Keep me signed in on this device for 30 days
There is no question that the media and cultural elite have a double standard when it comes to outrage. If one conservative talk show host makes a point using language that’s fine for Andrea Mitchell, TV shows and the
Statement of the obvious can be the downfall of blogging.
Can you give us anything that we already don’t know?
I think that we have to enforce a single standard until they agree that its childish and dumb, and then we can agree to disarmament.
That there is some problem with having an obvious double standard would not even occur to the Left, because you (the average conservative) are evil. And, all is fair in destroying evil. For them, the biggest outrage is that conservatives don’t even admit that they’re evil, selfish, bigoted, and wrong. That’s just how evil they (conservatives) are–they refuse to crawl away and die in a corner somewhere.
That is literally what Stanley Fish said in a highly praised NYT piece. He ended with, I’m not joking, a Might is Right argument.
Can you give us anything that we already don’t know? · 23 minutes ago
So are you saying you have the question I posed answered? By all means, answer it then.
I know that the only success we’ve seen has been due to the single standard enforcement but I can’t help but think that it’s more important to be principled. Christians thrived and ultimate defeated their foes not by taking up swords, after all.
There are no standards. The public discourse as controlled by the left is entirely contrived, including the mock outrage, for the purpose of controlling the narrative. You can bet that lefty elites throw around the n-word, and other slurs, in private with reckless abandon. The situation is similar to what happened in the old Soviet Union. You maintain a public persona that carefully adheres to the party line. In private you can say what you like – just don’t get caught.
One might consider not reading the NYT!
The attacks on the Rush advertisers and seeing them leave the show is legitimate news and fine fodder for columnists of any stripe. Surely Maher can appreciate that.
Paules is right: the Left doesn’t care about standards or fairness because for them the issue is essential and tribal: conservatives can’t have good policies or arguments because they are bigots hiding behind decorum. Liberals, on the other hand, are good people fighting for social justice who sometimes make little mistakes. So Rush’s comments are ripping back the curtain on the Right’s essential nastiness (which is news) and Maher’s comments are just forgivable missteps, which isn’t news.
Liberals are also prone to Orwellian double-think: “I am good, noble, compassionate, and caring. But I have to lie continuously to advance my agenda.”
To the many Wits and Mrs
Belong the many hits and misses,
A liberal is Miss Ingenue
A conservative “Misogyn-Who?”
It’s a war they can not win
They have their own original sin,
Their logic comes across distorted
It’s their future they have aborted.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.
What did you have in mind, here? Presumably not the likes of Martin of Tours or the Northern Crusades.
So are you saying you have the question I posed answered? By all means, answer it then. · 1 hour ago
No, I’m saying quite the opposite. I’m saying that, as @enoiledunord infers above, there really is no solution.
To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh; “There is no way to settle these issues except to defeat the left.”
We win converts to conservatism not by eloquently parrying their thrusts, but by running their hypocrisy through with the truth. No point in showing the contrast, but by demanding that they hear the truth or cover their ears (only works with people who know you well enough to listen).
The rest simply need to be defeated if they will not convert.
Like our VP, Maher is basically a silly man. Smarter, edgier, but just as silly. His argument here is that no one has the right to never be insulted. Hasn’t that been our argument against the multi-culti crowd? Now that he feels some heat, he adopts our argument. He wants amnesty when he’s on the hot seat.
The Liberal dogma:
“Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don’t ever apologize for anything.”……Harry S. Truman
I know that the only success we’ve seen has been due to the single standard enforcement but I can’t help but think that it’s more important to be principled. Christians thrived and ultimate defeated their foes not by taking up swords, after all. · 2 hours ago
Unilateral disarmament is unilateral disarmament even when the weapon of malice are rhetorical. I dont think its productive until we have some broader agreement to end the standoff, which cannot happen until we make it clear that it is a stand off of equals. We have to believe in our legitimacy, defend it, and then convince others of it. Passively laying down denies our own cultural legitimacy.
We’ve become a passive-aggresive society. Liberals have mastered the art. Nothing more empowering than being offended and acheiving the ultimate public victim status. I find Maher condescending and obnoxious but in this instance he’s absolutly right. This silly game of “offended” is a game I never want to participate in. I would hope after awhile the general public will start seeing thru their silly passive aggresive actions. If we don’t we’ve turned into a nation of wussies.
Maher is a vile person, no doubt. It amazes me he can garner an audience at all. But at least he doesn’t pretend to be civil.
The real culprits, the folks doing the most damage, are the smiling faces on camera at NBC, CBS, ABC, etc. They have perfected the art of the journalistic Half-Truth delivered with the pitch perfect combination of charm and gravity, thus deflecting the people’s attention to their pre-fab version of The Way things Ought to Be.
Dittos, Thelonious. Leftists take offense as a way to empower themselves and shut down all opposition as in, for example, the speech codes predominant on college campuses (campi?) these days. If we can eliminate the “right” to not be offended, that elimination will have to extend to all phases of human interaction, not just politics, as Maher would apparently have it.