Following Donald Trump’s election, The New York Times promised its readers that it would aggressively pursue truth and challenge power in the days and months ahead. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and executive editor Dean Baquet wrote an open letter to readers on November 13, vowing to “hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.”
And readers responded in droves. During the last three months of 2016, the Times added 276,000 digital subscribers — readers who were presumably drawn to the promise of aggressive and adversarial writing that was firmly based in reality.
“The truth is more important now than ever,” the Times proclaimed in an ad during the Oscars in February.
The Times has also strongly committed itself to diversity in its hiring. Times CEO Mark Thompson told hiring managers last year that supervisors who failed to recruit minority candidates would be encouraged to leave or fired.
“Only by having a staff as wide as it is deep, broad in perspective, backgrounds and experiences are we able to capture the multitude of voices of America and the world, with true fidelity,” the company proclaims in its mission statement.
But the Times’s editorial page — which is distinct from the newsroom — apparently has other priorities.
In the paper’s biggest marquee hire since the election, the Times has poached the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens as a regular columnist.
In a statement announcing the hire, Editorial Page Editor James Bennet explained the move in glowing terms.
“He’s a beautiful writer who ranges across politics, international affairs, culture and business, and, for The Times, he will bring a new perspective to bear on the news,” Bennet wrote. He summarized Stephens as a “generous and thoughtful colleague with a deep sense of moral purpose and adventure about our work.”
But Stephens’s voice is hardly new to the media landscape — it echoes the powerful and attacks the powerless, specifically marginalized groups like Arabs and Muslims who have little representation in U.S. media.
And although Stephens has been hailed as an anti-Trump conservative, he and Trump share a very significant belief that defies reality: They both deny the existence of climate change. Stephens used his Wall Street Journal columns to compare climate science to a religion, saying that environmental groups “have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.”
In April of 2010, he proclaimed that “global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we’re going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place.”
He then mockingly proposed “a readers’ contest to invent the next panic. It must involve something ubiquitous, invisible to the naked eye, and preferably mass-produced. And the solution must require taxes, regulation, and other changes to civilization as we know it.”
And as a white male member of the media elite, he hardly brings diversity to the stable of editorial page columnists. Indeed, several regulars already hold right-wing or center-right views. And although the editorial board consistently espouses liberal positions in the editorial column, the op-ed page by and large has to outsource to publish genuinely left perspectives on most major issues.
The Times editorial page currently does not have a female minority columnist and, despite frequently writing about conflicts in the Middle East, employs no regular Arab American or Muslim American writers.
On the contrary, at a time when Arab American and Muslim American civic society faces unprecedented demonization from a presidential administration, the Times has chosen to hire someone who takes part in it regularly.
For instance, Stephens used Egyptian judo player Islam El Shehaby’s politically-based refusal to shake hands with his Israeli opponent at the Rio Olympics last year as an excuse to launch into a long racist tirade against the state of the Arab world.
“If you want the short answer for why the Arab world is sliding into the abyss, look no further than this little incident,” Stephens wrote. “It did itself in chiefly through its long-abiding and all-consuming hatred of Israel, and of Jews.”
He claimed that “the Arab world’s problems are a problem of the Arab mind, and the name for that problem is anti-Semitism.”
This “Arab mind,” in Stephens’s telling, has few achievements. “Today there is no great university in the Arab world, no serious indigenous scientific base, a stunted literary culture,” he explained — all of which would continue until the Shehabys of the world would embrace their Israeli judo counterparts.
Responding to a wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in 2014, Stephens shrugged off the international consensus that occupation and statelessness is the root of the conflict, instead blaming it on “Palestinian blood fetish.” To him, they had “been seized by their present blood lust — a communal psychosis in which plunging knives into the necks of Jewish women, children, soldiers and civilians is seen as a religious and patriotic duty, a moral fulfillment. Despair at the state of the peace process, or the economy? Please. It’s time to stop furnishing Palestinians with the excuses they barely bother making for themselves.”
In January 2017, Stephens wrote that “maybe” Palestinians are entitled to a state, but then ticked off a long list of other peoples, including “Native Hawaiians,” who also lack a state, so “what gives Palestinians the preferential claim?” At least they aren’t being ruled by the Chinese, he argued: “Have they experienced greater violations to their culture than Tibetans? No: Beijing has conducted a systematic policy of repression for 67 years, whereas Palestinians are nothing if not vocal in mosques, universities and the media.”
Stephens also frequently appears in the media arguing for military attacks and regime change in the Middle East.
He has directly helped activists lobby to scuttle diplomacy. In 2015, as Congress was debating the nuclear deal with Iran, he held an off-the-record call with the Christian Zionist group Christians United For Israel, where he advised them on how to lobby members of Congress.
He is, however,an outspoken supporter of one prominent Muslim: Egypt’s autocratic leader Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, who he interviewed in 2015 in an article titled “Islam’s improbable reformer.”
Many Times readers took to social media to decry Stephens’s hiring:
Bret Stephens is a climate change denier and calls concern about climate change 'Stalinism' so glad my NYT sub is now paying his salary LOL https://t.co/kAVrSiOxat
— ????? (@RokhlK) April 13, 2017
@ParkerMolloy @nytimes I've enjoyed NYT for years. Sad to have to cancel. Hiring an anti science climate denier Bret Stephens is my red line. Disgusted.
— huprice (@huprice) April 13, 2017
Hey @nytimes, subscription cancelled. No money to support global warming denial. What a tone deaf decision to hire Bret Stephens.
— Mark Hoofnagle (@MarkHoofnagle) April 14, 2017
Top photo: Pedestrians walk by the outside The New York Times building on June 30, 2016 in New York City.
“… white guy”?!
How low to randomly speak of people by their skin color. To do that in an article header debases The Intercept.
The New York Times is “liberal” corporate propaganda for the educated class. Its owner long ago prohibited articles that would upset or be contrary to the interests of its advertisers. So if anyone believed that the Times would “aggressively pursue truth and challenge power,” I’ve got a real good deal on a bridge fer ya.
Ridiculous stuff. Oh no, someone with opinions I don’t like works at a newspaper! If you want a paper that caters to snowflakes with no dissent from the party line maybe the Guardian is more your speed.
Only reading greenwald articles on the intercept for now on. Was a big fan of the honest journalism at first, sadly i now waste too much time reading nasty hit pieces like this.
Hit piece? I suppose the fact he writes on the M.E. and Muslims in a most disparaging way, to promote a pro Israel position…denies global climate change to keep himself endeared by the far right (at best) doesn’t matter that the NYT, who buries all info on Palestinian deaths or Israeli war crimes in their back pages, while prominently featuring every Israeli death on the front page, it would have been unthinkable to hire someone that might bring a different opinion, or a diversity in a background and God forbid someone of color… Focus on the whiteness.. That is what really matters…right? I think Mona and others on this site have well documented where the NYT stands on anything involving the Middle East. Stephens has gone from Editor at Jerusalem Post to WSJ, editorial board to NYT…perhaps his role is to promote his own racism for a greater Israel.
If the writer didn’t want white readers to go tone deaf to his complaint, he should’ve thought twice about making the piece racial. All that’s missing is the standard bearer, white supremacist line. Don’t like the spec in my eye, kindly remove the log from yours.
Jose, how could he write about who Stephens is without framing it that way?
Just say a climate change denying uber Zionist has been added to the editorial board ???? I don’t think it would have been written and I’m glad it was.
Why is the MSM (including the NYT) turning so right wing? Because managment is convinced that that’s the ONLY way to get access to Trump and his White House. Otherwise we’ll get cut off and fired.
They really believe that right wingers and content make shitloads of money. Look at racist idiot millionaires like O’Reilly. How mnay millions has he and Fox paid out to settle sexual harassment claims? How many sponsors has his show lost. Despite all of that, Fox management just re-signed him. Why? Megyn Kelly went to NBC. Why? Because Comcast (who owns NBC) is run by mostly white right wingers who love Trump.
How dare they not feed us exactly what we want to hear! Resist!
I would normally not complain, Mr. Jilani, but The Intercept is one of my most favored and respected news sources. I therefore feel I must hold you to a higher standard.
I strongly object to the assumption underlying the sentence: “And as a white male member of the media elite, he hardly brings diversity to the stable of editorial page columnists.”, namely the assumption that there is something wrong with being male and white. You may not realize it, Mr. Jilani, but you are alienating a large segment of your potential audience by treating whiteness and maleness as though they are character flaws.
I applaud progressives when they claim that it is unfair to call on Muslims to account for, or to apologize for, the actions of terrorists who share their religion. It is inherently bigoted to attribute blame to one person for the actions of another merely because the two happen to belong to the same demographic group. Yet, these same progressives turn around and claim that white people must bear the blame for injustices committed by whites in the past, and must carry a lifelong burden of guilt on account of the color of the skin they were born with.
What progressives do not realize is that by adopting the same bigoted attitudes which they decry in conservatives, progressives are fanning the flames of bigotry on both sides.
This trend is described well in a recent article by David Marcus on The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/how-anti-white-rhetoric-is-fueling-white-nationalism/), from which I provide a few excerpts:
“At first, ‘white men are our greatest threat’ postings tended to be ironic, a way of putting the racist shoe on the other foot. They were meant to show that blaming an entire race for the harmful actions of a few individuals is senseless. … Then the tenor changed. What started as irony turned into an actual belief that white people, specifically white men, are more dangerous and immoral than any other people.”
“The recurring, tired refrain that we should have a white history month if there is a black history month, or white student unions on campuses, is unintentionally being given new life by the Left. Celebrations or organizations of whiteness do not exist because we don’t need them. White people do not face the same kinds of systemic discrimination that people of color do. But progressives are doing a very good job of convincing white people that they do.”
I therefore ask you to restrict your criticism merely to Mr. Stephens’ opinions and character, not his sex or skin color.
I would normally not complain, Mr. Jilani, but The Intercept is one of my most favored and respected news sources. I therefore feel I must hold you to a higher standard.
I strongly object to the assumption underlying the sentence: “And as a white male member of the media elite, he hardly brings diversity to the stable of editorial page columnists.”, namely the assumption that there is something wrong with being male and white. You may not realize it, Mr. Jilani, but you are alienating a large segment of your potential audience by treating whiteness and maleness as though they are character flaws.
I applaud progressives when they claim that it is unfair to call on Muslims to account for, or to apologize for, the actions of terrorists who share their religion. It is inherently bigoted to attribute blame to one person for the actions of another merely because the two happen to belong to the same demographic group. Yet, these same progressives turn around and claim that white people must bear the blame for injustices committed by whites in the past, and must carry a lifelong burden of guilt on account of the color of the skin they were born with.
What progressives do not realize is that by adopting the same bigoted attitudes which they decry in conservatives, progressives are fanning the flames of bigotry on both sides.
This trend is described well in a recent article by David Marcus on The Federalist (http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/how-anti-white-rhetoric-is-fueling-white-nationalism/), from which I provide a few excerpts:
“At first, ‘white men are our greatest threat’ postings tended to be ironic, a way of putting the racist shoe on the other foot. They were meant to show that blaming an entire race for the harmful actions of a few individuals is senseless. … Then the tenor changed. What started as irony turned into an actual belief that white people, specifically white men, are more dangerous and immoral than any other people.”
“The recurring, tired refrain that we should have a white history month if there is a black history month, or white student unions on campuses, is unintentionally being given new life by the Left. Celebrations or organizations of whiteness do not exist because we don’t need them. White people do not face the same kinds of systemic discrimination that people of color do. But progressives are doing a very good job of convincing white people that they do.”
I therefore ask you to restrict your criticism merely to Mr. Stephens’ opinions and character, not his sex or skin color.
The situation gqnofksx describes is a product of so-called progressive liberalism. Any progressive worth his or her salt with a class analysis does not fall into this trap. Once one is instilled with class consciousness through education and, more important, experience, all other lines of liberal self-flagellation dissolve. Every working class individual (as defined by Marx) is used and exploited to the supreme end of maximizing profit, regardless of their particular niche in respect of their gender, race, religion, nationality or sexuality.
That said, because the ruling powers are aware where we are not, they always manage to set each group against the others at various times and to various degrees, depending on our susceptibility to their cradle to grave propaganda.
Not that it matters. It’s too late baby, it’s too late, we really did try to make it. More here from one of my own break-up ditties. And goodness knows it hurts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDm1xD_Kwyc
Just a fey way of saying we’re all fucked. If Americans did finally “get it” and were to rise up en mass the power of the militarized state apparatus to date has only been hinted at. The surveillance and weapons technology available to them is beyond any comprehension of a revolutionary thinker of yore.
Good night and good luck.
I appreciate your reporting on other news outlets. You’re my favorite??
The NYT certainly didn’t need another obsessed Zionist. I would guess being a denier of climate change is how they fill their “diversity” claim.
His viewpoint is different than yours. Perhaps he is also on the wrong side of some arguments for some. You can’t say with a straight face though that he doesn’t constitute one of the multitude of voices out there. You should reconsider your knee jerk reactions to such things.
Does this mean Mark Thiessen is out of a job?
Hung up the towel on NYT a long time ago. Sheeple foolishness.
The Berkeley antifa girl who got her facepunched yesterday has a fetish porn site she also boasted she was gonna bring home ” 100 nazi scalp” Mark Cuban and those Nog tweets are fools who support her .what did u expect to happen in a riot. Fake news
You garbage dwellers like the little show put on for you yesterday?
Antifa loves you. In fact Antifa loves you so much that they hope you come back for more”lovin” real soon.
Come on guys, no use being just internet tough guys. Time to put on them jack boots, comb the ol’ hair slockly to the side and step up.
Antifa will be waiting, with baited breath.
Using the BDS model, why not boycott the advertisers?
But who could afford that stuff anyway, lol.
Remember Demexit?
We should consider withdrawing our support from ALL institutions that don’t serve the needs of the people.
NYTimesexit.
And I was going to renew my subscription. I was really hoping the NYTimes was going to makeup for their abysmal coverage primaries – that didn’t last long.
In all fairness to the Times wouldn’t a climate change denying anti-Arab individual be fairly uncommon in their org and thus add to the diversity of thought. Not that I’m saying that those are good things, but if the Times really wants diversity, it seems like this isn’t necessarily a bad hire.
That’s like saying let’s bring on a doctor to the surgical team who doesn’t know how to do surgery and doesn’t believe in washing his hands. Does it add to the diversity of the team? Sure, but the result will be disastrous.
The Intercept will not mention, let alone condemn, antisemitism from Arabs/Muslims in the Middle East and Africa aainst Jews.
But The Intercept will demonize and smear a writer like Bret Stephens for… pointing it out.
The Intercept hates anyone who 1) Respects the life of Jews in the Middle East and (2) Respects the Jewish state’s right to exist next to 20+ Arab states and 50+ Muslim countries.
because the Truth only comes from non-white climate alarmists, preferably Arab. According to the Intercept.
Awww…you and Jamie need to get a room.
or, this decision doesn’t seem to reflect the policy that the NYT would have you believe. you know, as presented in the article above…?
Funny I couldn’t get passed the title. Climate denying. I doubt he doesn’t believe in climate. I also love how being a white guy is now something used to say we aren’t diverse. Interesting that reverse discrimination is the new order. Forget the content of their character it’s now all about the color of your skin. This website is on the same slow and steady crash course of the MSM. Fast becoming a left wing partisan hack space. RIP….
i’m pretty sure it means he is one of the flat earth society idiots, but i guess the title could have been a little clearer. if you read the article, though, it’s explained.
“global warming is dead, nailed into its coffin one devastating disclosure, defection and re-evaluation at a time. Which means that pretty soon we’re going to need another apocalyptic scare to take its place.”
He then mockingly proposed “a readers’ contest to invent the next panic. It must involve something ubiquitous, invisible to the naked eye, and preferably mass-produced. And the solution must require taxes, regulation, and other changes to civilization as we know it.”
it was the NYT itself that declared a new and improved policy of diversity. what definition of diversity do you think they were using when they issued that declaration? what definition are you invoking here?
again, as pretzelattack wrote, if you read the article….
So the NYT has hired another racist warmongering Zionist, who is a white male, as an editorial page writer. Stop the presses.
Glad people are canceling their subscriptions over his hire. I already did years ago.
Playing the race card here was a bad move. To lambaste them for decrying fake news while taking on a climate change denier could have worked. But white guys are getting really tired of being the one group everyone feels free to discriminate against. When you call for a boycott against a newspaper over the hiring of one white guy – or so it appears from how you presented your article – it pretty much puts an ultimatum on people to be on one side or the other .. depending on race. Which is never a good thing.
I agree. The constant scapegoating and demonizing of the straight white boogeyman needs to stop.
The classic dog whistle of the white crypto-racist (well, s/he thinks s/he’s hiding behind the code).
And I blame your reading teachers, too. Or, perhaps, those who taught you, Tony, Joe Kopeck, OraleHolms, and a whole raft of others, who may rightly (and sadly) be called deplorables, simply didn’t have adequate raw material with which to work.
The racist stupidity is thick in this thread — because we have an abundance of thick racists among us.
“……The classic dog whistle of the white crypto-racist……”
That is really a piss poor argument, Doug. Calling someone a racist who raises a question about Jilani’s pulling the race card in this article is simply meant to stifle debate about the question he raised. It’s gutless and cowardly and just shows you have no response to his point. I suspect you can be more creative.
In my experience, this is an expression used almost exclusively by racists.
As for “gutless and cowardly,” I post under my own name and I’m easy to find. So. . . any racists who wanna come argue that they aren’t. . .
Hey Doug,
What percentage of your home town is African American? 0.2%? And how many of them live in a million dollar property on an economically exclusive California peninsula? Yet, you presume to lecture others on the nature of racism? Really?
According to critical race theory, only white people can be racist. I don’t actually dispute that. But bigotry, intolerance and demonizing a person because of his skin color ….. well that is a human fallibility.
And how dare white men respond to a piece about white men. The only explanation is that they are racist.
Doug: you are rubber and he’s glue, whatever he says bounces off you and sticks to him. It worked for you in 3rd grade, so why bother with all them big words?!
Have you looked at the demographic makeup of the NYT editorial page columnists Wnt?
I assure you, they are not discriminating against white males.
Pretty damn sure he said nothing to that end. He sums up his point beautifully, and it’s a beautiful point:
“…it pretty much puts an ultimatum on people to be on one side or the other .. depending on race. Which is never a good thing.”
You might be right. I looked up their list of columnists [https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/columnists] but I can’t honestly tell from the pencil eraser sized face whether David Brooks is black or white, let alone guess whether one of the other names is Jewish. Gail something is probably female, I can guess that much. But if you want to convince me of an overall-discrimination argument and a need for intentional diversity hiring to make up for past discrimination – which is not impossible – you have to get the full list, make a reliable classification, say how much that differs from chance taking into account how many qualified candidates are actually available. You can’t short-circuit all that and tell me they hired ONE white guy and that’s a terrible thing, no more than you can really tell if someone is racist by whether they say “race card”. Politics is a competition, including racial politics, and if you come into the Indy 500 with something made out of egg cartons and rubber bands what do you think is going to happen?
Sigh. It’s New York…where super-liberal Bill de Blasio knows where his bread is buttered…
https://www.thenation.com/article/bill-de-blasio-wrong-pander-aipac/ &
http://www.jta.org/2014/01/29/news-opinion/the-telegraph/letter-from-jewish-liberals-slams-de-blasio-over-aipac-address
Such is the state of American “liberals”, particularly the Democrats.
