Why don't you find evidence the NYT declared "We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets... viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others."
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
If you can do all of that, with verifiable evidence that I've somehow missed all of that and have not be the one honest person in this convo the entire time, I will apologize for having thought you were spouting nonsense because you were pissed the NYT isn't calling you for direction.
Otherwise, I'll be convinced you're just a whiny little lying bitch, no true liberal at all, anxious that no one ever make any attempt at representing all sides but rather determined everyone should always agree with you and read only what you want them to.
At the moment I definitely don't believe you're a liberal; you give the impression of being just as much of a fascist wanting to control media as the GOP is.
You should also explain why, although the woman who recently defended Rowling's anti-trans crusade has left, the NYT hasn't seen anything like the WaPo gusher of people quitting because they don't want to be stuck working at a paper kowtowing to Trump.
“The NYT staff is not doing what the WaPo staff did, therefore they are not pro-Trump” is a terribly binary, black-and-white way to look at the world, which is no doubt why you’re so mad all the time.
Your thesis, in fewer words, waayyyyy up at the top of this thread, was that one paper kowtowed to Trump, and the NYT did not. Your support of this, in the ensuing days, has been limited exclusively to “because I said so.”
Comments
“The NYT staff is not doing what the WaPo staff did, therefore they are not pro-Trump” is a terribly binary, black-and-white way to look at the world, which is no doubt why you’re so mad all the time.
You’re still wrong. Scroll along:
That’s not how you win an argument. This is: