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

301–310 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#301

Post by 0x8BADF00D »

shuntress wrote: post #272
0x8BADF00D wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't take them too seriously until I see an alternative that does the work of collective discovery. There is an alternative. It is you and I. The citizen journalist will become the arbiter of truth tomorrow. And that arbitration will be decided on rationality. There will be no more credentialism and gatekeeping. That is why the traditional media companies are scared shitless.

Aha! Yes!! The most obvious first step is to form a leadership group to manage coordination. Different people to be in charge of printing/hosting and distribution, payroll, HR, research, etc, etc.

Sure. Except it’s decentralized.

Re: Resignation Letter

#302

Post by haberman »

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?

The National Guard, the Army, and the Marines were deployed to LA during the Rodney King riots in 1992. Of the 63 people who died in the riots, nine were shot by the cops and one was shot by the National Guard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Events

Why do you assume that sending the military is a recipe for mass slaughter?

Re: Resignation Letter

#303

Post by newsclues »

uncoder0 wrote: post #8
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…

Whats worse is this phenomenon isn't contained to the NYT all media it appears is infected.

I think the point is that the media has been over run with a virus of the mind, and EVEN the NYT has become infected

Re: Resignation Letter

#305

Post by GaryNumanVevo »

jimbokun wrote: post #251
some-guy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The woke-left isn't going around arresting people, nor do they have much (if any) influence in high levels of government.

They are getting low level employees fired from their jobs, though. They have a lot of power in educational institutes, media organizations and HR departments.

> They are getting low level employees fired from their jobs

This is an interesting intersection. It either implies that all employers are left-aligned (not true) and therefore willing to fire employees that hold right-leaning opinions, OR that low level employees are so expendable that it literally any reason can get them fired if enough people complain.

Re: Resignation Letter

#306

Post by AnimalMuppet »

enraged_camel wrote: post #248
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 ex…

There are plenty of us who think that the "Paradox of Tolerance" is mistaken, rather than truth. It may sound reasonable, but it is used in practice to define ideas we don't like as intolerant, and then exclude those who hold those ideas.

If you look around, those on the left aren't showing themselves to be paragons of tolerance. They are nearly as narrow-minded as the right, just with different in-groups and out-groups. And if you deviate from their orthodoxy, they will get you. They've just labeled their orthodoxy "tolerance", so they can cite the Paradox of Tolerance as their reason for being intolerant of you, shunning you, and trying to destroy you.

Re: Resignation Letter

#307

Post by grumple »

istjohn wrote: post #286
elicash wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I support the Harper's letter and sympathise with many of Weiss' criticisms, but I agree that she flirts with cancel culture territory herself with her language about a hostile work environment. Do you want robust debate or not?

There’s a difference between debate and slandering your coworkers. That would 100% get you fired on the spot if you did it in a slack channel for any company I’ve worked for (bigger companies than the Times).

Re: Resignation Letter

#308

Post by slg »

tomcam wrote: post #281
slg wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this behavior to stop. She is calling this behavior out as illegal. I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law.

> I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law. I’m not sure your mind reading skills are quite up to the job you’ve assigned yourself...

I have provided two different explanations for my interpretation. You have just commented that I am wrong twice. If you want me to actually consider your opinion, maybe you should actually give a reason why I am wrong.

Re: Resignation Letter

#309

Post by grumple »

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.

If that’s what you got out of this, you didn’t read the article.

Also, where do you work that slandering your coworkers and putting axes next to their name wouldn’t get you fired?

Re: Resignation Letter

#310

Post by istjohn »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #183
seibelj wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

How have the authors prevented many diverse points of view from being heard? You're going to need more than "they signed onto an open letter published in a magazine that has unpaid interns."
Post reply on HN