait videos starring Ben Shapiro.
@MoralSingularity It was not pro life that was being pointed out as dark age mentality, it was the criminalizing and punishing of abortion that people connect to the dark ages. There is a difference between pro life and anti abortion. You can be anti abortion without being pro life but you can't be pro life without being anti abortion.
example 1: Anti abortion and pro capital punishment is not pro life.
example 2: Anti abortion and anti capital punishment is pro life.
(Taking a life to show that taking a life is wrong is not pro life).
@Andrea Mendenhall Ben did break one of his own rules and in a most embarrassing way. This is by his own admission. The question that was the straw that broke the camel's back, involved a bill that would convict a woman for having a miscarriage in which she would be sentenced to 30 years in prison. I don't understand why Ben did not answer the questions.
@Andrea Mendenhall The behaviour he shows those few times he's didn't have enough adderall or is either underprepared our outmatched is exactly the best measure of his character.I know people like him from work. We usually pick them up in their offices so they don't coke/med up before an impromptu meeting ... Mostly hilarity ensues.
Channel 4: So you're saying our interview sucks?
Finally an accurate rephrasing! Channel 4 sucks!
………Yeah… Wait, you’re guilt tripping me, aren’t you?
well yea lol
Its the whole IDW model Joe Rogan Dave Rubin Sam Harris they call everyone leftists and liars its thier whole buisness model the cowardly Trump model
@@DanielVargas-yx8ff attacking your just a total liar Jordan is world famous for demanding his interviewers use kid gloves then the most mild criticism of the guy that got fired for his love of historical revisionism instead blames the trans people typical IDW cowardice and did you see what happened when he finally had his first ever debate Zlavov of all people proved JP is a complete fraud
I think that public opinion is a factor in leaving an interview, but not the only factor. When Robert Downey jr Walked, I doubt he walked because he thought “this’ll look good to other people”, but rather, he walked because he thought “these are very personal questions that I’m not comfortable answering”.
Yeah, those two women who left the View clearly did it for the applause and the public
Well, it undoubtably IS a factor but its not always super important, RDJ left because he felt the interviewer was being inapropriate and most people would agree with him because of what you mentioned.
I think there was a unspoken agreement that the interview was a movie promotion, so when it turned into a personal thing it was a breach of trust and a breach of contract. Kind of a bait and switch.
I realized after reading you replies that my point didn’t come across clearly, I think that public opinion isn’t that great a factor in most of the interviews he mentioned. And in Robert Downey jr’s cake, I don’t think it was a factor at all. In the view interview it almost certainly was a factor though, but not the only factor.
@@DobesVandermeer It's not really a breach of trust. It's poor research on RDJ and his people's part. In the UK it's illegal for a some one who presents the news to do promotions of movies like this. So Guru-Murthy has to ask some human interest questions to make it not just about the movie RDJ is promoting. All RDJ had to do was a give a boiler plate answer and that would have been that. This is why we see a lot of American Movie stars flip out on Channel 4 interviews, their people haven't done the research
Watching that Ben Shapiro interview was like witnessing a car crash in slow motion.
Benny is an antagonist by nature, its a product of the environment he throws himself into. His actions were foolish and brazen regardless, but understandable in my eyes.
@@netherwalker1762 If Benny you mean Brits, then yeah.
@@dislike_button33 Did I stutter? >:C
@@netherwalker1762 how so? he was confronted on nonsense he said and, when no possible defence could be made, he attacked the integrity of the interviewer and left. He's not used to discussions with intelligent people, why do you think barely-educated college students are his preferred targets?
He thought he was being attacked, I guess? What the hell was that?
By contrast, nobody is ever judged harshly for STAYING in an interview, so thats always the safest option if you ask me
Eyy I like your content boii
This was a shocker to find sorting by new.
People have been judged for answers to questions in interviews though
Why would someone care so much about what the public thinks?
Yeah I don't think walking out is ever a good look. It looks weak. At best in a kind of "well fair enough to him/her for losing patience" but even that's not as strong a look as making it to the end.
Ben Shapino just can't handle a BBC.
Sory ablut this
lol.
@@AlejandroFlores-vi8tl hahaha
That’s a good joke
@@pyrojinn
Do you get it too? We're so smart.
I don't think that leaving was the issue in Shapiro's case, he responded to the attacks with an appeal to popularity and a character attack and that's what nade him look bad.
Yeah, and even Ben himself said he shouldn't have done that. That being said, he should've stayed and defended himself like Jordan Peterson did in the video instead of go on the offensive. I like Ben, but this was a really bad interview.
Shapiro fucked up when he started making assumptions about the interviewer.
The appeal to popularity was the worst mistake, but it really was nothing more than the last nail in the coffin for that interview.
@@bitticlan You LIKE ben? Yikes.
@@xPRODIGYxGAMER well he didn't write a book about football. If you write a political book somebody is going to question your political views.
Ben can't leave an interview, because then he would have *LEFT*
Lol
well bois, seems like Shapiro is a left after all...
I'm so happy I finally get to watch this
That View clip was headache-inducing screaming. You couldn't even understand what they were saying.
And sadly you won't just see that on TV either... "Shivers"
I only heard 9/11 and nothing else
I hate shows like that
That's what happens when people talk over each other.
That's what happens when you have like 8 people involved in a heated debate
*Me:* [Walks out of interview]
*The police after convicting me of several war crimes I've committed in 1916:*
The police: ay bruh could you come back pleeeassseeee
All they had to do was ask,
"You play Tony Stark so naturally. Do you see a bit of yourself in the character?"
And then he can say whatever he is comfortable saying. It is relevant to the promotion of the movie and therefore the purpose of the interview.
But they weren't happy with just getting that because what they wanted was a reaction. They wanted controversy; volatility.
He
4:38 - "Rahm Emanuel is a champion of the public school system
teachers in Chicago: *wheeze*
@@theg-man4474 I understand what you are saying but I think it's not very helpful. I assume everyone isn't a hypocrite until they seem to be. Putting being a hypocrite as a "normal" thing isn't as good as totally railing someone for being a hypocrite.
I have found that the most effective way to leave an interview is to very obviously break wind while maintaining unbroken eye contact with the interviewer. It establishes dominance and an ability to be dynamic.
And if you ask the question does this look good? The answer is obviously yes because who wouldn’t be able to sympathise with a man like that
It's funny how Shapiro's excuse for calling Andrew Neil out on his supposed leftism was not knowing that he was in fact a conservative. How does that even matter? Even if he WAS left wing that wouldn't justify such a blatant ad hominem and it verges on hilarity that he fails to notice that.
He accused Andrew Neil of being a leftist during the interview, which is obviously incorrect. He was using his lack of information as an excuse for that, not for the other parts.
Snelle Planga Shapiro said in public you should try and humiliate your opponent
""Conservatives"" in the UK are leftists though.
Exactly. Which means that if Ben Shapiro had known that Andrew Neil was conservative, then apparently he would have happily answered his questions. So much for intelligent debate and free market of ideas. To Ben, if you question how he thinks, then you must be on the wrong side. Ironically, if Ben had realized that you can't make assumptions out of people from their questions or statements alone, then he could have avoided this mess.
Gindisi get your head out of your arse
The thing about the Channel 4 interview with Robert Downey Jr is that he doesn't understand his place is to help promote a movie, he considers himself rightly or wrongly a proper journalist that must unearth important revelations, hence the same car crash with Quentin Tarantino. I think some of the blame should lie with Channel 4, they know what he's like, and thinks this movie promotion stuff is totally beneath him ...
In fairness to kgm he probably had a producer in his ear asking him to ask certain questions and pursue certain lines of enquiry for the sake of sensationalism. Ultimately kgm was just the messenger.
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS the interviewers schedule by walking out EARLY
Wait, what other UA-cam movie did you just comment on?
With ANGER and COWARDICE
No, they just went back to their panel where he got laughed at. If he had stayed they would have had to move onto something else and not talk about on air, but he gave them that 5 mins.
@@IvanSpirit7
You lack alot of intelligence I see.
@@IvanSpirit7
Read your own comment, you don't explain anything, all you do is call ben shapiro a dirty rat
Facts do not care about your feelings, Ben.
DrumWild ya huh
Hmmm yes they don't but I'm pretty sure his argument was that he wasn't being challenged on any facts.
@@nonoctoro4933 He did not say anything antisemitic.
The interviewer asked questions that would probably make a strong impression that he is on the left and is trying to badh him so obviously he was a bit disgruntled.
@@nonoctoro4933 You're pretty good at trolling people
If you wanna win any debate, just say “ok boomer” and then you win.
How anyone doing memes would end up in a debate is yet a mystery.
Or, alternatively, finish with "silence libtard" or "shut up nerd"
ok boomer
@@oj3774 One of my personal favorites is "stfu cringe normie"
Sphere Friend ok boomer
“You’re nitpicking and biased I win bye bye”- Ben Shapiro
I mean it’s ben so he wins
"This interview was horrible"
-9.5/10 There's a little something for everyone
Then ran to Crowder to moan about it on a yes man turf. Man what a sad display. Look at how Peterson handled an actual ill intended interview.
@@dyr_glpsn4209 yeah, for a second it sounded like he was owning his mistake, but ultimately he doubled down and tried to justify why he left as if his reasons were still justifiable.
Guru-Murthy seems to be really bad with promotional interviews
He does it for attention.
Jesse Lee Peterson too (interviews) thats is.
To be fair, asking Tarantino about a possible connection between violence in movies and violence in real life was fair, given that Tarantino was there to promote a violent movie (although it's understandable that he was tired of facing those sorts of accusations). The RDJ one on the other hand was just plain weird.
@@jziffi Your argument ignores the purpose of the interview. Murthy was there to help promote a movie, and asking a question that gets the audience thinking that the movie might be harmful undermines the interview's purpose.
If Americans don't understand our British ways they shouldn't come over here. We aren't as into the whole capitalism thing, and we don't make a distinction between promotional and 'real' interviews.
Thank you for not being a political hack on the right or left and actually just analyzing relatively objectively the problem with all of these interviews
Best part of this channel is I have no damn idea where on the political spectrum it stands.
Whomever runs this channel seems like a right winger too me
@ I'd say the complete opposite.
@@restlessfrager Depends how you define centrism tbh. If you mean that your political views fall in the center of the spectrum there's nothing wrong with that. If that's what you mean then in America you'd probably be a democrat, since the bulk of the democratic party is center-left.
But if centrism to you means thinking that both sides are equally bad and that the superior position is to just split the difference between them then that is just intellectually lazy. It's letting others dictate your beliefs for you, since if either party moves either left or right you will just change your position to stay in between them. And in American politics splitting the difference between the modern democratic and republican party would put you on the right end of the political spectrum, not the center.
Gus Fring I disagree. I’d say a former lefty who has been pushed center
Robert Downey Jr experienced more emotions in those five seconds than I will in my entire life
To be fair, RBJ did call that guy a "schmuck" as he was leaving.
However, nobody disagreed with that assessment.
yes, Robert Bowney Junior did call him a schmuck
This is what one can confidently call a "good content". Thank you so much for your efforts!
Ben Shapiro acted like he was in a debate, at the same time smearing the person you are interviewing is a much worse look.
Devil advocacy is not a "smear"
@@SikerScrapyard but those weren't good questions. When you use such silly hyperbolic language like "going back to the dark ages", I have difficulty taking you seriously
Using someone's own quotes is not smearing lol
@@SikerScrapyard BINGO!
@@joecoolmccall ,
The States in question outlawed women who go to other states for abortions... outlawed abortion entirely... Outlawed miscarriages...
That's a bit like the darkages where if a girl gets raped and gets pregnant she must carry the baby to term...
Ben "I lost an interview" Shapiro
He'll just have to go back to singing with The Chipmunks.
I don't think he got destroyed just because a bunch of communists and fascists think he lost.
@@betohax An interview isn't meant to be won or lost, that's what happens at debates. Treating an interview like a debate isn't a smart idea.
@@GameGod77
Doesn't matter because the interview only made him look bad to fascists and marxists. Most normal people don't think much of this interview, especially not normal conservatives.
@@betohax Dude calm your ass down. I'm a Ben Shapiro fan too, but that doesn't mean you have to overreact every time he has a bad day. He tried to win an argument that was started by him by boasting about his popularity, which is a douchey move regardless of what side of the political spectrum you land on. Your comments reek of someone who's doing damage control, but the truth is "normal people" are able to see Shapiro's ground crumble in that interview. Shapiro even admitted as such, which I'm glad he did. It makes me reassured that he can take his defeats like an adult.
Ben Shapiro destroyed Ben Shapiro with facts and logics... Wait
Ben Shapiro DESTROYS facts and logic.
More like Gordon Prison by staying destroys Ben Shapinro.
I used the Shapiro to destroy the Shapiro
It's hard to have any sympathy for Ben Shapiro when his whole discussion style is based on "owning" and taking down the other side, and not a genuine exploration of ideas and differences.
I think you've been watching too many "X owns Y" videos, rather than content Shapiro actually makes himself.
@@formeraxe117 disagree, at least he uses actual debate tactics in his Shapiro destroys x videos. Most of his radio shows are him just strawmanning the other side or using bad history to defend his point. Pretty much all his foreign policy videos are garbage neocon talking points as well.
You must REALLY hate the left, huh
@MoralSingularity"well if some leftist scumbag like you says its so, it must be so, huh?"
*WHERE IS THE ARGUMENT*
@@demonicsushiz2515 "The left" is an abstraction, and usually an inaccurate one, when invoked the way you are doing it. Did you have someone specific in mind who you would compare to Ben Shapiro? I'm happy to tell you whether they seem better, the same, or worse than he is.
You always use a range of content that sometimes makes me uneasy, but always do a great job at presenting the arguments as they are and at speaking and showing only the logic in those arguments. For that, I love and appreciate this channel.
When you accuse one of the most well-known mainstream British conservative journalists of being a leftist is a good bet of when to leave.
Tbf compared to shapiro Neil is left wing. Our right wing is far left in the US...
jayjay99989 Neil denies climate change and supported the war in Afghanistan. That’s not far left anywhere.
. Don't you mean Iraq?
@@jayjay99989 lol neil is right wing in the UK and would be firmly in the GOP in the US, he's just a tough interviewer which is extremely rare in the US and he's not a protestant theocrat since that isn't a huge issue in UK conservatism.
@MoralSingularity dude you clearly don't understand UK politics. Perhaps do some research?
Ben Shapiro: Facts don't care about your feelings
BBC: Hold my tea...
HoLd mY YoRKsHirE TeA mArtHa, OH! AnD wOUld YOu PleAsE GraB tHe CrUMpeTs FrOm ThE CupBoARd DeAr, I wILl bE PARCHED AfTeR ThIS One
Most people just share this interview as cheap clickbait. What is worse is leftist that post it seem to forget it happended against another conservative.
Ben Shapiro LITERALLY MURDERS BBC interviewer.
@@The_Conqueeftador it always descends into left vs right, politicized
....And crumpets.
Whether you like or dislike ben shapiro, that interview was a bad look for him. This is coming from the guy who's known for saying "facts don't care about your feelings." Guess little benny shap's feelings overcame facts here.
It is a bad look it got bad but it got much worse in the end
That interview was genuinely one of the most hypocritical acts I’ve ever seen
He's a disengenuous Jew, what did you expect
he was there to promote his new book lol
MoralSingularity If only that was true ☹️
Downey was such a champ, not walking out immediately. I would have probably had a much worse reaction to such a line of questioning.
If someone started asking me pointless irrelevant questions about my troubled past instead of asking relevant ones about the film that I was promoting I would also lose it in the first couple of seconds lol
Yah I really respected rdj after that
7:45 ... interview you say? Sounds like six kids simultaneously throwing a tantrum to me, I can't even make out the hell they're trying to talk about lol
Welcome to The View and other talk shows like it.
Valeria Vagapova it was about 9/11 I think
@@imlonelypleasehelp5443 O'Riley was saying that the 9/11 terror attacks were motivated by Islamic beliefs and everyone else seemed to be against that.
Caleb M ok I knew it was something along those lines. 9/11 is always a super touchy subject for both sides.
@360Ragequit that's a very sloppily worded way of saying that Islamic beliefs motivated the terror attacks. It's not like it's a good thing that the US sided with Israel, or that the US got involved at all, but nevertheless the terror attacks were ultimately Islamic in nature.
I feel bad for RDJ whenever I see thay clip of his interview
Didn't watch whole video, left job interview early. Wish me luck.
Apart of this debate is the cultural differences between the US and the UK. In the UK, our broadcast press is nowhere near as partisan as in the US, that tends to be the home of the printed press (obviously that is not always the case, such as the interview with Jordan Peterson). Andrew Neil is a very well known journalist in the UK, known for his no-nonsense approach and devil's advocate style, in order to put the interviewee, and their views, to the test. He does this to people on the right, left and centre of politics. I am not claiming him to be some bi-partisan god that looks on at mortals with absolutely no biases, but he is a good journalist. He does good journalism. But, his style can be easily misconstrued, such as Ben and some of the public have done, to fall into the same category of US dominated journalists (and political debating tactics in general) of shaming the opposition for their views. Now, on your point of intent, what I believe gives a stronger case for what Andrew Neil claims to be his intent, is his record as an interviewer. If anyone watched his other interviews, his political shows, or any other piece of media he hosts, it's clear that Andrew Neil was attempting to give Shapiro the oppurtunity to retort the general criticisms and accusations levied against him.
Shapiro's problem is that he can't really defend a lot of what he says.
He's spent so long gleefully DESTROYING random half-interested college students and being a guest on hug box shows that won't challenge him like the Rubin Report that he's basically dulled his own brain. By all accounts, he was once a pretty capable debater, but he's not in the business of being questioned now that he's a big shot.
If this is true then it changes a lot. 9/10 times someone asks those kind of questions on tv they're doing a hit piece to make the interviewee look bad and smear them so its understandable that Ben would think he'd walked into a trap...unless the guy was playing devil's advocate and had a history of doing so.
@@tigerfestivals5137 - That's true with American media, TF. Not the same everywhere. Here's the thing, too: _Even if_ Neil was attempting "gotcha" journalism, Shapiro should have been ready. He advocates that style. Instead he snowflaked out.
Can you imagine Jeremy Paxman interviewing Shapiro?
In what universe were those questions "devil's advocate" questions?
He literally accused Shapiro of supporting policies that were a "return to the Dark Ages" and turning his back on Judeo-Christian values.
Those weren't questions. They were accusations with a question mark at the end.
They are in the camp of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" variety of question.
This interviewer is trash. If he truly was trying to ask "devil's advocate questions", then he should have immediately noted that Shapiro wasn't answering his "questions" but responding to perceived accusations; at that point, he can redirect Shapiro _to the first question_ while allaying his concerns about this being an attack piece by making the "devil's advocate" strategy clear. At this point the interview would have gotten back on the rails after an awkward start, instead of devolving into circustown.
*That's not what happens even slightly.*
Instead the interviewer takes what I refer to as the "Cathy Newman scattershot approach": never let the interviewee actually have a discussion about a single point, but instead respond to each statement with a new, different accusation; never let a single point develop to a point that the interviewee can defend themselves; bury the interviewee under endless volleys of new accusations, often before they can even fully finish processing the last accusation.
If this is what passes for "good journalism" in the UK, well no wonder the last actual journalist in the goddamn country is in jail.
PS, I'd never so much as heard of this interview before coming to this video, so I had exactly zero bias on how the interviewer acted or Shapiro's response. I watched a video (this video) edited to show how awful Shapiro's choices were, but the only answer a reasonable person can come to is that he is completely in the right to note that something is off.
That parting shot from Neil is world class shade. Till this day!
@MoralSingularity
Please don't use ad hominim attacks, especially unfounded ones.
@MoralSingularity oh god are you annoying. Identity politics friends
isn't Neil a right winger and didn't Shapiro shot himself in the knee by not knowing/noticing it? :D
@@burnbobquist8999 It shouldn't even matter whether he is or isn't.
@MoralSingularity ANYONE WITH A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN ME MUST BE THE MOST EXTREME THING I CAN IMAGINE!
I won't act like I know politics, but it was really hard to watch Ben Shapiro not give Andrew Neil the opportunity to speak in the first clip there. Even with the defense he gave, it's just difficult to look at.
It's also funny that Ben Shapiro got so offended there, when he's the one that says _"Facts don't care about your feelings"_ and says to look at everything with only the facts.
What's funny about him being averse to the interviewer's obviously feelings-based statements? Please find literally one thing the interviewer said that could actually be quoted as a "fact" instead of just being hyperbole and poetry lol. IDK who this Ben dude is and I'm not really that invested, but wow, a lot of people sure hate him enough to be absolutely blatantly unobjective and irrational in the comments. It's like you were all plugging your ears and singing lalala when the interviewer talked so that you can all pretend he said anything that actually resembles something a journalist would say lol. Anyone with journalistic integrity would cringe at that
@@ItsAsparageese ye except any journalist that gives a question that's easy to answer and doesn't gain any new information is failing. A good interviewer will give an opposing view and an argument that someone who is watching would give if they didn't agree with the interviewee. Andrew Neil is actually pro-life and doesn't think its taking people back to the dark ages but obviously some people do and he was giving ben the opportunity to respond to the argument and make himself look better. however, he had nothing to respond with and started attacking him for no reason
Yeah, definitely not his best moment, which he agrees with that he was very amateur in that interview.
@@bruh-sf4gwwell Andrew brought up old comments which Ben already retracted , this just shows malice . Although ben said he was at fault there , j think it was perfectly justified . And do u really think Ben doesn't have any arguments for being pro - life . Saying that ur stance is ancient is a very bad way of making an argument . Instead he should have tried to argue the points of abortion .
@@rishabhchauhan9059 ok so you're saying the argument Andrew presented was bad. why didn't ben defend it easily instead of crying and leaving? and he could've easily informed Andrew and said he had previously retracted the statements
An interview should never be a popularity contest or a means of demeaning another, it should be just an interview.
Tell that to Shapiro, for whom _any_ public conversation is meant to be a contest.
It was. Ben just doesn't know how to handle anything but people trying to make him look good or acting like a complete charlatan to try to embarrass unprepared college students.
What he found on the BBC was just plain journalism asking what outside the US echochambers are totally normal questions.
The difference between Downey Jr's interview being inappropriate was it was for Ultron, a movie that didn't consist of only him and he didn't create it so the personal questions were very inappropriate. The personal questions for Shapiro weren't inappropriate because they were interviewing him about his book.
Truth
He asked about his book. He asked specifically about Shapiro's claim - in the book - that America is being torn apart by divisive politics and bringing up Ben's direct role in that.
And that's when his poor snowflake mind broke and had to go find a safe and sympathetic echo chamber that would tell him it was OK to get exposed so bad.
The question themselves were not inappropriate but you have to admit that Andrew Neil didn't exactly ask them in an appropriate way.
If I were to talk to someone about a controversial matter like say abortion I would not say to a person who is pro-choice. "So tell me why do you support the murder of innocent babies?" or to a pro-life person. "So tell me why do you not support the right of a woman to control her body?" Those are very antagonistic questions that would probably annoy or infuriate anyone. So saying that a group that you are a part of doesn't seem to have any idea of what they are doing or that some beliefs or opinions that you have are akin to the Dark ages seem very counterproductive in any real discussion.
Some better way to phrase these would be. "Does the Republican party have any new ideas?" as for the dark ages comment I don't know exactly how one could word it so that it isn't offensive.
@@JasperLane
Im interested in how you would question the pro-life person then about abortion because the question about womens autonomy to her body IS the entire problem to the other side. If you choose to avoid talking of it because you fear setting off the oppising side then you already lose since that is the core their idea
@@MrAapasuo It is all a matter of phrasing you can ask these questions in ways that do not demonize the other side or at the very least do not antagonize who you are interviewing. An example of interviewing the pro-life member could be. "Now one of the main arguments of the pro-choice movement is that those who are pro-life do not respect a women's right to their body. What is your response to these claims?" You can phrase a similar question to any pro-choice people
Phrasing it in this way paints the picture that you are simply just repeating what the opposition is saying and that you do not hold these opinions yourself making it less likely for the person you are interviewing to get defensive.
On very touchy issues such as abortion though you never know what might set the other person off. One side believes they are fighting to stop children from being killed and the other side believes they are fighting for a women's right to do whatever they want with their body so when you simply question their cause even in a very polite matter it is possible that they will get offended but hopefully you are interviewing them on abortion and not the next movie they are staring in so they should be prepared for some of the more difficult questions.
It's not so much about leaving - once you say "I'm famous, you're not famous" public opinion leaves you pretty immediately.
He's not wrong though, a lot easier tot tear someone down when you have nothing to lose
@@AnotherDayattheDock Technically speaking he is wrong, Shapiro is less well known in the UK than Andrew Neil.
No one gives a shit about the UK you literally prison people for wrong think and let a child die instead of getting treatment in another country, bens podcast is ranked 5th worldwide, his news site gets over a million clicks and his daily podcast gets over 6 million views daily and he just keeps growing.
I have no idea how the reaction wasn't to look directly into the camera after that one.
@@wanded Hm, popularity is not a measure of truth, is it... The UK health system does have its holes, still better than America.
Jesus, how many times does Shapiro bring up how he's more famous than the interviewer
Just as much as he says his wife's profession.
