Some news that would be completely mundane today but scary or shocking in the past.

      • MudMan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not an expert on the nuance of the US legal system, but “convicted” probably applies to the criminal system, right? What would it be in this scenario? A confirmed rapist? Just “a rapist”?

        Still, the guy raped some lady and he’s actively running for president. That one would be shocking any time before the mid 2010s, honestly.

        • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have family in the US (who are not trumpets afaik) and they wouldn’t know that he actually got proven guilty for doing it. They‘d probably assume he made a deal.

          • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Isn’t it a civil trial tho and not a criminal trial? Meaning that the bar for evidence is just “more than likely” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt” right? I mean it’s still very damning but he has not (yet) been found guilty of the crime, just liable.

            • haui@lemmy.giftedmc.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              There is an important distinction of being “convicted” and “proven guilty” though. You can get off a conviction through multiple means, one being a mistrial and so on. I think there is no two ways about this after reading:

              A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah they’d be shocked that someone rich enough to run for president could be accused of rape ‘why didn’t he just have the girl committed to an asylum to keep her quiet?’

  • MudMan@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    So in this scenario you’re back in 1923?

    I’m pretty sure it’d be anything including the words “World War II”.

    Bonus points if it also includes a date.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, like in that Doctor Who special where they tell the WW1 soldier “Now let’s get you back to your first world war” and he goes “FIRST world war?!”.

      • MudMan@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am assuming they’d put two and two together.

        On account of the number 2, and how all their male relatives have been dead for less than ten years, that stuff is probably pretty top of mind.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Few people would be surprised by it happening. They hoped it wouldn’t be for many decades but it was just known as the way future wars would go.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    82
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Man fired for criticising homosexuality”, or maybe “man imprisoned for refusing to hire black person”.

    People are thinking about technology, but in 1923 people were very familiar with breathtaking technological change. The complete reversal of some social norms, on the other hand, would be almost existentially disturbing to these dudes who believe in the great benevolent Christian empires, and in some cases thought ending slavery was a mistake.

    I have to wonder what the residents of the 1920’s third world would think. I’m sure there would be many interesting perspectives.

    • nnjethro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Those type of headlines upset way too many people today. It’s the point of the make America great again slogan.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think you realize how far tech has advanced in 100 years. Commercial flights didn’t really exist in their current form of scheduled flights between airports. Computers didn’t exist beyond mechanical ones that aren’t really comparable. Electricity was only in half of households in 1925. Telephone lines were only local and required manual switching by operators.

      Breathtaking technology in the 1920s has nothing on what we can do today.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, but electrification, cars, antibiotics, many forms of sanitation, many forms of canning, radio, telephones of any kind, several forms of weapon and powered aircraft in general were new within living memory in the 20s. “It gets (much) better and more accessible” wouldn’t have surprised anyone. If we were going back 200 years you might have a point, and definitely would at 300.

        Actually, they didn’t understand how radio crystals (which are very rudimentary semiconductor diodes) worked at the time, but pretty much every other principle of physics used in modern technology was understood at that point. They just needed to finish quantum mechanics, and then figure out a few steps of application.

  • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    1 year ago

    That Germany is Europes biggest economy. 100 years ago Europe was fresh out of WW1 and Germany was bankrupted as punishment.

  • Auk@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    How pervasive surveillance and tracking of people (and their data) is in todays society. We’ve become accustomed to it but I’d bet people a century ago would be shocked at the idea of stuff like regular people being filmed from multiple angles when just going to the shops, having a device in their pocket constantly recording their location, receiving targeted advertising based on what information they’ve looked at previously, etc.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It wasn’t really that strange, people got tailed all the time during the nuclear weapons program and after, to make sure that they weren’t gay. Shit was wild in the early 50s. A senator committed suicide because his son was outed as gay, getting dirt on people was hardcore. People got fired on the flimsiest of claims.

      Physical surveillance was pretty bad, even then. Digital surveillance has gotten worse today, but it’s much more fragmented and not so…eerily similar to the CCP. Also, fuck McCarthy. The book on this timeframe is a wild read, highly recommend it as it explains the postwar era and cold War paranoia.

      https://www.amazon.com/Lavender-Scare-Persecution-Lesbians-Government/dp/0226401901

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      At risk of being a broken record, a reminder that OG fascism was cool and on the rise at that point. The surprise would be that you can opt out of all that stuff, people will just think you’re weird.

  • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Most international experts consider the outbreak of a third world war unlikely in spite of global surges of violence

    Not mundane, but the implications would be horrifying to 1923 society still recovering from “The Great War”.

  • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Quite a few people would be probably surprised that colonial empires are no more

    as for headlines: British PM Rishi Sunak negotiates Scottish independence with First Minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf

  • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Many countries all around the world possess weapons that could obliterate an entire other country, or their own country if detonated by mistake, and possibly destroy the whole planet.

  • kibiz0r@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can buy groceries from a mechanical grocer, but it’ll accuse you of shoplifting like three times while checking you out.

  • mrbubblesort@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    That I have a device that fits in my pocket and can connect to almost anyone else on the face of the planet, as well as tell me any fact I’d like to hear, or any story I’d like to experience. And it does all this about as fast as my thumbs can type out the request.