Not too long ago, Ben Shapiro, one of America’s leading conservative figures challenged Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, winner of NY 14’s Congressional Primary to a debate. Ocasio Cortez responded by likening it to a cat call and turned down his offer to debate her. The media picked up the news story of Shapiro challenging her with many conservative outlets cheering Shapiro as a voice of reason and intellectual discourse. While those outlets simultaneously bashed Cortez for demonstrating intellectual cowardice and providing another ‘case study’ on how those on the left demonstrate intolerance to other viewpoints. Ben Shapiro is no stranger to this supposed leftist ‘intolerance’ as a significant portion of his career has been geared towards fighting it. As a matter of fact, Ben Shapiro is a member of the group known as the Intellectual Dark Web or IDW for short along with Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Eric Weinstein, and many others. The IDW is a group dedicated to having intellectual conversations that the mainstream media would not have and with a key emphasis on having discussions tailored towards civility and acting in good faith. After all, that’s what Shapiro wanted to have with Ocasio Cortez, a discussion in earnest and good faith, and a great free exchange of ideas. However, this is very contrary to what his actions suggest, what he speaks about, and what he writes about. Having followed Shapiro for a quite a few years, I can believe that his intentions with Cortez were neither honest nor in good faith but rather very hypocritical on what he preaches.

I start off with the ‘catcalling’ comment. When on August 9th, 2018 Alexandria responded to Shapiro’s debate offer. “Just like catcalling, I don’t owe a response to unsolicited requests from men with bad intentions.” Shapiro immediately replied following her tweet replying, “Discussion and debate are not ‘bad intentions.’ Slandering someone as a sexist catcaller without reason or evidence does demonstrate cowardice and bad intent, however. But sure, go with ‘the Orthodox Jew who has never catcalled a woman in his life is ACKSHUALLY a sexist catcaller for asking for a discussion or debate.’ I’m sure your media sycophants will eat it up.” First of all, it was an analogy used in order to show that just like catcalling, somebody isn’t entitled to any attention from the person they are seeking it from, and especially if they are offering a large sum of money for debate. Instead, Shapiro misreads her analogy and responds as if Cortez was directly accusing him of being a catcaller, rather than the obvious between his behavior and catcalling. Ben Shapiro should know by now between the difference of a direct statement and analogy, given the number of debates he has taken apart in. He further doubled down on this accusation on his podcast the Ben Shapiro Show Episode 600 “The Ocasio Cortez Brouhaha”. “I just I don’t understand it, also I like the fact that she puts all this emphasis on he’s a man with bad intentions. What are my bad intentions exactly? To make you look dumb. Well only you can make you look dumb” That isn’t true in the slightest sense especially if you have been nonstop for the past few months making this specific person out to look very stupid on purpose.

I have been following Ben Shapiro’s Facebook page a few years prior to the NY 14 Congressional primary. Shortly after Ocasio Cortez won Shapiro’s Facebook posts about her, directly came rolling in with provocative headlines. Often placing her images in an exaggerated manner to make her seem crazy and mostly focusing on directly attacking her as a person rather than her arguments. These posts about Ocasio which I am about to show were posted after the primary and before the debate offer. The posts he shared on his Facebook page weren’t just one or two things about Ocasio Cortez but multiple things at various times of the day and some which he reposted. Here are some:

Yes, nothing signals more intellectual honesty than describing the person you want to have an honest and good intentioned debate with as, “let’s see how full of crap you are.” Other times he would completely misrepresent her positions and not engage with her arguments at all like the catcalling comment. This was posted on Twitter.

The posts he shared after the debate also reflect this.

Really? Especially the Communist Cortez Shirt? Shapiro might not be selling the shirt directly by himself but nonetheless, he is promoting the product of an individual in his company. What’s even more surprising is the fact that Shapiro even said this particular statement himself, “The left no longer makes arguments about policies’ effectiveness. Their only argument is character assassination.” By the very looks of it seems Shapiro is doing the same by taking someone out of context, using someone’s imagery in a disturbing manner, mocking their intelligence, and showing how you ‘flatten’ them. Especially articles that discuss Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s rumors from the past where they dig up and attempt to smear her. One such example is the article from the Daily Wire titled, “Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Made Enemies At Work Over Greedy Behavior, Ex-Coworker Says” I am not arguing over whether or not if it is true but to simply publish this in order to smear her character, while trying to profit off someone, misrepresent them, and spreading misinformation is the QUINTESSENTIAL definition of character assassination. The posts that I have screenshotted are all directly from his Facebook page even though many articles weren’t written by Shapiro himself it is nonetheless from the Daily Wire the website where he CO-FOUNDED and SERVES as the editor in chief. Where in essence he gets a rundown of all the articles on his site and gets to approve which ones get posted. This also applies to his Facebook page where he may not run directly himself but nonetheless gives the stamp of approval of what should be posted and what should be said, and what should be not. To simply say he knows nothing of what goes on in his Facebook page is simply asinine.

To continue on his ‘good intentioned’ discussion with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ben Shapiro in episode 600 of his show brings up prominent figures on the left he had reasonable discussions with on his Sunday Special around the 5:20–6: 13-time mark. “I’ve done multiple times all across the country with various people on the other side. Or we can have an open discussion. Which I’ve also done. Right we had Sam Harris who’s a militant atheist. I disagree with him on a lot of things. We had him on for an hour. We had Eric Weinstein on. Eric is a dude who is of the left when it comes to economics right and we had him on for a full hour and just discuss this stuff. I’m fully willing to go back and forth so if she just wanted to come on and have like a cordial conversation that was unmoderated and I would just ask her questions and let her talk that’s what the Sunday Special is. So I offered both empathy in the entire left responded as though I had done something deeply wrong and how dare I offer to give money to a charity or to her campaign in order to incentivize her to have a conversation about economics. It’s just like catcalling. It’s just like sexism. It is amazing how fast they run to their intersectional cubbyholes when things get a little bit a little bit dicey.”

These people that he mentions are other members of the Intellectual Dark Web and his personal friends and people who he holds in high regards. This is a topic in which I will touch upon shortly but right now I want to focus on other members on the ‘left’ he had on for debate and discussion, and people he isn’t particularly close with. It usually ends up looking like this:

It’s not just his YouTube videos but even on his website where he has articles dedicated to discussing how he ‘destroys’ his opponent. “Rapper Calls Shapiro ‘Racist Ass.’ So Shapiro Breaks Him On The Wheel Of Logic.” and “YouTube Confirms: Ben Shapiro Is The Destroyer”. Here I quote from the second article, “Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro has gained a reputation as a debater par excellence, capable of vanquishing his opponents whether on TV, radio or from the lectern in front of an audience.” If you have something provocative in the title, “DESTROYS” or “RIPS” are you really interested in having an honest discussion with someone whose views you differ with? Especially if you have been for the past few months building up someone who is dumb and openly mock them through your social media platforms through click-bait articles and posting videos of satire, while simultaneously showing your tolerance. I said this before and I will say it again to say that Ben Shapiro doesn’t publish too much of his content on social media platforms with his name and brand, especially in a company that he founded and STILL currently works for is simply asinine.

If you’re reading this and still only believe Ben Shapiro has ‘good’ intentions and only wanted an honest discussion here are some quotes directly from his book, “How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument”. “Third you should debate a leftist if there is an audience. The goal of the debate will not be to win over the leftist, or to convince him or her, or to be friends with him or her. That person already disagrees with you, and they’re not going to be convinced by your words of wisdom and your sparkling rhetorical flourishes. The goal will be to destroy the leftist in as public a way that is humanly possible.” “Rule #10: Let the Other Side Have Meaningless Victories. This is a parlor trick you can use to great effect with your leftist friends. Leftists prize faux moderation above all else; by granting them a point or two, you can convince them you aren’t a radical right-winger at all.” It truly shows your intellectual fortitude and level of openness to the discussion when you yourself admit that your only goal is to destroy them. Nonetheless is it absolutely asinine to say that his goal with Ocasio Cortez was a ‘cordial conversation’. The moment Alexandria would have walked into that room Ben Shapiro was ‘destined’ to ‘win’ from the start. No intellectual discourse, no conversation, but for him was to misrepresent Alexandria’s positions and then talk over in such a way to claim victory. Where he could most likely upload a snippet of that talk and say “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS COMMUNIST CORTEZ WITH FACTS AND LOGIC!” To say so otherwise even what he does and what he openly admits is simply lying.

Now getting onto the topic of the Intellectual Dark Web and figures like Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein I haven’t seen a single click bait article of Ben Shapiro making fun of them with their facial features in an exaggerated manner. Or promoting merchandise with their image merged with a controversial figure. Or better yet why doesn’t Shapiro himself post similar articles about them in a similar manner he presents Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. After all, he cites Sam Harris and Eric Weinstein as examples of people he had reasonable conversations with and he wanted to treat Cortez the same way. Then why not treat them in that same manner where you treated her? There are plenty of images that can be found on Google with them not looking too pleasant and post articles ridiculing them and taking them out of context. Why not post articles about Sam Harris in bold lettering “Watch ATHEIST SAM HARRIS GETS SCHOOLED BY A RABBI”. You could also post an article, “Eric Weinstein DOESN’T UNDERSTAND ECONOMICS.” You can even post an article with Jordan Peterson, and write, “Let’s see how full crap you are.” Now imagine the outrage if a popular figure on the left treated Sam Harris or Jordan Peterson or Eric Weinstein the same way Ben Shapiro treats Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. To them, it would be no doubt proof that the left has lost their mind and no longer has any interest in honest discourse. Yet here they are praising Shapiro as a hero for his intellectual honesty and civility, but to be fair most of them could are unaware of Shapiro’s actions. Eric Weinstein does appear to be aware of Shapiro’s actions and does question him from time to time. But not enough to change his positions or ways

That’s precisely the problem “Not 1 on 1 he ain’t”. If the intellectual dark web were to succeed the focus on civility should be a central tenant. One person who doesn’t follow through and who is strongly affiliated those who hold that up high violates that standard. Those that are affiliated with him should push and challenge him then otherwise it wouldn’t be able to hold up to its values. He should be viewed as nothing more than a provocateur. He puts on a face in front of fellow IDW members and another in front of his audience. The antithesis of what he should stand for. Ideology over truth, victory no matter what, misrepresenting his opponent’s positions, low-quality click-bait journalism, and an extremely partisan view.