246
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
246 points (98.8% liked)
politics
18894 readers
6468 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who did political work for that piece of shit gets what they deserve.
Typical reactionaries: they're only upset when they become the target of the hatered they were slinging.
It's not like it was a secret that Trump and team are a hugely vindictive bag of assholes.
This woman has done so much work for many people who worked on the campaign. She has spent her own resources to get the NDAs that her and others signed declared non binding, or whatever the legal term is.
I'm not a fan of Trump supporters, but telling them to pound sand because they supported him at some point but have seen the errors in their ways will do us no favors.
Check out some of her work and her story
Her story
If you stop being a fascist, you get a "good job, now roll up your sleeves and help undo the damage."
She helped empower the people who are harassing her (and countless others); I'm glad that she's working to reverse that, but she doesn't get a cookie for her efforts- she (hopefully) gets to live in a society that doesn't put up with this shit.
She must atone before she is taken seriously.
When you work for Trump - you are expendable.
It's why we're seeing all of these former Trump colleagues going around like "Why, why did he do this to me?" "Why, I was special to him!!"
Trump only cares about Trump.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasShe was working to make sure that far worse harassment happened to much more vulnerable people.
I'm not going to cry when she gets some splash damage.
Back then, most people didn't understand the threat that was Trump. I sure didn't know all of the horrific things he did. This was pre Epstein. This was before Stormy.
I thought he was just a bombastic rich asshole with a shit political outlook.
Someone taking a job in that campaign had no reason to think it would be toxic. Most campaigns are not run by the candidate but by the party.
I mean, he began his political career by a racist attack on Obama.
He started his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and drug dealers.
He said a judge couldn't be fair to him because the guy had Mexican heritage.
He openly campaigned on a Muslim ban in the US and commiting war crimes by killing the families of terrorists.
There was a tape where he admitted to sexual assault.
Any ignorance to the fact that he was a vile, racist, bigoted rapist was intentional. Doubly so if she worked to get him elected.
Correct. Everyone full well knew what a sack of shit he was. 2016 at the absolute latest. Everyone in New York knew for decades. She knew.
You'd think someone politically connected enough to work for him would know.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasShe worked to make my kids a target because she didn't think it would impact her life.
I don't have any sympathy for anyone who did that.
I keep getting reminded of Serena Waterford when it comes to so many Republican women...
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasMaybe you should eat something.
You sound a bit grumpy.
We'll talk after you've had your nap, okay buddy?
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasAh, so insulting my parenting was productive, but getting called on it was a bit too spicy.
You truly are the bigger person.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasI see, anything is fair game to insult so long as your interlocutor introduced the topic!
I taught my kids to take responsibility for their words.
You've apparently not learned that lesson.
Maybe you'll grow up one day.
In your view, does anyone "deserve" mistreatment?
Because being mangled by the machine you helped build to mangle people, kinda just seems like poetic irony.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas"Deserved" is a subjective qualifier though. It doesn't really mean anything without reference to an ethical framework for context.
Saying I deserve a doughnut, basically means I want a donut unless there's a specific context that alludes to why you should be rewarded with a doughnut.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasI don't really think so, otherwise they probably would have said it. I think you're just utilizing loaded terminology to suit your argument.
It would be like seeing the guys from jackass injure themselves in a stunt, and then accusing people who witnessed it of being callous for not being sympathetic. "No one deserves to break their penis for entertainment purposes!"..... Well, okay, I guess that's a nice platitude. But that guy was swinging his dick at an angry bull, and no one was making him do it.
I am so tired of this prescriptive bullshit on online forms. If you don’t see it then fine, you don’t see it. But don’t make up some nonsense about me to pretend I didn’t read what I read. We just disagree, it’s that simple.
Sometimes people mean more than the words in front of you. It’s called nuance, implications, etc. People mean more than what they literally wrote sometimes. Yet for some reason when we are on forums people pretend that doesn’t exist, like interpretation can’t exist ever.
Well, this would be fine if you weren't attacking other people's interpretations.....
Usually when people witness a criticism they want to know the logic behind that criticism.
I think that's because the whole point of forums is to express your ideas through the written word. Expecting people in a forum to interpret your argument with nuance when you express none is idiotic.
So the written word doesn’t contain nuance or implications? It’s never open to interpretation? That’s certainly a take. I am not going to be as dick-ish as you though and call you idiotic.
Man, can you fucking read? The written word contains nuance and implications, but you can't interpret it from someone's writing that is devoid of it.....
I can't say I don't like lord of the rigs, and then expect people to assume my reasoning is nuanced, or that my statement may spur any further implications.
I think we just have interpretations of what I have said. People are allowed to have nuanced opinions. Maybe, idiotic isn't an implication of being dick-ish to me?
No one deserves to be called a dick. Be better.
Oh but I deserved to be called an idiot? Go fuck yourself and spare me the high road nonsense.
Feel free to have the last word. I’m sure it’s very important to you.
Lol, didn't get the sarcasm?
There's a difference in victim blaming via " what was she wearing" and someone knowingly walking into a lions den while wearing a meat dress like Lady Gag.
It would be a little different if she didn't actively work to empower a person whose platform revolves around harassing and silencing women who have been sexually assaulted.
People who take people's dignity in an inhumane manor do not themselves deserve to be treated with basic dignity. That's just inviting a paradox of abuse.
Exactly.
There's a big difference between blaming the victim and reaping the whirlwind.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfasThat's okay, people are allowed to have differing opinions. I was just curious about the extent of your world view. It seems to invite internal contradictions, or at least rely on a hefty amount of cognitive dissidence.
For example, if no one deserves that type of treatment, what does the person committing or enabling those acts deserve?
If they deserve a punishment, why not the one they laid upon others? Is it because of the nature of the treatment is somehow worse than other punishments? If it is worse for some reason, why do they deserve better treatment than what they serve to others?
Absolutely losing it over "cognitive dissidence". I know you meant "dissonance", but the way you spelled it is probably more accurate.
"Cognitive dissonance" is when a person's behaviors don't match their stated values or beliefs. It's basically a fancy word for hypocrisy as it relates to argumentation / debate. I'm not seeing it in @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone's argument here. They're basically just disagreeing with you about whether or not Conservatives deserve suffering. They've been perfectly consistent in their reasoning, and you haven't offered any actual justification for your position aside from a petty appeal to disgust.
"Cognitive dissidence" reads like "If you disagree with me you're wrong", which is exactly your attitude here.
I don't think thats the definition of cognitive dissonance. It's just holding two conflicting ideas at the same time, so your behaviour is by default not aligning with your ideas, because it's impossible.
I think the cognitive dissonance lies in the fact that they state no one should be subjected to that behavior, but they are arguing in favour of a person who is perpetuating the action upon others.
Right, but they were the only person who brought in the concept of "deserve", it's a strawman argument.
Deserve implies some sort of ethical construct to judge the justification of the action. When in reality we are not choosing wether or not this action is being done, just witnessing it.
Yeah, for some reason my autocorrect really like dissidence over dissonance. But I'd say that's a fairly pedantic point to base your argument.