this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
461 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2503 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Many Democrats, especially women, expressed disillusionment and frustration online, viewing the result as a reflection of deep-seated misogyny in the U.S.

Harris supporters highlighted anger that a “felony convicted, twice-impeached” Trump prevailed over a female candidate.

Comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss resurfaced, with many attributing Trump’s win to targeted appeals to young men, including appearances with influencers like Joe Rogan.

The election outcome has intensified concerns over growing right-wing radicalization among young men.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DABDA@lemm.ee 55 points 1 month ago (4 children)

I saved a comment from u/allmhuran posted to r/news on 2016-06-24:

"Australia has had five prime ministers in five years, the poor yanks look as though they'll have to choose between two options both of which have more disapproval than approval, and the UK leaves the EU. It seems like a ridiculous amount of instability. One might even call it absurd.

But it's not surprising.

You can't feed a society exaggeration, hyperbole and propaganda for over a decade, and then claim surprise when people don't seem to be making rational decisions on the basis of well established truth.

There's a cost associated with not telling the truth. There's a cost associated with polarized, adversarial public discourse. There's a cost associated with media more concerned with profits than the public interest.

It is, apparently, time to pay the piper."

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 18 points 1 month ago

There’s a cost associated with media more concerned with profits than the public interest.

Media: good thing we're not the ones paying the price! Continue current heading, profits ho!

[–] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

I think education is a factor here as well. People collectively seemed to have started just taking any sources word as objective truth with no rationalisation or justification. The fact we now have google forcing ai answers onto people that are factually wrong or unreliable and most just don't question it is emblematic of the problem. People lack critical thinking now.

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Very well stated. We need to operate within this reality instead of the fantasy land created by those who will be fine either way.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

And what's the suggestion here? I'm not getting it.

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago

They aren't suggesting anything. They're saying we're poisoned and it's gone critical.