Goldmage263

You haven't met some of my coworkers.

Maybe not fired for a first offense. That's a bit extreme imo.

In a different scenario, what would you think if it was UPS or another private company worker instead of federal?

It is a complex issue and deserves a full conversation. It's hard to say what I would do in her shoes, but it probably would be to copy a personal letter a bunch of times. The context of the letter would, of course, be a general warning about circulating hate speech mail trying to misinform people, and be wary of what you read.

I'm not who you asked, but I often think of supression tactics against forms of free speech used in the US that some countries in the EU do less. Not all of them (UK online speech policing and arrests as a counterexample), but voter supression, union busting, and law enforcement response to protests have been handled in various countries in ways I consider more free for the citizens.

TLDR: Intimidation tactics and biased response happens less in other countries.

Controlling media and having a fact-checker pop up are two different things. Let people spout their nonsense, but flag sources of misinformation as unreliable.

Very interesting "democracy or philosipher-king" point, though maybe another option in between is possible. I believe it is people's responisibility to self govern and that noone has the right to take that away. I don't want people to be told what to think, but I also don't trust them in our current system. I'm saying we need an apolitical tool for flagging lies to help people not accept everything that fits their current worldview. Also, on your point later in the comment chain, I firmly believe elected officials should be suspended and imprisoned if they call for violence and then someone else performs that violence. Rhetoric has power and using that irresponsibly shouldn't go unpunished. Majority rule with respect to the minority is my most important principle.

Nah bruv, as an american, the people are too dumb to not need some sort of protection from hate speech and ideas. A fact checker needs to be a mandatory public service at this point. I feel the same way about the homeless bum who shouts at everyone downtown that their participation in consummerism is destroying everything. If they called for violence, it would be a step too far.

Ahh, thank you for clarifying. Your point didn't come across clearly the first time. Most people do only vote for their political party. I don't agree that it is the prime reason, and there is probably analysis on key issues and primary involvement that could show why people don't vote split tickets, but it would be nice if we could openly criticise candidates we plan to vote for without it being used destructively online. Tribalism is at it's peak with social media.

I have no clue why you chose to point at OP's opinion to claim their thinking is flawed. They clearly have put thought into this post instead of just planning to vote for who has the "right color banner" and are asking for reasons why someone would vote Trump. Why not point out the "slew of baggage" with Harris that would sway you or someone you know to vote for Trump instead of just listing something undistiguishing and then going non sequitur? I'd love to hear it as well tbh.

Rhetoric about scapegoats that distract people from the real causes of their issues, a cult of personality, and lots of money. Additionally, a lot of his voters thought he started to expose the truth behind how things actually run in the government instead of seeing how he is playing them for fools just as much (or more than) other politicians. Mostly though, it's the money.

Not feeling like that proves selective outrage, as Trump would support and likely increase involvement with the genocide.

I like this one, but I've heard the term whales for gaming communities. Hobby whale is probably my go-to