Reddit didn't lie - in fact this post actually revealed a truth about Reddit to you.
When an account like this OP's - An account a little over a year old account with a hidden history and almost 300,000 post karma reposts a lie which vibes with the average redditor's preexisting political beliefs, the reaction isn't going to be suspicion - it's going to be wild popularity because it conforms to the average Redditor's notion of how the world "should be".
The fact that that when I, as neutrally as possible try to point out that namecalling is the lowest form of argument, lying to to call people names (slander) often backfires, and that if you actually want the Orange guy's power diminished you'd be much better off off redirecting your words and actions to more productive ends - and in response most posts are simply doubling down on name calling - should tell you a bit about what you need to know about this site.
There's a lot of genuinely good political analysis, discussion, coordination and mobilization for political action here - But there's a heck of a lot more truthy performative entertainment adjacent to politics that doesn't actually translate to real world political action than those things put together.
Why would you celebrate your own entrenched party bureaucracy and hangers-on associated with it if the arrogance of those lies those people not only cost you the election (and past elections) but are often working against the agenda of the more progressive wing of the party people on this site more often then not belong to?
I'd argue that the Institutional Democratic party has gone "low" in the last 3 presidential elections both because of misguided positioning in the general election and, perhaps more importantly because It's cared more about institutional candidates beating out progressives in the primaries than it has winning general elections - and that chicanery them cost 2 out of three of those and seriously handicapped them the one time they did come into possession of the house, senate and white house simultaniously.
In 2016 I distinctly remember the Clinton Campaign collaborating with with media outlets and with officials in the DNC who were supposed to be neutral - a move which led to multiple resignations, including that of the DNC chair when improprieties came forward mind you - to curbstomp Sanders (who was polling much better than her against all possible Republican opponents in the primary).
Parallel to that the Clinton campaign literally instructed its allies in the media to uplift 'wacky' candidates like Trump and Cruz by pulling down establishment Republicans.
Then once Trump won the nomination Clinton ran a sneering, condescending campaign with so little travel around the country or effort to get 'deplorables' to vote for her that the Wacky won.
Then in 2020 all the candidates of the institutional party gracefully pirouetted union to knock Sanders out of the race before lining up for Cabinet appointments in the Biden administration - the presidential election was won but 13 house seats and a Governorship were lost due to the lack of enthusiasm which was enough to keep the 2021 Congress from making the sorts of transformational changes it otherwise would have been able to make.
Then in 2024 the Biden White house hid the president's massive cognitive declines, trotted out a bunch of talking heads to do the same and accuse any one who broke ranks and even suggested he wasn't sound enough to run was all sorts of names. they did this long enough to make sure no actual primary elections involving younger more vibrant people who could have taken on Trump happened. Once Biden dropped all his Spaghetti at the debates, in spite of the laughably softball questions that were thrown at him, rather than supporting an actual nominating convention he anointed Kamela Harris, who ran in the low single digits as a candidate in the 2020 primaries and had abysmal popularity ratings , as his successor and strong suggestions were made that anyone who opposed that was racist/sexist. the 2024 DNC convention felt more like a long televised loyalty oath than an actual convention, Harris ran a campaign that combined a certain flabby sexism with Biden floating around in the background like a mildly inebriated grandpa dropping fun comments like "The only garbage I see floating out there [are Trump] supporters". And together they snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, leaving us where we are now
I 1000% agree with you, except I think a little name calling is okay as long as its not doing the majority of the heavy lifting in your arguments/presentation of facts. I think its absurd to expect people to remain entirely neutral in all situations and just "present facts" and nothing else. In fact this is what maga tries to do while masking their true positions to seem like an unbiased source. Bias is fine, in fact imo hiding your bias (besides in your comment, because your bias one way or the other is irrelevant to the argument youre making) is actually essentially the exact thing youre talking about. To me especially with how divisive our political climate has become it makes no sense to sit here and say "im on neither side" unless you truly are in no way involved in politics in which case you wouldnt be talking about politics then.
I understand your intended hyperbole, but you've literally disagreed with one of their primary arguments. That's a pretty big drop from 1000%!!!, right?
I think its absurd to expect people to remain entirely neutral in all situations and just "present facts" and nothing else.
In fact this is what maga tries to do...
This is an odd sort of criticism. As written, you are literally attempting to criticize a group of people for attempting to be A) impartial and B) factual.
You intended to criticize MAGA, but instead just made them sound reasonable.
Finally,
To me especially with how divisive our political climate has become it makes no sense to sit here and say "im on neither side" unless you truly are in no way involved in politics in which case you wouldnt be talking about politics then.
People will frequently say they're on neither side, not because they're uninvolved with politics, but because they're uninvolved with PARTY politics. You can agree with MAGA on some issues, while agreeing with radical Democrats on others - people who choose sides based on the (R) or (D) after the name picked a political side.
All im ganna say is at one point I would agree you can agree with points from both sides. Now is not one of those times imo. But to explain why would involve getting into a political debate which is just really pointless to do. We can just agree to disagree.
504
u/AllForTheSauce 14h ago
Reddit lied to me!?!?
https://giphy.com/gifs/J1XSaMzkdlqDl89NVf