The NYTimes recently hired the “provocative” Bari Weiss (as far as I can tell, because Bret Stephens was getting screechy about being the punchline to every ‘reactionary FTFNYT columnist shows his arse in public again’ joke). Earlier this week, Weiss produced her longest, most provocative piece so far, and boy did it get the hate-clicks!
An alliance of heretics is making an end run around the mainstream — and finding enormous new audiences thirsty to discuss subjects that have become taboo. Meet the Intellectual Dark Web: https://t.co/iveK9LoXPd
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) May 8, 2018
What’s the name of this band? pic.twitter.com/0CE3XCnQcD
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) May 8, 2018
The Monophonic Spree https://t.co/47hqqPF0z6
— laura olin (@lauraolin) May 8, 2018
This is, without question, the flat-out dumbest piece the NYT ever has published. Not even those Sunday style people about designer mayonnaise on the upper West Side come close. https://t.co/5scaYosAkQ
— Charles P. Pierce (@CharlesPPierce) May 8, 2018
Lots of the responses are funnier, and far better thought out, than the original piece. I’ve been collecting links to share, but it was a twitter side-spat that sparked my chain of thought…
The troubling tribalism of Ta-Nehisi Coates. https://t.co/yJzIydLvM8
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) May 11, 2018
Andrew, you’ve been troubling for decades now. https://t.co/QFfjsV4DeM
— jelani cobb (@jelani9) May 11, 2018
Andrew Sullivan, once again being cruelly repressed with a highly-compensated platform at a widely-read center-liberal print/media publication:
… I remember a different time — and it wasn’t so long ago. A friend reminded me of this bloggy exchange Ta-Nehisi and I had in 2009, on the very subject of identity politics and its claims. We clearly disagreed, deeply. But there was a civility about it, an actual generosity of spirit, that transcended the boundaries of race and background. We both come from extremely different places, countries, life experiences, loyalties. But a conversation in the same pages was still possible, writer to writer, human to human, as part of the same American idea. It was a debate in which I think we both listened to each other, in which I changed my mind a bit, and where neither of us denied each other’s good faith or human worth.