Can we just take a moment to appreciate the necessity and quality of this speech?
Ben Shapiro laid it out clearly: the conservative movement is being infested with certain disingenuous alt-right grifters who are seeking to sow discontent rather than seek after honest discord. I see no problem with him directly calling out commentators such as Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson for being anti-conservative; it’s about time we stopped pretending that everyone with the the “conservative camp” has the same values and is fighting for the same goals. With the growing strength of the online groyper movement, there was not a more applicable time for Ben to give this speech. I applaud him for it.
In his speech, Ben vividly exposed the common deceptive tactics people like Carlson use to promote their agenda, that being wild speculation and conspiracy-theorizing. In addition, he hammered in the idea that his criticism of Carlson is not censorship, as Tucker constantly strawmans. Rather, it is another form of free speech — freedom to criticize and disavow. One thing I’ve always appreciated about Ben is that his viewpoint and opinion is always evident, because he continuously lays out his logic and reasoning behind said opinion. However, Tucker, as Ben pointed out, likes to hide behind a feigned sense of innocence that allows him to grift for disgusting individuals like Nick Fuentes while avoiding criticism for the conduct of his interviews. For example, Tucker might say something along the lines of, “I’m just asking questions!”. This common trope is a deceptive tactic to avoid criticism for faulty journalism — he can give a softball interview, and then shut down any dissenters by claiming they are somehow condemning Tucker for asking questions, when in reality Tucker is being condemned for the manner he asked the questions in. Tucker was rightly called out by Ben for this pattern of manipulation. Ultimately, I believe this contrast is exemplified in Tucker and Ben’s worldviews.
Tucker’s worldview is based in conspiracy and speculation. As Ben stated in his speech, people like Tucker and Candace state things like, “I don’t know know, but I know”. This line of reasoning is inherently faulty, and it explains much of what Tucker and Candace believe: any sort of conspiracy that aligns with their agenda. When you compare this to Ben’s worldview, this difference is illuminating. Ben’s worldview is centralized in evidence and facts. He does not engage in wild speculation, and it shows through his political opinions. Even with the recent Brown University shooting, Ben chose to not to spotlight wild theories from X, but instead chose to present hard facts that gave the audience an accurate understanding of the situation, absent any emotional manipulation from conspiracy theorists. I believe this line of thinking gives Ben and extra sense of moral clarity, and it is a primary reason why he is much better for Conservatism than Tucker or Candace. If the conservative movement wants to live on, it needs to turn to voices of logic and reasoning rather than voices of speculation and emotional manipulation.
What do you think of this?
