Posts
AoS has the title "Awesome: Crowd Cheers as GE Shareholder Rips MSNBC". A questioner inquires if the Janine Garofalo clip is "hate speech", and the crowd cheers and the suit waffles, and the crowd boos.
Pay attention class: why was Napoleon successful, until Wellington picked up the same baton and flogged Napoleon therewith? Among other reasons, both generals understood the ground.
In noticing JG, in bothering to attach "hate speech" to her pitiful remarks, you're conceding the ground to the minions of Cthulhu. The Great Old One doesn't care about JG or Sean Penn or the contents of their blather. All the minions want of you is to support the perversion of the First Amendment, and the need/capacity for government to regulate this new legislative product.
There is a place in the bowels of Cthulhu for JG when, to her sanity-shredding horror, her reign of useful idiocy is at an end. The means of avoiding joining her there is to not concede the ground to artful liars peddling nebulous goods: "fairness", "hate speech", and "spreading the wealth" are all markers on bad ground for battle.
Rather than engage the enemy head on, simply ask questions. Let the lack of any foundation in thought, fact, and history make the tower of babble collapse on Old Cthulhu.
Ace may think the MSNBC situation funny, and some sort of win. It was, but not for those concerned with freedom, truth, and the future. Do not concede the ground to the foe.
Update:This cover from the Economist makes the point graphically. The lure is the symbol "hate speech", the school on the port side is anyone buying into its existence, with Cthulhu "smiling" to starboard.
Intelligent & Enlightening. I applaud you for shedding light on a very important issue.
ReplyDeleteAs the Left knows, language is very important tool used to shape the debate. Do not give them the field of defining debate.
Of course the risk of asking questions is the hope of getting intelligent replies vs. the reality of more left wing talking points, usually ending with getting called an "-ist"
ReplyDeleteLove the Lovecraft reference though, that was classic!
Obviously I can't speak for Ace but point of the post as I understood it, was not an appreciation of hate speech codes, but the fact that a member of the leftist media was forced to account. The question was 'in-artfully' phrased and your point stands but the MSM, our betters, the deciders, need to be confronted more not less.
ReplyDeleteSometimes picking up the brickbats the Left has created and returning fire is just too ironic to forgo.
Okay, I'm a moron. Howinell is Ace's post double plus ungood? I get the take-no-prisoners, concede-no-ground idea. But I'm strugglin' to see how it applies to that post.
ReplyDeleteAnyone?
(last night was a regular band rehearsal, so be gentle on my neurons.)
@K~Bob:
ReplyDeleteRepeat after me, "There Is No Thing As 'Hate Speech'": there is only abysmal taste. To applaud people labeling crap as 'Hate Speech' is to buy into creating a new tool for government oppression.
@Smitty:
ReplyDeleteWhich is kind of the point of taking their own stinking linguistic turd and pushing their noses into it until you hear the "squish". The only way to get them to stop fouling the rug of public discourse is to demonstrate that it'll get on them, too.
And no, they can't just wag their tails and make us forget. A thousand LOLleftists are not sufficient penance for attempting to codify thought-crime.
@PCachu:
ReplyDeleteAt which point you're covered in filth. QED.
The only win is to eschew the game.
You. Are. Awesome. (clink to the tip jar)
ReplyDeleteAhh. I think I get it, Smitty. The very concept of "hate speech" is the problem.
ReplyDeleteI might be on board here. A similar concept is the notion of "assault speech." (When a person gets in your face and speaks threateningly.)
This is a problem for most folks due to the smearing effect on their neurons caused by the whole "hate speech" concept. Bottom line: if you fear for your life, sometimes the best option is to strike first.
Lefties would all have us endure a first strike, allowing only a retaliatory blow, and then only if running away is considered--by a jury of your peers --not to have been an option.
Hate speech is just speech that someone decides they probably hate.