this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
313 points (96.7% liked)

politics

19101 readers
4169 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
 

Rising GOP support for the U.S. taking unilateral military action in Mexico against drug cartels is increasingly rattling people on both sides of the border who worry talk of an attack is getting normalized.

Wednesday’s Republican presidential primary debate featured high-stakes policy disagreements on a range of issues from abortion to the environment — but found near-unanimous consensus on the idea of using American military force to fight drug smuggling and migration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

What you just said, literally, is the textbook definition of a false equivalence fallacy.

No, you just have a problem trying to understand what's said to you, fighting some imagined war in text instead. For what?

“If everything and everyone is portrayed negatively, there’s a leveling effect that opens the door to charlatans.”

I'm equating equal things. There hasn't been an argument here on a level above them.

Also you are imagining a lot of what I'm saying instead of asking me when it's unclear, I think this is deliberate but circumstances of upbringing made you think it's not easy to notice, while it is and also discredits your argument.

But that’s all irrelevant anyways since you’re basically just regurgitating DARE propaganda that has little basis in fact.

Trying to present your opponent as a medium for some entity's propaganda, thus attempting to diminish them as a subject of conversation, is something clearly incompatible with the image you are trying to create with that tone.

The fact is that drugs won’t cause a normally reasonable person to suddenly go on a murderous rampage.

A person who'd kill an attacker in self-defense - which is perfectly reasonable - can kill an innocent person under a drug causing hallucinations. That's a very simple and a bit cinematographic example.

Anyway, use of alcohol does that. Of course there are accompanying circumstances, there always are, that's not a counterargument.

Meanwhile there are millions of recreational drug users who go about their lives every day as productive members of society.

The conversation is about cocaine, so irrelevant.

You almost definitely know some personally.

IRL - no, I live in a country where harmless weed gets you a sentence similar to one for heroine. Ex-Soviet laws and all that.

Well, there was one guy, and yes, he's normal morally, but I wouldn't say adequate enough to entrust something important.