Ben Shapiro - the fake intellectual attempting to save Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer from the LGBTQ community

Ben Shapiro is an overhyped fraud.

Have you ever read a book considered to be a "classic" and wondered "who the hell picked this to be put on a pedestal?"

I feel the same way about certain folks proclaimed to be great thinkers or intellectuals. At the top of my list is conservative Ben Shapiro. I know all about his "pedigree" and honors, but  I still say while he may have a mind, his maturity is something to be desired. But I will give him credit for exploiting the angry people  - those on the right who always have to be pumped up about something no matter how stupid - for profit. That, and going on college campuses for rigged debates later described on Youtube as him "destroying an argument" has gotten Shapiro more acclaim than he originally had. And more money.

He certainly knows how to get his audience riled up such as with this excerpt and clip below in which he is raising hell when someone from our community say that they relate to Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer:

Right wing extremist Ben Shapiro is demanding LGBTQ people leave Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer alone. Shapiro, who runs the far right website The Daily Wire, says the popular children’s Christmas character has enough problems and doesn’t need any more. “Can’t you just leave Rudolph alone?” Shapiro asked on his radio show. “Like, he’s got enough problems without you putting your own issues with sexual orientation on his fragile flying back.” Shapiro, who is virulently anti-LGBTQ, was reading from Wednesday’s New York Times opinion piece, “‘Rudolph,’ the Queerest Holiday Special.”

Ben Shapiro attacks the LGBTQ community for saying they relate to Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: "Can't you just leave Rudolph alone? Like, he's got enough problems without you putting your own issues with sexual orientation on his fragile flying back" pic.twitter.com/TxoQs4DQh1

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) December 12, 2019

Oh Ben, you get so many things wrong. First of all, no one is talking about "sexual behavior" but you. And no one is talking about "political sexual behavior" but you. Folks can talk about LGBTQ issues and our community without mentioning anything about sexual intercourse,  but apparently YOU can't. However, since I am not a psychiatrist, I won't ponder any further about your state of mind on that plateau.

Secondly, if you are going to go back into history to condemn us, at least get the story right.  At .56 of your ridiculous tirade, you accused us of claiming that one of the Teletubbies (a children's show) were gay and the late Jerry Falwell stepped in to declare that it wasn't true.

That's not accurate, you moron.  It was Jerry Falwell who initiated that controversy. He fired the first figurative shot - with no prompting from anyone - by claiming that one of the Teletubbies (Tinky Winky) was gay. All the LGBTQ community did in that situation was to giggle our asses off.

Thirdly, let's talk about children's literature.  Just because we may see images we may relate to in children's literature, we are pushing some political sexualization on them? Just because we may see something in common with how Rudolph was picked on and declared a misfit for being different or how campy SpongeBob Square Pants is, we are the bad guys? We are messing with the innocence of children's literature?"

Are we talking about the same children's literature which featured girls trapped in towers by witches who get pregnant by princes? The same literature in which a little girl lives in the forest with seven men in order to escape her stepmother who wants her heart cut out so she can eat it? The same literature where little boys climb giant plants and steal gold from cannibalistic giants? Or how about two children lost in the forest having to fight an witch in a gingerbread house to keep her from having them for dinner. Seems to me that the most harmless thing  to happen in these stories would be two people of the same sex falling in love.

Also don't even get me started on Bible stories.

Shapiro makes no sense except to a certain crowd who seems to think that they have the right to dictate to the LGBTQ community what our lives should be, what our interests should be, and how we should behave in accordance to their ignorant standards.  If Shapiro and others like him see phantoms of "politics" and "sexualization" every time we give an opinion or make a move, that is their problem and their right. What they don't have a right to do is draw some arbitrary line in the sand defining who we are, how we are, and how we relate to the things in the world we see.

In other words, get over your damn selves.

Lastly, any idea that we are attempting to politicize children's literature is ridiculous. As it is, we are busy working to rig the Oscars so that Renee Zellwegger gets the award for her portrayal of Judy Garland.


Editor's note - According to the article I linked to, Tinky Winky was in fact considered a gay icon in Britain. However, my argument mostly stands because Jerry Falwell also claimed that the character was gay. He did not, as Shapiro inaccurately claimed, disagree with the idea that the character was gay.