I've been informed that my call for censorship is troubling, and that I need to apologize. It is NEVER RIGHT to tell someone to shut up if they are busy insinuating themselves into an argument about which they know nothing. Because who is to say they know nothing? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
I'm sorry. I plan on having a Scotch while I repent.
If you think of the ongoing trans fad as in large part a kind of civilisational 'shit test', then the willingness to defer to the testers’ ratcheting demands, and to play along and pretend, to needlessly announce one's pronouns, or to politely stare at one’s shoes while the farce unfolds, does, I think, raise questions. Among which, what else would the pretenders pretend? And what else would the shoe-gazers be so careful not to notice? What precise level of farce, unrealism and dishonesty would be too much?
It's hard to believe that 15 years ago I daily clicked on Protein Wisdom to see what's up. It's been great to have you back, but where the hell is Billy Jack?
Fraudrey Hepburn? That is just brilliant. And I, too, am disappointed in folks like the Triggernometry guys for saying Walsh was too mean. He was telling the truth. The truth is not mean - it's the truth (said Andrew Breitbart).
I can’t help wondering whether the same people would have been tutting and fainting and flapping their handkerchiefs had the video been made by one of the many women who feel much as Mr Walsh does.
The problem on ‘the Right’ is much broader, observe: Because the Left is a cultural/voting block they instinctively consider any one who isn’t with them to also be a cultural/voting block which opposes them, hence they must the Right. When in fact the so-called Right is merely composed of all who aren’t the Left, people who wish to remain independent-minded. After all, people who are not of the Left rarely agree/vote together on policies/ideas/issues. ‘Conservatives’ are not a voting block so have been easily coerced into always compromising Leftwards.
My simple advice to those who are not of the Left is to merely, and often, just say no.
Cultivate a habit and practice it when it’s clearly required.
The same advice applies to those on the Left who recognize they’re being used.
I call people who mutilate their children(trans) criminals to their faces and I refuse to call tranny's any pronoun other than Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Enough with this shyte! You have NOTHING to lose, folks.
The other possibility is simply that Matt Walsh is doing better with bluntness than you did because people are fundamentally less concerned with looking prejudiced against trans people (most of whom are simply shallow public celebrities) than black people (especially one who had just become President). Not all issues of group antipathy are exactly analogous or play out the same way. Matt's success on this issue may not translate to success with the same tactics on other issues.
That said, we can hardly (as the old gag goes) do worse than we have been doing, so trying something shown to work is far from a dumb idea.
Although I generally like your content, I'm having trouble parsing the following:
"Matt’s response to his critics is a master class in addressing the timeless refrain that we must moderate our speech in order to win over those offended by unvarnished truths — and not a single response to his answering to their complaints is in the least bit persuasive."
It is. Let me see if I can help you parse it: "Matt’s response to his critics is a master class in addressing the timeless refrain that we must moderate our speech in order to win over those offended by unvarnished truths (1) — and not a single response to his answering of their complaints is in the least bit persuasive."(2)
Matt put out a video on Mulvaney's red carpet appearance. Others responded to his video, claiming he'd been mean. (1) Matt then put out a video explaining why he wasn't backing down, and why he believed the strategy of being blunt and truthful helps in the cause of winning the culture wars. In that follow-up video, he called out a few prominent YouTube channels. (2)Some of those YouTube channels then responded to Matt's follow-up video, expanding upon or clarifying their original complaints. None of these follow-ups to Matt's own follow-up were at all persuasive, in my opinion.
The reason I wrote the sentence you reference the way I did is because the embedded links act almost as part of the sentence itself; the links reference some of the same people whose original videos whining about Walsh's tone are linked earlier in my essay. This, my hope was, drew the circle to a close.
It may not have been the most elegant way to phrase things, but the conundrum was in noting the many rounds of argument and response, along with my reaction to same, as efficiently as I could. Doing it in a single sentence is no small feat ;)
Don't fret, Jeff. I, and the hundreds of others reading your post understood what you wrote. I could diagram the sentence for him, but I think his objective is to not understand. So that wouldn't work either.
Barack Obama's election brought us the tea party. His re-election brought us Donald Trump. If the premise of this article is correct, Donald Trump will be elected in a landslide (it's really hard to steal versus a landslide). If not, we'll get Nikki Haley. The political class does not want DJT back in D.C. and will do anything to stop it, just like what they did to the tea party.
Trump may be too toxic. I don't think he wins the primary -- and I don't think his petty attacks on DeSantis are doing him much favor these days, even among many of his supporters.
America First shouldn't be a cult of personality. It should be a governing principle.
I've been informed that my call for censorship is troubling, and that I need to apologize. It is NEVER RIGHT to tell someone to shut up if they are busy insinuating themselves into an argument about which they know nothing. Because who is to say they know nothing? Who gets to be the arbiter of that? THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
I'm sorry. I plan on having a Scotch while I repent.
If you think of the ongoing trans fad as in large part a kind of civilisational 'shit test', then the willingness to defer to the testers’ ratcheting demands, and to play along and pretend, to needlessly announce one's pronouns, or to politely stare at one’s shoes while the farce unfolds, does, I think, raise questions. Among which, what else would the pretenders pretend? And what else would the shoe-gazers be so careful not to notice? What precise level of farce, unrealism and dishonesty would be too much?
It's hard to believe that 15 years ago I daily clicked on Protein Wisdom to see what's up. It's been great to have you back, but where the hell is Billy Jack?
Fraudrey Hepburn? That is just brilliant. And I, too, am disappointed in folks like the Triggernometry guys for saying Walsh was too mean. He was telling the truth. The truth is not mean - it's the truth (said Andrew Breitbart).
This! THIS!!! This is why I stopped ever going to National Review at all!!! They don't want to win, they want to be liked.
If your motivation is not to tell the truth, and to tell it clearly, but instead you want to be loved, you will end up doing neither.
It is why DJT is so damn loved and Mittens and McCain were and are reviled by their own side. Yuk.
Thanks.
Totally agree, Jeff! Thank you for being a courageous advocate for truth and morality.
Well said. We're all NOKD in the eyes of those who think it's all about dignity first and winning second.
To quote the late Oakland icon Al Davis, "Just win, baby!"
I can’t help wondering whether the same people would have been tutting and fainting and flapping their handkerchiefs had the video been made by one of the many women who feel much as Mr Walsh does.
The problem on ‘the Right’ is much broader, observe: Because the Left is a cultural/voting block they instinctively consider any one who isn’t with them to also be a cultural/voting block which opposes them, hence they must the Right. When in fact the so-called Right is merely composed of all who aren’t the Left, people who wish to remain independent-minded. After all, people who are not of the Left rarely agree/vote together on policies/ideas/issues. ‘Conservatives’ are not a voting block so have been easily coerced into always compromising Leftwards.
My simple advice to those who are not of the Left is to merely, and often, just say no.
Cultivate a habit and practice it when it’s clearly required.
The same advice applies to those on the Left who recognize they’re being used.
I call people who mutilate their children(trans) criminals to their faces and I refuse to call tranny's any pronoun other than Mr., Mrs., or Ms. Enough with this shyte! You have NOTHING to lose, folks.
Great post, Jeff.
“they’ll happily forgive you for being wrong; but they’ll never, ever forgive you for being right.”
Sounds... familiar.
You were the referent.
Yeah. I was paraphrasing something I read in Harry Potter 5. You know, that book that's now evil or something.
The other possibility is simply that Matt Walsh is doing better with bluntness than you did because people are fundamentally less concerned with looking prejudiced against trans people (most of whom are simply shallow public celebrities) than black people (especially one who had just become President). Not all issues of group antipathy are exactly analogous or play out the same way. Matt's success on this issue may not translate to success with the same tactics on other issues.
That said, we can hardly (as the old gag goes) do worse than we have been doing, so trying something shown to work is far from a dumb idea.
People concerned about appearing prejudiced because they're criticizing a black person are part of the problem, but I take your point.
Although I generally like your content, I'm having trouble parsing the following:
"Matt’s response to his critics is a master class in addressing the timeless refrain that we must moderate our speech in order to win over those offended by unvarnished truths — and not a single response to his answering to their complaints is in the least bit persuasive."
Is this really a sentence?
It is. Let me see if I can help you parse it: "Matt’s response to his critics is a master class in addressing the timeless refrain that we must moderate our speech in order to win over those offended by unvarnished truths (1) — and not a single response to his answering of their complaints is in the least bit persuasive."(2)
Matt put out a video on Mulvaney's red carpet appearance. Others responded to his video, claiming he'd been mean. (1) Matt then put out a video explaining why he wasn't backing down, and why he believed the strategy of being blunt and truthful helps in the cause of winning the culture wars. In that follow-up video, he called out a few prominent YouTube channels. (2)Some of those YouTube channels then responded to Matt's follow-up video, expanding upon or clarifying their original complaints. None of these follow-ups to Matt's own follow-up were at all persuasive, in my opinion.
The reason I wrote the sentence you reference the way I did is because the embedded links act almost as part of the sentence itself; the links reference some of the same people whose original videos whining about Walsh's tone are linked earlier in my essay. This, my hope was, drew the circle to a close.
It may not have been the most elegant way to phrase things, but the conundrum was in noting the many rounds of argument and response, along with my reaction to same, as efficiently as I could. Doing it in a single sentence is no small feat ;)
That sentence tripped me up also. Now I realize it's because I didn't click on the links. Appreciate the explanation.
Don't fret, Jeff. I, and the hundreds of others reading your post understood what you wrote. I could diagram the sentence for him, but I think his objective is to not understand. So that wouldn't work either.
Barack Obama's election brought us the tea party. His re-election brought us Donald Trump. If the premise of this article is correct, Donald Trump will be elected in a landslide (it's really hard to steal versus a landslide). If not, we'll get Nikki Haley. The political class does not want DJT back in D.C. and will do anything to stop it, just like what they did to the tea party.
Trump may be too toxic. I don't think he wins the primary -- and I don't think his petty attacks on DeSantis are doing him much favor these days, even among many of his supporters.
America First shouldn't be a cult of personality. It should be a governing principle.