8 ms·

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 defin

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.
        6y ago
- 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?

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.
        6y ago
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?