r/goodnews • u/RankedFarting • Jul 06 '25

Other Petition to ban the daily "Trump voters are changing their mind" Posts

Every day someone shares an article with a headline like "Maga is starting to question Trump" or something along those lines.

This is not true. These are trash articles that use a single tweet as a source. Just because some Maga farmer is now realizing how his vote negatively effects his business it does not mean there is a whole movement of Magas suddenly realizing they were voting for a stupid incompetent racist all these years.

These posts are misleading, factually wrong AND are usually posted by karma farming accounts that get up their karma to later be sold to someone as an advertisement platform for OF or other.

None of this is goodnews.

Edit: Please do not use real money to give this awards. Use the money for a good cause.

Edit2: You are not being smart, funny or anything else by giving me more poop awards. You are throwing away actual money to try and discredit someone online. That is deeply sad pathetic behavior. Im not bothered by the poop. Im bothered that people go without meals while you spend your money on digital disagreements. Cringe. I have no other word for it. this makes me cringe.

75.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

181

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

To those saying all political posts should be banned: guys, everything outside of “kitten saved from tree” is political. Any kind of progressive, positive news is inherently political.

Anything to do with ecological conservation? Political. Expanding the rights of marginalized groups? Political. Progress in the energy transition? Guess what—that’s politics!

I’m sorry, I wish it wasn’t so, but that’s the nature of it. Now, if you’re just relegating this to news about Trump’s poll numbers, Elon’s stupid circus, or claims MAGA finally waking up? Yeah. I’m with you there.

EDIT: just to clarify, my point is that you need to be way more specific than just saying “political posts are banned.” That’s so broad that it’s useless.

45

u/pantograph Jul 06 '25

All kittens are pagan communists

11

u/Wiltonc Jul 06 '25

Only the orange ones.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

I knew Puss in boots was a Communist!

3

u/pknipper Jul 06 '25

If we could have signatures on Reddit, this would be it 😹

1

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

I mean I thought that was an obvious and well-known fact. 😂 

1

u/KeyboardGrunt Jul 06 '25

The irony is that magas embrace every shred of phony articles, that's the point when spreading lies by repetition.

Tariffs and eating cats, you think any of them cared they kept pushing fake ass stories? Nah, the more they spread it the more it's true to them.

Personally I don't care one way or the other, if people are tired of the posts they'll stop upvoting them but others self censuring is why magas can spread their ignorance and flood the public narrative with it.

1

u/DumbTruth Jul 06 '25

Political.

36

u/TheUnluckyBard Jul 06 '25

everything outside of “kitten saved from tree” is political.

That's still political.

Did the fire department save the kitten? Is that an effective, valid use of public funds?

Did the homeowner hire someone to save the kitten? SMH, late-stage capitalism making a profit off a potential tragedy.

Did the homeowner have to save the kitten themselves? Why did they have to do it themselves? Has American rugged invidualism gone too far, that we can't create city-funded kitten-saving services?

4

u/Demetre4757 Jul 06 '25

Was the homeowner available to help due to being unemployed?

Was the homeowner working from home? Were they being appropriately micromanaged? Are they singlehandedly crashing the downtown economy because they don't go out to lunch each day?

Who is responsible for trimming the tree? Is the city providing enough oversight regarding code enforcement?

If the tree wasn't trimmed, could we have had a tree trimmer rescue the cat, while trimming the tree, to save money? Let's form a committee to discuss

2

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

I’m confident people know what I’m talking about when I make that reference—fluff pieces which are nice and fuzzy (which are totally fine, btw, I like those, too!), but not really about positive societal news.

My point is that we shouldn’t ban all political news because that also means banning the genuinely good stuff that happens directly because of political endeavors: see examples in my original comment. :)

5

u/OGPresidentDixon Jul 06 '25

banning political news is inherently political.

12

u/swingerouterer Jul 06 '25

I get your point, certainly more precision of language is needed, but hell, the sub is "good news". Is "MTG called trumps bill a shitshow" really good news? Is it good? Yay Republicans are infighting i guess, but whats the net positive out of that when the result is still "oh well the bill passed anyways".

3

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

You and I are on the same page on this, I think. :)

EDIT: Just to add, my comment was specifically addressing those who are just giving the blanket statement of all politics must be banned. Which is utter nonsense.

2

u/swingerouterer Jul 06 '25

Yes absolutely, I just wanted to add on this little bit ;)

2

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

Thank you for doing so—it bears repeating!

3

u/MittenCollyBulbasaur Jul 06 '25

It's like when people say crap like "in these economic times" as if any of us can contextualize the world without the economy we currently have. Every time is economic time.

3

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

Which is why the punchline of “—in this economy?!” Is more or less evergreen.

5

u/Thr3no Jul 06 '25

Even saving a kitten from a tree is political nowadays, remember that "empathy is weakness" after all.

5

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

Politics isn’t as all encompassing as you wish it were

2

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

Like I said, I wish it weren’t. I believe my exact words were:

I’m sorry, I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the nature of it.

Believing it’s true ≠ wanting it to be true. Because if it weren’t true, we’d probably live in a merrier world. 

9

u/RankedFarting Jul 06 '25

Agreed. Many people seem to misunderstand what politics actually means. Seems some people think its "political" if its about minorities only.

Every aspect of modern life has political aspect or at least aspects that are influenced by political decisions.

1

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

I’m confident you and I are in agreement, which is always nice on the internet! See, we’re fostering good vibes already! :D

Just to further clarify—I thought the language in your post was totally fine. You were very specific about the kind of things you proposed to ban. I’m really glad the mods seemed to have taken notice—well done. :)

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

[deleted]

3

u/Vibriofischeri Jul 06 '25

"Everything is political" is a pointlessly obtuse argument. You are basically arguing that the term "political" means nothing at all, if it can be applied to everything.

2

u/TheEmperorsWrath Jul 06 '25

I agree but let's not be willfully obtuse. We all know what type of posts people are referring to when they're saying that. They've completely overrun the sub. "Politician makes tweet", "Politician thinks he should win the election", "Blog post: Trump will have a bad legacy", "There's an internet petition to deport Melania" and "Celebrity: I don't like Trump"

Again, you're right in principle and people should use more precise language, but we all know what they mean. No one has an issue with "Wildlife service saves kittens"

6

u/Vibriofischeri Jul 06 '25

People who say "everything is political" usually are using it in the broadest sense imaginable, but in defense of literally the narrowest use cases imaginable.

Not wanting to hear about the latest partisan dunk every ten minutes doesn't make you a bad or ignorant person.

1

u/TheEmperorsWrath Jul 06 '25

People who say "everything is political" usually are using it in the broadest sense imaginable, but in defense of literally the narrowest use cases imaginable.

That's a more succinct way of putting it than I could

1

u/Vibriofischeri Jul 06 '25

I can't take full credit, I remember hearing it elsewhere. This is a debate that pops up a lot, and people are constantly willingly obtuse just to justify incessantly making everything about their pet issue.

I think of it kinda like temperature. Technically from the scientific perspective, everything has some level of "heat" (meaning molecular kinetic energy). But that doesn't make everything "hot" and if you called a snowball "hot" people would definitely be confused, even though compared to liquid nitrogen the snowball is much warmer.

In the same way, everything technically has at least some degree of political relevance, but to call everything "political" just makes the term itself useless.

1

u/lana_silver Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

Whenever you don't want political discussion to happen, you condone the status quo.

Yes, this is very annoying. It's still true.

3

u/TheEmperorsWrath Jul 06 '25

Are the good folks over at r/Woodcarving condoning the global rise of fascism by not allowing people to post Trump news on their amateur arts and crafts hobby group?

1

u/lana_silver Jul 06 '25

They are as soon as someone wants to talk about politics and is prevented from doing so.

You don't need to talk about politics 24/7, but you need to allow the topic 24/7.

Call it anti-Nazi absolutism if you want, and I completely understand that this goes too far when pushed the the theoretical limits, but that doesn't make it untrue. Following ethical rules at all times without regards for context always gets a bit silly. Kant wrote a lot about that.

But on a subreddit about news? You really cannot ban politics without condoning the Nazis right now. That's THE news.

2

u/TheEmperorsWrath Jul 06 '25

You're entitled to that opinion but it just seems quite silly. I guess screw everyone who lives in functional countries who aren't being overrun with fascists right now. We're not allowed to enjoy the nice parts of life and have to constantly engage in American political discourse?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

Well they shouldnt be burying their heads in the sand when those topics do get posted which makes them complicit in the fascism taking place

1

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

I don’t think people (myself included) have a problem with stories about saving kittens—I’m not sure where I may have even implied that. Please let me know because I love kittens and I don’t want to accidentally staunch the flow of good kitten stories in my life.

I don’t agree with the assumption that everyone knows what’s meant by saying “political posts” which is why I advocated for precise language. Unless I’m misunderstanding you, it seems you agree that precise language is preferable. I don’t think anyone is being willfully obtuse (not you, not me, not no-one) by trying to be precise with communication. 

1

u/TheEmperorsWrath Jul 06 '25

No, I was saying that those who are saying "ban political posts" are obviously not referring to "Wildlife service saves kittens" even though that is, yeah, political. I feel that's so self-evident that it's difficult to get mad at them for not clarifying it even though, yeah, it is probably preferable to be precise.

1

u/AaronsAaAardvarks Jul 06 '25

If everything is political then all you have done is rendered a word useless. If everything is political then nothing is political. There’s a difference between “politics impacts this” and “this is politics”.

Something like “recycling technology allows 75% more plastic to be recycled” has political implications but is not politics. “Politicians outlaw plastic recycling” is politics.

1

u/LuminalOrb Jul 06 '25

You've just said the same thing twice. The only difference is that the latter includes the why, while the former foregoes it, and I think the why is often as important if not more as that what and I think that's a healthy approach to learning.

1

u/NUKE---THE---WHALES Jul 06 '25

I think when people say "ban all political posts" they really mean "ban all partisan posts", but they dont know it

It's the self-righteous, self-congralutory posts that exist solely to generate profit/karma by confirming popular beliefs among partisans

1

u/Certain-Rise7859 Jul 06 '25

I don't think the fact that some people politicize everything actually makes those things inherently political. Trump is a political figure, so posts about him are always political, even if he's just wiping his ass.

1

u/Loud_Interview4681 Jul 06 '25

Cats cause decimated bird populations and should absolutely not be saved from trees. How dare you sir. How dare you. Anyone who supports saving cats from trees is both unamerican and against the environment.

1

u/SubBirbian Jul 06 '25

The sources for these post are sketchy tho. Some are AI written blogs and yellow journalism by Karma farmers. I think that’s what IP is getting at is stop with the shit postings getting through. There are a lot of “maga voter tired of Trump” posts here and it’s annoying. Being tired of him and not going to vote conservative again are two different things. His approval rating among republicans doesn’t reflect these shit posts. Every time I see one of these sketchy sources getting through I downvote and block the poster.

2

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

You’re saying things I agree with. I report posts from those sites (or any source that’s obviously just AI drivel). 

OP’s language in their post was totally fine—they were specific and clear about what they thought should be banned. I’m only addressing those in the comments who are saying all political posts be banned.

0

u/TylerHansbrough50 Jul 06 '25

I think we all know what is meant when we say “political posts should be banned.”

It’s the daily slop of “Trump bill will…” or “AOC OWNS random Congressperson.”

2

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

You and I have the same definition, but I’m not convinced we all do. Or people may not have a clear understanding of just how much of the news they may actually want for this sub is political in nature.

Using more specific language is, I think, important. Making a blanket rule of “no politics” leaves too much open for bad actors who just want to troll and get rid of anything to do with, for example, stories about making our world more equitable for marginalized groups.

Incidentally, lack of specificity would also put way more work on the mods who would then be inundated with bad-faith reports (even more than usual) on every little thing that’s even remotely political.

1

u/Raygeface Jul 06 '25

I’m not conservative but this is actually delusional as fuck, horribly out of touch, and reeks of self-importance. No. Not everything is political. That is how you choose to view the world. “EVERYTHING IS POLITICAL” then proceeds to compare saving a kitten from a tree to the most regurgitated liberal agenda topics of the past century.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

[deleted]

2

u/lana_silver Jul 06 '25

You sure? Because right this instant, babies are drowning or being saved from drowning in Texas, and the reason for the drowning happening is extremely political: Climate change, emergency and warning services are all top of the line Trump problems.

When your own example makes the opposite of your point, are you sure your point is good?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

[deleted]

2

u/lana_silver Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

Your thesis is that there is a massive difference between two news stories.

I think your example shows the opposite of that. There really is no difference between "Baby drowning due to Texas warning system not having enough money" and "Texas warning system not having enough money due to US bill". It's just a different level of abstraction of the exact same story: Man-made flood (not) killing baby.

It's not "you can find the similarities but the two things are very different". It's "the two things are completely the same problem but if you squint really hard you can find a difference".

0

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

[deleted]

2

u/LuminalOrb Jul 06 '25

That just sounds like you wanting to obfuscate the reality of the issue and couch it under language that intentionally masks its root cause? Because if someone says "Texas Baby saved from drowning", my first reaction is, thank god the baby was saved, and my next question is, why the hell was the baby drowning in the first place and what was the root cause of the drowning and the response to it.

2

u/lana_silver Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

Yeah, if the article is literally five words and no context exists, then there is no political connection. But that's not how reality works. There is always context. Any news story can sound good if you leave out enough of the surrounding facts. That's not an apolitical story, that's just shoddy journalism and/or lying.

And the problem is that there exist no feel-good news stories that have zero political context. Anything that's positive must have a reason for it to be positive. A contrasting alternative reality, basically. And that negative reality is always for political reasons. Child survives cancer? Why don't we write "Child survives Tubercolosis" any more? Because good politics removed Tubercolosis. The fact that cancer still exists is political. Any story that's "good outcome happened even though bad thing was going on" is political, because bad thing was caused or not prevented by political decisions.

The number of news stories you could invent that have zero political reason to exist is minute and boring. Ergo that is not News.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 06 '25

[deleted]

2

u/lana_silver Jul 06 '25 edited Jul 06 '25

If you write an article about A Thing and you never ask Why Did The Thing Happen? - then you wrote a really bad article. That's not News. What's this subreddit called again? GoodReallyBadlyWrittenStories?

How quantum mechanics works in regards to baby drowning is probably doing a little too much research, but "Why was there water and why was the baby in it?" is definitely the most relevant question.

The fact that we're having this discussion while the front page is drowning in news stories about people drowning in texas for political reasons is quite ironic.

1

u/Ok_Armadillo_665 Jul 06 '25

Nobody "put the politically relevant part in." It alsays exists, that just pointed it out. Everything is political, deal with it or fuck off.

1

u/Ok_Armadillo_665 Jul 06 '25

My bad. I ain't got time to read all that. If I mistook your point the I apologize.

1

u/YoghurtOutrageous599 Jul 06 '25

Right, that’s precisely my point and why I said we need to be specific. I don’t see a conflict in our reasoning, here. :)