web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro: Chick-fil-A makes a decision most fowl

Westlake Legal Group Chick-Fil-A-cropped Ben Shapiro: Chick-fil-A makes a decision most fowl fox-news/politics fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc Creators Syndicate Ben Shapiro article 90926512-dd71-5272-bb2b-7dd9641dfe8a

This week, Chick-fil-A, the immensely popular Christian-owned chicken sandwich giant, caved to the cultural left. For years, the left targeted Chick-fil-A, dating back to the 2012 revelation that Chairman and CEO Dan Cathy supports traditional marriage — and, horror of horrors, that charities given donations by Chick-fil-A support traditional marriage. This prompted paroxysms of outrage in the media, who quickly demanded that Chick-fil-A toe the Democratic Party line, despite the fact that then-President Barack Obama did not officially endorse same-sex marriage until May 2012.

The rage of the cultural left led to unsuccessful boycotts — Chick-fil-A’s business expanded from $1 billion in 2001 to $5 billion in 2013 to $10.5 billion today — but successful hijackings of local government. When the cultural left can’t achieve what it wants through public mobilization, it simply uses the power of government to blackmail those it dislikes.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

So, despite the fact that Chick-fil-A had never discriminated against gay customers — it would sell a chicken sandwich to anyone — then-Boston Mayor Thomas Menino promised to ban the franchise from the city. Then-Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel quickly followed suit, pledging to support an alderman’s plan to block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant at Chicago O’Hare Airport. San Antonio recently blocked Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant at its airport, and the airport in Buffalo, New York, followed suit. San Jose, California, pledged not to renew Chick-fil-A’s lease when it ran out.

CHICK-FIL-A NO LONGER DONATING TO 2 ORGANIZATIONS ACCUSED OF ANTI-LGBTQ+ VIEWS

Chick-fil-A has continued to receive blowback — and the blowback has widened, helped along by a hostile media. So Chick-fil-A decided to back down and announced publicly that it will no longer donate to traditional Christian charities such as The Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Paul Anderson Youth Home. Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos explained, “as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are.”

If giving to Christian charities now bars you from opening a restaurant at the airport, our culture is beyond the point of no return.

Well, now they’re clear. They’re chickens.

More from Opinion

Our First Amendment culture is endangered when local governments are given the capacity to block businesses from operating, not on the basis of business discrimination but on the viewpoint of the company’s founders alone. That’s precisely what’s happening here. If giving to Christian charities now bars you from opening a restaurant at the airport, our culture is beyond the point of no return.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

But there’s something even more troubling going on here. In a free country, of course, we get to choose which businesses to patronize. But is it good for the culture for us to segregate our business based on examining the politics of those who own our companies? Do we really want a country where we shop based on political affiliation? Where every decision, every day, is rooted in partisanship?

America’s social fabric is already fraying. Politics has invaded everything from education to sports, from movies to fashion. Should politics now determine where we buy a chicken sandwich? A country that punishes restaurants because its founders don’t openly celebrate same-sex marriage is a country destined to bifurcate. And that’s pretty fowl.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BEN SHAPIRO

Westlake Legal Group Chick-Fil-A-cropped Ben Shapiro: Chick-fil-A makes a decision most fowl fox-news/politics fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc Creators Syndicate Ben Shapiro article 90926512-dd71-5272-bb2b-7dd9641dfe8a   Westlake Legal Group Chick-Fil-A-cropped Ben Shapiro: Chick-fil-A makes a decision most fowl fox-news/politics fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc Creators Syndicate Ben Shapiro article 90926512-dd71-5272-bb2b-7dd9641dfe8a

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics

Westlake Legal Group neil-degrasse-tyson-ben-shapiro-SCREENSHOT-620x330 Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics Uncategorized transgender The Sexes Sports Science Neil deGrasse Tyson healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Ben Shapiro athletics

[Screenshot from The Daily Wire, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=287&v=Z3yyOL2cCLI]

 

As reported by The Daily Wire, on this week’s episode of The Ben Shapiro Show: Sunday Special — that’s Nazi troll Ben Shapiro, by the way, who, according to a doctor, should be placed in a straitjacket (here) — astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson stopped by. I guess that would be, then, Nazi supporter Neil.

And the fan of the Führer had stuff to say about his latest book, in addition to offering a word or two on transgender sports.

Ben posed the following:

“Moving on from climate change, which is an area — as I said — where some people on the Right are not particularly interested, to areas where it seems like the Left is militating against the advent of science. One of those areas is the area of transgenderism, where the argument…”

Neil pointed out there are “no transgender letters” in his brand new Letters from an Astrophysicist.



Ben went on:

“It’s true — nothing in the book. We’ve strayed now far from the topic of your book. But since I have you here and you’re a science person, I’m going to ask you to science for me a little bit.

“[W[hen it comes to transgenderism, the argument that is typically made by gender theorists is that gender is entirely separate from sex. You’ve seen the argument made that it makes no difference, on average, if men are stronger than women are — that if we were to allow transgender women to compete with non-transgender women, then this would somehow not disadvantage biological women. This seems to me absolutely a-scientific, that if we’re actually gonna have a discussion about gender and sex, that [discussion] should be based in data, which suggests that mammals are in fact binary in terms of their sex, unless you have intersex birth defects typically, or genetic defects.”

Neil was happy as a pig in slop. Or something like that:

“I’m happy to opine on this. … So there’s the matrix of what you are biologically, how you express yourself, who you choose as a sexual partner. If we actually live in a free country as we tell ourselves, people’s freedom to behave in any of those ways should not concern you at all. Nor are they requiring that you behave that way. Okay, this is for their own freedoms because we live in a free country.”

The space man thinks maybe athletics should be parted based on hormones rather than sex.

Take it away, Tyson:

“Now, what is unresolved here is, what do you do with sports? It’s unresolved, and I’ve followed that closely. And I don’t see any — I don’t see any meaningful solutions to come down off of that. We know that hormones manifest differently in different people, and — that’s the whole thing with steroids, steroids are hormones — we rallied against steroids in professional sports because it gives you an undue advantage. So, I try to think of what the future of sports would be in the world of a gender spectrum, and it may be, you don’t specify whether it’s a male or female sport. You just take measurements of what your hormonal balances are, and so you compete based on your hormones. It’s a thought I had, I don’t know where it’s going to land.”

