News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
He seems like a decent person, and his platform is okay for the most part. He's definitely better than the sex pest that is Cuomo, and so I guess it's a win in that regard.
However, y biggest issue with him is that he has openly accepted the endorsement from the DSA. That is not a good sign. The DSA is the most vile and parasitic bunch on the American left. They openly simp for dictators and tyrannical regimes, they endorse violence, and they outright support terrorist groups. They're genuinely the worst of the worst. The fact that he hasn't rejected their endorsement, or at the very least ignored it, but instead accepted it with open arms is a major red flag.
Edit: I like how the DSA supporting cowards have nothing of value to say, just discretely downvote and scurry away. Fuck the DSA.
Which terrorist organizations does the DSA support?
Hamas.
The terrorist attacks happened on Oct 7th. The world was in shock as it happened because that was the deadliest terrorist attack in the world has seen since the Camp Speicher massacre back in 2014 and 9/11.
Most people and governments around the world at the time condemned the terrorist attacks, they condemned Hamas for committing them, and they expressed sympathy for the victims. This was doubly so when Hamas took responsibility, proudly displayed videos of the attacks and the victims, and it became apparent that they took hundreds of hostages.
What did the NYC DSA do? They fucking organized a pro-Hamas rally on Oct 8th in SUPPORT of the terrorist attacks that literally happened the day before. They outright endorsed and celebrated the attacks on the streets. This isn't an exaggeration, that's literally what they did. You can literally google the rally and see this for yourself.
The rally was so disgusting, so immoral, and so evil that it caused an uproar around the world, including inside the DSA and the left in the US. So many people, including big politicians like AOC, Shri Thanedar, and Bowman, either quit or disassociated with the DSA:
https://www.newsweek.com/congressman-quits-democratic-socialists-party-over-pro-palestinian-rally-1834026
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/10/aoc-pro-palestine-nyc-rally-00120684
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/quit-dsa-gaza-israel/
The backlash was so strong, that the NYC DSA was forced to write a press release statement addressing their actions two days later on Oct 10th... and they came up with this:
https://socialists.nyc/press-releases/statement-peace-now-end-occupation-apartheid/
They didn't condemn the terrorist attacks, they refused to name and condemn Hamas or the PIJ, they even refused to call the attacks as such, they instead called them "escalations of violence". It's like holding a pro-ISIS rally a day after the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, and then victim blaming the French people for the attacks. How tone deaf is that?
Keep in mind the context here, we're not talking about the current day. This is before Israel started it's bombing campaign on Gaza. At the time, a very egregious and straightforward atrocity happened. The human thing to do is to condemn it because terrorism is evil. This is why people condemn both the Oct 7th terrorist attacks and what Israel has been doing since, it's because that's the principled thing to do.
To this day, they still have never rescinded their support for Hamas or the terrorist attacks.
The DSA actually did something similar when Russia invaded Ukraine. Most people were in shock and they condemned Russia's invasion and atrocities, but the parasitic DSA decided to "condemn" the invasion by blaming the US, Ukraine, and NATO for Putin invading.
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
How are these not open endorsements of violence? How they are they not explicit support for terrorism? How are these positions not tone deaf and immoral? These parasites have no morals and they have no principles. Extremists like this need to be condemned and disavowed, not openly accepted. Mamdani's acceptance of the DSA endorsement is a big red flag.
I didn’t want to assume you were a fucking islamophobe, but I’m not at all surprised. Go to hell, zionist trash.
Lemmy users are so intellectually lazy, and this is a prime example of that. It is so obvious that you can't defend your views on their own merits. Instead of providing a counter argument that explains your views or address my points, it's far easier to just pull random, baseless ad homs out of your ass and pretend that you did something.
I'm neither a zionist nor an islamophobe, and there's literally nothing in my comment that even mildly implies either. But that won't stop you from making stuff up. Too bad it doesn't mean anything, but I'm sure you're next logical fallacy will surely get the job done.
Who has less red flags?
Well, when you put it that way, recent events suggest the best course of action is to sit it out in protest.
/s for the triggered assholes. Only not really.
Good point, the DSA is full of red flags literally and figuratively
The DSA ran for office? What? I'm asking which CANDIDATE has less red flags you goober.
Brad Lander, Adrienne Adams, and Zellnor Myrie are better candidates.
Your only issue is that he's to the left of netanyahu.
That's the dumbest thing I've read on this site all day
Sorry, was netanyahu too far to the left for you too?
Not supporting a shitty a brainless, dictator simping, terrorist endorsing, violence condoning organization like the DSA doesn't mean I support Netanyahu. Fuck him and everybody like him. At the same rate fuck anybody who's dumb enough to think that the condemnation of one political parasite is an endorsement of another political parasite.
