29 ms·

Resignation Letter

• yahnu 6y ago
  I used to be a skeptic of MSM in general but started reading/following NYT and some other major news outlets about an year ago to challenge my own mindset. From what I have seen, to my surprise, the NYT's opinion section does encompass diverse viewpoints and reports in general are neutral in tone! Any criticism I have seen of NYT are either nitpicking (example: headline being too moderate) or taking an incident that is outlier and generalising it (example: Editor of opinion section didn't read a controversial opinion piece by a politician before publishing and resigned over the backlash. Instead of viewing it as an one-off incident, it was criticized as NYT not tolerant of diverse opinions). NYT is not perfect (who else is?) but it is still one of the best organization with highest standards of journalism I have seen.
  • nazgulnarsil 6y ago
    consider that neutrality may be dependent on where one stands.
    • yahnu 6y ago
      A 'news' article is different than an 'opinion' article. Most news reports contains statements backed by verifiable sources/references/evidence. In general, a 'news' article is and should be neutral. A good news outlet maintains that difference. Blurring the lines between the two is an indicator of the organization's bias. IMO, NYT is one such good organization. That was my point if I wasn't clear!
• blisseyGo 6y ago
  She's the one who labels people without knowing what those labels mean. She labeled Tulsi Gabbard with something she didn't even know what the word meant while on JRE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpurFfcSNfU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpurFfcSNfU https://youtu.be/I-0lfxHoF5I https://youtu.be/I-0lfxHoF5I If she's not left enough for NYT, then I don't know what is.
• TheMightyLlama 6y ago
  At the risk of bringing the level of commentary on HN down, why not create a new publication called: The Tomes
• malchow 6y ago
  I know Bari well. She is a strong person. She would not have written this if there were not something very rotten at the NYT.
• jger15 6y ago
  think this makes the paper less interesting (regardless of political views held)
  • akhilcacharya 6y ago
    The masthead lost all credibility with this article [0] days before the election. They did spend lots of time and effort understanding the rest of America (sure, that’s fine and good) with little understanding or reflection of their own impact. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-el...
    • LegitShady 6y ago
      The story seems accurate.
      • akhilcacharya 6y ago
        Literally the second paragraph > And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump. Was contradicted weeks later [0] and again by the bipartisan senate intelligence committee [1] this year. Stay for reporting on Stone, which also aged poorly though I can’t blame them for not predicting the future. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia/russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election-intelligence-officials-idUSKBN13Z05B https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia... [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/senate-intel-report-confirms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/senate-intel-report...
• mikece 6y ago
  "Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else." This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reputation of the NYT is the least of the problems that accrue from such a situation, in my opinion.
  • fermienrico 6y ago
    > "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Isn't Truth == Reality by definition?
  • hindsightbias 6y ago
    What’s the aggregate toll on life and human suffering from Operation Iraqi Freedom?
  • uncoder0 6y ago
    Whats worse is this phenomenon isn't contained to the NYT all media it appears is infected.
    • banads 6y ago
      Not surprising considering the extreme consolidation of mass media corporations over the past 50 years.
    • shuntress 6y ago
      It is somewhat alarming to see this hostile and dehumanizing language (referring to "all media" as "infected") and makes me automatically skeptical of your point-of-view.
      • BTCOG 6y ago
        This Marxist/Leninist ideology is taking over, and started in the schools/colleges. Next, after thoroughly injecting into us what social agenda we shall believe, the ideology seeks to remove the nuclear family as well as all private property. Just listen, we know what's best for you! You've had a little bit too much to think.
• alecb 6y ago
  There's several layers of irony here, chief of which Bari Weiss headed a very vocal campaign to fire anyone at Colombia who didn't exist on the far-right on Israel/Palestine - and of course, falsely painted several professors as racist and anti-Semitic: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
  • caycep 6y ago
    Also reading the tone of her columns and the accusations she's made in them, I read anything she writes with a very large grain of salt...
    • Veen 6y ago
      How about you mention some of the accusations you're referring to instead of making an unsubstantiated accusation of your own.
  • LegitShady 6y ago
    There are many things I disagree with Weiss on, including her previous flirtation with cancel culture, but by attacking her with an article from 2 years ago instead of addressing what she is talking about directly is not really honest debate. There is a cleaving point coming for those who believe in Liberal values and the nyt has already chosen the side of extreme ideological orthodoxy.
    • throwanem 6y ago
      I mean, Weiss herself attacks the NYT for a two-year-old interview with Alice Walker, although she's not especially upfront about it, preferring instead to talk about an interview from May while describing - and in a highly tendentious way, at that - the controversy over Walker's 2018 NYT interview. Live by the gun -
    • kup0 6y ago
      Unless there's proof she's changed from then until now, I think it's a rather relevant proof of hypocrisy and that one should rightly doubt whether what she's saying now is just more of the same
• slg 6y ago
  It always amazes me when the people who champion "the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society" will also turn around and say something like their political beliefs being mocking by coworkers is "unlawful discrimination". She doesn't want free speech. She wants consequence free speech. She wants her detractors silenced by the law. What a hypocrite.
  • ReptileMan 6y ago
    Since she hasn't filed discrimination lawsuit, I read it as mocking the victim culture that prevades the others.
    • jakelazaroff 6y ago
      I don't see how this can be read as mockery: > There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. This is what claiming victimhood looks like.
      • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        Some of the incidents she described sound a lot like a hostile work environment to me...
        • jcstauffer 6y ago
          Note that "hostile work environment" is a legal term related to a pattern of behavior taken to intimidate someone based on a protected trait (e.g., age, sex, religion, race, disability, etc.). Notedly, political viewpoints are not a protected trait.
          • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
            Does it have to be a protected trait? If someone (or several someones) decide they dislike me because, say, I'm ugly and they're just tired of seeing my face, and they start saying that I need to be fired, and putting ax icons next to my name, and going on Twitter to tell everyone how ugly I am and how it ruins their appetite for lunch when I walk into the breakroom, is that not a "hostile work environment" just because ugliness is not a legally protected trait? If you did that kind of stuff at most places I've worked, you'd get fired for it, regardless of whether it fit the legal definition of "hostile work environment".
• wait_a_minute 6y ago
  That this is true at what is supposed to be a reputable publication like The New York Times makes me worried for companies and less known publications. Because if it's happening at the elite end of what is supposed to be curiosity-driven investigation, why wouldn't it be happening elsewhere? And so you end up with a culture where you can't speak about anything, where challenging the orthodoxy means you'll be forced into poverty. Where you don't even know WHAT the orthodoxy is at times because the orthodox eat their own and constantly shift goalposts. People everywhere need to stand up and issue a firm rebuke to anyone contributing to the toxic environments she described. Either by voting with your wallet, or by being bold and speaking against it in your social circles. It's not too late to turn the ship around.
  • deleuze 6y ago
    Bari Weiss is responsible for toxic culture in the first place. She's an absolute hypocrite here, so whatever conversation you want to have about speech, it probably shouldn't happen in this context.
    • ncr100 6y ago
      Where is the cultural critique of Weiss coming from? Is it this contribution, on the Joe Rogan podcast? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo3GM760a2s&feature=youtu.be https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo3GM760a2s&feature=youtu.be - 11m, 2019 - Weiss talks about Tulsi Gabbard (?) as a sycophant. (YT person asserts dishonesty and hypocrisy.)
  • abnercoimbre 6y ago
    To add to this, the author gives Twitter a lot of weight as the culpable factor. So many important people by now see the birdsite as a genuine net-negative yet it keeps chirping along with no changes. A bit baffling.
    • LegitShady 6y ago
      The journalists are heavily involved in twitter controversies and end up smelling their own farts a bit too much, and suddenly twitter nonsense shows up as news.
• jakelazaroff 6y ago
  > All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry. It is supremely ironic for a famous writer, employed for years at America's paper of record, to complain about being silenced by her critics in a resignation letter that will be shared far and wide and read by tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of people.
  • ReptileMan 6y ago
    Well the Tom Cotton op ed drama was literally this.
    • jakelazaroff 6y ago
      Tom Cotton is a sitting US Senator. Denying him op–ed space is in no way tantamount to "silencing" him.
      • jeffbee 6y ago
        Also they didn't deny him anything. His idiotic vomit ran above the fold online. The Times admitted the opinion editor didn't even read the piece, they just ran it automatically out of deference to the senator.
        • PhineasRex 6y ago
          Also worth noting that Bennett actually reached out to Cotton to write the piece
          • RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
            And Bennett lost his position because of it.
• csours 6y ago
  2 quick comments: 1. Team-sports politics and Identity politics are a scourge and cancer used for fundraising, and I despise them. 2. Conservatives have been poisoning public discourse since at least the 1980's with hate and fear (see Rush Limbaugh), and I despise that tactic. I'm sure you can find instances where Liberals have done the same, but it would be VERY hard to convince me that they have done it at the same level of concerted effort. I think reasonable people should be able to discuss differences, but I fear that any public discussion will quickly drop to rote positions and bad faith assumptions.
  • banads 6y ago
    >it would be VERY hard to convince me that they have done it at the same level of concerted effort. What exactly would it take to convince you of that?
    • csours 6y ago
      Examples of coordinated liberal messaging based on hate and fear that has had a large impact on social discourse. Note: Safe spaces, affirmative action, etc do not apply for me personally. While they have at times gone off the rails, they are based on inclusiveness, not hate and fear.
      • banads 6y ago
        How many examples would it take to convince you? And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are driven by altruistic, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, divisive, and destructive?
        • csours 6y ago
          > How many examples would it take to convince you? Hundreds, at least. It's been a consistent conservative tactic for decades, to the point where it is unremarkable. Unremarkable does not mean acceptable. See also Trump's lies. Trump lies so often that it's not worth noting each instance. > And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are being altruistic or inclusive, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, and destructive? Sure, and it's also possible to sea lion a discussion while claiming to be reasonable. http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ I judge that based on outcome and intent.
• jgwil2 6y ago
  > Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. The market would suggest otherwise.
  • LegitShady 6y ago
    The market is contorted by secret algorithms promoting some news over other news, banning of people and ideas, etc.
  • ngngngng 6y ago
    Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to. "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all sides of many issues, and he asks sincere questions for hours on end.
    • herbstein 6y ago
      Ah yes. The valuable viewpoints and opinions of literally white supremacists like Gavin McInnes. There's being open to dialog, and then there's that. It'd be one thing if he was able to critically oppose and examine what his guests claim. It's quite another when he seemingly adopts the opinions of whatever person that can speak three or four grammatically coherent sentences to him.
      • strictnein 6y ago
        Congrats, you've named one bad guest. They're currently on episode #1505.
    • swsieber 6y ago
      > "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube Really? This is the first I've heard of the guy, from anyone anywhere on the political spectrum.
• CJefferson 6y ago
  Speaking as someone who absorbs American media externally, there does seem to be a disconnect looking in. About 40% of the America seems to still support Donald Trump, under most polls. It certainly isn't true that 40% of the media supports Donald Trump. As an external viewer, it's easy to imagine no-one was ever going to vote for Donald Trump, no-one ever supported him, and no-one supports him today, but that's clearly not reality. Personally, I'd never have voted for him, but it's hard to understand why many of those who voted for him continue to support him, and it doesn't feel like the media is doing a good job here.
