Jon Stewart's Tortured Logic

I'm not one given to hyperbole when it comes to politics, so I don't make statements like "liberals are liars" and such. But I'm starting to wonder. There's really nothing to add to the analysis which has appeared in various conservative outlets as to the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, or the War on Christmas. What is novel, though, are the devious counterarguments made by liberal television personalities.

Example number one is the always loathsome Jon Stewart. Yes, the man whose alibi is that he "just does a comedy show" while covertly proselytizing ignorant youth. Stewart plays a montage of Fox News personalities lamenting the triumph of political correctness in the Phil Roberston affair. Cue the smug liberals in the audience to laugh in contempt. Stewart then claims to also dislike the 'word police.' He proceeds to play a montage of Fox News personalities lamenting the War on Christmas. Cue more smug laughter from the audience. Says Stewart: "Their belief in free speech does not extend to the holidays, when the word "Christmas" is mandatory..."

This is a clever, and I think devious, attempt to portray the conservative media as hypocritical. The counteroffensive against the War on Christmas, however, is itself an attack on the word police. After all, the reluctance of businesses to say "Merry Christmas" is a cavein to politically correct etiquette. Nice try, Stewart, but the fascistic policing of words and thoughts remains the province of the left.

Next is LZ Granderson, a dreadlocked black homosexual, who on "Crossfire" uses a similar tortured logic. This is his attempt to portray conservatives as hypocritical: "On the one hand it's okay to quote the Bible and make people upset. But when another person says you're bigoted, it's like, 'don't say that word, you're making me upset.'" Again, a deviously clever line of argument. What he fails to recognize is that accusations of bigotry, and racism for that matter, are specifically designed to shut down debate and speech, and are therefore methods of word policing. Incidentally, such accusations prevent people from giving accurate descriptions of reality. Yes, Mr. Granderson, your right to frivolously accuse people of bigotry falls under free speech protections, but it is also a clear tipoff that you have lost the argument.

Contact Malcolm Unwell

I'm not one given to hyperbole when it comes to politics, so I don't make statements like "liberals are liars" and such. But I'm starting to wonder. There's really nothing to add to the analysis which has appeared in various conservative outlets as to the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, or the War on Christmas. What is novel, though, are the devious counterarguments made by liberal television personalities.

Example number one is the always loathsome Jon Stewart. Yes, the man whose alibi is that he "just does a comedy show" while covertly proselytizing ignorant youth. Stewart plays a montage of Fox News personalities lamenting the triumph of political correctness in the Phil Roberston affair. Cue the smug liberals in the audience to laugh in contempt. Stewart then claims to also dislike the 'word police.' He proceeds to play a montage of Fox News personalities lamenting the War on Christmas. Cue more smug laughter from the audience. Says Stewart: "Their belief in free speech does not extend to the holidays, when the word "Christmas" is mandatory..."

This is a clever, and I think devious, attempt to portray the conservative media as hypocritical. The counteroffensive against the War on Christmas, however, is itself an attack on the word police. After all, the reluctance of businesses to say "Merry Christmas" is a cavein to politically correct etiquette. Nice try, Stewart, but the fascistic policing of words and thoughts remains the province of the left.

Next is LZ Granderson, a dreadlocked black homosexual, who on "Crossfire" uses a similar tortured logic. This is his attempt to portray conservatives as hypocritical: "On the one hand it's okay to quote the Bible and make people upset. But when another person says you're bigoted, it's like, 'don't say that word, you're making me upset.'" Again, a deviously clever line of argument. What he fails to recognize is that accusations of bigotry, and racism for that matter, are specifically designed to shut down debate and speech, and are therefore methods of word policing. Incidentally, such accusations prevent people from giving accurate descriptions of reality. Yes, Mr. Granderson, your right to frivolously accuse people of bigotry falls under free speech protections, but it is also a clear tipoff that you have lost the argument.

Contact Malcolm Unwell

RECENT VIDEOS