773
Journalism fails miserably at explaining what is really happening to America
(www.inquirer.com)
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 05 Sep 2023
773 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4740 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Let me get this straight...you think that if someone is intolerant of racists, that makes them racist?
No, and you didn't read anything I wrote because I literally didn't say any of that, not sure why you're making stuff up.
I say that if you ASSAULT somebody because of their admittedly shitty opinions, that you're the bad guy and are going to jail.
That and that I'm getting slightly tired of all those armchair internet heroes in mamas basement getting hard peepees over fantasizing how they would beat up Nazis. Never mind most of them would piss their pants when standing next to an actual Dangerous person.
Can you elaborate more then, on this quote of yours?
'we live in a civil society where EVERYONE has rights, even those with thoughts and opinions that we don't like, even neo Nazis. If you don't like that then guess what? That means you have racist opinions and you're the same as what you hate so badly.'
Elaborate where? It's pretty clear: everyone has rights, limitations and obligations. You do not have the right to assault people for having opinions that you (nor me) don't like. Yes, neo-nazis are dickless assholes, yaddah, you still don't have the right to assault them.
It's not that complicated
But how does that equate to one having racist opinions?
I don't really understand what is so hard to understand. Yes, racism is bad, racists are bad, neo-nazis are bad, all correct.
It's also all irrelevant
The moment you punch somebody in the face it's over, you are the bad one. You committed assault and battery and if the victim (yes, now you turned a Nazi into a victim, great going!) decides to press charges, depending on the injuries you caused, you might be the one ending up in jail.
If you tell a judge "but it's okay to punch neo-Nazis!" The judge might just be annoyed enough to slap a few extra months on your sentence so that you'll learn that it is not okay to assault anyone for their shitty opinions, period.
If somebody is threatening a group of people with a gun and you punch him to next Friday, that is a different thing and has nothing to do with that person being a neo-nazi or not, but nobody talks about that here. Everyone here says it's okay to punch Nazi's (Nazi's don't even exist, it's neo Nazis) and they're all wrong. It doesn't matter if it's Europe or the US or Canada or hell, even Mexico.
You punch, you wrong.
What is so hard to understand about that? Why do these armchair heroes (who, again, would piss their pants standing next to actual neo Nazis) keep fantasizing about assaulting people and then get an applause for that from police and judges?
Are you all 15 or something? What is it that I'm missing?
I understand the point you are trying to make, but how does that make you have racist opinions?
I don't
I think you misunderstood. I am asking you to clarify your prior statement acusing those who don't tolerate nazis of having racist opinions themselves.