politics
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
view the rest of the comments
Where is all this hate coming from when almost everyone on both sides of the political ecosystem agrees that the mainstream media ecosystem is flawed. It is just rank tribalism to ignore the blatant propaganda when it is coming from your side of the camp. This guy @TokenBoomer is one of the most reasonable people I have interacted with on social media in ages, and has consistently provided well positioned evaluations of complex issues as they relate to politics and specifically the Trump saga. Just blanket downvoting someone because you are prescribing a position to someone without actually taking the time to understand the nuance of their criticism is how people continue to be divided, and subsequently more radicalized.
We should be aiming to provide a better architecture for high level political discussion on Lemmy in my personal opinion. A large part of why I left the Reddit bubble was because of this exact kind of behavior from the hivemind. Anyone that didn't participate in the "two minutes hate" or levied well founded criticism against the neo-liberal news aggregators was just instantly brigaded as a way to garner cool points from the algorithm. We should aim to be better, and learn from past mistakes.
If any of you had taken the time to evaluate the other comments this guys has posted, and listened to his views it should be clear that he is not some centrist sycophant or debate pervert engaging in constant whataboutisms. There is ample, justifiable criticism of the neo-liberal corporate news media even if it is not as blatant or psychotic as Fox News et al. If you cannot see that then are you really even a progressive? So many of us have turned our backs on corporate media (and rightly so) in favor of the new media ecosystem through YouTube, but then when they pass judgement against things you don't like to suit their own ends are you falling into their trap by giving them clicks and driving engagement?
Let's evaluate this article as a microcosm of this more generalized problem:
Is there a prescriptive judgement or directed narrative being pushed here? I would argue that, yes, there absolutely is, and it is obvious. That does not undermine the validity of the criticism, or mean that we should ignore it. That also is not what this guy was suggesting if you read his comments thoroughly. It does, however, mean that we should be aware of our own implicit personal biases so that we can tell when legitimate criticism is being coopted to justify a pre-determinant outcome.
Is it going to help the procession of this case by pre-emptively painting this judge as a patsy who you KNOW is going to fall on her sword to save Trump? I don't think so, and I would argue that engaging with that rhetoric makes that outcome MORE LIKELY. This is a human being that is not immune to the criticism, and vitriol that may be levied against her. She may earn that hatred, but we should let her earn it rather than intentionally painting her into a corner where she feels uniquely justified in subverting democracy in retaliation against the monolithic corporate oligopoly that is mainstream media. As someone smarter than me once said, "We judge others by their actions, and ourselves by our intentions".
Is there a better way to engage with our own biases that is more likely to lead to a fair, and equitable outcome? This is what we should be striving for because it will paint a more stark, sobering, and lasting outcome that may win over the minds of people on both sides of the issue who may otherwise have painted this as theatrics in a kangaroo court. Let them eat bread....and whatnot. Imagine for a moment if there was a groundswell of SUPPORT for this judge that aimed to humanize her, and made her see the value in her work. Do you think that would ultimately lead her to take this entire process more seriously, with a more measured approach, therefore putting her in the best possible position to take her duty seriously in upholding the spirit and letter of the law? Put yourself in the other persons shoes for a moment, and evaluate what kinds of actions from the outside world would make you the most likely to carry out your duties in a professional and dispassionate fashion. By standing on our own moral high ground we separate and alienate ourselves from engaging with the system we claim to wish to preserve.
This is just some food for thought from someone that wishes to continue to see the kind of spirited engagement around complex issues that move our species forward. No man is an island. If we wish to be the change we want to see in the world that requires engaging with concepts or ideas that we may find uncomfortable while being able to debate honestly about the issues. The only way to change the perspective of another is by being able to intellectualize their arguments with them, while coming alongside them as they follow the path to questioning their firmly held beliefs. The minute they trigger their own cognitive dissonance without the moral support of someone who is willing to help them self-actualize honestly they will retreat back into their same echo-chambers, and comfortable patterns of behavior because there is safety in numbers. This is an ingrained evolutionary behavioral mechanism that we all must learn our way out of, and it is scary to do that for the unwashed masses who may never have been exposed to the kind of free-thinking intellectualism that many of us take for granted.
