Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Bullshit. Your reaction to the Cotton story was similar to your reaction to Sam Harris months ago.

Not sure who you were reading, but it wasn't me. My reaction to the Cotton story was that the issue that everyone was up in arms about was boring, and not worth the ink. That's why, when I posted about it here, I simply linked to Jeet Heer's piece, which was more of a description of the challenges of running the NYT op-ed page than a complaint about Cotton. If I had wanted to complain about the NYT running Cotton, I could have, but I didn't bother, nor did I share any number of those complaints. You responded as if I wanted to complain about Cotton, which made me think you misread Heer, and so I basically responded that you were missing the point. You then claimed that you actually had read Heer, and provided a tl;dr that completely missed most of what he was saying. So I called you a moron, and then I posted this:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Seriously -- he's not even talking about what you think he's talking about. Why pretend to read something you haven't?

If you were the editor of the NYT, would you have chosen run Cotton's op-ed piece?

Note the effort there to change the question to the one that I think is more interesting, which is, what is the editor of the NYT supposed to do these days?

So if you're keeping score at home, my "reaction" to Cotton was zero posts where I said that Cotton is "too offensive to our shared values as a nation," words that you put in quotation marks but which I do not believe I have ever said. (It's a neat trick you have, but it shows why editors are useful -- an editor would not let you get away with suggesting that someone has said something they haven't.)

If the NYT does its job, its readers will understand all about Cotton's views. IMO, it should do this by reporting on his views as news, treating the substance what Cotton thinks and does as a real story that people should understand, rather than with horserace journalism, faux objectivity or simply turning over part of the op-ed page to Cotton without editorial supervision. When the NYT does that, it's an abdication of what journalism should do.

You supported the notion there that even though Harris' exploration of numerous issues regarding race, sex, and class (only one small one of which was his analysis of Charles Murray's work via interview with Murray) was of value, it was nevertheless insensitive (Harris having asked "third rail" questions that challenged progressive narratives on race, sex, and class) and therefore should not have been performed.

Adder codified it a bit for you by simply shouting "Harris is a racist!" over and over, much as Ben Affleck did on Maher (embarrassing himself in front of Harris, Maher, and the audience). His was a simplistic response, but on the same continuum with yours: Certain stuff cannot be debated! Those conversations must be precluded!

I don't think that's a fair description of what I said or my views.

So do I. For that reason, I do agree with you that Cotton's piece, to the extent it was factually inaccurate and poorly vetted should not be an editorial anywhere. But as to subject matter? No. I do not think as you do that his argument falls into the sphere of deviancy (look it up if you don't know it). And I disagree with the borders you have admitted you would use to define what is acceptable debate and what is deviant. That's where the rubber meets the road in our dispute on these subjects. You would place a number of things beyond debate - I think you said "too offensive to our shared values as a nation" or something like that.

I haven't "admitted" I would use borders to define any topics out of bounds -- I pointed out that, contra your notion that the NYT is just presenting a debate, it has *always* defined what is acceptable debate and what is not by deciding what and to whom it will give space. I personally prefer to have a wider range of opinions on the NYT op-ed than it has had (and so does Jeet Heer), but if its editors are going to cast a wider net then they have to be *more selective* about which of those views they choose to share -- among other things, it's just math. If they can find a good piece on man-boy love, I'm game to read it. If they run a shit piece on man-boy love because the author went to prep school with the editor, and the author wants to troll readers for the attention, I'm not in favor of that. Are you?

I'd say this back to you:

I don't share all of the same values with you. My sphere of deviancy is far broader, more curious, and relativist than yours.

I doubt it, except for the relativist part.

And thankfully, they're broader than yours.

(BTW, I see no reason not to engage a conversation about Communism in the paper. I would not allow a conversation on ethnic cleansing or pedophilia because those are not actions involving consenting adults. I would not allow an argument in favor of racism because it would seek to prey upon another group and therefore be akin to ethnic cleansing. I would allow an argument in favor of prostitution. I'd allow an argument that suicide is sometimes not a terrible idea, as Camus explored in Sisyphus. I would not fear the exposition of any idea so long as the argument advocated something that would occur between or impact only consenting adults and adhered to logic and factual rigor. In this regard, I understand I am at the extreme.)

Again -- you are missing the point. I'm not saying that what the NYT has always done is right and good -- I'm saying that it has *always* limited the views on the op-ed page in a way you say you have a principled objection to. If that really bothered you, you would be more interested in talking about what you would do if *you* ran the NYT, the question I tried to pivot to. Like many Trump voters, you would rather be on the outside, complaining about shit, instead of picturing yourself on the inside, trying to make things better.