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

141–150 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#141

Post by tomcam »

minikites wrote: post #55
mikece wrote: post #39

"And so self-censorship has become the norm." This might be the most ironic and most dangerous effect of this "right think" regime: that the free expression and exchange of ideas is thwarted in advance because one doesn't want to deal with drama, fight, or insults that come with saying something not in lock-step with the prevailing group-think. This blunts the curiosity of the intellect and silences all true disciple…

You're assuming "both sides" have an equally valid point of view. Tom Cotton's racist op-ed and COVID denialism are two current examples where one side is definitely wrong. Bari believes there shouldn't be consequences for saying dangerously wrong things.

The op-Ed was not remotely racist. Can you support your assertions?

Re: Resignation Letter

#142

Post by ngngngng »

swsieber wrote: post #79
ngngngng wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to. "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all side…

> "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube Really? This is the first I've heard of the guy, from anyone anywhere on the political spectrum.

He just entered into a multi year deal with Spotify for 100 million dollars. For his little podcast where he has casual conversations with random people.

Re: Resignation Letter

#143

Post by seibelj »

chasing wrote: post #130
mikece wrote: post #39

"And so self-censorship has become the norm." This might be the most ironic and most dangerous effect of this "right think" regime: that the free expression and exchange of ideas is thwarted in advance because one doesn't want to deal with drama, fight, or insults that come with saying something not in lock-step with the prevailing group-think. This blunts the curiosity of the intellect and silences all true disciple…

Oh, please. If you say dumb or offensive stuff, people are going to react. It's not the "right think regime" — it's people disagreeing, often with some extra acid if you're a high profile New York Times opinion columnist and readers don't feel you deserve that kind of an international platform for your words.

I disagree. Saying you agree with free speech, such as the Harper's Letter which is about as milquetoast and generic as it gets, is viciously attacked on the left for being racist, anti-trans, the authors are scum, anyone who signs it should be fired, and on and on.

As a testament to the existence of cancel culture and the stifling of any opinion against the party line in the progressive media, I can't think of a more obvious example.

I remember when people used to proudly say, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". This is not the norm for progressive thinking in 2020.

Re: Resignation Letter

#144

Post by seppin »

ngngngng wrote: post #47
jgwil2 wrote: post #14

> Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. The market would suggest otherwise.

Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to. "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all side…

> Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to.

Dave Chapelle, too. Comedians are lying to you (mostly), they are regular people trying to figure shit out (often times with you listening at home).

This is why they are popular.

Re: Resignation Letter

#145

Post by asdf21 »

horsemessiah wrote: post #116
asdf21 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, conside…

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2019/11/12/i...

96% Negative Spin from the main 3 networks.

>Silent on Economic Success: Despite record highs in the stock market and a fifty-year low in the unemployment rate, the President’s handling of the economy was given a stingy 4 minutes, 6 seconds of airtime during these six weeks, or less than one percent of all Trump administration news (645 minutes).

Re: Resignation Letter

#146

Post by mikece »

seppin wrote: post #124
mikece wrote: post #3

"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: 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." This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reput…

[flagged]

I might be misremembering but I thought her appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast was cited by some as her making a fool of herself while trying to answer an honestly curious question by Joe (and I'm pretty sure she's been on since and will almost certainly be making a visit again soon as she's "news hot" right now which is the best time for an interview).

As for the future of media, I wonder if long-form podcasting where the conversation goes far beyond sound bites and delves deep into the explanations for why the interviewees believe what they believe (and what their sources for believing that are) could legitimately be the near-future of media. Rogan invites on plenty of people with whom he's not ideologically aligned and they have civil, intelligent discussions... in short, an exchange of ideas in a public forum.

Re: Resignation Letter

#147

Post by chasing »

gfodor wrote: post #46
alecb wrote: post #4

There's several layers of irony here, chief of which Bari Weiss headed a very vocal campaign to fire anyone at Colombia who didn't exist on the far-right on Israel/Palestine - and of course, falsely painted several professors as racist and anti-Semitic: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...

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…

> It seems few today are still able to engage with ideas directly...

Who has the TIME? I mean, you have to filter what you choose to think about and engage on. The world doesn't need to pause and refute every stupid opinion someone trots out.

Re: Resignation Letter

#148

Post by [deleted] »

seibelj wrote: post #123
jakelazaroff wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeeping what perspectives are allowed to be represented in the first place. For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work…

Rather than criticize the content of the letter, you attack Harper's for not paying interns, which is unrelated to the content. Classic tactic for silencing disagreement is to attack the source. What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?

[deleted]

Re: Resignation Letter

#149

Post by ritchiea »

ashconnor wrote: post #106
alecb wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think readers here think that you are engaging in an "Ad hominem" attack on Weiss but since she herself is the subject of discussion I don't see why you wouldn't include her historical contradictory actions in a response.

Aren’t there times when an ad hominem attack is fitting?

If I have a documented history of a certain type of bad behavior and turn around to say I’m a victim of exactly that same sort of behavior. If I write a screed about my victimhood it does lie in the background that my own behavior likely seeded the negativity I received in return.

In that sense this goes beyond “ad hominem attack”. The accusation is more accurately that Bari Weiss is a bad faith actor in a system of mutual journalistic integrity, accusing her current colleagues of being bad faith actors. I don’t know if her colleagues are bad faith actors are not but Weiss does seem to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black” or whataboutism which should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as ad hominem.

Re: Resignation Letter

#150

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

seppin wrote: post #139
eej71 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the Tom Cotton op-ed and didn't find any racist element to it. It would be interesting to have you highlight which paragraph was racist in your eyes.

He wanted the military unleashed on his fellow citizens, a move that would have escalated violence and perhaps led to a spiraling loss of control by both sides. "Racist" was the least of the concerns.

Apparently it wasn't the least of everyone's concerns, since it was the only thing the original commenter mentioned.
Post reply on HN