By Daniella Greenbaum Davis
Tuesday, July 02, 2019
Over the weekend, Antifa activists in Portland brutally
assaulted Andy Ngo, a gay Vietnamese-American editor and photojournalist. Ngo
was admitted to the hospital and, as a result of his assault, suffers from a
brain bleed, among other things. The attack on Ngo, in an American city, in
broad daylight, from a group purporting to care about justice and equality,
should have been inconceivable. Instead, it was inevitable.
My first instinct upon opening Twitter in the wake of his
attack was to be outraged at the dearth of journalists and pundits defending
Ngo or arguing that violence is never acceptable. But then I thought about it
for more than a moment.
Violence is often acceptable. Sometimes it is even
admirable. It is entirely ethical to conclude that if someone attacks you, you
can use violence to repel his assault. Likewise, if someone or a group of
someones were violently assaulting a third party, it would be not only
unobjectionable, but heroic, to step in and stop the assault, even if the only
way to do so was through the use violence.
This is precisely why the attack on Ngo was inevitable
and why, in all likelihood, further attacks, from Antifa activists and others,
will follow.
Pundits on the right have long rallied against the left’s
misuse of words like “unsafe” or “violent.” We have long cautioned that, beyond
doing a gross injustice to the English language, these misuses would ultimately
beget something worse than an abuse of syntax.
Ngo’s assault — and the reaction to it — is that
something worse. Once you buy into the idea that speech can be violent, the
logic defending violence as a means of suppressing speech is almost
unassailable.
If we agree that, as a general rule, violence is a tool
like any other that can, and sometimes should, be wielded in an attempt to
quell further violence, then once the Antifa activists determined that Ngo’s
speech is violent, it is both logical and consistent that they would use
violence to thwart him. This is bad news for just about everyone.
Larger and larger segments of society are buying into the
notion that speech can be violent. As more people reorient their worldview
through this lens, the problem is compounded by a second factor: the kind of
speech that counts as violent seems to be perennially expanding. As a result,
any group, at any time, can conclude that someone — this time a gay,
Asian-American journalist — is violent and must be stopped with violence.
This time it was Ngo. It will almost certainly happen
again, to someone else, very soon.
The aftermath of Ngo’s assault has been disturbing, for
several reasons. The first and most obvious is the lack of mainstream media
coverage this has received. A couple of notable journalists have reported on
this, including CNN’s Brian Stelter and Jake Tapper, but overall, this incident
is going heavily underreported. If Ngo had been beaten up in the Palestinian
Territories instead of in Portland, his assault would be front-page news. It’s
not.
The coverage that Ngo is actually getting isn’t all that
great, either. A brief perusal of the commentary demonstrates an ironic and
profoundly hypocritical reality. It’s common knowledge that blaming victims is
the quickest way to make enemies on the left. Ngo seems to have been excluded
from this consideration.
The Twitterati have several questions: Why was Ngo there?
Didn’t he know Antifa could be violent? Doesn’t he bear some responsibility
because he’s written so many “violent” things? Had he been a she, had she been
wearing a short skirt, had she been raped instead of beaten up, these questions
would be not only verboten, but considered violent themselves.
In the meantime, the real violence has gone under-reported
and under-criticized. This weekend, Antifa did nothing more radical than carry
an idea that the left has long been advocating to its logical conclusion. It is
unquestionably sensible: the logical end point of calling speech violence is
using actual violence to suppress speech. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the
end of peaceful society as we have known it.
No comments:
Post a Comment