this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
779 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
2942 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
 

Just because Republicans choose unreality doesn’t mean the media should ignore the facts of January 6.

On January 6, 2021, I watched CNN as thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol. As someone well-versed in watching tragedy on television, I was struck by just how indisputable the facts were at the time: violent, red-hat-clad MAGA rioters, followed by Republicans in Congress, tried to stop democracy in its tracks. Trump had told his followers that the protest in Washington, DC, “will be wild,” and in the assault that followed his speech, some rioters smeared feces on the walls of the Capitol. Hundreds of them have since been convicted on charges ranging from assault on federal officers to seditious conspiracy. These are stubborn facts, the kind that do not care about your feelings. These facts include the inalienable truth that Trump is the first president in American history to reject the peaceful transfer of power.

It never occurred to me that these facts could somehow be perverted by partisanship. But three years later, we are seeing just that, as Republicans cling to the lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” by Joe Biden and are poised to make Trump their 2024 nominee. And perhaps even more dangerous than the GOP ditching reality is the news media’s inability to cover Trumpism as the threat to democracy that it very much is.

...

But the problem is, when all you have is conventional political framing, everything looks like politics as usual. One candidate makes a claim; the other disputes it. Two sides are divided, etc. This framing only works if both parties operate within the frameworks of a shared reality. But Trumpism doesn’t allow for the reality the rest of us inhabit. Trump’s supporters believe their leader’s reality and not, say, the reality the rest of us see with our eyes. As Trump once told a crowd: “Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news. What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

Journalists may be well-intentioned in trying to be “objective,” or they’re simply afraid of being labeled partisan. Either way, coverage of January 6 that gives equal weight to both sides—one based in reality, one not—is helping pave the road for authoritarianism.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"voting is the only way to create change" is the mentality that got us here.

You know why George Floyd's murderer was the only one who got the sentence he deserved? Because the people demanded it by threatening capital.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe 3 points 10 months ago

You know exactly what he's suggesting and he's probably right to do so.

Stop playing stupid and stop trying to shut down people who say such things. It's not gonna work, you're not gonna convince anyone to not fight for what they believe in, hit the road if you don't like it.

[–] SaltySalamander@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

These guys all want violent revolution, right up until it's their time to pick up a rifle.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think what the morons want is trump. I'm really worried about how common this braindead opinion is. They're actually going to vote against Biden because of Israel. We're fucked.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

These guys all want violent revolution, right up until it’s their time to pick up a rifle.

"These guys" could just be foreign conflict bots, trying to promote mayhem.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"Everyone who is less than ecstatic about the genocide I love can't possibly be genuine. It must be an international conspiracy because no one could possibly oppose genocide."

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

“Everyone who is less than ecstatic about the genocide I love can’t possibly be genuine. It must be an international conspiracy because no one could possibly oppose genocide.”

Where's that quote from? Is it made up?

Generally speaking, you'd have to be very naive to assume that foreign nationals would not want to affect the population of potential enemies, and try to manipulate them with specific narratives. The interconnection of the species, communication wise, has good points and bad points.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's certainly a convenient way to dismiss people who disagree with centrists' support for genocide.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Where’s that quote from? Is it made up?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I was mocking a standard dismissal that centrists use when someone to their left has a point they don't feel like actually addressing.

If you don't want people saying that you're baselessly dismissing opponents of genocide as foreign bots, don't baselessly dismiss opponents of genocide as foreign bots.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I was mocking a standard dismissal that centrists use when someone to their left has a point they don’t feel like actually addressing.

So it's just your opinion that you're passing off as someone else's quote.

don’t baselessly dismiss opponents of genocide as foreign bots.

I wasn't. When I wrote that comment I wasn't even thinking about 'opponents of genocide' at all. It was not meant as a verbal attack against 'opponents of genocide'. You made that assumption via your biasis.

My comment was meant to bring awareness to the fact that some people/comments that are replied to could just be bots controlled by organizations that are trying to direct a narrative in a certain direction, and that's all. No other judgments were being passed.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My comment was meant to bring awareness to the fact that some people/comments that are replied to could just be bots controlled by organizations that are trying to direct a narrative in a certain direction, and that's all. No other judgments were being passed.

If you say so.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

My comment was meant to bring awareness to the fact that some people/comments that are replied to could just be bots controlled by organizations that are trying to direct a narrative in a certain direction, and that’s all. No other judgments were being passed.

If you say so.

I just did.

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

That people need to start by stopping this "only voting matters" narrative that so many push. I know people try to counter that by saying that people are overworked and don't have time for protests or any other direct action, but the Labor Movement was done by people working 70ish hour weeks.

More people need to be willing to protest. Until they are, things aren't going to meaningfully get better.

Right now, the message I get from a lot of these conversations here is that the President is allowed to have a little genocide as a treat because otherwise there could be more genocide. It's completely insane.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right now, the message I get from a lot of these conversations here is that the President is allowed to have a little genocide as a treat because otherwise there could be more genocide. It's completely insane.

