Conservative pundit Dave Rubin branded ‘a complete imbecile’ after struggling to identify single positive from president’s second term on YouTube debate show Surrounded
I’m not gonna go sift through them for a comment that may or may not be in bad faith, and instead I’m gonna let reputable sources that have already done the legwork in more detail than I ever could, stand in for me:
It was a good faith question because I hadn’t heard any criticism of them before. I used your words just to be double sure I wasn’t strawmanning you because I could understand if that was a sensitive topic. If that link covers your criticisms then thank you for sharing it.
Was the downvote necessary though?
How could I have I could asked for your opinion without getting the downvote and accusatory response?
You’re certainly free to take that “guilty until proven innocent” approach. I have to say I almost gave up on conversing with you when I saw your response and instead just letting our thread die with your abrasive response. You may be unintentionally squelching good faith conversations people want to to have with you. If you’re okay with that result, I’d say your current path is likely serving you well.
Oh don’t worry, I’m not here crying in my drink about the someone on the internet that didn’t like me. I pointing out what I feel was an overreaction to a question. People are free to, in my opinion, overreact. I even said that in my post you’re responding to.
When they posted initially I assumed they wanted people to know what their opinion on the topic. Why would someone post their opinion otherwise? A downvote certainly sends mixed messages.
It’s not that I don’t like you or anything; I don’t even know anything about you, not your name or appearance or anything. Meanwhile, I’m on a first-name basis on here cause I just put my name as my username cause anything else feels like lying. You know what I look like, you know what I do, you know who I am, and if you don’t, a quick glance at my submitted posts will sort that out in ten seconds.
I don’t know you and don’t have any strong feelings one way or another. Upvotes and downvotes are just a way of scoring “did this bring benefit to people or didn’t it?” I say plenty of banal shit that should be blasted into the dirt, and I post plenty of good art that should be given a few upvotes. It’s part of being human.
You gotta just roll with it. Don’t let a single downvote get under your skin—I mean, hell, I revoked it.
I get this, and certainly posters do this sometimes. However, from a person asking a question they run the risk of assuming you hold a position and then wrongly going off on you for their own bad assumption (which ends up being strawmanning of you), or asking for clarity on your position with something that may smell like sealioning.
Sometimes making very specific claims does require providing accurate sources for your statement to make it credible. This wasn’t one of those times.
You expressed your opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to), not claiming it was verifiable fact. The burden to explain that is much MUCH lower. I read your link. If you’d simply said: “I believe giving Nazis a platform promotes it. Jubilee tricked a guest speaker into talking to honest-to-goodness Nazis even though the guest speaker specifically refused to do that for the show.” That would have been plenty for me. Even if i disagree with you, you would have made your position, and the rationale for it very clear without needing to google anything or find a link.
There will always be the danger of a bad faith poster. However, without approaching each person assuming they have the best intentions, I don’t know how to avoid turning off genuine conversation. I certainly get into conversations with bad faith posters, or those that are so clearly out of their depth on the subject matter that they need an education on it way more than I’m willing to invest in for them. For those, I just let the conversation die.
I’ve also seen a few, but the ones I saw were quite illuminating. Helped see firsthand how wild and warped and uninformed a lot of people’s info and views are.
they regularly host right wingers against many "leftists’ in an unfair setting. like 1 doc against dozens of antivaxxers. often call them woke. it also plays into toxic masculinity quite alot if its not directly political. one of the recent hosted CHARLIE kirk i believe before he got his neck procedure.
I’ve only see a few of the Jubilee videos. Which ones are normalizing hatred of minorities and the rise of fascism?
I’m not gonna go sift through them for a comment that may or may not be in bad faith, and instead I’m gonna let reputable sources that have already done the legwork in more detail than I ever could, stand in for me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_Media#Criticism
It was a good faith question because I hadn’t heard any criticism of them before. I used your words just to be double sure I wasn’t strawmanning you because I could understand if that was a sensitive topic. If that link covers your criticisms then thank you for sharing it.
Was the downvote necessary though?
How could I have I could asked for your opinion without getting the downvote and accusatory response?
I retracted my downvote when I read this. It’s the beauty of votes, they can reflect the changing of opinions.
You’re certainly free to take that “guilty until proven innocent” approach. I have to say I almost gave up on conversing with you when I saw your response and instead just letting our thread die with your abrasive response. You may be unintentionally squelching good faith conversations people want to to have with you. If you’re okay with that result, I’d say your current path is likely serving you well.
I mean it’s a downvote on lemmy, she didn’t exactly kick your teeth in.
🐢
🦎
Oh don’t worry, I’m not here crying in my drink about the someone on the internet that didn’t like me. I pointing out what I feel was an overreaction to a question. People are free to, in my opinion, overreact. I even said that in my post you’re responding to.
When they posted initially I assumed they wanted people to know what their opinion on the topic. Why would someone post their opinion otherwise? A downvote certainly sends mixed messages.
It’s not that I don’t like you or anything; I don’t even know anything about you, not your name or appearance or anything. Meanwhile, I’m on a first-name basis on here cause I just put my name as my username cause anything else feels like lying. You know what I look like, you know what I do, you know who I am, and if you don’t, a quick glance at my submitted posts will sort that out in ten seconds.
I don’t know you and don’t have any strong feelings one way or another. Upvotes and downvotes are just a way of scoring “did this bring benefit to people or didn’t it?” I say plenty of banal shit that should be blasted into the dirt, and I post plenty of good art that should be given a few upvotes. It’s part of being human.
You gotta just roll with it. Don’t let a single downvote get under your skin—I mean, hell, I revoked it.
You and I are fine. Fartmaster seemed to think I was more bothered by it than I was.
Don’t worry, it isn’t. In the moment I was getting mixed messages. We’ve sorted it out and we’re good. 😀
I just don’t wanna do homework laid out by other people where I have to find specific things. Feels like sealioning.
I get this, and certainly posters do this sometimes. However, from a person asking a question they run the risk of assuming you hold a position and then wrongly going off on you for their own bad assumption (which ends up being strawmanning of you), or asking for clarity on your position with something that may smell like sealioning.
Sometimes making very specific claims does require providing accurate sources for your statement to make it credible. This wasn’t one of those times.
You expressed your opinion (which you are perfectly entitled to), not claiming it was verifiable fact. The burden to explain that is much MUCH lower. I read your link. If you’d simply said: “I believe giving Nazis a platform promotes it. Jubilee tricked a guest speaker into talking to honest-to-goodness Nazis even though the guest speaker specifically refused to do that for the show.” That would have been plenty for me. Even if i disagree with you, you would have made your position, and the rationale for it very clear without needing to google anything or find a link.
There will always be the danger of a bad faith poster. However, without approaching each person assuming they have the best intentions, I don’t know how to avoid turning off genuine conversation. I certainly get into conversations with bad faith posters, or those that are so clearly out of their depth on the subject matter that they need an education on it way more than I’m willing to invest in for them. For those, I just let the conversation die.
Tracking votes like this seems like an unhealthy habit. Downvoted your post btw.
“Tanis, this is absolutely incorrect. A link may prove me otherwise."
I’ve also seen a few, but the ones I saw were quite illuminating. Helped see firsthand how wild and warped and uninformed a lot of people’s info and views are.
they regularly host right wingers against many "leftists’ in an unfair setting. like 1 doc against dozens of antivaxxers. often call them woke. it also plays into toxic masculinity quite alot if its not directly political. one of the recent hosted CHARLIE kirk i believe before he got his neck procedure.
Charlie Kirk never got shot, his blood pressure was so high from all that outrage, that his neck just did that.
or erika kirk used the control devils pointing attack.