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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

tl;dr - https://youtu.be/C6BYzLIqKB8#t=7s

  • Tolookah
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    20 days ago

    I generally agree with your reasoning. In a ranked choice world, they would likely have a candidate they would back, and support. I think many of us here would be happy to be in that world.

    Reminder for everyone to vote every election, and local and state are super important, it’s where you have a chance to get ranked choice in the discussion.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      20 days ago

      Yup, yup. Fixing elections is a tall order, but if freakin’ ALASKA can get ranked choice, why not everyone?

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      19 days ago

      I agree with this take on r2ozma. They obviously criticized Biden and the DNC relentlessly, but to me it came from a place of frustration from wanting better representation. It’s a good case study in how the 2 party system generally fails us all.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      19 days ago

      Unfortunately, implementing ranked choice nationwide requires politicians who are responsive to the will of the people.

      If we had that, we would already have what we needed ranked choice for.