Reducing everybody who doesn’t prioritize the same things as you to such lengths is ridiculous. I don’t care what your perception is of “the average person.“ That’s egotistical teenager logic.
Once again, we can call out media outlets for not properly prioritizing this. But to shutdown other people’s priorities and blame them for the lack of coverage in order to elevate it is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive finger pointing.
There is a big block for ads or an image or something right after that point IIRC so it just have detected that as end of the article unfortunately
This is incredibly patronizing of you. You’re one step away from calling everyone else “sheeple“ while holding yourself up as the exception.
I am not going to tell LGBT people they are distracted by Trump and the GOP’s regressive policies towards them because they aren’t giving enough attention to climate issues. I’m not going to tell women they are distracted by Roe’s repeal and the subsequent fallout. I am not going to apologize for caring about project 2025 and the planned dismantling of our entire system in service of a petty manchild. I also care about climate issues, as do many people who care about the issues I listed.
The only critique, as I said earlier, is that outlets have not reported on this enough. But they can report on multiple things. Lack of coverage does not mean we are all distracted by other coverage except for you and WAPO.
If you’re calling it a distraction, then yes, it is literally one or the other. One is distracting from the other. It is saying that the things we care about do not actually matter, they are a distraction from what matters. So yeah I’m going to take a little issue with that.
So is it our fault or the press’s fault that the thing you want covered isn’t getting enough coverage?
And again, that doesn’t change the point. They can still write about this. It doesn’t mean other things people care about are a needless distraction. They are important to you. And I’m sure someone could point at this article and go “this is a distraction, while you were arguing about this, you should’ve actually cared about z issue.”
It’s a race to the bottom. The lack of coverage of this issue does not mean we have to say everyone else has bad priorities. It’s not a zero sum game. The press can cover multiple things. The only critique should be that the press has not covered this adequately.
It’s not a distraction. We know and we can hold two thoughts in our mind. These “x is a distraction from y” articles/comments/takes in general don’t help. They just tell people who care about x that their concern is secondary and they’re distracted. That’s not right.
I felt weird typing that col
Same lol
I’m laughing to avoid crying
Just read project 2025 that’s what it looks like lol
Maybe this is all PR-curated, maybe she wrote it all, idk. But she certainly knows her audience lol
Here’s to a great future with Mozilla!
Oh trust me I don’t plan on going next door
I fucking hate Louisiana. It’s probably time to pack up.
This is like comparing sweeping to a proper vacuum cleaner
Yes it was all Nate Silver. He was the only person with an election forecast saying she had a 70-80% chance. That’s right, that’s all I follow. No god but Nate. That’s why I didn’t say “and other forecasters.” Because I trust one source only and use it for everything ever.
Jfc dude you’re just flinging shit and seeing what sticks at this point
You have no clue what I think or what I am drawing from clearly and the patronizing tone is entirely unwarranted. 538 and other forecasters had her at a 70-80% chance of winning. Those forecasts were the results of polling and other information. I did not say individual polls favored her 70-80% against 20-30%. That would be patently absurd.
Next time instead of diving headfirst into a smug response that is completely undeserved, just ask for clarification or consider maybe you are misinterpreting me. Hell maybe I misspoke or it was ambiguous, I’m not perfect. Hopefully this isn’t how you talk to people in real life when you think they’re wrong.
I’m not discounting their importance, but we need to put them in context
Special elections have a smaller turnout that skews towards the more politically active, which means it skews towards the more educated, which means it skews Democrat. And some of these special elections had literally less than 10,000 people voting.
It doesn’t explain everything, but I would not look at the special elections as a bellwether for the general.
What politics am I defending? I agree the coverage by media outlets has been terrible. This is a serious threat to our climate.
You also don’t know the first thing about me. I am not using anyone as a shield. Get fucked. Blocking and moving on I don’t need your brand of disingenuous shit.