this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
289 points (87.7% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2320 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
 

"We recognize that, in the next four years, our decision may cause us to have an even more difficult time. But we believe that this will give us a chance to recalibrate, and the Democrats will have to consider whether they want our votes or not."

That's gotta be one of the strangest reasonings I've heard in a while.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Either human life matters equally or it doesn't matter at all.

Ah yes, "all lives matter" - a very popular talking point for the left.

While in principle I agree that it's unfortunate that the US tends to turn a blind eye to most of the world's suffering outside of breakthrough trends every once in a while (who still has a green Twitter icon for Pakistan and let's finally get Kony, amirite?), that doesn't necessarily mean that a spotlight on some small corner of global human suffering at the moment is a bad thing.

Innocent civilians are suffering in a part of the world the US policy has extensive influence within. While that's a longstanding pattern that's typically ignored, an arbitrary gatekeeping of "all or nothing" ignores that most change occurs in smaller intermediate steps.

How do you think the push for civil rights would have gone if any advances were to be rejected unless they also included things like legalizing gay marriage at the same time as decriminalization of sodomy?

Maybe today it's the US giving a crap about the downtrodden in the "giving a shit" trend of the month, but if there's successful traction, perhaps caring about foreign policy impacting the powerless continues to shift global policy.

In a large part, I suspect that's part of why these kinds of trends get such silence from administrations. No one wants to give foreign policy mouse a cookie, or he's going to ask for a glass of milk.

(Though I admit it's beyond stupid for foreign policy mouse to enable bringing in an exterminator just because they aren't currently being given a cookie.)