Taranto/WSJ’s Best of the Web: “Not that long ago, the Globe‘s sister paper, the New York Times, was blaming the Tea Party for political violence that had not actually occurred. Now the Globe is publishing justification for riots that have not happened.” The Globe‘s editorial is occasioned by riots that did happen, in England; the writer is eager to blame anyone but the thugs for the thugs’ conduct.
When you tell people, “Go ahead and rob, commit arson, vandalize and loot; you have had no choice, you are a mere automaton and mere pawn of world-historical materialist forces, and we’re not going to blame you if you do, it was economic circumstances and budget cuts that made you do it,” does that encourage or discourage the type of people looking for excuses to pillage? If you heap tinder and coals on a fire, do you thereby help or hinder the flames?
Next the rationalizers will be telling thug-types, “Go ahead and editorialize by vandalizing evidence and burning logic to the ground, you have had no choice, you are a mere automaton and mere pawn of world-historical materialist forces, and we’re not going to blame you no matter how ramshackle your ratiocination, it was the lefty and deterministic notions which you imbibed from academia and colleagues and which you never troubled to independently assess that made you do it.” I really feel that that’s exactly the very next thing that will be on the lips of the editorialists. But no matter what the idiot box or idiot journal article tells people to do, they still have a choice. Not everyone subject to the same forces, and farces, responds by shucking the minimal constraints required to maintain civilization.