Are DCUM Political Topics Changing Your Vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Kamala Harris was named candidate I noticed an aggressive number of posts and responses that seemed to me designed/written by political consultants and this post further enhances my suspicions.

I have stopped taking anything here with any weight as I don't even think most are written by regular parents but rather, professional consultants. You are asking if your efforts have worked - my answer is "no".

Yeah. In 2020, she was considered one of the worst candidates before she was anointed. Now that she's been anointed for a second time, it was suddenly like, "We're all completely behind and completely inspired by our undemocratically-selected representative!" To me, it shows that Democrats will rally behind a bag of pinecones if they're told to do so.

More and more Republicans are sick of Trump. All he cares about is himself and what *he* can get out of a given situation. And Vance is an effing pansy.

Not sure what anything I said had to do with Trump, but ok.

And also people are grossed out by the reports of Trump shitting himself and having to wear adult diapers. It doesn’t matter if he’s “elderly,” people find it repellent.

I'm sure it was strategic to get Biden to bow out on account of his failing mind, because Democrats could live with spending the next few years calling out their enemies for lacking a mind or having "elderly problems."

If Democrats had waited until some of his other flaws had come to the forefront, it would have become socially awkward to have to accuse everyone who disagreed with them of touching underage girls and having an international-scale death and destruction fetish.

Well OK, but either way a lot of people (including some Republicans) find the reports of Trump shitting himself on planes, in hallways, etc, and having to wear adult diapers to be pretty unappealing. They don’t care that he is old, it’s still gross.

I still find it amazing that the only meaningful attack that Democrats could muster on Trump's VP pick was a satirical report that he'd f'd a couch.

You consider that a meaningful attack? It was a joke. Most Democrats recognized it as a joke.

For "meaningful" objections (not attacks), I offer him falsifying his origins, belittling actual Appalachians, making a career of selling himself to the highest bidder and saying whatever he has to to close the deal, holding a deeply regressive view of women . . . do you want more, or are you savoring traits that you, mysteriously, find appealing?

You object to Vance for selling himself to the highest bidder? Do you know of any other politicians or is Vance the only one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing threads like the Vance/ couch thread have opened my eyes to how petty and outrageous certain LWNJ’s are. Does nothing to sway my vote as I wasn’t voting for Trump anyway: however threads like that are so juvenile and repetitive that it’s a big eye opener.

The same people who hysterically emote about disinformation, misinformation, and Trump’s “lies” are flogging the Vance couch thing about. It makes the whole russian troll argument performative and null.

OMG! SOMEONE MADE A FUNNY!!!

We better throw out women’s rights.

DP. Not entirely clear who is throwing out of women’s rights with more alacrity, the Democrats or the Republicans. Both parties are leaning in hard on misogyny.

It’s very clear for those of living in reality.

The reality where millions of women have already lost access to healthcare.

I am sure that’s what you believe is true.

https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy-emergency-care-abortion-supreme-court-roe-9ce6c87c8fc653c840654de1ae5f7a1c

https://abcnews.go.com/US/delayed-denied-women-pushed-deaths-door-abortion-care/story?id=105563255

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/us/politics/abortion-obstetricians-maternity-care.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

That’s really problematic. Especially when the posts are cited and linked to a reputable news report. I can understand deleting outrageous or misleading content, but deleting actual news because it doesn’t fit your narrative is confusing and unnecessary.

“Actual news” like Breitbart?

No, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Politico, etc. Nobody here would post a link to Breitbart. Have you seen lots of Breitbart links?

And yet, liberals link to sites like Salon, Daily Beast, The Intercept - and expect to be taken seriously. Not to mention far-left randoms tweeting LWNJ propaganda. Very much a double standard here.
DP

No, liberals are not reading The Intercept (lol) and I can't remember the last time anyone looked at Salon. Daily Beast? I guess if a story pops up on reddit or a twitter feed.

Your info is dated and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since Kamala Harris was named candidate I noticed an aggressive number of posts and responses that seemed to me designed/written by political consultants and this post further enhances my suspicions.

I have stopped taking anything here with any weight as I don't even think most are written by regular parents but rather, professional consultants. You are asking if your efforts have worked - my answer is "no".

Yeah. In 2020, she was considered one of the worst candidates before she was anointed. Now that she's been anointed for a second time, it was suddenly like, "We're all completely behind and completely inspired by our undemocratically-selected representative!" To me, it shows that Democrats will rally behind a bag of pinecones if they're told to do so.

More and more Republicans are sick of Trump. All he cares about is himself and what *he* can get out of a given situation. And Vance is an effing pansy.

Not sure what anything I said had to do with Trump, but ok.

And also people are grossed out by the reports of Trump shitting himself and having to wear adult diapers. It doesn’t matter if he’s “elderly,” people find it repellent.

I'm sure it was strategic to get Biden to bow out on account of his failing mind, because Democrats could live with spending the next few years calling out their enemies for lacking a mind or having "elderly problems."

If Democrats had waited until some of his other flaws had come to the forefront, it would have become socially awkward to have to accuse everyone who disagreed with them of touching underage girls and having an international-scale death and destruction fetish.

Well OK, but either way a lot of people (including some Republicans) find the reports of Trump shitting himself on planes, in hallways, etc, and having to wear adult diapers to be pretty unappealing. They don’t care that he is old, it’s still gross.

I still find it amazing that the only meaningful attack that Democrats could muster on Trump's VP pick was a satirical report that he'd f'd a couch.

I think it’s mostly that people hate Trump. He’s truly jumped the shark. They just don’t like (rather than hate) Vance, he’s got creeper/incel/loser vibes.

As a woman, who believes I deserve to be fully human, I hate Vance.

I have a more visceral hatred for Trump. But I hate Vance plenty on his own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing threads like the Vance/ couch thread have opened my eyes to how petty and outrageous certain LWNJ’s are. Does nothing to sway my vote as I wasn’t voting for Trump anyway: however threads like that are so juvenile and repetitive that it’s a big eye opener.

The same people who hysterically emote about disinformation, misinformation, and Trump’s “lies” are flogging the Vance couch thing about. It makes the whole russian troll argument performative and null.

OMG! SOMEONE MADE A FUNNY!!!

We better throw out women’s rights.

DP. Not entirely clear who is throwing out of women’s rights with more alacrity, the Democrats or the Republicans. Both parties are leaning in hard on misogyny.

It’s very clear for those of living in reality.

The reality where millions of women have already lost access to healthcare.

I am sure that’s what you believe is true.

DP. You’re doing your hateful forced birther agenda all the favors in the world by telling women they haven’t lost anything.

I’m pro-choice. And I believe the Republicans deeply hate women. However, I also believe the Democrats deeply hate women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

That’s really problematic. Especially when the posts are cited and linked to a reputable news report. I can understand deleting outrageous or misleading content, but deleting actual news because it doesn’t fit your narrative is confusing and unnecessary.

“Actual news” like Breitbart?

No, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Politico, etc. Nobody here would post a link to Breitbart. Have you seen lots of Breitbart links?

And yet, liberals link to sites like Salon, Daily Beast, The Intercept - and expect to be taken seriously. Not to mention far-left randoms tweeting LWNJ propaganda. Very much a double standard here.
DP

No, liberals are not reading The Intercept (lol) and I can't remember the last time anyone looked at Salon. Daily Beast? I guess if a story pops up on reddit or a twitter feed.

Your info is dated and wrong.

I see plenty of links to Vox and Daily Beast as “serious” sources by LWNJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing threads like the Vance/ couch thread have opened my eyes to how petty and outrageous certain LWNJ’s are. Does nothing to sway my vote as I wasn’t voting for Trump anyway: however threads like that are so juvenile and repetitive that it’s a big eye opener.

The same people who hysterically emote about disinformation, misinformation, and Trump’s “lies” are flogging the Vance couch thing about. It makes the whole russian troll argument performative and null.

OMG! SOMEONE MADE A FUNNY!!!

We better throw out women’s rights.

DP. Not entirely clear who is throwing out of women’s rights with more alacrity, the Democrats or the Republicans. Both parties are leaning in hard on misogyny.

It’s very clear for those of living in reality.

The reality where millions of women have already lost access to healthcare.

I am sure that’s what you believe is true.

DP. You’re doing your hateful forced birther agenda all the favors in the world by telling women they haven’t lost anything.

I’m pro-choice. And I believe the Republicans deeply hate women. However, I also believe the Democrats deeply hate women.

Both sides!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

That’s really problematic. Especially when the posts are cited and linked to a reputable news report. I can understand deleting outrageous or misleading content, but deleting actual news because it doesn’t fit your narrative is confusing and unnecessary.

“Actual news” like Breitbart?

No, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Politico, etc. Nobody here would post a link to Breitbart. Have you seen lots of Breitbart links?

And yet, liberals link to sites like Salon, Daily Beast, The Intercept - and expect to be taken seriously. Not to mention far-left randoms tweeting LWNJ propaganda. Very much a double standard here.
DP

No, liberals are not reading The Intercept (lol) and I can't remember the last time anyone looked at Salon. Daily Beast? I guess if a story pops up on reddit or a twitter feed.

Your info is dated and wrong.

I see plenty of links to Vox and Daily Beast as “serious” sources by LWNJ.

Where are you seeing those links?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seeing threads like the Vance/ couch thread have opened my eyes to how petty and outrageous certain LWNJ’s are. Does nothing to sway my vote as I wasn’t voting for Trump anyway: however threads like that are so juvenile and repetitive that it’s a big eye opener.

The same people who hysterically emote about disinformation, misinformation, and Trump’s “lies” are flogging the Vance couch thing about. It makes the whole russian troll argument performative and null.

OMG! SOMEONE MADE A FUNNY!!!

We better throw out women’s rights.

DP. Not entirely clear who is throwing out of women’s rights with more alacrity, the Democrats or the Republicans. Both parties are leaning in hard on misogyny.

It’s very clear for those of living in reality.

The reality where millions of women have already lost access to healthcare.

I am sure that’s what you believe is true.

DP. You’re doing your hateful forced birther agenda all the favors in the world by telling women they haven’t lost anything.

I’m pro-choice. And I believe the Republicans deeply hate women. However, I also believe the Democrats deeply hate women.

Both sides!

It is unfortunately true that when it comes to misogyny, both political parties have embraced it with great fervor.

It’s not just them, though. There is a global resurgence of misogyny now. I think there are surprisingly high odds that in fifty years much of the world will be treating women the way the Taliban does, including much of the west. And I will be completely honest that I am not sure whether the Republicans or Democrats will get us there faster in the US.

Anyhow different topic. It’s just that we are not as insulated as we like to think here from global trends. I think there is a real possibility that we look back at the 2010s the way women in Iran look back at the 1970s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

That’s really problematic. Especially when the posts are cited and linked to a reputable news report. I can understand deleting outrageous or misleading content, but deleting actual news because it doesn’t fit your narrative is confusing and unnecessary.

“Actual news” like Breitbart?

No, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Politico, etc. Nobody here would post a link to Breitbart. Have you seen lots of Breitbart links?

And yet, liberals link to sites like Salon, Daily Beast, The Intercept - and expect to be taken seriously. Not to mention far-left randoms tweeting LWNJ propaganda. Very much a double standard here.
DP

No, liberals are not reading The Intercept (lol) and I can't remember the last time anyone looked at Salon. Daily Beast? I guess if a story pops up on reddit or a twitter feed.

Your info is dated and wrong.

I see plenty of links to Vox and Daily Beast as “serious” sources by LWNJ.

Where are you seeing those links?

DCUM. This thread is about DCUM changing minds. I’ve seen many LWNJ cite both of those sources as “proof” of whatever point they are arguing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No but I think many interesting and convincing Democrats have left the forum.
The intellectual rigor has left with them

It’s too Trumpy here now. It’s not worth engaging with the trolls who aren’t posting in good faith.

I don’t mind the trolls, far-left, or far-right, as much as I do the heavily biased moderation particularly on fact based statements. Once I saw this insane tipping the scales, I drastically reduced forum participation.

I disagree with Jeff profoundly on some issues — and I think he is absolutely on the wrong side of history for some of them — but he is really pretty clear about his political leanings and subsequent moderation. Of course you are also free to respond exactly as you did, too.

Completely agree. I understand this is Jeff's website and he is free to moderate as he pleases but there is a heavy left leaning bias on here. One issue I believe he is misguided on is transgender issues. So many posts get deleted and it's difficult to have an honest conversation.

Unfortunately, we can’t discuss certain topics because they draw the bigots out of the woodwork. People who are disrespectful and throw out hateful comments as “a DiFfeReNt oPinIoN”.

The problem is comments like “biological males shouldn’t compete in women’s sports” is not a hateful or bigoted comment, but gets labeled as such.

+100

You would be right to get flagged as hateful and bigoted when you try and call Imane Khelif "tr@ns" and "a man in the boxing ring beating up women" when she was born female, has female on her birth certificate, grew up female, has never ever in her life been identified as anything other than female, including numerous medical exams and tests - UNTIL she beat a Russian boxer, after which the IBA, which is Russian-run and BANNED from the Olympics due to corruption, declared, WITHOUT SHOWING PROOF, that she supposedly "flunked a gender test" and has ever since been sketchy, evasive and generally non-respondent to any followup inquiries.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/olympic-boxer-imane-khelif-is-neither-trans-nor-male/ar-AA1oidMS?ocid=BingNewsSerp

And then this poor woman got mercilessly cyberbullied and harassed by ranks of deranged right wingers, much like the ones who post here.

I agree that this should be flagged as hateful and bigoted. But that is not the example PP posted - what PP posted is definitely Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment.

However, Freedom of Speech is not protected by the First Amendment when it includes obscenity, child pornography, [b]defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words that incite violence.[/b]

Which is why Imane Khelif actually has a basis for filing a lawsuit for libel, defamation and cyberbullying.

However, expressing general statements on issues based on one's personal beliefs is Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment. As such, even if you don't agree with them, you are obliged to tolerate them so long as they don't cross the line.

No one is obligated to "tolerate" hurtful speech and actions based on certain "beliefs".

But the problem is anything that doesn’t agree with your belief system gets labeled “hateful speech.” You can’t have a rational conversation that way. You just can’t.

False. Not “anything”, just those that denigrate and hurt others.

Should we have a rational conversation about white supremacy?

I don’t think biological men should compete in women’s sports - hateful speech or not?
I want the borders closed and money going to undocumented people used for citizens instead - hateful speech or not?