Why all the downvotes? I admit, the piece takes a very negative view, the bit about Gaza may be a bit of a distraction (from an environmental pov), and also the piece may be damaging to the Democratic bid for the presidency. But overall, it appears to be based in fact.
The problem is facts don’t tell stories. Facts don’t tell you what they mean when put together (or omitted). A narrative based in fact can still be misleading you.
The author is intentionally crafting a narrative, even going so far as to go beyond facts and cast Walz as some nefarious political operative, working in the shadows via cloak and dagger. Just because the article has facts doesn’t mean it’s not shit, biased writing.
I agree. Lemmy isn’t as progressive as it thinks it is generally. Just like other social platforms, the concept of a nuanced discussion is mostly (not always) an alien one.
People want things split neatly into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘us’ and ‘them’ and melt down when anything challenges those neat little boxes. We all do it to some degree, and I get the appeal of it.
But if we want things to ever really get better, we need to be able to have better discussions about important issues and accept things are very rarely binary.
Placing Kamala or Walz on some pedestal as if they’re perfect is just as blind as doing so for Trump.
I’m not in the US, and yes I would vote for Kamala, but I think it’s important to be aware they are not perfect and the fight for a better society/world won’t be over if they win.
Why all the downvotes? I admit, the piece takes a very negative view, the bit about Gaza may be a bit of a distraction (from an environmental pov), and also the piece may be damaging to the Democratic bid for the presidency. But overall, it appears to be based in fact.
The problem is facts don’t tell stories. Facts don’t tell you what they mean when put together (or omitted). A narrative based in fact can still be misleading you.
The author is intentionally crafting a narrative, even going so far as to go beyond facts and cast Walz as some nefarious political operative, working in the shadows via cloak and dagger. Just because the article has facts doesn’t mean it’s not shit, biased writing.
Anything critical of Harris/Walz/Democrats means you support Trump. Supposedly.
ugh, /c/politicalmemes is leaking.
I agree. Lemmy isn’t as progressive as it thinks it is generally. Just like other social platforms, the concept of a nuanced discussion is mostly (not always) an alien one.
People want things split neatly into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ or ‘us’ and ‘them’ and melt down when anything challenges those neat little boxes. We all do it to some degree, and I get the appeal of it.
But if we want things to ever really get better, we need to be able to have better discussions about important issues and accept things are very rarely binary.
Placing Kamala or Walz on some pedestal as if they’re perfect is just as blind as doing so for Trump.
I’m not in the US, and yes I would vote for Kamala, but I think it’s important to be aware they are not perfect and the fight for a better society/world won’t be over if they win.