6 ms·

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.

by eej71 6y ago

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.
        seibelj 6y ago
        The rioters were already burning buildings and looting stores. That is why Tom Cotton proposed sending in the military. It was fighting violence with violence. Again, I disagree with sending in the military, but preventing the progressive readership of the NYT from hearing about an opinion that 58% of Americans hold is simply coddling them and keeping them away from bad thoughts. We need an informed citizenry, not one that is afraid of ideas. This is why I support publishing such an op-ed despite disagreeing with it. It allows us to debate and attack the idea, without letting it fester and hide. Bad ideas should be argued against this way, not de-platformed entirely.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Then cover it as news. "Tom Cotton supports sending military troops to suppress peaceful protests" is a headline.
- eej71 6y ago
  I think to make your case better you should cite paragraphs from the op-ed that bolster this claim.
- gwright 6y ago
  Why are you using quotes in that statement?
- haberman 6y ago
  The National Guard, the Army, and the Marines were deployed to LA during the Rodney King riots in 1992. Of the 63 people who died in the riots, nine were shot by the cops and one was shot by the National Guard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Events Why do you assume that sending the military is a recipe for mass slaughter?
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.

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.

by 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.
      - seibelj 6y ago
        The rioters were already burning buildings and looting stores. That is why Tom Cotton proposed sending in the military. It was fighting violence with violence. Again, I disagree with sending in the military, but preventing the progressive readership of the NYT from hearing about an opinion that 58% of Americans hold is simply coddling them and keeping them away from bad thoughts. We need an informed citizenry, not one that is afraid of ideas. This is why I support publishing such an op-ed despite disagreeing with it. It allows us to debate and attack the idea, without letting it fester and hide. Bad ideas should be argued against this way, not de-platformed entirely.
        joshuamorton 6y ago
        Then cover it as news. "Tom Cotton supports sending military troops to suppress peaceful protests" is a headline.
eej71 6y ago
I think to make your case better you should cite paragraphs from the op-ed that bolster this claim.
gwright 6y ago
Why are you using quotes in that statement?
haberman 6y ago
The National Guard, the Army, and the Marines were deployed to LA during the Rodney King riots in 1992. Of the 63 people who died in the riots, nine were shot by the cops and one was shot by the National Guard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Events Why do you assume that sending the military is a recipe for mass slaughter?

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.