Lead headline and sub-header for The New York Times

“Overlooked No More: Valerie Solanas, Radical Feminist Who Shot Andy Warhol

She made daring arguments in “SCUM Manifesto,” her case for a world without men. But her legacy as a writer and thinker was overshadowed by one violent act.”

The piece itself notes she argued for the wholesale extermination of men, that other people treated it as satire, but she defended its seriousness.  And of course she shot and tried to kill Warhol and came very close to succeeding.  The nature of her other contributions is far from clear, although toward the end of her life she was eating from a dumpster bin in Phoenix.

Later, she moderated her views, and the NYT piece ends with this:

…the author, Breanne Fahs, writes about an exchange between Solanas and her friend Jeremiah Newton. Newton asked Solanas if her manifesto was to be taken literally. “I don’t want to kill all men,” she replied. But, using an expletive, she added: “I think males should be neutered or castrated so they can’t mess up any more women’s lives.”

Loyal MR readers will know that this is not a media-bashing site, nor is it a NYT-bashing site.  I remain proud to have written there for ten years, and I remain a loyal subscriber, as I have been since I was ten years old.

But…come on.  If you work for The Times, I hope you are in some way able to raise your voice against what can only be described as a grotesque embarrassment, not to mention a contradiction of Black [Men’s] Lives Matter.  Maybe the headline will be gone or changed by the time you read this, but the saddest part is that this seems to be part of a pattern, not just a one-off mistake.  I’ve known many people at the NYT, at various levels, and each and every one has seemed like a good (and talented) person to me.  I can only conclude that something has gone very very badly wrong in the editorial control process.

Addendum: Timothy Noah comments.

Comments

we blame david brooks

That is a bit unfair on David Brooks. What has he done?

This is a struggle between the old WASP ruling class that is dying but believed in democracy and all that, and the new Ellis Island elites who adopt Marxism to express their loathing of the WASPs and act as a unifying force for the Coalition of the Fringes.

Sometimes it is just a little too crass about how much some of the Fringe hates other parts of the Fringe. If she had said that all White men should die, she would probably hold a Chair somewhere.

I resemble that remark. So does David Brooks. Thinly veiled anti-Semitism has no place on this blog. So much for subtlety, indeed.

Most Jews never adopted Marxism, or if they did, they abandoned it long ago.

David Brooks is Jewish? News to me. It is not meant to be anti-semitic. Thinly veiled or otherwise. It is supposed to be a description of American politics up to the present time. But by all means, let's remove the Jewish community from the story.

America's political split involved the Civil War - the Democrats were the party of the South, the Republicans of the North. As non-WASP Whites immigrated to America, the Democrats saw some natural allies and supported, for instance, the Irish and then the Italians against the WASP elites in places like New York and Boston., So far, perfectly acceptable?

This meant that by Roosevelt's time the Democrats were the party of Southern racists and Northern Ethnics - often Catholics. So far so good?

But the movement of Blacks to the north gave the Northern Democrats another group to recruit despite the obvious contradiction. By the 60s, it became impossible to keep the Southern racists and North liberals. So out went the Southern racists. Most of them. So far so good?

Immigration reform meant adding new groups thaqt the Democrats worked hard to recruit - and the Democrats kept moving Left. By the 70s they were openly in support of the Communists in Indochina and wedded to abortion. So Reagan began to make inroads among Catholics in the North. So far, so good?

Trump is simply consolidating what has been a 40 year process of the Democrats rejecting Whites. They are still dominated by older ethnics - the Ellis Island immigrants - like Pelosi and the Kennedys. But they don't really like those voters.

Their language, even for people who are not Marxists, is the language of oppression, exploitation and liberation. That is, Marxism. Not Locke. Not Jefferson. Not Lincoln.

Anything anti-semitic so far? And yes some of the richest and/or most radical candidates on the Left are Jewish. Or were born into Jewish homes. Five in the Democrat primaries I think. It is odd that so many billionaires from one community vote so far to the Left. It is not racist to ask why.

"By the 70s they were openly in support of the Communists in Indochina and wedded to abortion."

As opposed to making Laos (not a Communist country then) the most bombed country in History or throwing napalm at children and exterminating villages? Seriously, do you Nazis have ANY sense of decency at all?

"Laos (not a Communist country then)"

the pathet lao were communists as were the north vietnamese who were in Laos and both were using communist chinese &russian weapons

Respond

Add Comment

The Communists were evil in the same way the Nazis were. Although at least Charles Lindburg shut up and supported the war effort.

Some bombs were dropped on German and French children too.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, by Jefferson? It is absolutely written in the language of oppression, exploitation, and liberation. Most of it is a list of grievances against the government and the need to liberate from said government.

Respond

Add Comment

Your theory that immigration patterns caused Democrats to move left is also not supported by the facts. In the 1990s and even 2000s, exit polls showed that Hispanics were only slightly less Republican than whites while Asians were equally or more Republican than whites. It was entirely possible that if voting patterns from the 1990s persisted, immigration would have helped the Republicans on balance by reducing the black share of the vote. Asians and Hispanics only got to their current 70%+ Democrat support in the 2010s—because the Republican Party became more xenophobic.

Your arguments are about voters, and his - about platform of the party.
Error in the logic.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Trump is simply consolidating what has been a 40 year process of the Democrats rejecting Whites."

In Presidential races, the Democratic share of the white vote has barely shifted in the past 20 years.

1996 43%
2000 42%
2004 41%
2008 43%
2012 39%
2016 37%

Considering you are replacing causes with effects, your nubers are actually confirming his point!

No, because you can stretch the analysis back even further and the numbers still bounce around in the same range.

There is no evidence of a 40-year process of shifting away from white voters. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/

I bet if you separate out whites in the Deep South from whites everywhere else, the numbers will be much closer to a 50/50 split.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Brooks’s slam piece got him to convert to Christianity so the services of the Jewish Defense League will no longer be required.

