this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
325 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19089 readers
4303 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Let me try it this way...

If you had a coworker who got a new dog. They were excited and told everyone in the office about him.

Couple months later this coworker throws a party. When you get to their house, they excitedly show you the new dog, but when what you see is clearly a cat.

Which are you more likely to think? "What an interesting looking dog." or "Sir, that is a cat."

He said it was a dog, and everyone attending was expecting to see a dog. It wasn't a dog.

How about this scenario:

You have a disagreement with your neighbor about the property line. You mutually agree to settle it with a debate.

Your neighbor spends the entire time talking over you, sidestepping virtually every point you make, blatantly lying, personally insulting you and airing grievances.

You participate in good faith and the moderator decides that the property line should follow your plans.

Did you and your neighbor engage in a debate?

Here is an opinion: Donald Trump is neither classically or emotionally intelligent enough to engage in an actual, by definition, debate.

[–] elbarto777@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Your first analogy is flawed. If we compare it to the boxing example, it's as if the two contenders played poker in the middle of the ring. Then the audience would be like "sir, this is a poker tournament." So, no. Not the same.

The second one is still a debate. The neighbor is deranged, but there is a procedure, the neighbor didn't follow the usual rules, and it didn't help him at all.