In evaluating these claims, it’s essential to consider the broader context of how social media and news platforms increasingly drive political discourse. These platforms are designed to generate outrage, as it has been shown to be the most engaging and profitable form of content, particularly in an advertising-driven model. Outrage keeps people engaged, producing clicks, shares, and ad revenue; consequently, the cycle of moral indignation and sensationalism is incentivized, often at the expense of factual accuracy. Verifying facts is slower and less stimulating, so audiences are drawn instead to provocative arguments, insults, and demeaning language. This is especially compelling for lonely or isolated individuals, who may be more inclined to take what they see online at face value and to seek out emotionally charged content as a source of connection or validation.
Returning to the specific points raised: inflation is a complex economic phenomenon shaped by many factors, including global supply chain issues and energy markets, not just government spending on social programs. The narrative that inflation is solely the result of “printing money for illegal immigrants” oversimplifies the issue and plays into the kind of sensational arguments that drive clicks. Similarly, the Inflation Reduction Act’s EV infrastructure funding is part of a multi-year plan, with charger installation targets set over several years rather than immediate fulfillment. Yet, in an outrage-driven media cycle, claims that “billions yielded only a few chargers” are more compelling than examining the complexities of infrastructure projects and implementation timelines. On immigration, accusations that Democrats welcome illegal immigration to “fatten votes” are unsupported by evidence, as U.S. voting laws restrict ballots to citizens, and claims of mass voter fraud involving undocumented immigrants have been consistently debunked. However, accusations like this, particularly when unsupported, are highly engaging and designed to stoke fears and divide audiences. They reinforce sensational narratives that resonate more strongly than the nuanced realities of immigration and voting policies. The notion that members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are entering the country, without verifiable intelligence backing, also reflects the sort of dramatic, fear-based storytelling that online and traditional media alike exploit for engagement. The Afghanistan withdrawal, though chaotic, cannot be directly linked as the primary reason for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Putin’s actions were influenced by a range of long-term strategic factors that predate Biden’s presidency. However, the simplistic narrative that one event signals “weakness” and spurs aggression is easier to digest and more inflammatory than considering the actual geopolitical complexities at play. Finally, the notion that Democrats “adore” or ignore street crime misrepresents the intentions of criminal justice reform, which aims to address systemic issues rather than enable criminal activity. Traditional media, in striving to remain relevant alongside social media’s outrage-fueled dynamics, often promotes the idea that certain parties are “soft on crime,” which adds fuel to partisan narratives without addressing the real issues behind reform efforts. The drive for clicks and engagement has shaped the very way we understand political discourse today, with social media and traditional news alike incentivized to promote content that divides and provokes rather than informs. Voting on policies is valid and necessary, but making choices based on outrage-driven narratives can obscure the facts and perpetuate division. The question remains: does voting based on such narratives—particularly for candidates who capitalize on them—truly help address the deeper issues affecting our society? Or does it merely reinforce a cycle where public attention is manipulated for profit, rather than fostering informed and meaningful political engagement? This environment, fueled by outrage and sensationalism, risks diminishing our collective ability to navigate complex issues thoughtfully and cooperatively. And you've completely bought into this, vote emotionally "with pleasure", and will opportunistically accept a win while claiming that voting is rigged. Pretending to vote on policy while buying every engagement oriented moral outrage narrative the internet algorithms/trolls manipulate you with, is what it is. On Tuesday, November 5, 2024 at 5:07:40 PM UTC+1 [email protected] wrote: Not really. My voting is on policies, whether kamala did these, I would've voted for her. Domestically, Inflation caused by printing money to cover social expenses for illegal aliens. The Inflation Reduction Act was raided. Specially,7.5 billion, reserved for vastly increasing the amount of EV chargers, would up with only 8. Illegal immigration to fatten the Dem election votes, not caring whether some of the entrants were criminals or Iranian Rev Guard Units, in country. Internationally, the Afghanistan witrhdrawal caused Putin to see Weakness aka like Obama, and invade Ukraine, causing the Doomsday clock to go forward. That is just four reasons, and 5 would be the democrats adoration and non-jailing of street thugs, and theft. . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9945eee9-36fa-4292-9b41-0112fd5a2b92n%40googlegroups.com.
