NYT to Whites: Shut Up

[Hugh Lincoln]

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Donovan-VoxPopuli.html

Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.” It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.

This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority. The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.

What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.

[Psychoblues]

Do you not think the article was more directed at morons and not specifically directed at white people?


http://www.theoccidentalobserver.com/authors/Donovan-VoxPopuli.html

Editors have no doubt that the bounds of legitimate comment do not include racial realism. Kate Phillips, editor of The Caucus, the Times’ political blog, objects to “intolerance” and “vitriol,” wishing that “we could go back to the days when we never heard their voices.” It is easy to imagine what Ms. Phillips considers “vitriol” and what she considers fair comment.

This is indeed a serious problem for a mainstream media controlled by elements hostile to America’s white majority. The Internet has drawn back the curtain between the media producers and media consumers, and as it turns out, the white consumers don’t share the values of the often Jewish, minority, or liberal white producers.

What’s amazing is that The Times is actually admitting that it needs to be protected from the public, and describing what steps it will take to do so.

Your signature line, America: White people footing the bill for a party they're not allowed to attend., intriques me.

[stephanie]

I love the whiny sound of the liberal elites in the lamestream media.. last dying breath...

We've got them on the run...now we need to stay at it....:dance:

[Psychoblues]

Are you still carrying your nuts around in that box, staphy?



I love the whiny sound of the liberal elites in the lamestream media.. last dying breath...

We've got them on the run...now we need to stay at it....:dance:

1,2,3,,,,,Go

Last dying breath my ass.

[Abbey Marie]

Are you still carrying your nuts around in that box, staphy?




1,2,3,,,,,Go

Last dying breath my ass.

Once again, posts that just derail threads and insult posters will not be happening.

Those doing so will first be banned form threads involved.

[pegwinn]

From the link within the link of the first post:



A particularly hot topic on a blog can generate more than 500 comments — 500, that is, that meet guidelines requiring that a comment be coherent, on point, not obscene or abusive, and not a personal attack.


That looks like a very good ROE for any message board to me. Further in the same article it says:



Some readers chafe under such admonitions. “You cannot censure speech, however derogatory, mean-spirited, or offending it is,” wrote one, identified as jondom, in February, after another Phillips plea to “stop the name-calling.” “We need an open dialogue in this country, now more than ever,” jondom said. Another reader, Mithras, wrote: “Mandating tepid civility in blog comments has an ideological component. ‘Politeness’ bars sharply worded disagreement by dissenters against those who claim to be authority, but doesn’t usually bar dismissive or patronizing arguments by authority against the dissenters.”


Essentially the writer was taking a very long winded (needed the column inches I suspect) route to telling folks that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to privately owned entities.

With respect to the original poster and to the publication he cited, I cannot agree with your conclusion that the NYT is overtly opposed to whites.

[Hugh Lincoln]

With respect to the original poster and to the publication he cited, I cannot agree with your conclusion that the NYT is overtly opposed to whites.

So... it's only covertly opposed to whites?

[pegwinn]

So... it's only covertly opposed to whites?

Not proven to my personal satisfaction. Your level of satisfaction may vary of course.

I'd be willing to agree that:

They've established a standard of what they will or won't publish.
They've demonstrated that they won't publish anything derogatory to Hispanics.

I'd be willing to speculate that:

They are really PC and scared to death of lawsuits.

[Dilloduck]

Not proven to my personal satisfaction. Your level of satisfaction may vary of course.

I'd be willing to agree that:

They've established a standard of what they will or won't publish.
They've demonstrated that they won't publish anything derogatory to Hispanics.

I'd be willing to speculate that:

They are really PC and scared to death of lawsuits.

Scared-- meaning that they are not sure how "free speech" is interpreted by the law so they are just going to avoid even chanching it? ?

[pegwinn]

Scared-- meaning that they are not sure how "free speech" is interpreted by the law so they are just going to avoid even chanching it? ?

Your gonna hafta spell it out for me. Since there is no such thing as free speech in a non-gov situation; How does the law spell out free speech IRT the times, or for that matter, this message board?

[Kathianne]

Your gonna hafta spell it out for me. Since there is no such thing as free speech in a non-gov situation; How does the law spell out free speech IRT the times, or for that matter, this message board?

I thought the column had excellent points, not so much about the NYTimes, but about civility in general. There were many things about Andrew Jackson's time I like, but the 'democratic mobs' were not one of them.

[Dilloduck]

Your gonna hafta spell it out for me. Since there is no such thing as free speech in a non-gov situation; How does the law spell out free speech IRT the times, or for that matter, this message board?

If there is no free speech in non gov situations, what kind of lawsuit could they possibly be afraid of?

[Kathianne]

If there is no free speech in non gov situations, what kind of lawsuit could they possibly be afraid of?

Where did it say they were? I read that they were going to have certain parameters, certainly something that the owner may do.

[pegwinn]

If there is no free speech in non gov situations, what kind of lawsuit could they possibly be afraid of?

Oh I dunno maybe some nutjob hispanic who pissed against a building suffered emotional distress from reading about it?

[Dilloduck]

Oh I dunno maybe some nutjob hispanic who pissed against a building suffered emotional distress from reading about it?

And the NYT is afraid of a nutjob hispanic who reads something they print ?

[pegwinn]

And the NYT is afraid of a nutjob hispanic who reads something they print ? OF course they are. They are afraid of anyone who might be offended and then sue them. If they lose, they lose big. Even if they win they lose due to legal defense costs.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I thought the column had excellent points, not so much about the NYTimes, but about civility in general. There were many things about Andrew Jackson's time I like, but the 'democratic mobs' were not one of them.

Hmmm... I think that when a particular political ideology -- to the extent "PC" is one -- claims that it's merely 'enforcing civility', we have a problem. Any ideology could do the same. But 'civility' is clearly not the real goal of liberals/the left/the anti-gringo gang. Takeover by them is. They use 'civility' as a way to shut up opponents. You'll never hear anyone say that a huge march through town with Mexican flag-wavers and shouts of "gringo go home" is "uncivil." Just a white man who doesn't like what he sees saying something about it... that's what's "uncivil."

Also note what the NYT is afraid of, and what it's not. Here's a paper willing to back Judith Miller against a federal prosecutor, for God's sake. But they're afraid of what Hispanics might think if someone notes, however accurately, that they've been seen urinating outside.

[pegwinn]

Also note what the NYT is afraid of, and what it's not. Here's a paper willing to back Judith Miller against a federal prosecutor, for God's sake. But they're afraid of what Hispanics might think if someone notes, however accurately, that they've been seen urinating outside.

Backing a reporter against a federal prosecutor allows them to take the high ground and discuss so-called journalistic integrity from a position of a champion. They gain publicity in the process and greater circulation if only for the moment.

Allowing themselves to be attacked by a lawyer who has a black belt in I-Soo opens them up to negative publicity, a loss of readers, and the costs of the lawsuit win or lose.

[Kathianne]

Hmmm... I think that when a particular political ideology -- to the extent "PC" is one -- claims that it's merely 'enforcing civility', we have a problem. Any ideology could do the same. But 'civility' is clearly not the real goal of liberals/the left/the anti-gringo gang. Takeover by them is. They use 'civility' as a way to shut up opponents. You'll never hear anyone say that a huge march through town with Mexican flag-wavers and shouts of "gringo go home" is "uncivil." Just a white man who doesn't like what he sees saying something about it... that's what's "uncivil."

Also note what the NYT is afraid of, and what it's not. Here's a paper willing to back Judith Miller against a federal prosecutor, for God's sake. But they're afraid of what Hispanics might think if someone notes, however accurately, that they've been seen urinating outside.
I'm no fan of NYT, I know that will shock all of you. At the same time, what the article is saying is they will moderate, much like on here, because it is a privately owned site and they can. They will not allow racism, sexism, or even swearing to appear on their site. They have that right.