Drew Magary lets the NY Times editorial page have both barrels. It’s great stuff prompted by David Brooks recent excremental whine that we need to be nice to gun owners and Republicans in MAGA hats.
So let’s talk about rudeness for a moment, because we live in rude times. The president is a pig. His underlings are nothing but a bunch of opportunists and enablers. And the rest of GOP is staffed by a wide range of scum, from camera-friendly establishment monsters like Paul Ryan to outright crackpots like this guy. When the president’s own little pukeson decides to endorse a conspiracy theorist truthering the motives of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas teenagers, I feel like that’s a much greater sign of the end of civilization than someone rightfully telling a lady at the Times that she should take the L.
None of these people deserve civility. In fact, civility only serves to enable them. The fact that Trump can go party at his fucking country club on the same weekend 17 teenagers were slaughtered inside a school, and have NO ONE surrounding him say an unkind word to him, is damnable. And when Brooks cries out for “respect” for the coterie of stubborn gun owners who lap up the NRA’s propaganda, he is tacitly maneuvering to blunt the momentum of the Parkland kids who, with a welcome brashness, have kickstarted a very real and potentially effective anti-gun movement. He would like everyone to calm down. He would like everyone to think things over.
But this is not a time to calm down. Kids are fucking dead. Their friends are rightfully, and loudly, pissed about it. David Brooks has no right to tell people who are mad as hell to stop being mad as hell. He can afford to be calm and collected because he is so wealthy and sequestered that nothing truly awful can happen to him. His civility is a luxury. He only wants to talk about this shit in civilized terms because he lives a civilized life. His words are those of a man whose foremost experiences in life have happened inside his own rectum. He deserves to have his ass dragged every time someone hits PUBLISH on his behalf.
Oh, yeah. The NY Times has been scorned by Trump, so instead of seeing that as an opportunity to be free of any need to suck up to power, they’ve been frantically trying to appease the Republicans. This is the opposite of what a good newspaper should do.
We should be engaged in revolution right now, but Magary feels that violence isn’t the answer (I agree). So what can he do?
That leaves me with words. That leaves me with rudeness and the power to SHAME. In the real world, I do my best to be nice to people. I say “please,” and “thank you,” and I try not to be an inconsiderate prick. Sometimes I fail, because I am a big goober, but I do try. And I have tried my best to make sure my children aren’t rude, either. People who are rude all the time suck. You and I both know that. As a baseline, rudeness is bad.
But as a weapon, it’s vital. Rudeness is the proper option when polite entreaties for sanity are ignored. I am very rude online to people. I have regrets about how I’ve deployed this rudeness, but I do not regret being rude to those who have continually demonstrated that they do not deserve such courtesies. Ivanka Trump shouldn’t be able to fly in public without getting an earful from her fellow passengers. Your local GOP Congressman shouldn’t be able to stage a town hall without residents openly telling him to go fuck himself. And the Respectable Conservative arm of the Times deserves every non-threatening piece of hate mail they get.
All hail rudeness. It is the appropriate mode of interaction in rude times.
“…we need to be nice to gun owners…” otherwise the fucking bastards will shoot us.
The Rude Pundit, leading the charge.
It is SO SO hard being ahead of the times, isn’t it?
“Drew Magary lets the NY Times editorial page have both barrels”
The NYT editorial page and the op-ed page are two different things. Brooks is not on the editorial page.
@3 tomh
argumentum per lexicon
fusilier
James 2:24
#3, Cavil
verb
1. make petty or unnecessary objections.
@ #5
That’s cute but you merely show your ignorance. When the op-ed page debuted in 1970, some of the people who were solicited to contribute were (Communist Party USA head) Gus Hall, (John Birch Society leader) Robert Welch, Harry Bridges and Angela Davis. Notice a trend? The idea was, and is, to present views from all sides that you won’t find on the editorial page. Don’t read it if you only want opinions you agree with.
Thanks, PZ. Although he mostly blogs about sports, Drew can really bring it (when it needs to be brought). I look for him every morning after I visit Pharyngula.
@6
Giving a platform to deplorables is support for deplorables, and it should be criticized.
@ #8
Seriously? An opinion page, created to publish various opinions from all sides, should be criticized for publishing various opinions? That must sound silly even to you. My point was not to confuse it with the editorial page. Which people seem to be doing.
@9
If your opinions page gives a platform to deplorables, it is deplorable and should be criticized.
If a crank wants to post their crankery for the world to see, they can make a blog. No reason to hand them a loudspeaker.
The real problem with putting David Brooks on the Op/Ed page is that the Op/Ed page is supposed to present an interesting perspective–and Brooks is vapid and boring. Hannah Arendt alerted us to “the banality of evil.” Brooks demonstrates that one can be banal while still being too boring to be evil.
@ #10
You have plenty of company. When the op-ed page ran the “Red Century” series last summer, including such articles as, “When Communism Inspired Americans,” the right wing went bonkers, reacting much the same way as you are. But this was the purpose of the original editor, John Oakes, who almost singlehandedly created the op-ed page, (replacing obituaries, which were there before), to present views from everywhere on the spectrum and make people think. And I’d say it succeeded with this piece, making Magary think about what was wrong with the column, and influencing a lot of people in the process. Again, don’t confuse it with the editorial page, as the OP did.
But if you only want to see opinions that agree with yours, you should stick to blogs that provide them.
Nazism* isn’t an opinion. It isn’t a philosophy. It’s a plan. A plan to exterminate large portions of the human population.
To compare that to as liberal a notion as, say, a nationalized banking industry, is not the same as comparing a chilly room to a warm room. It’s like comparing a chilly room to the center of the sun. A halfway position here is NOT a good place to start. That’s always Brooks’s position: he always defends the indefensible as a means of supporting the most evil people in our country. His newspaper should be shamed more each time they publish this evil.
*Tell me that’s not the direction Shithole’s followers want this country drawn to. Please convince me, if you can.
@12
Oh ho.
“You don’t want to support real life nazis and their enablers, so you’re like the new McCarthy!”
I think I’ll take that accusation on the chin, thanks.
It is possible to criticize bad ideas without giving the people who say them a platform.
Do you think we have to let flat earthers give speeches at universities in order to teach geology?
tomh is being completely disingenuous. Yes, the Grey Lady gave once-in-a-blue-moon space to some far right and far left voices, if the topic was part of their expertise, and so long as they weren’t counter-factual, but neither Angela Davis nor David Duke were ever employees. They had two regular conservatives, in Buckley and Safire, who are positively benign by current standards. The rest were liberal. All were more or less factual, though Buckley could gussy up some rather unpleasant arguments and make them sound bright and cheerful, so good was his writing and rhetoric. And the big differences of opinions were typically about Vietnam, The Cold War, and taxes, so yes, you often read opinions that you disagreed with, but you knew you were getting something close to good faith arguments, not Koch Bros. – funded propaganda.
It sounds elitist, but it’s the quality of writing and argument that bugs me as much as anything, more than the venal bought-and-sold casual racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, anti-science anti-education anti-progress codswallop of their wantwit op-ed staff now, where Krugman is the only one close to a liberal. It’s really awful writing, except for Krugman. They should be ashamed.
@tomh — What prevents me from disagreeing with an opinion if I so choose? Certainly not you.
BTW, one has to READ an opinion in order to determine whether its full of shit or not – as I have concluded from reading yours.
I’m sure you would, given that you were the one who dreamed up this “accusation” in the first place. But normally, in a boxing match, it wouldn’t be very useful to punch yourself, even if you’re going easy on yourself.
That’s true. However, part of the reason for an op-ed section is not “to criticize [what the editors think are] bad ideas.” They may say — probably they sometimes even mean it — that it’s purely a matter of journalism, of exposing all of the various things that happen in the world around them. It’s not necessarily about criticizing (or critical thinking, etc.), since that isn’t what they believe is their job or perhaps even something they have the ability to do properly. They just let those things come to light, so the rest of us may sort it out however we wish. Take it or leave it. There are other possible motivations, like generating revenue for the paper: some stuff attracts a lot of attention and “controversy,” and a larger variety of readers will find something (not everything) that interests them.
@17
I was literally stated to be in good company to anti-communist conservatives who wished to censor media that was too “red”.
Tomh said:
Blockquote fail, damn.
Right. My objection was to tomh’s idea that letting deplorables have a platform is beneficial because it gives people a chance to criticize the deplorable’s views.
Tomh said:
I know it can be hard sometimes to like, read text, but it really can help to actually read the post someone is responding to.
Even though you’re also misrepresenting it here, this still isn’t calling you like the new McCarthy for not wanting to support real-life Nazis. The observation (tendentious though it may be) is that you and they had similar reactions to opposing op-eds. Do you dispute that they’re similar? You actually might … I don’t think you’re calling for censorship, for example, so the similarity could be rather superficial in that respect. But it’s not as if tomh said that you were calling for censorship (or doing any other McCarthyesque crap, for that matter), so your initial response still seems strange.
I’m not following. I suppose you’d agree that it did succeed (as tomh said), but you wanted to note that something else could have happened: it’s possible to get a similar result in some other way (namely, without providing a platform). Yes, it is possible. Okay…..?
