Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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.



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.

Your line is an unlettered one.

I’m fine with Hank drawing the line. Not you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your line is an unlettered one.

I’m fine with Hank drawing the line. Not you.

Thank you. I was trying to figure how to respond to him, but geez, it’s like 3 d chess trying to figure out what he even means. He was once coherent. Sad.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Thank you. I was trying to figure how to respond to him, but geez, it’s like 3 d chess trying to figure out what he even means. He was once coherent. Sad.

In fairness, I’ve lost coherence as well. But I was never tethered to much, so I’m just further unmoored and lost in that sea of “moral relativism” my right wing friends claim exists.

I see an emergence of new religions in this mess. People are grabbing onto concepts, shreds of movements, beliefs in the power of revolution... It’s all a hodgepodge because so many divisive events have never met like this. Ain’t Franz Ferdinand. No wars. Societies have to look internally and fix their own shit, rather than attack a foreign power. Much uglier. But also possibly much more positive in the long term.

But the competitive salesmen of orthodoxies in the moment need to be rejected in favor of more circumspect thinkers.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.

Go look at some polls.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Go look at some polls.

Too early. Look at polls AFTER they're gone.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Too early. Look at polls AFTER they're gone.

I don't agree with everything here, but you definitely need to read this: https://medium.com/@OfcrACab/confess...p-bb14d17bc759

Also, if you want to predict that suburban white voters will be scared because they haven't read past the slogan, fine, but then see the polls.

But I'm not buying the nonsense that down the line, after we've done the intentional work to shift resources to more effective responses, we're really going to miss having more violence to throw around. The cops don't make us safer. The relative absence of cops isn't going to make us less safe. Having gotten to the other side isn't going to lead everyone to want to go back.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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.

Are you afraid Trump is going to win MN on a law 'n order vote?

I don't think that's going to happen. I think this Floyd thing will fade from prominence in the next few weeks. Like Occupy, I don't see all of the heat behind these protests sustaining without a clearly defined set of policy objectives. There has to be a plan, as Killer Mike has said in tons of appearances.

There are reforms being implemented and a lot of lip service being paid by politicians to the notion of a need for reform. But I don't see police brutality as one of the most important voter issues in swing states this fall.

I see the media predicting a slowdown in the protests already. My news feed was all Floyd all day a week ago. As his funeral approached it slowed and a mix of stories about Covid-19 upticks started appearing. Now it's filled with criticisms of some WHO flip flop on Covid data and a surge in infections in Texas.

The story du jour is going to be "Covid is Back, Baby!!!" until the next unemployment report. If the unemployment report is excellent or great, it'll be all about the economy for a few weeks, then when that becomes boring, back to Covid. Or if Trump is back on the road doing rallies, it'll be all about that.

Intermittently, stories about protests and more police abuse will appear here and there.

The media has four dishes to serve to keep eyeballs - Covid, Trump's latest bizarre or offensive behavior, police brutality, and the economy (comeback or depression?). Their goal will be to swap these stories in and out continuously as people become temporarily bored with them.

I see law 'n order, police brutality, protests, and riots as the least served of these dishes. It doesn't matter to as broad an audience as the economy, Trump's craziness, or Covid. I see Trump losing if he focuses on it. His focus should be the economy and Covid. If the economy bounces and we see no second wave, he can win. In any other scenario, all of which are far more likely, he loses.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Your line is an unlettered one.

I wrote a long response to your earlier post and the site just ate it, and I'm not writing it again. I wasn't particularly upset by Cotton's op-ed, and am not sure why you seem to think otherwise. It was poorly written, as you agree, and would have been beneath the NYT's standards, if those standards apply to right-wing views. Obviously, they don't -- the NYT chased Cotton to write it, and let him write crap. If editorial standards had applied, they wouldn't have run it, and people were more upset, I think, that the NYT gave it their imprimatur than about Cotton's views themselves, which you can find on Breitbart, Fox, and a variety of other sources. (Hence the absurdity of the idea of denying Cotton a platform. Cotton has no shortage of platforms.) The harder question is, in this day and age, what should the NYT do with its op-ed pages. Your glib answer is, expose readers to all views, the assumption being that the readers skew left and need to be confronted with what the right is saying. (I would take that more seriously if you had any interest in finding a way to make sure that people on the right are exposed to what the left is saying.) That's great if you can find people on the right who write good op-eds. But you don't, because the premise of a good op-ed is open debate, and today's conservatives are not interested in open debate. Given the chance, Cotton repeated lies about antifa. How do you have a debate with people who are so committed to lies?

You are committed to both-sidesism, so when you are confronted with the fact that Trump and conservatives lie all the time, you pretend that the left does it too, and you insist that reporting that Trump lies is itself a sign of media bias. You care more about the form of the debate than the substance.

The best thing I have read on this subject is this piece (in Vox!) by David Roberts. He makes a lot of good points. Please don't feel any need to read it or respond to it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I wrote a long response to your earlier post and the site just ate it, and I'm not writing it again. I wasn't particularly upset by Cotton's op-ed, and am not sure why you seem to think otherwise.

I didn't say it offended you. I said it offended crazy left wing cranks. If those cranks hadn't flipped out, we'd have all just thought Cotton's ideas were bad and ignored it.

It was poorly written, as you agree, and would have been beneath the NYT's standards, if those standards apply to right-wing views.

Like one thousand other editorials farted onto that debased page every year.

Obviously, they don't -- the NYT chased Cotton to write it, and let him write crap.

Yes.

If editorial standards had applied, they wouldn't have run it, and people were more upset, I think, that the NYT gave it their imprimatur than about Cotton's views themselves, which you can find on Breitbart, Fox, and a variety of other sources. (Hence the absurdity of the idea of denying Cotton a platform. Cotton has no shortage of platforms.)

Brietbart and Fox are not the NYTimes. They are echo chambers for fellow travelers. Crappy as it's become, the Times' oped page is supposed to be home to differing opinions read by literate sorts, thinkers, who would never watch Fox or read Breitbart.

The harder question is, in this day and age, what should the NYT do with its op-ed pages. Your glib answer is, expose readers to all views, the assumption being that the readers skew left and need to be confronted with what the right is saying. (I would take that more seriously if you had any interest in finding a way to make sure that people on the right are exposed to what the left is saying.)

Why do you think I think people on the right should not be exposed to what the left is saying? I absolutely think they should be exposed to it. I think the problem is that people on the right and left cocoon themselves and refuse to hear other voices. Siloing is rampant on both sides.

That's great if you can find people on the right who write good op-eds.

Do you think the left writes good opeds? It doesn't. They're more open to facts and they tend in aggregate to be structurally and grammatically of better quality, but their ultimate statements are often childish, naive, and lately, scolding.

But you don't, because the premise of a good op-ed is open debate, and today's conservatives are not interested in open debate. Given the chance, Cotton repeated lies about antifa. How do you have a debate with people who are so committed to lies?

You simply say, "That is untrue, and here is why." Then you provide facts.

And if you think the left is open to debate, you're deluded. The left is a bag of orthodoxies. More rigid than the right. #Metoo, Cancel culture, BLM, Trump is a facsist and the source of all evil in the world, Russiagate... If you even question some of the motives behind these things, or the methods of those pushing these ideas, you are treated like a heretic. The left immediately seeks to silence you. And they don't hide these efforts. They admit, "We think allowing debate is dangerous." They say their ideals are so important, that to allow them to be questioned is a form of violence. You've seen it. They actually argue speech = violence.

Granted, that's not the entire left. But it's a lot of the left today, and its the loudest of the left.

Identically, you cannot argue that the entire right is refusing to debate. A lot of the right will debate. I think Cotton would even be open to it. But a lot of the right will not, and sadly, those are the loudest voices on the right.

So if you're serving false equivalence, I'll return with a suggestion you drop the false elevation (of the left).

You are committed to both-sidesism, so when you are confronted with the fact that Trump and conservatives lie all the time, you pretend that the left does it too, and you insist that reporting that Trump lies is itself a sign of media bias. You care more about the form of the debate than the substance.

I think you are biased. One can easily find tons of sensible conservative voices. The Never Trump Camp is loaded with them. National Review still offers sensible conservative criticism and analysis. If you look at RealClearPolitics any given day, a site that attempts to provide equal time to right and left views, you'll find reasonable and intelligent conservative pieces.

You avoid that and selectively pit the Ezra Kleins of the world against knuckledraggers to create a false dichotomy. Of course a skilled editorial writer and interviewer is going to be more open minded and reasonable than a right wing troll. (Cotton is not a troll generally [more a psycho who actually believes the authoritarian shit he spews], but did troll with that oped.)

The best thing I have read on this subject is this piece (in Vox!) by David Roberts. He makes a lot of good points. Please don't feel any need to read it or respond to it.

It's just another framing of the sphere of deviancy to place ideas like Cotton's beyond the scope of debate:

Here’s the thing, though. While Cotton very deftly exploited the liberal tolerance that Sulzberger and Bennet are so proud of to get his piece published, he does not share that tolerance. The movement he represents — he is often identified as the “future of Trumpism” — is ethnocentric and authoritarian. It is about maintaining the power and status of rural and suburban white people, even as they dwindle demographically, by allying with large corporate interests and using the levers of government to entrench minority rule.

Such a movement is incommensurate with the shared premises that small-l liberals take for granted. Minority rule is incompatible with full democratic participation. A revanchist movement meant to restore power to a privileged herrenvolk cannot abide shared standards of accuracy or conduct. Will to power takes precedent over any principle.

This is the author's wholly subjective assessment about what can and cannot be tolerated as debate in the country based on his also subjective view of the country's founding ideals. He's going to herculean lengths to defend the argument, "Some things simply cannot be debated, and I and those who think as I do am able to judge and should judge that."

I say, if an idea is so dumb, or so odious to the ideals on which the nations is founded, it will be rejected by the public.

But that leads us to two other issues:

1. Should simply badly written factually inaccurate crap be allowed on the oped page? No. I agree, as I said from the start, that Cotton should not have been allowed to publish untruths. But should he be able to spew his crazy opinions if he likes? Sure. Opinions are just opinions. Nobody is mislead. They read it, consider it, and either agree with or reject it.

2. Is the public too credulous to spot what Cotton was doing? Do we need wise men to preclude it from considering bad ideas because it may not be smart enough to vet them on its own? I'd say a lot of the public is quite credulous, silly, and naive. But I think it's anathema to the most important values on which the nation is built to say, "Ok, let's install a star chamber to keep Joe Sixpack from adopting ideas he's too dumb to realize he shouldn't." That kind of arrogance is what brought us Donald Trump. People were sick of narrative shapers telling them what to think.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are you afraid Trump is going to win MN on a law 'n order vote?

I don't think that's going to happen. I think this Floyd thing will fade from prominence in the next few weeks. Like Occupy, I don't see all of the heat behind these protests sustaining without a clearly defined set of policy objectives. There has to be a plan, as Killer Mike has said in tons of appearances.

There are reforms being implemented and a lot of lip service being paid by politicians to the notion of a need for reform. But I don't see police brutality as one of the most important voter issues in swing states this fall.

I see the media predicting a slowdown in the protests already. My news feed was all Floyd all day a week ago. As his funeral approached it slowed and a mix of stories about Covid-19 upticks started appearing. Now it's filled with criticisms of some WHO flip flop on Covid data and a surge in infections in Texas.

The story du jour is going to be "Covid is Back, Baby!!!" until the next unemployment report. If the unemployment report is excellent or great, it'll be all about the economy for a few weeks, then when that becomes boring, back to Covid. Or if Trump is back on the road doing rallies, it'll be all about that.

Intermittently, stories about protests and more police abuse will appear here and there.

The media has four dishes to serve to keep eyeballs - Covid, Trump's latest bizarre or offensive behavior, police brutality, and the economy (comeback or depression?). Their goal will be to swap these stories in and out continuously as people become temporarily bored with them.

I see law 'n order, police brutality, protests, and riots as the least served of these dishes. It doesn't matter to as broad an audience as the economy, Trump's craziness, or Covid. I see Trump losing if he focuses on it. His focus should be the economy and Covid. If the economy bounces and we see no second wave, he can win. In any other scenario, all of which are far more likely, he loses.

In 2017, the Women's March and #metoo revolutionized a lot of people. Relatives that never really gave a shit started meeting with strangers in small coffee shops and in front of senator's offices to take action. They became voter registrars and knocked on doors in 2018 Women took online ranting to actual action and started running for office. I knew personally more people running for office in 2018 than in any other election in memory. All women, most won. . It happened all over the country. It's still going. The 2018 midterms sprang from a lot of things, but women organizing in a quiet way had a huge impact on that.

