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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
People who are in an excited emotional state just aren't going to do well thinking that stuff through.
I'm not immune to it either, I just dont have tiktok or facebook at all to avoid it.
i suppose so, but it literally only takes one "is this actually true?" to check to see if it's true. If people are as "skeptical" as they claim to be about mainstream media, i fail to see how they don't understand that google exists and is useful in the 21st century. Though to be fair, it's harder to use now.
I'm definitely not immune to it either, but i operate on a strictly factual basis, so it's really hard for me to get caught up in propaganda.
Nobody operates on facts alone. Unless you were there when it happened, you have to trust a source to some degree.
Quite a lot of people just say fuck it, if its all varying degrees of shit, I'm not going to listen to any of it.
Thats how word of mouth type stuff ends up on fox news, because even they know a lot of right wing Americans wont trust professional news stories over their neighbors anecdotes.
We might think we use better sources, and check into things more vigorously, but our conclusions still require faith as much as any republicans beliefs.
We still haven't even figured out how to refute religion conclusively, for example. Juries still out on whether religion is fantasy or actual reality, whether we think thats ridiculous or not.
this is true, and i appropriately hedge my positions based on this, you can't make a perfectly accurate statement unless you have 100% of the relevant knowledge, and you won't so you just don't. It's that simple.
As for sources, it's not hard to find reliable sources, you just need to be able to dig around a bit. Scientific research as much as republicans hate on it, still give me faith in humanity so.
this is the problem, people either need to stop doing this, or they need to hedge no opinions at all, i have a couple posts about "people caring too much" and there are many useless arguments i've had over this kind of thing, if people would just, stop caring about most things, it would solve most of these problems, unfortunately people like caring about useless things.
yeah, and this is actually a really good argument for what we're engaging in. It shows that we hedge properly, and that we will concede if we need to, given appropriate information. The problem is that nobody likes to talk like this, and nobody likes to listen to people talking like this.
More people just need to start doing this, it's that simple.
Opinions can be worth a lot these days though, thats why people will offer them up to begin with. I agree it should be far more common to say, "I barely know anything about this, so I have no opinion", but how do you incentivize that socially.
Noone becomes accepted/promoted/famous by admitting they dont know something, but you can do all of those things by putting out half-baked opinions.
I think I have a better example than religion. Famous actors. People often believe they are exactly the same on screen as in real life, despite them telling you they are actors. Its another thing as a society we have not decided on, but theres no reason to hedge your bet in this case I can think of.
this is a hard problem, but theres a lot of research on education and incentivization, the simple answer is to bully and belittle people who blatantly spew falsehoods and baseless opinions, and to prop up people who provide nuance and indepth conversation.
The alternative would be incentivizing this sort of stuff in the media, and the social landscape, which is more ambiguous, but possible. Shit like hasan on twitch would be a bad example of this, other creators like destiny who often garner a lot of criticism from his own viewer-base is a much better example of this. (granted destiny is a quite a bit edgier, but then again hasan spreads terrorist propaganda so eh)
of course it also needs to be socially acceptable for people to retract false statements, or inaccurate statements as well. This is less of a problem, but it also needs to be ok to be wrong, as long as you stop being wrong. That's probably the biggest one, people need to learn how to get over hate boners. The left is REALLY bad at this, at least right now, i think. The right never even tries this to be fair, so they don't get a grade at all lol.
this is true, but you also don't need to say that you know nothing, you just need to properly hedge things, and bring your knowledge and understanding, invite more knowledge and understanding, and promote discussion and conversation around these topics. I think it's more important to talk about things, than it is to care about things, in that aspect.
i really hope they don't because that's pretty scary if they do. Imagine seeing a coworker, who you don't hang out with, and then just thinking "they must only exist within this space of work" it's the meme of "kids think teachers live at school"
i just don't really see anybody watching deadpool, and thinking that the actor is unironically a murderer, though im sure that's not what you mean, i guess i just don't fully understand it lol.
In regards to actors, it's less their actions in a movie and how they carry themselves. Desdpool is actually a good example. Ask friends and family if they think Ryan Reynolds is a good person or not and why. For me the answer is simple, I have no idea mainly because I have never met him.
I agree with your comparison between Hasan and Destiny, although I'm not sure if Destiny has really figured out a repeatable process others could follow. Its been a few years since I listened to his content though, there might be a bunch of copycat Destiny's making content successfully. Keep in mind though even he has limitations, as evidenced by his political campaign in Nebraska.
I'm also concerned that the bully and shame technique will just cause defensiveness rather than a change in perspective. I'm essentially of the opposite perspective though, people need to be able to tolerate being around others with vastly different views without getting aggressive or defensive.
A somewhat absurd example of this is that I think that Israel and Palestine will only ever be peaceful if they accept living in the same country together under equal rights. A one country solution so to speak.
i suppose that makes sense. But that would be pretty weird. Especially when you consider how movies tend to be, either way i would assume that reynolds is probably a decent person, as i do for most people. Perhaps that's a bias in itself, but meh.
post election stream he has been working towards doing things to increase reach within the left/liberal sphere of things. So it sounds like he has some things in the works for that, will be interesting to see where it goes. Hasan naturally has been hating on destiny more frequently now, lol.
maybe, but then the problem is the same one we have now with republicans. If you're good faith, and very tolerant, the republicans will abuse it to no end, until they get what the want, which is the problem we have now, so you have to be very careful, or fight fire with fire, because there isn't really a good solution to stopping all the incessant bullshit they spread constantly.
For me personally it depends on the person, and the topics, but there's a point where you've gone too far, and you're actually delusional, and you should be bullied for it. Or institutionalized, i guess, but that will never happen lmao.
yeah, that ones a hard problem, i honestly have no idea how it's going to be solved, a two country solution seems like the most simple and direct solution to me, with internationally recognized borders. A one state would be nice, but i feel like it's very theoretical, i don't know if either party would agree to that.