Thursday, March 10, 2022

A tried and true tactic for progressives since I can remember

The faces of modern leftwing punditry
Act like children.  Literally, sneer and mock and make fun of and call names.  In short, act like someone a decade away from hitting puberty. 

So this story broke across several outlets.  A white woman - whose skin color will figure prominently among some criticisms of her - documented the growing intolerance in universities for dissenting opinions.  Though she insists she is no conservative, she is nonetheless bothered by the atmosphere in modern college campuses where more and more students are feeling intimidated and threatened if they voice their opinions.  Rod Dreher picked up on the story of her editorial here

There was an old Saturday Night Live skit I remember.  It was from the earlier days of the show.  It featured Bill Murray and Steve Martin going onto the stage, pointing toward the audience, and spending the skit going back and forth with variations of "What in the hell is that?  I know what the hell that is."  It was so absurd I actually laughed - and I seldom laughed at SNL.

That's about what most progressive/liberal discourse nowadays is, if you get down to it. A young, self-proclaimed liberal women points out what my sons have noticed - that free and open debate is becoming an endangered species in our universities.  Both because of the universities, and the increasingly hostile - sometimes in the form of physical threats - reactions from students and student groups.  In this case, the editorial is picked up by the leftwing flagship The New York Times.

The response?  Read them and follow links if you dare.  Outrage at the Times for betraying the cause, and liberal variations on 'I know what the hell that is" aimed at the young woman.  That is, variations on 'she's so lame man, and so lame man.  Can you believe she's that lame man?   And lame and a wimp man.  And dumb man.  Can you believe she's so lame and a wimp?"  And on it goes.  Note, in most responses, that's the core essence of what they're saying.

There is no engaging with her claims. There is no desire to see it from her perspective.  In some cases, her skin color torpedoes her as others replace the above 'I know what the hell that is' mantra with variations on 'skin color and race and race skin color race'.  Certainly there isn't the slightest inkling that there could be some validity to her observations.  Heck no on that.  She is an admitted leftist who has betrayed the cause and fallen from 100% obedience, so she needs to be put in her place. 

It's like watching children interacting on a playground in elementary school.  Which, to be honest, is rather unfair and unkind of me to talk about children on playgrounds that way.  When someone says they have seen something wrong, the usually decent thing to do is ask and see where they're coming from.  You know, say you sure hope this hasn't happened, and you can't believe it has.  But you'd be interested in learning more. 

Once again, however, I get the feeling those on the left are less interested in learning more about this young woman's perspective than they are smacking down anyone or anything that challenges their dogmas of diversity and inclusion.  


  1. Well I was trying to find the quote I read the other day from someone who pointed out, "you notice these people never finish their thoughts? They just kind of 'imply' an argument and expect you to do the rest?"

    1. If they go that far. Often they begin with the unspoken assumption that only Nazis disagree with liberalism, so if you're even thinking of disagreeing with liberalism, you are aren't just not black, you're also Nazi.


Let me know your thoughts