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
So what did you do to stop the US killing kids in Iraq and Afghanistan?
An estimated civilian death toll in the hundreds of thousands, and millions displaced.
What are your plans to prevent or oppose the mass deportation of millions of those Afghan refugees as just announced by Pakistan?
There's just a bit of morbid irony in anyone from the US acting like they are on a high moral horse here when their own country has exported an order of magnitude more harm around the world largely to crickets within the country, particularly in comparison to the opposition to something like the Vietnam war.
The US is still currently active in its bombing and involvement in Syria. Thousands of civilians killed by coalition forces, hundreds of thousands fled the country as a result of the conflict. Have you even done anything about that one?
It's just wild when civilians in the US get riled up by the foreign policy conflict of the week, take their sides typically along partisan lines, and pat themselves on the back for taking their stand. "We'll hold our politicians accountable." Meanwhile the actual joint military and intelligence branches have their hands in a half dozen conflicts around the world and are directly responsible for much greater harm that's just far less publicized in Western media because of press relations forged in the wake of Vietnam, and stories like this don't get picked up past the investigative groups researching them.
The US routinely blows up kids and has a long history of refusing to submit itself to international courts.
But no, Americans don't focus on changing the policy and scope of their own government's actions (the thing they in theory have greater influence over). They just get worked up over the actions of other governments allied with the US - and then either are upset about funding Ukraine if Republican or upset about funding Israel if Democrat. At least this week. I'm sure in a few months we'll have moved on to a new Kony 2012 people are "very upset about and not going to forget about until something is done."
(Seriously, the idea the current events will have any real impact on an election a year from now is laughable.)
I'd even be willing to bet at least 95% of all the Americans complaining about foreign governments bombing things couldn't even point on a map to all the places that their own government has bombed children in just the past decade.
Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about…?") denotes in a pejorative sense a procedure in which a critical question or argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation. From a logical and argumentative point of view it is considered a variant of the tu-quoque pattern (Latin 'you too', term for a counter-accusation), which is a subtype of the ad-hominem argument.[1][2][3][4]
The communication intent is often to distract from the content of a topic (red herring). The goal may also be to question the justification for criticism and the legitimacy, integrity, and fairness of the critic, which can take on the character of discrediting the criticism, which may or may not be justified. Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").[5] Related manipulation and propaganda techniques in the sense of rhetorical evasion of the topic are the change of topic and false balance (bothsidesism).[6]
Some commentators have defended the usage of whataboutism and tu quoque in certain contexts. Whataboutism can provide necessary context into whether or not a particular line of critique is relevant or fair, and behavior that may be imperfect by international standards may be appropriate in a given geopolitical neighborhood.[7] Accusing an interlocutor of whataboutism can also in itself be manipulative and serve the motive of discrediting, as critical talking points can be used selectively and purposefully even as the starting point of the conversation (cf. agenda setting, framing, framing effect, priming, cherry picking). The deviation from them can then be branded as whataboutism.[citation needed]
Both whataboutism and the accusation of it are forms of strategic framing and have a framing effect.[8]
So you are qualified to discount anyone related to a subject, that you don't have any access to their research or the education to know about it? I certainly don't, so I just listen to what they say and not attack them or who they are related to.
I opened with a question.
What have you done to stand up for or inform yourself regarding similar priorities with your own country's behaviors overseas?
Go ahead and give me your qualifications there that make me think your attitudes regarding foreign government behaviors aren't hypocritical and simply a partisan fad.
Sorry new app, this was related to another discussion of dismissing science and going into research with bias. Sorry about that.