4 ms·

"Everyone with even modicum of intelligence understands the use-mention distinction" --> so we can agree that the editors of the NY times don't have a modicum o

• moron4hire 6y ago
  It's really not about the word. The word was clearly a smoke screen for the NYT leadership to oust a labor leader. They even claimed they had handled the issue internally when it actually happened, and have a history of using the word frequently, when writing about it in the meta sense. By the time the Daily Beast got a hold of it--mind you, a tabloid that no legitimate paper should ever have to work about--it was a 2-year-old, cold story. This is such a clear-cut case of railroading someone that the only reason I can imagine that everyone here is talking about use-vs-mention is because the author took so damn long to get to this point. I guess journalists really do need good copy editors.
• inglor_cz 6y ago
  The manifesto that got McNeil fired was pretty clear in that they understand the distinction, they just don't care. It is similar to the logic of ethnic cleansing. Many perpetrators are smart enough to understand that "not all Serbs are criminals", but they persecute the outgroup anyway, either for fun, or out of "the end justifies the means" logic.