this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
141 points (77.0% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2259 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
 

You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:

I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:

  1. Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?

Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.

  1. Why now?

Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.

  1. Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?

The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.

The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.

Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.

30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.

tl;dr - https://youtu.be/C6BYzLIqKB8#t=7s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

IDK why everyone’s so eager to read a pretty detailed explanation of why the issue isn’t his viewpoint, and then follow up right away with extensive hand wringing over the idea of censoring his viewpoint.

Simple. They're not buying the explanation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Dude admitted to being a propagandist. You have no argument here.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

he was posting stories from reputable sources.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And ONLY certain stories that fit a narrative. How is this part being ignored?

Oh… I get it. You also support that narrative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

no one shouldbe compelled to spread a story that supports a point of view with which they disagree. so long as his posts were, in themselves, in compliance with the rules, there should have been no problem.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? This was all explained already. They were spamming the community with agenda-based news. No one suggested they share news they disagree with.

And if you check the mod logs, not ALL of what they shared was legitimate.

They were rightfully banned. And I’d prefer it permanent, but it’s still a step in the right direction. Not arguing this with you further.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

And if you check the mod logs, not ALL of what they shared was legitimate.

you know what, fair point. of course, that's sort of what mods are for, and i think that the power to decide which sources are legitimate is itself the power to propagandize.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Look at that… a bad-faith argument! Who could have exp-

I could have.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

your accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

somehow, i think you were lying the first 3 times

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

why would you lie about something like this?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Because they want the attention

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They were spamming the community with agenda-based news.

each of their posts was in compliance with the rules

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I’m not sorry you’re upset by this. I’m not going to argue it further. The right thing was done, and you’re mad. That’s not my problem.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The right thing was done, and you’re mad.

the wrong thing was done. i'm not mad. i just know what injustice is.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

repeating it doesn't make it true.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago

i thought you were done.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

i thought you were done already. is it this time for real?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

So you’re admittedly trolling? You know, most people know exactly what to do when someone tells them they’re not arguing with them any further.

The onus is on you to be mature enough to back off. But I see you subscribe to schoolyard rules of-

“I don’t care if you are done arguing! I have to have the last word!”

Block you now.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

if you say you are going to walk away, you should just keep your word.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago

Block you now.

oh, thank god.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So you’re admittedly trolling?

i'm not. i thought you were done.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

how many times have you actually blocked me though?