-66
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 28 Sep 2024
-66 points (7.7% liked)
politics
19145 readers
1909 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 are changing the topic. Comment OP didn't say you wrote the article. That was an assertion you created yourself in response to them. So you mischaracterized their comment. And that was my point: that you mischaracterized it.
I made no explicit judgement about whether you are debating here in the comments in good faith or not. I was pointing out that your response was inaccurate.
However your response/deflection here kind of supports their original point that you are arguing in bad faith in these comments.
The poster said, "Everyone look at how OP engages with people in these posts. They are clearly here to spread propaganda and engage in bad faith."
I've explained how I respond.
And since the commenter suggested I was posting "propaganda," I simply pointed out that I didn’t write the article. It was shared from a reputable news source, not produced by me. Unless he believes that the news organization itself produces propaganda, then his argument doesn’t hold up.
Thank you!
OP's original comment (emboldened relevant word by me):
IN these posts, not WITH these posts. You engage INSIDE (in) posts via comments. He/she was talking about your comments.
The op said "in these posts." Meaning with these posts. I stand by what I said. Posts and comments are different things.
If op meant in the thread or in the discussion or in the comments, then it'd be different. But they said "posts." So I was correct in how I responded. Thank you! :)
TIL "in" means "with".
You are incorrect. Thank you! :)
I don't think... English is their first language. I could be wrong
op said "posts" not "comments." You are incorrect. Thank you! :)
This usage is an example of semantic extension—where a word is used in a non-literal sense that still retains some of its original meaning. Here, "in" is being used to mean "through the medium of" or "via," which is a broader interpretation of "in" that overlaps with "with." This flexibility is common in English, allowing prepositions to take on slightly altered meanings depending on context.
op said “posts” not “comments.” You are incorrect.
Glad you learned something! :)
Ooh, two replies! Didn't mean to trigger you, friend. :)
And no matter how much you try to weasel out of it with misplaced semantics, you are still incorrect. :D
Not triggered at all. I just let you know that you're actually still incorrect. :)
The evidence says otherwise.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere. And I think I'm done seeing the dubious quality posts and non-constructive comments you are spamming Lemmy with. So I'm gonna block you and move on.
But one last thing, and I say this with the best of intention...
I seriously don't understand your rationale or your aim on this platform. Your frequency of trying to antagonize others indicates an unhealthy addiction; the quality of the content is all over the place, with no apparent discernment for legitimacy of the sources; and the need to engage with people here almost always turns negative, which isn't helpful to you or anyone else.
I know you get defensive about people accusing you of being a Russian operative (which I don't think you are) and of them 'persecuting' your opinion. You put on a proverbially happy face, but the urge for contrarianism (which is usually a sign of unhappiness) and that undertone of feeling disrespected shines through that. Surely you know by now that the reason you get so heavily down-voted by others on this platform isn't because they disagree with your opinion. It's because you seem to post and comment in bad faith trying to antagonize others and then proverbially run and hide behind the "hey I don't support that opinion/candidate myself!" argument. You obviously have some sort of an agenda, but you won't admit to what it really is. That lack of emotional and intellectual honesty is what irritates people.
You will keep doing what you want, and that's totally your prerogative. But you're not changing anyone's minds. You're only galvanizing them against your opinions and marginalizing yourself.
Maybe you need some emotional help? (Rhetorical question, I don't want an actual answer.). If so, then I hope you get it.
What evidence do you have that I am triggered? You mean the fact that I replied to you? You are replying to me, are you triggered then?
And you are reading WAY too much into it friend. I am interested in third parties, so I post news articles about third parties. I have never hid that fact. The vast majority of my postings are socialist articles to my socialist communties. Feel free to look: https://lemmy.world/u/UniversalMonk?page=1&sort=New&view=Posts
I don't care if people are irritated and disagree with the articles that I post. I didn't write them. They can bring that up with the various news orgs that write the articles.
How exactly am I "trying to antagonize others" if all I'm doing is responding to comments directed at me? If someone doesn’t want to engage, they don’t have to comment on my posts, or they can just block me like you said you’re going to do. That’s their choice.
If people want me to stop responding, then they can stop commenting on my posts. I’m not going to stop sharing the articles, but they can at least avoid seeing my replies if that’s their issue.
Thank you! :)