>Where can one go to learn these controversial truths?
Bits and pieces are strewn all over the place. But you have learn to separate the wheat from the chaff for yourself. Then you might start noticing the places with limited quantities of slightly more observant commentary.
>Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
No, they just don't exist on the internet the same way most real conversations don't exist on the internet. The internet is great for information of the type that would be found in traditional publications, is of professional interest, or are marketing materials. It sucks for everything else.
People being real exist in very small quantities, usually on lighter topics to avoid exposing themselves, and are always outnumbered by people preforming for the audience or (untempered by people openly talking like reasonable people) have taken an extreme position on the topic.
The “Ben Shapiro DESTROYS liberal” videos that pop up on YouTube sometimes come to mind. Ben Shapiro was obviously a (probably very successful) high school debater and the guy thinks and responds fast. Not that those traits are good for actual discussion or coming to agreement.
He also claims him voicing his opinions about politics got him blacklisted from his dream job of being a Hollywood writer.
When he’s talking on a platform like Joe Rogan or having a leisurely chat he’s much more willing to be moderated by others opinions, and demonstrates the sort of give and take of a normal human being in a conversation. He’s certainly not some bastion of liberal values, and has principles he believes in, after all he’s an Orthodox Jew, but people like him exist because there’s a market for it and he’s carved out this public persona.
The people performing to the audience will get views from people like my uncle who just wants to see “Stephen Crowder OWNS libs” and has no interest in being right, only in feeling right. Unfortunately they’re going to likely always have the larger audience.
I don't think the Shapiro is the one signal boosting the whole "own libs thing".
It's very simple. Suppose the following.
1) A man has a law degree from Harvard and was publishing nationally when he was in high-school.
2) He has a set of opinions and schools invite him to speak.
3) Lot's of students ask him questions many who strongly disagree with him and attempt to "take him down".
4) All of this is on video, hours and hours of video.
OK
Now, in what possible world would this person not "own" people at a high frequency?
If he wasn't "owning" at a high frequency then that person should be embarrassed.
You see "Ben Shapiro owns X" and not, Ben Shapiro in conversation with Ezra Klein, or Ben Shapiro telling his audience that their opinions aren't worth anything if they don't spend time reading and listening to the best voices on the other side.
"Ben Shapiro the guy who owns people" is a meme because he's more of a threat then "Ben Shapiro the guy who certainly should speak slower, has reasonable arguments, even when he's wrong" because that Ben Shapiro, that second one is actually scary. People could listen to what he has to say.
The right's loudest voices have never been the brightest, or when they were bright, the most reasonable. Shapiro raises the level of discourse on the right by a mile.
I have yet to hear Ben Shapiro say something novel or interesting. I like him though, because for the first time a popular voice on the right is educated and can reason from premises to conclusions, in steps, and is willing to discuss the validity AND soundness of his arguments.
By consistently doing that alone, he's in the top 1% of journalists. He's the exact opposite of what the right is "supposed" to look like.
And if you look to reasonable then you'll become a "Ben Shapiro owns" meme or a "binders full of woman" meme.
Bits and pieces are strewn all over the place. But you have learn to separate the wheat from the chaff for yourself. Then you might start noticing the places with limited quantities of slightly more observant commentary.
>Are they literally so confronting/offensive that they don’t exist on the internet?
No, they just don't exist on the internet the same way most real conversations don't exist on the internet. The internet is great for information of the type that would be found in traditional publications, is of professional interest, or are marketing materials. It sucks for everything else.
People being real exist in very small quantities, usually on lighter topics to avoid exposing themselves, and are always outnumbered by people preforming for the audience or (untempered by people openly talking like reasonable people) have taken an extreme position on the topic.