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.
- 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.
- 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
This kind of rhetoric doesn't help resolve anything.
I wasn't trying to solve anything. You can't fix stupid.
That much is obvious. 'Opinion masturbating' in a public square is a thing, apparently.
This kind of rhetoric doesn't help resolve anything.
It helps identify individuals who don't care about making the world a better place, via resolving issues.
Removed, rule 3:
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
Talking on the Internets won't solve much no matter what you say.
Societies self-monitor the people in them.
Even if you don't win, pushing back against hatred is always the right thing to do.
Depends: if something did not get any attention - than push back is contra-productive, since it might just create more attention. If something is already getting than pushing back might be helpful in the bigger picture.
It's not a matter of getting attention or not, it's a matter of challenging the commenter and their opinion on the subject.
The assumption is that it will get attention since it's on/in a public forum.
There is almost no way to convince people with radical opinions in a written discussion. So the push back is not really useful to challenge the opinion of op but of people less radical or neutral who are also reading the comment. But if the comment did not get any traction, there might be a downside in engaging by getting more attention to the comment. And you don't know which side of the argument people in the end will chose - so I would just leave it alone. If I'm not in mood for some flaming.
That is an assumption, and not a fact.
Also, pushing back sends a signal to others in the same Society that there are others that believe the same way as they do, and invites them to push back as well. A society self signals to the members inside of it as a method of forming the meta opinions of that Society.
Hatred should always be pushed back against, no matter how effective the pushback ends up being, and regardless of the aggravation/cost of doing so.
Sure, I would love to hear arguments against it. I personalty would prefer if it wasn't that way.
That is a fair point.
Yeah, like I don't agree with this at all. Not difficult to for me to think of situations where just let it be is the best and ignore it is the best answer.
Well, your next part of your response (see below) actually signals that flexibility in changing of opinion does happen.
Otherwise, my own personal life experiences is contrary to what you stated, as Groucho Marx once quoted, "I can believe you, or my lying eyes." I'm not going to doxx myself though, to prove that point, you'll have to just take my word for it.
It's an important point too.
A lot of times we go through our individual lives seeing things around us as not the way we would want them to be, and wonder if we are the only one who feels that way. Seeing other members in our society believe the same way as we do is a positive uplift to our own lives.
The problem with that philosophy though is that you end up seeing everything as 'not worth it' because human nature is such that you don't want to be bothered to make the effort, and have to deal with the circumstances. Meanwhile, hatred continues to creep into our society more and more, as today's events avidly show.
Sitting on the sidelines doesn't help fix anything. I'm not saying you have to throw yourself in the battle each and every time (tag-teaming is okay) but you should at the very least do so if the effort is minimal. Comment responding on an Internet forum is low effort (at least initially).
Well, that depends if you view my opinion as radical. That was at least what I was talking about - not sure if it was clear or not.
Sure, we than have very different experiences when it comes to online, written debates. Which is absolutely possible - would be interesting to find out why.
Fair point. That I personally tend to overlook since I'm rather a non conformist myself. But I can see how it's in general rather helpful.
I don't see how one necessary results in the other. I can run away if I'm alone at night and there are five Neonazis in front of me - no point in proving them wrong. Does not mean that I won't speak up when I think it's necessary.
Sure, but also a very low form of any actual benefit. But than again, I won't pretend like I know an effective way of fighting against the rise of the modern right. So who am I to judge?
(Emphasis above is mine)
It got us to talk, and share ideas/philosophies, didn't it? I'd say it had a benefit.
Also, there are others who read and do not respond that it may affect, that you would never see the positive benefit of such an interaction of those others.
And as I mentioned before, you don't do it for the rewards, you do it because it needs to be done. Hate should always be pushed back against.
Again, I was talking about specific engaging with radical opinions. I would not consider our conversation an example of such. Would you?
Again, my point is that by engaging also more people will be exposed to the radical point of view, it helps to keep it in the discussion. Which does not mean to never to engage. Like I'm rather selective - I will engage if I think I have a good answer, because I have some knowledge or maybe just a good way of pointing out the absurd. If I see someone talking to crazy shit to them self, with no one around, I will also just go by (if I'm not in the right mood).
That is not the way I think about it.
We still disagree on this one.