• mozz
    link
    fedilink
    2398 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
      link
      English
      1208 months ago

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

    • @TexasDrunk
      link
      358 months ago

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

      • WhatTrees
        link
        fedilink
        English
        928 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
          link
          238 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
      link
      20
      edit-2
      8 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.

  • @esc27
    link
    448 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 (he/him)
    link
    fedilink
    398 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
      link
      128 months ago

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

  • dream_weasel
    link
    fedilink
    318 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      48 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
    link
    258 months ago

    …Barbra Streisand?

  • @ccunning
    link
    23
    edit-2
    8 months ago

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

    Can just anyone do that?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      37
      edit-2
      8 months ago

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

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          158 months ago

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

      • @ccunning
        link
        58 months ago

        I see - thanks for the info…

        • @sploosh
          link
          48 months ago

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

          • @ccunning
            link
            108 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
              link
              48 months ago

              Might I suggest Ublock Origin? Never browse without it.

              • @ccunning
                link
                08 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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -38 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
      link
      188 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.

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    188 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!