6 ms·

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

by 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".
        jcstauffer 6y ago
        It may be a good idea to fire someone who participates in that behavior, but there isn’t a legal obligation to do so (IANAL). If the behavior is because of your race and they aren’t fired, you can (successfully) sue your employer. That’s the difference. In her letter, she asserts that behavior that fits the first scenario is illegal- it’s not.
      - Udik 6y ago
        Funny how a generic "toxic behaviour" is an accusation good enough against those with a different ideology, but when it's our ideology we go all legalistic.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim. The problem is exaggerating everything to make oneself appear to be a victim, especially appeals to one's identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, to exploit the social protections we afford to bona fide victims. If Bari's claims (that she was unlawfully discriminated against, subjected to a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged) are substantiated, then she's a bona fide victim. And given what has come out about NYT internal culture in recent months and years as well as the supporting evidence she provides for her claims, I find it hard to disbelieve her.
    - jakelazaroff 6y ago
      > There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim. Agreed, I only mean it pejoratively inasmuch as the parent ("victim culture that pervades the others") did as well. That said, she has provided no evidence in this letter, and she is appealing to her identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, so I'm curious as to why her claims of victimhood seem to be believed by people who otherwise tend toward incredulity for such things.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        I probably shouldn't have said "evidence" as much as "examples she cited"--specifically colleagues posting axe emojis next to her name and the general public smearing as a bigot (while this is free speech, it's also pretty clearly a 'hostile work environment' and I doubt it would fly if the target were, say, an Asian progressive instead of a Jewish liberal).
- deleuze 6y ago
  Hard to find a bigger proponent of victim culture than Bari Weiss herself, though.
- inetknght 6y ago
  > mocking the victim culture So, intimidation?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- amznthrwaway 6y ago
  It's not mocking. She, like many on the right, is a vocal "victim". And she's realized that there is more money to be made by claiming right-wing martyrdom than there is in writing faux-centrist think-pieces for the NYT.
- slg 6y ago
  I can't definitively determine her exact intent with that paragraph. However the downvotes and response to your comment indicate your interpretation is likely the minority opinion here. Weiss's job is to communicate with the written word. If the most common interpretation of her writing is the opposite of her intent, doesn't that inherently mean she is bad at her job?
  - Veen 6y ago
    It is impossible to guard against every possible misinterpretation, especially when there are people who are determined to interpret your words in the least charitable way possible. For example, I might uncharitably interpret your previous comment. > 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". This appears to mean you think it's perfectly reasonable for a talented Jewish woman to be hounded out of her job by co-workers indulging in blatant anti-semitism with comments like "writing about the Jews again"? Would you support someone who asked a black writer if they were "writing about the blacks again?" No? Why is it OK when it's a Jew then? You appear believe that it is reasonable workplace behavior to call a Jewish colleague "a Nazi". Now, what can I deduce about your attitude to Jews from your support for this behavior? Perhaps your employer should be told about it. Etc, etc.
throwaway894345 6y ago
I don't understand why she's such a polarizing figure. In particular, the criticisms I've heard from her and other free-speech advocates amount to "anyone who supports free speech but also exercises their own free speech rights to criticize others is a hypocrite". I understand that it's confusing to distinguish between "criticism" and "suppression of speech" (e.g., campaigning to get someone fired from their job), but the distinction is real and thus there is no hypocrisy. In Bari's case, she can be simultaneously in favor of free speech but not want to work someplace where she is incessantly criticized or where she lends her credibility to an institution that is ultimately morally corrupt. There's no contradiction here. Specifically, I don't see anything that supports "she wants her detractors silenced by the law". She asks for company policy with respect to social media harassment to apply to those who harass her as it applies to other cases in which she's not the subject of the harassment. This seems like a pretty reasonable policy and one which isn't especially at odds with free speech ideals. I grant that there's a fine line between "harassing" and "criticizing with appropriate respect", and while I think axe emojis and consistent references to her Jewish identity make this pretty clearly a case of harassment, my opinion doesn't matter--what matters is whether the NYT's own standard for harassment. For example, would the NYT consider it harassment if the target were a black progressive instead of a Jewish liberal?
- PhineasRex 6y ago
  Several NYT employees have come out with stories of Bari trying to get them fired for disagreeing with her and she has publicly joined or led campaigns to get people fired from other organizations. Here's a good overview of her involvement in censorship campaigns: 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
    I've skimmed the article and the article linked to in the tweet that was linked to in the story, but while both are clearly heavily spun I don't see anything damning that would indicate that Bari tried to get anyone fired. Further, as far as I can tell, this all centers around things she did in college and I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be faulted for their college antics. Ibram X. Kendi wrote that white people were literally aliens and Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that "the white race ... is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and "the descendants of these savage people ... continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". The had abhorrent views, and now they're gainfully propagating moderately improved views on an international stage. Perhaps she (like many on this forum and elsewhere in the debate) was still trying to understand the difference between "cancellation" and "criticism"? In any case, to the extent that she participated in any cancellation, she was wrong to do so.
tomcam 6y ago
> She doesn't want free speech. She wants consequence free speech. She wants her detractors silenced by the law Not sure we read the same letter. Can you support these assertions based on the text?
- slg 6y ago
  I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this behavior to stop. She is calling this behavior out as illegal. I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law.
  - asquabventured 6y ago
    I think she wants her previous employer to protect her rights and not be subject to a hostile work environment, no?
    - smsm42 6y ago
      I think she wants a culture where one can honestly disagree and debate on important questions without being called a Nazi and mobbed into oblivion. Unfortunately, the modern left is not that culture and working for a large leftist newspaper is not where you can find that culture.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > 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. > 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 I don't think this is referring to curbing any specific opinion or view, but rather her co-workers' interactions with her. Its entirely appropriate to speak out against, say, the pervasive denial of climate change among evangelicals. That said if you have an evangelical coworker that doesn't believe in climate change, you will still be met with repercussions if you go around calling said co-worker a backwards dumbass and repeatedly post ax emojis next to their name in slack.
some-guy 6y ago
I think you're right, and it all boils down to this: the left is growing in the United States, and powerful people with large platforms such as Bari Weiss do not like it. Yet it's ironic because left-wing views were consistently canceled. Even being against the Iraq War in 2003 was considered treasonous for a while.
- smsm42 6y ago
  I don't remember a single example of anybody fired from their job for opposing Iraq War (I'm not talking about top politicians, of course). I don't remember anybody fired from any papers for allowing an article opposing Iraq War to be printed. I don't remember people being beaten up in the street by rampaging mobs for opposing Iraq War. Can you provide any example of that happening?
  - user982 6y ago
    Phil Donahue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show. Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" and that his program could be “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda”.
    - some-guy 6y ago
      Thanks, Phil Donahue was the main example I thought of.
jkingsbery 6y ago
> They have called me a Nazi and a racist; > 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 From how I read the letter, she's not looking for consequence-free speech. She's looking to not be attacked personally for what are beliefs that are not all that far out there. Since I stopped reading the Times a long while ago for exactly the reasons she stated ("it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers"), I haven't read anything from her before today. From what I can tell, she advances arguments for points of view that are reasonable and that one may choose to disagree with if one wishes, but she has not expressed opinions worthy of threats of violence.

by slg 6y ago

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".
      - jcstauffer 6y ago
        It may be a good idea to fire someone who participates in that behavior, but there isn’t a legal obligation to do so (IANAL). If the behavior is because of your race and they aren’t fired, you can (successfully) sue your employer. That’s the difference. In her letter, she asserts that behavior that fits the first scenario is illegal- it’s not.
    - Udik 6y ago
      Funny how a generic "toxic behaviour" is an accusation good enough against those with a different ideology, but when it's our ideology we go all legalistic.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim. The problem is exaggerating everything to make oneself appear to be a victim, especially appeals to one's identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, to exploit the social protections we afford to bona fide victims. If Bari's claims (that she was unlawfully discriminated against, subjected to a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged) are substantiated, then she's a bona fide victim. And given what has come out about NYT internal culture in recent months and years as well as the supporting evidence she provides for her claims, I find it hard to disbelieve her.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    > There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim. Agreed, I only mean it pejoratively inasmuch as the parent ("victim culture that pervades the others") did as well. That said, she has provided no evidence in this letter, and she is appealing to her identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, so I'm curious as to why her claims of victimhood seem to be believed by people who otherwise tend toward incredulity for such things.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      I probably shouldn't have said "evidence" as much as "examples she cited"--specifically colleagues posting axe emojis next to her name and the general public smearing as a bigot (while this is free speech, it's also pretty clearly a 'hostile work environment' and I doubt it would fly if the target were, say, an Asian progressive instead of a Jewish liberal).
deleuze 6y ago
Hard to find a bigger proponent of victim culture than Bari Weiss herself, though.
inetknght 6y ago
> mocking the victim culture So, intimidation?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
amznthrwaway 6y ago
It's not mocking. She, like many on the right, is a vocal "victim". And she's realized that there is more money to be made by claiming right-wing martyrdom than there is in writing faux-centrist think-pieces for the NYT.
slg 6y ago
I can't definitively determine her exact intent with that paragraph. However the downvotes and response to your comment indicate your interpretation is likely the minority opinion here. Weiss's job is to communicate with the written word. If the most common interpretation of her writing is the opposite of her intent, doesn't that inherently mean she is bad at her job?
- Veen 6y ago
  It is impossible to guard against every possible misinterpretation, especially when there are people who are determined to interpret your words in the least charitable way possible. For example, I might uncharitably interpret your previous comment. > 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". This appears to mean you think it's perfectly reasonable for a talented Jewish woman to be hounded out of her job by co-workers indulging in blatant anti-semitism with comments like "writing about the Jews again"? Would you support someone who asked a black writer if they were "writing about the blacks again?" No? Why is it OK when it's a Jew then? You appear believe that it is reasonable workplace behavior to call a Jewish colleague "a Nazi". Now, what can I deduce about your attitude to Jews from your support for this behavior? Perhaps your employer should be told about it. Etc, etc.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I don't understand why she's such a polarizing figure. In particular, the criticisms I've heard from her and other free-speech advocates amount to "anyone who supports free speech but also exercises their own free speech rights to criticize others is a hypocrite". I understand that it's confusing to distinguish between "criticism" and "suppression of speech" (e.g., campaigning to get someone fired from their job), but the distinction is real and thus there is no hypocrisy. In Bari's case, she can be simultaneously in favor of free speech but not want to work someplace where she is incessantly criticized or where she lends her credibility to an institution that is ultimately morally corrupt. There's no contradiction here. Specifically, I don't see anything that supports "she wants her detractors silenced by the law". She asks for company policy with respect to social media harassment to apply to those who harass her as it applies to other cases in which she's not the subject of the harassment. This seems like a pretty reasonable policy and one which isn't especially at odds with free speech ideals. I grant that there's a fine line between "harassing" and "criticizing with appropriate respect", and while I think axe emojis and consistent references to her Jewish identity make this pretty clearly a case of harassment, my opinion doesn't matter--what matters is whether the NYT's own standard for harassment. For example, would the NYT consider it harassment if the target were a black progressive instead of a Jewish liberal?

PhineasRex 6y ago
Several NYT employees have come out with stories of Bari trying to get them fired for disagreeing with her and she has publicly joined or led campaigns to get people fired from other organizations. Here's a good overview of her involvement in censorship campaigns: 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
  I've skimmed the article and the article linked to in the tweet that was linked to in the story, but while both are clearly heavily spun I don't see anything damning that would indicate that Bari tried to get anyone fired. Further, as far as I can tell, this all centers around things she did in college and I'm of the opinion that people shouldn't be faulted for their college antics. Ibram X. Kendi wrote that white people were literally aliens and Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that "the white race ... is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and "the descendants of these savage people ... continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". The had abhorrent views, and now they're gainfully propagating moderately improved views on an international stage. Perhaps she (like many on this forum and elsewhere in the debate) was still trying to understand the difference between "cancellation" and "criticism"? In any case, to the extent that she participated in any cancellation, she was wrong to do so.

tomcam 6y ago

> She doesn't want free speech. She wants consequence free speech. She wants her detractors silenced by the law Not sure we read the same letter. Can you support these assertions based on the text?

slg 6y ago
I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this behavior to stop. She is calling this behavior out as illegal. I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law.
- asquabventured 6y ago
  I think she wants her previous employer to protect her rights and not be subject to a hostile work environment, no?
  - smsm42 6y ago
    I think she wants a culture where one can honestly disagree and debate on important questions without being called a Nazi and mobbed into oblivion. Unfortunately, the modern left is not that culture and working for a large leftist newspaper is not where you can find that culture.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > 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. > 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 I don't think this is referring to curbing any specific opinion or view, but rather her co-workers' interactions with her. Its entirely appropriate to speak out against, say, the pervasive denial of climate change among evangelicals. That said if you have an evangelical coworker that doesn't believe in climate change, you will still be met with repercussions if you go around calling said co-worker a backwards dumbass and repeatedly post ax emojis next to their name in slack.

some-guy 6y ago

I think you're right, and it all boils down to this: the left is growing in the United States, and powerful people with large platforms such as Bari Weiss do not like it. Yet it's ironic because left-wing views were consistently canceled. Even being against the Iraq War in 2003 was considered treasonous for a while.

smsm42 6y ago
I don't remember a single example of anybody fired from their job for opposing Iraq War (I'm not talking about top politicians, of course). I don't remember anybody fired from any papers for allowing an article opposing Iraq War to be printed. I don't remember people being beaten up in the street by rampaging mobs for opposing Iraq War. Can you provide any example of that happening?
- user982 6y ago
  Phil Donahue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Donahue#MSNBC_program On February 25, 2003, MSNBC canceled the show. Soon after the show's cancellation, an internal MSNBC memo was leaked to the press stating that Donahue should be fired because he opposed the imminent U.S. invasion of Iraq and that he would be a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war" and that his program could be “a home for the liberal anti-war agenda”.
  - some-guy 6y ago
    Thanks, Phil Donahue was the main example I thought of.

jkingsbery 6y ago

> They have called me a Nazi and a racist; > 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 From how I read the letter, she's not looking for consequence-free speech. She's looking to not be attacked personally for what are beliefs that are not all that far out there. Since I stopped reading the Times a long while ago for exactly the reasons she stated ("it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers"), I haven't read anything from her before today. From what I can tell, she advances arguments for points of view that are reasonable and that one may choose to disagree with if one wishes, but she has not expressed opinions worthy of threats of violence.