this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
572 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3950 users here now

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

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nope, that’s the video. Like seriously. That guy is fucking unintelligible. Am I taking crazy pills here?

Like I’m Canadian dude, I don’t even have a say over there, but if it means anything to you for context, I’m an NDP voter here.

And yeah yeah I get it. He’s a real piece of shit. I’ve never heard of this organization.

Tell me you’ve never misheard someone in a loud environment and just nodded and moved on. I won’t believe you. I’m not saying he does or doesn’t agree, I’m just saying it’s a good enough argument for them and you’re not going to get anywhere with that.

I said he was egging him on by saying that and that’s the real thing to be upset about. Is there a typo in one of my previous comments I should fix?

Overemphasizing the importance of the thing with plausible deniability while ignoring the undeniable fact that he’s biased as fuck - which are both on display in that video - will not change anyone’s mind. Making me the bad guy for suggesting we shift focus to that just allows them to keep doin it.

I was just making a stoned joke about the moron’s inability to speak clearly and now I’m a Nazi. I’m having a great day thanks for asking. How’s yours?

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Am I taking crazy pills here?

Yes. Flat out, yes you are. I'm from the US, and I understood him perfectly. He even said it twice to make sure you got it.

Tell me you’ve never misheard someone in a loud environment

It wasn't a loud environment, it was outside the rally, standing in line, the guy was clearly audible, which is why the "reporter" volleyed back and forth with him, and encouraged his rhetoric TWICE. Once by adding a list of political enemies, and the second time agreeing we should "kill em all".

I haven't called you a Nazi, I'm just stunned by how happy you were to claim the reporter was totally misunderstood even though it's clear as day in the actual video that he wasn't. He said what he said, you attempted to defend him, realized your mistake, but then also kept defending him for some reason.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Maybe it’s a regional thing. I watched it again and I can not for the life of me hear “kill ‘em all” without really thinking about it. Either time.

It’s still loud in lineups outside loud events. He was audible to us because he had a microphone right in front of his face.

No, I know you haven’t called me a Nazi. I’m not defending him I’m just amazed that no one seems to be able to acknowledge that yes, sometimes people do just agree with things so they can move on.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let me ask you some questions.

  1. Is it plausible in your mind that a person going to a Trump rally in 2023 might say "kill 'em all" about political adversaries given all the other instances of the exact same thing being said we've seen over the past 6 years?

  2. Is it plausible in your mind that the reporter representing an intentionally right wing news outlet that mentioned "leftists" and "globalists" to the person he was interviewing might share the same sentiment?

If you can answer yes to those, then I really don't know what you're defending here. The video was crystal clear, that microphone wasn't picking up all kinds of hooting and hollering, it was a dude interviewing another dude. The simple fact that the reporter egged him on and then agreed with "kill 'em all" should have made you question your position immediately. Like, that's not even a dog whistle, that's a clearly audible call for antisemitism and anti-left politics.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Yes and yes.

Did you miss the part where I specifically said that those mics are specifically designed to pick up voices in only one direction for the purpose of picking up voices in loud environments?

What the fuck is even happening here? I completely agree with you except that I’m like, “yeah it was loud 🤷🏻‍♂️” and I’m a monster for that?

I am truly dumbfounded. Disgusted, even.

You’re purposely ignoring huge chunks of my comments to make me a bad guy.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm simply wondering what exactly you're even arguing anymore. You've got two people in this video agreeing "kill 'em all". What's your concern? You caught downvotes because everybody but you seemed to pretty clearly see what the interviewee and interviewer were agreeing about. You were corrected, you edited your comment a couple times, but kept pushing the idea that maybe the reporter didn't know.

Now you see that they did in fact know. Don't bother keep defending the reporter, we know what he said and what he meant by it. You're the only one here that was confused by it.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not defending anybody. I never was. I was just saying that yeah, seems like it could be pretty loud. Maybe it was a misunderstanding, so let it go because you’ll never win that argument with the people who watch this garbage.

However there are other shitty things in this very same video you could nail him for if you’re actually involved in an ongoing conversation with someone who you’re trying to turn from this way of thinking. Which I am.

So I don’t give a fuck if he meant or not. That’s not the ammunition I’m going to use when I have to once again talk to my brother who is balls deep in this bullshit.

But you’re so fucking desperate for a gotcha that you’re looking for an enemy anywhere you can find it. You’re playing right in to the divisionary tactics.

You think I came in here with an agenda. I did not. I had no idea who this guy is or what his organization is.

I’ve explained myself enough. You’re not having a discussion in good faith and I don’t think I’m out of line to tell you to fuck off at this point. So fuck off.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure got sensitive. I'm over here wondering why you were making excuses for the reporter in post after post, and you're over there complaining about "tribalism" and downvotes. In a post about a guy calling for death to political opponents. Then you came back with the classic "two sides" argument, which is when I think you knew you'd just resigned yourself to this.

You talk about me not having a discussion in good faith, I think if you go back and read my comments to you, you'll see I asked pretty simple questions and tried to figure out why you're so desperate to die on the "maybe he didn't hear right" hill when he demonstrably did. And so did everybody else but you. I' not looking for a gotcha or anything else, I'm trying to figure out why that one particular thing has you twisted in knots when it's so incredibly clear that the reporter heard, understood, and agreed with what the interviewee said. It's just weird thing for you to still be defending when there's so much evidence that this guy didn't make a mistake. He only apologized because he got caught.

Anyway. I see your feelings are raw over this. So. Bye.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Don’t care. You’re picking and choosing what you want to hear to make me a villain. Yeah that’s kind of fucking annoying. Your tribe has decided that I’m the enemy so I am to you. Nothing I say will change that. And yeah. It’s fucking annoying and pointless to continue.

Now fuck off. You’re a fucking loser. I hope a bird shits on you.

[–] drdabbles@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only one of us resorted to name calling and having a tantrum. So, I guess enjoy the block list.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m not looking for any parting words. Fuck off.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m sorry to interject, but is it a normal response to blurt out a list of people and groups when you don’t understand what is being said?

When you’re at a party, and someone says something you can’t hear, have you ever just blurted out the names of people at the party?

I don’t understand your thinking here. He either heard him and agreed, or didn’t understand him and decided the best course of action was to just list out names of the opposition. Only one of those makes any sense.

And I have to say, when I heard this without a primer, I fully understood what was being said. As did my wife.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I’m really not interested in discussing this any more. I get it I’m a terrible person. You can find your answer in one of the many comments I’ve already made. I’m done explaining myself to a bunch of people who aren’t willing to listen.