https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...
Why should I be this credulous?
Should we?
I don't always do that, hard to imagine doing so all the time, you'd experience constant whiplash of opinions.
What the writer is saying is that she no longer feels that The Times is unbiased. I don't see how that's a hard thing to take at face value.
How about I say the Times is unbiased.
Ok now what do we do? Do we take it at face value?
I might be misunderstanding what you mean, but it seems like you are in fact advocating ... 'that'.
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.
I'm not exactly inclined to take someone's purely personal criticisms at face value if they have engaged in the same behaviour.
For all we know she might be leaving on bad terms and is taking it out on her coworkers who may have a different story to tell.
If the original complaint is a "dog whistle" then people will also respond the same way.
Otherwise know as debating
I would appreciate a better source for the claim that Weiss tried to get a professor at Columbia fired than that article by Glenn Greenwald. I dug through it (admittedly a bit quickly, so maybe I missed something), and could only find evidence that she was harshly critical of a Columbia professor, but not that she attempted to get him fired. It's also noteworthy that some or all of her criticism of that professor concerned not his expressed opinions, but the way he (allegedly) berated Israeli students in his classroom.
Ironically, I haven't generally found Greenwald himself to be the most reliable narrator, but that discussion would take us far afield.
Especially when the very arguments they are making- they were recently, actively working against
If I have a documented history of a certain type of bad behavior and turn around to say I’m a victim of exactly that same sort of behavior. If I write a screed about my victimhood it does lie in the background that my own behavior likely seeded the negativity I received in return.
In that sense this goes beyond “ad hominem attack”. The accusation is more accurately that Bari Weiss is a bad faith actor in a system of mutual journalistic integrity, accusing her current colleagues of being bad faith actors. I don’t know if her colleagues are bad faith actors are not but Weiss does seem to be a case of “the pot calling the kettle black” or whataboutism which should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as ad hominem.
Yes! That's why I'm saying it's relevant.
...because that's a bad faith argument. Arguing the arguer rather than the argument is not an honest debate.
I don't care about Wiess specifically - I care, as most here, about the cancer of Cancel Culture.
In any case, a person’s background should be fair to consider when an argument by that person is raised. The anti-pattern is to use that, among other things, at the exclusion of any direct engagement of the argument, as was done by the comment I was replying to.
We are not living in a world plagued by people ignoring the background of authors or the subtext of writing they disagree with, and blindly focusing on arguments. We are living in a world where arguments themselves are routinely ignored by focusing exclusively on their authors and presumed subtext.
Unlike the former scenario, which doesn’t exist from my vantage point, the latter scenario seems more difficult to unwind since it terminates in unfalsifiability. If you stand firm that a certain phrase signals some kind of latent subtext, and that can be used to discredit the whole thing, then that tactic basically results in an equilibrium where arguments can not stand on their own under any circumstance since a clever reframing, which cannot be disproven, is fatal to them.
Context is everything for this discussion, because if you truly don't want there to be such censorship, you have to be aware of the motivations of the people pushing for change at the top now.
Otherwise you just get them running the show again, and you've just rolled back the clock a few decades to a world with a more violent state and a more cheerleading media.
Censorship by the right, and censorship by the left are not the only two exclusive options. Free exchange of ideas in a constructive and respectful fashion should be the ideal.
So be aware of that.
Or, to frame it another way, the people who spent decades saying "We should be allowed to broadcast whatever we want, because we support equality and liberty", and "If you don't like what we broadcast then you can just avoid it", are now suddenly finding themselves drunk on the power that they have gained, and are abusing it in much the same way as the people they were complaining about before.
Who has the TIME? I mean, you have to filter what you choose to think about and engage on. The world doesn't need to pause and refute every stupid opinion someone trots out.
But a lot of people are rejecting such claims on their surface if they come from someone who smoked, or knows a smoker, or was once rumored to have sat in the smoking section of a restaurant 20 years ago. (As if that should be tolerable by anyone other than someone who, in their heart of hearts, is a smoker even if they’ve never actually been seen with a lit cigarette before.)
I scanned the Greenwald article, but just saw quotes of other people saying she is bad, but not direct quotes of the bad things she said.
I can’t find the part where she tries to get anyone “fired”. Just claims that she criticized Muslim scholars, and arguing that is automatically racist.
I had a hard time finding direct quotes of the bad things she said, mostly just quotes from others saying how bad she is and how much they don’t like her.
It's possible that these accusations are true and also that Weiss is a person with a political agenda.
There might be more to this story than Glenn Greenwald frothing at the mouth.
> Wikipedia states 'Massad has characterized Israel as "a racist Jewish state."'
Israel's own definition of self calls itself a "Jewish state" and says that the right to exercise national self-determination there is "unique to the Jewish people", so that "Jewish state" part is correct by definition.
And it defines that Judaism is a race by birthright and not a religion, and it grants special privileges to jews that aren't granted to others and it metes special discriminations against its non-jewish resident minorities, so, without even getting into any discussion of the history of arab-israeli conflict, it's hard to argue seriously with the other part as well.
That is factually incorrect. Conversions apply, in both directions.
There is a cleaving point coming for those who believe in Liberal values and the nyt has already chosen the side of extreme ideological orthodoxy.
Live by the gun -
I wouldn't say they chose it - under shareholder capitalism, they are beholden to maximizing the returns for their investors. Conservatives who like Bari Weiss (do such people exist?) probably aren't subscribing to the NY Times, while people who despise Bari Weiss and Tom Cotton are cancelling their subscriptions in protest.
And how does this contradict the letter?
> It’s worth repeating something else Bari Weiss said [in my April 13-19 column, “Columbia Whitewashes“]: “We are doing this because we believe in the rights of all Columbia students to dissent without fear of abuse. Yes, this means for conservative students as well as left-wingers, for Zionists as well as anti-Zionists. . . . Criticizing professors does not violate their academic freedom or stifle debate. It only adds to it.”[1]
That doesn't sound like someone trying to get people fired.
[1] https://www.villagevoice.com/2005/04/19/columbia-the-awakeni...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Massad#On_Israel_and_Zi...