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

politics

19238 readers
2227 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] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you can’t finish reading my sentences please don’t respond to me. I clearly stated that I was not trying to say the user called the LGBT community demonic. I’m saying that defending that statement by denying that it even happened or saying that it’s not homophobic because it’s a Christian theological point are themselves forms of homophobia that LGBT people encounter all the time. If you are fine with that then you are fine with homophobia in this community.

If you believe anything else you’ve said has been misrepresented feel free to have a polite discussion with me about it. Right now it seems like you just want me to say that the comments weren’t actually homophobic when they are.

The Blahaj admins had no problems instantly recognizing the account for what it was and banning them as well as removing the homophobic comments. I don’t think I’m imagining homophobia here as you’re implying.

Again, if you have any questions about how this is homophobic I am more than happy to help you understand. But what’s not going to happen is convincing me it’s not homophobic. If that’s your only intent then this conversation is best left here.

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

You do know that your entire comment history is visible here, right? You get that?

So when you say now "I clearly stated that I was not trying to say the user called the LGBT community demonic."

That's EXACTLY what you're saying when you demand, repeatedly, that their comment be removed for homophobia.

If the user did not make that assertion, the comment is NOT removable.

Here's what they said:

"The organizations supporting the movement are acting on reasoning based on philosophy that Christianity has historically identified with the devil. It's no joke his language is theological, i identify this as a Christian perspective. He's probably identifying the philosophy since the organizations themselves he labels as demonic. Obviously, he never said the people are demonic, and as fake news this article is, they manipulate to say he's accusing the homosexuals as being demonic. It's a fake news tactic."

There is not one word of homophobia in that quote. Not a single word. It is not removable and will not be removed, at least by me.

You're free to disagree, you're free to downvote, it does not break the rules.

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

I literally can’t downvote you or see downvotes, I’m on Blahaj.

If you don’t understand that someone can be homophobic without saying “I’m a homophobe and hate gay people” then you’re just illustrating my point here. Homophobia is welcome in this community as long as you give it the slightest veil.

If you have any questions about how the comments I linked are homophobic I am happy to answer them at any time. At this point you still seem uninterested.

Please do not contact me again only to attempt to convince me that the user banned from the instance I’m on for being a bigot wasn’t actually being bigoted.