I know how editorial sections work, but you'd think they'd at least check for bald-faced lies. Not out of a sense of decency, but self-interest.
It did but then Meredith Levien took control of the business and added a hard authoritarian edge to the paper which is showing in all the right wing religious nonsense it has been spewing of late.
It's fitting that the liberal paper of record supported every single war the US has been in, opposed MLK when he was marching, promoted the whole "crack babies pre-disposed to crime" horseshit in the 90s, but evolved to take the correct side that <insert war> was bad, MLK was good (but civil rights is over, these new guys need to shut up), etc 5 years after it mattered.
I mean, they hired a Hitler sympathizer in the 1930s who praised Goebbels, so one could argue they have always been shitty. I'd say it's time to start telling people they (NYT) are shit and hope they lose money.
Pretty sure someone did a deep digging of info and every news outlet of consequence is at least headed by a gop donor.
Not equating correlation with causation here....let's just say "I'm just asking questions!"
Preface: I am hard-left neutralist. I believe in equality and fairness, but there are universal rights like housing, food, water, education, etc. Closest ideological icon I respect would be Howard Zinn. So...
NYT stands for something, but not what everyone thinks it does. Like NPR, it has a masked bias that is, on its face, disingenuous. NYT hauls the DNC and corporate interest lines. (tows the line, not "toes the line").
The latter, NPR, are ultra Liberal but espoused neutrality. Bullshit. NYT spouts liberal agenda but sows chaos in their supposed ranks.
Neither NPR or NYT are "ultra liberal," tf you talking about? They pretend to be liberal at times, but they're about as centrist--and more often than not, center-right--as you can get in the US without disenfranchising too many customers. NPR was a lot more objective back when they didn't rely so heavily on corporate sponsors/donors, but those days are long gone. That being said, NPR's actual news reporting is at least among the lesser tainted when it comes to bias compared to corporate news/media outlets. It's far from perfect, though.
Liberal with a capital L is not the same as left. I'm far to the left of both of them. Liberals, like Pelosi, Biden, Jeffries, Newsom, and their ilk, are Center-Right. Taken in the context of the world, they're more Right.
NYT backs their agendas. NPR has been their mouthpiece for a long time. Neither are balanced the way we'd like for them to be.
But, trying to explain this on the internet is like screaming into a void, so whatever.
Which is why I clarified in parentheses the intent of my statement and the modification of the phrase. It was intentional. Thanks.
I don't know if the tweet is wrong or did NYT change the title but it's now called "Why I won't vote". I don't know what it contains because I'm not clicking on it to give that dickhead clicks.
Reminder that voting does work, because you can set your watch to the fascists voting, and they're getting exactly what they want.
Voting had never worked for me. I've always lived in places with large majorities.
Let's take an extreme example.
Does a Democrat vote in Wyoming or West Virginia really make a difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-fulfilling_prophecy
If no one votes because they don't think they can win, they're right. Vote anyway, you never know, you might unseat a local candidate and begin making incremental progress. And to be honest, the local level is always going to be more impactful on your day to day life anyway.
But if you don't cast the vote, you're going to be in the minority forever, along with everyone else who agrees with you and does the same.
Counter opinion.
Win, lose, it doesn't matter.
Voting is a pressure release valve that allows the status quo to exist.
It tricks the population into thinking it has an ounce of control over a country that serves it corporations
Voting is misdirection of the masses. It's the wrong answer to the wrong question.
While you are directing your anger at the citizen voters on the other team, or the people not voting, the lobbyists are the people with the real greenbacked votes that actually count.
So what's your solution? Do nothing and let the fascists take over? Start a revolution that will (at best) get put down quickly and nothing changes?
The only way to really show force is to do a general strike, but no one has the community support networks to outlast the capital class to get shit done. So for now, we either vote to keep shit from spiralling or we give in and accept the boot.
Win, lose, it doesn't matter.
Spoken from a place of privilege, where the consequences of your choice don't affect those around you. It matters to me who wins and loses, because one person winning means the rest of us lose and may not have a chance again. I have people I love who may not have rights in a year or two depending on how things play out.
But hey, I guess that part doesn't matter to you.
So what's your solution? Do nothing and let the fascists take over?
Don't fall for the misdirection. Sure, vote. But don't belive it changes anything.
