Not really
It’s interesting that you bring up this particular example. It kind of puts me in the mind of the Weimar Republic, where the politics splintered so badly and law and order broke down so thoroughly that a group as crazy as the National Socialists led by an unstable, unrealistic dictator managed to get into office and actually do that to the Jews.
I would argue that by the time it gets to the viewpoint of whether or not Jews need to be pushed into the oven that you’re wayyyy past the point where electing a guy from a certain political party is going to make any difference. You’re already either in a dictatorship of some kind or anarchy. The task is to make sure it never gets to that point–and no, it hasn’t gotten to that point yet.
What John Stuart Mill (one of my favorite philosophers, by the way, and thank you Slacker for bringing him up. I’m going to have to pull his works off the shelf sometime this weekend) was getting at is that if you’re going to argue your point, you have to know it thoroughly, both the pros and the cons, and any honest scientist would tell you the same thing. You have to know what you’re wrong about as well as what you’re right about.
This is the point where you have to go out of your way to look for exactly how your opponent thinks. I’m not talking about the 2020 election. I’m talking about saving representative democracy in general. Senator Cotton and the NYT have both done you a great service in presenting his arguments. When they tell you this, it’s sort of like you’re coaching a high school football team, and a week before the big game, the head coach of the other team drops by your office and offers to show you the playbook. Again, this is why Ann Coulter is one of my favorite columnists. This is your opportunity to see exactly what the other side is thinking. Then you can start making plans on how to counteract it.
Look, I’m not telling you to leave the echo chamber that this place has become. If you want to contribute another post to the 4,500 and counting about how President Trump pissed you off today, be my guest. If you want to beat up on, like, the last real conservative poster on these boards in a ten-page thread, knock yourself out. Just remember that maybe the reason you guys are so ticked at the world today and mystified when things don’t go your way is that you’ve never really taken time out to get outside your comfort zone. Don’t just look at the enemy’s arguments. Understand them.
Or . . . stay in the echo chamber. Beats thinking, right?
Sorry but my life and my family’s life isn’t simply a academic masterbation session for white liberals to jerk each other off too.
You can pretend that pandering will help, but I know it won’t.
Pandering? Who’s saying anything about pandering? It’s not about pandering. It’s about learning.
…the author of the op-ed referenced in the OP also happened to have written one of the stupidest op-ed’s of all time: “We Should Buy Greenland.” It was fucking stupid of the New York Times to publish the words of a conservative troll (who happens to also be a United States Senator) the first time, it was even stupider for them to not only do it again, but to do it in a way that violated their own internal editorial process. It was even stupider for James Bennett to write a lengthy defense of the article when he didn’t even read it prior to publication. But what was the stupidest thing of all? The topic of the editorial wasn’t even Cotton’s idea. Cotton pitched a story. The New York Times op-ed team went back to Cotton and pitched instead that he focused on the “no quarter” tweets about imposing martial law.
This wasn’t an “opposing editorial.” This was pitched by the New York Times staff. Forget about most of the things that have been discussed in this thread. This is simply a case of abject editorial failure which is why they ended up apologising. Add to that the silencing of staff writers in comparison to non-staff writers like Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens who have been allowed to bully and insult NYT staff with impunity and it clear there are serious institutional problems at the “paper of record.”
Well, Trump’s supporters will follow him anyway, no matter what. And the past 3 years have convinced me this country has a much larger Nazi infestation than I ever imagined. They just don’t use that monniker. They hide behind other names. They won’t change or be convinced.
But hopefully the ones that are just stupid instead of evil, will start to see the light, even if only out of self interest.
That pissed me off too. Maher just loves to attack everybody. So why did he kiss that bastard’s ASS so badly? Anyway, years ago I used to like Bill Maher but now fuck him.
That interview was basically my final straw with Maher too. It was just pathetic.
Meh, he’s a shill. He’s always struck me as that snotty kid who runs for eighth grade school president, takes it way too seriously, and winds up getting kicked out of the race after he’s caught tearing down his rivals’ banners. He’s the comedic equivalent of licking a nine-volt battery.
Maher is annoying and off base sometimes (like about the coronavirus in many ways). But I’d take him over 99+ percent of the pundits and political observers out there.
I’d take a homeless schizophrenic in the Boston Common threatening to stab me if I don’t give him a dollar over 99+ percent of pundits and political observers out there.
Yeah, it gives me the creeps. I think I am sometimes in denial about what they’re so angry about- they want a white, Christian country. Right?
And that is why Senator Cotton’s reasoning is as piss-poor as that of his base. He is smarter than he looks while intentionally representing them, stoking their grievances and baseless accusations for the chance to sit there like he does up in the Senate.
American history is full of these absurd arguments. The reader has heard of the 3/5ths compromise, for one.
Now the GOP (at least most of it) is promoting extreme things that appear unconstitutional to me. Cotton’s suggestion can turn into a worse kind of military police state if we are not careful. What if the plan is to choke-hold thousands of blacks to death? That would cause riots for sure, but this time we’ll dominate them with the army! ��
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/send-in-the-troops/ar-BB150Mki
Slate did a collection of political writings in other times calling for unleashing the military against civilians to maintain political control, or just order I guess. The statements all preceded some kind of unconscionable massacre. Interestingly, every last one is a better writer than Cotton! ��
No, it’s about pandering and promoting the far right. Nobody will “learn” anything, all that happens is that the NYT drags the nation that little bit further towards fascism.
The unhinged hyperbole is :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
People on Twitter were accusing the NYT of being a “white supremacist rag”. The paper that quite recently created the 1619 project. When you take everything to 11 over silly claims like this, where can you go from there?
Sigh . . . Trihs. Oh, Trihs. Some things just don’t change.
You know, there are days I envy you. The world you live in sounds one helluva lot more exciting than mine.
Again, this thread isn’t about you, fuckwit.
^^^ Yes, all of this.
At least Bret Stephens attempts to put coherent thoughts in print. I don’t agree with even 1% of the shit he writes, but he tries to make an honest go of conservatism (or what’s left of it).
Cotton is just spreading conspiracy theories.
Speaking of Stephens, now his coworkers are trying to get him in trouble for “narcing” on them regarding their violations of social media policies. Those policies do appear to be awfully stringent, and I’d argue overly so. But their issue should be with the policies, not with Stephens for reporting violations.
THe NY Times has always published controversial op-eds. If you don’t like it when they publish one that is offensive to you, then maybe they aren’t the paper for you. Really, no paper in the mainstream press would be.
What concerns me more is that we’ve got a new generation of “journalists” who want to turn their employers into left-wing propaganda outlets. And this is happening to traditionally liberal outlets, not conservative ones. It’s not just the NY Times. On the same day the Times controversy occurred, there were problems at the Philly Inquirer, the Intercept, and at Vox. A lot of far left journalists trying to get a lot of moderate left journalists and editors fired.
Controversy is fine. Garbage full of lies is not. This one was a garbage piece full of lies and false assumptions, and as such should be rejected.