The GOP has a master plan to criminalize LGBTQ people
3 years ago by mycorrhiza they/them to c/politics
Some quotes:
“The Mandate for Leadership” is a 920-page document that details how the next Republican administration will implement radical and sweeping changes to the entirety of government. This blueprint assumes that the next president will be able to rule by fiat under the unitary executive theory (which posits that the president has the power to control the entire federal executive branch). It is also based on the premise that the next president will implement Schedule F, which allows the president to fire any federal employee who has policy-making authority, and replace them with a presidential appointee who is not voted on in the Senate.
So they're gonna take over the executive branch.
And businesses will support and fund this effort because:
The business wish list calls for eliminating federal agencies, stripping those that remain of regulatory power, and deregulating industries. The president would directly manage and influence Department of Justice and FBI cases, which would allow him to pursue criminal cases against political enemies. Environmental law would be gutted, and states would be prevented from enforcing their own environmental laws.
And what about the social wish list?
The social conservative wish list calls for ending abortion, diversity and inclusion efforts, protections for LGBTQ people, and most importantly, banning any and all LGBTQ content. In fact, “The Mandate for Leadership” makes eradicating LGBTQ people from public life its top priority. Its No. 1 promise is to “restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.” They are explicit in how they plan to do so, as you’ll see in the paragraph below. They plan to proceed by declaring any and all LGBTQ content to be pornographic in nature.
“Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.”
When they talk about pornography, this includes any content discussing or portraying LGBTQ figures from the children’s books I Am Jazz and And Tango Makes Three to the Trevor Project’s suicide hotline. We know this by looking at how “don’t say gay” laws have been implemented in Florida: This is literally their model. It’s been tried in Virginia. It’s also arguable that LGBTQ parents would be subject to arrest, imprisonment, and being put on sex-offender registries for “exposing children to pornography” simply by being LGBTQ and having children.
It would also likely criminalize any therapist, doctor, or counselor who provided affirming therapy to trans youth. Indeed, the document makes it explicitly clear they want nationwide bans on abortion and access to affirming care for trans youth, while calling for conversion therapies to be the only available treatments. It could be argued as well that people who are visibly trans in public are pornographic or obscene, because they might be seen by a minor. This understanding of intent is in line with the call to “eradicate transgenderism from public life.”
There’s also the matter of the internet: Any Internet Service Provider (ISP) that transmits or receives data about transgender people could potentially be liable if conservatives have their way. When you read the final sentence of the excerpted paragraph, the clear intent is that the same would apply to any social media company that allows any (positive) discussion or depiction of transgender individuals, as it would be considered pornographic and contributing to harming a minor.
And how will they do this shit?
The organizations that drafted “The Mandate for Leadership” understand that blue states, which have sanctuary laws for transgender people, are unlikely to comply. It’s difficult to imagine California arresting and prosecuting teachers, librarians, doctors, therapists, bookstores (virtual or physical), LGBTQ parents, and especially LGBTQ people merely for existing in public. This is why they included the following paragraph:
“Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status).”
This is calling for the executive branch to use the Department of Justice to threaten prosecution of any local or state officials if they do not charge LGBTQ people and their allies with crimes under the pretense that they are breaking federal and state laws against exposing minors to pornography. If people at the Department of Justice refuse to go along with this, then they can simply be replaced under Schedule F. While the excerpted paragraph above includes references to immigration, the fact that it explicitly includes gender identity, and fits in with the previous calls to designate anything trans-related as pornographic, clearly telegraphs their intent.
The result of these actions will be perhaps the biggest power play against states rights in American history, and the threat is clear. If blue states refuse to turn on their own transgender citizens, then the federal government will do everything in its power to decapitate the leadership of those states using the Department of Justice. Conservatives are making the bet that individual district attorneys will not risk prosecution, and prison, on behalf of a tiny, despised minority. They’re betting that state governors will not be willing to risk both prosecution and a constitutional crisis over transgender people.
Well, fuck!
In addition to voting, what should we do about this?
Honestly... I would beat some conservative ass based on this document. Burn the Heritage Foundation down.
We have to destroy these groups. They're too dangerous
The country has been on that course for a while. I grew up in the south, in a super religious and conservative community. There is a not insignificant portion of that part of the population that will never accept the idea there that isn’t a single correct way to live life, which is conveniently the way they have live theirs, and blame all the ills of society on those who do not. And since the world is pretty shit in varying degrees for everyone but the wealthy they are determined to do so because they think they are saving the world
__
Edit: I’d like to add that i in no way mean it’s limited to the south, it’s all over the country, parts of the PNW are just as if not even more extreme
These kind of people are professionally scared, simultaneously both afraid of any learned authority and scared so much, so often, they are the de facto pros at it.
You want to REALLY see the conservative right afraid?
Join, or if there aren't any around you, start a leftist for the 2nd Amendment group/militia.
The Black Panthers, who rose up to regulate their own neighborhoods to stop wanton police abuse, got Reagan so scared he enacted gun control in Cali. Remember HRC bemoaning congress about "super-predators"?
They want the left to be pacifist and push overs. The last thing they want is self sufficiency and independence. They're terrified of Antifa (which is entirely organic and unstructured) because that's the left disregarding and meeting the rights monopoly on violence.
Add structure to it, and the fascists will piss their pants.
No leaders tho, it's a guarantee the right will assassinate.
They're terrified of Antifa (which is entirely organic and unstructured) because that's the left disregarding and meeting the rights monopoly on violence.
Oh really?... And where were you, "Not High Overlord and Commander of the Antifa", at the time of last week's Official Antifa Board Meeting and Spaghetti Feed?!
Lolols
I was stuck waterboar, ehem, I mean, inboarding at the weekly "meat and greet" hot dog barbeque down at the Grange.
I told Jose Muhammad Chan to fill in for me, did he not make it? I know he was trying to wrap up his counter country terrorism class on advanced leaf blower tactics; tear gas dispersal. I'll have to cc everyone in the memo. Sigh.
Ya know. As the political polarization continues to increase, seemingly due to the global resurrection of fascism, I find myself wondering when that watershed moment will be. The smoking gun, if you will, when those still around look back and take a historical accounting.
There is no such thing as "a good conservative". No. Such. Thing. They are posturing for genocide. Pacifism cannot stop them, as it has never stopped a plague of conservatism in the past.
Do your part. Train and prepare, physically and mentally. Teach your children why we don't do business or hold relationships with conservatives. Speak openly about the deadly threat of conservatism.
Exclude all members of the hate group to exclude the hate.
Fundamentalism is merely a way to disclaim responsibility for the obviously terrible things that conservatives want to do.
See also: "originalism"
That is what we need! To ensure our kids do not talk to anyone with opposing viewpoints, so they are never challenged in their current way of thinking. Maybe teach them how to have an open and civilized difference of opinion? And maybe learn that yourself? USA is in this shit because of radicalisation from both sides, a demonisation of one group vs the other.
Exactly.
Centrist: Oh! I sure can see the point of the Republican side that wants to: genocide trans kids, vote against school lunches for kids, protect child marriage, make women slaves and who knows who else, and do literally nothing to fix the economy.
Yeah pretty much. The only exception I make is for people who are ignorant or haven't thought things through. Some can be persuaded when you explain the issue to them, as long as you carefully step around any mental firewalls they've developed. But when reactionary politics are an outgrowth of someone's shitty character there's not much you can do.
Wheeling out the Both Sides argument here of all places, huh? Tone-deaf much?
That's dumb as fuck. Imagine having a regular conversation at work with someone, they just casually mention something conservative, and then you act like a socially incompetent weirdo and fell them they're posturing for genocide. You're not going to look like the sane one here, and this would have the conservative looking normal.
If you want to say there's no good conservatives, you need to be consistent. This is when you need to realize you're far too deep into the echo chamber and lost all contact with normal every day people. When you start imaging this behavior in normal every day scenarios with regular people that have little understanding of politics, you'll realize how unhinged the behavior you're proposing is.
