Transcript (en)

What's more likely to happen, a sit-down with you and Tucker or a sit-down with you and Nick? I mean, neither is particularly likely, I would imagine. Tucker, I've offered a thousand times, you know, open invite. Nick is a bit of a different story, and the reason that Nick is a bit of a different story is because Nick's entire mode, and listen, I admire it. I even sometimes get a bizarre kick out of it. But Nick's entire mode is he's a comedian. And Nick is a comedian masquerading as a political pundit. He has political views, but in essence, he's a comedian. And you can't really have an honest political conversation with a comedian. It'd be more like interviewing Dave Chappelle or something, but like Nazi Dave Chappelle. Meaning, what does Nick believe? What does he not believe? I don't know. I mean, it depends on what's funny at the moment. And so trying to— So you don't think he has core beliefs? No. I mean, I do think that he has core beliefs. but I think that one of the tactics that he uses to avoid being pinned down on his core beliefs is diffusing with humor. And I think that when you try to pin him down with that, then the idea is that you're an uncool person for even asking him to be pinned down on that sort of thing. And so there's no sort of honest conversation that can be had about, like, what are your core beliefs and are they right or are they wrong? Because that's not what he does. I think when he's asked a tough question, then he immediately reverts to the sort of 17-year-old humor that, listen, people can find it transgressively funny. I, on occasion, find it transgressively funny. but that is not an honest conversation about his politics or his principles and I don think that that probably in the offing I think he different when he on the mic and on the screen talking him and the camera like this versus one It a very different one Also obviously his incentive structure if we were to sit down together would be to get the own the Shapiro moment, right, and then blow it up all over the internet, clearly. Would you ever have him on? Would I ever have him on? I mean, it depends. If he weren't, I would – the answer is no, I think. But the reason I'm hesitating is because if he ever – If I got the impression that he were willing to have like an actual serious sit-down conversation without all of the, you know, now I'm just going to call you a Jew for the shits and giggles of it so that the audience goes crazy. Like I'm just – I'm not interested in that. Why not? Why am I not interested in having on somebody who just calls me a Jew for the shits and giggles of it? Because I think that's stupid. I actually don't think he'll do that. I actually don't think he'll do that. I mean, listen, if you could convince me of that, then I would do it. I don't think he would do that. Or the, you know – I think it would be a real good debate, and it would be a good conversation. and I think a lot of the youth would sit there and say, good for Ben for having him on. It would be what a lot of people would never see coming and I think you would be more surprised on how he is one-on-one. By the way, just so you know, from the day he's been on my podcast, I'm sure he's a very nice guy in a one-on-one. From the day he was here with me, the interview, till today, him and I haven't spoken at all. So it's not like it's a conversation or anything like that. I just think it would be a good conversation to have him. And you know selfishly I would also like to see you and Tucker sitting down You on his or him on yours I often talked about that about a thousand times I seen that And I really doubt that going to happen Again I think that there a misalignment of incentives I think that, you know, Nick, let's put it this way, Nick does not want to be pinned down on his ideological beliefs with data or with counter-argument that is serious. And so his incentive structure very strongly would be to sort of do the Piers Morgan interview. Right? Like if you watch Nick's interview with Piers Morgan, again, I found it amusing too because Nick's really good at that game. But Piers is trying to pin him down on his beliefs about the Holocaust, and so what Nick does is he immediately launches into a bunch of jokes about the Holocaust. Well, again, those jokes may be transgressively funny, but that doesn't actually get to the root of the issue. Is everyone smarter for having heard that? I think actually everyone might be stupider for having heard this. Yeah. That's the hard part, right? A level of debate requires a level of sincere revelation of your interior beliefs and willing to defend them. If what you're going to do is run away to comedy or to humor or to insult, then that's not worthwhile. It is, it doesn't, it doesn't advance the, it doesn't advance the ball. You know, there's a difference with comedy and there's a difference with rage baiting comments that, you know, it's going to get under your skin. I think if like when I, I was at Amfis and somebody asked me a question, why won't you sit down with Nick? I said, I'm not comfortable with him saying the N word all the time. And I said it from stage. I'm like, I just want you to be respectful. You know, I listened to hip hop for many years and maybe a little bit too much when I was a kid, but I chose to change and I went a different direction in my life And then we had a very respectful conversation together Crowder is funny Crowder is one of the most talented guys I know you guys had something that happened many years ago but I think Crowder is super talented Of course. And he's funny as shit like this stuff they used to do back in the days. You're like, who is this guy? You would watch him. You would say, super brilliant, but he's also able to do this. Again, I think it is important for me to say at this point that at no point, what's funny is that there's been this conflation. I'm just going to make this point because you're not making it, but I know how the internet works. I'm not saying that anybody should take away Nick Quintus' microphone or anyone else's microphone. Whether I choose to be on a podcast with somebody or not choose to be on a podcast, that is an aspect of free speech, the same as it is, whether I want to or whether I don't want to. So, again, I think there are circumstances under which I would do something like that, but I'd have to believe certain things about how he would approach the thing in order to mean that I would think it's worthwhile. Now, other people might think it's worthwhile, right, but they're not me, so, you know. I think it's a way to get in front of the youth that right now is not getting a platform because they're listening to him more than you. So I think sitting down with you, you would get in front of his audience. And if you feel your argument is more logical, his audience is going to say, you know what, he's actually got a good point. So that would be the biggest thing. That is definitely the strongest steel manned argument in favor. Yeah, even if it's a 5% that's reasonable, that's willing to shift. Right, and the strongest steel manned argument against is that it's a setup. That's the strongest steel manned argument. Yeah, but if it's on your territory, there's no risk. You're controlling the territory. I mean, I don't think that's true because, again, I'm honest enough to – I would not slice and dice it, right? And anything that we taped, we'd put out.