Evidence works both ways,you also need to provide it before you ask for it.

You seem to have a different understanding of what a safe space is,in my opinion you use it as an extreme for a mild situation because a talk between friends or a friendly talk that does not ever go south does not equal what people understand a safe place to be.

Because they both do not have criticism to eachother does not mean they have an aversion to criticism or deliberatly block it from the conversation if it came up,not all more positive videos have to be called "safe space's"and if you have a talk with a friend you are likely open to speak your mind whenever something bugs you about him,if that does not happen it does not mean that a safe space was created because no it was just a normal conversation.

No neither of us is gonna see it different and maybe im too soft on this or maybe you too hard,all in all it is not that important.

The video shows up as a video in the reply editor but it doesn't show the video itself, just a play icon, so ya I dunno what's up with that.

Whether they are friends or not doesn't have a lot to do with it other than in one particular case. Sure, the likelihood of Shapiro being 'destroyed' by Crowder is less likely than someone Ben doesn't know personally and has no knowledge of, but that's no guarantee he's going into a safe space. Ben even assumed going into the 'book' interview that he was entering a safe space and got blindsided. Crowder himself being a comedian can be quite unpredictable and can go off the handle at times when he get's worked up, so he's not the type of go to guy when you need strong reassurance and a guaranteed image boost.

As for friends, I don't know about you, but I've had/have really good friends and acquaintances, for both short and long periods of time, who only had/have a few things in common with me, and sometimes have gone against me or totally thrown me under the bus, right down to stabbing me in the back. Some of those people are still around, but the one's like the back stabbers no longer are. Just because someone is your friend at the moment doesn't guarantee a safe space, especially when it comes to business and politics.

If Ben and Crowder were best friends since they were kids, life long buds, the type who would risk their life to save the other's, then in that specific case I would say the likelihood that Crowder would try and put Ben in a really tough spot would be so low that you would have a point, but they do not have that type of friendship. Visually getting along well does not equate a safe space.

The reason I also tied conservatives, and not just Ben and Crowder to your safe space remark, is because when it comes to cons vs libs, aside from the minority of over the top outspoken individuals on either side, the average con is much more likely to give you a hard time then a lib will. Libs are more worried about hurting your feelings or making you look bad in front of a group, and tend to be to easy on you until they reach the tipping point and then they get pissed and will grill you as hard as they can. A con typically believes they should straighten you out on the spot right now, in a fairly calm manner before they have to go over the top because they allowed things to get much worse, and they'll also use public shaming as a tactic to get you to do so if necessary. This usually works quite well for cons so they don't tend to need to hammer people very often. Crowder was giving Ben that fairly calm talk now so that a public grilling isn't necessary later. Now when it comes to cons dealing with libs and vice versa, that's usually a mess because they don't share the same disciplinary idea's and actions.

My own family and my friends, girlfriends, or acquaintances families were always like this. The lib fams always seemed nicer, until one day when they would lose it and be crazy, and the con fams were always straight forward and a little bit edgy, yet rarely did you see a freak out. This is why I don't really agree with trying to say conservative people use safe spaces, because they almost don't exist in that climate. Church would be one of the few exceptions, but even then it's the invisible dude in the sky that's comforting them, not so much the people attending.

There was never a moment that Crowder would destroy Ben and there was never a moment that it would be anything but what it was, a friend giving consolation to another friend.  We can argue this point ad nauseum but no where can you prove with any Video between the 2 this was ever going south.  When you just got beat up, you go to your friend for support and that is what Ben did.  It really doesn't matter if both are conservatives or whatever, friends look out for Friends and that is what we got.  You posted a video trying to show how Crowder isn't a safe place but if anyone did not know either person, why would they come to that conclusion.  Crowder has interviewed Ben a lot  is always like 2 college friends talking.  I would guess they talked about that interview between Ben and Neil way before Ben showed up on the show because it sure felt like it.

Also you can take all that Con this lib that and how they all do this or that right out the window.  All this generalization just make your points hollow because no Con or Lib all act the same since they are all individual people.

This is absolutely insane.

He claimed no collusion.  A special investigation showed Russia 'offered' collusion and met with Trump associates on numerous occasions. And yet he cries 'No collusion'.  And now he announces he is inviting collusion.

Even some of his most staunch supporters (like Senator Lindsey Graham) have stated this was a very stupid thing to admit.

It is amazing how in one sentence he'll claim complete innocence and in the next admit to either doing or wanting to do something illegal.

Why does anybody have to 'destroy' anyone else? I assume you're going to prove that Shapiro and Crowder are such good friends that they would never be tough on each other then? You ask why they would come to my conclusion, but never ask why someone would come to your conclusion. So these two friends who get along so well, like college buddies, had to plan their conversation for things to go so smoothly? Sounds more to me like two people who don't get along so well who needed to make sure they didn't say the wrong thing and destroy the other person, helping each other out for their career's sake.

I said that already. I pointed out the extreme's and average, meaning obviously there are difference's between people and it doesn't hold true for every single person period. Talking about extreme's or average's is hollow? I guess nobody has to worry about climate change then.

Whether its destroy, challenge or even disagree, there was never a doubt any of those things were going to happy on that show.  Who knows or cares if they planned it or not, the fact is that before 10 seconds in that interview Crowder gave Ben the big thumbs up when he stated Neil is an asshole. From there Ben got the affirmation he needed that this interview was going to be exactly as he predicted, one sided.  Hell, they might as well hugged afterwards and had a nice cry.

It is amazing how in one sentence he'll claim complete innocence and in the next admit to either doing or wanting to do something illegal.

Do you really not understand why "bribery" would be against the law?