New York Times Op-Ed Editor Forced to Resign After Staff Backlash Against Op-Ed On Use of Military

[Anthony60]

The people in the streets are citizens of the country. I know that makes you mad but it's true despite how it would make you feel.

Like I said, you'll never get it.

The people in the streets are breaking the laws, looting, and killing. Is that what you are defending?

 

[Anthony60]

He clearly can, because he was. He shouldn't be, because his opinion is ****ing disgusting. Anyone that calls for the US military to be deployed against the citizens of this country should be denied a platform, removed from office and publicly shamed. Tom Cotton is an open fascist though so it's not surprising.

Then why do you think there is a process for deploying the military to keep the peace?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

New York Times Op-Ed Editor Forced to Resign After Staff Backlash
James Bennet Resigns from New York Times After Cotton Op-Ed Backlash
And this is the same NYT which just a few months ago published an Op-Ed from the Taliban. :roll:
Apparently, the Taliban are civilized enough to be published by the NYT, but a United States senator is not. :roll:

To be fair one was advocating the use of violence and armed forces against Americans,
and the other was talking about how the Taliban must end their violence

 

[ReubenSherr]

No idea where people are getting the idea that military can't be used domestically, if people's lives are at stake...

"Active duty troops can only be deployed if the situation meets certain criteria including times of domestic violence (as in, violence on U.S. soil rather than the kind of violence between two people in a living situation), insurrection, natural disaster, epidemic, etc."

Can the Military Be Used As Law Enforcement.

Again, George HW Bush began to call military to police the L. A. Riots in 1992 - This situation is 100x worse

Are Democrats arguing that it's better for U. S. citizens to be killed in violent riots than for the President to dare call the military in to protect them?

 

[sanman]

The people in the streets are citizens of the country. I know that makes you mad but it's true despite how it would make you feel.

Like I said, you'll never get it.

You're blurring the line between peaceful protesters in the street, versus violent rioters & looters in the street.

Protesting doesn't mean you get to kill people, destroy property, steal stuff that doesn't belong to you.

Why defend that?

 

[Atomic Kid]

New York Times Op-Ed Editor Forced to Resign After Staff Backlash





James Bennet Resigns from New York Times After Cotton Op-Ed Backlash





And this is the same NYT which just a few months ago published an Op-Ed from the Taliban. :roll:
Apparently, the Taliban are civilized enough to be published by the NYT, but a United States senator is not. :roll:

It would appear that Tom Cotton and the Taliban have similar ideas on how to best reign in public protest. By the sheer threat of force.

 

[sanman]

It would appear that Tom Cotton and the Taliban have similar ideas on how to best reign in public protest. By the sheer threat of force.

You again deliberately confuse protest with violent rioting and looting. Why defend those things by calling them protest?

Wise words from the man who defeated Moscow (hint: wasn't Barack Obama or Susan Rice or Joe Biden)

 

[Atomic Kid]

When the Los Angeles riots broke out in 1992 following the Rodney King beating, then President George Bush Sr sent in US Army troops to restore order there, by invoking the Insurrection Act.

So my preference is the use of National Guard troops, rather than US Army, in keeping with the spirit of the Posse Comitatus law, and I'd started a thread about this the other day.

But for you to act like using military troops in a riot situation is unprecedented, is ignorant and incorrect.

Not that Mr Cotton's op ed ever made any mention whether these troops should be deployed without the consent of that state's governor. Or how these troops are to distinguish between protesters and looters. Which he wildly exaggerated. It was a very badly written op-ed. I've seen high school paper op-Ed's that are far better structured and factual than Mr Cotton's. And apparently the Times op-ed editor didn't even read it before allowing it to be published.

 

[Atomic Kid]

You again deliberately confuse protest with violent rioting and looting. Why defend those things by calling them protest?

Wise words from the man who defeated Moscow (hint: wasn't Barack Obama or Susan Rice or Joe Biden)

I think this is the more accurate quote. "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, bearing a cross."

.

 

[sanman]

Not that Mr Cotton's op ed ever made any mention whether these troops should be deployed without the consent of that state's governor. Or how these troops are to distinguish between protesters and looters. Which he wildly exaggerated. It was a very badly written op-ed. I've seen high school paper op-Ed's that are far better structured and factual than Mr Cotton's. And apparently the Times op-ed editor didn't even read it before allowing it to be published.

Distingushing between protesters and looters - uhh, the looters are the ones breaking into places and stealing, and even setting fires - or do you imagine that to be legitimate protest?
Is this a difficult concept for you to understand?





Stop reaching - it only shows what a dishonest person you are. Would you rob your neighbor? Is that the kind of person you are?

Or does everybody just deserve it - because they're somehow born guilty and complicit, in your eyes?

 

[sanman]

I think this is the more accurate quote. "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, bearing a cross."

I was quoting Ronald Reagan - the man who defeated Moscow - you know, that place you pretend to oppose, but couldn't really care less about, other than to camouflage your own predatory political agenda.

 

[Oborosen]

If mobs had their own way, they'll be setting up their own kangaroo courts in the streets.

It's dangerously close to what the Taliban would do. Just less court and more head rolling...

 

[ecofarm]

Cotton is a US Senator. His opinions matter and sldesrrve to heard so people can decide for themselves whether’s he’s full of **** or not.

Like there was no other way. I'm sure Fox would have provided war footage in the background as Hannity emphatically read aloud the Senator's call for military violence against Americans.

 

[Oborosen]

I think this is the more accurate quote. "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag, bearing a cross."

View attachment 67283257. View attachment 67283259

Using two pictures, from two vastly different occasions and using the claim of fascism. Despite the fact that such a claim has been proven wrong on more than one occasion, if not just for lack of evidence...

Damn atomic, you're really going to be this desperate aren't you?

 

[Gaius46]

No, that's not the point of free speech at all. The point of free speech is that it's not against the law to say what you want. That has nothing to do with denying disgusting opinions a platform.

You’re talking the first amendment. Free speech goes beyond just the first amendment and means the free exchange of ideas throughout society without fear of retaliation or censorship. The Times can legally censor people if they want but that action is anti free speech.

 

[Gaius46]

Like there was no other way. I'm sure Fox would have provided war footage in the background as Hannity emphatically read aloud the Senator's call for military violence against Americans.

Sure there were other ways but that’s not the point. The point is the Times actions are anti free speech.

 

[Gaius46]

The people in the streets are breaking the laws, looting, and killing. Is that what you are defending?

Nonsense. The vast majority did not loot or kill.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

You’re talking the first amendment. Free speech goes beyond just the first amendment and means the free exchange of ideas throughout society without fear of retaliation or censorship. The Times can legally censor people if they want but that action is anti free speech.

Oh okay, well in that case I don't believe in "the free exchange of ideas throughout society without fear of retaliation or censorship". I think people should be "retaliated against" for espousing disgusting and hateful opinions.

 

[dcsports]

Oh okay, well in that case I don't believe in "the free exchange of ideas throughout society without fear of retaliation or censorship". I think people should be "retaliated against" for espousing disgusting and hateful opinions.

In this case though, the 'retaliation' should have been against the Senator. 'Retaliation' against the editor for publishing a note from a senator, or a contrasting point of view, is going to squelch the ability of people to hear and evaluate different points of view - squelching free speech.

 

[snakestretcher]

Don't try and blur protests with violence. The constitution guarantees nothing to those who use violence. Peaceful protests are one thing - violence and looting are another.

Protests are not supposed to be violent. Protests give no one any special license for violence.

Protests are legally protected. Violence is not.

Violence is against the law. Looting is against the law.

Whether or not troops get used is a judgement call by the state level govt, and then even the federal level of govt if necessary. It depends on the severity of the threat.

I seem to recall there was plenty of violence and civil disobedience during and before your revolution, among other events.

List of incidents of civil unrest in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[Gaius46]

Oh okay, well in that case I don't believe in "the free exchange of ideas throughout society without fear of retaliation or censorship". I think people should be "retaliated against" for espousing disgusting and hateful opinions.

Fair enough. If enough people find an idea disgusting it should be shot down. However censoring the idea so that it doesn’t see the light of day and give people a chance to decide for themselves is wrong.

 

[trouble13]

The NY Times is free to publish or not publish opinion pieces as the ya we fit.

But, the whole point of free speech is to allow people to decide for themselves what makes sense and what is idiotic. For the Times’ staff to go off as they did is unconscionable.

The correct response would of been for them to write a rebuttal piece and publish that against cottons.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[dcsports]

The correct response would of been for them to write a rebuttal piece and publish that against cottons.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Absolutely!

 

[trouble13]

At least we can finally put to bed the canard that the NYT is a centrist publication.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ElChupacabra]

The NY Times is free to publish or not publish opinion pieces as the ya we fit.

But, the whole point of free speech is to allow people to decide for themselves what makes sense and what is idiotic. For the Times’ staff to go off as they did is unconscionable.

Yep. While I disagree with points Cotton made in his piece, I don't think it makes sense to not allow his opinion to be published simply because the staff doesn't agree with it. I think it's important to allow differing opinions to be printed so the readers can be exposed to differing views; this helps them be more educated and aware of other views. Taking the action the staff did, means they're encouraging the echo chambers some of us are trying to avoid like the plague. The NYT has he right to publish what it chooses, but printing differing views should be something they encourage in order to present a broader view on the issues of the day.