this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2023
731 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3893 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm with you on this. This was a real dumb thing to do. Like, sitcom protagonist thinking.

But when you look at the stakes - extremely minor risk of injury, disruption to operations, and risk of a minor punishment... the stakes on the action don't compare to the stakes of the vote on the table. Effectively, maybe he just took one for the team.

If it sounds dumb but it works...

[–] TserriednichThe4th@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

it wasn't dumb at all. look at the pictures of the signage at the time. it was genuinely confusing.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think it was in the article, can you link me?

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I actually just saw a picture of it... It's literally the standard fire alarm used country-wide in public buildings (you know, a red plastic square that says fire, with an awkward to pull handle) next to a normal double door with push bars leading outside. Why would he be rushing outside so conveniently anyways?

I think he took one for the team, and I respect it. No one was hurt, and in the context of the situation I think his actions were morally valid

Of course he claimed it was an accident... It would be idiotic not to. I know it wasn't, he knows it wasn't, anyone who looks at the door knows it wasn't. The only way to prove it was intentional is for him to admit that... Which could turn a small fine into a whole pubic spectacle

Spreading the white lie is inaccurate and harms discourse, unlike his dubious excuse...This is a "read between the lines" sort of situation

[–] TserriednichThe4th@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The signage posted was literally a “dead dont inside open” situation. I wasnt referring to the actual alarm mechanism.

[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 1 year ago

IDK wtf that could possibly mean... it's literally a normal door with a fire alarm next to it. The only words involved are "fire" on the tiny plastic alarm that is standard everywhere I've ever seen, and exit (which I didn't see, but I presume was on the ceiling behind the camera, as this is a nationwide building standard)

Do you have a picture of this confusing signage? I'd love to see it, because the one I saw paints a pretty clear picture (in which again, I support his actions, including the white lie...I just don't support spreading a lie in a misguided attempt at solidarity)