  • asdf21 6y ago
    Exactly right. Something like 97% of news coverage is critical towards Trump. I'm not sure what that number should be, but 97% seems like there is a deeper and systemic issue.
    • larrywright 6y ago
      I don’t think so. Most mainstream media (I’ve come to hate that term) skews a bit towards the left politically, but not nearly as much as the far right thinks they do. President Bush got better coverage - certainly not 50/50, but not 97% against either. The difference here is that Trump, by virtually any measure, is just that awful.
    • horsemessiah 6y ago
      This is simply not true. Looking at the three mainstream cable channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) Fox hardly ever critical, MSNBC is almost exclusively critical, and CNN is pretty in between. Fox is by far the most popular of these three. Similarly, the NYTimes and Washington Post are usually pretty critical of Trump (unless he's bombing people, in which case they love him) and the WSJ are somewhere in between. Then, consider that Americans are increasingly not getting their news from these sources and podcasts, blogs, social media, etc. are becoming the primary source of news for many people. All this to say, to claim 97% of media is critical of Trump is a wild fantasy of victimhood that has no basis in reality.
• seibelj 6y ago
  Great summary of everything I feel that has gone wrong at the NYT, cancel culture, and the left-wing gladiatorial combat that is trying to root out any hint of disagreement with orthodoxy now that all center and conservatives have been purged. I highly recommend reading this. If you want more opinions from progressives that feel cancel culture has stifled free speech, is illiberal, and also illogical, listen to the Blocked and Reported podcast: https://barpodcast.fireside.fm/ https://barpodcast.fireside.fm/ Very brave people make that, and it's a breath of fresh air.
  • deleuze 6y ago
    Bari Weiss has been a proponent of censorship and "cancel culture" since her time as a student. She's a hypocrite.
    • LegitShady 6y ago
      I agree she was a proponent but the cancel culture has finally come for her and she has figured it out, so she isn't wrong here. It will be interesting to see if anything changes later The most important thing is how this affects your perception of the nyt Edit hacker News wont let me post anymore right now but the question is if she is right here or not. She doesn't owe you anything just like you dont owe her anything.
      • deleuze 6y ago
        Where's her mean culpa on Israel Palestine then? I see no evidence that she's changed.
• linkmotif 6y ago
  Reads a lot like https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/ https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
  • jimbokun 6y ago
    Which she signed.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  > Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative. In other words, the New York Times isn't leading. It's following the crowd on Twitter. And in abdicating the role of finding out the truth and saying it, the NYT gave up relevance. (We don't need them to echo Twitter. Twitter does that just fine. And we don't need them for performance theater, either - we've got Broadway.) > There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one... "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think? "To be inclusive, we have to get rid of her"? Don't they even hear the words coming out of their own mouths?
  • TomSwirly 6y ago
    > Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think? "I am the voice of reason!! All must think as I do! Can't you see?" She has set out to be combative and say things that a lot of people find repugnant. In particular, she has publicly mocked many of her coworkers, which isn't really a great way to make friends in the workplace. She presents no actual examples of misconduct against her either. Near as I can tell, she's leaving because she perceives people don't like her. Well, it's their right not to like her, as long as they obey the rules. The world won't miss her strident and dishonest voice.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • throwaway894345 6y ago
      She paints a pretty clear picture of a hostile workplace, particularly in the context of all of the other drama going on at the Times. It's surprising that so many people who don't work at the Times are so confident that Bari is awful, lying, and generally deserving of harassment. Moreover, I don't understand how a good faith participant could read her letter and derive from it "All must think as I do!"--do you really not perceive a difference between a desire not to be harassed and a demand for ideological conformity? The general cancel culture debate on this forum has featured a shocking number of "harassment is criticism" arguments, and this seems like yet another. As a professional, you're allowed to think that her views are repugnant, and you're allowed to professionally criticize her views; however, harassment crosses the line. However, perhaps Bari is lying about the alleged harassment--I don't understand how you and others are so confident this is the case (yes, I'm aware that she accused professors of racism in college nearly 20 years ago, I don't see one minor offense in almost 20 years--and one which is frankly milder than those churned out at the Times on a daily basis--as indicative of a deeply flawed character, and attempts to use this to smear her only leave me with less respect for the critic). > Well, it's their right not to like her, as long as they obey the rules. Yeah, that's the whole point. Bari alleges harassment that the Times wouldn't put up with if the target was a progressive and not a Jewish liberal. According to her, her colleagues weren't 'obeying the rules'.
• mellosouls 6y ago
  There seems to be more and more public acknowledgement (and in fora like this one) of the myriad leftist 1984-style attacks we are currently witnessing - every bit as bad as the McCarthy era led by the right. As appalling as the behaviour of these people is, that growing awareness can only be a good thing.
  • some-guy 6y ago
    The woke-left isn't going around arresting people, nor do they have much (if any) influence in high levels of government.
    • herbstein 6y ago
      Remember when the government went around arresting and undermining anything and anyone that was even slightly left-wing? People in power being called out by groups on Twitter is definitely the exact same thing and absolutely not a false equivalence.
    • jimbokun 6y ago
      They are getting low level employees fired from their jobs, though. They have a lot of power in educational institutes, media organizations and HR departments.
      • GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
        > They are getting low level employees fired from their jobs This is an interesting intersection. It either implies that all employers are left-aligned (not true) and therefore willing to fire employees that hold right-leaning opinions, OR that low level employees are so expendable that it literally any reason can get them fired if enough people complain.
