Kulturkampf

[benji]

Zelensky didn’t hold back when pressed about the US toppling Maduro’s regime after President Trump ordered airstrikes on military sites around the Venezuelan capital of Caracas early Saturday morning.

“How should I react to this? What can I say?” the Ukrainian leader told reporters after meeting with European national security advisers Saturday.

“If it’s possible to deal with dictators this way, then the US knows what to do next,” he added

Oof, yikes, read the room.

[simiansmarts]

Zelensky didn’t hold back when pressed about the US toppling Maduro’s regime after President Trump ordered airstrikes on military sites around the Venezuelan capital of Caracas early Saturday morning.

“How should I react to this? What can I say?” the Ukrainian leader told reporters after meeting with European national security advisers Saturday.

“If it’s possible to deal with dictators this way, then the US knows what to do next,” he added

Oof, yikes, read the room.

 
Maybe he should say pretty please and thank you first. 

[benji]

[Alpacx]

Update:

[benji]

People really believing it's only out of respect for the law that countries don't invade other countries

[benji]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

[filler]

[benji]

New year so we need to go over this again apparently:

How did The Lord of the Rings end up so beloved by the right wing?

Elon Musk, JD Vance and Giorgia Meloni have all described JRR Tolkien’s fantasy novels as fundamental to their respective world views – but it’d be too easy to claim they’ve simply misunderstood them. As Peter Jackson’s film adaptations return to cinemas 25 years after they began, Xan Brooks dives into the world’s most complicated fandom

It used to be easy to spot a true Tolkien fan. His tale was the perfect blend of tweedy respectability with folksy eccentricity and was therefore beloved by young nerds, old hippies and a smattering of liberal, literate Real Ale aficionados. But it’s clear that we need to update all the files. Those older fans have died out while the nerds have grown rich and skewed right, dragging the text along for the ride, reframing it as the touchstone for extremist politicians and Silicon Valley billionaires alike.

The libertarian venture capitalist Peter Thiel is so in thrall to Middle-earth that he’s named his data analysis company Palantir (after Saruman’s seeing stone), his capital management firm Mithril (after a rare elvish silver) and his military start-up Anduril (after Aragorn’s sword). JD Vance, the US vice president, credits the story with “shaping his conservative worldview”. Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, for good measure, used to cosplay as a halfling at neo-fascist “hobbit camps” outside Rome. The Lord of the Rings is her roadmap, her bible, her mantra for life. “I don’t consider it to be a fantasy at all,” she once said.

The evidence would suggest that Elon Musk doesn’t either. The Lord of the Rings remains the world’s richest man’s favourite book. More worryingly, its epic adventure across Middle-earth has come to shape and inform his hardline views on immigration. Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast last year, Musk likened the hobbits of the Shire to the citizens of small-town England, and asylum seekers to Mordor’s orcs. “The hobbits were able to live their lives in peace and tranquillity,“ he explained. “But only because they were protected by the hard men of Gondor.” In Musk’s real-world reimagining of the Tolkien classic, he presumably casts himself in the role of Gandalf while Tommy Robinson co-stars as the heroic Aragorn.

In the meantime, thank heavens, we are left with The Lord of the Rings as it was envisaged by the director Peter Jackson, with Ian McKellen playing the wizard and Viggo Mortensen as the avenging king. The trilogy blows in like an emissary from a kinder, simpler age, altogether unsullied by recent associations as it sends its lowly underdogs on an impossible mission to destroy an evil ring of power and thereby save the planet. Or as loyal Sam Gamgee puts it, “There’s some good in this world, Mr Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”

At this point, it would be nice to hail Jackson’s adaptation as the definitive take on Tolkien’s epic story – its real shape, its true form. Except that this would only be replacing one false narrative with another. Because while Tolkien’s writing contains numerous qualities that contradict Musk’s bizarre theories, it also contains several elements (a sense of moral exceptionalism; an implied racial hierarchy) that tangentially support them. So it’s too easy to say that Musk, Meloni, Thiel and Vance simply misunderstand The Lord of the Rings in the same way that some fans failed to realise Starship Troopers (1997) and Fight Club (1999) were satires. Annoyingly, it’s more likely a case of different interpretations. Jackson gives us the liberal reading of the classic text; Musk the swivel-eyed, ethno-nationalistic remix.

HappyEater
9 min ago
With reference to Lord of the Rings, Stewart Lee sums it up best.

‘I’ve done this show all over, Brexit-voting places, non-Brexit-voting places, this was marginally in favour of Remain, here in Oxford town. But the Remain-voting cities loom out of the map now, don’t they… like fantasy citadels, Tolkienesque landscapes, wondrous walled cities full of wizards and poets… people who can understand data… in the middle of a massed swampy wilderness, with ‘Here there be trolls’ written’.

Not sure there’s been a better explanation of what happened to our country however the far right want to claim LOFTR as their own.

See, just like my animes.

[Straight Edge]

The more I hear about this Maduro fellow, the less I like him.

[EaldNarche]

New year so we need to go over this again apparently:

How did The Lord of the Rings end up so beloved by the right wing?

Elon Musk, JD Vance and Giorgia Meloni have all described JRR Tolkien’s fantasy novels as fundamental to their respective world views – but it’d be too easy to claim they’ve simply misunderstood them. As Peter Jackson’s film adaptations return to cinemas 25 years after they began, Xan Brooks dives into the world’s most complicated fandom

It used to be easy to spot a true Tolkien fan. His tale was the perfect blend of tweedy respectability with folksy eccentricity and was therefore beloved by young nerds, old hippies and a smattering of liberal, literate Real Ale aficionados. But it’s clear that we need to update all the files. Those older fans have died out while the nerds have grown rich and skewed right, dragging the text along for the ride, reframing it as the touchstone for extremist politicians and Silicon Valley billionaires alike.

The libertarian venture capitalist Peter Thiel is so in thrall to Middle-earth that he’s named his data analysis company Palantir (after Saruman’s seeing stone), his capital management firm Mithril (after a rare elvish silver) and his military start-up Anduril (after Aragorn’s sword). JD Vance, the US vice president, credits the story with “shaping his conservative worldview”. Italian prime minister Giorgia Meloni, for good measure, used to cosplay as a halfling at neo-fascist “hobbit camps” outside Rome. The Lord of the Rings is her roadmap, her bible, her mantra for life. “I don’t consider it to be a fantasy at all,” she once said.

The evidence would suggest that Elon Musk doesn’t either. The Lord of the Rings remains the world’s richest man’s favourite book. More worryingly, its epic adventure across Middle-earth has come to shape and inform his hardline views on immigration. Speaking on Joe Rogan’s podcast last year, Musk likened the hobbits of the Shire to the citizens of small-town England, and asylum seekers to Mordor’s orcs. “The hobbits were able to live their lives in peace and tranquillity,“ he explained. “But only because they were protected by the hard men of Gondor.” In Musk’s real-world reimagining of the Tolkien classic, he presumably casts himself in the role of Gandalf while Tommy Robinson co-stars as the heroic Aragorn.

In the meantime, thank heavens, we are left with The Lord of the Rings as it was envisaged by the director Peter Jackson, with Ian McKellen playing the wizard and Viggo Mortensen as the avenging king. The trilogy blows in like an emissary from a kinder, simpler age, altogether unsullied by recent associations as it sends its lowly underdogs on an impossible mission to destroy an evil ring of power and thereby save the planet. Or as loyal Sam Gamgee puts it, “There’s some good in this world, Mr Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”

At this point, it would be nice to hail Jackson’s adaptation as the definitive take on Tolkien’s epic story – its real shape, its true form. Except that this would only be replacing one false narrative with another. Because while Tolkien’s writing contains numerous qualities that contradict Musk’s bizarre theories, it also contains several elements (a sense of moral exceptionalism; an implied racial hierarchy) that tangentially support them. So it’s too easy to say that Musk, Meloni, Thiel and Vance simply misunderstand The Lord of the Rings in the same way that some fans failed to realise Starship Troopers (1997) and Fight Club (1999) were satires. Annoyingly, it’s more likely a case of different interpretations. Jackson gives us the liberal reading of the classic text; Musk the swivel-eyed, ethno-nationalistic remix.

HappyEater
9 min ago
With reference to Lord of the Rings, Stewart Lee sums it up best.

‘I’ve done this show all over, Brexit-voting places, non-Brexit-voting places, this was marginally in favour of Remain, here in Oxford town. But the Remain-voting cities loom out of the map now, don’t they… like fantasy citadels, Tolkienesque landscapes, wondrous walled cities full of wizards and poets… people who can understand data… in the middle of a massed swampy wilderness, with ‘Here there be trolls’ written’.

Not sure there’s been a better explanation of what happened to our country however the far right want to claim LOFTR as their own.

See, just like my animes.

I really wish these freaks weren't able to use LOTR for their weird tech bro projects and ethnofascist larps. Tolkien would hate it. The most overt messaging in any of his works is anti-industrialism and technology for war. He wouldn't want some ghastly AI surveillance software or arms manufacturer named after things in his work. I'm a real nerd about this. I hate it. 

[HaughtyFrank]

I don't owe you the emotional labor to not be antisemitic. 

[Alpacx]

[BIONIC]

What the fuck is she wearing

[Uncle]

I just learned that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has an exemption allowing employers to discriminate against members of the Communist Party (even though more recent rulings have more or less nullified it, the text is still there)

[HaughtyFrank]

[Uncle]

😬 

[HaughtyFrank]

Not sure how widespread this is but noticing some pro Palestine people get mad at the Iran protests because it would mean less regional support for Palestine. Meanwhile pro-israel people support the protests.

[HaughtyFrank]

Will this be the first bluesky government?

[benji]

😬 

But the Nazis weren't for whites, they were for Aryans. Their whole thing was exterminating and/or subjugating whites from the surrounding areas for the benefit of Aryans.

[benji]

rip to bro 😿

[benji]

[Uncle]

rip to bro 😿

"Let’s be clear: “RIP to bro” doesn’t come close to a true threat under the law. It’s protected expression."

you can't just say that and have it be true, right?

threats need to be determined based on context as language evolves

it might be protected, it probably is, but maybe a judge needs to determine that

"'I will kill you' is protected expression, the only true threat under law as established by precedent is 'verily, I intend to fire my pistol twixt thine eyes ere the day ends'"

[HaughtyFrank]

Update:

The NYT published their response:

Factually inaccurate criticisms of New York Times journalism present a false picture and promote misunderstanding of our coverage on gender identity.

A recent post from Trans News Network included numerous falsehoods about New York Times stories on gender identity and maligned some of the journalists involved in the work.

Our coverage is guided by facts and questions, and reflects the experiences of those we interview. Our work has deeply and accurately covered the lives of trans people and the bigotry they face. Discussions about the cultural changes around gender are part of our coverage, too, as well as fiercely contested medical and legal debates about interventions for adolescents. In all of this work, our journalists are dedicated toward one aim: fair-minded, fact-based reporting.

The post from TNN featured an interview with a former editor on the International desk at The Times who was not involved in these coverage decisions. Despite numerous inaccurate statements, the author conducting the interview did not seek comment or check facts with The Times before publication and has refused to make substantive corrections or include a statement that The Times provided about the interview. Though presented as news, it did not meet the most basic journalistic standards of fairness or accuracy.

Here is a small sampling of inaccuracies, which range from easily disprovable facts to wholly invented conspiracy theories:

—The post claims multiple times without evidence, including in the headline, that upper leadership at The Times issued directives to attack trans people. This is false. It also claims these stories were done to please the Trump administration. This, too, is false.

—It claims that a 2023 article about parental rights did not directly quote the young person at the center of the story. This is false.

—It claims that The Times responded to a protest by publishing an Opinion column the next day. This is false. Columnists voice their own opinions, and their columns are generally written and scheduled days in advance, as this one was.

—It claims that a UK reporter was assigned to cover the Cass report and wrote a draft that was killed because the story was given to the Science desk. This is false. No UK correspondent was assigned or drafted a story about the Cass report. The Science and London teams had discussed and coordinated coverage of the Cass report in the weeks before its expected release, and had agreed that the news would be covered by science.

There are numerous other errors of fact as well. The article also falsely says that the first person quoted in a 2024 story about transgender activists was J.K. Rowling. Additionally, Virginia Hughes is wrongly identified as “co-head” of the Investigations desk; that is not her role.

https://www.nytco.com/press/fact-checking-false-claims-about-our-gender-identity-coverage/

Big shocker that they didn't call "the existence of trans people a fiercely contested medical and legal debate" but whether adolescents should receive hormones etc.

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

rip to bro 😿

[Alpacx]

The NYT published their response:

Factually inaccurate criticisms of New York Times journalism present a false picture and promote misunderstanding of our coverage on gender identity.

A recent post from Trans News Network included numerous falsehoods about New York Times stories on gender identity and maligned some of the journalists involved in the work.

Our coverage is guided by facts and questions, and reflects the experiences of those we interview. Our work has deeply and accurately covered the lives of trans people and the bigotry they face. Discussions about the cultural changes around gender are part of our coverage, too, as well as fiercely contested medical and legal debates about interventions for adolescents. In all of this work, our journalists are dedicated toward one aim: fair-minded, fact-based reporting.

The post from TNN featured an interview with a former editor on the International desk at The Times who was not involved in these coverage decisions. Despite numerous inaccurate statements, the author conducting the interview did not seek comment or check facts with The Times before publication and has refused to make substantive corrections or include a statement that The Times provided about the interview. Though presented as news, it did not meet the most basic journalistic standards of fairness or accuracy.

Here is a small sampling of inaccuracies, which range from easily disprovable facts to wholly invented conspiracy theories:

—The post claims multiple times without evidence, including in the headline, that upper leadership at The Times issued directives to attack trans people. This is false. It also claims these stories were done to please the Trump administration. This, too, is false.

