I Was a Heretic at the New York Times

At least we can see the discussions between editors. This is a lot more transparency than what we have from newspapers.

Rioters and looters have nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions. For one, that is not even a bona fide combat situation. For another, they don't meet the definition of "lawful combatants" because they don't typically wear "uniforms or other insignia recognizable at a distance". No uniform = no POW rights under the Geneva Conventions. Unlawful combatants can be executed on the spot with no trial or any other formalities.

Now, one could make a decent argument that the so-called "Black Bloc" groups qualify, because they do wear outfits that might be characterized as uniforms if you squint at them hard enough. They should at least get the benefit of the doubt, IMO.

But random rioters and looters? It is utterly disingenuous to suggest that the Geneva Conventions even apply in that situation. Swiping iPads and Air Jordans are not the actions of lawful combatants. In fact, looting itself is explicitly called out as a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Someone here isn't familiar with the Geneva Conventions, but it's not Cotton.

> Rachel Abrams, one of Lee’s co-authors on the article, had been a vocal internal critic of Cotton’s op-ed. “How can they be sending us emails telling us they’re keeping us safe and care about our physical and mental well-being and then publish this,” she had posted on Slack, later adding, “I think it’s good that a lot of us will put our names on a strong condemnation.”

This reads like the equivalent of a firefighter complaining that his employer is endangering him by sending him into burning buildings. Regardless of what the NYT publishes, this was an honestly held opinion of Tom Cotton's. Not publishing it doesn't change what Tom Cotton thinks nor what kind of response he would advocate for in congress.

Words don't have just one meaning - it depends on context and the like.

"How could you say it means this thing. I've never heard of that thing before! I meant it in this other way!"

But also the clarification gives away the game: "If you say that someone was given no quarter, you mean that they were not treated kindly by someone who had power or control over them." <- Even this could still refer to the war crime.

The original tweet was saying "No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters."

Who would be the person that had "power or control" over people who don't recognize your authority? He has to be viewing them as military combatants, in which case he clearly meant it as the war crime, but ran to the other definition in the hopes it would cover it up.

It's not a subculture, it's regular corporate Human Resources behaviour in a few places. In my opinion it's often a symptom of something wrong rather than a mindful remedy.

On it's own clicking fingers can be good especially if some in the audience really do have trouble - for example a group meeting of certain sufferers. Most people would encounter it as part of a range of other idiosyncratic symbols and activities. It has become something that is done by default than something done specially.

Going further, it's different from a subculture. It becomes more than something that might be harmless but a kind of religious activity - something that both protects against evil people who are against them and something that promotes group unity within by participating.

    “Snapping is not new, but it is newly resurgent,” said Daniel Gallant, the executive director of Nuyorican Poets Cafe on the Lower East Side. The practice, he said, dates to the heyday of the beatnik poets, who would gather in coffeehouses and at hootenannies to perform poems laced with cultural rebellion and political activism. (It has also long been popular in bastions of counter-counterculture: sorority houses. Some historians say snapping was used in the days of the Roman Empire as well.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/fashion/snapping-new-clap...

Culture section of the ... New York Times ( YMMV )

Why is this even a matter of belief, what makes you uncomfortable about it?

With a modicum of effort you can indeed corroborate that this happened - I hope you do so - but I'm more curios about the knee jerk reaction.

You clearly don't want it to be real and simultanously you left open the possibility that it is a thing you aren't familiar with. But first and foremost you called him a liar. This is worthy of further rumination.

"Michael Hobbes, who makes a very good living as a professional debunker despite having an accuracy batting average about equal to what my batting average would be in an actual Major League Baseball game."

This is exactly the kind of statement I would love to see fact-checked by Michael Hobbes (or someone else).

Also, the article you shared is not another perspective, it's a deep dive into whether or not the sandwich anecdote at the beginning happened. It pretty much accepts the entire rest of the article, and then goes deep on the most throw-away piece of the entire piece.

I think people need to demand better from their representatives, elected and otherwise. These moves are not a surprise. Republican institutions have been openly working for decades towards this goal - for example the 2006 documentary Jesus Camp has kids praying for "righteous judges" at their creepy summer camp. Instead of taking this threat seriously the Democrats had supreme court justices grandstanding so their replacement could be nominated by the first woman president[1]. Risking the welfare of those whose rights you claim to defend for what amounts to a PR stunt is pretty despicable and yet RBG continues to be revered by many.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/magazine/ginsburg-success...

It wasn't real. It was a non-functional prop, midget size, with no hole in the platform, and the noose was a rope wrapped around a water bottle to make it look more real. Maybe you should examine the bias bubble you find yourself in.