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
What part of what I said was emotional? I feel like people just say this in order to not address what is actually being said. You simply say "you're being emotional" and then you don't have to address your own contridictions.
I'm pretty clear in pointing to the terrorism of both ISIS and the US military. I'm not using "emotion" I'm pointing to the material actions of these organizations that result in the deaths of innocent people. And if we were considering scale the US military would be far far worse. Even if we adjusted for the time they existed.
You are clearly the one trying to appeal to emotions. Pointing to the deaths of individual soldiers of these organizations. Like because they are humans in a uniform we have to "respect or honor" them. That is extremely emotional and not at all based in judging them by their material actions.
You can understand the circumstances that led these people to be in their roles in a terrorist organization. But you definitely do not have to "honor" or "respect" them. To do so is to endorse the material circumstances that lead to them being a part of that terrorist organization to begin with.
You're really missing the point here and keep sidetracking by trying to say I'm "being emotional". When you are clearly the only one appealing to emotions.
You're literally making an emotional argument, "terrorist" isn't a factually based claim as one man's terrorists are anothers freedom fighters. You really aught not to be a grammer Nazi on top of a bigot, it's not a good look.
It's literally the subject of the article, not terrorism, not war.
No dude, you're missing the point.
Tesla protestors, terrorists or protestors? If they die should I show them no respect. Draw some lines, let's see what kind of escher on crack artwork it comes out as.
Again, you shifted the goal post so now the conversation has to be about the definition of "terrorism". That's fine. We can have that conversation. But that is not at all "emotional".
You keep assigning "emotional" as a way to avoid the point and then trying to change the topic.
It's exhausting. And it's a sign that you don't want to actually argue in good faith. You've gone full "debate lord". Goodnight mate.
You used the term, it isn't based in fact but rather opinion which is an emotional basis. Terrorism = bad is inherently an appeal to emotion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
It's just what is called, read more and rant less.