—It claims that a 2023 article about parental rights did not directly quote the young person at the center of the story. This is false.

—It claims that The Times responded to a protest by publishing an Opinion column the next day. This is false. Columnists voice their own opinions, and their columns are generally written and scheduled days in advance, as this one was.

—It claims that a UK reporter was assigned to cover the Cass report and wrote a draft that was killed because the story was given to the Science desk. This is false. No UK correspondent was assigned or drafted a story about the Cass report. The Science and London teams had discussed and coordinated coverage of the Cass report in the weeks before its expected release, and had agreed that the news would be covered by science.

There are numerous other errors of fact as well. The article also falsely says that the first person quoted in a 2024 story about transgender activists was J.K. Rowling. Additionally, Virginia Hughes is wrongly identified as “co-head” of the Investigations desk; that is not her role.

https://www.nytco.com/press/fact-checking-false-claims-about-our-gender-identity-coverage/

Big shocker that they didn't call "the existence of trans people a fiercely contested medical and legal debate" but whether adolescents should receive hormones etc.

.
Cum #Fat4All

Edit:trawling Blue sky

The former editor in question:

Full thread:

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

Dear @nytimespr.bsky.social. Your press release re comments I gave to @transnews.network includes many errors but one assertion is true: “TNN featured an interview with a former editor on the International desk at The Times who was not involved in these coverage decisions.”

That is the problem

No trans journalists is ever involved at any level in nyt news coverage about trans ppl; we are purposely excluded. The nyt has not hired or assigned a trans journalist to cover trans news for at least five years. Your publisher and top editors are well aware of that.

Your editor shut down all avenues of internal discussion about trans coverage in ‘24. Your animus has repeatedly driven trans employees out of the company. The same day I resigned in mid ‘24, another trans newsroom staffer also left. @translash.org
documented a top trans journalist who left in ‘23.

This assertion is false: “No UK correspondent was assigned or drafted a story about the Cass report.”

I read the story as it was being written. It was placed on the budget and then pulled off. I know this bc it was my job to know what was being covered, how and by whom. Your publisher knows this.

Some of your assertions ask ppl not to believe their own eyes. You did in fact publish an opinion piece “In Defense of JK Rowling” immediately after hundreds of your own contributors protested your growing bias. That is a fact.

You did, in fact, cite a derogatory quoted phrase from the UK’s Rowling 1st, in graf 4, of your Nov ‘24 piece about US politics. The story had a highly biased lede that I’ll leave here for all to judge

“To get on the wrong side of transgender activists is often to endure their unsparing criticism”

Your publisher is well aware of my growing concerns about bias in coverage and staffing at the nyt. We exchanged lengthy emails on seven occasions in ‘22 and ‘23. In Dec ‘22, I detailed how a series of tendentious stories sought to sow suspicion about every aspect of being trans.

Today trans ppl’s lives and livelihoods are in danger, our freedom of movement and association are restricted, and our medical care is threatened, all of turned into a political chit in no small part bc of the nyt.

The nyt preyed on trans ppl, a vulnerable minority that poses no threat to anyone,

But its leaders also preyed on the general public’s lack of knowledge about us to foment disinformation, doubt and discrimination.

They turned their back on their professional duty to cover us fairly,

Your press release @nytimespr.bsky.social exudes grievance … but who has suffered harm here? A powerful institution whose coverage has been questioned, or the vulnerable ppl who have suffered from it?

Who really has “endured” harm?

I invite your response @nytimespr.bsky.social

[Potato]

NYT made the fatal error of acknowledging the trans lunatics.

If you're targeted by these crazy fucks, just ignore and move on.

[filler]

"tranni news network"   how is this real 



"factually inaccurate criticisms"

[Alpacx]

[benji]

"Let’s be clear: “RIP to bro” doesn’t come close to a true threat under the law. It’s protected expression."

you can't just say that and have it be true, right?

threats need to be determined based on context as language evolves

it might be protected, it probably is, but maybe a judge needs to determine that

"'I will kill you' is protected expression, the only true threat under law as established by precedent is 'verily, I intend to fire my pistol twixt thine eyes ere the day ends'"

Unless Supreme Court precedent is overturned it's not a true threat. A "true threat" is a legal term with standards that must be met. This matches not a single one of them and you're required to match all of them.

Edit:trawling Blue sky

Of course, I mean, obviously duh. Never in the history of the MRC's decades of attacking the "liberal media" have they ever come close to the things trans and lefty people say about the New York Times having mainstream positions.

[TylenolJones]

This accusation of Split Fiction being racist during a live speedrun is



Time stamped it, but it’s at 31 minutes exactly if that doesn’t work.