Three Hundred Papers Circle Jerk to Their Own Image





I specifically remember you, Katie, eschewing Rich and Dan on the Podcast for their fuck those people attitudes. That we should try to change their minds, yet here you claim that the editorials are pointless. I doubt the editorials were meant to change the minds of the Trump base, a coordinated alarm bell to all those non voters out there would be a valiant effort worthy of all that the press stands for.


Some rebuttals:
*Read up on the "Paradox of Tolerance" to understand the balancing act society must straddle
*300 newspapers coming together on this is solidarity, publicly affirming (and to themselves) that they are in this together
*What you're describing with Alex Jones and others would best be described as Social Accountability, something Dan has spoken about repeatedly. Namely, for Jones to make a career out of harassing parents who lost their child at Sandyhook and goading his viewers into harassing the parents so much they have had to move seven times and are UNABLE TO VISIT THE GRAVE OF THEIR MURDERED CHILD!!
*Rather terrible sleight of hand with comparisons of hate speech shifting from social media, to the US government, to courts in Europe as proof of some dangerous future of aggressive censorship.
*One final point, the fact that the only thing you can say about the removal of Alex Jones is "free speech" is the weakest argument of a useful idiot. If you cannot defend the content of the speech you should evaluate whether it should be given an enormous platform.


I can't believe you can't see the differences between Trump's attacks on the press and Alex Jones' inciteful hate speech. Seriously?


What a stupid cynical headline Katie. And comparing people exercising their right to complain about the content of a privately owned media platform with government censorship, however obliquely, is so, so very lazy.
People can rant their asses off at Twitter, and they can boycott it too, if they don't like something. If you're cool with people like Jones tweeting whatever shit comes into his head then you have to be cool with people objecting to it. If their protest happens to be economic in nature, and it hurts Twitter's bottom line to the point that it's effective then that's just the rough and tumble intersection of speech and capitalism isn't it?
And seriously, this is an unprecedented act by all these papers. Your dismissal of it comes off as shallow and juvenile.


I for one found this refreshing


@6: No, they aren't. Trump as the ultimate representative of the United States government is directly attacking a free press as a concept. That is coming close to a constitutional issue. Jones is private citizen spouting shit on a privately owned platform which is receiving pushback from other private citizens who use that platform.
Don't like that protest and boycotts work? I thought you approved of people's right to express their views. Guess not.


I may not agree with your view or your speech, I may even think it's hateful. But God dammit I'll defend your right to say it with my life


Katie it's very refreshing of you to, in between yet more articles about Jordan Peterson, to point out people being self-important and masturbatory. Thank you


"performative" doesn't have quite the cachet of the other terms introduced by the Social Justice Left, but it's probably the most aptly-used one.


Short term gain at the cost of losing the war. Get to know your neighbors and local politicians and let all these other self-important assholes shout into the void.


So ... any means we use to speak up and defend our democracy are masturbatory and pointless? And in the course of standing up for our rights, we have to be careful not to offend the small amount of people actively working against them?


@13: Thank you.


Yes, yes, oh cynical, blase denizens of Slog, it's alllll "performative" and "virtue signaling" it can't possibly be that we have a Commander in Chief that this very day referred to the free press of this nation as "the opposition party". Who would feel the need to object to that? Well the entire fucking United States Senate for one.
The first amendment is indeed under attack and it's not by people on Twitter objecting to Alex Fucking Jones.
We live in a country where THIS is now necessary:


Posting complaints about virtue signaling IS FUCKING VIRTUE SIGNALING!

That’s what ALL this is posting online.

Christ almighty, you AltRight fucks are unselfaware dumb shits.

Signaling to each other is how we come to understand community consensus. By talking about our principles and knowing who shares them.

Only the dumb fucks of the Right could hurt-durf that as some sort of moral failing and have the balls to then VIRTUE SIGNAL abou it to each other.

It’s what you define as a virtue that matters. At least so called SJW are on the right side of history.

Jesus shit balls. Haven’t you noticed the consistent rate at which the same right wing trolls defend racists and rapists? What virtue are they signaling?

They would say it’s some kind fairness and a reticence to rush to judgement. Except all the times they totally eschew fairness and rush to judgment.

What it REALLY is is a loyalty to the worst in human nature. Because they see themselves in rapists and racists.

Sorry, but I’d rather have people squawking and outraged over attempting to make life better for women and minorities than just shut up to protect the fragile feelings of Broflakes.

Literally the worst most racist scum bags on SLOG love Herzogs posts. Does she not notice this. Is this the fan base she wants?


geez what's next, excoriating media conglomeration? next thing you know this author will be excorating these same papers for either praising or ignoring us war crimes and imperialism (which is all trump's brash dandyism is). jeck, i'd even write "h*ck" if it meant a content quota could be met. next thing you know the fcc chairman is going to lie about something and it will be trivialized and nothing will happen.


You're so edgy!


Dr Z - Not always; it's often vice signaling.


Good lord. The Stranger has been "circle jerking" to its own image for twenty years. Only in the last couple of years has it gotten insufferable. Maybe they should raise their wages and try to get some better writers?


@6 Pithy, and I'm sure you've heard someone say that somewhere before, but not really apropos.


@13 do you ever wonder what it says about you when someone worries mmm writes "this form of protest is toothless" and you ironically read it as "all forms of protest are toothless"?

Do you get angry at your school teachers for failing in your education so badly that you think up means down? Or your parents, for presumably dropping you on your head so that your incapable of reading comprehension? Or at your psychologist who is obviously prescribing the wrong pills?



Hi Sportlandia, I was kind of hoping you'd reply to my post. I always enjoy reading your thoughts, even when I don't completely agree.

I am actually very well educated and an educator myself. My response was intentionally hyperbolic (in the style of Slog commentary). I was referring not only to this post, but a pattern of thought I see across many posts (Katie's and others), as well as the comments I read on them.

I'm just trying to get these arguments straight in my head. I come from the old Protest is Patriotism crowd, but I only ever see protests (in multiple forms) decried as pointless or toothless by folks on both sides of the partisan divide. I'm always curious about the "don't offend Trump voters" line of thought. I understand wanting to get people to vote your way, but it seems like an increasingly lost cause with that crowd.

I feel these times warrant protest and resistance. In your opinion, what are some more effective means of defending our rights (without resorting to violence)?


"The newspaper business isn't exactly profitable; sometimes, you've gotta fire up those subscribers any way you can."

So nice of you to include the reason why you wrote the article in its final line!