5 ms·

TLDR: Irresponsible criminals in a forgein country are committing crimes to produce a marketable item. Irresponsible law enforcement in this country chooses not

TLDR: Irresponsible criminals in a forgein country are committing crimes to produce a marketable item. Irresponsible law enforcement in this country chooses not to punish or prevent these crimes. New York Times conclusion: * The criminals are not to blame. * The country not enforcing it's laws is not to blame. * The rest of the world is not to blame. * Only Americans' and their gluttony is to blame. My conclusion: * Fuck you, NYTimes

dr_dshiv 5y ago
You seem really angry at The NYTimes. I don’t think car buyers would otherwise know that their leather car seats are linked to deforestation of the rain forest. Isn’t that important journalism, so people can make informed choices?
- coolso 5y ago
  Perhaps GP supports informative journalism, just not one with an “Americans are bad and should be ashamed for being richer than other countries” narrative?
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Not ashamed for being richer—ashamed for mindlessly buying products that directly destroy the rainforest. Most wealthy people don’t want their leather from the rain forest, they’d rather get it from Italy. I found it super informative because I had no idea.
- grammarnazzzi 5y ago
  It's the manipulative, click-bait title that I have issue with. NYT chose to misrepresent the purpetrators in it's article. That's not journalism. NYT's conclusion of who is to blame could have gone either way: 1) be manipulative by support americans and their interests regardless of the truth 2) be objective, report the facts, identify contributing factors without overtly blaming 3) be manipulative by damning americans, encouraging americans to hate each other and their country, feed into everybody's victim mentality I much, much would 2. But if I can't have 2, I'd prefer 1 over 3. My kids futures will be better off if they are encouraged to appreciate what's good in their country rather than always looking for reasons to hate it
  - dr_dshiv 5y ago
    Wow, I feel like we read different articles. Maybe this triggers you for some reason? I literally never thought about the origin of my leather seats. Now I feel like I need to. I don’t hate my country??
    - grammarnazzzi 5y ago
      I understand and agree with your explaination. I agree that article addresses a real problem that should be exposed and dealt with. However, the NYT does not appear to. The title of article is "Americans’ Appetite for Leather in Luxury SUVs Worsens Amazon Deforestation" It implies the problem isn't that you're ignorant of where the leather comes from. Rather, it's your appitite that's the problem. You hunger for the leather and you don't care about the consequences of harvesting it. What's more, it's not just the glutonous consumers of Luxury SUVs in general. It's specifically Americans. Americans are the problem. NYT decided to up it's viewership by using a clickbate title that panders to an audience that likes reading about how gready, irresponsible and contemptable Americans are. I think the NYT editors are a hateful bunch. They profit by instulting on the very country and infrastructure that supports it. How about the NYT publishes this article: "The New York Times' Misleading Titles and Appetite for Viewers Unfairly Worsens America's Worldwide Image"

dr_dshiv 5y ago

You seem really angry at The NYTimes. I don’t think car buyers would otherwise know that their leather car seats are linked to deforestation of the rain forest. Isn’t that important journalism, so people can make informed choices?

coolso 5y ago
Perhaps GP supports informative journalism, just not one with an “Americans are bad and should be ashamed for being richer than other countries” narrative?
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Not ashamed for being richer—ashamed for mindlessly buying products that directly destroy the rainforest. Most wealthy people don’t want their leather from the rain forest, they’d rather get it from Italy. I found it super informative because I had no idea.
grammarnazzzi 5y ago
It's the manipulative, click-bait title that I have issue with. NYT chose to misrepresent the purpetrators in it's article. That's not journalism. NYT's conclusion of who is to blame could have gone either way: 1) be manipulative by support americans and their interests regardless of the truth 2) be objective, report the facts, identify contributing factors without overtly blaming 3) be manipulative by damning americans, encouraging americans to hate each other and their country, feed into everybody's victim mentality I much, much would 2. But if I can't have 2, I'd prefer 1 over 3. My kids futures will be better off if they are encouraged to appreciate what's good in their country rather than always looking for reasons to hate it
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  Wow, I feel like we read different articles. Maybe this triggers you for some reason? I literally never thought about the origin of my leather seats. Now I feel like I need to. I don’t hate my country??
  - grammarnazzzi 5y ago
    I understand and agree with your explaination. I agree that article addresses a real problem that should be exposed and dealt with. However, the NYT does not appear to. The title of article is "Americans’ Appetite for Leather in Luxury SUVs Worsens Amazon Deforestation" It implies the problem isn't that you're ignorant of where the leather comes from. Rather, it's your appitite that's the problem. You hunger for the leather and you don't care about the consequences of harvesting it. What's more, it's not just the glutonous consumers of Luxury SUVs in general. It's specifically Americans. Americans are the problem. NYT decided to up it's viewership by using a clickbate title that panders to an audience that likes reading about how gready, irresponsible and contemptable Americans are. I think the NYT editors are a hateful bunch. They profit by instulting on the very country and infrastructure that supports it. How about the NYT publishes this article: "The New York Times' Misleading Titles and Appetite for Viewers Unfairly Worsens America's Worldwide Image"