this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
848 points (96.8% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3809 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
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (56 children)

So let me get this right: we can't criticize any position that our side takes because that automatically brands us as posers, right

Nope, that's a ridiculous strawman. You're allowed to take any position you want. Just as I'm allowed to have my suspicions when you take positions that make no sense outside of credulity caused by far right gaslighting.

Who else plays this game? Do you see how close to the MAGA crowd we've circled back to? They do the exact same game to anyone that disagrees with their narrative (See RINO).

More horseshoe theory bullshit. Even if you WERE right about me (you're not), equating anything I've said with the utterly insane drivel of a literal fascist movement is the kind of thing disingenuous "moderates" and cosplaying Republicans do.

YOU said the video was doctored or taken out of context. But then you never backed that up.

I backed it up by providing the context that the video omits: that he traveled heavily armed across state lines to a peaceful protest in order to shoot protesters, deliberately provoked protesters until some of them tried to stop him and then murdered those protesters.

Those are actual facts that the biased judge ordered stricken from the record because they made it clear that it was all premeditated rather than spur of the moment self defense.

There is no evidence this case was rigged

Yeah there is, see above.

YOU said the integrity of the judicial system can't be trusted

Yeah, I tend not to trust a system where a biased judge who has no business presiding over a case can just arbitrarily throw out crucial evidence because it doesn't match his predetermined conclusion and nobody can do anything about it.

I'm kooky like that.

It's this odd knee-jerk reaction I see here on Lemmy anyone that disagrees with established narratives is automatically branded:

  • Outsider / other
  • Facts become irrelevant

This you?

MUST brand you as something. I can't engage with someone unless I put a label on them

I didn't accuse you of bad faith

Not explicitly, no, but your opening comment accused EVERYONE not convinced about his innocence of bad faith, so excuse me if I don't celebrate your magnificently magnanimous restraint 🙄

I brought the facts of the matter

Nope. You brought your conclusion based on omitting key evidence.

described how similar your rhetoric is to the way elements of the far right manifest themselves

Which, again, is horseshoe theory bullshit. Especially when it's not even CLOSE to true like in this case.

As a leftie

Give it a rest, Dean. Nobody's buying it.

all I want to do is combat misinformation

Spreading it is an awfully peculiar way of going about that task..

But just that was enough to get me all the downvotes and labels needed to put me in a box so we don't have to hear about it.

Nah, you got that for lying and trying to distort reality in order to defend a murderer and then doubling down when corrected.

load more comments (56 replies)