9 ms·

"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 an

• 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.
        • seppin 6y ago
          He was calling for military violence against largest peaceful protesters, the one red line that once you cross, there's no going back (Syria, Egypt, etc.) By printing it, NYT gave it a platform and a tacit approval. Not to mention that it came out later it wasn't even reviewed before published. Major fuck up by them.
    • minikites 6y ago
      You don't think the entire op-ed that consists of "send in the military to slaughter tens of thousands of people protesting institutional racism" is racist?
      • seibelj 6y ago
        58% of Americans supported sending in the military to stop looting and property destruction, including 37% of African Americans (a sizable minority). I would assume they wanted to prevent the city being burnt down rather than stop non-violent protests. https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-support-calling-military-assist-police-during-nationwide-unrest-polling-shows-1508210 https://www.newsweek.com/majority-americans-support-calling-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/06/02/58-of-voters-support-using-military-to-help-police-control-protests-poll-finds/#632d324a2417 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/06/02/58-o... When the protests are peaceful, you don't need to send in military. When the city is burning, it could be a solution. I don't agree with sending them in, but a strong majority of Americans did.
        • minikites 6y ago
          A majority of Americans supported the shooting of students at Kent State at the time, Americans are always thirsty for blood. That's not a compelling argument. >Some [students] were told that more students should have been killed to teach student protesters a lesson; some students were disowned by their families.
          • seibelj 6y ago
            I think giving a platform to someone who is a sitting US Senator, who has an argument supported by the majority of Americans, in the supposed Newspaper of Record, isn't the craziest thing ever decided and should not have led to the editor's firing.
            • minikites 6y ago
              Why the appeal to authority? There are plenty of senators who don't believe in evolution and other basic principles of science. Publishing an anti-science op-ed from any of them would be just as harmful as Tom Cotton's incitement to violence.
    • tootie 6y ago
      Maybe not racist per se, but Cotton specifically blamed antifa which was a deliberate and calculated lie intended to blame imaginary radical leftists on activities that were mostly being our by garden variety robbers unassociated with any political group. I also think that public sentiment was swayed by cable news coverage that made the looting seem far worse than it was.
      • ignoramceisblis 6y ago
        "No true Scotsman." Really? And I'm not sure how bad you think the rioting and looting was, but in Minnesota (mostly Minneapolis) alone, the economic loss is already estimated at $500 million dollars, with over one thousand businesses affected, and many were destroyed. Source: https://emmer.house.gov/_cache/files/b/c/bc0f4be4-4618-4786-bcf1-3f08ccac3162/C7B1ACC73539E17B8D9AF103C040F794.mn-gov-request-06.02.2020.pdf https://emmer.house.gov/_cache/files/b/c/bc0f4be4-4618-4786-...
        • tootie 6y ago
          That's not No True Scotsman. It's fact. The FBI did not pin any illegal activity on antifa. Cotton had absolutely no evidence to back his claim. While I obviously don't know everyone who participated in looting, in NYC where I live the looters were nowhere near the organized protests. https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-no-intelligence-antifa-weekend-violence-george-floyd-protests-2020-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-no-intelligence-antifa-w...
          • ignoramceisblis 6y ago
            First, reporting a lack of intelligence that directly links those actions to Antifa, especially only a week after the first protest, does not mean there was no direct link. But have a counterpoint, from some people who already had some intelligence: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/law-enforcement-plays-catch-stop-violence-radical-groups-protests-n1220486 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/law-enfo... > "U.S. police officials said they are examining both local and out-of-state actors focused on creating damage and inciting violent confrontations with police (and possibly other protesters) in the name of anarchist and antifa causes." > "They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by corporate entities." > "And they developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were and where police were not for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers would not be." Beyond even Antifa and similar groups, my first point is largely about the statement "garden variety robbers unassociated with any political group." There have been many protests throughout America's history. Most of them are done peacefully. Clearly most of them do not approach the level of violence and destruction that the recent riots and looting accomplished--riots and looting that coincided with those protests. Are we to believe this is largely coincidence? The images and videos of the damage and looting that was done are out there. Windows, doors, and even entire buildings destroyed and ransacked, with "F* cops", "F* 12", "ACAB", &c. scrawled on the remains. Smashing, grabbing, chanting, it's all out there. There was obviously a political statement meant by many if not most of those people. This is made even more obvious when there are political groups that make statements such as: "By any means necessary", "No justice, no peace", "Give us what we want or we'll burn down the system", &c. These are obviously politically-motivated actions. You cannot bear witness to all of the radical statements that have been made, also bear witness to the radical acts carried out and publicly supported, and then say the two are not related.
  • toomuchtodo 6y ago
    > Bari believes there shouldn't be consequences for saying dangerously wrong things. I believe it's important to discuss who gets to decide what "dangerously wrong" is.
  • ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "both sides" There's more than two sides here. Classical liberals and centrists who question or disagree with aspects of progressive beliefs are also being threatened with "consequences". That is a problem and it's time for the silent majority to start imposing some "consequences" of their own.
  • banads 6y ago
    You're assuming a false dichotomy in which one obscurely defined group is subjectively deemed to be marginally better than the other excuses the synergistic absurdity of both
  • tomcam 6y ago
    The op-Ed was not remotely racist. Can you support your assertions?
• elicash 6y ago
  There's little evidence this is the case. This post could be summarized in one sentence: Bari Weiss wanted people fired because they called her names and the NYT refused, so she quit and threatened legal action.
  • berberous 6y ago
    She never said she wanted people fired, but that management should tell employees to not harass other employees with ax emojis in a slack. That seems like a totally reasonable standard to implement.
    • elicash 6y ago
      She never said that "management should tell" employees anything. It's intentionally vague and not at all clear the NYT didn't take that action, if the story is even totally true, and it's just an open-ended legal threat.
