kind of ??
Why?
unambiguously evi|
Well, I see the NYT has certainly evolved with the changing times. Where once it pretended to talk about issues faced by us all it has now apparently retreated to the much more financially-secure world of providing ethical cover for landlords who profit from human suffering. If this is a ‘war on immigration’ these guys are literally war profiteers. Definitely ‘speaking for the people’ there, NYT. No, in case you were wondering, the word ‘rich’ does not in fact belong inside those quotes.
Isn’t that what the Ethicist column always has been? Philosophy has even historically been a bourgeois subject. (I don’t think people usually put Marxism in philosophy classes.)
Also, I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
First I couldn’t read the full article because I don’t subscribe to the NYT, but…
I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
It’s providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one’s ill-gotten gains to ‘good causes’ somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
It does not.
If you redirect it all, it’s not a tiny portion.
I was speaking more broadly about billionaires giving a tiny portion of their wealth away, not this specific example.
The New York Times has a LOOOONG history of shitty opinions and tone-deaf to just downright bad takes. Here’s a fun greatest hits:
🧨 1. Downplaying the Holocaust (1930s–40s)
The NYT repeatedly buried reports of the Holocaust, often placing them on page 10 or later. They downplayed the genocide of Jews during WWII to avoid appearing “too Jewish” in an era of antisemitism. Public awareness suffered greatly as a result.
Bad take: Treating the genocide of 6 million people like a footnote.
🛢️ 2. Cheerleading the Iraq War (2002–03)
Judith Miller and others ran uncritical coverage of “WMDs” in Iraq, helping sell a war that was based on lies. The editorial board later admitted it failed to challenge the Bush administration’s narrative.
Bad take: “Let’s trust the government that wants a war.”
👮♂️ 3. Central Park Five – Trial by Media, Fueled by Racism (1989–2002)
When five Black and brown teens were arrested in the 1989 Central Park jogger case, The New York Times joined the rest of the media in framing them as guilty from the start—using dehumanizing language, ignoring holes in the prosecution’s case, and failing to question the racist hysteria. They weren’t alone, but they were the paper of record.
To make things worse, Donald Trump took out full-page ads in four NYC papers, including the Times, calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty. The ads appeared in May 1989—before the teens even stood trial. The paper printed it without criticism or context, amplifying a call for state-sanctioned murder of children.
The teens spent years in prison before DNA evidence and a confession from the actual perpetrator cleared them in 2002. The Times acknowledged the wrongful convictions after the fact, but never meaningfully reckoned with its role in legitimizing a racist rush to judgment.
- Original 1989 Trump ad in the NYT
- NYT coverage when charges were vacated (2002)
- AVA DuVernay on media failures
Bad take: Amplifying racist fear, ignoring the facts, and publishing a death penalty ad against kids who hadn’t been convicted.
☁️ 4. Tom Cotton’s “Send in the Troops” Op-Ed (2020)
The NYT published a now-infamous op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton calling for military force against BLM protesters. It was so bad that staff revolted, and the opinion editor resigned. Turns out fascist takes don’t go over well in a newsroom.
Bad take: “Let’s solve civil unrest with military occupation.”
🧬 5. Ongoing Anti-Trans Bias (2020s)
The NYT has been called out by GLAAD, hundreds of contributors, and its own readers for publishing anti-trans talking points as neutral reporting. Critics say they platform bigotry under the guise of debate while ignoring actual trans voices.
Bad take: “Both sides” journalism on human rights.
🥄 6. Tone-Deaf Sympathy for the 1%
The Times loves publishing bizarre op-eds about the struggles of the ultra-rich. Like the infamous:
- “Is It Immoral to Have Kids in the Era of Climate Change?” (written by a guy with three kids)
- “Why I’m Giving Up My $1 Million Job”
- “Rich People Deserve Empathy, Too”
Bad take: “Won’t someone think of the wealthy?”
🗞️ BONUS: Soft-Pedaling Hitler (1930s)
Like many US papers, the Times downplayed the early threat of Adolf Hitler, painting him as a quirky or “moderate” leader. Their early coverage normalized fascism at a dangerous time.
Bad take: “He’s not so bad if you ignore the fascism.”
All the links are dead.
The (presumably) bot that posted it is now extremely banned from the community.
This looks like it was written by AI.
I’ll never understand people who apply an extra layer of bold to headings
Oh I’m well aware that this is not new, they’ve just taken shilling for the elite in the guise of being ‘about the people’ to new heights with this one.
Hell no.
No.
No, it’s not ok to earn rental income.
If no one can charge rent, how can people rent a place to live. Our current levels of wealth and income disparity are evil, charging rent is not.
People that see nothing wrong with renting properties, will do this shit as well.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1421-T-St-Sacramento-CA-95811/25788682_zpid/
Renting can be a solution for people who aren’t ready for or don’t want home ownership, but the issue arises when boomers hoard properties for the rental income so people who want houses can’t buy them.
Its not a “boomer” issue. Its a rich vs poor issue. The most common age group of people buying up tons of property in order to make it short term rentals are 30-40. Maybe 50. But certainly not over 50.
The short term rentals are especially evil because they take good starter housing stock off the market, reduce long term rental availability, and basically strangle every local economy that they exist in.
Apartments and normal long term rentals are largely owned by corporations at this point also. Not by boomers. Few people rent from an actual person anymore, unless its an airbnb
Its not a “boomer” issue. Its a rich vs poor issue
This, real estate is a form of wealth, and as the distribution of wealth becomes more one sided housing is naturally going to follow it as long as the law enables it to be used as an investment.
Only if you charge an exorbitant amount to those fuckers. Tack on an extra 5 million a month “holding cell” fee.
NO!
Leave it to the New York Times, the “paper of record”, to take these important initial steps to legitimize the worlds’ most horrid human rights abuses.
Is it okay to make money off prisons and concentration camps?
No.
The argument is that ICE can always find some rich BlackRock-esque real estate holder that doesn’t give af to host the camp instead if the asker terminates the lease, thus from a utilitarian perspective it’s probably more useful to hold the lease and use the money to lobby against ICE.