        • umeshunni 6y ago
          > OR that low level employees are so expendable that it literally any reason can get them fired if enough people complain. It's mostly this. When you're a small-medium business, the last thing you want is negative PR and people canceling or DDOSing you because one of your employees wrongthinked.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  >Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. There is an submission on HN "Do journalists pay too much attention to Twitter?" I guess we know Bari Weiss's answer.
• purple_ferret 6y ago
  Purely anecdotal, but knowing a couple people who work at the NYTimes, there is definitely a right way to operate there. You can cruise by taking the same stances and retweeting the same tweets. Bari Weiss never seemed very principled in her stances though, so I don't think she's a good counterpoint.
  • jgalt212 6y ago
    There is a bit of signals and signifiers conundrum here. That said, her points are still valid even though she is not the perfect victim of mob mentality group think orthodoxy.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
      So who is?
• mikece 6y ago
  "And so self-censorship has become the norm." This might be the most ironic and most dangerous effect of this "right think" regime: that the free expression and exchange of ideas is thwarted in advance because one doesn't want to deal with drama, fight, or insults that come with saying something not in lock-step with the prevailing group-think. This blunts the curiosity of the intellect and silences all true disciples of knowledge and science if what they say -- even if they have the math to prove their point -- contradicts the currently popular "common truth." For this to be happening at what was THE preeminent example of American freedom of the press is chilling... and Orwellian.
  • minikites 6y ago
    You're assuming "both sides" have an equally valid point of view. Tom Cotton's racist op-ed and COVID denialism are two current examples where one side is definitely wrong. Bari believes there shouldn't be consequences for saying dangerously wrong things.
    • eej71 6y ago
      I read the Tom Cotton op-ed and didn't find any racist element to it. It would be interesting to have you highlight which paragraph was racist in your eyes.
      • seppin 6y ago
        He wanted the military unleashed on his fellow citizens, a move that would have escalated violence and perhaps led to a spiraling loss of control by both sides. "Racist" was the least of the concerns.
        • SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
          Apparently it wasn't the least of everyone's concerns, since it was the only thing the original commenter mentioned.
          • 6y ago
• cs702 6y ago
  I hesitated before upvoting the OP, and even considered flagging it, given its controversial author (with whom I disagree) and its potential to fuel ideologically driven, opinionated arguments (in which no one wins and everyone loses). However, I decided to upvote the OP because I feel it is, in the end, about a topic that is of utmost interest of -- and widely considered important by -- most people on HN: free speech. FWIW, this resignation letter strikes me as unfair to those it accuses, because the author provides zero concrete, specific examples of the constant public bullying she claims led her to resign from the New York Times. The accused cannot argue or defend themselves against generic accusations.
  • commandlinefan 6y ago
    > widely considered important by -- everyone I'm not sure this is nearly as universal as you think, even on here.
    • cs702 6y ago
      Maybe you're right. I changed it to "most people."
  • dimgl 6y ago
    Why would you flag it without reading the article?
    • fermienrico 6y ago
      You nailed the problem, this needs to stop.
      • dimgl 6y ago
        Funnily enough I'm getting pretty actively downvoted. It's sad... I always thought of Hacker News as a place to have friendly discussion.
        • 6y ago
• majormajor 6y ago
  Claiming that there's anything new going on here is a cheap rhetorical trick. We're seeing the complaints of people who have lost control over what's acceptable. The people who would've wanted to come for the communists or the homosexuals are now on the wrong end of the prevailing winds, and whether that's "better" or "worse" depends on one's own beliefs on those issues... but it's not so much a societal change as just a window that has moved. There are books that make convincing arguments that "heresy"-based reactions are ultimately detrimental - such as The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind from a few decades ago, decrying the lack of reason in the American church from an inside perspective - but that example also shows the answer to the "what are the consequences?" question: you get a *very effectively motivated" political constituency.
• jstewartmobile 6y ago
  nothing of value was lost
• crazygringo 6y ago
  > Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy? Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are. The NYT isn't going to, and shouldn't, print an Op-Ed defending Nazis. And a lot of conservative positions these days are simply in denial of reality and facts. Do they deserve equal space in the paper? A reasonable, or even "centrist", person will say of course not. She claims Twitter has become "the ultimate editor" of the NYT. This is such a ridiculous strawman, where do you even start? First of all, there are tons of conservatives on Twitter too. Secondly, the NYT doesn't come even close to the ultra-left-wing voices on Twitter she's presumably referring to. Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it. If the quality of her analysis in her resignation letter is the same quality of work she was turning out at the NYT, no wonder she wasn't welcomed there.
  • easterncalculus 6y ago
    > Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy? No it's good, but pro-fact views are going to be anti-racist by default, if the facts are presented honestly. The problem is that NYT more often than not acts allergic to facts that they don't like, creating stories that bend (often already questionable) studies or accounts to fit what their subscribers want to hear. > Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are. And they also have to follow those rules themselves. Including not doxxing private citizens for zero public benefit, which the heroes at NYT think is a very noble cause. NYT breaks their own 'rules' all the time. > Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it. This is the worst logic to go at this issue with. It being the third most popular newspaper has exactly nothing to do with whether or not it has gotten worse or more narrow in appeal. It can get loads worse and still be one of the most popular newspapers, especially since the problems in media exist through practically all major publications. How many newspaper subscriptions do you think the average person actually has? That doesn't even get into the various negative effects of the subscription model, and the fact that there is an obvious and undeniable economic incentive to manufacture and publish stories that hit with your subscribers. It's true that it has become the standard income method for these companies, but it's hardly any better than clickbait, if not worse.
