Leftist Authoritarianism (We Only Burn the Bad Books)

[ToddStarnes]

[Kane]

[Kane]

[ToddStarnes]

[The Comrade]

[exploited]

This thread is absolute dog shit, by the way. Just so you guys know.

I was playing a video game and the publisher put up a Black Lives Matters notice, even though the corporation obviously doesn't give a shit, and the product is completely unrelated to any ongoing political differences.

Why is this noteworthy?

The NYT, the Intercept, Vox, etc. are for-profit, privately-run corporations that run along the same basic business principles as any other organization of this type. If something pisses off their customers enough to threaten revenue, they act. If it doesn't, they don't. They don't have high-minded ideals. The NYT has been a propaganda mill for the US federal government for decades, with only like five million digital subscriptions. f**k Joe Rogan has more than that. The Intercept exists to feed Greenwalds' cocaine habit. Vox is one of the most retarded media organizations ever seen in the history of the world. Like the author of this shit-tier thread, for some reason, these organizations act as if they have values. They don't. NYT is just as likely to carry water for a Bush war as it is to "inform the public."

The truth is that institutions like this have preyed on the better nature of the public, and failed them, over and over again. And now that the public is able to organize socially, over the internet, to change the way these FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS operate, by EXPRESSING THEMSELVES ON TWITTER, Dylan is talking about authoritarianism. It's such a flagrantly stupid conclusion, so completely out of touch with historical reality - were journalists not fired for pissing off the public in the 20s or 40s or 60s or 70s or something, you absolute unit of a buffoon? - that I'm shocked anyone is engaging with it.

And, my god folks, he is bitching about cancel culture while saying no living conservative can be saved. You kidding me? You guys this f**k dumb?

[phosphide]

[phosphide]

[exploited]

I don't know what that means. I've read it several times over. I will come back to it tomorrow.

[NAB]

Ftr, I like Taibbi for the most part and I'll occasionally listen to his podcast depending on the topic. That said, I think he makes some good points and he also makes some crap ones and does a lot of conflating and ignoring some key details in the examples he cited.

The good point he makes is concerning hyper-sensationalizing of news stories and moving on to the next and leaving the previous one in the dust. This isn't a new observation that has been noted since the "if it bleeds it leads" idiom came out, but its always good to continue to constantly point it out, because it's only getting worse.

Big picture criticism I have of the article is he keeps constantly conflating the left with liberal and neo liberal examples. They are not the same and he should know better and I think he was really lazy on this front.

Concerns about the details he missed or purposefully left out:
-Bennet was forced to resign because he never read Cotton's op-ed before he published it from what I've read, which seems like it should happen to any editor of any publication. I don't think the NYT should have published that screed in the first place if they want to be considered the "Paper of record", but it's not like their op-ed section isn't already replete with right wing thought, so whatever. I rarely bother reading the NYT op-ed because it's gotten pretty garbage (Cotton's being the most recent example), but I focus on their other stories which can still be very solid. Not sure what's going on at the NYT but it did push for the Iraq invasion so I shouldn't be surprised they gave a place for a Senator to call for active duty troops to take care of US citizens.
-Bon Appetit- now this one I was directly familiar with because I saw it trending last week and I was interested because I actually watch their videos on Youtube (because I'm a f**k nerd, sue me) and Rappaport had a long standing rep as a slimey f**k. Matt didn't mention much about how many POC at that publication are paid substantially lower than their oftentimes less experienced white colleagues and not at all for some on the videos shows. Seems a bit more than "cancel culture" but it seems telling Matt left that part out.
-UCLA professor- I wasn't familiar with this one and looked it up and evidentially the professor was using the n word in the lecture without warning his students prior. It's in the context of MLK's work, but it seems like he should have warned them rather it was coming or considered an alternative in the broader lecture. I'm not black so I can't say but it seems a bit tone deaf to just assume it was cool. Anyway, seems a detail that Matt could have mentioned, again.
-Lee Fang- another journalist I'm a fan of and I saw this dustup happen on twitter so I had some familiarity with it. Seems like Lee apologized to his colleague and they were cool but I suspect this incident was the real genesis for Matt's article because he's Lee's buddy. Just speculation on my part but the timing seems specious.

All that said, I still like Matt but I wish he had been more thorough with his details in this article.