Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NRaleighLiberal

(60,013 posts)
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:20 AM Nov 2020

Outrageous projection - NYT "Groupthink Has Left the Left Blind" (Bret Stephens)

This is utter bullshit - publishing it so you can see how the other side thinks of us. Mostly, it tells us how THEY think

A constricted view of the world leaves progressives surprised by the world as it is.

Bret Stephens
By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/opinion/liberal-media-censoring.html

This year, several high-profile writers have left left-leaning publications after running afoul of what they describe as a pervasive culture of censoriousness, groupthink and intellectual-risk aversion. This month, Donald Trump once again stunned much of the liberal establishment by dramatically beating polling expectations to come within about 80,000 votes of another Electoral College victory.

It’s worth asking whether there’s a connection between the two — that is, between the left’s increasingly constricted view of the world and the increasing frequency with which leftists are surprised by the world as it is.

What, today, is leftism, at least when it comes to intellectual life? Not what it used to be. Once it was predominantly liberal, albeit with radical fringes. Now it is predominantly progressive, or woke, with centrist liberals in dissent. Once it was irreverent. Now it is pious. Once it believed that truth was best discovered by engaging opposing points of view. Now it believes that truth can be established by eliminating them. Once it cared about process. Now it is obsessed with outcomes. Once it understood, with Walt Whitman, that we contain multitudes. Now it is into dualities: We are privileged or powerless, white or of color, racist or anti-racist, oppressor or oppressed.

The list goes on. But the central difference is this: The old liberal left paid attention to complexity, ambiguity, the gray areas. A sense of complexity induced a measure of doubt, including self-doubt. The new left typically seeks to reduce things to elements such as race, class and gender, in ways that erase ambiguity and doubt. The new left is a factory of certitudes.

It’s from that factory that writers like Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald have fled, and from which many other independent-minded thinkers will, sooner or later, follow. For them, the loss isn’t devastating: They have large followings and can use new digital platforms like Substack to make a generous living.

snip

paywall warning. I already sent him a comment (not published yet) - any with NYT subscripts should cram the comments section!

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Outrageous projection - NYT "Groupthink Has Left the Left Blind" (Bret Stephens) (Original Post) NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 OP
Quite the spin when an incumbent lost. The left is stunned? No, it's Donnie who is stunned unblock Nov 2020 #1
I couldn't believe what I was reading in that article. The right twisting itself into a pretzel. NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 #2
I just cancelled my monthly sub and told them why obamanut2012 Nov 2020 #3
bothsideserism is such a destructive thing. NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 #4
I can only afford two online subs obamanut2012 Nov 2020 #5
Douthat and Stephens typically make my blood boil. Brooks not as bad lately. NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 #7
Job One in this election - perhaps Job Only - was getting rid of tRump. stopbush Nov 2020 #6
Very important point that many overlook - we won. radius777 Nov 2020 #33
The Author is a Right Wing Dipshit JI7 Nov 2020 #8
Yeah, I get this same drivel from my friend who I argue with a lot genxlib Nov 2020 #9
Never ever waste your time reading a Bret Stephens column. Paladin Nov 2020 #10
Bingo NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 #11
+100. Hortensis Nov 2020 #26
Author's bio says: "American conservative journalist, editor, and columnist" Cameliano Nov 2020 #12
It's not a right wing source - it is a major news source, NYT NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 #13
Bret Stephens isn't a right winger? Cameliano Nov 2020 #18
It was published in the Times - and the Times is allowed. NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 #20
NRaleigh, the NYT works to elect Republicans, and this is proven. Hortensis Nov 2020 #28
Okay but stop ignoring the author Cameliano Nov 2020 #31
What is getting you in the way of understanding the DU terms of service? NRaleighLiberal Nov 2020 #32
Enough. You don't like rules, we get it. You might want to look up ToS on "interfering with ... marble falls Dec 2020 #35
You are confused and you don't tell when I it's enough Cameliano Dec 2020 #36
Shame on you. marble falls Dec 2020 #37
When did I pretend that? I posted an article to read from an allowed source. NRaleighLiberal Dec 2020 #38
I didn't tell you not to use the New York Times Cameliano Dec 2020 #39
Right winger, right winger, right winger. Where exactly do you think you are? marble falls Dec 2020 #40
The author is not a right winger? Cameliano Dec 2020 #41
Stop putting words in other's mouths. How about letting it drop? It's beginning to smell troll-like. marble falls Dec 2020 #42
Welcome to DU Yonnie3 Nov 2020 #15
Exactly, it's important to understand how RW thinks radius777 Nov 2020 #34
Generally that's used to keep the drivel from OAN and other right wing propaganda sites out... Salviati Nov 2020 #16
Here's what it says in the Terms of Service Maeve Nov 2020 #30
Typical NYT bullshit. Turin_C3PO Nov 2020 #14
Pious? Fuck Trump, fuck all fascists, fuck the Roisin Ni Fiachra Nov 2020 #17
Wait so we aren't in disarray anymore? SlogginThroughIt Nov 2020 #19
Ha! Good point. nt crickets Nov 2020 #23
a rather elitist view handmade34 Nov 2020 #21
This Liberal RobinA Nov 2020 #22
Cancelling Turin_C3PO Nov 2020 #29
Glenn Greenwald is a jerk. marble falls Nov 2020 #24
Sorry peggysue2 Nov 2020 #25
Bretbug seems to think that editing and accountability are "groupthink" JHB Nov 2020 #27

