-87
Blue Maga: We need to talk about the cult-like turn of the Democratic party
(www.theguardian.com)
What AI moron wrote this?
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
-87 points (18.2% liked)
politics
18651 readers
3743 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is about as BoTh sIdES as it gets.
General reminder that online radicalization efforts are targeted at the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum, not just one. Destabilization and violence is the goal, not the slow, hard work of reform.
Incorrect.
People at the ends of the spectrum have already been radicalized.
Online radicalization efforts are targeted at "moderates" who have not yet been.
That's a silly take.
A radical is not someone with a strange opinion. Opinions are fine, and protected by our Constitution. A radical is someone that does something illegal about theirs.
Radicals are defined by their immoderate ideals. Whether or not they are criminal depends on the legal superstructure they exist in.
Communists are illegal in America but moderates in China.
China does not have freedom of opinion. Regardless, this is a semantic discussion on the definition of a radical anyway, it's not particularly important. Perhaps if I reframed my position as violent radicalization being aimed at the extremes of the spectrum, you might find it more acceptable? It's what I meant in my comment anyway.
"Over the past few weeks, the calls for Joe Biden to step aside have been met not with thoughtful critiques or reasoned counter-arguments but with furious accusations of treason, disloyalty, and betrayal."
Not a single thoughtful critique? Wow, that is amazing, or is it... Hyperbole?!
Certainly hyperbole. But there are examples linked and I think anyone paying attention has seen this behaviour, especially since the debate but also previously in response to criticism of his Gaza policy, e.g. "oh so you think Trump would be better?!"
No I haven’t seen this behavior. I certainly wouldn’t believe it exists just because of an astro turf opinion piece by a dishonest actor.
Any criticism I’ve seen of his Gaza policy has not EVER been met with anything like “ furious accusations of treason, disloyalty and betrayal.”
In fact every single time the response has been an appeal to the realities of the current political system/calculus. Which is typically then met with hyperbole from these types of accounts.
What I have seen is non stop hyperbole and nonsense from OPs account and others in here that can’t go 2 seconds without repeating the same false talking points.
No I haven’t seen this behavior.
Can't help you there. You should maybe pay more attention.
Any criticism I’ve seen of his Gaza policy has not EVER been met with anything like “ furious accusations of treason, disloyalty and betrayal.”
In fact every single time the response has been an appeal to the realities of the current political system/calculus.
This is just saying, "but Trump would be worse!!!" in more intelligent language. It is literally what I said happens. Criticising Biden's Gaza policy is NOT a statement about the election, the only reason to make it one is if you want to squash any criticism of him quickly and easily without engaging in a substantive discussion of the issue.
So people ignore the specific criticism of policy, turn it into electoral calculus and then insinuate that because of the criticism of policy, the person must be considering voting for Trump, which would make them disloyal or betrayers. The thing you said has "NEVER" happened was literally your example of what does happen.
Unless you're going to say the thing you disagree with is that the post claims it's a "furious accusation"? But, just like you saying "every single time" (obviously not) this is hyperbole and it's not fair to solely focus on that. I'm sure you didn't mean literally every time and I'm sure the writer was just trying to add a bit of spice
Edit: came across a great example https://lemm.ee/comment/13326190
Probably because everything since the beginning of politics says stick with the INCUMBENT. Now apparently cuz 3 fucking yokels think hes old we're throwing all rational political thinking out the window to pull a last minute change and you fucking idiots think that can actually win?!??
Get a fucking clue. Biden is still your best choice. Stop expecting perfection.
Not funding genocide =/= perfection
Being able to beat the worst president in history in a debate =/= perfection
Biden is still your best choice.
Unless he drops out, yeah no shit.
Now apparently cuz 3 fucking yokels think hes old we're throwing all rational political thinking out the window to pull a last minute change and you fucking idiots think that can actually win?!??
I will remind you of this in November. If Biden wins, I will happily admit that I was wrong and you were right.
I would love to be proven wrong, but I predicted the Democrat incumbent would lose the 2024 election all the way back in 2015. The party could switch and give themselves a chance, but won't.
“Yokels”
“Get a fucking clue”
“[always has been]”
A very convincing argument. Well thought out and totally civilized. Totally not proving the article’s point!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Over the past few weeks, the calls for Joe Biden to step aside have been met not with thoughtful critiques or reasoned counter-arguments but with furious accusations of treason, disloyalty, and betrayal.
I have spent the past few weeks watching the Very Online members of the base embracing an endless stream of “Blue Anon” conspiracy theories, pushed on behalf of the Dear Leader.
Last week, my former MSNBC colleague Jen Psaki hosted a discussion with the Pod Save America co-host Jon Favreau, on Biden’s travails, and her show’s Twitter account advertised the interview in advance.
Most elected Democrats believe Biden will struggle to win against Trump in November, noted Politico’s Rachael Bade last week, “even if they don’t say it on record”.
When Biden pretends the polls are all wrong; attacks members of the press at a campaign rally; and calls into a morning show to mock the “elites”… who does he sound like?
When he criticized news media coverage, big cheers followed, with his supporters turning to boo and point fingers at reporters.”
The original article contains 1,231 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 86%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
It has always been this way. Their slogan is Blue No Matter Who. It is moraless and about getting the job no matter what the cost. We've seen in real time when Biden throws groups under the bus with the term Bipartisanship slapped in front of it.
Bring up issues in advance and get shouted down. Then when things like the debate happens and it is unavoidable, It will be acceptable to talk about Biden's issues. I've accepted that it is about maintaining comfort for them, not progress or fixing systematic issues.
You only have two choices in the general what's the alternative...? Trump?
I'll vote for bidens dead corpse first.
Stfu with this utter nonsense.
You are the person this article is talking about lol. Everyone knows we live under a duopoly.
If the article is attacking logical informed people. That just solidifies that it's a bad article.
Maybe try reading the article, and seriously considering whether or not Biden is really the best candidate for the DNC to nominate.
So because you don't agree 100% you have to disagree 100%?
This is why we are where we are.
It's just the uncertainty whether or not the people voicing their disagreement are also going to protest vote (be it third party or just not voting) rather than vote against MAGA 2025.
"Our system is broken and corrupt!"
"Shut the fuck up"
Or voting third party or not voting for president at all.
Voting Biden is losing to these options and that's how elections get lost.