Times and WaPo Jump On Board Trump Camp Swift Boating of Walz

silence7@slrpnk.net to politics @lemmy.world – 208 points – Times and WaPo Jump On Board Trump Camp Swift Boating of Walz
talkingpointsmemo.com

For the younger folks: Kerry got some seriously badass medals for his military service in Vietnam. People who had been on the same boat as he did, but at a different time, worked with the Republican party to claim that he hadn't really done what he did. The press ate this up, and distributed it widely, costing him public support and likely the election.

83

"Avoiding a Tour in Iraq" Walz: Serves 20 years, participates in Operation Enduring Freedom, awarded the Army Commendation Medal, retires honourably, re-enlists for another 4 years after 9/11 and finalizes retirement due to running for office fully achieving a rank of Master Sergeant.

"lucky to escape any real fighting" Vance: Corporal but really a glorified publicist (coined 'Sergeant Scribbles' in the article lol), earns the datta-boy Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal. After discovering there ain't no couches in the marines he leaves the service after only a single 4 year tour.

Clearly a viable and totally-not-wierd attack vector for Vance 🙄

Sergeant Scribbles. LOL

Although it helps with alliteration, Vance never made sergeant and left as a corporal (E-4).

Corporal Scribbles also works

Corporal Crayons?

Corporal Couch reporting for booty.

That's an extremely generous definition of booty if it includes furniture 😂

Reporting for doilies?

Edit: ribbed for his pleasure and absorbent for easy cleanup!

Crayons is a brotherly insult. Marines own it and make jokes with it because they know their sibling services use it the same way their brother would, with a smile and expecting the same back at them.

Corporal Camera would work though.

Walz also had a 4 year old daughter at the time of his retirement. His family wanted him home, it was time to get out.
Vance, like every republican ever, is just projecting.

And for people not military adjacent, 20 years is the length of service for full retirement. That's how long people who go the distance with the military stay in. He was already 4 years past that.

Lol, how is Vance saying this about him? And with a draft dodger as his partner.

"After graduating from Middletown High School, Vance joined the US Marine Corps, where he served from 2003 to 2007 as a combat correspondent in a non-combative role, including a six-month deployment in the public affairs department in Iraq."

It worked for Kerry who saw and led men in sustained combat versus Bush, who hid from the war in the national guard.

While we should keep making this comparison, do so in public too! But don't be surprised if the media keeps amplifying this.

Also, Walz had his retirement set before the unit knew it was deploying. That's not something you can typically take back, another sergeant major would already be lined up for the position. So to say he "avoided" is a complete lie. Vance knows this too.

I don't remember much of the Kerry campaign, but didn't he lean into his service record? The stolen valor argument is much weaker seeing as Walz has never claimed he's seen active combat.

Regardless, it's incredibly disappointing to see reputable news outlets bat for Trump just because the Dems have two ever so slightly left-leaning people on the ticket.

They are clutching at straws. Every step the Democrats have taken since Biden decided to withdraw from the race has tripped the Republicans out. They had no game plan for that contingency, and they are still several steps behind and frantically playing catch up. They are falling back on their old negative handbook tactics. Hopefully they don't work. Because that Swiftboat Vets thing against John Kerry was really stupid. The only thing that was more stupid back then was that so many idiot voters believed it.

ETA: Some of these newspapers / media outlets are really freaked out, but only about Walz. They were fine when it was just Harris because she's very moderate. Her choice of Walz (which was a smart choice because it reinvigorated liberal voters towards her) is the thing that they are stressing out over, because of the (tax) implication.

There's a documentary about it because the Swift Boating was such bullshit.

Several of the swift boaters themselves recanted after the Questionable Victory of GeeDubz part II.

Can't find the documentary, here's a relevant article:

On Friday, the group, who served with Mr. Kerry in Vietnam, sent a letter to T. Boone Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman who helped finance the 2004 attack advertisements, taking him up on a challenge he issued last November: that he would give $1 million to anyone who could disprove a single charge the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made against Mr. Kerry.

. . . Mr. Pickens did not reply.

So Mr. Kerry’s veteran allies took up the cause. In a 12-page letter — with a 42-page attachment of military records to support their case — they rebut not one but several of the accusations of the Swift boat group.

The veterans offer to go through Mr. Kerry’s record and the video with Mr. Pickens “page by page, frame by frame.” And they demand an apology, to them “and to the American people.”

Of course, none of this is new. Extensive news media accounts undermined the Swift boat charges in 2004, pointing out that some of the Swift boat critics had written statements in Vietnam lauding Mr. Kerry for extraordinary bravery in the incidents they later said he made up. One critic had himself received a medal for heroism during a hail of gunfire he later claimed Mr. Kerry had concocted to win his third Purple Heart.

But that did not blunt the political impact.

Ah yes. Texas scumbag T. Boone Pickens, the Musk of his day, funded the whole smear campaign.

And it's a reminder that republiQans do not give one good goddamn how true something is or not. If it has "political impact" they'll use it.

The Republicans have never given a single shit about veterans, they just like the flag waving and faux patriotism. They nominated the guy who consistently insults veterans, calling those who fell in war "losers", and the rest of their elected officials consistently starve the VA so that veterans can't receive the care they were promised.

Like everything else the Republicans claim to "support", it's in name only, and no substance. They only support their billionaire overlords, and the orange fuhrer himself.

I got a real Boone T' Pickens with that guy

Have you been drinking tonight, sir?

Step out of the thread, please sir.

And please not, this is literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

Grifters all the way down the trump camp

It's equally weak because it's all bullshit. The problem is that the press isn't willing to assess truth on this kind of thing, and then center that.

Remember Kerry was miligned by much of the veteran community because he protested against the war in Vietnam. The swiftboat claims helped to fit into a narrative that his service record was flawed, especially against GWB's controversial record with losing flight status with the Air National Guard.

Snorting coke and going AWOL from the TANG was way more respectable to these idiots.

Bezos trying to keep his tax loopholes I see

Sulzburger too unfortunately.

Absolutely, both grubby little dragons greedily gobbling up as much as they can to make number go up.

This doesn't work very well when the top of your own ticket features someone who didn't serve in the military in any capacity whatsoever and probably has the thinnest skin of any US president in history.

To be fair, George W. Bush's proxies successfully ran the original swift boat attacks on Kerry even though he served in the Air National Gaurd while Kerry fought in Vietnam. Not saying it's an exact one to one comparison, but it wouldn't be the first time a veteran managed to smear someone who actually served.

I think people operate on a belief of fairness that obviously does not actually apply in real life. Bush was a draft dodging rich kid and Kerry actually got injured and awarded for heroism, but media manipulation made Kerry's service an issue. That Trump is a big sack of lumpy turds isn't going to save us from hypocritical false attacks being drummed up because the media wants excitement.

It's literally the same person trying to swift boat here - Chris LaCivita, now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

These grifters are so fucking transparent, if people would only pay attention.

Bush did have the advantage of having pictures of him flying fighter jets in an era when the mainstream pretty much worshipped anything to do with military hardware. IIRC he even flew a fighter jet and landed it on the carrier for that infamous "mission accomplished" photo op.

Even though the times have changed a bit, I bet that Trump would get a boost if he could fly a fighter jet. Not sure if he'd even be safe to be a passenger on one unless they kept the throttle at like 20%.

But as long as Vance is out there lying on the campaign’s behalf, accusing a 24 year vet of “stolen valor” and “lying” about his service, anyone would be remiss not to note that Vance himself never saw combat. He spent his six months in theater as essentially a reporter. He was a public affairs specialist who spent his time writing articles about how Marines spent their days on base. In other words, a sort of Sergeant Scribbles, if you will. Actually corporal, but it doesn’t flow off the pen as nicely.

Corporal Couch-fucker

Vance and the two MAGAts who made the claims in the first place are full of shit. Walz filed papers to run for Congress on Feb. 10 2005. He retired from the military on May 16, 2005. His unit didn't receive an alert order for mobilization until two months later.

Records show Walz officially filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Feb. 10, 2005.

In March 2005, the National Guard announced a possible partial mobilization of roughly 2,000 troops from the Minnesota National Guard, according to an archived press release from Tim Walz for U.S. Congress.

"I do not yet know if my artillery unit will be part of this mobilization and I am unable to comment further on the specifics of the deployment," said Walz in the March 2005 statement.

The statement continued: "As Command Sergeant Major I have a responsibility not only to ready my battalion for Iraq, but also to serve if called on. I am dedicated to serving my country to the best of my ability, whether that is in Washington DC or Iraq," said Walz, who indicated at the time he had no plans to drop out of the race. "I am fortunate to have a strong group of enthusiastic support and a very dedicated and intelligent wife. Both will be a major part of my campaign, whether I am in Minnesota or Iraq."

The Minnesota Army National Guard told CBS News that Walz retired on May 16, 2005. CBS News has asked Walz to clarify when he submitted his retirement papers.

The Minnesota National Guard told CBS News that Walz's unit — 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery — received an alert order for mobilization to Iraq on July 14, 2005 – two months after Walz retired, according to Lt. Col. Ryan Rossman, who serves as the Minnesota National Guard's director of operations. The official mobilization order was received on August 14 of the same year, and the unit mobilized in October.

Having read them both, the Post does put a lot of focus on former colleagues, though I think they come across as having an agenda more than legit criticism. I don't really get the beef with the Times' coverage at all though. They cover literally the same points as TPM. No idea what leads them to say that the coverage is "more egregious and spurious than you’re probably able to imagine."

TPM:

The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign.

NYT:

But Mr. Vance’s comments were also reminiscent of the “Swift boat” attacks in 2004 that effectively cast doubt on the military exploits of Senator John Kerry, then the Democratic presidential nominee. A key strategist behind those attacks, which helped doom Mr. Kerry’s bid for the White House, was Chris LaCivita, who is a senior strategist for the Trump campaign.

TPM:

The overriding point here is that Walz didn’t just say, well, I might get deployed. I’m outta here. It is well-documented that he was already planning to run for Congress, had been discussing with fellow guardsmen for some time whether he would retire as part of his plans to run for Congress and in fact had already announced his run months before he retired.

NYT:

But Joseph Eustice, a 32-year veteran of the national guard who led the same battalion as Mr. Walz and served under him, said in an interview on Wednesday that the governor was a dependable soldier and that the attacks by his fellow comrades were unfounded . . . Mr. Eustice recalled that Mr. Walz’s decision to run for Congress came months before the battalion received any official notice of deployment, though he said there had been rumors that it might be deployed.

The NYT repeats the lie in the headline, but buries the truth down in the article. The result is that people see the lie, and not the truth.

Very few people encountering an article on social media actually read it; something like 2% do so much as click through.

This pattern basically guarantees that a huge numbers of people will have a false belief.

The times headline is stating what the news is, which is that a claim was made:

Vance Attacks Walz’s Military Record, Accusing Him of Avoiding a Tour in Iraq

Which is a factual statement of the news. The times piece presents the claim made, and the refutation of it and the evidence without ever making a direct claim one way or another. I e , unlike an opinion piece, the times isn't making a subjective assessment or value statement.

Given that, what other headline can they give? Adding adjectives like "spurious" or "misleading" would be editorializing unless they are quoting an independent authority on the subject.

Making a decision on the truthfulness of a claim is not "opinion". Paperwork was filed before his unit was given notification they were going to Iraq. Saying he left to dodge a deployment is a false accusation. No opinion necessary.

News reporting is not stenography. JD Vance has press releases and web sites to just broadcast his BS.

In the general course of reporting news, most traditional news outlets don't make those sorts of determinations. Sometimes the editorial board will do specific fact checks of claims, but most NYT, AP, Reuters, etc, articles don't make those sorts of determinations. They do present verified claims from other authorities or named parties, which is why they included rebuttals from those sources.

And a campaign press release is not a news outlet. Proper news outlets have reporting guidelines.

In the general course of reporting news, most traditional news outlets don’t make those sorts of determinations.

Whether you that's common or not, that's not good journalism and worthy of criticism. And a pattern that's changing, with a greater emphasis on both fact checking and making clear in the headline that a claim is false.