Apparently the Russians made Billy cozy up to AIPAC.
He is white and he doesn’t agree with me … Oh the Horror!
yeah, so what if the thinks the world is ruled by a coalition of giant space lizards in human suits.
That “Truth is hard” ad by the New York Bloody Times got to me right away. All I could think about was their endless promotion of the Bush administration’s WMD fake news. How they allowed Judy “I was fucking right” Miller to have her invade Iraq propaganda on the front page of the NYBT before and after the invasion.
The NYBT could not recognize, did not recognize fake news from a hole in the ground. Did not do their homework, did not dig enough, were part of the msm’s complicity in the run up to the invasion.
Along with decades of hiding Israel’s crimes against humanity.
The rush to the internet took place in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Many of us had heard former head of the UN’s weapons inspection team in Iraq Scott Ritter, El Baradei, retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern and others on Cspan and a few other outlets questioning the validity of the intelligence. I believe when El Baradei came out in early March of 2003 and said the Niger Documents were forgeries this made one of the back pages of the NYBT’s while the Bush administrations “pack of lies” was copied and repeated by Judy Miller etc on the front pages.
Not a fan of Bret Stephens, but what a lousy hit piece! So sorry The Times doesn’t meet your Diversity & (Non) Inclusion guidelines.
The Israel Lobby exerts huge pressure on the NYT to not tell the truth, even by accident: The screenshots prove it: New York Times altered headline to remove words “Israeli-occupied”
the screenshot only proves that they changed the headline
“the israel lobby” is a good guess regarding the reason, but you really don’t have proof .. an email on the NYTimes intranet regarding the change would be better
however, within the confines of Doug Computer Science you pretty much nailed it
Actually, it’s a near certainty.
Shakespeare nailed it. The Jewish religion is a criminal enterprise at heart.
Jews will discard any other group if it buys them a millimeter of gain.
That is why people have disliked Jews for millennia; they steal from everybody because they deserve more after all they’ve been through (not by their choice)
Israel drives the American killing machine.
That is as fucked-up as it gets.
Where does Shakespeare claim that the Jewish religion is a criminal enterprise?
“Where does Shakespeare claim that the Jewish religion is a criminal enterprise?”
Between the covers.
don’t you ever check your Linkedin account? you could be networking with annoying weirdos like me instead of wasting your time arguing with swisscheese
in all seriousness, i know you have friends here .. but the “comments commandos” are a dying breed
oh well, carry on
Decades of “huge pressure” Phil Weiss over at Mondoweiss has really tackled this issue..calling out by name those completely complicit in hiding the facts about the I/P conflict today and for decades
How do you explain the fact that a search of the Times on the exact phrase
“Israeli-occupied West Bank” shows 1,162 hits. Not to mention the fact that the words occur in the very first paragraph of the article in question?
“……..How do you explain the fact that a search of the Times on the exact phrase “Israeli-occupied West Bank” shows 1,162 hits. Not to mention the fact that the words occur in the very first paragraph of the article in question?…..”
Obviously, a change in the leadership of AIPAC is required. This isn’t their first failure. The “lobby” demanded that the US bomb Iran instead of sign an agreement……..
Can you imagine that Mona? A lobbying organization LOBBYING! Mona loves free speech until the free speech oversteps her political agenda. Suddenly free speech no longer applies because it’s the Israel (Jewish) lobby.
How the New York Times silences Palestinians
The Arab Uprising in Palestine began on this day in 1936 against the British who responded with widespread collective punishment & torture.
This is a strange story coming from a climate-change-denying anti-Arab website.
When NYT hires Ali Abunimah — or any other journalist/pundit of Palestinian/Arab heritage — I’ll believe all their prattle about “diversity.” The paper of record has long been a bastion of pro-Zionist orthodoxy. Bret Stephens is just one of the more overt, rancid examples of the anti-Arab racism that has always suffused Zionism and Zionists.
He’s nothing new for the Times; just insult to injury.
The only thing that the NYT is good for is the occasional travel or science article or telling me what plays are good– they have always been a bastion pro-Zionist orthodoxy. What a surprise!
Agreed. The Times is useful for science and arts. Even some of it’s straight news reporters are very good, e.g., Charlie Savage and Jim Risen. But it’s editorial board is rancid, and too many of the journalists are Zionist and/or neoliberal hacks.
Majd Al Waheidi who is a Palestinian works as a stringer for the Times.
Diaa Hadid who was born in Syrian works for the Times.
oops Ms Hadid family is actually from Egypt. Just like Arafat.
Hadid is of Lebanese-Egyptian heritage. But that’s true — NYT has one pro-Palestinian, Arab journalist on its reporting staff.
So you now believe “believe all their prattle about “diversity.”?
Hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahahaha! The New York Times hires someone who isn’t a socialist, sexual deviant, climate-religion nutjob, or Islamic Misogynist apologist, and everyone freaks out! A white male without sociopathic beliefs is about the most diverse thing the NYC could ever possibly come up with, and the raging leftist faithful don’t want to hear anything about it. This could be a T.V. drama! Thanks for all the entertainment, lefties! This is too awesome. No normal opinions are accepted! Take your straight white male normalcy out of here! Hahahahaha! You can’t make this stuff up!
It’s sociopathic to comprehend the earth is thratened by climate change and to understand how bigots destroy our society? You, sir, are a First Class imbecile and your comment is a waste of bytes.
one sure sign of a scientific illiterate “climate religion nutjob”. thinking science is some vast conspiracy is not normal, sorry.
I have to laugh. The NY Times is now running continuous online ads for “Truth”; they might as well label it “Pravda”, because in “Truth” there is no “News”. Their new-found enthusiasm for holding power to account for its actions (well, some in power, anyhow) can be attributed more accurately for its neoliberal management than to any rediscovery of the proper role of the press in a free country.
Over the past two decades the openness ratings of the US press have slowly declined, even to the extent that we no longer rate in the top fifteen countries. The changes in outlook of the NYTimes and other MSM rags have done nothing to reverse that trend; if anything it is accelerating.
Reporters Without Borders ranks the US as 41st in press freedom. Everyone’s friend Putin’s Russia ranks 148 out of 180.
We’re no. 41, we’re no. 41. Yay!
I’m not cheering.
Just putting it in perspective for the large pro Russian , RT is honest crowd on TI.
If people watched RT America to get news about the innerworkings of Russia you may have a point… but we watch it to get the only critical, honest, perspective about the US on TV in the US. If anyone could find anything even slightly dishonest on RT America here in the US they would be using it to shut it down in a heartbeat.
The US media’s complete lack of introspection and self awareness, is responsible for creating the audience for RT.
