405
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 13 Nov 2026
405 points (99.5% liked)
politics
31873 readers
3228 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
Not a dude, either. Get yourself together
just a side note here, but how is a random stranger on the internet supposed to know that?
Basic literacy, not gendering people you don't know the gender of.
~~Your ugliness is showing.~~
Not constructive. I apologize.
You are projecting imo because you just exposed yourself as someone who judges morality by appearance.
Sigh. No, I don't.
First, I apologize for the insult earlier, it was not constructive nor warraned.
You've failed to divine Dahl's meaning behind the quote from The Twits. Or more likely I've failed to explain it in way that saticfies your needs (which is on me, not you).
Dahl's point, which I generally agree with, is that a person's demeanour is shown on their face by their expressions. A person with an 'ugly' demeanor probably has 'ugly' expressions.
Dahl's point is that your expressions convey information and he draws a distinction between having 'bad' features versus having 'bad' expressions.
In the vast and complex field of neurodivergence that generalisation can fall apart when one's expressions no longer convey information about your thoughts.
That explanation is better but for me it still lands too close to the idea of following intuition or gut feeling to determine who is good and who is bad. Which certifiably does not hold well
I agree.
One has to take it in context. Particularly when we simultaneously say "don't judge a book by it's cover" (despite that literally being the point of a book's cover in a bookstore).