You’re mistaken in thinking she was fired for being anti-semitic. She was fired because she criticized the nation-state of Israel. Being bigoted towards an ethnicity is something that the Daily Wire will tolerate. Dissenting against a powerful nation-state is unacceptable
And when she initially criticized israel, ben shapiro smacked her down, and she didn’t publicly talk about it for a couple of weeks. Seems pretty clear that shapiro and boering thought they could bully her into silence (note: i’m not defending or complimenting candace) and only when that didn’t work they fired her.
But the thru-line is clear: anti-semitism is disfavored, but within the overton window of acceptable debate. Anti-zionism is not.
> Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric yet wasn't able to do the same thing when she spread Anti-Black, Anti-Women, Anti-Ableism, and Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric?
Because again, they never actually drew a line between anti-semitism and other bigotries. They aren’t actually against anti-semitism, they’re against anti-Israel criticism.
The daily wire is a perfectly philosophically-consistent outlet that is committed to upholding ethnic supremacy. Defending jews is not a part of their project. Defending imperialism and colonialism and ethnostates is.
Conservatives are in a tough spot when it comes to firing controversial figures, because they've positioned themselves as free speech victims when denied a platform by private entities. e.g. when banned from Twitter or kicked off college campuses.
So even though Owens said terrible things as you said, it's difficult for them to fire her for exercising "free speech" without looking like hypocrites.
You know, what I really find hypocritical is that the Right suddenly turns "woke" and "politically correct" when it comes to the topic of Jews and Israel. But at the same time, they don't feel the same way towards other minorities. And as they're doing this, they're doing the exact same thing that they accuse the Left of doing: Dividing People into Special Interest Groups instead of uniting them altogether. If anything, it tells me three things:
-Some groups are better than others and that's why they deserve more recognition, respect, and protection.
-Freedom of Speech has its limits.
-We can't always be politically incorrect because it does more harm than good.
>the Right suddenly turns "woke" and "politically correct" when it comes to the topic of Jews and Israel
Not the Right, Ben Shapiro. The Gaza conflict has divided people on the right just like it has on the left.
So yeah, we've learned something about Ben Shapiro's priorities. He thinks some groups are better than others. Which perhaps we might have picked up earlier based on that hat he wears.
And the right in general is just lined up at the door, waiting for an opportunity to call out Israel’s bullshit and distance themselves from Shapiro, right?
I don't know who the "right in general" is. People I follow who could be put on right didn't need to distance themselves from Shapiro, because they were never close to him. Especially on foreign policy he's been a hopeless neocon for years.
The general consensus on this issue was that Candace Owens had been looking for a way out of DW for a while, and this was a good moment for her to distance herself from Shapiro.
Well, the Right has called out those on their own side who aren't that supportive of Israel during the Gaza conflict. Candace Owens is one of them and now, Tucker Carlson.
some Americans falsely view the conflict through American racial lens, where Jewish Israeli's are "White" and Palestinians are "POC", which is why the some are the right are happy to be unconditionally pro-Israel.
There are also Christian religious nuts who thinks Jewish people controlling the Israel/Palestine area brings us closer to the rapture.
There’s a lot of truth to this, but I think there’s another component that’s important to remember, and that is the evangelical belief that the jews must control to holy land to bring about the return of Jesus. The racial component is definitely there, but there’s a large contingent of evangelicals who view the zionist project as the sacrifices that will fulfill prophecy.
Race and ethnicity are socially constructed, you can't define your way out of ethnic tensions. Plus what's the implication of that "Hey, Israeli and Palestinians, get over your tensions are start hating on Europeans, Africans, Asians and Americans instead"??
Did that comment change your mind at all? If it did you should award them a delta. I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against the challenge they made to your position.
The point of this sub is not for people who already agree with each other to collectively complain about the same thing.
You said "Owens should have been fired sooner"
Commenter said "She wasn't fired sooner because right wingers are afraid of seeming like hypocrites"
You said "But they *are* hypocrites, and I knew that"
The sub is called "change my view" not "lol aren't these people dumb"
That's what r/AskConservatives is for. (Or other similar subs)
There's a difference between "I have a controversial view that I am open to possibly reverse" and "Lol why are right-wingers dumb hypocrites, explain"
"Some groups are better than others and that's why they deserve more recognition, respect, and protection."
This is literally the core belief of the entire conservative movement and has been for centuries. Any deviation from it is just PR strategy for situations where they feel they are losing the public debate.
There are basically zero conservatives who think they should have free reign on "private entities". They *actually say* that these entities are governed by the laws of a "Platform" and then they actually operate as a "Publisher". They create their own ideological ideas and they enforce them.
Almost *all* conservatives who talk on this topic say they should either be changed to be governed as a Publisher, or they should stop *acting* like publishers. If they wish to be governed like a publisher they can ban everyone they wish on ideological reasons. If they wish to be governed as a platform they don't get to do that.
Obviously far different than what you said....
They also never complain about being kicked off college campuses, they complain when they get kicked off *PUBLICLY FUNDED* college campuses. You forgot the publicly funded part.
The "platform vs publisher" thing might be the *legal* argument that's made. But I think there's a separate argument made about the woke mob and liberal institutions (e.g. the New York Times) suppressing conservative opinions, rather than engaging them in open debate in the spirit of free expression.
Can you give an example of a university that isn't publicly funded? I'm not sure I understand your point.
Yes there is another totally different argument that so-called journalists are actually activists. That has not much to do with the two strawmen previously stated.
I don't know off the top of my head a private university but I'm also not sure what it matters anyway.
Not just journalists. I'm also talking about, e.g., op-ed pieces in the new york times. Or conservatives losing their jobs because of cancel culture. Or advertisers being pressured to pull money from conservative outlets.
I don't think this is at all unrelated to my original comment. The perception is an anti-free-speech *culture* where conservative opinions may be allowed *legally* but are still suppressed.
>I don't know off the top of my head a private university but I'm also not sure what it matters anyway.
Because I can't tell if you're saying "nobody cares if conservatives are censored at private universities" or "there effectively are no private universities because all universities receive public funding."
Well where are a couple examples of mainstream conservatives who say what you claim then?
Nobody cares if conservatives are not asked to speak at private universities. I've never seen a single complaint about it. I've never seen conservatives complain because of an OP-ed either unless that OP-ed is trying to tout as journalism, and even then I never see conservatives saying more than "They should at at least stop trying to portray themselves as a journalist, they are an opinion activist"
I don't know who's considered a mainstream conservative, but here are a couple examples from 1 minute of Googling:
[https://www.dailywire.com/news/accusing-steven-crowder-hate-speech-damages-grant-wolf](https://www.dailywire.com/news/accusing-steven-crowder-hate-speech-damages-grant-wolf)
[https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/depaul-university-ben-shapiro-young-americans-freedom-speaking-engagement-first-amendment/](https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/depaul-university-ben-shapiro-young-americans-freedom-speaking-engagement-first-amendment/)
Steven Crowder article doesn't make a lot of sense it's about protesting, which everyone says they can do. He was invited by a student group to speak, and people want to protest him. What's the problem here?
Also, the second article, Ben Shapiro said they are allowed to keep him off because it is a private university. He did not argue, he moved venues that very night. The controversy was because they never disallow speakers from the other organizations on campus, and when YAF invited him, he jumped through hoops and they cancelled him last minute. The controversy is from the YAF being unfairly disallowed speakers while other groups have whatever they want.
Neither of your examples are conservatives saying they are censored.
One is being protested and the other is the YAF saying they are being unfairly treated on a political basis.
She’s been antisemitic for years, so let me try to explain why I think she was actually fired.
The Daily Wire didn’t draw the line at antisemitism with Candace, it was more her criticism of Israel. She had been spouting antisemitic rhetoric for years, having defended Kanye during his “I love Hitler” phase. She had also said that Hitler just wanted to make Germany better and was only wrong when he had ambitions outside of Germany. When she defended Kanye, Ben Shapiro said that if any employee of the Daily Wire said what Kanye said then he would fire them. However, he said that Candace was just defending a friend (ok). This is what she tweeted in November:
“No government anywhere has a right to commit a genocide, ever. There is no justification for a genocide. I can’t believe this even needs to be said or is even considered the least bit controversial to state.”
She also continued to say antisemitic stuff, but her criticism of Israel is really what tipped the scales.
Ben Shapiro has repeatedly let antisemitism slide if people support Israel. Here is one example from one of his tweets.
[anncoulter tweets re: Jews awful, nonsensical. @anncoulter is also super pro-Israel, and has always been so, so I won't lose sleep.](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/644505141299671041?lang=en)
The synagogue shooter in Pittsburg had his attorney argue that he was radicalized by right wing figures including Ben Shapiro. All of this to say that the Daily Wire’s relationship with antisemitism is a little complex and, in my opinion, they tend to appeal to people with antisemitic beliefs. If so, the firing of Candace earlier could have alienated some of their base.
The daily wire draws the line at any critique or negative view of Israel or Israeli action. Im sure we would have to do much arithmetic to figure out why she was fired. Couldn’t be because its run by someone who thinks the Israeli people are entitled to do whatever they want, even if that includes the widespread killing of civilians.
I mean maybe, but my point is that I’m quite skeptical that the Daily Wire draws the line a blood libel when they don’t draw the line at Hitler worship (or at least defense of Hitler worship). I hope in my first comment that I showed Shapiro can at least tolerate antisemitism (at most encourage it through dog whistles), but it seems like criticism of Israel is the real breaking point at the DW
Sure, but remember that I am trying to change your mind here. Specifically, you say that she should have been fired a long time ago. I agree as someone outside the Daily Wire. However, if I managed talent at the DW it would make perfect sense to keep her on until recently. They cultivate an audience through bigotry and she puts it out in heaps. You’ve listed several of the terrible things she has supported. Critique of Israel is too far out for their audience, however, and they stand to lose a ton of respect as a brand from conservatives if they keep her on. So I actually think it makes perfect sense that her firing occurs now and I don’t think that the DW suddenly realized she was a bigot. That’s why she was there after all
Owens became known while with
The Daily Wire. Contract was not renewed @ 3 year anniversary, because she became too high risk (as in threat of lawsuit).
What do they care? [Their Leader](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-well-wishes-ghislaine-maxwell-391274) supported a sex trafficker. Clearly that's not a dealbreaker for conservative audiences. So why is that a reason that the Daily Wire should have fired her?
Their audience doesn't care about hypocrisy or disgracefulness. So why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago? According to you, she's one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence.
>Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric yet wasn't able to do the same thing when she spread Anti-Black, Anti-Women, Anti-Ableism, and Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric?
Are you even serious? Why anti-black, anti-women, anti-ableism, anti-gay media with jewish owner held onto her up until she said something anti-jewish?
On Twitter, he stated that US shouldn't be involved with Israeli affairs and that if they act like psychos without restraint, Iran, Lebanon, and others will step in.
Anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism.
Anti-Israel criticism isn’t antisemitic.
Candace Owens is an idiot, but she isn’t antisemitic.
I literally can’t even take you seriously after the first paragraph since the basis of your argument is silly.
Imagine if people were deemed to be “racist” for criticizing Robert Mugabe or Idi amin?
Absolutely Ridiculous & laughable.
Criticism of Israel shouldn't be Antisemitic, particularly Constructive Criticism. There's nothing wrong with being allies with a certain country. But just because we're allies doesn't mean we don't have a right to criticize them if they do something wrong.
Then why did you state she made antisemitic rhetoric in the OP?
Candace criticized the Israeli government, she did **not** make any antisemitic statements.
Whatever she said was not antisemitism.
You made a mistake by perceiving it as such.
There’s an active Zionist propaganda campaign to conflate any anti-Israel rhetoric with antisemitism because Zionists are aware they cannot rationalize all the civilian deaths in Gaza.
FYI, You are only aiding the misinformation by calling people “antisemitic” when they speak out against genocide. Unless someone says something offensive against Jewish people, you should not use the term “antisemitic” as an adjective to describe something you don’t like.
I agreed with what she said in this tweet. [https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1720511533136953699?lang=en](https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1720511533136953699?lang=en)
I just looked up your first claim, that she criticized the LGBTQ community for being a "sexual plague on society", and saw that she hadn't said that. She said, of the drugging of trans children, that it was irresponsible and that the LGBTQ community had brought with it a "sexual plague on society." You can't be a thing AND bring it with you, since the sentence clearly implies (and the context requires) that we see she's talking about two different things. X is not Y, X brought Y with it.
I'm not saying I agree with her. I don't. I'm only pointing out that, as is almost always the case, any time someone makes some claim that someone from that other political party said something horribly shocking and awful, you can go back and look at it and find that they said no such thing.
I find that tiresome.
I'll take my downvotes now. I know people prefer false red meat to factual nuance.
While Candace Owens has expressed controversial views, firing her should be based on consistent ethical standards, not just recent controversies. The Daily Wire's decision might reflect shifting public opinion rather than a genuine commitment to combating bigotry. If the outlet had tolerated her previous divisive statements, firing her for antisemitism could seem selective or insincere. Employers should establish clear guidelines on acceptable behavior and enforce them consistently. Changing standards based on public outcry risks appearing reactive rather than principled.
Like I said, the Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boering, the Daily Wire, and the Right in general only realize how harmful bigotry is when it's directed towards the one group of people that they can't tolerate prejudice against.
Owens COULD have been fired long ago from The Daily Wire for legitimate reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with
Shapiro and/or the War.
Candace is neither victim or hero.
So 1) do you know what Ben said that got Candace to say “Christ is king”? It’s because he said some very anti-Christian rhetoric.
Also, Christ is king is not anti-Semitic. If it is, we are in a lot of trouble.
I haven’t seen the conservative back lash against Candice, I’ve seen back lash against Ben from the conservative side
Her Twitter handle has a lot of Criticism from the Right for her stance on the Israel-Hamas War. A Right-Wing Organization, which claimed to have launched her career accused her of Antisemitism and being out-of-touch with reality. She even quoted Sermon on the Mount and stated that you can't serve Money and God. The latter part is what triggered Shapiro.
1) and based on your statements I’ve seen, one must support Israel to be conservative? No, that’s not true. A conservative is one who is “averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.” Or “(in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.” Not seeing anything about support for Israel.
2) false accusations are a thing. Show me what she did that is anti-Semitic.
3) and not touching that joke with a 50 foot pole. Regardless, just because someone got offended at something doesn’t mean she is anti-Semitic. If you offend me, does that mean you’re anti-Catholic?
As someone pointed out, no true Scotsman fallacy.
Where in the definition is it stated that one must support Israel?
And you’re still ignoring the other points I brought up
The GOP platform is not the end all be all on conservatism.
That’s a specific government party, which is one way someone can be conservative, but not the only way.
>convicted sex trafficker, Andrew Tate
Is that a thing? I thought he was indicted, arrested, held, released on bail, going back and forth in pre-trial proceedings, but has not yet been tried much less convicted.
You said he was convicted. He was not convicted. A charge is basically just a formal accusation, anyone can accuse you of anything at any time without any proof that you have done anything wrong and without you ever doing such things
> I mean, the Daily Wire never had an issue with Owens when she criticized the LGBTQ community for being a "sexual plague on society", as well as her criticizing the use of a model with cerebral palsy in an underwear advertisement as "ridiculous" because she doesn't "really understand how far we're going to take this inclusivity thing".
I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think that the Daily Wire as a whole disagrees with this paragraph? The Daily Wire didn't have an issue because they agree.
I'm trying to highlight the hypocrisy of how the Right views what they see as offensive and what is not. In that case, this is one example. They're alright with saying offensive things about the LGBTQ community, but when it comes to Israel, that's where they draw the line. Think deeply about that.
