This article, like Schumer’s statement after the attack reads like, “come on man, I’m horny to get bombing in Iran, but you didn’t apply the customary lube first.”
I like the NYT journalism but their opinion pieces are all over the place, they always seem to go for the two sides, or even more sides so there’ll always be at least one you agree with and one that you absolutely hate
Link didn’t work for me but I found it through the Bret comment below. I don’t know the guy – but now I read the article I remember reading something from him before, and looking him up on wiki because I thought “WTF NYT?!”. I guess he is the voice of conservatism / MAGA in the NYT.
So yeah, it’s rather strange that they would allow a voice like that in their newspaper, but I guess that’s the journalists’ compulsion to show both sides of a story even if one side of that story smells rotten AF.
That being said: the Irani regime is horrible and they have been killing their citizens for weeks now and have been suppressing them for much longer. Thousands of innocents are dead. Something clearly had to be done to stop the bloodshed.
If it were anyone other than these two old war criminals attacking the Irani regime, I would support it as well. But of course the issue is that these old farts are using it as an excuse to increase their power in the Middle East.
Europe should have stepped up their game, but as always, they were as slow as a constipated turd moving through a rectum. And now it’s too late.
An understandable question, but this opinion article is by the editorial board; the source and the author in this case are functionally identical, so it’s entirely valid, in my opinion, to point out contradictions like this.
I don’t think you should be downvoted for what would otherwise be a reasonable, level-headed response.
Even if this is the editorial board, these are all unrelated topics where, yes, they could have done better, but perhaps it was the naivety of the time.
And it’s definitely not as if they’re a pro-Trump news outlet.
deleted by creator
They literally posted an article supporting the war earlier today, too.
The NYT is part of the US’s consent manufacturing machine.
They just also coincidentally post some decent recipes and host some fun word games.
Edit: Serious Eats posts far better recipes, though.
This article, like Schumer’s statement after the attack reads like, “come on man, I’m horny to get bombing in Iran, but you didn’t apply the customary lube first.”
I like the NYT journalism but their opinion pieces are all over the place, they always seem to go for the two sides, or even more sides so there’ll always be at least one you agree with and one that you absolutely hate
Got a link to the article where they support the war? Can’t find it
Here ya go. It’s another opinion piece by, if you’re familiar with the NYT, you guessed it!
https://archive.ph/2026.02.23-044828/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/22/opinion/iran-military-strike-trump.html
Edit: whoops its older than just today, that mighta thrown off your search.
Link didn’t work for me but I found it through the Bret comment below. I don’t know the guy – but now I read the article I remember reading something from him before, and looking him up on wiki because I thought “WTF NYT?!”. I guess he is the voice of conservatism / MAGA in the NYT. So yeah, it’s rather strange that they would allow a voice like that in their newspaper, but I guess that’s the journalists’ compulsion to show both sides of a story even if one side of that story smells rotten AF.
That being said: the Irani regime is horrible and they have been killing their citizens for weeks now and have been suppressing them for much longer. Thousands of innocents are dead. Something clearly had to be done to stop the bloodshed.
If it were anyone other than these two old war criminals attacking the Irani regime, I would support it as well. But of course the issue is that these old farts are using it as an excuse to increase their power in the Middle East.
Europe should have stepped up their game, but as always, they were as slow as a constipated turd moving through a rectum. And now it’s too late.
Fucking Bret Stephens 🤦🤬
Him and Ross DoubtThat
How about we discuss the article and not its source?
We can do both.
An understandable question, but this opinion article is by the editorial board; the source and the author in this case are functionally identical, so it’s entirely valid, in my opinion, to point out contradictions like this.
I don’t think you should be downvoted for what would otherwise be a reasonable, level-headed response.
Edit: by the way, @SarahValentine@lemmy.blahaj.zone, maybe a source besides a screenshot of a ChatGPT log is appropriate here.
Edit 2: In part because I think some of that is even hallucinated. E.g. point 3, the real headline is: “Trump’s Remarks on Migrants Illustrate His Obsession With Genes” Did you check any of this before you posted it here?
Even if this is the editorial board, these are all unrelated topics where, yes, they could have done better, but perhaps it was the naivety of the time. And it’s definitely not as if they’re a pro-Trump news outlet.
deleted by creator