Unethical Quote Of The Month: CNN’s Chris Cuomo

“But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out.”

—CNN’s news anchor turned pundit Chris Cuomo, in the middle of a long justification of the use of violence to suppress speech and political opinion.

CNN cannot be taken seriously as a news organization as long as it continues to employ Chris Cuomo. I have concluded that Cuomo was only admitted to law school because his father was a popular governor of New York. No other explanation makes sense. Even after allegedly completing his three years, he doesn’t comprehend basic law or the Constitution.  He has, for example, advanced public ignorance by stating that “hate speech” is not protested under the First Amendment. On another occasion, he said that it would be illegal for citizens to read leaked classified material available on the web, but that journalists could read it and then tell the public about it.

The man is an idiot. He constantly utters legal and logical nonsense, and with the certitude that only a true idiot can muster. As a journalist he is biased and sloppy; as a pundit he is pompous and unqualified. His latest foray into irresponsible use of the First Amendment was two days ago, when he said, in discussing the often violent counter-protesters to the virtually non-existent white supremacy demonstration in D.C. over the weekend, this, the entire speech from which the Unethical Quote of the Month was extracted:

But I argue to you tonight, all punches are not equal morally. In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: if you’re a punk that comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause. You’re just somebody who’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong. But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no. Fighting against hate matters…Now, how you fight matters too. There’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out….But fighting hate is right. And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right. Think about: civil rights activist, were they the same morally as the bigots, as the racist with whom they exchanged blows? Are people who go to war against an evil regime on the same moral ground as those they seek to stop from oppressing the weak?…When you punch me in the nose for being Italian and you say I’m somehow less than, am I in the same moral place when I punch you back for saying that? It’s not about being right in the eyes of the law, but you also have to know what’s right and wrong and immoral, in a good and evil sense.

Civil rights activists fought back when they were attacked while engaging in a peaceful protest. That’s called self-defense, and is neither the legal nor the moral nor the ethical equivalent of the violence that provoked it, not because of the views involved, but because of the nature of the violence.  “Think about it,” says Cuomo. Right there, we see the quality of his thought, and it is infantile and embarrassing. If a white supremacy demonstration was proceeding peacefully and legally, antifa thus attacking the participants would be exacly as “moral” as those who attacked the Sixties civil rights protestors. Exactly. Cuomo not only doesn’t comprehend this, he is smug about his ignorance.And CNN allows him to spread it!

Similarly, his next analogy is the product of a weak mind and a bad lawyer. That is also self-defense. Cuomo, dim bulb that he is, said that the return punch was for the insult: really, Chris? I’d assume that it was retaliation for the punch in the nose. And no, there is nothing “morally right” for you to punch the guy if he only insulted you and didn’t punch first.

Cuomo was advocating violence as a means of suppressing speech and intimidating those who have unpopular views. There is no other way to interpret his words., or him. What other sentiments justify “moral” violence, Chris, other than a preference for white supremacy and a dislike of Italians? You’ll have to let us know, since you and your simpatico ideologues are apparently the arbiters. No affirmative action? Against gay marriage? Make America Great Again? Freedom of speech? Go Yankees?

In a column excoriating Cuomo, Alex Griswold of the Free Beacon wrote,

“Fighting hate is right,” is a sweeping statement that misses that there are about a million ways of fighting hate, and some are clearly moral and some are not. This is the crux of the issue, and it’s getting to the point where I can’t tell if Cuomo is intentionally dishonest or merely very obtuse.”

Trust me on this, Alex: he’s obtuse…obtuse, and like a growing number of doctrinaire anti-speech advocates on the Left, too fond of  totalitarian tactics to brush off as just a harmless fool.

35 Comments

Filed under Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights

35 responses to “Unethical Quote Of The Month: CNN’s Chris Cuomo

  1. dragin_dragon

    I would point out that the ‘Brown Shirts’ got their start in much the same way. Unlike Germany, however, Americans are willing to fight back.

  2. A.M. Golden

    My mind cannot grasp why the Left wants to extend the powers of the federal government to suppress speech during the administration of a man they are convinced is a dictator.