Ben wanted to talk tykes:

“So, you talk in your book about the education of children and teaching children about science. Right now, children are being taught about the quote-unquote ‘gender spectrum,’ which is not scientifically based. That is a theory-based idea.”

Neil for the block:

“No, wait, wait, wait, hold on. People express themselves on a spectrum, so you learn that.”

Ben asserted that’s an expression, not something related to science.

The older dude between the two dudes was interested in a different kind of fact.

Do it, deGrasse:

“So, whether the fact that people want to express themselves on a spectrum, on a gender spectrum, whether that fact is something you want to put in a sociology class or in a science class, maybe that remains to be determined. But it is a real fact about real society.”

But splitting men and women according to hormones is not, according to Neil fan Joe Rogan, a way to go about it (here).

The reason: Those hormones are coursing through a body —big, tall, wide-spanned one, in the case of a man. And that man has male hips. And male bones. And all that brick and mortar was transformed by male puberty.

The difference is so great, as Joe’s stated, that an untrained male’s reaction times are superior even to a professionally-trained female’s.

Neil is certainly right, of course — people do absolutely have the freedom to identify how they wish.

And despite the fact that expression doesn’t affect physical reality, the two are being merged right quickly — consider a medical form from a California doctor’s office. The document asks new patients their gender — Male of Female.

Then we seal our masks and point our fins toward the surface:

Which best describes the patient:

  • Identifies as a Male
  • Identifies as a Female
  • Female-to-Male
  • Male-to-Female
  • Genderqueer neither exclusively male nor female
  • Additional gender category or other, please specify
  • Choose not to disclose

If the patient is taking hormones, that is — of course — important to know, as symptoms from the intake or blood work results will be interpreted accordingly. But what’s the relevance of a patient declaring their “additional gender category” of identity, when medicine — like athletics — only concerns itself with biology?

If I’m my own original, never-before-having-existed gender, “@!#?@!” — named after Q*bert’s cuss word (and I believe the Q Man might also have his own gender thing going on) — how does the doctor differently care for my arm? Or my more difference-making parts? Is there a @!#?@! prostate check? Or a special mammogram? @!#?@!, both of those hurt.

But what do I know? I’m just someone eating a turkey and swiss omelet paired with high-pulp OJ.

Someone better traveled — Chelsea Clinton — knows differently than I, as she recently dished:

Chelsea also expressed delight at the National Health Service’s new policy of assigning single-sex wards according to gender identity rather than biology (here):

“How can you treat someone if you don’t recognize who they feel and know in their core they are?”

So take it from her — she’s the First Daughter. Or Son.

Or @!#?@!.

However she wants to identify.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: herehere, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Women In Vancouver Lose Their Businesses As A Man Tries To Legally Force Them Into Waxing His LadyScrotum

She Just ‘Woke’ Up: Hillary Compares Staying In Her Marriage To Affirming A Transgender Child. Clinton 2020?

A Tribunal Rules Against A Christian Doctor Refusing To Use Transgender Pronouns – It’s ‘Incompatible With Human Dignity’

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group neil-degrasse-tyson-ben-shapiro-SCREENSHOT-300x160 Neil deGrasse Tyson Tells Ben Shapiro What He Thinks Should be Done with Transgender Athletics Uncategorized transgender The Sexes Sports Science Neil deGrasse Tyson healthcare Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Ben Shapiro athletics   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ideological Pandemonium Breaks Out as Ben ‘Nazi’ Shapiro Prepares to Speak at Stanford, and I Have Questions

Westlake Legal Group ben-shapiro-turning-point-AP-620x317 Ideological Pandemonium Breaks Out as Ben ‘Nazi’ Shapiro Prepares to Speak at Stanford, and I Have Questions Uncategorized religion Politics LGBT Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story eugene gu eli valley Education democrats Culture & Faith Culture Conservatives Cartoons Ben Shapiro anti-semitism Allow Media Exception

Controversial conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of the Daily Wire and former editor-at-large of Breitbart News, addresses the student group Young Americans for Freedom at the University of Utah’s Social and Behavioral Sciences Lecture Hall, Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2017. Shapiro uses his web-based talk show and online columns to support President Donald Trump’s policies and criticize the “self-righteous media.” (Leah Hogsten/The Salt Lake Tribune via AP, Pool)

 

 

If you’ve watched much of Ben Shapiro’s podcasts, you’re sure to have walked away with some characterizations — “fast talker” being among the possibilities.

One not likely to make your Top 10: Nazi.

Yet, in a world with more information at our fingertips than ever before, there are young people protesting his appearances with signs and language that make obvious they’ve not thought to find out who or what he actually is — they just heard some Satan guy was comin’, and they were down for some outrage.

If I may…

Unsolicited advice to protestors, in general: Only protest things you know about.

Better.

They’ve got plenty of time to put that into practice ahead of Ben’s speech at Stanford University — he’ll be talking fast in a big room on November 7th.

Some people are already decrying the event, including cartoonist Eli Valley, who believes Jewish Ben is Jewish hater (?) Ben (?).

Let’s look, for a moment, at some defining characteristics of Nazis:

  • Anti-Jew
  • Opposed to an armed citizenry
  • Socialist
  • Fond of banning things which don’t adhere to a particular viewpoint

Moving on, here’s Eli’s new ‘toon:

So college Republicans (AKA Hitler Youth) = hate group.

And hate group = opposing Jewish people.

But Eli Valley ≠ opposing Jewish person Ben being able to show up and speak somewhere.

It’s hard to imagine the Hitler Youth inviting a man with a yarmulke to school them on how to be smart.

It seems to me we’re at a place in society where a whole lot of things are said just because they seem like they’d sound good to say.

Don’t like someone? Call ’em a Nazi — those guys are supposed to be jerks. Think someone’s got wrong ideas? Label ’em a fascist ’cause you heard that’s bad. Then black their eye and ignite their car.

Hate who won the election? Say they’re ending the system of democracy forever and ever amen (here, here, and lots of other places, too). Impeach!

