I appreciate Paul’s response to my list of words/concepts I wish would be retired.
I stand by my call for retiring “civil discourse” as a topic. I object to it less because its meaning is contested than because of how it is abused by the Administration and the right and fetishized by incompetent, both-sidesing, abetting centrists in the media. The tone through which critics discuss and challenge the Administration’s misconduct is more important than the Administration’s misconduct and more important than the right to assemble and to protest.
Case-in-point from today’s talk shows is this Meet the Press exchange between an out-of-her-depth Kristen Welker and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey over his telling ICE to “get the fuck out:”
Welker’s question adopted the administration’s framing as the baseline: It is on ICE critics to “lower the temperature” and keep things civil–do not use expletives, do not call Jonathan Ross a murderer, be calm and professional and non-confrontational with heavily armed ICE agents who believe they are in a war zone.
I thought Cohen resolved this idea that speech can and should reflect the intensity of the speaker’s feelings and position and that the government cannot police that. “Get the fuck out” is a different–and equally worthy–message than “I wish ICE would leave and stop confronting our citizens.” “Jonathan Ross is a murderer” is a different–and equally worthy–message than “this shooting was unfortunate.” Insisting–whether out of dishonesty (the Administration) or incompetence (the media)–that speakers limit themselves to the latter examples undermines free speech.
And all of this without mentioning that someone (not clear if it was Ross) called Good a “fucking bitch” after Ross shot her. Or that Kristi Noem called Good a “domestic terrorist.” No one seems concerned about the temperature of statements dehumanizing the victim.