Joe Doakes, no longer of Como Park, emails:

We all know how Minnesota Nice works.  Someone invites you to dinner, she’s serving Italian Spaghetti.  Everyone in Minnesota knows there’s an unspoken understanding that “Italian Spaghetti” is hamburger, onion, and Ragu from a jar ladled over Creamette spaghetti noodles sprinkled with Kraft Grated Parmesan from the green can.  If you get there and the recipe is anything else, Minnesota Nice requires you to Try A Bite To Be Polite and when asked, say something bland like: “Oh, it certainly was Interesting.  I’d never have thought of adding raisins, wherever did you get the idea?”  Under no circumstances may you demand: “Why the hell are there raisins in it?” as that may offend the hostess which she will immediately tell everyone in town and you’ll never hear the end of it.

Ah, for the good old days when the only lie we had to acquiesce in, was that the meal was edible.  Now we need to pretend to believe whatever mental illness anyone else at the party asserts.  That guy claims he is a pregnant woman so he’s about to go on pregnancy leave from work.  Isn’t that wonderful?  “Well, it certainly is interesting.  However did you discover your new gender identity?”  That woman is so emotionally unstable that she needs to bring a comfort animal everywhere she goes and the airline won’t allow her alligator on the airplane, can you believe the outrage?  “Well, that certainly is interesting.  Wherever did you get one?”

Which makes me wonder: what if we . . . didn’t?  What if we didn’t pretend?  What if we responded truthfully: “I don’t like raisins in my spaghetti sauce; in fact, I never heard of anybody who did,” and let the hostess be offended.  What if we told the guy: “That’s silly, you’re a man, you can’t get pregnant and besides, Monty Python did it better in Life of Brian.”  What if we told the airline woman: “If you’re so crazy you need an alligator to avoid hysterics, I don’t want you OR your alligator on my flight.”

Liberals claim to favor free speech but what they mean is you are free to agree with them.  You can agree in word or song, music, poetry, or interpretive dance.  But you can’t disagree because they hate that.  They say: “Hate speech is not free speech,” but what they mean is: “Your opinion offends me.”  Yeah, so?  What if the First Amendment guarantees a Right to Offend?  What if stix-and-stones is essential to the smooth functioning of an honest society and the Heckler’s Veto is the Devil’s Work tearing it down?  

If you’ve got a problem with my opinions, well then, You’ve got a problem.  I don’t have a problem.  I’m comfortable with my opinions and I’m entitled to express them in law-abiding manner.  You are not entitled to suppress them through unlawful behavior, not by yourself and not by proxy.  Students on campus, take note.

It’s one thing if polite manners suggest we should not needlessly offend.  It’s quite another to criminalize offensive speech, to doxx and de-platform and de-monetize it, and quite the worst thing when government is doing it to political opponents, by phony lawsuit or by pressuring social media.  Making the most-easily-offended-person the focal point of an entire society is a recipe for societal collapse into anarchy.  We’re well on our way.

Joe Doakes, no longer in Como Park

Its hard to see this as anything but The Swamp killing freedom with a thousand petty little passive-aggressive cuts.

This entry was posted by by Mitch Berg on Thursday, May 16th, 2024 at 10:50 am and is filed under Liberty. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.