>The NYT is in no way far left. It's a fairly centrist, vaguely middle-right publication. They have the occasional leftist essay, but far more often their op-eds are very strangely right-wing.
>You think you are demonstrating that the post you are mocking is meaningless because you can artificially insert other words to it in an arbitrary fashion that renders it meaningless?
They're not arbitrary, nor were they inserted.
>Shocking that you are being smarmy about it,
IMAX-level projection.
>I guess that comes with the territory of not realizing the pie is in your own face.
I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics.
Everyday on the internet I see White people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence... then the ensuing backlash in which people try to reassert the rights of White people... and then the backlash to the backlash is always "these neo-Nazi cons trying to cancel us are the real gulag runners". It's exhausting. Infuriating.
Some speech suppresses the speech of others. And some people don't want to be taught that they are hateful. If you make declarative statements that villainize majority groups, you make others fear for their safety and it silences voices. That is a form of "violent speech", though that term sucks. Free speech isn't just about saying anything you want, it's also about maximizing the number of voices at the table, and to do that you can't just let people get away with saying vile shit.
>Imagine that I've applied lidocaine to my face and you punch me. Then someone points out that because I didn't feel pain, that "It's ok to punch other people in the face."
Your entire strawman is invalidated because the author wrote "hurt", not "pained". Even if you didn't feel pain, a punch still hurts (injures) your body. QED.
Hurt: To cause physical damage or pain to (an individual or a body part); injure.[0]
>What a completely deranged take.
Reread your comment over again if you want a completely deranged take.
It's like going to a Wendy's and instead of asking "how much for the burger" you start a conversation like "I am bald. Do you like bald people? Is this Wendy's aware of bald people existence? Do you recognize us as people? Do you stand by our side or not?"
Then you review the Wendy's: "Did not speak my language. Not bald. Probably racist. Won't come again."
A Google doc prepared by a high priestess of grievance studies means less than nothing. Provide me a reputable study with real statistical analysis and objective figures like I did.
I'm not opening a random Google Doc. That's not a reputable study.
>Also, your comment history shows a definite bias.
"You said something that goes against the narrative so I'm going to dig through your history to find something I dislike so I can commit an ad hominem against the heretic."
Yes, I have a penchant for being fact driven. I'm biased towards reality.
>The increase in Asian hate was not led by Black Americans
Yes it was.
>I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which group was the number one culprit of such vile acts -- from simple assault to mass murder.
Asians were the only group more likely to be attacked by someone of a different race. Blacks were the most frequent aggressors. 27% of attacks were from Black aggressors. 24% were from White aggressors. Blacks make up 13% of the population, so they are WAY more likely per capita to attack Asians than Whites. QED.
inb4 this is from 2018. If you have numbers from a latter reputable study, please provide them here, but the facts are facts. Blacks are the number one perpetrators of crime against Asians.
[Edit] No feathers rustled here, you're just projecting after being called out. I simply enjoy being a data driven adult.