    • Aleksei

      It’s a case of we need to destroy the village to save it. Also, because they need the power right now, there is no worry about consequences down the line. We’ll worry about those when they present themselves, so to speak.

    • Rich in CT

      The right to enforce groupthink is not an enumerated constitutional power of the federal or state government; in fact it is expressly forbidden in the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

      Therefore, the right to enforce groupthink is reserved to the people at large.

      • Rich in CT

        violators of the groupthink sheall be judged and executee by an ad hoc tribunal of their peers, up to and including members of the media, house, senate, judicial and executive branches (for we are all equals before the law), who will examine all public and private writings and recordings duly leaked to it’s attention, and rend it’s fair and immutable opinion based on the intersection of the accused’s race, gender, and position of privilege.

  3. Willem Reese

    To be fair, Chris comes by his “unethics” naturally; it’s a Cuomo family thing. Witness Andrew’s recent mafia-esque moves against the NRA.

    • Mario was smarter than both of his sons put together. Kind of like how Bobby Kennedy was smarter than all of HIS sons put together…

      • Willem Reese

        Heh, I had considered noting, in my previous comment, that Chris might well have his own special personal reservoir of “stupid”, but you’d already covered that.

      • PennAgain

        Did you mean Bobby, or Old Joe? If Bobby, were you leaving out his daughters just for the Cuomo comparison? I took a look at the bios of his ten — that would be one huge depression of a documentary I hope never gets made. … but then, there’s one of them on Fox.

  4. At this point all these “reporters” sound alike. Here’s a tweet from Dan Rather the other day:

    When Trump criticizes “all types of racism” he’s using false equivalence to wink at those who peddle in the distortions of white grievance. It makes a mockery of our history and our present. It’s not calming and unifying. it’s provocative and divisive. And it’s intentional.

  5. DaveL

    I’m pretty sure that religious groups in the Middle Ages already tested the reductio ad absurdum of Cuomo’s argument. So you’re fighting against hate on behalf of the forces of tolerance and equality? Big deal, the Inquisition, the English Reformation, the expansion of Islam by conquest – all believed they were fighting on behalf of God Himself, and all that was good and holy, against the literal forces of Satan, for the sake of the souls of all mankind. Naturally, they thought their methods were justified, too.

    Even more on-point should be the efforts in the 20th century of one of history’s most prominent anti-fascists: Joseph Stalin. After all, he fought literal Nazis, back when “literally” had its original meaning.

    • Other Bill

      Good perspective, DL. Thanks.

    • Dave I agree. What we’re seeing is religious in nature, even if that religion is secular & godless. From self flagellation and confessionals “I confess to having unearned privilege” to religious garb in the form of virtue signaling tee-shirts. Cuomo (and his cohorts) is acting like an indignant temple priest and his statement is just another exercise in a type of public chanting of tenets, to bolster his righteousness.

      Cultural Marxism is a terrible religion.

  6. Isaac

    “In the eyes of the law, yes. But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument…”

    What’s Cuomo he saying here? There is objective good and evil? So it’s not just human consensus? He he believes in a specific God who is the author of moral law? I believe that, but I don’t think he does. These clowns appropriate Christian morality (which they don’t believe in) whenever it suits their rhetorical purposes.

    There is no moral equivilancy between white nationalist dorks and the “anti-hate” dorks. The antifa mob is WORSE:

    1. There are magnitudes more of them.
    2. They are backed and encouraged by billionaires and corporations, and their crimes are covered up by the media.
    3. They face relatively little to no consequence for their actions.
    4. Frankly, they’re stupider. I feel like I could at least reason with a white supremacist, even if I didn’t change his mind. Good luck having a conversation with any of the shrieking, cosplaying hivemind drones of antifa.

  7. Glenn Logan

    Re: Cuomo
    Cuomo is confusing self-defense and lawlessness. By definition, self-defense is a response to a direct threat or attack. Attacking someone with whom you disagree is never, ever self-defense and cannot be the moral equivalent of it.

    But in the eyes of good and evil, here’s the argument: if you’re a punk that comes to start trouble in a mask and hurt people, you’re not about any virtuous cause. You’re just somebody who’s going to be held to the standard of doing something wrong. But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no.

    Two questions for Chris: Who gets to define good, and evil? Is he saying the totality of the AntiFa position is good, or just that their hatred of racism is good? We don’t know, because Chris doesn’t tell us. AntiFa stands for many things I think are not good, among them are commitment to violence against those with whom they disagree philosophically, an embrace of destructive leftist anarchy, and a rejection of authority. Is Cuomo willing to pronounce all that good? Or is it just “better than the opposition,” who as it turns out, are on the right side of two of those three things?

    Second, who throws the first punch? That’s how you figure out who’s wrong and who’s right. Because instantly, the punchee becomes the defender and the puncher becomes the aggressor and lawbreaker. No matter where you assign moral turpitude, it doesn’t and cannot justify violence in response.

    Fighting against hate matters…Now, how you fight matters too. There’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out….But fighting hate is right.

    Fighting what hate is right? I hate communism and socialism. Is it okay if I locate me some socialists and bash their brains out on the sidewalk? I hate anti-Semites, and I’m not even a Jew. Does that mean I can crack me a few Skinhead skulls and be on the moral side of good?

    Of course, no, because lawlessness is worse than “hate” (whatever that is, I assume racism). Hate doesn’t leave bodies in its wake, but lawlessness does. Some would argue that the KKK lynched blacks because of hate, but truthfully, it was just lawlessness that did the killing, not the hate.

    Cuomo is justifying lawlessness because he finds the victims of the lawlessness of AntiFa worthy of their fate, but c’mon, that’s just vigilantism writ small. Is he okay with me knocking off terrorists in subways like a latter-day Charles Bronson?

    And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.

    Look out, Louis Farrakhan, me and my blackjack are on the side of right — Chris Cuomo says so!

  8. Cuomo wrote:

    “But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no. Fighting against hate matters…Now, how you fight matters too. There’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out….But fighting hate is right. And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.

    My impression is that his idea, his assertion, his understanding even, is a logical one if one considers the training one has received about the rise of the Nazi in Germany. The question: Why did you (or they) do nothing to stop it? Why did they not act against it? always comes up.

    And according to the way the narrative is structured, there was then and there is not now any *nice* way to fight against Nazis. You have to come at them with full force. You have to destroy them.

    In Charlottesville, according to the narrative, the Nazis came to town and brought with them all the hate that one associates with Nazis. This is how it was framed and this is, with some exceptions, how it was perceived.

    Therefor, there is at least some logic to his reasoning. If *you* do not stop *them* now, *they* will soon enough get the upper hand. Just like with the Brown Shirts.

    The emotional ideal that Cuomo has, and honestly believes in, is in a large degree that of the entire country. They have been taught that tolerance is complicity. Therefor to be non-complicit one must be intolerant.

    • Cuomo wrote:

      “But when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no. Fighting against hate matters…Now, how you fight matters too. There’s no question about that. But drawing a moral equivalency between those espousing hate and those fighting it because they both resort to violence emboldens hate, legitimizes hateful belief and elevates what should be stamped out….But fighting hate is right. And in a clash between hate and those who oppose it, those who oppose it are on the side of right.

      My impression is that his idea, his assertion, his understanding even, is a logical one if one considers the training one has received about the rise of the Nazi in Germany. The question: Why did you (or they) do nothing to stop it? Why did they not act against it? always comes up.

      And according to the way the narrative is structured, there was then and there is not now any *nice* way to fight against Nazis. You have to come at them with full force. You have to destroy them.

      In Charlottesville, according to the narrative, the Nazis came to town and brought with them all the hate that one associates with Nazis. This is how it was framed and this is, with some exceptions, how it was perceived.

      Therefor, there is at least some logic to his reasoning. If *you* do not stop *them* now, *they* will soon enough get the upper hand. Just like with the Brown Shirts.

      The emotional ideal that Cuomo has, and honestly believes in, is in a large degree that of the entire country. They have been taught that tolerance is complicity. Therefor to be non-complicit one must be intolerant.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.