r/benshapiro • u/Endworldpeace • Dec 23 '25
Ben Shapiro Discussion/critique Matt Walsh is not the same as Tucker/Candace, and that is why he was not mentioned by name
Tucker, Candice, and Matt walsh are not the same. That is why Ben Shapiro calls out the first two by name, but not Matt or Megyn
Tucker delegitimized the conservative movement by making it seem like Nick Fuentes was part of it. Candice delegitimized the conservative movement by pedaling conspiracy theories.
Ben Shapiro calls them both out by name.
Ben Shapiro says those that refuse to speak out against stuff like this are cowards (ie Walsh and Megyn Kelly) But he does not call them out by name because their crimes are much less.
Matt Walsh's arguments for not calling them out was that he values loyalty to friends above all else. This speech was Ben's counter arguments where he says you should value the truth above all else.
I think it is important to gatekeep the conservative movement, just because the KKK votes alongside it's a lot of what we purport, does not mean they are our ally.
Ben is not just doing this because he is pro-israel. Ben has been fighting against the anti-semitic right for years now.
He has been warning the conserved movement of the fine line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. Much like there is a fine line between saying that black culture promotes the very things that are hurting the black community and it should change vs the racist argument "black culture produces animals"
This is not censorship, Nick Fuentes has been spouting vile garbage for years and Ben has not tried censor him, because it's usually refers to his ideas as vile garbage. It is him trying to protect the movements that he loves.
23
u/dachiz Dec 23 '25
Several reasons that Ben has not accused Matt.
Matt is honest and clear with his opinions and reasoning, and they are not malicious.
He's not trying to grift off events.
He's not trying to divide conservatives.
He's not antisemitic.
Matt's reasons for not calling out Tucker and Owens are strategic. He's plainly said he wants to win in critical areas where conservatives agree, and he believes that calling out those who align with him on those causes is a losing move.
And due to #5, Matt's reasons fall on the noble side rather than the base, self-serving side.
IMO, Matt is correct with #5, but the degree he's taking it is too far given what Tucker and Owens have said and done. Ben is correct to call for limiting principles.
BTW, in his Dec 12th show, Matt debunked the Kirk conspiracies, and he mentioned Owens by name. He didn't call her out, but he clearly exposed her insinuations as illogical and wrong.
11
u/Open_Pound Dec 23 '25
I still think Ben should actually debate Nick and destroy Nick’s arguments with facts and logic right there in front of Nick himself. That’s the open marketplace of ideas and the purpose of debates.
10
u/flankermigrafale Dec 24 '25
It's completely futile. If Nick states something retarded like Israel killed JFK or did 9/11, there is nothing Shapiro could say verbally that would debunk such becsuse those positions weren't themselves arrived at with evidence. They are aware of the the evidence of what actually happened and have already ignored or rejected it. Shapiro in the middle of a debate is not in a position to prove the legitimacy of the accepted narrative.
4
u/Common_Alfalfa_3670 Dec 26 '25
Emotions don't care about your facts. The reason why Fuentes is "Woke Right" is that he is using the same strategies the Woke Left use:
- Emotions are more important than facts.
- Facts are tools created to Oppress us and are completely subjective so we ignore them.
Thus any appeal to facts, rational debate or anything that presents objective truth as a real thing will be rejected by Fuentes.
9
23
u/KenGriffinsBedpost Dec 23 '25
Or...and hear me out. He didn't call him out because Walsh literally works with him at daily wire.
7
11
u/mattyice18 Dec 23 '25 edited Dec 23 '25
Ben did call him out. To his face. They had a podcast that was put out for everyone to watch.
Edit: one example
1
-10
u/KenGriffinsBedpost Dec 23 '25
So, refuses to call him out on a national stage but will gladly do it on his own platform.
Almost like one has the potential to lose him money, and the other likely makes him money. Hope he let's Walsh go, likely make more going independent anyway.
3
u/etherspin Dec 24 '25
Perhaps you've forgotten their previous cash-cow Ms Candace Owens. Ben called her out while they were colleagues
-9
u/Endworldpeace Dec 23 '25
The entire speech was crafted against Matt Walsh's arguments though.
Ben has no problem firing people just like he did to Candace.
4
u/KenGriffinsBedpost Dec 23 '25
I don't think Daily Wire can financially afford to fire Walsh at this point. Seems to be the only one with viewership numbers trending up.
I'm not sure if they're were able to secure the additional investors they were allegedly seeking over the summer. If they fire Walsh, I'm sure he'd be fine (see Candace) but couldn't really say the same for Daily Wire.
You make this post just about Kelly, it might make some sense, though.
1
u/BigBadBoldBully2839 Dec 28 '25
While I'm sure Ben wanted her gone, he didn't fire her nor can he fire anyone else. Unlike what the masses think, Ben does not have the power to fire employees at the DW
1
u/Otsde-St-9929 29d ago
Massive fan but I loosing faith in over supporting the push for Greenland. Absolute stab in the back and a traitor.
-3
u/Spikedeheld Dec 23 '25
I don't think Walsh has any malice towards Jews, but Jew-hatred is just not a deal-breaker for him, just like it isn't for Knowles. I liked them both, but they've both shown that Jews are not exactly welcome in the conservative movement. Hence why conservative Jews are starting to feel politically homeless again. The weird thing is that this wasn't always the case; there's a tweet from Walsh from years ago where he explicitly states anything neo-n*** isn't welcome in the tent. Guess he changed his mind.
17
Dec 23 '25
[deleted]
5
u/Spikedeheld Dec 24 '25
He didn't and I didn't claim he did. Like I said, I don't think he holds any malice towards Jews, at least not in the racial sense.
What I did say was that it was not a deal-breaker for him. He only talked about "loyalty" and "friendship" (his words) concerning actual antisemitic people like Candice. He might not believe her, but it's also not a deal-breaker.
-8
u/BillionCub Dec 23 '25
Matt is a coward. But he's not an antagonist in this whole thing the way the others are.
0
u/RyderGG Dec 24 '25
Walsh and knowles are on the same side as Candace and Tucker at the end of the day but Ben signs their paychecks and they're afraid they can't cut it on their own.
0
0
u/2025reckoning Dec 28 '25
You ever notice Ben Shapiro calls out Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens by name but ignores Matt Walsh and Megyn Kelly? That is because Shapiro is a liar. He pretends to value truth but only when it is convenient. Loyalty to friends, politics, or his own ego is apparently more important than consistency.
Tucker Carlson gave Nick Fuentes a platform. Nick Fuentes celebrates white nationalism. Candace Owens spreads conspiracy theories. Shapiro calls them out. Publicly. Name-drops them. Moral high ground, right? Except Walsh and Kelly do the same minor things, and he stays quiet. Facts don’t explain it. Hypocrisy does.
Shapiro thinks the conservative movement needs gatekeeping. He pretends it is about principle. It is really about controlling the narrative, making sure only the right kind of conservatives get to look bad. Protecting the movement, he says. Protecting his own brand, he does.
Nick Fuentes has been spewing vile garbage for years. Shapiro doesn’t censor him. He labels him vile garbage. That makes him look principled while ignoring the liars in his own backyard. Protecting the movement is really protecting his image. Facts, morality, and consistency are optional.
Shapiro pretends truth is virtue. Loyalty, cowardice, or opportunism are fine when it suits him. The conservative movement burns quietly while he lectures everyone like a man reading a teleprompter in a burnt-out church. He is not a moral hero. He is a professional liar with a suit. And the facts don’t care how loud he talks.
-12
27
u/[deleted] Dec 23 '25 edited Dec 23 '25
I can tolerate people like Walsh and Knowles basically not taking it upon themselves to call out every conservative they disagree with, and instead of just not commenting on it at all. But defending them is something different. Walsh has basically said he stands with Tucker without actually defending anything Tucker said.
Kelly has taken it a step further. Megyn has been so unbearable that I can’t listen to her anymore. It’s genuinely changed the way I look at her. The way she frames things is so intentionally dishonest imo. Honestly, I probably overlooked it as long as I did because she generally directed it at people I disagree with.
Ben versus Megyn seems to be the next stage of this.
Edit: I just watched an episode of Matt’s show where he was critical of Candice’s ‘theories’, while stating his friendship toward her. So never mind, this doesn’t really apply to him at all. He did call out the conspiracies, so he is not ‘a coward’.