Resignation Letter(bariweiss.com)
bariweiss.com
Resignation Letter
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
713 comments
The newspapers don't know what to do with themselves.
In my opinion, they're following because we're in a period of flux or change in our society, driven by the massive impact of the internet and the barriers to publication being practically zero now.
Because there are so many voices shouting out right now, it's impossible to find the ones who are speaking "the truth" when that was something defined by a handful of editors in newspapers and TV networks 30 years ago.
Into this cacophony we also have bad actors, people, organizations, countries who intentionally set out to poison the truth and watch it die. I don't know if that problem is solvable in any way with the Internet in its current form.
Parallel with that misinformation and disinformation, society (speaking mostly about the USA) is struggling with enormous capital and power inequality. Groups of people of every political leaning know that "something is wrong" but so many are being told to blame this or that group of others.
We've been shown that those with the command of immense resources can exploit and control our laws and government to the point of being beyond the law. We've been shown that we may not be able to do anything about that without significant revolution.
So in this period of massive change, we're told we're powerless.
Yes, the New York Times is following, because we all are.
In my opinion, they're following because we're in a period of flux or change in our society, driven by the massive impact of the internet and the barriers to publication being practically zero now.
Because there are so many voices shouting out right now, it's impossible to find the ones who are speaking "the truth" when that was something defined by a handful of editors in newspapers and TV networks 30 years ago.
Into this cacophony we also have bad actors, people, organizations, countries who intentionally set out to poison the truth and watch it die. I don't know if that problem is solvable in any way with the Internet in its current form.
Parallel with that misinformation and disinformation, society (speaking mostly about the USA) is struggling with enormous capital and power inequality. Groups of people of every political leaning know that "something is wrong" but so many are being told to blame this or that group of others.
We've been shown that those with the command of immense resources can exploit and control our laws and government to the point of being beyond the law. We've been shown that we may not be able to do anything about that without significant revolution.
So in this period of massive change, we're told we're powerless.
Yes, the New York Times is following, because we all are.
I don't think that's really true. The pathological problems affecting most of the news media aren't universal, even within that industry, and certainly not if you broaden the definition of journalism slightly to include independent writers on blogs.
I remember some years ago, a big debate in the media was whether blogging represented some new revolution in journalism. Eventually the mainstream became obsessed with Twitter and sort of forgot about blogging, but it never went away.
By far the best journalism and analysis available during COVID-19 has been from this wider group of journalists. Some of them are both independent bloggers and writers in regular newspapers simultaneously. But many are just ordinary citizens who happen to work in mathematically or statistically rigorous fields, and found themselves with time on their hands to do analysis.
I think one reason they can do a better job is they're less conflicted than journalists are. They can write some calm, level headed articles pitched to any audience they like and don't have to worry about how many clicks they get, or whether subscriptions will grow or shrink as a consequence. A huge problem professional journalists have is that they earn more money when telling people there's a crisis, because news consumption goes way up. So anything scary is blasted out at full volume, and when it's discovered to have been a false alarm there's crickets. There's no incentive at all to tell people, OK, maybe this isn't as bad as it seemed.
I think this is also why so many journalists end up attacking vague, unnamed "deniers" and "sceptics". It's common for such people to write detailed blog posts drilling in to a specific scientific issue far deeper than newspaper or CNN talking heads can, and often concluding, actually, the issue is overhyped. They can reach that conclusion because their livelihoods don't depend on finding the opposite. But any time anyone reads this alt-journalism and concludes, hey, maybe I'm being manipulated into believing things that sell a lot of news, they drop out and stop consuming as much of the "pro" output. It makes sceptical bloggers the arch enemies of mainstream news.
Into this cacophony we also have bad actors, people, organizations, countries who intentionally set out to poison the truth and watch it die .... We've been shown that those with the command of immense resources can exploit and control our laws and government to the point of being beyond the law.
I don't think we have. I think that's another narrative newspapers like to feed people to keep them watching or reading.
I remember some years ago, a big debate in the media was whether blogging represented some new revolution in journalism. Eventually the mainstream became obsessed with Twitter and sort of forgot about blogging, but it never went away.
By far the best journalism and analysis available during COVID-19 has been from this wider group of journalists. Some of them are both independent bloggers and writers in regular newspapers simultaneously. But many are just ordinary citizens who happen to work in mathematically or statistically rigorous fields, and found themselves with time on their hands to do analysis.
I think one reason they can do a better job is they're less conflicted than journalists are. They can write some calm, level headed articles pitched to any audience they like and don't have to worry about how many clicks they get, or whether subscriptions will grow or shrink as a consequence. A huge problem professional journalists have is that they earn more money when telling people there's a crisis, because news consumption goes way up. So anything scary is blasted out at full volume, and when it's discovered to have been a false alarm there's crickets. There's no incentive at all to tell people, OK, maybe this isn't as bad as it seemed.
I think this is also why so many journalists end up attacking vague, unnamed "deniers" and "sceptics". It's common for such people to write detailed blog posts drilling in to a specific scientific issue far deeper than newspaper or CNN talking heads can, and often concluding, actually, the issue is overhyped. They can reach that conclusion because their livelihoods don't depend on finding the opposite. But any time anyone reads this alt-journalism and concludes, hey, maybe I'm being manipulated into believing things that sell a lot of news, they drop out and stop consuming as much of the "pro" output. It makes sceptical bloggers the arch enemies of mainstream news.
Into this cacophony we also have bad actors, people, organizations, countries who intentionally set out to poison the truth and watch it die .... We've been shown that those with the command of immense resources can exploit and control our laws and government to the point of being beyond the law.
I don't think we have. I think that's another narrative newspapers like to feed people to keep them watching or reading.
I think that’s too pessimistic. If it weren’t for Twitter and Facebook then yes the environment for journalism would be challenging, but we wouldn’t be in the dire straits for debate that we’ve found ourselves at. Notable that this crisis did not happen pre-Facebook.
"Pre-Facebook" was also notably a time when internet penetration in the US was only 63% (15% globally) and smartphones were practically non existent.
It's the same story across journalism and I wrote about this exact phenomenon in the article I submitted yesterday - journalism had to please the social media, news aggregator and SEO algorithms to stay alive. They write and say what's popular to their audience and suitable for the tech platforms - not what's right.
...and this is why it is so vulnerable to foreign influence. An army of bots (human or programmed) can sway Twitter incredibly easily and drive outrage, which now seems will shape the US media narrative.
It's like they are intentionally steering the ship towards the rocks. I wonder who might be helping this effort... hmm... /s
It's like they are intentionally steering the ship towards the rocks. I wonder who might be helping this effort... hmm... /s
Well, an army of bots is not free. So you have a new medium which allows power in the real world to become manifested in the digital world.
Illiberal forces have been using capital to mess with the institutions of open and free discourse since before the printing press, Twitter is just yet another new market where power and money matter.
Illiberal forces have been using capital to mess with the institutions of open and free discourse since before the printing press, Twitter is just yet another new market where power and money matter.
There are no armies of Twitter bots swaying mass public opinion. That's another nonsensical conspiracy theory of the sort of the New York Times has gone all-in on to try and explain how Trump won without having to engage with his policies or arguments.
This article looks at just one news story+research paper alleging a Russian Twitter bot army swaying politics, but in the UK rather than the USA:
https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f...
tl;dr - the paper is filled with fraud but was breathlessly reported by the (London) Times, and it convinced the Prime Minister despite being false.
This article looks at just one news story+research paper alleging a Russian Twitter bot army swaying politics, but in the UK rather than the USA:
https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f...
tl;dr - the paper is filled with fraud but was breathlessly reported by the (London) Times, and it convinced the Prime Minister despite being false.
Can you explain? Genuinely can't connect the dots here (don't keep up with politics too much).
> Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think?
The bitter lesson of the 20th century is that the answer to this question is "no". Read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer": in this book, Hoffer looks into how mass movements compel masses of people to forego independent judgement for a sense of belonging and righteousness. He wrote the book 70 years ago, but it's as relevant as ever.
The bitter lesson of the 20th century is that the answer to this question is "no". Read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer": in this book, Hoffer looks into how mass movements compel masses of people to forego independent judgement for a sense of belonging and righteousness. He wrote the book 70 years ago, but it's as relevant as ever.
That's the part I disagree with. The NYT isn't following Twitter. Twitter is the modern way to express at the 3rd person ("twitter mob says") what is really meant at the 1st person ("our editor thinks"). You will never see some angry tweet from Trump supporters quoted or even mentioned.
In the old days you would interview enough random people in the street until you found one that said the narrative you wanted to push and that the one you showed on TV / quoted in the article.
Another technique still widely in use today is when you want to attack person x, you go collect some quotes from known opponents to criticize x, and quote a list of criticism as if somehow these were the only relevant reactions.
None of that is subtle or done subtly.
In the old days you would interview enough random people in the street until you found one that said the narrative you wanted to push and that the one you showed on TV / quoted in the article.
Another technique still widely in use today is when you want to attack person x, you go collect some quotes from known opponents to criticize x, and quote a list of criticism as if somehow these were the only relevant reactions.
None of that is subtle or done subtly.
> The NYT isn't following Twitter.
What is said here is that journalists are trying to appealing to their Twitter follower instead of doing their job. It's peer pressure, but on Twitter, not in the editing room of the NYT.
What is said here is that journalists are trying to appealing to their Twitter follower instead of doing their job. It's peer pressure, but on Twitter, not in the editing room of the NYT.
[deleted]
It's easy to use words and not have to square them with existing ideas when you also feel free to redefine them to suit an agenda. That's what we see commonly now.
She would probably be fine if she wasn't publicly bad mouthing her co workers on company time, during an all-hands meeting. She's injecting a politically convenient narrative to protect herself from the consequences of her own actions.
what were her actions that demands bullying in the workplace?
[deleted]
> Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think?
"I am the voice of reason!! All must think as I do! Can't you see?"
She has set out to be combative and say things that a lot of people find repugnant. In particular, she has publicly mocked many of her coworkers, which isn't really a great way to make friends in the workplace.
She presents no actual examples of misconduct against her either. Near as I can tell, she's leaving because she perceives people don't like her.
Well, it's their right not to like her, as long as they obey the rules. The world won't miss her strident and dishonest voice.
"I am the voice of reason!! All must think as I do! Can't you see?"
She has set out to be combative and say things that a lot of people find repugnant. In particular, she has publicly mocked many of her coworkers, which isn't really a great way to make friends in the workplace.
She presents no actual examples of misconduct against her either. Near as I can tell, she's leaving because she perceives people don't like her.
Well, it's their right not to like her, as long as they obey the rules. The world won't miss her strident and dishonest voice.
She paints a pretty clear picture of a hostile workplace, particularly in the context of all of the other drama going on at the Times. It's surprising that so many people who don't work at the Times are so confident that Bari is awful, lying, and generally deserving of harassment. Moreover, I don't understand how a good faith participant could read her letter and derive from it "All must think as I do!"--do you really not perceive a difference between a desire not to be harassed and a demand for ideological conformity? The general cancel culture debate on this forum has featured a shocking number of "harassment is criticism" arguments, and this seems like yet another. As a professional, you're allowed to think that her views are repugnant, and you're allowed to professionally criticize her views; however, harassment crosses the line. However, perhaps Bari is lying about the alleged harassment--I don't understand how you and others are so confident this is the case (yes, I'm aware that she accused professors of racism in college nearly 20 years ago, I don't see one minor offense in almost 20 years--and one which is frankly milder than those churned out at the Times on a daily basis--as indicative of a deeply flawed character, and attempts to use this to smear her only leave me with less respect for the critic).
> Well, it's their right not to like her, as long as they obey the rules.
Yeah, that's the whole point. Bari alleges harassment that the Times wouldn't put up with if the target was a progressive and not a Jewish liberal. According to her, her colleagues weren't 'obeying the rules'.
> Well, it's their right not to like her, as long as they obey the rules.
Yeah, that's the whole point. Bari alleges harassment that the Times wouldn't put up with if the target was a progressive and not a Jewish liberal. According to her, her colleagues weren't 'obeying the rules'.
she presents clear examples of bullying that should get people fired, like her name followed by an axe on slack. I hope she has a screenshot. But I doubt that she invented that example. NYT should investigate and punish the bully.
Otherwise, I am dissapointed when I open the paper and barely see any conservative columns while half the country still is conservative. I want to see how and why people think that way in this country, read their opinions.
Otherwise, I am dissapointed when I open the paper and barely see any conservative columns while half the country still is conservative. I want to see how and why people think that way in this country, read their opinions.
[deleted]
"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."
This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reputation of the NYT is the least of the problems that accrue from such a situation, in my opinion.
This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reputation of the NYT is the least of the problems that accrue from such a situation, in my opinion.
They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world?
Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?).
Weird puff pieces, drama on the editorial pages (what else would there be?), declining standards, you could find the same complaints any year since the first newspaper. I can't take them too seriously until I see an alternative that does the work of collective discovery.
[1] https://www.nytco.com/journalism/journalists-on-the-ground/
Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?).
Weird puff pieces, drama on the editorial pages (what else would there be?), declining standards, you could find the same complaints any year since the first newspaper. I can't take them too seriously until I see an alternative that does the work of collective discovery.
[1] https://www.nytco.com/journalism/journalists-on-the-ground/
> They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries ... to gather facts around the world
Journalism is not our fact gathering apparatus. It is our sense making and relevance deciding apparatus based on those facts.
If we don't have good journalists providing those functions, we are left with the ersatz, AI based versions to decide what to pay attention to; twitter's, youtube's recommendation algorithms, google's ranking algorithms etc. None of which is good at saying "this is the most important thing we should pay attention right now as a society", "this is how you should approach this complex topic". Algorithms only serve one god and that is the god of engagement. But the amount of engagement they drive doesn't match their performance in affording us an ability to make sense of our world.
This is precisely what Weiss criticizes, that crucial human wisdom function is now subjugated by what those algorithms promote to be relevant; twitter being the worst offender. This makes us collectively foolish, and we see the results in our society with our inability to cohere and dialog as adults. Our collective intelligence approximates that of a tantrum throwing child, because our most used discourse engine that is twitter can only sustain that level of sophistication.
Journalism is not our fact gathering apparatus. It is our sense making and relevance deciding apparatus based on those facts.
If we don't have good journalists providing those functions, we are left with the ersatz, AI based versions to decide what to pay attention to; twitter's, youtube's recommendation algorithms, google's ranking algorithms etc. None of which is good at saying "this is the most important thing we should pay attention right now as a society", "this is how you should approach this complex topic". Algorithms only serve one god and that is the god of engagement. But the amount of engagement they drive doesn't match their performance in affording us an ability to make sense of our world.
This is precisely what Weiss criticizes, that crucial human wisdom function is now subjugated by what those algorithms promote to be relevant; twitter being the worst offender. This makes us collectively foolish, and we see the results in our society with our inability to cohere and dialog as adults. Our collective intelligence approximates that of a tantrum throwing child, because our most used discourse engine that is twitter can only sustain that level of sophistication.
>Journalism is not our fact gathering apparatus.
Well then what is? I used to live next door to a journalist - by which I mean someone who went out into the world (haiti, israel/west bank, US immigration policy) and asked questions and collected facts. They didn't always get everything right, and their work seemed to encourage a deliberate sort of fence-sitting with respect to the issues and places that they covered, but they did work that nobody else is/was doing.
Those people on social media who appear to be the "fact gathering apparatus" ? they are just echoing the work of people like my old neighbor.
Without journalists, the ones we sometimes call reporters, we've got nothing to work with.
Now certainly, their job also extends into "sense making" and "relevance deciding". But the important ones - the reporters - are the ones gathering the material that the the rest of us - including the non-reporting journalists - are working with when we try to do the same thing.
Well then what is? I used to live next door to a journalist - by which I mean someone who went out into the world (haiti, israel/west bank, US immigration policy) and asked questions and collected facts. They didn't always get everything right, and their work seemed to encourage a deliberate sort of fence-sitting with respect to the issues and places that they covered, but they did work that nobody else is/was doing.
Those people on social media who appear to be the "fact gathering apparatus" ? they are just echoing the work of people like my old neighbor.
Without journalists, the ones we sometimes call reporters, we've got nothing to work with.
Now certainly, their job also extends into "sense making" and "relevance deciding". But the important ones - the reporters - are the ones gathering the material that the the rest of us - including the non-reporting journalists - are working with when we try to do the same thing.
Absolutely what your neighbor did is crucial, but it is not a waterfall process. The problem space of "gathering facts" is virtually infinite, means relevance decisions has to start while deciding on what to gather more facts on. It is an iterative process that says "based on these facts we found, we investigated for these further facts and here why it all was important to promote them to public attention".
Absolutely, but my point is the original claim of "journalism is not our fact gathering process" is just wrong.
Sure, there's a frame problem in journalism just as much as there is in AI, and sure, journalists play a (possibly outsized) role in finding contemporary suboptimal solutions for it. But even with that being the case, somebody has to go out and get information for us to talk about, argue about, rage about, call for more information about etc. etc.
That's what (good) journalists (reporters) do.
"Facts all come with points of view" (Talking Heads, early 1980s)
Sure, there's a frame problem in journalism just as much as there is in AI, and sure, journalists play a (possibly outsized) role in finding contemporary suboptimal solutions for it. But even with that being the case, somebody has to go out and get information for us to talk about, argue about, rage about, call for more information about etc. etc.
That's what (good) journalists (reporters) do.
"Facts all come with points of view" (Talking Heads, early 1980s)
> my point is the original claim of "journalism is not our fact gathering process" is just wrong.
Allow me to reword; facts are necessary but not at all sufficient to constitute journalism, nor journalism can claim monopoly on fact gathering. E.g. we have other, more formal, fact gathering processes such as science or court of law, which cannot be substituted with journalism, damages of which we see to the extent it tries to.
The firehose of twitter, youtube etc feeds already give us facts to talk about, argue about, rage about, call for more information about. And we are not in better shape for it. We cannot sufficiently convert those facts into sense. Nor those facts are always the ones we should be interested in.
That's why it's critical not to reduce journalism to fact gathering.
Allow me to reword; facts are necessary but not at all sufficient to constitute journalism, nor journalism can claim monopoly on fact gathering. E.g. we have other, more formal, fact gathering processes such as science or court of law, which cannot be substituted with journalism, damages of which we see to the extent it tries to.
The firehose of twitter, youtube etc feeds already give us facts to talk about, argue about, rage about, call for more information about. And we are not in better shape for it. We cannot sufficiently convert those facts into sense. Nor those facts are always the ones we should be interested in.
That's why it's critical not to reduce journalism to fact gathering.
I would broadly agree with that. I am not sure it is the job of journalism to "convert facts into sense", though it seems reasonable to posit that this is part of the role of journalism in contemporary society. It is certainly something that many journalists (particularly of the journal-ist variety aka op-ed writers) try to do. But it seems to me that if you're serious about trying to make sense of the facts/the world, you need to turn to much deeper analysis than journalism typically represents.
I completely disagree - the main purpose of the journal is to expose _facts_. It's, of course, impossible to dissociate those facts from opinions they are always written by people, and people will always hold an opinion over subjects, whether they want or not.
But the best journalists thrive to separate their opinion from facts and make it clear to readers when it's one or the other.
But the best journalists thrive to separate their opinion from facts and make it clear to readers when it's one or the other.
Weiss condemns groupthink, not algorithms.
Thats only one thing she is saying. The other thing she is saying is that there is no room for anyone who falls outside the orthodoxy of the new progressive religion.
She's politicizing a totally nonpolitical issue. She was totally fine until she live-tweeted public insults about her co workers during a company meeting. If it were not for her politicizing the issue she would be immediately fired.
> She was totally fine until she live-tweeted public insults about her co workers during a company meeting.
Do you have a reference for this?
Do you have a reference for this?
You could have made that point if they had not just purged the leadership of the opinion section because they dared to publish some republicans opinion piece. When even international press criticise what they did at NY Times it you know you have a problem.
The one guy that got purged admitted to not reading an article before approving it for publication. That person would've been fired under any normal circumstance with great fanfare.
Firstly, the leader of the opinion section resigned, and secondly, it wasn't because of a republican opinion piece - of which there have been hundreds, but because the editorial standards of the Op-Ed section repeatedly fell short of the standards they claimed.
> They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world?
Reuters [0], for one, which boasts "2500 journalists and 600 photojournalists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters
A key thing to understand about the editorial / news hybrids like the NYT, CNN, or Fox News is that they're selling multiple products under the same umbrella: the "reporting" product is side-by-side with the "editorial" product. The editorial content is almost always useless garbage, and it exists solely to generate clicks/views/etc. A lot of the whining about cancel culture is from people who tend to write editorial content, and I don't shed any tears for them, but the failure mode of these orgs is that the editorial section has developed such a strong brand (and their audiences are increasingly polarized), such that their now Twitter-policed editorial viewpoint is increasingly expected to be enforced in the "real" news products, too.
If you want less biased reporting, there are outlets that provide it, but they tend to not publish as much inflammatory clickbait and thus tend to go under the radar of many information consumers.
Reuters [0], for one, which boasts "2500 journalists and 600 photojournalists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters
A key thing to understand about the editorial / news hybrids like the NYT, CNN, or Fox News is that they're selling multiple products under the same umbrella: the "reporting" product is side-by-side with the "editorial" product. The editorial content is almost always useless garbage, and it exists solely to generate clicks/views/etc. A lot of the whining about cancel culture is from people who tend to write editorial content, and I don't shed any tears for them, but the failure mode of these orgs is that the editorial section has developed such a strong brand (and their audiences are increasingly polarized), such that their now Twitter-policed editorial viewpoint is increasingly expected to be enforced in the "real" news products, too.
If you want less biased reporting, there are outlets that provide it, but they tend to not publish as much inflammatory clickbait and thus tend to go under the radar of many information consumers.
what are some of these outlets you know of? I've been trying to ironclad my news sources after getting into Chomsky recently but have only found Democracy Now! and Novara media, as well as a couple other small speciality podcasts that seem potentially good. Would appreciate pointers.
Reuters and frankly the websites of the local TV stations (Sinclair notwithstanding). Al Jazeera, mostly.
ProPublica is OK but falling from grace as it leans harder into manipulating heartstrings.
ProPublica is OK but falling from grace as it leans harder into manipulating heartstrings.
I find the Wall Street Journal and Financial Times mostly OK, if you can live with the fact that they will always support the corporate sector.
It’s been posted here a thousand times, but the Economist and the FT are good starting points.
I don't agree. I've paid to subscribe to the FT for over ten years, and used to subscribe to the Economist before letting it lapse. They are not neutral and especially in the case of the FT, this has gotten a lot worse in the last few years.
Both papers do provide quite good coverage of particular economic topics, framed by their editorial perspective. But if your understanding of Brexit or Trump (or anything politically contentious) comes only from the FT, you are setting yourself up for a huge surprise.
Both papers do provide quite good coverage of particular economic topics, framed by their editorial perspective. But if your understanding of Brexit or Trump (or anything politically contentious) comes only from the FT, you are setting yourself up for a huge surprise.
Less biased on what topics?
Both are notoriously, extremely biased on all kinds of topics, for example Brexit/the EU. The Financial Times actually flies the EU flag above its offices: rather hard to get a clearer statement of bias than that.
Both are notoriously, extremely biased on all kinds of topics, for example Brexit/the EU. The Financial Times actually flies the EU flag above its offices: rather hard to get a clearer statement of bias than that.
> Both are notoriously, extremely biased on all kinds of topics
That's a strong claim without evidence.
That's a strong claim without evidence.
Well, I provided some evidence for the FT. Do you think a newspaper that literally flies the flag of a foreign government over its offices is going to be critical of that government?
I'm not sure how you'd prove this rigorously though. Just look at other comments in this thread. One commenter observes he never saw a pro-Brexit op-ed in the FT, ever. They're always anti.
I'm not sure how you'd prove this rigorously though. Just look at other comments in this thread. One commenter observes he never saw a pro-Brexit op-ed in the FT, ever. They're always anti.
I doubt editorial policy is dictated by proximity to flags, so I'll leave that aside.
The FT and Economist are both focused on economic issues. I don't think you can expect them to campaign for a cause that is (by the admission of its supporters) going to damage the economy. They do consider the positive economic outcomes and possibilities of Brexit within their reporting, but there just aren't many compared to the negative ones. I don't think that's biased, it's fact, and it's fact that is agreed upon by both sides of the debate.
The FT and Economist are both focused on economic issues. I don't think you can expect them to campaign for a cause that is (by the admission of its supporters) going to damage the economy. They do consider the positive economic outcomes and possibilities of Brexit within their reporting, but there just aren't many compared to the negative ones. I don't think that's biased, it's fact, and it's fact that is agreed upon by both sides of the debate.
That's a really weird construction, almost feels bad faith. I meant that the flag is dictated by proximity to their editorial policy, the other way around as you put it here is nonsensical. You're arguing with a strawman.
The idea that Brexit will harm the economy is:
1. Highly controversial to begin with. Plenty of Leave campaigners and voters were motivated by a belief that the EU is sclerotic and adopts many anti-growth economic policies that could be reversed or ignored once out. The idea it's economically harmful is not at all agreed on by both sides, but if you read the FT you can be forgiven for having a highly one-sided view on this!
2. Discredited. The whole population was told even just voting to leave would cause a huge recession. In fact the economy grew. Economists quite clearly cannot predict the effects of Brexit because they tried already and were as wrong as wrong can be.
Even Paul Krugman admitted that the stated beliefs of economists on Brexit were "dubious" and "motivated reasoning" ... of course he only admitted this after the vote was in:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/freshwaters-wro...
What we’re hearing overwhelmingly from economists is the claim that it will also have severe short-run adverse impacts. And that claim seems dubious. Or maybe more to the point, it’s a claim that doesn’t follow in any clear way from standard macroeconomics — but it’s being presented as if it does. And I worry that what we’re seeing is a case of motivated reasoning, which could end up damaging economists’ credibility.
At this point, reporting on what economists think is about as useful as reporting on what epidemiologists think. They all disagree on everything all the time, so it's a way for the journalists to speak through their chosen 'experts'.
The idea that Brexit will harm the economy is:
1. Highly controversial to begin with. Plenty of Leave campaigners and voters were motivated by a belief that the EU is sclerotic and adopts many anti-growth economic policies that could be reversed or ignored once out. The idea it's economically harmful is not at all agreed on by both sides, but if you read the FT you can be forgiven for having a highly one-sided view on this!
2. Discredited. The whole population was told even just voting to leave would cause a huge recession. In fact the economy grew. Economists quite clearly cannot predict the effects of Brexit because they tried already and were as wrong as wrong can be.
Even Paul Krugman admitted that the stated beliefs of economists on Brexit were "dubious" and "motivated reasoning" ... of course he only admitted this after the vote was in:
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/freshwaters-wro...
What we’re hearing overwhelmingly from economists is the claim that it will also have severe short-run adverse impacts. And that claim seems dubious. Or maybe more to the point, it’s a claim that doesn’t follow in any clear way from standard macroeconomics — but it’s being presented as if it does. And I worry that what we’re seeing is a case of motivated reasoning, which could end up damaging economists’ credibility.
At this point, reporting on what economists think is about as useful as reporting on what epidemiologists think. They all disagree on everything all the time, so it's a way for the journalists to speak through their chosen 'experts'.
As a long-time subscriber I think it's more accurate to say they are selectively focused on economic issues. They publish plenty of non-economic pieces which align with their view of the world.
You can also try The Intercept.
If you like Chomsky check out What's Left (podcast) if you haven't yet. It's very good and will only deepen your skepticism of the corporate press.