Start a revolution that will (at best) get put down quickly and nothing changes?
Take the occupy wall street approach, not the BLM approach.
The only way to really show force is to do a general strike, but no one has the community support networks to outlast the capital class to get shit done.
Yes yes yes. A one day strike. A one hour strike. A Japanese bus driver refuse fares strike (if applicable).
So for now, we either vote to keep shit from spiralling
My disillusion sees this as both easy to do and damaging because that's all people do once every 4 years. Dur. I did my part, I voted.
Spoken from a place of privilege, where the consequences of your choice don't affect those around you.
You don't need privilege to observe when your vote doesn't matter.
It matters to me who wins and loses, because one person winning means the rest of us lose and may not have a chance again.
It doesn't matter who wins or loses because the corporatocracy wins if the wheel lands on red or blue.
I have people I love who may not have rights in a year or two depending on how things play out.
Misdirection again, although this time with serious side effects. The bigger the difference between the parties in social policies, the smaller the difference in economic policies. Corporatocracy wins either way.
Democracy is not perfect but it's the system you have and voting is how you participate.
Corporatocracy is the system we have and money is how you participate. The only laws that are passed are ones that benefit corporations.
Yeah this is bullshit and I question the sincerity of anyone saying this. We know empirically that areas that tend to vote left-wing have a harder experience in voting compared to areas that don't. If voting didn't matter there wouldn't be a targeted effort since 1865 to make it more difficult for some groups over other groups.
People have quite literally risked getting into sent to federal, rape in the shower, prison for decades to prevent black people from voting. You don't do that if you think voting doesn't matter.
I'm not denying many people care about voting. I'm saying due to corporatocracy it is irrelevant.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Your vote is important.
Maybe the Republicans keep winning in Wyoming because too many Democrats think like you.
You never know until you vote. So go vote.
The more of them that give up, the more the Republicans take over the smaller, less significant roles and then you end up with Republicans doing the districting, deciding the cases in the lower courts, twisting the law to suit their agenda. There are definitely blue states that went red this way. The population stayed blue, but didn't vote enough in the little things and the reds took over the decision making and now you have a red state.
Local elections aren't sexy or entertaining like presidential elections. Voters don't become engaged. Yet, local elections will have the biggest impact on voters.
Very strong argument. I don't disagree. I would also add corporate sponsored lobbying into the picture you painted.
Looking at how fucked the right has been in many elections they were expected to come out on top in, I wouldn't be very surprised if the Republicans lose in some areas both sides are assuming they'll win in and typically do this time around. Need every vote though.
In swing states you certainly have a point.
In a state that is deeply one colour or the other, you don't need every vote.
What I'm saying is that the set of swing states might be different this year than it has typically been in the past. There's some very good reasons for people who usually vote Republican to vote otherwise this election. There's a vocal subset of the party and the mass media seems to be trying to push a narrative that Trump has a good chance, but they might not have support from the usual voters who are mostly staying quiet because they know as well as everyone else that there's no benefit from trying to reason with them.
There's a chance that they might discover during this election just why the quiet parts were previously kept quiet. And saying them on platforms that won't try to shut them up with lots of simps eating it up doesn't mean society has accepted that worldview.
Personally, delusion in democracy doesn't stop me voting, but it does depressing me when the result is announced and hindsight confirms it's value.
Yes. For one when the loser loses the less they win WV or WY the harder it is to claim it was stolen. Let's say Biden got 30% in WV (about normal lol) that's still 3 in ten people. That sends a message and it helps legitimize votes in super blue areas.
Democrats voting in west Virginia got us to a slim democratic majority in the Senate in 2020 which allowed passage of the infrastructure act and the inflation reduction act.
Literal years, their game plan with getting the DNC leaked was getting progressive dems to not vote, or vote 3rd party (which is the same as not voting in the US) And the end result was... Trump.
Mathematically, anyone who didn't vote against trump, vote for him, when he won. That is just how our system plays out.
We all agree it is a bad system.
Clearly, the only way to beat the system is to not play the game, or to purposely lose the game to show the other players how bad the system is. It will work one of these centuries!!
I don’t accuse everyone. Just the ones that are obvious. You can tell who they are by the fact that they can’t help themselves from accusing others of making blanket statements when they’re clearly not- in order to appear as if they have a valid argument.
Dude’s got the haircut down. All he needs is to trim down that mustache from either sides to complete the “fine people on both sides” look
God damn, I actually was trying to put my finger on why he looked familiar and you just nailed it
yup. he's one quick shave away from methfurer, bet his password is something hitler related.
I support right-wingers not voting. Like they kept threatening when they were insisting (not that they aren't still insisisting) that the 2020 election was stolen.
Where it matters is which sock is putting judges on the Supreme Court. Trump added three in his last stint. Seeing as they tend to sit for 30+ years, this has generational impact.
One of those could have been avoided if Ginsberg would have retired when she was supposed to.
When was she supposed to retire? Republicans didn't even hold a vote for Merrick Garland under Obama's presidency, so if your answer was during that term, then there'd be no chance she would have been replaced, and she'd be blamed for retiring too early.
Blaming Ginsburg for Republican fuckery is misguided and can only be justified with the benefit of hindsight, which she didn't have at the time.
Any time prior to 2015. The Democrats didn't lose their Senate majority until the 2014 elections.
She was supposed to have the foresight to assume that the six months or so when they had a majority (when they passed ACA) was the last time Democrats would have the slightest hope of appointing a new supreme court justice.
What a fool she was! Not knowing the future!
The house does not vote on judges. Only the Senate. Obama had a friendly Senate until Jan 2015. They could even have done it during the lame duck session. But in reality the Senate was widely forecasted to change control so she could have retired in the spring without controversy.
But they didn't have the supermajority necessary to overcome a filibuster anymore. Even the cloture rule enacted in 2013 excluded supreme court nominations.
And that would have been gone in a hot second if they blocked RBG's replacement. They removed exactly what they needed to confirm judges.
You know, with the way everything just seems to go Trumps way in the end, a person might almost theorize there's a conspiracy.
Trump didn't do it all on his lonesome. He did it with senatorial approval.
The president is not a king... yet. Treating it like the only position that matters is a big part of the problem.
He may be but can we not equate pedophilia with a certain look? It let's a lot of bad people get away with it and throws innocent people in harms way.
They do have a certain look. Just go on one of those Megan's law registers online and look at the pictures for a while. That weird smile
The ones that get caught may fit your internal bias, but that doesn't mean that all people who look like that are pedophiles or that all pedophiles look a certain way. You're letting attractive people who molest children get away with it more easily by thinking that.
Establishing a culture of "pedophiles are always ugly" is letting attractive pedophiles get away with it.
You surely have some peer-approved scientific sources to for your claims? Also, "can we not" automatically makes me think of you as some brain dead meme kid with no identity other than being "good at" social media.
What? You don't need a peer reviewed study to know that pedophilia has absolutely nothing to do with a person's physical appearance.
Your "surely have some peer-approved scientific sources" automatically makes me think of you as some brain dead meme kid with no identity other than being "good at" social media.
Right? Like it's not a matter of scientific inquiry, it's equivalent to saying "all thieves are black people". You don't need a peer reviewed study to refute that lmao
My Québecois friend had the perfect expression for this freak: "He looks like he smells like sour milk."
They almost always do. Don't vote campaigns works on only non-fanatics and they are usually the more sensible compared to fanatics so yea
It is gaining traction with leftists that don't understand how FPTP voting works. Just educate them. Every single right-wing anchor they try to attach to our society can be destroyed with education and information.
This is the classic pincer manoeuvre of the right and mainstream media: the left wing candidate is always both too left and not left enough at the same time.
And they reinforce it with shitty opinion pieces of “all sides”. Anything to minimise left wing gains and keep the ratchet going.
Well fuck that guy. I love how he tries to compare voting to sexual abstinence too. He's so high on his own supply he can't stop from telling on himself.
Their only chance to win is if the Democrats don't vote. If everyone voted, there wouldn't be enough republikkklowns in office to make a difference. They know this. VOTE like your freedom depends on it. (because it does)
I hate that I know the US is having an election because all leftist spaces fill up with "I'm so principled that I'm not voting for the Democrats".
They are on board with YOU not voting. But they will be voting... Extra if they can arrange it
I am currently working in a city that borders another state so I can vote twice. I hate my options but i could if i wanted to.