But in Eli’s defense, he did take time to explain why the YAF should be wearing Michael Jordan mustaches:

You’re right, Arsenio.

Sorry — here we go:

And they’re not just Nazis; they’re also terrorists:

“They should’ve been thrown off campus” — I’m not in any way suggesting Eli’s of the Third Reich persuasion, but isn’t that kind of a Nazi thing to say?



Another guy speaking out against Ben being allowed to talk on campus is Dr. Eugene Gu, who believes the prodigious violinist (here playing “Schindler’s List”) should be straitjacketed:

If you aren’t familiar with the reference, here’s Beto’s expressed plan to pull tax exemption from any institution which doesn’t endorse gay marriage, followed by Ben’s response:

Eugene’s absolutely anti-Ben-speaking because Shapiro has “zero…critical thinking skills”:

This was the doctor in July:

This is where I end the article abruptly like a bad SNL sketch, because I believe there’s nothing left to say. And I think it’s your turn — I look forward to hearing your thoughts on all this. Was Ben’s gun message wrong? Can you make sense of Eli’s Nazi deduction? Are you familiar with the propagandistic weekly German tabloid-format newspaper, Der Stürmer, or to what incident the cartoonish refers? Are you a man who’s had an abortion? Was Michael Jordan insane? Let us all know, in the Comments section.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

University Of Kansas Apologizes For Launching Its Family-Friendly Basketball Season With Stripper Poles And An R-Rated Rap Star

Where We Are: Gen Z Vegan Claims Sausage Roll Has Left Her ‘Traumatized For Life’ And Possibly Cancer-Stricken

New Video Shows Male Track Runners Absolutely Blow Away A Woman At The World Athletic Championships

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Ideological Pandemonium Breaks Out as Ben ‘Nazi’ Shapiro Prepares to Speak at Stanford, and I Have Questions appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ben-shapiro-turning-point-AP-300x153 Ideological Pandemonium Breaks Out as Ben ‘Nazi’ Shapiro Prepares to Speak at Stanford, and I Have Questions Uncategorized religion Politics LGBT Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story eugene gu eli valley Education democrats Culture & Faith Culture Conservatives Cartoons Ben Shapiro anti-semitism Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ben Shapiro: China vs. the NBA – League’s social activism has a price (and now we know what it is)

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6093447599001_6093445120001-vs Ben Shapiro: China vs. the NBA – League's social activism has a price (and now we know what it is) fox-news/world/world-regions/hong-kong fox-news/world/world-regions/china fox-news/sports fox-news/politics/elections/first-amendment fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc Creators Syndicate Ben Shapiro article ab3fd4a8-6f40-5ce8-93b4-98f5f610fbd8

In recent years, the NBA has become famously political. During the heyday of the Black Lives Matter movement, the NBA permitted players to wear slogan-printed T-shirts in support, and stars like LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul spoke out loudly on the issue.

The Sacramento Kings actually announced a partnership with the local branch of the movement. And NBA players have had little problem denouncing President Trump, whom James called a “bum.”

In 2017, Commissioner Adam Silver actually tried to blackmail the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, by pulling the All-Star Game, all in an attempt to restore the so-called “bathroom bill” for transgender people.

The NBA has reaped the benefit from its benevolent attitude toward left-leaning social activism, too. Silver, like former Commissioner David Stern before him, has been praised ad infinitum by the press, compared favorably to that alleged corporate hobgoblin Roger Goodell of the NFL.

Silver told CNN just last year that “part of being an NBA player” is social activism and a “sense of an obligation, social responsibility, a desire to speak up directly about issues that are important.” Silver stated the league wants players to “be multi-dimensional people and fully participate as citizens.” He specifically explained that the league had a role in ensuring that the situation remains “safe” for players afraid of suffering career blowback.

Then the NBA came up against its own corporate interests.

And the NBA caved.

Late last week, Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey tweeted an eminently uncontroversial statement: “Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong.” That’s about as milquetoast a statement about Hong Kong as it’s possible to make. But that didn’t matter to the Chinese government, which immediately stated that it would cut relations with the NBA and the Rockets in particular.

Speculation quickly ran rampant that Morey might lose his job. Morey was forced to delete his tweet and walk it back: “I did not intend my tweet to cause any offense to Rockets fans and friends of mine in China. I was merely voicing one thought, based on one interpretation, of one complicated event. I have had a lot of opportunity since that tweet to hear and consider other perspectives.” James Harden, star of the team, tweeted, “We apologize. We love China. We love playing there.” Silver’s NBA put out an apology in Chinese saying (as translated), “We are extremely disappointed in the inappropriate comment by the general manager of the Houston Rockets.”

More from Opinion

So, what happened to all of that corporate do-gooderism? It simply disappeared upon contact with reality. That’s the sad truth of corporate politics: If it takes kowtowing to the Chinese communist government to earn a quick dollar, corporations will do it. Ask Google. Or Hollywood studios. Or the NBA.

All of which gives the lie to the bizarre notion that corporations are handmaidens for capitalist exploitation. They’re not. They simply follow dollars. If they can grab those dollars through cronyism with governments, they will. In fact, that’s easier than retaining a competitive advantage in a free and open marketplace.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

There’s another, more important point at stake. When corporations virtue signal to the left, they’re doing so for the same reason the NBA just bowed to China: dollars.

The NBA understands that American leftists are far more censorious than conservatives — and that means that openly pandering to the American left earns product loyalty from that political contingent, without serious consequences from American conservatives. It’s not about pure principle for Adam Silver and company — or for any other newly woke corporations discovering their inner social activists. It’s about the green. It always is.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM BEN SHAPIRO       

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6093447599001_6093445120001-vs Ben Shapiro: China vs. the NBA – League's social activism has a price (and now we know what it is) fox-news/world/world-regions/hong-kong fox-news/world/world-regions/china fox-news/sports fox-news/politics/elections/first-amendment fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc Creators Syndicate Ben Shapiro article ab3fd4a8-6f40-5ce8-93b4-98f5f610fbd8   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6093447599001_6093445120001-vs Ben Shapiro: China vs. the NBA – League's social activism has a price (and now we know what it is) fox-news/world/world-regions/hong-kong fox-news/world/world-regions/china fox-news/sports fox-news/politics/elections/first-amendment fox-news/opinion fnc/opinion fnc Creators Syndicate Ben Shapiro article ab3fd4a8-6f40-5ce8-93b4-98f5f610fbd8

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Enough to Make the Woke Wet Themselves: Hollywood’s Joe Rogan Rules the Gun Range in an Awesome New Video

Westlake Legal Group joe-rogan-gun-range-SCREENSHOT-620x363 Enough to Make the Woke Wet Themselves: Hollywood’s Joe Rogan Rules the Gun Range in an Awesome New Video Uncategorized the joe rogan experience taran tactical Podcasting Joe Rogan Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats Culture civility Ben Shapiro Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment

[Screenshot from Taran Tactical, https://twitter.com/TaranTactical/status/1179837679095013376?]

