2d ago

The Republicans Should've Faced Way More Criticism During The 2024 Presidential Campaign

577 comments

As always, point me towards someone supporting Trump on here and I promise I'll give them an earful. There just aren't a lot of them on here. If I spend less time arguing against voting for Trump it's for the same reason I don't spend much time on here arguing against puppy murdering - because most people already agree that murdering puppies/voting for Trump is bad.
Sorry for disrupting the circlejerk, I guess? Like yeah I guess we could spend all our time denouncing puppy murderers and complementing each other over being enlightened enough to recognize puppy murder as bad, but I'd really rather not.
- I think that's kind of the point. In all my time on .ml, I saw daily posts and comments that were anti-Harris/Biden (and for very good reason). I never saw one that was explicitly anti-Trump. I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
  So, to make your analogy more accurate, it's like everyone focusing on puppy-murder #1 and ignoring puppy, cat and goldfish murderer #2 because he also likes my sports team.
  Like, it's super easy... Fuck Biden because he allowed Palestinian genocide, but fuck Trump too because he has advocated for worse. I rarely, if ever, saw the latter on .ml.
  Unless things have gotten better for the Palestinians since he took office. It doesn't seem to be the case, but I sincerely hope so.
  
  I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
  What a stupid fucking assumption.
  
  Perhaps. I'm smart enough to know that, like everyone else, I can be fucking stupid sometimes.
  I was deliberate to use the word assumed, because it was just based on a hunch. That hunch, however, was predicated on observations of how nothing critical could ever be said of Russia.
  For example, I was confused about how everyone was (rightly) denouncing the invasion of Palestine, but not the invasion of Ukraine. The most explicit reason I ever received was, apparently, Ukraine is just chock full of Nazis and Putin is simply liberating the innocent Ukrainians. I know there is a lot of history to distill and this is not the best forum for it. It just seems like such a waste of lives on all sides.
  So, it stands to reason since ml is reticent to criticize anything about Russia and I see a lack of criticism about Trump (who is buddy buddy with Putin), that may be the cause.
  I know your main shtick is to be incendiary, but I just thought I would expand on my reasoning just in case you wanted to have a human conversation.
  
  was predicated on observations of how nothing critical could ever be said of Russia.
  Well, no, because things critical of Russia absolutist can and are said.
  but not the invasion of Ukraine.
  Plenty of people would, I certainly do. But the people who don't certainly don't not because they're pro-Putin or anything.
  So, it stands to reason since ml is reticent to criticize anything about Russia
  We really aren't.
  I see a lack of criticism about Trump
  How do you see a lack of something? What would be the acceptable amount of criticism for Trump? certainly you won't see anyone there unironically praising him. If there's more criticism of Dems, it's because opposition to Trump is already consensus, so there isn't really more to say about the matter, where as people on Lemmy still have some support for the Dems.
  
  How do you see a lack of something?
  In regards to Trump, by measuring it relative to the critiques of other liberals, especially when they are in a race for the US presidency.
  If there’s more criticism of Dems, it’s because opposition to Trump is already consensus, so there isn’t really more to say about the matter, where as people on Lemmy still have some support for the Dems.
  Extremely well said, and a good point. I'm not sure it explains everything, but it's something I should definitely consider.
  
  Extremely well said, and a good point. I’m not sure it explains everything, but it’s something I should definitely consider.
  Keep it in mind and I think you'll find it does a pretty good job explaining everything. Think about it like this: I have never seen a single person who is openly pro-MAGA, I don't know if I've even seen someone who's pro-GOP. On the other end, we've been in this Trump dominated political purgatory for almost a decade. What's the point then, of reiterating criticisms that have been repeated ad-nausea, to a community that universally has already heard them a thousand times and already agrees.
  
  To people who view politics as a spectator sport rather than a power structure for changing the material world, you gotta keep cheering for the home team and booing for the away team, until the end of time.
  
  The treatment of western politics as a spectator sport is so deeply engrained in the culture that it's really hard to even get people to recognize they're doing it.
  And it's ironic because I think it's become that way because the political system seems so unresponsive to actual efforts to change the material world, so people need to find a different reason to engage with it.
  
  I never saw one that was explicitly anti-Trump.
  How many posts and comments did you see that were explicitly anti-puppy murder? I think you've missed the point of the analogy.
  I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
  What? No, absolutely not. Nobody on .ml is pro-Trump, and anyone who was would be attacked and banned in short order.
  This is just liberal brainrot where you ignore everything we actually say and assign us made up stances based on your own preconceptions.
  
