367
Trump win means ‘time has come’ to annex parts of West Bank, Israeli minister says
(www.washingtonpost.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
367 points (98.2% liked)
World News
39019 readers
3188 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do so many "moderates" insist on acting like the politically engaged people they run into online are the same people who are were so politically disengaged this year that they just didn't vote?
Like, could you please explain the thinking that someone wouldn't vote and then keep spending free time talking about it?
It's not just you, and you're not the first one I asked.
But everyone else just down votes me for asking and never respond.
Well here's a comment from someone I was talking to that was politically engaged yet arguing that folks might as well not vote.
I'm not going into the thinking behind it, but it's certainly happening.
Being politically "engaged" on Lemmy doesn't mean much in terms of ensuring voter participation. I've seen plenty of folks with a "democrats have to earn my vote" sentiment. That very much seemed to play out given the much lower voter participation for Democrats this year.
Did you link the wrong comment?
What you linked is just someone saying they can understand why someone who thinks both party's won't help, won't be likely to vote.
I don't read it this way all - there was no conditional on party efficacy and it in fact was an assertion that their lives won't change due to who was elected, which changed the overall statement to read like the working class shouldn't vote.
So, the issue is you're not understanding what people are saying....
You're thinking they said something they didn't and you're getting upset about nothing.
Can you point out where they say "if wage earners think both parties won't help"?
If not, then you're the one selectively interpreting this...
To avoid confusion because it seems likely:
A more indepth response:
What you linked:
They're explicitly saying that the people whom didn't vote, didn't vote because both parties are too similar and won't help. They're saying those people need more than "not trump" to vote D.
I'm struggling to see where your confusion is coming from.
If this still doesn't make sense, can you try asking for clarification in greater detail?
It just seems so obvious to me.
And this isn't a new conversation, we've been having it since 2016, it's been 8 years man... Hell, really 12 because we started seeing the drop in 2012 when we realized Obama wasn't who he said in 08
What aren't you getting about this?
Like, this is the bare bones basics of modern political history in America.... Go back decades and the most likely response from a non voter about why they didn't vote is "neither party will actually help".
You never learned any of this stuff, like, ever?___
You'll notice that's different from
The former is an assertion that all wage earners lives aren't affected by voting therefore they shouldn't bother voting. IF you're a wage earner THEN there's no point in voting".
The latter is understanding a scenario from a potential perspective of a wage earner who doesn't see change being discouraged.
Like you said in your own post,
So this entire slog I've went thru to help you understand...
Is because when someone says:
You take that as a statement of fact and not their opinion because they didn't say:
There is nothing I can do to help you here or with anything else you may have difficulty with in the future.
EDIT: removed a block of text that took all too long to type out because I'm not going to spend more time further arguing the interpretation of someone's comment as if it were religious script.
Quite frankly it hardly matters. You asked for proof of folks politically engaged yet not voting, I shared what I thought constitutes proof. You believe it doesn't qualify, but other folks reading this can draw their own conclusions.
Thanks for keeping the conversation civil - have a good one!
Probably for the same reason so many terminally online "politically engaged" people insist that they're clearly morally and intellectually superior to everyone else despite the fact that all they do is whine about how the "lesser evil" (in just one of thousands of elections, no less) isn't good enough for them.
Maybe if you stopped focusing so much on the negatives, and started promoting positive change, people wouldn't argue with you so much.
So your solution is less criticism of the party? No wonder the Dems never learn.
I think you're confusing me for someone else
I voted D like I always do, so have most progressive on here from what I've seen them say.
What me, and them, have been saying is that Biden and Harris had our votes, but every indication show d they wouldn't get enough to beat trump.
It's fine to be upset about that, we are too. Probably more than any moderate, we're literally losing more than you all, that's why we care.
But what's scary is this has all happened before. Moderates refuse to acknowledge they're unpopular with Dem voters, and rather than reach out to progressives for help reaching non-votera...
You all just seemed obsessed with turning more Dem voters away from the party.
The change we need is better Dem candidates, how the absolute fuck will that happen if we're not allowed to acknowledge we keep running shitty candidates?
Do you even remember how a fair and open primary is supposed to work?
How is one of those ever possible if no one is allowed to criticize the party's favorite?