Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude, my question was, what would you do if you were the editor? Do you read at a first-grade level?

If you're running a newspaper, you have to make choices. If you go out and ask Cotton to write up his crazy views, you can't run something else. If you only have a small section in the paper and you have to choose -- like, if you're the editor -- then why would you run Cotton's piece instead of something else? Stop rejecting the idea that you have to make choices -- that's what editors do.

This is some clever reframing. Now the argument shifts to, “Something more worthy should have been offered instead of Cotton’s clickbait.”

Cotton is a Senator. If he wants to troll, the public should consider his trolling — see it, consider it, and consider the fact that a Senator thinks as he does, and then decide whether to accept or reject it.

The author of the criticism I think pretends to lament the Grey Lady’s debasement, but is actually concerned that Cotton’s view, while rejected by most people, will gain exposure and be accepted by some. Again, he’s trying to preclude free speech — to be the decider of what falls into the sphere of deviancy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is some clever reframing. Now the argument shifts to, “Something more worthy should have been offered instead of Cotton’s clickbait.”

Cotton is a Senator. If he wants to troll, the public should consider his trolling — see it, consider it, and consider the fact that a Senator thinks as he does, and then decide whether to accept or reject it.

The author of the criticism I think pretends to lament the Grey Lady’s debasement, but is actually concerned that Cotton’s view, while rejected by most people, will gain exposure and be accepted by some. Again, he’s trying to preclude free speech — to be the decider of what falls into the sphere of deviancy.

dude, keep in mind Ty is the mother of also censors. He deletes shit he doesn't like. Ty here is what Trump wishes he were in the world. Sad.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

There’s a ton out there you could read. But factually, I think the MPD is fairly diverse already.

If someone breaks into your house, armed, then send the armed police. But, first, that happens pretty rarely, and, second, they likely won’t get there before the burglars are gone anyway (unless it’s an even more rare hostage situation. What actually happens some is that someone breaks into your apartment while you were gone and the responding officer is going to come and write a report on it. Does that need a person with a gun?

That's fine, send a functionary with the forms to fill out to report a robbery. In detroit I doubt the police would even show for that. but minneapolis yesterday said it was getting rid of police. In fact you echoed it earlier. How many electoral votes will trump be getting when he wins MN? We're trying to win an election over here to save the world.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

dude, keep in mind Ty is the mother of also censors. He deletes shit he doesn't like. Ty here is what Trump wishes he were in the world. Sad.

Of course. He fancies himself one who knows better and should get to decide what the public considers.

But he can’t say that directly. Nor can the author he cites. So they try to frame the argument, contort it, so it does not resemble that position but still has the same effect.

And these efforts are always transparent. To repackage Cotton’s editorial as a news story about how crazy Cotton is is to editorialize in exactly the same way as Cotton. Only sleazily - burying the opinion within a purported fact piece.

Ty’s author is arguing the same position William Henry raised years ago in In Defense of Elitism. Henry argues that certain culture was simply More Worthy of Attention. And other culture should receive less attention. Henry, however, did it from a conservative perspective, so had he lived, he’d be thrown into Ty’s sphere of deviancy today.

Ty is really just a boring progressive with libertarian sympathies who thinks people who are anathema to his views ought not to share the Grey Lady’s space with what He Considers Worthy. Snobbishness of the middle minded. We’re awash in that cheap shit today. For those of us who think it’s garbage, it’s apropos the views of Ty would compete with the views of Cotton.

Ultimately, they should both be ignored.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I read it, and I read Cotton’s piece, and I offered my reaction to both. You seem confused. And you do this a lot lately. You offer something, and when someone reacts to it in a manner that doesn’t fall into the debate you want to have, you whine and attack.

Whatever. I posted the link because I think it was a good analysis of the problems that Bennet had in trying to run the NYT op-ed page in the age of Trump. If the only thing you got out of it was that Heer thinks Cotton's piece was bad, you missed the good stuff.

