this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
346 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22655 readers
4869 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 39 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's pointing out how much of a hypocrite he is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Honestly it makes it feel like that’s the most relevant part of the matter and I don’t care for that. It’s wrong because it’s wrong, not because he’s being a hypocrite. That’s secondary and propping up his kids as if that’s what makes it wrong doesn’t seem like the best approach to me.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It kind of is the most relevant part of pointing how and why he's a hypocrite.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So is the problem that he’s being racist defending another racist for racist remarks or that he’s a hypocrite? Because one is definitely worse to me than the other.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It's both, in combination. He's being racist, and he has kids with an Indian woman. Leaving out that part would be a glaring omission to the story.

It's very much like the stories of the Republicans who want to make abortion illegal, which is bad enough, but it's monumentally worse when it turns out they've had or paid for abortions.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago

Yeah I think it’s because it kinda implies he doesn’t see his kids as being welcome to both of their ethnic heritages. And from what I’ve heard from half white friends it’s an awkward thing they often experience. Like I had a friend growing up who everyone was willing to acknowledge that he’s Filipino, but nobody was willing to acknowledge that he was equally hillbilly.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Once again, one is definitely worse than the other. The headline makes it sound like this hinges on his having biracial kids. That’s not the right message

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think you're the only one taking it as "hinging on." Most people are taking it as "Person is against X but also chose X" (where X itself is a bad thing). Headline makes it clear he's both a racist and a hypocrite. Both are important to know.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If the thought occurred to me then I’m probably not the only person who thought, which means it’s a valid critique of the headline.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's an impressive way of sticking to your guns when everyone is disagreeing with you. "If I thought it then others did, so I'm not wrong."

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It’s not a matter of being “right” or “wrong.” If a headline causes ambiguity or people to question the thrust then it needs to be improved. It’s not a yes/no situation. It’s an iterative process. You’re the one trying to make this a binary.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So never call these assholes out is what you're saying.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I’m not sure where you got that from but don’t let that stop you from going after me. Let it out

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're defending him by telling everyone not to point out how he's a hypocrite. That's where I got it from.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Please read the other conversations I’ve had with far more reasonable people capable of engaging in nuance.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Your problem is the headline. And you've now tried arguing against it many many times. You've even said multiple times that "I don't know why".

That's ridiculous. If you're that shallow I could care less about what you've said with other people while you, let my my notes here... ah yes. While you've criticized just the headline and nothing from the article, which I'm 100% sure you haven't even bothered to read.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

1 - I did read it, and asserting I didn’t when you have no evidence is shitty. But why let evidence or sources get in the way of an Internet hissy fit?

2 - You seem to care enough to keep responding, but you also strike me as the kind of person who really, really values having the last word. Let’s see what happens!

Personally I’m out and will be blocking you either way. Have a nice life, truly. That is the only non-sarcastic part of this comment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Block away sweet ignorent princess. Block away.