The New Guard Touts “Safetyism” As A Right.

| June 5, 2020

Emails have been zipping around La Casa De AW1Ed today about a brand new Civil Right. It was conjured up at the NY Times by FNGs there in defiance of those older, more traditional liberal staff member’s dated ideals. Without being too much a spoiler, the New Guard is espousing the dominance of Safetyism, the Right To Feel Safe (RTFS) over, say, the right of Freedom Of Speech. Several of of us broke out our copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and checked. Nowhere was “Safetyism” mentioned, much alone ranked.
This obvious lapse in the thinking of the Founders should be addressed immediately, and I highly encourage the New Guard to begin the process of amending the Constitution to rectify this omission. After all, this new RTFS can trump virtually ALL the amendments, so they should get right on it. How hard can it be?

Poetrooper and AW1 Rod send.

NYT Writer Describes ‘Civil War’ Raging Within Company, Says One Side Believes In ‘Safetyism’ Over ‘Free Speech’

By: Shelby Talcott

The New York Times staff is apparently in the midst of a “civil war” between two groups, with one side pushing for the idea of “safetyism,” NYT reporter Bari Weiss tweeted following public clashes over an op-ed published Wednesday.

NYT employees openly rebelled against the publication’s decision to publish Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton’s op-ed calling for the U.S. military to be deployed in an effort to “restore order” amid nationwide protests over the death of George Floyd.

During the debacle, Weiss, a staff editor and NYT opinion writer, tweeted about the two sides currently at war within the company. Weiss named them as “The Old Guard” and “The New Guard.” She described the situation as a fight “between the (mostly young) wokes [and] the (mostly 40+) liberals,” adding that other publications across the country reportedly are in the midst of similar fights.

“The dynamic is always the same,” Weiss explained. “The Old Guard lives by a set of principles we can broadly call civil libertarianism. They assumed they shared that worldview with the young people they hired who called themselves liberals and progressives. But it was an incorrect assumption.”

“The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff,” Weiss continued. “They call it ‘safetyism,’ in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.”

This apparent “safetyism” appeared to be on full display amid the op-ed fight, as many staffers tweeted the same message: “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.” Weiss described “safetyism” as an ideology that some of the staffers want.

Weiss continued on to write that it was unsurprising that this battle had “exploded into public view,” although she expected it to take longer. She pushed back on being “mocked by many people over the past few years for writing about the campus culture wars.”

“They told me it was a sideshow. But this was always why it mattered: The people who graduated from those campuses would rise to power inside key institutions and transform them,” Weiss wrote.

People like this.

This should go well. Read the entire article here: Daily Caller

Thanks to Poe and Rod.

Category: Ivory Tower Idiocy, The Constitution, YGBSM!!

Comments (31)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Combat Historian says:

    I bet ‘ole Trigglypuff has gained another 80 pounds since this video. Binge-eating everything in her dorm fridge in reaction to Trump’s election win probably didn’t help…

  2. OldSoldier54 says:

    Holy Crap! That tub of lard looks like she never saw a twinky, snoball, hoho, zinger, dingdong, or all other forms of sugar laden crap conjured by the mind of man, that she didn’t instantly inhale saying, “Can I have another?”

    Just guessing here …

    • A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

      IMHO it’s a very safe bet that Blobfish of a snowflake has gone through life never being told “No!” to anything she wanted, raised by helicopter parents who were far more concerned about being her pal than a parent!

  3. I can’t understand the words she is screaming.

  4. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    DAMN!!! AW1… WTF! No brain bleach/spew alert!

    Fuck… I feel violated… so damn dirty after seeing that.

  5. A Proud Infidel®™️ says:

    Anyone espousing that shit may go ingest a satchel full of Richards.

  6. HMCS(FMF) ret says:

    Let’s call it what it really is – SNOWFLAKEISM!

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      Nownownow, it’s been said that they are ‘offended” by being called “snowflakes to which my response is “SNOWFLAKES, SNOWFLAKES, SNOWFLAKES!!!”

    • Toxic Deplorable Racist SAH B Woodman says:

      Love it! Love when the Left eat their own!
      Until there’s blood, bones, and bodies, it ain’t a civil war, just a “warm disagreement”. So the NYSlime ain’t trying hard enough by half.

      If they want “safetyism” as a right, good. Then how about MY right to “feel” safe against their attacks on MY safety?

  7. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, now I get it: it’s more important to lie your ass off to avoid hurting people’s widdle feewings than it is to support Truth.

    But since NYT is not known for telling Da Troot and hasn’t been for some time now, who gives a crap what they say? That paper is good for a few things: wrapping doots and solidified cat wee puddles from the catboxes; emptying wet garbage into several sections piled on top of each other, so that it can all be safely wrapped; and possibly a means of soaking up spills like when you bump into the cat’s water dispenser and it burps a few times. Good place for wet winter boots, too.

    Otherwise, it’s just trash.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      But it DOES do a job of giving liberal snowflakes the propaganda that they desire!

  8. Fyrfighter says:

    This is what happens when everyone gets a trophy, and all the other stupid shit they’ve been teaching kids for decades…

  9. Roh-Dog says:

    I’m not a smart man but a journalists gets paid to write fancy words in some sort of logical fashion?
    If they think Senator Cotton’s words were dangerous —hold on to your hats here, roads ‘bout to get bumpy— why don’t these butthurt morons use their craft to rebut the Big Meanie’s words?

    I’ll be taming and knocking the hurt off my last two functioning brain cells that f**king article did to me with ample bourbon.
    Class action on the NYT for negligence and causing rage-aneurysms?

  10. 5th/77th FA says:

    Thank the Good Lord I recognized that linky for what it was and did NOT do the clicky thingy.

    Don’t feel safe? Stay in your basement snowflake and leave the rest of us alone. We are not responsible for your safety or well being.

  11. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    Not safe because some black-dressed Vanilla ISIS might bash you?

    Hoist, on their own retard.

  12. SFC D says:

    Safety? Safety is an illusion. They don’t want safety. They want a bubble wrap padded world with no hard edges and only soft words. Quit being pussies, the world is harsh and it ain’t fair either. Sucks to be you, wimpy.

    • OldSoldier54 says:

      WORD!

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      SFC D, I’m sure that they wish for a world like what they picture of [Formerly] Great Britain where not only do they have extra-strict Gun Control, they also encourage people to turn in their sharp knives at collection boxes.

  13. OWB says:

    No. You are not the center of the universe. You may pursue your happiness until your path bumps up against the path of someone else’s pursuit of happiness. It is at that point that you’d better hope your negotiating skills are well enough developed to come to an equitable resolution. Or just get out of the way. That also works.

  14. The Other Whitey says:

    “Right to feel safe…”



    [Frustrated Firefighter/Fire Captain rage warning]
    Huh?
    What the…
    Are you fucking shitting me right now? That’s the most “Me, Me, Me” snowflake chickenshit I’ve ever heard in my life! What glue-sniffing retard dreamed up this crap?

    “Feel safe.” Really, so now you wanna claim a “right” to compel the rest of the world to meet your completely-arbitrary conditions in order to attain an absurdly-subjective standard that is subject to radical changes on a whim.

    What if you’re one of those special snowflake fucks who claims to feel “threatened” because you know somebody who voted for the guy you don’t like, or dresses the wrong way, or speaks Spanish, or works on his car in the driveway, or does anything else that you decide to claim as a “microaggression?” Does your neighbor get arrested because he violates your “right” to “feel safe?” Why does your “feel safe” right trump his? This is indefensible, untenable, self-defeating, and above all UNCONSTITUTIONAL bullshit.

    Some people are fearless fools. Others are paranoid hypochondriacs. How in Christ’s name do you square that with this “right?” Are you going to establish all-male enclaves for misogynists and wallflower incels? How about agoraphobics? I can do this all goddamn day. Unless certain people’s rights are more valuable than others’, you can’t even begin to have a society based on this.

    No, you don’t have any right to “feel” safe. You have a right to ensure your own physical safety from measurable, imminent threats, but that has nothing to do with your irrational fears and insecurities. You don’t get to restrict anyone else’s rights because you’re a nutless pussy afraid of the boogeyman. Sometimes you just need to sack the fuck up and deal with the fact that the world doesn’t care about your feelings.

    How in the absolute BALLS is this idea being promoted in institutions of supposed higher learning? If this is what you—shit, who am I kidding? Your parents and/or the rest of us (student loans don’t just appear out of thin air, y’know)—paid for, you got ripped off worse than an 18-year-old who thinks he’s in love with a fucking stripper.

  15. JACK SHIT says:

    Shelby Talcott does not know me.

  16. 26Limabeans says:

    Sefetyism comes in a small foil packet.

  17. ArmyATC says:

    Safetyism – the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe…

    I believe in safetyism. I feel emotionally safe by being able to defend myself against physical threats and psychologically safe by using rational thought to defend my beliefs.

  18. Safetyism is keeping your 1911 cocked and locked unless you intend to use it.

  19. Poetrooper says:

    This story reminds me of this guy of former TAH fame:

    https://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=66347