And as much as he reminds us that his dad was a music teacher and thus he is the grand master of understanding music
almost never
Ben Shapiro lost the debate, and it was an interview.
didnt he admit to wrongfully handling it tho? after thousands of debates and interviews? you probably have this one framed to your wall
@@user-ei7ed6zy9k im sorry but if you want to be taken seriously, dont name yourself big daddy toyota corola
@@BlanBlan19901990 I'll take that
@@user-ei7ed6zy9k not the only thing you take, huh, big daddy
@@BlanBlan19901990 oof
Sweeeet!!!!!
They finally released counter arguments copyright strike!!!
I can't stop thinking that some part of the video related to that was awfully castrated
That Jordan Peterson “interview” is a master class on proper interview (or interrogation) technique. I’ve watched it three times, and it always amazes me that he didn’t throw a shoe at her head!
I think Ben Shapiro was far too conditioned by confrontational American interviewers to realize that he was being toyed with in a dry, sarcastic manner by the BBC host. Honestly, I had to watch a few other interviews with Andrew Neil to pick up on it. It just isn’t done much on straight US news programs. When it is, it’s far more obvious.
This is what people fail to understand about this interview.
While I think Shapiro handled the situation incredibly poorly, people miss the fact that he deals with very confrontational people that try to smear him on a daily basis.
I agree with your analysis of Shapiro. He's so used to the US style of interviewing that when he was confronted with the BBC he was overwhelmed.
“Thank you for proving to me that anger is not part of American politics” the BBC guy definitely got the last laugh.
I think the BBC guy got pretty much what he was looking for. I was surprised one of the questions wasn't along the lines of "have you stopped beating your wife?".
I think Ben Shapiro was projecting here and took offense that he was being treated the way he treats his interviewsees.
Zhong Ping Getting upset like that about forced-birth being from the Dark Ages made him look like he’s insecure about his beliefs. As if he suspects that his position might in fact be brutal and oppressive.
@MoralSingularity The fact that you don't realize that you yourself are hardly even left of mussolini at this point, makes this so much more hilarious. The BBC is neutral, the reporter is a famous british conservative. Being across the pond, makes him a lot more sane than the retards from the american right.
@@dillonblair6491 Keep telling yourself that, but the British right at the very least has a few core principals
@@dillonblair6491 the british conservatives have always been for a United Kingdom on the isles, for a strong military and a free, less regulated market. But I see from the rest of your reply that politics is not your forte.
Conservatives in the UK are formed from several parties, which include both eurosceptic beliefs as well as Pro-EU ones, free speech is not protected by law in the UK. The muslim issue is a complex social issue and it's impossible to be dealt with by one party. And what the fuck do you even mean? They elected boris johnson as the PM, the guy who put lies on busses and drove around in them to get Brexit support, they are trying to honor Brexit. Jesus Christ, imagine being Dillon, who knows so little, yet feels confident to pour garbage out of his mouth
@UCV15teE_NyP_AqBilGi05GA serbia did it so well they brought down NATO on themselves and bombed themselves into being a dirt poor shithole with so few prospects in it, it's population moves north to ruin Germany and Austria with it's vile diaspora. They eliminated the muslims so well they became Russia's pet, buying off their scraps and violating US sanctions. You almost had a point, but it turns out you know nothing. Genocide exasperates the issue. Germany genocided jews, now we have both Israel and AIPAC influencing the US, Serbia genocides muslims, Yugoslavia fell and serbia is now worse off than both Croatia, Slovenia and barely ahead of Bosnia. Like my guy, learn geopolitics before you spew that shit. Genociding muslims in UK would essentially kill Britain.
I actually read the title "Why you should leave an intervew" and I was expecting something like "we all need attention" but apparently my brain got it wrong again.
But you know, the video is informative. I like it.
Ironic that Shapiro was talking to Crowder about the interviewer acting in bad faith and just looking for a quick buck and a gotcha moment
please explain, when does crowder participate in this behavior?
Ironic that you're defending the pedophile BBC even though you are one. What the fuck is wrong with you?
Aslan Hoskin ... what? You can’t be serious. You’re talking about a man who made a lucrative career off going to college campuses to interview unprepared laypeople on political issues in order to get “gotcha” moments to make his ideological opponents look stupid.
I mean, he (a radio host with over 10 years experience with public speaking on political subjects) comes to the conversation with a binder prepared by a professional team days, maybe weeks in advance, and talks with random people off the street in the middle of the day - not to mention that the program is free to omit or frame footage to portray their host in a positive light, as they certainly do.
There are some who use straw man arguments, and then there are those who literally go into the fields looking for straw men. That’s what Steven crowder is.
@@aslanhoskin1592 When he does his prove me wrong series, he does it in a crowd of his own supporters, uses lots of straw-man arguments and because HE is the one holding the microphone he can control the debate. This is especially important because his opposition cannot speak over him if interrupted, Crowder can interrupt the flow of his sentence at will and get the crowd riled up and his opposition is unable to call out his bad faith after a misleading statement is said.
@@jamesontaber5996 I completely disagree with you, and at some points you are just plain wrong or perhaps ignorant. I'll point out faults in your statements in order:
First of all they aren't Laypeople they are students at a college (being one of the most politically charged environments in the USA) who hold strong opinions on what is often times niche beliefs. or do you think a common layperson even knows what White Privilege is?
Next, the purpose isn't to get gotcha moments, its to get the other participant to rationalise their opinion. Lets flip it, if its all about getting a gotcha, why are there so many constructive discussions?
As to being prepared or experienced i would say: uhhhhh duh?
Next is when you demonstrate ignorance. They do not cut up the questions/answers the whole point is that they are long form. Watch an episode, its all there awkward pauses, and 'um let me think' resound.
Lastly I don't think you know what a strawman is. How is it a strawman if the person that holds the view you are arguing against IS LITERALLY SITTING RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!!!
I would say that the first example of the girl walking out because of the transphobic dude is a totally appropriate response. He wasn't espousing his opinion, he was spewing factually incorrect statements in a manner designed to demean the subject matter, that being transgenderism. When Whoopi and the other chick walked off the View, they did it because the guy was espousing factually incorrect statements. If someone is cherry-picking information and deliberately not educating themselves, they nor the audience are not owed the rest of the interview.
Exactly. It is not the responsibility of the interviewer nor the interviewee to educate the other individual on social issues that aren’t even relevant to the interview. That guy going on about trans people was pushing his view onto that girl
What was factually inaccurate about the transgender part? Bruce Jenner WAS a man who underwent surgery to remove his penis. I have no idea what the actual interview was about or the context surrounding it but your comment is referring purely to the clip shown in this video right?