If, as I said, they simply want to put it out there and aren’t professionally devoted to criticism of bad ideas, then the various ways in which the criticism must or could or would or should take place (if there is any criticism at all, somewhere else other than the op-ed page) is not the professional concern of these op-ed page editors. Right or wrong, that’s just not the game they are playing. But it allegedly did successfully provoke criticism (if you believe this cause-and-effect story from tomh). So you did get at least part of what you wanted, even if this was only inadvertently or indirectly assisted by the asshats at the NYT.
And the thing is that they don’t need to provide you with a platform either, to put your views (righteous denouncements of nazis, etc.) on their op-ed pages or anywhere else. If you’re not demanding that they only do that, and you accept that they’re simply publishing opinions (ones that make them money and keep the presses running, or for whatever reason), which can be a wide array of good and bad and neutral as far as you’re concerned, then it’s not too clear which part of this deal you’re complaining about. You’re not saying they should be allowed to publish awful shit, that they should be censored or punished a la McCarthy or the inquisition, and you’re not saying that they should need your permission or endorsement about which opinion pieces are suitable for publication…. No imprimatur or nihil obstat of any kind is required. So what are you saying exactly?
“You’re not saying they should not be allowed to publish awful shit,”
Screwed up the double-negative. Sorry.
Not interested in responding to you further cs, bother someone else.
@ #13 #15
I have no idea what either one of you is on about. You think I’m defending Brooks? Brooks is an idiot, haven’t read him in years. Supporting the Times? I grew up with the Times but I don’t support them now, not one penny. I pointed out the obvious error in the OP, equating the op-ed page with the editorial page, and now I’m disingenuous and defending Nazis, or something. At best, you sound very confused.
I am very glad to see someone calling out this “civility at all costs” horse hockey, *especially* when obviously evil people use it to shut down someone giving their shit the in-kicking it rightfully and richly deserves.
Tone trolling has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel. When someone can say, calmly and “civilly,” that they don’t give a fuck about *children being shot up* and then turn on their opponents and cry “rude!” *and win because of it* something is seriously wrong.
This is nicely vindicating for me, if nothing else.
With respect to this bullshit “balance” that theoretically should be offered, I am reminded of an interview with a grant approval committee for larger research projects.
Some graduate school kid wanted to do some Holocaust research using original sources, and a member of the the committee said “make sure to show both sides.” (Actually paraphrased but you get the point.)
Balance = bullshit these days.
Don’t forget ridicule and satire.
Okay, I don’t get it – why are you dumping on Tom?.
PZMyers implies in his first sentence that Brooks’ piece was in the editorial page. Tom corrects him to say that it was in the OpEd page and everyone comes out shooting. Not only was he factually correct, it was an important point to correct because the editorial page and the OpEd page are there for distinctly different reasons. For his trouble, Tom then gets misquoted and gets called a Nazi! Please do not use quotation marks if you are paraphrasing and not actually using a direct quote, because it is dishonest and can backfire when the paraphrasing is off-beam, as in this case.
Secondly, if you want opinions you don’t like censored, be careful what you ask for. The censor may not like your opinions either. No, it doesn’t mean you have to give everyone a platform. But, if a reasonable percentage of the population support a particular view, or if the person putting that view has public standing, no matter how odious you think that view is, it should be heard. The appropriate response is to question, to debate, and to give counter-speech. If you never hear what they have to say, and never offer any counter-argument, how are you ever going to reduce the support for that view. Not only can countering those views be educational, it can be self-educational.They might just have an argument you never thought of.
Finally, I don’t understand why strong speech is so often devalued by the use of expletives. A strong speech is all the better for not having to rely on expletives, which only really appeal to the converted anyway.
archangel,
This doesn’t actually have anything to do with “false balance”.
That phrase applies in situations where the media gives equal space to opposing views on a topic for which there is actually no controversy. It doesn’t apply to opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are just people giving their own opinions. The question of “balance” just doesn’t apply to an individual opinion – unless, of course, that individual is balancing the pros and cons on a particular question before coming to his own conclusion.
…and that kid doing the holocaust research should be aware of the counter-arguments and how to counter the counter-arguments. It would be “false balance” only if he gave equal space to the counter-argument because there really is no controversy here. The majority of his paper would be devoted to describing what happened, why it happened, the historical antecedents etc etc
thecalmone,
Sure. Satire and ridicule. But it needs to be appropriate. And suble satire and ridicule tends to be far more effective than using a hammer.
Here are commonly held opinions that people hold that are suggested it is okay for people to give a platform for:
Have you considered that women are just lesser?
Bisexuals are just confused.