What do you mean by "casually mention something conservative?" Maybe they'd say something like, "you and my son should start a pro life group at your school" assuming I'm also conservative and pro life. This actually happened to me growing up, and needless to say, I stopped spending time with that kid. He always treated me well as did his mother, but I couldn't get close to someone that was in favor of banning abortion.
I didn't let them know in the moment where I stood. You don't need to immediately turn into a weirdo or call them out, you just need to stop associating with them. The funny thing is that was during my more enlightened centrist phase, and even then I knew that shit was unacceptable. Women deserve to choose, and no true friend would want to take away someone's rights like that. That's what the previous poster probably meant. That behavior isn't unhinged, it's called having a moral compass. Damn straight we should apply our politics to everyday life; life is political baby.
What an incredibly privileged and sheltered life. Tell me how I know you're the uptight guy people avoid. You completely misunderstand the whole point that like 90% of the people don't understand politics and just repeat what's in the environment around them, they're regular ass people you have zero empathy for. You're falling on deaf ears immediately treating these people as inferior.
It isn't my job to change everyone's minds and get them to rethink the shitty things they've been taught. However it also isn't my job to just accept bigotry and hatred, especially for someone as vulnerable to it as I am. I get that if you're a neurotypical cis het white man you can just ignore the consequences of conservatism, but people like me can't.
I've spent my fair share of time with bigots and edgelords, and you know what? They may put up with you for a time, but eventually their prejudices turn them against you. They'll make jokes at your expense, and those I can handle, but when things get serious, when there's an actual disagreement or conflict, they'll see things like your race or sexual orientation as a weakness that makes you inferior to them. I have plenty of empathy for people who don't know any better, but when someone could see you as less of a person than them, as a toy they can play with, that's hurts.
Have you ever heard of tailoring your message to your audience? Of course the person who posted what you're referencing isn't going to explicitly say what he wrote to Joe blow conservative co-worker, because there is such a thing as code-switching that we do in social situations whether we mean to or not. This is the semi-anonymous internet, and a side-road on Lemmy, where people are overwhelmingly going to be of a somewhat anarchist mindset.
Who are these people? Do they have any actual political sway? What website is this article from?
The actions they are discussing are a literal dictator led fascist state. This is how they get a civil war.
From the article:
Most people aren’t aware of Project 2025, or its playbook, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise”—but you need to be. In stark terms, Project 2025 reveals the conservatives’ plan to enact a sweeping “Don’t Say Gay” policy that will effectively blot out all LGBTQ content on the internet as well as any published material with LGBTQ content, no matter how benign.
Project 2025 is a coalition of prominent conservative organizations that includes the Claremont Institute, Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Research Council, Hillsdale College, Heritage Foundation, Freedom Works, American Legislative Exchange Council, American Principles Project, and dozens of others. The organization’s goal is to lay out a “first 180 days” agenda for the next administration, and to recruit conservatives to fill positions within the federal government appointed by the executive branch.
The Heritage Foundation alone is a massive, well-connected think tank with an annual budget of $38 million. Mike Pence joined in 2021. They were instrumental in staffing the Trump administration and directing his policies, with at least 66 Heritage Foundation employees and alumni given positions in the administration.
This is not a fringe effort.
If any Republican, Centrist or Libertarian reads that and thinks voting for the next Republican nomination for president is okay then there is zero hope for America's future that doesn't involve civil war.
I don't know that I fit any of those label, neatly, but I've always been skeptical of the idea that the president is not in charge of everything under the Executive Branch.
Keep in mind I'm not in charge of anything and I'm not right about anything! I'm nobody here.
If Congress wants an independent agency, they need to create it and put it under themselves, not under the executive branch (so it seems to me). So even if Trump does not get into office (and let's make sure that he doesn't) Project 2025 is still going to be out there and it may be legally right in some important respects. Not paying attention to this reality is how we lost something like Roe v Wade ... What the Supreme Court can give, it can take away. There is no such thing as "never going to happen".
