Post by The Peeler
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 18:36:10 +0100, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
<FLUSH sexual cripple's typical idiotic & sick shit>
...and nothing's left, again! ROTFLOL
Flush away the racism, the Judenhass, the Holocaust denial, the
perversion, the buggerism, and the rape victim blaming, and nothing is
indeed left of the mangina.
Bret Stephens writes about the New York Times.
Ethical Quote Of The Month: Bret Stephens’ Critical Column About New
York Times Cowardice And Hypocrisy That The Times Tried To Censor
FEBRUARY 11, 2021 / JACK MARSHALL
Ethics Alarms is temporarily parting with its usual practice by
publishing Times columnist Bret Stephens’ suppressed column in full.
Normally, I regard doing this as unethical: the publication that pays
for an essay deserves to have the benefit of the links and the views.
But this was published not by Stephen’s employer, whom he serves as
house conservative with varying effectiveness, but by a competitor, the
New York Post, to which the piece was leaked. As a leaked document, it
is fair for Ethics Alarms to publish, and as an important piece of
evidence further proving the corruption of American journalism, I
believe that Stephens’ spiked op-ed needs to be widely read. I doubt
that the mainstream media can be trusted to give it the circulation it
Stephens wrote his column in response to this incident, where his paper
fired a respected journalist after its investigation of his reportedly
using the word “nigger” in a discussion with students indicated that
none of his remarks had been, I wrote, “sexist or racist, but that he
had used words employed by sexists or racists to talk about sexism or
racism, rather than using the approved poopy/ pee-pee/woo-woo baby talk
codes (n-word, b-word, c-word) demanded by language censors.”
“Initially, the Times’ editor, Dean Baquet, tried to be fair and to
uphold what the Times is supposed to respect—the Bill of Rights,” I
continued,”but eventually capitulated to his woke and anti-free speech
staff, as he has before.”
Stephens told colleagues the column was killed by Times publisher A.G.
Sulzberger. The piece the Times didn’t want the public to see circulated
among Times staffers and others until someone sent it to the New York Post.
I will say at the outset that Stephens should quit, just as Glenn
Greenwald quit his own organization when it blocked publication of his
piece about the Hunter Biden story embargo .I don’t know if there are
enough journalists of integrity and honesty who are concerned about the
ruinous abdication of their profession from its crucial obligations to
democracy to prevent the death spiral into totalitarianism. But the few
there are need to step up.
Here is Bret Stephens’ column:
Every serious moral philosophy, every decent legal system and every
ethical organization cares deeply about intention.
It is the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is an
aggravating or extenuating factor in judicial settings. It is a cardinal
consideration in pardons (or at least it was until Donald Trump got in
on the act). It’s an elementary aspect of parenting, friendship,
courtship and marriage.
A hallmark of injustice is indifference to intention. Most of what is
cruel, intolerant, stupid and misjudged in life stems from that
indifference. Read accounts about life in repressive societies — I’d
recommend Vaclav Havel’s “Power of the Powerless” and Nien Cheng’s “Life
and Death in Shanghai” — and what strikes you first is how deeply the
regimes care about outward conformity, and how little for personal
I’ve been thinking about these questions in an unexpected connection.
Late last week, Donald J. McNeil, a veteran science reporter for The
Times, abruptly departed from his job following the revelation that he
had uttered a racial slur while on a New York Times trip to Peru for
high school students. In the course of a dinner discussion, he was asked
by a student whether a 12-year old should have been suspended by her
school for making a video in which she had used a racial slur.
In a written apology to staff, McNeil explained what happened next: “To
understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else
the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking
the question, I used the slur itself.”
In an initial note to staff, editor-in-chief Dean Baquet noted that,
after conducting an investigation, he was satisfied that McNeil had not
used the slur maliciously and that it was not a firing offense. In
response, more than 150 Times staffers signed a protest letter. A few
days later, Baquet and managing editor Joe Kahn reached a different
“We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent,” they wrote on
Friday afternoon. They added to this unambiguous judgment that the paper
would “work with urgency to create clearer guidelines and enforcement
about conduct in the workplace, including red-line issues on racist
This is not a column about the particulars of McNeil’s case. Nor is it
an argument that the racial slur in question doesn’t have a uniquely
ugly history and an extraordinary capacity to wound.
This is an argument about three words: “Regardless of intent.” Should
intent be the only thing that counts in judgment? Obviously not. Can
people do painful, harmful, stupid or objectionable things regardless of
Do any of us want to live in a world, or work in a field, where intent
is categorically ruled out as a mitigating factor? I hope not.
That ought to go in journalism as much, if not more, than in any other
profession. What is it that journalists do, except try to perceive
intent, examine motive, furnish context, explore nuance, explain varying
shades of meaning, forgive fallibility, make allowances for irony and
humor, slow the rush to judgment (and therefore outrage), and preserve
vital intellectual distinctions?
Journalism as a humanistic enterprise — as opposed to hack work or
propaganda — does these things in order to teach both its practitioners
and consumers to be thoughtful. There is an elementary difference
between citing a word for the purpose of knowledge and understanding and
using the same word for the purpose of insult and harm. Lose this
distinction, and you also lose the ability to understand the things you
are supposed to be educated to oppose.
No wonder The Times has never previously been shy about citing racial
slurs in order to explain a point. Here is a famous quote by the late
Republican strategist Lee Atwater that has appeared at least seven times
in The Times, most recently in 2019, precisely because it powerfully
illuminates the mindset of a crucial political player.
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you
can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like,
uh, ‘forced busing,’ “states’ rights” and all that stuff.”
Is this now supposed to be a scandal? Would the ugliness of Atwater’s
meaning have been equally clearer by writing “n—, n—, n—”? A journalism
that turns words into totems — and totems into fears — is an impediment
to clear thinking and proper understanding.
So too is a journalism that attempts to proscribe entire fields of
expression. “Racist language” is not just about a single infamous word.
It’s a broad, changing, contestable category. There are many people — I
include myself among them — who think that hardcore anti-Zionism is a
form of anti-Semitism. That’s also official policy at the State
Department and the British Labour Party. If anti-Semitism is a form of
racism, and racist language is intolerable at The Times, might we
someday forbid not only advocacy of anti-Zionist ideas, but even refuse
to allow them to be discussed?
The idea is absurd. But that’s the terrain we now risk entering.
We are living in a period of competing moral certitudes, of people who
are awfully sure they’re right and fully prepared to be awful about it.
Hence the culture of cancellations, firings, public humiliations and
increasingly unforgiving judgments. The role of good journalism should
be to lead us out of this dark defile. Last week, we went deeper into it.