I actually think we should just take it at face value.

I don't think it IS our place to try to demand that they fire her, or anything of the sort.

It IS perfectly within our realm to discredit NYT and any reports that we find issue with.

Oh it's less about who they fire and more about them being consistent

Leftists gonna leftist. Leave Alinskyism to the guys who already have their hands dirty.

If NYT would fire a Richard Spencer, it shouldn't matter if they get an Asian equivalent. And they should be mocked for not sticking to it

Sure, that's valid.

But there's a difference in tactics between criticizing them to everyone else and directing the criticism at them expecting a change.

If they're going to behave like a joke, make them a joke. Make sure more people see it.

Another good way of putting it, don't interrupt your enemy when they make a mistake.

If you don't like the NYT or WaPo, as I don't, let them become more extreme.

Alinsky tactics does involve them becoming more extreme, provided they don't give up

NYT will hire racists as long as they are their kind of racists.

I'm coming of the stance you have to be hard on these kinds of things. We say what happened when *The Atlantic* tried to hire Kevin Williamson with the endorsement of Ta Nesti Coates no less.

I'm coming to think it may be the only way to really force the issue to a truce.

Underrated story.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/alice-b-lloyd/why-colleges-are-sticking-with-obama-era-title-ix-guidance

Everything you need to know is in the title. The DoE has rescinded the Title IX sexual assault guidance and the higher ed sector has essentially basically pledged over the last year to keep the Title IX procedures they developed for sexual assault. #Resist.

The survey the article is written on: http://www.abajournal.com/files/APCO_Title_IX_survey.pdf

^ more reliable.

I don't particularly care that the NYT hires racist writers. They should be able to hire whoever they want. It just discredits them even further

depends of what her job is. if she is just writing... maybe don't give her articles that involve certain people...

she's an editor. she reads other peoples writing and decides what stays in or goes out.

It's a step above a mere writer.

the line from NYT and herself was that she made these tweets in a trolling fashion (against people who were harassing her) and that she didn't mean it

believable / not believable?

Yeah, that's what I get from it too.

i agree that context matters, but when its someone the left doesnt like, context doesnt always apply. seems like a bit of a double standard

But as someone who holds the principle that context is important, do you think that sacrificing your principles to get a desired effect is good?

poor acosta

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/watch-sarah-sanders-refuses-to-say-press-isnt-enemy-of-the-people-in-jawdropping-clash-with-jim-acosta/

I see it as witting hypocrisy.

generally i would say no, one should avoid sacrificing their principles unless the circumstances are extreme

this i wouldnt count as extreme

I mean, there are plenty of right-leaning individuals willing to resort to Alinksy tactics.

I'm sort of okay with that, especially since they're people I don't associate myself with

link to alinsky explanation? not familiar

Alinsky isn't a bogeyman

Saul Alinsky?

Saul Alinsky is a socialist writer, and author of the book Rules for Radicals

Yes

It's not possible to win anymore without such tactics.

A lot of people treat it as some sort of cursed book. It's really mundane, but offers decent advice about changing the status quo

So you can either choose to use them and compete, or retain the moral high ground and lose.

Rules for Radicals is overrated imo.