politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
My point was you make it out as if comments and downvotes are exclusive. As if downvoting doesn't send a message in itself.
The crux of your response? Saying that your personal online experience has been different than mine and somehow invalidates it? Was it really worth addressing? Maybe pay more attention to the comments you read through? You having not experienced it means nothing to those that have
Pretty sure the whole point of them sharing a personal anecdote wasn't to invalidate yours so much as to point out that your experience is, in fact, anecdotal and therefore not concrete enough of a justification to make the blanket statement of "you can't criticize Dems on left-leaning social media" (paraphrased).
It's certainly your lived experience, but to generalize entire platforms based on it is asinine. Need more data to make a statement like that and not be challenged.
I understand where you're coming from, but myself making a statement that I have experienced something first hand and witnessed others experience such responses to criticism means a lot more than someone saying they have never. It's like someone saying I was bullied in high-school to then have others say I was never bullied in school, bullies don't exist. It's an irrelevant statement and is only trying to dismiss one's experiences.
Apologies for the late reply, I guess I didn't have notifications set up correctly.
I think I see the point you're making, but I don't think that it contradicts my point. Your analogy isn't quite applicable here because no one is saying vocal-toxic-leftists don't exist, we're saying that just because you have seen vocal-toxic-leftists you can't defensibly generalize large groups with such little evidence.
It's early and I haven't had coffee, so I apologize again if what I said isn't so clear.