Jon Stewart's Tortured Logic
I'm not one given to hyperbole when it comes to politics, so I don't make statements like "liberals are liars" and such. But I'm starting to wonder. There's really nothing to add to the analysis which has appeared in various conservative outlets as to the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, or the War on Christmas. What is novel, though, are the devious counterarguments made by liberal television personalities.
Example number one is the always loathsome Jon Stewart. Yes, the man whose alibi is that he "just does a comedy show" while covertly proselytizing ignorant youth. Stewart plays a montage of Fox News personalities lamenting the triumph of political correctness in the Phil Roberston affair. Cue the smug liberals in the audience to laugh in contempt. Stewart then claims to also dislike the 'word police.' He proceeds to play a montage of Fox News personalities lamenting the War on Christmas. Cue more smug laughter from the audience. Says Stewart: "Their belief in free speech does not extend to the holidays, when the word "Christmas" is mandatory..."
This is a clever, and I think devious, attempt to portray the conservative media as hypocritical. The counteroffensive against the War on Christmas, however, is itself an attack on the word police. After all, the reluctance of businesses to say "Merry Christmas" is a cavein to politically correct etiquette. Nice try, Stewart, but the fascistic policing of words and thoughts remains the province of the left.
Next is LZ Granderson, a dreadlocked black homosexual, who on "Crossfire" uses a similar tortured logic. This is his attempt to portray conservatives as hypocritical: "On the one hand it's okay to quote the Bible and make people upset. But when another person says you're bigoted, it's like, 'don't say that word, you're making me upset.'" Again, a deviously clever line of argument. What he fails to recognize is that accusations of bigotry, and racism for that matter, are specifically designed to shut down debate and speech, and are therefore methods of word policing. Incidentally, such accusations prevent people from giving accurate descriptions of reality. Yes, Mr. Granderson, your right to frivolously accuse people of bigotry falls under free speech protections, but it is also a clear tipoff that you have lost the argument.
Contact Malcolm Unwell
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- A Multi-Point Attack on the National Debt
- Nearing the Final Battle Against the Deep State
- Now’s the Time to Buy a Nuke (Nuclear Power Plant, That Is)
- The Fall and Fall of the Associated Press
- Bill Gates and the AI Delusion
- New York Greenlights Quarantine Camps
- Reality Check for Democrats
- A MAGA Siege of the Democrats’ Deep State
- Why Incel and 4B Culture Matter
- Defending Donald Trump: A Response to Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic on the Signal Leak
Blog Posts
- We remember those who served in Vietnam
- A curiosity about the DC District Court’s judges
- A Ph.D. in ‘Molecular and Cell Biology’ shows the difference between credentials and knowledge
- Nasty Venezuelan migrant who flashed taxpayer dollars and urged squatting, gets thrown out
- Watch white leftist women’s brains breaking—and repairing—in real-time
- The last, best hope ...
- In Pennsylvania, are Democrats stealing votes again?
- Knife control comes to the U.K.: Prime Minister Starmer bans Ninja swords
- This Tuesday, Wisconsonites must vote for Brad Schimel for the State Supreme Court
- Was Vietnam worth the cost?
- Democrats should get a clue from the Palestinians who are now marching against Hamas
- Trump takes on Fauxahontas's brainchild
- Consumer Sentiment Survey: This too shall pass
- If they only had knife control....
- Newsom and Walz struggle to appear normal