Leave it to the New York Times, the "paper of record", to take these important initial steps to legitimize the world's most horrid human rights abuses.
Is it okay to make money off prisons and concentration camps?
No.
this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2025
116 points (99.2% liked)
Not The Onion
16585 readers
983 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The argument is that ICE can always find some rich BlackRock-esque real estate holder that doesn't give af to host the camp instead if the asker terminates the lease, thus from a utilitarian perspective it's probably more useful to hold the lease and use the money to lobby against ICE.
No, it's not ok to earn rental income.
Only if you charge an exorbitant amount to those fuckers. Tack on an extra 5 million a month "holding cell" fee.
Well, I see the NYT has certainly evolved with the changing times. Where once it pretended to talk about issues faced by us all it has now apparently retreated to the much more financially-secure world of providing ethical cover for landlords who profit from human suffering. If this is a 'war on immigration' these guys are literally war profiteers. Definitely 'speaking for the people' there, NYT. No, in case you were wondering, the word 'rich' does not in fact belong inside those quotes.
Isn't that what the Ethicist column always has been? Philosophy has even historically been a bourgeois subject. (I don't think people usually put Marxism in philosophy classes.)
Also, I don't think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
First I couldn't read the full article because I don't subscribe to the NYT, but...
I don’t think the response is providing cover. It encourages the question-asker to use this rental income for lobbying against ICE.
It's providing cover in exactly the same way that billionaires use philanthropy to launder their image: by asserting that giving a tiny portion of one's ill-gotten gains to 'good causes' somehow ameliorates the ethical implications of acquiring it in the first place.
It does not.
If you redirect it all, it's not a tiny portion.
I was speaking more broadly about billionaires giving a tiny portion of their wealth away, not this specific example.
NO!
No.
Hell no.
kind of ??
Why?
unambiguously evi|