No you don't

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Anyone insisting that the only way to move forward is to vote for someone who is promoting genocide is effectively saying that, yes.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

What the fuck is wrong with you people. You're going to reelect trump and finish this country off because you're too god-damned stupid to understand reality

We're you fucking asleep from 2015 until now? Seriously what is wrong in your brain?

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

WE DON'T WANT GENOCIDE.

If that is what is wrong with us, than what the fuck is wrong with you?

If Trump is an existential threat (Not disagreeing that he is, bear with me.) then why isn't the Democratic party acting like he is?

The only time they do is when they want to shame people into voting for majority unpopular things, LIKE FUCKING GENOCIDE.

What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You imagine things will be better under trump, or just don't care as long as you get to cosplay the moral person here?

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I'd rather the people responsible take responsibility.

Biden has made himself unelectable due to his actions.

If only we had a democrat process to choose who the Democratic party would field for president.

Oh, wait, we do. Oh wait, the Democratic party has banned 5 states from having anyone else as a candidate for the democratic nomination and told New Hampshire that their delegates won't count because they are having other candidates?

Do you enjoy cosplaying as a 'pragmatist' when being a good puppet for people that would rather lose to Trump, than give up control of the Democratic party?

They don't think he's an existential threat for the US(Though, I think they are wrong on this as they are on pretty much everything else.), so why are carrying their water for them?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If trump wins you will be responsible. Full stop.

Interesting you dodged my question since you know it exposes how wrong you are

[–] Count042@lemmy.ml -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nope, Biden and the Democratic party will.

It won't matter what I do. You are justifying your backing of genocide as being 'pragmatic' to stop Trump, but it won't even work.

There is now a large enough Muslim population in the midwest swing states to be a requisite component of a winning democratic coalition.

Do you hear that?

Muslim people are required in the mid-west swing states to win the presidency for the Democratic party.

Support within that community dropped from in the 60's to single digit support for Biden because they correctly see him as backing a genocide of a group they identify as their people. I won't begrudge them their lack of willingness to vote for someone genociding a group they identify with. Do you?

The people responsible for getting Trump re-elected are the people who did something that they KNEW BEFOREHAND would tank their eligibility, and yet refuse to hold a primary to try and pick someone electable.

You're not pragmatic, you're just a fan-boi.

To answer your bad faith question: No I don't think things will be better under Trump. I think it start the slow slide to civil war.

I'm pissed at the people who are undemocratically stopping the democratic process of the primary to select someone WHO CAN'T WIN.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We’re saying the only way to avoid a trump wanna be dictatorship, and even longer term fucking of the US, which is allowing Biden to lose.

We need a general strike and to eat the rich if that doesn’t work, but we also need a president that won’t call out the troops (real ones or bullshit fanbois) when we protest.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We’re saying the only way to avoid a trump wanna be dictatorship, and even longer term fucking of the US, which is allowing Biden to lose.

Biden could stop supporting genocide if he doesn't want to lose votes of people for whom genocide is a dealbreaker.

I'm voting for biden, but I expect you will ignore this sentence.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I’m still hoping Biden has the balls to tell Netanyahu to fuck off.

However, I assume the calculation between voters who’ll drop him after conflating support for Israel with support for the Jewish people are greater than, or at least the same as, voters who are dropping him now for allowing this Palestinian genocide.

It’s a lose-lose choice the Dems, which is exactly why it seems likely that Russia convinced Iran to back Hamas’ attack in the first place (Israel’s Apartheid is still the reason terrorists felt they had no other option). It might be a crazy conspiracy, but that’s where we ended up, however it started.

I’m with you though that it sucks that our only rational choice is to vote for not-a-wannabe-dictator, when thousands of people’s lives are currently at stake.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

However, I assume the calculation between voters who’ll drop him after conflating support for Israel with support for the Jewish people are greater than, or at least the same as, voters who are dropping him now for allowing this Palestinian genocide.

I do not make charitable assumptions about people who support genocide.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What’s charitable about pointing out how they’re likely ignoring lives based on polling?

Your sounding like more and more of a shill as you go on.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

If someone supports genocide, you may want to try to imagine some plausible excuse to make that ok.

But genocide is inexcusable, and there is no reason to bend over backwards to give its supporters the benefit of the doubt.

You're apologizing for genocide supporters and lobbing accusations at people who oppose genocide.

I have never advocated for withholding votes, nor have I ever advocated for voting for anyone but Biden since he won the nomination in 2020. My consistent position has been that Biden should not be supporting genocide.

There is no good or compelling reason to support genocide.

[–] jasondj@ttrpg.network 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t say it’s completely insane.

It’s a modification of the trolley problem. The “do nothing” path goes downhill and has a hell of a lot more bodies. The switched path still has bodies but at least it’s uphill and you’ll have a chance to slow it down or stop it.

[–] TheAlbacor@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Who said to do nothing? I'm saying this path is also terrible.

We as a people, and specifically the commenters who insist these are the only options, are consciously choosing between the two paths that lead to genocide. We are specifically saying we are too comfortable and indifferent to demand the changes to prevent it.

That's insane.