Wokeness

[Hollander]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door No Apologies

Dalillah Hermans, Belgische superwoke, gebruikt ook dat mengtaaltje. Het woke virus infecteert blijkbaar ook het gedeelte van de hersenen dat de taalvaardigheid aanstuurt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNorAVQOWu8

[Elio di Supo]

https://onourmoon.com/cancel-culture...social-change/

Een inzage in de gedachtenwerled van iemand die wokeness en cancel culture te gek vind en er alleen maar voordelen in ziet voor de maatschappij. De enige kritiek die ze heeft is dat potentiele bondgenoten mogelijks wandelen worden gestuurd als ze worden aangesproken op privilege.

De rede is ver zoek. De inquisitie viert hoogtij. Ja, je hebt recht op je mening maar wij gaan je even economisch buitenspel zetten als je niet doet of niet verkondigt wat wij graag horen. De sneeuwvlokjes kunnen het niet aan.

[denkimi]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Bach

Is dat een pleidooi voor oorlog?

Oorlog of een grote ramp.

Een te lange aaneengesloten periode van welvaart is blijkbaar nefast voor de maatschappij. Het stokt de vooruitgang.

[Elio di Supo]

https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-new...mbaughs-death/

University of California profs tonen zich verheugd over de dood van Rush Limbaugh. Je kunt politieke tegenstanders hebben en het grondig oneens zijn. Je verheugen over de dood van iemand is een moreel dieptepunt en toont de lelijke en hatelijke kant van de woke-gekte.

De mediawereld en academische wereld zijn helemaal bevangen door deze zottigheid. Het cliche wordt bevestigd dat profs rare kwieten zijn die in ivoren torens leven.

[vanderzapig]

Benjamin Boyce @BenjaminABoyce

WokeLibs:

Dear White _______, saying ________ is ________ upholds White Supremacy. We can and must do better. #_____ #_____



12:49 am · 19 Feb 2021

https://twitter.com/BenjaminABoyce/s...49714869047297

[Dadeemelee]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Elio di Supo

https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-new...mbaughs-death/

University of California profs tonen zich verheugd over de dood van Rush Limbaugh. Je kunt politieke tegenstanders hebben en het grondig oneens zijn. Je verheugen over de dood van iemand is een moreel dieptepunt en toont de lelijke en hatelijke kant van de woke-gekte.

De mediawereld en academische wereld zijn helemaal bevangen door deze zottigheid. Het cliche wordt bevestigd dat profs rare kwieten zijn die in ivoren torens leven.

‘Appear’ betekent ‘schijnen’ Elio.

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dadeemelee

‘Appear’ betekent ‘schijnen’ Elio.

Dus het is allemaal niet waar dan? Hun commentaren laten er anders weinig twijfel toe bestaan. Maar okay, dat ene woordje is uw strohalm.

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door vanderzapig

https://twitter.com/BenjaminABoyce/s...49714869047297

Dat is ongeveer even belachelijk als een blanke een onderdeel wint op de Olympsche Spelen en dan zijn medaille moet afstaan aan de kleurling die het eerst volgt na hem.

[Bach]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door denkimi

Oorlog of een grote ramp.

Een te lange aaneengesloten periode van welvaart is blijkbaar nefast voor de maatschappij. Het stokt de vooruitgang.

Een beetje gaan elkaar uitmoorden, sterven en vernietigen helpt 'de beschaving' vooruit zegt u? Oorlog gezien als een frisse wind. Wie zo denkt zou men het eerst naar het front dienen te sturen.

[Dadeemelee]

Elio, heb je The Hunt al gezien?

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dadeemelee

Elio, heb je The Hunt al gezien?

Is dat een komische film of zo aangezien je nu al plat ligt van het lachen?

[Dadeemelee]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Elio di Supo

Is dat een komische film of zo aangezien je nu al plat ligt van het lachen?

Ik ga ik er niets over verklappen (spoilers = ). Bekijk hem en zeg dan wat je ervan vindt.

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dadeemelee

Ik ga ik er niets over verklappen (spoilers = ). Bekijk hem en zeg dan wat je ervan vindt.

Ik weet niet of ik eigenlijk wel goesting heb. Kun je niet gewoon zeggen wat je punt is?

[No Apologies]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door vanderzapig

https://twitter.com/BenjaminABoyce/s...49714869047297

Geweldig zijn altijd de grappige reacties van twitteraars die heerlijk de draak steken met die idiote woke fanatici.

[Elio di Supo]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door No Apologies

Geweldig zijn altijd de grappige reacties van twitteraars die heerlijk de draak steken met die idiote woke fanatici.

Randi Dennis
@RandiPDX
·
Feb 18
Replying to
@BenjaminABoyce
Seriously????Really??? Just when one thinks that the mob could not have stopped any lower, scraped any more of the Marianas Trench of illogical thought...there is another subterranean act of stupidity. Damn I need those 'brownies' to deal with this.

[Elio di Supo]

https://www.thefire.org/sarah-lawren...isory-council/

Samuel Abrams, docent politieke wetenschappen aan het Sarah Lawrence College klaagt hier aan hoe studenten alsmaar meer zelfcensuur opleggen en vrije meningsuiting onder druk komt te staan. Hij wijt dit o.m. aan stafleden van de onderwijsinstellingen zelf.

[Elio di Supo]

Getuigenis van een ware Social Justice Warrior, niet een of andere idioot dus die denkt de wereld te verbeteren via Twitter. Deze moedige dame gaf haar carriere op aan Smith College in Massachusetts omwille vd het ondraaglijk neoracistisch klimaat daar en de verwoestende gevolgen van critical race theory. Degenen die er zich vrolijk over maken en denken dat het gewoon een nieuw buzzword is raad ik aan om met onbevangen geest dit artikel te lezen en niet in de gebruikelijke loopgraven te schuilen.

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/whi...ollege-resigns

Dear President McCartney:

I am writing to notify you that effective today, I am resigning from my position as Student Support Coordinator in the Department of Residence Life at Smith College. This has not been an easy decision, as I now face a deeply uncertain future. As a divorced mother of two, the economic uncertainty brought about by this resignation will impact my children as well. But I have no choice. The racially hostile environment that the college has subjected me to for the past two and a half years has left me physically and mentally debilitated. I can no longer work in this environment, nor can I remain silent about a matter so central to basic human dignity and freedom.

I graduated from Smith College in 1993. Those four years were among the best in my life. Naturally, I was over the moon when, years later, I had the opportunity to join Smith as a staff member. I loved my job and I loved being back at Smith.

But the climate — and my place at the college — changed dramatically when, in July 2018, the culture war arrived at our campus when a student accused a white staff member of calling campus security on her because of racial bias. The student, who is black, shared her account of this incident widely on social media, drawing a lot of attention to the college.

Before even investigating the facts of the incident, the college immediately issued a public apology to the student, placed the employee on leave, and announced its intention to create new initiatives, committees, workshops, trainings, and policies aimed at combating “systemic racism” on campus.

In spite of an independent investigation into the incident that found no evidence of racial bias, the college ramped up its initiatives aimed at dismantling the supposed racism that pervades the campus. This only served to support the now prevailing narrative that the incident had been racially motivated and that Smith staff are racist.

Allowing this narrative to dominate has had a profound impact on the Smith community and on me personally. For example, in August 2018, just days before I was to present a library orientation program into which I had poured a tremendous amount of time and effort, and which had previously been approved by my supervisors, I was told that I could not proceed with the planned program. Because it was going to be done in rap form and “because you are white,” as my supervisor told me, that could be viewed as “cultural appropriation.” My supervisor made clear he did not object to a rap in general, nor to the idea of using music to convey orientation information to students. The problem was my skin color.

I was up for a full-time position in the library at that time, and I was essentially informed that my candidacy for that position was dependent upon my ability, in a matter of days, to reinvent a program to which I had devoted months of time.

Humiliated, and knowing my candidacy for the full-time position was now dead in the water, I moved into my current, lower-paying position as Student Support Coordinator in the Department of Residence Life.

As it turned out, my experience in the library was just the beginning. In my new position, I was told on multiple occasions that discussing my personal thoughts and feelings about my skin color is a requirement of my job. I endured racially hostile comments, and was expected to participate in racially prejudicial behavior as a continued condition of my employment. I endured meetings in which another staff member violently banged his fist on the table, chanting “Rich, white women! Rich, white women!” in reference to Smith alumnae. I listened to my supervisor openly name preferred racial quotas for job openings in our department. I was given supplemental literature in which the world’s population was reduced to two categories — “dominant group members” and “subordinated group members” — based solely on characteristics like race.

Every day, I watch my colleagues manage student conflict through the lens of race, projecting rigid assumptions and stereotypes on students, thereby reducing them to the color of their skin. I am asked to do the same, as well as to support a curriculum for students that teaches them to project those same stereotypes and assumptions onto themselves and others. I believe such a curriculum is dehumanizing, prevents authentic connection, and undermines the moral agency of young people who are just beginning to find their way in the world.

Although I have spoken to many staff and faculty at the college who are deeply troubled by all of this, they are too terrified to speak out about it. This illustrates the deeply hostile and fearful culture that pervades Smith College.

The last straw came in January 2020, when I attended a mandatory Residence Life staff retreat focused on racial issues. The hired facilitators asked each member of the department to respond to various personal questions about race and racial identity. When it was my turn to respond, I said “I don’t feel comfortable talking about that.” I was the only person in the room to abstain.

Later, the facilitators told everyone present that a white person’s discomfort at discussing their race is a symptom of “white fragility.” They said that the white person may seem like they are in distress, but that it is actually a “power play.” In other words, because I am white, my genuine discomfort was framed as an act of aggression. I was shamed and humiliated in front of all of my colleagues.

I filed an internal complaint about the hostile environment, but throughout that process, over the course of almost six months, I felt like my complaint was taken less seriously because of my race. I was told that the civil rights law protections were not created to help people like me. And after I filed my complaint, I started to experience retaliatory behavior, like having important aspects of my job taken away without explanation.

Under the guise of racial progress, Smith College has created a racially hostile environment in which individual acts of discrimination and hostility flourish. In this environment, people’s worth as human beings, and the degree to which they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, is determined by the color of their skin. It is an environment in which dissenting from the new critical race orthodoxy — or even failing to swear fealty to it like some kind of McCarthy-era loyalty oath — is grounds for public humiliation and professional retaliation.

I can no longer continue to work in an environment where I am constantly subjected to additional scrutiny because of my skin color. I can no longer work in an environment where I am told, publicly, that my personal feelings of discomfort under such scrutiny are not legitimate but instead are a manifestation of white supremacy. Perhaps most importantly, I can no longer work in an environment where I am expected to apply similar race-based stereotypes and assumptions to others, and where I am told — when I complain about having to engage in what I believe to be discriminatory practices — that there are “legitimate reasons for asking employees to consider race” in order to achieve the college’s “social justice objectives.”

What passes for “progressive” today at Smith and at so many other institutions is regressive. It taps into humanity’s worst instincts to break down into warring factions, and I fear this is rapidly leading us to a very twisted place. It terrifies me that others don’t seem to see that racial segregation and demonization are wrong and dangerous no matter what its victims look like. Being told that any disagreement or feelings of discomfort somehow upholds “white supremacy” is not just morally wrong. It is psychologically abusive.

Equally troubling are the many others who understand and know full well how damaging this is, but do not speak out due to fear of professional retaliation, social censure, and loss of their livelihood and reputation. I fear that by the time people see it, or those who see it manage to screw up the moral courage to speak out, it will be too late.

I wanted to change things at Smith. I hoped that by bringing an internal complaint, I could somehow get the administration to see that their capitulation to critical race orthodoxy was causing real, measurable harm. When that failed, I hoped that drawing public attention to these problems at Smith would finally awaken the administration to this reality. I have come to conclude, however, that the college is so deeply committed to this toxic ideology that the only way for me to escape the racially hostile climate is to resign. It is completely unacceptable that we are now living in a culture in which one must choose between remaining in a racially hostile, psychologically abusive environment or giving up their income.

As a proud Smith alum, I know what a critical role this institution has played in shaping my life and the lives of so many women for one hundred and fifty years. I want to see this institution be the force for good I know it can be. I will not give up fighting against the dangerous pall of orthodoxy that has descended over Smith and so many of our educational institutions.

This was an extremely difficult decision for me and comes at a deep personal cost. I make $45,000 a year; less than a year’s tuition for a Smith student. I was offered a settlement in exchange for my silence, but I turned it down. My need to tell the truth — and to be the kind of woman Smith taught me to be — makes it impossible for me to accept financial security at the expense of remaining silent about something I know is wrong. My children’s future, and indeed, our collective future as a free nation, depends on people having the courage to stand up to this dangerous and divisive ideology, no matter the cost.

Sincerely,

Jodi Shaw

Tenslotte dient opgemerkt dat Jodi Shaw een minnelijke schikking naast zich neerlegde. Dit had haar een aardige duit kunnen opleveren maar ook een verbintenis tot confidentialiteit. Ze wilde echter niet dat haar aanklacht zou doodgezwegen worden en gaf dus een welgemeende fuck you aan het geld dat ze haar aanboden. Waarvoor respect.

[Elio di Supo]

Ik ben niet iemand die gemakkelijk schenkingen doet maar hier wilde ik wel even graag een uitzondering maken.

[Elio di Supo]

Smith College waar Jodi Shaw (zie supra) werkzaam was heeft een online studentenkrantje genaamd The Sophian dat ook melding maakte van het incident met voormalig staflid Shaw.

https://thesophian.com/staff-member-...ite-hostility/

Over this past week, Jodi Shaw, a student support coordinator in residence life at Smith, posted three Youtube videos accusing Smith of anti-white hostility and alleged that her supervisor told her that she couldn’t perform a rap to the incoming first year class as it would be perceived as culturally insensitive.



In the latest video, which was posted early Monday morning, Shaw claimed that this incident occurred in August 2018, when she was tasked with putting together a library orientation for incoming students. Because she has a musical background, she said, she decided to perform a rap. A few days before the event was to take place, she alleged, her supervisor advised her not to perform the rap because it would be viewed as cultural appropriation. In this video, she posted what appeared to be a screenshot of an email from her supervisor, in which they wrote that “use of rap as a medium by a white staff member and student could easily be perceived as insensitive or cultural appropriation” and acknowledged that “this was not at all your [Shaw’s] intent.”



This video came after two others, the first of which was posted last Tuesday and was decried by students and staff.



“Stop demanding I admit to ‘white privilege’ and work on my so-called implicit bias as a condition of my continued employment. Stop telling me that as a white person I am, quote, ‘especially responsible’ for doing the work of dismantling racism,” she said in the first video. “We have the right to work in an environment free from the ever-present terror that any unverified student allegation of racism or any other -ism has the power to crush our reputation, ruin our livelihood, and even endanger the physical safety of ourselves or our family members.”



In a Thursday email to the Smith community, Pres. McCartney responded to the first video (the only one published at the time), writing that it “mischaracterizes the college’s important, ongoing efforts to build a more equitable and inclusive living, learning and working environment.” (The Sophian reached out to the Office of Equity & Inclusion and to the Human Resources office for comment; both referred The Sophian back to McCartney’s email.) On a Facebook group called Overheard at Smith, there were over a hundred comments from students and a handful of staff decrying the video and saying that it doesn’t represent them.



“I first saw the video because of Overheard at Smith, and I was definitely taken aback,” Erin Smith, who works in stockroom services at Smith wrote in an email to The Sophian. “Neither the Title IX training or the Diversity and Bias Training are ‘blame-oriented’. They’re meant to help staff and faculty recognize when there is a problem, even – especially – if that problem is one they are causing without realizing it.”



“The video was blatantly ignorant, horrifyingly misinformed, and a perfect example of the denial of white privilege that too many people in this world hold, even after being presented information that proves otherwise,” Helen Bezuneh ’23 said. “I worry about the many ways in which Jodi Shaw and other faculty who may secretly hold the same views have the power to make racially ignorant decisions that hurt students. This is unacceptable.”



On Saturday, Shaw posted a video responding to McCartney’s email, criticizing the president for seemingly trying to distance herself and the college from her views. She also referenced the email’s statement that the National Labor Relations Act protects employees who “criticize the policies and practices of their employer,” saying that she felt it was code for “we would fire her but we can’t.” Shaw also criticized McCartney’s statement supporting students of color, saying that she believes this is the college telling students of color that they are not capable of “handling a video where somebody goes off script.”



The Sophian reached out to Shaw to ask about the claims she made in the first video. She alleged that on two separate occasions since July 31, 2018, she had been discriminated against for being white, claiming that she had been denied an important professional opportunity because she was white and that her race had been used as “justification for the behavior she was subjected to”. Although Shaw claimed she had email evidence of the first incident – which she seemed to later use in her latest video – she declined to forward this email to The Sophian and declined to explain what happened in this second incident. She also didn’t elaborate on how she felt Smith mishandled the July 31 incident and didn’t say how many staff members she had spoken to who had agreed with her – or if any of them were non-white.

Het hoeft niet echt te verbazen dat de studentjes eieren voor hun geld kiezen en liever Jodi Shaw bekladden dan in te gaan tegen hun alma mater die hen tenslotte het gegeerde diploma zal verschaffen voor hun toekomstige carriere. Waar Jodi Shaw in haar aanklachten veel details leverde en heel specifiek was, vinden we dit niet terug in de "rebuttal" van het studentenkrantje dat niet verder raakt dan wat vage aantijgingen en verbaast is dat Jodi Shaw hen geen emails verschafte.

Ook tekenend is dat er in het opiniestukje vd onvolprezen The Sophian slechts 1 commentaar te lezen was dat dan nog niet erg flatterend was voor Smith College. Blijkbaar genoeg om verdere commentaren onmogelijk te maken.

[Elio di Supo]

Ook Bari Weiss die het interview afnam met Jodi Shaw heeft zo haar ervaringen gehad met de woke-cultuur. Zo was ze 3 jaar werkzaam bij de NY Times (blijkbaar een instituut dat zeer instrumenteel is in de huidige woke-gekte) doch zag zich genoodzaakt haar ontslag in te dienen. Tegenstanders van wokeness worden vaak en graag afgeschilderd als randdebielen genre QAnon en ProudBoys. Bari Weiss behoort verre van tot deze categorie.

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

Sincerely,

Bari

Ik ben nu echt diep beschaamd dat ik ooit de NY Times heb gekocht.