Support NeoGAF

[psyfi]

the NYT does some good work, but a lot of their writing is neoliberal capitalist colonialist misinformation at best

 

[Big Blue]

I want the NYT to:

1- Report the news
2- To the extent they publish opinions, I want to be challenged by people who argue from positions of intellectual honestly. The NYT has no business publishing these trash op-eds from people who frankly don't deserve the platform.

Who are you to determine who deserves the platform? Your pandering for censorship is pretty damn dangerous.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

It's not a particularly good opinion either. It lists democracy from Greece, abolition of slavery in Europe prior to the American civil war, and the Statue of Liberty being used as a symbol in Tienanmen Square as examples of cultural appropriation which is blatantly false and a misunderstanding of what cultural appropriation is and how it differs from the natural changes and interactions of culture. It completely misunderstands how cultural appropriation exists in order to make the dominant force doing the appropriation of culture and attempts to say that white supremacists and those calling out cultural appropriation are morally equivalent.

It's poorly written at best, an awful symptom of the disease of blaming many sides that so infects public thinking today

Oh I don't disagree at all, it sidesteps a lot of the actual criticism of cultural appropriation in favour of simply stating that cultural blending is good. Which is of course somewhat of a strawman of why people take issue with cultural appropriation in the first place. Basically nobody would argue that cultural blending is bad in and of itself but rather that it can amplify already existing racial divides if used carelessly and more caution and introspection is needed in some cases.

But that's a far more nuanced take on it then "this is racist and NYT should be ashamed to publish it", and arguably encouraging a more nuanced take on the issue is exactly the point of an Op-Ed column.

 

[Branduil]

It's not substantive, regardless of your worldview, including one as abhorrent as that one, which I know some people do subscribe to.

Other than you providing shock value to support your strawman, how would that discussion even take place in a serious fashion?

Blackwater is a huge player. Their presence is huge in a global stage, especially with talks of extending the Afghanistan campaign.

I don't know how does discussing "LOL weather is fake" or "We should kill more brown people" take place in a serious fashion? Just pay some right-wing crank and they can shit out some half-assed inductive argument pretty easily.

 

[ultratruman]

interesting that OP chose to crop out 'The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR' , almost as if it undermines the whole argument that NYT is 'promoting' this guy and every view he's ever held.

I suppose you think NYT agrees with Russian hacking of the 2016 US Election because they once let Putin write an OP-ED?

Here's the full article btw, since there's no link in the OP:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/opinion/erik-prince-contractors-afghanistan.html?mcubz=0

(p.s. no, this post does not constitute a defence of military contractors. there are plenty of media outlets that should be criticised for having one-sided perspectives, and NYT isn't immune, but really get some perspective on this guys.)

 

[PInk Tape]

This should not have been published. I'd rather not normalize these "people" and their "opinions".

 

[PBY]

Oh I don't disagree at all, it sidesteps a lot of the actual criticism of cultural appropriation in favour of simply stating that cultural blending is good. Which is of course somewhat of a strawman of why people take issue with cultural appropriation in the first place. Basically nobody would argue that cultural blending is bad in and of itself but rather that it can amplify already existing racial divides if used carelessly and more caution and introspection is needed in some cases.

But that's a far more nuanced take on it then "this is racist and NYT should be ashamed to publish it", and arguably encouraging a more nuanced take on the issue is exactly the point of an Op-Ed column.

A nuanced, both-sides-ism debate about why more cultural appropriation is bad is exactly why we're criticizing the NYT for the way they curate this platform. And it is racist, and the NYT should be ashamed to have published that.

 

[Perfect Blue]

we don't need to engage these people, we just need to beat them. there's a lot more of us than there are of them, and if we can overcome the corporate resistance to substantive climate policy it won't matter one bit what idiocies they do or don't believe.

While I get the sentiment, but the reality is the market and corporations are already moving towards green energy because it is more profitable than the carbon-rich alternatives. Some twat in an NYT op-ed is entirely inconsequential.

