1. The newsroom uprising against James Bennet at the New York Times, along with media controversies about racism, has led the the usual handwringing from the usual suspects about PC, SJWs, safe spaces, blah blah blah. A new entry into this discourse is @mtaibbi.
2. In a lengthy blog post, Taibbi argues that Tom Cotton's "Send in the Troops" op ed is being unfairly misrepresented (Cotton only meant using Troops against looters and criminals, not against peaceful protestors). This is an idea that deserves to be debated. 
3. Strangely, people who say "Cotton's ideas deserve to be debated" are unwilling to actually Cotton's ideas are. None of them, as far as I can tell, comment on this tweet, posted before the op ed:
4. "No quarter" means "kill them all." Insurrectionists means "this is a civil war." The Times op ed was a whitewashed version of Cotton's idea, one that allowed himself to present a respectable face to polite company.
5. Of course Cotton walked back the tweet & said "no quarter" just means being hardline. But was was using the eliminationist language commonly used to egg on a massacre, i.e. "Jakarta is coming"
6. Also it's amazing that Taibbi accepts at face value the idea that the army would only go after criminals, not protestors. Is the American military really skilled at distinguishing between civilians & military targets? Is that the experience of Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan?
7. More thoughts here on pundits who would rather focus on their culture war fetish than on an American Senator using eliminationist rhetoric against American civilians. thenation.com/article/politi…
