101–110 of 716 posts
> Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I…
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hilarious that the top comment exemplifies the problem. It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly, always trying to filter them through some, any, lens to discredit the ones they don’t like. Sometimes it’s attacking the speaker, sometimes their associations, sometimes the tweets they have “liked.” If all else fails, seek out language in the text itself for unfalsifiable “dog whistles” that allow…
In this particular case the author argues from her particular experience in her workplace without providing any evidence, so I think it's pretty relevant to take such things into account because she might be exaggerating. I'm not exactly inclined to take someone's purely personal criticisms at face value if they have engaged in the same behaviour. For all we know she might be leaving on bad terms and is taking it out…
I would appreciate a better source for the claim that Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired than that article by Glenn Greenwald. I dug through it (admittedly a bit quickly, so maybe I missed something), and could only find evidence that she was harshly critical of a Columbia professor, but not that she attempted to get him fired. It's also noteworthy that some or all of her criticism of that professor concerned not his expressed opinions, but the way he (allegedly) berated Israeli students in his classroom.
Ironically, I haven't generally found Greenwald himself to be the most reliable narrator, but that discussion would take us far afield.
> Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hilarious that the top comment exemplifies the problem. It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly, always trying to filter them through some, any, lens to discredit the ones they don’t like. Sometimes it’s attacking the speaker, sometimes their associations, sometimes the tweets they have “liked.” If all else fails, seek out language in the text itself for unfalsifiable “dog whistles” that allow…
In this particular case the author argues from her particular experience in her workplace without providing any evidence, so I think it's pretty relevant to take such things into account because she might be exaggerating. I'm not exactly inclined to take someone's purely personal criticisms at face value if they have engaged in the same behaviour. For all we know she might be leaving on bad terms and is taking it out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hilarious that the top comment exemplifies the problem. It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly, always trying to filter them through some, any, lens to discredit the ones they don’t like. Sometimes it’s attacking the speaker, sometimes their associations, sometimes the tweets they have “liked.” If all else fails, seek out language in the text itself for unfalsifiable “dog whistles” that allow…
So you're digestion of her letter should not be informed in anyway by the fact that she routinely employed the tactics that she now claims she's a victim of? She's spent her career vilifying and seeking out personal retribution for people who she's disagreed with, I don't know how this doesn't factor into one's purview.
It always amazes me when the people who champion "the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society" will also turn around and say something like their political beliefs being mocking by coworkers is "unlawful discrimination". She doesn't want free speech. She wants consequence free speech. She wants her detractors silenced by the law. What a hypocrite.
In Bari's case, she can be simultaneously in favor of free speech but not want to work someplace where she is incessantly criticized or where she lends her credibility to an institution that is ultimately morally corrupt. There's no contradiction here. Specifically, I don't see anything that supports "she wants her detractors silenced by the law". She asks for company policy with respect to social media harassment to apply to those who harass her as it applies to other cases in which she's not the subject of the harassment. This seems like a pretty reasonable policy and one which isn't especially at odds with free speech ideals. I grant that there's a fine line between "harassing" and "criticizing with appropriate respect", and while I think axe emojis and consistent references to her Jewish identity make this pretty clearly a case of harassment, my opinion doesn't matter--what matters is whether the NYT's own standard for harassment. For example, would the NYT consider it harassment if the target were a black progressive instead of a Jewish liberal?
There seems to be more and more public acknowledgement (and in fora like this one) of the myriad leftist 1984-style attacks we are currently witnessing - every bit as bad as the McCarthy era led by the right. As appalling as the behaviour of these people is, that growing awareness can only be a good thing.
I hesitated before upvoting the OP, and even considered flagging it, given its controversial author (with whom I disagree) and its potential to fuel ideologically driven, opinionated arguments (in which no one wins and everyone loses). However, I decided to upvote the OP because I feel it is, in the end, about a topic that is of utmost interest of -- and widely considered important by -- most people on HN: free speec…
Why would you flag it without reading the article?