 

[GuessMyUserName]

There's a discussion that can be made about quality control here, but phrasing this as "NYT aren't allies, they're gross because look at these op-eds" is a total joke.

 

[entremet]

I don't know how does discussing "LOL weather is fake" or "We should kill more brown people" take place in a serious fashion? Just pay some right-wing crank and they can shit out some half-assed inductive argument pretty easily.

I think who writes it matter. This is a man with Pentagon connections already and whose company has been involved in US military operations.

 

[Branduil]

Who are you to determine who deserves the platform? Your pandering for censorship is pretty damn dangerous.

And people said my posts were a straw man.

 

[bionic77]

we don't need to engage these people, we just need to beat them. there's a lot more of us than there are of them, and if we can overcome the corporate resistance to substantive climate policy it won't matter one bit what idiocies they do or don't believe.

I used to think that way but being right is sadly not enough in this country anymore.

We have to make it so that the alternative is not Donald Trump (or worse) or else this country is in serious shit. So not only do we have to address global warming, continue the fight for tolerance and equal rights, ensure that the poor and middle class are able to live decent lives, fix healthcare and change the industrial military complex we also have to fix what is wrong with the Republicans in this country so the consequences are not so dire if we lose.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Oh I don't disagree at all, it sidesteps a lot of the actual criticism of cultural appropriation in favour of simply stating that cultural blending is good. Which is of course somewhat of a strawman of why people take issue with cultural appropriation in the first place. Basically nobody would argue that cultural blending is bad in and of itself but rather that it can amplify already existing racial divides if used carelessly and more caution and introspection is needed in some cases.

But that's a far more nuanced take on it then "this is racist and NYT should be ashamed to publish it", and arguably encouraging a more nuanced take on the issue is exactly the point of an Op-Ed column.

It's racist in so far as it misrepresents the concerns people of color have about cultural appropriation, and leads the article with black celebrities borrowing from other cultures as if to say "hey, you all do this too" without engaging with what the idea of cultural appropriation actually is. It's a holier than thou, talk-down-to-you take, which while it doesn't directly address POC, it might as well because it's not like white people are the main group decrying cultural appropriation.

 

[ExVicis]

I don't know how does discussing "LOL weather is fake" or "We should kill more brown people" take place in a serious fashion? Just pay some right-wing crank and they can shit out some half-assed inductive argument pretty easily.

I must have missed these NYT Articles. Search seems to be turning up nothing.

And people said my posts were a straw man.

...

Dude, c'mon. You can't be arguing that NYT knows what it's doing and not be aware of what you yourself are doing.

 

[Branduil]

I think who writes it matter. This is a man with Pentagon connections already and whose company has been involved in US military operations.

Okay so let's say hypothetically that my name is Dan Patrick and I want to publish the exact same op-ed.

 

[aeolist]

I think who writes it matter. This is a man with Pentagon connections already and whose company has been involved in US military operations.

he'a also a mercenary with a vested interest in the US engaging in more extensive military actions around the world

a guy who runs a private army that's been so visibly shitty and inhumane that he's had to change the name several times

and now he's been paid by the most "prestigious" newspaper in the world to advertise directly to the president of the united states

the whole thing is laughably imbecilic

 

[RDreamer]

Who are you to determine who deserves the platform? Your pandering for censorship is pretty damn dangerous.

Ridiculous post. NYT determines who deserves the platform. If it's censorship for them not to publish climate denialism then they're already censoring by not publishing the probably thousands of things they get sent weekly or monthly. Protip: That's not censorship.

And customers influencing which things get the platform they're paying for is also not censorship.

 

[Toxi]

I think who writes it matter. This is a man with Pentagon connections already and whose company has been involved in US military operations.

This is a good point. It's the same reason why every statement by Donald Trump gets publicized no matter how inane: As someone in power, his opinion matters.

But you have to stretch the definition of "notable" pretty far to include Brett Stevens.

 

[aeolist]

frankly the fact that prince got paid by the times is the dumbest part of the whole stupid mess

if you're going to run advertorials the paper should be the ones getting money for it

 

[BronsonLee]

Didn't expect such a massive response.

whythefuckyoulyin.webm

 

[TheCochese]

Okay so let's say hypothetically that my name is Dan Patrick and I want to publish the exact same op-ed.

