What a wonderfully lefty view

Another issue is trying to enforce, through social structures, a mechanism where you cut off media access if somebody is a known and repeated liar — not if somebody is like a spinner, not if somebody disagrees with you —but somebody like Betsy McCaughey. She should not be given a platform to talk on TV because she’s interesting.

Take Donald Trump. The problem right now is you can’t cut Donald Trump out of the media. He’s the leading Republican candidate. But you could have cut off Donald Trump way back when he was a birther. It’s a media responsibility to say that certain people sacrifice their right to go on TV. This shouldn’t be a government decision, but networks can set policies to say, “If we know you’re gonna come on and lie, it’s not cute.”

OK, nutters don’t appear on TV. Now who gets to decide what’s nuts and what isn’t?

I have something of a feeling that I know….

24 thoughts on “What a wonderfully lefty view”

  1. I’ll await Ecks or SMFS opinion on this – what’s interesting is it is virtually identical (albeit adhering blindly to a PC ideology rather than a militant Islam one) to articles in the ISIS English Language publication advocating shutting down dissenting voices…. a slight irony given the author’s origins…..

  2. does this mean we can ban Hillary for fibbing repeatedly over emails and Benghazi? Or Bernie for claiming that socialism works, in the face of the all the evidence to the contrary?

  3. “Or Bernie for claiming that socialism works, in the face of the all the evidence to the contrary?”

    Or that Communism killed ten times as many people as Nazism, yet people can admit to be Communists and not be lynched…

  4. ‘Wasn’t Hillary the original “birther” during their primaries ?’

    Close. The original birther was Barrack Hussein Obama. He passed himself off as Kenyan for 15 years. Got doors opened for him.

    What the press wants is that when they don’t do their job, they want others prohibited from doing it. It’s why Trump is getting so much traction today.

  5. “. . . but networks can set policies . . . ”

    I don’t understand his complaint. Networks *do* set policies. Policies specifically designed to get eyeballs on screens.

    He’s just upset that the networks don’t set *his preferred* policies – which is a completely different kettle of fish – and disingenuously using ‘they *can’t* do anything’ to justify demanding government do make them do what he wants.

    I’d have a modicum of respect for leftists if they wouldn’t lie about their motivations and reality all the time.

  6. It is apparently a clinical deficiency of lefties that they are unable to imagine what would happen if the powers they demand were in the hands of people whose views they disagreed with.

  7. @Johnnydub – was listening to a podcast the other day and was struck by the treatment given to Dalton Trumbo – not only i he lionised as a liberal darling, he got an entire hagiographic movie made. One which kind of glossed over that he was an active an committed Communist, and an apologist for Kim Il Sung and Stalin. Waiting for the first similar treatment to be given to an open Nazi sympathiser/antisemite like Joe Kennedy or Charles Lindbergh, or covering the period when the Nazi consul in LA got to veto the content of movies.

  8. Salon is mental. Does anyone know if it has much of a serious following? It makes our own Murphy Richards look balanced…

  9. “It’s a media responsibility to say that certain people sacrifice their right to go on TV.”

    I fear that is not far from the BBC policy.

    Most of the BBC has a distinctive soft-left ideology, in which certain views must not be broadcast – or, if broadcast, then they must be presented in a biased way.

  10. “If we know you’re gonna come on and lie…”

    So, no more politicians on the telly?

    There is an upside here, I think.

  11. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

    William F. Buckley, Jr, apparently.

  12. May as well go the whole hog and dismantle everything from Twitter to the printing press.

    Or, if that’s too much, just ban sub-normal children from writing on the Internet.

  13. Salon is supposedly losing money more rapidly even than all the other blogs that are losing money.

  14. Bloke in Costa Rica

    If suppressio veri and suggestio falsi were enough to get one blackballed from the Intertubes, Joan Walsh would never be seen or heard from again. It is a policy that has much to recommend it.

  15. Not that the left doesn’t have a big issue with authoritarian cunts. But I just wish the argument were framed as ‘they are authoritarian cunts’ rather than ‘lefty’, because the tender minded support the left, or the right, like they support their football team. I’ve seen ‘righties’ in the Telegraph comments cheer on the Government of Poland, while cheering on Cameron at the same time – seemingly unable to tell the difference between social and economic authoritarians vs social and economic liberals, which both happen to be branded as ‘right wing’.

