The creepy new drama teacher was an evil demon the whole time?!?
- 0 Posts
- 37 Comments
Joined 4 months ago
Cake day: May 11th, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
0·2 months agoearn more and more money
STEAL more and more money
FTFY
As a middle schooler I used Power Point to make FMV games for my friends and classmates, and it was basically this. Just, like, SO MANY slides
0·2 months agoIsn’t that a pleasant surprise?
It’s not EXACTLY the same, but this guy does a pretty good job of hitting the same vibes:
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.”
I usually try to figure out what the weather and temperature are going to be for the duration of time I’m going to be out, plus a little more just in case, and then dress accordingly. So it’s not always about the weather RIGHT NOW, per se
It is if I print it on a sticker and slap it on my bong!
No, but this manosphere shit isn’t new. It’s been around since at least the “Men Going Their Own Way” movement in the late 90s and early 2000s, which me too and the Right’s culture wars are a reaction to. So yeah, watch, like, ANY movie starring Michael Douglas, or basically any movie that involves a male/female relationship dynamic and you’ll probably see a LOT of proto-manosphere stuff. (Pretty Woman?)
If we’re extending the metaphor here, then no, things just LOOK better. Like how cgi is so cheap now that they can make stuff that looks like the avengers for the the budget of a(n) (inflation adjusted) episode of the X-Files. The budget is still in the tank, though. Make no mistake
Like basically every movie prior to the 2010s, yeah
0·3 months agoYes, but you assume they know literally anything about the academic system at all. They think anybody who works at a university is an “elite”, and is therefore somehow being treated better than them.
The Black Panther Party were cool, but the PSL is a bad example, imo. They’ve had… issues. Really icky issues that kind of mar the whole organization. I did meet some cool former PSLers back in my DSA-LSC days, though.
I think it’s personally a stretch to call Xin Jinping a Marxist, even if that’s how he identifies. It kind of seems like China’s just doing a capitalism, but with more steps. I don’t know enough about Vietnam and Cuba, but it’s my understanding that Vietnam has been slowly moving in the same state capitalist direction that China did
All of the examples I listed should meet your definition of success, right?
You said:
The nature of society has not fundamentally changed in a century, so there’s no reason to think that methods of organization need to drastically change as well.
I said:
You don’t actually believe that basically nothing has changed since before the industrial revolution, do you? That seems intentionally obtuse.
How is that a straw man? It’s literally what you said.
I mean, it’s both. Hungary was the upper cut and Czech was the right hook. But regardless, if you don’t have a blind allegiance to just any state calling itself socialist, then you probably aren’t a Tankie, right?
To date, nobody has shown a more effective approach to organizing that I’m aware of.
Makhnovshchina, CNT, Rojava, Zapatistas…
Is your definition of success the establishment of a socialist state? Because anarchists are never going to do that.
The nature of society has not fundamentally changed in a century
You don’t actually believe that basically nothing has changed since before the industrial revolution, do you? That seems intentionally obtuse.
You’re not an anti-anarchist, and I’m not an anti-Marxist. Isn’t that just enough? Spending all of your time planning for what the potential future socioeconomic system might look like isn’t something that really scratches any itch that I have anymore. I’m far more concerned with what can be done right now.
The VAST majority of anarchists are, in fact, cribbing from Marxism. Anarchists don’t generally reject Marxian economic analysis.
I guess if I can point to anything in this dynamic it’s that there isn’t really a huge difference in how effective the different groups are at accomplishing their short term goals, so IMO it would just make more sense to figure out which ideological line is most attractive to the people it’s supposed to serve in a given area and stick to that.
I 100% agree
It’s real.
https://futurism.com/rently-apartment-tours