Hypothetically, you should stick to sports.

Spoiler

I am aware

 

[Nivash]

I don't know how does discussing "LOL weather is fake" or "We should kill more brown people" take place in a serious fashion? Just pay some right-wing crank and they can shit out some half-assed inductive argument pretty easily.

If those bolded parts are genuinely what you think the climate change denial and white supremacist arguments are, you're pretty much proving my earlier point of the need to understand the opposition. If they're not, I guess it just shows that hyperbolic snark isn't a good counter-argument either.

 

[Oppo]

de platforming nonsense, OP.

put this stuff out in the light and let's have at it. i share your opinions about each article but i really disagree that the NYT is "promoting" these people. they are op eds. silencing these opinions leaves them in the dark where they can fester. better to pull them apart in the public sphere.

 

[Branduil]

de platforming nonsense, OP.

put this stuff out in the light and let's have at it. i share your opinions about each article but i really disagree that the NYT is "promoting" these people. they are op eds. silencing these opinions leaves them in the dark where they can fester. better to pull them apart in the public sphere.

They are literally paying them money to write these articles.

 

[jtb]

If those bolded parts are genuinely what you think the climate change denial and white supremacist arguments are, you're pretty much proving my earlier point of the need to understand the opposition. If they're not, I guess it just shows that hyperbolic snark isn't a good counter-argument either.

are you seriously claiming that we need to understand the intricacies of the alt-right's argument for white supremacy in order to be against it or effectively combat it?

 

[aeolist]

de platforming nonsense, OP.

put this stuff out in the light and let's have at it. i share your opinions about each article but i really disagree that the NYT is "promoting" these people. they are op eds. silencing these opinions leaves them in the dark where they can fester. better to pull them apart in the public sphere.

they should pay david duke to run a KKKorner of the op-ed page too. can't have those opinions festering in the dark. maybe have david miscavige explain why critics of scientology deserve to have their lives ruined too, and throw in some proponents of flat earth theory while we're at it.

 

[PBY]

de platforming nonsense, OP.

put this stuff out in the light and let's have at it. i share your opinions about each article but i really disagree that the NYT is "promoting" these people. they are op eds. silencing these opinions leaves them in the dark where they can fester. better to pull them apart in the public sphere.

I don't understand how simply NOT giving these opinions and people this massive, trusted platform is somehow "silencing these opinions."

 

[entremet]

he'a also a mercenary with a vested interest in the US engaging in more extensive military actions around the world

a guy who runs a private army that's been so visibly shitty and inhumane that he's had to change the name several times

and now he's been paid by the most "prestigious" newspaper in the world to advertise directly to the president of the united states

the whole thing is laughably imbecilic

Again, this is not new. Op-Eds are full of unsavory opinions. Moreover, I think you're seeing from a this is the guy as hoodwinking people. Are people not capable of critical thought? War is not a popular at the moment. If NYT unilaterally supported the Blackwater CEO's views, I'd get your point. It does not.

 

[Big Blue]

I don't understand how simply NOT giving these opinions and people this massive, trusted platform is somehow "silencing these opinions."

It's not the job of the NYT to cater to your safe space. You want the paper to write what you want to hear. It's an Op Ed, and they've existed for a while. You will not always agree with them. Just accept it.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

So I started looking up articles on cultural appropriation and I came across this article. Anyway, here I deviate (or maybe I don't?) because of this particular paragraph that stood out to me concerning blackface in cultural appropriation:

Perhaps the quintessential example of the appropriative phenomenon is non-black people donning blackface. Slate's Jamelle Bouie and others call October "Blackface Advent," the annual ritual of non-black people making fools of themselves for a laugh at a costume party at black people's expense. Whether it's cooning minstrelsy and making fun of Black Lives Matter or white kids dressing up like Kanye and Beyonce, it's offensive to a large swath of people, and to many black people particularly.