  16. It is apparently a clinical deficiency of leftiespeople in general that they are unable to imagine what would happen if the powers they demand were in the hands of people whose views they disagreed with.

    FTFY

    Constantly fluid labels like left and right are useless in a real debate. The only question is which side offers you better lube before they fuck you over. With the current bunch, at least in the US, getting fucked over is a given no matter what labels are applied to the bastards.

  17. So Much For Subtlety

    Van_Patten – “I’ll await Ecks or SMFS opinion on this”

    My opinion? We had a liberal society. We don’t believe in it anymore. That these sort of views are mainstream is proof of that. We can continue to defend liberal values but that just means unilateral surrender to people who hate us – and are engaged in driving us out of the public sphere.

    The only solution is to fight back, fire with fire.

    As I have said before, in the end either they are in prison or we are. I would prefer they were. So we ought to adopt the same tactics – seize the high ground of political power and ban them. Not just ban them but destroy the very fields that produce such toxic ideology in the first place.

    Us or them.

  18. SMFS is partly correct.

    I don’t say ban them because we can’t beat the cunts by becoming them.

    But certainly purge the origins of these scum. The Unis, SCS,the Media the schools, and so on.

    Stop treating these capers as Tim is doing –as a kind of amusing quirk spewed by amusing nutters–a sort of “Last of The Summer Wine ” approach to dealing with evil.

    It needs to be made much more clear what a pile of evil shite socialism and its followers are. Esp when they are well-off middle-class vermin who have sod all to whine about except their hatred of middle-class Mummy and Daddy. For our society and future to be laid low by such trash is beneath contempt. This pack of cunts and the endless evils they demand are not a joke and we need to start treating them as the very serious threat they are.

  19. “It is apparently a clinical deficiency of lefties/people in general that they are unable to imagine what would happen if the powers they demand were in the hands of people whose views they disagreed with.”

    To some degree , yes, but IME lefties are far worse than righties. It is a lot easier to find support for bans on freedom of speech amongst the left than the right for example.

    There is a thought process that goes something like “well, I am right, and he is wrong, so therefore logically he should be banned”. A lot of lefties cannot consider they might be wrong, it just doesn’t enter their heads. Nor do they think what happens if they give power to people to make judgements based on THINK or FEEL.

    Whereas righties might well conclude they are right, maybe irrationally, but they do tend to consider the possibility ….

    I find 99% of the ones I debate in just quote pat nonsense.

    So they’ll have a pop at Vodaphone or Starbucks (say) and you write a response about CFC rules and the Single Market and so on, the response is “Oh what about Boots !” “You’re just a neoliberal” etc etc etc.

    Engagement is at the level of maybe 1 in 10 ? Most don’t want to understand the Vodaphone case, or how the EU works, they just want to retreat to their pet memes.

  20. Engagement is at the level of maybe 1 in 10 ? Most don’t want to understand the Vodaphone case, or how the EU works, they just want to retreat to their pet memes.

    If they were capable of logical thought, they wouldn’t be socialists.

  21. “Salon is mental. Does anyone know if it has much of a serious following? ”

    FFS Salon recently published an article try to legitimise pedophilia; What do you think comes after the left has won the argument about the nutball trannies?

  22. “There is a thought process that goes something like “well, I am right, and he is wrong, so therefore logically he should be banned”. A lot of lefties cannot consider they might be wrong, it just doesn’t enter their heads. Nor do they think what happens if they give power to people to make judgements based on THINK or FEEL.

    Whereas righties might well conclude they are right, maybe irrationally, but they do tend to consider the possibility …”

    There may still be an actual difference in other countries which is why I used the ‘In the US’ qualifier. I certainly am not trying to claim to be an expert in [insert country]’s political process.

    Before I continue I do have to point out that my personal bias is anti-Republican party. Any counterpoints I try to raise will have these biases included. While it is by no means scientific, I use the ‘fact’ that our ‘right’ party passed more laws restricting freedoms this century than our ‘left’ party as a counterweight. While I could get into the specifics I hope the point is clear without getting into partisan bickering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *