222

Democrats spent the last year asking where their Joe Rogan was. Hasan Piker is one of the few left-wing figures with the audience they covet — but the party is deeply hostile to the spontaneity and independence that make figures like him appealing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PapaSkwat@lemmy.wtf 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yep. And let's not forget, just as recently as a year ago, Lemmy would ban people for saying "both parties suck." And anyone who supported third-parties were pounded on and called russians and nazis. That still happens, but not as much anymore, thank goodness.

Finally more and more people here are starting to come around to realizing that neither the democrats nor the republicans want to help us plebs.

Both parties do suck and as long as people keep shooing away third-party voters, they'll continue to suck. Remember guys, the only reason third-parties are weak is because you all refuse to support them.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Yep. And let's not forget, just as recently as a year ago, Lemmy would ban people for saying "both parties suck." And anyone who supported third-parties were pounded on and called russians and nazis. That still happens, but not as much any more, thank goodness.

Yeah, because context matters. The political environment when you're in the middle of the general election and infighting accomplishes fuck-all except to help the enemy is entirety different from the one when it's time to find new primary candidates and there's an opportunity for dissent to actually serve a useful purpose.

[-] PapaSkwat@lemmy.wtf 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The political environment when you’re in the middle of the general election and infighting accomplishes fuck-all

So do you agree with the censorship we had back then? Do you think it's ok to call people nazis, russians, and racists, just because they didn't support either of the two major parties?

I'm assuming you don't, but that was happening. And not just to me.

Dude, I had a guy DM'ing me telling me he was going to find out where I lived and post it on Lemmy so I could "find out what happens." Even tho that is against pretty much every single instance rule of any instance. All because I didn't think Harris was a great choice and I didn't think she could beat Trump.

Guess what? That guy is still on lemmy, and has a huge fucking list of bad shit in his mod history. But he's still here. Lemmy didn't care at all that he did that, and felt it was fair play, because I said both parties suck. Or as they like to make fun of back then: "bOtH PaRtIeS!"

I don't care what political environment was going on, trying to censor and get rid of people who weren't 100 percent on the Democrat Train back then was wrong.

Not only that, I feel vindicated. I see lots of people openly saying the same stuff now that I was saying then. And now it's not so taboo. But does that mean we're gonna have the same censorship in 2028? And if so, will be ok?

I'm not being snarky, I'd really like your opinion.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

So do you agree with the censorship we had back then? Do you think it’s ok to call people nazis, russians, and racists, just because they didn’t support either of the two major parties?

First of all, being called out isn't "censorship." You haven't given any examples of being censored (i.e. having your comments deleted by the mods or admins); you've only complained about how other users treated you.

Second, There were exactly two reasons to advocate against voting for Harris, once she was the candidate:

  1. The person doing so was an enemy of American democracy (e.g. a nazi or Russian) who was deliberately concern trolling to help Trump win.
  2. The person was too damn stupid to understand the game theory of how the election worked, effectively acting as a useful idiot for the above.

In other words, those labels were accurate because such people were materially helping the nazis, Russians, and racists.

Dude, I had a guy DM’ing me telling me he was going to find out where I lived and post it on Lemmy so I could “find out what happens.” Even tho that is against pretty much every single instance rule of any instance. All because I didn’t think Harris was a great choice and I didn’t think she could beat Trump.

Guess what? That guy is still on lemmy, and has a huge fucking list of bad shit in his mod history. But he’s still here. Lemmy didn’t care at all that he did that, and felt it was fair play, because I said both parties suck. Or as they like to make fun of back then: “bOtH PaRtIeS!”

I agree that doxxing you is not okay and that he should've been banned for it.

But you're either confused or not telling the whole story, because there is no such thing as "Lemmy" as a monolithic entity that can have a single opinion like that. You're actually talking about the decision of one admin of one instance, but attempting to crucify everyone on the entire network for it. (Or at least, everyone who doesn't conform to your particular viewpoint, which is a bit ironic for somebody complaining about being censored.)

Not only that, I feel vindicated. I see lots of people openly saying the same stuff now that I was saying then.

Because NOW it's appropriate! BACK THEN it was objectively a mistake, and the passage of time does not retroactively change that!

But does that mean we’re gonna have the same censorship in 2028?

In 2028 -- if we even have free and fair elections at all, because that's how catastrophic your preferred outcome has been! -- I will be there begging, pleading and screaming for you to quit trying to help the fascists by telling people not to vote for the candidate opposing them. And it will continue to NOT BE CENSORSHIP because that's not what censorship is.

load more comments (11 replies)
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2026
222 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29823 readers
2106 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS