NationStates

Fedel wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:Yeah well there’s no evidence there was any of that sentiment and she has prolifically lied about it before so

Fair enough. I don't know her or her past. Just commenting on what user's are probably referring to here.

A while back I linked to an article from The Intercept which spoke about her activism against anti-Zionists, including anti-Zionist Jews. She's not exactly a good faith actor when it comes to that stuff.

Honestly, the fact that her and Chomsky both signed onto the same open letter on "free speech" is kinda hilarious in that regard, because Chomsky is exactly the sort of academic that Weiss has gone out of her way to ruin.

Liriena wrote:

Fedel wrote:
Fair enough. I don't know her or her past. Just commenting on what user's are probably referring to here.

A while back I linked to an article from The Intercept which spoke about her activism against anti-Zionists, including anti-Zionist Jews. She's not exactly a good faith actor when it comes to that stuff.

Honestly, the fact that her and Chomsky both signed onto the same open letter on "free speech" is kinda hilarious in that regard, because Chomsky is exactly the sort of academic that Weiss has gone out of her way to ruin.

I don't know if I'd equate activism against anti-Zionists as making her more likely to lie if I'm being honest.

South Odreria 2 wrote:It’s good to know that I’m “the people who are now in charge” and a “metropolitan elite” because I don’t put up with this lady’s crap.

People, and I am not accusing you of this, like to imagine themselves to be free thinkers because they get together and circlejerk the ravings of a baboon.

Also, no one is denying her claims? Considering she has rarely if ever told the truth I do not automatically believe her.

Well, journalists and editorial staff working at the New York Times are like the exemplar 'metropolitan cultural elite.' It's pretty clear they're now in charge from the flurry of stories coming out of there these past few weeks. I'm not accusing you of that (unless you work at the NYT)

Wait who's the baboon in this analogy lol

This seems genuinely like one of those weird cases of mobs singling out a victim for punishment, except this behaviour looks to be becoming socially acceptable. The vitriol one sees on twitter (from the same kind of milieu as many NYT journos, so I assume that rhetoric spills over into the workplace) about her is crazy, she can't possibly deserve it, though as I say I don't really know her from Adam. I haven't seen anyone claim these accusations of bullying/harassment are false, only 'taken out of proportion' or just 'deserved.'

Nilokeras wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:This is just open/shut workplace harassment. It's interesting that no-one is disputing the events she describes - they are saying she deserves them, she deserves to be bullied. This is ostensibly because she is a Zionist but she has also been working the culture war beat for a long time, 'from the wrong side' afaik.

We're not privy to all the details of course but certainly her colleagues have disputed her characterization of events before - Weiss attempted to characterize the internal debate about the Tom Cotton editorial as a 'civil war' and was widely rebuked on Twitter by people at the NY Times for overreacting. Besides which there's a power element here that is worth considering - she's an editor and staff columnist. That her younger colleagues dislike and don't respect her doesn't inherently make it harassment, especially if she has more institutional power and influence than they do.

That incident seems like it led pretty directly to this. It could be that she was exaggerating for whatever reason, or it could be that the NYT staff didn't like her characterisation bc they want to see themselves as being the underdogs despite actually controlling the institution (standard liberal malaise.)

The power angle I would be more sympathetic to if it weren't for Weiss' isolation on this. So far I've seen one other NYT contributor come out in support of her, which is not exactly indicative of a workplace culture in which friendly disagreement is tolerated or dissent from the majority opinion appreciated. Plenty more people within the industry basically saying she got what she deserved for being wrong or a Karen or harmful or whatever

It also seems pretty clear that she doesn't have more institutional power nor influence than her 'haters' (proper word escapes me im kinda tired) bc, well, she's out (along with a few other high profile 'old guard' figures) and they're in.

Thanatttynia wrote:This is just open/shut workplace harassment. It's interesting that no-one is disputing the events she describes - they are saying she deserves them, she deserves to be bullied. This is ostensibly because she is a Zionist but she has also been working the culture war beat for a long time, 'from the wrong side' afaik.

I have no personal feeling about Weiss, I don't read her bc I don't read the NYT bc of the paywall. Literally the only thing I (and I'm sure many others) know about her is that she's a kind of public hate figure for the people who are now in charge. I empathise with anyone who experiences that.

It's a good story because it clearly shows we are seeing an insurgent vanguard of young metropolitan 'creative' elites wresting control of powerful cultural institutions from older 'creative' elites, too browbeaten and pathetic to resist them. Their values are different, so the regime is different.

I don't usually agree with you, but here we're 100% on the same page.

Liriena wrote:

Fedel wrote:
Fair enough. I don't know her or her past. Just commenting on what user's are probably referring to here.

A while back I linked to an article from The Intercept which spoke about her activism against anti-Zionists, including anti-Zionist Jews. She's not exactly a good faith actor when it comes to that stuff.

Honestly, the fact that her and Chomsky both signed onto the same open letter on "free speech" is kinda hilarious in that regard, because Chomsky is exactly the sort of academic that Weiss has gone out of her way to ruin.

On the other hand, she's exactly the sort of person that academics like Chomsky like to go out of their way to ruin (even if he himself isn't guilty of it, I don't pay much attention to him). That is to say, a member of one or more of their favored groups that has the audacity to disagree with their beliefs.

I am sure some people said mean things to her. That is not good. It also happens to everyone on the media, and many have it much worse than some mean tweets. Owen Jones for example has been stalked and assaulted while doing his job yet does not find it “impossible to work.” So I’m not feeling very sorry for someone who has deliberately destroyed peoples careers in the past because mean words were said to them.

Thanatttynia wrote:That incident seems like it led pretty directly to this. It could be that she was exaggerating for whatever reason, or it could be that the NYT staff didn't like her characterisation bc they want to see themselves as being the underdogs despite actually controlling the institution (standard liberal malaise.)

I mentioned this upthread a bit but given Ben Shapiro and Andrew Sullivan's resignations within a week of this, it all seems like they smell an opportunity in the water to go their own way rather than being forced out. Particularly for staid institutional people like Sullivan and Weiss, this gives them more of a spotlight than they've had in a long while. Gives them the opportunity to move beyond being a pet gadfly and liberal hate-click farmer at a moderate publication.

Thanatttynia wrote:The power angle I would be more sympathetic to if it weren't for Weiss' isolation on this. So far I've seen one other NYT contributor come out in support of her, which is not exactly indicative of a workplace culture in which friendly disagreement is tolerated or dissent from the majority opinion appreciated. Plenty more people within the industry basically saying she got what she deserved for being wrong or a Karen or harmful or whatever

It also seems pretty clear that she doesn't have more institutional power nor influence than her 'haters' (proper word escapes me im kinda tired) bc, well, she's out (along with a few other high profile 'old guard' figures) and they're in.

If you read what her colleagues are saying they're much more concerned with her publicly mischaracterizing an internal debate as a 'civil war' than her playing Karen. Brett Stephens was the one playing Karen, like with the whole 'bedbug' incident.

Which is kind of the thing - people thinking that you're bad at your job isn't harassment. Especially when the people thinking you're bad at your job are your subordinates or exist outside of your organization, which is probably the most powerful newspaper on the planet.

Lmao she once reported a black coworker to her supervisor for declining to meet for coffee

Good. Really funny to see anti-semities like Sam Hyde and such praising her now, probably without realizing she's a huge zionist.

South Odreria 2 wrote:Lmao she once reported a black coworker to her supervisor for declining to meet for coffee

Some people just don't want to hang with coworkers beyond what is necessary. Work is work for them- to be done only on the clock strictly speaking, and everything else they want to keep separate or private. I think that's a pretty good way to operate, barring some exceptions. Its a shame if some people are too nosy.

To Weiss and her ilk, “free speech” means that capital should have complete control over the nation’s media and that workers should not be allowed to question either capitalist propaganda or the social order it serves.

South Odreria 2 wrote:To Weiss and her ilk, “free speech” means that capital should have complete control over the nation’s media and that workers should not be allowed to question either capitalist propaganda or the social order it serves.

Of course not, stupid prol- I mean, cherished citizen.

Proctopeo wrote:

Liriena wrote:A while back I linked to an article from The Intercept which spoke about her activism against anti-Zionists, including anti-Zionist Jews. She's not exactly a good faith actor when it comes to that stuff.

Honestly, the fact that her and Chomsky both signed onto the same open letter on "free speech" is kinda hilarious in that regard, because Chomsky is exactly the sort of academic that Weiss has gone out of her way to ruin.

On the other hand, she's exactly the sort of person that academics like Chomsky like to go out of their way to ruin (even if he himself isn't guilty of it, I don't pay much attention to him). That is to say, a member of one or more of their favored groups that has the audacity to disagree with their beliefs.

Dude, Chomsky is a free speech absolutist and probably the most patient, gentle soul you could ever come across in academia. He literally responds to any and every email, even blatant trolls, by trying to have a thoughtful intellectual exchange. He's the human embodiment of a comfy old sweater.

Liriena wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:On the other hand, she's exactly the sort of person that academics like Chomsky like to go out of their way to ruin (even if he himself isn't guilty of it, I don't pay much attention to him). That is to say, a member of one or more of their favored groups that has the audacity to disagree with their beliefs.

Dude, Chomsky is a free speech absolutist and probably the most patient, gentle soul you could ever come across in academia. He literally responds to any and every email, even blatant trolls, by trying to have a thoughtful intellectual exchange. He's the human embodiment of a comfy old sweater.

Perhaps I judged him too harshly, but you never know with "libertarian socialists". The same cannot be said for his ideological brethren in academia, of course, who tend to be more wishy-washy on free speech. He's an exception, not a standard.

I do think that Weiss is in better company with, say, Rowling, than the assorted list of journalists who signed the other one. Rowling fueled the original fire, but it turned against her, while Weiss used it for her own gains but knows of its dangers. It's not an unrealistic grouping to also include someone who most certainly knew it was a bad idea from the very start.

Proctopeo wrote:

Liriena wrote:Dude, Chomsky is a free speech absolutist and probably the most patient, gentle soul you could ever come across in academia. He literally responds to any and every email, even blatant trolls, by trying to have a thoughtful intellectual exchange. He's the human embodiment of a comfy old sweater.

Perhaps I judged him too harshly, but you never know with "libertarian socialists". The same cannot be said for his ideological brethren in academia, of course, who tend to be more wishy-washy on free speech. He's an exception, not a standard.

I do think that Weiss is in better company with, say, Rowling, than the assorted list of journalists who signed the other one. Rowling fueled the original fire, but it turned against her, while Weiss used it for her own gains but knows of its dangers. It's not an unrealistic grouping to also include someone who most certainly knew it was a bad idea from the very start.

I don’t think I understand what your second paragraph is saying?

South Odreria 2 wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:Perhaps I judged him too harshly, but you never know with "libertarian socialists". The same cannot be said for his ideological brethren in academia, of course, who tend to be more wishy-washy on free speech. He's an exception, not a standard.

I do think that Weiss is in better company with, say, Rowling, than the assorted list of journalists who signed the other one. Rowling fueled the original fire, but it turned against her, while Weiss used it for her own gains but knows of its dangers. It's not an unrealistic grouping to also include someone who most certainly knew it was a bad idea from the very start.

I don’t think I understand what your second paragraph is saying?

What specifically is your point of confusion?

Proctopeo wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:I don’t think I understand what your second paragraph is saying?

What specifically is your point of confusion?

Wait sorry you’re saying that weiss is more like Rowling than the other journos that signed the letter because they both previously had tried to cancel people?

TYT has made the case that she's the "queen of cancel culture" herself, having even tried to get a professor who criticized Israel fired for anti-semitism.

Don't feel too sorry for someone who's getting a taste of her own medicine just because she looks cute.

South Odreria 2 wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:What specifically is your point of confusion?

Wait sorry you’re saying that weiss is more like Rowling than the other journos that signed the letter because they both previously had tried to cancel people?

Sort of? I don't remember exactly what I was getting at last night. Let me reassemble my thoughts for a bit, k?

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:TYT has made the case that she's the "queen of cancel culture" herself, having even tried to get a professor who criticized Israel fired for anti-semitism.

Don't feel too sorry for someone who's getting a taste of her own medicine just because she looks cute.

>TYT
opinion discarded

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:TYT has made the case that she's the "queen of cancel culture" herself, having even tried to get a professor who criticized Israel fired for anti-semitism.

Don't feel too sorry for someone who's getting a taste of her own medicine just because she looks cute.

TYT, bro really?

Proctopeo wrote:

South Odreria 2 wrote:Wait sorry you’re saying that weiss is more like Rowling than the other journos that signed the letter because they both previously had tried to cancel people?

Sort of? I don't remember exactly what I was getting at last night. Let me reassemble my thoughts for a bit, k?

bold of u to imply u have original thoughts

No State Here wrote:TYT, bro really?

I would say TYT is valid because it is representative of the American Left like Fox News is for the American Right. They're what Liberals in the US actually sound like for the most part from my perspective. I go to them to see what the Left is up to like I go to Ben Shapiro for the Right.

Saiwania wrote:

No State Here wrote:TYT, bro really?

I would say TYT is valid because it is representative of the American Left like Fox News is for the American Right. They're what Liberals in the US actually sound like for the most part from my perspective. I go to them to see what the Left is up to like I go to Ben Shapiro for the Right.

So you listen to the stupidest people on both sides

Xmara wrote:

Galloism wrote:How does the bbc work?

Boris hasn’t ruined the bbc.

Oh wait forgot that the BBC was state run.

I was thinking more along the line of North Korean news sources.

Don’t forget that France24 is state owned as well

Thermodolia wrote:

Xmara wrote:Oh wait forgot that the BBC was state run.

I was thinking more along the line of North Korean news sources.

Don’t forget that France24 is state owned as well

Neither one are state dictated however.

Gormwood wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Don’t forget that France24 is state owned as well

Neither one are state dictated however.

Some concern about how independent they actually are is warranted, of course. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, or else the legislature will start questioning the necessity of TV loicenses.

Definitely not as bad as in other places like Qatar or the PRC, but still a bit uncomfortable.