Daily Archives: 27 February 2020

Progressive-Democrats’ Tuesday Debate

Posted on by
Reply

Some are calling it rowdy; others say raucous.  There’s this more concrete description, too, from Tony Katz:

Everyone else is talking to each other, yelling at each other, yelling at the moderators, yelling at the guy in the rafters….

And talking over each other, interrupting each other, trying to drown out each other. Recall the 2015-2016 Republican primary debates—they were rowdy, often rude, as participants occasionally interrupted or tried to talk over each other.  Tuesday’s Progressive-Democrat debate was nothing but a constant rolling drumbeat of that.

I have a different take on that debate from “some,” “others,” and Katz.

This debate was a clear and present demonstration of Progressive-Democrats’ view of free speech.  Their interruptions and talkings-over were not occasional, nor were they done in the heat of the moment, for all the zeal of their arguments.

No, their interruptions and talkings-over were demonstrative of their attitude toward the speech of anyone who disagrees with them.  What any particular Progressive-Democrat decides he has to say is the only thing worth hearing.  What others have to say—are already saying—is just too trivial, too unimportant to waste time on; the new speaker will just start talking, and those others should just shut up.

It’s of a piece with one of them insisting that the others should drop out of the primaries altogether and get out of his way.

Tuesday’s verbal melee also was demonstrative of their views of us in the audience and in TV viewer-land.  Progressive-Democrats will tell us what we should hear; they will tell us what we will be permitted to hear. We’re wholly unfit to decide that for ourselves.

And that’s what they’ll inflict on our free speech rights if they gain the White House and the Senate and hold the House. Freedom’s just another word for “Shut up; I’m talking.”

Journalistic Timidity

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the People’s Republic of China expelling three Wall Street Journal journalists over their article headlined China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia that an outside contributor to the WSJ had written.

Here’s the cynicism of the PRC detractors of that headline;

The phrase “sick man of Asia” was used by outsiders and Chinese intellectuals to refer to a weakened China exploited by European powers and Japan in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

What the phrase also harkens back to, and which was the referent used by the WSJ headline writer, was the disaster that was Turkey 100+ years ago: the sick man of Europe.  The phrase also goes to a more recent usage: Germany as the sick man of Europe as its economy was in long-term stagnation during the late middle 20th century.

The complainers’ decision to focus on the one, much older, interpretation while carefully ignoring the newer referents illustrates their own determination to find things by which to be offended so they can deprecate others.

The timidity comes from the WSJ‘s own journalists.

Some Journal staffers have signed an internal letter calling on the newspaper to apologize for the headline to anyone who was offended, while condemning the expulsions and pledging not to allow the Chinese government to influence the Journal‘s coverage.

Nonsense. No one serious was offended, so no apology should even be under consideration.

On the other hand, opinion often offends, especially when it’s logically formed and supported with fact, so no apology should even be under consideration. The truth often offends, especially when it’s the whole truth, and not just a carefully edited subset of it, so no apology should even be under consideration.

Even were an apology warranted, a legitimately done one couldn’t possibly include weasel-words, or excuses, or “you were wrong, too” claims.