Funny how no one seems to know why a shutdown is worse, while AOC can clearly explain why agreeing to fund the bill is worse (as per https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5194630-ocasio-cortez-schumer-government-shutdown/ she explains that it hurts the position of Dems who won house seats in Drumpf territory by explicitly supporting SS, Medicaid/care, etc.)
I mean there are some obvious drawbacks to a shutdown:
Easy for Republicans to point at democrats as the problem
People may confuse layoffs or other impacts of cuts to the shut down rather than the Trump admin
Less noise about all the terrible things the Trump admin is doing while shutdown takes the forefront
At the end of the day, it’s “maybe this will stop the Republicans from dismantling the entire federal government” vs “why stop your enemy from completely shooting themselves in the foot”
Personally I’m not sure which is better, but the wait and see game (that Schumer is playing) relies on things not going completely off the rails (and things seem pretty crazy right now).
While I’d personally contend that a shutdown wouldn’t normally be considered “completely going off the rails” I can kinda also see the other point of view - not wanting to add to the current level of craziness.
I agree, sadly a government shutdown is actually pretty normal for the US now. What I meant by that line (off the rails) was that Schumer is acting like this is just normal politics, so letting Trump continue to shoot himself in the foot should work out for the Democrats. However, I’m not so sure, this doesn’t seem like a normal admin and things have been escalating. Schumersl’s strategy won’t work if things continue to escalate at their current rate.
Actually, to be honest, I cannot remember so I assume I must have misclicked. However, it is maybe a little worrying that you monitor me and/or comment votes?
Could also be that I shut off my brain at some point. Your messaging is also not really super clear.
Basically I’m in the same boat as AOC and all the folks feeling betrayed, and I’m skeptical of Schumer’s intention because the news articles I’ve browsed over don’t include any detailed reasoning on why Schumer voted the way he did - but others on this thread have since provided a decent explanation.
And … when folks reply to me saying that my point is unclear, I’m always happy to clarify my meaning. Typically, that engagement turns out to be fulfilling on both ends.
A lone misclick isn’t a big deal - accidents happen and technology can sometimes be hard to use, so I tend to let these go. That said, I noticed that after writing your reply, you went ahead and downvoted three more of my comments on this post… so please try to be more careful with the misclicking. Especially considering that downvotes are essentially public.
I reverted my original downvote because it was not intentional. Then I looked through some of your other takes and intentionally voted it down because I thought you were in the wrong.
That being said, I need not careful nor do I really need to care whether or not you let anything “go”. I appreciate that you want honest discussions, but policing other people’s reactions is really just your reaction to someone else’s content and does not help you attain your goal.
I appreciate that you want honest discussions,
Then I looked through some of your other takes and intentionally voted it down because I thought you were in the wrong
So this is exactly why I ask - I’m curious then as to what you thought was wrong. One comment that got downvoted was me thanking another commenter for an explanation behind Schumer et al, and another was just me asking someone else about their downvote - so presumably there’s a diverse range of viewpoints and opinions that you could share here. And if you chose to do so, I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion on them.
I reverted my original downvote because it was not intentional.
do I really need to care whether or not you let anything “go”.
Well, I just meant that I don’t usually ask for folks to reverse or revert their downvote if it’s a misclick or some other accidental thing. Getting a downvote undone is actually pretty rare in this case.
but policing other people’s reactions
I’m asking for an opinion, not policing them! That’s more like in lemmy.world/c/politics (where mods had explicitly set up the rule that you shouldn’t downvote just because you disagree - see rule no. 5 there).
I mean, you can see that I didn’t even downvote you back in retaliation.
That being said, I need not careful
Not when it comes to me, to be sure. I don’t police and often don’t even downvote back as I wrote above. And of course I have no objections to you downvoting as long as it’s done intentionally - it’s just another way to express your opinion. (I just like asking why since it’s a chance to have a good discourse and maybe learn something.)
But in general, I do think one should be careful to avoid downvoting by misclicking or otherwise by accident - downvotes and upvotes are public and folks are trying to figure out how to use this to make bots that check for other bots, autoban users (I think st.itjust.works is already using one) and so on. So being careful and deliberate with your up and down votes is helps to avoid getting caught in some kind of dragnet.
is really just your reaction to someone else’s content
This part, I didn’t understand.
does not help you attain your goal.
My gut feel on this is that:
2 out of 10 times, the downvoter doesn’t respond to my post (explaining the reason for downvoting isn’t obligatory on most magazines after all), so I don’t gain anything (but neither do I seem to lose anything just by asking).
1 out of 10 times, the downvoter downvoted because they legitimately disagree, but we both end up particpating in a good convo about the issue.
3 out of 10 times, the downvoter misunderstood what I said, but wouldn’t have downvoted if I had gotten the point across in the beginning.
4 out of 10 times, it’s just an accident.
So 8 out of 10 times I attain my goal. I think that’s a pretty good track record, don’t you?
Funny how no one seems to know why a shutdown is worse, while AOC can clearly explain why agreeing to fund the bill is worse (as per https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5194630-ocasio-cortez-schumer-government-shutdown/ she explains that it hurts the position of Dems who won house seats in Drumpf territory by explicitly supporting SS, Medicaid/care, etc.)
I mean there are some obvious drawbacks to a shutdown:
At the end of the day, it’s “maybe this will stop the Republicans from dismantling the entire federal government” vs “why stop your enemy from completely shooting themselves in the foot”
Personally I’m not sure which is better, but the wait and see game (that Schumer is playing) relies on things not going completely off the rails (and things seem pretty crazy right now).
Thanks, this makes sense!
While I’d personally contend that a shutdown wouldn’t normally be considered “completely going off the rails” I can kinda also see the other point of view - not wanting to add to the current level of craziness.
I agree, sadly a government shutdown is actually pretty normal for the US now. What I meant by that line (off the rails) was that Schumer is acting like this is just normal politics, so letting Trump continue to shoot himself in the foot should work out for the Democrats. However, I’m not so sure, this doesn’t seem like a normal admin and things have been escalating. Schumersl’s strategy won’t work if things continue to escalate at their current rate.
Hey why did you downvote this @[email protected] [email protected] ?
Actually, to be honest, I cannot remember so I assume I must have misclicked. However, it is maybe a little worrying that you monitor me and/or comment votes?
Could also be that I shut off my brain at some point. Your messaging is also not really super clear.
Basically I’m in the same boat as AOC and all the folks feeling betrayed, and I’m skeptical of Schumer’s intention because the news articles I’ve browsed over don’t include any detailed reasoning on why Schumer voted the way he did - but others on this thread have since provided a decent explanation.
And … when folks reply to me saying that my point is unclear, I’m always happy to clarify my meaning. Typically, that engagement turns out to be fulfilling on both ends.
A lone misclick isn’t a big deal - accidents happen and technology can sometimes be hard to use, so I tend to let these go. That said, I noticed that after writing your reply, you went ahead and downvoted three more of my comments on this post… so please try to be more careful with the misclicking. Especially considering that downvotes are essentially public.
I reverted my original downvote because it was not intentional. Then I looked through some of your other takes and intentionally voted it down because I thought you were in the wrong.
That being said, I need not careful nor do I really need to care whether or not you let anything “go”. I appreciate that you want honest discussions, but policing other people’s reactions is really just your reaction to someone else’s content and does not help you attain your goal.
So this is exactly why I ask - I’m curious then as to what you thought was wrong. One comment that got downvoted was me thanking another commenter for an explanation behind Schumer et al, and another was just me asking someone else about their downvote - so presumably there’s a diverse range of viewpoints and opinions that you could share here. And if you chose to do so, I look forward to a thoughtful and engaging discussion on them.
Well, I just meant that I don’t usually ask for folks to reverse or revert their downvote if it’s a misclick or some other accidental thing. Getting a downvote undone is actually pretty rare in this case.
I’m asking for an opinion, not policing them! That’s more like in lemmy.world/c/politics (where mods had explicitly set up the rule that you shouldn’t downvote just because you disagree - see rule no. 5 there).
I mean, you can see that I didn’t even downvote you back in retaliation.
Not when it comes to me, to be sure. I don’t police and often don’t even downvote back as I wrote above. And of course I have no objections to you downvoting as long as it’s done intentionally - it’s just another way to express your opinion. (I just like asking why since it’s a chance to have a good discourse and maybe learn something.)
But in general, I do think one should be careful to avoid downvoting by misclicking or otherwise by accident - downvotes and upvotes are public and folks are trying to figure out how to use this to make bots that check for other bots, autoban users (I think st.itjust.works is already using one) and so on. So being careful and deliberate with your up and down votes is helps to avoid getting caught in some kind of dragnet.
This part, I didn’t understand.
My gut feel on this is that:
2 out of 10 times, the downvoter doesn’t respond to my post (explaining the reason for downvoting isn’t obligatory on most magazines after all), so I don’t gain anything (but neither do I seem to lose anything just by asking).
1 out of 10 times, the downvoter downvoted because they legitimately disagree, but we both end up particpating in a good convo about the issue.
3 out of 10 times, the downvoter misunderstood what I said, but wouldn’t have downvoted if I had gotten the point across in the beginning.
4 out of 10 times, it’s just an accident.
So 8 out of 10 times I attain my goal. I think that’s a pretty good track record, don’t you?