Whenever liberals are in a tight spot, they adopt the scorched-earth policy of argumentation. With no answer, they start demanding that you define words: What do you mean “liberal”? What do you mean “democracy”? What do you mean “patriotism”?

They retreat from argument, burning the English language as they go.

Accustomed to playing the role of Soviet commissar censoring the news when it comes to black violence, the Non-Fox Media are in a panic now that the alternative media can post videos of young black males punching out random strangers.

As a result, liberals are denying the “Knockout Game” exists by refusing to understand the meaning of basic words, such as “game” and “trend.”

Knockout Game-debunkers place great significance, for example, on the fact that the assailants have not signed affidavits calling it a “game.”

Thus, The New York Times noted that in one recent case of a random stranger being knocked out by young black males, “the attacker insisted the assault was not part of any organized ‘game.'”

A 78-year-old woman is punched by a young black male for no reason, and the Times’ central point is: “Perp says it’s not a ‘game.'”

Similarly, in Philadelphia magazine, Stephen Silver said of two recent knockout attacks in Philadelphia that he wasn’t counting either one as “confirmed cases of the Knockout Game” on the grounds that the puncher said he “was not participating in the Game.”

Until the assailants admit they’re playing a game, liberals say the Knockout Game is a “hoax.”

Obviously, it doesn’t matter what the participants call it. I don’t know anyone who calls himself a “pundit,” but that doesn’t mean people don’t go on TV and give their opinions. Every liberal denies he’s a liberal, but that doesn’t mean “liberals” don’t exist. (Would that it were so!)

While we’re on the subject, I can’t think of a single instance in which someone has admitted to committing a “hate crime,” but liberals are always calling things “hate crimes.”

The Huffington Post concluded that the Knockout Game was “fabricated” based on one of the most famous victims, James Addlespurger, denying that it was a game. Instead, he calls his knockout an “assault,” saying “game” is just a “label.”

Hey, you know what else is just a label? The word “assault.” “James Addlespurger” is a label. Another expression for “label” is “word” — meaning, “something liberals try to blow up whenever they’re about to be trapped into admitting the truth.”

As Sgt. Tom Connellan of Syracuse, N.Y., patiently explained to the Times, it’s called a “game” because there is no other motive for these attacks. They’re not done for vengeance, robbery, gang initiations or payback. Strangers are being punched out strictly for amusement. Also, there are rules. You get only one punch to knock someone out.

(Incidentally, the reason the Times was quoting a policeman from Syracuse — in an article questioning the reality of the “Knockout Game” — is that two recent knockout attacks in that city were fatal.)

We don’t need anyone to admit that it’s a “game” for it to be so. Doing something for no reason other than having fun is a “game.”

What do you mean “fun”? One man’s fun is another man’s torture!

This is how parents waste half a million dollars on their kids’ educations. Instead of learning how to make a point, their kids are learning how to end communication by denying the meaning of words.

Liberals also seem unfamiliar with the word “trend,” mocking the idea that the Knockout Game constitutes one.

I guess it depends on what the meaning of “trend” is. (“Trend,” “game” and “is” — three words liberals can’t understand when they’re lying.)

For this, we again turn to the Old Gray Lady, Trend Spotter. Over the years, the Times has identified “trends” in “eating oysters,” “honesty” in home furnishings and pocket-watch tattoos.

In none of these cases was the identification of a trend subjected to the exacting analysis the Times employed to deny that the Knockout Game was a “trend.” (Say, was the wanton violence by Democratic Party offshoot the Ku Klux Klan a “trend” or more of a “fad”?)

The Times even helped push the bogus idea in the 1990s that black church burnings were a “trend” — which turned out to be a complete lie. This led to one of Bill Clinton’s more colorful lies, about his “vivid and painful” memories of black church burnings in Arkansas in his youth.

(After a massive investigation involving the state historian, the Arkansas NAACP, the Regular Arkansas Baptist Convention and the Arkansas Black History Advisory Committee, it turned out no black churches had been burned in Arkansas.)

But the Times questions the idea that the knockout assaults are a “trend” — in an article citing three recent knockout attacks in New York City, as well as “sporadic reports” of knockout attacks in one single neighborhood in Brooklyn.

Nonetheless, the Times triumphantly noted that there have been no knockout attacks in Jersey City — and only one in Hoboken!

Back in 2012, three prominent people talked about Hula-Hooping, and the Times branded it a “trend.” It did so without first checking to see if anyone was Hula-Hooping in Jersey City or Hoboken.

Here are a few words I’m sure liberals do understand: Your days of controlling the news are over.

COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER