What the fuck is going on at the New York Times?!

[QuickSilver]

@Linty_Fresh

I resent your slanders. My mom doesn’t smoke. (And dammit, try and try as I might, I cannot get her to understand the concept of “privacy settings.”)

She does like her vodka tho.

@Linty_Fresh

Heh, you call me a troll . . . and yet you keep replying to me!!

You amuse me. Clearly a slow day for the both of us. However, I will need to get some work done shortly. Mostly because you’re starting to bore me.

@Linty_Fresh

Do you see the problem, QuickSilver? asahi? Do you see what’s holding you back? The only people worked up here are you.

What . . . did you think I was going to wail and cry because Grima Wormtongue took time out of his busy day of nobody giving a shit about him and said something about my mom? On the Internet? You two have to learn the difference between reacting and responding. When you get all hot and bothered at something and yell and scream and type in all caps, that’s reacting.

When you stop and think and come up with some sort of plan, that’s responding.

Let’s try a little experiment. Stop posting on this thread and go look at the other threads. Count the number of times you see Trump does this and Trump does that, and then count the number of posts within each thread. Don’t forget that 900-page thread about stupid shit that Trump does. This is reacting. Trump throws you some bait, and you snap on it like a trout on a hook.

Now set your search engines to “Wayback Machine” and go back 16 years to 2004. Look at the Pit. Look at Great Debates. Then tell me what you see. The same stupid shit, right? “Bush did this and Bush did that and Kerry is going to beat Bush, because how can he not,” right? And everyone is soooo passionate, and everyone is sooooo sincere, and the people who tell them that Kerry is going to lose are just right wing trolls.

That’s the thing, you two. You aren’t learning. You’re just . . . stroking out after something you read in the NYT. You’re just getting all ornery (and probably not a little sweaty) about something a poster you don’t know from Adam tells you. Do you understand why I might not believe you when you tell me about allll this volunteer work you’re doing? You don’t come across as volunteers. You come across as frustrated, impotent cogs in the machine. It’s the anger of inadequacy.

When you scream and yell and rant about Senator Cotton’s op-ed in the NYT, you have already lost the next argument. When you rant and rave against a former poster, you’ve pretty much surrendered . . . well, whatever posting in this place amounts to.

I know you’re not going to learn. People like you never learn. Not from your mistakes or anyone else’s. You just keep going from one losing situation from another, not understanding why no one listens to you or why no one does what you tell them to, or why you always seem to be on the losing end.

Like I said . . . slow day at work.

Now you’ve done it. Despite your tl;dr effort to enlighten and amuse, you’ve completely bored me. Bye Felicia.

[Linty_Fresh]

@QuickSilver

She does like her vodka tho.

You amuse me. Clearly a slow day for the both of us. However, I will need to get some work done shortly. Mostly because you’re starting to bore me.

Now you’ve done it. Despite your tl;dr effort to enlighten and amuse, you’ve completely bored me. Bye Felicia.

You’ll be back. Mwah-hah-hah-hah. Seriously, you will, though. You just can’t help yourself, can you?

Have fun doing whatever it is somebody thinks is worth the time to pay you for, though.

[Do_Not_Taunt]

It’s always bizarre to read (skim) long posts from posters who seem to be arguing against posting here.

[k9bfriender]

Anyway, may as well discuss the article.

The most egregious bad faith statements, the ones that tell me that he is trolling are as follows:

Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd.

This is like saying that the weather man excuses the hurricane by saying that it is a natural development of a tropical storm. It’s the sort of thing that may fool people who choose their politics based on sound bites, and it may provide a talking point to the gas-lighters, but it is not productive or constructive in any way. It is simply intentionally misconstruing another’s statement in order to shift the blame from police brutality to the “elites”.

He goes on to spew…

Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters.

No, those “excuses” as he calls them, are them making the specific distinction between those who are violent or opportunistic, and the peaceful law abiding protesters.

[quote]

Going on to make the claim…

A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.

Which he shows to be a lie when he vomits out:

One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force

Because nothing says I hear you about your protest on police using excessive force like an overwhelming show of force.

delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law.

I think we just saw Trump demonstrate what is considered “necessary” to uphold the law when he took a little walk across Lafayette Square.

many politicians prefer to wring their hands while the country burns.

And some like to toss some gas out there.

[Dewey_Finn]

@asahi

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?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html

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?

FYI, the Op-Ed piece was controversial even within the newspaper. See this article from the business section, for example.

[Morgyn]

@ThelmaLou

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.