The events of the last two weeks were even greater than the Women's March. Places that I NEVER thought would give a shit about racism stood up. Fucking Vidor, Texas had more than 100 people show up. What the fuck? And has been sustained over a long period. Part of it, I think, has to do with the racist bullshit coming out of the White House from day one, starting with the immigration ban and pretty much every day since. Part of it has to do with the fact that parts of this country have done the adult equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "I DON'T HEAR YOU" when the issue of police brutality against African Amercians has been brought up. Kapernick's treatment is a particularly egregious example of this, but it's not the only one. Part of it is that this particular murder was pretty horrific and can't really be excused away, especially given the video, though I'm sure they'll try. It's certainly the first time I've seen someone slowly and deliberately killed in real life. A lot of it has to do with the rage and frustration and helplessness people feel about the pandemic.

The police didn't do themselves any favors in the early days of the protests by reacting so violently. Especially when they did jack shit with those armed assholes that were protesting fucking haircuts and bars.

I see this as a mobilizing point. Whether or not the general public forgets isn't as important as planting the seeds of organization. Is it in time for the 2020? I think so, given the sheer number of people who have been radicalized in some way. There are groups forming all over the country, even in places that were improbable before the pandemic started. It's impossible right now to get books like White Fragility on Amazon because so many people are reading them right now. My white (for Houston) yoga studio is hosting a book club starting this week starting with Heavy: An American Memoir, also impossible to get in tangible form right now. Sorority members are calling out racism in their houses on Twitter. Authors are sharing the details of their book deals to shine light on disparities. There's a revolution happening in places like Conde Nast and Crossfit. Like #metoo, people are feeling comfortable coming forward publicly with shit they've been carrying privately for too long.

The problem of course, demonstrated so beautifully by the shitty situation in Georgia earlier this week, is the Republicans have done everything in their power to prevent people from voting. This in the middle of the pandemic when we really shouldn't be that close to each other.

So we'll see, but I think that this is a flashpoint. A lot of people in this country want to ignore as a one-time-thing like all of the other beatings and killings that we forget about and move on. I don't think so.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

In 2017, the Women's March and #metoo revolutionized a lot of people. Relatives that never really gave a shit started meeting with strangers in small coffee shops and in front of senator's offices to take action. They became voter registrars and knocked on doors in 2018 Women took online ranting to actual action and started running for office. I knew personally more people running for office in 2018 than in any other election in memory. All women, most won. . It happened all over the country. It's still going. The 2018 midterms sprang from a lot of things, but women organizing in a quiet way had a huge impact on that.

The events of the last two weeks were even greater than the Women's March. Places that I NEVER thought would give a shit about racism stood up. Fucking Vidor, Texas had more than 100 people show up. What the fuck? And has been sustained over a long period. Part of it, I think, has to do with the racist bullshit coming out of the White House from day one, starting with the immigration ban and pretty much every day since. Part of it has to do with the fact that parts of this country have done the adult equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "I DON'T HEAR YOU" when the issue of police brutality against African Amercians has been brought up. Kapernick's treatment is a particularly egregious example of this, but it's not the only one. Part of it is that this particular murder was pretty horrific and can't really be excused away, especially given the video, though I'm sure they'll try. It's certainly the first time I've seen someone slowly and deliberately killed in real life. A lot of it has to do with the rage and frustration and helplessness people feel about the pandemic.

The police didn't do themselves any favors in the early days of the protests by reacting so violently. Especially when they did jack shit with those armed assholes that were protesting fucking haircuts and bars.

I see this as a mobilizing point. Whether or not the general public forgets isn't as important as planting the seeds of organization. Is it in time for the 2020? I think so, given the sheer number of people who have been radicalized in some way. There are groups forming all over the country, even in places that were improbable before the pandemic started. It's impossible right now to get books like White Fragility on Amazon because so many people are reading them right now. My white (for Houston) yoga studio is hosting a book club starting this week starting with Heavy: An American Memoir, also impossible to get in tangible form right now. Sorority members are calling out racism in their houses on Twitter. Authors are sharing the details of their book deals to shine light on disparities. There's a revolution happening in places like Conde Nast and Crossfit. Like #metoo, people are feeling comfortable coming forward publicly with shit they've been carrying privately for too long.

The problem of course, demonstrated so beautifully by the shitty situation in Georgia earlier this week, is the Republicans have done everything in their power to prevent people from voting. This in the middle of the pandemic when we really shouldn't be that close to each other.

So we'll see, but I think that this is a flashpoint. A lot of people in this country want to ignore as a one-time-thing like all of the other beatings and killings that we forget about and move on. I don't think so.

I think #metoo succeeded because it had a laser-like focus: Exposing bad actors. That was easy in the age of social media.

BLM can do the same thing re: police. It could start singling out the bad depts and bad cops. That's probably good idea, actually.

But right now the message seems incoherent. "Defund the police" is also counterproductive. Too extreme.

The movement you see is real and at some point will put forth concise goals that go to the root of the problem: Laws designed to control the poor rather than protect them.

But from what I see at the moment, the immediate future looks a lot like Occupy. Everyone's recognizing a problem and agreeing we need to do something, but there's no consensus about what. And that opportunistic effort by Pelosi and Schumer to capitalize on the moment with legislation that bars chokeholds is just embarrassing. (Wearing that African garb also looked like pretty awful pandering, and to whom? These people being killed aren't African. They are Americans. They dress just like you and me. They are not an "other" except to racists.)

A much better legislative effort would have been to: (1) ban the sale of defense department military hardware to police; (2) repeal the laws on civil and criminal forfeiture which are used by police to steal from innocent minorities (and non-minorities) who can't afford to fight the forfeiture; and, (3) refuse federal funding to states deemed to be applying usurious and predatory fines and fees to criminals.

On #3, recall that Ferguson was using minorities, often forced to plead guilty to petty crimes as they couldn't afford cost of defense, as ATMs - charging them rates of interest and penalties for non-payment of nominal amounts that payday lenders wouldn't attempt. That's still going on all over the place, including very large cities in very blue states. The court system and police are effectively turning hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people into debt serfs for minor crimes, often long after they've served their sentences. It's nuts. Once you've done your time, you should be done. Period.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

In 2017, the Women's March and #metoo revolutionized a lot of people. Relatives that never really gave a shit started meeting with strangers in small coffee shops and in front of senator's offices to take action. They became voter registrars and knocked on doors in 2018 Women took online ranting to actual action and started running for office. I knew personally more people running for office in 2018 than in any other election in memory. All women, most won. . It happened all over the country. It's still going. The 2018 midterms sprang from a lot of things, but women organizing in a quiet way had a huge impact on that.

The events of the last two weeks were even greater than the Women's March. Places that I NEVER thought would give a shit about racism stood up. Fucking Vidor, Texas had more than 100 people show up. What the fuck? And has been sustained over a long period. Part of it, I think, has to do with the racist bullshit coming out of the White House from day one, starting with the immigration ban and pretty much every day since. Part of it has to do with the fact that parts of this country have done the adult equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "I DON'T HEAR YOU" when the issue of police brutality against African Amercians has been brought up. Kapernick's treatment is a particularly egregious example of this, but it's not the only one. Part of it is that this particular murder was pretty horrific and can't really be excused away, especially given the video, though I'm sure they'll try. It's certainly the first time I've seen someone slowly and deliberately killed in real life. A lot of it has to do with the rage and frustration and helplessness people feel about the pandemic.

The police didn't do themselves any favors in the early days of the protests by reacting so violently. Especially when they did jack shit with those armed assholes that were protesting fucking haircuts and bars.

I see this as a mobilizing point. Whether or not the general public forgets isn't as important as planting the seeds of organization. Is it in time for the 2020? I think so, given the sheer number of people who have been radicalized in some way. There are groups forming all over the country, even in places that were improbable before the pandemic started. It's impossible right now to get books like White Fragility on Amazon because so many people are reading them right now. My white (for Houston) yoga studio is hosting a book club starting this week starting with Heavy: An American Memoir, also impossible to get in tangible form right now. Sorority members are calling out racism in their houses on Twitter. Authors are sharing the details of their book deals to shine light on disparities. There's a revolution happening in places like Conde Nast and Crossfit. Like #metoo, people are feeling comfortable coming forward publicly with shit they've been carrying privately for too long.

The problem of course, demonstrated so beautifully by the shitty situation in Georgia earlier this week, is the Republicans have done everything in their power to prevent people from voting. This in the middle of the pandemic when we really shouldn't be that close to each other.

So we'll see, but I think that this is a flashpoint. A lot of people in this country want to ignore as a one-time-thing like all of the other beatings and killings that we forget about and move on. I don't think so.

45 is holding a rally on Juneteenth. In Tulsa. Seems like it could get interesting.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

BLM can do the same thing re: police. It could start singling out the bad depts and bad cops. That's probably good idea, actually.

I'm going to tell you, again, that organizers who have been leading these movements do not need your advice.

Also, go read that medium post. There aren't any truly good cops.

But right now the message seems incoherent. "Defund the police" is also counterproductive. Too extreme.

You've literally done nothing to educate yourself on this in the last two weeks, huh?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm going to tell you, again, that organizers who have been leading these movements do not need your advice.

Also, go read that medium post. There aren't any truly good cops.



You've literally done nothing to educate yourself on this in the last two weeks, huh?

You realize that more than a week ago I posted a piece explaining that the police are not in the business of protecting people, but in the business of protecting the status quo and private property.

So spare me the sanctimony. You're on my corner.

The reality is, We Are Not Going To Abolish Police, or The Carceral State.

I'd love for that to happen, but it isn't realistic. Old voters respond to fear. Saying "Let's Defund the Police" scares them. They go out and vote for whoever takes the other position.

I think Biden knows this and is shrewdly avoiding making the debate one of extreme positions. I read the Medium piece, and I agree with it. But it's not realistic to argue for abolishment.

I'm simply being pragmatic. And I don't like it very much. I have nothing but scorn for our entire adversarial justice system. It's too imperfect. It relies too much on people viewing themselves as being warriors and competitors (Me prosecutor! Me send you to jail for as long as possible!). It's dumb, cold, and filed with untalented, mean, lousy human beings.

I would throw prosecutors and many legislators into the "Bastards" category. Do we need to jail people for a decade for LSD? Do we need to have potential 30 year maximum sentences for non-violent crimes so untalented prosecutors can scare people into pleas? Does the deck have to be so fucking stacked against the accused that to they've only got a 5% chance of winning in a fed prosecution?

It's a miserable, cruel, Calvinist system. It's ancient, unenlightened, and I hate with the power of a thousand suns the people who claim to be "tough on crime." I detest the ignorance and arrogance that allows for that mindset.

I'd like to punch a lot prosecutors, cops, judges, and legislators right in the fucking mouth. Or better yet, make them spend on a night on the streets in one of the worst neighborhoods in Baltimore.

But I know they aren't going anywhere any time soon. And I know the propertied classes in this country are going to support them because they know these "control structures" are the only line of defense between them and the people without assets who are getting fucked out of a decent life. So instead of giving the people with money - the winners in the status quo - a basis to pass laws to enable and encourage the cops and prosecutors to engage in even more extreme crackdowns, I say Work Within the Possible.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn't say it offended you. I said it offended crazy left wing cranks. If those cranks hadn't flipped out, we'd have all just thought Cotton's ideas were bad and ignored it.

I think you are missing an essential part of what happened, which was the outrage within the New York Times, especially on the part of black reporters and staff. That was what was really different. And the reason that they were upset was not because they were "crazy" but because Cotton was calling for military troops to suppress protests about racial inequality and police brutality, at a time when there is more than ample evidence that the police have been targeting journalists and acting lawlessly towards protesters in general but in particular blacks.

When you flippantly dismiss those concerns as "crazy", is that the sort of debate you have in mind?

Like one thousand other editorials farted onto that debased page every year.

It's a neat trick to be so dismissive of the op-ed page while similtaneously so scornful of the idea that it ought to be better.

Brietbart and Fox are not the NYTimes. They are echo chambers for fellow travelers. Crappy as it's become, the Times' oped page is supposed to be home to differing opinions read by literate sorts, thinkers, who would never watch Fox or read Breitbart.

Well, sure. So the real question is not whether Cotton has a platform, since he obviously does. The question is whether a "home to different opinions read by literate sorts" ought to publish crap like Cotton's, crap that would not get run if it were written by someone on the left -- crap that is "different" but not "literate."

Why do you think I think people on the right should not be exposed to what the left is saying? I absolutely think they should be exposed to it. I think the problem is that people on the right and left cocoon themselves and refuse to hear other voices. Siloing is rampant on both sides.

I'm going to go back and re-read your posts where you have attacked Fox and Breitbart for not giving space to the left to share their views with their readers.

OK, I'm back. That was exhausting!

Do you think the left writes good opeds? It doesn't. They're more open to facts and they tend in aggregate to be structurally and grammatically of better quality, but their ultimate statements are often childish, naive, and lately, scolding.

I think that's a stupid question. The left is too busy plotting the homosexual takeover of the Boy Scouts and binge-watching Ozark again to have time to write anything.

You simply say, "That is untrue, and here is why." Then you provide facts.

I see that you are unfamiliar with the way that the NYT op-ed page works. It famously doesn't even let its columnists respond to each other, and it certainly doesn't given room on its pages for someone who thinks Cotton is wrong to say, "That is untrue, and here is why."

The point is, the NYT op-ed page is curated, and they didn't bother with Cotton.

And if you think the left is open to debate, you're deluded. The left is a bag of orthodoxies. More rigid than the right. #Metoo, Cancel culture, BLM, Trump is a facsist and the source of all evil in the world, Russiagate... If you even question some of the motives behind these things, or the methods of those pushing these ideas, you are treated like a heretic. The left immediately seeks to silence you. And they don't hide these efforts. They admit, "We think allowing debate is dangerous." They say their ideals are so important, that to allow them to be questioned is a form of violence. You've seen it. They actually argue speech = violence.

Where do you get your information about the left? MSNBC? Breitbart? USA Today?

Granted, that's not the entire left. But it's a lot of the left today, and its the loudest of the left.

Turn the volume on your TV down, and follow different people on Twitter.

Identically, you cannot argue that the entire right is refusing to debate. A lot of the right will debate. I think Cotton would even be open to it. But a lot of the right will not, and sadly, those are the loudest voices on the right.

I'm not saying no one will, but conservatives know that Trump lies all the time, and they like it. You can't have a debate about what just happened in Lafayette Square because the White House keeps lying about the basic facts -- for example, that tear gas wasn't used, or that protesters were violent, or that the operation was planned in concert with Trump's public statement. The point of those lies is to make debate pointless. Is there any conservative who has objected to those lies, or who has criticized Trump for using law enforcement and the military to suppress peaceful protest?

I think you are biased.

I am biased, and so are you.

One can easily find tons of sensible conservative voices.

If that were true, the NYT should have had no problem finding another conservative to run instead of Cotton. They can't, because being intellectually open to competing ideas is the antithesis of how conservatism and this Administration work.

The Never Trump Camp is loaded with them.

Never Trumpers are not conservatives. They reject what conservatism has become, and are hoping they can reclaim the mantle. But conservatives will not accept them if they reject Trump.

You avoid that and selectively pit the Ezra Kleins of the world against knuckledraggers to create a false dichotomy.

You keep mentioning Ezra Klein. I haven't. Not sure who you're arguing with here.

It's just another framing of the sphere of deviancy to place ideas like Cotton's beyond the scope of debate:

Here’s the thing, though. While Cotton very deftly exploited the liberal tolerance that Sulzberger and Bennet are so proud of to get his piece published, he does not share that tolerance. The movement he represents — he is often identified as the “future of Trumpism” — is ethnocentric and authoritarian. It is about maintaining the power and status of rural and suburban white people, even as they dwindle demographically, by allying with large corporate interests and using the levers of government to entrench minority rule.

Such a movement is incommensurate with the shared premises that small-l liberals take for granted. Minority rule is incompatible with full democratic participation. A revanchist movement meant to restore power to a privileged herrenvolk cannot abide shared standards of accuracy or conduct. Will to power takes precedent over any principle.

This is the author's wholly subjective assessment about what can and cannot be tolerated as debate in the country based on his also subjective view of the country's founding ideals. He's going to herculean lengths to defend the argument, "Some things simply cannot be debated, and I and those who think as I do am able to judge and should judge that."

More or less. It's his opinion. You have one too, and yours is subjective as well. We all agree that there are some ideas that are beyond the pale, that there's a line to be drawn. There's nothing objective about those lines.

But I don't think he's saying Cotton's ideas shouldn't be debated. I think he's saying that we need more honesty about what Cotton's ideas are.