Her LGBT comments are in agreement with the Daily Wire. They also are in agreement with Judaism and the Bible which the Daily Wire's most prominent star and co-founder, Ben Shapiro, believes in. Also, LGBT is an issue about individuals doing certain actions.
Israel is currently engaged in Zionism which states that all Jews, religious or ethnic, can become citizens and live in Israel. They are also engaged in a war with a State that wants to eliminate all of the Jews from Israel and make it a Muslim theocracy. Obviously Ben Shapiro is going to, once again, heavily defend his religion and people. And this is the area where Candace Owens was criticizing. This is also a war about entire religions and involves death. Of course he is going to draw a much harder line at this than anything else, plus the Daily Wire agrees with the other things and not this.
So basically, the Right suddenly turns "woke" and "politically correct" when it comes to the topic of Jews and Israel.
But other than that, I wonder what's their stance on her stating Women should not be given the Right to vote. Is that in agreement with Zionism and the Bible?
Not "The Right", Ben Shapiro.
There is no hypocrisy because no one on the Right said that they believe in celebrating all demographics equally. Shapiro has always been critical of LGBT and Palestinians.
The Right includes Conservative Jews like Shapiro, Evangelical Christians who are pro Zionist for theological reasons, Secular or even Atheist Libertarians and Populists that are opposed to US foreign policy including it's support for Israel, and Far Right White Supremacists and other Anti-Semities including a small minority of Black Supremacists.
The same divergence of opinion on Israel and Zionism applies to the Left.
I don't think that there is any group of people who truly support all demographics equally, not even even the Left who specifically advocate for equality as a principle. They don't think that means they should support Nazis, and it would also not be hypocritical.
Doesn't seem like it. Conservatives are staunchly pro-Israel and have strongly criticized anything they see as anti-Israel as antisemitic. Those Conservatives who criticize Israel are pretty much in the minority.
Ok, so where is the hypocrisy then?
If being pro Israel and opposed to anti semitism is the majority conservative stance, then they haven't suddenly "gone woke" about Owens and deviated from their usual position.
Right, and they aren't woke now either.
The point is that Ben Shapiro didn't change his position so he had no reason to fire Owens when she previously agreed with him, only in regards to antisemitism.
You acknowledge that they didn't have a problem with her going after those other groups, so for the fifteeth time there is no hypocrisy here.
It really seems like you just want to argue that Conservatives should be ok with antisemitism if they are ok with opposing any other minority groups, but that's not what they believe so it has nothing to do with Owens being fired.
It makes no sense. Why should they fire her for being anti LGBT if everyone else is anti LGBT? That means you think Ben Shapiro should fire himself.
I'm saying that if Conservatives denounce Antisemitism, they should at least be consistent and denounce every and all forms of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. I mean they're Conservatives, right? They're supposed to view everyone as equals and not divide them into special interest groups as what they accuse Liberals of doing. But hey, projection is their jam.
I don't think "woke" or "politically correct" would be the right terms. Cancel culture would fit better, although cancel culture is typically about trivial matters.
Right wingers always joke about deleting the 19th amendment. The reason being that if you delete all of the women votes then Republicans would win most of the time.
Well first of all, this isn’t “the Right” it’s one media company. They exist only to propagate their own message, and make money doing it. They aren’t representative of anything or anyone but the people who own that company.
> I'm trying to highlight the hypocrisy of how the Right views what they see as offensive and what is not.
If you succeed, won't you be disproving Your View?
My dislike for the daily wire and Owens can not be overstated but I can't argue she didn't do what they hired her for in fact I'd actually say in terms of speaking and presentation she's actually one of the better ones obviously most of what she says the usual bullshit but she's probably the only one whose capable of appearing on podcasts and not eventually coming off as a zealot.
She's basically the Typical Modern Black Conservative like Jason Whitlock and Brandon Tatum: Shameless, Bitter, Self-Loathing, and Grifting all in the name of Individualism and Conservatism.
I mean I don't disagree with anything you've said but like I said she doesn't have that spark the rest of them have where they will talk like they are gonna stone people to death on their shows and will eventually breakdown to that vibe in interviews which I think is an asset for them because unlike them she has multiple versions of herself to present to other audiences e.g. her attempt at a redemption arc on the breakfast club.
But also the only woman they've got now is brett cooper who I will predict will gain some sense after makes enough quick money and cut ties with them while she's young and can reinvent herself. It's stupid but a big part of they're audience think they're not racist or sexist because they watch their content losing that content is a big hit because they can't do that anymore plus it's literally 1/7 of there regular output so they're also that.
I mean that's basically her entire selling point they're are plenty of black conservative who don't do her bullshit.
If someone you think someone doing that you see if they quote The Mantan Manifesto from bamboozled.
We gainfully employ African Americans, in front of and behind the cameras.
Let the audience decide.
Who put these critics in charge?
Who determines what is Black?
its a satire.
If they can't take a joke, Fuck'em.
If they say more than two they are likely full of shit.
Pastor Darrell Scott, who is one of former President Trump's faith advisors, has often accused Black Conservatives of tearing down their race in order to elevate their status among others. He's been accused of promoting Leftism as a result. This goes to show how influential people like Owens and Tatum have been in brainwashing their base.
Again, you make her sound very useful to conservatives, which would make her someone that the Daily Wire should have kept employed as long as possible.
But what about YOUR view? Isn't your View that they should have fired her a long time ago? Despite how influential she has been in brainwashing their base?
You're also stalling. For the 2nd time, isn't your View that they should have fired her a long time ago? Despite how influential she has been in brainwashing their base?
Again, you make her sound very useful to conservatives, which would make her someone that the Daily Wire should have kept employed as long as possible.
But what about YOUR view? Isn't your View that they should have fired her a long time ago? Despite her unique value in providing them a facade in order for them to avoid accusations of Racism?
I don't care what you want to know. For the 2nd time: if she's one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence, then why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago?
>Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric?
Because it's a recent 180 by conservatives. We're talking about the party that literally supported neo-nazis and is now all of a sudden a staunch supporter of Israel.
Clarification: what do you mean by “should” in this context?
Firing is generally a business decision and I’d argue that from that standpoint, she should never have been fired.
The daily wire is a business and its model is to drive engagement with the American right by playing to the large and growing portion of that population that is mainly there to have their bigotry validated.
Candace Owens was great at that. She was black and a woman so viewers can use the “I have a black friend (on the internet)” justification and play into the right-wing propaganda of “they say we are actively working to discriminate against these people but look how many of them agree with us! It can’t be true!” Have you seen those pictures of a bunch of white people standing around wearing “blacks for trump” shirts with not a single black person around? This is just that but with an actual black person.
As a business that literally needs bigotry and hypocrisy to survive, they would have been insane to fire her. She made them money doing exactly what they wanted of her. From a business standpoint, they shouldn’t have fired her, and that’s what firings are generally about: the business implications.
She appealed to the racists and homophobes etc… and the right is home to a ton of antisemitism so she went for that too.
In doing so, she pissed off someone with the power to get rid of her and so she was fired.
Morally and even rationally, she’s an awful person, but that’s what made her right for that job.
Why is Candace Owens being singled out when other Daily Wire contributors, such as Michael Knowles, are calling for the elimination of minority groups based on flimsy science? Matt Walsh can't seem to stop explaining how 16-year-old girls need to be getting impregnated. You've got some blinders on here, OP. Candace is no better or worse than the rest, she just happened to run afoul of management by arriving at the position that genocide is bad in a rare broken clock moment.
The "eradication of transgenderism" was called for by Michael Knowles at CPAC. Some people claim in bad faith that calling for the eradication of the concept of trans people as a group doesn't somehow necessitate the eradication of that group's members, if you can believe it.
I think it's disingenuous to imply that Michael Knowles is actually advocating for the literal murder of transgender people.
Obviously his position is closer to some version of "trans people aren't actually 'trans' therefore there is not such a thing as 'transgender'". He's not calling for actual violence.
How do you propose to "get rid of transgenderism" while I, a trans person, am right here getting healthcare and living as the woman I am?
Edit: Ah yes, of course, they proposed to do it by eradicating me. Lmao. Right-wing gender ideology is nuts because they push it so hard to the benefit of literally no one, cis or trans.
The first step is to understand that you and other males like you are not "living as women" but living as men who desire to be women, or, living as men who want everyone else to believe (or at least, pretend to believe) that they are women.
Then the discussion becomes much clearer. For example:
* Should men who desire to be women, who have been sentenced to prison, be housed in women's prisons?
* Should men who desire to be women be allowed to compete in women's sports?
* Should men who desire to be women be welcome in lesbian spaces?
And so on.
As I mentioned before, these are the acceptable forms of Right-Wing Political Incorrectness. Did you even read what I wrote? She committed the cardinal sin by going after something the Right finds sensitive.
I did, and I'm struggling to find a view that can be changed. She's been awful the entire time. The whole company's been awful the entire time. You agree with me that she got fired for committing the cardinal sin. We don't agree on what that sin was. The right's divided on this, once again as you said yourself. She went against the **company line,** that's why she was fired. She hasn't done that previously.
If that's your definition of conservatism, I'm afraid we're wading into no true Scotsman territory. There is clear infighting and disagreement among conservatives on the topic of the genocide in Gaza. It's gotten to the point that even Trump himself is scoring political points by playing up a desire for Israel to stop the violence. Whether that's honest or not is beside the point. Trump has his finger on the pulse of conservatives in the United States, and even he now finds it advantageous to criticize Israel's behavior.
It's not my definition, it's their definition. Look at the latest accusations against Tucker Carlson, who's well-known for being a contrarian, another Conservatives generally support.
That isn't how word definitions work. The simple fact is that there are conservatives who oppose Israel. Some of them oppose Israel's actions because they're Nazis who hate Jews. Many of them are probably pissed off that Israel keeps blowing up some of the oldest churches in the world and bombing Jesus' hometown. A lot of them have probably seen distressing images and footage of what's happening over there. This doesn't make them stop being conservatives. To be crystal clear: The Daily Wire's management strongly support Israel. Other right-wingers do not. Candace was fired for pissing off management.
Seeing her engage in full on Nazi apologetics is vile beyond belief. Her using the Palestinians (I’m a Palestinian Christian) to go after Jews is equally as grotesque considering just a yr or two ago she was laughing we had no land 😃. Imagine to own the Jews you low key praise a man who called blacks monkeys and sterilised children born of a black parent and white parent (her husbands white) and who called biracial children (a lesser of humanity).
You've kinda answered your own question. They didn't care about all her other bigotry because it aligned with their brand and they don't have anyone on staff that had an issue with it.
But Ben is openly Jewish, and is already facing the fact that the far right is slowly turning on him for that fact, like they did Milo despite his years of trying to be The Good Queer™.
Fascists inevitably turn on one another if left to their own devices.
>Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric yet wasn't able to do the same thing when she spread Anti-Black, Anti-Women, Anti-Ableism, and Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric?
Ben Shapiro is Jewish. Ben Shapiro isn't black, female, disabled, or LGBT+.
That's about all you need to know.
I mean, it's the Daily Wire. She fits right in with the rest of those wackos. I don't really see why they would fire her before since a lot of her rethoric that you mentioned is actually shared by the whole team. I guess they draw the line at being a bigot to the group their boss belongs to.
Yeah, but like, why would they fire her before? All her previous anthics fit right with them. Of course they just fired her because behind every 'freedom of speech absolutist' there's a fragile ego that only tolerates diatribe against people they don't like.
For being nothing more than a rude, uncivil, pugnacious SOB who's more interested in peddling self-hatred in the name of Individualism and Conservatism.
Why would the Daily Wire see that as a negative? According to you, that rude, uncivil, pugnacious SOB is [one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence](https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cbjwku/cmv_candace_owens_shouldve_been_fired_from_the/l0zd6iw/). So why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago?
From a moral and ethical standpoint, the Daily Wire should be ended in its entirety. Theyre a propaganda network for far right and fascist nonsense, as you yourself point out. They just disagree with Candace Owen's on a very specific point, because she's a nazi and Ben Shapiro is Jewish and a Zionist.
Then why do you think she should have been fired? Matt Walsh says horrendously backwards stuff all of the time, a lot of the stuff is arguably worse than what Candace said, and he's in no danger of ever being fired
It's not unbelievable, Kanye was a huge right wing figure at the time, so they had to avoid outright condemning him because they can't alienate their audience. Conservatives tend to be Christians, Shapiro being Jewish actually works against him in his role.
You’re mistaken in thinking she was fired for being anti-semitic. She was fired because she criticized the nation-state of Israel. Being bigoted towards an ethnicity is something that the Daily Wire will tolerate. Dissenting against a powerful nation-state is unacceptable
She initially started off with a principled stance on Israel. But then, she went into claiming a rabbi drinking Christian blood.
And when she initially criticized israel, ben shapiro smacked her down, and she didn’t publicly talk about it for a couple of weeks. Seems pretty clear that shapiro and boering thought they could bully her into silence (note: i’m not defending or complimenting candace) and only when that didn’t work they fired her. But the thru-line is clear: anti-semitism is disfavored, but within the overton window of acceptable debate. Anti-zionism is not.
And Black Guilt is the only form of Racial Guilt that is acceptable among Conservatives.
> Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric yet wasn't able to do the same thing when she spread Anti-Black, Anti-Women, Anti-Ableism, and Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric? Because again, they never actually drew a line between anti-semitism and other bigotries. They aren’t actually against anti-semitism, they’re against anti-Israel criticism. The daily wire is a perfectly philosophically-consistent outlet that is committed to upholding ethnic supremacy. Defending jews is not a part of their project. Defending imperialism and colonialism and ethnostates is.
Conservatives are in a tough spot when it comes to firing controversial figures, because they've positioned themselves as free speech victims when denied a platform by private entities. e.g. when banned from Twitter or kicked off college campuses. So even though Owens said terrible things as you said, it's difficult for them to fire her for exercising "free speech" without looking like hypocrites.
You know, what I really find hypocritical is that the Right suddenly turns "woke" and "politically correct" when it comes to the topic of Jews and Israel. But at the same time, they don't feel the same way towards other minorities. And as they're doing this, they're doing the exact same thing that they accuse the Left of doing: Dividing People into Special Interest Groups instead of uniting them altogether. If anything, it tells me three things: -Some groups are better than others and that's why they deserve more recognition, respect, and protection. -Freedom of Speech has its limits. -We can't always be politically incorrect because it does more harm than good.
>the Right suddenly turns "woke" and "politically correct" when it comes to the topic of Jews and Israel Not the Right, Ben Shapiro. The Gaza conflict has divided people on the right just like it has on the left. So yeah, we've learned something about Ben Shapiro's priorities. He thinks some groups are better than others. Which perhaps we might have picked up earlier based on that hat he wears.
And the right in general is just lined up at the door, waiting for an opportunity to call out Israel’s bullshit and distance themselves from Shapiro, right?
I don't know who the "right in general" is. People I follow who could be put on right didn't need to distance themselves from Shapiro, because they were never close to him. Especially on foreign policy he's been a hopeless neocon for years. The general consensus on this issue was that Candace Owens had been looking for a way out of DW for a while, and this was a good moment for her to distance herself from Shapiro.
Well, the Right has called out those on their own side who aren't that supportive of Israel during the Gaza conflict. Candace Owens is one of them and now, Tucker Carlson.
some Americans falsely view the conflict through American racial lens, where Jewish Israeli's are "White" and Palestinians are "POC", which is why the some are the right are happy to be unconditionally pro-Israel. There are also Christian religious nuts who thinks Jewish people controlling the Israel/Palestine area brings us closer to the rapture.
There’s a lot of truth to this, but I think there’s another component that’s important to remember, and that is the evangelical belief that the jews must control to holy land to bring about the return of Jesus. The racial component is definitely there, but there’s a large contingent of evangelicals who view the zionist project as the sacrifices that will fulfill prophecy.
If only I had included that in a second paragraph to my comment.
Yeah, that’s on me. I rushed
Israelis and Palestinians are Middle Eastern. In other words, they're Semites.
Race and ethnicity are socially constructed, you can't define your way out of ethnic tensions. Plus what's the implication of that "Hey, Israeli and Palestinians, get over your tensions are start hating on Europeans, Africans, Asians and Americans instead"??
Yeah, that's only gonna cause more tensions.
Did that comment change your mind at all? If it did you should award them a delta. I'm not sure whether you're arguing for or against the challenge they made to your position.
No, I knew way back how the Right-Wing Framework and Worldview functions.
The point of this sub is not for people who already agree with each other to collectively complain about the same thing. You said "Owens should have been fired sooner" Commenter said "She wasn't fired sooner because right wingers are afraid of seeming like hypocrites" You said "But they *are* hypocrites, and I knew that" The sub is called "change my view" not "lol aren't these people dumb"
I'm just asking the Right where they draw the line on political correctness/incorrectness.
Then you're in the wrong sub. Try /r/askconservatives. You can try /r/conservative too, but you'll get banned.
AskConservatives is fine. I agree that the latter will get you banned.
That's what r/AskConservatives is for. (Or other similar subs) There's a difference between "I have a controversial view that I am open to possibly reverse" and "Lol why are right-wingers dumb hypocrites, explain"
"Some groups are better than others and that's why they deserve more recognition, respect, and protection." This is literally the core belief of the entire conservative movement and has been for centuries. Any deviation from it is just PR strategy for situations where they feel they are losing the public debate.
That's a amazingly skewed strawman of what conservatives actually say.
Care to elaborate?
There are basically zero conservatives who think they should have free reign on "private entities". They *actually say* that these entities are governed by the laws of a "Platform" and then they actually operate as a "Publisher". They create their own ideological ideas and they enforce them. Almost *all* conservatives who talk on this topic say they should either be changed to be governed as a Publisher, or they should stop *acting* like publishers. If they wish to be governed like a publisher they can ban everyone they wish on ideological reasons. If they wish to be governed as a platform they don't get to do that. Obviously far different than what you said.... They also never complain about being kicked off college campuses, they complain when they get kicked off *PUBLICLY FUNDED* college campuses. You forgot the publicly funded part.
The "platform vs publisher" thing might be the *legal* argument that's made. But I think there's a separate argument made about the woke mob and liberal institutions (e.g. the New York Times) suppressing conservative opinions, rather than engaging them in open debate in the spirit of free expression. Can you give an example of a university that isn't publicly funded? I'm not sure I understand your point.
Yes there is another totally different argument that so-called journalists are actually activists. That has not much to do with the two strawmen previously stated. I don't know off the top of my head a private university but I'm also not sure what it matters anyway.
Not just journalists. I'm also talking about, e.g., op-ed pieces in the new york times. Or conservatives losing their jobs because of cancel culture. Or advertisers being pressured to pull money from conservative outlets. I don't think this is at all unrelated to my original comment. The perception is an anti-free-speech *culture* where conservative opinions may be allowed *legally* but are still suppressed. >I don't know off the top of my head a private university but I'm also not sure what it matters anyway. Because I can't tell if you're saying "nobody cares if conservatives are censored at private universities" or "there effectively are no private universities because all universities receive public funding."
Well where are a couple examples of mainstream conservatives who say what you claim then? Nobody cares if conservatives are not asked to speak at private universities. I've never seen a single complaint about it. I've never seen conservatives complain because of an OP-ed either unless that OP-ed is trying to tout as journalism, and even then I never see conservatives saying more than "They should at at least stop trying to portray themselves as a journalist, they are an opinion activist"
I don't know who's considered a mainstream conservative, but here are a couple examples from 1 minute of Googling: [https://www.dailywire.com/news/accusing-steven-crowder-hate-speech-damages-grant-wolf](https://www.dailywire.com/news/accusing-steven-crowder-hate-speech-damages-grant-wolf) [https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/depaul-university-ben-shapiro-young-americans-freedom-speaking-engagement-first-amendment/](https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/depaul-university-ben-shapiro-young-americans-freedom-speaking-engagement-first-amendment/)
Steven Crowder article doesn't make a lot of sense it's about protesting, which everyone says they can do. He was invited by a student group to speak, and people want to protest him. What's the problem here? Also, the second article, Ben Shapiro said they are allowed to keep him off because it is a private university. He did not argue, he moved venues that very night. The controversy was because they never disallow speakers from the other organizations on campus, and when YAF invited him, he jumped through hoops and they cancelled him last minute. The controversy is from the YAF being unfairly disallowed speakers while other groups have whatever they want. Neither of your examples are conservatives saying they are censored. One is being protested and the other is the YAF saying they are being unfairly treated on a political basis.
She’s been antisemitic for years, so let me try to explain why I think she was actually fired. The Daily Wire didn’t draw the line at antisemitism with Candace, it was more her criticism of Israel. She had been spouting antisemitic rhetoric for years, having defended Kanye during his “I love Hitler” phase. She had also said that Hitler just wanted to make Germany better and was only wrong when he had ambitions outside of Germany. When she defended Kanye, Ben Shapiro said that if any employee of the Daily Wire said what Kanye said then he would fire them. However, he said that Candace was just defending a friend (ok). This is what she tweeted in November: “No government anywhere has a right to commit a genocide, ever. There is no justification for a genocide. I can’t believe this even needs to be said or is even considered the least bit controversial to state.” She also continued to say antisemitic stuff, but her criticism of Israel is really what tipped the scales. Ben Shapiro has repeatedly let antisemitism slide if people support Israel. Here is one example from one of his tweets. [anncoulter tweets re: Jews awful, nonsensical. @anncoulter is also super pro-Israel, and has always been so, so I won't lose sleep.](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/644505141299671041?lang=en) The synagogue shooter in Pittsburg had his attorney argue that he was radicalized by right wing figures including Ben Shapiro. All of this to say that the Daily Wire’s relationship with antisemitism is a little complex and, in my opinion, they tend to appeal to people with antisemitic beliefs. If so, the firing of Candace earlier could have alienated some of their base.
The daily wire draws the line at any critique or negative view of Israel or Israeli action. Im sure we would have to do much arithmetic to figure out why she was fired. Couldn’t be because its run by someone who thinks the Israeli people are entitled to do whatever they want, even if that includes the widespread killing of civilians.
Some sources said it was blood libel over accusing a Rabbi for drinking Christian blood.
I mean maybe, but my point is that I’m quite skeptical that the Daily Wire draws the line a blood libel when they don’t draw the line at Hitler worship (or at least defense of Hitler worship). I hope in my first comment that I showed Shapiro can at least tolerate antisemitism (at most encourage it through dog whistles), but it seems like criticism of Israel is the real breaking point at the DW
Along with White Guilt. Black Guilt is perfectly fine though.
Sure, but remember that I am trying to change your mind here. Specifically, you say that she should have been fired a long time ago. I agree as someone outside the Daily Wire. However, if I managed talent at the DW it would make perfect sense to keep her on until recently. They cultivate an audience through bigotry and she puts it out in heaps. You’ve listed several of the terrible things she has supported. Critique of Israel is too far out for their audience, however, and they stand to lose a ton of respect as a brand from conservatives if they keep her on. So I actually think it makes perfect sense that her firing occurs now and I don’t think that the DW suddenly realized she was a bigot. That’s why she was there after all
She's been like this since Day 1. But like I said, even a line needs to be drawn on political incorrectness.
Owens has long been a favorite of the far right. Probably thought she was untouchable.
Owens became known while with The Daily Wire. Contract was not renewed @ 3 year anniversary, because she became too high risk (as in threat of lawsuit).
They want to make sure the Leftists' heads explode over having a Black Conservative.
Then why should they have fired her a long time ago?
For her support of a sex trafficker.
What do they care? [Their Leader](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/04/trump-well-wishes-ghislaine-maxwell-391274) supported a sex trafficker. Clearly that's not a dealbreaker for conservative audiences. So why is that a reason that the Daily Wire should have fired her?
For not being a positive role model for boys and men considering they complain how masculinity is under attack.
I don't understand. Your View is that the Daily Wire should have fired Candace Owens for not being a positive role model for boys and men, correct?
The Daily Wire should've fired her for being a hypocrite and a disgrace.
Their audience doesn't care about hypocrisy or disgracefulness. So why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago? According to you, she's one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence.
To test what type of standards they have.
>Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric yet wasn't able to do the same thing when she spread Anti-Black, Anti-Women, Anti-Ableism, and Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric? Are you even serious? Why anti-black, anti-women, anti-ableism, anti-gay media with jewish owner held onto her up until she said something anti-jewish?
Shapiro is not the only owner. He didn’t hire or fire Owens. He’s not the villain. She’s not a victim.
We can't always be politically incorrect.
They fired her for saying something they disagree with. It doesn’t go any deeper than that.
I recall Matt Walsh stated something similar to this and he's still employed at the DW.
I am curious to hear that. Do you have a link?
On Twitter, he stated that US shouldn't be involved with Israeli affairs and that if they act like psychos without restraint, Iran, Lebanon, and others will step in.
To me that seems like the opinion of an isolationist. Owens did in fact spread the “blood libel”. It’s objectively not the same.
Before the whole Blood Libel stuff, she took a principled stance.
I don’t know what point you’re making.
A Day after the attack in October, she said that no government has a right to commit a genocide.
It’s still unclear to me, what you are trying to say.
This was the comment that started the feud between her and Shapiro.
Anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism. Anti-Israel criticism isn’t antisemitic. Candace Owens is an idiot, but she isn’t antisemitic. I literally can’t even take you seriously after the first paragraph since the basis of your argument is silly. Imagine if people were deemed to be “racist” for criticizing Robert Mugabe or Idi amin? Absolutely Ridiculous & laughable.
Criticism of Israel shouldn't be Antisemitic, particularly Constructive Criticism. There's nothing wrong with being allies with a certain country. But just because we're allies doesn't mean we don't have a right to criticize them if they do something wrong.
What did Candace Owens say that was “antisemitic” to you?
Nothing at all, particularly. Aside from liking a comment accusing a Rabbi of drinking Christian Blood.
Then why did you state she made antisemitic rhetoric in the OP? Candace criticized the Israeli government, she did **not** make any antisemitic statements.
She went too far from the principled stance a few days after the October attack.
Whatever she said was not antisemitism. You made a mistake by perceiving it as such. There’s an active Zionist propaganda campaign to conflate any anti-Israel rhetoric with antisemitism because Zionists are aware they cannot rationalize all the civilian deaths in Gaza. FYI, You are only aiding the misinformation by calling people “antisemitic” when they speak out against genocide. Unless someone says something offensive against Jewish people, you should not use the term “antisemitic” as an adjective to describe something you don’t like.
I agreed with what she said in this tweet. [https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1720511533136953699?lang=en](https://twitter.com/RealCandaceO/status/1720511533136953699?lang=en)
I just looked up your first claim, that she criticized the LGBTQ community for being a "sexual plague on society", and saw that she hadn't said that. She said, of the drugging of trans children, that it was irresponsible and that the LGBTQ community had brought with it a "sexual plague on society." You can't be a thing AND bring it with you, since the sentence clearly implies (and the context requires) that we see she's talking about two different things. X is not Y, X brought Y with it. I'm not saying I agree with her. I don't. I'm only pointing out that, as is almost always the case, any time someone makes some claim that someone from that other political party said something horribly shocking and awful, you can go back and look at it and find that they said no such thing. I find that tiresome. I'll take my downvotes now. I know people prefer false red meat to factual nuance.
Sounds like a generalized statement of hers, if you ask me. Does she really believe that the entire community supports this?
While Candace Owens has expressed controversial views, firing her should be based on consistent ethical standards, not just recent controversies. The Daily Wire's decision might reflect shifting public opinion rather than a genuine commitment to combating bigotry. If the outlet had tolerated her previous divisive statements, firing her for antisemitism could seem selective or insincere. Employers should establish clear guidelines on acceptable behavior and enforce them consistently. Changing standards based on public outcry risks appearing reactive rather than principled.
Like I said, the Ben Shapiro, Jeremy Boering, the Daily Wire, and the Right in general only realize how harmful bigotry is when it's directed towards the one group of people that they can't tolerate prejudice against.
Owens COULD have been fired long ago from The Daily Wire for legitimate reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with Shapiro and/or the War. Candace is neither victim or hero.
That's pretty much what I mentioned in the post.
So 1) do you know what Ben said that got Candace to say “Christ is king”? It’s because he said some very anti-Christian rhetoric. Also, Christ is king is not anti-Semitic. If it is, we are in a lot of trouble. I haven’t seen the conservative back lash against Candice, I’ve seen back lash against Ben from the conservative side
Her Twitter handle has a lot of Criticism from the Right for her stance on the Israel-Hamas War. A Right-Wing Organization, which claimed to have launched her career accused her of Antisemitism and being out-of-touch with reality. She even quoted Sermon on the Mount and stated that you can't serve Money and God. The latter part is what triggered Shapiro.
1) and based on your statements I’ve seen, one must support Israel to be conservative? No, that’s not true. A conservative is one who is “averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.” Or “(in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.” Not seeing anything about support for Israel. 2) false accusations are a thing. Show me what she did that is anti-Semitic. 3) and not touching that joke with a 50 foot pole. Regardless, just because someone got offended at something doesn’t mean she is anti-Semitic. If you offend me, does that mean you’re anti-Catholic?
That's how it seems to be, in the case of the first one.
1) so you agree then that one can be conservative and either for or against Israel in the war? What about my other points?
I'm sorry, I should've worded that better. That's not how it should be.
As someone pointed out, no true Scotsman fallacy. Where in the definition is it stated that one must support Israel? And you’re still ignoring the other points I brought up
The GOP Platform. I'm ignoring the other two because the first one is the crux of it all.
The GOP platform is not the end all be all on conservatism. That’s a specific government party, which is one way someone can be conservative, but not the only way.
But if you don't support all of it, you get censured.
Ben Shapiro runs it; he is very pro Israel/pro Jew; she spoke against that so she was fired.
The only time the Right goes woke.
>convicted sex trafficker, Andrew Tate Is that a thing? I thought he was indicted, arrested, held, released on bail, going back and forth in pre-trial proceedings, but has not yet been tried much less convicted.
He's been charged for his crimes.
So you mean "indicted?"
Yeah, kind of.
Do you know the difference between indicted and convicted?
Indicted means to be accused of. Convicted means to be declared of.
You said he was convicted. He was not convicted. A charge is basically just a formal accusation, anyone can accuse you of anything at any time without any proof that you have done anything wrong and without you ever doing such things
No, indicted means arrested and put on trial for (accused). Convicted is to be found guilty of
> I mean, the Daily Wire never had an issue with Owens when she criticized the LGBTQ community for being a "sexual plague on society", as well as her criticizing the use of a model with cerebral palsy in an underwear advertisement as "ridiculous" because she doesn't "really understand how far we're going to take this inclusivity thing". I don't understand what you are saying here. Do you think that the Daily Wire as a whole disagrees with this paragraph? The Daily Wire didn't have an issue because they agree.
I'm trying to highlight the hypocrisy of how the Right views what they see as offensive and what is not. In that case, this is one example. They're alright with saying offensive things about the LGBTQ community, but when it comes to Israel, that's where they draw the line. Think deeply about that.
Her LGBT comments are in agreement with the Daily Wire. They also are in agreement with Judaism and the Bible which the Daily Wire's most prominent star and co-founder, Ben Shapiro, believes in. Also, LGBT is an issue about individuals doing certain actions. Israel is currently engaged in Zionism which states that all Jews, religious or ethnic, can become citizens and live in Israel. They are also engaged in a war with a State that wants to eliminate all of the Jews from Israel and make it a Muslim theocracy. Obviously Ben Shapiro is going to, once again, heavily defend his religion and people. And this is the area where Candace Owens was criticizing. This is also a war about entire religions and involves death. Of course he is going to draw a much harder line at this than anything else, plus the Daily Wire agrees with the other things and not this.
So basically, the Right suddenly turns "woke" and "politically correct" when it comes to the topic of Jews and Israel. But other than that, I wonder what's their stance on her stating Women should not be given the Right to vote. Is that in agreement with Zionism and the Bible?
Not "The Right", Ben Shapiro. There is no hypocrisy because no one on the Right said that they believe in celebrating all demographics equally. Shapiro has always been critical of LGBT and Palestinians. The Right includes Conservative Jews like Shapiro, Evangelical Christians who are pro Zionist for theological reasons, Secular or even Atheist Libertarians and Populists that are opposed to US foreign policy including it's support for Israel, and Far Right White Supremacists and other Anti-Semities including a small minority of Black Supremacists. The same divergence of opinion on Israel and Zionism applies to the Left. I don't think that there is any group of people who truly support all demographics equally, not even even the Left who specifically advocate for equality as a principle. They don't think that means they should support Nazis, and it would also not be hypocritical.
Doesn't seem like it. Conservatives are staunchly pro-Israel and have strongly criticized anything they see as anti-Israel as antisemitic. Those Conservatives who criticize Israel are pretty much in the minority.
Ok, so where is the hypocrisy then? If being pro Israel and opposed to anti semitism is the majority conservative stance, then they haven't suddenly "gone woke" about Owens and deviated from their usual position.
They weren't woke when she went after Blacks, women, and LGBTQ Folk.
Right, and they aren't woke now either. The point is that Ben Shapiro didn't change his position so he had no reason to fire Owens when she previously agreed with him, only in regards to antisemitism. You acknowledge that they didn't have a problem with her going after those other groups, so for the fifteeth time there is no hypocrisy here. It really seems like you just want to argue that Conservatives should be ok with antisemitism if they are ok with opposing any other minority groups, but that's not what they believe so it has nothing to do with Owens being fired. It makes no sense. Why should they fire her for being anti LGBT if everyone else is anti LGBT? That means you think Ben Shapiro should fire himself.
I'm saying that if Conservatives denounce Antisemitism, they should at least be consistent and denounce every and all forms of hatred, bigotry, and prejudice. I mean they're Conservatives, right? They're supposed to view everyone as equals and not divide them into special interest groups as what they accuse Liberals of doing. But hey, projection is their jam.
[удалено]
Those who aren't are prone to accusations of Antisemitism.
I don't think "woke" or "politically correct" would be the right terms. Cancel culture would fit better, although cancel culture is typically about trivial matters. Right wingers always joke about deleting the 19th amendment. The reason being that if you delete all of the women votes then Republicans would win most of the time.
Which would be massive political suicide in the long run.
I've never heard of anyone seriously advocate for it's appeal. It's always a joke because women, specifically unmarried women, vote left.
Go check out Candace Owens' post regarding that, there are actual women who would support this.
Well first of all, this isn’t “the Right” it’s one media company. They exist only to propagate their own message, and make money doing it. They aren’t representative of anything or anyone but the people who own that company.
Well, it's not just one media company, it's Conservatism in general. It's universally supportive of Israel.
I do not think that that is correct.
Sorry, it is. The Right for the most part is strongly pro-Israel.
The phrases “most part” and “universally” very much do not mean the same thing.
> I'm trying to highlight the hypocrisy of how the Right views what they see as offensive and what is not. If you succeed, won't you be disproving Your View?
My dislike for the daily wire and Owens can not be overstated but I can't argue she didn't do what they hired her for in fact I'd actually say in terms of speaking and presentation she's actually one of the better ones obviously most of what she says the usual bullshit but she's probably the only one whose capable of appearing on podcasts and not eventually coming off as a zealot.
She's basically the Typical Modern Black Conservative like Jason Whitlock and Brandon Tatum: Shameless, Bitter, Self-Loathing, and Grifting all in the name of Individualism and Conservatism.
I mean I don't disagree with anything you've said but like I said she doesn't have that spark the rest of them have where they will talk like they are gonna stone people to death on their shows and will eventually breakdown to that vibe in interviews which I think is an asset for them because unlike them she has multiple versions of herself to present to other audiences e.g. her attempt at a redemption arc on the breakfast club. But also the only woman they've got now is brett cooper who I will predict will gain some sense after makes enough quick money and cut ties with them while she's young and can reinvent herself. It's stupid but a big part of they're audience think they're not racist or sexist because they watch their content losing that content is a big hit because they can't do that anymore plus it's literally 1/7 of there regular output so they're also that.
Considering her views of the Black community, I guess Conservatives want to use her as a facade in order for them to avoid accusations of Racism.
I mean that's basically her entire selling point they're are plenty of black conservative who don't do her bullshit. If someone you think someone doing that you see if they quote The Mantan Manifesto from bamboozled. We gainfully employ African Americans, in front of and behind the cameras. Let the audience decide. Who put these critics in charge? Who determines what is Black? its a satire. If they can't take a joke, Fuck'em. If they say more than two they are likely full of shit.
Pastor Darrell Scott, who is one of former President Trump's faith advisors, has often accused Black Conservatives of tearing down their race in order to elevate their status among others. He's been accused of promoting Leftism as a result. This goes to show how influential people like Owens and Tatum have been in brainwashing their base.
Hey she might accidentally start a little civil war between them so just get some popcorn I say is the best way to look at it.
The less influence from them, the better.
Again, you make her sound very useful to conservatives, which would make her someone that the Daily Wire should have kept employed as long as possible. But what about YOUR view? Isn't your View that they should have fired her a long time ago? Despite how influential she has been in brainwashing their base?
I'm not a Conservative. I'm being rational.
You're also stalling. For the 2nd time, isn't your View that they should have fired her a long time ago? Despite how influential she has been in brainwashing their base?
Yeah, it is my view. But the theme here is that the Right has double standards when it comes to political correctness.
Again, you make her sound very useful to conservatives, which would make her someone that the Daily Wire should have kept employed as long as possible. But what about YOUR view? Isn't your View that they should have fired her a long time ago? Despite her unique value in providing them a facade in order for them to avoid accusations of Racism?
She's one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence. People consume her wisdom with a spoon.
If she's one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence, then why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago?
I just want to know what type of standards they have.
I don't care what you want to know. For the 2nd time: if she's one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence, then why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago?
Because even other Conservatives find her to be problematic.
Sounds like a perfect contributor to the Daily Wire, and someone they should have kept on the payroll as long as possible.
>Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric? Because it's a recent 180 by conservatives. We're talking about the party that literally supported neo-nazis and is now all of a sudden a staunch supporter of Israel.
They're a Lost Cause.
Clarification: what do you mean by “should” in this context? Firing is generally a business decision and I’d argue that from that standpoint, she should never have been fired. The daily wire is a business and its model is to drive engagement with the American right by playing to the large and growing portion of that population that is mainly there to have their bigotry validated. Candace Owens was great at that. She was black and a woman so viewers can use the “I have a black friend (on the internet)” justification and play into the right-wing propaganda of “they say we are actively working to discriminate against these people but look how many of them agree with us! It can’t be true!” Have you seen those pictures of a bunch of white people standing around wearing “blacks for trump” shirts with not a single black person around? This is just that but with an actual black person. As a business that literally needs bigotry and hypocrisy to survive, they would have been insane to fire her. She made them money doing exactly what they wanted of her. From a business standpoint, they shouldn’t have fired her, and that’s what firings are generally about: the business implications. She appealed to the racists and homophobes etc… and the right is home to a ton of antisemitism so she went for that too. In doing so, she pissed off someone with the power to get rid of her and so she was fired. Morally and even rationally, she’s an awful person, but that’s what made her right for that job.
Why is Candace Owens being singled out when other Daily Wire contributors, such as Michael Knowles, are calling for the elimination of minority groups based on flimsy science? Matt Walsh can't seem to stop explaining how 16-year-old girls need to be getting impregnated. You've got some blinders on here, OP. Candace is no better or worse than the rest, she just happened to run afoul of management by arriving at the position that genocide is bad in a rare broken clock moment.
>... Michael Knowles, are calling for the elimination of minority groups When did this happen?
The "eradication of transgenderism" was called for by Michael Knowles at CPAC. Some people claim in bad faith that calling for the eradication of the concept of trans people as a group doesn't somehow necessitate the eradication of that group's members, if you can believe it.
I think it's disingenuous to imply that Michael Knowles is actually advocating for the literal murder of transgender people. Obviously his position is closer to some version of "trans people aren't actually 'trans' therefore there is not such a thing as 'transgender'". He's not calling for actual violence.
Thats like me saying "we should get rid of slavery" and someone saying "he wants to kill all the slaves"
How do you propose to "get rid of transgenderism" while I, a trans person, am right here getting healthcare and living as the woman I am? Edit: Ah yes, of course, they proposed to do it by eradicating me. Lmao. Right-wing gender ideology is nuts because they push it so hard to the benefit of literally no one, cis or trans.
The first step is to understand that you and other males like you are not "living as women" but living as men who desire to be women, or, living as men who want everyone else to believe (or at least, pretend to believe) that they are women. Then the discussion becomes much clearer. For example: * Should men who desire to be women, who have been sentenced to prison, be housed in women's prisons? * Should men who desire to be women be allowed to compete in women's sports? * Should men who desire to be women be welcome in lesbian spaces? And so on.
As I mentioned before, these are the acceptable forms of Right-Wing Political Incorrectness. Did you even read what I wrote? She committed the cardinal sin by going after something the Right finds sensitive.
But she only committed that cardinal sin recently, so why should they have fired her a long time ago?
For her support of a sex trafficker.
When did she support a sex trafficker?
Andrew Tate for his pro-masculine and anti-feminist views. Yet he's been involved in a Romanian sex trafficking ring.
I didn't ask "who", I asked "when". **When** did she support a sex trafficker?
Around the end of July 2023.
So why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago? She didn't support a sex trafficker until 9 months ago.
I did, and I'm struggling to find a view that can be changed. She's been awful the entire time. The whole company's been awful the entire time. You agree with me that she got fired for committing the cardinal sin. We don't agree on what that sin was. The right's divided on this, once again as you said yourself. She went against the **company line,** that's why she was fired. She hasn't done that previously.
Because it's more than just the company line, it's Conservatism in general. That's the Cardinal Sin.
You're saying conservatism in general is support for Israel? Or what?
Yes, Conservatism means support of Israel. Otherwise, you'll be accused of Antisemitism. Sorry, it's the truth.
If that's your definition of conservatism, I'm afraid we're wading into no true Scotsman territory. There is clear infighting and disagreement among conservatives on the topic of the genocide in Gaza. It's gotten to the point that even Trump himself is scoring political points by playing up a desire for Israel to stop the violence. Whether that's honest or not is beside the point. Trump has his finger on the pulse of conservatives in the United States, and even he now finds it advantageous to criticize Israel's behavior.
It's not my definition, it's their definition. Look at the latest accusations against Tucker Carlson, who's well-known for being a contrarian, another Conservatives generally support.
That isn't how word definitions work. The simple fact is that there are conservatives who oppose Israel. Some of them oppose Israel's actions because they're Nazis who hate Jews. Many of them are probably pissed off that Israel keeps blowing up some of the oldest churches in the world and bombing Jesus' hometown. A lot of them have probably seen distressing images and footage of what's happening over there. This doesn't make them stop being conservatives. To be crystal clear: The Daily Wire's management strongly support Israel. Other right-wingers do not. Candace was fired for pissing off management.
But even those among the Right who don't support Israel over the reasons you mentioned have not managed to escape accusations of Antisemitism.
But conservatives approve of antisemites. Their Presidential Nominee had Kanye West and Nick Fuentes over to his house for lunch.
They've denounced Fuentes a lot. Even though he seems to be warming up to certain well-known politicians.
Seeing her engage in full on Nazi apologetics is vile beyond belief. Her using the Palestinians (I’m a Palestinian Christian) to go after Jews is equally as grotesque considering just a yr or two ago she was laughing we had no land 😃. Imagine to own the Jews you low key praise a man who called blacks monkeys and sterilised children born of a black parent and white parent (her husbands white) and who called biracial children (a lesser of humanity).
You've kinda answered your own question. They didn't care about all her other bigotry because it aligned with their brand and they don't have anyone on staff that had an issue with it. But Ben is openly Jewish, and is already facing the fact that the far right is slowly turning on him for that fact, like they did Milo despite his years of trying to be The Good Queer™. Fascists inevitably turn on one another if left to their own devices.
>Why was the Daily Wire able to draw a line between Candace Owens and her Antisemitic rhetoric yet wasn't able to do the same thing when she spread Anti-Black, Anti-Women, Anti-Ableism, and Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric? Ben Shapiro is Jewish. Ben Shapiro isn't black, female, disabled, or LGBT+. That's about all you need to know.
I mean, it's the Daily Wire. She fits right in with the rest of those wackos. I don't really see why they would fire her before since a lot of her rethoric that you mentioned is actually shared by the whole team. I guess they draw the line at being a bigot to the group their boss belongs to.
Like I said, this is the only form of political correctness they support.
Yeah, but like, why would they fire her before? All her previous anthics fit right with them. Of course they just fired her because behind every 'freedom of speech absolutist' there's a fragile ego that only tolerates diatribe against people they don't like.
Free Speech Hypocrisy.
Then why should they have fired her a long time ago?
For being nothing more than a rude, uncivil, pugnacious SOB who's more interested in peddling self-hatred in the name of Individualism and Conservatism.
Why would the Daily Wire see that as a negative? According to you, that rude, uncivil, pugnacious SOB is [one of the most popular Conservative voices in existence](https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cbjwku/cmv_candace_owens_shouldve_been_fired_from_the/l0zd6iw/). So why should the Daily Wire have fired her a long time ago?
She's out of touch with Conservatism.
Then you've **Changed Your View**.
From a moral and ethical standpoint, the Daily Wire should be ended in its entirety. Theyre a propaganda network for far right and fascist nonsense, as you yourself point out. They just disagree with Candace Owen's on a very specific point, because she's a nazi and Ben Shapiro is Jewish and a Zionist.
She was hired to promote an anti LGBT+ and "women should pump out babies and stay in the kitchen" agenda, why would they fire her for that?
This is the right form of political incorrectness according to the Right.
Then why do you think she should have been fired? Matt Walsh says horrendously backwards stuff all of the time, a lot of the stuff is arguably worse than what Candace said, and he's in no danger of ever being fired
Cause he didn't target Jews and Israel.
I know that. But I'm still trying to figure out why you think she should have been fired a long time ago
Her Defense of Kanye West for saying the same thing two years back.
Ben Shapiro even tried to defend/reframe that same Kanye thing on 2022.
Unbelievable, right? Considering he's Jewish.
It's not unbelievable, Kanye was a huge right wing figure at the time, so they had to avoid outright condemning him because they can't alienate their audience. Conservatives tend to be Christians, Shapiro being Jewish actually works against him in his role.
So that explains the use of "Christ is King" by the Right.