679
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 Nov 2023
679 points (95.7% liked)
News
23360 readers
1832 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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The original comment and I said "foreign adversaries" in reference to the article and I specifically distinguished them from normal uniformed trolls that you could debate. Yet you continued to defend the foreign adversaries. I have to assume you didn't read the article about what the foreign adversaries were actually doing.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, if you think that.
All I'm stating is that foreign adversaries have multiple roles and multiple jobs they do, not just the one thing you are mentioning.
That's the whole point of my conversation with you, the point out that a foreign adversary can do more than just one single thing.
If a foreign adversary is engaging in normal debate then they are not a foreign adversary. You replied to someone concerned about bots sending death threats with "we should talk to them."
You have been continuously dishonest by attempting to reframe a foreign adversary issuing death threats from thousands of bot controlled alt accounts to a regular person. Yes you can talk to a regular person. That's not the foreign adversary that you replied to originally. Your semantic games to attempt to wiggle out of supporting death threats are ridiculous.
So if you happened to deal with the person outside of their job as a foreign adversary and they were using their political power to issue death threats, is free debate still ok? Is it fine for someone in power to call on their followers to attack you because free speech should never be impinged?
I was speaking generally about foreign adversaries, and not the ones in the article (that I did read). Its not something we should really be arguing over, or for you to be so nitpicky over. Its not worth either of our time to do so.
The ORIGINAL comment that I replied to ...
And your first reply to my reply to the original comment ...
You didn't mention specific foreign adversaries just from the article. You used the generic terminology for all foreign adversaries.
My only point was that not all foreign adversaries, regardless if they were mentioned in the article or not, act in one single way, that they have multiple motives/actions. Thats all. No mention was made by me of specific foreign adversaries. You assumed as much, incorrectly, but I did not refer to them. I spoke generally.
I used the term Foreign Adversaries specifically because that's what the article called the attackers. This is a thread about the article. You replied to a comment about the article and didn't distinguish in your reply that you weren't talking about the article. Only after I pointed out that you are supporting death threats, you are back tracking. But oddly your replies didn't condemn the death threats but only made skewed comments like "You’ve discovered my nefarious plan! Curses!"
Your premise of "Let them talk." is flawed. Talk can incite violence.
I think if anyone looks at the conversation they can see that your assumption was incorrect.
There's no obligation to reply to a comment in relation to the article versus the comment directly itself. The article is a jumping off point, and not a hard-coded blueprint that everyone has to stick to.
Every Lemmy post about an article doesn't stay just about the article, but branches out into a wider discussion about the subject that the article covers, and there's no obligation for comments to stay specific to just the article, versus the subject.
You are incorrect in your assumption.
When you use phrases from an article but don't say you mean something completely different, it's your fault that you are misunderstood.
You claim that a government agent sending death threats (30 agents were responsible for 10,000 alt accounts used for harassment and death threats) would honestly engage in debate. Given how few actual people were behind the harassment, debate was impossible because the attackers were using automated tools to manage 10,000 accounts.
And continued silence from you on actually condemning death threats.
If you're going to keep moving the goal post this much you might as well just build a new stadium.
The issue being argued was that you misassumed my comment was specific to the article, when it was specific to a comment.
It's not my responsibility to protect you from yourself, but instead for you to have a reading ability before replying to a comment.
The irony is that it was a simple enough mistake, not worthy of the argument we've been having since.
You were the one that took phrases that the article and op used and changed their meaning without informing anyone of what was going on your mind.
Don't get huffy that people around you aren't mind readers.
No, I did not. You assumed I was talking about certain individuals, I was talking about the general profession. If I was speaking specifically about those in the article I would have stated so explicitly, which is normally how language works.
No one is ever explicit when they're talking generally, only when they're talking about a specific part of it.
It's really simple, and something that every human being (including myself) on this planet has done at one point or another. Just say "Sorry, I assumed incorrectly,", and be done with it.
As I have mentioned before,...
But then you admit you did:
The assumption was made because the article and op used the phrase to mean one thing but in your mind, without telling anyone, it meant something else.
You're being intellectually dishonest, and using a cheap debate tactic of deflection. You're misrepresenting what I said.
I was responding to a comment, and not the article. I was not contradicting the article, I was not referring to the article. You made the mistake of assuming I was, when I did not.
You refuse to see that you expect users to read you mind such that words mean only what you want them to mean.