• roadbeats 6y ago
  Interesting to see how the toxic usage of emojis at Slack is a part of the letter. In past, these sort of details in communication (reactions of others) would be instantaneous and people would not remember them. Now, the emojis stay there as a part of the written history.
• KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
  People here are debating whether Weiss is a good person or not and whether they like her opinions or not. I think we're missing the key point in this letter, which is that she's saying that she experienced workplace harassment at the Times. That's unacceptable. My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
  • tootie 6y ago
    Calling a racist a racist isn't harassment. Neither is firing a racist. This is all stuff that I would expect my employer to be doing to be responsible.
    • Udik 6y ago
      And who gets to decide if someone is a racist?
      • tootie 6y ago
        HR.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • dimgl 6y ago
      There is so much wrong with this statement. Nowadays, you can label anyone a racist, or a misogynist, or a bigot, and get them fired. That's how discrimination works. It's a label.
• hellofunk 6y ago
  There’s probably a long and very amusing German word that means something like “the public outing of a company’s moral failures via the route of a holy resignation letter.“
• duxup 6y ago
  Letters like this always leave me wanting to know what specifically informed these opinions about the place they're leaving. That of course is a lot to ask from a resignation letter. The cry of 'these people think these things because of groupthink' is so common, and frankly so easy for an individual to believe that I find those claims to be pretty hollow all by themselves. We live in a world where when we don't hear what we want to hear the common call is to blame 'the system' (whatever it is that is) and anyone who feels that way as being unintelligent, biased, sheep, or whatever the phrases of the moment is. It couldn't be that all these other people just have a POV that doesn't jive with our own could it?
• kziemio 6y ago
  "truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else" This is the primary problem with woke ideologues. They pretend to know the definitive answers to problems that have plagued societies for hundreds and thousands of years. Anyone who disagree with their answers at all is "problematic" at best but much more likely deeply racist or sexist anti-progress bigot -- an enemy. Back in the land of reality, problems are complex and full of nuance. Guilt is almost never one-sided. Meaningful or useful blame is often impossible to assign. Solutions are never comprehensive. Perfection is impossible.
  • dang 6y ago
    Please stop creating accounts to do political battle on HN. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    • kziemio 6y ago
      It's not "political battle" as no one is fighting anyone. These are discussions of philosophy much more than politics. And it's the topic of the submission. If the submission hasn't been removed, then it seems entirely reasonable to discuss the issues it raises. Entirely earnest and in good faith on my side. Why do I have to keep track of my throwaway accounts? The whole point of a throw away account is to throw it away. My browser doesn't save history. I can't remember what my username was the last time I restarted my browser. I could easily create throwaway accounts through IP proxies that would make banning/linking accounts very difficult. I don't bother because I assumed a high level of ethics and competence on the part of HN moderators. I don't want you to look up my accounts at all but I trust you enough to not doxx me. The fact that you are looking up throwaway account users and linking it their other accounts seems like a huge ethical violation. I don't know why you would do it in cases where the person is not actually violating the guidelines except for the dubious throwaway guideline. 1. Please change the guideline on throwaway accounts. Since cancel culture has become a thing, any opinion outside of the orthodoxy is "sensitive." The idea that "users should have an identity that others can relate to" seems incredibly unimportant by comparison. HN is so large now that I doubt anyone but moderators can really keep track of usernames anymore. 2. Please stop looking up people's accounts yourself. And please stop threatening people for using throwaways to participate anonymously while putting forth unorthodox views in good faith. 3. Please start deleting identifying account information (IPs/user agents) after some number of days. Make it impossible for a future hacker (which could be a hostile state actor) to doxx people that used throwaway accounts.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• seneca 6y ago
  > Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. People need to understand that this is on purpose. What we are witnessing is an all out attack on Liberal values by the followers of Critical Theory. > It follows from Horkheimer's definition that a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation. [1] Critical theories are all the rage in the academic world. This is a well laid out philosophy, and resulting form of political activism. It is intentionally an orthodoxy meant to dismantle current societal values and impose its own values in their place. This is not an organic social movement causing norms to change. It's an intellectual class using media and educational institutions as an intentional point of attack to remove the underlying philosophical ideas of Western Civilization. [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
  • joshuamorton 6y ago
    Can you elaborate on what makes critical theoy less of an underlying philosophical idea of western Civilization than whatever else it is you're referring to? Philosophical debate didn't end in the mid 18th century. It's just that post enlightenment philosophy hasn't been taught in the west since the mid 1900s.
    • mpweiher 6y ago
      Not "critical theory", Critical Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory In the current context: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-theory/ https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-theory/
      • joshuamorton 6y ago
        I'm familiar with critical theory. My question was not "what is critical theory" but why are the underlying philosophical ideas of western civilization? (I will say I was pleasantly surprised with the evenhandedness of that source, disregarding the last two paragraphs) Like, Christianity is one of the underlying philosophical ideas of western civilization, and enlightenment era philosophers were quite mixed on it, so I'm unclear what the underlying concerns are here.
• alkibiades 6y ago
  hope she sues nyt for employment discrimination and hostile work environment
  • zuminator 6y ago
    I hope so too. If she did face a hostile work environment (as per the legal definition) then she's entitled to compensation and/or an apology. But if, as I suspect, she's essentially whining about people not giving her the respect she thinks her offensive and obnoxious positions deserve, then the meritlessness of her argument will be brought to light in open court. Either way, the public hearing she claims to crave would happen.
• parliament32 6y ago
  Meta but is anyone else seeing really strange font rendering on this site, in the paragraph text? The "o"s are a bit too tall and it's making the whole thing look wonky... Is it just me? Is this on purpose? https://i.imgur.com/tZh0c8X.png https://i.imgur.com/tZh0c8X.png
• chiefalchemist 6y ago
  > But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. While some here are debating the credibility of the source (which is understandable), I read this idea in some form approx once a week. That is, it transcends sources. I find it disturbing and disheartening that little has changed since 2016. One way or another we'll make it through the 2020 election. But 2024 has all the makings on a horror movie. Heads remain pushed deep into the sand. Symptoms are passed off as root causes. Root cause - who whip up the blame-the-symptoms spin - continue to get a free pass. It's hard to imagine a healthy outcome anytime soon.
• seppin 6y ago
  Weiss is a master of attracting attention for herself, I see a future in politics.
• solvorn 6y ago
  The left: Jews are white, not oppressed The right: Jews aren’t white, not oppressed And you wonder why we generally are moderates.
• AzzieElbab 6y ago
  Media institutions are basically YouTube algorithm that runs on people instead of computers. Of course you are not allowed to have a different option on anything substantial, it breaks users feed
• eric_b 6y ago
  The "orthodoxy" the author writes about is real. I am a skeptic and cynic by nature. In my experience "common wisdom" is usually anything but. In software and technology I've found when you eschew dogma and "best practices" you more often than not get better results. But, in 2020 you cannot question or be skeptical of the "progressive" agenda. Merely hinting that you are not fully bought in will get you labeled as a racist, or even worse these days, a "Conservative". The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised. Using the media as a political propaganda outlet, being intolerant of other viewpoints, using shame and ostracism to control the population etc. Here's something I don't understand: Jeff Bezos, maybe the ultimate robber baron of our time, and no fan "of the people", is the owner of the Washington Post. Since his purchase, it has moved so far left as to become almost a caricature of a "news" paper. A skeptical person would ask - what reason could he have for pushing a major media outlet to write so much - what can only reasonably be called - propaganda? A critical thinker would be very concerned indeed about buying too far in to said agenda based on who's pushing it.
  • thephyber 6y ago
    > Merely hinting that you are not fully bought in will get you labeled as a racist, or even worse these days, a "Conservative". > The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised. Painting with a broad brush based on small sample sizes (exactly what you are doing) is exactly what you are complaining about. There are tons of people who call Trump's words and actions "fascist" despite not being "progressive"/"liberal". There are people on the "political right" who have been complaining about the "liberal agenda" the same way conspiracy theorists talk about the "jewish agenda". I'm not accusing you of it, but it frequently sounds the same in the tiny bites of content that exist in social media. I, personally, think the biggest problems with the human mind on social media involve: - an assumption of bad faith when another commenter fails to be precise about "there exists" and "for every" - trolling works because we humans frequently can't disable our ego when it is attacked (rightfully or otherwise)
  • tinco 6y ago
    I don't read the WP nor the NYT, do you have an example of an article in either of them that is a caricature of leftist news? My main news source (besides HN) is the Dutch public news, which is described as left-wing, but to me it feels very objective. I find it hard to judge if that means I'm just leftist and don't see what they're leaving out, or that the right is in an alternative reality.
• GaryNumanVevo 6y ago
  Maybe I'm just old, but can someone explain the connection between the NYT and Twitter?
  • jimbokun 6y ago
    She is implying the NYT is making decisions based on how they think people will Tweet about them.
• throwawaysea 6y ago
  I'm really disappointed to read this. I am a long time subscriber and supporter of the New York Times but have noticed that their brand of news has really changed, particularly since Trump's election. It is frequently - not always, but enough to notice - ideologically biased, and more recently, we're seeing internal details leak out that confirm that the news room has indeed changed to carry a heavy cultural bias internally. The first big example of an ideological bias that caught my eye was the NYT "1619 project", which recasts American history as being based on racism rather than principles of freedom. On the face of it, this sounds like an extremist perspective, and indeed the person behind the 1619 project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has had a history of extreme views. For instance she called white people "barbaric devils" (see https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/25/in-racist-screed-nyts-1619-project-founder-calls-white-race-barbaric-devils-bloodsuckers-no-different-than-hitler/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/25/in-racist-screed-nyts-1... for example), and amplified a conspiracy theory that fireworks were a government plan to attack black and brown communities (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/author-of-new-york-times-1619-project-shares-tweets-floating-claim-government-forces-secretly-attack-black-and-brown-communities https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/author-of-new-york-t...). Leaving aside the dubious views of this staff writer, the 1619 project ultimately ignored its own fact checkers (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-proje...), and despite widespread critique of its factual errors (see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians-clash-1619-project/604093/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians... or https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-story-about-capitalism-too-11588956387 https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Criticism), the NY Times editor in chief brushed off what historians have claimed are severe inaccuracies (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-the-historians-who-critiqued-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th...). More recently, The Tom Cotton fiasco, documented news room revolts at the Times, and this letter confirm that they are indeed no longer operating as a neutral and trustworthy source of news. This trend of an ideological takeover by progressives/far left is happening in all major news rooms. Even the Wall Street Journal has its own activism from journalists (https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-newsrooms-face-a-reckoning-on-race-after-floyd-protests-11592256570 https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-newsrooms-face-a-recko...). Gerry Baker, the former top editor at WSJ, was forced to step down to a journalist role, and then just recently, at the behest of his peers and their union, he was forced to move from the news section to the opinion section (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/business/wall-street-journal-gerard-baker-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/business/wall-street-jour...). Can you imagine a workplace where your peers openly denigrate your work, attack your character, and alter your career? This is discrimination, even if it is legal. Unfortunately the far left cohort has turned into an enemy of the freedom of thought and inquiry. We saw it happen at tech companies with the James Damore incident, with repeated walkouts/protests since then, with censorship on Twitter, with demonetization on YouTube, and so on. We have seen it in college campuses over the last decade, with the most recent example being the absolutely unjust forced resignation of Steven Hsu (https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campaign-to-thwart-free-inquiry/ https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campai...). And we're seeing it in the ongoing campaign to pressure Facebook to censor certain views or lines of inquiry. All of this is bad for society. The fundamental principles of free speech (going beyond legal requirements) must be defended, neutrality must be upheld in the workplace, and institutions that fail to uphold these values should be outed and abandoned by customers. This includes the NY Times.
• alkibiades 6y ago
  the comments on this thread just remind me how conventional in thinking most people in tech are with regards to politics. why is it we pride ourselves in thinking outside the box but everyone marches exactly down the line with the same political views? you know something is up when it’s hard to find even one donation to a republican from some companies employees
• monksy 6y ago
  On a similar vane of this. It's complex issue, however I have seen incivility here that I would say is mentioned there. (It was on the kernel terminology change) Someone mentioned about the annoyance of "tiptoing with certain groups on topics" Someone responded with " by tiptoeing do you mean 'respecting others opinions'" It's the lack of ability to have civil discord and respecting other's opinions (even if they're stupid or wrong) that I believe has taken over in society and it's showing a harmful effect. I do have a concern over the publications that we read and I do think that Weiss has a good point, even if his/her contributions, aren't 100% stellar.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• phcordner 6y ago
  Flare out at the NYT crying "free speech" and spend the rest of your career cashing five figure checks from speaking gigs at the Skull Shape Heterodoxy conference. Pretty nice work if you can get it.
• mtgp1000 6y ago
  It appears that there is a higher than usual proportion of negatively scored comments ITT. I think that might say something about the so called silent majority - the very people who are [rightly] unwilling to comment publicly because of the cancel culture highlighted in the article. Those people are here, anonymous votes give them a voice that they are socially being denied.
• khana 6y ago
  So happy to read a voice of reason in the midst of our decline
• loraa 6y ago
  It's sad that journalists think so highly of themselves.
• bhouston 6y ago
  Bari Weiss is a problematic character in this area. She has played gatekeeper herself quite stridently and successfully. She is quite fine with her own "involvement in numerous campaigns to vilify and ruin the careers of several Arab and Muslim professors due to their criticisms of Israel" per Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/ https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
  • throwaway894345 6y ago
    > In the course of the controversy, Weiss, in a tweet-essay that began here, finally addressed her own history of trying to ruin the careers of Arab and Muslim scholars for the crime of criticizing Israel. It's possible that Greenwald is... I think the technical term is "full of shit". In seriousness, how is anyone supposed to take this seriously? If you ignore all of the transparent ad hominem, the only bit of substance in the article is that Weiss accused her professors of racism--there's nothing to support the idea that she was trying to ruin their careers (in 2004, allegations of 'racism' didn't ruin careers--indeed, some proponents of cancellation even argue that these allegations don't ruin careers in 2020). Anyway, even if Weiss's accusations of racism were intended to harm the careers of her professors, it was nearly 2 decades ago and she was fresh out of high school. When Nikole Hannah-Jones was her age, she was writing that whites were "the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and that "the descendants of these savage people … continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". Ibram X. Kendi was writing that whites are literal aliens. Thankfully, these titans of race (and much beloved by cancellation advocates) have somewhat moderated their views before assuming command of their prominent, powerful platforms. Sarah Jeong was named Forbes "30 under 30" and hired onto the NYT only a few short years (if that) after writing some of the most overtly racist stuff I've seen in my life (worse even than Hannah-Jones' collegiate ramblings) and virtually the whole media industry went to bat for her. Let's put this criticism of Weiss' college remarks into perspective.
  • jb775 6y ago
    Apples to oranges. There's a huge difference between an individual journalist numerously reporting on something they feel strongly about vs. the most influential newspaper in the world turning into a hyper-partisan (left-wing) propaganda machine.
• bookmarkable 6y ago
  Alarming, but not surprising.
• TeaDrunk 6y ago
  Bari Weiss was tweeting insults about her co workers in public during a meeting about her behavior. If this came from anyone else they'd be fired in a heartbeat. This is her politicizing a normal action.
• srpablo 6y ago
  "People were mean to me and other opinion writers who weren't fact-checked and frequently got facts wrong. I'm not considering these complaints Free Speech, but our hurt feelings mean that Free Speech was hurt. My boss, James Bennett, solicited a piece from Tom Cotton that called for the state to take arms against protesters (protesting might called… speech?), and didn't read the piece before publishing it. The people saying he was doing a bad job are against Free Speech. Opinion writers like me aren't fact-checked and are allowed to mouth off on Twitter, my newsroom employees _are_ fact-checked and not allowed to have opinions on Twitter. They broke the rules and used speech to say I misrepresented an internal meeting to my own ends when I thought they weren't going to talk. They still dare to have Slack emoji reactions (not speech, somehow) to tell me my ideas are bad. Anyway, I'm on Team Free Speech and everyone else hates Free Speech." Bari is bad, only wants speech she likes to matter. Stop boosting her.
  • arkaic 6y ago
    "Stop boosting her" Why am I never convinced, and always get annoyed, when I see phrases like this?
  • thsowers 6y ago
    > Bari is bad, only wants speech she likes to matter. I am not at all familiar with the author of the letter, but could you elaborate on this? I didn't get that impression reading the letter, or what I assume is quotes from the author in your comment.
  • rabidonrails 6y ago
    Are these quotes from something? I don't see these in the OP. I don't understand the "boosting" that you're referring to either.
    • dpbriggs 6y ago
      It's an uncharitable paraphrase of the article, with some context added. Stop Boosting is an annoying euphemism for 'take them out of the spotlight' aka cancel.
• qserasera 6y ago
  I say we slap a warning label on all opinion pieces "likely to contain misinformation, inaccurate dialogue, or in summary fake news." I could care less if they're earning less money from it.
• eruci 6y ago
  She raises valid points. The pendulum has swung too far to the left, at least in the press. The news reading average person is being constantly reminded to comply with this type of ideological straightjacket.
• mnm1 6y ago
  This idea that a newspaper should report on all opinions as equal is beyond ludicrous. The idea that all opinions are equal is incredibly stupid and harmful to society and its members. Not all opinions are equal. Some are worthy of being reported, some are not. Some are well thought out, by educated people, who actually want to arrive at a reasonable opinion, while others are completely illogical nonsense, created out of hate or spite. In this particular case, the NYT can make a compelling case that Cotton's opinion was the latter. It's not unreasonable for them to not want to publish it. It's not censorship either. There are plenty, less reputable newspapers that publish such garbage. For some reason, people think this "two-sideism" is balanced, fair reporting. That couldn't be further from the truth. Presenting flat earth rantings alongside scientific data showing the earth is round is neither balanced nor fair. It's just nonsense. It removes any signal that exists and brings into question the mental capability of the reporter who thought that such things should be presented in an equal light. The same can be said in this and many other cases, especially when dealing with the president's insane ramblings. Newspapers, if they strive to provide news and not just ad revenue, should be making it clear when the opinions provided by the people they interview are batshit crazy bordering on insane. When Cotton suggests bringing in the army or Trump suggests drinking bleach, those suggestions should be published with a heavy dose of skepticism and context clearly marking them as hateful or wrong. It seems Weiss wants to shirk those duties and just provide readers with a bunch of nonsense that masquerades as a thoughful opinion but is nothing but a hate drive call to violence.
• seemslegit 6y ago
  We apologize for the unexpected cancellations and will be cancelling those responsible shortly.
• Adorably 6y ago
  It doesn't matter.
• Tiktaalik 6y ago
  "My company wouldn't fire people who posted mean emojis about me so I've been forced to quit" wah wah. So you failed to cancel your coworkers, therefore you decry being cancelled. (except you weren't you resigned)
• blisseyGo 6y ago
  > "Rooting people out to be more inclusive" - Paging George Orwell As someone who had to create this second account because I feared stating my politics on my mail account which linked to my work would get me cancelled, I can sympathize with her a bit. However, I also think she's herself played part in creating the very culture she's complaining about. She claimed to be a "conservative" but she's far from that. Listening her on the Joe Rogan Podcast, she's a liberal on majority of the issues. She seems to be masquerading as a "conservative" imo. Kind of reminds me of how Tulsi Gabbard was cancelled by the left, the media, censored by Google and smeared by Hillary as a "Russian asset". That's only when Tulsi complained. She never complained when conservatives had been screaming about censorship, media bias and "russian asset" smears for the past 5 years. Seems like people only wake up when the mob comes for their own head.
• deanCommie 6y ago
  > It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. Tom Cotton is a senior leader of the ruling party in government with actual powers to trigger and support the kind of violent action his Op-Ed called for. He has power, influence, ability, and his political position is supported by ~40% of the country. Alice Walker is none of those things, and the percent of people that believe in the lizard Illuminati is somewhere below 40%. These two things are not like the other. > the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; It...was? The Soviet union was a horrendous system that murdered millions, and was embedded to the core with systemic anti-Semitism. Yet, when it comes to gender equality they were DECADES ahead of the United States. That's a fact. It should have been HUMILIATING for the United States to allow the Soviet Union to have the moral high ground on ANY subject. Instead they just categorized "But you're lynching negroes" as Whataboutism, and a distraction tactic, and continued to lynch negroes. > the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; need to know the details of this... > and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany. Bari only cares about genocide when it's her people. Typical Conservative.
• luckettpat 6y ago
  Content that has the right to exist based on free speech protections does not by extension have the right to exist on any/all platforms. Different publishing platforms have standards they hold themselves to. For arguments sake, the NY Times does not generally allow white nationalists to write Op-Eds espousing their POVs, without clear messaging around context. White nationalism lies outside the NYTimes unique Overton window. Its my view that 'cancel culture' isn't a new phenomenon; in the past, those with views outside the Overton window were not 'cancelled' per-se, they were instead 'pre-cancelled', by never being allowed to attain prominent statuses in the first place (how many KKK members were members of the NYTimes Op-Ed board; was their exclusion a result of cancel culture?). IMO 'cancel culture' is the effect of the Overton window moving more quickly than in the past, where individuals who have been able to attain prominent positions now find themselves outside the shifted Overton window. So the fact that this is happening to thinkers of prominent status is new, but excluding views outside the Overton window (the fundamental bit) is not. I draw the distinction, because in my mind there are two debates to be had; (1) cancel culture is a new phenomenon and is anti-ethical to the ideals of free speech that American society has espoused in the past, and (2) cancel culture is not new but instead the Overton window has shrunk, and is shifting more quickly. Anecdotally I see many arguments that reject 'cancel-culture' with the logic of (1); exclusion of voices/ideas is a result of a new phenomenon ('cancel culture'), and by relying on a large dose of appealing to tradition (America has never "cancelled" voices before) we can therefore reject any exclusion as a-priori wrong. If we argue instead within the context of (2), one cannot say that exclusion of ideas is a-prori wrong, instead one has to defend whether a particular idea deserves to be included/excluded from the Overton window.