352
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 22 Feb 2024
352 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3335 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is one of the people who has been trying to convince me that Cornel West has a decent chance of being president. Take from that what you will.
And this person talks about the upballot when the subject matter was downballot. He wasn't able to answer how is Cornell West or Jill Stein relevant when it comes to downballot choices of people who refuses to vote for Biden.
yet more poisoning of the well, a form of ad hominem.
You're going to need to explain that.
I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary, and that means picking the downballot that has the most chances along with ones that aligns with ones' view the best. You weren't the person I responded to. And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead. And the subject matter of the alternative wasn't really anything to do with the upballot, and you're not able to give a sastisfactory answer as to how they're relevant to this proposal.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
The argument you provided weren't arguments because they didn't align with the subject proposal at hand which is downballot choices. You came with the upballot. That's not an argument to begin with. And I was making a observation of your responses.
anyone can see exactly what happened and that you are just trying to imply that i was involved in some conversation that i never was.
>I offered an alternative to voting against Democrats, and that is the primary,
and i said "no".
>And then, you decided to talk about the upballot instead.
i never talked about the downballot at all. anyone can see exactly what i quoted, and what i said, and that i'm not getting dragged along into voting for even more democrats.
Of course you didn't. But you responded with upballot instead when the subject matter of the proposal of alternative was to look for downballot. Do I have to repeat that until you get it?
repeat it all you want. anyone can see what happened.
And you're getting downvoted. That tells me maybe, maybe you're on the wrong here?
people just don't like to hear the truth when it contradicts the lies they've chosen to believe
aha..appeal to popularity
prolly just ignoring the irrelevancy of the downballot in the face of losing democracy altogether.
this is classic poisoning the well, a form of ad hominem.
You to me one half hour ago:
https://lemmy.world/comment/7788120
This is not the way to get me to do that.
poisoning the well is a form of ad hominem where you say (or imply) that someone's arguments are unsound because of something else they have said or done. it's prima facie ad hominem because you are attacking the person, not the argument.
do you need help finding the block button?
https://lemmy.world/u/bigmouthcommie@kolektiva.social
it's in the upper right
Let me get this straight, you want me to ignore you, so you expect me to block you?
I think you're going to be very disappointed if that's what you expect.
If you want me to ignore you, I will only be forced to if you block me.
Of course, I sincerely doubt you'll block me because then you won't be able to do things like tell me how I support genocide.
But go for it: Prove me wrong.
>Let me get this straight, you want me to ignore you, so you expect me to block you?
oh, that would be lovely. i can't click the button for you though.
>If you want me to ignore you, I will only be forced to if you block me.
thats not how blocking works on lemmy
Prove it. Block me.
i don't need to prove to you how blocking works. you can try it yourself.
Oh well, guess I won't be ignoring you then.
Not my problem.
I can keep hoping
Another option would be to just never reply to me. In fact, that would be the easiest way for me to leave you alone since you claim you want me to leave you alone.
I bet you can't do it. Anyone else bet they can't do it?
that's not really an option: you inserted yourself into this conversation just to adhom me.
Guess that was just a lie.
blocking you wouldn't stop you from following me around and adhomming me: it would jsut stop me from seeing it and defending myself.
I bet you can't even stop yourself from responding to me in this thread again.
Prove me wrong.