Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This Is What We Should Not Do
This is an example of what I don’t want.
Protesters disrupted a Shakespeare production in Central Park on Friday night shouting, “The blood of Steve Scalise is on your hands!” and “Stop leftist violence,” according to reports.
A woman identifying herself on social media as Laura Loomer jumped on stage shouting, “Stop the normalization of political violence against the right,” and, “This is violence against Donald Trump.”
Fellow protestor Jack Posobiec, who taped her from the audience, then shouted, “You are all Goebbles,” referring to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.
Loomer was arrested following the incident when she refused to leave the scene, The New York Times reported. She posted video of her protest on Twitter.
We on the right should not be breaking the law in order to shut down what we consider to be offensive speech. That’s the left’s shtick. We need to be respecting the right of free expression, even when it offends us — and then using that right to push back against the left.
Rather than trying to shut down the juvenile assassination-porn the left enjoys, let’s say some things that we believe, but that we know offend the left.
In my case, that means saying things like “the trans movement is nonsense, an unhealthy pandering to emotionally challenged individuals who need counseling, not surgery.” Or “men and women are different, and feminism has tried to fool women into believing that that isn’t true, depriving them of their uniqueness in its efforts to persuade them to be ersatz males, men-lite.” Or “the Black Lives Matter movement is ugly racism founded on a lie about the nature of anti-black violence in America, directing attention away from the real crisis of violence in the black community by scapegoating police instead of acknowledging the disintegration of the black family.” Or “same-sex marriage is legal, but it isn’t normal and it isn’t ideal. Children benefit from having good role models of, and the support from, both a father and a mother.” Or “the Russia story is a nothingburger, a desperate effort to deprive the people of the choice they made in a fair election because that choice offends the leftist establishment.”
Etc.
Don’t suppress speech. Use it.
Published in General
Amen, brother. I also saw that headline and just shook my head.
There’s breaking the law – the actual violence we’ve seen from the left – and there’s civil disobedience. I have no problem with the civil disobedience as long as the practitioners of it are willing to pay the civil price for the disobedience, as long as the civil authority still imposes the appropriate penalty.
In this case, I think we are reasonably at a point where people can be woken up to their own hypocrisy and the basic justness of treating opposing viewpoints as just that instead of treating them as dehumanized monstrosities to be decapitated for the good of all according to right reason. Sometimes people need a shock for that to happen, and interrupting a ceremonial decapitation of Donald Trump seems like a mild shock compared to the rioting, destruction, vandalism, and personal violence that the left is currently employing.
I don’t view the civil disobedience as suppression of speech. I see it as a response to speech.
Those who disrupted Milo’s speeches, for example, were known ahead of time and the civil authorities should have protected Milo’s rights. But they didn’t. That’s not civil disobedience, that’s civil breakdown. The people who disrupted the play were arrested promptly – as they should have been. I think paying the civil price is the key ingredient which would make this tactic appropriately rare.
Just as a practical matter why buy a ticket just be tossed out to make a point in a crowd that bought tickets because they like the play’s message. Bank of America and Delta Airlines didn’t send their CEO’s to the play to announce they were withdrawing the funding for that play, they simply withdrew the funding.
I agree completely, Henry.
Ruining a show that people paid to see (time and money), even if the show is deplorable but legal in your eyes. This is thugism plane and simple.
Really only gives it free publicity. Sure ticket sales will go up. I would say this is a gimmick done by the publicists if I was conspiracy minded.
Oh, for the love of…
Is the government performing the play? No, it’s being done by an acting/theater company. This isn’t civil disobedience; it’s hooliganism.
Civil disobedience may be the wrong term, or your definition may be only one sense of the term. I think the term is beside the point, so I withdraw the term. Speech and more speech is what we have; not all speech is equal either legally or rationally (incitement, libel, interruption, tresspass, etc). What makes this at least similar to civil disobedience, to me, is that there is a civil price to pay for the statement, for the speech. Is it always a good thing to interrupt someone else’s speech? No, whether the interruption counts as illegal trespass or not. Is it always a bad thing either? No. I’m not saying that this tactic should be given a free pass, and I think it’s a good thing that it isn’t and the trespassers were arrested.
There. Fixed it for you to reflect current reality.
Well said. While, I agree with Henry on his point about the play, it’s why I don’t agree with his earlier post on responding to the increasingly violent and authoritarian turn of progressives. They will try to shut us up by any means necessary (to quote Malcolm X). What’s going on is not symmetrical.
One quick example from my own experience. 20 years ago I went through training on recognizing sexual harrassment in the workplace. I’ve seen real harrassment occur, it’s a terrible thing and I’ve taken disciplinary action against employees for it. But we also had good discussion with the trainer when we objected about certain issues she raised which we did not think were harrassment. By the time I retired 5 year ago, I would not dare to raise any objections (nor would my colleagues). We’d just sit there silently, not objecting to anything, no matter how nonsensical, because you knew if you did your professional future was at risk.
The Left uses force / violence. Why? Because it works.
The Right uses civility. Why? Because they want to lose.
Sure let’s keep losing.
Ed, I think you’re using the terms incorrectly. Civil disobedience is breaking the law, but in a non-violent way.
[Update: Reading the earlier comments, I see you withdrew the use of the term. — H.]
Except in instances where it will prevent an immediate and serious injustice, I’m opposed to violent and non-violent lawbreaking. Respect for law, for civility, and for our cultural institutions is someting conservatives should value and conserve — that’s a big part of what sets us apart from the left.
Having said that, I think we’re at a point where we should be very bold and direct in what we say about the left’s agenda. The left will provide all the fireworks required; leave the lawbreaking to them. Instances like that cited in the article, in which conservatives have to be taken away by the police, simply blur the lines between left and right, and lend credence to the left’s narrative and conviction that we on the right are the real monsters. That doesn’t help us at all, however good it may feel in the moment.
No, Fake. The right doesn’t lose because we’re too civil. We on the right lose because we’re pansies.
You can refuse to comply with the left’s nonsense without raising your voice. You just have to be willing to pay a price for being willing to speak truth to leftist power.
Civility and self control are things we on the right should value and want to conserve. That doesn’t mean being sissies, worrying that our co-workers are going to think we’re jerks if we express opinions they don’t like.
I hear a lot from paper tigers, people who call for shouting down the left, but are afraid of the consequences of taking an “unacceptable” position in public. I don’t intend to act like a leftist, but neither do I intend to shut up.
Hey, not everyone has either the situation or the stomach for speaking truth to leftist power. It’s okay if you sit this one out.
Same thing.
Only if you believe that there is no difference between civility and cowardice. I think that’s a stunted perspective.
There seems an awful lot of effort being expended in manipulating what other people can and can’t say. I ,for one, am getting sick of it.
This idea of staying civil even when the left isn’t really isn’t very complicated.
Look, most people are somewhere in the middle, disinclined to make a scene or shout anyone down. They’re observers, watching the outspoken people on both sides make their cases. (That’s true here, on social media, and in real life.)
So, if you’re one of that big majority in the middle of the bell curve, what are you going to find more persuasive? Two sides screaming at each other and breaking things? Or one side screaming and breaking, and the other remaining firm, calm, and serious?
If you think it’s the former, you’re mistaken.
Got no problem telling someone on the left I don’t support the action at the play. I’d also tell them that if it was left-wingers breaking up a play with what they viewed as an outrageous conservative theme, they would be lauded in the media and by other progressives for their courage and daring, and until they change that they’ve got no credibility in attacking others.
And I’ve got no problem telling them they are actively encouraging violence and suppression of opposing opinions. They are The Man, a phrase I use, of course, in a gender-neutral way making no heteronormative assumptions.
Too many among us do not understand the current situation, which your story illustrates. The Left has total control of the commanding heights of this society. We on the Right, who for so long comforted ourselves as being the (Silent) majority, are on the outside of the Shining City on the Hill, looking up. And the guns on those heights are trained on us.
This is the true meaning of what Sharyl Attkisson called “The Substitution Game” which everyone reading these words knows well. It is the decades-long lament voiced daily on every talk radio program, Fox News panel show and conservative website: to wit,
“If a conservative/Republican/white person/Christian (choose one) ever said/did that, he’d be drummed out of polite society.”
