Steven Crowder assaulted at Restore Sanity Rally

Erm, really? Reading clearly isn’t yours.1) “You know what Marx would think; REALLY ?? NONE of US know [sic] what Marx would think of our current political situation.”I believe I said…”Most of what we understand to be Communism was not Marx’ creation and there’s a legitimate argument to be made that he wouldn’t have supported it.”Which in no way states that I would know what Marx would think, nor does it have anything to do with our current political situation. I was discussing modern conceptions of Communism, which have their roots in Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism, not Marxism. I said “there is a legitimate argument to be made” (i.e. by referring to the primary sources of Marx that we have) that he WOULD not have supported this ideology.In other words, to someone who understands, well, history and logic, I said something to the effect of “Given the ideological bent of Marx’s writings, there is a case to be made that he wouldn’t align himself with contemporary “Communism,” an ideology that is attributed to him but has its roots primarily in the thoughts and writings of figures who emerged after his death.”How you got to “I know that Marx would feel X about our contemporary American political situation” is beyond me.

Also, incidentally, “none” is a singular (contraction of “not one”) so you should say “none of us knows.”2) “It’s the Democrat Party.”No, it’s not. “Democrat Party” is nonstandard terminology that dates back to the 40s and 50s and is primarily used as a political epithet by Republicans.I know that this must confuse you, because Republican is both and adjective and a noun (i.e. a supporter of the ideology of the Republican Party or something that relates to said ideology), while when dealing with Democrats you have the nominal Democrat and the adjectival Democratic, but do your best to try and remember it, okay?3) “The definition of “terrorists” is the convenient domain of those in power; look up “The Prince”.”I’ve read “The Prince,” thank you very much. Why, exactly, are you referring to a 16th century political treatise (that was written in Italian) to counter my definition of the contemporary English word “terrorist”? I admit that it was imprecise: it’s people who use violence or the fear of violence as a means of achieving political ends. I recognize a certain amount of contextual polysemy to the phrase, but the precise context and meaning of your counterargument is unclear to me.If you want to argue this in the language of academia, I’d be more than happy to engage you.

Well, everyone says I never get the jokes. Just sayin
Personally, I think Stewart should stick to scripted shows inside the studio. It’s a little safer than winging it in front of thousands of people. It was sort of a bomb rally. Someone I read called it Peckerwoodstock.