3 ms·

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 mi

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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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”.
        newspaper1 1mo ago
        Imperialism is definitely a thing and it indeed means conquering other land. It's not orthogonal to leftism at all. Lenin literally called it the "highest stage of capitalism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition
        monideas 1mo ago
        The USSR practiced “imperialism” by definition, forced deportations, annexations of territories. Again, “imperialism” is just conquering territory + negative valence. It’s not actually a thing itself, it’s some other actual thing + It feels bad/it’s against my interests. There are lots of words used in political discourse that are like this. It’s just juvenile nonsense.

monideas 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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 1mo 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”.
      - newspaper1 1mo ago
        Imperialism is definitely a thing and it indeed means conquering other land. It's not orthogonal to leftism at all. Lenin literally called it the "highest stage of capitalism". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism#Definition
        monideas 1mo ago
        The USSR practiced “imperialism” by definition, forced deportations, annexations of territories. Again, “imperialism” is just conquering territory + negative valence. It’s not actually a thing itself, it’s some other actual thing + It feels bad/it’s against my interests. There are lots of words used in political discourse that are like this. It’s just juvenile nonsense.