this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
390 points (87.6% liked)

politics

31368 readers
2637 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
 

The Democratic Socialists of America pulled its endorsement of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York this week, accusing the progressive congresswoman of being insufficiently supportive of the Palestinian cause and efforts to end the war in Gaza..

Her approach has increasingly strained her relationship with some of the left’s most strident critics of Israel. When she rallied last month in the Bronx with Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Jamaal Bowman, dozens of pro-Palestinian demonstrators angry over her endorsement of Mr. Biden chanted “You’re a fraud, A.O.C.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

See, what someone with an informed political calculus would have done, would have been to support criticism of the incumbent and demand a proper competitive primary 10 months ago while we still had lots and lots of time and bandwidth for it.

Oh, someone with an informed political calculus would never have said "The historical advantages of having an incumbent and the disadvantages of a contested primary against the incumbent, which signals a lack of confidence in the candidate beyond what an ordinary primary entails, mean that the best choice is the current incumbent, since he has already declared he is running." Of course not. What person with informed political calculus looks at stupid things like 'past trends' or 'current polling'?

My view changed because the information available to me changed. I called heads and it was tails. I fucked up. You seem convinced because I fucked up that I'm ready to change my view from "Stopping fascism is good, actually" to "Fascism is okay if it we can show those LIBERALS who's boss!"

If your views only make sense looking backwards, your views don’t make sense.

Fucking what.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

My view changed because the information available to me changed. I called heads and it was tails. I fucked up.

Yes, you did. Repeatedly and loudly, while calling everyone who was absolutely right fascists.

Just like you're doing now.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

My view changed because the information available to me changed. I called heads and it was tails. I fucked up. Y

Its so much more than that. Its that you had a wildly wrong opinion, an opinion that functionally hurt our ability to stop Trump. You had all the information you needed to make the right assessment, but your entire goal with your rhetoric was to shut down any kind of conversation that would allow for that right assessment to be made. It was fucking disgusting and it still is.

If your views only make sense looking backwards, your views don’t make sense.

What it means, is that if your views only predict previous states of the universe but don't generalize to new states of the universe, we should ignore you.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Its so much more than that. Its that you had a wildly wrong opinion, an opinion that functionally hurt our ability to stop Trump. You had all the information you needed to make the right assessment,

"Wow, I think that maybe the actual data might be correct, and that the 'Biden Senile!' line that's been repeated for the past 4 years and not shown itself to be anything but typical GOP barking probably isn't correct; clearly the fact that I made the wrong decision in that light means I should throw away the idea that stopping fascism is bad, and embrace hope that if enough of America licks boots for long enough, they'll get tired of the taste and spontaneously spawn socialist movements across the country!"

What it means, is that if your views only predict previous states of the universe but don’t generalize to new states of the universe, we should ignore you.

And how the fuck are you supposed to determine that BEFORE new states of the universe come about? Do you... do you think prophecy is real or something? Like, this is materialism 101, I shouldn't have to explain this to anyone not trying to cast spells to cure their ailing grandmother - adjusting one's views in the face of new information is how solid theory is formed; that IS how theories advance to the point of being able to predict future events, it doesn't just come fucking birthed into a wunderkind's mind by the blessed seed of knowledge of the universe.