New York Times runs 2 op-eds defending op-ed that forced editorial page editor to resign

[Metric Mouse]

New York Times op-eds defend Tom Cotton op-ed that forced op-ed editor out - CNN

"Why all this discussion? The upheaval that followed Senator Cotton's Op-Ed has generated a necessary dialogue about the dangers and merits of creating a forum for debate in a time of political division and misinformation,"

What in the world is going on at the Times? What a dumpster.

 

[Rogue Valley]

New York Times op-eds defend Tom Cotton op-ed that forced op-ed editor out - CNN

What in the world is going on at the Times? What a dumpster.

The Op-Ed by Sen. Tom Cotton was a dumpster fire that shouldn't have been published.

 

[Rogue Valley]

 

[swing_voter]

It's just one man's opinion. I think readers are smart enough to know that.

 

[Jack Hays]

New York Times op-eds defend Tom Cotton op-ed that forced op-ed editor out - CNN



What in the world is going on at the Times? What a dumpster.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

[ludin]

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

leftists are not about difference of opinion. you either capitulate or be destroyed.

 

[sanman]

The Op-Ed by Sen. Tom Cotton was a dumpster fire that shouldn't have been published.

Don't be absurd. Cotton had every right to publish his editorial, and NYT only shamed itself by censoring it.

You Lefties always destroy basic freedoms in the end, including freedom of speech. This has been proven countless times, in countless countries around the world. Your "noble intentions" always put you on that slippery slope that ends in the same place. And yet instead of learning lessons from the past, another gullible new generation comes along to swallow the snakeoil yet again.

Orwell satirized it in novels like Animal Farm ("All animals are equal - but some animals are more equal than others")

 

[jpn]

You Lefties always destroy basic freedoms in the end, including freedom of speech.

Righteous defenders of basic freedoms and noble champions of the Battle of Lafayette Park:

 

[sanman]

Righteous defenders of basic freedoms and noble champions of the Battle of Lafayette Park:

Righteous defenders of basic freedoms and noble champions of the Battle of Lafayette Park:

Unlike the rulers of Chaz, these people had the guts to run for election. They didn't just form a mob on the Whitehouse grounds and demand to be let in.

I respect someone who follows the constitution, and takes the trouble to run for election - whether Donald Trump or Tom Cotton - as opposed to some who get out of bed cranky one morning, and decide they have to form a mob to get the world to cater to them more.

Why don't the CHAZ people have the guts to run for public office, and accept the constitution of the country?

Tom Cotton was advocating that security be provided to business owners and the public in general. People have a right to safety and protection of property.
Your band of anarchists respect neither.

The NYT has destroyed its name. As have you.
You're both saying that Tom Cotton is worse than Hitler or the Taliban - because both of the latter got published in the NYT.

 

[Rogue Valley]

You're both saying that Tom Cotton is worse than Hitler or the Taliban - because both of the latter got published in the NYT.

No one here said that. Quote the post or stop projecting.

 

[sanman]

No one here said that. Quote the post or stop projecting.

When Tom Cotton can't get published but Hitler and the Taliban can, then your NYT heroes are saying that Tom Cotton and his beliefs are worse than theirs.
To deny this is to practice doublespeak.

Don't forget that he fought for the country in 2 tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq, unlike some of the other voices that NYT has published and allowed to be heard.
Don't think for a moment that the public doesn't see the NYT's double standards.
They've long ago trashed their name, much before this.

 

[jpn]

The NYT has destroyed its name.

Ohhhhhh righhhhhhhhhhhhht. As if the NYT ever enjoyed any credibility with the far right crowd to begin with. PLeeeeeze.

 

[sanman]

Ohhhhhh righhhhhhhhhhhhht. As if the NYT ever enjoyed any credibility with the far right crowd to begin with. PLeeeeeze.

NYT has long been accurately recognized as a hollow farce by conservatives - it's the undecided who now see how nakedly slanted NYT is.

Their credibility is already in a hole, but they just keep digging further.

 

[Jack Hays]

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

[jpn]

When Tom Cotton can't get published but Hitler and the Taliban can, then your NYT heroes are saying that Tom Cotton and his beliefs are worse than theirs.
To deny this is to practice doublespeak.

The NYT didn't provide op-ed space to Adolf Hitler so he could air his views to the America public. The NYT printed an excerpt of "Mein Kamp" in order educate its readers about the propaganda methods being used against Americans by the Nazis.

It was preceded by an introductory paragraph explaining that Germany was at that time waging a war of propaganda against the United States based on principles Hitler himself outlined in the excerpt.

 

[sanman]

The NYT didn't provide op-ed space to Adolf Hitler so he could air his views to the America public. The NYT printed an excerpt of "Mein Kamp" in order educate its readers about the propaganda methods being used against Americans by the Nazis.

It was preceded by an introductory paragraph explaining that Germany was at that time waging a war of propaganda against the United States based on principles Hitler himself outlined in the excerpt.

Publishing excerpts of Hitler's ideological treatise to "educate" and publishing Taliban's propaganda as well:

Opinion | What We, the Taliban, Want - The New York Times


Yet no patience for Cotton to advocate his solution for protection of lives and property?

 

[jpn]

NYT has long been accurately recognized as a hollow farce by conservatives - it's the undecided who now see how nakedly slanted NYT is.
Their credibility is already in a hole, but they just keep digging further.

Yeah, and I hear from a particularly loud-mouthed conservative that it's "failing," too.

February 6, 2020: NY Times Publisher's 4Q Profit Grows as It Adds Subscribers

What was that about "credibility," again?

 

[jpn]

Publishing excerpts of Hitler's ideological treatise to "educate" and publishing Taliban's propaganda as well:
Opinion | What We, the Taliban, Want - The New York Times
Yet no patience for Cotton to advocate his solution for protection of lives and property?

Thank you for the link to the Taliban piece. It was interesting. Unlike the Cotton op-ed, instead of inciting violence it called for peace. No wonder you hated it so.

Of course, is the Taliban op-ed believable? That's another matter. What do they mean when they write: "I am confident that, liberated from foreign domination and interference, we together will find a way to build an Islamic system in which all Afghans have equal rights, where the rights of women that are granted by Islam — from the right to education to the right to work — are protected, and where merit is the basis for equal opportunity."

Color me skeptical. But that's another topic. As far as publishing the Taliban's point of view with regards to ending our almost two-decades war against them, how can you bellow for free speech and high principles on one hand, and then want to deny this on the other? I mean, it's not like this piece was inciting violence.

 

[Jack Hays]

Thank you for the link to the Taliban piece. It was interesting. Unlike the Cotton op-ed, instead of inciting violence it called for peace. No wonder you hated it so.

Of course, is the Taliban op-ed believable? That's another matter. What do they mean when they write: "I am confident that, liberated from foreign domination and interference, we together will find a way to build an Islamic system in which all Afghans have equal rights, where the rights of women that are granted by Islam — from the right to education to the right to work — are protected, and where merit is the basis for equal opportunity."

Color me skeptical. But that's another topic. As far as publishing the Taliban's point of view with regards to ending our almost two-decades war against them, how can you bellow for free speech and high principles on one hand, and then want to deny this on the other? I mean, it's not like this piece was inciting violence.

The NYT was right to publish the Taliban piece.

 

[sanman]

Thank you for the link to the Taliban piece. It was interesting. Unlike the Cotton op-ed, instead of inciting violence it called for peace. No wonder you hated it so.

"Look! So peaceful!" says Shill JPN:







Your heroes, the Taliban - so much more "interesting" and worthy than Tom Cotton.

Of course, is the Taliban op-ed believable? That's another matter. What do they mean when they write: "I am confident that, liberated from foreign domination and interference, we together will find a way to build an Islamic system in which all Afghans have equal rights, where the rights of women that are granted by Islam — from the right to education to the right to work — are protected, and where merit is the basis for equal opportunity."

Color me skeptical. But that's another topic. As far as publishing the Taliban's point of view with regards to ending our almost two-decades war against them, how can you bellow for free speech and high principles on one hand, and then want to deny this on the other? I mean, it's not like this piece was inciting violence.

I'm not the one calling for the ban on the Taliban op-ed -- what a ridiculous straw man reversal from you -- you're the one supporting NYT's ban on Tom Cotton.

I can stand up to an op-ed I disagree with, by critiquing it. You insecure morons can't seem to do that, and need to ban someone else's words to maintain your "safe space".
Awww, did the mean mean words hurt your fragile little ears? :roll:
He called for protection of lives and property - how 'evil' of him - that ain't gonna happen by taking a knee.

 

[jpn]

"Look! So peaceful!" says Shill JPN:
Your heroes, the Taliban...

How disingenuous of you.

 

[sanman]

How disingenuous of you.

I don't you know how to use that word in proper context.

 

[Cassandra]

Publishing excerpts of Hitler's ideological treatise to "educate" and publishing Taliban's propaganda as well:

Opinion | What We, the Taliban, Want - The New York Times
Yet no patience for Cotton to advocate his solution for protection of lives and property?

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Since Trump routinely attempts or succeeds in silencing dissenting opinions, it must be difficult for you to support such a man.

I have not read Cotton's piece but I.M.O. op-eds should be balanced with op-eds of a contrary position. I don't think the editor should be forced to resign.

From what I have heard about Cotton, he seems to be sending Trump a nod- in case there is a job opening up. I mean Mark Esper, for one, must be in the hot seat after demonstrating a little independence.

 

[Jack Hays]

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Since Trump routinely attempts or succeeds in silencing dissenting opinions, it must be difficult for you to support such a man.

I have not read Cotton's piece but I.M.O. op-eds should be balanced with op-eds of a contrary position. I don't think the editor should be forced to resign.

From what I have heard about Cotton, he seems to be sending Trump a nod- in case there is a job opening up. I mean Mark Esper, for one, must be in the hot seat after demonstrating a little independence.

Since I posted the J.S. Mill quote, I'll point out that I'm not a Trump supporter.

 

[Metric Mouse]

The Op-Ed by Sen. Tom Cotton was a dumpster fire that shouldn't have been published.

I'm fine with that. NYT of course didn't know that, as the editor didn't even read it before publication. And then, after admitting they published a dumpster fire that shouldn't have been published, they go and publish more trash supporting the dumpster fire? What in the world? Complete trash.