This can happen to anyone. Why is there no widespread concern or consternation about what the 1998 movie ‘enemy of the state’ predicted to happen?
At first this can be quite structured and casual like, I should look for life opportunities abroad. Ooh, I quite like France and this outfit in Brittany are hiring in my field, I will apply and see what happens.
Gradually leaving becomes more urgent, and eventually you should focus just on getting over the border even if you don't have specific plans for where you'll go or what you'll do after that. Countries immediately bordering a fascist state often don't have a lot of patience for refugees, but, hey, at least you're out.
Fleeing makes sense for people at most risk of persecution (e.g. trans people, Jews, those who speak out), but many people are prevented from fleeing by their consciences. They have to stay and fight. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Resistance#Factions
If your home is on fire, some people will bravely stay and fight the fire, but the instruction we give everybody is to flee, you can get another home, but if you die there's nothing to be done about it, so better flee.
No, it is annews story, and widepsread concerns are often reported on; its not widely reported on because the media is a mix of institutiins which tend to be either in support of the Administration doing it or in fear of being targeted in retaliation for reporting on topics like that.
Here is a list of major news media outlets from Wikipedia[1].
Which of the following do you think either supports the current administration or fears being targeted by it?
ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Politico, Bloomberg, Vice News, HBO, HuffPost, TMZ, CNET, NPR, The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, The New Yorker, Time , U.S. News & World Report
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_State...
Unless you think threats of DOJ investigation, pulling broadcast licenses, or extremely expensive lawsuits don't produce fear? In that case you should let authoritarians know their playbook is out of date. Of course it's not, which is why authoritarians follow such a distinct pattern.
I suspect people will say they are critical of him, but "not enough" or cherry-pick 1 or 2 neutral headlines in a sea of critical ones.
Oh yeah and that they wouldn't publish a cartoon poking fun at the kleptocracy. The artist resigned in protest and went on to win a Pulitzer, which WaPo had no problem taking credit for.
Is it fair to say that Navalny didn't fear Putin because he was actually quite vocal against Putin?
I see. So “in fear of being targeted in retaliation” then?
Literally things that you'd expect to find in an Alan Moore dystopian graphic novel, or as world building background TV headlines in a gritty Robocop described in peppy business as usual terms.
The top one is an alcoholic Fox News host being appointed as an Attorney General to replace a disastrous one that couldn't even get Republican support to be confirmed, a brief summary of his 120 days:
> He represented Jan. 6 defendants before getting the job, punished and demoted their prosecutors when he got it, and launched a series of ideological investigations (wokeness in medical journals, a five-year old Chuck Schumer gaffe) that went nowhere.
They all support it and none of them is afraid of being targeted because... they all support it, albeit in ways that are discernible only to those who can read between the lines.
> Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. […] Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act.
The situation is similar in the US: the majority of people don't think the government should be kidnapping citizens from their homes and shipping them off to foreign prisons without trial, but they also think everyone else is okay with it.
"It's a widespread concern" is not a news story, unless and until someone does the research and confirms it. Otherwise, how do the journalists know it's the case? And investigative journalists aren't usually running large-scale population studies.
I'd argue it's fairly directly responsible for the small number who don't support climate action too.
And I think the same applies to governments kidnapping people and ignoring courts who tell them it's illegal.
When I cancelled my Washington Post subscription I wrote a letter to the editor. The important part of that letter was under what set of circumstances I might start trusting the Washington Post again. I never got a response. Not that I expected one. I’m sure they were inundated with angry letters at the time.
From time to time I write letters. To journalists, to leaders, I even wrote our prime minister once - and got a reply. Sometimes they are letters of support when someone has stuck their neck out and deserves a pat on the back. Or when someone has done good work. Too often they are letters telling people to do their job properly or to behave like adults. A lot of politicians and members of the press need a reminder to behave like adults and do their job these days. To do the demanding part of their job. Not just the part that is easy or that brings in campaign contributions or easy sales.
I never expect people to respond. But sometimes they do. This means I’ve reached people.
The purpose of most news companies is to make money by selling ads. Real news would have to come from something that doesn't run ads and makes their money another way
Rupert Murdoch did not buy the Wall Street Journal to help better inform the populace.
The government has forgotten it can only do what it does with the consent of the people, and that a small minority could really frustrate things if they truly wanted to.
Because that would demonstrate weakness and accountability. This is a trial run and they have big plans for this.
Note that the courts have blocked this and thus far been ignored.
This is why they’re not trying to fix mistakes. Once you set a precedent of allowing appeals everyone will want one.
Trump is using ICE to create a parallel legal system where people have no rights. This is exactly what early (1933) Nazi Germany was like.
I don't actually think the majority of the population believes this could happen to them. Furthermore, a huge portion of the population is very deliberately tuning out what they find to be depressing news. Though I'm not sure you're correct about the lack of widespread concern regardless.
~20% are fatalists who think there's nothing you can do about it and just want to keep their head down and out of trouble.
Maybe 20% are naive people who don't get it and another 20% are hand-wringers who don't know what to do about it.
Fewer than 20% are able to comprehend, speak out, and organize against it and it's hard for them to make their voices heard enough to build a coalition that outnumbers the first group.
From the outside, it looks like there's a few protests, but nothing particularly decisive. To my mind, the next step is rioting, although that will likely lead to martial law being imposed. However, it looks to me like ICE agents are pretty much acting like martial law has been declared.
And in our current case, causes the Administration to crack down harder. Against rioters. Against illegals and those deemed to be illegals.
I mean they made a f-ing hollywood movie about it in 1998, it's not like the potential wasn't foreseen.
It's more accurate to get your worldview from actual history than Hollywood movies.
Movies are a cultural shorthand.
The only difference is that the American elite is now in on it too. For whatever reasons I do not know.