The problem with your style of response is that you deliberately miss the forest for the trees. You can make excuses for a million different things but if you have to make a million excuses, something is wrong.
It’s the kind of response that is either deliberately obtuse
I remember there was this passage in MK where the Austrian painter describes how frustrating it was to have arguments with the juice. They would be intentionally dense about anything that went against their narrative and then the next day they would pretend the discussion never happened, so he would have to explain everything to them all over again.
And halfway through this argument you just casually own up to not watching the one guy who everyone is basing these criticisms on?
The claim was that the entire platform focuses on Israel. Which is false. I don't need to watch Ben Shapiro to know that. I'm also sure these critics don't religiously watch him, and yet they make the criticisms anyway.
or self-outing as being completely uninformed on the topic.
If not watching Ben Shapiro is being 'completely uninformed on the topic', are you anything else?
And this is you sounding exactly like a “professional fact checker”. Constantly dissembling and misrepresenting so that you can achieve very technical pedantic victories against highly curated arguments. This shit doesn’t work anymore. Everyone sees you now.
If any of these arguments on its own is not sufficient to establish your case, then maybe present a few of them. Also, like I said, considering that some of the same people who call Ben Shapiro 'controlled opposition' say the same about literally everyone, including Tucker, it does not require a genius to not take seriously the boy crying wolf.
Which is why I criticized the arguments - they didn't establish the claim of the Daily Wire being 'controlled opposition' or any sweeping 'focus on Israel'.
The problem with your style of response is that you deliberately miss the forest for the trees. You can make excuses for a million different things but if you have to make a million excuses, something is wrong.
I remember there was this passage in MK where the Austrian painter describes how frustrating it was to have arguments with the juice. They would be intentionally dense about anything that went against their narrative and then the next day they would pretend the discussion never happened, so he would have to explain everything to them all over again.
Weird how similar they are...
The claim was that the entire platform focuses on Israel. Which is false. I don't need to watch Ben Shapiro to know that. I'm also sure these critics don't religiously watch him, and yet they make the criticisms anyway.
If not watching Ben Shapiro is being 'completely uninformed on the topic', are you anything else?
And this is you sounding exactly like a “professional fact checker”. Constantly dissembling and misrepresenting so that you can achieve very technical pedantic victories against highly curated arguments. This shit doesn’t work anymore. Everyone sees you now.
Except that I actually look at the facts, instead of ignoring them.
It's the arguments your friends made. Quite ridiculous ones.
That and he's controlled opposition himself. Not to mention a vax pusher and a sodomite.
If any of these arguments on its own is not sufficient to establish your case, then maybe present a few of them. Also, like I said, considering that some of the same people who call Ben Shapiro 'controlled opposition' say the same about literally everyone, including Tucker, it does not require a genius to not take seriously the boy crying wolf.
That's literally what SoctaticMethod1 did
Which is why I criticized the arguments - they didn't establish the claim of the Daily Wire being 'controlled opposition' or any sweeping 'focus on Israel'.
See my first response