politics
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
view the rest of the comments
I'm a huge Knowledge Fight fan. And your recommendation sounds right up my alley.
KF is a podcast done "the dollop style" with the broadcasts of Alex Jones, both modern and years old episodes. Dan Freissen has listened to 1000s of hours infowars, has read None Dare Call It a Conspiracy (which is why the recommendation perked my ears), has read Protocols of the Elders of Zion, "you name it".
He shows how AJ's Globalizist conspiracy is just a reskinning of old antisemitic writings.
Dan was flown to Texas to help the lawyers of the Sandy Hook defamation trial. I can't say enough about how much I respect him.
Btw, by "the dollop style", I mean comedian Dan Friessen tells his findings to comedian Jordan Holmes who is naïve on the topic.
Edit: Knowledge Fight has zero ads. Never has. No paywalls. They have no interest in sensationalizing. It feels very honest.
I'll link the episode most inline with this article. #602 with Sandy Hook lead counsel Mark Bankston.
It seems like you folks like Behind the Bastards. They've been guests a few times. Here's one Part One: How The Rich Ate Christianity
Edit: I wanted to clarify the relevance of #602. That came out in 2021, right after the default judgement was issued in Texas. I believe the lawyers never gave interviews until that ruling. I listened back. It's a neat little time capsule. Just skip ahead until you hear Mark Bankston speak if it's your first taste.
Can you link directly to the pizzagate one. I've never heard a good debunk beyond "there is no basement so nothing is true".
The short answer is no. I can't think of when tried a pizzagate debunking. (They are going on 900 episodes.) I do distinctly remember an early episode when they analyze an undercover Periscope video inside Comet Ping Pong.
For a hopefully longer, but slower, answer, I made a thread asking the small community on lemmy.world.
I don't believe Pizzagate was ever bunked, or debunked. The problem is that there are so many claims made that a rigorous debunk is difficult and time consuming.
The best attempt was NY Times that covered some details but cherry picked the claims it could debunk and completely ignored others.
Rolling Stones made a feeble effort spending most of the article on how the story spread, not it's veracity.
In the body of the thread a posted on c/knowledgefight, I bring up that I didn't care about pizzagate because there really no damages. No victims coming forward. No suspicious activity. Nothing.
The only thing interesting about pizzagate is how strongly people can hold on to beliefs with zero backing. I'm sure 99% of posts about pizzagate are LARPing really. (I think the same of Flat Earth. At least, way back when.) But we know how seriously some people belief it.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say, the fact there is no evidence backing it up is precisely why this stuff is so dangerous. If some one is mentally unsteady enough to accept any reason to hate their enemies, they are probably pretty dangerous to be around already. Now use a massive media operation so that person need no other source of news. He (sorry to be sexist, but I'm going to stick with "he" for the easily influenced viewer's pronoun) knows he's right. He hears nothing but that he is right. However, out in the dangerous part of the world, no one cares about this. It's so fucking easy to dismiss this stuff. Why would anyone believe it?
This feels like persecution, gaslighting, and like "they" are all in on it. That's fucking powder-keg as we saw in this matter.
I'll take a listen to the podcast, but I think you are right in that it's only tangentially relevant. Although it's existence shows the topic won't die easily.
Such a bad argument. Are you expecting an abused kid to file a police report? Look at Epstein's Virginia Giuffre who is now 40! At least the guardian's of the kids in the Instagram photos should have been questioned.
There was enough to send 4chan and reddit into a frenzy. I think you mean that there was no definitive proof.
I thought the most interesting thing was how hard the pushback was. Pizza owners on the news, 10 min features on Colbert, NYT and Rolling Stone articles, banning of subreddits and censoring of search results. Try to find the steemit article I linked above. There was a well organised PR campaign against "nothing".
I suspect some of the conclusions being drawn from highly circumstantial evidence were too close to the truth for some influential people's comfort.
Initially all politicians were suspected (e.g. Hastert is republican). It turned into a right wing topic after qanon stoked the fires.
True. On the other hand, vigilantism occurs when the police say they've investigated but actually haven't. (Sorry impossible to back this statement in 2024. If you doubt me, find some official DC police reports unrelated to the gunman attack)
It happened in Belgium, UK, France, Portugal etc. People there cared. Why not also in the US?
Podesta and Alefantis have certainly been persecuted by the Internet. And probably still are being 8 years later. Their no comment policy certainly backfired.
Omg, you're one of them! Lol. Take me to your magic kingdom.
One of who?
Pizzagater.
You misunderstand.
My position is not that pizzagate is true.
It's that people claiming it is certainly false are misinformed and illogical.
Oh, you mean you're a dumbass. Noted.
No. I'm logical.
Dumbasses are people who draw certain conclusions from incomplete data. Like people who claim pizzagate was debunked.
You're right. Lemme grab my cammo and guns and we'll go rescue those kids. I'll meet you on the corner.
Neither extreme is defensible