When Brian Kilmeade of FoxNews tweeted it out, more than 652,000 followers watched Cate Blanchett’s epic identity politics rant from the new movie Tár. DailyCaller.com, Breitbart.com and many others on the political Right circulated the movie clip. But should conservatives — thirsty for anything in the culture that affirms their beliefs — be so quick to embrace Blanchett as a new “anti-woke hero”?
Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle, since 2009, have co-hosted a current events show multiple times each week thanks to our Members and donors. To donate, tap the big blue button above. To become a Member, tap the big green button.
6 replies on “Anti-Woke Hero? Thirsty Conservatives Drink Up Cate Blanchett’s Epic Identity Politics Rant in Tár”
The more years I log in, the more I become the curmudgeon cartoon character. Get off my lawn!
Leftists know that they are fighting against “the good”. Anyone who says they are “mislead” or “naive” or “uninformed” is just being an apologist for them.
Bill hit the nail on the head when he was talking about if Archie Bunker were a real racist he wouldn’t be arguing with a black guy or rubbing elbows with the Jeffersons or any of that. What Bill said was …
“It’s a false premise.”
… and that pretty well nails the whole problem. If you start from a false premise you don’t get truth.
When a reporter asked Ron DeSantis why his hurricane plan took so long to put in gear he was asking from the false premise that assumed DeSantis’ hurricane preparations were inadequate and slow. DeSantis stopped the reporter before he could finish his ‘question’ and made it very clear the his hurricane related government services were in fact well planned out and historically fast. With his false premise thus blown out of the water the reporter was left silent holding a microphone with a stupid look on his face.
This is how the left guides and advances their narrative. It’s like asking someone ‘Well, when did you stop beating your wife?” The false premise being that you did in fact beat your wife but have stopped.
The Left uses this in EVERYTHING. Woke ‘news’ media proceeds from a false premise that there is some sort of magical, unviewable, unprovable systemic racism in the US and that’s a given fact. It’s not.
The child groomers established the narrative that when it comes to transing kids it’s better to have a live daughter than a dead son. Because if you don’t let your confused teenager transition to the opposite gender then he’s going to kill himself. So then he kills himself from the pain, interminable surgeries and irreparable damage to his body but hey, at least he died as a girl. You still end up with a dead kid and you’re more likely to end up with a dead kid if you mutilate, drug and confuse him even further.
Etc. If you look for it this false premise problem exists ubiquitously in the narrative of Leftist Social neo-Marxism.
We used to be taught about things like sophistry, false premises, logical fallacies and such in college. Clearly that is no longer on the curriculum because I see this sort of thing constantly. (Not just from the Left either.) It’s not that they make a valid argument consistent with obvious facts, they make any argument at all because a ‘zinger’ is better than the truth. We are often gob-smacked into silence when they pull this on us. Not because of their blazing irrefutable logic and the truth in what they say, but because you can’t fight stupid with even more stupid and we can’t believe there are people that stupid.
My thought on reading the title was, “I bet her character in the film turns out to be a Nazi, or serial killer, or a big business fraudster, or a Nazi serial killer fraudster.” Seems I wasn’t all that far out. It’s interesting that the whole trans business has moved the left’s perception of lesbians to the point where they can be villains now.
This is another tactic that’s long been in use that we’re waking up to and can deal with now, like a mine that you know the location of. Tagging sound sentiments to an otherwise reprehensible character is an old favourite. The weakness of the tactic is that the words stand or fall on their own, we can agree with them or not without liking the character. Whether they are spoken by a fictional villain or not is irrelevant. All people are fallible and weak, we all fall short. When we say things that are true, our own failings don’t make things less true. How much more true is this when the flawed person saying things isn’t even real?
Interesting point on Archie Bunker, he was a US adaptation of the character of Alf Garnet, a “racist” working class Conservative dockyard worker in the east end of London. Written by Johnny Speight and played by Warren Mitchell, the original sitcom was Till Death Us Do Part with various spin offs. Exactly the same thing happened in Britain as in the US with Archie. Even though both Speight and Mitchell were consciously trying to send up and “expose” unacceptable social and political attitudes, the public loved Alf and largely agreed with him. Like Archie, the character used racist language, but his own treatment of others didn’t bear out the alleged racism.
Alex P Keaton, another one
thanks guys!