mozz

Pretty sure I was engaging with you purely on the merits of your arguments, in a decent amount of detail, and I actually thought we reached a point of okay not seeing eye to eye but hey I said my bit, I read up what you said, I went and looked and we talked about how the discourse was, and it was all cool to move on. I mean I called you out for the pure strawman of "lots of blind support and promotion for team blue", but again, purely on the merits, and I thought we had moved on from it and actually had a pretty factual conversation about it.

But sure, if you took me including you in my hey-look-the-instance-distribution-is-hinky list to be a specific accusation against you that I was too cowardly to make directly, I'm happy to talk more about it. I looked over your user; you've left 5 messages in this thread, which is more than you've ever left before in any thread. You've never left even 4 messages in a thread before. Mostly, it's one-sentence-in-one-message quick takes. Somehow, out of all the possible things to care about in the whole universe of political or technical or societal topics, you suddenly decided that saying that there's lot of blind support and promotion for team blue and ozma was providing a needed counter balance, was the thing you cared about most out of any conversation you've ever had on Lemmy, and started getting super passionate and talkative about.

Also, the longest conversation you've ever had other than this was posting another grouping of shill talking points -- here, in this thread full of blind support and promotion for team blue. Not voting, and ozma's user, are apparently the only two things you've ever cared about enough to write more than a handful of sentences about in all the time you've been on Lemmy.

Having looked over your user, I think it's pretty likely that you're a shill, and most of your not-shill contributions to Lemmy are just a smokescreen of a small number of quick messages and one conversation about eclipse glasses. I think the timing of you coming into this particular topic is probably just to deploy here to defend ozma. Again, the truth is that I have no idea, but that's what seems most likely to me. Does that seem less cowardly?

Er

Well, yes 🙂

Consistency isn't their strong suit I've noticed

A wizard did it

I mean I do think that somewhere in the crazy is a valid point on that specific score. There's actually a moderately close analogy in Nicaragua, which the US was actively attacking, and then they started sourcing fighter jets from Russia purely to try to defend against our air force actively fucking them up inside their borders, and the whole of the US political spectrum freaked the fuck out, took it to the UN, escalated the war, there were all these editorials about what a crisis it was, etc etc, and that was barely even on the same continent as us.

This was all during the 1980s, when I actually think that US foreign policy was quite a lot closer to Russia's current foreign policy than not. I think we've mellowed somewhat since then, although we're still fine with killing civilians the world over when it serves our purposes. But yes, the US has a few data points worth of history of freaking out completely over "threats" from foreign alliances that are not even on the same continent (or hemisphere if you want to go back to the 70s) as us. I think the difference is that Russia has been antagonizing its neighbors on the west so thoroughly now that almost 100% of them actively want to gear up for real war with Russia, which I'm sure would make any country nervous regardless of how it got to be that way.

Thats an ok conversation I guess

Okay cool. That is my point though! People are painting /c/politics as this weird echo chamber of pro-Israel pro-genocide lovefest for Biden's policies when it is the total opposite, and then using that as an excuse to be just as partisan and dishonest in the anti- direction as they are claiming (wrongly) that people are being in the pro- direction.

you had to willfully ignore the fact that biden (and both party leaders) have a very pro israel/netanyahu stance

I absolutely do not do that. I actually probably would have been in the comments as one of the people talking about what a bunch of shit it was that Schumer was pushing this stupid idea, except that I got distracted by the totally weird and bad-faith attempt to link it to Biden.

I do think that it's notable that Biden has nothing to do with this effort. Biden's actually been deliberately snubbing Bibi from this kind of thing for quite some time, refusing to meet with him in the White House and meeting him in some hotel instead when he finally did sit down with him, and courting his political rivals, all of which I'm sure pisses him off.

That doesn't honestly mean all that much to me one way or another for as long as he's providing weapons for the genocide. But if you're gonna get all up in arms about the US government inviting Netanyahu and giving him honors, I think it might potentially be relevant that Biden actually goes out of his way to do the opposite, and definitely is relevant to call out if someone is trying to link Biden to this thing when he has nothing to do with it.

And again, like you said, the conversation seems fine. It's an exchange of views. Some I agree with and some I don't. I don't see where this "oh no without ozma where we will go for the voice in the wilderness that will say anything against Israel or the US government... on LEMMY..." attitude even comes from, which makes me likely to see it as a disingenuous effort to promote a very, very, very slanted viewpoint as a "counter" to the imaginary attitude.

I didn't say you were an alt; I said the first list looks way way different than the second list.

In the interval while I was typing, a couple of other pro-ozma people from lemmy.world chimed in. But I'm gonna leave it. That's how it looked when I checked, and the way it looked when I checked is pretty weird.

Starting with the result (who will benefit, who will look good and bad because of the analysis), and then looking for news that serves that conclusion, is dishonest. To me, and apparently to the mod team (or jordanlund at least).

Starting with the news, and arriving at the result (who looks good and who looks bad as determined by what happened), is honest. Again, this is my definition. You might have a different one which might also be reasonable, sure.

I am interested in the fact that as of this moment, the pro-ozma speakers in this thread come from:

• kbin.run
• fedia.io
• kbin.earth
• sh.itjust.works
• slrpnk.net
• lemmy.sdf.org

And the anti-ozma speakers come from:

• lemmy.world
• lemm.ee
• lemmy.world
• mbin.grits.dev
• programming.dev
• lemmy.world
• discuss.tchncs.de
• lemmy.world

It is very interesting to me that each individual one of the pro-ozma speakers comes from a different instance, with no repetition. Could be a coincidence of course, but looking over the two lists it's hard not to notice a clear disparity. And, as a pure hypothetical, it would make it very difficult for any individual admin to detect a duplication of IP address between any two of the accounts. And there's no lemmy.world. Purely hypothetically speaking of course.

And more often than not is followed by a variation of "vote blue no matter who" or its heavilly downvoted or gets several replies all telling them how dumb and wrong they are.

Brb, I'm gonna look for the most recent "US does something pro-Israel for some fuckin reason" and total up how many of the first few top voted comments got followed up by a variation of "vote blue no matter who" or is heavily downvoted or gets several replies etc etc.

Edit: It's actually kind of tough, because most of the stuff in !politics@lemmy.world is about domestic things. The first thing I found that was big enough to have lots of replies, and dealt with Israel as pertains to the US's policy, was this. Top comment is critical of Biden, i.e. not too heavily downvoted. Then, the top reply is me, defending Biden saying he has nothing to do with this and explaining why. Lots of discussion about who actually is to blame including people saying it includes Schumer, other people saying no it doesn't that's misinformation, and an official mod opinion that yes it absolutely does, the Democrats at least some of them are definitely to blame here.

So... are you saying that that's an okay conversation? Or would it only be reasonable if my reply didn't exist or was different? Is that all something you would characterize as "vote blue no matter who"?

I am interested by how thoroughly you are mischaracterizing what jordanlund took time to explain in detail as far as what was the issue -- i.e. the dishonesty, and not the political slant.

I don't think I'm alone in saying that the mod team here gives way more leniency to slanted political posters and allows them to speak their mind, than the community as a whole thinks is reasonable (actually I think for pretty much exactly the reasons you're laying out.)

Admitting that you only share the bad side of something isn’t arguing in bad faith.

I actually sort-of agree that we shouldn't be banning people because of a "slanted" viewpoint just because of how difficult it is to do that fairly, without creating more problems than it solves.

But only sharing the bad side of something is absolutely arguing in bad faith. A normal person looks at the world and says, what do I think? And then they say it. They're not on "Team Biden." They're not on "Team Russia." They're just a person speaking for themselves, and the people they support, they decided to support because they decided good things about them, but if they learn bad things about those people, it's not like they'll try to cover them up or support that person anyway. They just say what they think about it, not picking only one side and presenting that exclusively.

The example I would keep bringing up for this is the people on Lemmy who support Biden in general, but also give him lots of criticism because of his support for Israel. That's a normal person. They say I like good things, and I don't like bad things. I don't pick one team and then only say the good things about that team and only the bad things about the other team. That's bad faith. That's dishonest.

I mean everyone does it to some degree. It sort of hurts if the side you are supporting is doing something criminal, and there's a little bit of an impulse not to focus on it. But just deciding that you're only going to present one side of the story, no matter what good or bad information emerges, because you think it's "needed" or because that's "your side," is dishonest. It's bad faith. And definitely when you do it to the degree that ozma did it, it goes beyond the level of "well everyone's got their viewpoint" and starts to become "how can I persuade other people to this viewpoint, I have very little care whether it's right or wrong, it's just the viewpoint I have decided to try to persuade them of."

Like I say I don't know how much the mods should get involved in detecting that and banning it. But definitely it's not how things should be (and anyone who tells you that most people operate that way is not accurately describing any healthy functioning message board even within the low bar that is the internet.)