Political Memes

1577 readers

14 users here now

Non political memes: [email protected]

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

772

The Republicans Should've Faced Way More Criticism During The 2024 Presidential Campaign (lemmy.ca)

submitted 4 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

629 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So stop trying to split hairs and pretend that you’re not accusing us of being pro-Trump and say it to my face.

I'm not sure how I can be more clear. I will try a more direct, succinct approach. I AM NOT ACCUSING YOU (OR ML) OF BEING PRO-TRUMP. I'm saying I observed a lack of anti-Trump sentiment in the run up to the election RELATIVE to the anti-Harris rhetoric. That is all. Lack of "anti" sentiment DOES NOT EQUAL "pro" sentiment.

No, this isn’t what I’m saying. Please read what I said again.

Apologies for misrepresenting you. That's why I tried to remove the imperfect analogy and talk actual facts.

What I’m saying is that our opposition to Trump is already understood so there’s not really a lot of reason to just reiterate it over and over, with everyone agreeing with each other.

That's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. What I don't understand, then, is that MLs opposition to Biden and Harris were also understood, yet it was reiterated again and again.

Did you now? I’d love to see a link to that. My standard is, “If someone claims something happened on the fediverse without providing a link, they’re lying.”

Being able to remember exactly which approximately 7 month old post it was and dredge up the exact comment is a tall order. I don't bookmark this stuff to use as gotchas months later. It probably involved a couple of you big dogs like brain or flyingsquid.

This has all gotten wildly off base, though. This is my only claim: In the run-up to the US election, I observed a lack of anti-Trump sentiment in the run up to the election relative to the anti-Harris rhetoric. It was extremely frustrating then as those of us that had to deal with his first term saw the danger and now as I have to deal with these fascists dismantling my country.

Now, you can claim I'm full of shit, that I'm wrong, that there was exactly as much anti-Trump rhetoric as anti-Biden/Harris, that I moved the goalposts by not initially stating this was months ago (fair), but that is what I saw and why I left. Obviously, .world has it's own issues, but I've spent entirely too long on this site already.

The accusation that you’re trying to get people to believe is that .ml gave preferential treatment to Trump with the intent of helping him to win and cause instability.

Edit: I just reread this part and should address it.

The accusation that you’re trying to get people to believe is that .ml gave preferential treatment to Trump with the intent of helping him to win and cause instability.

You're correct. I've posited a couple theories trying to make sense of the imbalance of critiques and that is one of them. I have no proof of that and should just stick to the facts. Thanks for pointing that out.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

I’m saying I observed a lack of anti-Trump sentiment in the run up to the election RELATIVE to the anti-Harris rhetoric. That is all. Lack of “anti” sentiment DOES NOT EQUAL “pro” sentiment.

You’re correct. I’ve posited a couple theories trying to make sense of the imbalance of critiques and that is one of them.

This is such an arbitrary distinction that it's not worth acknowledging. Your accusation is that we showed preferential treatment towards Trump, that we were pro-Trump relative to Kamala, that we preferred Trump over Kamala. That is what I mean when I say, "Pro-Trump."

That’s a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. What I don’t understand, then, is that MLs opposition to Biden and Harris were also understood, yet it was reiterated again and again.

Because while it was understood, there were a lot of people who did not agree.

The general argument happening all over the place was whether Kamala was significantly better than Trump to the point of being worth voting for. Those who said she was focused on how bad Trump was in order to convince people of their thesis, those who said she wasn't focused more on how bad Kamala was in order to prove their thesis. Naturally. Is that really so hard to understand?

If my position is that candidates X and Y are both unacceptable, and a bunch of people are trying to convince me to vote for candidate X, then naturally they're going to focus on criticizing candidate Y to show how much worse they are, and I'm going to focus on criticizing candidate X to show why I don't like either of them. That in no way implies that I support candidate Y, and if a bunch of people tried to convince me to support candidate Y, I'd change the focus of my criticism to that candidate instead.

Being able to remember exactly which approximately 7 month old post it was and dredge up the exact comment is a tall order.

Then it didn't happen.