Well, who knew one op-ed could cause such a meltdown? The New York Times’ woke legions within its halls were outraged that the editorial wing of the publication decided to run a piece by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), who articulated his position that President Trump should re-establish law and order in our streets by deploying the military, something that hasn’t been done since Bush 41 sent the military in to quell the unrest in Los Angeles in 1992. Apparently, these words put black lives at risk. It’s unhinged. It’s untrue. It’s the Left in 2020.
It’s about curbing free speech, limiting the debate, and ensuring only the most insane voices are heard due to privilege shaming. No one has to abide by these fake rules. Bari Weiss, an opinion columnist for the Times, had a lengthy threat in which she said the publication was in a state of civil war, where the old guard, which cherishes and supports core liberal values, was at odds with the younger, more woke wing of the paper. Obviously, this didn’t sit well with those staffers complaining about their paper running an article from an elected U.S. Senator. Yet, Weiss also said that maybe Cotton’s op-ed fell outside the limits, whatever that means. She was referencing the recent poll that a sizable chunk of Democrats wants the military to move in and retake the streets.
The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications and companies across the country. The dynamic is always the same. (Thread.)
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
The Old Guard lives by a set of principles we can broadly call civil libertarianism. They assumed they shared that worldview with the young people they hired who called themselves liberals and progressives. But it was an incorrect assumption.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. They call it "safetyism," in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
Perhaps the cleanest example of this dynamic was in 2018, when David Remnick, under tremendous public pressure from his staffers, disinvited Steve Bannon from appearing on stage at the New Yorker Ideas Festival. But there are dozens and dozens of examples.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
I've been mocked by many people over the past few years for writing about the campus culture wars. They told me it was a sideshow. But this was always why it mattered: The people who graduated from those campuses would rise to power inside key institutions and transform them.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
I'm in no way surprised by what has now exploded into public view. In a way, it's oddly comforting: I feel less alone and less crazy trying to explain the dynamic to people. What I am shocked by is the speed. I thought it would take a few years, not a few weeks.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
Here's one way to think about what's at stake: The New York Times motto is "all the news that's fit to print." One group emphasizes the word "all." The other, the word "fit."
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
W/r/t Tom Cotton's oped and the choice to run it: I agree with our critics that it's a dodge to say "we want a totally open marketplace of ideas!" There are limits. Obviously. The question is: does his view fall outside those limits? Maybe the answer is yes.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
If the answer is yes, it means that the view of more than half of Americans are unacceptable. And perhaps they are. https://t.co/2zltJkLXE3
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
“With respect to Tom Cotton's op-ed and the choice to run it: I agree with our critics that it's a dodge to say "we want a totally open marketplace of ideas!" There are limits. Obviously. The question is: does his view fall outside those limits? Maybe the answer is yes,” she tweeted.
“If the answer is yes, it means that the view of more than half of Americans are unacceptable. And perhaps they are,” she added, linking to an article about a poll showing a plurality of Democrats would back the military option.
And now the paper caved, saying they may have jumped the gun or something. It’s absurd. The people who complain the most are not America. Liberals are nowhere near the majority of the country, not even close. And their insane lefty position of defending the riots is chipped away even further when wanton destruction, looting, vandalism, and arson is widespread. people value law and order. They want security.
This unrest was sparked by the horrific death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police on May 25, which united the country in outrage. It was an atrocity, egregious use of force. The four officers involved were fired, one was charged with second-degree murder, while the rest were booked on aiding and abetting murder.
There should be protests, but this isn’t a protest. This is a riot. And one spurred on by far-left radical groups; the liberal media is imagining a roving band of neo-Nazis as responsible for the violence.
The Times decided to bend to the mob, which means from here on out, this paper will become more insufferable. As liberal reporter Michael Tracey noted, these woke lunatics are winning.
The NYT and other media institutions are being held hostage by millennials whose belief system includes such precepts as, "Publishing something I disagree with physically endangers me." They use bizarre emotional manipulation tactics to assert their dominance. And they're winning
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 5, 2020