This also describes the DNC, with whom you have no evident problem.
I have a lot of problems with the DNC actually. Any more assumptions you want cleared up?
Sure. How much further to the right do you want them?
You're so close bro, just a few more disingenuous attempts and you'll surely catch me as a secret ultra right winger.
Disingenuous? You hate the DSA for reasons that apply to the DNC but I don't see you as angry at every democrat as you are any given member of the DSA.
You just hate progressives and found some copypasta that suits your selective dislike of things both the DSA and DNC do.
No no, I think I understand what he's saying. He's saying everyone is terrible and we should just kill ourselves and stop trying.
Imagine being this dumb
You live it my friend, no need to imagine!
"no u"
This was exactly the level of intelligence I was expecting
One is glad to be of service.
You ARE being disingenuous.
This isn’t about “hating progressives”, it’s about integrity. If a candidate claims to stand against the establishment but proudly accepts an endorsement from a group that’s defends extremists and doubles down on moral incoherence, that’s a real problem. You’re not even attempting to address that.
Instead, you're dodging with bad faith assumptions and false equivalence, as if calling out one group’s hypocrisy demands total denunciation of everyone else, or that I'm obligated to spread my criticism evenly for it to count. Going "b... bUt WhAt AbOuT tHe DeMoCrAtS" isn't even a valid point, that's just the whataboutism fallacy which are you using to deflect from the criticisms being made.
Also, labeling valid critique as “copypasta” doesn’t make it so, make it wrong, or make it go away. It just shows you’ve got nothing to say about the actual issue, otherwise you would've done so instead of desperately scrapping for anything fallacy you throw out. The endorsement from the DSA wasn’t just a footnote in his campaign, it exposed a contradiction you’d rather not reckon with.
But I know you're not honest enough to actually address any of this, so like I said, you're so close bro. You're just one more disingenuous attempt, and you'll surely get me next time.
And by an astounding coincidence, democrats aren't required to have any while anyone to their left must be perfect in every way.
Centrists spent more than a decade screaming "purity test!" at anyone who expected better from the party that centrists ran into the fucking ground. So stow the selective purity tests that magically only apply to the wing of the party you don't like.
You're doing it again! Dodging the issue by assigning motives and projecting tribal loyalty tests. My point wasn’t that progressives need to be “perfect”, it’s that if a candidate brands themselves as anti establishment, accepting an endorsement from a group that defends extremists, such as the DSA, is a contradiction worth examining. That’s not a purity test. That’s basic consistency.
Dragging in the DNC and centrists doesn’t make that contradiction go away, it just shifts the topic, again. If you can’t address the original point without framing everything as a left vs center grudge match, maybe the problem isn’t the critique, but it’s that it landed.
You're right. Perfect wouldn't be good enough for you either.
It's really simple actually. There's two intellectually honest paths you could take here:
Mamdani accepting the DSA's endorsement is a bad move and a red flag that we should criticize and keep an eye on because the DSA is a shitty organization that has done shitty things.
Mamdani accepting the DSA's endorsement is a good thing because I support the DSA and the shitty things they do
Aren't you tired of dancing around like a clown by running in circles with one desperate disingenuous fallacy after another? You're not making yourself look smart, all you're doing is demonstrating that you're aware that DSA is shit and support them despite of that, but you're too ashamed to admit it so you keep trying to mask your support with whatever this is. You can concede that I made a good point or own your support for the DSA so we can shift the conversation to how shitty they are. If you can't do this, then you're not worth another reply.
I'm aware that you think that the DSA is shit.
...and there it is. I was spot on about you word for word. Alright, go troll elsewhere.
Anyone who doesn't look for excuses to oppose progressives like you do is a troll. Got it.
You're arguing macroscopic relativistic issues when voting is a quantum decision.
Are you arguing that you'd prefer Cuomo to have won? Cuz he's the runner up.
I think the main issue you're having in this thread is you are complaining but not really saying what you wanted to happen differently or offering any solutions. In the absence of such things, most people would assume you'd prefer Cuomo.
You're dodging the point. This isn’t about cosmic metaphors or Cuomo. It's about Mamdani claiming anti-establishment credibility while embracing an endorsement from a group with serious baggage. That contradiction doesn’t disappear just because the alternative was worse.
If the only way to defend a candidate is by pointing to who came in second, maybe the candidate didn’t earn the trust they’re asking for. Keep in mind, I actually like a good chunk of Mamdani's platform and he's clearly better Cuomo, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a red flag. He could've simply reject or just ignored the DSA's endorsement, but he instead proudly accepted and put it on his website. Critiquing a flawed move isn’t “complaining”, it’s accountability.
