The woke mobsters at the New York Times have more demands

Last week, the Chicago Tribune Guild came together to accuse conservative columnist John Kass of anti-Semitism. His sin? He wrote a column pointing out that the incompetent, vindictive, and biased prosecutor Kim Foxx drew most of her campaign funding from a George Soros organization.

The Chicago Tribune’s management instantly backed down, relegating Kass from his Page 2 prominence to being one of the hard on the back page. Kass, to his great credit, refused to back down in the face of this cancel culture effort.

For the left, the fact that the Chicago Tribune backed down is of more importance than the fact that Kass refused to. So it was that, the New York Times Guild was inspired to present its demands to the Times.

The Guild’s demands don’t target a specific columnist. That makes sense. The woke employees having bullied out columnist Bari Weiss, for being vaguely conservative, and James Bennet, for daring to publish an opinion from a Republican U.S. Senator, there are no human targets left.

The Guild’s current goal is to revamp the Times from top to bottom. It demands that the Times hire blacks until they constitute 24% of the workforce (even though they’re only 13.4% of the population). By 2025, the Guild insists that the Times workforce must be 50% minority, although whites are 76% of the population. It appears that Guild members are so parochial that New York City’s demographics are a stand-in for all of America.

There were several other race-based hiring metrics (all of dubious legality under the Civil Rights Act of 1964) but, honestly, those demands are old hat when it comes to the woke mobsters. What was different this time was that the Guild insists that the Times hire someone to read all of the paper’s content before it’s published to ensure that nothing it offends any minority person reading the paper:

The wits were on this immediately, including Tom Cotton, whose column got James Bennet fired:

Once upon a time, when the Times pretended that it was an actual newspaper, it had editors who reviewed content for factual accuracy, grammar, and readability. Judging by the quality of recent Times articles, those concerns are too old-fashioned and expensive for a 21st century publication.

What do you bet, though, that the Times can scrounge up some money to find that sensitivity editor? The theory would be that it’s a cardinal sin (up there with sloth, greed, and lust) to commit a microaggression that might offend some recent college grad holed up in an apartment somewhere wondering why “ze” cannot find work with “hir” Queer and Non-Binary studies degree.

What I find a grievous sin, although not strictly a cardinal one, is the mindset of Marxist activists who treat all black people like mentally unstable toddlers. Outside of the college-educated crowd, or those who pretend to have attended college, I’ve yet to hear of an actual minority who is so sensitive to any possible underlying microaggression that he or she cannot read a New York Times article that hasn’t first been mediated to remove imaginary insults.

Image: Pikrepo

Last week, the Chicago Tribune Guild came together to accuse conservative columnist John Kass of anti-Semitism. His sin? He wrote a column pointing out that the incompetent, vindictive, and biased prosecutor Kim Foxx drew most of her campaign funding from a George Soros organization.

The Chicago Tribune’s management instantly backed down, relegating Kass from his Page 2 prominence to being one of the hard on the back page. Kass, to his great credit, refused to back down in the face of this cancel culture effort.

For the left, the fact that the Chicago Tribune backed down is of more importance than the fact that Kass refused to. So it was that, the New York Times Guild was inspired to present its demands to the Times.

The Guild’s demands don’t target a specific columnist. That makes sense. The woke employees having bullied out columnist Bari Weiss, for being vaguely conservative, and James Bennet, for daring to publish an opinion from a Republican U.S. Senator, there are no human targets left.

The Guild’s current goal is to revamp the Times from top to bottom. It demands that the Times hire blacks until they constitute 24% of the workforce (even though they’re only 13.4% of the population). By 2025, the Guild insists that the Times workforce must be 50% minority, although whites are 76% of the population. It appears that Guild members are so parochial that New York City’s demographics are a stand-in for all of America.

There were several other race-based hiring metrics (all of dubious legality under the Civil Rights Act of 1964) but, honestly, those demands are old hat when it comes to the woke mobsters. What was different this time was that the Guild insists that the Times hire someone to read all of the paper’s content before it’s published to ensure that nothing it offends any minority person reading the paper:

The wits were on this immediately, including Tom Cotton, whose column got James Bennet fired:

Once upon a time, when the Times pretended that it was an actual newspaper, it had editors who reviewed content for factual accuracy, grammar, and readability. Judging by the quality of recent Times articles, those concerns are too old-fashioned and expensive for a 21st century publication.

What do you bet, though, that the Times can scrounge up some money to find that sensitivity editor? The theory would be that it’s a cardinal sin (up there with sloth, greed, and lust) to commit a microaggression that might offend some recent college grad holed up in an apartment somewhere wondering why “ze” cannot find work with “hir” Queer and Non-Binary studies degree.

What I find a grievous sin, although not strictly a cardinal one, is the mindset of Marxist activists who treat all black people like mentally unstable toddlers. Outside of the college-educated crowd, or those who pretend to have attended college, I’ve yet to hear of an actual minority who is so sensitive to any possible underlying microaggression that he or she cannot read a New York Times article that hasn’t first been mediated to remove imaginary insults.

Image: Pikrepo