43

PHILADELPHIA — Last week, a local Indiana chapter of Moms for Liberty attracted attention for quoting Adolf Hitler in its newsletter. After the local paper reported the story, the group added additional “context” but kept the quote. Eventually, after it faced even more scrutiny, the organization removed the quote and apologized in a statement posted to its Facebook group.

That, however, was a big mistake, according to advice at the Moms for Liberty national conference’s media training session Friday.

“Never apologize. Ever,” said Christian Ziegler, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party. “This is my view. Other people have different views on this. I think apologizing makes you weak.”

He advised the attendees to instead make it clear that the Hitler comment was “vile” but to immediately pivot to make the point that Hitler indoctrinated children in schools and that that’s what Moms for Liberty was fighting against. Ziegler warned that any apology would become the headline, so that should be avoided.

You read that right. He said to not apologize for quoting Hitler. That's what we're dealing with now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dienervent@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago

"But guess who it is that I see acting in bad faith right now? You."

Yeah, can you explain this a bit more?

Yes I can. But also, I have to apologize, saying "bad faith" was definitely going a bit too far. What you're doing is being exceedingly and ironically uncharitable.

I'm guessing that the Moms of Liberty have quite a lot of statements to make the but the one in the newsletter that contained the quote was about giving parents more control over their children's education. THAT is the topic of discussion (or at least what they present as their side of the discussion, their true agenda may differ).

Opponents to Moms of Liberty are derailing the topic of discussion by making it about quoting Hitler. This particular article quotes a member of Moms of Liberty advocating for not apologizing, because if they apologize that will become the story instead of the actual thing she wanted to talk about.

Then you come on here and say, don't let them derail the conversation by bringing it back to the thing they actually want to talk about.

In contrast, you’re associating me with some quote about killing “far-right shitbirds” because…why? I’m not seeing the logic of the association between me and that quote or about how I’m acting in bad faith.

Because it is a quote by someone on this very thread with 14 upvotes. This is a member of your community and they're popularly supported and you've done nothing to reign them in.

[-] jdsquared@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

You keep coming back to defending their Hitler quote. As if it's ever okay to quote Hitler regardless of context. You want us to discuss instead... Actually I can't really figure out what you want us to discuss. But you want us to ignore the Hitler quote. You said that multiple times now. I think anybody who's quoting Hitler should not be given the forum for debate. I'm not one that call a lot of people Nazis just for the hell of it, but if you're quoting Hitler... Well then you're a Nazi sympathizer at a minimum. I have no interest in what else you want to say after that point.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

What exactly do you expect us to do to rein them in? What power do you think we have?

[-] Dienervent@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago

At the very least downvote it. There's now EIGHTEEN upvotes, 2 boosts, and I'm still the only downvote on that comment. And I know people can find the downvote button because I can see how many downvotes I'm getting.

Moderators here don't have a rule against calls for violence. I already reported it, but technically it's not against the rules. Which I can understand in a politics magazine where war can be a topic of discussion, you don't want to be banning people when for example the government is actively engaging in mass murder (e.g. like the Rwanda genocide) and a commenter is saying that the people should defend themselves with lethal force if necessary.

EDIT: Also my post was intended as a reply to someone else, I'm still getting used to the UI can accidentally making a top level comment instead of a reply.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

As the sidebar says:

Vote based on comment quality, not agreement.

[-] Dienervent@kbin.social -4 points 1 year ago

The quality of my comments have been so abysmal I see. And jokingly calling for genocide is one of the best quality comments on this thread.

this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
43 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4442 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS