I did the thing. I read the transcript (it’s a video chat/debate). Most of the woke they talk about hating is the older stuff that is super cringe or feels racist, like “person of color” or micro aggressions. It does cover that the anti-woke crowd is mostly about being openly racist/sexist or getting to say slurs.

The answer here seems to be leaning towards yes. The creations of labels that the people you were labeling didn’t even like led to backlash, see Latinx or BIPOC. Coming up with euphemisms to justify removing white people from conferences or panels because there weren’t minorities, instead of focusing on the opinions and thoughts represented. The woke crowd created problems that pushed people away that may have mostly agreed with them.

Ultimately it seems like you’re opinion of woke and the definition you give it depends on when you became politically conscious. If it was in the 90e and early 2000s, it’s a more negative view of the progressive definition of woke. If it was during the Obama years, you think it’s more of a maga creation as a way to be more openly racist.

No, the Sociopathic MAGA response to kindness and empathy is the problem.

No. Trump did. Next question.

The victim blaming is so disgusting. I heard people say shit like “Oh trans people asked for too much”. Too much? Like what? Basic human rights? The right to exist?

They really think that if bullies get what they want they would just stop being bullies.

“Kleptocracy,” the desperation to avoid any interrogation of liberalism has popularised so many terms like this. I wonder how they make sense of it being a Kleptocracy now and not when all the fed reps were insider trading at the top of the COVID pandemic, or when like, the military was privatised.

No, but billionaires have, especially the ones that own newspapers.

Anti-wokeness can be directly tied to many of society’s current problems. So maybe that means the answer is an indirect “yes”?

I mean if people are going to go around thinking and empathizing with others we wouldn’t be able to bomb the middle East every 20 years, would we?

The NYT haven’t changed. They’ve been aligned with corporate greed and neo-conservative goals and attitudes for at least 40 years. Yes you can find individual articles that don’t, but editorially they always have.

Though they always presented their image as ‘social liberal progressive attitudes’ and ‘fiscal responsibility with social support’, if you look at their actual reporting track record they’ve helped manufacture consent for almost every US war of the last 30+ years, and have consistently sided with the desires of whatever government is currently in power and fiscal conservative attitudes throughout.

Cheif Editor hasn’t changed since 2016, and he is very conservative, but managing Editor Marc Lacey was appointed in 2022, he’s kind of a tech-bro-profiteer type of manager, and in total it hosts about 1,700 writers with varying opinions. For example, 10 months ago they posted a collection of interviews with Fascism historians and experts fleeing the USA.

Basically, they will publish whatever generates the most clicks. The new Buzzfeed.

One thing I will say is the current publisher and owner, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., inherited the company from a family line who fled the holocaust, and they do seem to consistently appear pro-zionist.

It’s an opinion piece, and those are intended to drive engagement. That’s the point of publishing them, going back to the start of newspapers. It’s rage bait, pure and simple. Many opinion pieces can fall into that category, and have for generations.

Anything to distract the masses from the fact that the oligarchs are the reason their lives are shitty

Recently? The newspaper that had a public love affair with Mussolini?

Whenever someone posts these ridiculous headlines and doesn’t explain what the actual article is about, I find that around 80% of the time, the opinion presented is actually decently-made or more nuanced than initially assumed, and the title is just phrased that way for clicks.

That’s an opinion article.

a MURDOCH owned newspaper.