archomrade [he/him]

  • 5 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle




  • I’m not accusing anyone of being pro-dems, I’m pointing out that this line of reporting is intentionally misdirecting anger at voters - who can literally only react to the policies and governance of the democrats as they are - instead of the democrats sabotaging themselves for thinking they could have their cake and eat it too.

    Thinking that the democrats could participate in a highly-publicized genocide and not lose any voters is folly, but then turning around blaming the voters for the loss of votes is beyond hubris and well into delusion. Anyone with eyes could see this loss coming from a mile away and was screaming at the democrats to change course.






  • If it’s raining a lot, they’re going to report on the rain a lot, too.

    And by what metric is this article deceptive? Her speech was interrupted, and there are uncommitted voters concerned about her gaza policy. They even referenced the conversation they had with Harris before the rally:

    Leaders of the Uncommitted National Movement, which supported voting “uncommitted” on Democratic primary ballots rather than voting for Biden, briefly spoke with Harris at the Detroit rally.

    “Michigan voters want to support you, but we need a policy that will save lives in Gaza right now. I meet with community members every day in Michigan who are losing tens and hundreds of family members in Gaza. Right now, we need an arms embargo,” Layla Elabed, a co-founder of Uncommitted, told Harris, according to the group.

    Y’all are just to traumatized to handle even the slightest political tension. This isn’t even necessarily a bad moment for Harris, it just alludes to some lingering disagreement between the base and leadership that has yet to be resolved, which is to be expected at this point.

    Go touch some grass or something.




  • Look, I have zero illusions to how popular of a decision this is in this comm, and this isn’t my instance so who the fuck cares what I think.

    but

    I have a very hard time seeing this as anything other than a disagreement over personal political tastes, rather than anything to do with a violation of some unwritten rule. Your comm already has rules regarding article quality, misinformation, and off-topic posts and comments that could be used as a justification here if it applied. If there was a problem with the volume of posts for which he was responsible (i think this is the legitimate concern here), then you could either call it spamming or there could easily be a rule added limiting the number of posts per day that applies globally and isn’t reliant on subjective judgement.

    I’ve been very vocal about my own political opinions, and have myself been accused of bad-faith trolling and of being a covert agent of some type or other. Speaking for myself, I think there’s a pretty obvious bias (maybe preference is a more fair term) when it comes to the coverage and rhetoric about the upcoming election in the US specifically. There’s legitimacy to the observation that inconvenient bad press about Biden is ignored/rationalized/dismissed on a ‘lesser evil’ and ‘at all costs’ political rationale that I (and I think ozma) tend to react negatively to. Breaking through the iron curtain of electoral politics to people who genuinely share political values (not all of them, mind you) sometimes involves repeated reminders and presentation of counter-partisan coverage. I personally appreciate ozma’s contributions because often these posts and articles encourage real discussions about the limitations of this particular politician, and people like @mozz@mbin.grits.dev frequently jump in and provide nuanced dissection and context to what would otherwise be an easily dismissed issue.

    This is not my instance so It’s not up to my judgment what the right or wrong thing to do is here, but .world being an instance that has already de-federated with most others with louder left-leaning politics, the overton window has already been considerably narrowed. By removing the loudest dissenters (who are ‘not wrong, just assholes’), you run the risk of warping reality for those who don’t care enough to confront coverage they might find uncomfortable and might prefer a more quiet space to affirm their politics instead of being challenged. You’re cultivating an echo chamber simply by cutting out the noise you find disagreeable. The goal of agitation is to get exactly those people to engage more so that we can move the overton window further left and accomplish more at the electoral level in the future. It isn’t ‘bad faith’ to be motivated by that goal, it just might be unfair to people who are comfortable with where that window currently is and would rather not be challenged by it moving further left.