Go to ...
RSS Feed

08/18/2018

New York Times stand behind racist editorial board pick, Shapiro defends


The failing New York Times officially weighed in on Sarah Jeong’s inexcusably racist history:  they stand behind her 100% because <insert arm waving sophistry here>.  

Translation:  Sarah’s politics align with ours, so we have determined her victim points for being Asian outweigh her demonstrated history of racism and harassment.  Despite empirical evidence refuting the premise of our argument, we are invested in the neo-Maoist oppression narrative, so Sarah will henceforth determine which news is worthy of becoming forever part of the permanent, historical record of the United States of America.  So, eat that you vile, worthless, troglodytic white men.  We hope your white children die of sun exposure.

Obviously, I am being intentionally and sarcastically hyperbolic.  So, on the off-chance that snowflake Acosta or one of the fools from MSNBC reads this, hold on to your panties and take a deep breath.  I know you only want to see innocent white boys fail, not die of forced sun exposure.  So we’re good.  No need to send camera crews to the house quite yet.

But on to the real problem:  Conservative Leaders

I am a libertarian.  An actual libertarian, not just the, “I read Ayn Rand in high school” or , “taxes suck” variety.  As I got older, I also became a registered Libertarian, despite the fact the party remains a hot mess.  This has led to many interesting discussion among Republican colleagues, a proper treatment of which is well beyond the scope of this article.  However, I can use one Mr. Ben Shapiro as an example of everything wrong with the mainstream conservative, and by extension Republican, default position on these matters:

Shapiro, the same Shapiro who just days ago defended James Gunn — yes, that guy who crossed so far over the creepy Uncle Touchy pedophile line that it’s difficult to actually read the entirety of his tweets without triggering yourself — is now defending Sarah Jeong and the New York Times.

I can close my eyes and imagine Ben’s whiny voice lecturing me in a condescending, faux rhetorical manner.

Am I defending Sarah Jeong? Yes.  Am I defending the New York Times?  Yes.  Am I defending freedom of speech and the press in America?  You bet I am!  Am I defending what she has said in the past?  No.  Am I defending how the New York Times chose to construct their argument?  No.  But they still have an absolute right to hire whomever they want to their editorial board, and Sarah still has an absolute right to her opinions and speech.  I would like to think that conservative Americans, above all others, would understand this…

And then he sits back with that self-assured smirk of superiority.

Very little of what Ben says tends to be wrong, prima facie.  However, I assure you that Ben would lose an honest debate with a worthy, prepared opponent.  He faces none of those on his outrage-porn speaking circuit.  What Ben misses is that he is either entirely ignorant of, or woefully misunderstands the mechanics of game theory and the strategy it implies.  (I shall spare you another blockquote of a fictional debate with Ben where I turn his own cheap debate tactics against him.  Imagine for yourself if it moves you.)

Ben is showing up to a game where the other side currently controls most, if not virtually all of the rules.  They are smart enough so as to have arranged the game board such that Ben has moves to make.  It wouldn’t be credible if Ben’s only move was simply, “you lose”.  The people on the Right who think the Left are stupid are mistaken.  There are some brilliant people on the extreme Left.  And, they know what they are doing.

Ben shows up, makes his moves, sticks to his higher principles, declares victory, and then loses.  They secure a strategic victory with returns well in excess of any Ben has procured, and Ben has done much of the dirty work for them.  He’s divided the opposition.  Ben simply doesn’t seem to understand that there are only two choices in this type of game theory scenario:

  1. Know the rules.  Engage accordingly.  Beat them using their own rules.
  2. Know the rules.  Intentionally choose to blow up the game.

 

By doing neither of these, Ben and all the other culled-conservatives are simply behaving as useful idiots.

Meanwhile we of the Fifth Estate shall continue to exercise option 2 in this era of fustian leaders.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.