649
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 06 Jun 2024
649 points (98.9% liked)
News
36384 readers
801 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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
He won't need to. They're in the wealthy class so the son won't get much jail time if any. Nobody interested in hiring him would give a fuck about this conviction.
We have a two-tier system. It has been obvious for a while, but Donald getting $1,000 scoldings for sending Trumpanzees after the court's staff and family has shone a spotlight on the discrepancy.
There's always been a 2-tier system, through all nations and all times.
One of my favorite parts of Noble House, set in 1840s Hong Kong, was a Chinese guy disgusted with the English notion of "equal under the law". "Of course there are different laws for the rich and poor! Why else would I strive to be rich?!"
I think on that now and again.
"Some day I might be rich, and then people like me better watch their step!"
It’s like a 100-tier system. Society is hierarchical.
I tried many, many times to read Noble House, but it was too long for me to get through it.
Anywho, if I remember, wasn't it set in the twentieth century?
Pretty sure the judge had his hands tied for the max fine he could dole out to Trump. Still a problem that should be fixed but it's not cause of the judge.
How on earth are trying to both sides this lmfao
Learn to read
A leftist that points out inequality inherent in the system? What a strange thing to encounter on Lemmy. I'm positively flummoxed as to how this came about.
If you ask anyone from .ml, I'm not even a leftist. I am pretty dead set against Donald, whereas they (and Bibi) want Donald elected.
Theu dont want Trump elected. They want Biden to actually do something to stop the genocide.
Jill Stein wants no war. your accusation is pure bad faith.
Jill Stein is not going to be president. Your assertion is in bad faith or ignorance.
She'll be President if you vote for her
No, she won't. And hopefully I voted for viable candidates down the sheet because I'll have lost that vote.
She'll be president if enough voters to overwhelm the EC's red shift vote for her. Which will not happen with FPTP. There are 46 examples of this not happening over a couple hundred of years. Including her, specifically, in 2012 and 2016.
you literally accused people who said they want Jill Stein to win of lying and actually wanting another candidate to win. that's bad faith.
no, they are saying they don't want any of that and voting against Republicans and Democrats at the same time.
No, they don't care who wins because they are privileged and think it won't affect them. No third party has ever come close to winning in the history of the country. It will not happen. So they are expressing that they're okay if it gets worse.
another bad faith statement. you need to ask them what they want, and believe their answer, or dialogue cannot progress.
Your (and their) arguments may not be in bad faith, but they are in conflict with objective reality.
They either believe Jill Stein will actually win, which is false based on all of US history, including the elections she already participated in.
Or they believe there is literally no difference for, say, women, when 1/3 of SCOTUS are religious extremists appointed by an insurrectionist. Or on climate. Or Ukraine. Or voting rights. Etc. The question "is a president allowed to break the law and do whatever" is somehow still open. Is that not completely insane?
I understand what they claim they are doing with the protest vote. But in actuality, they have looked at the difference and decided that it isn't much. That can only come from a position of privilege or extreme ignorance.
this is still putting words in their mouths. it's not good-faith engagement.
No, that's reality.
The other case I also pointed out is they might be unaware of the facts. You are engaging in bad faith by misrepresenting my words to form a what you think is a strawman to argue against.
stating your perspective about it doesn't make it reality. you need to actually listen to what people say, and if you think it's unrealistic, then you can say you think it's unrealistic, but you can't just assert that they can't possibly have any other motivations.
You didn't actually listen to what I said, you in fact deliberately and in bad faith edited out parts so that you could argue against what you want to argue against.
You have been stating your perspective all along that it is bad faith, asserting that there are no other motivations. You didn't actually listen to what I had to say, you just asserted a position.
I don't think you are taking this seriously. You are certainly picking and choosing which rules apply to whom. Why are we engaging at all?
i made your position more succinct. you provided two options and said they were the only possible explanations, then said "that's reality". you constructed a false dichotomy. there was no nuance to your comment that would have undermined this construction of your argument. your assumption of other peoples beliefs and motivations is a bad faith approach altogether.
No, you didn't. It's frustrating that you claim to be interested in intellectual integrity. You deliberately omitted or failed to read parts that you now claim have fulfilled your mission of honest discussion. You accused me of bad faith when the Copilot definition you wish to use explicitly says there must be intent. You claim to be in favor of honest and good faith discussion, but have only been interested in applying your rules to the parts of the discussion you don't like.
Anyway. We've probably wasted enough time talking past each other today. Good luck out there.
have a nice day
because i objected to your bad faith characterization of another user's comments.
Please consider being honest about your bad faith characterization of my position, with respect to your own AI definition.
surely you can understand that the ai was not giving a complete definition, and you don't need to know that you are being dishonest in order to be engaging in bad faith. simply accusing others of lying about their own position is, itself, bad faith.
edit:
you seem to be alright with going along with copilot. when i asked
it said
i asked copilot to weigh in on this. i have edited it for brevity (there was a lot of boiler-plate), but this is the last half or so completely unedited:
Thanks, Copilot. Can Copilot explain the other possible positions beyond "doesn't understand she won't win" and "doesn't believe or is unaware there is a difference between the two who will win?" You are not providing other options, maybe Copilot could explain it to me.
well i am not interested in getting bogged down in defending any particular motivation, i'm only trying to keep the conversation intellectually honest. it seems that you understand, now, that there might be other motivations, and as such that your previous accusations were in fact bad faith.
what straw man?
Leftists carrying water for fascists? Definitely not a strange thing to encounter both on Lemmy and in history.
Some of us have moved beyond team sports and are now questioning the game.
It isn't a "both sides" thing, it is a class thing. The wealthy never face consequences unless they personally perform some heinous act, and even then it isn't guaranteed.
I sympathize with being sick of bothsidesers, but I don't think that's what I'm doing here. The justice system is unfair as it is. Dems aren't doing enough but Repubs want to make it even worse. If youths came out to vote in every election we wouldn't be stuck with these two choices, but there is very clearly just one sane choice.
They did, and their candidate lost anyway. Too many olds spread across too many districts.
Maybe if you can convince a few hundred thousand Youngs to move to Wyoming...
Every election. The parties cannot count on the youth vote. They both seem to be acting like they don't care what youths want. I am assuming a correlation there. Unfortunately it's correlating in both directions.
The youth vote isn't a specific set of people. Its a continuous cohort of new voters entering the pool. And the parties are deeply wedded to the youth vote, in so far as they need to get their hooks in early in order to guarantee consistent turnout in later generations. Big investments in social media by partisan groups - from TPUSA to Joe Rogan sponsors - are predicated on winning over young people to right wing ideology. And Republicans consistently have some of the youngest elected party members because they aggressively recruit young people into leadership
What can't be counted on is the liberal party to engage with younger voting cohorts. You don't see Democrats engaging with youth activist movements. You don't see Democrats courting the college vote. You don't see Democrats attempting to seat ideological 20-year-olds in city councils or state legislatures and build up the back bench. You don't see the national party investing in professional party workers under the age of 30. Liberalism is the party of stoggie old dinosaurs telling their grandkids to shut up and vote for them, then getting mad when they only win 60-70% of the youth vote and still lose.
When liberal democrats burn out in their 30s and 40s, because they've been lied to and betrayed over and over again, all we get from the liberal party is "The other guys are worse, though!" As though that shit was ever a winning strategy.
Maybe you shoukd, Please re read his last paragraph