88
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
88 points (97.8% liked)
News
31481 readers
678 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
My ass. I wish the mods had banned obviously disingenuous "let's let Trump win to make a point, what's the difference anyway" made-up critique that blamed Kamala Harris for Gaza and inflation, under a tissue-thin pretense of "I just care about the country sooooooooooooooooooooo much that I'm giving well informed constructive criticism." Instead we had to just yell at y'all about it in the comments, which since there were hundreds of posts and comments every single day with that viewpoint was always a losing battle. Even trolling of crayon-quality transparency of the UniversalMonk variety was explicitly allowed by the mods, and people who objected to it too strongly got banned for it.
The whining about how you're not allowed to get your message out, which is constantly broadcasted on every channel where you're claiming you're being silenced, is just part and parcel of the alternate reality you're having a good bit of success in constructing. MAGA does it too, it's part of the package.
You do understand that your cynical lying about the past is why your camp is losing the argument? I mean, I don't dislike you, at least not personally, and and even if I have to drag you by the hair onto the right side of history, I'll at least afford you the charity required for you to fix yourself.
There is no point in bothering with conjecture regarding the bans. They happened, its documented, any one can look it up. It doesn't help your following arguments to simply lie about a reality people can easily go reference for themselves, if they didn't live the experience themselves, as many of us have. A conjecture rooted in the same cynicism that cost us the election.
Now as before, your cynical misrepresentation of the arguments which were made also works against you. We argued that without replacing Biden, we'd lose the election. And we had the same claims you are levying, here, now, levied against us them. That we were secret Trump supporters. That we were the ones costing the Democrats the election. And then, as it does, the truth of the matter has a way of finding itself out. And we who stayed focus on an accurate and valid criticisms we're proven right. In-spite of this, and this is the true cost of cynicism, you continued to reject the analysis and criticism of those who got it right. Instead of showing grace and changing, yours doubled down on your wrongness, when even the beltway insiders had the humility to recognize how wrong they'd been. No. No instead you embraced the worst instinct: to double down on the cynicism. Harris needed to pivot away from Biden's policies and political techniques to come back in the extra innings she was afforded. But no. The cynics won the side-line arguments on how to handle the extra time we got on the clock (and let us not forget, these same cynics were the ones arguing against replacing Biden), and we all suffer because.
We should listen to the people who got it right, to begin with, and who stayed right the whole time. We should ignore those who are guided by cynicism and fear. Sacrificing your values for billionaire donations isn't just morally abhorrent: Its also bad strategy.
Can you look them up, and show them to me? I came close to digging through the modlog myself, to prove that the number of times in Dec 2023 / Jan 2024 that someone was banned for posting a poll showing Biden behind was 0.
I said that with replacing Biden, we'd lose the election, because the exact same arguments that applied to Biden would get applied to Harris, plus some new ones, and all the forces that marshaled a variety of bad-faith bullshit against Biden would start to do the same against Harris, and people in this country literally can't tell up from down when it comes to the election. And, in the election, that's what happened.
A lot of what you're saying happened also, yes. I'm genuinely confused about how you're accusing me of being cynical about it or telling the Democrats to be more right wing. What statements did I make that led you to think that?
Are you genuinely, seriously, trying to pretend that Joe “We beat Medicare” Biden was the better candidate to beat Trump? Bruh.
This absolute baldfaced refusal to accept reality from Democrat loyalists up and down the party structure, makes the whole party look unserious. Team sports, ‘my guy can do no wrong’ horseshit that they also see from the MAGAs, but team red talks game about inflation and the economy - and isn’t the incumbent seen as responsible for it.
What? No, not even slightly. I'm saying that the people who are extensively hand-wringing about how these specific Democratic candidates fucked everything up, should be sparing at least one or two words for thirty years of Democratic fuckery laying the groundwork, the media pretending that Trump was a controversial but ultimately capable businessman who would fix the economy that was hurting them so badly, and any particular thing the Democrats did wrong was justification for having a multi-week freakout, and also the fact that most Americans get their political news from TikTok and Facebook if they get it at all.
Biden was old as fuck and it was a massive problem, even before the debate. I'm saying that none of the most serious problems got solved when he was replaced. And look... they didn't.
I agree (and did), but posting that context often was dismissed with “it’s election season, quit posting FUD if you’re not a troll/bad-faith”. Y'all weren’t there for the discussion even - as was shown with Gaza.
But the basic fact is that the candidate(s) and party apparatus either: A) Fundamentally failed to read the room and see the obvious discontent and voter backlash over several policy stances and material realities, or B) Knew all that and still decided to run the campaign they wanted to, whilst cynically wielding the Republicans as a worse option to impel democrat voters on the left, so they could run to the center and abandon the working class to the Republicans
Nobody forced them or their staffers to pick option B, even as their own internal polling showed their defeat was all but assured under option B. And here we are.
So when do I get to play the ‘Quit spreading FUD’ card then? Because as you said, if nothing was going to fundamentally change re:platform, why not present a new and younger candidate after Biden’s cognitive meltdown, and claw back some of the party’s reputation with the electorate? Why not hold a ‘speed primary’? Why let cynicism win out and accept Biden drowning the party with him, because ‘nobody else can do better’ while he’s an elder lich that refuses to let go of power?
Honestly, I'm just sick of having the exact same conversation an indefinite number of times every time I come to lemmy.world.
I'll keep it short: No one from the DNC is on Lemmy. When you post on Lemmy, you're not successfully talking any sense into the Democrats. You're speaking to people who are deciding how to vote, whether to vote, how to get involved with activist organizations, and also just in a truth telling sense helping all of us make sense of what's going on. The problems in American politics go way deeper than one candidate or one party. You are not saving the Democrats by making these recommendations, although they're not really wrong, but you are attempting to take 100% of the oxygen away from other problems (which are also very real) which we are all similarly mostly-powerless to fix but which are also significant problems.