I did not know that. Thank you, ThelmaLou, for educating me today. I will pay closer attention to what papers choose to run as OP-EDs from now on.

[asahi]

@Jackmannii

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.

I see this as more than just an irritating opposing viewpoint. The New York Times is providing a platform for a sitting United States senator to advocate a militarized response to legitimate protest. In short, it’s providing a platform to advocate for martial law - to someone who really doesn’t need that platform to begin with.

All in the name of eschewing the label of being left-leaning or to deflect criticism from the right wing, no doubt.

[asahi]

@Dewey_Finn

FYI, the Op-Ed piece was controversial even within the newspaper. See this article from the business section, for example.

I understand that, and that’s refreshing to see, but that shit never should have been printed in the first place.

[asahi]

@Linty_Fresh

Like I said . . . slow day at work.

Like others have said…troll.

[Linty_Fresh]

@k9bfriender

I like to have constructive debates, where I learn something, where I better understand my own positions, and hopefully also teach something and help others better understand their own.

I’m listening, k9. Teach. What am I missing? What have I typed here or anywhere else that is wrong or untrue? What’s the big secret of this board that I’m not seeing? Is it really that trolls are tearing it down? Or maybe there’s a different reason it’s not going your way. In any case, I’m all ears.

What do you get out of chiding others for their posts on a message board? What is your expected or intended result?

I don’t know, k9. Could it have something to do with what I typed above? About these posts being exactly like the posts from 2004 when I first came on, and nobody’s learned anything, and everyone who doesn’t toe the party line is a troll or a right-winger or a Tom? I work at a college. The only thing people like us hate worse than seeing people who don’t learn from their mistakes is seeing people who don’t learn from their mistakes when they actually have the capacity to learn. This isn’t Free Republic. People here are somewhat intelligent, articulate, and–with a few exceptions–good spellers, and yes, spelling counts for a lot. Somewhere along the line, you guys just lost your sense of humor and just . . . got off track.

You talk of battles. Show me the battle. What are you fighting? Where is your strategy? There’s no battle. It’s just a bunch of angry little posters pissed off at things they can’t begin to control. If you guys could just . . . channel 2006, or something. I’d be happy with 2006. You people are the Republican Party’s wet dream. The only people you’re fighting is yourselves.

[asahi]

@XT

I read the article you linked too, and what Cotton is saying is troops should be used against the rampant looters

Governors have that authority and they’ve used it - nothing new to see here. That’s why I think you’re the one being disingenuous here: if governors already have the power to call in the guard, which they’ve done, what exactly is Senator Shit-ass advocating here, and why does he need to use the New York Times, a paper with a national following, to make his point?

It’s beyond bizarre that a senator without any power direct involvement in decisions to call in and mobilize federal troops to deal with local protests would take to a major media outlet to advocate that position. If you cannot see how absolutely in-fucking-sane that is, I cannot help you - you’re a lost cause.

@XT

Because I’ve seen reports that ACTUAL protesters in many cases are fighting to prevent these sorts of acts themselves, because, you know, such acts have nothing to do with protest, don’t help the cause, and in fact do a lot of harm.

That’s right, and the last thing they’re asking for is to escalate tensions by expanding a militarized presence. The militarization of America’s streets is what they’re protesting to begin with so it hardly seems appropriate that they’d be enlisting the help of a gun-toting, jack-booted army to join their protest. Whaddyou think?

@XT

Now, I’m not fan of Cotton OR the Republicans, and I disagree with this calling out the troops thing. But saying it’s not a valid discussion or that papers should ban it or whatever is really silly…and, honestly, a bit hypocritical. Looking at the actual article, which is far different than you are trying to portray it, it looks to me that while I disagree with his position, that it IS a valid position to advocate sending in troops to prevent the NON-peaceful looting and burning parts. Now, if he ACTUALLY was advocating that all protesters, the majority of who ARE peaceful and, IMHO totally have a valid reason to be protesting, THEN I’d agree with you that such things shouldn’t be allowed. Hell, it would be un-Constitutional to advocate it or try and do that, and I’d be protesting that myself…vehemently.

Oh right, you believe that words are words and context doesn’t matter. Like I said, can’t help you.

@XT

The thing about this recent bit about wanting to censor contrary opinions is that it, rightfully IMHO, comes off as highly partisan and also really hypocritical. You want SOME things to be censored because you want it, but other things you agree with you’d fight tooth and nail to prevent them from being censored. So, as with those who are wanting to censor some things but not others (recent examples would be Twitter ‘fact checking’ Trump over SOME things, but not over others…and not ‘fact checking’ other parties who spew propaganda and horseshit), it’s a slippery slope when you are deciding what should or shouldn’t be said or what opinions are or aren’t valid.

I’m sure I’ll get some big time flames for all of the above, but what the hell. I’m past caring at this point.

I’m not censoring anyone. Tom Cotton can always use YouTube or OANN.

[Strassia]

It seems many of the writing staff and subscribers agree with asahi:

Employee C: I just want to emphasize, as the paper’s leadership processes all of this, that the serious concerns in the newsroom about pieces like this are not simply coming from some activist wing of young employees who don’t grasp our standards and mission, or who think that the Op-Ed page as constructed should never publish anything that challenges readers. We care deeply about holding The Times’s reputation. But to that point, as others have put it better than me, this does harm to our newsgathering right now, erodes trust with readers and will reflect poorly on us in the historical record.

Employee A: they have to first get aligned on what the company is going to say

which is always tougher

Employee B: 172 cancels so far for this … every time I refresh it just grows faster and faster

Employee A: 203 editorial cancellations between 4 - 5 = the highest hourly total ever in the data we have

buckle up everyone!

[k9bfriender]

@Linty_Fresh

I’m listening, k9. Teach. What am I missing? What have I typed here or anywhere else that is wrong or untrue? What’s the big secret of this board that I’m not seeing? Is it really that trolls are tearing it down? Or maybe there’s a different reason it’s not going your way. In any case, I’m all ears.

I don’t know, k9. Could it have something to do with what I typed above? About these posts being exactly like the posts from 2004 when I first came on, and nobody’s learned anything, and everyone who doesn’t toe the party line is a troll or a right-winger or a Tom? I work at a college. The only thing people like us hate worse than seeing people who don’t learn from their mistakes is seeing people who don’t learn from their mistakes when they actually have the capacity to learn. This isn’t Free Republic. People here are somewhat intelligent, articulate, and–with a few exceptions–good spellers, and yes, spelling counts for a lot. Somewhere along the line, you guys just lost your sense of humor and just . . . got off track.

You talk of battles. Show me the battle. What are you fighting? Where is your strategy? There’s no battle. It’s just a bunch of angry little posters pissed off at things they can’t begin to control. If you guys could just . . . channel 2006, or something. I’d be happy with 2006. You people are the Republican Party’s wet dream. The only people you’re fighting is yourselves.

Pit? Yeah.

Good. Thank you for this. I have it bookmarked as an example of “Just Asking Questions” for the next time that someone wants to see what that kind of trolling looks like.

You should feel good, even a complete waste of a human being like yourself can be productively used as a bad example.

[Linty_Fresh]

Well, what can I say, k9? Congratulations. Once again, you, asahi, and QuickSilver have won the Internet. Everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll. Well . . . rejoice! I don’t know what you’re so angry about. You keep winning and winning and winning. You haven’t lost a fight yet. Of course, presidential elections are not part of the Internet, and winning that is going to be a bit different than winning in the Pit, especially since most of your opponents here have either been banned or just found something else to do, not to mention the fact that Trump and his fans are spitting blood and seem to be more than ready for a real-world fight, but hey, that doesn’t matter, because you’re right, and screw everyone else.

But by all means, ask about the perspective of someone who doesn’t automatically kiss the ass of every Democrat or whacked-out pissed-off poster in a snit about the outrage-du-jour and then not listen. Why shouldn’t I doubt Biden’s chances in November with you guys pulling for him. Just remember: It’s never about you.

[k9bfriender]

@Linty_Fresh

Well, what can I say, k9? Congratulations. Once again, you, asahi, and QuickSilver have won the Internet. Everyone who disagrees with you is automatically a troll. Well . . . rejoice! I don’t know what you’re so angry about. You keep winning and winning and winning. You haven’t lost a fight yet. Of course, presidential elections are not part of the Internet, and winning that is going to be a bit different than winning in the Pit, especially since most of your opponents here have either been banned or just found something else to do, not to mention the fact that Trump and his fans are spitting blood and seem to be more than ready for a real-world fight, but hey, that doesn’t matter, because you’re right, and screw everyone else.

But by all means, ask about the perspective of someone who doesn’t automatically kiss the ass of every Democrat or whacked-out pissed-off poster in a snit about the outrage-du-jour and then not listen. Why shouldn’t I doubt Biden’s chances in November with you guys pulling for him. Just remember: It’s never about you.

Oh, so you are saying that you actually were interested in the questions that you asked? They were not just rhetorical tools in order to pose accusations without having to provide any justification?

Hmmm, then you may not be a troll, just really boring.

I’d engage with you, but I’m afraid that manson1972 would end up dozing off and spoiling his evening stupor.

[iiandyiiii]

The problem isn’t that the NYT published Tom Cotton, or published an Op-Ed that ran strongly counter to liberal or progressive advocacy. The problem is they published an Op-Ed full of lies (or at best, massive ignorance). They shouldn’t be publishing Op-Eds that are based on false factual understandings of the topic they’re writing about.

[Linty_Fresh]

@k9bfriender

Oh, so you are saying that you actually were interested in the questions that you asked? They were not just rhetorical tools in order to pose accusations without having to provide any justification?

Hmmm, then you may not be a troll, just really boring.

I’d engage with you, but I’m afraid that manson1972 would end up dozing off and spoiling his evening stupor.

Fair enough. I mean, you do realize you sound like the Trump voters wanting all the arguments chunked up into five-second segments that Forrest Gump could understand, but hey, it’s not like we can do anything at this late date anyway. The time for reflection was three years ago, but I guess you were just too preoccupied with what was three inches in front of your face.

You know how all those potential Democrat voters just stayed home in 2016 and helped put Trump in the White House? This is why.

[BigT]

@Linty_Fresh

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!

Except you clearly are getting quite worked up, given your need to go on the attack. It’s not like you come into every thread and say this any time anyone gets upset. You clearly are worked up right now, lashing out at everyone. And then you just try poisoning the well against anyone else who expresses anger.

The only way you aren’t “losing” is if you are actually pro-Trump, and these responses are an attempt to stop conversations you don’t want to focus on you. THAT, PEOPLE, IS WHAT AN ATTENTION WHORE LOOKS LIKE.

But you say you’re against Trump. Yet you don’t inspire anyone to act in any way differently. The thing you appear to be trying to get us to do doesn’t happen, because we’re too busy being angry at you for being a douchebag. So, for your stated goal, you lose.

If you are trying to influence people, you should care somewhat if people like you. Even Trump does–his power is not from making people hate him, but that he hates the right people to get other people to like him. If no one liked him, his power would be gone.

The only thing you inspire are people telling you that you are wrong. Hell, you got me to once again defend asahi after I said I wouldn’t do so. But you’re just so, so, so much worse than he ever was.

Still, I say to you what I said to him: the way you post only helps the bad guys win. Attacking the very people who are against someone only results in helping them. I had to admit it, but asahi seemed to take this to heart somewhat, and is better than he was.

I hope you will be, too.

[k9bfriender]

@Linty_Fresh

Fair enough. I mean, you do realize you sound like the Trump voters wanting all the arguments chunked up into five-second segments that Forrest Gump could understand, but hey, it’s not like we can do anything at this late date anyway. The time for reflection was three years ago, but I guess you were just too preoccupied with what was three inches in front of your face.

You know how all those potential Democrat voters just stayed home in 2016 and helped put Trump in the White House? This is why.

Sice you have assured me that your questions are all posted in good faith and sincerity, and that you truly are interested in the answers, and that they are not just meant as unfounded accusations, then I would have no problem going through them all and answering them meticulously.

But you have to understand my concern here. Such tedium may very well make manson1972 lose his place, then he will have to start drinking all over again.

I don’t want that. Why do you want that? Why do you hate manson1972’s liver?

[asahi]

@Strassia

It seems many of the writing staff and subscribers agree with asahi:

Yeah, I’m seeing that, and I’m encouraged.

This is not just about whether to allow a dissenting voice. The NY Times should allow conservative viewpoints, liberal viewpoints, and all points in between. But the idea that Tom Cotton’s piece even remotely advances the mission of journalism and allowing a diversity of viewpoints is just bullshitting. That’s the Foxification of News.

Taking this kind of stand cannot be equated to censorship. The New York Times is free to print whatever it wants and provide a platform to whomever it wants. The fact that they offered a platform to Senator Cotton by itself doesn’t bother me. Nor would it bother me if, say, a resident of X state argued that said state’s governor should send in the troops.

But it’s bad enough that Fox News and other right wing outlets have wingnuts spouting conspiracy theories (like Sen Cotton’s “COVID was hatched in a lab” horse shit) - a paper with the Times’ reputation should know better, and it’s unfortunate that they don’t.