Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Forced??? Dude, you've truly lost the thread.

She started at the Times 3 years ago. Before the virtue signaling olympians took over the paper.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If this review of Bari Weiss's book gets at her views, you're batting .333 -- your first two sentences are wrong, but your third is sadly correct.



By "dull and conventional," I take it that you mean you don't really have any interest in anything Bari Weiss has ever said, but if she's pissing off people to her left then she must be doing something right. Punching hippies never gets old.



Yes, no virtue signaling at all in anything Weiss writes.

It's pretty clear that virtue signaling doesn't bother you at all unless the virtues being signaled are valued by the left but not the right.

I know it’s a trope of yours to suggest, when you have no argument in the merits, that free speech advocates simply want to “own the libs.” Stop. It’s weak and transparent.

I think Weiss is conventional because she is. She writes on dull topics and seems obsessed with anti-Semitism. It’s not riveting stuff. She’s only interesting when she talks about free speech issues, and even there it’s only compelling because it’s rare for a centrist to put herself at risk.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She started at the Times 3 years ago. Before the virtue signaling olympians took over the paper.

Who took over the New York Times in the last three years?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She started at the Times 3 years ago. Before the virtue signaling olympians took over the paper.

I know very little about Weiss or this whole boring subject, but because it is inexplicably “big news” here, I will say this: Anyone who once tried to get a fellow staffer blackballed from the publishing industry for using the word “fuck” on Twitter, is maybe not the poster child for free speech that you are looking for.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

How can you conclude those two are comparable to Glenn Beck? Sullivan is a staunch anti-Trumper and Weiss is a liberal on almost all things save Israel.

This is a reckless smear.

I didn't say they are, I said they will be.

The market they will be going for is the market served by the likes of Beck. Shapiro is really already there, the other two will morph for money.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

So Navarro isn't just bad at epidemiology, which is somewhat understandable, though who knows why he's felt compelled to pose. It turns out he's pretty damn miserable at economics, too.

Why was he hired again?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

So Navarro isn't just bad at epidemiology, which is somewhat understandable, though who knows why he's felt compelled to pose. It turns out he's pretty damn miserable at economics, too.

Why was he hired again?

Because Don. Jr (or was it Jared?) google for an anti-trade economist and found his idiotic ass. He may be literally the only economist that agrees with Trump's view of trade.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

This author argues that White Fragility infantilizes Blacks. He’s Black, and liberal. Be interesting to see how this article is received: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...gility/614146/

Actually, it probably won’t be interesting. The Twitter lunatics will just scream at the guy and demand he be fired.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I didn't say they are, I said they will be.

The market they will be going for is the market served by the likes of Beck. Shapiro is really already there, the other two will morph for money.

Shapiro is an ass. And he’s dumb. He belongs there. He’s always belonged there.

Sullivan is principled and does not seek to provoke. He has always sought to tread through the middle, to be reasonable. His comments and pieces against Trump are some of the most lucid and appropriately passionate ones out there. I don’t think it’s fair to assume he will go for the cheap dollars given he’s been at his work for a long time, had ample opportunities to do so, and refused. He’s an angered, logical moderate. We need more voices like him.

Weiss may take the easy money as I think she’s got neocon leanings and will happily take what Kristol & Co. will offer her. She’ll get some lousy post at a think tank and write endlessly about Israel.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I know very little about Weiss or this whole boring subject, but because it is inexplicably “big news” here, I will say this: Anyone who once tried to get a fellow staffer blackballed from the publishing industry for using the word “fuck” on Twitter, is maybe not the poster child for free speech that you are looking for.

Like I said, she’s quite conventional. So much so she borders on provincial.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Who took over the New York Times in the last three years?

Whoever the nuts are who’ve been demanding Bennett’s firing and complaining to management about being triggered by insufficiently woke co-workers.

My guess is Charles Blow, who seems sincere but clearly has some mental health issues and several axes to grind, probably controls a faction of strident lefties. He’s activist, and I can’t see him abiding someone like Weiss.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps he is an ardent supporter of true free speech.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

“Perpetuating” anti-Semitism. That’s rich. They can’t call it actual anti-semitism, because it isn’t. But it’s adjacent to it, kind of (but not really), and that’s good enough. Off with Cannon’s head.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts...-anti-semitism

But I must note that this is probably also a way for Viacom, a shitpile of lousy old content, to steal Cannon’s intellectual property.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I know it’s a trope of yours to suggest, when you have no argument in the merits, that free speech advocates simply want to “own the libs.” Stop. It’s weak and transparent.

I think Weiss is conventional because she is. She writes on dull topics and seems obsessed with anti-Semitism. It’s not riveting stuff. She’s only interesting when she talks about free speech issues, and even there it’s only compelling because it’s rare for a centrist to put herself at risk.

You call yourself a "free speech advocate" but there is a pattern to the "free speech" for which you advocate. Some threats to "free speech" arouse your convictions, and others do not seem to interest you particularly.

Meanwhile, Bari Weiss has no more been "put at risk" than she has been "silenced." Not sure why it is so important to you to pretend she is a victim.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Whoever the nuts are who’ve been demanding Bennett’s firing and complaining to management about being triggered by insufficiently woke co-workers.

My guess is Charles Blow, who seems sincere but clearly has some mental health issues and several axes to grind, probably controls a faction of strident lefties. He’s activist, and I can’t see him abiding someone like Weiss.

But I could be wrong. Perhaps he is an ardent supporter of true free speech.

Is there any source but Weiss' twitter ramblings telling you this actually happened?

My understanding (in part from the Times' statement itself and in part from what others have said) is that the man was fired but after he admitted he hadn't read the op-ed before running it, that he went to Cotton looking for something provocative and actually pushed Cotton to make his original idea more provocative, and that he hadn't had the op-ed fact-checked or run through the normal process. After the fact, Times management indicates the article would have failed a fact-check and didn't meet their standards. Is he just doing a really good job of falling on his sword for the Times? Because his story and Weiss' seem very different.

It does seem a lot of people, within and outside of the Times, had a wide range of complaints about Cotton's article, but those complaints are generally what is called "speech". I have heard one person (a letter signatory) indicate that they believe there was a breach of journalistic ethics because some complaints came from the news side and the wall between news and editorial is sacrosanct, and that seems like a real concern (if true). But if its just that there were some folks in the Times' editorial office who called that shitty article a piece of shit, it may have hurt someone's feelings but that's life in the big city buckaroo.

Sheesh. I have to stop commenting on this train wreck. Why can't I just drive past the train wrecks? Also, Charles Blow is great.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This author argues that White Fragility infantilizes Blacks. He’s Black, and liberal. Be interesting to see how this article is received: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...gility/614146/

Actually, it probably won’t be interesting. The Twitter lunatics will just scream at the guy and demand he be fired.

I take it that you are not familiar with John MacWhorter, but his reputation precedes him and probably will have more to do with how the article is received than anything he says in the article.