the only thing I dislike about Ben Shapiro is his annoying speaking style.

Klavan recruited Knowles to Daily Wire. I love all 3 of them! He also beat Shapiro on the 2016 election bet . Obviously though, if in debate with Shapiro, I think we’d all agree he’d loose. But yea, those 3, Elder and D’Souza are the absolutely most brilliant pundits. Level after them would be Owens, Rubin, Tucker etc. What you all think?

I actually agree to some extent about Shapiro. About the $ aspect anyway. The reason is because if they’re so interested in reaching and edifying public, then why push sponsors and have such charges they do? I understand they have to make some money for operating purposes but it doesn’t seem right. Disagree though about his moral integrity. I think with what seems like flip flopping, or lack of conviction to a conservative stance, is just his undying allegiance to logic, reason, and science. The problem he has is being robotic... unlike Knowles, he overlooks the human element of things, like with the polls where he subsequently gives them too much credence. And the part I most disagree with you about is his value to conservatism. Yes, his already aforementioned qualities are annoying, however, they are faaaaaar out-weighed by the cogent explanations and arguments he’s put together for conservatism. Through that, and the reaction videos etc, he’s drawn over more centrists and traditional liberals to conservatism than most other conservatives. Knowles may not be as smart, but he’s close and he’s of the most, unwavering moral integrity. And because he imports human nature/influence into his calculations and predictions, he’s now #1 in my book.

I did enjoy that but Ben is equally right! He’s smart.
There are fools born everyday, it takes just one fool to buy your “future water front” property. It’s no different than selling your house to a fool who doesn’t know that the property next door is a drug haven or a future airport.
Follow his advice folks and don’t educated the great unwashed because they are there for a reason!

@Dr-Striper "undying allegiance to logic, reason, and science." But he is a man of faith, isn't he? Something does not compute. He is not a man of reason anymore than most people are, because humans are not rational animals, we are rationalizing animals. I just don't agree with his rationalization. I value integrity, he does not. I might agree with some of his policies, and sure I agree with you that conservative cause needs to be funded somehow, but there is a way to do it with integrity and not be a corporate shill with such comfortable for him, but uncomfortable for me ease.

And I agree with you abut Ben being a machine, who just has his 10 000 words per 45 min quota, plus sponsors, clocking his day and going home to write few new political books as ghostwriter. Pardon the sarcastic tone, but it captures my feelings about him.

"they are faaaaaar out-weighed by the cogent explanations and arguments he’s put together for conservatism."

I used to have the impression but after listening to him more, I realized that he gives an impression of someone who has strong arguments far more often than he actually does, because the speed at which he talks and presumed confidence. If you look at his work in writing, and remove the sound distraction, I think its a more accurate picture about the strength of his arguments. Which are not as strong and not nearly as often as the perception one gets by being overwhelmed with his style of fast talking.

His show for example. How conservative it is, really? It sounds like CNN for the other side. He does not really provide reasons for conservation, but his show is daily reaction videos about CNN man bad. Its the equivalent of Orange Man Bad, with a little bit better logic, but same core problem.

To put it like this: “The conservative "thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the ideologue is merciless.” ― Russell Kirk

CNN is run by ideologues and tabloid like profiteers that make money from manufactured outrage about Orange Man. As lefty ideologies it fits with the Russell Kirk point, they are not conserving they are undermining existing order.

Ben Shapiro if he calls himself conservative, actually does a bad job at conservation. You know how CNN made Trump famous and in politics any press is good press. How many times has Ben did the same for AOC? If it was not for Ben I would now know who this communist moron named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is. Knowing that, I don't think it did much for conservation effort, on the contrary, it made stupid person more famous. When CNN says Orange Man Bad it makes Trump stronger, and it also gives him free press. But for CNN type organization that does not conserver anything but their bank account, that is ok. For conservatives that is a luxury they don't have and "Brilliant" Ben Shapiro does not want to or does not care to see that.

He is not a conservative, he is a reactionary pundit that happens to be a man of Jewish faith so he is on that side officially. But I don't think he would be out of place on the other side if they were not antisemitic.

Conservatives talk about protecting education, marriage etc. But all I see guys like Ben do is complain about it, instead of spending energy building institutions and economic and cultural conditions for proper education and marriage. That is conservation, but punditry. Sadly I don't think Ben cares. This is much easier. Clock your 10 000 words per 45 min, sell few productions and go home. Repeat tomorrow. Not impressed. And I don't see anything original being said or mentioned, its just reactionary videos. He said, she said. When NYT says "Trump Tweeted", Ben says "NYT tweeted about Trump Tweeting" and at the core, he is not doing anything for conservation. Its all style, no substance.

@Krunoslav Well I mostly disagree. Even if his moral qualities are lower than I estimate, it is very difficult to envision him on hypothetical null of antisemitism because of the principles and values he’s preached. I agree about the podcasts as of late being mostly complaining but they are also riddled with philosophical, cultural, and historical remedies he posits for our problems. For a better view on where actually stands on certain things, and to what extent, his book and IDW conversations he’s had with Rubin and Peterson are enlightening (or at least I think so). There he doesn’t talk fast or have reason to make a spectacle of smashing an opponent either. I do hear you about the $ though. However, without being privy to the company’s working budget, neither of us are really in place to strongly say he’s only about $. I do get vibe though it could be improved for further viewing reach (As I said previously). I certainly disagree about the negative publicity point you make. I feel as though its a false dichotomy. A leftist media showing trump and conservative ideas (of any type) is dangerous for them because reality sells and convinces. Its draws some moderate lefties possibly more right, and with trump certainly energizes the already-right. I don't think the opposite is true. I doubt any single person watching Shapiro talk about AOC is in anyway ever drawn to her sensibilities and policies. In fact, I think the opposite is true. He is a machine of explaining reality, and if explained well, reality sells better/faster than does leftist utopian idealism. How you feel about Knowles and Klavan?