this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2024
211 points (94.9% liked)

politics

18930 readers
5245 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 16 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not watching your YouTube video. if you can't articulate a compelling reason, just say so.

What absolutely trash reasoning. "Please type up a compelling reason just for me, I don't want to watch a well researched and produced discussion on the topic." It's bordering on sealioning.

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca -1 points 13 hours ago

Please type up a compelling reason just for me

Here's another video just on that!

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

I did watch that video. probably a dozen times. it gets posted often. I shouldn't be expected to debunk an argument that isn't made.

I rewatched* it after I made my comment though, and it does not establish what they claimed. it doesn't cite sources**, and it's primary thesis is "it's complicated"

edit(s):

* i actually listened to it. but just now, after i made this comment, i scrubbed it and i found:

** they do some pretty hard-to-see and also hard-to-research citation in the form of citing academic papers in the bottom right of the screen around the time they are making the claim. and let me tell you, poore-nemecek is the basis of the lca analysis (which i could have guessed), and that lca analysis is flat out bad science. it's certainly not a compelling reason to be vegan.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

Those are very fair objections and that video isn't perfect - I was only objecting to your apparent refusal to consume a video. A lot of content these days is produced in video form so it's not reasonable to reject an argument based on media - some topics just aren't well expressed in a written form.

But, TL;DR I wasn't criticizing your opinion or decision - just the common response of rejecting something based on the media it's presented in.