  • solvorn 6y ago
    *(in her case, while taking stronger action in others) FTFY
  • istjohn 6y ago
    I support the Harper's letter and sympathise with many of Weiss' criticisms, but I agree that she flirts with cancel culture territory herself with her language about a hostile work environment. Do you want robust debate or not?
    • Yetanfou 6y ago
      Yes, that is why the remark about cancel culture is spot-on. Debate centres around opinions which are shared and discussed so as to end up with a winning argument or position. Dialectic centres around people voicing opposing opinions to try to find out the truth. Neither of these two can work when voicing an opinion outside of the Overton window can and often does end up with the person voicing said opinion being silenced or removed. Cancel culture is not about a robust debate, it is about staging a debate where only approved opinions are allowed to be heard.
• chasing 6y ago
  Oh, please. If you say dumb or offensive stuff, people are going to react. It's not the "right think regime" — it's people disagreeing, often with some extra acid if you're a high profile New York Times opinion columnist and readers don't feel you deserve that kind of an international platform for your words.
  • seibelj 6y ago
    I disagree. Saying you agree with free speech, such as the Harper's Letter which is about as milquetoast and generic as it gets, is viciously attacked on the left for being racist, anti-trans, the authors are scum, anyone who signs it should be fired, and on and on. As a testament to the existence of cancel culture and the stifling of any opinion against the party line in the progressive media, I can't think of a more obvious example. I remember when people used to proudly say, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is not the norm for progressive thinking in 2020.
    • chasing 6y ago
      First, I think you're lumping "the left" together and assuming "the left" believes whatever the most extreme "left" tweets say. Second, Bari Weiss can write whatever she wants. Totally her right. She's got a website there in the link! She can continue to reach a global audience. Does the NYTimes need to promote her? No, that's not a right I'm willing to die for. Third, why on earth is Bari Weiss' opinion more sacrosanct than mine? If she says something I consider offensive, I might say I think it's offensive. If she says something dumb, I might say I think it's dumb. If she says something astute, I might say I think it's astute. She has a HUGE megaphone, so of course lots of people will respond to her. That's not "cancel culture." That's a side effect of having a huge megaphone. With great power comes great responsibility, etc. Fourth, when I hear people complain about "going against the progressive party line" or whatever, I generally hear people wanting to be some flavor of racist, sexist, transphobic, or just asshole-ish without consequence. Oftentimes people in marginalized group react in a way that feels extra venomous to those of us not in those groups because they can feel their lives are constantly hindered and harmed by the sorts of thoughts that other people can just toss out and then walk away from. If this happens, I might suggest listening to the free speech from those people and trying to understand rather than writing screeds against "cancel culture" or whining about how you, as a very well-publicized and probably quite wealthy writer having your rights squashed. And that's why the Harper's Letter was annoying.
• fullshark 6y ago
  > This might be the most ironic and most dangerous effect of this "right think" regime: How it is ironic? It's the explicit intention.
  • koheripbal 6y ago
    Bingo. Twitter is a platform for intimidation.
• empath75 6y ago
  > 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 So are you suggesting that people not express their opinions? It sounds like you want exactly what she's complaining about.
• ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
  You can see this directly on Reddit, or even here, thanks to the downvote button. It doesn't matter how right you may be, how many sources you may have, if it angers a sufficient people to lead to your post being downvoted, no one will be able to read it. And though the points are made up, it's always annoying to look at a post you spent half an hour typing and researching just to have it get down to -6 with no further comments.
  • fullshark 6y ago
    That's not the issue imo, the issue is how many intelligent comments we miss because someone with insight to add figures it's not worth it and doesn't share it in the first place.
  • LockAndLol 6y ago
    I have learned not to use reddit for discussion or to express opinions contrary to the American mainstream. It won't get you anywhere as you simply won't be heard. You best find another place to do so - where, I don't know yet. Maybe Aether...
  • achileas 6y ago
    So you're against people expressing their opinions in response to your own?
    • ignoramceisblis 6y ago
      The poster stated nothing of the sort. You're conflating "expressing opinions" (by clicking a button) with: making it less likely for the poster's expression to ever be seen.
      • achileas 6y ago
        Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion. What all this concern trolling really sounds like isn't an actual defense of values of free speech, but rather sheltering someone from the speech of others.
• afpx 6y ago
  I’ll add some ideas. I hope you can accept them. I think you and a number of other posters have alluded to or directly referenced a “progressive agenda”. And, others have mentioned attacks on “freedom”. To me, those are some powerful and emotional phrases. And, they’re also so vague and able to encompass pretty much everything that one doesn’t agree with. To me, as someone with casual knowledge of linguistic manipulation, this seems very suspicious and designed. Then, there’s the fact that I believe I’m a moderate. I have a subscription to the NYT. I like it. I think the journalism and writing are top notch. I generally skip the opinion page because it’s pretty boring, but when I do read it, I think it’s a often a bit tailored to the most ardent of NYT subscribers. Because I’m a NYT subscriber, I’m often called a “progressive”, Apparently, because I’m against racism and other forms of individual oppression, I’m also considered a “progressive”. They don’t seem to care if I’m for state’s rights (I’m American) or low taxes or capitalism Or rights to firearms, or anything. What if you’re being manipulated by a influence operation? Why do I say this? Because I genuinely try to empathize with The people who call me this (on-line, at work, family members, etc.) But, instead of giving me specific details, they just cite things that are completely unrelated to me: Antifa, Soros, Bill Gates, or whatever the buzz is that week. And, eventually they grumble some more about “freedom” and drop it. So, here’s an opportunity for you. Lay down a believe that’s so controversial, that you think it will be censored and oppressed, and I promise to read it and empathize with your point of view. And, I’m sure others will, too.