Disingenuous, Lying, Whining, Bloviating, Insurrection Encouraging Senator Josh Hawley Given Pages Of Major Newspaper To Explain How He's Being Silenced
from the oh-fuck-off dept
In Netflix's recent release, "Death to 2020," Lisa Kudrow does an absolutely pitch perfect parody of whiny "conservative" upset about non-existent "cancel culture" over "conservative views." Kudrow, playing the role of a Trump campaign spokesperson/conservative commentator, talks about how she has to keep saying that "Conservative Voices Are Being Silenced," including on a variety of popular media interviews and, of course, a NYT best-selling book by the same title:
Of course, it's becoming harder and harder to create satire and parody these days when you have terrible people like Senator Josh Hawley making such parody obsolete within days. We've already talked about how Hawley, a lying demagogue, who apparently has been plotting how to run for President since he was a child, threw an absolute shit fit when Simon & Schuster told him it no longer wanted to publish his book. Hawley, who was (briefly) a constitutional law professor, has a law degree from Yale, and clerked at the Supreme Court for Chief Justice Roberts, ridiculously claimed that a private enterprise deciding it didn't want to do business with him was an attack on his 1st Amendment rights. It was not. And, of course, within a few days, he had a new publisher.
But, Josh Hawley is going to Josh Hawley, which means never letting a chance to play the whiny, disingenuous victim go to waste. He's now been given column space in one of the most well known newspapers in the country, the NY Post, to whine about how he's being "muzzled." And, of course, as soon as that was published, he immediately ran to his Twitter account, which has over half a million followers, to post a link to this op-ed in a major American newspaper, to whine about how he's been muzzled.
I wish I were so muzzled.
Nearly everything about the article is bullshit. Josh Hawley, who is trying to restore his reputation after he was, correctly, seen as a key instigator of the insurrectionist mob at the Capitol, clearly has no compunction about just making shit up in an attempt to change the narrative. He wants to blame everyone, but refuses to take any responsibility. He's the antithesis of every stupid "conservative talking point" he spent decades spewing. He's refusing to take responsibility for his own actions. He's demanding government action to stop the free market. He's attacking actual free speech when it criticizes him.
I'm not going to quote any of it, because that's sinking to the level he wants. If you want to read it, you can see it above, but Prof. David Karpf's hilarious thread critiquing it as if it were a draft handed in by a student is basically all you need to see:
Okay... so, um, a few notes. This is not a good first draft.
1. The United States doesn't have a social credit score system. (Neither, really, does China.) People don't want to associate you because you promoted a violent insurrection. Do you see how those are *different*?
— dave karpf (@davekarpf) January 25, 2021
Oh yeah. Also, it seems worth noting that Josh Hawley, for all this bullshit about how he's being censored, silenced, muted and whatnot, actually... refused to grant an interview to the newspaper in Missouri that did a front page story on him this weekend. I almost called it his "hometown" newspaper, since he is "the junior Senator from Missouri," but that would be misleading, since he doesn't actually live in Missouri, and (while complaining about voter fraud) may have violated voter registration laws by claiming his sister's home as his Missouri residence for the last election.
Beware Josh Hawley's attempt to rehabilitate his reputation with this nonsense. He's a lying demagogue who appears unwilling to ever accept any personal responsibility for his role in inspiring a literal insurrection and mob that ended with five people dead.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: conservative voices are being silenced, disingenuous liar, insurrection, josh hawley, snowflake
Companies: ny post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I was thinking the other day about "milkshake duck" and "sealioning", and how maybe we need a cute animal-themed word for "whining about being 'silenced' on a national media platform to which most of us have no access". Fox-crowing, perhaps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel like it should involve “peacock”, as the whole point of the whining about “silencing” is to make a huge display of one’s ability to speak on a large platform about being silenced. Can’t figure out what should follow “cock“, though… 😁
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How have I existed on this planet and never once heard of "milkshake duck"? Before I googled it, I thought it was some weird reference to some song about obscurely attractive milkshakes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I like it. Very Aesop.
I think you've got the animals right, but need to massage the portemanteau.
CrowFoxing
Foxing the Crow
Crowing the Fox
meh, I'm no good at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Massage the portmanteau" is one of the most wonderful phrases I've heard in a long time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see he learned at least one lesson from the former president…though maybe not the one he should have learned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm curious which lesson he should have learned. Nothing comes to mind as anything anyone should learn from the previous administration apart from "yeah, let's not do that again".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: which lesson
yes, and it would be nice to put things into a broad perspective of US Presidential history (which has many villains and few saints)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you erect a gallows, break doors and windows into the Capitol, shout, “Hang Mike Pence!”, and bludgeon to death a Capitol policeman with a fire extinguisher — some people might hear all that?
Maybe Hawley thinks his political career has been just too, too quiet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah.
But it's actually an interesting contrast. Because of the relative power difference.
As President, when DJT wanted to change the subject, he didn't just start talking about something else, he CREATED another disaster or crisis, and the entire media (only half-erroneously) takes the bait. Trump had the ability to keep us on our heels.
A single Senator cannot easily create a distraction at a level anything like an awful President. So Hawley's "narrative shift" is less likely to succeed than the former President's many successes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"As President, when DJT wanted to change the subject, he didn't just start talking about something else, he CREATED another disaster or crisis"
Point of order - that makes it sound like Trump was competently evil, which we know he's not. What really happened is that there were so many easily avoidable disasters brewing at every moment, it was easy to point to a new one whenever required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-defended-oklahoma-ci
https://www.businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-defended-oklahoma-city-bomber-1995-2021-1
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: https://www.businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-defended-oklahom
I do feel this is not necessarily a bad way of explaining the conspiratorial mindset. Presumably people have to start thinking in that way at some point, so the question is then: what is driving them to that?
However this is a big yikes:
Already complaining about cancel culture in '95
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: https://www.businessinsider.com/josh-hawley-defended-okl
"Already complaining about cancel culture in '95"
This is why the recently-named "cancel culture" is actually another "Big Lie", and one that's been perpetuated for at least 4 decades. "Don't believe the media" is the refuge of autocrats throughout history, and the GOP has cultivated that seed and grown that crop with year-after-year of rancid fertilizer sprayed from the mouths of Newts to Joshes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The people largely decrying “cancel culture” these days are the same ones that created it: White conservatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: https.com/josh-hawley-defended-okl
No the “big lie” is that conservatives INVENTED cancel culture. It was a conservative who made laws against people like me (I’m gay) having second and getting married. It was conservatives that said black people should use separate water fountains and bathrooms. It was conservatives that said WOMEN should be in the kitchen and not in the voting booth. Honest to god, conservatives made the labels to begin with, and now that we’re pointing out all of that (as well as their long term consequences( all of a sudden they want these labels to away (while still trying to take away my right to get married in their 2020 platform). Stop trying to cancel my marriage and I’ll stop trying to cancel you. Politics is a CHOICE, when ya’ll need to take responsibility for your choices. If you really want the government to force Twitter to host your speech, please give me your address so I can start screaming in your living room. You can’t stop me, 1st amendment right!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: https.com/josh-hawley-defended-okl
I recall how in the late 1970's and the 1980's eighties the "conservative" religious and ideological "Right" were doing this -- but back then they were calling it "Politically Correct" or "Political Correctness" ("PC" for short) in a mock-ironic reference to brand this alleged phenomenon as a 'socialist" or "communist" style of suppression.
The label has changed since then, but the pattern is the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The grand irony there? “Nobody gets angrier about other people failing to use their specific cultural language, and nobody insists more violently that specific political language must be used, than so-called ‘anti-PC’ people.” (The source for that quote will be linked to in a moment.) That bullshit, by the by, is why I switched to using “personally considerate” a while back. It more accurately describes the purpose of such language (to show more personal consideration for others) and indirectly calls out those who don’t use such language as being inconsiderate. The difference might be subtle to some, but it makes for a refreshing change of thinking.
And if using that other form of “PC” doesn’t make an asshole change their way of thinking, it’ll likely make them angrier. Increased anger near-always makes an asshole act like a bigger asshole. That’ll pretty much prove your point for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A look through the book titled The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science proves that the word "politically" is completely unnecessary in such uses - the true meaning is revealed with its removal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Trump's coup had succeeded, he'd be writing Op eds claiming 'I'm being silenced by the screams of people whose deaths I have contributed to!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://thenib.com/silenced/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would love
Too see a newspaper give their State reps, a 1/2 page spread to say what ever they wished.
! per representative, per day, displayed in a newspaper(news site) for everyone to see.
Will they:
Go ape
Go propaganda
Stick to the Group comments of their party
Play the blame game
Conspiracy
Corp sponsored
What ever they write( I would hope in their OWN words, no editing, no one else gets edit it) Publish it.
I would REALLY love that.
Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Previously
On our previous episode, regarding newspaper op-eds, senator Tom Cotton was calling for the military to be deployed to quell riots. Despite being heavily criticized, he was proven correct when after Jan 6, democrats deployed armed security en masse to Washington DC.
Judging from that reaction, Josh Hawley is hitting a home run with this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Previously
Tom Cotton wanted the troops dispatched to crack down on people protesting because the police are murdering them without suffering any sort of consequence for their actions.
The Democrats had to put troops in the street because the right wing committed a terrorist attack in the capital and threatened more. They broke into the seat of power, planning kidnap and murder to install a tyrant.
One is an attempt to get support for a crack down on minorities and the left practising their freedom of speech, the other is trying to make sure the far right can't get close enough to murder the president. OMG, THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME, GUYS!
You really are a disingenuous moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Previously
Foul balls are home runs now. What a world.
