I don't understand why she's such a polarizing figure. In particular, the criticisms I've heard from her and other free-speech advocates amount to "anyone who supports free speech but also exercises their own free speech rights to criticize others is a hypocrite". I understand that it's confusing to distinguish between "criticism" and "suppression of speech" (e.g., campaigning to get someone fired from their job), but the distinction is real and thus there is no hypocrisy.
In Bari's case, she can be simultaneously in favor of free speech but not want to work someplace where she is incessantly criticized or where she lends her credibility to an institution that is ultimately morally corrupt. There's no contradiction here. Specifically, I don't see anything that supports "she wants her detractors silenced by the law". She asks for company policy with respect to social media harassment to apply to those who harass her as it applies to other cases in which she's not the subject of the harassment. This seems like a pretty reasonable policy and one which isn't especially at odds with free speech ideals. I grant that there's a fine line between "harassing" and "criticizing with appropriate respect", and while I think axe emojis and consistent references to her Jewish identity make this pretty clearly a case of harassment, my opinion doesn't matter--what matters is whether the NYT's own standard for harassment. For example, would the NYT consider it harassment if the target were a black progressive instead of a Jewish liberal?
It always amazes me when the people who champion "the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society" will also turn around and say something like their political beliefs being mocking by coworkers is "unlawful discrimination". She doesn't want free speech. She wants consequence free speech. She wants her detractors silenced by the law. What a hypocrite.
You appear to be arguing that her identity protects her ideas from criticism – are we to believe someone can’t be Jewish or gay while also being right-wing or an activist? Or that a degree from a good school somehow prevents you from being ideologically committed?
I used that label based on her writing. If you look at the positions she’s taken over the last half decade or so, they’re consistently on-message for what American conservatives are opposing: attacking #MeToo, railing against imaginary antifa (it’s been a while but that’s why she stopped writing NYT op-eds[1]), pushing COVID denialism, attack transgender people, and, most especially, being a committed member of the “cancel culture” marketing campaign. Whether that was hyping up IDW figures, defending a right-winger who is currently being criticized, or minimizing right-wing book banning or calls for people to be fired, she’ll be right there next to the rest of the crew.
Bear in mind that I’m not saying any of those are (or should be) illegal, only that on this topic she’s notably biased and quite literally makes a living from advancing this position. Her move out of journalism was based on building an audience with a pronounced bias and she’s not going to say anything which upsets them until she has another job lined up. Reading her blog posts on a culture war issue is like going to HuffPost expecting trenchant analysis of the Republican Party.
She was never anything but this. She only wants free speech for those who agree with her. She tried to get a professor fired for supporting Palestinian human rights while she was in college, and then has the nerve to say that individuals voluntarily refusing to associate with people who express views they find repugnant are really the ones who are doing illiberal censorship.
She can't maintain employment because she can't be taken seriously anymore. She is not a victim, she ruined her own reputation through her own actions and words. This literally has nothing to do with free speech which is why she isn't making the claim.
That might've had something to do with it. But no I think you're right that evil Elon Musk and the ultra-MAGA twitter overlords are the ones who caused her to be kicked out. Not to mention the racism as she said "threats fueled by racial animus." it wasn't her fault she plagiarized it was the evil white patriarchial system that forced her to.
In what world is "leaving" "intolerant", but "harassment" is "criticism"? Why are all of Weiss's critics in this thread making these kinds of overtly fallacious arguments? Surely there's something Weiss has actually done to merit criticism?
I don't find her critiques convincing in all respects. A couple of her answers seem to be strawmen. For example:
The passing mention of IQ is interesting, since it has nothing to do with gender, which is the focus everywhere else. He’s presumably talking about race, but he doesn’t want to be branded a racist, so he keeps the reference subtle. So why risk doing it at all? It’s a dog-whistle to the alt-right.
She admits she is _assuming_ his intentions - sets up the strawman, and counters it. BOOM - the guy is now racist.
As for Milo and his ilk - yeah they can go to hell - but what? This guy gets fired for speaking publicly? That seems a double standard.
Body of work aside, she absolutely is an aggressive-ranging-into-toxic Twitter personality and a very strident proponent of a divisive and dogmatic strain of diversity advocacy.
I probably shouldn't have said "evidence" as much as "examples she cited"--specifically colleagues posting axe emojis next to her name and the general public smearing as a bigot (while this is free speech, it's also pretty clearly a 'hostile work environment' and I doubt it would fly if the target were, say, an Asian progressive instead of a Jewish liberal).
I don't especially care what she endorses. I've never read one of her articles. However, if you disagree with someone, you owe it to them to do it without death threats and faking their dead father.
Also, you are absolutely blaming the victim right now. Endorsing left-wing opinions or writing opinionated books does not merit that level of emotional trauma. Saying her writing is equally as complimit in online toxicity as systemic harassment dodges the problem and blames the victim.
Like I said in the other reply, I don't endorse a world where no one disagrees with each other. Don't put up a strawman for my position.
Living with opinions you don't like is part of life. Harassment should not be.
We should be able to separate what she’s saying and evaluate it on its own merits, whilst _separately_ also critiquing her behaviour. You can’t demolish her argument by attacking her character. Well, at least not on HN (yet).
“Problematic” is often cited as the way extremists are labelling people they want to cancel.
In the US, you're entitled to free speech. You're not entitled to respect, or even an audience. If you don't accept that reality, you're going to have a problem.
> She covers a gambit of topics.
I have read her. She's a boring and repetitive replacement-level whiner whose built a brand appealing to people with certain kinds of insecurities.
The way I see it, this appalling deluge of harassment she receives will stop only if she becomes completely silent and stops expressing her opinions and perspectives to the world. As she actually makes her living out of speaking engagements and video production (as evidenced, for example, by her lucrative Kickstarter campaign), this is clearly an undesirable 'solution' to such harassment, meaning that such abuse will remain a pernicious side effect of her feminist critiques.
As this harassment seems to be a permanent fixture, she really has only two choices. She can either completely ignore it and not acknowledge it in any way whatsoever. Or she can incorporate it into her commentary and reflect on it in the context of her wider work. Given that she evaluates from a feminist perspective, the sexually demeaning and misogynist elements of her harassment are certainly relevant and on topic.
So I quite disagree with your characterisation of her as a "professional victim". It seems more that she is simply making the best of a bad situation, extracting some advantage from prejudice.
In Bari's case, she can be simultaneously in favor of free speech but not want to work someplace where she is incessantly criticized or where she lends her credibility to an institution that is ultimately morally corrupt. There's no contradiction here. Specifically, I don't see anything that supports "she wants her detractors silenced by the law". She asks for company policy with respect to social media harassment to apply to those who harass her as it applies to other cases in which she's not the subject of the harassment. This seems like a pretty reasonable policy and one which isn't especially at odds with free speech ideals. I grant that there's a fine line between "harassing" and "criticizing with appropriate respect", and while I think axe emojis and consistent references to her Jewish identity make this pretty clearly a case of harassment, my opinion doesn't matter--what matters is whether the NYT's own standard for harassment. For example, would the NYT consider it harassment if the target were a black progressive instead of a Jewish liberal?
reply