All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

You don't need to humor Mets on this one guys. This isn't something that needs a deep dive into, it's a word that can be looked up in the dictionary.

I think you're responding to a point I didn't make. There also seems to be the implication that in order for someone to have a different view than some of the people here on a controverisal issue, they must be acting in bad faith. There are some troubling implications of that perspective.

[The Cool Thatguy]

That sounds pretty awful. Citation?

Gonna slide past the recent genocide, huh?

Well, anyways...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/b...e-loophole-511

[PaulBullion]

I don’t believe Covid is some kind of biology attack, but one of my biggest concerns is that some of the enemies of the United States are looking at the reaction to Covid and saying “they aren’t wired to deal with this kind of thing at all.” It’s essentially turning our constitutional rights against us. Exercising The right to protest and the right to assemble have now become ways of spreading death, large segments of the population don’t trust their government (and doctors) enough to protect themselves. Lord help us if their was an actual biological weapon attack.

If a foreign nation wants to weaken the US, it would definitely make sense for them to spread anti-mask propaganda, or encourage people to take unproven medication with potentially fatal side effects.

[PaulBullion]

You're smarter than this.

Huge if true!

[TheManInBlack]

Gonna slide past the recent genocide, huh?

Well, anyways...

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/b...e-loophole-511

Not sliding past anything. I asked about the thing that surprised me and I wanted to know more. Not sure there was any need for a snide comment.

The article you provided is interesting, albeit heavily biased. However, I've been going down the rabbit hole from it for the last several minutes and it absolutely seems like there is some major need for reform. The problem seems to be that Tribal Law does not equal US law, and thus it sets up a major conflict getting cases there properly tried as it's almost like a country within a country.

I absolutely agree that this is a serious issue and needs to be fixed. It's good to get more informed.

Though I do take issue with your comment about white men specifically being given free rein there, since the law specifies non-Indians, not white folks. The issue applies to every race other than Native Americans. Vice should have gotten that memo too, but it wouldn't be a Vice article if it weren't singling out white folks.

There also seems to be the implication that in order for someone to have a different view than some of the people here on a controverisal issue, they must be acting in bad faith. There are some troubling implications of that perspective.

This is basically everything wrong with modern politics. All sides constantly assuming that the other is acting in bad faith. It's impossible to have a rational discussion when people are convinced that anyone speaking from outside the echo chamber is disingenuous or evil. We're sliding backwards as a civilization.

[Mister Mets]

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Looks like all is not good inside the Liberal Bible

There are two senses of the word liberal here, and this doesn't fit how the Times wants to be seen either way.

The more familiar sense of liberal is as something in the left-wing of American politics. The Times generally claims that it's not liberal in this context, so it is a bad look to have a centrist writer leave because of constant bullying by colleagues to her left.

Another sense of liberal is classical liberalism, which emphasizes intellectual freedom and robust honest discussion of policy and current events. It would probably be helpful for the Times to have this kind of ethos, and Weiss' departure contradicts that.

[sammy_hansen]

I think you're responding to a point I haven't made. I will note that we can very easily find numerous examples of the terms negroes and chinamen used as pejoratives.

Thanks for the link, although I didn't ask why someone would think the name was offensive.

You're responding to some questions I wasn't asking.

You also make some incorrect assumptions about my views.

My own views on the controversy are different than secretly believing the professional left was correct on the issue. Polls did show that large percentages of Native Americans weren't bothered by the name, so that largely settled the matter for me.

I do think the whole argument was mainly a waste of time and resources. Every minute reporters, politicians and activists spent convincing a sports team to change its name meant less time and resources on education, alternatives to fossil fuel, immigration policy, criminal justice reform, etc.

Ah, the invasion of Iraq, anyone? And dammit, we could’ve have moon colonies by now if we hadn’t wasted all that time and resources on civil rights!

I guess, for me, I wouldn’t walk up to a Native American and call them a Redskin. I also wouldn’t call a Black American the n-word, even though they may use it themselves. Ya feel?

Now, in good faith Mets, do you believe that cultural appropriation is a thing?

[Kirby101]

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Looks like all is not good inside the Liberal Bible

And your thoughts about Tucker Carlson have a affirmed White Supremacist as his head writer for years?

[sammy_hansen]

There are two senses of the word liberal here, and this doesn't fit how the Times wants to be seen either way.

The more familiar sense of liberal is as something in the left-wing of American politics. The Times generally claims that it's not liberal in this context, so it is a bad look to have a centrist writer leave because of constant bullying by colleagues to her left.

Another sense of liberal is classical liberalism, which emphasizes intellectual freedom and robust honest discussion of policy and current events. It would probably be helpful for the Times to have this kind of ethos, and Weiss' departure contradicts that.

It is curious to me how organizations like the Times and the Post, and the major network as, are held to ridiculously high standards whilst Fox News et al aren’t. When the Post and the Times get it wrong they are ready to admit it.

I don’t know if the Times opinion editor should’ve resigned, but Tom Cotton did call for war crimes to committed against his fellow citizens.

I’m also not up to date with all the tea regarding Weiss. I will say that a lot of opinion writers these days act like primadonnas. But workplace harassment is 100% not on. Play the ball, not the person.

[sammy_hansen]

And your thoughts about Tucker Carlson have a affirmed White Supremacist as his head writer for years?

Shhh! Don’t tell him about the perverts Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes!

[Gray Lensman]

And your thoughts about Tucker Carlson have a affirmed White Supremacist as his head writer for years?

None, judging by his links it's only wrong when the left does it.

[Kirby101]

Here's the problem with people like Spidey5640. He doesn't understand that liberals don't think everything printed in the Times Opinion page is Gospel or that the paper can't make mistake. Unlike the followers of the Trump Cult like him, who think every word he says is the absolute truth, or that Fox News is without reproach, unbrainwashed people get there news from a variety of sources and know no single outlet has a monopoly on the truth. So while the Times is one of the more reliable media outlets, they are also an institution that can stumble, like in printing that ridiculous Tom Cotton editorial, or hiring Bari Weiss. They also own up to their mistakes, something Fox nor Trump ever do.

[Mister Mets]

Ah, the invasion of Iraq, anyone? And dammit, we could’ve have moon colonies by now if we hadn’t wasted all that time and resources on civil rights!

I guess, for me, I wouldn’t walk up to a Native American and call them a Redskin. I also wouldn’t call a Black American the n-word, even though they may use it themselves. Ya feel?

Now, in good faith Mets, do you believe that cultural appropriation is a thing?

The invasion of Iraq predated the current level of interest in the name of the Washington football team, although there were BS issues the media wasted their time on during the late 90s and early 2000s, and that time would have been better spent on Middle Eastern politics.

I haven't seen much indication that there's a problem of Native Americans being called redskins by white strangers.

I think cultural appropriation is normal, and usually okay, with a few extreme exceptions (blackface.) Much of the left-wing pushback on it has been absurd, like the activists pushing the UN to make it illegal, or protests of a painting of Emmett Till's open casket funeral because the artist was white.

https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/y...iation-illegal

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/a...-protests.html

It is curious to me how organizations like the Times and the Post, and the major network as, are held to ridiculously high standards whilst Fox News et al aren’t. When the Post and the Times get it wrong they are ready to admit it.

I don’t know if the Times opinion editor should’ve resigned, but Tom Cotton did call for war crimes to committed against his fellow citizens.

I’m also not up to date with all the tea regarding Weiss. I will say that a lot of opinion writers these days act like primadonnas. But workplace harassment is 100% not on. Play the ball, not the person.

The mainstream media also treats organizations like the Times and the Post with more respect than Fox News.

I'm not a fan of Fox News, but it largely exists because the mainstream media had a partisan bent in the other direction. There is explicitly left-wing journalism (The Nation, The Daily Kos, Mother Jones) but those organizations are open about their leanings, whereas much of the press pretends to be non-partisam.

Tom Cotton's op-ed didn't call for war crimes. He was calling for the military to perform the same role it did against anti-integration protesters in the 60s. There is an argument that people with military training will be readier to handle riots safely than the average police force.

[Kirby101]

The truth has a liberal bias.

[Tami]

The invasion of Iraq predated the current level of interest in the name of the Washington football team, although there were BS issues the media wasted their time on during the late 90s and early 2000s, and that time would have been better spent on Middle Eastern politics.

I haven't seen much indication that there's a problem of Native Americans being called redskins by white strangers.

I think cultural appropriation is normal, and usually okay, with a few extreme exceptions (blackface.) Much of the left-wing pushback on it has been absurd, like the activists pushing the UN to make it illegal, or protests of a painting of Emmett Till's open casket funeral because the artist was white.

https://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/y...iation-illegal

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/21/a...-protests.html

The mainstream media also treats organizations like the Times and the Post with more respect than Fox News.

I'm not a fan of Fox News, but it largely exists because the mainstream media had a partisan bent in the other direction. There is explicitly left-wing journalism (The Nation, The Daily Kos, Mother Jones) but those organizations are open about their leanings, whereas much of the press pretends to be non-partisam.

Tom Cotton's op-ed didn't call for war crimes. He was calling for the military to perform the same role it did against anti-integration protesters in the 60s. There is an argument that people with military training will be readier to handle riots safely than the average police force.

Fox News was created by Roger Ailes becsause of Richard Nixon

Roger Ailes’ Secret Nixon-Era Blueprint For Fox News Revealed

Republican media strategist Roger Ailes launched Fox News Channel in 1996, ostensibly as a "fair and balanced" counterpoint to what he regarded as the liberal establishment media. But according to a remarkable document buried deep within the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, the intellectual forerunner for Fox News was a nakedly partisan 1970 plot by Ailes and other Nixon aides to circumvent the "prejudices of network news" and deliver "pro-administration" stories to heartland television viewers.

The documents—drawn mostly from the papers of Nixon chief of staff and felon H.R. Haldeman and Bush chief of staff John Sununu—reveal Ailes to be a tireless television producer and joyful propagandist. He was a forceful advocate for the power of television to shape the political narrative, and he reveled in the minutiae constructing political spectacles—stage-managing, for instance, the lighting of the White House Christmas tree with painstaking care. He frequently floated ideas for creating staged events and strategies for manipulating the mainstream media into favorable coverage, and used his contacts at the networks to sniff out the emergence of threatening narratives and offer advice on how to snuff them out—warning Bush, for example, to lay off the golf as war in the Middle East approached because journalists were starting to talk.