So Josh was right that military was needed for the insurrection Josh supported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Previously
Feds (fed troops aka homeland umbrella peeps and military) are not supposed to be used for police action in states because then we'd be a police state. He was recommending hugging that line or crossing it.
Feds in fedland protecting fed land from non fed thugs is actually expected, accepted and normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Previously
"Feds are not supposed to be used for police action in states because then we'd be a police state."
The phrase Police State implies much more than just use of troops upon civilians. One could argue the US is presently a police state, it sorta depends upon one's skin color, income, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Previously
Tom cotton recommended that we go beyond the national guard, we mobilize the military, which are not supposed to be used for law enforcement. (his Specifically, he called on using the insurrection act and suspend local governance in favor of military rule. He claims that he did not call to suspend local governments, but he advocated going against the desires of local government to bring in the military. To do that they would have to operate the military outside any control by the local government (because they did not want a military response), which would undermine any actions the government would take (because the plan was to not take military action). Given that Trump's use of federal troops inflamed protesters, which local governance had already calmed to the point of non-violence, creating much higher levels of violence and property damage, that seems to have been a poor choice.
This is not what was done at the capital. In response to the hostile takeover of the capital building the national guard, not the military, were called in to provide standard security at the request of DC and capital leaders, something that was denied before the protests on the 6th. The result of the calm reasoned use of the national guard as a defensive tool for was a lack of serious violent protest.
If you want to establish hypocrisy, it might be helpful to know anything about the issues being discussed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Senate and the presidency were still under the control of Republicans between the 6th and the 20th. You don’t get to blame the Democrats for that one.
And people storming a citadel of democracy with the intent to murder lawmakers requires a greater show of force than a bunch of cops in SWAT gear to prevent another insurrection that takes more lives. I’m no fan of the military. I still have no issue with them protecting the peaceful transfer of power. For what reason is that a problem for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what happens when arrogant little shits get coddled and told the world revolves around them instead of being smacked down for being arrogant little shits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure does talk a lot for someone being 'silenced'
Minor nitpick on this one, when someone goes the extra mile to earn a title it only seems fair to honor them with it.
If someone spends years learning to be a doctor you should tack that on the name when talking about them, if someone spends years learning to be a teacher a reminder that they've done so is only fair, and when someone openly supports an insurrection against the government it's only just to remind people of that any time you use their name, so 'Josh Hawley, insurrection supporter' is a title he earned, and it's one he should carry whether he likes it or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you a fan of global warning?
You certainly don't appear to cherish snowflakes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are people who need to take greater blame than him and it's the fucking morons who voted for him! As soon as possible, vote for someone else and try to get someome with some sense this time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless he campaigned on a platform of supporting insurrections the majority of the blame is still on him. Now if they vote for him again then yeah, equal blame all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And almost half the country actually did vote for him again. There is no excuse for any of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Correction: less than half of the people who voted in the 2020 election voted for him. That's way too many, but it's not half the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
... but more than half the acreage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Only about 62% actually voted in 2020, and about 46.9% of those voted for Trump, resulting in only about 29% of possible votes. So only less than a third of the country (excluding those too young to vote) voted for Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come on, SAY IT, Mike Masnick and Everyone..
Muzzle me like you muzzled Josh Hawley... please!...pretty please!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Before Lisa Kudrow…
The joke of "'I have been silenced' (which I am saying everywhere" on the Netflix show has been done before in the form of this comic.
But leave it to Josh Hawley to fulfill satirical phophecies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hawley should be President... of Putin's fan club... I mean, once Trump resigns the position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With no particular context, it may be of interest to note that our over-privileged frat-boy Hawley is having his crayon-book published by the Good "Christian" brethren at Salem Communications, the same fine folk with whom right-wing fave Dennis Prager (Google "Prager U" for reference) has had steady employment, via his daily national radio talk-show...as well as his treasured office-mate, the Nazi socializer and sympathizer (though he denies the second description) "Dr." Sebastian Gorka, proud holder of a mail-order "Ph.D". (I will say, if I were casting a voice-over for satan, the first person I'd ask would be Gorka, who sports the perfect voice and delivery for such a role!) It took Salem less than 48 hours to gleefully offer full disposal of its publishing unit to frat-boy Hawley, after he was rightfully rejected by reputable publisher Simon & Schuster; Good "Christian" Salem Corp. will have the honour of further propagating frat-boy Hawley's bullshit, as befits a 21st-century "revolutionary" expansively more enamoured with Mussolini or Stalin, than with Washington or Jefferson. After all, what do the damn voters know anyway? What gave them the right to turn down Our Respected And Beloved Dear Leader, who wiles away his remaining days on the golf-links of his very own Mar-a-Lardo estate (to the continuing chagrin of his neighbors)? Perhaps frat-boy Hawley is simply trying to wangle an invite, out of the snow to sunny Florida.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]