On June 11, 2017, NBC's Megyn Kelly announced "Next Sunday, I sit down with conservative radio host @RealAlexJones to discuss controversies and conspiracies #SundayNight June 18 on NBC," providing a short clip from the upcoming interview.
The predictable outrage from the snowflake leftist NBC viewers soon followed (Just look at the Twitter comments in reaction to her announcement!), the arguments sounding much like the little college snowflakes we so often write about and who are so roundly criticized by conservatives for demands of "safe spaces" from hearing any opinion that does not fit in with their own ideology, while rioting and destroying property to prevent conservatives speakers from daring offer their own opinion at events at their campuses.
That is no surprise, it was expected, but the interesting part is that conservatives, who for the most part "see" the war on any free speech that liberals do not agree with, are now using the same arguments as those little college cupcakes do to justify the silencing of opinions that don't match their own.
The piece is written by a woman named Andrea Ruth, who in December 2016, wrote a scathing piece about how you can talk the "Safe Space Class,"†into anything, "no matter how ridiculous, if you simply intimate that someone, maybe, just possibly, might find something offensive."
In that piece, Ms. Ruth concluded by saying "But this is 2016 and the belief that every individual has a right to not be offended has reached peak absurdity."
Well, Ms. Ruth has just joined the "Safe space Class," because she is making the same argument against Megyn Kelly interviewing Alex Jones, that in December she called the "peak of absurdity."†
I just have to ask: What is Megyn Kelly thinking?
Iím a news and politics-engaged individual, but I donít care to watch interviews with liars of either Putinís or Jonesís ilk. These interviews arenít interesting even in the abstract.....
Ruth then offers her justification and supposed expertise regarding Alex Jones and his "ilk."
Let me be very clear, Iíve known who Alex Jones was a decade before most Americans. My dad was an early InfoWars follower. Before that, I can remember him getting the controversial Ron Paul newsletters in the 1990ís. When I introduced him to my first boyfriend, a ďcoloredĒ guy from South Africa, he explicitly told me he thought maybe he shouldíve taught my sisters and me to be more racist. Iím not naive of the Alex Jones ilk. I am very well acquainted with them.
So, she is an expert on Alex Jones' "ilk" because she knew her father very well and he was an Alex Jones supporter, yet she is very clear she †won't watch any interviews with Jones, or Putin for that matter, so she actually doesn't hear, see, watch or listen to any of their assertions.
Well..... how exactly does Ms. Ruth know either gentlemen is a "liar" if she doesn't listen to them, watch their interviews, and only depends on what others say and their interpretation of those interviews or actions, allowing someone elses judgement to determine her own? Where is her previous assertion that to not want to hear something that might "offend" you, relegates you to the "Safe Space Class?"
Ruth then goes on to highlight some of Jones' conspiracy theories, without once mentioning any of the political stories his site runs that are spot on and in agreement with much of Ruth and Red State runs on a daily basis, or the documents he has exposed in the past, painting him with the "conspiracy" brush... perhaps because she never bothers to actually research him, his assertions or the full scope of his reporting, but her arguments as to Kelly "legitimizing" Jones by simply interviewing him, are much like the same arguments the fascist leftists on college campuses use as justification to riot and to prevent the free speech on campuses because it might be "offensive" to them.
In the fall of 2016, a survey was released showing that half the college students in America approved of limits on their speech and the speech of their professors. And even more of them said that schools should monitor the speech of speakers who come to campus and ban them if their speech is considered unacceptable.
Constitution? We donít need no stinkiní Constitution . . . at least not when it causes a snowflake to melt.
Perhaps the writer of that article should have a talk with his colleague and fellow Red State writer, Ruth, because she does seem to be melting over an interview with someone she finds offensive.
Ruth is not the only conservative snowflake freaking out about the Kelly - Jones interview either as Editor at large for The Weekly Standard and outspoken #NeverTrumper, Bill Kristol, is also sounding much like those college snowflakes as well, encouraging people to try to force NBC to not air the interview, evidenced by the following tweet:
This is the same man that asserted on Twitter after the violence at Middlebury against a conservative speaker, "What happened at Middlebury to Charles Murray threatens not just campus free speech, but free speech--indeed freedom in America--generally."
Welcome to the "Safe Space Class" Mr. Kristol, there is a seat for you right in the front row next to Ms. Ruth.... today's topic is hypocrisy.
Other conservatives seem to be offended that Kelly described Jones as a conservative, as documented at Twitchy, even though she did try to minimize the fall out with a follow up tweet by stating "Actually, in our sit-down @RealAlexJones describes self as a libertarian who "likes what republicans stand for" but has issues w/them 2."
For the record I am not a huge Megyn Kelly fan, I found her vicious obsession with Donald Trump during the president campaign cycle to be unhealthy and disturbing, yet I will listen to her interviews and use them, as the one with Russian President Vladimir Putin. I also do not agree with everything Alex Jones asserts, but on topics where we have researched and come to the same conclusions, or an interview he has conducted fits with an article, we will use them and quote him.
With that said, the point here is the very same people and publications that roundly criticize the silencing of conservative voices by the little liberal snowflakes and cupcakes on college campuses, are now encouraging the silencing of Jones, because they don't agree with him, because he "offends" them, exposing them to be just as much of snowflakes as those they often criticize for attempting to stifle free speech.
More importantly is the fact that we are seeing members of the conservative movement living in much the type of "bubble" as the the MSM and liberals across the spectrum, where the only thing they are willing to see, hear, watch and listen to are voices that echo their own. Many have highlighted that President Trump's win in 2016 caught so many off guard because the media, along with Hillary Clinton, were quick to label all Trump supporters as "deplorables" without bothering to talk to Trump supporters and ask them their reasoning.
Perhaps they and their audiences wouldn't have been so blindsided by Hillary Clinton's defeat had they been willing to listen to the "other side."
Recently I highlighted to our readers that I spend half my research time on liberal sites (despite my conservative ideology)... I assure you, I do not do so for my health as those are the hours during the day I usually have to take a handful of Advil, not just because of what I am reading and seeing, but from slamming my head against my desk because of the idiocy I often read.
The reason I do so, is so I can accurately describe their assertions, not just "label" them without being able to provide proof or direct quotes to explain my assertions.
The point being, the so-called conservatives above, need to take a good, hard look at themselves before they dare call out college snowflakes as a threat to the Republic and to "free speech," for stifling conservatives voices because they find them "offensive", when these conservatives themselves are encouraging the same thing for the same reason. They need to also check themselves when talking about the establishment media "bubble" when they themselves refuse to leave their own echo chamber of like-minded opinions, and perhaps browse around, make a point to visit sites and listen to interviews from those they disagree with 100%.
When conservatives, the supposed defenders of Free Speech rights, start joining the "Safe Space Class," they then become the very thing they claim to abhor and oppose.
Bottom Line Questions: How do you accurately describe a viewpoint you are debating against when you never once listen or see that viewpoint from the source? How do you debate an argument when you close your eyes and cover your ears and refuse to learn the counter-argument?†
While the Kelly interview with Jones is completed, scheduled to air on June 18, 2017, (unless the snowflakes get it cancelled) Alex Jones has some harsh words to say about Megyn Kelly, saying she is "cold, robotic and dead," among other colorful descriptors.