1. in terms of these "should they be fired for their tweets & bad opinions" controversies, the one I remain most conflicted about -- I mean genuinely torn -- is Quinn Norton.
-
-
3. With Norton, there are some genuine principles in conflict: a) she's talented b) she would've brought a much needed radical perspective to Times c) she has very crackpot/wrong-headed ideas about Nazis. That last point needs to be unpacked.
Show this thread -
4. Her crackpot idea is that Nazis should be befriended by non-Nazis & also it's possible for Nazi to be otherwise a good person. Also it's okay to throw around racist & homophobic slurs as part of internet engaging with people on internet.
Show this thread -
5. I think the most charitable possible view of Norton's thinking on Nazis is that it is super-naive. It comes from a place of extreme, radical innocence.
Show this thread -
6. Being charitable, we can say that Norton thought it was possible to befriend Nazis & talk with them in their own language without being effected. Her assumption was she could pull them to her, not that they would drag her down. Which is naive & wrong but not vile.
Show this thread -
7. The question then becomes (if we accept the most charitable possible view of Norton) whether being super-naive is firing offense. When you're job includes writing on politics (as she was going to) I think it is.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
She defended being friendly with nazis and keeping them in the conversation. It and that position post the revelations that doomed her
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.