News
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. 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.
view the rest of the comments
Outrage should be reserved until it’s known what’s on the bill. It was drawn up by conservatives- I’d wager its purpose is to disenfranchise far left voters.
Anything drawn up by conservatives will be worthy of outrage. They're not going to magically stop being monsters.
That's what the Schumer's bill already was, which I guess Biden wants them to pass instead of separate single-issue bills. At least with separate bills, you could reject one or two and save billions.
Soooo exactly like the Inflation Reduction Act?
This is a straight up admission of being close minded. don't get me wrong, one should be highly suspicious for the reason you state, but rejecting something you don't even know about yet is the exact opposite of being a critical thinker.
Being gullible is also the exact opposite of being a critical thinker. And it is being very gullible to somehow still let the Republicans benefit from your doubt, despite knowing exactly why they are why they are and why they have been doing what they have been doing for decades now. All the while knowing that the factors which makes them that way has only increased the last couple of years.
But then again you are not really being gullible, are you, you are just being disingenous.
This is the same type of argument I come across when debating against COVID disinformation and climate change: politicians and/or scientists were wrong/exaggerated some things in the past, so that gives me the right to reject the facts now.
When were really hate a group of people, usually the reason is that we are much more like them than we are willing to admit.
Ive given the GOP rhetoric plenty of tine to simmer. I was born and raised in it.
It's bullshit. It's a pyramid scheme cult.
No matter what the words say, the agenda is unchanged.
Okay you reject their worldview. What does this have to do with my point?
You claimed the reason we don't trust them now is hate, hate that blinds us.
My point is the reason we don't trust them is historical evidence.
No I didn't. I said that when we hate a group of people it's usually because we are more like them then we are willing to admit.
Can't debate the point, attack the character. lol
In the other post you are telling me I'm just parroting. . .and here you're talking about how you're just following the herd around. Hilarious. You think you see yourself in me, but it's really just yourself you hate.
The scale is inconsequential when it comes to ignoring facts because you believe someone lied to you in the past. The fact that this needs to be explained is kind of embarrassing.
"Yes, the boy has cried wolf every day for the past decade. But it's pretty close minded to think there probably isn't a wolf this time."
As I said in the other post, this is literally the same argument I hear from climate change deniers.
When were really hate a group of people, usually the reason is that we are much more like them than we are willing to admit.
We don't so much hate them as we are tired of the same old predictable pattern of behavior.
I would like to interject here just to say that I do indeed hate them.
Lol the top level comment, to which I am responding, literally calls them monsters.
It's completely fair to reject anything they propose until it is clearly shown not to be bad. It is also fair not to examine everything in great detail and assume it will be bad until shown otherwise, because the track record is so strong.
It doesn't mean being unwilling to listen to evidence, but it does mean not being willing to put in the effort to check it over without a strong reason to think that it might actually be different this time. Because they can and will put out a torrential deluge of crap just to exhaust people's ability to critically analyze all of it.
This is moving the goal posts. The top level comment says it will be bad, now you are saying that it might not be bad and we should be open to it being good...but that it's just hard to give everything full critical analysis because there is so much.
We are not all that far off from each other, I just think it's better to hold no opinion in those situations. It's okay to not have an opinion on something while also being highly suspicious of it.
But I think you may agree with me that claiming it will be bad is close minded.
they are just the opposite of conservatives who reject everything liberal or democrat
Republicans: *bigoted slurs*
Non-Republicans: Republicans are bigots.
You: Both sides are equally bad.
The poster didn't say both sides are equally bad, they said the close minded people who reject everything because it comes from a Democrat are exactly the same as the close minded people who reject everything from Republicans. And they are absolutely right.
True, they just forgot to mention there are more conservatives than liberals like that
Do you have anything to back that up or is it simply that you want it to be true, so you'll assume it's true?
Putin bot, chat GPT. You really do have all of the childhood empty insults down. You should be proud of your intellectual abilities, they are truly awe inspiring. lol
um. i think you replied to the wrong person. i have no clue what this has to do with my comment
lol right to insults. wow.
my original comment 1) didnt mention republicans 2) didnt mention bigoted words and 3) did not compare "both sides as equally bad"
how exactly am i an idiot?