I’ll start by saying that I don’t disagree with you. Human lives are significantly more important than the dollar. I would also like more people to do things because it is the right thing rather than doing things for money. However, news stories will always be told from multiple angles, and there will be more angles with bigger events like these wars. It is unrealistic to expect people to only ever talk about the worst outcome of an event and turn a blind eye to relatively smaller bad outcomes.

This is also news that some people will want to know. You seem to be asking that this story not get written or discussed because there is human suffering involved, but is it not still newsworthy? If this same thing was happening during a time of world peace, do you think it should be written about? If you think it is something that could be reported on in a time of peace, why should it be ignored in a time of war?

You said in your comment, “But let’s talk about how this affects the power of the dollar instead because that’s SO MUCH more important.” Articles like these are not saying we should talk about the power of the dollar instead of human suffering; they are providing another angle to the conflicts. This article exists, but so do countless others that talk about the death and destruction of wars. It is not like this article somehow stops others that you care more about from existing. Also, while I can’t read the article due to the paywall, I have my doubts that they wrote about how devaluing the dollar is more important than the deaths.

You also ask who cares about the dollar, and the answer is a lot of people. Humans can have compassion for people that they have never met, but they also care about the people they personally know. Changes in the dollar affect people’s lives on a personal level. It’s a hard ask for people to ignore their own well-being or the well-being of their families for people they haven’t met.

Lastly, I think you yourself are making an argument for this article existing. You say that governments and other powerful people view things through the lens of their own wealth. Wouldn’t articles like this one push those people into action to stop conflicts? If they read about how their own money will be affected by war, they are more likely to push for an early end to wars. If they never know something is hurting their wallet, they are fine with it continuing. It is a nice idea that these people would just care about humanity over money, but it seems unlikely that change is coming any time soon. We might as well speak their language to try to stop the suffering.

Obviously this is my opinion based off observations I’ve made, and not every user or sub in each instance falls under this generalization.

Both instances have a lot of users, and they have ideological differences, so they inevitably butt heads. Depending on who you ask, ML mainly has socialists, communists, or tankies. World seems to be more centrist leaning to the left, but it seems to be accepting of a more varied range of political opinions. Considering a lot of Lemmy users came from Reddit, I think a comparison can be drawn. My opinion is that World users have an ideology similar to most of Reddit and seem more likely to have left Reddit because they took issue with specific Reddit admin policies. On the other hand, ML users would have had an ideology that was more fringe for Reddit, and while they may have had issues with Reddit admins as well, they seem more likely to have left Reddit because their views were not well accepted among Reddit’s general population.

TLDR: No.

Looking at conservative responses online, in the news, and from real people, they don’t seem to care about these emails. I’ve seen explanations that Democrats selectively blacked out names and words to make Trump look bad, that the emails are entirely faked, or that the emails actually are good for Trump because they prove that he was only aware of Epstein’s crimes but didn’t partake in them. This last explanation usually includes talk about how Trump was an undercover operative that brought down Epstein (but he doesn’t want to brag about it for some unknown reason) or that he obviously couldn’t report his suspicions of crime occurring since he didn’t have hard proof (you can definitely report crimes without giving evidence).

I think if an email was released that explicitly said Trump committed crimes, they would say the email was a fake that was planted by Democrats during Biden’s term. If photos or videos of the crimes were released, they would say they are AI generated. If Trump himself said he did it, they would say that it wasn’t actually that bad because of some reason or another. Idk what the specific excuses would be, but I know that a lot of Trump supporters would buy them while simultaneously believing the evidence when it pertains to people who are not Trump. I think there may even be many that know the excuses are lies, but they refuse to turn on Trump because it means they would have to accept that they spent the past decade publicly supporting a bad person.

Don’t get me wrong, there will definitely be conservatives that break from Trump with each new scandal that comes, but what are they actually able to do about it? Trump runs the organizations that would be in charge of investigating him, so it is unlikely that any legal action would happen unless he is impeached. Republicans could call their representatives and say they will vote them out of office if they don’t impeach Trump. The representatives likely will not listen because they know that at this point, Republican voters will never vote for a Democrat.

I think it is possible (but unlikely) that Trump could lose much of his base’s support, but I personally don’t think there will ever be a grand fall from power or punishment for misdeeds. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I think the best we might get is that a decade after Trump has died, some conservatives will feel comfortable enough to say that he may have done some bad things.

There was a misunderstanding with a neighbor earlier that night because he heard my dog yipping and whining and thought she was in pain. He called the cops, they confirmed everything was fine, and told him that my dog just sounds like that.

A little after midnight, the neighbor pounded on my door so hard it shook in its frame and screamed cuss words at me at the top of his lungs. The neighbor moved to the parking lot and was pacing back and forth, running around in small circles, and jumping up and down, all while his eyes were locked on my apartment’s windows. I called the cops. I later learned that the neighbor called the cops a second time at this point saying he definitely heard me beating my dog, despite my apartment being silent since the first incident.

The officer that arrived acted like the neighbor’s behavior wasn’t an issue at all, and he kept cutting me off whenever I tried to give an explanation or evidence that my dog wasn’t hurt. He basically treated me like I was guilty the whole time without listening or checking. Ultimately, he said there was nothing to be done and left.

I found out the neighbor called a third time to say I was hurting my dog at 3 in the morning while my dog and I were asleep, but nobody was dispatched. My apartment management didn’t bother even talking to the neighbor after I told them everything.

deleted by creator

I’m on the Gen Z/Millennial border for reference.

I’ve done a few puffs of cigars at big celebrations with friends/family, but I’ve never smoked a whole cigar or used any other tobacco. Never really cared much for the idea, and the little bit I did try didn’t make me want to do more.

I’ll drink when I’m at a social gathering, but it’s rarely ever enough to get drunk. I don’t like beer, which is frequently the only alcohol offered, so there are quite a few times where I don’t drink anything. I never really drank outside of social situations before, but I’ve recently started to appreciate the taste of good bourbon, so I’ll occasionally pour some at home.