this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
391 points (96.9% liked)

politics

19062 readers
4580 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.
  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
 

On the last Saturday before Donald Trump took office, in January 2017, I watched the controlled chaos of a hackathon unfold in a library at the University of Pennsylvania. Volunteer archivists, librarians, and computer scientists were trawling government websites, looking for data sets about climate change to duplicate for safekeeping. Groups like this were meeting across the country. Flowcharts on whiteboards laid out this particular room’s priorities: copy decades of ice-core statistics from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; scrape the Environmental Protection Agency’s entire library of local air-monitoring results from the previous four years; find a way to preserve a zoomable map of the factories and power plants emitting the most greenhouse gases.

The fear was that the incoming administration would pull information like this from public view—and within a week, it did. By noon on Inauguration Day, the Trump administration had scrubbed mentions of climate change from the White House website. By May, officials had taken down the EPA’s page laying out climate science for the general public, as well as 108 pages associated with the Clean Power Plan, the landmark Obama policy meant to curb emissions from power plants—months before the Trump administration tried to repeal the policy altogether.

The administration’s goal was to bury the issue of climate change. Nothing was done to address it; the very mention of it was knocked from the national agenda—and, by extension, the international agenda. If Trump returns to office, he will surely double down on this strategy.

Non-paywall link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

They already have a choice. And they’re not coming around. Fuck being friendly. They want their asses kissed for threatening to take the ball and go home?

Democracy is at state. You do what you have to to keep it alive, THEN fix things. Maybe this’ll teach them that you need to do more than just whine online about things that you barely ever understood to begin with and be an active part of democracy.

Becasue It takes a lot more than simply bitching online every election year.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Fuck being friendly.

Maybe this’ll teach them

You can decide for yourself, of course, whether being friendly and listening is more or less effective than lecturing, but it sounds like you're choosing not to pick the best of bad options, but just let it burn, to show people who think differently from you how wrong they are. This could be described as:

threatening to take the ball and go home

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

They want their asses kisesd. Show me an example of when this has ever netted positive results?

They chose to hold democracy hostage over a single issue and you suggest we sit down and reason with them? I’ve tried. SO many times. They won’t listen.

They’re like Trump supporters at this point. Ridicule is what they deserve. The damage has already been done. Fuck them.

[–] docAvid@midwest.social 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I get it. I'm frustrated, too. I've tried so many times, too. If you think that somebody can't be swayed, then it's probably best not to waste time on them at all, but think about the other people - the ones watching the conversation play out, who may never say a word - what will move them? Sometimes, I do think being confrontational and telling someone off can be the best option, because other people are watching, and it's what they see that matters. Other times, for the same reason, it's not a good choice. And sometimes I just get mad and I say what I say, even though it might be doing more harm than good. And still other times, I don't say anything at all, because I don't know how to say something useful. It sucks. Giving a shit really sucks sometimes.

I try to remember how Hillary Clinton said "basket of deplorables", absolute political malpractice, that was. When you give someone a choice between thinking of themselves as being bad, and thinking of you as being wrong, they'll always make the same decision.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 months ago

Nope. Fuck them. Like Trump’s minions, They’re far too ignorant to be swayed. They don’t know what they’re doing and they’re too stubborn to listen.

So… they absolutely need to be ridiculed for willingly fucking over their own country.