3 ms·

I have contacted the US news outlets that have failed to report on the daily killing of up to 100 food aid seekers, as well as failing to report on the deaths d

I have contacted the US news outlets that have failed to report on the daily killing of up to 100 food aid seekers, as well as failing to report on the deaths due to starvation. I tell them that their lies of omission makes them complicit in genocide. US media will only give an obligatory window-dressing mention of what's going on. I also tell one media business masquerading as a public service that I will not donate to them anymore, because of their silence. Want the truth? Try aljazeera.com or haaretz.com (even the Israelis have better coverage of the genocide than almost all US media). If more of the American people were exposed to the truth, the genocide would stop sooner. So politely pressure US media outlets to do their job!

nudgeOrnurture 1y ago
the problem is recursion. these people are stuck in infinite loops. both, the media and the purple tractors. in order to maintain these infinite loops and escape all the breaks, they cancel just enough to never suffer a blow from overflow. if you want to stop the genocide, become a marketing monster and spread your message via all the twitchy channels. the more labels you can slap on it, the better. your message won't die just because you bought the attention by sharing others' attention. then, turn it into a multi-cultural constantly remixing franchise. Once you crack the mythical early adopter threshold, boom, one genocide down.
- DaveZale 1y ago
  that's a good perspective, but I gave up on social media years ago. The bots on reddit cancelled me for harmless comments, for example. On something like X, it seems like pay to play. Do you agree that censorship on these topics is peculiar to the US media? Seems like that to me. I agree with your observation about the recursion, at least in the US media - the word choice that outlets use can soften the emotional impact even of something like genocide, it seems.
  - nudgeOrnurture 1y ago
    > I gave up on social media years ago. You didn't give up. You got cancelled, via recursion. But they made you believe you had agency in the matter. you are exactly in that segment of people that could cause overflow and bring the sentiment beyond a tipping point. It's not just the words the media use, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What's worse is that they made people feel good for supporting factually conflicting causes. "I'm helping refugees." Not "I'm helping refugees who caused a war in their country and then ran without any regard whatsoever about what will happen to the people they left behind. They are not telling the truth but I take their word for things anyway because I get to feel good." Genocides then become almost irrelevant because if you support conflicting causes, there is no need or reason to oppose conflicting causes. It's what I noticed in Germany in the past 11 years since the Syrian war. Everybody should get to live their lives was the perspective only as long as those same people abide by the same pattern, which was supporting conflicting causes in conflicting ways, making opposition to the conflicting part an absolute negative and supporting the overall thing a positive. This way people got cancelled without actually getting cancelled. And those people then believed "they gave up", "their energy wasn't worth it", "they can't do anything on these public channels", which is true of course. Short attention span platforms are the wrong way. Not enough space and time for brands and labels. Twitch, YT, lots of fuss and pomp. Twitter and reddit then for the scandalous meta talk about you or about how you were treated or how someone reacted and so on rather then the message itself. And when I say "you", I mean anyone who wants to play that game.

nudgeOrnurture 1y ago

the problem is recursion. these people are stuck in infinite loops. both, the media and the purple tractors. in order to maintain these infinite loops and escape all the breaks, they cancel just enough to never suffer a blow from overflow. if you want to stop the genocide, become a marketing monster and spread your message via all the twitchy channels. the more labels you can slap on it, the better. your message won't die just because you bought the attention by sharing others' attention. then, turn it into a multi-cultural constantly remixing franchise. Once you crack the mythical early adopter threshold, boom, one genocide down.

DaveZale 1y ago
that's a good perspective, but I gave up on social media years ago. The bots on reddit cancelled me for harmless comments, for example. On something like X, it seems like pay to play. Do you agree that censorship on these topics is peculiar to the US media? Seems like that to me. I agree with your observation about the recursion, at least in the US media - the word choice that outlets use can soften the emotional impact even of something like genocide, it seems.
- nudgeOrnurture 1y ago
  > I gave up on social media years ago. You didn't give up. You got cancelled, via recursion. But they made you believe you had agency in the matter. you are exactly in that segment of people that could cause overflow and bring the sentiment beyond a tipping point. It's not just the words the media use, that's just the tip of the iceberg. What's worse is that they made people feel good for supporting factually conflicting causes. "I'm helping refugees." Not "I'm helping refugees who caused a war in their country and then ran without any regard whatsoever about what will happen to the people they left behind. They are not telling the truth but I take their word for things anyway because I get to feel good." Genocides then become almost irrelevant because if you support conflicting causes, there is no need or reason to oppose conflicting causes. It's what I noticed in Germany in the past 11 years since the Syrian war. Everybody should get to live their lives was the perspective only as long as those same people abide by the same pattern, which was supporting conflicting causes in conflicting ways, making opposition to the conflicting part an absolute negative and supporting the overall thing a positive. This way people got cancelled without actually getting cancelled. And those people then believed "they gave up", "their energy wasn't worth it", "they can't do anything on these public channels", which is true of course. Short attention span platforms are the wrong way. Not enough space and time for brands and labels. Twitch, YT, lots of fuss and pomp. Twitter and reddit then for the scandalous meta talk about you or about how you were treated or how someone reacted and so on rather then the message itself. And when I say "you", I mean anyone who wants to play that game.