Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

We Were Wrong to Advocate for Eating Babies, But Also We Are Right

Illustration for article titled We Were Wrong to Advocate for Eating Babies, But Also We Are Right
Image: Getty

Here at Jezebel, we wear many pointed hats—those of journalists, classical liberals, and practitioners of witchcraft deeply committed to an open dialogue around ethical necromancy. We champion ideas above all else, striving to bring myriad points of view to our dozens of readers, who may not have access to literally any other ideas beyond those published on this blog. And it is because of this deep commitment to free speech and inclusive witchcraft that we must both stand behind our advocacy for using military force to ensure babies get eaten and also apologize for it.

Advertisement

We live in divisive times and must acknowledge that while there are those who would rather babies remain uneaten, there are also those who would like the military to point cannons at citizens not eating babies until every single American baby gets eaten. To ignore those voices is to ignore free speech itself, along with the constitutional mandate that every news publication gives equal weight to all opinions simultaneously. In the past, we have strongly advocated for leaving babies uneaten. Not to give platform to the opposing voices who believe not only that babies are tender, sweet, and sustainable, but also that not eating them should be a crime punishable by state-sponsored public guillotining, would be to present a one-sided argument in the name of safetyism. Ignoring opposing viewpoints is not what good journalists—or good witches—do.

So when we publish an opinion piece stating that those who would condemn the practice of roasting live babies over an open flame and gorging upon their buttered flesh should be shot with military-grade weapons until they agree that eating babies is a wholly American pastime and take a bite themselves, we are opening a crucial dialogue between two opposing viewpoints, which is the only way to begin healing the divide between those who eat babies and those who do not.

Advertisement

However, we are also sorry it seems as though we endorse the idea that red-hot pokers followed by stoning in the public square is a suitable punishment for those who refuse to eat babies. We do not. We simply feel it would undermine the integrity and independence of all witches, cannibal or otherwise, if we only published views that editors agreed with, and it would betray what we as lovers of free and open witchcraft think of as our fundamental purpose—not to tell you what to think, but to help you think for yourself.

And finally, we must acknowledge the fact that we did not read the statements we published regarding hurling grenades at any coven gathered in public without a sack of babies specifically intended for consumption, still have not read them, and probably never will. But we remain deeply sorry to anyone who was offended.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

theghostofjimmadison
The Ghost of James Madison's Rage Boner

In case anyone missed this detail that emerged this morning:

Earlier this week, the Times published an op-ed, headlined “Send in the Troops,” in which Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) enthusiastically called for the deployment of American military forces to suppress the ongoing protests against police brutality. The column sparked immediate criticism from readers and many of the paper’s own staffers, who publicly denounced the decision to publish it.

One by one during Friday’s staff meeting, the paper’s top leaders apologized for the opinion piece. At one point, the paper admitted that it did “invite” Cotton to write the column.

The paper’s controversial top opinion editor James Bennet issued a mea culpa, claiming he let his section be “stampeded by the news cycle,” and confessed that the backlash had inspired him to rethink the op-ed section entirely.