Respond

Add Comment

Did "I resemble that remark" originate with Curly Howard?
So great.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Can't be racist against those in power.

A good first step.
The next would be probably: "Can't be murderer against those in power!"

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I predict a lot of comments squawking about the NYT but very few asking questions about the caliber of education today that the Times draws from.

ok.we disagree
what is your take on the education that the newwoketimes.con
draws on?

Theory migrated from Comp Lit and English into the public education system, and became untethered from empiricism?

“Anything goes” morphed into a weak Maoism which can become more virulent because no one dares question it for fear of cancellation?

How much education do you need to know that it's probably a bad idea to laud someone in the newspaper whose main ideas involved advocating mass murder and whose most notable achievement was attempting to murder a famous person? I mean, she was probably just crazy, so it wasn't really her fault she said and did horrible things. But what excuse do the editors of the NYT have?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I would hazard to guess that the Times, like the Supreme Court, refuses to draw talent from high quality state schools in the hinterland.

They're just as bad (the schools, not the students).

Respond

Add Comment

They can't afford to.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Caliber of the NY Times? I would say .22 Short.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Oh...I would. The problem is that the 'Grey Lady's' death is but a raindrop in the ocean. The education system? It's caliber?

Careful now. Questioning that....dangerous...them's fightin' words.

Fight 'em with apostrophes!

looks like leftists wingnuts are currently wreckoning portland
bet we won't read about it in the newwoketimes.con

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"But…come on. If you work for The Times, I hope you are in some way able to raise your voice against what can only be described as a grotesque embarrassment"

Tyler, it's hideous. No. They can't. Genuinely can not. The 'Grey Lady' is just as bad as any click-bait pornographer. Just as bad as 'bzzzzzzfeed'. They surrendered, and this one surrender is but one in a long succession surrenders. The insane have taken over the asylum. The children have captured their 'Au Pairs'.

Stick a fork in it. It's done.

I think this might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's clearly true that The New York Time;s is not the paper they once were.

They have become decidedly Left wing and Woke with just the trappings of objectivity at this point.

But hey, it's a free country, they can be as Woke as they want to be.

Absolutely 100% right. It is. They can be as woke as they want to be, and my hatred for them can be as incandescent as the sun. It is truly sad to see the state of journalism today return to the Hearst-ian ear of the Spanish-American war (a la the 'Remember the Maine') and the era where news was predominantly partisan and subjective (yes....sadly this was the fact for the prevailing history of journalism).

I wish the truth was more profitable. I wish the truth was better received. I wish it was less painful. I wish it was more the 'gold standard' instead of bronze. But here we are. You get what you pay for. You pay for what you want.

Respond

Add Comment

“It’s a free country” — haha, tell me another one. It’s free for those with FU money and those with the “correct” positions of power.

Also: free for how much longer?

It’s free for those with FU money and those with the “correct” positions of power.

This is under-remarked.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"I think this might be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's clearly true that The New York Times is not the paper they once were."
The one which denied that rockets could work in space or the one which denied the Holodomor?

Well I was thinking about the 1990's but you do raise a point, that they have been bad in the past.

Respond

Add Comment

The one that planted stories for the cia

Respond

Add Comment

Do point us to the paper from the 30's that predicted everything correctly.

Yes, the 2 choices available in the 1930s were (a) deny the Holodomor (b) predict everything correctly. There are no other options.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Lets not forget Judith Miller building a case for the Iraq War in the NYT. Hard to imagine the current NYT supporting the Iraq war. Probably a mix of factors there, including, but not limited to, just how crazy the US was after 9/11, and just how widely supported the war seemed to be, and how far left the paper has lurched in 17 years.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I’ve known many people at the NYT, at various levels, and each and every one has seemed like a good (and talented) person to me.

Well, you've got bad judgment.

Nah, he's just being satirical about the NYT's attitude to truth.

Sometimes an institution can become toxic, so that even though it's made of mostly decent and sensible people, within the institution, they're incentivized to do crazy and horrible things.

This is the institution where much of the staff had a meltdown over a banal op-ed by a Republican Senator, an op-ed that had seen multiple rounds of revision (at the behest of an editor who is the brother of a Democratic Senator). I don't think this is just a case of the head guy and his camarilla being awful (though the head guy is in fact awful).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Strange coincidence (?), I just read the belated obituary. Cowen's reaction is fine; the woman was crazy, she shot Andy Warhol for reasons unclear, and died living out of a dumpster. Her rage against men? Not sure. Cowen, I suspect, doesn't believe there's discrimination, against women or blacks, and someone's fate is the fate she deserves. I've lived long enough to know that's not right. My wonderful grandmother, a physician who practiced into her 80s, certainly was discriminated against. Her brothers attended Harvard and Johns Hopkins, but her only choice was women's medical college of Philadelphia. Why? Because she was a woman. She trained in her specialty in Europe because women were not accepted in medical centers in America. No, my grandmother healed the sick, she didn't shoot anybody. A child of a minister, she was a woman of great faith. She lived a long and productive life. She never shot anybody or lived out of a dumpster. An aside, read Roger Cohen's column today about Georgia. The NYT is an American treasure, even if Cowen believes in fantasies.

-10, this is laughably poor reading comprehension

Cowen, I suspect, doesn't believe there's discrimination, against women or blacks, and someone's fate is the fate she deserves

Not only has Tyler never said this, his over a decade history of posts on his blog are explicit proof that he doesn’t believe this.

What an absurd, immediately refutable assertion.

Dude, it's Rayward.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I give this comment 1,000,000 non sequitur points! You are now champion sir/madam.

Respond

Add Comment

My grandmother met my grandfather in Europe while training in her specialty. My grandfather decided to stop over in Europe to train in the same specialty, after spending almost seven years as an army surgeon in a war zone. The Philippines, during the brief Spanish American War and during the much longer and brutal war that followed, the Philippine American War. In the latter war, a million casualties, where America began in earnest its endeavor to be the 20th century colonialist. We are brutal, brutal at home and afar against perceived enemies. Blacks, browns, and, yes, bossy women being the enemy.

