this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
160 points (96.0% liked)
196
17203 readers
1713 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It might have something to do with their steadfast insistence on rating literal Zionist propaganda outlets that spread straight up lies that have been debunked hundreds of times over as “extremely credible”.
Just ignoring reality like that tends to hurt the credibility of a credibility meter.
And don’t get me wrong, I have a shit ton of gripes about The Guardian as a trans person, but rating its factual reporting as “mixed” while the NYT is “high” is either incompetence or an agenda. I think they bank on Americans not being familiar with what international papers are reputable.
Absolutely. And also banking on both Americans and non-Americans to be unaware of the extreme pro-zionist, pro-cop, and pro-establishment bias of the NYT as well as the lies they keep spreading as a result.
Wikipedia's entries note that such outlets aren't much credible.
No, that would have made it the most popular user lemmy has ever seen. I think it was because it was something that no one asked for like that one U2 album.
You think zionism is extremely popular on Lemmy?? What the fuck have you been smoking?!
certainly on .world
Nope. Even on [email protected], the most Neoliberal community on the most Neoliberal instance on Lemmy, pro-zionist comments are few and heavily downvoted, as they should be.
They're openly hostile to anyone who says that Democrats should not support Netanyahu's genocide.
Not really, only the ones who say that you should withhold support from all Democrats in a binary election system. And anyone who says anything that can possibly be interpreted as such. And quite a few where they have to invent the nonsupport out of whole cloth.
It's not so much that they're Zionists, it's more that many of them are pro-Dem to the point where any dissent against any Dems, especially the leaders, gets the same ferocious reactions as when you criticize the Mango Mussolini amongst his fascist cult.
Or to put it another way: apart from understandable election pragmatism, there's a lot of people there who cares more about pretending that their "team" is perfect than about holding the people supposed to represent them accountable for participating in countless crimes against humanity.
I have never, not a single fucking time, suggested withholding support. That has never fucking mattered.
And I don't give the benefit of the doubt to people who are willing to jettison their humanity just for their "team". Particularly when they're super fucking excited to get Dick Cheney's endorsement.
I completely agree. Just pointing out the technical difference between pro-zionism and harassing/othering anti-zionists for reasons only indirectly related 😉
In the next few weeks, we'll see if centrists start abandoning their hostility toward the anti-genocide wing of the party. I don't think they will. I think you've drawn a distinction without a difference.
It's a distinction without much of a practical difference, yes, but I still think that not considering atrocities a deal breaker and being in favor of the atrocities should be distinguished between.
Can't argue as effectively against a wrong conclusion if you don't know the reasons for reaching it, is my point.
And yeah, you're right about them already blaming everyone to the left of Reagan for the pro-Cheney campaign failing to defeat a personally repulsive fascist idiot 🤦
Agreed until they start being hostile to all criticism of the party, even when the criticism is about genocide support.