Hey thanks for attempting to cut through your bullshit. I'll reward you with a reply.

Originally Posted by Sini
I understood your position as "MeToo movement has gone too far" opinions should not be voiced or discussed. Did you intend for this to come across in this way?


So first of all, no, this is not my opinion. I believe everyone has a right to hold and voice their own opinions, and be accountable for them, and that should have been obvious in what I stated about Ghomeshi which you quoted.

In this case, though, it actually isn't relevant what either of us thinks about MeToo. What's relevant is the original position you held which implied that Buruma was fired due to simply publishing Ghomeshi, which you used to back up your main thesis that some on the left would rather have censorship than free speech. The implication of connecting these two things is that Buruma was being censored for publishing an opinion that is unpopular with the left.

However, for Buruma to be fired for only publishing an unpopular opinion, you are assuming that whomever had the power to fire Buruma believed that promoting an opinion is something that can be done via publishing, and they disagreed with the opinion Buruma promoted, and therefore he was fired. If I'm being charitable, I could also say that you were instead implying that they didn't care what Buruma did, but they were kowtowing to outside pressure - I've heard from either their advertisers and/or from twitter.

From the NYRB editorial staff's statement regarding this issue, it's clear that they deny some assumptions of both of these cases. They deny that Twitter had anything to do with it, and they deny that this marks a new policy of avoiding publishing controversial opinions.

More importantly, what that statement does instead is to confirm that they believe that as a result of their ability to promote an opinion through their platform, they intend to be careful about not doing so. They therefore believe that their publication has an editorial responsibility in providing a balanced package of opinion, rather than to promote only one side of a specific agenda; and on this criteria they feel they have failed in this instance. After having lived through decades of Fox News, it's clear to me that platform is promotion (subtle but important difference from "publishing is agreement"), and that a responsible editor trying to present a balanced viewpoint should have only published Ghomeshi's rant alongside something to temper it - like editorial fact checking or alternative viewpoints. Which is what they explicitly stated they would rather have seen from their editorial effort in this case.

Now, I am assuming that their adherence to balance is a result of their agreement with my position that unbalanced promotion also has real consequences, but I grant that is not something they have stated. However if that is truly something you wanted to debate, as a preview of my evidence I again refer you to the fallout of decades of Fox News which we are currently suffering.

[Linked Image]