Message from @RyeNorth
Discord ID: 474641909403353089
summerise it!
I don't have time to read an entire article!
Make time
Basically, It's a survey of attitudes to free speech.
While most people can name freedom of speech as the 1st amendment, few can name any of the other protections (assembly, petition, religion and press). 40% couldn't name any
51% support unis removing speakers who generate large protests from students. 42% support removing speakers who offend some groups, 70% support removing speakers who incite violence. 46% support removing speakers who would be supported by public funds
72% support social media removing hate speech, 83% false information and 68% personal attacks. Almost even split if government should mandate monitoring and removing "objectionable content"
68% think journalists are obligated to disclose conflict of interest and 74% think the media should be a watch dog and only 28% think the president should be able to deny press credentials.
While 74% think the first amendment does not go too far in protecting freedoms, it's clear many don't even know what these are. It's not mentioned much in the article, but these are all mostly in an anti-free speech, pro-censorship direction.
You should really look at the survey itself.
@The Beatles are just ok don't tell me how to live my life
eh... 1000 ppl. But i am stuned 40% couldn't name at least 1 right and 62% attended college... wtf
The schools quit teaching civics and the American political theory a long time ago. If they're not outright denigrating it for an association with slavery.
Freedom just isn't a value anymore.
freedom isn't freedom anymore
People are taught that freedom ends where racism begins
and they don't think far enough that "Freedom of speech" is needed to protect bad speech
You wouldn't have to legally protect speech everyone agrees with
More critically, hindsight is what determines the value of the results of speech really
So something that may seem obscene to one generation in its contemporary setting may later be viewed as a milestone
https://twitter.com/NYTimesPR/status/1025048766825549830
On the one hand, this means that people aren't getting fired anymore for old racist tweets.
On the other hand, this means that NYT standards are even lower.
I think it's about time that nytimes.com met my hosts file.
what is a NYT? and how many calories does it have?
Oh boy, NYT will hire racists as long as they were provoked and are "good writers"
I actually think we should just take it at face value.
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?