this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
307 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19233 readers
3478 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I think the weird arguments are coming from almost all fake accounts. A couple of them behave like people who genuinely believe the things they're saying, but actually the vast majority of them do not. In my opinion.

I'll never claim to be 100% accurate at telling who is and isn't a faker (and I'm not sure the effort is even a worthwhile thing to spend much energy on), but just consider from this thread the difference of people who are saying things like:

It's cute when the US accuses countries of interfering with elections like they're protecting their world record or something

the hypocrisy is astounding. The USA has been interfering in elections for the year dot.

And people who are saying things like:

After this dude has been caught in like half a dozen lies on behalf of Israel in the last few months, who believes anything he has to say about anything?

They are priming the response when Biden loses, so they can blame someone else for their ineptitude and failure to govern.

To me, it sounds like one grouping read the article / headline, had thoughts occur to them based on the article they read, and typed out those thoughts. It sounds like the other grouping has a little bulleted list in front of them "things we'd like to bring up about the Biden administration" and made a halfhearted attempt at "smooth"ly interjecting them into this topic.

I've seen them slip and interject a talking point that's a total incongruity for the target audience / forum (as one of them did down below with January 6th being a peaceful protest), and I've seen them apparently fail to register that the talking point they're bringing up relates in some way to the topic of the article -- just sort of blandly repeat it with that same "we all agree" fellow kids type of energy instead of grasping the obvious relationship between what they're saying and what's in the article or whatever.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

All very good points. Just today on their latest podcast, I heard driftglass/bluegal commenting on the SCOTUS we have and how the cult members on there seemingly want a POTUS with no accountability (basically a king), while reflecting on all the leftist dipshittery over Hillary about how there is no real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Some of the leftists clearly believe this ridiculous and absurd claim (Sadly, I personally know a few of them and they really do hold this dumbass belief, even after Nader and after Stein), but then there are certainly a lot of trolls/bots that are taking that up to try to give the impression that this stupid belief is a common one among progressives/leftists.