NYT: A Timeline of Trump’s False and Misleading Statements on the Mar-a-Lago Search

AP News: Donald Trump falsely suggests Kamala Harris misled voters about her race

Reuters: US Republicans target noncitizen voting, as Trump keeps up false voter fraud claims

And a campaign press release is not a news outlet.

Yes, that's the whole point. Don't elevate a press release to news unless you're willing to do some journalism and note where the statements are false. They have a free speech right to post their opinions on their campaign sites or social media, but news sites are supposed to be informing their readers and blindly repeating a false claim is not doing that.

Let's expand that quote:

“The job of journalism is not stenography. It is getting the full story and the meaning of that story,” said Woodward, the author of 11 best-selling books, including All the President’s Men (with Bernstein), and, most recently, State of Denial: Bush at War Part III.

So in what way does that argue for reporters to make their own independent assertions, and in what way did the NYT article fail to capture the meaning of the story?

In the case of the election denials, the media has numerous independent authorities to cite to bluntly state the fact. They have court cases, independent panels, etc, all as independent authorities with no contrary position by any real authority.

Additionally, in the case of the NYT article you link, that is exactly the retrospective editorial I said is done, but not for breaking or developing stories.

But back to the NYT article about Vance's claim. They report that the claim was made, the investigated and found primary sources, they fleshed out the context, and appear to have fairly reported the facts which indicate Walz's prior intent to run for office. I don't see how that is stenography. In fact, stenography would have been simply reporting that Vance made the claim, without the associated leg work.

This is just as objective as election denial. It's pure factual records. And the problem is that the title doesn't indicate the claim is false. You need to read the article to know that, which many people don't do.

It's a really weird claim to say they shouldn't say that's something's untrue in the title, but it's not stenography because they say it's untrue in the body. Either you want stenography, where even statements of which thing came first can only come from outside experts, or you don't and the title should convey the result of the journalistic effort to verify claims so as to not mislead the public.

The person I replied to led their comment with this:

The NYT repeats the lie in the headline, but buries the truth down in the article.

Which is just not true. The NYT headline is that the claim was made by Vance. I do think reasonable people can disagree over the quality of the headline, but barring an authoritative source and factual record, inserting the word "untrue" would be editorialized. There isn't some validated record of Watz's intent; rather, there is first hand accounts from seemingly trustworthy individuals saying he verbalized his intent months in advance of deployment orders, and his motivating story regarding the Bush campaign. I believe that version of events. But that is very different than having a court ruling from a fact finding trial court, or an independent house panels findings to justify something being objectively untrue. We can quibble over this, but that's just what journalism standards are for news reporting agencies.

Regardless of the title, the NYT article is pretty clearly not a simple parroting of Vance's claim, or even that the claim occurred. They found past sources, they ran details to ground, and they reported the facts to their audience. Additionally, the NYT is a pay walled news source, which I subscribe to, and I suspect the majority of their subscribers do actually read the article. And obviously, they are writing articles with their subscribers on mind, who, like me, want objective reporting with primary sources.

A false claim. You don't wash your hands of responsibility by just noting who said it. And few subscribers actually read every article the NYT puts out. I'm sure you don't. What goes in the title matters.

And holy crap you're still acting like whether it was false is an opinion. Courts didn't rule for any of those things you claim justify journalistic description of falsehood! There are cases for some, but no rulings. And those court cases are based on "first hand accounts from seemingly trustworthy individuals", the same evidence you claim cannot be used to come to a conclusion in a news story. Nevermind that in this instance there's also actual documentation that shows the claim is bullshit. This idea that because Vance is speculating on his mental state that it's just impossible to call it false is just an insane way to approach the world.

You don't wash your hands of responsibility by just noting who said it.

And the NYT didn't just stop by saying who said it; they did into the background and reported on the details and the context.

Nevermind that in this instance there's also actual documentation that shows the claim is bullshit.

What records? Maybe I missed it, but the TPM, NYT and other sources have only reported statements made by people from his unit saying he shared with them his intent prior to receiving deployment orders. That is not an objective, factual, contemporaneous record to unequivocally establish the truth of the claim around intent. It's credible, and compelling. But not the same as having releases a date stamped form to start out processing, etc, that would be unequivocal.

This idea that because Vance is speculating on his mental state that it's just impossible to call it false is just an insane way to approach the world.

