this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
1025 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2590 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. 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.
  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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reptar@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You're just throwing shit at the wall man. You slap together strawmen in the form of a rhetorical question assigning a obviously weak position to the other commenter, over and over again. Why?

They weren't defending the targeting of civilians in WWII.

They weren't arguing that Hamas is not antisemitic.

They weren't claiming Hamas is brave or pure in spirit.

They don't claim Hamas has justification.

They don't justify acts of destruction and terrorizing Jewish communities.

On and on and on. Do you always operate this way?

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

On and on and on. Do you always operate this way?

Yes, yes they do. You are dealing with someone who has fashioned there entire rhetorical style after the Gish Gallop. They will absolutely never engage honestly with any of your arguments or criticisms because they want to poison the well by using a constant barrage of heavily regurgitated arguments interwoven with new, but equally myopic ones. Then add on top of that a delusional sense of intellectual superiority sprinkled with a pathological need to justify the "obvious moral superiority of the zionist movement", and you can see where this person is not a good faith actor.