Occasionally, I am overcome by hubris and momentarily believe that nothing the left do can shock me anymore. Then some leftist does something so egregious, so insane, so outlandish that my hubris recedes to a slight throbbing headache and stunned amazement.
This time, the pajama-boy in question is a self-styled “serious journalist”, a “Writer, Journalist, and Professor” who reports for “NPR, Time, Slate, Others”. His name is Adam Ragusea.
Pajama-boy recently tweeted that journalists should stop using the word “terrorism”. The “serious journalist” didn’t really enlighten us as to his reasoning (though my use of that term is rather loose). One option would be that we are being too mean, cruel, and unkind to the nice Islamic people who behead each-other and their perceived enemies, kill babies, and otherwise demonstrate the epitome of leftist kindness and goodwill. Another option might be that he wishes to appease those self-same nice Islamic people so they won’t kill him. This kind of appeasement has never before worked in human history, but I rather doubt that the “serious journalist” has bothered to study much history.
He does articulate a rather inchoate argument that the term “terrorist” has become rather “uselessly arbitrary and loaded” and goes on to blather about how ISIS “uses terrorism as a tactic” but not every member of ISIS is a “terrorist.” Hence my first paragraph.
And yet, it is not really pajama-boy’s silly and outlandish argument that raised my ire and overcame the aforementioned hubris. It was how he acted when challenged. Here’s a reconstruction of the twitter exchange, with my comments in green:
VP: So maybe leftists should stop using “arbitrary and loaded” terms for their opponents: racists, bigots, etc.
PB: How about if I labeled you “55 followers” Sure, because the validity of my argument has everything to do with my number of followers.
VP: I call leftists the “modern inquisition” because the wnat [sic] to burn anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy”
PB: how nice for you. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about, so bye. I’m responsible only for what I say, not for what you understand.
VP: guess you don’t understand that arbitrary terms go both ways. Not surprising.
PB: Guess you don’t understand that straight reporters already generally don’t label individual people racists/bigots. Really? Read the HuffPo lately? Or for that matter the WaPo or the Fishwrap of Record?
VP: Guess you don’t understand that there hasn’t been a “straight reporter” in U.S. major media for decades.
PB: feel free to keep moving the goalposts until you think you’ve won, but do it away from our mentions. Your bias is clear. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away. Same with terrorism, by the way.
VP: let me introduce you to Twitter. It doesn’t work that way. But thanks for the typical leftist “shut up” argument”
PB: oh, hey. it does work that way! As usual, leftists can’t stand having their position challenged, presumably because they’re so clearly superior that they don’t need to. No matter how idiotic their position.
VP: completely predictable that you’re unable to defend your position.
[PB blocks VP]
So this leftist imbecile came up with an idiotic argument based on the fact that he knows nothing about terrorism (nor counterterrorism) and then is unprepared to even have a rational discussion about it–still less to admit that he and his fellow travelers use similarly “arbitrary and loaded” terms about their opponents whenever they like.
The key fact here is that Pajama-boy is really denying that terrorists are his opponents–which may be true, since it appears that he generally supports the idea that the United States and its free-market Republic should disappear.