You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
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. Thats what I meant, but I admit that it isnt as one sided as my comment might imply.
Anyways, I dont think their descicion of only sharing negative news about biden is not inherently in bad faith. In fact, I believe them admitting to doing so proves the oposite, they were telling people directly what types of news they are sharing and what their view of the situation is, instead of pretending to be objective when theres clearly a bias.
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.
Thats an ok conversation I guess. But, in order to make your defense, you had to willfully ignore the fact that biden (and both party leaders) have a very pro israel/netanyahu stance and all of them are sponsored by pro israel money which, I believe, is what the comment you replied to was saying, even if this specific issue wasnt directly related to biden Thats what I would call blind/dishonest support for team blue.
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.
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.
There are certainly users who would prefer that c/politics be what you just described, and enforced as such.
Preach!
Or baseless accusations of being a Trump supporter or a Russian shill.
Or just straight up abuse.
Sometimes the accusation is just cowardly implied, as mozz is doing here.
PS: But for some reason is Ozma the one arguing in bad faith.
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?
Right on, brother
your profile-stalking is half-assed and won't ever tell you what you think it does about people, only their user accounts. it's toxic as fuck.
Why wouldn’t a person’s comment history tell you anything about who they are as a person? What else do you have to go on? It’s literally their persona in the context of a pseudonymous forum.
Calling it “stalking” and “toxic” is a lame dodge, usually by people who got found out. They hate that their behavior fits a recognizable pattern - they don’t want to be accountable for their own public actions.
i didnt say it won't tell you anything. i said it doesn't tell mozz what they think it tells them
no, it is toxic. it's teh very definition of an ad hominem: instead of dealing with what they said here and now, you are maligning their character.
The person specifically called me out by name and said that I’d accused them of something but been too cowardly to engage with them directly on it. I hadn’t, but since they brought it up, I looked into it a little and confirmed that yes, I feel comfortable accusing them directly, and did so, and explained why. Thus they have a chance to defend themselves directly if they feel like what I said was unfair. But I didn’t bring the ad hominem into it and never intended to until I was specifically invited to. Until then, I was, as I pointed out, engaging with them purely on the merits of what they were saying.
Mmm keep going I'm getting close
Call me a shitlib