  Wow...came out awfully aggressive there (which I guess is part of why ml gets such hate). I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong. I'm just sharing my experiences in the ml community. Lots of good stuff going on there, but there's definitely some issues. I've seen you a lot and I know you like to pick fights, but I'm mostly on your side. All I said was I never really saw any explicit anti-Trump sentiment. The absence of it is just weird. You cherry-picked a couple lines and never addressed that observation.
  You attempted to discredit my claim (with no proof), then said I missed the point of the analogy (with a terrible false-equivalence).
  You attacked the idea that ml is pro-Trump (which I never claimed).
  Then you brought out the tired liberal brianrot line, assuming incorrectly that I am a liberal. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so fucking wrong.
  If you want to engage in good faith, I'm here. I think you're a pretty smart dude, but ignoring some of the problems of the ml community doesn't help it grow and affect more good.
  P.S. I haven't been on ml in a few months. If there are any anti-Trump posts, I would love to read them. I could be way off base here.
  
  You talk like a politician and that is not a complement.
  
  You attacked the idea that ml is pro-Trump (which I never claimed).
  I never saw one that was explicitly anti-Trump. I assumed because he is very pro-Putin.
  Right. So you said that the reason that you didn't see anti-Trump content on .ml is because he's pro-Putin, but how could I possibly interpret that as you claiming that .ml was pro-Trump?
  then said I missed the point of the analogy (with a terrible false-equivalence).
  It's not a "false-equivalence." You can't just drop "false-equivalence" and dismiss any comparison you don't like, you have to actually explain why it isn't equivalent.
  People don't say things that don't need to be said, and things don't really need to be said if everyone reading them already agrees with the thing. I don't go around randomly saying things like, "wood comes from trees," or, "the sun is hot," or, "puppy murder is bad." That doesn't imply that I think wood doesn't come from trees or that I think the sun is cold or that murdering puppies is good, and if anyone came around saying any of those things, I would very firmly correct them on it.
  What you're trying to claim is that us not circlejerking about Trump being bad - something that's already widely agreed upon in our spaces - means that we're pro-Trump. Oh, excuse me, your claim isn't that we're pro-Trump, it's that we give preferential treatment to Trump because he's pro-Putin, important distinction 🙄. The same logic could be used to argue that we - or .world, or any other instance or community - is pro-puppy murder because there aren't enough posts denouncing it (even though if anyone who was actually pro-puppy murder came around they'd be banned immediately).
  P.S. I haven’t been on ml in a few months. If there are any anti-Trump posts, I would love to read them. I could be way off base here.
  Estimated 100 000 In NYC Alone Protesting Today As Part of Nationwide 50501 Protest Against Trump & Musk - 311 upvotes
  US stock markets see worst day since Covid pandemic after investors shaken by Trump tariffs - 111 upvotes
  Dow drops 1,400 as US stocks lead worldwide sell-off after Trump's tariffs ignite a COVID-like shock - 102 upvotes
  China hits back hard at ‘bullying’ Trump tariffs as global recession fears grow - 73 upvotes
  All of those were posted within the last 3 days.
  
  Thanks for the links. THAT is something actually substantive that goes against the narrative in the OP. I'll try to explain the errors in your interpretation and expand on the false-equivalence claim tomorrow.
  
  I (*very explicitly and vocally not a communist) left .ml because of all the shit flinging from .world and yes sometimes .ca, among others. It was the only negative experience I had in over a year of keeping my account there that was related to where my account was.
  @StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world is exactly correct.
  And here we are again, the monthly "Tankies are the bane of Lemmy!!11!!" post, wherein we have:
  People who claim to not know what the term means.
  People arguing about what the term means.
  People arguing about what the term should mean.
  People who swear they've never met one on Lemmy.
  People who apparently find them so often it ruins Lemmy for them.
  A lot of assumptions about folks just for being members of .ml.
  In sum, a lot of angst over something people can solve themselves if they are truly that aggrieved, by blocking individual users or the entire instance.
  Fucking A people, you largely control your own experience on the Fediverse, that's one of the things that makes it great.
  In addition, when choosing an instance (both times) I made sure to pick one that was defederated from Threads, because that was important to me. I'm sure there are instances that are defederated from .ml. If blocking the entire instance yourself or individual users yourself is somehow not enough, no one is stopping you from picking an instance that is defederated from .ml or asking your instance admin (who may very well tell you to FO as is their right) to defederate.
  Edit: And you are welcome to search my username at .ml and see how much of what I posted was anti-Trump. Spoiler alert: nearly all of it.
  
  I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me. I never said anything about Tankies, although I can see how offering my observations as a small critique of .ml could be seen as tacitly agreeing with the OP.
  First of all, I'm sorry you left ml because of external pressure. That's not right or fair. I guess there's some truth in all the leftist infighting memes.
  I agree with practically everything you said, particularly the comparison between 'tankie' and 'woke'. I don't utilize any blocking, though, because I like to be open to all viewpoints.
  I hate crawling someone's history, but since you asked I did take a look. It's great to see that kind of content. I should have been more specific, but my .ml observations are older than your history (mainly the run-up to the US election). So, admittedly, I'm a bit guilty of "A lot of assumptions about folks just for being members of .ml" since I haven't been there in months.
  
  I admit it was a general frustration with seeing yet another one of these threads. Thanks for the response!
  Edit - also my acct there is older than the election run up unless you are using a very long definition. https://lemmy.ml/u/octopus_ink
  
  Right. So you said that the reason that you didn’t see anti-Trump content on .ml is because he’s pro-Putin, but how could I possibly interpret that as you claiming that .ml was pro-Trump?
  Because you became instantly defensive and jumped to a conclusion. I get it. There are a lot of people that are rabidly against ml. I'm offering one small critique based on my observations there. One more time, just to be clear, I saw a ton of anti-Biden/Harris chatter and practically zero anti-Trump. This does not mean ml is pro-Trump. I am not claiming and never claimed ml is pro-Trump. I'm not saying that I saw pro-Trump content. It was just this weird black hole of direct criticism surrounding him. Now, this was all in the lead up to the US election, so I'm happy to see that perhaps this has changed (based on your links).
  It’s not a “false-equivalence.” You can’t just drop “false-equivalence” and dismiss any comparison you don’t like, you have to actually explain why it isn’t equivalent.
  Sorry, I thought it was fairly obvious. I was speaking about specific anti-Biden/Harris vs anti-Trump content. You tried to generalize it back to puppy murder. Those two things are not equivalent. Let's ditch the analogy. If I understand you correctly, you are saying it's good enough to criticize the bad actions the US is taking without having to denounce each and every bad actor and I mostly agree. What I'm saying is I saw specific (well-deserved) criticisms of, for example, how terrible Harris would for Palestine, but most brushed aside comments about how bad Trump would be. I saw people trying to get commentors to say one bad thing about Trump and they just wouldn't do it. I mean, at that point, it's dance monkey dance so I can understand how they would dig in their heels.
  I really wanted to like it there and I think I'll give it another shot. It just seemed, at least during the election, the point was more to destabilize than to actually further leftist ideals.
  
  This does not mean ml is pro-Trump. I am not claiming and never claimed ml is pro-Trump. I’m not saying that I saw pro-Trump content. It was just this weird black hole of direct criticism surrounding him. Now, this was all in the lead up to the US election, so I’m happy to see that perhaps this has changed (based on your links).
  It just seemed, at least during the election, the point was more to destabilize than to actually further leftist ideals.
  I don't have a lot of patience for this style of communication. If you have something to say, say it. You're just accusing us of shit while dancing around it and acting all "Who, me? Why, I would never suggest such a thing," while plainly suggesting 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. So stop trying to split hairs and pretend that you're not accusing us of being pro-Trump and say it to my face.
  You tried to generalize it back to puppy murder. Those two things are not equivalent. Let’s ditch the analogy.
  The analogy is valid, so no, let's not.
  If I understand you correctly, you are saying it’s good enough to criticize the bad actions the US is taking without having to denounce each and every bad actor and I mostly agree.
  No, this isn't what I'm saying. Please read what I said again.
  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 not how discourse works. Uncontroversial, mutually understood points are boring and unnecessary to repeat.
  We do, of course, denounce Trump. You know, when it comes up. The same way, if you ask me if grass is green, I'll tell you yes, but I'm not just going to walk up to you and go, "Hello, grass is green." I assume that since that analogy doesn't help your conclusion, it's a "false equivalence" and you'll say we should "just ditch it."
  I saw people trying to get commentors to say one bad thing about Trump and they just wouldn’t do it.
  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."
  
  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.
  
  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.
- Feel free to visit the new conservative comms and have at it.
  
  Which one? Do you mean the one that's exclusively anti-conservative posts?
  
  The ee com is the sarcastic one. There's a new one in world, and another new one somewhere else that are both serious.
  
  https://lemmy.world/c/conservative is described in the sidebar as, "A community to satirize conservtive and right-wing “ideals”." So no, that's not serious.
  I guess I just need to find the one that's "somewhere else." As I said, point me towards someone supporting Trump and I'll give them an earful." Notably I did not say, "vaguely reference the existence of a conservative boogeyman and I will scour all ends of the fediverse until I find a community with single digit subscribers and I'll give them an earful."
  The fact that you can't even point me to it proves my point exactly. Even if it is out there somewhere, it isn't large enough for people to see and engage with on a regular basis. Also, you're clearly not seeking them out either, so it seems pretty hypocritical to expect me to do so.
  
  You're taking this way too seriously. Have a nap or something. Enjoy your day.
  
  Lol.
  
  "You're taking this way too seriously. Are you mentally ill?" <- things you can say at the end of any conversation no matter how full of shit you were during it. Just play those cards and instantly win any argument.

577 comments