And you throw jabs until you hit a weak point.

Revolution or reform

I think I should clarify my stance. I may not have gotten it across the way I wanted to.

I don't think that we should avoid attacking The Times.

I just think doing so with our primary objective to affect change is fruitless.

Then why do it?

What's the long-term strategy?
What do we *want*?

Precisely. Why approach it from the angle of wanting to purify The Times?

We want the READERS to see our point of view.

So what *would you do differently*?

I feel there's an argument over semantics here.

Then simply bitch and whine until they give someone you like an OP ED column

I can agree somewhat with that.

Except that's been the request for over a half-century and it tends towards mixed results.

Asking nicely just hasn't helped.

Eh, that didn't really follow right.

But it's a fact that just asking politely for the media to change was the strategy until the 90s, and it more or less failed miserably.

I think the idea in requesting a firing is to set an anti-SJW precedent.

If you can get the Times to become more neutral, I'd be totally behind that though.

Let me step away from the angle that the Alinsky rules are entirely bad.

That was a faulty premise.

for me it is very simple: if you report bullshit i will not trust you. if i don't trust you, i will not support you.

Because my argument was actually in favor of a separate rule.

and hiring a racist does not really improve my trust in you

My general assessment is that forcing them to abide their own rules isn't helpful in this instance.

It IS helpful in others, because their standards are impossible.

no, pointing out that they don't abide by their own rules is what is helpful 😉

Not this time.

I just don't see why it's not helpful in this instance

Because they've hand-waived it.

Exactly, so we need to force them to not hand waive stuff like this

Spread the idea that the NYT is firmly against racism which is why they hire racists

yeah... they pre-admitted that they don't care about there own rules, which means that it is extremely easy to point out that they don't abide by their own rules.

And from that, Falko, trying to force them to follow their own rules will be fruitless.

Ridicule is a better option at that point.

Its not them that were trying to change

Not directly at least

Exactly, Black.

i thought ridicule is how you point it out? 😄

Tim's video today is topical.

oh and... archive everything for the next time they try to apply the rules they are not following to someone else

Everything that is conducted in the public sphere must be thought of in the larger picture