“Take something like biting. Biting can be an aggressive or even criminal act."
I guess another one bites the dust!
Old white guy?
“But like all well-intentioned and good things, there can be undesirable consequences.”
I.e. “The little ladies mean well, of course. But sometimes they lack the, as it were, full capacity to properly grasp the implications of their, shall we say, behaviors.”
I can think of one easy example of “people expressing views that can be disturbing” … and it was apparently printed in the prestigious NY Review of Books.
Yeah, the old “it was just rough sex” lie.
Why was the editor fired? All points of view, even whiny, self absorbed view points, deserve some examination. It an idea has no merit it should be obvious to all. Censorship shouldn’t be necessary.
We really are slipping into some Orwellian nightmare, aren’t we.
Gadzooks! Is not nickdanger here to defend these two paragons of manly humanity?
Landsakes! A guy partakes in a little slap and tickle and biting and choking and punching and he’s labeled for life!
You didn’t say his name out loud three times, did you?
How is it censorship? He got his say in, the NYT Review of Books then had their say.
I try to avoid saying his name as much as possible. Still can’t figure out why I was banned for 6 weeks and he gets to post his tripe on a regular basis. But what really pisses me off is that he took his name from a great Firesign Theater character. Sacrilege!
Worked for Marv Albert…
I love the NYRB. I’m glad the publishing of this piece brought outrage.
“Take something like biting. Biting can be an aggressive or even criminal act. It can also be construed differently in different circumstances.”
Dude, there’s no gray area here. You should know if something is acceptable or not long before it gets to be a crime. It’s NOT hard to know this. The issue is that some men don’t WANT and don’t CARE to discover if something is acceptable or not before doing it, and so proceed with whatever “sexual behavior” they’re engaged in regardless of if it’s wanted or not.
How is it censorship? You must be joking. The guy was fired for publishing something that is offensive. That firing was intended by the publication to send a message to all, “we won’t publish anything that doesn’t support the prevailing point of view.” That, Tena, is the suppression of ideas not supported by the majority. I think that is a very clear example of censorship.
There really isn’t much difference between this and the suppression of Robert Mapplethorpe’s art.
He got to say it, ronbyers, so it wasn’t censored. Once he said it he was not free from the consequences of having said it.
They don’t have to pay someone whose views are repugnant to their publication but he said it and they published it
And then the publication fired the editor for publishing the piece after some complained. That sends a message to the next editor. Don’t do anything that bucks the “me to” movement or you are going to be out on your ass. So much for freedom of expression.
That’s not censorship - that is called consequences.
His freedom to express those views was not censored - they published that. Jesus - do they have to keep someone employed whose views are opposed to the views they support?
No and furthermore, once someone has said something or had it published, then they pay the consequences for what they’ve said. Freedom of expression doesn’t mean you get a platform to say any fucking thing.
Look, for every dude who is out there saying that #metoo is taking things too far, think of it as an over-correction for men acting like complete a$$es to women since like the dawn of friggin’ time.
Sorry guys, we kinda brought this on ourselves.
I think the editor got fired not the creep he published. The publication buckled to complaints by firing the editor. There is going to be a new editor who is going to know that his predecessor was fired for publishing something controversial. You think that publication is ever going to publish anything again with a point of view that the “Me Too” movement might find problematic?
It’s the New Review of Books, which has nothing to do with the New York Times. The New York Review over the years has been one of the best places to read thoughtful essays on all sorts of issues. I didn’t read the essay being referred to here. I’m not sure I want to if it’s just self-justifying drivel. And maybe it was a bad decision to publish it journalistically. But, being fired for publishing something that other people don’t agree with is, indeed, a form of ex post censorship. I’m sure there’s more to this story that’s yet to come out. Buruma has a very good reputation as an essayist overall.