Sunday, October 12, 2014
How to write about Free speech
By the very outspoken Gavin McInnes. There's another of his cutting essays here (Scroll down). He's also got a heap of hilarious videos on YouTube. My Favorite: http://youtu.be/loewtvw8i4Q
The trouble with reporting on free speech is it’s not interesting if it’s about the right to have a gay pride parade or criticize George W Bush. Only about 7 people have a problem with those things. The only time there’s nuance is when it’s about something that makes people uncomfortable. Say, pedophiles or the “God Hates Fags” guy or worse, “racial realists.”
James Kirchick over at The Daily Beast wanted to say that preventing “obscure racist” Richard Spencer from meeting like-minded people is wrong no matter how vile their beliefs. Only, even indicating that racists are included in the right to free speech is a career killer so Kirchick used the following 15 techniques for writing about this subject.
1- Put “Gets to play” in the title so it’s clear you think of the racist dude as a child.
“American Racist Richard Spencer Gets to Play the Martyr in Hungary”
-
2- In the subhead call them “obscure” so it’s clear you think they’re irrelevant.
“By banning a conference of relatively obscure racists and jailing and deporting their leader, Budapest has managed to amplify their odious views, not discredit them.”
-
3- Make your hypothesis interrogative so you can say, “I was only asking a question” if you’re forced to apologize.
“Should a country welcome a gathering of American “racial realists,” European far-right activists, Russia’s top nationalist ideologue, and other self-proclaimed “Identitarians” in its capital?”
-
4- Add square brackets and “stuff” to really drive home how silly you think these guys are.
“over the first weekend of October to “share ideas,” “make new [white] friends,” and do other fun white people stuff.”
-
5- Talk about how white their neighborhoods are like you’re from Harlem.
“advocates ‘a White Ethno-State on the American continent.’ Whitefish, Montana, where NPI is based, is apparently not sufficient.”
-
6- Reiterate how much you hate these guys by calling them “rock bottom.”
“You know you’ve hit rock bottom as a professional white nationalist when the guy who made international headlines for standing up in parliament to demand a list of Jews who pose ‘national security risks’ tries to distance himself from you for being too racist.”
-
7- Bring back in that “obscure” from the title and throw in an “odious.”
“Budapest has turned a relatively obscure group of racists into global martyrs for free speech, and in so doing has amplified their odious views, not discredited them.”
-
8- Preface any “intellectual” with “pseudo.”
“not heroic liberal democrats exchanging dangerous thoughts on the latest Václav Havel play but a bunch of racist pseudo-intellectuals.”
-
9- Just to be safe, throw in a “stupid” too.
and treated like a common criminal, though his alleged crime was harboring stupid and bigoted thoughts.
-
10- Repeat it.
“It’s not a crime in Hungary to hold stupid and bigoted thoughts.”
-
11- Make the bad guys not know they are stealing from Jewish intellectuals.
“…this gave the process a certain ‘Kafka-esque quality.),’ Spencer wrote me. Franz Kafka lived in Czechoslovakia and wrote in German, facts one would assume to be pertinent to a self-described ‘Identitarian.’ Kafka was also Jewish.”
-
12- In case everyone’s retarded, just blatantly repeat that you don’t actually like the guy.
“I disagree with Spencer on pretty much everything imaginable, but I concur on this.”
-
13- Then call him a creep.
“I feel at seeing a white nationalist creep experience satisfaction by posing as a martyr to the cause of free speech.”
-
14- If you’ve already used “stupid” and “pseudo-intellectual” add “not particularly intelligent.”
“unencumbered in silencing, arresting, and deporting a trivial and not particularly intelligent man like Richard Spencer”
-
15- One last time, repeat that you don’t agree with him.
“I may loathe what Richard Spencer has to say…”
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
In short, when you can't give sound answers to their arguments, call them names.
Ridicule is not an argument. When I see someone revert to that—especially if it's their first response—I know they've lost the argument. Even worse, they've lost personally by not learning anything.
Luke, when liberal leaning people make a comment here on this blog, they are usually referred to a liberal scum, libturds, brain dead, insane, etc. These names usually go unchallenged by the people here, as this is a conservative leaning blog. When a liberal does the same thing on this blog, they are crucified metaphorically.
So, I presume that you would challenge both liberal and conservative name calling and ridicule equally. Correct?
So, I challenge every commenter, liberal, conservate and in between, to refrain from this behavior. Anybody care to accept this challenge?
Luke is a hypocrite as he frequently calls anyone who dares to disagree with him a troll, so by his own statement he has lost the arguments in question.
Dave Bowman...........Oh please! Every heard of Saul Alinsky, who literally wrote the book on trashing, and trash talking, your opponent. It's really past time for conservatives to get down in the mud and take on the libs using their own methods. When your fellow travelers take the civility pledge I'll consider engaging in polite discourse. Suggest you immediately contact Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Wendy Davis, et al to get the civility ball rolling.
Mark Anon11:46 down for CHALLENGE NOT ACCEPTED.
Terrorists are called terrorists because that is the tactic they use.
Trolls are called trolls because that is the tactic they use.
And Luke uses the tactic of pontificating and obfuscating with prolix quote-mining and biased links.
Post a Comment