Quote:
|
Are you familiar with the NYT op-ed page? On paper, it takes up two pages. That's enough room for, say, three editorials, some letters to the editor, two columns by regular columnists, and two guest pieces. It's hardly a brainstorm to point out that someone has to "make choices" about what will appear in that limited space. There has always been someone whose job it is to "make choices" about what appears in a newspaper. That person is typically called an "editor" because they "edit" the pieces before they appear, in the process, "making choices" about what is said. None of this is particular controversial to anyone who has, say, ever picked up a newspaper.
|
Bullshit. Your reaction to the Cotton story was similar to your reaction to Sam Harris months ago. 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!
Quote:
|
If you are trying to describe the world as it is, this is obviously wrong. If you are trying to describe the world as it should be, I don't really care about the personal views and sensibilities of the editor of the NYT op-ed page. I'd rather not need to know who that person is. A good editor elevates the voices of the authors she is editing. A good editor of an op-ed page curates interesting views. Do I want an op-ed page that simply tells me what I already believe? No, I do not. For that, I could have Facebook, as I was just saying. Pass, thanks.
|
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'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.
Quote:
|
The New York Times has never, ever chosen to use its op-ed page to reflect the wide range of political views. It does not publish pieces calling for things like communism, racism, man-boy love, or ethnic cleansing, even though all have their adherents. It has always had editors who have edited its pages to reflect a certain set of views.
|
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.)
Threaded Mode