Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Resignation Letter

bariweiss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#111

Post by duxup »

Letters like this always leave me wanting to know what specifically informed these opinions about the place they're leaving. That of course is a lot to ask from a resignation letter.

The cry of 'these people think these things because of groupthink' is so common, and frankly so easy for an individual to believe that I find those claims to be pretty hollow all by themselves.

We live in a world where when we don't hear what we want to hear the common call is to blame 'the system' (whatever it is that is) and anyone who feels that way as being unintelligent, biased, sheep, or whatever the phrases of the moment is. It couldn't be that all these other people just have a POV that doesn't jive with our own could it?

Re: Resignation Letter

#112

Post by kziemio »

"truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else"

This is the primary problem with woke ideologues. They pretend to know the definitive answers to problems that have plagued societies for hundreds and thousands of years. Anyone who disagree with their answers at all is "problematic" at best but much more likely deeply racist or sexist anti-progress bigot -- an enemy.

Back in the land of reality, problems are complex and full of nuance. Guilt is almost never one-sided. Meaningful or useful blame is often impossible to assign. Solutions are never comprehensive. Perfection is impossible.

Re: Resignation Letter

#114

Post by Veen »

slg wrote: post #68
ReptileMan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since she hasn't filed discrimination lawsuit, I read it as mocking the victim culture that prevades the others.

I can't definitively determine her exact intent with that paragraph. However the downvotes and response to your comment indicate your interpretation is likely the minority opinion here. Weiss's job is to communicate with the written word. If the most common interpretation of her writing is the opposite of her intent, doesn't that inherently mean she is bad at her job?

It is impossible to guard against every possible misinterpretation, especially when there are people who are determined to interpret your words in the least charitable way possible.

For example, I might uncharitably interpret your previous comment.

> 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".

This appears to mean you think it's perfectly reasonable for a talented Jewish woman to be hounded out of her job by co-workers indulging in blatant anti-semitism with comments like "writing about the Jews again"? Would you support someone who asked a black writer if they were "writing about the blacks again?" No? Why is it OK when it's a Jew then? You appear believe that it is reasonable workplace behavior to call a Jewish colleague "a Nazi". Now, what can I deduce about your attitude to Jews from your support for this behavior? Perhaps your employer should be told about it. Etc, etc.

Re: Resignation Letter

#115

Post by dimgl »

duxup wrote: post #86
dimgl wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's truly telling that the most upvoted comment is one working to discredit the writer, rather than taking what's being said at face value.

>rather than taking what's being said at face value Should we? I don't always do that, hard to imagine doing so all the time, you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions.

And I'm not advocating for that, especially given the amount of garbage on the Internet. But the pendulum has swung too far in one direction and many people are scared to voice their opinions for fear of being rejected or worse, outcast from their livelihood and their way of life.

What the writer is saying is that she no longer feels that The Times is unbiased. I don't see how that's a hard thing to take at face value.

Re: Resignation Letter

#116

Post by horsemessiah »

asdf21 wrote: post #43
CJefferson wrote: post #15

Speaking as someone who absorbs American media externally, there does seem to be a disconnect looking in. About 40% of the America seems to still support Donald Trump, under most polls. It certainly isn't true that 40% of the media supports Donald Trump. As an external viewer, it's easy to imagine no-one was ever going to vote for Donald Trump, no-one ever supported him, and no-one supports him today, but that's clea…

Exactly right. Something like 97% of news coverage is critical towards Trump. I'm not sure what that number should be, but 97% seems like there is a deeper and systemic issue.

This is simply not true. Looking at the three mainstream cable channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) Fox hardly ever critical, MSNBC is almost exclusively critical, and CNN is pretty in between. Fox is by far the most popular of these three.

Similarly, the NYTimes and Washington Post are usually pretty critical of Trump (unless he's bombing people, in which case they love him) and the WSJ are somewhere in between.

Then, consider that Americans are increasingly not getting their news from these sources and podcasts, blogs, social media, etc. are becoming the primary source of news for many people.

All this to say, to claim 97% of media is critical of Trump is a wild fantasy of victimhood that has no basis in reality.

Re: Resignation Letter

#117

Post by seneca »

> Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

People need to understand that this is on purpose. What we are witnessing is an all out attack on Liberal values by the followers of Critical Theory.

> It follows from Horkheimer's definition that a critical theory is adequate only if it meets three criteria: it must be explanatory, practical, and normative, all at the same time. That is, it must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation. [1]

Critical theories are all the rage in the academic world.

This is a well laid out philosophy, and resulting form of political activism. It is intentionally an orthodoxy meant to dismantle current societal values and impose its own values in their place. This is not an organic social movement causing norms to change. It's an intellectual class using media and educational institutions as an intentional point of attack to remove the underlying philosophical ideas of Western Civilization.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

Re: Resignation Letter

#118

Post by dimgl »

fermienrico wrote: post #110
dimgl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you flag it without reading the article?

You nailed the problem, this needs to stop.

Funnily enough I'm getting pretty actively downvoted. It's sad... I always thought of Hacker News as a place to have friendly discussion.

Re: Resignation Letter

#120

Post by duxup »

dimgl wrote: post #115
duxup wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>rather than taking what's being said at face value Should we? I don't always do that, hard to imagine doing so all the time, you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions.

And I'm not advocating for that, especially given the amount of garbage on the Internet. But the pendulum has swung too far in one direction and many people are scared to voice their opinions for fear of being rejected or worse, outcast from their livelihood and their way of life. What the writer is saying is that she no longer feels that The Times is unbiased. I don't see how that's a hard thing to take at face valu…

> I don't see how that's a hard thing to take at face value.

How about I say the Times is unbiased.

Ok now what do we do? Do we take it at face value?

I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but it seems like you are in fact advocating ... 'that'.

Post reply on HN