It's not just about number of journalists, but more about the culture of NYT. NYT made a garage handle much larger than it actually was by using telescope camera on the article on so-called noose. And is this truth-finding? NYT published opinions like "Yes, we literally mean abolish police". They published articles like "Are protests unsafe? What experts say may depend on who's protesting what". Of course they didn't lie. They just publish one side of the sotry. Oh, and that 4000 opinions that the orange man is evil? Great, I guess, and what policies and executive orders did the orange man signs and pushes? What are the motivations behind the controversial policies based on facts and data? Where are the debates of the implications of the policies? No no no, those are wrong questions. All I need to know is that the orange man is evil, right? That's the truth ,right? Or am I a bigot, a racist, an evil person, a xenophobia just because I'm curious about the details of what the orange man did in his presidency?
the FT do a pretty good job, without as much of the problematic editorials.
Probably not as useful to you if you're US based, but I find it really useful for living in Europe.
Probably not as useful to you if you're US based, but I find it really useful for living in Europe.
I would have agreed with you 5 years ago. Unfortunately pretty much every article in the FT has become politically motivated, following very much the NYT's "only the facts that fit the narrative". The FT is openly running campaigns on many topics, and then you aren't reading news, you are reading propaganda.
The editor changed in January, I unsubscribed a month before. Perhaps things have changed since.
The editor changed in January, I unsubscribed a month before. Perhaps things have changed since.
It's gotten a lot worse since January.
I've subscribed for over a decade, and for the first time am questioning whether I should keep paying to be misinformed.
It's very strange as FT subscribers often have money at stake and the last thing they want is to be surprised by events.
Maybe their subscription numbers are falling and Nikkei is chasing the mass market and ad revenue. I don't see that working, as divisive clickbait is available everywhere for free... looks like a doom loop to me.
I've subscribed for over a decade, and for the first time am questioning whether I should keep paying to be misinformed.
It's very strange as FT subscribers often have money at stake and the last thing they want is to be surprised by events.
Maybe their subscription numbers are falling and Nikkei is chasing the mass market and ad revenue. I don't see that working, as divisive clickbait is available everywhere for free... looks like a doom loop to me.
Can you describe how it's gotten worse?
I have found, in general, that there's a lot more sloppy editing across the news media, which is understandable given how much has happened.
I have found, in general, that there's a lot more sloppy editing across the news media, which is understandable given how much has happened.
I found that the WSJ is still fairly balanced, but of course a bit light on European news. Which in the heat of the brexit debate was a god-bless. But not ideal still.
I wish I could award you several upvotes for answering my question.
I really like FT myself. I am not in business so much but I think business news sources often get at a lot of interesting angles that others miss.
I really like FT myself. I am not in business so much but I think business news sources often get at a lot of interesting angles that others miss.
Absolutely, most journalists do not understand basic quantitative reasoning or economic principles.
For example, I read a BBC article a while back about a sand shortage in India. It turns out the government imposed a price-ceiling, and there was no shortage at all (sand was available in the black market) - there was just a shortage at the government mandated price point.
Any economics 101 student can tell you that if you set a price-ceiling there will be a shortage.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50386515
For example, I read a BBC article a while back about a sand shortage in India. It turns out the government imposed a price-ceiling, and there was no shortage at all (sand was available in the black market) - there was just a shortage at the government mandated price point.
Any economics 101 student can tell you that if you set a price-ceiling there will be a shortage.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50386515
There was a (temporary) sand shortage due to a monsoon and availability does not imply sufficient supply. If there was no shortage of sand, even on the black market, the price would not have risen unless it was controlled by a cartel. Price capping is a good way to fight this kind of cartel because they were cornering the market by taking in all of the available supply and then raising the price.
Like the article says, sand was actually more widely available when the government had capped the price at $0. The Econ 101 student is blind to the interesting parts of this story.
"Econ 101" is pejorative term for making simplistic proclamations that ignore the complexities of a situation.
Yeah (fortunately or unfortunately), that's the world that capitalism has made.
To be fair, lots of people in the UK don't like them because of their stance on Brexit, but I really appreciate their coverage of conservative political voices is much more restrained rather than the click-driven style of the Guardian or the NYT.
Their environmental coverage is terrible though, so I wouldn't treat them as my only news source.
To be fair, lots of people in the UK don't like them because of their stance on Brexit, but I really appreciate their coverage of conservative political voices is much more restrained rather than the click-driven style of the Guardian or the NYT.
Their environmental coverage is terrible though, so I wouldn't treat them as my only news source.
James Bennet, the Op-Ed Editor who had hired both Weiss and Stephens is Jewish. His brother is Colorado Senator Bennet. Their mother was in the Warsaw Ghetto and was sent out as a child by her parents just before the Nazis shipped the entire ghetto to the camps. She has an on-line oral history in the holocaust museum.
Both Stephens and Weiss are not only Jewish, but pro-Israel. Weiss had even written an entire recent book about anti-Semitism [1]. Many in the far left support the anti-Semitic Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement against the only Jewish country in the world. China invaded Tibet, puts 3 million Muslims in camps, taking their DNA and facial recognition but no China BDS.
Bennet had also been Jerusalem Bureau Chief for NYT for 3 years and thus would be knowledgeable about the situation there. He may have stopped inaccuracies printed about Israel in his role.
Bennet was the likely candidate to be elevated to Exec Editor when the current one retired in a couple of years. I believe a lot of the staff didn't like Bennet because of Jewish/Israel stance and the idea of him being the Exec Editor frightened/angered them.
I believe that an external inspector general type figure should evaluate the entire situation. Weiss's complaints are consistent with a toxic work environment that nobody should have to deal with. She said the source of some of the harassment she experienced was on an internal slack channel and thus easy to investigate.
Readers of HN are analytical enough to realize that when something obvious isn't mentioned it may well be the underlying cause.
[1] Weiss: How to Fight Anti-Semitism https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P51KC9Z/
Both Stephens and Weiss are not only Jewish, but pro-Israel. Weiss had even written an entire recent book about anti-Semitism [1]. Many in the far left support the anti-Semitic Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement against the only Jewish country in the world. China invaded Tibet, puts 3 million Muslims in camps, taking their DNA and facial recognition but no China BDS.
Bennet had also been Jerusalem Bureau Chief for NYT for 3 years and thus would be knowledgeable about the situation there. He may have stopped inaccuracies printed about Israel in his role.
Bennet was the likely candidate to be elevated to Exec Editor when the current one retired in a couple of years. I believe a lot of the staff didn't like Bennet because of Jewish/Israel stance and the idea of him being the Exec Editor frightened/angered them.
I believe that an external inspector general type figure should evaluate the entire situation. Weiss's complaints are consistent with a toxic work environment that nobody should have to deal with. She said the source of some of the harassment she experienced was on an internal slack channel and thus easy to investigate.
Readers of HN are analytical enough to realize that when something obvious isn't mentioned it may well be the underlying cause.
[1] Weiss: How to Fight Anti-Semitism https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P51KC9Z/
Bloomberg had 2,300 editors and reporters in 72 countries in 2010. The Wall Street Journal had 2,000 journalists in 85 news bureaus across 51 countries in 2012.
The WSJ and Bloomberg are OK, although they tend to have business-heavy coverage.
I feel like there's a real market opening here, for a centrist, general-interest newspaper. (Suggested slogan: "Like the NYT Was 20 Years Ago.")
I feel like there's a real market opening here, for a centrist, general-interest newspaper. (Suggested slogan: "Like the NYT Was 20 Years Ago.")
I've seen some pretty right-wing stuff on WSJ in the last few months.
Centrist does not mean right-wing, nor does it mean just mixing both political extremes.
Let's say they're gathering facts. I don't know the numbers but let's assume this is correct.
Are they perhaps also exaggerating and wording stories to get something that sells? And perhaps adding an ideological filter? Maybe choosing what to report and what not. E.g., all negative stories about some people will be reported and all positive stories about others will be reported.
Just because they're gathering facts does not mean they accurately describe reality.
Are they perhaps also exaggerating and wording stories to get something that sells? And perhaps adding an ideological filter? Maybe choosing what to report and what not. E.g., all negative stories about some people will be reported and all positive stories about others will be reported.
Just because they're gathering facts does not mean they accurately describe reality.
You get a different bias from The Economist but I'm fairly happy reading it. Not sure on the numbers of personnel or their distribution.
The Economist is still one of the best, but they have also deteriorated in the last 3 years, and continue slowly descending into NewSpeak.
Even ten times that many journalists will do you no good, when what they report is filtered according to some pre-concieved view of the world (or the journalists themselves are only hired if they share that view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nBx-37c3c8 ).
Noam Chomsky says a lot of interesting stuff but he published his writings on 9/11 a couple months after the attacks (and he certainly has his own ideological filters). He's an essayist, a linguist, but not a news source. I'm looking for the better alternative to the NYT here.
Where would you go for information if I told you about some surprising event occurred and people on Twitter are posting very different statements of fact?
Where would you go for information if I told you about some surprising event occurred and people on Twitter are posting very different statements of fact?
I've said this before, and I'll say it again:
Stop trusting outlets. Find journalists with integrity and follow everything they do, no matter the outlet.
Stop trusting outlets. Find journalists with integrity and follow everything they do, no matter the outlet.
I basically just trust two at this point: Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi. Both biased to the left, but both are explicit about it, and neither would lie to suit a narrative, unlike the rest of their colleagues.
By "biased to the left" I guess you mean they support socialism a la Bernie Sanders? So far I enjoyed listening to Greenwald's podcast (System Update), except it was rather weird hearing him casually saying that annexation of West Bank is worse than annexation of Crimea in 2014 because in Crimea almost everyone wanted to join Russia anyway (compared to the West Bank, where no one wants to join Israel). That's not quite a neutral statement (about Crimea), at least without a proper source.
> in Crimea almost everyone wanted to join Russia anyway
That much is actually true - I grew up not far from there, and it was a mistake for Khrushchev to give Crimea to Ukrainian SSR - it's been a part of Russia since 1783. But back then it was unimaginable that the USSR would fall, so nobody made much of it. Ukrainians were an ethnic minority in Crimea, and Russians were 67% of the population at the time it re-joined Russia. Not something you will find in US mainstream press. This is why Greenwald's input is valuable - he actually studied the issue rather than parroting the mainstream party line.
To see why he's right, consider this: Russia took Crimea _without any bloodshed_ and with fairly minimal military presence. This would not be possible if populace wasn't in agreement.
Leaving aside the formalities, Ukraine's grasp on Crimea was tenuous at best, and its fate was decided when Ukraine threatened to kick Russian military base out of Sevastopol - which lets Russia control the vital Black sea. With Russia no longer there, somebody else (e.g. NATO) could take its place, which Russia will not allow for geostrategical reasons.
But even ignoring Russia's interests in the region - one could argue Crimea was never really "Ukrainian" in the first place, and their temporary possession of that land was a historical mistake, which has now been corrected. It's not even clear if Khrushchev had the authority to give it away in the first place.
No opinion on the West Bank, I don't have first hand info on that.
That much is actually true - I grew up not far from there, and it was a mistake for Khrushchev to give Crimea to Ukrainian SSR - it's been a part of Russia since 1783. But back then it was unimaginable that the USSR would fall, so nobody made much of it. Ukrainians were an ethnic minority in Crimea, and Russians were 67% of the population at the time it re-joined Russia. Not something you will find in US mainstream press. This is why Greenwald's input is valuable - he actually studied the issue rather than parroting the mainstream party line.
To see why he's right, consider this: Russia took Crimea _without any bloodshed_ and with fairly minimal military presence. This would not be possible if populace wasn't in agreement.
Leaving aside the formalities, Ukraine's grasp on Crimea was tenuous at best, and its fate was decided when Ukraine threatened to kick Russian military base out of Sevastopol - which lets Russia control the vital Black sea. With Russia no longer there, somebody else (e.g. NATO) could take its place, which Russia will not allow for geostrategical reasons.
But even ignoring Russia's interests in the region - one could argue Crimea was never really "Ukrainian" in the first place, and their temporary possession of that land was a historical mistake, which has now been corrected. It's not even clear if Khrushchev had the authority to give it away in the first place.
No opinion on the West Bank, I don't have first hand info on that.
Ukraine really got screwed over though. It had inherited Soviet nuclear weapons, it agreed to destroy them in exchange for promises from Russia, the US, and the UK to respect its sovereignty and territorial integrity in its existing borders (1994 Budapest Memorandum). Russia completely violated that commitment (both with the Crimea annexation, and by supporting the Donbass insurgency).
Would Russia have annexed Crimea if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons?
Would Russia have annexed Crimea if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons?
> Ukraine really got screwed over though.
No argument there.
> Would Russia have annexed Crimea if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons?
It likely would not. But that's a hypothetical, so there's no way to tell one or the other. MAD is a thing, and neither country would deploy nuclear weapons this close to itself, let alone do so in a MAD-inducing way.
What is certain is that Ukraine would be a different level of a player on the international stage if it had nuclear weapons. Other countries (including Russia) would bend over backwards to keep it stable (much like everyone bent over backwards to stop proliferation in 1991), and there'd be no talk of NATO presence at Russia's border with Ukraine.
People in the US (which never had a real, total land war on its soil) don't understand: there are kinds of things that Russia simply will not allow. In contrast with the US, Russia had total wars on its soil several times, and lost tens of millions of people in those wars - a level of sacrifice unimaginable here in the US. Russia does not have natural barriers to a land invasion. So it cannot and will not afford the "buffer states" around it (such as Ukraine or Belarus) to fall under NATO or anybody else's control. It's not even a question of cost or international law. It's a question of national security and survival. Those concerns always dominate.
One of the things Russia will not allow in particular are NATO bases within easy striking distance of Krasnodar, Rostov, and much of its agricultural base. Another is Belarus affiliating itself militarily with the West. Baltic states were lost, so now there's a NATO military base within 200 miles of Saint Petersburg (in Estonia), which is significantly raising Putin's blood pressure and could result in action if escalation continues there. These things start small. Some people, a few tanks. Then there's an air base. Then there are rockets and long range radars being deployed under the pretense of "protecting Europe from Iran" (for those who don't know where Iran is on the map). And so on and so forth.
No argument there.
> Would Russia have annexed Crimea if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons?
It likely would not. But that's a hypothetical, so there's no way to tell one or the other. MAD is a thing, and neither country would deploy nuclear weapons this close to itself, let alone do so in a MAD-inducing way.
What is certain is that Ukraine would be a different level of a player on the international stage if it had nuclear weapons. Other countries (including Russia) would bend over backwards to keep it stable (much like everyone bent over backwards to stop proliferation in 1991), and there'd be no talk of NATO presence at Russia's border with Ukraine.
People in the US (which never had a real, total land war on its soil) don't understand: there are kinds of things that Russia simply will not allow. In contrast with the US, Russia had total wars on its soil several times, and lost tens of millions of people in those wars - a level of sacrifice unimaginable here in the US. Russia does not have natural barriers to a land invasion. So it cannot and will not afford the "buffer states" around it (such as Ukraine or Belarus) to fall under NATO or anybody else's control. It's not even a question of cost or international law. It's a question of national security and survival. Those concerns always dominate.
One of the things Russia will not allow in particular are NATO bases within easy striking distance of Krasnodar, Rostov, and much of its agricultural base. Another is Belarus affiliating itself militarily with the West. Baltic states were lost, so now there's a NATO military base within 200 miles of Saint Petersburg (in Estonia), which is significantly raising Putin's blood pressure and could result in action if escalation continues there. These things start small. Some people, a few tanks. Then there's an air base. Then there are rockets and long range radars being deployed under the pretense of "protecting Europe from Iran" (for those who don't know where Iran is on the map). And so on and so forth.
99% of HN is going to disagree with you when they find out Noam appears more on RT than any other network.
That’s the state US “journalism” is in.
That’s the state US “journalism” is in.
I've been saying somewhat similar things lately. Although, I do believe some worthwhile outlets exist.
But, do you believe this is a new problem? Was it always bad to trust outlets?
But, do you believe this is a new problem? Was it always bad to trust outlets?
It has gotten worse, but increasingly the more I dig into old media the more I understand it's been around for a long time. That said, the explosion of the internet as a new branch of old media in particular has gotten worse as the oligarchs catch up.
You are asking for a cure, but I can only offer a diagnosis.
Noam has some very valid ideas, but he's got a long habit of supporting questionable characters like Pol Pot and Chavez.
One solution: bypass the propaganda and the editorialising, go straight to the source of information which is news agencies.
Chomsky & Herman have an entire book on why news agencies can't and don't work either. However, they clearly point out that there is also a lot of truth from those news agencies, but often not when it comes to domestic & foreign politics.
>
Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?).
<
Reuters, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, and Fox News all come to mind for the metrics you've brought up. The NYT is not a peerless entity. I'm sure people will bemoan Fox News being on that list but they're none the less one of the largest news orgs in the country and their actual news segments aren't wildly different from what other orgs pump out.
Reuters, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, and Fox News all come to mind for the metrics you've brought up. The NYT is not a peerless entity. I'm sure people will bemoan Fox News being on that list but they're none the less one of the largest news orgs in the country and their actual news segments aren't wildly different from what other orgs pump out.
I get the point you're making, but when such a tenured and large scale organization is subject to increasing ideological bias, couldn't we also cast the entire 'fact collection' activity as being in support of that bias? Who's to know if the facts are being selectively reported, or stitched together to tell one narrative instead of the whole truth? A similar argument applies to academia - biased researchers will selectively explore certain angles or tell certain stories, and the sheen of academia (the trust given to it) causes the results to be accepted even if they are incorrect.
> when such a tenured and large scale organization is subject to increasing ideological bias
Every new organization has an editorial line, within its own Overton Window, both of which can shift over time. So it's not a new thing. Even being centrist is a bias.
Every new organization has an editorial line, within its own Overton Window, both of which can shift over time. So it's not a new thing. Even being centrist is a bias.
What's the alternative? What is the best source of information available to the public?
It's easy to take potshots, show me a news source that's better.
It's easy to take potshots, show me a news source that's better.
The absence of a better news source doesn't mean we should be blind to its faults.
Sure, but the grandparent doesn't say "I read the NYT but here are some flaws..." or "The Houston Chronicle is better because..." it says the entire enterprise has been directed "in support of bias".
I am arguing against being blind to the news source's virtues. If we don't want to be blind to the world we have to pick our poison(s).
I am arguing against being blind to the news source's virtues. If we don't want to be blind to the world we have to pick our poison(s).
Fair enough. I find that Wall Street journal, Reuters, and NPR all do better jobs (in roughly that order) with respect to reigning-in their biases than the NYT.
WSJ? They do a better job at disguising their right-wing biases as reporting facts. I used to resd it daily 10-20 years ago but now I need to read it very carefully.
WSJ isn’t perfect, but they aren’t “right-wing”, and they at least try to mask their biases, which makes them markedly better than NYT, WashPo, etc in my opinion.
> WSJ isn’t perfect, but they aren’t “right-wing”
WSJ was solid right in the editorial but pretty neutral in news (though clear ideological bias was creeping in in the last decade or so) back before News Corp bought it out to augment their right-wing propaganda empire.
Now, it's definitely more high-brow and less in-your-face, beat-you-over-the-head with unsubtle propaganda than, say, FOX News, but it's just as clearly directed at the same ends.
WSJ was solid right in the editorial but pretty neutral in news (though clear ideological bias was creeping in in the last decade or so) back before News Corp bought it out to augment their right-wing propaganda empire.
Now, it's definitely more high-brow and less in-your-face, beat-you-over-the-head with unsubtle propaganda than, say, FOX News, but it's just as clearly directed at the same ends.
Financial times.
As a long-time subscriber I recommend very strongly against putting all your eggs in this basket. They are good on certain topics but have major blind spots. See my comments elsewhere in this thread.
That's a great choice. I am curious if as an FT reader do you really hate the NYT or do you think FT is better but if it wasn't available NYT is readable.
I don't hate NYT, I think it's compromised and diminished in quality but they still put out good content every once in a while.
The incident with Scott Alexander of SSC left a particularly bad taste in my mouth.
If FT wasn't available, I'd pay for Substack newsletters from trusted authorities.
The incident with Scott Alexander of SSC left a particularly bad taste in my mouth.
If FT wasn't available, I'd pay for Substack newsletters from trusted authorities.
> I can't take them too seriously until I see an alternative that does the work of collective discovery.
There is an alternative. It is you and I. The citizen journalist will become the arbiter of truth tomorrow. And that arbitration will be decided on rationality. There will be no more credentialism and gatekeeping. That is why the traditional media companies are scared shitless.
There is an alternative. It is you and I. The citizen journalist will become the arbiter of truth tomorrow. And that arbitration will be decided on rationality. There will be no more credentialism and gatekeeping. That is why the traditional media companies are scared shitless.
Aha! Yes!!
The most obvious first step is to form a leadership group to manage coordination. Different people to be in charge of printing/hosting and distribution, payroll, HR, research, etc, etc.
The most obvious first step is to form a leadership group to manage coordination. Different people to be in charge of printing/hosting and distribution, payroll, HR, research, etc, etc.
No, we don't need any of that.
If someone wants to publish news, they don't need those things. Just publish it.
If someone wants to publish news, they don't need those things. Just publish it.
And the citizen engineers will solve P = NP, and the citizen doctors will cure cancer, and the citizen citizen political scientists will create a perfect voting system…
> There is an alternative. It is you and I.
How do I tell the difference between an honest citizen journalist, a propagandist, a liar, a lunatic, or a troll?
Conventional journalism of course is not perfectly trustworthy, but at least there is some penalty for extreme untrustworthiness in the form of loss of reputation of the paper and its brand. The NYT is an illustrative case. My opinion of that paper dropped significantly after its role in providing only the most softball criticism of the (then impending) Iraq invasion. I'm not the only person I've heard say this. NYT paid a price for cheerleading for that disaster.
How do I tell the difference between an honest citizen journalist, a propagandist, a liar, a lunatic, or a troll?
Conventional journalism of course is not perfectly trustworthy, but at least there is some penalty for extreme untrustworthiness in the form of loss of reputation of the paper and its brand. The NYT is an illustrative case. My opinion of that paper dropped significantly after its role in providing only the most softball criticism of the (then impending) Iraq invasion. I'm not the only person I've heard say this. NYT paid a price for cheerleading for that disaster.
>How do I tell the difference between an honest citizen journalist, a propagandist, a liar, a lunatic, or a troll?
Critical thinking skills, independent research, and open dialogue
Critical thinking skills, independent research, and open dialogue
> Critical thinking skills
A lot of people stay at the dunning-Kruger peak on that for a very long time and over-evaluate their (i for sure did for several years at least).
> independent research
Those who have the time to do this for half the semi-important issues in the world are lucky(like most of of on HN i think). And i started 2 month ago informing myself about climate change and what does it mean to stop using oil, i did not have any time for myself between that and work until recently. Research takes a long, long time if you wnat to do it well. I'm still not certain about anything.
> open dialogue Yes if it mean what i think, this is very helpful. Paper journal used to offer opportunities for that.
A lot of people stay at the dunning-Kruger peak on that for a very long time and over-evaluate their (i for sure did for several years at least).
> independent research
Those who have the time to do this for half the semi-important issues in the world are lucky(like most of of on HN i think). And i started 2 month ago informing myself about climate change and what does it mean to stop using oil, i did not have any time for myself between that and work until recently. Research takes a long, long time if you wnat to do it well. I'm still not certain about anything.
> open dialogue Yes if it mean what i think, this is very helpful. Paper journal used to offer opportunities for that.
Yep, it's definitely not easy. Nothing worth doing is.
Many prefer poisonous fast food to a healthy home cooked meal, just as many prefer to read twitter comments and click bait than to read a book
Many prefer poisonous fast food to a healthy home cooked meal, just as many prefer to read twitter comments and click bait than to read a book
> I'm still not certain about anything.
You captured a facet of climate change I feel few can properly articulate. Modeling and digesting complex systems is incredibly difficult and at this point I share the same position.
It seems to be we have no clue how severe the impacts of climate change will be but based on gut feelings we are in for the same problem as technology development.
> We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.[0]
[0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara)
You captured a facet of climate change I feel few can properly articulate. Modeling and digesting complex systems is incredibly difficult and at this point I share the same position.
It seems to be we have no clue how severe the impacts of climate change will be but based on gut feelings we are in for the same problem as technology development.
> We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.[0]
[0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara)
I'm not sure there's a penalty. NYT subscriptions have been going up, not down, despite it frequently reporting things that are bizarre or factually wrong. Same is true for many other papers.
That makes sense: people often buy newspapers for the analysis that reconfirms their own world views, and gives them intellectual ammo for their pre-conceived notions.
With citizen journalists (a.k.a. bloggers) they start out with no pre-existing reputation so tend to depend on other ways to quickly build credibility, like using lots of hyperlinks to sources so you can check their claims, or leaving comments open so commenters can criticise and respond. Even today in 2020 it's standard for news articles to provide no citations or hyperlinks at all, even when e.g. the entire report is about a research paper, and often comment sections are now closed. Exactly because so many commenters would often point out flaws in the articles!
That makes sense: people often buy newspapers for the analysis that reconfirms their own world views, and gives them intellectual ammo for their pre-conceived notions.
With citizen journalists (a.k.a. bloggers) they start out with no pre-existing reputation so tend to depend on other ways to quickly build credibility, like using lots of hyperlinks to sources so you can check their claims, or leaving comments open so commenters can criticise and respond. Even today in 2020 it's standard for news articles to provide no citations or hyperlinks at all, even when e.g. the entire report is about a research paper, and often comment sections are now closed. Exactly because so many commenters would often point out flaws in the articles!
>alternative that does the work of collective discovery.
The library
The library
Unfortunately libraries are also subject to the same pressures of ideological warfare and selection bias (see https://www.advocate.com/news/2005/10/07/texas-group-pressur... or https://www.theepochtimes.com/norwegian-library-rejects-chin... or http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks...).
News agencies (Reuters, AFP, AP, Bloomberg, etc) and without (or at least with a lot less) pontification and political bias.
Whats worse is this phenomenon isn't contained to the NYT all media it appears is infected.
It is somewhat alarming to see this hostile and dehumanizing language (referring to "all media" as "infected") and makes me automatically skeptical of your point-of-view.
I suspect we have some "deep staters" in attendance. Everything you know, you don't. Everything you believe is false. A liberal conspiracy exists and it's hiding in plain sight.
If you ignore these "throw the baby out with the bathwater" comments, some good discussion is being had.
If you ignore these "throw the baby out with the bathwater" comments, some good discussion is being had.
...and it's the others who believe in conspiracy theories? The "deep staters" you call them?
I didn't invent it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_State...
I discovered it on July 4 when people I passingly know on FB took a pledge to QAnon. Looking up QAnon brought me to the Deep State conspiracy belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon
One characteristic of it is a deep distrust of "the media".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_State...
I discovered it on July 4 when people I passingly know on FB took a pledge to QAnon. Looking up QAnon brought me to the Deep State conspiracy belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QAnon
One characteristic of it is a deep distrust of "the media".
This is a well phrased variant of: "since they're critical, they must be wrong".
You can be critical without being dehumanizing.
Is 'infected' really dehumanizing? Groups of humans can be infected with a disease, ideology, etc. I didn't mean to sound dehumanizing I'm just frustrated by the lack of reliable information about the world we live in.
BTCOG(1)
Not surprising considering the extreme consolidation of mass media corporations over the past 50 years.
I'm not sure about "all media", but CNN is definite worse, and WaPo is on par with NYT in pushing their narratives.
I’ve watched this with interest over the years as readership drops to a smaller group that spends more. I believe NYT is still profitable despite lower circulation.
I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth. I’m not sure how to measure this. It’s based on my own technique of when I encounter someone speaking false reality I try to understand and come to some common understanding. Sometimes I have it wrong. But if I don’t have a standing relationship with someone who frequently doesn’t operate in reality, I just ignore or unsubscribe. I assume they carry on.
In NYT’s case they carry on and have even more subscribers who like this version of reality. So it’s a bit of a spiral. I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.
I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth. I’m not sure how to measure this. It’s based on my own technique of when I encounter someone speaking false reality I try to understand and come to some common understanding. Sometimes I have it wrong. But if I don’t have a standing relationship with someone who frequently doesn’t operate in reality, I just ignore or unsubscribe. I assume they carry on.
In NYT’s case they carry on and have even more subscribers who like this version of reality. So it’s a bit of a spiral. I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.
> I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth.
The NYT's subscription rates are way up since Trump was elected.
> I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.
You already stated why they're seeing such success. "the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth."
The NYT's subscription rates are way up since Trump was elected.
> I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.
You already stated why they're seeing such success. "the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth."
Digital subscribers have been consistently up since they started a digital subscription [0] but I meant actual readers since I think digital subscriptions earn less than historical subscribers and number of subscribers has a lot of variability of what price is paid.
I was thinking of their profit and revenue [1] that keeps trending down (although this year is up). That’s probably a better sign of actual readers over time, I think.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/315041/new-york-times-co... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne...
I was thinking of their profit and revenue [1] that keeps trending down (although this year is up). That’s probably a better sign of actual readers over time, I think.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/315041/new-york-times-co... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/192848/revenue-of-the-ne...
How do we determine that though?
I say it is way too easy to BELIEVE that the motives of people who do things we don't like ... are wrong / they're pushing a POV.
I see these types of accusations thrown around a lot, even on HN, "oh this writer doesn't like Tesla" and I very rarely see anything but what appears to be an emotional appeal to others who don't like that news story.
It's just so easy to think someone else must have some ulterior motive, otherwise they wouldn't logically have come to that conclusion...
I say it is way too easy to BELIEVE that the motives of people who do things we don't like ... are wrong / they're pushing a POV.
I see these types of accusations thrown around a lot, even on HN, "oh this writer doesn't like Tesla" and I very rarely see anything but what appears to be an emotional appeal to others who don't like that news story.
It's just so easy to think someone else must have some ulterior motive, otherwise they wouldn't logically have come to that conclusion...
Bari Weiss doesn't realize it, but she's painting an accurate picture of herself here.
[deleted]
If you contradict yourself, provide an image that you along with the experts are figuring out the truth, then you could possibly do more to damage your credibility than if you had instead just endlessly projected strength until your successor forcibly took you down in their own endless display of indomitable leadership.
When uncertainty and fear strikes people want strong leadership, not one that is still doing research to figure out what's next (even if that's a strong move).
When uncertainty and fear strikes people want strong leadership, not one that is still doing research to figure out what's next (even if that's a strong move).
That just sounds like bluster and emotion to me though.
Why is truth not a process of collective discovery?
Is this implying that truth used to be this and now is not?
What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper?
What evidence is there that this used to be the case and now is not?
What is the new "orthodoxy"?
Are you able to describe this orthodoxy in specific terms and not just labels?
Who are these "enlightened few"?
What do you mean by "whose job it is"?
When have these "few" "informed everyone else", specifically?
I do not mean to imply there are no answers to these questions, or that the answers will fall one way or the other. I just fail to see why I should take those statements seriously as "a very key point" without a lot more explanation and evidence. She starts to explain a few things before these statements that sound interesting, but then immediately starts ranting about Twitter instead.
Why is truth not a process of collective discovery?
Is this implying that truth used to be this and now is not?
What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper?
What evidence is there that this used to be the case and now is not?
What is the new "orthodoxy"?
Are you able to describe this orthodoxy in specific terms and not just labels?
Who are these "enlightened few"?
What do you mean by "whose job it is"?
When have these "few" "informed everyone else", specifically?
I do not mean to imply there are no answers to these questions, or that the answers will fall one way or the other. I just fail to see why I should take those statements seriously as "a very key point" without a lot more explanation and evidence. She starts to explain a few things before these statements that sound interesting, but then immediately starts ranting about Twitter instead.
I think it's pretty obvious what the new orthodoxy is, and she gave some examples of it. How many more questions do you want to ask? The NYT is condoning high school student canceling each other, hiding anti-Semitism from certain writers they like based on the obvious factors, making wild narratives about US history (like their Revolutionary War revisionism), and most importantly, unlike papers like the Financial Times which publish multiple competing views side by side (there are probably few FT readers here but it really is a highlight), they intimidate people who are centrists because they don't toe the line. Which line, you ask, what do you think?
We accuse Republicans of being anti science (they are, it's often true), but we publish op eds criticizing protests on the right as carriers of coronavirus while praising protests of another sort. Last week Krugman criticized red states (correctly) for opening up too soon, but he said absolutely nothing about the California spike.
So what do you want in a newspaper, facts or agitprop??
We accuse Republicans of being anti science (they are, it's often true), but we publish op eds criticizing protests on the right as carriers of coronavirus while praising protests of another sort. Last week Krugman criticized red states (correctly) for opening up too soon, but he said absolutely nothing about the California spike.
So what do you want in a newspaper, facts or agitprop??
I don't remember seeing a single pro-brexit op-ed in the FT. The FT isn't publishing competing views. It very much aligned itself to the NYT's "only the facts that fits the narrative" approach.
Hm, I definitely remember a lot of anti-Brexit pieces, and I don't remember the balance overall so I'll take your word for it. Perhaps that's a sore point for the FT, which is fundamentally not 'right' or 'left' but more classical liberal / free-trade oriented. Investors care about these things, at least many do. The NYT, though, if you do a little experiment and go to the website right now, look at the headlines displayed. The headlines alone are editorialized, but there are interpretations being done for you if you delve into the articles themselves, versus rational arguments being put forth. A paper I read daily and which I sometimes post here, Bloomberg, started doing this in a section called "CityLab". And today was an Opinions piece saying that Cancel Culture is a joke, doesn't exist and is proof of privilege that it was even mentioned.
The FT I've seen opinion pieces on completely opposite views side by side or issue to issue. Sometimes something would respond days later to something posted before, in a rebuttal. True both in the editorials and in the Letters section. Dear Sirs...
The FT I've seen opinion pieces on completely opposite views side by side or issue to issue. Sometimes something would respond days later to something posted before, in a rebuttal. True both in the editorials and in the Letters section. Dear Sirs...
There are also no pro-pollution op-eds, or anti-vaccine op-ends in the FT, because they hold themselves to a standard of not publishing "he-said-she-said" fair-and-balanced views, but to give some insight into which of the two sides of an argument seems to have evidence on its side. Brexiters didn't (and don't) have the facts or watertight arguments on theirs side, especially economically speaking.
I've subscribed to the FT for over a decade and I think you are giving them way too much credit here. They took a very clear anti-Brexit stance and that coloured their publishing. They have done the same with Trump to a frankly embarrassing degree.
“The facts are all on my side”, “anyone who disagree with me has either evil motives or is an idiot”, etc... is the sort of illiberal approach to political discourse which is exactly what triggered the resignation letter.
> What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper?
National Review will often have a chain of columns between two of its writers going back and forth debating the merits of a particular position. That is what collective discovery should look like - a publication should encourage views that the editors might disagree with in order to understand the different perspectives on a topic.
Now, it's all about people "canceling" each other.
> What is the new "orthodoxy"?
I thought this was made pretty clear - the new orthodoxy is the Progressive Left way of thinking. Given that a term is a label, I'm not sure what would clear it up, but she does give examples of things that went against the orthodoxy (Tom Cotton's op-ed), and what it consists of (in the paragraph starting "All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers...").
>
National Review will often have a chain of columns between two of its writers going back and forth debating the merits of a particular position. That is what collective discovery should look like - a publication should encourage views that the editors might disagree with in order to understand the different perspectives on a topic.
Now, it's all about people "canceling" each other.
> What is the new "orthodoxy"?
I thought this was made pretty clear - the new orthodoxy is the Progressive Left way of thinking. Given that a term is a label, I'm not sure what would clear it up, but she does give examples of things that went against the orthodoxy (Tom Cotton's op-ed), and what it consists of (in the paragraph starting "All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers...").
>
I mostly intended these questions rhetorically, or directed at Bari herself, as opposed to really wanting another HN commenter to go down the line and "respond" to each one. I don't know how productive that is going to be on this forum.
It was a letter, not a book long argument. But she did give examples to answer almost all of your questions.
I don't expect Bari Weiss lurks on HN, but fortunately the questions you asked were already mostly answered by her in her resignation letter.
End of the day, the letter is a provocative piece written by a provocateur. It's hard to be a provocateur in a large enterprise that explicitly self-identifies as the paper of record and an institution.
I don't follow this writer, but based on open letter (and the fact that the individual published an open resignation letter in itself), the individual sounds like someone who didn't function well in a work environment full of big egos. It's hard to swim upstream in that type of org.
I don't follow this writer, but based on open letter (and the fact that the individual published an open resignation letter in itself), the individual sounds like someone who didn't function well in a work environment full of big egos. It's hard to swim upstream in that type of org.
> "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality?
Isn't Truth == Reality by definition?
Isn't Truth == Reality by definition?
[deleted]
seppin(3)
maxwin(6)
What makes this really ugly right now is that the New York Times thinks that the coronavirus pandemic is going to get Trump voted out of office, and their need to push hard on the idea that it's all his fault has really done a number on their reporting about the biggest crisis facing the world. Especially once it turned out all that the success story countries they pointed to as proof America could've done better if not for Trump weren't succeeding after all, and once America went from having a terrible testing program to one of the best to no avail despite the supposed vital importance of testing playing a huge part in their blame-Trump narrative.
> America went from having a terrible testing program to one of the best
Any sources on nCoV-2 testing program in the US? Genuinely curious, social media (that I can see from inside my bubble) is mostly buzzing with how bad things are all around, but then people rarely take the time to voice positive changes.
Any sources on nCoV-2 testing program in the US? Genuinely curious, social media (that I can see from inside my bubble) is mostly buzzing with how bad things are all around, but then people rarely take the time to voice positive changes.
You can get a very rough idea of how countries are doing by looking at the tests per capita figures here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (click to sort). Obviously this isn't the only aspect that matters, but it's going to be hard to get a more detailed view that doesn't just tell you whatever country you're in sucks compared to everyone else. The major countries with widespread coronavirus testing on there are - in order - the UK, Russia, the US, Spain and Australia, and I can tell you that our press here in the UK has been pushing almost as hard on the narrative that we're falling behind the rest of the world in testing for coronavirus as the US media.
Naturally, publications like the New York Times have carefully worked to leave their readers with a much worse impression of where the US falls on this specific ranking than reality.
Naturally, publications like the New York Times have carefully worked to leave their readers with a much worse impression of where the US falls on this specific ranking than reality.
If you think nyt is the reason for trump blame I've got a bridge to sell you.
The "orthodoxy" the author writes about is real. I am a skeptic and cynic by nature. In my experience "common wisdom" is usually anything but. In software and technology I've found when you eschew dogma and "best practices" you more often than not get better results.
But, in 2020 you cannot question or be skeptical of the "progressive" agenda. Merely hinting that you are not fully bought in will get you labeled as a racist, or even worse these days, a "Conservative".
The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised. Using the media as a political propaganda outlet, being intolerant of other viewpoints, using shame and ostracism to control the population etc.
Here's something I don't understand: Jeff Bezos, maybe the ultimate robber baron of our time, and no fan "of the people", is the owner of the Washington Post. Since his purchase, it has moved so far left as to become almost a caricature of a "news" paper. A skeptical person would ask - what reason could he have for pushing a major media outlet to write so much - what can only reasonably be called - propaganda? A critical thinker would be very concerned indeed about buying too far in to said agenda based on who's pushing it.
But, in 2020 you cannot question or be skeptical of the "progressive" agenda. Merely hinting that you are not fully bought in will get you labeled as a racist, or even worse these days, a "Conservative".
The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised. Using the media as a political propaganda outlet, being intolerant of other viewpoints, using shame and ostracism to control the population etc.
Here's something I don't understand: Jeff Bezos, maybe the ultimate robber baron of our time, and no fan "of the people", is the owner of the Washington Post. Since his purchase, it has moved so far left as to become almost a caricature of a "news" paper. A skeptical person would ask - what reason could he have for pushing a major media outlet to write so much - what can only reasonably be called - propaganda? A critical thinker would be very concerned indeed about buying too far in to said agenda based on who's pushing it.
>A skeptical person would ask - what reason could he have for pushing a major media outlet to write so much - what can only reasonably be called - propaganda
Not a secret, Amazon considers lack of diversity a risk factor for unionization.
"Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks" https://archive.is/1khJw
It's all one big social engineering scheme designed to ensure absolute corporate hegemony by redirecting social tension it generates into racial and sex/gender identity conflicts. Extremely successful.
Not a secret, Amazon considers lack of diversity a risk factor for unionization.
"Whole Foods' heat map says lower rates of racial diversity increase unionization risks" https://archive.is/1khJw
It's all one big social engineering scheme designed to ensure absolute corporate hegemony by redirecting social tension it generates into racial and sex/gender identity conflicts. Extremely successful.
> But, in 2020 you cannot question or be skeptical of the "progressive" agenda. Merely hinting that you are not fully bought in will get you labeled as a racist, or even worse these days, a "Conservative".
Is it really the case? Or is it a perception you have? I've become less and less liberal the past three months, for multiple reasons, and at least in my liberal bubble, i did not face any backlash.
Is it really the case? Or is it a perception you have? I've become less and less liberal the past three months, for multiple reasons, and at least in my liberal bubble, i did not face any backlash.
I guard my opinions very carefully, to the point one would be hard pressed to identify what political ideology I identify with (largely because I don't identify with any of them).
The other day on Twitter when the couple pointing guns at the protesters in Kentucky issue was trending, someone posited "I wonder what happens to people who don't have guns". So I posted a video of a couple who were dragged out of their shop and beaten, on video, and their shop destroyed.
I posted no words, no commentary, simply linked the video that is a real example of the answer to that question - and got called a racist in response.
People are actively seeking reasons to hate, these days, and for someone like me for whom the entire exercise seems silly, all I can do is sit back and stop participating.
The other day on Twitter when the couple pointing guns at the protesters in Kentucky issue was trending, someone posited "I wonder what happens to people who don't have guns". So I posted a video of a couple who were dragged out of their shop and beaten, on video, and their shop destroyed.
I posted no words, no commentary, simply linked the video that is a real example of the answer to that question - and got called a racist in response.
People are actively seeking reasons to hate, these days, and for someone like me for whom the entire exercise seems silly, all I can do is sit back and stop participating.
[deleted]
> Is it really the case?
Pretty hard to answer that question in HN with anything other than another anecdote, but I would personally answer that question with "yes". I have seen this behavior on several online forums I am in (including HN) as well as in real-world settings.
The well-documented incidents with "non-left" speakers on college campuses is another data point. Take a look at the insanity that happened at Evergreen College, for example.
This sort of behavior is easily observed, from my point of view, in real-life and online.
Pretty hard to answer that question in HN with anything other than another anecdote, but I would personally answer that question with "yes". I have seen this behavior on several online forums I am in (including HN) as well as in real-world settings.
The well-documented incidents with "non-left" speakers on college campuses is another data point. Take a look at the insanity that happened at Evergreen College, for example.
This sort of behavior is easily observed, from my point of view, in real-life and online.
Evergreen seems to be an extreme occurrence, ain't it ? College campuses are also a small, very small part of USA ; though quite influential. But if college campuses were a correct representation of the people, most current world leaders would not be in charge xD
Certainly extreme in magnitude but I don't think anomalous in nature. There is considerable evidence that the non-STEM departments in US higher education are intellectually leftist monocultures.
> I've become less and less liberal the past three months, for multiple reasons, and at least in my liberal bubble, i did not face any backlash.
A lot of people are becoming less liberal - your liberal bubble might be trending in the same direction.
A lot of people are becoming less liberal - your liberal bubble might be trending in the same direction.
What does becoming less liberal mean? I mean it seems a lot of people are becoming more radical. And the US version of "liberal" was always more of a catch-phrase than any coherent ideology.
[deleted]
Could you explain what becoming less liberal means for those who have no firm grasp on the US liberal label?
As to who gets labeled what for which action is a big mess, but the direction seems to be that people are very quick to call everyone else bad if they are not as far-whatever as they are. (Anyone trying to gather and assess data about anything like "race", police brutality, homicides, guns, socioeconomic status is instantly suspect. But also it's very clear that a lot of people just post incoherent unfounded stuff on twitter which happens to have citations and graphs and even some structure resembling a paper -- and of course discussing it on twitter is neigh impossible, but almost always an exercise in mental self-harm.)
Sadly the real internet hate machine is not 4chan's /b/, but serious platform like facebook and twitter, where real people grind their ideas on each other until they just become sharp sticks and slurs to poke others with.
As to who gets labeled what for which action is a big mess, but the direction seems to be that people are very quick to call everyone else bad if they are not as far-whatever as they are. (Anyone trying to gather and assess data about anything like "race", police brutality, homicides, guns, socioeconomic status is instantly suspect. But also it's very clear that a lot of people just post incoherent unfounded stuff on twitter which happens to have citations and graphs and even some structure resembling a paper -- and of course discussing it on twitter is neigh impossible, but almost always an exercise in mental self-harm.)
Sadly the real internet hate machine is not 4chan's /b/, but serious platform like facebook and twitter, where real people grind their ideas on each other until they just become sharp sticks and slurs to poke others with.
It's more of a social media thing. If you're the type to make posts on Twitter, FB, IG, or whatever, saying something "wrong" could earn you some backlash.
However, in day to day life, there's a good chance no one will care about your political leanings, unless you live in Portland or something.
However, in day to day life, there's a good chance no one will care about your political leanings, unless you live in Portland or something.
> Merely hinting that you are not fully bought in will get you labeled as a racist, or even worse these days, a "Conservative".
> The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised.
Painting with a broad brush based on small sample sizes (exactly what you are doing) is exactly what you are complaining about. There are tons of people who call Trump's words and actions "fascist" despite not being "progressive"/"liberal".
There are people on the "political right" who have been complaining about the "liberal agenda" the same way conspiracy theorists talk about the "jewish agenda". I'm not accusing you of it, but it frequently sounds the same in the tiny bites of content that exist in social media.
I, personally, think the biggest problems with the human mind on social media involve:
> The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised.
Painting with a broad brush based on small sample sizes (exactly what you are doing) is exactly what you are complaining about. There are tons of people who call Trump's words and actions "fascist" despite not being "progressive"/"liberal".
There are people on the "political right" who have been complaining about the "liberal agenda" the same way conspiracy theorists talk about the "jewish agenda". I'm not accusing you of it, but it frequently sounds the same in the tiny bites of content that exist in social media.
I, personally, think the biggest problems with the human mind on social media involve:
- an assumption of bad faith when another commenter fails to be precise about "there exists" and "for every"
- trolling works because we humans frequently can't disable our ego when it is attacked (rightfully or otherwise)I don't read the WP nor the NYT, do you have an example of an article in either of them that is a caricature of leftist news?
My main news source (besides HN) is the Dutch public news, which is described as left-wing, but to me it feels very objective. I find it hard to judge if that means I'm just leftist and don't see what they're leaving out, or that the right is in an alternative reality.
My main news source (besides HN) is the Dutch public news, which is described as left-wing, but to me it feels very objective. I find it hard to judge if that means I'm just leftist and don't see what they're leaving out, or that the right is in an alternative reality.
Someone responded with a quite compelling example of sensationalized news that touched racism, but then deleted their post. Most notable was that first the story emphasised races of some perpetrators harassing a black girl. But then later when the story turned out not to be true the NYT published a rectification in which race was not mentioned at all.
I can see how that works to slant the readers view of the world. I'll be careful of this, though there is little overly sensationalized news in my feed.
I can see how that works to slant the readers view of the world. I'll be careful of this, though there is little overly sensationalized news in my feed.
[deleted]
> The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised.
I find this downright angering to read given the recent shenanigans with SDNY and the Stone commutation (plus everything else that has happened... oh... once a day over the past few years). And you have the gall that the left are the real fascists?
I find this downright angering to read given the recent shenanigans with SDNY and the Stone commutation (plus everything else that has happened... oh... once a day over the past few years). And you have the gall that the left are the real fascists?
Bari Weiss is a problematic character in this area.
She has played gatekeeper herself quite stridently and successfully.
She is quite fine with her own "involvement in numerous campaigns to vilify and ruin the careers of several Arab and Muslim professors due to their criticisms of Israel" per Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept:
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
She has played gatekeeper herself quite stridently and successfully.
She is quite fine with her own "involvement in numerous campaigns to vilify and ruin the careers of several Arab and Muslim professors due to their criticisms of Israel" per Glenn Greenwald in the Intercept:
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
> In the course of the controversy, Weiss, in a tweet-essay that began here, finally addressed her own history of trying to ruin the careers of Arab and Muslim scholars for the crime of criticizing Israel.
It's possible that Greenwald is... I think the technical term is "full of shit". In seriousness, how is anyone supposed to take this seriously? If you ignore all of the transparent ad hominem, the only bit of substance in the article is that Weiss accused her professors of racism--there's nothing to support the idea that she was trying to ruin their careers (in 2004, allegations of 'racism' didn't ruin careers--indeed, some proponents of cancellation even argue that these allegations don't ruin careers in 2020).
Anyway, even if Weiss's accusations of racism were intended to harm the careers of her professors, it was nearly 2 decades ago and she was fresh out of high school. When Nikole Hannah-Jones was her age, she was writing that whites were "the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and that "the descendants of these savage people … continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". Ibram X. Kendi was writing that whites are literal aliens. Thankfully, these titans of race (and much beloved by cancellation advocates) have somewhat moderated their views before assuming command of their prominent, powerful platforms. Sarah Jeong was named Forbes "30 under 30" and hired onto the NYT only a few short years (if that) after writing some of the most overtly racist stuff I've seen in my life (worse even than Hannah-Jones' collegiate ramblings) and virtually the whole media industry went to bat for her. Let's put this criticism of Weiss' college remarks into perspective.
It's possible that Greenwald is... I think the technical term is "full of shit". In seriousness, how is anyone supposed to take this seriously? If you ignore all of the transparent ad hominem, the only bit of substance in the article is that Weiss accused her professors of racism--there's nothing to support the idea that she was trying to ruin their careers (in 2004, allegations of 'racism' didn't ruin careers--indeed, some proponents of cancellation even argue that these allegations don't ruin careers in 2020).
Anyway, even if Weiss's accusations of racism were intended to harm the careers of her professors, it was nearly 2 decades ago and she was fresh out of high school. When Nikole Hannah-Jones was her age, she was writing that whites were "the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and that "the descendants of these savage people … continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". Ibram X. Kendi was writing that whites are literal aliens. Thankfully, these titans of race (and much beloved by cancellation advocates) have somewhat moderated their views before assuming command of their prominent, powerful platforms. Sarah Jeong was named Forbes "30 under 30" and hired onto the NYT only a few short years (if that) after writing some of the most overtly racist stuff I've seen in my life (worse even than Hannah-Jones' collegiate ramblings) and virtually the whole media industry went to bat for her. Let's put this criticism of Weiss' college remarks into perspective.
When she was a sophomore in college, in the early 2000's, right? It strikes me as certainly somewhat hypocritical, but on another level due to a large time gap and context. Did we have Twitter mobs and nervous HR departments in 2005?
Even last year she tried to get Eli Valley cancelled. She’s very much a hypocrite that wants to be able to criticize, and try to damage other people, but cry foul whenever she faces any criticism back. Even in this letter she is complaining at some points that she can’t say stuff without being criticized.
We should be able to separate what she’s saying and evaluate it on its own merits, whilst _separately_ also critiquing her behaviour. You can’t demolish her argument by attacking her character. Well, at least not on HN (yet).
“Problematic” is often cited as the way extremists are labelling people they want to cancel.
“Problematic” is often cited as the way extremists are labelling people they want to cancel.
Apples to oranges. There's a huge difference between an individual journalist numerously reporting on something they feel strongly about vs. the most influential newspaper in the world turning into a hyper-partisan (left-wing) propaganda machine.
How is the NYT the most influential newspaper in the world? Even if it was at some point, even if the zeitgeist was that it was at some point, even if there was some metric that showed it was that at some point ... this seems like something that is almost impossible to rationally claim and verify (without let's say a lifetime's work).
"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 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. This blunts the curiosity of the intellect and silences all true disciples of knowledge and science if what they say -- even if they have the math to prove their point -- contradicts the currently popular "common truth."
For this to be happening at what was THE preeminent example of American freedom of the press is chilling... and Orwellian.
This might be the most ironic and most dangerous effect of this "right think" regime: 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. This blunts the curiosity of the intellect and silences all true disciples of knowledge and science if what they say -- even if they have the math to prove their point -- contradicts the currently popular "common truth."
For this to be happening at what was THE preeminent example of American freedom of the press is chilling... and Orwellian.
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.
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.
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.
You just gotta know your audience. Everyone has the fantasy of turning hearts and minds to your point of view with your words but eventually you come to the realization it’s just not worth the effort.
I agree, though if there weren't downvotes, I'd probably still make the attempt. But with downvotes, it's just made so abundantly clear that people just don't care, why should I waste my effort so that I can be downvoted into oblivion where no one can read my post?
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...
So you're against people expressing their opinions in response to your own?
I think the OP argued pretty explicitly that a well researched comment, that violates the orthodoxy, is down-voted until it is removed from public discussion.
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he's "against others expressing their opinions".
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that he's "against others expressing their opinions".
The opinion that someone isn't worth listening to and choosing not to amplify their words is an opinion like any other.
The whole cancel culture thing stems from people who believe that they don't just have freedom of speech, but rather the right to force others to listen.
If a community dislikes what you say and chooses to make that content less visible in response, that's perfectly reasonable. You are not being censored, you are being rejected.
The whole cancel culture thing stems from people who believe that they don't just have freedom of speech, but rather the right to force others to listen.
If a community dislikes what you say and chooses to make that content less visible in response, that's perfectly reasonable. You are not being censored, you are being rejected.
Downvoting is an expression of opinion. Opinions aren't owed platforms and never have been. Are all magazines anti-free speech because they don't publish everyone?
And besides, "well-researched" is highly subjective in the best of cases, and in ones like this is usually not accurate in any sense.
And besides, "well-researched" is highly subjective in the best of cases, and in ones like this is usually not accurate in any sense.
For better or worse, the up/downvote buttons are used to express an opinion -- that is the primary purpose.
The problem is that any crowdsourced curation feature uses significant downvotes as a signal for spam or content which otherwise violates the site policies.
The problem is that any crowdsourced curation feature uses significant downvotes as a signal for spam or content which otherwise violates the site policies.
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.
You're conflating "expressing opinions" (by clicking a button) with: making it less likely for the poster's expression to ever be seen.
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.
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.
> Are all opinions entitled to a private platform? Expressing disagreement via mechanisms a platform provides is, indeed, expressing an opinion.
You seem to be of the opinion that the downvotes are more important than the comment they are downvoting: They are not. They are at best, equivalent, and deserve no more special recognition than the comment itself; yet the fact that a comment gets buried as a result, gives those downvotes a weight greater than that of the subject comment.
Because if that weren't the case, you'd recognize that those downvotes are ALSO apparently entitled to a private platform.
If it's good for one, it is good for both, and it is equivalent to argue that the downvotes aren't entitled to a platform either, and you're left at square one, without a meaningful conclusion.
Maybe, just maybe, that isn't a useful approach to take.
You seem to be of the opinion that the downvotes are more important than the comment they are downvoting: They are not. They are at best, equivalent, and deserve no more special recognition than the comment itself; yet the fact that a comment gets buried as a result, gives those downvotes a weight greater than that of the subject comment.
Because if that weren't the case, you'd recognize that those downvotes are ALSO apparently entitled to a private platform.
If it's good for one, it is good for both, and it is equivalent to argue that the downvotes aren't entitled to a platform either, and you're left at square one, without a meaningful conclusion.
Maybe, just maybe, that isn't a useful approach to take.
> This might be the most ironic and most dangerous effect of this "right think" regime:
How it is ironic? It's the explicit intention.
How it is ironic? It's the explicit intention.
Bingo. Twitter is a platform for intimidation.
> 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.
So are you suggesting that people not express their opinions? It sounds like you want exactly what she's complaining about.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. She works at a journalistic outlet that claims to be neutral and factual. When her peers demean her openly within the company for "writing about the Jews" (because she supports Israel), that shows that NYT is no longer operating like a legitimate news house. After all, their employees feel a freedom and psychological safety in openly harassing peers for their ideas and political views. The comments here are not asking to insulate Bari Weiss's ideas from intellectual critique or from public criticism. They are against biases in journalism, the censorship of ideas, and ideological bullying/discrimination in the workplace.
> 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.
The problem is that words like "transphobic" have a wide range of meanings, and are purposely vague to dismiss anyone who doesn't pass an arbitrary purity test. There are very few people who wish violence (physical harm) against trans people. But there are lots of people, who very reasonably, think trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports and that trans women are not women. The attempts to censor or deplatform THOSE discussions are exactly the type of hate speech mission creep that characterizes "cancel culture".
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. She works at a journalistic outlet that claims to be neutral and factual. When her peers demean her openly within the company for "writing about the Jews" (because she supports Israel), that shows that NYT is no longer operating like a legitimate news house. After all, their employees feel a freedom and psychological safety in openly harassing peers for their ideas and political views. The comments here are not asking to insulate Bari Weiss's ideas from intellectual critique or from public criticism. They are against biases in journalism, the censorship of ideas, and ideological bullying/discrimination in the workplace.
> 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.
The problem is that words like "transphobic" have a wide range of meanings, and are purposely vague to dismiss anyone who doesn't pass an arbitrary purity test. There are very few people who wish violence (physical harm) against trans people. But there are lots of people, who very reasonably, think trans women shouldn't compete in women's sports and that trans women are not women. The attempts to censor or deplatform THOSE discussions are exactly the type of hate speech mission creep that characterizes "cancel culture".
> 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.
I hear this all the time, but it seems so disingenuous. There are so many national examples that no reasonable person could consider to be any of the above:
* A hispanic man was fired for accidentally making the "ok" symbol
* A data scientist was canned for citing a prominent black academic's research about the efficacy of nonviolent protest
* A journalist was forced to issue an apology for interviewing a black man who was happy about BLM but wished there was more attention on issues of violence in his community
Frothing racists indeed.
In light of cases like this, I don't know how anyone can think that cancel culture is just "punching up" or "criticizing people" or "going for people who want to use hate speech".
I hear this all the time, but it seems so disingenuous. There are so many national examples that no reasonable person could consider to be any of the above:
* A hispanic man was fired for accidentally making the "ok" symbol
* A data scientist was canned for citing a prominent black academic's research about the efficacy of nonviolent protest
* A journalist was forced to issue an apology for interviewing a black man who was happy about BLM but wished there was more attention on issues of violence in his community
Frothing racists indeed.
In light of cases like this, I don't know how anyone can think that cancel culture is just "punching up" or "criticizing people" or "going for people who want to use hate speech".
Those are three anecdotes, and at least two of them are not as stark as described. The data scientist's timing was bad and his prior relationship with several stakeholders was already on the rocks. There are rumors that the worker who had no idea what the connotations of the ok symbol are has been re-hired. This is hardly anything compared to the armies of celebrities who signed the Harper's letter and are mostly complaining that they can no longer express their opinions without being criticized.
The difficulty here is that several things are happening at once. There is a problem with groupthink at some institutions, but there are also people who are trying to suppress legitimate criticism.
The difficulty here is that several things are happening at once. There is a problem with groupthink at some institutions, but there are also people who are trying to suppress legitimate criticism.
They are indeed anecdotes, as are the Harper’s letter signatories and many, many others. Anyway, the issue for the Nth time is not about “criticism” but “harassment”. It’s not a good faith argument to conflate these things when it has been stated over and over that this is about people targeting individuals’ employment status. This isn’t “criticism”.
The fact that it hasn’t stifled prominent, powerful people such as the Harper’s signatories is not evidence that cancel culture doesn’t exist or that it is a weak force; it means that less powerful people are effectively suppressed. You don’t hear about what you don’t hear about. Survivorship bias.
The fact that it hasn’t stifled prominent, powerful people such as the Harper’s signatories is not evidence that cancel culture doesn’t exist or that it is a weak force; it means that less powerful people are effectively suppressed. You don’t hear about what you don’t hear about. Survivorship bias.
Did any of them sign that Harper's Letter?
And did I say "frothing racists?"
Also, yeah, out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made. People get things wrong sometimes. It sucks and we should use our freedom of speech to help correct those errors, not argue that freedom of speech should be shut down.
And did I say "frothing racists?"
Also, yeah, out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made. People get things wrong sometimes. It sucks and we should use our freedom of speech to help correct those errors, not argue that freedom of speech should be shut down.
> Also, yeah, out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made. People get things wrong sometimes. It sucks and we should use our freedom of speech to help correct those errors, not argue that freedom of speech should be shut down.
There's a difference in my opinion between harassment and free speech. Notably, if you're trying to punish, threaten, or coerce someone, you fall outside of the bounds of "criticism". This may not be the legal definition, but I can't see any other definition that would be consistent with free speech ideals.
Further, because it's perhaps too difficult to legally litigate this kind of harassment, we could also approach the problem by making it more difficult for employers to terminate employees, thereby neutering the mobs (they can "speak" all they want but they can't persecute).
There's a difference in my opinion between harassment and free speech. Notably, if you're trying to punish, threaten, or coerce someone, you fall outside of the bounds of "criticism". This may not be the legal definition, but I can't see any other definition that would be consistent with free speech ideals.
Further, because it's perhaps too difficult to legally litigate this kind of harassment, we could also approach the problem by making it more difficult for employers to terminate employees, thereby neutering the mobs (they can "speak" all they want but they can't persecute).
But I don't think anybody did get fired? Who of the signees of the Harpers letter is actually being hurt? Even if they _were_ fired, why is that bad? Most of the people who signed that letter are professional writers in some form or another, and their job is to write stuff that people want to read. If people don't want to read it anymore because they write dumb stuff or sign their name to stupid letters, how is that anymore an issue of free speech than if I got fired for writing buggy code or insistently arguing that we should be coding everything in Perl 4?
You can say all kinds of dumb shit and sign your name to stupid letters and other people get to call for you to be fired, and maybe you will be! Even after that, you can continue saying dumb shit and signing your name to stupid letters, and I can go write buggy Perl 4 code, and nobody can stop us! Your dumb letters might not get published in national magazines and I probably won't get paid much for my code but in neither case is this a violation of our free speech rights.
You can say all kinds of dumb shit and sign your name to stupid letters and other people get to call for you to be fired, and maybe you will be! Even after that, you can continue saying dumb shit and signing your name to stupid letters, and I can go write buggy Perl 4 code, and nobody can stop us! Your dumb letters might not get published in national magazines and I probably won't get paid much for my code but in neither case is this a violation of our free speech rights.
Lots of people are offended every day and they don't coalesce into slanderous mobs who demand the offender's termination. Further, these largely ignored offenses are generally much more overt than "accidentally making an 'ok' sign", "interviewing a black man who wishes there was more focus on violence in his community", "citing a prominent black researcher", "opening an Asian restaurant", "wearing a Chinese-inspired prom dress", "whatever the Covington Catholic students did to piss of the national media and their legions", etc. Moreover, I strongly suspect that the offended are largely progressives and not the minority groups on whose behalf they claim to take offense. This seems like a pretty novel phenomenon, isolated to one more-or-less distinct group (notable exceptions include Kaepernick or Dixie Chicks circa 2005, but these are anomalies and also "punching up" and not downward or laterally).
Kaepernick and Dixie Chicks are obvious examples of "cancel culture" coming from the right, and many people on the left are more than happy to practice this in the other direction, in spite of recognizing how wrong it was in those cases.
"coalesce into slanderous mobs"
Now, of course "the mob" can get things wrong. We see it all the time — and it's not a progressive or "cancel culture" thing specifically. It's just a side effect of these very rapid and short-burst communication platforms that many people use these days. And I'd frankly argue that the fact that bad information is so easy spread has been used to very harmful effect not by progressives but by people like Donald Trump who require these sorts of misinformation campaigns to stay afloat politically.
Maybe you disagree with that last point.
Regardless, if you dislike hate-filled mobs reacting to bad information, then you have to admit that some sort of content control has to be applied by social media platforms themselves. Or else it will continue to happen.
That said, the other part of this is that it's very easy for a large group of people to be informed of and react against something which they perceive to be harmful. Progressives — even cis white male progressives — have every right to be offended and to express their opinions against something they perceive as harmful. I imagine if you're on the receiving end of this then, yeah, it can feel like a coordinated mob and I have no doubt that it can be downright traumatizing. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or that you've been "cancelled." It is, again, a side effect of how our social media is currently designed and I'll be honest that I don't know what the solution is. But high profile writers with huge megaphones need to be aware that people have the ability to read, share, and react to what they write. And even low-level racism, sexism, etc which they maybe could get away with in the past will now be scrutinized. But that's a good thing, because we as a culture need to be scrutinizing how certain beliefs cause people real harm.
Now, of course "the mob" can get things wrong. We see it all the time — and it's not a progressive or "cancel culture" thing specifically. It's just a side effect of these very rapid and short-burst communication platforms that many people use these days. And I'd frankly argue that the fact that bad information is so easy spread has been used to very harmful effect not by progressives but by people like Donald Trump who require these sorts of misinformation campaigns to stay afloat politically.
Maybe you disagree with that last point.
Regardless, if you dislike hate-filled mobs reacting to bad information, then you have to admit that some sort of content control has to be applied by social media platforms themselves. Or else it will continue to happen.
That said, the other part of this is that it's very easy for a large group of people to be informed of and react against something which they perceive to be harmful. Progressives — even cis white male progressives — have every right to be offended and to express their opinions against something they perceive as harmful. I imagine if you're on the receiving end of this then, yeah, it can feel like a coordinated mob and I have no doubt that it can be downright traumatizing. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or that you've been "cancelled." It is, again, a side effect of how our social media is currently designed and I'll be honest that I don't know what the solution is. But high profile writers with huge megaphones need to be aware that people have the ability to read, share, and react to what they write. And even low-level racism, sexism, etc which they maybe could get away with in the past will now be scrutinized. But that's a good thing, because we as a culture need to be scrutinizing how certain beliefs cause people real harm.
> But that doesn't mean it's wrong
People aren't just expressing their opinion. Instead a whole bunch of people are engaging in actual illegal harassment, when these mobs start up.
No, I am not talking about criticism. I am talking about the actual harassment that often comes out of these mobs. Harassment such as death threats to you, your friends and your family, and the like, all because someone said something dumb on twitter or whatever.
People aren't just expressing their opinion. Instead a whole bunch of people are engaging in actual illegal harassment, when these mobs start up.
No, I am not talking about criticism. I am talking about the actual harassment that often comes out of these mobs. Harassment such as death threats to you, your friends and your family, and the like, all because someone said something dumb on twitter or whatever.
When we debate cancellation, we're mostly debating other kinds of harassment: doxxing, pressuring one's employer to terminate an employee, and defamation. Specifically, we're talking about harassment campaigns--in other words, large movements that engage in any of these behaviors for the purpose of punishing wrongthink. While these mobs have a few people who make death threats, there aren't usually large enough numbers of these threats to constitute a campaign, and even if there were, I like to think that even cancellation advocates would consider this out-of-bounds of acceptable behavior. The debate mostly revolves around the question of whether these harassment campaigns constitute criticism ("the opponents of cancellation just don't want to be criticized" and all that). Of course, harassment is never criticism, and it's always morally repugnant; however, sometimes harassment is legal either in theory (e.g., afaik there is no legal prohibition against doxing) and other times it's legal in practice (e.g., 'defamation' is illegal in theory but the burden of proof is absurdly high).
From the perspective of free speech ideals, "speech" is the expression of an idea; it may be "persuasion" but not "coercion" or "intimidation". Cancellation is both coercive and intimidating by design and by definition, so it falls outside of the boundaries of 'speech'; however, not everything that violates free speech ideals is illegal to the great glee of free speech opponents.
From the perspective of free speech ideals, "speech" is the expression of an idea; it may be "persuasion" but not "coercion" or "intimidation". Cancellation is both coercive and intimidating by design and by definition, so it falls outside of the boundaries of 'speech'; however, not everything that violates free speech ideals is illegal to the great glee of free speech opponents.
> When we debate cancellation, we're mostly debating other kinds of harassment:
Sure, but I think it is unfortunately that this is the only thing that people talk about.
The reality is that there is a whole bunch of stuff that is really really bad, such as death threats and the like, that will happen whenever there is a hate mob/harassment campaign that was started against someone.
When people try to defend these kinds of online mobs, they tend to focus more on the grey stuff, and they try to ignore the really bad stuff that happens. It is much easier to defend someone just "criticizing" another, instead of the much worse stuff that I've seen happen.
I don't think that someone should be able to distance themselves from the truly horrific stuff that can come out of these kinds of movements. It is much worse than people just be criticize, or whatever. And people need to recognize that those kinds of things happen.
IE, the stuff that happens can often be even worse than the, admittedly still very bad things that you brought up that I agree shouldn't happen either.
And by bringing up the even worse stuff, it gives less room for contrarians to make arguments and claims like "Well, actually, criticism isn't harassment", or "well actually, maybe the person deserved to be the target".
Sure, but I think it is unfortunately that this is the only thing that people talk about.
The reality is that there is a whole bunch of stuff that is really really bad, such as death threats and the like, that will happen whenever there is a hate mob/harassment campaign that was started against someone.
When people try to defend these kinds of online mobs, they tend to focus more on the grey stuff, and they try to ignore the really bad stuff that happens. It is much easier to defend someone just "criticizing" another, instead of the much worse stuff that I've seen happen.
I don't think that someone should be able to distance themselves from the truly horrific stuff that can come out of these kinds of movements. It is much worse than people just be criticize, or whatever. And people need to recognize that those kinds of things happen.
IE, the stuff that happens can often be even worse than the, admittedly still very bad things that you brought up that I agree shouldn't happen either.
And by bringing up the even worse stuff, it gives less room for contrarians to make arguments and claims like "Well, actually, criticism isn't harassment", or "well actually, maybe the person deserved to be the target".
I agree with this to a certain extent, but any side of a large debate is going to have a handful of people who make death threats. I wouldn’t want anyone to think, for example, that criticism of antifa is invalidated or lessened because one or two critics issued threats. If there is evidence that the volume of threats is higher among cancellers than other movements, then that would be good cause for additional criticism IMO.
But everyone should condemn violence and harassment from their own ideological cohort.
But everyone should condemn violence and harassment from their own ideological cohort.
> Now, of course "the mob" can get things wrong. We see it all the time — and it's not a progressive or "cancel culture" thing specifically. It's just a side effect of these very rapid and short-burst communication platforms that many people use these days.
"Getting things wrong" is a symptom of social media and misinformation; cancellation and mobbing, however, are almost unique to progressive mobs. There are conservative mobs. E.g., the campaigns against Sarah Jeong, Kaepernick, and the Dixie Chicks [circa 2005]), but these are far fewer and they punch up (and in the case of Jeong, she really should have been terminated based on NYT's own policies and track record irrespective of a mob).
Misinformation is a problem, and Donald Trump wields it to great effect, and I'll happily talk about that in a pertinent thread.
> Regardless, if you dislike hate-filled mobs reacting to bad information, then you have to admit that some sort of content control has to be applied by social media platforms themselves. Or else it will continue to happen.
I certainly think that social media companies should be held to account for the consequences of their curation policies or else they should not curate at all. I don't think they should be allowed to claim to be "dumb pipes" when it suits them even though they're transparently not "dumb pipes".
> Progressives — even cis white male progressives — have every right to be offended and to express their opinions against something they perceive as harmful. I imagine if you're on the receiving end of this then, yeah, it can feel like a coordinated mob and I have no doubt that it can be downright traumatizing. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or that you've been "cancelled."
You're quite right--anyone who argues that cancellation and criticism are equivalent would indeed be mistaken. Cancellation refers to concerted campaigns to harm someone, usually by having them terminated or defaming them. This is harassment, not criticism, even if it's not prosecuted.
> It is, again, a side effect of how our social media is currently designed and I'll be honest that I don't know what the solution is.
Social media certainly plays a role, but if it were the primary driver, we would expect these mobs to be evenly distributed across the ideological matrix.
> And even low-level racism, sexism, etc which they maybe could get away with in the past will now be scrutinized. But that's a good thing, because we as a culture need to be scrutinizing how certain beliefs cause people real harm.
"Scrutinized" is one thing. The problem is that overwhelmingly there is no evidence to support claims of 'racism' whatsoever, and yet the penalties are harsh. There's simply no evidence at all that could acquit you in the court of Twitter. Kafka couldn't write fiction like this.
"Getting things wrong" is a symptom of social media and misinformation; cancellation and mobbing, however, are almost unique to progressive mobs. There are conservative mobs. E.g., the campaigns against Sarah Jeong, Kaepernick, and the Dixie Chicks [circa 2005]), but these are far fewer and they punch up (and in the case of Jeong, she really should have been terminated based on NYT's own policies and track record irrespective of a mob).
Misinformation is a problem, and Donald Trump wields it to great effect, and I'll happily talk about that in a pertinent thread.
> Regardless, if you dislike hate-filled mobs reacting to bad information, then you have to admit that some sort of content control has to be applied by social media platforms themselves. Or else it will continue to happen.
I certainly think that social media companies should be held to account for the consequences of their curation policies or else they should not curate at all. I don't think they should be allowed to claim to be "dumb pipes" when it suits them even though they're transparently not "dumb pipes".
> Progressives — even cis white male progressives — have every right to be offended and to express their opinions against something they perceive as harmful. I imagine if you're on the receiving end of this then, yeah, it can feel like a coordinated mob and I have no doubt that it can be downright traumatizing. But that doesn't mean it's wrong or that you've been "cancelled."
You're quite right--anyone who argues that cancellation and criticism are equivalent would indeed be mistaken. Cancellation refers to concerted campaigns to harm someone, usually by having them terminated or defaming them. This is harassment, not criticism, even if it's not prosecuted.
> It is, again, a side effect of how our social media is currently designed and I'll be honest that I don't know what the solution is.
Social media certainly plays a role, but if it were the primary driver, we would expect these mobs to be evenly distributed across the ideological matrix.
> And even low-level racism, sexism, etc which they maybe could get away with in the past will now be scrutinized. But that's a good thing, because we as a culture need to be scrutinizing how certain beliefs cause people real harm.
"Scrutinized" is one thing. The problem is that overwhelmingly there is no evidence to support claims of 'racism' whatsoever, and yet the penalties are harsh. There's simply no evidence at all that could acquit you in the court of Twitter. Kafka couldn't write fiction like this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
There’s a difference between debate and slandering your coworkers. That would 100% get you fired on the spot if you did it in a slack channel for any company I’ve worked for (bigger companies than the Times).
if represented truthfully, the behavior she described doesn't sound anything like "robust debate" to me.
If that’s what you got out of this, you didn’t read the article.
Also, where do you work that slandering your coworkers and putting axes next to their name wouldn’t get you fired?
Also, where do you work that slandering your coworkers and putting axes next to their name wouldn’t get you fired?
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.
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.
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.
"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-...
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-...
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-w...
https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-no-intelligence-antifa-w...
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-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.
> "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.
It was well known that protestors were getting attacked by police and that scouts were keeping an eye on police isn't a bad thing. Nor are medical stations. Police were brutalizing protestors. There's no proof these people were scouting for looters. In fact the article says the looting happened in Soho and the UES where the high end stores were. Protests weren't happenings in those neighborhoods. Graffiti isn't looting.
No one has proven anything criminal was organized and Tom Cotton sure as hell didn't have proof before he called for military intervention against a made up enemy.
No one has proven anything criminal was organized and Tom Cotton sure as hell didn't have proof before he called for military intervention against a made up enemy.
minikites(4)
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.
"Racist" was the least of the concerns.
Apparently it wasn't the least of everyone's concerns, since it was the only thing the original commenter mentioned.
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.
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.
The op-Ed was not remotely racist. Can you support your assertions?
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
> 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.
I believe it's important to discuss who gets to decide what "dangerously wrong" is.
> "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.
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.
> All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
It is supremely ironic for a famous writer, employed for years at America's paper of record, to complain about being silenced by her critics in a resignation letter that will be shared far and wide and read by tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of people.
It is supremely ironic for a famous writer, employed for years at America's paper of record, to complain about being silenced by her critics in a resignation letter that will be shared far and wide and read by tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of people.
This is the latest argument from people who claim cancel culture doesn't exist. "How are you being silenced when everyone will read it from your high perch?"
High-level writers need to push back against illiberal and anti-free speech proponents to give cover for the lower ranks. If even the top tier writers can't speak their mind, does the lowly intern or new hire stand a chance?
High-level writers need to push back against illiberal and anti-free speech proponents to give cover for the lower ranks. If even the top tier writers can't speak their mind, does the lowly intern or new hire stand a chance?
The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeeping what perspectives are allowed to be represented in the first place.
For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work for free are allowed on the lowest rung of the ladder. If these high–level writers were truly concerned about open debate and a culture of curiosity, they might be more concerned about breaking down barriers such as that. Instead, they're worried that they, the people already at the top of the ladder, might get knocked down to the same level as the rest of us.
[1] https://harpers.org/about/internships/
For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work for free are allowed on the lowest rung of the ladder. If these high–level writers were truly concerned about open debate and a culture of curiosity, they might be more concerned about breaking down barriers such as that. Instead, they're worried that they, the people already at the top of the ladder, might get knocked down to the same level as the rest of us.
[1] https://harpers.org/about/internships/
Rather than criticize the content of the letter, you attack Harper's for not paying interns, which is unrelated to the content. Classic tactic for silencing disagreement is to attack the source.
What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?
What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?
Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views.
You claimed that they are speaking out for the benefit of less powerful writers. Since the goalposts have shifted to their intentions, attacking the source is absolutely relevant. I simply don't believe those intentions, given that these are people who themselves have prevented many diverse points of view from being heard in the first place.
You claimed that they are speaking out for the benefit of less powerful writers. Since the goalposts have shifted to their intentions, attacking the source is absolutely relevant. I simply don't believe those intentions, given that these are people who themselves have prevented many diverse points of view from being heard in the first place.
How have the authors prevented many diverse points of view from being heard? You're going to need more than "they signed onto an open letter published in a magazine that has unpaid interns."
What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?
I assume you also support the letter, if it had appeared in a publication you approved of?
I assume you also support the letter, if it had appeared in a publication you approved of?
Again:
> Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views.
If Alice makes a claim about herself, it is not "attacking the source" to say the claim is false. That also doesn't mean that the same claim would be false if Bob made it about himself.
So, yes: if smaller writers who had actually been marginalized or excluded wrote an open letter claiming as much in a publication with a track record of publishing such voices, I might have supported it, because their claims might have actually been credible.
Instead, a publication that works to homogenize journalism published a letter signed by powerful writers about how they are being "silenced". By virtue of the fact that millions of people are now discussing their views, that claim is self–evidently false.
> Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views.
If Alice makes a claim about herself, it is not "attacking the source" to say the claim is false. That also doesn't mean that the same claim would be false if Bob made it about himself.
So, yes: if smaller writers who had actually been marginalized or excluded wrote an open letter claiming as much in a publication with a track record of publishing such voices, I might have supported it, because their claims might have actually been credible.
Instead, a publication that works to homogenize journalism published a letter signed by powerful writers about how they are being "silenced". By virtue of the fact that millions of people are now discussing their views, that claim is self–evidently false.
It sounds like you are immediately suspect of anyone who has had success and thus become "powerful" (successful). The signatories of the Harper's letter, such as Noam Chomsky, Thomas Chatterton Williams, and Salman Rushdie, are successful because they have had long careers and widespread general praise for their work. Smaller, newer writers aren't "marginalized", they are early in their careers and need to work for a long time to break out in a cutthroat industry.
The signatories of the letter make the person who disagrees with the current orthodoxy, and still supports free speech, feel safer and in good company for doing so. Signing a letter is quick and doesn't stop them from also helping solve all the other issues they believe in - people can do two (or more!) things at once.
I am a lot less interested in political statements from people - you, me, the guy down the street - who are not luminaries in their respected fields. I am much more interested when such a diverse and respected group of people have those views.
As a footnote, you say "might have supported it". Imagine hypothetically that it was published in some underground zine signed by unknown writers. What in the letter did you disagree with? It's a brief letter, there should be something in there that is clearly risque if you "might" support it?
The signatories of the letter make the person who disagrees with the current orthodoxy, and still supports free speech, feel safer and in good company for doing so. Signing a letter is quick and doesn't stop them from also helping solve all the other issues they believe in - people can do two (or more!) things at once.
I am a lot less interested in political statements from people - you, me, the guy down the street - who are not luminaries in their respected fields. I am much more interested when such a diverse and respected group of people have those views.
As a footnote, you say "might have supported it". Imagine hypothetically that it was published in some underground zine signed by unknown writers. What in the letter did you disagree with? It's a brief letter, there should be something in there that is clearly risque if you "might" support it?
[deleted]
The content ignores context of the discussion. Lies by omission are still lies, and trying to ignore them is bad faith to those who recognize them.
wow... you are literally embodying the cancel culture by claiming that their opinion is irrelevant because of some HR pay practice you discovered that is totally orthogonal to the conversation?
Should we cancel your opinion because of some seemingly inconsistent opinion you had in your comment history?
This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic.
Should we cancel your opinion because of some seemingly inconsistent opinion you had in your comment history?
This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic.
> This is exactly the practice of arguing the arguer, rather than the argument, and it's a bad faith tactic.
Her claim is that she, herself, is being exceptionally victimized and silenced; it’s literally impossible rebut this without arguing against her, specifically.
Harper’s’ unpaid internships was a more general example. Had I been speaking about Bari Weiss specifically, I might have mentioned her support for deplatforming a Jewish speaker from Stanford [1], her attempts to get Arab professors fired [2] or her reports to other employees’ bosses in response to minor slights [3].
And even if my argument were to hinge on an orthogonal claim, you think that’s tantamount to “embodying cancel culture”? I haven’t called for any personal or professional consequences; literally all I’m doing is disagreeing with her.
This is why so many roll their eyes when people start waxing on about cancel culture. What they really mean is that they don’t want to hear criticism of their opinions.
[1] https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1125789271959277569?s=2...
[2] https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
[3] https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/126865430820500684...
Her claim is that she, herself, is being exceptionally victimized and silenced; it’s literally impossible rebut this without arguing against her, specifically.
Harper’s’ unpaid internships was a more general example. Had I been speaking about Bari Weiss specifically, I might have mentioned her support for deplatforming a Jewish speaker from Stanford [1], her attempts to get Arab professors fired [2] or her reports to other employees’ bosses in response to minor slights [3].
And even if my argument were to hinge on an orthogonal claim, you think that’s tantamount to “embodying cancel culture”? I haven’t called for any personal or professional consequences; literally all I’m doing is disagreeing with her.
This is why so many roll their eyes when people start waxing on about cancel culture. What they really mean is that they don’t want to hear criticism of their opinions.
[1] https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1125789271959277569?s=2...
[2] https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
[3] https://twitter.com/byjoelanderson/status/126865430820500684...
no, they want people to get fired and lose sources of revenue. Look what's happening with uncle bob on twitter. Plenty of examples where people are kicked of conferences for wearing a red hat https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21484676 Jordan Peterson gets his offer to teach at Cambridge University rejected after a twitter cancel culture mob started attacking the Uni.
You are chosing to ignore the cancel culture that exists.
You are chosing to ignore the cancel culture that exists.
You misunderstand me: the people complaining about “cancel culture” are the ones who simply want to be able to air their opinions without hearing criticism.
I don’t know what’s happening to Uncle Bob on Twitter, but right now his account has 150,000 followers. So, what consequences is he actually suffering here?
What if you switched out the MAGA hat for one bearing the rebel flag or a misogynistic slur? It seems eminently reasonable to me for a conference to kick people out for refusing to remove a superfluous article of clothing that makes other attendees feel unwelcome.
Jordan Peterson’s offer was rescinded not because of a “twitter cancel culture mob” but by students and faculty at the University, who absolutely have a right to decide whom to allow into their community: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...
I don’t know what’s happening to Uncle Bob on Twitter, but right now his account has 150,000 followers. So, what consequences is he actually suffering here?
What if you switched out the MAGA hat for one bearing the rebel flag or a misogynistic slur? It seems eminently reasonable to me for a conference to kick people out for refusing to remove a superfluous article of clothing that makes other attendees feel unwelcome.
Jordan Peterson’s offer was rescinded not because of a “twitter cancel culture mob” but by students and faculty at the University, who absolutely have a right to decide whom to allow into their community: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/20/cambridge-...
the firing of David Shor, a data analyst at the progressive consulting firm Civis Analytics. Amid the protests over Floyd’s killing, Shor was called out online for tweeting about work by Omar Wasow, an assistant professor of politics at Princeton, that shows a link between violent protest in the 1960s and Richard Nixon’s vote share.
Shor was accused of “anti-Blackness” for seeming to suggest, via Wasow’s research, that violent protest is counterproductive. (Wasow is Black.) “At least some employees and clients of Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety,”
Shor was accused of “anti-Blackness” for seeming to suggest, via Wasow’s research, that violent protest is counterproductive. (Wasow is Black.) “At least some employees and clients of Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety,”
the maga hat is the slogan that half the country voted for. it is not a misogynistic slur or a rebel flag. It encompasses a lot of ideas, mainly conservative. I don't know what a rebel flag is but I also wouldn't ban someone for it. this is the kind of tribalism that proves my point about cancel culture.
This is what-about-ism, not a substantive objection. One need not point out every obstacle to open debate in order to identify one important obstacle to open debate.
It's not what–about–ism because they're not neutral agents. I'm not saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but what about unpaid interns" — I'm saying "they say they want intellectual curiosity, but they are the ones actively preventing that from happening".
> neutral agents
Please explain?
Please explain?
How do you know they support Harper’s not paying interns? Maybe they object to that, too.
"Cancel culture" doesn't mean no word from them for ever after. It means they get demoted, dismissed, let go, fired, etc. People are losing positions, jobs, power, control, income, reputation, titles and whatnot because of various reasons. Usually due to the pressure of a largely invisible mob.
For example the case of Stephen Hsu ( https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal... ) ... I have no idea if he's right or not, but it's true he's bad at PR and science communication.
We know how regular big of a backstabbing parade the regular old natural science community is (string theory boo/yaay, money for colliders, SUSY, ITER/fusion vs something else). So it's not a surprise that social-adjacent science is even more hardcore in this regard, but this is likely too much and too fast. Yes, sure activism and change needs momentum, but people will be surprised when the hysteresis rears its head due to over-dampening.
But this has happened already many times (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociobiology:_The... and here's an another example https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/hoeqyg/stereotype_ac... ) and likely will happen again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, note, I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the bar for public (and semi-public) discourse. For example, as far as I know, adopting Codes of Conduct turned out to be quite okay, it laid the foundation for the way to deal with problems, gave a structure and rules to point at when someone crosses a line.
For example the case of Stephen Hsu ( https://statenews.com/article/2020/06/michigan-state-geu-cal... ) ... I have no idea if he's right or not, but it's true he's bad at PR and science communication.
We know how regular big of a backstabbing parade the regular old natural science community is (string theory boo/yaay, money for colliders, SUSY, ITER/fusion vs something else). So it's not a surprise that social-adjacent science is even more hardcore in this regard, but this is likely too much and too fast. Yes, sure activism and change needs momentum, but people will be surprised when the hysteresis rears its head due to over-dampening.
But this has happened already many times (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sociobiology:_The... and here's an another example https://www.reddit.com/r/gwern/comments/hoeqyg/stereotype_ac... ) and likely will happen again. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also, note, I'm not saying we shouldn't raise the bar for public (and semi-public) discourse. For example, as far as I know, adopting Codes of Conduct turned out to be quite okay, it laid the foundation for the way to deal with problems, gave a structure and rules to point at when someone crosses a line.
I'll start caring more about this "silencing" once the NYT editorial board starts including viewpoints that are actually silenced in our society. Until then, it's just whining about no longer being free from criticism.
What viewpoints? Are we just supposed to guess, or automatically know which viewpoints you mean?
Communism division of work, central planning for college-level education?
Worker cooperative can be more efficient than traditional company in some sectors, did you ever read any piece on that?
I mean, the two time i went in the US, i was in really liberal and even socialist environment, and very few seems to even have heard of worker cooperative, so it would be surprising, but HN always surprise me positively, so why not.
Worker cooperative can be more efficient than traditional company in some sectors, did you ever read any piece on that?
I mean, the two time i went in the US, i was in really liberal and even socialist environment, and very few seems to even have heard of worker cooperative, so it would be surprising, but HN always surprise me positively, so why not.
This google search brings up several pieces from nytimes.com:
"worker cooperatives site:nytimes.com"
"worker cooperatives site:nytimes.com"
"Cancel culture" has always existed. Socrates was literally canceled. And we're still talking about him.
Any one challenging power should probably play to win.
Edit: Spoiler for all the kids: Your generation didn't invite sex either.
Any one challenging power should probably play to win.
Edit: Spoiler for all the kids: Your generation didn't invite sex either.
There's a fantastic Slate Star Codex essay (which unfortunately I can't ironically link to, because that blog was cancelled by the New York Times) about the very point you raise.
Basically anytime someone famous and successful comes out against cancel culture, the standard rejoinder is it can't be so bad. Doesn't seem to have stopped your career, so why are you whining?
And the point is for every high-profile person criticizing cancel culture, there's a vast dark matter of nobodies who's lives and careers have been ruined. Nobody's reading there op-eds. Things are that bad for Bari Weiss, practically a household name, and not even that conservative relative to the median American. Now imagine being an entry-level associate reporter, and a self-identified Republican.
Basically anytime someone famous and successful comes out against cancel culture, the standard rejoinder is it can't be so bad. Doesn't seem to have stopped your career, so why are you whining?
And the point is for every high-profile person criticizing cancel culture, there's a vast dark matter of nobodies who's lives and careers have been ruined. Nobody's reading there op-eds. Things are that bad for Bari Weiss, practically a household name, and not even that conservative relative to the median American. Now imagine being an entry-level associate reporter, and a self-identified Republican.
I'm reminded of this Russell Brand quote, which points out a similar Catch-22:
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
I love that article and am a huge fan of Slate Star Codex.
But to be clear - it wasn't "canceled" by the NYT, at least not in the way the term canceled is commonly used nowadays. He made the decision to take the blog offline because the NYT decided to dox him, but their purpose wasn't (as far as we know) for that to happen.
But to be clear - it wasn't "canceled" by the NYT, at least not in the way the term canceled is commonly used nowadays. He made the decision to take the blog offline because the NYT decided to dox him, but their purpose wasn't (as far as we know) for that to happen.
I think the article is "CAN THINGS BE BOTH POPULAR AND SILENCED?", archive link https://perma.cc/9XBH-VQT9
[deleted]
[deleted]
There is a lot of space in-between complete censorship and freedom to be curious. If we were already at complete censorship, she would have been silenced already. Issuing a warning about the trend while we're on the ride towards censorship does not mean there is no trend. That is what she is doing here. She is raising the alarm.
If we had to wait to hear an alarm until silencing was the only possibility, there wouldn't be an alarm anymore.
If we had to wait to hear an alarm until silencing was the only possibility, there wouldn't be an alarm anymore.
It seems like we're a lot further along the road than that - though perhaps not at the end of it - since this type of behavior is wide-spread.
I don't think this statement is primary about Weiss herself. Rather, less established writers are the ones that are most constrained by this environment.
She is not making this plea for her own benefit, but for those who don’t have her same level of privilege.
Well the Tom Cotton op ed drama was literally this.
Tom Cotton is a sitting US Senator. Denying him op–ed space is in no way tantamount to "silencing" him.
Also they didn't deny him anything. His idiotic vomit ran above the fold online. The Times admitted the opinion editor didn't even read the piece, they just ran it automatically out of deference to the senator.
Also worth noting that Bennett actually reached out to Cotton to write the piece
And Bennett lost his position because of it.
because of the article? Or because the entire process for handling it failed to meet NYT process standards for op-eds, and because Bennett himself was at best misleading and at worse lying about his own role and behavior in that process?
There are 100 Senators, chosen by the same types of processes that put Donald Trump in the White House, why is being a Senator an automatic qualification for publishing in the NYT? Such a famous newspaper should be more exclusive than that.
Neither was publishing it an endorsement. Nor was it an endorsement when they published an editorial from an ISIS leader or going back some ways, Hitler. It’s important to know what politicians think.
He could have easily Had it published in the Federalist or Breitbart, but the average nytimes reader would never have had the opportunity to read it. Filter bubbles are a big problem, and getting Cotton on record in the paper of record is a valuable service.
He could have easily Had it published in the Federalist or Breitbart, but the average nytimes reader would never have had the opportunity to read it. Filter bubbles are a big problem, and getting Cotton on record in the paper of record is a valuable service.
The editor was fired
> a resignation letter that will be shared far and wide and read by tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of people.
But not in the NY times, where she seems to have been illegally harassed. I'm pretty sure you understand this.
But not in the NY times, where she seems to have been illegally harassed. I'm pretty sure you understand this.
That this is true at what is supposed to be a reputable publication like The New York Times makes me worried for companies and less known publications. Because if it's happening at the elite end of what is supposed to be curiosity-driven investigation, why wouldn't it be happening elsewhere? And so you end up with a culture where you can't speak about anything, where challenging the orthodoxy means you'll be forced into poverty. Where you don't even know WHAT the orthodoxy is at times because the orthodox eat their own and constantly shift goalposts.
People everywhere need to stand up and issue a firm rebuke to anyone contributing to the toxic environments she described. Either by voting with your wallet, or by being bold and speaking against it in your social circles. It's not too late to turn the ship around.
People everywhere need to stand up and issue a firm rebuke to anyone contributing to the toxic environments she described. Either by voting with your wallet, or by being bold and speaking against it in your social circles. It's not too late to turn the ship around.
Wait. We're only hearing it from one point of view. Rather than calling for action, should we not also hear other view points or do some investigation or research first? Isn't knee-jerk calls to action contributing to what you seen to fear?
Maybe if there weren't already countless other supporting, self-evident examples in recent history
Bari Weiss is bringing politics into her behavior- she was tweeting insults about her own co workers during a meeting about the journalistic direction of the company she is participating in the journalistic direction of. If this came from anyone else she'd be fired immediately.
I've seen this comment a few times, but I haven't seen a source yet. Can you provide one?
I'm guessing this is referring to https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1268628680797978625:
The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. They call it "safetyism," in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.
The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. They call it "safetyism," in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.
I’m not a journalist, never have been. But I did grow up loving the news and ended up in the leadership team of a small newspaper publishing company in Oregon and Northern Cali for a period of years.
I left the entire industry after my time working in that leadership group. As far as I can tell all news organizations today are chasing money and tribes over objective facts and truth.
It concerned me 10 years ago, and I can only imagine it’s gotten worse.
I left the entire industry after my time working in that leadership group. As far as I can tell all news organizations today are chasing money and tribes over objective facts and truth.
It concerned me 10 years ago, and I can only imagine it’s gotten worse.
To add to this, the author gives Twitter a lot of weight as the culpable factor.
So many important people by now see the birdsite as a genuine net-negative yet it keeps chirping along with no changes. A bit baffling.
So many important people by now see the birdsite as a genuine net-negative yet it keeps chirping along with no changes. A bit baffling.
[deleted]
You don't have to believe in a naive worldview where the NYT supposedly used to be a principled newspaper in order to want people to behave more decently toward one another. There's always been things you can't say at the NYT. The new orthodoxy just represents a changing of the guard. America never was the place we tell ourselves that it was. Ask a socialist in the 50's about our noble tradition of free speech.
We should fight to make our world the ideal that it never was, but that doesn't mean we have to buy old lies about who we used to be.
We should fight to make our world the ideal that it never was, but that doesn't mean we have to buy old lies about who we used to be.
Bari Weiss is responsible for toxic culture in the first place. She's an absolute hypocrite here, so whatever conversation you want to have about speech, it probably shouldn't happen in this context.
Where is the cultural critique of Weiss coming from?
Is it this contribution, on the Joe Rogan podcast?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo3GM760a2s&feature=youtu.be - 11m, 2019 - Weiss talks about Tulsi Gabbard (?) as a sycophant. (YT person asserts dishonesty and hypocrisy.)
Is it this contribution, on the Joe Rogan podcast?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo3GM760a2s&feature=youtu.be - 11m, 2019 - Weiss talks about Tulsi Gabbard (?) as a sycophant. (YT person asserts dishonesty and hypocrisy.)
I hesitated before upvoting the OP, and even considered flagging it, given its controversial author (with whom I disagree) and its potential to fuel ideologically driven, opinionated arguments (in which no one wins and everyone loses). However, I decided to upvote the OP because I feel it is, in the end, about a topic that is of utmost interest of -- and widely considered important by -- most people on HN: free speech.
FWIW, this resignation letter strikes me as unfair to those it accuses, because the author provides zero concrete, specific examples of the constant public bullying she claims led her to resign from the New York Times. The accused cannot argue or defend themselves against generic accusations.
FWIW, this resignation letter strikes me as unfair to those it accuses, because the author provides zero concrete, specific examples of the constant public bullying she claims led her to resign from the New York Times. The accused cannot argue or defend themselves against generic accusations.
I think your first impulse was the right one ... ;-) In general, HN threads fail on pure politics topics. (Sorry, friends, for the scold, but it's true.) We don't have enough people who have expertise on politics and media. Add this to a fact-free piece like OP, and you get blech.
The current administration and its cheerleaders have figured out how to turn trolling into a weapon, leaving the NYT befuddled as its model of well-intentioned fact-based debate (on the oped page), and "above-it-all" stenographic reporting (on the news pages), has broken down publicly. For earlier failures, see the boxes marked "Hillary's e-mails", and "Iraq, Invasion of" -- but it has gotten worse recently.
The NYT still does great info-graphics, non-politics reporting, and deep investigative scoops. Under Baquet (who I don't like as editor - I've been a regular reader since the mid-90s), it did successfully transition to a pay model for subscriptions -- and it has a lot of subscribers. This is more than most papers can say!
But, as noted, there are real problems with NYT reporting. They have not adapted in some key areas. This will require fundamental change that Baquet seems unable to do. Jay Rosen of NYU is my go-to source for analysis here (blog and twitter). See in particular: https://pressthink.org/2020/06/battleship-newspaper/
The current administration and its cheerleaders have figured out how to turn trolling into a weapon, leaving the NYT befuddled as its model of well-intentioned fact-based debate (on the oped page), and "above-it-all" stenographic reporting (on the news pages), has broken down publicly. For earlier failures, see the boxes marked "Hillary's e-mails", and "Iraq, Invasion of" -- but it has gotten worse recently.
The NYT still does great info-graphics, non-politics reporting, and deep investigative scoops. Under Baquet (who I don't like as editor - I've been a regular reader since the mid-90s), it did successfully transition to a pay model for subscriptions -- and it has a lot of subscribers. This is more than most papers can say!
But, as noted, there are real problems with NYT reporting. They have not adapted in some key areas. This will require fundamental change that Baquet seems unable to do. Jay Rosen of NYU is my go-to source for analysis here (blog and twitter). See in particular: https://pressthink.org/2020/06/battleship-newspaper/
After looking at some of the comments on this page, I'm now wondering if not flagging the OP was a mistake ... ;-)
Thanks for the link to Rosen's page; I'll take a look.
Thanks for the link to Rosen's page; I'll take a look.
> I hesitated before upvoting the OP, and even considered flagging it, given its controversial author (with whom I disagree) and its potential to fuel ideologically driven, opinionated arguments (in which no one wins and everyone loses). However, I decided to upvote the OP because I feel it is, in the end, about a topic that is of utmost interest of -- and widely considered important by -- most people on HN: free speech.
There's another reason: because it directly impacts technology and the companies that many of us work with. This is a Silicon Valley news blog, at the end of the day, and it's unavoidable how Twitter, Facebook, Google and such have entered the debate. They're inextricable from the debate.
This controversy around cancel culture really could not TRULY exist without the ease with which you can search a history, stick a video on someone with a phone, or to expand on this a bit, use algorithms to target people with headlines and track how viral a headline got.
There's another reason: because it directly impacts technology and the companies that many of us work with. This is a Silicon Valley news blog, at the end of the day, and it's unavoidable how Twitter, Facebook, Google and such have entered the debate. They're inextricable from the debate.
This controversy around cancel culture really could not TRULY exist without the ease with which you can search a history, stick a video on someone with a phone, or to expand on this a bit, use algorithms to target people with headlines and track how viral a headline got.
Why would you flag it without reading the article?
The parent comment made no claim that they were going to flag the post without reading it. Just that it was a controversial post, so it's less clear if good discussion would evolve from it. (So I give them the benefit of the doubt that they did read it.)
You nailed the problem, this needs to stop.
Funnily enough I'm getting pretty actively downvoted. It's sad... I always thought of Hacker News as a place to have friendly discussion.
You accused the person of contemplating flagging the submission without reading the article. Where do they say they didn't read it first?
Instead of downvoting, we need to understand each other better. So many centrists and right-wing views are shunned. I don't agree with them and if they're obviously racist/flamebait, we shouldn't feed it, but if someone has a dissenting view about liberal/progressive stances, we should listen to them. Ask them why they think that way. That's so much more interesting to me.
> widely considered important by -- everyone
I'm not sure this is nearly as universal as you think, even on here.
I'm not sure this is nearly as universal as you think, even on here.
Maybe you're right. I changed it to "most people."
Can't have "controversial authors" here... that I suppose is her point about the media.
Purely anecdotal, but knowing a couple people who work at the NYTimes, there is definitely a right way to operate there. You can cruise by taking the same stances and retweeting the same tweets.
Bari Weiss never seemed very principled in her stances though, so I don't think she's a good counterpoint.
Bari Weiss never seemed very principled in her stances though, so I don't think she's a good counterpoint.
There is a bit of signals and signifiers conundrum here. That said, her points are still valid even though she is not the perfect victim of mob mentality group think orthodoxy.
So who is?
There seems to be more and more public acknowledgement (and in fora like this one) of the myriad leftist 1984-style attacks we are currently witnessing - every bit as bad as the McCarthy era led by the right.
As appalling as the behaviour of these people is, that growing awareness can only be a good thing.
As appalling as the behaviour of these people is, that growing awareness can only be a good thing.
The woke-left isn't going around arresting people, nor do they have much (if any) influence in high levels of government.
They are bullying and harassing people, and trying to lump that in with "criticism". To make it worse, when they get called out on it, the left goes to victim blaming. It is just gross, like when people point out what a girl was wearing in a sexual assault case.
You can criticize, you can ignore and you can boycott. Instead too many people (look at the response to JK Rowling) are threatening death and rape. Or are harassing employers until they capitulate.
You can criticize, you can ignore and you can boycott. Instead too many people (look at the response to JK Rowling) are threatening death and rape. Or are harassing employers until they capitulate.
Oh no, people are using their free speech to criticize the speech of others!
What are you saying? You think, "I hope you get raped" is a critical response?
Do you think that's the extent of people's criticisms of Bari?
But I'm sure such dogged defenders of free speech normally send other reporters after people to acccuse them of being anti-Semitic for a joke about them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hels/status/1283092586392178695?s=20
But I'm sure such dogged defenders of free speech normally send other reporters after people to acccuse them of being anti-Semitic for a joke about them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hels/status/1283092586392178695?s=20
I could care less about Bari's horrible writing. I am just saying that bullying her on Slack is not correct response.
The vast majority of the criticism Rowling has received was not death or rape threats. Why do you ascribe that behavior to the entire "woke-left" (I'm assuming thats who you meant by "they"). Do you not think that targets of the right ever receive rape or death threats? These are not characteristic of the left. There is not some "woke-left" governing body directing people and asking some to give cover so that others can issue rape threats. Why do you choose to focus on them exclusively?
I don't understand why I can't condone bullying or rape threats. I am on the left, I hate it when the right does it too. There is this sentiment though that bulling, threats, doxing, and getting someone fired are "consequences" of free speech. Even though this is happening to people I happen disagree with, I still don't think it is right. I don't think the entire left is like this, but I never have to read to far down on Twitter before I find someone exhibiting these bad behaviors.
Arresting someone is not how intimidation works. If you arrest someone, your intimidate gets the light of the court.
Leftist extremism is exactly avoiding the court system by applying pressure to rob people of their livelihood - a much more immediate, public, and potent method of intimidation - and an excellent way to set an example to others who might speak against the theocracy.
Leftist extremism is exactly avoiding the court system by applying pressure to rob people of their livelihood - a much more immediate, public, and potent method of intimidation - and an excellent way to set an example to others who might speak against the theocracy.
That’s little different from a boycott, which has always been a tool available to the powerless.
There was the case of the guy working for the company involved in the Obama campaign who published a paper based on a study of an african-american professor saying that historically speaking violent riots will lead to more right leaning people voting. He got called out a racist, made to apologise, got fired and ostracised in his research community. Would you say he got boycotted?
Maybe not, but I still see it in the same general category as a boycott, because: if nothing illegal is actually going on, then what can anyone do to stop it, except impose authoritarian restrictions on free speech? If the company/institution wants to ignore people, fine, but they’ll have to deal with the consequences. (If those consequences are personal, e.g. death threats, then those should be nipped in the bud. But my feeling is that they’re usually financial or reputational.)
They are getting low level employees fired from their jobs, though. They have a lot of power in educational institutes, media organizations and HR departments.
> They are getting low level employees fired from their jobs
This is an interesting intersection. It either implies that all employers are left-aligned (not true) and therefore willing to fire employees that hold right-leaning opinions, OR that low level employees are so expendable that it literally any reason can get them fired if enough people complain.
This is an interesting intersection. It either implies that all employers are left-aligned (not true) and therefore willing to fire employees that hold right-leaning opinions, OR that low level employees are so expendable that it literally any reason can get them fired if enough people complain.
> OR that low level employees are so expendable that it literally any reason can get them fired if enough people complain.
It's mostly this. When you're a small-medium business, the last thing you want is negative PR and people canceling or DDOSing you because one of your employees wrongthinked.
It's mostly this. When you're a small-medium business, the last thing you want is negative PR and people canceling or DDOSing you because one of your employees wrongthinked.
Maybe the left would pay more attention if this was phrased as a worker's rights issue.
But I doubt they will care until a conservative employer fires someone for tweeting support for a progressive belief.
But I doubt they will care until a conservative employer fires someone for tweeting support for a progressive belief.
I think HR departments just want to offload risk and they'll take advantage of loose labor laws to offload an employee who got mobbed online.
I don't ascribe a right or left bias to them. It's the mob that has the bias (perhaps because of age or ideology or certainty or something else) and the mob uses the technology and then the HR department responds by firing the employee.
I don't ascribe a right or left bias to them. It's the mob that has the bias (perhaps because of age or ideology or certainty or something else) and the mob uses the technology and then the HR department responds by firing the employee.
> the mob uses the technology and then the HR department responds by firing the employee.
Do we need to coin the term "DDoE"? Distributed Denial of Employment. It's a hack against the socio-political system that targets find themselves in, not too dissimilar to Swatting.
Do we need to coin the term "DDoE"? Distributed Denial of Employment. It's a hack against the socio-political system that targets find themselves in, not too dissimilar to Swatting.
Definitely, didn't mean to ascribe it to one side or the other. I mainly see posters on HN referencing instances of "the left" getting people fired.
It has more to do with aggregate action, which has recently been made possible with platforms like Twitter, than with the particular ideological stances.
It has more to do with aggregate action, which has recently been made possible with platforms like Twitter, than with the particular ideological stances.
> I don't ascribe a right or left bias to them.
My personal experience is a lot of HR departments do have a left-of-center bias to them, especially at the lower-levels (but at times reaching all the way to the top). A few reasons:
1) HR departments tend to skew female, and women on average skew somewhat more left-of-center than men do
2) They often have special teams for "diversity & inclusion", which inevitably tend to be filled with people with left-of-center political views
3) They'll put requirements like "commitment to diversity & inclusion" in job descriptions, which can (ironically) act as a filter to remove political diversity. Those phrases can get copy-and-pasted into job descriptions in other departments too, but while for many in engineering/sales/etc it is just compliance boilerplate with little real significance to the hiring process, HR really means it.
Of course this isn't universally true, I'm sure there are some HR departments out there full of Trump supporters. But most of the people here would not be working for those kinds of companies.
My personal experience is a lot of HR departments do have a left-of-center bias to them, especially at the lower-levels (but at times reaching all the way to the top). A few reasons:
1) HR departments tend to skew female, and women on average skew somewhat more left-of-center than men do
2) They often have special teams for "diversity & inclusion", which inevitably tend to be filled with people with left-of-center political views
3) They'll put requirements like "commitment to diversity & inclusion" in job descriptions, which can (ironically) act as a filter to remove political diversity. Those phrases can get copy-and-pasted into job descriptions in other departments too, but while for many in engineering/sales/etc it is just compliance boilerplate with little real significance to the hiring process, HR really means it.
Of course this isn't universally true, I'm sure there are some HR departments out there full of Trump supporters. But most of the people here would not be working for those kinds of companies.
Who knows, maybe, maybe not, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those ideals are being taken seriously, and more importantly that they also follow through in confirming the allegations (they often seem not to), and just are worried about their branding when a perceived 'toxic' person is associated with their brand. Companies generally worry about revenue more than they worry about ideals, no matter what is claimed. I'm not saying that cynically, either, I think that's what investors and boardmembers care about and for obvious reason.
I somehow the law could prevent the employer to fire without justification. That's what happen in my country.
they are one election from influence. and they do have influence in state governments. like california, one of the worlds largest economies.
see aca5
see aca5
Your coworkers and people on Twitter making fun of you isn't comparable to McCarthyism.
Pretty similar to the Hollywood blacklist.
Non government institution discriminating against people for their perceived political views.
Non government institution discriminating against people for their perceived political views.
McCarthyism had an employability element.
It's absolutely comparable!
It's absolutely comparable!
How about being fired?
If you remember - the majority of McCarthyism's intimidation was in his "do not employ" lists of people.
If you remember - the majority of McCarthyism's intimidation was in his "do not employ" lists of people.
Might be a bad analogy, doesn't mean the situation/environment isn't problematic, though.
Being barred from employment in your industry due to your non-work-related political opinion and affiliations is literally McCarthyism though.
I was interviewing a candidate last year for a software engineering position. Interview was fine and he was capable. I decided to find him on Twitter.
He said immigration was ruining the country, and that there are too many Indians / Chinese in the Bay Area. About half of my organization either have an H1B visa or a green card.
Am I a McCarthyist for rejecting him outright without hesitation?
He said immigration was ruining the country, and that there are too many Indians / Chinese in the Bay Area. About half of my organization either have an H1B visa or a green card.
Am I a McCarthyist for rejecting him outright without hesitation?
If someone says racist things online, that's plenty reason not to hire them into a diverse environment.
...but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people being punished for daring to disagree with the progressive agenda.
...but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about people being punished for daring to disagree with the progressive agenda.
Where was Bari punished? She should have been fired for her terrible piece based entirely on a known fake Twitter account.
Progress happens when people go outside of their comfort zone to explore new thoughts, but it sounds like you'd prefer to write-off the candidate instead of taking the opportunity to change their mind.
[deleted]
A while ago I interviewed a candidate for a software engineering position. He seemed quite capable. I decided to find him on Twitter.
His feed was full of things like, "All Cops Are Bastards", many images of the hammer & sickle, and generally hating on white people. He even retweeted an illustration of the White House burning with a hammer & sickle flag being raised in front of it along with the caption "my 2020 goals".
Actually... I lied. The person I described is Steve Klabnik. Despite throwing around extremely offensive imagery and calling for violence against members of certain professions and races, that guy can get a job anywhere he wants. Meanwhile if someone simply says, "all lives matter" or makes an OK sign, they risk getting fired. The double standard could not be more obvious.
His feed was full of things like, "All Cops Are Bastards", many images of the hammer & sickle, and generally hating on white people. He even retweeted an illustration of the White House burning with a hammer & sickle flag being raised in front of it along with the caption "my 2020 goals".
Actually... I lied. The person I described is Steve Klabnik. Despite throwing around extremely offensive imagery and calling for violence against members of certain professions and races, that guy can get a job anywhere he wants. Meanwhile if someone simply says, "all lives matter" or makes an OK sign, they risk getting fired. The double standard could not be more obvious.
FWIW, I would not hire this person. I personally lean right, but I will not hire anyone who posts their political opinions publicly, whether left or right. IMO it shows poor judgement and that you will likely be an unproductive employee, concerned instead about things that have little effect on your life at work.
> Am I a McCarthyist for rejecting him outright without hesitation?
Yes.
Why can’t he have an opposing view from you on immigration?
I was on a visa and could still see the h1b program was being abused.
We often have less than ideal experiences with other cultural groups. That’s normal.
Is your work culture toxic because of your visa holders?
Would you refuse to hire feminist women because you had a mostly male team?
Yes.
Why can’t he have an opposing view from you on immigration?
I was on a visa and could still see the h1b program was being abused.
We often have less than ideal experiences with other cultural groups. That’s normal.
Is your work culture toxic because of your visa holders?
Would you refuse to hire feminist women because you had a mostly male team?
McCarthy was a senator in high levels of government. When I consider who I'm employing to be around the people around me, I expect them to be judged on their merits of the job, not their country of origin or visa status.
You can criticize H1B programs and their abuse, but saying there are too many Chinese and Indians explicitly and rejecting them for that is not "McCarthyism".
You can criticize H1B programs and their abuse, but saying there are too many Chinese and Indians explicitly and rejecting them for that is not "McCarthyism".
> I expect them to be judged on their merits of the job, not their country of origin or visa status.
So do I and so do the vast majority of people who want less immigration.
> and rejecting them for that is not "McCarthyism".
To be fair to the parent - it would be if you tried to make sure they weren’t hired anywhere.
You were making a biased and snap judgement about a candidate - but that happens a lot in the interview process - same as if you rejected an African American candidate because you didn’t think they would fit in.
What would you do if one of your existing employees was found to have that kind of twitter account?
So do I and so do the vast majority of people who want less immigration.
> and rejecting them for that is not "McCarthyism".
To be fair to the parent - it would be if you tried to make sure they weren’t hired anywhere.
You were making a biased and snap judgement about a candidate - but that happens a lot in the interview process - same as if you rejected an African American candidate because you didn’t think they would fit in.
What would you do if one of your existing employees was found to have that kind of twitter account?
As I said: they _literally_ said, "There are too many Chinese and Indians" in the Bay Area. That's a no go.
That is not the same as having subjective internal biases about an African American candidate.
That is not the same as having subjective internal biases about an African American candidate.
They seem the same to me?
You are saying you wouldn’t hire them because they wouldn’t fit into your work culture right?
Or are you saying you wouldn’t hire them because you don’t like their beliefs?
You are saying you wouldn’t hire them because they wouldn’t fit into your work culture right?
Or are you saying you wouldn’t hire them because you don’t like their beliefs?
Those two things are not the same.
One is a statement made by a candidate that is at best insensitive to people of different races.
The other is a poorly specified scenario where a black person does not fit in? For what reason do they not fit in? Is it because of their race or something else.
One is a statement made by a candidate that is at best insensitive to people of different races.
The other is a poorly specified scenario where a black person does not fit in? For what reason do they not fit in? Is it because of their race or something else.
> One is a statement made by a candidate that is at best insensitive to people of different races.
It sounds like the parent thought the dev wouldn’t fit in with the other team members and so didn’t hire him.
> The other is a poorly specified scenario where a black person does not fit in?
It’s hard to fit in when you are a small minority.
It sounds like the parent thought the dev wouldn’t fit in with the other team members and so didn’t hire him.
> The other is a poorly specified scenario where a black person does not fit in?
It’s hard to fit in when you are a small minority.
[deleted]
There's several layers of irony here, chief of which Bari Weiss headed a very vocal campaign to fire anyone at Colombia who didn't exist on the far-right on Israel/Palestine - and of course, falsely painted several professors as racist and anti-Semitic:
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
Hilarious that the top comment exemplifies the problem. It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly, always trying to filter them through some, any, lens to discredit the ones they don’t like. Sometimes it’s attacking the speaker, sometimes their associations, sometimes the tweets they have “liked.” If all else fails, seek out language in the text itself for unfalsifiable “dog whistles” that allow the affixing of a label. Whatever allows one to shield their eyes, ignore the argument made, and secure the moral high ground.
So you're digestion of her letter should not be informed in anyway by the fact that she routinely employed the tactics that she now claims she's a victim of? She's spent her career vilifying and seeking out personal retribution for people who she's disagreed with, I don't know how this doesn't factor into one's purview.
I think readers here think that you are engaging in an "Ad hominem" attack on Weiss but since she herself is the subject of discussion I don't see why you wouldn't include her historical contradictory actions in a response.
It's very appropriate to call someone out on their actions if they are completely inconsistent with what they are claiming to value whenever it stops being useful to them. This isn't a scoring panel for high school speech and debate class.
I certainly don’t think that. What “ideas” that Bari Weiss presents in this essay does your conversational counterpoint here fail to engage? And why is the context of her hypocrisy not relevant?
Aren’t there times when an ad hominem attack is fitting?
If I have a documented history of a certain type of bad behavior and turn around to say I’m a victim of exactly that same sort of behavior. If I write a screed about my victimhood it does lie in the background that my own behavior likely seeded the negativity I received in return.
In that sense this goes beyond “ad hominem attack”. The accusation is more accurately that Bari Weiss is a bad faith actor in a system of mutual journalistic integrity, accusing her current colleagues of being bad faith actors. I don’t know if her colleagues are bad faith actors are not but Weiss does seem to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black” or whataboutism which should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as ad hominem.
If I have a documented history of a certain type of bad behavior and turn around to say I’m a victim of exactly that same sort of behavior. If I write a screed about my victimhood it does lie in the background that my own behavior likely seeded the negativity I received in return.
In that sense this goes beyond “ad hominem attack”. The accusation is more accurately that Bari Weiss is a bad faith actor in a system of mutual journalistic integrity, accusing her current colleagues of being bad faith actors. I don’t know if her colleagues are bad faith actors are not but Weiss does seem to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black” or whataboutism which should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as ad hominem.
> Aren’t there times when an ad hominem attack is fitting?
Yes! That's why I'm saying it's relevant.
Yes! That's why I'm saying it's relevant.
> I don't see why you wouldn't include her historical contradictory actions in a response.
...because that's a bad faith argument. Arguing the arguer rather than the argument is not an honest debate.
I don't care about Wiess specifically - I care, as most here, about the cancer of Cancel Culture.
...because that's a bad faith argument. Arguing the arguer rather than the argument is not an honest debate.
I don't care about Wiess specifically - I care, as most here, about the cancer of Cancel Culture.
If you read my comment and assumed I was making an argument of absolutism, ie, that you should never consider the speaker in any way, you should re-read it and consider how it may have led you there.
In any case, a person’s background should be fair to consider when an argument by that person is raised. The anti-pattern is to use that, among other things, at the exclusion of any direct engagement of the argument, as was done by the comment I was replying to.
We are not living in a world plagued by people ignoring the background of authors or the subtext of writing they disagree with, and blindly focusing on arguments. We are living in a world where arguments themselves are routinely ignored by focusing exclusively on their authors and presumed subtext.
Unlike the former scenario, which doesn’t exist from my vantage point, the latter scenario seems more difficult to unwind since it terminates in unfalsifiability. If you stand firm that a certain phrase signals some kind of latent subtext, and that can be used to discredit the whole thing, then that tactic basically results in an equilibrium where arguments can not stand on their own under any circumstance since a clever reframing, which cannot be disproven, is fatal to them.
In any case, a person’s background should be fair to consider when an argument by that person is raised. The anti-pattern is to use that, among other things, at the exclusion of any direct engagement of the argument, as was done by the comment I was replying to.
We are not living in a world plagued by people ignoring the background of authors or the subtext of writing they disagree with, and blindly focusing on arguments. We are living in a world where arguments themselves are routinely ignored by focusing exclusively on their authors and presumed subtext.
Unlike the former scenario, which doesn’t exist from my vantage point, the latter scenario seems more difficult to unwind since it terminates in unfalsifiability. If you stand firm that a certain phrase signals some kind of latent subtext, and that can be used to discredit the whole thing, then that tactic basically results in an equilibrium where arguments can not stand on their own under any circumstance since a clever reframing, which cannot be disproven, is fatal to them.
In this particular case the author argues from her particular experience in her workplace without providing any evidence, so I think it's pretty relevant to take such things into account because she might be exaggerating.
I'm not exactly inclined to take someone's purely personal criticisms at face value if they have engaged in the same behaviour.
For all we know she might be leaving on bad terms and is taking it out on her coworkers who may have a different story to tell.
I'm not exactly inclined to take someone's purely personal criticisms at face value if they have engaged in the same behaviour.
For all we know she might be leaving on bad terms and is taking it out on her coworkers who may have a different story to tell.
I agree, as someone who is concerned about "cancel culture" broadly, and found Weiss's resignation later interesting and noteworthy, that her credibility as a witness is a relevant consideration in this situation, since she is asking us to believe her accounts of the internal politics at the New York Times. She isn't just making an argument based on publicly available facts.
I would appreciate a better source for the claim that Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired than that article by Glenn Greenwald. I dug through it (admittedly a bit quickly, so maybe I missed something), and could only find evidence that she was harshly critical of a Columbia professor, but not that she attempted to get him fired. It's also noteworthy that some or all of her criticism of that professor concerned not his expressed opinions, but the way he (allegedly) berated Israeli students in his classroom.
Ironically, I haven't generally found Greenwald himself to be the most reliable narrator, but that discussion would take us far afield.
I would appreciate a better source for the claim that Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired than that article by Glenn Greenwald. I dug through it (admittedly a bit quickly, so maybe I missed something), and could only find evidence that she was harshly critical of a Columbia professor, but not that she attempted to get him fired. It's also noteworthy that some or all of her criticism of that professor concerned not his expressed opinions, but the way he (allegedly) berated Israeli students in his classroom.
Ironically, I haven't generally found Greenwald himself to be the most reliable narrator, but that discussion would take us far afield.
they absolutely do have a different story to tell and it has been told over and over again within the various twitter threads, in examples such as https://twitter.com/maxstrasser/status/1268636885989105665
[deleted]
If you read my comment and interpreted it to mean “everything should be taken at face value” that is worth reflecting on.
[deleted]
Right, the parents complaint is essentially Spiderman_pointing_at_Spiderman.jpg
If the original complaint is a "dog whistle" then people will also respond the same way.
Otherwise know as debating
If the original complaint is a "dog whistle" then people will also respond the same way.
Otherwise know as debating
Look, I believe people can change, but how they've behaved previously, especially as recently as in the case (2 years ago) is relevant to now.
Especially when the very arguments they are making- they were recently, actively working against
Especially when the very arguments they are making- they were recently, actively working against
This comment is not explemifying the problem, as you put it. It's pointing out the hypocrisy of this author for condemning something she engages in herself, without taking any blame.
Eh, nobody likes a hypocrite.
> It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly...
Who has the TIME? I mean, you have to filter what you choose to think about and engage on. The world doesn't need to pause and refute every stupid opinion someone trots out.
Who has the TIME? I mean, you have to filter what you choose to think about and engage on. The world doesn't need to pause and refute every stupid opinion someone trots out.
If I say "only weak people would choose to smoke; and I have never been weak" you don't think pointing out that I was once a smoker is relevant? Who's really making the contortions here?
Nobody is ignoring the smoking history of people who make claims about quitting smoking.
But a lot of people are rejecting such claims on their surface if they come from someone who smoked, or knows a smoker, or was once rumored to have sat in the smoking section of a restaurant 20 years ago. (As if that should be tolerable by anyone other than someone who, in their heart of hearts, is a smoker even if they’ve never actually been seen with a lit cigarette before.)
But a lot of people are rejecting such claims on their surface if they come from someone who smoked, or knows a smoker, or was once rumored to have sat in the smoking section of a restaurant 20 years ago. (As if that should be tolerable by anyone other than someone who, in their heart of hearts, is a smoker even if they’ve never actually been seen with a lit cigarette before.)
It's truly telling that the most upvoted comment is one working to discredit the writer, rather than taking what's being said at face value.
> rather than taking what's being said at face value
Why should I be this credulous?
Why should I be this credulous?
No one is asking you to be naive and all-accepting. Simply to not be dismissive.
It is incumbent upon all of us to be as credulous about Bari Weiss's stated rationale as James Bennett always was about guest op-eds.
>rather than taking what's being said at face value
Should we?
I don't always do that, hard to imagine doing so all the time, you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions.
Should we?
I don't always do that, hard to imagine doing so all the time, you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions.
> you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions
I don't understand this phrase. I certainly wouldn't describe what I experience when I take the time to consider things at face value as causing anything I'd describe as whiplash. Just because I attempt to evaluate what I read from another's perspective doesn't mean I give up my own in the meantime.
I don't understand this phrase. I certainly wouldn't describe what I experience when I take the time to consider things at face value as causing anything I'd describe as whiplash. Just because I attempt to evaluate what I read from another's perspective doesn't mean I give up my own in the meantime.
And I'm not advocating for that, especially given the amount of garbage on the Internet. But the pendulum has swung too far in one direction and many people are scared to voice their opinions for fear of being rejected or worse, outcast from their livelihood and their way of life.
What the writer is saying is that she no longer feels that The Times is unbiased. I don't see how that's a hard thing to take at face value.
What the writer is saying is that she no longer feels that The Times is unbiased. I don't see how that's a hard thing to take at face value.
> I don't see how that's a hard thing to take at face value.
How about I say the Times is unbiased.
Ok now what do we do? Do we take it at face value?
I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but it seems like you are in fact advocating ... 'that'.
How about I say the Times is unbiased.
Ok now what do we do? Do we take it at face value?
I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but it seems like you are in fact advocating ... 'that'.
I don't see anything "discrediting" the that comment. I think it is very salient to point out that it us much easier to call out intolerance in other people than to face our own intolerance. Weiss's own intolerance doesn't negate the intolerance she faced, instead it reminds us to remember to strive for tolerance within ourselves as well as pushing for it from other people.
[deleted]
The people who have spent decades trying to keep the airwaves "clean," "family friendly," "anti-communist," etc, are suddenly shocked that they don't get to set the rules anymore, and that they're on the wrong side of some of them.
Context is everything for this discussion, because if you truly don't want there to be such censorship, you have to be aware of the motivations of the people pushing for change at the top now.
Otherwise you just get them running the show again, and you've just rolled back the clock a few decades to a world with a more violent state and a more cheerleading media.
Context is everything for this discussion, because if you truly don't want there to be such censorship, you have to be aware of the motivations of the people pushing for change at the top now.
Otherwise you just get them running the show again, and you've just rolled back the clock a few decades to a world with a more violent state and a more cheerleading media.
That's an interesting thought that I don't think I've encountered before; I'll think about that.
Your argument that “context is everything” is exactly my point. It’s not. Context is something. If context was everything, then there is no point in writing anything, because words cannot be wielded to create new meaning. Their meaning will be imbued by their collectively interpreted context.
> The people who have spent decades trying to keep the airwaves "clean," "family friendly," "anti-communist," etc, are suddenly shocked that they don't get to set the rules anymore, and that they're on the wrong side of some of them.
Or, to frame it another way, the people who spent decades saying "We should be allowed to broadcast whatever we want, because we support equality and liberty", and "If you don't like what we broadcast then you can just avoid it", are now suddenly finding themselves drunk on the power that they have gained, and are abusing it in much the same way as the people they were complaining about before.
Or, to frame it another way, the people who spent decades saying "We should be allowed to broadcast whatever we want, because we support equality and liberty", and "If you don't like what we broadcast then you can just avoid it", are now suddenly finding themselves drunk on the power that they have gained, and are abusing it in much the same way as the people they were complaining about before.
Bullshit.
Censorship by the right, and censorship by the left are not the only two exclusive options. Free exchange of ideas in a constructive and respectful fashion should be the ideal.
Censorship by the right, and censorship by the left are not the only two exclusive options. Free exchange of ideas in a constructive and respectful fashion should be the ideal.
They aren't the only two options, but they're our actual history.
So be aware of that.
So be aware of that.
Those who disagree with Bari Weiss have spent plenty of time and energy engaging with her ideas directly. At this point, it's pretty clear that she's a troll.
Yeah hard to take seriously someone who was "masquerading as an opponent of viewpoint intolerance" while simultaneously being intolerant of any viewpoints that aren't pro-Israel
Can you give me a direct quote of her intolerance?
I scanned the Greenwald article, but just saw quotes of other people saying she is bad, but not direct quotes of the bad things she said.
I scanned the Greenwald article, but just saw quotes of other people saying she is bad, but not direct quotes of the bad things she said.
Whoa, cool it with the Anti-Semitism there buddy! /s
We've banned this account for repeatedly making flamewar posts and ignoring our requests to stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Did you read that wall of text?
I can’t find the part where she tries to get anyone “fired”. Just claims that she criticized Muslim scholars, and arguing that is automatically racist.
I had a hard time finding direct quotes of the bad things she said, mostly just quotes from others saying how bad she is and how much they don’t like her.
I can’t find the part where she tries to get anyone “fired”. Just claims that she criticized Muslim scholars, and arguing that is automatically racist.
I had a hard time finding direct quotes of the bad things she said, mostly just quotes from others saying how bad she is and how much they don’t like her.
It may be ironic, but to pursue truth most rigorously, we should recognize the two points are logically independent.
It's possible that these accusations are true and also that Weiss is a person with a political agenda.
It's possible that these accusations are true and also that Weiss is a person with a political agenda.
I'm not familiar with the controversy, so I went looking for actual views of said professors. Wikipedia states 'Massad has characterized Israel as "a racist Jewish state."'
There might be more to this story than Glenn Greenwald frothing at the mouth.
There might be more to this story than Glenn Greenwald frothing at the mouth.
Can you clarify whether (and if so why) you have a problem with that characterization?
> Wikipedia states 'Massad has characterized Israel as "a racist Jewish state."'
Israel's own definition of self calls itself a "Jewish state" and says that the right to exercise national self-determination there is "unique to the Jewish people", so that "Jewish state" part is correct by definition.
And it defines that Judaism is a race by birthright and not a religion, and it grants special privileges to jews that aren't granted to others and it metes special discriminations against its non-jewish resident minorities, so, without even getting into any discussion of the history of arab-israeli conflict, it's hard to argue seriously with the other part as well.
> Wikipedia states 'Massad has characterized Israel as "a racist Jewish state."'
Israel's own definition of self calls itself a "Jewish state" and says that the right to exercise national self-determination there is "unique to the Jewish people", so that "Jewish state" part is correct by definition.
And it defines that Judaism is a race by birthright and not a religion, and it grants special privileges to jews that aren't granted to others and it metes special discriminations against its non-jewish resident minorities, so, without even getting into any discussion of the history of arab-israeli conflict, it's hard to argue seriously with the other part as well.
> And it defines that Judaism is a race by birthright and not a religion
That is factually incorrect. Conversions apply, in both directions.
That is factually incorrect. Conversions apply, in both directions.
If true, this doesn’t disprove the stated criticisms in the letter but only further highlights how serious the issue is and how easily people fall into that behavior.
There are many things I disagree with Weiss on, including her previous flirtation with cancel culture, but by attacking her with an article from 2 years ago instead of addressing what she is talking about directly is not really honest debate.
There is a cleaving point coming for those who believe in Liberal values and the nyt has already chosen the side of extreme ideological orthodoxy.
There is a cleaving point coming for those who believe in Liberal values and the nyt has already chosen the side of extreme ideological orthodoxy.
I mean, Weiss herself attacks the NYT for a two-year-old interview with Alice Walker, although she's not especially upfront about it, preferring instead to talk about an interview from May while describing - and in a highly tendentious way, at that - the controversy over Walker's 2018 NYT interview.
Live by the gun -
Live by the gun -
I think there are definitely some points in her essay that ring true. But the author engaging in behavior only 2 years ago that she is condemning today is certainly a valid and relevant criticism.
Unless there's proof she's changed from then until now, I think it's a rather relevant proof of hypocrisy and that one should rightly doubt whether what she's saying now is just more of the same
> There is a cleaving point coming for those who believe in Liberal values and the nyt has already chosen the side of extreme ideological orthodoxy.
I wouldn't say they chose it - under shareholder capitalism, they are beholden to maximizing the returns for their investors. Conservatives who like Bari Weiss (do such people exist?) probably aren't subscribing to the NY Times, while people who despise Bari Weiss and Tom Cotton are cancelling their subscriptions in protest.
I wouldn't say they chose it - under shareholder capitalism, they are beholden to maximizing the returns for their investors. Conservatives who like Bari Weiss (do such people exist?) probably aren't subscribing to the NY Times, while people who despise Bari Weiss and Tom Cotton are cancelling their subscriptions in protest.
You mean Columbia?
This happened 15 years ago when she was a student.
And how does this contradict the letter?
And how does this contradict the letter?
That's debatable. Consider this quote:
> It’s worth repeating something else Bari Weiss said [in my April 13-19 column, “Columbia Whitewashes“]: “We are doing this because we believe in the rights of all Columbia students to dissent without fear of abuse. Yes, this means for conservative students as well as left-wingers, for Zionists as well as anti-Zionists. . . . Criticizing professors does not violate their academic freedom or stifle debate. It only adds to it.”[1]
That doesn't sound like someone trying to get people fired.
[1] https://www.villagevoice.com/2005/04/19/columbia-the-awakeni...
> It’s worth repeating something else Bari Weiss said [in my April 13-19 column, “Columbia Whitewashes“]: “We are doing this because we believe in the rights of all Columbia students to dissent without fear of abuse. Yes, this means for conservative students as well as left-wingers, for Zionists as well as anti-Zionists. . . . Criticizing professors does not violate their academic freedom or stifle debate. It only adds to it.”[1]
That doesn't sound like someone trying to get people fired.
[1] https://www.villagevoice.com/2005/04/19/columbia-the-awakeni...
The irony is inherent in the ideology. This is just one of many examples of that irony on full public display, cannibalizing itself.
This is not an accurate account of her actions. The tweet which Greenwald embeds in his article as evidence against her is here https://twitter.com/saeen90_/status/971562600315215872. Watch the video underneath where she explains what her problem was with Professor Massad. In class, Massad referred to the Jenin massacre, a student raised her hand and pointed out the UN had dismissed the claims that the Battle of Jenin was a massacre, the professor kicked her out of class. A left-wing student from Israel asked him a question at a lecture. Massad noticed the student's accent then asked him if he was Israeli then asked him if he served in the IDF. He then demanded the student tell the group how many Palestinians he had killed. This is a little different from getting anyone who "didn't exist on the far-right on Israel/Palestine" fired as you put it. This documents the professor's views on Israel/Palestine[0]. I don't think you can characterise anything other then these views as being far right.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Massad#On_Israel_and_Zi...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Massad#On_Israel_and_Zi...
[deleted]
Letters like this always leave me wanting to know what specifically informed these opinions about the place they're leaving. That of course is a lot to ask from a resignation letter.
The cry of 'these people think these things because of groupthink' is so common, and frankly so easy for an individual to believe that I find those claims to be pretty hollow all by themselves.
We live in a world where when we don't hear what we want to hear the common call is to blame 'the system' (whatever it is that is) and anyone who feels that way as being unintelligent, biased, sheep, or whatever the phrases of the moment is. It couldn't be that all these other people just have a POV that doesn't jive with our own could it?
The cry of 'these people think these things because of groupthink' is so common, and frankly so easy for an individual to believe that I find those claims to be pretty hollow all by themselves.
We live in a world where when we don't hear what we want to hear the common call is to blame 'the system' (whatever it is that is) and anyone who feels that way as being unintelligent, biased, sheep, or whatever the phrases of the moment is. It couldn't be that all these other people just have a POV that doesn't jive with our own could it?
> Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere.
The market would suggest otherwise.
The market would suggest otherwise.
Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to.
"Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all sides of many issues, and he asks sincere questions for hours on end.
"Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all sides of many issues, and he asks sincere questions for hours on end.
Joe Rogan is pretty much Oprah for dudes. Sure he is extremely popular but I'm not sure there's a relationship between what 'normal Americans' think of journalism and the success of his podcast, other than that people for some reason keep asserting it because he on occasion has public intellectuals on his show, but so have talk show hosts for eons.
The New York times these days has 6 million digital subscribers, that's about six times more than they had in print circulation during their heyday. They've also consistently grown in revenue and are in way better financial situation than they were during the slump a few years ago. So just going by your market story this narrative just doesn't check out. Rogan is doing well, but so is the times. And so is WaPo and the WSJ.
I think it's noteworthy to point out that all the major newspapers have shifted their revenue model towards subscriptions, away from ads. That means there's been a real increase in engagement with readers who pay for content.
