tennbengal wrote:Counterpoint - you can write that piece without making it seem like a puff piece and not have it be a diatribe.
Yeah, but it didn't seem like a puff piece to me. Sure, it spent time on the guy's daily life. His engagement and other things, but then there'd be a picture of his bookshelf full of racist literature.
The his comments on mixed race couples seemed kind of innocuous, but then he'd comment on how Jews were controlling the world.
I think that once people hear about the story - before they read it - they will approach it with their pre-conceived notions about the "normalizing" of a racist.
And I think that the Times is completely wrong in apologizing for offending people. They should not backtrack by saying it "imperfectly" tried to shed light on certain corners of society. They should say - our readers are free to draw their own conclusions. And to say that the Times has given a "racist an unchallenged platform" is in my mind idiotic.
When Horvater made the "normal people" line, well, an intelligent reader knows what he means. He or she should know that this is an offensive quotation and is in the piece to show what an asshole the guy is.
Do people really need the editor to underline the word? Or have the writer blatantly state that "Nazis are bad"?
It's a paper that is written for intelligent adults. people who are offended by the lack of literal condemnation of the guy should stick to Salon or blog posts written in a splenetic manner.
It's not even a question of "letting people make up their own minds" it's a question of why can't people appreciate that there's more than one way to discuss an issue? More than one way to get a point across?
Right near the end of the article, there's a paragraph that starts with a description of the nazi making a pasta dish. Talked about his cats and his "tidy house" where "Books about Hitler and Mussolini shared shelf space with Nintendo Wii games. A day earlier, a neighbor had hung a Confederate flag in front of his house."
If you are a person who believes that books about Hitler and Confederate flags signify evil and the worst of humanity, than there can be no question as to what the writer and editor is trying to accomplish.
People - and I don't mean TB here - are being ridiculous.