I’m not seeing any mainstream media coverage.
If a white conservative student athlete in a deep-blue area of the country had been shot and killed yesterday for no really apparent reason, it would be the lead story on every single news that exists.
There have been rumors that both of the guy's legs were broken. IDK whether this is just the coroner's office clearing up wild social media speculation, or if they're so brazen about a coverup that they're willing to lie about the state of his body, but that's why they specifically talked about broken limbs.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/delta-university-hanging-reed-student-mississippi/
Since link seems to be broken right now
Seriously. Biden raised tax rates on these megacorporations that run our society now, and used about a trillion dollars of the money he raised to take big action on climate change and manufacturing jobs. Because he was actually working on important boring issues, the news hated him and focused on all these weird sound-bite things and pointed out that he's old.
I'm not trying to give him a free pass on enabling Gaza or fucking up by failing to prosecute Trump when there was time for it, but the idea that he basically didn't do anything is entirely a function of our gross-negligence media. If Trump had opened one factory, we'd have heard about it for months.
I think a lot of it comes down to news and education. Every bit of media they consume assured them that Trump was a no-nonsense tough guy who would tackle head on some of the issues that were of genuine concern to them. There are billions of dollars that go into manipulating the landscape in all kinds of ways to make sure that is all they were presented with. And so, that's the basis they decided on. What else could they do?
Sure, you and me exist in a media landscape where that's a laughable joke, but I don't think you can necessarily blame them for not having lucked their way into the same places that we exist on. The white people, who were waving around signs saying "Mass Deportations Now" and then got all upset when it turned around on them, I think you can blame, but I think a lot of people of a lot of different ethnicities and backgrounds just got fooled by all the propaganda that is so polished and professional at this point.
I think the crisis of Trump is likely to be worse than any crisis in the Western world for the last 50 years. I think the closest analogue is probably the collapse of the USSR. So yes, some of the rich people upped their wealth by orders of magnitude, and honestly you might be right that Zuck might manage to be one of that category, but also some of them lost everything or got thrown out windows, or had to survive in reduced capacity within their new walled fortresses in the horrifying new meta. I feel like more likely is that the MAGA world will remember Facebook censoring their posts about ivermectin, and not feel like Zuck needs to have a seat at the table, no matter how many ass-kissing sessions he shows up at the White House to do.
For example I feel like breaking up Meta and mandating Truth Social and TikTok as the only new sanctioned social media going forward might be one possible outcome. It's kind of hard to say and I won't swear that you're definitely wrong that he might come out way ahead in the end. I'm just saying that this type of crisis is a very different type of crisis.
It was a specific politics community that was just made to talk about politics without UniversalMonk. This was back in the days when the !politics@lemmy.world moderators, with their unerring instinct for making the worst decision possible on any given issue, were insisting that UniversalMonk hadn't done anything wrong and his honored place in the community needed to be preserved and the whole community who held a different opinion about him just didn't understand the bigger picture like they did.
Part of my point is that the damage Trump is going to do will cost them tons more money than if they had helped to prop up the fairly safe and civil society they previously were allowed to exist within, under which secure umbrella they've been able to rake in money like leaves in autumn on a wide country estate.
who are "the same people" that you're referring to?
is "people" singular, or plural?
how many people, specifically?
I gave an example elsewhere in this thread. Are you trying to say that there were not any people on Lemmy loudly saying that they weren't going to vote for Democrats in the last election, because they needed to learn their lesson about supporting genocide? I am noting that I haven't seen any of those people apply any of that vigor, now, to supporting Mamdani. That's weird to me.
because the last time I asked you for a concrete example to back up a sweeping claim like this, you brought up one guy who was a petty tyrant forum moderator you had a beef with. and you were still salty about the beef like a year later.
I gave two concrete examples, one of which involved one guy, and the other of which involved multiple "guys." You asserted that because I'd had semi related beef with one of the people involved, that meant the examples didn't count. Okey dokey.
do you have any concrete evidence (preferably something more substantial than "Lemmy comment from a guy I got into an argument with a year ago") that people not voting for Kamala because of Gaza actually changed the election outcome and caused Harris to lose?
I don't think that happened. I do think that the overall aggregate of people believing a variety of nutty things about reasons not to vote for Kamala Harris ("Trump will fix the economy," "immigration is a huge problem and Biden isn't addressing it," "Kamala Harris is responsible for the genocide in Gaza," stuff like that) had a huge impact on the election. I'm just pushing back against one of those beliefs, but I don't think that belief alone swung the election, no.
I'm not sure you and me talking about this is going to be productive honestly. It seems like you're kind of focused just on yelling at me and it seems a little unlikely that you're going to respond to a detailed factual reply with anything like "Oh yeah I see your point" or anything along those lines.
"But we're one of the good ones! We were adding conservative columnists! We said bad things about Biden all the time!"
Oh, wait, maybe I am wrong. I thought that was when it was set up, but now I found something else that says 1986. Basically there were a series of gradual adjustments during a time of pretty intense racism within the system, this was back in the time period when a jury looked at the Rodney King beating and said it looked fine to them.
There's also this:
And also:
What the fuck
What the FUCK