By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian on 15 May 2019
Edit Thread
NightlyPoe said:
Machiavellian said:

When you are interviewed, its never good to be argumentative.  The reason why is that you never get your point across and you look petty.  Lets take the first question that triggered Ben which was the Georgia Ban on abortion.  So the interview guy specifically stated going backwards and gave 2 examples.  This triggered Ben who had an opportunity to explain why he believed the ban was a good thing and to explain why those 2 examples were legit but instead he concentrated on the farming of the question got argumentative and end up not answering the question or giving his opinion on the issue.

He also did not own up to any of his bad quotes.  He told the interviewer to go to a website and read up on it but he had the chance in the interview to give his side.  The only people who will go to his site are the people who already follow him.  If Ben is trying to show a different side of himself he had the opportunity during the interview to do so.  You cannot sit there and preach about change then get all arrogant and defensive about previous ills in his past.  If anything I came away from that interview believing his book is only facade and the person who wrote is still the same person who made those quotes. 

True.  And that's why Shaprio came off looking bad.  However, that's a fault of style, not necessarily virtue.  I could never be famous myself because I could never handle the constant scrutiny and judging of each appearance.  It must be exhausting and hardening to have to constantly have your public persona wall up at all times.

And I'm not sure how acknowledging your mistakes to something to the point of writing articles and putting it on your website isn't owning up to it.

If anything I came away from that interview believing his book is only facade and the person who wrote is still the same person who made those quotes. 

And, in the end, that was the point.  To give people an excuse to dismiss him.  That's what we constantly do, no matter how articulate the individual, we find an excuse to disqualify our enemy's message so as not to have to engage with it.

If the interviewer was trying to make viewers dismiss Ben, isn't it up to Ben not to make it so easy.  Its one thing to be baited, its something else to jump both feet into the trap knowing the results.  Here is the thing.  Ben has a book that talks about the very thing he promoted in the past.  Why would any interviewer not challenge him to prove that he has changed.  That is how I took the questions from the interviewer.  The question is Ben grandstanding or is he truly changed how he approached topics.  From that interview Ben failed the test.  Do we believe this will be the only time Ben will be challenged whether or not he isn't the same person who promoted toxic rhetoric, probably not.  There are many people who talk about change but they are only talking about everyone else besides themselves.  This was the take away from that interview.  Ben is only preaching about everyone else needs to change besides himself.