We are brutal, brutal at home and afar against perceived enemies. Blacks, browns, and, yes, bossy women being the enemy.

If we were, you would not have been left unmolested. People sentenced to your vanity would have made short work of you.

Respond

Add Comment

Are we supposed to be impressed that your grandfather was a surgeon? You are clearly bragging about something but I’m missing it because to my great-great grandparents (you are a shit ton older than me) your grandfather who’d have just been a tradesman.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

- 10,000

This is Greamer Wormtongue level bile. Boo. Boo. Boo.

Respond

Add Comment

Cowen can't stand that women would hate men, any more than blacks would hate whites. This blog post proves itself. I greatly admire Cowen, but he's off base here. Without the NYT we'd have to rely on nothing but propaganda, including propaganda on blogs. Publishing this obituary in no way sanctions or supports this crazy woman; indeed, it's the opposite. According to Cowen's friend Scott Sumner, publishing one view actually is support of the opposite view. Economics has become stupid. Fortunately, journalism hasn't.

So if Tyler gives a subtle status raise to the Nazis, it’s not so bad because it’s just a subtle status raise and that’s not the same as an endorsement?

"nazis" is silly
can you also come up with a silly pseudo psychiatric diagnoses

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Cowen can't stand that women would hate men

Why would we be expected to 'stand' that? Men and women are symbiotic. They also suffer frictions. Normal people manage. Solanas could not build a non-pathological relationship with anyone. She has nothing to teach anyone. She's just a case study.

Respond

Add Comment

Hating a man or a group of men for hurting you somehow, wishing evil upon them is, how can I say it, counterproductive. Accuse them of crimes, sue them, whatever.

But hating the human race and wishing death upon half of them is either the sign of a diseased mind, or a wannabe genocidal maniac.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Not even rayward is this stupid. I wonder who is impersonating him.

Yes, there is with some regularity a Rayward imposter

No that dude is way to funny and to the point to have written this. He just picked up on raywards gay mannerisms and ran with it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Are you implying that a women's medical college is somehow inferior to a man's medical school?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"She made daring arguments in “SCUM Manifesto,” her case for a world without men. But her legacy as a writer and thinker was overshadowed by one violent act."

She made "daring" arguments for killing half the people on the planet. This is the New, New York Times.

Does make one wonder whether intersectionality is really going to work.

Respond

Add Comment

"Her personal history of violent crime overshadowed her advocacy of mass murder."

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't see the problem. I bet Robin might take the suggestion more seriously. It could be a way to reach 'the age of em' quicker anyway.

lol

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You'll find plenty of current employees agreeing with you. It's not as if they are merging into some kind of fox news foil or anything like that: We'd at least understand that, whether we agree with it or not. Everything we've seen recently points to an extreme degradation of company values, leading to plenty of incoherent behavior.

"if they are merging into some kind of fox news foil or anything like that"

Can you imagine if Fox News ran a tribute to John Wilkes Booth with the caption:

"But his legacy as an actor and thinker was overshadowed by one violent act."

Well they are unlikely to run a headline that said "Hitler was a great showman and innovator in transportation whose legacy was over-shadowed by a few isolated violent acts against stubborn resisters"

But I could see them running a headline that described Pol Pot as a pioneer of a low-carbon environmentally friendly form of socialist community whose period in power was overshadowed by some mild excesses towards the former ruling class.

Did they cry over the death of the "peace maker" Yasir Arafat as the BBC did?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I, too, read the times from the age of 10. Then I stopped, 25 years ago.

+1....NYT much more interesting/relevant last century

No longer peruse the NYT but miss the Sunday wedding announcements, always the most interesting feature of the paper.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It was dismally dull when I first read it decades ago.
"How dull?" enquired a friend.
"Duller than Le Monde."
"I didn't know that was possible."

Eh, Le Monde is all right. It's an excellent tool to learn French. That's about all it's good for.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If I encounter someone who takes the NYTimes seriously, I immediately lower my estimation of that person.

It's a very useful and predictive heuristic that has yet to fail me.

You should also apply this rule to The Economist.

The Economist has rapidly feminized. The result is a magazine that replaced the stolid and solidly reasoned articles that made it famous with wellness, self-help pap and increasingly hysterical opinion pieces. I read it religiously from high school but now only hope that it dies before it permanently sullies its reputation.

Amen. What a great disappointment the Economist has become. Sad.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Is there a Straussian reading that would cheer you up, TC?

Respond

Add Comment

" I remain a loyal subscribe"

Why?

Likely because you have to wait about 45 minutes on the phone to cancel.

I take heart from this. If there is a civil war, best it be in the confines of the NYT building in New York. It may be noisy, but quite entertaining.

Since half the readership at the moment seems to have the same problem of an almost impossible to be canceled subscribtion, the internet may help you out:

"If you happened to pay with Paypal you can cancel the Paypal subscription from Paypal's end (and NYT will moan at you over email but that's their problem)"

https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/9qq1p8/trying_to_unsubscribe_from_nytimes/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/07/style/is-there-a-black-upper-class.html

If we have to ask in 2020 whether a black upper class exists, we have a problem. The black upper class founded and ran and still runs many of the premier black institutions, including the NAACP. This is a hundred year old story. Unfortunately the black upper class is not very big, but it is growing.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

What's the problem? In the age of "Black [Men’s] Lives Matter", it almost seems politically incorrect? Is that not the commenters on this site have been arguing for from the NYT?

Respond

Add Comment

Doesn't sound much different than people who choose to remember the good things about racist historical figures.

As usual, there's far less empathy for non-members of the author's tribe.

I'm sorry, what good things are there to remember about this woman?

Maybe john is not an Andy Warhol fan...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

What tribe? The one you've conveniently ascribed because your "point" depended on it?

Respond

Add Comment

Cold blooded attempted murder is worse than racism it’s worse than slavery it’s worse than pretty much everything but murder and rape.

Rape isn't all that bad. If it's a legitimate rape a woman's body has ways of shutting the whole thing down.

Respond

Add Comment

No it’s not. I’d rather survive a murder attempt than be enslaved. Heck, depending on exact slavery conditions I’d probably rather be successfully murdered than be enslaved.

It's possible that you could be un-enslaved, or freed at some point, but once murdered it's all over. That may be why there's so little attention paid to the genocide of the new world natives while there are copious tears shed over the plight of the descendants of slaves, who occupy 55 seats in the national legislature, lead numerous public corporations, have significant roles in US policy, and are daily fodder in the world of sports and entertainment. A slave might be able to be the ancestor of a billionaire television mogul. A native killed for wishing to occupy his own land has no descendants to bring this to the attention of the descendants of ex-slaves.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

But her legacy as a writer and thinker was overshadowed by one violent act.... being Batshit crazy.

+1

To JW and benji. There’s a story to be told involving mental illness, counterculture, the irresponsibility of newspapers and honoring the queer community by remembering overlooked people.

His name is Oliver Sipple.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sipple

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Overlooked is a series of obituaries about remarkable people whose deaths, beginning in 1851, went unreported in The Times. This month we're adding the stories of important LGBTQ figures."

What a way to honor the queer community: by promoting a paranoid schizophrenic homicidal misandrist.

It's a contrast between what they think and what they say they think.

Respond

Add Comment

It's almost as if they are condoning her actions. Like it's a subtle signal to more unstable or radical elements on the left. "We will memorialize you if you kill someone"

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I'd like to kill all these 'rog' males !

Respond

Add Comment

The framing and intro are glib but SCUM is still cited by feminists and there should be room to acknowledge writing which, while not satire exactly, is wild and impressionistic rather than making literal propositions, closer to literature than academic discourse.

I'm not sure students today would be able to say that the positions are extreme. They'd likely find them quite in line with most of the other critical theory they are force fed.

Respond

Add Comment

The problem is when you say you want to kill impressionistically or literately, and then try to. It looks more like malice aforethought.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Hatred for straight (usually white) males is de rigeur.

Courtney Sender (NYTimes) wrote "He Asked Permission to Touch, but Not to Ghost." When Aziz Ansari literally asked for permission, he got accused of rape, while his accuser received media anonymity. So, men get blamed for touching, and for not-touching.

Sarah Jeong (NYTimes) tweeted "Oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men," and "Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins."

Susan Danuta Walters wrote for (Washington Post) "Why Can't We Hate Men." The Washington Post also framed the Covington Boys for wearing MAGA hats.

There is a hateful media agenda. Here is their diversity.
https://www.mic.com/articles/144177/this-tweet-from-a-huffington-post-editor-shows-the-problem-with-white-feminism

Respond

Add Comment

Though Alex seems a bit calm today. My friends - Alex & Tyler.

Respond

Add Comment

The journalists name is Bonnie Wertheim. A simple google search and perusal of her twitter feed reveals a worldview that is mostly to be expected-the usual woke tropes, some orange man bad, heavy BLM status raises, not very deep social criticism, color by numbers feminism. Basically she’s just like every other young woke journalist these days.

I honestly think the journalist in question just has mental health issues. She’s actually probably not that stupid....

+1

"the journalist in question just has mental health issues"

This pinpoints to a problem which wokeness is proliferating:

Every midly discomforted long-term pubescent this side of the poverty level – instead of choosing character-growth via gut, introspection or taking responsibility – can now take what was once considered a gatekeeper to adulthood, blaming others for his erros, and turn it into a virtue. A signalizable virtue and political fight.

Not only does wokeness proliferate narcicism and irresponsibleness. It also keeps those teenagers and young adults from seeking mental help, that need it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The day objectivity died at the New York Times was Aug. 7, 2016. For it was on that day it announced that it had no obligation, just none at all, to cover Trump's candidacy objectively. Because Trump's irrational, they said, and therefore the Clear and Present danger must over-ride considerations of journalistic integrity.

"If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html

And, no, one need not be a Trump fan to realize what a momentous step it was for the NYT to declare that defeating Trump was more important than maintaining even the appearance of integrity.

Trump's presidency will come to an end, but when can the NYT ever restore its journalistic integrity? Or is that one of those things that, once abandoned, is beyond recovery?

Journalistic integrity is not really a valid idea. It's not about a specific ideology, journalism itself is fundamentally non-rigorous and will ultimately reflect the whims and prejudices of the people who produce it. In a country of 300 Million people, any story you want to tell is true. Any anecdote can be turned into a story, and possibly 10 stories. You can fill a newspaper or news broadcast with nothing but "true" stories that seem to promote your agenda--no matter what your agenda is.

+1. The ‘news’ is mostly a collection of anecdotes. One can ‘factually’ support any narrative one wants with the right selection bias.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The sub-head isn't great. I guess the problem is that it seems to imply that the only wrong thing about this gal was that she shot a guy? I can see why that might be offensive to some people, if they're particularly fine-tuned or maybe delicate. But it just doesn't seem worth a blog bleat like this. Is this Cowen character a known snowflake? Is that why he collected so many snowflakes in his commentariat?

Yeah, what’s with all those delicate snowflake Jews that get upset at the mere suggestion by someone that they deserve to be murdered. Like, grow a pair, right? It’s only that someone things you deserve to die for an immutable trait, why is that a big deal?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Well to be fair to old Valerie, men supposedly had much more testosterone back then, a double digit difference so the researchers say. It must have been a real problem.

Some of us still do sweet heart. Some of us still do.

