politics
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 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. 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Not for people on the left, who are usually like, "Let the IRS do their job and move on." This is only an issue for people on the right, and you can't "facts and reason" them out of it, because the facts literally don't matter. Creating grievance where there is none is straight out of their playbook.
This is a hit piece crafted to persuade people to move their views to the right, not some socialist alarm bell.
Isn't letting the right own it leading people to the right? How is a reasonable explanation from the left that doesn't exaggerate into conspiracy leading people to the right? Do you think you have a choice over this being a major election issue exaggerated from the right?
Maybe. But you can't effectively counter the lies by presenting facts, because the facts aren't what they're after, and they have no imperative to seek them out for their own position.
It doesn't. But notice that's not what I said. I said it's not worth engaging, because by engaging honestly, you are legitimizing the lies. You are implying that the interlocutor is making statements in good faith.
I think you can make commentary on the lies, but in this day, the liars are practiced at controlling the narrative. They want you to engage, knowing they can easily outdo your facts with the number of lies they can invent.
No, and that's my point. You could demonstrate to the highest level of reason and logic how this issue is a nothingburger, and they would still run with it, "demonstrating" that it can "withstand" scrutiny. And now, since you engaged honestly, they have implicit credibility that it's not just able to withstand scrutiny, it's also able to withstand scrutiny from honest people.
The opposite of engaging is disengaging and that gives full reign for the conspiracy to flourish. The issue isn't to convince it's to inoculate against the right's disinformation before the hyperexaggerations happen on a broader scale during the election campaign. The idea that this helps the right or is a bad thing is insanely disconnected from the actual issues that will determine the election, thus handing more ground to the GOP both in issues they can own and people who they can convince.
And I'm saying I don't think you can innoculate. Facts are expensive. Lies are cheap. Look at how successful the right wing grift mill is. The facts on various matters aren't hard to find, but it's so lucrative that people keep it growing in spite of reality and the facts. People don't want to leave, because reality isn't exciting; it has few binaries, whereas they have clear villains, a simplified(-ish) paradigm, and a promise of being special and "being in the know" about life's secrets.
And I know this is the case, because I am an ex-Christian. There is no shortage of people willing to justify their beliefs based on little to no objective evidence. The backfire effect is a real phenomenon, and people who aren't open to being wrong are the most likely to be affected by it.