1332
submitted 5 months ago by fukhueson@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] krzschlss@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago
[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 8 points 5 months ago

Man, I'd been ignoring the dread and focussing on the cool parts of the future that are coming, but this thread mamaged to break through my shield and fill me with a decent amount of WW3 dread

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

okay real question for the omega libs here: where do you see people that are like. worth taking seriously, right, that are worth engaging with (maybe that's the major filter that I'm blocking out here since most people seem incapable of choosing who they actually want to engage with), who are the people that are worth engaging with that aren't going to vote for the old zionist rapist guy? I mean, the democractic one? I'm pulling your chain there but like for real, where do you see the opposition that's actually real?

Most of the shit that I've seen, still, is like, people rightfully saying "oh, biden sucks, here's why", and then people bringing up "trump's worse". Like okay, just because I hate pancakes doesn't mean I suddenly love waffles, you know? Food analogy I know I know, but really, like, where's the real opposition coming from? I'm discounting the super pro-biden turbolibs also, because they annoy me with their smugness. So far as I can tell, the people who are fervently anti-biden to the point of like, idiocy, right, weren't going to vote for him basically in any context, regardless of you know like damage control strategies, or the fact that voting didn't take that much effort in totality compared to other activism they might do, or like, oh, could they vote as a protest in a non-swing state that's basically guaranteed commitment to biden already as a kind of protest vote with questionable utility, that sort of thing. Most of the "opposition" I've seen hasn't been actually calculated about any of that, because none of that stuff is really very controversial, or, it shouldn't be. Most of them have just been like, not worth bothering with. Probably not russian bots or trolls like everyone would constantly say, because that's also fucking idiotic, but probably, they're just stupid people who aren't worth wasting your time on.

Basically why the fuck is everyone wasting their time on this like, stupid bullshit? How come every election, in equal measure, I see "vote blue no matter who" imbeciles trotted out in lock step, to shout down at "I will never vote for anyone because I'm a posadist accelerationist" terminally online idiots? There's no nuance or real depth to the conversation, or strategy, it's just like. Both sides can construct a strawman, and then basically get away with it because, on the vastness of the internet, said strawman is guaranteed to exist, especially if I make it kind of a vague ghost that I'm punching at. And then because of that, nobody ever has to actually like, work out any of their arguments in depth, because they're too busy kind of churning forth the cycle of idiocy.

I dunno, maybe digg 3.0 is just not conducive to good political discourse.

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
1332 points (100.0% liked)

News

23215 readers
3040 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.


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