Ed Driscoll:
Get in their face and punch back twice as hard, a legendary community organizer demanded of his constituents, before becoming America’s most passive chief effective, feigning discovery of scandal after scandal only after being informed by the media.
Back in April, Princeton freshman Tal Fortgang punched back twice as hard one of the latest cliches the left uses to avoid having argument — “Check your privilege,” a disguised form of racism, as the privilege implied is based on skin color. As Kurt Schlichter wrote a couple of weeks ago in his epic deconstruction of the phrase at Townhall.com:
Their poisonous notion of privilege is really just another way for liberals to pick winners and losers based not upon who has won or lost in the real world, but upon who is useful and not useful to the progressive project at any given moment.
This is why you see young people descended from Holocaust survivors tagged as bearers of “privilege” when their tattooed, emaciated grand-parents landed here with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Others who grew up in luxury get to bear the label of “unprivileged” because ten generations ago some relative came from a particular continent.
It’s idiocy. It’s immoral. We need to say so. For too long we’ve put up with this silliness.
This past week at National Review Online, James Lileks deconstructed another recent tyrannical cliche from the left,“Not All Men:”
What’s so bad about it? the author asks, and explains:
When a man (though, of course, not all men) butts into a conversation about a feminist issue to remind the speaker that “not all men” do something, they derail what could be a productive conversation. Instead of contributing to the dialogue, they become the center of it, excluding themselves from any responsibility or blame.
Who says he’s “butting in”? Couldn’t this be a response offered calmly after a broad mischaracterization? If someone says “all blacks are” or “all Asians are” and the person who demurs happens to be black or Asian, have they derailed a conversation, or offered a counterpoint? Since when does disagreement mean you aren’t contributing to the conversation? Are only positive reinforcements contributions? If speaking up to correct what one perceives to be an erroneous statement makes one the center of the dialogue, then pointing out that the sun does not revolve around Saturn makes one the center of the solar system.
Read the whole thing. Of course, this is the same left who, in-between listening to “gangsta (sp) rap” and watching a Quentin Tarantino film festival and thus being exposed to repeated casual usage of the N-word (and numerous other words that until the rise of the new left couldn’t be said on TV) want trigger warnings on their academic literature, as Jonah Goldberg, the author of the Tyranny of Cliches recently noted:
Interestingly enough, When I first watched the Harry Potter films and was introduced to the character Dolores Umbridge (Senior Undersecretary to the Minister for Magic, Defense Against the Dark Arts professor, who soon had that “government” appoint her as Hogwarts High Inquisitor, and who later seized complete control as Headmistress of Hogwarts,) it seemed to me that she was supposed to be a parody of the “uptight religious right”. As that film progressed, it became crystal clear that she was taking control exactly as “Progressives” are our school systems in America and ruled Hogwarts in the same totalitarian, heavy handed, zero tolerance manner. Umbridge was without question a loyal follower of Vodlemort who’s goal was to create a totalitarian empire with himself as leader, supported by his loyal (and fearful) followers the Death Eaters, all of whom claimed pure-blooded lineage of the eldest, elite families of enlightened wizardry. Watch the films again yourself and compare how the side of evil relies on both magical powers, ruthless actions, carefully placed cohorts, Alinsky tactics and even media propaganda to control the masses and force them into accepting world events as their dark hearts describe it.
I don’t think that Author Rollings, (who is a political leftist,) ever intended the audience to make such a connection with typical Progressive power-plays, yet she adopts so many mirrors of historic socialist practices, events and power-grabs, that makes Vodlemort’s bloody takeover, a quintessential duplication of how socialists in the past have taken control of nations, down to the many unknown but well placed mole operatives, most of whom are ruthless, immoral minority of self-centered, uncompromising traitors, either working behind the scenes to further the agenda or only waiting to be activated to destroy the old order.
You have to but in to get a word in with a feminist.
WE CAN SAY OUR MIND HERE AT FLOPPING ACES,
and i like it , if one is arrogant i come in as best i can and but in,
no shyness for a non shy blogger, who attack, instead of sharing thoughts,
he diserve the same treatment,
we have a post done by GREAT AUTHORS here, and we get in as guests,
and as the post grow, the exchange is such interesting, keeping us glue to this post,
here or another , until itself is worn off, all by his own, unexplained yet question,
some are even ressurging after they end up for a time, it just need one traveler to pass by,
and take a drink, A CYBER DRINK, and we all come back to play again,
like flies searching the light on.
i find it very interesting here, and i’m not going anywhere else,
non schizophrenic socialist,