I read the Tom Cotton op-ed and didn't find any racist element to it. It would be interesting to have you highlight which paragraph was racist in your eyes.
Maybe not racist per se, but Cotton specifically blamed antifa which was a deliberate and calculated lie intended to blame imaginary radical leftists on activities that were mostly being our by garden variety robbers unassociated with any political group. I also think that public sentiment was swayed by cable news coverage that made the looting seem far worse than it was.
And I'm not sure how bad you think the rioting and looting was, but in Minnesota (mostly Minneapolis) alone, the economic loss is already estimated at $500 million dollars, with over one thousand businesses affected, and many were destroyed. Source: https://emmer.house.gov/_cache/files/b/c/bc0f4be4-4618-4786-...
That's not No True Scotsman. It's fact. The FBI did not pin any illegal activity on antifa. Cotton had absolutely no evidence to back his claim. While I obviously don't know everyone who participated in looting, in NYC where I live the looters were nowhere near the organized protests.
First, reporting a lack of intelligence that directly links those actions to Antifa, especially only a week after the first protest, does not mean there was no direct link. But have a counterpoint, from some people who already had some intelligence: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/law-enfo...
> "U.S. police officials said they are examining both local and out-of-state actors focused on creating damage and inciting violent confrontations with police (and possibly other protesters) in the name of anarchist and antifa causes."
> "They prepared to commit property damage and directed people who were following them that this should be done selectively and only in wealthier areas or at high-end stores run by corporate entities."
> "And they developed a complex network of bicycle scouts to move ahead of demonstrators in different directions of where police were and where police were not for purposes of being able to direct groups from the larger group to places where they could commit acts of vandalism including the torching of police vehicles and Molotov cocktails where they thought officers would not be."
Beyond even Antifa and similar groups, my first point is largely about the statement "garden variety robbers unassociated with any political group."
There have been many protests throughout America's history. Most of them are done peacefully. Clearly most of them do not approach the level of violence and destruction that the recent riots and looting accomplished--riots and looting that coincided with those protests. Are we to believe this is largely coincidence?
The images and videos of the damage and looting that was done are out there. Windows, doors, and even entire buildings destroyed and ransacked, with "F* cops", "F* 12", "ACAB", &c. scrawled on the remains. Smashing, grabbing, chanting, it's all out there. There was obviously a political statement meant by many if not most of those people. This is made even more obvious when there are political groups that make statements such as: "By any means necessary", "No justice, no peace", "Give us what we want or we'll burn down the system", &c.
These are obviously politically-motivated actions. You cannot bear witness to all of the radical statements that have been made, also bear witness to the radical acts carried out and publicly supported, and then say the two are not related.
It was well known that protestors were getting attacked by police and that scouts were keeping an eye on police isn't a bad thing. Nor are medical stations. Police were brutalizing protestors. There's no proof these people were scouting for looters. In fact the article says the looting happened in Soho and the UES where the high end stores were. Protests weren't happenings in those neighborhoods. Graffiti isn't looting.
No one has proven anything criminal was organized and Tom Cotton sure as hell didn't have proof before he called for military intervention against a made up enemy.
58% of Americans supported sending in the military to stop looting and property destruction, including 37% of African Americans (a sizable minority). I would assume they wanted to prevent the city being burnt down rather than stop non-violent protests.
When the protests are peaceful, you don't need to send in military. When the city is burning, it could be a solution. I don't agree with sending them in, but a strong majority of Americans did.
I think giving a platform to someone who is a sitting US Senator, who has an argument supported by the majority of Americans, in the supposed Newspaper of Record, isn't the craziest thing ever decided and should not have led to the editor's firing.
Why the appeal to authority? There are plenty of senators who don't believe in evolution and other basic principles of science. Publishing an anti-science op-ed from any of them would be just as harmful as Tom Cotton's incitement to violence.
The rioters were already burning buildings and looting stores. That is why Tom Cotton proposed sending in the military. It was fighting violence with violence.
Again, I disagree with sending in the military, but preventing the progressive readership of the NYT from hearing about an opinion that 58% of Americans hold is simply coddling them and keeping them away from bad thoughts. We need an informed citizenry, not one that is afraid of ideas. This is why I support publishing such an op-ed despite disagreeing with it. It allows us to debate and attack the idea, without letting it fester and hide. Bad ideas should be argued against this way, not de-platformed entirely.
>This is why I support publishing such an op-ed despite disagreeing with it. It allows us to debate and attack the idea, without letting it fester and hide. Bad ideas should be argued against this way, not de-platformed entirely.
If you're so certain the ideas would be defeated then why not hand out copies of the Turner Diaries to every citizen? Why is racism still around when a true marketplace of ideas would have defeated it centuries ago? Propaganda doesn't fit into your naive model of how ideas spread and function.
Again, it was an opinion held by 58% of America (using military to quell looting and property destruction), by a US Senator. Op-eds are the opinion of the writer - that's why they are in the Opinion page. You are acting like Tom Cotton was advocating for some extreme far-right minority view held by only a tiny fraction of insane people, rather than the majority opinion.
I don't think this is an appeal to authority. if a sitting US senator says something about an event that's already a national news story, isn't that newsworthy?
That sizable minority are the only ones who have anything to lose from the looting and property destruction. Those that are impacted by racism and police violence, people without homes or jobs, likely don't want any Military involvement.
> When the protests are peaceful, you don't need to send in military. When the city is burning, it could be a solution.
What about the many reports that the protests started peaceful until the police started shooting? You may disagree about whether it's racist to decide in that circumstance to send the military against the group that isn't the police, but it does seem to be willfully blind to the relationship between cause and effect in a way that to some is highly suggestive. Racism isn't always saying "death to black people". Sometimes it's saying "stop resisting" with a baton and a gun when you instigated conflict in the first place.
When entire city blocks in Minneapolis were burning to the ground, I think there was a reasonable case to be made that cause and effect didn't matter anymore.
The National Guard, the Army, and the Marines were deployed to LA during the Rodney King riots in 1992. Of the 63 people who died in the riots, nine were shot by the cops and one was shot by the National Guard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Events
Why do you assume that sending the military is a recipe for mass slaughter?
He wanted the military unleashed on his fellow citizens, a move that would have escalated violence and perhaps led to a spiraling loss of control by both sides.
He was calling for military violence against largest peaceful protesters, the one red line that once you cross, there's no going back (Syria, Egypt, etc.)
By printing it, NYT gave it a platform and a tacit approval. Not to mention that it came out later it wasn't even reviewed before published.
