Introduction

The idea that certain right-wing public figures like Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro are 'divisive' or 'get away with spreading propaganda' is a perspective often used to discredit opposing viewpoints. This article aims to analyze the claims surrounding these individuals and discuss the role of first amendment-protected free speech in a democratic society.

Understanding 'Divisiveness' and Propaganda

The term 'divisiveness' is often used to label viewpoints that are contrary to one's own, seeking to portray them as a malicious attempt to unify and pit people against one another. However, this is a subjective claim and often an aim to stifle the opposing viewpoint. For instance, individuals like Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro typically argue from a classically liberal position, which many find to be well-defined and consistent. Their arguments, therefore, should not be equated with being divisive unless there is concrete evidence of behavior that achieves this aim.

Historical Context: Late Night Hosts and President Trump

It is common for late-night hosts to criticize politicians, often under the guise of comedy. Such criticism alone does not constitute a form of divisiveness but rather part of a wider media landscape. The example of criticizing President Trump falls under the category of media criticism rather than personal attacks. This criticism, however, does not prevent anyone from countering these statements with alternative arguments, which is a hallmark of a free and democratic society.

Ben Shapiro and Fact-Based Speech

Ben Shapiro is often accused of using 'propaganda' and 'getting away with it'. However, Shapiro's approach to debate and argument is rooted in a pursuit of truth. He uses facts and logical reasoning in his arguments to refute the claims of modern liberals. This approach can be seen as a reaction to a platform that he believes is increasingly antithetical to classical liberalism. Therefore, labeling these arguments as 'propaganda' is historically and logically inaccurate. Shapiro has repeatedly demonstrated his commitment to rigorous examination and debate, often emerging victorious in his arguments.

False Equivalency and Disruption of Speech

There is a common misconception that liberal or progressive groups are more supportive of free speech. In contrast, many groups of this nature are known for engaging in behaviors that stifle free speech. This includes violent protests, disruption of events, and even vandalism to suppress opposing viewpoints. This behavior is undemocratic and in conflict with the principles of free speech and associational rights. These tactics are not only unethical but also democratic in nature, as they undermine the very foundation of a free society.

Challenging the Claims

The question of whether certain individuals 'get away with' spreading propaganda is often a matter of_public debate and criticism. Ben Shapiro, for example, is open to challenge and debate. Anyone with valid arguments can dispute his claims and counter them in a public forum. The ability to engage in such discourse is a fundamental aspect of a free society, as it allows for the free exchange of ideas and the pursuit of truth.

Conclusion

The notion that right-wing public figures like Steven Crowder and Ben Shapiro are divisive or get away with spreading propaganda is a misrepresentation. These individuals are often engaging in debates and providing arguments rooted in logic and facts. It is not a question of them being divisive but rather of the legitimacy and respect for free speech.