This was amazing. The way you framed our opinions before a clip exemplified how useful framing is. You're definitely skilled at writing.
Seeing Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder on the same screen feels like each individual brain cell in my brain getting water boarded simultaneously.
Manny Kbilt Yeah, my comment isn’t an argument. What’s your point?
The only acceptable time to leave is:
Person: *enters*
Interviewer: Hi there
Person: *leaves*
BBC Guy: Asks question
Ben: I disagree with that statement.
American "Intellectuals" at their finest.
I dislike intellectuals almost as much as dead philosophers
This is also a difference between European and American media. American media is on average very, very partisan, whereas European tends to be more impartial. Again, on average. Shapiro, being familiar with partisan American media mistook Neil's clarifying questions for partisanship. This is why he assumed Neil was on the left. But this is just how European interviews are held a lot of the time.
I do however think Shapiro doesn't have good answers for the questions Neil posed. Whenever he is questioned he usually goes on the offensive by attacking a straw man.
Neil seemed to be doing a Stossel style interview.
However European media isn't really non-partisan at all, they just only show one view point so it seems like it.
@@lukasg4807 What I see (British, Dutch, Belgian interviews) seem to be done in this way. Here (Netherlands) even left leaning talkshow hosts seem to be ok with having right wing guests explain their viewpoints. Neil does this a lot too.
Neil did not ask any questions but rather aggressively portrayed Shapiro as being a bad guy. Not the best way to conduct an interview.
@@joshuapenner2164 Look back at the interview, especially the start. The point Shapiro is trying to make seems contradictory with his own actions in the past. That is what Neil is trying to clarify, but pretty much all Shapiro does is dodge. So they get nowhere. He is perfectly happy to let Shapiro speak, but Shapiro doesn't have any good explanations.
This sort of interview happens all the time in Europe. Just because you're not used to it doesn't mean it's dishonest.
@@StuntpilootStef Yeah now that im rewatching it, it seems to be a cultural difference. Compared to how things are run here in the States, Neil seemed to be a bit rude. But if that is how things are run in Europe, then nothing is amiss. :)
You can tell Ben is used to debates rather than interviews with people he disagrees with. He is so used to being on the offensive, "destroying" other peoples' arguments, that he doesn't seem to know how to defend his own stances and positions
Allison Bach is have to say he was ill prepared compared to all previous debates/interviews. He’s defended his stance on many occasions. I think he was expecting an interview but instead got a debate with someone who was playing devils advocate to get him to slip up which he did.
@@scubasteveop3594 fair, it may have gone differently if he had been more prepared.
@MoralSingularity I agree with u, but.... Calling Allison a cupcake took it way too far. Reported
@MoralSingularity I'm triggered
1:35 surprise, confusion, trying to remember, remembering, abject horror, desperation, measured control, pleading. Dude literally had 7-8 emotions in 2 seconds.
Counter Arguments: posts a perfectly respectable video.
UA-cam: NO!
Shaprio came across badly because because throwing a hissy fit over over Neil's questioning (whatever you think of his motivation) pissed away the image he'd cultivated as an "intellectual master debater" whose confidence in the logical strength of his positions was unshakable. And all the people who've been saying "Shaprio is an above average sophist, but his ideas and arguments don't stand on their own" were able to simply point this interview and say "yeah, that". In other words, walking out of an interview is bad PR if it completely contradicts your whole public image.
@MoralSingularity So normally how it works is the interviewer asks a question or sets out a position that the interviewee can then respond to. By saying pro life is from the dark ages, Neil was setting up Shaprio to go off on why abortion is amoral. But Shaprio couldn't rise to the challenge, because Neil hurt his fee fees by not phrasing it like "Shapiro you're a smart boy, abortion is BAD yes? OwO". By walking out of the interview he looked like a dissolving snowflake.
As for the idea that Shaprio has the facts on his side, that's not correct. He cherry picks and uses weasel words, which can be effective, but, as evidenced by this episode, even he has no confidence in his arguments when he detects that he's outside his echo chamber. I don't expect you to be able to detect this, since clearly if you think Neil or anyone in the conservative establishment of the UK is anything close to a Marxist then you're still in the process of educating yourself. But that's OK, because if you actually care about working out what's right (rather than just stimulating your own biases) then you'll realize this sooner or later.
Yes I despise the new tactic used by the right-wing, typified by Kelly Ann Conway, to Simply talk over the interviewer and ignore questions and filibuster.
I was so glad when the interviewers started cutting Conway off their shows or ending her interviews as soon as she started doing this.
It's so rude an unprecedented that it caught journalists off-guard for over a year though. If they won't engage in civil discussion then it's time to end the discussion and cut off their access to your forum.
@MoralSingularity whats the data that suggests women shouldnt be able to abort a 4 day old zygote. What about the fact that a lot of his opinions on issues are rooted in the fact hes jewish and because of that he thinks gay people shouldnt be allowed to get married.
@@weakboson7813 This is a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation of Ben's thoughts and feelings during that interview. As MoralSingularity said, it's likely that most Americans would have taken those questions as attempts to stump or fluster Ben. Ben wasn't upset that he was being asked hard questions; he was upset that he felt like the interviewer didn't really care about the answers but just wanted to "get" him.
If he'd understood the "format," as it were, he'd have been ready with some heavy hitters.
@MoralSingularity Buddy... Pretending you have "data" when most relevant evidence contradicts you, or is to some degree reliant on shaky tangential links doesn't make you right.
Hey this video hasn’t been flagged and taken down, I must be really early
Yeah Bens Boys haven't found it yet.
It was actually flagged before it went public, and had to go through the whole system before now...
Who's here before it gets taken down again?
Ben Shapiro fan bois are about to get this taken down.
Strangest Craze lmao bbc gon be mad
“Don’t you dare bring up my past public statement, which I made on a public platform, to public audience!” - Shen “My Wife is a Doctor.” Bapiro.
And wich I already admitted were stupid
this statement makes sense when the people you're arguing with bring up things you've said in the past that sound wrong to inflict low jabs on your character instead of actually staying on the relevant topic that's being debated.
also don't act like you've never said or done anything stupid or "wrong", humans are not perfect and your mistakes not being recorded(unlike ben) don't make you a saint.
Ben Vapeiro
I like how Robert Downey Junior responds in a way that I would totally expect Tony Stark to respond to a hostile question
You assume their different people?
@@jeremiahfalck3496 Well, one is an actor and the other is a character played by that actor :-)
I don't assume that actors have the same personality as the characters they are playing. ( For example, Jack Gleeson played King Jeoffrey from Game of Thrones, but while his character is an absolute asshole, he's actually a pretty decent guy)
But in this case, it was exactly how I would have expected Tony Stark to respond.
Now, it could be that that just happens to also be his personality, or it could be that he responded like Tony Stark's character just to make the point that this interview is about the movie, not about his personal life.
K. De Metter He was making a joke...
@@kdemetter Autism Gang
Autism Gang
Ben Shapino : my feelings don't care about the facts
good one
"BEN SHAPIRO DESTROYS BEN SHAPIRO!!!!!!!"
Thank you for explaining the differences between when it is a good time to leave an interview, or even better, how to leave a bad interview. Great examples.
The Shapiro interview showed Ben's biases.
........ yeah... he’s right wing...... he literally says that like.... ALL THE TIME
@@scubasteveop3594 That is not what I mean, but sure.
noisemagician okay what biases is there?
His bias towards what?
@@meleefanboy3370
His bias towards being a little bitch, amiright? lmao lmao gottem
When they don’t offer you enough *G Fuel*
Comparing Peterson to Shapiro is like comparing a moderately tall person to Ben Shapiro.
It's unfair and Ben Shapiro will walk out.
Shapiro is extremely insecure. You can hear it in his voice and see it in his mannerism. How he has fans is beyond me. Possibly brainwashed children who can’t think for themselves
@@giovanniherrera6037 because his opponents are usually more pathetic.
@MoralSingularity interesting for you to call someone out for projecting when youre implying other people dont have anything worthwhile to add.
@MoralSingularity Damn didnt know eminem was into being an idiot in comment sections
@MoralSingularity i literally replied to your joke with a joke...
"You're criticising the Right, so you MUST be on the Left".
That's everything wrong with politics in one sentence. Anyone with that mentality is not fit to make political statements
I agree that there's WAY too much us vs. them BS out there. Then again the interviewer was definitely not framing questions to understand the interviewee's thoughts. It came off as more of a debate and IF you're expecting a traditional interview I can understand the reactions.
Correction: Everything wrong with AMERICAN politics. The "us versus them" mentality is a recipe for disaster. Look how divided the country is already.
I agree with you except on the Stevie Boebi interview @ 6:50. She sat through the first two anti-trans statements from the interviewer (the air quotes and saying they are just confused about their identity) then walks out on the third and the interview tries to continue with a fourth before she can leave. He either knew this would be very offensive to her, or he is an idiot and didn't know anything about his interviewee. Given they'd been talking twenty minutes, I'd expect 1) he did know, and 2) she sat through many other idiotic and offensive questions/statements from this person.
Absolutely no one that would be a fan of hers would be at all offended at her for walking out, and would probably cheer it. Anyone that thinks his statement was at all acceptable, would never have liked Stevie Boebi in the first place.
It took her whole a minute to get triggered and storm out after the topic came up. He was trying to provoke her, get her to think about the meaning of all these words (given that she didn't even know what a man was prior to this interview). "What is a man?Identity? Can a little girl id as a man?Should everybody go along with it?Should it be law?_ etc. etc. She could have stayed and explained her position, but she gave up as soon as he stepped on the trigger point.
@@mattmattmatt131313 You can have a dialogue about identity issues without being wholly dismissive right away, and preferably without being dismissive at all. He corrected his own use of transgender by applying very deliberate air quotes to it, and it he made it very clear how he was going to frame the issue as he continued speaking. Whatever your stance on transgender issues, you have to admit that it exists at an intersection of body image, mental health, and personal identity, so it is *obviously* going to be more touchy for some people than others. Hence, if your goal is constructive dialogue as opposed to making a public example of somebody through their views, you are going do precisely not do what this interviewer did.
From what I've seen of this guy (only a few videos), this seems to be his style. She should have done her research and come prepared for that. He is not shy stating his position then letting others defend theirs. His views are pretty old and established, it is her views that are new and need defending. Her trigger was that he dared question them at all(which is to be expected from this interviewer) "We all know Bruce is a man..."-leaves immediately. So she either got such an emotional response, so offended that she had to leave or she realized the other side is not going to go easy on her and she got scared and left. Was he provocative?...Absolutely. Could she handle it better?...Sure.
Oh and "Whatever your stance on t-issues..." you don't have to admit anything, you can start your position from wherever you please. You don't ever have to accept the other guys playing field.
Sure it can be a touchy subject, same way I would imagine, this girl talking to her vast online audience about scissoring is pretty touchy to this conservative as well. He still had her on, he still called her back "Come and tell me why" after she left.
@Emily the Slayer of mgtow men That doesn't really negate his point. If she wants to make a stand she should stand and she should know and be ready to stand up against someone whose views are already well known.
The inability to deal with difficult scenarios is a greater fault than someone just being themself.
Trans people are indeed rare. So rare that including them in everything is unrealistic and yet that happens anyways.
I'd love to hear your excuse for it, oh slayer of clinically depressed men.
sorry Shapiro, the questions weren't badly motivated. they were tough political questions about your political views (many of which you still hold) because you are a 'political commentator'. you didn't have answers to defend your positions, so accuse the interviewer of being on the left and just leave. classic. facts only care about Ben Shapiro's feelings
Tbf tho he went there to promote his book
At the end of the day, Ben is a hardcore ideologue who worships paleoconservative values as the closest man-made thing to infallibility, and when challenged he falls back on ideology and just sounds like a broken record. His interview with Tucker Carlson is a great example of this.
@@killergoose7643 mad
@@jacilund2159 true, but the book is political in nature. and the title I believe is "The Right Side of History" which explicitly makes a claim about historical fact involving politics. from much of Shapiro's publicly shared political views, this title of his book is a gross, ironic fabrication of positions he holds being "the right side of history". he's demonstrably incorrect on nearly everything he advocates. the book also explicitly making a claim about 'history' calls into question and refers to historical events and historical fact surrounding politics, which Mr. Shapiro is consistently on the wrong side of, contrary to his books' title. I don't find the questions badly motivated even the one calling the new Georgia anti-choice law a Draconian position, as it literally would represent legislation that is inherently authoritarian, despite Mr. Shapiro misleading and lying that Neil claims "the entire pro-life position is barbaric" which he never once said.