The New York times these days has 6 million digital subscribers, that's about six times more than they had in print circulation during their heyday. They've also consistently grown in revenue and are in way better financial situation than they were during the slump a few years ago. So just going by your market story this narrative just doesn't check out. Rogan is doing well, but so is the times. And so is WaPo and the WSJ.
I think it's noteworthy to point out that all the major newspapers have shifted their revenue model towards subscriptions, away from ads. That means there's been a real increase in engagement with readers who pay for content.
The OP you're responding to is correct that his popularity is MUCH higher than your response suggests:
"In January 2015, the podcast was listened to by more than 11 million people. By October 2015, it had grown to acquire 16 million downloads a month. By April 2019, the podcast had 190 million downloads a month."
That's a lot higher a number than your NYT 6 million subscribers (-1 as I just canceled in early June after it became clear how far along it is in its transformation into naked narrative-driven agitprop).
The NYT has become a niche market.
"In January 2015, the podcast was listened to by more than 11 million people. By October 2015, it had grown to acquire 16 million downloads a month. By April 2019, the podcast had 190 million downloads a month."
That's a lot higher a number than your NYT 6 million subscribers (-1 as I just canceled in early June after it became clear how far along it is in its transformation into naked narrative-driven agitprop).
The NYT has become a niche market.
I did say that he was popular in my post? That's not really the point of the debate. Of course the NYT is a niche market in the sense that only a minority of people actually pay for news. Fox and talk radio probably have 20 times as many viewers/listeners, that's always been the case.
But that doesn't say anything about what the NYT has become. They have a larger audience now than they had in the past, and their status isn't just a function of size of viewership.
Pewdiepie has a hundred million subscribers or whatever, does he dwarf the New York times in terms of influence in social or political life? No. The fact that there's a new entertainment personality in mass media doesn't say anything about the state of journalism.
But that doesn't say anything about what the NYT has become. They have a larger audience now than they had in the past, and their status isn't just a function of size of viewership.
Pewdiepie has a hundred million subscribers or whatever, does he dwarf the New York times in terms of influence in social or political life? No. The fact that there's a new entertainment personality in mass media doesn't say anything about the state of journalism.
>Pewdiepie has a hundred million subscribers or whatever, does he dwarf the New York times in terms of influence in social or political life? No.
Who knows, though? If people influence opinions, by definition don't they influence social or political life?
Who knows, though? If people influence opinions, by definition don't they influence social or political life?
How long have you been listening to JRE?
This reads like someone who discovered it because Elon Musk showed up along with a bunch of other celebrities in the last 2 years.
Give it some more time and you'll get over this savant view of Rogan. If anything I'd recommend going back to watching some episodes when it was filmed in his living room, not his millionaire's playground shop
This reads like someone who discovered it because Elon Musk showed up along with a bunch of other celebrities in the last 2 years.
Give it some more time and you'll get over this savant view of Rogan. If anything I'd recommend going back to watching some episodes when it was filmed in his living room, not his millionaire's playground shop
I'm not actually a listener, I might watch a clip from a guest I'm interested in once in a great while. But I've never listened to an entire episode. I don't like the lack of structure in his interviews, and I don't have 2-4 hours to listen to unstructured rambling, with the occasional useful tangent.
I think you mistook my comment as saying "Joe Rogan podcast is great and everyone should listen." I was only saying that it is a source of "opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere," and that he has obtained a remarkable amount of working class listeners.
I think you mistook my comment as saying "Joe Rogan podcast is great and everyone should listen." I was only saying that it is a source of "opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere," and that he has obtained a remarkable amount of working class listeners.
Weird to see Joe Rogan here, he literally just parrots whatever his guest is saying. Used to love watching until I realized he just repeats whatever sentiment his guest is saying.
He had Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInees on, and never once challenged them on their white supremacist views.
He had Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInees on, and never once challenged them on their white supremacist views.
Which makes his podcast a great resource.
The point is to hear what his interesting guests have to say, not for Rogan’s take on what he thinks they are saying.
Charlie Rose used to fill that role, until his bad behavior came to light.
The point is to hear what his interesting guests have to say, not for Rogan’s take on what he thinks they are saying.
Charlie Rose used to fill that role, until his bad behavior came to light.
A bit of aside admittedly but not knowing much about Molyneux I checked to see his credentials as a 'white supremacist'.
Perhaps I should I have just relied on what Twitter and countless parrot sites say about him (try a search on his name). But I didn't.
In https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-... I found:
"I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.”.
"Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral."
"Naturally, I oppose all morals and laws that create unjust advantages for either men or women."
and other reasonable statements to which which vast numbers of people would assent.
https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-...
Are these the views of a white supremacist? Perhaps he's a secret one for all I know. If so it would be nice if we stopped using gross simplistic labels for people and simply attacked his views head on (if we wish) quoting their actual words and not attributing views to them that they don't appear to hold.
Perhaps I should I have just relied on what Twitter and countless parrot sites say about him (try a search on his name). But I didn't.
In https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-... I found:
"I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.”.
"Eugenics is a government program that uses force to control people’s reproductive choices and is utterly immoral."
"Naturally, I oppose all morals and laws that create unjust advantages for either men or women."
and other reasonable statements to which which vast numbers of people would assent.
https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-...
Are these the views of a white supremacist? Perhaps he's a secret one for all I know. If so it would be nice if we stopped using gross simplistic labels for people and simply attacked his views head on (if we wish) quoting their actual words and not attributing views to them that they don't appear to hold.
It's not a simplistic label, I used to watch hours and hours of his stuff. Hell, I even used to believe his stuff about race and IQ. I was fortunate to have a friend that recognized I was turning down a bad road and helped deprogram me.
That's the issue with all of this, people like Molyneux put on a smile and a suit, covering up with vague statements and dog whistles.
That's the issue with all of this, people like Molyneux put on a smile and a suit, covering up with vague statements and dog whistles.
From the SPLC:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...
“I don’t view humanity as a single species...” —Podcast FDR2768, “Collective Guilt for Fun and Profit”, Saturday call-in show, August 9, 2014
“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane." —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.” —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“...white people will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but when they finally get that they’re just being taken advantage of...you will see a backlash, and that backlash will be quick, decisive, and brutal.” —YouTube video, The Death of Germany | European Migrant Crisis, September 16, 2015
“I don’t view humanity as a single species...” —Podcast FDR2768, “Collective Guilt for Fun and Profit”, Saturday call-in show, August 9, 2014
“The whole breeding arena of the species needs to be cleaned the fuck up!” —Podcast FDR2740, “Conformity and the Cult of ‘Friendship’,” Wednesday call-in show July 2, 2014
"Screaming 'racism' at people because blacks are collectively less intelligent...is insane." —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“You cannot run a high IQ [white] society with low IQ [non-white] people…these [non-white] immigrants are going to fail...and they're not just going to fail a little, they are going to fail hard…they're not staying on welfare because they’re lazy...they’re doing what is economically the best option for them...you are importing a gene set that is incompatible with success in a free-market economy.” —YouTube video, The Death of Europe | European Migrant Crisis, October 4, 2015
“...white people will bend over backwards to accommodate you, but when they finally get that they’re just being taken advantage of...you will see a backlash, and that backlash will be quick, decisive, and brutal.” —YouTube video, The Death of Germany | European Migrant Crisis, September 16, 2015
And for that there are still people that try to paint him as alt right. (Because he has had some alt right people interviewed on there)
He's still going because he has had an independent publishing platform and he's not dependent on a media network to survive. If someone else were to do the same thing.. they couldn't survive.
He's still going because he has had an independent publishing platform and he's not dependent on a media network to survive. If someone else were to do the same thing.. they couldn't survive.
>Because he has had some alt right people interviewed on there
People paint him that way not because he has them on there, but because he almost always lets them spew their nonsense without any push back because he isn't an actually good interviewer.
People paint him that way not because he has them on there, but because he almost always lets them spew their nonsense without any push back because he isn't an actually good interviewer.
Is it the interviewer's job to dictate what is garbage and what isn't?
> Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to.
Dave Chapelle, too. Comedians are lying to you (mostly), they are regular people trying to figure shit out (often times with you listening at home).
This is why they are popular.
Dave Chapelle, too. Comedians are lying to you (mostly), they are regular people trying to figure shit out (often times with you listening at home).
This is why they are popular.
aren't lying
herbstein(1)
> "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube
Really? This is the first I've heard of the guy, from anyone anywhere on the political spectrum.
Really? This is the first I've heard of the guy, from anyone anywhere on the political spectrum.
He just entered into a multi year deal with Spotify for 100 million dollars. For his little podcast where he has casual conversations with random people.
The market is contorted by secret algorithms promoting some news over other news, banning of people and ideas, etc.
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.
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?
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?
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-fals...
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.
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.
I am Jewish. The response Weiss received has nothing to do with being Jewish. There are countless other Jews who work at the NYT without issue. Her job is to voice opinions in the pages of the NYT. She is being criticized for how she chooses to perform that job. I was focusing on the discrimination aspect of her accusations because I do agree that some of the treatment she received qualifies as harassing. However nothing she experienced is discrimination.
> 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?
Not sure we read the same letter. Can you support these assertions based on the text?
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.
I think she wants her previous employer to protect her rights and not be subject to a hostile work environment, no?
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.
> 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.
I’m not sure your mind reading skills are quite up to the job you’ve assigned yourself...
I’m not sure your mind reading skills are quite up to the job you’ve assigned yourself...
I have provided two different explanations for my interpretation. You have just commented that I am wrong twice. If you want me to actually consider your opinion, maybe you should actually give a reason why I am wrong.
> She wants this behavior to stop.
"this behavior" being insults, mobbing and "ax emojis + name", not "disagreement", apparently.
Wouldn't you? And if you don't, why would you draw any line? Why shouldn't it be okay to get beaten up for saying "the wrong thing", it shouldn't be "consequence free speech" after all?
"this behavior" being insults, mobbing and "ax emojis + name", not "disagreement", apparently.
Wouldn't you? And if you don't, why would you draw any line? Why shouldn't it be okay to get beaten up for saying "the wrong thing", it shouldn't be "consequence free speech" after all?
>
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.
> 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.
Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination.
Also it is worth pointing out that Weiss's job was to voice opinions. It is entirely different for someone in that role to face backlash for their bad opinions than it is for someone in the role of let's say a mid-level software developer.
Also it is worth pointing out that Weiss's job was to voice opinions. It is entirely different for someone in that role to face backlash for their bad opinions than it is for someone in the role of let's say a mid-level software developer.
> Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal.
A correct statement, but one that skirts around the issue at hand: in this situation the people berating their evangelical coworker are creating a hostile workplace environment and the company is obligated to take actions to remidiate this situation. If the climate denier points out this hostile workplace behavior, they're not censoring any particular view. Only the hostile actions of their co-worker.
While Weiss' high profile position makes it much more likely to receive public scrutiny, she is indeed entitled to the same workplace protections as a mid level software developer. Working as a columnist doesn't absolve a company of their legal responsibility to curb workplace harassment. Your workplace is a captive audience. What is legal for some random person to say to you is not at all the same standard that is applied to co-workers. Weiss calling this behavior out as discrimination is not calling any particular belief illegal, only the treatment towards her by her coworkers.
A correct statement, but one that skirts around the issue at hand: in this situation the people berating their evangelical coworker are creating a hostile workplace environment and the company is obligated to take actions to remidiate this situation. If the climate denier points out this hostile workplace behavior, they're not censoring any particular view. Only the hostile actions of their co-worker.
While Weiss' high profile position makes it much more likely to receive public scrutiny, she is indeed entitled to the same workplace protections as a mid level software developer. Working as a columnist doesn't absolve a company of their legal responsibility to curb workplace harassment. Your workplace is a captive audience. What is legal for some random person to say to you is not at all the same standard that is applied to co-workers. Weiss calling this behavior out as discrimination is not calling any particular belief illegal, only the treatment towards her by her coworkers.
A hostile work environment requires discrimination. She is not being discriminated against. Having smart and well supported opinions is part of the requirements of her job. Therefore her opinions are subject to extra scrutiny compared to the opinions of someone who is asked to do an entirely different job.
No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement that the hostility be discriminatory in nature. A co-worker harassing another co-worker without any particular discrimination is still harassment.
I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace?
https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment
I can call a co-worker an idiot and a worthless human being relentlessly, all day long. That's not discriminatory in nature. I'm not referring to a protected class like gender, race, or religion. Does it follow that it isn't creating a hostile workplace?
https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment
From that page:
> Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
So, yes, for it to be a hostile workplace under the laws you're talking about, it would need to be based on one of those aspects, not just because people disagree with her opinions.
> Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
So, yes, for it to be a hostile workplace under the laws you're talking about, it would need to be based on one of those aspects, not just because people disagree with her opinions.
The article specifically calls out harassment on the basis of protected class. But to read this as saying that unwelcome conduct, so long as it is not on the basis of protected class, isn't harassment is not a correct interpretation.
A shape with four equal length sides is a quadrilateral. Does it mean that a shape with four sides of unequal lengths isn't quadrilateral?
Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."
A shape with four equal length sides is a quadrilateral. Does it mean that a shape with four sides of unequal lengths isn't quadrilateral?
Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."
> Put this in a more concrete scenario. You have a co worker that stops by your desk every hour and says, "Joshua you are a worthless idiot and your team is worsened by your presence" and relentlessly bullies you throughout the day. Is this not harassment because it isn't based on a protected class like race or gender."
As I said on your other post, this would not be workplace harassment. It could possibly be criminal harassment, but that is also unlikely, since criminal harassment usually requires threats of violence.
Speech protections in the US are strong. I'm surprised people aren't just telling Weiss to "toughen up". Which to be clear isn't advice I'm giving her, and I empathize with her discomfort, but that is the advice given to people very often, so I'm curious as to the inconsistency here. Perhaps it's not as easy to tell someone to toughen up when you see yourself in them.
As I said on your other post, this would not be workplace harassment. It could possibly be criminal harassment, but that is also unlikely, since criminal harassment usually requires threats of violence.
Speech protections in the US are strong. I'm surprised people aren't just telling Weiss to "toughen up". Which to be clear isn't advice I'm giving her, and I empathize with her discomfort, but that is the advice given to people very often, so I'm curious as to the inconsistency here. Perhaps it's not as easy to tell someone to toughen up when you see yourself in them.
Did you read the page you linked? The very first sentence of the body of the page states:
>Harassment is a form of employment discrimination...
It goes on to say:
>Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected class and categorizing it as a subset of discrimination. Therefore if a hostile environment requires harassment, it inherently requires discrimination.
>Harassment is a form of employment discrimination...
It goes on to say:
>Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected class and categorizing it as a subset of discrimination. Therefore if a hostile environment requires harassment, it inherently requires discrimination.
So if a coworker goes to your workplace every day and says, "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? Because it's not based on race, religion, sex, etc? The article particularly highlights harassment in the basis of protected class. It does not say that harassment on the basis of things other than protected class is permitted. If what you claim is true, then in the above scenario you would not be able to claim harassment with respect to a co-worker that constantly insults you.
And regardless even if harassment does require discrimination, Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.
And regardless even if harassment does require discrimination, Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.
> Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.
No she doesn't. The harassment isn't due to her religion, it's due to how she conducts herself as part of her job. (and it doesn't meet the line for harassment anyway, people expressing workplace disagreements isn't harassment, as much as she may want to dress it up).
> "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment?
It could be criminal harassment (but even this is unlikely) it is not, however, workplace harassment. Speech protections in the united states are incredibly broad and protect many forms of assholery. This is not news to many people to have been subject to harassment that isn't legally harassment before.
No she doesn't. The harassment isn't due to her religion, it's due to how she conducts herself as part of her job. (and it doesn't meet the line for harassment anyway, people expressing workplace disagreements isn't harassment, as much as she may want to dress it up).
> "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment?
It could be criminal harassment (but even this is unlikely) it is not, however, workplace harassment. Speech protections in the united states are incredibly broad and protect many forms of assholery. This is not news to many people to have been subject to harassment that isn't legally harassment before.
So your answer is yes? Under your understanding of harassment, someone can relentlessly bully and insult their co-worker all day long and it isn't workplace harassment so long as it doesn't refer to protected class?
These words have specific legal meanings in specific contexts. What you are describing is technically bullying and not harassment. Bullying is often illegal, but it isn't regulated to the same degree on the federal level as harassment.
I have not seen a single instance of Weiss being targeted based on religion and Weiss provided zero examples in the body of her letter. Like Weiss, I am also Jewish. Criticizing a Jewish person's political opinions on the state of Israel is not inherently antisemitism. If you can point out a specific example of Weiss being targeted based on her religion, I would concede that I am wrong.
I have not seen a single instance of Weiss being targeted based on religion and Weiss provided zero examples in the body of her letter. Like Weiss, I am also Jewish. Criticizing a Jewish person's political opinions on the state of Israel is not inherently antisemitism. If you can point out a specific example of Weiss being targeted based on her religion, I would concede that I am wrong.
> Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal
Illegal is when you call the police. There's lots of behaviors that the employer is better to prevent before you have to call the police. If it rose to the level of illegal, there's a lot of things that already went wrong.
> Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination.
If she was uniquely subjected to harassing and hostile behavior then it's discrimination, by definition. If that treatment is routine for anyone that dares to voice an unorthodox though in NYT, then it's not discrimination - it's just deeply sick and broken culture.
Illegal is when you call the police. There's lots of behaviors that the employer is better to prevent before you have to call the police. If it rose to the level of illegal, there's a lot of things that already went wrong.
> Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination.
If she was uniquely subjected to harassing and hostile behavior then it's discrimination, by definition. If that treatment is routine for anyone that dares to voice an unorthodox though in NYT, then it's not discrimination - it's just deeply sick and broken culture.
Discrimination is a legal word. She used the phrase "unlawful discrimination" which means she is using it in a legal context. Discrimination is not defined by being "subjected to harassing and hostile behavior" unless the reason for that behavior focuses on a protected class. There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts".
> There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts".
It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.
It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.
When your job is to communicate with the written word, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be held to the literal interpretation of your words. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if she can't clearly communicate her actual beliefs and opinions through her writing, she is bad at her job.
In my opinion, it is unreasonable. If somebody comes out and says "I am being constantly harassed by my colleagues, this makes my life hell and I think it's also illegal" and you respond with "well, according to the legal precedent from 1925, Snowflake et al. vs Ontinence, Inc., making your life hell is not illegal unless they put a live rat into your drawer and it bit you, and since no evidence of rat bite has been presented, clearly the whole complaint is invalid" - that's not a reasonable way to treat this complaint. If you're a judge considering a motion to dismiss, sure, that's exactly what you'd do. But if you're a reasonable person reacting to a complaint that somebody's life is made hell, then no, the legal precedent of the Snowflake case is not the main thing you should reasonably discuss. You may be more worried about the "hell" part.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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?
Phil Donahue. 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”.
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”.
Thanks, Phil Donahue was the main example I thought of.
Since she hasn't filed discrimination lawsuit, I read it as mocking the victim culture that prevades the others.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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).
Some of the incidents she described sound a lot like a hostile work environment to me...
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.
Notedly, political viewpoints are not a protected trait.
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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
Hard to find a bigger proponent of victim culture than Bari Weiss herself, though.
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?
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.
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.
I know Bari well. She is a strong person. She would not have written this if there were not something very rotten at the NYT.
Interesting to see how the toxic usage of emojis at Slack is a part of the letter. In past, these sort of details in communication (reactions of others) would be instantaneous and people would not remember them. Now, the emojis stay there as a part of the written history.
"My company wouldn't fire people who posted mean emojis about me so I've been forced to quit" wah wah.
So you failed to cancel your coworkers, therefore you decry being cancelled. (except you weren't you resigned)
So you failed to cancel your coworkers, therefore you decry being cancelled. (except you weren't you resigned)
I used to be a skeptic of MSM in general but started reading/following NYT and some other major news outlets about an year ago to challenge my own mindset.
From what I have seen, to my surprise, the NYT's opinion section does encompass diverse viewpoints and reports in general are neutral in tone!
Any criticism I have seen of NYT are either nitpicking (example: headline being too moderate) or taking an incident that is outlier and generalising it (example: Editor of opinion section didn't read a controversial opinion piece by a politician before publishing and resigned over the backlash. Instead of viewing it as an one-off incident, it was criticized as NYT not tolerant of diverse opinions).
NYT is not perfect (who else is?) but it is still one of the best organization with highest standards of journalism I have seen.
From what I have seen, to my surprise, the NYT's opinion section does encompass diverse viewpoints and reports in general are neutral in tone!
Any criticism I have seen of NYT are either nitpicking (example: headline being too moderate) or taking an incident that is outlier and generalising it (example: Editor of opinion section didn't read a controversial opinion piece by a politician before publishing and resigned over the backlash. Instead of viewing it as an one-off incident, it was criticized as NYT not tolerant of diverse opinions).
NYT is not perfect (who else is?) but it is still one of the best organization with highest standards of journalism I have seen.
consider that neutrality may be dependent on where one stands.
A 'news' article is different than an 'opinion' article.
Most news reports contains statements backed by verifiable sources/references/evidence. In general, a 'news' article is and should be neutral.
A good news outlet maintains that difference. Blurring the lines between the two is an indicator of the organization's bias.
IMO, NYT is one such good organization. That was my point if I wasn't clear!
Most news reports contains statements backed by verifiable sources/references/evidence. In general, a 'news' article is and should be neutral.
A good news outlet maintains that difference. Blurring the lines between the two is an indicator of the organization's bias.
IMO, NYT is one such good organization. That was my point if I wasn't clear!
> But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned.
While some here are debating the credibility of the source (which is understandable), I read this idea in some form approx once a week. That is, it transcends sources.
I find it disturbing and disheartening that little has changed since 2016. One way or another we'll make it through the 2020 election. But 2024 has all the makings on a horror movie.
Heads remain pushed deep into the sand. Symptoms are passed off as root causes. Root cause - who whip up the blame-the-symptoms spin - continue to get a free pass. It's hard to imagine a healthy outcome anytime soon.
While some here are debating the credibility of the source (which is understandable), I read this idea in some form approx once a week. That is, it transcends sources.
I find it disturbing and disheartening that little has changed since 2016. One way or another we'll make it through the 2020 election. But 2024 has all the makings on a horror movie.
Heads remain pushed deep into the sand. Symptoms are passed off as root causes. Root cause - who whip up the blame-the-symptoms spin - continue to get a free pass. It's hard to imagine a healthy outcome anytime soon.
Bari Weiss was tweeting insults about her co workers in public during a meeting about her behavior. If this came from anyone else they'd be fired in a heartbeat. This is her politicizing a normal action.
> It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.
Tom Cotton is a senior leader of the ruling party in government with actual powers to trigger and support the kind of violent action his Op-Ed called for. He has power, influence, ability, and his political position is supported by ~40% of the country.
Alice Walker is none of those things, and the percent of people that believe in the lizard Illuminati is somewhere below 40%.
These two things are not like the other.
> the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”;
It...was? The Soviet union was a horrendous system that murdered millions, and was embedded to the core with systemic anti-Semitism.
Yet, when it comes to gender equality they were DECADES ahead of the United States. That's a fact.
It should have been HUMILIATING for the United States to allow the Soviet Union to have the moral high ground on ANY subject.
Instead they just categorized "But you're lynching negroes" as Whataboutism, and a distraction tactic, and continued to lynch negroes.
> the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned;
need to know the details of this...
> and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Bari only cares about genocide when it's her people. Typical Conservative.
Tom Cotton is a senior leader of the ruling party in government with actual powers to trigger and support the kind of violent action his Op-Ed called for. He has power, influence, ability, and his political position is supported by ~40% of the country.
Alice Walker is none of those things, and the percent of people that believe in the lizard Illuminati is somewhere below 40%.
These two things are not like the other.
> the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”;
It...was? The Soviet union was a horrendous system that murdered millions, and was embedded to the core with systemic anti-Semitism.
Yet, when it comes to gender equality they were DECADES ahead of the United States. That's a fact.
It should have been HUMILIATING for the United States to allow the Soviet Union to have the moral high ground on ANY subject.
Instead they just categorized "But you're lynching negroes" as Whataboutism, and a distraction tactic, and continued to lynch negroes.
> the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned;
need to know the details of this...
> and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Bari only cares about genocide when it's her people. Typical Conservative.
Speaking as someone who absorbs American media externally, there does seem to be a disconnect looking in.
About 40% of the America seems to still support Donald Trump, under most polls. It certainly isn't true that 40% of the media supports Donald Trump. As an external viewer, it's easy to imagine no-one was ever going to vote for Donald Trump, no-one ever supported him, and no-one supports him today, but that's clearly not reality.
Personally, I'd never have voted for him, but it's hard to understand why many of those who voted for him continue to support him, and it doesn't feel like the media is doing a good job here.
About 40% of the America seems to still support Donald Trump, under most polls. It certainly isn't true that 40% of the media supports Donald Trump. As an external viewer, it's easy to imagine no-one was ever going to vote for Donald Trump, no-one ever supported him, and no-one supports him today, but that's clearly not reality.
Personally, I'd never have voted for him, but it's hard to understand why many of those who voted for him continue to support him, and it doesn't feel like the media is doing a good job here.
As a hypothetical, imagine a leader who was consistently right. To be fair and balanced, what % of press coverage should be negative?
What if the idea that a fair and balanced press should split equally pro and con is itself a disconnect?
What if the idea that a fair and balanced press should split equally pro and con is itself a disconnect?
Which media do you watch? The largest cable news network is staunchly pro-trump.
[deleted]
But what exactly is the responsibility of a newspaper in this? I don't want to delve into opinion or ideology, but I think it's objectively true that Donald Trump lies constantly. A news source based on reporting facts should not be giving credence to nonsense because a lot of people believe it. Take climate change for example. Trump and the American right like to portray it as either untrue or unimportant. They are wrong. The NY Times is not serving anyone by running climate change denial opinions. It would be pandering. There's a strong thread of COVID-19 denialism on the right as well. It's all false and misleading. Those voices pushing to reopen quickly may have a lot of followers, but the NY Times absolutely should not amplify their voices.
> About 40% of the America seems to still support Donald Trump, under most polls. It certainly isn't true that 40% of the media supports Donald Trump. As an external viewer, it's easy to imagine no-one was ever going to vote for Donald Trump, no-one ever supported him, and no-one supports him today, but that's clearly not reality.
You seem to be missing a substantial portion of American media. You just gotta know where to look. There are far more outlets than the ones that get shared on HN, and something like talk radio is gonna be a complete black hole to the group here.
You seem to be missing a substantial portion of American media. You just gotta know where to look. There are far more outlets than the ones that get shared on HN, and something like talk radio is gonna be a complete black hole to the group here.
It is very possible (in fact, it would make sense), that the anti-Trump media, and the media that tries to reach outside of America to a worldwide audience, would have almost 100% overlap.
One of the problems Trump faces is that he's so outside the expected behavior boundaries that positives get much harder to find. The hard-conservative anti-Trumper is FAR more common than the hard-conservative anti-Busher was.
One of my historical barometers for what right-wing media is saying was talking to my parents and family, since they would try to convince me of the talking points they were hearing from Fox News and AM talk radio, and I'd try to convince them of what I was getting from the NYT or the New Yorker.
But they abandoned Fox News and most of the talk shows they listened to in 2017 because they can't stand Trump (but still yet cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, because abortion). So now all I know is that those were still wildly conservative-leaning and pro-Trump 3 years ago. I'm sure they're still conservative-leaning, but I no longer have as direct a view into if they're pro-Trump.
One of my historical barometers for what right-wing media is saying was talking to my parents and family, since they would try to convince me of the talking points they were hearing from Fox News and AM talk radio, and I'd try to convince them of what I was getting from the NYT or the New Yorker.
But they abandoned Fox News and most of the talk shows they listened to in 2017 because they can't stand Trump (but still yet cannot bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, because abortion). So now all I know is that those were still wildly conservative-leaning and pro-Trump 3 years ago. I'm sure they're still conservative-leaning, but I no longer have as direct a view into if they're pro-Trump.
asdf21(3)
The True Trump Believers tend to gravitate towards fringe news sources online. Breitbart and The Blaze are probably the most well known, but there are many others. Most of the others are basically Wordpress blogs with a theme that makes them look like a news site. They run the gamut from “slightly right of center politically”, to “racist and not really trying to hide it”.
All this to say, if you’re consuming popular American news sites and TV channels, you’ll see almost nothing that paints Trump in a positive light. The fringe sources typically portray him as the savior America needs.
I’m not a Trump supporter in the least, but I do scan some of the milder fringe sites periodically just to see what the conversation is like there. It’s useful to see what the world looks like through their eyes. But I don’t linger long, because some of it is truly awful.
All this to say, if you’re consuming popular American news sites and TV channels, you’ll see almost nothing that paints Trump in a positive light. The fringe sources typically portray him as the savior America needs.
I’m not a Trump supporter in the least, but I do scan some of the milder fringe sites periodically just to see what the conversation is like there. It’s useful to see what the world looks like through their eyes. But I don’t linger long, because some of it is truly awful.
Content that has the right to exist based on free speech protections does not by extension have the right to exist on any/all platforms. Different publishing platforms have standards they hold themselves to. For arguments sake, the NY Times does not generally allow white nationalists to write Op-Eds espousing their POVs, without clear messaging around context. White nationalism lies outside the NYTimes unique Overton window.
Its my view that 'cancel culture' isn't a new phenomenon; in the past, those with views outside the Overton window were not 'cancelled' per-se, they were instead 'pre-cancelled', by never being allowed to attain prominent statuses in the first place (how many KKK members were members of the NYTimes Op-Ed board; was their exclusion a result of cancel culture?). IMO 'cancel culture' is the effect of the Overton window moving more quickly than in the past, where individuals who have been able to attain prominent positions now find themselves outside the shifted Overton window. So the fact that this is happening to thinkers of prominent status is new, but excluding views outside the Overton window (the fundamental bit) is not.
I draw the distinction, because in my mind there are two debates to be had; (1) cancel culture is a new phenomenon and is anti-ethical to the ideals of free speech that American society has espoused in the past, and (2) cancel culture is not new but instead the Overton window has shrunk, and is shifting more quickly.
Anecdotally I see many arguments that reject 'cancel-culture' with the logic of (1); exclusion of voices/ideas is a result of a new phenomenon ('cancel culture'), and by relying on a large dose of appealing to tradition (America has never "cancelled" voices before) we can therefore reject any exclusion as a-priori wrong. If we argue instead within the context of (2), one cannot say that exclusion of ideas is a-prori wrong, instead one has to defend whether a particular idea deserves to be included/excluded from the Overton window.
Its my view that 'cancel culture' isn't a new phenomenon; in the past, those with views outside the Overton window were not 'cancelled' per-se, they were instead 'pre-cancelled', by never being allowed to attain prominent statuses in the first place (how many KKK members were members of the NYTimes Op-Ed board; was their exclusion a result of cancel culture?). IMO 'cancel culture' is the effect of the Overton window moving more quickly than in the past, where individuals who have been able to attain prominent positions now find themselves outside the shifted Overton window. So the fact that this is happening to thinkers of prominent status is new, but excluding views outside the Overton window (the fundamental bit) is not.
I draw the distinction, because in my mind there are two debates to be had; (1) cancel culture is a new phenomenon and is anti-ethical to the ideals of free speech that American society has espoused in the past, and (2) cancel culture is not new but instead the Overton window has shrunk, and is shifting more quickly.
Anecdotally I see many arguments that reject 'cancel-culture' with the logic of (1); exclusion of voices/ideas is a result of a new phenomenon ('cancel culture'), and by relying on a large dose of appealing to tradition (America has never "cancelled" voices before) we can therefore reject any exclusion as a-priori wrong. If we argue instead within the context of (2), one cannot say that exclusion of ideas is a-prori wrong, instead one has to defend whether a particular idea deserves to be included/excluded from the Overton window.
On a similar vane of this. It's complex issue, however I have seen incivility here that I would say is mentioned there. (It was on the kernel terminology change)
Someone mentioned about the annoyance of "tiptoing with certain groups on topics"
Someone responded with " by tiptoeing do you mean 'respecting others opinions'"
It's the lack of ability to have civil discord and respecting other's opinions (even if they're stupid or wrong) that I believe has taken over in society and it's showing a harmful effect. I do have a concern over the publications that we read and I do think that Weiss has a good point, even if his/her contributions, aren't 100% stellar.
Someone mentioned about the annoyance of "tiptoing with certain groups on topics"
Someone responded with " by tiptoeing do you mean 'respecting others opinions'"
It's the lack of ability to have civil discord and respecting other's opinions (even if they're stupid or wrong) that I believe has taken over in society and it's showing a harmful effect. I do have a concern over the publications that we read and I do think that Weiss has a good point, even if his/her contributions, aren't 100% stellar.
Maybe I'm just old, but can someone explain the connection between the NYT and Twitter?
She is implying the NYT is making decisions based on how they think people will Tweet about them.
She raises valid points. The pendulum has swung too far to the left, at least in the press.
The news reading average person is being constantly reminded to comply with this type of ideological straightjacket.
Media institutions are basically YouTube algorithm that runs on people instead of computers. Of course you are not allowed to have a different option on anything substantial, it breaks users feed
I say we slap a warning label on all opinion pieces "likely to contain misinformation, inaccurate dialogue, or in summary fake news."
I could care less if they're earning less money from it.
I could care less if they're earning less money from it.
She's the one who labels people without knowing what those labels mean. She labeled Tulsi Gabbard with something she didn't even know what the word meant while on JRE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpurFfcSNfU
https://youtu.be/I-0lfxHoF5I
If she's not left enough for NYT, then I don't know what is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpurFfcSNfU
https://youtu.be/I-0lfxHoF5I
If she's not left enough for NYT, then I don't know what is.
Meta but is anyone else seeing really strange font rendering on this site, in the paragraph text? The "o"s are a bit too tall and it's making the whole thing look wonky... Is it just me? Is this on purpose?
https://i.imgur.com/tZh0c8X.png
https://i.imgur.com/tZh0c8X.png
think this makes the paper less interesting (regardless of political views held)
The masthead lost all credibility with this article [0] days before the election. They did spend lots of time and effort understanding the rest of America (sure, that’s fine and good) with little understanding or reflection of their own impact.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-el...
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-el...
The story seems accurate.
Literally the second paragraph
> And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
Was contradicted weeks later [0] and again by the bipartisan senate intelligence committee [1] this year.
Stay for reporting on Stone, which also aged poorly though I can’t blame them for not predicting the future.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia...
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/senate-intel-report...
> And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
Was contradicted weeks later [0] and again by the bipartisan senate intelligence committee [1] this year.
Stay for reporting on Stone, which also aged poorly though I can’t blame them for not predicting the future.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia...
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/21/senate-intel-report...
the comments on this thread just remind me how conventional in thinking most people in tech are with regards to politics. why is it we pride ourselves in thinking outside the box but everyone marches exactly down the line with the same political views? you know something is up when it’s hard to find even one donation to a republican from some companies employees
[deleted]
At the risk of bringing the level of commentary on HN down, why not create a new publication called: The Tomes
[deleted]
This idea that a newspaper should report on all opinions as equal is beyond ludicrous. The idea that all opinions are equal is incredibly stupid and harmful to society and its members. Not all opinions are equal. Some are worthy of being reported, some are not. Some are well thought out, by educated people, who actually want to arrive at a reasonable opinion, while others are completely illogical nonsense, created out of hate or spite. In this particular case, the NYT can make a compelling case that Cotton's opinion was the latter. It's not unreasonable for them to not want to publish it. It's not censorship either. There are plenty, less reputable newspapers that publish such garbage.
For some reason, people think this "two-sideism" is balanced, fair reporting. That couldn't be further from the truth. Presenting flat earth rantings alongside scientific data showing the earth is round is neither balanced nor fair. It's just nonsense. It removes any signal that exists and brings into question the mental capability of the reporter who thought that such things should be presented in an equal light. The same can be said in this and many other cases, especially when dealing with the president's insane ramblings. Newspapers, if they strive to provide news and not just ad revenue, should be making it clear when the opinions provided by the people they interview are batshit crazy bordering on insane. When Cotton suggests bringing in the army or Trump suggests drinking bleach, those suggestions should be published with a heavy dose of skepticism and context clearly marking them as hateful or wrong. It seems Weiss wants to shirk those duties and just provide readers with a bunch of nonsense that masquerades as a thoughful opinion but is nothing but a hate drive call to violence.
For some reason, people think this "two-sideism" is balanced, fair reporting. That couldn't be further from the truth. Presenting flat earth rantings alongside scientific data showing the earth is round is neither balanced nor fair. It's just nonsense. It removes any signal that exists and brings into question the mental capability of the reporter who thought that such things should be presented in an equal light. The same can be said in this and many other cases, especially when dealing with the president's insane ramblings. Newspapers, if they strive to provide news and not just ad revenue, should be making it clear when the opinions provided by the people they interview are batshit crazy bordering on insane. When Cotton suggests bringing in the army or Trump suggests drinking bleach, those suggestions should be published with a heavy dose of skepticism and context clearly marking them as hateful or wrong. It seems Weiss wants to shirk those duties and just provide readers with a bunch of nonsense that masquerades as a thoughful opinion but is nothing but a hate drive call to violence.
Alarming, but not surprising.
> "Rooting people out to be more inclusive" - Paging George Orwell
As someone who had to create this second account because I feared stating my politics on my mail account which linked to my work would get me cancelled, I can sympathize with her a bit.
However, I also think she's herself played part in creating the very culture she's complaining about. She claimed to be a "conservative" but she's far from that. Listening her on the Joe Rogan Podcast, she's a liberal on majority of the issues. She seems to be masquerading as a "conservative" imo.
Kind of reminds me of how Tulsi Gabbard was cancelled by the left, the media, censored by Google and smeared by Hillary as a "Russian asset". That's only when Tulsi complained. She never complained when conservatives had been screaming about censorship, media bias and "russian asset" smears for the past 5 years. Seems like people only wake up when the mob comes for their own head.
As someone who had to create this second account because I feared stating my politics on my mail account which linked to my work would get me cancelled, I can sympathize with her a bit.
However, I also think she's herself played part in creating the very culture she's complaining about. She claimed to be a "conservative" but she's far from that. Listening her on the Joe Rogan Podcast, she's a liberal on majority of the issues. She seems to be masquerading as a "conservative" imo.
Kind of reminds me of how Tulsi Gabbard was cancelled by the left, the media, censored by Google and smeared by Hillary as a "Russian asset". That's only when Tulsi complained. She never complained when conservatives had been screaming about censorship, media bias and "russian asset" smears for the past 5 years. Seems like people only wake up when the mob comes for their own head.
Reads a lot like https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
Which she signed.
There’s probably a long and very amusing German word that means something like “the public outing of a company’s moral failures via the route of a holy resignation letter.“
[deleted]
It appears that there is a higher than usual proportion of negatively scored comments ITT. I think that might say something about the so called silent majority - the very people who are [rightly] unwilling to comment publicly because of the cancel culture highlighted in the article.
Those people are here, anonymous votes give them a voice that they are socially being denied.
Those people are here, anonymous votes give them a voice that they are socially being denied.
I'm really disappointed to read this. I am a long time subscriber and supporter of the New York Times but have noticed that their brand of news has really changed, particularly since Trump's election. It is frequently - not always, but enough to notice - ideologically biased, and more recently, we're seeing internal details leak out that confirm that the news room has indeed changed to carry a heavy cultural bias internally.
The first big example of an ideological bias that caught my eye was the NYT "1619 project", which recasts American history as being based on racism rather than principles of freedom. On the face of it, this sounds like an extremist perspective, and indeed the person behind the 1619 project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has had a history of extreme views. For instance she called white people "barbaric devils" (see https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/25/in-racist-screed-nyts-1... for example), and amplified a conspiracy theory that fireworks were a government plan to attack black and brown communities (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/author-of-new-york-t...).
Leaving aside the dubious views of this staff writer, the 1619 project ultimately ignored its own fact checkers (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-proje...), and despite widespread critique of its factual errors (see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians... or https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Criticism), the NY Times editor in chief brushed off what historians have claimed are severe inaccuracies (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th...).
More recently, The Tom Cotton fiasco, documented news room revolts at the Times, and this letter confirm that they are indeed no longer operating as a neutral and trustworthy source of news.
This trend of an ideological takeover by progressives/far left is happening in all major news rooms. Even the Wall Street Journal has its own activism from journalists (https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-newsrooms-face-a-recko...). Gerry Baker, the former top editor at WSJ, was forced to step down to a journalist role, and then just recently, at the behest of his peers and their union, he was forced to move from the news section to the opinion section (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/business/wall-street-jour...). Can you imagine a workplace where your peers openly denigrate your work, attack your character, and alter your career? This is discrimination, even if it is legal.
Unfortunately the far left cohort has turned into an enemy of the freedom of thought and inquiry. We saw it happen at tech companies with the James Damore incident, with repeated walkouts/protests since then, with censorship on Twitter, with demonetization on YouTube, and so on. We have seen it in college campuses over the last decade, with the most recent example being the absolutely unjust forced resignation of Steven Hsu (https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campai...). And we're seeing it in the ongoing campaign to pressure Facebook to censor certain views or lines of inquiry.
All of this is bad for society. The fundamental principles of free speech (going beyond legal requirements) must be defended, neutrality must be upheld in the workplace, and institutions that fail to uphold these values should be outed and abandoned by customers. This includes the NY Times.
The first big example of an ideological bias that caught my eye was the NYT "1619 project", which recasts American history as being based on racism rather than principles of freedom. On the face of it, this sounds like an extremist perspective, and indeed the person behind the 1619 project, Nikole Hannah-Jones, has had a history of extreme views. For instance she called white people "barbaric devils" (see https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/25/in-racist-screed-nyts-1... for example), and amplified a conspiracy theory that fireworks were a government plan to attack black and brown communities (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/author-of-new-york-t...).
Leaving aside the dubious views of this staff writer, the 1619 project ultimately ignored its own fact checkers (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-proje...), and despite widespread critique of its factual errors (see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/historians... or https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-1619-project-tells-a-false-... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project#Criticism), the NY Times editor in chief brushed off what historians have claimed are severe inaccuracies (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/magazine/we-respond-to-th...).
More recently, The Tom Cotton fiasco, documented news room revolts at the Times, and this letter confirm that they are indeed no longer operating as a neutral and trustworthy source of news.
This trend of an ideological takeover by progressives/far left is happening in all major news rooms. Even the Wall Street Journal has its own activism from journalists (https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-newsrooms-face-a-recko...). Gerry Baker, the former top editor at WSJ, was forced to step down to a journalist role, and then just recently, at the behest of his peers and their union, he was forced to move from the news section to the opinion section (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/business/wall-street-jour...). Can you imagine a workplace where your peers openly denigrate your work, attack your character, and alter your career? This is discrimination, even if it is legal.
Unfortunately the far left cohort has turned into an enemy of the freedom of thought and inquiry. We saw it happen at tech companies with the James Damore incident, with repeated walkouts/protests since then, with censorship on Twitter, with demonetization on YouTube, and so on. We have seen it in college campuses over the last decade, with the most recent example being the absolutely unjust forced resignation of Steven Hsu (https://quillette.com/2020/07/01/on-steve-hsu-and-the-campai...). And we're seeing it in the ongoing campaign to pressure Facebook to censor certain views or lines of inquiry.
All of this is bad for society. The fundamental principles of free speech (going beyond legal requirements) must be defended, neutrality must be upheld in the workplace, and institutions that fail to uphold these values should be outed and abandoned by customers. This includes the NY Times.
The Steven Hsu story was relatively recent, but I didn't realize that Steven Hsu was openly associating with Steven Molyneux. He also has a legitimate eugenics start-up.
srpablo(3)
kziemio(1)
seneca(1)
hope she sues nyt for employment discrimination and hostile work environment
I hope so too. If she did face a hostile work environment (as per the legal definition) then she's entitled to compensation and/or an apology. But if, as I suspect, she's essentially whining about people not giving her the respect she thinks her offensive and obnoxious positions deserve, then the meritlessness of her argument will be brought to light in open court. Either way, the public hearing she claims to crave would happen.
2 quick comments:
1. Team-sports politics and Identity politics are a scourge and cancer used for fundraising, and I despise them.
2. Conservatives have been poisoning public discourse since at least the 1980's with hate and fear (see Rush Limbaugh), and I despise that tactic. I'm sure you can find instances where Liberals have done the same, but it would be VERY hard to convince me that they have done it at the same level of concerted effort.
I think reasonable people should be able to discuss differences, but I fear that any public discussion will quickly drop to rote positions and bad faith assumptions.
1. Team-sports politics and Identity politics are a scourge and cancer used for fundraising, and I despise them.
2. Conservatives have been poisoning public discourse since at least the 1980's with hate and fear (see Rush Limbaugh), and I despise that tactic. I'm sure you can find instances where Liberals have done the same, but it would be VERY hard to convince me that they have done it at the same level of concerted effort.
I think reasonable people should be able to discuss differences, but I fear that any public discussion will quickly drop to rote positions and bad faith assumptions.
>it would be VERY hard to convince me that they have done it at the same level of concerted effort.
What exactly would it take to convince you of that?
What exactly would it take to convince you of that?
Examples of coordinated liberal messaging based on hate and fear that has had a large impact on social discourse.
Note: Safe spaces, affirmative action, etc do not apply for me personally. While they have at times gone off the rails, they are based on inclusiveness, not hate and fear.
Note: Safe spaces, affirmative action, etc do not apply for me personally. While they have at times gone off the rails, they are based on inclusiveness, not hate and fear.
How many examples would it take to convince you?
And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are driven by altruistic, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, divisive, and destructive?
And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are driven by altruistic, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, divisive, and destructive?
> How many examples would it take to convince you?
Hundreds, at least. It's been a consistent conservative tactic for decades, to the point where it is unremarkable. Unremarkable does not mean acceptable. See also Trump's lies. Trump lies so often that it's not worth noting each instance.
> And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are being altruistic or inclusive, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, and destructive?
Sure, and it's also possible to sea lion a discussion while claiming to be reasonable. http://wondermark.com/1k62/
I judge that based on outcome and intent.
Hundreds, at least. It's been a consistent conservative tactic for decades, to the point where it is unremarkable. Unremarkable does not mean acceptable. See also Trump's lies. Trump lies so often that it's not worth noting each instance.
> And do you think it's possible for humans to claim they are being altruistic or inclusive, while actually being primarily hateful, deceitful, and destructive?
Sure, and it's also possible to sea lion a discussion while claiming to be reasonable. http://wondermark.com/1k62/
I judge that based on outcome and intent.
As a thought experiment: are there any examples that you can personally think of where self proclaimed liberals used hate and fear to shape public discourse?
I would characterize the current liberal consensus on race issues to be something like:
* There's no activity that's safe from racism. Whether you're participating in a hobby, doing your job, or just hanging out with friends, you've gotta keep yourself worried that there might be racism hiding in the corner.
* Racism is almost never benign. If you notice even mild racism, you'd better confront it, because it might be a cover for virulent racists who want to hurt you.
Do you think that's unfair?
* There's no activity that's safe from racism. Whether you're participating in a hobby, doing your job, or just hanging out with friends, you've gotta keep yourself worried that there might be racism hiding in the corner.
* Racism is almost never benign. If you notice even mild racism, you'd better confront it, because it might be a cover for virulent racists who want to hurt you.
Do you think that's unfair?
Great summary of everything I feel that has gone wrong at the NYT, cancel culture, and the left-wing gladiatorial combat that is trying to root out any hint of disagreement with orthodoxy now that all center and conservatives have been purged. I highly recommend reading this.
If you want more opinions from progressives that feel cancel culture has stifled free speech, is illiberal, and also illogical, listen to the Blocked and Reported podcast: https://barpodcast.fireside.fm/
Very brave people make that, and it's a breath of fresh air.
If you want more opinions from progressives that feel cancel culture has stifled free speech, is illiberal, and also illogical, listen to the Blocked and Reported podcast: https://barpodcast.fireside.fm/
Very brave people make that, and it's a breath of fresh air.
Bari Weiss has been a proponent of censorship and "cancel culture" since her time as a student. She's a hypocrite.
I agree she was a proponent but the cancel culture has finally come for her and she has figured it out, so she isn't wrong here. It will be interesting to see if anything changes later
The most important thing is how this affects your perception of the nyt
Edit hacker News wont let me post anymore right now but the question is if she is right here or not. She doesn't owe you anything just like you dont owe her anything.
The most important thing is how this affects your perception of the nyt
Edit hacker News wont let me post anymore right now but the question is if she is right here or not. She doesn't owe you anything just like you dont owe her anything.
Where's her mean culpa on Israel Palestine then? I see no evidence that she's changed.
People here are debating whether Weiss is a good person or not and whether they like her opinions or not. I think we're missing the key point in this letter, which is that she's saying that she experienced workplace harassment at the Times. That's unacceptable.
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.
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.
[deleted]
Calling a racist a racist isn't harassment. Neither is firing a racist. This is all stuff that I would expect my employer to be doing to be responsible.
There is so much wrong with this statement. Nowadays, you can label anyone a racist, or a misogynist, or a bigot, and get them fired. That's how discrimination works. It's a label.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with my statement. I didn't say Bari Weiss is definitely a racist because I know nothing about her, but we only have her side of the story. Racism is the discrimination. Being a racist is not acceptable. How it's determined is obviously not cut and dry, but that's what HR departments are for. People don't get fired over accusations, they get fired after investigations. I have seen this play once or twice and the burden of proof is usually pretty high, but having policies that disqualify people for exclusionary attitudes is absolutely the right thing to do.
[deleted]
We apologize for the unexpected cancellations and will be cancelling those responsible shortly.
Claiming that there's anything new going on here is a cheap rhetorical trick.
We're seeing the complaints of people who have lost control over what's acceptable. The people who would've wanted to come for the communists or the homosexuals are now on the wrong end of the prevailing winds, and whether that's "better" or "worse" depends on one's own beliefs on those issues... but it's not so much a societal change as just a window that has moved.
There are books that make convincing arguments that "heresy"-based reactions are ultimately detrimental - such as The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind from a few decades ago, decrying the lack of reason in the American church from an inside perspective - but that example also shows the answer to the "what are the consequences?" question: you get a *very effectively motivated" political constituency.
We're seeing the complaints of people who have lost control over what's acceptable. The people who would've wanted to come for the communists or the homosexuals are now on the wrong end of the prevailing winds, and whether that's "better" or "worse" depends on one's own beliefs on those issues... but it's not so much a societal change as just a window that has moved.
There are books that make convincing arguments that "heresy"-based reactions are ultimately detrimental - such as The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind from a few decades ago, decrying the lack of reason in the American church from an inside perspective - but that example also shows the answer to the "what are the consequences?" question: you get a *very effectively motivated" political constituency.
> Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy?
Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are. The NYT isn't going to, and shouldn't, print an Op-Ed defending Nazis. And a lot of conservative positions these days are simply in denial of reality and facts. Do they deserve equal space in the paper? A reasonable, or even "centrist", person will say of course not.
She claims Twitter has become "the ultimate editor" of the NYT. This is such a ridiculous strawman, where do you even start? First of all, there are tons of conservatives on Twitter too. Secondly, the NYT doesn't come even close to the ultra-left-wing voices on Twitter she's presumably referring to. Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it.
If the quality of her analysis in her resignation letter is the same quality of work she was turning out at the NYT, no wonder she wasn't welcomed there.
Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy?
Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are. The NYT isn't going to, and shouldn't, print an Op-Ed defending Nazis. And a lot of conservative positions these days are simply in denial of reality and facts. Do they deserve equal space in the paper? A reasonable, or even "centrist", person will say of course not.
She claims Twitter has become "the ultimate editor" of the NYT. This is such a ridiculous strawman, where do you even start? First of all, there are tons of conservatives on Twitter too. Secondly, the NYT doesn't come even close to the ultra-left-wing voices on Twitter she's presumably referring to. Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it.
If the quality of her analysis in her resignation letter is the same quality of work she was turning out at the NYT, no wonder she wasn't welcomed there.
> Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy?
No it's good, but pro-fact views are going to be anti-racist by default, if the facts are presented honestly. The problem is that NYT more often than not acts allergic to facts that they don't like, creating stories that bend (often already questionable) studies or accounts to fit what their subscribers want to hear.
> Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are.
And they also have to follow those rules themselves. Including not doxxing private citizens for zero public benefit, which the heroes at NYT think is a very noble cause. NYT breaks their own 'rules' all the time.
> Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it.
This is the worst logic to go at this issue with. It being the third most popular newspaper has exactly nothing to do with whether or not it has gotten worse or more narrow in appeal. It can get loads worse and still be one of the most popular newspapers, especially since the problems in media exist through practically all major publications. How many newspaper subscriptions do you think the average person actually has?
That doesn't even get into the various negative effects of the subscription model, and the fact that there is an obvious and undeniable economic incentive to manufacture and publish stories that hit with your subscribers. It's true that it has become the standard income method for these companies, but it's hardly any better than clickbait, if not worse.
No it's good, but pro-fact views are going to be anti-racist by default, if the facts are presented honestly. The problem is that NYT more often than not acts allergic to facts that they don't like, creating stories that bend (often already questionable) studies or accounts to fit what their subscribers want to hear.
> Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are.
And they also have to follow those rules themselves. Including not doxxing private citizens for zero public benefit, which the heroes at NYT think is a very noble cause. NYT breaks their own 'rules' all the time.
> Finally, she says "stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences", but seeing that the NYT is the third-most popular newspaper in the country, that would seem to be objectively untrue or else people wouldn't still be buying it.
This is the worst logic to go at this issue with. It being the third most popular newspaper has exactly nothing to do with whether or not it has gotten worse or more narrow in appeal. It can get loads worse and still be one of the most popular newspapers, especially since the problems in media exist through practically all major publications. How many newspaper subscriptions do you think the average person actually has?
That doesn't even get into the various negative effects of the subscription model, and the fact that there is an obvious and undeniable economic incentive to manufacture and publish stories that hit with your subscribers. It's true that it has become the standard income method for these companies, but it's hardly any better than clickbait, if not worse.
> pro-fact views are going to be anti-racist by default, if the facts are presented honestly
Could you say the opposite, if you believed it to be true?
Could you say the opposite, if you believed it to be true?
[deleted]
>Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.
There is an submission on HN "Do journalists pay too much attention to Twitter?"
I guess we know Bari Weiss's answer.
There is an submission on HN "Do journalists pay too much attention to Twitter?"
I guess we know Bari Weiss's answer.
In other words, the New York Times isn't leading. It's following the crowd on Twitter. And in abdicating the role of finding out the truth and saying it, the NYT gave up relevance. (We don't need them to echo Twitter. Twitter does that just fine. And we don't need them for performance theater, either - we've got Broadway.)
> There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one...
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya
Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think? "To be inclusive, we have to get rid of her"? Don't they even hear the words coming out of their own mouths?