[jerrac]

I wondered if anyone else noticed that. I upvoted. Hopefully more people will as well to balance out the bias.

To those of you downvoting, please articulate why you think something deserves a downvote. As it is, I can only assume rather hypocritical double standards. Someone saying something anti-Trump is ok, but someone saying something anti-Leftist (or Clinton) is not?

(For the record, I 100% am on the side of the guy who was jailed. Just as I am on for the guy who retweeted that meme in 2016. Abusing government power is unacceptable no matter who it benefits.)

[ceejayoz]

In one case, the meme was accurate - the photo, the quote, and its attribution were all accurate, and the cops knew that. It never made it to trial, for obvious reasons.

In the other, it was false information, a grand jury indicted, and a jury convicted. The appeal rested on the government struggling to demonstrate a) anyone actively fell for the information and b) the conspiracy element. (https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/23-7577_opn.pdf)

Somehow, this distinction is... bias?

[jerrac]

In both cases the reason someone was persecuted was they offended someone in power. And the system eventually ruled in their favor. That is the similarity.

If you view one of those cases as a bad result, then chances are you are biased.

That said, if you downvote because you have looked into the cases enough to think that that similarity is not valid, and then you can articulate it (like the person I'm replying too did) then I'd consider that fine. (Assuming they downvoted, they may not have.) I may still think there's some bias there, but it's not uninformed bias.

If you can't articulate a reason you want to downvote, then it's bias and emotion fueling your downvote. Which, I don't consider to be a valid reason to downvote.

As a side note, I think we all need to be aware of how similar the things we hear about the "bad" side are. The comments I see about Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people is pretty much exactly what I saw said about Biden weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people during his administration. I also have seen MANY comments where if you replace "Biden" or "Trump" with the other name, you end up with a comment the other side would make. I think that should trigger some self-reflection. I know I'm still trying to figure out what to think about it.

[macintux]

Name all the times Biden fired someone from his administration for failing to obtain a conviction of a political opponent, and I'll take this false equivalence seriously.

[billfor]

It proves nothing because Biden generally didn't fire anybody. Name all the times Biden fired ANYONE from his cabinet. Below the cabinet, compared to any other president, he just didn't fire people to any degree.

[ceejayoz]

> In both cases the reason someone was persecuted was they offended someone in power.

Sure, if you ignore all the other elements of each case.

> If you view one of those cases as a bad result, then chances are you are biased.

I think it's worse to spread deliberately false information about an election than it is to accurately quote the President of the United States.

> The comments I see about Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people is pretty much exactly what I saw said about Biden weaponizing the Department of Justice to oppress people during his administration.

Hitler said nasty things about Jews, and Jews say similarly nasty things about Hitler. Does this make them equal?

[fortran77]

I voted for Trump. I fail to see how the meme here is a threat. And I also think that telling Democrats they can vote by text message is an attempt to undermine the election.

There are no double standards. Take my downvote.