Lol.
Wonder if you have ever composed a paragraph like this in regards to your heroes?
They didn't take issue with what he said as much that he dared be asked to write it. They are rotating writers for Playbook and he was assigned the date weeks ago. 82 Politico "journalists" complained that they had to share oxygen with him. LOL
And ciggy, I'll spare you the trouble of responding "Good". There. You did it.
Ben Shapiro stirs controversy by guest writing Politico newsletter
Conservative media figure Ben Shapiro drew controversy on Thursday after he guest wrote Politico’s Playbook newsletter.thehill.com
Politico Staff Objects After Right-Wing Star Ben Shapiro Writes Newsletter (Published 2021)
The Washington outlet made Mr. Shapiro, podcaster and author, a guest writer of the popular Playbook. Reporters complained in an afternoon Zoom call.www.nytimes.com
Politico Staff Objects After Right-Wing Star Ben Shapiro Writes Newsletter
The Washington outlet made Mr. Shapiro, podcaster and author, a guest writer of the popular Playbook. Reporters complained in an afternoon Zoom call.
Many members of Politico’s staff said they were not pleased to see Ben Shapiro’s byline on Thursday’s Playbook newsletter.Credit...Mark Ralston/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By Katie Robertson
Politico faced a backlash from its staff on Thursday after it handed its Playbook newsletter, a popular morning read in Washington, to the right-wing commentator Ben Shapiro for a day.
- Jan. 14, 2021
A month after the exit of Playbook’s two longtime writers, Politico has brought in a series of guests to handle the daily missive. In recent days, they have included Chris Hayes of NBC News; Eliana Johnson, the editor in chief of The Washington Free Beacon; and James Bennet, the former New York Times opinion editor.
Politico’s decision to give Mr. Shapiro a turn drew criticism from Politico journalists. More than 200 members of the staff joined a Zoom call with the editor in chief, Matthew Kaminski, on Thursday afternoon to discuss the move. Many argued that Politico should not have given the platform to Mr. Shapiro, the host of the podcast and radio program “The Ben Shapiro Show,” according to two reporters on the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.
In his edition of the newsletter, Mr. Shapiro wrote that Republican leaders were justified in opposing the second impeachment of President Trump because of “a deep and abiding conservative belief that members of the opposing political tribe want their destruction, not simply to punish Trump for his behavior.”
Mr. Shapiro is a former editor at large at Breitbart News and the author of “Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth” and “How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps.” He has said transgender people suffer from a “mental disorder.” In 2016, Mr. Shapiro wrote on Twitter that Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager whose killing in 2012 by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida made national news, “would have turned 21 today if he hadn’t taken a man’s head and beaten it on the pavement before being shot.” (The circumstances of Mr. Martin’s death were in dispute. There were no witnesses to the shooting.)
During the call on Thursday, some Politico staff members described Mr. Shapiro as a bigot who should not have been allowed to write the newsletter, the two reporters said. Mr. Kaminski, the editor, stood behind the decision and did not apologize for it, the two reporters said.
A Politico spokesman said in a statement that the publication had tried to “assemble a roster of guest authors who are prominent thinkers and writers and represent a range of perspectives.”
“What sets Politico apart in this intense political and media moment is that we rise above partisanship and ideological warfare — even as many seek to drag us into it,” the statement continued.
Mr. Shapiro said Thursday that he was grateful to Politico for the opportunity and unsurprised by the reaction. “I openly warned editors at Politico that they were likely to face this kind of blowback for hosting me, and to their credit, they hosted me anyway,” he said in an email interview.
Mr. Shapiro said the criticism from Politico’s staff had proved a point he has been making for years. “This phenomenon — the ostracization of conservatives more broadly as the end-goal of many on the Left — was the exact point of my piece in Playbook,” he wrote in the email.
The writers of Playbook for four years, Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer, left in December to start Punchbowl News, a Politico competitor, with another former Politico reporter, John Bresnahan.
This is such BS. Geared toward the simple minded like many of his co-horts on the far right. A typical example of him using selected facts and ignoring others. This is why he's a pseudo-intellectual.
This is more a case of even the most deplorable can do nice things from time to time.
Once again, there is more to gender identity than the basic biology. You know, there are lots of different fields of science, right? And subfields and branches and so on and so forth?
Lol. I don't take issue with his or your point about the college kids. And I already alluded to that ITT. Pay attention. I take issue that he, like so many of those looking for clicks and views in our uber-competitive media market, then implicitly or often explicitly draws out the worst of a group to then attribute that behavior as representative of the entire group. This is what sickens me about popular political media personalities like Shaprio.
It's also why desperate-for-affirmation types like @haw-key love the guy, idolizing him to the point of adopting his "debate" strategies. I also love how Shapiro so frequently compliments his own style of delivery, regularly crediting himself with leaving out emotion, you know, just sticking to facts and whatever—except that's not what he's doing at all. It is in part emotion/psychology that drives a person to ignore facts that don't serve the purpose in favor of those that do. There's no objectivity and rationalism in how he forms his arguments. Just because he delivers it in a robotic, monotone fashion doesn't mean there isn't bullshit subjectivity and emotion and psychology driving the arguments.
Lol. All based on cherry-picking and misapplying shit. That shit is a joke. It's conman crap.
Just look at his explanation about redlining. "It was bad, but it's over and everything is pretty much equal now" is what he says, in essence. That's a bunch of garbage and geared toward simple minded white people who want to hear that message.
And you're an enabler and misogynist and science denier. Trans women ain't women, sweetheart. We've got an ACLU lawyer saying trans women are biologically women and you're over here playing dumb. Well, playing is being generous. Gender is a construct and sex is observable science. Once again, this shit does nothing to tear down gender stereotypes; it reinforces them. Stick to brand identity. Or maybe that is what you're doing here.
It's not. That's what white people want to think and he fast talks his base with what they want to hear.
GFY - I put quotes around it and qualified it as what he said "essentially". I did that to be sure what I was paraphrasing was attributed to him.
But that's his MO. He has nothing beyond that and it's why he has to have control of the dialogue.
FFS - you, like those who Shapiro targets, want a simple definition for a very, very complex topic that has many tentacles. When you don't get it (because it's not possible) you turn your back on it due to a lack of clarity or some other excuse for not delving into the issues. The same holds true for things like universal healthcare - it's not simple so it gets dismissed by many.What white people want to think? What?
As it's argued in that video we get:
- It's historic racism
- It's bias
- It's racism
- It's whatever else
That's why I say it's a catch-all. So with their arguments I'm left to think of it as this nebulous 'system-of-everything' sort of concept.
Of course we could define a coherent, pointed understanding of the phrase. Functionally though... I'm not exactly sure what the hell people are talking about most of the time when they say it.
Go to the wikipedia page and be prepared to be... underwhelmed where clarity is concerned.
Institutional racism - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Sigh. Yes, for you and too many others, it's a "catch all" and that makes it non-existent.
I'm not squirming. I simply am not willing to debate when you have the need for simple definitions of a highly complex topic.
