People sometimes wonder what editors do. It's a fair question to ask, given how difficult it is to read a column or blog post and be able to discern exactly how much influence an editor did or did not have over the final product. It's easy to assume that editors don't do much at all, actually, and just skim a hardworking writer's drafts before publication. Thankfully, there are guys like now former Seattle Times columnist Matt Calkins out there to remind us of how much value editors can provide to their publications.

all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 16 points 2 months ago

Good riddance to bad rubbish

I am seeing now that there's a reason Calkins has spent the last 11 years quietly enjoying a cushy columnist gig without becoming widely known as one of the dumber writers working in the English language, and the reason is that his editors were really looking out for him. Quitting in a huff over these columns being spiked? Brother, you should have been bringing your editors muffins every day for how well they were covering for you.

  • source
  • What a jackass, good riddance.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I'm surprised about the Times taking that stance, you never know what you're going to get from them. They can be great and supportive of everyone and then take the shittiest stance possible in the next article.

  • source
  • 11 comments in c/seattle@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 33 points 2 months ago*

    The first kid:

    Does the right wing anti-trans media circles with specifically anti-trans media personalities

    Goes to a WNBA game with tickets courtside provided by anti-trans media specifically to start shit on behalf of anti-trans orgs

    Acting as The Face for getting trans kids out of sports, giving interviews about court cases

    "Wilson emphasized to me at the rally was that she wasn’t anti-trans"

    The second kid:

    She said she looked over at the trans girl and said, “You are a man.”

    how rotten does the column have to be for The Times to spike it? pretty fuckin rotten

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 2 months ago

    Imagine you’re making a decision about a sports writer. Imagine you’re even willing to overlook his hostility towards trans athletes. Are you willing to saddle your sports editor with someone who’s defiantly proud of his decade of assholery, and possibly risk a future lawsuit, or will you just move along to the next resume on the pile?

    This guy has done every potential employer a major service.

  • source
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago

    If sports are separated by gender there is probably a good reason, if not then remove that barrier. Wouldn't the logical solution be to create more barriers to better accommodate the gender spectrum rather then directly playing into the binary divide?

    I mean what do we want? Gender spectrum to be normalised right? So why would you fight against that? It just doesn't make sense.

  • source
  • [+] -17 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    Girls not having to play against biological boys is not a big ask. Weird hill for a lot of lgbt supporters to die upon.

    This stance alone weakens everything else they stand for, but their view is so constrained, they seem almost afraid to confront this logically.

    This entire news story would not exist if we respected a females right to not compete against a male that identifies as female.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    We do respect that. Because the people they're competing against aren't male. They're female. But because people like you love to look at things in black and white and give creedence to every jackass who says "durrr I'm gonna say I'm a woman and dominate them" or "I identify as a patriot" and thinks that's some sort of gotcha moment instead of being willing to use any sort of brain power.

    Maybe my rights should be respected and I shouldn't have to compete against Lebron James.

    The irony in claiming people don't want to use logic when one side wants things as un-nuanced as possible and caters to trolls and scam artists says all that needs to be said about the "logic" in this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Look how fast you devolve into insults. You have failed to say anything meaningful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Actually what they said was very insightful and accurate to reality. You're thinking of the thing that you said. You're actually a very disrespectful person for engaging in bad faith arguments for the sole purpose of enflaming a conversation.

    Sorry if being called disrespectful hurts your sensibilities. I understand that you might consider that an insult somehow, but I'll take that risk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Insults. Means you have nothing of substance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Mehdi Hasan addresses your deflection pretty well in "Win Every Argument." He says, that once you bring you as the source of truth to an argument, then ad hominem is fair game. He cites other great debaters who use, what is considered to be Ad Hominem, to great effect.

    You claim logic in your original post. But you fail to bring receipts (and thus no basis for a logical argument.)

    So, I implore you to bring receipts, ones that are generally well regarded and backed by research.

    As for the time being, with whom should someone who is born with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome compete?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)