3 ms·

Vox actually covers this really well https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280

by dagmx 6y ago

Vox actually covers this really well https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cot... Basically it boils down to: * it was a fairly dangerous opinion with fabrications that weren’t vetted by the editorial team * it was disrespectful and dangerous to the safety of their employees of color. The safety of people should not be a partisan issue * it compromised the reporting abilities of other arms of the NYT

twybrobdingnag 6y ago
What I found fascinating in this story is that NYT claims with a straight face that the respective piece is dangerous specifically to their employees of color. I can see how one can hyperventilate 'military in the streets' to 'military shooting live ammunition indiscriminately into masses of peaceful protestors', and I can see how they'd imagine their brave reporters being in the front lines to keep us informed, but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'.
- DagAgren 6y ago
  > but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'. Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.
  - twybrobdingnag 6y ago
    That is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have that this hypothetical you are constructing has any bearing to reality? I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation. These days we gleefully accuse people of hypothetical crimes. How about we stop doing that?
    - danharaj 6y ago
      > I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation It's a guiding principle of jurisprudence, not conversation. Don't be so pompous as to think the level of your discourse rises to that of a court proceeding.
    - DagAgren 6y ago
      I did not make any accusation. I was clarifying the position of the people who's thought process you "couldn't imagine". Now you can.
- dagmx 6y ago
  You have to be purposefully ignoring the reality of current events in the USA to take your position unfortunately. Have you looked at how much more aggressively police have been targeting people of color during these protests? Your view only makes sense in a truly equal world. We are not in that world.

by dagmx 6y ago

twybrobdingnag 6y ago

What I found fascinating in this story is that NYT claims with a straight face that the respective piece is dangerous specifically to their employees of color. I can see how one can hyperventilate 'military in the streets' to 'military shooting live ammunition indiscriminately into masses of peaceful protestors', and I can see how they'd imagine their brave reporters being in the front lines to keep us informed, but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'.

DagAgren 6y ago
> but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'. Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.
- twybrobdingnag 6y ago
  That is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have that this hypothetical you are constructing has any bearing to reality? I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation. These days we gleefully accuse people of hypothetical crimes. How about we stop doing that?
  - danharaj 6y ago
    > I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation It's a guiding principle of jurisprudence, not conversation. Don't be so pompous as to think the level of your discourse rises to that of a court proceeding.
  - DagAgren 6y ago
    I did not make any accusation. I was clarifying the position of the people who's thought process you "couldn't imagine". Now you can.
dagmx 6y ago
You have to be purposefully ignoring the reality of current events in the USA to take your position unfortunately. Have you looked at how much more aggressively police have been targeting people of color during these protests? Your view only makes sense in a truly equal world. We are not in that world.