Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She’s call him an anti-Semite. And I think be wrong. But that’s not the question. The question is, would she engage the merits in reaching the conclusion, or would she just scream for his head?

You do realize that when we mock Bari Weiss it is because she IS cancel culture? She's the one who wanted all the Arab professors at Columbia fired. She's the one who thought someone should be fired for using "fuck" on the internet.

When we mock you it's because you're slow, but when we mock her its because she's a hypocrite.

I probably need to repeat that - the funny thing about the anti-cancel culture folks is that they are usually the one screaming for "scalps".

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

You do realize that when we mock Bari Weiss it is because she IS cancel culture? She's the one who wanted all the Arab professors at Columbia fired. She's the one who thought someone should be fired for using "fuck" on the internet.

When we mock you it's because you're slow, but when we mock her its because she's a hypocrite.

I probably need to repeat that - the funny thing about the anti-cancel culture folks is that they are usually the one screaming for "scalps".

It is not the most aggressive scalp seeker. Not by a long shot.

If Weiss sought to fire someone for writing fuck, she is a hypocrite. Now go and find me another several hundred right wingers who’ve demanded cancelation of people for inadequate deference to orthodoxy.

I don’t mock you because I don't have to. You’re congenitally insecure. Your very personality renders the exercise redundant.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They should write about all the flaws in Cotton’s piece, and even criticize the editor for printing it.

All of them? On the op-ed page? You can't seem to grok that the Times picks only some things to appear on its op-ed page. I'm sure there are a ton of people at the Times who would have loved to write about why Cotton was wrong. Bennet was chasing Cotton, not them.

But they should not jump to demanding a scalp.

Which Black journalist or staffer at the Times demanded a scalp? Name one.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

You read what I wrote and ignored it because it was inconvenient for your argument. I said: “ 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.” It was pretty obvious to everyone here but you the point that I was making, which was that focusing on a person who perpetually complains about being a victim of “bullying” and being “silenced” while simultaneously bullying and silencing others does not compellingly support your argument that the radical Twitter left has a stranglehold on the marketplace of ideas. There are lots of ways you could have responded that would have not have been the weaselly dodge you came up with. You could have argued that, just because she has engaged in suspect behavior does not mean she was not, in fact, the victim of intellectual bullying herself. Or that her hypocrisy does not necessarily delegitimize her criticisms of the NYT. Instead, like you often do, you tried to sidestep the obvious point I was making and pretended instead that I was calling her out for being prudish about a co-worker’s Twitter language. These weaselly little dodges are transparent and make you look silly. And they are one of the reasons it is pointless to try to substantively engage you.

It fit my point that she was conventional. I’d been arguing she was milquetoast in most regards. You can go back and read the posts where I made that point.

If you view that as a dodge, I understand. Taking it that way is fine with me. I did not intend that. I took the low hanging fruit there myself and perhaps deserve to be flagged for it.

So let’s stipulate she’s a hypocrite. OK. Is what she wrote, or what the Harper’s Letter contained, controversial? No. We should, I’d say must, aspire to the type of dialogue sought by the Harper’s Letter signatories. When someone offends you, you’re first move is not to destroy the person. The first move is to offend him or her back, or mock their offensive behavior. To support cancel culture is to cut off dialogue. It’s like reacting to offensive language by keying the speaker’s car or egging his home.

That cancel culture takes the form of speech is somewhat immaterial. It is speech not designed to counter the speech that has offended it, but intended to harm the person who made the offensive comment. That’s legal of course. That’s protected speech to an extent. But it’s low rent behavior. And yes, when Weiss engaged in it, she wallowed in the practices of low minded, infantile sorts who think they’ve a right not to be offended.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

They should write about all the flaws in Cotton’s piece, and even criticize the editor for printing it.

But they should not jump to demanding a scalp.

But that’s just me. I’m a dinosaur who thinks one should examine the circumstances and dismantle bad arguments on their merits. And I’d argue for a return to a bit of elitist-think, if that’s at all allowed, and suggest the most aggressive and demanding of voices are often the dumbest, and their screams for a sacrifice should not be granted by fearful organizations like the Times.

Even the French aristocracy were given show trials.

