Resignation Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Resignation Letter

#181

Post by asdf21 » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

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…

Also, you're completely wrong about Fox. I don't generally watch mainstream news period, but one day it was on in a hotel, and like you, I expected neutral to positive coverage on Trump.

It was just the opposite, like 20 minutes straight of "Russia Gate," just endlessly hyping up and trying to validate the scandal. If Fox is a friend of Trump's, he doesn't need enemies.

Re: Resignation Letter

#182

Post by solvorn » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:35 PM UTC

elicash wrote: post #84

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…

There's little evidence this is the case. This post could be summarized in one sentence: Bari Weiss wanted people fired because they called her names and the NYT refused, so she quit and threatened legal action.

*(in her case, while taking stronger action in others) FTFY

Re: Resignation Letter

#183

Post by jakelazaroff » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

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?

Initially, I was criticizing the content, which is on its face false: we are discussing multiple widely–read pieces from prominent people who claim they are being "canceled" for their views.

You claimed that they are speaking out for the benefit of less powerful writers. Since the goalposts have shifted to their intentions, attacking the source is absolutely relevant. I simply don't believe those intentions, given that these are people who themselves have prevented many diverse points of view from being heard in the first place.

Re: Resignation Letter

#184

Post by ashconnor » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

ritchiea wrote: post #149

ashconnor wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 accura…

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

Yes! That's why I'm saying it's relevant.

Re: Resignation Letter

#185

Post by neogodless » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:36 PM UTC

dimgl wrote: post #64

cs702 wrote: post #40

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?

The parent comment made no claim that they were going to flag the post without reading it. Just that it was a controversial post, so it's less clear if good discussion would evolve from it. (So I give them the benefit of the doubt that they did read it.)

Re: Resignation Letter

#186

Post by some-guy » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #5

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.

I think you're right, and it all boils down to this: the left is growing in the United States, and powerful people with large platforms such as Bari Weiss do not like it.

Yet it's ironic because left-wing views were consistently canceled. Even being against the Iraq War in 2003 was considered treasonous for a while.

Re: Resignation Letter

#187

Post by joshuamorton » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

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…

Which media do you watch? The largest cable news network is staunchly pro-trump.

Re: Resignation Letter

#188

Post by eej71 » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

minikites wrote: post #154

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.

You don't think the entire op-ed that consists of "send in the military to slaughter tens of thousands of people protesting institutional racism" is racist?

I think to make your case better you should cite paragraphs from the op-ed that bolster this claim.

Re: Resignation Letter

#189

Post by PhineasRex » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #70

jakelazaroff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tom Cotton is a sitting US Senator. Denying him op–ed space is in no way tantamount to "silencing" him.

Also they didn't deny him anything. His idiotic vomit ran above the fold online. The Times admitted the opinion editor didn't even read the piece, they just ran it automatically out of deference to the senator.

Also worth noting that Bennett actually reached out to Cotton to write the piece

Re: Resignation Letter

#190

Post by solvorn » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 4:37 PM UTC

DavidSJ wrote: post #103

Barrin92 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agree, as someone who is concerned about "cancel culture" broadly, and found Weiss's resignation later interesting and noteworthy, that her credibility as a witness is a relevant consideration in this situation, since she is asking us to believe her accounts of the internal politics at the New York Times. She isn't just making an argument based on publicly available facts. I would appreciate a better source for the…

Greenwald smears anyone who says anything not mean about Israel.