this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
-135 points (4.1% liked)

politics

19229 readers
2989 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The former president's authoritarian tendencies are alarming enough without inventing new outrages.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're bending far over backwards to be contrary. Just so you know, it's not of concern to me.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah, sorry, I see now that it was not you but gsfraley who was accusing of a shared or bot account (when even you have provided evidence to the contrary on that point).

Speaking of being contrary - well, just how far backwards can I be bending if I have independently come to the same conclusion as the mods here?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes, the mark of being non-contrary -- cherry picking the opinion you already agree with as evidence

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not cherry-picking, I said I came to the same conclusion independently of the mod.

But in a way, you could consider me a test. If you can change my mind with your arguments and statistics, then perhaps jordanlund would also be convinced by the same post replies.

(I'm not guaranteeing it, in fact considering that I'm not a mod here, I'm probably a lower bar to convince than jordanlund or the other mods.)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You're clearly picking the less popular opinion. This is either obvious to you or it isn't. The numbers are there, and you chose your reading of them. I cannot do anything about that.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago

No, I agree. My conclusion puts me on the less popular opinion on this one matter, and that's obvious to me. However, I was replying to a thread asking for someone to be banned, and - just as we don't automatically convict folks in court on the basis of popular opinion, I feel that it would be nice if stronger standards also applied before someone got a ban.

(Not saying the full criminal defendant protections should apply mind, as this is just a ban on one magazine or one instance in the fediverse, so it's not like we need to apply the full protections against depriving someone of their freedom as they are locked in jail, here.)

That said, if my reading of the numbers is wrong, I am open to having that explained - that is I'm open to admitting I'm wrong. (If one checks my history, they'll find that I've done so multiple times.)