You're not articulating a good reason why the NYT should give space to Cotton to tells lies about antifa and call for a military crackdown on peaceful protest -- you just want to complain about the people who objected to it.

If I were running the Times op-ed page, I would stick to running well-written, interesting ideas, and I wouldn't try to troll my readers. Bennet is gone because he trolled too hard.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ty’s author is arguing the same position William Henry raised years ago in In Defense of Elitism. Henry argues that certain culture was simply More Worthy of Attention. And other culture should receive less attention. Henry, however, did it from a conservative perspective, so had he lived, he’d be thrown into Ty’s sphere of deviancy today.

Congratulations on getting Jeet Heer exactly wrong. Whatever the opposite of elitist is, he is that.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whatever. I posted the link because I think it was a good analysis of the problems that Bennet had in trying to run the NYT op-ed page in the age of Trump. If the only thing you got out of it was that Heer thinks Cotton's piece was bad, you missed the good stuff.

You're not articulating a good reason why the NYT should give space to Cotton to tells lies about antifa and call for a military crackdown on peaceful protest -- you just want to complain about the people who objected to it.

If I were running the Times op-ed page, I would stick to running well-written, interesting ideas, and I wouldn't try to troll my readers. Bennet is gone because he trolled too hard.

Who decides what is interesting and what is not? We agree Cotton is not interesting, but much of what you’d argue is interesting or well written I would think garbage, and vice versa. Who gets to play ultimate decider here?

I’m not unsympathetic to putting an exalted expert’s finger on the scale. I just don’t see many of them out there. Most of the progressive thinkers I read strike me as at best middle minded. Most of the conservatives strike me as deluded or apologists. Both traffic in voluntary and involuntary sophistry as Pablo Escobar did cocaine.

There are no Vidal v. Buckley match ups out there. Nor are there any truly centrist voices who’ll demand compromise and balance because in the media, compromise doesn’t sell.

Neither Heer nor you nor I have any expertise to suggest what should be filtered from Oped pages.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Who decides what is interesting and what is not?

Editors. Someone like Bennet has to try to find people who write op-eds well, and to get a mix of them that's interesting to readers.

And readers. I pay to read the NYT, although more to get other sections than the op-ed.

We agree Cotton is not interesting, but much of what you’d argue is interesting or well written I would think garbage, and vice versa. Who gets to play ultimate decider here?

Readers.

I’m not unsympathetic to putting an exalted expert’s finger on the scale. I just don’t see many of them out there. Most of the progressive thinkers I read strike me as at best middle minded. Most of the conservatives strike me as deluded or apologists. Both traffic in voluntary and involuntary sophistry as Pablo Escobar did cocaine.

There are no Vidal v. Buckley match ups out there. Nor are there any truly centrist voices who’ll demand compromise and balance because in the media, compromise doesn’t sell.

I think the problem you are backing into is, what does the mainstream press do with a conservative movement that is not interested in or open to debate? But you're ideologically committed to both-sidesism, so you can't admit that's the problem that cost Bennet his job.

Neither Heer nor you nor I have any expertise to suggest what should be filtered from Oped pages.

You've said a lot of head-scratching things, but this is up there. What sort of expertise do you think is required to read a newspaper?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Readers.

So you agree with Fox News programming, cuz the test is do the people that watch hear what they want to hear. Fair enough.

I think the problem you are backing into is, what does the mainstream press do with a conservative movement that is not interested in or open to debate?

But their readers, like the NYT's, don't want open debate, and don't need to listen if they don't want to, I thought you said?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So you agree with Fox News programming, cuz the test is do the people that watch hear what they want to hear. Fair enough.



But their readers, like the NYT's, don't want open debate, and don't need to listen if they don't want to, I thought you said?

You picked well behind door number three. You get the Jeep Cherokee Chief, a year's supply of Turtle Wax, and the trip to Aruba.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Editors. Someone like Bennet has to try to find people who write op-eds well, and to get a mix of them that's interesting to readers.

Cotton seems pretty interesting to a lot of people. If Bennet wanted debate, he got it.

And readers. I pay to read the NYT, although more to get other sections than the op-ed.

I agree. The Oped section is a glorified Yahoo page. The quality blows. Hence, what's the fuss about another lousy Oped? Oh, right -- it offended crazy left wing cranks. (Those of us in the middle looked at it and said, as Icky noted, "Oh, that douchebag is actually not just a douchebag... he's crazy.")

Readers.

Right. Except that's my point, not yours. You think Cotton shouldn't have a platform. I say, let the readers decide. Compel the lazy fucks to finally use their brains. Or not.

I think the problem you are backing into is, what does the mainstream press do with a conservative movement that is not interested in or open to debate?

No. I think the problem is people expanding the sphere of deviancy so they can shape consensus. I am far happier with crazy right wing Fox fighting crazy left wing MSNBC than I am with the NYTimes playing centrist while engaging in soft censorship. Paul Krugman, who I usually enjoy, has written batshit crazy stuff on par with Cotton that is considered moderate because he is normalized. In reality, he's a demented low rent version of Stiglitz (who is far better) high on a head full of comments from half smart fan boys telling him he understands political systems.

But you're ideologically committed to both-sidesism, so you can't admit that's the problem that cost Bennet his job.

You're committed to the delusion you know better than the marketplace of ideas.

You've said a lot of head-scratching things, but this is up there. What sort of expertise do you think is required to read a newspaper?

This is exactly the reply I anticipated. When you need a therapist, I'm $500/hr.

The expertise required is that of a true centrist editor who can find the very best arguments from the left and right and balance them against each other to keep a vibrant dialogue.

This person went extinct long ago. Replaced with lamentable sorts who think Vox is the Oped/news page of record. Or crazed loons who think Breitbart is reality.

And since you're a fan of flagging false equivalence, let me flag "false elevation." When Vox trots out opinion as fact, it's well done. I actually read it quite a bit. But doing that is still mixing opinion with fact, and usually selling the former as the latter. That one does it better, more entertainingly, even slightly more honestly, does not change the fact that both are engaged in a game of bullshitting the public.

And when you suggest the Oped pages should be staffed with more Ezra Kleins than Steve Bannons, you're just advocating selling a slightly less pungent form of bullshit, which you happen to favor.

This is why I don't read Opeds in the Times or Post anymore (unless linked elsewhere). I assume some dishonest broker is picking favorites.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You picked well behind door number three. You get the Jeep Cherokee Chief, a year's supply of Turtle Wax, and the trip to Aruba.

His wife is an ER nurse, which means the home schooling of the kids IS. ON. TY? Jesus, let’s hope schools reopen in the fall. #pleasebabyjesusplease

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The 80/20 Rule, exposed via the home office: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeffr...224443437.html

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

His wife is an ER nurse, which means the home schooling of the kids IS. ON. TY? Jesus, let’s hope schools reopen in the fall. #pleasebabyjesusplease

"I go to school every day, and part of getting older and wiser is knowing how little you know." Every kid should hear that every day from a parent.

One can only hope...

ETA: A good point on this is TM making me read White Fragility. Don't know where that cat's gone, but I'm glad he pressed me to read it. Holy shit was that required reading to have gotten through in advance of the present situation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So you agree with Fox News programming, cuz the test is do the people that watch hear what they want to hear. Fair enough.

I think there's a lot of evil in companies like Fox and Facebook, but they also are very good at making money by telling people what they want to hear. We could have a conversation about how the editors at Fox News should do their jobs, but I'm not sure I could suppress my gag reflex.

But their readers, like the NYT's, don't want open debate, and don't need to listen if they don't want to, I thought you said?

There are white supremacists in this country. Should the NYT give them space on its op-ed page? Everyone agrees that there is some line.