Yea I mean, Poynter is a non-profit fact checking and journalism institute... They launched IFCN. Square all those accusations you're seeing around here for me :)

Wanna know the problem? Starts with "A" and ends with "nti-intellectualism."

But don't report on those things, because it's irresponsible to do that. It's simply to fill the 24/7 news cycle, not to inform anyone (despite this being a fact checking institute). /s

What is going on in this sub?

It might be beneficial for some to understand the "what" and "why" behind the "no," no?

Thank you. The number of up votes the comments get saying that we shouldn't even bother discussing this are staggering.

Better let the misinformation go uncountered, right?

Maybe we shouldn't inform the population about this... And any other of Trump's plans since they're so obviously bad they don't need explanation?

Simply irresponsible to not do so, especially after an election where so much of the population were convinced Trump would be better for the economy. If anything we should be working harder to inform people, not looking for reasons to avoid these topics. What if someone saw that RFK would be doing this and saw no counter to his misinformation? Because it's below someone to even discuss?

It's a duty to inform people, and I'm glad poynter is taking the initiative.

Wrong.

Post is about Hamas torturing people. "But what about Israel" is whataboutism.

I will not litigate bad faith arguments with you anymore. And that description of deflation you provided definitely fits your argument. I know this because the original comment makes no mention of "both sides bad." Just Israel. Over.

Yes, by definition it is whataboutism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about ...?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

Not liking that doesn't make it not whataboutism.

Whataboutism

But they weren't attacking them for their religion right? So then it's not antisemitism? /s

Scary to see this kind of propaganda on Lemmy extend to the real world. People hunting various Jews in the streets and those actions get a pass from users here.

If there was a Democrat who did what Trump did, I'd not hesitate to enforce the law because I was afraid of the consequences.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869

Mitt Romney's at it again -- shading the truth on CBS News'. He's perpetuating the false Republican narrative that President Obama should have gotten more done during his first two years in office because he had a supermajority in the Senate.

If only we knew Trump would do something like this...

https://2017-2021.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/

That does not answer my question.

Should we accept that the threat of violence get in the way of justice?

I'm a little confused... Did you read it?

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/what-the-supreme-court-got-wrong-in-the-trump-section-3-case

Under the Court’s approach, only Congress has the power to determine which people are to be disqualified and under what procedures—at least when it comes to candidates for federal office and officials holding those offices. The majority claims that Congress’s Section 5 power to enact “appropriate” legislation enforcing the 14th Amendment is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3.

There are several flaws in the Court’s analysis. The most basic is that there is no good reason to believe that Section 5 is the exclusive mode of enforcing Section 3. As the Colorado Supreme Court emphasized in its ruling, Section 5 empowers Congress to enforce not just Section 3 but also every other part of the 14th Amendment, including its protections against racial and ethnic discrimination, the Due Process Clause, and more. These other provisions are considered to be self-executing, under long-standing federal Supreme Court precedent. Section 5 legislation is not the exclusive mode of enforcement for these other parts of the amendment.

Thus, state governments and federal courts can enforce these provisions even in the absence of congressional Section 5 enforcement legislation. Otherwise, as the Colorado Supreme Court notes, “Congress could nullify them by simply not passing enacting legislation.” Why should Section 3 be any different? Monday’s Supreme Court decision doesn’t give us any good answer to that question.

As the Supreme Court ruling notes, following its landmark precedent in City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress’s Section 5 power is “remedial” in nature: It must be “congruent and proportional” to violations of the amendment it is intended to remedy. If Section 5 legislation is remedial in nature, including when it comes to enforcing Section 3, that implies some other entity—state governments and federal courts—has the initial responsibility for ensuring compliance with Section 3. The role of Section 5 is to remedy violations of that duty, not to be the exclusive enforcement mechanism.

Can you describe how preventing trump, who participated in an insurrection, from holding office is fascist?

Of course they won't, but damn they should.

Because of Congress’ current political makeup (Republicans control the House) — that almost certainly won’t happen by Jan. 20, when Trump will be sworn in as the 47th president.

Which makes no mention of confining it to religion, it supports exactly what I've said.

Who does the definition cover?

The definition applies whether Jewish identity is understood as ethnic, biological, religious, cultural, etc. It also applies in cases where a non-Jewish person or institution is either mistaken for being Jewish (“discrimination by perception”) or targeted on account of a connection to Jews (“discrimination by association”).

Thank you for confirming that, and no, I've said nothing about how the us definition is terrible.

The article and mayor are objectively correct in denouncing the antisemitism. Those are the facts, and that's it. To suggest the article or mayor is lying to further your argument is misinformation.

I will not entertain any further argument from you in this regard. The facts are against you.