Unfortunately, although this piece of rhetoric is wielded in defense, it is neither an argument nor a refutation. It is instead a confession of impotence. It is an admission that we on the Right dance to the tune played by the Left.
If that is a situation that you as an American are ready to accept, then go along with the fantasy that we are in Debate Club, where the best arguments will win and where force is to be eschewed. But do so knowing that what you believe has never been and never will be.
Conservatives are the counter-culture. Conservatives are the guerrillas in the hills. As such we must be prepared to use asymmetrical tactics, to use the weapons and the beliefs of the Left against them. To undermine them by heightening their contradictions.
I want to live again in a society where my beliefs predominate, where my beliefs are in power and where those who transgress those values must rely on my tolerance and my forbearance.
If you don’t think that the Right is right and that it is important that we triumph, that we overcome and rule, then you can be of the Right but you can never lead it.
The problem is millions in the workplace, in school and elsewhere already know they better shut up and the number is increasing. I’m retired and don’t care but that isn’t the case for many.
Absolutely this.
Henry’s posts have nearly made me shed tears in anger and frustration at the shackles he insists on imposing on people who share most of his positions.
I don’t relate to this. I was raised in the pro-life movement in Massachusetts, by parents who were never shy about voicing their opinions, and didn’t care if others didn’t like it. My father worked for republicans, and for whatever reason, my mother’s political positions didn’t seem to affect her at work, or if they did, she didn’t talk about it. Since birth, I have always been publicly conservative, and it is difficult at times, but I don’t know any other way. My parents forced me into this, and I love them for it :) Now, my husband works for himself and we don’t have to worry about surviving in corporate culture: if other people don’t like our opinions, we don’t care. I realize that I am lucky in this respect.
I can’t imagine what it would be like to know that my livelihood depended on towing the liberal line or at least remaining silent: I understand why people in that situation are so enraged, but burning free speech to the ground isn’t the answer. I get the impression that some people are so angry and have been so angry for so long that they aren’t thinking clearly. This is why I would advise all conservatives to stay as far away from corporate America and most colleges as possible: those environments will only drive you crazy and make you miserable. Go into business for yourself: maybe you will make less money, but you will be own boss, and you will be so much happier in the long run.
@henryracette I fear you’ve missed the animating motivation of the Trump Revolution: it’s certainly not conservatism, and it’s not merely anti-PC and anti-Leftism: it’s vindictiveness. It’s people who have, rightly or not, felt slighted, left behind by cultural changes, etc. getting to shove belligerent nonsense back in the faces of their cultural oppressors.
There’s no unifying underlying principle — civility, free speech, smaller government, more freedom, a better example of how to govern and interact, whatever — but the adrenaline rush of momentarily seizing power and yelling in someone’s face about how it’s their turn to take it (whatever “it” is). And if they don’t like taking it, tell them how ready you are to face them in a fist fight or shooting war.
I expect it will be little more than a short-term thrill, but it should feel good for a few more months.
Figurative nonsense. I’m not trying to impose shackles on anyone. I’m asking people on the right to not descend into the same lawlessness and vulgarity as the people we oppose. I’m asking people on the right to not pretend that words are daggers, and that a vulgar play that offends me should be shut down by lawless misbehavior of a fellow conservative.
Above all, I’m saying that we must insist that the law be upheld — even when the smugly self-righteous thugs on the left think they’re taking the high ground by breaking it. And we can’t do that if we’re busy breaking it ourselves and with the same justification.
Moderator Note:
Insulting fellow membersWell I see that [redacted] are out in force this fine Saturday evening.
The majority in the middle can care less about your measured response. They have been hearing it for years and it is now part of the static. I have tried a lifetime of arguing that way and all I have gotten from it is a series of lost gigs as the libs purged me from the field. Now I hide, keep my head down and hope it holds together while I live. If some with younger, hotter bloods want to storm the barricades I will support them, though I know they are destined to fail. Their conservative allies will tear them down quicker than their Leftist opponents will.