The left wants us to have a ‘National Conversation’?
GREAT! Let me start: Screw you and the unicorn you flew in on.
Okay, fine. David Harsanyi and Real Clear Politics are a little more succinct. Juicy part:
Regrettably, though, there is another, seemingly innocuous “national conversation” we’re about to engage in that’s also based on canards meant to chill speech.It starts with incessant hand-wringing about an imagined lack of civility in society — flaring up, as luck would have it, whenever the most recent person you voted for happens to be elected. The conversation will soon turn into a growing and phony anxiety about looming political violence and unrest that happens to be solely, as it turns out, a byproduct of a certain nutty belief system.
“Does the collective climate matter?” a longtime e-mail pen pal recently asked me. “Are you reflecting on your own style and contribution to the climate? For the record, I have never read a single word from you even close to being violent or anything close to all the stuff we heard over the last few years, but you make a living attacking and criticizing government. I do not recall ever reading a positive word about our government from you. Every time I read an article from you I feel like it is one more log on the anti-government fire, offering one more reason for your average dude to dislike and distrust their government.”
Jeez, if I’ve never written anything that could be construed as violent or hateful, even metaphorically (though I’m sure belligerent and offensive vocabulary crept into columns as needed), what could I possibly have to reflect on? My only contribution to the crumbling discourse, it seems, is believing in the tenets of classical liberalism. That, in and of itself, is a sin.
This leaves the person with two choices: Revise your viewpoint, or shut up. Which, of course, is the point.
Read the whole thing. Let me add one more item to ‘the conversation': your koolaid looks and tastes like crap.
Hoo boy. I feel better already. Glad we could talk!