140

You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:

I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:

  1. Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?

Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.

  1. Why now?

Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.

  1. Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?

The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.

The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.

Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.

30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.

tl;dr - https://youtu.be/C6BYzLIqKB8#t=7s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] masquenox@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

That's what you call "bad faith engagement"?

Really?

The shitlib push to get everybody to snort your toxic and dangerous fallacious positivity in unison is starting to get really, really overt.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

So…. Someone saying their entire purpose is to share only the negative about Biden wasn’t overt enough?

Seems overt bias is fine with you if it favors your agenda.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm willing to bet they just don't think having a bias is bannable

If I have an issue with the kinds of things someone else is posting, and they haven't actually broken a rule, I either downvote it, argue with them about it, post my own content that represents my own perspective, or all three. I don't cheer for that user to be banned simply because I don't like their bias or agenda

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I cheer because they’re admittedly here in bad faith to spread bullshit. And they are now muted as a result of it.

[-] eatthecake@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The mod even stated that the articles weren't bullshit and please explain how the posting behaviour amounts to bad faith as defined by wikipedia:

Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a sustained form of deception which consists of entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings while acting as if influenced by another.[1] It is associated with hypocrisy, breach of contract, affectation, and lip service.[2] It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception.

Ozma was not being deceptive, pretending feelings or paying lip service. He was honest snd consistent, people just didn't want to hear it.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, he was honest about spreading propaganda. That’s why his ass got booted.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

If what they were spreading was bullshit, the posts themselves would have been removed for breaking misinformation rules.

If what they were spreading was biden's own shit so that you had to smell it instead of ignoring it, I think he was doing you a service and you should be thanking him.

[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I’m not sorry that one of your own was silence for a while. The peace and quiet is going to be memorable to say the least.

The dude admitted to posting in bad faith. So… you really have no argument here at all.

And let’s not pretend that you wouldn’t be the exact same way if you found out a well-known anti-propagandist was banned for a month.

[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I'm sorta startled that admitting to wanting to highlight negative truths over cheering for someone is considered bad faith. Bad faith is misrepresenting an issue, not selectively posting reputable sources. This is one mod decision that I think is wrong and bad.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago

It's going to get worse and worse as November comes around. The liberal hysterics is pretty similar to 2016 - be prepared for more of the same.

this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
140 points (76.9% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2857 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS