Home   |   Browse       NEW: (hypothetically starring) VIC REEVES as LUKE SKYWALKER .. in "Waiting for Godot, the hollywood version".

Nick Cohen writes like an evangelist Christian or jihadi Muslim.   Share:  
Thrust of argument: "Let us now praise" is the thrust of the opening (by means of the title, which may well be written by a Spectator editor of some sort, or lackey, whatever they call themselves, but which is there to reflect Cohen's voice so let's assume it reflects his voice and seek more evidence of this trend in his style later) of an article by Nick Cohen I looked at in the Spectator. Direction of resistance / implied resistance: Cohen sees his audiences as a flock, his pen as a pulpit and his words as some kind of gospel.

 

Read about a low-risk "end of day" trading method designed for long and stable periods of economic activity.

 

Enter your DOMAIN NAME to
collect this point:

 

Removal of resistance: People like that do not believe in worrying about presenting a great deal of evidence, if any at all. They tend to exaggerate a great deal and usually hate people of other religions to whatever theirs is, be that some kind of weird Tony Blair worship or whatever (in Cohen's case much must be read to get to the bottom of why his demons exist). Unification: Evidence-based argument requires no leaders, demagogues or preachers. Thus I will have to suffer the intolerable fate of reading dozens of examples of this twit's "journalism" (it is a shame to insult men like Alex Cockburn by pretending that what Cohen writes is the same in any meaningful way to what he, or Klein, or countless nameable real journalists write). Otherwise how can I demonstrate to myself and you whether or not he uses this sort of preachy religious language often. "Let us praise" is almost a direct quote from numerous religious rituals and this sort of command to tell people to praise people is just not part of journalism.

My only instruction to people in my writing has been through being the programmer of the grid. As a result I wrote the instructions, which tell you to tell what you want, as well as possible, to contradict everyone, including me, ABOVE ALL me. Contradict me. If you're wrong, you'll learn. If I'm wrong, I'll learn. Either way we'll both learn something both times. What's to lose? So when a writer tells you what to feel, who to "praise", that's when you should start looking to see if they are doing it a lot and as for any instances of it: I will now look through all my writing and remove (transparently) all such cases, if there are any, and report on my findings either way, but if someone tells you who to like or not, my advice to you is to remember that it's up to you who to like or not.

When Clegg told Paxman off for not wanting to vote for any of the current parties, it was absurd: Paxman is not there to tell people who to vote for. Telling them that the parties do not appeal to he himself is not a way of promoting or unpromoting anything. Clegg wanted Paxman not to host debate but to preach partisanship. Paxman said that he didn't like any of the parties. This is not praise or attack. People may want to think it is "attack" but it isn't because he clearly feels that new parties, other parties, parties who change their behaviour, COULD be worth voting for. The sense is all there in what he said. So he dignifies voting itself all the more. He salutes the process and joins with it and celebrates his job in what he said. Clegg has it backwards. And Paxman never tells us what to think. He tells us to think. And helps us do it by giving us doors to debate and logic and reason.

Cohen tells us what to think. "Praise this man" he says. "This man is bad" he says of another. As a result of all this I have to go through all he writes and establish how much he does this and how bad he is as a writer. This does not make me guilty of what he has done. China has recently attacked the USA for a long history of interfering in other people's business on falsified grounds of humanitarian intervention and has warned that it is the duty of the globe to respect sovereignty and that the US's falsification of reasons to create violence in other people's countries is going to meet with international force sooner or later. My warning to Cohen is exactly the same as China's is to the USA.

It is time for Nick Cohen and those all too much like clones of him to stop being spoiled children.
Rebut this point   Support this point   Edit this point

(TVhobo's estimated size of readership since 2013, mainly in the UK and USA, with Germany in third place:
over 200,000 readers across approximately 200 cities/towns

 

Copy/paste point into your work:

Type: Open statement

1 versions:

1. Server time: 13:59:20 on 14/2/2018

Related points:

References:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/04/simon-singh-let-us-praise-a-bloody-minded-hero/

 

 

previous point on the grid   |   next point on the grid

 

Click here to read about Shams Pirani, the editor and chief author on this grid - note, if you can actually prove anything written above wrong, I would gladly, if the proof is sufficient, correct what I've written and what I think - if I could, however, prove your attempted proof wrong, then I would accordingly say so and maintain whatever point of view is completely based on fact and proof.

Browse the index: 1 | 2 |3 |4 |5 |6 |7 |8 |9 |10 |11 |12 |13 |14 |15 |16 |17 |18 |19 |20 |21 |22