You're also arguing against a bunch of stuff that I, at least, never said, which I understand is fun to do but it's not real productive for us making sense to one another. I'm happy to talk with you, if you do some homework first: Find 5-10 different examples of me talking about Gaza, what a problem it was, and how Biden was complicit in it. Once you've done that (it should take literally one text search, use the @PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat account since this one is new), we can chat.
…then stop posting/lurking in .world then? Or accept that it’s not your backyard, and you have different views?
Doubtful, though I’d still hold out for some Linux-hatted staffer Venn intersection. But I’m sure that web crawlers and API scrapers are, which do feed into data sets used to judge people’s opinions. And there’s definitely a lot of neoliberals who lurk and comment, amongst other political stripes.
Lmao if you actually want to genuinely talk to some, that line is condescending as fuck and you should never use it. And re: Gaza? Just scroll up, you brought up Gaza in your first reply in this comment thread - unprompted. Instead of demanding I do the mental labor of deciphering your (seemingly mutable) politics, and just lay out what you actually believe?
I spent a few messages doing that, even though you were pretty hostile with me out of the gate.
Sounds like you're not into the idea of doing the homework in order to learn what you would need to in order to be able to continue the conversation and have it be productive. Like I said, I'm not real into continuing the conversation then. Best of luck to ye.
You read my exasperation as hostility, because my initial reply was to a lot of your hand waving that ‘anyone would have been as bad as Biden’ completely sidesteps his obvious cognitive state, and the withering voter enthusiasm he carried both in and out of the party.
Does this actually work on people? Like do you genuinely think telling someone that they’re too dumb/ignorant to participate, that that is effective rhetoric that communicates with others?
You got challenged on a massive point of context, confirmed your actual position, to which I agreed and then pivoted to their doomed strategy of ‘I wouldn’t do anything differently’ was a failure from the jump, and your response is cynical elitism? Good luck convincing others dude
👋
Lol I mean being straight with you and responding factually to what you were saying, responding substantively and clarifying, definitely didn't work. Oh well. Also, "cynical" at least in the original meaning doesn't mean what you think it means.
Yes and no. Yes I can, in that I've built out at least some of the tools to do so. I can't in that I'm still at work today and haven't returned to that project in quite a while.
So anyone can look it up, but in order to look it up, you'd have to build some tools and it's a whole project?
I mean any one could go find some examples from memory that they experienced. I could dig far enough into my comment history to find them. In-fact I was digging through some banned community members and found some examples just the other day.
What I'm doing is far, far larger in scope. I'm not trying to find one instance, I'm trying to find all of them. I'm also interested in correlating that to "shifts in the overall narrative" to the sub. And I'm trying to do this across several prominent subs. And I'm not doing this in an adhoc way. When I have results they'll be publishable.
I've built some of the more important tools already which allow me to pull the entire comment history of a user and perform significant sentiment analysis, key phrase extraction, etc.. but some aspects aren't reliable enough yet to be completely useful.
This is some example output using flyingsqids data: https://tmpweb.net/jS19ePfgNdz0/
(scroll to the bottom, then scroll up instead of starting at the top)
The first analysis is a "trolling/ not trolling" analysis. Then its a frequency analysis. I used squid because of their preposterous number of comments. Some weeks they were commenting almost ever 3 minutes for hours on end.
If life we're simpler I'd be further along on this project, but alas, the bills. They do not pay themselves. And its a hobby thing I'm not getting paid for, so its the last to get access to my time.
Could you find some examples from memory that you experienced, for me?
I feel like we keep having the same conversation here.
Find a particular modlog entry from last year. See how long it takes.
Well, I wasn't the one who said it was easy (and IDK that digging through the modlog is the easiest way even for someone who is sure that it happened to find out when it did), but sure. Here are all the posts from Dec 2023 and Jan 2024 that were removed that had "poll" in the title:
I was assured there would be some that showed Biden behind in the polls, that the mods were trying to cover up...
It's a silly thing to get hung up on, but it helps to demonstrate that the person I'm talking with is talking about some situation that didn't happen in reality.
Guess lemmy isn't a dog-slow pain in the ass for you. How nice.
No, I just know scripting
Alternate realities, certainly unlike not making a PR at GitHub, rather than unhinged accusations that spent over an hour doubling, tripling, quintupling down for a couple of hours...
Can you explain how this fallacy applies? Also, dick move posting pictures of text without a transcript.
Because instead of addressing anything at all about what I said, they said more or less "but you're the person that said (totally unrelated thing) which I don't agree with therefore you're unhinged."
Oh dear, he's going down the list of fallacies, after calling us disingenuous, when I clearly attacked unhinged posts.
You attacked me on some totally unrelated topic, instead of addressing anything I said about this topic.
If you disagreed with me about whether or not it's totally cool and normal for Lemmy to send people's admin passwords back to the mothership, you could weigh in over on that topic back when we were talking about that (and I'm pretty sure you did). It's all good, the issue is fixed now whether or not it was an honest mistake in the code, and we all had our say on it.
Now all of a sudden we're talking about some totally different issue, and whether or not anyone in power on Lemmy was "suppressing" or "banning" criticism of the Democrats during the run-up to the election (they were not) is left on the table, forgotten.
Here's more explanation if you need it, with some examples of how attacking past unrelated arguments or issues can be a good example of using ad hominem to deflect from anything about the issue currently under discussion:
https://practicalpie.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/
This is why I always regret it when I go to lemmy.world lol.