this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2026
596 points (97.9% liked)
Political Humor
1982 readers
1302 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, I'm saying that there's a difference between "incorrect" and "wildly incorrect and insane delusions". She was so far away from reality that we shouldn't give her the benefit of the doubt any time soon.
But what about any of my statements implies we should be giving her a benefit of the doubt? And why would being more emphatic about her degree of wrongness have any bearing on that anyways? I feel, and I hope I'm expressing this as respectfully and open-mindedly as possible, that what you're taking issus with here is exactly proving my point that "our social discourse level still hasn’t evolved past judging arguments on the basis of the person making them."
I'm not judging the arguments. I'm continuing to judge the person. If it were a different person - almost any other person - then I'd have more grace. I agree with your position in the majority of cases. Liz Cheney, for example. Hell, even Dick Cheney.
But some cases are so extreme that I think it's ok to keep expressing doubts even as we agree with them.