Ok that's fair

Although I bet the originators of the term would paint the WSJ with the same brush

4/14/2022 2:38:29 PM

It’s not wrong that the WSJ is Neoliberal.

4/14/2022 3:00:51 PM

^^ the WSJ and their readership are among the ones who have pushed that narrative since the 90’s

4/14/2022 3:26:37 PM

Rupert Murdoch and his right-wing media empire are among the ones who helped mainstream the phrase. it’s part of the reason he teamed up with Roger Ailes to start Fox News

the WSJ is staunchly right-wing

media literacy is essential if you want to understand the current media landscape

4/14/2022 8:12:51 PM

We are probably just arguing over semantics. I mean Neoliberalism in the economic philosophy of free market capitalism.

4/14/2022 9:28:41 PM

Multiple media people releasing books now containing important stories about Jan 6 that they intentionally held back from publication

4/26/2022 4:24:59 PM

we love a fascist takeover, don’t we folks?

4/26/2022 4:48:56 PM

https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1533168009140916225

Quote :

"THREAD. Today, the New York Times published one of its most dishonest, biased, and dangerous pro-police articles that I have ever read. What's happening at the NYT is important, so I try my best to explain below why it’s so harmful."

6/4/2022 9:07:49 PM

Liberal media not being liberal enough!

6/5/2022 7:31:21 AM

Yea that's basically this whole thread.

That's probably not true, I don't know the first 30 pages, but recently....

[Edited on June 5, 2022 at 1:24 PM. Reason : E]

6/5/2022 1:14:08 PM

But do they even self-identify as liberal media, or is that just a pejorative term created by conservatives?

6/5/2022 2:00:26 PM

Yea pejorative, the latter days of this thread is pointing out how it's false

But also it's worse bc they bend over backwards to prove they aren't conservative, giving voice to conservative columnists. The pendulum swings too far.

[Edited on June 5, 2022 at 2:30 PM. Reason : E]

6/5/2022 2:21:21 PM

OIC!

6/5/2022 3:15:52 PM

Same guy as above but about ignoring progressive victories on criminal justice issues
https://twitter.com/equalityAlec/status/1534903354274488322

Quote :

"THREAD. Sometimes the bias of the New York Times is so outrageous that it surprises even me. Because what the NYT did yesterday in its election coverage is so dangerous, I try my best to analyze it carefully below."

Quote :

"Take a look at this thread to see the progressive “criminal justice” wins NYT erased. Incredibly, a paradigm tough-on-crime candidate ran a scorched earth campaign against progressive California AG, and got trounced in a statewide election. NYT? Ignored. https://t.co/sazVuj1Cg8"

6/9/2022 4:25:16 PM

Quote :

"I write a lot of snarky tweets about this sort of thing but earnestly: Everyone associated with the publication of this column should be ashamed of themselves. https://t.co/M6QVXXlWlQ This column, whose premise is that "both sides" are waging a war on women, contains exactly two sentences denouncing the Supreme Court's reversal of Roe v Wade. The rest is straightforward transphobic concern trolling. https://t.co/lJR4tKHcWu"

https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1543572058726088705

Comparing abortion to worries about language

[Edited on July 3, 2022 at 11:34 AM. Reason : E]

7/3/2022 11:33:33 AM

it’s insane how easy it is to just treat trans people with dignity and respect, yet people are still so excited to trip over themselves in an attempt to complain about treating them with dignity

even more insane to complain about it in the context of abortion rights being dismantled

7/3/2022 5:11:52 PM

http://twitter.com/samthielman/status/1543729124887461889

Quote :

" First they came for every single person with a uterus, and I loudly complained about the phrase “person with a uterus”"

7/3/2022 7:59:54 PM

What are the minimum requirements for treating trans people with dignity, and is it intuitive?

7/4/2022 11:14:24 AM

not ostracizing them?

that easy enough for you?

7/4/2022 12:03:29 PM

Not on the surface of it. Just trying to understand evolving accommodations and rules and whether this requires special education and significant adaptation so as not to offend or whether it should be intuitive to someone who is not a shit person at baseline.

7/4/2022 2:07:29 PM

I mean, you’ve misgendered someone on here within the last year

not that difficult to not do that

7/4/2022 5:27:23 PM

I think at the simplest it's this: try not to be a dick. If someone asks you to use one thing use it. If you mess up try to correct yourself. Just like is someone's name is Jake and you call them john.

7/4/2022 5:39:13 PM

Sure, I get that. It's important not to misgender someone and use their correct pronouns/name.

I do think it's murky when you have an organization like the ACLU deliberately change a quote by someone like RBG to make it more inclusive. It comes off as extremely clunky.

7/4/2022 5:56:53 PM

To clarify I don't truly care, it's more I look at their attempt and think "that's fucking dumb" and move on with my life.

[Edited on July 4, 2022 at 5:58 PM. Reason : A]

7/4/2022 5:57:39 PM

how many people are even aware of the ACLU, let alone aware of a statement of theirs?

I say this as someone who donates to them on a regular basis

7/4/2022 6:20:07 PM

Well, it sort of gets into the (what I believe) the Coz is saying.

In the most obvious layer, don't be a dick to people, call them what they want to be called.

In the less obvious layer, maybe drop saying things like "guys" and replacing it with "folks" or something more inclusive.

In the questionable area, would the RBG original quote be offensive? Is it more offensive to change the quote to be inclusive?

https://mobile.twitter.com/ACLU/status/1439259891064004610

7/4/2022 6:31:24 PM

unless you’re actively trying to be a “well actually” guy, who the fuck cares?

if you do, it’s quite obvious you’re looking for any reason at all to roll your eyes over any kind of effort towards equality

7/4/2022 6:34:43 PM

Clearly since some journalists are updating their phrasing, people do care.

7/4/2022 6:39:23 PM

bad faith bigots who are pushing their transphobic “documentary” certainly care

does it bother you that journalists are updating their phrasing? if so, why?

language evolves. it’s not the first time and it certainly won’t be the last

7/4/2022 6:44:45 PM

No, updating phrasing don't bother me. Updating a quote that person said is murky though.

I'm asking a genuine question though, would RBG's quote, in the original form, be offensive today?

7/4/2022 6:57:14 PM

who gives a shit

brush it off and pay attention to things that actually matter

there’s a reason that the worst of the worst honed in on that misquote

7/4/2022 7:01:12 PM

Why can't you give a direct answer?

7/4/2022 7:01:53 PM

it’s not deserving of one

there’s a godawful anti-LGBTQ movement going on in this country right now and I’m pretty comfortable in saying that those being effected by that don’t give a damn about an RBG misquote from the ACLU’s twitter account

the house is on fire and you’re choosing to focus on someone jaywalking

7/4/2022 7:08:57 PM

Someone cared enough to change the quote, so therefore it does matter. They're focused on the same thing.


You're the one who brought up the language journalists use, so lets discuss it. Either that or admit you don't have an answer.

7/4/2022 7:11:19 PM

inclusive language doesn’t upset me

insinuating that inclusive language is as bad as the loss of a woman’s right to an abortion does

7/4/2022 10:03:16 PM

I said nothing of the thing.

I'm all for inclusive language, doesn't bother me one bit (well, minus having to spend time refactoring code to change branch from master to main)

I've actively made steps to correct myself using the phrase 'guys' and other gendered language that has fallen out of style because it's easy enough.

My question to you is simple, would RBGs quote be offensive today? I'm going to assume that for all your bluster, it wouldn't be given that you just said 'a woman's right'

7/4/2022 10:14:53 PM

all of this started after rwoody posted a critique of that horrible op-ed from the NYT that equated inclusive language with the far right activism that ended Roe

I don’t know how many times I have to type that I don’t care at all about a tweet from the ACLU

7/4/2022 10:42:53 PM

Quote :

"I mean, you’ve misgendered someone on here within the last year not that difficult to not do that"

Yes -- a Jeopardy celebrity multi-millionaire as a troll comment on an anonymous message board I'm confident SHE will never read. Do you think I'd intentionally misgender a person to HER face in real life? I would not. You went 0-100 on first reply in that instance, so clearly it matters a lot to you, and I've moderated my behavior accordingly.

I'm pretty progressive, particularly given the environment and the locale in which I was raised, but some things remain less than intuitive and natural for me. I can't get on board with certain espoused accommodative policies just yet. You seem to believe the most progressive stances possible should just be the baseline and easy for anyone to accept. I don't find this reasonable if you seek a big tent consensus or incremental improvement. And if you don't seek that, what's the plan to accomplish any change in the desired direction? Certainly not the Supreme Court in its current construction. This is why bbehe's Progressive Dems Credibility Watch thread was largely warranted.

7/5/2022 12:12:15 AM

well, there arent any republicans left here anymore, so the remaining disagreements largely fall under:

1) burn this motherfucker down
2) dont

7/5/2022 8:01:35 AM

I'm on Team Don't. Although I can see the appeal.

7/5/2022 9:32:06 AM

I think I'd frame it more that Republicans are actively burning it all down, the debate is whether we can/should implement incrememental or not drastic changes to fight back. Maybe the "can we" portion is more in focus than "should we" as well. I think that's being fair to the 'other side' of the small tww political compass.

But that's just the opinion of this sole annoying 'progressive'

7/5/2022 12:01:55 PM

They are playing the long game and winning. It's not that it doesn't concern me. It certainly does. But our current situation almost demands a generational AND educational solution. Raging at people who 90% agree with you over the 10% where they might not is not motivating or endearing. Not saying you're doing that, but consider those optics on the national scale.

7/5/2022 12:34:13 PM

I mostly use tww as a place to dump my impotent rage. Me being mad here would probably get more votes if anything. If I was happy then 1/2 fence sitters might be running for the DeSantis hills.

My anger is proof that the dem party isn't radical?

7/5/2022 1:33:31 PM

there’s only one radical party, and it for damn sure isn’t the Democrats

7/5/2022 1:42:43 PM

Yea im stating what is for me obvious. I think there are only 2 regular TSB posters that have thoughts of not voting for the '24 Dem nominee, at least from the right.

7/5/2022 1:52:06 PM

Quote :

"Raging at people who 90% agree with you over the 10% where they might not is not motivating or endearing. "

Btw this is a two way street, hence a thread dedicated to like 8ish members of congress and some twitter users.

7/5/2022 2:16:33 PM

Again, I think you fail to realize how big social media influences people, characterizing it as 'some twitter users' is disingenuous and you know it.

You seem to get most of your news from twitter, so it feels really weird how much you're underselling the impact.

[Edited on July 5, 2022 at 4:40 PM. Reason : A]

7/5/2022 4:39:39 PM

Twitter is great for prepackaged 'tww post' sized content, plenty of other sources. But I'm also "very online" as the folks say, most of the country isnt.

But also AOC has 13 million followers, Warren 6 million. BJG and ryan knight have less than a million combined. So the members of congress almost def have way more twitter clout than those two, maybe there are others I'm not aware of. And then the members of congress are killed by Hillary, Obama, Biden and others.

7/5/2022 6:49:59 PM

And yet you still have posted a random twitter user post as fact or providing any context when your assumptions clearly being wrong.

7/5/2022 6:55:48 PM

Ok

7/5/2022 6:59:15 PM