Community description for ManufacturingConsent is “when the media decides who you are rooting for.” So, being banned for questioning their narrative strikes me as absurdly funny. I mean, I guess if the idea of the community is that geneva_convenience should decide whom you root for, that would track.
The post in question: https://piefed.ca/post/266435
(I pointed out that the Guardian was probably including the hostages who died after the attacks. This really bugged OP and led to a ban.)
I don’t really care for a remedy, seems a silly place. Just thought it was funny as heck.
(For what it’s worth, like most, I side with Palestine but I think being accurate lends credence to our cause.)
Being upset over a difference of 61 is pretty dumb in and of itself. It’s less than 6% discrepancy even if you don’t count hostages killed in Gaza.
There’s plenty of occurrences of media manipulation around this conflict, this doesn’t even register on my radar at all. Like “Oh I was just a few dozen deaths short of having sympathy for Israel”
What’s confusing is that it felt like MyBrainHurts was doing a gotcha on a gotcha, and then it fell down a rabbit hole from there.
But more than that…
Like, I don’t think MyBrainHurts is being deliberate in the language, but “one kid dies in the commotion” rings a big “cop-talk” alarm bell. The whole argument feels dumb and petty, hashed out by two people with no control of the horror in the outside world. And because of the vacuum of activism that is the internet, they waste their time snipping at each other rather than finding a better use for their restless energy.
To each their own! I just wanted an analogy where I was pretty sure they would want to take the other side.
(It just seems wild to me that geneva’s arguing that the kidnapped people shouldn’t count in the totals.)
I don’t even read that much. Just seems like they’re sniping at one another over semantics and vibes.
This is really well put and cracked me up.