this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2025
242 points (100.0% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

7001 readers
63 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. If the reason your post meets Rule 1 isn't in the source, you must add a source in the post body (not the comments) to explain this.
  4. Posts should use high-quality sources, and posts about an article should have the same headline as that article. You may edit your post if the source changes the headline. For a rough idea, check out this list.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
  8. All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
242
Trump voter surprised trump is doing exactly what he said he would do (www.bbc.com)
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

During his brief unemployment, he explored opportunities flying for a private firefighting company – and still would not rule out leaving NOAA. He remains angry that fellow veterans were caught up in the layoffs.

He backed Trump due to the president's commitment to the rule of law, he said, but now Mr Ripp thinks Trump is flouting the correct procedures for reducing the federal workforce.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't know I've though about "rule of law" quite that way before. I'll have to add it to my list for when it comes up. There are several other terms that mean different things to different people (I wish I remembered a specific one to demonstrate). Its one of the reasons its hard to have political discussion online. You have to determine what the words your using mean, before you can start arguing the points.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

"Its one of the reasons its hard to have political discussion online. You have to determine what the words your using mean, before you can start arguing the points. "

This notion isn't one that's new to me, but for some reason, the way you've phrased it here is evoking some interesting reflection for me: I think that some of my most productive online arguments have been when the contention is what words mean. For example, when a transphobic statement is made by someone who is actually just an oblivious cis person, I've found that a "semantic calibration" can get at the root cause of their problematic statement (the hard part is discerning whether a person is genuinely engaging in good faith vs. being an asshole with plausible deniability. I don't always get it right, but people usually reveal quite quickly whether they're worth engaging with).

There have also been times when I have had the outsider's view of someone else's discussion as involving people talking past each other by using the same words to mean different things. Sometimes, I've found it possible to wade into an ongoing discussion and diffused a lot of tension by clarifying these definitional problems.

On the flip side, it's often not worth it to engage in political discussions online if it's apparent from the outset that it would just be too much work to clarify everything because you recognise that you're coming at the topic from a completely different direction than the person you're considering talking to.