 

I like Joe Rogan.

Why? Two reasons:

  • He’s interested in ideas.
  • His show provides a constant reminder that people can get outside their bubble and spend civil time with those with whom they disagree.

Not long ago, I wouldn’t have heralded the critical nature of #2 — it’s a notion which should go without saying. But presently, there are a whole lot of people who appear to never have heard of it.

If you can take some unfiltered language, I highly recommend Joe’s podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. The actor/comedian/mixed martial artist/TV host/UFC commentator truly has an open mind, and he gives voice to liberals and conservatives alike.

His guests have run the gamut from Jay Leno to Neil deGrasse Tyson to Jesse Ventura to Mel Gibson to Steven Tyler to Ben Shapiro.

JRE is a reflection of a man with many interests, and one of them is government.

On the program, the cannabis advocate routinely makes clear he’s got a liberal streak or two.

But an area in which he ain’t no dainty snowflake is firearms.

Constantly, I’m stunned to see politicians and others make radical public statements about guns while appearing to have never spent even 2 minutes finding out what they are (here).

Well move over, novices — a recent video posted to Twitter indicates there’s one Hollywood hunk (literally) who knows how to handle his hand cannon.

Taran Tactical recently welcomed Rogan to their firing range.

And here he is, shootin’ em off in a way that’d make some of the world’s most woke fill their $200 jeans.

Do you watch the podcast? If so, what are some of your favorite episodes? A couple of mine are those featuring David Goggins and Jordan Peterson.

Oh — and if you’re not impressed by Joe’s gun handling, you may not wanna tell him; he can also do this:



-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

The Far Left’s Worse Nightmare: A Study Reveals A Huge Increase In Americans Carrying Guns

Beto Jedi Knights His Way Toward Victory: Tremendous Condemnation Over Gun Confiscation Only Proves He’s ‘Doing Something Right’

Tucker Apologizes For The Stupidity Of His Guest’s Gun Control Argument, Says It May Be His Last Gun Debate

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. 

The post Enough to Make the Woke Wet Themselves: Hollywood’s Joe Rogan Rules the Gun Range in an Awesome New Video appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group joe-rogan-gun-range-SCREENSHOT-300x176 Enough to Make the Woke Wet Themselves: Hollywood’s Joe Rogan Rules the Gun Range in an Awesome New Video Uncategorized the joe rogan experience taran tactical Podcasting Joe Rogan Guns gun control Front Page Stories Featured Story Entertainment democrats Culture civility Ben Shapiro Allow Media Exception 2nd Amendment   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Activists at Boston University Demand Ben Shapiro be Banned from Speaking – Hate Speech is ‘Not Free Speech’

Westlake Legal Group ben-shapiro-california-legislature-620x317 Activists at Boston University Demand Ben Shapiro be Banned from Speaking – Hate Speech is ‘Not Free Speech’ Uncategorized Sexism racism Race Politics Nazis misogyny homosexuality hate speech Front Page Stories Free Speech First Amendment Education Culture Boston University Ben Shapiro Allow Media Exception

FILE – In this Oct. 3, 2017 photo, conservative writer Ben Shapiro speaks during the first of several legislative hearings planned to discuss balancing free speech and public safety in Sacramento, Calif. A University of Connecticut Republican student group has invited Shapiro to speak on Jan. 24, 2018, on campus in Storrs, Conn. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)

 

 

If I had to point to a single malady that’s destroying the world, it would be narcissism. That manifests itself in too many ways to list here, but if I drew a picture of the earth, it’d be holding a selfie stick.

If I was forced to list a #2, I’d certainly go with ignorance. But, perhaps, my 2nd place is subsumed by the 1st. Perhaps it takes a lot of empowerment to rage against things about which one forgot to first learn.

We live in an era where people will hit the local CVS, drop thirty clams on sharpies and poster board, and spend an entire day screaming at the powers that bedevil — all the while, literally not knowing the definitions of the words on their signs and tongues.

“We forgot to find out what we’re yelling about.”

Oops.

Generally, that wouldn’t have happened in the 80’s.

And the cultural shift is more than a smidge less than Totally Awesome.

But here we are, at a time when activists at Boston University have launched a petition to ban conservative talk show host and author Ben Shapiro from speaking at an upcoming event.

That would be, the Ben Shapiro who’s Jewish and has been shouted down by CVS fans as a Nazi as he sports a yarmulke.

The petition, in an ode to the selfie stick, labels Ben a “racist hatemonger.” It’s received 1,248 signatures so far.

Also in motion: as reported by The Daily Wire, the college’s efforts to reduce the event by half and make sponsor Young America’s Foundation pony up the security fees required to fight the CVS people.

Yea, lo, and other Biblical words that apply:

As Young America’s Foundation’s Kara Zupkus reports, the petition labels Shapiro a “notorious racist and misogynist” and condemns the university for allowing the mainstream conservative to voice his opinions on its campus. The petition paints the university’s free speech-suppressing move to dramatically reduce the audience size of the event and burden YAF with unreasonable security fees as simply a self-serving effort to protect the university’s “image” in light of progressive outrage over allowing conservatives to speak on campus.

Here are some pieces of the petition, as found at Change.org:

Ben Shapiro is a far-right ideologue who has made a litany of bigoted, hateful, false, and inflammatory remarks. From 2012 to 2016, he was Editor-at-large of Brietbart magazine, where he worked closely with Steve Bannon to promote the spread of far-right and openly fascist ideas. He left Brietbart in 2016 and began touring college campuses to promote his bigoted worldview.

