Resignation Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Resignation Letter

#461

Post by hindsightbias » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 6:59 PM UTC

arminiusreturns wrote: post #387

jrumbut wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Noam Chomsky says a lot of interesting stuff but he published his writings on 9/11 a couple months after the attacks (and he certainly has his own ideological filters). He's an essayist, a linguist, but not a news source. I'm looking for the better alternative to the NYT here. Where would you go for information if I told you about some surprising event occurred and people on Twitter are posting very different stateme…

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Stop trusting outlets. Find journalists with integrity and follow everything they do, no matter the outlet.

99% of HN is going to disagree with you when they find out Noam appears more on RT than any other network.

That’s the state US “journalism” is in.

Re: Resignation Letter

#462

Post by archagon » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #376

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.

Arresting someone is not how intimidation works. If you arrest someone, your intimidate gets the light of the court. Leftist extremism is exactly avoiding the court system by applying pressure to rob people of their livelihood - a much more immediate, public, and potent method of intimidation - and an excellent way to set an example to others who might speak against the theocracy.

That’s little different from a boycott, which has always been a tool available to the powerless.

Re: Resignation Letter

#463

Post by koiz » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #446

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…

What makes this really ugly right now is that the New York Times thinks that the coronavirus pandemic is going to get Trump voted out of office, and their need to push hard on the idea that it's all his fault has really done a number on their reporting about the biggest crisis facing the world. Especially once it turned out all that the success story countries they pointed to as proof America could've done better if…

If you think nyt is the reason for trump blame I've got a bridge to sell you.

Re: Resignation Letter

#464

Post by tomjakubowski » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:00 PM UTC

bgorman wrote: post #416

jrumbut wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could award you several upvotes for answering my question. I really like FT myself. I am not in business so much but I think business news sources often get at a lot of interesting angles that others miss.

Absolutely, most journalists do not understand basic quantitative reasoning or economic principles. For example, I read a BBC article a while back about a sand shortage in India. It turns out the government imposed a price-ceiling, and there was no shortage at all (sand was available in the black market) - there was just a shortage at the government mandated price point. Any economics 101 student can tell you that if…

Like the article says, sand was actually more widely available when the government had capped the price at $0. The Econ 101 student is blind to the interesting parts of this story.

Re: Resignation Letter

#465

Post by slg » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #433

slg wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Discrimination is a legal word. She used the phrase "unlawful discrimination" which means she is using it in a legal context. Discrimination is not defined by being "subjected to harassing and hostile behavior" unless the reason for that behavior focuses on a protected class. There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts".

> There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts". It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.

When your job is to communicate with the written word, I don't think it is unreasonable for you to be held to the literal interpretation of your words. As I said elsewhere in this thread, if she can't clearly communicate her actual beliefs and opinions through her writing, she is bad at her job.

Re: Resignation Letter

#466

Post by gguevaraa » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #318

benlumen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same story across journalism and I wrote about this exact phenomenon in the article I submitted yesterday - journalism had to please the social media, news aggregator and SEO algorithms to stay alive. They write and say what's popular to their audience and suitable for the tech platforms - not what's right.

...and this is why it is so vulnerable to foreign influence. An army of bots (human or programmed) can sway Twitter incredibly easily and drive outrage, which now seems will shape the US media narrative. It's like they are intentionally steering the ship towards the rocks. I wonder who might be helping this effort... hmm... /s

Can you explain? Genuinely can't connect the dots here (don't keep up with politics too much).

Re: Resignation Letter

#467

Post by achileas » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

commandlinefan wrote: post #434

enraged_camel wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

> Paradox of Tolerance. The paradox of the paradox of tolerance, though, is that you can exclude any ideology for any reason and insist that you're only excluding the "intolerant" and shut down criticism by invoking the paradox of tolerance.

Kind of like Bari was doing at the Times? Being unable to handle criticism is the entire reason Bari is leaving.

Re: Resignation Letter

#468

Post by Manfredo_1 » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

slg wrote: post #449

manfredo wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement t…

Did you read the page you linked? The very first sentence of the body of the page states: >Harassment is a form of employment discrimination... It goes on to say: >Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected clas…

So if a coworker goes to your workplace every day and says, "Slg is an idiot and a worthless human being who makes the company worse with his or her presence" that's not harassment? Because it's not based on race, religion, sex, etc? The article particularly highlights harassment in the basis of protected class. It does not say that harassment on the basis of things other than protected class is permitted. If what you claim is true, then in the above scenario you would not be able to claim harassment with respect to a co-worker that constantly insults you.

And regardless even if harassment does require discrimination, Weiss has grounds to claim it on the basis of religion.

Re: Resignation Letter

#469

Post by bloopernova » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

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…

The newspapers don't know what to do with themselves.

In my opinion, they're following because we're in a period of flux or change in our society, driven by the massive impact of the internet and the barriers to publication being practically zero now.

Because there are so many voices shouting out right now, it's impossible to find the ones who are speaking "the truth" when that was something defined by a handful of editors in newspapers and TV networks 30 years ago.

Into this cacophony we also have bad actors, people, organizations, countries who intentionally set out to poison the truth and watch it die. I don't know if that problem is solvable in any way with the Internet in its current form.

Parallel with that misinformation and disinformation, society (speaking mostly about the USA) is struggling with enormous capital and power inequality. Groups of people of every political leaning know that "something is wrong" but so many are being told to blame this or that group of others.

We've been shown that those with the command of immense resources can exploit and control our laws and government to the point of being beyond the law. We've been shown that we may not be able to do anything about that without significant revolution.

So in this period of massive change, we're told we're powerless.

Yes, the New York Times is following, because we all are.

Re: Resignation Letter

#470

Post by Bjartr » Tue, Jul 14, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

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.

> you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions

I don't understand this phrase. I certainly wouldn't describe what I experience when I take the time to consider things at face value as causing anything I'd describe as whiplash. Just because I attempt to evaluate what I read from another's perspective doesn't mean I give up my own in the meantime.