Atheists are just untrustworthy.
Do you know why these opinions are fundamentally different then the idea that private property is an inherently unethical concept, despite that I disagree with all of them? Do you understand that engaging with ideas based on that you are not as worthy as other people are by themselves awful?
@27
No one called tomh a nazi. At @6, tomh said that it’s somehow an important duty for deplorables to be given platforms, which I and others disagreed with. Any usage of “nazi” was in reference to the deplorables and their supporters, not tomh.
Not wanting a relatively popular paper to use their platform to boost deplorable talking points isn’t “censorship”, it’s perfectly mundane run-of-the-mill criticism. No one is owed a platform, especially not deplorables and nazis, and newspapers that use their platform to give deplorables a platform deserve criticism.
As mentioned upthread, it’s possible to criticize and debunk odious views without giving their author a section in your newspaper, just like how it’s possible to teach round-earth geology without having a flat-earther in the classroom to debate.
There’s nothing wrong with articles criticizing deplorable talking points, but letting deplorables write “opinion” pieces just gives them a signal boost and a chance to reach a wider audience.
The distinction between editorial and “OpEd” pages may be a real one, if that’s what they are, but to call this an “OpEd” page, as the NYT does, is an absolute lie. Brooks is an employee of the Times. People who are given space on a real OpEd page are not employees of the paper–that’s the “Op” part. Any opinion from an employee of the paper is an editorial, regardless of what they (mis)call the page.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge #33
good point
Porivil Sorrens @32:
Tomh said no such thing @6, or anywhere else. His main point was that op-ed =/= editorial. @6, he simply outlined Times policy. And other comments say he thinks the policy sometimes works. But none of this is even close to tomh saying “it’s somehow an important duty for deplorables to be given platforms”.
@ 32
“tomh said that it’s somehow an important duty for deplorables to be given platforms”
I did? News to me. I explained what the op-ed page was, since some people didn’t seem to know it was different from the editorial page. I said nothing about importance or duty. You just made that up.
@ 33
” Any opinion from an employee of the paper is an editorial, regardless of what they (mis)call the page.”
They employ columnists who write columns that sometimes give exactly contradictory views. Those are all editorials? That makes no sense. And I don’t know what you’re trying to say about the definition, but the “op” in op-ed is short for opposite, as in physically opposite the editorial page.
contra The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge @33, from Wikipedia:
re:
All employees are perforce editors, and senior at that?
(I doubt that)
—
Me, I think PZ was careless in his language — but whether or not the critique to which he here refers was actually an “editorial”, I like and endorse his sentiment.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge @33: George Will, Michael Gerson and Jennifer Rubin work for the WaPo. So are their opinion pieces also editorials?
@ 38:
Yes.
And the “Op” stands for “Optional”.
The point is that you are wasting your time complaining about newspapers giving space to views you consider odious. Because they’re going to do so anyway. Especially if those views reflect those of a significant percentage of the population or if they are the views of a person of standing in the community.
The appropriate response is, therefore, to demonstrate why you consider those views odious. If you can’t do that, maybe you need greater exposure to those views so that you may better state exactly why you find them odious. Also, if you are not familiar with their detailed arguments because you haven’t been sufficiently exposed to them, you may not be well placed to argue against them.
If your fear is that publicising views you consider odious tends to make those views more prevalent, then you’ll lose anyway. There are always ways and means to get views publicised. So, the only real solution is to fight those views head on. No views have ever been defeated by suppressing them.
Finally, there is the flip side. There are people who find your views odious. And, if they get onto a position of power that may, in turn, prevent your odious views from being heard. So careful what you wish for. Free speech advocacy is useless if it’s only for views with which you agree.
Did Nazism just got reduced to “considered odious”?
If you need explanation what is odious about Nazism, then the explanation is already wasted on you.
Nazism is not a respectable position that may be debated like any other opinion. It should be fought unconditionally and it should not get a platform.
What a bunch of stupid crap – as we’ve come to expect from you. The views of the Arians, Pelagians, Bogomils, Manicheans, Cathars, Lollards, multiple kinds of pagan were all successfully defeated by orthodox Christian suppression. The views of the Diggers, Ranters and Fifth-Monachists were defeated by Cromwellian suppression. The Mensheviks’ and Social Revolutionaries’ views were defeated by Bolshevik suppression. I could go on, more or less indefinitely.
So, tomh, are there any opinions you think the NYT should not publish on its Op-Ed pages? Reintroduction of slavery? Abolition of all age-of-consent laws? Extermination of the Jews? Because if you feel any of these should be excluded, your supposed point self-deflates with a feeble splutter.
To be fair, Judaism was not defeated by the Holocaust.
Jesus tap dancing Christ, what a stupid remark by billyjoe.
@40
This isn’t a matter of freedom to speech. You do not have a right to any particular platform. If no newspaper wants to print someone’s deplorable views, their freedom of speech hasn’t been affected in the slightest.
Also, for like the fifth time, I have no problem with articles that critizcize odious views. I have a problem with newspapers giving deplorables a soapbox where they can rant at anyone. There is a difference.
@ #43
Do you really not understand the conversation? Because I never said what I think should happen, I never mentioned the content of the page, I explained how and why the op-ed page was set up, and how it differs from the editorial page.
But, since you ask so politely, of course a newspaper should be allowed to publish on any subject they want, as long as I’m not forced to read it. It’s their business. Especially since the alternative is putting KG in charge of what people are allowed to say and what they are not. That’s a scary thought.
@46
You realize that it is possible to think that things shouldn’t be published, without thinking that said things should be banned from being published, right?
Saying “Nazis shouldn’t be given platforms” doesn’t mean “We should make a law banning Nazis from having platforms” (though Germany’s doing pretty well with that), it just means “People should not give Nazis platforms.”
tomh,
You really are a complete numpty, aren’t you? I quoted what you said@9, which was fuck-all to do with the distinction between an editorial page and an Op-Ed. Here it is again, so you can stop pretending you didn’t see it:
As Porivil Sorrens says@47, it is possible to think things shouldn’t be published, without thinking they should be banned from being published. Is it really possible that you are stupid enough not to see the difference? It’s either that, or rank dishonesty in pretending you don’t. Now, how about you answer the question I asked: are there any opinions you think the NYT should not publish? That’s not: are there any opinions the NYT shuold be Banned from publishing?
What you quote is me responding to someone criticizing the Times for publishing opinions on a page that’s set up to publish opinions. Now, for some reason, you want to know what opinions I think they should publish? I don’t really care what they publish. They’re going to publish whatever they think furthers their business interest, which is fine with me. If I don’t like what they publish I won’t support them. Which I don’t.
@49
What KG quoted is you responding to me when I criticized the Times for giving a platform to deplorables, not just “publishing opinions”. It’s possible to have a page for opinions without handing a loudspeaker to dangerous idiots.
@ 50
My mistake, I should have said for publishing opinions Porivil Sorrens doesn’t approve of.
@51
I mean, yes, I am a consumer and am thus able to criticize things and vote with my viewership. Are you offended by the concept of media criticism?
No, I’m not. Are you offended when newspapers publish opinions you don’t approve of?
@53
Yeah, as does anyone who cares about the proliferation of nazism and regressive politics. Hence why I don’t support newspapers that do so.
So now Nazism is reduced to “opinions you don’t approve of”? No wonder you got a Nazi in the White House.
rietplum @55: Hey, don’t forget cannibalism, slavery and child sacrifice! Tomh must have been “reducing” them as well!
Sorry for the misspelling, rietpluim.
Its funny, the “fairness doctrine”, which was killed by the GOP, if I remember right, had a principle in it that, “Since you are supposed to provide the opinions, and possible alternate facts, of anyone claiming to be on a ‘side’ in an argument, you are ***no*** allowed to misrepresent what that position is.” I am quite sure this is exactly why they killed it. Because they don’t give a damn if “both sides” are represented, as long as they get to lie their asses off about what the other side’s views are.
This is the real problem, frankly. Not that these people are “given” a platform, but that, having given them one, the most likely outcome of anyone else, whether its another op-ed, or an actual article, writing about what was said is to misrepresent what their position was, either by exaggerating it (how ever impossible this may be when the person writing the op-ed is,as they have been called, a deplorable, or by just flat lying about what they said. Its how Fox News does almost *everything* when representing any other side. Its, imho, how a lot, including even some leftist, sources do things, happily presenting an article which makes all sorts of claims, locks out the ability to comment on the contents, and effectively lies about the subject under discussion, in order to present their “version” of the truth.
It isn’t that the NYT publishes this bloody stuff, its that they, and no other media anywhere, seems to think its their duty to actually check the facts presented, or comment, at all, on the contents, even when those contents are unmitigated garbage. They are all twitter, or worse, reddit – not responsible for the content being posted, or the effects of spreading it, but merely the delivery service. And, those are the honest ones. The dishonest ones… wouldn’t publish anything that contradicted their own position if you bribed them to.
Then again, of course, none of these scary evil people will ever destroy us (or at least the economy), apparently, so.. as long as it brings in profits, why not publish everything and anything they say, no matter what kind of scum they are, right?
