"Racist" was the least of the concerns.
By printing it, NYT gave it a platform and a tacit approval. Not to mention that it came out later it wasn't even reviewed before published.
Major fuck up by them.
And I'm not sure how bad you think the rioting and looting was, but in Minnesota (mostly Minneapolis) alone, the economic loss is already estimated at $500 million dollars, with over one thousand businesses affected, and many were destroyed. Source: https://emmer.house.gov/_cache/files/b/c/bc0f4be4-4618-4786-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-no-intelligence-antifa-w...
> "U.S. police officials said they are examining both local and out-of-state actors focused on creating damage and inciting violent confrontations with police (and possibly other protesters) in the name of anarchist and antifa causes."
> "They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by corporate entities."
> "And they developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were and where police were not for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers would not be."
Beyond even Antifa and similar groups, my first point is largely about the statement "garden variety robbers unassociated with any political group."
There have been many protests throughout America's history. Most of them are done peacefully. Clearly most of them do not approach the level of violence and destruction that the recent riots and looting accomplished--riots and looting that coincided with those protests. Are we to believe this is largely coincidence?
The images and videos of the damage and looting that was done are out there. Windows, doors, and even entire buildings destroyed and ransacked, with "F* cops", "F* 12", "ACAB", &c. scrawled on the remains. Smashing, grabbing, chanting, it's all out there. There was obviously a political statement meant by many if not most of those people. This is made even more obvious when there are political groups that make statements such as: "By any means necessary", "No justice, no peace", "Give us what we want or we'll burn down the system", &c.
These are obviously politically-motivated actions. You cannot bear witness to all of the radical statements that have been made, also bear witness to the radical acts carried out and publicly supported, and then say the two are not related.
No one has proven anything criminal was organized and Tom Cotton sure as hell didn't have proof before he called for military intervention against a made up enemy.
I believe it's important to discuss who gets to decide what "dangerously wrong" is.
There's more than two sides here. Classical liberals and centrists who question or disagree with aspects of progressive beliefs are also being threatened with "consequences". That is a problem and it's time for the silent majority to start imposing some "consequences" of their own.