It's more honest, and a retvrn to its original name. Time to drop the pretense. 
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
Libs are so worked up about this name change.
A Chris Hayes post where he's troubled by a NYT headline - https://bsky.app/profile/chrislhayes.bsky.social/post/3ly2d2fyxik2w
A reply
Please god, create a big beautiful firewall to keep the americans in. Sorry to all, I'll miss some of you.
Lol. What are we a bunch of Asians.jpg
I was wondering if libs know that they can speak directly to people from Russia and China and ask them about their country, what things are actually like, why are they different than the US, etc. They're not hard to find these countries have huge populatios. But then I also realized it wouldn't matter.
The average white person doesn't think of Russians or Chinese people as real, actually existing people, they are merely a concept to them.
They can't, they're all bots except for the ones on Reddit threads with thousands of upvotes saying "I hate my country and I think the US should nuke and invade us and the State Department is telling the entire truth"
Average opinion is the Asians are too brainwashed and the Blacks and Browns are too savage to consider having dialogue with.
It always irks me when people pontificate endlessly about how bad China is for Africa, entirely forgetting that's a relationship different African nations CHOSE for themselves, unlike the monstrous bombings and government interventions by US or French governments without the consent of the peoples of those nations. I always try and steer the conversation back to that if they respect people from African nations as people, then those people have made this choice themselves; we don't want others doing the thinking for us, and equally they don't want others doing the thinking for them either.
get a load of this loony leftie, thinking black people have agency 😂
Burkina Faso is modernizing incredibly rapidly with the help of China. Also you need to inform them that the west overthrows or assassinates African leaders that don't sell out their people to western corporations. China does not.
Looking back at my post my choice of words may indicate I think China is bad for Africa; it wasn't the intent; I absolutely recognize how good China's relationship with different nations has been. I'm reminded of something a lady in Zambia once said that the VP once went over there, landing in an airport built by China, driven on roads built by China, to give a speech in a venue built by China, about why Africa shouldn't work with China.
Cooperating with America or really any Western country is just waiting for the knife to stab you in the back; China is not a risky partner in the slightest, and on the contrary has been a phenomenal partner. I recall something I once read about railroads built in Africa; the railroads built by European powers go straight to ports (for wealth extraction), while railroads built in Africa are designed to benefit the nations in Africa.
Hey their paycheck depends on that ignorance.
What does he have against the headline exactly?
I don't see what's wrong with that headline. It seems like a pretty straightforward telling of the facts. Isn't that what a headline is supposed to be? Is it a lie or something I don't get? It doesn't seem to be implying anything good or bad about the name change, so I don't get the problem.
what is the characterization in the headline
That is the headline.
Who's on first?
---
In all seriousness - I don't know what Hayes expected. It's not as if the NYT and other American media outlets became garbage yesterday. The media has published one pro-Trump article after another for years. A huge number of powerful people in the media loves Trump.
no i just mean how else are they supposed to say it? like i can't imagine a more neutral or evenhanded way to put it
This is my question. I can't think of how else to express that headline. It's pretty straightforward.
Is the idea that the headline should say something about how this is bad?
Related - https://hexbear.net/comment/6471444
Liberals don't want evenhanded. They badly want the Times to be theirs and the headline to be a pontification of liberal belief with praise of the shining City on Hill crap. I know that's impossible. There's no space for that in a headline! But Trump has made the libs insane.
I don't even know what's in the article. It might even have tepid criticism.
oh i get it now. they can't stand reading one sentence that isn't about the dang cheeto in the white house. well put comrade
If the NYT wanted to they could've written...
I wonder if that would have mollified the libs. My hunch is mostly - maybe? They'd fixate on the exact wording but Hayes would have only gotten - I dunno - ~20% as many likes. In any case - it's surreal to hear the libs whining and moaning about this as if it was equivalent to Trump's extra-judicial executions of 11 people on the open ocean that was not only illegal but in addition he was too fucking lazy to create even a laughable legal justification before he did it. He just did it. And that seems pretty ominous.
But there is a precedent.
my initial instinct is that to them it is. mainstream politics has been cleansed of the majority of its substance as the parties edge ever-closer together. what's left besides aesthetics? especially after the 2024 election, it seems that mainstream liberals have become more and more openly apathetic about the state of the world. their single issue is trump and everything he does is Bad™. their ideological framework doesn't leave much room for such nuance
at least that's my first thought. maybe it's always been like this and i'm just too young to remember
I don't think so.
The US now is post-policy - intelligent policy anyway. The republicans want fascism and to make their enemies suffer. The libs want Trump to finally go away for good and for the US to return to what it used to be. My political memory goes back to Ronald Reagan. I first voted in 1984. I was a liberal for most of my life so that colored by thinking and clouded my memories. But my opinion from then to Obama's first two terms - liberals did talk about policies and think about them a lot. That's long over.
I know now some if not a lot of it was insincere. And with Obama's first term American politics had already become a lot like reality tv or sports. Both "teams" want their team to win but just as importantly they want the other team to lose. Now they don't even care about what a future democratic president with a democratic congress could do or might do. They just want to win the game.
The other day I watched bits and pieces of William F. Buckley on his show Firing Line. I watched him speak with Margaret Thatcher and Reagan. Over decades - he did 1,500 shows where he talked tediously and pretentiously episode after episode on policy. Of course - it was plainly obvious that his show wasn't a debate show or even actually a news show.
It was a highly partisan effort cheerleading show to show conservatives were not only right about everything but more intelligent and more cultured too. He had such a weird affected and fake mid-Atlantic way of speaking. It's kind of amazing to me Firing Line was on tv for that long. A chud would be bored and annoyed after just minutes of watching and listening to Buckley.
Trump broke the liberal brain. Just this morning after I woke up my half-asleep brain was thinking how simply the word "Trump" is a thought-terminating cliché for them. They consider it their duty to virtue hate the guy 24/7. On Bluesky I have feeds I made myself. So Trump gets his own feeds and I filter him out in my main feeds. I need long and ideally mostly Trump-free breaks at Bluesky. C'mon libs... Housing? Public transportation? Taxes? Any policy at all? Or mention the GOP once in a while! Trump is getting a gigantic amount of help!
Nope. It's Trump! Trump! Trump! etc.
Plus - the feed site is a bit buggy so posts with "Trump" in them come through into my main feeds anyway. And memes are filtered out only if alt text is used and it often isn't for anti-Trump memes. There's no effort to be funny or silly. I do not need to see the nth tedious meme like "Trump grifted BILLIONS in just six months. LET THAT SINK IN!" It's not just that one fucking man. American politics contains multitudes.
Sometimes lib post have only the male personal pronoun with no context. But it's clear the post is about their bugbear bête noire. I see posts that make me laugh like "I can't wait for him to die," or "He broke the law! He's a felon! Why isn't he in jail!"
this is kind of a change of subject but how do you explain his decisive win both times? i've been saying reagan was tragedy and trump is farce, all their victories being explainable by deliberately incompetent democrats. still, that seems so simplistic as to be wrong and i've been wanting to ask a comrade who lived through that time
I'm probably nearly as mystified by Reagan's wins as you are. So much has changed in America and my own life that my answer right now would be weak and facile. I'll likely get back to yout today or tomorrow. But first - I need to find an article or two that explains things to my liking that also twigs my own faded memories of that time. Sometimes I put off googling for years. This is an extreme case. I've wanted to remind myself of Reagan's hows-and-whys for at least nine years since Trump's 2016 win.
If my simple google trick of "before" like "before:2020" works - I'm sure I'll get back to you. Google results focused on now are real garbage.
Ninja edit. A Bill Hicks' standup routine included the line "I've noticed a profound anti-intellectualism since about 1980..." Yet now things are 100 times worse. It's unbelievable for me. Fucking polio could make a comeback due to antivax stupidity becoming mainstream, etc. etc. etc. As bad as the Reagan era was - at least the GOP wasn't 100% batshit insane.
seems like since the soviet union's gone the empire has no more reason to find competent imperialists. the new guys are all out of touch and it seems like they genuinely believe the stuff the old guard had to say. like one of those old kingdoms that fell because all their leaders were inbred