770
this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
770 points (82.2% liked)
Political Memes
1585 readers
213 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
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
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.
The analogy is valid, so no, let's not.
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."
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."
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.
Apologies for misrepresenting you. That's why I tried to remove the imperfect analogy and talk actual facts.
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.
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.
Edit: I just reread this part and should address it.
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.
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."
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.
Then it didn't happen.