this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
287 points (78.8% liked)

politics

19149 readers
3953 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] YoBuckStopsHere 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

That is why we have a down vote option which I highly recommend using for items such as this. The community controls what it wants to see.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It isn't exactly a matter of wanting or not wanting to see it. You know the addage "any news is good news?" By posting content that keeps a person and their commentary in the forefront of people's minds, that person gains an audience. That audience will contain people who can be swayed by the snake oil, but who would otherwise be reasonable. Or in short, posting their content facilitates radicalization.

That said, while content from harmful influential people needs to be approached with caution, I don't see this as promoting Trump's action/behaviors. To me it reads more like a "not the onion" headline. I'd be disappointed if anyone felt that the death penalty was warranted for late tax filing, but I suppose it's possible.

Does Lemmy have a way to filter keywords? It would be helpful for people to be able to blacklist keywords so a user could choose to avoid seeing, for example, news about Trump or content with sensitive topics.

[–] mystik 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need that slashdot system of vote + mark "insightful", "flamebait", "funny", etc etc. add more categories as necessary so posts can be scored on multiple axes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Sounds good to me, as long as there's a way for instances/users to disable those filters. Since they're more in-depth/granular, I suspect engagement with them would be lower, so there's a higher risk of a smaller minority using it to dictate the conversation. But I'd definitely be interested in seeing that in action. It could be really helpful for giving people tools to shape their feed.

[–] gAlienLifeform 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you really think if a Lemmy instance or vanity fair banned anything about Trump it'd make him less influential? Maybe if there was a media wide blackout, but so long as Fox News exists and asshole oligarchs can buy all sorts of giant megaphones to push their messages, I think the rest of us only have a choice in whether we offer dissenting opinions or stay silent

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I generally agree with you. I don't know that it matters so much whether articles are posted, it matters more that people continue to speak against the ideology and don't allow fascists to take the stage. Seeing others' support a cause lends it credence. Seeing that a cause exists lends some, but not as much as active support would. Seeing people voice disapproval helps to take away that credibility.

That said, the principle generally makes sense that spreading an ideology's message helps that ideology spread. The impact of posting an article on Lemmy is likely to be small, but non-zero. It's a matter of providing access to a fresh audience. Fox's viewers are thoroughly saturated with hateful rhetoric already, so there aren't many left to radicalize who can be reached by that message. Exposing a fresh audience to the content expands its reach and potentially radicalizes new people. Plus, exposure to new hateful messages can deepen the entrenchment of those who are already caught in the web.

[–] gAlienLifeform 1 points 1 year ago

Upvoted for a thoughtful reply, and I think your point about "providing access to a fresh audience" is a good one in theory, but I don't know if this article is really spreading the ideology's message. It's reminding us that one prominent proponent of that ideology is still out there and saying stuff, but the framing of it is pretty explicitly "hey, look how hypocritical the fascist tax cheat presidential candidate is being again".

Honestly, I'm not sure if I would've written it because anybody who would be convinced by this should already know all this stuff, but I think this author was at least trying to do the right thing here, and I don't think this is anywhere near as harmful as, for example, bending over backwards to make Trump seem like a normal politician and rephrasing his quotes so they sound less insane like I've seen a lot of outlets that desperately want to be considered politically neutral do.

[–] b000urns 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

and a very handy "block" button too!

[–] dmmeyournudes 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Dude, you posted it. If you recommend downvoting the post, delete it.

[–] Master 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He is recommending if you dont like the post downvote it. Also if you dont like it... dont open it.

[–] dmmeyournudes -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

do you even realize why people don't want to spread this kind of content?

[–] Master 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand I just think your argument is weak for it. You are telling someone to self censor news they post and you could just as easily self censor news you read.

If it's such a trigger topic for you that you lash out on someone posting news about it then maybe you need to self evaluate and make better choices about what news you take in.

[–] dmmeyournudes -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are telling someone to self censor news they post and you could just as easily self censor news you read.

the problem isn't the news i as an individual am reading. you do not understand the problem.

[–] Master 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I understand, I just dont think it is the "problem" you seem to think it is.

[–] dmmeyournudes -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

so you're just oblivious to the last 8 years of US politics. okay.

[–] Master 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've been around the past 8 years. I'm just not trying to bury my head like an ostrich because I cant control what I read.

I get the argument that we shouldnt be revering these people by continually discussing them. But my beliefs are more along the lines that history should be discussed and the action of these people should be discussed so it stays in the forefront and people know.

[–] dmmeyournudes -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

history proves that acknowledging this kind of threat legitimizes its power.

[–] Master 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only if you cherry pick your history examples.

[–] dmmeyournudes -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, legitimizing a minority resistance by giving it attention is an anomaly.

[–] Master 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Acknowledging something happened and discussing it is not the same as legitimizing something.

[–] dmmeyournudes -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you've learned nothing over the last 8 years.

[–] Master 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actions like yours are what allowed the last 8 years to happen.

[–] dmmeyournudes -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Explain how trump got elected.

[–] Master 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This argument can be summarized as such:

You: We should ignore these people. Talking about them gives them power. Ignoring them makes them go away.

Me: Ignoring them allows them to do bad shit. Talking about the bad things they do allows everyone to understand they are bad people and should not be allowed power.

Rinse and repeat. You're obviously not going to convince me that burying my head in sand will make trump magically not a huge political threat and I'm not going to convince you that the best way to prevent people like trump is to make sure we loudly proclaim all the bad shit they do.

So if you just have to have the final word feel free to respond but as I've stated a few times. I think your political philosophy is not only idiotic but is what caused us to be in the situation we are in today. But I'm not going to respond to you about this topic any more.

[–] dmmeyournudes -2 points 1 year ago

Enjoy trump for 4 more years.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This isn't reddit where they inflated the upvotes. You all control if something gets pushed through to the lemmy servers homepage or not.

[–] dmmeyournudes 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

reddit doesn't inflate the upvotes lol. they, for years, deflated the votes to make smaller communities appear bigger compared to the main subs.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Reddit created popular to boost posts for sure.

[–] dmmeyournudes 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's not the same as inflating scores, and that's what the feature is designed to do, make smaller communities more visible. The didn't remove hot or rising to make it either. This is a wild conspiracy you've manufactured here, considering they explained why they made these changes when they made them.