Or at least, if he had answers, he didn't give them, which lets be real, the man usually has an answer, whether you agree with the answer or not. He's very quick when it comes to stuff like that. He just assumed that the man had bad intentions. Which that assumption could very well be wrong (in fact I'm leaning towards that assumption being wrong, especially since he didn't know the man and wrongly assumed his political stance).
Also what about Ben Shapiro leaving an interview because of people he thinks are on the left is "classic"? Last I checked (though I don't super follow the man, so I could be wrong here), he usually sticks it through to tell those people that they're wrong, whether respectfully or not so. I fail to see how this is classic Ben at work here.
The Andrew Neal interview is beautiful. He was the perfect person to interview Ben Shapiro, who normally relies on talking over people. Instead of matching his speed, which many fall for when interviewed by him, Neal continues to just ask short, direct questions, making Shapiro look like a frightened little boy.
That really is the best way to debate a fast-talking, whiny, pseudo-intellectual like Shapiro. It makes them look emotional and frightened. Beautiful.
"When someone is intent in defaming your character you have no obligation to continue that conversation" - A man who wrote a book on how to attack the character of people instead of refuting their argument
My favorite thing about your channel is lack of bias or at least you being really good at hiding said bias. It makes the video really enjoyable.
The funny thing about the Ben Shapiro interview is that he was supposed to promote a book specifically about how the left coarsened the debate in America. All the questions he got mad about were hugely relevant and were exposing his hypocrisy in a very effective fashion. You can tell this was the interviewers' intention from his subtly british burn at the end
It wasn't subtle. He did bring up the tweets, going back 11 years, that would have the worst possible hot-takes. This after saying he didn't know who Shapiro was. Neil: "Oh but if you only knew I was right wing." Who would expect Ben to believe that?
Here is the issue I have with interviewers like Benny Shapiro: Although I am very entertained by his interviews sometimes, and even get what he is saying (gasp, did I really type that?) we have meshed serious informative and intelligent interviews into the realms of reality TV and entertainment. Interviews that are designed as gotcha moments are entertainment and not designed always to get to the bottom of the issue discussed. Hell, look at what CNN and Fox News are classified as...Entertainment. People would rather watch train wrecks instead of valuable information. I'd like a main meal of News, hold the "reality tv" please. Lol
BourbonChicken
Those tweets reflect his opinions from 11 years ago, it wasn’t like he was a child or some sort of unaffiliated person in political affairs at the time. Ben Shapiro at this point had a degree and was actively engaging in political affairs and writing articles.
The interviewer commenting on these 100% serious tweets, is a clarification question, and getting offended because he points out this possible contradiction, a softball question at best.
@@bourbonchicken What the fuck does it matter if you have valid arguments you simply use them not cry and whine like a child
@@davidb9779 What was Andrew Neil's best question in the interview?
When the interviewer pulls down his pants and you realize this isn't for a automotive shop but for casting couch
Pretty sure when you start yelling "HUUUUR DUUUR LEFTIST" at a stalwart Conservative, that's the time to call it quits. xD
Well, our republicans are pretty on the deep end of right compared to a lot of the european countries, so technically, that old fellow probably could end a democrat over here v:
@@HyenaBlank I think america is just getting more extreme regardless of the spectrum. Europe is following the trend as well, but for the time being, left or right, Europe just seems neutral compared to American politics
@@HyenaBlank Democrats are more far off then republicans in the US.
Finn The Artist that definitely isn’t the case. Find me a large coalition of extreme leftists in American politics. Maybe you’ll find many individuals but that doesn’t sneak it’s way into Washington in almost any meaningful forum. Far right wingers are much more likely to be found at every level of government here in the US, even down to local and state governments.
Clay wood The entire democrat party and Antifa.
Holy shit. I just realized. Andrew Neil was just playing devils advocate/asking strong questions. He used strong words "barbaric" and "dark ages" because, well, that's what the critics to the issue would be saying saying. But Shapiro, probably used to biased, tricky interviewers (lets be honest, the media is filled with them), heard those words and thought, "Oh shit, here it comes. A smear campaign". When really, if he just addressed the QUESTION rather than the INTERVIEWER, it would have been so much better for everyone involved.
Amazing channel you have! I would have never seen it the other way.
If a "journalist"'s entire bag is using inflammatory and emotion-appeal language to troll people, then why the heck does anybody bother using a TV to access that when it's the same trash everyone does on social media? What a pathetic excuse for a job, honestly. I'm a little bit shoulder-chipped about journalistic integrity, sure, but I can handle a little editorializing ... However, what that BBC fossil was doing was just really lazy and honestly, even stupider than my most recent impression of daytime TV's usual crap-tier content. There is nothing journalistically or dialectically redeemable about the tack he took on the conversation. (That said, the meat of your comment is really about Shapiro reading into it, so let me bring it back around to the point by saying that, under the circumstances, I think it was a lot more reasonable for Ben to assume that the interviewer meant his words at face value, rather than assuming the interviewer was just a really pathetic excuse for someone deserving of a media position. And yes, having written that out, I do recognize now that I just defended someone attributing to malice that which is explained by stupidity ... but in a sense, the fact that some idiot has a media following does give one a reason to assume they're perhaps not 100% idiot.)
Now here's a good topic. "should businesses that serve as a public forum, be subject to follow the first amendment?" Like should UA-cam, Facebook, and so forth be allowed to say what you can say, If they are serving as public platforms for speech? Personally i think they should be, since they have in a sense replaced the public paper and town square. So extending things to the internet, only makes sense.
John J
then you’re violating the rights of the owner of the business
@@Unknown-eg5xz not when they choose to be that type of business
@@Unknown-eg5xz also corporations dont have owners, they have shareholders
John J fuck ya
No. Nazis views are not just another viewpoint.
Shapiro's mistake was not staying calm and answering the questions directly, choosing instead to attack his interviewer.
John Doe is he ever calm
The first chick walking out in protest imo was a fine look. Him saying "Bruce... We ALL know he's a man" is killing any attempt at having a conversation by stating his view as fact, and shows he's unwilling to budge in the slightest. Not only disrespectful to interviewee who obviously is not part of this "all".
I completely agree. Nothing kills a debate quicker than assuming that everyone is already on your side.
@Kill Team Charlie Who's Bruce Jenner?
@Veronika Daisy no he knows, either that or he is just that stupid
@Kill Team Charlie I've never heard of this "bruce jenner" character, sounds vaguely feminine
@@osmium3691 When reality is on your side, assuming that everyone agrees with you can be seen as a sign of respect. When talking to a stranger, you assume he's not a flat earther, a creationist or an anti-vaccination advocate out of courtesy.