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

241–250 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#241

Post by throwaway894345 »

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.

Lots of people are offended every day and they don't coalesce into slanderous mobs who demand the offender's termination. Further, these largely ignored offenses are generally much more overt than "accidentally making an 'ok' sign", "interviewing a black man who wishes there was more focus on violence in his community", "citing a prominent black researcher", "opening an Asian restaurant", "wearing a Chinese-inspired prom dress", "whatever the Covington Catholic students did to piss of the national media and their legions", etc. Moreover, I strongly suspect that the offended are largely progressives and not the minority groups on whose behalf they claim to take offense. This seems like a pretty novel phenomenon, isolated to one more-or-less distinct group (notable exceptions include Kaepernick or Dixie Chicks circa 2005, but these are anomalies and also "punching up" and not downward or laterally).

Re: Resignation Letter

#242

Post by burnte »

prepend wrote: post #152
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…

I’ve watched this with interest over the years as readership drops to a smaller group that spends more. I believe NYT is still profitable despite lower circulation. I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth. I’m not sure how to measure this. It’s based on my own technique of when I encounter someone speaking false…

> I could guess that this lower circulation is, at least partly, the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth.

The NYT's subscription rates are way up since Trump was elected.

> I’m already surprised how long they’ve lasted.

You already stated why they're seeing such success. "the result of readers who don’t appreciate a false reality being reported as truth."

Re: Resignation Letter

#243

Post by dimgl »

tootie wrote: post #213
KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #102

People here are debating whether Weiss is a good person or not and whether they like her opinions or not. I think we're missing the key point in this letter, which is that she's saying that she experienced workplace harassment at the Times. That's unacceptable. 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;…

Calling a racist a racist isn't harassment. Neither is firing a racist. This is all stuff that I would expect my employer to be doing to be responsible.

There is so much wrong with this statement. Nowadays, you can label anyone a racist, or a misogynist, or a bigot, and get them fired. That's how discrimination works. It's a label.

Re: Resignation Letter

#244

Post by gfodor »

alecb wrote: post #81
gfodor wrote: post #46

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.

If you read my comment and assumed I was making an argument of absolutism, ie, that you should never consider the speaker in any way, you should re-read it and consider how it may have led you there.

In any case, a person’s background should be fair to consider when an argument by that person is raised. The anti-pattern is to use that, among other things, at the exclusion of any direct engagement of the argument, as was done by the comment I was replying to.

We are not living in a world plagued by people ignoring the background of authors or the subtext of writing they disagree with, and blindly focusing on arguments. We are living in a world where arguments themselves are routinely ignored by focusing exclusively on their authors and presumed subtext.

Unlike the former scenario, which doesn’t exist from my vantage point, the latter scenario seems more difficult to unwind since it terminates in unfalsifiability. If you stand firm that a certain phrase signals some kind of latent subtext, and that can be used to discredit the whole thing, then that tactic basically results in an equilibrium where arguments can not stand on their own under any circumstance since a clever reframing, which cannot be disproven, is fatal to them.

Re: Resignation Letter

#245

Post by majormajor »

jimbokun wrote: post #217
majormajor wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who have spent decades trying to keep the airwaves "clean," "family friendly," "anti-communist," etc, are suddenly shocked that they don't get to set the rules anymore, and that they're on the wrong side of some of them. Context is everything for this discussion, because if you truly don't want there to be such censorship, you have to be aware of the motivations of the people pushing for change at the top…

Bullshit. Censorship by the right, and censorship by the left are not the only two exclusive options. Free exchange of ideas in a constructive and respectful fashion should be the ideal.

They aren't the only two options, but they're our actual history.

So be aware of that.

Re: Resignation Letter

#247

Post by Barrin92 »

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…

Joe Rogan is pretty much Oprah for dudes. Sure he is extremely popular but I'm not sure there's a relationship between what 'normal Americans' think of journalism and the success of his podcast, other than that people for some reason keep asserting it because he on occasion has public intellectuals on his show, but so have talk show hosts for eons.

The New York times these days has 6 million digital subscribers, that's about six times more than they had in print circulation during their heyday. They've also consistently grown in revenue and are in way better financial situation than they were during the slump a few years ago. So just going by your market story this narrative just doesn't check out. Rogan is doing well, but so is the times. And so is WaPo and the WSJ.

I think it's noteworthy to point out that all the major newspapers have shifted their revenue model towards subscriptions, away from ads. That means there's been a real increase in engagement with readers who pay for content.

Re: Resignation Letter

#248

Post by enraged_camel »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27

> 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…

>> Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think? "To be inclusive, we have to get rid of her"? Don't they even hear the words coming out of their own mouths?

This confuses a lot of people, but the explanation is simple: it is the Paradox of Tolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Namely, not tolerating someone, who themselves espouse intolerant views and give voice to intolerant extremists, is not itself intolerance. And Bari Weiss is the perfect example.

Re: Resignation Letter

#249

Post by manfredo »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #7

> All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, th…

I don't think this statement is primary about Weiss herself. Rather, less established writers are the ones that are most constrained by this environment.

Re: Resignation Letter

#250

Post by Udik »

easterncalculus wrote: post #192
crazygringo wrote: post #83

> 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. Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy? Every publication has to draw the line somewhere of what the acceptable bounds of discourse are. The NYT isn't goi…

> Is it so bad when anti-racist, pro-fact views are considered orthodoxy? No it's good, but pro-fact views are going to be anti-racist by default, if the facts are presented honestly. The problem is that NYT more often than not acts allergic to facts that they don't like, creating stories that bend (often already questionable) studies or accounts to fit what their subscribers want to hear. > Every publication has to…

> pro-fact views are going to be anti-racist by default, if the facts are presented honestly

Could you say the opposite, if you believed it to be true?

Post reply on HN