203
Supreme Court won’t hear InfoWars host’s First Amendment challenge to Jan. 6 conviction
(www.politico.com)
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
203 points (99.0% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3113 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.
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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If the sentence is hard to understand because the writer omitted important context, we can say that the sentence is vague.
If the sentence is hard to understand because the reader can't read at a sixth grade reading level, we can say that the reader is stupid.
Exhort isn't an advanced word. It's intermediate vocabulary that you managed to go without your entire life until today. You could act like an adult with a functioning brain and simply look up the word you don't know and add it to your personal vocabulary so that you won't be confused by it again. Instead, you have decided to throw a tantrum about having to face a single word you didn't already know.
Honestly, I don't know how you are making the arguments are you without feeling completely humiliated. Most people just quietly educate themselves when they catch themselves unaware of a common English word. It's wild to broadcast to the whole world that you didn't know the word "exhort", and then double down even after it is apparent that you are the only one who didn't already know that word.
Nobody here is siding with you on this, because nobody else sees the problem you do. That's not a good sign when everyone reads the same article you did, and you're the only one insisting that the article was unreadable. You're just revealing that, out of everyone who read the article, you're the worst at reading.