screen cap from YouTube, Time Magazine video

 

The media continues to be myopic in its milkshake mendacity.

It did not begin in Britain, and it most certainly did not begin with milkshakes. Currently there is conversation raging in social media circles regarding the propriety behind hurling milkshakes at political figures as some form of social commentary. Earlier in the week British conservative politician Nigel Farage – a key figure in favor of the Brexit issue – was on the receiving end of a citizen dousing him with a banana-caramel milkshake.

 

 

That the bloated mook who committed the assault was not flung to the ground and gang-tackled by security proves he was not on American shores. But in the wake of this incident there has been a public debate across 2 continents over the practice. An alarming number of journalists and liberal politicians find that this is an acceptable form of public discourse, which becomes laughable given the claims that previously came from this same crowd.

What stands out from the those applauding the practice is that they are largely in approval based on the targets. With a lack of objectivity there are many applauding the actions because they find disfavor with the politician who was hit with the frozen drink. The short-sightedness is glaring, to say nothing of the hypocrisy.

Ah yes, as long as it is someone on the right this is all acceptable behavior. This one-sided appraisal of a situation is what has led the contemporary media into its current quagmire. In an easy piece of disproving the attempted interpretation of events here, look no further than the first sentence of this report from The Independent. Throwing a milkshake is claimed to not be an act of violence, yet on another day those holding the drink — poised to hit Farage — are described as being “armed with milkshakes”.

This stunted analysis by the press is of little surprise. There is a distinct inability to step back and apply their current thought-lines to a long-range range outcome. This is no different than the fashion of how the press rapturously turned over its credibility to Michael Avenatti; they focused on bringing down Trump so intently they could not envision being brought down themselves by a corrupted figure.

If, such as the case here, they promote the act of tossing Frosties at conservatives then they need to be equally supportive were it to become voters on the right slinging Slurpees towards liberal politicians. This would not be agreeable, as we well know. We are attuned to this discrepancy. The moment anything would get poured onto a leftist the screeching about the violent tendencies of the right would be instantaneous. We know this because of what we have been lectured about in just the recent weeks.

How many times have we seen news reports from the Democrats, and journalists, declaring that conservatives or republicans are inciting violence based on the words they spoke? We were recently told that the simple act of quoting the words spoken by Ilhan Omar, and/or Rashida Tlaib was endangering their lives. Not that there was any call for physical reprisals — simply quoting their own words verbatim was said to be placing them in direct danger.

So how does the left reconcile this newfound approval of attacks on some of our leaders? This is not some form of interpretational linguistics taking place (no “dog whistle”-type claim), this is an actual call for people to act out in a violent fashion. It does not matter that you want to reinterpret assault, based on who is being targeted. Throwing items at individuals is in fact assault. But it is clear that they want to take legal standards and contort them to fit their own whims.

Laws and rules are interpretational, based on who is involved. For this level of logic to hold it would mean that if I were to simply discuss the act of throwing a milkshake at someone, if they were a member of a particular minority group, then it would be far more hateful and considered a worse offense over someone else assaulting someone by actually hitting them with a milkshake.

The reason the left takes this stance is because they have been on the forefront of physical assault being deemed an acceptable measure of political disagreement the past few years. Look at the numerous ways they have been promoting this level of confrontation. Punching others is fine, if you declare that person a “Nazi”. Conservatives have been routinely confronted in public areas. Sarah Sanders had her family hectored out of a restaurant. Tomi Lahren had a drink tossed onto her at an eatery. Tucker Carlson had his family threatened on their property by protestors.

Yet these same people claim to get the vapors and wail from the fainting couch over words that disagree with their narratives. The hilarity is that the calls for violence expose the vacancy of their agenda. Their inability to combat opposing views with better views leads to the infantile need to lash out. British actor Ricky Gervais summed it up in pithy fashion in response to the recent call for more of these acts of childishness.

There is a hilarious obliviousness behind these acts. They are turning to physical reprisals because they can no longer make a verbal case for their cause. The very fact that they go on the attack is in reality a political surrender.