Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:34 pm
Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:46 pm
I did, and when I did, it certainly didn't seem to me that they supported the claim that the NYT is "platforming" - what a stupid word - "extremist anti-LGBTQ activists."
Did you notice how they hired David French as an opinion columnist last month? The same David French that has defended the Alliance Defending Freedom - a gathering of fundamentalists that has been labeled as a hate group by (checks notes) the Southern Poverty Law Center?
French is a civil libertarian. He’s also an Evangelical Christian and a noted lawyer who has taken on many cases regarding protection of religious liberties. He’s also someone who has been viciously attacked by the Alt Right for his objection to Donald Trump and MAGAism. He contributes to The New Yorker and the Atlantic. Do I agree with much of what he has to say? Nope, but that doesn’t make him a hate-spewing extremist, either.
Hell, here’s a
Wikipedia excerpt on his big fight with Sohrab Ahmari that led to Ahmari’s piece, “Against David French-ism.”
A high-profile dispute between Ahmari and National Review writer David French broke out over the summer of 2019 as a result of the publication of Ahmari's polemic "Against David French-ism", sparking numerous essays and commentaries in politically conservative publications like National Review and The American Conservative,[20] as well as in moderate and progressive outlets like The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Atlantic.[21]
The dispute began on May 26, 2019, when Ahmari expressed on Twitter his frustration with a Facebook advertisement for a children's drag queen reading hour at a library in Sacramento, California, which he described as "transvestic fetishism". In the tweet, Ahmari argued that there is no "polite, David French-ian third way around the cultural civil war".[22] This prompted a response from French in a May 28 essay in National Review entitled "Decency Is No Barrier to Justice or the Common Good".[22] The dispute escalated significantly after Ahmari published the essay "Against David French-ism" in the conservative religious journal First Things on May 29, 2019.[23] In the essay, Ahmari argued that French was insufficiently socially conservative, and that his belief in individual autonomy was contributing to the overall degradation of American society.[24] The direct targeting of French and the impromptu creation of the "David French-ism" political philosophy led the essay to gain significant notoriety, prompting a response from French[25][26] and the publication of numerous commentaries.[20][21] On September 5, 2019, French and Ahmari engaged in an in-person political debate moderated by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat at the Catholic University of America in Washington D.C.,[27] again prompting a flurry of commentaries.[28]
The dispute centered on their differing opinions on how conservatives should approach cultural and political debate, with Ahmari deriding what he calls "David French-ism", a political persuasion he defines as believing "that the institutions of a technocratic market society are neutral zones that should, in theory, accommodate both traditional Christianity and the libertine ways and paganized ideology of the other side".[23] He argues that this belief leads to an ineffective conservative movement, and contends that the best way for culturally conservative values to prevail in society is a strategy of "discrediting...opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions", which he maintains is a tactic already utilized by progressives, leaving conservatives who adhere to the David French-style of politics impotent in what he views as a raging culture war in the United States.[23] He argues that the political realm should be viewed as one of "war and enmity", and that the power of the government should be directly utilized to impose culturally conservative values on society.[23] French, by contrast, advocates a conservative libertarian approach in which decency, civility, and respect for individual rights are emphasized, and argues that Ahmari's beliefs "forsake" the philosophy of classical liberalism that the Founding Fathers of the United States espoused.[26][25] He placed particular criticism on Ahmari's desire for direct government intervention in the lives of individuals, which he argues is not only antithetical to liberty but is a politically ruinous tactic for conservatives, who would end up on the receiving end of progressive policies if the government were given greater license to interfere in the private lives of individuals.[25]
So, we’re going to throw a flag on the NYT because they are “platforming” this guy? Give me a break.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:34 pm
Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:46 pm
I see this is as more of the same shit: Stick to the dogma or STFU.
When historically marginalized groups are speaking up and speaking out against hate, I'm hesitant to call that "dogma". This is the same mentality that labels being respectful as being "woke". If a group like GLAAD is taking an official position on this, I'm going to trust that they've done their homework.
No, I disagree with you here.
First, I think there needs to be a massive reduction on the use of the word “hate.” Is that really what the NYT is peddling? One of the articles that triggered this new anti-NYT campaign was
The Battle Over Gender Therapy - “More teenagers than ever are seeking transitions, but the medical community that treats them is deeply divided about why — and what to do to help them,” by Emily Bazelon. To me, that article was a thoughtful take on some of the tricky and complicated questions about how to treat kids and young adults who identify as trans. I can certainly understand why members of the trans community might object to it, but it’s not “hate.” It feels like anything we (collective we) don’t agree with or that we see as opposing the best interests and welfare of our group is considered “hate” these days. Through overuse, that word is on the edge of being so diluted as to be nearly meaningless.
Second, I don’t think historically marginalized groups are less likely to lean into an “us or them” dogma with a heavy emphasis on ideological purity. In fact, I think they’re often more likely to go in that direction given their history of marginalization. I think when a group has been victimized and abused, there’s a natural tendency to bucketize the world into allies and enemies. But the world is a whole lot more nuanced than that.