Blackbeard

Blackbeard, 3 days ago (edited 3 hours ago)

Statistically speaking and based on findings from House races, it’s a sound strategic move:

If winning more seats is the top priority, the preponderance of evidence suggests that nominating moderate, centrist candidates in districts where Republicans have a chance of winning is the more effective strategy, with the caveat that a contemporary moderate is substantially more liberal than the moderate of two decades ago.

Most — though by no means all — scholarly work supports the view that moderate candidates in competitive districts are more likely to win.

It also might be part of the reason he won in 2020:

The data [from Pew] suggests that the progressive vision of winning a presidential election simply by mobilizing strong support from Democratic constituencies simply did not materialize for Mr. Biden. While many Democrats had hoped to overwhelm Mr. Trump with a surge in turnout among young and nonwhite voters, the new data confirms that neither candidate claimed a decisive advantage in the highest turnout election since 1900.

Instead, Mr. Trump enjoyed a turnout advantage fairly similar to his edge in 2016, when many Democrats blamed Hillary Clinton’s defeat on a failure to mobilize young and nonwhite voters. If anything, Mr. Trump enjoyed an even larger turnout edge while Mr. Biden lost ground among nearly every Democratic base constituency. Only his gains among moderate to conservative voting groups allowed him to prevail.

Blackbeard, 3 days ago

DEI made the front fall off.

Blackbeard, 3 days ago

The mod already answered a similar question:

If someone pumped the gas and was posting dozens and dozens of pro or anti Trump stuff? Yeah, I think I’d do the same. We did have quite a few pro-Trump posts as he was winning primaries, which made logical sense. I’m also planning on megathreads in July and August for both conventions.

Blackbeard, 3 days ago (edited 3 hours ago)

‘there’s too much anti-biden coverage here’ is an agenda-based determination itself.

Why do you consistently infantilize the things people are arguing? Nowhere has jordan said “there’s too much anti-biden coverage here”, or anything even approaching that.

edit: You did the same thing here. You keep twisting the argument being presented into something facially ridiculous rather than engaging with what other users are actually saying.

Blackbeard, 3 days ago (edited 3 hours ago)

Yeah, and you infantilized something he’s reiterated in like 6 or 7 different ways to “there’s too much anti-biden coverage here”. Those two are not equivalent, and you omitting the second part of the sentence proves that you know it.

I don’t think I misrepresented him at all

You did. You took:

the people on Lemmy who support Biden in general, but also give him lots of criticism because of his support for Israel. That’s a normal person. They say I like good things, and I don’t like bad things. I don’t pick one team and then only say the good things about that team and only the bad things about the other team.

…and turned it into “It’s ok to criticize Biden so long as you still generally support him”. Those two arguments are not in any way the same.

Why do you keep doing that? Why can’t you engage with the words as they’re written in black and white?

Blackbeard, 3 days ago

Either it was something he wrote or it wasn’t, but I don’t care to argue with you if it was fair of me to single out that one comment or if he didn’t really mean it.

No, if he didn’t really say it. There you go again.

He took issue with Ozma’s repeated posting of anti-biden articles because he ‘had an agenda’ that was not reflective of the overall coverage of Biden. It was only too many posts because it was allegedly not representative of overall coverage, e.g. ‘too many relative to positive coverage’. Tell me where i’m screwing that up, I want to know. If it was simply ‘too many posts’ then fucking say so, but it seems pretty clearly about the perspective ozma was pushing.

If the disproportionate content itself were the determining factor, the ban would have happened 11 months ago. It’s not the content, it’s the admission that the behavior was intentionally provocative. You reiterating that as “there’s too much anti-biden coverage here” is a misrepresentation of what’s been clearly stated. There’s too much anti-Biden coverage here from this single user who has explicitly admitted to being an agitator. Anti-Biden coverage from anyone else is obviously fair game, because there’s shitloads of it.

I’ll wait for you to explain it to me, then, because to me the gist of that statement is ‘it’s normal to critique biden, but i find it suspicious if they also aren’t saying good things about him’. I’ll permit that I did exaggerate it to make a point, but the thrust of his argument is absolutely represented in my re-framing.

Yes, you did exaggerate the point, and it’s again because you got so caught up in his example that you missed the point of the example. The suspicion, again as it’s clearly written in black and white, is in the dishonesty:

“They say I like good things, and I don’t like bad things. I don’t pick one team and then only say the good things about that team and only the bad things about the other team. That’s bad faith. That’s dishonest.”

It’s clearly the same point jordan is making, and in both cases you’re glaring at the leaves of the trees and refusing to see the forest.

Because explaining why someone’s statement or argument is problematic requires restating it in a way that shows the problem clearer. If I just copy-pasted his comment into mine I wouldn’t really be engaging it, it’d just be parroting it.

Yes, restating it. Not strawmanning it.

Blackbeard, 3 days ago (edited 2 hours ago)

Agitation isn’t against the rules as far as I can see, and I’m of the opinion that agitation is an essential part of political activity.

1. Rule 3 says: “Engage in good-faith and with respect!” Rule 5 says: “This community aims to foster discussion.” Rule 4 says “no trolling.”

If the behavior in this context is not itself against the rules or bannable, then what is the standard that makes it so? If I said “i think people are too mean to Biden”, and I then exclusively post pro-biden articles (lets say the same number of times as Ozma), have I also broken the rule? Wouldn’t I still be agitating for some perspective? Or would I have to post a certain number of good things? Or is it just a number of posts generally? Or can I admit that I have a bias but i’m required to balance my negative contributions with positive contributions?

What I said: “It’s not the content, it’s the admission that the behavior was intentionally provocative.”

