Commented on a post with the most recent (non-Breitbart) headline and updates. Added this with 3 independent sources:
FYI, Breitbart is a far-right, low-quality source.
Mod apparently didn’t like a more reputable source being added to their post because it was removed in minutes lol.
reason: Rule 6 Violation
Rule 6: Using the Poisoning The Well fallacy to attack sources shared in a post is presently not allowed (this rule may change in the future, and isolated instances will not subject you to a permanent ban)
Just admit you want an echo chamber to spread disinformation and promote biased articles! Using this rule to police sources is very thinly-veiled censorship…
Hey! I really appreciate you looping me in on this.
For the things I post, I’ll usually post them because I either 1) think that the content is probably both relevant and true, 2) it portrays a relevant perspective, or 3) is just plain interesting
If any articles I share make false claims in a community like @[email protected] then I’m more than happy to remove them. For places like @[email protected] I’m not as careful and I hope it’s clear that the stuff over there or at @[email protected] aren’t always going to be 100% true or objective.
Now as far as my behavior is concerned @bdonvr@[email protected] if I’m no longer welcome here I’ll leave. Many of my communities here are continuations of my old Lotide communities, and I only left that software because it’s abandonware now. I’m sure at this point there’d be other Lemmy instances I could go to if you don’t like what I post here.
Edit: Also, the point of Rule 6 was to reduce spam, as my communities were starting to get brigaded by leftists basically saying “fake news” verbatim in the comment sections of certain news posts. I don’t like those types of rules, but it seems necessary for now since it keeps happening. It’s a neutral rule, so if anyone says “fake news” on an article from a center or left leaning source I’ll remove that comment too.
Edit 2:
This was something I noticed during BLM riots particularly, and in some blue areas afterwards like in New York (though not as prominently since the riots), there’d be cases of somebody stealing something or hurting someone, caught on video, and the DA would refuse to place charges on the individual. For the life of me I couldn’t figure out why else they would do that.
Now to be fair I think there was some overlap between the BLM riots and me still watching Steven Crowder so maybe some of the stuff I observed at the time wasn’t entirely accurate or correct (I stopped watching him during the Summer Of Love because I noticed he wasn’t as truthful as he claimed to be during his coverage)
Yeah, I’m not trying to be unfriendly about it.
But… you surely have to see how (2) and (3) are bad things, right? I’m not saying you necessarily mean any harm, but this whole explanation that something is “a perspective” or “interesting” and so that means it’s okay if it doesn’t fall into the category of “true” is… it’s not good. There’s a lot of deliberately misleading stuff out there.
There are a lot of people in the US getting amped-up over some thing that they saw online that’s total fabricated nonsense. People have died as a result. It really matters whether stuff is true. I know it is sort of popular in some circles to retreat into a kind of landscape where it’s not all that important, everything’s just a perspective, if the stuff starts getting challenged, but it is important. Perspective is perspective, and truth and falsehood are truth and falsehood. They’re not the same.
I mean just someone explaining their take on things is fine. Maybe that’s what you mean by (2). Something doesn’t have to be “objective” to be based in fact and reality. I guess my beef is more with the stuff where it’s treated as not that important that the factual backing is not there or just imaginary.
Yeah, I do get that. I would rather have some kind of productive conversation about it. I don’t think it’s really all that useful to just have two sides yelling at each other whichever side anybody happens to be on.
What you’re saying now is different from what you said before. What you said before was “equitive justice” and “progressive prosecution” where people in the present tense are not prosecuted because of their race. Where does this happen, what are some of the cities? Where can I read more about it? How did you find out about it?
I have more to say on the arrests-during-BLM issue specifically, but that’s different than saying that blue states are using progressive prosecution and refusing to charge a crime because of the race of the person being accused, so I want to focus on the first thing instead of switching if we can.
Yeah, fair enough. I’ve had that experience of paying attention to something online and believing it, and then later on putting it together that it was bullshit, so I can respect the idea. The whole endeavor of trying to figure out who is actually telling the truth is important and it’s not real easy.
I mean, it can be if you’re amplifying irrelevant voices, as amplifying irrelevant extreme rhetoric sparks panic and polarization. But if, say, an official says he thinks something about how Trump is running things, that’s interesting. If a new poll comes out about sentiment amongst voters about how Trump is running things, that’s interesting. And Rachel Maddow blogs, which I share in @[email protected] here and there are, if not interesting, at the very least a perspective shared by a non-insignificant portion of the population. By sharing these things, readers get a window into the thinking of people who have a different perspective than they do, which isn’t just positive, but a necessary means of fighting polarization, and fueling compassion and empathy.
Correct. I’m not going to run around sharing links to conspiracy theories, that is completely different.
Yeah, in hindsight I wasn’t entirely correct in that initial response. I know for a fact that I saw some things that lead me to that conclusion, but I am less sure that those things I saw were accurate now that I think about it.
Some cities I have seen this happen in were San Francisco and New York City (there might be others as well but I can’t remember off the top of my head). I am not aware of any studies or anything that quantify or validate my conclusion though.
You know good and well that none of any of that is what I am talking about, or the reason people are giving you static about your postings.
…
You told me that people of certain ethnicities weren’t getting prosecuted in some jurisdictions, because the DA had just decided that they were going to be above the law because they were POC. Then when I asked for details, you said maybe that wasn’t true. But then, you listed some cities where you “have seen this happen.” I can pretty much guarantee you that it’s not happening. You’re free to show me, if you think I am wrong, but I am extremely sure that that doesn’t happen. There are things that kind of sound similar to that after a long game of right-wing-media-telephone, but I would be surprised if there is any jurisdiction anywhere in the country where the rate of POC who get charged with crimes is anything other than significantly higher than the white people.
I don’t know man. I’m not trying to jump down your throat about it. I’m just saying that it matters. People hopped-up on this kind of stuff have gone out and killed other people. This country is developing itself towards a civil war, and a lot of why it is happening isn’t because people are reading Rachel Maddow on one side and Jordan Peterson on the other side. It’s happening, more than any other single reason, because people are seeing made-up crazy nonsense online and getting themselves amped up on it. There’s a huge difference between just something that isn’t my particular polarization, and something that is both polarized and inflammatory and not even the slightest bit true (and the person who’s saying it doesn’t really seem to care whether it’s true or any of those things).
I don’t really care about the polarization part. I’m probably in a tiny minority on Lemmy in that regard. I do care about the truth part, and I would hope that a lot of the reason you’re getting flak about your postings isn’t just that they’re political in a certain way, but also that you’re unapologetically including content from known liars.