Saturday, August 4, 2018

About That New York Times Twit

I know.  Some of you are saying "New York Times Twit"?  "Which one?  You gotta help us out a bit more"

I'm referring to one of the other outrages this week, the racist Asian woman with a history of all sorts of anti-white tweets dating back years.  I don't recall her name and wouldn't link to her anyway ('There's no such thing as bad publicity'). 

Simplest summary possible:  I  Don't Care. 

Longer version: Is she a racist bitch?  Yes.  Is she serious?  Hard to know; in her circles this might just be virtue signalling; showing she hates whitey more than most people.  Her most likely readership, Progtards, believe only whites can be racist, and whites are the only group that can be discriminated against and openly hated, so they'd think nothing's wrong with what she said.  Was the Times stupid to hire her?  Hello?  This is the NY Times, of course they're stupid.  They ceased being a real news organization long ago.  Should she be fired for it?  Nope. 

Why not?  I think it would be extremely two-faced and dishonest to spend days talking about free speech with regard to CAM files for guns, and disallow free speech like this.  Especially after saying
"...we allow people to say what they want, even if we abhor it.  In fact, we allow it especially if we abhor it.  Offensive speech is the only kind that needs protection.  If we all agree with it, there's no controversy."
I like people to say what they really think.  If no one says what they think, it's hard to know who your real enemies are.   We know she's one.  If people keep their lips zipped in fear of losing their job, we don't get to know that. 

I will continue my decades long tendency to never buy any NY Times publication, and you may not have noticed it, but I rarely even link to them.  Being aware of the likelihood of Gell-Mann amnesia, my default is to not trust the Times on any article even if it seems reasonable.   Unlike Gell-Mann amnesia victims, I remember all the things they've printed that weren't reasonable.  I believe my impact on the NY Times organization by doing my best to make sure not even a fraction of a cent goes to them is exactly the same as Bluto's grade point average: "zero point zero". 


 "All the News That Fits Our Narrative"


20 comments:

  1. I think "our" generation was the last to grow up with fairly accurate reporting. Nowadays, everything gets a leftist spin imparted to it..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The coverage of FDR was spun towards centralization, see https://mises.org/library/who-garet-garrett and https://mises.org/library/revolution-was

      The coverage of the Whiskey Rebellion was spun towards centralization. Have you heard that event described as President Washington imposing taxation without representation in order to get his war bonds paid?

      I believe the Bible is just as spun towards centralization as the New York Times. It doesn't talk about those individualistic Gnostic Christians who believed no big church organization was necessary; their books had to be hidden in caves.

      Mainstream media is spun towards centralization in all times and places, that's why government/church supports it.

      Delete
    2. Did your mainstream media make a Watergate-sized scandal over who gave the order to commit the act of war against Japan of blockading their trade in oil? Or who gave the order to stop paying attention to what the Japanese navy was up to, without which there could have been no surprise attack on Pearl Harbor?

      Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

      Delete
    3. "Blockade" is a word with a specific meaning. What Britain did to Germany in the World Wars was blockade (i.e., cutting off all trade). The US refusing to sell oil and scrap metal to Japan was not a blockade. Or did I miss the history lesson where the US Navy went out and tried to prevent any ships reaching Japan?

      Delete
    4. The US refusing to sell

      What exactly do you mean by "the US"? Do you think President Warmonger telephoned every petroleum refiner and scrap metal dealer in every phone book, and talked them into voluntarily not selling as 'their patriotic duty'? And he got 100% agreement, even from those who disagreed strongly with this approach? No, I think President Warmonger declared there would be a blockade as a matter of national diplomatic policy, and every petroleum refiner and scrap metal dealer knew they would be thrown in prison if they sold. The history lesson was omitted which would have showed you the paper trail of President Warmonger's blockade.

      Delete
    5. Larry,
      the US was the only source of oil for Japan. FDR was well aware that the Japs had an 18 month reserve to run their military and civil infrastructure when he cut it off. They had TWO choices: Starve/freeze, or go to war. He knew damn well he was inviting a war, and we would be the guest of honor. He was pissed that they had attacked China, which was one of his pet business areas of interest. He was stupid enough to think they would quit in China (they went there to steal the resources they wanted/needed), and come hat in hand to beg him for a dispensation.

      BTW, it seems he was also involved in causing the Brits/Eruos to stand up to the Nazis when they really weren't ready for a fight. He claimed the US would back them up, but of course he couldn't get Congress to agree, so it all went to hell. FDR was a real piece of work. (We won't get into how he caused the depression to become The Great Depression.)

      Delete
    6. Oh please stop the sob story. You do remember that Japan invaded China and killed men women and children mercilessly, they would throw babies into the air and try to catch them on their bayonet. THAT is why the U.S. stopped selling them oil and other war essential commodities. Where did you study history? Japan!

      Delete
    7. NO, Will and Anonymous Coward. Japan had a third choice, the one that was stated as the desired goal of the sanctions: halt the war in China, stop slaughtering Chinese in wholesale lots, and withdraw from their illegal occupation of Indochina. You pretend that all of this happened in a vacuum and that poor little Japan [sniffle] just didn't have a choice because of that evil FDR. Horseshit! We knew from breaking their diplomatic ('Purple') code that they were planning offensive warfare, as if that wasn't obvious from their moves in Indochina. Our trade embargoes were in reaction to that.

      And please, you guys, learn to use a dictionary. An 'embargo' is not a fricking 'blockade'. Look it up. Don't go all Progressive/Liberal on us and start redefining words to confuse the issue in your favor. And, yes, the President has the power to declare sanctions against another country. He did then and does now. I'm pretty sure it predates FDR by quite a ways, too. Lord knows it was illegal to sell whiskey and guns to Indians for most of the early history of the country, but that didn't stop smugglers. I'm sure, in time, brave smugglers would've figured out ways to get oil to Japan so they could continue slaughtering Chinese, and perhaps you'd even applaud them?

      Delete
    8. [ googles "define embargo", "define blockade" ]

      noun: embargo 1. an official ban on trade or other commercial activity with a particular country.

      noun: blockade 1. an act or means of sealing off a place to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving.


      The policy is government threatens to send its employees to kill you if you trade. It's not a morally important difference if the law enforcement officer's uniforms read "Navy", "Coast Guard", "State Department", "FBI", "Customs", "ITAR", or "ICE". The government wants to convince you that it's arranged its employees, from public school teacher to supreme court justice, into a hierarchy of solemnity and seriousness and hence, into a hierarchy of greater moral authority. Don't like the county judge's answer? We'll make it a federal case!

      Pull my other leg. The fanciness of the official's hat or crown adds zero to the moral argument for his policy or his existence. I know your instinctual programming tells you it is very important to do what the silverback gorilla says, or the whole troop will starve or lose a war with the neighboring troop. But that is just a feeling.

      they would throw babies into the air and try to catch them on their bayonet

      How would this invasion of China reduce American quality of life here in the USA? Given that measurement, how many American soldiers is it worth killing in battles to stop that amount of damage to Americans from happening?

      Delete
    9. An embargo is a civil preventing our companies from trading with a hostile nation. A blockade is a military action meant to block all trade with the targeted nation, including that nation's own trading vessels. THAT didn't happen until the day after Pearl Harbor, when unrestricted submarine warfare against Japan was announced, and it wasn't until 1945 that it became very effective, if still leaky.

      Are you guys 9/11 Troofers, too?

      Delete
    10. Ok, you've convinced me it started out as an embargo rather than a blockade, and more importantly you've convinced me there is a difference in military formations and purposes between the two.

      Delete
  2. As long as I may be punished with impunity for someone taking an innocent phrase as being sexist/racist/homophobic I DEMAND that overt sexism and racism against me be punished at least as severely.

    It's less about free speech than about allowing the enemy a safe have to operate from.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe I have mentioned it here previously, but I was a home subscriber for 20+ years. I live in the NJ and my office is in NYC (fortunately only in usually 1 day a week). I just couldn't take their left-wing bias any longer. How many anti-gun editorials could I read?

    They have the right to hire anyone they want for any reason. My issue with them is their hypocrisy. They mostly act like they are objective. A good number of their reporters might even believe it (they are that delusional). I finally voted with my wallet and switched to the Wall Street Journal in 2015. I do miss the non-news sections of the Times, but really haven't looked back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They have the right to hire any cur they wish to hire. I have the right to boycott the paper and all associated with it. And I do. No credibility - with a staff that wants to make news rather than report it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You might want to take a closer look at Walter Cronkite, drjim, if you still believe that.

    And by the way, their REAL motto:

    All the "news" that fits our views!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm well aware of Cronkite's extreme liberal views. I still believe he was one of the last "reporters" who reported the news. When he commented on it he said it was his perspective.

      Delete
    2. No, that asswipe lied about Vietnam, and acted like he was middle of the road. IIRC, he "came out" after retiring as an actual card carrying communist.

      Delete
  6. Any weapon which my enemy uses against me can, nay, must be used against him.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The left intentionally divides the country and drums up anger to win elections and take power. They use useful idiots like this twit to do that. The death in charlottesville recently was a direct result of this intentional racially motivated division. So yes we should care and we should shame people like this and get them fired because they will if unhindered cause a civil war in this country. I would say as a non-gambler that the odds are about 50/50 that we will have a real civil war in the next 5-10 years. The left is out of hand and the right has finally had enough.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think it would be extremely two-faced and dishonest to spend days talking about free speech with regard to CAM files for guns, and disallow free speech like this. 

    Seriously? The Left was all about free speech until they got a bit of power, then they started getting people fired for anything non-PC. Anything the enemy does, we must do back at them good and hard.

    Free speech has turned out to be nothing be an excuse to destroy Christianity and Western Civilization. It's certainly nothing the founding fathers would have tolerated.

    ReplyDelete