All readers can have their opinions on Breitbart and Morgan and Miller and who is right and who is wrong. That is not the point of the post.
The point under discussion is the continuing debasement of language and thought and the substitution of code words for actual reasoned argument.
Morgan said Breitbart was “notoriously evil about almost everybody.”
Where to begin?
The more you look at the comment the less sense it makes. Evil is a word with a specific meaning that is obliterated in this context. Morgan is misusing the word, and using it because it connotes something “bad” that he doesn’t want to bother to explain. And doesn’t fully understand. If you pressed him the “evil” would rapidly become championing conservative views and exposing the possible hypocrisy of political figures. It is only “evil” because it is derailing Morgan’s desired outcome.
Again “almost everyone” is an impossibility, too. Breitbart doesn’t know “almost everyone” so Morgan must mean something like “almost everyone whose politics I espouse” which is a different kettle of fish.
Then there is the question of “notoriously.” To whom, Piers Morgan, is it “notorious” that Andrew Breitbart is “evil” to “almost everyone.” Certainly not to me. But notorious has a long history as a word conveying misbehavior. “Notorious criminal” is a commonplace. is I would be tempted to discuss notorious Democrats, but that would be “Morganning.”
When you string it together you have an emotional outburst using coded language to express an incoherent anger that is not based on either reason or argument. It is precisely the kind of argument and dependence on emotion and trigger words that we are seeing all too often in political discourse. It is very common on the left of the spectrum and it is very dangerous. If one side is unable or unwilling or uninterested in forming a coherent argument actual debate is impossible and so is progress.