The left would rather play race card than make fact-based argument




Areva Martin, a CNN “analyst” — no matter in hell which means anno Domini 2019 — was in the midst of a spirited alternate with the conservative talk-radio host David Webb about racial preferences in hiring. Webb argued — as conservatives of many various races argue! — that race shouldn’t be a think about such selections, which needs to be primarily based strictly on .

Martin, predictably, leaned on identification. “That’s a whole ’nother long conversation about white privilege,” she sniffed. “The things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege of.”

Webb, sensing one thing amiss, requested, “How do I have white privilege?” Her reply: Because he’s a “white male.”

Half proper.

Somehow, we as a tradition have managed to neglect that advert hominem is a rhetorical fallacy. Which is to say: Relying on the advert hominem mode of argument means that you’re silly — if not usually and categorically silly, then limited-purpose silly within the context of the controversy at hand.

Dennis Prager, relating the story above, mentions that he was denounced — as he have to be denounced! — earlier than a university campus speech as a racist, sexist, homophobe and . . . anti-Semite.

Prager is Jewish. He has made opposing anti-Semitism a elementary a part of his public profession. The response to that information was predictable: “Oops. Well, he’s still a racist, sexist, homophobe …”

I’ve heard Charles C. W. Cooke dismissed as a fundamentalist Christian (he’s an atheist) and Guy Benson denounced as a homophobe (he’s homosexual). I’ve even heard myself denounced as a sellout self-hating black man (I’m white). We have been the beneficiaries of Voltaire’s prayer: “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”

But right here’s a query: What in the event that they have been proper? Cooke’s views on abortion or the First Amendment are what they’re, they usually both have advantage or they don’t, no matter his spiritual views. David Webb and I’ve the identical views on many issues, I think about. He’s black. I’m white. Presumably, an misguided opinion bouncing round in my head would be equally misguided bouncing round in his head, simply as a helpful statement popping out of my mouth would be an equally helpful statement popping out of his.

Not if you’re a progressive, apparently. For the left, public discourse is “Lord of the Flies,” and victimhood is the conch — that’s how they imagine we must always resolve who will get to talk. That’s what the nonsensical enterprise about “intersectionality” is all about. It is at its coronary heart little or no extra than a reconstitution of outdated, dumb, primitive, superstitious concepts in the identical genus as racism and nationalism, i.e. the idea that sure demographic markers of questionable real-world relevance are supernaturally cementitious determinants of ethical that means. The ugliness and crudity of that view are straightforward sufficient to determine.

There are not any political leaders, law enforcement officials, journalists or school professors — solely white political leaders, black law enforcement officials, homosexual journalists, disabled school professors, and so on. No wise particular person believes that we reside in a superbly colorblind society — however it doesn’t comply with from that that a very powerful factor about David Webb is his race. He made the identical argument when Areva Martin thought he was white that he would have made if she had identified he was black. David Webb will not be the variable in that equation.

But that form of crudeness is enticing in case your rhetorical technique is to substitute indictment for argument. “I think you have this one wrong, Areva Martin.” “Who are you to say, white man?” Or: “I think the president screwed up the whole wall thing.” “Yeah, well, you’re a #NeverTrumper, so, nanny-nanny-boo-boo.” There’s actually nowhere for the dialog to go from there — and that’s the level.

But in the event you insist on being an intellectually backward and morally illiterate racial essentialist, at the very least do your homework.

From The National Review




Be the first to comment on "The left would rather play race card than make fact-based argument"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*