The home of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s is at it again! The University of California at Berkeley (home of the Fighting Totally Non-Violent Yet Destructive Antifas), is preventing conservative commentator Ben Shapiro from giving a speech on campus, citing their inability to find a venue. Similar circumstances affected Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter when they attempted to give speeches on campus.
Leftists, those champions of free speech as long as you agree with them, cheer whenever a conservative speaker gets shut out from giving a speech or offering an opposing viewpoint on news show, citing it’s not right to give these people (if the Left deem to call them that) a platform to share their opinions. Those vital spots should go to people who actually bring something to the table (i.e. who regurgitate the squawking point du jour). To better understand the Left’s objections, let’s take a look at the core of their complaints.
What the Left thinks it means – an area where ideas can be expressed with the consent/approval of the person, people, or entity providing said area
What it really means – the free market arena of ideas
One of the driving forces behind the Left is control. To put it simply, they are control freaks to the point Lady Macbeth looks like a coma patient. Since so much of their agenda revolves around controlling what is said and who is given credence, the Left needs to ensure theirs is the only voice people hear and their people are the only ones who are deemed credible. As a result, they need tight control over the medium, the message, and the messenger, and for many years, they had it all.
That’s when people like Rush Limbaugh came into the picture and started taking on the Left. Once there were new players on the board, there were different opinions that could be given attention. It was no longer one voice and one message, but multiple voices with multiple messages. That created chaos in the Leftist utopia, so they did what needed to be done: they tried to silence and marginalize the opposing voices.
Yeah. That totally worked. I mean, who in 2017 has heard of Rush Limbaugh? I mean, aside from his approximately 20 million listeners per week.
When the platform didn’t exist or wasn’t readily available for Rush, he created his own platform and turned it into a global phenomenon. No matter how the Left tries to demonize or disregard him, Rush finds a way to get his message out there. And Rush spawned others like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and scores of others who found their niche over the airwaves, in print, and online.
And the Left doesn’t have an answer. The current mainstream media are writing and reporting stories that make the Weekly World News seem credible by comparison. And the Weekly World News has fracking Bat-Boy! Err America…I mean Air America failed spectacularly, even with George Soros bankrolling it. And when it comes to online presence, the Right has the edge. Then again, when your Leftist standard bearers are Vox, Slate, and Daily Kos, the Right could just run a Blue Screen of Death and be ahead of the game.
And the Left can’t stand it. Since their efforts to delegitimize the Right have failed worse than an Al Gore exercise tape, their next step is to deprive conservatives of the ability to spread their message to people who might be receptive to it. That brings us back to UC Berkeley. Instead of allowing multiple voices on campus, the Leftists have resorted to any means necessary to take away the platform given to conservatives and then using that as proof the conservatives don’t have anything worth saying. That’s like an arsonist starting a fire and then saying it proves the need for more firefighters. These tactics include shouting down speakers, actively engaging speakers, physical altercations, violence, death and bomb threats, and rioting. In many cases, it’s worked. This tells me two things. First, liberal arts majors are taking some seriously disturbing electives, and second, the Left isn’t prepared to defend their positions against opposing viewpoints. By taking the stance they have, Leftists are conceding the intellectual battlefield through trying to turn college campuses and other venues into actual battlefields.
Not exactly an air of confidence from the “smart” ones.
The Left’s approach stems from the notion that allowing someone outside of their ideological and intellectual bubble to speak his or her mind gives the ideas legitimacy and means the entity hosting the outsider agrees with him or her. That’s an assumption without a basis in fact. Sometimes television news programs or radio shows give time to people with opposing viewpoints for ratings or to give another side of a situation. That does not mean they necessarily agree with the opposing viewpoint. In this case, silence is not consent, and silencing others is not an appropriate response. As we’ve seen with CNN, the Left will put on people the hosts vehemently disagree with just to get a rise out of people or to try to give the Left’s arguments more credibility by comparison. And that worked about as well as you might think from one of the networks running with the “Trump colluded with Russia” story.
If you want to showcase your brilliance, test it against those who disagree. If you win, great. If you lose, that shows flaws in your thinking that can be addressed to make your arguments stronger. But the Left can’t bring themselves to making better arguments, so they resort to trying to win debates by default through intimidation, disinformation, and shouting down arguments they don’t like. They think a crappy argument without a response makes the crappy argument unassailable, but what they don’t realize it is only makes their argument seem weak when you realize what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. If you have to win by deceptive means, you’re not really winning. You’re merely participating.
Then again, the Left loves participation trophies, don’t they?