And again you ignore the point Ty has made repeatedly about how Mr Bennett appeared not to have done his job and lied about.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Weiss sought to fire someone for writing fuck, she is a hypocrite. Now go and find me another several hundred right wingers who’ve demanded cancelation of people for inadequate deference to orthodoxy.

well, you see, if you'd listened to the Harper's critics, you would have come around to this along time ago.

The Harper letter is focused on cancel-culture of the left, and specifically dismisses the right wing stuff. To which its critics basically replied, oy, vey, you complain that the fish tastes dry but not that it has been poisoned.

Still, it's nice to see you finally getting it.

I wish I could laugh at all the hypocrisy. But sometimes it really bites em in the face, like it did yesterday with Chuck Woolery.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It fit my point that she was conventional. I’d been arguing she was milquetoast in most regards. You can go back and read the posts where I made that point.

If you view that as a dodge, I understand. Taking it that way is fine with me. I did not intend that. I took the low hanging fruit there myself and perhaps deserve to be flagged for it.

So let’s stipulate she’s a hypocrite. OK. Is what she wrote, or what the Harper’s Letter contained, controversial? No. We should, I’d say must, aspire to the type of dialogue sought by the Harper’s Letter signatories. When someone offends you, you’re first move is not to destroy the person. The first move is to offend him or her back, or mock their offensive behavior. To support cancel culture is to cut off dialogue. It’s like reacting to offensive language by keying the speaker’s car or egging his home.

That cancel culture takes the form of speech is somewhat immaterial. It is speech not designed to counter the speech that has offended it, but intended to harm the person who made the offensive comment. That’s legal of course. That’s protected speech to an extent. But it’s low rent behavior. And yes, when Weiss engaged in it, she wallowed in the practices of low minded, infantile sorts who think they’ve a right not to be offended.

My instincts are actually similar to yours. I finally read the Harper’s Letter, and it seemed to be an innocuous if long-winded version of a somewhat naive and obvious statement: Listen to others and don’t be unkind. I feel like it could probably be boiled down to a hashtag. But, as is the case with hashtag platitudes, the nuances get lost. And when I read about someone like Weiss, who has been a bully herself, complaining about being bullied, I begin to wonder if the Harper’s Letter is, at least for some of the signatories, just another way of saying, “Don’t criticize ME.” And when I find out that this self-described provocateur has supposedly been intellectually bullied her whole life, I begin to wonder if maybe she is one of those people who loves doing the provoking, but is too thin-skinned to take it when people actually get provoked. And, because she has engaged in the same sort of low conduct she accuses others of, which you concede, it makes me question her credibility and her motives when she calls for an end to bullying. So when you point to her self-serving martyr letter of resignation as proof of illiberal Twitter fascists snuffing out free speech and murdering the soul of the NYT, I’m telling you I don’t buy it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is what she wrote, or what the Harper’s Letter contained, controversial? No. We should, I’d say must, aspire to the type of dialogue sought by the Harper’s Letter signatories. When someone offends you, you’re first move is not to destroy the person. The first move is to offend him or her back, or mock their offensive behavior. To support cancel culture is to cut off dialogue. It’s like reacting to offensive language by keying the speaker’s car or egging his home.

Plenty of people disagreed with the Harper's letter and explained why. I've posted some of those responses here. You prefer to ignore what those people are saying, and to instead pretend that they are "destroy[ing]" the authors, "offend[ing them] back," or "mock[ing] their offensive behavior." Who is doing that? Who are you arguing against? Why do you prefer to disagree with stupid things that no one is saying instead of actual things that some people are saying?

Still waiting for an explanation of how Bari Weiss has been "silenced" but I do not expect to get one. You use words like "destroyed" and "silenced" when you seem to mean "met with fundamental criticism instead of the fawning the author would prefer."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

And again you ignore the point Ty has made repeatedly about how Mr Bennett appeared not to have done his job and lied about.

Bennet lost his job because the initial explanations that he and the Times gave only made things worse, and a lot of people outside the Times were reporting on the mess he created. I would be astonished to learn that anyone within the Times demanded that he be fired, until his boss decided it was time for him to go.

And since Bari Weiss worked for him, it is hardly a surprise to see her go. Lots of people who get a new boss end up looking for a new job.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Bennet lost his job because the initial explanations that he and the Times gave only made things worse, and a lot of people outside the Times were reporting on the mess he created. I would be astonished to learn that anyone within the Times demanded that he be fired, until his boss decided it was time for him to go.

And since Bari Weiss worked for him, it is hardly a surprise to see her go. Lots of people who get a new boss end up looking for a new job.

Apparently Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan (and Ben Shapiro, too perhaps?) have been putting together their new venture for the last 6 months, so she planned her departure long before this. The resignation was just a cheap, high visibility way to exit.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

My instincts are actually similar to yours. I finally read the Harper’s Letter, and it seemed to be an innocuous if long-winded version of a somewhat naive and obvious statement: Listen to others and don’t be unkind. I feel like it could probably be boiled down to a hashtag. But, as is the case with hashtag platitudes, the nuances get lost. And when I read about someone like Weiss, who has been a bully herself, complaining about being bullied, I begin to wonder if the Harper’s Letter is, at least for some of the signatories, just another way of saying, “Don’t criticize ME.” And when I find out that this self-described provocateur has supposedly been intellectually bullied her whole life, I begin to wonder if maybe she is one of those people who loves doing the provoking, but is too thin-skinned to take it when people actually get provoked. And, because she has engaged in the same sort of low conduct she accuses others of, which you concede, it makes me question her credibility and her motives when she calls for an end to bullying. So when you point to her self-serving martyr letter of resignation as proof of illiberal Twitter fascists snuffing out free speech and murdering the soul of the NYT, I’m telling you I don’t buy it.

I guess I wonder why you twice spelled out the F-word instead of just doing it politely as I have? Were you trying to incite some passion, or prove some point by fouling this chatting page I find holy, and like to seen a pristine place to share ideas?

RT, is there not some guideline that calls for not using offensive terms, especially when there is a nicer alternative? Are there consequences to violating those guidelines? Is a permanent ban in order or a suspension?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

My instincts are actually similar to yours. I finally read the Harper’s Letter, and it seemed to be an innocuous if long-winded version of a somewhat naive and obvious statement: Listen to others and don’t be unkind. I feel like it could probably be boiled down to a hashtag. But, as is the case with hashtag platitudes, the nuances get lost. And when I read about someone like Weiss, who has been a bully herself, complaining about being bullied, I begin to wonder if the Harper’s Letter is, at least for some of the signatories, just another way of saying, “Don’t criticize ME.” And when I find out that this self-described provocateur has supposedly been intellectually bullied her whole life, I begin to wonder if maybe she is one of those people who loves doing the provoking, but is too thin-skinned to take it when people actually get provoked. And, because she has engaged in the same sort of low conduct she accuses others of, which you concede, it makes me question her credibility and her motives when she calls for an end to bullying. So when you point to her self-serving martyr letter of resignation as proof of illiberal Twitter fascists snuffing out free speech and murdering the soul of the NYT, I’m telling you I don’t buy it.

All of that is a very fair criticism. She is flawed and if GGG is correct, she may have been merely marketing.

By including her here, I’ve drawn attention away from the Harper’s Letter.

All I sought with reference to the Harper’s Letter was the recognition that you’ve honorably chosen to provide: It’s naive, maybe pedantic, but it stands for a proposition that allows for sensible discussion of issues and ideas. I’d add that without the ideal set forth in Harper’s, much innovation, and a huge number of creative projects, would never have advanced.

Can we all agree the sentiment of the letter is one to which any advanced society ought to aspire?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Can we all agree the sentiment of the letter is one to which any advanced society ought to aspire?

It's all rather precious.

If we want to talk about free speech, I think we should start with state actions, not those of individuals exercising their own speech.

And frankly, I don't care if some editor loses their job because they do it poorly.

The only episode referenced in there that looks truly tragic is that of David Shor, and, what can you say, I'd never heard of his organization and I hope I never will again.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I guess I wonder why you twice spelled out the F-word instead of just doing it politely as I have? Were you trying to incite some passion, or prove some point by fouling this chatting page I find holy, and like to seen a pristine place to share ideas?

RT, is there not some guideline that calls for not using offensive terms, especially when there is a nicer alternative? Are there consequences to violating those guidelines? Is a permanent ban in order or a suspension?

This is a tough word to restrict. Sure, it can be used in an offensive manner, but, usually, around here, we celebrate fucking.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This is a tough word to restrict. Sure, it can be used in an offensive manner, but, usually, around here, we celebrate fucking.

So you're trying to censor my opinion, or eliminate my right to voice my concerns? What is happening to the culture here?