Hitler is obviously maligned

At least according to a tweet by David Josef Volodzko, a Seattle Time editorial writer.

Text of tweet by Volodzko

The text of the tweet states:

In fact, while Hitler has become the great symbol of evil in history books, he too was less evil than Lenin because Hitler only targeted people he personally believed were harmful to society, whereas Lenin targeted even those he himself did not believe were harmful in any way.

Both Lenin and Hitler generally targeted categories of people rather than individuals, and they did not care whether they personally could be considered harmful to society or not, but rather whether they were undesirable or as a group could be considered harmful to society (by whatever warped measures they used to determine that). Trying to make any comparison between Hitler and someone else, where you decide Hitler is less bad, is making an excuse for Hitler. You can say that Lenin was bad, without saying that Hitler was less bad.

Unsurprisingly, and quite correctly, the tweet led to Seattle Time firing him.

Seattle Times note on firing Volodzko


The text says:

A Seattle Times editorial writer engaged in Twitter recently in a way that is inconsistent with our company values and those of our family ownership. Effective immediately, he is no longer employed by The Seattle Times. While we passionately believe in creating lively discoruse through a variety of viewpoints, we do so with respect and appreciation for all communities. We apologize for any pain we have caused  our readers, our employees and the community.

Volodzko also apologized in a twitter thread, though his first tweet mischaracterized what he had actually stated in his now deleted tweet


The tweet says:

I recently argued Lenin was more evil than Hitler for wanting to kill more people while Hitler was more evil for actually doing it. Let me say sorry to anyone hurt or offended by that because regardless of my intentions, the comparison is a dangerous one.

This is, of course, not what he argued, but at least he seems to have understood that it is comparison that gives covers to White Supremacists and (neo-)Nazis.



What has happened with TYT?

It used to be that The Young Turks was a progressive voice, though a problematic one, given the sexism and Armenian genocide denial by Cenk Uygur in the past.  Lately, however, many are asking what has happened to them. Both Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur has made anti-trans remarks, and Ana has come strongly out against the homeless.

This has led to 10 of the moderators of The Young Turks youtube channel to resign – they have written an open resignation letter.

Allsides is promoting false equivalence

I came across someone linking this on Twitter, claiming that people should make sure to get a balanced media diet, based on the categories they have places media in.

Bad overview of media bias

I think you have to be fairly rightwinged to think this is a fair representation of the media landscape in the US. Most of the news sources mentioned in “Lean Right” should be in the “Right” column, most of the “Lean Left” and even “Left” should be “Center”.

AllSides claim that the analysis is scientific, but when you read their description, you realize that they are anything but scientific, but entirely dependent on self-assessment and group evaluations, without clear definitions.

Rather than being a fair rating of news sources,  this is probably an attempt to normalize right-winged media, claiming that they are as close to the center as major mainstream news sources like New York Times and the Economist.

My suggestion for a balanced and mostly true news media, is to look at the Left, Lean Left, and Center columns, and make sure to read from several sources there. Then look at the Lean Right and Right columns, and make sure to avoid those sources.