Incidentally, if you ever want to hear someone talk extremely unfondly of another, check out Ben’s opinions of Bannon.

More from the protestors:

Shapiro is a major racist and Islamophobe, as well as an apologist for war crimes committed by the United States and its allies.

Shapiro has openly called for mass ethnic cleansing. Most notably, he supports the forcible removal of the Palestinian people from Israel and the Palestinian Territories. For example he wrote, “If you believe that the Jewish state has a right to exist, then you must allow Israel to transfer the Palestinians and the Israeli-Arabs from Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Israel proper.” The forcible transfer of an occupied population is defined by the Geneva convention as a war crime and a crime against humanity according to the International Criminal Court, because it entails mass violence against a whole people. Shapiro’s comments are open support for genocide, and clearly constitute a form of hate speech.

Openly called for ethnic cleansing?

Hate speech? What about free speech? They’ll tell ya:

The fact that Boston University is willing to give a platform to Shapiro is absolutely disgusting and should be condemned by all students and progressive people. This is not “free speech” or a “free debate of ideas.” Shapiro denies the existence of transgender people, he wants to deny women the right to make decisions over their own bodies, and he has openly advocated for genocide and war crimes. These are all forms of hate speech. Shapiro is a racist, far-right zealot who’s aim is to incite hatred and bigotry on our campus and in the larger society. If Boston University truly cares about being a diverse campus; if they truly care about being a welcoming campus to women, queer people, and non-white people, then they should immediately uninvite Ben Shapiro. If they refuse to do so, then the University is unquestionably providing Shapiro with a platform to spew hate-speech as well as incite violence and discrimination against marginalized sections of BU community.

In addition, he’s this stuff:

Shapiro is also a misogynist, homophobe, and transphobe. He supports the banning and criminalization of abortions even in cases of incest and rape.[4] These arguments deny people the right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies. They perpetuate patriarchy and social, political, and economic inequality for women and LGBTQ+ people. Shapiro has also promoted a slew of homophobic and transphobic statements. He opposed the Supreme Court ruling which overturned the ban on same-sex marriages[5], claimed that gay and lesbian couples were unfit to raise children, and more. Furthermore, he has repeatedly denied the existence of transgender people, saying that being transgender is simply a “mental illness.”[6] It was not so long ago in this country that homosexuality was treated in the same fashion, and these statements serve to perpetuate discrimination and oppression against transgender people. Again, these remarks are not a form of Shapiro “exercising his right to free speech” but rather constitute a form of discriminatory hate-speech aimed at discrediting and disenfranchising whole sections of the population.

In the case of the petitioners, they did in fact get some things right. And it sounds as if “free speech” means the freedom to say things with which they agree.

Also, in fairness, they do reference an article Ben wrote in 2002. And it’s unsurprising that it would’ve been controversial if not hated. In 17 years, might his perspective have changed? At the time, he was 19.

Some people at Boston University don’t want to find out:

We Demand that Boston University refuse to allow Ben Shapiro to speak on campus, and we call on all progressive students and community members to take a stand against BU’s decision to provide a platform Ben Shapiro and his hate speech.

One commenter at Change.org observed, “This event poses a danger to BU’s queer and trans community, and the Dean of Students office taking strides to help support it reflects broader cultural problems failed to be addressed institutionally. Shame on everyone involved with the execution of this event.”

-ALEX

 

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Activists at Boston University Demand Ben Shapiro be Banned from Speaking – Hate Speech is ‘Not Free Speech’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ben-shapiro-california-legislature-300x153 Activists at Boston University Demand Ben Shapiro be Banned from Speaking – Hate Speech is ‘Not Free Speech’ Uncategorized Sexism racism Race Politics Nazis misogyny homosexuality hate speech Front Page Stories Free Speech First Amendment Education Culture Boston University Ben Shapiro Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative

Westlake Legal Group a8636803-f428-4e76-ab5b-b516cf1d9e5e-620x317 Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative Whistle-Blower Report Ukraine Trump True Conservatives Politics phone call No Quid Pro Quo military aid Major Revelation Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats bombshell Ben Shapiro

Yesterday afternoon, a major tidbit in the Trump-Ukraine story dropped. Namely, that the Ukrainian government, at the time of the phone call with President Trump, didn’t even know anything about military aid being held up. We’ll get to that in a second, but first some background.

This detail is the key factor in everything. The idea is that Ukraine knew aid was being held up and that Trump was pressuring them with the understanding that they better help him. That is the entire basis for this “scandal.” It forms the supposition that even though there was no explicit quid pro quo, that “come on, of course we know what Trump and Ukraine meant!”

In fact, that supposition formed the groundwork for a lot of “true conservatives” to rush to Twitter and suggest or support impeachment of Trump, complete with snarky tweets about how crazy it is to not see a quid pro quo in the call.

Well, this latest news blows that up to a large extent.

Why is this important? Because you can’t have an unsaid quid pro quo if the other party isn’t even aware of the quid. It’s illogical. For Ukraine to be winking and nodding about getting aid, and for Trump to be pressuring them over the aid, the cardinal bit of knowledge for everyone would have to be that the aid was temporarily held up.

This entire thing is ridiculous on its face. The idea that we’d impeach a President based on pure assumption of what a foreign country may have interpreted never made sense. Now that we find out they didn’t even know anything? What’s left? That Trump was holding his foreign phone calls on a more secure government server? Good luck with that line when the genesis for the setup was two majors leaks of calls with Mexico and Australia.

Once again, a lot of conservatives at certain outlets got way out over their skis. I get they don’t like Trump and see every “scandal” as hope they’ll get Pence and a fresh election in 2020, but how many times does this get to happen before it’s acceptable to acknowledge their game? And to be clear, I’m not talking about Ben Shapiro, quoted above, who actually took a wait and see approach on this from beginning. A lot of anti-Trump conservatives could learn from that tact. You don’t have to rush to buy every left-wing premise the moment it drops. Donald Trump is not getting impeached and he will be the nominee in 2020. Deal with it.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

 

The post Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group facepalm-bear-300x157 Despite Rampant Speculation of an Unsaid Quid Pro Quo, Evidence Drops That Blows Up That Narrative Whistle-Blower Report Ukraine Trump True Conservatives Politics phone call No Quid Pro Quo military aid Major Revelation Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story donald trump democrats bombshell Ben Shapiro   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

We’re All Hitler Now

Westlake Legal Group Untitled-13 We’re All Hitler Now the washington post right wing Politics media bias Illiberlism Hitler Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Donna Zuckerberg democrats debate Dave Rubin Crazy Censorship Ben Shapiro

If you believe in using reason and debate to arrive at sound conclusions, congrats, you are now basically Hitler.

That’s the the logic being applied by a series of recent spate of op-eds over at The Washington Post. The line of thinking goes something like this. Hitler ate steak. You eat steak. Therefore, you are obviously Hitler. Makes sense, right?

My colleague streiff covered one of these articles a few days ago, which sought to connect those who argue with logic and facts to the slave owners of the Antebellum South.

Here’s another excerpt from the article itself to give you an idea of how specious the reasoning is. Dang it, there I go citing reason again, which obviously makes me a fascist.

These are figures who typically dislike President Trump but often say they’re being pushed rightward — sometimes away from what they claim is their natural leftward bent — by intolerance and extremism on the left. The reasonable right includes people like Shapiro and the radio commentator Dave Rubin; legal scholar Amy Wax and Jordan Peterson, the Canadian academic who warns about identity politics; the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt; the New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and the American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, self-described feminists who decry excesses in the feminist movement; the novelist Bret Easton Ellis and the podcaster Sam Harris, who believe that important subjects have needlessly been excluded from political discussions. They present their concerns as, principally, freedom of speech and diversity of thought. Weiss has called them “renegade” ideological explorers who venture into “dangerous” territory despite the “outrage and derision” directed their way by haughty social gatekeepers.

The reasonable right’s rhetoric is exactly the same as the antebellum rhetoric I’d read so much of. The same exact words. The same exact arguments. Rhetoric, to be precise, in support of the slave-owning South.

The Washington Post wasn’t done though. Less than a day later, they pushed out another piece, this time asserting that those who seek honest debate are actually just doing what Nazi Germany did.

Excerpts via the Washington Examiner.

“A call to debate may seem intellectual, even civilized,” she continued. “In theory, well-structured and respectful debates are an ideal opportunity to reach an audience that isn’t fixed in its views. In reality, however, most ‘debate me’ types seem to view them mainly as a chance to attack their opponent’s credibility,” Zuckerberg wrote. “Their model is not Lincoln and Douglas, but rather Socrates: By needling their interlocutors with rapid-fire questions, they aim to reveal, as they see it, their opponents’ ignorance and stupidity, and their own superior intelligence and logic.”

Oh crap, Socrates is cancelled.

Keep in mind that the Socratic method forms a major cornerstone of Western civilization’s ability to think critically. Dang, I did again. Citing Western civilization also makes you a Nazi according to these people. Anyway, check out this passage.

“Platonic texts show Socrates pulling any number of Athenians into debates, and although some are eager to argue with him, others can hardly wait to escape him by the end of the dialogue. Plato’s ‘Euthyphro’ concludes with Euthyphro insisting that he has to leave, while Socrates calls after him, complaining that they haven’t yet figured out the nature of piety. Many of the dialogues end when the interlocutor has been bludgeoned into submission and seems to find it easier to agree with Socrates than continue further — every ‘debate me’ man’s dream.”

Wait, are you telling me that when facts, reason, and logic are on your side, you tend to win arguments? Shocking stuff. This author finds that reprehensible though and decides that those who use such methods are really just Nazis or something.

Zuckerberg later distilled her opinion, writing, “My actual, nuanced argument is that the long enmeshment of the classics and white supremacy, both in Nazi Germany and in the pre-Civil War American South, continues to inform how we understand the ancient Mediterranean, and that progressive classical scholars should discuss that legacy and confront it.”

I don’t find much nuance in that argument. I find it to be overly broad and connective of two things that aren’t actually connected at all.

As I stated at the beginning of the article, it’s the “Hitler did this, you do this, so you are Hitler” argument. Just because bad people sometimes do the same things good people do, it doesn’t make said things inherently negative or evil. Hitler also road in cars and peed in a toilet. Yet, those things aren’t connected to white supremacy. Neither are the classics and the open debate model we’ve learned from them, which themselves have nothing to do with pushing racial superiority.

In fact, such means of reasoning have led mankind to a much more humane, healthy place than previous centuries. It’s through reason (and religious principles) that we were able to move toward equality and away from discrimination in the first place. The ancient world, which was rife with brutality and slavery lacked the very things this author now decries. Socrates was not an evil bully. He was someone who valued critical thinking and mental stimulation, things that have undoubtedly made the world a better place. As we’ve learned through various failings throughout history, relying on emotion to set policy and dictate social norms has created disastrous results. It’s how you ended up with people arguing that other human beings weren’t actually human beings. Logic and reason is what destroys such arguments. It doesn’t propagate them.

But you can see the wider goal of this author’s ideology. It’s essentially to buttress her illiberal notions, painting the very things that allow us to debate logically as evil, thereby asserting that any disagreement at all with her worldview is itself evil.

This is ridiculous stuff, but it’s also dangerous stuff that’s gaining a following. It leads to a place where facts no longer matter and there’s no foundational consensus undergirding our society. When that’s gone, we are simply at the whim of whoever can convince enough people their way is the “right” way. Appeals to logic and reason are simply ignored.

I would think mainstream press outlets like the Post would choose not to push nonsense like this given it contradicts with their stated respect of fact. I guess not.

In the end, one would hope people like this author will simply alienate enough people so as to have no power to implement what they seek. Sometimes I wonder if we are really winning this battle though.

————————————————

Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.

I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.