I have no objection to calling it a false claim. I think it is a false claim. I don't need my news source to make that decision for me, unless they have unequivocal records or proof.

And no, I don't read every article, but I also don't parrot the headlines without reading the content and I don't miscomprehend the titles. I don't read the NYT headline as giving any credence to the claim from Vance. I read it as a factual statement, and being interested in the topic, I read the article. That might not be the norm on social media, but I suspect people who pay for objective news sources are similar in that regard.

And I already said that the title could be debated. Here's an alternative that I don't think is editorializing inappropriately:

Vance Attacks Walz’s Military Record, contrary to claims from commanding officer

But critically, it avoids making a direct determination by the reporter on the absence of objective records.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

Exactly. I would think it's relevant to mention the fact that Walz has 20 more years of military experience in the first or second paragraph.

Just present the (obviously false) claim and add "the Times asked the Trump/Vance campaign about the 20 year difference in military experience. We have yet to hear back from them at the time of publication.

1 more...

They are the “Newspaper of Record”.

They can do some reporting and say:

Vance Falsely Claims That Walz is Was Not a Master Seargeant

What does their tagline have to do with their reporting guidelines?

And sure, they could run a headline like that and it wouldn't be editorializing so long as they actually verify the record of his rank. I suspect that they felt the more dramatic claim of abandoning his unit was the bigger story. Whether that is true or not, or the right decision, is a subjective call.

It is not their tagline. They believe that they ARE the newspaper of record.

They can figure out truth and say that instead of just repeating what they know to be lies.

If they take themselves that seriously then they have a responsibility to do so.

So interviewing Watz's unit members and CO is just repeating lies?

I mean, if you only want to read from sources that make decisions for you, you are free to do so. I value news organizations that report facts and context and let me make up my own mind.

And many papers refer to themselves as papers of record. It is a term of art in the industry referring to breadth of circulation and independent editorial board. And it is precisely those editorial guidelines that prevent them from presenting one person's claims against another as true verse false.

If, as in this case, the claims they are making are demonstrably false, then absolutely!!!!!

If you know the claims are not true and present them as plausible, then YOU are lying even more than the person you are interviewing.

You may not be able to prove their state of mind, but you know your own.

Did you read the NYT article in question?

The NYT interviewed members from the unit who corroborated Watz's claim that he decided to run for Congress before deployment orders came through. The leg work I've described in this thread was presenting an account of events that contradicted Vance's claim that he intentionally avoided deployment.

I'm absolutely baffled by some of the responses I've gotten, lol.

Maybe I completely misread your position. My point is that given what they know, having a headline that gives credence to the claim is irresponsible.

My very first comment was in reply to someone who called the NYT headline a lie, and I said that just isn't true. Subsequently, I said that I think reasonable people can disagree about the quality of the headline, but it was factually correct. I e., the headline is that Vance made a claim, which is objectively true. Then, in the body of the article, they share quotes from interviews with Watz's former unit members that refute Vance's claim.

I don't know know why or how NYT chooses the exact composition of their headlines or what aspects of a story to highlight, but personally as a regular times reader and subscriber, I didn't read the headline as giving credence to Vance, and found the article very strongly supportive of Watz's position.

But barring something like a released federal record showing a request for out processing, it still boils down to statements of individuals, which is probably why the times doesn't directly refute Vance's claim as false, and instead leans on interviews from the unit and other circumstantial details to refute the claim, because they haven't had time to authoritatively establish that. They often circle back to such things once they have had a chance to do so, and include it in summary fact checks throughout the political cycle.

Adam Kinzinger (Republican) was in the National Gaurd and here he explains in clear terms why this swiftboating attempt is mendacious.

Edit: here is Lawerence Odonnell tears into his own network for a similar sin.

"Discredited "Swift boat" author now questions details of Walz's military record"

Yeah, I think that's a fair headline given the facts.

1 more...
1 more...
1 more...

Against Captain Bonespurs? Ha ha! HA HA HA! Get out of here with that shit. "Democracy dies in we're going to do some cheerleading for the dictator anyway."