First of all who would shut it down? Certainly not the U.S.. You won’t be able to give any examples of the US gov’t closing down media outlets for lying or political reasons.
Secondly multiple reporters have quit RT because they where asked to lie.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/sara-firth-resigns-russia-today-lies-anchor_n_5598815.html
You link to a 3yr old propaganda article framing RT as propaganda because some reporters didn’t like the editorial pressure to remain pro Russia? No specific examples of lies given. This is salient because I already acknowledged anyone with a brain can see that RT’s world news is biased to present Russian foreign policy positively , just as all US media is biased towards US interests. I can list plenty of lies the US media is complicit in reporting as concrete facts however. If you read Greenwald you already know them too. Perhaps you can find some overt lies on RT, but it must be difficult given the weak example you provided with your first swing. Even the 17 intelligence agencies couldn’t list anything other than 4yr old examples of shows that give voice to dissent on the report charging RT as being part of the Russian election tampering.
Perhaps if PBS had not sold its soul to commercial interests there would be an American source of shows like: Crosstalk, PoliticKing, BoomBust, the Big Picture, Watching the Hawks, Redacted Tonight, America’s Lawyer, Keiser Report, On Contact, etc but in 2017 the only place they exist on cable television in the US is on RT.
The corrupt crony capitalist system is my enemy…. the corrupt US establishment is the enemy of a nationalist Russia too…. and in this case the enemy of my enemy is my friend at arms length. Doesn’t mean I condone or even support Russia, but I appreciate when interests align for a common cause. And RT America is the voice of that common cause.
As far as shutting it down, I don’t mean literally. I mean if they could list overt lies to discredit it in the eyes of thinking people, they would. They stick to tactic of discrediting which only works on non-thinking people, that of ad-hominem attacks. Non-thinking people are the majority so it is quite effective in terms of popularity, but popularity and truth are usually mutually exclusive. I will stick with truth wherever it can be found.
First of all why is the article being 3 years old important, and why is it a propaganda article and how did you miss the the very clear example the the Malaysian Airlines plane crash? You state that: “RT’s world news is biased to present Russian foreign policy positively ,” , are you naive enough tho believe that showing the US in a negative light is not part of that policy?
In other words you put ideology above truth. You just revealed it’s not truth you are after, but fighting your enemy.
As for ad-hominem attacks, no one has made them in our discussion except you.
As for your explanation of what you meant with regard to “shutting them down” yeah sure that’s what you meant. They were discredited by their own reporters who certainly Ms. Firth, Ms Wahl and Abby Martin are more privy to the workings of RT than you are, and Ms Martin is clearly not a fan of the US gov’t. Yet you flat out reject what these people have to say not by providing any facts but by just saying they are propagandists.
“Popularity and truth are usually mutually exclusive” , sorry but there is no truth to that, although I could see how the unpopular might believe it.
Lastly I love when those who claim to be against the “capitalists” and presumably for the masses term those masses as unthinking. too funny.
Only a simpleton thinks there is one side to a story. The Malaysian Airlines story they are referring to after it happened is the other side. I guess RT is lying when they give a different theory of how the gas attacks happened in your mind too? But regardless, for the third time, I don’t watch RT for international news.
The ad hominem attacks I was referring to is “RT is Putins mouthpiece”, “Russian propaganda” etc. Which is the main tactic how RT is discredited and it only works on sheep.
When did I claim to be against capitalists? Your responses are constructed almost exclusively of straw men. I am against corruption. I am a free market proponent, and that is the opposite of the rigged racketeering system we have in the US. All intellectually honest people are allies against corruption, no matter ideology. I put truth above ideology. You seem to be so agenda driven you are incapable of understanding.
Look I don’t care if you don’t want to watch RT. Please don’t in fact.
Who claimed there was only one side to the story?
“When did I claim to be against capitalists?”
in your post before this one, where you wrote:
“The corrupt crony capitalist system is my enemy…”
” All intellectually honest people are allies against corruption, no matter ideology.”
Are you really trying to claim Putin’s Russia is not corrupt?
What straw men did I did I construct? Do you even know what the phrase means? Your “one side of the story” argument was a straw man, if that helps.
RT is Putin’s mouthpiece. It is state owned and run and in Russia Putin is very much in charge of the state. You acknowledge that they are biased about Russian foreign policy. How can that be true and yet calling them Putin’s mouthpiece is ad hominem ?
You are not being honest in anyway intellectually or otherwise.
Lol… ok you got me. I should have recognized the troll posting in bad faith by your 2nd response.
Ah that’s what I love. The guy who complains about ad hominem goes there when he loses the argument. Tell me again about how intellectually honest you are. too funny.
Trolling: (Going ad hominem by) saying that a guy who says “The corrupt crony capitalist system is my enemy…” must be against capitalism.
How is that “Going ad hominem ” I think you and Ciclismo should chip in and buy a dictionary, Knife.
I am certainly a dummy for not noticing you reply in bad faith the first time you dishonestly excerpted portions of my overall post, which continues ad nauseam. Every time you do so, you demonstrate that you are here to troll. If it is true, then it can’t be ad hominem. Unless the fact you think it is pejorative is what makes it so??? Besides any need for an ad hominem (imagined or otherwise) attack on you is made moot by your own posts. I lost your “argument” by engaging in it.
More bs. Please tell me what I dishonestly excerpted from your post. I am still waiting for you you tell me what straw man argument I made. Face it the only one who has been dishonest in this exchange is you Cic. You lost the argument by not being able to defend your claims and by resorting to false accusations and engaging in exactly the things, straw men, ad homs , that you accused others of. If any need for ad hominem is supposedly made “moot” by my own posts then why did you engage in it? Or is this yet another term you are using without understanding it’s meaning. Too funny.
USA did it
NYT is doing it
YOU too can do it
hire a climate change denier today
The New York Times’ sole useful function is for its placement at the bottom of your pet bird’s cage; this has been the case for several decades. If Stephen’s hiring serves to expedite Times’ inevitable bankruptcy, so much the better. That way we eliminate two sources of garbage in one swoop.
Mr. Jilani’s obsession with identity politics is annoying. No doubt in his social circles it seems very normal, but to the rest of society it seems like idiotic group think. As for the NYT, I don’t read them anymore.
So let Mr. Jilani and ilk fight over the dead carcass of the dinosaur media. I used to read Paul Krugman occasionally, but I’ve moved on. There is a wider world out there and the U.S. role in it is becoming smaller and smaller.
For example, here is an article you won’t read at the NYT.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/australia-beckons-a-war-with-china/
How is it “identity politics” on my behalf if we are lodging a complaint about him engaging in bigotry? It seems like identity politics guides his beliefs not ours
Because the color of one’s skin has nothing to do with their espousing bigotry. So what’s the point of repeating Stephens’ skin color unless you think it’s relevant? What are you defining as ‘diversity’?
Ssshhh. Logic and reason have no place in the SJW mindset
“What are you defining as diversity?”
A rainbow of flavored coatings(natural and artificial), covering the same bland vanilla center of conformity and compliance is what it becomes in practice.
Authentic diversity is the last thing those in control want, and SJWs are the useful idiots that help prevent that from happening. The push for diversity of external attributes, conformity of internal attributes, is just another tactic in the divide and conquer strategy.
“WHITE GUY” How dare you, zaid jilani is a racist agitator!
Problem with section of article title: “Climate-Denying Anti-Arab White Guy”
1) “Climate-Denying” – it’s easy to label those who disagree with you. To compare us to those who denied the Holcost is quite “intolerant” (a very Liberal thing to claim but not actually practice.)
2) “Anti-Arab” – might as well say darn racist
3) “White Guy” – you would never hear Obama described negatively?, then followed by “Black Guy”. You would be out of a job. In modern America you CAN say things like “white guy” in a derogatory fashion but never “black guy”.
Just some honest feedback on your title.
1. *Holocaust
2. You make a case for the colloquial
3. You make a case against the colloquial
Sensitive white guys are as annoying as sensitive black guys. Just some honest feedback.
If you deny the earth is warming due to human activity, you are a dull idiot and a loser. Plain and simple.
This is a timely hire by the NY Times. Mr. Trump has doubled down on wars in the Middle East and the Times will need a cheerleader. I suppose they could have chosen a black woman to fill this role. In private, however, black women have admitted to me that they could have done more to promote wars in the Middle East. So perhaps the fault is not entirely on the side of the NY Times.
Mr. Jilani should therefore try to be a bit more sympathetic towards the Times. It has been a hard couple of months for them. Mr. Trump has, on a number of occasions, singled them out for criticism. This must be difficult for the Times, which always takes great pride in faithfully serving the administration of the day. In addition, it raises the prospect that the Times may no longer be the preferred news source to whom administration officials anonymously leak their stories. So the Times is faced with the prospect of having to do actual journalism to get its stories, a task for which it is unprepared.
Hiring Mr. Stevens does not solve all these problems, of course. But it reconfirms the Times’ resolution to be the premier source of propaganda for the US government, whoever that government may be. It shows a commitment to sycophancy that is quite admirable. So I hope their gambit pays off and if they fail, which is still probable of course, it will not be from lack of effort.
This is one of the best comments I have read in a long while!
I am reminded of William Randolph Hearst’s paper The New York Journal and his fierce battle with Pulitzer’s NY paper that ushered in an era of yellow journalism.
They seem to believe that Brietbart is the model for increasing readership. I don’t have time for the NYT or the WP anymore. Journalism is too important to the common people to read anything that promotes propaganda and disregards the importance of verifiable facts.
What exactly were those principles NYT reaserted in last twelve months by regurgitating baseless proof-free CIA assertions about Russian hacking of elections and feeding of repugnant McCarthyite style slander and intimidation and Orwellian style historical memory blackout.
To what particular history must we refer not to find NYT blatant bridges of journalist integrity for financial , political reasons to solely please establishment while leaving people who need to know what this abhorrent US regime does to them in darkness of NYT propaganda of lies.
The NYT Reputation or credibility did not suffer because the hired or fired compliant stooges of the status quo for one reason alone namely NYT had never had any reputation in a first place mostly engaged in whipping up support for theft and murder and mayhem in the US and elsewhere.
Subscribed in November, cancelled last week after the orgasm over the Syria bombing. Done with ’em.
As is the case of any valid critique of such individuals in the Washington/Wall Street/MSM bubble, they cannot be shamed or embarrassed. If those that are sounding like Cassandra, an unheeded warning about climate change are considered by the likes of Mr. Stephens as religious zealots, then let their children and grandchildren reap the whirlwind – tragically like the rest of us.
ABC, CBS and ABC nightly news have reported some extreme weather event, day after day, week after week for years. I just about fell out of my lounger, when, I think it was NBC, made a one sentence reference to climate change a couple of week s ago.
The cognitive dissonance at work among the lot of them is astonishing.
Mr. Jilani
Hiring Bret Stephens does bring diversity of opinion. He is essentially a neoconservative – strongly pro Israel, backing the use of US power in foreign policy. He is a foreign policy hawk. His thoughts on global warming hold little interests for me, but his opinion on foreign policy and critique of Trump will be worth reading in my opinion. I disagree with him strongly on Palestinian self determination. Stephens is quoted in your article:
I don’t agree that this is the primary reason that the Arab world is sliding into the abyss. The reasons are complex, but globalization is certainly one factor. There is a lot of truth to the last sentence quoted above in the Stephens statement as a Pew poll indicates. But you don’t really need a poll because over 800,000 Jews have been ethnically cleansed from the Greater Middle East since the creation of Israel. This is an act of collective punishment of all Jews for the creation of Israel. This offsets a similar number of Palestinians run out of their homes by Jews in 1948.
Anyone who tells the truth about the Arab world is bound to be labeled a racist. Arab countries are distinguished by racism, ethnic and religious bigotry, sectarian hatred and violence, misogyny and pervasive Antisemitism. Even the Arab Spring which was a true democratic and political rebellion was hijacked by oppressed radical anti-democratic Islamists and murderous dictators like Assad fighting the “war on terror”. Interference during and after the colonial period by British, France and the US (as well as the USSR/Russia) has made progress more difficult.
Major cultural changes will be necessary to change attitudes toward homosexuality, women and minorities (etc.) as well as make the step toward a western style democracy. The Arab Spring is still in its infancy in my opinion, but slower change will be necessary to regain the momentum which has been stopped in its tracks for the moment. The Arab Spring is the greatest hope for change in the Middle East.
From the above article:
“Diversity” of opinion. Yet:
I am fairly sure that if Ben White had been hired by the NYT, you would not have objected and asked for more diversity – like Arab American or Muslim American writers. The left (and especially the radical left) uses race as a political hammer when it’s politically convenient. White guys are not so bad when they support your position.
Compared to the other columnists at the New York Times Bret Stephens brings in some serious diversity of viewpoint.
This is basically a story about nothing. The Times is The Times. It is not, has never been, and will never be a paper that expresses the sentiments of the disinherited or the marginalized. Does the author really believe that The Times would be a different, better paper if they had a minority woman writing opinions. I suspect it wouldn’t be a lick different than it is now.
Both Fareed Zakaria and Christiane Amanpour, for example, serve that purpose on CNN; but when push comes to shove they too carry the dominant narrative of the day which serves the corporate kleptocracy and its military industrial complex.
Zaid’s writing suggests that he thinks the Times editorial page would reflect broader views and greater diversity of understanding (in line with the publisher’s remarks about mission) if it had, exempli gratia et inter alios, a minority woman writer on its staff.
hth
“And as a white male member of the media elite, he hardly brings diversity to the stable of editorial page columnists.”
I’m not a fan of his, but the only qualification for diversity is skin color? What about diversity of thought. I would think that should count for something.
No, of course not. And Zaid neither said nor implied that.
Sure…I guess the qualifier “white” is an oft-used extraneous fun fact.
I blame your reading teachers.
I’m not surprised…. I guess that’s easier than defending doublethink.
Try reading the quote again.
I blame your reading teachers, too.
I think you are missing the context of the story. The hire was in direct opposition to the promise they made to gain new subscribers, which promised more minority representation.
Why would you trust the NYT to report the truth when it’s headed by a guy like Mark Thompson? For those who forget, he was hired to take over the BBC after they forced out Greg Dyke for his reporting (correctly) that Blair lied about Iraq WMD. There are quite a few reports documenting Thompson’s lies, from his ignoring evidence of Jimmy Savile’s sexual abuse (and lying to investigators) to his trying to cancel Doctor Who (and lying about his initial support of the show).
With those credentials, why isn’t he in the Trump administration?
Bret Stephens is very anti-Trump.
So the author of the article is opposed to diversity of opinions.
This is a slippery slope folks and could give “diversity” a bad name.
I understand the importance of taking a “visible” stand which in doing so becomes a social stand affecting the discourse. Not so for the purely private stand.
The gray lady has alzheimers. Had for a while, but loved Hillary (who seemed to be birds of a feather with dimentia).
That said, it is one thing to have a detailed discussion on “climate change” “new ice age” “global warming” or whatever it is being called these days, and another to label anyone who disagrees or EVEN ASKS QUESTIONS as a heretic and want to burn them at the stake. I hoped the Intercept would have been better than that, but am disappointed.
You can’t have a dialog if you merely hurl insults at the other side. Consensus is NOT science, it is data. Models are not science. See Scott Adams at blog.dilbert.com for the proper epistemology. For now you sound like you worship GAIA with climate scientists wanting to sacrifice babies in their priestly lab coats. That IS what you look like.
The Intercept can sponsor a debate – a real one – or dismiss people as uncouth or heretics.
You are full of it. Science is a method, not “data.” The vast majority of relevant experts who practice the scientific method find that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. And that hasn’t got fuck-all to do with “Gaia.”
Yep, no science in concensus and no concensus in science. Anyone scientist that won’t consider new info, data, or possibilities smacks real scientists in the face.
True! You know, I have it on good faith that evolution is just a theory. No one’s proven it yet!
which doesn’t apply to climate science, i hope you know. it’s just that there are no competing theories that explain the warming. feel free to come up with one and win the nobel.
“Consensus is NOT science” and bread is not a sandwich.
“For now you sound like you worship GAIA with climate scientists wanting to sacrifice babies in their priestly lab coats.” You also mentioned something about being dismissed as “uncouth”…
Discrimination against someone because of their race, gender and political speech is morally indefensible. This is a major reason the left is becoming irrelevant.
Here’s a novel suggestion to NYT readers who don’t like Stephens: don’t read his columns!
I know it’s not as dramatic as breathlessly claiming you’re going to cancel your NYT subscription, but it has the same practical effect.
So “diversity” only means people who agree with you? Hypocrite.
how then would you go about construing this hiring decision as properly reflecting NYT’s declaration regarding diversity?
what’s the problem? now there’s some more ‘diversity’ – it gets boring if the NYT is only staffed with progressive fascist jews on the payroll of goldman sachs
Good for the times. Adds some much-needed viewpoint diversity to the liberal echo chamber. Conservatives are far more underrepresented at The Times than any other group.
Apparently you haven’t actually looked at the NYT editorial page in several years.
silly, snarky and ungenerous column by a hack. stephens isn’t a “white guy” any more than the author is some “colored guy.” he’s a man, a proud man and an honest one – and an excellent writer with a history of editorial accomplishment.
that’s a lot more than we can say about the attack dog who authored this silly bit of typing.
Then why are you posting here. If you love corporate journalism so much, feel free to dumb yourself down to their level.
So Jilani’s idea of “diversity” is that EVERYONE at the Times should be a believer in dangerous human caused global warming. .. You keep using that word “diversity.” I don’t think it means what you think it means.
And what’s with saying “climate change” instead of global warming? Does Jilani think that maybe the climate is going to get colder rather than warmer? That would make him a SKEPTIC of the IPCC “consensus,” like I am. Now that the sun has gone quiet the rational expectation going forward is for cooling, not warming.
In this case we will want MORE atmospheric Co2, not less. Not that Co2 can do much to offset cooling. Its warming effect is too tiny for that, but it IS the beginning of the food chain tor all life in earth and a boost in Co2 CAN offset the shortened growing seasons that cooling would cause.
both terms have been used for decades. what do you think ipcc stands for?
A climate-denying-anti-arab-white-guy is far from usual for the NYT. Very diverse as the chief communist rag will allow
I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
It’s exactly the content of Stephens’s character that is being judged here.
“the Times has poached the Wall Street Journal”
They are both steeped in authority.
It’s always funny seeing insecure white men complain about race issues when their systems historically oppress people based on race and gender. It’s almost like they know and enjoy their privileged position.
Hypothetically, what if there was a group of white men and women who were way, way more privileged in terms of wealth, and dramatically overrepresented in the Media, Wall Street, the Ivy League etc than your average ordinary white. Wouldn’t it be clever of them to use “white privilege” as a mask for real nepotistic tribal advantage, or would that merely be projection?
What use are hypotheticals when the reality doesn’t reflect that?
I see what you’re trying to do. Reductionist arguments are used by those who can’t cope with the larger argument. Being culturally white isn’t just skin color.
Do some research on it. Jane Elliott’s “Blue-eye Brown-eye experiment” is a great place to start.
Yes, I have taken an undergraduate psychology course so I’m familiar with Elliott.
Did you know that that she later went on to teach diversity training for the US Postal Service? Talk about Mission Accomplished!
Why so bitter?
It’s like I don’t even know I’m privileged.
That’s the intention when they trained you in school. You have your local cultural indoctrination center to thank for it.
“deny the existence of climate change.”
When 95% of journalists believe it, hiring someone who does not IS hiring diversity. Mr Jilani apparently only likes Echo Chambers.
The science is FAR FAR from settled.
“The science is FAR FAR from settled.”
Not regarding ocean acidification from CO2.
The commercial shellfish industry in Puget Sound must now raise young oysters in tanks with lime addition to prevent the tiny shells from dissolving before the oyster matures. That’s what 400+ppm CO2 does.
Most of the world’s oxygen comes from phytoplankton. It’s not too difficult to realize we had better be damn sure we are not poisoning them.
You’re mis-informed. There is essentially total consensus among climate researchers that human caused climate change (in the form of global warming) is taking place.
There is ZERO consensus among farmers who have been doing it for over 80 yrs.
there’s lots of farmers who are convinced from their own observations. leaving that aside, if you wanted advice on farming techniques, would you go to farmers or climate scientists?
The science is settled, but you’re not really debating that. You’re debating whether the people who gather and analyze global climate data should be trusted to answer questions about the climate. This is essentially an anti-science argument. The methodology they use to reach their consensus on global climate change (it’s real, caused by humans, etc.) is the same one which lead to the little miracle you use to type out your opinions on geriatric farmers.
No mention of Carlos Slim?
Haven’t heard much from Slim since his last press conference where he said that if Trump succeeds, it will be good for Mexico:
http://www.frontera.info/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Nacional/27012017/1177534-Slim-llama-a-rueda-de-prensa-en-medio-de-tension-Mexico-EU.html
Right ,Carlos.
Hey does anybody remember when Glenn Greenwald promised to bring more diversity to The Intercept — and then hired JuanThompson to cover the anti-white beat?
and what, killed more Palestinians than anyone else there?
Honestly I couldn’t even get outraged about Bret primarily because of this line:
“Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and executive editor Dean Baquet wrote an open letter to readers on November 13, vowing to “hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly.”
If anyone thought the above was true, especially after their performance in the run-up to the Iraq fiasco, they deserve to read Bret Stephens.
good point. but it does rather underscore the manner in which the Liberal, Democrat mouthpieces have merely dug in and doubled down on what is essentially Clintonian, Wall St conservatism and Neoconservatism, all while shouting, “right on, bro, #resistance, fuck yeah!”
so, yeah, nothing new at the NYT, but it doesn’t hurt to point it out. some folks are only just tuning in, so to speak.
My God what a terrible article.
Nice article. How the F stupid are these people who have been flocking to give the NYT, the old gray bitch, their money? The paper that just published a brilliant Tommy Friedman editorial the other day that argued we should stop fighting ISIS in Syria, because it helps Syria and Russia. I read that turd, checked out the comments, expecting even the usual neo-liberal dips that comment would be screaming about how incredibly hypocritical and crazy siding with ISIS would be, and the idiots almost universally thought it was a great idea!!!! WTF is wrong with these stupid, insanely heartless scumbags? Evidently ISIS winning is great as long as it advances their partisan side. Wonder how many were ‘With Her!’? (interesting aside, I recently read ‘A Terrible Glory’, great book about the Battle of the Little Bighorn, it mentioned in passing that the NYT crowed that Sitting Bull was now ‘a good Indian’ after he was murdered. The more things change, the more they stay the same…)
This looks like a grapes are sour situation. Don’t worry, in a few years we will see you and your colleague Murtaza duly installed in that Failing and Fake publication. Just keep doing Omidyar’s bidding for now. Pity Juan Thompson is no longer there to accompany you folks in your upward career moves, so take Mackey along for company.
Hey Zaid,
If Stephens was a BLACK FEMALE member of the media elite, would she too be characterized as failing to “provide diversity” if she echoed the same opinions?
hypotheticals are useful to ask. If Karl had a brain, would he post better comments?
Can I take a stab at that one?
No.
“If Karl had a brain, would he post better comments?”
How would Vic be able to recognize what impact a brain would make?
Vic
Are you just bored or unable to respond……intelligently? I vote for the latter (based on experience)
Are people’s lives and opinions somehow independent of the circumstances of their birth? Is a black woman’s life the same as a white man’s?
Your callous disregard is a blatant example of your white male privilege. Go educate yourself.
And what would you say if you learned that I was actually a female African American?
Everyone knows that the New York Times is the mouthpiece for CIA and the Pentagon.
The facts that Stephens is a Climate Change denier, and a racist, are relevant. The fact that he’s White, is not really relevant enough to be in your headline.
Total bullshit headline.
It is actually a very logical headline. Jilani starts the headline with “NYT promises Truth”, which is counterposed by “climate-denying”. Then he follows with “and Diversity”, which is counterposed by “White Guy”.
It actually does matter. A great deal of white people’s racism is in their subconscious actions and biases, trained into them by school and media. Our culture and society train people into a “white-is-right” mentality. White people need to be held accountable as much as any community, and a good way to do that is to remind them they are white and responsible for their actions. White people, generally speaking, are privileged in our society. It manifests in many pernicious ways.
Do some research on it and you will find plenty of evidence.
it’s wonderful to have a god-like all-seeing oracle dress hate in new clothes and parade it as advocacy. File your clever post under ‘over-educated, code-riddled fascist’. Do some research and you will find plenty of evidence in your comments. Do your intellectual development a favor and get out from under your slogans. As for ‘white people need to be held accountable…’ substitute any race for ‘white’ and you’ll be in good company. By all means encourage others to act on your words in these inflammatory times. Re. the (your) headline: ‘diversity is not diversity unless it’s my kind of diversity’ would have saved me five minutes of reading. Clever and intelligent rarely co-exist, and you are Exhibit Number 1.
Have any suggestions? I’m always open to learn. Otherwise, you are just another angry voice in the cacophony.
It actually doesn’t matter. A great deal of liberal people’s ideology is in their subconscious actions and biases, trained into them by school and media. Our culture and society train people into a “left is right” mentality. Liberals need to be held accountable as much as any community, and a good way to do that is to remind them they are liberals and responsible for their actions. Liberals, generally speaking, are privileged in our society and do not have to worry about many people openly challenging their stupidity. It manifests in many pernicious ways, such as legislation on fake apocalyptic portends, and refusing to allow alternative ideologies in any place the liberals can throw a large enough tantrum until they get their way.
Step out of your echo chamber and you will find out what real evidence is. Meanwhile you call yourself an atheist, but liberals are the most religious people I know. They all take as canon the liberal talking points.
Christians: Praise God
Jewish: Praise Elohim
Muslim: Praise Allah
Liberals: Praise Marx
LOL @ this patently racist post. You clearly haven’t spent much time in school lately or you know how much the tables have turned.