The post We’re All Hitler Now appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group adolf-hitler-390796_1280-300x199 We’re All Hitler Now the washington post right wing Politics media bias Illiberlism Hitler Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Donna Zuckerberg democrats debate Dave Rubin Crazy Censorship Ben Shapiro   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Washington Post: These ‘reasonable conservatives’ sound just like southern racists

Westlake Legal Group washingtonpost Washington Post: These ‘reasonable conservatives’ sound just like southern racists Washington Post The Blog Ben Shapiro Bari Weiss

Earlier this week the Washinton Post published a piece which falsely claimed that author JD Vance was publicly promoting white supremacy. The Post eventually removed the offending lines and added a correction to that piece, but it doesn’t seem as if they learned much from the experience. Today the Post published a piece by another author whose thesis is that “reasonable conservatives” (she offers a whole list) sound like racists from the 19th century.

I grew up in a conservative family. The people I talk to most frequently, the people I call when I need help, are conservative. I’m not inclined to paint conservatives as thoughtless bigots. But a few years ago, listening to the voices and arguments of commentators like Shapiro, I began to feel a very specific deja vu I couldn’t initially identify. It felt as if the arguments I was reading were eerily familiar. I found myself Googling lines from articles, especially when I read the rhetoric of a group of people we could call the “reasonable right.”…

The reasonable right includes people like Shapiro and the radio commentator Dave Rubin; legal scholar Amy Wax and Jordan Peterson, the Canadian academic who warns about identity politics; the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt; the New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and the American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, self-described feminists who decry excesses in the feminist movement; the novelist Bret Easton Ellis and the podcaster Sam Harris, who believe that important subjects have needlessly been excluded from political discussions. They present their concerns as, principally, freedom of speech and diversity of thought. Weiss has called them “renegade” ideological explorers who venture into “dangerous” territory despite the “outrage and derision” directed their way by haughty social gatekeepers.

So it felt frustrating: When I read Weiss, when I listened to Shapiro, when I watched Peterson or read the supposedly heterodox online magazine Quillette, what was I reminded of?

The answer according to the author is racists. But at this point, it should be obvious the game we’re playing here. It’s like the old joke about Hitler comparison, i.e. you know who else was a vegetarian?  Some samples:

In Bari Weiss — who asserts that “the boundaries of public discourse have become so proscribed as to make impossible frank discussions of anything remotely controversial” and that “perfectly reasonable intellectuals [are] being regularly mislabeled … with every career-ending epithet” — I hear Josiah Nott: “Scientific men who have been bold enough to speak truth … have been persecuted.”

In Ben Shapiro — who ascribes right-wing anger to unwise left-wing provocation (“How do you think people are going to react?”) — I hear a letter printed in the Charleston Mercury, which warned that “if the mad career of the hot headed abolitionists should lead to acts of violence on the part of those whom they so vindictively assail, who shall be accountable? … Not the South.”

By her own admission, all the author is doing here is cherry-picking quotes from a few conservatives and then also cherry-picking quotes from 19th-century racists to try to create some kind of guilt by rhetorical association. This doesn’t work for the same reason that comparing vegetarians to Hitler doesn’t really shame vegetarians. Simply put, vegetarians aren’t responsible for the systematic murder of millions of Jews, regardless of what Hitler ate. Also, and this is important, vegetarianism doesn’t make people into murdering psychopaths.

The same applies to this silly effort to smear conservatives. The reason we dislike 19th-century racists isn’t because of their rhetoric, it’s because they were slave owners and defenders of slavery. Unless Weiss and Shapiro are also slave owners or defenders of slavery then the comparison doesn’t hold.

As for the specifics, believing that public discourse is proscribed doesn’t make you a racist. There are many on the far left who believe “corporate media” limits the acceptance and discussion of socialism and other progressive ideas.

The old business model of commercial television, radio, and newspapers called for appealing to the largest audience, which dictated offering news and commentary that spoke to as broad a spectrum as possible. Thus, mainstream news outlets developed a habit of hewing close to the ideological center—or, more precisely, what they perceived as the ideological center. Like Goldilocks’s porridge, their coverage would be not too liberal, not too conservative, but just right.

That’s from the Nation. As much as I may disagree with them, those people aren’t racists for making a claim about the limits of public discourse. But I guess if you cherry-pick carefully enough, you might be able to write a piece for the Post claiming they are.

The post Washington Post: These ‘reasonable conservatives’ sound just like southern racists appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group washingtonpost-300x159 Washington Post: These ‘reasonable conservatives’ sound just like southern racists Washington Post The Blog Ben Shapiro Bari Weiss   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

If You Want Civility You Just Might Be a Neo-Confederate and Because of That the Left Really Does Want You Dead

Westlake Legal Group ap-confederate-statue-620x423 If You Want Civility You Just Might Be a Neo-Confederate and Because of That the Left Really Does Want You Dead Washington Post republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story eve fairbanks douchebaggery democrats civility Ben Shapiro Bari Weiss Allow Media Exception

This Wednesday, June 28, 2017, shows the statue of Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Va. As cities across the United States are removing Confederate statues and other symbols, dispensing with what some see as offensive artifacts of a shameful past marked by racism and slavery, Richmond is taking a go-slow approach. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

The opinion pages of the nation’s major newspapers never cease to disappoint. Just a couple of weeks ago, the New York Times announced that it has suddenly discovered that everything to do with everything in American history was a direct result of slavery. Now some twit writing at the Washington Post reveals that the whole call for civility by people on the right triggers her because it is exactly like the rhetoric of defenders of slavery in the antebellum South. (For the record, I’ve never before heard of this “Eve Fairbanks” creature and the more I learn of her the less impressed I am.)

So, kiddies, buckle up and get ready for a trip as wild as any involving ‘shrooms or LSC that that ever left you tasting the color yellow and smelling loud sounds. Periodically, I’m going to insert trenchat tweets from Grant Addison, deputy editor at the Washington Examiner, whose tweets alerted me to the masterpiece.

I grew up in a conservative family. The people I talk to most frequently, the people I call when I need help, are conservative. I’m not inclined to paint conservatives as thoughtless bigots. But a few years ago, listening to the voices and arguments of commentators like Shapiro, I began to feel a very specific deja vu I couldn’t initially identify. It felt as if the arguments I was reading were eerily familiar. I found myself Googling lines from articles, especially when I read the rhetoric of a group of people we could call the “reasonable right.”