Good job not addressing my point.
AND WHAT? What would you like done and what consequences would you like to see?
What kind of question is that? It should be extremely obvious that I think he should've ignored or rejected the DSA's endorsement. Endorsements go both ways. By openly accepting their endorsement, he's basically saying that he's proud of them and what they do. Do you not find this at all concerning considering what the DSA has done and stood for in recent years? Do you think it's not at least worth criticizing him over this? Just because he's better than Cuomo for not being a sex pest and better than Adams for not being blatantly corrupt and accepting bribes, that doesn't mean he's now absolved from receiving criticism. Saying "but there's worse" doesn't in any way justify, excuse, or negate this endorsement. If accepting an endorsement by a billionaire funded right wing group or a foreign funded lobbyist group is problematic, then this should be as well.
There, I've addressed your point, can you finally address mine?
Ok, so that's not happening. What do you think the consequences of that should be? Do you want him out of office? Or just for people to say hey, that's bad! And then go about our business? Should we have withheld votes over that one thing or not?
Your questions? Oh I don't care about the DSA thing at all. I'm more concerned with where his actual focus lies as a local mayor, not who endorsed him and the optics of endorsements. I don't know enough about the DSA or any of the stuff that are bothering you so much to make it a wedge issue. I'm more curious as to what you hope to accomplish by your comments. One of the things the right does better than the left is maintaining party cohesion, so it always intrigues me when people self sabotage incremental moves in the right direction.
I'm arguing with you right now. If you endorsed me, I'd accept it. I'd take your money and use it for whatever I wanted. I'd take your endorsement to mean you agree with my views, regardless of what your words say. Or are you claiming some quid pro quo we should be worried about? Because that's usually the actual concern when talking about big money donors in politics.
It's crazy that instead of acknowledging that this is a bad thing, you're willing to go through all these mental gymnastics in hopes of sweeping it under the rug. Where's your moral integrity?
We have a politician who is in position to be elected to a very powerful office, and this individual has accepted and endorsement from a group that's known for being extremist, pro violence, and pro tyranny. That is a big red flag because it means he agrees with their views and actions enough to proudly accept and display their endorsement. I hope that I don't need to explain why that would set a dangerous precedent.
As citizens of a democratic country, it is our civic duty to criticize him for things like this. The public should apply enough pressure on him to where he comes out and publicly distances himself from this organization, or at the very least have him explicitly condemn their extremist actions. That way he'll be on public record that he has disavowed their extremist methods and views, and that's a standard that he can and will be held to during his entire time in office. That way he can face consequences should he go back on his words and start employing tactics from this group.
Trying to make excuses for him because he's a progressive is incredibly stupid. Nobody should ever have double standards for politicians. They should all face the same criticisms for same questionable actions. All politicians who openly accept endorsement from unethical organizations should face the same criticisms whether it's Cuomo, Adams, or Mamdani. It should be clear at this point that I'm not criticizing him for the sake of it, but because I have an actual point and an actual concern. How you don't see this as something concerning is beyond me.
It's not about optics, that's such a mind numbingly shallow point of view. Even if a politician’s platform doesn’t explicitly reflect an extremist group’s views, openly accepting their endorsement is still concerning. It legitimizes harmful ideologies, signals poor judgment, and undermines the candidate’s credibility, especially if they claim to stand for integrity or justice, which Mamdani does. Endorsements carry weight that goes beyond optics, and failing to distance from extremist groups erodes public trust and inadvertently amplify dangerous narratives, which is already a big problem in this country. Ultimately, it raises questions about his values and character, which is why a clarification is necessary.
My comments express my opinions, and if they are able to raise awareness about this then that's a plus. At least I have a point in my comments, what is the point of your comments? To me, it looks like you're just big mad that I'm criticizing this guy for doing something questionable and you want that to stop.
What in the fuck are you even talking about? The Republican part has zero cohesion. They have no platform, no ideology, no structure, no values, no leadership, nothing. The whole party starts and stops with Trump and his senile opinions that can change from one extreme end to other at the drop of a hat. The Republican party died when Trump started purging all the ideological diversity that existed within the party during his first term. Right now the party only consists of MAGA cultist worshipers and slimy opportunists who lack a spine.
The left should definitely NOT model itself to be more like the right. One of the hallmarks of a successful democracy is having these internal debates and having the ability to criticize politicians freely and openly about anything they do that's deemed inappropriate. The progressives who think they should become blue MAGA are just as dumb as MAGA. This isn't self sabotage, this is an opportunity for us to hold our politicians accountable so they could serve us better in the ways that we want them to.
Hold on, if you don't even understand what I'm talking about, then why the fuck are you arguing and defending something you don't even know?
It's easy to say this because you know I'm just a normal person, but imagine for a second that you got an endorsement from someone who isn't normal. Say for example, an islamist group like Al Qaeda endorsed you, would you still accept their endorsement? How about if a branch of the KKK endorsed you? Maybe, the church of Scientology? You probably wouldn't, but why? It's because basic morals and ethics wouldn't allow you to, or at least they shouldn't. I don't care how many votes or money their endorsements brings, their views and past doings are more than enough for me to reject their support.
That's one issue, but it's not the only one.
Let's play a hypothetical.
You are a Nazi.
I say, Nazi's are morons who should be exterminated.
You endorse me. I accept your endorsement.
Look, I make so much sense that even Nazi extremists agree they need to be exterminated! I am the common sense candidate that no one disagrees with! Here's my anti Nazi legislation!
What in the fuck are you even on about? Your hypothetical doesn't address my points and it's not used to demonstrate a point of your own. What is the point you're trying to drive here that endorsements from extremists is a good thing? That's just stupid and so is this hypothetical because it's a situation that NEVER happens. Nobody accepts endorsements from extremist groups they disavow. That's why it's a problem. Accepting an endorsement from an extremist group, especially when you preach that you're against extremism, is a big red flag because it shows a conflict, it shows a contradiction. The inconsistencies in morals, views, values, and character are a problem. This common sense, this is obvious. I should not need to explain this to you this many times.
I don't think you understand that hypotheticals need to have a valid point to make in order for them to be relevant. Making them for the sake of it is pointless. It's clear you don't even understand what my point is, what I'm arguing against, or why I'm arguing against it. I spelled it out for you multiple times, and you still don't get it. There are only two possibilities for this, either you're too ignorant for this conversation or you're too disingenuous for it. Arguing for the sake of arguing is a waste of time, especially if you're engaging in bad faith which I'm pretty sure you are. In the words of the great T-Pain "If you ain't got it by now then you're just ain't getting it"
The point I'm trying to demonstrate is endorsements are meaningless, it's policy decisions that matter. It's not like you answered my questions about whether you want him out of office. You just type incessantly long responses to obfuscate from the fact that you have a binary state of he's mayor or he isn't. You can't pick and choose to criticize and pretend that it's not a tacit vote for the status quo. If you want him gone, then you want Cuomo. Period.
If you're basing your entire voting decisions based on endorsements rather than platform you're a moron and I don't really care what you think about anything.
Okay I guess I will say something in addition to the downvote: none of that crazy shit you're saying about DSA is true, they (we) are a bunch of idealistic do-gooders trying to make the world a better place.
What value did you actually add though? You provided no explanations, no counter examples, no specific disagreements, no points, no arguments, no sources, nothing. You literally just asserted that I'm wrong and that the DSA is good with no additional input at all. This is just a downvote in text form.
I literally have a detailed comment with sources that prove what I'm talking about in this very comment thread.
Your comment above and the longer one are just complete nonsense. You're hyper-focused on this October 8th rally that you claim was organized by DSA (it wasn't) and which you claim endorsed and celebrated the October 7th attack (it didn't). And then you're taking various DSA statements about how they oppose war and violence as proof that they secretly celebrate violence from the side you oppose.
Come back to reality!
This is literally just a longer version of your previously pointless comment.
I don't think you understand, so let me explain. You asserting that I'm wrong, while claiming that you're right... neither proves me wrong or you right. Proof by assertion is not an argument, it's a logical fallacy. Why? Because you didn't provide anything of substance and you're not addressing the points being made.
If you want me to take you seriously, then you're going to need to stop being so lazy, and actually provide your reasoning. You have to address the specific points you disagree with, provide reasoning as to why you disagree with them (including the sources that I provided), explain why you believe in your views, and provide what your evidence and logic is for your positions.
This should be common sense, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. If you're incapable of doing this then that you means you either lack the ability to defend your views on their own merits or you just can't counter my points properly because you know they're right. Simply, put up or shut up.
This isn't really a reasoning thing, you are just repeating some common lies.
I literally don't care how many of you mouth breathers downvote or repeat the same bullshit assertions. It's not going to change anything. Not a single one of you has been able to address a single point or address a single argument or even point out a single flaw. You didn't and I know you never will either.
This, right here, is the best you could ever do. I literally asked you to provide a case like 3 times now, and you're simply not able to. That's all there is to it. It's clear you're full of shit, you're aware of can't prove me wrong, but you're dishonest to admit you're wrong so you resort to whatever this is. You're done here, I'll only reply if you have something of substance to say, which I know you won't.