They're comparing him to Mr Camera Fobbit. But the fact that most civilians don't understand what I just called Vance is the problem. Walz stuttered once, nearly 2 decades ago, talking about guns and they're trying to whip that into him making this constant claim.

This is the important part, "The attacks aren’t just “like” the Swift Boat attacks from 2004. They’re literally the work of the same guy. Chris LaCivita was the strategist who ran the Swift Boat attacks in 2004 and cut the commercials. He’s now the co-manager of the Trump campaign."

What is this headline? Fucking garble. Every word capitalized, reads like shit. All the headlines are written in this weird way lately

Capitalizing every major word in a headline has been commonplace since the 18th century...

Aside from that, what's the issue?

Are you unfamiliar with The New York Times or The Washington Post?

Are you unfamiliar with the colloquialism "jump on board"?

Do you not know who the "Trump Camp" is?

Are you unfamiliar with the political neologism "Swiftboating"?

Do you not know who Tim Walz is?

For me it's the Swift boating, certainly when it's with capitalization and a space. It makes me think they somehow went on a cruise on Taylor Swift's private yacht.

It's a prime example of why the headline capitalization is not great.

Hundreds of years of years of journalistic tradition should be trashed, because you thought Talking Points Memo was talking about Taylor Swift?

What next, are you going to get confused reading about Watergate in history books, because you thought a gate that holds water is a dam?

Good lord, we are a failed society...

Lol. Imagine suffering like this over some random dude online.

If you don't know that rather obscure reference the sentence turns into a garden path one.

I'm not even a American native so how should I know. Watergate I grok, this I've not heard of

If you give up on society this easy i think you are the problem, though.

He lost the election because he made a lot of lofty promises with the energy and enthusiasm of a half eaten grapefruit.

It was just hard to be excited for the guy.

Meanwhile Dubya comes out and lies through his teeth and you knew it but boy he could work a crowd.

Ohio. Electronic. Vote. Tabulation. Irregularities. Karl Rove.

Neither the Post nor the Times' articles do what TPM says they do, though.

They both report (accurately) on what Vance said, and then both report (accurately) on why it is bullshit. The Post article maybe does a little more BoTh SiDeSing than the Times one, as it it is written in a manner to make it seem like the Harris campaign was being evasive. But neither gives any impression that Vance's claims were correct.

What they're doing is putting the lie in the headline, where lots of people read it, and burying the truth paragraphs down in the article. Because very few people click through to articles, but just see headlines, the impact is to leave a large chunk of the public with a false belief.

::: spoiler New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
:::

::: spoiler Talking Points Memo - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Talking Points Memo:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
:::

::: spoiler Wikipedia - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Wikipedia:

MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
:::

::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military\_career\_of\_John\_Kerry#:~:text=His%20only%20tour%20in%20Vietnam,political%20career%2C%20especially%20during%20his
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/times-and-wapo-jump-on-board-trump-camp-swift-boating-of-walz/sharetoken/ea812310-1527-47c9-acaa-b5412797f36a
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/the-2004-campaign-advertising-friendly-fire-the-birth-of-an-attack-on-kerry.html?unlocked\_article\_code=1.BU4.W8Ka.UUC0wahQrvjY&smid=url-share ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

New York times is not left of center anymore. This bot is arbitrary. Mods please pin it to the bottom. It's seriously fucking up the feed for a LOT of people. I don't care how much Ground News is paying for the real estate.

They are very upfront about the bot describing bias against the American center and not the global or whatever "objective" standard people try to insert. By that metric, center-left perfectly describes NYT. Their editorial board has posted multiple times describing Trump as an unfit candidate and they have historically endorsed the democratic candidate. They're obviously not even American leftist and they're not center-left on the global scale, but it's all relative.

I personally like the extra information and those who don't are free to block the bot. I have seen commentor twisting themselves into absolute pretzels to avoid admitting that they can simply block the bot.

seriously fucking up the feed

Sure. lol Dramatic much? Oh the poor feed is suffering so, so greatly, it's changed sooooooooo much now. Look, it's completely different now!

That said, I do kinda like the idea of it being pinned to the bottom. I don't think that would hurt anything, everyone would still see it.

Could at least make it not upvote itself, then it'll kinda just tend to stay down there naturally.