Harpers Magazine publishes alt right hate speech treatise, falls on wrong side of history

[Random Guy]

But that’s how society works. Life is a competition and at the end of the day you can only count on yourself

At the end of the day there are people I can count on and there are people who can count on me
We each are part of a support system, at least most of us are
The strength and the types of support differ from person to person
Successful people most often have some decent support system they are part of

 

[Autoprax]

Human are pack hunters.

We're wired to cooperate.

 

[Ifallalot]

Are you being 100% serious? I can't tell.

Whether or not you are, it doesn't have to be that way. We can help lift each other up, even those we don't know. Many countries/societies don't operate on the competition model to the extent that we do.

Whatever, it's changing. Nothing you can do to stop it.

I am being serious.

Society is there for mutual aid, but the problem lies in people thinking they can fall back on society to save them OR blame society for their failures

At the end of the day, you’re responsible for yourself and your family

 

[Random Guy]

Social security , medicar

I am being serious.

Society is there for mutual aid, but the problem lies in people thinking they can fall back on society to save them OR blame society for their failures

At the end of the day, you’re responsible for yourself and your family

and the positive side of this is that you can do what it takes to take care of yourself and your family

The flip side of this is growing up being told you’re responsible for yourself and also that you’ll never get out of poverty so just finish high school and work at Walmart because that’s all you’ll end up doing anyway. School? Why waste your time on school when you’re going to end up in Walmart anyway

I’m not saying it’s ok and should be fostered, I’m just looking at the other side of the coin. I don’t deal with people who have that attitude directly so I’m getting this from others, but it’s teachers and administrators in school districts what are mostly poverty level students, and the “you can be what’re you want when you grow up”:fantasy is not part of the parental talk track

And some can pull themselves up, but not everyone is that special

 

[plasticbertrand]

I highly doubt the cancel culture advocates would be willing to allow their worst enemies to wield that power over them, so THAT is the reason they shouldn't be so quick to assume that power for themselves.

It's exactly like the street protesters fkg with vehicular traffic as a display of dominance. Just because it's revolutionaries doing it this week doesn't justify that form of abuse. you sure as hell wouldn't accept it if it was the Westboros or the KKK doing it to you.

By the time we get to the ends justifying the means, Machiavelli-style, all it takes for the woke to end up on the wrong side of the abuse is for their opposition to gather in numbers.

 

[grapedrink]

Your NYT example is an excellent case in point. You'd think that given their legacy they'd be all for publishing a wide array of voices in the Op-Ed section. Agree that Cotton's op-ed piece was definitely from the right. But the wailing and lamentation that ensued was hilarious. If it had stopped there, ok fine, that is counterspeech so have at it. But firing the editor than ran the piece? How does that not have a chilling effect and send a message that if you don't stay within certain political boundaries you are going to get whacked?

The (over)reaction to Cotton's piece had far more to do with the fact that the NYT decided to give Tom Cotton a voice, than the actual content of the piece itself. Had that been some obscure writer with a relatively clean social justice record, there would not have been nearly as much of a hubbub.

Fook, just being a Repub southern senator with confederate sympathies, and being named "Cotton" to boot . . . . This stuff writes itself.

Especially once you read what he actually wrote, the words did not match the characterization. Which is odd, considering how many people who were criticizing the article fancy themselves to be "journalists" or "academics". It was optics over content, feels over facts.

 

[kidfury]

He admitted he hadn't read it before OKing it for publication.

"The Times reported that Bennet said in a meeting with staff members that he had not read the essay before it was published. And the paper added an editor’s note to the top of the original column."

NYT opinion editor resigns after outrage over Tom Cotton op-ed

James Bennet stepped down following the opinion article that called for using the military against civil unrest.

www.politico.com

Thats the edotors job, right, to read stuff before it gets published?

If it's accurate, print it.

If it's inaccurate and misinformation, why print it? THE NEW YORK TIMES IS NOT FOX NEWS

"The senator described looting in New York City as “carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements,” and wrote that leftist antifa movement had infiltrated protest marches — which an earlier Times article had called misinformation."

 

[grapedrink]

objection: fecaliization

he has, over and over, said that free speech does not mean consequence free speech

he's not shutting it down...it's the exact same counter-speech argument techdirt makes
in their article

caballero blanco, afuera!

Yet his first reply in this thread, directly to Janitor's first post:
"Excluding bigotry from open debate is not "ideological conformity".

It's just social norms."

The Harper's letter is addressing overreactions to unpopular statements that oftentimes are not bigoted, yet FF reduces and mischaracterizes all controversial speech to hate speech. In addition, he has cheerleaded for deplatforming at every possible type of venue and has called for US laws to change in order to make hate speech illegal.

Why you go to bat for him is beyond me.

 

[grapedrink]

He admitted he hadn't read it before OKing in for publication

Which was a bad call. Doesn't change the fact that the reactions and (mis)characterizations of his words are in another world from the actual words in the article.

 

[kidfury]

The (over)reaction to Cotton's piece had far more to do with the fact that the NYT decided to give Tom Cotton a voice, than the actual content of the piece itself.

This is wrong. What you've written is incorrect. You've decided to spread inaccurate misinformation.

 

[kidfury]

Yet his first reply in this thread, directly to Janitor's first post:
"Excluding bigotry from open debate is not "ideological conformity".

It's just social norms."

The Harper's letter is addressing overreactions to unpopular statements that oftentimes are not bigoted, yet FF reduces and mischaracterizes all controversial speech to hate speech. In addition, he has cheerleaded for deplatforming at every possible type of venue and has called for US laws to change in order to make hate speech illegal.

Why you go to bat for him is beyond me.

I'm not sure if you're asking me, but fecal face is one of the most honest, reliable persons here. Fairness is very valued by liberal progressives. Anger results when unfairness is promoted.

 

[kidfury]

"Editors’ Note, June 5, 2020:
After publication, this essay met strong criticism from many readers (and many Times colleagues), prompting editors to review the piece and the editing process. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.
The basic arguments advanced by Senator Cotton — however objectionable people may find them — represent a newsworthy part of the current debate. But given the life-and-death importance of the topic, the senator’s influential position and the gravity of the steps he advocates, the essay should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny. Instead, the editing process was rushed and flawed, and senior editors were not sufficiently involved. While Senator Cotton and his staff cooperated fully in our editing process, the Op-Ed should have been subject to further substantial revisions — as is frequently the case with such essays — or rejected.
For example, the published piece presents as facts assertions about the role of “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa”; in fact, those allegations have not been substantiated and have been widely questioned. Editors should have sought further corroboration of those assertions, or removed them from the piece. The assertion that police officers “bore the brunt” of the violence is an overstatement that should have been challenged. The essay also includes a reference to a “constitutional duty” that was intended as a paraphrase; it should not have been rendered as a quotation.
Beyond those factual questions, the tone of the essay in places is needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate. Editors should have offered suggestions to address those problems. The headline — which was written by The Times, not Senator Cotton — was incendiary and should not have been used.
Finally, we failed to offer appropriate additional context — either in the text or the presentation — that could have helped readers place Senator Cotton’s views within a larger framework of debate." NYT

Look, grapedrink, it makes total sense that you would defend Cotton. You're very similar to him. Emotional and reactionary. YOU DONT MIND MISINFORMATION. We do. Misinformation is not fair.

 

[hammies]

The headline — which was written by The Times, not Senator Cotton — was incendiary and should not have been used.

The temptation to create clickbait headlines is huge.

 

[grapedrink]

This is wrong. What you've written is incorrect. You've decided to spread inaccurate misinformation.

Uh, no. Nowhere in Cotton's article did he call for violence against protestors, as has been constantly parroted. He actually makes a clear distinction between the protestors and the rioters.

 

[Ifallalot]

He admitted he hadn't read it before OKing it for publication.

"The Times reported that Bennet said in a meeting with staff members that he had not read the essay before it was published. And the paper added an editor’s note to the top of the original column."

NYT opinion editor resigns after outrage over Tom Cotton op-ed

James Bennet stepped down following the opinion article that called for using the military against civil unrest.

www.politico.com

Thats the edotors job, right, to read stuff before it gets published?

If it's accurate, print it.

If it's inaccurate and misinformation, why print it? THE NEW YORK TIMES IS NOT FOX NEWS

"The senator described looting in New York City as “carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements,” and wrote that leftist antifa movement had infiltrated protest marches — which an earlier Times article had called misinformation."

That asshole editor spells his last name incorrectly

 

[grapedrink]

I'm not sure if you're asking me, but fecal face is one of the most honest, reliable persons here. Fairness is very valued by liberal progressives. Anger results when unfairness is promoted.

FF has been called out for lying more than any poster here, with quotes of his lies and why they were BS all in the same thread. You're obviously delusional.

 

[Ifallalot]

FF has been called out for lying more than any poster here, with quotes of his lies and why they were BS all in the same thread. You're obviously delusional.

Holy sh!t that post might be one of the funniest ones I’ve ever seen

 

[Autoprax]

People can get fired for making a stupid mistake too easy.

Humans make mistakes.

They say stupid things.

You should get fired for saying something stupid on twitter.

Maybe your boss tells you to chill out but not fire.

Sometimes they use it as an excuse to get rid of a worker they don't like.

I notice no one mention cameras in phones and social media.

That is the relevAnt variable both sides ignore.

But I don't

 

[kidfury]

FF has been called out for lying more than any poster here, with quotes of his lies and why they were BS all in the same thread. You're obviously delusional.

post 'em up. Go ahead. Just one will do.

 

[Sharkbiscuit]

Look, grapedrink, it makes total sense that you would defend Cotton. You're very similar to him. Emotional and reactionary.

Oh snap grapedrink you just got ilked square in the udders.

Imagine if Lindsey Graham, instead of usually having a very congenial nature, was a completely unlikeable hetero asshole but still had the buttplug in alongside the Military Industrial Complex and WalMart. That's your ilk, kid.

Better luck next thread!

Just remember, I got ilked as the President who f-----d an SI model; you got ilked as Tom Cotton. And everyone Arkansas it.