unblock

(52,181 posts)
1. Quite the spin when an incumbent lost. The left is stunned? No, it's Donnie who is stunned
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:24 AM
Nov 2020

Along with all his minions who insist they wuz robbed.

obamanut2012

(26,064 posts)
5. I can only afford two online subs
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:31 AM
Nov 2020

I had the NYT and The Atlantic, and will now sub to the Washington Post instead of the NYT. I have had it with them, between all of this and the Tom Cotton OP/ED.

NRaleighLiberal

(60,013 posts)
7. Douthat and Stephens typically make my blood boil. Brooks not as bad lately.
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:32 AM
Nov 2020

Tells us all they are more concerned with money/subscriptions, keeping both sides engaged, instead of truth of what's going on

stopbush

(24,395 posts)
6. Job One in this election - perhaps Job Only - was getting rid of tRump.
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:32 AM
Nov 2020

That, we accomplished. That in and of itself is amazing when you realize that 75-million of our fellow Americans enthusiastically cast their ballots for the guy who called our honored war dead “suckers and losers.”

radius777

(3,635 posts)
33. Very important point that many overlook - we won.
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 09:47 AM
Nov 2020

We took out an incumbent president who was/is a clear and present danger to democracy. As the returns came in I was fearing this could be like 2004, when it was 'obvious' how terrible BushCo was but he still won. But somehow luck was on our side this time and we pulled it off.

JI7

(89,244 posts)
8. The Author is a Right Wing Dipshit
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:33 AM
Nov 2020

Didn't read the article after seeing that name. Have already read and heard enough from him and it's the usual shit .

genxlib

(5,524 posts)
9. Yeah, I get this same drivel from my friend who I argue with a lot
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:34 AM
Nov 2020

He tries to pretend he is above the fray of the typical frothing masses by using terms like "classical liberalism" etc. But he can't see that he is engulfed in the same kind of groupthink that he rails against.

Funny that he uses Andrews Sullivan as an example of a "liberal" writer who fled a liberal publication. Sullivan is a forever conservative and was only temporarily anti-trump. But these days, that is all that it takes to fall into the crosshairs of the right.

Paladin

(28,246 posts)
10. Never ever waste your time reading a Bret Stephens column.
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:41 AM
Nov 2020

His presence on the NYT opinion section is an absolute travesty, (a) because he's a drooling right-winger, and (b) because he can't write worth a shit.

 

Cameliano

(54 posts)
12. Author's bio says: "American conservative journalist, editor, and columnist"
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:42 AM
Nov 2020

I'm new here, so I want someone to clarify whether right wing sources are allowed here, as in the case of this thread.

NRaleighLiberal

(60,013 posts)
13. It's not a right wing source - it is a major news source, NYT
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:43 AM
Nov 2020

But right wing sources are not allowed.

Welcome to DU!

 

Cameliano

(54 posts)
18. Bret Stephens isn't a right winger?
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 11:51 AM
Nov 2020

You claimed that the source is "The New York Times", but the source is actually Bret Stephens.
New York Times Is the medium used by the right wing author to convey his op-ed.
It's like saying that Rudy Giuliani stops being a right wing source as long as he writes something published by the New York Times.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
28. NRaleigh, the NYT works to elect Republicans, and this is proven.
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 02:26 PM
Nov 2020

Politically, it's corrupt, as is the AP for another biggie.

Obvious when you just think about it. After all, we didn't really believe the NYT's constantly negative coverage of Hillary and her supposed massive corruption in 2015-16? But for others, their headlines almost all smeared, with the Times's august ass supposedly covered by putting truth inside thatwas excluded in, and even contradicted by, the headlines. Of course the headlines poisoned all, most not reading beyond them and those who did only getting to the truth after the headline.

I sometimes opened the political section and count the negative headlines about Hillary and/or Democrats down the left margin. Typically at least a half dozen a day. The difference between the NYT and Fox and the WSJ was style, not the goals of their deceit and corruption.

Probably the single most famous, btw, may be the Times' October 31, 2016 (a week before the election) major article summing up the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation. They strongly implied that nothing was found and it was about to close. They buried the lede (truth) in the 10th paragraph with a short sentence that investigation continued. In fact, but nowhere stated, the FBI was expanding its investigation as more and more was being turned up by the 100s of agents already on it.

The execs behind all this are still there.

 

Cameliano

(54 posts)
31. Okay but stop ignoring the author
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 09:36 AM
Nov 2020

It's strategy seems to be to speak about anything but the man who wrote this piece.
Newspapers are not alive. Newspapers hire people who write. And you are ignoring the ideology of the writer.
You simply keeps telling his right wing article appeared in the New York Times.

NRaleighLiberal

(60,013 posts)
32. What is getting you in the way of understanding the DU terms of service?
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 09:41 AM
Nov 2020

we are not a closed off echo chamber like the right wing. We bring information here to stimulate discussion. We need to understand what the right is telling their base so we can understand what we need to do.

Maybe DU is not the place for you....

marble falls

(57,063 posts)
35. Enough. You don't like rules, we get it. You might want to look up ToS on "interfering with ...
Tue Dec 1, 2020, 03:22 PM
Dec 2020

... site moderation".

 

Cameliano

(54 posts)
36. You are confused and you don't tell when I it's enough
Wed Dec 2, 2020, 10:55 AM
Dec 2020

Who are you?
Anyway, I never said I didn't like the rules. I took issue with a member pretending that a right wing author is represents. New York Times as a whole.
I work for Verizon. That's doesn't mean I'm ShopRite.

NRaleighLiberal

(60,013 posts)
38. When did I pretend that? I posted an article to read from an allowed source.
Thu Dec 3, 2020, 12:11 PM
Dec 2020

You are clearly very dense, or just itching for a fight.

 

Cameliano

(54 posts)
39. I didn't tell you not to use the New York Times
Sat Dec 5, 2020, 08:46 AM
Dec 2020

I told you to stop pretending the author doesn't exist.
You keep trying to elevate his status by equating him to the New York Times newspaper as a whole.
And you will say nothing about this right winger in your next post, again.

 

Cameliano

(54 posts)
41. The author is not a right winger?
Mon Dec 7, 2020, 11:47 AM
Dec 2020

You're on shaky ground here. What is he, a moderate?
Let's discuss why you think he has been incorrectly described as a conservative.

Yonnie3

(17,427 posts)
15. Welcome to DU
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:54 AM
Nov 2020

NY Times is not considered a right wing source.

This opinion piece is right wing. The TOS at https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice allows posts like this.

Specifically it says:

Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.


I think the poster clearly states why they are posting this.

radius777

(3,635 posts)
34. Exactly, it's important to understand how RW thinks
Wed Nov 18, 2020, 09:59 AM
Nov 2020

otherwise we will always be blindsided by their attacks.

The OP is well within the terms of service, as it cites a credible source and makes clear that the objective is to refute this insidious RW narrative.

Salviati

(6,008 posts)
16. Generally that's used to keep the drivel from OAN and other right wing propaganda sites out...
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 10:55 AM
Nov 2020

Stuff from mainstream news is generally fine, even if it is from a conservative idiot author. Even fox news is usually ok, particularly for straight news items, but if you're posting op-eds from fox news, you shouldn't be surprised to get a few alerts.

Maeve

(42,279 posts)
30. Here's what it says in the Terms of Service
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 02:29 PM
Nov 2020
Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.

Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.


Is the author being ridiculed? Quote from the OP:
This is utter bullshit - publishing it so you can see how the other side thinks of us. Mostly, it tells us how THEY think

So, yes, the author is being ridiculed and the OP is within the TOS
Understand now?

Roisin Ni Fiachra

(2,574 posts)
17. Pious? Fuck Trump, fuck all fascists, fuck the
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 11:47 AM
Nov 2020

American Fascist Party (Republican), and fuck your vague sophomoric New Age RW pseudo intellectual Orwellian fascist bullshit.

Certitude is not a bad thing. Certitude won the Presidential election for us. There was no gray area.

Democracy Good. Fascism Bad.

End of story.

RobinA

(9,888 posts)
22. This Liberal
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 01:14 PM
Nov 2020

totally agrees with the writer. I'm 62. Liberalism is not what it was when I got started. It was the opposite of correct speech, which is even part of the rules here at DU. Disagree with the groupthink and you get hammered. Cancelling people? NOT a liberal value.

Turin_C3PO

(13,952 posts)
29. Cancelling
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 02:27 PM
Nov 2020

fascists, racists and other bigots is a liberal value. Oh yes indeed it is. I make no bones about the fact that if every one of those people dissapeared tomorrow I wouldn't shed one tear. BTW the author of the article is a known right winger. Just thought you should know who you're defending here on a progressive website.

peggysue2

(10,828 posts)
25. Sorry
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 02:07 PM
Nov 2020

There's no gray area when it comes to fascism. There's no ambiguity when it comes to blatant racism, sexism and xenophobia. Democrats are suppose to have a rational conversation with Nazis or Nazi/fascist apologists?

Are we to excuse the excesses of Trump, Bill Barr or their Republican enablers? Are we to pretend that the cruel, vindictive, unAmerican moves of Trump and his henchmen never happened, that a rollback to the good ole days of bigoted, sexist white men is what we want for the future?

Stephens is excusing the inexcusable, trying to dilute the treachery of the last four years by pretending that the real problem is left-leaning extremism and/or the certitude of calling out the right's white nationalists, the hate and irrationality on display day-after-day-after-day.

This is bothsiderism writ large and it's shameless in its wrong-headedness. Democrats are not perfect but calling out hate for what it is should never be labeled a weakness, an excuse to shrug our shoulders. There's no nuance when it comes to Trump and Trumpism. The only engagement with hate is to push back until it slithers into the shadows, back under the rocks where it belongs.

This is a weak, shallow argument coming from Stephens. No wonder he calls up Sullivan and Greenwald. Birds of a feather.

JHB

(37,158 posts)
27. Bretbug seems to think that editing and accountability are "groupthink"
Tue Nov 17, 2020, 02:21 PM
Nov 2020

Both the people he names left because they weren't "free" to spout whatever lies and nonsense in somebody else's publication, and they felt entitled to do so, so they stormed off in respective huffs.

Of course, it's a lot easier to do that when you have money and connections and connections to money, so you never have to wonder whether you'll have another gig that will let you pay the bills, the way most writers have to deal with that little fact of life.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Outrageous projection - N...