Comment by fullshark
6 years ago
I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.
> They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth.
I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again?
We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
George Orwell
-1984
That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.
Actually, the op-ed states:
> 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. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence.
Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.
24 replies →
>...who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent.
This, of course, is not what he actually said - but it's what you heard that he said. Because that is the nature of the time that we're in, and why what Orwell said is relevant.
5 replies →
> Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer
That one man's opinion was that we should raise an army and then descend on me and my friends.
Paradox of Tolerance.
So?
Maybe you and your friends are doing something wrong. Maybe I should be able to learn about an alternate opinion, and then decide that the opinion is dumb, using my own brain and reasoning.
Do you not see how dangerous it is to stop people from discussing a topic openly and freely? What happens when this censorship and attempt at controlling the narrative is aimed at you? Do you want to be the recipient of this treatment?
You and your friends were smashing windows and stealing weapons from police vehicles?
That's Matt Taiabbis proposition too.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...
Awesome! Another reader of Taibbi's.
By the way, the Post Gazette seems to have stolen that article, so maybe don't drive business their way. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1274747185507246081?s=20
Instead, here is Taibbi's substack. If you're off a mind, a subscription is only $40 per year, but the stolen article is nevertheless free. https://taibbi.substack.com/
Hey thanks! I just grabbed from the first google link. That's SUPER messed up. I hope he sues. Will update. Love Taibbi!
A response:
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/taibbi-cotton-fre...
Interesting and good point. I could see how people could think that it's good idea to censor violent extremist viewpoints. I tend towards Taibbi's interpretation of publishing anything because I would rather err on the side of releasing dangerous info and let people decide for themselves, than having a media police that police what we read.