I hope someone finds some value in this, but if not at least I did my part to help elucidate some important ideals that I think bring value to the framework of discussion on this platform.
Are you suggesting that a judge might get mad that the media is pointing out that she made mistakes on an earlier trial so she'll feel its okay to 'subvert democracy in retaliation'?
I am pointing out that humans are fallible, susceptible to negative feedback loops, and that it is in the best interest of our species to accept that as the inherent reality regardless of someone's title or position. I am not justifying the behavior, but I firmly believe that the more you push that kind of narrative the more likely it is that it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So if someone makes a mistake you should ignore it and the media shouldn't report it, in fear of what they might do next?
No, that is not what I am saying at all. The importance her decisions have in this case as well as to the public interest are self-evident, and therefore should be reported. What I am suggesting is that there is very dangerous subtext surrounding framing her as an incompetent hack if it pre-emptively undermines the validity of her rulings both for or against the defendant. Both sides are looking to throw her under the bus at a moments notice no matter what she does, and threading that needle would be a challenge for someone with ten times her experience or tenure. The narrative foreshadowing has been quite clear in this regard, and I think we all ignore that to our own peril regardless of what side of the issue you fall on.
Let me put it to you this way: she already knows that when she rules against Trump she will be met with very real threats of violence, conversely Trump's opposition will attempt to paint her as a traitor or patsy when she rules in his favor. It is a lose/lose proposition being reinforced by a zero sum game.
Again, this is a human being, and human beings are fallible. While it is easy or convenient to suggest that every single person who accepts a legal appointment should act as the perfect visage for the judicial system by being totally dispassionate, acting with complete impunity in upholding the letter of the law, and separating themselves from their humanity in the process that just isn't realistic. Therefore, a better framework would be to attempt to influence or taint the outcome of this proceeding as little as possible while allowing the legal system to function without also combating the court of public opinion. This is also not realistic, I grant you that, but adding fuel to the fire doesn't help.
Instead, I believe the ethically justifiable position is not to feed into the media sophistry, and instead to engage with the decisions in this case solely based on their merits. This is admittedly difficult to accomplish considering most of us are not legal scholars, but it should be the goal. In doing so we can continue to bring awareness to the fact that in the real world, even in the legal arena, there are rarely issues that can be perfectly distilled down into the kind of binary black & white positions that are attractive to our evolutionary programming.
Did you read the article?
These were very basic mistakes that she made and despite your essay the article just pointed them out.
Like the media should. It’s not like they drew devil horns on her picture or are saying she’s an activist judge or anything.
Yes, I did read the article. I am speaking more generally regarding the circulating media narratives I have seen regarding her being an activist judge. That may well be the case, and I am willing to accept that if and when the evidence warrants it. I also wrote my initial "essay" as you put it in support of the OP who I believe was engaging in good faith, and therefore wished to support. After that I admit to being verbose in my responses to you, and I understand if that is not your preferred method of discourse.
Wait, so you’re just generally criticizing the media?
This isn’t to do with this article?
I subscribe to a clear and concise form of communication.
‘I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.’
Again, my initiation into this discussion was originally directed towards supporting the OP of this comment thread.
I'm going to leave it here. Thanks for being reasonable, and not antagonistic. I appreciated the discussion. Hope to see you around ✌️
Interesting point to end the conversation.
Yeah, what he said! Thanks for the kind words. I don’t know what a debate pervert is, but it sounds exciting. Also, that just made me feel dumb. I wish I was able to illuminate my intent as well as you did. But I’m on my phone, and my fingers are fat.
I don't think you're dumb. I have appreciated all of the commentary I have seen from you, and that is why I posted what I did. I was trying to riff on what you said to provide some additional depth.
Unfortunately we both fell into the trap of trying to engage with individuals who weren't interested in civil discussion. I have had such positive experiences on Lemmy so far that I momentarily forgot this is still the internet 😂