errantforms

Anonymous asked:

Yo, the New York Times did an article about cop-murdered Michael Brown with a paragraph about how "he was no angel." That's racist in itself, but one of the pieces of evidence for how he was no angel is "he had taken to rapping in recent months." That is some barely disguised, straight-no-chaser racism.

yoisthisracist answered:

Remember bullshit like this every time conservatives whine about the alleged “liberal media.” Shameful as all fucking shit.

actually kinda feel like this HELPS the conservative point that the New York Times is a liberal bastion though? the whole reason the Times feels this need to comment on character of Brown in such a way comes from this “balance” and “both sides” liberal horse-shit totally blind to how racism and power function and how their view-from-nowhere contributes to it. As someone pointed out to me earlier, “sublimated racism is absolutely part of liberal ideology”

I mean, the conservative media has their own mind-boggling racism to answer for, but that “he was no angel” line is pure New York Times liberalism via racism.

fightwithknives
And what I’m mad at, really, is the media representation of the startups, the always-male-startups-with-glasses, the fact that even when they are operating clearly rinkydink businesses like throws made out of Star Wars sheet sets or longform music journalism websites that are entirely reader-supported and will pay writers with no income from advertising, no one will ever approach them to do something more serious.
basedsushigoat

You can’t have the fun, pro-democracy, anti-Putin feminism without the incendiary anarchism, extreme sexual provocations, deliberate obscenity and hard-left politics.

Unless you are comfortable with all that (and I strongly suspect 99 percent of Pussy Riot’s fans in the mainstream media are not), then standing behind Pussy Riot only now, when it is obviously blameless and the government clearly guilty, is pure opportunism. 

hahahah look at this fucking nitwit.

It’s particularly funny because the author very nearly makes a set of good points but then is swallowed up by shallow Liberalism. For a moment I thought  Nikitin was going to point out that the obsession with Pussy Riot and anti-Russian politics draws our attention away from the equally fucked up (essentially the same) horrible actions carried out by our own joke of a Democracy in America. The point in re: Soviet dissidents is a good example in that regard. Instead this is pro-Capitalism fear mongering horseshit. Thanks NYT’s. Nikitin’s conclusion?

Pussy Riot’s fans in the West need to understand that their heroes’ dissent will not stop at Putin; neither will it stop if and when Russia becomes a “normal” liberal democracy. Because what Pussy Riot wants is something that is equally terrifying, provocative and threatening to the established order in both Russia and the West (and has been from time immemorial): freedom from patriarchy, capitalism, religion, conventional morality, inequality and the entire corporate state system. We should only support these brave women if we, too, are brave enough to go all the way.

Yes, going all the way is exactly the point, you fucking coward.

thenewephemera
Power and Slaughter love armed intervention across the globe.

this ghost, referencing Samantha Power and Anne-Marie Slaughter (via thenewephemera)

Power and Slaughter are jokes operating within jokes contained within a larger farce. Good thing they’re just fictional characters with punny names and no one takes their horrible ideas seriously, yknow?

petersheik

petersheik:

David Brooks knows less about sports than he does about politics, economics, and culture, and that, my friends, is saying something.

One of the easiest and possibly most abrupt ways to learn that Liberalism sucks is when one of your Liberal friends tells you how much they like columns by David Brooks.