This isn't about a white artist trying to contribute to the understanding and pain of a long national history of crime and violence. This is a cultural diss that is a common and vivid reminder that our humanity is not respected on a very deep level by a large number of people in this country. It's not always so blatant, of course. White people switching to an exaggerated black vernacular to say "Whazzup my brotha?" or some other imitative nonsense is something I've encountered countless times in my life. There's nothing wrong with adopting terms like "whazzup?" as they come into (white) pop culture through various media, but there's a difference between the natural assimilation of language and black imitation as some sort of caricature.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/cultural-appropriation/521634/

Thought I'd share it since I thought it was a GREAT way to describe why blackface is so fucking bad, since I think I've seen a defense for it on this forum.

 

[Oppo]

They are literally paying them money to write these articles.

so what. it's probably a pittance. do you know how much money Erik Prince has?

they can't really play favorites with writing fees.

listen i hate all of these articles but i want to see rebuttals, not murdering the messenger.

they should pay david duke to run a KKKorner of the op-ed page too. can't have those opinions festering in the dark. maybe have david miscavige explain why critics of scientology deserve to have their lives ruined too, and throw in some proponents of flat earth theory while we're at it.

no, that's hate speech. I'd read the Miscavige thing though, and probably the flat earth thing too, just to see how their minds work. Those are extremely minority opinions though. Erik Prince, not so much.

I don't understand how simply NOT giving these opinions and people this massive, trusted platform is somehow "silencing these opinions."

it's not. But the NYT can make the call on what is an influential opinion to publish.

 

[yanipheonu]

It's actually pretty much the opposite.

Milo, Spencer, and Tomi are around today because the conservative right rejected every mainstream, single-source of reporting, and now there is nothing left for the right, and so demagogues and bloviators have taken over the platform and the right is incapable of deciphering opinion from journalism. Fox News jumped on this opportunity 10+ years ago, and now Fox is "too liberal" or it's run by (((globalists))). The Wall Street Journal editorial section, perhaps the longest running mainstream center-right institution in the country, is now considered a den of untrustworthy Jews. Even opinion magazines like the National Review, Weekly Standard, or Commentary, publications that were the seat of conservatism for a generation, are filthy zionist cuckservatives.

The result is that people like Milo, Spencer, Tomi Lahren (is she even a that popular, I honestly don't know?), Breitbart, and whatever other offensive shit fills the vacuum that the Right created by first discrediting legitimate news sources, and then discrediting their own sources when it didn't fit their bias. And that group is who got Donald Trump elected, not the center-right Wall Street Journal or the neoconservative, anti-Trump National Review.

Now, maybe there is some ragsheet on the left that released endorphins in your brain better than the center-left New York Times or center-left NPR. But if you strip all of the credibility from the NYT because they have a 99.9% success rate for quality journalism and that 0.01% failure is simply too much for your brain to bare, and then turn exclusively to the website that gets you fired up with confirmation bias and self-righteous vitriol, then the Left is going to nominate a reality TV gameshow host demagogue as well.

👏
There's a difference between wanting to be told what you want to hear, and wanting to hear the truth.

The truth is often ugly, filled with opinions that will offend you, and stuff you just don't want to face. And yes, people will have wrongheaded, or downright evil opinions.

Or you could just find exactly what you want to hear.
Plenty of people on the right wing have done that with Breitbart and their ilk.

 

[aeolist]

so what. it's probably a pittance. do you know how much money Erik Prince has?

they can't really play favorites with writing fees.

listen i hate all of these articles but i want to see rebuttals, not murdering the messenger.

war is bad, not good. we shouldn't pay erik prince to go murder a bunch of afghanis.

man that was hard. i should get paid for this.

 

[ExVicis]

If those bolded parts are genuinely what you think the climate change denial and white supremacist arguments are, you're pretty much proving my earlier point of the need to understand the opposition. If they're not, I guess it just shows that hyperbolic snark isn't a good counter-argument either.

Further to this there were views so insane to me I didn't even believe they were still real views people still held. I didn't learn until relatively recently that the Flat Earthers weren't just some elaborate joke but something people actually believe still until I saw them reported a lot in the news.

