this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2025
78 points (97.6% liked)

politics

25874 readers
3160 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 9 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

All well and good, but what happens when someone comes to the meeting and says "we should end corruption and remove Trump, but I don't like DEI policies."

I'm guessing that will suddenly be added to the "root" cause and we're right back into splintering and purity spirals again.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 5 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I'm guessing that will suddenly be added to the "root" cause

Hopefully yes, because that's exactly what it is. You can't fight fascism with fascism lite.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

If everything is "root" then nothing is.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 3 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

You... you think racism and xenophobia aren't a root cause of this? If so, you should read a history book. Start from Nixon.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 7 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

And here we go, a disagreement over policy balloons instantly into "racism and xenophobia" and an ally gets kicked out of the meeting because everything is black or white and no compromise is possible.

I find DEI policies to be a complicated topic, personally. I don't oppose the basic idea and motive behind them, but I think they've been implemented poorly and often turn into discrimination in their own right. Am I now classed as "Trump supporter" in your eyes? I've been called a Trump supporter because I don't like the recent Star Wars movies, so I'm sure a lot of people would indeed lump me in with him on that basis. And thus is proven the basic point about how Trump's opponents are destroying themselves without Trump's supporters having to lift a finger.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

And here we go, a disagreement over policy balloons instantly into "racism and xenophobia"

Oh, so you're saying you personally don't like DEI policies. In that case I'm not necessarily calling you racist and xenophobic, but your seeming willingness to accept the results of past racism and xenophobia is definitely concerning. If I was running the meeting you wouldn't get kicked out, but your "can we not include DEI in our platform" would be met with an uncompromising "no." Before I explain why, do you understand the concepts of systemic racism and generational wealth?

but I think they've been implemented poorly and often turn into discrimination in their own right.

You need such "discrimination" to undo the results of past discrimination. For example, did you know that despite being only ~0.7% of the population, Native Americans make up about 24% of the poverty population of the US? Is this not injustice? How do you rectify it without affirmative action (aka DEI)?

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You're really, really intent on driving my point home here, aren't you?

I oppose Trump. I think he's the worst president the US has ever had and he needs to be stopped. But I expressed an unrelated view that is mildly in opposition to yours, and now that's the only thing you can think about. You're focusing entirely on attacking me on this issue.

Have you forgotten that this is about Trump, and about how the only way to defeat him is to get over these sorts of divisions and diversions?

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Have you forgotten that this is about Trump,

To you this is about Trump. To others it's about the injustice they have suffered their whole lives that got worse under Trump but did not originate with him. Being able to laser-focus on Trump is a privilege; it assumes that the politically relevant parts of your experience before Trump were if not good then at least tolerable. This is not the case for a massive chunk of the population. I mean, hell, for example ICE kidnappings are nothing new; Trump is just performatively cruel about them. You can't take a stand against some injustice and expect the people experiencing the chunk you're letting go to help you. As a wise man once said:

First they came for the Communists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists And I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists And I did not speak out Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews And I did not speak out Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me And there was no one left To speak out for me

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, we get it, you don't want any allies in your fight against Trump that aren't perfectly aligned with every part of your fight against Trump. You don't need to keep on driving it home now, you've amply demonstrated why Democrats just can't seem to get it together to oppose him.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago

Yes, the party that is literally the only party that can possibly remove Trump due to America's two-party system. That party.

You don't support them removing Trump? Then you're fine with Trump. That's the reality of the situation, and your insistence that only some magical fairyland third party that happens to align perfectly with your ideals must be allowed to do it is - as I have repeatedly said - exactly the problem that this thread is about.

You really can stop illustrating it now, we all get it.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I honestly don't think dei did shit one way or another and was all just a show. That being said I agree. Lets all get behind the constitution including all the bill of rights and argue about the other things once we have enough rights to do so in a civilized manner.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

"We need to get my rights now. Your rights can come after we can argue about them in a civilized manner." Setting aside the moral duplicity of this, it's just not how you build a coalition. For them to fight for your rights, you need to fight for theirs with equal commitment.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So seperation of powers, the bill of rights including speech, assembly, due process, etc. Those are just rights for one person to you? The point is if we can't express views and assemble or get a day in court then everything else is in the toilet. You need to get a clue.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Those are just rights for one person to you?

These are rights for people who are economically well-off enough to exercise them. You don't, in fact, have the right to due process if you can't afford to miss work to exercise that right, and you don't have the right to speech if your three jobs don't leave you enough time to exercise that right. And you don't have any of these rights if you're being enslaved (and yes, it is slavery) by a for-profit prison. Constitutional political rights on their own are woefully insufficient to address the problems of minorities in America, and as they have repeatedly experienced, "later" more often than not is a synonym for "never." Point being: If you have no answer for systemic discrimination in your program, then yes you're not defending the rights of minorities experiencing that discrimination. The right of a black person to not be killed by the police is as or more important than your right to complain about the government.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

This is a ridiculous stretch. This is exactly the path towards finding out what a real lack of rights are. This is the same all or nothing fallacious reasoning I see all the time online. I mean look what you said "If you have no answer for systemic discrimination in your program" now name a program that exists that 100% definitely has nothing that could be called systemic discrimination.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 1 points 3 hours ago

This is exactly the path towards finding out what a real lack of rights are.

Because the current and ongoing abuses of US minorities aren't real, right? You're really outing yourself here.

now name a program that exists that 100% definitely has nothing that could be called systemic discrimination.

There it is, folks, the all or nothing fallacious reasoning.

[–] hypna@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

This comment chain is just chef's kiss