So, exactly why is The New Yorker giving a huge platform to this person who is advocating criminal actions to further his political aims? They’re not just reporting on it; they’re actually asking the question: should one engage in “intelligent sabotage?” as though this is a rational choice. Apparently, violence and crime is okay — if it jibes with the political cause that you embrace.

Stephen L. Miller
@redsteeze
For those keeping track at home, both the New Yorker and the New York Times are debating and soft endorsing terror acts against national pipelines in the name of climate. //

Wayne_In_Akron
@Wayne_In_Akron
ATTN: @FBI

I'm pretty sure "sabotage" is still a crime and "How to blow up a pipeline" might be part of a "conspiracy" or being an "accessory".

Perhaps you've got some "informants" who might be able to infiltrate The @NewYorker or you might even consider some proactive steps.