this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025

124 points (93.1% liked)

Anarchism

1787 readers

5 users here now

Discuss anarchist praxis and philosophy. Don't take yourselves too seriously.

Other anarchist comms

Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

124

is the Guardian deliberately avoiding the name Luigi? (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by merde@sh.itjust.works to c/anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Man charged with health insurance CEO murder to accept $300,000 in donations

Lawyer says 26-year-old accused ‘very much appreciates the outpouring of support’ on fundraising platform

Mangione “very much appreciates the outpouring of support”, said a statement on GiveSendGo that was attributed to his attorney, Karen Friedman Agnifilo.

There's only one occurrence of Luigi. The slogan was "free Luigi", not "free Mangione".

obligatory: I do not condone violence.

I just think that his was a political act like other historical regicides. Ravaillac is a historical name, like Luigi has now become. Why avoid it?

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Iheartcheese@lemmy.world 52 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Obligatory: I DO condone violence

[–] hex_m_hell@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 days ago

In popular discourse the word "condone" has been conflated with the word "advocate." These are two different concepts. A pacifist can condone violence while advocating for nonviolence, and Gandhi did exactly that saying that violence is acceptable when no other options exist.

You know, just so we're all on the same page about words having meaning.

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I do condone violence in self defense, such as against imminent threats including the mass murder of people in the pursuit of profits.

I don't condone violence in general though.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Asking someone if they support violence is like asking if they support the coriolis effect. It's a fact of life, not just for humans but every living thing, that we have to deal with sometimes. It's a nonsensical question in most contexts.

Better to ask if someone supports self-defense against violence.

In this case, if they support self-defense against institutional violence.

[–] RampageDon@lemmy.world 49 points 1 week ago

They are worried about being sued by Nintendo

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Usually you mention a full name once (as done in the second paragraph) and then only use the last name. Fairly sure that's how it goes for all normal articles. You see the same thing on Wikipedia. I do think the slogan should've been mentioned, though.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

True. This post is not telling the whole truth.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

this post is not "telling", it is questioning!

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The answer to any headline that's a question is "No".

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

not necessarily.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, your post confirms the law

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

not necessarily

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Except that it does. The answer to the question in your title is No.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago

if i make another post with the title

"Is the lemming earphone843 mature enough to participate in our conversations?"

the reply, according your rule, would be "no".

right?

[–] concrete_baby@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You just didn't read the article carefully.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago

i did. I always do.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

agreed.

previous articles from different journalists, still from theGuardian, were doing exactly that

looking at Vargas' article titles, maybe it's coming from him. He routinely uses this pattern : https://www.theguardian.com/profile/ramon-antonio-vargas

@sibbo@sopuli.xyz, you're probably right. But the above articles were fairer, imo

[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 13 points 1 week ago

Nah, it's a standard journalism style.

[+] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] AngryishHumanoid@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 week ago

Um. Since when?

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The Guardian often publishes the full name of criminal defendants, example here:

An alleged robbery in which £1.38m worth of watches were stolen from a shop in London was “staged” and everyone involved “consented”, including a jewellery store manager who later killed himself, a court has heard.

Junior Kunu, 30, and Mannix Pedro, 37, deny charges of conspiring with others to commit a robbery in Richmond, south-west London, on 25 May 2024.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/feb/05/london-jewellery-shop-robbery-was-staged-defendant-tells-court

Liberal papers such as the guardian or the New Yprk might be known for quality journalism, but they are also known to routinely side with the ruling class

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And that's the only mention of "Junior" and "Mannix" in that article.

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 week ago

Fair point

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

theGuardian, principally British, doesn't seem to "routinely side with the ruling class". Now that the Labour is the government, maybe that's true. But the UK still has an archaic ruling class above their government that theGuardian is almost never siding with.

NYT, is clearly siding with "a class" but is that class ruling the United States? Rulers were sitting with the new king's family during his inauguration and NYT were on the "fake news" corner. (an outsider's interpretation)

[–] punkisundead@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think "siding with the ruling class" means different things for us. For me its like this:

If you criticize individual presidents for their actions, but do not criticize the existence of a president, then you are sidig with the ruling class.

If you criticize political parties for their actions, but do not criticize the party system as whole, then you are sidig with the ruling class.

If you criticize individual capitalists for their actions, but do not criticize the system that allows them.to do their (and all other capitalists) exploitation, then you are sidig with the ruling class.

[–] merde@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

i can't disagree if i edit your "ruling class" to "ruling classes".

Like the proletariat, precariat and the slavelike migrants that are even below the two don't belong to the same class

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

Lol, did you look at the article? They use his full name in the second paragraph.