Did NYT Incite Violence Towards Police

[Anonymous]

Before the Dallas shootings, the New York Times was prominently featuring this rage-filled and hateful article by a black Georgetown professor, full of venom directed at "white America," on its web page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/what-white-america-fails-to-see.html?mabReward=A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

After the shootings, the Times starting to bury the article, and no longer feature it on its web page.

It's a disgraceful, overtly racist article that, at least in my opinion, should never have been published and ought to lead to Georgetown's promptly severing any and all ties with Mr. Dyson. It is inconceivable that the Times would have printed any article by a white author purporting to diagnose the pathologies of "Black America," "Hispanic America," or "Jewish America" in such broad, crude terms. But it was happy to print Dyson's article. The rich liberals who run the Times need to take a hard look at themselves now and ask whether they have promoted racial discord and violence, by publishing such vile drivel.

[Anonymous]

Pretty damn sure the Dallas shooter does not read the New York Times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pretty damn sure the Dallas shooter does not read the New York Times.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but the article is illustrative of the hate-filled rhetoric that the Times has provided a platform for (so long as it is anti-white and/or anti-police).

People will jump through hoops and claim that Dyson's hate is directed towards white privilege, or institutions controlled largely by whites, but the rhetoric paints all white Americans with a broad, negative brush.

Again, I ask what goal the Times thought it would achieve by publishing such drivel, and how the rich liberals who run that paper can sleep at night knowing the consequences of its actions.

[Anonymous]

Wait, wtf? This article was written in RESPONSE to the Dallas shootings and condemns them. What are you on about?

[Anonymous]

Great Article about Nixon's War on Drugs in 2016

- In a 1974 study, the National Bureau of Standards warned that the kits “should not be used as sole evidence for the identification of a narcotic or drug of abuse.”

- Chemists themselves had long ago stopped relying on color tests, preferring more reliable mass spectrographs.

- By 1978, the Department of Justice had determined that field tests “should not be used for evidential purposes,”

[- b]The field tests in use today remain inadmissible at trial in nearly every jurisdiction[/b]; instead, prosecutors must present a secondary lab test using more reliable methods.


But this has proved to be a meaningless prohibition. Most drug cases in the United States are decided well before they reach trial, by the far more informal process of plea bargaining. In 2011, RTI International, a nonprofit research group based in North Carolina, found that prosecutors in nine of 10 jurisdictions it surveyed nationwide accepted guilty pleas based solely on the results of field tests, and in our own reporting, we confirmed that prosecutors or judges accept plea deals on that same basis in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Newark, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html?hpw&rref=magazine&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great Article about Nixon's War on Drugs in 2016

- In a 1974 study, the National Bureau of Standards warned that the kits “should not be used as sole evidence for the identification of a narcotic or drug of abuse.”

- Chemists themselves had long ago stopped relying on color tests, preferring more reliable mass spectrographs.

- By 1978, the Department of Justice had determined that field tests “should not be used for evidential purposes,”

[- b]The field tests in use today remain inadmissible at trial in nearly every jurisdiction[/b]; instead, prosecutors must present a secondary lab test using more reliable methods.


But this has proved to be a meaningless prohibition. Most drug cases in the United States are decided well before they reach trial, by the far more informal process of plea bargaining. In 2011, RTI International, a nonprofit research group based in North Carolina, found that prosecutors in nine of 10 jurisdictions it surveyed nationwide accepted guilty pleas based solely on the results of field tests, and in our own reporting, we confirmed that prosecutors or judges accept plea deals on that same basis in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Newark, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html?hpw&rref=magazine&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

I don't understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Article about Nixon's War on Drugs in 2016

- In a 1974 study, the National Bureau of Standards warned that the kits “should not be used as sole evidence for the identification of a narcotic or drug of abuse.”

- Chemists themselves had long ago stopped relying on color tests, preferring more reliable mass spectrographs.

- By 1978, the Department of Justice had determined that field tests “should not be used for evidential purposes,”

[- b]The field tests in use today remain inadmissible at trial in nearly every jurisdiction[/b]; instead, prosecutors must present a secondary lab test using more reliable methods.


