Oh fuck off, Ben Shapiro
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (206)
sorted by:
I went almost 3 years without listening to Shapiro, and I'm disappointed instead of angry. Can any lawyers clear up what made the contract non-binding?
There's an term, article, or comment I didn't save that precisely explained how powerful enemies can benefit off fighting each other (probably in the context of the Ukraine context or unusual American politicians), with the point of conflict of interest causing a feedback loop. In this case Daily Wire vs big tech, where DW justifies its business model by opposing the left side of the establishment, while between the lines being much alike to the establishment. Similar to but not kayfabe in that the enmity is genuine, and related to prospiracy.
It's non-binding in the sense that it was an initial offer that wasn't signed. If someone read and agreed to those terms, they'd draw up the full contract.
However, arguing that it's "just a term sheet" is semantic nonsense. It's the essence of the deal they wanted.
Between the egotistical and editorialized click-bait headline, and the intentionally misleading video description unexplained in the 12 minute clip, Shapiro can really persona non grata himself.
The penalties potentially make it unenforceable even if they don't call them penalties they're clearly penalties. Contracts with penalties are void as a matter of law.
There might have been non-binding parts of the contract, and you might be right about penalties being de-facto voidable, but I don't think Shapiro had the latter part in mind when shaming crowder.
It was never signed, simple as that. And what Crowder showed on his show technically wasn't a contract, but rather a term sheet. The contractual terms are laid out as negotiable elements and once they're agreed upon, a final contract would have been drafted, but that never happened.
Just looked that up myself, my mistake was looking up "non-binding contract" yesterday instead of term-sheet, which is the phrase in Shapiro's video description.
Still, the proposal itself indicates a traditional command-and-control culture at Daily Wire, resulting in the ego driven and uncompromising character attacks from DW hosts (at least Owens and Shapiro). A metaphor borrowed from ThinkBeforeYouSleep is with Judo, where if to resist submissions you don't make any openings, your opponent is likewise going to stay on guard and you won't have any openings to exploit. If Shapiro, and Boreing could acknowledge some validity of the grievances, highlighted the status quo of big entertainment companies, and toned down the personality attacks, they would have looked better, strengthened the conservative movement, and preserved their relationship with Crowder.
If the DW business culture was more bottom-up and flexibly structured, a chiller approach to to this event would have occurred. Much more importantly for DW, their cinema venture is jeopardized if they don't have an unconventional M.O. able to tackle large, uncertain creative projects. Could be headed down the same ruinous path as Disney+, Paramount+, Netflix, et al, but without their incongruantly deep pockets.
Edit: Ben Shapiro being more humble in the past, which helped his reputation. Sargon had a good point about the BBC ordeal, that the host was barely discernible from shitlibs, regardless of the softball questions that flipped Ben out.