Reitpluim,
“If you need explanation what is odious about Nazism, then the explanation is already wasted on you”
I, personally, don’t need an explanation. However there are those who do need an explanation. There are Nazis all over the world, fortunately not in big numbers, who are recruiting members to their cause. If you want to counteract this, you need to explain to these potential recruits why Nazism is odious.
“Nazism is not a respectable position that may be debated like any other opinion. It should be fought unconditionally and it should not get a platform”
There are those who disagree with you that Nazism is not a respectable position. Nazis for instance. If the Nazi’s were in power, or if Nazism was the dominant position, it is your position that would be regarded as not respectable. It sounds like your idea is to deny Nazis a platform and to give a platform only to those who expound anti-Nazi views. Congratulations. That’s exactly what the Nazis would do to you if they were in a dominant position.
BJ: “No views have ever been defeated by suppressing them”
RP: “To be fair, Judaism was not defeated by the Holocaust.
Jesus tap dancing Christ, what a stupid remark by billyjoe”
Well, I didn’t say by exterminating them. I said by suppressing them. And I wasn’t talking about people. I was talking about ideas. With those two points clarified, I stand by that remark. You are not going to eliminate an idea by suppressing it. It sits there in the background festering ready to erupt when the time is ripe.
We need to examine very carefully what the Nazis are saying, especially to their potential recruits. And, for the sake of these potential recruits, we need to very carefully form water tight responses to all their talking points. In doing so, we also need to examine why those potential recruits are vulnerable to the message being promoted by Nazis. And, in the process, we might just learn something from this engagement.
“So now Nazism is reduced to “opinions you don’t approve of”? No wonder you got a Nazi in the White House”
It doen’t really help to play word games. If some one asks: “Do you approve of Nazism?” Answer: “No”. If someone asks: “Do you find Nazism odious?”. Answer: “Yes”. No conflict here.
KG,
“What a bunch of stupid crap – as we’ve come to expect from you”
Wow!
I stand by my statement that no ideas are ever eliminated by suppressing them.
“…are there any opinions you think the NYT should not publish on its Op-Ed pages? Reintroduction of slavery? Abolition of all age-of-consent laws? Extermination of the Jews?”
Firstly, there has to be a person or group of people advancing these views and wanting to write an op-Ed in a newspaper. Secondly, the newspaper has to think it is worthwhile to publish that opinion, which they will likely base on such factors as the prevalence of that view in the community, the public standing of the individual expounding that view, and if it is likely to increase sales. If they do decide to publish, would my response ever be that they should not have published that view? My answer would almost invariably be “no” provided that view was in accord with “free speech” principles.
“Because if you feel any of these should be excluded, your supposed point self-deflates with a feeble splutter”
Well in your opinion but, in fact, the principles of “free speech”, although it does not exclude so-called “hate speech” (because one person’s “hate speech” is another person’s “free speech”; some people tend to see “hate” where none exists, or where none is intended; it can so easily become a go to phrase for people who do not like what is being said, or simply disagree with it), it does exclude speech that is an immediate threat to some person or group of people. Which probably excludes your third example.
“…it is possible to think things shouldn’t be published, without thinking they should be banned from being published. Is it really possible that you are stupid enough not to see the difference?”
Again, wow! (Not directed at me this time).
There is a difference but not much of a difference.
If you think the NYT should not publish a pro-Nazi opinion piece, I assume you would extend that to all newspapers. And magazines, publishers of pamphlets, radio, television, Internet blogs, etc etc. If your opinion that all these outlets should not publish any pro-Nazi opinion pieces holds sway, we would effectively have a ban on pro-Nazi opinion pieces.
Firstly, good luck with that.
Secondly, why not just write an anti-Nazi opinion piece. Should be easy, right? Because Nazism is so obviously odious. Should convince everyone that reads it, right? Because the Nazi talking points are so easy to refute.
So what is the problem here?
billyjoe:
Yeah, but you thereby ignore KG’s point. Obstinacy in the face of counter-evidence is not admirable.
(What exactly did the Celtic Druids believe, and how did the seek to achieve their goals? All we have is hearsay and opinion about those)
@60
For like the tenth time in this thread, no one is claiming that the ideas should be suppressed and no one should ever be allowed to comment on them. What people are claiming is that major newspapers shouldn’t let nazis and deplorables use them as free promotion and recruiting materials. You can talk about nazis and criticize nazi rhetoric without letting a nazi have an opinion piece in your paper.
I don’t support sites like Stormfront or Infowars for the material they run – why should I support the Times if they want to run articles by people who are just as bad?
Says a lot about you, I think. You think that mass media should cater to nazis. I don’t think much more needs to be said there.
