politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I wish they'd give some specific examples. It would be nice to know specifically what to look for.
Here’s a little exchange I saw recently on Lemmy:
A: Perhaps she should reconsider that allegiance with israel. It's not very popular with voters.
A: Of course Kamala taking $5.000.000 from AIPAC might be related to her allegiance.
B: I knew you weren’t from the US. Where are you from?
A: What?
C: It’s because you used periods instead of commas in your total of aipac money. That's not proper American syntax and shows you're from somewhere else.
A: I don't recall my calculators coming with commas. Where are you from?
D: Nobody said anything about calculators, you don't seem to understand the question. The comments about using commas in numbers in the U.S. are 100% correct.
D: You have a keen interest in posting all day about politics in a country you arent from. Can never answer a question about your own background.
D: Incessantly talk shit about Israeli policy from an anti Democratic perspective without a whif of criticism of the Republicans, who would be far worse in their full throated approval of Israeli warcrimes. What is your native language? Are you able to vote in the USA?
A: Interesting statement that proves you have not done any research. I'll not bother with your other baseless allegations either.
I usually look at the English usage, personally. Certain sorts of grammatical and syntactical errors are really common in native speakers, others, not so much. You can kinda just feel when a particular wording isn't very American, especially if you read it out loud to yourself. While a whole bunch of ESL types are on here and that's fine, when you encounter one with really, really strong opinions on American politics, that's a little weird.
For me it’s usually the irrationality of the arguments. Like they don’t even really believe what they’re saying, they’re just kind of writing these disagreeable nonsense-messages and then moving on. It’s hard to explain but the stuff about calculators is a perfect example. Real humans don’t say stuff like that, and even organic trolls will usually invest some effort into their discourse. The lazy and illogical shit-commenting seems to be frequently a sign of someone who’s doing political propaganda. They genuinely just don’t even seem to give a shit if you believe them or not.
More than once I’ve had someone make some kind of leap of moon logic like that, when we’re not even talking about US politics, and clicked on their user to see what the heck their deal even is and found a bunch of “why not to vote for the Democrats” stuff and ohhhhh it all makes sense now, got it.
I went back and forth with someone that was totally a democratic but every single post was anti Biden. I asked them to literally say anything bad about, and they wouldn't make a single statement. I said to just write a fact, like that he's a felon, but that was too much. Maybe this person was just really stubborn, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that's against Trump wouldn't put in the minimal effort to show that they do in fact not like him. Most people I think have seen that user around if you spend any time in politics, but I haven't since then so that's nice I guess.
Another fun exercise is ask them what they think of NATO.
Removed, civility.
I dunno I started blocking those - supposed people - after the first wave of “gEnOSiDe jOe”.
TBH I only blocked about 10 users and that’s pretty much solved it.
We've had our rounds too. I'm not sure which it was, but there were a good 3-5 accounts that I'd see a lot, and if I had the energy, would call out.
One of the things I like about lemmy (or at least, the communities I sub to) is that the userbase seems quite on the ball with noticing and calling out bad faith bullshit like that. It’s WAY better than Reddit was (as of a year ago - haven’t frequented it since then).
I often see people fixating on efforts to call out 'bad faith' as, itself, a form of bad faith discussion. The goal is always to accuse someone with a different view of having an agenda or perhaps even being a paid shill or automated response engine working for an insidious outside agency.
You're either all uniformly in agreement on a topic, or you're an insidious demon here to trick people into perdition.
If someone is literally arguing in bad faith, what's the point in engaging with them? There's no way to persuade someone who doesn't actually care about what they're saying in the first place.
You're not arguing strictly for them, you're arguing for the audience of readers in the comments.
I suppose that's fair, but if you e.g. make a compelling counterpoint and the other person fixates on one small detail to derail the conversation, I think the people you can realistically reach will already be on your side, and anyone who wants to draw some kind of false equivalence between your respective positions wasn't going to be convinced anyways.
It's more nuanced than that of course, but in my experience that's generally the way these things play out as the thread gets longer.
That's where the more interesting conversations (even the cynical ones) ultimately live.
"Okay, but I think we can all agree that the sun rises in the east"
"Interest... you use the word 'okay' rather than 'ok'. Only an insidious Russian computer program would spell it like that. I think I can dismiss everything you've said up until this point."
So I'm actually not sure of your intention but native English speakers will spell it okay or ok basically on personal preference with the elderly probably spelling it O.K.
"interest..." stands out more to me as foreign, a native English speaker would say "interesting..."
I sometimes use apostrophes as my separators to keep things unambiguous. If the person were who they said they were, they would be able to explain their strange habit.
Yeah. That’s the much more damning piece to me - like if they said “Oh I’m from Brazil but I moved to the US as a kid” or “Yeah I’m not from the US but X Y Z”, you know, some kind of human reaction, then fine. I might still have suspicion but at least it is sensible.
The thing of “my calculators” “baseless allegations” is like okay now it’s confirmed they are clearly full of shit.
I worry that telling them the problem and how to fix it will make them better in the future. It's like not using enough antibiotics.
Yeah, I did think about that. IDK; I decided that I thought the value of illustrating a strong argument to everyone else that there are shills here and it's a problem, is more important than the danger that the shills will fix up one specific tell that's arguably giving away their operation.
I mean, I don't think that it is like a high intensity FSB intelligence operation or anything, such that they're even going to put a high priority on blending in perfectly. I think it's like 1-2 underpaid guys in cubicles somewhere in Virginia / somewhere else in the world / whereever, just shitposting away at high volume.
Why not both?
I know an operator who I've had boxed up like this for years. He's my canary in the coal mine for that community; when he's gone it'll be a sign, hopefully of something good.
It's not the same campaign, but the fbi report on ~~2020~~ 2016 election interference was full of screenshots and timestamped messages
If you see anything on social media, assume it's a lie and look it up elsewhere.
Absent any common media literacy education, that’s not a bad default.
Can't give a specific example because it's either going to illicit a "That's too crazy for anyone to seriously believe" dismissive response, a "That's absolutely true and you're the one who is feeding from the propaganda trough!" reactionary response, or a "Okay sure that's bullshit but everyone knows those guys are far-left/far-right, I would simply block and move on" in-group response.
That's functionally why these propaganda gambits work. They're heavily targeted towards people's biases, thanks to extensive A/B testing of the social media audience. They'll either appear as total gibberish, hard partisan coded, or perfectly believable depending on who is reading it.
If anything is creating a huge amount of controversy and "outrage", it's probably either entirely invented by them, or the very least significantly amplified by them. Take a memory trip to 2 decades ago and think about what we're passionately arguing about today that just weren't an issue back then. Those kinds of things.
Depressingly enough, they seem to have their tentacles on both the far left (due to historical reasons) and far right (due to being politically pretty much identical these days). This is also where a lot of hate towards centrists, liberalists and moderates comes from, as those camps don't have historical or political links to them, making those groups somewhat less easy for them to manipulate.
As a recent example, see the "Both sides!" post in Political [email protected]
If you're on here you are already cognizant enough to see the russian trolls. I think it's more the FB circles that prey on older less tech savvy folks
If you think you're immune to propaganda, you're a prime target.
No one is immune to anything
In general though fediverse users are pretty tech savvy. We can identify phishing emails, and have all grown up exposed to internet trolls