Seems like Canada's largest daily newspaper is stopping just shy of accusing NYT of manipulating their best seller list for e.g. political reasons. This is getting interesting...
I thought that the curation was fairly widely known, at least in the community of book lovers. But, in this case they weren't claiming it was excluded from the list because some editor removed it in the interest of "curating," they claimed it was excluded because of a hard rule about not including books that weren't published in the US.
It would be nice if someone could find a couple of examples of non-controversial books that made the top of other bestseller lists but that the NYT excluded because they weren't published in the US. That would make it a lot easier to defend the accusations that they are using "Canadian published" as an excuse to keep a book off the list they don't like. There have got to be several publishers in other English speaking countries with very popular books that don't have any US presence that still sold well here.
Perhaps, but if so, it's being applied very inconsistently. For example, the Op Ed page has recently been printing pieces that have upset the paper's leftest elite champions.
orthodoxy is an enforcement based method, consensus is survey based method.
In any event, the NY Times does often present dissenting views from what one assumes its agenda is. For example, it printing many, many pieces critical of Hillary during the last election cycle.
The NY Times has been printing op eds that are the opposite of the paper's editors political philosophy. See for example, this William F Buckley editorial suggesting we should tattoo a letter 'A' on the backside of gay men with HIV/AIDS: http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-aids....
There's nothing recent about this. Also, I think we should have the strongest written rebuttals to climate change that we can have, from an intellectual honesty point of view.
The Times list, along with most everything else in the paper, as per their motto of "all the news that's fit to print," is essentially the sphere of approved thinking that a certain part of the populace approves of.
I believe that those 2 statements aren't mutually exclusive. To paraphrase Peterson it is important to participate in groups as we progress into society from a dependent child relying on our parents into the various groups we socialize in. It is important to have a strong sense of self and individuality but equally important to know how to participate in groups and when to hold societal norms and when to challenge group psychology.
yostrovs is too polite to say it, but that segment of the population to which he alludes are American Jewry, who demonstrably wield disproportionate influence across America and consequently the world.
If you doubt this, just look at the principals of the major American media, finance, and political advocacy organizations and count the Jews.
Predictably, whether by conscious nepotism or accidental bias, they employ people who share their own hereditary interests and innate philosophy, shaping the company into one which is in conflict with the host nation's people.
Man, I love how totally valid and normal thought is now labeled as "controversial". You gotta flag wrong-thinkers from the getgo right? Can't let anyone have any wrong ideas.
I agree with many of his ideas and I agree with the label controversial. A lot of people like his ideas, and a lot of people hate them. That's pretty much the definition of controversial. They didn't use the headline to call him bigoted or misogynistic, which I could imagine some other publications doing.
Doesn't he get protested all over by various groups? So by observation I think he is controversial, though I also haven't really heard anything from him that sounded exceedingly inflammatory or anything
I liked his (Jordan Peterson) explanation of James Damores paper. It seems rooted in biological facts and there was extensive research that was scientifically accepted cited. I really like Peterson and I think his critiques are really valid. His most recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast really interested me and I found it both novel and a great scientific exploration of social & biological concepts. I don't understand the controversy around him tbh.
It feels in some quarters like there is a focussed, well organised effort to take Dr. Peterson down, either by slandering or by association. Some people are genuinely afraid of his way or thinking and will go to any lengths to poison the well.
28 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadIt would be nice if someone could find a couple of examples of non-controversial books that made the top of other bestseller lists but that the NYT excluded because they weren't published in the US. That would make it a lot easier to defend the accusations that they are using "Canadian published" as an excuse to keep a book off the list they don't like. There have got to be several publishers in other English speaking countries with very popular books that don't have any US presence that still sold well here.
e.g. a piece challenge climate change orthodoxy
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-comple...
In any event, the NY Times does often present dissenting views from what one assumes its agenda is. For example, it printing many, many pieces critical of Hillary during the last election cycle.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-el...
There's nothing recent about this. Also, I think we should have the strongest written rebuttals to climate change that we can have, from an intellectual honesty point of view.
If you doubt this, just look at the principals of the major American media, finance, and political advocacy organizations and count the Jews.
Predictably, whether by conscious nepotism or accidental bias, they employ people who share their own hereditary interests and innate philosophy, shaping the company into one which is in conflict with the host nation's people.
http://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/canadaland-guide-jorda...