705
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 07 Mar 2024
705 points (100.0% liked)
News
23267 readers
2755 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What do you call it when an incumbent wins his primary against same party challengers if not re-elected?
I mean, the Clown with Short Bowels is being annoyingly pedantic, but they're not wrong.
I would personally go with "The Party's Chosen Candidate" but I understand that's pretty wordy.
I feel that with the general turmoil of US politics in recent years, providing correct information is becoming increasingly important. How are people supposed to take part in a system they don't understand?
Even if OP was saying it flippantly, the next person reading it may not know that.
I agree, but unfortunately being a pedant can be annoying, even to other pedants.
Accuracy is indeed important, but that's not going to make humans, you know, stop being human and stop responding emotionally instead of thoughtfully. Humans are gonna human and damn it if they aren't irrational beasts. I should know, I am one.
Not sure that I agree that using the correct term is pedantic. Saying he was reelected on Tuesday is a factually inaccurate statement. He became the nominee or candidate.
Via Cambridge Dictionary.
Sorry, but quibbling about the correct terminology for what someone is called after a primary election firmly falls under "too much attention to small details," when that wasn't the point being made.
The original point that was being made was about how clearly a lot of people are happy to vote in the same people who failed their children. That point is proven whether he was fully elected or just a candidate, because it means a non-insignificant portion of the population voted for him.
We're in a derail about whether the person talking about it is using the right terminology, and we've lost the plot of the original point which is that a lot of US citizens are happy to vote for people who fail them again and again and again. Which was proven by him being a nominee/candidate, he didn't need to be fully elected to prove that point.
The inability to see that using the right terminology actually doesn't change the point is what makes it pedantic.
Pedantic. I rest my fucking case, man.
Correcting a factually incorrect statement isn't fucking pedantic. Considering an election is what put this asshat in power, it seems like very relevant information to the post and topic broadly.
If I want to be pedantic I can drill down into a dictionary definition (actually pedantic btw) and make my point too.
If you say someone is pedantic, you mean that they are too concerned with unimportant details or traditional rules, especially in connection with academic subjects.
Now you're just a pissed off pedant.
They become the nominee or candidate.