3 ms·
Nothing on the homepage of the NY Times today, above or below the fold. NY Times and other outlets did report on it, as you show in your links, but attention ha
by WillPostForFood 7y ago
Nothing on the homepage of the NY Times today, above or below the fold. NY Times and other outlets did report on it, as you show in your links, but attention has lapsed. It feels like it deserves more focus as it could be a harbinger of more widespread unrest.
- nostrademons 7y agoSays a lot about the NYTimes. I usually use aggregators like Google News, Reddit, HN, etc, and heard about this over a week ago. The "more widespread unrest" is already here - there's ongoing civil disorder in Chile, Hong Kong, Lebanon, Iraq, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Kurdistan, Palestine, and Catalonia; ongoing civil wars in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Mali, DRC, Sudan; and endemic violence and state failure in Mexico and Central America. India is a potential flashpoint that could go up in smoke at any time (they have a demographic bulge that usually results in civil unrest, and I've read many young people there believe Gandhi "should've been more violent"), while the U.S. and U.K. both face potentially destabilizing internal conflicts. If the U.S. goes up in flames the whole world likely will, as we've been a deterring force for many regional conflicts.