Anyway, that sort of stuff is decried by the Left as "victim blaming", to the point that you can't even suggest, gently as a lamb, that getting blind drunk in the company of strange men might be a bad idea, just like leaving your new car unlocked with the keys in the ignition and the engine running in Detroit at night is a bad idea. So telling women that if they dress provocatively they are asking to get raped is bad, which it is but apparently showing up somewhere to speak on a controversial topic is being "provocative" and inviting violence. So says the New York Times this morning in their "Thursday Briefing" regarding Ann Coulter and others who want to speak in a public venue but have been prevented from doing so because of the threats of violence from the ironically labeled Leftist thugs "antifa".
See, if Coulter spoke at Berkeley and violence broke out and she got hurt, well tough cookies. She was asking for it. Heck, she was "eagerly" asking for it. What a slut!
The story should be, as it is from semi-responsible people across the political spectrum, that it is wrong to shut down free expression with violence and threats of violence. That isn't how it works today with our contemporary openly partisan media. Now they can't help but try to turn an obvious attempt at violent speech suppression into a "She was asking for it" because she and other conservatives are "eagerly putting themselves into volatile situations". Instead of Ann Coulter the Berkeley antifa are going to get the more inflammatory Gavin McInnes, Lauren Southern and others and their supporters who are fired up and spoiling for trouble speaking today at 2 PM. I am going on a limb and saying that they are going to find the trouble they are looking for. Eagerly looking for it even. If you won't let people like Milo and Coulter and of all people Charles Murray speak without violence and threats of violence, you are going to empower the more fringe parts of the Right.
Of course this is the same New York Times that suddenly has discovered the Federal deficit and is super concerned that the proposed tax cuts by Trump will increase the deficit.
Just to be clear, when Obama blows trillions in deficit spending on wasted "stimulus" spending, not a peep from the Left about the deficit and debt. That is because any spending that makes government bigger is holy and righteous. However any deficits incurred by reducing the amount of money taken from tax-payers, in other words letting the people who earn the money decide how best to spend their own money, is strictly forbidden because the average citizen cannot be trusted to act in their own best interest.How much Trump's tax proposal will increase the federal deficit:https://t.co/U5IYtXYqgb pic.twitter.com/6KWVMlv68q— NYT Graphics (@nytgraphics) April 27, 2017
The New York Times. All the hostile propaganda that's fit to print.
UPDATE: Charles Murray has weighed in on being accused of "asking for it" in a pithy and brief retort:
Saying yes to a student group's invitation to lecture = eagerly throwing myself into a volatile situation. Bullshit. https://t.co/JkMditKepv pic.twitter.com/VtGg4w35Qx— Charles Murray (@charlesmurray) April 27, 2017