Hmm. Perhaps I'm missing context here but I'm kinda not sure why your point needed to be made in the context of their conversation and why it could be seen as annoying/a refutation of kieselghurs point from their perspective.

for someone making a point to a lib to have these hairs split, in this context, at this time, seems like a defense of Democrats at worst (i know you did not mean this) and a petty caveat at best. Again, this is me vibe ridin'.

Unless kieselguhr was expressly saying or implying every Democrat clapped, rather than what i see implied: refutation of the widespread libworm that Trump would somehow be worse for Palestine than the democrats, a significant, consequential portion of which just clapped like the dogs they are for a fucking monster. You know as well as i do the Democrats as a body are behind Israel. If that is indeed the point kieselguhr was making, that makes your information irrelevant and even unwanted.

I'm in shaky territory here, assuming their and your intentions. But isn't that why you posted this, for tommy's hot takes? Jokes aside, until they come themselves, shouldn't you give your comrades the benefit of the doubt you yourself desire?

Maybe their intentions werent as harsh as you believe? Only one way to be sure on that, but my final take is in your pic i just see some standard fact-check nerdin'. No beefin, no strugglin'... i see this everyday here. Both your comment and theirs are fine imho

Anyway that's my 2

The response in the screenshot reads as a joke to me, the meaning of which is that a fraction of half the Dems not giving an ovation because they weren't there doesn't matter nor actually contradict the point made. If we are being very specific, the claim was just that the Democrats gave a standing ovation, and that is technically true. A ton of them were present and they did that. This is a valid way to express that fact.

I would say that the issue may be that the response could be interpreted as snarky. It's sometimes hard to tell what is a normal joke and what is dunking snark and what is a sarcastic but comradely ribbing. I think it's a good practice for those making jokes to be as obvious as possible but also for those who find them troubling to also directly ask. If it were me, I would have interpreted it as the last one: a comradely ribbing calling out some liberalism.

I do also think that the culture here is and always has been to make fun of liberalism, and with all respect, your counterpoint in the screenshot is liberalism. So for everyone to remain and be comfortable, either the site culture needs to change or we need to make peace with seeing our own liberalism called out sometimes, and even made fun of a bit.

Finally, I think making a joke reference like this is often perceived as the less critical way to engage with someone. Someone writing a paragraph on how this is a liberal attitude might be conveying that this is a much more serious correction than it really is, whereas goofing around may communicate that it is minor. I know this is the opposite of how someone that is on the spectrum may perceive that way of communicating. I'm not sure what the best way forward is but I hope this contextualization is helpful either way.

I think anything I'd have to say on this specific matter has already been said and addressed. I know being attacked like this can be unpleasant, but I think you made a constructive conversation out of the matter, here.

I'll instead just say, as a long-term user with a couple alts, I've always really liked your posts. I admire your ability to take others' points on board, and agree a lot with your points on accuracy being important and the dangers of users being quick-to-dunk. Thanks for being a consistently cool poster

We really should have an official rule of assuming good faith from fellow Hexbears.

I’m not a Hexbear so I suppose it doesn’t matter to me too much, but I strongly disagree with this. Anyone can make a Hexbear account, and a rule like this seems like it would be very easy for trolls to take advantage of. Plus, frankly, I really don’t think that just because some well-meaning progressive or whoever stumbles into making an account on Hexbear means they should be given even temporary immunity to being dunked on. Some (let’s be honest, many) people’s opinions deserve scorn. You could argue that the mods have the flexibility to enforce the rule as they see fit, but to me, that just seems to make it difficult to know if what you say is in line with the rule.

In regards to the rest of your post, I think I’m mostly in agreement with the_post_of_tom_joad. Still, I think this post is a good reminder to be more mindful of how we interact with people on here and how their comments might affect those they respond to, and I’ve seen you call out Hexbears for being a little too quick to pull the trigger on people before and upvoted you. I know I sometimes respond angrily to people here and later feel I went about it wrongly when I’ve calmed down.

i mean, assuming you agree with the responses, what is the problem? The responses given to you are correct, maybe a lil snarky, but correct nonetheless. I don't even think they were trying to insult you.

I think it's fair to ask that comrades not make fun of you (or anyone) or get on your case for wanting accuracy and pointing it out when something is less than accurate - I'm not sure that's what's going on in your screenshot - but it is a fair request in general. However, I would also like to ask that you please try to avoid using pejoratives like "moron." I know it's not a hard rule or anything here, and I know it is not intended to be used in an ableist way (most of the time) but there still is a lot of ableism embedded in the insult "moron." I think it's just better if we can do our best to replace those sort of words in our vocabulary with ones that are just as much biting towards those that deserve it without doing splash damage on those who don't.

In that very thread (which I think is sad that the whole post got removed, because it was shaping up to be quite a thorough and lively lib-smashing!) the lib that everyone was attempting to educate (with a surprising lack of PPB given their bad faith garbage), was using the term moron, and a comrade pointed out that it was an ableist term that they were using. I think that's a legitimate ask. It also would have been more effective if other hexbears weren't making the same mistake.

I don't mean to hijack your thread to make a different request or to turn your own request back on you, but I feel like it's actually a very similar thing having to do with respecting neurodivergent people.

fwiw i agree with you, it doesnt take that much effort to modify your speech to plug up any possible 'gotchas'. you can say it 'doesn't matter' but imo it absolutely does, little errors like that absolutely make some level of difference to someone's credibility.

This is why sourcing your claims is so important. People need to be able to discern what is real and what is not.

Also please don’t dunk on Autism dragon for being scaly and reptilian. If I catch anyone doing this there will be consequences.

From your source:

Roughly 100 House Democrats and 28 Senate Democrats were present in the chamber for the Israeli prime minister's speech, meaning around half of both caucuses were absent.

There are 213 House Democrats and 47 Senate Democrats total, meaning 46.94% of House Democrats and 59.57% of Senate Democrats were at the speech based on their numbers. If you just lump the two together, you get 128/260 or 49.23%, barely squeaking by with a minority and we're going by a rough count, meaning it's quite possible a real count would push the actual number into a slim majority. The problem is that this assumes a house representative and a senator should have equal weight, which is not true at all within the context of US electoral politics. The conventional wisdom is that senators are more senior and "greater" than representatives, so they carry more weight relative to house representatives. And as a final point, I only found a single source (ie your source) that tried counting who actually attended the speech. Most MSM, for obvious reasons, gloss over the total count. As far as I am aware, there's no authoritative list of the actual people in attendance. I found a list of the boycotters here, which gives a much smaller number but is actually a list of people instead of a general vague number.

Overall, I don't find your objections justifiable. In all likelihood, a majority of Democrats, both House and Senate, did in fact attend his speech, and once you have a majority of X doing Y, you can just say X did Y. You don't really need to qualify that statement.

I don't even understand the 2 Pinnochios line. I agree though, being accurate and truthful is always right, but I will say Kieselguhr didn't say every single Democrat.

That's being a little semantic, but I don't think anyone was trying to dunk on you, just the Democrats.