-31
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 12 Apr 2024
-31 points (34.7% liked)
politics
19170 readers
4664 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
You agree that your comment is consistent with Democrats' "Fuck you" messaging? Ok.
I think you're just wired for conflict maybe 🙂
I feel I've said pretty much what I need to say about it at this point
You know which comment I was referring to, and have chosen to misrepresent what I've said. Expecting honesty from you was a mistake that I'll never make again.
So here's what I meant by that: I'm actually specifically agreeing with what you say about the Democrats being tone deaf and dismissive of legitimate concerns. I think it causes harm to the Democrats (in elections) and harm to the country (because it leads them to pursue a harmful neoliberal agenda and not listen to criticism of it a lot of the time.) What you're saying, I'm agreeing with.
I'm also saying that this particular thing is not a fully legitimate concern. I've talked at length about my factual reasons why a big chunk of the article's laundry list of complaints about the country -- which the list is 100% legitimate, yes -- shouldn't be applied to Biden, because he (rather unusually for a Democrat) has been taking concrete steps to try to address them. And, that not voting for him will definitely make a whole lot of them (probably the entire list) much, much worse.
You can disagree with all that, and that's all good. We can talk if you like. But IDK man... if you've ever been on the receiving end of this kind of "how dare you not even apologize for X, I'm so upset" "but I didn't actually do X" "there you go again, how dare you" circular argument I think you can understand the difference between those two things -- no?
This exchange:
Sure seems consistent with the "fuck you" messaging.
Let me be more specific, then:
These people are wrong. Full stop. The logic they're using makes no sense, because factually, their ideas about what Biden has and hasn't done don't line up with reality.
And, I strongly suspect that this particular article has cherry-picked these particular people to present a particular narrative, instead of honestly trying to inform its readers about what's actually going on.
So maybe it's OTT for me to say I don't care what these people think. If you want to talk about fixing the media so these particular people won't be so wrong that they'll bring up student loans as a big example of something Biden hasn't done, that would lead them not to vote for him even over Trump, then that sounds great. But if the idea is that I have to listen to their ideas and take them seriously, then no, I don't think I do, because they're wrong. There's a huge difference between that viewpoint and the standard DNC viewpoint of "IDC if you're suffering, I don't want to listen or try to help you solve it."
I took some time to carve out and explicitly agree with you about the standard DNC viewpoint, because you and I are on the same page about it. If you want to argue though that these particular people are ones that Biden needs to be listening to because they're worth listening to, I'm going to keep saying, no, they're not.
In the same comment I just quoted, you said you hadn't read the article yet. Your problem couldn't have been with something you hadn't read yet.
Correct. I was confident enough of what was in it based on a bunch of these stories that I've read, to predict.
You can say that's unfair, which I guess is legitimate, but I was right. Once we started getting into details I read the article and it contains exactly what I thought it contained.
Or you were just being consistent with party messaging and decided to retcon it when confronted.
As I said earlier, I will not expect honesty from you ever again.
Some time back I compared the Biden State Dept to the Nazis; just today I posted an article from Ralph Nader which was the good-faith and productive version of what "the Democrats don't deserve our vote" is the not-sensible version of. (Basically, the Democrats need to listen better, and move to the left, otherwise they're going to keep losing and they deserve to)
You're free to think whatever you want, but I think you're much more engaged in putting me in a particular box than any substantive discussion. We don't actually disagree, as far as I can tell, on this factually at all. All these words have just been spent on you trying to put me into a particular box which isn't accurate. I honestly don't know exactly why you're doing that, but all good.
You keep acting like I'm talking about policy and not messaging.