So yeah Op-Eds work for that sort of thing.

 

[Sirpopopop]

That's fine, I don't really feel the need to put in effort to explain to you why cultural appropriation is harmful and why a piece called "THREE CHEERS FOR CULTURAL APPROPRIATION" is racist dreck.

Except the piece argues against what you are implying. Are you arguing that white people can't cook banh mi, or that fusion cooking is not a legitimate craft?

Because, that's what the piece is arguing in favor of. Like Lime, you just cherry pick shit and then make a grandiose argument based on the exceptions representing the whole. You're upset about the usage of the term "mongrel culture" when it's used as a compliment.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It's actually pretty much the opposite.

Milo, Spencer, and Tomi are around today because the conservative right rejected every mainstream, single-source of reporting, and now there is nothing left for the right, and so demagogues and bloviators have taken over the platform and the right is incapable of deciphering opinion from journalism. Fox News jumped on this opportunity 10+ years ago, and now Fox is "too liberal" or it's run by (((globalists))). The Wall Street Journal editorial section, perhaps the longest running mainstream center-right institution in the country, is now considered a den of untrustworthy Jews. Even opinion magazines like the National Review, Weekly Standard, or Commentary, publications that were the seat of conservatism for a generation, are filthy zionist cuckservatives.

The result is that people like Milo, Spencer, Tomi Lahren (is she even a that popular, I honestly don't know?), Breitbart, and whatever other offensive shit fills the vacuum that the Right created by first discrediting legitimate news sources, and then discrediting their own sources when it didn't fit their bias. And that group is who got Donald Trump elected, not the center-right Wall Street Journal or the neoconservative, anti-Trump National Review.

Now, maybe there is some ragsheet on the left that released endorphins in your brain better than the center-left New York Times or center-left NPR. But if you strip all of the credibility from the NYT because they have a 99.9% success rate for quality journalism and that 0.01% failure is simply too much for your brain to bare, and then turn exclusively to the website that gets you fired up with confirmation bias and self-righteous vitriol, then the Left is going to nominate a reality TV gameshow host demagogue as well.

People have lauded this post and I don't know why. It pretty much pretends that Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh don't exist. Or local news networks which have an overwhelmingly conservative slant.

As for Fox News being "too liberal" for these people, guess what, not only are they still shilling for Trump, but Tomi Lahren just got hired by them. You think this won't amplify her voice? lol. And the likes of Hannity, O'Reilly, and of course Roger Ailes are pretty much on the same level of vileness as Milo and Spencer, they just use more dog whistling.

And as for the left nominating a "leftist Trump" eventually... lol, please. That's some exaggerated horseshoe nonsense.

Fucking truth right here.

It's also more apparent what Albatross is saying when you consider how Radio became the Bastion of Right Wing media for so long. It was pretty much the only outlet many of those guys could find.

Only outlet? Except for Fox News (the most watched "news" network in the US), local news, tons of right-wing newspapers, best-selling books like Coulter's, and now podcasts, Youtube... I mean what?

This idiotic notion that the right wing was lacking a voice or a platform to express their ideas is laughable. It was always there. FFS, I remember arguing online with people on internet forums after 9/11 and if you were ever so critical of the Bush administration or how they were handling missions to Afghanistan, you would get an explosion of hate and "shut up you dumb leftist" and so on.

If anyone thinks bigoted ideologies are currently winning they are not paying attention.

KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(Today, 12:14 PM)

Another great post.

The way to combat these ideas isn't to pretend they don't exist. How are you going to know and understand what you're fighting against if you have no idea what it is?

lol

Because transgender people have no idea transphobia exist, and climate scientists have no idea that climate change denial exists. And PoC haven't been exposed to enough racist views, they need more, how else are they gonna combat racism?

Oh wait no, these assholes have been around forever and the people opposing them are just really fucking tired of having to write detailed rebuttals about their shit constantly, so they are understandably miffed when a reputable paper publishes more nonsense to debunk and gives it a megaphone.