These are figures who typically dislike President Trump but often say they’re being pushed rightward — sometimes away from what they claim is their natural leftward bent — by intolerance and extremism on the left. The reasonable right includes people like Shapiro and the radio commentator Dave Rubin; legal scholar Amy Wax and Jordan Peterson, the Canadian academic who warns about identity politics; the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt; the New York Times columnist Bari Weiss and the American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, self-described feminists who decry excesses in the feminist movement; the novelist Bret Easton Ellis and the podcaster Sam Harris, who believe that important subjects have needlessly been excluded from political discussions. They present their concerns as, principally, freedom of speech and diversity of thought. Weiss has called them “renegade” ideological explorers who venture into “dangerous” territory despite the “outrage and derision” directed their way by haughty social gatekeepers.

So it felt frustrating: When I read Weiss, when I listened to Shapiro, when I watched Peterson or read the supposedly heterodox online magazine Quillette, what was I reminded of?

You guessed it.

The reasonable right’s rhetoric is exactly the same as the antebellum rhetoric I’d read so much of. The same exact words. The same exact arguments. Rhetoric, to be precise, in support of the slave-owning South.

I’m no authority of pre-Civil War rhetoric–and I doubt very much that Fairbanks is either–but from the reading I’ve done I don’t see much in speeches or newspapers of the time, particularly those in the South, asking for civility. Quite to the contrary. But, arguendo, she’s not just blowing smoke, the very fact that she equates a call for civility in a discussion of basic Constitutional rights and our historic philosophy of governance with the defense of slavery shows why only chumps are aiming for civility. There is no need to be civil when you’re confront an irredeemable evil.

If that sounds absurd — Shapiro and his compatriots aren’t defending slavery, after all — it may be because many Americans are unfamiliar with the South’s actual rhetoric. When I was a kid in public school, I learned the arguments of Sen. John C. Calhoun (D-S.C.), who called slavery a “positive good,” and Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy’s vice president, who declared that the South’s ideological “cornerstone” rested “upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man.”

 

I’m going to call bullsh** on this. I went to school in Virginia for 11 of my 12 years. While I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the Holy Trinity was Lee, Jackson, and Stuart, if you can find a dozen Virginia public school students who can name the vice president of the Confederacy and quote him, I’ll kiss your bare butt at high noon at the place of your choosing and I’ll give you an hour to draw a crowd.

They stressed the importance of logic, “facts,” “truth,” “science” and “nature” much more than Northern rhetoricians did. They chided their adversaries for being romantic idealists, ignoring the “experience of centuries.”

They loved hyperbole. Events were “the most extraordinary spectacles” that had “ever challenged the notice of the civilized world,” “too alarming” and threatened “to destroy all that is valuable and beautiful in the institutions of our country.” …

The most important thing to know about them, they held, was that they were not the oppressors. They were the oppressed. They were driven to feelings of isolation and shame purely on the basis of freely held ideas, the right of every thinking man…

Let’s call this particular logic “antebellum reasoning.” Its appeal was that it identified pro-South rhetoricians as the upholders of America’s true heritage: They were, in their own reckoning, dedicated to truth — and persecuted by tyrants…

In Dave Rubin, who says that “if you have any spark of individualism in you, if you have anything about you that’s interesting or different, they” — the left — “will come to destroy that,” I hear the pro-Southern newspaper editor Duff Green: Abolitionists’ intent is “to drive the white man from the South.”

In Bari Weiss — who asserts that “the boundaries of public discourse have become so proscribed as to make impossible frank discussions of anything remotely controversial” and that “perfectly reasonable intellectuals [are] being regularly mislabeled … with every career-ending epithet” — I hear Josiah Nott: “Scientific men who have been bold enough to speak truth … have been persecuted.”

In Ben Shapiro — who ascribes right-wing anger to unwise left-wing provocation (“How do you think people are going to react?”) — I hear a letter printed in the Charleston Mercury, which warned that “if the mad career of the hot headed abolitionists should lead to acts of violence on the part of those whom they so vindictively assail, who shall be accountable? … Not the South.”

 

And to the bottom line

But today I see what Lincoln feared. Nearly daily, I read some new figure appealing to antebellum reasoning. Joining the reasonable right seems to render these figures desirable contributors to center-left media outlets. That’s because, psychologically, the claim to victimhood can function as a veiled threat. It tricks the listener into entering a world where the speaker is the needy one, fragile, requiring the listener to constantly adjust his behavior to cater to the imperiled person.

With this threat, the reasonable right has recruited the left into serving its purpose. Media outlets and college campuses now go to extraordinary lengths to prove their “balance” and tolerance, bending over backward to give platforms to right-wing writers and speakers who already have huge exposure.

In the human body, viruses use the shells of immune cells to trick other cells into letting them in. Principles like freedom and equality have functioned, through time, as the American immune system, warding off sickness. But they can also be co-opted. As they were more than 150 years ago, ideas like freedom of speech, diversity and respect are now being used to turn opponents of conservatism into helpless hosts, transmitting its ideas.

Actually, there is an insight there that we should consider. If you accept that there is literally no difference between, say, arguing that men and women are different and arguing blacks are inferior to whites, of course you will try to ruin careers and shout down the opposition and to have them deplatformed. Where the reasonable conservatives think they are in a debate and debates can only take place in the context of civility and mutual respect, many of us on the right have recognized for several years that this is not the situation and striving for civility is a chump’s game pursued by chumps. Many of us, in fact, completely agree with Kurt Schlichter:

They really do want to be in control of your child’s eduction. They really do want to put off limits a wide variety of viewpoints and make people holding positions with which they disagree social pariahs. You won’t be left in peaces because, as Erick Erickson used to say, You will be made to care. These people really do want you dead. And it makes as much sense to deal with people like that by trying to reason with them as it would with rabid curs. If you want to find common ground with these people, please move over to The Bulwark or National Review so you can wait with an untroubled mind for the cattle cars to come to fetch you. I have other plans.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post If You Want Civility You Just Might Be a Neo-Confederate and Because of That the Left Really Does Want You Dead appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-confederate-statue-300x205 If You Want Civility You Just Might Be a Neo-Confederate and Because of That the Left Really Does Want You Dead Washington Post republicans Politics Front Page Stories Featured Story eve fairbanks douchebaggery democrats civility Ben Shapiro Bari Weiss Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com