180
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
180 points (92.5% liked)
politics
31100 readers
1817 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Youre really leaning into my point. You're going out of your way to equate random shit that has nothing to do with his actions or anything other things he's done, but only that...he said the sports issue was deeply troubling. Nevermind the piece of shit he was talking to, which is way more troubling. Get mad that he was talking to Charlie Kirk of all people.
Did you even read the post linked? This is the subheading: "California’s Democratic governor was once considered an LGBTQ+ ally. So, what’s with the heel turn?"
You don't think that's a bit of an irrational headline? Newsom isnt turning heel, or abandoning a community, or anti-gay/trans/LGBTQ...he's attempting to bridge a communication gap and find common ground with someone is ideological opposite him. It's very clear from listening to this.
There's this sophomoric element in the online world where people latch onto a single example of something they don't like, and immediately rail against it and use it to tout and amplify their own ideas and beliefs by shouting people down. It doesn't work and never has. It creates echo chambers for sure, but it doesn't solve problems or change minds. Talking with people who don't agree with your point of view is the only way to gain an understanding, and possibly shift some views or find some sort of common ground. Civil rights leaders throughout history sure seemed to understand that, but people seem to want to ignore that now. I don't see people jumping all over Jon Stewart for having people on TDS who he clearly does not agree with, as an example.
Charlie Kirk IS a humongous piece of shit, an abuser, a hater of women, and all kinds of other bad shit. Does he have people that listen to him? Yup. Will completely ignoring that and isolating yourself from him and his uncle followers and advance the general politiknor help change any minds? Sure as shit didn't seem to happen in the last election, so...
That's the point... He brought on Charlie Kirk, and rather than, arguing with him... or trying to show his audience why what Kirk has to say shouldn't have a place in the discourse. He basically was looking for something he can agree with and highlighting the good.
That's not how you change minds or find common ground with people who are ideological opposite of you. It doesn't work. We're living through proof of that right now.
News flash... we've been trying the "oh yeah we don't fully disagree, we grant you a bit of what you like, then you grant a bit of what we want", and they respond, "oh thank you for what I want... GIVE ME MORE, oh and your stuff FUCK YOU".
No different than when we caved out obamacare to give into the insane nonstop demands the republicans had for it, but it was worth it to earn... Zero republican votes, 60+ attempts to repeal it.
But less on the policy side lets go on just narrative public speaking types. Next step is the make your case, give a strong arguement for your side. But he's not really doing that, he's bringing the far right on, letting them speak, half the time agreeing, half the time being silent.
But ok, so he's going to mix his guests 50/50, bring on one he agrees with, one he disagrees with, 2/2 right wing... nah doesn't look that way either.
So question is, what's he doing that's different than Joe Rogan at this point?