Is the New York Times fuckin' serious right now. (AKA another attempt to undermine Luigi's support).
Is the New York Times fuckin' serious right now. (AKA another attempt to undermine Luigi's support).
They're trying every angle they can think of to avoid admitting that people didn't react negatively to this because literally everyone in the country has been negatively affected by people like that CEO.
people didn't react negatively to this because literally everyone in the country has been negatively affected by people like that CEO.
Also outside the US country. I'm Brazilian, I've been following the news about this event, and I can't help but notice there's a hope inside me that this event could somehow result in CEOs all around the world (especially in the southern hemisphere) changing and ditching their greed. Well, of course it's very unlikely to happen, maybe I have some tiny optimistic side buried under tons of massive pessimism of mine.
changing and ditching their greed
No they won't because while they of course are greedy, it's not really greed which is fueling that on the systemic level, but the inherent capitalism mechanism to concentrate capital. Companies compete and that competition ultimately leads to either monopoly or formation of cartel, the ones with more profits are the winners and the losers get eliminated from the market.
What they will do, is to hire more bodyguards, isolate themselves from society even more and fund more propaganda like the article in topic.
The only thing that can change things, as proven historically, is not adventurism (however cool is to dish at least minuscule part of overdue justice) nor the spontaneous outrage, but the organized workers power threatening the capitalist class and their government servants.
They won’t, they’ll tighten their security. Anyone who goes against the shareholders will be removed and replaced by somebody who will maximize profits at all costs.
Doesn’t mean there won’t be copycats who are successful. A whole lot of people have been wronged and the justice system doesn’t work.
It won’t happen, best we can hope for is that it tempers the greed for a bit.
It would need to happen a few (dozen) more times to effect real change.
If I believed in a deep state (which I categorically do not) NYT would be part of it.
I do, however, believe in giant media companies funded by the 1%, who have just lost one of their own to one of the plebs, staffed by management who will steer things in the needed direction. Any doubt I had of that has been destroyed by their coverage of Gaza.
I've seen multiple stories about the positive reactions.
NYT is as corpo as media can get. We must remember what side they are on. Journalism is dead.
I was listening to the radio this morning and the dude was saying he'd rather have CEO shootings in the news than all the school shootings. It's not dead, it's just hard to find a pulse.
https://www.podbean.com/ep/pb-rfj2f-1765e1f
Here I was heavily paraphrasing.
NYT has always been pro-corporate.
Wtf. Journalism is definitely not dead. We just need to stop linking to corporate news outlets.
Zateo, democracy now, the intercept, truth out, common dreams, etc. There's loads of great media outlets out there...
Maybe we should just ban the corporate ones from this community? Or create a new community that only allows links to nonprofit news outlets?
Law/justice is also dead, especially as folks stop believing in any piece of state evidence.
Two seconds later it could be you or me who are picked up and demonized for random stuff.
Truthfully this is my image state power. They make shiat up 100% of the time. So it's not a question of is it true or not. It's a question of how they are lying. Like a puzzle to be solved or exposed for the entertainment, but even that eventually grows old. Oh a cop MSM or a politician corpo said it ... pfft!
Citizens don't believe anything out of the State or Media. Obviously not a healthy situation when everyone is considered an actor.
The NYT is at least partly responsible for the Iraq war 2. Fuck them.
Corporate media is going to protect their advertisers by shotgunning bullshit articles trying to change the narrative
"For the love of God, please stop looking up!" —Corporate Media
The classic scapegoats aren't there this time. Can't blame him being the wrong race, wrong economic class, wrong mentally, wrong physically, or wrong sexually. Now people are actually looking at the issue that caused the "crime" and that's not good to some people.
Pretty successful and well off kid, definitely not just someone desperate and broke they can tear apart, and he's articulating his position against these fuckers. It's really beautiful. A folk hero.
Luigi is deff what the media has fed society as "CHAD"
Not even being ironic here tbh
Now the only explanation why Chad would do this is "he had bad back"
Alright... go on...
FDR was also part of the elite class and he had his own issues....
Not a criminal until a guilty verdict...
It's also not a crime to eradicate a parasite.
I mean i agree ethically and morally. I was just commenting on NYT not understanding how laws work.
Depends on how it's eradicated.
If the actual assassin, not the patsy, really wanted to make sure. He might be capable of making really really sure.
Dropping a tank on it or destroying a city block might not be beyond his pay grade.
A BB gun is not making sure. Just a bit cleaner and quieter.
Thank you!
