566
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
566 points (100.0% liked)
politics
23457 readers
2578 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I can understand both sides here.
On the one hand I have empathy with him like with any victim of such a life-altering injury and wish him a swift and full recovery. I don't want people to suffer and, quite frankly, "the brain doesn't work right anymore" is one of my personal horror scenarios.
On the other hand this kind of behavior is a huge problem in someone capable of making decisions that can alter the lives of other people – millions of them, in this case. He has enough power to ruin a lot of people's lives, intentionally or not.
Even as someone who isn't impacted by his mental fitness in any way, I'd agree that removing him from office seems like a good move. That man needs rest, not the stress of a high-profile political office during interesting times. And his state needs someone with a level head, which doesn't mesh well with a semi-recent traumatic brain injury.
And, well, this is a politics community so guess which part the discussion will focus on. (Also, this is online so people are inclined to be assholes.)
This is a reasonable position. I just don't think saying calous and cruel things then justifying it by saying "it's online" is a good excuse. You can think someone is wrong and causing severe harm without also hating them, vilifying them, etc. Some people are cruel so it's fair to be cruel back to them, but I don't think anyone can fairly look at Fetterman and think he actually intends to hurt people.
Oh, please don't take that remark as an excuse or endorsement. The intended tone is one of resignation – pseudonymity reduces the social cost of bad manners to near zero and there's not much we can do about it.
I will forgive people for being blunt in their criticism, however. High-ranking politicians are exactly the people who have to be able to take a certain level of verbal abuse since their decisions can change other people's lives in directions that justify the liberal use of expletives.
Which plays back into my perception that Fetterman is currently not suited to his role.