1/ We're reaching a dangerous point where every single controversy immediately gets stripped of important details and simply slotted generically into some preexisting culture-war fight everyone already has strongly established feelings about. So instead of trying hard to figure

2/ out *exactly* what happened here -- and one thing that happened is a journo appears to have been forced out for mentioning a word the Times itself mentioned 20 times in the last year -- you're supposed to just use your thoughts on "cancel culture" or MeToo as a heuristic.

3/ This is a useful way to encourage people to turn their brains off and defer to pundits who build their brands around certain fights. If you reframe a new incident as part of that fight, you grant yourself authority over it despite being just as in the dark as everyone else.

4/ (Someone who, contra Valenti, thinks "cancel culture" is real and immediately determines this is an instance of it is making the same mistake in the other direction.)

5/ This was VANESSA Valenti! I am so sorry. Deleted. Vanessa Valenti is her sister. But the exact same point stands: Why does Jessica think her sister should be let off the hook in light of these accusations of racism?