Posted on 12/22/2013 10:08:44 AM PST by madprof98
Edited on 12/22/2013 10:22:34 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I admire Mark Steyn’s gallantry in defending freedom of speech and thought, but his weekend column is less than illuminating. It seems to have been 200 percent felt and half thought. Sorting through and categorizing the jumble of quite different examples that provoked Mark’s dudgeon was nonetheless a useful exercise. Here are my undoubtedly boring conclusions.
When it comes to the legal restriction of speech, or the legal coercion of dissenters, I’ll storm the barricade with Mark. It amazes me that any soi-disant free people tolerate that sort of thing.
The use of speech to criticize other speech is something else, and the distinction between state coercion and cultural coercion is one that Mark typically doesn’t acknowledge, to the detriment of his arguments. That distinction can get pretty blurry in our present legal arrangements, but in principle the people have every right to make pariahs of whom they will, and to slug it out among themselves, so to speak, when they disagree.
Still, Mark has a point, and we should ask ourselves what sort of culture we’d like to live in. The readiness to ostracize those who offend our sensibilities is stifling and unhealthy. Except in very extreme cases, we should criticize speech rather than condemn speakers. This is also prudent. Martyrs are popular; better to make an argument.
On the other hand, I can’t agree with Mark that anything of value is lost when derogatory epithets go out of bounds in polite society. They tend to be bad even for humor, substituting stereotype and cliché for originality. People who used them in different times need not be regarded as monstrous, nor must the canon be censored; we could instead feel good about having awoken to a greater civility and make generous allowances for human fallibility.
By way of criticizing speech, I’ll say that I found the derogatory language in this column, and especially the slur in its borrowed concluding joke, both puerile in its own right and disappointing coming from a writer of such talent.
It received more angry comments from readers (457 so far) than any other thread on the Corner in my recollection.
Not coincidentally, Jason Lee Sheorts is also a big proponent of gay marriage.
That comment section is quite entertaining. The fagola have met their Waterloo.
So, Stein repeated the jokes that were popular in the seventies, instead of just alluding to them. Big deal.
I was surprised that National Review editors let those jokes slip through, though. National Review supports political correctness on some subjects and on others, not so much. My guess is that Steyn was making exactly that point when he included the jokes in his article.
Steyn can rest his case on this one.
If Steyn and NRO part ways, I follow Steyn. No contest.
Steyn is light-years ahead of this yahoo Sheorts in both writing and thinking skills and it irritates the crap out of him because Sheorts knows it’s so. That’s all we’re reading here - jealousy on the level of a high-school girl on who’s going to the prom with whom.
Never heard of this yob. I quit reading NR a long long time ago when it became a liberal rag pretending to espouse conservative views
Is this the same guy who wrote the love letter to terrorist Nelson Mandela?
Managing editor? Do you have a source for that, or did you promote him yourself? I’m curious . . . I’ve never heard of this guy.
The comments are hilarious.
Someone said the author is PajamaBoy
Those who known good style and content writing talent, recognize that Mark Steyn and Dan Greenfield are two of the best on today’s Internet.
That’s one of the better pieces Steyn has written, and he writes great stuff.
Steyn ping (sorta).
Worse yet for someone who ostensibly makes his living pushing words around, Steorts apparently doesn't know what puerile actually means. Steyn's closing line isn't the least bit childish, it's true artistry: courageous, provocative, and EXACTLY to the point he's trying to make, with nothing extra and nothing left behind.
Finally, the fact that Steorts isn't fit to shine Steyn's literary shoes -- his soporific piece would have been read to the finish by no one if it weren't such a senseless bit of cannibalism -- shouldn't hide the fact that he does not address Steyn's argument, at all.
Quis edere ipsos editores?
Rich Lowry is the editor of NR.
I checked the Authors page at NRO. Maybe 10% of the authors have a Bio page listed, including Mark and Rich.
Since Jason doesn’t have a bio up, I would think it unlikely he’s a “managing editor” there, whatever that title means in real life. I know Jonah Goldberg used to be listed as (editor at large), again whatever that means.
I actually don’t object to NRO posting stuff of this type, as long as they allow vigorous rebuttal. I chimed in as one of the first 20 or so.
I pointed out that the last time Steyn was challenged, he defeated an entire country, Canada, quite comprehensively.
I also suggested Jason google The Shagged Sheep if he wants some insight on what may happen to someone who gets into a was of words with the master.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366943/re-education-camp-mark-steyn
” ..we could instead feel good about... “
“bingo!”
Ack. Just checked Mark’s latest post on the Corner, and it seems Jason is an, or possibly the, editor.
“It is a matter of some regret to me that my own editor at this publication does not regard this sort of thing as creepy and repellent rather than part of the vibrant tapestry of what he calls an “awakening to a greater civility”.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366943/re-education-camp-mark-steyn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.