The problem with this line of argument is that Solanas didn't much like any men. She was truly non-discriminatory that way. To quote from her masterpiece (Apologies, it is a bit long):

SCUM will couple bust- barge into mixed (male-female) couples, wherever they are, and bust them up. SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM. Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing ball with SCUM. A few examples of the men in the Men's Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM's goals; faggots, who by their shimmering, flaming example encourage other men to de-man themselves, and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away- money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a woman's primary goal in life would be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavour SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: "I am a turd, a lowly, abject turd," then proceed to list all the ways in which he is. His reward for doing so will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present. Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex); makers and promoters of sex books and movies etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men. Being in the Men's Auxiliary is a necessary but not sufficient condition for making SCUM's escape list; it's not enough to do good; to save their worthless asses men must also avoid evil.

It is interesting to see that she is in favor of men who tell it like it is and put women straight. Some might call that mansplaining. But how did she feel about men who start off calling themselves Turds?

Creeps. Masochists. Probably would love me to spit on them. I wouldn't give them the pleasure.... The men want to kiss my feet and all that crap."

A complex woman.

Poor little harpy. Maybe she'd have been useful in a time of crisis. She probably came from bad people. It's hard to reckon with that straight on, the harder if you are delusional as well. And yet she managed to procreate, something so many women after her forgot to do. So her little torn thread may be woven into the human tapestry along with the coronavirus.

Respond

Add Comment

Having never read the manifesto, I’m amused by the bit where she concedes that they should keep male scientists around. Even Solanas, the ultimate radical feminist, is a product of her times — “math is hard”!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

How anyone can continue to defend the NYT is beyond me. It's increasingly embarrassing to subscribe to the NYT in any way other than ironically.

If you think the Times is bad you should try it’s red headed step child-The Washington Post on for size.

It’s an infinitely more stupid publication.....Although the Times is closing the gap rapidly.

It’s like all the liberal left wing media saw Fox News and Right wing radio in the late 90’s-early 2000’s and said “how can we devolve to that level?”

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I guess I’m just dumber than all the rest of you, but I don’t see what the fuss is about. I read the whole article (being a subscriber), and to me it was an interesting account about a mentally ill lesbian and her crazy ideas and actions, and where they got her (ignominious poverty). Exactly which facts did the writer get wrong? In what passage was there any endorsement by the writer, much less the Times itself, of Solanas’s ideas or actions? Or for Pride month are we only supposed to talk about LGBT people who are paragons of virtue? I found it interesting that some of the NOW membership thought shooting Warhol was a good idea...it adds perspective to how some were thinking at the time.

"But her legacy as a writer and thinker was overshadowed by one violent act.”

... one goat...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

The part where they are Honoring a women who wrote about exterminating half the human race. Then later shot a famous artist multiple times.

Profiles on criminals are fine, but this was celebrating a psychopath.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I actually found the article to be somewhat informative:

"Her attack on Warhol fractured mainstream feminist groups, including the National Organization for Women, whose members were split on whether to defend or condemn her."

That's new to me. So yes, the NYT piece is disgraceful, but if the Times is to be believed then the "mainstream" National Organization for Women is even worse. Is this true?

(And I wonder what non-mainstream feminist groups are like?)

It does not actually seem to be true. Timothy Noah pointed out that this claim seems to be based on the fact that Solanas' lawyer was a member of NOW. No other evidence of NOW members supporting Solanas was provided. I've read a fair amount of radical-feminist blogs and while I have seen some people praise the SCUM Manifesto, they regard it more as an eccentric literary statement than an actual plan of action.

Honestly, radical feminists are harmless, by "radical" standards. They are actually pretty lousy at political coordination, which is why the movement got coopted (by men) away from crusading against porn and prostitution into campaigning in favor of those very things ("sex-positive feminism").

Um no. Noah himself noted that Ti-Grace Atkinson, head of the New York chapter of the NOW supported Solanas. One would also have to ask why Kennedy felt compelled to be Solanas’s lawyer (I doubt it was a coincidence; if she volunteered then that absolutely reflects on her views; imagine a right wing activist going out of his way to volunteer to defend Dylan Roof).

And radicals in general are usually harmless. The same can be said of the stormfront crowd. It’s the fact that an ostensibly mainstream outlet seems somewhat sympathetic to the lunatic radicals that’s disturbing.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Now at the time was run by Betty Friedan, who was an obnoxious human being on an inter-personal level, but tended to have circumscribed aims and was in particular anxious that the organization she founded not be taken over by lesbians. Friedan's brand of outre politics was popular front ca. 1948; Henry Wallace was dead by 1968 and she wasn't pushing that anymore.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Lauding this poor crazy woman with vile ideas doesn't exactly make me jump for joy, but I have to give the NYT credit for doing this sort of thing (at least in the past) for other repugnant figures.

This NYT obituary describes William Pierce, a neo-Nazi leader and the writer of The Turner Diaries. I'd say he had similarly-awful ideas, and he got a similar-length obituary, which also was neutral to sympathetic in tone.

The critical difference is that they weren't honoring him, nor posting this decades after his death, Furthermore they actually posted a rebuttal to his beliefs in the obituary.

"Mark Pitcavage, the national director of fact-finding for the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks racist groups, described Dr. Pierce as ''a cold and calculating racist who openly urged a white revolution and who with his books urged people to take violent acts.''"

Respond

Add Comment

Solanos died more than 30 years ago. Why would an article about her follow the conventions of an obituary?

The point of the series is to run obituaries for people they overlooked, I guess focusing on various kinds of minorities. And I guess when it comes right down to it, murderous schizophrenic lesbians who want to murder all men is a really, really small minority.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I recall reading the SCUM manifesto as a teenager and thinking it was really shocking and offensive. Now it seems more comical, although I don't doubt that Solanas was sincere--she was mentally ill after all.

The NY Times recently was purged of its Gen-X liberal editors and now the hard-left millennials seem to be on the rise there. I wonder if, in 50 years, The NY Times itself will be viewed in much the same way Solanas is now--as a tragic/comic reminder of some madness from the recent past.

What you mean is that the editorial page editor was run out and you assumed it meant this lady's editor? And a new editor came and approved a dippy sub-head to a news story?

Nah, there are only two things going on here. One is that Cowan is acting like a horrified schoolmarm who saw a mouse, and the other is that the bros are depressed that all they believe in is turning to orange good as Trump takes himself down. Most of these comments are displacement activity, like a distressed bird pecking at its feathers because there's nothing else to do. Squawk nonsensically about the NYT when an opportunity arises. The same thing happened in the post about the effects of slavery below, where the bros got all steamed up about BLM because they perceived some argument about slavery that they imagined they might disagree with if they knew anything about it.

Imagine being so sad that you go around making pointless comments like this.

You don't need to have a point when you are able to wield that timeless rhetorical sledgehammer of calling people "bros."

Respond

Add Comment

Just trying to figure out why anyone is interested in this. A lot of commenters seem dimly aware that they are supposed to dislike the NYT, and some of them suspect that there might be something distressing in this story, but that still doesn't explain all the comment on essentially nothing. I'm guessing that the realization that you were conned by the orange man is getting so depressing that you have to try to get excited about something else, anything else.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I don't have a problem with the Solanas article but the NY Times' deterioration is very obvious to everyone who isn't living in the corporate media skinner-box.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

>readers will know that this is not a media-bashing site, nor is it a NYT-bashing site.

Readers are very, very much aware that this is a NYT-worshipping site, and you fear that you will lose your job if you even dare to criticize the place without first issuing forceful disclaimers.

But under no circumstances should you call us "loyal" readers. We are here for the humor value alone. When it's gone, we're gone.

>I can only conclude that something has gone very very badly wrong in the editorial control process.

Kudos to Tyler for reaching a 1992 level of NYT awareness!

Keep at it, my friend!

No shit. You'd think this guy was speaking out against Pol Pot in 1977 Cambodia, based on how terrified he is.

He is a freaking American professor in 2020 who is slightly criticizing a newspaper in a roundabout and apologetic way. And he's scared shitless.

+1 poopy postmodern pop psychology
can you point to one word or sentence in Dr. Cowens blog post that
indicates "fear."
this is

Respond

Add Comment

To be fair, this is Tyler's whole deal, to make himself unassailable by endless obscurantism

to be accurate. one of the most common leftist wingnut tactics is to project "fear" onto people who don't say what they require them to say.
" fear" is the reason nonleftists don't agree with their absurd assertions.
its a cult thing. its a reductive thing and it doesn't belong in the academy

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Come November, Tyler, Alex, and so many highly credentialed readers of theirs are going to have to make a very difficult choice. They (like I) were breast fed on the milk of 'Southern Racists are the WORST,' where we all went to bed with nightmares of Strom Thurmond, John East, Jesse Helms, and Pat Robertson. None of us were taught about Robespierre by our parents. Oh sure, some of us learned about him when we were older, but by then our psychology was pretty firmly in place. So it's a difficult emotional journey for them to actually accept what is happening, much less to fight back or- God Forbid- find common cause with the Right Wing Cranks who showed up talking about the Jews in the pages of the New York Times as we grew up.

But Robespierre is very much on the ballot this November. Maybe not executions, but certainly termination of careers, public life, or whatever. Think about the mentality that allowed millions of people to rationalize the destruction of the Little Sisters of the Poor. That was a turning point.

Dump the psychopath who whips these people up to get re-elected.

The Democrats and the media call the looters out on the street and it is Trump who is the psychopath?

Whatever.

In November you can vote to get more of this with Addled Joe or the best economy since records were kept.

Sigh ...

I wonder, are there people who actually think Trump is a good president? Not that he is not as bad as he is made out, I agree that a lot of the stuff said about him is unjustified ... but actually a good president?

And is Joe Biden uniquely awful? The idiots in the street, the progressives wing ... Biden is not part of that. Right? He has been in politics for the past 30 years. He has committed go bipartisanship.

He basically built the criminal justice system as it is. Sure its hypocritical for him to say he is all BLM now but it's funny that conservatives try to tie him into the current riots. He opposed busing for crying out loud. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump was more liberal on these issues.

And I must add, part of the reason this wing is so loud and riled up is that moderate republicans have lost all credibility by supporting someone who is so obviously corrupt.

The best thing that can happen for the Republican party is that come November we lose and start over around principles. We aren't running against Bernie Sanders. And then we have the credibility to establish trust. It is so much easier to condemn these idiots when Republicans themselves have credibility.

Who is this "we" Kemosabe? I am tired of Leftist like Jennifer Rubin pretending to be Republicans.

I would have had no problems with the old Joe. The mildly racist, tough on crime, friends with segregationists Biden. But that Joe is long gone. We have Woke Senile Joe now.

Trump is a great President. He delivers. He has shown that the experts are frauds. He is doing a better job of being President than the cream of the Ivy League. Record economic growth. Lowest unemployment. No new wars. Tougher trade stance. And he hasn't nuked anyone by mistake. Yet. What's not to like?

This sounds like a word salad from Hannity. He has indeed achieved some things, but many of the promises that made him standout in the primaries and election are mysteriously unremarked upon by his cheerleaders. The border wall improvements seem to be a pale shred of what was promised. We were all supposed to have better cheaper healthcare right now. Maybe you blame congress for that, but I dont remember trump or his apparatus making any concrete attempt to improve healthcare and now is he is just saying end the ACA. As ineffective and inefficient as the ACA may be, ending it will kick a lot of people off healthcare. Re the economy...If you looked at any series of economic data over the past 20 years, you would be hard pressed to find any discontinuity or noticeable trend change pre or post Jan 2017. I will grant that Trump has not started any wars yet. And for that I am thankful. Although Trump has had a few spasms of activating military assets in ways that I , at the moment, consider un-useful. And I will add that I would not have been surprised if Hillary had found someone to blow up by now. His main contribution to the fight against covid was shutting down travel from China, an act that I think was more likely a fortuitous expression of xenophobia versus some prescient act of bold counterthink.

I don’t think he is the antichrist, but he is also not playing 5 dimensional chess, nor is he in way an effective “leader”. He is a world historical level pathological liar and narcissist. He is truly a genius at generating attention and commanding the media. He is a useful idiot to some. A foil to many. An ongoing distraction to nearly all. He is in many ways a sad and tragic character. Indeed, what’s not to like.

The border wall improvements seem to be a pale shred of what was promised.

Yeah! When are we going to see the Orange Man out there on the southern edge of the Gadsden Purchase laying a bead with his own welding machine on an impregnable wall between us and the brown hordes that stream into US Home Depots to buy building supplies and appliances with the money their kids sent home putting new roofs on houses in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I think it’s pretty irrational to fear someone from France 200+ years ago over people who wielded dominant power in the US mere decades ago and in many cases are still alive and still in positions of power or have their protégés in positions of power today.

That said, I agree with you that what happened to Little Sisters of the Poor was atrocious and went too far. But it’s nothing compared to what happened to George Floyd or not being able to unite with their spouses under Trump’s travel bans.

+1 backasswards
there are about 99 other rational/objective reasons not to go the Robespierre route besides "fear"

Well I’m not saying we should go to Robespierre route. But I’m not going to make common cause with American racists who are in many cases still in power for fear of someone from 18th century France like the original post suggested.

Besides, Robespierre ended slavery in France with far fewer deaths than the US civil war, and he also opposed French expansionism and war with Austria, which ultimately killed orders of magnitude more people than Robespierre’s terror did. If Robespierre has not been deposed, there likely would have been no Napoleonic Wars with millions of lives saved. It’s interesting when people treat Robespierre as the villain of the French Revolution when both Louis XVI and Napoleon were indisputably responsible for far more deaths through their warlike foreign policies.

Similarly, the woke crowd might go too far with the PC stuff, but their policies are far less disruptive to actual people’s lives, especially apolitical people’s lives, than the kinds of policies that our right-wing racists have and would like to put into place. I’m willing to tolerate a bit of PC excess if it means an end to racist and xenophobic policies.

the left cult has gone way beyond "a little pc excess"
the fringe right cult is opposed by pretty much everbody

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Vile.

Respond

Add Comment

It's not the editorial control process that has gone badly wrong - there is a sociopathic element to modern leftist culture that allows repugnant ideas to flourish without criticism. The people you know at the Times are not decent people. They are monstrous in their thinking and must be kept from power at all costs.

Well, we know Matt gets it.

Will Tyler ever get it? I mean, literally ever?

Thanks for being a "loyal reader," Matt!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It has been revealed the National Rosadio University is anti-Brazilian!

Respond

Add Comment

I'm not really getting this from someone who says he is a Times subscriber? The "Overlooked no more" is the title of a series. For some time now they have been going back in time and writing Obits for notable people who were overlooked at the time. Being the subject of a Times Obit. just means you're notable, not necessarily some model person who deserves a medal.

I never realized that Andy Warhol had ever been shot. Not did I realize her play and story ended up being played out in so many other pop culture venues like American Horror Story.

And I think Tyler should know that since he had an entire podcast interviewing the woman who writes Times Obits!

Respond

Add Comment

"I never realized that Andy Warhol had ever been shot"

That's understandable since the Simple Minds' 1998 song "Killing Andy Warhol" wasn't a smash hit.

I know this group, if it is anything, is and has always been keen on the modern and pop art scene. It's good that it tolerates those who just remembers Warhol as a white haired guy with Campbell soup cans and Monroe images.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

->->->Hubris
NYTimes is full of graduates of the top universities. Most looking to find out what is wrong with the institutions that make society livable. These reporters are entitled and smart. They are out of touch with much of the United States. They are within what they consider the center of the world.
->->-> Hubris

Indeed. They are young people seeking status within their cohort. Like kids in a class that bores them they compete to draw pictures of whoever is standing in front of the board. The uglier the picture, the higher the status.

Individuation to become an adult can be
-unhealthy blaming one's parents/institutions
-healthy adventure into the world and engaging with learning/knowing the power of one's own agency

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I was surprised at Tyler's lamenting that this article doesn't square with or somehow runs counter to mission or beliefs of BLM.

Black Lives Matter is implicitly anti-male, and explicitly anti-father and anti-nuclear family. Just read their core belief manifesto on their website's homepage and you'll find telling indicators of their latent hostility to men, as well as their overt hostility to the traditional family structure that includes the participation of men in children's lives. So, this article would fit nicely in line with BLM ideology. Oh, there's also a wonderful smattering of Marxist tidbits in case anyone was questioning if that video from 2015 of Patrisse Cullors claiming to be a proud Marxist was outdated or if her views had moderated somewhat. It amazes me that people haven't actually looked into what this organization stands for. I can say this - if their agenda were successfully implemented it would be an unmitigated disaster for the black communities of the U.S.

"Black Lives Matter is implicitly anti-male, and explicitly anti-father and anti-nuclear family. Just read their core belief manifesto on their website's homepage and you'll find telling indicators of their latent hostility to men, as well as their overt hostility to the traditional family structure that includes the participation of men in children's lives. "
What other new excuses can you make up to support torturing and murdering Black men?

-100

Zero reading comprehension.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family ... to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

They use "mother" 3 times, "trans" 4 times, but not "father".

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Andy Warhol was and remains such an iconic New York City figure, his life forever changed by Valerie Solanas's bullet. Yet when Solanas died in 1988, the Times never printed an obituary for her. Her notoriety may not be at the level of Lee Harvey Oswald, but her impact on New York culture still happens to be quite large, even if she is known mainly for the person she chose to try to kill.

