I've clued in to how he forms arguments, and he intentionally creates logical back-doors to his arguments that allow for their destruction.
That is to say, every argument he forms sounds really good and based, but he is using techniques of Sophism to undermine his own conservative talking points and hand winning debates to any of his "foes" that he's informed ahead of time.
If he truly has flipped to the good guys, I'd be happy, but for right now I'm suspicious of this push and even more suspicious that YouTube would even let him.
He's controlled opposition, and until he admits it that's how I'll treat him.
Exactly. It's a pathetic sleight of hand, how he argues. And it is very sus how they let this ad through. Wasn't he for it not too long ago, anyway? So why the change?
He's 100% controlled opposition. You'll never hear an original thought come from him, only regurgitating ideas from someone else.
(((They))) allow him to stay on the air as a defense against the argument that conservatives have their platforms removed.
Just as you noticed, he always leaves easily seen counterarguments in his pieces. So while he appears to be conservative, he's just framing conservative talking points in a way to let others defeat his arguments and, in turn, conservatives.
I'm wary of Shapiro.
I've clued in to how he forms arguments, and he intentionally creates logical back-doors to his arguments that allow for their destruction.
That is to say, every argument he forms sounds really good and based, but he is using techniques of Sophism to undermine his own conservative talking points and hand winning debates to any of his "foes" that he's informed ahead of time.
If he truly has flipped to the good guys, I'd be happy, but for right now I'm suspicious of this push and even more suspicious that YouTube would even let him.
He's controlled opposition, and until he admits it that's how I'll treat him.
Exactly. It's a pathetic sleight of hand, how he argues. And it is very sus how they let this ad through. Wasn't he for it not too long ago, anyway? So why the change?
He's pro vax but anti mandate.
“It is incredibly irresponsible for Trump not to concede. No evidence of fraud” - Ben said that, a few days after the heist.
Correct.
He's going to ride the razors edge of what he has to say to keep his audience.
Saying he is a "hero" I disagree with.
If he is backing the vaccines, still, he's willfully hurting people.
He's 100% controlled opposition. You'll never hear an original thought come from him, only regurgitating ideas from someone else.
(((They))) allow him to stay on the air as a defense against the argument that conservatives have their platforms removed.
Just as you noticed, he always leaves easily seen counterarguments in his pieces. So while he appears to be conservative, he's just framing conservative talking points in a way to let others defeat his arguments and, in turn, conservatives.
We can't let perfect be the enemy of good. If he's anti-mandate, that's something we have common ground on.
Well beware the wolfs in sheepskins...
I agree, he's controlled op, otherwise YT would shut him down - and his whiny, helium-soaked, little boy voice grosses me out.
Insert jewish gas joke.
dude none of (((them))) are on our side
It means their actions (((echo))) throughout history
you think acknowledging (((them))) and the influence they peddle is a glowie thing?
it's the truth, like it or not