The Bari Weiss letter

Here is one part of it:

But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

Do read the whole thing.  And Andrew Sullivan is stepping down at New York magazine.

Comments

This is the same Bari Weiss who first made her bones by trying to cancel people she disagreed with, yes?

Yeah that's the thing she's a major major hypocrit.
The New York Times is dogshit and I believe everything she says there but the thing is she's just as shitty.

If she's one of them finally declaring it wrong isn't that an overall good?

No because she only thinks cancelling is wrong when it is directed at her or people she likes. I haven't seen anything from her regretting her past activities.

"No because she only thinks cancelling is wrong when it is directed at her or people she likes."

This is a phenomenon I've said repeatedly is reminiscent of 'high school girls'. Doesn't/hasn't anyone thought this before? Like so much of our political/social life these days it is quite literally a macrocosm of high-school that we're seeing. It's petty. It's cliquish. It's snarky. It's juvenile. Never mind that it's overtly feminine in character (which btw makes a ton of sense....).

It is completely un-self aware, hypocritical and genuinely self-serving. What is different is that so much of it is so well self-documented that there's literally nowhere for these people to hide when you throw the evidence of it back in their face. In that sense Fbook and Twitter are truly a godsend...except throwing it back at them usually does nothing substantive to show them just how ridiculous it is.

It's tough to feel sympathy for the one scumbag when all the scumbags turn on each other and one of them loses out in the power struggle. That's what this whole thing is.

Yeah, back when Weiss’s allies were running the show ten years ago you only got censored for insufficient support for Da Troopz. She didn’t seem to have a problem with that. Sure it’s great that she’s seen the light, but who wants to bet she’s going to be off the free speech bandwagon the second the pendulum swings back to the right?

I just finished talking about this a la 'water cooler' style with a colleague. An idea and a theory is forming...

He indicated that - within the left - a outsized sample of these scalps they're going after seem to be people in positions of seniority, power, decision-making capacity, or thought leaders. We've seen this before haven't we?

What if so much of what's going on is veiled opportunism and careerism to knock off people at the top to make way and fast-track younger - likely less qualified and less experienced - but hyper-ambitious egotistical 20 and 30 somethings!. It makes some sense when you think about those industries/institutions that are seeing an outsized impact: academia, journalism, arts & culture, political science, literature, etc.

This is less a truly altruistic ambition or search for perfection than it is the children of the corn attempting to take over the village, all while stodgy-old paragons - with seniority - try to hold the ramparts against their ultimate doom and removal to obscurity. You could even say the same about the Democratic party after 2016 when so many of the 'old guard' are in many ways hostage to newcomers like AOC et al....ambitious, vigorous, stupid and otherwise completely unqualified to be anything BUT a politician.

A lot of this begins making sense when seen in this light. People like Weiss, young though they are, are in the way. It fits with the logarithmic velocity we're seeing with the Overton Window these days.

Spot on! That is CLEARLY what the Uhlig imbroglio was about, e.g.

Respond

Add Comment

Logarithmic?! Unless it's a jibe at Andrew Sullivan, in which case it's funny, but too obscure for most.

Respond

Add Comment

There is a recent Dilbert strip that communicates just that.

https://dilbert.com/strip/2020-07-13

Respond

Add Comment

It's a Boomer purge.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I see you trying to position yourself on the right side of history by advertising your youth and commenting savvy via the use of bold type.

While others of us, running and stumbling, fail to even nest our comments correctly.

This idea sounds like a rather haphzard strategy. if you cancel a person at a high level they eill be replaced by another senior level person becuse the position demands it. The millenials they bring on will be likely 35 - 40 year old at minimum, people who have experience with reality. It'll take years of screaming to accomplish their ideal, annd they're unlikely to achieve it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

That just seems harsh. Perhaps she saw the light, perhaps when she was in a stronger position, she wasn't so ruthless internally. I don't know, but this seems like a positive, even without perfection.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"It's petty. It's cliquish. It's snarky. It's juvenile. " I'll give you cryptic, hidden gem of truth that'll explain it all: this is all the doing of females. This is what they do.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

So let me understand your argument. Bad guy X works for bad organization Y, but because bad guy X is a bad guy we can’t take anything seriously that they say about bad organization Y?

That seems really stupid. By your logic, we shouldn’t learn about Naziism because after all the primary source material will be a lot of former and current Nazis.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

+1

My thoughts exactly. If she thinks what's going on right now represents some kind of terminal velocity in how bad things will get in 'cancel culture' she - and by extension those who might agree with her but are silent at the 'paper of record - has another thing coming.

It's called a purity spiral. The speed with which you must keep up is and will continue logarithmically until the 'new woke' team member of today is 'old guard' by tomorrow morning.

This stops when the economic axiom, "people only change when the cost of changing is less than the cost of staying the same", goes into full effect and 'being woke' ceases to provide any benefit of any kind. We are nowhere near that point. Like all things it will be a wall, crashed into at high velocity, with significant pain and jaw-dropping suddenness.

+1, if Left leaning Centrists like Andrew Sullivan and Bari Weiss are being pushed out of the main stream, then clearly there's a ideological tilt in progress to the far Left.

You're a bird-brain and Andrew Sullivan is a fossil from the 2004 mediascape who reads him any more?

-1

Two ad hominems does not a rebuttal make. If you have a logical argument then make it.

😂

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I think that Sullivan has long considered himself to be a conservative in the mold of Burke and Oakeshott, even if he was also effectively the first-mover for the most successful movement on the left in our lifetime (gay marriage).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yoram Hazony explicitly warned Bari Weiss that she was contributing to this back in 2018. See the following tweet and the back and forth with Hazony:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/966781463365636101

One of Yoram Hazony's replies says:

I don’t write the rules. But delegitimizing your political opponents instead of arguing with them will end democracy. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try it.

Well, Bari Weiss did proceed to try to delegitimize her political rivals.

Yep. Hoisted by her own petard with only the tears of Tyler Cowen to be heard.

Respond

Add Comment

One squaw tongues my fart-hole while another stores my seed in her mouth. Hey, no bullshit can come out of their traps when they're being used to service me, right?

Respond

Add Comment

Yoram Harzony complains that she used the word "ilk" to refer to right-wing intellectuals she dislikes (and may well despise, as Yoram says the word indicates). But her tweet complaining about them hardly amounted to a demand that they be fired or deplatformed.

ilk- a type of people or things similar to those already referred to.

i can't find where she tried to deplatform someone because they held the wrong views.

maybe i'm missing something, but its not in that tweet thread.

There is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o69Y-lI_ED0

There is also this: https://mondoweiss.net/2018/03/advocate-reportedly-intellectual/

Are you seriously linking to a mondoweiss article as evidence of something? Same league infowars and alter-net, one step below gateway pundit and common dreams.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

True, Weiss didn't demand that the figures be fired or deplatformed.

She did accept Hazony's claim that she despised them and the entire CPAC and conservative movement they were affiliated with. And she was speaking of them as not legitimate and not worthy of argument or debate.

Yoram Hazony warned her, that such action would lead to the end of democracy.

Respond

Add Comment

How about this one:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/797952287591243776
Bari Weiss's full tweet: "Steve Bannon is an enemy of the Jewish people."

that was in response to an ambassador tweeting: "We must never forget that political opponents are not enemies and that there is no cause that justifies murder."

I the presume the people at the NYT pressured Bari Weiss to exit in a similar fashion.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If even she can't fit in at the Times anymore, perhaps they've got problems.

Respond

Add Comment

What George is referring to:

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/

There’s an argument that she was 19 and has since matured. Or that she’s realized she was morally wrong. There’s also an argument she hasn’t and it’s all hypocrisy.

YMMV

Someone show me something she's said or written apologizing for this. Otherwise I think it's clear it's all hypocrisy and she's only against people cancelling her and her friends not against the idea of cancelling in general.

Perhaps so, but hypocrisy is the complement that vice pays to virtue. The most parsimonious solution is that both Ms. Weiss and the NYT are engaging in poor behavior and both should desist.

The fact that she makes several objective, verifiable claims should be sufficient for the NYTs to disprove her claims. I mean all they would need to do is turn over private information, of the sort the New York Times has repeatedly printed without the owners consent, to prove her wrong.

Or perhaps they could go great guns and invite the duly elected senator from the state of Arkansas to put forth another essay that 64% of Americans thought was fit to print. Which is not surprising given that the triggering opinion was supported to some degree by 58% of Americans (rising to 71% if it was the Guard instead of the military itself).

But my guess is that the NYT will still hold itself above the level of transparency it wishes and has attempted to force on others. They will continue to hold that opinions backed by the majority of Americans are "unfit to print".

Frankly, it would be hilarious to see some prosecutor take them in front of a jury for false advertising. As is, Ms. Weiss is just another datum showing the NYT is well along the way of becoming an ideological hack job.

Once again a superb comment from Sure.

It was just another "Gray Lady bad" rant.

thats a reductive analysis of Dr. Sures comment
we counted 4 solid assertions all of which are worded in a way
that they could potentially be falsified by the nyt

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Read (quickly) this intercept's paper. It furnishes absolutely no evidence go what he claims, namely that college-student Bari Weiss attacked
academic-freedom of some of her Arab professors at Columbia.

Saying that someone is racist is not an attack of academic freedom, it is a statement of fact, which can be discussed and refuted or agreed wit in the context of academic freedom.

Besides, there should be some racists in the university
for the sake of diversity of opinion on controversial and unresolved subjects. I think that the actual rate of racists (probably >80% among the faculty of the major universities) is too high, but that is only my personal opinion.

Oh come on. It is obviously an attack on Academic discourse. Academic discussions have two basic rules - 1. You play the ball, not the man (meaning you can attack someone's ideas but not them personally) and 2. You do not call in the police.

Accusing someone of racism is such bad faith it violates the first. So what if someone is a racist? It doesn't mean their ideas are wrong. It also comes close to violating the second

I think calling someone a racist is quite, quite different from calling their boss and asking them to be fired or something like that. It may be in bad taste, but lots of stuff is in bad taste.

To many, saying someone is racist and that they should be fired are inseparable. This is a core tenet of antiracism.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yes. But, she got that "start" as a student. Are we beyond excusing behavior that is, literally, sophomoric? I don't know where she stands on what she did as a student activist but I'd be willing to let her grow beyond it.

??? Why would I also not more easily believe that she is just using this as a shield now because it's suits her but she has not changed at all.

Why do we care again?

If she has had a change of heart, her objective claims still rise or fall on their own.

If she is shilling to protect private failings, her objective claims rise or fall on their own.

If she is a flagrant hypocrite her objective claims rise or fall on their own.

I mean huge numbers of people who have played the "silence those to far beyond the pale" game and are now finding the mob turning on its own. This is either a sign of a new outbreak of hypocrisy or it is a sign that things are getting objectively worse.

If even the old masters of the mob are no longer safe, this bespeaks far worse for the hoi polloi.

Because hypocrisy is an adjunct to vice, not virtue.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

the jacobins always seem like such good people, until it's your turn

I just swallowed audibly.

Respond

Add Comment

But Fox News fired Blake Neff! Who nexT?

Respond

Add Comment

Bari Weiss wasn't cancelled. She's just leaving a hostile work environment.

This is a better Cancel Culture story:

"Museum Curator Resigns After He Is Accused of Racism for Saying He Would Still Collect Art From White Men"

https://reason.com/2020/07/14/gary-garrels-san-francisco-museum-modern-art-racism/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Some important context: https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-bari-weiss-embodies-its-worst-failings-and-its-lack-of-viewpoint-diversity/

In short, Weiss does not add viewpoint diversity to the New York Times as her views, particularly on the foreign policy topics she writes on most frequently, are also shared by many other columnists such as Bret Stephens, David Brooks, and Thomas Friedman, while there is no regular columnist who takes the opposite view from Weiss on these issues. Furthermore, Weiss herself has a long history of trying to cancel her own critics, such as having tenure denied to pro-Palestinian professors.

Yeah, anyone (Tyler) who takes this seriously is a clown. Bari Weiss built her career back in her college days trying to get people cancelled for not towing the line she wanted.
I think the New York Times is trash and she's definetly right that it's a paper that only cares about pandering to its reader's anti-Trump sentiments but she is probably the absolute worst person to be getting up on a high horse about that.

Respond

Add Comment

> pro-Palestinian

If you are merely for Palestine, then OK. But if your support of Palestine means the destruction of Israel, then that's a problem. Granting tenure to that person should be as rare as granting tenure to a professor of southern history who is also a grand wizard in the KKK.

Our universities are full of people who openly call for the wide scale murder of jews. If you don't believe it, watch the video of David Horowitz at UCSD. It's chilling.

I'm not really going to get into a really stupid round-about concerning this and if that was really the case or not. But it does pretty much mean you believe in cancel culture and it's just a matter of which politics do we cancel people for having and which jobs are you allowed to have or not have based on which set of beliefs you have.
So it isn't any kind of moral high ground.

Not being in favor of Cancel culture doesn't mean you have to hire extremists. Generally speaking one would expect that Centrists papers would hire people from the middle 60-80%.

Joseph Massad is an extremist equivalent to a KKK Grand Wizard?
No one was talking about her trying to cancel someone at the NYT, it was at Columbia.
The reason I have to call you names you bumpkin is because it's clear you come here to post earnestly but you don't even know the actual topic.

Keep diggin', smart guy.

Respond

Add Comment

No, the reason you call me names is because your incapable of making a logical defense.

Furthermore, your reading comprehension is subpar. I didn't say that Joseph Massad was the equivalent of a KKK Wizard. You are attempting to establish a false dichotomy. Joseph Massad can still be a from the Left 81 percentile and not be the same as KKK Wizard from the Right 99th percentile.

He's clearly an extremist. He holds positions from the Left that if someone were to hold from the Right, they would never be hired for a professorship.

""In nearly all of his lectures, professor Massad found a way to denounce Israel and the West," Ms. Weiss, who received an "A" for the course, said."

"Israel is: a) a Jewish supremacist state, b) the worst human-rights abuser in the Middle East, c) a major factor preventing the democratization of the Arab region, or d) all of the above.

If you answered "d," you would fit right in at a core-curriculum course at Columbia University taught by an assistant professor of modern Arab politics, Joseph Massad"

So that would be cancelling someone which Weiss is supposedly against but as I said, not really.
Those are her words to describe the course? So how do I know she didn't just lie as part of her hit job?
Also it's mostly fine to have an "extremist" view as a professor as long as you have strong arguments supporting it. I have no idea what he said in reality but he could have made all of those points and if, as an academic, he had solid supporting evidence then why should he be fired? If he is ranting without real supporting arguments or evidence then he should be fired for that but that doesn't seem like it was ultimately the case despite Bari Weiss' claims.

" He holds positions from the Left that if someone were to hold from the Right, they would never be hired for a professorship."

Well that would be wrong but being really against cancel culture means you don't support it in either case not that you want to "fight fire with fire" and use cancel culture for your advantage.

As an aside and I don't want to turn it into a whole argument about ti but Point "a" seems pretty hard to argue against nowadays with the recent citizenship law so I see the case is pretty damn weak.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

> just a matter of which politics do we cancel people for having and which jobs are you allowed to have or not have based on which set of beliefs you have.

There is a difference between an extremist (0.0001% of the population) and the middle 50% of the population. Cancelling an extremist might very well be OK if their views are dangerous or reprehensible by modern standards. If SPLC is to be believed, there are perhaps a few thousand hard core white nationalists in the country. That is 0.0003% of our population.

The problem is that today there's a move to equate 50% of the population with extremists and cancel them. But if half the country holds your view or participates in your practices, they are by definition not in the extreme can cancelling should NOT be an option.

You seriously don't see the difference?

No that's total bullshit because you are basically claiming we should fire people who's opinions do not fit the mainstream - so if someone doesn't tow the mainstream line they should be fired. That's basically cancel culture - rule by mob.

Legitmately advocating violence or something like that sure, but what is the REAL evidence that that happened in this case outside of Bari Weiss' hitjob?

No, I had the qualifier that their views need to be dangerous. For example, believing the earth is flat is OK. But believing we need to kill people that believe the earth is round is a problem. The former can speak at a university, the latter probably shouldn't.

I'd also add in age and stature as a consideration. That is, if you believe in something dangerous, but you are 16 and nobody knows your name, then I'm more lenient than if you are 40 and everyone knows your name and you have a following.

In short, it's complicated. But firing someone because they won't say "Black Lives Matter" is wrong. Firing someone for saying "all lives matter" is wrong too, becuase a huge % of the population believe that.

To summarize:

1) Is your viewpoint rare?
2) How old are you?
3) Do you have a large following?
4) Does your belief physically hurt others if carried out?

All of the above matter in deciding if someone should be canceled or not. Today, have no problem destorying a 15 year old with no following who believes something 50% of the country believes and doesn't hurt anyone.

If you can't see the difference between that and the leader of the KKK, then I can't help you.

Oh fantastic I'm glad you made a checklist so we know when to cancel people. Why don't you go hand it out on Twitter you bird-brain?

I mean basically you don't care about the content of an idea it's just if 50% of the population agrees or not, so if someone manages to convince enough people of anything then it's all good.
So like abolitionism, when it started out maybe was "rare" that should be cancelled - I'm sure people back then would make the argument that freeing slaves constituted a form of violence.

The fact is we are specifically discussing the case of Bari Weiss who tried to get some Columbia professors cancelled, not fucking KKK members. Which is why Bari Weiss is a fraud and no honest person who isn't trying to grind and ax or score political points should shead a tear.

It really is YOU who cannot tell the difference.
That's the thing you aren't any different than the leftist mob who demands that if you don't following their exact specific little line of reasoning you need to be cancelled.

> So like abolitionism,

Canceling abolition does NOT cause physical harm to anyone. In fact, it helps people. So, nice try, see rule 4.

> who tried to get some Columbia professors cancelled,

A Columbia professor that wants to Israel pushed into the sea. That is a rare viewpoint, and it hurts people. See rules 1) and 4).

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

> That's the thing you aren't any different than the leftist mob

Except I wont' try to get you fired unless you physically assault me. My rule in life is don't be a dick. I've never told on anyone. I've never called on anyone to be fired. I've never participated in a boycott for a commonly held belief. I am the exact opposite of the twitter mob.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

She is also part of the anti-BDS movement that the harms pro-Palestine groups when they exercise their right to free speech via boycott and divestment. This isn't mere shaming on Twitter. This is loss of employment and contracts for mere speech.

Yesterday, Missouri became the 32nd state in the US to pass anti-BDS laws.

https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/missouri-joins-31-other-states-in-passing-anti-bds-legislation-635025

BDS is fine if you are applying it equally across the board. But if you are giving other countries a pass for the same thing you are condemning Israel for, then you are being racist. In other words, if Israel is the 4th country you've passed sanctions against, then OK. But if they are your first and only, then that's a big, big problem. That is racist.

How is BDS racist when there are Arab and non-Jewish groups living in Israel as full citizens? It seeks to affect change at the government level, it is not targeted toward any one particular ethnic or religious group. On the other hand, these anti-BDS laws are illiberal and it's only purpose is to silence dissenting points of view.

If Uyghurs around the world boycott China, do you consider that racist?

BDS asserts that Israel is denying fundamental rights to others. But the mideast is full of governments denying rights to women and to gays. By selectively applying the concern for human rights just to Israel is the problem. Jim Crow south had a bunch of laws that existed merely to make the lives of black people harder, even though white people would have been tripped up by those same laws if applied to them.

In Jim Crow south, blacks were given nearly impossible tests in order to vote. Whites got the skip the test completely. Ding ding ding! That's a problem.

Under BDS, Palestine treats gays and women terribly. But they get a pass for that treatment and instead want the rest of the world to punish Isreal for their exemplary treatment of gays an women (and palestinians).

You seriously don't see the problem?

Nah man when people want to be effective at moving something forward they need to concentrate on a specific issue. You are just like all the other cancel-culture warriors who have too much online-brain disease. They need everyone to do everything in the purist possible way or else they're racists, they're scum blah blah blah blah blah.
There was a similar movement aimed at South Africa in the 1980s, it would be the same logic to complain about them because they didn't include the USSR or Saudi Arabia in their program.
That isn't how anything works in the real world it only works like that in your deranged internet addled brain.
That'll be all from me because I'm getting too much internet brain poisoning being on this site.

You are just the other side of the same damn coin. Nothing else.

Respond

Add Comment

I see that you failed to answer a basic question.

Q: "How is BDS racist when there are Arab and non-Jewish groups living in Israel as full citizens?"

Your Answer: "BDS asserts that Israel is denying fundamental rights to others. But the mideast is full of governments denying rights to women and to gays."

So it is not applied to a race. It is applied to a government. Governments are not races.

Later Answer: "Under BDS, Palestine treats gays and women terribly."

Yes, that is a concern but the issue here is racism. A charge that you levied and brought up first but don't seem committed enough to stand behind and tried to move the goalposts unsuccessfully to gays and women which are not related to racism. I appreciate the lesson on Jim Crow but admit it, you failed to make the case that BDS is racist.

My conclusion: At the end of the day, these are political opinions to us as Americans. As such the pro-BDS side should be able to speak their mind without the force of law preventing their right to free speech. The anti-BDS laws deny this fundamental constitutional right and makes that side look really bad like they are authoritarians. If you don't like BDS then make the case using speech, but don't use the power of the government to silence other voices. Do you not see the problem?

> Yes, that is a concern but the issue here is racism.

Your argument is because SOME of the people in the Israeli government are not jewish? That is it? You are seriously playing the "some of my best friends are black, how could I be racist?" angle?

Racism is an issue of human rights. Treating people poorly due to immutable characteristics is very bad. Whether gay, female or Jewish. Do you really need this spelled out like this?

> As such the pro-BDS side should be able to speak their mind without the force of law preventing their right to free speech.

How about you FIRST go after governments that walk gay people blindfolded off roofs. And then, after you've convinced me you are an honest broker, if Israel is really the next worst baddie on the list, then I'll go after them with you.

But my guess is that there are many, many more foes in the middle east to go after that are far, far worse than Israel. But you don't want to go after Israel because you simply want a club to beat them with because you don't like Jews. I get it. Those that practiced Jim Crow liked to pretend they were godly men, just seeking what was right.

Always be on the looking for those feigning justice in order to administer their hate.

Your argument is because SOME of the people in the Israeli government are not jewish? That is it? You are seriously playing the "some of my best friends are black, how could I be racist?" angle?

I think it is more of a "Your shield can be my shield too" sort of thing. When Israel and it supporters want, suddenly Israel becomes a multi-ethnic state. When they don't, it is back to being a Jewish state. Someone else can do that too. Not a good argument but not an invalid one either.

Racism is an issue of human rights. Treating people poorly due to immutable characteristics is very bad. Whether gay, female or Jewish. Do you really need this spelled out like this?

Which is interesting come from someone *defending* Israel, you know, a state built on the basis of discriminating against people on the basis of one of those immutable characteristics. By all means, let's not discriminate against anyone on the basis of immutable characteristics. So anyone born in, say, Jaffa ought to be allowed to reside in Israel along with all their descendents, right?

How about you FIRST go after governments that walk gay people blindfolded off roofs. And then, after you've convinced me you are an honest broker, if Israel is really the next worst baddie on the list, then I'll go after them with you.

So it is racism if Israel is first on the list? How about if it is second? Does it have to be last? I have a friend who does charity work in Georgia. Because he is from the other Georgia. Coincidence as it turns out. He does like the other Georgians but he knew nothing of them when he started. It was not because he hatred Armenians or Azeris. Someone born in Jaffa might find the issue of Palestinian more compelling than the Kurds. Myself, I tend to care more about the Armenians, then the Kurds with Palestinians way down the list. That too is not racism but contingency.

In the end I have no obligation to convince you I am acting in good faith if objectively speaking my actions are not obviously not in good faith. But you do have an obligation to accept them as such until shown otherwise. That is just common decency.

But my guess is that there are many, many more foes in the middle east to go after that are far, far worse than Israel.

I would agree. But it is also absurd to accuse Sitting Bull of anti-White racism because he was busy killing Custer and not worrying about the rise of Prussian militarism. He was perfectly entitled to kill the people in front of him, on his land, at that time

But you don't want to go after Israel because you simply want a club to beat them with because you don't like Jews. I get it.

Again, in other contexts this is called Clown Nose off. There is a vast overlap between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Vast. But not complete. Someone violently opposed to Israel may not be opposed to Jews. But it is convenient for you to smear them all the same way. Does the BDS movement call for the boycott of Jewish American businesses? If not, it is anti-Zionist and not particularly anti-Semitic. But hey, some clubs are cool because they work so well, right?

Always be on the looking for those feigning justice in order to administer their hate.

Indeed. I think that the Cancel Culture grew out of parts of the Jewish community piling on anyone they suspected of anti-Semitism. White people are nice so they agreed to go along. It has become more secular and left wing but it is still there.

In the meantime I notice that the Palestinians have been told they need to give up violence and engage politically and they will be rewarded. Well they have, sort of, given up on violence and as soon as they engage in a peaceful political protest, the pro-Israel lobby seeks to ban people's First Amendment rights in order to stop it. So even peaceful protest is to be banned. I think the BDS movement is a good thing. No one dies. I doubt it will work and I won't support it but how can peaceful political action be a bad thing? Because it might work?

This is the culture Bari Weiss grew up in and used to her advantage. Now it has bitten her. Tough. There are real victims of cancel culture. She is not one of them.

I don’t particularly like anti-BDS laws. However, I do think BDS itself is a creature of “cancel culture”/
thoughtless liberal tribalism.

The amount of international attention and concern around Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is out of all proportion to the actual badness of Israel’s conduct. This is difficult to explain in my view, so perhaps calling it anti-semitism in a non-rigorous way is useful shorthand. Why aren’t we BDS’ing China or the entire rest of the Middle East for example? What about Israel makes it uniquely important or even unusually bad compared to other countries?

I agree the criticism Israel gets is disproportionate. i also agree that some of the people criticizing Israel do so in bad faith - Noam Chomsky for instance would love to do much worse.

But it is the Clown Nose On/Clown Nose Off thing again. Israel gets disproportionate positive attention from Westerners too - especially people most Jews don't much like like Evangelicals. Because Israel. No one I know has ever complained about that.

So Israel wants to b e part of the Western club?, take part in Eurovision?, get US aid and Western sympathy? Fine. Being a member of the club means following the Club's rules. Ahh, but suddenly the nose comes off. We can't judge Israel the same as Syria? We can't judge Israel by the same Western standards we support her for?

By all means I would love a BDS movement aimed at China and the entire Middle East. Trump seems on it. A much more Just and reasonable choice than picking on Israel.

The end goal of BDS is to de-legitimize Israel in the same way they did with South Africa, and the South of the US and now the Founding Fathers. I think they may succeed.

> I agree the criticism Israel gets is disproportionate.

That is the ENTIRE point.

This is nothing like South Africa. South Africa was the most overt example we had of one piece of western civilization lagging far behind the others. It made perfect sense to focus the efforts of the western world there. Israel, however, is not South Africa. Not even close. And two even try to conflate the two underscores how little you understand about apartheid.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Some part of it is we expect Israel to be better. We do not have those expectations of others. Much the same would happen to Canada or England.

Respond

Add Comment

+1
Exactly.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

An antisemite used to be someone who hates Jews; nowadays an antisemite is someone Jews hate.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

LOL Yeah see that is exactly why you guys are full of shit. It's all just your opinion man.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

BDS can hardly complain, though, when its own exclusionary tactics are used against it.

+1
A boycott movement has no right to complain about boycotts.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It seems that every week there is another example of an increasingly left-leaning public figure getting fed up with the extremists. Then we have some hope that "Wow, this movement has become too much even for Bari Weiss. Maybe sanity will prevail." And yet, it does not.

Because anyone who takes Bari Weiss seriously is a bird-brain.

So let me understand your argument. Bad guy X works for bad organization Y, but because bad guy X is a bad guy we can’t take anything seriously that they say about bad organization Y?

That seems really stupid. By your logic, we shouldn’t learn about Naziism because the primary source material will be a lot of former and current Nazis?

That's why you need to rely on multiple sources. In this case anyway I mean Bari Weiss is a hypocrit. Using your analogy it would be more like treating an ex-Nazi with respect because they were all along for going into Poland but quit because they didn't agree with invading Greece.

Respond

Add Comment

That's basically what passes for argument these days (including the first several comments on this blog post) yes. In the past, it was considered fallacious to attack the arguer instead of the argument; now it's considered not just acceptable, but mandatory.

This is what makes me convinced that nothing is going to change soon. Even people arguing against Cancel Culture fundamentally only do it because their group is in the cross hairs. The instant someone they want canceled says something they don't like, they adopt every problematic aspect of Cancel Culture.

How exactly is Person A *resigning* from a position (nb: because people who said mean things about her were not punished, aka canceled) at a paper to go to work on the wingnut welfare train (see: her coming fun with Rogan)... an example of that person being *canceled*? She had a huge microphone, and decided to work elsewhere.

And as for the ad hominen (started by my first comment): I take the argument against Action X less seriously when it is being proffered by someone who has routinely and without any sense of self-awareness engaged in Action X. If this were a matter of empirical scientific discovery, no, it wouldn't matter much. But it isn't. This is a collection of assertions about "the way things are." What exactly is the well-argued point in her resignation letter we should be "engaging" with?

Bari Weiss isn't a victim of Cancel Culture. She's just getting out of a toxic work environment, where people are hostile to Centrist opinions. This really isn't a Cancel culture issue. It's an intolerance issue.

JWatts:

That's how it looks to me, too. Weiss sees an opportunity to do something else that will be a nicer job in better condition with fewer hostile assholes as coworkers, so she's taking it. Good for her.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"How exactly is Person A *resigning* from a position at a paper..."

One argument would be that companies are notorious for not firing people, but "allowing" them to resign after making it clear that the company has no interest in that person working there. This ranges from not giving the person any work, to only giving them crap jobs, to outright harassment--and that's in good companies, ones that have strong cultures of ethics and worker safety. Bad companies get much, much worse. I've seen it happen a LOT in the private sector. There are various incentives for it after all. Simply put you cannot use the fact that someone resigned as evidence that they left voluntarily, not anymore anyway. That she had a job lined up equally doesn't sway my opinion. It's quite common to see the writing on the wall and stick it out until you have another gig lined up.

A good manager knows how to keep good employees and get rid of bad ones. It doesn't take all that much effort to make an employee resign.

"I take the argument against Action X less seriously when it is being proffered by someone who has routinely and without any sense of self-awareness engaged in Action X."

I agree that past performance can set the priors. What I disagree with is people refusing to adjust their interpretation to account for the actual text. Edgar Allen Poe was a notorious liar, yet people reading his literary criticisms still read them before arguing that they are not valid (an amusing exercise if you're so inclined; Poe was a liar, but a plausible one).

Respond

Add Comment

Weiss is simply lamenting the downfall of the New York Times.

I don’t find this to be a cancel culture issue at all. This is just a status lower for the NYT because she decided to leave.

The paper has issues. Her strongest argument is that their coverage is becoming too ideologically narrow, culturally Marxist, and the gravitational pull of that viewpoint is blocking out any balance, centrism or heterodox ideas.

Ideological rigidity and fitting the news to fit the narrative will destroy any journalistic enterprise. That’s the core issue at hand with the NYT. It’s not that progressive politics or progressive filtering of the news is morally wrong, it’s that the paper doesn’t do anything else but that anymore and that’s simply not enough to keep the NYT as the NEW YORK TIMES.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I appreciate how she's laid it all out -- but suspect she would still be happily complicit if things were just a teeny bit less nasty and personal.

"...but suspect she would still be happily complicit if things were just a teeny bit less nasty and personal."

1000x this. She is upset because she lost battle #14,323 in World War Woke. She would happily be complicit if she was one of 'the popular girls' dishing it as opposed to the receiving wrath from woke infants.

This is the 100% the correct take here. That's why anyone defending her, including Tyler Cowen, is just out trying to score political points

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

So... Readers of the NYT will be greeted by missives from one fewer elite writer telling them not to talk back to their betters?

Respond

Add Comment

Maybe the NYT doesn't matter anymore.

Let's be real it still matters. On the other hand, it's been in decline for years. It certainly hasn't handled the Trump years in a moderate fashion.

Respond

Add Comment

The NYT matters, in the same way that Fox News matters. It is the home of a particular narrative which many Americans support. It just doesn't report the news very well anymore.

After the 2016 election, the NYT couldn't see past the Trump years to where being a moderate multi-faceted voice would have value again. When they looked around and saw that not only the left wing intelligentsia but also the right wing intelligentsia were appalled by Trump, they decided that they should go on a moral crusade. But a moral crusade is not journalism. Since the Trump election they have slipped into a pattern where there is a NYT "narrative", linked to the crusade, and only things that support that narrative are acceptable content in the paper. As soon as Trump leaves the scene they'll discover that they've become institutionally incapable of anything but anti-Trump crusading.

Can they recover? Not while Trump is in office, so for the NYT's sake, we should hope for a Biden victory. I suspect that they can't, though. They've allowed the crusade to deeply affect their hiring and editing practices. Once Trump is gone, they'll discover that they don't have the people to produce multi-faceted journalism, and that their editing style is stuck in a crusading rut that will be hard to get out of.

I gave up my subscription a few months ago. No regrets. I hope the NYT recovers in a few years, but I think it unlikely.

Their narrative style of journalism, where they have to unfold a story is tiresome. Instead of telling you the astronaut stepped onto the ladder at at 9:03AM, we have to hear their insufferable journalist imagine the smoothness of the ladder, and weight the heft of the boots on the rungs, and appreciate how it's not just the US landing on the moon, but every man and woman, and especially black trans women. Even though there isn't a real black trans woman in the capsule, and hey, isn't that a problem?

Because anymore, every journalist is a brand, looking to make the jump to TV. The days of a nameless automaton pulling down a median wage + 20% and tirelessly sticking to the 5 W + H is long gone.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Bari gets her own post with a "do read" note.

No mention of Blake Neff on MR.

I'm not sure what to make of the media narrative relativism.

Blake Neff isn't part of the "right group of people". I love it how you don't realize what this blog is all about.

Well, thank god someone here has all the answers then.

Respond

Add Comment

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/media/tucker-carlson-writer-blake-neff/index.html

Just googled this (I had no idea who Blake Neff was) and clicked on this CNN *Business* article. It should sincerely scare the shit out of every commenter on this blog.

So much for anonymity.

How does anyone here know that some moderator of this blog won't send an anonymous e-mail to CNN linking a pseudonym to somebody's real name (note you must include an e-mail address to make a comment. i have reason to believe the moderators erase comments associated with e-mail address that appear phony, even if they're not) to their pseudonym?

At that point, who cares if what you said was satirical, not an embodiment of who you actually are, or simply arguing for the sake of arguing? Who cares if you didn't actually say anything inappropriate, but simply tolerated other inappropriate comments?

You'll be crucified.

I started posting with my real name everywhere a couple of years ago. Why?
1. It would be a better world if everyone was held accountable for their words.
2. It makes me hesitate before posting stupid or inflammatory things.
We can add to that:
3. How anonymous are your posts, really? It seems not at all, if the right people are determined to find out who you are.

I'm a non-tenure track lecturer at an American university (google me), so I could be subject to discipline by the school or "cancelled" by students, but you can't live your life in fear. I've been fired before, and lived to tell about it.

I agree with the sentiment for the most part, especially #2.

However, sometimes anonymity is important re: Scott Alexander discussion

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Neff outed himself by posting pictures with his own reflection in them under an account he'd used for years.

That Tucker's main writer was a white nationalist is far more meaningful than this cancel culture and Bari Weiss crap. Boomers (like Tyler, I guess) are very emotionally drawn to the cancel arguments because they've been studiously ignoring white nationalism on the right for decades and won't touch that narrative with a ten-foot pole.

I read the CNN article about Neff. Nowhere in it does it allege that Neff (or CharlesXII) is a white nationalist. It doesn't even use the phrase. The ugliest things they can attribute to him (rather than other posters) are mocking women he's connected to on social media as "shrews". So I'm somewhat surprised you're not tarring him as a sexist/misogynist instead.

nbc just redefined white supremacy
The Grio, the NBC News website “devoted to providing African-Americans with stories and perspectives that appeal to them,” declared billboards proclaiming “Blue Lives Matter” to be an example of white supremacy.

In what reads as an opinion piece curiously filed under “news,” the Grio declares, “Blue Lives Matter billboards don’t honor fallen officers, they discredit black humanity.”

Writer Lincoln Blades writes, “when I heard that advertising agencies were planning to post billboards honoring fallen police officers, I immediately thought it would be a great idea. But, once I saw the actual billboards themselves, with the words ‘Blue Lives Matter’ printed boldly across the billboard, I instantly felt sick to my stomach.”

A Louisiana based advertising company donated 302 billboards to the campaign to honor police officers. Stephen Herbert of Lamar Advertising, the company that donated the signs, said, “We wanted to recognize the local police departments and men and women that put their lives on the line everyday. I don’t know how they do it and we just wanted it to be part of the community.”

But The Grio sees it differently:

Specifically using the words “Blue Lives Matter” as a counterpoint to “Black Lives Matter,” the ridiculous and anti-intellectual creators of this campaign have firmly decided that propagating their white supremacy will be best masked under the guise of mourning men and women who died in the line of duty.

The Grio, however, is not alone. MSNBC, which recently made significant on-air changes away from their progressive activism to appear less partisan, has a report entitled “‘Blue Lives Matter’ Billboards Spark Controversy.” In it, they write, “The intent of the campaign may be laudable, but the timing and pattern of the message has been interpreted by some as an effort to co-opt, diminish, or damage the significance of the original movement.”

The MSNBC report, however, cites only the New York Times Editorial Board and the President of Connecticut’s NAACP as fomenting any “controversy.”

“Some Republican lawmakers have been accused of similar counter campaigns using the phrases ‘All Lives Matter,’ or ‘Christian Lives Matter.’ It’s a deliberate attempt to tarnish ‘Black Lives Matter’ by turning it into an inflammatory or even hateful anti-white expression, according The New York Times editorial board,” they write.

MSNBC continues, “‘This effort to Co-Opt the Black Lives Matter Movement is totally unnecessary,’ Scot Esdaile, President of Connecticut’s NAACP, told NBC Connecticut. ‘We have many friends in the Law Enforcement Industry; and the community and police do not have to be at odds!!! It’s imperative that we work together and not continue to fuel tensions!'”

The Grio went further.

A recent poll suggests that 58 percent of people believe a war on cops exists. This fear is what is now driving city officials in Minnesota to go so far as to get violence against cops labeled hate crimes.

Yet through all of this fear mongering, false equivocation, and counterfeit memorializing, lies the truth that we’re living in an age where police have never been safer. We’re on pace to have 35 police officers murdered this year — and well over a 1,000 people killed by police.

That’s not a war — that’s a slaughter.

The justified use of deadly force by police officers has increased 16 percent since 2010, according to the FBI.

FBI crime statistics for justifiable homicides by police
FBI crime statistics for justifiable homicides by police

Activists make no distinction between justified and unjustified police shootings, opting to use raw numbers.

An analysis by the Guardian found twice as many white people were killed by police as blacks.

Police killings by race
Police killings by race

The Grio concluded:

As a black man, I believe that the lives of law enforcement agents aren’t simply expendable, because I realize all life is precious. I would never want to see a war on police, because I want my boy to make it home to his family, and I wouldn’t want anything to threaten that.

With that said, it’s also important that my boy’s life is not at risk when he’s not in his uniform, and he’s walking around covered in nothing more than the hoodies he loves wearing and the melanin God gave him.

If you believe his life truly matters, then I demand that you advocate for him in and outside of his blue uniform. And if you can’t do that simultaneously, your racist bullshit does not deserve to be plastered on any billboard anywhere.

Tags : blacklivesmatter msnbc nbc news police shootings racism

Comments
DEREK HUNTER
Follow Derek Hunter on Twitter

Sponsored Content
[Photos] 29 Times People Should Have Really Checked the Background Before Taking a Picture
[Photos] 29 Times People Should Have Really Checked the Background Before Taking a…
History Chronicle
[Photos] This Bride's Wedding Dress Surprised Even the Groom
[Photos] This Bride's Wedding Dress Surprised Even the Groom
History Chronicle
[Photos] She Never Got Married, and Now We Know Why
[Photos] She Never Got Married, and Now We Know Why
Your Ruling Planet
These Are The Best Lazy Dog Breeds For Retirees
These Are The Best Lazy Dog Breeds For Retirees
The Delite | Scripps
[Photos] Try Not To Laugh Hard At These Tattoo Fails
[Photos] Try Not To Laugh Hard At These Tattoo Fails
Chocolate.com
[Photos] She Never Got Married, and Now You Know Why
[Photos] She Never Got Married, and Now You Know Why
History Chronicle
You Might Also Like
Oregon US Attorney’s Office Confirms ‘White Power’ Symbol Is Actually Blazers Poster
Oregon US Attorney’s Office Confirms ‘White Power’ Symbol Is Actually Blazers Poster
‘We’re The Taxpayers’: At Least 139 Hotels Are Operating As Homeless Shelters In NYC Without Notifying Neighbors
‘We’re The Taxpayers’: At Least 139 Hotels Are Operating As Homeless Shelters In NYC Without…
[Photos] Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter Used To Be Adorable - This Her Today
[Photos] Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter Used To Be Adorable - This Her Today
Sponsored | Chocolate.com
Shortest Men In Hollywood: Their Real Heights
Shortest Men In Hollywood: Their Real Heights
Sponsored | The Delite | Scripps
Dr. Ron Paul: "Here's What I Think Is Coming Next for America"
Dr. Ron Paul: "Here's What I Think Is Coming Next for America"
Sponsored | Stansberry Research
REPORT: Local Realtor Files Trademark Claims For ‘Every Single Possible’ New Washington Redskins Name
REPORT: Local Realtor Files Trademark Claims For ‘Every Single Possible’ New Washington Redskins…
‘I Swear To God, If You Don’t Stop’: Whoopi Scolds Meghan McCain And Joy Behar During Heated Exchange
‘I Swear To God, If You Don’t Stop’: Whoopi Scolds Meghan McCain And Joy Behar During Heated…
Our Community

A new conversation is coming to Daily Caller
Email Address

Sign Up
AdChoices

Sponsored
Search...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

To be clear, I’m not defending Neff. I think the worst thing he did was continue to post about that lady *after* someone else had identified her. That’s messed up—work of a scumbag.

But the article is clearly written in a way to rile emotions by quoting *other* incredibly racist and bigoted comments, followed by Neff’s far tamer comments.

Minus his treatment of that woman, he didn’t seem to do much worse than stereotyping black youths as criminals. Considering it looks like he believed his pseudonym would be outed, that’s not that bad, and I wouldn’t consider it white nationalism. The language in the article, however, was clearly designed to make you think he’s a white nationalist.

Should read: “... believed his pseudonym would *not* be outed...”

Respond

Add Comment

"...he didn’t seem to do much worse than stereotyping black youths as criminals"

Oh. That's all.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Weiss is heroic, not hypocritical. While not everything she writes pleases everyone (she is a columnist after all), her stance on the Cotton op-ed, and now her resignation, are sure signs the crushing ball of illiberalism is wrecking its own building.

She's hypocritical on the face of it. Canceling Palestinian scholars for wrongthink is the epitome of cancel culture and illiberalism. Live by the cancel, die by the cancel.

Besides, even if she leaves NYT there's still Bret Stephens who is a virtual clone of her so what exactly did she bring to the table?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Her article about the IDW was the turning point. I don't really care about the IDW. I read the article when it first appeared and thought it a bit over the top in its adulation of the celebrities of the IDW, many of whom claim conspiracies in traditional media prevent their views from being aired. I'd say that their appeal to conspiracies and genetics might have something to do with it. It's not with a little irony that Ms. Weiss alleges a conspiracy against her at the NYT led to her exit. To be clear, in her resignation letter she attacks pretty much everybody at the NYT as part of the cabal to undermine her. It's a weird letter. She wasn't just burning bridges, she was burning down the whole town.

She is not alleging a conspiracy. You have a reading comprehension issue.

+1, Her resignation letter didn't strike me as being conspiratorial.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I wonder what took so long.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my perception of NYT brand is that it's pretty mass-market left-wing source (high quality and with plenty of good journalism to be sure, but mass in terms of audience). And mass-market should indeed imply that it's the dumb orthodoxy that gets clicks and is rewarded by the audience, as is reported by the letter. All is fine, just evolving business landscape, NYT will become the Fox of the left, more thoughtful of their current people would publish in more niche sources where business pressures would be different, consumers will choose as fits them.
The current situation just seems pretty unnatural, if only judging by my own consumption: I subscribe to NYT for more or less just Douthat and occasional great reporting/features or external contributions; ditto for WaPo and Will/McArdle. I have zero interest in touching either paper's core content. I'll pry be better off if thoughtful people get unbundled from the other crap, and I can subscribe to them directly, or to a "thoughtful paper" aggregating that sort of content for appropriate audience.

> but my perception of NYT brand is that it's pretty mass-market left-wing source (high quality and with plenty of good journalism to be sure, but mass in terms of audience)

High quality implies that if you are writing about history, then historians would agree with you. The 1619 project is the low water mark for journalism. and before that, the NYT botched the entire Russia!!! narrative. They won Pulitzers for stories that were factually wrong on substantive, key details. But this isn't new. It goes all the way back to Duranty and beyond. In short, accuracy isn't important. The narrative is.

And that means high-quality isn't even a contender for describing them. But yeah, the graphics look good. So they got that going for them.

>High quality implies that if you are writing about history
You seem to have exorbitant expectations for journalism. Dunno, maybe you've seen better times that I haven't.
For me publishing something good relatively often is as good as it can be. NYT certainly does that. Cut them once coz freakin' lefties but then couldn't resist all the Tyler's links..
Or did you want to actually convey they were getting worse?..
And yeah, graphics and dashboards are great, presumably they aren't faking data there, and these are more useful for understanding the world anyway.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

To be a bit of a Devil's Advocate, when Weiss writes of a cultural change within the paper ("Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. "), how much of this is really down to the power of consumer capitalism and a change in culture driven by audience shift?

I'm reminded that 3 years ago, we were told about how newspapers were having a subscription renaissance, as the supposed "centre" flocked to newspapers as a source of truth in the Age of Trump.

But what if it wasn't like that at all?

What if they were simply an audience had no interest in being challenged or factual reporting whatsoever, that simply *wanted* the "4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world" and that wanted "(every) piece published (to) explicitly promote progressive causes"?

I think this is undeniable.

Respond

Add Comment

Her resignation letter makes it clear that it's a cultural change within the paper .

"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"

That's sounds like a pretty toxic work place.

It does sound like a terrible environment. Though the media has long been a terrible and harassing environment. The media has long since had lots of ruthless, competitive, unethical people will do or say pretty much anything to remove a competitor.

I guess my stance on this is that we are gonna need to be careful about defining Cancel Culture, or it's going to become a toothless phrase.

Newspapers in alliance with activist groups using social media going all in on public and not-so-public figures on comments that are frankly either fair comment, jokes, or long since in the past, using this to get them remove or fired unless they make a ritualistic submission display, introducing continuous political discrimination into parts of life that at least aspire to be apolitical? Cancel Culture.

The removal and censoring of figures from educational curricula and public monuments to pave the way for these sort of Marxist indoctrinations? Cancel Culture.

A centrish writer losing out as a left wing media organ shifts leftward to the point it has no place for anyone who is anything but a mouthpiece for the Woke mob? A sad sign of the times, sure. But it's not like magazines and newspapers don't change, not like they haven't always selected writers on the basis of their politics, and it's not like these people ever had "tenure".

"I guess my stance on this is that we are gonna need to be careful about defining Cancel Culture, or it's going to become a toothless phrase."

+1, Bari Weiss wasn't cancelled. She's leaving a bad job, where a culture of intolerance has set in. Those are two different things.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I mean, also, yes, it surely sucks if the NYT becomes what it is. But it's not a public institution or any sort of government granted monopoly. So there's much of an argument for any meaningful way to intervene there. You can only vote with your wallet for it, and if that's not enough to induce just have to let the chips fall where they may and it either burns down and get replaced, or pootles along on dysfunction.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I spend some good portion of my professional life reviewing and investigating such employee complaint and resignation letters.

This one is typical in many ways. Such letters reflect and filter all events through the emotional toll of losing.

A canceller who is being cancelled internally, especially one in denial of their own cancelling, would see the world this way.

Don't let your mood affiliation about the NYT filter your reading of this letter.

Are you saying she's probably wrong on the substantive parts?

Saying it is likely a personally self-serving view on things. Just like many criticisms reveal more about the author than the item reviewed.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

We have seen this game before with far-right thought leaders who make their name by repeatedly insinuating their voice is marginalized by structural forces, all while enjoying the fame and notoriety that comes with it. Remember Milo?

But Ms. Bari Weiss's game is all together different because the conservative victim mindset does not play well with the NYT Op-Ed; considering it also employs the intolerable Bret Stephens and the tolerable Ross Douhat. So the next play is to attack "cancel culture", and that does not apply to journalists who were beat up by police or journalists who are doxxed and attacked by far-right agitators. No, "cancel culture" is complaining people on Twitter are mean to them. That's all it is. Their ideological space is critiqued over and over and apparently the fat check from NYT isn't enough for them to deal with it.

The ultimate irony of all is that she is QUITTING and no one fired her or "cancelled" her. I am glad she leaves NYT because her next grift will be a place where even less people pay heed to her nonsense.

Milo?

Milo is gone. Demonetized and/or banned by the big companies, including credit card processing companies. That is seriously your proof? Do you not get the irony?

> The ultimate irony of all is that she is QUITTING and no one fired her or "cancelled" her.

Yes, and in the Jim Crow south you had a lot of black people quit their job at the factory after they found a mutilated rabbit in their locker. They weren't fired either. They weren't canceled. They just decided to quit. On their own. Sometimes an employee isn't a good fit for an employer. You know.

Uh huh. Learn some history.

"Milo is gone"

It wasn't liberals who got Milo disinvited from CPAC. They also didn't cancel his book deal with Threshold Editions, a division of Simon & Schuster that routinely does business with Donald Trump, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative notables.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Her resignation from a comfy, very well-paid writing position with NYT reminds me of this Interfludity post: https://www.interfluidity.com/v2/7557.html

Essentially those who most fear of being "cancelled" have the financial and social means to find other work. "Elite" members of society enjoy a quasi-privatized social safety net where losing a job will not mean financial distress of concerns about their healthcare.

> " have the financial and social means to find other work.

No, it simply means the mob much more values killing an officer than killing a foot soldier. But there are countless instances across the spectrum. From the pizza place that said they'd not cater a gay wedding (becuase they dont' cater any weddings) to the Justine Sacco.

The fact is this: We have countless people holding very mainstream views that are picked by the mob for being particularly weak at a particular moment. And the mob uses that to destroy, much for the same reason a housecat catches a mouse and then toys with it while it dies. That is wrong. That is cruel. And at its core it's being an asshole in the worst way.

Most of us foot soldiers can't afford to get canceled. I've got a wife and three kids; if I lose my income we lose the house. It would take a LOT for me to put my job on the line over an issue. (To be clear, I've done it, a few times; I'm merely using myself to as an example to demonstrate that this is not an abstraction.) And I'm in a fairly stable position. If I was constantly worried about next month's rent, I wouldn't be able to make waves.

So not only is cancelling an officer more valuable than cancelling a foot soldier, in many cases only an officer can really withstand the blow to begin with.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Oh please. We call that Survivorship Bias.

In WWII the Army Air Corps kept meticulous data on where planes had been shot when they returned from combat. The brass wanted to armor the places most frequently shot. Abraham Wald pointed out that these were the places where a plane could be shot through and survive to return to base. He suggested armoring the places that where no surviving planes had been shot.

Similarly here, the people who can survive in the public eye after being "canceled" are the very ones who can best survive the shot. The people who crash and burn do not even make the headlines. They are the ones who are round filed by the application committee, shunted aside by a grad school advisor, or passed over for promotion in their first few positions.

The more relevant thing to look at is how people who, by any measure, any quite powerful and have a bevy of resources at best fight the mob to a draw. What exactly should someone with normal resources hope to accomplish instead?

I would contend that the people who lack such a "safety net" are not free of "cancellation" rather, if they are "cancelled" it will not make twitter, let alone the news. Certainly the most horrific case of which I am aware took place entirely within one university and ended in a suicide attempt. Why exactly should assume that twitterati are the norm and not the ones I here about through my fellow physicians? Because from the latter I hear a lot more about normal people lacking these resources getting hit far harder than some columnist.

Respond

Add Comment

Like the guy who worked at a Berkeley hot dog shop who got cancelled?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"I wonder what bari weiss and bret stephens make of ross douthat, who is farther to the right than either of them but largely escapes the levels of scorn they attract because his work is nowhere near as lazy or dishonest as theirs."

From: https://twitter.com/jack_hamilton/status/1283086635471704069

Yeah the NY Times is in general crap, but Douthat is better than those two. Bret Stephens' columns are just dull, repetitive, gray mush - I mean he went beserk when someone called him a bed bug or something once.
These people can't be taken seriously.

Welcome to America.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"also I just want to be abundantly clear that I don't agree with ross douthat on anything!!!"

Wonder what to make of that...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

From the capitalist perspective, customers (I see two above) and advertisers should care, and the rest of us not.

I don't care much, probably for the same reason I don't care about the Applebees menu.

(I do free ride free articles, but I don't think that really gives me a vote.)

From the citizenship perspective, we should care when a flagship newspaper becomes a monoculture.

Well, if you are suggesting that news media has a broader social responsibility, how should we flesh that out. Does, for instance, truth matter?

https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/10/15/20913906/facebook-political-ads-lies-zuckerberg-warren-profits

You guys are making this more complicated than it has to be.

And no, social media should not be the arbiter of truth for billions of people. There's nowhere down that road that isn't terrible.

Respond

Add Comment

It has a broader social function, clearly; hence why a free press was enshrined in the constitution. You can't be this obtuse all the time, right?

I'm playing a little bit. It is true that a *free* press is enshrined, and that no one can *block* the sale of papers or internet articles. But nothing at the NYT has run afoul of those rules.

So what are *critics* demanding, that a paper they don't buy carry stories they like?

If they are demanding that, they *are* demanding "social responsibility" beyond mere free speech.

I don't know if anyone here is demanding anything. You can be critical without making demands; those are two different activities. The issue is this: even if you don't read the New York Times, a lot of people do. They have influence. They have an important social function to play. Jettisoning anodyne people like Weiss for the crime of thinking independently suggests they are likely to perform that function more poorly in the future. It is perfectly valid for anyone and everyone to criticize them for that. Also, I continue to think you're an idiot, thank you.

Well, as I say, I think we are pursuing a contradiction here.

If a free press means the NYT, or Facebook, can publish anything *they* want, and they do, what's the complaint?

If you think they "should" be publishing something different, that is a call for "social responsibility."

And we can see if "critics" can describe that "responsibility" coherently.

Facebook is not publishing anything. It is not a publishing company.

Your point would be more valid if you stuck to 'requirements for advertisements' on both the Nytimes and Facebook. Possibly there's something interesting to explore there for what limitations both firms place on advertisements.

Otherwise they are in no way comparable.

They have been classified differently under the law, but now that Facebook selects and promotes some stories for some readers, I think the defense that they are a common carrier rather than a publisher is wearing thin.

Related:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/10/opinion/facebook-cancer-ads.html

A) They're not publishing news stories. They're not publishing anything.

B) Don't shift the goalposts, your contention is about the advertisements. Ads to ads is an actual apples to apples comparison.

What exactly is the discrepancy in advertisement policy do you find disagreeable between Facebook and the Times?

I don't know why it being an ad changes the equation.

Should YouTube flood cancer searchers with ineffective cures just because the ineffective cures pay?

Your point of contention is the advertisement policy. Facebook is not a publisher, Before we jump around to entirely different topics and broaden the scope, let's stick to the point you raised. It's an interesting topic.

What exactly is the discrepancy in advertisement policies between the Times and Facebook that you wish to address?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Their algorithms absolutely make editorial decisions just as much as Tyler does with his assorted links posts.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

For what it's worth I think the media (including new media) do have social responsibility, but I would limit it to the bare minimum, enforced by social sanction rather than law:

1) do not publish false facts (there are fewer true facts in the world than many recognize)

2) clearly distinguish opinion from claims of fact (there are more opinions in the world than many recognize)

(This comment was opinion.)

You'll be happy to know that Facebook doesn't publish anything, fact nor fiction. So 1 is taken care of.

As for 2, Facebook is not a publisher so they are publishing neither fact nor opinion.

Your point of contention is advertisement policy. If you have something interesting to say about Facebook vs Nytimes advertisement policy, I'd love to hear it. It would be eye opening to see the difference

So people with cancer see crap cures on Facebook and YouTube, and nobody "published" it.

Magic.

Also another reason to invoke "tragedies of late stage capitalism."

This is a productive avenue of discussion! I'll even signal boost your apparent ideological home: https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism

I personally find it crazy, but that's besides the point.

What are the advertisement policy discrepancies between Facebook and Nytimes (and youtube!) that you find worthy of highlighting?

I'd really like to know, and I think this is a great area of common concern. Fraud is illegal, and the law should be enforced. Aside from legal concerns, if Facebook and the New York Times are earning money from advertisements about fake cures that should be newsworthy.

"Supplements" seem to be an industry that's somehow gotten away with blatantly false advertising, to give another example. How are Facebook and the Times policies on supplement advertising working?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If a free press means the NYT, or Facebook, can publish anything *they* want, and they do, what's the complaint?

They should be free to publish whatever they want and the rest of us are free to criticize them for the choices they make about what to publish. Again, this seems like calculated obtuseness on your part. I regret responding in the first place now.

I don't think "don't like" is a reasonable standard, but ymmv.

That's because you're an idiot.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

If she's telling the truth it's a clear case of workplace harassment. No need to go down ideological rabbit holes or grandiose theories of social responsibility at news organizations.

If one group of my employees was spamming our internal slack channel insulting and berating another employee, the fact that I don't work for a periodical is irrelevant.

There's a separate issue of a news organization being so dysfunctional and ideological that it encourages workplace harassment of anyone who does not adhere to its ideological bent, but hey it's a private company. That's between NY State labor laws, Ms Weiss, and the Times.

There's also a separate issue of Ms Weiss being hypocritical in this regard when she was a teenager.

I'm speaking more to the NYT haters on this page.

Fair enough.

My biggest question right now from a management perspective is how blatantly incompetent are the managers at the Times? All of our products are set to regularly purge, for the explicit reason to avoid future BS fishing subpoenas.

If they can pass a borderline competence test then she should have no ammo for a potential lawsuit and the Times walks away without a hassle. If they're as incompetent as the 'haters' say, there's a potential for some extremely ugly communications to become public.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Not when she was a teenager. She continues to do this. In her own resignation letter she complains about people saying mean things about her not being punished... despite the fact that she attacked NYT journalists not on workplace Slack channels but in public forums. She's a raging hypocrite, which is why a NYT staff meeting had to deal with her attacks on her coworkers as a key issue to be dealt with a couple months back.

Interesting. I've never been a Bari Weiss fan. In the interest of not succumbing to my own biases:

Who specifically did she attack? Please provide the links, thanks. It should be illuminating to compare those to the slack channels when they inevitably become public during the lawsuit. I've yet to see a personal attack she's made*. But that could be my own bubble effect.

*she regularly personally attacked anti-Israel professors, I mean internally to the Times since that's the scope here

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Go back to watching School House Rock you rube. If you think the New York Times has ever been anything other than a mouthpiece of the upper-class liberal establishment then you're out to lunch.
Tyler is a member of that class so that's why he's wailing and nashing his teeth at this.

I suppose it is fair game for you to try to reduce the NYT reputation, but good luck with it.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-most-and-the-least-trusted-news-sources-in-the-us-2017-08-03

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-falsely-denies-her-years-of-attacks-on-the-academic-freedom-of-arab-scholars-who-criticize-israel/

Did you actually read the paper you cite? Were you convinced? If so, can you explain one or two reasons why?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Great marketing move. Boosts brand and gets another 15 minutes of fame. Will make even more money now elsewhere peddling the same slurs against Trump. Probably will wind up on Fox News within a year.

Respond

Add Comment

Trump will get reelected again because you elites on MR don't care about real issues that effect regular Americans. Nobody cares about the gossip of elite media people who just talk to themselves about themselves. Meanwhile Americans are tired and afraid of making ends meet with no job in this strange economy.

Sure, sure.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/14/metro/i-cant-take-this-anymore-video-mendon-resident-former-trump-supporter-lambasting-president-goes-viral/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

"Can the resistance take the New York Times Hostage"? (2018)
Yes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/apotter/can-the-resistance-take-the-new-york-times-hostage

Respond

Add Comment

This will sound weird but I worked at a newspaper where no one ever talked politics or culture war, no one knew anyone else's views and even the editor and op-ed guy were just going through the motions when it came to these kind of issues. Everyone got along well, covered the news and it was a good little paper. Of course, that was 40 years ago.

Respond

Add Comment

To be honest I didn't know who Bari Weiss was before today. I don't read the NYT anymore, it has become worse than Le Monde. And I didn't even know Bari Weiss was a "she" before I read a commentary on Amazon referring to her as "she".

I really liked her letter of resignation.

Then here I see the hatred and contempt she generates from the usual "woke" Nazis of this comment section, but also from part of the right-wing commenters. Apparently she is accused of having attacked the academic freedom of some of her professor. So I read about the controversy about her actions as a Columbia student 15 years ago, and so far (I may have overlooked) I have seen no evidence of this.

So I ask everyone here: do you? Can you point for instance for a statement where she asks for one of these professors to be fired, or to be denied tenure?

I think the professor she was antagonistic to was Joseph Massad, who is something of a head case. Martin Kramer once described the MELAC department at Columbia as "a train wreck of friend hires friend".

Yeah, that's not how academic freedom works. Or, for that matter, how the society idealized by that open letter she cosigned last week works.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Her crusade to start an investigation of antisemitism of her professor (among many others) could be read a few ways:

a) charitably, she was a victim of antisemitism at Columbia. She was given an A in the class and this seems unlikely, but does not falsify the original claim

b) her raison d'etre was to get anti-Israel professors fired through the process of frivolous investigations into antisemitism bringing bad press to the school

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

First of all, why do people care so much about being called names. If you think I'm a racist, be my guest in calling me one, and I'll return the favour. If I think someone is a racist, I'll say so. It sounds like a job for someone who has hard bark on them, and doesn't much care what anyone thinks. Finally, if you're a moderate, centrist, someone trying to be fair, no one will thank you for it and you'll get grief from both sides. You need to be the kind of person who takes pride in that, even enjoys it. I'm sorry the author had an awful time, but parting shots are always self-serving and unfair, and should never be taken at face value, unless you don't care about fairness, of course.

Respond

Add Comment

I do wonder ... what is the editorial review process at the national review like? I checked their headlines recently and their top article was titled "An Indefensible Pardon" strongly going after Trump for the Roger Stone case and the second was an article going into the notion of "lying to the fbi as a crime" and how that is obvious nonsense that needs to be removed ... both of which are valid points. The second one has been cited by liberals for years until Republican leaders were ensnared and everyone changed sides ... I do wonder if the Times wrote a piece with that viewpoint.

But was that first headline an admission of obvious truth? Or was it a statement that, damn what the readers think, we are going to report what we believe in?

I guess what I am asking is, does mainstream conservative media engage in the same sort of filter and engagement of views that disagree? Obviously it isn't the same thing ... the national review self describes itself as a "conservative paper" and they explicitly state, at the top of their website, that they are providing a certain perspective. NY Times does not claim to be a progressive outlet, they claim to represent free speech.

Though I don't think many people, liberals and conservatives who work there, have any problem with the Wall Street Journal so I suppose in that case, a center right paper can point to the events over the last few weeks and say, see? Censorship bad!

And I guess here is what is strange about all this: I had no idea who Bari Weiss was until this broke. I had no idea what she believed. I recall seeing her on the Joe Rogan podcast but then I immediately skipped it because I avoid the episodes that are political. Mostly because music / podcasts help me work and I have better things to listen to while working than political nonsense for 3 hours.

But now, everyone knows who she is. Everyone knows what she believes. Her opinion is far more widespread than it ever was ... but its different, because its not her words, its someone else characterization of what she said. "Censorship" causes your opinion to appear everywhere but ... twisted. Which is weird, and both sides of this debate don't understand it so they don't make good arguments.

Following the election of Donald Trump NYTimes ran an editorial titled "Consider a monarchy, America." It was universally condemned in the comment section of the paper. And yet they ran it, showing a commitment to freedom of speech ... but was it that? Or was it simply, we don't like Trump, so lets run nonsense about monarchies because democracy elected republicans, so democracy don't work. Obviously.

Edward Murrow did give Joe McCarthy a right to respond. Let him take the full hour, because to win the argument, he recognized that he had to play fair. Liberal or conservative, the world would be better if papers abides by those same standards of fair discussion.

Just assorted thoughts. I suppose there is a thesis in there somewhere, but I don't know.

Yes, various right leaning magazines have opinions. There are even disagreements between them.

The NYT can do whatever it wants. They seem to want to be the Guardian of the US media. What they gain from that positioning will cause loss in other ways; the moderate center-left now has to look for something else to read.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

NYT is another of the blogs with priors. Why can't we accept that?

Respond

Add Comment

Hilarious that Tyler won't excerpt the part that applies to him:

>"truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."

Respond

Add Comment

The NYT and WaPo have gone off the rails. People who "punch down" are often cowardly, and that defines the Washington Post today, and I suppose it comes from its top editor.

In an era of digital subscriber bases, the New York Times and The Washington Post have discovered every left wing extremist and identity-politics freak in the country and added them to their subscriber bases. This may be the successful business model that replaces the old geographically defined paper newspapers.

Good luck everybody.

This, but with less snark.

News sources tend to chase the views of their median subscriber. As the NYT has become more and more dependent on keeping a subscriber base of liberals and progressives, it has become less and less tolerant of any diversity of opinion that annoys those subscribers. That's bad for the quality of news coverage from the NYT, but survival comes before doing the right thing for most people....

Do you think they have reliable data on their subscribers, or are they just lazy and elitist in thinking that their own positions are in sync with the median and more lefty than that? If you look at the comments sections in articles and columns, you may be right. It's certainly not average American space in there.

Media organizations have always had to keep close to what their reader base wanted to read. Part of the NYT that attracted people is that they would be challenged in their beliefs. But the change in the media environment means that someone can attract an narrow audience over a large geographic area, meaning they no longer represent a location or even a community, but a slice of interest.

I consume media as a way of knowing what the readers of the NYT are thinking. Educated, upper middle class, most of the political class, academia. One would read WashPo to know what Washington thinks of things; the political class, bureaucracy and all the hangers on. Watching Fox tells you what the older right thinks, etc.

Useful as long as you aren't looking for accurate information.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Oh yeah, she's another one of those IDW free speech tough guys, as long it's not free speech against the Israel.

And you know what...despite all her hysterics, she will be instantly forgotten. Maybe she could go work for WaPo.

Respond

Add Comment

Does it begin "You see the trouble with me"?

Respond

Add Comment

Oh, yeah, well, a chick who calls herself Bari. What is that short for, Barisimilla? We could Google it but we would find only Wikipedia lies.

Isn't this all about some people got upset because Senator Cotton wet himself pontificating about what he hoped might have been a taking up of cudgels? Or a taking up of RPG's, or whatever the poor guy was dreaming about? Good lord, is this the mole-hill we die on, or blog about?

And poor Andrew Sullivan, that man's peak was when he rode that kid down, the American Taliban guy? The kid who signed on with the mujaheddin out of Marin County, found himself marching in the dust with a crew of exotic people in face cloths when America didn't declare war on anyone, but somehow the kid was an instant traitor, which Andrew declared was the opposite of a guy who'd got work in the CIA? Bi-coastal fifth columns, oh my.

Andrew Sullivan thought that Andrew Sullivan, the adoptive American, was in some sort of war, but he might have been just an excitable guy from Croyden or wherever, excited about his new citizenship but knowing that he would never have to shovel dirt like a real gringo or boomer who grew up on the local sod when this was a manly country and had to get his credentials from somewhere else than Oxford.

If Andrew Sullivan had understood anything about America, it would have been that the American Taliban kid from apparently-effete Marin was the second coming of Huckleberry Finn. OK, I'll admit that is hilarious, the juxtaposition of Andrew Sullivan and Huckleberry Finn. Or of Andrew Sullivan with any real American, fictional or historical or just a guy. It don't wash.

We may have a problem if apparently level-headed economist bloggers, even those driven temporarily mad by their involvement in amateur epidemiology, take this sad stuff seriously and throw it out for comment by a known crew of half-insane commenters. It might be more productive for a thrill-seeking blogger to to learn of a California municipal heritage-tree ordinance and blog about the possibility that it caused California to burn up in wildfires, and call it an example of a failed regulatory state, and throw that out to the crew for comment.

Whatever, this moping about what people named Bari have to say ought to stop. It's going to break the internets, man, if it doesn't.

Respond

Add Comment

I’m not a huge fan of Weiss from what I’ve seen of her, but this is very refreshing to see. I’m not especially eager to jump on anyone who may have been pro-cancellation at some point in the past (even the majority of their career). It’s obviously hypocritical, but I can’t help but give some credit for getting there in the end, even if it’s somewhat hypocritical.

Respond

Add Comment

>>"truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else."

Hey Ty -- sound familiar?

Respond

Add Comment

The other side has been on a war footing for some time now. They long ago fired the non-conformers and started the propaganda machine.
So what do you do? Pretend to virtue? What does history show happens when a growing threat is met by a head-in-the-sand response?
The US is now divided into two camps that are essentially at war; that's the simple truth of it. So what should the Times do? Stop treating that as a problem because they treated it that way yesterday and now it is time to move on? Do you not print an anti-Trump editorial today because yesterday's was the final word that should stand for all time?

Respond

Add Comment

Yawn. To me, a law school flunk out, the only thing interesting with Cancel Culture--and not discussed by anybody--is the "at will" employment rule. I won't make this a tutorial on labor law, but an "at will" employee, and that frequently is an associate lawyer, but might even and probably is an opinion writer at the NY Times, can be summarily fired FOR ANY CAUSE. Yes. ANY cause. Bad breath. Wearing argyle socks. Anything. That's why non-at-will employees--think of union workers or secretaries--cannot be easily fired but the same protection does not go to the higher paid "at will" employees. I've been fired from places as a consultant after I won, practically single handedly, huge lucrative judgments. The verdict was that Ray probably could not repeat that success and business was tough, etc, etc etc, Ray was not a partner, but at best "at will" or a consultant (who also have n job security) so the first people they let go are these type of "at will" employees.

Here, Ms. Bari apparently was a 'clone' of another writer at the NY Times and since her underlyings were rumbling, and she was "at will" (otherwise they'd not touch her), they decided to fire here. Same with Mr. Sullivan, arguably he was past his prime in attracting readers. It's a brutal world in white collar service industries where you work with your mind rather than simply employing capital (which is what I do now, as a non-white-collar capitalist in the 1%). You can and often are fired over nothing. I know I was several times in my career. In one case, I was just about to bring in a huge new client and got fired (later I did work for them at another place, so I got the last laugh). Business is brutal, boys and girls, one reason government bureaucrats tend to wisely stay put in their cushy public sector jobs...

1+
fire them dudes, man. They add nothing and don't bring in anything but trouble. I will happily work alongside Bari, if she can work the shovel and pick up after herself. Have a feeling that Sullivan would keep spouting nonsense, though, so forget that guy.

Respond

Add Comment

Swing and a miss Boomer.

She wasn’t even fired.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Reading or listening from/of the ideas of diverse compelling reasons/writers/speakers is so very worthwhile. Politically I love hearing the compelling reasoning of the whole continunum (sorry Q) Sanders to Trump supporters. It is rare to find a tribe where they value the many valid compelling and often competing perspectives.

“The wise know nothing at all
well maybe one song”
― Ikkyu, Crow With No Mouth: Ikkyu, Fifteenth Century Zen Master

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Lol 200 comments on this topic and the anti-Weiss Crowd are still talking about Weiss and why she is a bad person.

That isn’t the lesson here. She may be Hitler. It doesn’t matter.

What does matter is that she’s leaving the NYT-the paper of record. The most important journalistic enterprise in the history of the US because the paper has become too over the top- culturally Marxist and it’s employees have created a toxic work environment that destroys anything it doesn’t agree with.

Remember you can’t learn about Nazism without interviewing former Nazi’s. Weiss may be worse than Stalin or Musolinni, but that’s not the point here....

People will respond to the hypocrisy of cancel culture warriors canceling themselves. That is red meat for this blog. Though I'm not sure the numerous mentions of Nazis or Marxists is warranted in the comments. Somebody was fired/resigned from their place of employment, not sent to the death camps.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

She's quitting? This was a quit letter? I missed that entirely. Probably should have read it all the way through.

This is indeed proof that the paper has gone entirely over the top. It has probably become culturally marxist with a toxic work environment that destroys anything it doesn’t agree with. The little lady was lucky to get out while she could.

If you click on it, you'll notice that it's titled: Resignation Letter. Also the very first line is:

"It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. "

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

So let it be written
So let it be done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O8gTIr4lys
-Yul

Respond

Add Comment

Hopefully she can get enough traction and followers to not need the nytimes.

Respond

Add Comment

wonder if shame cultist david brooks has any more stupid thoughts on
the potential lethality of knives to police
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6GX_nxKOaQ

Respond

Add Comment

I'm watching this slow motion train wreck Liberal Centrists are putting themselves in by giving in to woke religion yet straddling some born again Reaganism militarism.

The inevitable clash of BLM and the bipartisan untouchable victimized Israel/Jew policy, there is only one victim right now.

Israel criticism is actual instant cancellation by US govt. policy and some Jewish American media personalities will distort any criticism into an anti-semitism card just as blatant as BLM cancel culture...will be interesting to see how this plays out.

BLM their MSM heavy adherents do not allow for multiple victims.

Respond

Add Comment

I think part of what's happening is that progressives in cities, who are trying to establish norms against racism, are trying to exert normative pressure on conservatives in rural places by being *extra strident* in cities, as though if the norm is more strictly enforced among those closest to them it will somehow bleed out into the hinterlands more.

The problem is that there is so little social contact between the Blue Tribe and the Red Tribe, that the Blue Tribe has little ability to enforce those norms outside of the Blue Tribe. So they enforce them extra vigorously in the areas they can influence, which results in moderates and center-left liberals getting punished for minor "microaggressions", while racist cops lives are barely impacted. i.e. The Blue Tribe needs to have some actual social contact with police culture in order to influence police culture.

What might be a better idea is for the Blue Tribe, rather than punishing moderate conservatives for microaggressions - would be to convince moderate conservatives to exert social pressure on the far-right elements within their midst. That isn't going to happen if conservatives fear being doxxed for microaggressions. I've heard people argue, more than once, that standing up for (say) white supremacists marching in Charlottesville was a defense of free speech, because sooner or later the left would come for them too.
If the goal is to establish social norms against racism more broadly (as opposed to just enforcing them with increasing rigor inside one's own cohort), the blue tribe needs to maintain the kinds of social contacts with moderate conservatives that will enable them to convince conservatives to police their own. Only the Red Tribe can police the Red Tribe.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment