this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
704 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18986 readers
3992 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Drinking lead can damage people's brains, but Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach opposes a plan to remove lead water pipes.

In their letter, the attorneys general wrote, “[The plan] sets an almost impossible timeline, will cost billions and will infringe on the rights of the States and their residents – all for benefits that may be entirely speculative.”

Kobach repeated this nearly verbatim in a March 7 post on X (formerly Twitter).

Buttigieg responded by writing, “The benefit of not being lead poisoned is not speculative. It is enormous. And because lead poisoning leads to irreversible cognitive harm, massive economic loss, and even higher crime rates, this work represents one of the best returns on public investment ever observed.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com 57 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (4 children)

I was listening to Know Your Enemy's recent podcast titled Why the Right Loves Foreign Dictators (would definitely recommend a listen), and I came to a realization:

American conservative beliefs are not based on reality. That seems obvious, especially to this crowd, but like, the conservative dispossession of reality-based beliefs goes deep. Their version of rationality is adherence to an ideology and that is how they interpret the beliefs of others.

In this case, it manifests as opposing the removal of lead water pipes in the honest belief that, regardless of their danger—which is speculative to this idiot—it's too expensive and "infringes" on rights. The value of lead pipe removal derives from whether its economically beneficial and its comportment with his idea of what infringes on rights, rather than on...you know...the scientifically proven damaging effects of lead.

Because he interprets the beliefs of others as perceived adherence to some ideology (which he almost certainly doesn't understand), he dismisses the solid scientific evidence as speculative. It's ideology vs ideology for him. Scientific claims are just another ideology.

To generalize, that's why the pro-life movement "helps" women, that's why be against welfare "supports" the nation, that's why opposing Putin "defends" liberty, and that's why voting for Trump makes America "great". It's not about real results, it's just pure ideological adherence from the bottom to the top. It's fitting that Trump is their messiah. He's the greatest bullshitter modern politics has ever seen.

[–] magnusrufus@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

that’s why opposing Putin “defends” liberty

You lost me here. Could you explain?

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 19 points 6 months ago

I’m guessing they meant to say supporting

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Why do you help moderate the largest conservative Lemmy community then?

It seems you’re just helping legitimize their beliefs.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I came oh-so-close to moderating a conservative community and I am quite vocally opposed to conservatism.

I'm hoping that maybe some conservative communities on Lemmy are moderated by normal (non-conservative) people who can keep the conservatives within the bounds of their instance's guidelines. Perhaps this is one such moderator. That would certainly be better than letting conservatives moderate a community. We've seen how that turns out.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I hear what you’re saying but I disagree.

I think that is the instance’s admins responsibility to deal with a community’s moderators.

I believe that moderating an extreme community’s view to make it more broadly accessible is not helping anything.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Moderating herein means kicking and banning people whose behavior is unacceptable or locking and removing individual posts and comments that are unacceptable. For instance a conservative sub may have threads on the virtues of tax cuts for the rich by relatively normal folks and threads calling for lynching black folks for imaginary crimes.

I believe the rich should pay their fair share but I sure hope someone normal is willing to allow the former and ban the latter even if the would be lynch mobs threads are couched in polite and indefinite language while they spread their lies and hate. I feel like a normal fellow might be better situated to make such a distinction than someone of a conservative bent who is looking to follow the bare letter of the law so to speak.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

In theory that sounds great but if you visit the community they moderate you'll see that they are the token leftist to legitimize them.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Their version of rationality is adherence to an ideology and that is how they interpret the ~~beliefs~~ motives of others.

Motives is a better word than beliefs. Other than that I've come to the same conclusion.

Conservatives deeply depend on ideology. This is why they say everything is a slippery slope, because their own plan is to keep going with their ideology. They can't understand that others want to do one action, without some secret grand plan to ____.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In other words, for those that tldr: Conservatives could be incredibly kind and might often actually do the right thing, if they weren't total idiots. Problem is: They believe too hard literally all the time and base their self off an ideology built on narratives, true or false.

[–] Crikeste@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They could be decent people, but aren’t.

Got it.

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Actions speak louder than words. If you say you love and support children, but vote to take away their rights to be who they are and read what they want, you're a bad person. If you say you support women, but vote to take away their bodily autonomy and voice, you're a bad person. If you say you support helping the poor, but vote to decrease or eliminate social programs meant to help the poor, you're a bad person.

But they'll never realize that.

[–] raynethackery@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. -Maya Angelou