The author and agencies are listed. It’s not my responsibility to do the labor of educating you further than I already have. If you need to be hand fed links, then you’re going to remain exactly as you are. I’ve already put enough time into the post. This is close enough to sealioning in my estimation for me to block you. Good luck.

Trump has been snubbed and the laughing stock of elite NYC society for decades.

Honestly, I think people just find you annoying more than anything specific to what you’re saying, but that’s just a guess.

Elitism and wealth, though often linked, are not the same. The term nouveaux riche highlights this difference: it refers to those who have gained wealth but lack the cultural status of the traditional elite. One can be rich without being part of the elite, as elitism is more about attitudes of superiority tied to education or social influence than money alone.

In American politics, Democrats are often branded as elitist due to their perceived condescension towards certain demographics, such as rural communities or southern voters. Critics argue that some Democrats dismiss these regions as culturally or intellectually inferior, suggesting that rural areas offer little value or substance. This perception of elitism stems from more than just economic disparity; it reflects a cultural and ideological divide. The urban-rural schism is not simply about money, but about who holds the power to shape discourse, values, and the future of society. Such perceptions fuel populist resentment, where rural or working-class voters feel alienated or belittled by what they view as a metropolitan, highly educated, and culturally insulated elite.

You can see some of this elitism right here in the comments in fact.

The majority of individuals on platforms like Lemmy—and social media more broadly—engage almost exclusively as passive consumers. Their involvement often begins and ends with the simple act of upvoting or downvoting content. This limited interaction speaks volumes about the nature of digital engagement, where consuming information or entertainment takes precedence over meaningful interaction or contribution. The absence of deeper engagement is not a failing of the platform itself but a reflection of broader societal tendencies.

People, in general, tend toward passivity, a trait that extends beyond online spaces and into areas like civic participation. In the United States, for example, voter turnout remains notoriously low. People express their dissatisfaction with the status quo, they crave change, and they criticize institutions, yet they shy away from taking the minimal steps required to enact that change, often hiding behind a hand-waving comment involving the words “systemic,” “structure,” and/or “institutions,” a transparent way of excusing their unwillingness to actually act. As though they themselves are not parts of those systems, structures, and institutions. The same individuals who will upvote or downvote content online without a second thought are often the ones who abstain from voting in elections, an “upvote/downvote” that directly impact their lives.

What is even more concerning is that this passivity is not merely a result of laziness or apathy, but something ingrained and encouraged by modern society. Our institutions—whether educational, political, or corporate—tend to value compliance over initiative. Decision-making, once seen as a marker of personal agency and responsibility, is increasingly viewed as a burden. People have been conditioned to prefer being told what to do rather than take responsibility for their choices.

If a decision goes wrong, there’s an inherent comfort in being able to place blame on someone else. This social conditioning makes being passive, fading into the wallpaper, not only acceptable but desirable for many. And yet, these same people will often feel deeply dissatisfied with their lives. But, rather than do something about it, they continue to be helpless, wishing someone would decide for them to improve their lives and then forcing them to do it.

While it’s easy to express frustration with the passive nature of online participants, it is also, sadly, understandable. They are products of a society that rewards inaction more than action, where engagement is often reduced to the simplest and least effortful gestures. These platforms reflect the broader societal trend toward disengagement from real, consequential decision-making, reinforcing and reflecting a vicious cycle of passive impotence while they wait for someone or something to fix things for them.

I listed the sources. If you can’t manage the independent volition to do a simple Google search, than I’m afraid you’re simply going to have to remain ignorant.

Probably thinks you can’t take care of yourself when super pupper isn’t around. It’s like when a grandma force feeds you when you go to visit.

He insults America while in America almost every day. His followers always know he means the non-white and non-male parts.

If you don’t see a difference between the current political parties, that seems like a you problem.

Yeah, this is like the least nazi thing he’s done this week.

The best part of this is you would need to give them your personal information to pay them, and you’d need to accept the necessary cookies for them to know you’ve paid when you access the website. 🤣🤣🤣

Yeah, he really does have a sort of stochastic-terror network at his disposal, which is terrifying. Someone I know in my red/blue-split city – smart and wise, kind, experience leading organizations, experience working with the city, and with good ideas for how to improve things like education and parks – told me they won’t run for any office, which they originally had considered, because, and I quote, “I have kids. I can’t risk being killed for trying to improve this city.”

That was one of the most depressing conversations I’ve had in a while.

They create an enemy other that must be incredibly powerful but also pitifully weak. Wildly intelligent yet also fundamentally stupid.

I generally agree with your PS, though, I’m not sure I’m thrilled with the idea that independent news organizations should be making decisions based on fears of election interference. Unlike the possible accusations of conflict of interests for government agencies or institutions, the role of the media (ostensibly and historically) has been, and continues to be, to ensure transparency, accountability, and public participation in governance.

“Interfering” with elections through informational reporting seems to be a primary role of the news. Though, perhaps the fact that’s it’s a documentary changes the calculus. In some sense, this seems to be more fundamentally about the interests of the ownership of MSNBC and fears of retribution if it’s released prior to the election, but I don’t think Trump is going to be particularly discerning in his retribution one way or the other.

Actual analyses done on this topic by Pew, Breugel, and National Affairs suggest this effect is largely not true. When considering the entire electorate, a significant number of non-voters lean Republican or are politically unaffiliated and would not support the democratic party.

Further research indicates that, despite popular belief, higher voter turnout does not consistently benefit either party across the board. Over the past 70 years, there has been no strong correlation between increases in turnout and the Democratic vote share in presidential or midterm elections. This suggests that while higher turnout could marginally favor Democrats, it might not drastically alter outcomes.

Democrats could gain some advantage from 100% turnout due to the inclusion of historically underrepresented groups, but the overall impact would likely be less substantial than expected, as the partisan balance among non-voters is more evenly distributed than commonly thought.

The notion that 100% voter turnout would deliver sweeping political control for Democrats is just a comforting illusion—one that feeds into the fantasy that everyone secretly agrees with you. Both parties indulge in this kind of wishful thinking, convinced that non-voters would tip the scales in their favor if only they showed up.

The truth is that America is fiercely divided, and non-voters are just as politically varied as regular voters. Believing otherwise is just a way to avoid confronting how split the country really is.

🙄

Gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with 100 years of disinformation motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment.

I was told I wouldn’t be fact checked and that I get to keep my Swingline stapler…

The constitution? Lol, that’s so 20 years ago.

Climate change is a phrase created by republican messaging specialist Luntz.

“The climate has always been changing.” I’m sure you’ve heard that dismissal before, no? Not that it matters. Denialists gonna deny. It’s the same people that will see it snow once in the winter and say “so much for global warming.”

Everyone knows immigrants caused climate change anyway.