But this has proved to be a meaningless prohibition. Most drug cases in the United States are decided well before they reach trial, by the far more informal process of plea bargaining. In 2011, RTI International, a nonprofit research group based in North Carolina, found that prosecutors in nine of 10 jurisdictions it surveyed nationwide accepted guilty pleas based solely on the results of field tests, and in our own reporting, we confirmed that prosecutors or judges accept plea deals on that same basis in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Newark, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html?hpw&rref=magazine&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

I don't understand.

Read the article.

Cops pull over someone for invalid turn, yeh right, tested a bread crumb, sent them to jail for a bogus drug felony, they lost their job, their home, and then cops said sorry, it was only a bread crumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great Article about Nixon's War on Drugs in 2016

- In a 1974 study, the National Bureau of Standards warned that the kits “should not be used as sole evidence for the identification of a narcotic or drug of abuse.”

- Chemists themselves had long ago stopped relying on color tests, preferring more reliable mass spectrographs.

- By 1978, the Department of Justice had determined that field tests “should not be used for evidential purposes,”

[- b]The field tests in use today remain inadmissible at trial in nearly every jurisdiction[/b]; instead, prosecutors must present a secondary lab test using more reliable methods.


But this has proved to be a meaningless prohibition. Most drug cases in the United States are decided well before they reach trial, by the far more informal process of plea bargaining. In 2011, RTI International, a nonprofit research group based in North Carolina, found that prosecutors in nine of 10 jurisdictions it surveyed nationwide accepted guilty pleas based solely on the results of field tests, and in our own reporting, we confirmed that prosecutors or judges accept plea deals on that same basis in Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Newark, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html?hpw&rref=magazine&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

I don't understand.

Read the article.

Cops pull over someone for invalid turn, yeh right, tested a bread crumb, sent them to jail for a bogus drug felony, they lost their job, their home, and then cops said sorry, it was only a bread crumb.

and they field test they use, developed in 1973, cannot be used for evidence and creates false positives in 1/3 of the tests. yet the cops still use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty damn sure the Dallas shooter does not read the New York Times.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but the article is illustrative of the hate-filled rhetoric that the Times has provided a platform for (so long as it is anti-white and/or anti-police).

People will jump through hoops and claim that Dyson's hate is directed towards white privilege, or institutions controlled largely by whites, but the rhetoric paints all white Americans with a broad, negative brush.

Again, I ask what goal the Times thought it would achieve by publishing such drivel, and how the rich liberals who run that paper can sleep at night knowing the consequences of its actions.

I'm white and it didn't paint me negatively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, wtf? This article was written in RESPONSE to the Dallas shootings and condemns them. What are you on about?

This is actually an astonishing situation. The ORIGiNAL Op-Ed piece by Dyson was posted before the shootings began, but due to the shooting, the Times apparently allowed the author to retroactively revise the piece to "tone it down". The current tone of the piece is substantially different than the original (though much of the original content remains).

I can't recall this ever being done with an Op-Ed.

[Anonymous]

No, I don't think the NYT article incited violence.

Nor do I think that this article was particularly good, to be honest. Not sociology-professor-from-Georgetown-level good.

Even though I think that, yes, everyone has a lot of work to do--Whites maybe especially--to open our eyes to what is going on, and what we an do about it in a constructive, equitable, reparational way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think the NYT article incited violence.

Nor do I think that this article was particularly good, to be honest. Not sociology-professor-from-Georgetown-level good.

Even though I think that, yes, everyone has a lot of work to do--Whites maybe especially--to open our eyes to what is going on, and what we an do about it in a constructive, equitable, reparational way.

How about reparations for coal miners un Appalachia? Chinese who worked on the railroad? Japanese interned? White sweat shop descendants? Everyone has suffered; everyone has hope . Except in limited cases (GU trackng down the descendants of sold enslaved workers is interesting, though I dont think they owe them money) I am tired of this culture of victimization. I think it has gotten us to this precipice. Left is truly a glass is half empty, bankrupt philosophy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the Dallas shootings, the New York Times was prominently featuring this rage-filled and hateful article by a black Georgetown professor, full of venom directed at "white America," on its web page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/what-white-america-fails-to-see.html?mabReward=A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

After the shootings, the Times starting to bury the article, and no longer feature it on its web page.

It's a disgraceful, overtly racist article that, at least in my opinion, should never have been published and ought to lead to Georgetown's promptly severing any and all ties with Mr. Dyson. It is inconceivable that the Times would have printed any article by a white author purporting to diagnose the pathologies of "Black America," "Hispanic America," or "Jewish America" in such broad, crude terms. But it was happy to print Dyson's article. The rich liberals who run the Times need to take a hard look at themselves now and ask whether they have promoted racial discord and violence, by publishing such vile drivel.

No, OP. The NYT didn't incite anything. Nor did it "bury" anything -- content loses freshness after time and is replaced with newer content.

Let's keep the focus on where it belongs: Badly trained and trigger happy police forces that disproportionately target black people for violence. Thank you for your cooperation in that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Before the Dallas shootings, the New York Times was prominently featuring this rage-filled and hateful article by a black Georgetown professor, full of venom directed at "white America," on its web page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/what-white-america-fails-to-see.html?mabReward=A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

After the shootings, the Times starting to bury the article, and no longer feature it on its web page.

It's a disgraceful, overtly racist article that, at least in my opinion, should never have been published and ought to lead to Georgetown's promptly severing any and all ties with Mr. Dyson. It is inconceivable that the Times would have printed any article by a white author purporting to diagnose the pathologies of "Black America," "Hispanic America," or "Jewish America" in such broad, crude terms. But it was happy to print Dyson's article. The rich liberals who run the Times need to take a hard look at themselves now and ask whether they have promoted racial discord and violence, by publishing such vile drivel.

The article is excellent. Maybe it's YOU who needs to take a hard look at yourself what is it you don't understand and what you are willing to do to understand why black people are angry and hurting. Maybe it is YOU who is promoting discord. Contrary to your one-sided belief, 99% of African-Americans support police. You conveniently forget there are minorities on the police force.

I am older and have seen up close and personal, past and present, questionable actions by those entrusted with authority. I have seen, like Dyson who you castigate, official behavior in the most deplorable and frightening situation. That is why people form opinions from ACTIONS and continuation of those actions. I, myself, have been frightened for rightfully being pulled over for speeding and willingly placing hands fully and openly placed on top of the steering wheel while explaining I was a physician called in to the ED. Yet, preconceived notions assumed I wasn't being truthful while the other officer on the passenger's side stood with gun drawn. Verbal eloquence be damned. I almost shit in my pants I was so frightened. And yet, OP, you can't understand why there is so much anger from African-Americans of all socioeconomic levels.

I applaud Dyson's article and hope he continues the fight with his pen against corrupt police who nullify the positive efforts of others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Before the Dallas shootings, the New York Times was prominently featuring this rage-filled and hateful article by a black Georgetown professor, full of venom directed at "white America," on its web page:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/what-white-america-fails-to-see.html?mabReward=A5&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0

After the shootings, the Times starting to bury the article, and no longer feature it on its web page.

It's a disgraceful, overtly racist article that, at least in my opinion, should never have been published and ought to lead to Georgetown's promptly severing any and all ties with Mr. Dyson. It is inconceivable that the Times would have printed any article by a white author purporting to diagnose the pathologies of "Black America," "Hispanic America," or "Jewish America" in such broad, crude terms. But it was happy to print Dyson's article. The rich liberals who run the Times need to take a hard look at themselves now and ask whether they have promoted racial discord and violence, by publishing such vile drivel.

No, OP. The NYT didn't incite anything. Nor did it "bury" anything -- content loses freshness after time and is replaced with newer content.

Let's keep the focus on where it belongs: Badly trained and trigger happy police forces that disproportionately target black people for violence. Thank you for your cooperation in that.

Should blacks stop being policed? You say disproportionately target. What is the correct ratio for you? What guidelines would you give departments? I'm sure they are weary of this too. Should black motorists get a pass? Should black neighborhoods be left unpoliced? If a black suspect is called in as often happens with DC street robberies, let it go? I am guessing in a city like DC - the majority of people arrested are AA. A disproportionate amount of AA poor compared to non AA or rich. How do we get those numbers down to your satisfaction? I am ot being facetious - just what exactly do you desire on that issue from the police?

And by the way, I totally get it raising revenue from petty crimes and I am very sympathetic to that. But your rhetoric demands more than not issuing jaywalking tickets to blacks in small towns, or is it that simple?