Looking for better conservative conversation? Join Ricochet for just $5/month. Think of it as your neighborhood bar: familiar faces, lively debate, and room for a different point of view. Plus: listen to most of our podcasts ad-free.
We have a new theory about the mainstream media: they have decided to work without editors any more. How else to explain how the Washington Post slandered J.D. Vance with the claim that he decried the "falling white birth rate" (he said no such thing, and the Post had to correct the story), or MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell going to air with a completely uncorroborated story about Trump's supposed Russian financial connections? Or how about MSNBC's Chris Hayes (perhaps the least bug-eyed anchor in their stable of Unstables), who thought it profound to say that "if the electoral college wasn't in the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional," though perhaps MSNBC just goofed and aired his Saturday Night Live audition tape for a new "deep thoughts" sketch.
But the top honor will have to go to the Washington Post for publishing what may be the dumbest article ever written in the English language: Eve Fairbanks's August 29 article "The Reasonable Rebels." The thesis of the article can be stated plainly: so-called "reasonable conservatives" like Ben Shapiro are just like the Confederate defenders of slavery, because they use the exact same words and arguments—words like "facts," "reason," "logic," even "truth." No really, it is actually that dumb. You can feel your brain cells dying just getting through it, and you have to wonder why the Post has decided to abandon adult supervision.
Though the piece isn't part of the official "1619 Project," I decided that it was worth a digression to go through some of the relevant specific claims that bear on the larger controversy. And so we welcome back once again "Lucretia," Power Line's International Woman of Mystery, to go on a full scale rant-fest about the increasing absurdity of leftist argument.
Hosted by Steve Hayward, with guest "Lucretia"
Discussion (5)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
In a debate, who doesn't appeal to fact, truth, logic, and reason? Basically, the Washington Post piece is reducible to this:
"Antebellum white supremacists made arguments. Ben Shapiro makes arguments. Ergo, Ben Shapiro is a white supremacist."
If this is the level of philosophical acumen worthy of a Washington Post feature, we Ricochetti are obviously in the wrong business. We could be running a global media empire.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Yes, that statement is the one that needs to be repeated, and re-repeated, ad nauseum. For that is the most pernicious feature of Eve Fairbanks’s “argument”: That reason and logic ... which pulled us out of the swamp and into civilization ... are somehow suspect.
And the Powerline hosts never quite made that point. Or if they did, they didn’t emphasize it. Instead they went on and on (and on) about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and then got into the weeds with a granular assessment of what the North and South really wanted regarding slaves and slavery, etc. My eyes were glazing over by the end of it. Really boring, unpersuasive arguments.
Again, the headline here is: “Progressives believe that appeals to logic are racist!”
This line of thinking is truly vile, and, if adopted by the culture, can only end in tears.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
@filmklassik: Remember that the main point of this podcast series to to look at the real history of our founding documents and how they were acted on through our history. That's why Lucretia IWofM and Hayward talk about Lincoln and the debates about slavery, etc. Agree that we should push back against the woke ones.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Strongly disagree. To me their patient, point by point rebuttal only serves to legitimize the Progressive “argument” that America is an evil place and racism lies at the heart of everything we have built and hold dear, and that all white people are complicit. Which is madness.
Its like telling the sexual predator: “We’ve just measured the hemline of that young woman’s skirt and determined it fell below her kneecap. You therefore had no right to assault her.”
Sorry —no — the guy had no right to assault her anyway, and the length of the girl’s skirt is irrelevant. So when the guy says “She had a short skirt on! She was asking for it!“ — the only sane response to the guy is “So effing what?!”
In other words, the guy’s premise is vile, and you don’t legitimatize it by indulging it — by going out with a measuring tape and magnifying glass and seeing if the woman’s skirt isn’t a bit longer than he claims it is. Merely doing this legitimizes his point that the length of the skirt is relevant. It’s not.
Similarly, these laborious “PowerPoint” answers to the thesis that “America is a deeply racist country“ may be accurate on a micro level, but they presuppose a level of good faith on the part of Progressives who on these matters are impervious to logic (their anti racism being more akin to a religion than a reasonable proposition).
On a macro level such answers just legitimize the larger Progressive point that America is intrinsically racist.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
@filmklassik: I agree that you cannot argue with the woke/progressives, etc. I appreciate this information because it may help when I come across someone who is open to argument about our real history. I don't think either Lucretia IWofM or Hayward would say they are accepting the 'America is racist' argument but you might have to respond in some instances. Others you can just shut down as you say. If I were accused of being a racist, would I argue or just dismiss it. It probably depends on the situation. Through this series I've learned a lot I did not know about the struggle with the question of slavery in this country. One of my problems with the woke/progressive crowd is their (you should pardon the expression) black and white view of history, America, etc.