I mean, it's not a scam, it's just right wing propaganda. The whole "main stream media" deal is just an attempt to pull outlets to the right. They can't argue the facts of climate change or voter fraud or immigration, so instead they appeal to "bias" to push outlets to not challenge them. I'm not saying the Times was ever a progressive bastion but at one point it might have at least been centrist before everyone bought what Fox News was selling.
Antiwork
A community for those who want to end work, are curious about ending work, want to get the most out of a work-free life, want more information on anti-work ideas and want personal help with their own jobs/work-related struggles.
The new place for c/[email protected]
This server is no longer working, and we had to move.
Active stats from all instances
Subscribers: 2.1k
Date Created: June 21, 2023
Library copied from reddit:
The Anti-Work Library π
Essential Reads
Start here! These are probably the most talked-about essays on the topic.
- The Abolition of Work by Bob Black (1985) | listen
- On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber (2013) | listen
- In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell (1932) | listen
c/Antiwork Rules
Tap or click to expand
1. Server Main Rules
The main rules of the server will be enforced stringently. https://lemmy.world/
2. No spam or reposts + limit off topic comments
Spamming posts will be removed. Reposts will be removed with the exception of a repost becoming the main hub for discussion on that topic.
Off topic comments that do not pertain to the post at hand may be removed if it is deemed they contribute nothing and/or foster hostility at users. This mostly applies to political and religious debate, but can be applied to other things at the modβs discretion.
3. Post must have Antiwork/ Work Reform explicitly involved
Post must have Antiwork/Work Reform explicitly involved in some capacity. This can be talking about antiwork, work reform, laws, and ext.
4. Educate donβt attack
No mocking, demeaning, flamebaiting, purposeful antagonizing, trolling, hateful language, false accusation or allegation, or backseat moderating is allowed. Donβt resort to ad hominem attacks against another user or insult other people, examples of violations would be going after the person rather than the stance they take.
If we feel the comment is uncalled for we will remove it. Stay civil and there wonβt be problems.
5. No Advertising
Under no circumstance are you allowed to promote or advertise any product or service
6. No factually misleading information
Content that makes claims or implications that can be proven false or misleading will be removed.
7. Headlines
If the title of the post isnβt an original title of the article then the first thing in the body of the post should be an original title written in this format βOriginal title: {title here}β.
8. Staff Discretion
Staff can take disciplinary action on offenses not listed in the rules when a community member's actions or general conduct creates a negative experience for another player and/or the community.
It is impossible to list every example or variation of the rules. It is also impossible to word everything perfectly. Players are expected to understand the intent of the rules and not attempt to "toe the line" or use loopholes to get around the intent of the rule.
Other Communities
Server status for big servers http://lemmy-status.org/
The New York Times has been pure shit since the W years when they pushed Iraq war propaganda.
Trump is an evil moron, but he's right about one thing, our media is full of shills and liars.
The crazy part is they are lying and shilling for the right, while being called "leftist", it's a fantastic lie that has been propagated.
Bret Stevens is such a treasure
He died for his sins
Progressive.. ly stupid.
I think people are confused about what the "Opinion" page is. While i disagree with him, why would the times be accountable for opinion pieces?
Are you saying they don't pay him? This isn't a letter to the editor you know.
Because they publish it and promote the opinion?
I noted it in another thread, but this is the tale of two class traitors. These guys are extremely threatened and confused as to why one of the good class traitors (the CEO that went from working class to killing workers for profit) is reviled while the bad class traitor (a rich kid murdering that CEO) is lauded. Obviously from their perspective it should be the opposite.
So when you search for this the top result is r/neoliberal. TIL there's a neoliberal subreddit.
Yeah they can eat a whole bag of dicks.
Are we talking snack size, like a bowl of popcorn or cashews? Or more like baguettes from the bakery?
It's an opinion piece.
And it's a shit opinion to have.
And more than likely the times already have had an opinion pieces with the other side of the argument. But boo times cause they don't edit the OPINION page to my liking.
Luigi murdered one person.
Brian murdered thousands.
That's all you need to know to compare the two.
If you want a more interesting less ragebait take this is probably better:
The Rage and Glee That Followed a C.E.O.βs Killing Should Ring All Alarms https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/opinion/united-health-care-ceo-shooting.html?unlocked_article_code=1.hE4.ezbM.fXx90r8IG_iu
Zeynep be like "Murder is terrible and he really should have used a drone".
The one time the headline on a Bret Stephens piece convinced me he might not always be insane the first three sentences of the article relieved me of that thought as quickly as it had formed.
I don't think that man is ever in full possession of his faculties.
NYT hasnβt been progressive for a long time. Itβs just taken a while for everyone to notice.
Has the NYT ever been progressive? At times they've brought some very good journalism, but I have the impression that they've always been firmly on the side of big business.
A few years ago I had seen a very old (about 1920 I think) NYT article posted on Reddit in which they completely misrepresented what had happened when the powers that be attacked strikers. A straight up hit piece against the strikers & it was not an opinion article. So back then they were firmly on the side of big business, but without any of the journalistic integrity that the paper is now known for.
The only way that I can think of that someone might consider the NYT as a progressive paper, is if factual reporting is considered leftwing/progressive, which is only a relatively recent development in the USA.
"Luigi had never heard such bullshit before."