He’s a deplorable, and the Alien and Sedation acts were laughably childish…
I prefer to not speculate but if a well-known academic wrote a piece that could be seen as racist I don’t see why the NYT would not print it.
Then you’re shitting on people that support you (hopefully the people that are reporting the truth). You’re actively sending a message that the people you agree with are incorrect and/or wrong.
That wouldn’t be preferable to me.
And Jefferson was behind how much of that bad press?
I think we both know that’s probably not the case.
75 years ago? Maybe, but the Times, today? Nah, that piece isn’t running if the skin colors are reversed, as it shouldn’t. Let racist garbage linger in the corners of pamphlets and blogs were it belongs. Don’t sully whatever reputation your paper has with it in main stream print.
Electing to keep your paper free of racist propaganda isn’t being anti free speech, it’s being polite, civilized and appropriate. The NY Time chose to run racist propaganda man… There is no defense of that.
If I were in her shoes, this would be my thought process:
“Hacks are going to hack. I can’t really win here. So I can pick and choose people, or I can treat everyone equal. I’m going to just treat everyone equal, and because there are people sitting here that don’t deserve respect, I guess I’ve got to treat everyone contemptuous.”
That and, you know, I don’t see any institutions or people above reproach, so I wouldn’t give a shit anyway.
How is this relevant to what I posted (if you’re implying what I think you are, you really should’ve used Madison as your example, but then again it’s not clear what your point is)?
Yes the founders saw the virtues of a free press - I think we all do. You used the founders as some sort of argument against contempt for the press - I pointed out Washington, a founder, held contempt for the press, yet he didn’t try to stifle it.
My point is, just b/c the founders were wise enough to weave protections for the press into the Constitution, they didn’t not say there ought to not be contempt for slanderous press. That’s one of the main issues Washington had with the Press. So again, your point isn’t exactly clear to this conversation…
That is your reading of that piece but regardless, it was provocative and could start a conversation (it did here), and that is part of the point for publishing it. The NYT did publish a letter that criticized the piece and its author, which shows a willingness to be fair and balanced.
I for one am glad that an opinion like that, from a college professor, gets published so I can see just how idiotic these people have become.
I get that she’s using that thought process, I just think it makes her fucking stupid for choosing that as her best option.
If she’s going to get shit on regardless of what she does, why not BARE MINIMUM treat the people that agree with you well. Is the goal to make as many enemies as possible?
And there’s your difference.
I could have added Thomas Paine as well.
So who’s stifling the press now?
I don’t know but I heard that someone was saying it was all fake news. I don’t know how much influence that person’s opinion carries. It could be none. It’s not like he could ever get elected president.
Like Fox News?
1 Like
Because, ultimately that really isn’t a better look.
I’d rather she come of as a bitch with contempt for the press, all of the press, than a partisan hack who is “nice to sycophants”. Particularly because she works for trump.
Because at least with that approach, there is a somewhat thin veneer of genuine.
You want to see someone who treats the press with contempt, let’s get my wife into that gig. You guys think this woman has RBF, is a bitch or treats them with contempt… You all will be calling Mrs Beans worse than “deplorable” in about 5 days, lol.
I don’t know man. Maybe it’s where I grew up, but I’ll take equal shittiness.
She is the definition of partisan hack. It’s probably genetic.
That same bozo people disregard with derision? So he’s either a clown and oughtn’t be taken seriously or is stifling that same press who calls him a clown. Which is it? lol be consistent my man.
I forget the exact quote or who said it: “To see who rules over you, see who you can’t criticize”
Why not? Agreeing with people you believe to be telling the truth and disagreeing with the people you believe to be biased against you feels like a good look.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. Treating your supporters like shit doesn’t seem like the best way to do literally anything other than make enemies where they didn’t exist before.
He is both taken seriously and regarded (not disregarded) with derision by some. He is also taken seriously and regarded with reverence by others.
So is he stifling the free press or not?
Exactly. Although, not sure they were giving answers to Paul Ryan like CNN was doing with Clinton. But you get the picture.