Jesus Mother Fucking Christ Almighty.
Posting an op-ed by Senator Shit-ass (aka Tom Cotton), which advocates using troops against Americans as they protest injustice?
Posting an op-ed as the rights of fellow journalists are being trampled on as they get attacked physically for covering protesters being unlawfully assaulted?
Really?
Just un-fucking-believable.
Absolutely no subscription now.
Beyond sick of this “Both sides need to be heard” journalism.
It’s a popular opinion. I read the Times for a diversity of views. If I want an echo chamber, there’s plenty of other places I can go.
What’s the concern? Is it more likely that the average NYT reader will have his/her mind changed or that he/she will be infuriated by Cotton and his fellow right-wing assholes?
I don’t think people need to be protected from these kinds of views. I think they need to be exposed for everyone to see and decide for themselves on the importance of elections and consequences.
Asahi, you may be heartened by most of the “readers’ comments” (these may be paywalled for you or others — not sure). I understand your anger, but perhaps you’ll acknowledge that the online version of the paper, at least, provides a forum to refute and condemn the senator’s despicable suggestion.
Life isn’t the SDMB, asahi, and it’s a hell of a lot harder to censor opinions out there than in here. Seeing as how the opinions are going to be expressed one way or the other, why not have them expressed in the New York Times?
In fact, asahi, may I make the bold suggestion that you read the article thoroughly, see where the good Senator Shit-Ass is coming from, and then perhaps you might be in a better position to construct a counterpoint, one which people might actually want to listen to? Isn’t that what we need right now? Strategy?
It’s the reason I never miss an Ann Coulter column. If you want to eventually defeat these ass-clowns (and they are currently kicking your asses up one side of Pennsylvania Avenue and down the other), maybe the first step is understanding them, who they represent, and how to argue against them–perhaps without the lame-ass nicknames?
Calm down, and come up with a plan.
I respectfully disagree.
You don’t want to mainstream ideas that shouldn’t be ‘mainstreamed’. This is partly why we got Trump in the first place, IMO.
There ought to be some values that are institutionalized, and certain institutions should say “No, we’re not going to be your platform for this kind of autocratic nonsense.” The NY Times, of all outlets, ought to be the one to reject right wing fantasy land.
We are already well aware that the right wing admires authoritarianism - New York Times readers don’t need to have their awareness raised in that regard. They should not support platforms that enable fascism.
Oh take your sniveling snot-nosed shit and shove it up your rectum.
My dude, when was the last time you took a nice walk and got some fresh air?
Wow, great comeback, asahi. So, people are supposed to take your side seriously . . . because?
This is why you’ve lost. This is why you’re losing. This is why you will continue to lose. Just remember, my man, that you’re the one getting worked up about this. Just you. I’m certainly not going to get worked up, because . . . gasp . . . you don’t like me!
Your opponents are playing you like a cheap online poker game. And the worst part is that they get to sit back and laugh. The only one working hard here is you. They’re laughing at you. You’re hilarious, dude. And the more they feed you, the harder you bite down on the bait.
Somewhere Eric Arthur Blair is muttering “I warned you about fuckers like this.”
CMC fnord!
The Times has this thing called an editorial section, where they can weigh in for or against policies and people. When that starts supporting Sen. Cotton, readers can indignantly cancel subscriptions, but it seems premature to do so on the basis of an occasional aggravating op-ed.
Every couple of weeks on average, the Wall St. Journal runs an op-ed by someone on the Left. No doubt there is a right-wing message board whose posters fly into a rage every time that happens.
Occasionally it’s helpful to see what others who haven’t been sanctified by the Flaming Sword of Truth think.
That’s why it’s called OP-ED. Because in old-timey paper newspapers, these pieces appeared on the page OPPOSITE the EDITORIAL page and they were often directly opposed in content to what was on the editorial page. They were usually (not always) written by someone not on the staff of the paper. Stuff found in the OP-ED section is specifically NOT the opinion of the paper.
No *Times *readers will be swayed by this. And since most of us don’t watch FOX, it might be beneficial to see exactly what we’re up against. Kind of like the way we sometimes ask a Doper with a strong stomach to “take one for the team” and find out how FOX is covering an issue.
:dubious: That’s a weirdly feeble defense of an editorial choice: “well, somebody’s going to say it, so why don’t we?” You could make that same argument for having a Times op-ed opining that the earth is flat or that vaccines cause autism.
A Times op-ed is supposed to carry some imprimatur of basic intellectual seriousness and ethical responsibility. If they want to run a “Point and Laugh at the Idiot Asshole” column for unserious and/or unethical opinions, like the SDMB “Stupid Republican Idea of the Day” thread, they can do that, but it should be flagged as such.
And it’s also ridiculous to imply that if the Times doesn’t offer op-ed space to such ideas it is somehow “censoring” them.
(ellipses mine)
I agree that it’s ridiculous to imply that, which is why I didn’t imply it, much less say it.
This is not some drooling idiot typing away in his mother’s basement about how the planes that hit the Twin Towers were holograms. This is a United States senator. Now someone is going to be listening to this guy. In fact, seeing as how he got the votes to win office, quite a few people are going to be listening to this guy. Don’t you think it behooves us to listen to this guy?
My comment on censoring was along the lines of “If Senator Cotton were to post that here, he probably wouldn’t last very long.” And I don’t have a problem with that. He strikes me as an obnoxious little twerp, and anyway, it’s the Straight Dope’s board with the Straight Dope’s rules. I wouldn’t lose a minute of sleep knowing that this guy would be banned.
But he’s getting the message out there to a lot of people, and a lot of people are agreeing with him. If you want to fight that message, you’d better be prepared to understand that message, and the NYT is as good a place to post that message as anywhere else, seeing as how it’s coming from a guy placed fairly high in the hierarchy of US politics.
Right, trolls typically win.
Bad faith rhetoric will always be better than actual discussion when both are given equal time.
In one sentence, you can make any number of implications, each of which takes a paragraph to unpack and refute. And while we are busy deconstructing your falsehoods, you come out with a whole bunch more.
Take the thread where people are talking about Trump tear gassing the people out in front of the church. We have one poster who has taken up most of the oxygen by insisting that it wasn’t tear gas, and disrupting any productive conversation. He isn’t actually interested in making any meaningful distinction, he is, as you said, sitting back and laughing, while the others are working hard.
It is always easier to destroy than it is to build. It is easier to disrupt than it is to be productive. If “they” win, it is not because they are better, it is because we are fighting an uphill battle with people like you pushing us down. (You know, nicely and sincerely.)
The worst kind of troll is the false ally. The person that says, “I’m on your side, really. I’m just tearing you down for your own benefit.” That is the most dishonest rhetoric there is, and only the most reprehensible pieces of shit employ it.
That said, I am not in agreement with the OP. While I wholeheartedly disagree with Cotton’s assessment of the situation, that actually is a better environment to show what a troll he is. When people troll in some little messageboard, they get their kicks from “playing” the honest participants. No matter how much time we spend refuting their dishonest rhetoric, they face no consequence, no public rebuke. But, when someone trolls in public like he has done, a rebuke can carry more weight. A strong enough rebuke may even discourage others from trolling the public sphere.
To be honest, that is Cotton’s trolling in that op-ed is exactly the type of trolling that makes a good example for people to look out for. His piece could be sort of an inoculation against the type of dishonest rhetoric that has pervaded our politics of late. Or maybe not, maybe the trolls win.
I used to think that they were willing to burn it down as long as they could rule the ashes. Now I know they want to burn it down so that they can laugh at the people on fire.
I go on foxnews.com occasionally to see how “the other side” is spinning things, and I’m heartened by how many anti-trump comments are in the comment section of the articles. It often seems like 50% are anti-trump, or at least “I voted for him and still think he’s the best man for the job, but wtf is he thinking?”
tbf a US Senator advocating the military violently suppress protests is something worth getting worked up about. We’re not talking some random jamoke penning the op-ed here. We’re talking about someone who could realistically make that happen.
it’s sad to see the hypocrisy of supposedly “freedom loving” Americans who hate “tyranny” agree with him. I guess it’s not tyranny if your side is in charge.
Asahi, even though I agree with you on occasion, your hyper method of presentation alienates and angers those whose minds we’re trying to change. Censoring differing opinions only leads to further division, martyrdom, and determination to stick to one’s literal guns. You may think it’s weak to soften your feelings on the matter, but you yourself have demonstrated harsh negative reaction to strong-arm tactics, and how that approach doesn’t work.
I know, right? Why it’s almost as if a person who wants to make a difference and get something done has to get off the Internet and go do something in the real world. Or at least publish something that will not add that precious post to the count of the fifteen gazillion he’s already made on a message board. Where the trolls always seem to win. And, let’s face it, nobody else but the people who are left on the board are even going to see the post, let alone give a shit about it.
Give the trolls their due: At least they’re paying attention to you. Tom Cotton doesn’t give two shits about what asahi thinks about him. You hit upon it yourself when you talked about trolling where everyone can see you. You also hit upon an important little truth when you say that even on a message board (Hell, especially on a message board), your arguments tend to be lost.
Call me a troll all you want. I’ll repeat that I’ve never told you a lie or said anything that I didn’t truly mean. You people sit here on this dying message board, waiting for November and Armageddon, telling each other exactly what you want to hear and dismissing anyone who doesn’t tow the party line as a troll. And you sit here and wonder why nothing seems to be going right. I’ll also repeat that as bad as you think I am, I’m nowhere near as awful as the people who are gearing up to fight you in the presidential election less than six months away–and not on a goddamned message board, either.
On that note, why do you assume Tom Cotton is trolling at all? I read the column, and I don’t agree with his conflating the peaceful protestors with the rioters and looters, but I don’t think he’s trolling. He believes what he’s saying, and so do a lot of other people.
Have you guys ever considered getting off the message board and maybe starting some sort of online publishing thing where YOU can get your voices heard? Maybe doing something constructive?
I’m glad people the Times has exposed the twisted traitorous sickness that Trumpism is. We need to see these people, identify them, and work to ensure they never again can assume positions of power again. If we cannot face or enemy we cannot defeat them.