abbenm @ abbenm @lemmy.ml

Posts

15

Comments

205

Joined

5 yr. ago

Moderating

---

What is the insight from your perspective?

Right, this is what it means to have a sober and comprehensive look at the issues that separate the parties. Nobody who says both parties are the same ever seems capable of participating in this type of conversation, they just talk in memes.

I agree that there is an unfortunate bipartisan consensus on national security issues that is normalized bombings.

I would nevertheless say you can find significant differences on foreign policy. And, you can find huge huge huge differences on domestic policy, on things like respect for the rule of law, on the type of people appointed to courts, on economic policy.

So I think you raise a legitimate concern, but then you proceed to completely abuse it by trying to make that concern stand in for the whole of everything that matters about political decisions.

Yeah, I would love to get an inside look at what information led to the decision to publish that report.

Wow, I actually believed in this one. Is there a short text version of what the videos are explaining?

I know you jest, but chill dude.

I was with you, but you completely lost me here. It's also the most bizarre place to rush in and take a side. There's some interesting points being made about whether your vote should have legal consequences, about what it means to be it be disqualified as a candidate versus whether that should manifest in the act of voting.

And, of all the subjects, you're choosing to weigh in in favor of the idea that people should have a blank check to misinterpret statements without correction.

Maybe it's the philosophy major in me, but this degree of casual disregard for truth, and viewing other people's desire for truth as an unwarranted overreaction, it leaves an awfully bitter taste. I go back and forth on how I feel about Lemmy as an offer of hope and improvement upon Reddit, and this is a moment where my optimism fades.

Right, I don't agree that it should be a legal consequence.

I do however think it should be a moral consequence, a judgment visited on those who would cast such a ridiculous vote. The best way I've heard it termed, is that Trump isn't merely unqualified, he's unqualified squared, which is to say, if you think he's fit to be president, then you also aren't qualified.

I'm not so sure you do get it because it seems like you want to hold protesters to the exact same moral judgment, despite agreeing with a factual analysis of how infrequent the most egregious behaviors were.

If you understand that, and, more importantly comprehend it, then that needs to cash out in your moral assessment of what happened, otherwise you have no business saying you agree or that you understand.

If the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference, then the opposite of "I understand" is not "I don't understand", it's "I understand, but still..."

It's comments like this that make me glad Lemmy has a star that lets you favorite them. Thank you very much.

There's so many levels on which it is deeply concerning. One is just on the face value. They actually did storm the capital, the security forces in place seemed ambivalent or perhaps actually complicit to some degree. Nevertheless, numerous people were injured or died.

And then there's everything about the precedent it sets for next time, the excuses and defenses being made of it, and the ways in which those sympathetic to it may prepare to execute on the same idea again in the future, perhaps learning from prior lessons, and perhaps confident that they won't face any legal exposure.

It's a horrifying idea to have been allowed to take root in the form of real physical actions, which are then carried forward in culture to set the stage for future actions.

It could factor in to stuff relating to Israel in the Middle East. Although, like other commenters here, I don't know much about this and I'd like to see some more substantiation.

I've got to disagree here. Well, partially agree partially disagree. I think it's absolutely the case that your example qualifies, making a big deal about representation of Nazis in the armed forces is a kind of big lie that's just getting repeated without any sense of context or proportionality.

But I don't think it's a both sides thing the way you're making it out to be. You're acknowledging that it's Russia being worse than Ukraine, but it's not merely a difference of one being slightly worse, it's a huge part of the Russian narrative, whereas it factors in in no way whatsoever in Ukraine's message to the outside world. Ukraine has made historical analogies, in major speeches and communications to the outside world, but has not made the case that their sovereignty is legitimized due to anything having to do with Nazi representation in the Russian armed forces. It just doesn't at all play an equal role in the moral cases they're making.

Woohoo! Yeah I want Lemmy to succeed, so I think it's good to support the community in little ways where possible.

if you are on the web, you should see three little dots below your post. You can click those, and it will give you a dropdown menu with a delete option.

The court is collectively taking their talents to South Beach.

This feels like a basic misunderstanding of how the fediverse works. There are instances that embody your preferences and you can sign up for them.

One of the most important reasons I believe it is so useful to have a federverse that allows defederating is because ever since 2014 and 2015, and growing since then, there's been a phenomenon of rabid online trolling and hyperpoliticization that's had tendency to take over and destroy whatever pre-existing culture and norms existed, and the people doing it have leveraged bad faith free speech arguments to attempt to expose more platforms to their behavior, often making the same copy paste echo chamber argument that you are right now. I found the people making this argument to be operating from really shallow understandings of what intellectual diversity really means, because these people tend to ignore important components such as the paradox of tolerance, they tend not to believe that trolling or harassment campaigns are real, they tend not to be able to distinguish between "echo chamber" and the high level of discussion that's possible when you found a community based on a common interest or shared set on principles, tend not to understand that you're actually reducing the diversity of ideas by destroying each communities and turning all communities into the same thing, and tend to think of the full range of human ideas is represented in the unfortunately narrow framing of left-right spectrum which is most pertinent in American politics.

And for the fediverse, it calls the bluff perfectly, because for people who are concerned about echo chambers or "exposure to ideas" (yeah, which ones??), such people are able to join an instance that gives them the thing they say they want. But what they really tend to want is unmoderated unfiltered exposure to a captive audience, and the tangled contradictory mishmash of arguments about free speech and being open to ideas are just a means to that end. And so, they tend to be completely empty-handed when you ask them to explain why they feel specific instances need to federate or de-federate, you just get vague nothingburger speeches.

To be clear I don't think that everyone making the argument thinks that way, I think some people are unwittingly doing the work of bad actors without meaning to. It's just that I've seen this argument made over and over, and I feel like there's some sort of boot camp we should all put ourselves through that involves understanding the history and some core ideas, because it could save everyone a lot of time.

Well they aren't blocked at the fediverse level. They are blocked at the instance level which is the fediverse working as designed.

for being such a meanie

Lol. You mean literally engaging in insurrection? This is exactly what internet hippo was talking about in their now famous tweet:

New right wing thing is describing crimes as generically as possible to pretend like they're not crimes. Someone gets convicted of conspiracy and they start yelling "Wow so it's illegal to make plans with friends now"

I'd love to see a whole chart of how various crimes get described in a generic way. Describing insurrection as being a meanie probably something that should be printed in framed and hung up in a Hall of Fame honoring greatest all time excuses for federal crimes.

they don’t vote anyone into any office, as “being the official candidate for party X” is not an government office. So the judge used A14 on an issue where it does not apply to in the first place

The political primary process still falls under electoral law, and state law can be brought to bear on questions of how the primary process is administered. Even the dissenting justices in this case appear to agree that finding of insurrection can trigger the enforcement of Colorado State law to remove someone from the ballot.

So having participated in an insurrection absolutely can be a factor that's pertinent to legal decisions about his eligibility, and in fact it's that very connection that seems to be the entire point of Colorado's state level law disqualifying insurrectionists from electoral office.

I mostly agree with you - Republicans participating in insurrection should be disqualified from seeking higher office, and one of the best weapons to safeguard our democracy is our legal system.