politics

18894 readers

3898 users here now

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.
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

• 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

361

Social Media's Cringiest Conservative Is Running for School Board -- As a Democrat (www.rollingstone.com)

submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by MicroWave to c/politics

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Bethany Mandel, the controversial right-wing pundit, home-schooling advocate, and prolific social media poster, is running for county school board — as a Democrat.

Though the school board race in deep-blue Montgomery County, Maryland, is technically nonpartisan, Mandel’s campaign published a graphic on Tuesday listing her as a Democrat. The move quickly raised eyebrows online, and prompted a community note on X (formerly Twitter) stating, “Bethany Mandel has identified as a Republican numerous times on her personal Twitter account.”

…

Those who know Mandel recognize her for writing molten-hot takes and far-right political commentary. The most infamous was a column, published in the wake of the violent white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, titled “We Need to Start Befriending Neo Nazis.” (Mandel is Jewish.) Her content can be cringey, like her column defending Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ wife: “If Casey DeSantis is a Karen, she’s our Karen.” She’s posted dehumanizing rhetoric, too. “Not nuking these fucking animals is the only restraint I expect and that’s only because the cloud would hurt Israelis,” she’s written about Palestinians.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lennybird 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Fairest comment yet, and I recognize your attempt to rein the conversation back in — so thank you for that.

Well honestly, I think this is for better or worse just how I write. Feel free to look through my comment history but I didn't consciously go out of my way to write differently here any more than elsewhere except for maybe dot my i's and cross my t's a little more tightly, knowing that any low-hanging fruit I leave behind will be cannon-fodder for an attack against me (too dumb; too arrogant, etc.).

I enjoy a healthy written discussion. What really gets under my nerves are insincere double-standards when people are reading these threads.. When you write from a position of the minority, knowing what you're writing is unpopular but still have strong convictions about it, you recognize the uphill battle that is going against ingrained beliefs and bandwagon/ad-populum fallacies. I'm fully aware one should be on their best behavior when in these situations, but it can be difficult to maintain perfect composure when you're taking blows left and right and anonymous down-votes despite any substantive response to the points being presented. I just wish people cut me a little more slack when the user basically said I suffered child abuse and am committing child abuse to my kids without merit. I suspect most here wouldn't maintain composure either under such audacious claims.

I had the sources from the start but I figured (a) The initial user made an outlandish claim, didn't back it up, and nobody interrogated them for evidence, and (b) even when you provide sources against people who want to believe otherwise, they often just dismiss them outright or cherry-pick relentlessly. But duly noted that I should maybe just lead with that next time.