this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
396 points (98.3% liked)

politics

31868 readers
3131 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Members of rightwing base disorientated by cordial Oval Office meeting – but not all Trump supporters downcast

A flurry of social media posts from MAGA influencers have laid bare the disorientation felt by members of Trump’s base at the spectacle of Friday’s cordial Oval Office meeting with Mamdani, who the president previously painted as a “communist lunatic”.

“Wild to allow a jihadist communist to stand behind the president’s desk in the Oval Office. Sad to see,” wrote far-right activist Laura Loomer, one of Trump’s most fervent online backers.

She returned to the theme several times. “I had to drink a bottle of ginger ale today after seeing Mamdani in the Oval Office because it physically nauseates me seeing Islamic jihadists infiltrate our government and continue to get a pass to promote Islamic jihad and anti-American values with zero push back,” Loomer wrote.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] thundermoose@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Honest question: where is there a slur in that link? I'm not sure if I'm just missing it or if there's a word I don't know is considered a slur now in there.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] thundermoose@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I didn't see that word in there. I did see something like "stupid sack of shit" but I don't recall seeing that specific slur. Maybe I missed it, can't see the link anymore though.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

It was in the image in the comment that was removed.

[–] MrSmith@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The article talks about using the word specifically when talking about intellectually disabled people / using it to attack the minority.

I think nobody, in the entire lemmy community, is doing that.

If you are just banning the world, the next combination of words that will become a slur will be "intellectually disabled".

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Doesn't matter, it's a slur and not allowed.