Skip to content

Nick Cohen’s entirely amazing free speech argument

If the west could find the courage, it would order an immediate freeze of Rupert Murdoch’s assets. His Fox News presenters and Russia’s propagandists are so intermeshed that separating the two is as impossible as unbaking a cake.

Because Fox is saying things Cohen disagrees with therefore it should be confiscated in the name of free speech.

Umm, yes…..

13 thoughts on “Nick Cohen’s entirely amazing free speech argument”

  1. Watching those on the left arguing that Elon should not be allowed to stop doing to the right what they have been silently and covertly doing to the right (whilst denying any claim of it) in the interests of free speech is thoroughly entertaining.

  2. Thomas Sewell: The Vision of the Anointed, described this long before the rest of us noticed.

  3. I had to stop reading Cohen in the Speccie ages ago. His incoherence is on a par with that fool Mason. I wonder if he has ever been sued by the publishers of Worzel Gummidge books, seeing as his articles are full of straw men.

  4. I hadn’t noticed Fox news rootin’ for Putin but a couple of the commentators have come down against war-mongering by the US. Which I’d think would need to be part of a debate about what’s most sensible to do. If in that debate one side needs to other to be silenced, what should we conclude from that?

  5. I think it’s terribly funny how he ends with an appeal to remove Murdoch because of age and possible senility, while vehemently defending the Honour, Bravery and Astuteness of Biden…

  6. It’s a shame to see Nick Cohen going down this route. He used to be one of the more sensible left wingers and someone who I had some admiration from. His book What’s Left was a big factor for me in finally being able to see that the Left was no longer what it once was, a working class movement and instead had been completely infiltrated and now controlled by the middle class Left whose concerns are a universe away from the concerns of the ordinary working man or woman.

  7. Jeez, Mr Degrees. You needed a clapped out newspaper columnist to tell you that? It was obvious in Paris in ’68.

  8. BIS whilst I agree with you that the terminal rot in the left started out in 68 I grew up surrounded by a lot of working class Leftists who held to beliefs that were not shared by the middle class Left. Cohen’s book were the scissors that cut me loose from any residual support for the Left a journey that started for me when I rejected as a much younger man the blandishments and ideas of the revolutionary Left.

    Cohen was once a thoughtful man with much to say that was interesting even when I could not agree with all that he said. To see him going down the route of applauding censorship despite freedom of speech being vital in the promulgation of ideas including leftist ideas is for me pretty sad.

  9. @F211, BiS
    The left is not homogeneous. There are various factions plus the people who actually get to pull the strings when the left are in power. For the powerful, they want the factions to fight amongst themselves so that they don’t notice those actually in power entrenching and enriching themselves; it also provides good copy for the high- middle- and low-brow media. When you see “thoughtful” leftists, they’re just doing their bidding, tearing chunks out of other leftists to provide a smokescreen.

    When there is a real or perceived existential threat to the powerful, the in-fighting ceases, all the factions are frog-marched in line with whatever faction was in the ascendent when the music stopped, and total war is fought against the existential threat. Trump/Brexit was that existential threat — that the proles might vote wrong. That’s when the music stopped. Trannyism was the cause du jour, so everyone of the left had to play along or get Rowlinged.

    I suspect you’re the thick end of 100 years out with 1968: the rot on the left started some time before 1884, given the existence of the Fabians.

  10. When discussing left wing factionalism you can do worse than watch Life of Brian

    The Pythons completely skewered leftie obsession with the irrelevant, rule books and the ability to totally miss the point and also predicted modern identity politics (‘I want to be known as Loretta…’)

  11. @rhoda klapp

    +1 Tucker and I think Ingraham are realists and against West interfering – my view to

    Hannity is full on war-monger

    “Charities” seem to be in favour of prolonged war too as it gives them more PR and Money

    Ineresting observation: Johnson, not us, have given Ukraine ~10 times more Javelin anti-tank missiles than entire Russia tank fleet, but we pay. What’s happened to them? Sold on to Iran, Taliban, NK, China, Russia… ?

  12. @Pcar

    Ingraham is probably the most normal out of those three. Tucker has his moments, but he can be way too absolutist at times. He’ll say things like, “This is the only conclusion” or “This is how they always behave.” I understand the sentiment, but it sometimes gets to the point where I don’t even feel informed anymore. There are more entertaining forms of primetime TV besides political rants, so I’d at least like to get something out of it besides a bad mood. His annoying phony on-cue laughter is nauseating as well. Producers should advise their talent not to laugh on-air unless they literally can’t help it.

    Sean Hannity is just a whiny-voiced GOP cheerleader. I vote republican, but I watch channels like Fox to get the other batch of information, not for ideological loyalty. He worked in construction before becoming a radio host, then TV host, so he’s a good example of the more gung-ho political blue collar workers. Good people, but can be pretty trite depending on the person. That said, he appears to be a decent family man. I worked at a camp on Long Island one summer, and saw him picking up his kid a few times.

    Some of the best conservatives tend to be the people who don’t even call themselves conservatives. A good sign they aren’t trying to prove anything with their ideas. Michael Malice is a self-described anarchist, but I’d take him over Charlie Kirk any day.

Leave a Reply

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