Her presence in culture has continued since 1988, as she has appeared as characters in at least 3 plays that I have seen in the last 15 years, one very reviewed well movie that featured her as the lead character, and as recently as 3 years ago, she was featured in an episode of the popular TV show 'American Horror Story'

Yet, if someone watched any of the above, and was curious and wanted to learn more about who Solanas was, you could not find an obituary for her in the Times. You could find one for Typhoid Mary who died in 1938, but not Solanas. The 'Overlooked No More' series, which the Times started this past January, seems to be a very appropriate place for her obituary to finally appear. I found the belated obituary to be truthful, highlighting her troubled life, and viewing her much more as a sad and tragic figure than a positive revolutionary hero.

Of the 15 obituaries that have appeared in the 'Overlooked No More' series, Solanas is the only name I recognized from the initial headline, but I have enjoyed reading all of them.

It may come as a surprise to the dwindling number of NYT subscribers and the MR commentariat but the overwhelming majority of Americans don't read the NYT, don't know who Andy Warhol was, haven't heard of Valerie Solanas, and couldn't care less. This posting was as revealing in some ways as the conversation over the meaning of the film "Parasite".

what did this posting "reveal"?

Apologize for going over your head.

hey genius
that's postmodern sophist b.s.
asking you what the warhol/solanes saga revealed to you doesn't mean that what it revealed to you is over my head. there are already half a dozen takes on the story. what makes yours revelation omniscient?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Lou Reed & John Cale
---I Believe---
Songs for Drella,,, album

"Valerie Solanis took the elevator got off at the 4th floor
She pointed the gun at Andy saying you cannot control me anymore
I believe there's got to be some retribution
I believe an eye for an eye is elemental
I believe that something's wrong if she's alive right now
Valerie Solanis took three steps pointing at the floor
Valerie Solanis waved her gun pointing at the floor
From inside her idiot madness spoke and bang
Andy fell onto the floor"

Even better with Lou's voice and John's chaotic piano:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF1_NeNW74M&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR01l0fP1pVRK6AJwq3GpCUqzgC4nXR-Q51gA8A7GXg7SjorVbW1fIJdbG8

Respond

Add Comment

Even better with Lou's voice and John's chaotic piano:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LF1_NeNW74M&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR01l0fP1pVRK6AJwq3GpCUqzgC4nXR-Q51gA8A7GXg7SjorVbW1fIJdbG8

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

There is absolutely no problem with the Times running this.

There IS a problem with the Times running this and censoring Tom Cottons piece.

Again, the Times opinion section has ran all sorts of stupid shit, it ran monarchist advocates, it ran an editorial piece by the Turkish ambassador defending the torture of thousands ...

But it can't only run extreme positions of one particular side. Ironically I think the times is doing leftism a great disservice by propagating obviously stupid takes.

I agree. The sad thing is this shows that the Times is both biased and incompetent. If it really wanted to advance a left-wing agenda, it should also print right-wing extremist pieces. There’s no shortage of them out there. Just have your typical moderate or apolitical person read the comments on Breitbart or even National Review. They will probably be a Democrat forever after that. The Times does a great disservice to liberals by making it look like your typical liberal wants to literally kill all men while your typical conservative is Ross Douthat.

+1

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I believe that it would be too difficult to exterminate all men, or even to castrate them all. BLM is tilting at windmills.

Respond

Add Comment

The New York Times is an evil organization, an enemy of decency and civilization. Everyone who works there is guilty.

Respond

Add Comment

The Times wants attention, and this strategy is killer. They'll get clicks with the headline, subhead, and lord knows people are checking out those comments, maybe even responding.

This is stellar from an SEO perspective: ppl clicking, staying on the site, sharing the link...

I know it's easy to see the NYT as having a political end, but clickbait works fine as an explanation.

Putting this story as part of an series is also great, in terms of encouraging people to browse further. As a daily reader of the Times, I don't think I ever saw or read any obits from "Overlooked No More". I really like Times obits, too.

Now Tyler, I, and all of you are reading the article. Now I'm not overlooking the overlooked section. Have you told your friends or shared a link?

NYT is killing it. They know what's up. Culture war or not, this is great business. Can anyone see the metrics for this article?

Also: does anyone have another name besides click bait to better characterize this type of article?

Respond

Add Comment

Next up on important LGBT figures: Ernst Röhm

But really I don't know if the article is so harmful, it could be read as satire.

Excellent!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Tyler is a good man. A genuinely good, thoughtful, liberal in the best classical sense. If the world was full of Tylers we would have no problems (though it would be a little dull).

But Tyler is not a fool. He is a man who, by degrees, realises that the sun is setting on the classical vision. On the Republic. Sooner or later he knows he will have to choose. Between the screaming, irrational, atavistic and cannibalistic left, and the forces which have a chance - a chance! - of stopping them. And thus preserving something of the liberal society he craves.

He doesn't want to make that choice. He will linger until the very end, perhaps even after, preserving the hope of a common civic. But eventually, when all else fails, he will join the reaction.

Tyler is a good man. A genuinely good, thoughtful, liberal in the best classical sense. If the world was full of Tylers we would have no problems (though it would be a little dull).

No, he's an other-directed capon.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Speaking of Jounalism errors, NewsHour reporter Yamich Alcindor made a bad error in speaking last night that could give people an impression that things are worse than they are. She said something like, despite being only 13% of the population blacks are more than two and a half times as likely to be killed by police, giving the impression that 2.5x as many blacks as whites are killed by police. That is wrong, I assume it was a faux pas and that she does not really believe that but that is significant enough to need a correction.

Respond

Add Comment

https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1276948848645210114

Respond

Add Comment

You have to unmake history before you can live in the eternal struggle of now for the future utopia.

To quote Marx these people are infantile leftists. Not one of them has a plan tp replace what they want to tear down.

Practically though if it gets too far out of hand I would note that they aren't the side that owns all the guns.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment