|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You really need to ask yourself where you are when you're starting to defend anyone associating themselves with David "Lizard People" Icke. Don't cancel out the hard work you put into the OP of this thread by engaging in skirmishes like this. Maybe a good idea for this thread is a moratorium on who looks crazy and instead a focus on what people say. Otherwise it’s just going to turn into six degrees of David Ickes/Henry Kissinger between the normal factions.
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:whats a good op-ed page supposed to look like? Let me answer a question with a question: if Trump has 90% approval ratings within his party, why is every conservative columnist for the NYT a Never Trumper? Why do they give that much real estate to people who represent such a small, incoherent and insignificant minority? And why do we get Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, David Brooks AND Ross Douthat, but not even one mild socially democratic voice, much less a full-throated socialist?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Do you really need me to go on a tear about what a pack of freaks and ghouls they have their now? Their op-ed would be more informative, enlightened, and in touch with actual American life and politics if it were written by randomly selected people from across the country who rotated out every month. Yeah, the takes aren’t good, and they’re a literal detriment to the things the NYT is good at, straight up reporting. You don’t pay David Brooks millions over the years without that money NOT going to actual shoe leather. So not only do these self-important fucks act like their critique or analysis is worth a drat (it’s not; when was the last time you read anything at all challenging or novel in an op-ed?) but they are parasites who could not live without the news-producing host they’re latched onto , and they have the temerity to look at the news of inequality and climate decay and say “this is great!” Giving your money to the NYT is like punching yourself in the junk.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
SickZip posted:The NYTimes makes sense when you realize it's a paper thats deeply rooted in a certain upper-class New York Jewish perspective and milieu and that, while it has risen to national/world prominence as a result of the rise of New York as a global capital, it has never really outgrown that. You aren't going to get, and you shouldn't expect, a full even-handed coverage of the political spectrum from them. Buddy this isn’t a Jewish thing so stop making it weird. It’s a navel-gazing coastal elite thing, and a finance capitalism thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:True, but neither of these explain how a loving weirdo Catholic fascist like Douthat got in. Because his grandfather was governor of Connecticut, he served as Buckley’s “swimming partner” and probably took whatever disturbing blood vows at Harvard that our reptilian overlords require.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
Fallen Hamprince posted:Saw a Post story on this and oh boy do Walker's feelings on the Jews go deeper than a few books about the quote-unquote "lizard people". It’s just like...dummy, just read some loving Marx. Do a little pattern recognition: are the Kochs Jewish? The Mercers? No? Then maybe the rules for who is in the Secretly Running the World Club aren’t what you think they are? I wonder what’s so repellent to the idea that it’s just rich people except that it’s far too clear and simple a heuristic and robs the problem of inequality and suffering of all mysticism. selec fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Dec 18, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I honestly prefer this to an op-ed page 1/3 full of Trump sycophants. I think that it would be more honest to have those people defending Trump, because the current set of conservative writers are essentially peddling dishonesty; they don’t ever talk about the fact they agree with Trump on policy but hate his presentation. Having at least one genuine CHUD on the page would expose them as the assholes they are more than they do already.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This um, this isn't a good rebuttal given what both of those things are dogwhistles for on the right. How else do you talk about the incestuous bubble of people raised in coastal enclaves, then attended an Ivy, and all work as lanyards of some kind or another? While the idea of coastal elites has had a lot of other meanings wrapped into it by conservatives, like many of their dog whistles, they started by parroting an accurate leftist analysis (all these rich assholes from the coast hire and gently caress each other exclusively) and then adding their bullshit dog whistle to it. I don’t know that ceding the base truth under that is meaningful or useful. Same with finance capitalism; a leftist concept that accurately describes the systematic suction of capital upwards through a system of increasingly abstract and opaque mechanisms legalized and benefitted from by the same group of incestuous members of the elite. That reactionaries latched onto this because they are constitutionally incapable of forming new ideas is not the fault of the people, leftists, who accurately described the issue, and did so without the antisemetism that came to be attached to those concepts. In fact, that we have such a hard time discussing these two obvious concepts without the antisemetism of the right poisoning that discussion is super, super helpful to the people who benefit from those discussions not occurring. I think it might be okay to, in exclusively or majority leftist spaces, accept those commonplace understandings as coming from a place of sincerity without dogwhistles packages in them, especially considering the very post they were used in explicitly called out some pretty edgy/possibly antisemetic language.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Or I don't know Republicans that don't spew blatant conspiracies, outright lies or at least try to participate in discussions? Oh wait, we tried that. What if they exercised some modicum of editorial oversight rather than letting Brett Stephens write op eds that are clearly factually contradicted by the NYTs own reporting? It would be a method that would either require fact checking his columns before publication (which would salvage his and their reputation) or running same day fact checks next to it (which would savage his and maybe help their reputation). Let the people try and lie then. But that they are unwilling to do either indicates that it’s more important to them for their pundits to be able to lie and promote ideology than to have meaningful interpretations of reality and narrative explanations or insights into current events. It’s just top to bottom indefensible and they should either put honest representations of actual constituencies on the page with vigorous oversight or just shitcan the whole thing. Worrying that the “wrong” people might get a platform is just the cowed victim response that refuses to place the majority of the blame where it belongs, in the leadership’s lap.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Helsing it is difficult to underscore how bad a way it is to start off the thread by defending this particular set of sources, on these particular issues. I cannot imagine that any discussion is helped along by pleas for less nuance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:selec is assuming that the editors are somehow in opposition to the opeds that are being printed. these op-ed writers were hired for their political beliefs, and they are doing their job when they publish those dreadful opeds. Oh no, I wouldn't assume that the editors oppose those op-eds. I was just pointing out what a solution could look like. I have no confidence whatsoever they will even come within spitting distance of that. Those Op Eds are there to convince the people in power that the status quo is just. It's just bedtime stories for monsters.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
axeil posted:I have a feeling Stewert would be getting a lot of miles out of the Decorum and both sidesism give Stewart and Colbert such raging boners that they held an enormous rally to tell us the truth is in the middle. Stewart regularly had Bill loving O’Reilly, post falafel, on his show for some buddy buddy time. What the gently caress parallel dimension are you posting from today?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 19:08
|
|
and both-sides fetishism the NYTimes crowd has these days.
|
Tab8715 posted:Where was this event? Look at this; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear?wprov=sfti1 Two years into the Obama presidency, after we knew publicly that the GOP had vowed to make him a one-term president and that they were determined to obstruct the Dems in any way possible, these dipshits think maybe we can heal the nation by saying both sides have their crazies. It was loving idiotic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2018 19:14
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:As someone who has consumed news in 4 languages (5 really, but I forgot most of my Arabic and that was more to be able to consume primary source material), I can assure you that you're looking through a pinhole and thinking you're seeing everything. What would you say counts as subversive journalism in the US right now? Because I can’t think of much having any impact outside of infowars, which lol. What subversive movements exist in the US, and what media supports them? The right in the US has media at every part of their spectrum outside of naked white nationalism represented on the national stage. And even then, they still stray into barely-concealed white nationalism. The left does not have nearly the range of views represented on nearly as large of platforms, and it tends to be vehemently opposed by everyone from the right to liberals. What exactly do you see as subversive journalism that has any positive effect in the US right now? selec fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2019 05:01
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Subversive of what? The President of the United states right this moment is calling the press the enemy of the people and regularly goes on rants about them publishing information that harms him. Like I have no illusion that the response is the president doesn't run the country and the press doesn't attack the "them" deep state who runs the president. Or that trump is a victim of being the hero that dared to speak up against that deep state or whatever. But the fact the president of the US is constantly melting down about the press is pretty good evidence that US media is significantly different to state run propaganda. This is blather. He would melt down no matter what, because the right wing strategy since before I started paying attention in the 90s has always been to work the refs by accusing them of bias.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 05:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I imagine the ones he attacks are the more reliable ones than the stuff he doesn't you probably have to imagine a lot of poo poo to explain the world to yourself
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 06:20
|
|