288
submitted 7 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 239 points 7 months ago

“This year we selected leaders in different fields. We honored men for the first time. We thought RBG’s teachings regarding equality should be practiced. We did not consider politics,” Julie Opperman, the chairperson of the org, said in a statement. “Instead, we focused on leaders, who, in their own way, have made significant contributions to society.”

I actually don't think that the issue was that it was being given to men. I think the issue was that if you think Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch (!) are the people that Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have wanted to honor, someone needs to maroon you on an island somewhere all alone where you can't infect the others.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 120 points 7 months ago

It's not that it was given to men, it's that it was given to dicks.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 35 points 7 months ago

To be fair, the criteria didn't say positive contributions to society. It just says significant contributions.

[-] Whattrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone 92 points 7 months ago

In 2019, Ginsburg helped establish the award with the Opperman Foundation to celebrate “women who exemplify human qualities of empathy and humility.” The organization later opened the award to men, renaming the trophy as the Leadership Award while claiming to aim for gender equality.

Ah yes, because when I think of empathy and humility I definitely think of Musk and Murdock.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

I was only talking about the quoted passage because I think it's funny in a sad way that the foundation deliberately left out the original criteria in their statement and that they don't seem to care whether the contributions to society created a positive impact.

Let me be clear. The only award those two deserve is the "Fuck you, Shitbag" award. If I had to guess, I'd bet they were chosen for the award by making significant contributions to someone's pocket book.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yeah, the problem is that if they asked me to make a list of the top 10 people who definitely should not get this award, there’s a good chance I would have put these two dudes on that list. They might as well nominate Donald Trump at this point.

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 7 months ago

Koch brothers top of the list for next year's award.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Fortunately, one will have to receive his posthumously.

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
288 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19082 readers
3601 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS