Tucker Carlson has alleged that Benjamin Netanyahu is urging Donald Trump to consider a nuclear strike on Iran, but his claims lack independent evidence or official confirmation.
Yeah I think in the most charitable reading of Melvin’s comments he’s saying that cons are more broadly “aware” of issues in general because fox and the like broadcast a wide net of garbage they should be angry about, even if virtually everything they say about the issues are lies.
But the question is that if (eg) the name of some random congress critter is on the right’s radar that the left hasn’t really heard much about, and what they think they know is that she drinks baby blood in pizza basements fortnightly, what exactly do they “know” vs never having heard of her in the first place?
But yea you’re charitable understanding is right. I don’t think the average right winger has some logical or morally correct or deep understanding. But they have been exposed to more stories and views and frames on these events.
I know people have experienced what I’m about to say, we all have. You go to have a conversation and you start saying some topics and all of a sudden you’re hearing things from the right winger you had no idea was even happening. They know the points on the left but the people on the left aren’t aware of their points. I don’t just mean “abortions are murder” what I mean is stuff like “Trump just moved 2000 soldiers to Botswana after Biden failed attempt at securing the region back in 2008 operation freedoms puppies that he spearheaded” and you look it up and the details are accurate, the frame is hack but the details are accurate.
Alright man I’ll bite. Please link me some of these con spaces that get to the truth of a breaking news story before the left.
It makes sense if you’re trying to explain why a MAGA would immediately believe something without evidence.
Yeah I think in the most charitable reading of Melvin’s comments he’s saying that cons are more broadly “aware” of issues in general because fox and the like broadcast a wide net of garbage they should be angry about, even if virtually everything they say about the issues are lies.
But the question is that if (eg) the name of some random congress critter is on the right’s radar that the left hasn’t really heard much about, and what they think they know is that she drinks baby blood in pizza basements fortnightly, what exactly do they “know” vs never having heard of her in the first place?
I wrote here first so I’ll just link to it here.
But yea you’re charitable understanding is right. I don’t think the average right winger has some logical or morally correct or deep understanding. But they have been exposed to more stories and views and frames on these events.
I know people have experienced what I’m about to say, we all have. You go to have a conversation and you start saying some topics and all of a sudden you’re hearing things from the right winger you had no idea was even happening. They know the points on the left but the people on the left aren’t aware of their points. I don’t just mean “abortions are murder” what I mean is stuff like “Trump just moved 2000 soldiers to Botswana after Biden failed attempt at securing the region back in 2008 operation freedoms puppies that he spearheaded” and you look it up and the details are accurate, the frame is hack but the details are accurate.
https://lemmy.world/comment/26784901