this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
169 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2539 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
[–] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago (3 children)

you know, good for her, i guess, but i absolutely fucking hate that they just paint this picture of her like a normal, well adjusted person who happened to get involved in some Weird Shit, because she has to have ignored or dismissed a LOT of red flags to get to where she was.

I have to mildly disagree here. Yes, some (I'll even go so far as to say the majority) of the blame falls on her for being willfully blind for so long, but there's also the fact that many of her colleagues simply tried shielding her from the information. Plus, in any case like this, you often don't know the true reality of the situation until you roll up your sleeves and start digging in yourself.

But I'm willing to give her a lot of credit. She was willing to have her beliefs challenged, she was willing to look at everything objectively, and she didn't follow her colleagues' lead in ignoring the evidence for their own political benefit because the facts didn't jive with their personal worldview (and apparently being willing to state as much, if only to her). That itself is a rarity in society today, where the only answer to extremism is more extremism, doubling down instead of compromising, and treating any attempt at admitting the other side may have a point as being a traitor to the cause. This holds especially true in the GOP, and even more so in places like Texas.

And in an area like that, I'd much rather have someone who at least seems to be willing to be objective and accept reality vs. yet another crackpot who wants a list of books banned because some of the words contain the letters G, A, and Y.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

Also you have to allow people a way out. If you say they can never come back to reality, then they won't try.

It takes a lot to leave your social group, even if that social group is based on rage, lies, and bullshit. It's not entirely different from ex-Mormons or people leaving a cult.

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 6 months ago

Now is she actually gonna do something about her colleagues misleading her or continue being complicit due to willful ignorance?

[–] cedarmesa@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago

Belief is a word for children. Adults either know or dont know. If you see an adult using the word believe youre staring at a red flag.