LIKE: “NEVER ascribe to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.” (Or stupidity.)
There’s been a lot of talk among We the Little People In the Right lately about tactics and strategic assumptions and the like. And I have to say I like to see the discussion going on, but I hope that people do keep in mind that the end does not justify the means. It’s quite proper to fight to win, it is never proper to fight dirty. And Ronaldo Magnus showed us how here as in so many ways.
But on those strategic assumptions. There has to be some forethought given the question of when to fight. What tripwires demand which retaliation in response, when to escalate — when to bitch slap, and when to go for the Doc Marten to the marbles. What motives do we ascribe to what actions? What constitutes prima facie evidence of ill intent, and what is an apposite casus belli?
Insty posts a note on some contretemps or other in New York. Apparently some pretentious prat got a wind up and spouted some leftist twaddle at a Philharmonic concert. To quote Simon and Garfunkel, “…And blah, blah, blah.” The audience gasps, some stiffnecks walk out, and the rest titter nervously while rattling their jewelry and clinking their champagne flutes. Insty closes with the assertion:
Like the Big Media, they don’t seem to mind losing audience in exchange for politics.
…Which, of course, assumes that the concommitant destruction of civil society that goes with the cycle of outrage, protest, withdrawal of support, and the dying on the vine of cultural institutions for that lack of support is entirely unintentional.
Knowing the leftist inclination, its destructive tendencies, and tendentious nature, one is forced to assume this cannot be true. To the contrary: such destruction must be assumed to be intentional, to be the planned eventuation out of the outrageous behavior. To assume otherwise is to first concede the battle to the enemy and second to commit suicicde thereby.
I don’t think so.