 

[TheCochese]

Only outlet? Except for Fox News (the most watched "news" network in the US), local news, tons of right-wing newspapers, best-selling books like Coulter's, and now podcasts, Youtube... I mean what?

It's almost if the world prior to 1996 didn't exist.

Right radio is thirty years old at this point.

 

[jtb]

Further to this there were views so insane to me I didn't even believe they were still real views people still held. I didn't learn until relatively recently that the Flat Earthers weren't just some elaborate joke but something people actually believe still until I saw them reported a lot in the news.

So yeah Op-Eds work for that sort of thing.

Is the Earth flat?

 

[KHarvey16]

KHarvey16
hopelessly misguided
(Today, 12:14 PM)

This side seems big on shitty dismissals and short on actual arguments.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This side seems big on shitty dismissals and short on actual arguments.

I wrote an entire post of those, but that tag quote was just too hard to resist because of how extremely, ridiculously naive your post was.

 

[aeolist]

Further to this there were views so insane to me I didn't even believe they were still real views people still held. I didn't learn until relatively recently that the Flat Earthers weren't just some elaborate joke but something people actually believe still until I saw them reported a lot in the news.

So yeah Op-Eds work for that sort of thing.

reporting is a different thing from op-eds

reporting is "flat earthers are a thing, here's the crazy shit they believe and why it's wrong"

op-eds are "the earth is flat and the elites are conspiring to keep this from you for various evil reasons"

which do you think is actually more valuable in terms of informing the public?

 

[KHarvey16]

I wrote an entire post of those, but that tag quote was just too hard to resist because of how extremely, ridiculously naive your post was.

To say the alt-right or neo-nazis are winning anything right now is entirely delusional.

 

[PBY]

Except the piece argues against what you are implying. Are you arguing that white people can't cook banh mi, or that fusion cooking is not a legitimate craft?

Because, that's what the piece is arguing in favor of. Like Lime, you just cherry pick shit and then make a grandiose argument based on the exceptions representing the whole. You're upset about the usage of the term "mongrel culture" when it's used as a compliment.

I highlighted why I was upset, and it had nothing to do with "mongrel culture"

The fact that we're having this discussion shows why this is incredibly harmful.

 

[Big Blue]

reporting is a different thing from op-eds

reporting is "flat earthers are a thing, here's the crazy shit they believe and why it's wrong"

op-eds are "the earth is flat and the elites are conspiring to keep this from you for various evil reasons"

which do you think is actually more valuable in terms of informing the public?

The answer is having both. An argument is always made stronger with a counter-argument.

 

[Oppo]

Oh wait no, these assholes have been around forever and the people opposing them are just really fucking tired of having to write detailed rebuttals about their shit constantly, so they are understandably miffed when a reputable paper publishes more nonsense to debunk and gives it a megaphone.

Listen I hear you on this, but... it will never end. Ever. It sucks that you're tired. But you are not standing athwart the ravenous hordes, meeting them with a sea of fucked off comments. Public opinion is a constant never ending dialog.

So while I get why you are "tired", take a knee, have an orange, and collect yourself. And yeah, go on and be miffed, that's ok. It really is. I'm fucking tired and more than miffed and I don't even live in the USA. But "I've written so many comments!"... like, ok?

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

To say the alt-right or neo-nazis are winning anything right now is entirely delusional.

Except you know, the Presidency and the Supreme Court. Funny how that works.

 

[aeolist]

The answer is having both.

so you do agree that the NYT should run op-eds from flat earthers, white supremacists, and conspiracy theorists?

 

[Draxal]

Gaf really needs a rhetoric 101 class.

 

[KHarvey16]

Except you know. The Presidency and the Supreme Court. Funny how that works.

Losing. Also, I'd take Gorsuch over Scalia any day and so should you.

 

[ChainedMaster]

Jesus Christ they're opinion sections. No wonder liberals have the reputation of silencing the opposition. Who gives a shit? If you don't want to read it, don't. For those who would like to know the opinions of bad people, they're free to do so.