6 ms·

it was a joke stemming from the understanding monideas has that the NYT is not an agent of the status quo but actually somehow misandrist turbowoke.

by _bent 13d ago

sire-vc 13d ago
That is what was meant and based on some of what they have published it is barely a joke.
- _bent 13d ago
  article from just today that clearly states that killing men is bad https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-american-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-america... sorry, but some of you are really deranged if you seriously expect the NYT to run "men should die"
monideas 13d ago
I wouldn’t use the term misandry because they also are interested in damaging women. “Turbowoke”, sure but we’re really just talking about mainstream American elite culture which is progressive. And young men are a particular target because they are generally the main threat to the status quo. Basically the NY Times is precisely an agent of the status quo.
- newspaper1 13d ago
  I'm going to go out on a limb and say the institutional paper that lied to get us into the Iraq war isn't "turbowoke". The NYT is a propaganda outlet for the military industrial complex, not some sort of leftist activism.
  - monideas 13d ago
    It’s an outlet for elite American opinion, for the American ruling class. The particular opinions change over time but it’s fundamentally progressive because that is the ideology of the American elite and has been since the founding (the American Revolution was by definition revolutionary/leftist/progressive). The Iraq war was predicated on the idea that you could or should “bring democracy” to Iraqis, this is fundamentally progressive view of the world. An actual conservative approach would be something like 18th and 19th century European colonialism.
    - newspaper1 13d ago
      There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Indigenous Americans. Using the military to murder Muslims isn't "progressive" either. You should talk to actual lefists, they hate neo-liberalism even more than the right.
      - monideas 13d ago
        This is just simply and profoundly wrong. This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it. As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.
        newspaper1 13d ago
        You're incorrect and historically inaccurate. Using the US military is not a leftist position, it's imperialism. > don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite You can't become and elite through observation. You have to be born into it, or successfully do the bidding of those who are. Even then, you'd only be "new money". > Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution None of these extend beyond the borders of the nation in question. That's my point, imperialism is not and never has been leftist. I'm not a prole nor an elite, I am however a leftist and I assure you that neither the Democrats or The New York Times are even remotely leftist. They're right wing neo-liberals.
        monideas 13d ago
        Leftism and “imperialism” are orthogonal concepts. “Imperialism” isn’t even a thing, it just basically means “conquering other land” or “imposing your views/culture”.

it was a joke stemming from the understanding monideas has that the NYT is not an agent of the status quo but actually somehow misandrist turbowoke.

by _bent 13d ago

it was a joke stemming from the understanding monideas has that the NYT is not an agent of the status quo but actually somehow misandrist turbowoke.

sire-vc 13d ago

That is what was meant and based on some of what they have published it is barely a joke.

_bent 13d ago
article from just today that clearly states that killing men is bad https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-american-men.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/18/well/live/obesity-america... sorry, but some of you are really deranged if you seriously expect the NYT to run "men should die"

monideas 13d ago

I wouldn’t use the term misandry because they also are interested in damaging women. “Turbowoke”, sure but we’re really just talking about mainstream American elite culture which is progressive. And young men are a particular target because they are generally the main threat to the status quo. Basically the NY Times is precisely an agent of the status quo.

newspaper1 13d ago
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the institutional paper that lied to get us into the Iraq war isn't "turbowoke". The NYT is a propaganda outlet for the military industrial complex, not some sort of leftist activism.
- monideas 13d ago
  It’s an outlet for elite American opinion, for the American ruling class. The particular opinions change over time but it’s fundamentally progressive because that is the ideology of the American elite and has been since the founding (the American Revolution was by definition revolutionary/leftist/progressive). The Iraq war was predicated on the idea that you could or should “bring democracy” to Iraqis, this is fundamentally progressive view of the world. An actual conservative approach would be something like 18th and 19th century European colonialism.
  - newspaper1 13d ago
    There is zero progressive representation among the elite. The American Revolution wasn't "progressive", it was one of many steps that led to the genocide of Indigenous Americans. Using the military to murder Muslims isn't "progressive" either. You should talk to actual lefists, they hate neo-liberalism even more than the right.
    - monideas 13d ago
      This is just simply and profoundly wrong. This is a prole leftist take and proles by definition are very ignorant and don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite). A prole leftist is basically just a sad walking disaster that is angry and wants free stuff and wants others to suffer. They’re not engaging with leftism on an intellectual level, they’re not romantically captivated by it. As far as mass murder goes, generally speaking the purpose of the Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and other types of leftist movements isn’t to kill massive amounts of people but that is a very common result of putting progressive ideas into action.
      - newspaper1 13d ago
        You're incorrect and historically inaccurate. Using the US military is not a leftist position, it's imperialism. > don’t understand elites or what they’re seeing (if someone could they would be an elite You can't become and elite through observation. You have to be born into it, or successfully do the bidding of those who are. Even then, you'd only be "new money". > Great Leap Forward, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution None of these extend beyond the borders of the nation in question. That's my point, imperialism is not and never has been leftist. I'm not a prole nor an elite, I am however a leftist and I assure you that neither the Democrats or The New York Times are even remotely leftist. They're right wing neo-liberals.
        monideas 13d ago
        Leftism and “imperialism” are orthogonal concepts. “Imperialism” isn’t even a thing, it just basically means “conquering other land” or “imposing your views/culture”.