Yep, and that wouldn’t affect their freedom of speech one iota. There is no constitutional right to a platform of your choice.
Thinking that the media shouldn’t give a platform to nazis is a different thing than making legislation that prevents nazis from making media, and if they want to go and preach their bullshit, they can make their own newspapers, rather than being given loudspeakers by media giants.
The problem here is that centrist media gives Nazis and Deplorables a free soapbox to rant from and basically print them free recruiting material. Why run Nazi articles when you could just run anti-Nazi articles?
Porivil Sorrens,
“This isn’t a matter of freedom to speech. You do not have a right to any particular platform. If no newspaper wants to print someone’s deplorable views, their freedom of speech hasn’t been affected in the slightest”
Agreed.
Indeed, any view, not just views they consider to be deplorable.
I only mentioned “free speech” at the very end on that long post.
The question of “free speech” applies to public institutions, and it applies to private institutions where the priciples of “free speech” interacts with the “mission statements” of those institutions. For example, some colleges, in the spirit of free enquiry, allow their professors to invite any guest speaker they wish to invite. Once invited, the act of de-platforming such a speaker is, at once, against the college’s “mission statement” and against “free speech” principles.
So “free speech” is still broadly relevant here.
“I have no problem with articles that critizcize odious views”
…meaning views that you find odious.
And…of course you would have no problem with that!
“I have a problem with newspapers giving deplorables a soapbox where they can rant at anyone”
Again…meaning people who you characterise as “deplorable”.
On the other hand, I do not have a problem with that. I am for free and open enquiry. The “deplorables” can put their case. The “approvables” (people with whom you approve) can put their case. Should be easy for the “approvables”, right? Seeing as how obviously deplorable the “deplorables” are.
“You realize that it is possible to think that things shouldn’t be published, without thinking that said things should be banned from being published, right?”
Put into practise, there is not much difference between the two (see previous comment).
“Saying “Nazis shouldn’t be given platforms” doesn’t mean “We should make a law banning Nazis from having platforms”, it just means “People should not give Nazis platforms.”
In theory, yes, there is a difference. In practise, not much.
If you, or people with views on pro-Nazi speech just like yours, were in control of all the media outlets, the ideas expounded by Nazis would be effectively banned.
“…I criticized the Times for giving a platform to deplorables…It’s possible to have a page for opinions without handing a loudspeaker to dangerous idiots”
If they are so obviously deplorable and so obviously dangerous and so obviously idiotic that they can so easily and so obviously be refuted, what exactly is the problem here?
If it is not so obviously and easily refuted that their views need to be kept out of the media for fear of influencing others, maybe you need to either come up with better refutations. Or, failing that, maybe even rethink your views! They may just have something that you missed!
Gasp!
(I truly hope you won’t misquote me here)
“I am a consumer and am thus able to criticize things and vote with my viewership. Are you offended by the concept of media criticism?”
No. Great! Criticise. Vote with your feet. No problem.
Advocating for the suppression of views you consider odious. Not so much.
“…as does anyone who cares about the proliferation of nazism and regressive politics”
Well “regressive” is in the eyes of the beholder. For me, “regressive” is effectively suppressing free speech. Effectively eliminating opportunities for people to express their views. Effectively eliminating opportunities for people to hear these views. Effectively eliminating the opportunity for those who wish to engage with and refute those views. That’s “regressive” in my view.
Porivil Torrens,
You are talking past me rather than addressing my points, and reiterating points you’ve already made.
What are you scared of?
Is Nazism so persuasive and it’s arguments so difficult to refute, that the media should, on mass, refuse to publish any pro-Nazi view for fear that these views will spread?
Having done that, what other views do you think should be treated in the same manner?
And who gets to be the judge of which views get this treatment and which don’t?
What do you think of people’s right to hear these views?
What do you think of people’s right to respond directly to the views expressed?
And how do you propose to protect those who are directly personally targeted by the proponents of those views?
@63
Cool, I actually don’t really care much about the non-first-ammendment kind of free speech. No one is entitled to a platform, and I could care less if people choose to drop a speaker. Go to a different space, or make your own.
Uh, yes. That was a value judgement. One that non-nazis tend to share.
So? That sounds fine to me. Government didn’t do it, so their freedom of speech remains intact. (Note that I am also completely fine with the government flat-out banning Nazi speech a la Germany. I’m just not advocating for it here.)
Gullible idiots exist.
The former are just means of achieving the latter, for me anyways. I wholly support preventing nazis from having platforms.
I don’t give a shit about “effectively” suppressing free speech that doesn’t “actually” suppress free speech. Nazis are free to go on stormfront or print their own newspapers. “Effectively” suppressing their speech wouldn’t stop that.
Your view is regressive.
@64
The media should refuse to publish any pro-Nazi view regardless of how persuasive or easily refutable they are.
People have a right to go to Stormfront or read the manifestos the nazis self-publish.
For the eleventh-ass time, criticizing nazism in media is something I support, and you know that.
Make legislative barriers against them ever putting their actions into play.
Punch nazis when you see them, and no-platform them when they try to get their word out.
Let people know that “having a full mouth of teeth” and “being a nazi” are mutually exclusive states.
@ 66
“The media should refuse to publish any pro-Nazi view”
You sure talk a lot about Nazis, so let me get this straight. You consider David Brooks to be promoting “pro-Nazi views?”
@67
Nah, Brooks is just a useful idiot for them, just like every other centrist and conservative.
golly
the new kids are weird
@ 69
I agree, they see nazis under the bed.
tomh #70
you talkin’ ta me?
I aten’t よ
Porivil Sorrens,
“For the eleventh-ass time, criticizing nazism in media is something I support, and you know that”
No, I said “responding directly to the views expressed” by Nazis.
This means having a right to hear what they have to say and responding directly to what they have to say. This means not relying on second hand information provided by those expounding anti-nazi views, or propaganda supplied by either side.
BJ: “And how do you propose to protect those who are directly personally targeted by the proponents of those views?”
PT: “Make legislative barriers against them ever putting their actions into play.”
I wasn’t clear. I meant the people targeted by Nazis as potential recruits. How can you protect the potential recruits from becoming actual recruits if you don’t listen to what the Nazis are telling these potential recruits and providing these potential recruits with appropriate “counter-speech”?
“Punch nazis when you see them, and no-platform them when they try to get their word out. Let people know that “having a full mouth of teeth” and “being a nazi” are mutually exclusive states”
I see. Physical assault. Well, each to their own.
I hope you’re physically bigger and stronger than they and their big brothers are.
And, you know, might makes right.
HTML lesson
Doing this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
Results in this
<b>bold</b>
bold
<i>italic</i>
italic
@72
People are free to go to stormfront or read whatever bullshit the nazis self-publish. There’s no requirement for major news companies to give them free recruitment material.
I mean, sure, but given that we literally fought a world war against the nazis and killed a shitton of them, this isn’t exactly a rare idea.
Don’t have to be. There’s more of us, and a bat to the face hurts no matter who’s swinging it.
Nah, might isn’t the justification for the morality of punching nazis, it’s the conclusion. It’d be moral even if we were weaker than them.
Porivil Sorrens,
“There’s no requirement for major news companies to give them free recruitment material”
I didn’t say there should be a requirement that they do so.
In fact, I specifically agreed with you that “free speech” does NOT mean that media must offer a venue with anyone with a point of view.
The point is that you object to the media giving a platform to what you consider odious views, whereas I have no problem with them doing so. In fact, I think that it is good that they do so in situations where those views are those of a reasonable percentage of the population, or if those views are those of a prominent person. It provides a first hand account of that view and the reasons for having that view and, therefore, a good opportunity to understand those views and either accept or debunk those views as the case may be.
The other big problem with your point of view is that you are deciding what views are odious and therefore what views should not see the light of day. Others likely see some of your views as odious.
@75
Indeed, and if those people don’t want to host my views on their media, they’re perfectly welcome not to.
I’d, y’know, make a twitter or something, rather than whinging about how I’ve ~essentially~ lost my freedom of speech, as if that meant anything.
What @tomh and @billyjoe (and many of their opponents too, in their haste) seem to forget is that this discussion is only partly about “the press” in general; it started out about the New York Times in particular.
And as far as the NYT is concerned, the thing here is that the NYT giving space to “deplorable” viewpoints is a betrayal of what they (at least used to) stand for, and of their readers (who still do). There are already right-wing media for Brooks and Dowd and their odious compadres to write in.
The New York Times doesn’t need to publish entire op-ed pages of Trump voters letters-to-the-editor, sepia-toned sympathetic portraits of The Nice Nazi Next Door, or insiduous tone-policing “high-brow” apologetics for said Trump voters and Next-Door Nazis – that’s the the WSJ’s job!
@ 77
The Times doesn’t “need” to publish anything in particular, they didn’t need to publish the Red Century series last summer, over 40 op-ed articles, such as, “Why Women Had Better Sex Under Socialism” which drove right-wingers bonkers.
If you want to talk about the original point of the discussion, my first comment, two sentences long, simply pointed out that the editorial page and the op-ed page were very different things. As far as I’m concerned, that’s still the point.