A Study in What's Wrong With Discourse

Politico has a morning newsletter called The Daily Playbook. It's a big deal with Washington insiders as a tip-sheet among other things, and there is a vacant guest editorial spot that Politico typically invites various influential thinkers to fill for a day. Well, chaos ensued because they invited Ben Shapiro to do it.

For those of you who don't know, Ben Shapiro is very conservative, yes, and he did back Trump's re-election although he's not and never has been a big Trump supporter. In that, I suppose he's like me. We like certain policies the president backs even if we don't like his attitude or the way he went about doing things all the time. That did matter at all to the fine, serious journalists at Politico though. To them, he was the big, bad conservative and allowing anyone like that to write for their publication after last Wednesday was beyond the pale!

Politico had to have a Zoom call to hear them out and 225 of them were on that call crying over it.

Over the past several weeks, Politico has filled the temporary editorial vacancy atop the Playbook by inviting high-profile political reporters and commentators to author the highly influential morning political newsletter and tip-sheet for Beltway insiders. The tipsheet in recent weeks has been authored by well-known TV hosts like MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, as well as reporters like CBS’s Weijia Jiang, PBS’s White House correspondent Yamiche Alcindor, and the Washington Free Beacon’s editor-in-chief Eliana Johnson. NBC’s Meet the Press host Chuck Todd is also expected to guest-author the Playbook in coming weeks.

But on Thursday, Politico turned the newsletter over to Shapiro, who used the space for a column making the case that the House Republicans who voted against impeaching Trump—despite his repeated lies about the 2020 election and his stoking of rioters who stormed the Capitol in his name last week—are right to feel aggrieved.

“If you supported Trump in any way, you were at least partially culpable, the argument goes. It’s not just Trump who deserves vitriol—it’s all 74 million people who voted for him,” Shapiro wrote, further claiming: “Opposition to impeachment comes from a deep and abiding conservative belief that members of the opposing political tribe want their destruction, not simply to punish Trump for his behavior.”

The summary I just posted comes from The Daily Beast, and it's a fair summation of the feelings many have over what the left wants. The left is done with dealing with opposition now because they might lose, so Trump and their hatred of him is a good enough excuse to get rid of all of us one way or another. We've seen it happen to too many people over the past four years when the left didn't have power to not be very worried about what happens now that they do.

But regardless, I have a suspicion that the opposition here was less about what Shapiro said in his space than about the mere fact that someone associated with conservatism was allowed to write thoughts in the space at all.



See? The struggle is real. Of course, there is no entertaining the notion that we ought to be analyzing what Shapiro actually said or wrote this time to see if it may or may not be a good argument. Nope. Just, "Grrrr, I don't like Ben Shapiro, so we shouldn't ever let him say anything!"

This is troubling because I don't like people like Bill Maher, for example, but they do occasionally say things that make sense, and when they do, they get their due from me. An idea I judge to be correct or one that makes sense is that idea, even if it comes from a source that generally talks BS. This is a major problem on the left, if they don't like you, then they shut off any avenue of listening and you never say anything right because *you* are not right.

The other troubling thing is these 225 staffers at Politico didn't consider that Shapiro was edited by the top folks at Politico.

In the end, the anger was all for naught as Kaminski said during the Zoom call, according to the Daily Beast, "We published a piece by a very prominent writer, provocateur, and podcaster. We stand by every word in there, it was very closely edited."

If it was closely edited, then these staffers shouldn't be worried, right? Don't they trust their top editorial staff to not allow hatred and bigotry to come off their own pages? Or is anything remotely conservative automatically hatred and bigotry now?

Shapiro's own Daily Wire is indulging in some trolling. They will are sending Politco 225 Leftist Tears tumblers. Enough for all the "very serious journalists" to avoid getting their desks wet.

a reply to: ketsuko

Shapiro's own Daily Wire is indulging in some trolling. They will are sending Politco 225 Leftist Tears tumblers.

LOL! When I was a girl, my dad didn't like crying. He would hand us a cup and tell us to try and fill it with our tears and then get back to him when we were ready to use our words.

It worked.

Given these journalists (and I use that term loosely) seem to have about the same level of maturity as a child, maybe this is exactly what they need to find their words and their truth and stop having a freaking tantrum!

a reply to: Boadicea

And for all we dicker about sources here, I do pay attention to left leaning sources also. I will read mainstream press sources. The main problem I have with a lot of it these days is the "unnamed sources" bit. I've been bitten too many times by stories predicated on the anonymous source that never pan out.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ketsuko

Shapiro's own Daily Wire is indulging in some trolling. They will are sending Politco 225 Leftist Tears tumblers.

LOL! When I was a girl, my dad didn't like crying. He would hand us a cup and tell us to try and fill it with our tears and then get back to him when we were ready to use our words.

It worked.

Given these journalists (and I use that term loosely) seem to have about the same level of maturity as a child, maybe this is exactly what they need to find their words and their truth and stop having a freaking tantrum!

I don't think responding to a childish act by responding with another childish act, shows maturity at all.

I can't speak of the people involved because I know nothing about them. I was going to put a little time into looking into the situation, but it looks like it would not be productive.

That's pretty much par for the course for progessives. They can't win the argument, so attack the messenger. Notice their argument is always that the person has no credibility, not what they are saying is right or wrong.

Leftist: 2+2 = 5.

Conservative: Ben Shapiro (or Alex Jones for that matter). Actually, 2+2 = 4.

Leftist: We can't take anything from them as serious dialogue!

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Boadicea

And for all we dicker about sources here, I do pay attention to left leaning sources also. I will read mainstream press sources. The main problem I have with a lot of it these days is the "unnamed sources" bit. I've been bitten too many times by stories predicated on the anonymous source that never pan out.

Which is what all reasonable thinking adults should want to do. For many reasons.

It should be even more true for journalists. At the very least, this shows absolutely no intellectual curiosity or honesty on the journalists part. They're so sure of their own position, they have no desire or intention to even learn or understand another viewpoint or perspective. Much less respect or tolerate another viewpoint. And that contempt extends to the persons -- not just their thoughts and opinions.

originally posted by: Edumakated
That's pretty much par for the course for progessives. They can't win the argument, so attack the messenger. Notice their argument is always that the person has no credibility, not what they are saying is right or wrong.

Leftist: 2+2 = 5.

Conservative: Ben Shapiro (or Alex Jones for that matter). Actually, 2+2 = 4.

Leftist: We can't take anything from them as serious dialogue!

So when they are questioned about particular Incidents they don't refuse to answer and just claim it's fake news? You do mean that kind of thing don't you?

originally posted by: Edumakated
That's pretty much par for the course for progessives. They can't win the argument, so attack the messenger. Notice their argument is always that the person has no credibility, not what they are saying is right or wrong.

Leftist: 2+2 = 5.

Conservative: Ben Shapiro (or Alex Jones for that matter). Actually, 2+2 = 4.

Leftist: We can't take anything from them as serious dialogue!

2+2=4 is racist. It is a social construct by the huite man to oppress people of color! Sadly that isn't sarcasm but actually what the weirdos running our educational system are pushing on our youth.

How do you hold a conversation with people who actually buy into that?

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I don't think responding to a childish act by responding with another childish act, shows maturity at all.

Childish? Or illustrative???

Crying is neither practical nor productive -- not literally and not figuratively. But if that's what one wants to do, they can do so. Crying into a cup gives you a cup full of salty water and that's about it. (Except these crybabies got a free cup for their tears!)

If these journalists just want to whine and cry because they have to live with other people and their opinions, okay. They can cry all they want. And see where it gets them.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

And that's why I called it trolling in the OP too. It was and I acknowledged it.

a reply to: Edumakated

The whole hunt for 2+2=5 was touched off by a more conservative thinker trying to make that exact point, and now it's become a thing with the leftists. They're decolonizing math and trying to find some way to prove that 2+2 doesn't always equal 4.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The left is done with dealing with opposition now because they might lose, so Trump and their hatred of him is a good enough excuse to get rid of all of us one way or another. We've seen it happen to too many people over the past four years when the left didn't have power to not be very worried about what happens now that they do.

But regardless, I have a suspicion that the opposition here was less about what Shapiro said in his space than about the mere fact that someone associated with conservatism was allowed to write thoughts in the space at all.

...

See? The struggle is real. Of course, there is no entertaining the notion that we ought to be analyzing what Shapiro actually said or wrote this time to see if it may or may not be a good argument. Nope. Just, "Grrrr, I don't like Ben Shapiro, so we shouldn't ever let him say anything!"

....

An idea I judge to be correct or one that makes sense is that idea, even if it comes from a source that generally talks BS. This is a major problem on the left, if they don't like you, then they shut off any avenue of listening and you never say anything right because *you* are not right.

You don't see any irony in the way you started this thread, do you?

originally posted by: seeker1963


2+2=4 is racist. It is a social construct by the huite man to oppress people of color! Sadly that isn't sarcasm but actually what the weirdos running our educational system are pushing on our youth.

How do you hold a conversation with people who actually buy into that?

Start by not making stuff up.

The listen to what they are actually saying.

originally posted by: Boadicea


It should be even more true for journalists. At the very least, this shows absolutely no intellectual curiosity or honesty on the journalists part. They're so sure of their own position, they have no desire or intention to even learn or understand another viewpoint or perspective. Much less respect or tolerate another viewpoint. And that contempt extends to the persons -- not just their thoughts and opinions.

You're right, but there are several really mundane reasons for this sad state of affairs.

First, cost. Investigative journalism - real investigative journalism, not half an hour on internet and lots of speculation - costs money. Rehashing press releases is much cheaper. This has been a problem since the 80s, when press organisations started being bought by conglomerates as part of a wider portfolio. It's getting much much worse at the moment as much of the USA's local press - the best in the world - is being bought out by corporations that see them as advertising milch cows.

