this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
103 points (87.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2328 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
[–] eskimofry@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

See you're doing it again. You're insulting the intelligence of critics and saying they are too daft to read charts or understand the benefits of vaccines. Instead of focusing on the actually problematic stuff.

A politician with the same level of knowledge and experience as a Doctor? Surely you know those two things are different.

How much are you scared about Trump being in office that you will bash people for criticizing democrats?

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'm insulting the intelligence (or, the education / choice of worldview) of someone who wants to look at a large analytical and hard-to-understand problem through an ancedotal lens, and actively rejects someone who wants to talk about the numerical aspect as "talking down" to them. I feel comfortable insulting that way of being because to me it's very wrong. It's not done out of hatred or anything for someone who does that, but they are making a mistake yes, and it's a deceptively infectious mistake in a way that makes it worthwhile to call out. In my opinion.

How much are you scared about Trump being in office that you will bash people for criticizing democrats?

Pretty sure I posted an excerpt elsewhere in this thread that was highly critical of most Democrats' strategy, and earlier today I posted a video of Biden fucking up the response to a question about "anti-Semitic" protestors, and briefly talked about how he fucked it up and why. Criticizing Biden or Democrats I think is great. If I think the criticism is wrong (or particularly if I think the pattern of thinking behind it is wrong) then I'll "bash" the person doing it, yes.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I’m insulting the intelligence (or, the education / choice of worldview) of someone who wants to look at a large analytical and hard-to-understand problem through an ancedotal lens

Most people don't care about broader economic trends when they're deciding which bill to not pay this month. Democrats have forgotten how to speak to that.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. Hence the good points in the OP article. Doesn’t mean that analyzing the bigger picture suddenly becomes a bad thing to do though.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Nope, but calling people who are suffering antivaxxers because they don't slap on a big doofy fake grin and pretend that Biden is their fucking savior is insulting.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why are you so hostile to the idea of objectively trying to determine what is and isn’t working, and who is and isn’t helping the situation?

And I didn’t call anyone suffering an antivaxxer. I sort of called PP_BOY an antivaxxer, but that was specifically because he used antivaxxer style arguments.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And I didn’t call anyone suffering an antivaxxer.

Don't lie.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Okay. Let’s try the other part, then. Why are you so hostile to the idea of objectively trying to determine what is and isn’t working, and who is and isn’t helping the situation?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Objectivity doesn't involve calling people who you hate because they're poor in spite of Biden being president antivaxxers.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I already explained what I meant by what I said about antivaxxers.

If you're up for talking based on me being the absolute 100% authority on what I am claiming, and what I meant when I said something, then let's rock. That's productive conversation. I'll extend the same courtesy to you. If you're wanting to engage back and forth with me to any extent on either of those topics or say that I didn't really mean or believe something, I actually meant something different that you picked out, then you need to find someone else to talk to.

(And, more broadly, I would say that you should stop doing that as a general rule, if your goal is anything other than creating pointless bickering and wasting both participant's time.)

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I already explained what I meant by what I said about antivaxxers.

You walked back what you said about people who have the temerity to be less than ecstatic about being poor. I didn't buy the walkback.

You want to be able to hurl insults at people whose very existence runs contrary to the current centrist narrative about the economy, while still being able to act put upon when someone calls you on it and doesn't accept your excuses.

If hearing from me regarding your dishonesty and your callousness toward the poor is such a burden, you can always block me.