Being neutral cute both ways, he is innocent until a jury of his peers decide to vote guilty.
Just hope he doesn’t sign a confession, there is plenty of resources for him to fight this.
Also, I think all people charged with a crime deserve this benefit or the doubt.
There's that word again
What peers?
The rando software dev is a genius being extradited to a State full of boot lickers and sell outs.
His peers are minimally accomplished well known FOSS devs.
There should be a higher burden of evidence which includes reproducible unittests and his peers should be well acquainted with writing maintainable and sufficient test suites.
Then lets talk about peers and courts.
Guilty until proven innocent is nonsense. We are beyond that already.
Just a patsy
Using the term criminal is just demonizing a random guy.
The State and it's officers are just illusionists. They can't present evidence or be witnesses. Cuz they are unbelievable.
So far that is all they got. So when anyone uses the term criminal, i jump straight to innocent and civil suit
It couldn't be because we've been starved of seeing anything resembling actual justice could it?
Horrible people do horrible things and have been getting away with it since before I was born. No wonder people are reacting the way they are.
Being handsome doesn't hurt, but people like him for what he did. He could be a hunchback and there'd be supportive quasimodo memes I'm sure.
No matter what the topic, you can always count on the NYT for a shitty take. The NYT has a very distinctive flavor of editorial shittiness that's quite hard to define but instantly recognizable. They want us to catch their carefully curated blind spots.
I used to read it a lot because it had good arts and literary sections back when actual papers were a thing. Reading the Sunday Times with a cup of coffee on Sunday in my bathrobe was a pleasure. Now they just specialize in these garbage takes.
Top recommended on my feed was NYT article headlined "largest immigration surge in US History" under Biden. That was their top number one story today. Suggested both that it was a key factor in Harris loss and that it has already ended because of Trump election
The greatest trick the Times ever pulled was convincing the world it had a left-leaning bias[1].
The pro-slavery New York Times?
Because the arts and literary sections and the magazine were actually quite decent so it gave that impression.
Noam Chomsky talked about how self-serving it is to the powerful to portray the mainstream media as left-leaning. If people think that the NYT is pushing left, then anything further left of that is seen as being so far off that it must be uttered by loony radicals who spend 17 hrs a day buried in leftist theory.
Pro-war on all the wrong sides (Germany in WWII, US in Iraq, Israel at any time), Jewish owned but somehow simultaneously against Jews, especially if poor and foreign.
Their Berlin correspondent wrote about how Hitler was no danger to German Jewry while it was already well documented how terrible they were being treated in 1939.
Absolutely fucking monstrous rag.
Ironically, the GOP has bought it now that they coronated Trump?
It’s a bit amusing that all the white and not so white lies are now actual belief amongst the leadership. Maybe they’ll end up deconstructing them…
It's NYT. If you can't defend Thompson as being worth keeping alive, may as well play the woke race card and say we only like him because he's an attractive white male.
NYT is a very conservative newspaper, they are only "woke" in the very shallowest sense when convenient to them.
Knowing our history, it's still funny to me that I-talians are considered plain ol' white now.
Whether or not Italians are white depends on what's convenient to the people in power at the moment. Same goes for Jews
Anything to distract from the class war.
Stupid sexy Luigi.
Feels like I’m wearing … three different hoodies.
His crime is one of the reasons we find him attractive. It's not being overshadowed it's being celebrated.
Frantically attempting to spin this in favour of predatory finance capitalism.
Tens of millions of lives ruined by "just good business" is the headline.
Stop worshipping profit or everything will get worse, even if there are no violent responses.
Everybody talking about anything else in this case is lying by omission.
Hey NYT. Suck it.
Any place that names trump person of the year is a rag. Although the NYT has been such for quite a while anyways. I refuse to even give them click through a anymore.
Because it is about the most talked about person. Not the greatest person.
More of a weird looking criminal really, but ok.
cia media gonna cia
Not Antiwork for me, but a great post.
I can't find a better community for this, sorry. I just want left leaning people to know what bullshit they're pulling.
I mean this is nothing new. Pretty white women have been treated favourably in court and by the public forever. There is a somewhat popular twitter account all about hot criminals. It's a thing and it always has been.
Why wouldn't they be? The glamorizing of murderers, rapists, and other criminals in biopic miniseries seems to be a growing point of discussion over the past year or so.
Not to play devil's advocate (which is what people say beforr they play devil's advocate) is this clickbait or is there substance to the article. Bastard and innumerable others like him deserve to be punished, but I'm interested in the takr
That had never been a problem before
