https://mas.to/@carnage4life/116370362572010064
the article is real, but I'm not gonna link it
Anti-wokeness can be directly tied to many of society's current problems. So maybe that means the answer is an indirect "yes"?
I mean if people are going to go around thinking and empathizing with others we wouldn't be able to bomb the middle East every 20 years, would we?
every 20 years
I think that's a bit of an understatement. Perhaps every 20 weeks?
edit: Thanks Obama?
But wokeness is something they made up to be a big problem so they could tear it down.
People still don't understand this was an artificially inflated debate.
The victim blaming is so disgusting. I heard people say shit like "Oh trans people asked for too much". Too much? Like what? Basic human rights? The right to exist?
They really think that if bullies get what they want they would just stop being bullies.
Trans people wanted to play recreational sports and that was too much for some people to handle.
I don't know if these people have encountered bullies on the playground
Cheif Editor hasn't changed since 2016, and he is very conservative, but managing Editor Marc Lacey was appointed in 2022, he's kind of a tech-bro-profiteer type of manager, and in total it hosts about 1,700 writers with varying opinions. For example, 10 months ago they posted a collection of interviews with Fascism historians and experts fleeing the USA.
Basically, they will publish whatever generates the most clicks. The new Buzzfeed.
One thing I will say is the current publisher and owner, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., inherited the company from a family line who fled the holocaust, and they do seem to consistently appear pro-zionist.
The NYT haven't changed. They've been aligned with corporate greed and neo-conservative goals and attitudes for at least 40 years. Yes you can find individual articles that don't, but editorially they always have.
Though they always presented their image as 'social liberal progressive attitudes' and 'fiscal responsibility with social support', if you look at their actual reporting track record they've helped manufacture consent for almost every US war of the last 30+ years, and have consistently sided with the desires of whatever government is currently in power and fiscal conservative attitudes throughout.
I unsubscribed years ago when I finally saw them for what they are.
“Donald the dove. Hillary the hawk.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/01/opinion/sunday/donald-the-dove-hillary-the-hawk.html
RECENTLY?? Did you not see the 2 years of, "Biden incompetent because old, Kamila incompetent because woman" articles? It's blatantly been run by, or at least edited by, conservatives just based on the open front and center messaging. All legacy media is seemly operated by Republicans constantly thrashing the left and empowering the right. Making the left comfortable with openly supporting the fascist right has been their number 1 goal for the last several years.
No, but billionaires have, especially the ones that own newspapers.
No. Trump did. Next question.
It's an opinion piece, and those are intended to drive engagement. That's the point of publishing them, going back to the start of newspapers. It's rage bait, pure and simple. Many opinion pieces can fall into that category, and have for generations.
Just because it's an opinion, doesn't mean it can't be wrong.
Same thing with the whole "Democrats support open air drug markets in SF" schtick they did this week. It's one thing to publish a controversial editorial from some hack provocateur, but it's another thing entirely to push notifications for that article to your app.
a MURDOCH owned newspaper.
The New York Times isn't Murdoch owned. You're probably thinking of the New York Post.
Anything to distract the masses from the fact that the oligarchs are the reason their lives are shitty
I did the thing. I read the transcript (it's a video chat/debate). Most of the woke they talk about hating is the older stuff that is super cringe or feels racist, like "person of color" or micro aggressions. It does cover that the anti-woke crowd is mostly about being openly racist/sexist or getting to say slurs.
The answer here seems to be leaning towards yes. The creations of labels that the people you were labeling didn't even like led to backlash, see Latinx or BIPOC. Coming up with euphemisms to justify removing white people from conferences or panels because there weren't minorities, instead of focusing on the opinions and thoughts represented. The woke crowd created problems that pushed people away that may have mostly agreed with them.
Ultimately it seems like you're opinion of woke and the definition you give it depends on when you became politically conscious. If it was in the 90e and early 2000s, it's a more negative view of the progressive definition of woke. If it was during the Obama years, you think it's more of a maga creation as a way to be more openly racist.
I think it began to just mean being respectful of everyone, and aware of what's happening in the world--ie being awake. MAGA blew it up into some kind of militant identity
This is a great example of Betteridge's law of headlines. Did wokeness leave us worse off? No.
Whenever someone posts these ridiculous headlines and doesn't explain what the actual article is about, I find that around 80% of the time, the opinion presented is actually decently-made or more nuanced than initially assumed, and the title is just phrased that way for clicks.
In some publications, article authors don't even get to choose their own titles. They write the articles; marketing department writes the titles.
It's also frustrating when someone takes something from the Opinion column and reacts as if it's an actual news article.
My stance is: you can say what you like, but I am going to judge you by your words.
I can't stand that line of "oooh, you can't say anything these days", it's absolute bullshit.
Recently? The newspaper that had a public love affair with Mussolini?
Theyre asking the questions their fascist masters want them to ask
woke is when I can't say the n word -nytimes
Pedo state
Waging the war on words is one of the preferred liberals' passe-temps though lol on par with being offended
One of the dumbest hills to die on, with so many victimes
Iranian propaganda is making better and more informative content than NYT
Aren't the "opinions" basically blogs? The NYT started that garbage years ago to farm clicks.
NYT's job has always been to protect bullies and attack decent people.
Progressives absolutely have a non trivial part in annoying and shaming men into fascism. Clavisiular is a direct result of screaming at young men that there is something wrong with them from an early age and they have nobody to talk to without being ridiculed and being lectured about how men are in power and they should suck it up.
There is a whole lot more to it, but do not pretend like the constant finger wagging and shame hasn't played it's part.
I'm not saying we don't fight for equality. I'm just saying that a large chunk of progressive media and individuals go about it poorly.
In my everyday life the only ones bringing up woke positions are right nut jobs that complain about 'everything being woke'.
So no, I personally don't experience much annoyance by 'woke policy'.
Your comment reads like this to me:
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
RELATED COMMUNITIES: