The Dictatorship
‘Love Island’ contestant Cierra Ortega’s ICE incident reveals a hard truth about reality TV
In Cathy Park Hong’s autobiographical collection of essays “Minor Feelings,” she explains that “patiently educating a clueless white person about race is draining. It takes all your powers of persuasion. Because it’s more than a chat about race. It’s ontological. It’s like explaining to a person why you exist, or why you feel pain, or why your reality is distinct from their reality.”
With Season 7 of “Love Island USA” wrapped, we’ve seen a number of painful truths about the prejudices and problematic views in our society reflected on the reality TV stage — including, but not limited to, these contrasting perspectives between white people and Asian people that was so apparent in the many reactions to contestant Close Ortega’s use of an anti-Asian slur in a 2015 Instagram caption.
We’ve seen a number of painful truths about the prejudices and problematic views in our society reflected on the reality TV stage.
As Hong elicits, Asian people have often had their feelings diminished and made to accept that racism against them is normalized, so when Ortega was removed from the show following the resurfacing of her Instagram posts with the slur, I admit I was surprised. The move seemed to indicate a shift in the normative culture, that what has historically been accepted in the past, would no longer be tolerated.
For once, the Asian community was validated in their experiences of racism, the kind that is often reduced to a “casual form”: the pulling back of eyelids, the mocking of a native language, and of course, getting called a slur that has its origin in targeting Chinese people during the Chinese Exclusion Actthe first U.S. law to restrict immigration based on nationality.
Which is why the irony speaks for itself, as Ortega, who is of Puerto Rican and Mexican descent, claimed in her apology video that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had been called on her family in the backlash of her being bumped from the show.
“I had no idea that the word held as much pain, as much harm, and came with the history that it did or I never would have used it,” Ortega said. “I had no ill intention when I was using it.”
Turns out, some of the people calling her out for using the slur didn’t know the origins of it either. Calling ICE on a Hispanic and Latino household and sending death threats to a person who used a slur is not productive nor will it encourage growth. Both cases, the use of an ethnic slur and the threat of deportation, are anti-immigrant sentiments that feed into the same type of hate and racism that plagues so much of our society.
Throughout this season of “Love Island,” other contestants’ problematic views have surfaced, too. After the first episode, contestant Yulissa Escobar was abruptly removed from the villa, with no official explanation from the show, after clips surfaced of her using racial slurs on a podcast.
Another contestant, Austin Shepard, was called out online for his pro-Trump TikTok reposts and bombshell TJ Palma was found to be following Andrew Tate on Instagram.
On the island, the contestants live in a bubble, an alternate reality where the goal is to focus on one thing and one thing only: finding love without the usual distractions of everyday life and society. All the typical aspects of life such as work and school are removed with the intention to create an “ideal” atmosphere — but what happens when the “outside world” leaks through the cracks?
This season, more so than in seasons past, has shown some major flaws in the imagined utopia. After contestant Hannah Fields was voted off in episode 18, she was asked on a podcast why she didn’t explore a connection with TJ, to which she responded, “I can kind of clock when me and somebody have different opinions on things that I just don’t waver on… and I knew there was multiple people that were like that.” Many fans interpreted this to mean that they differed in political views. While there is no official rule that contestants are not allowed to talk about politics, if these conversations are happening, they are certainly not being aired.
There was another, more subtle instance in which the complexities of politics presented themselves in the show. During the “Stand on Business” challenge, Amaya Espinal, one of this season’s winnerswas verbally berated by Shepard and two other male contestants, before contestant Bryan Arenales stood up for her. Shepard, a 26-year-old pool technician, said, “Do you not understand what a chance to air stuff out is?” — a moment that any minority can identify as a microaggression from a mile away.
Reality shows are often perceived to be a form of mindless entertainment, which usually includes a passive agreement to avoid politics.
It was her future partner, Arenales, who ended up defending her. “Coming from a Hispanic household, calling someone ‘babe,’ ‘mi amor,’ that’s just how we talk.” The Boston (more specifically, Everett) native demonstrated a level of cultural humility that was previously missing on the show. This was a defining moment in the season, in which viewers finally saw two contestants connect on more than just a physical level for once.
Reality shows are often perceived to be a form of mindless entertainment, which usually includes a passive agreement to avoid politics. People like to consume shows like “Love Island” because they aren’t intellectually demanding. But as it becomes more evident how deeply ingrained politics is in society and identity, it becomes harder to avoid it.
The truth is, everything is political, and even on a show as heavily sanitized as “Love Island,” the underlying cultural and political factors may have complicated the dynamics — but they also made the watching experience more interesting. And somehow along the way, this example of lowbrow media has became an anthropological study in human interactions in our politically charged reality that we viewers can’t escape, even if we want to.
Julie Huynh
Julie Huynh is an BLN digital platforms intern and student journalist at Boston College.
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) — Eight protesters accused by the Justice Department of having ties to antifawere sentenced Tuesday to decades in federal prison over a shooting outside a Texas immigration detention center that wounded a police officer. Prosecutors have called the shooting an act of terrorism.
One of the defendants, a former U.S. Marine Corps reservist convicted of opening fire during the July 4 demonstration outside the Prairieland Detention Center near Dallas, was sentenced to 100 years in prison, the maximum punishment.
The lengthy sentences were condemned by family members and supporters in a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Fort Worth. Hope Song, whose son Benjamin Songreceived the heftiest sentence, disputed prosecutors’ claims that her son shot the officer and said he didn’t intend to hurt anyone.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, one of two judges overseeing the proceedings, said what happened wasn’t a protest but “an assault on democracy.”
“The need to deter this type of conduct is high,” O’Connor said.
The seven other protesters received prison terms ranging from 30 to 70 years.
Prosecutors said the eight are members of antifa, a decentralized anti-fascist organization and a targetof the Trump administration. Antifa is not a single organization but rather an umbrella term for far-left militant groups that confront or resist neo-Nazis and white supremacists at demonstrations.
President Donald Trump last fall signed an executive order designating antifa a domestic terrorist organization, even though there is no domestic equivalent to the State Department’s list of foreign terror organizations.
The defendants deny any affiliation with antifa and maintain they attended the demonstration in support of detained immigrants.
Prosecutor Frank Gatto urged the judge to impose stiff penalties.
“People with that kind of extremist beliefs need extra time in prison,” Gatto said. “They believe violence is justified.”
Phillip Hayes, Song’s attorney, said outside the courthouse that he takes issue with the idea that the protesters are extremists.
“This is a bunch of kids and young adults who really have a really big heart and really wanted their voice to be heard,” Hayes said. “It was never intended that anybody get hurt. It was never intended that any shots would be fired.”
Prosecutors said in court that Song had yelled “get to the rifles” and opened fire, striking a police officer who had just pulled up to the center.
Hayes argued that Song’s shots were “suppressive fire” and that a ricochet bullet hit the officer after he arrived on the scene and “aggressively” pulled out his firearm. He said his client will appeal the 100-year sentence.
“Song, aside from this day, has had an impeccable life. A former Marine. A good student,” Hayes said. “He had a lot of good qualities that were just ignored. The judge went ahead and gave as much as he could.”
Other defendants and their family members pleaded for leniency in court.
Autumn Hill said the gathering “seemed more like a party to me than anything else” and that she and others who participated “didn’t expect or want any violence or destruction of property to occur.”
Amber Lowrey told the judge that her sister, Savanna Batten, is a compassionate person with dreams of opening a bakery. She said Batten’s activism started with animal rights and evolved into anti-war and human rights advocacy.
“She’s the best person I know,” Lowrey said.
Hill and Batten both received 50-year sentences.
Other defendants previously pleaded guilty to providing material support to terrorists rather than take their case to trial.
Critics warn the case could have a wide-reaching impact on protests given that organizations operating within the U.S. are supposed to be protected by First Amendment free-speech rights.
Last week, federal prosecutors charged 15 peoplewith impeding the Trump administration’s immigration crackdownin Minnesota. They claimed the demonstrators were members of antifa who conspired against the federal government to block arrests and deportations by setting up blockades around government buildings and throwing chunks of ice at federal vehicles, among other actions.
The Dictatorship
Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’
About a month into Donald Trump’s second term, Senate Republicans weighed whether to confirm one of the president’s worst nominees. Indeed, the list of reasons to reject Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination for director of national intelligence was not short.
The former congresswoman lacked the requisite experience in intelligence matters. She had an indefensible habit of echoing Russian propaganda. She struggled to explain her record of defending Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime. Senators heard from former national security officials who issued unsubtle warnings about elevating Gabbard to an important and influential position.
But in case that weren’t quite enough, let’s also not overlook the fact that Gabbard was a member of a secretive Hare Krishna offshoot religious sect that is considered by many of its former members to be an abusive cult.
Gabbard, who wrapped up her tenure as DNI last week, has long insisted that any suggestion that she was somehow enthralled to or controlled by this sect or its leader, whom she has referred to as her “guru,” is just bigotry against her faith.
But it’s against this backdrop that The Washington Post obtained hundreds of secret memos prepared for Gabbard during her congressional tenure, which were put together by members of the alleged cult and which included thousands of pages of specific directives to her on policy and politics.
After careful analysis of thousands of these documents, which have not been independently verified by MS NOW, the Post determined that they likely came from Gabbard’s secretive guru, a man named Chris Butler.
The memos, starting in 2013, when the Hawaiian first arrived on Capitol Hill, reflect a dynamic in which Gabbard didn’t just take direction from the materials, but essentially took dictation from the alleged cult leader: Memos told Gabbard what she should do as a member of Congress, and she often did exactly that, sometimes word for word.
The Post’s Jon Swaine spent months trying to get Gabbard to respond to questions, but to no avail. Her spokeswoman reportedly encouraged Swaine to drop the story, saying, “I cannot imagine WaPo’s readers would be interested in yet another uncredible, bigoted attack on the DNI’s faith.”
On May 20, Swaine nevertheless alerted the DNI and top members of her staff to the fact that the Post was prepared to publish his reporting anyway on her association with Butler.
On May 22, Fox News reported that Gabbard was leaving the administration, ostensibly because of a health issue involving her husband.
This week, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke on the Senate floor and commented on the reporting:
There are reports that Tulsi Gabbard was receiving instructions from a so-called guru and repeating them word for word. That ought to concern all of us if it’s true. No one knows who this guru really is, what his connections are, and where the instructions came from. … We need answers.
The New York Democrat’s comments made sense, though it’s worth considering who, exactly, “we need answers” from.
It stands to reason, for example, that Gabbard has some explaining to do, but I’m also interested in the answers from those who elevated her to an influential intelligence office in the first place.
In February 2025, confronted with an avalanche of reasons to reject Gabbard’s nomination, 52 Senate Republicans — every GOP member except Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell — shrugged off every red flag and voted to confirm her as the nation’s DNI, including so-called “moderates” such as Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski.
The question for these 52 senators seems obvious: Do you regret that confirmation vote and now recognize it as a mistake? Or do you still think it was a good idea to put Gabbard in this influential intelligence position?
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
In the lead-up to the Iran war, President Donald Trump dismissed the possibility that Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz despite warnings from his top military adviser, authors of a new book told MS NOW’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Monday.
In their first televised interview about “Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump,” New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan said Trump also disregarded warnings from Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the potential effects on American weaponry and about casualties.
The initial closure of the strait, a narrow passageway through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes, led to a spike in gas and oil prices. According to Swan, Trump thought Iran would have limited time to take action because the war would be over quickly — a claim he has made repeatedly during the nearly four-month-long war.
“He felt that this regime was a paper tiger, that this was going to be a fast war,” Swan said on “The Last Word.” “He just said he felt that that was going to be the case, that they were going to collapse very quickly.”
“It’s a form of magical thinking, actually, is what it all boils down to,” he added.
The revelation is just one of several in the book — which is based on more than 1,000 interviews — that illustrate how Trump repeatedly bases geopolitical decisions on his own whims rather than experts’ assessments.
Another example of such thinking was when Trump floated a plan to expel 2 million Palestinians from Gaza so he could turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Haberman and Swan wrote in the book that one senior aide characterized the idea as “legitimately nutso … but very on-brand.”
Haberman also spoke about “how scared” people were inside the White House ahead of last year’s so-called Liberation Daywhen Trump unveiled sweeping global tariffs. (The Supreme Court struck down those tariffs in February.)
“They were scared at how close the bond markets came to just completely melting down seven days later, which was finally what got him [Trump] off of it, but again, it was the willingness to just go straight to the brink” that was jarring, Haberman said.
Despite such fear among Trump’s staff, Haberman added, the White House makes up “a group of people who genuinely want to see him succeed.”
Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.
- Rep. April McClain Delaney wins bitter primary to keep her Maryland House seat
- Mamdani-backed socialist ousts Espaillat in NY-13
- Trump’s preferred candidate wins primary to succeed Elise Stefanik
- Former Utah Rep. Ben McAdams is on track to return to Congress
- 8 convicted in Texas immigration center shooting sentenced to decades in prison
- Tulsi Gabbard and Senate GOP face difficult new questions over influence of her ‘guru’
- Trump ignored warnings before launching Iran war, reporters tell MS NOW
- Appeals court allows Trump to resume expedited deportations nationwide
- The Trump administration won’t tell a federal court that the ‘slush fund’ is dead
- Lasher, backed by Nadler, wins high-profile primary
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words