Second, our shrinking attention span. Neil Postman explored this phenomenon in Amusing Ourselves to Death in the 1980s, the DoD and NASA ran studies into in the noughties, and it's not improving. If people prefer soundbites, the press will give them soundbites. Readers = advertising revenue.

Third, the blurring of the line between editorial and news content. Journalists, as opposed to reporters, are traditionally employed for their writing skills above their insights. They are supposed to be opinionated. Well written pieces will get more readers than mechanical tabloidese. If their opinions irritate you, it's because they're aimed at other people's pockets.

Combine the three and you get the decline of America's press over the last forty years or so.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese

Very well said!

I would only add, in terms of cost, that it has as much to do with greed as it does with practical budgeting. As you noted, Big Media has bought up soooooo many smaller media outlets, and for the most part they all report from the same sources. Our local news anchors do not write their own copy as they once did. They are not allowed -- or expected to! In fact, especially in television news, they just want anchors to look good while reading copy.

More money in the pockets at the top if they don't have to pay actual reporters to do a job.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: seeker1963


2+2=4 is racist. It is a social construct by the huite man to oppress people of color! Sadly that isn't sarcasm but actually what the weirdos running our educational system are pushing on our youth.

How do you hold a conversation with people who actually buy into that?

Start by not making stuff up.

The listen to what they are actually saying.

They are saying that math is racially oppressive and that's why blacks do so poorly at it. There is a group of people that is actually trying to prove that 2+2 can equal 5 and they're doing it because they think they've only been taught it can equal 4 because white people structured math that way.

They seem to forget that math is a universal system. The numbers we use are Arabic, for example, and the father of algebra was a guy named Al-Khwarizmi. You don't see whites or southeast Asians like Chinese or Japanese or Koreans and the like complaining that if they don't get Algebra it's because it's too Middle Eastern Asian and thus needs to be "decolonized" and taught to them in more "racially friendly" ways.

I'm sorry, but the concept of 2 is the same no matter what culture you come out of and when you put two groups of two together you end up with the same amount which will be the concept of four.

I don't agree with Shapiro on alot, but he's a solid rational thinker. He definitely should be apart of political discourse.

I find progressives far less amenable to vigorous debate.

For a progressive, disagreement with them is immediately met with claims of racism or some other "ism". For them, the disagreement can't simply be based on logic, but because the person disagreeing is evil. This is why they feel justified in censoring opposing viewpoints. They believe they don't even have to acknowledge you as a person disagreeing because your disagreement is beneath them or rooted in evil.

My conservative / libertarian friends can disagree on something and still be friends afterwards. We discuss the facts and logic and basically agree to disagree on the issue and that is the end of it.

On the other hand, most of my liberal friends would accuse someone of being racist / homophobic / evil for not agreeing on some topic. They'd disown you. Attempt to kill your business, etc.

I live in a super liberal community and I know people who are conservative who walk on eggshells for fear of being attacked by the "woke mob". Say one thing out of line and find protestors at your home or business.

a reply to: Edumakated

That was one of the things mentioned in a Tweet in the article -- there were people, maybe a decent number of them on that Zoom call who felt that allowing Shapiro to write the editorial section was not at all a bad thing whether or not they agreed with what he said in it, but that they were afraid to speak up in support of the decision for the reasons you mention.

My husband's company likewise had a "Courageous Conversation" call yesterday about the Wednesday happenings. Supposedly it was open forum for people to express how they felt, but it mainly wound up being a leftist emoting and outrage session. Only two people very, very carefully dared to express any sentiment from a more right-leaning perspective, and that was a very, very ginger expression because they were afraid (and there is a sizeable contingent who are more right-leaning there because husband was part of a private after session talking about being very afraid to speak up in their defense).

As you say, people are afraid to say anything.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

That was one of the things mentioned in a Tweet in the article -- there were people, maybe a decent number of them on that Zoom call who felt that allowing Shapiro to write the editorial section was not at all a bad thing whether or not they agreed with what he said in it, but that they were afraid to speak up in support of the decision for the reasons you mention.

My husband's company likewise had a "Courageous Conversation" call yesterday about the Wednesday happenings. Supposedly it was open forum for people to express how they felt, but it mainly wound up being a leftist emoting and outrage session. Only two people very, very carefully dared to express any sentiment from a more right-leaning perspective, and that was a very, very ginger expression because they were afraid (and there is a sizeable contingent who are more right-leaning there because husband was part of a private after session talking about being very afraid to speak up in their defense).

As you say, people are afraid to say anything.

This Chicago restaurant owner has been attacked socially because he went to the Trump rally in DC.

Tank Noodle Staff Receives Death Threats

You get nice comments like this one... Of course, they have taken to Yelp to destroy their online rating.

“l do not want to spend my money at a place that is run by people who support white supremacist insurrectionists,” one commenter writes. “Shame on the owners for supporting Trump and trying to undermine democracy. Trump has been incredibly harmful towards the Asian community and has caused so much death with his mishandling of the pandemic.”