> In the course of the controversy, Weiss, in a tweet-essay that began here, finally addressed her own history of trying to ruin the careers of Arab and Muslim scholars for the crime of criticizing Israel.

It's possible that Greenwald is... I think the technical term is "full of shit". In seriousness, how is anyone supposed to take this seriously? If you ignore all of the transparent ad hominem, the only bit of substance in the article is that Weiss accused her professors of racism--there's nothing to support the idea that she was trying to ruin their careers (in 2004, allegations of 'racism' didn't ruin careers--indeed, some proponents of cancellation even argue that these allegations don't ruin careers in 2020).

Anyway, even if Weiss's accusations of racism were intended to harm the careers of her professors, it was nearly 2 decades ago and she was fresh out of high school. When Nikole Hannah-Jones was her age, she was writing that whites were "the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world" and that "the descendants of these savage people … continue to be bloodsuckers in our communities". Ibram X. Kendi was writing that whites are literal aliens. Thankfully, these titans of race (and much beloved by cancellation advocates) have somewhat moderated their views before assuming command of their prominent, powerful platforms. Sarah Jeong was named Forbes "30 under 30" and hired onto the NYT only a few short years (if that) after writing some of the most overtly racist stuff I've seen in my life (worse even than Hannah-Jones' collegiate ramblings) and virtually the whole media industry went to bat for her. Let's put this criticism of Weiss' college remarks into perspective.

When she was a sophomore in college, in the early 2000's, right? It strikes me as certainly somewhat hypocritical, but on another level due to a large time gap and context. Did we have Twitter mobs and nervous HR departments in 2005?

Even last year she tried to get Eli Valley cancelled. She’s very much a hypocrite that wants to be able to criticize, and try to damage other people, but cry foul whenever she faces any criticism back. Even in this letter she is complaining at some points that she can’t say stuff without being criticized.

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.

Apples to oranges. There's a huge difference between an individual journalist numerously reporting on something they feel strongly about vs. the most influential newspaper in the world turning into a hyper-partisan (left-wing) propaganda machine.

How is the NYT the most influential newspaper in the world? Even if it was at some point, even if the zeitgeist was that it was at some point, even if there was some metric that showed it was that at some point ... this seems like something that is almost impossible to rationally claim and verify (without let's say a lifetime's work).