What you responded: “If the behavior in this context is not itself against the rules or bannable”

• It’s not the content. It’s the behavior
• If the behavior is not against the rules.

Do you see the disconnect? I can’t help but think you’re trying very hard not to read what other people are writing to you.

Edit: Apparently I’m not the only one who noticed.

Blackbeard, 3 days ago

No one claimed that.

Blackbeard, 3 days ago (edited 2 hours ago)

So no, you don’t see it. You’ve ignored too much of what I’m saying for me to be interested in putting energy into another reply that you’ll refuse to engage with.

Have a good one.

Blackbeard, 4 days ago

the poll found that the war in Gaza is not the top voting issue for most young Americans

Much to OP’s chagrin.

Blackbeard, 4 days ago (edited 7 hours ago)

It’s not, but it comes down to the purpose behind the exorbitant, relentless, many-hours-per-day effort. Posting like that is aimed at achieving one of the following options:

1. Vent
2. Stimulate Discussion

The two are mutually exclusive, and the community tagline is “Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!” Plus rule 3 says: “Engage in good-faith”, which as others have very clearly articulated, is very much not the case for OP.

Your mistake is in assuming people are blocking ozma for their content, as opposed to their behavior.

Blackbeard, 4 days ago (edited 7 hours ago)

I’ve seen a few people complain about how “everything is anti-Biden, so I blocked them.”

No, you haven’t. You’ve seen people clearly articulate their concerns, and you strawmanned them into saying something they didn’t actually say. You infantilized their arguments into something you could dismiss out of hand.

And yes, they do. They directly respond to and address ozma’s behavior. You only have to dig into mozz and ozma’s history for a few minutes to see how much time and effort mozz has dedicated to trying to get ozma to show an ounce of good faith, to no avail.

edit: Here’s more context.

And blocks in other communities pointing to the behavior, not the content.

Blackbeard, 4 days ago

Nowhere near the top of the list in Michigan.

Blackbeard, 4 days ago

No, it’s not just “not the top of the list”, it’s nowhere near the top of the list.

Is it enough to tip the scales? Maybe. Does he “need to address” it? I mean, yes. That much isn’t news to anyone in the country, even Biden, which is why he publicly endorsed the recent cease fire proposal.

What, in your opinion, would “addressing” it entail?

Blackbeard, 4 days ago

…and for years thereafter.

Blackbeard, 10 days ago

“Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances,” Roberts continued.

Ah, but your sidekicks are free to cozy up with and accept bribes gifts from the very people trying to dismantle our democracy and who have business currently before the court. Very sane, very cool.

Blackbeard, 10 days ago

It was enabled with funding from the 2022 IRA, then developed in 2023, and then rolled out as a pilot program in 2024. Now that they know the pilot went well through the deadline for tax filing, they’re green lighting it for 2025. I’m not sure it could have happened any quicker, unfortunately.

Blackbeard, 10 days ago

Same exact thing is happening with the economy:

The vast majority of those surveyed — 68% — said it was becoming harder for the average person to get ahead, while nearly half of respondents said their own finances were moving in the right direction.

We are cripplingly addicted to myopic sensationalism, and the death of local news means that as information consumers we’re increasingly hypnotized by national news corporations who have no roots or stake in local communities and who thrive on rage bait. Put simply, there’s no localized and tempered source of information that can balance out the neverending national panic.

Blackbeard, 10 days ago

But it does matter. It matters very much that they’re voting and behaving based on things that are not actually real. It matters that Biden’s telling the truth, and evidence supports him. Does it mean his message is going to resonate with voters? Probably not. But it goes to the heart of our current predicament to observe that the world that exists in people’s heads doesn’t resemble the one they actually live in. We are in a self-fulfilling doom loop.

If we grant that crime is down but that Biden should act like it isn’t down because people think it’s up, then we’re venturing off into a very dark wilderness where nothing is true and facts no longer matter. That’s a world where people like Trump thrive.

Blackbeard, 11 days ago

The Trump administration imposed sanctions on the ICC’s former prosecutor, including revoking visas and blocking property access, for investigating alleged war crimes by American troops in Afghanistan and Israelis in Palestinian territories. The U.S. lifted those penalties in 2021, with Blinken calling them “inappropriate and ineffective” at the time.

Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas) earlier this month introduced a bill to sanction the ICC — which targets individuals accused of war crimes, genocide and other international law violations — for investigating and prosecuting U.S. citizens and American allies, including Israel. Calls to pass that measure, or something like it, grew following the court’s announcement, even though the U.S. is not a member of court.

They’re telegraphing that they will declare war on the ICC (again) and dismantle whatever’s left of international guardrails if Trump wins, much to Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir’s delight. One can only imagine the shitshow to follow.

Blackbeard, 12 days ago

Straight from the article:

It’s plausible that Biden’s support for Israel’s obliteration of Gaza would be especially outrageous to young and/or nonwhite Americans, who are exceptionally likely to sympathize with Palestine. And the president’s foreign policy has surely alienated some Black, Hispanic, and Arab-American voters under 30. Yet the young and nonwhite voters who’ve been turning on Biden overwhelmingly identify as moderate or conservative, and are presently supporting Trump or RFK Jr., both of whom are even more ardently pro-Israel than the president. Further, a recent poll of 2,000 voters under 30 from the Harvard Institute of Politics found that only 2 percent considered the war in Gaza their top priority. It therefore seems doubtful that Biden’s complicity in Gaza’s devastation fully explains his problem with these traditionally Democratic constituencies.

Blackbeard, 12 days ago

That’s more or less what the article said.