287
submitted 3 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 239 points 3 months ago

“This year we selected leaders in different fields. We honored men for the first time. We thought RBG’s teachings regarding equality should be practiced. We did not consider politics,” Julie Opperman, the chairperson of the org, said in a statement. “Instead, we focused on leaders, who, in their own way, have made significant contributions to society.”

I actually don't think that the issue was that it was being given to men. I think the issue was that if you think Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch (!) are the people that Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have wanted to honor, someone needs to maroon you on an island somewhere all alone where you can't infect the others.

[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 120 points 3 months ago

It's not that it was given to men, it's that it was given to dicks.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 35 points 3 months ago

To be fair, the criteria didn't say positive contributions to society. It just says significant contributions.

[-] Whattrees@lemmy.blahaj.zone 92 points 3 months ago

In 2019, Ginsburg helped establish the award with the Opperman Foundation to celebrate “women who exemplify human qualities of empathy and humility.” The organization later opened the award to men, renaming the trophy as the Leadership Award while claiming to aim for gender equality.

Ah yes, because when I think of empathy and humility I definitely think of Musk and Murdock.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

I was only talking about the quoted passage because I think it's funny in a sad way that the foundation deliberately left out the original criteria in their statement and that they don't seem to care whether the contributions to society created a positive impact.

Let me be clear. The only award those two deserve is the "Fuck you, Shitbag" award. If I had to guess, I'd bet they were chosen for the award by making significant contributions to someone's pocket book.

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, the problem is that if they asked me to make a list of the top 10 people who definitely should not get this award, there’s a good chance I would have put these two dudes on that list. They might as well nominate Donald Trump at this point.

[-] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

Koch brothers top of the list for next year's award.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Fortunately, one will have to receive his posthumously.

[-] esc27@lemmy.world 44 points 3 months ago

Wait, this award was supposed to be serious? Given the honorees I thought it was an ig nobel or Darwin award sort of thing, possibly run by the onion.

[-] nickwitha_k 39 points 3 months ago

Julie Opperman according to Federal Election Commission filings, is a major Republican donor. In 2016, she donated $50,000 to Rebuilding America Now, a super PAC founded by Paul Manafort and Tom Barrack—two top Trump advisers—to support the Trump presidential campaign. That year, she also donated $2,700, the legal maximum, directly to the Trump campaign. In 2020 Opperman contributed $200,000 to Republican campaigns and PACs, including a $100,000 donation to the Take Back The House 2020 PAC and $92,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Ok. Makes sense now. She's just trying to shit all over RBG's name. So, she gave the awards to a racist, anti-LGBTQ+ billionaire, the piece of trash that has been driving GOP propaganda since Nixon, a Wall Street fraudster, and a scab who crossed the picket line during the SAG strike.

Don't buy the claims of ignorance. This was intentional.

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

This needs to be the top comment. This is such an obvious ploy by a right wing extremist.

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 31 points 3 months ago

Those were serious nominees? AND they didn't see the problem? How excruciatingly tone deaf.

[-] blackbrook@mander.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

It's not just that they let a few questionable ones slip through, it's as is they were were positively selecting for scumbags. That's not tone deafness, that's flat out having contrary values.

[-] Hawke@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago
[-] 21Cabbage@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 3 months ago

There's a joke lying right there for anybody who wants to make it.

[-] Syd@lemm.ee 12 points 3 months ago

She really has an effect.

[-] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

She was last year's honoree for the award.

[-] Hawke@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Okay that’s a sensible connection at least

[-] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Ao much so they should name it after her.

[-] EvilLootbox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Wooo, wooo, wooo-ooo, wooo, wooo, wooo-ooo

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 2 points 3 months ago

I am also curious how she is at all relevant to this. I guess she may bring some awareness to the issue via her eponymous effect.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So why is the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation handing out awards in the name of RBG?

Can just anyone do that?

[-] blackbrook@mander.xyz 37 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

She established the award with them, while she was still alive.

[Edit: they've since changed the criteria for the award.]

[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 19 points 3 months ago
[-] ChrisLicht@lemm.ee 15 points 3 months ago

Yeah, it’s nice that she did some good stuff decades ago, but her immediate legacy is dog shit.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I see - thanks for the info…

[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

It was in the article. If you have a question like that, it's a good idea to read the article.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

I did but I suppose I lost that section amongst all the ads interspersed through the article.

Thanks for the suggestion, though.

[-] sploosh@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Might I suggest Ublock Origin? Never browse without it.

[-] ccunning@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

I do have ABP installed. I leave the “Acceptable Ads” option on which usually accomplishes what I want. Not sure how Rolling Stone’s ads are getting qualified as “acceptable” though.

I enabled “Reader” mode for RS by default in Safari now so it won’t be a problem again

[-] maculata@aussie.zone -3 points 3 months ago

Bah! Pros just fire off half-baked knee-jerk comments based on misunderstanding bad headlines! That’s where the money is! Ain’t nobody got time to rEaD tEh aRtIcUls!!!

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Someone should make an RBG award for refusing to retire long after it's obvious you should have. First posthumous award to Diane Feinstein.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 18 points 3 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


An award named after Ruth Bader Ginsburg that was set to be given to Elon Musk and Rubert Murdoch has been cancelled.

And, while we believe each of the honorees is worthy of our respect for their leadership and their notable contributions, the Foundation has decided that the planned ceremony in April 2024 will be canceled.”

Along with Musk and Murdoch, this year’s awardees had included Sylvester Stallone, Michael Milken, and the only woman nominee: Martha Stewart.

“The justice’s family wish to make clear that they do not support using their mother’s name to celebrate this year’s slate of awardees, and that the justice’s family has no affiliation with and does not endorse these awards,” said RBG’s daughter Jane Ginsburg in a statement to the New York Times, describing the choice in this year’s awardees “an affront to the memory of our mother.”

Opperman previously told the publication that Ginsburg fought “for everyone” and they wanted to “honor both women and men who have changed the world by doing what they do best.”

Shana Knizhnik, the author of Notorious RBG, said that honoring Musk and his “anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ sentiments” and Murdoch, who “has used his immense power to undermine democracy,” dishonors Ginsburg’s legacy.


The original article contains 495 words, the summary contains 204 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
287 points (96.7% liked)

politics

18074 readers
3458 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS