-26
Rashida Tlaib declines to endorse Harris
(www.politico.com)
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 02 Nov 2024
-26 points (30.9% liked)
News
23296 readers
1034 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
there's a typical sneaky bullshitter strategy that sneaky bullshitters always use (i am using "bullshit" according to the wikipedia definition so it is civility, there's no other way to communicate the idea). the strat is this: sneak an assumption in and treat it as a fact. then, start an argument about an unrelated thing. nobody argues about the assumption. kapow! the sneaky bullshitter has just sneakily pushed a bullshit idea and gotten away with it. can you find the assumption, internet posters?
It's called "presupposing a frame", and Innuendo Studios did a really good piece about it here.
I'm familiar with what that is. I just don't think I'm doing that.
I didn't say you are, nor was I responding to you. I was giving them the term they were trying to define.
Are you saying you don't think Rashida Tlaib is one of the Democratic party's own? Or that disinformation from the Russian government is real? Because I strongly disagree with the first one but strongly agree with the latter.
Side note: rhetorical questions are frequently very unhelpful for forthright communication.
Since this is down in the bad comments zone and my attempt at getting people to play "find the assumption" has failed I'm gonna just answer this (also I looked at your post history and you seem to be a real human). "I can’t wait for Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset." "Democrats to accuse one of their own of being a Russian asset." "Democrats" "If you can solve the multiple choice question of which of the four candidates to vote for, you are a centrist/liberal (in the leftist sense)/duopoly/two-sides-of-the-same-coin-boi. No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset, so if you do, I am drawing myself as the Chad Leftist and you as the Soyjack Centrist" It's the kind of openly silly opinion that, if you say it openly, people laugh at you, so OP simply assumes it and attempt to change the subject before anyone notices, thus normalizing it. A person not pushing an agenda who writes like a normal person would probably say "I can't wait for you dumbdumbs/Lemmy to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset" or more likely just not bring it up at all. People are gonna accuse me of being silly but there's simply no reason to bring it up and phrase it that way unless that's what you're attempting.
Ok, if I'm interpreting you correctly, you're saying it would be absurd to call Tlaib a Russian asset, but no one has actually done that, and OP's preemptive accusation that Democratic party spokespeople and/or us dumbdumbs will say that is a concealed and unfounded accusation? Because that I think I agree with (at least the unfounded part, I don't know if there was intent to conceal or if this was just a clumsy but good faith effort at expressing an opinion you and I disagree with).
On the other hand, if you're calling a Palestinian American lawmaker a Russian asset (e.g. unAmerican, fifth columnist, etc., which is all xenophobic John Bircher crap I've got no patience for) I've got a really strong disagreement with you, but it seems like that is the opposite of what you're saying.
Are you saying that I'm (sneakily) assuming that's it's ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset? (I'm not trying to paraphrase you, I'm just genuinely not exactly sure of what you're saying.)
I do believe it would be ridiculous to accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset. I am not being sneaky about that. I will openly say it. Here, listen to me say it:
No leftist/proper radical/cool tough guy who is very cool and tough like me would ever accuse Tlaib of being a Russian asset.
Are you calling me sneaky?
look no offense but I'm speaking to the people you're attempting to influence (mods removed a slightly different phrasing of this for civility reasons, let's see if removing a key phrase is good enough)
If you think I have snuck in an unwarranted assumption, you should say what you think that is. Surely it would be to the benefit of the people you are speaking to.
(Or are you just broadly casting aspersions that you can't substantiate?)
Look I'm gonna engage with this for the benefit of people watching. I'm not engaging in personal attacks as you're attempting to imply. I don't want to "own" you in a debate. I want the people reading this to look more critically at the opinion you're trying to insert without directly saying, so that they're better inoculated against this kind of stuff in the future. Just saying "you opinion bad me good" doesn't do that! Of course if you wanted to have a truly gigantic brain and "own" me you could openly name the assumption you're trying to push, and show it isn't an assumption (which is your job to do as the person making the argument, by the way, unless you're a "prove there's no bigfoot anywhere" type individual)
What opinion am I trying to insert?
I literally have no idea what assumption you're talking about, and I'm starting to suspect you don't either.
I'm not continuing until you reply to the top comment in your post.
Which comment? Perhaps you could link to it.