You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
18 points

So let me get this right: we can’t criticize any position that our side takes because that automatically brands us as posers, right

Nope, that’s a ridiculous strawman. You’re allowed to take any position you want. Just as I’m allowed to have my suspicions when you take positions that make no sense outside of credulity caused by far right gaslighting.

Who else plays this game? Do you see how close to the MAGA crowd we’ve circled back to? They do the exact same game to anyone that disagrees with their narrative (See RINO).

More horseshoe theory bullshit. Even if you WERE right about me (you’re not), equating anything I’ve said with the utterly insane drivel of a literal fascist movement is the kind of thing disingenuous “moderates” and cosplaying Republicans do.

YOU said the video was doctored or taken out of context. But then you never backed that up.

I backed it up by providing the context that the video omits: that he traveled heavily armed across state lines to a peaceful protest in order to shoot protesters, deliberately provoked protesters until some of them tried to stop him and then murdered those protesters.

Those are actual facts that the biased judge ordered stricken from the record because they made it clear that it was all premeditated rather than spur of the moment self defense.

There is no evidence this case was rigged

Yeah there is, see above.

YOU said the integrity of the judicial system can’t be trusted

Yeah, I tend not to trust a system where a biased judge who has no business presiding over a case can just arbitrarily throw out crucial evidence because it doesn’t match his predetermined conclusion and nobody can do anything about it.

I’m kooky like that.

It’s this odd knee-jerk reaction I see here on Lemmy anyone that disagrees with established narratives is automatically branded:

  • Outsider / other
  • Facts become irrelevant

This you?

MUST brand you as something. I can’t engage with someone unless I put a label on them

I didn’t accuse you of bad faith

Not explicitly, no, but your opening comment accused EVERYONE not convinced about his innocence of bad faith, so excuse me if I don’t celebrate your magnificently magnanimous restraint 🙄

I brought the facts of the matter

Nope. You brought your conclusion based on omitting key evidence.

described how similar your rhetoric is to the way elements of the far right manifest themselves

Which, again, is horseshoe theory bullshit. Especially when it’s not even CLOSE to true like in this case.

As a leftie

Give it a rest, Dean. Nobody’s buying it.

all I want to do is combat misinformation

Spreading it is an awfully peculiar way of going about that task…

But just that was enough to get me all the downvotes and labels needed to put me in a box so we don’t have to hear about it.

Nah, you got that for lying and trying to distort reality in order to defend a murderer and then doubling down when corrected.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Actually. Scratch my last comment. I want your advice.

We’ve had disagreements before and every time you seem to go all seem to devolve into the same labeling and accusations of bad faith.

What is the appropriate way to express disagreement or question a mainstream narrative on this platform in such a way I don’t get labeled something (ie the way you did when you called me zionist or Dean browning here). Give me some pointers. I want to get better.

Don’t say vague stuff ( don’t lie etc). Pretend I’m asking in good faith. Actually try to engage with me as if I was a human being.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

We’ve had disagreements before and every time you seem to go all seem to devolve into the same labeling and accusations of bad faith.

That’s usually a sign that you have a tendency to argue in bad faith and to pretend to be something other than what you self-label as.

Give me some pointers.

You want to learn how to argue in good faith? Take a course in rhetoric and one in ethics. While I’m able to argue in good faith, I’m neither inclined nor qualified to teach people foreign to the concept how to.

Pretend I’m asking in good faith.

There’s suspension of disbelief, there’s putting completely justified skepticism aside, and then there’s this. I might as well pretend that you’re the sultan of Brunei or my cat 🙄

Actually try to engage with me as if I was a human being.

I have this whole time. That I’ve called out your dishonesty and misconceptions while doing so doesn’t in any way dehumanize you. Stop being such a Drama Dean.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

Aaaand I just lost all respect for you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

But you go to the bad faith accusation right away. You waste no time. It’s usually 1-2 comments in. As a person on the left, I can never disagree with any of the positions our side takes. It’s absurd. Even here, I’m asking you for genuine advice. Sincerely. From one human being person to another, and the best you can do is “take a course on rhetoric”. You never even gave me a chance.

I never called you out as bad faith. I never labeled you. I never accused you. You still put me down. Your tone is dismissive and derisive. Why? What did I say exactly that triggered this reaction? I"m genuinely curious.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

I never ad hommed. I never labeled you. I never accused you of bad faith.

Yet you felt the need to introduce Dean Browning. Because what? I introduced myself as a leftie? Did you ever stop stop and wonder why I have to put that disclaimer in the first place on this platform? It’s because every discussion seems to devolve into name calling rather then engaging with the matter.

You felt the need the need to accuse me of lying, yet you never provided evidence the judge was biased, the trial was rigged or the video was doctored - all your claims. You provided some context. Neat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I never ad hommed (…) I never accused you of bad faith

Categorically false.

Yet you felt the need to introduce Dean Browning. Because what? I introduced myself as a leftie?

Because you introduced yourself as a leftie and proceeded to spew a bunch of horseshoe theory bullshit often deployed in an effort to dismiss the left as just another color of fascism.

Just like Dean Browning introduced himself as a gay black guy in order to attack a black guy and praise a homophobic party.

It’s not exactly rocket science, dude…

Did you ever stop stop and wonder why I have to put that disclaimer in the first place on this platform?

Yes, and I specifically addressed it: in order to coat your defense of Rittenhouse in a false veneer of impartiality.

It’s because every discussion seems to devolve into name calling rather then engaging with the matter.

Once again exactly what Republicans on Lemmy (and all other platforms that aren’t explicitly fascist, for that matter) always say when their erroneous and transparently bad faith arguments are engaged with.

You felt the need the need to accuse me of lying

Because you were. And because of your absolutist claims based on said lies.

yet you never provided evidence the judge was biased

His actions did that for me. Want me to present evidence that Eileen Cannon isn’t a Democrat too?

You provided some context. Neat.

Congratulations on sneaking in one true detail at the end of your rant of false accusations and bad faith whining. I promise not to tell your handler.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I don’t know man. There’s some barrier and I just can’t reach you. I asked for help. Genuine effort. I don’t know why it’s so hard. If I ever ad-hommed you at any point I’m truly sorry. Do you have an example of me ad-homming you? Take this as a genuine apology. There is absolutely nothing I can say or do to discuss something without having to spend half the time why I’m not a zionist or a conservative. I asked for your advice in how I could improve my rhetoric, and you put me down again. It’s so exhausting.

The only reason I included the mention that I’m on the left is the hope that I would be offered some charitability or grace. But even with that, I had to spend the rest of the conversation defending why I’m not Dean browning. You said the video was doctored. I took that to mean the video was doctored. You said the judge was impartial. I really read that as you saying there is evidence that the judge was impartial or something to support that the case was rigged. Maybe I misread. I really don’t know. Thanks anyway.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

I vote left, and support a bunch of socialist policies… I also am a die hard pro2a supporter…you on the other hand are willfully ignorant because you didn’t like the outcome of a case that had firearms involved, so you went full maga…never go full maga.

Deal with the fact that a large and growing portion of the left in this country is armed and continues to purchase arms.

An armed minority is harder to suppress.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 16K

    Posts

  • 481K

    Comments