Please defeat Trump and Trumpism, but take this concept of Project 2025 seriously beyond Trump.
In large, the president is supposed to make sure the executive branch does what it’s supposed to be doing, according to what Congress decides, and what the Supreme Court allows. So, he’s supposed to be doing a prespecified job, not really inventing the job or being creative.
according to what Congress decides
That's the rub. We have checks-and-balance and -- from the 10,000 foot level -- the current president is the enforcer/executor and, as such, has discretion with how to prioritize his efforts among existing and new laws.
When Congress makes an agency and tucks it into the Executive Branch, the president is the top of that org chart. Project 2025, in a nutshell, says that assignment gives the president the right to decide how much to do that business -- including abstaining to prioritize it. This view is consistent with how other government administration works, who may decide that due to a recession we don't focus on enforcement on fishing boats this year -- for example.
It may even be the case that no reason has to be given to abstain from giving a duty attention or funding. "Because they elected me and I say so," for example.
This would provide a check-and-balance against Congress making disagreeable laws.
Now Congress should still make those laws if they're sure they're right, because doing so would say how a thing is to be done and limit a president's power to do it differently, but the president seems to me to have the power to say whether and if a thing shall be done when it is placed within the Executive Branch (therefore, within presidential purview).
We have a judiciary that has been pulled rightward, and we shouldn't be surprised if we see more decisions aligned with Project 2025 from here on out.
Even if Project 2025 is right on the law, we have not being doing business that way for decades -- especially with federal agencies we consider independent by tradition or expectation. If we want to keep doing business the way that we are, we need to make sure our laws and any new constitutional amendments that need to be written are made. Even if we get an upright and generally good person as president, the points made in Project 2025 should be addressed.
there is zero hope for America's future that doesn't involve civil war
You are threatening violence
I don't this is a very effective argument. Of course some of those voters will want this or be okay with this. It brings me hope when I read the stats and see fewer and fewer of them are on board with these insane policies.
Conservatives are posturing for genocide and openly calling for violence on national broadcasts. Nearly every act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history has been committed by conservatives. Preparing for violence is not calling for violence. Your gaslighting will not work here.
Now, run along back to Truth Social or NAMBLA or where ever conservatives like to cower these days. ¡Ciao, Franzia!
Let them fire the first shot, then. You'll find the Sherman in me yet, and that's right that preparation for violence isn't a call for it.
I love your awareness of Pedocon theory, but fortunately you're mistaken about my politics.
Looking at your post history, it seems we are on the same side. My apologies. When you take a position that appears to be in defense of fascists, it's very easy to mistake you for fascist.
We may be at odds regarding the use of violence to address what appears to me to be an imminent threat of genocide. I am old and will not change my views, so I don't expect you to either.
I probably have less to lose than you, so I won't judge your pacifism in the face of conflict. If stochastic terrorism becomes a way of life here, I encourage you to consider resisting the conservatives in whatever way you are most able to be effective, though, even if that does not involve violence. Whatever you do, just remember that showing kindness to an enemy that does not see you as fully human can quickly result in death.
I wish you well.
For anyone that wants to read the whole PDF, you can find it here:
https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/...
The rhetoric just in the Forward is frightening, disgusting, and dangerous.
We MUST vote for the Democrats if we're going to maintain any semblance of real freedom for everyone and not just conservative white people.
voting for Democrats is nowhere near enough to put a stop to these efforts
It's literally the only thing we have right now. Organizing a protest (we need to eat the rich) the size we need is a pipe dream.
It's voting fascism or democracy. It shouldn't be a controversial choice.
no one here is saying it's a controversial choice. But I disagree that it's the only thing we have right now, and if we choose to only vote and do nothing else then I think we should be sober about what we expect to achieve that way. Voting alone led us to this point.
They were pretending to be afraid of the "gay agenda" when we had to be afraid of the conservative agenda. These guys are nuts.
This reads like a copy of the steps taken by the NSDAP in Germany in the 1930s
Oppression and genocide are the natural results of unchecked conservatism. Always have been.
So they were spanking the monkey while watching Will and Grace?
I mean, this reads like the backup plan to what they already tried under Trump. They already got caught doing most of this shit. This is just a more more fleshed out plan on paper.
And despite the example the US gave the world in 2016 other countries, like Canada, are eyeing conservative candidates with an uncritical eye and a "it won't happen here" attitude.
And in the process they managed to repeal Roe v Wade
Which could have been made in to law by the democrats on so many occasions. But hey let's vote again ...
I vote but it really feels like a pitiful stalling measure against the one-way ratchet of American politics.
We didn't vote the Civil Rights Act into existence. We got it only because the Civil Rights Movement — and massive, widespread urban violence — pushed the government to act. We got LGBTQ rights, tenuous as they are, because LGBTQ people fought and died for them. Labor rights, same thing, militant labor organizers fought and died for all the precarious protections we enjoy today, protections that are rolled back and eroded year after year, decade after decade, as the blue and red wheel turns.
We'll never halt climate change by voting, we'll never bring down housing costs by voting, we'll never raise wages by voting, we'll never gain universal healthcare (which 70% of Americans support) by voting, and we'll never secure LGBTQ rights or abortion rights by voting. The parties and the think tanks and the media and the politicians themselves will never let it happen. Both parties benefit from keeping those and other rights precarious. When our basic rights are at stake, we have no leverage to demand progress.
I vote, but I have no illusions about it.
You've put my thoughts that I can't put into words in the presence of most people, even my closest allies, because it is just such an awful truth for people that are supposed to be part of a democracy to accept. Thanks, I guess
Can't begrudge anyone for voting or not. Problem is when voting is all that's done. In the US or elsewhere. I agree with what you said.
This document is a blueprint for genocide. Spread the word.
####What can you do about it besides voting?
Get the word out online and to friends and family about this & other unpopular con policies - federal abortion ban, KOSA
Get everyone registered to vote. Educate young / new voters. Use mail-in voting, early voting, help with voting for the disabled and elderly, and understand where your voting locations are.
Understand third party spoilers such as No Labels, which wants to take votes away from Biden.
Understand arguments against Biden that keep voters "Undecided"
Consider phone banking and other direct action campaigns for the Democratic Party or their PACs.
We can avoid an immediate plunge into Fascism in America by getting more people in key swing states / districts to vote for Biden.
Oh so you're planning on going out and leading the revolution tomorrow? Oh you aren't? Until you do just please shut the fuck up.
Cut off their heads
hell yeah
Arm yourselves.
And stop pearl-clutching yourselves into letting the government disarm you. Doing so plays right into the hands of these fuckheads.
The problem is the GOP voters are idiots. Low - No information voters whose entire political education is based on cherry picked and planned sound bites. Most don't know they are voting for the end of the US or fascism but they sure as hell know they are voting to "insert fear mongering sound bite". They eat this stuff up since it hurts someone else. No other political party in the US capitalizes on keeping idiots entertained.
54% of Americans can’t read above a 6th grade level, according to the US DoE.
What the fuck.
Reminder that this isn't a GOP document, it's a Heritage Foundation document (right wing extremists).
They could try to follow it, but the Heritage Foundation ≠ GOP. If anything, the Federalist Society is a far greater threat, since they have tactfully and successfully infected the judiciary, and they don't even have a public manifesto of this nature.
This is certainly concerning, but it's far from guaranteed to be utilized.
- The Heritage Foundation was one dozens of right wing think tanks involved in writing this.
- The Heritage Foundation is extremely influential and well-connected in the American right wing political sphere. They wrote hundreds of Trump's policies, picked a lot of his cabinet, and had 66 staffers in his administration. Pence joined in 2021.
Yeah, I didn't express it very well, but I wasn't trying to imply they weren't a threat. They 1000% are.
It's just that plans like this presume every conservative is like them, and as we've seen even in the House, that's not the case; it wouldn't be a cakewalk
Still, it's one more example of why Conservatives (capital C) need to be dealt with soberly.
No offense, but this is oddly familiar to Circa November 2016..
I'm just saying. We should tread lightly and take it all seriously if there is evidence. They're counting on slinging so much shit at the wall that we won't be able to tell what is credible as a threat and what isn't.
Are you kidding? The heritage foundation is the GOP. They work so in tandem that they even write bills for the GOP. And we even have federalist society judges now on benches that rule in favor of the GOP. It was the end goal.
This sounds borderline conspiracy theory. What's the source?
Seems to be coming from The Heritage Foundation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
The Heritage Foundation (abbreviated to Heritage)[1][2] is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C. The foundation took a leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies were taken from Heritage's policy study Mandate for Leadership.[4]
They've also had varying degrees of influence on the Republican party, though VERY strong influence on Trump. So seems legit
I mean it is literally a theory about a conspiracy, yes.
At the same time the Heritage Foundation is powerful and well connected to Republican politicians in power.
So at this point there are a lot of conspiracy facts in the theory.
the source of what, the article or the master plan?
The Heritage Foundation is one of the think tanks involved in writing the 920-page master plan discussed in the article.
Welp. Looks like I'm going to jail in the not too distant future I guess.
Oh look, it's the machtergreifungsplan of the nazis!
The right has had little luck in fomenting widespread hatred of jews. They are doing better with minority hatred but in the LGBTQ community they have found the perfect victims.
And as the installation of a Fascist regime REQUIRES an identified internal enemy.... they have found their scapegoats
you're "not even remotely worried" about the fact that one of the two parties that rules the country just wrote a 920-page plan to "eradicate LGBTQ people from public life"? Whether or not they manage to actually do it — and I don't find it as far-fetched as you do — they want to do it. They wrote a serious plan to do it. Maybe it won't be you getting criminalized, but it will be someone. Florida already passed a bill allowed the state to seize trans children from their parents. You're not even remotely worried?
The fact that this is even being contemplated is insane. And let's be clear, it's not a far leap from "eradicate LGBTQ people from public life" to "eradicate LGBTQ people from life." God knows that a lot of those chuds will not see the difference between these statements and start vigilante killings for "being obscene" in public. Truly the stuff of nightmares.
Like @Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world mentioned, it will probably get held up in implementation, but that's my only solace in this because that could cause a whole host of other problems.
the "first 180 days of the presidency" part of the plan might get held up, but the general thrust of the project is going to trickle down like water through a sieve. It might not hit the country in one fell swoop but it'll hit, some places more than others. I see it the same way I see the lead-up to the holocaust: an effort to scapegoat a minority group and divert the outrage of a downwardly mobile middle class away from wealthy capitalists. They're determined, they have a motive, and they have financial backing.
Absolutely! What I find most terrifying is how anyone with a functioning brain can see the progress already made in this goal. Then that coupled with this plan is just the stuff of nightmares.
I thin you're right that it will trickle down and be worse in some areas (re: red states) than others. I can only hope my blue state remains strong.
Yeah. I really need some historians and experts on fascism/authoritarianism to chime in, because this right here is a compelling analysis.
You appear to be underestimating Democratic politicians' willingness to roll ovei and play dead. The last 40 years or so of their past performance don't make this a very promising argument for not worrying.
Run for office. Help someone else run for office. Be visible. Express your concerns clearly, frequently and openly to the well-meaning people in your life who don’t quite get it.
Be gay in public. We are entering an era where that may get one beat up or killed again.
I mean, how seriously do you take this threat and what are you willing to do to stop it?
This is all non sense
Tankies are the real danger! They have books written 100 years ago, theories that they’re just waiting to put into action, and always talking about fascism and what a danger it is. Time to WAKE up and see the real threat people! /s
Only tankies would downvote the truth.
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Looks like a plan to start a civil war to me.
save